Re: Is geographic location by far the most important?
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:15 pm
I think it's safe to say we have entertained Bob's foolishness and attention seeking enough here.
Generational theory, international history and current events
http://www.gdxforum.com/forum/
I was always amazed by Adam Schiff. He lied every day, claiming heCool Breeze wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:15 pm> I think it's safe to say we have entertained Bob's foolishness and
> attention seeking enough here.
According to the Austrian countess Bertha von Suttner, Alfred Nobel, as early as their first meeting in Paris in 1876, had expressed his wish to produce material or a machine which would have such a devastating effect that war from then on, would be impossible. The point about deterrence later appeared among Nobel’s ideas. In 1891, he commented on his dynamite factories by saying to the countess: “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops.” Nobel did not live long enough to experience the First World War and to see how wrong his conception was.
People felt that it must be brought into the public domain. If people saw what the bomb could do, it was reasoned, they would not allow circumstances to arise in which it would be used again. "In this war the atomic bomb was only a signal to the world," Morrison says. "The real problem was the next war."
Nobel just thought too small. The age transited from Industrial to Information with the invention of the nuke, not by a somewhat better chemical weapon. At that, war and tribal thinking are long established. It will take some time to fully take hold.tim wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:07 pmLook at the parallels:
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel ... and-peace/
According to the Austrian countess Bertha von Suttner, Alfred Nobel, as early as their first meeting in Paris in 1876, had expressed his wish to produce material or a machine which would have such a devastating effect that war from then on, would be impossible. The point about deterrence later appeared among Nobel’s ideas. In 1891, he commented on his dynamite factories by saying to the countess: “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops.” Nobel did not live long enough to experience the First World War and to see how wrong his conception was.People felt that it must be brought into the public domain. If people saw what the bomb could do, it was reasoned, they would not allow circumstances to arise in which it would be used again. "In this war the atomic bomb was only a signal to the world," Morrison says. "The real problem was the next war."
I am more concerned with the conflict between the cavalier / tribal / rural / red worldview and the roundhead / WEIRD / urban / blue one. That conflict pretty much defines US politics over the last unraveling, and its nature defines why most of the blue who have followed turning theory consider us in a crisis state in which we have already forced a regeneracy. After that, the crisis problems are solved in favor of the new values.
Again, I see the Age as changed. The pattern of how civilizations behave has changed if you look at the evidence on the ground, documented in detail. Democracies change by non violent protest and legislation, not crisis wars. Nukes, proxy wars and insurgent wars are common. War is less cost effective, and the leaders and elites are becoming slowly aware of it. Clinging to the wisdom of the old time will leave you thinking of leaving the country just when the regeneracy is happening.
In my experience many otherwise intelligent and educated people are incapable of understanding The Fourth Turning. It really is a simple cycle when you break it down to its most basic level.FullMoon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:21 pmMaybe Bob doesn't realize that the evidence on the ground, documented in detail with good accuracy points that this turning will be like previous one's. Which means the difference between and unpleasant experience as we have now, and a horrific dozen+years or bare bones existence requiring tenacity and strength just to survive. I like the easy choice but fear the odds of the second going up rapidly and my preparation lacking.
This thread was started with this principle in mind.
Where to be and how to prepare.
John has said he's going to sit it out. His work will be proven and if it's preserved, remembered. Sadly only a few could be helped beforehand. For this we should thank him. Buy the book and support him as well.
EVERYONE is still doing tribal thinking. No one can help it. We haven't even evolved enough in 10,000 years to manage the excess carbohydrates from farming - do you really think that human nature has changed? What you cite as revolutionary new changes in how world affairs are conducted are just another level in a video game - a game still being played by the same people. We can't escape ourselves. Not that we shouldn't try. But we are, to a large extent, still cavemen, with a lot more knowledge and toys, but cavemen, nonetheless.Bob Butler wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:14 pmJohn is quite good when he sticks to areas of the world that are still doing tribal thinking, that are still doing Industrial Age behavior in that war is considered cost effective. If you are dealing with areas of the world where nukes, proxy wars and insurgent wars have influenced how people act, or if you are looking to understand motivations, well... Take a look at alternate sources.FullMoon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:55 pmThat very nice of you. If you could please be a bit more civil throughout this forum, I would consider your viewpoint as valuable. I think bother sides have their strengths and weaknesses, and yes, you can point out how your viewpoint might be a superior alternative. You might help me understand a vastly complex issue from a different perspective. In fact, I long considered John a bit more conservative than I usually preferred. But his research and analysis was captivating and I feel that I've learned much. It wasn't until Trump that I started to see the Left from a different perspective. Especially so when race and gender became an acceptable stereotype for myself as a political tool that I started to feel vulnerable. Honestly, I consider John's perspective and opinions usually the closest to truth than anything else I can find. Personal faults have I and everyone else I know, including John. But his research and work on GD is admirable and much appreciated.