29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliation

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliation

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by Weiseth » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:10 am

Trevor wrote:It's interesting to see a positive view of Steve Bannon, being that he's someone that even a lot of conservatives don't like. If he knows and believes in Generational Dynamics, we might actually get through this after all. I'm just hoping Trump is willing to listen to him about it, being that like Obama, he doesn't seem interested in listening to anyone except for himself.
Based on which actions or knowledge do you base that conclusion on?

Trump changed his whole demeanor and is able to adapt to his circumstances as we saw during this election as he went from contender to the nominee, he listened to his strategists and changed his tactics to being more presidential as you could see in his tweets to Hillary about her health when she was experiencing problems which were civil and presidential instead of the mean spirited bullying that knocked out Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. Not to mention Trump is pro Choice and his personal faith is basically unknown as he is an unrepenting adulterer and womanizer but still he sets his personal beliefs aside to build his coalition of supporters many of whom are right wing christians who he disagrees With on almost all social issues. Still he is compromising which is the exact opposite of Obama. To give some examples just this last two weeks Trump has pushed contruction of the wall, ban on immigration from some terrorist haven countries and made the left insane. This gives him political Capital to push through infrastructure spending and ignore Calls to repeal transgender legislation by Obama.

As for Bannon, conservatives doesn’t have a problem with him because of GD, but because he openly stated that Breitbart was a place for the alt-right to congregate online. The alt right having some substantial amount of infiltration of anti-Semitism, most coordinated from sites like stormfront which does not fit in with the classical conservatives which most best thinkers are Jewish and there has been a lot drama during this election because of that conflict.

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by John » Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:21 pm

Here's a comment that someone posted on Breitbart in response
to my article on the Myanmar Rohingys:
> Space Cowboy

> Man...it take a real mentally unhinged writer like this lunatic to
> believe the fake news that comes out of the UN. In any event, I
> recommend that Myanmar does all it can to kick every last Muslim
> out of their country, because Muslims and non-Muslims are
> thoroughly incompatible. My only wish is that Trump would order
> the same exact thing over here in the USA before it is too
> late.
Isn't that nice?

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by Guest » Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:13 pm

I have listened to several interviews with Neil Howe on YouTube. He's a wet noodle. He seems really unsure and non committal about the FT.

I'm not surprised Time Magazine did not bring up GD. I don't think Time wants to give this site any publicity. The final outcome is too upsetting.

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by FishbellykanakaDude » Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:51 am

John wrote:
Weiseth wrote: > These differences between left and right are so diametrically
> different that...
This is a great analysis with a lot of useful information. But I
believe that when the "day of truth" arrives, none of these political
differences is going to matter. Instead, I expect it to be Catholic
vs Protestant, Western vs Orthodox, Christian vs Jew, Greek vs German,
and so forth.
There will be three "days of truth".

1) The First Certain Premonition

When it first becomes obvious to a population's critical mass that there will be a great nuclear war, the "Safety for Us First Committees" will create/motivate mass migrations within countries, dividing groups by "true felt culture".

"True felt culture" is the series of binary choices between "this person or gang" and "that person or gang" that one encounters during "the migration". People tend to choose those who are like them, and those they think are strong and can help them survive.

Relatively soon the local "proven strong" groups will begin killing their rival groups, one by one, as encountered, then as hunted, as they can. Consolidating.

The choice at this "day of truth" is to find an "intimate" society and defend it.

2) The Blast

The great cities disappear. The cultural groups survive as they can. The "Great Powers Infrastructure Tenders" do their best to ready their side to fight off whatever would be coming at them from the other side. They have recruited whichever "powerful" culture groups they can that will work with them, and not fight too much between themselves.

The choice at this "day of truth" is to decide who to punish.

3) The Defeat

The destruction of the enemy's capability to destroy your infrastructure is accomplished.

The choice at this "day of truth" is what society/societies to build, and what hatreds to hold onto.

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by Trevor » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:58 pm

John wrote:
gerald wrote:
That honey badger analogy is interesting. I haven't been in touch
with Bannon in a long time, except once. On the day before
Thanksgiving I heard a report on CNN that he was depressed because
everyone was saying he was a racist. I wrote him a short Happy
Thanksgiving note saying that his friends know that he isn't a racist,
and the real truth would come out sooner or later. I wasn't sure I'd
even get a response, given his new responsibilities, but two minutes
later came back a message -- "I'm not getting depressed !!! Give me a
break!!!!" This is consistent with the honey badger analogy. So I
guess no one should be worried about him.

The Time magazine article of course doesn't mention Generational
Dynamics, but talks about Neil Howe and David Kaiser, and the Fourth
Turning (FT). Both Howe and Kaiser really despise me and GD. This is
an example of my own initial naïveté. Back 12-13 years ago, I naïvely
thought that Howe and Strauss and Kaiser would actually welcome my
contributions to the fourth turning theory. Haha. I'm like dirt to
them.

The current fourth turning community, as represented in the Fourth
Turning Forum (http://generational-theory.com/forum/) is also deeply
split because of me, with many of them also deeply despising me. But
the really funny thing about this is that they've all almost
completely adopted the GD view of generational theory, rather than the
original FT view. The original FT view is that generational theory
only works for Britain and the US since the 1400s, does not work for
other countries or time periods, and other countries simply follow the
Anglo-American timeline. Theoretically, the FT view is that
generational cycles are generated by the Awakening era, which doesn't
really make sense, rather than the crisis war.

Generational Dynamics expanded generational theory to include all
countries at all times and places in history (called the "principle of
localization"). Each country or ethnic group can be on a separate
timeline, and generational cycles are generated by crisis wars.

Pretty much everyone in the FT forum, including the people who despise
me, have adopted the principle of localization, as I like to remind
them whenever they try to argue with me, since the original
mono-timeline view is clearly wrong. What I find really remarkable is
that many of them reject generational theory entirely, mainly because
they want to reject the concept of an approaching world war, and yet
they've been in the FT forum for years. To them, and recently to Howe
and Kaiser, FT is just a left-wing sociology theory, and a fourth
turning crisis is just some vague kind of sociological crisis.

This brings us back to the Time magazine article. As far as I know,
Bannon completely accepts the GD view of the future. But Howe doesn't
even believe his own theory any more. Kaiser is far left-wing, and
Howe is almost as far, so they're committed to not agreeing with Trump
on anything, which means that they are committed to not agreeing with
the GD view, which they never did anyway. Time Magazine is also a
left-wing magazine, so they would also have to reject the GD view,
though to be fair a lot of people reject the GD view for
non-ideological reasons, because they can't stand the thought of a new
world war.
Well, I can speculate as to the reason they're furious: as a rule, people don't like being proved wrong and you did enough research to show that the timeline applies to everyone, in addition to showing that not everyone is on the same generational timeline. Hopefully, Generational Dynamics will gain greater traction over time, although probably only after the war is over.

I think all the talk of a new civil war is utter nonsense, although I'm certain we're going to see more politically motivated violence as time goes on from both sides of the political isle.

It's interesting to see a positive view of Steve Bannon, being that he's someone that even a lot of conservatives don't like. If he knows and believes in Generational Dynamics, we might actually get through this after all. I'm just hoping Trump is willing to listen to him about it, being that like Obama, he doesn't seem interested in listening to anyone except for himself. In a way, we got lucky in the Second World war, facing enemies that couldn't match our numbers or production; we're not going to be so fortunate this time around.

Even the Fourth Turning theory didn't seem to gain a whole lot of traction, at least from my perspective. Most people I talked to about it consider it nothing but nonsense, and mentioning GD seems to get a rather similar response. The only time I remember it being seriously talked about was in 2008, back when Democrats' fortunes were at a long-time high and some of their politicians and strategists were bragging that using Generational Theory would allow them to stay in power indefinitely.

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by John » Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:24 pm

gerald wrote: > John, Have you read the article in Time
> http://time.com/4657665/steve-bannon-donald-trump/ About Trump and
> Bannon? with comments about the forth turning? interesting. I
> found the honey badger analogy humorous and probably accurate. A
> honey badger ha ha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg
> cheers
That honey badger analogy is interesting. I haven't been in touch
with Bannon in a long time, except once. On the day before
Thanksgiving I heard a report on CNN that he was depressed because
everyone was saying he was a racist. I wrote him a short Happy
Thanksgiving note saying that his friends know that he isn't a racist,
and the real truth would come out sooner or later. I wasn't sure I'd
even get a response, given his new responsibilities, but two minutes
later came back a message -- "I'm not getting depressed !!! Give me a
break!!!!" This is consistent with the honey badger analogy. So I
guess no one should be worried about him.

The Time magazine article of course doesn't mention Generational
Dynamics, but talks about Neil Howe and David Kaiser, and the Fourth
Turning (FT). Both Howe and Kaiser really despise me and GD. This is
an example of my own initial naïveté. Back 12-13 years ago, I naïvely
thought that Howe and Strauss and Kaiser would actually welcome my
contributions to the fourth turning theory. Haha. I'm like dirt to
them.

The current fourth turning community, as represented in the Fourth
Turning Forum (http://generational-theory.com/forum/) is also deeply
split because of me, with many of them also deeply despising me. But
the really funny thing about this is that they've all almost
completely adopted the GD view of generational theory, rather than the
original FT view. The original FT view is that generational theory
only works for Britain and the US since the 1400s, does not work for
other countries or time periods, and other countries simply follow the
Anglo-American timeline. Theoretically, the FT view is that
generational cycles are generated by the Awakening era, which doesn't
really make sense, rather than the crisis war.

Generational Dynamics expanded generational theory to include all
countries at all times and places in history (called the "principle of
localization"). Each country or ethnic group can be on a separate
timeline, and generational cycles are generated by crisis wars.

Pretty much everyone in the FT forum, including the people who despise
me, have adopted the principle of localization, as I like to remind
them whenever they try to argue with me, since the original
mono-timeline view is clearly wrong. What I find really remarkable is
that many of them reject generational theory entirely, mainly because
they want to reject the concept of an approaching world war, and yet
they've been in the FT forum for years. To them, and recently to Howe
and Kaiser, FT is just a left-wing sociology theory, and a fourth
turning crisis is just some vague kind of sociological crisis.

This brings us back to the Time magazine article. As far as I know,
Bannon completely accepts the GD view of the future. But Howe doesn't
even believe his own theory any more. Kaiser is far left-wing, and
Howe is almost as far, so they're committed to not agreeing with Trump
on anything, which means that they are committed to not agreeing with
the GD view, which they never did anyway. Time Magazine is also a
left-wing magazine, so they would also have to reject the GD view,
though to be fair a lot of people reject the GD view for
non-ideological reasons, because they can't stand the thought of a new
world war.

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by John » Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:22 pm

Weiseth wrote: > These differences between left and right are so diametrically
> different that possibly in a multicultural system such as the
> world has never seen before the forces that pushes generational
> Dynamics make these differences the fault line when there are no
> geographical or ethnic ones to represent the differences but the
> New generations that romanticises war and need to act on the
> piercieved grievences or seek victory need something to adhere too
> and fight over no matter how asanine it really is at its
> core?
This is a great analysis with a lot of useful information. But I
believe that when the "day of truth" arrives, none of these political
differences is going to matter. Instead, I expect it to be Catholic
vs Protestant, Western vs Orthodox, Christian vs Jew, Greek vs German,
and so forth.

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by Weiseth » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:40 am

John wrote:Generational crisis wars are usually fought across fault lines that
are determined at birth and cannot be changed. So ethnic fault lines
are the most common, because you can't change your ethnicity or skin
color after birth.

Religion-based fault lines are almost as common, since religions are
almost as unchangeable, although sometimes mass conversions can at
least postpone a war.

Civil wars are mostly fought along ethnic fault lines, but external
wars are mostly fought along geographic fault lines. However, the
interesting thing about geographic fault lines is that they always
have a history, since someone or something in the past must have set
the boundary separating the geographic entities. And most of the
time, that history is based on an ethnic fault line, and so a
geographic fault line is often historically based on an ethnic fault
line.

An exception might be like the American civil war, which was based on
a geographic fault line with no real ethnic separation, but this is
another phenomenon where a population becomes split geographically,
and then develops completely different lifestyles that almost makes
them as different as two separate ethnic groups. Another example of
this is the Palestinian split between Gaza and West Bank.

Finally, you're suggesting a generational crisis war fought along a
purely political fault line. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but
I'm very suspicious of the concept since it's so easy to change
political beliefs, which is a lot easier than having a war. I would
analyze the situation by looking for reasons why it's become
impossible to change political beliefs -- such as political beliefs
based on ethnic, religious or geographic alignments. In this case,
the core fault line is not politics, but the underlining alignment.
Yes I was thinking of including the American Civil war With the Spanish&Russian Civil War, but like you said the same ethnicity has been split off geographically and have developed different cultures which is still true to a great degree today.

Religion is often politics though, at least it was in Norway about 1000 years ago when Harald Hardråde, Olav Den hellige, Magnus Den Gode and Olav Tryggvason fought for Power which in generational Dynamics would be considered crisis wars. The Southern more civilized(danishized?) culture were the strongest economically thanks to the Baltic sea trade and warmer climate for crops embraced Christianity for centralization of Power whereas the middle and Northern regions being more rural had Trønder Chieftain Einar Tambarskjelve following the old Norrøn traditions which were confederate based on mutual respect as opposed to federate which is submission in appplication of Power between regional warlords and overlords.

In Your analysis of Thailand you have the separate ethnic and economic classes of the yellow shirt against the red shirts. Perhaps it will be similar to that in conjunction With the geographical fault line of the civil war being Applied through different economic/cultural interests instead of geographical.

European Left - Right Divide

Left Wing Side
Economic Allies:
State employed
NGO employed
Heavily Subsidized private Corporations
Big Corporations collusion With government
Content Welfare dependents

Ethnic Allies:
Citizens of Foreign descent
Unemployed Immigrants and Refugees
Minority Groups (i.e Sami, Basque etc)

Cultural Allies:
Neo Liberalism/libertine (veganism, multiculturalism, Metropolitan, feminist)
Atheist hedonism and New Age spiritualism
Pacifism and oxymoron of rejection of Police Authority yet embracement of the State as the sole arbiter of all human interaction

Right Wing Side
Economic Allies:
Private Workers and Non Union Workers
Small Business owners
Farmers (If the right wing support tariffs on imported Food)
Discontent welfare dependents (just a theory based on that I have some friends who want to break out of welfare but cant find jobs)


Ethnic Allies:
Native Supremacists/Protectonists
Minorities not recieveing special welfare or leftist recognition (Koreans, Cubans etc)

Cultural Allies:
Conservatives (Free market, Private Property rights, Traditionalism, Individualism)
Atheist traditionalists and traditional status quo orthodox religion adherents
Alternative Right? (If it's really a thing at all, I dont know)
Capitalists/Syndicalist (I think these two will see a Synthesis as we see in both support of Trump as they need to stand together against socialism)
Disgruntled and Alarmist Natives due to immigration

These differences between left and right are so diametrically different that possibly in a multicultural system such as the world has never seen before the forces that pushes generational Dynamics make these differences the fault line when there are no geographical or ethnic ones to represent the differences but the New generations that romanticises war and need to act on the piercieved grievences or seek victory need something to adhere too and fight over no matter how asanine it really is at its core?

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by John » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:46 am

Generational crisis wars are usually fought across fault lines that
are determined at birth and cannot be changed. So ethnic fault lines
are the most common, because you can't change your ethnicity or skin
color after birth.

Religion-based fault lines are almost as common, since religions are
almost as unchangeable, although sometimes mass conversions can at
least postpone a war.

Civil wars are mostly fought along ethnic fault lines, but external
wars are mostly fought along geographic fault lines. However, the
interesting thing about geographic fault lines is that they always
have a history, since someone or something in the past must have set
the boundary separating the geographic entities. And most of the
time, that history is based on an ethnic fault line, and so a
geographic fault line is often historically based on an ethnic fault
line.

An exception might be like the American civil war, which was based on
a geographic fault line with no real ethnic separation, but this is
another phenomenon where a population becomes split geographically,
and then develops completely different lifestyles that almost makes
them as different as two separate ethnic groups. Another example of
this is the Palestinian split between Gaza and West Bank.

Finally, you're suggesting a generational crisis war fought along a
purely political fault line. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but
I'm very suspicious of the concept since it's so easy to change
political beliefs, which is a lot easier than having a war. I would
analyze the situation by looking for reasons why it's become
impossible to change political beliefs -- such as political beliefs
based on ethnic, religious or geographic alignments. In this case,
the core fault line is not politics, but the underlining alignment.

Re: 29-Jan-17 World View -- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration / Iran promises retaliati

by Weiseth » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:48 am

psCargile wrote:I don't think even conservative talk radio hosts are aware of generational dynamics, or even punditry at large. I'll hear or read something and think, "that's not what generational dynamics points toward." Michael Savage almost claims he is solely responsible for Trump's victory, and I think "You didn't have anything to do with it." The powers that be were trying to steer the American voters toward Clinton, but we would have none of it. With that example, I'm not inclined to believe there are progressive masterminds using GD to advance their cause. I don't think the theory can be used that way. I understand GD to say "this is what is most likely to happen and there is nothing you can do about it because you can't control every one's thoughts and behaviors." It's an impossible task, but damned if they don't try. I see the Brexit vote and the Trump presidency as counter-revolutionary.

Events are happening in the world not because a few understood GD and maneuver their activists forces, but because most people aren't aware generational dynamics is a force acting in their lives. People are reacting to societal trauma they have yet to recognize.
It's funny Your hallmark example of conservative punditry is Michael Savage, someone on the far fringe of the conservative mainstream who said everyone questioning the narrative of Michael Brown as a gentle giant innocent kid was a nazi incarnate. Conservative punditry biggest stars in term of ratings are Dennis Prager, Bill Whittle, Shapiro, Molyneux and Mark Levin. And the most recent influential thinkers are Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Victor Davis Hanson and Walter E. Williams. Even though they have not studied generational Dynamics their explenation of economics have proven to be completely true especially With regards to monatery policies which coincides With generational Dynamics, what they are unable to piercieve however is the coming financial crisis due to conflict which are not taken into account in their models. And Victor Davis Hanson explanations of history and world trends also coincides with generational Dynamics are they are both rooted in history in regards to historic alliances, ethnic preferences and history. Though even VDH views what is called Third party actors in political science which are state leaders as the most influential in determining actions instead of the collective attitudes of the Peoples as described in generational Dynamics.

Even so you are correct, I didn't follow Savage but that statement strikes me as narcissist. The only conservatives who embraced Trump was Dennis Prager and Molyneux, but they would never claim it was due to them that Trump campaign won. Shapiro and Mark Levin was adamantly opposed to Trump, and the rest was skeptical at best. One thing all these People have in common though is that they are mostly over 50 years old and Trump hardcore following was under 40 years.

The Wall Street Journal capitalist and globalists have due to generational Dynamics completely lost touch With their own base, and you can clearly see this in the Uncommon Knowledge series of the conservative part of the Hoover Institution which on monthly basis interviews the leading thinkers of the globalist part of conservative/right wing Spectrum. These People are completely out of touch With the right wing now and they have no Clue what Trump represent or even what their own base wants which is why they have become irrelevant whereas before With the boomer generation that valued stability, compromise and Cooperation they were the big shots and right wing nationalists were the out of touch Group. Buchanan is in and Jeb Bush is out so to speak.

As With the trauma you describe it is funny how the West is treated like victim blaming a battered wife for trying to Escape abusive relationship.

The West tries to stop the abuse and oppression by Foreign immigrants as we are today a Meek People, and what we are met With is hysterical hate and violence analogous to the stoning of a rape victim in Arab culture. There will not be long before we are forced to create Our own Sturm Abteilungs for protection now, and then the real war will begin.

Generational Dynamics as I understand it explains wars mostly through ethnic conflict, how it explains the left and right civil wars like Spanish civil war and Russian civil war and it's Application in the polarization today I have yet to read. Maybe leftism will go away when the real war starts, though I find that hard to believe, the differences between left and right are irreconcilable.

Top