Originally Posted by elilevin

I think one problem with the kind of democracy that we export is that we cannot recreate the same situation in those emerging countries that we have at home. We really do not have large divisions between rich and poor in the same way that they exist in third world nations. (There are poor people here, but many of them would be considered rich by the standards of the world.) We also do not have the majority of our people eking out a painful existence with subsistance agriculture. These conditions were so even at the inception of the United States at the time of the revolution and the framing of our constitution.

I think that our mistake is that we do not realize that the starting conditions have a lot to do with the outcome. We therefore export the institutions of democracy in form but we do not realize that these forms are hollow if the starting conditions do not allow them to function as they do here.

True. Policies, laws and bureaucracies that work in the United States, where we have a well developed educational, political and industrial infrastructure, can't just be dropped into places where none such exist. The old 'you can't get there from here' punch line almost feels right. To end exploitation, in order to develop necessary infrastructure, one almost has to use highly exploitive methods to make enough money to build the infrastructure.

This might be justified. It is common knowledge that a dream can be deferred... for a time. Still, is the objective of your typical multinational long term stability and infrastructure building, or short term return on investment during the current CEO's time in the corner office?

At any rate, as stated earlier, a hypothetical Gray Champion trying to solve such problems will have a difficult problem.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You know, when I joined this forum early last year, it was because I
thought there would be a group of people who have read "The Fourth
Turning," and actually believe what it's saying. It never ceases to
amaze me that I may be the only one in this forum who actually
believes what the Fourth Turning tells us -- or at least that's what
it seems to me most of the time.

I know this feeling. I often grumble at the amount of energy spent on rehashing the unraveling red / blue stalemate, rather than developing a new world view appropriate to creating the new high. I try not to too often mention Atlanta in 1865, Berlin in 1945 and terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction in attempts to shake people out of an attitude that minor tweaks on unraveling policies are sufficient. I believe your Israeli scenario is all too plausible, but am concerned that not all the violence will be on such a small front, nor so far away.

If I compare with the Revolutionary cycle, Amy Chua is the academic, filling a role semi-compatible with the Enlightenment philosophers. Arundhati Roy is more comparable with the instigators of the Boston protests. She might never be more than a Sam Adams or a Thomas Paine, but until I can find a Gray Champion nominee, I'll keep an eye on Arundhati.

I can recommend Chua's World on Fire as a worthy read. I can't defend Roy's every action. If the American power companies in question are hiring a reasonable number of native workers, and if a good size fraction of the profits are being reinvested in India, I would tend to agree with your suggesting that foreign investment can be helpful in the Third World. Still, Roy presents bribery, corruption and exporting of profits as exploitive and oppressive. She complains about kick backs and corruption necessary to win government supervised contracts, as well as about the multi nationals themselves. Frankly, I don't know how much of her platform is based on placing blame where blame is due, and how much putting extra blame on foreign devils gives her a chance to build support while minimizing government suppression of her movement.

But the bottom line is that neither you nor I have researched Arundhati's position on the US power companies operating in India sufficiently to meaningfully debate it. I keep an eye out for her name in my reading of the news, as she reminds me of past rabble rousers. There is more news out there than anyone can reasonably read. I can hardly expect everyone who reads these boards to become a Roy expert, let alone a Roy fan.

Still, in addition to Bin Ladin and Saddam, Roy is way up there on my list of instigators focusing world views intended to remake the world this Crisis. I see Bin Ladin and Saddam as dead ends, as reactionaries, attempting to return to classic religious values, or maintain totalitarian systems, both of which are more in tune with First Wave Agricultural Age world views than Second Wave Industrial Age or hypothetical Third Wave Millennial values. I give Roy a special place as she is actively pushing a progressive radical innovative world view, rather than trying to cling to the past. She is focusing on injustice effecting many. This is not to say I endorse everything she says. This is not to say that the eventual Gray Champions are not often more moderate consensus builders than the firebrands that precede them. It is just that at this point on the unraveling / crisis cusp, when the Gray Champion is still shadowed, one ought to keep a careful watch on people pushing radical plans for the future.

The plus side of Arundhati Roy and her Third World grass roots globalist allies is they are addressing the fundamental underlying causes. They are trying to force economic, cultural and political changes that underlie the many and varied world hot spots. As Roy sees the 'market dominant minority' dialectic from the repressed majority perspective, her views on applied solutions to the problems presented by Chua are significant. Historically, dominant minorities don't give up dominance out of altruism and a desire for tranquility. They have to be pushed. Roy is starting to push. Small pushes. Insignificant pushes. "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you..."

Huntington's civilization model predicts where crises might occur. Strauss and Howe's cycles model says a lot about when. Chua and Roy are saying a lot about why, the world is on fire, and about how a new high might be built on the ashes.

Crises change the world. The change is always much greater than anticipated. A devout Strauss and Howe fan trying to minimize the ugliness of the crisis and improve the highness of the high ought to be looking for people like Chua and Roy. If they are not the people to watch, let me know who is. I am simply not content saying that bad times are coming to certain places. I want to know how the world has to change in order to make the bad times go away. I want to be on the side of a Jefferson, Lincoln or FDR, not a King George III, Jefferson Davis or Hitler.

Look again at what you say about the coming conflict in Israel. You have gone beyond predicting a crisis at a given time. You use the model as a structure to better understand a world trouble spot, and apply the model to a time and place that, to my knowledge, Strauss and Howe have not pushed. This is the difference between a 'shallow' interpretation of a model, and embracing a solid understanding of model. You showed the ability to apply the theory to a new situation.

I just find Chua's model worth understanding. It is not the only model worth understanding. It is just the one that best addresses underlying causes, identifies the direction of change, and suggests who the good guys and bad guys might be. Toffler's 'Wave' model suggesting we must move beyond Agricultural Age and Industrial Age patterns to some new hypothetical Information Age / Global Age future complements it, though Toffler is more concerned with stress and internal culture than ethnic, military and political considerations. The Wave model is also better at suggesting the magnitude of the effects of technology than pegging the nature of the political and cultural shifts. None of the models seem adequate alone.

I just fear that we are going to be the conservative nation, benefiting from the status quo, resisting change, that must be defeated for civilization to step up to the next level. In any given crisis, it is possible for the establishment to justify existing divisions of wealth and power. It is hard for the haves to embrace the perspective of tha have nots. It is natural for those who have to try to keep. George III had a divine right to colonial imperialism. Many in the South believed freedom impossible without slavery. Enough has been said of late about Hitler and fascism.

Anyway, I can't resist again repeating perhaps the best short summary of a well known Strauss and Howe crisis. Take it as a role playing exercise. Swap out the establishment world view for a radical one for a bit. It is remarkable how little would have to be changed, editing refrences from slavery to market dominant minorities and exploiting multi-nationals, to bring the following up to date. While not everything fits, try it on for emotional size, just to feel emotionally where Amy and Arundhati might be coming from.

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Few if any on the establishment side will want to see it. I don't want to see it. Still, if one pushes S&H theory to the extreme, I'll stand with Lincoln.

Only a few who have posted here remember the last Crisis. Myself, I had never felt a shock quite like September 11th-I had to wonder if that was what my elders felt when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

(~*~)

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Only a few who have posted here remember the last Crisis. Myself, I had never felt a shock quite like September 11th-I had to wonder if that was what my elders felt when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

(~*~)

I've often wondered whether the catalyst needs to provide shock that is uniquely large, or it just have to be so unexpected that it's stunning. I was shocked by 9-11, but less so than the Kennedy assassination. I think the difference in my age and level of cynicism made the less serious event much larger, though both events were ceratainly major.

For those just waiting on tenter hooks, that's just a personal observation, so don't accuse me of wishing the 9-11 victim's dead, OK?

Bob,

That was an eloquent post.

As to the criticism leveled per this forum:

I think we all would wish that the coming crisis could be fixed by minor tweaking of the political spectrum in the U.S. Who would truly wish for a crisis?

And yet when we are honest about looking at the magnitude of the issues confronting us, I think most know in their hearts and minds that this shall not so easily pass. And yet we are not at a place to forsee the events that will compose the climax of the crisis. Therefore, we tend to focus on the immediate, if not so large, issues that make up our daily lives. And yet I do believe that the mood of this country has shifted, though we are uncertain of what we will face come the regeneracy and the climax.

Anyway, we can take courage from Mr. Lincoln's immortal words and at the same time realize that he spoke them near the end of the Civil War Crisis when those on either side were determined to fight to the bloody end. We cannot expect that people at this early stage of a 4T will have the same vision and resolve as those in the past who were at or passing the climax of their crisis.

I have listened to Roy on Alternative Radio several times. I do not agree with all that she says and yet some of her words make me sufficiently uncomfortable so that I must sit up and take notice. I started Chua's book last night. I will have more to say when I have completed reading it.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean and Bob,Now, here's where I start running into serious problems, on several
levels.

The implication of what you're writing is that we have some sort of
choice. "Oh," I infer from your remarks, "the problem isn't
globalization, capitalism and democracy. The problem is the
particular KIND of capitalism and democracy. If we were just a little
more clever, or just a little bit more (take your choice) liberal or
conservative, then we'd have IDEAL, WONDERFUL capitalism and democracy with everyone living happily ever after..."

I have no doubt that the eventual solution to the division of wealth problem will involve capitalism and democracy, but I don't see either system as perfect finished products. If it were easy to agree on what a perfect finished product would be, and how to get there, and if the establishment didn't like the imperfect current system better, we wouldn't need have a crisis. Alas, we do need have a crisis.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I believe that with a little more work you could show mathematically
that there's no way to do nation building that doesn't create the
rich/poor inequality that you're talking about...

The ethnic cleansing that occurred in the 1990s in the Balkans and
Rwanda were secular crisis civil wars. There was no way to avoid
them. That's the whole point of 4T paradigm and this entire forum...

So this brings me to the real conclusion of my message that you're
responding to -- namely that bringing up these issues has no purpose
except to assign blame to some politician. This is always good clean
fun, and I don't begrudge you your fun in doing it, but it's not
entirely relevant to what I understand to be the point of this thread
-- the inevitable "cascade" of a crisis period.

Maybe I'm just not so much pessimist. During the Clinton years, I was keeping an eye on a bunch of spirals including: Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Israel, Al Quida, and Waco - Ruby Ridge - Oklahoma City. While Clinton was flawed, he did what he could, and several of these spirals were put into recession. I don't see the S&H cycle theory as being accurate enough to be considered causal. The conflicts predicted are not necessarily inevitable, save with hindsight. Gut feel, though, the more people assume a spiral will inevitably explode, the more likely it is to explode.

Especially, S&H says nothing about the underlying causes of crisis. Nada. Zip. I have been pounding on these boards that the Gray Champion is progressive, urban, secular and populist, (blue) while the establishment he confronts is the opposite (red). S&H didn't get even that far. The issues do change with every crisis. The life and death issues from the prior crisis are generally old news, long dormant, though the philosophies and values applied to the old problems will often fit when extended to the new conflicts. The greatest flaws of the society undergoing crisis shall be addressed, but they will be new flaws. The shadow takes another shape before it grows again.

I am not content saying division of wealth is inevitable, thus need not be addressed. I am not content saying ethnic strife is inevitable, thus need not be addressed. I am not content saying injustices which have never been solved can't be solved, thus need not be addressed. I am not content saying addressing underlying causes of the crisis is giving into the terrorists, thus economic, political, ethnic, human rights, and religious issues can not be address. History tells me different. Everything shall be addressed. Arguments that a specific injustice is time honored, traditional, backed by law, inevitable, and in the best interests of civilization are conservative bunk. Such evasions and cries for inaction seem an inevitable part of the 'cascade phase.' Southern assertions that slavery has been the basis for all civilization, and slavery is necessary for freedom might stand as historical example.

The greatest problems confronting the societies going into an S&H crisis shall be addressed, in spite of conservatives, in spite of everything. The only way to prevent resolution of division of wealth and market dominant minority related issues is for a larger more dire set of problem to arise that focuses everyone's attention.

At this point it isn't happening. The spirals seem focused on variants of the market dominant minority themes, though the values used to focus and solve the problems are often reactionary. Third World attempts to solve problems with violence focused by hatred and chauvinism will be no more productive than First World brute force defense of the status quo. If the violence is considered inevitable, and the only solutions are violent solutions, we are not going to build a new high.

The S&H cycles are not a circle. They are a spiral. When one gets back to a given turning four score and seven years later, problems have been addressed that were significant the prior turn around. That is why S&H theory can't stand alone. S&H do not emphasize the role of the cycles in enabling change. It is a shame the discoverers of the mechanism for radical change were conservative. While they honor the radical changes of the past that is the basis for their culture, they cannot embrace the next wave of change.

So, somebody has to hijack their theory. Sorry if I'm hammering it a bit hard, but I only have one hammer, one bell, one song.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I have been pounding on these boards that the Gray Champion is progressive, urban, secular and populist, (blue) while the establishment he confronts is the opposite (red).

Does this model apply to the War of the Roses, the Armada or the Revolutionary Crisis?

I'll grant the progressive, but isn't this is a circular concept? After all, how do you define progressive? Isn't progressive being on the side of the future (i.e. progress). And isn't the future created by the winning side of the crisis? So can't progressive be defined as the winning side of the crisis?

I finished the conservative tome by Ms. Chua last night. She opts for a measured democracy rather than majoritarianism and argues for a market that is policed by virtue and self-interest. That the forces that would destroy the Peace of Westphalia and return us to savage Gen IV warfare or the fantasies of "nation-building" Bush, et al. are any portion of a Crisis solution is risible.

Ms. Chua argues for variety, imperfectability, prudence, prescription, and social continuity. Only the transcendant moral order of Mr. Burke is missing... Ms. Chua lives in the world of Progress and "economic man" so this might be forgiven. She is part of the old order, trying to keep the mob from the heads of the dominant Western economic minority. She is not on the side of Mr. Butler or Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Roosevelt or that creature waiting to be born- the next Gray Champion. Read the LETTERS ON A REGICIDE PEACE for another last gasper; compare and contrast. My hopes rest on the Consolations of Religion that may stay the hands of those so abused in the lands of the South by the versions of Modern Progress... their several salvations may be ours as well. HTH

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Only a few who have posted here remember the last Crisis. Myself, I had never felt a shock quite like September 11th-I had to wonder if that was what my elders felt when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

(~*~)

Probably not. 911 was (probably) the start of a new Fourth Turning, and as such caught us completely off guard. In contrast, Pearl Harbor occurred more than two-thirds through the last one. Although it's always a shock when your Nation is suddenly attacked, The Crisis had been raging for a dozen years already on 12/7/41, and given that war was already happening in Europe people must have sensed that things would get much worse before they got better. The Fat Lady hadn't even stepped on stage yet.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I finished the conservative tome by Ms. Chua last night. She opts for a measured democracy rather than majoritarianism and argues for a market that is policed by virtue and self-interest. That the forces that would destroy the Peace of Westphalia and return us to savage Gen IV warfare or the fantasies of "nation-building" Bush, et al. are any portion of a Crisis solution is risible.

Ms. Chua argues for variety, imperfectability, prudence, prescription, and social continuity. Only the transcendant moral order of Mr. Burke is missing... Ms. Chua lives in the world of Progress and "economic man" so this might be forgiven. She is part of the old order, trying to keep the mob from the heads of the dominant Western economic minority. She is not on the side of Mr. Butler or Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Roosevelt or that creature waiting to be born- the next Gray Champion. Read the LETTERS ON A REGICIDE PEACE for another last gasper; compare and contrast. My hopes rest on the Consolations of Religion that may stay the hands of those so abused in the lands of the South by the versions of Modern Progress... there several salvations may be ours as well. HTH

I think I almost understood that post and liked what I read. 8)

Originally Posted by Sean Love

I think I almost understood that post and liked what I read. 8)

Then I have failed in my quest to write with Delphic clarity. :cry:

But I am heartened that you found something that you liked.

Try Mr. Paul J. Cella III at Tech Central Station:

Whither Burke?

The "weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a madman" argument - horrifying though it is - is not enough, in my view, to justify a dismantling of the Westphalian international structure, which centers on the sovereignty of nation-states.

.....


And such is the first duty of conservatives today. Where is this Tocquevillean, or maybe Burkean imagination? Is there anyone left on the Right who remembers the vast bulk of literature examining the indispensable role of organic, prescriptive institutions and mores in giving life to ordered freedom? Have we forgotten how precious it is? How difficult to export? Of some who clamor for war, and seem to have forsaken the great virtue of prudence, I am tempted say with John Henry Newman: they "are so intemperate and intractable that there is no greater calamity for a good cause than that they should get hold of it." The same might be more justly said of the "peace movement," except that it remains an open question whether theirs is a good cause at all; deposing Saddam Hussein, freeing the Iraqi people from his fiendish yoke, is emphatically a good cause, whether or not it is properly our own.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Sean Love

I think I almost understood that post and liked what I read. 8)

Then I have failed in my quest to write with Delphic clarity. :cry:

But I am heartened that you found something that you liked.

Try Mr. Paul J. Cella III at Tech Central Station:

Whither Burke?

The "weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a madman" argument - horrifying though it is - is not enough, in my view, to justify a dismantling of the Westphalian international structure, which centers on the sovereignty of nation-states.

.....


And such is the first duty of conservatives today. Where is this Tocquevillean, or maybe Burkean imagination? Is there anyone left on the Right who remembers the vast bulk of literature examining the indispensable role of organic, prescriptive institutions and mores in giving life to ordered freedom? Have we forgotten how precious it is? How difficult to export? Of some who clamor for war, and seem to have forsaken the great virtue of prudence, I am tempted say with John Henry Newman: they "are so intemperate and intractable that there is no greater calamity for a good cause than that they should get hold of it." The same might be more justly said of the "peace movement," except that it remains an open question whether theirs is a good cause at all; deposing Saddam Hussein, freeing the Iraqi people from his fiendish yoke, is emphatically a good cause, whether or not it is properly our own.

It would seem greater and greater Leftism is seeping into the New Right marginalizing Burke ever more. Whither Burke? indeed. Alas, he succumbs to Napoleon.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I have been pounding on these boards that the Gray Champion is progressive, urban, secular and populist, (blue) while the establishment he confronts is the opposite (red).

Does this model apply to the War of the Roses, the Armada or the Revolutionary Crisis?

I'll grant the progressive, but isn't this is a circular concept? After all, how do you define progressive? Isn't progressive being on the side of the future (i.e. progress). And isn't the future created by the winning side of the crisis? So can't progressive be defined as the winning side of the crisis?

If you accept that all crises lead to change, and the winners write the history books, yes, there is a plausible definition of 'progressive' that would be essentially meaningless.

I generally use Toffler's 'Waves of Civilization' model to define a direction of progress. Most crises since the Black Plague can be seen moving society a bit further from feudal patterns, towards modern industrial patterns. This links my definition of 'progressive' to 'urban' and 'secular.' Still, even without such a linkage, one can see in most crises a faction that is seeking change, and a faction striving to maintain the status quo. The progressives would be trying to give more power to parliament, sever their country from the power of the throne, or end slavery.

In the Protestant - Catholic wars following the Reformation, I'd give the Protestants the progressive label, and the Catholics the conservative. At the time, the Catholics were defending autocratic control of ideas, as well as maintaining more secular forms of power, while the Protestants were vaguely aligned with the dawning scientific world view.

I'm not an expert on the War of the Roses. A quick Goggle search for reasons for the war indicate it was a pure Agricultural Age argument between two feudal houses. If one house had been supported by a rising craftsman class near London, and the other house had strongholds in the rural areas and was backed by the Church, I would make a case that the war was related to an Agricultural Age vs. Industrial Age struggle, and plop the label 'progressive' on the Industrial Age king. (Industrial age King???:wink But this seems not to be the case. It wasn't until the English Civil War that urban, Puritan, parliamentary faction squared off against the rural, Anglican royalist cavaliers. During and after English Civil War era, the Puritans tended to emigrate towards Boston and New England, while the Cavaliers emigrated to Virginia and the South. As a proud New Englander, and wannabe heir to the Puritans, patriots and abolitionists, I'd recommend Kevin Phillips' The Cousins' Wars as an exploration of how the banners of the urban secular progressive movements passed between generations.

Mind you, in any given crisis, the broad pattern of 'urban, secular, progressive, populist' might only be good for 3 out of 4. Prior to the American Revolution, when it was often Protestants v Catholics, one wouldn't want to call either side 'secular.' The conservative side might better be described as 'high church' while the progressives were generally 'low church'. This might reflect a values difference similar to the political division between 'autocratic' (divine rule of kings) and 'populist' (no taxation without representation) factions. During the US Civil War, if one follows research found in The Cousins' Wars there was a tight linkage between the dominant religion of an area and whether that area seceded from the Union. While religion was not explicitly a central issue in the US Civil War (which in no way implies religious leaders kept quiet on the issues of the day) to a large degree, the descendants of the Puritans were going at it against the descendants of the Cavaliers. If this is not always true genetically, the religious, philosophical, cultural and political kinship can be traced.

As I see it, the protestant - catholic religious wars in part created a separate Anglo-American civilization which might be distinguished from a more conservative Catholic predecessor. The English Civil War, Revolution and US Civil War were more internal to Anglo-American civilization. In these three wars, the Puritan patriot abolitionist faction forged the modern industrial democracy. World War II and the Cold War were again external, as the western democracies stood against external autocratic regimes. The current conflict against Islam might be viewed as another conflict between industrial democracy and external autocratic powers. The difference may be that this time it is the autocratic powers that feel under threat, perceiving modern culture as an overwhelming corrupting force that dooms their religious culture. As you might tell, I can understand their perception. Still, I don't think any genies can be stuffed back into bottles. I can quite sympathize with religious and even autocratic people attempting to maintain the ways of their fathers, but when force and authority are used to coerce the next generation to live forever in yesterday, there is a problem.

I might wish it weren't our problem. Between the oil and whatever forces make us the world's policemen, it seems to be our problem somehow. Figuring out exactly how it is our problem seems trickier than isolating the direction of the 'progressive' arrow. Another day...

Anyway, that's my feel for the 'progressive' arrow. Paraphrasing Lincoln, I might also look for dominant minorities asking a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. While the progressive faction often features wealthy individuals exploiting the new technology, seeking political clout to match their new wealth, changing society to better embrace the new technology, the champions of the new technology have generally asked the general public for support in overthrowing oppressive establishment land owners and autocrats. This will have to be twisted somewhat. The oppressed these days might be the employees of the multi national corporations exploiting cheap labor. This time around, it will be harder for the newly wealthy industrialists to claim the support of the downtrodden to their banner.

While I've tried to be explicit, it is easier to see the direction of progress with hindsight. One can see past progress. Guessing the nature of the major changes resulting from an upcoming crisis is harder. I'd can suggest trends. Influential people backing new technologies will receive political influence to match their wealth. The major social injustices of the era will be addressed, with significant changes made. Democracy will better check the power of the old regime responsible for the injustice. Those clinging to autocratic power, traditional values, and the past will get rolled over, and not get favorable mention in the history books.

Still, the above held for crises based on transition between First Wave Agricultural forces and Second Wave Industrial. A case can be made that weapons of mass destruction and computer networks will make as large an impact as gunpowder and the printing press. Thus, this crisis might also involve a hypothetical Third Wave Global or Information Age phase of civilization. For example, the wealthy industrialists, rather than being the progressives able to call for the oppressed people's aid against the conservative land owners, might become the oppressive conservative faction this time around. We don't know enough about what a Global Information Age civilization might look like to predict the exact nature of the upheaval.

But this wouldn't imply the upheaval would be smaller than usual.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Bob,I have listened to Roy on Alternative Radio several times. I do not agree with all that she says and yet some of her words make me sufficiently uncomfortable so that I must sit up and take notice. I started Chua's book last night. I will have more to say when I have completed reading it.

Yep. That's Roy all right. I wouldn't expect Americans to agree with her entirely, but she makes one think.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I finished the conservative tome by Ms. Chua last night. She opts for a measured democracy rather than majoritarianism and argues for a market that is policed by virtue and self-interest. That the forces that would destroy the Peace of Westphalia and return us to savage Gen IV warfare or the fantasies of "nation-building" Bush, et al. are any portion of a Crisis solution is risible.

Ms. Chua argues for variety, imperfectability, prudence, prescription, and social continuity. Only the transcendant moral order of Mr. Burke is missing... Ms. Chua lives in the world of Progress and "economic man" so this might be forgiven. She is part of the old order, trying to keep the mob from the heads of the dominant Western economic minority. She is not on the side of Mr. Butler or Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Roosevelt or that creature waiting to be born- the next Gray Champion. Read the LETTERS ON A REGICIDE PEACE for another last gasper; compare and contrast. My hopes rest on the Consolations of Religion that may stay the hands of those so abused in the lands of the South by the versions of Modern Progress... their several salvations may be ours as well. HTH

Hmm... Well, first I'm glad I've got myself mentioned with Lincoln and Roosevelt, anyway. :lol:

Ms. Chua was born to a dominant minority. She begins World on Fire with the story of her aunt's murder by her servant. The police listed the motive as class driven 'revenge' for poor treatment, rather than dealing with the theft of valuables. It is possible, as Virgil suggests, to see how Ms. Chua identifies with the elites.

If one picks up Virgil's suggested references to Burke and the French Revolution, one might view Ms. Chua as a compromiser. Picture her as a member of the French royal court in full skirt and white wig telling her fellow dominant elites that if they perform certain reforms, they might keep much of their power, wealth, and their heads. Yes. Ms. Chua is no radical revolutionary. She is no firebrand. She would seek a moderate resolution to the crisis. Like a Webster or Clay, she might be a compromiser seeking to avoid crisis rather than embracing it. I wouldn't call her a reactionary conservative. She does see a need for change. She would prefer moderate incremental change, which is understanable. Arundhati Roy (and myself in my small way) would be on the other side of the Gray Champion, instigating crisis, urging strong change. The Champion's role would be to bring both sides together, which might be nigh on impossible until everyone is sick of the carnage involved in full scale crisis.

But Chua defines the crisis. She identifies issues. The meat of her book is in the chapters exploring the distinctly different problems found in different countries, and applying a common framework to all of them. I value her specific solutions and the spirit in which they are offered less than the model she develops for perceiving the problems.

My own view is that Chua's suggested solutions would be nice steps in a reasonable direction, but they are not likely to be implemented. I do not expect the ruling elites to respond without firebrand radicals providing push. Thus, I focus on Chua's framework, rather than her solutions. Let's by all means debate the solutions, whether they would be adquate or not, and which solutions the powers that be would be likely to implement before or after a popular uprising. Without the framework, people aren't seeing the problems. For the most part, The People are perceiving the various world trouble spots as ethnic squabbles fueled by religious fanaticism. Chua integrates the class, political and economic factors underneath.

I personally don't want a terror. I'm not sure I would argue with an S&H cycle theory advocate saying a terror is inevitable, but I'm still 3T enough to want to avoid one if at all possible. I don't believe the crisis is going to destroy all economic elites. The leaders of any group capable of overthrowing elites become replacement elites. I believe democracy will curb the ability of the elites to monopolize as much of the wealth and power as they currently do. Still, I would compare recent Balkan genocide and ethnic cleansing to the French Revolution. All power to an angry people ready to sweep away the existing power structure is not optimal. A power structure willing to give some ground in return for a continued right to exist might be a happier result. Should such a happy result be expected in time of crisis? Maybe not. Not if the existing power structure remains intent on not addressing underlying causes.

Then again, even Bush's attempts at nation building reflect some understanding of the need to address deeper cultural and economic concerns, rather than just solving everything at gunpoint.

There are times when I am GLAD that I have no children, to face the collective punishment of all Americans which the Left would undoubtedly consider to be simple justice. At least when the time comes, if it comes, my wife and I will be too old for it to make much difference. And no, I don't expect the other side to recognize the American people's right to exist unless forced to do so.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

There are times when I am GLAD that I have no children, blah blah blah.

Can I just say that I'm glad, too?

It will be a real time-saver not to have to worry about tracking down and wiping out your seed

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

There are times when I am GLAD that I have no children, to face the collective punishment of all Americans which the Left would undoubtedly consider to be simple justice. At least when the time comes, if it comes, my wife and I will be too old for it to make much difference.

The coming punishment will be delivered by the green eyeshade crowd, as they try to "optimize" Return On Investment (ROI) for all the stockholders and coupon clippers in the world. Unless you are in that crowd, you can assume you're toast. If you believe Mike Alexander, the too-clever-by-half investing crowd will get the shaft, too.

And sorry, but you won't be too old to avoid suffering along with the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I She is not on the side of Mr. Butler or Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Roosevelt or that creature waiting to be born- the next Gray Champion.

Since the Gray Champion is usually a member of the prophet generation, he or she has already been born. :wink:

Just a quibble.

I have just started the Chua book. So she is a conservative?

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I She is not on the side of Mr. Butler or Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Roosevelt or that creature waiting to be born- the next Gray Champion.

Since the Gray Champion is usually a member of the prophet generation, he or she has already been born. :wink:

Just a quibble.

I have just started the Chua book. So she is a conservative?

It looks like Mr. Saari's point about her sharing some of his paleo viewpoints could indeed be the case. But I wouldn't call her conservative in our current political understanding because she is decidely critical of rawly capitalist, laizze faire globalization. Her support for minority protection could go either way -- she adovcates for protection for ethnic minorities (yet chastizes them for being greedy when they are) which is solidly "progressive" yet suggests laying out democratic reforms in stages, even hinting that such mechanisms as property-requirements for voting may be a good idea (or at the very least that their effect on US history can be seen as a positive transitional step toward universal suffrage in our society). That could be seen as conservative.

Purists on both "sides" will probably dislike her which is one reason why I find her and her ideas so intriguing. I am withholding full support until I more fully digest her ideas.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I have just started the Chua book. So she is a conservative?

Does it seem that someone who gets a bar of gold for academic achievement would be thought conservative?

I suggest that you read Ms. Chua as if she is, as Mr. Burke was, a Whig of some sort. We are all Whigs or even more Progressive in America in the main. Ms. Chua doesn't worship ethnicity, markets, or democracy as an ultimate solution but seems to think them a portion of our present condition... she has a sense of proportion. That Mr. Thomas Sowell and Mr. Strobe Talbot and Ms. Barbara Ehrenreich find her arguments interesting speaks to the width of her knowledge.

As I posted above, Ms. Chua doesn't seem inclined to consider the role of Religion very deeply as she thinks it an overused explanation for our several strifes. It may not be a cause; it may be a part of the solution. But, you must recall that I write as one of those agriculturalists that Mr. Butler thinks we were all well an done with, a long time ago. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by elilevin

I have just started the Chua book. So she is a conservative?

Does it seem that someone who gets a bar of gold for academic achievement would be thought conservative?

I suggest that you read Ms. Chua as if she is, as Mr. Burke was, a Whig of some sort. We are all Whigs or even more Progressive in America in the main. Ms. Chua doesn't worship ethnicity, markets, or democracy as an ultimate solution but seems to think them a portion of our present condition... she has a sense of proportion. That Mr. Thomas Sowell and Mr. Strobe Talbot and Ms. Barbara Ehrenreich find her arguments interesting speaks to the width of her knowledge.

As I posted above, Ms. Chua doesn't seem inclined to consider the role of Religion very deeply as she thinks it an overused explanation for our several strifes. It may not be a cause; it may be a part of the solution. But, you must recall that I write as one of those agriculturalists that Mr. Butler thinks we were all well an done with, a long time ago. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by elilevin

I have just started the Chua book. So she is a conservative?

Does it seem that someone who gets a bar of gold for academic achievement would be thought conservative?

I suggest that you read Ms. Chua as if she is, as Mr. Burke was, a Whig of some sort. We are all Whigs or even more Progressive in America in the main. Ms. Chua doesn't worship ethnicity, markets, or democracy as an ultimate solution but seems to think them a portion of our present condition... she has a sense of proportion. That Mr. Thomas Sowell and Mr. Strobe Talbot and Ms. Barbara Ehrenreich find her arguments interesting speaks to the width of her knowledge.

As I posted above, Ms. Chua doesn't seem inclined to consider the role of Religion very deeply as she thinks it an overused explanation for our several strifes. It may not be a cause; it may be a part of the solution. But, you must recall that I write as one of those agriculturalists that Mr. Butler thinks we were all well an done with, a long time ago. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

There are times when I am GLAD that I have no children, to face the collective punishment of all Americans which the Left would undoubtedly consider to be simple justice. At least when the time comes, if it comes, my wife and I will be too old for it to make much difference. And no, I don't expect the other side to recognize the American people's right to exist unless forced to do so.

The way I see it, if I and people like me don't have kids (read: socially conservative-leaning, strongly progressive on economics), then the a**holes of the world on both the Left and Right will take over and we are all doomed.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

There are times when I am GLAD that I have no children, to face the collective punishment of all Americans which the Left would undoubtedly consider to be simple justice. At least when the time comes, if it comes, my wife and I will be too old for it to make much difference. And no, I don't expect the other side to recognize the American people's right to exist unless forced to do so.

The way I see it, if I and people like me don't have kids (read: socially conservative-leaning, strongly progressive on economics), then the a**holes of the world on both the Left and Right will take over and we are all doomed.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

There are times when I am GLAD that I have no children, to face the collective punishment of all Americans which the Left would undoubtedly consider to be simple justice. At least when the time comes, if it comes, my wife and I will be too old for it to make much difference. And no, I don't expect the other side to recognize the American people's right to exist unless forced to do so.

The way I see it, if I and people like me don't have kids (read: socially conservative-leaning, strongly progressive on economics), then the a**holes of the world on both the Left and Right will take over and we are all doomed.