Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 280







Post#6976 at 06-10-2003 09:41 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-10-2003, 09:41 PM #6976
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
genuine conservatives (unlike the fascists, fundamentalists, and corporatists who have usurped the name in modern American politics) are protectors of tradition, order, and peace, conservatism loses in times of social moment.
Fascists? None there. Fundamentalists? Just one: John Ashcroft. Corporatists? None there either. Corporate men, yes, but no one is trying to replace elected government with government by corporations.


That "medieval technology" you're referring to was, of course, never used to produce electricity in the Middle Ages, nor did it have anything like the precision, sophistication, and efficiency of the modern version, which in every respect far exceeds nuclear technology, which is (relatively speaking) a dinosaur: big, clunky, inefficienty, grossly centralized, unsuited to local control, and an inviting target for terrorists.
Give me a break. The opposition to nuclear power comes almost entirely from left-wing social scientists and humanists; hard scientists usually support it, because it provides a huge amount of energy for a relatively small amount of fuel. It is also far safer than coal or oil, and ecologically less devastating than coal, oil, wind or solar power (considering the areas needed to produce equivalent amounts of power).

It is the anti-greens who champion antiquated technology, not the greens, and for a very simple reason: that antiquated technology is also expensive technology that serves to line the pockets of some very powerful interests.
Ah, yes, I'm getting paid by the hour by the nuclear energy industry. Face it, the pro-nuclear movement, while it isn't exactly a grass roots movement, is far more than just a PAC for the industry. It is a considered group of arguments put together by scientists and engineers who envision a future with more to offer than slow species death.


Because industrialization, not Calhounism, was "the wave of the future," come hell or high water, and no matter who won the war.
And industrialization, not "small is beautiful," is the wave of the future today. Specifically, space industrialization, with nuclear-powered rockets to get us around.







Post#6977 at 06-10-2003 09:48 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-10-2003, 09:48 PM #6977
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Let me put it a different way, Brian: using your same argument that industrialization beat Calhounism because it could put more dogs in the fight, which is going to win: a technical society that puts as much energy as it can into its economy and its military, or a kinda-sorta anti-technical society that uses a minimum amount of energy and skimps on it? When you look at the entire universe--or even the entire world--and consider the likely breakthroughs in the next century that will enable us to use almost anything as a source for nuclear energy, do you really think the countries that practice penny-pinching on energy will win out? I think not.







Post#6978 at 06-11-2003 12:21 AM by Earl and Mooch [at Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots joined Sep 2002 #posts 2,106]
---
06-11-2003, 12:21 AM #6978
Join Date
Sep 2002
Location
Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots
Posts
2,106

Since I have a job now, I'll pass on this. I find it rather amusing:

Hello,

Just a reminder...JobCircle.com and JobNet.com are once again throwing a famous Pink Slip party to combat the depressing effects of the employment market meltdown...and this event is open to everyone, including healthcare, biotech, finance and IT....bring a friend!

http://www.jobcircle.com/pinkslip

Basically, this event is a like a job fair without the long lines and the pretty booths. Bring some resumes, some beer money, and relax! Talk with recruiters who are looking for healthcare, biotech, finance and technology professionals, and network with peers. Our last event had over 600 people in attendance!

The Pink Slip Party is a grass-roots phenomenon that gathers together hundreds of professional workers and sympathizers to honor the passing of the many companies that have shut their doors or have down-sized throughout this market meltdown. The party is about solidarity and dot-commiseration and connects the pink slipped (and those who are nervous about being let go, or wish they would be let go) with recruiters and HR and recruiting professionals at companies that are still hiring.

Aside from the usual imbibing, commiseration and all out insanity that every pink slip party brings, headhunters, direct-hire companies, and recruiting firms are also on-hand to learn a little bit more about what you do. Maybe you'll meet a new contact, or find a new job?

When & Where?

June 19th, 2003 from 6 - 9 pm
Flannagan's Boathouse, Malvern

Who is invited?

- Technology, Telcom, and engineering professionals
- Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, and Biotech professionals
- Finance, Banking and accounting professionals
- Other professionals who think they might be getting laid off.
- Those who wish they could get laid off.
- Philadelphia area companies who are hiring (it's free - tell your employer!)
- Anyone who likes to have fun and meet new people.

RSVP and learn more today at http://www.jobcircle.com/pinkslip, or call Kim at 610-431-2001 x214 to learn more!

Regards,
Member Services
JobCircle.com
JobNet.com

JobCircle.com and JobNet.com provides Careers, Content and Community to
Professionals in the Philadelphia area.
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didnīt replace it with nothing but lost faith."

Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY







Post#6979 at 06-11-2003 02:06 AM by Vince Lamb '59 [at Irish Hills, Michigan joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,997]
---
06-11-2003, 02:06 AM #6979
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Irish Hills, Michigan
Posts
1,997

Since California politics came up here, I decided to post this truly weird news item here. Note that the article refers to a Depression-era law, which might make its invocation a 4T indicator--or not. After all, it's California!

Standard Fair Use disclaimers apply.

June 8-Does L.A. Want Our Beaches as Well?, LA Times
Orange County Edition

Dana Parsons
Does L.A. Want Our Beaches as Well?

News item: Los Angeles has secretly asked the federal government to
allow it to run a commercial airport in Orange County.

Wait until Orange County residents find out that was only the tip of
the iceberg.

In a confidential memo identified only as "Operation Help Ourselves,"
Los Angeles officials are making it clear that their intentions to
manage Orange County from afar don't end with an international
airport.

"The airport issue is important, but not nearly as critical as
assuming control of Orange County's beaches," the memo states. "In
the same way that O.C. has botched the El Toro matter, with its
schizophrenic series of public votes, it also has failed to ensure
proper access to its beaches for Los Angeles residents. For that
reason, Los Angeles should take the necessary steps to assert its
authority under the federal Neighboring County Jurisdiction Act
(NCJA) of 1933.

The memo goes on to explain, often in dense legalese, that the act
permits a larger county contiguous to a smaller one to "reassert any
previously held authority or claim of certain key operations" if it
deems the smaller county incapable of handling its own affairs.
Enacted during the depths of the Depression, the act was designed to
provide needed revenues and "mastery of domain" to large counties. It
is believed that only a single county in rural Kentucky has invoked
the act's provisions.

Los Angeles could "reassert" its control, the memo states, because
much of Orange County was part of Los Angeles County until it seceded
in 1889. ("How'd we ever let them get away with that?" the memo
states, parenthetically.)

The memo lays out a plan that would put millions of dollars into L.A.
city coffers in its first 10 years. At the heart of the plan is a
proposal to charge Orange County residents ? based on a sliding
scale ? to use the beaches that stretch from San Clemente to Seal
Beach. Los Angeles residents, already complaining about increasingly
dirty beaches in L.A. County, would use the newly acquired O.C.
beaches free of charge upon showing proper identification.

"For instance," the memo states, "Orange County individuals would be
charged $2 per day. Families would pay a flat rate of $8. People with
coolers or umbrellas would be charged an additional $1 per item."

The memo likens the residency fee to that employed by amusement parks
and various ski resorts around the country that provide discounts to
instate residents. "Most likely, the fees would result in a modest
decline by O.C. residents in [beach usage] in some locations," but
says that drop-off would make the beach-going experience "even more
enjoyable for the tens of thousands of Angelenos."

Nor would Los Angeles residents pay to park at the beaches. "This
will ultimately prove beneficial to Orange County, because of the
increased sales tax revenues generated by the influx of visitors from
Los Angeles," the memo reasons. However, should revenues fail to meet
objectives, according to the memo, fees to Orange County
residents "could be raised as need be."

The 37-page memo anticipates the transfer of beaches to L.A. control
to be "controversial" and "likely to result in a number of lawsuits,
not to mention a nasty round of name-calling. Be prepared!"

However, the memo drafters described the NCJA to be "as solid as the
strongest sandcastle ever built" and impervious to a successful legal
challenge.

Still, it urges caution in moving forward, while at the same time
occasionally expressing disdain for Orange County
policymakers. "Someone has to run their affairs, and it may as well
be us," the memo states. "If we do this smart, they'll never know
what hit them."
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."







Post#6980 at 06-11-2003 04:10 AM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
06-11-2003, 04:10 AM #6980
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Quote Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry
Corporatists? None there either. Corporate men, yes, but no one is trying to replace elected government with government by corporations.
Um, that is not what the term means.







Post#6981 at 06-11-2003 04:17 AM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
06-11-2003, 04:17 AM #6981
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
And as genuine conservatives (unlike the fascists, fundamentalists, and corporatists who have usurped the name in modern American politics) are protectors of tradition, order, and peace, conservatism loses in times of social moment.
This essay agrees with you about what real conservatives are. But I wouldn't press the point and the author ultimately agrees. If fascists and whatever else wish to call themselves conservatives, it doesn't change what they actually are in the slightest.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/kirkwood/kirkwood15.html

(Standard disclaimers)



Will The Real Conservatives Please Stand Up?

by R. Cort Kirkwood


In Monday?s Washington Post, GOP factotum Grover Norquist, who runs an outfit called Americans for Tax Reform, tells the public what conservatives think, and how they can incrementally achieve their program.

Funny thing is, real conservatives don?t think many of the things Norquist says, not least of which is that you can change Washington slowly, by evolution.

Poseurs have hijacked the word ?conservative,? and not just when it comes to domestic policy. Internationalist, interventionist foreign policy ideas now travel under the conservative label.

Norquist's Piece

The Norquist epistle is of a piece with the run of ?conservative? thinking. Don?t dismantle big government; take it over.

?There are five steps to a single-rate tax: Abolish the death tax [and] ... the capital gains tax, expand IRAs ... full expensing of business investment ... abolish the alternative minimum tax. Put a single rate on the new tax base and you have Steve Forbes and Dick Armey's flat tax. Each of the Bush tax cuts ... moves us toward fundamental tax reform.?

?Conservatives,? he avers, ?want to move to a flat-rate income tax for both economic and political reasons.?

Granted, a flat tax would be better than what we have now, but real conservatives would abolish the income tax, not flatten it. This would enable us to dismantle three-quarters of the unconstitutional federal regime. But Norquist, like most of the conservative Beltway philosophes these days, doesn?t discuss the unconstitutional Leviathan.

Then again, the Leviathan is only possible because of the income tax, which is precisely why Norquist?s Republican Party can never contemplate scrapping it. The income tax pays for GOP dreams of ?national greatness.?

But let?s go on: ?The Founding Fathers,? Historian Norquist writes, ?gerrymandered the Senate for Republican control.?

What? Maybe Norquist has been holed up inside the Beltway so long the real history of the Republic has been erased from his head, if anyone ever bothered to pencil it in. The founders did not ?gerrymander? the Senate for the GOP. The Republican Party did not exist in 1787.

Real conservatives know and love history. They respect it. They study history and learn from it. The Norquist conservatives don?t bother with it. They mostly study the Washington Times commentary section and the latest ?backgrounders? from The Heritage Foundation.

The War Lovers

Norquist isn?t the only faux conservative out there.

Others are the boosters of the trumped-up war against Iraq, the one we fought because Saddam Hussein had ?weapons of mass destruction.? American troops, by the way, have not found them.

These ?conservatives? envision America rolling over Iran and Syria, winning what they call World War IV. They run the Bush Administration, and compose most of the mob of ?conservative? newspaper columnists and radio big mouths, from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to Charles Krauthammer and the ubiquitous Bill Kristol.

Time was, America did not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy; we were well wishers of liberty everywhere, but defenders only of our own. Now, Leviathan destroys monsters from Indiana to Iraq, ?imposing? liberty along the way.

And ?conservatives? support it.

Call Us Conservatives?

Some of us weary of Norquist and his ?reformist? Mafia telling the world, falsely, what an American conservative is. Maybe it?s time to call ourselves something else, such as Constitutionalists.

But maybe not.

Norquist and Co. can use the name, but it changes nothing about them, and nothing about us.

June 11, 2003


Syndicated columnist R. Cort Kirkwood [send him mail] is managing editor of the Daily News-Record in Harrisonburg, Va.







Post#6982 at 06-11-2003 08:55 AM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
06-11-2003, 08:55 AM #6982
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

Quote Originally Posted by Seadog '66
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
And as genuine conservatives (unlike the fascists, fundamentalists, and corporatists who have usurped the name in modern American politics) are protectors of tradition, order, and peace, conservatism loses in times of social moment.
[/i]
I think the debate is over. If Brian will concede that the Left is the conservative party, as he properly defines it, in this turning, then we probably have reached consensus on application of the 4T theory.

Since the Left is now so concerned about preserving the"gains" it has made and the way that society has been ordered, it would appear that the Left is in the role of the "conservatives" in these times of social moment.

Who wants change? Who is thwarting change? Filibusters, last minute party switches, one vote in the SCOTUS......?

4T minds want to know!







Post#6983 at 06-11-2003 09:09 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
06-11-2003, 09:09 AM #6983
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
And as genuine conservatives (unlike the fascists, fundamentalists, and corporatists who have usurped the name in modern American politics) are protectors of tradition, order, and peace, conservatism loses in times of social moment.
I think the debate is over. If Brian will concede that the Left is the conservative party, as he properly defines it, in this turning, then we probably have reached consensus on application of the 4T theory.

Since the Left is now so concerned about preserving the"gains" it has made and the way that society has been ordered, it would appear that the Left is in the role of the "conservatives" in these times of social moment.

Who wants change? Who is thwarting change? Filibusters, last minute party switches, one vote in the SCOTUS......?

4T minds want to know!
Tell me about it. Marc, take note: this time around, it may well be the Left-wingers that spend the 4T running scared, and trying desperately to impede or thwart needed changes, at least in the USA - even if they do stay in power in Europe, China, and certain other places.







Post#6984 at 06-11-2003 12:04 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-11-2003, 12:04 PM #6984
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Quote Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus
Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
And as genuine conservatives (unlike the fascists, fundamentalists, and corporatists who have usurped the name in modern American politics) are protectors of tradition, order, and peace, conservatism loses in times of social moment.
I think the debate is over. If Brian will concede that the Left is the conservative party, as he properly defines it, in this turning, then we probably have reached consensus on application of the 4T theory.

Since the Left is now so concerned about preserving the"gains" it has made and the way that society has been ordered, it would appear that the Left is in the role of the "conservatives" in these times of social moment.

Who wants change? Who is thwarting change? Filibusters, last minute party switches, one vote in the SCOTUS......?

4T minds want to know!
Tell me about it. Marc, take note: this time around, it may well be the Left-wingers that spend the 4T running scared, and trying desperately to impede or thwart needed changes, at least in the USA - even if they do stay in power in Europe, China, and certain other places.
Is it possible, Titus, that this 4T will be only the first of several during which the Left is running scared? We've been on a Long March to the Left for a few centuries now; but, as I stated earlier, the total collapse of the USSR--the epitome of leftism--gives me some hope.

It's interesting to note that this isn't the first Long March to the Left. In ancient Greece and Rome you had much the same thing, with the plebians, over a course of several centuries, voting themselves money from the public treasury, and ultimately supporting a dictator (Julius Caesar) to get them what they wanted. When he was assassinated, it was almost anticlimactic when his grandnephew Octavian (Augustus), a few years later, restored the monarchy in all but name.

That Long March to the Left ended catastrophically, with the very illiberal Germanic tribes raping and pillaging their way through the overcivilized Roman Empire. Hopefully, this LML will be more gradually undone.







Post#6985 at 06-11-2003 12:57 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
06-11-2003, 12:57 PM #6985
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

The left are too infatuated with their own navels to look up long enough to discern what kind of world they live in today. Hint: Look at the two most popular threads here, the Big Orgy and Saint Hillary.

If the S&H version of a 4T is correct, we ain't there, yet . . . The cureent version of the left is still destructve in nature, still filled with utter self conceit (recall that FDR was a cripple who missed the Big Orgy of the Roaring Twenties).

Sorry, this ain't it, folks. And if it is, it's gonna be an internal blood bath and not the stroll through the park America saw in the thirties.

I'm hopeful, though. Really I am. Look at the Pelosi-wing of the Democratic Party. They're ready to roll over for a while and give a little more time for the Brian Rush-types to come out da Orgies, and grow up. :wink:







Post#6986 at 06-11-2003 01:27 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-11-2003, 01:27 PM #6986
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Quote Originally Posted by ....
The left are too infatuated with their own navels to look up long enough to discern what kind of world they live in today. Hint: Look at the two most popular threads here, the Big Orgy and Saint Hillary.

If the S&H version of a 4T is correct, we ain't there, yet . . . The cureent version of the left is still destructve in nature, still filled with utter self conceit (recall that FDR was a cripple who missed the Big Orgy of the Roaring Twenties).

Sorry, this ain't it, folks. And if it is, it's gonna be an internal blood bath and not the stroll through the park America saw in the thirties.

I'm hopeful, though. Really I am. Look at the Pelosi-wing of the Democratic Party. They're ready to roll over for a while and give a little more time for the Brian Rush-types to come out da Orgies, and grow up. :wink:
I don't quite follow your reasoning, Marc. Are you saying that because the Left acts immature, that this isn't a 4T? From everything I've seen, there has been plenty of immaturity in past 4Ts. Furthermore, many posters here have expressed the view that the right wing will win out in this 4T.

As for internal blood baths, history shows that they are the rule for 4Ts, not the exception. It would be sad, however, to see millions dead simply because a bunch of overgrown babies didn't want to give up their Big Orgy and start thinking about the good of the nation as a whole.







Post#6987 at 06-11-2003 01:28 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-11-2003, 01:28 PM #6987
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
I think the debate is over. If Brian will concede that the Left is the conservative party, as he properly defines it, in this turning, then we probably have reached consensus on application of the 4T theory.

Since the Left is now so concerned about preserving the"gains" it has made and the way that society has been ordered, it would appear that the Left is in the role of the "conservatives" in these times of social moment.

Who wants change? Who is thwarting change? Filibusters, last minute party switches, one vote in the SCOTUS......?
In answer to the "who wants change", I offer the following, with the additional comment that one should particularly be concerned with what another does, when it conflicts with what he says (especially when the speaker/actor wields power).
(added emphasis mine)

I had long dreamt of the day when the Republicans would win control of the House and Senate. In 1994 I got my wish. I was certain the policies Ronald Reagan espoused would soon become a reality.

Spending and taxes would fall faster than sweat from a fat man's brow on a hot day in Juarez. Freedom from government regulation would reign across the land. Political expedience in the legislature would come to a screeching halt.

I'm not sure when I realized I'd been hoodwinked. Maybe it was the passage of one of those expensive Bud Schuster highway bills, or the failure to get rid of the National Endowment for the Arts. It could have been the failure to cut corporate welfare, or the constant caving by the Republican leadership.

It might have been seeing prominent Republicans fighting for more gun control, tobacco legislation and "campaign finance de-form." The neo-cons had taken over the party and I was through. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the party left me.

Think I'm being too harsh? Here's the neo-Republican record.

  • The much-hated Clinton "Americorps" program has received hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding.
  • The Department of Education, once a target for elimination by Republicans has a new benefactor, the Republicans. In his first budget, President Bush asked for a 72% increase for primary, secondary and vocational education. With the passage of the "No Child Left Behind Act," the federal government is more involved in local education than ever before.
  • How about the despised "Gore Tax" - the hidden tax the phone companies are forbidden to list on your bill? The tax Republicans once called "unconstitutional." It's still on the books.
  • Did the tobacco lawsuits end? Actually, the Republican attorney general has pursued this extortion plan just like his Democrat predecessor, Janet Reno.
  • Think Republicans oppose federal interference in state and local affairs? Think again. Federal officials, paid for with your tax dollars, have been actively campaigning against state and local medical marijuana initiatives. But since these initiatives keep winning by 2:1 margins, a "conservative" Republican has now introduced legislation that would allow federal agencies to spend your taxpayer dollars on advertising to influence the outcome of such initiatives.

It's not too difficult to understand where the Republicans went wrong. They were taught by the Democrats that getting elected is a simple matter of buying the vote. What better incentive to gain votes than promising free health care, job training, education and cheese?

The neo-cons have compromised a once-great vision of small government - a government not involved in nation building; a government that respects the rights of individuals; a government that is fiscally sound, with low taxes and even lower spending. The Republicans are now the party of neo-tax cuts, no spending cuts and deficits.

Now we have a larger government than even Bill Clinton asked for, the "Patriot Act", and more debt than you can shake a bankruptcy file at.







Post#6988 at 06-11-2003 01:29 PM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
06-11-2003, 01:29 PM #6988
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

Quote Originally Posted by ....
The left are too infatuated with their own navels to look up long enough to discern what kind of world they live in today. Hint: Look at the two most popular threads here, the Big Orgy and Saint Hillary.

If the S&H version of a 4T is correct, we ain't there, yet . . . The cureent version of the left is still destructve in nature, still filled with utter self conceit (recall that FDR was a cripple who missed the Big Orgy of the Roaring Twenties).

Sorry, this ain't it, folks. And if it is, it's gonna be an internal blood bath and not the stroll through the park America saw in the thirties.

I'm hopeful, though. Really I am. Look at the Pelosi-wing of the Democratic Party. They're ready to roll over for a while and give a little more time for the Brian Rush-types to come out da Orgies, and grow up. :wink:
The blood I fear most now is a unabomber lefty type who goes after W.

There is more cause to be hopeful. On another thread, there is talk of retreating to a commune. Maybe the old lefties don't have much left in the tank.

The left has been so antigun and antimilitary that they would not use it (except to chase down survivalists and return little boys to Cuba). The left does not control a major state that might start such a thing ...Gray Davis being near mortally weakened. The tactics of the left is to play these PC games, passive aggressive use of the entrenched bureaucracies, lawsuits and IRS audits.

There is of course one person on the left who many fear would use the military and her flying monkeys to accomplish her nefarious goals.







Post#6989 at 06-11-2003 01:34 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
06-11-2003, 01:34 PM #6989
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Quote Originally Posted by ....
And if it is, it's gonna be an internal blood bath and not the stroll through the park America saw in the thirties.
Quite likely true, and sometimes I admit that, in my angrier moods, I find myself thinking that to be EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED, to rid ourselves of the Leftist Incubus before it sucks the remaining life out of our great Nation.

I'm hopeful, though. Really I am.
So am I. If it does go to an internal bloodbath, I can't help but remember a little piece of mid-19thc. history that is little known now. Supposedly, what passed at the time for the New Age Movement (mostly Spiritualism) saw itself as being on the verge of effecting a 'change of consciousness' all over America in the late 1850s. Instead, the Civil War happened (Civil War I?). By 1865 said movement had been reduced to a mooncast shadow of it's former self by the fact that it couldn't cope with the national nightmare in progress at the time. Christianity, however, could, and did, and came out triumphant as still the dominant faith in the United States. The change can be traced through both Presidential households, as follows:

1860 A. Lincoln - New Age Dabbler. M.T. Lincoln - New Age Enthusiast.
J. Davis - Indifferent to all religion. V. H. Davis - Fervent Episcopalian

1865 A. Lincoln - Still in process of accepting Christ when shot. M.T. Lincoln - No change, would go insane in later years.
J. Davis - Fervent Episcopalian. V. H. Davis - No change - no need to change.

Make of the admittedly anecdotal evidence listed above what you will.







Post#6990 at 06-11-2003 01:36 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-11-2003, 01:36 PM #6990
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
The blood I fear most now is a unabomber lefty type who goes after W.
Are you that dependent on your front man that your truest fear is the loss of his personage? Will your movement not survive his passing?

I suspect most 'leftists' realize that assassination doesn't work very well. Perhaps 'rightists' less so (given the three(?) recent unsuccessful attempts made on Hussein) though one hopes that experience will teach them, too.







Post#6991 at 06-11-2003 01:46 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-11-2003, 01:46 PM #6991
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry
... As for internal blood baths, history shows that they are the rule for 4Ts, not the exception. It would be sad, however, to see millions dead simply because a bunch of overgrown babies didn't want to give up their Big Orgy and start thinking about the good of the nation as a whole.
Let's see. Aren't you conservatives everybody-for-himself social-Darwinists? Then why should any of us beleive you are now the party that thinks of "... the good of the nation as a whole."?

Other than the overzealous use of the military and Federal police powers against those you perceive to be enemies of the nation, what commonality do you support?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#6992 at 06-11-2003 01:46 PM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
06-11-2003, 01:46 PM #6992
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
The blood I fear most now is a unabomber lefty type who goes after W.
Are you that dependent on your front man that your truest fear is the loss of his personage? Will your movement not survive his passing?

I suspect most 'leftists' realize that assassination doesn't work very well. Perhaps 'rightists' less so (given the three(?) recent unsuccessful attempts made on Hussein) though one hopes that experience will teach them, too.
I hesitated about posting that in expectation of this reaction. I think the current team operates as effectively as it does out of personal loyalty to W. I would not want to see that disrupted.

The "movement" as you call it (we like VRWC) and the country would probably veer more strongly to the right after such an event, with W as a martyr to the cause. Imagine John Ashcroft really mad. That could get real ugly. I don't expect that anyone will settle for a "lone gunman" theory in a 4T.







Post#6993 at 06-11-2003 01:56 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-11-2003, 01:56 PM #6993
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Quote Originally Posted by David '47
Quote Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry
... As for internal blood baths, history shows that they are the rule for 4Ts, not the exception. It would be sad, however, to see millions dead simply because a bunch of overgrown babies didn't want to give up their Big Orgy and start thinking about the good of the nation as a whole.
Let's see. Aren't you conservatives everybody-for-himself social-Darwinists? Then why should any of us beleive you are now the party that thinks of "... the good of the nation as a whole."?

Other than the overzealous use of the military and Federal police powers against those you perceive to be enemies of the nation, what commonality do you support?
Social Darwinism isn't a movement, it's a cuss word thrown at conservatives by leftists. We don't support eliminating government. We also don't support making the government the most important thing in everyone's life.

What commonality could be more important, to the nation as a whole, than using the military and police against those who have already shown themselves to be enemies of the nation? Our national survival trumps everything else.







Post#6994 at 06-11-2003 02:03 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-11-2003, 02:03 PM #6994
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

3T or 4T?

http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.s...03/6/11/103606

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

Pulitzer Board Probes New York Times' Pro-Stalin Scandal

A Pulitzer Prize doled out to an infamously pro-Stalin correspondent for the leftist New York Times is under review and could be revoked because he refused to report the Soviet dictator's murder of millions of people.

"Exactly like Jayson Blair, the heart of all this is journalistic integrity and ethics," said Michael Sawkiw Jr., president of Ukrainian Congress Committee of America. The organization joined Ukrainians worldwide this year in urging the withdrawal of the Pulitzer given in 1932 to the Times' Walter Duranty.

"The effort was timed to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the famine, which claimed as many as 7 million Ukrainian lives. Josef Stalin's regime created the famine to force Ukrainian peasants into surrendering their land," the Associated Press noted today.

Last month NewsMax was among the first to note the Duranty angle to the latest uproar over the Times' fictitious reports.

A Pulitzer subcommittee launched a review of Duranty's work in April. No award has yet been revoked in the Pulitzer's 86-year history.

"Duranty was eventually exposed for reporting the Communist line rather than the facts. According to the 1990 book 'Stalin's Apologist,' Duranty knew of the famine but ignored the atrocities to preserve his access to Stalin," AP reported today.

Hmm, this sounds a lot like CNN's recent admission that it covered up for another genocidal madman, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, to preserve its access to him. And it's yet another black eye that the scandal-plagued Times doesn't need.

Astonishingly, the Pulitzer Board ended a 1990 "investigation" into Duranty's lies with a decision not to take away the honor.


It seems to me that this is a (minor) 4T event; Walter Duranty isn't a "lovable rogue" any more.







Post#6995 at 06-11-2003 02:13 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-11-2003, 02:13 PM #6995
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
The "movement" as you call it (we like VRWC) and the country would probably veer more strongly to the right after such an event, with W as a martyr to the cause. Imagine John Ashcroft really mad. That could get real ugly. I don't expect that anyone will settle for a "lone gunman" theory in a 4T.
I sort of figured the loss of GWB wouldn't strike you a mortal blow (hence my question). It is exactly the likelihood of a shift as you describe it that most would realize eliminates assassination as a viable option for change. Unless, of course (get out your tinfoil hats and pack yourself in ice to obfuscate the infrascopes, everyone :wink: ) the goal of the assassin was to effect such a harsh rightward shift. It worked at the Reichstaag after all...

Even a rash of assassinations has been demonstrably ineffective where tried (like the Occupied Territories).







Post#6996 at 06-11-2003 02:18 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-11-2003, 02:18 PM #6996
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
The blood I fear most now is a unabomber lefty type who goes after W.
Are you that dependent on your front man that your truest fear is the loss of his personage? Will your movement not survive his passing?

I suspect most 'leftists' realize that assassination doesn't work very well. Perhaps 'rightists' less so (given the three(?) recent unsuccessful attempts made on Hussein) though one hopes that experience will teach them, too.
I hesitated about posting that in expectation of this reaction. I think the current team operates as effectively as it does out of personal loyalty to W. I would not want to see that disrupted.

The "movement" as you call it (we like VRWC) and the country would probably veer more strongly to the right after such an event, with W as a martyr to the cause. Imagine John Ashcroft really mad. That could get real ugly. I don't expect that anyone will settle for a "lone gunman" theory in a 4T.
But since the subject came up...how would the assassination of George Walker Bush affect things?

The initial tendency is to say, "He'd become a martyr like JFK and help the Republicans." The problem with this view is that 1963 was at the tail end of a 1T, whereas we are now probably a few years into a 4T. People's views are not what they were in that year.

First, it frankly would be less of a surprise. JFK's assassination came straight out of nowhere, and was in fact a catalyst for a turning change. Bush's murder would be seen as being of a piece with 9/11.

Second, as you state, it would galvanize Republicans even more than the previous killing galvanized the Democrats. The shock of the JFK assassination caused at first a sort of sheeplike following of LBJ as the heir to his predecessor; then, as both the left and right fringes of the Democrats came to despise Johnson, the reaction was more one of alienation from society. On the left this took the form of the hippy movement; on the right, it took the form of born-again Christianity. In this era, however, the alienation thing is wearing very thin. Most Republicans would be likely to be considerably more angry than shocked.

A better comparison would be the Lincoln assassination. (Aside: Lincoln, like Bush, was not only hated by the opposition; both were also criticized by moderates in their own party for going too far and by the fringe of their party for not going far enough). Even that is probably not entirely correct, because while Lincoln was murdered after the 4T had been resolved, Bush would almost certainly die in the middle of a 4T.







Post#6997 at 06-11-2003 02:24 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-11-2003, 02:24 PM #6997
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Further on a hypothetical Bush assassination: I remember discussing as far back as 1994 the difference between the society then and that of 1963. I told a co-worker that I couldn't imagine the kind of national shock seen then happening again: that from 30 to 40 percent would be cheering in the streets (regardless of the President's party) and that about 30 percent wouldn't care.

That was in the middle of a 3T. Things are even more divided now...although I expect the number who wouldn't care would be significantly lower.

The number of deaths resulting from the emotions triggered by the murder...now that would be much higher today.







Post#6998 at 06-11-2003 02:53 PM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
06-11-2003, 02:53 PM #6998
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

Disclaimer: The posts on this thread are intended only as speculations of possible outcomes of unexpected events. Unless explicitly stated, no poster intends, supports or advocates the use of violence as a means of achieving redress of policies of the U.S. Government. The postings of any one poster do not necessarily represent the views or intentions of any other poster.

[Just in case a certain Comrade takes some musings out of context and attempts to denounce anyone to the authorities.]







Post#6999 at 06-11-2003 02:56 PM by Dominic Flandry [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 651]
---
06-11-2003, 02:56 PM #6999
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
651

Quote Originally Posted by monoghan
Disclaimer: The posts on this thread are intended only as speculations of possible outcomes of unexpected events. Unless explicitly stated, no poster intends, supports or advocates the use of violence as a means of achieving redress of policies of the U.S. Government. The postings of any one poster do not necessarily represent the views or intentions of any other poster.

[Just in case a certain Comrade takes some musings out of context and attempts to denounce anyone to the authorities.]
I, too, only intended it as morbid speculation.







Post#7000 at 06-11-2003 04:13 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-11-2003, 04:13 PM #7000
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry
Quote Originally Posted by David '47
Quote Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry
... As for internal blood baths, history shows that they are the rule for 4Ts, not the exception. It would be sad, however, to see millions dead simply because a bunch of overgrown babies didn't want to give up their Big Orgy and start thinking about the good of the nation as a whole.
Let's see. Aren't you conservatives everybody-for-himself social-Darwinists? Then why should any of us beleive you are now the party that thinks of "... the good of the nation as a whole."?

Other than the overzealous use of the military and Federal police powers against those you perceive to be enemies of the nation, what commonality do you support?
Social Darwinism isn't a movement, it's a cuss word thrown at conservatives by leftists. We don't support eliminating government. We also don't support making the government the most important thing in everyone's life.
Social-Darwinism has to do with survival of the fittest. In the social sense, that's the rich and powerful. You have shown no interest in restraining the powerful or taxing the rich. In fact, quite the opposite.

That sounds pretty much like social-Darwinism to me.

What commonality could be more important, to the nation as a whole, than using the military and police against those who have already shown themselves to be enemies of the nation? Our national survival trumps everything else.
Here's a quick reality check. We, the USA, could miltarily return most of the nations on earth to the stone age, if we wished to do so. Like the elephant or the whale, we are so much more powerful than any potential enemy that we have no natural enemies of concern. At least not at the paranoid level where you and other conservatives seem to operate.

Our survival is not at stake, but we could easily overreact and put OTHER PEOPLE'S survival at risk. That isn't a perscription for commonality and harmony, unless you're looking for a consensus among the inmates at the asylum.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------