Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The theory of human evolution and the 80-year cycle
#1
Let me re-phrase the intoduction to the four turnings in my own words, to make a quick characterization of it:

There is a constant group evolution, since we have an enhanced way of communication that other animals don't have, which is speech. The evolution is a bit different on various continents, but the rhytm of events is the same.

Group evolution is moving on with regular intervals, the 20-20-20-20 years cycle. The changes come everywhere at the same time, and that is why we have worldwide campaigns of change today. We have a worldwide rise in populism happening at the same time (even in Australia, they have so little problems with immigration etc.).

We reject most of the other countries and prefer our own, but still the changes to (group) behaviour happen, even from countries from across the sea, if we share our culture with them. The reduction of bad behavior and substance abuse happens every 80 years, and the change is tied to our surroundings. 1945-1965 reconstruction and optimism, 1965-1985 spiritual uprising, 1985-2005 individualism and megastars, 2005-2025 PC culture, reduction in bad behavior, civil discourse and the rise of nationalism. And a fresh start for the societies in the end, when the first turning arrives in about ten years.


And now for the theories of origins of Four Turnings. Let's go back in time for 50,000 years, to the Great Leap of Homo sapiens:

Homo Sapiens had sex with other Homos -> they would be assimilated into Homo Sapiens. The Jivaro people of today: "The Jivaro people are famous for their head-hunting raids and shrinking the heads. The raiding parties usually only attack one homestead per raid, killing the men, spearing the older women to death, and taking younger women as brides." And the most different looking ones would be killed because of racism, probably even some children between a Homo sapiens and other Homos, which made the assimilation faster, and killed off all the other Homos, at least the men, because they couldn't be assimilated or speak the same language.

They had sex with other hominids, raped them if necessary. This is why we have such high sex drives as humans, because the homo sapiens individuals with the highest sex drive would have sex with the other species and own species, which led them to have more children. By being beautiful you would pass on your genes more than ugly ones. That is why humans are so "beautiful" compared to other species and we have an eye for esthetics, we value beauty and there is a little narcissus in each of us, because it's how our ancestors got their genes to win the game. Some call it vanity, but it's what made Homo sapiens win the evolutionary battle and assimilate some genes from other Homos. This is why many have DNA from Neanderthals even today.

They went to war, killed the men and took their (best looking [so closest to human DNA?]) women and had children with them. War is an evolutionary strategy, both biologically and territorially. Assimilate or die. All this is now happening again due to the world wars and now globalization, which is the final step on the way of combining all different races from all continents, so only the best genes remain and form an even better result than what we have today.

They and we go to war because every generation wants to see a war, but just once. (That is why the 80 year cycle exists. That is why we have four turnings of history, we have four different generations alive at each time, and every generation has it's needs that the want to see fulfilled.) This cycle leads to the victory of homo sapiens and the end of the Neanderthals, Denisovans and other possibly remaining genus Homos.

[Image: homo.jpg]

Early human communication was revolutionized with the origin of speech approximately 500,000 years ago. Communication allowed us to express our ideas and shared values. Communication allowed us to form societies and other social bonds. Some "memory" of basic concepts is passed on in our DNA (instincts, affect also dreams), as we have the same archetypes of humans present in all cultures, no matter the continent. The wise prophet, the king, the joker, the hero. That's why we have religions. The wise prophet is "god". And the god has rules and group values for you.

The archetypes are all men, btw... which is changing with the me too movement for example. We're not programmed to see a women as prophets, kings, jokers or heroes. (And now with the hero-generation at their at the age of 14-34, superhero movies are absolutely dominating the movie theaters and smaller screens. A coincidence? Could be.)

The "DNA memory" is kind of lagging behind, as our basic instincts of racism and war try to be fulfilled. Civility and instincts are in a constant battle. The Jivaro tribe isn't much different from us genetically, but their group evolution hasn't reached a point of civility like ours has. Eat, sleep, go to war, have sex. Many men today are obsessed with war movies and the internet is full of sex videos. Men still rape and in women women have fantasies of getting raped. So it's not like we've completely separated from out animal instincts quite yet.

Chimpanzees have the war instincts too, but no higher level of communication. They still start wars, (without a word?!), wars that can last for many years. Male chimps beat their women and kill offspring of others. We kill millions in wars and the basic message is to "kill the others, we are better". And often they are stronger, why attack if you're weaker? The chimps behave the same way, they attack smaller chimp communities.


So how did human kind take the Great Leap?

QUOTE:

"CB1 receptors in humans are found in regions of the forebrain associated with development of language and music skills and could also be responsible for at least some of the psychological effects of Cannabis. High CB1 levels are also found in the thalamus, which contributes to development of the human personality and provides access to pain pathways, thus allowing THC-induced analgesia." (Pain medication, especially needed by older members of the tribe?)

"Terrance McKenna (1992) proposed that the use of Cannabis by Paleolithic humans may have stimulated the emergence of language, a major key to the “great leap forward” in human evolution about 50,000 years ago, accompanied by the crafting of specialized tools from new materials (e.g., rope, nets, and cloth from hemp fiber), the utilization of new food plants (e.g., hemp seed), the altering of consciousness (e.g., ingestion of Cannabis drugs), the development of art and music, and the inception of social systems."

"Not only was Cannabis among the first fibers to be woven and an early provider of a seed rich in EFAs, but it may also have promoted the inception of the very cognitive processes required to invent such complex crafts as weaving." (Clarke, Robert, and Mark Merlin. Cannabis : Evolution and Ethnobotany, University of California Press, 2013.)


So was cannabis responsible for the great leap 50,000 years ago? We have all the necessary elements. Cannabis provided brain healthy food, strong materials, pain medication and most importatly: cognitive advances in Homo sapiens. Other crops like wheat provided mostly only energy, nutrients, food security and food for stock animals. The provided the ability to spread out and for bigger societies, not much else. The advances in language and culture didn't probably come from those, even they were critical too in the success of homo sapiens.

Cannabis enhanced linguistic and cultural skills. But it also enhanced out basic instincts of behavior, which are love & war, and gave us new tools to wage love & war better. It enhanced our emotions, like happiness and sadness. Thus Homo sapiens created facial expressions to express them better, with extremely subtle changes. We love watching actors who can "realistically" portray a character (an archetype) (Oscars). We love singers who can express feelings in their songs (Emmys). We love books that give us the feeling of tension and mystery. We want to feel and experience, our curiosity is endless. And this is why we're so religious, it's because we want to know the answers. But if we don't get the answers, we choose the most believable story, or we're born to be a part of the story.

Cannabis enhanced the senses and experiences of Homo sapiens. It was a true wonder to the ones who used it. Think about how many people are taking (and abusing) pain medication these days. And now think about how much more pain there was in life 50,000 years ago!

Wouldn't you take the medication if it was available? The old shaman smoking the pipe, we've all heard of him and maybe even think he's probably trustworthy and wise. Why? Because he is the leader of the tribe and has experience. He is respected. A vision of a young man smoking the pipe? That's not such a good sight in our opinion. If only the distribution and usage would be very limited in the age of 20-40, limited in age 40-60 and available in the age of 60-100. If humans are gradually with aging introduced to a substance with spychoactive ingredients, it would be "in sync" with the our vision of mostly older people using it. Could be the most optimal situation for our species to evolve? From prohibition on children to availability on tribe elders.

Nowdays young people gain access to alcohol immediately once they turn a certain age. They're given an unlimited access to it, which on the other hand creates problems like alcoholism, which in turn creates movements against alcohol, even prohibition, like we had with alcohol and still mostly have with weed. Industrialisation has made an abundance of alcohol a reality for everyone, and that broke the old order that was in harmony with our species.



-------
Going back to the cyles
-------

The four beats are everywhere, especially in music. Western music is mostly based on four beats, the time signature is mostly 4/4. And the beats per minute most of the time in music is 120, approximately the same as the heartbeat of a dancing person. At the moment were about halfway through the last beat, waiting for the next big thing.

[Image: musicpopularity.jpg]



Google has the Ngram, which shows the popularity of a word by year in books. The english word sin represents pretty much all bad behavior in the mainstream western culture. 
O marks the start of the fourth turning, X marks the fourth turning ending.


[Image: sin.jpg]

This shows a double cycle. The sudden increases and decreases on the usage of word sin are almost exactly 160 years from each other. But what is more remarkable is that the other years very closely follow the curve!

Why does it spike every 160 years, not every 80 years? Homicide rates in USA from 1700 look like this:

[Image: homiciderate.jpg]


There is a pattern there, but you have to adjust to general advances in policing and prison, welfare, better education and the fact that doctors today can save many more stabbing and shooting victims than before. Once the corners of the graph are brought to the same level and I added the 80-year cycle with straight lines, the pattern looks now like this:

[Image: homicideratecorrected.jpg]


And when combined this corrected graph with the sin graph:

[Image: combined.jpg]
If only I could continue the homicide graph beyond 1700, any ideas how to do it..? The prediction is that there is low amount of homicides around 1675 and a high amount around 1650.

Researchers have been puzzled why the crime rate went down even after the 2008 economic crash. It's because we're now under a correction of behavior, which can be seen in especially these movements: Me Too, NFL kneelings, children protesting gun violence. And the rise of PC culture, which has happened  from around 2005.

Youth drinking is steadily declining in all western nations:

[Image: 02_fig11.jpg]

[Image: Figure01%20webres.jpg]


-----

Much could be understood if we could revive a Homo sapiens / Denisovan / Neanderthal from 30,000 years ago. I'll end this text with a movie plot, since all of this is pure speculation: In 40,000BC a very skinny young man in a snowstorm drops into a small pool of freezing water, which is frozen up very quickly. He is now resurrected by cryogenists to the modern world. Ok, is this only a movie plot or could this be reality like in Jurassic World?

If you say no, then I guess these shouldn't be possible either:


http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestu...k-to-life/

"Nematode worms trained to recognize certain smells retain this memory after being frozen." Maybe a mere worm can be brought back, but a creature like human? Well, how about this:


http://www.medicaldaily.com/frozen-man-p...dge-370176

"...doctors were still majorly concerned about Justin’s brain, which had been deprived of oxygen for many hours. Typically, brain cells begin to die after just a few minutes without oxygen. His brain seemed unharmed. Though he did end up losing his toes and two pinkies to frostbite because of the incident, Justin, by most standards was incredibly lucky. Coleman said the case could be more than a miracle, though. His survival is a paradigm change in how we resuscitate and how we treat people that suffer from hypothermia."

I say that if there is a frozen man in ice from 30,000BC who has frozen in perfect conditions, he can be revived and he will have his memory intact. The problem would be communication. But if it was a child of 6 years old, maybe he could be taught a new language from our time?


So much for the movie plots, I hope someone can shoot some huge bullets at my theories. I have looked up multiple sources on these subjects,
Reply
#2
Thanks for your ideas. Very interesting.

The cannibus theory is not mainstream yet; perhaps it will be. I have been familiar with Terrance McKenna since 1980 and have met him. Very interesting fellow who should not be forgotten.

The 50,000 years-ago shift and leap, which I have dated to 40,000 years ago, but is approximate, is also the date of the onset of the Purple Meme in Spiral Dynamics, which I call the Mercury Meme. Mercury represents communication.

http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

This was also the age of tribes and of "magical thinking" and animism. In some sense, with the revival of cannibus and the arrival of LSD, the sixties revived some aspects of Purple in an advanced form.

As we move to globalism, and suffer the reaction to it today in Trumpian nationalist nonsense, the long term trend is the peace movement begun in the revival of Purple and arrival of Green in the 1960s. The need for war is decreasing since then, and becoming out of date. At the same time, the sexual revolution of the sixties further increased the interesting trend you mentioned in our evolution. The races will be mixed, decreasing the nationalism and racism of the Trumpian reaction, and its masculinism too. I like that you give aesthetics and narcissism their place in evolution. These don't seem to be decreasing, but they must take new forms as the peace movement, feminism and ecology power the neo-sixties great awakening/revolution, due to climax in the late 2040s. After that climax of the Sixties Green Revolution, the war/nationalism/hyper masculine Trump reaction will probably not be possible. Peace, globalism and racial/gender mixing, which began in the sixties, will be an unstoppable trend from then onward.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#3
USA is becoming a propaganda democracy.

The parties have chosen the sides on every issue, and they're sticking to them all the way. The president has his own channel, and he lies on it a lot of the time. His justification for it is that the main stream media lies also. He's muddying the waters and he can do it only because his voters have buried good moral behavior. But like Obama said, Trump is not the cause. He's just a symptom of a rising nationalistic movement. (It seems the political right is more inclined to pick a populist, because they value traditional values, and if someone promises to bring "the good old days" back, they will listen.)

The blue / red sides have been formed and I'm not seeing a pretty future for USA. Unless there is an external threat that would unify the US citizens, there will be a war or separation of states. USA cannot continue on this path for another 10 years without a constitutional crisis, and the possibility of political violence is getting higher by the day. Both sides are starting to distrust each other and crazy conspiracy theories are taking hold of even sensible politicians ()

That is what the cycle is doing right now. Just like before the US civil war. Ideals are set, comply or stand down.
Reply
#4
(09-16-2018, 10:30 AM)Theojm Wrote: USA is becoming a propaganda democracy.

The parties have chosen the sides on every issue, and they're sticking to them all the way. The president has his own channel, and he lies on it a lot of the time. His justification for it is that the main stream media lies also. He's muddying the waters and he can do it only because his voters have buried good moral behavior. But like Obama said, Trump is not the cause. He's just a symptom of a rising nationalistic movement. (It seems the political right is more inclined to pick a populist, because they value traditional values, and if someone promises to bring "the good old days" back, they will listen.)

Not nationalism, but instead tribalism. We had very strong nationalism in World War II, with all ethnic and religious communities, all classes, and elected leaders in both Parties committed to destroying the demonic threat of the Axis Powers. Benign nationalism unifies a country. Tribalism weakens it enough that the dominant people need repression to keep the system from disintegrating. Tribalism is solidarity of the group above all else, including old traditions of decency in dealing with others.


In Europe the tribal divide is usually Christianity against Islam. In America it appears in many forms -- ethnicity, educational status, region, religion, and economic values. Maybe the Blue coalition is less tribal. The Blue side is more diverse. Jews and Arabs might have different ideas on the Middle East, but in America they are political allies on issues relevant to Americans.

I see the Blue side more likely to build a consensus. It is more welcoming, and easier to join. One doesn't need to give up moral values to go Blue. (I do not refer to the Michigan Wolverines!) One does not need to give up a culture. As more and more people recognize Donald Trump as a failure, and expect no good from him, America might well define itself by rejecting Donald Trump.

I am not the only one capable of hitting Trump from the Right on taxes, defense, diplomacy, and foreign policy. People can ask themselves, even if they love the old-fashioned conservatism of Ronald Reagan, whether Obama is closer to Reagan or Trump is closer to Reagan. Let's start with overall loyalty: nobody ever had any question of whether Ronald Reagan stood for America. Rabble-rousing: Reagan might have said something regrettable at times, but he could always back off when it went badly. Taxes: Reagan cut taxes and did not raise taxes in devious ways that hurt the country more than his tax cuts allegedly helped America. Dealing with Russia? Sure, Gorbachev was very different from Putin, but all in all his dealings were good for all concerned. Obama is basically a liberal version of Ronald Reagan, which explains why historians give them similar marks as President. Trump has... well, I need not discuss it further.  



Quote:The blue / red sides have been formed and I'm not seeing a pretty future for USA. Unless there is an external threat that would unify the US citizens, there will be a war or separation of states. USA cannot continue on this path for another 10 years without a constitutional crisis, and the possibility of political violence is getting higher by the day. Both sides are starting to distrust each other and crazy conspiracy theories are taking hold of even sensible politicians


That is if we continue on a linear path taking longer strides with Trump. I do not see that happening.

Quote:That is what the cycle is doing right now. Just like before the US civil war. Ideals are set, comply or stand down.

Most recent polls suggest that President Trump has approval ratings nationwide in the high thirties or very low forties.  This is clearly down from where he started.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
Here is a model for predicting the 2020 Presidential election, an alternative to what I support because it has its strengths:


https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

Here are the states (I assume that the District of Columbia was among those with negative net approval) in January 2017

[Image: genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]

-10 or higher net disapproval
-5 to -9
-1 to -4
neutral (white)
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 or higher net approval



Suffice to say -- the President started with much good will. Check the link and follow the instructions for numerical detail. This was fair warning that liberalism was in hibernation, if not moribund, in America.

If net approval is the vote in the net election, then Trump ends up with all but 72 electoral votes, ending up with a blowout win of 466-72.


Some states that President Trump had lost were as follows:

Illinois +9
New York +8
Virginia +8
New Mexico +17

His barest losses:

Michigan +7
Pennsylvania +10
Wisconsin +6
Florida +22

.....

Obviously, once one starts governing one will no longer be able to live on promises when things start going bad. Some people will be dissatisfied with what they get. Practically every successful President gets some loss from the goodwill that follows the election to the hard reality of being unable to achieve what one promises -- or people liking what is promised once they find out what it is. Not since perhaps Kennedy have we had a President whose approval is long higher than the vote for him. We will never know how well Kennedy would have done in the 1964 Presidential election.

By June 2017, net approval for President Trump is negative in every state that he lost except Virginia -- but he is also underwater in approval in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Things have been rather stable since then.

So here is what Morning Consult has for August 2018. In most of last month, Manafort was still on trial and Michael Cohen had yet to cop a plea bargain to get himself the best deal he could get (and hurt the legal position of the President), so as with even a road map it is already obsolete.


[Image: genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]

-10 or higher net disapproval
-5 to -9
-1 to -4
neutral (white)
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 or higher net approval


236 electoral votes (figuring that ME-02 is 10% more D than Maine at large) are presumably out of reach of the President, and 59 are outside of the margin of approval. This is a more charitable estimate to President Trump than what I have for him have based on 100-DIS(approval) or such a measure as an answer to the question "would you rather vote to re-elect Donald Trump or vote for someone else?", whichever is worse for him.

Do I like this analysis? Not really except for its timeliness and its offer of results every month for all states. Some of the results are simply counter-intuitive. It hardly makes sense that South Dakota and North Dakota are so different in polling of net approval. Likewise I find it hard to believe that Nebraska and Florida have about the same net disapproval, or that Oklahoma has lower disapproval for Trump than a raft of other states.

And note that this excludes data for the time after some troublesome convictions or plea bargains by Trump associates.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#6
(09-16-2018, 12:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-16-2018, 10:30 AM)Theojm Wrote: USA is becoming a propaganda democracy.

The parties have chosen the sides on every issue, and they're sticking to them all the way. The president has his own channel, and he lies on it a lot of the time. His justification for it is that the main stream media lies also. He's muddying the waters and he can do it only because his voters have buried good moral behavior. But like Obama said, Trump is not the cause. He's just a symptom of a rising nationalistic movement. (It seems the political right is more inclined to pick a populist, because they value traditional values, and if someone promises to bring "the good old days" back, they will listen.)

Not nationalism, but instead tribalism. We had very strong nationalism in World War II, with all ethnic and religious communities, all classes, and elected leaders in both Parties committed to destroying the demonic threat of the Axis Powers. Benign nationalism unifies a country.

We disagree and agree. We agree that there was nationalism in the 1930's, but WW2 was the unifier. What if there was no unifier? What if there was no Hitler, or that the war in Europe would had been a much smaller one? If there is no unifying threat, where does the social distrust and division lead to?

"In the 1930s, fascist ideas were increasingly accepted. This was reflected in the energetic growth of Nazi organizations. Ku Klux Klan rallies were common and numerous; Trump’s own father was arrested at one such rally, reportedly while wearing a Klan outfit."


Why did fascism rise? Three events have been identified and I guess widely accepted as the main reasons:

1) "The first was a major economic depression and social dislocation that undermined people’s confidence in democracy and led them to look for alternatives."
(We could have this today, the economy is a house of cards.)

2) "The second factor was fear of communism, which led many leading intellectuals to embrace fascism as a bulwark against Bolshevism and as the lesser of two evils."
(Bernie Sanders is a communist to many GOP voters.)

3) "The third factor was the rise of Nazi Germany as an economic and military powerhouse."
(China? Of course atm China is not a credible military threat, but there is also North Korea. One EMP attack from North Korea would cripple the US economically and technologically, driving the country into a chaos. These are just wild assumptions, but anything can happen.)


All these three "reasons" are just scapegoats, although they do accelerate the rise of fascism and/or nationalism. The economic collapse of 1929 hid the true rise of fascism in the USA. Today we have fascism rising even in Australia, a country which has been experiencing sooo many years of economic growth and has little problems with immigration. Still they have the rise of white supremacy. Why? If there was an economic downturn in Australia, everyone would be pointing fingers at that for the rise of ultra-nationalism or whatever would rise at that moment. That is stupid.

The real reason is not in external events, it's in the group evolution of Homo Sapiens.


Quote:That is if we continue on a linear path taking longer strides with Trump. I do not see that happening.

Why not? Trump is accelerating the progression of division with his vulgarity. The process might slow down if Trump goes away, but it will not stop for the next 10 years. An external crisis could bring US citizens together again, but it's to be seen if there will be one or not.


Quote:Most recent polls suggest that President Trump has approval ratings nationwide in the high thirties or very low forties.  This is clearly down from where he started.

Yes, it's because he has had so many scandals from his time before the presidency. And caught lying too many times. Without those aspects his popularity could be pretty high, maybe between 50-65%. I'm pretty sure he will be impeached and lose his presidency in 12 months time. And then what happens is politically interesting.

Pence would be a scary choice to be the president, we know so little of him. But if he can't be president because campaign violations etc., then Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, would become president, or whoever it is at the time. The court battles about Trump's rights to deny being interviewed by Mueller look less likely now, as Manafort flipped and is cooperating with Mueller, and this could give enough ammo for some GOP members in Congress to join the Dems to impeach Tump...

Whatever happens, the process will be seen as partisan, and the end result won't be viewed positively by almost anyone. It will be a mess. This is because the sides have been chosen and now there is no way back for the next 10 years. Now we just have to wait for the unifying event. But if there is none strong enough to unify US citizens, then I see states starting to leave the union, homegrown political terrorism and more. The event that can start an inner struggle in US is an economic collapse, and there is plenty of evidence to show that we're currently heading into a huge one.


But lets get back to the Group Evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_development

All the major theories are 3-5 stages long and they all show similarity with the Fourth Turning's generational theory. The whole Wikipedia page is a great read!


This is a good quote to end this post with: "Hackman (2003) warns that the scientific community has a tendency towards what is termed, “explanatory reductionism” or the tendency to believe that the workings of all natures systems can be explained by the properties of the parts that make them up. In truth, highly complex systems, such as groups, can have components that cannot be explained by looking at the properties of say, the individual. In order to get a true understanding of group dynamics, it is important that one focuses on the big picture."
Reply
#7
(09-16-2018, 10:30 AM)Theojm Wrote: USA is becoming a propaganda democracy.

The parties have chosen the sides on every issue, and they're sticking to them all the way. The president has his own channel, and he lies on it a lot of the time. His justification for it is that the main stream media lies also. He's muddying the waters and he can do it only because his voters have buried good moral behavior. But like Obama said, Trump is not the cause. He's just a symptom of a rising nationalistic movement. (It seems the political right is more inclined to pick a populist, because they value traditional values, and if someone promises to bring "the good old days" back, they will listen.)

The blue / red sides have been formed and I'm not seeing a pretty future for USA. Unless there is an external threat that would unify the US citizens, there will be a war or separation of states. USA cannot continue on this path for another 10 years without a constitutional crisis, and the possibility of political violence is getting higher by the day. Both sides are starting to distrust each other and crazy conspiracy theories are taking hold of even sensible politicians ()

That is what the cycle is doing right now. Just like before the US civil war. Ideals are set, comply or stand down.

Sounds about right to me.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#8
(09-16-2018, 10:30 AM)Theojm Wrote: USA is becoming a propaganda democracy.

The parties have chosen the sides on every issue, and they're sticking to them all the way. The president has his own channel, and he lies on it a lot of the time. His justification for it is that the main stream media lies also. He's muddying the waters and he can do it only because his voters have buried good moral behavior. But like Obama said, Trump is not the cause. He's just a symptom of a rising nationalistic movement. (It seems the political right is more inclined to pick a populist, because they value traditional values, and if someone promises to bring "the good old days" back, they will listen.)

The blue / red sides have been formed and I'm not seeing a pretty future for USA. Unless there is an external threat that would unify the US citizens, there will be a war or separation of states. USA cannot continue on this path for another 10 years without a constitutional crisis, and the possibility of political violence is getting higher by the day. Both sides are starting to distrust each other and crazy conspiracy theories are taking hold of even sensible politicians ()

That is what the cycle is doing right now. Just like before the US civil war. Ideals are set, comply or stand down.

-- l would say propaganda oligarchy, but other that that you're right on time
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#9
(09-16-2018, 10:30 AM)Theojm Wrote: USA is becoming a propaganda democracy.

The parties have chosen the sides on every issue, and they're sticking to them all the way. The president has his own channel, and he lies on it a lot of the time. His justification for it is that the main stream media lies also. He's muddying the waters and he can do it only because his voters have buried good moral behavior. But like Obama said, Trump is not the cause. He's just a symptom of a rising nationalistic movement. (It seems the political right is more inclined to pick a populist, because they value traditional values, and if someone promises to bring "the good old days" back, they will listen.)

The blue / red sides have been formed and I'm not seeing a pretty future for USA. Unless there is an external threat that would unify the US citizens, there will be a war or separation of states. USA cannot continue on this path for another 10 years without a constitutional crisis, and the possibility of political violence is getting higher by the day. Both sides are starting to distrust each other and crazy conspiracy theories are taking hold of even sensible politicians ()

That is what the cycle is doing right now. Just like before the US civil war. Ideals are set, comply or stand down.

One feature of eras like the one we're in at the moment: a changing of the guard or chaos.  The GOP decided on DJT as their change agent.  The Dems are still dithering, but will have to take a position very soon.  2018 is a holding action.  Both sides need to control the government; only the GOP can actually do it.  That makes it a defensive battle for the Dems, which is not awe inspiring to say the least.  It does allow the crazies and Cassandras full vent though.  The real issue is how to know which is which, separating the two and picking a real Cassandra this time.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#10
(09-17-2018, 02:48 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(09-16-2018, 12:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-16-2018, 10:30 AM)Theojm Wrote: USA is becoming a propaganda democracy.

The parties have chosen the sides on every issue, and they're sticking to them all the way. The president has his own channel, and he lies on it a lot of the time. His justification for it is that the main stream media lies also. He's muddying the waters and he can do it only because his voters have buried good moral behavior. But like Obama said, Trump is not the cause. He's just a symptom of a rising nationalistic movement. (It seems the political right is more inclined to pick a populist, because they value traditional values, and if someone promises to bring "the good old days" back, they will listen.)

Not nationalism, but instead tribalism. We had very strong nationalism in World War II, with all ethnic and religious communities, all classes, and elected leaders in both Parties committed to destroying the demonic threat of the Axis Powers. Benign nationalism unifies a country.

We disagree and agree. We agree that there was nationalism in the 1930's, but WW2 was the unifier. What if there was no unifier? What if there was no Hitler, or that the war in Europe would had been a much smaller one? If there is no unifying threat, where does the social distrust and division lead to?

Nationalism as patriotism acceptable to all became the norm on December 7, 1941. But even before then, mass sentiment was going increasingly anti-Nazi. It may have been one ethnic group after another as the Nazis mistreated one group of people or another. Jews had good cause to assert what patriotic Americans they were once Satan took over in Germany. Organized labor had every cause to turn against Hitler as labor unions were shut down and industrial workers became serfs. German-Americans and after the Anschluss Austrian-Americans who had an ideology inconsistent with Nazism found America a suitable object of fervent loyalty. Then of course Americans of Czech, Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, French, Yugoslav, and Greek ancestry as their countries came under Nazi rule. Anglophiles on other matters saw England in danger if their solidarity with Britain didn't turn them into anti-Nazis before September 1, 1939. Chinese-Americans could turn their hatred against the Japanese to the Nazis as well once the Nazis became enemies of China. 'White' Russians hostile to the Soviet order had no use for Nazi marauders who proved as brutal to Russia as Stalin. I'm guessing that the 'Aryan' supremacy didn't  fit the sensibilities of blacks at all. Mexican-Americans didn't appreciate the talk of 'racial purity' as a virtue. Italian-Americans generally got to despise Mussolini ever more as they got to know him...

There were few Nazi supporters in America. There were some anti-British Irish-Americans, but the mass media that Irish-Americans watched (Jews really did run the movie industry in the 1930s) offered some convincing propaganda. The studio bosses were extremely clever in creating a stock hero in the Irish-American Catholic priest, a wise and decent, undeniably Catholic fellow. A Jewish writer might have had him reminiscent of a rabbi that he knew, but that was a positive stereotype. What worked as a contrast to a gangster like Rocky Sullivan (Jimmy Cagney in Angels with Dirty Faces) to good people could just as well work against gangsters like Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, etc.
Quote:"In the 1930s, fascist ideas were increasingly accepted. This was reflected in the energetic growth of Nazi organizations. Ku Klux Klan rallies were common and numerous; Trump’s own father was arrested at one such rally, reportedly while wearing a Klan outfit."

Correction: the Klan was powerful in the 1920s until it disintegrated over a scandal involving a Klan leader "being caught with a dead woman". The Klan disappeared as a political force even as the Great Depression began. Racism toward blacks remained strong in the 1930s, as shown in Southern states meting out severe punishment, including execution, to blacks who could easily be convicted of rape for doing so much as giving a wolf-whistle to a white female. FDR dared not threaten an essential part of his New Deal coalition -- southern white racist agrarians. The Depression was the wrong time in which to challenge the sordid race relations in the South. There would be better times for such, but not in his time.

Why did fascism rise? Three events have been identified and I guess widely accepted as the main reasons:

Quote:1) "The first was a major economic depression and social dislocation that undermined people’s confidence in democracy and led them to look for alternatives."
(We could have this today, the economy is a house of cards.)

2) "The second factor was fear of communism, which led many leading intellectuals to embrace fascism as a bulwark against Bolshevism and as the lesser of two evils."
(Bernie Sanders is a communist to many GOP voters.)

3) "The third factor was the rise of Nazi Germany as an economic and military powerhouse."
(China? Of course atm China is not a credible military threat, but there is also North Korea. One EMP attack from North Korea would cripple the US economically and technologically, driving the country into a chaos. These are just wild assumptions, but anything can happen.)

All these three "reasons" are just scapegoats, although they do accelerate the rise of fascism and/or nationalism. The economic collapse of 1929 hid the true rise of fascism in the USA. Today we have fascism rising even in Australia, a country which has been experiencing sooo many years of economic growth and has little problems with immigration. Still they have the rise of white supremacy. Why? If there was an economic downturn in Australia, everyone would be pointing fingers at that for the rise of ultra-nationalism or whatever would rise at that moment. That is stupid.

Fascism cannot rise unless (1) the Establishment thoroughly fouls up in its economic stewardship, and (2) those who wield economic and institutional power choose to pit groups against each other in an effort to divide and conquer. WASP elites in America did not fault the Jews for having the same motivations as they had; they found the Jews useful. In most of Europe, the reactionary (often aristocratic or monopoly-capitalist) elites saw the Jews as either communist menaces or as competitors and wanted to get rid of them as competitors for labor (peasants leaving conditions such as share-cropping or badly-paid farm workers) or for customers (small businessmen fitting the seams of an economic system best described as either monopoly capitalism or crony capitalism). Aristocratic elites have little use for an independent middle class, and in many countries the Jews were a large part of the middle class. That's the economic side.

Yes, our economy is a house of cards. Economic inequality is severe, and if Obama could save the financial institutions, that is all that the economic elites would let him do. They promoted the Tea Party and set up front groups for foisting anti-liberal propaganda on behalf of people who believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it creates, enhances, enforces, or indulges a profit.

On the second -- Marxism-Leninism is dead, but economic elites still want an economic order that looks like the Marxist stereotype of capitalism as a cruel, corrupt, exploitative, hierarchical, and repressive order that well serves elites and treats all others badly. We have a heritage in one part of the country in which the lash was a tool for getting people to work, and it is far cheaper to use than fair wages. Our elites want high productivity on near-starvation pay, which of course is a sick dream. But if the politicians support that -- they love it. Fascism offers the lash, if in the 'labor' camp (whose labor the economic elites exploit even more ruthlessly) as a substitute for fair wages and human dignity. Boomer entrepreneurs may be no worse than ever, but Boomer executives are quite possibly the worst generation of executives in America. GI executives wanted the common man to have a stake in the system through consumerism -- perhaps because they knew the hardships of the Depression and the Second World War and did not want others to endure the same for no fault of their own. Boomer executives are the best-paid ever (although there are fewer of them due to the monopolization of American business) and want everything that the owners do not reap themselves as dividends.

Should there ever be a revolution in the next few years, Boomer executives (and any X ones along for much the same luxurious ride on the palanquin that they compel working people to carry, so to speak) will be the first to the equivalent of the guillotine. People who get plutocratic compensation for treating people badly can easily seem targets for hatred.

On the third -- there is no constituency in America that has any respect for the North Korean royal-family-in-all-but-name. As for EMP pulses -- we have the skilled people to put our communication and power nets back in place -- or replace them with decentralized alternatives. Consider that the American attack on Iraqi infrastructure hit Kurdish region; the autonomous Kurdish region that the US was able to establish as a no-fly zone abandoned landline phones in favor of cell phones.  I'm thinking that the right approach to electrical power in Puerto Rico is to replace the old power grid with solar power that does not require long wires of transmission. The Trump regime is hostile to solar power because it is beholden to Big Oil... but who says that President Trump will be around through the Crisis?   


Quote:
Quote:That is if we continue on a linear path taking longer strides with Trump. I do not see that happening.

Why not? Trump is accelerating the progression of division with his vulgarity. The process might slow down if Trump goes away, but it will not stop for the next 10 years. An external crisis could bring US citizens together again, but it's to be seen if there will be one or not.

The Crisis could end with something parallel to the end of the political chaos in the wake of the American Revolution, with wise people deciding how to restructure government, education, and even economic life so that they all work better and afford more safety. The great danger of Trump is not his agenda (which is awful) but that he has offered a lesson to further demagogues on how to get power and misuse it. Just look at the late Hugo Chavez, practically a left-wing version of Donald Trump, in Venezuela. Trump is failing because he offends some conservative values... but a leftist like Chavez might be more politically successful and even more destructive.

I try to speak as a conservative when discussing Trump because conservatives are the ones who will need to expose him and decide that liberals are their allies in defending liberal democracy. We need to reform the educational system so that youth learn the techniques and dangers of demagogic politicians. First, they promise everything to everyone and say nothing about the harm that they will do to people not with them politically. Maybe Trump would have never been elected had people gotten some idea of his ideas on the environment, let alone his gigantic tax increases in the form of tariffs. Second, after making promises that themselves conflict, he then must once in power decide which people are to be burned so that he can fulfill his promises to the people that he thinks matter most. Donald Trump is above all else a pure plutocrat, and his economic agenda shows that. He no more cares about the working man than he cares about earthworms. Third, he casts blame on anyone who does not appreciate the wondrous quality of his rule, especially those who supply 'fake news' instead of his propaganda. Fourth, he tries to corrupt the judicial process so that the courts will be full of people who bend the law to the favor of himself and his ideology. That may include corruption of the electoral process.

If he should face a loss of the House and/or Senate, then watch the lame-duck session for shady legislation that criminalizes dissent or regulates the vote. Do you trust him with your civil liberties? I don't!

...Let's not confuse him with Hitler, who destroyed civil liberties and democratic process within a few weeks of seizing power. Our system is not like that of the Weimar Republic, basically the political structure of the German
Empire without the Hohenzollern Kaiser, a kingdom without a king. Ours is more like Italy, with a 'deep state' that can mitigate the effect of a despot or dictator for a while.  But how long?

Quote:
Quote:Most recent polls suggest that President Trump has approval ratings nationwide in the high thirties or very low forties.  This is clearly down from where he started.

Yes, it's because he has had so many scandals from his time before the presidency. And caught lying too many times. Without those aspects his popularity could be pretty high, maybe between 50-65%. I'm pretty sure he will be impeached and lose his presidency in 12 months time. And then what happens is politically interesting.

Pence would be a scary choice to be the president, we know so little of him. But if he can't be president because campaign violations etc., then Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, would become president, or whoever it is at the time. The court battles about Trump's rights to deny being interviewed by Mueller look less likely now, as Manafort flipped and is cooperating with Mueller, and this could give enough ammo for some GOP members in Congress to join the Dems to impeach Trump...

What may save us this time is that Donald Trump is so inept in dealing with the realities of our Constitutional system that he will fail. He expects elected Senators and Representatives and duly-appointed and confirmed judges to act as if he is their ultimate boss. Our political system has never acted that way and it is not going in that direction this time. In a dictatorial system like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union the legislature is responsible to the Big Boss and not to the people. Democrats have had little conflict between principles on which they won and constituencies that they support and the Personality Cult on the other side. It's up to Republicans to make an analogous decision, and most have so far made the wrong one.

He could have learned a few things from Obama, but he chose instead to demonize his predecessor. We may have some interesting results beginning in January of next year.



Quote:Whatever happens, the process will be seen as partisan, and the end result won't be viewed positively by almost anyone. It will be a mess. This is because the sides have been chosen and now there is no way back for the next 10 years. Now we just have to wait for the unifying event. But if there is none strong enough to unify US citizens, then I see states starting to leave the union, homegrown political terrorism and more. The event that can start an inner struggle in US is an economic collapse, and there is plenty of evidence to show that we're currently heading into a huge one.

It will be a mess, and it could make things difficult for any Republican nominee for the Presidency for some time.


Quote:But lets get back to the Group Evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_development

All the major theories are 3-5 stages long and they all show similarity with the Fourth Turning's generational theory. The whole Wikipedia page is a great read!

It is a good read. Amorphous dissent and disillusionment becomes a mass of like-minded people, typically youth. The mass eventually sets an agenda, challenges the Establishment (rising adulthood), develops some political savvy and gets some institutional presence (before midlife), develops institutional power and cultural influence (midlife), and ossifies as it becomes the senior leadership and finally adjourns (elderhood) after it thinks it has solved all of its problems.

Quote:This is a good quote to end this post with: "Hackman (2003) warns that the scientific community has a tendency towards what is termed, “explanatory reductionism” or the tendency to believe that the workings of all natures systems can be explained by the properties of the parts that make them up. In truth, highly complex systems, such as groups, can have components that cannot be explained by looking at the properties of say, the individual. In order to get a true understanding of group dynamics, it is important that one focuses on the big picture."

yes -- and the Big Picture is roughly the 80 or so years when any single generation is active from when the first are in their late teens to the general retirement (death, senility, or resignation) of that generation in extreme age among the youngest of that generation.

Boomers are not through in American public life. Donald Trump is not their Last Act. There are talented Boomers who do not share the agenda of the exploitative elites who might well serve America by setting a workable agenda for younger people... just before the 'compulsory adjournment' of those Boomers who, born in the late 1950s, will stay intellectually alert, attached to reality, and physically active.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#11
Quote:Fascism cannot rise unless (1) the Establishment thoroughly fouls up in its economic stewardship, and (2) those who wield economic and institutional power choose to pit groups against each other in an effort to divide and conquer.

I kind of agree with no.1, but I think that a huge immigration crisis could make fascism rise, say taking in 5 million Syrians (not gonna happen, but just an example). And this would happen without a big economic hit. It doesn't have to be the economy that ignites the fascism into a big bonfire, it can be something else, if it is significant enough.

Your second claim I disagree with. The ones in power do not pit each group against each other, it comes from the individuals, the individuals and gropus need to be right(eous) and bash the other side. It's in us as we're violent animals. The ones in power usually take advantage of this, an if they don't, someone else will rise to the occasion and harness the power. Bannon is gathering an army of right wing people, every single day. He sees the rising tide and knows it cannot be stopped until it has run its course. So he wants to ride the wave, there's probably about 9 years left to go.



Quote:...Let's not confuse him with Hitler, who destroyed civil liberties and democratic process within a few weeks of seizing power. Our system is not like that of the Weimar Republic, basically the political structure of the German
Empire without the Hohenzollern Kaiser, a kingdom without a king. Ours is more like Italy, with a 'deep state' that can mitigate the effect of  a despot or dictator for a while.  But how long?

Agree, and I try not to look at single individuals too much. They're only the symptoms, not the cause. Looking at them we can learn a great deal about the current turnings, but too much attention makes us forget that the masses drive the bus towards future. It's not the leaders, they just bring their own unique flavor to the mix.

History is very deceiving as it is written almost only by men. It focuses too much on big leaders and wars. This is one reason the four turnings were not recognized until Howe and Strauss. If women had been writing even half of the textbooks, I'm pretty sure it would have been found earlier, because women talk more about moods, injustice and morals than men. History is a bit too 2D because of men. We men suck, big time. Big Grin

And what comes to the EMP pulse, it truly would send the US economy into a looooong dark period. Think about all the equipment that would be dead, including:

- cell phones
- tablets
- computers
- tv's
- most farm machines
- most factories
- home appliances with microchips
- medical equipment in hospitals

"This research showed that a field commander can expect approximately 65% of his electronic medical equipment to be damaged by a single nuclear detonation as far as 2,200 km away."
Reply
#12
The EMP would kill anyone whose life is dependent upon it, which would include heart patients on pacemakers. The most important medical equipment might be record-keeping. Our best defense is to be able to go back to the old ways of doing things, storing the most critical data in non-electronic means. BOOKS. We need to resort to old and discarded technologies; a Model-T Ford, let alone a horse-drawn thrasher, would work fine after an EMP. Our financial system that depends upon electronic transfer of data would collapse.

We would fumble our way through pre-electronic technologies, having to abandon e-mail for snail mail. We would have to rely upon road maps instead of GPS.

All of the devices that you mention are from the 1940s or later. I believe that with enough clever people we could recover it all -- but very expensively. The real question is whether we would have the population for a high-tech society.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#13
(09-23-2018, 01:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We would fumble our way through pre-electronic technologies, having to abandon e-mail for snail mail. We would have to rely upon road maps instead of GPS.

All of the devices that you mention are from the 1940s or later. I believe that with enough clever people we could recover it all -- but very expensively. The real question is whether we would have the population for a high-tech society.

Nope, USA would be completely disabled for 1-3 months, economy would be destroyed for 12-36 months and the country would not get up on its feet for 5 years. Today that is an eternity. It would take at least 5 years to get everything back up and running again. And that is just the lost time, not accounting for the lost data and lost time.

USA would be on its knees. I'm not sure how you think that USA would somehow survive an EMP atttack without losing its no.1 spot in the world. But on the other hand, this is just pure speculation and wayyyy off the real topic.
Reply
#14
(09-23-2018, 07:05 PM)Theojm Wrote:
(09-23-2018, 01:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We would fumble our way through pre-electronic technologies, having to abandon e-mail for snail mail. We would have to rely upon road maps instead of GPS.

All of the devices that you mention are from the 1940s or later. I believe that with enough clever people we could recover it all -- but very expensively. The real question is whether we would have the population for a high-tech society.

Nope, USA would be completely disabled for 1-3 months, economy would be destroyed for 12-36 months and the country would not get up on its feet for 5 years. Today that is an eternity. It would take at least 5 years to get everything back up and running again. And that is just the lost time, not accounting for the lost data and lost time.

USA would be on its knees. I'm not sure how you think that USA would somehow survive an EMP atttack without losing its no.1 spot in the world. But on the other hand, this is just pure speculation and wayyyy off the real topic.

Let's be a little less negative, and agree that many critical technology systems are well hardened, and should escape total meltdown.  Most of those will survive intact and many will function immediately following the incident.  Electric grids are the most at risk, since EMP hardened grids are rare.  They do exist in places where having them hard is critical.  Assume that the Googles and Microsofts of this word have hardened their data centers.  The military has hardened critical systems, though less critical ones are still at risk.

If the satellites are not attacked directly, GPS should work again quickly.  Hospitals, on the other hand, will be offline for a long time.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#15
(09-24-2018, 01:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-23-2018, 07:05 PM)Theojm Wrote:
(09-23-2018, 01:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We would fumble our way through pre-electronic technologies, having to abandon e-mail for snail mail. We would have to rely upon road maps instead of GPS.

All of the devices that you mention are from the 1940s or later. I believe that with enough clever people we could recover it all -- but very expensively. The real question is whether we would have the population for a high-tech society.

Nope, USA would be completely disabled for 1-3 months, economy would be destroyed for 12-36 months and the country would not get up on its feet for 5 years. Today that is an eternity. It would take at least 5 years to get everything back up and running again. And that is just the lost time, not accounting for the lost data and lost time.

USA would be on its knees. I'm not sure how you think that USA would somehow survive an EMP atttack without losing its no.1 spot in the world. But on the other hand, this is just pure speculation and wayyyy off the real topic.

Let's be a little less negative, and agree that many critical technology systems are well hardened, and should escape total meltdown.  Most of those will survive intact and many will function immediately following the incident.  Electric grids are the most at risk, since EMP hardened grids are rare.  They do exist in places where having them hard is critical.  Assume that the Googles and Microsofts of this word have hardened their data centers.  The military has hardened critical systems, though less critical ones are still at risk.

If the satellites are not attacked directly, GPS should work again quickly.  Hospitals, on the other hand, will be offline for a long time.

The electronics in most automobiles would be fried, rendering the electronics that now include even the odometer and speedometer worthless and cars nearly unusable.

We would be back to using 1950s technology for a while. It's back to the analogue age for survivors/
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#16
(09-24-2018, 02:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We would be back to using 1950s technology for a while. It's back to the analogue age for survivors/

Absolutely. Although I don't live in the USA, I live in Finland. But USA consist of mostly European cultural heritage, there is a very strong cultural connection, both ways. And they say that Finland is the most USA-like country in the world, and that isn't just a joke.

But anyways, this statistics still haunts me:
[Image: homicideratecorrected.jpg]

The 1980's bump is pretty huge. Why? Does the erosion of church's power explain this? Have the morals loosened too much? The family relations have loosened? Why now, why a huge bump on this century? No other centrury has seen such a bump, not even the bump in 1890 (due to lynchings) was this big.

Has capitalism, women at workplaces and technology removed us from the social circles that once held the social order more tightly together? Why has this cycle been so violent, even though welfare and other institutions to make peoples lives easier have been implemented into the government? What has broken the social fabric the worst, even though technology allows us to be almost constantly available to others?

And if this has been a relatively violent century with guns everywhere, what else do we have than the economy to hold it all together? And if you listen to respected economists, they say that an absolutely massive economic collapse may be closing up on the USA. (Trump knows this and is actually trying to save USA. No matter what you think of him, as I don't respect him, but he is truly trying to save USA from a massive economic collapse. Mnuchin is currently waging trade wars and posing intellectual property claims towards China. So in a way Trump is doing the right thing for USA, something Obama maybe was afraid to do..? I like Obama more than Trump, but this is something he is doing right for the USA and the world.)

I'd hate to see China win the economic war against USA in the near future, it would reduce democracy around the world, a lot!
Reply
#17
Quite possibly the effects of leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline leaves dusts and aerosols of lead compounds, and those concentrated most heavily where commute traffic was heaviest and slowest. A child living in the slum districts just outside the central business district of a big city got the heaviest doses of environmental lead. Lead is an insidious, cumulative poison that rarely kills directly, but causes learning disorders and poor impulse control, both of which contribute to criminality.

[Image: 512px-BARTMapDay.svg.png]

Leaded gasoline disappeared from the American marketplace in the mid-1970s as new cars required catalytic converters that leaded gasoline fouled up and leaded gasoline practically disappeared from the American market.

The map of the (San Francisco) Bay Area Rapid Transit system demonstrates the general traffic pattern of motor vehicles, as commuters on it were generally traveling in the same direction. From Fremont north to the Lake Merritt station, traffic got heavier on nearby California 17 (now Interstate 880) as one headed northwestward to downtown Oakland or the destination of San Francisco itself.  Lead concentration in the atmosphere (people breathe that) in soils (children play on those) got heavier as one got past each station from Fremont to Lake Merritt. Lake Merritt (actually a tidal inlet of San Francisco Bay)  is roughly the start of the central business district of Oakland, so from there, lead emissions might actually fall some as some commuters start turning off the freeway and going to their workplaces. But people living near each successive station of BART from Fremont to Lake Merritt got increasingly-high levels of lead pollution, especially after the Bay Fair station, around which commuter traffic started coming into the Oakland area from Castro Valley, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore. Crime rates reflected that. So did poor educational results.

Don't blame BART: it tended to relieve some of the vehicle congestion. But you can blame lead. The effects of lead on children's brains do not become obvious until early elementary school (learning disabilities and disciplinary problems)... and by teen years, the damage could be severe. Learning difficulties and poor impulse control do not make good citizens, to put it mildly. Crime rates peaked for kids born in the early 1960s and then fell significantly as lead infestation became less severe. Being born earlier meant that one missed some of the heaviest levels of highway congestion with vehicles belching out lead residues from their exhausts. Being born after about 1980 means that one altogether 'missed' lead residues -- which is close to the X/Millennial divide in birth-years.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#18
Ok, lets say it was pollution that made homicides rise around 1980's. If it wasn't, the homicide cycle has shrunk in size from the original 80 years to 70 years (1855-1925), to 60 years (1925-1985), and of if the trend continues, the next cycle could be 50 years (1985-2035). But I'm not convinced, the 80 year cycle is so strong, I think the unraveling era (1980) with a free society was just too much social freedom for such a violent culture like the USA.

I hate to talk about politics too much (even though I follow it closely), because it's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to populism and how it rises from us as we're like chimpanzees, we have a tendency to gather up and go to war. If the tribe isn't gathering together, there will be a power struggle between two sides, the old leader and the young challenger. That is what civil wars are, two viewpoints (or interests) clash, it's not a very complicated concept to think about. It's in our nature, we can't really escape it. With the church ruling we might have escaped it a bit, but since the church fell into corruption scandals (surprise surprise, at a start of a fourth turning)...

"In 1500 the Roman Catholic Church was all powerful in western Europe. There was no legal alternative. The Catholic Church jealously guarded its position and anybody who was deemed to have gone against the Catholic Church was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. The Catholic Church did not tolerate any deviance from its teachings as any appearance of ‘going soft’ might have been interpreted as a sign of weakness which would be exploited... Its power had been built up over the centuries and relied on ignorance and superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people that they could only get to heaven via the church." (Link to full text.)

But the church fell into financial scandals during the unraveling era (1517), right at the start of a fourth turning when you follow the 80 year cycle. People weren't under church-mind-control anymore, they were more free to act as individuals and social groups. The old social structures started to melt away, like cast-systems and other rigid ways of oppressing people, giving them the right to think free again. This is a huge change! You are not controlled anymore, you can think for yourself.  Martin Luther's protest in 1517 was the turning point, and printing press enabled it to spread wide. (Exactly  like social media does for #MeToo.) The church  lost their societal control of humans. But what filled the void now that people were given the right to free will again?

Give homo sapiens free will and he will execute it to the fullest, not even realizing what it is composed of. This is my fear.

And now with weapons off mass destruction now at hand.... Well, that's a bit gloomy. Maybe everything will go smoothly, maybe the economic ties will hold everything together. McDonalds may be our last, best hope for peace. Wink And I'm not kidding, this is a very scary thought. Nationalism and populism are still on the rise, and at this pace, we are on a move towards something big.
Reply
#19
(09-24-2018, 04:37 PM)Theojm Wrote: Ok, lets say it was pollution that made homicides rise around 1980's. If it wasn't, the homicide cycle has shrunk in size from the original 80 years to 70 years (1855-1925), to 60 years (1925-1985), and of if the trend continues, the next cycle could be 50 years (1985-2035). But I'm not convinced, the 80 year cycle is so strong, I think the unraveling era (1980) with a free society was just too much social freedom for such a violent culture like the USA.

There is not one single culture in America. There are several based on ethnicity and religion, and subcultures. For example, Mormons have no cultural tolerance for violence. Italian-Americans are fine so long as they are not in the Mafia subculture. Violence strongly correlates to low educational achievement.

Am Awakening Era loosens the constraints that people perceive -- but those who would be mildly delinquent in other times go beyond the norms of times less tolerant of violence. Let's remember that not only was there lead in the systems of vulnerable children; there was also some provocative material available to some of the most vulnerable kids.

[Image: th?id=OIP.QCF5U0rxb1I75EUWzSWPzwHaFU&w=2...=5&pid=1.7]

One need not be a conservative to see something terribly wrong with this image. Although nobody can justify the abuse that a Sheriff Bull Clark inflicted upon innocent people, poor people in high-crime areas need more, and not less police presence. Without law and order, civil liberties are moot. Assassinations of Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, and Vernon Dahmer, as well as the KKK execution of Goodwin, Schwerner, and Chaney were lawlessness. This said, the dope had to go, and thugs robbing poor people of their Social Security checks belong in prison. Awakening Eras are provocative times, and the '60s and '70s were unusually provocative.

Let us remember that this too is lawlessness:

[Image: th?id=OIP.9fR5haxA4XanL5cZHCw-6wAAAA&w=1...d=3.1&rm=2]

....................



Quote:I hate to talk about politics too much (even though I follow it closely), because it's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to populism and how it rises from us as we're like chimpanzees, we have a tendency to gather up and go to war. If the tribe isn't gathering together, there will be a power struggle between two sides, the old leader and the young challenger. That is what civil wars are, two viewpoints (or interests) clash, it's not a very complicated concept to think about. It's in our nature, we can't really escape it. With the church ruling we might have escaped it a bit, but since the church fell into corruption scandals (surprise surprise, at a start of a fourth turning)...

Let's remember that the populism of 120 years ago was a much  more benign phenomenon, attached to calls for social reforms that were put into place. Are you on the side of the strikers or on the side of goons who mow strikers down?

Contemporary populism in much of the West is tribal in character. Usually our tribalism is little worse than rivalries about sports teams. When it boils down to people demonizing each other on where they stand on abortion or gay rights and is in operation 24/7, we have a big problem.



Quote:"In 1500 the Roman Catholic Church was all powerful in western Europe. There was no legal alternative. The Catholic Church jealously guarded its position and anybody who was deemed to have gone against the Catholic Church was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. The Catholic Church did not tolerate any deviance from its teachings as any appearance of ‘going soft’ might have been interpreted as a sign of weakness which would be exploited... Its power had been built up over the centuries and relied on ignorance and superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people that they could only get to heaven via the church." (Link to full text.)

But the church fell into financial scandals during the unraveling era (1517), right at the start of a fourth turning when you follow the 80 year cycle. People weren't under church-mind-control anymore, they were more free to act as individuals and social groups. The old social structures started to melt away, like cast-systems and other rigid ways of oppressing people, giving them the right to think free again. This is a huge change! You are not controlled anymore, you can think for yourself.  Martin Luther's protest in 1517 was the turning point, and printing press enabled it to spread wide. (Exactly  like social media does for #MeToo.) The church  lost their societal control of humans. But what filled the void now that people were given the right to free will again?


Free will? People were free to dissent with the Catholic Church to the extent that they were willing to be burned at the stake for their beliefs. The Catholic Church had practically annihilated the Albigensian and Waldenses heretics, and largely destroyed the Hussite reformation.Then of course there are the many witches and before that pagans that it slaughtered.

Quote:Give homo sapiens free will and he will execute it to the fullest, not even realizing what it is composed of. This is my fear.


Free will not only implies freedom; it also implies responsibility for what one does. Without the concept of free will we might have to excuse any evil-doer for the triggers of his horrible misconduct. That means that someone like Ted Bundy was fated to be a serial killer, rapist, and thief and was not responsible for his crimes. I doubt that anyone accepts that shaky exculpation.


Quote:And now with weapons off mass destruction now at hand.... Well, that's a bit gloomy. Maybe everything will go smoothly, maybe the economic ties will hold everything together. McDonalds may be our last, best hope for peace. Wink And I'm not kidding, this is a very scary thought. Nationalism and populism are still on the rise, and at this pace, we are on a move towards something big.

Yes, big events mark a 4T, and we so far have no idea of what big event will define this 4T.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#20
(09-24-2018, 07:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: There is not one single culture in America. There are several based on ethnicity and religion, and subcultures. For example, Mormons have no cultural tolerance for violence. Italian-Americans are fine so long as they are not in the Mafia subculture. Violence strongly correlates to low educational achievement.

Of course there is no one culture in USA, but there has been a strong Christianity background in all government and elites. Jews too, but mostly Christian main culture. Violence has always been high compared to Europe, but it's no surprise when you look at the mix of cultures and other aspects. USA. The 80-year cycle takes advantage of the freedoms in USA and that is why the country so clearly exhibits the cycle.

Theojm Wrote:Give homo sapiens free will and he will execute it to the fullest, not even realizing what it is composed of. This is my fear.
(09-24-2018, 07:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Free will not only implies freedom; it also implies responsibility for what one does. Without the concept of free will we might have to excuse any evil-doer for the triggers of his horrible misconduct. That means that someone like Ted Bundy was fated to be a serial killer, rapist, and thief and was not responsible for his crimes. I doubt that anyone accepts that shaky exculpation.

Nor should they. Violence by individuals has rarely been acceptable, but war changes that perception. War gives a justification for violence (at least in a very general sense, there are pacifists too). If there is a "greater cause" that you yourself, that is often a justification for killing. That can be seen not only in wartime, but also in some individuals, including Jack the Ripper. He wanted to cleanse London of immorality and filth so he took actions to his own hands, thinking he had a justification to do it. Of course these kinds of killers aren't very common, but I used Jack as an example.

But homo sapiens has a tendency towards war, and these days in the global world community there must be a justification for war. And with rise of nationalism the justification comes easier to explain to the citizens. They accept harder measures more easily, as "outsiders" are viewed as a bigger threat than before the rise of nationalism.

We are group animals and when nationalism rises like a tide, there is no escape. Like there is no escape from the MeToo movement. It's there whether we like it or not, we have to survive & evolve and war is just one mechanism, coded inside our DNA.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Possible true reason for the 4 turnings! 80-year cycle explained, from epigenetics! Theojm 6 843 03-23-2019, 08:50 PM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  Collective Unconscious Map - Cycle in Art Movements (with Rorschach variables) Mark40 10 572 02-11-2019, 02:30 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Thermodynamics - Carnot Cycle - Anacyclosis (256 Years) - E8 Group Theory Mark40 3 549 02-06-2019, 11:30 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund
Photo Anacyclosis (256 years cycle / 12 Generation / 3 Saeculum) Mark40 7 1,799 02-15-2018, 01:17 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 19 6,416 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Generation Theory Thread Mikebert 39 12,342 05-20-2017, 07:46 PM
Last Post: Galen
  The astro-kondratiev cycle Eric the Green 4 2,690 11-16-2016, 04:03 PM
Last Post: Mikebert
  Political Cycle Model for Saeculum Mikebert 22 7,533 10-08-2016, 08:35 AM
Last Post: Mikebert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)