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 467







Post#11651 at 09-20-2007 04:35 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
09-20-2007, 04:35 PM #11651
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
I also honor in part the 'Clash of Civilizations' theory. I will follow Toynbee and Huntington somewhat on civilizations, the Tofflers on the waves of civilization, and Strauss and Howe on turnings. Of the three, the turnings are the most subtle, the least clearly observable and the least accepted by historians in general. I can't take seriously those who cling to turnings, but who ignore civilizations and waves. There are things to be learned from all three perspectives.

What I'm dubious about is that God selects kings and that he governs in their name. It was a convenient theory back when muscle power weapons required a lot of training and expense, and thus the nobility's monopoly on military force translated to religious, land and political power. Monarchy is nothing but might makes right. It fell apart when easy to use and make muskets had to be given to huge citizen armies, as otherwise one got conquered by the next country over who were willing to arm their citizens.

As Napoleon pointed out at the end of the time of crowns, God is on the side of the biggest battalions. When agricultural age kings could no longer muster as many big battalions as the industrial age parliaments, God switched sides.

Fickle fellow, God...
A good monarch feels a responsibility to care for his or her subjects. Politicians only care about lording it over people and stealing private property from those who have legitimately inherited. Napoleon was an usurper and bastard, and probably assumed he was God. God does not switch sides, as He is not fickle. The only reason He allows republics to exist is as a punishment for the people's lack of faith in Him. Catholic doctrine states that people get the government they deserve. Unravelings prove this to be true. Btw, stop spouting that BS about the 'Clash of Civilizations'. It just plays into the hands of evil Dick and Co. and the jihadi ****wads.







Post#11652 at 09-20-2007 04:52 PM by catfishncod [at The People's Republic of Cambridge & Possum Town, MS joined Apr 2005 #posts 984]
---
09-20-2007, 04:52 PM #11652
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
The People's Republic of Cambridge & Possum Town, MS
Posts
984

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
God does not switch sides, as He is not fickle. The only reason He allows republics to exist is as a punishment for the people's lack of faith in Him. Catholic doctrine states that people get the government they deserve.
You curse out Cheney and the jihadis, and then you out-fundie them. Republics as God's curse! You are a piece of work, Sean.

Our first reading today is from the First Book of Samuel.

Quote Originally Posted by 1 Samuel 8:11-21 (KJV)
11 [Samuel] said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.

12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.

15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.

16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use.

17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us.

20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD.

22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Here ends the reading; now for the homily. Kings are at least as much a curse on those who deserve them as republics are; more so, in fact, since the condemnation of kings is pointed out in Holy Writ while neither Testament condemns republics explicitly, or in quite the same tone. In fact, I can't recall any other time when the Bible makes such blanket statements about forms of government; Scripture is usually much more concerned with individual performance.

Oh, I almost forgot the Gospel reading. Here we are:

Quote Originally Posted by Matthew 5:2
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
You've been saying 'Thou fool' quite a lot, Sean. It's just a suggestion, but I think you might ought to stop.
'81, 30/70 X/Millie, trying to live in both Red and Blue America... "Catfish 'n Cod"







Post#11653 at 09-20-2007 06:22 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-20-2007, 06:22 PM #11653
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
A good monarch feels a responsibility to care for his or her subjects. Politicians only care about lording it over people and stealing private property from those who have legitimately inherited.

A good politician is responsible for caring for the concerns his/her constituents. Politicians can be voted out of office, monarchs can only be removed by force.

There are, in essence, only two forms of government, one that can be changed peacefully by the people and one that can only be changed through violence. the former is Democracy, the second is Tyranny. You, apparently, support Tyranny.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#11654 at 09-20-2007 06:40 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
09-20-2007, 06:40 PM #11654
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by catfishncod View Post
You curse out Cheney and the jihadis, and then you out-fundie them. Republics as God's curse! You are a piece of work, Sean.

Our first reading today is from the First Book of Samuel.


Here ends the reading; now for the homily. Kings are at least as much a curse on those who deserve them as republics are; more so, in fact, since the condemnation of kings is pointed out in Holy Writ while neither Testament condemns republics explicitly, or in quite the same tone. In fact, I can't recall any other time when the Bible makes such blanket statements about forms of government; Scripture is usually much more concerned with individual performance.

Oh, I almost forgot the Gospel reading. Here we are:

You've been saying 'Thou fool' quite a lot, Sean. It's just a suggestion, but I think you might ought to stop.
The Prayer Book responses are SO apropos here. For the first lesson, "Thanks be to God." For the quote from the Gospels, "Praise be to God."

[Yes, Sean, I AM from among those English-speaking heretics known as the Anglican Communion...]
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#11655 at 09-20-2007 07:04 PM by The Pervert [at A D&D Character sheet joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,169]
---
09-20-2007, 07:04 PM #11655
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
A D&D Character sheet
Posts
1,169

Question

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Prostitution is the world's oldest profession. It clearly has something going for it.
Sometimes, Your Royal Hotness, I wonder what you did for a living in your past lives.
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"







Post#11656 at 09-20-2007 09:32 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
09-20-2007, 09:32 PM #11656
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
A good politician is responsible for caring for the concerns his/her constituents. Politicians can be voted out of office, monarchs can only be removed by force.

There are, in essence, only two forms of government, one that can be changed peacefully by the people and one that can only be changed through violence. the former is Democracy, the second is Tyranny. You, apparently, support Tyranny.
You have just committed logical fallacy known as the "either-or" fallacy.







Post#11657 at 09-20-2007 10:08 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-20-2007, 10:08 PM #11657
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
You have just committed logical fallacy known as the "either-or" fallacy.
That fallacy is meaningless when there are only two choices.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#11658 at 09-20-2007 11:55 PM by The Pervert [at A D&D Character sheet joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,169]
---
09-20-2007, 11:55 PM #11658
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
A D&D Character sheet
Posts
1,169

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I would like to be the madam of a brothel, Your Lowly Pervertedness.
Why am I not surprised?
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"







Post#11659 at 09-21-2007 04:13 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
09-21-2007, 04:13 PM #11659
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
That fallacy is meaningless when there are only two choices.
There aren't. The world is more complex than that.

Stop worshipping democracy, you neo-con!







Post#11660 at 09-21-2007 08:05 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-21-2007, 08:05 PM #11660
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
A good politician is responsible for caring for the concerns his/her constituents. Politicians can be voted out of office, monarchs can only be removed by force.

There are, in essence, only two forms of government, one that can be changed peacefully by the people and one that can only be changed through violence. the former is Democracy, the second is Tyranny. You, apparently, support Tyranny.
Yep. Rather than 'Tyranny,' I've been using the word 'Autocratic,' which is slightly less loaded. I would count monarchy, fascism and communism as leading recent forms of autocratic government. Theocracy and vanilla military dictatorship could be added to the list. The key differentiating factor is whether there are two or more political parties that the people can select between without violence.

I'm not quite sure one can place all governments on one side of the fence or the other. Of the top of my head, I might propose the Iran of a few years ago as an example. Their constitution has an elected legislature with some power, but a theological fraction of an executive branch operating outside the legislature's control wielding other powers.

But Iran is more an odd exception than a general category with lots of members. The arrow of progress has countries converting from autocratic to democratic forms. Iran seems to have hung themselves up on the barbed wire on top of the fence. During the 90s, when the people were backing the legislature, I had some hope they'd get over the fence. Since Bush started demonizing Iran as part of the 'Axis of Evil,' the clerical faction has been successful in uniting the people behind an outside threat. The democratic faction hasn't been able to push democratic reform. :

In the long term, I believe Iran and the rest of the Middle East will get over the fence, but the more the local autocrats can point at the United States and Israel, the less likely reform will be. I view Bush 43's efforts to spread democracy by force as a large mistake, especially when tied to even the illusion or semblance of an imperialistic war for oil.

But, anyway, yes, in general, most governments either have to answer to their people at the polls, or they don't. Can anyone else come up with examples where parts of a government have to answer, while other parts are still essentially autocratic?







Post#11661 at 09-21-2007 08:31 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-21-2007, 08:31 PM #11661
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post

Stop worshipping democracy
You quit worshiping your monarchist nonsense.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#11662 at 09-22-2007 12:31 AM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
09-22-2007, 12:31 AM #11662
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
You quit worshiping your monarchist nonsense.
You quit worshipping democracy like you were a CEO and his money!







Post#11663 at 09-22-2007 12:44 AM by Arkham '80 [at joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,402]
---
09-22-2007, 12:44 AM #11663
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,402

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
The key differentiating factor is whether there are two or more political parties that the people can select between without violence.
If both parties serve the same masters, the choice is an empty one.
You cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. -- Heraclitus

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman

Arkham's Asylum







Post#11664 at 09-22-2007 08:55 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-22-2007, 08:55 AM #11664
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
If both parties serve the same masters, the choice is an empty one.
Whatever, Ralph Nader.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#11665 at 09-22-2007 09:33 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-22-2007, 09:33 AM #11665
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
If both parties serve the same masters, the choice is an empty one.
Too true. Our current campaign finance system is essentially legalized bribery. While I am inclined to believe the Republicans have made themselves unpopular enough for a major change in power in 2008, I do not know that the Democrats are significantly less inclined to game the campaign finance system than the Republicans. The Democrats seem more interested in power than fundamental change... at least this election cycle. The 3T truth has been that campaign money buys one voters, while the 4T truth might be that one has to satisfy the voters key concerns or get booted out.

Which is why I'm concerned that the 2008 elections could lead to another false regeneracy that does not address the basic problems, much as the Y2K - September 11th regeneracy did not address the basic problems.

If so, it might be 2012 or 2018 before there is talk of real finance reform, constitutional conventions, and/or direct vote networked democracy. Not sure how far it has to go, or how far we'll want to take it.

But, yes, neither party is currently sufficiently interested in serving the people.







Post#11666 at 09-23-2007 02:15 AM by Arkham '80 [at joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,402]
---
09-23-2007, 02:15 AM #11666
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,402

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Whatever, Ralph Nader.
Whatever, Pollyanna.
You cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. -- Heraclitus

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman

Arkham's Asylum







Post#11667 at 09-23-2007 11:33 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-23-2007, 11:33 AM #11667
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Whatever, Ralph Nader.
Tool. But then, we already knew that...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#11668 at 09-23-2007 01:31 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
09-23-2007, 01:31 PM #11668
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Tool. But then, we already knew that...
I was about to ask how you managed to write out only five characters.







Post#11669 at 09-23-2007 02:06 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-23-2007, 02:06 PM #11669
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
Whatever, Pollyanna.
Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Tool. But then, we already knew that...
Having no use for Nader's stupid rhetoric about there being no difference between the Democrats and Republicans makes me a Pollyanna and a tool? Seriously, I sometimes get the feeling that Naderites in many respects are coming to resemble those German Communists that refused to ally with the Social Democrats and prevent Hitler's rise to power because the Commies thought that a Fascist government would bring on the "Glorious Proletarian Revolution" that much quicker.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#11670 at 09-23-2007 02:14 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-23-2007, 02:14 PM #11670
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Semo '75 View Post
I saw Nader speak in Philadelphia back during his campaign for the presidency in 2000. He spoke frankly and at length about the issues he was concerned about and the values he represented, he didn't offer "feel good" soundbite platitudes, and he wasn't afraid to open the floor to unscripted questions. Honestly, that was the first (and only) time I've ever felt connected to politics at the national level. It was refreshing, and I was sort of energized by seeing what democratic politics in America could look like.

So, for what it's worth, in my opinion there are certainly worse things you could call someone than "Ralph Nader".
They may say all the right words, but their actions say a totally different story. I remember reading a few news stories a couple years back about Greens getting funding from Republicans. Naderites seem to care more about sabotaging the Dems then advancing progressive issues.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#11671 at 09-23-2007 05:06 PM by Arkham '80 [at joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,402]
---
09-23-2007, 05:06 PM #11671
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,402

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Having no use for Nader's stupid rhetoric about there being no difference between the Democrats and Republicans makes me a Pollyanna and a tool? Seriously, I sometimes get the feeling that Naderites in many respects are coming to resemble those German Communists that refused to ally with the Social Democrats and prevent Hitler's rise to power because the Commies thought that a Fascist government would bring on the "Glorious Proletarian Revolution" that much quicker.
Jesus Christ!* How do you make the leap from despising both major parties to being a Naderite? One does not have to be a Green to see Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same greasy coin.

*- Cue sean '90's hysterical fundy yapping.
Last edited by Arkham '80; 09-23-2007 at 05:10 PM.
You cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. -- Heraclitus

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman

Arkham's Asylum







Post#11672 at 09-23-2007 06:03 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
09-23-2007, 06:03 PM #11672
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
Jesus Christ!* How do you make the leap from despising both major parties to being a Naderite? One does not have to be a Green to see Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same greasy coin.

*- Cue sean '90's hysterical fundy yapping.
I don't mind if you use the Lord's name as an interjection, as long as you don't act like that idiot comedian at the Emmys last week.







Post#11673 at 09-23-2007 08:55 PM by Seminomad [at LA joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,379]
---
09-23-2007, 08:55 PM #11673
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
LA
Posts
2,379

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I find this interesting, because it's almost exactly what I was thinking about you on the other thread, where you said you "hated" both the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left. To me, it seems anti-democratic and, well, authoritarian, to belittle a third political party simply because it hurts your own cause. Especially when their political goals are ostensibly so similar to your own.
Help me out here: what exactly have the Greens been doing since 2001 (other than trying to run for president again in 2004)?

Neither Ralph Nader nor any of the other Greens seem to try to have really been making themselves known or seen since E2K (with the possible exception of the aftermath of the 2004 election).







Post#11674 at 09-23-2007 09:24 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-23-2007, 09:24 PM #11674
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Semo '75 View Post
The most common criticism that Democrats level at Greens is that they stole Gore's votes in 2000. That makes the assumption that there are votes which automatically belong to the Democrats for some reason. Why Democrats shouldn't have to work to earn votes just like anyone else is left unexplained.

Lots of Democrats believe that putting a Green candidate on the ballot hurts the Democratic Party and they work (often in collusion with the Republican Party) to keep third parties out of the political process entirely. Even though putting Greens on the ballot probably does hurt Democrats, locking candidates out of the political process is inherently anti-democratic. So, while Democrats may say all the right words, their actions tell an entirely different story.

If these are not the kind of examples you were thinking of, please provide others.



There was one such story. It concerned Santorum supporters giving money to a local Green Party (the Greens are decentralized to a degree that neither the Coke nor Pepsi party is) to fund a signature drive to get a Green candidate on the ballot in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

While I'm sure that's horrifying to you, you might want to take a good long look at why such a signature drive was needed at all. Part of the democratic narrative is that all citizens are entitled to participate in the democratic process. Both the Democrats and Republicans pay lip service to that notion, while working to make sure that candidates who might steal votes from their own are locked out.



In light of what I've written above, that's a laugh. But I'll play nice. Could you give some examples of why you believe this to be the case?
Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I find this interesting, because it's almost exactly what I was thinking about you on the other thread, where you said you "hated" both the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left. To me, it seems anti-democratic and, well, authoritarian, to belittle a third political party simply because it hurts your own cause. Especially when their political goals are ostensibly so similar to your own.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the Green Party itself, I agree the Dems need to earn their votes just like everyone else. My issue is with priorities, namely the Naderite faction in the party having misplaced ones), the problem is that we are stuck with a first-past-the-post/winner-take-all election system with an electoral college for at least the near future and thus the Greens have no chance in hell of getting into the White House and also a less hard but a still very slim chance of getting in Congress. Their best strategy at the present time is to concentrate on local and state governments as well as pushing changes in the way we do elections in order to give 3rd parties a chance. Even if they don't succeed in reforming the electoral system if they get enough power in state governments they will do what the Populist Party did in the 1890s, pull the Democrats to the Left and then be absorbed.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#11675 at 09-23-2007 11:00 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
09-23-2007, 11:00 PM #11675
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Thumbs up

All of the discussion above this post is actually pointing out an issue that should be addressed in the upcoming 4T, the issue of the two party monopoly in our elections. The harsh civil war 4T effectively set our current system in place. The compairitivly mild 20th century 4T occured without a major change being required of our electioral system.

The implecation is that we will likely need the kind of harder 4T that the eight stroke theory predicts lies ahead of us. I could very easily see only one of the current establishment parties surviving the next 20 years. The question is can we reach a point where the surviving establishment feels compelled to assent to such a change. It will likely take an overwhelming amout of pressure during the coming social moment to reach this point.

All of the syndicalists, greens, libertairans, ect. will have to learn to cooperate for none of them will become a part of the solution by winning a meaningful number of positions in free elections unless they all do cooperate to get there.
Last edited by herbal tee; 09-23-2007 at 11:06 PM.
-----------------------------------------