With support for government at an all time low among both Republicans and Democrats, and two presidents in a row with exceedingly low approval ratings, who is eventually going to fill the leadership vacuum? At present, we have the party that is supposed to be the steady hand of authority trying to play rebel, and the party which is supposed to be the rebel trying to play the hand of authority. 

If I'm being honest, I hate that I have to ask this question. Ideally, people would be adults with their own life missions, motivations and ability to make rational decisions, but realistically, most people need leaders to get them through crises. The "facts don't care about your feelings" angle most conservatives have taken is just not going to work for most people, especially not in a 4T. You can't solve political problems by only thinking about the perspective of people you like. 

On a less personal basis, when I look at history....the traits that make someone a strong, heroic leader and the traits that make someone a strong, despotic dictator have a disturbing amount of overlap, so the choice is between two options
1) an impotent leader who won't take the reigns of power or curb civil rights, but who is flaccid with regards to dealing with opposition or instigating real change
2) a leader with power and charisma who can rally people to solve problems...but whom you must take a leap of faith to support, because the chance that he'll become corrupt is always looming in the background. 
 

So tell me....who is exactly do we have to lead us? Trump? No. Biden? Hell no? Bitch McConnell or Pansy Pelosi? nope. Ben Shapiro or AOC? lmao. The mainstream cultures of the two political parties remind me of teenagers. The right are like rebellious teenage boys, the left like nagging, bratty and histrionic teenage girls. Do we have anyone truly inspiring? Someone who makes us feel mighty, powerful and motivated? Someone with vision that can bring together large factions from both wings of the political eagle? 

I have claimed to be a moderate on several occasions, but applies more to the policies that I want, not the personality I would like to see in a leader. Make no mistake, I want someone with balls, and at present, I see very few contenders, whether we're talking young heroes, middle aged family leaders or elder sages.

PS: I'm not necessarily asking for a single grey champion. Feel free to list potential leadership figures for a range of positions.

This forum among the fourth turning/generational theory forums does not mention science, and there isn't one about science, but it seems today we can't really talk about religion, spirituality and astrology without comparing it to science and what science says too. To some extent, all four are about the quest for ultimate answers to the basic questions: where did we come from, what or who are we, and where are we going?

This was a good talk about Darwinism by three authors. One of them mentions that Darwinism remains too much of a dogma held on to today as if it were a religion. All three recognize Darwin as seminal in contributing to the history and development of science, especially about that question of where did we come from. But the three of them say that the theory has failed to explain the big picture. It explained small local changes like the size of wings or the color of fur, but how life or species emerge or what consciousness is remains unanswered. The main point is made early in the video, which is called Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. What Darwin didn't know is how complicated the cell is, and how astronomical the chances (1/10 to the 77th power) are of a mutation getting it right in the development of a new form of life. In fact, a mutation is very likely to be fatal. One author compares what science and mathematics seem to say about the Darwinian notion that life evolved from the bottom up through chance arrangements of genes, as being just like monkeys assigned to type randomly for a million years and come up with the works of Shakespeare-- the same illustration that critics of Darwin like me have been saying for decades.

The three authors differ in their overall view of the world, as in how good it is, how important consciousness is, and how much mind is a factor and a useful explanation. The implication seems clear that life has done amazingly better, astronomically better, than one would expect given the chances mentioned here for the changes in life forms to work out well. The portly, bearded author on the right seems to forget this in his pessimistic view, even granting that there's so much that doesn't work out well in the world. And today, my goodness, it's hard to be as optimistic as I was in years past.

This is from the Hoover Institution, and I trust that it's understood that if I critique a scientific theory so dearly held as Darwinism, it is not that I am aligning with Christian nationalists, fundamentalist creationists and other conservatives; still less with other science deniers in this age of covid vaccines, MAGA, climate change, conspiracy theory, etc. I am feeling much more pro-science in my anger with these harmful delusions these days. But my fundamental prejudice and orientation, about which I need to reduce my passion, remains toward an idealistic, spiritual view that recognizes soul, mind, consciousness, and even God-- in a deep and wide sense, and not in the sense of outdated myths and stories.

So, sports and how it’s played are eternal, but how it’s enhanced, framed, perceived and performed is forever changing. Which sports events do you think represents and capture each turning?

I’m a European, so Soccer is the game for this. Beckham really represents the 3rd turning in Soccer. In the US, Kaepernick represents the 4th turning in Am. Football.

Okay, hold your horses. Let me break this down a bit before you decide I'm extremely biased haha 

First off, a disclaimer: this is all conjecture. One must always retain a baseline of skepticism with lofty geopolitical casting, especially one's own.

With that out of the way, I'm going to point out some ways the right is not going to win. 
- no one wants to hop back on the evangelical social mess of late 90s/early 2000s, not even the majority of the boomers. 
- actual racists are not appreciated by the majority of either party 
- I think it's a strong possibility we could end this 4T with universal healthcare (likely more based on an Australian model than a UK one)
- We could very well see a return to unions 
- Taxes will almost certainly be higher than they are now 
- normal people never really stood with the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd. This is what individualistic intellectuals who score low on trait agreeableness think, not normal centrists of either leaning (I am one of the former, but I'm not delusional to think the majority of people would ever behave like that regularly)

Now, why they are going to lose 
- no one likes the woke left, not even the genuine leftists. just look at the difference between critic vs viewer scores on rotten tomatoes. the liberal arts intelligencia loves it, everyone else is sick of it
- right wingers in the United States have a long track record of playing fairly nice with each other. Leftists tend to spiral into purity wars and end up cannibalizing each other. 
- everyone is tired of the modern dating norms, which are making them miserable. 
- Hispanic, Asian and black Americans are not nearly as "liberal" as white democrats like to pretend they are. Half the people I know in millennial/Gen Z right wing circles are interracial couples, and talk to people of other races far more frequently than coastal democrats tend to. 
- the more dangerous society gets, the more bargaining power men have in relationships, especially given the average millennial woman is around 32, and running out of time to have children. they will need to make some serious compromises and change their behavior if they want to grab a man for the longterm while they still can
- people are flocking to red states for a reason. everyone realizes the Covid totalitarian states of NY, NJ and CA are failing
- a large portion of the modern right...are people who have already been cast out by the left. 
- historically, the right is better organized and stresses principles of unity, discipline and strength. this is a lot more appealing to most people than division, being constantly antagonistic toward your country and viewing your entire civilization with the contempt of original sin

I certainly can't talk about this on facebook, so this little forum will have to do to speculate on how we can go forward since it seems likely that the House will be taken over by Marjory Taylor Greene and the Senate will still be under the control of Joe Manchin or even Mitch McConnell, and the Republicans set to take over the presidency, likely under Donald Trump, in 2024, using their new power to rig and deny elections. The people will blame Biden for the obstruction and stagnation the Republicans themselves cause, just like they did after 2010. The people are voting for climate change, so the challenge will be how to mitigate global warming conditions to the extent possible over the next dark age lasting thousands of years, and salvage what we can of civilization.

First of all we will see secession from the USA by California, Hawaii, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and probably Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. Perhaps others.

But these states are going to first need to control their borders against the red state armies. We blue states even if geographically separated will have to declare ourselves a new state and organize a massive army, including nuclear weapons and SDI defenses since we can't trust Trump not to just wipe us out.

After we have forced the red counties in our own reliable blue states to submit, and defeat any support from the reds, then we can think about forcing states like Oregon, Maine and New Hampshire and at least the eastern part of Pennsylvania to join us, and then invade red state territory, expel the horrific MAGA Republicans and resettle whatever we can grab with our own people and with the hordes of immigrants we expect. Because 2/3 of the countries of the world will become increasingly wiped out by climate change and resulting wars, the hordes will come across our borders and will have to settle somewhere. Practically the whole world will be moving north into various countries including the blue states, whereas the red states will try to erect massive walls manned by machine guns and navy destroyers to patrol their borders. It is possible that this won't work eventually and the red states too will be overrun. So will all the countries of the EU and the UK be over-run, and will have to cope and adapt and build new settlements with air conditioning. The MAGA government of red America and the EU and UK will both try to stop this horde as long as possible, but eventually the tide will just be too great. In that case, will they still be able to keep their countries fascist or the USA fascist-Republican? I imagine Pacific Asians will have enough room to move north, but Russia may be under intense pressure from this. 

By the way, the USA thus preoccupied with civil war will not be able to help defend Ukraine, so we can only hope that war will be won by Ukraine in the next year or two, and Europe will have to take up the slack of supporting them.

Massive increases in renewable energy and nuclear power and maybe gas will be needed to furnish air conditioning to the millions of small modular houses we will need to build for all these immigrants. The population of blue America will at least triple or quadruple within a few decades. Whites will be a pronounced minority. California can cut down great reaches of its forests all over the state and thin them out massively to stem wildfires as much as possible. Desalination plants and cloud seeding will help to some extent with the drought. Building codes will have to be stronger against the new threat of hurricanes. In the east, massive walls will need to be erected along the coast, plus relocation of large portions of cities like New York, and some protections will be needed along the west coast too against sea level rise. Europe will face these needs too. Since red states will deny climate change for the foreseeable future, many residents and cities along the south-east and gulf coasts will simply be wiped out, and the red MAGA government probably won't even care. It is interesting to speculate just how long the ugly, stupid, fearful, gun-nut MAGA people can hold out in their new false utopia without succumbing to the realization that the blue states were right all along and petition to join back to the blue USA. 

Only if the polls unexpectedly turn around and a massive blue turnout happens next month will this scenario be avoided. Republicans could care less, and so could those who deny the partisanship of our politics, or just decide not to vote.

Most mainstream communities that discuss generations tend to view them from a more pop cultural perspective. The thing I have noticed is that many of those communities fail to focus on the bigger, more historical picture regarding generations. This is especially common when defining the Millennial generation - people focus more on who followed pop culture trends and relatability instead of actual history. For example, one guy on the Internet says 1996 was the last to get into electropop and 1998 was the last to get into EDM. This is extremely flawed because there can be one guy born in 2000 into both of them and a 1998 baby not into any of them at all because he was simply not interested. There might also be people that aren't even born yet that will be into those trends, and obviously they are not Millennials. 

Pop culture depends on where you live in my opinion. Some areas may have trends appear and fade away earlier/later than others. I do not think you can really make claims like "Gen Z culture began in X year" because it will be different for everyone. Some pop cultural trends are also different in appearance and style depending on where you live.

Another thing I notice is that pop culture generally tends to recycle itself every 20-25 years or so. This is not a rule of thumb, but I did notice this for the past ten years or so (early 2010's tended to have late 80's nostalgia, mid 2010's tended to have early 90's nostalgia, etc). I remember one guy on a subreddit about a year or a year and a half ago saying that the 2009-2013 electropop era kind of "echoed" the 1987-1991 neon era, and to be fair, I think he is correct. 15-18 year generational groupings are almost like saying pop culture echoes every 15-18 years, in my opinion. The Y2K revival going on in 2022 appears more like teens/young adults of 1999/2000 passing the torch to teens/young adults of 2022, and when most people think of "passing the torch", they think of one generation going away and the next one coming in. I think it is further proof that ranges like 1981-1996, 1981-1998, 1981-1999, and 1982-1999 do not make that much sense. However, if we were to define generations by things like this alone, this would create 20-25 year long generations. Since 20-25 year generations are too long for most people, I think people should split these 20-25 year "supergenerations" into 10-12 year "generations".

Memory is flawed when it comes to defining generations. No generations other than Millennials are defined by remembering X event. The oldest Boomers were not born yet when WWII ended (start of 1T), the oldest Gen Xers were not born yet when JFK was assassinated (start of 2T), and the oldest Millennials were not born yet when Reagan got elected (start of 3T). However, the oldest Gen Zers were either 1, 2, or 4 when 9/11 happened (the most likely start of 4T). Memory is something that isn't fixed for everyone (some people can remember things as early as 18 months although it's extremely unlikely, and some people don't even remember their 6th birthday), and remembering 9/11 is also a location and arguably a time zone issue IMO. I do not think a 1997 baby from rural Oregon or Washington that uses Pacific Standard Time will have as good of a chance as one from NYC that uses Eastern Standard Time. I also notice that some people try to make the amount people born in X year that remember 9/11 blown out of proportion. I remember seeing two users in a generation-related subreddit in particular, one born in May 1998 and the other born in September 1998, that try to act like 1998 babies were affected by and have a good chance in remembering 9/11. Just because you were born in 1998 and remember 9/11 does not mean everyone or even most people born in 1998 will. In fact, I checked a poll done by Pew, and apparently, 1995 was the last birthyear where more than 50% of the people born that year in the US remember 9/11.

The national and world moods of a certain year tends to define generations, as well. 1T began when WWII ended and Baby Boomers started in 1946. 2T began when JFK was assassinated and Gen X started in 1965. 3T began when Reagan got elected and Millennials started in either 1981 or 1982. 4T most likely started when 9/11 happened, but many people start Gen Z in either 1997, 1999, or 2000. 1997, 1999, and 2000 were still either purely 3T or at the very least heavily 3T leaning. In all three of those years, people were either hyping up for the new millennium or celebrating being welcomed "to the future", the economy was doing well, Clinton was still the POTUS, America was not really involved in any major 21st century war yet, and mass shootings were not really that common yet (I know there were incidents like the Pearl and Columbine shootings, but back then, events like that were rare).

I think a lot of pop culture/trends/memory arguments also serve as unnecessary fillers to emphasize a point that one birthyear is different than the next. IMO, the only things that really split 1996 from 1997, 1998 from 1999, and 1999 from 2000 are being at elementary school when 9/11 happened, voting in 2016, and graduating high school before the Parkland shooting, respectively. Many of the arguments I see that split 1996 from 1997, 1998 from 1999, and 1999 from 2000 can at least be mitigated to some degree or apply to another birthyear. I remember seeing two users on generation-related communities born in 1998 that try so hard to distance themselves from their 2000 born siblings (using things like Vine or tide pods as arguments), and I laughed about this one user talking about how he was different from his 2000 born sister because of a Mickey Mouse related show on the Disney Channel.  

FYI, I say 1996, 1998, and 1999 end dates because a vast majority of the time on generation discussion communities, people end Millennials in either of those three years (they are also abused on the Internet, IMO).

I have yet to see any real pro-war types in this forum, and that includes myself, but I thought I would posit this question as a thought experiment.

Jeremy Griffith is a scientist who offers another explanation for our misbehavior than what conservative social darwinist neoliberal conservatives offer, and instead points toward our conscious behavior understanding and moral nature. Like George Monbiot, he says we have an original empathetic side as verified by science today. We are led astray by things we have been taught, and by psychological upsets and criticisms, the price we pay for our search for understanding how to free ourselves from our savage instincts, which we use as an excuse for our self-destruction.

https://www.humancondition.com/?utm_sour...-interview

What do you think, conservatives? Jason? Classic Xer? Are we just the product of our selfish animalist genes? Or can we learn to do better, like liberals like me say?

As phrased in more rationalistic terms, his theory is similar to the Buddha's from 2500 years ago, who said that our thirst, which is our tendency to unconsciously react and cling, can be blown out and extinguished if we follow a path of liberation, higher consciousness and virtue. And Plato's explanation was not too different either, and so are all the hero's journey stories and original religious ideas too.

Griffith says only science has given us today the potential to know this story in full measure, and that it's a shift from the dominant scientific paradigm. But of course, in fact, the cure requires more than intellect and science, but heart and new age knowledge of the chakras too, and it requires the enlightenment based on Buddhism, and taken further as well with our new age knowledge of spiritual realms and higher consciousness today. But not nonsense, I hasten to add!

Even Rousseau had the clue with his idea of the noble savage, I point out here, and the romantics and the left and hippie new agers already knew this truth, even without science-- and it wasn't phony-- as shown by Dino and Paul and Pooneil. But if science can add to this knowledge further, all well and fine with me. "Supportive and cooperative and loving idealism" becomes known, he says, not just a theory or dogma, and everyone moves left naturally and with relief (but the arrow on his picture is pointed right; someone tell him!).

Griffith's explanation for our loving or moral nature that we deny, centering on nurturing by parents, is similar to Strauss and Howe's explanation for how generations are different. Griffith apparently goes on to include the drive for negentropy, which is similar to Teilhard de Chardin's explanation which he seems not to know about.

Unlike past and subsequent 1Ts, Reconstruction was an era of rugged self-determination and personal freedom, rather than trust, conformity and optimism. In place of collectivistic Civics leading the rebuilding of society, we had gritty,  individualistic Reactives (Gilded Generation), who chose to focus their rebuilding efforts primarily on industry and private enterprise.

All of this sounds more like a 3T to me than a 1T.

What movies accurately capture the dynamics of their respective turnings?