Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A realistic look at the two parties refutes this popular assumption among young people today. Democrats have proposed and passed reforms to take money out of politics. Republicans have actively pushed as hard as possible to keep it in, and to maximize it further. Republican Supreme Court appointees voted for the Citizens United decision; Democratic appointees opposed it. QED.

We can always hope that younger people will bring fresh ideas and enthusiasm for change. But that is an ever-present situation. There are always younger folks around. We can hope that millennials will be more liberal, if that is your persuasion, or that they are less caught up in old arguments. But as they age they might become more like older folks to some extent; we don't know. In the 2020s millennials will have the largest voting bloc, but not yet the largest leadership bloc. But that is the decade in which things are likely to move forward, with the generations then in place.

It's not a matter of "out of the magic blue," it's a question of waking up and seeing the facts. Democrats want to move forward; Republicans want to move backward. Them's the facts. If people decide to move forward, they will elect real Democrats, and maybe Greens. If not, they will elect Republicans. If they are irresponsible and uncivic, they won't vote. The media and money can't be blamed for everything. At some point you have to point to the voter in the booth.

Will (s)he be deceived by libertarian trickle-down economics, or not? Will they vote in a knee-jerk fashion for the party that supports religious conservative values, or not? Will they vote based on fear of other peoples in some fashion, or not? Those are the questions, and they aren't generational issues. They've been the issues for decades now, and will remain the issues.

I get the feeling that there could be a lot of third party protests votes cast in the 2016 Election. As the Republican party moves further right the candidates will continue to become more out there. Hell in 2012 there were some in the Tea Party movement who wanted former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke to run. That show's you how far right The Republican's have gotten that David Duke is now an acceptable candidate to some. The Democrats are having to move further right just to compensate for this. Hence why Hawk Hillary is the frontrunner. I don't like Hillary her views on security, privacy and the NSA scare me. Anyone who voted for the Patriot Act, and the war in Iraq will not receive my vote.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I really don't think we're going to see -that- many more Millennials in 2017. We only have 2 now and the oldest of this generation is 33. Boomers are finding their way out of leadership a bit..slower than past generations. Youngest boomers are 55 and this generation still makes up 58% of all leadership posts (compared to 40% of Silents when youngest was 55 in 1997, and 34% of GIs when youngest was 55 in 1979). In addition not seeing a big wave of retirements for 2016. Yet.

If we get a mass of defeats of people still tied to the "I've got mine/$crew you" ethos of the 3T, then and only then do we get real change. (Of course, if the GOP further consolidates power we get change, too -- and likely an intensification of inequality, wars for profit, degradation of the public sector, debasement of education, privatization of the potentially-profitable segments of the public sector, brutalization of law enforcement, political lockstep instead of gridlock, gutting of unions, degradation of the environment... with America becoming an Evil Empire to which most of the rest of the world becomes hostile).

If I were to project the 115th Congress, I'd guess it to be 5% Silents, 53% Boomers, 40% Xrs, and 2% Millennials. So not the change some are hoping for. Probably not until the early to mid 20s.

The last batch of Idealists in political and cultural influence establishes the cultural consensus for the 1T. The majority of Boomers in power form a cadre of selfish, elitist, intolerant, anti-rational blusterers. Those people are exploiters who demand that they be seen as benefactors of their victims and fly into a rage when someone calls them on it -- like Southern Transcendentals who expected the rest of America to recognize how wonderful slavery was. Howe and Strauss described the Idealist endowment at its best as cultured, creative, and principled -- but at its worst its vices as arrogance, ruthlessness, and narcissism. So far the Idealist vices are in command and the virtues are suppressed. That must end, but nobody can say when.

At the least, Americans rejected an extreme narcissist as a Presidential nominee in favor of a Reactive who shows the temperament of a 60-something Lost pol (face it -- even if President Obama admires FDR and Kennedy he is more like Truman or Eisenhower)... but what the heck? Most people now recognize Truman and Eisenhower as above-average Presidents. After a bumbler as bad as Dubya that may be what we need.

It's the bad Boomers who must be eased out of power. The post-secular types who reject the intellectual basis of science yet treat their electronic gadgets and medicine as if magic fail to recognize the cause of the 'magic'... objective science itself. Destroy the science and the sheer majesty of technological achievement dies too. Being able to do more with lesser material input is the difference between the brute-force economies of the classical and medieval worlds and ours.

Know well: what may matter more with the Millennial generation for the next few years is their appearance in state legislatures and city councils. City and state governments often become laboratories for testing new ways of doing politics. Many political contests for Governor and will still be between Boomers or between X... and the increasing participation of the Millennial vote will decide which Boomer or X pol prevails.

Let's see how old some generations were when their first President became President:

Gilded (Grant, 1868) ... 46
Progressive (McKinley, 1901)...58
Missionary (Harding, 1921)...61
Lost (Truman, 1945)...62
GI (Kennedy, 1917) ...61
Silent (probably never)
Boom (Clinton, 1993)...50
X (Obama, 2009)...48

Kennedy was the youngest President elected to office, but his generation clearly waited its turn for the Presidency. Millennial pols have a long way to go before any of them makes the presidency. The oldest Millennial does not reach 46 until 2028, and an opening for a generation at or under 50 suggests the failure of the prior generation. A war hero replaces the generation that allowed a catastrophic war (the Civil War) to happen; "Slick Willie" follows a generation that had probably overstayed its welcome in power and leap-frogged a generation that may have never had the temperament to be President; Barack Obama brings the temperament of a 60-something Reactive before age 50 (no insult -- Truman and Eisenhower were fine Presidents) following one of the most spectacular failures as President of the United States.

The next President is likely a Boomer. Barack Obama is the most pre-seasonal President since at least Polk, and the next President with the temperament of a 60-something Reactive probably will be a 60-something Reactive when the 2020s or even the 2030s are underway. Does anyone see another pol like Barack Obama in the wings? So far I see much of Generation X showing a mishmash of the worst Idealist (arrogance, narcissism, and ruthlessness) and Reactive (money-lust, crudity, and recklessness) traits which create more dangers than solutions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A realistic look at the two parties refutes this popular assumption among young people today. Democrats have proposed and passed reforms to take money out of politics. Republicans have actively pushed as hard as possible to keep it in, and to maximize it further. Republican Supreme Court appointees voted for the Citizens United decision; Democratic appointees opposed it. QED.

It's easy to claim support for reforms when you have a bogeyman you know will oppose it. Problem is we both know when push comes to shove, quite a few elements in the Democratic party are also addicted to the money kool-aid and thus ..if given a chance.. try to throw wrenches in the process.

We can always hope that younger people will bring fresh ideas and enthusiasm for change. But that is an ever-present situation. There are always younger folks around. We can hope that millennials will be more liberal, if that is your persuasion, or that they are less caught up in old arguments. But as they age they might become more like older folks to some extent; we don't know. In the 2020s millennials will have the largest voting bloc, but not yet the largest leadership bloc. But that is the decade in which things are likely to move forward, with the generations then in place.

Yep, 2020s. Seems many of us are on that page of when things will significantly change. Not necessarily disagreeing with how you've said it. While there is always young people around no matter what era..some eras provide more of a push for the younger folks to push for change. Which is why we're here discussing theory .

It's not a matter of "out of the magic blue," it's a question of waking up and seeing the facts. Democrats want to move forward; Republicans want to move backward. Them's the facts. If people decide to move forward, they will elect real Democrats, and maybe Greens. If not, they will elect Republicans. If they are irresponsible and uncivic, they won't vote. The media and money can't be blamed for everything. At some point you have to point to the voter in the booth.

Here we go again with the black vs white (or red vs blue) argument. Define real Democrat. But I think you can always point to the voter. Not much effort to show up on primary day. Video games are apparently much more fun though. Can understand the desire to escape from reality though.

Will (s)he be deceived by libertarian trickle-down economics, or not? Will they vote in a knee-jerk fashion for the party that supports religious conservative values, or not? Will they vote based on fear of other peoples in some fashion, or not? Those are the questions, and they aren't generational issues. They've been the issues for decades now, and will remain the issues.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

It's easy to claim support for reforms when you have a bogeyman you know will oppose it. Problem is we both know when push comes to shove, quite a few elements in the Democratic party are also addicted to the money kool-aid and thus ..if given a chance.. try to throw wrenches in the process.

The record is clear, though. Democrats passed campaign finance reform; Republicans destroyed it. The wrenches are all Republican. All 5 Republican Court appointees voted for money in politics; all 4 Democratic appointees voted against it. You can't really refute the fact that Republicans are behind the money in politics game. Democrats play it because they feel they must.

Yep, 2020s. Seems many of us are on that page of when things will significantly change. Not necessarily disagreeing with how you've said it. While there is always young people around no matter what era..some eras provide more of a push for the younger folks to push for change. Which is why we're here discussing theory .

So it is.

Here we go again with the black vs white (or red vs blue) argument. Define real Democrat. But I think you can always point to the voter. Not much effort to show up on primary day. Video games are apparently much more fun though. Can understand the desire to escape from reality though.

Sure, but voting is so easy; not much of an escape there.

The black vs white, red vs blue argument is quite clear. But of course, the blue has to be real Democratic blue. Again, the issue is quite clear. Blue is not deceived by trickle-down libertarian economics; red is. Blue does not support knee-jerk religious conservatism; red does. Blue does not vote to preserve or protect their group (through needless wars, resistance to immigration, discrimination, etc.); red does. Real Democrat = consistently blue on those issues. Again, there are degrees of true blue and deadly red, and lots of folks are not on board with the blue or red side completely; but on an issue like the environment, the contrast between voting records in congress could not be more clear. Red = trickle down economics = opposition to environmental laws. Blue is the opposite. We are polarized, despite many who want to deny this, or say that it's divide and conquer by the PTB, etc. But what if one side of the divide needs to conquer the other-- that other being the PTB?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...
The next President is likely a Boomer. Barack Obama is the most pre-seasonal President since at least Polk, and the next President with the temperament of a 60-something Reactive probably will be a 60-something Reactive when the 2020s or even the 2030s are underway. Does anyone see another pol like Barack Obama in the wings? So far I see much of Generation X showing a mishmash of the worst Idealist (arrogance, narcissism, and ruthlessness) and Reactive (money-lust, crudity, and recklessness) traits which create more dangers than solutions.

The Jonesers ?

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...n-active-today

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If we get a mass of defeats of people still tied to the "I've got mine/$crew you" ethos of the 3T, then and only then do we get real change. (Of course, if the GOP further consolidates power we get change, too -- and likely an intensification of inequality, wars for profit, degradation of the public sector, debasement of education, privatization of the potentially-profitable segments of the public sector, brutalization of law enforcement, political lockstep instead of gridlock, gutting of unions, degradation of the environment... with America becoming an Evil Empire to which most of the rest of the world becomes hostile).



The last batch of Idealists in political and cultural influence establishes the cultural consensus for the 1T. The majority of Boomers in power form a cadre of selfish, elitist, intolerant, anti-rational blusterers. Those people are exploiters who demand that they be seen as benefactors of their victims and fly into a rage when someone calls them on it -- like Southern Transcendentals who expected the rest of America to recognize how wonderful slavery was. Howe and Strauss described the Idealist endowment at its best as cultured, creative, and principled -- but at its worst its vices as arrogance, ruthlessness, and narcissism. So far the Idealist vices are in command and the virtues are suppressed. That must end, but nobody can say when.

At the least, Americans rejected an extreme narcissist as a Presidential nominee in favor of a Reactive who shows the temperament of a 60-something Lost pol (face it -- even if President Obama admires FDR and Kennedy he is more like Truman or Eisenhower)... but what the heck? Most people now recognize Truman and Eisenhower as above-average Presidents. After a bumbler as bad as Dubya that may be what we need.

It's the bad Boomers who must be eased out of power. The post-secular types who reject the intellectual basis of science yet treat their electronic gadgets and medicine as if magic fail to recognize the cause of the 'magic'... objective science itself. Destroy the science and the sheer majesty of technological achievement dies too. Being able to do more with lesser material input is the difference between the brute-force economies of the classical and medieval worlds and ours.

Know well: what may matter more with the Millennial generation for the next few years is their appearance in state legislatures and city councils. City and state governments often become laboratories for testing new ways of doing politics. Many political contests for Governor and will still be between Boomers or between X... and the increasing participation of the Millennial vote will decide which Boomer or X pol prevails.

Let's see how old some generations were when their first President became President:

Gilded (Grant, 1868) ... 46
Progressive (McKinley, 1901)...58
Missionary (Harding, 1921)...61
Lost (Truman, 1945)...62
GI (Kennedy, 1917) ...61
Silent (probably never)
Boom (Clinton, 1993)...50
X (Obama, 2009)...48

Kennedy was the youngest President elected to office, but his generation clearly waited its turn for the Presidency. Millennial pols have a long way to go before any of them makes the presidency. The oldest Millennial does not reach 46 until 2028, and an opening for a generation at or under 50 suggests the failure of the prior generation. A war hero replaces the generation that allowed a catastrophic war (the Civil War) to happen; "Slick Willie" follows a generation that had probably overstayed its welcome in power and leap-frogged a generation that may have never had the temperament to be President; Barack Obama brings the temperament of a 60-something Reactive before age 50 (no insult -- Truman and Eisenhower were fine Presidents) following one of the most spectacular failures as President of the United States.

The next President is likely a Boomer. Barack Obama is the most pre-seasonal President since at least Polk, and the next President with the temperament of a 60-something Reactive probably will be a 60-something Reactive when the 2020s or even the 2030s are underway. Does anyone see another pol like Barack Obama in the wings? So far I see much of Generation X showing a mishmash of the worst Idealist (arrogance, narcissism, and ruthlessness) and Reactive (money-lust, crudity, and recklessness) traits which create more dangers than solutions.

And with that, as I noted earlier, it will be Clinton.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

And with that, as I noted earlier, it will be Clinton.

If we're lucky.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If we're lucky.

Maybe this is a bit of superstition, however, I do note that we have not elected a fat President for at least 100 years. Bill Clinton nearly became fat late in his second term but his heart condition and subsequent diet change stopped that trend. So, no fat Presidents. And I do consider Jeb to be fat. Not as fat as Christy, but still, compared with the Presidents of the past 100 years, he's fat. So therefore, H. Clinton.

Based on recent chatter on the radio talk shows that I monitor, Scott Walker is beginning to sound like a potentially formidable opponent.

I'm distressed by the large number of relatively uneducated, working-man types, who run on too little information, or mis- or mal- information from informational cesspools like Fox and the Internet. These folks could listen to Walker's superficial homilies and aphorisms, and say to themselves, "This guy understands me. I think I'll vote for him."

We could end up with a slightly different kind of grass-roots movement that has the potential to outdraw the lunacy of the Tea Party folks, yet still include them.

Originally Posted by TnT

Based on recent chatter on the radio talk shows that I monitor, Scott Walker is beginning to sound like a potentially formidable opponent.

I'm distressed by the large number of relatively uneducated, working-man types, who run on too little information, or mis- or mal- information from informational cesspools like Fox and the Internet. These folks could listen to Walker's superficial homilies and aphorisms, and say to themselves, "This guy understands me. I think I'll vote for him."

We could end up with a slightly different kind of grass-roots movement that has the potential to outdraw the lunacy of the Tea Party folks, yet still include them.

In today's world, the educated are proving to be as dumb at voting for those who they identify with as the uneducated.

I've posted these scores before, but for those interrested, it's a pattern that might be useful or relevant.

I studied the aspects (angles between planets) in the personal natal horoscope charts of those who ran for president going back deep into the 19th century up and including the year 2000. The score consists of favorable (aspects likely to be in the charts of those elected president of the USA) vs. unfavorable (aspects likely to be in the charts of those not elected). Aspects NOT there in either case is also significant. A better margin of favorable over unfavorable compared to your opponent is a great advantage in a presidential election. When the scores are close, a close election is likely.

Those candidates who have too little recognition or are too far out of the mainstream of opinion are likely still at a disadvantage. A higher score may also indicate being nominated, but not necessarily. A bad score does not indicate that someone can't get elected to other offices. Someone with a negative score is unlikely to be elected president. This score refers to getting elected, not to governing. There is a separate score for that.

R = a rising planet, each one of which is probably worth 2 positive points. But I don't include this in the score, since I don't know the birth times of most candidates. Bouyant Jupiter (e.g. Reagan, LBJ, Bill Clinton) and inventive, charismatic Uranus (e.g. FDR, Hillary Clinton) may be worth 3 points.
* another major factor; candidates who run with Saturn returning to their horoscope position in the next 3 years after the election year, are likely to lose.

The other major factor is the new moon prior to the election; the planets ruling the rising and setting signs determine the winner. If rising sign ruler is higher in the sky, the challenging party wins. If the setting sign ruler is higher, the party in power wins. Uranus at the Nadir (at the Sun's position at Midnight) helps the challenger. Note that in 2000 the rulers were almost equally high. Gore's ruler (setting sign ruler) was slightly higher. This score works better when the popular vote and not the electoral college determines the winner. I'll list the history and the future in another post; I've posted this before.

First I'll list past nominees, winner first; then later and current possible candidates in each party.

Hoover 6-13, Smith 7-7
FDR 13-5 R, Hoover 6-13*
FDR 13-5 R, Landon 6-18
FDR 13-5 R, Willkie 7-6
FDR 13-5 R, Dewey 4-6
Truman 18-3 R, Dewey 4-6
Eisenhower 15-8 RR, Stevenson 10-20*
Kennedy 13-7, Nixon 12-4
Johnson 12-9* RRRRR, Goldwater* 20-10 R (he had Mars in Scorpio rising, with inharmonious aspects: the perfect symbol of his stubborn "extremism") Note also that Goldwater's Saturn Return came before Johnson's, which also knocked him out in 1968.
Nixon 12-4, Humphrey 12-7*
Nixon 12-4, McGovern 8-8
Carter 13-0 R, Ford 14-6
Reagan 14-4 R, Carter 13-0 R*
Reagan 14-4 R, Mondale 8-14 RR
Bush I 15-6, Dukakis* 5-15
Bill Clinton 13-2 RRRR, Bush I 15-6
Bill Clinton 13-2 RRRR, Bob Dole 9-12
Bush II 15-3 RR, Al Gore 13-6 RRR
Bush II 15-3 RR, Kerry 7-9
Obama 8-2, McCain 9-10
Obama 8-2, Romney 11-5

Republican candidates:
Gingrich, 11-5
Santorum, 7-7
Perry, 9-5
Bachman, 14-13
Cain, 6-6
Roemer, 10-13
Ron Paul, 12-5
Jeb Bush, 16-6
Christie, 16-15
Daniels, 10-13
Huckabee, 6-6
Boehner, 11-9
Cruz, 4-6
Ryan, 16-13
Rubio, 17-12
Jindal, 13-14
Rand Paul, 12-8
Thune, 12-7
Walker, 6-10
Peter King, 4-4
Kasich, 8-15
Ben Carson, 3-5
Rob Portman, 19-10
Sam Brownback, 8-12
Kelly Ayotte, 8-7
Mike Pence, 10-9
Lindsay Graham, 2-3

Highest scores with no Saturn return: Jeb Bush 16-6, Rob Portman 19-10

Democratic candidates:
Hillary Clinton, 9-8 R
Martin O'Malley 14-14
Biden 14-11
Warren, 9-5
Sanders, 10-0
Webb, 14-8
Zephyr Teachout, 5-9
Joe Manchin, 14-7
Gillibrand, 12-13
Cuomo, 10-7
Booker, 10-3
Schweitzer, 10-7
Howard Dean, 7-6
Tammy Baldwin, 12-8
Janet Napolitano, 18-6
Warner, 5-8
Richard Blumenthal, 15-3
John Hickenlooper, 18-13
Jan Schakowski, 11-9
Casey, 12-11*
Rahm Emmanuel, 12-13*
Jack Markell, 10-4*
Dan Malloy, 9-7
Joe Kennedy III, 3-6
Duvall Patrick, 5-7
Amy Klobuchar, 6-6*
Tim Kaine, 8-15*
George Clooney, 16-12
Donald Berwick, 11-6
Russ Feingold, 13-16
Jason Carter, 12-8
Wendy Davis, 8-24
Joe Castro, 1-9
Terry McAuliffe, 11-10
Bill DeBlazio, 5-17
Gavin Newsom, 3-8

Best scores with no return: Sanders, Booker, Napolitano, Webb, Blumenthal, Manchin

Independent/3rd party candidates:
Ross Perot, 10-13
Mike Bloomberg, 10-9
Gary Johnson, 17-4
Ralph Nader, 10-2 RRR (oh well!)
John Anderson, 4-17
Jill Stein, 9-8
Sanders, see Democrats

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Maybe this is a bit of superstition, however, I do note that we have not elected a fat President for at least 100 years. Bill Clinton nearly became fat late in his second term but his heart condition and subsequent diet change stopped that trend. So, no fat Presidents. And I do consider Jeb to be fat. Not as fat as Christy, but still, compared with the Presidents of the past 100 years, he's fat. So therefore, H. Clinton.

We've done "fat heads," however.

I worry about that.

Originally Posted by TnT

Based on recent chatter on the radio talk shows that I monitor, Scott Walker is beginning to sound like a potentially formidable opponent.

I'm distressed by the large number of relatively uneducated, working-man types, who run on too little information, or mis- or mal- information from informational cesspools like Fox and the Internet. These folks could listen to Walker's superficial homilies and aphorisms, and say to themselves, "This guy understands me. I think I'll vote for him."

We could end up with a slightly different kind of grass-roots movement that has the potential to outdraw the lunacy of the Tea Party folks, yet still include them.

He will have the Koch-aine on his side; in view of Citizens United that could be all that matters in American politics anymore. Walker, like most reactionaries, are willing to throw the a few gnawed-out bones of fundamentalist Christianity, homophobia, pro-gun stances, and anti-abortion rhetoric with liberals getting such suggestions as "Slovakia" or "Slovenia".

Democrats need to re-learn the populist card. The neo-liberal types have nothing to offer but extreme inequality in exchange for millenarian promises of economic wonders for the great-grand-children of those who will be condemned to miserable lives. Hillary Clinton needs to learn how to make a populist appeal if she is not only to win the Presidency but also to have a Congress willing to give her some legislative successes.

Ultimately the Hard Right has no idea of how to deal with a post-scarcity economy except to deny it altogether. It would be perfectly happy with plantation-style inequality.

Scott Walker is a liar, a cheat, and a fanatic. He would simply facilitate the stealing by the elites of the essence of what makes life desirable from everyone else. Elect him President and we might as well rename our country the "United Corporate States of America"... and prepare for the ugly phase in the history when Western Christian Civilization gets its monstrous, stifling, corrupt, and destructive Universal State that Arnold Toynbee saw as the cause of the doom of a civilization. What the Spanish Empire, Wilhelmine Germany, the Third Reich, and Stalin's Soviet Union could not quite achieve a brutalized America could achieve more fully.

No thanks to that. I prefer Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Mozart, Cezanne, and Wilder to some Orwellian nightmare.

Only Restorationism can solve the problem of corporate theft of society and societal penury. The corporate elites would be broken up and their assets parceled among the proposed meritocratic elite and rising entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs would also have philanthropic role in society in which they would assemble holdings licensed by the government and create jobs according to administrative directives and/or regional/local needs. Entrepreneurs I envision will also acquire vast holdings overseas after various foreign policy objectives, especially the general pacification of the middle east is achieved. In the middle east in particular entrepreneurs would have the job of developing economic resources in captured territories according to various government or military administrative dictates. In the Mideast example as alluded to earlier, these entrepreneurs would be assigned a quota of Arab Muslim workers who would provide the manual work that would be needed to develop conquered territories to our satisfaction. Entrepreneurs can also request and be granted additional quotas of local labor in the Mideast as some economic projects due to their nature would endure a high labor-turnover rate.

As a mentioned before restorationism would entail the creation of a civil-military education system to provide training and a full education of future generations of American young people as well as ensure the creations of future generational cohorts which would constitute the continuation of the meritocratic elite. This revolution in education would also be a revolution in the American mindset which would be reformed entirely, certain courses of action long considered beyond the pale and aspects of human nature that have been deliberately suppressed to some extent for the past several centuries would be acknowledged as an inevitable part of human condition. Future generations would be trained to guard against and if necessary use these suppressed aspects of the human condition. Future generations of Americans would be introduced to pleasure of holding domination over the foreigner and holding foreign lands under our thrall and heel. These future generations of American men and women will be taught that we as a people have a special world-historical mission. This would Create in the future an entirely new national personality for our nation.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Only Restorationism can solve the problem of corporate theft of society and societal penury.

Geez, where to start?
The short answer is that "Restorationism" leads to some sort of Hobbsian nightmare.

The corporate elites would be broken up and their assets parceled among the proposed meritocratic elite and rising entrepreneurs.

How about do as , I think Pbrower suggested and have the Federal government revoke problem corporations charters? Next, divvy up the assets within reason to shareholders like pension funds and folks' IRA's and 401K's. The fat cats [ CEO's and owners of options just get 0'd out. ]
The remainder of assets get allocated to new employee owned and operated coops.

Entrepreneurs would also have philanthropic role in society in which they would assemble holdings licensed by the government and create jobs according to administrative directives and/or regional/local needs.

And those so chosen would be picked by who? Which government agency picks, how are directives chosen?

Entrepreneurs I envision will also acquire vast holdings overseas after various foreign policy objectives, especially the general pacification of the middle east is achieved.

We have that now! Walmart's dressmakers are pacified Bangladeshis who are part of Walmart's vast holdings by proxy overseas. That's a stupid idea.

In the middle east in particular entrepreneurs would have the job of developing economic resources in captured territories according to various government or military administrative dictates. In the Mideast example as alluded to earlier, these entrepreneurs would be assigned a quota of Arab Muslim workers who would provide the manual work that would be needed to develop conquered territories to our satisfaction.

Again, Arbeit macht Frei!

Entrepreneurs can also request and be granted additional quotas of local labor in the Mideast as some economic projects due to their nature would endure a high labor-turnover rate.

Yeah, no doubt. They'd be dying like flies via heat exhaustion. I hope you have some rail line plans and some crematoria as part your plan.
Please put the crematoria away from population centers. Burning bodies stink.

As a mentioned before restorationism would entail the creation of a civil-military education system to provide training and a full education of future generations of American young people as well as ensure the creations of future generational cohorts which would constitute the continuation of the meritocratic elite.

Which uniform color? Will they be brown or black?

This revolution in education would also be a revolution in the American mindset which would be reformed entirely, certain courses of action long considered beyond the pale and aspects of human nature that have been deliberately suppressed to some extent for the past several centuries would be acknowledged as an inevitable part of human condition.

Ain't that the truth. A long time ago and sometimes now, in places in say Africa feuding tribes literally wipe the other one off the map. So, I guess that means we'd use our nuclear arsenal at some point that that we think some place needs to become an ashtray.

Future generations would be trained to guard against and if necessary use these suppressed aspects of the human condition. Future generations of Americans would be introduced to pleasure of holding domination over the foreigner and holding foreign lands under our thrall and heel. These future generations of American men and women will be taught that we as a people have a special world-historical mission. This would Create in the future an entirely new national personality for our nation.

A new order requires a new flag.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Only Restorationism can solve the problem of corporate theft of society and societal penury. The corporate elites would be broken up and their assets parceled among the proposed meritocratic elite and rising entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs would also have philanthropic role in society in which they would assemble holdings licensed by the government and create jobs according to administrative directives and/or regional/local needs. Entrepreneurs I envision will also acquire vast holdings overseas after various foreign policy objectives, especially the general pacification of the middle east is achieved. In the middle east in particular entrepreneurs would have the job of developing economic resources in captured territories according to various government or military administrative dictates. In the Mideast example as alluded to earlier, these entrepreneurs would be assigned a quota of Arab Muslim workers who would provide the manual work that would be needed to develop conquered territories to our satisfaction. Entrepreneurs can also request and be granted additional quotas of local labor in the Mideast as some economic projects due to their nature would endure a high labor-turnover rate.

As a mentioned before restorationism would entail the creation of a civil-military education system to provide training and a full education of future generations of American young people as well as ensure the creations of future generational cohorts which would constitute the continuation of the meritocratic elite. This revolution in education would also be a revolution in the American mindset which would be reformed entirely, certain courses of action long considered beyond the pale and aspects of human nature that have been deliberately suppressed to some extent for the past several centuries would be acknowledged as an inevitable part of human condition. Future generations would be trained to guard against and if necessary use these suppressed aspects of the human condition. Future generations of Americans would be introduced to pleasure of holding domination over the foreigner and holding foreign lands under our thrall and heel. These future generations of American men and women will be taught that we as a people have a special world-historical mission. This would Create in the future an entirely new national personality for our nation.

This only makes sense as a parody or a farce.

One billion Muslims are not going to march sheepishly into gas chambers. They will fight, whether they are 'radicals' or 'moderates', any polity that intends to subjugate them.

In the end the moderates would be in position to judge American war criminals -- and they will be wise enough to judge American war criminals in accordance with the old standards of American behavior. Those moderates will use (for Christians; I doubt that devout Jews would participate in such crimes) our Bible and our trove of political wisdom that goes back to the Founding Fathers against American fascists who will have betrayed everything that used to be admired about America.

The current Muslim moderates know the ground rules for dealing with America.

Restorationism will create a fierce new mindset among Americans; a state worth fighting for and undoing the demoralization of our society since Vietnam. It would be the modern harkening back to the most efficient government in world history: The Roman Empire, a political order that lasted 1200 years if you go by the legendary founding date to the official collapse in 476 ad, if you include the byzantine empire which lasted another 1000 years the system lasted form more than 2200 years. In the Future Americans will embrace and follow and idealize not whenever we have a good president, but would idealize a good ruler.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Restorationism will create a fierce new mindset among Americans; a state worth fighting for and undoing the demoralization of our society since Vietnam. It would be the modern harkening back to the most efficient government in world history: The Roman Empire, a political order that lasted 1200 years if you go by the legendary founding date to the official collapse in 476 ad, if you include the byzantine empire which lasted another 1000 years the system lasted form more than 2200 years. In the Future Americans will embrace and follow and idealize not whenever we have a good president, but would idealize a good ruler.

Fierce? Would you rather be the beloved pet dog or the dreaded leopard, both of which are similar in build and abilities and (depending on the dog) similar in size?

I just saw a travelogue on a European country that is a better model for the US, one that we would be wise to imitate in many ways. Its political system, modeled upon the United States long before the United States became a hybrid democracy and corporate-garrison state, works. It has a healthy social welfare system and probably the freest economics in Europe.

It's Switzerland.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Geez, where to start?

...

A new order requires a new flag.

Rags, that post just gave me a big ol' grin. Thanks man, I needed that.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by TnT

Based on recent chatter on the radio talk shows that I monitor, Scott Walker is beginning to sound like a potentially formidable opponent.

I'm distressed by the large number of relatively uneducated, working-man types, who run on too little information, or mis- or mal- information from informational cesspools like Fox and the Internet. These folks could listen to Walker's superficial homilies and aphorisms, and say to themselves, "This guy understands me. I think I'll vote for him."

We could end up with a slightly different kind of grass-roots movement that has the potential to outdraw the lunacy of the Tea Party folks, yet still include them.

In Blue Wisconsin, they have voted for this guy three times in four years. He's is unabashedly anti-intellectual, anti-labor and pro-business, yet a state full of working stiffs liked the guy a lot.

Scary.

Just a comment for the forum in general: don't feed the trolls!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In Blue Wisconsin, they have voted for this guy three times in four years. He's is unabashedly anti-intellectual, anti-labor and pro-business, yet a state full of working stiffs liked the guy a lot.

Scary.

We have powerful people forcing the worst traits of a 3T (among them anti-intellectualism and inequality for its own sake) deep into a 4T when they can do great damage and practically no good. Scott Walker reminds me of what is worst in both Idealist and Reactive generations.

We are in the mess that is a 4T together, and we get out of it together with shared sacrifices for an equitable solution of it, or we end up with ruin for us all. Scott Walker suggests that the common man would make the sacrifices and the elites would reap the rewards -- or else. That is what the economic elites want.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just a comment for the forum in general: don't feed the trolls!

I have reluctantly concluded that Cynic Hero is one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have reluctantly concluded that Cynic Hero is one.

I agree.