COVID-19 is the climax to this 4T

[pbrower2a]

(04-12-2020, 08:01 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 07:02 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote: Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger   but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal 
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

Is there anything that could explain why Generation Z is even more socially liberal than previous generations?

With people like Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids, I just don't see that happening.

There seems a vast gap between what the media portrays and what is really going on. For example, enrollment at US universities: enrollment in general is declining as there are less kids / youth. Enrollment into traditionally left-leaning colleges is crashing whereas enrollment into conservative Christian colleges is skyrocketing. Liberty University enrollment quintupled since 2010 whereas every year multiple liberal arts colleges bite the dust. The more left-leaning the more they close. I heard that Liberty University has now even been surpassed in enrollment by another conservative Christian college... not sure which one it is.

Say what you want about Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals: they do not want their kids to become a permanent underclass, but they also want their kids to not assimilate into a secular and multi-cultural (and perhaps multi-ethnic, which might be another subconscious concern -- they might not want their daughter coming home introducing a non-white child born out of wedlock to her parents). To be sure, conservative colleges such as Hillsdale College might be non-sectarian (and this is conservative more on politics and economics than on religion). 

As for Liberty University: it offers plenty of courses for substandard correspondence degrees in "Life Long Learning" that ratify ideas consistent with the preaching of Jerry Falwell, Senior. Such substandard degrees (and Liberty University calls those "certificates" and not degrees) are available to anyone who has the time and money in which to do a little study, most likely on Scriptural teachings. Those might be comforting to people who have none of the usual preparation for college in any form, but they also inflate nominal enrollment.  But such learning is better than nothing, let alone trash certificates from questionable vocational schools that promise career advancement that rarely happens. 

Add to that -- those ultra-liberal colleges such as Antioch are quite expensive, which may be a deterrent.  
 

Quote:If you teach that family oppresses women and kids infringe on parental autonomy, well then your students won't have kids and thus not send any to your liberal college going forward. That's how smart our highly-educated academics are. Talk about self-defeating.

It may not be so much the people who earn the income and develop the useful ideas and inventions (double income/no kids) and live very well who have a lasting legacy; it could be the mediocrities who have children who end up with the greater influence upon the culture. Haredi Jews are the ones having the large number of children even if they win few converts (gentiles converting to Judaism usually go Reform), and they are changing the image of Judaism from the liberal and culturally-assimilated Reform Jews that gentiles often know best. See also the Old Order Amish who quit school at age 16 and go no further than eighth grade. 

Quote:Also, given how the Covington Kids were slandered by our mainstream media the conservative youth will keep a low profile. They will just keep growing, marrying, having their own kids and thus fast outbreeding liberals who will engage in lifestyles that are unbecoming to have more than one child if at all. All the while media will tout Greta at al. skewing our perception. But no worries that's why I'm here   to restore balance to the force 

The best way to have children who themselves have large families is to limit their education so that they take on menial jobs that they can't really escape, cleave closely to the kinship network and the church as the only people that they trust, have children early and often, and for lack of access to anything elevated in life (unless it is religious salvation), as the only fulfillment in life.  The girl who marries at age 16 and starts having children early will have an eight-year advantage in having lots of children over a woman who avoids having children until she has achieved a PhD or a professional degree.