June 14, 2017

It's not personal, it's collective: Shutting down Resistance after far-Left targets "Republicans" as a whole

After a far-left Bernie volunteer became radicalized by the media's Russia narrative, and emboldened by the growing Deep State coup to topple the winner of a free and fair election, he went hunting "Republicans" and opened fire on GOP Congressmen who were playing baseball.

This officially makes the conflict in this country into a collective war between groups, and not just individuals. Those who were shot today were not targeted on an individual basis -- for their particular voting record, their personal background, or their specific nuanced views. They were targeted broadly for being members of a group -- "the Republicans". Any member of that group was on the shooter's radar, and any dead Republican would have satisfied his desire for blood.

Officially, there are no longer distinct individual Republicans -- there are only interchangeable, faceless members of the overall group. You may not believe that -- but if the enemy believes that way, and acts accordingly, then you cannot avoid being targeted simply because "I'm not one of those kind of Republicans". If you are even tangentially Republican -- like me, who last voted in 2000 for Ralph Nader -- you are in their cross-hairs. They do not care about what subtle flavors "Republicans" or "Trump voters" come in.

The response to minimize the growing political violence must acknowledge the collective nature of the conflict (targets chosen as interchangeable members of a group), or it will fail, and the violence will only worsen.

So, there can be no appeals to "We're all Americans" -- no we are not. We are divided very sharply into groups, and one of those groups, the Left, has become so radicalized that they have declared open season on collective assassination of their enemy, the Right -- first on people's character ("all Trump voters are ____"), and now on their personal safety.

Sure, hashtag "Not all Leftists" and "Not all Bernie supporters" and "Not all Democrats" and "Not all liberals" are radicalized to the degree that they will open fire on what they feel to be faceless interchangeable members of the enemy group. But they are the group with that problem within it, they are the group with the problem of its members supporting the Deep State coup, and they are the group that is perpetuating the Russia witch hunt.

We will not try to treat the problem of generic "radicalization" or "political extremism," since the Right is not guilty of it. We will focus only on Leftist radicalization, Leftist extremism, Leftist witch hunts, and Leftist hysteria. Even if some on the Right retaliate, that is qualitatively the opposite phenomenon -- seeking to quell violence by nipping it in the bud, rather than instigating it first and launching pre-emptive strikes.

We cannot play by honest rules if the enemy will not show us the same respect. If they treat us all as interchangeable faceless members of some group, then we must treat them the same way, while acknowledging that it's regrettable, and that we will stop treating them as a faceless collective only after their side stops treating us violently as a faceless collective. They can demonstrate good faith for healing by joining us to neuter the extremists on their side. If they refuse to root out their problem individuals, they prove that they value loyalty to their group above societal cohesion, and they cannot be trusted as allies.

As we enter a new openly collective phase in political conflict, not seen since 1970 or 1920 before that, we ought to strategize about how to shut down the other side as an entire group, before the violence really gets out of hand. This is both how to interact with other people, and how to pressure the government, media, corporations, etc., at the elite level.

First, we must quickly shut down the Russia witch hunt ("probe"). Attorney General Sessions must rescind his recusal, fire the Special Counsel, declare the probe a baseless attempt to over-turn the results of a free and fair election, and block any future attempts to remove the President by anti-democratic witch hunt means.

Suspend the broadcast licenses (and other licenses and privileges for other types of media) of those outlets that have been promoting the Russia witch hunt. Give the country a cooling-off period of at least six months, free from the constant fanning of flames by the media. If they offend again after given the chance to resume their activities, permanently end their licenses. CNN and MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post, ought to be first.

One of the major determinants of a successful coup is control over the media, and we cannot allow the coup plotters to use that weapon against Republicans / Trump voters. Fanning the violent flames of an anti-democratic coup is not "expression" -- it has proven itself to be a clear and present danger to the collective security of one-half of the American people (and more than one-half of Congressmen and Senators).

The DoJ must identify anyone affiliated with violent Leftist groups like Antifa and arrest them and hold them temporarily for the cooling-off period. They have already proven to be capable of collective violence against their political enemy group, so they are the first natural perpetrators of any would-be surge in violence. Pre-empt them.

The DoJ must also investigate the links between Antifa type groups and the Deep State, whose policies they closely align with. It certainly appears as though Deep State has infiltrated these groups and used them for their own goals -- attacking Trump supporters en masse in public. The findings must be made public to de-legitimize the appeal of Antifa among the liberal audience ("just CIA plants"), and offenders prosecuted on both the Antifa side and the Deep State side. Otherwise the CIA and other agencies will continue to co-opt these groups for their own anti-democratic purposes, to overthrow the Trump election.

The Treasury Dept, or whoever else, must block or freeze the financing of the relevant groups -- both the violent activists like Antifa, but also the Soros-funded propaganda organs like Media Matters, and other David Brock-run propaganda.

As for protests on social media or in real life, the DoJ must enforce anti-sedition laws. Participants can advocate for some cause -- single-payer healthcare, no war in the Middle East -- or for electing one politician over another, but they cannot call for the over-throw of the freely and fairly elected government just because they don't like the results, whether stated directly or indirectly. Democracy cannot tolerate anti-democratic agitation.

That is all how to deal with the enemy group. What about our group?

We must emphasize to any and all Republicans, Trump voters, conservatives, etc., that they are being targeted as interchangeable members of a faceless collective, and that the enemy therefore does not care who you are as an individual. "But I'm not a Trump supporting Republican" -- too bad, that far-Left assassin does not care, you are guilty simply for being a Republican. This will boost our numbers and increase our cohesion, so that we can act forcefully as a group, rather than be divided and conquered because each individual is trying to convince the enemy group "But I'm not one of the people you're looking for" -- yes you are.

We should also constantly demand Democrats, liberals, and Bernie or Hillary supporters that they disavow, shun, and punish the offenders. Best-case scenario: their side becomes fractured and ineffective. Worst-case: the milquetoast liberals join the radicals, AKA the status quo.

The President should deliver a primetime address that specifically mentions the collective nature of the violence -- on Republicans or Trump voters, not on any old "Americans". He should call on the Left to disavow, shun, and punish the violent radicals within their ranks if they want to be taken seriously and treated fairly. He can explain how the pause of propaganda from MSNBC / NYT is to prevent further violent radicalization of the Left, a regrettable necessity since "not all Democrats" are going to turn violent, but that is the only surefire way to keep the nation from exploding into group vs. group warfare. Agitation for sedition is not editorial expression.

The President should also seize the opportunity to clean house within the White House. Reince Priebus is a weak Trump-hating Establishment shill who has allowed the enemy to grow in intensity and brazenness, by preventing Trump supporters from getting hired, and by appointing so many Never-Trumpers into the administration. That only pours blood into the water for the coup plotters. Replace him with a hard-nosed loyalist like Newt Gingrich, who has more experience and connections inside-the-Beltway anyway.

Replace everyone on the weak, reactive, self-focused communications team with brutal vicious killers who are going to stand up for the administration rather than trying to curry favor with Democrats and the media. People who do not care how much the media slanders them, and who will therefore be immune to peer pressure by coup plotters and flame-fanners.

And end the daily press briefings, which are nothing more than a tribunal against the administration by unelected witch hunters. Do not cede them the authority to interrogate and deliver sentences against the administration, as though they were prosecutors, judges, and executioners.

Lastly, the Congress must drop its standard cuckservative agenda and re-orient toward law-and-order. Nobody ever did care about restoring corporate rape to the healthcare sector or passing tax cuts for the rich -- and now they really do not care. We want an immediate crackdown on the lawlessness pervading our entire society that threatens to blow the whole thing up for good -- an explosion that now includes the Republican Congressmen as targets, who used to think they were nice and insulated, but now see that it is open season on them, too, and not just the Trump supporters who got mobbed outside of Trump rallies.

If they are going to pursue anything else in the next year or two, it must be populist rather than elitist. Number one, because that's what Trump got elected to pursue, and number two, because that will de-fang the far-Left that bases much of its appeal on being against the plutocrat elitists, who they associate with the Republicans -- as though the Democrats were not already the Wall Street party.

The worst thing that the GOP can do is try to spin the attack as a populist citizen against an elite politician, trying to make common cause with other elite politicians on the Democrat side, and painting the assassin as scarcely different from a rabble-rousing Trump voter. Remember that the enemy sees things in partisan terms, and they are out to get Republicans, not elites in general (they will spare Chuck Schumer and other elite Democrats who are controlled by Wall Street).

The moment that the Republican Establishment makes overtures to the Democrat Establishment about "protecting all of us in government against violent citizens," that will concede defeat in the minds of the far-Left partisans, who will really start to ramp up their attacks on Republicans as a whole. They do not want a truce, but the total annihilation of "Republicans" as an entire group.

It was wrong for Trump supporters to blithely dismiss the Russia witch hunt, on the view that it would only further discredit the Democrats and make them lose elections even harder. It will have that effect -- but it will also fan the flames of increasingly violent collective conflict orchestrated by the Left. It's no longer a laughing matter, and the Resistance witch hunt must be shut down entirely as soon as possible. Otherwise we will experience a replay of the anarchic collective violence of 1970 and 1920.

We do not need to fundamentally and permanently alter our institutions -- we only need to pause what we're doing wrong until the conflict burns out. Letting the Left and the Deep State agitate for overthrow of the freely and fairly elected government is absolute suicide for democracy, and nipping it in the bud requires no tolerance whatsoever for the coup plotters. The group that is more cohesive and zealous will win.


  1. "..an explosion that now includes the Republican Congressmen as targets, who used to think they were nice and insulated, but now see that it is open season on them, too, and not just the Trump supporters who got mobbed outside of Trump rallies."

    We in our late 30s and older have forgotten more about personally experienced violence than the younger ones have ever known. But what these Republican congressmen and associates experienced today is just so far out there. Fathomless.

    I've seen an awakening today among some of the rightist Trump haters. I wouldn't be surprised if many, even including congressmen, start losing their appetite for the trajectory they've been on.

    I've watched the conservo-pundit class grow increasingly more aware that their fondness for the Bona Fide Left is not only unrequited, but that most of the people they've long-sought validation from are quite demented.

    And then today happens. I saw a giant step away from their DC "buddies" with one even saying he'd tried really hard to be fair and conciliatory for years, but it was over. We had Flake, Rand Paul, Scalise... the guys out there dodging bullets and running and hiding for their lives ran the gamut!

    And how did the #Nice #NeverTrump folks in DC, busy wiping away tears, see Bona Fide Left respond? Lying and being profoundly jejune.
    You had Jennifer Jacobs and the upper-upper tier who are normal, sensitive adults -sharing the harrowing videos and testimony of the congressmen and witnesses who just lived through the traumatic event- but they're the minority!

  2. Karl

    Sound advice, but I don't think that the severity of the situation is uderstood by enough people to follow it.Let's hope reason prevails, but in my view the whole situation resembles pre-civil war Spain more and more. There are problably still a few years left to prevent a hot civil war, but not that many.

    Soon both sides will be ready not to accept an unfavorable outcome of an election. That's how Spain's civil war started.

  3. There was also a workplace shooting at UPS. That, combined with this, shows an uptick in the crime rate and probably the beginning of a new crime wave.

    Turchin points out mass shootings are linked to inequality, but that workplace shootings were more common in the 70s and 80s("going postal"), but morphed into school shootings in the 90s and 2000s. I forget the explanation he gave for that, but from what we know here, it obviously seems linked to cocooning.

    The cocooning trend makes school shootings more likely; whereas workplace shootings are more common when crime rises. the return of workplace shootings presages a rise in crime.

  4. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

    This is the most* comprehensive list I've seen (it only starts in 1982, though).

    Mass murder arises from alienation, which becomes more common after years of striving tears through the social (and historical, and ethnic, etc.) fabric of a country.

    Hedonistic violence became a lot more common in the mid 60's and 70's. but there still weren't that many mass murders taking into account how otherwise dangerous America was getting. People still felt enough harmony in the 80's that only 8 mass murders are listed for that decade. Then all hell breaks loose in the 90's; 23 events are noted. Can't remember the source right now, but according to Neil Howe a survey in 1997 revealed that people considered the 90's the worst decade that several extant generations had experienced. Remember, this was our unraveling period.

    The irony here is that on some measures, we were getting better in the later 80's and 90's. The culture of the awakening periods (and the 60's-early 80's was an awakening period) encourages reckless, self-centered, and outright perverted behavior. See the rise in not just crime per se, but also rape, serial killing, and child molesting. We start to see a serious backlash at the tail end of the awakening (an early sign of this was Anita Bryant's save our kids moral campaign in the late 70's). The backlash culminates in a transition year, 1984 in this case. Reagan was investigating porn, slasher movies were being picketed, televangelism booms, hitchhiking diminishes, bums/depraved sex addicts like pedos/criminals begin to be heavily punished and shamed, and so on. Horror movies stopped being (really) scary in 1985, probably because unraveling era artists no longer feel comfortable being in the shoes of the monster OR the victim (not when muh children is running thru their brains). This is in contrast to awakening era culture that encourages reaching and exploring different states of consciousness.


    Awareness of crime and perversion ratchet up in an unraveling, even when such things actually become less common (the GSS says that there were two peaks in people actually feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods: the 70's/early 80's, and another spike in the early 90's (the height of the crack induced gang warfare epidemic). Without crack, it wouldn't surprise me to see a gradual decline in self-reported fear after 1983, even taking into account unraveling era over hyped paranoia. People consistently exaggerate the level of overall violence, ironic considering that people in an unraveling era take fewer risks than they did in the prior era. Knowledge of violent and perverted excesses grows during an unraveling, while such things actually become less common (how many late Boomers and X-ers have emerged to report child molesting that happened starting around 1964? Seldom did these things seem to happen before JFK was shot, and crimes involving children took on much greater urgency after Reagan was re-elected.

  5. "People consistently exaggerate the level of overall violence, ironic considering that people in an unraveling era take fewer risks than they did in the prior era."

    This seems like more of a falling-crime thing. Remember that risk-taking in general correlates with rising-crime, and falling-crime makes the population more afraid of crime(ironically). Certainly, most people nowadays think the world is extremely violent and dangerous, even when that's far from the case. Watch any cop show, and you have ludicrous plots involving child molesters etc.

    Don't get me wrong, /I think Strauss and Howe's theory is basically correct, but they confuse it a little because they tried to correlate it with the crime rate - which doesn't work for the historical boundaries they're describing. They describe the Unraveling as starting in the mid-80s, yet violence got worse into the late 80s and early 90s - remember the race riots.

  6. They are right that there is a cultural demarcation starting in the early-to-mid 80s, "the Unraveling, we talked about this before how there was a change in musical tastes around that time - the decline of classical rock, the rise of thrash metal and hip-hop. They are incorrect to correlate it with a decline in risk-taking or dangerous behavior, however. Something else changed.

  7. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970

    What ought to scare the shit outta people is that crime was *that* bad in the 70's....Without crack! Cocaine itself didn't really start to make inroads into people's lives until around 1976 (according to Stevie Nicks). Cocooning and a much needed decline in crack/coke use in the mid-late 90's caused the murder rate to plummet in the late 90's.

    Now, I do agree that high crime and Awakening don't necessarily correlate perfectly. That being said, the degree of crime, and the nature of it, are affected by the historical phase we're in. The profoundly self-centered 70's made it a lot easier to be myopic about the god-awful waves of sick crap hitting us; actually the NYTimes search brought up a 1981 article saying that people were beginning to say that crime was the key issue in their choice of residence, whereas in the 70's people didn't take it as seriously. How many 70's TV shows featured child molesters or serial killers? The Silent generation who (poorly) set priorities in the 70's were largely clueless about the dangers lurking the streets at the time, thanks in no small part to middle aged adults being more concerned with "finding themselves" than with warning themselves or others about how many sickos were attacking people.

    We've got to disentagle what crackhead retards were doing in the 80's and early 90's from what others were doing at the time.


    Ego-maniacl Silents and Boomers of all races started killing lots of people in the later 70's (the peak of mainstream hedonism), copy cat peers emerged in the 80's, and eventually the Gen X ghetto black echo Boomers began to dominate in the 90's. Given the paucity of perv killers in the 60's, one can assume that a generation of psychos born in the late 20's-50's took some time to work up the nerve to really go for it; in fact, many of the rapists/robbers of the 50's/60's/70's escalated their crimes after 5-10 years, so really their excessive behavior in the late 70's-90's was the culmination of a mental and physical process that began much earlier.

    The NY Times search reveals that references to, quote unquote, serial murderers and killer really started around 1981 and became common in 1984. Drug-induced 80's mayhem is I believe an important factor in giving the misleading impression that people were as reckless and naive in the 80's as they were in the 70's. No, they weren't. Also, X-ers were doing and still are doing much better than Boomers. Boomers came of age in the Devil-may-care 60's and 70's, when giving the finger to caution peaked.

    People born from 1955-1965 tested poorly on HS academic aptitude tests; they are more likely to be homeless than other cohorts. What drives them? They started high school from 1969-1979, when drinking a six-pack or smoking a doobie was far more common than concerning yourself with your future. Adjusting for race, this was a very white cohort. Looking at blacks, I'd expect not just Boomer blacks but also blacks who were teenagers during the crack wars to be in pretty rough shape, too.

  8. "People born from 1955-1965 tested poorly on HS academic aptitude tests; they are more likely to be homeless than other cohorts."

    Don't forget the effects of grade inflation - the aptitude tests were harder back then. that cohort - 1955-1965 - aren't actually more stupid or screwed up, they were just held to much more vigorous standards, which is why so many couldn't measure up and ended up on drugs or homeless. the workforce was more competitive and harsher(effects of rising crime), not as easy to get money or a career.

  9. But earlier Boomers scored better; 1946ers had some of the best scores ever, then scores gradually declined year over year., bottoming out with 63ers.

    Looking back on the culture and images of the late 70's and 80's, late Boomers grew up real fast....They often looked at least 5 years older than their actual age when they were in high school and college. They're probably the least nerdy cohort, seeing as how getting laid, getting into the workforce, getting high, and getting into brawls was what the teen zeitgeist of the later 70's and early 80's was all about.

    The Silent promoted loosening up of the culture in the late 60's and 70's did some damage to Silents and early Boomers, but remember, they'd already had programming from the 30's/40's/50's and early 60's to give them a physical/mental/social/financial backstop. The later "relaxed", freewheeling era, that peaked in the late 70's a, had it's biggest negative impact on teens who would carry the hedonistic excesses of the period with them throughout their lives.

    I heard Kevin Smith (born in 1972 I believe) read letters and such from when he was in high school/college. In some of them, he and his friends talk about avoiding STDs and drugs. And of course, by the late 80's most Gen X teens were concerned about The Future.....What kind of career was I going to have, what kind of world was I born into, would adults ever get a clue, etc. What a difference it makes to have entered high school after 1980. Those who entered high school in the 70's seldom thought about studies, consequences, responsibilities, and so on because it just wasn't cool anymore to aspire to a clean cut, successful lifestyle.

    We tend to also think that the late 70's and especially 80's were striver periods; for Silents and early Boomers, sure. But frankly, a lot of late Boomers (even Obama) were smoking and snorting away instead of sharpening their intellects and interpersonal skills , burning through a valuable period of life that has serious implications to your long-term well-being. One can only speculate that 70's teen culture must've inflicted borderline personality disorders on many late Boomers, judging from how many of them alienate others (addictions, crime, mental health problems, and bridge burning are why many ended up homeless).

    Neil Howe has acknowledged that many "Gen X" problems in fact are seen with Boomers and they get worse the later a Boomer was born. Hell, even in the 90's he admitted that 70's births seem to be on a better track than so-called early X-ers (his definition being those born from '61-'69).

  10. You raise some good points. However, there are also other factors. In 1974, significant changes were made to the SAT making the test much harder, including shortening test taking time by half an hour, adding more antonyms and analogies, adding more quantitative comparisons, and, importantly, changing the way the test was distributed to clamp down on cheating.

    You say test scores began nosediving for those born from roughly 1955-1965. Someone born in 1956 would be 18 in 1974, and would be the first cohort to take the new, harder test. So, in my opinion, the reason why the late Boomers had low aptitude scores is because the test was harder, not because they worked less hard or took academics less seriously. They took schoolwork less seriously only insofar as they didn't have the option to bullshit their way through college, because the standards were more exacting.

    " 1974 - Beginning with the October test, several significant changes are made to the SAT. The number of reading comprehension questions is reduced to about 30% of the verbal portion of the SAT, in favor of more antonym and analogy questions.

    In the math portion of the SAT, data sufficiency questions are replaced with "quantitative comparison" questions, which have four possible answers. The quantitative comparison questions ask the student to determine whether two quantities are equal, different (and which is larger), or indeterminate"

    "The total time of the SAT verbal and math portions is reduced from 3 hours to 2.5 hours in order to accommodate the half-hour Test of Standard Written English (TSWE) that is newly added to the SAT. The TSWE is scored on a separate scale (20-60) and consists of multiple-choice questions designed to evaluate grammar and writing skills. The results of the TSWE are expected to be used by colleges for the appropriate placement of the test taker in freshman English class.

    In order to reduce the possibility of a student cheating by copying the answers of a nearby student, changes are made in how the test booklets are distributed. Previously, the five-section SAT had two section arrangements for each test date, distributed in two booklets. However, each test administration site would receive only one of the two arrangements. Starting with the October test, the new six-section SAT has six section arrangements, distributed in six booklets, in a procedure called "scrambling". The booklets that each test site receives are "spiraled": the first student receives the first arrangement, the second student receives the second arrangement, and so forth. However, by October, 1980, the number of arrangements (and the number of different booklets needed) will be reduced to three for each test administration. (See After The Test for information about how the modern SAT is arranged and distributed.) "


  11. Oh yeah, and as I forgot to point out, they added a new written English section to the 1974 test.

  12. They are right that there is a cultural demarcation starting in the early-to-mid 80s"

    I was looking thru one of S&H's books, and they bring up how the mid-80's were kinda weird because it was the beginning of things "coming apart" (Chuck Murray), yet at the same time it was also "morning in America". Reagan got reelected, Apple's iconic marketing got the Macintosh off to a blazing start 'round the same time that Revenge of Nerds came out, the L.A. olympics were a triumph for the hosting nation, etc. We had seemingly finished off what was left of the 70's sclerosis

    There was still some dawdling; movies that had been written in the zeitgeist of 1980-1983 weren't necessarily filmed right away, so plenty of cynical and frightening movies still came out after '83. Like Terminator, Robocop, A Nightmare on Elm Street, even Rambo 2 to an extent (The US high command betrays Rambo and he has to fight his way back by himself). Hollywood is often at least 2-3 years behind the zeitgeist due to the long lead times generally involved in movie production. That's also why movies that sit on the shelf typically flop terribly; it takes long enough to find a good script (that may have been written 1-4 years ago), and bringing in the right players takes time too. Then production/post-production commences. You better get the dang movie out quick once it's made. A Nightmare on Elm Street, written around 1982, originally had a lead character described as a punk. By the time filming started, somebody astutely removed the word "punk" from the dialogue since by '84 heavy metal was far more popular among teenagers. But middle aged movie production personnel aren't always that on top of trends. One famous example of that is just how long flamboyant musicals and other similarly dated mid-century culture (historical epics, affected melodramas) was still being produced by Hollywood in the mid-late 60's. Corman, with his streamlined approach to movie making, and his sights set on teenagers with no need to placate the egos of middle aged stars, produced a wave of counter-culture movies that better reflected what (many) Boomers were interested in. In 1966, The Endless Summer and Wild Angels placed in the top 20 B.O., in spite of being independent films with no real conventional "hook" (famous director, big stars, extravagant production values, etc.)

    Anyway, by 1988 people were starting to think that maybe, Reagan's America had no clothes. And to the extent that things worked well in the earlier 80's, who really trusted GHW Bush to not drop the baton? BAD: or, The Dumbing of America is a 1991 book that shows just how sour people were feeling by the end of Bush's term. Even if a lot of stuff seemed to come up short in the 70's and Reagan 80's, well, oh well, let's have fun anyway and try not to get too neurotic and scared.

  13. Reading about 1987's Closing of the American Mind (which stems from an essay written during the early 80's backlash to the counter-culture Awakening that arose in the late 60's), I came across this telling passage:

    "The tone of these reviews led James Atlas in the New York Times Magazine to conclude "the responses to Bloom's book have been charged with a hostility that transcends the usual mean-spiritedness of reviewers"

    When did reviewers become mean-spirited, exactly? People during a cultural era generally lack insight into what drives the current zeitgeist and don't necessarily grasp previous eras either. During a High and during an Awakening era, people tend to feel idealistic and empathetic (at least in theory if not in practice). The notion that's it's commonplace for people to be "mean" is something that arises during an unraveling. During an unraveling, people feel like we've lost something, and those who came of age in the High/Awakening feel obligated to point fingers about who's responsible.

    Granted, the tail-end of an Awakening is often rather ugly too, as what started out as well intentioned idealism in the High and early Awakening (late 40's-early 70s') can culminate in a dismal, desperate, hedonistic mess (the Jimmy Carter era; JW Gacy, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, Studio 54, onset of the Aids crisis) which spurs the emergence of moralistic/apocalyptic crusaders at the very end of the Awakening and beginning of the Unraveling.

  14. "There was still some dawdling; movies that had been written in the zeitgeist of 1980-1983 weren't necessarily filmed right away, so plenty of cynical and frightening movies still came out after '83"

    I believe the big difference was that the 70s were mostly a liberal decade, whereas the 80s were a a conservative decade. This explains the cultural shift in the early 80s that you have outlined so well.

    Liberals are more cerebral, prefer their movies to address "serious issues" and be more morally ambiguous. Especially violence may be portrayed negatively - remember that the Dems are the commerce-party, not the military party. Liberals are commerce-oriented, conservatives are military-oriented.

    Furthermore, because of their more cerebral nature, they have more of a phobic-tendency - imagining all the things that could go wrong. This explains all the exploitation flicks in the 70s, for instance, imagining the world as a horrible place.

    The 80s still portrayed the world as dangerous, but had more faith in vigilantes. Corporeals are more military-oriented, so they love watching movies of the good guys kicking ass. Because they're more reality-oriented rather than imagination-oriented, they want movies with more straightforward morality - which was more typical of the 80s compared to the 70s. And also, being more straightforward and down-to-earth, they want more clarity in movie themes.

    The 80s were more positive and gung-ho than the 70s - and I believe this change is entirely related to crime continuing to rise.

    Finally, awhile ago Agnostic outlined that popular media cycles every 10 years between being low-key vs. attention-getting and bombastic. this exists apart from the crime rate. Low-key is related to cerebral-orientation or abstract-oriented - not too much stimulation, more subtly, more energy saved to think and ponder. Furthermore, liberals/abstract-oriented aren't as sensory, so they don't get off as much on indulging their senses. Bombastic/attention-getting is more related to being corporeal - since corporeals have stronger physical senses(and rely on them more), they want more forceful visuals and sound. Being more straightforward, they want things exaggerated - less of a mind of nuance or subtly.

  15. The 2010s, 90s, 70s, and 50s were liberal decades; whereas the 2000s, 80s, 60s, 40s, and 20s were conservative decades.

    Makes more sense when you take time to think about it. The 2010s, 90s, and 70s all experienced aggressive feminist movements, focus on gays, and disaster movies(the abstract-oriented liberal mind loves disaster movies, since they love to envision all the things that could go wrong).

    90s, for instance, saw a revival of styles from the 70s - one example is Tarantino's movies, who has publicly said many times he was inspired by the movies he watched in the 70s.

    Science fiction was mostly popular

    the 2000s, 80s(and very early 90s), and 60s all experienced major wars, gung-ho action movies such as Schwarzenegger and Stallone in the 80s, the superhero movies such as Spiderman in the 2000s(not to be confused with the exploitation and vigilante flicks from the 70s, which weren't as upbeat, and fall into the category of "what is wrong with the world", etc.), and more unabashed exhibitionism. Corporeals are more visual and sensual.

    It may seem counterintuitve to classify the 60s as being conservative. however, consider that the radical liberal movement of the time did not constitute the majority. When the one ideological group is out of power, they tend to become angry and radical. It would be like thinking the 90s were conservative because of Rush Limbaugh, the impeachment of Clinton, and "guns, God, and gays", when the 90s were clearly a culturally liberal time. The youth movement that happened during the 60s was actually very similar to the climate of the 1920s.

    Finally, one might say that the 2000s were liberal because of the popularity of hip-hop and urban culture. But actually, most of that music appeals more to conservatives/corporeals. it tends to be more chauvinistic and sexual, which abstract-oriented people shy away from. Many African-Americans only vote Democrat because of Affirmative action and welfare, while in reality being more ideologically and psychologically conservative. Furthermore, in my experience, "wiggers", aka whites who like rap and hip-hop, often tend to be more conservative. The few wiggers from my high school class, according to their facebook pages, are Trump supporters.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."