Neo-nationalism, Identitarians and the Alt-Right

[Teejay]

Neo-nationalism is a political ideology which has spread across the world in this Fourth Turning. I am quoting a Wikipedia article on Neo-nationalism. This ideology started in Putin's Russia and China and has spread in the last decade to about everywhere in the world essentially. It is a lot like Fascism in the 1930's expect usually considerably milder, in formerly Liberal Democratic countries there has been a slide back to authoritarianism. I am not sure if they will be like the Nazis of the Last Fourth Turning, it could be given early last decade I thought the Fourth Turning would centering on how to civilize globalization and the need for more globalization to deal with the challenge of man-made climate change.
 

Quote:Neo-nationalism or new nationalism is a type of nationalism that rose in the mid-2010s in Europe and North America and to some degree in other regions. It is associated with several positions, such as right-wing populism, anti-globalization, nativism,  protectionism, opposition to immigration, opposition to Islam and Muslims and Euroscepticism where applicable. According to one scholar, "nationalist resistance to global liberalism turned out to be the most influential force in Western politics" in 2016.Particularly notable expressions of new nationalism include the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

 

Quote:Writing for Politico, Michael Hirsh described new nationalism as "a bitter populist rejection of the status quo that global elites have imposed on the international system since the Cold War ended, and which lower-income voters have decided—understandably—is unfair." Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote in The Week that new nationalism is a "broad nativist revolt" against post-Cold War politics long "characterized by an orthodoxy of free trade, nurturing the service economy, neoliberal trading arrangements, and liberalized immigration policies."
 
The Economist wrote in November 2016 that "new nationalists are riding high on promises to close borders and restore societies to a past homogeneity." Clarence Page wrote in the Las Vegas Sun that "a new neo-tribal nationalism has boiled up in European politics and to a lesser degree in the United States since the global economic meltdown of 2008," and Ryan Cooper in The Week and researchers with the Centre for Economic Policy Research have linked 21st-century right-wing populism to the Great Recession. According to Harvard political theorist Yascha Mounk, "economic stagnation among lower- and middle-class whites [has been] a main driver for nationalism's rise around the globe." According to religion scholar Mark L. Movesian, new nationalism "sets the nation-state against supranational, liberal regimes like the EU or NAFTA, and local customs and traditions, including religious traditions, against alien, outside trends."
 
David Brog and Yoram Hazony wrote in National Review that some conservatives view the new nationalism associated with Brexit and Donald Trump as a betrayal of conservative ideology while they see it as a "return". According to conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg, the nationalism associated with Trump is "really little more than a brand name for generic white identity politics."
 
Writing for The Week, Damon Linker called the idea of neo-nationalism being racist "nonsense" and went on to say that "the tendency of progressives to describe it as nothing but 'racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia'—is the desire to delegitimize any particularistic attachment or form of solidarity, be it national, linguistic, religious, territorial, or ethnic."
 
Regarding new nationalism, The Economist said that "Mr Trump needs to realise that his policies will unfold in the context of other countries’ jealous nationalism," and called nationalism itself a "slippery concept" that is "easy to manipulate". They also repeatedly contrasted ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism and implied new nationalism could become "angry" and difficult to control, citing Chinese nationalism as an example.

 
I don't believe this ideology is going to win out in the Fourth Turning. Because the second global financial crisis is coming, which is predicted globally to be as bad as the Great Depression was. n economic collapse in both China and Russia, which will result in political revolutions which will bring Liberal Democratic regimes into power. This global financial crisis will need a global approach to solve it and the Neo-Nationalists have only emerged, because the Left did not develop an ideology during the Global Financial Crisis that would have 'tamed globalization' so that it benefits the people rather than the big corporations. Also, there is the need for a global approach to the challenge of climate change which the Neo-Nationalists who are inclined towards being skeptical to man-made climate change are also at a strong disadvantage.
 
Since the neo-nationalists who reject globalism, just don't have any solutions to this challenge. Also, the internet will undermine any neo-nationalist authoritarian regimes that come to power. An old fourth turning forum user who I chatted to on Facebook said at China's Great Firewall can be circumvented quite easily. Not to mention the neo-nationalists are going to be blamed most likely for this economic collapse. A McCarthyite sort of purge against anybody who is remotely 'nationalist' might very well occur. There are signs of that beginning to occur with social media de-platforming of people seen as racist, sexist, homophobic and trans-phobic. Something Donald Trump has complained about, because a lot of die-hard supporters have been de-platformed.

 The way I see it that the alt-left will emerge that will support an ideology known at Alter-globalization. The British Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, along with some 'far-left' parties in Europe are beginning to develop this 'alt-left' ideology. My prediction it will emerge somewhere in the Anglosphere hard to know at this stage.
 Australia and New Zealand (yay) could very be where such an ideology could get started. Both countries have very high percentages of their populations who were born overseas, and neo-nationalism's appeal is likely at its weakest anywhere in the world.  In Australia nearly 30% of the population were born overseas and half the population have at least one parent born overseas. In New Zealand the percentage of people born overseas is 20%.
 
There is also the fact both countries since the 1980’s transformed from high protectionist to highly free trade-based economies and protectionism does not have very much electoral appeal in either country. Protectionism in the bigger economies of the United States and the European Union have more electoral appeal.
 
I believe this wave of Neo-Nationalism will last another 5 years and then recede in the last five years of the Fourth Turning which will be around 2028. Therefore; people buckle up, it is going to one hell of a ride, although given a massive economic crash being predicted the Alt-Right racial identitarians could experience a massive rise in support which makes a McCarthy style purge of anybody who is Ethnic identitarians very possible. I believe the Millennial's will more strongly identify as more 'Global Citizens' as opposed to just solely being members of a particular nation. Indeed the whole identitarian , neo-nationalist and alt-right movements have been born out of a concern that national and ethnicity identities are under threat from globalization.

Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/10-...86481.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter-globalization

[pbrower2a]

(10-09-2018, 04:31 AM)Teejay Wrote: Neo-nationalism is a political ideology which has spread across the world in this Fourth Turning. I am quoting a Wikipedia article on Neo-nationalism. This ideology started in Putin's Russia and China and has spread in the last decade to about everywhere in the world essentially. It is a lot like Fascism in the 1930's expect usually considerably milder, in formerly Liberal Democratic countries there has been a slide back to authoritarianism. I am not sure if they will be like the Nazis of the Last Fourth Turning, it could be given early last decade I thought the Fourth Turning would centering on how to civilize globalization and the need for more globalization to deal with the challenge of man-made climate change.
 

Quote:Neo-nationalism or new nationalism is a type of nationalism that rose in the mid-2010s in Europe and North America and to some degree in other regions. It is associated with several positions, such as right-wing populism, anti-globalization, nativism,  protectionism, opposition to immigration, opposition to Islam and Muslims and Euroscepticism where applicable. According to one scholar, "nationalist resistance to global liberalism turned out to be the most influential force in Western politics" in 2016.Particularly notable expressions of new nationalism include the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

 

Quote:Writing for Politico, Michael Hirsh described new nationalism as "a bitter populist rejection of the status quo that global elites have imposed on the international system since the Cold War ended, and which lower-income voters have decided—understandably—is unfair." Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote in The Week that new nationalism is a "broad nativist revolt" against post-Cold War politics long "characterized by an orthodoxy of free trade, nurturing the service economy, neoliberal trading arrangements, and liberalized immigration policies."
 
The Economist wrote in November 2016 that "new nationalists are riding high on promises to close borders and restore societies to a past homogeneity." Clarence Page wrote in the Las Vegas Sun that "a new neo-tribal nationalism has boiled up in European politics and to a lesser degree in the United States since the global economic meltdown of 2008," and Ryan Cooper in The Week and researchers with the Centre for Economic Policy Research have linked 21st-century right-wing populism to the Great Recession. According to Harvard political theorist Yascha Mounk, "economic stagnation among lower- and middle-class whites [has been] a main driver for nationalism's rise around the globe." According to religion scholar Mark L. Movesian, new nationalism "sets the nation-state against supranational, liberal regimes like the EU or NAFTA, and local customs and traditions, including religious traditions, against alien, outside trends."
 
David Brog and Yoram Hazony wrote in National Review that some conservatives view the new nationalism associated with Brexit and Donald Trump as a betrayal of conservative ideology while they see it as a "return". According to conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg, the nationalism associated with Trump is "really little more than a brand name for generic white identity politics."
 
Writing for The Week, Damon Linker called the idea of neo-nationalism being racist "nonsense" and went on to say that "the tendency of progressives to describe it as nothing but 'racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia'—is the desire to delegitimize any particularistic attachment or form of solidarity, be it national, linguistic, religious, territorial, or ethnic."
 
Regarding new nationalism, The Economist said that "Mr Trump needs to realise that his policies will unfold in the context of other countries’ jealous nationalism," and called nationalism itself a "slippery concept" that is "easy to manipulate". They also repeatedly contrasted ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism and implied new nationalism could become "angry" and difficult to control, citing Chinese nationalism as an example.

 
I don't believe this ideology is going to win out in the Fourth Turning. Because the second global financial crisis is coming, which is predicted globally to be as bad as the Great Depression was. An economic collapse in both China and Russia, which will result in political revolutions which will bring Liberal Democratic regimes into power. This global financial crisis will need a global approach to solve it and the Neo-Nationalists have only emerged, because the Left did not develop an ideology during the Global Financial Crisis that would have 'tamed globalization' so that it benefits the people rather than the big corporations. Also, there is the need for a global approach to the challenge of climate change which the Neo-Nationalists who are inclined towards being skeptical to man-made climate change are also at a strong disadvantage.

Some clarity is desirable here: the cynically-misidentified Liberal Democratic Party of Russia of Vladimir Zhirinovsky is neither liberal nor democratic.

People in distress, especially economic, want to hear comforting thoughts. That distant events done by people unlike oneself have broken the certainty that one once had allows one to seek comfort in the purported knowledge that others are at fault. The fault can range from the inevitable "getting old", something that went from tempting to horrible, as with "alcohol", to whole groups of people such as "capitalists" or whole ethnic groups. Certainty that many once expected was that one's grandchildren will look something like one, especially if one is white (with lots of recessive genes), or even that one's children will beget or bear children by someone of the other gender is gone.... just imagine what consequences that can have.

We are approaching the end of the industrial era in which people create prosperity by simply manufacturing stuff for the market. That giant industries once renowned for manufacturing have gone from being manufacturers to being importers simply hastens the
loss of work in manufacturing. Manufacturing has gone from making new stuff to excite us to simply replacement of things that go bad, wear out, or go obsolete. The stuff is becoming more durable; cars that used to be scrapped after eight years are now lasting nearly twenty, and a ten-year-old flat-screen TV is more reliable than the color TVs of the 1960s that needed frequent and expensive changes of the picture tube. Although capitalism could make a market out of the proletariat, the proletariat still has nothing to offer but its toil lest it no longer be a proletariat.

Quote:Since the neo-nationalists who reject globalism, just don't have any solutions to this challenge. Also, the internet will undermine any neo-nationalist authoritarian regimes that come to power. An old fourth turning forum user who I chatted to on Facebook said at China's Great Firewall can be circumvented quite easily. Not to mention the neo-nationalists are going to be blamed most likely for this economic collapse. A McCarthyite sort of purge against anybody who is remotely 'nationalist' might very well occur. There are signs of that beginning to occur with social media de-platforming of people seen as racist, sexist, homophobic and trans-phobic. Something Donald Trump has complained about, because a lot of die-hard supporters have been de-platformed.

It's hard to be a bigot without severe rudeness devoid of mitigation. The real cause of globalization is cheap (by old standards) transportation, whether of people or goods.  There is no "slow boat to China" anymore; there is instead a cheap flight (about $450) that takes less than fourteen hours either way between New York and Beijing for persons. The real revolution in globalization comes from containers that can be loaded in China, put on a truck for a seaport, put on a ship from China to either the American West Coast, Gulf Coast, or East Coast (the latter by way of the Panama Canal), and then shipped inland without having to be opened at any point in its long journey with the possibility of breakage or pilferage (for a long time, the latter was a huge cost of shipping to the enrichment of organized crime).

The biggest threat to totalitarian and authoritarian orders is that people start becoming learned enough that they get curious, and the methods of censorship that might keep ill-educated people from learning what the elites do not want them to know are not so effective with people with more formal education... even if such education is strictly technical. Technically-trained people might go this way: they hear a work like this:



 

and recognize that even if it is not from their time and place (J S Bach, the fugue in F from the Well-Tempered Clavier), it is still delightful -- and cause for more curiosity. It's hard to imagine any society except perhaps North Korea or the Infernal State that prohibits access to this music. So someone gets curious, and finds out a little about Bach... and gets curious about German culture, and eventually politics. Germany can be an attractive place for some things even if one has bitter memories of a very bad time in Germany (especially 1933-1945)... but Bach is not part of that bad memory.  The Israel Philharmonic plays much German and Austrian music.

Technically-trained people are especially prone to enjoy music of rich counterpoint and mathematical precision. Dullards might not get it.  Think carefully about the level of education commonplace in totalitarian societies: except in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the level is bare literacy with a little competence in mathematics and some fervent teaching in hygiene and glorification of the leadership. Stalin, Mao, and Saddam Hussein all promoted that level of education: enough to be competent workers, but not enough for doing any independent thought. The leadership was to do the independent thought, and people were just competent enough to obey orders and heed safety warnings. Reading between the lines? Thence comes heresy and dissent! Nazi Germany and fascist Italy had to reduce the level of learning that it expected of people. The number of people attending college fell under Nazi rule.

Donald Trump may not quite be a totalitarian, but the people most vulnerable to his propaganda are white people of slight education who don't read between the lines. If he does not relate solely to stupid or barely-educated people, he does appeal to the intellectually-lazy who find satisfaction in simple expressions of what they want to believe.

The totalitarian state is good at making stuff characteristic of early-industrial societies without challenging itself with intellectual complexity. Once it tries to make stuff more complex it needs to rely upon educated scientists and engineers. Herein comes the problem: to support such people one needs more intellectual openness, and the contradiction between mindless conformity and
intellectual sophistication becomes increasingly severe. Nazi Germany did not exist long enough to make any attempt at resolution of that conflict except to kill off the Jews and to reduce the number of people attending college. The Soviet Union under Stalin could murder anyone, but the arms race and the struggle of Soviet intelligence against Western intelligence under later Soviet leadership required more intellectual activity just to prepare the defense industries and the intelligence system. The contradiction between obedience and intellect led to the rise of dissidence that weakened the credibility of the system.

By manufacturing sophisticated stuff for the rest of the world, by opening itself to foreign tourists, by doing much engineering, and by allowing people access to ancient texts, China exposes itself to currents that contradict an authoritarian regime. (North Korea is totalitarian; China is authoritarian). It sends people overseas to learn accounting, engineering, and law. Guess what ideas come back? The contradiction between a state that demands rigid obedience in politics and the ability to read between the lines should be evident.

The contradictions between Trump's promises of prosperity (he promised to "Make America Great Again", which I interpret as the intention of returning to the economic principles and cultural patterns of the Gilded Age while maintaining prosperity and modern technology) are already apparent. His government is about winning at all cost -- including creating extreme ill will upon opponents who still have the proclivity to 'read between the lines' (a hint: one possible interpretation of intelligence implies Latin inter (between) and legere (to read)) and will not divest themselves of that proclivity easily. Nobody can recover the institutions (or reduce existing institutions to what they were in that halcyon era of class privilege) without a destructive, right-wing revolution. The technologies that we have make such a return impossible. Ethnic realities, including the rise of non-WASP members of a much-larger middle class than existed even in the 1920s, will create huge obstacles to any return of WASP supremacy.

The people most vulnerable to Trump propaganda are the most gullible -- people who accept statements made with official posturing that those people want to believe. Think of people who accept the pseudo-history of David Barton, the hatred of homosexuality of the late Fred Phelps, denial of global warming, or young-earth creationism.

Quote:The way I see it that the alt-left will emerge that will support an ideology known at Alter-globalization. The British Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, along with some 'far-left' parties in Europe are beginning to develop this 'alt-left' ideology. My prediction it will emerge somewhere in the Anglosphere hard to know at this stage.

 Australia and New Zealand (yay) could very be where such an ideology could get started. Both countries have very high percentages of their populations who were born overseas, and neo-nationalism's appeal is likely at its weakest anywhere in the world.  In Australia nearly 30% of the population were born overseas and half the population have at least one parent born overseas. In New Zealand the percentage of people born overseas is 20%.

The statistics of Trump approval and disapproval suggest that except for Cuban-Americans in Florida of white origin, many of whom dream of restoring the pre-Castro order in Cuba -- descendants of refugees from Cuba not from the first years of Cuba are less white and have less connection to the desire to restore the semi-aristocratic, kleptocratic order -- anyone identifiable as a minority by ethnicity or religion has a high likelihood of disapproving Donald Trump. Trump may not say that his ideal world is solely for white Christians only as might be Apartheid, but he is close. Even having a handicap makes one a minority in Trump's America.

  

Quote:There is also the fact both countries since the 1980’s transformed from high protectionist to highly free trade-based economies and protectionism does not have very much electoral appeal in either country. Protectionism in the bigger economies of the United States and the European Union have more electoral appeal.

But this is a consequence of Reagan and Thatcher seeking cheap imports to (1) fight inflation and (2) weaken the political power of organized labor. Donald Trump is no friend of organized labor, associating as he does with a Party that wants ultra-cheap labor unable to protect itself against harsh management and severe exploitation. The old saying that "the tariff is the father or the trust" suggests that President Trump is against free trade because he wants monopoly power to dominate the economy on behalf of economic elites that have no responsibilities except to themselves.

Quote:I believe this wave of Neo-Nationalism will last another 5 years and then recede in the last five years of the Fourth Turning which will be around 2028. Therefore; people buckle up, it is going to one hell of a ride, although given a massive economic crash being predicted the Alt-Right racial identitarians could experience a massive rise in support which makes a McCarthy style purge of anybody who is Ethnic identitarians very possible. I believe the Millennial's will more strongly identify as more 'Global Citizens' as opposed to just solely being members of a particular nation. Indeed the whole identitarian , neo-nationalist and alt-right movements have been born out of a concern that national and ethnicity identities are under threat from globalization.

I am tempted to believe that the Trump regime will itself implode. Trump has created an opposition that utterly hates him as Reagan and Thatcher didn't. He is not a polished politician, and he lacks the flexibility for dealing with any failure. Reagan and Thatcher could at least exploit contempt for Communism but still adapt to a Soviet Union becoming much less of a menace.

Quote:Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/10-...86481.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter-globalization

The struggle involving Islam will be between its fundamentalists and modernists. What I said about the Soviet Union and China also applies in its own way to Iran, whose contradictions between Islam, modernity, the monstrously-corrupt ruling clergy, and its national heritage are among the starkest in the world. If I recognize huge contradictions between Trump's anti-intellectualism and America's legacy of intellectual achievements, his white Anglo nationalism and the reality of American diversity, economic hierarchy and egalitarianism, and his authoritarianism against America's constitutional heritage as doom for his ideology, then think of how badly Iran can implode.

[Eric the Green]

I never would have thought humanity could sink this low again. But so it appears. This time there's no-one to save us.

[David Horn]

(10-10-2018, 02:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I never would have thought humanity could sink this low again. But so it appears. This time there's no-one to save us.

Any system built on irrationality must fail eventually.  Every eventual failure must be redeemed by a leader pointing in a better direction, though 'eventually' can be a long time.  So buckle up.  I suspect this may outlast many of us.  The time will be shorter if the youth awaken to their plight, but so far, not many are showing an interest in their own futures.

[Eric the Green]

Buckle up, yeah. It's going to be a bumpy night.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-09-2018, 04:31 AM)Teejay Wrote: The way I see it that the alt-left will emerge that will support an ideology known at Alter-globalization. The British Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, along with some 'far-left' parties in Europe are beginning to develop this 'alt-left' ideology. My prediction it will emerge somewhere in the Anglosphere hard to know at this stage.
Australia and New Zealand (yay) could very be where such an ideology could get started. Both countries have very high percentages of their populations who were born overseas, and neo-nationalism's appeal is likely at its weakest anywhere in the world. In Australia nearly 30% of the population were born overseas and half the population have at least one parent born overseas. In New Zealand the percentage of people born overseas is 20%.

Wait a moment. Wasn't anti-globalism or alter-globalism already fashionable in the early 2000s? And it didn't accomplish anything. So why would it come back, mere 20 years after the demise of its original form?

Alter-globalisation in practice would mean all sort of socialist, trade union based policies that were tried during the last century and proved completely inefficient. Free market with a decent welfare system is the way to go. For now. Eventually, we'll reach post-scarcity and there will be no need for money or labour. But this paradise has to wait a century or two.

Also, since you've brought Corbyn:

http://markhumphrys.com/jeremy.corbyn.html

[pbrower2a]

(10-10-2018, 02:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I never would have thought humanity could sink this low again. But so it appears. This time there's no-one to save us.

In view of the would-be multiple bomber and the mass shooter of a synagogue, we could go lower. We might excoriate both, but he debases us all.

We must save ourselves. About all that we can do in the next few days is to vote.

When we see expressions of abnormal hatred we may need to challenge those. The creep who mowed down Jews in a synagogue had posted some ugly material of religious-racial hate. Yes, his sort of antisemitism is racist in character. It's clear that Jews lack the numbers and organization for dominating the world, especially in places where there are few Jews. Sure, there are plenty of smart and competent Jews, but they can usually play by the rules of a capitalist society and do well. The competent get paid well and treated well, lest they take their talents with them to some place where their competence get both personal and economic reward.

I had been listening to a lecture broadcast on C-Span in which a professor explains the usual irrelevance of conspiracy theories. As we all should know, the simplest explanation of any event (short of random chance which nobody can explain) consistent with reality is almost invariably the best explanation. If political leaders want war and have the means for convincing the right people, they get war, as the professor illustrated with the example of George H W Bush getting approval for expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Everybody knew the rules in place, and the only one who failed to heed those rules was Saddam Hussein.

If wealth people or those wielding institutional power want something done, they rarely need a devious plot. The combination of resources, implicit permission, and opportunity can make a brute-force action (like Barack Obama ordering the hit on Osama bin Laden) successful. Conspiracies often implode, as even the simplest ones (gangland hits) often implode. Law enforcement may not stop a gangland hit, but it can break a conspiracy after the fact. Conspiracy requires collective action and cohesion, and once an agency like the FBI breaks the cohesion of a group it breaks the plot.

There is no good training ground for a criminal conspiracy except perhaps for a secret police. But even the Gestapo was easy to break after the Allied victory over Nazi Germany.

The most common conspiracy looks like the cover-up.  It rarely works.

[pbrower2a]

[Bill the Piper]

Teejay Wrote:Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.

I see it differently. The Middle East might have had its 4T in the 1960s, with the rise of nationalistic strongmen like Saddam, Qaddafi, etc. Then the 2000s, with al-Qaeda reaching peak popularity, look like a 2T since we know religion is most potent during an awakening. So the Middle East might have a 3T right now, which would explain the fragmentation of power and the existence of fallen states like Libya or Yemen.

IMHO Islamists are not equivalents of the alt-right, but of American boomer Jesus freaks or missionary "social purity movements" of the early 20th century. Purging Islamists as if they were identitarians would however be a good step, but the Western Left is chronically incapable of being opposed to anything concocted by brown people.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-29-2018, 10:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Teejay Wrote:Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.

I see it differently. The Middle East might have had its 4T in the 1960s, with the rise of nationalistic strongmen like Saddam, Qaddafi, etc. Then the 2000s, with al-Qaeda reaching peak popularity, look like a 2T since we know religion is most potent during an awakening. So the Middle East might have a 3T right now, which would explain the fragmentation of power and the existence of fallen states like Libya or Yemen.

IMHO Islamists are not equivalents of the alt-right, but of American boomer Jesus freaks or missionary "social purity movements" of the early 20th century. Purging Islamists as if they were identitarians would however be a good step, but the Western Left is chronically incapable of being opposed to anything concocted by brown people.

I have another perspective.  Both the capitalist-democratic-colonial powers and the communists treated the locals in the Middle East like trash.  They were more interested in cheap oil for their own people than improving the lot of the locals. When it came time to oppose the establishment, both the capitalists and the communists had discredited themselves, leaving them clinging extra hard to the old Islamic Agricultural Age value systems the only option.  

Alas the old systems are autocratic, leaving strongmen in charge.  Right now there is no path for improvement.  The Islamists are but one faction building on local alliances based on a religious sects, tribal identity or a political party.  It seems to matter little which, as all result in corrupt strongmen with strong self interest defeating any attempt at checks and balances.  As long as they give loyalty to these things, the idea of tolerance and workings of democracy are alien to them.  They will go in circles indefinitely.

The West might favor democracy, often thinking the transition is far easer than it turns out to be, but this has always been rough to implement.  The people of the Middle East don't trust it, and you end up with corrupt strongman government.  It seems to always take a century or three to switch over to true democratic norms.  We ourselves have our elite robber barons to take care of.  It is hard to feel the Middle Eastern people are not doing as well as expected when every other attempt to transition stumbles and fails for centuries.  Even Anglo America had to fight wars for centuries, faced many many crises, to get as far as we have.  We're not there yet.

Progress is being made.  Alas it is by the people with the most modern values giving up and migrating to western countries where democratic values have already taken hold.  Alas, they are running into prejudice from our own conservatives.  Did I mention that we aren't all the way transitioned ourselves?

[Eric the Green]

(10-29-2018, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 10:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Teejay Wrote:Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.

I see it differently. The Middle East might have had its 4T in the 1960s, with the rise of nationalistic strongmen like Saddam, Qaddafi, etc. Then the 2000s, with al-Qaeda reaching peak popularity, look like a 2T since we know religion is most potent during an awakening. So the Middle East might have a 3T right now, which would explain the fragmentation of power and the existence of fallen states like Libya or Yemen.

IMHO Islamists are not equivalents of the alt-right, but of American boomer Jesus freaks or missionary "social purity movements" of the early 20th century. Purging Islamists as if they were identitarians would however be a good step, but the Western Left is chronically incapable of being opposed to anything concocted by brown people.

I have another perspective.  Both the capitalist-democratic-colonial powers and the communists treated the locals in the Middle East like trash.  They were more interested in cheap oil for their own people than improving the lot of the locals. When it came time to oppose the establishment, both the capitalists and the communists had discredited themselves, leaving them clinging extra hard to the old Islamic Agricultural Age value systems the only option.  

Alas the old systems are autocratic, leaving strongmen in charge.  Right now there is no path for improvement.  The Islamists are but one faction building on local alliances based on a religious sects, tribal identity or a political party.  It seems to matter little which, as all result in corrupt strongmen with strong self interest defeating any attempt at checks and balances.  As long as they give loyalty to these things, the idea of tolerance and workings of democracy are alien to them.  They will go in circles indefinitely.

The West might favor democracy, often thinking the transition is far easier than it turns out to be, but this has always been rough to implement.  The people of the Middle East don't trust it, and you end up with corrupt strongman government.  It seems to always take a century or three to switch over to true democratic norms.  We ourselves have our elite robber barons to take care of.  It is hard to feel the Middle Eastern people are not doing as well as expected when every other attempt to transition stumbles and fails for centuries.  Even Anglo America had to fight wars for centuries, faced many many crises, to get as far as we have.  We're not there yet.

Progress is being made.  Alas it is by the people with the most modern values giving up and migrating to western countries where democratic values have already taken hold.  Alas, they are running into prejudice from our own conservatives.  Did I mention that we aren't all the way transitioned ourselves?

It seems you are correct on all that.

Given that Islamism started in the Middle East in the 1970s, especially in Iran, I don't think the 2000s were their 2T. Al Qaeda is not really a popular movement. They may be liked by many, but it is still essentially a small terrorist group. So too is its offshoot the Islamic State. So a climax of Islamic Fundamentalism, as begun at the same time as the American Christian variety, is climaxing now in this 4T, with the two fundie wings still poised for more conflict. I assume the next American war cycle, which arrives in 2025, may settle a lot of scores in that regard. I don't think there are enough Islamists in America to be an occasion for a McCarthy-style purge though. Such a purge could happen, but it's a good question as to what it would look like or who is purged. It depends on how quickly a right-wing reaction develops to center/left wing power, assuming such left power happens in the course of the 2020s. I would expect such a new McCarthyism, or Alien/Sedition Act, or post Reconstruction Jim Crow Age of Hate KKK era would develop sometime in the 2030s, perhaps early in the decade around 2033.

A case could be made for Islamists movements in the 1990s in Saudi Arabia.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Saudi-A...-aftermath

In this newsweek article, 5 phases of Islamism are described.

1. the movements of the 1970s brought early Islamism to a peak, triggered by the Arab-Isreali war of 1973, the first theocratic state in Iran in 1979, and seizure of the grand mosque in Mecca soon thereafter, which "led regimes across the region to redefine modernization in more Islamic terms. Shaken to the core, Saudi Arabia’s monarchy ceded greater ground to Wahhabi clerics. Even strictly secular regimes reacted. Under President Anwar Sadat, Egypt altered its constitution to ensure that Sharia, or Islamic law, was the basis of all legislation."

2. The 1980s "witnessed the rise of suicide extremism and mass violence. The trend started among Shiites, for whom martyrdom has been a central tenet for fourteen centuries. It soon spread to Sunni militants, for whom it was not a long-held belief. The violent tactics by religious extremists began to redefine modern warfare." Hezbollah and its bombing of US Marines, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Palestinian Intifada, and the jihad-led war in Afghanistan against the Soviets, were highlights.

3. The 1990s saw "the rise of Islamist political parties. The emphasis shifted from the bullet to the ballot—or a combination of the two." Movements in Algeria began the trend, spurred by the democratic movements of the late 1980s and early 1990s worldwide. " In 1992, after a decade underground, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah led the Shiite party into Lebanese elections. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood ran for parliament in 1995, after a decade of competing under cover of other political parties. Jordan’s Islamic Action Front became the largest opposition party elected to parliament. From scenic Morocco and sleepy Kuwait to teeming Yemen, Islamist parties captured the imagination of many voters."

4. In the 2000s, the Al Qaeda attacks shifted Islamism. "The fourth phase began after Al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11, 2001, which were as traumatic for many Muslims half a world away as for Americans who witnessed attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the Arab world, hundreds of millions found themselves tainted by a man and a movement they neither knew nor supported. Muslims were also increasingly victimized, as extremists expanded their suicide attacks from Morocco on the Atlantic to Saudi Arabia on the Persian Gulf. Almost 3,000 people died on 9/11, but militants killed more than 10,000 of their brethren in suicide bombings and other attacks over the next decade. The extremist strategy backfired. In Arab eyes, the many forms of militancy proved costly, unproductive, and ultimately unappealing.....During the first decade of the 21st century, the Arab response was a kind of counter-jihad—a rejection of extremist movements and tactics to achieve political goals. The response took many tangible forms. But among the most imaginative were the Islamist debates on university campuses, within civil society, among exiles, and even among jailed Islamists about the most effective means of change...."

5. "In 2011, the raucous Arab uprisings triggered a fifth phase. It began after unprecedented displays of peaceful civil disobedience in the world’s most volatile region. Within a single year, a rippling wave of uprisings opened political space for Muslim movements that had struggled for decades—in one case, almost a century—just to get in the door." See the article for its manifold expression in our times. 

https://www.newsweek.com/short-history-islamism-298235

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-29-2018, 06:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: In 2011, the raucous Arab uprisings triggered a fifth phase. It began after unprecedented displays of peaceful civil disobedience in the world’s most volatile region. Within a single year, a rippling wave of uprisings opened political space for Muslim movements that had struggled for decades—in one case, almost a century—just to get in the door." See the article for its manifold expression in our times.

They keep trying, things do improve, baby steps are taken, and I can applaud the efforts from afar.  Yet I keep seeing kings, religious leaders, tribal leaders and political strongmen leading the most influential states in the Middle East.  It is another case where you hope things will improve, but history shows very slow if eventually successful progress occurs when changing from autocratic to democratic cultures.

I wish it weren't so slow, but...

[pbrower2a]

(10-29-2018, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 10:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Teejay Wrote:Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.

I see it differently. The Middle East might have had its 4T in the 1960s, with the rise of nationalistic strongmen like Saddam, Qaddafi, etc. Then the 2000s, with al-Qaeda reaching peak popularity, look like a 2T since we know religion is most potent during an awakening. So the Middle East might have a 3T right now, which would explain the fragmentation of power and the existence of fallen states like Libya or Yemen.

IMHO Islamists are not equivalents of the alt-right, but of American boomer Jesus freaks or missionary "social purity movements" of the early 20th century. Purging Islamists as if they were identitarians would however be a good step, but the Western Left is chronically incapable of being opposed to anything concocted by brown people.

I have another perspective.  Both the capitalist-democratic-colonial powers and the communists treated the locals in the Middle East like trash.  They were more interested in cheap oil for their own people than improving the lot of the locals. When it came time to oppose the establishment, both the capitalists and the communists had discredited themselves, leaving them clinging extra hard to the old Islamic Agricultural Age value systems the only option.

A Venezuelan politician a few decades ago called oil, the basis of an economic boom that did little good for the Venezuelan masses, la mierda del Diablo -- the $#!+ of the Devil. If I were to tell countries how to develop, I would tell them to first put emphasis on improving the lot of peasant farmers who would then become a domestic market for cottage industries that, among other things, offers shoes for the feet of the peasants.

With capitalism comes vice; with Communism comes tyranny. Muslims can apparently tolerate tyranny if it fits their national cultures; Marxism-Leninism is un-Islamic. So are brothels, gambling casinos, and cocktail lounges. Vice is infamously unimaginative.  

Quote:Alas the old systems are autocratic, leaving strongmen in charge.  Right now there is no path for improvement.  The Islamists are but one faction building on local alliances based on a religious sects, tribal identity or a political party.  It seems to matter little which, as all result in corrupt strongmen with strong self interest defeating any attempt at checks and balances.  As long as they give loyalty to these things, the idea of tolerance and workings of democracy are alien to them.  They will go in circles indefinitely.

I can think of people who would do much the same in America, except that it would be done in the names of Christianity and 'free enterprise' -- with the words 'free enterprise' contorted to explain that the owners and bosses are free to use their economic power to dominate everyone else.

Quote:The West might favor democracy, often thinking the transition is far easier than it turns out to be, but this has always been rough to implement.  The people of the Middle East don't trust it, and you end up with corrupt strongman government.  It seems to always take a century or three to switch over to true democratic norms.  We ourselves have our elite robber barons to take care of.  It is hard to feel the Middle Eastern people are not doing as well as expected when every other attempt to transition stumbles and fails for centuries.  Even Anglo America had to fight wars for centuries, faced many many crises, to get as far as we have.  We're not there yet.

Western democracy has had its setbacks -- and we know well the biggest one. Hurt feelings from a military defeat, hyperinflation that turned a class of small-savers into paupers made Germany a country with no middle class and little stake in capitalism or democracy -- and the economic meltdown beginning in 1929 made the country a combat zone for extremists Right and Left. 

I see the post-Industrial era, the Information era, rending the assumptions of many Americans that all that they need do to do well is to work making things. Remember well: even more than education, the factory was the quickest way out of extreme poverty. Detroit, the city that started to put the world on wheels, was once the richest big cities in the world. Now it is the poorest big city in America (unless you want to call places like Camden and Gary 'big cities'). 

I could make the case that the contemporary robber barons are worse than those of the Gilded Age. At least the railroad, meat-packing, steel, oil, and vehicle plutocrats were initially innovators who brought forth new ways of creating wealth and consumer goodies. Making a concession that the plutocrats who got rich in the computer business and medical technology are innovators who needed a prosperous populace to prosper as they do, many of today's plutocrats are simply heirs and rentiers who have the most reactionary interests. Example: Donald Trump is a successful landlord, a rent collector.

Quote:Progress is being made.  Alas it is by the people with the most modern values giving up and migrating to western countries where democratic values have already taken hold.  Alas, they are running into prejudice from our own conservatives.  Did I mention that we aren't all the way transitioned ourselves?

It took America "four score and seven years", roughly, to decide that slavery that made America a glaring hypocrisy would have to die. It took America almost two centuries to decide after independence that local government had no right to disenfranchise people because of having slave ancestors.

And then of course there is Donald Trump, who has dredged the most primitive drives in the American psyche -- drives that sophisticated and intelligent people recognize are left in the mental abyss. The Information Age, which allows someone like me to access knowledge even from antiquity to recognize that human nature has changed little even if institutions and economic realities have, has left multitudes behind and, having often destroyed the nexus between ability to work and having a job that sustains one, has made someone with a primitive mind (Donald Trump) the most important person in America.

[Bill the Piper]

My opinion stays the same...

Decolonisation was certainly a 4T for the Arab Middle East. It was about a change in secular institution (from foreign rule to a native elite) and has virtually no spiritual component. Some Arab countries like Iraq were not colonies, but they still had a transition from relatively lenient and pro-Western monarchies to secular, militaristic Ba'athism (which is an extreme example of a civic-oriented ideology). Religiosity was weak in the 1960s Arab world. Many urban women walked around with hair uncovered. Lack of interest in religion is typical for civic rather than prophetic generations. The 80s-90s were the heyday of Arab strongmen: Saddam, Assad, Mubarak ruled unchallenged. Looks like 1T, doesn't it? Then the awakening in the early 2000s culminated with the Arab Spring, who was called the Islamic Awakening by many people in the region. The Arab Spring was a movement comparable to the Polish Solidarity, hopefully we agree that was an awakening.

Iran is a different kettle of fish. It is not ethnically Arab, it's form of Islam is considered heretical by most Arabs, and it was never a colony. Note how the Arab Spring never engulfed Iran. So I reckon Iran's saeculum is out of sync with the Sunni Arab one.

[pbrower2a]

Poland had a delayed Awakening Era. Its Crisis was more protracted with the Stalinist consolidation of power that never quite got completed. Poland got into a very flawed 1T under Gomulka, and was slow to adopt (Boom Awakening) cultural tendencies from western Europe and America. Poland's Awakening was more religious and political than cultural, in view of the nature of its flawed 1T. The Commies were not good at managing the economy, and Poles are fortunate that the Commies were unable to collectivize Polish agriculture.

To say that the anti-Communist revolutions of 1989 in central and Balkan Europe were Awakening events is credible even if most of the West was clearly 3T. But those revolutions were probably the end of the Awakenings in those countries, as issues became largely economic and not cultural.  

Decolonization did not happen at the same time in the various countries. Saudi Arabia had areas never under colonial rule. Iraq got formal independence in 1932, Egypt got it in 1936, and Syria and Lebanon in 1944. Libya got it in the early 1950s, Tunisia in 1957, and Algeria in 1962. Morocco was never fully a colony. The Arab world is not a political monolith and never was except as a colonies and puppet states mostly of the Ottoman Empire.  

The mullahs of Iran are as corrupt as any Communist or plutocratic elite anywhere else. They have gotten rich off taking bribes, and they know that in the wake of any revolution they will be the first to go before the firing squad. They may not be quite the killers that Satan Hussein was or that Assad pere was and Assad fils is, but murderous regimes can go down hard. Heck, the July 20 plotters came close to toppling Hitler and his criminal gang. It is unfortunate that they failed.

[David Horn]

(11-03-2018, 06:35 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: My opinion stays the same...

Decolonisation was certainly a 4T for the Arab Middle East. It was about a change in secular institution (from foreign rule to a native elite) and has virtually no spiritual component. Some Arab countries like Iraq were not colonies, but they still had a transition from relatively lenient and pro-Western monarchies to secular, militaristic Ba'athism (which is an extreme example of a civic-oriented ideology). Religiosity was weak in the 1960s Arab world. Many urban women walked around with hair uncovered. Lack of interest in religion is typical for civic rather than prophetic generations. The 80s-90s were the heyday of Arab strongmen: Saddam, Assad, Mubarak ruled unchallenged. Looks like 1T, doesn't it? Then the awakening in the early 2000s culminated with the Arab Spring, who was called the Islamic Awakening by many people in the region. The Arab Spring was a movement comparable to the Polish Solidarity, hopefully we agree that was an awakening.

Iran is a different kettle of fish. It is not ethnically Arab, it's form of Islam is considered heretical by most Arabs, and it was never a colony. Note how the Arab Spring never engulfed Iran. So I reckon Iran's saeculum is out of sync with the Sunni Arab one.

I agree for the most part.  If I had to pick two specific events that acted as precursors of the ME mess we have today, I would pick the defat of the Ottoman Empire, and the mess the Brits and French made chopping the place into pieces, and the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran.

[Marypoza]

[quote pid='39670' dateline='1540825482']

Teejay Wrote:Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.

[/quote]

-- & the Govt will be selling weapons to both sides as usual

[Hintergrund]

(10-29-2018, 10:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Teejay Wrote:Although given the Middle East has just started it's Fourth Turning which is predicted to one hell of a battle between Islamists and Secularists. A possible final battle of the 'War on Terror' or more appropriately the 'War on Islamism' will probably occur during this Fourth Turning or in the first half of the First Turning. Islamists who are Islamic identarians could be subject to this McCarthyite purge as well.

I see it differently. The Middle East might have had its 4T in the 1960s, with the rise of nationalistic strongmen like Saddam, Qaddafi, etc. Then the 2000s, with al-Qaeda reaching peak popularity, look like a 2T since we know religion is most potent during an awakening. So the Middle East might have a 3T right now, which would explain the fragmentation of power and the existence of fallen states like Libya or Yemen.

Why not start counting when the Ottoman Empire was destroyed?

[pbrower2a]

World War II is a Crisis Era for Iraq and Iran, where short-lived pro-Axis governments provoked British and Soviet invasions to topple such governments. Syria was a combat zone between the Free French and Vichy, and got its independence in 1944. Syria is in , and Iraq may still be in Crisis Eras. Go figure on Iran. For Israel, the Crisis Era that for many Israelis includes the worst Crisis that any people could ever endure (the Holocaust) ended in 1948 with the partition of Palestine. The Intifada looks like a Crisis to me.

Turkey had a huge Crisis early with World War I (the Armenian holocaust would have never been possible except in a Crisis Era) that included after the War itself invasions by the Allies, the dissolution of Turkish rule south of the current Turkish-Syrian and Turkish-Iraqi border, and a veritable civil war that replaced the Ottoman Empire with a secular republic. Turkey was not a major participant in World War II, but could have easily been one.

Libya? The Libyan Civil War looks like a Crisis Era. It came roughly seventy years after the Allies and Axis Powers fought over Libyan terrain.

I am tempted to believe that the Arab Spring is Crisis or 1T depending upon the national history.

[Hintergrund]

Think their Crisis is over already? 'Cause I don't.