Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

There are touches of FDR and JFK in what you write. It's amazing to me, how the neo-Left savage your ideas. The GOP is not the only party ready to implode. The Democrats have their own issues since the base now largely consists of a peculiar, millenarian variety of hard Leftist. This variety is really not all that interested in standing up for labor, the middle class or the more traditional Democratic constituency.

Huh? Labor issues are big with Millennials--generally, lack of well-paying jobs, the chronic stagnation of wages, Wall Street screwing Main Street, etc. As for the "Middle Class", there isn't much of one left, and many people are now in the "Lower Class" (whether they'll admit or think of themselves that way), and those that are just may have a shift in political interests. Can you blame them? And maybe also, they're finding that the ways we've solved those issues in the past are outdated, just as everything becomes outdated at the end of a saeculum, leading to 4Ts and new ways forward. As for "traditional Democratic constituencies", if that "traditional" is code for cultural issue crap, the Millennials are pretty much done with that, with the default being the "mind your own business" side of issues such as gay rights, marijuana, and whatnot--and I have no problem with that, it's the people who won't mind their business and want to enforce their particular values there that are ultimately exerting a futile effort, whose energy (not to mention the government expense--particularly in the Drug War) could be expended more productively elsewhere: as in getting things done to improve the economy and make thing better for the people who work (or seek to work) in it (you know, "labor"), and maybe even make Middle Class status more reachable for more people again. I can tell you they are focused on those issues like a laser--it's just that you may not like some of the conclusions that are emerging as to what really does need to be done to address them satisfactorily.

They are crypto-Marxist revolutionaries, seeking to demolish the US as we know it.

Please expound on that with examples and data and prove to me you're not just another hysterical red-baiting crank, please.

I call it Destructivism. And by the way, there are plenty on the so called Right who might also been drawn to it.

Ooh, you've coined a scary new propaganda word. What Millennials (and many of us Xers as well) in this emerging constituency want is not about destruction, it's ultimately about creating and building a system that works for them. This one arguably does not, in many ways. Some deadwood will need to be knocked down, sure, to enable the new. Such are 4Ts, better get used to it.

If the world continues on its current path, all Destructivists may need to be locked up or at very least very closely watched by internal security personnel. We cannot afford to have Destructivists getting in the way of doing jobs that need to be done, in order to preserve what is left of the Republic.

Well isn't it good that we can all see where you fall on the issue of police states, and those Un-American freedoms of speech, expression, and ideas. Maybe you'd like to lock me up for Thoughtcrime as well, huh? You won't without a fight, I'll tell you that much.

And what you think needs to be done, is not necessarily what needs to be done. Who do you think will ultimately decide? Who are the future?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

There are touches of FDR and JFK in what you write. It's amazing to me, how the neo-Left savage your ideas. The GOP is not the only party ready to implode. The Democrats have their own issues since the base now largely consists of a peculiar, millenarian variety of hard Leftist. This variety is really not all that interested in standing up for labor, the middle class or the more traditional Democratic constituency. They are crypto-Marxist revolutionaries, seeking to demolish the US as we know it.

I call it Destructivism. And by the way, there are plenty on the so called Right who might also been drawn to it.

If the world continues on its current path, all Destructivists may need to be locked up or at very least very closely watched by internal security personnel. We cannot afford to have Destructivists getting in the way of doing jobs that need to be done, in order to preserve what is left of the Republic.

But I guess it's easier, for these types at least, to have blanket absolutes. If you're not 100% with them, you might as well be 100% against them.

"Destructivism" is pretty cool - but as I see it, the struggle is between economic objectivists on the right (who are informed in large part by a misguided Cold War nostalgia that teaches that since Communism was the worst possible system, then its diametrical opposite must, by necessity, be the best possible system), and compulsive iconoclasts on the left who have never met a tradition of any kind they don't want to utterly steamroll.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Huh? Labor issues are big with Millennials--generally, lack of well-paying jobs, the chronic stagnation of wages, Wall Street screwing Main Street, etc. As for the "Middle Class", there isn't much of one left, and many people are now in the "Lower Class" (whether they'll admit or think of themselves that way), and those that are just may have a shift in political interests. Can you blame them? And maybe also, they're finding that the ways we've solved those issues in the past are outdated, just as everything becomes outdated at the end of a saeculum, leading to 4Ts and new ways forward. As for "traditional Democratic constituencies", if that "traditional" is code for cultural issue crap, the Millennials are pretty much done with that, with the default being the "mind your own business" side of issues such as gay rights, marijuana, and whatnot--and I have no problem with that, it's the people who won't mind their business and want to enforce their particular values there that are ultimately exerting a futile effort, whose energy (not to mention the government expense--particularly in the Drug War) could be expended more productively elsewhere: as in getting things done to improve the economy and make thing better for the people who work (or seek to work) in it (you know, "labor"), and maybe even make Middle Class status more reachable for more people again. I can tell you they are focused on those issues like a laser--it's just that you may not like some of the conclusions that are emerging as to what really does need to be done to address them satisfactorily.



Please expound on that with examples and data and prove to me you're not just another hysterical red-baiting crank, please.



Ooh, you've coined a scary new propaganda word. What Millennials (and many of us Xers as well) in this emerging constituency want is not about destruction, it's ultimately about creating and building a system that works for them. This one arguably does not, in many ways. Some deadwood will need to be knocked down, sure, to enable the new. Such are 4Ts, better get used to it.



Well isn't it good that we can all see where you fall on the issue of police states, and those Un-American freedoms of speech, expression, and ideas. Maybe you'd like to lock me up for Thoughtcrime as well, huh? You won't without a fight, I'll tell you that much.

And what you think needs to be done, is not necessarily what needs to be done. Who do you think will ultimately decide? Who are the future?

I think you may be reacting to my use of the term millenarian to describe the Destructivists. I was alluding to that word in the general sense. The Destructivsts have a very apocalyptic view. Be it "the death of Nature," the reputed looming final take over by the so called Plutocracy, or, in other Destructivist quarters, a world wide Satanic empire, this view posits a threat, typically domestic, that must be opposed via radical means. It is like a watered down version of that Hale-Bopp Comet Cult. This drives all sorts of hare brained proposals that fly in the face of what is good for the American people. This is quite different from the classic Left's planks. The classic Left was all about workers' rights, fair play and equality in the eyes of the law. If you look at an FDR or a JFK vs a Pelosi or a Sanders, it is like night and day. And as I note, I spare no criticism for many quarters of the so called "Right." There are plenty of Destructivists there as well. When the SHTF, we cannot tolerate any of it.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I think you may be reacting to my use of the term millenarian to describe the Destructivists. I was alluding to that word in the general sense. The Destructivsts have a very apocalyptic view. Be it "the death of Nature," the reputed looming final take over by the so called Plutocracy, or, in other Destructivist quarters, a world wide Satanic empire, this view posits a threat, typically domestic, that must be opposed via radical means. It is like a watered down version of that Hale-Bopp Comet Cult. This drives all sorts of hare brained proposals that fly in the face of what is good for the American people. This is quite different from the classic Left's planks. The classic Left was all about workers' rights, fair play and equality in the eyes of the law. If you look at an FDR or a JFK vs a Pelosi or a Sanders, it is like night and day. And as I note, I spare no criticism for many quarters of the so called "Right." There are plenty of Destructivists there as well. When the SHTF, we cannot tolerate any of it.

The Tea Party are destructivists. Phoney nonsense about both parties being at fault will not wash. It is the 4T; it is time to choose. You go forward or go backward. The Plutocracy is not a looming threat; they have already taken over in many ways. There's no need to exaggerate. They have engineered an unequal society to their benefit, and have succeeded with lies and deception. They have put us all into grave peril. The big lie is that they stand for "freedom." They really stand for oppression. The S is already Hing TF. What are we going to do about it, is the question. Continue our 33 year fake-libertarian regression? Or move forward again? It's up to us. Smokescreens cannot hide the facts, and the facts are plain to see for everyone.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Tea Party are destructivists. Phoney nonsense about both parties being at fault will not wash. It is the 4T; it is time to choose. You go forward or go backward. The Plutocracy is not a looming threat; they have already taken over in many ways. There's no need to exaggerate. They have engineered an unequal society to their benefit, and have succeeded with lies and deception. They have put us all into grave peril. The big lie is that they stand for "freedom." They really stand for oppression. The S is already Hing TF. What are we going to do about it, is the question. Continue our 33 year fake-libertarian regression? Or move forward again? It's up to us. Smokescreens cannot hide the facts, and the facts are plain to see for everyone.

But it was only the destructivism of the left, which began rearing its ugly head nearly 50 years ago, that has provided an opening for the destructivism of the right, that has been in steady ascendancy since the early 1980s. Once selfishness in the realm of personal behavior was de-stigmatized, it paved the way for the economic objectivists to argue that it should be de-stigmatized in the realm of economic behavior as well.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I think you may be reacting to my use of the term millenarian to describe the Destructivists. I was alluding to that word in the general sense. The Destructivsts have a very apocalyptic view. Be it "the death of Nature," the reputed looming final take over by the so called Plutocracy, or, in other Destructivist quarters, a world wide Satanic empire, this view posits a threat, typically domestic, that must be opposed via radical means. It is like a watered down version of that Hale-Bopp Comet Cult. This drives all sorts of hare brained proposals that fly in the face of what is good for the American people. This is quite different from the classic Left's planks. The classic Left was all about workers' rights, fair play and equality in the eyes of the law. If you look at an FDR or a JFK vs a Pelosi or a Sanders, it is like night and day. And as I note, I spare no criticism for many quarters of the so called "Right." There are plenty of Destructivists there as well. When the SHTF, we cannot tolerate any of it.

Pelosi??? A radical "crypto-Marxist"?!?!? (If there was an "LOL" smilie, I'd have a whole row of them here, but one of these will do.) Yeah, now I know you're just another red-baiting crank. Unless of course you can cough up an example of any legislation she's sponsored or pushed that threatens us with teh communism, or to "demolish the U.S. as we know it". As House Speaker she was pretty much as middle-of-the-road Dem as it gets, and even her House majority couldn't (or wouldn't) muster much of an effort to take advantage of that majority to fight for any but the most watered-down progressive proposals and policies. (You could thus make an argument that she doesn't seem as concerned as she should be with worker rights and other "classic Left" issues; but "hard Left" or "crypto-Marxist" or in any way "apocalyptic" she most certainly ain't.)

Sanders definitely stands for progressive issues, and was one of the few fighters for single-payer health care, or at least public options in the ACA--but there was and is a sizeable constituency that wanted and want those things, and he is one of the few in Congress that represent that faction. Yes he warns of plutocracy--and if he's wrong, why not make an argument for how he's wrong. But the expansion of corporate power has very much to do with the fate of worker rights, fair play, and even equality under the law, in that they tend to be inversely related. His concern about this is very much in-line with those "classic" Left issues as they stand today. He is also staunchly anti-war, which I know you have a problem with--but right now, most of the nation is anti-war (if polls about Syria were accurate), so guess what? We deserve to have some representation in that regard too. We're either a representative democratic republic, or we aren't--and last I checked, you were implying your "argument" (such as it was) was in defense of same ("the Republic").

Which brings us, again, to your stated desire to see certain dissenters you disapprove of, locked up. Which frankly makes any claim of "defense of the Republic" hollow and hypocritical. I mean what's more "American" than freedom of speech and ideas, and the freedom to pursue one's ideals in the political arena? Without these we're just another empire that oppresses its dissenters, and at that point no more worth fighting for, in the grand scheme of things, than they are.

I'd suggest you apply some more rigor to your arguments about who poses what supposed "threat from within" than just tossing out names and labeling them "destructivists", if you don't want to come across as a paranoid crank. Merely comparing them to FDR and JFK (and not even giving examples to demonstrate how they compare/contrast) is largely irrelevant--as much as you or I may admire those great Presidents, times and realities have changed since FDR and JFK, the saeculum they helped open has now drawn to a close, and clones of them or even their policies won't necessarily save us this time. You need to, at the very least, show us examples of how, in your opinion, those whom you label "destructionist" are an actual threat.

And I would also suggest reconsidering your proposal to "lock them up" or even "closely monitor by internal security", if you want to have any credibility vis a vis defending "the US as we know (or knew?) it". (Obviously those who actually do violent acts and not merely speak or exercise their political rights, cross a line where "locking up" is an accepted remedy regardless, as has always been.) And I mean that for TPers who merely speak or exercise their political rights, as well as those on the "hard Left" whom I'm much more likely to agree with.

You know, this year in Illinois we've got both universal healthcare and concealed carry. Sounds like good times for everyone on both sides of the aisle.