Is The Current American Border Dispute A Catalyst Event?

[pbrower2a]

(06-24-2018, 06:37 PM)TheNomad Wrote: If we cannot conduct our politics based on facts, what sort of republic will we have?

I only want to know who determines fact?  It is based on your subjective consciousness, and that is not fact at all.  Pointing to "fact" only when it mimics your own subjective beliefs.  Not even Factcheckers can be that succinct; sooner or later they will contradict you and no longer be "factual".  If a Factchecker is not factual, what is her data then? 

Also, when one chooses to exclude data for Factual Consideration, that means you have edited.  Edited Fact is only subjective hyperbole.  It is not factual.  You are not allowed to comment on certain things when you have edited the data pool for your own subjective interpretation.  You don't get that respect.  All facts must be discovered in a non-subjective (by definition, objective and unprejudiced) manner.  That is why judges recuse themselves from cases where personal opinion (subjectivity) might become inherent in the ruling.  That is why all courts are processed to be as impartial as possible to avoid SUBJECTIVITY.

Who checks your facts?  From where do your Facts originate?  When "Fact" is different from your personal subjective belief system, does it cease being Fact?  Can you name an example? 

DO YOUR FACTUAL SYSTEMS UPDATE WITH PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN FACTS OR ARE THEY UNWAVERING TRUTHS OF ALL TIME?

We all have values. If one concludes that slavery might lead to greater prosperity but that it is abominable -- then it is a moral and not a factual judgment that we must not introduce or impose slavery.

Another question is "whose facts"? David Irving would tell us that the Holocaust is a hoax no matter what anyone else says of it. My rejection of Young Earth Creationism has its basis in evidence, but some consider it necessary for protecting moral law. (If we see Man as a descendant of apes and monkeys instead of recognizing ourselves as a special creation, then we deny our humanity). I am going on the high statistical likelihood that evolution is right and that young-earth creationism is false. We will never find the last nine in the decimal because there is no last nine.

Morals and esthetics are subjective. I cannot prove that murder is wrong, but I can certainly say that a place in which human life is easy to put an end to for some specious reason is too dangerous for my taste. I cannot establish that Casablanca is a great piece of movie-making and that Howard the Duck is awful. The consensus of experts on movie judgment is an objective fact, and one denies such at great harm to one's reputation.

Some facts always emerge. People win awards; get arrested, indicted, cleared or convicted of crimes and are sentenced and released; people die. People win and lose court decisions and marry and divorce. Elections are held and results are reported. Statistics such as census data get reported. Sporting events happen, and the Cleveland Indians beat the Detroit Tigers 12-2 today. I may despise Donald Trump but I recognize that he is President in accordance with the laws of the USA. Official results are normally definitive unless we see an obvious mistake (I once saw a death report for a man who died of ovarian cancer, which is obviously impossible) or a pattern of deceit (as people dying in Nazi murder camps of 'heart failure' when they were murdered in a gas chamber).

So if William Shakespeare has a character tell us that "All the world's a stage" as a metaphoric truth, its identity as a literary reality is solid even if the world is not a literal stage.

[TheNomad]

As soon as people cite The Holocaust in any way and use the word Hitler, that is when they have lost their barking mind over some doctrinal offense they must sanctify with absolutism.

[pbrower2a]

(06-24-2018, 08:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: As soon as people cite The Holocaust in any way and use the word Hitler, that is when they have lost their barking mind over some doctrinal offense they must sanctify with absolutism.

The references were used to distinguish between objectionable material (opinion), indefensible positions (provable falsehood) and an accurate description of objectionable or provably-false material (the quotations could be themselves truthful. Godwin's Law applies when someone cheaply compares someone or an institution to Hitler, Nazism, or the consequences of either as a deprecation of someone else.  Thus an Israeli program to reduce tobacco use is not 'Nazi' simply because the Nazis were opposed to tobacco. On the other hand, if someone really is a vehemently racist, militarist, despotic opponent of democracy then one might have a valid comparison to Hitler.  If you are a singing a near-translation of the Horst-Wessel-Lied in an unironic way and not for dramatic or educational purposes, then you are probably a Nazi.

Maybe I could have used the example of someone who has been stopped for erratic driving who proclaims to the police officer who stopped him. "Osshifer, I only had a cupp'la beerzh" and then fails the field-sobriety tests and for whom the Breathalyzer registers a 0.15% BAC is clearly false (it was four beers) or at least deceitful (the beers were 'forties') in his protest of sobriety, the report of the drunk's verbal claim might be accurate.

[Eric the Green]

(06-24-2018, 06:27 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(06-24-2018, 04:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The real situation I described is not beliefs or ideology, but it does suggest that it might be a catalyst and mood shift, because Trump is going to continue to push the issue. That he will, is not a statement of my ideology, silly; it is my estimate of what he will do, based on what I know of him and his behavior. That continued push will make it part of the current crisis mood, because it won't be just a passing issue. Those who follow Trump on this are really opposed to immigration, and they DO want to keep America white. That is also their political purpose too, since more immigrants mean more demographic shifts toward Democrats, which the right desperately wants to stop, and which feeds into the political split which is itself the heart of the current crisis. The cold civil war IS our 4T, and whether it becomes hot or not is one question about "what comes next." As you know, that question will be answered in 2025, and the following 4 years will be the climax and end of the fourth turning.

What is happening under Trump is several issues coming to the fore, which includes the new gun control movement in the wake of the Parkland shooting. David Hogg has now weighed in on both of these issues. The new trade war is another potential catalyst, because of the way it's being carried out by the Drump. This in addition to the women's issues and economic fairness issues, plus the climate issue which will be pressed again with a huge march on Sept.8. What it amounts to, is that The Donald now personifies the crisis, and he polarizes America on all these issues. Gun control alone already had the potential to cause civil strife, along with Trump and the GOP's stubborn refusals to act on it; and certainly tempers are flaring and will continue to flare if Trump is also going to continue to violate all human norms in carrying out his make america white again policy-- which all indications are that he will indeed. That he WILL, making it a catalyst, was my point; not merely MY view about the issue itself, Mr. Nomad Sir.

Good slogan Mr. Brower.

That he will, is not a statement of my ideology, silly; it is my estimate of what he will do, based on what I know of him and his behavior.

Really?  According to you, someone will do something not according to your political dogma laser beam aimed at them but because it's your estimation of their behavior.

Did you review that before pressing REPLY?  I think some do not even realize how embedded their doctrines ARE when looking at the outside world.  I did not ask if was a catalyst based on someone being a wanker or a politician, the transcendent event itself - blamed on no one and certainly not with the intent on judging them for it - can illuminate.  I don't want YOUR COLORED LENSES on the end result (nor mine). 

How can you not see it pollutes the scope?  We are far enough away to not have some knee-jerk reaction to FDR and his policies so we look there and can see some catalyst events that caused mood sway.  If we could only manage to separate ourselves now.  We might see the future, however limited.  Until then, all we have is colloquial barbarism over human idiosyncrasies.

It's my estimation of his behavior, I suppose, but the behavior is there for anyone to see, as are his pronouncements, and the reports of what he has done are well-known. Immigration is the issue on which Trump ran for president, and the one that stirs his base. That is a well-known fact. That's why the issue is a potential catalyst. He has created the crisis with his policies, and will not stop pushing them.

[David Horn]

(06-24-2018, 08:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: As soon as people cite The Holocaust in any way and use the word Hitler, that is when they have lost their barking mind over some doctrinal offense they must sanctify with absolutism.

According to Mike Godwin, Hitler and Nazi references are fully acceptable if they actually fit.  He specifically cited the march in Charlottesville as a suitable example.


Godwin's Law isn't absolute by any means.

[pbrower2a]

Right. If someone expounds Nazi-like ideology (including racist antisemitism); adopts Nazi-style slogans, songs, gestures, or symbols except in ironic, dramatic, or educational use; promotes behavior tending toward genocide or promotes outright genocide; promotes aggressive warfare or diplomacy in the name of expanding the nation... then we may have someone with some Nazi tendencies. I have seen KKK fascists adding swastikas to their robes or adopting the word "Aryan" in their organizations' names... KKK and Nazi style may be different, but the bigotry and proclivity toward violence are there.

If you adopt a hammer-and-sickle device, iconic images of Lenin or subsequent Communist leaders, the clenched first, and such slogans as "Workers of the World, Unite!"... then what else could that mean?

[Ragnarök_62]

(06-25-2018, 01:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Right. If someone expounds Nazi-like ideology (including racist antisemitism); adopts Nazi-style slogans, songs, gestures, or symbols except in ironic, dramatic, or educational use; promotes behavior tending toward genocide or promotes outright genocide; promotes aggressive warfare or diplomacy in the name of expanding the nation... then we may have someone with some Nazi tendencies.  I have seen KKK fascists adding swastikas to their robes or adopting the word "Aryan" in their organizations' names... KKK and Nazi style may be different, but the bigotry and proclivity toward violence are there.

If you adopt a hammer-and-sickle device, iconic images of Lenin or subsequent Communist leaders, the clenched first, and such slogans as "Workers of the World, Unite!"... then what else could that mean?

Well, Ukraine is a basket full of Neo-Nazis now.

What a stupid stink tank, Atlantic Council.  rt.com has been reporting on the nitty gritty on Ukraine forever. Russia has a up front and personal history wrt Nazis.  This is a color revolution fail. So, after all, since the MSM is stuck  on mindless pursuits one has to broaden one's media sources.  rt.com is of course what they say "A Russian perspective on events".  So yeah, there's some propaganda there, but where else can one get nuggets of important news, now?

Like this? https://www.rt.com/op-ed/430796-ukraine-...c-council/
https://rt.com/op-ed/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/06/m...21438.html



That's how I keep track of Euro Neo-Nazis.

[TheNomad]

(06-25-2018, 06:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-24-2018, 08:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: As soon as people cite The Holocaust in any way and use the word Hitler, that is when they have lost their barking mind over some doctrinal offense they must sanctify with absolutism.

The references were used to distinguish between objectionable material (opinion), indefensible positions (provable falsehood) and an accurate description of objectionable or provably-false material (the quotations could be themselves truthful. Godwin's Law applies when someone cheaply compares someone or an institution to Hitler, Nazism, or the consequences of either as a deprecation of someone else.  Thus an Israeli program to reduce tobacco use is not 'Nazi' simply because the Nazis were opposed to tobacco. On the other hand, if someone really is a vehemently racist, militarist, despotic opponent of democracy then one might have a valid comparison to Hitler.  If you are a singing a near-translation of the Horst-Wessel-Lied in an unironic way and not for dramatic or educational purposes, then you are probably a Nazi.

Maybe I could have used the example of someone who has been stopped for erratic driving who proclaims to the police officer who stopped him. "Osshifer, I only had a cupp'la beerzh" and then fails the field-sobriety tests and for whom the Breathalyzer registers a 0.15% BAC is clearly false (it was four beers) or at least deceitful (the beers were 'forties') in his protest of sobriety, the report of the drunk's verbal claim might be accurate.

I hope you realize (and I'm calling this out as I would like to be done unto me) your description of the obviously stereotypical "black" drunk in the story might be offensive to some people.

Butterfly McQueen agreed to kowtow Ms Scarlett in GWTW but she said no to the watermelon when they asked her to eat it on-screen.  I mean, there is a limit to these things.  I personally have no issue with it.  I don't think it could have been more so unless you added that the 40s were Colt brand.  I mean, I SAW Billy D Williams in that commercial as a kid.

MOVING ON... I had said people really do - when pressed or feeling cornered in a belief or system - they do grasp for absolutes for what I believe is a personal safety net FOR their ideology.  Ideologies over time become as a personal fortress we may built to protect what we believe and want to believe.

Adolph Hitler and Manson and these people are SYMBOLS of evil for many, many people.  I do not personally believe in a "devil" figure, but I understand where and WHY that concept came to be.  Humans create and/or latch onto people/concepts/religions/etc as mortar to secure the blocks of their own personal fortress.  When pressed or feeling pressed about an issue of great importance, human beings will conjure a PARALLEL or a HARD EXAMPLE (to them) they can cling to in order to assess the world around them and the events happening.  So, I get saddened when Adolph Hitler is conjured not as a historical figure but as a personal gauge and ultimate evil under the bed by which a respondent to the conversation tosses into the mix when it really does not belong there.  For it is incendiary in itself, really has no purpose, and serves only to inflame and nothing more.

I mean, based on what I have seen some here say, aren't we struggling with this now NATIONALLY?  With families torn apart, friends not speaking, turning the channel to msnbc or fox or whatever because we know that when we turn it on IT WILL TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR.  Haven't we expressed that this sucks and should not be happening?  How do we stop that?  Does it not begin by stop hiding inside our fortress and saying "it is all lies out there"?

In short, using absolutism to sort of "end' the dialogue and basically say "this is my standard, this is my personal gauge to asses what you are talking about" it leaves no room for expansion, shuts down the dialogue immediately and is wholly representative of my ultimate "thesis" concerning who and how Prophets are at the heart of all doom in the Saeculum.  I would go so far to say that anyone who read the strauss/howe texts can see they, themselves, clearly point toward the idea the Prophet is at the epicenter of the Crisis (always) from sort of beginning to end.  We can disagree about that, but to me it was something so clearly represented by the authors it is almost (was) beyond mentioning............. for just assuming it was already understood by anyone studying this subject matter.

I never got the feelz that Heroes were the problem. After all, the authors named them HEROES. Heroes don't destroy, they fix. Artists don't cause drama, they create. Nomads just don't care. So we tolerate everyone else's bullshit fomented by the Prophet. They called it Prophet for a reason. Like I said, this was to me almost beyond even mentioning. We all could argue all day about OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS toward the archetype, but clearly we are here because strauss and howe wrote books and had amazing structural concepts. How is it we then read their construct and then say "no, that's not right". I mean, they made it. If we aren't on the same page with their framework, wtf are any of us doing here? I never heard of the four archetypes or the saeculum or the turnings before that book. They invented this "science" so we should probably go with their findings and/or construct?

It is not trivial or flippant to overlook this, actually it is quite important. Once we start saying "no, the HERO is the problem......." I mean, cmon..... really? Professor X is not Magneto. If you do that, the entire framework of the story no longer functions. Heroes can be serial killers just like anyone. But we are past that, no? We are all smart enough to go above that level of deduction to examine the archetypes as a whole.... and sorry, that involves close to 90% objectivity if not more.

If anyone is saying "Adolph Hitler was born as a Hero so BLAM your theory cannot be right" then, that person really does not belong in the conversation. They just don't have the faculties to engage in this. (btw I really don't know what archetype he is).

[Eric the Green]

The authors did not endorse the idea that prophets are the source of all doom. Each archetype contributes to both the virtues and problems among the population. You should realize that your thesis is insulting.

[TheNomad]

(07-20-2018, 11:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The authors did not endorse the idea that prophets are the source of all doom. Each archetype contributes to both the virtues and problems among the population. You should realize that your thesis is insulting.

You are taking it personally which is the very definition of subjectivism.  It is not about you.  It is about the archetype and the general persona of the archetype.  No one is calling you Doombringer.

Introduction
Protagomism
Antagonism
Resolution

It is fascinating the construct the authors used and the words they used are exactly the same as ANY basic story narrative.  Beginning, middle, end (basically). 

The authors used those words for a reason when naming the archetypes.  They were using those words to put a meta name tag on the archetypes so you could investigate the persona.  I would ask how you would define the words they used to describe the four archetypes?  Put your subjectivity to good use

Also, the authors without end and continually associate Prophet with ALL the drama that happens in the saeculum.  You truly maybe need to revisit their narrative.  They - without question - describe the Prophet and its immovable ideology as the source of the final bombast of the Crisis when the book describes a "final, impactful explosion of the Prophet archetype" (paraphrasing) occuring before prime power is handed over to the Nomad while the Prophet steps down in elderhood.  That is just one example.  I mean............. that's quite clear.  That is a foreshadowing of (a broad example) rump possibly in the next few years having a row with Korea or Iran and then the face-off begins and we stare down the world stage as the Fourth Turning begins to end.............. to me it is so clear.  Then there is world war or some horror.... then ultimately the Prophet steps down, the Nomad assumes prime power, then they work with the remnant Prophets and upcoming Heroes to rebuild the devastation of the Prophet's drama as the new Prophet is being born for it to start all over again.

I view the narrative as sound...... living things consume and excrete (most do).  The cycle of renewal, growth, atrophy and decay is the Rainforest.  It is natural.  We all wish nothing would die but it does.  It must.  We can't blame the colon for what it is - or the endoplasmic reticulum for its work.  It is what it is

[pbrower2a]

(07-20-2018, 06:01 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(06-25-2018, 06:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-24-2018, 08:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: As soon as people cite The Holocaust in any way and use the word Hitler, that is when they have lost their barking mind over some doctrinal offense they must sanctify with absolutism.

The references were used to distinguish between objectionable material (opinion), indefensible positions (provable falsehood) and an accurate description of objectionable or provably-false material (the quotations could be themselves truthful. Godwin's Law applies when someone cheaply compares someone or an institution to Hitler, Nazism, or the consequences of either as a deprecation of someone else.  Thus an Israeli program to reduce tobacco use is not 'Nazi' simply because the Nazis were opposed to tobacco. On the other hand, if someone really is a vehemently racist, militarist, despotic opponent of democracy then one might have a valid comparison to Hitler.  If you are a singing a near-translation of the Horst-Wessel-Lied in an unironic way and not for dramatic or educational purposes, then you are probably a Nazi.

Maybe I could have used the example of someone who has been stopped for erratic driving who proclaims to the police officer who stopped him. "Osshifer, I only had a cupp'la beerzh" and then fails the field-sobriety tests and for whom the Breathalyzer registers a 0.15% BAC is clearly false (it was four beers) or at least deceitful (the beers were 'forties') in his protest of sobriety, the report of the drunk's verbal claim might be accurate.

I hope you realize (and I'm calling this out as I would like to be done unto me) your description of the obviously stereotypical "black" drunk in the story might be offensive to some people.

Butterfly McQueen agreed to kowtow Ms Scarlett in GWTW but she said no to the watermelon when they asked her to eat it on-screen.  I mean, there is a limit to these things.  I personally have no issue with it.  I don't think it could have been more so unless you added that the 40s were Colt brand.  I mean, I SAW Billy D Williams in that commercial as a kid.

I was not referring to any alleged cultural attribute of race among drunk drivers. The 'forty' is usually associated with poor people with little education. It is perfectly designed for dangerous binge drinking, and I am surprised that states allow it to be sold. That people are pouring it into glasses for three or more people? Or that people drink a third of it in three different times? I don't accept that because the last third after a few days would be awful.

Most mass-market American beer is awful, and the more recent new brands or revived narrow-market beers are much tastier. The tastier beer, as opposed to the insipid swill that heavier drinkers consume, is wholly unsuited to chug-a-lugging. I can't imagine (at the extreme) chug-a-lugging a Pilsner Urquell, the best-tasting beer (this Czech import has a distinct nutty taste) that I have ever had. I suppose that European alcoholics might get drunk on it, but Americans would not get drunk on it. There are far cheaper ways to get drunk.

...Oh, yes -- Butterfly McQueen was right to refuse to eat watermelon on screen. It was not essential to the plot. Watermelon implies some ugly stereotypes -- but as a white man I have no personal problem with it. I love it!

Quote:MOVING ON... I had said people really do - when pressed or feeling cornered in a belief or system - they do grasp for absolutes for what I believe is a personal safety net FOR their ideology.  Ideologies over time become as a personal fortress we may built to protect what we believe and want to believe.

We circle the wagons, and everyone in the wagon train who ends up sharing the same concern for the time might forget old differences in a situation that can give them a shared fate. Irish Catholics and Mennonites of Swiss origin might have had severe differences getting along before setting out in the same wagon train and they might have intended to settle in very different communities. But under attack from Indians they had something to share in their fears. They could as easily end up dead. More recently, if one is in a consummately-dangerous combat (as when missiles are coming in), people get a focus on things other than the differences that they had before they enlisted.

People are seeing threats to their literal interpretation of the Bible -- as that if the first chapters of Genesis suggest that the world is a literal seven-day Creation and that there was a literal worldwide flood, then the Earth must be a few thousand years old, and the entire Earth must have been inundated -- even the summit of Mount Everest. Biblical prophecy as in Revelation must be true, and Jesus is coming soon. To such a believer, anyone who challenges any part of this must be part of some demonic plot to destroy Christian faith.

Look at some of the consequences of some articles of Faith. If Jesus really is coming soon, then such concerns as global warming are moot. The Faithful will be raptured away from this sinful world and into some Heaven while the sinful are damned to experience great tribulations. Most who miss the Rapture will be damned to Hell, which the world will be like in horrific wars and monstrous tyranny. If Young-Earth creationism is true, then study of anything that contradicts it could lead to the sort of demonic takeover of the human soul that leads people to Hell.

But I am a rationalist, and I believe that old tales cannot be accepted as truth simply because they are in some holy writ. I have a deprecation of the worldwide Flood in that Noah could have never gotten around the world to collect all the animal species that now exist from where they were and then circumnavigate the world to put the penguins in Antarctica, the kangaroos in Australia, the zebras and chimpanzees in Africa, opossums in the Americas, and wolves nearly everywhere in forty days. Add to that, Moses would have needed a very sophisticated set of aquariums just for the fresh-water fish and amphibians that would have otherwise perished at sea. Am I damned to Hell for that? That suggests that God is merciless on matters of faith. I'd like to believe that a righteous person who simply worships the wrong God or worships God in the wrong way will be excused for that and gain admittance to Heaven for righteousness. The most egregious sinners? Either obliterated or damned to Hell. I certainly don't want to go where the Nazis are.

Quote:Adolph Hitler and Manson and these people are SYMBOLS of evil for many, many people.  I do not personally believe in a "devil" figure, but I understand where and WHY that concept came to be.  Humans create and/or latch onto people/concepts/religions/etc as mortar to secure the blocks of their own personal fortress.  When pressed or feeling pressed about an issue of great importance, human beings will conjure a PARALLEL or a HARD EXAMPLE (to them) they can cling to in order to assess the world around them and the events happening.  So, I get saddened when Adolph Hitler is conjured not as a historical figure but as a personal gauge and ultimate evil under the bed by which a respondent to the conversation tosses into the mix when it really does not belong there.  For it is incendiary in itself, really has no purpose, and serves only to inflame and nothing more.

Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson are not 'symbols' of evil; they are evil. My best description of the Devil is the perverse or corrupt superego, or absence of a superego, that allows one to do evil with relish. That Devil can lead people to do horrible things. My conception of the Devil suggests a play in which the Devil is the greatest adventurer in history, tempting people to do exploitative or destructive acts so that he can bring them with him to populate his nightmarish Hell. That Devil loves injustice; he enjoys hearing blasphemy as a music lover might appreciate the witty counterpoint of a Bach fugue. Adventurer? He's been everywhere -- slave ships and Nazi murder camps alike. He has been among infantry in human-wave charges and he has been in the war room with generals. Courage? Hardly. He is for all practical purposes indestructible. Oh, yes -- the Devil can change gender when it suits him, just as he can cite Scripture to serve his ends. (Shakespeare). I would place him at the many witch trials that lead to the execution of innocent people accused of witchcraft, at lynchings, and drug deals. I would have him tempting people to drive drunk I would even give him a role in the sinking of the Titanic. Why should he fear being on a sinking ship? Passengers and crew might die, but he can't die!

Quote:I mean, based on what I have seen some here say, aren't we struggling with this now NATIONALLY?  With families torn apart, friends not speaking, turning the channel to msnbc or fox or whatever because we know that when we turn it on IT WILL TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR.  Haven't we expressed that this sucks and should not be happening?  How do we stop that?  Does it not begin by stop hiding inside our fortress and saying "it is all lies out there"?

...and that is the problem. People do not want objective reality. We are in a messy time, one in which power is on the Far Right and truth has a liberal bias, which is a dangerous situation. That is how things go when Donald Trump is President.

Quote:In short, using absolutism to sort of "end' the dialogue and basically say "this is my standard, this is my personal gauge to asses what you are talking about" it leaves no room for expansion, shuts down the dialogue immediately and is wholly representative of my ultimate "thesis" concerning who and how Prophets are at the heart of all doom in the Saeculum.  I would go so far to say that anyone who read the strauss/howe texts can see they, themselves, clearly point toward the idea the Prophet is at the epicenter of the Crisis (always) from sort of beginning to end.  We can disagree about that, but to me it was something so clearly represented by the authors it is almost (was) beyond mentioning............. for just assuming it was already understood by anyone studying this subject matter.

But in the last Crisis Era, the Prophet/Idealist generation did its allotted job in America and the British Commonwealth -- and did it very well. Who could better express the idea that Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were the representatives of Satan intent upon transforming the world into a Hell as fearsome as the one that one might ascribe to Mephistopheles?  Who could then better imagine a better world based upon principles that deny all applicability to the fear, hunger, brutality, and repression inherent in fascism?

Quote:I never got the feelz that Heroes were the problem.  After all, the authors named them HEROES.  Heroes don't destroy, they fix.  Artists don't cause drama, they create.  Nomads just don't care.  So we tolerate everyone else's bullshit fomented by the Prophet.  They called it Prophet for a reason.  Like I said, this was to me almost beyond even mentioning.  We all could argue all day about OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS toward the archetype, but clearly we are here because strauss and howe wrote books and had amazing structural concepts.  How is it we then read their construct and then say "no, that's not right".  I mean, they made it.  If we aren't on the same page with their framework, wtf are any of us doing here?  I never heard of the four archetypes or the saeculum or the turnings before that book.  They invented this "science" so we should probably go with their findings and/or construct?  

Can we concur that Dubya and Donald Trump are the wrong sorts of Prophet/Idealists for leading America through a Crisis Era? There were Prophet/Idealists who created the eugenic theories and racist claptrap to which Hitler grasped in his plan for his idea of a better world (never mind that it would be Judenrein and that many people would be consigned to slavery on behalf of the "Master Race"). There were Prophet/Idealists who tried to convince Americans who did not have slaves that slavery was the best thing possible for enslaved blacks.

Maybe the world has the difficult task of determining which Prophet/Idealist agenda is best. The Boom Generation us still young enough to have people capable of setting an agenda for a better world that mandates a struggle against evil, domestic and foreign. Donald Trump is obviously not up to it, and his agenda is at best suspect. There are many possible solutions to our economic distress, cultural depravity, and hazards of dangerous technologies. We have yet to see the unification of most of America behind one agenda. Can we mess up? Sure, and very badly. I look at the fascists who rejected Idealist morality and fostered national resentments manifesting themselves in the closest thing to Apocalypse that Humanity has ever known. Churchill and FDR demonstrated that a moral agenda was stronger than ethnic enmity, and when the Second World War went so badly for Germany as to splinter the country, then Germans who had a choice turned to an Idealist/Prophet (Konrad Adenauer) who could enunciate principles for a new and humane Germany.

Quote:It is not trivial or flippant to overlook this, actually it is quite important.  Once we start saying "no, the HERO is the problem......." I mean, cmon..... really?  Professor X is not Magneto.  If you do that, the entire framework of the story no longer functions.  Heroes can be serial killers just like anyone.  But we are past that, no?  We are all smart enough to go above that level of deduction to examine the archetypes as a whole.... and sorry, that involves close to 90% objectivity if not more.  

If anyone is saying "Adolph Hitler was born as a Hero so BLAM your theory cannot be right" then, that person really does not belong in the conversation.  They just don't have the faculties to engage in this.  (btw I really don't know what archetype he is).

I don't consider Hero/Civic generations wholly innocent in history. Need I remind you that among contemporaries of the earliest wave of American GIs were Ernst Kaltenbrunner (the man in charge of the Nazi concentration camp system; Adolf Eichmann, who set up the logistics of the Holocaust; and Josef Mengele, who performed obscene pseudo-medical experiments upon helpless people? Nazism was anti-feminist, but it encouraged some young women to be brutal camp guards. There were young guards who selected people for the gas chambers, and let us not forget the inimitable Irma Grese (a contemporary of many young American soldiers), who as a guard had trained dogs attack helpless inmates.  Blind obedience to evil is itself evil. And let us not forget that some contemporaries of American and British Idealists were major perpetrators of Axis horror -- Koki Hirota, Prime Minister of Japan during some horrific massacres in China; Wilhelm Frick, author of legislation to dehumanize Jews and set them up for extermination while establishing the apparatus of the totalitarian police state; Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, who made the Wehrmacht complicit in Nazi-sponsored atrocities and planned aggression against many countries; and Ion Antonescu, Romanian military dictator complicit in genocide mostly in western Ukraine.

All generations are capable of evil, whether small-scale robbery-murders or outright genocide. Whatever generation we are, it is our responsibility to choose decent, humane, competent leaders in democracies.

[TheNomad]

(07-20-2018, 12:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 06:01 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(06-25-2018, 06:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-24-2018, 08:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: As soon as people cite The Holocaust in any way and use the word Hitler, that is when they have lost their barking mind over some doctrinal offense they must sanctify with absolutism.

The references were used to distinguish between objectionable material (opinion), indefensible positions (provable falsehood) and an accurate description of objectionable or provably-false material (the quotations could be themselves truthful. Godwin's Law applies when someone cheaply compares someone or an institution to Hitler, Nazism, or the consequences of either as a deprecation of someone else.  Thus an Israeli program to reduce tobacco use is not 'Nazi' simply because the Nazis were opposed to tobacco. On the other hand, if someone really is a vehemently racist, militarist, despotic opponent of democracy then one might have a valid comparison to Hitler.  If you are a singing a near-translation of the Horst-Wessel-Lied in an unironic way and not for dramatic or educational purposes, then you are probably a Nazi.

Maybe I could have used the example of someone who has been stopped for erratic driving who proclaims to the police officer who stopped him. "Osshifer, I only had a cupp'la beerzh" and then fails the field-sobriety tests and for whom the Breathalyzer registers a 0.15% BAC is clearly false (it was four beers) or at least deceitful (the beers were 'forties') in his protest of sobriety, the report of the drunk's verbal claim might be accurate.

I hope you realize (and I'm calling this out as I would like to be done unto me) your description of the obviously stereotypical "black" drunk in the story might be offensive to some people.

Butterfly McQueen agreed to kowtow Ms Scarlett in GWTW but she said no to the watermelon when they asked her to eat it on-screen.  I mean, there is a limit to these things.  I personally have no issue with it.  I don't think it could have been more so unless you added that the 40s were Colt brand.  I mean, I SAW Billy D Williams in that commercial as a kid.

I was not referring to any alleged cultural attribute of race among drunk drivers. The 'forty' is usually associated with poor people with little education. It is perfectly designed for dangerous binge drinking, and I am surprised that states allow it to be sold. That people are pouring it into glasses for three or more people? Or that people drink a third of it in three different times? I don't accept that because the last third after a few days would be awful.

Most mass-market American beer is awful, and the more recent new brands or revived narrow-market beers are much tastier. The tastier beer, as opposed to the insipid swill that heavier drinkers consume, is wholly unsuited to chug-a-lugging. I can't imagine (at the extreme) chug-a-lugging a Pilsner Urquell, the best-tasting beer (this Czech import has a distinct nutty taste) that I have ever had. I suppose that European alcoholics might get drunk on it, but Americans would not get drunk on it. There are far cheaper ways to get drunk.

...Oh, yes -- Butterfly McQueen was right to refuse to eat watermelon on screen. It was not essential to the plot. Watermelon implies some ugly stereotypes -- but as a white man I have no personal problem with it. I love it!

Quote:MOVING ON... I had said people really do - when pressed or feeling cornered in a belief or system - they do grasp for absolutes for what I believe is a personal safety net FOR their ideology.  Ideologies over time become as a personal fortress we may built to protect what we believe and want to believe.

We circle the wagons, and everyone in the wagon train who ends up sharing the same concern for the time might forget old differences in a situation that can give them a shared fate. Irish Catholics and Mennonites of Swiss origin might have had severe differences getting along before setting out in the same wagon train and they might have intended to settle in very different communities. But under attack from Indians they had something to share in their fears. They could as easily end up dead. More recently, if one is in a consummately-dangerous combat (as when missiles are coming in), people get a focus on things other than the differences that they had before they enlisted.

For one thing, it is really hard to respond in this format.  Even knowing html/bbc as I DO the headache thing sorting through it - and now bold to stick it in there lol

This may be impossible but I kind of think tribalism (which is what "circling the wagons" means) is what causes the most problems.  One tribe fights with another, nation against nation, continent against continent... I believe there may be a strong inherent humans desire to fight and destroy "enemies" and we must somehow tame that is we are to survive as a species.


Yeah, woo-woo "...and the world will live as one."

People are seeing threats to their literal interpretation of the Bible -- as that if the first chapters of Genesis suggest that the world is a literal seven-day Creation and that there was a literal worldwide flood, then the Earth must be a few thousand years old, and the entire Earth must have been inundated -- even the summit of Mount Everest. Biblical prophecy as in Revelation must be true, and Jesus is coming soon. To such a believer, anyone who challenges any part of this must be part of some demonic plot to destroy Christian faith.

You are certainly right with that.  And it is THAT sort of tribalism I just described as being perhaps the crux of human conflict.  How do we stop it or even lessen it?  I have said in the past people mock and despise ISLAM and say it is violent and should not exist and oppresses people and whatever.......... guess what, Judaism and Christianity have done the same if not worse crimes against humanity in the past.  No one wants to admit or see that.  Islam and the general culture of the mid-east/persia are LAGGED behind the modern world.  Some parts of the world have moved past the burqa and public whipping and murder of gays, etc and some have not.  That's ALL I will say.

Look at some of the consequences of some articles of Faith. If Jesus really is coming soon, then such concerns as global warming are moot. The Faithful will be raptured away from this sinful world and into some Heaven while the sinful are damned to experience great tribulations. Most who miss the Rapture will be damned to Hell, which the world will be like in horrific wars and monstrous tyranny. If Young-Earth creationism is true, then study of anything that contradicts it could lead to the sort of demonic takeover of the human soul that leads people to Hell.

I couldn't have said it better.  I was one of those people in the past.  I truly believed Jesus was coming and I did not care what happened tomorrow.  I let lapse my driver license, did not have a bank account and truly lived day to day as if I would hear that TRUMPET at any moment and be gathered unto him with the faithful.  It was my own human condition that drove me to such an extreme.  I realize that now and am a functional human being due to certain people and their caring for me.. along with my realization that is not a right way to live.

I would like to add also this plays into the idea WHY I think I know why strauss/howe named Prophet as PROPHET in the archetype!  

Prophets appear on the world scene and all it does is cause problems.  Let's be real.  I would call the "Judges" and "Kings" of the bible and actual named "Prophets" as Prophets ALL.  And when they come, there is always bloodshed.  Maybe not in their actual message but FROM their message through people who use it to subjugate others.  ALWAYS HAPPENS.  Some New Revelation always comes with a price.  "Slay every man, left and right" is a direct command in the Torah.  "I have come not to bring peace but a sword!" from the Tanakh.  "Destroy the Infidel" from Q'ran.  THE PROPHET ALWAYS BRINGS DOOM.  It is some revelation that I guess has validity in a cycle of renewal and atrophy.... I guess the cycle itself is valid and must happen, but to me the reason for them naming that archetype what they did is clear.  I will post my thoughts about that in the future.

Quote:Adolph Hitler and Manson and these people are SYMBOLS of evil for many, many people.  I do not personally believe in a "devil" figure, but I understand where and WHY that concept came to be.  Humans create and/or latch onto people/concepts/religions/etc as mortar to secure the blocks of their own personal fortress.  When pressed or feeling pressed about an issue of great importance, human beings will conjure a PARALLEL or a HARD EXAMPLE (to them) they can cling to in order to assess the world around them and the events happening.  So, I get saddened when Adolph Hitler is conjured not as a historical figure but as a personal gauge and ultimate evil under the bed by which a respondent to the conversation tosses into the mix when it really does not belong there.  For it is incendiary in itself, really has no purpose, and serves only to inflame and nothing more.

Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson are not 'symbols' of evil; they are evil. My best description of the Devil is the perverse or corrupt superego, or absence of a superego, that allows one to do evil with relish. That Devil can lead people to do horrible things. My conception of the Devil suggests a play in which the Devil is the greatest adventurer in history, tempting people to do exploitative or destructive acts so that he can bring them with him to populate his nightmarish Hell. That Devil loves injustice; he enjoys hearing blasphemy as a music lover might appreciate the witty counterpoint of a Bach fugue. Adventurer? He's been everywhere -- slave ships and Nazi murder camps alike. He has been among infantry in human-wave charges and he has been in the war room with generals. Courage? Hardly. He is for all practical purposes indestructible. Oh, yes -- the Devil can change gender when it suits him, just as he can cite Scripture to serve his ends. (Shakespeare). I would place him at the many witch trials that lead to the execution of innocent people accused of witchcraft, at lynchings, and drug deals. I would have him tempting people to drive drunk I would even give him a role in the sinking of the Titanic. Why should he fear being on a sinking ship? Passengers and crew might die, but he can't die!

You say they ARE evil.  I will tell you the truth, friend.  There is no such thing as evil.  And no human being is pure evil.  Humans use other humans and their deeds as a MARKER on a mental ruler by which to gauge behavior.  If you steal, you are still better than Adolph.  If you slapped your woman, you are still better than Manson.  If you killed one person in the heat of rage, you are still better than both of them.  And so on.  

We as humans make tangible statistics to understand our surroundings.  And to justify our actions.  Also, to make a mental note or image of the monster under the bed.. so that when we need to grasp onto that concept, we know what it looks like.  We all of us on earth learn from an early age from our parents or caregivers what is good and evil.  Then we fashion it further for ourselves.  For some, it is a ghostly wraith.   For others, a hideous woman witch in the forest.  It is cultural.  For many, the evil carries a pitchfork.  But we now know from people like "Robert Langdon" that the symbol of the Trident is ancient and placed in the hand of a devil figure by christianity to demonize more ancient beliefs to sway people away from them to "Christ".

Quote:I mean, based on what I have seen some here say, aren't we struggling with this now NATIONALLY?  With families torn apart, friends not speaking, turning the channel to msnbc or fox or whatever because we know that when we turn it on IT WILL TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR.  Haven't we expressed that this sucks and should not be happening?  How do we stop that?  Does it not begin by stop hiding inside our fortress and saying "it is all lies out there"?

...and that is the problem. People do not want objective reality. We are in a messy time, one in which power is on the Far Right and truth has a liberal bias, which is a dangerous situation. That is how things go when Donald Trump is President.

Objective Reality?  Is that not what I have been complaining about here?  That objectivism must be employed lest we continue in our subjective tribalism (shared beliefs inside a fortress against other fortresses in the area)????

Quote:In short, using absolutism to sort of "end' the dialogue and basically say "this is my standard, this is my personal gauge to asses what you are talking about" it leaves no room for expansion, shuts down the dialogue immediately and is wholly representative of my ultimate "thesis" concerning who and how Prophets are at the heart of all doom in the Saeculum.  I would go so far to say that anyone who read the strauss/howe texts can see they, themselves, clearly point toward the idea the Prophet is at the epicenter of the Crisis (always) from sort of beginning to end.  We can disagree about that, but to me it was something so clearly represented by the authors it is almost (was) beyond mentioning............. for just assuming it was already understood by anyone studying this subject matter.

But in the last Crisis Era, the Prophet/Idealist generation did its allotted job in America and the British Commonwealth -- and did it very well. Who could better express the idea that Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were the representatives of Satan intent upon transforming the world into a Hell as fearsome as the one that one might ascribe to Mephistopheles?  Who could then better imagine a better world based upon principles that deny all applicability to the fear, hunger, brutality, and repression inherent in fascism?

"Representatives of Satan" --- I cannot do that.  I just cannot meet you at that place.  

Quote:I never got the feelz that Heroes were the problem.  After all, the authors named them HEROES.  Heroes don't destroy, they fix.  Artists don't cause drama, they create.  Nomads just don't care.  So we tolerate everyone else's bullshit fomented by the Prophet.  They called it Prophet for a reason.  Like I said, this was to me almost beyond even mentioning.  We all could argue all day about OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS toward the archetype, but clearly we are here because strauss and howe wrote books and had amazing structural concepts.  How is it we then read their construct and then say "no, that's not right".  I mean, they made it.  If we aren't on the same page with their framework, wtf are any of us doing here?  I never heard of the four archetypes or the saeculum or the turnings before that book.  They invented this "science" so we should probably go with their findings and/or construct?  

Can we concur that Dubya and Donald Trump are the wrong sorts of Prophet/Idealists for leading America through a Crisis Era? There were Prophet/Idealists who created the eugenic theories and racist claptrap to which Hitler grasped in his plan for his idea of a better world (never mind that it would be Judenrein and that many people would be consigned to slavery on behalf of the "Master Race"). There were Prophet/Idealists who tried to convince Americans who did not have slaves that slavery was the best thing possible for enslaved blacks.

Maybe the world has the difficult task of determining which Prophet/Idealist agenda is best. The Boom Generation us still young enough to have people capable of setting an agenda for a better world that mandates a struggle against evil, domestic and foreign. Donald Trump is obviously not up to it, and his agenda is at best suspect. There are many possible solutions to our economic distress, cultural depravity, and hazards of dangerous technologies. We have yet to see the unification of most of America behind one agenda. Can we mess up? Sure, and very badly. I look at the fascists who rejected Idealist morality and fostered national resentments manifesting themselves in the closest thing to Apocalypse that Humanity has ever known. Churchill and FDR demonstrated that a moral agenda was stronger than ethnic enmity, and when the Second World War went so badly for Germany as to splinter the country, then Germans who had a choice turned to an Idealist/Prophet (Konrad Adenauer) who could enunciate principles for a new and humane Germany.

Quote:It is not trivial or flippant to overlook this, actually it is quite important.  Once we start saying "no, the HERO is the problem......." I mean, cmon..... really?  Professor X is not Magneto.  If you do that, the entire framework of the story no longer functions.  Heroes can be serial killers just like anyone.  But we are past that, no?  We are all smart enough to go above that level of deduction to examine the archetypes as a whole.... and sorry, that involves close to 90% objectivity if not more.  

If anyone is saying "Adolph Hitler was born as a Hero so BLAM your theory cannot be right" then, that person really does not belong in the conversation.  They just don't have the faculties to engage in this.  (btw I really don't know what archetype he is).

I don't consider Hero/Civic generations wholly innocent in history. Need I remind you that among contemporaries of the earliest wave of American GIs were Ernst Kaltenbrunner (the man in charge of the Nazi concentration camp system; Adolf Eichmann, who set up the logistics of the Holocaust; and Josef Mengele, who performed obscene pseudo-medical experiments upon helpless people? Nazism was anti-feminist, but it encouraged some young women to be brutal camp guards. There were young guards who selected people for the gas chambers, and let us not forget the inimitable Irma Grese (a contemporary of many young American soldiers), who as a guard had trained dogs attack helpless inmates.  Blind obedience to evil is itself evil. And let us not forget that some contemporaries of American and British Idealists were major perpetrators of Axis horror -- Koki Hirota, Prime Minister of Japan during some horrific massacres in China; Wilhelm Frick, author of legislation to dehumanize Jews and set them up for extermination while establishing the apparatus of the totalitarian police state; Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, who made the Wehrmacht complicit in Nazi-sponsored atrocities and planned aggression against many countries; and Ion Antonescu, Romanian military dictator complicit in genocide mostly in western Ukraine.

All generations are capable of evil, whether small-scale robbery-murders or outright genocide. Whatever generation we are, it is our responsibility to choose decent, humane, competent leaders in democracies.

In another thread I was posting about the idea we are NOT talking about one person in an archetype.  We have to be done with that.  The authors never intended for this scaffolding to do that.  You say you don't consider Hero to be "innocent" that is not what is happening.  My reasoning is not that.  And I would say it is not so much to point a finger at anyone at all... but rather in the attempt the understand the cycles and the archetypes more fully. 

Until I post my "thesis" on the Prophet archetype and why that movement in the saeculum is at the root of the Crisis.... and I mean, I COULD go and create sources from the book and post them here........... I thought of that but truly that is like a doctoral paper that I am unsure if you or Eric are going to shake my hand and give me actual educational credit for it. 

Anyone who read The Fourth Turning and Generations should be able to follow along.  But the more I am reading responses here, I'm not sure if many WILL understand.  It could be yet another case of taking an idea with a fresh concept and then making it into whatever suits our individual subjective views OF that concept.   Which makes me a lil sad