PDA

View Full Version : New York back to the 70's?



Mega
12-30-14, 06:25 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636322


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4cgs-bPic


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFgyezfS6ik

lakedaemonian
12-31-14, 01:52 AM
In the real world, NYC had some big problems in the 60's-70's-80's in terms of domestic/OCONUS terrorist networks, public antipathy against police, corruption, bankruptcy, blight, and murders committed against the public and police.

for all the bad today, there was a lot of bad then as well.

Woodsman
12-31-14, 02:46 AM
In the real world, NYC had some big problems in the 60's-70's-80's in terms of domestic/OCONUS terrorist networks, public antipathy against police, corruption, bankruptcy, blight, and murders committed against the public and police.

for all the bad today, there was a lot of bad then as well.

Yeah, it was crazy until Deke and Billy D took out Wulfgar. Now the city sleeps.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvbtAoucPU

lakedaemonian
12-31-14, 06:17 AM
5 seperate bombings in NYC in 3 months in 1969.

Several dozens of politically motivated violent incidents that included bombings and assassinations in the 70's from a wide range of groups such as Weathermen, JDL, FALN separatists, Black Panthers, foreign intelligence, and others.

A bit more 3 dimensional than 2 dimensional celluloid.

NYC survived it then and will survive it now. And at the moment the recent trials and tribulations pale compared to 35-45 years ago.

Just as crisis in the Middle East pales compared to the headlines of Appeox 100 days in late 1979 and early 1980 with the Grand Mosque Seizure In Mecca, the Soviet break-in to Afghan on Xmas Eve, theUS embassy seizure on the heels of the Iranian Revolution(and failed hostage rescue), and the burning of the US Embassy in Pakistan.

We survived then, we will survive now.

Historical perspective can offer some rational perspective.

So as far as movie references go, we're not exactly on the precipice of a Soylent Green lifestyle.

jk
12-31-14, 02:02 PM
the violence of the new york city police intervention at columbia university in 1968, ending the sit-ins and occupation of university buildings, fed into the police="pigs" and the general anti-vietnam-war, anti-u.s.-gov't, anti-official-authority narrative of the late 1960's and early 1970's. meanwhile, near yale university in new haven connecticut, 4000 national guard troops and military tanks occupied the city during the murder trial of several members of the black panther party. in chicago, the street demonstrations and violent police actions, centered on the 1968 democratic convention, were broadcast live to the whole nation.

the anti-war movement, the public protests and burning of draft cards, the black power movement, the law-flouting drug culture among white youth, the mythological bra-burning of the very real feminist movement - all served to reinforce the anti-authority stance of a broad swath of society. all the rules were questioned, and the conformity and corporate culture of the 1950's were very much laid to rest. the police were both symbols of, and enforcers of, the old order.

we are a long way from those times. yes, there is ongoing tension between many police departments and the populations they are either subjugating or supporting, depending on local factors and your personal point of view. but there's a lot more "thank you for your service" for both police and military now. the deaths of so many police and firemen attempting to rescue people in the world trade towers was an important and symbolic moment in many, many ways. [though it's worth mentioning that the people they went in to save were the kind of people who worked in the world trade center, not the kind of people who live in

the relationship between the police and the communities in nyc will continue to evolve.

Mega
12-31-14, 02:33 PM
911 was a "long time ago" for some people.........Its what they face today, can't get a job..rise up & protest...then they come into contact with the Police. Suddenly their view changes:-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHn5M2At2R8

Woodsman
12-31-14, 02:45 PM
No editorial comment. Just remembering old movies, is all. But since you mentioned it, how many of those incidents do you think were are result of egg breaking and omelet making? Half? A third?

It's interesting to speak of of historical and rational perspective but how is it advanced when critical information is not mentioned? Take for instance the nurturing by intelligence and secret police agencies of groups like the JDL. Is there no relevance in the fact that Meyer Kahane was on the Bureau's Division Five payroll since the early 60s? Would knowing that Kahane's best buddy and co-JDL founder Joseph Churb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Churba)a had a career that spanned from from Air Force intelligence to the Reagan campaign, the Arms Control and Development Agency and several Moonie-financed (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:International_Security_Council,_extract_f rom_The_%22Terrorism%22_Industry) think tanks be significant? We now have documents (https://archive.org/stream/FBI-COINTELPRO-BLACK/100-HQ-448006-13_djvu.txt)from Division Five detailing close cooperation between the Bureau and the JDL. Is that relevant?

And what was this coordination and cooperation all about? Neutralizing the Black Panther Party and the antiwar movement, among other things. So what sort of historical and rational perspective would one gain, say regarding the BPP and the antiwar movement, without having knowledge of Hoover's terrorism campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)? Is it relevant that the WUO split with SDS and move to armed resistance came on the heels of Fred Hampton's assassination and the attack on the Panther's 41st and Central HQ?

jk
12-31-14, 03:12 PM
No editorial comment. Just remembering old movies, is all. But since you mentioned it, how many of those incidents do you think were are result of egg breaking and omelet making? Half? A third?

It's interesting to speak of of historical and rational perspective but how is it advanced when critical information is not mentioned? Take for instance the nurturing by intelligence and secret police agencies of groups like the JDL. Is there no relevance in the fact that Meyer Kahane was on the Bureau's Division Five payroll since the early 60s? Would knowing that Kahane's best buddy and co-JDL founder Joseph Churb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Churba)a had a career that spanned from from Air Force intelligence to the Reagan campaign, the Arms Control and Development Agency and several Moonie-financed (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:International_Security_Council,_extract_f rom_The_%22Terrorism%22_Industry) think tanks be significant? We now have documents (https://archive.org/stream/FBI-COINTELPRO-BLACK/100-HQ-448006-13_djvu.txt)from Division Five detailing close cooperation between the Bureau and the JDL. Is that relevant?

And what was this coordination and cooperation all about? Neutralizing the Black Panther Party and the antiwar movement, among other things. So what sort of historical and rational perspective would one gain, say regarding the BPP and the antiwar movement, without having knowledge of Hoover's terrorism campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)? Is it relevant that the WUO split with SDS and move to armed resistance came on the heels of Fred Hampton's assassination and the attack on the Panther's 41st and Central HQ?
for me, these facts are just more evidence for the very obvious cultural/power struggles of that era, with each side using the tools at hand. is there another conclusion you want to draw?

Woodsman
12-31-14, 05:24 PM
... is there another conclusion you want to draw?

The good guys won?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/19/article-2063491-0EDBBC3A00000578-393_634x373.jpg

Happy New Year!
5543

jk
12-31-14, 05:58 PM
The good guys won?

i wasn't thinking about winning or losing. various forces were in conflict. some of those conflicts have been ameliorated, some suppressed, some aggravated, and new conflicts have emerged. life goes on.

my main point was to say, "no, today isn't like the '70s" - which is my response to the subject of this thread.

lakedaemonian
12-31-14, 10:21 PM
No editorial comment. Just remembering old movies, is all. But since you mentioned it, how many of those incidents do you think were are result of egg breaking and omelet making? Half? A third?

It's interesting to speak of of historical and rational perspective but how is it advanced when critical information is not mentioned? Take for instance the nurturing by intelligence and secret police agencies of groups like the JDL. Is there no relevance in the fact that Meyer Kahane was on the Bureau's Division Five payroll since the early 60s? Would knowing that Kahane's best buddy and co-JDL founder Joseph Churb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Churba)a had a career that spanned from from Air Force intelligence to the Reagan campaign, the Arms Control and Development Agency and several Moonie-financed (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:International_Security_Council,_extract_f rom_The_%22Terrorism%22_Industry) think tanks be significant? We now have documents (https://archive.org/stream/FBI-COINTELPRO-BLACK/100-HQ-448006-13_djvu.txt)from Division Five detailing close cooperation between the Bureau and the JDL. Is that relevant?

And what was this coordination and cooperation all about? Neutralizing the Black Panther Party and the antiwar movement, among other things. So what sort of historical and rational perspective would one gain, say regarding the BPP and the antiwar movement, without having knowledge of Hoover's terrorism campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)? Is it relevant that the WUO split with SDS and move to armed resistance came on the heels of Fred Hampton's assassination and the attack on the Panther's 41st and Central HQ?

I'm really not interested in another guided tour down a one sided, one eyed rabbit warren with you.

I'm well aware of many mistakes made by government during that period of time.

It's quite unfortunate(and quite telling) that you completely neglect the neon sign doctrine that many of these organizations proudly displayed at the time, which was a goal of violently overthrowing the country.

Which is not only illegal, but the kind of thing that logically compels an overwhelming and decisive response.

Expecting a government to play entirely by the rules when those violently opposing it have burned the same rule book is dangerously naive.

If you wish to continue down this path, I'd suggest opening your other closed eye to the mashup of political revolutionary violence committed by Weather Underground, BPP, BLA, and others that was thankfully extinguished, albeit with residual cancerous cells found in the form of convicted murderer Kathy Boudin teaching at Columbia University, convicted murderer Assata Shakur still harbored by Castro's Cuba, convicted murderer and airline hijacker George Wright still harbored OCONUS, airline hijacker Catherine Marie Kerkow whereabouts unknown, etc.

Your frequent diatribes on complex right wing information operations might also carry a little more weight if you balance it with some layman simple "useful idiot" operations such as those conducted by Bert Schneider at the 1974 Oscar Awards(his harboring of fugitives who committed acts of political violence is another story), the Jane Fonda fiasco that will haunt her for eternity, and the considerable information operations support for the likes of BPP/BLA/etc offered by the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Algeria, etc. for just a bit of balance to go with your one dimensional attacks on "The Man".

It's unfortunate this thread is quickly turning into another mess.

It could have been an excellent platform to compare/contrast the 60's/70's US(as well as growing to include the 70's/80's Wester Europe) with today.

As the contrasts between then and now provides quite a few "glass half full" as well as "glass half empty" comparison opportunities, as well as possible lens into the "possible", "likely", and "highly likely" near future.

Many look back with fondness at the 60's-70's US and for all the strong middle class job opportunities and low multiple of average incomes to purchase the average house, there were some very dark patches, much like the different ones that exist today.

We are quickly approaching the 3rd generation(at least experiences by the west) of irregular warfare since the end of WWII.

The first was the battle for influence and control over a wrecked Western Europe that was a direct continuation from the official end of WWII due to its initial strong vulnerabilities to being aggressively undermined(in a two way street with examples in a split Germany, Ukraine, and Albania to name a few) in Italy and Greece by a competing communist system.

The second was the battle that sprang from a combination of racial inequality and university incubated counter-culture/establishment movements some with direct and considerable external support from competing and sometimes partnered communist networks, just as the US was working to undermine(eventually with great success) the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact as exemplified in Poland with Solidarity.

The third, in my opinion, will consist of a combination of vulnerabilities stemming from economic inequality and university(and university graduate) incubated movements sparked by student debt indentured slavery and other directly related movements to support the dismantling of US geopolitical/military power which could be leveraged cheaply and from a distance by competing networks such as Russia, Iran, China....just as the US is working to undermine them all in return to a greater or lesser degree.

The US 60's/70's and the Western European 70's/80's possess some incredibly rich history that offer some fantastic lessons and opportunities for us to avoid repeating them.

It's been my experience that a one eyed lefty is just as dangerous as an inflexible right winger(assuming they are both equidistant from the centre).

I try to view it with both eyes wide open.


i wasn't thinking about winning or losing. various forces were in conflict. some of those conflicts have been ameliorated, some suppressed, some aggravated, and new conflicts have emerged. life goes on.

my main point was to say, "no, today isn't like the '70s" - which is my response to the subject of this thread.


I don't know......I reckon a very close inspection of the incubation of movements in the 60's/70's would show a clear parallel then to the potential now and in the near future.

Human physiology has not changed since the 70's, so it's safe to say the psychology has not changed either.

The process of development is like a ladder:

grievances/deprivation
thwarted attempts at improvement
displaced aggression
engagement with more radical ideology/solutions
recruitment
violence

People in the west have a hard time understanding or accepting(in a detached/clinical educational sense) the path towards political violence exhibited by many in the 3rd world.

Did the late 60's/early 70's represent the best single western mass industrialized radicalization example of that?

1,000,000 protest peacefully(and most importantly, legally)
100,000 protest peacefully, repeatedly
10,000 protest and conduct examples of civil disobedience
1000 protest and conduct civil disobedience to the point of arrest
100 protest, conduct civil disobedience to the point of arrest, and accept others using violence to achieve goals
10 conduct acts of political violence
1 leads the effort to conduct political violence

The ratio is artificial, but the basic framework was relevant in the 60's/70's and could very well be relevant today.

Isn't the only difference the specific conditions of social vulnerability that can lead to social upheaval/disruption?

jk
01-01-15, 12:32 AM
i don't see much social upheaval in the u.s. in recent months there have been some demonstrations relating to racial issues, profiling, the militarization of police and so on, a bit of looting perhaps, but little else. the occupy movement was peaceful and disorganized, and quickly stamped out by the authorities. 1999 saw some demonstrations in seattle against the wto, with some vandalism. i haven't seen anything to compare to the late '60s-early '70s confrontations i listed above, each of which was a manifestation of deep rooted conflicts involving broad swaths of society.

there was a lot of talk not long ago about the 1% and the 99%, but even that seems to have died down. elizabeth warren makes some speeches, but the progressive wing of the democratic party is moribund. employment numbers are up, god knows maybe even wages will go up before the decade is over.

here's a quote from a quick google search:

Americans are more optimistic about the U.S. economy than they have been in years, and that upbeat mood has pushed President Obama’s job-approval level to its highest point since the spring of 2013, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday afternoon.

so where's the upheaval? have i overlooked it?

lakedaemonian
01-01-15, 01:34 AM
i don't see much social upheaval in the u.s. in recent months there have been some demonstrations relating to racial issues, profiling, the militarization of police and so on, a bit of looting perhaps, but little else. the occupy movement was peaceful and disorganized, and quickly stamped out by the authorities. 1999 saw some demonstrations in seattle against the wto, with some vandalism. i haven't seen anything to compare to the late '60s-early '70s confrontations i listed above, each of which was a manifestation of deep rooted conflicts involving broad swaths of society.

there was a lot of talk not long ago about the 1% and the 99%, but even that seems to have died down. elizabeth warren makes some speeches, but the progressive wing of the democratic party is moribund. employment numbers are up, god knows maybe even wages will go up before the decade is over.

here's a quote from a quick google search:

Americans are more optimistic about the U.S. economy than they have been in years, and that upbeat mood has pushed President Obama’s job-approval level to its highest point since the spring of 2013, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday afternoon.

so where's the upheaval? have i overlooked it?

I'm thinking near future.

University students/graduates failing to achieve "escape velocity" in terms of student debt principal/interest versus degree related increased income.

Nearly a trillion in student debt.

-----

Over educated uni graduates fighting over poor paying jobs(wage stagnation in even nominal dollars for 20 years) with squeezed working class minorities and single mothers(2nd rise of racism, white privilege, glass ceiling feminism).

-----

How long can EU countries sustain very high unemployment rates in youth cohorts and young adults before facing negative consequences?

jk
01-01-15, 12:14 PM
I'm thinking near future.

University students/graduates failing to achieve "escape velocity" in terms of student debt principal/interest versus degree related increased income.

Nearly a trillion in student debt.

-----

Over educated uni graduates fighting over poor paying jobs(wage stagnation in even nominal dollars for 20 years) with squeezed working class minorities and single mothers(2nd rise of racism, white privilege, glass ceiling feminism).

-----

How long can EU countries sustain very high unemployment rates in youth cohorts and young adults before facing negative consequences?
i think that there has been a major revision in the young's expectations of their futures, especially a lowering of expectations about their economic futures.

a google search on: generation americans lower living standards than parents
reveals a slew of articles on the fact that millennials are not doing as well as their parents, and that this lowered trajectory will continue into the future.

otoh, a search on: millennial optimism
produces numerous reports of an upbeat mood among this cohort. i think they see the world differently than their parents did. one part of that is that they are more social, more networked. this is a product of their enhanced means of staying in touch on top of having had that same ability in their youths, when peer relationships have always been paramount. they just never had to grow out of it. this provides a lot of social-psychological support. also, their response to the loss of job security has been to see themselves as entrepreneurs, their own economic agents. this is further facilitated by the so-called "sharing economy."

our tendency in discussions here has been to see the sharing economy as an adaptation to lowered means - e.g. you make the rent by letting strangers stay in your spare room now and then; you make your car payment by being an uber driver now and then, when "surge pricing" goes high enough to make it worth your while. they redefine this as entrepreneurship.

many years ago, here on itulip, there were discussions about how people would redefine their values to adapt to lower incomes, how values would shift to social relations and perhaps spiritual values instead of material consumption. i think i see both of those things in progress. the spiritual i think is a big part of what underlies ecological/green values, and it also fits with the social "we're all in this together" attitude.

i don't see the revolution coming.

Woodsman
01-01-15, 02:09 PM
I'm really not interested in another guided tour down a one sided, one eyed rabbit warren with you...

It's a bore, I admit. And I expect it would still be so even if the chasm between us wasn't as unbridgeable as it seems to be.

Anyway, it's hardly worth mussing one's hair over considering nothing has changed or will change in how business is done. The owners of the country want it this way so that's the way it's going to be. The rest is up to God.

lakedaemonian
01-01-15, 03:26 PM
i think that there has been a major revision in the young's expectations of their futures, especially a lowering of expectations about their economic futures.

a google search on: generation americans lower living standards than parents
reveals a slew of articles on the fact that millennials are not doing as well as their parents, and that this lowered trajectory will continue into the future.

otoh, a search on: millennial optimism
produces numerous reports of an upbeat mood among this cohort. i think they see the world differently than their parents did. one part of that is that they are more social, more networked. this is a product of their enhanced means of staying in touch on top of having had that same ability in their youths, when peer relationships have always been paramount. they just never had to grow out of it. this provides a lot of social-psychological support. also, their response to the loss of job security has been to see themselves as entrepreneurs, their own economic agents. this is further facilitated by the so-called "sharing economy."

our tendency in discussions here has been to see the sharing economy as an adaptation to lowered means - e.g. you make the rent by letting strangers stay in your spare room now and then; you make your car payment by being an uber driver now and then, when "surge pricing" goes high enough to make it worth your while. they redefine this as entrepreneurship.

many years ago, here on itulip, there were discussions about how people would redefine their values to adapt to lower incomes, how values would shift to social relations and perhaps spiritual values instead of material consumption. i think i see both of those things in progress. the spiritual i think is a big part of what underlies ecological/green values, and it also fits with the social "we're all in this together" attitude.

i don't see the revolution coming.

I don't see revolution either, in a number of ways we are much better off(and in some ways worse) than 40-45 years ago.

But just as we didn't have revolution 40-45 years ago, it certainly didn't stop a few from making a violent concerted effort.

The more networked and social a generational cohort is, the greater the speed at which a few could attempt another concerted effort and achieve some momentum from a very small base.

I would agree that the slower the frog is boiled, the less likely there is to be a backlash, but straight lines are hard to find or manage.

Raz
01-01-15, 11:25 PM
...

It's quite unfortunate (and quite telling) that you completely neglect the neon sign doctrine that many of these organizations proudly displayed at the time, which was a goal of violently overthrowing the country.

Which is not only illegal, but the kind of thing that logically compels an overwhelming and decisive response.

Expecting a government to play entirely by the rules when those violently opposing it have burned the same rule book is dangerously naive.

If you wish to continue down this path, I'd suggest opening your other closed eye to the mashup of political revolutionary violence committed by Weather Underground, BPP, BLA, and others that was thankfully extinguished, albeit with residual cancerous cells found in the form of convicted murderer Kathy Boudin teaching at Columbia University, convicted murderer Assata Shakur still harbored by Castro's Cuba, convicted murderer and airline hijacker George Wright still harbored OCONUS, airline hijacker Catherine Marie Kerkow whereabouts unknown, etc.

Your frequent diatribes on complex right wing information operations might also carry a little more weight if you balance it with some layman simple "useful idiot" operations such as those conducted by Bert Schneider at the 1974 Oscar Awards (his harboring of fugitives who committed acts of political violence is another story), the Jane Fonda fiasco that will haunt her for eternity, and the considerable information operations support for the likes of BPP/BLA/etc., offered by the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Algeria, etc. for just a bit of balance to go with your one dimensional attacks on "The Man".

...

Many look back with fondness at the 60's-70's US and for all the strong middle class job opportunities and low multiple of average incomes to purchase the average house, there were some very dark patches, much like the different ones that exist today.

We are quickly approaching the 3rd generation(at least experiences by the west) of irregular warfare since the end of WWII.

The first was the battle for influence and control over a wrecked Western Europe that was a direct continuation from the official end of WWII due to its initial strong vulnerabilities to being aggressively undermined (in a two way street with examples in a split Germany, Ukraine, and Albania to name a few) in Italy and Greece by a competing communist system.

The second was the battle that sprang from a combination of racial inequality and university incubated counter-culture/establishment movements some with direct and considerable external support from competing and sometimes partnered communist networks, just as the US was working to undermine (eventually with great success) the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact as exemplified in Poland with Solidarity.

The third, in my opinion, will consist of a combination of vulnerabilities stemming from economic inequality and university(and university graduate) incubated movements sparked by student debt indentured slavery and other directly related movements to support the dismantling of US geopolitical/military power which could be leveraged cheaply and from a distance by competing networks such as Russia, Iran, China....just as the US is working to undermine them all in return to a greater or lesser degree.

The US 60's/70's and the Western European 70's/80's possess some incredibly rich history that offer some fantastic lessons and opportunities for us to avoid repeating them.

It's been my experience that a one eyed lefty is just as dangerous as an inflexible right winger (assuming they are both equidistant from the center).

I try to view it with both eyes wide open. ...


Isn't the only difference the specific conditions of social vulnerability that can lead to social upheaval/disruption?


+1.

Woodsman
01-02-15, 01:31 AM
+1.


You seriously expect anyone to believe that the greatest power in the history of the world;



standing at the absolute zenith of its economic, military, intellectual and spiritual confidence;
in possession of the most sophisticated intelligence and internal security apparatus money could buy;
led by men of imagination, zeal, dedication and courage;
operating an exquisitely tuned and centrally controlled national propaganda enterprise;


was or could ever be under any existential threat from any of the rag-tag and tiny group of down and out sixties radicals worthy of a name? What tiredly preposterous and self-serving cant!

Surely there could no better evidence of the contempt you hold for us all. It's a slander on the intelligence of decent people everywhere, contrary to an Everest of documentary evidence, illogical, fundamentally lacking in veracity, and would I think be hilarious if it were not the justification for crimes unspeakable and suffering immeasurable.

For me this is sufficient proof that we exist in a separate reality where objective and verifiable facts are rendered meaningless and across which no meaningful transmission of information is possible.

In short, this is bullshit and any further discussion on this matter is a waste of time. FRED, I humbly request that this thread be moved to Political Abyss, post haste.

vinoveri
01-02-15, 11:52 AM
I submit that while this "rag tag group of down and out sixties radicals" may not have succeeded in "overthrow of the US government", they did receive a pretty big consolation prize - they were awarded control over higher education and the academies! ;_FP

jk
01-02-15, 12:32 PM
I submit that while this "rag tag group of down and out sixties radicals" may not have succeeded in "overthrow of the US government", they did receive a pretty big consolation prize - they were awarded control over higher education and the academies! ;_FP

i can't read that without thinking of THIS:


The way our society works is this. Leftist intellectuals with harebrained Marxist ideas get to control Stanford, M.I.T., Yale and the American studies department at the University of Vermont. In return the right gets I.B.M., D.E.C., Honeywell, Disney World and the New York Stock Exchange. Leftist academics get to try out their stupid ideas on impressionable youths between 17 and 21 who don't have any money or power. The right gets to try out its ideas on North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and parts of Africa, most of which take Mastercard. The left gets Harvard, Oberlin, Twyla Tharp's dance company and Madison, Wisconsin. The right gets Nasdaq, Boeing, General Motors, Apple, McDonnell Douglas, Washington, D.C., Citicorp, Texas, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Japan and outer space. This seems like a fair arrangement.
some changes since he wrote that: scratch stanford and maybe m.i.t. and yale.

vinoveri
01-02-15, 02:29 PM
i can't read that without thinking of THIS:


some changes since he wrote that: scratch stanford and maybe m.i.t. and yale.



Ha! Queenan's tongue-in-cheek comparison is certainly well received and accurate for the limited area it focuses on - economics.

In fact of course with grad schools and especially law schools, where folks remain until late 20s and then continue as "scholars" and professors in academia - higher education being now bastions of "progressive" world view - identity politics, absence of objective truth and basically a rejection and paranoia of anything that smells of traditions of western civilization, in short destruction (or reformation depending on your view) of culture. I'd say the radicals have had quite a bit of success

TBBNF
01-02-15, 05:38 PM
You seriously expect anyone to believe that the greatest power in the history of the world;



standing at the absolute zenith of its economic, military, intellectual and spiritual confidence;
in possession of the most sophisticated intelligence and internal security apparatus money could buy;
led by men of imagination, zeal, dedication and courage;
operating an exquisitely tuned and centrally controlled national propaganda enterprise;


was or could ever be under any existential threat from any of the rag-tag and tiny group of down and out sixties radicals worthy of a name? What tiredly preposterous and self-serving cant!

Surely there could no better evidence of the contempt you hold for us all. It's a slander on the intelligence of decent people everywhere, contrary to an Everest of documentary evidence, illogical, fundamentally lacking in veracity, and would I think be hilarious if it were not the justification for crimes unspeakable and suffering immeasurable.

For me this is sufficient proof that we exist in a separate reality where objective and verifiable facts are rendered meaningless and across which no meaningful transmission of information is possible.

In short, this is bullshit and any further discussion on this matter is a waste of time. FRED, I humbly request that this thread be moved to Political Abyss, post haste.

+1

lakedaemonian
01-02-15, 10:23 PM
It's interesting to see such harsh words(as well as the support of another forum member) over a problem where the root cause is being called out over a pattern of one eyed perception and a complete lack of balance.

Everything isn't "The Man's" fault.

That might be worth remembering once in a while.

While organizations like Weather Underground, SLA, BPP, BLA, JDL, etc never received broad based public support that's not from a lack of trying, it's from a lack of effective execution.

It's worth mentioning that in Western Europe, the development of the Baader Meinhoff Gang, before it mutated into the politically violent Red Army Faction(as well as considerable support/haven from the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact), enjoyed quite considerable moral support from the German public in public opinions polls, including a significant minority who were polled as willing to harbor them from German Police.

Of course this is before Baader Meinhoff/RAF went "full retard" political violence wise.

It's easy to stand around the water cooler to Monday morning quarterback what happened 45 years ago and call it insignificant, just as it's easy to say that had those organizations chosen a less violent, more effective path they would have developed greater and lasting influence.

it's ridiculous to think that an escalating and substantial cluster of quite high profile attacks of political violence was just that, with no risk of further escalation and failing confidence in government and law enforcement.

Predicting the future is pretty hard, even our best here only hit it out of the park on occasion, rather than with regularity.

Predicting 2000 in 1970 has proven to be laughable for nearly all who attempted it.

And the same applies to our predictions of 2045 right now in 2015.

But looking through a balanced lens from 1970, might offer some benefit in helping us navigate from 2015 to 2045.

Raz
01-03-15, 01:45 PM
You seriously expect anyone to believe that the greatest power in the history of the world;



standing at the absolute zenith of its economic, military, intellectual and spiritual confidence;
in possession of the most sophisticated intelligence and internal security apparatus money could buy;
led by men of imagination, zeal, dedication and courage;
operating an exquisitely tuned and centrally controlled national propaganda enterprise;


was or could ever be under any existential threat from any of the rag-tag and tiny group of down and out sixties radicals worthy of a name? What tiredly preposterous and self-serving cant!


First of all, I notice that you didn't respond to the particular point of criticism by lakedaemonian that I agreed with: a complete lack of balance. It's a common affliction of those who possess "superior" knowledge and a monopoly of "truth"; they actually believe that by providing innumerable hyperlinks to mostly leftist sources they obliterate any and all opinions and views to the contrary.

Second, but most importantly, you overlook the fact that an existential threat to the United States truly did exist during those years in question and possessed a vastly superior intelligence, propaganda, and most certainly, internal security apparatus than did the United States. That existential threat was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. During the 1970s they had their own bought and paid for mercenary army (Cuba) attacking countries on the western side of Africa while they proceeded to MASSIVELY increase their already superior array of both conventional and nuclear forces in Central and Eastern Europe, and all the while funding aggressive communist parties in Italy, France, and to a lesser degree, Germany. Once again, please read the attached and tell me if it is "right wing" propaganda. (And by the way, the Soviets did NOT share our view that a nuclear war was unwinnable.)

You once fretted that we were not "sympatico". That was back when you feigned respect for my opinions; now you apparently disregard the specific opinions I actually aligned myself with and proceeded to manufacture out of thin air that I saw no evil in the imperialist adventures of America's foreign policy during the Cold War, or any the crimes committed by our government. The vision from your right eye, while mostly peripheral, isn't so bad; your left eye, however, has apparently rendered you blind.




Surely there could no better evidence of the contempt you hold for us all. It's a slander on the intelligence of decent people everywhere, contrary to an Everest of documentary evidence, illogical, fundamentally lacking in veracity, and would I think be hilarious if it were not the justification for crimes unspeakable and suffering immeasurable.


"Contempt for us all"???:o "Fundamentally lacking in veracity"? Apparently we do exist in a "separate reality". Or maybe you're off your meds.
Go back and carefully look at what I highlighted in lakedaemonian's post. Nowhere were your assertions of the US Government's criminal activity impugned, but your lack of balance and perspective most certainly was. The Sixties and Seventies were not "happy days" for America and ignoring the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union would have shocked even your hero JFK.



For me this is sufficient proof that we exist in a separate reality where objective and verifiable facts are rendered meaningless and across which no meaningful transmission of information is possible.


Yes apparently we do. You launch into foaming, cursing tirades when others complain that you only see altruism and purity from the Left, and all the worlds evils from global warming to the human rhinovirus emanating from the "right wing". Then you claim that they ignore "verifiable facts" as the reason for your explosion - when they did no such thing.



In short, this is bullshit and any further discussion on this matter is a waste of time. FRED, I humbly request that this thread be moved to Political Abyss, post haste.


Thank you for illustrating the "free speech" principle of virtue from the Left. If others don't adhere to your opinions, manufactured or otherwise, theirs are "bullshit" and not worthy of discussion. At a minimum they must be marginalized as have almost all conservative voices in academia and Hollywood are today. It's the blessed fruit of PC - political correctness - a sort of McCarthyism with manners.

And apparently FRED (whoever he is) shares your view.

vt
01-03-15, 04:27 PM
As a Vista Volunteer in 1971-1972 our group of 16 was doing excellent work in the areas of low income housing (the working poor were actually building their own homes), welfare access, youth activities, and a low income credit union. You couldn't find a more liberal, anti poverty group.

Unfortunately three lefties in the group tried to take it over during a contentious group meeting and thankfully were voted down. They wanted total control and radicalization of every facet of our work. They left the group soon after.

We did see some minor push back from a few of the locals on the right. Sort of like the local county founding fathers who had controlled the area for years. They were only a nuisance and did nothing to impede our efforts. Nothing like the lefties.

The right wants to get rid of the left.

The left wants to destroy the right and the center. Total control.


In 1970 an SDS punk tried to take over a classroom I was in with a diatribe "All students are Ni*****" The couple of blacks in the class were not amused. Pathetic pseudo revolutionary.

What succeeded was 4 million students going on strike right after the Kent State shootings. I was there for that too as college radio stations spread the word in a non violent national action closed down colleges just about everywhere. This was the center shouting "Enough".

Yes there was some violence by lefties with firebombs and other property destruction tactics. If they can't take control, they throw a temper tantrum.

I pray the independent center will marginalize both radical wings.

lakedaemonian
01-03-15, 09:31 PM
As a Vista Volunteer in 1971-1972 our group of 16 was doing excellent work in the areas of low income housing (the working poor were actually building their own homes), welfare access, youth activities, and a low income credit union. You couldn't find a more liberal, anti poverty group.

Unfortunately three lefties in the group tried to take it over during a contentious group meeting and thankfully were voted down. They wanted total control and radicalization of every facet of our work. They left the group soon after.

We did see some minor push back from a few of the locals on the right. Sort of like the local county founding fathers who had controlled the area for years. They were only a nuisance and did nothing to impede our efforts. Nothing like the lefties.

The right wants to get rid of the left.

The left wants to destroy the right and the center. Total control.


In 1970 an SDS punk tried to take over a classroom I was in with a diatribe "All students are Ni*****" The couple of blacks in the class were not amused. Pathetic pseudo revolutionary.

What succeeded was 4 million students going on strike right after the Kent State shootings. I was there for that too as college radio stations spread the word in a non violent national action closed down colleges just about everywhere. This was the center shouting "Enough".

Yes there was some violence by lefties with firebombs and other property destruction tactics. If they can't take control, they throw a temper tantrum.

I pray the independent center will marginalize both radical wings.

I guess that's what I foresee as a possible solution(or a small slice of one) learning from the lessons of the recent past(afterall, 45 years while half a lifetime is just a blink of an eye in terms of the big picture).

Although I'd add to your post that while I would agree those on the radical left wish to destroy the right and center, I reckon the opposing reactionary right wish to own the left and centre. :)

I hold out hope that the confluence of rising education costs, rising non-dischargeable student debt, flat nominal new graduate wages, with a free internet will see the rise of an effective network to drive positive change in a non-violent and legal way....and filtering out both the marginal crazies and provocateurs

The Arab Spring is worthy of study.

In it, the internet/social media savvy were able to disseminate information and self organize, but there was no rubber to meet the road until they connected with their own soccer hooligan street gangs for a tangible real world/meat space connection.

I wouldn't advise ANY violent behavior in the US, or even anything beyond very clearly defined cheeky civil disobedience for media exposure, as I reckon it would be quite counter productive.

But surely there's a few kids out there with the potential to be effective leaders of digital movements with physical presence.

It's happening elsewhere with the likes of Camila Vallejo in Chile.

Although I'm not a fan of her belief system, it's good to see kids both having a go and enjoying some success in fighting "The Man".

jk
01-04-15, 02:36 AM
First of all, I notice that you didn't respond to the particular point of criticism by lakedaemonian that I agreed with: a complete lack of balance. It's a common affliction of those who possess "superior" knowledge and a monopoly of "truth"; they actually believe that by providing innumerable hyperlinks to mostly leftist sources they obliterate any and all opinions and views to the contrary.

Second, but most importantly, you overlook the fact that an existential threat to the United States truly did exist during those years in question and possessed a vastly superior intelligence, propaganda, and most certainly, internal security apparatus than did the United States. That existential threat was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. During the 1970s they had their own bought and paid for mercenary army (Cuba) attacking countries on the western side of Africa while they proceeded to MASSIVELY increase their already superior array of both conventional and nuclear forces in Central and Eastern Europe, and all the while funding aggressive communist parties in Italy, France, and to a lesser degree, Germany. Once again, please read the attached and tell me if it is "right wing" propaganda. (And by the way, the Soviets did NOT share our view that a nuclear war was unwinnable.)

You once fretted that we were not "sympatico". That was back when you feigned respect for my opinions; now you apparently disregard the specific opinions I actually aligned myself with and proceeded to manufacture out of thin air that I saw no evil in the imperialist adventures of America's foreign policy during the Cold War, or any the crimes committed by our government. The vision from your right eye, while mostly peripheral, isn't so bad; your left eye, however, has apparently rendered you blind.






"Contempt for us all"???:o "Fundamentally lacking in veracity"? Apparently we do exist in a "separate reality". Or maybe you're off your meds.
Go back and carefully look at what I highlighted in lakedaemonian's post. Nowhere were your assertions of the US Government's criminal activity impugned, but your lack of balance and perspective most certainly was. The Sixties and Seventies were not "happy days" for America and ignoring the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union would have shocked even your hero JFK.





Yes apparently we do. You launch into foaming, cursing tirades when others complain that you only see altruism and purity from the Left, and all the worlds evils from global warming to the human rhinovirus emanating from the "right wing". Then you claim that they ignore "verifiable facts" as the reason for your explosion - when they did no such thing.





Thank you for illustrating the "free speech" principle of virtue from the Left. If others don't adhere to your opinions, manufactured or otherwise, theirs are "bullshit" and not worthy of discussion. At a minimum they must be marginalized as have almost all conservative voices in academia and Hollywood are today. It's the blessed fruit of PC - political correctness - a sort of McCarthyism with manners.

And apparently FRED (whoever he is) shares your view.

as many did at the time, i think you greatly overestimate the u.s.s.r in the 1970's. kennedy had run in 1960 criticizing a "missile gap," which in office he discovered did not exist. brezhnev and his cohort's overthrow of the somewhat unpredictable khrushchev in 1964 marked the beginning of a long period of stagnation, economic, social, you name it. the brezhnev cohort had been junior officials who rose rapidly during stalin's rule because virtually everyone more senior to them was executed. molotov, krushchev, malenkov were the most senior people to survive stalin, but khrushchev soon emerged as sole leader. his "secret speech" to the party congress in 1956 denouncing stalin represented an important break with ruling by terror, but khrushchev's erratic behavior produced enough uncertainty for the brezhnev cohort for them to overthrow his rule. notably, khrushchev was not executed but allowed to retire peacefully to his dacha. the killing had ended.

brezhnev and his cohort stopped killing each other. a life of security and certainty had arrived for members of the hierarchy. however, because officials up and down the hierarchy were all of an age, there was nowhere for them to go, no way to rise in the hierarchy since no one above them would retire, be fired for anything short of gross deviation, or be shot. so they cultivated their own gardens, collecting rents in the form of corruption and privilege.

the soviet economy began stagnating ever more clearly during brezhnev's tenure. with the exception of a few technical areas, the only thing that they could produce that was close to world class was weaponry, with a few niche areas of special competence such as, iirc, metallurgy.

george kennan in his famous long telegram was ultimately proved right: the soviet union did not need to be defeated, it would eventually collapse of its own accord if contained and left to deal with the contradictions and inefficiencies of a "planned" economy. [my favorite story: the nail factory with its production set in tonnage produced only railroad spikes. when the next plan specified the number of nails, it produced only brads.]

sorry for this long ramble by way of background, but by the 1970's the ussr was in no way, shape or form an existential threat to the u.s. except in the case of a spasm of nuclear war. that is a big exception, except that i think both sides got very scared and very serious post the cuban missile crisis. khrushchev's decision to place soviet nuclear missiles in cuba was a direct response to the soviets' discovery that the u.s. ALREADY had nuclear missiles based on their border, in turkey. those missiles were quietly removed as part of the quid pro quo which ended the cuban crisis. thereafter more formal and more elaborate security measures were put in place, including the famous hotline. [the cuban crisis scare, in the meantime, probably hastened khrushchev's departure from power one year later.]

the "team b" assessment of soviet strength in the late 1970's stirred up a lot of political movement on the right, but it is important to remember that team b was wrong. the u.s.s.r. was a potemkin village writ large.


p.s. re the "massive superiority" of soviet forces in central and eastern europe, those forces served much more effectively as control over the satellite states, than as a threat to western europe. there was no way the soviets would have made it through the fulda gap. the essence of that fact lay in the u.s. refusal to renounce first use of nuclear weapons. it was clear that if western conventional forces were inadequate, tactical nukes were on order. since it was clear, pace herman kahn, that this would escalate to global destruction, it wasn't going to happen. both sides got a glimpse into the abyss in 1963 and, as samuel johnson said, there's nothing that concentrates the mind like the prospect of a hanging in the morning.

vt
01-04-15, 11:51 PM
I do agree the radical right wants to own the right and center. Why destroy anything of value when you can find a way to own it.

The left wants to destroy the right and totally control the center.

Raz
01-05-15, 11:39 AM
Ha! Queenan's tongue-in-cheek comparison is certainly well received and accurate for the limited area it focuses on - economics.

In fact of course with grad schools and especially law schools, where folks remain until late 20s and then continue as "scholars" and professors in academia - higher education being now bastions of "progressive" world view - identity politics, absence of objective truth and basically a rejection and paranoia of anything that smells of traditions of western civilization, in short destruction (or reformation depending on your view) of culture. I'd say the radicals have had quite a bit of success

+1.

jk
01-05-15, 12:00 PM
+1.
correct, the left dominates public culture, the right economics. have you ever considered that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might be an accurate reflection of the values of the american public?



p.s. i will also note that there has been no response to my post addressing the so-called soviet threat, and thus saying that there was NOT an existential threat to the u.s. in the 1970's: neither from the rag tag "revolutionaries" within, nor from the u.s.s.r. in fact the cold-war division of power into 2 opposing camps, frozen in place by an existential threat [not to their gov'ts, to their EXISTENCE], was far more stable than what we've been living with since.

vinoveri
01-05-15, 01:21 PM
correct, the left dominates public culture, the right economics. have you ever considered that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might be an accurate reflection of the values of the american public?



Why does the left dominate public culture? Is there a gene responsible for "progressivism"? Could it have something to do with the control of the academies, i.e., the literature, economics, political theory, identify politics, the vacuous and empty philosophy, the Darwinian/Freudian/Marxian worldview -which encompasses way more than economics and goes toward the most fundamental questions - what is man, what is his end, etc, questions to which this errant worldview dismisses as irrelevant. Culture is on the wane because man has lost himself in the apparent chaos of his own modernist world view, and this world view is learned by the masses by being promulgated by the bullhorn of the "educated" classes.
Values of the masses after all are molded and shaped especially in this day. When falsehoods and specious theories are taught and wisdom of the ages is ignored for generations, we do indeed get a population preferring these to what they never knew. And the crap that is taught today is not "liberalism" in any traditional understanding of that word

Raz
01-05-15, 03:03 PM
correct, the left dominates public culture, the right economics. have you ever considered that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might be an accurate reflection of the values of the american public?



p.s. i will also note that there has been no response to my post addressing the so-called soviet threat, and thus saying that there was NOT an existential threat to the u.s. in the 1970's: neither from the rag tag "revolutionaries" within, nor from the u.s.s.r. in fact the cold-war division of power into 2 opposing camps, frozen in place by an existential threat [not to their gov'ts, to their EXISTENCE], was far more stable than what we've been living with since.

I'm trying to find the time to reply to your assertions about the Soviets.
I have been VERY busy in the markets this morning and will likely be even busier this afternoon.

I do NOT agree with your assertions and will tell you why, but it will take a little time.
Like you, jk, I don't talk to hear my head rattle and need time to gather my thoughts together with the vast knowledge I've attained :(
by reading everything I could get my hands on about Russia and the Soviet Union for almost forty years.

lakedaemonian
01-05-15, 05:32 PM
correct, the left dominates public culture, the right economics. have you ever considered that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might be an accurate reflection of the values of the american public?

I would personally place myself in the category of fiscal(and geopolitical) conservative and social liberal.

And while I think your point is quite valid, wouldn't you agree that it's probably an extreme/magnified(rather than entirely accurate) reflection of the American public?

I'd agree in the "mean" sense, but what about the "mode"?

p.s. i will also note that there has been no response to my post addressing the so-called soviet threat, and thus saying that there was NOT an existential threat to the u.s. in the 1970's: neither from the rag tag "revolutionaries" within, nor from the u.s.s.r. in fact the cold-war division of power into 2 opposing camps, frozen in place by an existential threat [not to their gov'ts, to their EXISTENCE], was far more stable than what we've been living with since.

I actually wrote (and thought I posted) a long response to the existential threat, but it must have timed out on the wifi.

In brief( :) ):

Are you actually looking at it from a late 1960's, 1970's lens or from the lens of 2015 in retrospect?

There's a substantial difference in my opinion.

But from the lens of 2015 there are still some glaring examples of assertive efforts by the Soviet Union and it's eastern communist allies of convenience to undermine and even destroy US/western networks.

One just has to look at the month of January 1968 to see a highly coordinated effort on the part of the Soviet Union and it's proxy allies.

Blue House Raid that nearly succeeded in assassinating the South Korean President

Pueblo Incident which provided the Soviets with the crypto puzzle pieces, which when combined with the just initiated Walker Spy ring, that provided the Soviets with some considerable information dominance akin to WWII Enigma.

Tet Offensive

-----

From a 1970's lens take all of the above(bar the catastrophic, but unknown Walker spy ring scandal) and add to it:

This continued on in the form of Soviet proxies fighting aggressively around the world, most notably in the 1970's with the fall of South Vietnam, the horrors of ultra radical Cambodia, Communist insurgency in corrupt ally the Philippines, in Africa in the form of massive support for ZIPRA(1 of 3 sides in the Rhodesian Bush War), flip-flopping on the Ogaden War, overwhelming support for the massive Cuban incursion into Southwest Africa(over 250,000 Cubans serving there in direct combat operations over the course of a decade+), culminating with significant Soviet meddling/disruption in Iran, and direct Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979.

And that's on top of the oil crisis and the beginning of the long-slow decline of traditional American manufacturing(the seeds of the future tech boom wouldn't bloom for another decade).

The 1970's, from a 1970's lens….was clearly one of a declining US/Western network in terms of influence/control for a period.

Add to that, Soviet support directly and via proxy for non-kinetic operations to undermine the US

"Polonium poisoning" may be a bit harsh as I don't think an external power has the ability to develop that much influence and control over a country as powerful as the US in a mere couple of decades, maybe the flu or mononucleosis might be a bit more accurate.

The KGB didn't brainwash high profile useful idiots like Jane Fonda and Bert Schneider, nor;all the terrorists, bombers, murderers committing political violence during the period(although some did receive direct, albeit limited, training from Soviet proxies)……most would fall into the "useful idiot" a term most often attributed to Lenin, and leveraged aggressively throughout Soviet foreign policy history.

So while I'd agree it's easy in 2015 to make an assertion that the Soviet Union's collapse was inevitable and they didn't represent an existential threat to the US back in 1970, I strongly believe the reality is far different when you look through the late 1960s/1970's lens.

There's an irony in how some folks believe that the Soviet Union's collapse was easy to predict while concurrently pointing out the resilience of more recent totalitarian states that the US is attempting to undermine. A disconnect exists there.

Even if you could put together a superb doctoral thesis on WHY that's not the reality, what were the perceptions of the day?

Personally, I think if iTulip existed in the 1970's and it focused on a 25-50 year time horizon(as so few people, especially governments, tend to do), the group would come to a similar-ish conclusion(on relative economics and wealth, if not geopolitics….the track record here isn't that flash) on the relative state of the US and Soviet Union.

But geopolitical momentum(which the US lost and the Soviets gained) in the clash between the two major networks in the 1970's is the awkward fart in the room when Monday morning quarterbacking the 1970's I reckon.

jk
01-05-15, 07:13 PM
the reason "team b" was assembled was that the right wing was unhappy that the cia estimate AT THAT TIME of soviet capability wasn't all that scary. turns out that the official estimate was the correct one. so this is not "monday morning quarterbacking." it's saying that the system worked, but some people didn't want to believe the result.

and yes, there were skirmishes around the edges, but the cold war system was fundamentally stable, especially AFTER the cuban missile crisis.

Forrest
01-06-15, 01:31 AM
Anyway, it's hardly worth mussing one's hair over considering nothing has changed or will change in how business is done. The owners of the country want it this way so that's the way it's going to be. The rest is up to God.

+ 1

Forrest
01-06-15, 01:50 AM
correct, the left dominates public culture, the right economics. have you ever considered that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might be an accurate reflection of the values of the american public?


Probably...but also socially a bit too left, and fiscally not enough so...we actually need slightly more center of center.



p.s. i will also note that there has been no response to my post addressing the so-called soviet threat, and thus saying that there was NOT an existential threat to the u.s. in the 1970's: neither from the rag tag "revolutionaries" within, nor from the u.s.s.r. in fact the cold-war division of power into 2 opposing camps, frozen in place by an existential threat [not to their gov'ts, to their EXISTENCE], was far more stable than what we've been living with since.

Yes...all that stable angst perpetuating the Defense end of the economy, except that we still keep getting into wars elsewhere, rather than defending what we had...and that has not changed.

lektrode
01-06-15, 08:11 PM
....Yes...all that stable angst perpetuating the Defense end of the economy, except that we still keep getting into wars elsewhere, rather than defending what we had...and that has not changed.

nears eye can tell - the only thing thats changed?

is that the social+welfare+edu+activist industrial-complex has grown to almost the stature of the .mil's complex

and with their near absolute control over most of the op/ed depts of the lamerstream media
(proven in 2008+12)
it wont be long before The US is spending just as much - if not more - on the welfare industrial complex

Raz
01-07-15, 03:32 PM
as many did at the time, i think you greatly overestimate the u.s.s.r in the 1970's. kennedy had run in 1960 criticizing a "missile gap," which in office he discovered did not exist. brezhnev and his cohort's overthrow of the somewhat unpredictable khrushchev in 1964 marked the beginning of a long period of stagnation, economic, social, you name it. the brezhnev cohort had been junior officials who rose rapidly during stalin's rule because virtually everyone more senior to them was executed. molotov, krushchev, malenkov were the most senior people to survive stalin, but khrushchev soon emerged as sole leader. his "secret speech" to the party congress in 1956 denouncing stalin represented an important break with ruling by terror, but khrushchev's erratic behavior produced enough uncertainty for the brezhnev cohort for them to overthrow his rule. notably, khrushchev was not executed but allowed to retire peacefully to his dacha. the killing had ended.

Hindsight is always 20/20, jk. It's very easy to look back at one's life and clearly see mistakes, but the administrations of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon didn't know what we now know and they didn't have the luxury of hoping that Soviet intentions had changed. As a matter of fact it was Kennan's appraisal of the Soviet Communist regime that they were absolutely determined to foster and support "national liberation" as far as they could in the late 1940s, and increasingly so as they recovered from their industrial losses of the Great Patriotic War. George Kennan, as a matter of fact, believed that the Soviets would wage war on every level - political, economic and militarily - but only up to the point where they were confronted with forces sufficient to defeat them; they would then back off, but only temporarily, until they believed the preponderance of force was in their favor.

The Korean war was funded and planned by the Soviets who provided arms, munitions, training and even Soviet officers to lead (from the rear) during the initial phase with North Korean forces. Read Alien Wars by Oleg Sarin and Lev Dvoretsky and see just what level of military aggression the Soviets planned and executed for forty years.
Vietnam, however, was different and an example of the arrogant mindset of LBJ and complete lack of imagination and historical background on the Viet Minh who had been fighting France and Japan for almost thirty years!

I'm inserting a hyperlink to Kennan's "Long Telegram" of February 1946 because my file is too large to upload. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=george+f+kennan+long+telegram+pdf Please read pages 13-14 and you will see why the FBI and other law enforcement would look for Soviet involvement or at least instigation in some of the violent acts perpetrated in the United States and Western Europe during the 1970s. Perhaps they found some, perhaps they didn't, but they clearly walked roughshod over the constitutional rights of American citizens and numerous crimes were committed by more than one level of government during the 1960s and 1970s. I never disputed this - only the idea that the Feds and states were itching for any excuse to murder American citizens. I actually fear the present conditions more than those of the 1970s as the structures in place for a police state far exceed those of that time.



the soviet economy began stagnating ever more clearly during brezhnev's tenure. with the exception of a few technical areas, the only thing that they could produce that was close to world class was weaponry, with a few niche areas of special competence such as, iirc, metallurgy.

Indeed it did. One good read about the Soviet economy of the late 1960s through the early 1980s is the Age of Delirium by David Satter. His description of the workday in a soviet pipe factory is incredible: by lunchtime about a third of the workers were drunk, yet bonuses were given for meeting production quotas even though about half of the pipe was unusable and worthless. It is one of the best books about the everyday work and life of the Russian people during the late seventies and early eighties.



george kennan in his famous long telegram was ultimately proved right: the soviet union did not need to be defeated, it would eventually collapse of its own accord if contained and left to deal with the contradictions and inefficiencies of a "planned" economy. (my favorite story: the nail factory with its production set in tonnage produced only railroad spikes. when the next plan specified the number of nails, it produced only brads.)

"Eventually" doesn't mean much had Soviet forces overrun all of Europe outside the British Isles.



sorry for this long ramble by way of background, but by the 1970's the ussr was in no way, shape or form an existential threat to the u.s. except in the case of a spasm of nuclear war. that is a big exception, except that i think both sides got very scared and very serious post the cuban missile crisis. khrushchev's decision to place soviet nuclear missiles in cuba was a direct response to the soviets' discovery that the u.s. ALREADY had nuclear missiles based on their border, in turkey. those missiles were quietly removed as part of the quid pro quo which ended the cuban crisis. thereafter more formal and more elaborate security measures were put in place, including the famous hotline. (the cuban crisis scare, in the meantime, probably hastened khrushchev's departure from power one year later.)

You are projecting our beliefs about an "unwinnable war" onto the Soviets who did NOT share that view concerning a war in Central Europe. Perhaps they did if it involved a full-scale thermonuclear exchange between our two countries, but otherwise they did not. The Soviets were certainly angered by the placement of IRBMs in Turkey, but so what? We based far more theater nukes in Germany and Italy, not all of them low-yield tacticals, and the Soviet Union was within range of most of them (certainly bombers carrying SRAMs with yields in the Megaton range) as well as aircraft of the Sixth Fleet carrying nuclear bombs targeting bases in the southern USSR.
Khrushchev was of course giving us a taste of our own medicine (he had only a few nuclear armed ICBMs in 1962) so he could hit us with the IRBMs he had in substantial numbers, but the Bay of Pigs invasion crafted by the Dulles boys likely had as much or more to do with it.



the "team b" assessment of soviet strength in the late 1970's stirred up a lot of political movement on the right, but it is important to remember that team b was wrong. the u.s.s.r. was a potemkin village writ large.

Well, if I overestimated the Soviet threat in the late 1970s I had a lot of company. Please peruse the attached documents, especially "The Cold War Offset Strategy" and the others from the CBO, NIE, and the OTA during the 1970s. They show the Warsaw Pact as having a HUGE overbalance of conventional and nuclear forces immediately available with no need of reinforcement - meaning that telltale signs of preparation for an invasion of Western Europe might not present themselves before it would be launched. This was a period of great danger for NATO and was a quantum leap not only in Soviet ground forces, but a change in Soviet tactics as well. Richard Pipes, being Polish, had an inborn antipathy to all things Russian, but some of the criticism leveled against him has been shown to be wrong once we had access to the Soviet archives.

It wasn't only the "right" that was alarmed: so was Harold Brown, probably one of the very best if not the best Secretary of Defense the United States ever had. Dr. Brown correctly allocated funds and priorities away from manned bombers like the B-1 and invested in superior armor (M-1 Abrams), anti-tank weaponry (Apache, more Warthogs, Hellfire missiles, etc.) stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and an accelerated Trident D-4 procurement. Reagan was wrong to bring back the B-1 Lancer and the MX was more show than practical because the Soviet ICBMs were liquid fueled and we would have almost certainly detected what would have been necessary preparation for an all-out attack on North America. But the threat to Europe was very real. And those charged with the defense of the United States and our allies had to concentrate first upon Soviet capabilities, not Soviet intentions.


p.s. re the "massive superiority" of soviet forces in central and eastern europe, those forces served much more effectively as control over the satellite states, than as a threat to western europe. there was no way the soviets would have made it through the fulda gap. the essence of that fact lay in the u.s. refusal to renounce first use of nuclear weapons. it was clear that if western conventional forces were inadequate, tactical nukes were on order. since it was clear, pace herman kahn, that this would escalate to global destruction, it wasn't going to happen. both sides got a glimpse into the abyss in 1963 and, as samuel johnson said, there's nothing that concentrates the mind like the prospect of a hanging in the morning.

The Soviets managed the satellite states just fine for more than twenty years with large numbers of tanks and motorized infantry and only a slight advantage in numbers of tactical aircraft specifically arrayed against NATO. But the situation had RADICALLY changed after 1975. Massive increases in soviet infantry anti-tank weapons, strike aircraft and conversion of motorized infantry to mechanized infantry had nothing whatsoever to do with holding down the Czechs and Poles.
The Soviets could have broken through the Fulda Gap by the late 70s - early 80s - unless we were prepared to immediately go nuclear - and we faced more problems than that, like the North German Plain.
Had we not addressed that military situation, and considering the political upheaval in Germany, Belgium and Italy, at a minimum the "Finlandization" of Western Europe would have almost certainly taken place.

lakedaemonian
01-07-15, 05:02 PM
the reason "team b" was assembled was that the right wing was unhappy that the cia estimate AT THAT TIME of soviet capability wasn't all that scary. turns out that the official estimate was the correct one. so this is not "monday morning quarterbacking." it's saying that the system worked, but some people didn't want to believe the result.

and yes, there were skirmishes around the edges, but the cold war system was fundamentally stable, especially AFTER the cuban missile crisis.

By "Cold War system" are you also including the considerable resources expended by both sides in the cold war to directly undermine the opposing system?

I'm not talking about the hundreds of thousands of advisors and direct combat personnel deployed by each respective system to gain influence and control in strategic points in the developing world, I'm talking about the considerable resources expended to directly undermine each other's respective system.

In retrospect, it can be discounted. At the time, not so much.

While the considerable and direct effort made by the US led western network can try and take a lot of credit for the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union as a result of covert support for things like Poland's Solidarity it's debatable how much credit is due. What's not debatable is the effort and intent.

That goes both ways.

lakedaemonian
01-07-15, 05:20 PM
nears eye can tell - the only thing thats changed?

is that the social+welfare+edu+activist industrial-complex has grown to almost the stature of the .mil's complex

and with their near absolute control over most of the op/ed depts of the lamerstream media
(proven in 2008+12)
it wont be long before The US is spending just as much - if not more - on the welfare industrial complex

I've never really looked at it that way.

My personal feeling is that the old term "military industrial complex" is facing obsolescence as I think it fails to adequately describe what it has morphed into.

Something like "oligarch keretsu"(for the aforementioned mil-ind complex) and "poverty keretsu" but with a bit of Saachi & Saachi kick. Keretsu is a bit too Japanese fearing late 80's early 90's.

When I think of the word "complex" I think of Baader Meinhoff Complex. A pretty decent(and recent) film made about Baader Meinhoff and Red Army Faction.

jk
01-07-15, 06:23 PM
don't collapse decades in describing the evolution of the cold war. the theater intermediate range missiles [ss20 and pershing] were much later [2 decades if i'm not mistaken] developments than the jupiters in turkey which inflamed khrushchev to the decision to place missiles in cuba.

and again, "team A" - that branch of the gov't tasked with evaluating the threat AT THAT TIME, were right AT THAT TIME! some people didn't like that assessment, though, for a variety of reasons both political and economic. there is no hindsight involved in saying that the official assessments were that the ussr was not an existential threat to the u.s. yes, there were proxy wars fought along the periphery, but the never a central, existential threat.

and the european theater was clearly a stalemate.


from the wikipedia article on the fulda gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap):

The concept of a major tank battle along the Fulda Gap was a predominant element of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organisation) (NATO) war planning during the Cold War, and weapons such as nuclear tube and missile artillery, the nuclear recoilless gun/tactical launcher Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)), Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition), theAH-64 Apache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache) attack helicopter, and A-10 ground attack aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II) were developed with such an eventuality in mind.


note the multiple mentions of tactical nukes. i won't repeat the argument i made above about the significance of that. i'm not saying that there was no reason for the u.s. military build-up; that shadow-boxing was the central feature of the cold-war.

so i'd say there was no existential threat to the u.s., and i'd say the u.s. government knew that at the time.

lakedaemonian
01-07-15, 07:25 PM
don't collapse decades in describing the evolution of the cold war.

weapons such as nuclear tube and missile artillery, the nuclear recoilless gun/tactical launcher Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)), Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition),

decades between above and below here too ;)

as well as the far bigger gap of nuclear versus conventional deterrent

theAH-64 Apache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache) attack helicopter, and A-10 ground attack aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II)



so i'd say there was no existential threat to the u.s., and i'd say the u.s. government knew that at the time.

Looks like a situation of "agree to disagree".

Where I will concede is that the disruptive threats to the state of the late 60's/70s in the US would likely have not been perceived as serious as those facing Western Europe(which stretched WELL into the 80's).

Maybe it's a question of relative political participation/action between the US and Western Europe that seems to exist to this day.

Coups on the periphery of Western Europe(Portugal and Turkey), Aldo Moro kidnapped and executed, Olof Palme assassinated, and broader/deeper clustered attacks of political violence.

The velocity and magnification of instantaneous internet news today makes one wonder if what happened in the late 60's/70's in the US and 70's/80's in Western Europe repeated today, it would be FAR more exciting than the current level of "excitement" we've experienced in the last decade plus.

Hopefully events in France don't represent a data point in a return to another period of political(as well as ideological) violence, but I reckon that's what we may be seeing.

Not in an existential sense from a western short attention perspective, but maybe more along the lines of very long term financial and ideological "terraforming".

jk
01-07-15, 08:57 PM
Looks like a situation of "agree to disagree".

Coups on the periphery of Western Europe(Portugal and Turkey), Aldo Moro kidnapped and executed, Olof Palme assassinated, and broader/deeper clustered attacks of political violence.
.
thos coups were right wing and military. hardly relevant to the question of "an existential threat" to the u.s. and yes, there was banditry and terror by left-spouting groups in europe, by the political system and governance was never in doubt. a policing problem, not an "existential" problem, for democratically elected governments.