Thoughts On Where We Are, and Where We're Going

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-16-2018, 06:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Piketty sees history as a succession of elites, with the size of the elite creating the oppression instead of the autocratic character of a leader. Elites are highly selective in nature, selecting for either morality of some standard -- or, if Donald Trump exemplifies America's elite of ownership going in a vile direction, amorality.

We seem to have different perspectives on Piketty. Reading the first few chapters of Capitol, I can see how his economic views are positive. He bases his system on the many years of tax information gathered by the Europeans, not the simplistic assumptions that leave the present schools of economics in perpetual deadlock. That much is positive.

Any commitment to autocratic systems would be problematic, but even so his empirical treatment of the economy by looking at real data could present an improvement.

But I am not that much of an economist. The old schools went nowhere. They each offer 'proof' of whatever you want to believe.

[Eric the Green]

(09-15-2018, 11:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-13-2018, 07:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am not seeing the immediate triumph of my political values.  In that I seem to be different from many who post here.  Progress, maybe, but progress that can be blocked by autocratic dictators controlling a people with autocratic ideas.  There are limits to what can be achieved, and it might well be good to recognize them.

I do find the military progress more easily influences values than non military.  What could have helped or hurt the Consciousness Revolution?  Some say the Manson killings hurt the hippie movement, but they occurred well after the Summer of Love.  Some note the legend of Woodstock in promoting the best of Hippie values, but that the next rock concert featured Hells Angels as security, and pulled rock festivals away from the hippie ideal.  Was that inevitable?  Was sustaining the Woodstock ideal impossible?

The Consciousness Revolution was not a Liberal-Conservative axis movement.  It was much more Authoritarian-Libertarian, and extremely libertarian at that.  It was all about telling the man to take a hike, living the way you want to live, be it Buddhist commune dweller or rebel biker.  Most of that energy went to the right, as the hyper-liberty nonsense began in earnest, and still resides there.  The remnant on the communitarian side is small in comparison.  

On the other hand, the liberty-lovers are not ideal allies of the Christian Right either, though they have made a pact to oppose the PTB.  Both see coastal liberals as adversaries or even enemies.  It's an uneasy alliance, and can be broken if the right ideas are presented by the right people in the right way: a lot of 'rights' there.  This alliance of convenience is the result of 45 years of conservative effort to circle every wagon they can find.

The main hope for the fading away or defeat of the libertarian right, seems at the moment not the hippie libertarian left--- although it still exists, and the social aspects of the libertarian left are still powerful, as demonstrated in the legalization of marijuana in some blue states and the gay rights advances. The main hope lies in the fact that younger people don't relate either socially/culturally or economically to the libertarian economic (and gun-rights) right, because it has not worked out for them, and also in the increasing demographic diversity of the people. 

The economic and pro-gun libertarian right may be allies of the Christian right, but its Republican Party now belongs to Donald Trump and his third wing. The main tenet of this program is to resist this increasing diversity as strongly as possible, principally by shutting off its main source: immigration. But so much immigration has already occurred that the horse may have already been let out of the barn: thanks to the pro-immigrant ideals of JFK and their implementation back in the 2nd turning, along with the liberation of other ethnic groups at that time. But the nationalists and racists that oppose these trends are getting older, while the younger generations are much more diverse and accepting of these demographic and cultural changes. The nationalist/racist right wing and their Christian-right and libertarian-economic right allies have put impressive barriers in place in our (former) democratic system to try to hold back this tide and make America white again. I don't see the Trump/GOP brakes holding in the 2020s, but we'll see.

As I stated before many times, the best scenario I see in our 4T era is for the left to take power during the 2020s, and opposed by a rebellion whose violence will be limited to a relatively short uprising by the pro-gun, anti-tax and anti-diversity fanatics in the red states. Secession may occur, but the violence may be corralled before the 1T starts in circa 2028. The Trump base will linger, but my suspicion and hope is that its power will only be enough to make a 4T crisis climax exist, beyond which a relative, but not complete, consensus will lead us into the future.

[pbrower2a]

(09-17-2018, 07:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-16-2018, 06:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Piketty sees history as a succession of elites, with the size of the elite creating the oppression instead of the autocratic character of a leader. Elites are highly selective in nature, selecting for either morality of some standard -- or, if Donald Trump exemplifies America's elite of ownership going in a vile direction, amorality.

We seem to have different perspectives on Piketty.  Reading the first few chapters of Capitol, I can see how his economic views are positive.  He bases his system on the many years of tax information gathered by the Europeans, not the simplistic assumptions that leave the present schools of economics in perpetual deadlock.  That much is positive.

Any commitment to autocratic systems would be problematic, but even so his empirical treatment of the economy by looking at real data could present an improvement.

But I am not that much of an economist.  The old schools went nowhere.  They each offer 'proof' of whatever you want to believe.

Piketty begins optimistically, recognizing that economic growth is possible so long as the system fosters investment in productive enterprise.  But he also recognizes that the rise of elites leads to those elites grabbing more of the economic output, gutting investment, and demanding more of the proletariat. If the economic elites are small in number, the system is fine. But let them become more than about 1%, and troubles arise.

Elites can be aristocratic rentiers (whether feudal landlords or urban landlords), capitalists, an intellectual caste, bureaucratic administrators, or even gangsters. If they are small enough as a whole in number then the economy can work to serve the common man. If those elites are relatively large and powerful, then the focus of the economy becomes the enrichment, indulgence, and power of those elites. Growth falters, human investment fades, and even infrastructure decays as the political system works largely to funnel income to those elites and enforce harsh arrangements.

But even Marx said of capitalism that to his time, no system had created so much prosperity for so many. Marx' complaint was that the capitalists were getting too much and were sweating the defenseless worker ever more for the gain and indulgence of the capitalist elite.

[pbrower2a]

(09-17-2018, 10:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-15-2018, 11:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-13-2018, 07:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am not seeing the immediate triumph of my political values.  In that I seem to be different from many who post here.  Progress, maybe, but progress that can be blocked by autocratic dictators controlling a people with autocratic ideas.  There are limits to what can be achieved, and it might well be good to recognize them.

I do find the military progress more easily influences values than non military.  What could have helped or hurt the Consciousness Revolution?  Some say the Manson killings hurt the hippie movement, but they occurred well after the Summer of Love.  Some note the legend of Woodstock in promoting the best of Hippie values, but that the next rock concert featured Hells Angels as security, and pulled rock festivals away from the hippie ideal.  Was that inevitable?  Was sustaining the Woodstock ideal impossible?

The Consciousness Revolution was not a Liberal-Conservative axis movement.  It was much more Authoritarian-Libertarian, and extremely libertarian at that.  It was all about telling the man to take a hike, living the way you want to live, be it Buddhist commune dweller or rebel biker.  Most of that energy went to the right, as the hyper-liberty nonsense began in earnest, and still resides there.  The remnant on the communitarian side is small in comparison.  

On the other hand, the liberty-lovers are not ideal allies of the Christian Right either, though they have made a pact to oppose the PTB.  Both see coastal liberals as adversaries or even enemies.  It's an uneasy alliance, and can be broken if the right ideas are presented by the right people in the right way: a lot of 'rights' there.  This alliance of convenience is the result of 45 years of conservative effort to circle every wagon they can find.

The main hope for the fading away or defeat of the libertarian right, seems at the moment not the hippie libertarian left--- although it still exists, and the social aspects of the libertarian left are still powerful, as demonstrated in the legalization of marijuana in some blue states and the gay rights advances. The main hope lies in the fact that younger people don't relate either socially/culturally or economically to the libertarian economic (and gun-rights) right, because it has not worked out for them, and also in the increasing demographic diversity of the people.

The 'hippie libertarian Left' is facing the same problem as the Boomer (often fundamentalist or evangelical) Right: it is getting old... and it will die off at roughly the same time. The rise of the 'hippie Libertarian Right' will be among people to be born at the earliest in the 2020s after the Crisis of 2020 is nearly over and for about a score of years afterward. That generation will be about as separate in time from the Boom Generation as the Boom Generation was from the Missionary Generation.  The earliest-born Boomers (1943) were born sixty years and a day after the last Missionaries (1882). That people sixty years older can have influence upon children is more possible today than when life expectancy was shorter... but it is safe to say that anyone who tries to push the agenda of the Boom Awakening upon children will be one sort of adult that parents do not want as an influence. This agenda was never good for children (ask Generation X about that, and it will have more influence upon children born in the 2030s than Boomers will).

The fault with the Boomer Right is its narrow ethnic and cultural base. Middle-class minorities might have some shared interest with the Right about taxes, but not with the anti-intellectualism of the Right. People who share its anti-intellectualism go nowhere vocationally; they are well-suited perhaps to be clerks, servants, or laborers. If we once needed a healthy criticism of wayward professors, experts, and advocates capable of as much crankiness as proles, the crass anti-intellectualism of the Hard Right attacks science and valid inquiry. Diverse as Asian groups are, they seem to share a respect for formal learning. The black bourgeoisie certainly does not want its progeny to revert to ways of poverty that arises from intellectual laziness. The fast-growing Hispanic component of the middle class may admire parents who did horrible jobs for survival and to allow them to stay in school... and does not want its  children to endure much the same hardship.

Let's not forget that the middle class includes white people with similar attitudes toward education. Such might promote ethnic assimilation, but only within the middle class.

Quote:The economic and pro-gun libertarian right may be allies of the Christian right, but its Republican Party now belongs to Donald Trump and his third wing. The main tenet of this program is to resist this increasing diversity as strongly as possible, principally by shutting off its main source: immigration. But so much immigration has already occurred that the horse may have already been let out of the barn: thanks to the pro-immigrant ideals of JFK and their implementation back in the 2nd turning, along with the liberation of other ethnic groups at that time. But the nationalists and racists that oppose these trends are getting older, while the younger generations are much more diverse and accepting of these demographic and cultural changes. The nationalist/racist right wing and their Christian-right and libertarian-economic right allies have put impressive barriers in place in our (former) democratic system to try to hold back this tide and make America white again. I don't see the Trump/GOP brakes holding in the 2020s, but we'll see.

The 'gun-rights' clique  has allowed itself to believe that liberal 'gun-grabbers' are out to take away their right to sport hunting or target shooting. But note that liberals generally have no qualms about sport hunting or its culture. Liberal concern is with people who have no appropriate use for firearms.

Quote:As I stated before many times, the best scenario I see in our 4T era is for the left to take power during the 2020s, and opposed by a rebellion whose violence will be limited to a relatively short uprising by the pro-gun, anti-tax and anti-diversity fanatics in the red states. Secession may occur, but the violence may be corralled before the 1T starts in circa 2028. The Trump base will linger, but my suspicion and hope is that its power will only be enough to make a 4T crisis climax exist, beyond which a relative, but not complete, consensus will lead us into the future.

I see an even better result. I see support for Donald Trump cratering in polls. I see him as an amoral fanatic, a hazard to us all. He hurts the sensibilities of people who should never be targets of bigotry. This man mocks the handicapped, which has long been a taboo in American life. I see quadraplegia, and I see myself one vehicle crash, fall, or industrial accident away from being in the same situation. I see a white cane and I see 'there but for the Grace of God go I'. Americans have much more empathy for the handicapped or disabled than they do for the poor in general, let alone for addicts and alcoholics.

I do not predict polling trends (I let polls tell the story), but so far I have seen President Trump doing little to attract new supporters... although the polarization that we have in American life has tended to allow him to unload different offenses against the same people who were never going to vote to re-elect him in 2020. Such is bad, but not incompetent politics. Tariffs and the trade war that ensues can hurt more people, and that is how 46% of the electorate voting for him can go to 40%. That already looks bad and incompetent. Nominating for the Supreme Court someone who is under accusation of rape (even if as a juvenile) is also bad and incompetent. Trump started much closer to getting 40% in the next election than did Carter (50% in 1976), let alone Hoover (58%). Not only did he get a smaller share of the popular vote than did Hillary Clinton, he also got less than Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, or Kerry in 2004... he got little more than Dukakis in 1988.

Yes, miracles can happen even if they are disasters for America. Dubya seemed likely to be a one-time hack before 9/11, and he managed to lose the good will that he had gained from that -- but not before getting re-elected, if barely. The people around Trump are far less competent (as if anyone could see that coming) than those around Dubya.

[Bob Butler 54]

I can easily see him as flipping the see saw.  It is not likely that he as suppressed the unraveling memes in the middle of the country.  The Democrats will still have much work to do if they wish to unite the country.

[David Horn]

(09-17-2018, 10:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I stated before many times, the best scenario I see in our 4T era is for the left to take power during the 2020s, and opposed by a rebellion whose violence will be limited to a relatively short uprising by the pro-gun, anti-tax and anti-diversity fanatics in the red states. Secession may occur, but the violence may be corralled before the 1T starts in circa 2028. The Trump base will linger, but my suspicion and hope is that its power will only be enough to make a 4T crisis climax exist, beyond which a relative, but not complete, consensus will lead us into the future.

If you can accomplish the first step on your list, the odds are decent that progress will be made.  Unfortunately, Progressive ideas are scary.  They are often new and untried, so the less adventurous (i.e. almost all the population) will only opt for that as a last resort.  Note: Winston Churchill saw that as the defining issue of our politics.

[Eric the Green]

(09-18-2018, 09:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-17-2018, 10:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-15-2018, 11:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-13-2018, 07:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am not seeing the immediate triumph of my political values.  In that I seem to be different from many who post here.  Progress, maybe, but progress that can be blocked by autocratic dictators controlling a people with autocratic ideas.  There are limits to what can be achieved, and it might well be good to recognize them.

I do find the military progress more easily influences values than non military.  What could have helped or hurt the Consciousness Revolution?  Some say the Manson killings hurt the hippie movement, but they occurred well after the Summer of Love.  Some note the legend of Woodstock in promoting the best of Hippie values, but that the next rock concert featured Hells Angels as security, and pulled rock festivals away from the hippie ideal.  Was that inevitable?  Was sustaining the Woodstock ideal impossible?

The Consciousness Revolution was not a Liberal-Conservative axis movement.  It was much more Authoritarian-Libertarian, and extremely libertarian at that.  It was all about telling the man to take a hike, living the way you want to live, be it Buddhist commune dweller or rebel biker.  Most of that energy went to the right, as the hyper-liberty nonsense began in earnest, and still resides there.  The remnant on the communitarian side is small in comparison.  

On the other hand, the liberty-lovers are not ideal allies of the Christian Right either, though they have made a pact to oppose the PTB.  Both see coastal liberals as adversaries or even enemies.  It's an uneasy alliance, and can be broken if the right ideas are presented by the right people in the right way: a lot of 'rights' there.  This alliance of convenience is the result of 45 years of conservative effort to circle every wagon they can find.

The main hope for the fading away or defeat of the libertarian right, seems at the moment not the hippie libertarian left--- although it still exists, and the social aspects of the libertarian left are still powerful, as demonstrated in the legalization of marijuana in some blue states and the gay rights advances. The main hope lies in the fact that younger people don't relate either socially/culturally or economically to the libertarian economic (and gun-rights) right, because it has not worked out for them, and also in the increasing demographic diversity of the people.

The 'hippie libertarian Left' is facing the same problem as the Boomer (often fundamentalist or evangelical) Right: it is getting old... and it will die off at roughly the same time. The rise of the 'hippie Libertarian Right' will be among people to be born at the earliest in the 2020s after the Crisis of 2020 is nearly over and for about a score of years afterward. That generation will be about as separate in time from the Boom Generation as the Boom Generation was from the Missionary Generation.  The earliest-born Boomers (1943) were born sixty years and a day after the last Missionaries (1882). That people sixty years older can have influence upon children is more possible today than when life expectancy was shorter... but it is safe to say that anyone who tries to push the agenda of the Boom Awakening upon children will be one sort of adult that parents do not want as an influence. This agenda was never good for children (ask Generation X about that, and it will have more influence upon children born in the 2030s than Boomers will).

An Awakening era is always tough on children; that's exactly what makes a self-reliant nomad generation. That will happen again if the cycle holds, regardless of any specific Boomer influence that may be left. There was no such thing as a Boomer Awakening, but the legacy of the Consciousness Revolution will be around for anyone who cares to look for it. I imagine that won't even be much needed or desired, until the next Awakening actually gets going. A new prophet generation will just face a similar social situation to what the Boomers faced, and will move in similar directions on their own initiative, just owing to the nature of the cycles and the needs of the time. There will be no such thing as a new hippie libertarian right. But the new prophets born starting in 2025 will have their left and right components, as previous prophets have had, I imagine; though conditions won't be exactly the same of course.

Quote:The fault with the Boomer Right is its narrow ethnic and cultural base. Middle-class minorities might have some shared interest with the Right about taxes, but not with the anti-intellectualism of the Right. People who share its anti-intellectualism go nowhere vocationally; they are well-suited perhaps to be clerks, servants, or laborers. If we once needed a healthy criticism of wayward professors, experts, and advocates capable of as much crankiness as proles, the crass anti-intellectualism of the Hard Right attacks science and valid inquiry. Diverse as Asian groups are, they seem to share a respect for formal learning. The black bourgeoisie certainly does not want its progeny to revert to ways of poverty that arises from intellectual laziness. The fast-growing Hispanic component of the middle class may admire parents who did horrible jobs for survival and to allow them to stay in school... and does not want its  children to endure much the same hardship.

Let's not forget that the middle class includes white people with similar attitudes toward education. Such might promote ethnic assimilation, but only within the middle class.

This anti-intellectualism could return, if another religious right movement returns, and even if the new hippie left returns too. It might not, but I wouldn't bet against it. A traditional religious movement is always likely during any 2nd Turning, but the possibility of human social evolution might take us beyond this at some point, so that all spiritual awakenings are of the new age type. We already saw a substantial new age component in the last three 2Ts. It should be the dominant 2T expression from now onward.

Quote:The 'gun-rights' clique  has allowed itself to believe that liberal 'gun-grabbers' are out to take away their right to sport hunting or target shooting. But note that liberals generally have no qualms about sport hunting or its culture. Liberal concern is with people who have no appropriate use for firearms.

Generally speaking, yes. The problem on the right is their fanatical interpretation of gun control as gun confiscation and 2nd amendment repeal. If gun control when instituted sometime after 2020 is allowed to stand, and not resisted too fiercely or violently, a backlash against this fanaticism may not materialize, and the 2nd amendment will be safe. As things stand now though, the fanatics are quite numerous and militant, so they could rebel as this 4T climaxes, and drive a backlash that takes away the very rights that they cherish.

Quote:I see an even better result. I see support for Donald Trump cratering in polls. I see him as an amoral fanatic, a hazard to us all. He hurts the sensibilities of people who should never be targets of bigotry. This man mocks the handicapped, which has long been a taboo in American life. I see quadraplegia, and I see myself one vehicle crash, fall, or industrial accident away from being in the same situation. I see a white cane and I see 'there but for the Grace of God go I'. Americans have much more empathy for the handicapped or disabled than they do for the poor in general, let alone for addicts and alcoholics.

I do not predict polling trends (I let polls tell the story), but so far I have seen President Trump doing little to attract new supporters... although the polarization that we have in American life has tended to allow him to unload different offenses against the same people who were never going to vote to re-elect him in 2020. Such is bad, but not incompetent politics. Tariffs and the trade war that ensues can hurt more people, and that is how 46% of the electorate voting for him can go to 40%. That already looks bad and incompetent. Nominating for the Supreme Court someone who is under accusation of rape (even if as a juvenile) is also bad and incompetent. Trump started much closer to getting 40% in the next election than did Carter (50% in 1976), let alone Hoover (58%). Not only did he get a smaller share of the popular vote than did Hillary Clinton, he also got less than Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, or Kerry in 2004... he got little more than Dukakis in 1988.

Yes, miracles can happen even if they are disasters for America. Dubya seemed likely to be a one-time hack before 9/11, and he managed to lose the good will that he had gained from that -- but not before getting re-elected, if barely. The people around Trump are far less competent (as if anyone could see that coming) than those around Dubya.

The Trump base really existed before Trump; he just coalesced and aroused it. So it is likely to be around for a decade or two, with or without Trump, but declining in power and influence. And if the Democrats don't nominate a candidate which my horoscope score system says can beat him, I am not optimistic about Trump's defeat in 2020. Beto will not win! (his score is even worse than I thought in my first scoring attempt!). Trump would smother him to bits if he ran against him in 2020. It does appear that Trump has lost the Rust Belt for now, which gave him the office he now holds. But Trump is a gifted demagogue, and should never be underestimated, no matter how badly he performs as president. Many people like his sarcastic humor and his ability to engage and arouse their misguided feelings. Sad, but true. Only another even-more gifted politician can beat an incumbent with those talents. None of the current candidates in CNN's top 10 can beat him. Only McAuliffe, Landrieu or Sherrod Brown have the stuff to win. Note that these three are all still boomer candidates; Xer leaders don't have the candidate skills to get elected.

[Eric the Green]

(09-18-2018, 03:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-17-2018, 10:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I stated before many times, the best scenario I see in our 4T era is for the left to take power during the 2020s, and opposed by a rebellion whose violence will be limited to a relatively short uprising by the pro-gun, anti-tax and anti-diversity fanatics in the red states. Secession may occur, but the violence may be corralled before the 1T starts in circa 2028. The Trump base will linger, but my suspicion and hope is that its power will only be enough to make a 4T crisis climax exist, beyond which a relative, but not complete, consensus will lead us into the future.

If you can accomplish the first step on your list, the odds are decent that progress will be made.  Unfortunately, Progressive ideas are scary.  They are often new and untried, so the less adventurous (i.e. almost all the population) will only opt for that as a last resort.  Note: Winston Churchill saw that as the defining issue of our politics.

The only caveat to that is that today's progressive ideas are mostly not very new. They have been around for decades, and have just been resisted during the unprecedented regression America has undergone for 40 years. Part of this owes to our election system and the lack of civic knowledge among younger generations today. Presidential election returns since 1992 have shown majority support for these progressive ideas. But the system has not allowed progressive leaders to take office and institute policy.

[pbrower2a]

I am tempted to believe that the Trump base of right-wing populists will be trouble-makers. Maybe a politician can win by cultivating them as supporters, but having to answer to them will create huge problems. Think of the old racist support for Strom Thurmond or George Wallace that wanted the racism of their 1948 and 1968 campaigns. Going for it means that one loses other voters, so such may not be worth it.

[Bob Butler 54]

It does say a bit about how values change. The US used to be sexist and abusive, and stayed that way until some politicians thought they could hurt Trump by moving the bar. Any time the out of power political elites think they can gain power, they do what they have to. For women, it is about time. You almost feel bad for the abusers.

Not very bad.

Does being near a 4T hurt?

[David Horn]

(09-18-2018, 02:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I can easily see him as flipping the see saw.  It is not likely that he as suppressed the unraveling memes in the middle of the country.  The Democrats will still have much work to do if they wish to unite the country.

In Red and Blue America, there is a totally different view of what makes America what it is, and no mechanism exists to unite those positions.  In fact, the current media landscape works in the opposite direction.  It may be helpful to revisit the era of yellow journalism and the penny press.  Fox News and Breitbart are the modern version of that tradition, and have fully weaponized it in its modern form.  They are fully targeted on their audience, and only that audience.  MSM is disavowed, so any rebuttal is ignored and, hence, meaningless.  With the exception of real, live shared activities (work being the most common), the two camps rarely interact.  Given that, how is unity ever achieved?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-19-2018, 12:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-18-2018, 02:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I can easily see him as flipping the see saw.  It is not likely that he as suppressed the unraveling memes in the middle of the country.  The Democrats will still have much work to do if they wish to unite the country.

In Red and Blue America, there is a totally different view of what makes America what it is, and no mechanism exists to unite those positions.  In fact, the current media landscape works in the opposite direction.  It may be helpful to revisit the era of yellow journalism and the penny press.  Fox News and Breitbart are the modern version of that tradition, and have fully weaponized it in its modern form.  They are fully targeted on their audience, and only that audience.  MSM is disavowed, so any rebuttal is ignored and, hence, meaningless.  With the exception of real, live shared activities (work being the most common), the two camps rarely interact.  Given that, how is unity ever achieved?

If your house keeps being clobbered by storms, if the economy flirts with disaster every time you elect Republicans, and if you die of old age, maybe your voting stance will change.  They aren't stupid.  They are stubborn.

Yes, that will be slow.  You'd have to be patient.

[David Horn]

(09-18-2018, 04:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-18-2018, 03:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-17-2018, 10:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I stated before many times, the best scenario I see in our 4T era is for the left to take power during the 2020s, and opposed by a rebellion whose violence will be limited to a relatively short uprising by the pro-gun, anti-tax and anti-diversity fanatics in the red states. Secession may occur, but the violence may be corralled before the 1T starts in circa 2028. The Trump base will linger, but my suspicion and hope is that its power will only be enough to make a 4T crisis climax exist, beyond which a relative, but not complete, consensus will lead us into the future.

If you can accomplish the first step on your list, the odds are decent that progress will be made.  Unfortunately, Progressive ideas are scary.  They are often new and untried, so the less adventurous (i.e. almost all the population) will only opt for that as a last resort.  Note: Winston Churchill saw that as the defining issue of our politics.

The only caveat to that is that today's progressive ideas are mostly not very new. They have been around for decades, and have just been resisted during the unprecedented regression America has undergone for 40 years. Part of this owes to our election system and the lack of civic knowledge among younger generations today. Presidential election returns since 1992 have shown majority support for these progressive ideas. But the system has not allowed progressive leaders to take office and institute policy.

It's interesting that I had this same discussion with friends in the 1980s.  All of us saw how poorly the younger generation was being prepared in the civic sense, but none of us had the ability to do more than educate our own children.  It hasn't improved since then, for two reasons:

• Republicans hate spending money on anything, so the schools are poorly funded almost everywhere these days
  
• The less aware are easily manipulated, and that plays well for the plutocrats who pay all the bills.
  

Unless that improves, or calamity ensues, I don't see much changing.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-19-2018, 01:13 PM)David Horn Wrote: It's interesting that I had this same discussion with friends in the 1980s.  All of us saw how poorly the younger generation was being prepared in the civic sense, but none of us had the ability to do more than educate our own children.  It hasn't improved since then, for two reasons:

• Republicans hate spending money on anything, so the schools are poorly funded almost everywhere these days
  
• The less aware are easily manipulated, and that plays well for the plutocrats who pay all the bills.
  

Unless that improves, or calamity ensues, I don't see much changing.

I do foresee calamity ensuing.  It will take time.

[Tuss]

(08-18-2018, 08:01 PM)justpassingthrough Wrote: 4. What should be made of the Millenials, and the following generation which is now coming of age? The Millenials don't seem to fit many of S&H's predictions, but they certainly fit some. Their conformity to hierarchical control is clear, where they have dutifully allowed themselves to be dominated by the Boomer Left. Their obsession with the "wonders of technology" is clear, like Civics before them. They obviously seek some kind of rationalization, stability and regimentation, even if it's subconscious, and they don't know what that is.

Haha, best characterization of the Millennials I've read!

Thanks for coming up with a fantastic thread! Signed in today just for the theme you are addressing, and lo and behold, I didn't have to start a discussion myself (which wouldn't have been half as good!)! The problem of Millennials has also repeatedly crossed my mind lately too. Indeed, not much seems to be left of the predictive description of this generation but for the conspicious hivemind and their infatuation with "wonder technology". But "heroes" fatefully deciding the destiny of the west at the hour of peril? Nowhere to be seen. More like a generation of prescription drug soyboys than good boy scouts, to be honest.

One blunt assessment could be that you cannot be a "Hero" generation if your head is full of goo, and certainly, the Millennials appear not only to be the most indoctrinated, but also at the expense of being the worst educated generation in history.

Not saying that this saeculum has had a stellar cast overall. In my head I've been sketching on something like this:


1) If an Idealist generation is too narcissistic and overbearing...

2) Then a Nomad generation becomes too passive and not effectively reactive enough...

3) Which leads to a Hero generation too indoctrinated and brainwashed to act purposefully and independently, zombified, as it were...

4) Which could either result in a Saeculum that fizzles or ends in catastrophe; in either case, in a sort of failed cycle, depending on how you look at it. In fact, following the scenario of us being at the end of the 4T (something which I argued for following Trump's election, and which in any case is inherent in being a 9/11 Crisis starter and Early 80's Challenger), this cycle right now seems like it's fizzling, and to make it clear, it would provide the best possible outcome!

Quote:2. Provided the second outcome, and the beginning of the 1T, I can see a few trends emerging. The new Artists will seek some sort of stable, negotiated settling of the Boomer divides, which will be provided by their Xer parents in Midlife. The recurring eruptions of leftist outrage will be receding aftershocks, increasingly rejected by society at large. Millenials will quiet down, settle down, and build their careers, homes and families, being shaped more by Xer leadership than Boomer, which will have a moderating impact on them. Xers will finally catch a break, and will enjoy peace and prosperity in leadership, then retire into the 2T, which they will simply ignore. The culture, robbed of all meaning by the groupthink control of discredited leftist extremism, will be a relatively exhausted wasteland. The new Artists (if their S&H name has any meaning) will want to fill the void, and grow up with enough protection and prosperity to pursue it.

In the 2T, the Millenials will emerge into leadership, with their trademark hubris and faith in technology at the forefront. They will seek to carry out their programming, but their children will rebel against them. One trend that seems certain is a rebellion against technology, and a "return to nature" as typical of S&H traits. The internet will no longer be new and exciting, but rather stifling old news, and Millenials won't be able to see it any other way. Spending time in nature, and focusing on the things that separate humans from machines, will be one likely Prophet rejection of their parents' values. 

Given the extreme and hostile suppression and persecution of Christianity by the Radical Left during the 4T, I wouldn't be surprised to see a resurgence among the next Prophets. One can imagine the horror Millenial parents would react with if their kids suddenly became outspoken Evangelicals. Since the Prophets usually have divided camps and competing visions, I could see some other alternative being a "singularity"-like quest for "transhumanism" on the part of the next Prophet Left, impatient to push even farther into insanity as the Boomer Left did.

Or, something quite unexpected might happen, like contrary to everyone's expectations we finally reach credible evidence the afterlife actually exists, while the transhumanist technotopia of the Millennial generation fails miserably and the "Singularity" just refuses to arrive. Now, that would provide fertile ground for spiritual excesses galore of an Idealist generation in the coming 2T, culminating with the beatification of Wilhelm Reich... or something. Indeed, it would be the only 2T I'd be willing to participate in, arm-in-arm with Eric the Green.

[tg63]

(09-21-2018, 08:59 AM)Tuss Wrote: ... But "heroes" fatefully deciding the destiny of the west at the hour of peril? Nowhere to be seen. More like a generation of prescription drug soyboys than good boy scouts, to be honest.

One blunt assessment could be that you cannot be a "Hero" generation if your head is full of goo, and certainly, the Millennials appear not only to be the most indoctrinated, but also at the expense of being the worst educated generation in history.

I dunno, I think the theory posits that the Millie generation are positioned to be "heroes" due to circumstance, not because of any innate sense or ability. From that perspective all they need to do is have a patriotic streak at a time of crisis, and then show up en masse ... the Boomers & Nomads will tell them where to go & which forts/machine guns to storm. From that perspective, I see indoctrination actually as a good thing - we don't want our soldiers thinking too much for themselves.

[Eric the Green]

(09-21-2018, 08:59 AM)Tuss Wrote:

(08-18-2018, 08:01 PM)justpassingthrough Wrote: 4. What should be made of the Millenials, and the following generation which is now coming of age? The Millenials don't seem to fit many of S&H's predictions, but they certainly fit some. Their conformity to hierarchical control is clear, where they have dutifully allowed themselves to be dominated by the Boomer Left. Their obsession with the "wonders of technology" is clear, like Civics before them. They obviously seek some kind of rationalization, stability and regimentation, even if it's subconscious, and they don't know what that is.

Haha, best characterization of the Millennials I've read!

Thanks for coming up with a fantastic thread! Signed in today just for the theme you are addressing, and lo and behold, I didn't have to start a discussion myself (which wouldn't have been half as good!)! The problem of Millennials has also repeatedly crossed my mind lately too. Indeed, not much seems to be left of the predictive description of this generation but for the conspicious hivemind and their infatuation with "wonder technology". But "heroes" fatefully deciding the destiny of the west at the hour of peril? Nowhere to be seen. More like a generation of prescription drug soyboys than good boy scouts, to be honest.

One blunt assessment could be that you cannot be a "Hero" generation if your head is full of goo, and certainly, the Millennials appear not only to be the most indoctrinated, but also at the expense of being the worst educated generation in history.

Not saying that this saeculum has had a stellar cast overall. In my head I've been sketching on something like this:


1) If an Idealist generation is too narcissistic and overbearing...

2) Then a Nomad generation becomes too passive and not effectively reactive enough...

3) Which leads to a Hero generation too indoctrinated and brainwashed to act purposefully and independently, zombified, as it were...

4) Which could either result in a Saeculum that fizzles or ends in catastrophe; in either case, in a sort of failed cycle, depending on how you look at it. In fact, following the scenario of us being at the end of the 4T (something which I argued for following Trump's election, and which in any case is inherent in being a 9/11 Crisis starter and Early 80's Challenger), this cycle right now seems like it's fizzling, and to make it clear, it would provide the best possible outcome!

I agree that JPT's portrait of millennials is pretty good, although I have a Left point of view and he has a Right-wing one. But making allowances for that, it's not off the mark. I do see some millennials stepping up into action now. Civic hero generations are not just cannon fodder acting on indoctrination; they were activists in the labor movement in the 1930s, for example. Now, it's not clear whether they will be cannon fodder, except in so far as they have already in Bush's wars. If so, given today's 4T is primary domestic, they could be involved in suppressing right-wing revolts in the mid-2020s, or else helping to lead them, depending on what side you are on. And some foreign campaign is likely at about the same time against some aggressive behavior in the eastern and mid-eastern worlds. In any case the 4T is not ending soon and will last to 2028-29.

Right now, if millennials learn to vote in midterms, as I have been asking them to do since 2010, that will be good enough patriotic action to justify their archetype. Cameron Kasky, David Hogg, Matt Post, Ryen Deitsch are exemplary leaders who emerged after the parkland massacre, and are exceptionally articulate. They are not waiting around to be led by Boomers either. See the videos available here and elsewhere of their speeches and interviews. Cameron Kasky gave the most relevant speech to the question of "where we are." He said "I look forward 10 years, and I feel hope; I see light." "Look around, we are the change!" he said. The people at the March for Our Lives rally were proof, he said, that the millennials and all who stand with them will protect, educate and inspire the future, and it's looking bright. And they are especially relevant, because gun control is likely to be an issue that could flare up into a right-wing rebellion once it is passed in the progressive wave I expect in the 2020s. The millennials are starting to step up on many fronts to create a better world. "Don't worry, we've got this" he said.





As David Hogg said at the rally, young people don't vote in midterms, but not anymore. President Obama picked up on his point in his Sept. 7 speech. "Only 1 in 5 young people vote" he said "One in Five!" He asked them to vote. It may be that they hear the call and thereby become civics.

Quote:

Quote:2. Provided the second outcome, and the beginning of the 1T, I can see a few trends emerging. The new Artists will seek some sort of stable, negotiated settling of the Boomer divides, which will be provided by their Xer parents in Midlife. The recurring eruptions of leftist outrage will be receding aftershocks, increasingly rejected by society at large. Millenials will quiet down, settle down, and build their careers, homes and families, being shaped more by Xer leadership than Boomer, which will have a moderating impact on them. Xers will finally catch a break, and will enjoy peace and prosperity in leadership, then retire into the 2T, which they will simply ignore. The culture, robbed of all meaning by the groupthink control of discredited leftist extremism, will be a relatively exhausted wasteland. The new Artists (if their S&H name has any meaning) will want to fill the void, and grow up with enough protection and prosperity to pursue it.

In the 2T, the Millenials will emerge into leadership, with their trademark hubris and faith in technology at the forefront. They will seek to carry out their programming, but their children will rebel against them. One trend that seems certain is a rebellion against technology, and a "return to nature" as typical of S&H traits. The internet will no longer be new and exciting, but rather stifling old news, and Millenials won't be able to see it any other way. Spending time in nature, and focusing on the things that separate humans from machines, will be one likely Prophet rejection of their parents' values. 

Given the extreme and hostile suppression and persecution of Christianity by the Radical Left during the 4T, I wouldn't be surprised to see a resurgence among the next Prophets. One can imagine the horror Millenial parents would react with if their kids suddenly became outspoken Evangelicals. Since the Prophets usually have divided camps and competing visions, I could see some other alternative being a "singularity"-like quest for "transhumanism" on the part of the next Prophet Left, impatient to push even farther into insanity as the Boomer Left did.

Or, something quite unexpected might happen, like contrary to everyone's expectations we finally reach credible evidence the afterlife actually exists, while the transhumanist technotopia of the Millennial generation fails miserably and the "Singularity" just refuses to arrive. Now, that would provide fertile ground for spiritual excesses galore of an Idealist generation in the coming 2T, culminating with the beatification of Wilhelm Reich... or something. Indeed, it would be the only 2T I'd be willing to participate in, arm-in-arm with Eric the Green.

See you there

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-21-2018, 04:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <snip>




As David Hogg said at the rally, young people don't vote in midterms, but not anymore. President Obama picked up on his point in his Sept. 7 speech. "Only 1 in 5 young people vote" he said "One in Five!" He asked them to vote. It may be that they hear the call and thereby become civics.

<snip>

+

Quote:Tuss wrote:
More like a generation of prescription drug soyboys than good boy scouts, to be honest.

......LOL!

Bingo. Dunno, but these flash in the pan youngins are both nauseating and clueless at the same time. I don't always do cynicism, but when I do, I pan soibois.    *

Stay sarcastic my friend.

Btw, congrats on the progress of the Swedish Democrats.  Hopefully the path away from shitholedom has been lit.

*maybe why all the weird stuff about many genders, could be due to endocrine disruptors.

[David Horn]

(09-21-2018, 11:46 AM)tg63 Wrote:

(09-21-2018, 08:59 AM)Tuss Wrote: ... But "heroes" fatefully deciding the destiny of the west at the hour of peril? Nowhere to be seen. More like a generation of prescription drug soyboys than good boy scouts, to be honest.

One blunt assessment could be that you cannot be a "Hero" generation if your head is full of goo, and certainly, the Millennials appear not only to be the most indoctrinated, but also at the expense of being the worst educated generation in history.

I dunno, I think the theory posits that the Millie generation are positioned to be "heroes" due to circumstance, not because of any innate sense or ability. From that perspective all they need to do is have a patriotic streak at a time of crisis, and then show up en masse ... the Boomers & Nomads will tell them where to go & which forts/machine guns to storm. From that perspective, I see indoctrination actually as a good thing - we don't want our soldiers thinking too much for themselves.

I agree. The Millennials will rise to the occasion as foot soldiers, but not in the same sense as the GIs. Their "war" will be different, and will be dragged onto their playing field. Look at their normal modus operandi. They organize in a fashion that is below the surface using social media: very broad and fitting of their hive-nature. Why would we expect them to abandon that behavior in the face of any challenge? It's how they win, and they understand that intuitively.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-22-2018, 08:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2018, 11:46 AM)tg63 Wrote:

(09-21-2018, 08:59 AM)Tuss Wrote: ... But "heroes" fatefully deciding the destiny of the west at the hour of peril? Nowhere to be seen. More like a generation of prescription drug soyboys than good boy scouts, to be honest.

One blunt assessment could be that you cannot be a "Hero" generation if your head is full of goo, and certainly, the Millennials appear not only to be the most indoctrinated, but also at the expense of being the worst educated generation in history.

I dunno, I think the theory posits that the Millie generation are positioned to be "heroes" due to circumstance, not because of any innate sense or ability. From that perspective all they need to do is have a patriotic streak at a time of crisis, and then show up en masse ... the Boomers & Nomads will tell them where to go & which forts/machine guns to storm. From that perspective, I see indoctrination actually as a good thing - we don't want our soldiers thinking too much for themselves.

I agree.  The Millennials will rise to the occasion as foot soldiers, but not in the same sense as the GIs.  Their "war" will be different, and will be dragged onto their playing field.  Look at their normal modus operandi.  They organize in a fashion that is below the surface using social media: very broad and fitting of their hive-nature.  Why would we expect them to abandon that behavior in the face of any challenge?  It's how they win, and they understand that intuitively.

I see the millennials as too busy keeping their heads above water to try to control the flood.