Generational Dynamics World View

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-29-2020, 08:29 AM)David Horn Wrote: Neil Howe thinks the 4T will end in 2030, give-or-take a year or two at most.  At a minimum, that's 8 more years of strife.  Assuming he's right, where does that leave us?

My guess at the future is much faster than Neal Howe’s.  Most of the people see control of the virus and ending things as necessary.  It doesn’t matter if you value people or dollars, you need effective isolation policy to get through this.  Governors who act on this premise are popular.  Those that do not are not.  There are lots of people who are clinging to the unraveling do nothing ethic.  They are currently mucking up the isolation attempt though ignoring the sacrifice for the good of all ethic of a crisis.

What generally happens is that the progressive crisis majority grab control of the culture and apply massive social pressure to the conservative unraveling minority.  You can grumble if you like at McCarthy, but he did manage to focus negative attitudes toward a particular ethic that was failing.  S&H puts it as the role of the civics to redefine society in a crisis.  They are supposed to sit on the remnants of the old mind pattern.  As a boomer, I can cheer them on, help if possible, but if this is what they have to do, I wish they would get off their rears.

Looking at the medical projections, I see the heart of the battle against the bug as taking a bit over two years.  By that time we should have local manufacture of PPE, tests, ventilators, etc.  We should have effective therapy and or vaccines.  Going out to 2030 seems extreme.

Trump has conceded the role of leader of the free world.  Most US presidents recently held it.  Trump has cared more about himself, and left it to other nations to do what is best for other nations.  Future presidents, simply by caring, could work themselves back into the role.  Still, there might well be doubt.  We might be less the core state, more the first among equals.

While I anticipate much noise between Trump and China, I still do not anticipate a crisis war.  What we are seeing is a public relations skirmish between two sets of leaders wishing to distract attention away from their own mistakes.  If China were seriously mad at us, they would cut the medical supply chain.  The economy world wide is in a mess and getting worse, which makes it a poor time to push the war cycles.

Thus, while Xenakis and I may disagree, I see 2030 as a stretch.  The boomers will be fading from the stage by then.  We are more likely to be in a high, reconsolidating the economy, and putting down the “disease of ignorance” which runs rampant during the unraveling, gets beat down by the crisis, and is crushed by the high.

But all this depends on the turnings turning.  You live in an area where the unravelling mind set is dominating.  We’ll see if they can out stubborn the virus, pretend they are not killing themselves.  Will they dig into their ignorance deep enough to kill the attempts to save lives and restart the economy?  Will attempting to kill more people and stall the economy result in the majority applying enough social pressure to enforce the new normal?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 31-May-2020 World View: Racial Riots and the Ku Klux Klan


We're in the midst of continuing racial riots in numerous cities
across the country, with property destruction in some cities.
Some people are predicting civil war, and one person in this
forum are comparing America to South Africa. (Why not Syria?)

But I've lived a long time, and I've seen several race riots, so I
don't share any of these dystopian views. The ones that stick out in
my mind are the Los Angeles Watts riots in 1965, the attacks on the
Democratic political convention in Chicago in 1968, and the Rodney
King riots in Los Angeles in 1992. These incidents all fizzled within
a few weeks, or by the end of the summer, and the press commentary was
pretty unanimous that the rioters were mostly blacks fighting each
other or looting black-owned businesses. I've always considered that
to be, well, peculiar, since while the riots were on, the commentary
was that the rioters angry about the police. At least in my memory, I
can't recall any incidents that the black rioters formed battalions to
attack and kill policemen or white residents.

As far as I can tell, the same kinds of things are happening now.
Black rioters are destroying businesses in their own neighborhoods,
with no attempts to kill or even confront policemen, although one
vacant police station was burned down. The only two major corporate
targets that I heard in the news were the Target store in Minneapolis
and CNN headquarters in Atlanta. Apparently blacks are furious at
Target for supporting law enforcement ever since the occurrence of a
crime spike in Minneapolis in the mid-1990s. And CNN, of course, is a
Democratic party target, like the Democratic national convention in
1968. In both cases, the result was looting, but no physical
violence. So the point is that the black rioters seem to be targeting
each other and other Democrats.

***
*** Racial violence and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)
***

I'm hearing commentary saying that Derek Chauvin, the white policeman
who murdered Floyd George, the black victim, was a "white
supremacist." I've also heard commentary that Chauvin's acts were
typical of racist incidents that have been going on in America for
centuries, including slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow laws.

All of that is almost certainly true, although most the people making
those criticisms don't have the vaguest clue of the meaning of those
claims.

Chauvin held his knee on George's neck for over 8 minutes, when George
was saying, "I can't breathe." Why would anybody do anything so vile?
It's incomprehensible. If it had been for 8 seconds, it might have
been attributed to normal police work, but 8 minutes goes so far
beyond "normal" that it's clear that Chauvin must have some enormous
mental issues.

But in fact, Chauvin's behaviour actually was "normal" for a certain
group of people -- members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). For more than a
century following the American Civil War, KKK members tortured, raped
and lynched blacks, doing exactly the kinds of things that Chauvin was
doing, or worse.

I haven't found any news reports describing Chauvin's early life, but
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was an admirer of the KKK,
and may have been the descendant of some Grand Kleagle (or whatever
the title is) of some great KKK leader.

The Civil War opposed the North versus the South. Abraham Lincoln was
the first Republican president, and he was hated by the Democrats as
much as Donald Trump is hated today. The Democrats opposed the war
and Lincoln's handling of the war, and demanded that Lincoln negotiate
a settlement and end the war. According to the 1864 Democratic party
platform, "The aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve
the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired," meaning
that slavery would continue as before. The support of "states rights"
became a key Democratic party policy for well over a century,
especially in the "Democratic South."

That's not to say that all Democrats were in favor of slavery. The
point is that the Democrats were deeply split on this issue. The
Republicans were pretty much unanimous in opposing slavery, and the
1864 Republican platform said, "That as slavery was the cause, and now
constitutes the strength of this rebellion, ... justice and the
national safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the
soil of the Republic." So Republicans unanimously opposed slavery,
while the Democrats were split, but predominantly favored slavery.

After the Democrats lost the Civil War, Democrats, especially Southern
Democrats, did everything they could to reverse the outcome in other
ways. Suddenly, there were a lot of freed slaves in the South,
looking for places to live and looking for jobs. Southern cities and
states enacted "Black Codes," which tightly controlled where and how
formerly enslaved people could work and for how much compensation,
where they could live and travel, and whether they could vote. Under
these laws, blacks could be arrested and sent to labor camps, where
they were effectively enslaved again.

The Ku Klux Klan was a private militia of the Democratic Party,
formed after the civil war. It began in 1865 as a private club
for Confederate (Southern) war veterans, and turned into a secret
society claiming many high officials as members. As an example,
Democrat Senator Robert C. Byrd was an "Exalted Cyclops"
in the KKK in his youth, and in 1964 he filibustered
against Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act, although by the time
he died in 2010, he said he regretted those actions.

The "Black Codes" were mostly local laws enacted in the South, but by
the 1880s they were evolving into "Jim Crow" laws in states across the
South.

So KKK members, Southern Democrats, perpetrated beatings, lynchings
and private enslavement of blacks for well over the next century,
using the Jim Crow laws to their advantage. These vile acts were
condemned by a minority of Democrats and by almost all Republicans.
By today, the KKK and Jim Crow laws have almost entirely disappeared,
but the actions of Derek Chauvin show that there are still plenty of
vestiges remaining.

So you have various commentators calling for an end to racism
in the United States, and for investigations of racism, etc.
That will absolutely never, never, never happen, because
the Democrats are the perpetrators, and they will never allow
such investigations to occur.

Racism is an internecine war raging in the Democratic party, with
Republicans as collateral damage. Racism is an issue that has split
the Democrats for almost two centuries. Republicans have consistently
opposed racism, the KKK, the Black Codes, the lynchings, the Jim Crow
laws and the discrimination from the beginning, so it's up to the
Democrats to resolve their own internal split to resolve America's
racism issue.

Meanwhile if you're one of those people who are expecting / hoping for
some kind of general uprising or civil war, then if I were you I
wouldn't bet any money on it.

***
*** Sources:
***

-- 1864 Deocratic,Republican platforms / The Two Roads to Peace
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_te...3&psid=432
(University of Houston, DigitalHistory, 2019)

-- Jim Crow Laws
https://www.history.com/topics/early-20t...-crow-laws
(History.com, 21-Feb-2020)

-- Andrew Johnson
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presid...ew-johnson
(History.com, 21-Aug-2018)

-- Jim Crow Laws
https://www.nps.gov/malu/learn/education...w_laws.htm
(National Park Service, 17-Aug-2018)

-- A Timeline of US Race Riots Since 1965
https://www.voanews.com/usa/timeline-us-race-riots-1965
(AFP, 30-May-2020)

-- America’s Race Problem Erupts Anew, Layered With Coronavirus
Tensions
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/30/ame...-tensions/
(Foreign Policy, 30-May-2020)

-- Exalted Cyclops / Sen. Robert Byrd dead at 92; West Virginia
lawmaker was the longest serving member of Congress in history
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...01241.html
(Washington Post, 28-Jun-2010)

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-31-2020, 10:39 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Racism is an internecine war raging in the Democratic party, with Republicans as collateral damage.  Racism is an issue that has split the Democrats for almost two centuries.  Republicans have consistently opposed racism, the KKK, the Black Codes, the lynchings and the
discrimination from the beginning, so it's up to the Democrats to resolve their own internal split to resolve America's racism issue.

What planet have you been living on lately?

LBJ and MLK allied for the black vote.  Nixon started the Southern Strategy as the obvious response.  Thus, the parties virtually switched places on the race issue in the awakening.  The old Civil War alignments are long gone.  I don’t see any awareness of that.  Thus, the above article is a total miss, badly messed up by ideological blindness.

I concur on a general uprising or civil war being unlikely, but every two or four generations there is a call for more equality which eventually comes.  Last time, with the civil rights movement, it was prejudice in hotels and restaurants providing service.  This time the issue is police murder.  There are protests when the murders clearly happen.  The protests get worse every time it happens.  Eventually, the police will figure it out.  I don't know how large the protests will have to get before they do figure it out.  The racists, encouraged by Trump and others in the Republican Party, are a contributing factor.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ - Dinesh D'Souza

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402...n-strategy

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-31-2020, 12:30 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: *** The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ - Dinesh D'Souza

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402...n-strategy

My first instinct was to type LOL.  You really shouldn’t try to defend yourself from an accusation of ideological bias by quoting an opinion piece from The Hill.  However, I already made the point that typing LOL isn’t an adequate response.

Republicans, the original Black Republicans, were tightly linked to the abolitionists.  Just prior to the Civil War, during it, and shortly after during the Reconstruction period they were admirable is seeking basic voting and human rights for the blacks.  The blacks showed a loyalty as a result, and were generally loyal.

This changed with Jim Crow.  From this time until the civil rights movement, neither major party was very loyal to the minorities.

They to a great degree remained loyal to their sections of the country.  Democrats were strong in the south, Republicans in the north.  An exception was machine politics in the major manufacturing centers of the north, for example Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall in New York.  If you worked for the immigrants from Europe, you could get their votes.

But both parties had progressive and conservative wings.  The Civil War loyalties were deemed more important than the difference between progressive and conservative.

FDR began to change this.  He began a Democratic and progressive dominance which lasted through LBJ.  However, race was not an issue yet for the Democrats.  FDR’s depression and World War II policies may have been progressive, but the blacks remained under Jim Crow.

The shift came with JFK, MLK and LBJ.  The Democrats eventually embraced the civil rights movement, and picked up the black vote.  LBJ’s civil rights legislation and war on poverty capped the buying of the black vote.  That made the Democrats truly progressive in all respects.

The movement of the Republicans to become more conservative was a response that seems inevitable in hindsight.  They always were the party of the Robber Barons, of the elites.  They became the party of the racists as well.  Oh, for a long time they were subtle about it, if you could consider Reagan’s welfare queen myth subtle.  If they dismantled the war on poverty, if they sought small government, if they cut taxes, if they often fought affirmative action, they would invent noble and pure motivations that didn’t much fool people.

Well, they didn’t fool most people.  They seem to have fooled you.

Trump abandoned the subtle.  Partially in response to the first black president, he brought things out in the open again.  The KKK and Neo Nazi resurfaced.  The Republicans became more openly what they always had been.

And you missed it.

I now better understand why you became a social pariah in Massachusetts.  I also see the basic concept behind Generational Dynamics.  If you live in a fantasy world, it is not difficult to predict your fantasies.  If you deliberately blind yourself to realities, the false reality becomes true to itself.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 03-May-2020 World View: Black ghettos (Reposting from last month)

(05-02-2020, 04:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > Most of the overt racism was handled in the 1960s. Blacks not
> being able to stay in many hotels, eat in most restaurants,
> purchase housing in many neighborhoods, all changed with the Civil
> Rights Act. At that time LBJ and MLK were working together, in
> part for justice, in part for the Democrats to get the black
> vote. This made Nixon’s Southern Strategy nigh on inevitable, as
> the Republicans quietly gathered the racist vote. If you haven’t
> noticed that, if you don’t believe me, you can do some research on
> various polls. Who voted for whom and when?

This "overt racism" was from Democrats. I grew up on the New Jersey
shore, where there were plenty of black kids in the same schools that
I was in, and blacks were free to eat in any restaurants. The overt
racism you're talking about was in the Democratic South, run by
Democrats who were pissed off at the Republicans for freeing the
slaves.

You seem to be saying that Democrats got some sort of frontal
lobotomy. They had wanted blacks to remain enslaved, wanted to
rape and lynch them for over a century, but then in 1965, this
frontal lobotomy made them love blacks. The whole concept
is a leftist fantasy.

All that happened in 1965 is that LBJ and MLK found a formula to keep
the blacks enslaved, by keeping them in black ghettos controlled by
Democrats and in poverty except for welfare payments controlled by
Democrats. The fact that blacks vote 90% for Democrats proves how
tightly they're controlled by the Democrat slavemasters.

The way that Democrats accomplished this re-slaving the blacks is
bone-chilling. I documented it at length, supported by hundreds of
sources, in my book "Fraternizing with the enemy - a book on gender
issues for men and for women who care about men."

I'll summarize it here in order to provide a little education.

Black ghettos were created by Democrat housing policies that created
the ghettos as subsidized black enclaves in various cities. We had
one in Long Branch, the city I grew up in. In retrospect, it
was quite amazing, as I frequently walked through it to get
from my white neighborhood to the downtown area. There were rows and
rows of identical homes, all occupied by blacks. That gave the
Democrats control over where blacks lived.

I remember in the early 1970s reading in the Boston Globe how
the city was sending vans into all the black neighborhoods to
sign women up for welfare payments. The van would roll down
the street, and a black woman, usually a single mother, would just
open her door, walk out to the van and sign up for welfare. That
was the Democrats' first step.

Step 2 was to get rid of the fathers completely. The single mothers
may have been unmarried, but very often they lived with the fathers as
a family. But a single mother wasn't allowed to get welfare if the
father lived with her, or even if he lived down the street. So the
father had to go. In my book I quoted dozens of sources from
"feminist theory" that fathers were not necessary. All a black mother
needs is sperm and money.

In the 1980s, the concept of "Liberation Day" was common in the black
ghettos. A teenage girl just had to get pregnant, which usually
wasn't very hard to do. The day she turned 16 years old was
"Liberation Day," the day she could apply for her own apartment and
her own welfare payments. This only ended in 1996 when it got so bad
that Clinton was forced to agree to welfare reform.

So today the Democrats have almost entirely destroyed black families
and re-enslaved the blacks. The blacks live in Democrat-controlled
black ghetto enclaves, and they receive Democrat-controlled welfare
payments. Mass black-on-black murders and massacres, such as those
that are common in the Chicago ghetto, are entirely the fault of
Democrats, and are the outcome of Democrats' racist policies.

So along comes Donald Trump and lowers black unemployment to historic
lows. Suddenly blacks can get work on their own. Suddenly black
fathers can support their families, and the mothers won't kick them
out. Suddenly black families can afford to live elsewhere besides the
Democratic-controlled ghetto. Suddenly Trump is threatening to "free
the slaves," just like Abraham Lincoln. No wonder the Democrats
vitriolicly hate the Tea Partiers, Trump, and the 63 million Trump
supporters. The Democrats are desperate to keep the blacks under
control and in the ghettos, where they'll do what their masters tell
them to do.

The Democrats are so desperate to win, they'll resort to any sort of
violence and criminal activities, as they did with General Michael
Flynn and many other Trump supporters, to get their way.

-----------

*** Update (6/1): The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ - Dinesh D'Souza

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402...n-strategy

[John J. Xenakis]

** 01-Jun-2020 World View: Ideological bias

(06-01-2020, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > My first instinct was to type LOL. You really shouldn’t try to
> defend yourself from an accusation of ideological bias by quoting
> an opinion piece from The Hill. However, I already made the point
> that typing LOL isn’t an adequate response.

Hmmmmmm. You've left me with a tough decision. On the one hand, I
have the words of an accomplished scholar and author and filmmaker who
has created numerous well-researched published books, columns, and
films.

On the other hand, I have a left-wing liberal nutcase with no
accomplishments who always rants the same things over and over,
no matter what I say. I could say "The sky is blue" and you would
accuse me of ideological bias.

You have zero credibility with me because you always make the same
unsourced hysterical rants, and always make moronic personal attacks
-- which I interpret, incidentally, as a sign that you have no idea
what you're talking about, which is obviously true.

So, hmmmmm. Whom should I believe? The scholar, or the left-wing
hysterical ranting nutcase?

Oh! I know!! I'll believe the scholar, Dinesh D'Souza. Thanks for
helping me reach that decision.

[David Horn]

(05-29-2020, 10:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-29-2020, 08:29 AM)David Horn Wrote: Neil Howe thinks the 4T will end in 2030, give-or-take a year or two at most.. 

But all this depends on the turnings turning.  You live in an area where the unravelling mind set is dominating.  We’ll see if they can out stubborn the virus, pretend they are not killing themselves.  Will they dig into their ignorance deep enough to kill the attempts to save lives and restart the economy?  Will attempting to kill more people and stall the economy result in the majority applying enough social pressure to enforce the new normal?

This is a good point, and one that the Boogaloo Bois are counting on.  In case you've missed the latest iteration of political whacknuttery, the Boogaloo Bois are a rightwing anarchist "group" similar to Antifa on the left. Apparently, they've seized on the protests in many cities, and used them to create low level mayhem.  In most cases, they are the ones looting the high end stores.  I doubt the numbers in either consortium are very high, with both "groups" being intentionally disorganized, but creating mayhem is pretty easy if you set out to do it.  The big question: how quickly will this anarchist urge die-out and a more communal one take hold?  We've celebrated the individual for decades.  Tamping that down won't come easy.  Add a pandemic, and it gets really messy.

[David Horn]

(06-01-2020, 07:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 01-Jun-2020 World View: Ideological bias

(06-01-2020, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: My first instinct was to type LOL. You really shouldn’t try to defend yourself from an accusation of ideological bias by quoting an opinion piece from The Hill.  However, I already made the point that typing LOL isn’t an adequate response.

Hmmmmmm.  You've left me with a tough decision.  On the one hand, I have the words of an accomplished scholar and author and filmmaker who has created numerous well-researched published books, columns, and films.

On the other hand, I have a left-wing liberal nutcase with no accomplishments who always rants the same things over and over, no matter what I say.  I could say "The sky is blue" and  you would accuse me of ideological bias.

You have zero credibility with me because you always make the same  unsourced hysterical rants, and always make moronic personal attacks -- which I interpret, incidentally, as a sign that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is obviously true.

So, hmmmmm.  Whom should I believe?  The scholar, or the left-wing hysterical ranting nutcase?

Oh! I know!! I'll believe the scholar, Dinesh D'Souza.  Thanks for helping me reach that decision.

I can't think of many sources more biased than Dinesh D'Souza -- not even the cast of characters from the Project for the New American Century.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 01-Jun-2020 World View: Boogaloo Bois

(06-01-2020, 09:17 AM)David Horn Wrote: > This is a good point, and one that the Boogaloo Bois are counting
> on. In case you've missed the latest iteration of political
> whacknuttery,
> the Boogaloo Bois are a rightwing anarchist "group" similar
> to Antifa on the left. Apparently, they've seized on the protests
> in many cities, and used them to create low level mayhem. In most
> cases, they are the ones looting the high end stores. I doubt the
> numbers in either consortium are very high, with both "groups"
> being intentionally disorganized, but creating mayhem is pretty
> easy if you set out to do it. The big question: how quickly will
> this anarchist urge die-out and a more communal one take hold?
> We've celebrated the individual for decades. Tamping that down
> won't come easy. Add a pandemic, and it gets really
> messy.

I don't know why you describe them as "rightwing." The article you
reference doesn't do so.

My guess is that they're a vestige of the KKK.

(06-01-2020, 09:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: > I can't think of many sources more biased than
> Dinesh D'Souza -- not even the cast of characters from
> the
> Project for the New American Century.

Yes you can. For example, you're more biased than Dinesh D'Souza.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 10:04 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 09:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: >   I can't think of many sources more biased than
>   Dinesh D'Souza -- not even the cast of characters from
>   the
>   Project for the New American Century.

Yes you can.  For example, you're more biased than Dinesh D'Souza.

I think it worth repeating clearly the wonderful personality and unique character that Xenakis is so enamored of.  It shows the worth of Generational Dynamics.

Wiki Wrote:Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-born American author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, often described as a far right political provocateur.[1][2][3][4][5] Born in Bombay, D'Souza moved to the United States as an exchange student and graduated from Dartmouth College. He became a naturalized citizen in 1991. From 2010 to 2012, he was president of The King's College, a Christian school in New York City until he resigned after an alleged adultery scandal.[6]

In 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make an illegal campaign contribution to a 2012 United States Senate campaign.[7][8] He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years' probation, and a $30,000 fine.[9][10] In 2018, D'Souza was issued a pardon by President Donald Trump.[11]

D'Souza is the author of several New York Times best-selling books.[12] In 2012, D'Souza released the documentary film 2016: Obama's America, an anti-Obama polemic based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage; it earned $33 million, making it the highest-grossing conservative documentary of all time and one of the highest-grossing documentaries of any kind.[13][14] He has since released three other documentary films: America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014), Hillary's America (2016) and Death of a Nation (2018). D'Souza's films and commentary have generated considerable controversy due to their promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods,[15][16][17][18][19][20] as well as for their incendiary nature.[21]

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 09:17 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-29-2020, 10:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-29-2020, 08:29 AM)David Horn Wrote: Neil Howe thinks the 4T will end in 2030, give-or-take a year or two at most.. 

But all this depends on the turnings turning.  You live in an area where the unravelling mind set is dominating.  We’ll see if they can out stubborn the virus, pretend they are not killing themselves.  Will they dig into their ignorance deep enough to kill the attempts to save lives and restart the economy?  Will attempting to kill more people and stall the economy result in the majority applying enough social pressure to enforce the new normal?

This is a good point, and one that the Boogaloo Bois are counting on.  In case you've missed the latest iteration of political whacknuttery, the Boogaloo Bois are a rightwing anarchist "group" similar to Antifa on the left. Apparently, they've seized on the protests in many cities, and used them to create low level mayhem.  In most cases, they are the ones looting the high end stores.  I doubt the numbers in either consortium are very high, with both "groups" being intentionally disorganized, but creating mayhem is pretty easy if you set out to do it.  The big question: how quickly will this anarchist urge die-out and a more communal one take hold?  We've celebrated the individual for decades.  Tamping that down won't come easy.  Add a pandemic, and it gets really messy.

Or not so similar. Antifa counters the KKK and Neo Nazi demonstrations. You seldom see them save in response to racist demonstrations. The Boogaloo Bois on the other hand try to infiltrate peaceful protests, on any subject, with the purpose of destabilizing. Not really a good mirror. They often appear in G7 gatherings, but anywhere where a peaceful demonstration will give them cover.

Another point on the recent demonstrations is that some police are starting to join the demonstrators. When there are genuine attempts to express sorrow, to protest the bad cops that give the rest a bad name, and most of all no violence, the cops too walk with the protestors in consolidation. This is key. When the cops put a greater weight into protecting and serving the public than to honor the blue wall of loyalty to their own, the problem might ease. If they start generating social pressure for the bad cops to change their behavior, the protests will not keep escalating.

But as soon as things start getting violent, sure, it is their duty to protect and defend.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 07:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 07:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: My first instinct was to type LOL. You really shouldn’t try to defend yourself from an accusation of ideological bias by quoting an opinion piece from The Hill.  However, I already made the point that typing LOL isn’t an adequate response.

Hmmmmmm.  You've left me with a tough decision.  On the one hand, I have the words of an accomplished scholar and author and filmmaker who has created numerous well-researched published books, columns, and films.

On the other hand, I have a left-wing liberal nutcase with no accomplishments who always rants the same things over and over, no matter what I say.  I could say "The sky is blue" and  you would accuse me of ideological bias.

You have zero credibility with me because you always make the same unsourced hysterical rants, and always make moronic personal attacks -- which I interpret, incidentally, as a sign that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is obviously true.

So, hmmmmm.  Whom should I believe?  The scholar, or the left-wing hysterical ranting nutcase?

Oh! I know!! I'll believe the scholar, Dinesh D'Souza.  Thanks for helping me reach that decision.

Scholar?  More like ideological nutcase.  By aligning with him, it becomes clearer that you are one too.

I for one made the mistake that a person trying to make a living as a professional prognosticator would be at least familiar with main line history.  This appears not to be the case.  I guess there is a need to quote sources where I had assumed no need.

Let’s start with the basics.  1 + 1 = 2

As to the color of the sky, one should check the color of the sky.  It is sometimes blue, but can also be white, grey, black with optional specs of light or mixed.  You have to check.  This is due to a phenomenon called weather.

Come to think of it, this involves experiments and observations.  A rather advanced concept, but necessary if you are not to fall into ideological fantasies.  Start with science.

Am I good so far?

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 10:04 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 09:17 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is a good point, and one that the Boogaloo Bois are counting
on.  In case you've missed the latest iteration of political whacknuttery,  
the Boogaloo Bois are a rightwing anarchist "group" similar to Antifa on the left. Apparently, they've seized on the protests  in many cities, and used them to create low level mayhem.  In most cases, they are the ones looting the high end stores.  I doubt the numbers in either consortium are very high, with both "groups" being intentionally disorganized, but creating mayhem is pretty easy if you set out to do it.  The big question: how quickly will this anarchist urge die-out and a more communal one take hold?  We've celebrated the individual for decades.  Tamping that down won't come easy.  Add a pandemic, and it gets really messy.

I don't know why you describe them as "rightwing."  The article you reference doesn't do so.

My guess is that they're a vestige of the KKK.

I think that for once I am tending to agree a little with Xenakis.  They are advocating violence to overthrow the system.  In this their belief is not so far from the early Marxists.  Revolution in theory will overthrow a dominance by the elites.  If you are of the Democrats are Marxist and Republicans are fascist school, this puts them on the left.

But most on the left would denounce this approach.  They would rather seek change within the system rather than destroy the system.  This puts them way out in the unaligned category, opposed to both parties.

I would have doubts that they are aligned with the KKK.  They don't seem to be particularly a racist organization.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 09:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't think of many sources more biased than Dinesh D'Souza -- not even the cast of characters from the Project for the New American Century.

Agreed.  The Project for the New American Century was enthusiastic that the US Military could take on most anyone, anywhere in a conventional fight with tanks, front lines, troops wearing uniforms, air forces, etc...  They were pretty much correct in this.  Their mistake was trying to extrapolate that the US was good at handling insurgencies.  The Pentagon warned that a much higher troop level would be required for clean victory in an insurgency, but the politicians would not provide the troops required.  This and a callous disregard for the local's lives which led the the insurgency developing resulted in a destabilized Middle East and a reluctance by the US to put boots on the ground.  While this was clearly not a classic crisis war by US standards, it seems to have created the war reluctance traditionally associated with crisis wars.  A lot of years of overloading one's regulars and reserves to no effect would do that.

One could see what the New American Century people were getting at.  Their mistakes were big ones but few.  

Dinesh?

[David Horn]

(06-01-2020, 01:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 10:04 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 09:17 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is a good point, and one that the Boogaloo Bois are counting on.  In case you've missed the latest iteration of political whacknuttery, the Boogaloo Bois are a rightwing anarchist "group" similar to Antifa on the left. Apparently, they've seized on the protests  in many cities, and used them to create low level mayhem.  In most cases, they are the ones looting the high end stores.  I doubt the numbers in either consortium are very high, with both "groups" being intentionally disorganized, but creating mayhem is pretty easy if you set out to do it.  The big question: how quickly will this anarchist urge die-out and a more communal one take hold?  We've celebrated the individual for decades.  Tamping that down won't come easy.  Add a pandemic, and it gets really messy.

I don't know why you describe them as "rightwing."  The article you reference doesn't do so.

My guess is that they're a vestige of the KKK.

I think that for once I am tending to agree a little with Xenakis.  They are advocating violence to overthrow the system.  In this their belief is not so far from the early Marxists.  Revolution in theory will overthrow a dominance by the elites.  If you are of the Democrats are Marxist and Republicans are fascist school, this puts them on the left.

But most on the left would denounce this approach.  They would rather seek change within the system rather than destroy the system.  This puts them way out in the unaligned category, opposed to both parties.

I would have doubts that they are aligned with the KKK.  They don't seem to be particularly a racist organization.

Perhaps that's the problem with political alignments in general.  Who's with the anarchists? They do serve the wealthy and powerful, who can manage on their own, and hate being told what to do and how much tax they owe, but they are also opponents of the elites.  The two "groups" seem to be on opposite sides in this melee, so can they be allies too?  Frenemies ... but not too much?

[David Horn]

(06-01-2020, 10:04 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 09:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't think of many sources more biased than Dinesh D'Souza -- not even the cast of characters from the Project for the New American Century.

Yes you can.  For example, you're more biased than Dinesh D'Souza.

I've never claimed to be a public intellectual either.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 06:28 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 10:04 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 09:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't think of many sources more biased than Dinesh D'Souza -- not even the cast of characters from the Project for the New American Century.

Yes you can.  For example, you're more biased than Dinesh D'Souza.

I've never claimed to be a public intellectual either.

Have you ever been a social pariah though?

I think of you as a fairly classic main line blue.  I sort of expect a blue perspective from you on these forums, but there seems to be no single issue of emphasis or weird obsession to it.  There is nothing like Eric’s bringing in astrology regularly, or Classic’s obsession with violence.  My own bias is generally blue, but I side vehemently with the reds on gun rights and tradition, and respect the desire for small government even if the reds have gone far beyond the point of diminishing return.  The closest thing to a bias you have is that you are a blue living in a red area.  

Now I have encountered reds.  One of my uncles was the Republican sheriff of Plymouth County for a while.  I had a friend in my gaming group with a red perspective, and we learned to avoid talking politics after a few attempts.  But this in general didn’t effect my ability to interact with people.

Nor do I envision Dinesh D’Souza  being pariah.  Well, not a permanent one at least.  His writing is inflammatory, and there were a few points at which he angered even the reds.  At the moment, Trump should have gathered a large enough circle.

How have you dealt with it, as a blue among reds?

I have come to see Xenakis’s problem as not Cassandra’s sin of accurately foretelling to those who don’t want to hear.  It is of having an extreme eccentric point of view that he pushes to the degree of discomfort.

Anyway, it is my belief that everybody has a world view, that everybody is biased.  Your bias is not that unusual.  It is pretty much main stream blue.

Not so Xenakis.  Everybody might be tempted to judge bias against themselves, to think their own perspective is true.  Xenakis is close to Dinesh D'Souza, and D'Sousa is therefore held to have a small bias, even if others including Wiki disagree.  It is not that he has no bias.  It is way out there.  Highly unusual.  Anyone who sees D'Souza as unbiased would have to be unusual.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-01-2020, 06:24 PM)David Horn Wrote: Perhaps that's the problem with political alignments in general.  Who's with the anarchists? They do serve the wealthy and powerful, who can manage on their own, and hate being told what to do and how much tax they owe, but they are also opponents of the elites.  The two "groups" seem to be on opposite sides in this melee, so can they be allies too?  Frenemies ... but not too much?

Yes.  There are more than two perspectives.  Lining them up on one line is an oversimplification.  Even a two dimensional chart with two axis is not sufficient, but folks keep trying.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 02-Jun-2020 World View: Civil war

mooreupp Wrote:> I'm wondering if the civil war vs. united front for China vs. US
> is somewhat inverse from how we tended to picture. Think of this
> for a minute.

> There will be civil unrest in China, but it is also the ascending
> power as the United States was during World Ware II. It might be
> easier for them to play on nationalism and a positive future
> throughout the country than it would have been in the past which
> might minimize regional elements which would otherwise be at each
> others throats.

> In the US, 2 of the 3 crisis wars since the founding of the
> country have been civil wars to one degree or the other. The
> Revolution wasn't just against the British, but against loyalist
> whom considered themselves British (not a small number either). As
> we move deeper and deeper into the crisis period here, there seems
> to be more organically occurring divisions among
> racial/ethnic/political lines. I can tell you first hand the
> hatred felt between the political outlooks is more and more
> extreme. I expect this to magnify rather than diminish in
> economic distress (and we are barely getting warmed up).

> Hopefully I'm wrong, but does that make sense?

During the Revolutionary war, it was the British army vs the Colonial
army. During the Civil War, it was the Northern army vs the Southern
army. Today, there are no such armies.

China's previous crisis wars, the Taiping Rebellion and the Communist
Revolution, were both organic wars.