The Fourth Turning Halftime Update

[sbarrera]

Thanks for joining WinterStorm, and for the reply.

To address some of your points-
1. We are moving into the post-paper age. I agree that we have reduced the need for and use of paper, but I'm not sure we're post-paper. I still use cash, still print things out, even fax sometimes. I will say that in the workplace paper use is out, but part of that is because there are now "clean desk" policies that discourage ever making a printout if it can be avoided.

2. Fossil fuels will continue to slowly decline. Sorry, but this is just not the case. Global fossil fuel consumption keeps rising with the rising population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

3. Autonomous cars will be the wave of the future. The far future, IMO. We will not achieve Level 5 automation by the start of the next saeculum.

4.The digital revolution. I liked your points about Agile, which has definitely been transformative. Also agree that the tech giants are the new Ford/GM. The ones that grew out of the "dot com" era to become the dominators today are the winners of the Millennial saeculum. And we are still figuring out just how much power they have and how they will shape the new saeculum which is only a decade away.

(Well I have to go push bits at the office now so I will have to reply more later).

[Eric the Green]

(10-22-2018, 07:33 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Thanks for joining WinterStorm, and for the reply.

To address some of your points-
1. We are moving into the post-paper age. I agree that we have reduced the need for and use of paper, but I'm not sure we're post-paper. I still use cash, still print things out, even fax sometimes. I will say that in the workplace paper use is out, but part of that is because there are now "clean desk" policies that discourage ever making a printout if it can be avoided.

2. Fossil fuels will continue to slowly decline. Sorry, but this is just not the case. Global fossil fuel consumption keeps rising with the rising population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

3. Autonomous cars will be the wave of the future. The far future, IMO. We will not achieve Level 5 automation by the start of the next saeculum.

4.The digital revolution. I liked your points about Agile, which has definitely been transformative. Also agree that the tech giants are the new Ford/GM. The ones that grew out of the "dot com" era to become the dominators today are the winners of the Millennial saeculum. And we are still figuring out just how much power they have and how they will shape the new saeculum which is only a decade away.

(Well I have to go push bits at the office now so I will have to reply more later).

I agree with Winterstorm's points. We do live in a post-industrial, digital age, and that is shaping the future. A lot of what you mentioned, Winterstorm, is not limited to the dictates of technology, however. It also reflects the hope that greater awareness and optimism of human needs and desires, helped along by a high-tech economy, will be unstoppable in the long run. That certainly includes the awareness of the ecological effects of the industrial age, and the need to gear our new technology toward protecting our biosphere. So I disagree with Barrera that fossil fuels are not on the way out; they are.

The only question now is how fast the change happens. Right now, it is being resisted tooth and nail in the USA, and somewhat in other countries as well. There is also a trend back towards tyranny, which harkens back even to the agricultural ages. If the Trumpists get their way and hold off the trends which winterstorm mentioned, and thus keep us tied down to an industrial oil/coal-based economy, then the future could be crushed even though it might seem inevitable. Probably what will happen is that this Trumpist resistance to the future will spur the regeneracy in this 4T, which will rise up to defeat the Trumpists so we can go forward-- just like in the last 4T, when the last ditch effort to suppress a democratic western world order by the fascists was defeated. I hope it happens, but it will not be easy in Trump/Kavanaugh's America, and the right-wingers should not be underestimated.

Right now, Trump and the right-wing have realized that increased Latin and other immigration into the USA has increased the Democratic vote in some states, and so they are repressing it. The older Republicans, mostly Silents and Boomers, grew up in a society which was made more uniformly white back in the early 1920s by the eugenics movement and suppression of immigration. This was at the same time that the USA refused to join the League of Nations. The older whites are used to this world they grew up in, and are disturbed by the resumption of immigration that began in the sixties under JFK and LBJ. The older Republicans are resisting the irresistible trend toward a world society that came upon us in the 1880s and 1890s, when the statue of liberty was erected with Emma Lazarus' poem at its base and Ellis Island opened. This eugenics/anti-immigration movement is erupting again in the USA now, because the 1920's artificial delay in the advent of a world society in the USA was ended in the sixties, and so we once again have to face the postponed arrival of the world society that is replacing a world of racial/ethnic nationalities within protected nation states. There's something to be said for managing a world society so local needs are not overwhelmed by a corporate world authority and by the tides of huddled masses yearning to live in the first world, but it won't be built simply by putting up walls against the rest of the globe. In our post-industrial world, the walls are crumbling.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-21-2018, 11:25 AM)WinterStorm Wrote: I am a software engineer by profession, and the digital revolution currently dominates my Crisis ideas.  In fact, I believe that the digital revolution is shaping this Crisis in the same way that prior waves of industrialization shaped the prior 3 ones.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

I used to be a programmer and system administrator until 2008 happened.  Then I got involuntarily retired.
So  to hell with banksters and all of that.

1. We are moving into the post-paper age.  Like many new trends, this is one in which "the future is already here, just not yet evenly distributed" since there is currently no consensus that we are already there.  Since paper and coin money makes up less than 15% of financial transactions (with most people using debit/credit and getting paid using direct deposit), we have crossed the line into the cashless society.  At last, we can say we are there.  That doesn't mean that there isn't paper money, of course, but it is a minor and declining method of payment.  Job applications and housing applications have moved online.  Motor vehicle registration has moved online.  Books are increasingly read on a computer in the same way we use MP3s.

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

I agree with everything except for cashless society.  Too many problems there.  The first is privacy, next is it doesn't play nice with power outages. Finally, there are software fuckups that happen.  I blame the bank's use of contractors for this. That's oursourcing that happens. I experience schadenfreude every time any and all outsourced projects crash and burn like that.

In the 1990s (as a kid), I remember office desks containing stacks of paper.  Today, the usage of paper is decreasing to the point that the office printer gets unused in many cases.  Electronic communications has largely replaced the usage of paper, except for cases in which paper is still required by law or industry convention.  Documents get emailed or stored on some cloud.  People use Skype and Slack for office communications.  The same thing is increasingly true for schooling.  Heavy textbooks are being replaced by laptops and tablets which offer a lot of advantages, such as interactive and remote education.  The classroom is becoming an institution dominated by computers rather than paper.  Kids do their lessons on their computers and often turn their work online.  It is my prediction that the upcoming Idealist generation will see paper in the same way Boomers viewed the icebox as a technology.  

2. Fossil fuels will continue to slowly decline, while new ones such as solar and nuclear will continue to rise.  This will involve a fundamental shift that will veer more towards how things are organized in the digital world.  The rise of electric vehicles is a result of the Recovery Act of 2009.  Not only will this solve the environmental problem caused by fossil fuel cars, the rise of EVs will usher in a more tightly integrated infrastructure.  And here is why.  An EV is powered by a battery.  However you charge the battery is largely up to you, as long as you provide the correct input to the correct interface.  So if you have a generator running petroleum, then you can use that.  You can also use solar, wind, geothermal.  You can charge at a charge station like a gas station, but also at the parking lot of many places, and even your own house.  Batteries will become more energy dense and EVs more efficient.  Also, Peak Oil now seems like a thing of the past.  Elon Musk saved the say.

3. Autonomous cars will be the wave of the future.  Cars today already have a significant amount of automation, with Tesla and Cadillac currently leading the pack.  By the next High, we will have achieved Level 5 automation.  What that means for the future of driving, I cannot say.  This will make radical changes in society.  A 10 year old might in the future be able to own a car, for instance.  This technology, combined with drone technology, will finally give us flying cars.  Automation will make flying cars into a rather safe technology.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

1. I think only 10 year olds who are trustfund babies can afford those cars.
2. I don't think very many proles can afford those cars.
3. Home generators make lots of smog, so no thanks.
4. Flying cars?  Well, here in Oklahoma we have wild weather. Said cars would have to work with thunderstorms which have high winds and hail.  Would the cars still work after their apparati get hail dings? What happens if they get struck by lightning? Best of all are our howling blizzards. How would flying cars work in those? Blizzards cause the airports to cancel all of the flights. I have an idea for a prototype though.
First, we mandate that all private planes be self flying. It's best after all to use fat cats as our guinea pigs. After a sufficiently low death rate from plane crashes, then the software could then be migrated to cars. Next, only cars for fat cats would be outfitted. The reason for doing it this way is because only fat cats have enough money to afford prototypes and the private planes. There is absolutely no reason to spend money subsidizing test vehicles for proles who can't afford them. Private planes are just perfect because those make a perfect starting point since they're also already around. Just add software and apparatti and off ya go! I agree we can get to safe flying cars, though I'm sure we'll have some fat cats taking some dirt naps.
I say that's  a win win, IMHO.  

Tesla?  Oh yeah,  I sorta wonder how long folks will stuffing money into it.   Those financials look awful, man.

4. The digital revolution itself provides the setting with which the Crisis is taking place.  This is causing a revolution in the workplace and in the entire industrial sector.  I never got to experience the Taylorist regime, but that idea that has been the basis of organization for about a century seems to be coming to an end.  Whether you were capitalist, fascist, communist, anarchist, technocrat, or any other government or movement at the time, it was taken for granted for most of the 20th century that you adhered to the organizing principles of Taylorism and Fordism.  Now, all of that is changing.  Agile, which was created as a way to organize software development work, has taken over most organizations.  Even if you are only using a part of Agile, it has changed the organization.  The modern organization looks like a software development shop.  In today's office, you are stationed at a computer and are using some custom internally developed application to do your work.  The organization is pretty much built around the computer network to such an extent that the organization of the IT sector and infrastructure becomes indistinguishable from the form of the organization itself.  The fact that workers are using software developed internally greatly contributes to the reduction of paper usage in the office, replacing them with electronic forms, databases, and automation.  New technologies such as blockchain, AR, and Internet of Things are accelerating this digital trend.  The same technologies and concepts that make the smart home will make the smart office.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

On Agile.  So when is it going to put secure programming and secure hardware in the process?  Given the number of security screw ups, it ain't part of the plan anywhere. Secure programming shouldn't be a nothought or afterthought like it is now.

The digital revolution also means that you will need entirely different skills in the 21st century.  Tech careers are now a critical sector of the economy.  There is a new concept called "New Collar" work, meant to replace and consolidate blue and white collar work.  These are skills which don't require a college education and can be learned right out of high school.  These type of jobs will similar to jobs like carpentry and plumbing in that they will allow most people to live a comfortable lifestyle while not investing a lot of time and money into college.  I expect that this concept will be key to the widespread prosperity expected of a High.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Germany already does this.  Corporate America is too fucking cheap to have apprenticeships and the US government shovels way to much money on the defense offense budget.  There's also a problem with higher education. It's just another racket and the tuition is too damn high.  I bet nobody gets the nice $4.00/credit hour I had anymore.

Tuition's too damn high!






In some places the rent is too damn high also.  However, the rent's not too damn high in Oklahoma.

The 20th century was dominated by companies like GM and Ford.  Today, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, and other technologies have totally replaced the old industrial era giants.  Nearly every aspect of life is dominated by technology companies.  Your work life is likely thoroughly dominated by Microsoft products like Outlook, Word, and Excel.

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Pfffftttt.  Why do folks even use Outlook, Word, and excel when there's Openoffice?

 Your home life and communications are now thoroughly dominated by technology.  People increasingly do all of their shopping online with companies like Amazon.  Google dominated search and email.  There is virtually no activity left that doesn't heavily involve technology giants.  This trend will only increase.  It's kinda like churning butter and horseback riding.  Once cars came out, the skill of horseback riding quickly disappeared because the world that it existed in no longer exists.  We are already at the point at which the industrial, 20th century way of doing things is already becoming forgotten.  The Homelanders will be the last generation to have any experience of a pre-digital era.  They will only see its destruction and replacement, whereas the Millennials will have experienced the pre-digital existence as kids and Xers coming fully of age before the shift.  The neo-Boomers, OTOH, will have no experience of a pre-digital existence.

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62


I shall have nothing to do with Google because Google is an evil company that sends data to the deep state!  There's nothing that tastes as good as freshly churned butter.   The stuff at the supermarket is gorp.

There's no place like home.
127.0.0.1  google.com

5. In the book Generations, it is noted how household life gets easier, more predictable, and more stable during Highs.  The prior Crisis finished the industrial modernization of the home by implementing plumbing and electricity on a mass societal scale.  That period introduced several new home technologies including refridgerators.  This time around, we have Smart Home technologies.  The smart home is essentially a digital home, and is an IoT sector.  Just imagine that your entire house is run like a computer program.  Instead of just having printers and scanners as peripherals (such as during the 1990s), now you have things such as your washer/dryer, light sockets, window blinds, and water faucet now become computer peripherals too.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Smart homes are for sheeple , aka NPC's.



I suppose there those who don't have a hacker's outlook.
Smartspeakers.  eavesdrop on those. I bet the alphabet agencies do that as well. If there's one in the bedroom, PORN city.
I'd love to hack lightbulbs.   I'd make them work like Christmas lights by making them turn off and on a bunch of times.
Washing machine.  I'd like to keep it in the start cycle, add soap, and let it overflow.  Operation bubble bath, man.
Window blinds, up and down all around.
Water faucet.  Turn 'em on and run up a huge water bill for the victim.
IOT.  It's old news, but spam engines and DDOS  doers.

So , if hacked life won't be easier or more predictable.  Imagine coming home to the stuff mentioned above.

This will give people unprecedented convience and control over their environment.  Cheap microcontrollers, sensors, actuators, and ubiquitous computers and networks will allow people in the 2030s to live a Jetsons-like existence.  People will clean their houses using robots (such a Roomba).  People will keep up to date using smart mirrors.  Voice user interface (i.e. Alexa or Cortana) will also dominate the home at the time.

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Roomba = cat chaser.
Smart mirrors = more PORN
Alexa/Cortana = hack in and order dildos and pocket pussies from Amazon.

 Each home will produce significant amounts of data.  Every change of temperature, for instance, will be logged and stored in some database to be used be some other application (such as an automatic lawn sprinkler that doesn't run in sub-freezing temperatures).  This means that your house is increasingly hackable both by yourself and by belligerents.  The same concepts and technologies added to the workplace creates the smart office.  In your multiscreen enterprise application, imagine someone adding a screen that gave you (or more realistically someone with credentials) the ability to control all of the lights in the office.  This will be the future.

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Significant amounts of data for 3 letter agencies.
Hack lawn sprinkler to turn on everyday in the winter.
I see you got to the hackable thingie.  You bet!  

6. The smart home concept applied on a municipal level scale creates the smart city, which is just one of the changes that bring to mind the New Deal.  Basically, use sensors and networks to capture data (weather data, pollution data, noise pollution data, traffic, etc.) for use by the city (and anyone with access to the API).  For instance, Shotspotter is a network of sensors that listen for gunshots (location, time, maybe even type).  Once the sensors have picked that up, a message is instantly dispatched to law enforcement and any CCTV cameras around the area turn on and watch the location.  The scooter craze is another example of the smart city revolution.  Things like this will increasingly dominate city life.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62
That smells like China social credit score fever.  Just because that data goes to you , doesn't mean the apparati tell somebody else everything about you.

t because that data goes to you , doesn't mean the apparati tell somebody else everything about you.  


7. Related to smart cities is the concept of egovernment.  Estonia, of course, is the poster child for digital government, but the US has made strides on its own.  Most city and state governments, as well as the national government now allow you to find information and use services online.  One instance is ticket payment for a moving or parking violation.  And then there are tools for civic engagement, which have been extensively used during the Obama and Trump presidencies and presidential campaigns.   With blockchain voting is likely to move online, and civic software will make society much more governable by giving the citizens a greater voice and more power.  Obamacare is a prime example of digital government and digital transformation that will become ordinary the rest of this century.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Good luck with that. Obamacare's web interface started out awful.  We're talking about the US, not Estonia. The US is a banana republic rife with cronyism. The contracts will go to whoever gives the best kickbacks to officialdom.

8. We finally have a national health care system, and there is no turning back.  Even if Obamacare is abandoned, there is no way Americans will tolerate not having a national health care system.  All attempts to repeal have failed, meaning that the only argument is whether we keep Obamacare (with some possible changes) or we give everyone Medicare.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

This should be easy, but do to rampant cronyism and *NPC issues it isn't.
1. Enact single payer.
2. Fix patent abuse.
3. Enact VAT tax to pay for it.

NPC's in this case are red voters.  Oklahoma is a shitpot full of red voters.

9. One of the most interesting things to watch has been the blossoming of information age warfare.  War is looking more and more like a cyberpunk video game.  In fact, I am amazed at how accurately the Call of Duty series captures both the current and future reality of war.  Since 9/11, drones have menaced the battlefield.  It is gotten to the point at which you can build your own mini-reaper drone in your garage and wage terror or war.  Robots have also revolutionized the battlefield.  The IoT, and AR are of course entering the battle space, giving soldiers and enhanced view and more information about the battle field.  Imagine having a HUD display for your helmet that provides perks that gamers are accustomed to (such as a map with (known) enemy positions and known friendly positions), and sensors that give detailed information about the battle field.  Add in AI analysis and add in robots and this is the cutting edge of war today.  People with gaming skills now can become drone warriors.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

I'm sure Russian trolls have game here.  That's a hackfest.

At the same time that we have robots and drones, we also have cyber networks that can be hacked.  In the 1990s, cyberwar was still almost entirely science fiction, and the dominant view was that of a (Millennial) teenager using digital technologies to smash the oppressing corporation (which was modeled off of Microsoft) or some militaristic entity.  20 years later, cyberwar is a reality, but instead of anarchist teenagers fighting against Microsoft, now it is the national governments hacking and attacking each other.  Cyberwar has been compared to nukes because the potential destruction can be very vast.  We had a close call with the Wannacry event which shut down the British hospital system a couple of years back.  Russian malware has been found on the computers of critical national infrastructure such as power plants.  This has caused kind of an emergency drive to build critical cybersecurity, and has forced the nation to learn the basics of cybersecurity.  I suspect that by the end of this Crisis, we will have robust cybersecurity protection.  All products will likely have to follow basic security standards for it to be usable in many contexts, likely bordering on unreasonable paranoia early into the High.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Close.  Xer's are more cynical and ruthless. They also by default have more experience wrt hacking.

With that said, national governments and blocs will have differences in digital policy, just like they had major differences in industrial policy in the previous Crisis in which nations tried out many ideas to build and fix a maturing industrial age society.  Of course, many believed that fascism or communism would be the best way to organize an industrial power.  In the 21st century, differences in digital policy have the potential to break apart the global internet.  The Chinese internet is already on its way to becoming a separate internet.  The EU has just recently implemented GDPR, which is a far reaching digital privacy law.  The fact that the US doesn't have a law like this (yet) could also make large parts of the internet inaccessible to large groups.  Just like the bipolar world of the 20th century caused technology and infrastructure to develop along separate and parallel lines, this separation will likely cause lasting cultural, social, economic, and political differences for the rest of the 21st century.  China might have the totalitarian internet, while America has the free internet, for instance.

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

The US does not have a free internet. Three letter agencies and companies like Facefuck and Twatter censor stuff now.
We don't have a nice law like the GDPR because lots of officials and congressmen are whores to Big Tech.

<snip>

12. Elon Musk is revolutionizing space.  I believe that people like Musk and Bezos will finally bring in the space faring future by the end of this Crisis.  The next High will likely see a massive expansion into space.  I'm betting that by the next Awakening, humans will have built bases on the moon and Mars, will have space based manufacturing, and will likely see the first true attempts at permanent space settlement (driven by expansion-minded Millenniials and culturally driven neo-Boomers).  If history is a guide, this will match the previous ages of exploration during their Highs, as well as the westward expansion of the US after the nation's founding and the Civil War.  

Quote:Quote=Ragnarök_62

Dunno.  Eric has this problem also.  Perhaps dystopia upcoming.  Too many people and climate change launch a new dark age. Let's do a visual aid here.



Bacteria = humans
Petri dish = earth

When the petri dish gets full, all of the bacteria die from lack of resources.

13. Playing video games is no longer a waste of time since it can lead to a lucrative career.  Video games are now a full blown member of the cultural landscape, and we live in an age in which a majority of people from all demographics play video games.  Video games are now a primary medium to transmit cultural information.  There is also esports which is exploding in popularity.  Video games are now a professional sport.  Now, people who are the best at games can make money off of it.  Popular musicians now write songs and music videos for video games today.  

14. Racial integration is finally increasing again.  The Crisis is foring us to confront issues raised during the Civil Rights Era.  The whole migration crisis is emblematic of this.  Most nations will have to grapple with whether integration or segregation is ideal, and to what degree.  It is my prediction that the integrationists will ultimately win.  We are also forced to confront gender issues. It is my prediction that most ideals of gender equality will be celebrated.

Quote:Nawww.   Good borders make for good neighbors. And again, too many people = dieoff. The US population needs to get to 200 million or dieoff happens here.  

15. Laissez-Faire is now long dead (for now, at least).  Compared to the 1990s, it looks substantially more like a centrally planned and controlled economy, especially since the crash of 2008.

This. Neoliberalism needs to just die. However, to do this there needs to be borders. Globalism whether mobile populations or capital is a real bummer, man.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-22-2018, 12:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-22-2018, 07:33 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Thanks for joining WinterStorm, and for the reply.

To address some of your points-
1. We are moving into the post-paper age. I agree that we have reduced the need for and use of paper, but I'm not sure we're post-paper. I still use cash, still print things out, even fax sometimes. I will say that in the workplace paper use is out, but part of that is because there are now "clean desk" policies that discourage ever making a printout if it can be avoided.

2. Fossil fuels will continue to slowly decline. Sorry, but this is just not the case. Global fossil fuel consumption keeps rising with the rising population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

3. Autonomous cars will be the wave of the future. The far future, IMO. We will not achieve Level 5 automation by the start of the next saeculum.

4.The digital revolution. I liked your points about Agile, which has definitely been transformative. Also agree that the tech giants are the new Ford/GM. The ones that grew out of the "dot com" era to become the dominators today are the winners of the Millennial saeculum. And we are still figuring out just how much power they have and how they will shape the new saeculum which is only a decade away.

(Well I have to go push bits at the office now so I will have to reply more later).

I agree with Winterstorm's points. We do live in a post-industrial, digital age, and that is shaping the future. A lot of what you mentioned, Winterstorm, is not limited to the dictates of technology, however. It also reflects the hope that greater awareness and optimism of human needs and desires, helped along by a high-tech economy, will be unstoppable in the long run. That certainly includes the awareness of the ecological effects of the industrial age, and the need to gear our new technology toward protecting our biosphere. So I disagree with Barrera that fossil fuels are not on the way out; they are.

The only question now is how fast the change happens. Right now, it is being resisted tooth and nail in the USA, and somewhat in other countries as well. There is also a trend back towards tyranny, which harkens back even to the agricultural ages. If the Trumpists get their way and hold off the trends which winterstorm mentioned, and thus keep us tied down to an industrial oil/coal-based economy, then the future could be crushed even though it might seem inevitable. Probably what will happen is that this Trumpist resistance to the future will spur the regeneracy in this 4T, which will rise up to defeat the Trumpists so we can go forward-- just like in the last 4T, when the last ditch effort to suppress a democratic western world order by the fascists was defeated. I hope it happens, but it will not be easy in Trump/Kavanaugh's America, and the right-wingers should not be underestimated.

Right now, Trump and the right-wing have realized that increased Latin and other immigration into the USA has increased the Democratic vote in some states, and so they are repressing it. The older Republicans, mostly Silents and Boomers, grew up in a society which was made more uniformly white back in the early 1920s by the eugenics movement and suppression of immigration. This was at the same time that the USA refused to join the League of Nations. The older whites are used to this world they grew up in, and are disturbed by the resumption of immigration that began in the sixties under JFK and LBJ. The older Republicans are resisting the irresistible trend toward a world society that came upon us in the 1880s and 1890s, when the statue of liberty was erected with Emma Lazarus' poem at its base and Ellis Island opened. This eugenics/anti-immigration movement is erupting again in the USA now, because the 1920's artificial delay in the advent of a world society in the USA was ended in the sixties, and so we once again have to face the postponed arrival of the world society that is replacing a world of racial/ethnic nationalities within protected nation states. There's something to be said for managing a world society so local needs are not overwhelmed by a corporate world authority and by the tides of huddled masses yearning to live in the first world, but it won't be built simply by putting up walls against the rest of the globe. In our post-industrial world, the walls are crumbling.

1, Do you own a Siri or equivalent?  You know those are data collection devices for the deep state.
2. Statue of Liberty stuff. Remember Ellis Island history? Immigration was controlled back then. Again, unrestricted mass migration will make the US an even bigger #shitholecountry than it is now. One would think too many people is a main driver of ecological collapse and climate change. The more people, the more carbon emissions, more stress on the biosphere, and of course in my universe exponential growth rates always exceed and overshoot finite  stuff.  Immigration shouldn't be partisan, but rather, do Americans want to have their country turn into a very bad #shitholecountry. Stuff like water and food matter. And the world population is too damn high!
3. Obviously, there's not enough resources in the "free world" to support the earth's population, since the whole earth can't do that either.
4. Nation states are the best way to counter corporate world authority like what countries like Russia and Iran do. That's probably why Neocons hate them so much.  

5. The only thing I agree with Trump on is insisting on only legal immigration.

6. How about something real, eh? How about a carbon tax with the proceeds going to American citizen households as a UBI.  There, the UBI is paid for and it's perfectly doable. That should also help out the renewables since it make Big Fossil Fuel pay for externialities.



Shit locations in San Francisco
Always remember and never forget, the more people, the more shit.

https://freetoursbyfoot.com/ten-apps-dow...francisco/  <-  They need an app to update visitors on where the shit is.

There will be no world society. I mean look at all of the wars and stuff. Nope, nada, zilch, nei because humans are just such tacky, tacky creatures. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...licts.html

Then there's the choice of a robust safety net vs. illegal immigration. Those two things don't play nice. I choose the safety net option. People who think the US  can have both are deluded, IMO.

[Eric the Green]

We already live in a world society, since 1892. We only tried to hold back the inevitable tide in the 1920s, and now people who grew up in a white country are wondering what happened again to their white country. Immigration restriction laws were always racist. I documented that in a previous post. Again, as I keep reminding you, no, the immigration issue doesn't have to be partisan. That's why Bush and Obama agreed on a reasonable approach, and why a bipartisan group in the senate proposed a reasonable law and passed it. But the fanatical right-wing idiots in the Tea Party House blocked it. It proved to be the best issue for Trumpty Dumpty to run on. "They're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, their bringing crime; they're rapists..." Bullshit. Immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers. More immigrants will not make us a shithole country. Sure, we need to cut down on population growth, in a humane way by increasing womens' rights and prosperity in all countries.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-22-2018, 11:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We already live in a world society, since 1892. We only tried to hold back the inevitable tide in the 1920s, and now people who grew up in a white country are wondering what happened again to their white country. Immigration restriction laws were always racist. I documented that in a previous post. Again, as I keep reminding you, no, the immigration issue doesn't have to be partisan. That's why Bush and Obama agreed on a reasonable approach, and why a bipartisan group in the senate proposed a reasonable law and passed it. But the fanatical right-wing idiots in the Tea Party House blocked it. It proved to be the best issue for Trumpty Dumpty to run on. "They're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, their bringing crime; they're rapists..." Bullshit.
More immigrants will not make us a shithole country. Sure, we need to cut down on population growth, in a humane way by increasing womens' rights and prosperity in all countries.

1. Legal immigration policy shouldn't be political. Likewise illegal immigration shouldn't be political.  Illegal immigration is bad because you get too many people and I think that immigration is a privilege, not a right.

2. So you have two stupid positions. Assigning bad stuff like drugs,criminality, etc. is not correct for legal immigration.  Likewise anyone who supports illegal immigration is also wrong. There are limits to the amount of resources available in the US. Immigration policy needs to take that into account. Also, illegals work under the table so that drains tax revenue. It also gives unfair advantage to employers who hire them. So with that, we need to have Everify strictly enforced with strict fines for back taxes, tax evasion, and a huge fine for hiring illegal aliens to keep companies from doing that stuff.  I bet it was a fabulous issue for Trump because nobody has done squat about illegal immigration.  Folks are fed up with that nonsense. And... I don't care for race baiters who say any restrictions whatsoever on immigration is "dats razzists."

3. More people = more shit. Yeah we're already a shithole country, so more people will by default make us even moreso.

4. "Immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers."  Really? That's the exact position of Neoliberals!  Honestly,  I truly hate Neoliberals and want them all to burn in hell.  Maybe climate change will send a lot of their shit into the water to be homes to the fishes.

5. Women's rights and family planning. Yes, that's an excellent idea. That's one of few things I'd support foreign aid on.

[Eric the Green]

(10-23-2018, 01:57 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-22-2018, 11:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We already live in a world society, since 1892. We only tried to hold back the inevitable tide in the 1920s, and now people who grew up in a white country are wondering what happened again to their white country. Immigration restriction laws were always racist. I documented that in a previous post. Again, as I keep reminding you, no, the immigration issue doesn't have to be partisan. That's why Bush and Obama agreed on a reasonable approach, and why a bipartisan group in the senate proposed a reasonable law and passed it. But the fanatical right-wing idiots in the Tea Party House blocked it. It proved to be the best issue for Trumpty Dumpty to run on. "They're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, their bringing crime; they're rapists..." Bullshit.
More immigrants will not make us a shithole country. Sure, we need to cut down on population growth, in a humane way by increasing womens' rights and prosperity in all countries.

1. Legal immigration policy shouldn't be political. Likewise illegal immigration shouldn't be political.  Illegal immigration is bad because you get too many people and I think that immigration is a privilege, not a right.

2. So you have two stupid positions. Assigning bad stuff like drugs,criminality, etc. is not correct for legal immigration.  Likewise anyone who supports illegal immigration is also wrong. There are limits to the amount of resources available in the US. Immigration policy needs to take that into account. Also, illegals work under the table so that drains tax revenue. It also gives unfair advantage to employers who hire them. So with that, we need to have E-verify strictly enforced with strict fines for back taxes, tax evasion, and a huge fine for hiring illegal aliens to keep companies from doing that stuff.  I bet it was a fabulous issue for Trump because nobody has done squat about illegal immigration.  Folks are fed up with that nonsense. And... I don't care for race baiters who say any restrictions whatsoever on immigration is "dats razzists."

3. More people = more shit. Yeah we're already a shithole country, so more people will by default make us even moreso.

4. "Immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers."  Really? That's the exact position of Neoliberals!  Honestly,  I truly hate Neoliberals and want them all to burn in hell.  Maybe climate change will send a lot of their shit into the water to be homes to the fishes.

5. Women's rights and family planning. Yes, that's an excellent idea. That's one of few things I'd support foreign aid on.

1. "Too many people" is a worldwide question. I live on Planet Earth. The USA is an abstraction.

2. It is too hard for some deserving immigrants to come here. There needs to be liberal asylum availability, given the amount of tyranny in the world. True, it would be better if they stayed in their country and fought a civil war. But that's really asking them to get killed. Illegals shouldn't work under the table. They should be required to be paid minimum wage. They should be asked to pay a fine and show themselves to be good citizens. Not enough resources? I don't know what that means. The whole planet is running out of resources we don't need anymore.

Obama was doing a lot on illegal immigration; he was Deporter in Chief and illegal immigration went way down. Trump did not use the issue because it was necessary; he used it only because he knew there are a lot of prejudiced, hateful people in the USA that he could rally behind him with false accusations, and who would vote for his hate-pandering. There was nothing to be "fed up with" at all, except to be fed up with Trump's race-baiting.

4. I didn't know neo-cons were those who say immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers. No, liberals say that, because it's the truth. Neo-cons start wars for no reason except to impose our economic needs and greeds upon other countries.

[sbarrera]

(10-22-2018, 12:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-22-2018, 07:33 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Thanks for joining WinterStorm, and for the reply.

To address some of your points-
1. We are moving into the post-paper age. I agree that we have reduced the need for and use of paper, but I'm not sure we're post-paper. I still use cash, still print things out, even fax sometimes. I will say that in the workplace paper use is out, but part of that is because there are now "clean desk" policies that discourage ever making a printout if it can be avoided.

2. Fossil fuels will continue to slowly decline. Sorry, but this is just not the case. Global fossil fuel consumption keeps rising with the rising population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

3. Autonomous cars will be the wave of the future. The far future, IMO. We will not achieve Level 5 automation by the start of the next saeculum.

4.The digital revolution. I liked your points about Agile, which has definitely been transformative. Also agree that the tech giants are the new Ford/GM. The ones that grew out of the "dot com" era to become the dominators today are the winners of the Millennial saeculum. And we are still figuring out just how much power they have and how they will shape the new saeculum which is only a decade away.

(Well I have to go push bits at the office now so I will have to reply more later).

I agree with Winterstorm's points. We do live in a post-industrial, digital age, and that is shaping the future. A lot of what you mentioned, Winterstorm, is not limited to the dictates of technology, however. It also reflects the hope that greater awareness and optimism of human needs and desires, helped along by a high-tech economy, will be unstoppable in the long run. That certainly includes the awareness of the ecological effects of the industrial age, and the need to gear our new technology toward protecting our biosphere. So I disagree with Barrera that fossil fuels are not on the way out; they are.

I think a big difference between us, Eric, is that you see things the way they ought to be, and I see things the way they are (or try to anyway). The evidence is that fossil fuels are here to stay for a long while. I know you very much want a world of renewable energy, but it is just not as economically feasible and technological development is not as fast as it might seem to be based on fads/hype in the media.

[sbarrera]

Looks like Ragnarok already got to completing the walkthrough of WinterStorm's list. 

Going back to the digital revolution, which could be called "the Internet eats the world," I am halfway between WinterStorm's vision of a techno-utopia and Ragnarok's dark future of deep state control. Yes, surveillance and data collection and AI are pervasive, but I don't see it as a huge threat to human liberty, or as taking us far beyond our earlier twentieth century way of life.

We still drive cars to get everywhere, like we did 60 years ago, and put up with all the inefficiencies and risks because we like the freedom it gives us. We still need a job to pay the bills. We still depend mostly on the private sector for the benefits of life. We pay for TV and watch TV with different patterns, but "Netflix and chill" is still being a couch potato in front of the boob tube!

[sbarrera]

Just to finish my thoughts on the post that revived this thread:

Quote:11. So the period from 1991 to 2013 (or 2001) was the modern day interregnum. The Cold War is back with us, and many of the things that defined that age have returned. The way things are moving now, we might be right back in the same place with them that we were in the year 1950. Everything geopolitics today reflects this reality, from the trade wars, to the Syrian War, to the ISIS war, to the new digital reality. So I'm guessing that we have another "century" of Cold War. 

I don't see how we are back to the Cold War. The Cold War was a stand-off between two superpowers, each leading a bloc of other powers and fighting proxy wars in the middle grounds. This old order has collapsed - first the Soviet bloc in the the early 90s, then the U.S. bloc after the Iraq War debacle. We are in new territory geopolitically, with the U.S. waning in influence and lesser powers enjoying more freedom of action as a result. On top of that, the U.S. president has a fetish for dictators and absolute monarchs.

Quote:12. Elon Musk is revolutionizing space. I believe that people like Musk and Bezos will finally bring in the space faring future by the end of this Crisis. The next High will likely see a massive expansion into space.

It's fun and exciting that the Gen-X billionaires, the big winners of the 3T, have taken up this private space race. But the effort involved for massive expansion into even the inner solar system is much too vast to see this in our lifetimes. And even were it to happen, it would require a concerted national effort, not just the effort of entrepreneurs.

Quote:13. Playing video games is no longer a waste of time since it can lead to a lucrative career. Video games are now a full blown member of the cultural landscape, and we live in an age in which a majority of people from all demographics play video games. Video games are now a primary medium to transmit cultural information. There is also esports which is exploding in popularity. Video games are now a professional sport. Now, people who are the best at games can make money off of it. Popular musicians now write songs and music videos for video games today.

Yes, this is an interesting development. Video games have become their own solid media genre. Also low-cost production videos on the Internet (ie. YouTube).

Quote:15. Laissez-Faire is now long dead (for now, at least). Compared to the 1990s, it looks substantially more like a centrally planned and controlled economy, especially since the crash of 2008.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans are trying to bring back the Gilded Age.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-23-2018, 03:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-23-2018, 01:57 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-22-2018, 11:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We already live in a world society, since 1892. We only tried to hold back the inevitable tide in the 1920s, and now people who grew up in a white country are wondering what happened again to their white country. Immigration restriction laws were always racist. I documented that in a previous post. Again, as I keep reminding you, no, the immigration issue doesn't have to be partisan. That's why Bush and Obama agreed on a reasonable approach, and why a bipartisan group in the senate proposed a reasonable law and passed it. But the fanatical right-wing idiots in the Tea Party House blocked it. It proved to be the best issue for Trumpty Dumpty to run on. "They're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, their bringing crime; they're rapists..." Bullshit.
More immigrants will not make us a shithole country. Sure, we need to cut down on population growth, in a humane way by increasing womens' rights and prosperity in all countries.

1. Legal immigration policy shouldn't be political. Likewise illegal immigration shouldn't be political.  Illegal immigration is bad because you get too many people and I think that immigration is a privilege, not a right.

2. So you have two stupid positions. Assigning bad stuff like drugs,criminality, etc. is not correct for legal immigration.  Likewise anyone who supports illegal immigration is also wrong. There are limits to the amount of resources available in the US. Immigration policy needs to take that into account. Also, illegals work under the table so that drains tax revenue. It also gives unfair advantage to employers who hire them. So with that, we need to have E-verify strictly enforced with strict fines for back taxes, tax evasion, and a huge fine for hiring illegal aliens to keep companies from doing that stuff.  I bet it was a fabulous issue for Trump because nobody has done squat about illegal immigration.  Folks are fed up with that nonsense. And... I don't care for race baiters who say any restrictions whatsoever on immigration is "dats razzists."

3. More people = more shit. Yeah we're already a shithole country, so more people will by default make us even moreso.

4. "Immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers."  Really? That's the exact position of Neoliberals!  Honestly,  I truly hate Neoliberals and want them all to burn in hell.  Maybe climate change will send a lot of their shit into the water to be homes to the fishes.

5. Women's rights and family planning. Yes, that's an excellent idea. That's one of few things I'd support foreign aid on.

1. "Too many people" is a worldwide question. I live on Planet Earth. The USA is an abstraction.

2. It is too hard for some deserving immigrants to come here. There needs to be liberal asylum availability, given the amount of tyranny in the world. True, it would be better if they stayed in their country and fought a civil war. But that's really asking them to get killed. Illegals shouldn't work under the table. They should be required to be paid minimum wage. They should be asked to pay a fine and show themselves to be good citizens. Not enough resources? I don't know what that means. The whole planet is running out of resources we don't need anymore.

Obama was doing a lot on illegal immigration; he was Deporter in Chief and illegal immigration went way down. Trump did not use the issue because it was necessary; he used it only because he knew there are a lot of prejudiced, hateful people in the USA that he could rally behind him with false accusations, and who would vote for his hate-pandering. There was nothing to be "fed up with" at all, except to be fed up with Trump's race-baiting.

4. I didn't know neo-cons were those who say immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers. No, liberals say that, because it's the truth. Neo-cons start wars for no reason except to impose our economic needs and greeds upon other countries.

1.  The US is real.  I use US currency everyday. My birth certificate states I'm a US citizen. I pay taxes to the US government. The US government and subsidiaries protect and defend me and my property. I'm subject to the laws of the US government and subsidiaries, etc.

2. Obama's position on immigration was a big plus.

3. OK. So how many immigrants should be allowed then.  Do we allow say 300 million and double our population?

4. I said Neoliberals not Neocons.

5. It's the Neocons who are dumb idealists who think we can create democracies at the barrel of the gun. Everything they have touched has turned the shit. They need to just fucking get booted out. They're too damn dangerous to be near any place of power. Note, Trump has a basket full  of Neocons in his  administration.  I really wish the Democrats would run someone like Tulsi Gabbord. She deserves to be the first Woman POTUS instead of that hack , Hillery.

[Eric the Green]

(10-23-2018, 04:01 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-23-2018, 03:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-23-2018, 01:57 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(10-22-2018, 11:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We already live in a world society, since 1892. We only tried to hold back the inevitable tide in the 1920s, and now people who grew up in a white country are wondering what happened again to their white country. Immigration restriction laws were always racist. I documented that in a previous post. Again, as I keep reminding you, no, the immigration issue doesn't have to be partisan. That's why Bush and Obama agreed on a reasonable approach, and why a bipartisan group in the senate proposed a reasonable law and passed it. But the fanatical right-wing idiots in the Tea Party House blocked it. It proved to be the best issue for Trumpty Dumpty to run on. "They're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, their bringing crime; they're rapists..." Bullshit.
More immigrants will not make us a shithole country. Sure, we need to cut down on population growth, in a humane way by increasing womens' rights and prosperity in all countries.

1. Legal immigration policy shouldn't be political. Likewise illegal immigration shouldn't be political.  Illegal immigration is bad because you get too many people and I think that immigration is a privilege, not a right.

2. So you have two stupid positions. Assigning bad stuff like drugs,criminality, etc. is not correct for legal immigration.  Likewise anyone who supports illegal immigration is also wrong. There are limits to the amount of resources available in the US. Immigration policy needs to take that into account. Also, illegals work under the table so that drains tax revenue. It also gives unfair advantage to employers who hire them. So with that, we need to have E-verify strictly enforced with strict fines for back taxes, tax evasion, and a huge fine for hiring illegal aliens to keep companies from doing that stuff.  I bet it was a fabulous issue for Trump because nobody has done squat about illegal immigration.  Folks are fed up with that nonsense. And... I don't care for race baiters who say any restrictions whatsoever on immigration is "dats razzists."

3. More people = more shit. Yeah we're already a shithole country, so more people will by default make us even moreso.

4. "Immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers."  Really? That's the exact position of Neoliberals!  Honestly,  I truly hate Neoliberals and want them all to burn in hell.  Maybe climate change will send a lot of their shit into the water to be homes to the fishes.

5. Women's rights and family planning. Yes, that's an excellent idea. That's one of few things I'd support foreign aid on.

1. "Too many people" is a worldwide question. I live on Planet Earth. The USA is an abstraction.

2. It is too hard for some deserving immigrants to come here. There needs to be liberal asylum availability, given the amount of tyranny in the world. True, it would be better if they stayed in their country and fought a civil war. But that's really asking them to get killed. Illegals shouldn't work under the table. They should be required to be paid minimum wage. They should be asked to pay a fine and show themselves to be good citizens. Not enough resources? I don't know what that means. The whole planet is running out of resources we don't need anymore.

Obama was doing a lot on illegal immigration; he was Deporter in Chief and illegal immigration went way down. Trump did not use the issue because it was necessary; he used it only because he knew there are a lot of prejudiced, hateful people in the USA that he could rally behind him with false accusations, and who would vote for his hate-pandering. There was nothing to be "fed up with" at all, except to be fed up with Trump's race-baiting.

4. I didn't know neo-cons were those who say immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers. No, liberals say that, because it's the truth. Neo-cons start wars for no reason except to impose our economic needs and greeds upon other countries.

1.  The US is real.  I use US currency everyday. My birth certificate states I'm a US citizen. I pay taxes to the US government. The US government and subsidiaries protect and defend me and my property. I'm subject to the laws of the US government and subsidiaries, etc.

2. Obama's position on immigration was a big plus.

3. OK. So how many immigrants should be allowed then.  Do we allow say 300 million and double our population?

4. I said Neoliberals not Neocons.

5. It's the Neocons who are dumb idealists who think we can create democracies at the barrel of the gun. Everything they have touched has turned the shit. They need to just fucking get booted out. They're too damn dangerous to be near any place of power. Note, Trump has a basket full  of Neocons in his  administration.  I really wish the Democrats would run someone like Tulsi Gabbord. She deserves to be the first Woman POTUS instead of that hack , Hillary.

1. Legalities are abstract. What's real is the planet. But I understand your point. Institutions exist. But that's all set up by us. Our foundation is the planet, and there are no lines on it. And the world society of today and the last 125 years is an undisputable fact.

3. I liked the bipartisan bill. I don't think quotas are possible, but it's probably wise not to let in too many people at once and overwhelm our systems. But I guess that's a case by case situation and I don't have an answer.

4. I stand corrected. The point still applies; it is a liberal position, not a neo-liberal one.

5. True. Tulsi Gabbard might have a chance against a weak opponent. Her score is 11-6. I don't like her because she peddled the lies and conspiracy theories about Syria. I can never overlook that. Assad is the biggest creep on the planet, and he started and continues the war against his people with support from Russia and Iran. The USA did not start or participate in that war, beyond lobbing a few bombs over chemical weapons and sending some inadequate aid too late to the freedom Syrians. I imagine she's good on some other issues, and who knows, if she's the best alternative I might vote for her. But probably I would vote Green if it is an option. According to my estimate she probably wouldn't run for a decade yet. She cannot beat Trump. I mentioned this in my video.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-23-2018, 04:01 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: It's the Neocons who are dumb idealists who think we can create democracies at the barrel of the gun. Everything they have touched has turned the shit. They need to just fucking get booted out. They're too damn dangerous to be near any place of power. Note, Trump has a basket full  of Neocons in his  administration.  I really wish the Democrats would run someone like Tulsi Gabbord. She deserves to be the first Woman POTUS instead of that hack , Hillery.

I'll argue for the opposite: it's the non-interventionists who are a misfortune for mankind. The Continent is especially full of them, despite their overall good domestic policies.

Exhibit 1: Hitler. If the British and French forces decided to topple him in 1933, when German military was very weak, there would be no Holocaust. There would still be a war in the 1940s, because Poland the Soviets would have a fight over Belarus and Ukraine. Japan would also grab territory in East Asia. But there's no denial that without Hitler, WW2 wouldn't be so devastating.

Exhibit 2: Decolonisation. The French gave up their colonial empire, creating a power vacuum soon filled by murderous psychopaths like Mobutu, Bocassa or Pol Pot. The 1960s wouldn't be a bloody red decade if they decided to do some nation building. Britain did, and most of former British colonies are democracies.

Exhibit 3: Syria. Were Bush and Blair in power, Assad wouldn't gas people and there would be no ISIS. Obama acted as if he played France in an RPG and Trump does so as well. Trump's admin might be "full of Neocons", but because of the dotard's crush at absolute rulers, they are guaranteed not to act according to their ideology.

[pbrower2a]

(10-24-2018, 07:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-23-2018, 04:01 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: It's the Neocons who are dumb idealists who think we can create democracies at the barrel of the gun. Everything they have touched has turned the shit. They need to just fucking get booted out. They're too damn dangerous to be near any place of power. Note, Trump has a basket full  of Neocons in his  administration.  I really wish the Democrats would run someone like Tulsi Gabbord. She deserves to be the first Woman POTUS instead of that hack , Hillery.

I'll argue for the opposite: it's the non-interventionists who are a misfortune for mankind. The Continent is especially full of them, despite their overall good domestic policies.

Exhibit 1: Hitler. If the British and French forces decided to topple him in 1933, when German military was very weak, there would be no Holocaust. There would still be a war in the 1940s, because Poland the Soviets would have a fight over Belarus and Ukraine. Japan would also grab territory in East Asia. But there's no denial that without Hitler, WW2 wouldn't be so devastating.

Exhibit 2: Decolonisation. The French gave up their colonial empire, creating a power vacuum soon filled by murderous psychopaths like Mobutu, Bocassa or Pol Pot. The 1960s wouldn't be a bloody red decade if they decided to do some nation building. Britain did, and most of former British colonies are democracies.

Exhibit 3: Syria. Were Bush and Blair in power, Assad wouldn't gas people and there would be no ISIS. Obama acted as if he played France in an RPG and Trump does so as well. Trump's admin might be "full of Neocons", but because of the dotard's crush at absolute rulers, they are guaranteed not to act according to their ideology.

1. One would have needed a credible crystal ball in 1933 to see that Adolf Hitler was so monstrously evil and dangerous. After all, he thwarted what might have been a Commie takeover in Germany and protected property rights (except the property of Jews). Many hoped that he would come to his senses about the Jews; he obviously didn't. Short of that he was a godsend to German plutocrats and executives who were able to get high profits due to rearmament and the suppression of organized labor.


The mistake of the stronger Western democracies was that they treated the benign Weimar Republic so harshly (with damaging reparations on a country that would have fared better without them and needed a break) and kissed up to Hitler. If Weimar Germany survives, then Poland would have a natural and powerful ally in its west to thwart a Soviet takeover of what was then eastern Poland (now parts of Belarus, Lithuania, and Ukraine).

2. French and British colonial policies were very different. The French destroyed traditional aristocracies in favor of the republican sentiments of the French Republic, ensuring that there would be little tradition to preserve. Let's not forget that one of the worst African leaders ever (short of Mengistu) was Idi Amin, dictator of the former British colony of Uganda.

3. Bush and Blair are out of power for good reason. Dubya kissed up to Hafez Assad for a shared enmity against Satan Hussein. Assad was a very nasty killer before he participated in the war to liberate Kuwait. The Arab Spring was inevitable, and it is unfortunate that it did not do to Bashir Assad what it did to Qaddafi.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-24-2018, 07:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 1. One would have needed a credible crystal ball in 1933 to see that Adolf Hitler was so monstrously evil and dangerous. After all, he thwarted what might have been a Commie takeover in Germany and protected property rights (except the property of Jews). Many hoped that he would come to his senses about the Jews; he obviously didn't. Short of that he was a godsend to German plutocrats and executives who were able to get high profits due to rearmament and the suppression of organized labor.

Wasn't it enough to read Mein Kampf?

Quote:The Arab Spring was inevitable, and it is unfortunate that it did not do to Bashir Assad what it did to Qaddafi.

From thirtyish intelligentsia peacefully protesting to ISIS - a long road, innit?

The protest wouldn't kill Qaddafi by themselves, Western air strikes were needed.

[pbrower2a]

(10-24-2018, 11:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-24-2018, 07:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 1. One would have needed a credible crystal ball in 1933 to see that Adolf Hitler was so monstrously evil and dangerous. After all, he thwarted what might have been a Commie takeover in Germany and protected property rights (except the property of Jews). Many hoped that he would come to his senses about the Jews; he obviously didn't. Short of that he was a godsend to German plutocrats and executives who were able to get high profits due to rearmament and the suppression of organized labor.

Wasn't it enough to read Mein Kampf?

Few people did when such might have made a difference. It is not as readable as most of the literary hints that most leaders have issued before achieving high office. Some who read it may have dismissed it with such an opinion as "He will get over it" or "He can;t really mean that!"
 

Quote:

Quote:The Arab Spring was inevitable, and it is unfortunate that it did not do to Bashir Assad what it did to Qaddafi.

From thirtyish intelligentsia peacefully protesting to ISIS - a long road, innit?

The protest wouldn't kill Qaddafi by themselves, Western air strikes were needed.

Qaddafi was going to do mass murder of cities that rebelled against him.

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-24-2018, 07:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-23-2018, 04:01 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: It's the Neocons who are dumb idealists who think we can create democracies at the barrel of the gun. Everything they have touched has turned the shit. They need to just fucking get booted out. They're too damn dangerous to be near any place of power. Note, Trump has a basket full  of Neocons in his  administration.  I really wish the Democrats would run someone like Tulsi Gabbord. She deserves to be the first Woman POTUS instead of that hack , Hillery.

I'll argue for the opposite: it's the non-interventionists who are a misfortune for mankind. The Continent is especially full of them, despite their overall good domestic policies.

Exhibit 1: Hitler. If the British and French forces decided to topple him in 1933, when German military was very weak, there would be no Holocaust. There would still be a war in the 1940s, because Poland the Soviets would have a fight over Belarus and Ukraine. Japan would also grab territory in East Asia. But there's no denial that without Hitler, WW2 wouldn't be so devastating.

Exhibit 2: Decolonisation. The French gave up their colonial empire, creating a power vacuum soon filled by murderous psychopaths like Mobutu, Bocassa or Pol Pot. The 1960s wouldn't be a bloody red decade if they decided to do some nation building. Britain did, and most of former British colonies are democracies.

Exhibit 3: Syria. Were Bush and Blair in power, Assad wouldn't gas people and there would be no ISIS. Obama acted as if he played France in an RPG and Trump does so as well. Trump's admin might be "full of Neocons", but because of the dotard's crush at absolute rulers, they are guaranteed not to act according to their ideology.

Tell you what I'll do,  I will agree with you that your argument is the default decision process we have now.

I will disagree with the your argument's process.

Exhibit 1:.  OK, let's reword that to get a template of what to do now and the future. We failed to declare war on an enemy that obtained the means and desire to invade us.

This is a stupid policy of course, since it didn't work.  Let's make a policy now and the future and evaluate some wars fought previously to inform us on future decisions.

1.  Do something simple to inform our decision like intelligence gathering. The 2nd Gulf War informs us though intelligence gather is mandatory. However one must account for agendas on the part of intelligence.  The example here of course were statements to the affect of "Saddam Hussein posses banned shit as per assorted treaties". This therefore informs us, while intelligence gathering in a must do, however, this information must also be fact checked with data from news organizations, alternative media, wikileaks, etc.  If the statements from intelligence confirm or agree with, then intelligence gathers sufficient credibility.  

2. Credible final from process as defined in 1. should be distributed in unaltered form as to prevent propaganda.All propaganda is fake news. Those two words mean the same thing.  That means government should present these findings to everyone.

3. These steps make stuff better for everyone. Voters know the real dope. Likewise , the Federal government folks are getting for real intelligence with higher  validity.

4. Track trends in intelligence along with current events.  Now, if this were done, then other countries would have a good idea to prepare for an invasion.

5. If trends and current events indicate combat, then declare war.  Wrt WW
II, given known history the plan would have been to prepare for invasion [at a different date perhaps].

6. OK, even my process fails because , well humans.  Humans have an illness call ostrich syndrome. Like other ailments, this one causes lots of suffering and death.

7. Remember to consider blowback.  Blowback is defined as negative consequences which arise from military or covert intervention. This reality rarely informs official actions or public known information.

Final answer:  We're doomed to respond stupidly because ostrich syndrome.

* ostrich award for humans

Exhibit 2.  Let's consider the road to the Vietnam war for that. The starting point for this was when N Vietnam associated with a proxy the VC.  France tossed that to the US from perhaps decolonization. That probably happened because WWII left the French unable to keep its empire because resources.  Empires require resources like a huge military and enough wealth to keep. So that was why. France didn't have enough resources to have a sufficient military along with other resources to stay  an empire. There resultant power vacuum did leave enough space for <insert bad guys here.>  Also, the US and USSR installed bad guys who were basically patsies for which big guy who put them power. Therefore, unless this->bad guy is at present an existential threat then no intervention is needed at all . If "bad guy = evil" = is the only unqualified reason for intervention, then that's stupid because there has been no logical thought process done to support vague nonsense. Other common vague nonsense are statements of non fact like "national security interest(s)", "human rights", and "friends and allies".
Now let's take the reasons to intervene in Syria.  There was of course some sort of uprising.  The proximate reason for this was high food prices due to drought, not "we want freedoms". The next thing to consider why Assad i= bad guy. Syria as assorted groups, like Kurds,Sunnis,Alawites,Shias,etc. So, with that, some sort of repression happens to keep the infighting somewhat stable. So... since the US chose to intervene, there result was contained chaos. The chaos in Syria is from Russia and Assad. This is better than the results from regime change in Iraq. Failed states are really bad and are certainly worse than Assad. Libya is an even better example.  Regime change turned the space there from a repressive area, but at least folks could eat,drink, and not live in a shithole in general.  Likewise, this is why so many refugees went to Europe and is now a huge clusterfuck. ISIS happened because of Iraq state failure + Mujahedin which are religious crackpots who became Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
That sequence is ISIS = blowback(Proxy,regime change). There were lots of stupid policy that lead to ISIS, that's for sure.  However all said decision were to intervene someplace. The US proxy fight in Syria of course made territory easier to get in Syria.  The best policy here would be to just blow off what's going down in that country. As for gassing.  Well, that accusation hasn't been independently verified by a valid 3rc party. The "White Helmets" are essentially some monitoring folks from our proxies.  That's not good enough for me.

[Eric the Green]

(10-24-2018, 04:20 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Exhibit 2.  Let's consider the road to the Vietnam war for that. The starting point for this was when N Vietnam associated with a proxy the VC.  France tossed that to the US from perhaps decolonization. That probably happened because WWII left the French unable to keep its empire because resources.  Empires require resources like a huge military and enough wealth to keep. So that was why. France didn't have enough resources to have a sufficient military along with other resources to stay  an empire. There resultant power vacuum did leave enough space for <insert bad guys here.>  Also, the US and USSR installed bad guys who were basically patsies for which big guy who put them power. Therefore, unless this->bad guy is at present an existential threat then no intervention is needed at all . If "bad guy = evil" = is the only unqualified reason for intervention, then that's stupid because there has been no logical thought process done to support vague nonsense. Other common vague nonsense are statements of non fact like "national security interest(s)", "human rights", and "friends and allies".

"(Exhibit 3)" Now let's take the reasons to intervene in Syria.  There was of course some sort of uprising.  The proximate reason for this was high food prices due to drought, not "we want freedoms". The next thing to consider why Assad i= bad guy. Syria as assorted groups, like Kurds,Sunnis,Alawites,Shias,etc. So, with that, some sort of repression happens to keep the infighting somewhat stable. So... since the US chose to intervene, there result was contained chaos. The chaos in Syria is from Russia and Assad. This is better than the results from regime change in Iraq. Failed states are really bad and are certainly worse than Assad. Libya is an even better example.  Regime change turned the space there from a repressive area, but at least folks could eat,drink, and not live in a shithole in general.  Likewise, this is why so many refugees went to Europe and is now a huge clusterfuck. ISIS happened because of Iraq state failure + Mujahedin which are religious crackpots who became Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
That sequence is ISIS = blowback(Proxy,regime change). There were lots of stupid policy that lead to ISIS, that's for sure.  However all said decision were to intervene someplace. The US proxy fight in Syria of course made territory easier to get in Syria.  The best policy here would be to just blow off what's going down in that country. As for gassing.  Well, that accusation hasn't been independently verified by a valid 3rc party. The "White Helmets" are essentially some monitoring folks from our proxies.  That's not good enough for me.

Bill and Brower made good points. I think your response illustrates the wisdom on your part and theirs of seeking a balanced policy rather than acting on dogmas.

On #1, Bill was right; we were too wimpy and allowed Hitler to amass too much power before stopping him. We overlearned our lesson. After WWII we acted preemptively to stop what we considered aggressors amassing too much power, when the situation was much more complicated than that, and included nationalists such as the Vietnamese seeking self-determination.

On #2, Vietnam as well as African countries illustrated the wisdom of "nation building" by the UK rather than mere colonization by the French. Although British colonies once freed have done somewhat better, Zimbabwe and the 4 countries to the north of it show it was not a black and white situation. I don't know if colonization had many beneficial effects as opposed to harmful ones anywhere. It was mainly exploitation and imperial power plays. I lean toward the idea that allowing the countries to develop on their own would have been better. Sometimes I heard (according to Gates' Africa documentary for example) that just trading with these countries inspired them to develop; domination was probably not necessary. India would have been generally better off if left alone.

On #3, you continue to just get it wrong, Rags. It would be wise to read further on this Syria business. Your proximate reason was correct, but it was also the desire for freedom, especially among younger people. On social media the ideas spread among youth in the Arab countries that freedom would bring greater prosperity and opportunity. It was a chain of rebellion, and I look to the quadrature of Uranus-Pluto-Saturn in circa 2010 and 2011 as indication that according to the cycles of humanity and the cosmos around us, it was time for a big revolution somewhere. It broke out in Tunisia under a solar eclipse and exact conjunction of Jupiter to Uranus (then in sq to Pluto) on the same day, which targeted that location according to astrology rules. These planetary alignments are well known to corrrespond to the great revolutions since the one after which the USA was founded.

That just shows that this was a natural, periodic outbreak of revolution in an age when humans are expanding in their abilities and powers to create the world they want. Aspirations cannot be denied anywhere on Earth without periodic outbreaks of movements for freedom. That's what happened in the Arab countries, and Syria was just one in a chain of them, which also spread around the world in the following few years, even to Wall Street.

The US did not choose to intervene; it did not intervene. To say that the USA intervened in Syria is a total fabrication. The people demonstrated en masse. Assad started shooting them down, regarding the protests as dangerous to his rule. Barrel bombs, tanks and machine guns were used. Later, so were chemical weapons, as verified indeed by 3rd parties. So, an army of freedom fighters was formed. All that happened even before the USA gave any aid at all to the rebels. Obama was really slow about that. He did not act in time to give the rebels the power they need to win. They almost did.

This was the failure Bill refers to. The balance was wrong again. We had been so in error with our over emphasis on intervention (to stop another Hitler, another Munich appeasement) since world war two, that since Vietnam there was a trend to learn a lesson again and not to intervene. Before that, we didn't want another Munich. Now, we didn't want another Vietnam. This is what Obama and perhaps Trump represent when it comes to Syria.

But on the eve of rebel victory, Russia and Iran stepped in to save Assad. The rebels did not have enough support to stop Assad and Russia. Although, since they didn't get much support, the rebels seemingly had accepted the help from jihadist volunteers. This was welcome, since the Saudis and other supposedly moderate Arab and Turk allies didn't send anyone. But this provided an excuse for Assad to claim that the rebels are terrorists. In fact, Assad helped invite them in so he could claim this. And he claimed it anyway, of course, even though the rebels were primarily just citizens defending themselves from Assad.

It does get complicated, because Assad does have the support of a Shia minority group in Syria, so that the rebels were mostly the majority Sunnis. But the Sunni majority of citizens rebelling for freedom and protecting themselves did not have the goal of repressing the Shias. The Shia orientation of Assad also provided an incentive for Iran and Hezbollah to intervene on Assad's behalf.

In any case, Iraq is in much better shape than Syria now. Syria is a totally failed state; Iraq at least has a chance. Assad is worse than any other failed state, by far. It is correct, though, that our USA unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003 created the conditions for the formation of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which later became the Islamic State (aka ISIS), which in 2014, 3 years after the rebellion started in Syria, took advantage of the chaos to seize territory mostly in eastern Syria as well as in western and northern Iraq. The IS is an abomination, and horribly cruel and genocidal. But they are not the rebels against Assad, and have no connection with them.

The failed rebellion in Syria is the main source of the refugee crisis, which has inflamed nationalism and racism in Europe and the USA and gave the white house to Trump. And that is truly a disaster we could have perhaps prevented with some timely intervention in Syria.

This is all fact and easily verifiable if you don't go by propaganda put out by such people as Tulsi Gabbard or Assad himself.

[pbrower2a]

The most prescient writer (George Orwell) about fascism, Communism, imperialism, and probably even Apartheid, North Korean Juche, Ba'athism, ISIS, and Donald Trump  has something to say:

George Orwell Reviews Mein Kampf: “He Envisages a Horrible Brainless Empire” (1940)
in History, Literature | August 19th, 2014 11 Comments




Christopher Hitchens once wrote that there were three major issues of the twentieth century -- imperialism, fascism, and Stalinism -- and George Orwell proved to be right about all of them.

Orwell displays his remarkable foresight in a fascinating book review, published in March 1940, of Adolf Hitler’s notorious autobiography Mein Kampf. In the review, the author deftly cuts to the root of Hitler’s toxic charisma, and, along the way, anticipates themes to appear in his future masterpieces, Animal Farm and 1984.

Quote:The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. […] Hitler … knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life.

Yet Orwell was certainly no fan of Hitler. At one point in the review, he imagines what a world where the Third Reich succeeds might look like:

Quote:What [Hitler] envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of “living room” (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or there- abouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder.

The article was written at a moment when, as Orwell notes, the upper class was backpedaling hard against their previous support of the Third Reich. In fact, a previous edition of Mein Kampf -- published in 1939 in England -- had a distinctly favorable view of the Führer.

Quote:“The obvious intention of the translator’s preface and notes [was] to tone down the book’s ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all.”

By March 1940, everything had changed, and a new edition of Mein Kampf, reflecting changing views of Hitler, was published in England. Britain and France had declared war on Germany after its invasion of Poland but real fighting had yet to start in Western Europe. Within months, France would fall and Britain would teeter on the brink. But in the early spring of that year, all was pretty quiet. The world was collectively holding its breath. And in this moment of terrifying suspense, Orwell predicts much of the future war.

Quote:When one compares his utterances of a year or so ago with those made fifteen years earlier, a thing that strikes one is the rigidity of his mind, the way in which his world-view doesn’t develop. It is the fixed vision of a monomaniac and not likely to be much affected by the temporary manoeuvres of power politics. Probably, in Hitler’s own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than an alteration of timetable. The plan laid down in Mein Kampf was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got to be dealt with first, because Russia was the more easily bribed of the two. But Russia’s turn will come when England is out of the picture -- that, no doubt, is how Hitler sees it. Whether it will turn out that way is of course a different question.

In June of 1941, Hitler invaded Russia, in one of the greatest strategic blunders in the history of modern warfare. Stalin was completely blindsided by the invasion and news of Hitler’s betrayal reportedly caused Stalin to have a nervous breakdown. Clearly, he didn’t read Mein Kampf as closely as Orwell had.

You can read the full review here.

I strongly encourage reading the full review. It is a masterpiece.

My comment: the British economic elites may have had qualms about the gutter racism (Nazi antisemitism is racist in theory and practice) of Hitler, but at least he kept wages low and profits high, so until war began with Britain, Hitler was good for British investors with assets in Germany.

History is simply good versus evil on opposing sides during the apocalyptic struggles and afterward when judgments are made. But until the apocalyptic struggles one always find ambiguities of conflicting policy and interests.

[Bill the Piper]

Olaf Stapledon on Hitler:
https://olafstapledonarchive.webs.com/be...ch2.html#8

German "National Socialism" is the culmination of the Fascist movement which began in Italy and has appeared in one form or another in every European country. I shall consider only the German form of Fascism, because, in it the true nature of Fascism is most clearly revealed.

National Socialism, or Nazism, seems to rest on a fantastic exaggeration of a fault which appears also in Russian Communism, but far less flagrantly, namely the disparagement of the individual. Another fault of Russian Communism it vehemently rejects, namely materialism; but the thing that it substitutes for materialism is something far worse, a false mysticism based on the false concept of race.

But the emotional source of Nazism is not simply bad. No great movement which gathers to itself the loyalty of millions and spurs them to extreme self-sacrifice is to be dismissed as sheer devilishness.

Communists tell us that the whole Fascist movement, of which Nazism is the extreme expression, is simply a clever device by which " big business" seeks to rouse the masses against revolutionary Communism. In their view, Fascism is the last, most desperate effort of "capitalism in decline" to strengthen its waning power. No doubt big business did play an important part in launching Italian Fascism and the corresponding movements in France and Britain. No doubt it financed Hitler, and hoped to use him for its own ends. But the capitalists would not have succeeded as they did, nor would they have found themselves overmastered by the movement that they had supported, if there had not been a deep and wide- spread emotional need for the ideas and values of Fascism.

In considering the causes of Nazism we have to distinguish between those influences which were at work throughout the whole Fascist movement and those which were peculiar to Germany.

Causes which were at work alike in Nazism and in other forms of Fascism, but which worked more violently in Germany because of Germany's suffering after the last war, were: revulsion against laissez- faire and a grossly individualistic social order and culture; revulsion against materialism as a theory about the world and the sources of human behaviour; revulsion against intellectualism; revulsion against the moral ideals of love and gentleness which had been so long preached and so little practised; vague revulsion against a whole civilization which had obviously gone rotten.

The Germans had suffered more from the rottenness of western civilisation than any other European people, and therefore their disgust with it was peculiarly violent. The economic collapse after the last war spread a profound distrust of the system of free buying and selling. It also roused a strong suspicion that high finance was based on superstitious veneration for merely man-made economic laws. It prepared men for a movement which would triumphantly violate all the recognized principles. The treatment which Germany suffered from the Allies after the military defeat turned the German people against the whole civilization which the Allies claimed to be leading. The post-war orgy of sensuality and every kind of self-indulgence disgusted the more earnest kind of German, and made him seek some kind of firm moral standards.

Two causes of Nazism were peculiar to Germany. One, no doubt, was the long-established and powerful German tradition of opposition to the civilization of Western Europe. Normally this impulse was kept in abeyance by the many great and truly civilized leaders of German culture; but the post-war situation enabled it to break out and set the tone of the new movement. This impulse to reject the established values of civilization took the form of a reversion to the old Teutonic impulse to glorify ruthless might instead of Christian loving-kindness, and to trust superstition, or "thinking with the blood", instead of Greek reasoning.

The other specially German cause of Nazism was the fact that this great people, with its recurrent dream of becoming the acknowledged "Herrenvolk" of the world, had suffered a decisive defeat in war. This disaster combined with the effects of economic collapse to produce a general social neurosis, a national inferiority complex with all the typical symptoms of arrogance and vindictiveness.

Though these specifically German causes had a great effect in exaggerating the Fascist movement in Germany, it must never be forgotten that the main causes were at work in every country and had produced everywhere the symptoms of Fascism. Everywhere there was a deep sense that civilization had somehow gone bad and was stinking. Everywhere masses of men and women found themselvesmin abject poverty or desperate insecurity while a few flaunted their luxury. Everywhere the unemployed rotted in idleness. No one needed their service. No one cared for them. Masses of men in every European country were feeling that, since civilization did not want ,them, they did not want civilization. There was widespread disgust with licentious individualism and the ennervating doctrines of materialism. There was a longing for a new and bracing idea to save man from his directionless, self-indulgent way of living.

This was the social situation which bred the exasperated, neurotic condition favourable to Fascism and Nazism. The more positive motives which created it were broadly of two kinds, self-regarding and spiritual. Very powerful, no doubt, were motives of anxious self-regard and family responsibility in a crumbling and precarious society. Personal anxiety of this kind made men susceptible to any movement which condemned the existing order and promised security, and incidentally satisfied the craving for vengeance. But there was another kind of motive at work, connected with man's deep but often unwitting need to serve the spirit. To attribute any such motive to the Nazis may sound fantastic. And indeed it may well be that in the great mass of Nazis, both leaders and led, the hunger for the spirit was but a very minor factor. Certainly, crude self-interest, in the form of craving for security or craving for power and self-display, has been the main consideration with most of the Nazi leaders and many of their supporters. But I find it impossible to believe that this was all. The gravely wounded captive German airman who preferred to die rather than receive into his veins the blood of donors who were not German could not have been moved merely by self-regard. He believed his blood to be sacred, to be a vessel of the spirit. And he felt it his moral duty not to let it be contaminated. Similarly in the great mass of earnest young Germans who are ready to fling away their lives for the Nazi cause, who sometimes, it seems, actually long to do so, the ruling motive is obviously a sincere though hideously perverted loyalty to the spirit.

This passion of loyalty to the spirit has certainly been tragically misguided. Its expressions have been very far from spiritual in the true sense. Revulsion from individualism sprang from a spiritual motive, the feeling for community; but the feeling expressed itself in the form of mere brutish self-surrender to the tribe, mere surrender of individuality, mere surrender of individual conscience and intelligence into the keeping of the mob-leader. The essence of community was utterly missed, namely that it is a relationship between clearly self-conscious and other-conscious individuals bound together in mutual respect and mutual responsibility. Further, the groping desire for the spirit was misled into a cult of the primitive. Because sophisticated values had gone bad on men's hands, primitive values acquired a fresh attraction.

But though Nazism is a sorry perversion of the will for the spirit, we must avoid supposing that it is wholly bad and that it has nothing to teach us. It can at least teach us that the ideas and values which dominated the democracies during the period of advancing industrialism are not the final, inevitable and emotionally satisfying truth.