HC writes... Actually, Marc, I'm about 99% convinced that you're right about it still being 3T at this point, for what it's worth.

The way the forum has started to go the last few days, I'm not ready to argue... First, September 11th united the nation. Next, Eric Meece took it apart again...

More seriously, a while ago I proposed four phases. 1. What hit us? 2. Can we get back to normal? 3. What will it take to fix it? 4. That does it! Let's get at it!

I still have vague hopes we are in 2. I fear we are in 3, believing all we have to do to solve our problems is kill people who disagree with us. It still could go either way.

Regarding Bob B: humor rather than insults; that's progress :smile: But I can't follow you into the assumption that we're in 4T of any designation. I find myself in agreement with conservatives Marc Lamb and Hopeful Cynic on this one. We're still in 3T.

Can't resist posting sommore. Glad to see voltronx weigh in. Regarding "utopia," HC and other red zone defenders would do well to look upon it in relative terms. Of course things are never going to be "perfect." But I remember what a college professor said once, that if an eighteenth century utopian visionary were to return for a visit today, he would say "what are you complaining about; you've got utopia." What liberal-minded people refer to by utopia is a better society than we have now. Not only is it not harmful "to dream of" and create a better society, we are not being human if we don't progress, because only then are we using our talents and gifts to make a difference. In the future new problems will come with what we have created, but on balance, if we use our hearts and minds, we will progress.

Europe is ahead of us now in most ways; that may have been less true before the age of Reagan, or wrong in the days of Hitler. But now we should learn from those who are more civilized. Another way they are ahead is how they allow for more time off from work. It is ridiculous to think that life is about working 8 or more hours, 5 days a week, with one vacation a year. What a bore. The American rat race is pathetic. Where are we going? Nowhere fast it seems to me.

Who says what is better? Somebody has to. A consensus develops; for example, that freedom is better than slavery. Usually history is on the side of those who had the dream in the past. Voltronx pointed out the decline of racism, and it has been due largely to education and activism. People don't automatically change their attitudes. Liberals including those who suffered from it brought it to the fore and exposed it, and we decided to change. There is further to go, but we made progress. Brother-sisterhood is better than racism. An equitable distribution of wealth is better than a class system. If you HC wish to say there's no "evidence" for this, or (in another example I mentioned) that democracy is better than monarchy, what can we liberals say? To us the truth seems, as Jefferson said, self-evident. Plus, we can see the pain that the old ways inflict, and the relief that comes with reform.

Despite your denial HC, to me it seems clear that you said that unless America is #1, dictatorship will triumph. If you are saying now that this is only true right now, but may not be in the future, I answer that it was only "the future" we were referring to. America has not declined in its world position yet, and will not for a decade or two at the least, no matter what blue zone liberals do.

What is also true, in my opinion, is that it does not take a militaristic empire to exist in the world to prevent dictatorship. That empire becomes itself the problem, for one thing. For another, you said that a combination of powers (Europe for example) COULD keep the peace and freedom, but maybe not right now. I have no big problem with that. I had a problem with you saying that this could never happen.

Regarding the blue and red zone, HC, you and others complain that we are ramming things down your throat. Au contraire. It seems to us that you are holding things back. For 30 years no reform of significance has been enacted in this country, because of your resistance. How then can you complain? You are getting your way. I have trouble understanding what the red zone's problem is. That we WANT certain things? Yes perhaps, but not because of what we have already done in the last 30 years. And if you are complaining about increasing diversity, again, you are holding back an inevitable tide. Liberals may be in favor of more immigration and non-discrimination, but some prudent regulation of immigration is not a bad thing to most of us. But to think we can put up walls and hold out the whole world and its cultures is naive. The red zone will have to separate if it wants to put up such walls. They will crumble anyway.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-07 01:25 ]</font>

Marc, this may shock you, but as of now, I am agnostic on whether it be 3T or 4T. Could go either way. I don't think we'll know for several years either, because transitions ain't always that obvious.

All I know is that the sense of crisis that I felt I lived in last fall is largely gone. Also, the 7 pounds that I gained in the aftermath of September 11th is also gone! Ten pounds more to go and I'm there! :smile:

I am duly stunned, Ms. Genser. About the agnostic thing, that is. :lol:

So is the weight thing have anything to do with thinking we might still be 3T?

If so, congratulations on your progress, and you're welcome! :lol:

Eric writes... Regarding Bob B: humor rather than insults; that's progress. But I can't follow you into the assumption that we're in 4T of any designation. I find myself in agreement with conservatives Marc Lamb and Hopeful Cynic on this one. We're still in 3T.

I'm not as concerned with emotional tone as awareness of problems. The Somalia - Balkan - Middle East - Marine Barracks - Embassy - USS Cole - OKC - WTC spiral of violence is not going away. We were able to ignore most of the early incidents. They were perceived as far away, nothing that could or should effect our politics or personal lives. WTC did not fall below anyone's radar. Everyone is thinking through the problem to some extent. Everyone was ready to sacrifice, to make a real change, should change become necessary.

Dubya is trying to avoid real change. He is avoiding addressing basic issues, changing prior foreign policies, changing tax patterns, restructuring the military. Depending on developments, he might easily get through six more years on a peacetime level military resistance only platform.

Oh, September 11th might equate to the Boston Massacre or Boston Tea Party. It does not equate to Lexington and Concord. It is too soon to say for certain where the unraveling / crisis boundary will be arbitrarily drawn by future historians. I am highly dubious that future historians will see WTC as unrelated to whatever is coming.

Still, the spirals of violence leading up to Crisis consist of radicals hitting the Establishment over the head with clubs of ever increasing size. The Establishment responds in kind. The Establishment is traditionally very dense, the radicals very determined. We are still in a slow motion train wreck. Perhaps only the first few cars are off the track.

We on this forum are actively watching and waiting for Crisis. We can not yet agree on what issues are central, and what solutions are best. It is hardly surprising that others, less aware or history's rhythms, see this as one more minor incident among many in the Pax Americana. We have no excuse.

I see a slow motion train wreck, with both engineers attempting to minimize damage by increasing power to the engines. Some might not feel there is a Crisis in progress. After all, the first few cars in any train might be considered expendable. I respectfully disagree.

On 2002-03-07 01:16, Eric A Meece wrote:
Europe is ahead of us now in most ways; that may have been less true before the age of Reagan, or wrong in the days of Hitler. But now we should learn from those who are more civilized. Another way they are ahead is how they allow for more time off from work. It is ridiculous to think that life is about working 8 or more hours, 5 days a week, with one vacation a year. What a bore. The American rat race is pathetic. Where are we going? Nowhere fast it seems to me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-07 01:25 ]</font>

Written by someone who cannot have ever visited Europe! Europe is a museum, dusty and dirty and not progressive, which is why anyone with any brains packed up and came to America! If you want confiscatory tax rates, if you want filth of all kinds - chemical and moral - visit Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London, Frankfurt, Rome, and, yes, Paris. Even Detroit comes out looking good after seeing some of these cities!

Rat race? Have you ever seen the gridlock in a German city? Or in many areas of England? Apparently not!

And if Europe is so far ahead of us, why is the world still knocking on our doors? Where is Europe's Bill Gates? Where is their space shuttle?

Hear, hear! Nicely put, walterhoch!

Eric has a point about working hours, but we certainly don't want to increase our leisure time the European way: heavy-handed government labor laws that limit the freedom of both employee and employer to negotiate their own arrangements, increase the cost of hiring, and ultimately cause high unemployment.

In America, a growing trend is for employees to voluntarily take unpaid days off to supplement their paid vacations days. My employer allows this, for example, and I have taken advantage of it. Sure, it decreases your pay, but it's a free choice.

I am of the opinion that Americans should learn to voluntarily spend less so they can afford to take more days off. Eric probably agrees with this. The difference is, I think it should be a voluntary arrangement between employer and employee, not a government-mandated change. The government would only foul it up, and soon we'd have the same kind of stagnation as the Europeans do.

On 2002-03-07 14:01, walterhoch wrote:

On 2002-03-07 01:16, Eric A Meece wrote:
Europe is ahead of us now in most ways; that may have been less true before the age of Reagan, or wrong in the days of Hitler. But now we should learn from those who are more civilized. Another way they are ahead is how they allow for more time off from work. It is ridiculous to think that life is about working 8 or more hours, 5 days a week, with one vacation a year. What a bore. The American rat race is pathetic. Where are we going? Nowhere fast it seems to me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-07 01:25 ]</font>

Written by someone who cannot have ever visited Europe! Europe is a museum, dusty and dirty and not progressive, which is why anyone with any brains packed up and came to America! If you want confiscatory tax rates, if you want filth of all kinds - chemical and moral - visit Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London, Frankfurt, Rome, and, yes, Paris. Even Detroit comes out looking good after seeing some of these cities!

Rat race? Have you ever seen the gridlock in a German city? Or in many areas of England? Apparently not!

And if Europe is so far ahead of us, why is the world still knocking on our doors? Where is Europe's Bill Gates? Where is their space shuttle?

Walterhoch, you have just strengthened the case which Pat Buchanan made in the Tuesday, March 5th. edition of USA Today. In that editorial, he claims that Europe is a cluster of slowly dying societies, most likely doomed not to make it to the end of the century. His point in saying so is that we should no longer count on them as allies. Without your comments, I would have been more inclined to treat his claims as being his usual alarmist rants. But now,...

On 2002-03-07 16:41, jds1958xg wrote:
Walterhoch, you have just strengthened the case which Pat Buchanan made in the Tuesday, March 5th. edition of USA Today. In that editorial, he claims that Europe is a cluster of slowly dying societies, most likely doomed not to make it to the end of the century

if i recall correctly, he said they were "dying" because their birth rates were declining. but the birth rates there are still well above "replacement" (2.1 births per female). which means the populations are not declining, but simply that population growth is declining.

i think you were better off realizing it was an alarmist rant.


TK

On 2002-03-07 16:51, TrollKing wrote:

if i recall correctly, he said they were "dying" because their birth rates were declining. but the birth rates there are still well above "replacement" (2.1 births per female). which means the populations are not declining, but simply that population growth is declining.

i think you were better off realizing it was an alarmist rant.


TK

The birth rate is not at replacement levels. But at about 1/2 of replacement. I guess it wasn't an alarmist rant. HTH

_________________
"I often think it odd that [History] should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention." Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey, Chapter XIV

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-03-07 17:13 ]</font>

On 2002-03-07 17:12, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

The birth rate is not at replacement levels. But at about 1/2 of replacement. I guess it wasn't an alarmist rant.

i stand corrected, or at least partially corrected.

i still believe it's alarmist to be running about claiming europe is "dying". europe is plenty crowded as it is, and fertility rates are always lower in developed nations than in un- or under-developed ones. top that with the fact that the life expectancy in developed countries is much higher than in undeveloped ones and "alarmist" becomes the right word.

besides, the europeans would start humping like bunnies if they truly felt threatened in this manner.


TK

On 2002-03-06 22:12, jds1958xg wrote:

So much of what's preventing a utopia is learned. And if we unlearn and prevent certain unenlightened attitudes from being passed on to future generations, we will be able to get rid of them.

Who has the authority to decide what constitutes an 'unenlightened attitude'?
Further, what means are permissible to 'prevent' these attitudes from being passed on?

That is the very crux of the objections of the Red Zone to your grand plans!

Utopia remains impossible in this world. Historically, attempts to achieve it have almost invariably ended either in a rapid and rather pathetic break-up, or massive bloodshed. I know of no exceptions to this rule.

HC, the more I read your assertion that a dictator would arise should the U.S. cease to be #1, the more I believe that you're thinking of China moving into an expansionist phase. Said development left unchecked could become a very credible threat, and rather quickly. And yes, our loss of power would lead to a global power struggle, which would almost certainly include China as one of the contestants.

About China...yes and no. China is one of the possibilities, certainly, and five years ago I might have put it at the top. Now, I'm not quite so sure.

More on this in a moment.

As for Europe being more 'enlightened' I could refer you to an editorial in the March 5th edition of USA Today by Pat Buchanan, where he describes Europe as a cluster of slowly dying societies, and recommends that we cut bait on the NATO Alliance - the only thing that allows them to pursue their 'enlightened' policies that may, in fact, be killing their civilization, if Buchanan is right about them.

I disagree with Buchanan on the core of this thesis, though I agree with some of the details. I actually don't think Europe's societies are dying at all. They may give that impression from an American point of view, but it is, IMO, illusory.

I have become aware, over the last few years, that Americans have always tended to view Europe as decaying and dying, from the days of the Revolution onward. In fact, this attitude played a roll in the lead-up to and play-out of the American Revolution. It recurs over and over.

I didn't realize this historical quirk, though, until fairly recently.

I think a better comparison between America and Europe, in the aftermath of two world wars, the collapse of the military and social and economic power of the individual European nation-state, and the sudden upsurge in American power, would be to a man who has had a lousy week, and has repaired to the bar on Friday night and gotten plastered.

Yes, to the less drunken guys sitting next to him (America and Australia and to some degree Canada), the drunk guy may seem at the end of his rope. But tomorrow he'll be sober.

Even as we discuss this, a meeting is being held in Europe to discuss the future of the European Union. No matter how it comes out, I suspect that the next few years and the next couple of decades are going to see less and less of the dying nations of Europe, and more and more of United Europe, by whatever name.

Western Europe and America are really one single society, the West. To other cultures, the West is a fairly discreet and clear entity, and it includes Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and scattered bits here and there.
From the outsider POV, WW I and WW II looked a lot like wars of kin against kin.

I would not be utterly, profoundly stunned to see that happen again.

I don't expect it, but it wouldn't surprise me, either. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some three-way struggle become key to the 4T, possibly America, Europe, and China.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-07 21:55 ]</font>

On 2002-03-07 01:16, Eric A Meece wrote:


Can't resist posting sommore. Glad to see voltronx weigh in. Regarding "utopia," HC and other red zone defenders would do well to look upon it in relative terms. Of course things are never going to be "perfect." But I remember what a college professor said once, that if an eighteenth century utopian visionary were to return for a visit today, he would say "what are you complaining about; you've got utopia."

Now that is a good point. You're right, at first glance what we have now would seem like utopia.

But the utopia to which I refer as being dangerous is a little different. Yes, I agree that some improvement is possible, and even likely. But the improvement too many liberals in my experience seem to long for is an internal improvement in human nature.

To use your example, the 18th century liberal would indeed find a world radically better than his in many respects, but the people in it would be quite familiar to him, or for that matter to a citizen plucked off the streets of ancient Athens.

It's the attempt to alter human nature that we fear, fundamantally, and attempts to bring about social changes that would depend on such short-term alterations.

Despite your denial HC, to me it seems clear that you said that unless America is #1, dictatorship will triumph.

No, as I keep repeating, I am saying that unless #1 is a civilized power, meaning military and economic power rather social or moral power, then dictatorship is likely to triumph.

I do think that America is the best choice for the time being, and probably for the foreseable future, and certainly it's in our self-interest for America to be that choice.

What I also say is that it has to be a single dominant power, not a collection. It can be dominant as first among near equals, but it can't be genuinely collective. If it is, power struggle automatically ensues.

If you are saying now that this is only true right now, but may not be in the future, I answer that it was only "the future" we were referring to. America has not declined in its world position yet, and will not for a decade or two at the least, no matter what blue zone liberals do.

It remains within the realm of possibility that American's relative power in the world will increase over the 21st century.

Regarding the blue and red zone, HC, you and others complain that we are ramming things down your throat. Au contraire. It seems to us that you are holding things back. For 30 years no reform of significance has been enacted in this country, because of your resistance. How then can you complain? You are getting your way.

No, we're preventing you from getting your way, which isn't the same thing. Red Zoners have many things they'd like to see happen, but they can't spare the energy. In that respect, Blue is in Red's way, too.

To the Red Zoners, the question is: When will they stop?

To Blue Zoners the question is: When will they get out of the way and let us finish?

That's the whole essence of the debate.

And if you are complaining about increasing diversity, again, you are holding back an inevitable tide.

Diversity in itself isn't our worry, it's the fact that the diversity shows no sign of forging the internal ties that can prevent eventual friction and conflict. We don't mind the cultures coming into contact, Eric.

What worries us, in fact, is that from our POV it's the liberals who want to make sure that the cultures don't merge into one. A nation does need certain common elements to function, and from Red's point of view, Blue seems to want to eagerly dismantle the common elements.

From the outsider POV, WW I and WW II looked a lot like wars of kin against kin.

It sure did, Cynic. That is so true.

I would not be utterly, profoundly stunned to see that happen again.

I don't expect it, but it wouldn't surprise me, either. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some three-way struggle become key to the 4T, possibly America, Europe, and China.

That's very provocative, particularly when we realize China's never left it's own general neighborhood.... yet.

On 2002-03-07 22:10, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

And if you are complaining about increasing diversity, again, you are holding back an inevitable tide.

Diversity in itself isn't our worry, it's the fact that the diversity shows no sign of forging the internal ties that can prevent eventual friction and conflict. We don't mind the cultures coming into contact, Eric.

What worries us, in fact, is that from our POV it's the liberals who want to make sure that the cultures don't merge into one. A nation does need certain common elements to function, and from Red's point of view, Blue seems to want to eagerly dismantle the common elements.

Eric, the paleocon in me sees Cynic's point here crystally clear. I may want more, in fact. I want English First and an end to bilingual public education as we know it, a return more like the old immersion system of a century ago. God, how many languages did that system handle, good trivia question.

This is both cultural and economic.

On 2002-03-07 22:15, Barbara wrote:

From the outsider POV, WW I and WW II looked a lot like wars of kin against kin.

It sure did, Cynic. That is so true.

I would not be utterly, profoundly stunned to see that happen again.

I don't expect it, but it wouldn't surprise me, either. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some three-way struggle become key to the 4T, possibly America, Europe, and China.

That's very provocative, particularly when we realize China's never left it's own general neighborhood.... yet.

Actually, they did. A few centuries ago, Chica sent an exploratory fleet out into the Pacific, and was a strong, civilized empire at a time when Europe was riven by internal conflict and culturally backward.

These exploratory efforts reached as far as Arabia, some think further, before they were called home and China turned inward. Literally. Many of the Imperial officials believed that the exploration was disruptive of order, and distracted attention from internal problems.

After all, it wasn't as if backward, uncivilized peoples could ever be a threat...

On 2002-03-07 23:10, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-03-07 22:15, Barbara wrote:

From the outsider POV, WW I and WW II looked a lot like wars of kin against kin.

It sure did, Cynic. That is so true.

I would not be utterly, profoundly stunned to see that happen again.

I don't expect it, but it wouldn't surprise me, either. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some three-way struggle become key to the 4T, possibly America, Europe, and China.

That's very provocative, particularly when we realize China's never left it's own general neighborhood.... yet.

Actually, they did. A few centuries ago, Chica sent an exploratory fleet out into the Pacific, and was a strong, civilized empire at a time when Europe was riven by internal conflict and culturally backward.

These exploratory efforts reached as far as Arabia, some think further, before they were called home and China turned inward. Literally. Many of the Imperial officials believed that the exploration was disruptive of order, and distracted attention from internal problems.

After all, it wasn't as if backward, uncivilized peoples could ever be a threat...

LOL at that... we all know the cyclical nature of history (the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn...)

Just how malleble is human nature? How much can you mold people? Please give concrete examples.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-08 07:13 ]</font>

On 2002-03-07 21:52, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-03-06 22:12, jds1958xg wrote:

So much of what's preventing a utopia is learned. And if we unlearn and prevent certain unenlightened attitudes from being passed on to future generations, we will be able to get rid of them.

Who has the authority to decide what constitutes an 'unenlightened attitude'?
Further, what means are permissible to 'prevent' these attitudes from being passed on?

That is the very crux of the objections of the Red Zone to your grand plans!

Utopia remains impossible in this world. Historically, attempts to achieve it have almost invariably ended either in a rapid and rather pathetic break-up, or massive bloodshed. I know of no exceptions to this rule.

HC, the more I read your assertion that a dictator would arise should the U.S. cease to be #1, the more I believe that you're thinking of China moving into an expansionist phase. Said development left unchecked could become a very credible threat, and rather quickly. And yes, our loss of power would lead to a global power struggle, which would almost certainly include China as one of the contestants.

About China...yes and no. China is one of the possibilities, certainly, and five years ago I might have put it at the top. Now, I'm not quite so sure.

More on this in a moment.

As for Europe being more 'enlightened' I could refer you to an editorial in the March 5th edition of USA Today by Pat Buchanan, where he describes Europe as a cluster of slowly dying societies, and recommends that we cut bait on the NATO Alliance - the only thing that allows them to pursue their 'enlightened' policies that may, in fact, be killing their civilization, if Buchanan is right about them.

I disagree with Buchanan on the core of this thesis, though I agree with some of the details. I actually don't think Europe's societies are dying at all. They may give that impression from an American point of view, but it is, IMO, illusory.

I have become aware, over the last few years, that Americans have always tended to view Europe as decaying and dying, from the days of the Revolution onward. In fact, this attitude played a roll in the lead-up to and play-out of the American Revolution. It recurs over and over.

I didn't realize this historical quirk, though, until fairly recently.

I think a better comparison between America and Europe, in the aftermath of two world wars, the collapse of the military and social and economic power of the individual European nation-state, and the sudden upsurge in American power, would be to a man who has had a lousy week, and has repaired to the bar on Friday night and gotten plastered.

Yes, to the less drunken guys sitting next to him (America and Australia and to some degree Canada), the drunk guy may seem at the end of his rope. But tomorrow he'll be sober.

Even as we discuss this, a meeting is being held in Europe to discuss the future of the European Union. No matter how it comes out, I suspect that the next few years and the next couple of decades are going to see less and less of the dying nations of Europe, and more and more of United Europe, by whatever name.

Western Europe and America are really one single society, the West. To other cultures, the West is a fairly discreet and clear entity, and it includes Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and scattered bits here and there.
From the outsider POV, WW I and WW II looked a lot like wars of kin against kin.

I would not be utterly, profoundly stunned to see that happen again.

I don't expect it, but it wouldn't surprise me, either. I also wouldn't be surprised to see some three-way struggle become key to the 4T, possibly America, Europe, and China.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-07 21:55 ]</font>

In his book 'The Clash of Civilizations', Samuel P. Huntington outlined a hypothetical, but entirely plausible, civilizational war pitting America, Europa (my name for the European Union), the rest of the Western World, Russia and the other Orthodox nations, and India; against China and the Islamic World, with Japan forced to join their alliance unwillingly. He set the war to break out in 2010, smack in the middle of the next 4T! He also postulated that, however the war turns out, short of all-out nuclear holocaust, the Latino element in the U.S. would emerge as far more influential because of the war. Especially since he suggested that Latin America and Black Africa would be the only two civilizations to sit it out. Your can read through the whole scenario in detail in 'The Clash of Civilizations' pages 312-316, and judge for yourself what you think of it.

On 2002-03-07 22:10, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-03-07 01:16, Eric A Meece wrote:


Can't resist posting sommore. Glad to see voltronx weigh in. Regarding "utopia," HC and other red zone defenders would do well to look upon it in relative terms. Of course things are never going to be "perfect." But I remember what a college professor said once, that if an eighteenth century utopian visionary were to return for a visit today, he would say "what are you complaining about; you've got utopia."

Now that is a good point. You're right, at first glance what we have now would seem like utopia.

But the utopia to which I refer as being dangerous is a little different. Yes, I agree that some improvement is possible, and even likely. But the improvement too many liberals in my experience seem to long for is an internal improvement in human nature.

To use your example, the 18th century liberal would indeed find a world radically better than his in many respects, but the people in it would be quite familiar to him, or for that matter to a citizen plucked off the streets of ancient Athens.

It's the attempt to alter human nature that we fear, fundamantally, and attempts to bring about social changes that would depend on such short-term alterations.

Despite your denial HC, to me it seems clear that you said that unless America is #1, dictatorship will triumph.

No, as I keep repeating, I am saying that unless #1 is a civilized power, meaning military and economic power rather social or moral power, then dictatorship is likely to triumph.

I do think that America is the best choice for the time being, and probably for the foreseable future, and certainly it's in our self-interest for America to be that choice.

What I also say is that it has to be a single dominant power, not a collection. It can be dominant as first among near equals, but it can't be genuinely collective. If it is, power struggle automatically ensues.

If you are saying now that this is only true right now, but may not be in the future, I answer that it was only "the future" we were referring to. America has not declined in its world position yet, and will not for a decade or two at the least, no matter what blue zone liberals do.

It remains within the realm of possibility that American's relative power in the world will increase over the 21st century.

Regarding the blue and red zone, HC, you and others complain that we are ramming things down your throat. Au contraire. It seems to us that you are holding things back. For 30 years no reform of significance has been enacted in this country, because of your resistance. How then can you complain? You are getting your way.

No, we're preventing you from getting your way, which isn't the same thing. Red Zoners have many things they'd like to see happen, but they can't spare the energy. In that respect, Blue is in Red's way, too.

To the Red Zoners, the question is: When will they stop?

To Blue Zoners the question is: When will they get out of the way and let us finish?

That's the whole essence of the debate.

And if you are complaining about increasing diversity, again, you are holding back an inevitable tide.

Diversity in itself isn't our worry, it's the fact that the diversity shows no sign of forging the internal ties that can prevent eventual friction and conflict. We don't mind the cultures coming into contact, Eric.

What worries us, in fact, is that from our POV it's the liberals who want to make sure that the cultures don't merge into one. A nation does need certain common elements to function, and from Red's point of view, Blue seems to want to eagerly dismantle the common elements.

I see Eric is at it again. :lol: Glad to see you not let him goad you this time, and instead answer his points with points of your own, that made a lot more sense to me than his. For instance, we both know what comes from attempts to change human nature by decree, to the degree some Blue Zoners seem to wish. As for doing all they can to prevent the merging of the various cultures within our borders, I sometimes wonder if that could be a case of, 'If I can't rule, without any real opposition, then at least I can ruin!'

On 2002-03-07 19:31, TrollKing wrote:
besides, the europeans would start humping like bunnies if they truly felt threatened in this manner.

I am also a skeptic of Pat Buchanan's take on things, but I happened on some relevant stuff in Derbyshire's new column:

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...int030802.html

I especially wonder what Justin'79, who is apparently in Denmark now, has to say about the following:

====
While I was concentrating on my cr?me br?l?e, Wally struck up a conversation with the young couple next to us. They had been to see an exhibition at the Guggenheim. The lady, it turned out, was from Denmark. Wally, who has the combative trading-floor style of making conversation, challenged me to say anything intelligent about Denmark. I muttered something about the Schleswig-Holstein question, a diplomatic issue that had racked northern Europe for decades during the 19th century, but is now utterly forgotten ? even by Danes, confessed the lady. (I got my fragmentary knowledge of it mostly from reading Royal Flash.) Then, feeling the sea-floor sloping away under my feet unpleasantly fast, I asked the lady how things were going in Denmark nowadays.

"Terrible, terrible. Much crime. It's all mixed up with the immigration problem, of course. We just had an election in November. The anti-immigration party got a lot of votes. People are getting fed up with immigration."

Death of the West still on my mind, I asked if Danish people were reproducing themselves. How many kids does a married couple have in Denmark?

"Married couple? Nobody gets married any more. I am the only person I know that's married. People just live together."

The lady proceeded to redraw my mental picture of Scandinavia, which up to this point had been stuck around 1975: pale, hygienic, taciturn folk, sleeping through winter under the Northern Lights and spending the daylight months practicing bourgeois virtues, manufacturing ugly cars and polishing their cradle-to-grave welfare states to smug perfection. No, she claimed, it's not like that now. All these countries are being overrun with immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, and disorder is starting to spread. Why do people put up with it? I asked.

"Something in our character. Our men, especially. They will never complain about anything. Just go along, go along."

What about their vigorous ancestors, ravaging the coasts of my ancestors ? gold-decked, sword-bright, Beowulf and Hrothgar, Viking and Norseman, Guthrum and Harald and Cnut? Nothing wishy-washy about those guys!

"That was a thousand years ago. We've had the good life too long."

Hedonism is death! There's a nice thought to have in a posh restaurant on the upper East Side while scarfing down cr?me br?l?e and Cointreau. Most likely true on the civilizational scale, none the less.
====

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-08 08:20 ]</font>

On 2002-03-08 08:19, firemind wrote:

On 2002-03-07 19:31, TrollKing wrote:
besides, the europeans would start humping like bunnies if they truly felt threatened in this manner.

I am also a skeptic of Pat Buchanan's take on things, but I happened on some relevant stuff in Derbyshire's new column:

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbys...int030802.html

I especially wonder what Justin'79, who is apparently in Denmark now, has to say about the following:

====
While I was concentrating on my cr?me br?l?e, Wally struck up a conversation with the young couple next to us. They had been to see an exhibition at the Guggenheim. The lady, it turned out, was from Denmark. Wally, who has the combative trading-floor style of making conversation, challenged me to say anything intelligent about Denmark. I muttered something about the Schleswig-Holstein question, a diplomatic issue that had racked northern Europe for decades during the 19th century, but is now utterly forgotten ? even by Danes, confessed the lady. (I got my fragmentary knowledge of it mostly from reading Royal Flash.) Then, feeling the sea-floor sloping away under my feet unpleasantly fast, I asked the lady how things were going in Denmark nowadays.

"Terrible, terrible. Much crime. It's all mixed up with the immigration problem, of course. We just had an election in November. The anti-immigration party got a lot of votes. People are getting fed up with immigration."

Death of the West still on my mind, I asked if Danish people were reproducing themselves. How many kids does a married couple have in Denmark?

"Married couple? Nobody gets married any more. I am the only person I know that's married. People just live together."

The lady proceeded to redraw my mental picture of Scandinavia, which up to this point had been stuck around 1975: pale, hygienic, taciturn folk, sleeping through winter under the Northern Lights and spending the daylight months practicing bourgeois virtues, manufacturing ugly cars and polishing their cradle-to-grave welfare states to smug perfection. No, she claimed, it's not like that now. All these countries are being overrun with immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, and disorder is starting to spread. Why do people put up with it? I asked.

"Something in our character. Our men, especially. They will never complain about anything. Just go along, go along."

What about their vigorous ancestors, ravaging the coasts of my ancestors ? gold-decked, sword-bright, Beowulf and Hrothgar, Viking and Norseman, Guthrum and Harald and Cnut? Nothing wishy-washy about those guys!

"That was a thousand years ago. We've had the good life too long."

Hedonism is death! There's a nice thought to have in a posh restaurant on the upper East Side while scarfing down cr?me br?l?e and Cointreau. Most likely true on the civilizational scale, none the less.
====

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-08 08:20 ]</font>

Given Justin79's past expressed opinions of America, he'd likely say the sooner America and the West fall and disappear, the better.

Given Justin79's past expressed opinions of America, he'd likely say the sooner America and the West fall and disappear, the better.

LOL He does tend to sound like a made-up caricature of a privileged college-age radical sometimes, doesn't he?

jds1958xg writes... In his book 'The Clash of Civilizations', Samuel P. Huntington outlined a hypothetical, but entirely plausible, civilizational war pitting America, Europa (my name for the European Union), the rest of the Western World, Russia and the other Orthodox nations, and India; against China and the Islamic World, with Japan forced to join their alliance unwillingly. He set the war to break out in 2010, smack in the middle of the next 4T! He also postulated that, however the war turns out, short of all-out nuclear holocaust, the Latino element in the U.S. would emerge as far more influential because of the war. Especially since he suggested that Latin America and Black Africa would be the only two civilizations to sit it out. Your can read through the whole scenario in detail in 'The Clash of Civilizations' pages 312-316, and judge for yourself what you think of it.

Clash is one of many perspectives that might be taken. If one looks at the Toffler's The Third Wave, one might see a conflict between industrialized secular democracies and autocratic religious agricultural waves of civilization. Bin Ladin is attempting to define a Clash of Civilizations. Dubya is attempting to define democracy against terrorists. There is some truth in either model, as in S&H's Generations model. The reality is more complex. Becoming too addicted to one perspective, while ignoring others, seems inadequate.

Huntington's Clash approach assumes the powerful core states within any given civilization will take an imperialistic stance, will always act to protect fringe states of the same civilization on the border with another civilization's turf. Thus, the Middle East, where Western, Orthodox, Hindu, Muslim and African civilizations meet is a flash point.

Huntington noted that when Western acted to protect Muslim populations from Serbian (Orthodox) attacks, there was a glitch in the model. I believe the source of the glitch was to prevent Islam peace keepers stationed in Europe.

Is it a glitch, or a possible way out? Clash of Civilizations is no longer an obscure book. The key to avoiding a Clash is core states (The United States, Russia and (arguably) Saudi Arabia) reaching an agreement, and convincing their allies to flow with it. Arguably, Dubya is attempting to create a working relationship between the core states, to end an Imperialistic perspective that conflict between civilizations is the proper norm.

This might be a baby step towards Third Wave global civilization. However, if Dubya wants to reach an agreement with the Arab core states without ending his pro Israel Western Civilization bias, Third Wave global civilization isn't happening soon.

I'm also a bit concerned with a Western 'the US is the sole remaining superpower' perspective, which gives the US a pride of place above the other core states. If the US wants to maintain a right to create favorable economic relationships - a right that major powers exercised during the entire Industrial Age - reaching a post industrial age will be ever so awkward.

But weapons of mass destruction makes a clash of civilization perspective not cost effective. There is lots of history and intertia pushing us towards a clash. The clash is apt to happen. How ugly will it have to get before someone says stop?

The answer, in the form of radioactive ash, will be blowin in the wind.

You know, some of this "real world" garbage here really, really brings to mind msm's posts. Do you think "msm" is really Hopeful Cynic?