(02-07-2017, 06:21 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 05:52 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Which is the point I was making to Dave above.  "Patriots" in the lead-up to the Revolution or Abolitionists in the 1850s were never an absolute majority of the population.  Likewise for secessionist firebrands in the Confederacy, if your sensibilities were hurt by the above comparison.  They were just dominant among the people with the power and inclination to actually do something (for values that do not include posting on the internet).

As Samuel Adams once said,

Quote:It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Right at the moment the "red" faction has just won a major victory, and appears to be spurring a reaction amongst the "blues".  It remains to be seen how that plays out.  We've seen some violence, but not much.  If it increases, why, there's your social moment.  

Still lots of ways this could play out.

I think it's a contest with this:




Anarcho-communists


vs. ?

(02-07-2017, 06:30 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 06:21 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 05:52 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Which is the point I was making to Dave above.  "Patriots" in the lead-up to the Revolution or Abolitionists in the 1850s were never an absolute majority of the population.  Likewise for secessionist firebrands in the Confederacy, if your sensibilities were hurt by the above comparison.  They were just dominant among the people with the power and inclination to actually do something (for values that do not include posting on the internet).

As Samuel Adams once said,

Quote:It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Right at the moment the "red" faction has just won a major victory, and appears to be spurring a reaction amongst the "blues".  It remains to be seen how that plays out.  We've seen some violence, but not much.  If it increases, why, there's your social moment.  

Still lots of ways this could play out.

I think it's a contest with this:




Anarcho-communists


vs. ?

This:

(02-07-2017, 09:20 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Technically, neither's the broad in the center.

(02-07-2017, 09:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They should change it to a picture of Archie Bunker or The Donald. Or maybe Mises or Hayek. Or Mussolini. They ought to have a vote.

(02-07-2017, 09:33 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 09:20 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Technically, neither's the broad in the center.

-- yeah, she's from France, isn't she?

(02-07-2017, 09:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 09:56 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Please, do you think the Donald would mess with a dowdy dame like that?



Now THAT'S more like it! 

(02-07-2017, 09:56 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Please, do you think the Donald would mess with a dowdy dame like that?

8

Now THAT'S more like it! 

(02-08-2017, 01:42 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Jacobin magazine has now weighed in on Steve Bannon and his so-called "obsession" with The Fourth Turning. 

"The World According to Bannon"
Steve Bannon’s vision of civilizational crisis and violent renewal has deep roots in the American political tradition.

The link to the full article can be found here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/bannon-trump-muslim-travel-ban-breitbart-generation-zero/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=email_this&utm_source=email

My main takeaway from the article is that Bannon seems determined to force the issue of a "clash of civilizations" as a self-fulfilling prophecy of Strauss & Howe's expectation of "total war" in the turning crisis now unfolding. 

Two passages, in particular, riveted my attention:

For Bannon, these economic and spiritual crises are compounded by yet a third: the rise of “jihadist Islamic fascism.” Western civilization, he insists, is fracturing from within and being terrorized by “barbarians” from without.

[i]Echoing his prophecy in Generation Zero of a fourth turning, he warned the assembled right-wing Catholics: “we’re at the very beginning stages of a global conflict, and if we do not bind together as partners with others in other countries . . . this conflict is only going to metastasize.”[/i]

I hear echoes of the seminal--and controversial--book The Clash of Civilizations, written by the late Samuel Huntington, a political theorist to whom Strauss & Howe briefly refer in The Fourth Turning.  What troubles me most about Bannon's worldview is his sense that a global conflict along civilizational lines is inevitable.  That's very dangerous--and apocalyptic--thinking for a political operative now seated at the table of the National Security Council.  I try to picture the hypothetical advice that Bannon might have given JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis...and I shiver.  Should a geopolitical crisis arise in the next four years that threatens our legitimate security interests, I would hope that Trump relies heavily on the counsel of more circumspect--and much less ideological--advisors than Bannon.

(02-08-2017, 02:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 01:42 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Jacobin magazine has now weighed in on Steve Bannon and his so-called "obsession" with The Fourth Turning. 

"The World According to Bannon"
Steve Bannon’s vision of civilizational crisis and violent renewal has deep roots in the American political tradition.

The link to the full article can be found here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/bannon-trump-muslim-travel-ban-breitbart-generation-zero/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=email_this&utm_source=email

My main takeaway from the article is that Bannon seems determined to force the issue of a "clash of civilizations" as a self-fulfilling prophecy of Strauss & Howe's expectation of "total war" in the turning crisis now unfolding. 

Two passages, in particular, riveted my attention:

For Bannon, these economic and spiritual crises are compounded by yet a third: the rise of “jihadist Islamic fascism.” Western civilization, he insists, is fracturing from within and being terrorized by “barbarians” from without.

[i]Echoing his prophecy in Generation Zero of a fourth turning, he warned the assembled right-wing Catholics: “we’re at the very beginning stages of a global conflict, and if we do not bind together as partners with others in other countries . . . this conflict is only going to metastasize.”[/i]

I hear echoes of the seminal--and controversial--book The Clash of Civilizations, written by the late Samuel Huntington, a political theorist to whom Strauss & Howe briefly refer in The Fourth Turning.  What troubles me most about Bannon's worldview is his sense that a global conflict along civilizational lines is inevitable.  That's very dangerous--and apocalyptic--thinking for a political operative now seated at the table of the National Security Council.  I try to picture the hypothetical advice that Bannon might have given JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis...and I shiver.  Should a geopolitical crisis arise in the next four years that threatens our legitimate security interests, I would hope that Trump relies heavily on the counsel of more circumspect--and much less ideological--advisors than Bannon.

-- l agree with you here Teach. I think he is definitely misusing S&H. Twisting S&H for his own twisted purposes (sorry couldn't resist  )

(02-07-2017, 04:53 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 04:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

... or not.  He's still leading a minority charge, and part of the minority has stated their interest in him and his ideas are all about themselves, their lives and, most importantly, their jobs.  He still has to deliver on something that is highly unlikely to happen.

Whereas all people on the other side are motivated solely by a higher purpose?  It's always a minority that is active.  It is a minority actively opposing him.  It is a minority actively supporting him.  That's how politics works, always has.

If he succeeds, or if his election was the catalyst for a coalition that opposes him and goes on to succeed itself, that could be the social moment.  Or, it could be something else, in which case Trump's election and subsequent success or failure is not terribly important.

Did you have a point other than virtue-signalling again?

(02-07-2017, 05:04 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: I would never discount the potential for violence.  After all, I'm old enough to remember the "revolutionary" violence of the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers (the latter "more sinned against than sinning," perhaps.)  Indeed, in order to refresh my teenage memory and gain a more mature perspective, I watched the recent documentaries about these two militant groups. 

As for armed conflict, I'm not hearing the calls for violence, much less the kind of eliminationist rhetoric, that might spark an outright civil war.  It takes a militant leader with a "megaphone" to begin an insurrection against the state.  I don't see any Mark Rudds and Huey Newtons on the horizon.  Do you?

(02-08-2017, 04:46 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 04:53 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 04:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

... or not.  He's still leading a minority charge, and part of the minority has stated their interest in him and his ideas are all about themselves, their lives and, most importantly, their jobs.  He still has to deliver on something that is highly unlikely to happen.

Whereas all people on the other side are motivated solely by a higher purpose?  It's always a minority that is active.  It is a minority actively opposing him.  It is a minority actively supporting him.  That's how politics works, always has.

If he succeeds, or if his election was the catalyst for a coalition that opposes him and goes on to succeed itself, that could be the social moment.  Or, it could be something else, in which case Trump's election and subsequent success or failure is not terribly important.

Did you have a point other than virtue-signalling again?

My only point is the limited base he leads is not supported by other, less dedicated supporters with a similar bent.  Their loyalty is fungible, so another bright shining star can pull away enough support to leave the Trumpster with too little political support to maintain discipline, to say nothing of getting reelected. 

There is a lot of instability at play right now.  All the bravado and brash Tweets are hiding it, but it's still there.  The regular GOPpers are not going to commit political suicide if things start going bad.  We haven't seen a crisis response from this team yet, but a crisis is almost certain to occur.  We'll know a lot more then.

Quote:I'm not sure what would push the country far enough to try ACW 2.0, but we're not even close at the moment.

(02-08-2017, 03:54 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 01:42 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Jacobin magazine has now weighed in on Steve Bannon and his so-called "obsession" with The Fourth Turning. 

"The World According to Bannon"
Steve Bannon’s vision of civilizational crisis and violent renewal has deep roots in the American political tradition.

The link to the full article can be found here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/bannon-trump-muslim-travel-ban-breitbart-generation-zero/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=email_this&utm_source=email

My main takeaway from the article is that Bannon seems determined to force the issue of a "clash of civilizations" as a self-fulfilling prophecy of Strauss & Howe's expectation of "total war" in the turning crisis now unfolding. 

Two passages, in particular, riveted my attention:

For Bannon, these economic and spiritual crises are compounded by yet a third: the rise of “jihadist Islamic fascism.” Western civilization, he insists, is fracturing from within and being terrorized by “barbarians” from without.

[i]Echoing his prophecy in Generation Zero of a fourth turning, he warned the assembled right-wing Catholics: “we’re at the very beginning stages of a global conflict, and if we do not bind together as partners with others in other countries . . . this conflict is only going to metastasize.”[/i]

I hear echoes of the seminal--and controversial--book The Clash of Civilizations, written by the late Samuel Huntington, a political theorist to whom Strauss & Howe briefly refer in The Fourth Turning.  What troubles me most about Bannon's worldview is his sense that a global conflict along civilizational lines is inevitable.  That's very dangerous--and apocalyptic--thinking for a political operative now seated at the table of the National Security Council.  I try to picture the hypothetical advice that Bannon might have given JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis...and I shiver.  Should a geopolitical crisis arise in the next four years that threatens our legitimate security interests, I would hope that Trump relies heavily on the counsel of more circumspect--and much less ideological--advisors than Bannon.

How stable can a man who has had such marital and business turmoil be? I also suspect that Trump's childhood was extremely problematic. There are many clues that this is the case. A man such as this is probably a bit fatalistic and apocalyptic himself. A man like this and a man like Bannon will feed each other.