Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[John]

** 15-Dec-2023 World View: Generational Dynamics Population Principle

What you've written above is insightful,
but it's incomplete.

The Generational Dynamics Population
Principle says that population grows
exponentially, and grows faster than
available resources, such as food and
water. As a result, it's necessary to
have genocidal wars (generational crisis
wars) at regular intervals. These wars
must kill off enough people so that the
people left behind have enough to eat.

Then the question is how the genocide
target is identified. Twenty years ago,
when I was writing my first book on
Generational Dynamics, I wrote about how
puzzled I was that the target has been
Jews hundreds of times for millennia.
In my book, I wrote a lengthy
explanation attempting to explain why
this has been happening over and over.

In America, the genocidal tribe has been
the Democrats. They enslaved blacks,
fought a civil war to keep them
enslaved, formed the KKK militia to
lynch them. implemented harsh Jim Crow
laws to keep them in poverty, burned
down and slaughtered the Black Wall
Street in Tulsa. Today, they are
continuing the genocide of blacks today
in cities governed by Democrats.

And now we see rising genocidal threats
by Democrats against Trump supporters,
even calling them Fascists.

Even more recently, I've been shocked
and surprised to see large anti-Jewish
street protests calling for the gassing
of Jews and the destruction of Israel.
These protests are being led by Democrat
politicians in "The Caucus" and by
Democrat professors in elite colleges.

So how do I translate these findings
into Generational Dynamics theory?

I originally borrowed the concepts of
identity group fault line wars from
Samuel P. Huntington's 1996 book The
Clash of Civilizations, but now we
see that these concepts should be
refined. Some identity groups, like the
Democrats and the Chinese, exhibit
genocidal behavior for centuries, while
other identity groups, like Jews and
Rohingyas, are the targets of genocidal
behavior for centuries.

At any rate, the Population Principle
says that genocide must occur, so that
the survivors will have enough to eat.

[Bob Butler]

Much of the above is correct. For example, Trump followers like the Neo nazi are called fascist. Racism features a perceiving of others as different linked with hatred, oppression and death.

You refuse to acknowledge that the US parties switched positions on race in the 1960s. LBJ supported the civil rights movement while Nixon pushed the Southern Strategy. Thus, the southern habit of oppressing blacks became Republican with the black urban voters going Democratic. Many 2021 insurrectionist groups originated with racial harassment. Understanding properly how the political parties, races and religions perceive others as different is important to analyzing the problem. As long as you misunderstand how groups perceive each other as different, how they oppress or try to impose on other groups, you will misunderstand the problem.

You might have mentioned that among the blacks, drugs are a major cause of black on black murder. The drug problem plays a major role in this not directly linked to race relations. White pushers battle each other as well.

The focus still looks like hatred, oppression and killing towards the different. The Jews have and are just perceived of as different, to a great degree correctly. The Chinese perceive their neighbors as different. The Republicans perceive the blacks, latinos and LGBQ people as different. That is enough to fuel the hate, to drive the growth of fascism, to differentiate Democrats loving their neighbor from Republicans persecuting the different. In many ways, that is what Generational Dynamics could become about, the expansion of racist fascism oppression and war.

Population has gone up since the Industrial Age. Much of this is the vast improvement in medical knowledge and practice. It is countered by improvements in war technology. There is nothing forcing these two in balance, and indeed they are not. Cultural forces like abortion and birth control intended to decrease the population without war could weigh in the net balance, but believers in older cultures fight them. Supposedly, one must keep everything the same. Cultural habit must be conserved. Never mind the consequences. Never see a problem and try to fix it.

This is why the progressive change side in an S&H crisis has always favored solving the problem and done so. That is why I see the kitchen table issues - abortion, war weapons made available to spree killers, prejudice against minorities, insurrection - as dominating 2024 voting.

Anyway, Clash of Civilization was an influence on Polyticks as well.

[Higgenbotham]

You refuse to acknowledge that the US parties switched positions on race in the 1960s. LBJ supported the civil rights movement while Nixon pushed the Southern Strategy.

George Wallace was a segregationist Democrat carrying on in the tradition of Strom Thurmond, also a Democrat.

Wallace himself said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. He almost was successful in sending the 1968 Presidential election to the House of Representatives.

[Bob Butler]

You refuse to acknowledge that the US parties switched positions on race in the 1960s. LBJ supported the civil rights movement while Nixon pushed the Southern Strategy.

George Wallace was a segregationist Democrat carrying on in the tradition of Strom Thurmond, also a Democrat.

Wallace himself said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. He almost was successful in sending the 1968 Presidential election to the House of Representatives.

I should note Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat before the height of the civil rights movement, switching to Republican in 1964, confirming my impression of policy switch at the time. George Wallace was before the switch completed as well. This was before LBJ and Nixon. The Democrats were still in their racist period. While in lots of ways I like FDR a lot, the Democratic Party was hardly perfect at the time.

I for one no more supported Thurmond and Wallace on racism than I would have supported the Democrats of the Civil War. Both were before the swap. If you don't acknowledge the history and alignments, you wind up all messed up.

[Higgenbotham]

You refuse to acknowledge that the US parties switched positions on race in the 1960s. LBJ supported the civil rights movement while Nixon pushed the Southern Strategy.

George Wallace was a segregationist Democrat carrying on in the tradition of Strom Thurmond, also a Democrat.

Wallace himself said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. He almost was successful in sending the 1968 Presidential election to the House of Representatives.

I should note Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat before the height of the civil rights movement, switching to Republican in 1964, confirming my impression of policy switch at the time. George Wallace was before the switch completed as well. This was before LBJ and Nixon. The Democrats were still in their racist period. While in lots of ways I like FDR a lot, the Democratic Party was hardly perfect at the time.

I for one no more supported Thurmond and Wallace on racism than I would have supported the Democrats of the Civil War. Both were before the swap. If you don't acknowledge the history and alignments, you wind up all messed up.

You said the switch occurred in the 1960s. Looks like you got yourself all messed up. Now you can proceed to rewrite the history of the 1970s. Better luck next time.

[Bob Butler]

You said the switch occurred in the 1960s. Looks like you got yourself all messed up. Now you can proceed to rewrite the history of the 1970s. Better luck next time.

LBJ and Nixon were presidents in the 1960s. The switch was not instant, which was why I specified a decade. It could possibly be shifted a bit later.

[Bob Butler]

Were you around at the time? I graduated from high school in 1972, thus lived through it. In one class in 11th grade the teacher opened a discussion of a race riot that had occurred the prior weekend. As it happened, two girls from the misfit table had attended that dance and participated in the riot. They each went on for some time on how much fun it was to beat up on the other race.

One of the girls was white, the other black. They drove home together.

Anyway, it was a messy time.

[Higgenbotham]

I watched it all during that time period as an elementary school student, including Wallace, as an Independent candidate for President in 1968, say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. I think Tricky Dick just wanted the hubbub of busing to go away so he could bring more Panda bears home from China, whereas the Democrats concentrated their efforts on forced integration in places like Cicero but not places like Northbrook or Winnetka. Same as it ever was.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/cicero-riot

[Higgenbotham]

Regarding the situation in France it's actually insane. They arrested 8 women and men in Lyon because they put up posters saying Justice for Thomas~a 16 year old murdered at a village festival by a gang of Africans and Arabs looking to " Kill white people". One couple had their safe broken in by the police and all their savings seized. One woman had her French flag seized as proof of far right terrorism. They're risking 8 months jail for incitation to racial hatred.

Another group of young guys went to the no go zone whence the arabs who killed the kid came from. They demonstrated saying Islam out of Europe. Police arrested them and didn't intervene when one of them got kidnapped and beaten to an inch of his life by arabs. A dozen guys age 18-25 got 10 months jail, no bond, no suspension.

From a Frenchman in the know.

Unfortunately, yes. Long ago the French colonized Muslim territory in Africa, and now are paying a price in racial instability. They enabled the Catholic ruling class in Vietnam as well. In the US it was black slavery. Britain went after Middle Eastern oil. In the Opium Wars time frame, everyone was in China.

In many places where there are current or recent racial flare ups, there is a history of dominant European nations trying to exploit somebody. The current generation on both sides were not part of it, but the trouble that results is real. With hindsight, hating, oppressing and killing the different is a bad idea. Too late now.

The elite class who has done and benefited most from the exploitation also makes sure that none of the blowback ends up on them.

As in, for example, how many of those Eastern Europeans who rioted in Cicero in 1951 benefited from slavery. But the elites could sit in their lily white suburban enclaves and cluck about how they were righting a wrong.

To this day, many areas of the north shore of Chicago remain less than 0.5% black.

[Bob Butler]

I watched it all during that time period as an elementary school student, including Wallace, as an Independent candidate for President in 1968, say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. I think Tricky Dick just wanted the hubbub of busing to go away so he could bring more Panda bears home from China, whereas the Democrats concentrated their efforts on forced integration in places like Cicero but not places like Northbrook or Winnetka. Same as it ever was.

I never much trusted Wallace's perspective. During the Gilded Age both parties had liberal and conservative wings, with the Democrats focused on the southern perspective, the Republicans the north. The Civil War lingered on. FDR focused the Democrats into a progressive party in most respects, focusing the nation on solving the Great Depression and WW II, but did not include race as a significant issue. The first Democrats then Republicans did with people like Thurmond and Wallace. It was not really until the late 1960s that the Democratic progressive tendency included race. After LBJ and Nixon the parties were more focused on a progressive - liberal divide rather than north - south. Little was left of the anti slavery progressive Republicans of Lincoln's time. The Democrats had become the progressive party. At the time Wallace made his comments, the difference had not yet fully manifested.

But, yes, the elites were self interested in how and where integration took place. In Boston that was clear.