Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
The Maelstrom of Violence - Printable Version

+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: The Maelstrom of Violence (/thread-824.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 06:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 05:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 05:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I would say 'the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno' was McVeigh's perceived opponent, more than actual.  Prior to Clinton, the federal police doctrine was fairly firm and violent against political protestors.  Thus, you had problematic incidents such as Ruby Ridge and Waco.  The Clinton 42 administration implemented a much less violent and hurried approach that helped end that particular spiral of violence.  However, McVeigh didn't get a copy of the memo and went violent after said change was already underway.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards a more interventionist and violent police presence, though the trend may be more local than federal.

Although Waco and Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton and Reno in 1993. Thus, they were McVeigh's targets.

Ruby Ridge happened in 1992 under Bush.  Waco happened in 1993 under Clinton.  McVeigh was a nonpartisan terrorist; his target was the federal government irrespective of party.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-17-2017

McVeigh cared about arrogant violent policies of the US Government.  Both the Middle East and domestic incidents helped form him.  The incidents he railed against for the most part occurred before Clinton’s less violent doctrine against domestic potentially violent protestors.  These doctrine changes occurred mostly as a result of Waco, an incident which caused much reconsideration early on in 42’s watch.  Today, Waco and Ruby Ridge are often used in federal training, as illustrations of how not to do it.

The issue of excessive use of force leading to deaths remains pertinent.  It is usually the protesters, state and local forces that are questioned.  While federal forces have a yet lingering reputation, they are not generally escalators these days, in part due to doctrine changes that fell out of Ruby Ridge and Waco.  For the most part, these changes did not trickle down to the state and local level.  Instead we have surplus military equipment being sold cheap to the state and locals, half hearted training in how to use it, a resulting pseudo military attitude shift, plus a legal system that will release any cop who felt threatened by those he confronts.  “I was scared” becomes a legal license to kill.

McVeigh was unique.  Perhaps all the violent lone nuts are unique.  He was more alone than most.  While he associated with the right wing militia movement, he is not a great illustration of big partisan money sponsoring terror, and his tendency toward secrecy doesn’t make him a great example of a joiner sharing guilt with a large movement.

But he’s an illustration of domestic terror and violent dislike of excessive government force.  I would prefer that people not try to cherry pick around him.  Folks shouldn’t say he is a little different so you can throw lessons learned away.  We paid a lot for the lessons learned.

Dave Grossman in his book On Killing explores the notion of human instincts that make folk ready to kill the enemy while still respecting lives within one’s own community.  It’s the violent aspect of tribal thinking.  Those outside the tribe might be worthy of death, while those inside the tribe are to be respected and protected.  Grossman reviews how the US military deliberately indoctrinates people to kill, attempts to neutralize established patterns which hold lives as precious.  Trends include a feeling of guilt leading to post traumatic stress if society does not endorse a soldier’s actions, and how a spiral of rhetoric can enable a spiral of violence.  If a subculture presents violence as necessary and appropriate, an opposition culture as vile and evil, individuals will feel enabled towards violence.

We heard proposed that rich donators might be held responsible for violence that falls out of the causes they sponsor.  In a similar way, we could hold anyone participating in the spiral of rhetoric collectively responsible for the less stable individuals who engage in the spiral of violence.  Ultimately it is the lone nut / patriot / terrorist / freedom fighter who is responsible for his own actions.  This does not imply that those participating in rhetoric or using money as a political tool should be free to throw words and money around without thought and care.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 05:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: McVeigh cared about arrogant violent policies of the US Government.  Both the Middle East and domestic incidents helped form him.  The incidents he railed against for the most part occurred before Clinton’s less violent doctrine against domestic potentially violent protestors.  These doctrine changes occurred mostly as a result of Waco, an incident which caused much reconsideration early on in 42’s watch.  Today, Waco and Ruby Ridge are often used in federal training, as illustrations of how not to do it.

The issue of excessive use of force leading to deaths remains pertinent.  It is usually the protesters, state and local forces that are questioned.  While federal forces have a yet lingering reputation, they are not generally escalators these days, in part due to doctrine changes that fell out of Ruby Ridge and Waco.  For the most part, these changes did not trickle down to the state and local level.  Instead we have surplus military equipment being sold cheap to the state and locals, half hearted training in how to use it, a resulting pseudo military attitude shift, plus a legal system that will release any cop who felt threatened by those he confronts.  “I was scared” becomes a legal license to kill.

McVeigh was unique.  Perhaps all the violent lone nuts are unique.  He was more alone than most.  While he associated with the right wing militia movement, he is not a great illustration of big partisan money sponsoring terror, and his tendency toward secrecy doesn’t make him a great example of a joiner sharing guilt with a large movement.

But he’s an illustration of domestic terror and violent dislike of excessive government force.  I would prefer that people not try to cherry pick around him.  Folks shouldn’t say he is a little different so you can throw lessons learned away.  We paid a lot for the lessons learned.

Wow, we agree on something.  Ironically, it can be argued that McVeigh is an example of terrorism working - and working to improve society.  I think it's a difficult question whether the lessons learned were worth the lives lost, and whether the lessons might have been learned with less bloodshed.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 05:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Wow, we agree on something.

Oh dear.  I'll have to reconsider.  Wink


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 08-18-2017

(08-16-2017, 02:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground.  These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South.  Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW.  Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground.  If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken.  They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.

I can't speak for my entire race, but this black man agrees with you.  I oppose the destruction of monuments to the Confederacy, not because I support it, or slavery or even the racist institutions of the past.  Rather, I oppose their destruction out of the fear that it will not stop with them.  Already these imbeciles have moved from Lee and Stonewall Jackson to Lincoln, and they will move on to Jefferson and Washington too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/17/90-year-old-bust-abe-lincoln-destroyed-chicago-neighborhood/

These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 08-18-2017

(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-18-2017

Kinser came up with an interesting set of events, some of which could clearly be catalysts, but the spin he puts on them is extremely partisan.  I suppose mine might be considered so too.  Anyway...

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.

Bush 43 organized a bunch of agencies to fight terror, including many whose primary task had been handling natural disaster.  Yes, catalyst.  I'm not sure 'the government' should be blamed or one particular administration.  Bush 43 had a lot of fingers pointed his way.

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.

That depends on your spin.  I blame much of the disaster on the unraveling memes rather than Keynes.  The collapse was set up during the Bush 43 administration.  Catalyst?  Sure.  It ought to have been.

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.

Obama spent a lot of political capitol on health care, and failed to punish Wall Street executives.  He lost Congress and the ability to push any sort of real agenda.  Catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Most catalysts are shorter and sharper.  I'm not sure 'break down of the Boomer political order' is a reasonable way to describe it.  We've got two cultures on a see saw.  The see saw did what see saws do.  Even then, Obama got his second term.

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

Between Trump's lack of people skills resulting in a dysfunctional White House, his popularity numbers crashing, and the coastal media making a target out of him, he seems more apt to be a one term president than a culture altering positive icon.  I anticipate he'll flip the see saw.  Catalyst?  His early term has certainly been sharp and eventful.  I'm having trouble putting my finger on a clear lesson learned, though.  No protest presidents?  Competence counts?  Too soon to judge the results.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - noway2 - 08-18-2017

(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.
I read a quote this morning that said something to the effect of people who have no history will likewise have no future. I think that is worth pondering on.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-18-2017

(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 02:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground.  These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South.  Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW.  Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground.  If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken.  They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.

I can't speak for my entire race, but this black man agrees with you.  I oppose the destruction of monuments to the Confederacy, not because I support it, or slavery or even the racist institutions of the past.  Rather, I oppose their destruction out of the fear that it will not stop with them.  Already these imbeciles have moved from Lee and Stonewall Jackson to Lincoln, and they will move on to Jefferson and Washington too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/17/90-year-old-bust-abe-lincoln-destroyed-chicago-neighborhood/

These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

Nonsense.  There is little to no historical value in these monuments, and I live in Monuments Central.  If you look around the South, there are no monuments (or very few) to any other war or its veterans.  It's all about the Lost Cause.  Sorry, but I have no sympathy on this issue.  The argument that Washington and Jefferson are next (and, presumably, Madison and Monroe as well) just doesn't hold up.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-18-2017

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.

For well over 40 years, the GOP has worked tirelessly to neuter the Federal government, and they've mostly succeeded.  It's disingenuous to bitch about an ineffective government your adopted party has created by intent.

Next, you'll be telling us that the guy who killed his parents needs to be given consideration for being an orphan.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-18-2017

(08-18-2017, 09:50 AM)noway2 Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

I read a quote this morning that said something to the effect of people who have no history will likewise have no future.  I think that is worth pondering on.

That's funny.  I'm part of the last set of cohorts who were really drilled on history in school.  I know that, because my wife, 12.5 years my junior, didn't get that drilling.  Surprise! It happened when the "Moral Majority" whined about all those liberal teachers and their indoctirination, which lead to a massive dumbing-down of the history curriculum almost everywhere.  Now you want to complain?  Really?


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 08-18-2017

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.

Revised for coherence with objective reality:

2005: The bungled response to Hurricane Katrina shows that a government hostile to government in practice usually gets bad results.
2007-2009: Economic meltdown analogous to the first half of the three-year meltdown beginning in 1929 is amenable to Keynesian stimulus and rescues of critical businesses
2010-2016: establishment of an illiberal order based upon the worst Boomer ideology (all for the Noble Few, suffer for my holy greed you ungrateful proles or peons!)

Note that Barack Obama is a better analogy to Eisenhower than to any President since at least the beginning of the twentieth century.
2016: election of the populist fraud Donald Trump, a demagogue exploiting mass delusion, bigotry, anger, and impatience.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 08-18-2017

(08-18-2017, 10:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 02:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground.  These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South.  Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW.  Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground.  If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken.  They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.

I can't speak for my entire race, but this black man agrees with you.  I oppose the destruction of monuments to the Confederacy, not because I support it, or slavery or even the racist institutions of the past.  Rather, I oppose their destruction out of the fear that it will not stop with them.  Already these imbeciles have moved from Lee and Stonewall Jackson to Lincoln, and they will move on to Jefferson and Washington too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/17/90-year-old-bust-abe-lincoln-destroyed-chicago-neighborhood/

These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

Nonsense.  There is little to no historical value in these monuments, and I live in Monuments Central.  If you look around the South, there are no monuments (or very few) to any other war or its veterans.  It's all about the Lost Cause.  Sorry, but I have no sympathy on this issue.  The argument that Washington and Jefferson are next (and, presumably, Madison and Monroe as well) just doesn't hold up.

Maybe there is an occasional monument to Martin Luther King, Jr. in largely-black communities.

He is what the South must uphold, for he has done much to create the New South, the only relevant South for the next century or so.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Ragnarök_62 - 08-18-2017

(08-16-2017, 01:13 PM)noway2 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

Interesting question. One that I am not going to quickly dismiss out of hand as being impossible.  Quoting from history.com
Quote:Brown was captured during the raid and later convicted of treason and hanged, but the raid inflamed white Southern fears of slave rebellions and increased the mounting tension between Northern and Southern states before the American Civil War (1861-65).

I will say that the defacing and desecration of historical monuments and the one sided rhetoric coming from most of the politicians, save a few such as Trump, is absolutely infuriating a subset of people, myself included.  I have seen comments in a regional forum state things like: demands to take down and destroy MLK monuments and street signs, calls to start flying flags of the confederacy, arming up and defending the monuments, buying dodge chargers and going bowling when the BLM bastards block a highway, giving these antifa assholes more violence than they bargained for, and talk of buying and placing lawn jockeys.  In short, this has the potential to escalate and when it does, it could get real ugly, very fast   So from this perspective, yes I would say it has that possibility, or at the very least is fomenting tensions, animosity, and hatred, but would note that the feelings aren't entirely race based as the objects  of ire include: BLM, snowflakes, regressives, Marxists, fascists, liberals, and other derogatory terms for "leftists".  

On the other hands, I would say that this, in and of itself, is not going to be a trigger element because the timing isn't right.  My feeling, which I think is backed by the 4T theory says that the climax will likely be around 2025.







Hahahahaha.    He said Snowflake.  Beavisbutthead


Damn warrior gene leads some so so astray.  

--- disheveled pot.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-19-2017

(08-18-2017, 10:44 AM)David Horn Wrote: Nonsense.  There is little to no historical value in these monuments, and I live in Monuments Central.  If you look around the South, there are no monuments (or very few) to any other war or its veterans.  It's all about the Lost Cause.  Sorry, but I have no sympathy on this issue.  The argument that Washington and Jefferson are next (and, presumably, Madison and Monroe as well) just doesn't hold up.

I'd add that the 'States Rights' justification for the Civil War is out of period.  If you look at the succession documents you will find lots of direct references to slavery, no attempts at a degree of indirection through states rights.  As far as I know, the States Rights arguments did not exist until after it became clear that the south had lost the war.

This isn't to say that the old agricultural elites were trying to prevent westward growth that would add new states and change the balance of power in Congress, while the soon to be robber barons wanted growth and industrialization.  The war wasn't entirely about slavery.  The elites were jockeying for power.

The statues are symbols that mean different things to different people.  At a deep values level, you are not going to find meaning on what a statue or its removal means.  The battle flag and other old symbols are much the same.  To a great degree, folks are speaking to each other in different symbolic languages, resulting in poor communication to say the least.

I'm still thinking it takes two to spiral.  Each side must come to believe that the next indecent has to be larger so the other side will back down.  I think that's why Harper's Ferry is so often nominated for trigger.  After that, it had become fairly clear that neither faction was going to back down.  Escalating to full scale open conflict will be hard to do with arguments over symbols while counting on lone nuts to execute the violence.  Still very much worth watching.  I'm waiting for violence to become more organized.  

I'm still seeing the flags cartoon moment as key.  For a long time the coasts had suppressed the old racism, then too much started to happen too fast.  The blue victories were too big and too annoying.  Suddenly it was possible to take that which had been hidden and flash it in the open again.  Racism and hatred run in waves.  You shift from overt slavery, to the reconstruction, to the Jim Crow era, to Martin Luther King's time, to today's alt right.  In the long term equality is winning, but this is not equality's finest hour.  At least they aren't trying to revisit lynchings, plumbing white only water fountains or refusing to serve certain people.  I think that after the alt right has its time in the sun racism will become something to be ashamed of again.  It seems to be starting.  There is a ways to go.

[Image: flags.jpg]



RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - gabrielle - 08-19-2017

(08-17-2017, 01:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 09:02 PM)gabrielle Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.

Even if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary.  At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.  
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter.  That's not fair, but it is reality.  The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole.  You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people.  If you don't win, you can't do anything.

Bernie Sanders supports Black Lives Matter.  You know, it is possible to care about "narrow interests," like whether black people are being unfairly and violently targeted by law enforcement, and many other things as well.

If the majority of white Americans think that the goals of racial justice and equality are exclusionary, that only goes to show how badly they are needed.

You can preach or govern: Your choice.  There is a large contingent of very disgruntled people out there, and it's easy to make them hate those advocating for the better treatment of everyone but them.  The GOP Dog Whistle Brigade is based on keeping that anger stoked, and it's served them well.  If you wish to break that stranglehold, you can't do it by doing the same failed things over and over.

It's down to this: break the narrative. I argued with Playwrite about this when he was still active here and on the old forum.  The liberals of the 1970s let the old narrative die, and this is the result.  I don't see the GOP doing the same.  Even Trump seems to be too little to turn the tide, so the task will not be easy.  And no, I don't have a magic bullet plan either.

I'm not sure the Trump voters could have been won over even if the Democrats had concentrated solely on equality and environmental issues.  I live in a red state, and I know that many of them don't really care about environmental issues, and when asked if they would have voted for Sanders if he had been the Dem candidate, my Trump-voting family members said no, because he was a "socialist."

Remember, though, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  If there was some way to make our election system more democratic I think progressive issues and candidates would win the day more often.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - gabrielle - 08-19-2017

‘I hope Trump is assassinated’: A Missouri lawmaker faces mounting calls to resign after Facebook comment

I understand her anger and frustration but she should resign for that.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-19-2017

Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response. I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored. Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change. Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly. Worthy of noting? Sure. A catalyst? I'm not sure. Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'? Perhaps.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 08-20-2017

(08-18-2017, 10:52 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.

For well over 40 years, the GOP has worked tirelessly to neuter the Federal government, and they've mostly succeeded.  It's disingenuous to bitch about an ineffective government your adopted party has created by intent.

Next, you'll be telling us that the guy who killed his parents needs to be given consideration for being an orphan.

The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 08-20-2017

(08-19-2017, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response.  I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored.  Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change.  Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.  

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly.  Worthy of noting?  Sure.  A catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'?  Perhaps.

Or perhaps instead of focusing on electoral politics we could focus on the very thing that provides the basis of S&H theory, social mood.  As I said previously the see-saw of who is in the White House has been happening since 1948.  Let me provide the proof:

1948:  Truman (Democrat)
1952:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1956:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1960:  Kennedy (Democrat)
1964:  Johnson (Democrat)
1968:  Nixon (GOP)
1972:  Nixon (GOP)
1976:  Carter (Democrat)
1980:  Reagan (GOP)
1984:  Reagan (GOP)
1988:  Bush I (GOP)
1992:  Clinton (Democrat)
1996:  Clinton (Democrat)
2000:  Bush II (GOP)
2004:  Bush II (GOP)
2008:  Obama (Democrat)
2012:  Obama (Democrat)
2016:  Trump (GOP)

Assuming that pattern holds Trump will likely be re-elected baring some major snafu.  If Trump is assassinated I foresee Pence being re-elected in a landslide.  But what does this pattern tell us about social mood?  Nothing.

If we look at social mood, the "everything is fine, lets go shopping" mood shifted irrevocably, at least in the South in 2005 with Katrina.  9-11 couldn't have the same effect for New York because the city and the state responded effectively even if the federal government did not, or could not.