America is a sick society

[David Horn]

(08-08-2017, 08:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think S&H developed an interesting language and became aware of an interesting pattern in history.  I don't see it as absolute and firm, especially outside of the Anglo American sequence of history.  Certainly there is much to be said about whether this time and place is really similar to that one.  Even where the pattern doesn't hold firmly the descriptive language might come in handy

I've made a similar argument to Mike Alexander.  History is not locked to an unchanging dynamic, like the weather for example.  That said, there is a rhythm here that can be seen, and the S&H explanation of generations and turnings makes  sense.  That doesn't make it true, but it is a rational explanation.  On the other hand, just as climate changes, so does the underlying social, technical, economic and cultural landscape as progress alters each in significant ways.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:One of the key memes for me is the notion of the Great Man, Fill In The Blank the Great.  During the agricultural age, the time of a countries' greatest wealth and power was often when one of their strongest leaders established the most complete control.  This created the aura or myth of the great leader who alone could ride herd on a fractious and selfish group of nobles or serfs.  If you keep your mind open, you can come up with examples enough.  If you need help, Cynic Hero is a big fan of the old time 'greats' and how to succeed within the agricultural age memes.

Democracies run on a very opposing theory, that there should be checks and balances, that the government's and the leader's power should be limited, that politics and the economy are only healthy if the elites running things are kept in check, that the interests of the common man are always very much represented.  The majority can out vote the elites, and that's how things ought to be.  The People should win, in a revolution, a civil war, or at the ballot box.

I am not one to throw the word 'demagogue' around lightly, or to claim a great likeness between Bush 43 and Stalin.  It is not clear to me, however, that the struggles that created the Industrial Age are complete and successful.  The middle east is still far more in the agricultural pattern than the industrial.  The clout of traditional religion there is comparable or exceeds the power of democracy.  Human rights can be disregarded by terrorist, militant or religious groups.  People including but not limited to Saddam will use classic government by fear that includes genocide, knocks on the door in the middle of the night, with tribal, religious and political prejudices applied freely.  I see the middle east as still in the early phases of agricultural - industrial age conflict and transition.  While you might learn from history how these transitions tend to go, each takes a different form, and each is ugly and horrible in a different way.

The result is not inevitable and beneficial.  Russia and China did not and are not developing functional multi party democracies.  They will put Fill In The Blank the Great in charge, then have layers of lesser bureaucrats ad-lib some sort of limits to power that further the interests of the lesser bureaucrats.  You can even say the United States is faltering.  Did presidential candidate Trump see himself as the only man great enough to solve the problems we had gotten ourselves in?  Trump the Great?  Is this part of a country flirting with the big man meme rather than checks and balances?

Yes, the transition continues. Perhaps it's wise to separate societies with linear expectations from societies that are bound to absolutes.  The countries firmly under the sway of any religion fall in the second category, and don't really fit the S&H model.  Of the remaining many, some will make "progress" in less than ideal ways, with cycles of retrenchment and advancement interspersed in patterns we don't really understand.  Others have such a long history, that change is hard, at least at the cultural level. 

Come back in 200 years and reevaluate.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:During the transition to the Industrial Age, the robber barons have often been on the side of progress.  At this point, are they pushing to increase their own influence and profit rather the the country's benefit?  If there isn't an elite group backing the progressive masses, do the progressive masses get anywhere?

It is not clear to me which path the hypothetical post-scarcity / information age might take.  There is a lot more at stake than whether we call certain elites by questionably humorous names.

This is the argument I seem to have with Eric.  He sees only progress and sunny outcomes.  Progress it may be, but the outcome doesn't have to be sunny.  There's also no structural element that forces a true resolution either.  Even a game of chess can end in a stalemate.  So this 4T, and I certainly believe we are in one, will be defined by the historians of the future.  We're just making predictions based on our best guess combined with our personal preferences.

If we fail on climate management, I think we can accurately predict the results.  All the social, economic and even technical issues will work out as they do.

[Eric the Green]

(08-09-2017, 02:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-08-2017, 08:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think S&H developed an interesting language and became aware of an interesting pattern in history.  I don't see it as absolute and firm, especially outside of the Anglo American sequence of history.  Certainly there is much to be said about whether this time and place is really similar to that one.  Even where the pattern doesn't hold firmly the descriptive language might come in handy

I've made a similar argument to Mike Alexander.  History is not locked to an unchanging dynamic, like the weather for example.  That said, there is a rhythm here that can be seen, and the S&H explanation of generations and turnings makes  sense.  That doesn't make it true, but it is a rational explanation.  On the other hand, just as climate changes, so does the underlying social, technical, economic and cultural landscape as progress alters each in significant ways.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:One of the key memes for me is the notion of the Great Man, Fill In The Blank the Great.  During the agricultural age, the time of a countries' greatest wealth and power was often when one of their strongest leaders established the most complete control.  This created the aura or myth of the great leader who alone could ride herd on a fractious and selfish group of nobles or serfs.  If you keep your mind open, you can come up with examples enough.  If you need help, Cynic Hero is a big fan of the old time 'greats' and how to succeed within the agricultural age memes.

Democracies run on a very opposing theory, that there should be checks and balances, that the government's and the leader's power should be limited, that politics and the economy are only healthy if the elites running things are kept in check, that the interests of the common man are always very much represented.  The majority can out vote the elites, and that's how things ought to be.  The People should win, in a revolution, a civil war, or at the ballot box.

I am not one to throw the word 'demagogue' around lightly, or to claim a great likeness between Bush 43 and Stalin.  It is not clear to me, however, that the struggles that created the Industrial Age are complete and successful.  The middle east is still far more in the agricultural pattern than the industrial.  The clout of traditional religion there is comparable or exceeds the power of democracy.  Human rights can be disregarded by terrorist, militant or religious groups.  People including but not limited to Saddam will use classic government by fear that includes genocide, knocks on the door in the middle of the night, with tribal, religious and political prejudices applied freely.  I see the middle east as still in the early phases of agricultural - industrial age conflict and transition.  While you might learn from history how these transitions tend to go, each takes a different form, and each is ugly and horrible in a different way.

The result is not inevitable and beneficial.  Russia and China did not and are not developing functional multi party democracies.  They will put Fill In The Blank the Great in charge, then have layers of lesser bureaucrats ad-lib some sort of limits to power that further the interests of the lesser bureaucrats.  You can even say the United States is faltering.  Did presidential candidate Trump see himself as the only man great enough to solve the problems we had gotten ourselves in?  Trump the Great?  Is this part of a country flirting with the big man meme rather than checks and balances?

Yes, the transition continues. Perhaps it's wise to separate societies with linear expectations from societies that are bound to absolutes.  The countries firmly under the sway of any religion fall in the second category, and don't really fit the S&H model.  Of the remaining many, some will make "progress" in less than ideal ways, with cycles of retrenchment and advancement interspersed in patterns we don't really understand.  Others have such a long history, that change is hard, at least at the cultural level. 

Come back in 200 years and reevaluate.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:During the transition to the Industrial Age, the robber barons have often been on the side of progress.  At this point, are they pushing to increase their own influence and profit rather the the country's benefit?  If there isn't an elite group backing the progressive masses, do the progressive masses get anywhere?

It is not clear to me which path the hypothetical post-scarcity / information age might take.  There is a lot more at stake than whether we call certain elites by questionably humorous names.

This is the argument I seem to have with Eric.  He sees only progress and sunny outcomes.  Progress it may be, but the outcome doesn't have to be sunny.  There's also no structural element that forces a true resolution either.  Even a game of chess can end in a stalemate.  So this 4T, and I certainly believe we are in one, will be defined by the historians of the future.  We're just making predictions based on our best guess combined with our personal preferences.

If we fail on climate management, I think we can accurately predict the results.  All the social, economic and even technical issues will work out as they do.

Woah! I don't think I said I am certain about only progress and sunny outcomes. I wasn't that declarative, if you remember my posts. No outcomes are guaranteed, I said. It's just that, so far, the outcome of 4Ts has been generally progressive and positive in the anglo-american saeculum. And that it seems like the planetary signs for the 2020s are promising, and there's some demographic changes that may work out to a progressive advantage. But, no, there's no guarantees, and things don't look too rosey right now. And as I also point out, they never do in the middle of a 4T.

You seem to be much more optimistic than I am about the next saeculum, assuming this one does not bring the needed changes.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-09-2017, 02:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-08-2017, 08:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think S&H developed an interesting language and became aware of an interesting pattern in history.  I don't see it as absolute and firm, especially outside of the Anglo American sequence of history.  Certainly there is much to be said about whether this time and place is really similar to that one.  Even where the pattern doesn't hold firmly the descriptive language might come in handy

I've made a similar argument to Mike Alexander.  History is not locked to an unchanging dynamic, like the weather for example.  That said, there is a rhythm here that can be seen, and the S&H explanation of generations and turnings makes  sense.  That doesn't make it true, but it is a rational explanation.  On the other hand, just as climate changes, so does the underlying social, technical, economic and cultural landscape as progress alters each in significant ways.

My gut feel is that technology was a central driver for the Anglo - American sequence, and that put a fairly steady pressure on us  that let us set our own pace.  On the other hand, in places like Russia and China, they had to keep up with the West to a great degree, which made the pressure too high.  They couldn't keep up with another culture that had a head start.

One theory, anyway.

(08-09-2017, 02:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Come back in 200 years and reevaluate.

You think 200 years will be enough?  

[Mikebert]

(08-06-2017, 08:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Why would you assume that a recovery is possible later after a massive breakdown of civil society, the middle class, education/media and democracy, but no recovery is possible sooner, before these collapses fully set in?

Mostly because you need a pretty big decline before it affects elites as a class to a degree where they see it as a threat and support collective action to address the issues behind the decline.

[Eric the Green]

(08-13-2017, 11:44 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-06-2017, 08:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Why would you assume that a recovery is possible later after a massive breakdown of civil society, the middle class, education/media and democracy, but no recovery is possible sooner, before these collapses fully set in?

Mostly because you need a pretty big decline before it affects elites as a class to a degree where they see it as a threat and support collective action to address the issues behind the decline.

I understand, and unfortunately (?) I don't see a big decline ahead; maybe a small one that is still alarming. But David Horn's point is that we need to wait for the next Awakening. I understand his pessimism, but my point is that if we allow today's corrupting, degrading forces to continue to triumph and Trump us, there will be no basis left for a recovery, because the potential will not be there. There will just be decline. There are no awakenings in banana republics. They just continue to fester and decline. That in my pessimistic opinion is what lies ahead if we don't rise up in this 4T and take our country back by the end of the 2020s. 

The next big decline will probably not come until the next 4T anyway; 2T awakenings are economically unstable, and there might be economic turbulence like 1893 or 1973, but not like the scale of 1929 or 2008.

It will be up to the common people to make this recovery happen, from the bottom up. That's where movements come from. We can't count on that many elites joining this movement, beyond those who are already on the right side today.

[Mikebert]

(08-08-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Eric, while the Reformation, Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment were in many ways separate movements, I see all three as part of the development of the Industrial Age pattern.  The technology featured gunpowder, steam and the printing press.  I also see the Reformation as starting to break up hierarchical authoritarian thinking in a way that helped the Enlightenment in turn.  Anyway, yes, things started popping.  It was the best of times, and the worst of times.

The War of the Roses?  I'm not so sure.  While it has many of the symptoms of 4T, and I won't argue the point intensely, there are few to no issues where the Agricultural / Industrial mind patterns are put on the line.  That has always felt more to me like an old fashioned Agricultural Age dynastic conflict.  There were enough of those back in the day.

Anyway, if you see kings fighting democracy, agricultural elites squaring off against robber barons, industrialized urban areas opposing rural zones, established hierarchical autocratic churches going against upstarts that let worshipers read the Bible...  In many of those cases, it is fairly easy to say the Agricultural / Industrial transition is underway, who is on the progressive side, and who has a big leg up on coming out on top.  Bet on the urban folk with new money and new technology.  The people with dated culture and technology didn't generally do well.  When the above things aren't present, the transition to the Industrial pattern may not be underway yet.  You may want to look harder at what people are struggling over.

Alas, if the Industrial Age pattern is complete, if networked knowledge, post scarcity economics, ecological problems, nukes and insurgent warfare are becoming the way to go with a new age of civilization starting, all bets are off as we have to figure out how the new pattern has to take shape.

To "see" the saeculum or its elements in this way or that is to move from social science into the humanities. Is that your intent?

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-13-2017, 12:01 PM)Mikebert Wrote: To "see" the saeculum or its elements in this way or that is to move from social science into the humanities. Is that your intent?

My intent is not to advocate for a label such as social scientist or human. No.

I see these in great part as world views. A social scientist, humanist, Republican, Whig or Alt Right person might each have a certain was of looking at the world, a certain set of assumptions that might form a world view, a certain set of worthy things to strive for, which might become values.

If we’re starting with academic labels, I might have started as a philosopher. Almost all my minor elective courses in college were from the philosophy department. One particular homework assignment regarding ‘duty’ was quite formative. There were three papers assigned, all intending to define duty. One American paper said we were created and shaped by family, and owed a duty to both parents and children. One French paper said we were created and shaped by God, and that we owed a duty to God. The last German paper proposed we were created and shaped by the Fatherland, and that we owed a duty to the Fatherland.

My idea was to throw the papers together by their similarities, and accept and even emphasize where they were entirely conflicting. At one level was a more inclusive level of how ‘duty’ was perceived. Each culture, each individual, will have a different idea of how and what created, shaped, nurtured and empowered the individual. It is natural to feel a sense of duty towards whatever this is.

At a more abstract level, it shifted my view towards philosophy. I was originally taught that a philosophical paper or theory started from certain premises which one argues are true, and that logic was used to derive new principles based on those premises. However, the ‘duty’ examples showed the arguments that the premises were true were often cultural. Depending on where one grew up, what one’s premises were, one would reach conclusions that only echoed and perhaps extended one’s home culture.

Thus, that one assignment in effect shifted my on view on philosophy and how to seek truth. Instead of pushing for some abstract ideal absolute truth, I became something of a student of cultures. This in time shifted into my obsession with culture, values and world view. Where I’ve gotten is that a given region or individual succeeded or perceived itself as succeeding by seeing things a given way, by pursing certain goals. The intensity of such belief is incredibly intense and inflexible. What might be ‘nice’ is an ability to question one’s own views and others, to determine what are the strengths and truths inherent in each way of perceiving and manipulation the world, to synthesize something which respects and builds on what is expected to be a conflicting mess.

What I’m finding quite often is extreme partisans totally committed to their home values and lacking the ability to listen.

Humanities? Social science? I don’t know. I know I left the beaten track, but never looked hard to see if I’d embraced another.

I long believed Philosophy the mother of sciences. When the questions being asked cannot be answered in a lab or measured in the real world, all you can do is conjecture. Well, perhaps you can assume premises based on one’s home culture. If you look at such a field of study and figure out questions that can be answered in the lab or observed in the wild, you’ve the potential to create a new field of science.

That would be more my objective than love of a particular label. If there are two conflicting world views and values, how does one figure out what is true and convince the believer it is so? If you have a label for that, I’d like to hear it.

[Mikebert]

(08-13-2017, 02:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 12:01 PM)Mikebert Wrote: To "see" the saeculum or its elements in this way or that is to move from social science into the humanities. Is that your intent?

My intent is not to advocate for a label such as social scientist or human.  No.

I see these in great part as world views.  A social scientist, humanist, Republican, Whig or Alt Right person might each have a certain was of looking at the world, a certain set of assumptions that might form a world view, a certain set of worthy things to strive for, which might become values.

If we’re starting with academic labels, I might have started as a philosopher.  Almost all my minor elective courses in college were from the philosophy department.  One particular homework assignment regarding ‘duty’ was quite formative.    There were three papers assigned, all intending to define duty.  One American paper said we were created and shaped by family, and owed a duty to both parents and children.  One French paper said we were created and shaped by God, and that we owed a duty to God.  The last German paper proposed we were created and shaped by the Fatherland, and that we owed a duty to the Fatherland.

My idea was to throw the papers together by their similarities, and accept and even emphasize where they were entirely conflicting.  At one level was a more inclusive level of how ‘duty’ was perceived.  Each culture, each individual, will have a different idea of how and what created, shaped, nurtured and empowered the individual.  It is natural to feel a sense of duty towards whatever this is.

At a more abstract level, it shifted my view towards philosophy.  I was originally taught that a philosophical paper or theory started from certain premises which one argues are true, and that logic was used to derive new principles based on those premises.  However, the ‘duty’ examples showed the arguments that the premises were true were often cultural.  Depending on where one grew up, what one’s premises were, one would reach conclusions that only echoed and perhaps extended one’s home culture.

Thus, that one assignment in effect shifted my on view on philosophy and how to seek truth.  Instead of pushing for some abstract ideal absolute truth, I became something of a student of cultures.  This in time shifted into my obsession with culture, values and world view.  Where I’ve gotten is that a given region or individual succeeded or perceived itself as succeeding by seeing things a given way, by pursing certain goals.  The intensity of such belief is incredibly intense and inflexible.  What might be ‘nice’ is an ability to question one’s own views and others, to determine what are the strengths and truths inherent in each way of perceiving and manipulation the world, to synthesize something which respects and builds on what is expected to be a conflicting mess.

What I’m finding quite often is extreme partisans totally committed to their home values and lacking the ability to listen.

Humanities?  Social science?  I don’t know.  I know I left the beaten track, but never looked hard to see if I’d embraced another.

I long believed Philosophy the mother of sciences.  When the questions being asked cannot be answered in a lab or measured in the real world, all you can do is conjecture.  Well, perhaps you can assume premises based on one’s home culture.  If you look at such a field of study and figure out questions that can be answered in the lab or observed in the wild, you’ve the potential to create a new field of science.

That would be more my objective than love of a particular label.  If there are two conflicting world views and values, how does one figure out what is true and convince the believer it is so?  If you have a label for that, I’d like to hear it.

You are clearly coming at this from a humanities angle.  I thought you were in a technical field?

A scientific approach starts with conjecture.  It then uses the tools of logic (although not as well as philosophers) to derived consequences/predictions.  Then it looks for them either in a controlled study (analogous to laboratory experiments) or in the observable world (analogous to observational sciences like astronomy).

A humanist approach is to compare and contrast which of various conjectures and logical arguments derived from them seems to fit best with how reality appears now.  Thus, radically different "interpretations" of the same writings of a dead person (which cannot actually change) can appear at various times all based on the exact same source material.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Mikebert Wrote: You are clearly coming at this from a humanities angle.  I thought you were in a technical field?

A scientific approach starts with conjecture.  It then uses the tools of logic (although not as well as philosophers) to derived consequences/predictions.  Then it looks for them either in a controlled study (analogous to laboratory experiments) or in the observable world (analogous to observational sciences like astronomy).

A humanist approach is to compare and contrast which of various conjectures and logical arguments derived from them seems to fit best with how reality appears now.  Thus, radically different "interpretations" of the same writings of a dead person (which cannot actually change) can appear at various times all based on the exact same source material.

I come from software engineering, for what that's worth.

I think of my own values as science first, political / philosophy second, with religion third.

When working in science, I vastly prefer to see both the premise and the conclusion confirmed through experimentation or observation. If not, it is questionable science. Conjecture is fine, but only to suggest what experiments and observations ought to be tried. An example conjecture might be that gravity causes massive objects to be attracted to one another. Nice conjecture, but I'd want to see equations written and observations confirming the equations before I'd call it science.

With political philosophy, it is hard to prove that all men are created equal under law. That's more an assumption one makes which sounds good and one desires it to be true. You end up striving to assure such values which one knows are floating in thin air. One has to look hard at the results of people striving for such goals. I end up saying equality under law is one base premise of democracy, and democracy has fared well for the common man as compared to authoritarianism. If one wants anything like scientific objectivity, one must frequently look at the results of various assumptions.

With religion, you have lots of wisdom of the ages, but also lots of contradiction, and lots of alleged supernatural effects contradicting what has been observed in the real world. I've no objection to cherry picking wisdom of the ages, but again you have to make sure the results are working. You know Jesus loved peace, and peace makes one feel good, but has Christianity always resulted in peace? If not, why not? Should one look skeptically at certain branches of Christianity?

I've no real objection to your perspective, and if it helps you to understand things, fine. It's not really my approach though.

[pbrower2a]

(08-19-2017, 06:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Mikebert Wrote: You are clearly coming at this from a humanities angle.  I thought you were in a technical field?

A scientific approach starts with conjecture.  It then uses the tools of logic (although not as well as philosophers) to derived consequences/predictions.  Then it looks for them either in a controlled study (analogous to laboratory experiments) or in the observable world (analogous to observational sciences like astronomy).

A humanist approach is to compare and contrast which of various conjectures and logical arguments derived from them seems to fit best with how reality appears now.  Thus, radically different "interpretations" of the same writings of a dead person (which cannot actually change) can appear at various times all based on the exact same source material.

I come from software engineering, for what that's worth.

I think of my own values as science first, political / philosophy second, with religion third.

When working in science, I vastly prefer to see both the premise and the conclusion confirmed through experimentation or observation.  If not, it is questionable science.  Conjecture is fine, but only to suggest what experiments and observations ought to be tried.  An example conjecture might be that gravity causes massive objects to be attracted to one another.  Nice conjecture, but I'd want to see equations written and observations confirming the equations before I'd call it science.

With political philosophy, it is hard to prove that all men are created equal under law.  That's more an assumption one makes which sounds good and one desires it to be true.  You end up striving to assure such values which one knows are floating in thin air.  One has to look hard at the results of people striving for such goals.  I end up saying equality under law is one base premise of democracy, and democracy has fared well for the common man as compared to authoritarianism.  If one wants anything like scientific objectivity, one must frequently look at the results of various assumptions.

With religion, you have lots of wisdom of the ages, but also lots of contradiction, and lots of alleged supernatural effects contradicting what has been observed in the real world.  I've no objection to cherry picking wisdom of the ages, but again you have to make sure the results are working.  You know Jesus loved peace, and peace makes one feel good, but has Christianity always resulted in peace?  If not, why not?  Should one look skeptically at certain branches of Christianity?

I've no real objection to your perspective, and if it helps you to understand things, fine.  It's not really my approach though.

The prophets are generally decent-enough fellows, but the priests become like bureaucrats. The Prophet may be in the ether in denunciation of peace, love, kindness, and vision while the priests have more down-to-earth concerns. Like their own comfort and indulgence which make it possible to make critical decisions. That implies fund-raising, which often means scaring people to put a few more denarii  (or later dinars or dimes) into the collection plate. Or (once the religious belief is no longer obscure or underground) political power.

Would Jesus have ever called for a Crusade? Of course not.

[Bob Butler 54]

We've got a movement going where those with money are using the National Mall for propaganda purpose, though it could be argued that that's exactly what the Mall is for.  It seems some thing that it must be made more clear that many of the founding fathers were slave owners.  Brietbart reports the Jefferson Memorial To Be Altered to Emphasize Slave Ownership.

Quote:“We can reflect on the momentous contributions of someone like Thomas Jefferson, but also consider carefully the complexity of who he was,” a Trust official told the Washington Examiner. “And that’s not reflected right now in the exhibits.”

The report continues:

Quote:The Trust has the ability to wield significant influence over the new exhibits, because they provide crucial private funding for the National Mall. The National Park Service [NPS] faces an $11.49 billion deficit for repairing and maintaining the parks, including an $852 million shortfall for the Mall alone. The Trust works to fill that gap by coordinating fundraising drives from “patriotic philanthropists” and that support projects identified by the NPS as a top priority.

The Trust official said that, in order to bring in private funding, the Trust would have to be “thoughtful vis à vis what has happened.”

“That is where we’ll be their partner in bringing together thought leaders and scholars to make sure that that content is really appropriate and thorough for what should be at that particular site,” the official added.

It's true enough that the founding fathers had been held immune from issues resolved later in the nation's history. Does one judge people by the standards of times much later than one's own? If the content is indeed "appropriate and though", fine. In an era when the tearing down of memorials that allegedly celebrate slavery is an issue, do we want to mix private money with government propaganda? Whose propaganda is it, anyway?

I've also the opinion that Breitbart has an agenda, Trump has an agenda, and the donors have an agenda. The wording above looks.... spun. Articles with the opposite spin are to be expected.

[Eric the Green]

The sickness of American Society is headed up by what's happening in Appalachia and the Rust Belt.

And in general, the red states.

Many people in those states are suffering due to the collapse of the old industrial base.

But the problem with them is, they vote Republican.

Why do they vote Republican? It is alleged they do so just because the "elites on the coast" insult and discredit them.

Why do the "elites" (meaning anyone who is educated or well-informed) disparage people in Trump fly-over country? Because they vote Republican.

Catch 22. Circular situation.

No-one needs to be highly educated in order to be well-informed. You just need to be able to read or watch TV or the internet. It is the responsibility of every voter to vote on that basis of information, not prejudice. Mutual disparagement of those who are college educated and those who are not is irrelevant to the issues we face. We need to face our issues and deal with them. Voting for those who wish to perpetuate these problems, keeps people chained to these problems. That what people do when they vote Republican, just because Democrats or coastal elites disparage them for voting Republican. Insulting them may not work. But reminding them that voting Republican just hurts themselves, seems relevant.

What galls me is when they say they are voting against the Establishment, when they are voting FOR it over and over again. If that is "condescending" to say, I say to them, you need to look in the mirror. You are condescending to yourself. You vote for the Establishment, repeat their slogans and memes, support it in opinion polls, and then wonder why the Establishment ruins your life.

[pbrower2a]

In view of the impending tax "reform"


We are screwed.

Our government is bought.

To the Hallelujah Chorus from Messiah:

Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah
Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah

For Mammon, God omnipotent reigneth
Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah
For Mammon, God omnipotent reigneth
Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah
King of kings and Lord of lords
King of kings and Lord of lords
And GREED shall reign forever and ever
Forever and ever
Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah
Hallelujah

...Mammon is Lord, and Ayn Rand is its Messiah, at least in America!

[pbrower2a]

So what does "Make America Great Again" mean? I will concede that Trump's ideal America will be wonderful for any one who does not have to do real work just to survive. That's how things were in the Russia that President Trump admires. Don't fool yourself:   Vladimir Putin shows  the relics not of Communism but instead of tsarist Russia. It is easy to see why tsarist Russia so appeals to modern reactionaries like Donald Trump (if with an obvious qualification for his daughter and son-in-law).





Hey -- admit it! Imperial Russia was a wonderful place so long as you weren't a toiler in a farm, weren't Jewish or gay, and had no conscience. Conspicuous consumption was much in vogue. Profits were high, so it was a great place to invest until World War I .

(OK, the cultural life and scientific community were very good, but those don't depend upon the rottenness of the social order).

Aristocratic orders are not at all democratic, even if everyone but the workers are well represented in the political system. Just modernize the styles and the technology, and you have the Trump dream.

[John J. Xenakis]

(11-17-2017, 10:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So what does "Make America Great Again" mean? I will concede that Trump's ideal America will be wonderful for any one who does not have to do real work just to survive. That's how things were in the Russia that President Trump admires. Don't fool yourself:   Vladimir Putin shows  the relics not of Communism but instead of tsarist Russia. It is easy to see why tsarist Russia so appeals to modern reactionaries like Donald Trump (if with an obvious qualification for his daughter and son-in-law).





Hey -- admit it! Imperial Russia was a wonderful place so long as you weren't a toiler in a farm, weren't Jewish or gay, and had no conscience. Conspicuous consumption was much in vogue. Profits were high, so it was a great place to invest until World War II .

(OK, the cultural life and scientific community were very good, but those don't depend upon the rottenness of the social order).

Aristocratic orders are not at all democratic, even if everyone but the workers are well represented in the political system. Just modernize the styles and the technology, and you have the Trump dream.

Lol!! You are really weird.

[pbrower2a]

The satire almost writes itself.

[gabrielle]

(11-17-2017, 10:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So what does "Make America Great Again" mean? I will concede that Trump's ideal America will be wonderful for any one who does not have to do real work just to survive. That's how things were in the Russia that President Trump admires. Don't fool yourself:   Vladimir Putin shows  the relics not of Communism but instead of tsarist Russia. It is easy to see why tsarist Russia so appeals to modern reactionaries like Donald Trump (if with an obvious qualification for his daughter and son-in-law).





Hey -- admit it! Imperial Russia was a wonderful place so long as you weren't a toiler in a farm, weren't Jewish or gay, and had no conscience. Conspicuous consumption was much in vogue. Profits were high, so it was a great place to invest until World War I .

(OK, the cultural life and scientific community were very good, but those don't depend upon the rottenness of the social order).

Aristocratic orders are not at all democratic, even if everyone but the workers are well represented in the political system. Just modernize the styles and the technology, and you have the Trump dream.

Sad that after a century of fighting and, presumably, defeating fascism and communism, we are back at the same issues from 100 years ago, gross inequality and class warfare.

[pbrower2a]

(11-17-2017, 09:13 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(11-17-2017, 10:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: So what does "Make America Great Again" mean? I will concede that Trump's ideal America will be wonderful for any one who does not have to do real work just to survive. That's how things were in the Russia that President Trump admires. Don't fool yourself:   Vladimir Putin shows  the relics not of Communism but instead of tsarist Russia. It is easy to see why tsarist Russia so appeals to modern reactionaries like Donald Trump (if with an obvious qualification for his daughter and son-in-law).


(picture removed to save bandwidth)

Hey -- admit it! Imperial Russia was a wonderful place so long as you weren't a toiler in a farm, weren't Jewish or gay, and had no conscience. Conspicuous consumption was much in vogue. Profits were high, so it was a great place to invest until World War I .

(OK, the cultural life and scientific community were very good, but those don't depend upon the rottenness of the social order).

Aristocratic orders are not at all democratic, even if everyone but the workers are well represented in the political system. Just modernize the styles and the technology, and you have the Trump dream.

Sad that after a century of fighting and, presumably, defeating fascism and communism, we are back at the same issues from 100 years ago, gross inequality and class warfare.

I had great trouble with the slogan "Make America Great Again".  America in older times might have done some things better (such as undergraduate education, and perhaps better manners on some things), but I can't see when it was better without qualifications.  Some things might have made life easier, such as lower real real estate prices -- but that implies a   much smaller population.  More people are competing for lesser square footage in the few places that still have opportunities. Returning to the economic security of the 1950s, when people with less than a high-school education could still earn a middle-class income on an assembly line, would require a return to consumer habits and to high prices for the technology of the time. How many people want to give up consumer goodies like cell phones, personal computers, the Internet, stereophonic sound, and recorded video? Ask yourself whether you would like one television in the household, that one costing the equivalent of a used car today if black and white or a new car if color -- and then with only a small screen? I just saw a 32" flat-screen, cable-ready color TV for $135 at "Wally World"... and unlike the TVs of the 1950s, they don't break down often enough that you get to be on a first-name basis with a TV repairman.

Starting a new life on the open frontier, with knowledge that such  could lead to great prosperity for oneself and one's progeny as people might now know wasn't as safe a proposition in those days. Child mortality was high, and people were helpless against household fires. It's easy also to remember the railroad barons who got spectacularly wealthy, but also to forget how many people went from happy in success to destitute in one of the many financial panics. Let's remember how nasty, short, and brutish life was for industrial workers,,, seventy-hour workweeks and forty-year lifespans, with their children often having to leave school to work in the same factories that wore their parents down by age 35. Quack medicine as the norm, and especially dubious panaceas with undisclosed liquor and opiates that simply masked pain while curing nothing? No thanks!  Oh, so they didn't have auto accidents. Sure. Horses kicked, dragged, and trampled people to their deaths. The trolley cars of big cities used to run over large numbers of small children.

It's still advantageous to be straight, white, and male... but not as much so as it used to be in the past. I think that American political life became more civilized after black people got the vote. Anyone who thinks Jim Crow practice an aspect of greatness of the American life in the past to be recovered has either a moral or mental gap. Let's not forget the infamous Blood Alley roads. There's much nostalgia about old Route 66, but before the Interstates it carried about a tenth of the highway traffic of Arizona and had a fourth of the highway fatalities.  I've taken plenty of drives along an Interstate highway that supplanted one of those Blood Alleys... and I would not take such trips so frequently if I had to use the old Blood Alley complete with intercity trucks.

If life is not great now, it wasn't better in the recent past (unless you could somehow get your youth, looks, and health back). We should be seeking to make America better than ever.

[John J. Xenakis]

One example of the Sickness of American society may be coming to an
end.

For decades, Bill Clinton has gotten away with having raped at least
7-10 women, sometimes violently, as Governor of Arkansas, and abused
and harassed many more, because Democrats and feminists blew off the
accusations of these women as "old boring tropes." The Democratic
Party has turned into the Party Of Rapists And Women Assaulters
because the Democrats and the feminists would protect any Straight
White Male who raped anyone, as long as he was a Democrat.

This protection even extended to Julian Assange, who is hiding out in
the Ecuadorian embassy in London under the protection of the left-wing
Ecuadorian government of Lenín Moreno to avoid being convicted of
rape, without a peep from feminists that he's protecting an accused
rapist.

So at least part of this sickness of American society may be coming to
an end, as the chickens seem to be finally coming home to roost for
Bill Clinton. It's an absolutely amazing and mind-boggling sight to
behold that he may be held to account for his multiple rapes after all
these years.

This would be a step in turning the Party Of Rapists And Women
Assaulters back into an ordinary political party, although they may
lose the votes of Straight White Male rapists, and it would be
a step in curing the sickness of American society.

By the way, did we ever find out what the meaning of the word "is" is?

[gabrielle]

(11-18-2017, 12:45 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: One example of the Sickness of American society may be coming to an
end.

For decades, Bill Clinton has gotten away with having raped at least
7-10 women, sometimes violently, as Governor of Arkansas, and abused
and harassed many more, because Democrats and feminists blew off the
accusations of these women as "old boring tropes."  The Democratic
Party has turned into the Party Of Rapists And Women Assaulters
because the Democrats and the feminists would protect any Straight
White Male who raped anyone, as long as he was a Democrat.

This protection even extended to Julian Assange, who is hiding out in
the Ecuadorian embassy in London under the protection of the left-wing
Ecuadorian government of Lenín Moreno to avoid being convicted of
rape, without a peep from feminists that he's protecting an accused
rapist.

So at least part of this sickness of American society may be coming to
an end, as the chickens seem to be finally coming home to roost for
Bill Clinton.  It's an absolutely amazing and mind-boggling sight to
behold that he may be held to account for his multiple rapes after all
these years.

This would be a step in turning the Party Of Rapists And Women
Assaulters back into an ordinary political party, although they may
lose the votes of Straight White Male rapists, and it would be
a step in curing the sickness of American society.

By the way, did we ever find out what the meaning of the word "is" is?

Maybe it took a rapist, woman assaulting Republican becoming president to get the Democrats to own up to the wolves in their own midst.