Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

** 27-Aug-2021 World View: Trollery

(08-27-2021, 07:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > What a collection of delusional verbiage!

Lol! So, are you also an Adam Schiff troll, or are you someone else's
troll?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 27-Aug-2021 World View: Pineapple Express saves Afghan allies abandoned by Biden

• Families rescued by the 'Pineapple Express' veterans (ABC News)

This is an incredible story that is just beginning to emerge.

Beginning two days ago, a group of highly trained US military veterans
came together in Kabul, and have been secretly rescuing former Afghan
allies and their families trapped outside the airport in Kabul.

These Afghan allies have been essentially abandoned by president
Biden, and after August 31 would be left for dead, or would be
tortured or beaten or raped. Biden has ordered that no American
soldiers leave the airport to save these former Afghan allies.

So this group of special ops veterans, including retired Green Berets
and SEAL Team commanders, are like many Americans, furious that Biden
has so thoroughly botched the evacuation, and is simply willing to
abandon our former allies.

So these veterans have been locating these former Afghan allies in
Kabul, and helping them get through Taliban checkpoints, and inside
the airport perimeter so that they can be flown out before Tuesday.

They call themselves the "Pineapple Express" and use "pineapple" as a
password to recognize one another. The password has now been changed.

The veterans have already saved hundreds of Afghans. Their operation
will continue until Tuesday evening.

I don't normally post "feel good stories," but this one got to me.

-- US special operations vets carry out daring mission to save Afghan
allies
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-speci...d=79670236
(ABC News, 27-Aug-2021)

-- ‘Pineapple Express’: US vets volunteer to secretly rescue allies in
Afghanistan
https://nypost.com/2021/08/27/us-vets-vo...ghanistan/
(NY Post, 27-Aug-2021)

-- Hundreds of Afghan allies spirited to safety in operation dubbed
‘Pineapple Express’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2...pineapple/
(Telegraph, London, 27-Aug-2021)

[John J. Xenakis]

** 29-Aug-2021 World View: The beginning of the 'Regeneracy'

ABC News is part of the mainstream media, has always provided cover
for President Biden no matter how stupid and destructive the decisions
of his administration and the Democrats, including opening the border,
opening the prisons, defunding the police, allowing the importation of
fentanyl, and allowing the mass street slaughter of blacks to
continue. No matter how destructive and damaging the policy, ABC News
and the mainstream media were always there to ridicule anyone who
criticized the Democrats. Only Fox News ever provided balanced
coverage, and their anchors were regularly described as racist or
white supremacist, and their families were often threatened with
violence by mobs of antifa-blm-linked woke crowds.

Listening to "ABC News Thisweek" this Sunday morning, one might almost
think that he had accidentally tuned into Fox News. They were
painting the situation in Afghanistan in the most horrific terms (in
my opinion, correctly), and they were blaming it all on the ridiculous
decisions and behavior of Biden.

(Incidentally, a fascinating part of the show was the interview with
the former army ranger Jariko Denman. He was apparently one of the
people I described in my previous posting on "Pineapple Express," and
he described how he and the others were operating.)

Many times in the past, I've described the concept of "Regeneracy" in
generational theory. This is one or more events that cause political
differences to be put aside, and cause the population to be unified
behind the leader. In World War II, it was the Pearl Harbor bombing
and the Bataan Death March.

The Afghanistan catastrophe, combined with memories of 9/11/2001, and
the size of last Thursday's ISIS-K attack, killing over a dozen
American soldiers, can be considered the first major event of the
current Regeneracy. It's forcing the woke garbage to be put aside,
and uniting Republicans, Democrats and independents.

However, it's not a Regeneracy in the same way as Pearl Harbor. FDR
knew how to react, and even today his words "A day that will live in
infamy" still ring true.

Contrast that with Biden's pathetic robotic performance, baring his
teeth, saying "we will find you, we will make you pay," and hanging
his head in shame. (Former President Trump posted a video, broadcast
on Fox but ignored by the mainstream media, that was much more
memorable and to the point.)

So while the Pearl Harbor bombing united the country behind FDR, the
Afghanistan catastrophe is uniting the country AGAINST Biden and the
Democrats.

The Democrats are hoping that the whole catastrophe will pass quickly
from public memory, and they can go back to one destructive policy
after another. If the opposite happens -- that the situation
continues to worsen -- then Biden's presidency will be untenable. The
next two in line - Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as
incompetent as Biden.

This "Regeneracy Event" is going to have political consequences. It
will be necessary to find a way, within the Constitution, to find a
way to replace Biden with someone competent.

[David Horn]

(08-29-2021, 10:00 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 29-Aug-2021 World View: The beginning of the 'Regeneracy'

Listening to "ABC News Thisweek" this Sunday morning, one might almost think that he had accidentally tuned into Fox News.  They were painting the situation in Afghanistan in the most horrific terms (in my opinion, correctly), and they were blaming it all on the ridiculous decisions and behavior of Biden...

You just wrote it yourself: "one might almost think that he had accidentally tuned into Fox News."  In other words, Fox is, by your own admition, a propaganda organ that consistently hypes GOP talking points -- often creating them from whole cloth when the need arises.  In short, they are not a news organization.  They have more in common with the work of Leni Riefenstahl than Edward R Murrow.

[pbrower2a]

(08-29-2021, 10:00 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 29-Aug-2021 World View: The beginning of the 'Regeneracy'

ABC News is part of the mainstream media, has always provided cover
for President Biden no matter how stupid and destructive the decisions
of his administration and the Democrats, including opening the border,
opening the prisons, defunding the police, allowing the importation of
fentanyl, and allowing the mass street slaughter of blacks to
continue.  No matter how destructive and damaging the policy, ABC News
and the mainstream media were always there to ridicule anyone who
criticized the Democrats.  Only Fox News ever provided balanced
coverage, and their anchors were regularly described as racist or
white supremacist, and their families were often threatened with
violence by mobs of antifa-blm-linked woke crowds.

Your view of Democrats is sheer fantasy. FoX News is a propaganda organ intent on manipulating the political climate in favor of the Hard Right. It may not be selective on who the right-wing hero is, and it can gloss over the horrible behavior of Donald Trump.  

Quote:Listening to "ABC News Thisweek" this Sunday morning, one might almost
think that he had accidentally tuned into Fox News.  They were
painting the situation in Afghanistan in the most horrific terms (in
my opinion, correctly), and they were blaming it all on the ridiculous
decisions and behavior of Biden.

Do liberals paint a pretty picture of Afghanistan under the Taliban? No. Trump cut the deal and we are stuck with the consequences. More precisely, the people of Afghanistan are stuck with the consequences. 

Quote:(Incidentally, a fascinating part of the show was the interview with
the former army ranger Jariko Denman.  He was apparently one of the
people I described in my previous posting on "Pineapple Express," and
he described how he and the others were operating.)

Pineapple Express is heroic. It could do what it does only if the military and the Commander-in-Chief get out of the way of its operations and offer secretive support.  

Quote:Many times in the past, I've described the concept of "Regeneracy" in
generational theory.  This is one or more events that cause political
differences to be put aside, and cause the population to be unified
behind the leader.  In World War II, it was the Pearl Harbor bombing
and the Bataan Death March.

The Afghanistan catastrophe, combined with memories of 9/11/2001, and
the size of last Thursday's ISIS-K attack, killing over a dozen
American soldiers, can be considered the first major event of the
current Regeneracy.  It's forcing the woke garbage to be put aside,
and uniting Republicans, Democrats and independents.

Which Regeneracy? 

We still have a huge Left-Right divide between people who dream of a few plutocrats lording it over everyone, science subordinate to political ideology, dissent toward pure plutocracy quashed everywhere, and  95% of the people suffering for the sybaritic indulgence of 1%  or so and showing delight in such -- or else -- and people who see something very different. The vast majority responsible to a tiny slice of Humanity that acts without responsibility? That has never worked well anywhere else, and it is extreme arrogance to assume that it would work well in America just because anything can work in America. 

If you don't think that Marxism-Leninism would work in American, then how can you believe that a high-tech feudalism would? 
 

Quote:However, it's not a Regeneracy in the same way as Pearl Harbor.  FDR
knew how to react, and even today his words "A day that will live in
infamy" still ring true.

Is "11/22/1963" a day that will live in infamy? Is "9/11/2001"? Is "1/6/2021"? All three are. The latter one is in a Crisis Era, and as such it may have an even longer influence upon American life. January 6, 2001 is eleven months and one day short of eighty years after December 7, 1941. 

Georgia completed a pair of run-off elections and ousted two Trump-enablers on the very day of the Capitol Putsch. Maybe that is the real start of the final phase of the Regeneracy.  

Quote:Contrast that with Biden's pathetic robotic performance, baring his
teeth, saying "we will find you, we will make you pay," and hanging
his head in shame.  (Former President Trump posted a video, broadcast
on Fox but ignored by the mainstream media, that was much more
memorable and to the point.)

The shame was that ISIS-K was able to kill Americans. 

Quote:So while the Pearl Harbor bombing united the country behind FDR, the
Afghanistan catastrophe is uniting the country AGAINST Biden and the
Democrats.

It is far too early to tell. 

Quote:The Democrats are hoping that the whole catastrophe will pass quickly
from public memory, and they can go back to one destructive policy
after another.  If the opposite happens -- that the situation
continues to worsen -- then Biden's presidency will be untenable.  The
next two in line - Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as
incompetent as Biden.

Republicans are mostly trivializing the Capitol Putsch and even the Michigan Plot. Don't fool yourself about the significance of the Michigan Plot. It could have established a "Bloody Kansas" situation. 

Incompetence does not mean simply that you dislike them.  

Quote:This "Regeneracy Event" is going to have political consequences.  It
will be necessary to find a way, within the Constitution, to find a
way to replace Biden with someone competent.

If his mental state should deteriorate to the extent that he cannot have his personal role reduced to something ceremonial while competent people do the real work (as happened with Reagan, and America got away with it) we can still get by fine. If his physical health is so shaky that he must choose between dying in office or living a few more months as a former president, then we already have the Constitutional provision of a Vice-President. 

Please recognize that Donald Trump was hideous as President even for things that had little connection to his political stances. he was not effective in achieving the wish list of the Far Right which includes a national Right-to-Work (for much less) Law, an abortion ban, school prayer, and perhaps even changing the election laws so that only rich property owners can vote or that people vote as their employers dictate. Trump was objectionable and ineffective.

Be careful about calling for the Regeneracy. It might not go as you expect. Figure that the best traits of an Idealist generation (principle), Reactive (pragmatism), and Civic (rationality) will all play their roles.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I had thought that Biden was getting to be just too old for public office. I couldn't see him as being in the White House for two terms... one term at most.

If it is determined that Biden has become senile, it is conceivable that he might linger, with the country limping along for the next few years.

If that should be the case, I would expect the country's division to continue nevertheless.

[pbrower2a]

(08-29-2021, 09:22 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I had thought that Biden was getting to be just too old for public office.  I couldn't see him as being in the White House for two terms... one term at most.

If it is determined that Biden has become senile, it is conceivable that he might linger, with the country limping along for the next few years.

If that should be the case, I would expect the country's  division to continue nevertheless.

We got away with Reagan.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Eric (the Green) has commented that the USA is primed for an internal, divisive 4T. Unforetunately, other parts of the world-such as east Asia-seem primed for an external 4T. If such spill over, the USA will be in a poor position to handle it.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 29-Aug-2021 World View: North Korea may planning new nuclear tests

• Satellite imagery of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear complex in May (Yonhap)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that it appears
that in February of this year, North Korea restarted its Yongbyon
nuclear reactor, which is capable of producing plutonium for nuclear
weapons.

North Korea stopped testing nuclear weapons in 2017, because of
agreements with and threats by Donald Trump. However, with Joe Biden
now in office, North Korea may feel free to start testing again.

It now appears "a full batch of spent fuel" was processed from
mid-February to early July, indicating that a nuclear weapon test may
be near.

In addition, there are also indications of mining and concentration
activities at a uranium mine and plant at Pyongsan.

According to the IAEA: "The continuation of the DPRK's nuclear program
is a clear violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions and
is deeply regrettable."

-- North Korea appears to have restarted nuclear reactor, IAEA says
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacif...021-08-29/
(Reuters, 29-Aug-2021)

-- Yongbyon nuclear reactor appears to be in operation: IAEA report
http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article....Idx=314698
(Korea Times, 30-Aug-2021)

[David Horn]

(08-29-2021, 09:55 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Eric (the Green) has commented that the USA is primed for an internal, divisive 4T.  Unforetunately, other parts of the world-such as east Asia-seem primed for an external 4T.  If such spill over, the USA will be in a poor position to handle it.

Perhaps, that would be for the best.  Our track record since WW-II isn't particularly bright:

• Korea: Draw, with an ongoing committment to this day
  
• Iran 1.0: The over throw of Mossedegh was a Pyrhic victory th at lead to Iran 2.0
  
• Vietnam: Loss, though we're on better terms now than we were when we were there in force.
  
• Iran 2.0: Instead of a socialist secular governemnt, Iran got the mullahs
  
• Meddling in South America: Nothing of value.  Allende -> Pinochet was an obvious mistake
  
• Meddling in Central America: The entire area has never been less stable.  Add MS-13 to this toxic sundae
  
• Afghanisan 1.0:  Charlie Wilson's war. Lead directly to the Taliban and indirectly to al Qaeda
  
• Iraq 1.0: In and out -- a good model we've been unable to follow since
  
• Afghanisan 2.0: We had a shot at repeating Iraq 1.0 and blew it 
  
• Iraq 2.0: Instead of Saddam. we now have an Iranian client state.
  

[John J. Xenakis]

** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Apology

(08-29-2021, 02:24 PM)David Horn Wrote: > You just wrote it yourself: "one might almost think that he had
> accidentally tuned into Fox News." In other words, Fox is, by your
> own admition, a propaganda organ that consistently hypes GOP
> talking points -- often creating them from whole cloth when the
> need arises. In short, they are not a news organization. They
> have more in common with the work of Leni Riefenstahl than Edward
> R Murrow.

I owe you an apology. I made a big mistake. A few days ago, I said
that I thought that you were capable of actual thought, and I was
completely wrong about that. I apologize for the misjudgment.

In this case, you quote one sentence of mine, but you either didn't
read or were incapable of comprehending the previous paragraph in the
same post. I was making the point that the mainstream media blindly
and mindlessly covers for Biden, and never criticizes Biden's
policiies, no matter how stupid and destructive they are. Only Fox
News provides balanced and accurate coverage, either supporting or
criticizing Biden, depending on the situation.

The Afghanistan situation has been such a disaster that both Democrats
and Republicans appearing on Fox have been criticizing Biden. What
was shocking and surprising was that ABC News was also criticizing
Biden over the Afghanistan catastrophe.

I realize that description is pretty subtle, but maybe if you read it
over five or six times, it will sink in. The point is that Fox News
presents the news in a fair and balanced manner, while the mainstream
media never criticizes Biden, but did so on Sunday.

But don't worry. After Tuesday, things can go back to normal, and ABC
News and the other mainstream media can go back to their mindless
fealty to the destructive policies of the Biden administration,
including opening the border, opening the prisons, defunding the
police, allowing the importation of fentanyl, allowing the mass street
slaughter of blacks, and ignoring the unfolding consequences of his
Afghanistan disaster.

[David Horn]

(08-30-2021, 08:51 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Apology

(08-29-2021, 02:24 PM)David Horn Wrote: You just wrote it yourself: "one might almost think that he had accidentally tuned into Fox News." In other words, Fox is, by your own admition, a propaganda organ that consistently hypes GOP talking points -- often creating them from whole cloth when the need arises.  In short, they are not a news organization. They have more in common with the work of Leni Riefenstahl than Edward R Murrow.

I owe you an apology.  I made a big mistake.  A few days ago, I said that I thought that you were capable of actual thought, and I was completely wrong about that.  I apologize for the misjudgment.

In this case, you quote one sentence of mine, but you either didn't read or were incapable of comprehending the previous paragraph in the same post.  I was making the point that the mainstream media blindly and mindlessly covers for Biden, and never criticizes Biden's policiies, no matter how stupid and destructive they are.  Only Fox News provides balanced and accurate coverage, either supporting or criticizing Biden, depending on the situation.

Fox never supports the left, center or even the center right.  It's full-right full-time.  Nothing is balanced ... ever!  Note how effectivel;y they've managed to kill many of their own supporters by shilling for nonsense COVID policies and against vaccines.  In foreign affaris, they have no philosophy, or they wouldn't have switched from hard neocon in the pre-Trump days to ... I don't even know anymore.  They've even played XOXO with the Taliban, so God only knows what they believe -- probably nothing based on the evidence.

If your "news" is sourced on the hard-right media, no wonder you have a twisted idea of what's true.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Fox News

(08-30-2021, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > Fox never supports the left, center or even the center right.
> It's full-right full-time. Nothing is balanced ... ever! Note
> how effectivel;y they've managed to kill many of their own
> supporters by shilling for nonsense COVID policies and against
> vaccines. In foreign affaris, they have no philosophy, or they
> wouldn't have switched from hard neocon in the pre-Trump days to
> ... I don't even know anymore. They've even played XOXO with the
> Taliban, so God only knows what they believe -- probably nothing
> based on the evidence.

That's simply not true, though you may think so if all you know about
are Tucker and Hannity.

But the 6 pm ET "Fox Report" is totally balanced, or at most
center-right. Bret Baier's reporting is almost totally non-partisan,
and the panels always contain a Democrat Party strategist who is given
plenty of time to present the Democrat Party position.

However, even the analysts aren't monolithic. For example, some of
them hate Trump. The Covid policies are a good example, because it
shows how stupid the Democrats are. Yes, there are a variety of
opinions expressed on Fox about Covid policies, mostly opposing forced
masking or lockdowns. But remember that 18 months ago Trump was
talking about a Covid lab leak, and the Democrat idiots were calling
that a "conspiracy theory." Then a few months ago, the Democrats were
humiliated by having to admit that a lab leak was possible. I recall
ABC's Jonathan Karl saying, "Just because Trump said something doesn't
mean it wasn't true." But there are lots of things like that, where
the Democrats called them conspiracy theories, and had to make
humiliating retreats.

But you're obviously missing the whole point. You listen to the sewer
channels like CNN, where you only get the news approved the Democrat
Party censors, and that's wrong most of the time. Fox News has people
that state lots of different opinions. Occasionally, some of them
turn out to be wrong, but most of them turn out to be right. That's a
GOOD thing. That's why the Fox slogan is: "We report, you decide."
The CNN slogan is: "We report, and we decide for you." CNN is perfect
for someone incapable of actual thought.

You should watch Fox's 6 PM ET newscast. You may discover you like it
much better than whatever garbage you currently listen to.

By the way, I'm curious to know what you mean by, "They've even played
XOXO with the Taliban." I don't know what that means, and I didn't
even know that you watched Fox News.

(08-30-2021, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > If your "news" is sourced on the hard-right media, no wonder you
> have a twisted idea of what's true.

Once again, simply not true. I also get my news from MSNBC, the BBC,
al-Jazeera, C-Span, and other broadcast sources, as well as dozens of
online sources. In the last few days, I've watched a lot of MSNBC's
coverage of Afghanistan. All in all, I believe that I am better
informed than you or 99.9% of the rest of the world. I have to be, in
view of the huge number of people like yourself that constantly attack
me.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Adam Schiff and the mass slaughter of blacks

(08-27-2021, 07:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > What a collection of delusional verbiage!

(08-27-2021, 07:48 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > ** 27-Aug-2021 World View: Trollery

> Lol! So, are you also an Adam Schiff troll, or are you someone
> else's troll?

I'd like to expand on my previous answer.

Every policy, no matter how good or bad, has unintended consequences.
In fact, the size of the unintended consequences is one measure of how
bad a policy is. And a measure of how good or bad the policymakers
are is to see how well they take action to reverse the unintended
consequences.

But sometimes the policymakers fail to take any actions to reverse the
unintended consequences. Even worse, someimes instead of fixing them,
the policymakers adopt new policies that reinforce or worsen the
unintended consequences. Once the "unintended consequences" are not
fixed, but go on and worsen for years, then it becomes appropriate to
call them "intended consequences," especially when the policymakers
have obvious motives for wanting the intended consequences.

For decades, the Democrats have adopted policies to destroy black
families, by forcing black mothers to throw their children's fathers
out of the house and into the street and out of the community in order
to collect welfare. For decades, the Democrats have manipulated
welfare policy to destroy black families as much as possible, and
today 75% of black children are born without fathers. The result is
that these children without the moral and experiential guidance of
their fathers, causing many of them to enter the criminal justice
system. Furthermore, teen boys know that, thanks to the Democrat's
welfare policies, they have no hope of having a normal family life,
because they know that if they marry and have children, their wives
will throw them out of the house as soon as they're short of money.

The result is that these rudderless young black males with no fathers
and with no hope of a family life, thanks to Democrats' policies, are
out on the streets killing each other in record numbers in cities
governed by Democrats. Democrats could fix these problems (by
following the example of Rudy Guliani's tenure in NYC, for example),
but they refuse to do so, indicating that mass slaughter of blacks on
the streets is an "intended consequence" of Democrats' policies.

The Democrats' motive is perfectly obvious. Last century, Democrats
were conducting mass slaughter of blacks through the KKK. This
century, the Democrats are conducting mass slaughter of blacks through
policies. It's exactly the same objective through different means.

So there are two "intended consequences" of Democrats' policies:
destruction of the black family, and mass slaughter of blacks in the
streets of cities governed by Democrats. After decades of failing to
fix these outcomes, and in fact allowing them to worsen, there is no
doubt that mass slaughter of blacks in the streets is an intended
consequence of Democrat policies. Same as last century, but by
different means.

Last century, the direct activities of the KKK were pretty much ended
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bitterly opposed by the Democrats,
especially those in the south. The Democrats staged a 75-day
filibuster, among the longest in American history. On one occasion,
Senator Robert Byrd spoke for over 14 consecutive hours.

This bitter opposition by Byrd is significant because Byrd had been a
Grand Wizard in the KKK, and Byrd was the mentor of Joe Biden. This
provides a solid connection between the KKK of the last century and
the Democrats of today.

After their bitter defeat, the Democrats began agressively pushing
welfare policies that destroyed the black family.

I have a personal memory of this from the 1970s. Every day I would
read in the Boston Globe of how the welfare policies worked. Vans
were sent into black neighborhoods for a period of many months. Any
woman simply had to walk out of her home and walk into the van in
front of her home to sign up for welfare on the spot, provided that
she said that her children weren't being supported by their father.
So the government was paying mothers to disavow their children's
fathers, with no limitations. That was the first step in destroying
the black family.

The policy got much worse, as the welfare policy evolved to crack down
on mothers who were receiving welfare, but still had the father living
with them. They were required to throw the fathers out of the house,
or lose their welfare.

Then there was a crackdown on fathers who still were around their
families. I recall stories of mothers losing welfare because dad was
still in the neighborhood. The message was clear: get rid of dad
completely.

Next, the authorities completely closed the noose around fathers. The
government implemented large data processing systems to track down
fathers, mostly black fathers, who could be found. The message to
women was clear: Have sex with several men, so that the father can't
be identified, if you want to continue received welfare payments; make
sure you don't hang around with the father(s) of your children or,
better yet, make sure you don't even know who the father is.

It's incredible how successful the Democrats have been. They turned
their bitter defeat in 1964 into feel-good policies that completely
destroy black families, and continue the mass slaughter of blacks into
the 21st century.

In the 1960s, Patrick Moynihan warned that these would be unintended
consequences of Democrat policies. But since the policies have gone
on for decades, and have worsened, it's clear that they're now
"intended consequences." This is what the Democrats want.

And the reason they want these outcomes is also clear. The Democrats
desperately tried to win the Civil War and perpetuate slavery. When
they lost, they created the KKK and Jim Crow laws to mitigate their
disastrous defeat.

When they 1964 Civil Rights Law passed, it must have felt like losing
the Civil War all over again. There had been a hope that "The South
will rise again!", but those hopes were destroyed when the southern
Democrats were defeated for the second time.

This time, they couldn't form the KKK to mitigate their defeat.
Instead, they mitigated their defeat by adopting the policies
described above, leading to the destruction of the black family and
the mass slaughter of blacks on the street.

In later years, the Democrats adopted more policies to further the
mass slaughter of blacks. They've prevented the police from enforcing
the laws, since doing so is "racist." The let violence criminals out
of prisons, since prisons are "racist." Violent criminals are not
prosecuted, since prosecution is "racist." Police are defunded,
because police are "racist." These policies have had the "intended
consequence" of allowing blacks to freely slaughter each other on the
streets. This is Democrat party policy.

This mass slaughter of blacks is almost a genocide. Today, Adam
Schiff is a Democrat leader, and has to be held responsible for this
near-genocide, in the same way that any Nazi leader would have to have
been held responsible for the Holocaust.

Last century, the Democrats justified the lynching of blacks or the
1921 Tulsa Massacre as perfectly OK, since the targets were "n-----s",
and so it was OK to kill them. Today, I'm sure that Adam Schiff must
feel exactly the same way about blacks, since otherwise he would do
something about the destruction of the black family and the mass
slaughter of blacks in the streets. He is pursuing Democrat Party
policy.

Meece says that Adam Schiff is his hero, because Adam Schiff lied
every day and manufactured evidence, and didn't go to jail only
because he's protected by Congressional immunity. Calling Schiff his
"hero" is abomination enough.

Calling Schiff a "hero" is particularly pathetic today, when we have
REAL heroes who are fighting for America or who have lost their lives
in Afghanistan.

But it's much worse than that because Meece's hero is someone
responsible for a near-genocide and mass killing of blacks, which
makes makes Meece also indirectly responsible.

And Brower, if Schiff is also your hero, or if you're an Adam Schiff
troll, then you're just as bad. I've written thousands of articles
about all sorts of historical events, and I know what evil is, because
I've seen it over and over, and I know what fanatics are like, and
you're definitely a fanatic and you're definitely evil, but you
apparently don't have even a clue.

As I've said previously, monsters like Hitler or Mao or Stalin or
al-Assad or Xi succeed because they are supported by the enablers, the
excusers, the deniers, the collaborators, the acolytes and the trolls.

As I wrote last time, if Meece considers Schiff to be his hero, then
Schiff is lucky to have Meece. Who knows? Maybe Schiff would like to
become president to replace the senile Biden. Maybe Schiff will call
on Meece for help, and Meece's fealty and devotion will have paid off.

[David Horn]

(08-30-2021, 01:15 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Fox News

(08-30-2021, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: Fox never supports the left, center or even the center right.  It's full-right full-time.  Nothing is balanced ... ever!  Note how effectivel;y they've managed to kill many of their own supporters by shilling for nonsense COVID policies and against vaccines. In foreign affaris, they have no philosophy, or they wouldn't have switched from hard neocon in the pre-Trump days to ... I don't even know anymore.  They've even played XOXO with the Taliban, so God only knows what they believe -- probably nothing based on the evidence.

That's simply not true, though you may think so if all you know about are Tucker and Hannity.

and Pirro and Rivera and Dobbs and Ingraham and ... 

John Wrote:But the 6 pm ET "Fox Report" is totally balanced, or at most center-right.  Bret Baier's reporting is almost totally non-partisan, and the panels always contain a Democrat Party strategist who is given plenty of time to present the Democrat Party position.

However, even the analysts aren't monolithic.  For example, some of them hate Trump.  The Covid policies are a good example, because it shows how stupid the Democrats are.  Yes, there are a variety of opinions expressed on Fox about Covid policies, mostly opposing forced masking or lockdowns.  But remember that 18 months ago Trump was talking about a Covid lab leak, and the Democrat idiots were calling that a "conspiracy theory."  Then a few months ago, the Democrats were humiliated by having to admit that a lab leak was possible.  I recall ABC's Jonathan Karl saying, "Just because Trump said something doesn't mean it wasn't true."  But there are lots of things like that, where the Democrats called them conspiracy theories, and had to make humiliating retreats.

The lab-leak "theory" of 6 months ago was based on conjecture.  In the science-based world, that's what we call a hypothesis.  Trump and the Foxbots called it a fact.  Is it true?  Beats me.  Beats the CIA too, and they have real resources.

John Wrote:But you're obviously missing the whole point.  You listen to the sewer channels like CNN, where you only get the news approved the Democrat Party censors, and that's wrong most of the time.  Fox News has people that state lots of different opinions.  Occasionally, some of them
turn out to be wrong, but most of them turn out to be right.  That's a GOOD thing.  That's why the Fox slogan is: "We report, you decide."  The CNN slogan is: "We report, and we decide for you."  CNN is perfect for someone incapable of actual thought.

My prime sources are the New York Times and NPR.  I listen to and read others, and even watch a few shows on C-SPAN and MSNBC.  

John Wrote:You should watch Fox's 6 PM ET newscast.  You may discover you like it much better than whatever garbage you currently listen to.

Unlikley.  That's dinner time, and I don't want to toss cookies in the middle of a meal.

John Wrote:By the way, I'm curious to know what you mean by, "They've even played XOXO with the Taliban."  I don't know what that means, and I didn't even know that you watched Fox News.

Hugs and kisses. For some reason, the Taliban is now semi-revered by the hard right. Go figure.

John Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:If your "news" is sourced on the hard-right media, no wonder you have a twisted idea of what's true.

Once again, simply not true.  I also get my news from MSNBC, the BBC, al-Jazeera, C-Span, and other broadcast sources, as well as dozens of online sources.  In the last few days, I've watched a lot of MSNBC's coverage of Afghanistan.  All in all, I believe that I am better informed than you or 99.9% of the rest of the world.  I have to be, in view of the huge number of people like yourself that constantly attack me.

Why do I doubt this? Well, never mind.

[pbrower2a]

(08-30-2021, 01:16 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Adam Schiff and the mass slaughter of blacks

(08-27-2021, 07:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: >   What a collection of delusional verbiage!

(08-27-2021, 07:48 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   ** 27-Aug-2021 World View: Trollery

>   Lol!  So, are you also an Adam Schiff troll, or are you someone
>   else's troll?

I'd like to expand on my previous answer.

Every policy, no matter how good or bad, has unintended consequences.
In fact, the size of the unintended consequences is one measure of how
bad a policy is.  And a measure of how good or bad the policymakers
are is to see how well they take action to reverse the unintended
consequences.

In our system it is not normally the policy-makers within the Administration who take action to reverse or mitigate the unintended consequences that come out badly. Most people are blinded to their economic ideology, moral concerns, and foreign policy; they recognize their virtues to excess and trivialize the flaws. That is human nature. I'm not sure that we want a computer or a machine-like mind (with Asperger's I am nearly that, so I would be a disaster as President). We do not do government by algorithm. If the previous Administration is fairly good, then the right course might be some fine tuning. Example: Bill Clinton fully endorsed the general position of George HW Bush on foreign policy. Eventually there would be some slight modifications, mostly to reflect change in realities that happened during the Clinton Presidency. What Clinton did change was on domestic policy, which was warmed-over Reagan. Twelve years is ordinarily more than enough for one agenda.

The historical assessment of the elder Bush was not that he was a truly God-awful President; it was instead that his domestic policy had gotten stale. 

Ideally one endorses the virtues and rejects the faults of the predecessor. If one is Barack Obama one must reject the economic policies that led to the financial panic of 2008, the result of a speculative boom that did what all speculative booms do: it devoured capital and made the economy dependent upon it for any semblance of prosperity. Of course he rescued the financial system as Herbert Hoover failed to do. He had no graceful exit from Iraq and Afghanistan until in the case of Iraq he had to make US troops subject to Iraqi law. Obama is about as conservative as one gets on law and order, perhaps recognizing a lesson that he learned as a community organizer. Most people in the poorest parts of town are good people, and crime is mostly the result of offenders who do not stop committing street crime until they are in prison. Criminal behavior is a personal choice and not a consequence of economic distress. Finding the trustworthy people in the South Side of Chicago implies that those people will tell someone that they trust that such-and-such person is a violent criminal who preys mostly on fellow poor people. South Side crooks do not commute to Naperville (a well-off suburb) to commit crimes. 

I see Obama and I see far more virtues than vices. I also see a savvy pol. People who expected him to have a soft spot for rogues just because those rogues are black are wrong. All in all most historical assessments of Obama as President are that he is better than average among Presidents. Trying to see him from a conservative or libertarian view all that was wrong with him is that he was not a conservative or libertarian. I also see him as a model, at least in behavior and political skills, for the next conservative President who has an agenda of paring down Big Government to promote responsibility (Create wealth first before you participate in the consumer society, dammit!), thrift, sobriety, integrity, and enterprise. The Left has found Big Government good for creating a welfare state by making welfare profitable for merchants, medical professionals, and landlords. The Right has found Big Government useful for enforcing the will of monopolies and cartels and for sweetheart deals between Big Government and well-connected plutocrats.    

Eight years of a fairly good President are not to be completely cast off. The big problem with Donald Trump arises in his hatred of Barack Obama that caused Trump to undo everything that Obama did, which means rejecting even his virtues. The opposite of fairly-good is of course "hideous". The only good thing about Trump was that he was too inept to achieve much of his agenda. Trump is excellent at inflammatory rhetoric that stokes mass resentments among people who think that they have been left behind because they see members of minority groups doing far better than they. The fault with that is that it solves nothing. Trump is steadfast in his beliefs even if those prove wrong. At that he is no better than people who wear shirts emblazoned with images of Che Guevara or have (I have seen this) the words WHITE POWER tattooed onto their knuckles.     

Quote:But sometimes the policymakers fail to take any actions to reverse the
unintended consequences.  Even worse, someimes instead of fixing them,
the policymakers adopt new policies that reinforce or worsen the
unintended consequences.  Once the "unintended consequences" are not
fixed, but go on and worsen for years, then it becomes appropriate to
call them "intended consequences," especially when the policymakers
have obvious motives for wanting the intended consequences.

To this I might point you toward the Skowronek cycle. The creator of this site refers more to the work of a political scientist with no obvious partisan bias than to partisan politics. One must be a partisan hack to still believe that Donald Trump was incompetent at anything other than making inflammatory rhetoric that further divided America. Donald Trump, in view of his personal character and minimal preparation to be President would have been a calamitous President had he been a boilerplate liberal. 

In essence, the President who enters at the start of one cycle (prime examples are Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan... maybe Teddy Roosevelt) become President despite widespread misgivings, get better results than even critics expected, and reset the political norms. They get better-than-expected results in public policy. Legitimate achievements overpower unintended consequences. But setting the norm they ensure that later imitators become increasingly ineffective because the obvious solutions are already in place and can change little... but unintended consequences become more severe and hazardous. After forty to forty-eight years or so, even a smart President of integrity and intelligence (nobody ever accused either Buchanan, Hoover, or Carter "stupid", "corrupt", or "cruel").  Fine-tuned solutions that worked 35 to 45 years earlier no longer have the intended effects. 

OK, Trump is "stupid", "corrupt", and "cruel", which makes him worse.      

Quote:For decades, the Democrats have adopted policies to destroy black
families, by forcing black mothers to throw their children's fathers
out of the house and into the street and out of the community in order
to collect welfare.  For decades, the Democrats have manipulated
welfare policy to destroy black families as much as possible, and
today 75% of black children are born without fathers.  The result is
that these children without the moral and experiential guidance of
their fathers, causing many of them to enter the criminal justice
system.  Furthermore, teen boys know that, thanks to the Democrat's
welfare policies, they have no hope of having a normal family life,
because they know that if they marry and have children, their wives
will throw them out of the house as soon as they're short of money.

I'm sure that many of those fathers would not be welcome if they tried to put together a nuclear family. Add to this, many of the mothers are themselves suspect. I've known of some white women in rural areas who see their babies as cash cows for welfare payments. 

On the other hand, blacks have been making gains in economic reality as some get more rigorous education and develop vocational skills. That applies to women just as much as to men. You can fault the mass low culture all that you want for promoting consumerism over enterprise and toil and for lacking any intellectual value. This same low culture that retards blacks who imbibe excessively in it also has much appeal to white youth.

Need I tell you that poverty itself usually comes with economic insecurity? The jobs that poor people end up with typically pay minimal wages, offer no solid career ladder, have capricious management, and have frequent lay-offs. Running out of money is easy, even without job loss, if one makes some economic blunder such as trusting a con artist or such a calamity as a medical emergency or a shady arrest.     

Quote:The result is that these rudderless young black males with no fathers
and with no hope of a family life, thanks to Democrats' policies, are
out on the streets killing each other in record numbers in cities
governed by Democrats.  Democrats could fix these problems (by
following the example of Rudy Guliani's tenure in NYC, for example),
but they refuse to do so, indicating that mass slaughter of blacks on
the streets is an "intended consequence" of Democrats' policies.

The "explosion" of welfare payments coincides with the disappearance of large numbers of industrial jobs that black men often ended up with by default. The factory was the most reliable escape from grinding poverty, more so for more people than were formal education. Americans started buying more foreign cars and Big Business started buying more imported steel, which alone mean lower industrial output; furthermore the big manufacturers of all kinds found ways in which to automate plants and need smaller payrolls, especially of semi-skilled labor. To be sure, this partly reflects white kids deciding to get college degrees instead of considering a career in factory work (surely you recall public-service ads in the 1960's  that told people "to get a good job get a good education". People who get significant college education are completely unsuited to factory work. 

You tell me how we get back to the "good old days" in which people of limited education but a solid work ethic could get a well-paying factory job that could support the family.   

Quote:The Democrats' motive is perfectly obvious.  Last century, Democrats
were conducting mass slaughter of blacks through the KKK.  This
century, the Democrats are conducting mass slaughter of blacks through
policies.  It's exactly the same objective through different means.

If the KKK had gotten its way it would have done what groups of similar bigotry did: large-scale genocide. Imagine a Holocaust in the USA; the KKK has much the same hatred toward Jews that the Nazis did. The KKK could not threaten a restoration of slavery, in view of the pesky 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, but just imagine what they could have done if they had had the opportunity to repeal them and "free" white people to own slaves. African-Americans refusing the offer of bondage in return for survival would likely be exterminated. 

I'm not going to excuse the KKK because it wasn't as bad as Hitlerite or Stalinist rule; one lynching and one bombing by hooded fascists is one too many. Yes, the Second Klan is fascist; it is arguable that the Nazis learned much from it even down to night rallies under torch light, the KKK salute, gaudy symbolism, and "racial laws".   

Republicans have practically no appeal in America's poor non-white communities, so administrative default goes to Democrats. I'm guessing that Democrats trust the Black Bourgeoisie to be leaders of poor blacks who have the will and ability to do something good, even if that means 'only'  commuting to the suburbs for jobs in retailing and fast food.    

Quote:So there are two "intended consequences" of Democrats' policies:
destruction of the black family, and mass slaughter of blacks in the
streets of cities governed by Democrats.  After decades of failing to
fix these outcomes, and in fact allowing them to worsen, there is no
doubt that mass slaughter of blacks in the streets is an intended
consequence of Democrat policies.  Same as last century, but by
different means.

Two cr@ppy jobs can be a start for a family. Obviously a near-minimum-wage job will not support much participation of someone in the consumer economy unless one is a teenager still living with parents. Maybe if one increases a welfare supplement someone can go from the ghetto to where the jobs are and commute to and from the job. Heck, I was in Greater Detroit one day at the peak time for the morning commute, having dropped someone off at the airport. I expected traffic toward Downtown Detroit, but not the other way. I saw lots of black people obviously commuting to the suburbs. I see no reason to believe that African-Americans have an unusual level of participation in graveyard-shift work. 

If you are looking for economic opportunity, you do not go to Greater Detroit.      

Quote:Last century, the direct activities of the KKK were pretty much ended
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

...and more rigorous law enforcement against segregationist terror, which coincides. More precisely, the most terroristic part of the KKK (the infamous United Klans of America involved in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church and the lynching of Michael Donald) disgraced itself. Other Klans emerged, and by the 1980's those started to unite in purpose with neo-Nazis.  

KKK groups have about as many members as do the Communists... and it is safe to say that law enforcement has so heavily infiltrated them that they cannot get away with much.   

Quote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bitterly opposed by the Democrats,
especially those in the south.  The Democrats staged a 75-day
filibuster, among the longest in American history. On one occasion,
Senator Robert Byrd spoke for over 14 consecutive hours.

Fifty-seven years ago.  What is the relevance?  Segregationism is dead as a political cause.  D-E-A-D. Neither Party has a segregationiut wing.  

Quote:This bitter opposition by Byrd is significant because Byrd had been a
Grand Wizard in the KKK, and Byrd was the mentor of Joe Biden.  This
provides a solid connection between the KKK of the last century and
the Democrats of today.

No. Just no. 

Quote:After their bitter defeat, the Democrats began aggressively pushing
welfare policies that destroyed the black family.

See what I said of  the disappearance of factory jobs upon which African-American men heavily replied upon for work since the time of Booker T. Washington, who advocated that black men seek and do industrial work. Black men were going to face discrimination, but they were going to experience it less in the bourgeoning industrial sector  than elsewhere (such as commerce and clerical work). The professions in which African-Americans could work were already over-saturated (there would not be opportunities to serve the white population).    

Quote:I have a personal memory of this from the 1970s.  Every day I would
read in the Boston Globe of how the welfare policies worked.  Vans
were sent into black neighborhoods for a period of many months.  Any
woman simply had to walk out of her home and walk into the van in
front of her home to sign up for welfare on the spot, provided that
she said that her children weren't being supported by their father.
So the government was paying mothers to disavow their children's
fathers, with no limitations.  That was the first step in destroying
the black family.

The policy got much worse, as the welfare policy evolved to crack down
on mothers who were receiving welfare, but still had the father living
with them.  They were required to throw the fathers out of the house,
or lose their welfare.

Then there was a crackdown on fathers who still were around their
families.  I recall stories of mothers losing welfare because dad was
still in the neighborhood.  The message was clear: get rid of dad
completely.

Next, the authorities completely closed the noose around fathers.  The
government implemented large data processing systems to track down
fathers, mostly black fathers, who could be found.  The message to
women was clear: Have sex with several men, so that the father can't
be identified, if you want to continue received welfare payments; make
sure you don't hang around with the father(s) of your children or,
better yet, make sure you don't even know who the father is.

It's incredible how successful the Democrats have been.  They turned
their bitter defeat in 1964 into feel-good policies that completely
destroy black families, and continue the mass slaughter of blacks into
the 21st century.

In the 1960s, Patrick Moynihan warned that these would be unintended
consequences of Democrat policies.  But since the policies have gone
on for decades, and have worsened, it's clear that they're now
"intended consequences."  This is what the Democrats want.

1960's and 1970's. The OP has had plenty of opportunity in which to undo or mitigate those policies. Like most Democrats today I consider family cohesion a generally good idea unless some compelling reason (like abuse in a relationship) counter-indicates such a policy. This said, the black bourgeoisie is still heavily Democratic, and (much unlike the white bourgeoisie that leans Republican) cares about it own poor. At this point I must ask white people why they seem not to give a damn about poor white people in the Mountain and Deep South.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Contempt for the Taliban

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: > John Wrote: You should watch Fox's 6 PM ET newscast. You may
> discover you like it much better than whatever garbage you
> currently listen to.

> Unlikely. That's dinner time, and I don't want to toss cookies in
> the middle of a meal.

That reminds me of that old Jack Nicholson movie line, "You can't
handle the truth!"

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: > John Wrote: By the way, I'm curious to know what you mean by,
> "They've even played XOXO with the Taliban." I don't know what
> that means, and I didn't even know that you watched Fox News.

> Hugs and kisses. For some reason, the Taliban is now semi-revered
> by the hard right. Go figure.

This is one of those really bizarre statements that you make that show
that you're completely out of touch with reality. All Fox analysts
I've heard -- and also many on MSNBC and the BBC as well -- are
contemptuous of the Taliban and say that the Taliban will start raping
girls as soon as the Americans leave. They're also contemptuous of
Biden for "cutting and running" and trusting the Taliban, in order to
get a photo op on 9/11. So the truth is the exact opposite of what
you're saying.

• Biden crying in response to a question at an 8/27 press conference

[justpassingthrough]

(08-30-2021, 08:16 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Contempt for the Taliban

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   John Wrote: You should watch Fox's 6 PM ET newscast.  You may
>   discover you like it much better than whatever garbage you
>   currently listen to.

>   Unlikely.  That's dinner time, and I don't want to toss cookies in
>   the middle of a meal.

That reminds me of that old Jack Nicholson movie line, "You can't
handle the truth!"

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   John Wrote: By the way, I'm curious to know what you mean by,
>   "They've even played XOXO with the Taliban." I don't know what
>   that means, and I didn't even know that you watched Fox News.

>   Hugs and kisses. For some reason, the Taliban is now semi-revered
>   by the hard right. Go figure.

This is one of those really bizarre statements that you make that show
that you're completely out of touch with reality.  All Fox analysts
I've heard -- and also many on MSNBC and the BBC as well -- are
contemptuous of the Taliban and say that the Taliban will start raping
girls as soon as the Americans leave.  They're also contemptuous of
Biden for "cutting and running" and trusting the Taliban, in order to
get a photo op on 9/11.  So the truth is the exact opposite of what
you're saying.

• Biden crying in response to a question at an 8/27 press conference

It's been several years since I posted here, and my views on the cyclical theories have continued to evolve. The thought I have now is that today bears a startling resemblance to the late 1970s. And that leads me to think that if you want to know what a "Crisis" is going to look like, you have to look at the end of the preceding "Awakening". Meaning, this is not a replay of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or WWII, as we all speculated for years. If you had to give this Crisis a name, the best one available is probably "Jimmy Carter". On steroids. 

I think it would be fair to call WWI the end of the previous Awakening, and WWII was the climax of the Crisis. The technologies and totalitarian ideologies that produced WWII were born in the preceding Progressive Era, and produced WWI, the USSR, eugenics, human flight, prohibition, and so on by the end of that Awakening. 

So we have been, stupidly, for years, predicting something that looks like past Crises. When we already know what the issues are. All you have to do is look at the 1960s and 1970s. Mao-inspired neo-Marxist identity politics, cultural revolution and terrorism, economic and cultural decline, the disintegration and demoralization of American society, and of American geopolitical standing, allowed by widespread narcissistic hedonism, greed and corruption. That's Boomers. Always has been, always will be.

Economic crashes, pandemics, and technological disruption are the kinds of things that happen throughout history. What is unique to the current moment is the response to those things by the current generational constellation. S&H often seemed to suggest that these generations would "rise to the occasion" and become something they never were before. Nope. Boomers are Boomers. This is the world they created. In response to the 2008 crash (which I now commit to as the beginning of the 4T), the preceding Awakening imposed itself on the world in full force, in the form of Barack Obama. He was the embodiment and messiah of everything the Awakening was about. So instead of fixing the economy, we got Obamacare and anti-American, intersectional identity politics. And now we fly BLM and rainbow flags at American embassies while the world laughs at us. 

The economy is in shambles, the US is incompetent in foreign affairs and the society is disintegrating domestically, while the crusaders of the Awakening ride triumphantly over the cliff. I am deeply disturbed by the actions of the "ruling elite" over the last 13 years, and the last two years, particularly in Washington, Silicon Valley and blue state governments. But I increasingly see the real end game here being one of delusional, megalomanical narcissists slamming face first into the brick wall of reality. The response of that elite and their dutiful followers to things not going their way, to their Utopia slipping from their grasp, has been startlingly incompetent, panicked, and frenzied. They have lashed out with outrageous authoritarianism, but also cower in their bunkers, wearing three masks if they dare to go outdoors. George Orwell never foresaw Big Brother residing in San Francisco, with the thought police stomping their boot to promote non-reproductive sexuality, obesity, open borders and a senile president. But here we are.

Voices from other countries, especially longstanding allies, are increasingly concerned that the US is falling apart. They are increasingly seeking to protect themselves from the fallout of the disintegration of the nation they used to look to for leadership. For others, in poorer countries, there is a rejection of "Americanism", which they used to aspire to. They'll take our money where they can get it, but any moral reputation the US used to posses is utterly gone. They see our tanks riding in with rainbow flags and say, "no thank you".

I don't yet know how to contextualize Trump. That has been a bizarre episode in history, and it's possible he may run again in 2024 (and win). But he is a component of the Boomer id, sabotaged by the same afflictions of the rest of his generation. He tried to combat the dominant elite by feeding their own vomit back to them, with his own style of narcissism and self-aggrandizement. In that sense, they're all the same.

I know what the end game looks like, if the nation survives. Humble traditionalism, a quest for stability and normality, and a rejection of self-righteous crusades to "Change the World ™". But I'm not at all sure as of now that it will survive. What I am 99% sure of (now, as I always have been) is that civil war is not a possibility, despite the feverish speculation of some. It looks more like the fall of the Roman Empire.

[David Horn]

(08-30-2021, 08:16 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Contempt for the Taliban

(08-30-2021, 04:48 PM)David Horn Wrote:

John Wrote:You should watch Fox's 6 PM ET newscast.  You may discover you like it much better than whatever garbage you currently listen to.

Unlikely.  That's dinner time, and I don't want to toss cookies in the middle of a meal.

That reminds me of that old Jack Nicholson movie line, "You can't handle the truth!"

That remiinds me you lack all sense of humor.  And truth requires a connection betwen what's said and reality -- not a typical product of Fox 'reporting'.

John Wrote:

David Wrote:

John Wrote:By the way, I'm curious to know what you mean by, "They've even played XOXO with the Taliban." I don't know what that means, and I didn't even know that you watched Fox News.

Hugs and kisses. For some reason, the Taliban is now semi-revered by the hard right. Go figure.

This is one of those really bizarre statements that you make that show that you're completely out of touch with reality.  All Fox analysts I've heard -- and also many on MSNBC and the BBC as well -- are contemptuous of the Taliban and say that the Taliban will start raping girls as soon as the Americans leave.  They're also contemptuous of Biden for "cutting and running" and trusting the Taliban, in order to get a photo op on 9/11.  So the truth is the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Actually, I was refering to Trump and his GOP acolytes who have started to praise the Taliban.  More to follow, I'm sure.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 31-Aug-2021 World View: Susan Rice in charge

We know that Biden doesn't know what's going on, and this has raised
the recurring question as to who is making the decisions in the Biden
administration, and who is writing the scripts that Biden reads from
the teleprompter.

Rick Grenell was the Acting Director of National Intelligence for a
while.

Interviewed on Fox Business Network, Grenell says that Susan Rice is in
charge.

Susan Rice is an idiot.