Fighting The Fourth Reich

[Kinser79]

(08-26-2017, 03:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't see it that way.

What matters is less the way you see things and what matters more is what happened.

Quote: For example, immediately after World War II, many western nations thought it necessary to contain the Soviet Union and other powers. Thus, there was no real peace dividend then.

Good, we're in agreement here. Now lets look at where we diverge.

Quote: That came to a greater extent after the Berlin Wall fell.

Not so fast. After having 50 or so years of cold war the US, and UK and to a lesser extent NATO had built up a MIC. That MIC requires a raison d'etre to justify its continued existance. It stumbled and bumbled around until 9-11 when a new cold war could be set up, a War on Terror if you will.

Quote: This resulted in a claim that Stalin didn't invade or occupy until after the war was over. Really? What were all those tanks doing as they headed west?

Conducting War. When a shooting war is on no one gave a damn if Stalin invaded German Occupied Poland because it was already occupied by the Germans.

Quote:You can change definitions of words and twist the facts,

I'm not particularly interested in doing either. In fact I don't even need to, I don't base my view of history on what I want to believe, rather I believe what happened actually did happen. Therein lies the difference between someone who is an idealist and one who is a materialist. What happened historically would have happened that way whether I find that outcome desirable, undesirable or indifferent.

Quote: but the borders were drawn essentially where the armies stopped. Not that it mattered.

Borders are always drawn where armies stop. I fail to see your point.

Quote: No matter when the invasions and occupations started and stopped, there was a need for containment recognized and a peace dividend delayed.

I disagree. It does mater when occpations and invasions are started and stopped. An invasion of country A by country B while A and B are at war is to be expected. In the Warsaw Pact countries it wasn't a matter of the Red Army invading, it was more a matter of it not leaving.

As to the view that containment was necessary, the Soviet Union's objective was to contain the West from invading them yet again. Russia has been invaded from the West numerous times. This has obviously played a role in the Russian national psyche.

Quote:And this is sort of what I expect from you... doublespeak and creative alternate history. You have a perspective you have to defend, and do not see how ridiculous you are being at times.

Doublespeak requires doublethink (more commonly called cognitive dissonance). Since I as a materialist allow for reality to inform my ideas I do not require doublespeak. What you call "alternate history" is actually seeing history from a different perspective. One would think that those of prophet generations would be able to grasp this concept, but I find that the traits of a prophet make them uniquely incapable of grasping it. In general prophets make up their mind first, and then attempt to make reality reflect their ideology. They are also given over to all manner of idealistic philosophies as well. It is those who have an idealistic viewpoint to start with who require doublespeak and doublethink to address their cognitive dissonance that arises when reality does not reflect their ideology as is often the case.

Quote:As for the future, I see crises as addressing the most serious problems a culture is facing. You can clear up a number of items, but you can never get everything, and if you do changing technology will create new problems. Whig tendencies will not manifest and triumph until these new problems are clear and unavoidable. Until they do become critical, the elites and status quo will dominate. Part of the reason we have had no triumphant regeneracy is the lack of such problems. Bush 43 had a new foreign policy that failed. Obama was at best a decent caretaker, up to undoing the damage Bush 43 did to the economy, but he did not champion new values to the extent that justifies a high and awakening. Neither sorta almost crisis succeeded in creating the need and the mood for a high. Thus, we're still in see saw mode.

You are wrong on so many points here it will take a while for me to dissect and expose the fundamental flaws. Let's start with hat you get right though.

Bush II did have a new foreign policy that failed (NeoConservatism). The very essence of that foreign policy was first hashed out in the 1930s in Trotskite circles and eventually migrated into the GOP in the late 1960s. It was capable of doing so only because unlike European Parties the American Parties are not ideologically driven but rather are nothing more than loosely held together coalitions of persons attempting to be elected

As to the Economy, I find that by and large Presidents aren't very effective at either addressing economic downturns nor promoting economic booms. Why is that? I would argue because they are by and large individuals and the economy itself is an amaliamation of a collective mass of some 300 Million individuals. At most I can say about Obama is that he didn't stand in the way of the oil booms in the Dakotas and didn't try to meddle with fracking. Otherwise like Bush II he was an economic disaster.

The whole point of electing his was to excise the NeoConservatives from government, but in turn he was just as bad as they were. And for the record this is from someone who voted for him twice. 2008 I was hoping for something different, in 2012 it was "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".

As to the regeneracy, you're not seeing it because your Whig ideology is in the way. You expect this big huge unifying thing to happen. But regeneracies never happen like that all. If anything they should be expected to be messy and come late. In S&H's books they have pointed out previous regeneracies--I'll focus on the two most recent ones (not including the MAGA Regeneracy).

S&H pointed out that the Emancipation in the ACW saeculum was the regeneracy. I've posted numerous times that they got their 4T timing wrong. If we stop to consider that the 4T started sometime around 1855 (give or take) 1863 was a full 8 years after the start of the crisis.
S&H also point to the New Deal being the regeneracy in the GP Saeculum. I disagree with them there. I'll explain why. The New Deal itself was highly contentious and was only implemented from 1933-1937, specifically 73rd and 74th Congresses. By 1937 there as already push back on the deficit spending front and the New Dealers if they weren't replaced with Republicans were replaced with more conservative Democrats. Not to mention the fact that it is STILL living memory of people referring to FDR himself as "That Man".

So if we're expecting for a universal acceptance of whatever happens to be the status quo as a regeneracy then you won't get one until after a 1T has already started. If we are expecting universal acceptance of a particular plan to address a 4T then the whole concept of a regeneracy must be thrown out.

However, if we accept a regeneracy is merely the near universal acceptance that something must be done to address the 4T issues then quibbling over X, Y, and Z in the political arena becomes nothing more than background noise. So considering that Bush II was an almost completely 3T president his views can be discarded, and considering that Obama brought no new views to the table (in your words at best a caretaker) then that means there is only one possible regeneracy in the current 4T. That is the MAGA Regeneracy as I've termed it which prominently features Donald Trump and his supporters at the helm.

For some reason I suspect that you're displeased about this truth and thus must use doublethink to completely reject the notion that we've had a regeneracy. And that's okay, you share that not only with whatever remnants of the Whigs that remain as well as the lunatic leftists that are out rioting.

Quote:S&H saw a valid pattern, but they misunderstood what caused the pattern and the forces that shape it.

I would say then what are you doing on a board specializing in their historical theories. I mean don't get me wrong, there are some issues S&H are dead wrong on. The idea that prophets lead the awakening for example. They are at most foot soldiers. But their pattern holds.

Quote:Technology is destroying good jobs.

Technology destroys and creates jobs all the time. If your goal is to have full employment I have a means that can facilitate that at the stroke of a pen. Ban all farm equipment. Everyone will have to farm to raise the food needed to live, thus everyone will have a job. Economic ignorance is not a solid foundation for your argument.

Quote: Energy and global warming together look to create a significant problem.

Energy is only a problem when one doesn't have it. Energy is the ablity to do work, economically speaking, thus, it seems prudent to expand energy production. At current technology the best way to do this is through nuclear fission, but the so-called greens have no interest in using this clean burning energy production method which is far safer than fossil fuels let alone their wind and solar pipe dreams.

And don't get me wrong, I favor all of the above to address energy. That obviously includes nuclear (uranium or thorium I don't really care, though I'm more prone to push thorium for reasons I've explained numerous times previously).

As to global warming. It is fearmongering. Is the climate changing? Yes. It is always changing. In the time hominids have been on this planet there have been at least 5 different ice ages followed by warmer inter-glacial periods. But unlike the doomsayers around here, warmer global temperatures are always associated with greater prosperity, and larger populations. Medieval Warm Period was better than the Little Ice Age, which was better than the Late Roman Little Ice Age, which wasn't as good as the Classical Warm period and on and on.

Quote:This could create a post scarcity economy with a new awareness of ecology and sustainability. There are elites who profit from the status quo. I expect that they drag their feet, try to extend their profitable old pattern, but will they drag their feet enough for a true regeneracy and crisis pattern?

A post scarcity economy is possible if we rapidly develop and deploy thorium fission based on the Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) model. This can be scaled up and down as necessary. For example Chicago may require sever really big reactor plants but East Tumbleweed Village in Sierra Leone might only need one small one. What is more is that Thorium is quite common, and doesn't lend itself well to nuclear weapons proliferation.

Quote:For decades I've suggested that the next generation of prophets will be called the Green Generation, that the issues suggested above will be at the core of the next awakening or crisis. So far, no. Nothing has happened cycle wise. We're in the see saw. As badly as I want to break the see saw pattern, reality speaks. The see saw is still there.

Then you've only managed to be wrong for decades. I forsee the next prophets rebelling against social media and the policing of it far more readily than being influenced by eco-fearmongering.

As for the see-saw perhaps you're not seeing the regeneracy and the progress of the cycle because you're simply not looking for the right things, or you're values locked in that it must have A, B, and C when there is no evidence that A, B, or C are even issues. The back and forth in the White House however is far older than the 4T, its been happening the entire saeculum and I don't expect it to stop until after the saeculum ends.

Realistically I see a Trumpian GOP emerging, and the Democrats if they manage to survive will be composed of SJWs, Neo-Cons, NeoLiberals and all the others who are rejected out of the regeneracy.

Quote:Oddly, I have always seen you siding with factions I perceive as the dominant elites, what Marx would call the owners of the means of production. You started with the Marxist ruling class, and shifted to Trump. In many ways it is a good bet to ally with the elites for three turnings out of four. You'll do well for a while with the attitudes you displayed above.

You must have a very different definition of what a dominant elite is. As a Marxist I sided with the proletariat, which is not now nor ever has been a ruling elite. As to Trump, is he a really rich person? Yes, Yes he is--he can afford to be a dollar a year president. But is he part of the Established GOP elite? No. Even if you only listened to the Lugenpresse, Legacy Media, etc it would be evident that the high mandarins in the GOP cannot stand him. That his nomination, and subsequent election was a hostile take over by popular forces of the Republican Party.

Quote:We'll just see if said elites will see enough of the potential coming storm to manage a soft landing. I'm a bit dubious. They generally don't. If the brick and mortar stores collapse, if the restaurant industry follows, if the climate change deniers lose their propaganda war with reality... We may yet see a true crisis. That's a lot of ifs. When you go to the future, there is no choice but guess at alternate history. Sill, should problems come to a head, bet with the Whigs. Until then, ride with the elites if you must.

Well there are some issues here to address, too bad it is between so much fluff and nonsense.

1. Brick and mortar stores will never truly go away. I cannot imagine buying shoes online. Even though I know my size and have been wearing that size for years, I still need to try the shoes on. A size 12 Nike sneaker is vastly different from a size 12 Dr. Martin's boot. The same can be said of clothing, foodstuffs, and other sundry goods. Where B&M stores are having trouble is hardware, entertainment, tools, general consumer goods and the like. And even then often one orders online and then picks up these items at a store. As is the case with Wal-Mart. I often make an order and pay for it and go and pick up the items at the local store (because it saves me tremendously on shipping). So stores are going nowhere.

2. Restaurant dining is an experience. So unless you're talking about virtual reality which is in its infancy, and this assumes it isn't a dead end technology, dining out is going no where unless you are proposing mass extinction of the human species. Prostitute may be the oldest profession but Chef is the second oldest.

3. Anyone who denies that the climate changes over time is a fool. Likewise anyone who claims that there will be no snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in 10 years in 2005 is also a fool. The claims of anthroprogenic global warming are wildly overblown just as was the immanent threat of a new ice age in the 1970s. What is true though is that the sun drives climate most strongly of all factors, and it is headed for a solar minimum in the next few years.

4. As for who to bet on, I am betting on those who will likely be the victors. In the end whatever side is victorious will after the fact write up history to make it seem that their victory was inevitable and part of the unending arrow of progress. That is to say, they will be added to the long list of others that make up the Great Ones of Whig History.