(08-31-2021, 03:47 AM)justpassingthrough Wrote: It's been several years since I posted here, and my views on the cyclical theories have continued to evolve. The thought I have now is that today bears a startling resemblance to the late 1970s. And that leads me to think that if you want to know what a "Crisis" is going to look like, you have to look at the end of the preceding "Awakening". Meaning, this is not a replay of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or WWII, as we all speculated for years. If you had to give this Crisis a name, the best one available is probably "Jimmy Carter". On steroids. 

JPT Wrote:I think it would be fair to call WWI the end of the previous Awakening, and WWII was the climax of the Crisis. The technologies and totalitarian ideologies that produced WWII were born in the preceding Progressive Era, and produced WWI, the USSR, eugenics, human flight, prohibition, and so on by the end of that Awakening. 

So we have been, stupidly, for years, predicting something that looks like past Crises. When we already know what the issues are. All you have to do is look at the 1960s and 1970s. Mao-inspired neo-Marxist identity politics, cultural revolution and terrorism, economic and cultural decline, the disintegration and demoralization of American society, and of American geopolitical standing, allowed by widespread narcissistic hedonism, greed and corruption. That's Boomers. Always has been, always will be.

JPT Wrote:Economic crashes, pandemics, and technological disruption are the kinds of things that happen throughout history. What is unique to the current moment is the response to those things by the current generational constellation. S&H often seemed to suggest that these generations would "rise to the occasion" and become something they never were before. Nope. Boomers are Boomers. This is the world they created. In response to the 2008 crash (which I now commit to as the beginning of the 4T), the preceding Awakening imposed itself on the world in full force, in the form of Barack Obama. He was the embodiment and messiah of everything the Awakening was about. So instead of fixing the economy, we got Obamacare and anti-American, intersectional identity politics. And now we fly BLM and rainbow flags at American embassies while the world laughs at us. 

JPT Wrote:The economy is in shambles, the US is incompetent in foreign affairs and the society is disintegrating domestically, while the crusaders of the Awakening ride triumphantly over the cliff. I am deeply disturbed by the actions of the "ruling elite" over the last 13 years, and the last two years, particularly in Washington, Silicon Valley and blue state governments. But I increasingly see the real end game here being one of delusional, megalomanical narcissists slamming face first into the brick wall of reality. The response of that elite and their dutiful followers to things not going their way, to their Utopia slipping from their grasp, has been startlingly incompetent, panicked, and frenzied. They have lashed out with outrageous authoritarianism, but also cower in their bunkers, wearing three masks if they dare to go outdoors. George Orwell never foresaw Big Brother residing in San Francisco, with the thought police stomping their boot to promote non-reproductive sexuality, obesity, open borders and a senile president. But here we are.

JPT Wrote:Voices from other countries, especially longstanding allies, are increasingly concerned that the US is falling apart. They are increasingly seeking to protect themselves from the fallout of the disintegration of the nation they used to look to for leadership. For others, in poorer countries, there is a rejection of "Americanism", which they used to aspire to. They'll take our money where they can get it, but any moral reputation the US used to posses is utterly gone. They see our tanks riding in with rainbow flags and say, "no thank you".

JPT Wrote:I don't yet know how to contextualize Trump. That has been a bizarre episode in history, and it's possible he may run again in 2024 (and win). But he is a component of the Boomer id, sabotaged by the same afflictions of the rest of his generation. He tried to combat the dominant elite by feeding their own vomit back to them, with his own style of narcissism and self-aggrandizement. In that sense, they're all the same.

JPT Wrote:I know what the end game looks like, if the nation survives. Humble traditionalism, a quest for stability and normality, and a rejection of self-righteous crusades to "Change the World ™". But I'm not at all sure as of now that it will survive. What I am 99% sure of (now, as I always have been) is that civil war is not a possibility, despite the feverish speculation of some. It looks more like the fall of the Roman Empire.

(08-31-2021, 10:53 AM)David Horn Wrote: > Actually, I was referring to Trump and his GOP acolytes who have
> started to praise the Taliban. More to follow, I'm sure.

> https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-calls-taliban-good-fighters-074133872.html

(08-30-2021, 08:16 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Contempt for the Taliban

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   John Wrote: You should watch Fox's 6 PM ET newscast.  You may
>   discover you like it much better than whatever garbage you
>   currently listen to.

>   Unlikely.  That's dinner time, and I don't want to toss cookies in
>   the middle of a meal.

That reminds me of that old Jack Nicholson movie line, "You can't
handle the truth!"

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   John Wrote: By the way, I'm curious to know what you mean by,
>   "They've even played XOXO with the Taliban." I don't know what
>   that means, and I didn't even know that you watched Fox News.

>   Hugs and kisses. For some reason, the Taliban is now semi-revered
>   by the hard right. Go figure.

This is one of those really bizarre statements that you make that show
that you're completely out of touch with reality.  All Fox analysts
I've heard -- and also many on MSNBC and the BBC as well -- are
contemptuous of the Taliban and say that the Taliban will start raping
girls as soon as the Americans leave.  They're also contemptuous of
Biden for "cutting and running" and trusting the Taliban, in order to
get a photo op on 9/11.  So the truth is the exact opposite of what
you're saying.

• Biden crying in response to a question at an 8/27 press conference

(08-31-2021, 03:47 AM)justpassingthrough Wrote: It's been several years since I posted ranted here, and my views on the cyclical theories have continued to evolve. The thought I have now is that today bears a startling resemblance to the late 1970s. And that leads me to think that if you want to know what a "Crisis" is going to look like, you have to look at the end of the preceding "Awakening". Meaning, this is not a replay of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or WWII, as we all speculated for years. If you had to give this Crisis a name, the best one available is probably "Jimmy Carter". On steroids.

Quote:I think it would be fair to call WWI the end of the previous Awakening, and WWII was the climax of the Crisis. The technologies and totalitarian ideologies that produced WWII were born in the preceding Progressive Era, and produced WWI, the USSR, eugenics, human flight, prohibition, and so on by the end of that Awakening. 

Quote:So we have been, stupidly, for years, predicting something that looks like past Crises. When we already know what the issues are. All you have to do is look at the 1960s and 1970s. Mao-inspired neo-Marxist identity politics, cultural revolution and terrorism, economic and cultural decline, the disintegration and demoralization of American society, and of American geopolitical standing, allowed by widespread narcissistic hedonism, greed and corruption. That's Boomers. Always has been, always will be.

Quote:Economic crashes, pandemics, and technological disruption are the kinds of things that happen throughout history. What is unique to the current moment is the response to those things by the current generational constellation. S&H often seemed to suggest that these generations would "rise to the occasion" and become something they never were before. Nope. Boomers are Boomers. This is the world they created. In response to the 2008 crash (which I now commit to as the beginning of the 4T), the preceding Awakening imposed itself on the world in full force, in the form of Barack Obama. He was the embodiment and messiah of everything the Awakening was about. So instead of fixing the economy, we got Obamacare and anti-American, intersectional identity politics. And now we fly BLM and rainbow flags at American embassies while the world laughs at us. 

Quote:It may be premature, but I expect historians to hold Eisenhower and Obama similar in quality.

Despite the great differences in curriculae vitae, Eisenhower and Obama seem to have something very much in common: both are members of Reactive generations. 60-ish Reactives (George Washington, John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower) may be the best sorts of leaders that Reactive leaders can be: cautious, mellow, respectful of precedent, and more trusting in legality than in the contemporary passion. Even if Barack Obama is one of the youngest Presidents ever elected and won't reach or surpass 60 as President (barring an amendment to undo the 22nd Amendment) he seems to act like someone in his sixties.

(The worst Reactive leaders are amoral, angry, cynical, bigoted leaders with an agenda of seeking revenge against real and imagined personal enemies -- like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, puppets of tyrannical leaders such as Vidkun Quisling and Mátyás Rákosi, and such brutal functionaries of tyrants as Andrei Vishinsky and  Lavrenti Beria). When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

To be sure, one would expect any winning President to win almost entirely states that FDR won in 1936 (all then voting except Vermont and Maine), that Nixon won in 1972 (all but Massachusetts), or Reagan won in 1980 (all but Minnesota).  But the overlay between Obama and Eisenhower fits far better includes all four such states that FDR, Nixon, and Reagan won in nearly-complete wins of the entire USA. As another coincidence, Eisenhower was the first Republican to win Virginia since 1928 (24 years) and Obama was the first Democrat to win the Old Dominion since 1964 (44 years) -- and both won the state twice.   

Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012    



Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas. Barring a major realignment of the states in partisan identity or an electoral blowout, Republicans are unlikely to win more than a state or two in white and Democrats are unlikely to win more than a state or two in yellow for the next couple of decades..

Quote:The economy is in shambles, the US is incompetent in foreign affairs and the society is disintegrating domestically, while the crusaders of the Awakening ride triumphantly over the cliff. I am deeply disturbed by the actions of the "ruling elite" over the last 13 years, and the last two years, particularly in Washington, Silicon Valley and blue state governments. But I increasingly see the real end game here being one of delusional, megalomanical narcissists slamming face first into the brick wall of reality. The response of that elite and their dutiful followers to things not going their way, to their Utopia slipping from their grasp, has been startlingly incompetent, panicked, and frenzied. They have lashed out with outrageous authoritarianism, but also cower in their bunkers, wearing three masks if they dare to go outdoors. George Orwell never foresaw Big Brother residing in San Francisco, with the thought police stomping their boot to promote non-reproductive sexuality, obesity, open borders and a senile president. But here we are.

Quote:Voices from other countries, especially longstanding allies, are increasingly concerned that the US is falling apart. They are increasingly seeking to protect themselves from the fallout of the disintegration of the nation they used to look to for leadership. For others, in poorer countries, there is a rejection of "Americanism", which they used to aspire to. They'll take our money where they can get it, but any moral reputation the US used to posses is utterly gone. They see our tanks riding in with rainbow flags and say, "no thank you".

Quote:I don't yet know how to contextualize Trump. That has been a bizarre episode in history, and it's possible he may run again in 2024 (and win). But he is a component of the Boomer id, sabotaged by the same afflictions of the rest of his generation. He tried to combat the dominant elite by feeding their own vomit back to them, with his own style of narcissism and self-aggrandizement. In that sense, they're all the same.

Quote:I know what the end game looks like, if the nation survives. Humble traditionalism, a quest for stability and normality, and a rejection of self-righteous crusades to "Change the World ™". But I'm not at all sure as of now that it will survive. What I am 99% sure of (now, as I always have been) is that civil war is not a possibility, despite the feverish speculation of some. It looks more like the fall of the Roman Empire.

(08-31-2021, 01:32 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 31-Aug-2021 World View: Good fighters

(08-31-2021, 10:53 AM)David Horn Wrote: Actually, I was referring to Trump and his GOP acolytes who have started to praise the Taliban.  More to follow, I'm sure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-calls-taliban-good-fighters-074133872.html

That article quotes Trump as saying that the Taliban are smart and good fighters.  It's actually an indirect criticism of Biden, who is
not smart and not a good fighter, and was humiliated by the Taliban.  It has nothing to do with the hard right or Trump's acolytes.

(09-01-2021, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: > Praise is still praise, regardless of the intent. Some of Trump's
> acolytes, including Don Jr. have even pushed this further.

> https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-republicans-praise-taliban-despite-chest-thumping-jihadist-terrorism-2021-8

(09-01-2021, 05:23 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 01-Sep-2021 World View: Taliban vs Democrats

(09-01-2021, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   Praise is still praise, regardless of the intent.  Some of Trump's
>   acolytes, including Don Jr. have even pushed this further.

>   https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-republicans-praise-taliban-despite-chest-thumping-jihadist-terrorism-2021-8

There's just no limit to the idiocy of what you post, is there.

First, BusinessInsider is a far left media source.

Quote:Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

Launched in 2007, Business Insider is a business news site concentrating on finance, industry, and tech news. Its headquarters is located in New York City, USA. Business Insider was founded by former Wall Street analyst Henry Blodget and DoubleClick’s co-founder Dwight Merriman and CEO Kevin Ryan. It is published by Insider, Inc. Business Insider’s board of directors includes Huffington Post co-founder Ken Lerer, and the president and chief operating officer are Julie Hansen. Henry Blodget is also CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
In 2015, German publishing company and owner of Bild, Die Welt, and Fakt, Axel Springer, acquired Business Insider for $442 million, which brought their share to approximately 97 percent. Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment company of Jeff Bezos, will hold further shares according to the purchase details. The website is funded through online advertising.

Analysis / Bias
In review, Business Insider occasionally publishes listicles such as: “The top 10 Google searches of 2018” and “10 burning questions Americans asked Google in 2018.” Business Insider reports news and opinions with the use of moderately loaded words such as this: “Trump inexplicably told Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi that Mexico would pay for the border wall as part of the landmark new trade deal” and “China looks like it’s going to give Trump a huge symbolic trade war win, fueling hope for a big deal.”  When it comes to sourcing information, they utilize credible media sources such as gbm.hsbc.com, brookings.edu, Bloomberg, Council on Foreign Relations, and asia.nikkei.com.
Politically, Business Insider leans left through both story selection and wording. Here are some examples of stories that have a leftward tilt:

• The odds that a gun will kill the average American may surprise you
  
  
• Mollie Tibbetts’ death used to push debunked ideas about illegal immigration and violent crime
  
  
• Big oil companies were forced to lay out the science of climate change today in a court hearing that compared to the Scopes trial on evolution
  
  
• Ocasio-Cortez burns Mike Huckabee after being mocked: ‘Leave the false statements to Sarah Huckabee. She’s much better at it.’
  

This last story about Ocasio-Cortez and Mike Huckabee comes directly from the strongly left-leaning Talking Points Memo.

Failed Fact Checks

• Amazon Doesn’t Produce 20% of Earth’s Oxygen – FALSE
  

Overall, we rate Business Insider Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a reasonable fact check record. (5/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 03/10/2021)


Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/

Quote:Second, the article is about the Fascist Stalinist censorship regime
of Joe Biden and the Democrats.  It's the most vicious censorship
regime in decades or possibly in American history.

Quote:In the article, Zabihullah Mujahid is mocking the vicious Democrat
censorship regime enforced by Facebook.  Donald Trump Jr is agreeing
that there is a vicious Democrat censorship regime being enforced by
Facebook.

Quote:It's almost beyond belief that Donald Trump is being censored by the
Democrats, and many conservatives are being censored by Democrats, but
the Taliban terrorists can use Facebook freely.  In other words, the
Democrat regime is far worse than the Taliban regime, and Donald Trump
Jr was agreeing with that.  That's what Zabihullah Mujahid was
mocking, and Donald Trump Jr was also mocking.

Quote:Incidentally, you're probably oblivious to this, but this afternoon,
Austin and Milley conducted a press conference during which they said
that they may be working closely with Taliban.  So, as usual,
everything you've written is the exact opposite of the truth.

Quote:Your posts are so uniformly stupid that I'm tending to believe that
you're using them just to bait me.  Even if that's true, I'm happy to
respond, since it gives an opportunity to educate any other people who
happen to read this thread.  In this case, I'm educating them about
how the Democrats are worse than the Taliban, and how they're working
closely with the Taliban, maybe learning from the Taliban.

(09-01-2021, 05:23 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: There's just no limit to the idiocy of what you post, is there.

First, BusinessInsider is a far left media source.

continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:Second, the article is about the Fascist Stalinist censorship regime of Joe Biden and the Democrats.  It's the most vicious censorship regime in decades or possibly in American history.

continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:In the article, Zabihullah Mujahid is mocking the vicious Democrat censorship regime enforced by Facebook.  Donald Trump Jr is agreeing that there is a vicious Democrat censorship regime being enforced by Facebook.

It's almost beyond belief that Donald Trump is being censored by the Democrats, and many conservatives are being censored by Democrats, but
the Taliban terrorists can use Facebook freely.  In other words, the Democrat regime is far worse than the Taliban regime, and Donald Trump Jr was agreeing with that.  That's what Zabihullah Mujahid was mocking, and Donald Trump Jr was also mocking.

continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:Incidentally, you're probably oblivious to this, but this afternoon, Austin and Milley conducted a press conference during which they said that they may be working closely with Taliban.  So, as usual, everything you've written is the exact opposite of the truth.

continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:Your posts are so uniformly stupid that I'm tending to believe that you're using them just to bait me.  Even if that's true, I'm happy to respond, since it gives an opportunity to educate any other people who happen to read this thread.  In this case, I'm educating them about how the Democrats are worse than the Taliban, and how they're working closely with the Taliban, maybe learning from the Taliban.

Opinion Columnist Michele Goldberg Wrote:... in the August 27th NY Times
The Right-Wingers Who Admire the Taliban

As the Taliban swept through Afghanistan in August, a Gen Z alt-right group ran a Twitter account devoted to celebrating their progress. Tweets in Pashto juxtaposed two laughing Taliban fighters with pictures meant to represent American effeminacy. Another said, the words auto-translated into English, “Liberalism did not fail in Afghanistan because it was Afghanistan, it failed because it was not true. It failed America, Europe and the world see it.”

The account, now suspended, was just one example of the open admiration for the Taliban that’s developed within parts of the American right. The influential young white supremacist Nick Fuentes — an ally of the Arizona Republican congressman Paul Gosar and the anti-immigrant pundit Michelle Malkin — wrote on the encrypted app Telegram: “The Taliban is a conservative, religious force, the U.S. is godless and liberal. The defeat of the U.S. government in Afghanistan is unequivocally a positive development.” An account linked to the Proud Boys expressed respect for the way the Taliban “took back their national religion as law, and executed dissenters.”

“The far right, the alt-right, are all sort of galvanized by the Taliban essentially running roughshod through Afghanistan, and us leaving underneath a Democratic president,” said Moustafa Ayad, executive director for Africa, the Middle East and Asia at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank devoted to countering violent extremism. They’re looking at Afghanistan, he said, “from a standpoint of us getting ‘owned,’ in the parlance of the internet.”

This is not the first time that right-wing American extremists have been inspired by Muslim militants; several white supremacists lauded Al Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11. The difference now is that the far right has grown, and the distance between the sort of right-wingers who cheer for the Taliban and conservative power centers has shrunk.

The Florida Republican Matt Gaetz may be a clown, but he’s also a congressman who was close to the previous president. On Twitter earlier this month, Gaetz described the Taliban, like Trump, as “more legitimate than the last government in Afghanistan or the current government here.”

Twenty years ago, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the United States embarked on a war that would, in time, sell itself as a battle for democracy. Back then, liberal democracy was almost universally venerated in America, which is one reason we had the hubris to think we could export it by force. Many, especially on the right, worried about the threat that jihadism posed to a modern, open society. The tragic journey of the last two decades began with the loudest voices on the right braying for war with Islamism and ended with a right-wing vanguard envying it.

At least before the devastating terrorist attacks on Thursday, there was a subtler form of satisfaction with the Taliban’s takeover among more respectable nationalist conservatives. They don’t sympathize with barbarism, but were pleased to see liberal internationalism lose. “The humiliation of Afghanistan will have been worth it if it pries the old paradigm loose and lets new thoughts in,” Yoram Hazony, an influential nationalist intellectual whose conferences feature figures like Josh Hawley and Peter Thiel, tweeted earlier this month.

What old paradigm? Well, a few days later he tweeted, “What went wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan was, first and foremost, the ideas in the heads of the people running the show. Say its name: Liberalism.”

Fox’s Tucker Carlson, the most important nationalist voice in America, seemed to sympathize with the gender politics of Taliban-supporting Afghans. “They don’t hate their own masculinity,” he said shortly after the fall of Kabul. “They don’t think it’s toxic. They like the patriarchy. Some of their women like it too. So now they’re getting it all back. So maybe it’s possible that we failed in Afghanistan because the entire neoliberal program is grotesque.” (By “neoliberalism” he seems to mean social liberalism, not austerity economics.)

It turns out that when the government deceptively invokes liberal democracy to justify a war, liberal democracy can be discredited by a grueling defeat. In his new book “Reign of Terror,” the national security journalist Spencer Ackerman draws a direct line between our stalemated post-9/11 wars and the rise of Donald Trump. “Trump was able to safely voice the reality of the war by articulating what about it most offended right-wing exceptionalists: humiliation,” he wrote.

Humiliation is a volatile emotion. Many have written about its role in motivating Al Qaeda. Perhaps it’s not surprising that parts of the right would respond to humiliation by identifying with images of brutal masculinity.

Some of this identification might just be for shock value; the alt-right is adept at using irony to occlude its intentions. But some of it is deadly earnest.

“We’ve come across a lot of content that’s U.S.-based extreme far-right websites saying how good the Taliban victory is, and why it’s good for their cause,” said Adam Hadley, director of Tech Against Terrorism, a U.N.-supported project that monitors extremists online. One neo-Nazi website, which I won’t link to, has a tract hailing the Taliban victory in part for showing that a small band of armed fundamentalists can defeat the American empire.

As for the rest of the pro-Taliban right, the Proud Boys and incels and MAGA splinter factions, some of them are probably just trolling. But as groups like QAnon and the civil war-hungry Boogaloo Bois show, a movement can seem absurd and still be a source of real radicalization. “The classic response to any of this is, ‘Ah, they’re just a fringe group,’ and then when that metastasizes, a lot of people eat their words,” said Ayad.

If there’s one lesson of recent American history, it’s that there’s no such thing as something too ridiculous to be dangerous.

(08-31-2021, 03:47 AM)justpassingthrough Wrote:

(08-30-2021, 08:16 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Contempt for the Taliban

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   John Wrote: You should watch Fox's 6 PM ET newscast.  You may
>   discover you like it much better than whatever garbage you
>   currently listen to.

>   Unlikely.  That's dinner time, and I don't want to toss cookies in
>   the middle of a meal.

That reminds me of that old Jack Nicholson movie line, "You can't
handle the truth!"

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   John Wrote: By the way, I'm curious to know what you mean by,
>   "They've even played XOXO with the Taliban." I don't know what
>   that means, and I didn't even know that you watched Fox News.

>   Hugs and kisses. For some reason, the Taliban is now semi-revered
>   by the hard right. Go figure.

This is one of those really bizarre statements that you make that show
that you're completely out of touch with reality.  All Fox analysts
I've heard -- and also many on MSNBC and the BBC as well -- are
contemptuous of the Taliban and say that the Taliban will start raping
girls as soon as the Americans leave.  They're also contemptuous of
Biden for "cutting and running" and trusting the Taliban, in order to
get a photo op on 9/11.  So the truth is the exact opposite of what
you're saying.

• Biden crying in response to a question at an 8/27 press conference

It's been several years since I posted here, and my views on the cyclical theories have continued to evolve. The thought I have now is that today bears a startling resemblance to the late 1970s. And that leads me to think that if you want to know what a "Crisis" is going to look like, you have to look at the end of the preceding "Awakening". Meaning, this is not a replay of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or WWII, as we all speculated for years. If you had to give this Crisis a name, the best one available is probably "Jimmy Carter". On steroids. 

I think it would be fair to call WWI the end of the previous Awakening, and WWII was the climax of the Crisis. The technologies and totalitarian ideologies that produced WWII were born in the preceding Progressive Era, and produced WWI, the USSR, eugenics, human flight, prohibition, and so on by the end of that Awakening. 

So we have been, stupidly, for years, predicting something that looks like past Crises. When we already know what the issues are. All you have to do is look at the 1960s and 1970s. Mao-inspired neo-Marxist identity politics, cultural revolution and terrorism, economic and cultural decline, the disintegration and demoralization of American society, and of American geopolitical standing, allowed by widespread narcissistic hedonism, greed and corruption. That's Boomers. Always has been, always will be.

Economic crashes, pandemics, and technological disruption are the kinds of things that happen throughout history. What is unique to the current moment is the response to those things by the current generational constellation. S&H often seemed to suggest that these generations would "rise to the occasion" and become something they never were before. Nope. Boomers are Boomers. This is the world they created. In response to the 2008 crash (which I now commit to as the beginning of the 4T), the preceding Awakening imposed itself on the world in full force, in the form of Barack Obama. He was the embodiment and messiah of everything the Awakening was about. So instead of fixing the economy, we got Obamacare and anti-American, intersectional identity politics. And now we fly BLM and rainbow flags at American embassies while the world laughs at us. 

The economy is in shambles, the US is incompetent in foreign affairs and the society is disintegrating domestically, while the crusaders of the Awakening ride triumphantly over the cliff. I am deeply disturbed by the actions of the "ruling elite" over the last 13 years, and the last two years, particularly in Washington, Silicon Valley and blue state governments. But I increasingly see the real end game here being one of delusional, megalomanical narcissists slamming face first into the brick wall of reality. The response of that elite and their dutiful followers to things not going their way, to their Utopia slipping from their grasp, has been startlingly incompetent, panicked, and frenzied. They have lashed out with outrageous authoritarianism, but also cower in their bunkers, wearing three masks if they dare to go outdoors. George Orwell never foresaw Big Brother residing in San Francisco, with the thought police stomping their boot to promote non-reproductive sexuality, obesity, open borders and a senile president. But here we are.

Voices from other countries, especially longstanding allies, are increasingly concerned that the US is falling apart. They are increasingly seeking to protect themselves from the fallout of the disintegration of the nation they used to look to for leadership. For others, in poorer countries, there is a rejection of "Americanism", which they used to aspire to. They'll take our money where they can get it, but any moral reputation the US used to posses is utterly gone. They see our tanks riding in with rainbow flags and say, "no thank you".

I don't yet know how to contextualize Trump. That has been a bizarre episode in history, and it's possible he may run again in 2024 (and win). But he is a component of the Boomer id, sabotaged by the same afflictions of the rest of his generation. He tried to combat the dominant elite by feeding their own vomit back to them, with his own style of narcissism and self-aggrandizement. In that sense, they're all the same.

I know what the end game looks like, if the nation survives. Humble traditionalism, a quest for stability and normality, and a rejection of self-righteous crusades to "Change the World ™". But I'm not at all sure as of now that it will survive. What I am 99% sure of (now, as I always have been) is that civil war is not a possibility, despite the feverish speculation of some. It looks more like the fall of the Roman Empire.

Quote:So we have been, stupidly, for years, predicting something that looks like past Crises. When we already know what the issues are. All you have to do is look at the 1960s and 1970s. Mao-inspired neo-Marxist identity politics, cultural revolution and terrorism, economic and cultural decline, the disintegration and demoralization of American society, and of American geopolitical standing, allowed by widespread narcissistic hedonism, greed and corruption. That's Boomers. Always has been, always will be.

(09-02-2021, 04:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Me, I think there's going to be another Revolutionary/Civil War. I don't think it will be as large  or as bloody as the last Civil War. I think most of the country will opt to remain together and continue to survive as one nation.

Bob Butler" Wrote:> As I have thought about it more, any revolution or civil war will
> involved two or more aspects of a culture. Revolutions generally
> try to get rid of a flawed elite class, sometime supported by a
> colonial imperialist power, but favored by folks who get ahead
> through the existing arrangement. Civil wars involve even more
> clearly two aspects of the culture striving against one another.
> One generally supports the existing power structure, the other
> wishes to become more competitive.

> To the extent that Generational Dynamics focuses on crises that
> create unity it focuses on external threats and does not address
> internal struggles such as you see in any revolution or civil war.
> Such are hardly unique to the United States.

Quote: "Just as memories of 9/11 are firmly embedded in the
minds of most Americans old enough to recall the attacks, their
historical importance far surpasses other events in people’s
lifetimes. ...

The importance of 9/11 transcended age, gender, geographic and
even political differences. The 2016 study noted that while
partisans agreed on little else that election cycle, more than
seven-in-ten Republicans and Democrats named the attacks as one of
their top 10 historic events.

9/11 transformed U.S. public opinion, but many of its impacts were
short-lived

It is difficult to think of an event that so profoundly
transformed U.S. public opinion across so many dimensions as the
9/11 attacks. While Americans had a shared sense of anguish after
Sept. 11, the months that followed also were marked by rare spirit
of public unity.

Chart shows trust in government spiked following Sept. 11 terror
attack

Patriotic sentiment surged in the aftermath of 9/11. After the
U.S. and its allies launched airstrikes against Taliban and
al-Qaida forces in early October 2001, 79% of adults said they had
displayed an American flag. A year later, a 62% majority said they
had often felt patriotic as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

Moreover, the public largely set aside political differences and
rallied in support of the nation’s major institutions, as well as
its political leadership. In October 2001, 60% of adults expressed
trust in the federal government – a level not reached in the
previous three decades, nor approached in the two decades since
then.

George W. Bush, who had become president nine months earlier after
a fiercely contested election, saw his job approval rise 35
percentage points in the space of three weeks. In late September
2001, 86% of adults – including nearly all Republicans (96%) and a
sizable majority of Democrats (78%) – approved of the way Bush was
handling his job as president."

FullMoon Wrote:> https://youtu.be/6xcvDMDg8TY

> John, is this something like a modern Chi Hao Tian article?

Burner Prime" Wrote:> John, you should do a little research before declaring that he
> "obviously knows nothing about China."

> I have been following Serpentza for a while now, and if you knew
> anything about him you would never say such a stupid thing. The
> vid is click-baity and a bit hyperventilating, but he definitely
> knows what he's talking about.

> Serpentza lived in China for 14 yrs and has a Chinese wife. He has
> dealt with nasty Chinese authorities and Chinese racism. He knows
> the culture and psyche of the Chinese through his in-laws and
> Chinese friends as well as all his ex-pat friends who lived and
> worked there. He has ridden his motorbike all over the country and
> seen it all. He can speak and read Chinese.

> I don't think your resume can compare at all to Serpentza's who
> has lived and breathed China for over a decade, and continues to.

> You are quick to pull out the "obviously {so-and-so} knows nothing
> about {fill-in-the-blank}". You might want to aim better before
> recklessly pulling that trigger all the time.

FullMoon Wrote:> It's dramatized for sure. But informative for most. Most people
> don't realize the extent of the CCP insanity. Even semi experts
> on the subject. I think the presenter was shocked at the
> deteriorating conditions, as any non expert should be. He's made
> some interesting videos in China showing the local conditions, and
> gotten into trouble for it.

Guest Wrote:> I doubt the Chinese would start the war with winter approaching,
> but after the Winter Olympics, when spring arrives, I fully expect
> war to break out.

> I also expect the winter Olympics in China to be a political
> fiasco.

utahbob Wrote:> John, I say cracking down on “girly men” is a way the CCP can
> silence perceived enemies, settle scores, and is an information
> operation to shape public opinion. With the massive surveillance
> apparatus that the CCP has at its disposal, it can develop a
> target list of those who break the law by crawling into
> everybody's cell phone, computer, and smart TV to see how is
> viewing unapproved or “un-Chinese” material. This is another
> “litmus test” for the youth of China if they want to survive under
> the CCP and a weapon to use against them; the opponents or
> potential opponents of Chairman Xi.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3I_FdmCmY

(09-01-2021, 06:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: > Your contradiction reeks. Fascism and Stalinism are not the same
> thing.

(09-05-2021, 02:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 05-Sep-2021 World View: Fascism and Stalinsm

(09-01-2021, 06:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: >   Your contradiction reeks. Fascism and Stalinism are not the same
>   thing.

Stalinism, Fascism and Chinese Communism are all based on Socialism,
are all dictatorships, they all censor, jail, torture, rape, beat or
kill anyone who opposes them politically, and they're all being used
as a model by the Democrats.  By referring to the Stalinist Fascist
Democrat regime, I'm making the point that the Democrats are adopting
the worst features of each.