6-May-16 World View -- Syria and Russia continue 'Grozny Model,' killing women and children in Aleppo refugee camp

[John]

"Even the hand of compassion is stung when it strokes a scorpion"
Persian Proverb http://www.theotherpages.org/quote-05b.html

"Eat and drink with your relatives; do business with strangers."
Greek Proverb

[John]

"Even the hand of compassion is stung when it strokes a scorpion"
Persian Proverb http://www.theotherpages.org/quote-05b.html

"Eat and drink with your relatives; do business with strangers."
Greek Proverb

"He who has been stung by a scorpion is afraid of its shadow."
Spanish Proverb

[Higgenbotham]

> Europe and the US were founded as white nations and we have the
> right to preserve them as such against 3rd world invaders. You may
> dread the coming conflagration be I for one welcome
> it. Civilization aka the white world, can't continue allow
> un-evolved genetic trash people to invade our nations they just
> drag us down.

Sick, bigoted racists like yourself fit in very well in today's
nationalistic, xenophobic world. So do destructive, self-destructive
Gen-Xer/Millennials like yourself.

I'm going to repeat what I've written to you before: The reason that
Millennials have such different attitudes than Silents is that Silents
learned as children how dangerous nationalism and xenophobia can be.
You should remember the remarks you're making these days, because if
you happen to be unlucky enough to survive the next ten years, you'll
regret making them.

Perception of resource scarcity is a factor that drives aggression against distinguishable subgroups of the human population. Trump focuses on the resource scarcity. He is promising to bring more resources to the entire US population and to take back resources from the rest of the world, and to disallow the rest of the world from coming into the US and partaking of the booty he is promising to deliver.

Let's say for example there is an island that can support a steady state human population of 1,000. The human population consists of 6,000 due to over-expansion off the accumulated resource base. The population is relatively homogeneous except 3,000 have black skin and 3,000 have white skin, so we have 2 readily distinguishable subgroups. The perceived available resource drops to a level that is sufficient to support a population of 500 and there is a general consensus on this. The subgroups go to war and at the end of the war 2,000 whites remain and everyone else is dead. The perceived available resource remains at 500. The 2,000 whites then proceed to further divide themselves into previously unidentified subgroups (i.e. "Hatfields" and "McCoys") and these subgroups go to war. This process stops when the perceived available resource is greater than the remaining population.

Of all the existing archetypes, Generation X and the Millennials are the most resource-poor. Of course, there is much more that factors into human perceptions than just the reality of circumstances. For example, a young Millennial may falsely believe that the future is bright and being resource-poor is only a temporary condition that will improve when, to use a recent example, in 2008, Barry Obama dons his shades and this cool cat struts across the White House lawn promising delivery of "hope and change" from Heaven, as well as "shovel-ready jobs" and millions of immigrants, only the latter of which was actually delivered.

[Higgenbotham]

The news flow is starting to indicate a Trump victory.

If that happens, it is going to panic a lot of people who have spent decades on the dole and who have no feasible means of ever becoming productive again. I believe they will riot. My prediction is Trump is going to roll the militarized equipment and police forces in and put those riots down, 14th century style. Upcoming:

If the sixty years seemed full of brilliance and adventure to a few at the top (i.e. Trump and the remaining few at the top), to most they were a succession of wayward dangers; of the three galloping evils, pillage, plague, and taxes; of fierce and tragic conflicts, bizarre fates, capricious money, sorcery, betrayals, insurrections, murder, madness, and the downfall of princes; of dwindling labor for the fields, of cleared land reverting to waste; and always the recurring black shadow of pestilence carrying its message of guilt and sin and the hostility of God.

Mankind was not improved by the message. Consciousness of wickedness made behavior worse. Violence threw off restraints. It was a time of default. Rules crumbled, institutions failed in their functions. Knighthood did not protect; the Church, more worldly than spiritual, did not guide the way to God; the towns, once agents of progress and the commonweal, were absorbed in mutual hostilities and divided by class war; the population, depleted by the Black Death, did not recover. The war of England and France and the brigandage it spawned revealed the emptiness of chivalry's military pretensions and the falsity of its moral ones. The schism shook the foundations of the central institution, spreading a deep and pervasive uneasiness. People felt subject to events beyond their control, swept like flotsam at sea, hither and yon in a universe without reason or purpose. They lived through a period which suffered and struggled without visible advance. They longed for remedy, for a revival of faith, for stability and order that never came.

The times were not static. Loss of confidence in the guarantors of order opened the way to demands for change, and miseria gave force to the impulse. The oppressed were no longer enduring but rebelling, although, like the bourgeois who tried to compel reform, they were inadequate, unready, and unequipped for the task. Marcel could not impose good government, neither could the Good Parliament. The Jacques could not overthrow the nobles, the popolo minuto of Florence could not advance their status, the English peasants were betrayed by their King; every working-class insurrection was crushed.

A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century
1978

[John]

> Let's say for example there is an island that can support a steady
> state human population of 1,000. The human population consists of
> 6,000 due to over-expansion off the accumulated resource base. The
> population is relatively homogeneous except 3,000 have black skin
> and 3,000 have white skin, so we have 2 readily distinguishable
> subgroups. The perceived available resource drops to a level that
> is sufficient to support a population of 500 and there is a
> general consensus on this. The subgroups go to war and at the end
> of the war 2,000 whites remain and everyone else is dead. The
> perceived available resource remains at 500. The 2,000 whites then
> proceed to further divide themselves into previously unidentified
> subgroups (i.e. "Hatfields" and "McCoys") and these subgroups go
> to war. This process stops when the perceived available resource
> is greater than the remaining population.

What you've described here is exactly the template for a Generational
Dynamics saeculum with two identity groups. You can take that
scenario, and throw in a Recovery era, Awakening era, and Unraveling
era, and you have exactly what happens.

However, I'm not aware of a situation where one side was completely
wiped out. There are always "collaborators" on the winning side that
protect some of those on the losing side. A sub-population of the
losers always find a way to hide out until the war is over. And most
important, there is a crisis war climax where the losing side
surrenders and the winning sides recoils in horror at the things it's
done, sometimes turning some of those remaining on the losing side
into slaves or something similar, which causes riots in the
next Awakening era.

If your characterization of Trump is correct, then Trump is proposing
to take resources away from Mexicans and Muslims and give them to
Americans, which would trigger a war, spiraling into a crisis war.

[Higgenbotham]

> Let's say for example there is an island that can support a steady
> state human population of 1,000. The human population consists of
> 6,000 due to over-expansion off the accumulated resource base. The
> population is relatively homogeneous except 3,000 have black skin
> and 3,000 have white skin, so we have 2 readily distinguishable
> subgroups. The perceived available resource drops to a level that
> is sufficient to support a population of 500 and there is a
> general consensus on this. The subgroups go to war and at the end
> of the war 2,000 whites remain and everyone else is dead. The
> perceived available resource remains at 500. The 2,000 whites then
> proceed to further divide themselves into previously unidentified
> subgroups (i.e. "Hatfields" and "McCoys") and these subgroups go
> to war. This process stops when the perceived available resource
> is greater than the remaining population.

What you've described here is exactly the template for a Generational
Dynamics saeculum with two identity groups. You can take that
scenario, and throw in a Recovery era, Awakening era, and Unraveling
era, and you have exactly what happens.

However, I'm not aware of a situation where one side was completely
wiped out. There are always "collaborators" on the winning side that
protect some of those on the losing side. A sub-population of the
losers always find a way to hide out until the war is over. And most
important, there is a crisis war climax where the losing side
surrenders and the winning sides recoils in horror at the things it's
done, sometimes turning some of those remaining on the losing side
into slaves or something similar, which causes riots in the
next Awakening era.

If your characterization of Trump is correct, then Trump is proposing
to take resources away from Mexicans and Muslims and give them to
Americans, which would trigger a war, spiraling into a crisis war.

Yes, what I described above is a very simple model that leaves a lot out. It is also extreme because I described a carrying capacity that is less than 10 percent of the population. One of my goals in conveying that model as I did was to illustrate that humans divide themselves into subgroups on a continuum where even if the population is all one racial group, it will divide into subgroups and the like racial subgroups will war against each other.

A more accurate example of the model would be to start with the 3,000 and the 3,000, then reduce those to 1,800 and 200, for example. The 1,800 would then see that eliminating the remaining 200 would do them no good and the 1,800 would then perceive subgroups within the 1,800 and war against each other. The larger subgroups within the 1,800 would at some point be perceived as more of a threat than the remaining 200 or whatever that number needs to be to put their attention elsewhere.

[Trevor]

I wouldn't be too sure that Trump is even going to lose. Even people who may not like him personally like what he's saying and preaching. Not to mention the fact that Clinton is deeply unpopular and very, very corrupt. Trump has defied just about all expectations, so I wouldn't rule it out.

[Higgenbotham]

I wouldn't be too sure that Trump is even going to lose. Even people who may not like him personally like what he's saying and preaching. Not to mention the fact that Clinton is deeply unpopular and very, very corrupt. Trump has defied just about all expectations, so I wouldn't rule it out.

I spent the afternoon listening to the speeches Trump gave in Oregon and Washington this weekend. Trump is starting to rail against the Clintons. I believe Trump is going to win.

[Jack Edwards]

Higgie,

I always enjoy your posts, though this one in particular resonates. Thanks for sharing.
Would it be fair to say that Trump and Sanders’ success are similar in that the key theme for each of them is to divert resources away from a group and disperse to the more deserving.. voter? In the case of Trump the diversion is away from external poor people and in the case of Sanders is from internal rich people.

Fun to hypothesize how this will play out, since there really isn’t a solution to provide more resources to all the folks that think they are deserving of them without outright stealing it from another nation – which would create a crisis war in itself.

Clinton is essentially the status quo politician, so if she is elected we will continue our same trajectory towards crisis war. I suspect a Trump or Sanders presidency would actually accelerate our trajectory.

Thoughts?
Jack

[Higgenbotham]

Higgie,

I always enjoy your posts, though this one in particular resonates. Thanks for sharing.
Would it be fair to say that Trump and Sanders’ success are similar in that the key theme for each of them is to divert resources away from a group and disperse to the more deserving.. voter? In the case of Trump the diversion is away from external poor people and in the case of Sanders is from internal rich people.

Fun to hypothesize how this will play out, since there really isn’t a solution to provide more resources to all the folks that think they are deserving of them without outright stealing it from another nation – which would create a crisis war in itself.

Clinton is essentially the status quo politician, so if she is elected we will continue our same trajectory towards crisis war. I suspect a Trump or Sanders presidency would actually accelerate our trajectory.

Thoughts?
Jack

Jack,

I think an apt place to start is with a snippet I heard in a Trump speech today where he said something to the effect that we would be better off had our Presidents all gone to the beach for the past 15 years. Then he went on to say that if we were going to mess around in Iraq at least we could have taken their oil.

What I find ironic given your comment is Trump in no way considers his likely Presidency to be one where the country would be better off if he himself were to go the beach every day of his Presidency.

On August 9 of last year I posted the following with regard to Trump and continue to believe that will be the case, as you said - that a Trump presidency would actually accelerate our trajectory.

The sartorial effect suggest the guy with the base ball cap gets it.
I still tend to agree with H a fly over govenor would likely be a better fit.
I think the energy policy and balance of trade will assert what we already
know going forward. Some suggest Fox politics just showed that they
are the baby ruth in the politcal pool. The crayon they pulled out the box
was blatant.

What I wonder is there is "the guy with the base ball cap" as you put it and then "all those other guys". When "all those other guys" drop out one by one, will any of those votes go to "the guy with the base ball cap" or will "all those other guys" collect the votes that are now spread out among them?

If the Archdruid is correct, anything Trump does that derails the country from Business As Usual could trigger an implosion. I agree; I think it is too late. Trump doesn't think it's too late yet. I'd rather see the inevitable collapse happen under one of the "political establishment ass clowns" than an "outsider ass clown". It would really be a disaster for all of them to be able to point the finger at Trump and label him as the cause of the collapse.