If it hadn't been for narcissistic boombers we would to took care of everything in the mideast campaign after 9/11. A moralization for total war would have reinvigorated the US economy. Mobilization would have also brought a whole generation of soldiers together as comrades in arms, elevation of minorities would have occurred and women would have had a chance to prove themselves. The mongol and total war tactics mentioned in my last post would have been implemented. One poster mentioned game of thrones it would have been like Ramsay and Myranda's pastimes together on a grand scale. But you narcissistic selfish boomer wastes of space took that away from us, instead we're a laughingstock because of boomers ramming "peace and love" and "human rights" down our throats.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If it hadn't been for narcissistic boombers we would to took care of everything in the mideast campaign after 9/11. A moralization for total war would have reinvigorated the US economy. Mobilization would have also brought a whole generation of soldiers together as comrades in arms, elevation of minorities would have occurred and women would have had a chance to prove themselves. The mongol and total war tactics mentioned in my last post would have been implemented. One poster mentioned game of thrones it would have been like Ramsay and Myranda's pastimes together on a grand scale. But you narcissistic selfish boomer wastes of space took that away from us, instead we're a laughingstock because of boomers ramming "peace and love" and "human rights" down our throats.

Okay, Cersei, good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If it hadn't been for narcissistic boombers we would to took care of everything in the mideast campaign after 9/11.

This 'narcissistic Boomer' was all set to work in a defense plant and buy war bonds. But the public mood was more like that of 1921 than like that of 1941. We then had a President more like Warren Gamaliel Harding than like Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

A moralization for total war would have reinvigorated the US economy. Mobilization would have also brought a whole generation of soldiers together as comrades in arms, elevation of minorities would have occurred and women would have had a chance to prove themselves.

It's hard to see a worse economic policy than that of George W. Bush, sponsoring a financial bubble and rip-off vocational schools... but I expect that the judgment of History upon Dubya will remain unsympathetic for a very long time.

The mongol and total war tactics mentioned in my last post would have been implemented. One poster mentioned game of thrones it would have been like Ramsay and Myranda's pastimes together on a grand scale. But you narcissistic selfish boomer wastes of space took that away from us, instead we're a laughingstock because of boomers ramming "peace and love" and "human rights" down our throats.

I am not familiar with Game of Thrones, as I do not subscribe to HBO. But if we ever end up with a total war we would be very wise to imitate the mercy of Saladin (the George Washington of the Islamic world). Punish evil-doers? Sure. There's nothing wrong with a war criminal that a well-tied rope and a seven-foot drop can't solve. Winning the peace is total victory, and that is far easier if the winners leave the defeated no cause for striking back. It is not the fault of the innocent on the losing side that they were on the losing side.

F-ing trolls

http://thebernreport.com/facebook-st...roup-closings/

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If it hadn't been for narcissistic boombers we would to took care of everything in the mideast campaign after 9/11. A moralization for total war would have reinvigorated the US economy. Mobilization would have also brought a whole generation of soldiers together as comrades in arms, elevation of minorities would have occurred and women would have had a chance to prove themselves. The mongol and total war tactics mentioned in my last post would have been implemented. One poster mentioned game of thrones it would have been like Ramsay and Myranda's pastimes together on a grand scale. But you narcissistic selfish boomer wastes of space took that away from us, instead we're a laughingstock because of boomers ramming "peace and love" and "human rights" down our throats.

-- he needs to get back on his meds

Powerful stuff:

https://theindependentthinker2016.wo...ic-nomination/

Originally Posted by marypoza

Powerful stuff:

https://theindependentthinker2016.wo...ic-nomination/

Pipe dream stuff at this point.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Pipe dream stuff at this point.

It also shows the tactical difference between a "movement" and a "coalition."

Howard Dean has a good explanation of this; he lived it.

At times, part of an existing coalition emerges that exaggerates certain characteristics of that coalition. Typically, it emerges out of frustration with what it sees as too many compromises or too little forward motion on obtaining the agenda that are dear to those holding those certain characteristics of the coalition. They're frustrated with both the internal compromises within the coalition and those that the coalition makes with opposite coalition.

The tactical problem with a movement is it is difficult to coalesce back to a coalition. A movement can inspire what look like massive rallies, but still lose elections because, generally, by definition, their exaggeration makes them not the coalition. As Dean points out, it is very hard to stand in front of thousands of screaming fans and pivot away from the talking points that brought those adoring fans, but talking points that keep a coalition from forming. Typically, movements make a lot of noise; coalitions win elections.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It also shows the tactical difference between a "movement" and a "coalition."

Howard Dean has a good explanation of this; he lived it.

At times, part of an existing coalition emerges that exaggerates certain characteristics of that coalition. Typically, it emerges out of frustration with what it sees as too many compromises or too little forward motion on obtaining the agenda that are dear to those holding those certain characteristics of the coalition. They're frustrated with both the internal compromises within the coalition and those that the coalition makes with opposite coalition.

The tactical problem with a movement is it is difficult to coalesce back to a coalition. A movement can inspire what look like massive rallies, but still lose elections because, generally, by definition, their exaggeration makes them not the coalition. As Dean points out, it is very hard to stand in front of thousands of screaming fans and pivot away from the talking points that brought those adoring fans, but talking points that keep a coalition from forming. Typically, movements make a lot of noise; coalitions win elections.

But what option produces change? Coalitions tend to be poorly focused, since they only exist to achieve the secondary goal of winning elections. Once you win, how do you use the win to promote change? BHO rolled into town on a steamroller, but never really did all that much. He got the ACA, which will not survive in its current form for much longer. He's still fighting an endless and unfocused war. He did manage to seat two decent SCOTUS appointees.

He failed to change the economy's drift toward oligarchy, which has gotten worse, not better. He finessed limited gains on global warming, but nothing that has legs. In short, he won elections but his coalition was unable to do what movements do best: change the narrative. I see Hillary being a similar technocrat. So who makes change happen ... and when?

Originally Posted by marypoza

Powerful stuff:

https://theindependentthinker2016.wo...ic-nomination/

Obviously, this approach is irresponsible, and Bernie is not going to be irresponsible and not support Hillary Clinton or run against her. He cares too much about his country to do that. He knows that the Supreme Court is on the ballot.

The accusations against Hillary are baseless. She does not personally benefit from donations to the Clinton Fdn. Claims that the DNC has cheated are exaggerated. Complaining about closed primaries is to complain about a fair system that's been around for decades, although it's not the only fair alternative. The Democratic Party voters have spoken, and THEY are choosing Hillary. Bernie could not win as an independent running against both Trump/Cruz and Hillary. This would only elect the Republicrapper.

I hope Bernie can push Hillary to more progressive stands. Hillary did the same in 2008 regarding health care for Obama. He adopted Hillary's program.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

But what option produces change? Coalitions tend to be poorly focused, since they only exist to achieve the secondary goal of winning elections. Once you win, how do you use the win to promote change? BHO rolled into town on a steamroller, but never really did all that much. He got the ACA, which will not survive in its current form for much longer. He's still fighting an endless and unfocused war. He did manage to seat two decent SCOTUS appointees.

He failed to change the economy's drift toward oligarchy, which has gotten worse, not better. He finessed limited gains on global warming, but nothing that has legs. In short, he won elections but his coalition was unable to do what movements do best: change the narrative. I see Hillary being a similar technocrat. So who makes change happen ... and when?

If you are saying, the people do, through movements; I agree with you. So did FDR.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you are saying, the people do, through movements; I agree with you. So did FDR.

It's looking more and more like Clinton will be the Gray Champion. Whatever her faults, neither still viable GOP candidate comes close in terms of the ability to be the wise elder. The whole "Shrillery" thing is an ancient meme, from her time of going through menopause. That was years and years ago.

https://medium.com/@spencergundert/h...0f6#.rjeea8hqi


http://thebernreport.com/facebook-st...roup-closings/

I really hope Bernie turns his campaign into a PAC for helping progressive down-ticket candidates, and put pressure to remove Payday Loan Debbie and replace her with a progressive as head of the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So who makes change happen ... and when?

For change having to do with reversing economic inequality trends there is a specific answer: State collapse and reformation that serves as a secular cycle boundary.

Secular cycles are a recurrent feature in pre-industrial, agrarian societies that have recently been extended to America (in press). They show a rising (integrative) and falling (disintegrative) trend. Embedded within them are cycles of high and low unrest called fathers and sons cycles (FSC). These seem to be generational in nature like turnings.

During the disintegrative trend the high unrest periods feature state collapse (i.e. deposition and typically the death of the monarch). The down phase ends when one of this period of unrest solves the problem that causes the disinegrative trend (too many elites hoarding too much of total output, i.e. inequality). In fact secular cycles can be thought of as inequality cycles.

One way inequality has been solved in the past was wholesale slaughter of elites (e.g. Norman Invasion results in essentially no extant Saxon elites by the time of the Domesday survey or the Wars of the Roses that slaughtered a huge fraction of the nobility). Another task was diversion of elite energies into other roles. For example the onset of the disintegrative trend was delayed during the Plantagenet cycle (1080-1485) by the diversion of large numbers of elites into monasticism during the 12th century. As a result the secular cycle lasted 400 years instead of the typical 2-3 century length. Another example of non-lethal solution was the resolution provided by the Glorious Revolution. The political quarrel between the king and Parliament was resolved in favor of Parliament and the inequality problem was resolved by enlarged the pie. Up until the mid 17th century, real per capital GDP was flat. Then it started to grow, allowing elites to skim off additional wealth without driving wages of the rest of the population to starvation levels as had happened earlier in the century.

In America the most recent example of FSC periodic unrest was during the 1907-1941 secular cycle disintegrative phase. Here I quote a paper I am working on:

The progressive era contains one of the periodic episodes of high levels of social unrest in American history (Turchin 2012). These episodes define a cycle which corresponds to the “fathers and sons” cycles embedded in pre-industrial secular cycles (Turchin and Nefedov 2009:79). Pre-industrial English fathers and sons outbursts in instability that occurred during the disintegrative trend of a secular cycle typically involved internal conflict leading to the monarch being deposed and often, killed (Alexander 2016). This did not happen during the period around 1920. Rather, a pair of realigning elections over 1918-1920 replaced a Democratic-controlled government with a Republican one, which went on to rule for twelve years. The replacement of the President and Congress by an opposing party with strongly opposing ideas might be considered as equivalent to the premature end of a monarch’s reign. The incoming Republicans appeared to have resolved the crisis by restricting immigration and suppressing militant labor unions, but this was not the case

I then quote an author who described how the Republicans set themselves up for financial crisis. I point out that the Republican solution to the FSC violence around 1920:

did not solve the underlying problem (the inequality) and so the disintegrative trend continued. Until the "elite problem" is addressed this trend will continue on and on (170 years in the case of the Plantagenet cycle).

I then continue:

the Republican state remained blind to the challenge to its legitimacy posed by the Depression. Their blindness led to a rejection far larger than had occurred to Democrats a dozen years earlier. From 1930 to 1937 the Republicans lost control of the Presidency and its share of Congress fell from about 60% to 20%. Democrats went on to hold the executive branch for the next twenty years after 1932. For the next 62 years, they would hold the Senate 84% of the time and the House 94%. Such an electoral repudiation can be seen as another “fathers and sons” outburst of political instability (of a non-violent type leading to a collapse of the old Republican order. By the time the Republicans recovered a semblance of political control in 1981, they had become a different party than they had been in 1932.

The solution to the inequality problem was achieved by the New Dealers over 1933-1945, as I show elsewhere in the paper.

We only began the disintegration phase of this cycle around 2006. Last time there were numerous political responses to the problem which we know as the Progressive Era. None of them solved the problem, inequality continued to rise, leading eventually to economic collapse, as shortly after a second, larger state collapse. I submit that the reason why they did not solve the problem when things got bad around 1920 was because it was a 3T. The recessive/conservative generation in charge was not suited to enact a secular crisis (even though there were triggers galore--hell the period was the closest we have gotten to a revolutionary situation since 1774-1775.) But a little more than a decade later, despite no revolutionary situation, a solution was obtained, because a dominant/liberal generation had come to power. That is I am merging secular cycle theory with S&H theory.

Here's the problem we face. According to my best models, we saw a dominant generation come to power around 2001. That is the 4T started then. But we we were still in the integrative trend of the secular cycle (that is, inequality had not yet become a structural problem). We entered the disintegrative trend around 2006 and in that same year Congress switched parties and two years later we got Democratic control of the government and some major legislation was passed. It now looks like a Democrat will win a third term for the first time since 1940. This implies that 2008 was a critical election (which is the current definition of a state collapse). So the period from 2008 on qualifies as a fathers and sons cycle "up" phase and an S&H social moment. Inequality has not been addressed yet. And maybe it wont be. My best estimate is that the next recessive generation comes to power after 2020. So that implies the next four years are critical.

I believe the only way the secular cycle and secular crisis can both be resolved is with an economic collapse. As you probably know I am calling for a 10000 point drop in the Dow by 2018. If this happens and if it is accompanied by another financial crisis (I think this is 50:50) then there is a possibility for panic amongst the economic elites like the Koch bros. If the Koch's rein in Cruz (who can Cruz work for after he leaves elective office when everybody hates him, he will have to attach himself to a patron and the Kochs have been friendly to him) then president Clinton would have the ability to prevent collapse. If she is smart enough to realize that unless she restores prosperity in two years she if fucked in the next election she will hold out for a truly massive stimulus or go to full-scale crusade war to accomplish the same objective (re-election). Massive stimulus or war will be inflationary until action is taken to raise taxes to the rafters. Even then inflation could crush wealth unless they permit Clinton even more power to regulate the economy "for the duration of the crisis". Note that a war which actually costs the elites something is a war that will be WON as soon as possible and that takes care of re-election.

Something like this is the only way I can see a positive result from this 4T. More likely is Clinton is a one-term president having achieved nothing, after which GenX is in power and no resolution of the disintegrative trend will be possible for another 80 years.

This latter result is actually the more likely. Turchin dates the America secular cycles as 1780-1930 and 1930-ongoing. Since his first cycle spans two saecula, then why wouldn't his second? In this scenario this 4T will be another inconsequential 4T (from an inequality viewpoint) like the Civil War or Armada 4T and the real action will come in the next 4T long after all of us here are dead.

Originally Posted by Odin

I really hope Bernie turns his campaign into a PAC for helping progressive down-ticket candidates, and put pressure to remove Payday Loan Debbie and replace her with a progressive as head of the Democratic Party.

I am with you 100%. He does that I will donate.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

It's looking more and more like Clinton will be the Gray Champion. Whatever her faults, neither still viable GOP candidate comes close in terms of the ability to be the wise elder. The whole "Shrillery" thing is an ancient meme, from her time of going through menopause. That was years and years ago.

This is what I have been thinking very recently. Please read my post above and comment. What do you see?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

More likely is Clinton is a one-term president having achieved nothing, after which GenX is in power and no resolution of the disintegrative trend will be possible for another 80 years.

This latter result is actually the more likely. Turchin dates the America secular cycles as 1780-1930 and 1930-ongoing. Since his first cycle spans two saecula, then why wouldn't his second? In this scenario this 4T will be another inconsequential 4T (from an inequality viewpoint) like the Civil War or Armada 4T and the real action will come in the next 4T long after all of us here are dead.

Well that's depressing.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

For change having to do with reversing economic inequality trends there is a specific answer: State collapse and reformation that serves as a secular cycle boundary.

Secular cycles are a recurrent feature in pre-industrial, agrarian societies that have recently been extended to America (in press). They show a rising (integrative) and falling (disintegrative) trend. Embedded within them are cycles of high and low unrest called fathers and sons cycles (FSC). These seem to be generational in nature like turnings.

During the disintegrative trend the high unrest periods feature state collapse (i.e. deposition and typically the death of the monarch). The down phase ends when one of this period of unrest solves the problem that causes the disinegrative trend (too many elites hoarding too much of total output, i.e. inequality). In fact secular cycles can be thought of as inequality cycles.

One way inequality has been solved in the past was wholesale slaughter of elites (e.g. Norman Invasion results in essentially no extant Saxon elites by the time of the Domesday survey or the Wars of the Roses that slaughtered a huge fraction of the nobility). Another task was diversion of elite energies into other roles. For example the onset of the disintegrative trend was delayed during the Plantagenet cycle (1080-1485) by the diversion of large numbers of elites into monasticism during the 12th century. As a result the secular cycle lasted 400 years instead of the typical 2-3 century length. Another example of non-lethal solution was the resolution provided by the Glorious Revolution. The political quarrel between the king and Parliament was resolved in favor of Parliament and the inequality problem was resolved by enlarged the pie. Up until the mid 17th century, real per capital GDP was flat. Then it started to grow, allowing elites to skim off additional wealth without driving wages of the rest of the population to starvation levels as had happened earlier in the century.

In America the most recent example of FSC periodic unrest was during the 1907-1941 secular cycle disintegrative phase. Here I quote a paper I am working on:

I then quote an author who described how the Republicans set themselves up for financial crisis. I point out that the Republican solution to the FSC violence around 1920:

did not solve the underlying problem (the inequality) and so the disintegrative trend continued. Until the "elite problem" is addressed this trend will continue on and on (170 years in the case of the Plantagenet cycle).

I then continue:

The solution to the inequality problem was achieved by the New Dealers over 1933-1945, as I show elsewhere in the paper.

We only began the disintegration phase of this cycle around 2006. Last time there were numerous political responses to the problem which we know as the Progressive Era. None of them solved the problem, inequality continued to rise, leading eventually to economic collapse, as shortly after a second, larger state collapse. I submit that the reason why they did not solve the problem when things got bad around 1920 was because it was a 3T. The recessive/conservative generation in charge was not suited to enact a secular crisis (even though there were triggers galore--hell the period was the closest we have gotten to a revolutionary situation since 1774-1775.) But a little more than a decade later, despite no revolutionary situation, a solution was obtained, because a dominant/liberal generation had come to power. That is I am merging secular cycle theory with S&H theory.

Here's the problem we face. According to my best models, we saw a dominant generation come to power around 2001. That is the 4T started then. But we we were still in the integrative trend of the secular cycle (that is, inequality had not yet become a structural problem). We entered the disintegrative trend around 2006 and in that same year Congress switched parties and two years later we got Democratic control of the government and some major legislation was passed. It now looks like a Democrat will win a third term for the first time since 1940. This implies that 2008 was a critical election (which is the current definition of a state collapse). So the period from 2008 on qualifies as a fathers and sons cycle "up" phase and an S&H social moment. Inequality has not been addressed yet. And maybe it wont be. My best estimate is that the next recessive generation comes to power after 2020. So that implies the next four years are critical.

I believe the only way the secular cycle and secular crisis can both be resolved is with an economic collapse. As you probably know I am calling for a 10000 point drop in the Dow by 2018. If this happens and if it is accompanied by another financial crisis (I think this is 50:50) then there is a possibility for panic amongst the economic elites like the Koch bros. If the Koch's rein in Cruz (who can Cruz work for after he leaves elective office when everybody hates him, he will have to attach himself to a patron and the Kochs have been friendly to him) then president Clinton would have the ability to prevent collapse. If she is smart enough to realize that unless she restores prosperity in two years she if fucked in the next election she will hold out for a truly massive stimulus or go to full-scale crusade war to accomplish the same objective (re-election). Massive stimulus or war will be inflationary until action is taken to raise taxes to the rafters. Even then inflation could crush wealth unless they permit Clinton even more power to regulate the economy "for the duration of the crisis". Note that a war which actually costs the elites something is a war that will be WON as soon as possible and that takes care of re-election.

Something like this is the only way I can see a positive result from this 4T. More likely is Clinton is a one-term president having achieved nothing, after which GenX is in power and no resolution of the disintegrative trend will be possible for another 80 years.

This latter result is actually the more likely. Turchin dates the America secular cycles as 1780-1930 and 1930-ongoing. Since his first cycle spans two saecula, then why wouldn't his second? In this scenario this 4T will be another inconsequential 4T (from an inequality viewpoint) like the Civil War or Armada 4T and the real action will come in the next 4T long after all of us here are dead.

It is depressing to think that the best we can do is catastrophic war or economic collapse. Unfortunately you may be right.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Powerful stuff:

https://theindependentthinker2016.wo...ic-nomination/

Well, here you go marypoza:

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/3141

This Can't Be Happening!
'...a major destabilizing influence'
Syndicate content
The only news organization in the US to be labeled a threat by the Department of Homeland Security


Bernie Sanders’ Real ‘Political Revolution’ Could Happen This Fall
April 28, 2016 - 10:01am — lindorff
The push to make Sanders the Green Party's presidential candidate
by: Dave Lindorff


Philadelphia -- Bernie Sanders, to the consternation of critics in the Democratic Party, pundits in the corporate media, and purists on the hard left, has accomplished an amazing thing. Up against Hillary Clinton, surely the biggest, best-funded corporate-backed candidate the Democratic leadership has run since Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan in 1984 over three decades ago, the once obscure independent Vermont senator has battled Clinton to almost a draw, down by only some 319 delegates with nearly 900 to go (not counting the corrupt “super delegates” chosen for their fealty to party leaders, not by primary or caucus voting.)

By doing this well, as a proudly declared “democratic socialist” who on the stump has been denouncing the corruption of both the US political and economic systems, and as a candidate who has refused to take corporate money or money from big, powerful donors, instead successfully funding his campaign with only small two and three-digit donations from his supporters, Sanders has exposed not just his opponent, Hillary Clinton, but the entire Democratic Party leadership and most of its elected officials as nothing but hired corporate tools posing as progressive advocates of the people.

A Sanders-Stein Green Party dream ticket or just a dream? Sanders and Green activists are trying to make it happen.



But now Sanders faces a truly momentous choice. Defeated by the combined assault of a pro-corporate mass media and by the machinations of the Democratic Party leadership -- machinations both long-established with the intent of defeating upstarts and outsiders, like front-loading conservative southern states in the primary schedule, and current, like scheduling only a few early candidate debates and then slotting them at times (like opposite the Super Bowl) when few would be watching them -- Sanders knows that barring some major surprise like a federal indictment of Clinton, a market collapse, or perhaps a leak of the transcripts of Clinton’s highly-paid but still secret speeches to some of the nation’s biggest banks, he is not going to win the Democratic nomination.

So does he, after spending months hammering home the reality that Clinton is the bought-and-paid candidate of the the banks, the arms industry, the oil industry and the medical-industrial complex, and after enduring endless lies about his own record spouted by Clinton and her surrogates, go ahead and endorse her as the party’s standard bearer for the general election? Does he walk away and return quietly to Vermont? Or does he instead continue to fight for his “political revolution” by another route?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

For change having to do with reversing economic inequality trends there is a specific answer: State collapse and reformation that serves as a secular cycle boundary.
........

The solution to the inequality problem was achieved by the New Dealers over 1933-1945, as I show elsewhere in the paper.

We only began the disintegration phase of this cycle around 2006. Last time there were numerous political responses to the problem which we know as the Progressive Era. None of them solved the problem, inequality continued to rise, leading eventually to economic collapse, as shortly after a second, larger state collapse. I submit that the reason why they did not solve the problem when things got bad around 1920 was because it was a 3T. The recessive/conservative generation in charge was not suited to enact a secular crisis (even though there were triggers galore--hell the period was the closest we have gotten to a revolutionary situation since 1774-1775.) But a little more than a decade later, despite no revolutionary situation, a solution was obtained, because a dominant/liberal generation had come to power. That is I am merging secular cycle theory with S&H theory.

I still see 2001-2008 as the inglorious and practically-inevitable end phase of a 3T, what I call the Degeneracy. Such happens when business, culture, and politics reach their low points of content and caution. The tendencies toward weak and ineffective government because people are unwilling to allow anyone to say no to their more primitive drives that might have been checked earlier are no longer checked. The rich get unusually rapacious and demanding; the mass culture reaches its maximum of debauchery, and politics reflect practically what Aleister Crowley offered as "Do what thou wilt". There may be loud moralizers, but those often prove hypocritical in the extreme. People are looking for quick bucks without obvious service or capital formation, and they commoditize wealth as in few other times.

The Double-Zero Decade looks much like the 1920s, with George W. Bush telescoping the tendencies of three awful Presidents who did twelve years of neglect and harm together (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover) into eight years, only to throw in some wars for profit. Not surprisingly Americans turn against that, but more likely because of the military bumbling than because of the economic collapse.

Barack Obama tried to shorten and mollify the economic collapse, but he did so by rescuing the economic elites. Those elites turned on him and gave us the Tea Party with even harder-Right ideology than that associated with George W. Bush. People who believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as the elites get whatever they want, for which there is no limit, will thwart any social justice if they can.

Here's the problem we face. According to my best models, we saw a dominant generation come to power around 2001. That is the 4T started then. But we we were still in the integrative trend of the secular cycle (that is, inequality had not yet become a structural problem). We entered the disintegrative trend around 2006 and in that same year Congress switched parties and two years later we got Democratic control of the government and some major legislation was passed. It now looks like a Democrat will win a third term for the first time since 1940. This implies that 2008 was a critical election (which is the current definition of a state collapse). So the period from 2008 on qualifies as a fathers and sons cycle "up" phase and an S&H social moment. Inequality has not been addressed yet. And maybe it wont be. My best estimate is that the next recessive generation comes to power after 2020. So that implies the next four years are critical.

The first wave of Idealist leadership is usually horrid. The narcissism, ruthlessness, and arrogance come to the fore. Just think of when the Transcendental southerners tried to force their formulation of slavery as a great virtue upon the rest of America. The worst exploiters often insist upon being seen as benefactors to those that they exploit, and often punish anyone who disputes such severely. Think also of the eugenecist wave of the Missionary generation, people who thought that the economy had to promote rewards for being part of the 'best-bred' parts of society... which fits the suppression of labor unions and groups supporting the rights of minorities.

I believe the only way the secular cycle and secular crisis can both be resolved is with an economic collapse. As you probably know I am calling for a 10000 point drop in the Dow by 2018. If this happens and if it is accompanied by another financial crisis (I think this is 50:50) then there is a possibility for panic amongst the economic elites like the Koch bros. If the Koch's rein in Cruz (who can Cruz work for after he leaves elective office when everybody hates him, he will have to attach himself to a patron and the Kochs have been friendly to him) then president Clinton would have the ability to prevent collapse. If she is smart enough to realize that unless she restores prosperity in two years she if fucked in the next election she will hold out for a truly massive stimulus or go to full-scale crusade war to accomplish the same objective (re-election). Massive stimulus or war will be inflationary until action is taken to raise taxes to the rafters. Even then inflation could crush wealth unless they permit Clinton even more power to regulate the economy "for the duration of the crisis". Note that a war which actually costs the elites something is a war that will be WON as soon as possible and that takes care of re-election.

The solution to the economic meltdown was, all in all, the return to small business as the only reliable way to create wealth -- and it had to create wealth before it could create income beyond the level of bare survival of owners. Small business that barely survives is hard to tax because it has low profits. It must serve with quality of service, as it can't mass-purchase advertising as can corporate behemoths. Neither can it solve its problems by paying lobbyists and making political contributions. The 1930s may have been the best time in any that any living Americans can now know for starting a small business. Assets were available at fire-sale prices without the fire. Labor was very cheap -- and good.

Something like this is the only way I can see a positive result from this 4T. More likely is Clinton is a one-term president having achieved nothing, after which GenX is in power and no resolution of the disintegrative trend will be possible for another 80 years.

Time is running out on the Boom generation. In 2020 the youngest Boomers turn 60, which means that any Boomer President elected in 2020 or later will be 64 at the end of the first term of the Presidency. I do not see Hillary Clinton as an improvement over Barack Obama, who acts more like John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower than like any Boomer. He is a mature Reactive.

The ideal follow-up to Barack Obama would be a new JFK. The Republicans have nothing like him -- and Hillary Clinton certainly is no John F. Kennedy. We need a surge of optimism, and not of cynicism. Donald Trump? He exemplifies all that is wrong with Idealist generations -- rapaciousness, ruthlessness, selfishness, and arrogance. Culture? It's the culture of the casino and reality television. Vision? Himself as the focus of all attention without anyone judging his behavior. Education? The content of his speeches is almost as low-brow as one would expect of Bloods or Crips. He's strong on Idealist vices, and weak on Idealist virtues. Warren G. Harding was like that, too.

This latter result is actually the more likely. Turchin dates the America secular cycles as 1780-1930 and 1930-ongoing. Since his first cycle spans two saecula, then why wouldn't his second? In this scenario this 4T will be another inconsequential 4T (from an inequality viewpoint) like the Civil War or Armada 4T and the real action will come in the next 4T long after all of us here are dead.

Processes will matter more than personalities this time.

This is an interesting discussion that should move to the new site now so that enough posts can be built to allow discussion to continue there when this site becomes inactive in two weeks.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is an interesting discussion that should move to the new site now so that enough posts can be built to allow discussion to continue there when this site becomes inactive in two weeks.

I welcome that.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbi...oup_highlights

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, here you go marypoza:

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/3141

This Can't Be Happening!
'...a major destabilizing influence'
Syndicate content
The only news organization in the US to be labeled a threat by the Department of Homeland Security


Bernie Sanders’ Real ‘Political Revolution’ Could Happen This Fall
April 28, 2016 - 10:01am — lindorff
The push to make Sanders the Green Party's presidential candidate
by: Dave Lindorff


Philadelphia -- Bernie Sanders, to the consternation of critics in the Democratic Party, pundits in the corporate media, and purists on the hard left, has accomplished an amazing thing. Up against Hillary Clinton, surely the biggest, best-funded corporate-backed candidate the Democratic leadership has run since Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan in 1984 over three decades ago, the once obscure independent Vermont senator has battled Clinton to almost a draw, down by only some 319 delegates with nearly 900 to go (not counting the corrupt “super delegates” chosen for their fealty to party leaders, not by primary or caucus voting.)

By doing this well, as a proudly declared “democratic socialist” who on the stump has been denouncing the corruption of both the US political and economic systems, and as a candidate who has refused to take corporate money or money from big, powerful donors, instead successfully funding his campaign with only small two and three-digit donations from his supporters, Sanders has exposed not just his opponent, Hillary Clinton, but the entire Democratic Party leadership and most of its elected officials as nothing but hired corporate tools posing as progressive advocates of the people.

A Sanders-Stein Green Party dream ticket or just a dream? Sanders and Green activists are trying to make it happen.



But now Sanders faces a truly momentous choice. Defeated by the combined assault of a pro-corporate mass media and by the machinations of the Democratic Party leadership -- machinations both long-established with the intent of defeating upstarts and outsiders, like front-loading conservative southern states in the primary schedule, and current, like scheduling only a few early candidate debates and then slotting them at times (like opposite the Super Bowl) when few would be watching them -- Sanders knows that barring some major surprise like a federal indictment of Clinton, a market collapse, or perhaps a leak of the transcripts of Clinton’s highly-paid but still secret speeches to some of the nation’s biggest banks, he is not going to win the Democratic nomination.

So does he, after spending months hammering home the reality that Clinton is the bought-and-paid candidate of the the banks, the arms industry, the oil industry and the medical-industrial complex, and after enduring endless lies about his own record spouted by Clinton and her surrogates, go ahead and endorse her as the party’s standard bearer for the general election? Does he walk away and return quietly to Vermont? Or does he instead continue to fight for his “political revolution” by another route?

-- this can't be happening? Uh it's a 4t all bets are off. And yes, ppl on social media are already starting up plan B- pimping Jill should Bernie not get the nomination. I really do think this time around the Greens could pull @ least 10% of the vote, probably more. And yes, there is also talk of continuing Bernie's campaign after the election & turning it into a movement