Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Guest wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Go East wrote:
Cowardice? Hardly! All I see are retarded Baby Boomers who set off this assault on Western Values and the Millenials who are completely enthralled by by the mirage of multiculturalism and more interested in virtue signalling than standing up for their own people. How can we raise an army from that muck?

I'm going to retire to a quiet place and enjoy what time I have left in peace.

Everyone here seems to be stuck in the trap of linear extrapolation. You are right if people continue to act exactly as they are now things won't go well. An explicit point in GD is that this is the wrong way to look at the situation. If you view this as something important you will stay and fight rather than retreat to comfort. Turns out you have to sacrifice for things you care about. Go figure

I'm not I don't want to fight an outside "enemy to preserve this "nations that has "decided " via mass immigration to turn it's founding population (white people) into a minority. Also I've been thinking the Revolution was an external Crisis war, the Civil War an internal one, WWII, external ergo it's time for our next internal one. If you don't think conditions are growing here for a Civil War with race as it's pivot point you deluding yourself.

Not sure where you are going with internal and external crisis war's, you should actually go through the effort of understanding the GD theory before criticizing it. External pressure will vastly outweigh minor race tiffs, you likely have forgotten how bad race use to be.

Brendan wrote:

Guest wrote:

Brendan wrote:
Everyone here seems to be stuck in the trap of linear extrapolation. You are right if people continue to act exactly as they are now things won't go well. An explicit point in GD is that this is the wrong way to look at the situation. If you view this as something important you will stay and fight rather than retreat to comfort. Turns out you have to sacrifice for things you care about. Go figure

I'm not I don't want to fight an outside "enemy to preserve this "nations that has "decided " via mass immigration to turn it's founding population (white people) into a minority. Also I've been thinking the Revolution was an external Crisis war, the Civil War an internal one, WWII, external ergo it's time for our next internal one. If you don't think conditions are growing here for a Civil War with race as it's pivot point you deluding yourself.

Not sure where you are going with internal and external crisis war's, you should actually go through the effort of understanding the GD theory before criticizing it. External pressure will vastly outweigh minor race tiffs, you likely have forgotten how bad race use to be.

Are you so blind to race differences to make your above comment? The race issue is roaring back in ways you haven't seen in decades. Just look up the Homeland Generations voting preference...

Also I love how John likes to forget how he wrote before in a fourth turning a society can either enshire or totally ditch that which comes in the second turning. Aka John likes to forget we very well may ditch civil rights for non White, feminism etc.

Honestly I am having a hard time seeing how this goes beyond the theory. In the fourth turning it explicitly states that society will become more traditional where minority groups will feel unsafe. This is par the course and just more evidence for it rather than against it.

Brendan wrote:Honestly I am having a hard time seeing how this goes beyond the theory. In the fourth turning it explicitly states that society will become more traditional where minority groups will feel unsafe. This is par the course and just more evidence for it rather than against it.

Whites are a now a minority in urban centers everywhere. Whites feel unsafe.

I'm in the heart of Georgia and I feel safe. I don't feel threatened by my black co-workers, or my black neighbors. This so called racial problem is in local hot spots, and not indicative of the attitudes of the whole nation. And in most cases, not of whole states, or whole cities. The majority of the United States gets along great. It's not in the media's interest to show you that story. The hope of Globalism means an end to America that stands in the way of that goal. That's the narrative the media peddles.

psCargile wrote:I'm in the heart of Georgia and I feel safe. I don't feel threatened by my black co-workers, or my black neighbors. This so called racial problem is in local hot spots, and not indicative of the attitudes of the whole nation. And in most cases, not of whole states, or whole cities. The majority of the United States gets along great. It's not in the media's interest to show you that story. The hope of Globalism means an end to America that stands in the way of that goal. That's the narrative the media peddles.

Precisely.

The anti-Americans, by which I mean racists, of any color/grouping, want their competition eliminated. Period.

These anti-Americans want a one party state. They try to use the leverage of "myopic media coverage" to get enough "votes" to vote away the representative electoral process, giving them perpetual one party rule, aka tyranny.

The question is whether the "great middle" will be intimidated by the anti-Americans and allow the society to be lost.

The American middle is too big to allow one party rule. But the "urge" to become paranoid (of the treat of extermination) is too strong to resist, and a pseudo- one party rule will happen when the external threat becomes "real".

..the "left" will try to infiltrate the "unified government" to control it, exactly as they've been doing with "urban governments". Since they think they have a chance to perpetually control the government AFTER the war, they won't decry the Fascistic Government™, even though that IS what they think it is.

..the "right" will battle with the bureaucrats for control, and push for more extreme Fascistic Government™, so that when their chance to take control after the war comes they will be able to strong arm their way into perpetual control.

The time of greatest danger to the country fighting against one party rule is the late war period, assuming winning is doable at that point, when the anti-Americans will fight like hell to establish their dynasty.

..if it appears that winning is NOT doable, then the war will be (effectively) abandoned, and the anti-American factions will war with each other.

Their primary allegiance is ALWAYS to one party rule. Not the country.

Personally, I think any "identity group" based organization should be heavily surveilled (to the point of abject intrusion) and slapped down HARD if any kind of political power is sought by them.

Is that yet another form of FASCISM? Probably. Is the world headed that way anyway? Almost certainly.


The only real "solution" (if that word is even applicable) is to "Babelize" all identity group timelines. How does that get done?

..beats the crap outta me. And do I really care? No. The "memory of how shit really works" problem is utterly insurmountable, and guarantees the perpetual spinning of the wheel.

Yeah it just really doesn't feel like Charlottesville is pressing on racial tensions. Sure that was a part of it (though its hard with media attention to tell how much). I feel like if this truly was a race issue racial tensions across the country would feel racially tense or at least heightened from the event. Its getting a ton of coverage because it the media can spin it into their favorite narrative of race. However the short term ripples don't seem to be racial but still political in nature. We see the left continue this witch hunt of all confederacy statues. This strikes me less as racial and more highly polarized battle over politcial values. Thats why you attack statues. Statues are symbols and an attack on them imply an attack on values and what those symbols represent. If this was racial we would see more direct threats/attacks on the actual communities and people themselves. I mean shit there were even black leaders saying they understand the sentiment but don't think they should be tearing down history. Doesn't seem like it is dividing people on racial but political boundaries.

Brendan wrote:... Its getting a ton of coverage because it the media can spin it into their favorite narrative of race. However the short term ripples don't seem to be racial but still political in nature. We see the left continue this witch hunt of all confederacy statues. This strikes me less as racial and more highly polarized battle over politcial values. Thats why you attack statues. Statues are symbols and an attack on them imply an attack on values and what those symbols represent. ...

The "fascist left" (plus the media) is hysterically smashing monuments in hopes of equating anything "pre- urban/black supremacist theological ideology" and "pre- elitist and their slaves" (aka the two factions of the fascist left) with "illegitimate in origin", so as to destroy the constitutional basis of non-racist-supremacist (non-one-party-state) free speech representative democracy.

It wonʻt work, simply because they have no leverage over the "deeper government", which undergirds the status quo.

It WILL destroy a good many monuments/statues/school-names, which will only infuriate localities who see value in remembering the past, and weed out monuments that locals donʻt care about anyway.

The "fascist right" (plus the media) will use the hysterical "left" to recruit sympathizers for their own hysterical purposes.

The August 19th deadline passed and nothing. China blinked.