COVID-19 is the climax to this 4T

[Generational]

(04-12-2020, 07:02 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:          

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).

Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger   but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal 
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

Is there anything that could explain why Generation Z is even more socially liberal than previous generations?

With people like Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids, I just don't see that happening.

There seems a vast gap between what the media portrays and what is really going on. For example, enrollment at US universities: enrollment in general is declining as there are less kids / youth. Enrollment into traditionally left-leaning colleges is crashing whereas enrollment into conservative Christian colleges is skyrocketing. Liberty University enrollment quintupled since 2010 whereas every year multiple liberal arts colleges bite the dust. The more left-leaning the more they close. I heard that Liberty University has now even been surpassed in enrollment by another conservative Christian college... not sure which one it is. 
If you teach that family oppresses women and kids infringe on parental autonomy, well then your students won't have kids and thus not send any to your liberal college going forward. That's how smart our highly-educated academics are. Talk about self-defeating.
Also, given how the Covington Kids were slandered by our mainstream media the conservative youth will keep a low profile. They will just keep growing, marrying, having their own kids and thus fast outbreeding liberals who will engage in lifestyles that are unbecoming to have more than one child if at all. All the while media will tout Greta at al. skewing our perception. But no worries that's why I'm here   to restore balance to the force 

[Generational]

(04-12-2020, 07:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote: I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

What do you see as the difference between fascism and nationalism?  To me, nationalism is a broader category, but fascism is a subset, so I'm having trouble envisioning a move away from fascism that's toward nationalism.

Then again, I don't see us as very close to fascism now, so I guess that's another reason to understand what you're trying to say there.

Warren, good point. Fascism is innately incompatible with the American soul. America has always been multi-ethnic and founded on common values and not race. Since I'm from Germany originally I can relate to the concept of Fascism better even if I abhor it like anyone else decent. Many nations have been founded based on a common ethnicity. Fascism builds on this and then puts your own ethnicity / race above everything. It proclaims to be nationalist but only if you belong to the dominant ethnicity. The rules are sometime contradictory - Jews can be included like in Italian Fascism or the devil incarnate as in the German version. It can be right-leaning or left leaning. Identity politics is left-leaning fascism. I saw in California the movement called itself "La Raza" or "The Race". I shuddered to look at it from the German experience, but here we are (again). So while some Americans embrace Fascism on the left and right, overall it has never stood a chance here due to the American experience being so different from European nations.
The "new" nationalism I see rising here as a result of 4T is the classical American nationalism - we want to be free and independent from other nations, we want to protect our people (regardless of ethnicity), customs, values and traditions and be economically independent again. We respect the same in other nations and even promote this everywhere.

[Warren Dew]

So basically fascism is ethnonationalist, and you see.a move toward state based nationalism? I could see that.

Where do you see that putting guest workers in Germany?

[Generational]

(04-12-2020, 08:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So basically fascism is ethnonationalist, and you see.a move toward state based nationalism?  I could see that.

Where do you see that putting guest workers in Germany?

I see the requirement grow for everyone in Germany to adhere to German traditions and customs. So as long as a person respects that they should be fine in Germany. This should be the same trend everywhere. 
Of course, this is all a best guess. When looking at recent events and trends I can see traditionalism means different things in different cultures. The opposite of globalization this leads to more diverse and individual local life-styles. No longer one size fits all. In Russia, we see the Orthodox Church reemerge and take strong positions in politics and the public life. Other religions are being curtailed. That seems to be the tradition in Russia. In Germany like in the US there have been multiple churches and not a state church. While we may see conservative Christianity reemerge as an important factor it will not lead to a state church like in Russia... so many variables.

[Eric the Green]

(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:          

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).

Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger   but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal 
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

"socially conservative and fiscally liberal" That would be the opposite of the last 40 years.

Populism is a mild form of socialism. It is power to the people. That's what populist means. The population. That means liberal. It means taking power from elites and giving it to the people. The elite in the USA is big business; the oligarchy; the 1%. Just as it was back in 1892 when populism began. There's little change in this.

Populism is NOT a politics dictated by peoples' fears and prejudices. Nor is it a politics that is popular. Those are not the original definition, but is one that is bruted about these days. I prefer the original definition. Power to the people, not the elites.

Fascism is nationalism. (Warren is correct, the latter is a broader category)

Now, there's a distinction between nationalism, and the idea or policy that we need national borders. Most people accept the need for borders, just to keep things level, more or less, within them, because conditions differ in the world, and not to be overwhelmed by hordes trying to cross them without proper inspection or rationale.

The other nationalism has to do with keeping other people out, with asserting that my nation is exceptional, that my nation deserves to dominate others (as 20th century fascism did), that my nation should be more powerful than other nations, that there is such a thing as a national race, religion, culture or language that ought to be uniform within the nation; that sort of thing. This is what liberals and progressives oppose, and most people oppose most of this too. No, this is outdated, and will decline further. We are one world, one humanity, and people of all races, religions and backgrounds are everywhere, and this trend cannot be stopped.

A first turning, which will begin more or less a decade from now, will seek stability and normality, but it will also consolidate much of the change accomplished in the 4T, which is always a progressive change. Nevertheless, there is a trend toward a reaction and some instability and xenophobia early in the recovery period, like under the Articles of Confederation, or the alien and sedition acts (depending on what your dating is), and the rise of the KKK and Jim Crow after the civil war, and McCarthyism in the 1950s. But, the constitution lasted, the vote was extended over time, slavery was not reinstated, and the new deal became the fair deal and the new frontier and great society after the permanent defeat of fascism. Consolidation of 4T victories.

The victories will be won, is my prediction. Inequality under Reagan/Bush/Trump will be reversed. Gay rights and legal marijuana will not be repealed, and abortion will stay legal. Climate change will begin to be handled and decreased. Gerrymandering and vote suppression will be removed. Democracy will be restored and money will be restricted in politics. Health care will be made available to all. Immigration reform will be adopted, and racism will no longer be in vogue or tolerated. These are some of the victories we can expect in the next 10 years of this 4T. I expect them to be consolidated in the 1T, despite a climate starting in 2030 that is not so favorable to further changes or reforms-- at least until the 2T gets going. Then we can expect fulfillment of the sixties.

I expect, after I have laid out all this truth and fact, that you will understand and accept it unhesitatingly.

I am wrong about that, I am sure

But what can I do? I am in the habit of making the case.

[Eric the Green]

(04-12-2020, 08:01 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 07:02 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote: Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger   but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal 
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

Is there anything that could explain why Generation Z is even more socially liberal than previous generations?

With people like Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids, I just don't see that happening.

There seems a vast gap between what the media portrays and what is really going on. For example, enrollment at US universities: enrollment in general is declining as there are less kids / youth. Enrollment into traditionally left-leaning colleges is crashing whereas enrollment into conservative Christian colleges is skyrocketing. Liberty University enrollment quintupled since 2010 whereas every year multiple liberal arts colleges bite the dust. The more left-leaning the more they close. I heard that Liberty University has now even been surpassed in enrollment by another conservative Christian college... not sure which one it is. 
If you teach that family oppresses women and kids infringe on parental autonomy, well then your students won't have kids and thus not send any to your liberal college going forward. That's how smart our highly-educated academics are. Talk about self-defeating.
Also, given how the Covington Kids were slandered by our mainstream media the conservative youth will keep a low profile. They will just keep growing, marrying, having their own kids and thus fast outbreeding liberals who will engage in lifestyles that are unbecoming to have more than one child if at all. All the while media will tout Greta at al. skewing our perception. But no worries that's why I'm here   to restore balance to the force 

That is an interesting attempt to reverse the opposite trend that all demographers claim.

Are there stats that prove that, overall, that enrollment in "left-leaning colleges" (if that term is even definable) is declining and enrollment in conservative Christian colleges is skyrocketing? References?

Parents who respect their children's rights and uphold that women have equal rights to men in a marriage can still have as many children as parents who oppress women and children. I don't think there's any reason to suppose that the Covington kids will out-breed the Parkland kids, or even that they are that much different from each other.

[Isoko]

I think that Eric is fundamentally speaking living in the past. Eric has what I called a leftist messianic version of the future where everything is eventually going to be great and liberal. I would argue that this is further from the truth and that the liberalism of the past is going to heavily decline in the coming decades.

I agree with him though that gay marriage or abortion is not going to be overturned but I would say that people are going to become more centrist rather then right or left wing. People are fed up with the left and more sympathetic to the right these days yet not willing to go down the full conservative path either.

Even still, the whole idea of a globalist universalistic society is just that. A pure fantasy. It is about as realistic as the great technological age of flying cars that awaits us. Or the space colonies we are supposed to have anytime soon now. It just will not happen. Atleast for hundreds of years.

There will always be people. There will always be different ideas and ways of doing things. There will always be hatreds and paranoia. In fact I will make a solid prediction and say that the next major war will occur when civilisation gets bored again.

If you look at the dynamics of 1914, society became bored and wanted excitement. People actually celebrated not as hatred but as a change to the status quo. Right now people are still entertained but give it 100 years and when the current technology becomes the same old, they will start to dream of more fantastical destructive ways to elevate the boredom. As is history.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-13-2020, 05:41 AM)Isoko Wrote: Even still, the whole idea of a globalist universalistic society is just that. A pure fantasy. It is about as realistic as the great technological age of flying cars that awaits us. Or the space colonies we are supposed to have anytime soon now. It just will not happen. Atleast for hundreds of years.

It depends only on our determination to make these things reality.

World State is not a fantasy. Hunter-gatherers lived in communities of at most 150 people. They couldn't imagine a nation-state of 10 or 100 million individuals. Now human genotypes haven't changed so much, but we live in societies this big.

Also, biotechnological moral enhancement will come into play. Noone wants a psychopath child, or a sadistic child, so Dark Triad will be eliminated. Without Dark Triad individuals there will be less potential dictators who might play up ethnocentrism.

Quote: There will always be different ideas and ways of doing things.

Sure, but they don't need to be inherited. I hope there will be more subcultures to choose from, rather than parroting your dad's lifestyle.

Quote:I agree with him though that gay marriage or abortion is not going to be overturned but I would say that people are going to become more centrist rather then right or left wing. People are fed up with the left and more sympathetic to the right these days yet not willing to go down the full conservative path either.

Abortion will probably become obsolete because of improved contraception techniques. LGBT? I believe in a psychoanalytical explanation of these conditions, rather than in a gay gene. So if children grow up in more balanced, more mature environment with good role models of both sexes, the number of gays and transgenders might go down.

Quote:Right now people are still entertained but give it 100 years and when the current technology becomes the same old, they will start to dream of more fantastical destructive ways to elevate the boredom. As is history.

Our descendants might fight a war in virtual reality if they feel like fighting. But I think they will prefer to alleviate boredom by exploring the Cosmos.

[Isoko]

(04-13-2020, 09:42 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(04-13-2020, 05:41 AM)Isoko Wrote: Even still, the whole idea of a globalist universalistic society is just that. A pure fantasy. It is about as realistic as the great technological age of flying cars that awaits us. Or the space colonies we are supposed to have anytime soon now. It just will not happen. Atleast for hundreds of years.

It depends only on our determination to make these things reality.  

World State is not a fantasy. Hunter-gatherers lived in communities of at most 150 people. They couldn't imagine a nation-state of 10 or 100 million individuals. Now human genotypes haven't changed so much, but we live in societies this big.

You have some good points but I tend to believe in the concept of continued rises and falls. Is a world state possible? Very much so. But then look at the Roman Empire or even the Catholic Church. People have new ideas, the same old becomes rotten to the core and eventually you have division and new forms of conflict.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the saying goes. Imagine how the Roman Empire was. A completely civilised society. Eventually it collapsed leading to a new dark age where people went back to living in a tribal society. It took them 1,000 years to get back to the concept of what was Rome. And even then, it took them another 900 years to get sanitation right again, which only started to take shape in the 19th century.

My point is this is the overall Humanity's destiny for along time to come. Also before anyone contradicts this, remember that only in the 1990s were they proclaiming the birth of a new liberal world order of peace and prosperity, technological advancement and peace for all.

We are sat here in 2020 and discussing the possibility of economic depression and nationalist revivals. Who would have predicted that in 1991?

Also, biotechnological moral enhancement will come into play. Noone wants a psychopath child, or a sadistic child, so Dark Triad will be eliminated. Without Dark Triad individuals there will be less potential dictators who might play up ethnocentrism

To me that sounds like slavery. If we can condition people to rid themselves of bad traits, why not use this technology to enslave people? And what is right and wrong? How can we say this is for the greater good and the other is evil?

Remember all of those Nazi doctors? They actually believed that by doing all of those experiments, they were acting for the greater good of the people. That their work would build a better future.

Or the Soviets with their destruction of the Kulaks. Or the British and their destruction of traditional cultural heritage. All in the name of the greater good.

So if we go down this road, then God help us because that is destroying what it makes for us to be Human. That is free will.

Sure, but they don't need to be inherited. I hope there will be more subcultures to choose from, rather than parroting your dad's lifestyle.

To be honest, I tend to find that the pendulum always swings more to the left and right depending on life and circumstances of the time. For example, my father is more left wing then I am because he grew up in different times. I am more conservative in comparison.

As for subcultures, they change with the times. In more affluent times, they always trend to the left. In more tougher times, they go to the right. It is the nature of time.

Quote:I agree with him though that gay marriage or abortion is not going to be overturned but I would say that people are going to become more centrist rather then right or left wing. People are fed up with the left and more sympathetic to the right these days yet not willing to go down the full conservative path either.

Abortion will probably become obsolete because of improved contraception techniques. LGBT? I believe in a psychoanalytical explanation of these conditions, rather than in a gay gene. So if children grow up in more balanced, more mature environment with good role models of both sexes, the number of gays and transgenders might go down.

I think that this is a potential possibility. I think honosexuality will be accepted in the future but there will be more of a centrist view. That is no mass promotion of LGBTQ culture like there has been. People are fed up of that. But gays in general no one has any issues with.

Quote:Right now people are still entertained but give it 100 years and when the current technology becomes the same old, they will start to dream of more fantastical destructive ways to elevate the boredom. As is history.

Our descendants might fight a war in virtual reality if they feel like fighting. But I think they will prefer to alleviate boredom by exploring the Cosmos.

The thing is, technology has started to stagnate once again. The last greatest invention has been the internet. I think for this century, technological advancement will start to decline as all the low hanging fruit has been picked. Exactly the same as what happened in 1914. 

It all depends on if present day lifestyles around the globe can be continued and how big the technological push is going to be. But eventually there will be a big war and that is just inevitable. Of course out of the ashes comes renewed determination and maybe we will get to the cosmos. Until that leads to war.

[pbrower2a]

(04-12-2020, 08:01 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 07:02 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote: Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger   but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal 
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

Is there anything that could explain why Generation Z is even more socially liberal than previous generations?

With people like Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids, I just don't see that happening.

There seems a vast gap between what the media portrays and what is really going on. For example, enrollment at US universities: enrollment in general is declining as there are less kids / youth. Enrollment into traditionally left-leaning colleges is crashing whereas enrollment into conservative Christian colleges is skyrocketing. Liberty University enrollment quintupled since 2010 whereas every year multiple liberal arts colleges bite the dust. The more left-leaning the more they close. I heard that Liberty University has now even been surpassed in enrollment by another conservative Christian college... not sure which one it is.

Say what you want about Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals: they do not want their kids to become a permanent underclass, but they also want their kids to not assimilate into a secular and multi-cultural (and perhaps multi-ethnic, which might be another subconscious concern -- they might not want their daughter coming home introducing a non-white child born out of wedlock to her parents). To be sure, conservative colleges such as Hillsdale College might be non-sectarian (and this is conservative more on politics and economics than on religion). 

As for Liberty University: it offers plenty of courses for substandard correspondence degrees in "Life Long Learning" that ratify ideas consistent with the preaching of Jerry Falwell, Senior. Such substandard degrees (and Liberty University calls those "certificates" and not degrees) are available to anyone who has the time and money in which to do a little study, most likely on Scriptural teachings. Those might be comforting to people who have none of the usual preparation for college in any form, but they also inflate nominal enrollment.  But such learning is better than nothing, let alone trash certificates from questionable vocational schools that promise career advancement that rarely happens. 

Add to that -- those ultra-liberal colleges such as Antioch are quite expensive, which may be a deterrent.  
 

Quote:If you teach that family oppresses women and kids infringe on parental autonomy, well then your students won't have kids and thus not send any to your liberal college going forward. That's how smart our highly-educated academics are. Talk about self-defeating.

It may not be so much the people who earn the income and develop the useful ideas and inventions (double income/no kids) and live very well who have a lasting legacy; it could be the mediocrities who have children who end up with the greater influence upon the culture. Haredi Jews are the ones having the large number of children even if they win few converts (gentiles converting to Judaism usually go Reform), and they are changing the image of Judaism from the liberal and culturally-assimilated Reform Jews that gentiles often know best. See also the Old Order Amish who quit school at age 16 and go no further than eighth grade. 

Quote:Also, given how the Covington Kids were slandered by our mainstream media the conservative youth will keep a low profile. They will just keep growing, marrying, having their own kids and thus fast outbreeding liberals who will engage in lifestyles that are unbecoming to have more than one child if at all. All the while media will tout Greta at al. skewing our perception. But no worries that's why I'm here   to restore balance to the force 

The best way to have children who themselves have large families is to limit their education so that they take on menial jobs that they can't really escape, cleave closely to the kinship network and the church as the only people that they trust, have children early and often, and for lack of access to anything elevated in life (unless it is religious salvation), as the only fulfillment in life.  The girl who marries at age 16 and starts having children early will have an eight-year advantage in having lots of children over a woman who avoids having children until she has achieved a PhD or a professional degree.

[beechnut79]

(04-13-2020, 01:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-12-2020, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:          

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).

Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger   but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal 
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

"socially conservative and fiscally liberal" That would be the opposite of the last 40 years.

Populism is a mild form of socialism. It is power to the people. That's what populist means. The population. That means liberal. It means taking power from elites and giving it to the people. The elite in the USA is big business; the oligarchy; the 1%. Just as it was back in 1892 when populism began. There's little change in this.

Populism is NOT a politics dictated by peoples' fears and prejudices. Nor is it a politics that is popular. Those are not the original definition, but is one that is bruted about these days. I prefer the original definition. Power to the people, not the elites.

Fascism is nationalism. (Warren is correct, the latter is a broader category)

Now, there's a distinction between nationalism, and the idea or policy that we need national borders. Most people accept the need for borders, just to keep things level, more or less, within them, because conditions differ in the world, and not to be overwhelmed by hordes trying to cross them without proper inspection or rationale.

The other nationalism has to do with keeping other people out, with asserting that my nation is exceptional, that my nation deserves to dominate others (as 20th century fascism did), that my nation should be more powerful than other nations, that there is such a thing as a national race, religion, culture or language that ought to be uniform within the nation; that sort of thing. This is what liberals and progressives oppose, and most people oppose most of this too. No, this is outdated, and will decline further. We are one world, one humanity, and people of all races, religions and backgrounds are everywhere, and this trend cannot be stopped.

A first turning, which will begin more or less a decade from now, will seek stability and normality, but it will also consolidate much of the change accomplished in the 4T, which is always a progressive change. Nevertheless, there is a trend toward a reaction and some instability and xenophobia early in the recovery period, like under the Articles of Confederation, or the alien and sedition acts (depending on what your dating is), and the rise of the KKK and Jim Crow after the civil war, and McCarthyism in the 1950s. But, the constitution lasted, the vote was extended over time, slavery was not reinstated, and the new deal became the fair deal and the new frontier and great society after the permanent defeat of fascism. Consolidation of 4T victories.

The victories will be won, is my prediction. Inequality under Reagan/Bush/Trump will be reversed. Gay rights and legal marijuana will not be repealed, and abortion will stay legal. Climate change will begin to be handled and decreased. Gerrymandering and vote suppression will be removed. Democracy will be restored and money will be restricted in politics. Health care will be made available to all. Immigration reform will be adopted, and racism will no longer be in vogue or tolerated. These are some of the victories we can expect in the next 10 years of this 4T. I expect them to be consolidated in the 1T, despite a climate starting in 2030 that is not so favorable to further changes or reforms-- at least until the 2T gets going. Then we can expect fulfillment of the sixties.

I expect, after I have laid out all this truth and fact, that you will understand and accept it unhesitatingly.

I am wrong about that, I am sure

But what can I do? I am in the habit of making the case.

One of the things I would like to see accomplished before the 4T is out is workplace reform; more specifically to move from a strict at-will employment model to one where the employer needs a just cause to fire somebody. And to remove much of the secrecy from the process. Even though we have always technically been at-will unless you had a union or something similar, I do believe that in the postwar prosperity period you usually had to do something pretty awful before you would get fired.  And very few employers at the time I started in the workforce ran background checks; now they nearly all do.  Might we, thanks to the current pandemic, return to a time when many employers will feel it’s just too expensive to do unless it’s something requiring high levels of security. What changed in the intervening years that nearly all employers felt the need to background everybody?  One of the food delivery outfits is rumored to now be deactivating (their lingo for firing) drivers who have things on their report from many years ago even without further offenses. Seems ludicrous to me.  Do you feel we might see, among other things, a bill of rights for gig workers even though they are not really employees?  Have pointed out that in their mind any less than a five star rating might as well be zero?  How much reform in this area do you feel we might see in the coming years, and what might we be able to do to speed up the game?

[beechnut79]

(04-13-2020, 05:41 AM)Isoko Wrote: I think that Eric is fundamentally speaking living in the past. Eric has what I called a leftist messianic version of the future where everything is eventually going to be great and liberal. I would argue that this is further from the truth and that the liberalism of the past is going to heavily decline in the coming decades.

I agree with him though that gay marriage or abortion is not going to be overturned but I would say that people are going to become more centrist rather then right or left wing. People are fed up with the left and more sympathetic to the right these days yet not willing to go down the full conservative path either.

Even still, the whole idea of a globalist universalistic society is just that. A pure fantasy. It is about as realistic as the great technological age of flying cars that awaits us. Or the space colonies we are supposed to have anytime soon now. It just will not happen. Atleast for hundreds of years.

There will always be people. There will always be different ideas and ways of doing things. There will always be hatreds and paranoia. In fact I will make a solid prediction and say that the next major war will occur when civilisation gets bored again.

If you look at the dynamics of 1914, society became bored and wanted excitement. People actually celebrated not as hatred but as a change to the status quo. Right now people are still entertained but give it 100 years and when the current technology becomes the same old, they will start to dream of more fantastical destructive ways to elevate the boredom. As is history.

Response paragraph by paragraph:

P1:  I too have often been accused of living in the past as well and, even though I never really espoused the hippie mindset of the time, I definitely feel that at least some of that peace and love mantra could be useful today.

P2:  I somewhat disagree on this one as it appears that sympathy for the devil on the right is on the wane giving the increasing concern over increased income inequality and other related maladies.

P3:  Another popular opinion of that same time frame which went awry was the one that the technology that most of us now kneel at the feet of would drastically shorten workweeks and have ever increased amounts of leisure time. Since the late 1970s the opposite situation has developed where most are actually working more rather than less. Do any of you think we’ll ever see that world of increased leisure we were once all but promised?

P4:  Guess I will just have to drink to this one.

P5:  1914 was right around the time the automobile age began in earnest although not fully accelerated until after WWII when the middle class exodus from urban centers occurred. The oil shocks of the 1970s called our auto dependency into question with the gas shortage which itself was highly questionable. But not much has changed in the nearly half century since.

[Eric the Green]

(04-13-2020, 05:41 AM)Isoko Wrote: I think that Eric is fundamentally speaking living in the past. Eric has what I called a leftist messianic version of the future where everything is eventually going to be great and liberal. I would argue that this is further from the truth and that the liberalism of the past is going to heavily decline in the coming decades.

I agree with him though that gay marriage or abortion is not going to be overturned but I would say that people are going to become more centrist rather then right or left wing. People are fed up with the left and more sympathetic to the right these days yet not willing to go down the full conservative path either.

Even still, the whole idea of a globalist universalistic society is just that. A pure fantasy. It is about as realistic as the great technological age of flying cars that awaits us. Or the space colonies we are supposed to have anytime soon now. It just will not happen. At least for hundreds of years.

There will always be people. There will always be different ideas and ways of doing things. There will always be hatreds and paranoia. In fact I will make a solid prediction and say that the next major war will occur when civilisation gets bored again.

If you look at the dynamics of 1914, society became bored and wanted excitement. People actually celebrated not as hatred but as a change to the status quo. Right now people are still entertained but give it 100 years and when the current technology becomes the same old, they will start to dream of more fantastical destructive ways to elevate the boredom. As is history.

I would say I am living in the future.

But pessimism is not a bad point of view in predicting the future. I give you that. Humans are a fallible lot to say the least, and my favorite rock musician Pete Townshend, who called for action to be free, and said the revolution is here and you know it's right (posted elsewhere here), also said on the same album where he called for action that war is a scene changer, because people are bored with other peoples' lives. He also famously said, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. So, I don't predict the end of wars either. I am not that optimistic, and in fact I am good at predicting the timing of wars. I have a long successful record at that.

But I do think the end of war is a hallmark of the sixties revolution. You can say I am stuck in the sixties, but what I see in history is sort of like what Marx saw, who said history is class struggle, and a dialectical process. As a student of cycles, I see cycles of revolution, and certain times like the sixties and the time of Marx circa 1848 were not just times of social disorder and attempted revolutions, but the start of a movement, and movements continue and change society; they don't just end with the calendar. We have seen this happen with both the democratic and the socialist movements, and we are seeing it with the sixties movement in the continued rise of the green new deal.

So, will the sixties movement end war? Probably not for a while, but it has put the idea squarely on the human agenda. War is in fact obsolete, accomplishes nothing anymore, and is dangerous because of the atomic bomb. Wars today must be small, and provide no benefits, and no excitement (how exciting are drone strikes? It's just another video game). So they will end, someday. I predict there will be an empowered UN developed next century that will be empowered to settle disputes and restrain rogues. I look upon world war I as the war which taught us that war is not exciting, but that it can destroy us. Indeed people thought it would be exciting, that it would end soon, and they marched off to war with flying colors, but it ended up being a war in which people sacrificed their lives in muddy trenches not for the racist, national rivalries they thought they were dying for, but for the world society which was then being born, and which would be governed by a descendant of the organization that the war created.

It was in fact a revolution too; destroying 4 great empires, and the next one that it spawned got rid of the colonial ones. That was rather ironic, because in fact the war was begun by the imperial aristocrats as a distraction from the revolutionary national and socialist movements that were rising up at that time and threatening their power. It is a favorite tactic of tyrants. But World War I was a great turning point; the end of the renaissance/enlightenment era of European world power and the beginning of a developing world civilization to take its place, with multiple power centers everywhere.

Tech dreams are often ridiculous fantasies, like flying cars (who wants to watch or listen to those things rattling around in the sky and crashing into each other and falling on us) or space colonies and colonies on Mars, etc. But it is a fantasy to think globalization will end. That is a utopian fantasy to return to the past. Globalization can't be stopped. People of all kinds can go anywhere and move anywhere now. The genetic pool will no longer be traceable in a decade or two. People will have to learn to live with differences as never before, because we can't even walk around the block now without meeting people different from us. The sixties movement said with Carole King that we are brothers and sisters under the skin and that peace in the valley will come. The race must still be run.





What a great song!

[Eric the Green]

Isoko's apparent idea that injustice and inequality is not reversible, is not only incorrect, but in fact a prophecy of national decline for whichever country it continues in, most especially the USA. A nation cannot continue to be prosperous while concentrating ever more wealth and power in the hands of a few. Economic, ecological and political collapse is the inevitable consequence. A "liberal" reform era is the only alternative to this catastrophe. Centrism will not be enough; it only delays the decline. I don't foresee a successful violent or otherwise illegal revolution from the left; the USA is too centrist for that. But Bernie Sanders remains the prophet of where the country needs to go by legal means, if it wishes to survive. All the left's ideas will not completely be achieved, but progress will restart after 40 years of delay and repression, and reach a climax in the next 2T. So I predict a somewhat-violent 4T, but it will be a new liberal regime suppressing the inevitable rebellion by the gun-totin' crazies on the right.

The conservatives like Donald Trump fanning the flame of xenophobia and hate is a desperate attempt to reverse globalization. He continues Reagan/Bush/Gingrich/Tea Party neoliberalism and brings their underlying racist nationalism out into the open. He has divided the country further, and it is not moving to the center. The USA trend has been decisively away from Isoko's prescription and prophecy for decades now; in fact, since the sixties second turning. This is a 4T, and compromise and centrism do not happen in 4Ts. This will be a fight between left and right, between blue and red, and the left/blue must win the fight, or the country will be a banana republic and will decline and fall. Fortunately, the cosmic signs look good, and history has always seen a progressive victory in 4Ts, without fail. Why should our generations be the first ever to fail? Are we that faulty?

[Generational]

Regarding income and wealth inequality I think it's clear to everyone but neocons / neolibs that it's a very big problem and needs to be reversed. Also, everyone except for blinded ideologues knows that socialism and anything in this directions does not work. So what gives? My feeling is we will find a populist solution close to what the book "Towards a Truly Free Market" from 2010 outlines.
Nationalist-populist conservatives understand that there are TWO things that make people conservative like nothing else:
1. Have children
2. Own property and assets
Large cities with a tenant-only class are ALWAYS governed by socialist-type local governments, across the globe. The voters have nothing to lose. But get the property widely distributed --- they turn conservative. The same is true when you collect assets like stocks over time. I started this early and I tell you nothing made me more conservative as I have something to conserve now.

[Eric the Green]

(04-13-2020, 09:02 PM)Generational Wrote: Regarding income and wealth inequality I think it's clear to everyone but neocons / neolibs that it's a very big problem and needs to be reversed. Also, everyone except for blinded ideologues knows that socialism and anything in this directions does not work. So what gives? My feeling is we will find a populist solution close to what the book "Towards a Truly Free Market" from 2010 outlines.
Nationalist-populist conservatives understand that there are TWO things that make people conservative like nothing else:
1. Have children
2. Own property and assets
Large cities with a tenant-only class are ALWAYS governed by socialist-type local governments, across the globe. The voters have nothing to lose. But get the property widely distributed --- they turn conservative. The same is true when you collect assets like stocks over time. I started this early and I tell you nothing made me more conservative as I have something to conserve now.

Populism is liberal and it works. It means higher taxes on the wealthy, minimum wages and union rights for workers, break up of big monopolies and oligarchies, regulations to keep business behaving, and public ownership of certain industries and services where workable and appropriate. A mixed economy. That's populism. Power to the people, not the 1%. Neo-liberalism is the opposite: trickle-down economics or opposition to taxes, regulations and welfare.

We need people to be liberal, not conservative. Conservatives (which are now all neo-liberals) hold on to the status quo of elite power and traditional authority. That blocks progress toward true populism, and has blocked it in the USA for 40 years.

Families and property owners need to understand, for their own good and benefit, that allowing a small number of rich people to own and control everything reduces the value of their property, because the economy suffers. Only a country in which wealth is widely distributed is creative and fun to live in, and full of opportunities to earn and invest money. In the long run, we are all in it together. Wealth results from a country with abundance for all. Allowing conservatives to control the country means that needed problems are not addressed, and no solutions are found. That is what conservatism is now. Stand pat, do nothing, preserve the privileges of the wealthy, and expect all benefits to trickle down from the top. But nothing trickles; we are tinkled on.

That's the choice now; don't be fooled. The choice is between a country that works for 1%, or one which works for 99%. That's a D vs. R choice; blue vs. red. True progressive populism vs. neo-lib/neo-con. There are no other choices available now. None.

[Generational]

(04-13-2020, 10:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-13-2020, 09:02 PM)Generational Wrote: Regarding income and wealth inequality I think it's clear to everyone but neocons / neolibs that it's a very big problem and needs to be reversed. Also, everyone except for blinded ideologues knows that socialism and anything in this directions does not work. So what gives? My feeling is we will find a populist solution close to what the book "Towards a Truly Free Market" from 2010 outlines.
Nationalist-populist conservatives understand that there are TWO things that make people conservative like nothing else:
1. Have children
2. Own property and assets
Large cities with a tenant-only class are ALWAYS governed by socialist-type local governments, across the globe. The voters have nothing to lose. But get the property widely distributed --- they turn conservative. The same is true when you collect assets like stocks over time. I started this early and I tell you nothing made me more conservative as I have something to conserve now.

Populism is liberal and it works. It means higher taxes on the wealthy, minimum wages and union rights for workers, break up of big monopolies and oligarchies, regulations to keep business behaving, and public ownership of certain industries and services where workable and appropriate. A mixed economy. That's populism. Power to the people, not the 1%. Neo-liberalism is the opposite: trickle-down economics or opposition to taxes, regulations and welfare.

We need people to be liberal, not conservative. Conservatives (which are now all neo-liberals) hold on to the status quo of elite power and traditional authority. That blocks progress toward true populism, and has blocked it in the USA for 40 years.

Families and property owners need to understand, for their own good and benefit, that allowing a small number of rich people to own and control everything reduces the value of their property, because the economy suffers. Only a country in which wealth is widely distributed is creative and fun to live in, and full of opportunities to earn and invest money. In the long run, we are all in it together. Wealth results from a country with abundance for all. Allowing conservatives to control the country means that needed problems are not addressed, and no solutions are found. That is what conservatism is now. Stand pat, do nothing, preserve the privileges of the wealthy, and expect all benefits to trickle down from the top. But nothing trickles; we are tinkled on.

That's the choice now; don't be fooled. The choice is between a country that works for 1%, or one which works for 99%. That's a D vs. R choice; blue vs. red. True progressive populism vs. neo-lib/neo-con. There are no other choices available now. None.

Have you been frozen 2010 and just woke up? :-) The Trump revolution has turned the Republican party populist. The neocons/neolibs from Koch to Kristol have moved to to the Democrat party where the neoliberal corporate platform has just pulled it together to oust the populist candidate. I mean everyone sees the charade. Don't let yourself be played. Their interest for the American people goes as far as giving their kids the next Burisma gig.
The 4T moves on anyways. Looking for the "consensus" candidate 2020 will fail even worse than 2016. The elite families' corruption is not tolerated by the electorate any more.

[Eric the Green]

(04-13-2020, 11:07 PM)Generational Wrote:

(04-13-2020, 10:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-13-2020, 09:02 PM)Generational Wrote: Regarding income and wealth inequality I think it's clear to everyone but neocons / neolibs that it's a very big problem and needs to be reversed. Also, everyone except for blinded ideologues knows that socialism and anything in this directions does not work. So what gives? My feeling is we will find a populist solution close to what the book "Towards a Truly Free Market" from 2010 outlines.
Nationalist-populist conservatives understand that there are TWO things that make people conservative like nothing else:
1. Have children
2. Own property and assets
Large cities with a tenant-only class are ALWAYS governed by socialist-type local governments, across the globe. The voters have nothing to lose. But get the property widely distributed --- they turn conservative. The same is true when you collect assets like stocks over time. I started this early and I tell you nothing made me more conservative as I have something to conserve now.

Populism is liberal and it works. It means higher taxes on the wealthy, minimum wages and union rights for workers, break up of big monopolies and oligarchies, regulations to keep business behaving, and public ownership of certain industries and services where workable and appropriate. A mixed economy. That's populism. Power to the people, not the 1%. Neo-liberalism is the opposite: trickle-down economics or opposition to taxes, regulations and welfare.

We need people to be liberal, not conservative. Conservatives (which are now all neo-liberals) hold on to the status quo of elite power and traditional authority. That blocks progress toward true populism, and has blocked it in the USA for 40 years.

Families and property owners need to understand, for their own good and benefit, that allowing a small number of rich people to own and control everything reduces the value of their property, because the economy suffers. Only a country in which wealth is widely distributed is creative and fun to live in, and full of opportunities to earn and invest money. In the long run, we are all in it together. Wealth results from a country with abundance for all. Allowing conservatives to control the country means that needed problems are not addressed, and no solutions are found. That is what conservatism is now. Stand pat, do nothing, preserve the privileges of the wealthy, and expect all benefits to trickle down from the top. But nothing trickles; we are tinkled on.

That's the choice now; don't be fooled. The choice is between a country that works for 1%, or one which works for 99%. That's a D vs. R choice; blue vs. red. True progressive populism vs. neo-lib/neo-con. There are no other choices available now. None.

Have you been frozen 2010 and just woke up? :-) The Trump revolution has turned the Republican party populist. The neocons/neolibs from Koch to Kristol have moved to to the Democrat party where the neoliberal corporate platform has just pulled it together to oust the populist candidate. I mean everyone sees the charade. Don't let yourself be played. Their interest for the American people goes as far as giving their kids the next Burisma gig.
The 4T moves on anyways. Looking for the "consensus" candidate 2020 will fail even worse than 2016. The elite families' corruption is not tolerated by the electorate any more.

Ha, I am woke, yes I couldn't be MORE woke.

I have never been fooled to think Trump is a "populist." As I said, he is populist on one issue, but that one issue does not make him a populist. For sure, he has adopted some of his positions because he thinks they will work for him politically. It's all about him, and no-one else. But he has always been racist, and he has always been about making money and not following the law. He has always been about taking advantage of others and screwing them for his own benefit. He's just a typical Republican tycoon who defends the privileges of his class. Anyone who really listened to him and wasn't spoofed by his phony populism knew that Drumpface was just going to roll out even more and heavier trickle down economics, this time on steroids. His man Bannon called it dismantling the administrative state. Trump is doing everything he can to take power away from the people. He appoints the worse possible justices. He wants to deprive the people of the right to vote, as he did in Wisconsin, and his justices uphold him. He wants to take health care away from them.

Sorry, but we need the state to balance the power of the tycoons. They must be regulated, and they must be taxed if the people are going to be treated fairly and not lose wages and their rights. Right now, the tycoons who control the Republican Party want to destroy our climate and our environment. They want to allow us all to get sick. They want to keep power in the hands of a wealthy few. They want to destroy our democracy. They want to saddle us with endless debt. The Republicans are a bunch of goons--- lock, stock and barrel. Trump has only made them even worse.

Biden is a center or center-left guy. Bernie may be able to pull him more to the left, toward true populism, but only if the people remain active and push him that way.

Trump is not only NOT a populist. He is an absolute abomination, in every way. I must vote for the lesser evil because the greater evil is TOO great. I am a green. I am Eric the Green. I voted Green 5 times, so I don't go along with the crowd lightly. "Don't let yourself be played." Trump is a good and persuasive player. I was very disappointed that the Democratic boomers (like me) copped out and voted for Biden (I voted for Bernie of course). But we must make do with what we've got, again. Sorry to say. The USA is still a two-party duopoly, and Democrats arewere afraid, literally, that Bernie is some kind of "socialiist" that would not beat Trump. Boomers grew up in the Cold War, and socialism was communism, the great enemy.

People who think they know what the electorate will tolerate, do not look at the election returns. The people voted for Hillary in the primary, and they voted for Biden in the primary. If Americans want better, then they had better start voting for it.

[Isoko]

Eric,

What you are describing here is basically a liberal progressive version of the coming kingdom of God on Earth. Your ideas that the two world wars were apocalyptic events that had to be brought about in order to bring about the liberal utopia of tomorrow is almost like your own version of the book of revelations. To my eyes, it reads as basically the same typical American view point I have been reading for ages and that is apocalypse with an eternal ending.

The truth is this is just not how history works. You talk about cycles yet this point of view is very linear. The reality is the continued cycles of time along with competition and conflict, as we are now starting to see with the new great game being played out between the great powers of today.

The only reason there has been no mass shooting war is because of WMDs but if they did not exist, you can bet the elites in power would try to rustle up a large scale conventional war for their own purposes and the people would go for it. A bit of propaganda always works wonders, even in the internet age.

Before you say that the people don't go for war anymore, I have read reports of how jingoistic Americans felt after 9/11 and how excited some of the young guys were for fighting the Taliban. So in essence, the 1960s didn't achieve anything on that front.

As for globalisation, there have been many periods of globalisation throughout history. Eventually they always end and a return to closed borders becomes the norm for a period. The latest Corona virus situation is probably the end of this current period of globalisation. Will there be other periods? Of course! And will there be more protectionist periods too? Of course! That is history.

As for a new renewed UN, I am sure it will be done. Peace in our time and all that. Then corruption runs riot again and we end up back to square one. Remember Star Wars and the Galactic Republic? All it took was for one guy, the Emperor Palpatine, to get into power and corrupt things and before you know, he could proudly declare that HE was the senate. It's the same thing in Human history and it will never change. Well maybe one day but it will take thousands of years.

Now you mention how everyone is going to become some coffee coloured race due to globalisation. I strongly doubt that the rest of the planet will go down that road. America? Probably because it is America.

But Europe? Especially Mother Russia? I'm nearly about to fall off my chair in laughter at your statement. Russia is one of the most closed off countries in the world. I live here and the people are incredibly nationalistic, even the liberals. A Russian liberal is like far right by American standards. I remember talking to a liberal guy here once and he was like, yeah we don't mind a bit of immigration but we don't want too much as it'll ruin Russia.

Every single person I have spoken to here particularly the young, have strong feelings about immigration and are downright very critical of it. They actually think the West has gone mad and how stupid can they be to let in all these people.

I think though there is a reason for this and that is America has always been at heart a liberal society where as Russia is the conservative one. These days though the Russian point of view is attracting the middle ground in Europe more then the American one.

Also last comment about how the blue must always win otherwise America will be a banana republic. Erm, Eric, America already IS a banana republic. No offence but if you let in millions and millions of low IQ people no matter what race or ethnic group, you are going to get just that, a banana republic filled with mass corruption and mass poverty. The future of America in my eyes resembles something like a mixture of Brazil and South Africa. That is a small elite surrounded in slums of the poor.

How are you going to support all these people when automation comes your way and they have no more jobs to do? What are you going to do when these people feel desperate, get hold of America's guns and decide to go on a crime spree? 

I've seen America's future after spending time in South Africa and trust me, it ain't pretty. So I think in America's case, going to the red would actually be a better idea in the long run because if you keep going blue, it'll just end up destroying your country.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-13-2020, 10:38 AM)Isoko Wrote: You have some good points but I tend to believe in the concept of continued rises and falls. Is a world state possible? Very much so. But then look at the Roman Empire or even the Catholic Church. People have new ideas, the same old becomes rotten to the core and eventually you have division and new forms of conflict.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall, as the saying goes. Imagine how the Roman Empire was. A completely civilised society. Eventually it collapsed leading to a new dark age where people went back to living in a tribal society. It took them 1,000 years to get back to the concept of what was Rome. And even then, it took them another 900 years to get sanitation right again, which only started to take shape in the 19th century.

My point is this is the overall Humanity's destiny for along time to come. Also before anyone contradicts this, remember that only in the 1990s were they proclaiming the birth of a new liberal world order of peace and prosperity, technological advancement and peace for all.

We are sat here in 2020 and discussing the possibility of economic depression and nationalist revivals. Who would have predicted that in 1991?

The nationalist revival took place in 2015/16. I think the nationalist-populist movement became so popular because it's a new working class movement, long after the Left abandoned the workers and started standing for gays, feminists, Muslims and radical environmentalists. But if the nationalist-populists don't dwindle, if Trump gets reelected, then the nationalist-populists are the new establishment. Then there will be someone like Bernie or Corbyn to make the working class lean Left again. And eventually there will be no working class because we will go post-scarcity.

Could a World State fall? Of course, nothing lasts for ever. But if it manages to last for (say) 10 000 years, for me it's a very good perspective. Not to mention that after colonising a few dozens of planets, a civilization should become virtually indestructible. So even if Earth is gone, there will be Mankind or its descendants (in the Orion's Arm scenario they are called the Terragens).

Quote:To me that sounds like slavery. If we can condition people to rid themselves of bad traits, why not use this technology to enslave people? And what is right and wrong? How can we say this is for the greater good and the other is evil?

What is more cruel? To apply this technology, or to do nothing and allow the psychopathic child to become a murderer?

Quote:Remember all of those Nazi doctors? They actually believed that by doing all of those experiments, they were acting for the greater good of the people. That their work would build a better future.

Or the Soviets with their destruction of the Kulaks.

The Nazis and Bolsheviks were non-democracies, they used their technologies according to the leaders' whims. In a democracy, there will be long debates before we decide which genetic traits are dangerous and should be eradicated. In many cases, there will be a consensus. Noone really thinks psychopathy and sadism, or propensity to murder and rape, are something we should preserve.

Perhaps government coercion won't be necessary at all. Imagine a criminal can choose between receiving a gene therapy for his behavioural problem or a more traditional punishment like imprisonment. I bet many will choose the therapy.

Quote:Or the British and their destruction of traditional cultural heritage. All in the name of the greater good.

I don't pity traditional cultural heritage based on tribal warfare, forced marriages, witchcraft and vengefulness. Countries such as Jamaica, India and New Guinea retained English as the official language and joined the Commonwealth. And they are now all democracies. Queen Victoria has done a great job!

Quote:The thing is, technology has started to stagnate once again. The last greatest invention has been the internet. I think for this century, technological advancement will start to decline as all the low hanging fruit has been picked. Exactly the same as what happened in 1914.

Unfortunately this is quite likely. It seems we are progressing as far as practical application of principles discovered in the 19th and early 20th century can take us.  

Quote:It all depends on if present day lifestyles around the globe can be continued and how big the technological push is going to be. But eventually there will be a big war and that is just inevitable. Of course out of the ashes comes renewed determination and maybe we will get to the cosmos. Until that leads to war.

Wars are almost always caused by dictators, so the more countries become democratic, the less likelihood of a major war. But I am afraid of a nuclear war between the US and China, perhaps during the next 4T. The only upside is that such a war would result in determination to unite the world.

Quote: if you let in millions and millions of low IQ people no matter what race or ethnic group, you are going to get just that, a banana republic filled with mass corruption and mass poverty. The future of America in my eyes resembles something like a mixture of Brazil and South Africa. That is a small elite surrounded in slums of the poor.

Again, average intelligence can be increased using biotechnology. The alleged difference between Whites and Blacks is about 15 IQ points. Will it matter, when there are genetically upgraded people with IQ 200?

I think just like the boomers "helicoptered" their kids to make sure they are the best kids ever, the next Prophets will give their kids gene therapies to make them the best kids ever.