Generational Dynamics World View News

[Guest]

It doesn’t matter what color you are, what religion you are, what gender you are, what country you were born or live in, what politics you adhere to, there are mostly good and some bad people everywhere. That doesn’t mean good people can’t be stupid and misled. No one wants a civil war. Nonetheless, a lot of stupid people are being misled.

[Tom Mazanec]

Some people do want a Civil War.
Some wanted one in 1861. They got their wish.
This time America has nukes. A lot of nukes.

[FullMoon]

It doesn’t matter what color you are, what religion you are, what gender you are, what country you were born or live in, what politics you adhere to, there are mostly good and some bad people everywhere. That doesn’t mean good people can’t be stupid and misled. No one wants a civil war. Nonetheless, a lot of stupid people are being misled.

Cable news has found a new Cash Cow with this topic. Happy they are as it was hard times after Trump was removed. Many factors are driving global society every more crazy and mass violence is palpable as a reality. Navigator's order of events is probably a good guideline. Navigator, please weigh in with your current perspective on the sequence of events we should be preparing for. Thanks!

[Bob Butler]

I’m not sure you have to be stupid to be mislead. Take a guy who is quite accepted by friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances. Make him an inner city cop who works a ghetto mentality beat. He might convince himself that the bulk of the adult males are either drug pushers, involved in turf wars, or engaged in criminal activity to support their drug habits. Further, if you play by the book, you aren’t going to change things. The ghetto will be the ghetto.

How long does it take to decide that following the book doesn’t make sense? Is creating or planting evidence to some extent smart if you are to make a difference? Should excessive use of force be deemed necessary? Who is the self perceived hero here?

That is the sort of thinking that might occur in Chicago or Milwaukee. The residents can see the misbehavior, elect people who oppose it, and yet it goes on. I can oppose it, but understand it. You can and should punish the worst abuse, but bigotry and lawlessness by a few supposed champions of the law is excused and perpetuated.

It takes a bit to justify a civil war fought over this sort of thinking. John Brown couldn’t start a civil war. It took a bunch of states attacking the old union to do that. People can talk and type, and in this day of the internet that spreads, but are any states considering succeeding?

[Navigator]

You seem to be opposing democracy. Up to half the people can oppose something that the people want. If most of a sanctuary city wants to help, they do. If a minority would prefer that the help not be given, that is a problem with how democracy works. You can’t have a minority vetoing what the people want.

What most don't understand is that we do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC. It was set up that way on purpose. The founding fathers did not want the majority to be able to trample the rights of the minorities. They did not want the "rules" made by popular opinion.

The intent was to have people elect responsible individuals who would make the correct choices after serious study and debate.

Having said that, you need to be more specific about what it is that the people supposedly want that is being prevented.

Right now the Democrats are pursuing the popular vote and the Republicans are gerrymandering and filibustering. The shoe has been on the other foot at times. Regardless, I would prefer the practices stopped. The crisis is the time to do it. The Republicans have become so addicted to the practices that they will force the Democrats to do the stopping.

Right now the Democrats are pursuing a more and more socialist agenda. Of course they are going to be opposed in this, as the MAJORITY don't want this.

Right now I believe 32 states are fully controlled (State House, State Senate, and Governor) by Republicans while only 18 are fully controlled by Democrats. That means that in our system, the Republicans should have much more say than the Democrats. It means that they are in fact the Majority.

If you don’t see conservatives resisting change and progressives seeking progress you aren’t looking very hard. I’ve gone through the big problems in prior crises often enough: noble privilege, colonial imperialism, slavery, government regulation of the economy, containing autocratic government, criminals in chief, prejudice, use of the law to oppress minorities. In the crisis the progressives get sick of the long extant flaws and force change. In the other three turnings? Not so much. But if you can’t see the conservative factions resisting changes to traditional wrongs, you should look a little harder.

The only thing "progressive" about the Democrats is that they have progressively made things worse through their plans and programs, the vast majority of which have backfired in serious ways.

Noble priveledge and imperialism were fought against in our Revolution. Slavery was supported and expanded by the DEMOCRATS. Government regulation of the economy also has its roots with the Democrats. Containing autocratic government was championed by the Republicans (over FDRs Presidency for Life). Criminals in Chief, as I stated before, are on both sides of the aisle. Prejudice and the use of law to oppress minorities was the main idea of Democrats in the South.

Liberals want to force change. FORCE is the operative word. They want to FORCE you to pay for their programs, FORCE you to behave the way they want you to, FORCE you to believe what they believe.

The problems of prejudice manifest and are fought in various ways in various cities. We had the problems of bussing in Boston. Miami centers more on Cuba than most cities. In Chicago fighting crime by attacking minorities without due process became part of the police culture. Ending prejudice is a long hard road travelled differently in different places.

I can agree with you somewhat here. Racism is wrong, by ANYONE. And I also agree that we have a serious problem with police practices in the USA.

Hopefully, seeing the racists attacking the police on January 6th will change their perspective somewhat.

Here is where you go off the rails. Suddenly you decide to paint everyone in the Jan 6 Capitol riot as a racist. I would bet that you think every single Trump supporter is a racist. Unfortunately, you have just decided that a specific group is "all the same way". Which is what RACISTS do.

I agree that there is a problem, but the elected officials are often trying to do what is necessary and right for those that elected them. Yes, the police problems in Chicago, Milwaukee and elsewhere can involve elected good guys and police bad guys.

I can't believe that anyone would say that the elected officials in our major cities are the "good guys". They have collectively made things MUCH WORSE in almost each and every one of our urban areas. They are at this point pandering to an electorate that doesn't want their criminal relatives arrested, nor do they want to have to pay bail for what are most often multiple repeat offenders.

If the government had believed in regulating the economy during the Gilded Age, perhaps some of your preferred alternatives to Social Security would have happened. The problem was suddenly starting correcting things in the middle of the Great Depressions’s lack of funding. FDR had to borrow against the future. Sure, with 20 20 hindsight it would have been better to slowly solve the crisis problems before they become a crisis, or count on war profits from a conflict that hadn’t happened yet.

Veneration of FDR is sorely misplaced. FDR's actions and policies did little other than prolong and exacerbate the Depression. And then he made things worse in a Long Term way by introducing deficit spending. "Borrowing against the Future" is a great way to rob people who cannot vote yet in order to hand money to people who can vote. It is the biggest financial crime in American history.

The Depression was fixed by the bankruptcy of speculators and the collective savings of people from that point forward. Not by wage and price fixing, not by taking us off the gold standard, not by the National Recovery Act, and certainly not by Social Security.

In the S&H high and awakening we did tax and spend liberalism. In the unravelling and early crisis we did small government. I suspect we’ll never get it quite right and will have to deal with overshoot in both directions. After years of small government and sending jobs abroad, it is time to change course.

Tax and spend liberalism has bankrupted the country. We haven't had "small government" since before FDR. Sending manufacturing to China has been a colossal mistake.

And yes, it is time to change course.

[Navigator]

Navigator, please weigh in with your current perspective on the sequence of events we should be preparing for. Thanks!

I think the book spells things out pretty clearly.

To that I would add that we are probably looking at a MAJOR political upheaval crisis when Trump gets arrested. I think this is only a matter of time.

Trump will call on his supporters to do things in response. Many of these things will be disruptive (which is ok), but he may well ask people to do things that are wrong (as was the Jan 6 Capitol Riot).

In any case, it will probably turn into violent confrontations. Which are wrong.

So, on the horizon:

I see massive political turmoil.

I see a massive economic upheaval, the likes of which will exceed what happened in 1929/30.

And I see a global war.

All of this means an end to the post WWII period we have enjoyed for the last 77 years.

[Bob Butler]

We live by the will of the majority limited by the rights of the individual. We were dealing with the example of sanctuary cities. In sanctuary cities the will of the majority includes a desire to help people. Presumably, the elected representatives determine how to do this after serious study and debate. The question is how any individual’s rights are defeated by paying for the help out of the general fund. Many services are provided from the general fund. While you may object to helping people without being asked, is this lack of asking in the Bill of Rights? Is there something in there that says you have a right to never be on the losing side of a democratic vote? If so, I am unaware.

Shifting to another issue, McConnell has a blanket policy of voting as a block against partisan opponents. This is not what you describe, considering the will of the people with serious study and debate. We are currently working in a partisan hardball environment. The courts too are legislating from the bench and making partisan decisions. Sure, I would love to see what you describe, the government doing the best for the people after sincere debate and limits set by human rights. For the moment though it is who can twist and take advantage of the rules. I’d just as soon change the rules, end the filibustering, end the gerrymandering, promptly respond to judicial nominees, end the legislation from the bench. I’ve recently daydreamed about getting 67 votes in the senate and impeaching any justice that killed the right to control one’s own body. That might be enough to give the Federalist Society judges pause. Maybe they will honor precedent and the constitution more than supporting partisan causes.

The word socialist has multiple meanings. The old USSR preempted it towards communism and gave the word a huge negative connotation. In Europe, it means a government that tries to help the people. I detest the first usage, agree with the latter policy, and avoid using the word because it has two very different and opposing meanings.

Right now the Republicans seemingly control 32 small states with small populations, but even then they do not control the US Senate. How is this possible when states have senators? Can you say gerrymandering? You can’t do that with the US Senate as the election is state wide and cannot be gerrymandered. It is the Democrats who control both houses of the federal congress and the White House. Your point?

I think overturning Roe v Wade invigorated the women and the equation is apt to shift. With it teetering on the edge currently, this could result in a tremendous effect.

Slavery in around the Civil War period was supported and expanded by the southern rural agricultural faction. The Republicans are now the southern rural agricultural faction. When LBJ and MLK allied in the awakening and Nixon introduced the Southern Strategy, the parties switched positions on race. People here keep dissing the rural agricultural faction as racist without realizing they are criticizing themselves.

Yes, progressives want progress. They wanted or want to stop colonial imperialism, noble privilege, slavery, criminals in chief, prejudice, etc…. Conservatives wished or wish to cling to these flaws. Each of these is a problem. Each flaw comes with a ticking clock. Eventually, the issue becomes serious enough to become a crisis issue. Resolving this flaw becomes essentially inevitable. Trump, prejudice and voting rights are now being decided. I am expecting that as usual the progressives will end up on top. I am then expecting an entirely different set of issues to come up four score and seven years from now. That is too far forward to think about now.

Not everyone at the Capitol January 6th was a racist. Quite a few folks are getting criminal trespass charges only with a fairly minor sentence. However, some groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were racist before they were Trump people. They planned the insurrection in advance and are being hit with seditious conspiracy, assault, and impeding a government function charges. The distinctions seem very appropriate, the sentences much larger. The people at the capitol January 6th made the distinction themselves. The charges aren’t for racist actions. There was little of that on the 6th. The people?

FDR got us out of a difficult time, but like any Grey Champion he likely got too much credit and veneration. The temptation in the S&H high is to personify the crisis time period, to select one person to embody the entire crisis. It was made worse by Lincoln and FDR dying at the crisis resolution. It is a bit much. (Does this mean that with Elizabeth II dying, the Ukraine, Taiwan and Trump conflicts are about to resolve???)

Tax and spend liberalism was the golden age of the US economy. Granted, it helped that World War II bombed out so many factories abroad and we canceled Lend Lease debts if the other countries gave up their colonies. (Did anyone think the colonial relationships were dissolved out of charity?) We became the only game in town until the factories were rebuilt and the third world became a source of cheap labor. We then struggled under small government. I doubt we will ever agree on the relative merits of size, but yes it is time to change course.

[Bob Butler]

All of this means an end to the post WWII period we have enjoyed for the last 77 years.

Turmoil, yes, but there is a lot more evidence that Trump stole classified documents and planned insurrection than there is evidence of organized manipulation of the 2020 elections. I would like to think that some conservatives are aware of the facts. But enough will be Fox fixated so considerable turmoil will result. A lot of the violent Trump people are already behind bars for the Jan 6 insurrection, so won’t be available for another effort. I expect law enforcement can handle the rest. Turmoil, yes. Civil war, no.

Putin looks to be on the ropes. Xi is facing enough finance trouble to do something stupid militarily. Xi looks like the greater risk, but the CCP does so much bluff so little backing of their threats that I don’t know how real the threats really are.

I am less sure of the global war, see a short term emphasis on containment, and an end to globalism as regions try to become more independent. I see considerable change, but not really excessive.

[Guest]

BobB and his kind are hopeless and useless and utterly worthless. Civil war and partition or all of America dies, not just the douch bags in the blue cities and states. It is a question of survival of civilization.

BB, stay in the cities with barbarism you so love. They have special plans for people like you.

[Cool Breeze]

Agreed. Also agree with John's recent post. I have previously voiced extreme disdain and concern regarding comments people make on the board concerning different ethnicities.

All you can tell about a person by looking at them is what they look like. That's it. Judgements based on appearance are fundamentally flawed. Every person deserves to be judged as in individual based on their actions.

I treat individuals individually, but I'm no dummy, I know there is a probability that certain traits go with certain phenotypes that also largely have the same "culture" and that these are also chicken and egg. The larger issue is that all I hear about is group this, group that but when it comes to the most violent groups, all of a sudden the data (as acquired by the FBI) doesn't matter, and we're only supposed to talk about "individuals" otherwise you are a "bigot."

You can't have it both ways. The people that don't want us to talk about characteristics of groups make general statements about whites, their "privilege" and other group lies. And to answer the question I asked before, all blacks would rather lives with whites or asians, if they could. Duh

But they aren't "racist." LOL, everything these collectivist degenerates talk about is a lie.

But it is ok, even encouraged, for POCs to denigrate whites, especially white men as racists and Nazis. The hypocrisy of the POCs has reached epic levels. The road to genocide is clear here.

Bob never mentions this. We know why. Of course, he's special needs, so that explains as much as I ever needed to know.