Fighting The Fourth Reich

[pbrower2a]

(08-25-2017, 11:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-25-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have a diagnosis. It is not mental illness, but it is impairment. It is Asperger's.

A self-diagnosis is worth the paper the medical records surrounding it are written on.  Meaning nothing since self-diagnoses are often not written.  I have dealt with that many times as my mother has a tendency to read WebMD and conclude he has whatever she's reading about.  And she's an RN so she really has no excuse for this behavior.

I got the diagnosis from a professional. I was surpised, but I was also convinced.

Quote:

Quote:I have seen some of the literature, and it describes me well.

Reading some literature and making a self-diagnosis or being told you may have X by someone unqualified to make that diagnosis is not the same as having a diagnosis.

The literature confirms the diagnosis and explains much.

Quote:

Quote:I could be in a cloud about reality because (1) I was likely to treat my anxiety (it goes with the territory) as normal because I cannot imagine living without anxiety, (2) I was likely to fault myself, and (3) I was in a family which thought any interaction with professionals in mental health a great shame. "Jewish science" or something like that.

1.  Everyone has anxiety about something.
2.  This is an obvious untruth since after interacting with you for years I know your tendency to blame society, your parents, and any other manner of outside persons than yourself.
3.  Demonstrates how your "2" is untrue.  You've been an adult for the last half century, 4 decades at any rate.  If you thought you had some sort of mental illness, impairment or disability you could have gone and got it diagnosed by a professional capable of making that diagnosis at any time.  Or did it never occur to you that shame is externally imposed.

Every healthy person has some tendencies. Everybody is a little paranoid, schizophrenic, bipolar, ADHD, etc. ... or he has some big problem.

Quote:

Quote:I have a handicap. It is simply not as visible as needing a wheelchair for mobility or to need a service animal to compensate for blindness. It is no less real. It is not mental illness to the extent that I have impaired intellect or delusional thought.

You do, but it isn't Asperger's.  For two main reasons:

1.  Asperger's is not recognized by the DSM.
2.  It conveniently manifests suddenly after your parents have died and you can no longer realistically blame them for all your problems.

As such I concluded long ago that your disability is an inability to accept responsibility for your own failings.  Is this a spectrum disorder?  No.  Is this a mental illness?  No.  What it is, is a character flaw.

People get disability benefits for it. Of course I would rather have paid work... but if I got industrial work I would be an industrial accident waiting to happen.I do not have the temperament for most office work. Retail sales? Misfit because I could seem creepy for asking too many questions instead of reading body language.
 

Quote:

Quote:I could never use Asperger's as a mitigating factor in a criminal judgment

You couldn't use blindness, or paralysis as a mitigating factor in a criminal judgement either.

Low intelligence, permanent delusion...

Quote:

Quote:(so what. Someone with Asperger's can get help in seeking employment under ADA and getting suitable accommodation. There are jobs for which someone with Asperger's can be well suited. Those must recognize our inadequacies in understanding non-verbal communications.

Some reason I don't think you "recognized" this symptom until you read it somewhere in the associated literature.

"This is Asperger's... this is Asperger's", says the clinical psychologist in a screening. I had gone to a session with the expectation of a residential stay for a couple days. The clinic made clear that I did not want to be there. Patients there for treatment for drugs or alcohol would hate me. I might leave the next morning to find my car trashed.

I have lived with Asperger's and not known that I had it.  Some people did see keys to it in my writing in other Forums.

Quote:

Quote:I have an anxiety disorder; it goes with the territory. I could never figure that one out because I saw nothing abnormal. But anxiety can cripple one. I am one of the few people who has gone to a therapist and been told that I can have a drink to deal with anxiety. This is in a clinic that deals heavily with people with substance disorders. (An irony: I am harshly judgmental about drugs and alcoholism. One characteristic of Asperger's is that we who have it almost never have problems with addiction). 

Just about everyone has some sort of problem with anxiety.  I largely link it to humans having brains suited for hunting and gathering in an information age society.  Our biology has yet to catch up to our culture.  But I do notice that this councilor never once mentioned that you might have a spectrum disorder.  And certainly if he thought you might have one he could order testing for it.  Of course in a clinic that deals with substance disorders they may not even think to look for such a thing, but the fact that you didn't even bother to get a second opinion on your self-diagnosis is telling.

I got several months of therapy, some of it intended to reduce the rigidity of my patterns of thought. I asked how I was progressing... and I have been doing better. 

Quote:

Quote:Kinser, you either have little empathy (I know your posting habits, and you have stood for ideologies well suited to sociopathic personalities) or you fail to understand me.

I understand you all too well.  I'm assuming that you are using the English language the same way every other English speaker uses it.  Or if you say the sky is blue do you really mean it is polka dotted?

As for my empathy or lack of it.  I have plenty of empathy.  You're just not in my tribe so there is little reason for me to have any for you.  The only difference between me and others is that I'm honest about the limitations of my empathy.

You were a Stalinist in the predecessor Forum before you became a supporter of Donald Trump. You are a True Believer, and except that you are gay and black, you would be a candidate for KKK membership.

I did not choose to have Asperger's. I can imagine far worse. Without Asperger's I would have a much better life.

As for empathy based upon some tribal loyalty -- I have no idea of what 'tribe' I would want to identify.

[Kinser79]

(08-25-2017, 03:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I got the diagnosis from a professional. I was surpised, but I was also convinced.

Unless you went to a psychologist, and he conducted extensive tests, then you do not have a diognosis.  There is a reason why diognostic tests are conducted.  To confirm a hypothesis that one has a condition.

Quote:The literature confirms the diagnosis and explains much.

I'm sure that the literature explains much, but it cannot confirm a diagnosis.  Otherwise my mother would contract Lyme disease or bipolar disorder, or some sort of off the wall cancer every time she goes to WebMD.

Diagnostic tests administrated by a psychologist and literature are NOT the same.

Quote:Every healthy person has some tendencies. Everybody is a little paranoid, schizophrenic, bipolar, ADHD, etc. ... or he has some big problem.

Everyone has some tendencies.  Depression, mania, paranoia yes.  Schizophrenia not so much.  ADD/ADHD doesn't even exist.

https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-Does-Not-Exi...+not+exist  

Quote:People get disability benefits for it.

That doesn't mean shit.  I have a cousin who is supposedly disabled (he claims to be down in his back), but amazingly he has no problem doing anything he decides he wants to do.  Well except work that is.  That some people have used an unrecognized "disorder" to scam the welfare state is not evidence you have that disorder, or any other disorder.

Quote:Of course I would rather have paid work... but if I got industrial work I would be an industrial accident waiting to happen.I do not have the temperament for most office work. Retail sales? Misfit because I could seem creepy for asking too many questions instead of reading body language.

Being utterly useless does not mean you have a spectrum disorder either.  Indeed, you say you can't do most office work, or retail sales.  Yet, I know that at least for some time you were a substitute teacher.  Granted that isn't exactly productive but I'm not buying it that you are so worthless as a human being as to actually be completely unemployable.


Indeed, having several autistic people under my employ, a donut finisher and a kitchen porter, I rather consider it insulting to them that you'd make such claims.  You'd be surprised how some with autism who have a great attention to detail are absolutely perfect for overnight donut finishing.  They don't require interaction, and often shun it, and their attention to detail results in nearly perfect donut decorating.  As for my kitchen porter he can fix an oven with chicken wire and bubble gum even if he finds discussing the latest workplace gossip excruciating.
 

Quote:Low intelligence, permanent delusion...

Neither of which are the case with high functioning autism.

Quote:"This is Asperger's... this is Asperger's", says the clinical psychologist in a screening. I had gone to a session with the expectation of a residential stay for a couple days. The clinic made clear that I did not want to be there. Patients there for treatment for drugs or alcohol would hate me. I might leave the next morning to find my car trashed.

I have lived with Asperger's and not known that I had it.  Some people did see keys to it in my writing in other Forums.

No you basically spoke with a social worker since you went to a substance abuse treatment facility.  Drug addicts and alcoholics are not mentally ill and thus do not need a psychologist.  Furthermore, if this social worker did suspect Asperger's (which is not recognized in the DSM--and that is vitally important as it is practically the bible for the psychiatric industry) then you should have been referred to someone who specialized in spectrum disorders.

The only thing I've been able to tell about your psychology on the basis of forum posts is that you refuse to take responsibility for your life being shit.  It is expected in children, and very young adults.  It makes you look like, and be, a loser in older adults.  And being a loser and having autism are not the same thing.  

Quote:I got several months of therapy, some of it intended to reduce the rigidity of my patterns of thought. I asked how I was progressing... and I have been doing better. 

If you're using the word "therapy" to describe the classical talk therapy then that isn't the correct treatment usually used to treat adults with spectrum disorders.  Typically cognitive-behavoral therapies are used.

I found this after a two minute googling:

https://www.verywell.com/treatments-for-...ome-259901

Quote:You were a Stalinist in the predecessor Forum before you became a supporter of Donald Trump. You are a True Believer, and except that you are gay and black, you would be a candidate for KKK membership.

I doubt I would join the KKK.  Not that they even really have a presence anymore. And yes, I support Daddy.  But I was prepared to vote for any Republican over Hillary, even low energy Jeb! Bush.

Quote:I did not choose to have Asperger's. I can imagine far worse. Without Asperger's I would have a much better life.

Not quite.  You've basically failed at life, so in flailing around to find an excuse since your dead parents can't be realistically blamed you glommed onto a disorder which isn't even recognized.  In your case you did choose.  In the case of my employees, they did not.

Quote:As for empathy based upon some tribal loyalty -- I have no idea of what 'tribe' I would want to identify.

A better question should be what tribe would even want you.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2017, 03:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-25-2017, 02:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: On Whig ideas.  Are king’s powers diminished?  Are slaves freed?  Are human rights spreading?  Have robber baron’s increased their power at the expense of aristocratic landowners?  If you look at S&H crises in the Anglo American sequence over the last 500 years or so, can you not often find a progressive faction, advocating one or more of these ideas, and moving on to ‘win’ the crisis?

Do you not realize that if Britain had stuck through the war instead of growing tired of fighting the colonials that there would have been no United States.  That the revered founding fathers would have been hanged like traitors.  Do you not realize that had the South succeeded in defeated the North not only would none of the slaves been freed, but that the country would be split in twain.  Do you not realize that had there not been WW2 people would have eventually grown tired of the ineffective New Deal.  

It is after the 4T is won, by someone, that who is and who is not progressive is determined.  History as ever, is written by the victors.

The twist I'm interested in here is in how we go about proving our values. I quote history. You create a bunch of alternate histories that never happened. I agree that history is written by the victors. It's just that the victors are generally attempting to enable the new economy and technology, and support human rights, equality and democracy. There are reasons why the real history books, those written by the real victors, lean Wiggish. I expect in the long run this will continue.

This does not make it ideal not to remember what has been best over the past. The real one, I mean, not your imaginary past.

[pbrower2a]

(08-25-2017, 06:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Put. Down. The. Savage. Nation.

I wrote that because The Savage believes ASD is a "bogus" affliction. Sad that a PhD would think that. You seem to really not want to "let" anyone have ASD and you want to go back to the way things were 50 years ago in this regard. Back then, only low functioning were Dx'ed and all others were crammed into buckets besides ASD. What the hell dog do you have in this hunt anyway?

Thank you. I have drifted along in horrible jobs that wasted my talents and bared my weaknesses, the latter relating to Asperger's syndrome.  Considering all that went wrong with my life, it is a surprise that I did not become the angry Commie.

The problem wasn't that I was lazy, for I could work like a fiend. So I didn't like heavy physical work? Who does? People do it only for the money. It is often dangerous, and it slowly tears a body apart. Not being a drinker or smoker, and having grandparents who lived to 82, 82, 86, and 67 (the latter a diabetic with bad habits for a diabetic, like baking lots of pies and sampling them)  I did not want a wrecked body.   The problem wasn't dishonesty. If anything I was too bluntly honest. I did office politics badly. I talked about things that co-workers didn't give a damn about. Nightclubs? I thought that I needed a good night's sleep. I thought that the fault was that I wasn't a conformist enough until I found that all along I had been acting as if on stage to seem normal and let my slip-ups seem like eccentricity.

It was a nightmare. I threw away great potential for no obvious benefit to myself, my family, or society in general. I had little satisfaction on the job until I did substitute school teaching which hides some of my weaknesses and allows me to enforce some conformity (as in, this is a G-rated environment and not South Park).

I simply got horrible vocational advice from people who cared about me. I regret what I lost -- and what they lost.

I have a cousin who is a classic sociopath. He got a great job (accountant) as a sociopath, and what did he do? He embezzled the hospital he worked for! He made great pay before embezzling. He married a floozy  (like attracts like) who spent so much that their home was a predictable stop for UPS and FedEx drivers. He borrowed money from relatives and declared bankruptcy. I can imagine what I would have done with such pay as an accountant. I'm frugal about status symbols and other wastes of money, but I would have seen much more of the world (which is all that I envy about the rich -- not their mansions, yachts, over-priced cars and jewelry, furs, and the like; I would rather have savings and investments, thank you!) . I would have ensured that my parents got to go to Europe and the Far East. I am sure that my father would have loved to have seen how South Korea developed from a country rivaling India in poverty to a country with living conditions typical of western Europe). I would have helped several relatives attend college. I would probably have a satisfying marital life instead of being a frustrated single. If I knew about the Asperger's my wife and I would have probably adopted.



To this insult from Kinser:

Quote:A better question should be what tribe would even want you.

Tribal societies are usually inefficient and backward. The defense of tribalism within a community is that that community is that it seems in constant risk of assimilation by people who like the culture but will not live it (I will not name names) or because that community is at risk from abuse, humiliation, or degradation. An extreme example of tribalism is by white nationalists afraid that white 'culture' (whatever that is) is under threat by assimilation of white people into 'non-white' cultures.

(Obviously there is no such thing as 'white culture'; Russians and Irish are very different in culture; you would never confuse Portuguese and Finnish culture, or Hungarian and Iranian culture.  Kinser could probably tell me of some black fellow who loves J S Bach).

The threats to white separatists are obvious enough. It is not the street tough of the ghetto.  The few interactions that such people have with white people are in either crime, the criminal justice system, or the penal system. No, it is in part Asian and Hispanic cultures that have much to offer people who have few cultural ties to anything. The more blatant menace to the preservation of the 'purity' of the white race is....

the Talented Tenth. That is black people who achieve something legitimate that attracts attention among non-blacks. They can attract white people with similar abilities and dreams to join them in shared cultural, academic, political, and economic activities. That often leads to more intimate activities such as family formation.

The white partner in such a situation is assimilated into the 'black' race. The children will be identified as black. White separatists can hardly think of anything scarier -- even thermonuclear warfare. Now that is tribalism!

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2017, 02:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-25-2017, 11:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for my empathy or lack of it.  I have plenty of empathy.  You're just not in my tribe so there is little reason for me to have any for you.  The only difference between me and others is that I'm honest about the limitations of my empathy.

I’ve had exchanges with other contributors.  During those exchanges, I collected a list of words that includes insane, stupid, brainwashed and evil, among others.  All these words label one as nigh on subhuman with a dysfunctional brain.  All of these words can dismiss what the other person is thinking, proposing or proclaiming.

It’s not just forum contributors that might exchange these words.  Partisan publications such as Breitbart and The Atlantic might attract them too.  They can be associated with an extreme partisan, a pundit, a politician, an editor, whatever.  If you are an extreme partisan, if you cling to a particular way of looking at the world, you often have to reject the opposite.  Words like insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc… are handy go to concepts in such a case.  Eric’s ‘insane’ label will be attached to anyone who disagrees with him on gun policy.  Kinser threw such words at a blue tainted list of magazines.  It’s common.

I’ve been trying to strive for and advocate the opposite.  Major world views generally came about for solid reasons.  In places, and cultures such reasons are still valid, well regarded and taught at a core value level.  People hold and defend such world views with conviction, integrity and thought.  In general, one would say there is no reason to think one who holds such a world view, who seeks the corresponding values, is insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc…

And yet, it is hardly surprising to hear someone suggest that if you read X magazine, if you profess a certain idea, that list is apt to come out.

Sometimes this is done in a sort of civil well thought out way.  Other times, the winner is thought to be he who types the most obnoxious insult soonest.  I don’t know that the insults are overly constructive.  I do know that if the other guy appears insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil etc…  reaching for the insult is tempting to irresistible.  Hopefully, there are enough people hurling insults that a few skipping the exercise sometimes won’t be missed.

But back to serious people.  If one professes, expresses, respects both both of the extreme partisan symptoms,  and the two systems conflict, what gives?  Or more likely, if one is heavily into a single system, what gives?

Occasionally it is up stated front.  Eric doesn’t read anything from the NRA.  Kinser claims a lack of empathy.  If one explicitly throws out part of the other guy’s world view, what the heck, it’s gone for the person throwing away.  At the values level, I cannot force Eric to acknowledge what he doesn’t want to hear.  I can’t force Kinser to feel for people he doesn’t feel for.  There is a sometimes appreciation, at least on my part, for those who can be brutally honest in admitting their limitations.

But this does not imply Eric speaks for all blues, nor Kinser for all reds.  It’s tempting so say so.  A lot of people regarding the gun policy question are just not listening.  A lot of red are uninterested in helping others.  It is tempting to take the brutal admission and honesty of a few and apply the ideas behind it to the many.

Now, my own values have been questioned.  I would like to say my values put science first, that any idea has to be double checked against reality.  I would put political thought second, leaning left, Whig in most to all ways, fond of the ideas of the Enlightenment.  I’ll pick up odds and ends from various religions, but often won’t claim to be able to apply science in anything like ‘proof’.  I’ll suggest you do as you will and harm none, but not propose and experiment to observe or prove such ideas.

On Whig ideas.  Are king’s powers diminished?  Are slaves freed?  Are human rights spreading?  Have robber baron’s increased their power at the expense of aristocratic landowners?  If you look at S&H crises in the Anglo American sequence over the last 500 years or so, can you not often find a progressive faction, advocating one or more of these ideas, and moving on to ‘win’ the crisis?

But is this universal?  Are these values often European-American, often missing elsewhere?  Thus, are Whig values triumphant in certain places and times, but far less relevant elsewhere?  One counter example of Whig values would be the modern middle east.  The West has shown middle eastern people mostly colonial imperialism.  Have many come to reject all western materialistic values to cling to an old agricultural age religious world view?

And are these questions testable?  Can one examine history and apply the label ‘fact’, or are these political values which have to be labeled ‘opinion’?  Me, I’m a Whig, and I’ll hold Whiggish things to be true with a fierceness similar to anyone else clinging to any partisan viewpoint.  Still, when I observe that kings have less power, Bills of Rights have more, Slaves are free, and the rest, are these things true enough in some historically observable way?

I think so.  Kinser doesn’t.  If he doesn’t care about folks outside his tribe, he seems to try to show that nobody else cares either.  Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!  It never happened?  Take the giant autocratic eraser to history, and change history as one pleases?

I can kinda, sorta, almost respect Kinser’s world view, but am not going to name him expert on everything blue.  To defend his own empathy lite perspective, he has to disparage those who do want to share and care.  To me it seems very clear that a lot of people do care more that he does, have for quite a time, to the extent that the Whig perspective has triumphed and is still thriving.  ‘Whig’ is no longer as popular a word.  Folks have seen one problem solved, and have moved on to the next.  The forces of change are (surprise!) changing.  The words change with it.

But you have to take a partisan’s straw man characterizations of opposing partisans less than fully seriously.  If you want to learn about the blue, ask a blue, not someone whose world view demands that he disparage the blue.  Nor is the above unique to the blue.  In many cases, you can substitute the word red freely.

When a label fits, it is used. The NRA leaders are insane. YOu exaggerate as usual and claim I call anyone who disagrees with me on gun policy "insane." No, I called the NRA insane. The Nazis were insane, The Islamic State is insane, and the current NRA leaders belong in that category. And no, you can't change my mind on that. Don't even try (and you keep trying by comparing me to nitwits like kinser).

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-26-2017, 01:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: When a label fits, it is used. The NRA leaders are insane. You exaggerate as usual and claim I call anyone who disagrees with me on gun policy "insane." No, I called the NRA insane. The Nazis were insane, The Islamic State is insane, and the current NRA leaders belong in that category. And no, you can't change my mind on that. Don't even try (and you keep trying by comparing me to nitwits like kinser).

Well, to start with, both you and Kinser are extreme partisans.  You need to be compared.  To me, 'nitwit' is compatible with 'stupid'.  You're just proving my point.

I also see the old Nazi and current day ISIS as going more extreme tribal thinking.  If someone isn’t of one’s tribe, sure, throw them in a gas chamber, or commit an atrocity against them or perhaps two.  That, alas, is not insanity, a dysfunction, a taking of someone outside of his culture and peer group.  It’s part of the picture.  Many individuals or even whole cultures will behave abnormally according to the standards of a culture they don’t belong to.  ISIS has seen much of the worst of western civilization, and has come to fight wars by atrocity, by trying to make war so horrible that the other side will back down.  This seems their only option, so they take it.  They go all out with a form of ‘religious’ values.  Will I endorse these values?  No.  Hardly.  To me and many they are anathema.  Insane?  No.  They function quite well within their culture.  When a foreign power loads up with guns and explosives and wades into a region with intent to do culture shifting nation building, you had best understand the culture you are wading into.  Why do they hate you?  Why do they distrust what you are proclaiming about your values?  You should not just dismiss it with words like 'insane'.  You should not claim they are not of your tribe so you don't care.  You should make a genuine effort to understand.

The Nazi or jihadist notion of tribal morality is much more extreme than Kinser’s.  Oh, she’s not of my tribe.  Into the gas chamber.  I still don’t like tribal morality.  I feel it’s a step in the wrong direction, whether it’s Hitler’s degree or Kinser’s.  I do approve that Whig progress generally has moved western culture in the other direction.

The NRA?  That a rural culture. With professional police far away one wanting personal protection is understandable.  If you grew up with the founding father's ideals of rights, where they are heading is quite understandable.  Well, understandable to most.  To a partisan extremest with contradicting views, some will start throwing out worlds like ‘insane’.  No.  Again, the NRA leadership are perfectly rational citizens, acting quite functionally within their culture.  I see no reason to start throwing people into asylums.

It’s the extreme partisan wishing to protect a narrow way of looking at things by rejecting opposing thought that’s the problem.

And you aren’t likely to change my mind on that.

[Eric the Green]

(08-26-2017, 04:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 01:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: When a label fits, it is used. The NRA leaders are insane. You exaggerate as usual and claim I call anyone who disagrees with me on gun policy "insane." No, I called the NRA insane. The Nazis were insane, The Islamic State is insane, and the current NRA leaders belong in that category. And no, you can't change my mind on that. Don't even try (and you keep trying by comparing me to nitwits like kinser).

Well, to start with, both you and Kinser are extreme partisans.  You need to be compared.  To me, 'nitwit' is compatible with 'stupid'.  You're just proving my point.

I also see the old Nazi and current day ISIS as going more extreme tribal thinking.  If someone isn’t of one’s tribe, sure, throw them in a gas chamber, or commit an atrocity against them or perhaps two.  That, alas, is not insanity, a dysfunction, a taking of someone outside of his culture and peer group.  It’s part of the picture.  Many individuals or even whole cultures will behave abnormally according to the standards of a culture they don’t belong to.  ISIS has seen much of the worst of western civilization, and has come to fight wars by atrocity, by trying to make war so horrible that the other side will back down.  This seems their only option, so they take it.  They go all out with a form of ‘religious’ values.  Will I endorse these values?  No.  Hardly.  To me and many they are anathema.  Insane?  No.  They function quite well within their culture.  When a foreign power loads up with guns and explosives and wades into a region with intent to do culture shifting nation building, you had best understand the culture you are wading into.  Why do they hate you?  Why do they distrust what you are proclaiming about your values?  You should not just dismiss it with words like 'insane'.  You should not claim they are not of your tribe so you don't care.  You should make a genuine effort to understand.

The Nazi or jihadist notion of tribal morality is much more extreme than Kinser’s.  Oh, she’s not of my tribe.  Into the gas chamber.  I still don’t like tribal morality.  I feel it’s a step in the wrong direction, whether it’s Hitler’s degree or Kinser’s.  I do approve that Whig progress generally has moved western culture in the other direction.

The NRA?  That a rural culture. With professional police far away one wanting personal protection is understandable.  If you grew up with the founding father's ideals of rights, where they are heading is quite understandable.  Well, understandable to most.  To a partisan extremest with contradicting views, some will start throwing out worlds like ‘insane’.  No.  Again, the NRA leadership are perfectly rational citizens, acting quite functionally within their culture.  I see no reason to start throwing people into asylums.

It’s the extreme partisan wishing to protect a narrow way of looking at things by rejecting opposing thought that’s the problem.

And you aren’t likely to change my mind on that.

And you're wrong. The NRA leadership (I don't refer to all the members) is not a culture, it's a commercial lobby lead by creepy insane people who put no value on life or anything else valuable. They should be thrown into asylums, but maybe it's lucky I'm not in charge of that    It's quite amazing to call these creeps a "culture." I don't dignify criminals by calling them a "culture" either, but I suppose you could. To realize that fact about the NRA leadership is not a narrow way of thinking; it is just the truth.

And I stand by my description of kinser (but won't repeat it). He and I are not comparable at all. To compare him to me, or me to him (or in fact ANY discussion of the character or personality other members of this forum) is just the kind of insult that you preach to others to avoid. But you do it yourself, which makes you a hypocrite. Knock it off.

[Kinser79]

(08-25-2017, 07:34 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-25-2017, 03:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-25-2017, 02:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: On Whig ideas.  Are king’s powers diminished?  Are slaves freed?  Are human rights spreading?  Have robber baron’s increased their power at the expense of aristocratic landowners?  If you look at S&H crises in the Anglo American sequence over the last 500 years or so, can you not often find a progressive faction, advocating one or more of these ideas, and moving on to ‘win’ the crisis?

Do you not realize that if Britain had stuck through the war instead of growing tired of fighting the colonials that there would have been no United States.  That the revered founding fathers would have been hanged like traitors.  Do you not realize that had the South succeeded in defeated the North not only would none of the slaves been freed, but that the country would be split in twain.  Do you not realize that had there not been WW2 people would have eventually grown tired of the ineffective New Deal.  

It is after the 4T is won, by someone, that who is and who is not progressive is determined.  History as ever, is written by the victors.

The twist I'm interested in here is in how we go about proving our values.  I quote history.  You create a bunch of alternate histories that never happened.  I agree that history is written by the victors.  It's just that the victors are generally attempting to enable the new economy and technology,  and support human rights, equality and democracy.  There are reasons why the real history books, those written by the real victors, lean Wiggish.  I expect in the long run this will continue.

This does not make it ideal not to remember what has been best over the past.  The real one, I mean, not your imaginary past.

Bob...when it comes to history I find we often don't dispute what happened.  Where we dispute over is why what happened happened in the way it did.  You can call that "alternative" like that is some sort of insult, but I've been "alternative" my whole life.  It is practically a requirement when being in the mainstream practically requires one to be mentally ill.

I do not expect that the left forces will continue your Whiggish path.  They are too far gone, given to authoritarianism, political "correctness", socialism and so forth.  Indeed for them to win would result in a massive step backwards.  Rather, the right will win and a new birth of freedom will likely occur sometime after a massive physical removal of the parasites of the body politic.

It is only after that physical removal that it will be determined which side was the side of progress.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-26-2017, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And you're wrong. The NRA leadership (I don't refer to all the members) is not a culture, it's a commercial lobby lead by creepy insane people who put no value on life or anything else valuable. They should be thrown into asylums, but maybe it's lucky I'm not in charge of that    It's quite amazing to call these creeps a "culture." I don't dignify criminals by calling them a "culture" either, but I suppose you could. To realize that fact about the NRA leadership is not a narrow way of thinking; it is just the truth.

And I stand by my description of kinser (but won't repeat it). He and I are not comparable at all. To compare him to me, or me to him (or in fact ANY discussion of the character or personality other members of this forum) is just the kind of insult that you preach to others to avoid. But you do it yourself, which makes you a hypocrite. Knock it off.

I can kind of agree that one shouldn't be going after character and personality.  However, if one's politics includes calling people 'insane', 'evil', etc... if they move far enough off one's own values and world views, you can't just touch goals and expect not to be tagged back.  Some people would consider the style of partisan politicking you regularly engage in insulting.

And there is a pattern, perhaps a human trait, that those who settle firmly enough into a world view often cannot or will not comprehend or respect one who disagrees.  You and Kinser just make excellent illustrations in that you have both openly admitted it, in very different ways of course.  Declaring someone insane is very different from saying one is not of one's tribe.  Still, both enable one to demonize and dehumanize.  I think we've enough of demonize and dehumanize.  Of course, you two are hardly the only parties that play that game.  I would expect any with a strong world view, and that's just about everyone who contributes here, to be pulled in to one degree or another.  Most just do not see it or admit it so openly and blatantly.

Me, I don't consider Kinser to be a nitwit, for example.  I find him extremely intelligent and articulate, though his selective empathy is of course problematic.  In the same way, I don't find the NRA leadership 'creepy'.  That sounds like an extreme partisan, going beyond politics, attacking character and personality, blatantly using insult.  They less are a culture than the products of a culture.  They value rights including self defense.  The come from a place where self reliance has worked better than waiting for a generally late and often not understanding government.  You come from a different place and have different expectations, but that doesn't justify insulting personal generalizations of character and personality.

[Kinser79]

(08-25-2017, 11:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: To this insult from Kinser:

Quote:A better question should be what tribe would even want you.

Tribal societies are usually inefficient and backward.

You do realize that you just said that every society is thus inefficient and backward.  Every society is based around a tribe of some sort.  In America we call that Tribe Americans.  The nation-state is nothing more than the tribe taken to its logical end point.  And why do people organize themselves into tribes of individuals of similar ideological, and often biological similarities?  Because it is efficient.  There is sociological evidence that "diversity" actually leads to greater atomization, greater cocooning behavior, and less efficiency.

I won't bother with the first half of your post as you're really just sucking up to a paranoid schizoid, seriously Alphabet has publicly claimed that Vladimir Putin somehow mind controlled the population into electing a NATIONALIST president.  The only thing keeping him from being obviously insane is I doubt he's started telling folks that the FSB is broadcasting into his dental work yet.  And the rest is simply you attempting to call a queer nigger former communist a white nationalist. 

The former is pathetic, even for you--and that's pretty pathetic, the latter is simply retarded.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-26-2017, 02:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The former is pathetic, even for you--and that's pretty pathetic, the latter is simply retarded.

Oh, dear.  And I just tried to use "intelligent and articulate".  

[Kinser79]

(08-26-2017, 02:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The former is pathetic, even for you--and that's pretty pathetic, the latter is simply retarded.

Oh, dear.  And I just tried to use "intelligent and articulate".  

Calling me "articulate" could be considered an insult, Bob.  Tell me have you ever referred to a white person as "articulate"?  

At most people might be able to criticize my style of delivery.  It is something I've heard before though.  But I have little time for flowery language and have always preferred honesty.  Unfortunately honesty is often brutal, just like medicine often tastes like shit.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-26-2017, 02:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob...when it comes to history I find we often don't dispute what happened.  Where we dispute over is why what happened happened in the way it did.  You can call that "alternative" like that is some sort of insult, but I've been "alternative" my whole life.  It is practically a requirement when being in the mainstream practically requires one to be mentally ill.

I do not expect that the left forces will continue your Whiggish path.  They are too far gone, given to authoritarianism, political "correctness", socialism and so forth.  Indeed for them to win would result in a massive step backwards.  Rather, the right will win and a new birth of freedom will likely occur sometime after a massive physical removal of the parasites of the body politic.

It is only after that physical removal that it will be determined which side was the side of progress.

I don't see it that way. 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. That came to a greater extent after the Berlin Wall fell. 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? You can change definitions of words and twist the facts, but the borders were drawn essentially where the armies stopped. Not that it mattered. No matter when the invasions and occupations started and stopped, there was a need for containment recognized and a peace dividend delayed.

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.

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.

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

Technology is destroying good jobs. Energy and global warming together look to create a significant problem. 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?

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.

And as long as the see saw is still there, so long as the elites can milk money and power from the old pattern, the Whig values are on hold, suspended by the cycles. No regeneracy. No new transformed culture. No victors. No new history books. I do see the above problems as coming to a head eventually however, with immigration / migration waiting to join them. Depending on economics and climate, folks will want to move.

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.

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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-26-2017, 02:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The former is pathetic, even for you--and that's pretty pathetic, the latter is simply retarded.

Oh, dear.  And I just tried to use "intelligent and articulate".  

Calling me "articulate" could be considered an insult, Bob.  Tell me have you ever referred to a white person as "articulate"?  

At most people might be able to criticize my style of delivery.  It is something I've heard before though.  But I have little time for flowery language and have always preferred honesty.  Unfortunately honesty is often brutal, just like medicine often tastes like shit.

For "intelligent and articulate", see post 55 to Eric above, paragraph 3.  I fear I also denied that you were a nitwit.  Hopefully that isn't an insult too? 

I fear I don't consider black and homosexual stereotypes as overly relevant.  I've lots of other tendencies resulting from prior exchanges, sure.

[pbrower2a]

(08-26-2017, 04:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 01:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: When a label fits, it is used. The NRA leaders are insane. You exaggerate as usual and claim I call anyone who disagrees with me on gun policy "insane." No, I called the NRA insane. The Nazis were insane, The Islamic State is insane, and the current NRA leaders belong in that category. And no, you can't change my mind on that. Don't even try (and you keep trying by comparing me to nitwits like kinser).

Well, to start with, both you and Kinser are extreme partisans.  You need to be compared.  To me, 'nitwit' is compatible with 'stupid'.  You're just proving my point.

Eric is less extreme. Kinser is Eric Hoffer's True Believer.  He has gone from being a Stalinist to being a fanatical supporter of President Trump. Political sobriety is not his way.

There are many ways that I can imagine having gone, including conversions to religions very different in their philosophical foundations from what I grew up with. So imagine me as a Buddhist, as I toyed with it in my thirties. It seemed to offer plenty of solutions.

You can't imagine me in Aum Shinrikyo, can you?  

Quote:I also see the old Nazi and current day ISIS as going more extreme tribal thinking.  If someone isn’t of one’s tribe, sure, throw them in a gas chamber, or commit an atrocity against them or perhaps two.  That, alas, is not insanity, a dysfunction, a taking of someone outside of his culture and peer group.  It’s part of the picture.

Fervent belief, but empty of principle. There are causes like that -- the KKK, neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, ISIS, Kahane Chai, many Marxist-Leninist movements, and even some feminist movements best described as "female chauvinist". People have gone from being Nazis to being Communists and vice-versa suddenly and without obvious reason for doing so.

A sane cause says "I don't want you" to people with violent proclivities. A brutal cause needs its toughs. If you wonder what happened to the rank-and-file members of such causes as the Ustase, Hlinka Guard, Arrow Cross, and Iron Guard ... many became the muscle behind Commie regimes.  

Quote:  Many individuals or even whole cultures will behave abnormally according to the standards of a culture they don’t belong to.  ISIS has seen much of the worst of western civilization,

No question -- there is much that is wrong in Western syphilis -- excuse me -- civilization (apology to Bertholt Brecht on that one, I believe). We don't need to defend the strip clubs, casinos, loan-sharking, and porno palaces. We need not defend the ethos of every man for himself. To defend the worst requires that one abandon any claim to any moral high road.

Quote:and [ISIS] has come to fight wars by atrocity, by trying to make war so horrible that the other side will back down.  This seems their only option, so they take it.  They go all out with a form of ‘religious’ values.  Will I endorse these values?  No.  Hardly.  To me and many they are anathema.  Insane?  No.  They function quite well within their culture.  When a foreign power loads up with guns and explosives and wades into a region with intent to do culture shifting nation building, you had best understand the culture you are wading into.  Why do they hate you?  Why do they distrust what you are proclaiming about your values?  You should not just dismiss it with words like 'insane'.  You should not claim they are not of your tribe so you don't care.  You should make a genuine effort to understand.

Comply or die -- the usual stark command of the extremist and fanatic, whatever the philosophic or religious garb. But we Americans expect to shape the local expression of Islam to fit our values, and look what happens.

Quote:The Nazi or jihadist notion of tribal morality is much more extreme than Kinser’s.  Oh, she’s not of my tribe.  Into the gas chamber.  I still don’t like tribal morality.  I feel it’s a step in the wrong direction, whether it’s Hitler’s degree or Kinser’s.  I do approve that Whig progress generally has moved western culture in the other direction.

If the method of achieving an end is inhumane, it is time to examine whether the methods are apt. 

So here is some fanatical logic.

The key to salvation is being baptized in the Catholic Church and remaining true to the Faith throughout one's life.
The alternative to salvation is damnation to horrors far worse than any upon Earth.
Recalcitrant parents refuse to have their children baptized, or if their children are baptized the children will again come under the 'pernicious' influence of their parents and revert to paganism.
So take the child, baptize the child, then promptly kill the child so that it be saved!

(The Catholic Church now renounces this).

Were I a missionary I would try to convert by example. Where there is cowardice, show courage. Where there is ignorance, show learning. Where there is cruelty, show kindness. Where there is doubt, show resolve.  Where there is madness show reason. When war looms, suggest a just peace. Then and only then do I try to sell my religion.  

Quote:The NRA?  That a rural culture. With professional police far away one wanting personal protection is understandable.  If you grew up with the founding father's ideals of rights, where they are heading is quite understandable.  Well, understandable to most.  To a partisan extremest with contradicting views, some will start throwing out worlds like ‘insane’.  No.  Again, the NRA leadership are perfectly rational citizens, acting quite functionally within their culture.  I see no reason to start throwing people into asylums.

The best protection is general human goodness.  We need to promote that, and political leaders who push an ethos of every-man-for-himself creates a climate of fear of bad guys lurking everywhere.

Let's not deny that guns are a way of life and a part of some cultures. We must accept the reality of sport hunting. Tough luck, deer!

That people fear street crime reflects the perception of street crime as a clear and present danger. I have seen a drug deal near a hospital. A child born in that hospital's maternity ward is in danger leaving with loving parents should the drug deal go bad. It's not the parents' fault. It's the drug activity.  

Quote:It’s the extreme partisan wishing to protect a narrow way of looking at things by rejecting opposing thought that’s the problem.

Some opposing thought needs to be challenged. Is there a valid scientific defense of young-earth creationism or a moral defense of pedophilia? Some ideas are either stupid, absurd, destructive, or cruel. 3 + 5 = 8 has been settled for as long as there has been any record-keeping.

[Eric the Green]

The NRA leaders are insane. I am not especially interested in distinguishing them from Nazis, although they are different. Insane is a diagnosis, correct in my view, of the NRA leaders. They are unworthy of mine or anyone's attention. They are not a rural culture. They are a commercial lobby without principle, promoting violence, and alien to life or its values.

We can study and seek to understand why folks join the IS, or Nazis, or the KKK, or the NRA. That's perfectly reasonable, and I have. I have read about Hitler; I know about the NRA. Violent means are not the only means of dealing with these folks, although it appears also to be necessary with regard to Nazis and the IS. I don't equate the NRA leaders with a rural gun culture, or with the entire NRA membership. Many rational folks are members, even Gabby Giffords and Terry McAuliffe. Bob is perfectly free to expound his views on guns, and we have discussed his views and mine ad infinitum. I don't especially feel the need to beat dead horses and argue indefinitely. It doesn't mean I disparage him or others from expressing their views. They can relate the views of the NRA to their heart's content. No need for me to read or listen to those anymore. It's up to them if they wish to change. Prove to me that they have, and I'll listen. They have not.

[pbrower2a]

(08-27-2017, 12:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The NRA leaders are insane. I am not especially interested in distinguishing them from Nazis, although they are different. Insane is a diagnosis, correct in my view, of the NRA leaders. They are unworthy of mine or anyone's attention. They are not a rural culture. They are a commercial lobby without principle, promoting violence, and alien to life or its values.

The NRA is in fact a corporate advocacy group with the sponsorship of the businesses that manufacture of weapons and ammunition. Those interests have a desire that they can sell as many of their wares as possible. Supposedly the criminals using guns are not their friends, but people obsessed with having their own arsenals (which is crazy) are a target audience.

The rank-and-file NRA membership is heavily hunters scared into believing that the Big Bad Obama-monster wants to take away their hunting rifles. Truth be told, those are the last people that anyone wants to take guns from. Those are generally well-behaved people as intent on preserving an environment suitable for the survival of game as for protecting their 'gun rights'. If anyone thinks that there is some great Commie plot to take away weapons -- the Soviet Union had permissive gun laws. It had a culture of sport hunting that it considered compatible with 'socialism'.

Quote:We can study and seek to understand why folks join the IS, or Nazis, or the KKK, or the NRA. That's perfectly reasonable, and I have. I have read about Hitler; I know about the NRA. Violent means are not the only means of dealing with these folks, although it appears also to be necessary with regard to Nazis and the IS.

With the NRA, one needs but understand the economic interests of the gun business. If it could get away with mandating that everyone have a firearm and ammo, it would push that.

With ISIS or the Nazis one needs understand evil. The evil people must hide their reality. No swindler begins with the pitch: "I am going to fleece you". To the contrary, the swindler offers "Do I have a deal for you!" Normal business offers "This is what I have and this is what it will cost you. We think this is a great deal for you".

Evil has to offer something -- easy gain, satisfaction of repressed impulses, excitement, quick and easy bliss, pageantry, and of course meaning in life. If the Germans had known that Nazism would bring them great shame and personal loss they would have rejected it. Hitler never promised that youth of the time would become cannon fodder in an insane war, that people who had done nothing wrong would be killed in cold blood, that the US Army Air Corps and Royal Air Force would turn large cities into places of mass death and destruction, that the Soviet army would rape German women in revenge, or that by 1946 the most shameful national label would be "German".  Oh, yes -- and that life would often be reduced to primitive existence. by 1946 the Germans would have surely wanted to undo it all. But in 1936 -- how proud Germans were of themselves as the Master Race!

A basic rule applies: you cannot rightly deal in what someone else owns unless one has the consent of that person (as in a brokerage agreement).

Quote:I don't equate the NRA leaders with a rural gun culture, or with the entire NRA membership. Many rational folks are members, even Gabby Giffords and Terry McAuliffe. Bob is perfectly free to expound his views on guns, and we have discussed his views and mine ad infinitum. I don't especially feel the need to beat dead horses and argue indefinitely. It doesn't mean I disparage him or others from expressing their views. They can relate the views of the NRA to their heart's content. No need for me to read or listen to those anymore. It's up to them if they wish to change. Prove to me that they have, and I'll listen. They have not.

Gun ownership satisfies some primal urge and allays some primitive fears. We all dread crime... and I can give anyone an example of a circumstance in which one might want a loaded gun. Too bad about the nice clothing of your eleven-year-old daughter and that she has to watch a would-be rapist die.

I think that it is best that we try to improve ourselves as a people.

[Kinser79]

(08-26-2017, 03:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The former is pathetic, even for you--and that's pretty pathetic, the latter is simply retarded.

Oh, dear.  And I just tried to use "intelligent and articulate".  

Calling me "articulate" could be considered an insult, Bob.  Tell me have you ever referred to a white person as "articulate"?  

At most people might be able to criticize my style of delivery.  It is something I've heard before though.  But I have little time for flowery language and have always preferred honesty.  Unfortunately honesty is often brutal, just like medicine often tastes like shit.

For "intelligent and articulate", see post 55 to Eric above, paragraph 3.  I fear I also denied that you were a nitwit.  Hopefully that isn't an insult too? 

I fear I don't consider black and homosexual stereotypes as overly relevant.  I've lots of other tendencies resulting from prior exchanges, sure.

I take it then that you missed the emoji.  I was making a tongue in cheek reference to a thread some months ago where I railed against calling a black man "articulate" and praising him with the phrase "speaks so well".  And how that isn't a compliment.

Myself, I consider the black and homosexual identity very relevant.  I don't have the luxury of forgetting I'm black, be it from neo-nazi types or leftist-identitarian types.  The only difference between those two is the former hates me for what I am, the latter for who I am.  The same is true on the homosexual front.  Nothing is more triggering for those who try to pass themselves off as liberal/progressive these days as a nigger faggot who has the wrong opinions.

Being hated for who you are is infinitely worse than being hated for what you are.

[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.

[Bob Butler 54]

Kinser

I’ve generally found that people will make predictions that reflect their values. The one question is whether the predictions are really predictions or dogma. Do you change the theory to reflect reality, or try to alter one’s view of reality to confirm the theory. For example, the West with its capitalist leaning theories have tended to favor a free press, where the East with its Communist theory favored censorship and propaganda. That is one way to measure the worth of a system, whether it is close enough to scientific to embrace reality, or whether you need to deny reality.

In some ways it might be better to make predictions that can be measured rather than empty political assumptions? I think we’ve laid out a number of differences. I think the next question to ask is what is really happening.

The global warming alarmists have their science. I’ve dabbled a bit. The Arctic ice is melting. Historically, when the Arctic goes, the Antarctic follows. With less light being reflected off ice, there is a large temperature jump up with associated extinctions and the like. The denialists of course disagree. For me, the key is the Arctic. If what is happening continues to happen, there will be a political kickback at some point. Reality should hopefully play a large role in this.

And, sure, there have been other climate shifts in the past, but none have opened the northwest passage in historical times. None have melted this much ice. None have begun to approach the current extinction rate. Partisanship will effect your blinders. This one is too big.

A lot of predictions of revolutions and civil wars have been flying around. If you buy into fixed clockwork S&H and that Industrial Age patterns will still persist, another might be due. I’d recommend that instead of blindly predicting violence, one should watch the spirals of violence carefully. Is there a spiral building? Around what issues? There are wars and rumors of wars, true enough. When has there not been? However, domestically we seem stuck in a mode where most to all of the violence is blamed on lone nuts. I’ve been watching for groups to organize violent actions such that they are ready to strike again, and which attract popular support. With infiltration doctrine and a well organized police, popular repeated up scale violence won’t be easy. I’m watching for it to become real. Thus far the major factions don’t seem to be making it real.

One problem may be division of wealth. No doubt is exists. The question is… so what?

A more pertinent question is how many are being pushed below the poverty level. How many will convince themselves that something must change. Domestically, economically, this rather obvious reason for civil war or revolution has not gone critical. It seems one of the things that ought to be watched, though. However, with the see saw running as it has, why go violent if one just has to wait a few years for a very likely paradigm swap?

It is one thing to make predictions according to one’s extreme partisan values. We all can. Pretty much all of us here do. It is another to watch the trends, to accurately judge where we are, and what happens soon.

It may well be that we’ll have the technology for a soft landing into a post scarcity world. I’m just saying I’m seeing more fracking than thorium reactors in the real world. I’m sympathetic that we might in time go nuclear. The question is whether the elites currently profiting off fossil fuel will be greedy enough to prevent any soft landing. Will the current fear of nuclear be overcome? How strong will the need get before the want to arrives?

One scenario involves global warming confirmed while the push for green technology isn’t being deployed. At minimum, there will be people angry with associated political turmoil. This has me watching rates of deployment, climate changes, spirals of violence, etc… So far, no. Everybody is too upset with tweets which hurt their feelings. Pardon if I roll my eyes and think the tweets are neither the problem or the answer.

There is a retail space crash coming, akin to the housing crash of a while ago. We’ll see how bad it is, and whether enough people go out of work to impact the restaurant industry. Will delivery services and internet massaging create enough jobs to mitigate those jobs lost? As far as I know, I’m the only one who has tried to make the link into restaurants. I am just cruising too many strip malls, and noting how the restaurants depend in great part on retail. The urges will be much the same, but economics changes as much as climate does. We’ll see. The point is you watch things rather than try for absolute predictions.

Anyway, can you appreciate the distinction I’m trying to make? Would you care to say what you are watching and why?