If I ever were to write an autobiography this is no doubt the title I would give it.  Have mellowed a lot since, but I once had big dreams of becoming what has often been known as a ladies' man, one of those who could get just about any woman he wanted. Figured this would be the time to bare my soul on this because I will turn 76 next month, and it is highly doubtful that anyone suddenly becomes an overnight success at this at such an advanced age.  In fact it has only been in the past couple of year that I have heard the word mysogony bandied about. I was the opposite of a mysogonist, as I was one of these guys who liked women too much.

Not sure if there is any common word for my "disease", but it all began actually when I was still a child and there were television hosts at the time who would give lots of flattering compliments to their female guests. Also in old movies where, for example, a man will meet a woman say near a hotel or office elevator. They talk for a few minutes, then he would ask "How about dinner tomorrow night?", and she accepts. I was total flabbergasted that the dating game was nowhere near this easy in real life.  But, in the heyday of pre-Internet dating services, I was in a bunch of low-budget services which were, like, pay as you go. Eventually I swore off of them when the new breed of services which came around circa 1990 became so expensive that the average single person can't really afford them. I would also occasionally go slumming and hoping to meet a woman spontaneously that I could possibly spend some time with. But I did avoid as best I could those that were looking just for money. During the rather brief Midwest summer I would often hit the lakefront beaches sometimes along with a male buddy who was convinced that this was the best place at which to meet eligible single women at. Both of us tended to shun the bar scene which was then at its peak. For some reason I still haven't to this day figured out I was the one who was nearly always told to get lost. Did better at organized singles dances though as there were a few I met there I might have been able to marry had I chosen to pursue.

Speaking of marriage, this was something I was actually quite desperate for in the early days. No doubt this was because by the time I finally got out of "captivity" (two different boarding schools) I was 25 nearing 26 and most women in those days were already taken, or it least it seemed so. This was around 1970. I joined a local social club geared toward single adults but never had much luck persuading anyone to date me from there, and in fact was confronted that I was scaring the girls away. To this day this has been a source of vast disillusionment, and painful that some actually seemed to think I was some sort of monster. And this was many years before all the sexual harassment hysteria began. If one were to say that I was using this and a couple of other singles groups to find dates, I am guilty as sin.  In that group I would see many of the guys putting their arms around and even kissing some of the women despite not actually being in a steady relationship. Yet when I would attempt it I would always get called onto the carpet and lectured.

It wasn't until the late-1990s that I learned about Asperger's Syndrome, a condition of social awkwardness that pretty much lasts a lifetime. Of course in my younger days I thought it was something that I could beat and had as much to offer someone as anybody else. These words would not come out of my mouth today. My actions in this regard did lead to confrontations with police on a couple of occasions and nearly landed me in jail once. I know for a fact that still I was able to get away with a lot more at that time than would ever be possible today.

Today, while I sometimes will browse through the Internet dating sites I haven't really done much of anything as, especially since Craig's List discontinued their personals sections, there is hardly any place online where you can do so for free. You can browse, but if you wish to contact anyone you have to pay up. In nearly all cases the billing recurs monthly and those fees can add up big time. Maybe if I ever get the majority of my bills paid off, or better yet win the lottery.  I also more and more tend to stay away from situations that could be confrontational and I wish to avoid controversy when at all possible.  While I never was physically abusive, I could very often lash out verbally if I felt I was being mistreated, such as if one cancelled a date abruptly when I felt that she didn't have a good reason to do so.  On pins and needles when a date was made, wondering if the gal was really going to keep it. As time went along the percentage of cancelled dates tended to increase as well as the increase of rejections at events such as singles dances.

Would love to hear any thoughts on this, as well as if the term Ladies' Man in itself is more derogatory these days than it once may have been. And does it really take the holy trinity of lots of money, killer good looks and designer clothes to make a successful Ladies' Man? And all the qualification different and more stringent than they may have been in the past?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...-z-begins/

Does this article make anyone else as mad as it makes me?

It seems stupid but they just got it wrong.  The millennials end in 2000/2001, and by cutting the generations off incorrectly they've made ALL of their research related to the generations wrong or flawed.  And since the whole world copy and pasted this crap, the whole world is researching and thinking about generations wrong.

All because this guy was lazy one day.

Anyone that wants to join me in rebutting him on twitter and using the #pewlies where logical please join me.  It seems dumb but he pays attention to twitter (as does Howe) and doesn't have a lot of folks actively engaging with him.  The chance we get a request heard to change the years (at least get the shit off Wikipedia for petes sake) is pretty high!

#PEWLIES

I've been perusing the Reddit generation channels (Millenials (ghost town), GenZ (really just millennials), and generationology (wild place where discussion is prohibited, especially dissenting discussion).

I"m finding two main arguments that people who refuse to believe in Strauss Howe wield on repeat.  I don't really understand the arguments, but thoughts on the most effective (kind) debunking approaches?

1.  I was born in 2002, there's no way someone born in 2018 is more like me than someone born in 1998!

My complex rebuttal is that formative years (0-5) matter and that being raised in positive 90's for even a couple of those years leads to differences from someone born under very different parenting styles post-9/11.

2. Refusal to believe someone can have a child or nephew (? seriously) of their same generation.

This one just makes me scowl.

One of the main ideas I’ve been tossing around is the notion that generations start and end with a MOMENT THAT CHANGES THE NATIONAL MOOD. Sorry for the all caps. Those moments also start the new turnings . 

Moments : 

End of world war 2 -> Boomers (we can win !)
JFK dead -> Gen X (Deep cynicism )
Morning in America -> Millennials (optimism )
9/11-> Zoomers (overly protected and coddled )

There's a general impression in this forum that the worst of the Crisis is behind us and we're on the verge of entering the next High, without much of a crisis ever actually happening.  I've realized that the reason for this is that people here have no concept of what the next High is actually going to be like.

There's a vague idea among many people here that the next High is basically going to be like the unraveling, except with some laundry list of liberal improvements, like racism having disappeared or big corporations being forced to behave themselves and pay workers more.  But this isn't what it will be like at all.  It can't be, because that's not what a first turning is like.

First turnings are culturally conservative. They are a time of conformity.  Yes, the divide between wealthy and poor is less, but this is not because people are more liberal, but because everyone, including large corporations, is expected to do what's best for the group instead of what's best for themselves.  The last awakening began with hippies doing their own thing in the parks, and ended with big companies doing their own thing and not having to follow any particular rules or standards.  By the High this process has been reversed.  Companies do what's best for society, and so do individuals, because everyone must conform.

There will be a repolarization of male/female sex roles.  Men and women will be seen as fundamentally different, and these differences will be accepted and even celebrated.  This doesn't mean a return to the 1950s system where women were not allowed to work most jobs, but it means that any ideas that men and women are the same will be abandoned.  Feminism as a movement will not exist, unless it is repurposed to point out the value of being a woman (under society's new consensus on what it is to be a woman).

People will respect social institutions, respect the government, the press, the police, and so on.  This doesn't mean that these institutions will fundamentally be better than they are now or were in the past, but the time for criticism of them will be over.

We are a long, long way from the above.  How do we get there from here?  The answer is, we don't.  We can't go directly from here to there.  The only way to get there is for the crisis to be so large that everyone comes together to solve it, and then the spirit of coming together lasts once the crisis is over. 

I'm guessing this will take some sort of revolutionary or civil war in the U.S.  It might be something else, but it won't be "and then Joe Biden was elected and a vaccine was found for covid-19 and everyone lived happily ever after".

I was watching coverage of a new generation starting to vote, when the taking head referred to the new voters as Tik Tokers.  Seems better than giving them a name based on a letter of the alphabet.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpos...932076/amp

https://www.metv.com/lists/6-scary-reaso...r-70s-kids

So, this is my thoughts regarding the Age of Aquarius to come. It is something I have discussed recently with Eric and I thought we could continue to put thoughts together on what this age could mean, along with the future that it could bring. 

Aquarius is an interesting sign. It is the water bearer and it brings along the concept of air which is of course intellect. There is debates on what this intellect could itself bring. The last time we had an air mutation was around the 1980s to the 2000s which brought in advancements such as the Internet and political upheavals such as the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. So we can get an idea of what is happening. 

We are due to enter the next great mutation, which is once again air, in a few short months. This itself will supposedly last for 199 years approximately. 

So, when did Aquarius start? From my own Occult research, I would say that Aquarius came into being around the late 19th century. I would guesstimate the 1890s but it could have been earlier.

So what actually changed? It started to give birth to the age of the individual which has been slowly replacing the former patriarchal societies that were part of the Pisces sign.

Aquarius has come into obvious conflicts with Pisces and this resulted in the two world wars, the cold War and now Islam and other authoritarian tendencies. Yet I feel its ultimate goal is to empower the individual and move away from traditional societies, in particular the heavy dominance of the nation state. 

Does that mean all nation states will disappear? No, a few will continue to exist, just as tribes still exist in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere. Just as Pagans still existed (albeit in small numbers) in Christian Europe, so too will some nations still exist. I predict that we could end up with one dominant global society in the next few centuries along with a few outliers still hanging about. Think of Israel, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Greece, North Korea.

However I expect Pisces to fully end by 2150 - 2160, which is interestingly enough the same time frame as Eric's prophecy. Yet I have two key ingredients to add to the mix on this one.

1) Russia. My research is indicating Russia has a huge role to play around the Middle 22nd century. Looks like the birth of some new church. Why does Russia fit in strongly at the same time Eric is predicting global world government? Could Russia have a major leading role in this? I'm not sure but Russia seems to crop up a lot.

Obviously I don't see any signs of this in modern day Putins Russia so this seems to be a far off future event. But even still, Russia for some reason keeps cropping up. I'd be interested to see if Eric has any thoughts more in depth in the role Russia could be playing in regards to this. 

2) Aquarius won't be a utopia. It won't be a golden age. I think we will have unity for a while but from what I've heard (although I cannot be hugely sure), there will be a dividing factor in the age. I tend to think of it like Brexit. Everything will be working but eventually start to decline and somebody decides to go their own way. But it'll be a long process before division sets in. For a while at least there will be more unity. 

The waves of Aquarius go up and down. There will be good spots and bad. But it will be something rather very different to the previous Piscean age we've lived in. 

You know, last year I read of an Indian astrologer who actually was able to add in the Hindu yugas to modern astrology. He found that the years of the yugas had been vastly over represented and found they actually fit neatly into modern astrology. Basing it off the Christian calendar, he found that the crucifixion brought in the modern kali yuga and we left it to the Dwarpara yuga (the age of energy) around about 1500s.

He predicted we'd sort of reach the next better yuga (the silver) around 4000AD, which is capricorn. So fitting this in with Aquarius, we are still very much in a bronze age and will likely continue to be in the nearby future. 

Any thoughts on this one Eric? 

Anyway ill leave it here. Thanks for reading.

The gen of the cliche topical name