My Photo

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

BlogStats


« Add to history, and not take from it (updated 17aug17) | Main | Sandbox - 21aug17 »

20 August 2017

Comments

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

It always interests me how people conflate the idea of 'nation' and 'country'.

An argument has been made in some circles that cultural cohesion, especially on the very large scale, comes from the presence of external threats.

Using that idea, the notion of an 'American' came from groups of Europeans (English/Dutch/German/Irish) that, faced with a very real threat from an alien society next door, hung together or hung separately. In a very real sense, Native Americans created the American Nation. The warring mafias inside of and just outside of Rome had Carthage. The Russian nation was formed by steppe empires.

It could be that WWII simply put off the inevitable.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

On the other hand, maybe there are easier ways to measure the loss of cultural cohesion.

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2015/10/05/mapping-s-f-s-human-feces-on-the-streets/

Todd Juvinall

Birds of a feather flock together. How else can one explain why whites moved to the suburbs and blacks to the inner city. And we had forced busing as I recall to make people be together and all races rejected that. All these "good intentions" of leftists to force people to do things they don't want is now there for all to see. It does not work. However what should and does work is equal opportunity. People have the same starting point and can end up where their talents tak them. That is America. As we saw in the 70's Boston democrats rioted to keep from busing their kids to the black schools and vice versa. Both races wanted their kids to be with those that looked like them. And those riots were really something. Nothing like the Kumbaya of yeasterday.

Todd Juvinall

For all us crackers.

The press now calls any group from the left, whether violent or not, "counter protestors". Rather than say they are "Antifa", SDS, Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, Weather Underground and even Islamic terrorists, the media is in the tank for them. Now any gathering of more than two white people (an immutable trait) is a gathering of "white supremacists".

Now since I am a white man, and I love the Constitution and America and free speech I am quite concerned. I am no racist either. Will the press encourage others not like me to issue bounties? Shoot white males on sight? Or stab or beat them? And would those be considered "hate crimes"? Nope! Justifiable homicide probably.

Calling the terrorist groups on the left "counter protestors" seems to me to be a whitewash of the truth. Why does the press pick sides? Sort of like California Government politicians telling us they are going to pass a law where you can be arrested and jailed and fined if you don't call a person by the "gender identity" that person chooses. (SB 219)

What is happening to America? And why is the media pushing these obvious anti free speech and assembly narratives? Don't they know they will be next if they are successful? According to their behavior and how they write their lies, Hugo Chavez-like is next in line to govern and they will supply all the ink to achieve that.

All American have to be concerned with this "re-thought" that only George Orwell would understand. He warned America and the world that when peoples start changing the meaning of words that tyranny is not far behind. Next Al Gore will be encouraging mass suicide to achieve his issues of "carbon footprints". And Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will be marching with BLM and Antifa to stop free speech from those they disagree with (sorry, they already did). Our First Amendment was to protect the speech we dislike. And if we allow these "do-gooders" to deny those people we really don't like from speaking, then guess who is next. YOU!!

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

re: ToddJ@3:21PM

"Now since I am a white man, and I love the Constitution and America and free speech I am quite concerned."

Oh jeez, now you've done it. No KVMR bumper stickers for you my man.

Honestly, it's a reasonable concern. It's a perfect storm of American politics. On the street, the professional Left started it by going after nice polite older Tea Party folks on their way to Trump events, and now a new nastier Right is responding in kind. The latter group is arguably better at what is euphemistically called 'kinetic engagements', and the cycle continues.

It's most likely that it will all burn itself out as people go home to watch Game of Thrones, but you never know.

re: Culturally cohesive communities.

Obviously, the modern push for multiculturalism is a near opposite to that, but I think it goes deeper. There's a modern magnetism towards group alignment at the expense of building a community. I strongly expect that social 'scientists', at least those who actually do research that involves some kind of numeracy, will tell you that conflict increases as the differences mount up. A sufficiently strong core can overcome superficial appearances, it isn't like the Roman Empire was made up of people with rhyming appearances, but it doesn't appear to be in the works in the US. Given the strong monoculture pre-1965, perhaps it never did.

Walt

Boardman almost sounds like a Repub. in his piece in the local rag.
Good job Sir.

Bill Tozer

If see the Left has unintentionally (?) put themselves in a pickle. Identity Politics has grown too big with its tentacles growing fat in the entire education system, government, Silicon Valley (think of that reach) Corporate America, and beyond. The Left embraced it, put who in the world can you have Collectivism when they are splintering into even smaller groups and turning on their own. BLM feels abandoned by the bigger Gender Idenity Feminists wearing pussyhats, this person identifyies with that splinter group, that splinter group feels they aren't getting their moment in the sun, and the Politics of Idenity just might collapse after being cannibalizec by their own. I hope so. The "PC" genie is out of the bottle and the Dems can't control the genie (but, they think they can) because the genie now controls them. It has created nothing but grievance politics , with people seriously complaining they don't feel valued and do not feel welcomed as they should. Gotta change that. How can we make you feel valued?

The loons have taken over the asylum and are going through the desks looking for the car keys. If your Idenity can not be separate from your chosen herd, then your self is lost in the group, and in group think. Outside the herd is lonely and dangerous. Best to stay with group think and not make waves. They are your kind. They can't make it on their own, not without being part of the herd. That particular herd, whichever one out of scores that may be.
And their goal is unity? Peace? Beam me up, Scottie. They do not want collectivism, they want submission, and their moment to shine. Like actors (neurotic eople), they seek applause. Power. Superiority of their group.

I checked this woman out (pic below) and looked at her bio. On the form, under race, she wrote American. Never saw that before. I think she ain't going along with the PC crowd. PC does not been civility. It means say it this way, think it this way....or else.
Don't matter your ethnic group or cultural group, it's group think that matters for the collectivists
Hey, birds of a feather flock together, but some Momma Birds are really squawking boisterously lately. When the hens start squawking, I start walking....far away.
Wonder who is the victim today and what can I do to appease your self absorbed neuroticism? Go pound sand. The Left is starting to really hate the term " melting pot." Melting pot is antithetical to Idenity Politics. How can you be "communal" when it's your way or the highway? That don't sound very neighborly like.

https://www.facebook.com/lastamericapatriots/photos/a.235087906641439.1073741826.235086849974878/905713092912247/?type=3&theater

An American is her race. Hmmm. Voted for Obama in 2008, became a Tea Party activist in 2009. Quick learner.

In 1997, at the age of 20, Pierson was arrested for shoplifting, to which she pleaded no contest, received deferred adjudication, and, ultimately, a dismissal with the case sealed.[1] She reportedly took $168 in merchandise from a J. C. Penney store in Plano, Texas, and had her then three-month old son with her at the time of the incident.[1] Pierson told authorities she needed the clothes for job interviews. She has said that the incident helped her turn her life around, showing her that mistakes often come with consequences.

You have come a long way baby. Without Identity Politics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KatrinaPierson/status/898333214107770880

Scott Obermuller

Actually - I thought the Boardman piece stunk on ice. If private companies want to suppress free speech, it is their right to do so and the govt has no right to interfere. Obviously it is absurd for these left wing companies to claim they want 'diversity' while squashing the same, but absurdity is not a crime, nor is hypocrisy.
Boardman is too dense (low IQ) to understand the ramifications of his complaint.
Does he want a govt to oversee and control what he writes and thinks? Does he want the govt to oversee and control what information he disseminates? I believe not.
Yet he thinks that other private entities should be under control of the govt. Just not Boardman, thank you very much. I notice that Boardman has never complained about the left wing news media spreading slander and lies. In fact Boardman has, himself spread false info about folks such as Trump. I called Boardman out and asked him to back up his statements which to this day Boardman has been unable to do. But - it is Boardman's right to express his pathetic opinions and the govt should have no part in controlling any of it.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"Actually - I thought the Boardman piece stunk on ice. If private companies want to suppress free speech, it is their right to do so and the govt has no right to interfere."

The problem is the natural monopolies that the web has produced. It isn't just hosting, social media, or search, but even the delivery of simple products. Airbnb for instance blocked alt-right attendees from using their services.

Since political belief systems don't make you a member of a protected group, there appears to be no way around the problem for these people. You might as well have PGE refuse to sell electricity to you depending on party affiliation. It isn't like these internet companies are bakeries and you can go right down the street to another one.

The more insidious variant is the subtle human programming you can do in something like search, but I admit that that is little different than what is done in schools or newspapers. It's just more sophisticated and has a faster feedback loop.

I don't expect antitrust to go anywhere. Companies like Google are too tied in to the 17 intelligence agencies plus the sheer length of time needed for a court case is too long, canonical examples being ATT and IBM. In the meantime, they (like any reasonable firms) will build the moat deeper and wider.

Any other solution besides break-up or regulation would be something I'd love to hear.

George Rebane

Gentlemen, stick to cultural cohesion.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.515.6374&rep=rep1&type=pdf

A paper by Putnam (he of 'Bowling Alone' fame), although it seems rare to find something by a sociologist where the answer isn't determined before the research is done. This is no exception.

The mixed results of immigration always have a lot of baggage. Moar and moar people produce a larger economy of course while the notion of gdp/individual seems lost in the mix. Paying for Social Security or any other senior care by increasing the population is an absurd losing game of course. The quality of immigrants is never ever considered. Rate of immigration and long term integration is never ever considered. Generally I'd say that social 'scientists' are always pro mass immigration which makes you wonder about the psychology of the profession.

An interesting question (to me). On the BBC this morning, they mentioned that the population increase in Africa (ie. Sahara and below) will double it's size by 2050. Half the increase in world population will come from that. At what point does European self-defense kick in or is it forever considered racist to restrict entry? They have a problem and it's going to get a lot worse.

At what point does social cohesion break down to the point of open conflict? Lacking a core dominant culture, you can essentially count on dictatorship or warfare. I'll hunt around for metrics showing conflict and non-integration

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

Just thinking out loud on the massive increase in African population, which is estimated to quadruple in the next 100 years. How do you avoid the truly massive civil wars, inter-tribal conflicts, inter-state wars, etc. that will arise from higher density and resource depletion?

They really aren't getting the chance to slowly evolve systems and a sense of nation that, let's say, the Chinese accreted over time. I doubt that any kind of culture or nationalism will evolve quickly enough in places like Nigeria. You really do need to have controls and hierarchies in place to deal with the less desirable parts of human nature.

Keep in mind that 500+ languages (10 or so major) are spoken in Nigeria. That's a good approximation of the lack of cohesion you could expect to find.

The only answer I can think of offhand is universal Islam in those countries. There's lots of bad habits built into that system, but it's the quickest way I can think of to somewhat fuse a population.

George Rebane

Progressives like Frisch seem to have an instinctive fear of CCCs which is always focused on people of western culture attempting to live among similarly minded people. However, this disdain is not directed to other cultures - Mexicans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Africans, Muslims, Sikhs, ... - when they congregate in tight and often exclusionary communities across America. I have offered mine, but are there any other thoughts as to why such discrimination exists?

Scott Obermuller

Well - the topic of CCCs would seem to be somewhat touching on why certain large companies are wanting to shut out others whose views are deemed to be harmful to the companies bottom line or just unwanted based on a view that this or that type of viewpoint is socially unacceptable. An online community is quite a bit like a community with physical borders. There was a time when it was accepted almost universally that any country had a right to let in or shut out anyone or group they wanted. The reason could be fair or unfair, but the country had a border and could control that border as they saw fit. It was also accepted that a town could get tired of certain folks that were always seeming to cause a ruckus and the local law enforcement would simply take them to the bus station or just order them out of town.
"Or else!" It wasn't always fair, but mostly it worked from the standpoint of the town's idea of CCC.
The main thing to keep in mind is that the 'new' viewpoint of the need to have open borders or at least be open to lots of certain types of folks only applies to America and other 'white' Euro nations. Not for one second does any of this apply to other types of nations.
Just as we see certain groups of folks here in our universities and colleges now demanding (and getting) separate dorms, class rooms, courses, meetings and clubs based on skin color and ethnic identity, certain nations are still allowed to determine their own CCC. The left gets it - the idea of CCC, but only wants it to apply to certain (read left-wing) groups and nations.

George Rebane

ScottO 844am - I think you have a point there Scott that endorses the CCC thesis. Even Google enforces a company culture that demands cohesion on a number of important dimensions. And their solution for non-compliance is simple - they just eject the offending non-compliant member. That has never been RR's solution for America's CCCs. And, of course, we all know that it is always the intent of progressives to destroy any CCC in which western culture dominates.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"it is always the intent of progressives to destroy any CCC in which western culture dominates."

No problem. Just add a modern HR department to any company and the edicts will flow. I'd love to see a brand spankin' new set of procedural binders handed to line management in ultra-large companies these days.

Admittedly, commonly dealt with issues have changed through the years.

https://imgur.com/Tgaf7

Bill Tozer

I don't have much to add to Dr. Rebane's' post. Only cliques and things as plain as the nose of your face. Ok, I lied, but I INTEND to keep it brief.

1) You can't fight City Hall. Zoning and local control controls a lot. We all want to get rid of homelessness, but I just read that San Jose's plan to set up mini homes (70'sq. ft sleeping quarters) has gone from 99 sites to 4. Why? NIMBY. In fact, one councilman who is an homeless advocate, bemoaned the fact that 2 or the possible 4 sites to put mini-homes are in his district. It was supposed to be everyone shared the burden, all ten districts. But nooo. Darn those friggin bourgeoisie and proletariats social classes.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/20/after-backlash-san-jose-reduces-number-of-tiny-homes-sites-for-homeless/

2) Seems the whole notion of Natural Law must be rejected for collectivism to work.

3) Human nature, being what it is, must be countered by a stronger attractant than simply all for one and one for all. Universal traits like envy, greed, lust, and pride come more naturally than getting everybody to live on a higher altruistic communal plane, absent a major threat of Mother Nature, War, famine and the like. And major threats pass with time.

4). To repeat Dr. Rebane's point that freedom of association (white enclaves or any race or ethnic enclave) does not take anyway any "outsider" or minority or non group member's rights. Federal law in housing, employment, and a myriad of anti-discrimation laws are not subjugated by birds of a feather flock together. Mr. Steve's unchanging knee jerk distain for the very idea of cultural adhesion in communities proves once again the folly of "diversity for diversity's sake." Sounds good, looks good on the chalkboard, but not so in practice. We can force different tribes to live together, but can we force humans to live together in harmony? Should Chinatown be forced to desegregate? I know of large enclaves of Russian neighborhoods south of Portland and Glendale, CA has a concentrated Armenian community, the largest such outside of Armenia. No matter the law or governmental pressure, I don't think that Turks would be welcomed with open arms in certain neighborhoods of Glendale....for diversity's sake.

"The problem" is America is just too white, according to those who pontificate the ills of society and the solutions to racial divides and racial tensions.... from the whitest county in CA. Go figure. When I moved here, Nevada County was the whitest county in CA, and well as having the lowest crime rate in CA. Last I looked we had the 4th lowest crime rate in CA. I really don't give a hoot whether this county is still the whitest or not. Factors much greater than moi with decide demographics and crime rates, present and future.
Diversity for diversity's sake? Nice in theory. Best get rid of freedom of association, Natural Law, human nature, human preferences, family ties, national pride, and cultural bonds first....then diversity for diversity's sake might work. Don't know how nurturing it will be, but if at first you don't succeed, try try try try try try try again.

Collectivism? Who will be the ruling class to make sure it works? I don't like the "social classes" as envisioned by Karl Marx. Seems all to much like our Great White Fathers in Washington breaking promises all over again. Been there, done that....unless history begins today.

Paul Emery

Bill

Tribalism seems to have worked well for thousands of years as a very natural way for humans to live and interact. Isn't that a form of collectivism?

Todd Juvinall

If the mammoths are attacking it was always better to have a few gather together for protection.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"If the mammoths are attacking it was always better to have a few gather together for protection."

Especially if the mammoths wear masks and attack people who voted the wrong way for a hobby.

Tribes are basically a form of extended family, usually highly related. That all makes sense from a Darwinistic standpoint. The tricky thing is growing beyond that point, a thing you need to do to have larger hierarchies, specialization in roles, enough extra food to waste time on the arts. That's where religions and the King come in...a way to produce altruism towards unrelated people. I honestly don't know if there was an evolutionary change in humans to produce that ability to cooperate in large groups and go so far as to build remote trust networks, that is to say trust in an organization and not just people. It may well be that different subgroups of modern humans are constructed differently so far as cooperating in the large scale. This is a question you are *not* supposed to ask in 2017, but I expect that genetic studies will ask it anyway.

But, I don't think you can successfully expand pure tribalism to the size of a state. Collectivism as you'd see in a family group merely seems to result in high (probably the highest in the modern era) GINI numbers in the Soviet Union combined with megadeaths to keep the tribe in line. OTOH, the other aspect of tribalism of pure family orientation, leads you down the road to the more extreme forms of Fascism (not the original Italian flavor, but the German/Austrian variant). Even without war, I doubt either system had legs in the long run.

In any case, I would avoid explaining mass human behavior, except on the fringes, in terms of the actions of a few. It's a lazy world view.

George Rebane

PaulE 153pm - Tribalism is definitely not a form of collectivism, but only another form of autocratic organization of society. Even clans within a tribe have already departed collectivism, maintaining a minimalist structure when it comes to some form of enterprise from commerce to warfare. You again seem to be heading toward one of your black/white logical destinations - if there is some smidgen of collective function within a group, then the group must be termed collectivist. Sorta like labeling a mulatto to be black instead of white or some other color.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

re: GeorgeR@2:44PM

When I referred to 'tribe', I meant those cohabitating human groups that fission once they become too large. I think you are more correct in your usage.

I hesitate to use the word 'family' (or extended family) though since it overlaps as a concept, but is different.

Paul Emery

Well George how do you classify the massive military complex subsidized by taxpayers as anything but collectivist?

Bill Tozer

When I hear the word 'collectivism', my first thoughts go to the control of all production and distribution of a society. Economic issues. Marxism. Perhaps I headed down the wrong path by getting into diversity. I should have stuck with the herd mentality in hindsight. Nor does collectivism conjure up images of different tribes, cultures, or nations engaging in voluntary and willing trade with others outside the group. That is just commerce, and hopefully mutually beneficial to the different societies and nations.

Confining the discussion to free and fair trade is very naive. It's the cultural war, the Great Divide, the Social-political issues that are the elephant in the room. The normal ebb and flow of popular passions and preferences means I lose some, you win some, I win some, you lose some....all decided in the voting booth. Taking turns playing King of the Hill, if you may.

But not so in these times. It is truly a Cultural War and it's rather nasty. Instead of asking what is the role of government in a society, we now are asking what is the role of the individual, if any, in today's society. Add to that one piece of the puzzle another piece: Are all the ills of our society to be placed at the feet of the bad guy, aka, the Privileged Caucasian of western Civ European descent, more specifically , the conservative white male?

If our founders are the bad guys, then shoot the messengers. Trash them to delegitimize their thoughts, beliefs, and world view. But that is not enough. We are a nation of laws, not of men. So, what really is blocking the path to Collectivism? The Constitution must be altered, this nation's founding as a Constitutional Representative Republic must be rewritten, and we must become a nation of men, not of laws. The roadblock in 2017 is men and women. White Conservative men and women. They must go through us to do the change. What do they want to change? A: Everything.

Thus, if I am the monkey wrench in the gears to progress, I must be the bad guy, thus the cultural wars. Social Justice Warriors do not have a high opinion of my kind. Holding me and my ilk in low esteem would be an improcement over currently being held in the same regard as a normal person holdscNazis, racists, Nazis again, and the lynching Klan.

To achieve collectivism, I must be collected and taken out with the garbage. Then they are free to run the table and control everything. It will still be called the United States, but it will no longer be America.

I now see why they are called collectivists. They collect letters of the alphabet. If you are not in the bowl of alphabet soup, then that means you are not invited to the party. You are not included. Sucks to be me. :)

.https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/1152209484913087/?type=3&theater

Bill Tozer

From Dr. Rebane's post:
Collectivism is a specific and persistent approach to organizing society. As far back as 1944 the Reader’s Digest informed its readers - Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” More recently (1983) Leonard Peikoff (q.v.), political philosopher of the Ayn Rand school, wrote - Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it."

Ok, now I am confused. Years ago, around 2010 when the Obamacare debate was Starting to heat up, a former mayor of Nevada City said to the Union newspaper that healthcare was a right because it was her pursuit of happiness. Pretty much quote, unquote.

So, here is my confusion. If one spouts individual rights out of one side of her mouth, yet pushes for government mandated healthcare for the "common goof" out of the other side of her mouth, isn't there a paradox going on here? A contradictory thought, a conflict?

Yes, it's not all black and white. Seldom is. But using one's individual God Given "right" that precedes government to push for a solution that requires collectivism and diminishies the "rights" on an individual (ain't a right, it's an entitlement, duh) seems like someone is at the buffet table picking and choosing what they want and leaving the rest behind.

Government is not the origin or source of our rights, but the guarantor of the indivual's rights. Forced coercion to participant in collectivism seems at odds to me and my pursuit of happiness.

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/1152618724872163/?type=3&theater

These people below are exercising their 'right to pursue happiness', I suppose. But they are also pursuing their group's common good, not my group's best interest, nor the common good of our society as a whole. They are thinking only of their herd. I have no problem with freedom of speech or freedom of association, but have a big problem when equal protection under the law is violated.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/black-lives-matter-demands?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC

Bill Tozer

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/1144803028987066/?type=3&theater

George Rebane

BillT 621pm - Mr Tozer, please, please, please annotate your URLs with a comment or two of what to expect. Not all have the idle hours to investigate the 'unknowns' and 'who gives a s%!t' that you assume are willing to click on a blind link. Life is short and other pursuits beckon.

Bill Tozer

Sure Doc. Forgot that was a pet peeve of yours. Sometimes I forget that people out there have slow internet, like only 200-300 Mbps. My mistake.

Soros:

https://www.facebook.com/lastamericapatriots/photos/a.235087906641439.1073741826.235086849974878/865087120308178/?type=3&theater

The conundrum of cultural cohesive communities:

https://www.facebook.com/lastamericapatriots/photos/a.235087906641439.1073741826.235086849974878/865087120308178/?type=3&theater

A sizeablev within the cultural cohesive community:
https://www.facebook.com/TAPTheAmericanPatriot/photos/a.539274122802339.1073741824.426883867374699/929871840409230/?type=3&theater

Better?

Bill Tozer

re: update 22 aug17:
Very well thought out Update, Dr. Rebane.

The link provided below is yet another among hundreds of tales of intolerance unleashed upon an indivual disclosing opposing, nay different thoughts outside the herd mentality on today's campuses,......grossly misnomered as Institutions of Higher Learning.

This saddens me greatly. Sadness, not anger or fingerpointing. Not because of the details of this common tale of woe nowadays, but because of the questions posed, to which I have no solutions. The first question posed, "How did we get here?", was the easiest and only one I could answer, thus increasing my despondency.
How did we get here? My immediate reply is when one wakes up and finds himself neck deep in quicksand and sinking, the first question you ask is not "how did I get here?", but rather, "How do I get out of here?". There is time to figure out how one got there later.

"How did we get here?

How did we get to the point where taking a photo with someone is an act of violence? How will we ever be able to have adult conversations if no one is ever willing to listen to those who have opposing philosophies? How can we coexist when we write off our political opponents—as well as those who dare to take photos with them—as morally bankrupt?"

I have no idea, no conceivable solutions, nary an idea about how do we get out of this mess we find ourselves in. The glass is half empty, not half full. For the first time, the realization has nested within my inner thoughts that there is no hope, no silver lining, no way out, no mana falling from the sky, no rescue operation in the works. We have crossed the Great Divide. The cultural wars are raging, but like the wise Native American chieftains of yore, they foresaw the soldiers and hordes will keep coming and coming and fill the land as far as you can see and keep coming endlessly. It's not if, but when. It's just a matter of time.

Yes, I will fight ferociously, but in fight I know the it is but a insignificant battle, a mere obscure footnote. No plaque will be made to remember Hangman's Tree. We will be but unmarked graves. The War is lost. It's already been decided. That's the real conundrum of cultural cohesive communities. The most important question was not asked. Where do we go from here?

http://claremontindependent.com/photo-vp-violence/

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

re: BillT@11:46PM

https://pics.me.me/heres-a-solution-im-mad-i-dont-want-a-solution-25522553.png

Since my brain is too small to understand anything and needs models to grab onto, I've been considering historic analogies to the system-wide madness that is catching on.

It's probably time to reject any kind of Nazi vs. Communist thing, although the language of WWII is always tempting. Nobody using it has any understanding of the handful of US citizens that wave around Nazi regalia and even less of the real deal for one thing (same with the history of Communism in Russia). They've reduced their world view down to a handful of words. That period in history used millions of people to build quite complex systems.

I've used 'Year Zero' to mark the tearing down of statues, but both Cambodia and the Cultural Revolution in China are lacking in really good similarities.

The internet has added it's own twist to the situation, but a religious war with such odd bedfellows, a media college complex combined with self-interested ethnic groups, is really quite a sight to behold.

My only real guess is that the upshot will consist of stronger centralized control. It's easy to see that disparate communities result in an iron fist in order to maintain a state. There's just too many examples, the Soviet Union, Hapsburg Empire, any African nation that is essentially tribal-based, where the secret police is the life-blood of the ruling system. You just have to hope that the law is fairly applied although the temptation to do otherwise is strong.

Getting people to behave requires either culture or force, and I'm afraid that the latter is on the losing track in the US.

George Rebane

Scenes 610am - The required use of force to maintain multi-cultural societies has been a constant in these pages and a salient part of my credo. In my life and readings I have seen nothing to contradict that, and everything to corroborate it. But the problem with collectivists - socialists, communists, progressives, ... - is that this is one of several critical aspects of human behavior that they never learn. Nay, they must needs always reject it, else their eternal exhortation, 'Yes, but next time we'll get it right.' will fall on deaf ears.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"and I'm afraid that the latter is on the winning track in the US." of course.

Bill Tozer

Scenes @ 6:10 am

"It's probably time to reject any kind of Nazi vs. Communist thing, although the language of WWII is always tempting."

Yep, their's are not perfect examples, not quite being the exact mirror image of either group of "the fascists" and the other "the fascists". I would, if I had had to pick the more accurate example of the Leftists today (Communists or Nazis) , perhaps chose Communism as the closer political and social example (tossing out the economic control of ways and means), while The National Socialist Party of the Nazi's is closer to a mirror image with the brown shirts we see on the streets and, of course, exhibited by our delightful Social Justice Warriors. Or, they all look the same to me. They sure smell the same.

No worries, Scenes, about your small brain unable to grasp the goo without the help of visual aids, ink, and parchment. MY brain is too small to know what I am looking at when Dr. Rebane posts a graph. 8 ball, corner pocket, off side rail is about all I can understand, yet proves of little help in real life application. Darn it, I missed again.


Confused I am. Now what in the tarnation is going on here? Perhaps it is time to toss out the labels. Don't see any Nazis here, nor people carrying pictures of Chairman Mao.

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/1153717394762296/?type=3&theater


Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane:

Concerning your aug22 update to RR archives, which choice are we most likely to pursue. Door #1, Door #2, Door #3, or The Daily Double?

George Rebane, come on down! Where do you think we are heading, like it or not??

"And in that same vein others are asking where do we go from here - what strategy should we fashion and follow into our future? Ian Bremmer, political scientist and global risk strategist at Time, offers answers in his Superpower: Three choices for America’s role in the world (2015). We can become “Independent America” and withdraw as the world’s policeman, minding our own affairs as we minimize our military and concentrate on developing our internal potential. Or “Moneyball America” is our second choice wherein we develop our military and fight terrorism as an equal with a contingent of the willing while wheeling and dealing on the international scene to serve our economic and political interests. Everyone else in our alliance will be doing the same – sort of ‘one for all, and all for one’.

Finally, we may choose to become the “Indispensible America” and make an all-in commitment to international leadership because only we have the means to institute global power balance and create a stable environment for international trade. In short, we will remain the world’s sheriff and become more so to “promote and protect” American values globally. ......

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

re: BillT@12:36

One other choice (choice 4, and there's probably 6,7,8) is to become Byzantium America. Related to Moneyball America but I think philosophically a little different.

The basic idea there is a highly self-interested foreign policy based on money, bribery, sparing use of the military, treaties and the breakage thereof, playing off enemies against each other. An enemy could be anybody.

In short, the normal situation for a large, but not utterly dominant power. Think England avoiding the creation of a hegemon on the continent or the behavior of the Eastern Roman Empire.

During the Cold Civil War, acting in one's self interest appears to be things that only Nazis do, so this has to get put to bed first.

George Rebane

BillT 1236pm - Mr Tozer, I believe the best we can hope for and execute is the 'MoneyBall' strategy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad