Election 2018

[Eric the Green]

(10-30-2018, 06:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 05:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are changing the subject again. That seems to b a favorite tactic of yours.

The subject was "unity," not "violence." We may be able to get through this 4T with less violence than previous ones, but the track record is poor. Still, as FDR showed, his tactic in dealing with his determined opposition during the 4T was not your suggested "let's just all get together and listen to each other and discuss things and find unity," as you saw in the video. He declared his intention to master his opponents. That's what Democrats need to do now again, not live under the delusion that we can talk and listen to them and just all get along and divisions can be healed. There's big money forces and entrenched ideologies and values behind the regressive forces today, just as there was then. They must be defeated politically--- and violently if they rebel violently, as they have threatened to do.

There is no evidence at all that an Information Age would be peaceful and an Industrial Age is violent, or as we were discussing, willing to "listen to each other." Maybe if the Green Meme were to attain power, which might be associated with the Information Age, that might be possible. But it takes a while for new memes to become dominant powers.

I am pushing a theory that the classic T4T patten which held reasonably well during the Industrial Age and for the Anglo American civilization will not hold in the Information Age and for all civilizations.  One cannot definitively prove or disprove the theory by demonstration yet.  The time of the fourth turning has not ended, so we cannot count violent crisis conflicts during the Information Age.  We can only watch the spiral of violence and say it has not increased beyond the lone nut level.  We can perhaps say why.  Nukes and a greater faith in democracy and non-violence may have rendered crisis conflicts obsolete.  If so, we will not see crisis conflicts as much or at all, but are more apt to see problems solved in the voting booth and during the 2T.

Pushing a new theory is quite welcome; however I don't think you can hold that since I might disagree with your theory, that I am an extremist who promotes violence. I may predict violence, but that doesn't mean I approve. Remember my prime function here is as a prophet with a good track record, and that prophecy is based on many things including T4T and astrology.

And if crises are resolved in the voting booth, that does not eliminate conflict, or dictate that conflicts will be resolved by two sides listening to each other and compromising. If voting is needed to resolve a crisis, then that implies one side outvoting the other.

The "information age" needs to be shown to correlate with nukes and a greater faith in democracy; I'm not sure that the prominence of computers in our economy means that violence is ended or much reduced in 4Ts. I don't discount the possibility of a general pattern of which the information age is a part, but then I think planetary and spiral dynamics are in play; a greater new meme is at work, a whole constellation of new paradigms that are not all based solely on the prevalence of computers. In other words, non-material social and philosophical/idealist causes as well as technological ones.

Quote:Saying violence was required or common during the Industrial Age 4Ts says nothing about whether violence will be required or common during the Information Age.  Violence was common, necessary to shift the power of the older elites and to implement the new morals, but that is irrelevant today.   No matter how often you say things about the Industrial Age, it says nothing about the Information Age.

I'm not sure of the physical cause behind your idea that industrial age is violent and information age is peaceful. Brower pointed out that the ideas of democracy and the new products of industry, born with the coming of the industrial age circa 1781, also contributed and still contribute to greater prosperity and peace. Information overload alone is a mixed blessing without greater wisdom and perspective. It scarcely needs to be mentioned the role that information age tech has played in political polarization today.

Quote:If I am correct, the transition to the new values will occur in the voting booth.  It almost occurred in 2016.  If Hillary had won, if eventually the Congress had gone blue reliably, there would have been a blue victory, an end to the see saw.  This did not happen.  The see saw went red again, most emphatically.  We agree that a longer term shift towards the blue must happen eventually.  Among other issues, global warming and the spiral of racist rhetoric leading to an unacceptable lone nut increase in violence must be addressed and will be addressed.  Eventually a shift in voting patterns will occur as more rural voters see this.

Quite so, we agree there.

Quote:To my mind, it was not a coincidence that there was a switch to non-violence just as the nuke was invented and a trust in democracy achieved.  Civil rights, gender rights, how the domino theory was implemented and the environment came suddenly alive.  The lethal racism which was acceptable during the Jim Crow lynchings was suddenly not acceptable anymore.  Militarism also faded.  The habit of dominant western powers to start wars against other major powers at every opportunity faded.  The Information Age caused profound shifts which followers of S&H have commonly ignored.  Turnings are just held in more regard than ages here.  Too much regard is held to the common patterns of the old age continuing on in the new.

Nuclear weapons have made world wars between major powers obsolete, and yet wars are still very common.

Quote:I am just wondering if the current blue tactics are wise.  If the issues are going to be resolved without crisis level violence, why antagonize the voters needed?  Why not be civil?  Why close the ears of the middle of the country?  Why spew hate that walks right into their defenses, and cases them to lock down a rejection of the coasts?  Why go crazy emotionally when all one needs is clear enough logic and self interest?

Or so thinks this INTP.

It is simply not productive.

Thinks this INTP, it does not appear that logic and self-interest have much bearing on the voting habits of Republicans. I don't think the blue side is spewing hate. Calling the red side on its hate and lies is called for. We can hope some independent voters can respond to fact, logic, and self interest that depends on community interest. So the blues keep putting it out.

The blues are much more civil than the reds, but people are human and need sometimes to hit back when struck. One has to make allowances; we humans are still too primitive to expect sainthood from them. There will always be a few who lash out, like antifa is accused of doing, especially if democratic channels are closed, as the reds are trying to accomplish. We can't let the red paint all the blues as antifa. We can't let the reds get away with their lies and hate; the power of Trump and his rallies and those like him is too powerful to ignore. Once he gets his crowd going, a monster is released, not unlike those released by Hitler and Mussolini. We can't underestimate the power of the hate on the other side. We can respond as Dr. King asked, if we can. It's not easy to do. And Dr. King did not fail to respond to his enemies and critics with the stark realities and the facts. It's going to take a great mobilization to defeat the red side. That's job one in this 4T. And part of that is motivation by pointing out how dangerous the other side is. Both sides do it; it's part of the election game now, along with the money race.