Market Currents
The world suffers from a leadership vacuum which will be all too evident at this weekend's G-20,...
-
Friday, June 25, 2010, 6:15 PM ETThe world suffers from a leadership vacuum which will be all too evident at this weekend's G-20, William Pesek writes. "There’s a sense that the world’s problems are too formidable to fix... What we need is an adult or two in the room to make sure leaders tackle the big challenges of our day. Good luck finding any."
Other date
Latest Articles
This news story has 129 comments:
When he replaced Chamberlain in 1940, FDR's first reaction was "that England didn't have anyone else beside that alcoholic?".
Even though Churchill led England to the victory in WW2, he was still thrown out of 10 Downing Street in 1945's election. British people seemed to prefer that nobody Clement Atlee over the great war hero Churchill back then.
Only much later did people begin to worship him.
----------------------
But it's common for people to take a romantic view of past characters, while bashing current authorities and institutions mercilessly.
We will get our Hitler again, although we probably won't recognize him very quickly. Then, again, maybe we will.
Who was America's greatest leaders? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. Great leaders appear when the party is over and a country begins to fight for its life again.
And FDR would have done well to note Lincoln's comment about Ulysses S. Grant: "What kind of whiskey did you say he drinks? Send a barrel to all the other generals...I can't spare that man. He fights!"
For you to extol the "current" corrupt, incompetent and arrogant leaders is a joke.
Grant's door opened up as a general, not so much as a president.
—Franklin Roosevelt
FDR was an idiot, but had the strength of American forces. Churchill had guts but the British forces were decimated by the end of WWII. Then British voters rewarded Churchill with a loss at the hands of the Labour party.
But all three were creatures of the same day and night cycles.
Your use of the word "private sector" implies that the private sector were somehow inherently efficient while government employees are not smart and hard working. This is simply an idiotic axiom that you are repeating without critically reviewing or otherwise bothering to find any data in support of.
Your use of the word "incentives" also implies that the government needs to provide incentives to the private sector. Thats hypocritical. You either want a free market (i.e., free from government interference) or you do not. Please stop asking for incentives from the rest of us and then pretend you are pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. If you got a little education and applied yourself to a reasonable argument for a change, you might be able to free yourself from these dense uses of the english language.
Look at the military for instance. Out of a US $800b budget it is fairly well known that a full 70% of that goes to so called "private contractors". One of these private contractors is the security company formerly known as Blackwater. Blackwater employees are paid 3 times as much as our military personnel. This does not include the millions paid in profits to their senior management and shareholders. Also employees are free to rape and pillage foreign populations without recourse.
Do you have any data whether Blackwater employees produce more dead enemies than our own military personnel does? Is this what you want to provide incentives for? Do you think this is saving taxpayer any money over using US regulars? Is this helping our international reputation? Reasonable people conclude that most of these "private contractors" are very inefficient and even damaging to the USA. If you think this is what the economy needs more of, I would have to conclude you are an extremely dull person.
Thumbs down rating for Tack's post were probably from 2 types of people.
People who cannot stand any sort of truthful comments about our government or economy, for they only want the stock market to be a manipulated Ponzi scheme that the bankers control (think former Wall Streeters, Bond traders, asset gatherers)
The other people who probably gave Tack thumbs down are all the civil servant, entitlement welfare workers who only want and know the status quo. Smaller, more responsible and fiscally conservative government means an attack on all this government welfare, unions, etc, that are rotting our country from within and cannot be paid for.
Beyond this I simply do not understand how austerity measures will decrease the general unemployment rate. And I have not heard any of the skeptics tackle this problem yet.
There's no in between. In between are brownshirts or Paris mobs, and that's all that can be said for Libertarians and teapot Heads party. You're just a transition point, a symptom, nothing more.
The government is half-responsible for our problems; and 'the private sector' is half-responsible. I don't think I want MORE freedom for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America and AIG and Countrywide Credit. Those are the 'private sector' bastards that cheated and lied and got us into this mess.
I think the government sector should cut down the private sector orchard and we should start over again. We need a good pruning of the private sector, one the so-called financial reform bill didn't really do.
Wake UP. The unions get more and more (yes, many union employees of crappy unions are being screwed, but their bosses continue to get more and more) while the rest of us are paying for it.
Do you realize that the percentage of Federal employees whom make more than $100k per year (for life, with nearly free health insurance that they won't be paying taxes on) has dramatically INCREASED during this "recession?"
The private sector can go out of business. Now, show me the incentive the DMV has to streamline its 'business model' and where exactly is that customer service desk again?
I printed up your entire post. Then shredded it. I will use it for packing material to carefully protect my future turds.
'Austerity' is good. Anything that will shrink the public sector is good. Anything that will reduce the number of public welfare 'employees', both state and federal is good. Anything that will allow private citizens to keep more their own personal private property is good.
Everything else that you post = bad.
~ Mamonides
The problem is that today's designer americans have quaffed the bargain with Mestopholes and accepted endless external laws and their insidious permutations by bureaucrats in exchange for a common, more simplified internal moral code which is now called passé by their media overlords.
The problem can be found here, as all empires have empire-death built into them from the start once the internal moral code is swapped for the neato, look-at-me peer pressure of our more polished(and legal) political glorywhores and brats who coo us into believing the lie that we actually need them. We don't.
1 Samuel 8
Israel Asks for a King
1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”
The problem with a democracy is an element that has not been popularised as its enantiomer "victimhood" has been and that element is the responsibility which goes with representative governance. Oh, we all have more "rights" than you can shake a lawyer at, but responsibilities? The media, that source of government approved information these days, does not seem to stress that issue as people have proven to be relatively reluctant to belly-up to the bar of honest self-accountability as much as they enjoy the fruits of the "rights" which come with the large, but virtually invisible price tag. However, the unpaid balance of this spending largesse accumulated through ignoring this dimension looks curiously like the mounting national debt, or so I would draw the illusion.
Human nature is an interesting thing. They bitch before and they bitch after. They bitch when life was good and complain when it gets worse.
And when they are warned about their own impending choice(I am reminded of Chris Matthews now rejection of Obama prior to his adoration). Well....
"19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
The peer pressure and the need to belong runs deep.
The unions didn't cause the crash of 2001 and 2008: check your facts. Interest rate overmanagement to project an illusion of economic growth was what turned out the lights, not the unions. And, of course, interest rate policy at the Fed was driven by Greed on Wall Street: WE NEED MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME!
You will never get in front of a microphone if you let someone else do the right thing....a Politician lives on microphones, cameras, and perks
I am really gaining popularity on this website now.
Big Businesses' principle is pay the worker as little as possible and raise the prices as much as possible. I don't think that's the future I want. Greed is not a moral principle that will lead us out of this morass. We need MORE Soul in our society, not less -- and Greed by definition eliminates the Soul.
Saddest thing is that instead of the majority standing up and saying, "QUIT HELPING US" they stand up and say, "what you going to do to fix it?"
No wonder I think things are so bleak.
STOP helping us! Please.
Secondly, my government is promising $3B for maternal health care in Africa, but they can't seem to find any money to provide family physicians for the millions of Canadians who are without. Go figure, I work, have my money taken by the government, am refused a doctor because of 'financial constraints on the medical system', am further refused the legal ability to seek medical care in a private marketplace, and then to add insult to injustice, my government takes my tax dollars and provides health care to millions of African women thousands of miles away.
That is the perfect example of why the world, with such a large government presence in all countries, is heading down the road to ruin.
The good news is that a new, more efficent order emerges from the rubble. The bad news is that there is often a great deal of suffering during the process. Our good leaders at the G20 must be aware of this and, perhaps between dinner courses or over fine cognac, will mull over solutions.
Remember Daley in Chicago and paraphrase for reality: "we aren't here to create problems, we are here to preserve problems." The creating happens back on their own patch, often disguised as unintended (not) consequences.
I'm sorry, the politicians' job definition these days consists of merely one activity: get elected or relelected, with sub-activities including not saying or doing anything meaningful for anyone but those who pay for your campaign funding.
Is that a bit cynical? Look at what is going on - not the words, they are always gauged for pop audences - but the actions and results. Health care? Read: guaranteed profits for some. Financial regulation? Read: protection from the most stupid and risky decisions possible, done to max earnings so they can max political contributions and keep the same game going. Immigration? Read: troll for any voters to keep us in power.
Grown-ups don't go into politics. It is a game for people who either haven't learned the practicalities of ideology or have discovered it is the only alternative to "rock star" for celebrity status since they can't sing, play an instrument, or dance too well, either.
This would mean that he's be out of office in most countries, but Canada is a unique place - much of it harkening back to earlier homespun USA themes, despite the hell-bent-for-leather totalitarian multiculturalism of Toronto and Vancouver.
The 'bureaucrats' are those who try to preserve what is. They specialize in the 'status quo'. They worship Vishnu.
Since there are 12 steps in toto: Brahma, 5 + Vishnu, 7 = 12. This means that the first and the last are the same; in fact, the first and the last are Brahma-Vishnu-Siva fused. Sound familiar. The First and Last is the Destroyer who begins the process over again, a god, who sees Past, Present and Future.
H*ll, I'm a Yankees fan and believe they are the best sports franchise in the history of the world, especially superior to any soccer (i.e. "football") team in less developed portions of the world, such as Ghana and the UK.
In my seventh decade, professor. Excuse me, but how does the Hindu religion you cite above relate to the G20 leadership vacuum the article describes? Just how does that work?
If you really ARE interested, take a look at a draft of my book, "Turn Out the Lights'.
www.hoalantrangallery....
Same reality, but Religion, Science and Philosophy describe it in different languages.
Everyone worships something. The choice is up to us.
You must be right. I must have not thought very much about how the world works.
Spald specifically (key word) asks you how to tie in the Hindu reference you offered as response to the lack of talented leadership at the G20 conference and you respond by tossing a book at me to read (your book, no less).
From my experience, that's not how the world works. If one offers an opinion, one seeks to uplift the audience to comprehension if that audience fails to understand. Preferably in 100 words or less.
Indeed, the governments will damage them, severely. And we will all be destroyed along with them.
Today we had the O'hole at the G20 encouraging the world leaders to contain and regulate the banks more as he had his new bill under his belt that he could pet like a hairless cat.
The problem is that the banks aren't lending because of this A Hole's bill that clogged up the system for the last 3 months, contracting money supply in the process. Contract M2 and watch small businesses stagnate. As small businesses stagnate, unemployment only gets worse.
These people are either evil or idiotic or maybe a little of both.
The governments are extremely dangerous right now and are feeling the rush of their own transformative power. It will not end well.
We also tend to believe that only lawyers should serve in government (since government is about passing laws) -- but lawyers are the second-biggest crooks in our society (being the lackeys of the biggest crooks, the ones who buy their expensive services so they can break the laws and not go to jail) so we end up electing crooks whose goal is to feather their own nests. Lawyers, also, are the millionaires.
We don't need elections to last years. We could have every primary on the same night of the year -- all this traveling across the country from state-to-state just costs money and makes candidates whores to the rich. With our current state of technology we can elect people quickly and relatively inexpensively.
Simplify. Look for quality of character in candidates. Try to get past the surface smarm of the false wholesomeness that Americans seem to love. It's this same quality that Evangelists use on Americans to make millions while they perform every perversion on the face of the earth, then cry to the American people begging forgiveness. Smarmy natures mean deceit, falseness, evil, duplicitness (see John Edwards in the dictionary next to 'smarmy' -- and Jim Baker).
Proclaimed, projected 'morality' is confused with substance -- being a 'good man', being 'one of us', does not get us the best leaders most of the time. It usually gets us a used-car salesman with higher ambitions for himself and his family. Get beyond the image of things, to the core. Very hard, but you can't have good leaders if you want to live on the shiny surface of things. Great leaders are often imperfect human beings -- and our reliance on the surface image, the superficial plastic glow, means that depth of character is often confused for 'strangeness', a 'foreign' quality, while 'commonness' is often confused for 'comfort', for 'liking him as a person'.
What all great leaders have in common is depth: depth of vision, depth of understanding, depth of character, compassion, anger, decency. If you admire superficiality as a culture -- the shiny surface of things, the smile, the laughter, the happy ending only -- you will always have false leaders, with no depth. The Hollywood ending (avoiding facing the tragedy inherent in life) does not produce genius -- it produces a false, extended childhood -- and leaders who smile and tell us everything will always be good, while they rake in money for themselves and forge alliances with the devils of the society. Lying, cheating and stealing with a smile is very easy, especially when you are taught that this is the secret of success, as lawyers are -- this is the essence of our current legal system.
Superficiality is the enemy of a great culture. Ingest a little tragedy as a culture -- understand that we are both light and darkness, joy and sorrow, heroism and failure -- let Disneyland go. Depth of understanding is what Nature requires before she provides us with rebirth.
What we have is a lot of sheep, and they don't want a shepherd who actually thinks he is smarter than them cause that would hurt their self esteem. What they tell themselves is they are afraid the smart guy might be an elitist even if there is little actual evidence of that. They look for someone they would feel comfortable having a beer with. With all their great wisdom, they usually end up with Ivy League-educated elitists trained in the art of acting, er, politics. The voters don't question why some candidates are much better financed than others.
Congrats on making it to the top 20! Not sure how long you've been there.
"Don't worry. Be happy."
Just open the newspaper and see the truth of why things are as bad as they are:
The long lines at the Apple store for the latest I-Phone.
And in that line? The majority of Americans who are earning between $9.25 and $15 an hour, thinking that they are important because the keep buying the latest gadgets.
Each and every day we get confirmation that the top 10% of our country controls and owns 90% of its net worth.
Each day we get confirmation of how people confuse "looking important" with actually "being important". Everything is this country is one big TMZ celebrity associated web site.
Known fact: The nations #1 employer of the population: Wal-Mart.
Where the average employee earns just $10 / hour.
The massive government sponsored dumbing down of our country has been 100% successful on every level. I am almost astonished that it really worked. But it did.
Politicians have no incentive to change a thing. Why should they? The people seem more than happen to live a life of complete and utter mediocrity or outright poverty.
Food stamps? OMG that is so 'en vogue! (Ever see the average food stamp recipient? Their cars are pretty hot and of course they are very busy on their I-phones, checking their Facebook accounts as they are on the check out line)
On unemployment? Wait. People actually still work for a living?
On disability? Throw yourself under a bus. Try it. Why not? It hurts at first but once you're all better, you can sip Mohitos by the pool all day.
No net worth? Not a problem. Those who have will be forced at gun point to hand over all theirs.
The only way things are going to change, is when the majority of people have had enough, want things to change.
When you see tons of leadership programs being offered by the Ivy League Colleges across the country, you know what? Leadership is like what you see on TV exemplified by the Dancing With The Stars (DWTS). [Not Distinguished Member of Technical Staff (DMTS)].
Leadership = Self-Promotion + Contrive + Sales + Milking + Plundering
One may want to ask a legitimate question: If the Ivy League Colleges are producing so many leaders from their Leadership Programs, years after years, then how would our country be still in such economic, social, political, environmental, and military dire straits?
There is something wrong there, obviously.
All right, maybe not that severe - but they may be completely successful in their universe while we see it otherwise. After all, who says the "problems" we recognise are not the "solutions" devised by those "leaders" for their purposes?
All media does that, Small Stream Media also. But MSM is owned by the very richest people in our world, people who don't really want anything to change. These are the people Ben Bernanke is trying to protect, the people Greenspan protected, the people whose club Obama is desperate to join, not reform -- at least it seems that way. People with whom the Bushes all partied.
The rich ARE different. They want it ALL. And they want to keep it all. How do they do this? They create a 'reality' which we all support even when it stops benefiting us.
In America, today, all of our leaders have to be consecrated by the media. They have to be popularized by the media. In America, being 'popularize' by the media means becoming rich. Our leaders are all fascinated by how they look on television. Nothing is real unless we see it on television first.
Myopia is a form of Narcissus watching television and falling in love with the images he sees.
Thank you for these insights.
I only wish that William Shakespeare is alive today to write another one of his Great Tragedies - - - one perhaps to be the Greatest of all Great Tragedies.
TK
You missed my point.
Using sales techniques to drive revenues is America's strength. Politicians and so-called political leaders relying solely sales pitching and image building to get elected breeds C O R R U P T I O N.
$15T national deficit + annual account deficit + annual trade deficit + 10% unemployment +10% underemployment is testimony to their deeds.
seekingalpha.com/insta...
You all have a nice day !
I agree about lawyers. Why do we have so many lawyers. Because we have so many crooks. Lawyers live off a crooks like cockroaches live off of trash and crumbs. No question.
Are Americans 'smart'? Are they less 'smart' that Europeans? Or Latin Americans? That's a hard call. People everywhere like comfort. They'll usually follow the leaders who make them comfortable. All humans in every country labor under Nature's illusion, that the right wing sees the world accurately, or that the left wing sees the world accurately. If you have an ideology, you only see part of the world, and you fuel this vision with your emotion. You are 100% smart for the small world you see -- but you are 0% smart for the larger worlds you don't see.
Leadership, by definition, I would think, implies the largest vision. "Follow me!" the leader says. "I know it's dark. But I can see in the dark!"
Why have our leaders failed us? I think it's more about the world turning dark on them. It has become Night. None of the tricks they used to follow are working any longer. They can't see where to go. Some say "follow Keynes"; some say "follow the Austrians". Some say: "We are libertarians. We follow no one." Others say: "We need another Hitler!"
Strong leadership is a double-edged sword. Some leaders lead you to Heaven (remember Moses, for instance, who led his people to the Promised Land but did not enter himself); others lead you straight into Hell (Hitler, for instance; Pol Pot; Mao Tse Tung). If you need a scapegoat, to make your ideology work, then you might be heading to hell.
Wake up.
You've been spoonfed baby food at the cliche farm.
Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as an ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays' Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he wrote that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."[17] In contrast to Jefferson's sentiments George Washington, who at the time was urging many through letters about forming a better and more energetic national government through the union of the states, in a letter to Henry Lee wrote in regards to the rebellion, "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."
Soon after we had a Constitution instead of the "Articles of Confederation". So in my opinion, the Constitution was a move torward's more government and more order (not Libertarian crap)..
In respect of the vision of the founding fathers, we have strayed so far as to just as well elect George IV as president. Oh, we did? sorry. No, I'm not referring to George II.
We have now transmogrified from Jefferson's dream to Hamiton's ideal - not exactly a change that is welcome amongst the circles of those that prefer Liberty. Statists, however, love the trend and accomplishments to date and are looking for more to come. I belong to the former camp and sorely miss the eloquence of financial stewardship with integrity.
When I was young, life was better because my neighbors took matters into their own hands.
You behaved badly at their home, you got your butt paddled and weren't invited back.
Now we call in counselors, and cops.
We need LESS government and MORE personal accountability.
Libertarians believe in the Constitution and the RIGHT to take care of yourself.
You believe the government is the only one that can take care of you. How's that working for you so far?
But try telling that to the POTUS.
The problem we face is that so-called anarchists appear to be disguised statists with violence in their eyes... as they have been for decades.
I'm surprised you're advocating this Zorrow. You always seem to be the covetous, "I want what my neighbor has" type. Refreshing to see you embrace self-determination.
After the downsize, the tree will become more healthy and then return to graceful growth of new and youthful branches. But we must act NOW and SOON!
"The Answer to your suggestion and question, my friend, is blowing in the wind" - lyrics from a hit song.
The States should have the power to do a lot more. Washington by contrast should just be a symbolic reference and its 'employees' should only have pinky fingers, all their other fingers cut off, when they write bills.
We're stuck in the middle of the "I Want To Be A Great Empire" roller coaster ride. During this ride, everything gets bigger and bigger: businesses, governments, armies, egos, debt load.... We can't go back to the beginning -- the small government and small business and small army -- until we complete the ride. It won't be much fun. We have already had the fun part. We still have the suspension of a democratic government, emperors running amok, more foreign war, more tyrants abusing power, the appearance of a messiah, the impending invasion by angry goths.... We can't go back to the ideal "Small is Beautiful" just yet -- not until we are pushed there by historical necessity.
Read the history of Rome. That seems to be our shadow-system.
I suspect that not only must there be a virtual revolution amongst the populace, but an elimination of private funding of elections in order to ever see any size of US government smaller than the Gargantua we have today.
Of course, what might be left after the much rumoured, expected, and filmed 2012 cataclysms, even if they do not become the second Great Flood, might go some length toward paring things down to size. However, one doubts that this is the driving force many folks desire in our preference for governments which cost under 5-10% of GDP.
LBJ.
They paved over the Constitution.
Now everyone just walks over it, hidden under 6 feet of concrete.
Maybe you should nickname it too if its so human. Call it Bojangles or Sparky.
Naw. Sorry MC. Its a clear cut document written in simple, plain language, the gist of which is to limit the clearly enumerated powers of government to their respective roles.
Sure the left has perverted it into a 'living, breathing' document along with their cohorts, the courts, to the point where now the constitution is so diluted its not even relevant anymore. Today it means whatever you want it to mean or however you wish to pander to a specific electoral outcome. It means everything and anything and nothing at the same time. Perfect example is the 'general welfare' clause. Piss poor literary exegesis. They can pull it off though. Why? Because most of their voting base has no basic recollection of American history.
Perhaps that was their point the entire time, eh?
Liberal from root word derivative of liberty(ie freedom). Even Merriam's has perverted it now to today's colloquialism. A cheap bastardization of historical ignorance.
The Constitution was written to keep a boot on government's throat. NOT the other way around to ever expand it through some false 'ever expanding' of powers idea discovered by today's left making it a living, breathing, farting, alzheimer patient.
Do some research. The (old) republican party was the freedom movement that fought to end slavery. The democrat party were the resisters from the old south. You've bought the left's cliff notes and it makes you sound foolish.
As far as voting rights, I think they should be limited to tax payers only. If the government is going to ever increase their erosion of property rights through unrepresentative taxation, then the only ones who should have the franchise are the ones who pay the damn bills. Pretty basic common sense. You disagree?
And, I'm not sure the term "liberal" is as apt as "progressives", the one used prior to the whitewash change in the late 40's and early 50's. At the time of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were Liberals and I find none of their respect and reverence for generation spanning principles relevant to the so-called "liberals" of today.
Sorry, guys: the 1770's aren't coming back. Our founding fathers wanted a government and a sociey that could respond to change; if they didn't they would have fought to sustain the monarchy. The right thinks the left is the monarchy that has to be defeated; the left thinks the right is the monarchy that has to be defeated. That is good. That's what a democracy is.
A society can LOOK back; but if it tries travel back it's dead.
Its why I find the Center for 'American Progress' such a hilarious misnomer. Everything they stand for is retrograde, not progress. In fact, socialism is retrograde. Look at Europe. And why is it dying? Is that ... progress? Its cathedrals are dead museums. There is no more social cohesion, no common belief system, no core values. Its a dead culture. Of course the welfare state is going to rise up. That's what replaces a common faith when that faith dies. And it bankrupts the society every time.
To you, Michael, backwards is forwards. To you, Michael, down is up. To you, Michael, slavery is freedom.
You are the comic book character in 1984.
The only way for our society to be saved is to go back to what this country was founded on, a limited government, if we are to survive. That's what the markets are all saying. Wake up. Governments have all grown too large. Governments have all become much too corrupt in their power lust. The simplicity of doing things for yourself and relying on no one just isn't popular anymore. That's our main problem. And that's what's causing us to reach insolvency faster than any other cause.
You call all these things 'good things'. I call them evil. If that's too harsh a word, other derivatives are; lazy, destructive, complainers, victims(self made/self promoted), dependent, helpless, uncaring, numb and lost. These are what people look like who have lost their faith. America has lost its way.
The only way to progress is to revisit what we one were, what we used to be. I'm not sure its possible. In that sense you are right. But there is no other choice. What you are saying is that default and dissolution are inevitable. That may be as is the case in all societies. But unlike you, I don't call it a good thing. I call it for what it is. A lack of faith = empire destruction. No social cohesion. No social responsibility. No caring for the common good since there is no 'common' idea or notion and again, these young kids look up and ask, 'What is 'good'?'
And that lack of clarity is ultimately the problem. Social norms become arbitrary, subjective and cheap. And we require an endless interpretation to enunciate those social norms as we complicate them to ridiculous levels of irrelevance. And that's what lawyers are for and courts and judges who are all just bought agents of the subjective left. When you can't abide by the 10 commandments, you are cursed as a slave to abide by the five million fifteen.
And why do we reinterpret the simple? So that we don't have to follow the simplicity of the Constitution. When we can get around it, we can do anything we want. So, make it a 'living, breathing' document because society has changed. Don't force society to change. Force a document to change. Complicate it. Put words in there that aren't. Make 'general welfare' mean anything and everything. Make it mean transfer payments, make it mean a progressive income tax system. Make it mean Obamacare. Make it mean General Motors. Make it mean 99 weeks of unemployment. Make it mean anything Nancy Pelosi wants it to mean.
That's your living breathing idea.
And its a joke.
Social welfare/warfare states whether called socialist, communist, fascist are all just different masks for the same face, the face of looters. Even with solidarity, the looters destroy productivity, and when debt can no longer produce new productivity and consumption has burned through capital, the standard of living declines and the people must undergo austerity. When this occurs, they always wind up resenting each other and a break up is the outcome (USSR, and now the EU).
Going back in time to some utopia that has never existed is no the argument here, but the real goal is going back to a path that leads to a future of freedom.
___
First of all, I don't think the markets are all-wise. People with money don't like something and won't 'buy' it, so the society needs to follow the rich or else? If that's the logic we want to follow, then elect Donald Trump the new emperor and go steal oil from Iraq and Kuwait.
No thanks. It's ok if the markets don't like something. I don't think the 'markets are God's law' really works, since God's Son essentially said that following the markets was following the Devil.
The only way to go forward is to go back, you say. Sounds like a counter-reformation to me. Hitler wanted to go all the way back to medieval German mythology.
Society clearly is changing and has been changing -- and the laws of the society also have changed. To rigidly refuse to change because the past is better than the future is the glory of old men and the epitaph of the society, for that condition is called rigor mortis.
You want to force society to go back to a 200-year old reality? With slavery and all the wonders that went along with the 'perfect world' of 1776? Abolish history? I think you are missing the point of Orwell, Wyatt.
Who abolishes history? Those who reject human imperfection: the totalitarians. The left and the right are both potential totaltarians unless balanced by their opposites, the other potential totalitarians.
What is the anecdotal defnition of a totalitarian? When he begins to lose an agument, he begins slurring his opponent with insults so that people will not notice he is losing his argument.
Such must already be the case if the current president of the US can order the murder of citizens without due process. Under those old fogeys of Mr. Clark's thoughts, the Founding Fathers, the Rule of Law and (apparently outmoded) principles of honour disallowed such totalitarian activities. Given the ability of the state to murder as it likes, I guess Mr. Clark has his brave new world.
As the day flows into the night and the night flows into the day, the future will flow out of the present and won't look very much like the past except in th marketplaces and in the graveyards.
The only thing a human being cannot endure is perpetual prosperity.
If I could I would have elected Steve Jobs over the ridiculous community organizer we have now. Mr. Jobs was very efficient. He believed in relentless innovation, customer satisfaction, overseas sweatshops to keep profits high for shareholders, and trendy macrobiotic diets. A bit pretentious, but that's acceptable compared to the weirdo we have now as TOTUS. I also would have voted for Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller or Heinz over FDR, LBJ, Carter or Clinton. No question. And Trump? Look at how he brought back the gentry into broken neighborhoods and raised the tax base back from the dead. No public money required. At least he's not touting the benefits of welfare. At least he's not stealing from the taxpayer to do what he did. He almost went bankrupt twice and made it all back without incurring public accountability, something our cheap suits in DC could learn.
Give me a pig farmer for president any day of the week over the 535 mostly professional lawyer class of clowns we have now.
"No thanks. It's ok if the markets don't like something. I don't think the 'markets are God's law' really works, since God's Son essentially said that following the markets was following the Devil." - MC
Show me where He said that. Love of mammon is one thing, but Paul's counsel to work with one's own hands or to not eat is pretty sound and the epitome against all out statist freebie welfare. As a tent maker with bleeding hands, he wasn't a televangelist either. Or are you referring to when Jesus drove out the kiosk market in the temple? He didn't drive them out in the non-temple. Just the temple. Big difference.
Perhaps you just have never read any basic Calvinism. Free will is not ursurped by God. God is not a dictator. He didn't create blow up dolls or robots. He valued free will and choice over central command and control ideology. Washington would make God very angry.
As for free markets, sounds to me like Jesus was also very anti-union:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, “You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.” So they went. He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, “Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?” “Because no one has hired us,” they answered. “He said to them, “You also go and work in my vineyard.”
When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, “Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.” The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. “These men who were hired last worked only one hour,” they said, “and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.” But he answered one of them, “Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” So the last will be first, and the first will be last. (Matt. 20:1-16)"
Jesus didn't believe in the power of the mob. I know, right! Who would have thought? It was only a mob that murdered Him, right?
Jesus sounds like Hoffa's government sponsored tactics of today were on His hit list.
"The only way to go forward is to go back, you say. Sounds like a counter-reformation to me. Hitler wanted to go all the way back to medieval German mythology." - MC
Hitler was a joke. He borrowed the old Volk lore culture because he knew it would be easy to rally around, using the Teuton icons. Similar to Obama's Orb if you ask me. Dictators like symbols.
But, you fail. Sorry, you invoked Godwin's law first. I guess that means you lose now.
"Society clearly is changing and has been changing -- and the laws of the society also have changed. To rigidly refuse to change because the past is better than the future is the glory of old men and the epitaph of the society, for that condition is called rigor mortis." - MC
There's a lot of the past that is better than the present. And there's a lot of the present that's better than the past. Time is irrelevant. What is relevant is what works. Limited government is what works. Its what this country was founded on, what makes it strong and the economy dynamic and vibrant. The bigger government gets, the smaller its growth becomes. If you think 24 - 26% of public spending is good in relation to the overall economy, unemployment will remain high because of it. I prefer public spending to be much lower, say 15 - 18% and employment to be higher. We just have a different belief system.
"You want to force society to go back to a 200-year old reality? With slavery and all the wonders that went along with the 'perfect world' of 1776? Abolish history? I think you are missing the point of Orwell, Wyatt." - MC
I'm pretty sure Lincoln took care of that one. Might want to check the history books. I'm also pretty sure that over 600,000 dead bodies after the CW were a resounding rebuttal of and a testament against a racist America, considering that slavery was accepted worldwide at the time and was imported from Africa and Europe. By contrast, America stood out as noticeably different. Tell that to Al Sharpton or Jesse.
"Who abolishes history? Those who reject human imperfection: the totalitarians." - MC
Those who reject human imperfection? Who's doing that? The Constitution was written with an admission of human imperfection built into it. It was understood that with humans in government, power corrupts and unchecked power corrupts completely. That's why the Constitution created 3 separate but equal powers to check each other. Those who reject that notion are the totalitarian left. Perhaps that's what you meant to say, but I'm glad I could clarify it for you and any others here who wish to read it.
"What is the anecdotal defnition of a totalitarian? When he begins to lose an agument, he begins slurring his opponent with insults so that people will not notice he is losing his argument. " - MC
Come on MC. Nothing wrong with an insult or two. Iron sharpens iron, right? And I think you know I already like you, which is why I take the time to respond.
No question Steve Jobs was good AT WHAT HE DID. The key is the highlighted part. Because he was good at running a computer company does not mean he would be a good architect. Leo Tolstoy was good at being a novelist. Does that mean Russia should have made him the Tsar? Not so sure.
Same applies to Donald Trump. He is good (sometimes) at manipulating people in the real estate market, getting his profit. But getting a profit is his only motive apparently. Getting a profit is not the sum total of what governing is about. He also wants to get America its profit by fighting wars with Iraq and Kuwait -- where would that end? -- to steal oil from them. Is military will and morality the same thing? I don't think our founding fathers would go along with that kind of scam: since we don't seem to be creative any longer, and all our glorious Wall Street risk-takers are now bankrupt or in prison, let's just use our military to steal resources from anyone weaker than we are. Not where I want America to go.
Give me a pig farmer for president any day of the week over the 535 mostly professional lawyer class of clowns we have now. WJ.
I'm not sure I want lawyers running my government either. I think there are other ways to get there, however, than by canvassing for pig farmers -- wasn't Jimmy Carter's brother a pig farmer? Careful what you wish for.
Show me where He said that. Love of mammon is one thing, but Paul's counsel to work with one's own hands or to not eat is pretty sound and the epitome against all out statist freebie welfare. As a tent maker with bleeding hands, he wasn't a televangelist either. Or are you referring to when Jesus drove out the kiosk market in the temple? He didn't drive them out in the non-temple. Just the temple. Big difference. WJ
As I say, modern Christianity's view that power and wealth in the world is Jesus's gift are mistaken. Remember Jesus in the wilderness. Satan tempted him by offering to give him power over the Earth, wealth, pleasure... Christianity became Paul's religion, not Jesus's religion. And Rome became the servant of Satan, judging from Jesus' wilderness experience. "You have to be practical, realistic." This is what Satan whispers to the human soul when he's trying to decide which rode to take. The spiritual path is never practical. Pragmatism IS the deal with Satan (with Saturn).
Perhaps you just have never read any basic Calvinism. Free will is not ursurped by God. God is not a dictator. He didn't create blow up dolls or robots. He valued free will and choice over central command and control ideology. Washington would make God very angry. WJ
I'm not much of a Calvanist -- I was raised a Catholic, and I've fallen away from Catholicism, but not so much as to embrace Calvinism, which seems like a manifestation of Paul to me.
Jesus said: "Look at the flowers. They don't work; and God takes care of them."
Paul said: "If they don't work, let them starve." (Parrot Phrase.)
Paul is practical -- and his pragmatism leads to ruling the Earth. But ruling the Earth means you lose your place in heaven.
As for free markets, sounds to me like Jesus was also very anti-union:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, “You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.” So they went. He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, “Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?” “Because no one has hired us,” they answered. “He said to them, “You also go and work in my vineyard.”
When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, “Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.” The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. “These men who were hired last worked only one hour,” they said, “and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.” But he answered one of them, “Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” So the last will be first, and the first will be last. (Matt. 20:1-16)" WJ
Parables can be read literally. But a parable is like an act of magic: the magic is actually done by making the audience look at something else.
This parable says that the highest, most evolved come last, not first. The pioneers, the foundation stone, the first to arrive, the fundament -- and the fundamentalists -- are the least evolved. The last (remember: "I am the first and the last"?) are the crown, the fruit of the tree.
Jesus didn't believe in the power of the mob. I know, right! Who would have thought? It was only a mob that murdered Him, right? WJ
Jesus was not murdered by a crowd. He was murdered by the angry Jewish rich who feared his reformation -- feared losing their Wall Street -- and by a cabal of Saducees who were supposed to have a monopoly on all miracles and magic acts in the kingdom. The Romans went along because they wanted peace in their colony; peace meant keeping the collaborators in place (sort of like us in Vietnam).
Jesus sounds like Hoffa's government sponsored tactics of today were on His hit list. WJ
Jesus was NOT a political revolutionary -- except in the sense that his spiritual revolution was threatening the religious power establishment in Jerusalem. The left wing hated Jesus because he did not want to participate in a guerrilla war against Rome. We know why the right wing hated him -- he threatened their rule by showing his spiritual magic was more powerful than was the stale old Patriarchal magic of the Jewish establishment.
Jesus was a hippie, practicing free love, drug use, esoteric mysticism AND communism. Jesus resided with the poor, not with the powerful. He gave his vision to the poor, because he knew they would rise and the corrupt Father Religion would fall away.
Hitler was a joke. He borrowed the old Volk lore culture because he knew it would be easy to rally around, using the Teuton icons. Similar to Obama's Orb if you ask me. Dictators like symbols. WJ
Hitler was NO JOKE. He was the Devil incarnate. He invoked Teutonic myths because he knew where to find the primitive (Prime val) soul of the Germans. Hitler was a master magician. He was the destroyer in the Aryan trinity: Brahma creates -- our Republicans; Vishnu preserves -- our Democrats; and Siva destroys. Who will be our Siva? Obama is no Siva.
But, you fail. Sorry, you invoked Godwin's law first. I guess that means you lose now. WJ
Winning and losing. That is the Alpha-Male's reason for being. I invoke Hitler because he is a magnificent archetype of the reactionary mind that hates modernity, hates the modern idea of humanity, and finds the way to destroy the world through this attempt to resurrect the past.
Who is this Godwin anyway? Doesn't he know God always wins? Even when he invokes the name Shit-Called-Gruber.
There's a lot of the past that is better than the present. And there's a lot of the present that's better than the past. Time is irrelevant. What is relevant is what works. Limited government is what works. Its what this country was founded on, what makes it strong and the economy dynamic and vibrant. The bigger government gets, the smaller its growth becomes. If you think 24 - 26% of public spending is good in relation to the overall economy, unemployment will remain high because of it. I prefer public spending to be much lower, say 15 - 18% and employment to be higher. We just have a different belief system. WJ
Time is irrelevant? Only when you are dead.
Think of government as a star. The hotter it burns the bigger it gets. But there is no way to go back to its origins except through the long hard road of its life-cycle. The individual man, as he hits middle age, also would like to go back, to get small again, to unwind his mistakes. It can't be done. The path of time doesn't unwind, except through death.
Government can pulse larger and pulse smaller. But you really don't want to have the government to get too small...because this will happen right before the goths and the visigoths invade.
I'm pretty sure Lincoln took care of that one. Might want to check the history books. I'm also pretty sure that over 600,000 dead bodies after the CW were a resounding rebuttal of and a testament against a racist America, considering that slavery was accepted worldwide at the time and was imported from Africa and Europe. By contrast, America stood out as noticeably different. Tell that to Al Sharpton or Jesse. WJ
Yes, Wyatt, but it was those damn liberals who wanted to abolish slavery, not the business leaders on Wall Street who only wanted to expand their profit. They supported the Civil War only if they could make money off it. The death of Americans didn't matter: what mattered was how to turn tragedy into money. Donald Trump is of the same mind, in fact.
I know America didn't create slavery. It certainly juiced the market for awhile. But it has never been the stolid business patriarchs who have demanded social change, unless the established way was keeping them from profiting. It is ALWAYS the liberals -- the women's party -- that brings about social progress, such as universal education -- are you against that also? -- and abolition of slavery, child labor laws. That's the side of the ledger you say has ruined America and hijacked the constitution.
Those who reject human imperfection? Who's doing that? The Constitution was written with an admission of human imperfection built into it. It was understood that with humans in government, power corrupts and unchecked power corrupts completely. That's why the Constitution created 3 separate but equal powers to check each other. Those who reject that notion are the totalitarian left. Perhaps that's what you meant to say, but I'm glad I could clarify it for you and any others here who wish to read it. WJ
AND the totalitarian right also rejects the notion of equal power dispersed through 3 branches of government. In fact, as I said, the totalitarians on the LEFT and the RIGHT are a threat to our democracy. I support a balance of power and a sharing of power: Father-force (Right) runs the Day-Cycles; Mother-force (Left) runs the Night Cycles. Current Night-Cycle runs from 2001-2019. It doesn't matter so much who runs the government as long as they don't destroy the balance-mechanism by slipping into totalitarianism and civil war.
Come on MC. Nothing wrong with an insult or two. Iron sharpens iron, right? And I think you know I already like you, which is why I take the time to respond. WJ
I like you also, Wyatt. But I don't think insults are EVER called for. It is an attempted totalitarian bully tactic designed to reduce a rational argument to a shouting match and to turn the mob on by appealing to their lower instincts, the visceral instincts that don't reason. I don't think I've ever insulted you, Wyatt. Your calling me a comic book character from 1984 -- I don't know what that means. 1984 was the time of resurgent Republicanism. Which comic book character. I have as many sides to my nature as your have Wyatt; I don't consider you a comic book character. You wish to reduce by comic ridicule. I find it churlish, and a sign of frustration and anger. There is a time for frustration and anger, I admit. But we really don't sharpen our swords by calling each other names.
You write: "Words matter, but not to you...."
I assure you Wyatt, you will never meet another person in your life to whom words matter more than I. And because words DO matter, let's not sink into the populist mud of slurring and mud-slinging in our use of words. Lets keep our swords sharp by jousting with ideas, not with insults, which are too common to be elevated into a metaphor of swordsmanship.
The elitism you HATE is merely a reflection of the anti-elitism you LOVE -- that is, a different form of the same spirit of elitism.
LOL.
Was Zaccheus poor? What about the rich tombstone He was buried in? Or did Jesus just have rich friends somewhere, behind the scenes? The tax collectors were also a part of the 12. Jesus wore fine robes(the ones with a single stitch). Yeah, sorry, I read the Bible. That's what's in there. Is He then a hypocrite? Or are you just confused?
Talk to you s'more later.
I'm not saying everyone has to live that way -- but to be a true Christian, and follow Jesus, not Paul, one would have to. The hippies are/were more 'true' Christians than the moderrn Catholics and Protestants, who are more Paulians or even Romans, in their love of worldly power.
When Jesus returns he will not be friends with the modern religions he finds, nor with the American Empire, which looks an awful lot like the Roman Empire of his earlier days.
Matthew 6:24-34 (Luke 12:24-27): 24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, `What shall we eat?' or `What shall we drink?' or `What shall we wear?' 32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.
* Mammon is the name of an ancient Deity worshiped by the Sumerians. He is the God of wealth and his name translates as "property".
Mark 8:36 "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
Matthew 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If you will be perfect, go and sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Acts 4:35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
___
I don't know where you get this. Have I said I am against the rule of law and support totalitarian politics? I think you should read more carefully what I write if you want to infer such conclusions to me.
___
Under those old fogeys of Mr. Clark's thoughts, the Founding Fathers, the Rule of Law and (apparently outmoded) principles of honour disallowed such totalitarian activities. Given the ability of the state to murder as it likes, I guess Mr. Clark has his brave new world.
___
I don't know where you get this. Have I said I am against the rule of law and support totalitarian politics? I think you should read more carefully what I write if you want to infer such conclusions to me.
In fact I admire the Founding Fathers. I wish for the time when we will have gone forward far enough in our history to discover the Romantic Autumn Geniuses of our history also -- as we have already been blessed by the Renaissance Spring Geniuses. True Genius is found only in the times of balance and unity of the two opposing natures represnted outwardly by our two political parties.
The Renaissance Spring and the Romantic Autumn are the two times of the fluorishing of genius in our time scheme.
From my book "Two and One Half Loves":
Spring and Autumn represent the Equality of Men and Women -- the androgynous nature of the Soul, an equal balance of Masculine and Feminine qualities: Reason and Imagination -- hence, Beauty, Love, Art, and Culture thrive. The "body" of this period is the city-state balanced with Nature. It is a time of both material and spiritual grace.
Summer represents the imbalance of the world in favor of the Masculine Principle: Aristotlean Science, Engineering, Reason, Dry, Brittle, Austere Masculine Religion of the Sun. The focus of this season is the study and the exploitation of the knowledge of the Earth. It is monolithic and monotheistic: the One God in the Day Sky is the Sun, a Father Deity. Spengler's 'World-City', the Megalopolis, is the 'body' worn by the Cultural Summer: the ultimate expansion into the gigantic Ego Center walled off from Nature. It is a time of material plenty, but spiritual despair.
Winter represents the imbalance of the world in favor of the Feminine Principle: Metaphysic, Platonic Philosophy, Art, Poetry, Moist, Supple, Generous and Tolerant Religion of Nature (the Earth/Moon). The focus of this season is the study and the exploitaiton of the knowledge of the Heavens (Astrology). This period is polytheistic: the Many Gods in the Night Sky create a literal universe of divine entities, all guided by a protective Mother. The City broken down to many villages, many small star-centers, scattered across the Earth, dominated by Nature, overgrown -- much as the body of Osiris is dismembred and scattered across the earth. It is a time of physical famine -- and famine-nests. But it is a time of spiritual plenty.
Monotheistic persecution of polytheism (and paganism) is essentially Masculine suppression of the Feminine world-view. It is a kind of historical wife-beating. And when we return to our study of CODA in the next chapter, we will want to look for evidences of this historical wife-beating to make its appearance in the worlds and philosophy of the narrator. In 1983, the Sun-God is reborn. Order, based on the Day-Cycle -- orthodox, monotheistic, and Sun-centered -- will rule from 1983-2001. It will then, again, rule from 2019-2037.
While the illusion is poetic, the ebb and flow of creative and inhibitive factors appears to be more spread across generational issues; and while the description of each can be couched in such seasonal descriptors, the current forces confronting us do not necessarily conform to that picture.
However, I suspect that the circumstances which will allow a less materialistic basis for decisions and temporal "principles" will require a radical re-ordering of the current cultural platform in the western world, requiring a series of events about which speculation is less than helpful as such things often become self-fulfilling prophecies or they are acted upon with that intent.
I'd be happy to see a world which, once again, relied on principles and decision bases which are not founded upon Machiavellian or Corporatist references to "what's in it for me", rather employing rationales based on less materialistic principles without the overriding semi-totalitarianism of the populous, overgrown, and inflexible sects of Judaism.
I don't think Man really dominates Nature. I think Man appears to dominate Nature, especially during Day-Cycles, when all or most of the technological breakthroughs happen. However, when time runs out, it runs out, no matter what Man does, wants, or what kind of magic Man tries to do through monetary policy.
I think the generational thinking is good -- and tends to follow the 18-year half-cycle. I think the geometry is primary however: "God is ever-geometrizing," Kepler wrote. The laws of Nature are written in geometry.
I also think very generation gets half a generation of light (day) and half a generation of darkness (night). My parents got a dark first half, and a bright second half. My generation seems on track for a bright first half, and a dark second half. It's kind of hard to draw where a generation begins and ends.
I draw it, using geometry: 1929; 1947; 1965; 1983; 2001; 2019....
We agree that our values as a civilization could be better, less dog-eat-dog (which philosophy idealizes a society of mad and madder-dogs, not exactly what many of us are desiring).
Man in the City is a giant. Man in Nature is a midget. We seem to cycle between those two poles historically. Man is getting smaller at the moment; and Nature is getting bigger. And Nature will continue to get bigger until 2019, and then the balance will swing back toward Man again.
However, there is a HUGE Dark Ages out there waiting for us, like the one the Rome laughed about (and laughed-off) until the barbarians showed up at the gates of Rome. Then Man got very small, very fast.
For the record, I'd propose they form their own federal government, rather than become separate sovereign nations. They all have similar interests, geography, resources, etc., so such a federal system makes sense. Base it on the current US Constitution, but actually follow it.
Likewise, I think the US would be better split up into say five federal entities PacNW, SW, Central US, Gulf States, and NE & Great Lakes. Each as a separate federal system would have much greater common interests and needs - and bring the government back closer to the people of each region. The problem with the US is we've lost federalism entirely - we've got a huge central bureaucracy based on the East Coast, issuing arbitrary laws and regulations that recognize no federal limits, and that serves no region of the country well.