Quote from: lesseroftwoweevils on November 13, 2012, 06:14 am"Is there anybody else who believes we may be living in a particularly ominous moment in history, a sort of pre-1914 period?" -- So you're talking about the pre-World War I period, where a bunch of European countries secretly aligned themselves with one another in order to play a game of diplomatic brinkmanship? I don't see that happening today on any level of the global political landscape. I didn't say World War 1 was going to repeat itself. My contention was that we are living in a period of stability which seems much like the pre World War 1 era, where the idea of War seemed completely inconceivable. The UN (called the League of Nations then) had just been invented and everybody was (in public) making peace pacts, trade agreements etc. Of course as you say, something different was going on under the surface, but nobody seriously expected such a calamity as the First World War, even the hawks didn't think it would get that bad. I think psychologically we're in a similar place today.Quote from: lesseroftwoweevils on November 13, 2012, 06:14 am"I believe we going to go to a titanic conflict such as has never been seen inside of the West for almost a century. I believe we are going to experience civil war. "-- Uh where exactly is this "titanic conflict"? And when you say "Civil War", are you implying a class war in the United States or is this a global war? Within the West. The West is the United States, Europe, Japan. Any developed or post industrial countries essentially.Class war is not an actual war, it's a description of social conflict, not armed conflict, save in the minds of Marxists. By civil war I mean actual war. If you study history you'll notice a feature of civil wars, in that they seem to be highly contagious. Around the time of the American Revolution, many other civil wars flared up. This is because civil wars are intrinsically related to economics, those countries which were suffering from 'imperial overreach', with high debt burdens were the ones to suffer civil wars. I'm sure you remember how the American civil war began, well the French and Indian civil wars began in a similar fashion. High levels of debt foreshadowed higher levels of taxation that the population could bear.http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/britref/Quote from: lesseroftwoweevils on November 13, 2012, 06:14 am"The West is in deadlock. I think we should prepare for the consequences of that." -- I don't see how the you can say that with a straight face, there is no Eastern superpower anymore. And what exactly do you mean by "the West"? America? The first world? Wyoming? The West is in deadlock internally. I think it is appropriate to define what deadlock means here: "a state of inaction or neutralization resulting from the opposition of equally powerful uncompromising persons or factions". It seems familiar somehow.The West has the same definition it always had done. Rich developed countries. Quote from: lesseroftwoweevils on November 13, 2012, 06:14 am"Our network has a far better chance of surviving than structured hierarchies like the DEA. " -- If you're talking about the deep net here, then I'd disagree, although this is certainly debatable. I doubt either one of us will live long enough to see the collapse of the DEA (and thus the United States), but I can foresee a future without Tor.Without Tor, sure, perhaps. But the DEA is not going to survive this century. We'll have to agree to disagree, it's not really a point I wish to get stuck on, I was aiming for the more general point that certain types of organization are unlikely to survive a future conflict of the kind I'm thinking of, it wasn't really targeted at the DEA specifically or exclusively.Quote from: lesseroftwoweevils on November 13, 2012, 06:14 am"Many people believe we are facing a Great Economic Stagnation, but I think we are really facing a Great War due to the intergenerational conflict. The conflict of self interest is much much greater than it was in the 60s and 70s. " -- You really should you take a history class on the Cold War, it'd scare you straight. I personally think that was by far the darkest time in American history, a time where we placed more importance on "maintaining steadfast loyalty" than on protecting individual freedoms. Again, I have no idea what you mean by an "intergenerational conflict", but if you're seriously comparing the tension of the present day with that of the Civil Rights movement, I think you're seriously misguided. I think my other longer post qualifies what I meant by those words so I'll let you reply to that.Quote from: lesseroftwoweevils on November 13, 2012, 06:14 am"Many older people have commented that it is surprising that the rate of violence is declining during such times, and they are correct to profess such astonishment." -- This sentence really came out nowhere and I again have no idea what you mean by it, as it seems to contradict your previous points. There's less violence in modern times.. sounds like good news to me. These "points" all seem to be a jumbled mess of ideas that don't really lead anywhere. I'm open to your feedback though, so feel free to post back.Oh, it is good news. But this is a familiar pattern in history. Periods of prosperity lead to a less violent society, things such as social entitlements can aid this. However this can abruptly change quite rapidly and you suddenly face an unfamiliar, more violent world. Remember that I'm positing that we're living in good times for most of society but we won't for much longer due to the trends in economics, politics and demographics I've mentioned in the other post. You can call it the 'calm before the storm' point of view, it is not a contradiction.