madscientis says:

<font color=blue>Anti-capitalist sentiment, among both the right and left, is rapidly increasing.</font>

Tee hee. This is so wrong it's funny.

Capitalism is merely freedom in economic matters. You cannot be free without capitalism.

On 2002-02-01 09:05, msm wrote:
madscientis says:

<font color=blue>Anti-capitalist sentiment, among both the right and left, is rapidly increasing.</font>

Tee hee. This is so wrong it's funny.

Capitalism is merely freedom in economic matters. You cannot be free without capitalism.

Let me rephrase by saying that we are against corporate socialism.

On 2002-01-31 21:57, jds1958xg wrote:
I also remembered reading in the S&H book 'Generations' that the Transcendentals, like modern day Boomers, had a 'New Age' movement (they called it Spiritualism) that was at least partially non-Christian in nature. No such thing developed very far among the Missionaries, who's 'modernist' faction claimed to be as thoroughly based on Christian values as the traditionalists.

There were plenty of "New Age" type movements around the turn of the last Century. There was Theosophy. There was Madame Bavatsky. There was Gurdijeff (I probably spelled it wrong). There was Swami Vivikananda, who was the first Hindu Swami to come to the U.S. and preach Hindu thought, and had quite a reception. And my mother's foster mother, who may have been a Missionary (she died in 1965 and was quite old but I don't know the year she was born), was very much into Spiritualism.

Interestingly enough, I heard on National Public Radio some time ago, that in the early 20th Century 2nd and 3rd turns, there was quite an active Gay movement too. It all went underground during 4T and 1T.

I was thinking of the major factions that emerge during an Awakening, and dominate the 'Culture Wars' of the Unraveling that follows. My impression, right or wrong, was that 'New Age'thought didn't have the same major influence on the 'Progressive' factions in the Missionary era that was seen in both the Transcendental and Boomer eras. I even remember reading in one source that in 1859, America was reportedly on the brink of what would today be called a true 'change of consciousness', with Spiritualism slated to become the dominant belief system as a result. However, the Civil War cut the ground right out from under any such occurrence, guaranteeing the continued dominant role of Christianity. Only in the Boom Awakening and modern Culture Wars would Christianity face that kind of severe challenge again.

I'm not up on all this spirituality stuff but as I seem to recall many Missionaries were involved with Bohemian and "Back to Nature" movements that encouraged the free thinking individual. A lot did dabble in meditation and relaxation techniques. There was the World Parliament of Religions in 1896, I believe, ( I may be off on the date a little) at which every concievable religion on earth attended and Missionaries were introduced to Bahaism, Buddhism, etc. I know that the first Muslims to come to the United States came not during the Millenial Cycle but the Great Power Cycle. Most came from Estern Europe along with fellow European Christians and Jews. A few also came from Leban. Apparently, they built several mosques around the country during the 1920's and 1930's and Harry S. Truman actually presided over the opening of one in Washington DC during his second term. Bahaism gained thier first American converts during the Great Power Cycle. I believe this happened around the turn of the century. The "Judeo-Christian" ethic was not really a function of the Great Power Cycle but of the last Fourth Turning and the begining of the last High. It was largely repudiated by the middle 1950's with Silent such as Allen Ginsberg (God bless him for what he brought)and Silentish GI's such as Jack Kerouic. I hope I spelled his name right.
Something similar is happening now with New Age and neo-Pagan spirituality becoming less culturally prominent. What may emerge in the next High is something resembling the Judeo-Christian ethic of the 1950's, only it will be updated to include Islam. But it will only be temporary. Eventually, new forms of spirituality will be dabbled in during the 2030's and may emerge full force around 2040 or so.

Interesting item about the strong Gay Movement prior to the Stock Market Crash, and it's being forced underground during the Depression, the War, and (I still want to call that whole period the Fifties, even though I think of it as running from VJ Day through to the JFK Assassination.). Will history repeat itself, or will the Gay Movement prove to be strong enough this time around to successfully resist all attempts at 4T Era repression?

Neither. Gays are mainstream now. The movement still has a ways to go to achieve credibility in areas of the country that might be termed the Bible Belt.
The position of gays now might be compared to Blacks or Chicano's in the 1920's.
Believe or not the first president to speak to an audience of black college students was a Republican, Calvin Coolidge. He gave an adress to a group of black students who were graduating from Harvard College. While he wasn't what we would call a racial liberal
he acknowledged their worth as individuals
and their potential to achieve. The Republican Party was actually more pro-civil rights than the Democrats until the 1960's because they didn't carry the baggage of Dixiecrat support.


Gays are not going underground. The economic/national security emergency will slow but not reverse progress on gay rights.
Some quiet progress is still being made towards acceptance of gay rights. Although Bush is more hardline in theory on gays than Clinton was there have been no expulsions from the military since 911 over troops admitting their sexual orientation. Apparently the military is putting necesity above ideologically correct thinking. I think the Bush position on gays is similar to the Coolidge position on race; both groups have thier place in the American mosaic but as individuals. It's actually not an extremist position. Another sign of gay rights is that Bush has quietly allowed several top aides and campaign officials to work for him in spite of thier being quite open about thier sexual orientation. One of Bush's top pollsters was Arther Finkelstien, a Jewish gay man from New York who has worked for a litany of Republicans in the past.

Another area of gay rights progress is in the Red Cross. Since 911, the Red Cross has extended benefits to domestic spouses and children of gay and lesbian victims of the World Trade Center attack. This is not to ignore the considerable obstacles facing gays in their quest for equal protections under the law. But it is to show that there are areas of progress.

I also believe that just as blacks and chicanos who served in our factories and armed forces during the Great Power Crisis paved the way for the Civil Rights movement, something similar will occur with gays in this Crisis. The American people refuse to be divided at this time when we all need to pull together.

On 2002-01-31 21:57, jds1958xg wrote:
Interesting - and valid - point. Here I am also reminded of a little reading project I undertook years ago, when I first encountered Generational Theory - that of reading works specifically by Transcendental and Missionary authors. I soon had a gut reaction that was much more positive towards Transcendental authors like Nathaniel Hawthorne or Edgar Allen Poe, than towards the likes of Jack London or Upton Sinclair. I also remembered reading in the S&H book 'Generations' that the Transcendentals, like modern day Boomers, had a 'New Age' movement (they called it Spiritualism) that was at least partially non-Christian in nature. No such thing developed very far among the Missionaries, who's 'modernist' faction claimed to be as thoroughly based on Christian values as the traditionalists. Could it be that Boomers do indeed have more in common with the Transcendental Generation than with the Missionaries, and if so, what might that portend for the current 4T?

It might portend many things, but I think the potential for an emotion-driven disaster certainly does exist, and at a higher percentage chance than in the last 4T.

On 2002-01-31 22:08, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-01-31 21:57, jds1958xg wrote:
Interesting - and valid - point. Here I am also reminded of a little reading project I undertook years ago, when I first encountered Generational Theory - that of reading works specifically by Transcendental and Missionary authors. I soon had a gut reaction that was much more positive towards Transcendental authors like Nathaniel Hawthorne or Edgar Allen Poe, than towards the likes of Jack London or Upton Sinclair. I also remembered reading in the S&H book 'Generations' that the Transcendentals, like modern day Boomers, had a 'New Age' movement (they called it Spiritualism) that was at least partially non-Christian in nature. No such thing developed very far among the Missionaries, who's 'modernist' faction claimed to be as thoroughly based on Christian values as the traditionalists. Could it be that Boomers do indeed have more in common with the Transcendental Generation than with the Missionaries, and if so, what might that portend for the current 4T?

I think that Boomers definitely resemble the Transies. Basically, the leftist persona of Boomers is dominated by the New Age and Ecology movements.

Deep ecology has evolved into a fundamentalist spiritual movement. In this new era, we shall see the influence of deep ecology and many New Age religions rise, along-side with Christian influence.

What we can expect, then is for the economy and become much more ecologically friendly for starters. I'll add more later.

The Deep Ecology movement has a distinct apocalyptic element to it. There is really an outfit called the Voluntary Extinction Movement, who argue that Humanity should seek to bring about it's own humane extinction by refusing the reproduce.

There is also an ingrained idea that environmental disaster is around the corner that permeates some corners of the movement, and has for decades. When news comes that the environmental problems are gentler and/or much slower than they think, there is a real resistance to it.

The New Age movement is actually a variety of movements, many of them as hostile to each other as they are to traditional religion and culture. There are certainly some very apocalyptic strains among the various New Age movements, and some of them talk about a 'New Man'. This is a warning alarm from past experience.

Why does all this matter? Because the 4T tends to bring extremists to a boil. A mood of 'now or never' takes the true believers, and things can get hot fast. The Missionaries were a relatively unified and restrained batch of Idealists. The Transcendentals, in contrast, were exceptionally driven and passionate. The Boomers, so far, seem to fall between, but they are trending uncomfortably in what I would consider the wrong direction (toward a more Transcendental-like position).

The difference between Transcendentals and Boomers is that the Transies had, at an early stage, had one big divisive issue that did not lend itself to compromise. This has not happened-yet-with Boomers.

O' contraire. The civisive issues have always been there. It is just that (especially first wave boomers) we have taken a break from them to raise our children, make our failures and try to forget our embarressments.

Invvironmental disasters ARE around the corner. Wake up. Just because a boomer says something doesn't mean it's not true. When a civilization reaches a crossroad, where is the compromise?

On 2002-02-02 19:17, buzzard44 wrote:
O' contraire. The civisive issues have always been there. It is just that (especially first wave boomers) we have taken a break from them to raise our children, make our failures and try to forget our embarressments.

Interesting point, that. According the S&H, Idealists tend to go into what they call a 'chrysalis' for a while, which is part of why the early years of the 3T are usually relatively quiet, before the Culture Wars phase sets in.

For a few years now, an idea has been out and about that the Culture Wars were already over, having ended in victory for the liberal left (using the word liberal in its modern sense). The New York Times editorial page tended to push this, as did some other branches of the major media.

The 'evidence' they noted was Clinton's popularity, the growing acceptance of gay lifestyles, the seeming indifference to anything that smacked of sexual excess, etc.

However, I think it's just as likely that what was actually happening was that the more liberal-leaning first-wave Boomers had emerged from their chrysalis, while the more traditional/religious later-wave Boomers were still occupied and cocooned. Now the later wavers are emerging, and the Culture Wars are showing signs of dead-lock again.
E2K may have been an early symptom of the reemergence of the 'conservative' faction of the Booomers, since mere a year or so before it happened, the predictions were all for a Democratic sweep of the election and a Gore landslide.

Invvironmental disasters ARE around the corner. Wake up. Just because a boomer says something doesn't mean it's not true.

Environmental disasters may or may not be just around the corner. The evidence are not conclusive.

What evidence does exist seems to indicate that the overall biosphere is more resilient than originally believed. That is not to say that no problems exist, but the predictions we used to hear constantly simply haven't proved out.

Some of the things that are often cited as evidence for imminent disaster are just wrong. For example, the Amazon rain forest is not about to vanish. Recent satellite atlases (what is the plural of atlas?) show that over 90% of it is still there. Further, it is not as critical to the oxygen cycle as the persistent myth implies. During the last glaciation, merely a few thousand years ago, the Amazon rain forest was reduced to a few stands of local growth. It comes and goes on its own and the biosphere sails on either way.

Another bugaboo: the population explosion. A few decades ago, Paul Ehrlich (sp?) wrote a book in which he made extravagant predictions about population growth that just haven't come true. World population growth has slowed considerably compared to the predictions used in the seventies. Ehrlich, BTW, I believe also once suggested a radical re-write of the U.S. Constitution with an idea to creating whole new branches intended only to regulate the economy and private life to protect the environment, and to throw out those pesky and outdated protections for liberty. He didn't express it that way, of course. Trouble is his hard data just didn't pan out.

I am not advocating destroying the rain forest, I am saying we need to take a realistic look at the environmental situation around the world. Environmental disaster may be in the offing, but it's as likely to come to head fifty years from now as fifteen. The 4T may well be over and done by the time the environment turns critical. I'm not saying it will be over, only that the data are very unclear.

When a civilization reaches a crossroad, where is the compromise?

And as for compromise, Boomers face the same choice faced by the Missionaries, the Transcendentals, the Awakeners, the Puritans, and so on: compromise or face disaster and the total disruption of their ideals. ALL of the Idealist generations had to face this, and they all did compromise to one degree or another, sometimes spurred on by their Reactive next-juniors. All but one, that is: the Transcendentals.

Actually, Boomers have come close to having that one big divisive issue that does not allow for any compromise: Abortion. (PLEASE *DON'T* turn this post into the first shot in another round of the Abortion Wars! This is not the place to argue that one!)

On 2002-02-03 06:31, jds1958xg wrote:
Actually, Boomers have come close to having that one big divisive issue that does not allow for any compromise: Abortion. (PLEASE *DON'T* turn this post into the first shot in another round of the Abortion Wars! This is not the place to argue that one!)

Would it ever be possible to just transfer a fetus from a woman's womb, and put it on life support? If someone can find some way to do this, then the abortion argument will become entirely moot.

I would have to agree that the left has largely won the culture wars thus far. Of course, the right has some victories, such as guns, but on economic issues, the left is the victor.

A culture war is basically a war for the minds of the new Hero generation. College students have taken a very sharp turn to the left, confirming liberal victory.

But of course, like HopefulCynic said, the right-wingers might come out of retirement late into the 4T, and this seems to be a normal pattern.

Late in the Glorious Revolution 4T, slavery was made a part of the regime. In the American Revolution 4T, The more conservative constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. In the previous 4T, World War II helped implant a conservative part of a regime into the US civic order, producing a Military-Industrial complex.

This decade will be one of the anarchist liberals. Probably around 2012, we will begin to see a shift to more statist conservatism, especially as the Nomads age.

In the anarchist liberal phase, what are we likely to see? Of course, we will see LOTS of anti-globalism, and we will see a lot of anti-capitalist sentiment. Many will propose a form of green socialism that takes its lessons from the religious deep ecology movement. We will implement greener energy methods, and begin to end our dependence on foreign oil. But what will happen as the forces of statist conservatism take over?

Hi!

On 2002-02-03 20:45, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-02-03 10:24, madscientist wrote:
Would it ever be possible to just transfer a fetus from a woman's womb, and put it on life support? If someone can find some way to do this, then the abortion argument will become entirely moot.

Not really Robert. Who is going to take care of, or pay for the care of, this fetus-on-life-support? If the mother refuses, it's still abandonment. Women who have abortions don't do it because they don't want to be pregnant. They do it because they don't want to raise a child.

I don't want to turn this into an abortion argument either, but I did want to make that point.

It would seem to be that for a woman to have a fetus transferred from her body to a life-support chamber would be the moral equivalent of putting her baby up for adoption after its birth. Certainly, that child will feel just as abandoned by his/her birth parent whether the abandonment was pre- or post-natal. However, from the point of view of that child, either situation would still be preferable to having been aborted.

I would disagree with the statement that women who have abortions don't do so primarily because they don't want to be pregnant. Certainly many expectant teens and young adults often choose abortion because they don't wish to bear the stigma (yes, it still exists) that goes along with being unwed and pregnant for all to see. They may not even think so far ahead as to what it would be like to actually raise their very own baby-- they may simply want their current situation to be over.

And it is a given that in pregnancies resulting from a rape, the victims most definitely do not want to be pregnant at all. Far from wanting to shirk any sort of "responsibility", they are not likely to see giving birth to and raising the unwanted offspring of a sociopath as their responsibility at all.

In fact, I would surmise that the only group of women who choose abortion solely because they don't want to raise a child are older women who have already raised kids, are looking forward to enjoying middle age now that the nest is empty, and find themselves pregnant by accident.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-02-03 22:36 ]</font>

madscientist wrote:

<font color=blue>A culture war is basically a war for the minds of the new Hero generation. College students have taken a very sharp turn to the left, confirming liberal victory.</font>

I'm not willing to accept this - yet. The poll which you are referring showed no such liberal victory. On the contrary, it showed a libertarian victory. Libertarians are more closely associated with conservatives than liberals.

What if they had asked the kids "should the welfare state be expanded?". What if they asked the kids "should we establish a government-run health care system?" If they had asked questions like those, then we'd know whether the kids are moving left or right.

Just because kids want to legalize marijuana doesn't make them liberals. Famous conservative spokesman William F. Buckley has called for legalizing marijuana since the 1960's. That's a libertarian stance, not a "liberal" one.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-04 05:48 ]</font>

I agree that abortion has the makings for a major 4T fight. Currently, there is no realistic divide between the murder of newborn children and the "abortion" of the nearly-born. I can certainly imagine that, once the truth is really expressed to the people, that a huge moral revultion will result in the reigning-in of abortion rights, at least back to a compromise (such as requiring that abortions occur only in the first trimester.) There must be a buffer zone between murder and abortion.

Would madscientist care to explain what he means by "anarchist liberals". It's a contradiction in terms.

Sometime's I wonder if he's even got enough of a solid comprehension of the terms he uses.

As for "anarchists", they are always either idiotic poseurs, socialists, or they are actually libertarians who don't know it yet.

When it comes to "anarchy", I'm with Camille Paglia, who said "Anarchism is glorified thumb-sucking. Off with the diapers, and on to business! Construction, not destruction, is the name of the human game."

"statist conservatism" is also a contradiction in terms, madscientist! Conservatives are opposed to the trend of greater power of the State.

*exasperated*

"statist conservatism" is also a contradiction in terms, madscientist! Conservatives are opposed to the trend of greater power of the State.

And yet one group of people I worry about are religious moralists who wish to use the power of the state to impose thier sense of morality on everyone. The Taliban take this to an extreme. Our religious right does it as well. From a Libertarian position, Freedom of Religion means you cannot use the power of the state to impose religious values on others with differing systems of morality. This might be one of many basic issues we must address in the near future.

The simplistic red/blue conservative/liberal division is inadequate. There is more going on than can be approached by any one us/them division. Too many of us have our own ideas on where the us/them line should be drawn. (Again, military, cultural, ecological, economic and religious value systems can all be used to define a critical set of issues, and draw a good guy / bad guy line.)

No, we are not going to be able to get unanimous agreement on where to draw a good guy / bad guy line. We are not going to be able to convice all members of the group to agree on one simplistic definition of liberal and conservative such that one group can be defined as wrong, and subdued. We might be able to look at each of numerous problems facing the world, and act such that the problems are reduced. Sometimes, we will need to push positions traditionally liberal, such as ecology. Sometimes, we will need to push positions traditionally conservative, such as security and human rights. Beware becoming so obcessed with labels that we can't discuss problems.

On 2002-02-03 20:45, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-02-03 10:24, madscientist wrote:
Would it ever be possible to just transfer a fetus from a woman's womb, and put it on life support? If someone can find some way to do this, then the abortion argument will become entirely moot.

Not really Robert. Who is going to take care of, or pay for the care of, this fetus-on-life-support? If the mother refuses, it's still abandonment. Women who have abortions don't do it because they don't want to be pregnant. They do it because they don't want to raise a child.

I don't want to turn this into an abortion argument either, but I did want to make that point.

The answer is: All those infertile women spending tens of thousands on In vitro Fertilization, donor egg, and other fancy, non-insured high tech treatments.

I'm sure there are fertility experts out there right now trying to figure out how to transfer an embryo or a fetus from one womb to another!

On 2002-02-04 06:16, msm wrote:
Would madscientist care to explain what he means by "anarchist liberals". It's a contradiction in terms.

Actually, not. Liberal does not at all mean an expansion of government. That was only the label that liberalism received in the 1930s with the New Deal expansion of government. There are leftist anarchists (Green socialism), leftist statists(Vladimir Lenin), conservative anarchists (or libertarians), and conservative statists (Adolf Hitler).

Sometime's I wonder if he's even got enough of a solid comprehension of the terms he uses.

Maybe we should make a forum designated entirely to definitions.

As for "anarchists", they are always either idiotic poseurs, socialists, or they are actually libertarians who don't know it yet.

How do you differentiate libertarianism from anarchism?

When it comes to "anarchy", I'm with Camille Paglia, who said "Anarchism is glorified thumb-sucking. Off with the diapers, and on to business! Construction, not destruction, is the name of the human game."

What is your definition of anarchism?

[quote]
On 2002-02-04 05:47, msm wrote:
madscientist wrote:

I'm not willing to accept this - yet. The poll which you are referring showed no such liberal victory. On the contrary, it showed a libertarian victory. Libertarians are more closely associated with conservatives than liberals.

How does this show a libertarian victory, and not a liberal one?

What if they had asked the kids "should the welfare state be expanded?". What if they asked the kids "should we establish a government-run health care system?" If they had asked questions like those, then we'd know whether the kids are moving left or right.

As for national health care, from my experience, most Millies are in agreement with it. As for an expansion of the "welfare state", that question is much more unclear. However, I would suspect the Millies are AGAINST the expansion of the welfare state, in its current form. In the 4T, the old civic order is always thrown out. In the Revolutionary 4T, the monarchy was ousted as the government of the US, and replaced with a confederation of states. In the Civil War 4T, this was replaced with a truely national government, and the slaveocracy was abolished. Not only that, it put in place a laissez-faire industrial economy in place. In the 1930s, this laissez-faire system was replaced with the welfare state. So it is likely that Millies will implement a system that is as different from the "welfare state" as the antebellum period was from the post Civil War period. But does this mean "liberalism"? Note that definitions of liberalism and conservatism change about every 40 years with the introduction of a dynamist turning. In recent years, we experienced a parcus dynamist turning (heh heh heh, Latin) in the 1930s with a major shift in the meaning of "liberal" and "conservative". Recall that prior to the 1930s, the Democrats were the conservative party, while the "Party of Lincoln" Republicans were the liberals. This, however, changed quickly in the 1930s. The socialist Democrats became the new liberals, and the laissez-faire Republicans became the new conservatives. In the 1960s, we saw another change. Liberalism still had its socialist elements, but now, it had anti-racism, gender equality, and environmentalism in mind. The right became the party of the corporations and of the religious conservatives. We will see another large change in definition. But instead of being based upon cultural issues, it will be based upon political and economic issues. Whatever is seen as the "progressive" idea will be labelled "liberal", and whatever is at odds with this will be termed "conservative". By 2004, the idea of the "welfare state" could all of a sudden be "conservative".

Just because kids want to legalize marijuana doesn't make them liberals. Famous conservative spokesman William F. Buckley has called for legalizing marijuana since the 1960's. That's a libertarian stance, not a "liberal" one.

True, but what about the other issues?

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"Not to know is bad, but to refuse to know is worse." -- A Gambian Proverb

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-02-04 10:35 ]</font>