Racism, Cultural Degradation, and Misplaced Paranoia Article Thread

[Richard Stanley]

My experience is that some people actually find their worklife fulfilling, and some others end up as workaholics, granted, but without others' encouragement as much as their own desire to escape some other reality :: shrugs ::

The link discussed the deeper notions of Work versus Leisure versus Idleness, and thus our distorted notions of being 'off-work'. And thus a conflict with the notion advanced here of a Golden Age of American Culture as well. Many Americans 'work hard' at being off work and yet we find ourselves ranked so low at Happiness amongst our advanced rival nations. Which ranking BTW also correlates to a sense of societal corruption.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

If I may interject a question, what think ye of the Strauss Howe generational theory that gave us terms like "Baby Boomers," Gen X," and "Millennials"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory

Incidentally, this theory corresponds at least somewhat with Joe, saying that our most recent "High" period in the historical arc was in the post-WWII era

 

[Jerry Russell]

what think ye of the Strauss Howe generational theory

I hadn't heard of it before, and didn't realize that they had coined the popular generational nicknames. I would say that there are cyclical social forces always at work, but that there are many such cycles in operation simultaneously, and also many random perturbations. The idea of a dominant 80-year, 4-generation period strikes me as a grotesque oversimplification.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The idea of a dominant 80-year, 4-generation period strikes me as a grotesque oversimplification.

"There is a season for ALL things."

They actually said that the periodicity was variable based upon externalities, so it appears that the 80 year cycle is an estimated aggregate.

I see the general principle as being quite plausible, as one contributing driver stimulus to collective society. It's frequently commented on how one generation reacts against the parent generation, at least in the individual sense, so why can this general principle apply across a peer cohort?

Another cycle that we've identified is that of colonization and consolidation, but we've never gone into depth to study time periods, or its possible relationship to such as feast and famine.

I thought the following was interesting:

"Strauss and Howe have taken a gamble," argued Kaiser. "If the United States calmly makes it to 2015, their work will end up in the ashcan of history, but if they are right, they will take their place among the great American prophets."[51] [Statement made in 1997 - RS] Kaiser has since argued that Strauss and Howe's predictions have indeed come to pass according to his analysis of events like 9/11,[52] the 2008 financial crisis,[53] and the recent political gridlock.[54]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory​

Of course, we know who the players are in each of the three events and must only determine whether they are organically driven from such as the Strauss and Howe Generational Cycle or are agenda driven and perhaps surfing the cycle. I say the latter.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

Of course, we know who the players are in each of the three events and must only determine whether they are organically driven from such as the Strauss and Howe Generational Cycle or are agenda driven and perhaps surfing the cycle. I say the latter.

There is a phenomenon known as the "observer effect" known to several different fields of study. Once the generational cycle is labeled as such and reaches the level of recognition it has (most people are at least aware of terms like "baby boomer" and approximately where these cut offs are), I think it tends to "become a thing" even if it really wasn't beforehand, but also to then become "a different thing" from whatever it had been before.

More to the point, as historically significant as 9-11 etc are, nothing in recent history has so far been able to compare to a WWII/War Between the States/War of Independence level event (the only three times in US American history when >1% of the population lost their lives). From my vantage point, people are concerned about the possibility that one or the other of our presidential candidates could take us into a nuclear situation, and at a level I have not observed since the Cold War

 

[Richard Stanley]

So where are you going with this?

 

[Richard Stanley]

The following is an excerpt from an interesting article about the Civil War, as relates to American culture, religion, and politics even today. I have some contention with its the author's conclusion, and as well that he neglected some significant matters such as the impact of the German School of biblical criticism upon literalist interpretation within mainline Protestant denominations (thus "liberalizing" them), and the impact of hidden agenda, political players such as the international bankers and others.

The article discusses that both sides used religious arguments to justify their ends, and clergy were at the head of the line. Albeit that there were many clergy who didn't quite know what to say, except perhaps too timid to say that it was all human SNAFU, under the guise of fulfilling the lords' plan that is.

What kept the nation feeding an entire generation into the Civil War’s meat grinder, especially if the war’s endgame prospects were so unclear? The answer, in Stout’s version, was American religion. A war which began as a fairly colorless constitutional dispute over secession was transformed by a tidal wave of “millennial nationalism” into a crusade with no off switch. Faust flips the causal equation. If religion did not exactly drive Americans to war, then war drove Americans to religion as the justification for its lethally expensive costs. “The war’s staggering human cost demanded a new sense of national destiny,” wrote Faust, “one designed to ensure that lives had been sacrificed for appropriately lofty ends.” A nation guided by realpolitik knows when to cut its losses. A nation blinded by the moral gleam of a “fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel” and charmed by the eloquence of a president with an uncanny knack for making his assessment of political problems sound like the Sermon on the Mount, obeys no such limitations.

There is not much questioning the cultural power of religion in America in the Civil War years. Americans at the midpoint of the 19th century were probably as thoroughly Christianized a people as they have ever been. Landscapes were dominated by church spires, and the most common sound in public spaces was the ringing of church bells. American churches jumped to exponential levels of growth. Between 1780 and 1820, Americans built 10,000 new churches; by 1860, they quadrupled that number. Almost all of the 78 American colleges which were founded by 1840 were church-related, with clergymen serving on the boards and the faculties. Even a man of such modest religious visibility as Abraham Lincoln, who never belonged to a church and never professed more than a deistic concept of God, nevertheless felt compelled, during his run for Congress in 1846, to still the anxieties of a Christian electorate by protesting that “I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular … I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion.”

If, in Jefferson’s words, the Constitution had erected a “wall of separation” between the church and the federal government, there was no corresponding wall between church and culture. Closed off from making policy, churches organized independent societies for Bible distribution, for alcoholism reform, for observance of the Sabbath, and for suppressing vice and immorality. And, they grew. By the time the French liberal Alexis de Tocqueville took his celebrated tour of the United States in the 1830s, he was amazed to find that while “in the United States religion” has no “influence on the laws or on the details of political opinions,” nevertheless, “it directs the mores” and through that “it works to regulate the state.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ion-make-the-american-civil-war-worse/401633/​

 

[Marcilla Smith]

War is always a great marketing tool for religion

 

[Richard Stanley]

From my vantage point, people are concerned about the possibility that one or the other of our presidential candidates could take us into a nuclear situation, and at a level I have not observed since the Cold War

Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.

By contrast, Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton could spark World War Three, said Zhirinovsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia's parliamentary election last month.

Many Russians regard Zhirinovsky as a clownish figure who makes outspoken statements to grab attention but he is also widely viewed as a faithful servant of Kremlin policy, sometimes used to float radical opinions to test public reaction.

"Relations between Russia and the United States can't get any worse. The only way they can get worse is if a war starts," said Zhirinovsky, speaking in his huge office on the 10th floor of Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament.

"Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it's war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q​

And besides this odd(?) ass-ociation between Russia and Trump (ala Hitler and Stalin?), Trump has flanked the poor Republicans by forcing them to support him while he drags them down the culturally degrading gutter and into the sewer as he downgrades his talking about grabbing women (married and single) by their genitalia as being mere locker room banter. This evokes Augustus Caesar passing his Christian Family Values laws while sleeping with his enemies' wives.

Also see: http://wonkette.com/607481/texas-congressidiot-just-cant-decide-if-i-like-raping-women-would-be-bad
http://wonkette.com/607481/texas-congressidiot-just-cant-decide-if-i-like-raping-women-would-be-bad
And so who is complaining about the degradation of their culture? The morons supporting Trump? This was, and is, exactly why Jews thought, and think, that the Maccabees (including Josephus) were their nationalist heroes. ... NOT!!!

 

[Lloyd Miller]

The article too often confuses Trump with some of his more militant supporters. For instance, Trump wanting to end porous borders is not anti-Multicultural as some militant supporters might wish, but an attempt to make the American welfare state prosperous for all Americans.

Race nationalists, for instance, must choose between Clinton, a socialist UN worshiping one-worlder, and Trump, a moderate American nationalist. That race nationalists choose Trump in this situation, does not reflect on Trump.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Which article are you referring to?

Do you believe that Trump is being authentic, versus merely pandering to his ignorant core? His core who is so emotionally wrought that it is more important to here what they want from an man who lives to do whatever he wants to anybody he wants. And is great friends with the Clintons to boot? And previously to this was a fairly normative liberal Democrat?

Besides what doesn't reflect on him, what in your mind does reflect of Mr. Trump?

Facts no longer matter anymore, only feelings. This was the experience of Germany, and the cynical result of Romanticism.

Like Obama or not, the flow of Mexicans had turned negative, and Obama was deporting more Latinos (beyond just Mexicans) than Bush ever did. And unless Trump is dumber than a rock, such a wall is only symbolic, expensive, and wasteful. More people end up here by overstaying their visa and other means. Build a wall, dig under the wall.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

 

[Jerry Russell]

For instance, Trump wanting to end porous borders is not anti-Multicultural as some militant supporters might wish, but an attempt to make the American welfare state prosperous for all Americans.

This is an interesting claim, that Trump is not in fact anti-Multicultural. It's true that Trump says he is not a racist, but a quick Google search easily turns up plenty of documentation to the contrary. Some of it is unfair, but I see plenty of cause to be concerned.

One thing we mentioned in the article is that Trump seems mainly concerned about blacks, latinos and muslims, while some of his white nationalist supporters are more concerned about Jews. But, Trump did tweet out an image of Hillary Clinton with a Jewish Star of David and the legend "Most corrupt candidate ever". Trump said it wasn't a Star of David, just a police badge. Maybe so.

Whether all this flowers into a serious attempt to turn back the process of multiculturalism, remains to be seen.

Like Obama or not, the flow of Mexicans had turned negative, and Obama was deporting more Latinos (beyond just Mexicans) than Bush ever did.

I didn't realize this, but according to Snopes, it's true. Under Obama's administration, over 2.5 million undocumented immigrants have been deported through 2015. In addition to the deportations, many are caught in the act of entering, and are sent back without any legal proceedings. The cost of the border patrol and immigration enforcement is currently running $20 Billion per year, and there's already 700 miles of assorted fences and walls on the border. Plus, a staff of 21,000 border patrol agents, which is 9 agents per mile of border.

According to Wikipedia, the result of all this effort is roughly a standoff: the population of undocumented immigrants inside the US is thought to be holding steady.

Building a 1,000 mile wall thirty feet tall and five feet deep at a cost of $25 Billion might seem like an extreme step. But really it's just an incremental increase in an already very expensive operation. In itself, it would have some slight impact on the rate of immigration, but anyone determined to get in would simply choose one of many alternate routes.

Links:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history

http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
http://triblive.com/AmericanCoyotes/

 

[Jerry Russell]

Marcilla's video above is headlined "Trump Immediately Backpedals on Wall", but the document quoted in the video seems to say that congressional aides are asking to meet with Trump to discuss fence-building. It's far from clear that Trump has authorized any change of plans.

Surely there will never be any enormous wall built. The video mentions that border patrol officers prefer fences, for better visibility.

But the question is still -- what is Trump really going to do to save America for white people, when he realizes the wall isn't going to work?

 

[Marcilla Smith]

But the question is still -- what is Trump really going to do to save America for white people, when he realizes the wall isn't going to work?

Add an additional 15 seconds to the Two Minutes Hate?

 

[Richard Stanley]

The ironies never stop. Get ready to grow your own food (EVERYBODY) that is not harvested by machine, because there will be no one left to pick the crops. Americans will not do this work under such conditions unless a gun is put to their heads.

Trump won because of the bias that the Electoral College gives to the red state descendants of the European serfs, who sold their farms to the corporations. The corporations that the Clintons and Trump rub elbows with.

The Clintons are corporatists (yes globalist), from their earliest days in governance in Arkansas (best attested by Roger Morris's Partners in Power). Simply labeling them as Socialists serves little purpose, unless one goes further and makes them Corporate Socialists. They have always worked against the interests of the hoi polloi.

And here is where their elite interest overlaps with good friend Donald Trump, who explicitly stated he has heard Bill Clinton say far worse about women when they play golf together (which has been independently verified by the likes of Danny Glover).

Trump is looking at putting Sarah Palin in the administration. She is the former (quitter) half-governor of the Socialist state of Alaska that gives the oil companies money to the citizens of Alaska (BTW the most violent state per capita in the country).

I'll bet Michelle Bachman makes it in too, she and her closeted gay husband takes us for hundreds of thousands of tax dollars. And Trump doesn't pay any taxes.

 

[Richard Stanley]

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?posts/6842/

 

[Lloyd Miller]

Like Obama or not, the flow of Mexicans had turned negative, and Obama was deporting more Latinos (beyond just Mexicans) than Bush ever did. And unless Trump is dumber than a rock, such a wall is only symbolic, expensive, and wasteful. More people end up here by overstaying their visa and other means. Build a wall, dig under the wall.

No, Obama just changed the definition of deportation. He redefined illegal border crossers turned back at the border deportees.

 

[Lloyd Miller]

But the question is still -- what is Trump really going to do to save America for white people, when he realizes the wall isn't going to work?

Let us be blunt. Borders can only be defended by FORCE and VIOLENCE. Walls are talked about because moderns have lost the taste for violent self-defense of the Nation under "world government" propaganda from the Internationalist elite. "Illegals" stop crossing when they realize the border guards are authorized and eager to kill border violators.

 

[Richard Stanley]

No, Obama just changed the definition of deportation. He redefined illegal border crossers turned back at the border deportees.

Yes, I should have qualified that statement. It's getting hard to know whose narratives to trust these days.

Let us be blunt. Borders can only be defended by FORCE and VIOLENCE. Walls are talked about because moderns have lost the taste for violent self-defense of the Nation under "world government" propaganda from the Internationalist elite. "Illegals" stop crossing when they realize the border guards are authorized and eager to kill border violators.

Do you see The Donald as part of the (your) Solution, or no?

Have you considered that the Internationalist elite have already anticipated just such violence ... and more?

Do you consider it worthy of note that the 'religious patriots', at least, love to frame American history as a redux of the Biblical Conquest of Canaan, via such as divine Providence? We even have cities named Providence and New Canaan. Given the central founding core of Postflaviana regarding the typology of the Flavians to Jesus of Nazareth, could you conceive that maybe the 'International elites' have the grand chessboard already mapped out many moves in advance? And thus the Zealots cum American patriots will be responded to in the same way that the Internationalist Romans did to the Jewish nationalists?

The only difference between then and now is that the global stage is bigger. Back then the Second Coming, and the End Times, came in 70 CE, with the destruction of the Temple. The Jesuits advanced long ago that the (Futurist) End Times will come again. And to start the millennium, the new age, in September 2001 the smoke rose from the Abyss right on time. The war came to the Euphrates, and "two witnesses" failed because of the unending war. (They will be metaphorically 'resurrected' -- because they were just doing their job). Then the Jesuit pope came and stared into the Abyss, the Bottomless Pit, and they announced (in September that a child (the savior) was born), he flies back home looking at a Blood Red Moon. And now we await the 7th Trump-et.

Meanwhile radical fundamentalist Israelis are awaiting the right opportunity to build the second Third Temple, necessary for the Christians (the neoRomans) to destroy again. Is all this just happenstance?