The Maelstrom of Violence

[Kinser79]

(08-21-2017, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-20-2017, 01:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would argue that abolition of the electoral college would make our elections less democratic than more democratic.  HRC may or may not have won the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, we have never elected the president on who wins the most votes, but who wins the most states.

The electoral college was created when we were "these united states", thinking that the states would continue to be quasi-independent.  It was also intended to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  Now, we are enjoying a tyranny of the minority -- certainly much worse.  

When something is rotten, it needs to replaced.  The electoral college certainly qualifies.

So what you're saying is you want the President selected by New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and the other three or four major cities while the rest of the country is ignored.  Got it.

[Kinser79]

(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-20-2017, 01:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

If you like autocrats, then your argument holds.  Yes, democracy is messy and slow -- always late to the party.  I would prefer faster change too, but let's not forget that change is not universally for the good.

I lived my youth in the '50s and 60s.  Government worked then, though imperfectly, because public power is always opposed by private power that operates faster and is focused on the needs of the few.  Unless you can install a perfect government, you'll never have your ideal wish, regardless of the system you chose.

My ideal system would never exist, just like yours wouldn't. Ideal systems have a nasty habit of breaking down when they encounter the real world. That being said, democracy is messy and slow and an autocratic system is more efficent, but unfortuntely more prone to revolution.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

[/quote]

Okay but you would hate it.

Ideally we'd have a legislative system similar to current, but with Senators seclected by the State Governments as their role is to represent the needs and desires of the states rather than the population of those states. The population already has representaves....it's called the House. We would also impose a hard rule of one rep per million of population with a minimum of one rep per state.

I would leave the supreme court alone. Amazingly that part of the government isn't all that broken.

The presidency would be diminished in power in favor of the legislature.

The vote will be restricted to men over the age of 21 who own a minimum of 50K dollars in real property or have a yearly gross income of 25K dollars.

People who do not have an income, those on public assistance and women should not be permitted to vote.

Citizenship will be restricted to persons born on US soil whose mother is also a US Citizen. All others are aliens, and could be subject to deportation.

I have a feeling you would hate this system even though it most closely resembles that framed by the framers of the current constitution.

[noway2]

(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Kinser79 Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose.  It will, or at least should, alter how you view government.  In short the idea that you can take a group of individuals and bestow upon them super power that the people don't have themselves is both irrational and inherently subject to corruption.  The fact that people do so, all be it, draped in all sorts of political rituals such as elections, is largely based in their belief in the need for there to be some sort of "authority" for them to obey. 

I used to believe that "government" could be a force for good, or for what is right.  I was mistaken.  Government by it's very nature will always corrupt.  The less of it, if any, the better off we will be.

[Kinser79]

(08-21-2017, 03:28 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Kinser79 Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose.  It will, or at least should, alter how you view government.  In short the idea that you can take a group of individuals and bestow upon them super power that the people don't have themselves is both irrational and inherently subject to corruption.  The fact that people do so, all be it, draped in all sorts of political rituals such as elections, is largely based in their belief in the need for there to be some sort of "authority" for them to obey. 

I used to believe that "government" could be a force for good, or for what is right.  I was mistaken.  Government by it's very nature will always corrupt.  The less of it, if any, the better off we will be.

I can't tell if this reply is addressed to me or to Mr. Horn.  Regardless I'm going to look for this book.  I need some new reading material.  I've been devouring Hoppe lately.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2017, 03:28 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Kinser79 Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose.  It will, or at least should, alter how you view government.  In short the idea that you can take a group of individuals and bestow upon them super power that the people don't have themselves is both irrational and inherently subject to corruption.  The fact that people do so, all be it, draped in all sorts of political rituals such as elections, is largely based in their belief in the need for there to be some sort of "authority" for them to obey. 

I used to believe that "government" could be a force for good, or for what is right.  I was mistaken.  Government by it's very nature will always corrupt.  The less of it, if any, the better off we will be.

Among other paths I've tread, I've chased evolutionary biology. I've felt that humans have always coveted territory, resources and power. I've always been concerned with tribal morality, where humans can feel for others, but generally feel most for those close to them. I have been concerned and agree with a notion that the practitioners of representative democracy have grown too distant from the common man to be concerned about him in any real way.

Thus, from time to time, I mention direct vote computer democracy. We have to cut out a middle man who has indeed become corrupt. Even here, where there is in theory an openness towards drastic solutions to crisis scale problem, direct vote computer democracy tends to drop out of sight without a trace.

Occasionally you see anarchy. It can be a nice dream. There was Marx, with the idea that the state would fade away. Then there is a rather infamous quote from Civil Disobedience.

Thoreau Wrote:I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

I view these Thoreau and Marx proclamations as 19th Century daydreams. Will mankind suddenly change to become non political? With politicians suddenly not covet power? Good luck waiting for that. It will be a long wait.

I don't see representative democracy as apt to elect men who will make good decision. Power corrupts. At best, you hope it will allow the People to kick out people who make bad decisions. By that standard, while I've grumbled about the 'see saw', the pattern of people and parties being kicked out of the White House regularly and often, the People's boot isn't a bad thing, it's democracy in action. Given a world of corruption, its the best we can expect.

When I hear from wannabe anarchists, revolutionaries and tyrants hoping humans will suddenly become apolitical, I can sympathize. I can sympathize a lot. Still, given what humans are I'm not hoping or expecting us to walk that route. We won't go that way because that's what we are. If you read history at all, it should be obvious that that's not what we are. What we need is firmer ways for the People to look at the corrupt leaders and just say no.

How do you know if a leader is corrupt?

He's a leader. He must be.

[pbrower2a]

(08-21-2017, 01:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-20-2017, 01:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

If you like autocrats, then your argument holds.  Yes, democracy is messy and slow -- always late to the party.  I would prefer faster change too, but let's not forget that change is not universally for the good.

I lived my youth in the '50s and 60s.  Government worked then, though imperfectly, because public power is always opposed by private power that operates faster and is focused on the needs of the few.  Unless you can install a perfect government, you'll never have your ideal wish, regardless of the system you chose.

My ideal system would never exist, just like yours wouldn't.  Ideal systems have a nasty habit of breaking down when they encounter the real world.  That being said, democracy is messy and slow and an autocratic system is more efficent, but unfortuntely more prone to revolution.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

Okay but you would hate it.

Ideally we'd have a legislative system similar to current, but with Senators seclected by the State Governments as their role is to represent the needs and desires of the states rather than the population of those states.  The population already has representaves....it's called the House.  We would also impose a hard rule of one rep per million of population with a minimum of one rep per state.

I would leave the supreme court alone.  Amazingly that part of the government isn't all that broken.

The presidency would be diminished in power in favor of the legislature.

The vote will be restricted to men over the age of 21 who own a minimum of 50K dollars in real property or have a yearly gross income of 25K dollars.

People who do not have an income, those on public assistance and women should not be permitted to vote.

Citizenship will be restricted to persons born on US soil whose mother is also a US Citizen.  All others are aliens, and could be subject to deportation.

I have a feeling you would hate this system even though it most closely resembles that framed by the framers of the current constitution.
[/quote]

We have a political system established nearly 230 years ago, reflecting the social realities of the time (a big chunk of the new American Republic had slavery), the economic reality of still being in an agrarian era, all but a few parts of the settled pa4rts of America having frontier characteristics, and just having achieved formal independence from a political order whose political system Americans chose to do nothing to replicate (a despotic monarchy with a Parliament condemned in the Declaration of Independence almost as much as a nutty king).  The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

We have had the best political order possible considering the time and circumstances of its founding. But we did have a catastrophic war over slavery, and it took until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to formalize the concept of "All Men are created equal". Now we have Donald Trump.

[Kinser79]

(08-22-2017, 04:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

The problem is that these United States are and always have been a federation of smaller republics. We do not need, and should not have a strong centralized government because such is ultimately ineffective. Even with modern technology and modern infrastructure it is for all practical purposes ungovernable. The only thing right now keeping it together is tradition and well a certain political ideology is busy tearing that down. I'll give you a hint who it is...not the Right.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2017, 06:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 04:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

The problem is that these United States are and always have been a federation of smaller republics.  We do not need, and should not have a strong centralized government because such is ultimately ineffective.  Even with modern technology and modern infrastructure it is for all practical purposes ungovernable.  The only thing right now keeping it together is tradition and well a certain political ideology is busy tearing that down.  I'll give you a hint who it is...not the Right.

As it happened, the Founding Fathers allocated the military to the federal level, and we approached military problems as a nation.  That's one place you are clearly wrong.  From there, you can look at other problems that have been solved at the federal level.  These might have been approached differently, but a muddle of small governments trying to resolve large problems would have generated a muddled result.

We do currently have two cultures with different agendas.  I've mentioned the see saw often enough of late.  One problem is that the divide is not clean.  Many states mix urban and rural populations.  State by state, you can see where one faction or the other generally has an edge.  Breaking the problem into fifty will resolve things in some places, splinter the solutions all over, and not resolve things in others.

It would be different if humans did not instinctively seek to amass power.  It would also be different if the moon were made of cheese.  You could wish for one of these things if you like.  Dream on.

And of course a partisan blinded into one perspective seeks to shift the blame to the other.  We could seek for each faction to grant what the other needs most rather than maximize the dysfunction.  That would be another vain wish.  Too many partisans are committed to the blame game and making life difficult for opposition partisans rather than opening their minds.  Common Sense is not in season.  It's too much fun to talk of violence, talk about tearing things down, while ignoring how to build things up after.

Domestic questions aside, should the military function be unified?  The United States since the world wars ended things, generally in the direction of the Enlightenment values and Democracy.  We are still in the habit of thinking ourselves the world's policemen, of forcing cultures anywhere in the world away from their own path and towards ours.  Are we going to end that?  Not an idle question.  It's just that reverting to 50 smaller nations would require one answer.  The history of the world would be much different if somehow we had pulled back from unity earlier.

And domestic problems have been attacked from unity as well.  It is blind doctrine for some partisans to willfully forget that, which is just one of the problems with partisans.

But, sure.  Spout your opinions.

[Kinser79]

(08-22-2017, 06:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 06:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 04:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

The problem is that these United States are and always have been a federation of smaller republics.  We do not need, and should not have a strong centralized government because such is ultimately ineffective.  Even with modern technology and modern infrastructure it is for all practical purposes ungovernable.  The only thing right now keeping it together is tradition and well a certain political ideology is busy tearing that down.  I'll give you a hint who it is...not the Right.

As it happened, the Founding Fathers allocated the military to the federal level, and we approached military problems as a nation.  That's one place you are clearly wrong. 

No. I made no mention of leaving military matters to the states. Having a federal army, navy and air force is provided for in the current constitution. Any re-establishment of that constituion or an establishment of a constitution like it would not change that.

Quote: From there, you can look at other problems that have been solved at the federal level.

And what problems would these be? Poverty? It is worse than ever. Social cohesion? We have less than that than ever. Response to natural and man made disaster? Well Katrina and Sandy points out the effectiveness of the Federal response, whereas the states which have dealt with similar issues (say Florida with its many hurricanes) have been far more effective.

Quote:  These might have been approached differently, but a muddle of small governments trying to resolve large problems would have generated a muddled result.

At the best of times federal solutions are a hodgepodge. I'm not seeing what is different.

Quote:We do currently have two cultures

More than that actually. Which of course demonstrates why these United States are not a nation, but are rather a federation of nations. Nations must as a consequence of being a nation be historically constituted groups of people who share a territory, language, common economic life and psychological make up manifesting in a national culture.

Multiculturalism is not a culture, rather it is a failed ideology about culture.

Quote:It would be different if humans did not instinctively seek to amass power.

I don't know about you but I actually expect humans to seek to amass power (and wealth). Obtaining and maintaining resources is an animal instinct and humans are animals so they have this instinct.

Quote:And of course a partisan blinded into one perspective seeks to shift the blame to the other.  We could seek for each faction to grant what the other needs most rather than maximize the dysfunction.  That would be another vain wish.  Too many partisans are committed to the blame game and making life difficult for opposition partisans rather than opening their minds.  Common Sense is not in season.  It's too much fun to talk of violence, talk about tearing things down, while ignoring how to build things up after.

When a wild place is over grown and in need of a cleansing fire the plants and trees do not debate what will grow where after the fire. Lightning strikes, the place burns, and life continues on. Likewise with human societies.

Quote:Domestic questions aside, should the military function be unified?  The United States since the world wars ended things, generally in the direction of the Enlightenment values and Democracy.  We are still in the habit of thinking ourselves the world's policemen, of forcing cultures anywhere in the world away from their own path and towards ours.  Are we going to end that?  Not an idle question.  It's just that reverting to 50 smaller nations would require one answer.  The history of the world would be much different if somehow we had pulled back from unity earlier.

The idea that the US is or should be the "World Policeman" is absurd. It was a role the rest of the world does not need or want. The world would have been better off had the US after WW2 retreated back to its traditional isolationism. Instead, there was a push to develop and maintain an empire. But that is understandable if one understands that humans have an instinct to amass power (and wealth).

No state, and no regime has to this date found it possible to change the nature of mankind.

Quote:And domestic problems have been attacked from unity as well.  It is blind doctrine for some partisans to willfully forget that, which is just one of the problems with partisans.

But, sure.  Spout your opinions.

I would argue that the domestic problems we've had have not been attacked from unity. And where they have been the problem has been made worse by that federal action. Domestic spheres should be the sole province of the states because it is far easier for me to contact my state rep or senator in Tallahassee than it is to get Lil' Marco or Bill Nelson on the phone.

As for spouting my opinions....well that is the purpose of a forum. I don't force you to read them.

[Bob Butler 54]

Kinser.

Too many stripes.  I’m going with essay format.

The big thing missing in your analysis is the Cold War.  The big lesson falling out of World War II was the domino theory.  Supposedly, the military must be maintained to contain autocratic rule, mostly in the form of communism.  The domino theory was first challenged by the peace movement during the Vietnam era.  It was challenged again externally, by France and Russia, during Bush 43’s Iraq war, as well as domestically in the stay the course v cut and run debate.  Both France and Russia were dealing for Iraq’s oil before the war started, and took exception to a sole superpower playing at neo colonialism.  Iran had it’s own ideas on local balance of power.  The western world was to a great extent willing to look away from the American Empire while the Cold War was in effect, but even an extremely competent and practiced Bush 43 foreign policy team didn’t anticipate how much opposition they would face when the sole superpower seriously twisted arms going for neo colonialism.

I can sympathize a lot with an alternate history shifting our heavy military spending and light domestic spending with the fall of the Berlin wall, but your partisan spin on history neglecting the Cold War is incomplete.  The West was going to contain communism.  

If you are willing to let places like the middle east and North Korea be handled by the locals, shifting the US domestic / military spending balance far more in line to the global norm is very much worth considering.  Of course, that wouldn’t happen on a Trump / Republican watch.  It runs too counter to the unraveling memes and Republican base.

Similarly, the Great Depression and New Deal are illustrations of a national level addressing of a national domestic problem.  That too seems to have gone missing somewhere.

You’re hardly alone on this forum in being eager for a violent crisis that solves problems and make’s one’s own partisan viewpoint dominant.  I find destroying stuff easy to wish for.  It’s plausible resolutions that are hard.

I agree human hoarding power and wealth an animal instinct.  This is to a great extent why I advocate feedback mechanisms that allow the common people to say no to elites.  Changing the identity of the elites without building support for better feedback mechanisms seems futile.

[Kinser79]

(08-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser.

Too many stripes.  I’m going with essay format.

Stripe format lends itself to forums but by all means use essays if you find them more appropriate.

Quote:The big thing missing in your analysis is the Cold War.  The big lesson falling out of World War II was the domino theory.  Supposedly, the military must be maintained to contain autocratic rule, mostly in the form of communism.

Domino theory itself is not a direct consequence of WW2, rather it is a consequence of Soviet Occupation of Eastern Europe following WW2. Your premise is flawed from the outset by this.

Quote:  The domino theory was first challenged by the peace movement during the Vietnam era.  It was challenged again externally, by France and Russia, during Bush 43’s Iraq war, as well as domestically in the stay the course v cut and run debate.  Both France and Russia were dealing for Iraq’s oil before the war started, and took exception to a sole superpower playing at neo colonialism.  Iran had it’s own ideas on local balance of power.  The western world was to a great extent willing to look away from the American Empire while the Cold War was in effect, but even an extremely competent and practiced Bush 43 foreign policy team didn’t anticipate how much opposition they would face when the sole superpower seriously twisted arms going for neo colonialism.

Yes, and no. Domino theory was firs challenged during the awakening, mostly at first by the civil rights movement. As Mohammad Ali said: No Vietnamese ever called me nigger. The so-called peace movement was largely ineffective both in the 1960s and the 2000s. Rather what ended the Vietnam war was pressure put on the political class by GIs and Silents who were tired of seeing coffins being sent home on their Tee-Vee every night at 6PM. (I actually had to think about using the 12 hour clock since I think in 24 hour.) In the 2000s yes Russia and France opposed the American Empire, but honestly we yanks have never cared what smelly foreigners (particularly of the cheese eating surrender monkey kind) have ever had to say. You can call that arrogant or whatever you want, but that is the reality of the current and traditional attitude of Americans to foreigners and foreign things. Seriously it is next to impossible to get us to use the metric system like everyone else--never mind that doing so would make life exponentially easier in many ways too numerous to mention in this thread.

I would say the issue with Bush II's foreign affairs/Empire Building team was that they were operating on a playbook written back when there was an existential threat to any who didn't want to be run by a communist party.

Quote:I can sympathize a lot with an alternate history shifting our heavy military spending and light domestic spending with the fall of the Berlin wall, but your partisan spin on history neglecting the Cold War is incomplete.  The West was going to contain communism.

Good. But I'm not concerned so much with history as I am the future. That is far less certain. To put it simply empires are formed from the desire to amass power and resources (an animalistic instinct as I've pointed out previously), however, maintenance of these empires is a choice. The Empire could collapse relatively peacefully and relatively easily just by it no longer being funded.

On the state level this is more difficult. However, culture is shifting as to where largely speaking the Emperor has no clothes. While the President himself is quite popular except with rabid communists (basically anyone to the left of John McCain) the federal government itself and its empire and its bureaucracy is not. 

Quote:If you are willing to let places like the middle east and North Korea be handled by the locals, shifting the US domestic / military spending balance far more in line to the global norm is very much worth considering.  Of course, that wouldn’t happen on a Trump / Republican watch.  It runs too counter to the unraveling memes and Republican base.

I'm in favor of foreigners managing their own countries. It matters not to me if we're speaking of Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea or some third world backwater in Latin America.

I think you're stuck in a time warp if you believe that Trump and the Republican base is still interested in 3T memes. Trump himself is a hostile take over of the GOP and a repudiation of the Neo-Cons (which are really Trotskites pretending to be Republicans). The "new" GOP will be one taking its queues from a far older current of American political experience.

Indeed, the President's speech last night indicates to me that he's not interested in nation building, what he is interested in is creating a stable situation where American Troops can eventually be withdrawn and not in the cut and run, power vacuum creating way that Obama did Iraq.

Quote:Similarly, the Great Depression and New Deal are illustrations of a national level addressing of a national domestic problem.  That too seems to have gone missing somewhere.

The Great Depression was largely created by the Federal Reserve mucking about in the money supply and the New Deal did not end the Depression either. What ended the Depression was first Lend Lease and later the War itself.

Quote:You’re hardly alone on this forum in being eager for a violent crisis that solves problems and make’s one’s own partisan viewpoint dominant.  I find destroying stuff easy to wish for.  It’s plausible resolutions that are hard.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not here for the "solution" I'm here for the fire. I'm not particularly beholden to a particular partisan viewpoint, though I do think that if US survives as an intact entity the Fourth Republic will either feature a new constitution or will be decidedly Civic Nationalist in character.

That being said, I do not think that the US will remain an intact entity baring liquidation of what passes for the left. To put it simply, the left wants to play a game of identity politics and either that applies to all (which means we have to tolerate Taylor, Spencer, and etc) or it applies to none (and that means Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have to go).

Quote:I agree human hoarding power and wealth an animal instinct.  This is to a great extent why I advocate feedback mechanisms that allow the common people to say no to elites.  Changing the identity of the elites without building support for better feedback mechanisms seems futile.

We already have the best possible feedback loops available in the internet, political activism and electoral politics. What is necessary is absolute adherence to free speech--something that is being actively combated by the so-called Left these days with their political correctness.

It should be noted that the very idea of political correctness itself is a mutation of a concept originally developed by the CPSU during the Stalin Era.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The big thing missing in your analysis is the Cold War.  The big lesson falling out of World War II was the domino theory.  Supposedly, the military must be maintained to contain autocratic rule, mostly in the form of communism.

Domino theory itself is not a direct consequence of WW2, rather it is a consequence of Soviet Occupation of Eastern Europe following WW2.  Your premise is flawed from the outset by this.

World War II was fought by authoritarian powers to expand territory and resources, though racist motivation played its part.  The Soviet Union's post war political influence zone was determined by how far west their army got  Oh, there was a little negation with the allies once it was clear the war was ending shorty.  Some allied armies stopped while the war is on to avoid spending lives on land they had already negotiated away.  For the most part though, the post war influence zones followed the results of the war.  As the negotiations with the allies took place during the war, the notion that land was taken after the war seems strange.

The allies tended to restore the old governments from before the war started rather than pushing influence grabs, though the Domino Theory came into play early.  Churchill's Iron Curtain speech might mark the formal public debut of the theory.  It's safe to say less public maneuvering came before.  Regardless, whether or not you think advancing armies had any thing to do with the soviet land and resource grab, the Domino Theory was a result of the clash of Hitler and Stalin and shaped western tactics for decades.  The core of the theory was that Stalin's grab should go no further, though the basis and perceived importance of the theory drew heavily from Hitler's approach before the war went hot.  You do not let autocratic government slowly nibble on easy targets, and thus get stronger, strong enough perhaps to take on bigger targets.

And waving your hands to change when Stalin took control of various areas and resources doesn't change that a bit.

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The domino theory was first challenged by the peace movement during the Vietnam era.  It was challenged again externally, by France and Russia, during Bush 43’s Iraq war, as well as domestically in the stay the course v cut and run debate.  Both France and Russia were dealing for Iraq’s oil before the war started, and took exception to a sole superpower playing at neo colonialism.  Iran had it’s own ideas on local balance of power.  The western world was to a great extent willing to look away from the American Empire while the Cold War was in effect, but even an extremely competent and practiced Bush 43 foreign policy team didn’t anticipate how much opposition they would face when the sole superpower seriously twisted arms going for neo colonialism.

Yes, and no.  Domino theory was firs challenged during the awakening, mostly at first by the civil rights movement.  As Mohammad Ali said:  No Vietnamese ever called me nigger.  The so-called peace movement was largely ineffective both in the 1960s and the 2000s.  Rather what ended the Vietnam war was pressure put on the political class by GIs and Silents who were tired of seeing coffins being sent home on their Tee-Vee every night at 6PM.  (I actually had to think about using the 12 hour clock since I think in 24 hour.)  In the 2000s yes Russia and France opposed the American Empire, but honestly we yanks have never cared what smelly foreigners (particularly of the cheese eating surrender monkey kind) have ever had to say.  You can call that arrogant or whatever you want, but that is the reality of the current and traditional attitude of Americans to foreigners and foreign things.  Seriously it is next to impossible to get us to use the metric system like everyone else--never mind that doing so would make life exponentially easier in many ways too numerous to mention in this thread.

My 'Vietnam era' overlaps your 'awakening'.  I'll suggest 'Vietnam era' is the more accurate label as the Domino Theory conflicting with the peace movement is better described thus.  The awakening could be seen as extending before the height of the peace movement, thus arguably I chose the more accurate label.  Otherwise, your presentation is more or less accurate and consistent with my point.  After Vietnam, we spent a lot on the military, we postured a lot, but seldom engaged large numbers of boots on the ground.

Yes, Americans tend to demonize war opponents, political opponents, the newly immigrated, races, genders and likely others that aren't popping to mind just now.  I would and have opposed this, but it's tribal thinking.  We aren't the only nation to do it.  Not all of us do it.  Some are starting to become more aware of this and resist it.  I see tribal thinking as a character flaw to be fought, not an excuse for bad behavior.  Some seem to embrace it, though.  Does this make it right and proper to demonize those that demonize?

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I can sympathize a lot with an alternate history shifting our heavy military spending and light domestic spending with the fall of the Berlin wall, but your partisan spin on history neglecting the Cold War is incomplete.  The West was going to contain communism.

Good.  But I'm not concerned so much with history as I am the future.  That is far less certain.  To put it simply empires are formed from the desire to amass power and resources (an animalistic instinct as I've pointed out previously), however, maintenance of these empires is a choice.  The Empire could collapse relatively peacefully and relatively easily just by it no longer being funded.

On the state level this is more difficult.  However, culture is shifting as to where largely speaking the Emperor has no clothes.  While the President himself is quite popular except with rabid communists (basically anyone to the left of John McCain) the federal government itself and its empire and its bureaucracy is not. 

I'm not crazy about polls.  I'll let others handle that side of things.  However, you seem to be becoming partisan blind about the popularity of the president.  When  you warp reality that badly, no one will take your arguments seriously.  Trump's popularity is plunging in the view of any who keep track of reality.

Not that the Congress is doing any better.  We have too many partisans of different stripes.  The divide is even enough than no one is achieving much.  It should be no surprise that they're not popular either.

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you're stuck in a time warp if you believe that Trump and the Republican base is still interested in 3T memes.  Trump himself is a hostile take over of the GOP and a repudiation of the Neo-Cons (which are really Trotskites pretending to be Republicans).  The "new" GOP will be one taking its queues from a far older current of American political experience.

Indeed, the President's speech last night indicates to me that he's not interested in nation building, what he is interested in is creating a stable situation where American Troops can eventually be withdrawn and not in the cut and run, power vacuum creating way that Obama did Iraq.

Many of Trump's campaign promises echoed the unraveling memes.  Rural areas are still enamored of Reagan, and will tend to vote for anyone who best promises to try to implement his ideas.  To a great extent, the Republican establishment's inability to make these ideas work resulted in the election of an outsider who was seen as the best chance of implementing them.  Trump, of course, isn't an idea person.  He's intuitive, he does want he wants.  Thus, what he promised and what he's doing are quite different.  This is one factor in his extreme loss of popularity.

At the same time, many smart articulate people will advocate Republican ideas without embracing the unraveling memes.  You can't ignore the main line, yet attributing loyalty to the unraveling memes to those who don't embrace them would be a strawman.  While a few people stepping away from the unraveling memes is a nice start, keeping some loyalty to the real world is nice.

But it ends up in stuff like Bannon promising one day to go to war on Trump's behalf, and the next day he's making war on Trump's proposal for the Afghan war.  You can't peg all conservatives as pushing the same stuff.  It shifts absurdly, and I'm not claiming the progressives are united and cooperating either.

In some ways, I think Trump is learning.  The Trump of the week is less horrible than months ago.  He might pull out of his dive, given a chance.  However, he seems to have lost a lot of Congress critters, the coastal press is in a feeding frenzy, he still has a Twitter account, his polls are crashing, his allies keep hearing Trump's famous line, "you're fired", and the tendency to attack when frustrated hasn't faded.  

We'll see...  I confess I'm starting to worry that he won't last long enough to thoroughly discredit your party of stupid.

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: We already have the best possible feedback loops available in the internet, political activism and electoral politics.  What is necessary is absolute adherence to free speech--something that is being actively combated by the so-called Left these days with their political correctness.

It should be noted that the very idea of political correctness itself is a mutation of a concept originally developed by the CPSU during the Stalin Era.

I guess I'll repeat my differences.  Representative democracy is flawed in in including representatives that can be corrupted.  Corruption and a broken campaign contribution system are key to resolving many of our problems.  We could throw in gerrymandering.

And while I agree that political correctness can be taken too far, there are nooks in our culture that still exclude people by race, culture, gender, etc...  So long as there is still blatant prejudice, political correctness and affirmative action have their place.  The more sensible elements of the Alt Right shouldn't be ignored out of hand, but neither should their principles be blindly accepted as overriding all others.  In the meanwhile a lot of this supposed high principle is being used as an excuse to exercise hate.  It's another of those divides that might be resolved if people on both sides would listen, cling less that tightly to their values and respect others, but this seems unlikely in many ways.

[Kinser79]

(08-23-2017, 06:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The big thing missing in your analysis is the Cold War.  The big lesson falling out of World War II was the domino theory.  Supposedly, the military must be maintained to contain autocratic rule, mostly in the form of communism.

Domino theory itself is not a direct consequence of WW2, rather it is a consequence of Soviet Occupation of Eastern Europe following WW2.  Your premise is flawed from the outset by this.

World War II was fought by authoritarian powers to expand territory and resources, though racist motivation played its part.  The Soviet Union's post war political influence zone was determined by how far west their army got  Oh, there was a little negation with the allies once it was clear the war was ending shorty.  Some allied armies stopped while the war is on to avoid spending lives on land they had already negotiated away.  For the most part though, the post war influence zones followed the results of the war.  As the negotiations with the allies took place during the war, the notion that land was taken after the war seems strange.

The allies tended to restore the old governments from before the war started rather than pushing influence grabs, though the Domino Theory came into play early.  Churchill's Iron Curtain speech might mark the formal public debut of the theory.  It's safe to say less public maneuvering came before.  Regardless, whether or not you think advancing armies had any thing to do with the soviet land and resource grab, the Domino Theory was a result of the clash of Hitler and Stalin and shaped western tactics for decades.  The core of the theory was that Stalin's grab should go no further, though the basis and perceived importance of the theory drew heavily from Hitler's approach before the war went hot.  You do not let autocratic government slowly nibble on easy targets, and thus get stronger, strong enough perhaps to take on bigger targets.

And waving your hands to change when Stalin took control of various areas and resources doesn't change that a bit.

That isn't so much domino theory as it is a statement that appeasement doesn't work.  Since WW2 just about any power that has sought appeasement, whether appeasement is the right course of action or not has been compared to Nazi Germany.

Case in point, Russian Crimea which has been part of Russia proper longer than the US has existed.

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

Quote:

(08-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The domino theory was first challenged by the peace movement during the Vietnam era.  It was challenged again externally, by France and Russia, during Bush 43’s Iraq war, as well as domestically in the stay the course v cut and run debate.  Both France and Russia were dealing for Iraq’s oil before the war started, and took exception to a sole superpower playing at neo colonialism.  Iran had it’s own ideas on local balance of power.  The western world was to a great extent willing to look away from the American Empire while the Cold War was in effect, but even an extremely competent and practiced Bush 43 foreign policy team didn’t anticipate how much opposition they would face when the sole superpower seriously twisted arms going for neo colonialism.

Yes, and no.  Domino theory was firs challenged during the awakening, mostly at first by the civil rights movement.  As Mohammad Ali said:  No Vietnamese ever called me nigger.  The so-called peace movement was largely ineffective both in the 1960s and the 2000s.  Rather what ended the Vietnam war was pressure put on the political class by GIs and Silents who were tired of seeing coffins being sent home on their Tee-Vee every night at 6PM.  (I actually had to think about using the 12 hour clock since I think in 24 hour.)  In the 2000s yes Russia and France opposed the American Empire, but honestly we yanks have never cared what smelly foreigners (particularly of the cheese eating surrender monkey kind) have ever had to say.  You can call that arrogant or whatever you want, but that is the reality of the current and traditional attitude of Americans to foreigners and foreign things.  Seriously it is next to impossible to get us to use the metric system like everyone else--never mind that doing so would make life exponentially easier in many ways too numerous to mention in this thread.

My 'Vietnam era' overlaps your 'awakening'.  I'll suggest 'Vietnam era' is the more accurate label as the Domino Theory conflicting with the peace movement is better described thus.  The awakening could be seen as extending before the height of the peace movement, thus arguably I chose the more accurate label.  Otherwise, your presentation is more or less accurate and consistent with my point.  After Vietnam, we spent a lot on the military, we postured a lot, but seldom engaged large numbers of boots on the ground.

I would argue that the most effective defense spending is actually wasted.  Often times the threat of using the forces you have is as effective as using them.  

Quote:Yes, Americans tend to demonize war opponents, political opponents, the newly immigrated, races, genders and likely others that aren't popping to mind just now.  I would and have opposed this, but it's tribal thinking.  We aren't the only nation to do it.  Not all of us do it.  Some are starting to become more aware of this and resist it.  I see tribal thinking as a character flaw to be fought, not an excuse for bad behavior.  Some seem to embrace it, though.  Does this make it right and proper to demonize those that demonize?

Like a boomer you ask that asinine question.  Who cares if it is "right and proper", tribalism is inherent in human nature.  Humans are hard wired to care for a maximum number of other humans, and beyond that they are at best indifferent.  Such is the nature of a species which for all intents and purposes still has a brain geared for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.  

At worst I can say that Americans are particularly vocal in this regard, but having been to foreign countries (unlike many many many Americans) I can tell you that the local population looks at foreigners and Americans in particular with disdain.  There is a reason why some American tourists sew maple leaf flags to their gear.

Quote:

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 10:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I can sympathize a lot with an alternate history shifting our heavy military spending and light domestic spending with the fall of the Berlin wall, but your partisan spin on history neglecting the Cold War is incomplete.  The West was going to contain communism.

Good.  But I'm not concerned so much with history as I am the future.  That is far less certain.  To put it simply empires are formed from the desire to amass power and resources (an animalistic instinct as I've pointed out previously), however, maintenance of these empires is a choice.  The Empire could collapse relatively peacefully and relatively easily just by it no longer being funded.

On the state level this is more difficult.  However, culture is shifting as to where largely speaking the Emperor has no clothes.  While the President himself is quite popular except with rabid communists (basically anyone to the left of John McCain) the federal government itself and its empire and its bureaucracy is not. 

I'm not crazy about polls.  I'll let others handle that side of things.  However, you seem to be becoming partisan blind about the popularity of the president.  When  you warp reality that badly, no one will take your arguments seriously.  Trump's popularity is plunging in the view of any who keep track of reality.

Not that the Congress is doing any better.  We have too many partisans of different stripes.  The divide is even enough than no one is achieving much.  It should be no surprise that they're not popular either.

I disagree.  I don't give a damn about the polls posted up by the lugenpresse.  They have demonstrated for the last ten years at least that they lie about everything all the time.  Myself I've completely unplugged from them, the kid never watched it, and the boyfriend lately seems to only really watch Fox Business these days.  Of the people in my household, the only one who even cares about MSM "news" is my mother.  I chalk that up to age and being unwilling to use the internet for anything beyond playing Mahjong Connect.

Of course if she weren't in the house we probably wouldn't have cable at all. 500 channels and nothing on any of them.

Quote:

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you're stuck in a time warp if you believe that Trump and the Republican base is still interested in 3T memes.  Trump himself is a hostile take over of the GOP and a repudiation of the Neo-Cons (which are really Trotskites pretending to be Republicans).  The "new" GOP will be one taking its queues from a far older current of American political experience.

Indeed, the President's speech last night indicates to me that he's not interested in nation building, what he is interested in is creating a stable situation where American Troops can eventually be withdrawn and not in the cut and run, power vacuum creating way that Obama did Iraq.

Many of Trump's campaign promises echoed the unraveling memes.  Rural areas are still enamored of Reagan, and will tend to vote for anyone who best promises to try to implement his ideas.  To a great extent, the Republican establishment's inability to make these ideas work resulted in the election of an outsider who was seen as the best chance of implementing them.  Trump, of course, isn't an idea person.  He's intuitive, he does want he wants.  Thus, what he promised and what he's doing are quite different.  This is one factor in his extreme loss of popularity.

At the same time, many smart articulate people will advocate Republican ideas without embracing the unraveling memes.  You can't ignore the main line, yet attributing loyalty to the unraveling memes to those who don't embrace them would be a strawman.  While a few people stepping away from the unraveling memes is a nice start, keeping some loyalty to the real world is nice.

But it ends up in stuff like Bannon promising one day to go to war on Trump's behalf, and the next day he's making war on Trump's proposal for the Afghan war.  You can't peg all conservatives as pushing the same stuff.  It shifts absurdly, and I'm not claiming the progressives are united and cooperating either.

In some ways, I think Trump is learning.  The Trump of the week is less horrible than months ago.  He might pull out of his dive, given a chance.  However, he seems to have lost a lot of Congress critters, the coastal press is in a feeding frenzy, he still has a Twitter account, his polls are crashing, his allies keep hearing Trump's famous line, "you're fired", and the tendency to attack when frustrated hasn't faded.  

We'll see...  I confess I'm starting to worry that he won't last long enough to thoroughly discredit your party of stupid.

Assuming discreditation is necessary then that is the worst possible outcome.  Because the other party is the party of evil and given the choice between stupid and evil I'll pick stupid every time.  Over all the rest of this collection of paragraphs is only confirming the following:

1.  It is clear that Bob does not read Breitbart.  He really should if he wants to know whats going on.
2.  Bob doesn't frequently go to rural areas, or if he does he doesn't talk to anyone under the age of 60 who could care less about an ex-president who died more than a decade ago and who served nearly two decades before that (16 years to be exact).  Seriously the only people still enamored with Reagan are Boomers.
3.  My hypothesis that Bob is stuck in a time warp along with the rest of the boomers is correct.  Of all the living generations (I'm no longer including Silents as they are too old and too few to matter) only Boomers seem to want to extend the 3T past its sell by date of 2005.  Everyone else knows we're in a 4T the question is when it began (the three contenders are 2001 [yes there are still people who subscribe to that], 2005 [my own theory and quite popular in the South], and 2008 [Howe himself supports that]).

As to Daddy, yeah he's learning.  But I think worrying about the congress critters is a non-issue.  They are going to be primary-ed out if they don't age out (how the senate seems to turn over).  No matter how bad you think he is, HRC would have been infinitely worse.  As for Bannon, he's more effective for Daddy and Daddy's agenda at Breitbart.  As he said when he joined the Trump campaign, he'd be there for a year at most.  And make no mistake, in the Trump White House it is Trump's strategy and Trump's agenda that is being pushed.

Quote:

(08-22-2017, 02:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: We already have the best possible feedback loops available in the internet, political activism and electoral politics.  What is necessary is absolute adherence to free speech--something that is being actively combated by the so-called Left these days with their political correctness.

It should be noted that the very idea of political correctness itself is a mutation of a concept originally developed by the CPSU during the Stalin Era.

I guess I'll repeat my differences.  Representative democracy is flawed in in including representatives that can be corrupted.  Corruption and a broken campaign contribution system are key to resolving many of our problems.  We could throw in gerrymandering.

And while I agree that political correctness can be taken too far, there are nooks in our culture that still exclude people by race, culture, gender, etc...  So long as there is still blatant prejudice, political correctness and affirmative action have their place.  The more sensible elements of the Alt Right shouldn't be ignored out of hand, but neither should their principles be blindly accepted as overriding all others.  In the meanwhile a lot of this supposed high principle is being used as an excuse to exercise hate.  It's another of those divides that might be resolved if people on both sides would listen, cling less that tightly to their values and respect others, but this seems unlikely in many ways.

I'm going to list my counter points because you'll never get it.  I'm used to it, my mother is both in a time warp and terminal values lock too, and she's probably a few months younger than you (November 1954 in her case).

1.  Humans are inherently corruptible.  There is no system on earth that has not been corrupted, there is no system that can be designed that can't be corrupted.  Corruption is a flaw based in human nature.  At most it can be minimized, but I've yet to hear any real proposals on how to minimize it.
2.  Political Correctness is far deeper and far more insidious than merely being polite.  The very idea behind political correctness is that words and violence are the same.  They are not.  I can be called a nigger all damn day and it wouldn't really effect me, but being beaten with a brick bat for 5 minutes will do at least temporary damage.  Freedom of speech is vital to a democratic republic and should not be limited at all (excluding incitement, slander and libel).
3.  I would go further and say that since the Supreme Court can find positive rights to Health Care in the Constitution then that mean that everyone has a positive right to internet speech as well.
4.  Dismissing everyone who is to the right of Bill Clinton as a Nazi only drives the more moderate factions of the American Right to that extreme.
5.  It is my view that property rights trump the desire for anti-discrimination.  Let us suppose for a second that I own my own donut shop and want to only hire other black people.  I have a feeling that you wouldn't get up in arms because I don't hire whites.  Yet if it were the reverse it must be evil.  Such an idea is absurd and insane.  It is exactly the same.  

As for the genders there are only three:  Male, Female, and Freak of Nature.  All these dick girls (apparently the word tranny triggers word filters now) and demiqueer whatever are just mentally ill people who probably should have some electro-convulsive therapy.  In b4 Odin strides in and calls me Hitler or something.

[David Horn]

(08-21-2017, 01:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-20-2017, 01:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would argue that abolition of the electoral college would make our elections less democratic than more democratic.  HRC may or may not have won the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, we have never elected the president on who wins the most votes, but who wins the most states.

The electoral college was created when we were "these united states", thinking that the states would continue to be quasi-independent.  It was also intended to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  Now, we are enjoying a tyranny of the minority -- certainly much worse.  

When something is rotten, it needs to replaced.  The electoral college certainly qualifies.

So what you're saying is you want the President selected by New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and the other three or four major cities while the rest of the country is ignored.  Got it.

For a long time, the cities have paid most of the bills and set virtually none of the policies.  Do you find that this is better?  FWIW, I might be amenable to a less skewed system.  Reduce the number of electors to 438 by excising the 100 electors assigned to the Senate.  Let DC keep its three, since they don't actually get the Senators where they really count: in the Senate.  That's better but still not all that good.

[David Horn]

(08-21-2017, 01:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

Okay but you would hate it.

Ideally we'd have a legislative system similar to current, but with Senators seclected by the State Governments as their role is to represent the needs and desires of the states rather than the population of those states.  The population already has representaves....it's called the House.  We would also impose a hard rule of one rep per million of population with a minimum of one rep per state.

I would leave the supreme court alone.  Amazingly that part of the government isn't all that broken.

The presidency would be diminished in power in favor of the legislature.

The vote will be restricted to men over the age of 21 who own a minimum of 50K dollars in real property or have a yearly gross income of 25K dollars.

People who do not have an income, those on public assistance and women should not be permitted to vote.

Citizenship will be restricted to persons born on US soil whose mother is also a US Citizen.  All others are aliens, and could be subject to deportation.

I have a feeling you would hate this system even though it most closely resembles that framed by the framers of the current constitution.

OK, and you're right. I don't like it. Here's the rub: no one but you is interested or even cognizant of your system-of-choice. In short, it's not a recommended replacement. It's a pipe dream.

[David Horn]

(08-21-2017, 03:28 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Kinser79 Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose.  It will, or at least should, alter how you view government.  In short the idea that you can take a group of individuals and bestow upon them super power that the people don't have themselves is both irrational and inherently subject to corruption.  The fact that people do so, all be it, draped in all sorts of political rituals such as elections, is largely based in their belief in the need for there to be some sort of "authority" for them to obey. 

I used to believe that "government" could be a force for good, or for what is right.  I was mistaken.  Government by it's very nature will always corrupt.  The less of it, if any, the better off we will be.

Let's start with the obvious: power will exist.  If you choose to eliminate or at least neuter public power, private power will take its place.  Do you think that people like Carl Icahn, who has destroyed more jobs than any single person in this country, or the Walton family with their Walmart empire, will give a tinker's damn about how you're doing ... unless it profits them personally.

What you're seeking has existed in this country before.  It's a bit of the Antebellum South mixed with a generous portion of the Gilded Age.  Is that your preference?

[noway2]

Quote:You're full of crap. Many Xers still adore Reagan.

That's why he is commonly, and not so affectionately, referred to as Saint Ray Gun?

I still remember the old joke, Q: "Why does Nancy Reagan sleep on top?" A: "Because Ronnie can only fuck up".

[David Horn]

(08-23-2017, 11:46 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: ... Many Xers still adore Reagan.

I guess that proves there is no accounting for taste.

[Bob Butler 54]

I’m addressing mostly Kinser.  I’ve too much to say.  I’m skipping the stripes for some semblance of brevity.

First, Breitbart is on my bookmark list of sites to be visited which advocate worldviews different from mine.  This morning’s observation was a trend towards quote quotes.  Brietbart will absolutely accurately quote blue leaning people; press, politicians, pundits, whomever.  This isn’t to say they don’t cherry pick.  This meshes with my notion that good propaganda doesn’t lie, but it is based on a carefully selected solid kernel of truth.  The Breitbart agenda, as I read it, isn’t to bring those with urban and rural values together.  The quotes seem selected to generate outrage, to present as absurdly false ideas which seem rational by the extreme blue.  I won’t deny that extreme partisans disagree, often emphatically.  It’s the art of generating outrage that seems interesting.  If one buys into this approach, the country’s divide is only emphasized.  It’s just Eric’s demonization habits inverted and put on steroids.

Anyway, Kinser makes all sorts of assumptions, often wrong.

The domino effect is a common if dated term tied into the perceived need to contain the old Soviet Union.  You can express the idea differently.  You can find in history other examples of containment.  Neither makes the perceived need to contain the Soviet Union and other autocratic states of the time go away.  Kinser for some reason dances around words and rewrites history, but this does not make the perceived need for containment go away.

I for one find an echo of Reagan and the unraveling memes alive and well.  All one has to do to see it is watch Republican and especially Trumps campaign promises.  Then too, I find FDR and the New Deal memes alive and well on the left.  Neither defining president is entirely in the past.  While some has changed, those two presidents go a long way towards defining their parties.  

I don’t see S&H as clockwork predetermined.  I’m unusual in seeing Bush 43’s Iraq war with it’s associated stay the course vs cut and run debate as a massive potential crises.  That war reprises Vietnam, experimented with a new form of colonial imperialism, exposed sole superpower power to be less that what some hoped, and put containment vs active shaping of the world on the table.  It just didn’t become a typical Anglo American crisis as the new ideas failed.  We stuttered and stumbled into the next crisis, the economic collapse, where some not so  new ideas again sputtered.  This left the see saw see sawing.

What I find refreshing, though, is Kinser’s open admission of tribal thinking.  Most won’t admit that that’s what they are doing.

I will admit that tribal thinking exists.  There are many who will follow Kinser’s thinking fairly precisely, though not all will admit it.  It is to a great extent human nature.  One just does tend to care more about family, friends and members of one’s familiar culture.

As a progressive, I do not see it locked, inevitable and fixed.  As a progressive, I am aware of progress.  Slavery ended.  Old groups of reviled immigrants have been embraced.  Women are in parts of the working place where they once were not accepted.  Today, we have different groups of immigrants.  Today we have a health debate.  Everybody contributing would produce a good result, but some think their own tribe ought to get a better deal and strive to bring it all down.  It is natural to look for a good deal for one’s self, one’s friends, and one’s culture.  “I’ve got mine, up yours” is an unfortunate trend, and not just in medicine.

It is not inevitable.  Who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’ is a culturally learned thing.  Some will view ‘us’ as a tribe with certain cultural, racial, religious and perhaps regional affiliations.  Others will view ‘us’ as Americans, and embrace cultural values that all humans are equal under law and equal in dignity.

This is not fixed and unchangeable, but rather a significant element of the red / blue divide.  I will often say the blue believe in community and mutual support while the red value independence.  Ideally, the two could respect and understand each other and their differences.  In part, the problem is that the red have smaller tribes.  The blue will embrace and integrate much sooner than the red.  Many blue will see a strong cultural refusal to accept and share with others of their tribe as out and out evil.

This mutual inability to understand is a core part of the divide.  Either that, or perhaps many of the blue leaning understand all too well.

Thus, in Boston, you have a few hundred flying Nazi and Confederate banners surrounded by many many more who reject tribe oriented hatred.  In other parts of the country, the ratio is different.

There is much else in recent postings which is just wrong by my own blue leaning values, but that will do for now.

[pbrower2a]

(08-23-2017, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I’m addressing mostly Kinser.  I’ve too much to say.  I’m skipping the stripes for some semblance of brevity.

First, Breitbart is on my bookmark list of sites to be visited which advocate worldviews different from mine.  This morning’s observation was a trend towards quote quotes.  Brietbart will absolutely accurately quote blue leaning people; press, politicians, pundits, whomever.  This isn’t to say they don’t cherry pick.  This meshes with my notion that good propaganda doesn’t lie, but it is based on a carefully selected solid kernel of truth.  The Breitbart agenda, as I read it, isn’t to bring those with urban and rural values together.  The quotes seem selected to generate outrage, to present as absurdly false ideas which seem rational by the extreme blue.  I won’t deny that extreme partisans disagree, often emphatically.  It’s the art of generating outrage that seems interesting.  If one buys into this approach, the country’s divide is only emphasized.  It’s just Eric’s demonization habits inverted and put on steroids.

I try to avoid overt propaganda.  I did watch FoX News this week for eclipse coverage. (I had hoped to see it at a totality site that could have been anywhere from the Missouri Ozarks to western North Carolina... mix-ups involving a day off work (my brother got the following Monday off instead), but even worse, excruciating gout in my right foot. I could have done no driving. My brother would have surely found some India Pale Ale, which is more intoxicating than he thinks it is.

But FoX News, which has slick and sophisticated news coverage, at the least was unable to make propaganda out of a total eclipse of the sun.

Quote:I don’t see S&H as clockwork predetermined.  I’m unusual in seeing Bush 43’s Iraq war with it’s associated stay the course vs cut and run debate as a massive potential crises.  That war reprises Vietnam, experimented with a new form of colonial imperialism, exposed sole superpower power to be less that what some hoped, and put containment vs active shaping of the world on the table.  It just didn’t become a typical Anglo American crisis as the new ideas failed.  We stuttered and stumbled into the next crisis, the economic collapse, where some not so  new ideas again sputtered.  This left the see saw see sawing.

Depending upon the circumstances, some things can be possible at certain times but not others or can have very different meanings. . A temperature of 55 F is possible where I live is possible in January or July. In January it indicates freakishly-warm weather that will not last long as it is typically between two blizzards. In July it indicates a clear night with some Canadian air mass settled in. Just don't be surprised if the temperature reaches 80 F that day.

Unorthodox expressions of culture are often extremely unsafe for either the expression or the creator during a full-blown Crisis Era.

"Degenerate" Art by Nazi standards. You know -- daringly human, unlike the empty, pretentious taste characteristic of Nazis.


Cultural orthodoxy in a post-Crisis High might be hedonistic, but that is about all that one can get. People are getting late starts in life or picking up the pieces left over from the destruction of the Crisis. There might be some leftovers like Picasso or Miro, but that is it. Once the Awakening begins, people start make daring expressions contrary to the staid orthodoxy of the High, but in the name of high-minded principles  As the Awakening turns into the Unraveling, people violate cultural orthodoxy just for the sake of violating something.

Quote:What I find refreshing, though, is Kinser’s open admission of tribal thinking.  Most won’t admit that that’s what they are doing.

I will admit that tribal thinking exists.  There are many who will follow Kinser’s thinking fairly precisely, though not all will admit it.  It is to a great extent human nature.  One just does tend to care more about family, friends and members of one’s familiar culture.

I dunno. I don't see how I am tribal. I never found a tribe upon which to attach myself. I had opportunities in an ethnically-mixed high school where there was much latent hostility between groups. The white racists were the least attractive, and they couldn't understand why I didn't want to join those losers. I talked to non-white people to find out what made them different, and I found the similarities. Maybe I was looking for the similarities and didn't realize it. Similar values and hopes? Deal me in!

Quote:As a progressive, I do not see it locked, inevitable and fixed.  As a progressive, I am aware of progress.  Slavery ended.  Old groups of reviled immigrants have been embraced.  Women are in parts of the working place where they once were not accepted.  Today, we have different groups of immigrants.  Today we have a health debate.  Everybody contributing would produces a good result, but some think their own tribe ought to get a better deal and strive to bring it all down.  It is natural to look for a good deal for one’s self one’s friends and one’s culture.  “I’ve got mine, up yours” is an unfortunate trend, and not just in medicine.

We have been slow in leaving and shunning the  ethos of "every man for himself" excellent for atomizing humanity.

Quote:It is not inevitable.  Who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’ is a culturally learned thing.  Some will view ‘us’ as a tribe with certain cultural, racial, religious and perhaps regional affiliations.  Others will view ‘us’ as Americans, and embrace cultural values that all humans are equal under law and equal in dignity.

Are "values" a possible cause for community? Shared intellectual and avocational interests?

I have Asperger's, and I thus am little more than my intellect, morals, ethics, and vocation. I am afraid that unless I create I am a crashing bore and a social misfit.

Quote:This is not fixed and unchangeable, but rather a significant element of the red / blue divide.  I will often say the blue believe in community and mutual support while the red value independence.  Ideally, the two could respect and understand each other and their differences.  In part, the problem is that the red have smaller tribes.  The blue will embrace and integrate much sooner than the red.  Many blue will see a strong cultural refusal to accept and share with others of their tribe as out and out evil.

The Regeneracy comes when people recognize something that transcends identity. "I am white", "I am a Texan", "I am middle class", "I am an Irish-American", "I have a degree from Texas A&M", and "I am a Catholic" are all themselves empty identity.  

Quote:This mutual inability to understand is a core part of the divide.  Either that, or perhaps many of the blue leaning understand all too well.

Thus, in Boston, you have a few hundred flying Nazi and Confederate banners surrounded by many many more who reject tribe oriented hatred.  In other parts of the country, the ratio is different.

In my case I understand all too well. It is all too blatant. I associate the Confederacy with the defense of the ancient vice of chattel slavery that should have died centuries ago... why could Jesus not tell people that economic exploitation was a violation of the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal" and chattel slavery a denial of the humanity of a slave as well as economic exploitation in the worst form, and thus the worst form of theft?

It took Thomas Paine to formulate the best reason to abhor slavery, to wit that slaves were stolen property and possessors who could not have title to a slave could be divested of slaves without compensation as is done with stolen property in practice.

...Putting two symbols suggests syncretism, and when the symbols have negative connotations, the negatives (Confederate slavery and Nazi genocide) often become the focus of the syncrerism.



Start thinking of all that could be horrific in a fusion of fascism and Bolshevism. Now stop. I don't want you to vomit.

Or maybe you could imagine twisting the stars-in-a-diagonal cross design of the Confederate flag into a swastika.

Quote:There is much else in recent postings which is just wrong by my own blue leaning values, but that will do for now.

Likewise for me.