The New Crisis War Unfolding Now?

[Eric the Green]

(08-03-2018, 11:28 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I was reviewing an archived civil war thread.  In it gianthogweed commented that there are two types of Civic generations:  1.  Builders of public empires.  2.  Builders of private empires.  These correspond to Apollo and Dionysus cycles respectively.

This time around, without a blue print for a grand new public order, we can expect the Millennials to not be builders of great public institutions..  They may uphold a patched up system, but their focus will be on building private institutions.

I don't think it is so simple as that. The Dionysian cycle, as Chas called it, has other potential besides privatization. The blue prints for a grand new world are abundantly available, from such people as Marianne Williamson, the new ager who is going to run for president. She has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but it indicates that the blue prints are still there and have a following. If the millennials build a new order appropriate to this saeculum's climax, and into the next 1T, it will be far more than a Reaganoid private order Gilded Age II. The ideals from the recent 2T are still calling to us, and are required to build a new order out of the current chaos. Above all, these are the greenpeace ideals. The new order will need to be new technology and new institutions that protect the life of this threatened planet, and restore human community lost through the depersonalization of today's old technology.

They may not be as public oriented as social security and medicare, or the interstate highway system and the defense department. But restoring community and personal values to our society will require institutions of smaller scale, and more cooperative and community oriented. This is more than privatization; it is personalization, and connection to what gives life. That is what Dionysus is all about. Apollo is detached and abstract; Dionysus is connected, romantic and alive. 

The Reagan and neo-liberal distortion of the trends toward individual expression during the Awakening, will be seen for what they were; cynical appeals to the past, rather than the actual ideals of the awakening era that give life. Reagan was the adversary and nemesis of the awakening, first and foremost; not its prophet.

If millennials actually DO follow the blueprint that HAS been laid out in the recent Awakening, they will at least prepare the way for this new society. No doubt the next Apollonian prophets will do much more to make the virtual digital high-tech world more connected to real people, community and life. But the millennials, at least, need to restore the public consciousness and the value of public institutions well enough to direct technology and society down the path of greater connection to Earth and Spirit and greater diversity and community, as the next saeculum starts to unfold. Protection of life from the wayward impulses of the 3T era they grew up in will be a top priority. As Cameron Kasky said, the world has betrayed the victims of this false individualism, which expresses itself in gun nuttery and Reaganoid, neo-liberal greed with racist dog whistle social darwinism. Mere high tech and big institutions of private commerce will NOT satisfy millennials if they can glimpse the needs of our time, and connect to the recent true awakening ideals that provide a blueprint to satisfy and provide for those needs.

Xers and Boomers alike in recent years have covered up and dismissed the great values of the recent Awakening. Gen X has not been willing to connect to those ideals, because the awakening era left them out in the cold to fend for themselves as young people. But that does not mean they can't be practical mentors as elders to millennials, and bring peace and order as the millies enter midlife and go about building the new world of the next saeculum.

[Marypoza]

(08-03-2018, 01:41 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-25-2018, 07:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- a Mild Crises could explain why we can't figure out if we're in a 4T or still in an extremely long 3T.  Maybe we're supposed to be fighting the Culture Wars this time around.  I honestly can't see a civil war involving 2 opposing armies. I can & do see guerilla style civil unrest, & on the non-violent side, mass protests as we move forward into this 4 T

Unrest can devolve into chaos, and that's at least as bad as a true war.  We have all the elements that can make that possible, including a irrational belief by many Americans in our Huckster in Chief.  Irrational ideas, when put to the test, typically disappoint.  In a 4T, disappointment can lead random violence on a broad scale.

-- exactly, & that is how l see this 4T playing out. I also like your idea about a schism where the wingnuts are still living in the 3T while the rest of us have moved on

[pbrower2a]

(08-04-2018, 09:20 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(08-03-2018, 01:41 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-25-2018, 07:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- a Mild Crises could explain why we can't figure out if we're in a 4T or still in an extremely long 3T.  Maybe we're supposed to be fighting the Culture Wars this time around.  I honestly can't see a civil war involving 2 opposing armies. I can & do see guerilla style civil unrest, & on the non-violent side, mass protests as we move forward into this 4 T

Unrest can devolve into chaos, and that's at least as bad as a true war.  We have all the elements that can make that possible, including a irrational belief by many Americans in our Huckster in Chief.  Irrational ideas, when put to the test, typically disappoint.  In a 4T, disappointment can lead random violence on a broad scale.

-- exactly, & that is how l see this 4T playing out. I also like your idea about a schism where the wingnuts are still living in the 3T while the rest of us have moved on

The wingnuts are living in the depraved 3T while the rest of us are ready to go on. Donald Trump is an exaggeration of bad trends that began with Reagan and got intensified while Dubya was President. They may have thought they won with this sort of appeal:



They 'gave' us Donald Trump as President and a Congress with a stooge majority. They created a climate in which it was acceptable to emit racist material analogous to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. (something few of us can legitimately miss about the supposed time of lost American greatness that Donald trump wishes to revive. What else? Children back in the mines and factories? 70-hour workweeks and 40-year lifespans for industrial workers? The conception that pollution is the mark of prosperity? The KKK as the political force that it was in the 1920s (the KKK was ahead of the Nazis in transforming their respective countries into Evil Empires in the mid-1920s).

"Make America Great Again". Back when there was no Social Security and no minimum-wage law, when depositing money in a bank was a gamble due to bank runs, when an eighth-grade education was considered 'solid'? (that is about the perfect level of education for a totalitarian regime like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Satan Hussein's Iraq -- enough education to make people adequate machines of production, cannon fodder, baby-factories, and brutal guards in labor camps... and if that is greatness, then that is something that we Americans have transcended, I would hope!)

Yes, it was a depraved 3T. A few things went right, like the demise of most Commie regimes, some inexpensive entertainment in electronic media, the Harry Potter novels, and Barack Obama. But what went right will stick around, and what was awful will get shoved aside. We will need to make adjustments for technological changes that have forced fundamental changes in how we do even some of the most basic deeds in life, from communication to economic choices. An i-device as a substitute for a library and a record connection and as a connection to anyone who seems interesting?

What was said of young adults in the 1970s "We may not convince 'Archie Bunker' but we can convince his kids" applies today.

[Tim Randal Walker]

If this is a Mild 4T, it has been mild enough to feature what Eric called an Indian Autumn. Using the seasonal metaphor, we saw late autumn weather (such as just after harvest) in what should be a time of winter snow.

After the harvest of the cycle, we got scavenging (portrayed in shows such as American Pickers and Pawn Stars).

[pbrower2a]

It could be comparatively mild because everyone is scared of nukes.

[David Horn]

(08-17-2018, 09:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It could be comparatively mild because everyone is scared of nukes.

I think the primary reason this 4T is mild, at least on the surface, is due to a lack of coherent sides.  Dems are split into neo-liberals and emerging Social Democrats.  The GOP is 80+% Trump, with all the puzzlement inherent I that, and 20% old-school and vapid.  Add-in the mostly unaffiliated SJWs and the ever more libertarian business community, and the reason is pretty clear: too many teams and philosophies at play to make a true us-versus-them struggle.

[Eric the Green]

(08-20-2018, 12:01 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-17-2018, 09:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It could be comparatively mild because everyone is scared of nukes.

I think the primary reason this 4T is mild, at least on the surface, is due to a lack of coherent sides.  Dems are split into neo-liberals and emerging Social Democrats.  The GOP is 80+% Trump, with all the puzzlement inherent I that, and 20% old-school and vapid.  Add-in the mostly unaffiliated SJWs and the ever more libertarian business community, and the reason is pretty clear: too many teams and philosophies at play to make a true us-versus-them struggle.

All true, but for whatever reason, what results in political power is greater polarization than any time since the civil war, and the teams are clearly red vs. blue. And this is what is determining events. The splits within teams are not as great as they appear, compared to the split between teams. 

Libertarian economics is the main bone of contention, and the other bones fit neatly into it into two well-defined sides.

All that fits into the double rhythm which accents the domestic this time around, but foreign challenges remain as well. The world is more dangerous now than any time since the height of the Cold War.

Added clarification would make this clearer, if accepted. The term "neo-liberal" applies properly only to libertarian economics, and that is the Republican agenda. "Libertarian businessmen" of course are the leading exponents of this agenda. "neo-liberal" or former "New Democrats" or "establishment Democrats" today are not neo-liberals, because they believe in regulation and taxes and social programs, but they tend to be over awed by and bow down to the Republican neo-liberals at times, and are too connected to big business at times, so they are neo-liberal by comparison to "Social Democrats." But they are definitely both on the blue team, along with the "SJWs," and the heat of the rhetoric doesn't change this. There is a mixture of ethnic identity politics and social democracy on the blue team, with no clear boundaries between those two factions. White identity politics is well served by libertarian economics too, even though there is not a complete overlap of opinion between these factions. But a conservative libertarian like Jeff Flake may speak out against Trumpism, and the debt it causes too, and yet he votes for all of Trump's pro-business schemes no matter how dangerous to the national debt they may be. The anti-welfare dog whistle provided by libertarian economics since Nixon and Reagan has increasingly become a TRUMPet call.

[David Horn]

(08-20-2018, 11:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-20-2018, 12:01 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-17-2018, 09:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It could be comparatively mild because everyone is scared of nukes.

I think the primary reason this 4T is mild, at least on the surface, is due to a lack of coherent sides.  Dems are split into neo-liberals and emerging Social Democrats.  The GOP is 80+% Trump, with all the puzzlement inherent I that, and 20% old-school and vapid.  Add-in the mostly unaffiliated SJWs and the ever more libertarian business community, and the reason is pretty clear: too many teams and philosophies at play to make a true us-versus-them struggle.

All true, but for whatever reason, what results in political power is greater polarization than any time since the civil war, and the teams are clearly red vs. blue. And this is what is determining events. The splits within teams are not as great as they appear, compared to the split between teams. 

I agree that the Blue team has more in common internally than it ever will to the Red team, but it still has internal fractures that make it far less cohesive than a true revolutionary movement requires. The Red team is more coherent on the surface, but less so underneath, where Trumpists are often less Trumpist than their rhetoric implies.

Eric the Green Wrote:Libertarian economics is the main bone of contention, and the other bones fit neatly into it into two well-defined sides.

All that fits into the double rhythm which accents the domestic this time around, but foreign challenges remain as well. The world is more dangerous now than any time since the height of the Cold War.

Added clarification would make this clearer, if accepted. The term "neo-liberal" applies properly only to libertarian economics, and that is the Republican agenda. "Libertarian businessmen" of course are the leading exponents of this agenda. "neo-liberal" or former "New Democrats" or "establishment Democrats" today are not neo-liberals, because they believe in regulation and taxes and social programs, but they tend to be over awed by and bow down to the Republican neo-liberals at times, and are too connected to big business at times, so they are neo-liberal by comparison to "Social Democrats."

Here we disagree. The neo-liberal movement within the Democratic Party was 100% the doing of Bill Clinton, trying to be a less dogmatic conservative in a conservative era. It left us with the economy being supported as a pro-business ideology by both parties, with the cultural component the only piece in play. Don't forget: Bill killed Glass-Steagall and cued-up the disaster in the finance arena just a few years later.

Eric the Green Wrote:But they are definitely both on the blue team, along with the "SJWs," and the heat of the rhetoric doesn't change this. There is a mixture of ethnic identity politics and social democracy on the blue team, with no clear boundaries between those two factions. White identity politics is well served by libertarian economics too, even though there is not a complete overlap of opinion between these factions. But a conservative libertarian like Jeff Flake may speak out against Trumpism, and the debt it causes too, and yet he votes for all of Trump's pro-business schemes no matter how dangerous to the national debt they may be. The anti-welfare dog whistle provided by libertarian economics since Nixon and Reagan has increasingly become a TRUMPet call.

Sorry to disagree again, but this is an area where clarity of mission is essential. If the GOP remains pro-business and anti-diversity, they will have a relatively united faction to drive to the polls. If the Dems spend their energy fighting an infinite range of culture wars, they lose. Sorry, but Dems can't stand for every culture meme and deliver a message that transcends their base. That may work in 2018, where anger may be enough, but it will fail miserably in 2020 when losing will not be an option.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Eric has a good point about the double rhythm, and the domestic being emphasized this time around. This is broadly consistent with retrenchment from international affairs. At first glance Trump's trade wars may seem to contradict this, but are consistent with the USA becoming unplugged from globalization.

If we are lucky, retrenchment may keep the USA out of a big war this time around

[Eric the Green]

(08-21-2018, 09:15 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-20-2018, 11:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-20-2018, 12:01 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-17-2018, 09:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It could be comparatively mild because everyone is scared of nukes.

I think the primary reason this 4T is mild, at least on the surface, is due to a lack of coherent sides.  Dems are split into neo-liberals and emerging Social Democrats.  The GOP is 80+% Trump, with all the puzzlement inherent I that, and 20% old-school and vapid.  Add-in the mostly unaffiliated SJWs and the ever more libertarian business community, and the reason is pretty clear: too many teams and philosophies at play to make a true us-versus-them struggle.

All true, but for whatever reason, what results in political power is greater polarization than any time since the civil war, and the teams are clearly red vs. blue. And this is what is determining events. The splits within teams are not as great as they appear, compared to the split between teams. 

I agree that the Blue team has more in common internally than it ever will to the Red team, but it still has internal fractures that make it far less cohesive than a true revolutionary movement requires. The Red team is more coherent on the surface, but less so underneath, where Trumpists are often less Trumpist than their rhetoric implies.

I'm not sure a revolutionary movement is needed for events to unfold as they should. Just enough cohesion to get a movement going in the right direction again. We can hope for only so much in this backward country, but I think we can hope for a governing coalition at many levels that is willing to push things forward more than in the recent past. Revolutions tend to fail, but if we on the left push forward, and the right-wing rebels against this happening, then it will be the right-wing that loses the rebellion instead of the left. A left-wing revolution probably can't succeed in the USA. We're too backward for that. May it be the right-wing that has to rebel in the USA.

Quote:

Eric the Green Wrote:Libertarian economics is the main bone of contention, and the other bones fit neatly into it into two well-defined sides.

All that fits into the double rhythm which accents the domestic this time around, but foreign challenges remain as well. The world is more dangerous now than any time since the height of the Cold War.

Added clarification would make this clearer, if accepted. The term "neo-liberal" applies properly only to libertarian economics, and that is the Republican agenda. "Libertarian businessmen" of course are the leading exponents of this agenda. "neo-liberal" or former "New Democrats" or "establishment Democrats" today are not neo-liberals, because they believe in regulation and taxes and social programs, but they tend to be over awed by and bow down to the Republican neo-liberals at times, and are too connected to big business at times, so they are neo-liberal by comparison to "Social Democrats."

Here we disagree. The neo-liberal movement within the Democratic Party was 100% the doing of Bill Clinton, trying to be a less dogmatic conservative in a conservative era. It left us with the economy being supported as a pro-business ideology by both parties, with the cultural component the only piece in play. Don't forget: Bill killed Glass-Steagall and cued-up the disaster in the finance arena just a few years later.

I don't disagree that it was Bill Clinton, but I'd say he was trying to be a less dogmatic liberal in a conservative era. But he was too conservative, I agree, and killing Glass- Steagall was an important part of that. I deserted him over those things, as you know. However, he did campaign clearly against trickle-down economics in 1992, and he did raise the minimum wage and the earned income credit and things like that. So he didn't leave the cultural component the only piece in play; that's not accurate. Remember his campaign slogan was "it's the economy, stupid." You tend to exaggerate that point, even though it's basically true.

Quote:

Eric the Green Wrote:But they are definitely both on the blue team, along with the "SJWs," and the heat of the rhetoric doesn't change this. There is a mixture of ethnic identity politics and social democracy on the blue team, with no clear boundaries between those two factions. White identity politics is well served by libertarian economics too, even though there is not a complete overlap of opinion between these factions. But a conservative libertarian like Jeff Flake may speak out against Trumpism, and the debt it causes too, and yet he votes for all of Trump's pro-business schemes no matter how dangerous to the national debt they may be. The anti-welfare dog whistle provided by libertarian economics since Nixon and Reagan has increasingly become a TRUMPet call.

Sorry to disagree again, but this is an area where clarity of mission is essential. If the GOP remains pro-business and anti-diversity, they will have a relatively united faction to drive to the polls. If the Dems spend their energy fighting an infinite range of culture wars, they lose. Sorry, but Dems can't stand for every culture meme and deliver a message that transcends their base. That may work in 2018, where anger may be enough, but it will fail miserably in 2020 when losing will not be an option.

The economic issues will have to be central. Although they must embrace diversity, or lose much of their base, they won't win just by fighting culture wars. If a "pro-business" candidate is nominated, (s)he will have to lean more to the left and embrace a more populist-economic liberal agenda. I think that can happen. But Kamala Harris will not win, and Warren won't either. It will have to be a candidate with the stuff to win, and that may mean accepting McAuliffe or Landrieu instead, who have the leadership skills and articulate abilities needed. That could be called clarity of mission: essentially, a candidate who has the talent and skill to articulate one and get people behind it. And I think these two have the ability to do that, and thus unite the two main factions.

I'd love it if Bernie Sanders could win. He has a better shot than most of the "true progressives" (apart from Sherrod Brown, perhaps). But the odds are likely against him. It may depend on whether Trump continues to screw himself more and more, so much so that some of his base is chipped away, assuming he is renominated. It will take a whole lot of serious Trump errors before the extremist party dumps him, either in the Senate or at the polls. I'm not optimistic. But if he IS dumped, Pence is easier to beat, inherently (8-7 score, no better than Warren). He has the charisma of a wooden indian. That's the best reason from our point of view to dump Trump. Liberals (including me once upon a time) overestimate the importance of correct ideology in choosing a candidate, and forget that charisma and confidence is the key to victory.

A candidate with the same views as Hillary Clinton, but more articulate and likable, would have won in 2016 (a candidate with a higher horoscope score would have won). You were right that Hillary was not a good choice; I had more confidence in her than you did, even though I knew the "score." And you're right she probably would not have been able to push her agenda forward, and maybe it wasn't a decisive or strong enough agenda to push the nation forward. We would have avoided the disaster now unfolding though, so it's up to Americans to see that disaster, and to see that the better choice now is to move further forward than before, rather than further backward than ever before, and hope it's not too late after the damage now occurring.

[David Horn]

(08-22-2018, 11:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'd love it if Bernie Sanders could win. He has a better shot than most of the "true progressives" (apart from Sherrod Brown, perhaps). But the odds are likely against him. It may depend on whether Trump continues to screw himself more and more, so much so that some of his base is chipped away, assuming he is renominated. It will take a whole lot of serious Trump errors before the extremist party dumps him, either in the Senate or at the polls. I'm not optimistic. But if he IS dumped, Pence is easier to beat, inherently (8-7 score, no better than Warren). He has the charisma of a wooden indian. That's the best reason from our point of view to dump Trump. Liberals (including me once upon a time) overestimate the importance of correct ideology in choosing a candidate, and forget that charisma and confidence is the key to victory.

For 2020 and beyond, youth is the key. We Boomers were a huge generation, but the Millennials are biggest now … and by a wide margin. I don't see a nearly 80-year old Bernie Sanders brining out the youth vote. Sherrod Brown lacks charisma, and Elizabeth Warren has the same age problem as Bernie. Someone needs to emerge; I just don't see who.

Eric the Green Wrote:A candidate with the same views as Hillary Clinton, but more articulate and likable, would have won in 2016 (a candidate with a higher horoscope score would have won). You were right that Hillary was not a good choice; I had more confidence in her than you did, even though I knew the "score." And you're right she probably would not have been able to push her agenda forward, and maybe it wasn't a decisive or strong enough agenda to push the nation forward. We would have avoided the disaster now unfolding though, so it's up to Americans to see that disaster, and to see that the better choice now is to move further forward than before, rather than further backward than ever before, and hope it's not too late after the damage now occurring.

Hillary was a policy wonk and that never works in politics. People want to be inspired, not graded on how well they learned the last lecture.

[Hintergrund]

(08-03-2018, 11:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Xers and Boomers alike in recent years have covered up and dismissed the great values of the recent Awakening. Gen X has not been willing to connect to those ideals, because the awakening era left them out in the cold to fend for themselves as young people. But that does not mean they can't be practical mentors as elders to millennials, and bring peace and order as the millies enter midlife and go about building the new world of the next saeculum.

They write it in the book - the "Prophets" tell the Heroes What to do, the Nomads tell them How to do it.

The latter is more important, of course. Any fool can repeat platitudes about the one or other kind of values. DOING something - that's what counts.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I would suggest the lack of coherence would also explain why this 4T is so unlike the last few. An inability to focus, leading to....

The phenomenon of The Indian Autumn. Akin to the bleak period between the end of harvest and the first snow, but existing at a time when blizzards should be rampant. I originally thought this was an anomalous portion of this 4T.

But now I see longer stretches where there may be frost, but not a snow storm. Occasionally, as with Covid, there may be intermittent phases of snow flurries, each representing a small "c" crisis rather than one big Crisis.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Adding to not-completely coherent factions....

No one issue has emerged as being so inflammatory as, say, slavery. Making it harder to focus.