Why does the Fourth Turning seem to take Forever?

[AspieMillennial]

This 4T seems very slow and dragged out and you could see hints of it even in 2001.

[Eric the Green]

This 4T is like the 1850s, which was also dragged out, and which S&H did not include in their civil war 4T, but I think it was part of it.

[pbrower2a]

Because we live in a Crisis and find it frustrating and viscerally offensive. There is no obvious flow.

If one is a liberal, one almost feels as if America has succumbed to something that offends every sensibility that mandates a resistance that we are not yet sure will prevail.

[AspieMillennial]

(01-07-2020, 02:17 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This 4T is like the 1850s, which was also dragged out, and which S&H did not include in their civil war 4T, but I think it was part of it.

So Millennials will end up Civic Artist hybrids and there will be still some resentment on both sides during the 1T?

[Bill the Piper]

(01-09-2020, 09:52 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(01-07-2020, 02:17 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This 4T is like the 1850s, which was also dragged out, and which S&H did not include in their civil war 4T, but I think it was part of it.

So Millennials will end up Civic Artist hybrids and there will be still some resentment on both sides during the 1T?

Milllennials are more like the Gilded, a civic-nomadic hybrid with all their tattoos and 90s nostalgia.

[Skabungus]

(01-07-2020, 11:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Because we live in a Crisis and find it frustrating and viscerally offensive. There is no obvious flow.

If one is a liberal, one almost feels as if America has succumbed to something that offends every sensibility that mandates a resistance that we are not yet sure will prevail.

Damn. You hit that on the head. Hard.

So Pbrower2a, do you think 2020-2024 with be the culmination? Would be nice.

[pbrower2a]

(01-10-2020, 01:18 PM)Skabungus Wrote:

(01-07-2020, 11:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Because we live in a Crisis and find it frustrating and viscerally offensive. There is no obvious flow.

If one is a liberal, one almost feels as if America has succumbed to something that offends every sensibility that mandates a resistance that we are not yet sure will prevail.

Damn.  You hit that on the head.  Hard.

So Pbrower2a, do you think 2020-2024 with be the culmination?  Would be nice.

Dump Trump, 2020, and especially any receptiveness to demagoguery. Demagogues always offer contradictory programs and promises; logical contradictions invariably implode. 

Start recognizing that brute-force solutions to problems either do not work or are too costly to get satisfying results.

Use technology to create opportunity in 'forgotten places'.  Just think of the Tennessee Valley Authority; it brought unprecedented prosperity to a chunk of America that was living under Third World standards. Develop the equivalent of the GI Bill or the Marshall Plan (or some synthesis) for America's poor. 

Ideally we get an FDR-like administration following Trump. Maybe we get to carry out Obama's dreams as the Hard Right implodes politically. (I expect Mitch McConnell to quash the impeachment of Donald Trump through some disgraceful subterfuge, but such will look unconscionable in November).  Is disgrace as effective as a Great Depression in discrediting a political tendency? 

The last part of a Crisis often moves with amazing speed.

[Eric the Green]

(01-10-2020, 10:56 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(01-09-2020, 09:52 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(01-07-2020, 02:17 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This 4T is like the 1850s, which was also dragged out, and which S&H did not include in their civil war 4T, but I think it was part of it.

So Millennials will end up Civic Artist hybrids and there will be still some resentment on both sides during the 1T?

Milllennials are more like the Gilded, a civic-nomadic hybrid with all their tattoos and 90s nostalgia.

I don't see any such hybrid; millennials are very typical civic heroes. Civics are not very culturally-creative, so they are continuing Gen X and even some Boomer fashions and music styles. They may produce some good culture, but following in others' footsteps in style is only what's expected of them. But civics are the best at congenial networking and awareness of civic issues, and they are starting to take action as we expected. The gun control and climate action movements are good examples of this, and so was their increased voting in the 2018 midterm. These will need to continue. There has never been a better example of civics as good at networking than the millennials.

The climax will not come until 2027. This 4T will be of archetypal length. Don't look for it to continue past 2029 though. I see progress revving up, especially after 2022, but it may lead to some internal conflict by 2025, and the USA will probably make a big foreign intervention at the same time, which may be unpopular. 2025 is a year of gauntlets being thrown down and s hitting fans. I have anticipated this era and predicted it in all my lectures and books for 50 years, and, hard to believe, it's finally here. This decade will be a crucial turning point for the USA. Let's rev up the engines! Wish us all luck and safe passage!

[Bill the Piper]

(01-07-2020, 11:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Because we live in a Crisis and find it frustrating and viscerally offensive. There is no obvious flow.

If one is a liberal, one almost feels as if America has succumbed to something that offends every sensibility that mandates a resistance that we are not yet sure will prevail.

And conservatives can feel offended as well since conservatism has been debased and has nothing better to offer than Trump.

[Remy Renault]

I predict if the Democrats win in 2020, a major overseas shooting war is unlikely, not because there aren't Democrats with a vested interest in America's current foreign policy trajectory (there are many), but because the political polarization at home ushering in the Cold Civil War will escalate to such a degree and become too big to ignore that whoever's in the White House will have no choice but to table foreign policy preoccupations in order to conquer the demons at home. This may of course entail major sacrifices on the part of the American foreign policy establishment, such as allowing Putin to "have Europe" just as they allowed Stalin to have Central Europe after World War II. Who knows what would happen in the Middle East...

Once the domestic issues have been sorted out, the US will be too politically exhausted and won't be motivated enough to 'Stop Putin' in my opinion, which means he'll get exactly what he wants, the end of Atlanticism.

And as for the issue of economic inequality vs. climate change, one issue could conceivably resolve the other by proxy or at least be a big step in the right direction for the other, just like with the Depression and World War II. You never know.

And quite honestly, a war for the "soul of Western civilization" with Putin will not be worth it on our part, even if liberal Europeans will be infuriated. And they'll have no power to stop him without American military might seeing as the E.U. is just as political fractured as the US is right now.

[pbrower2a]

(01-11-2020, 07:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(01-07-2020, 11:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Because we live in a Crisis and find it frustrating and viscerally offensive. There is no obvious flow.

If one is a liberal, one almost feels as if America has succumbed to something that offends every sensibility that mandates a resistance that we are not yet sure will prevail.

And conservatives can feel offended as well since conservatism has been debased and has nothing better to offer than Trump.

Conservatism will need to sort out much -- like casting out the Radical Right, the hucksters and demagogues, rediscovering the utility of rational discourse, and finding something worthy of protection (class privilege is never an adequate basis of conservatism unless the system is able to suppress dissent). Conservatism fares best when opportunity is a norm instead of a privilege, and such may depend upon liberal reforms of a recent time. (Aside from some better treatment of the handicapped and the establishment of LGBT rights, such "reforms" as America has had have had the enrichment of elites as the first objective. Conservatism used to be the defense of old virtues against radical assaults on a workable culture... and now Movement Conservatism (the only conservatism now relevant) is the defense of superstition (pre-modern thought) and elite egoism (postmodern thought) that have allied against rationality (that is, the Enlightenment). Conservatism may have never had a warm relationship with the Enlightenment, but when it acquisced with the Enlightenment it was far more defensible. 

Donald Trump is absurdity and cruelty, neither intellectually nor morally defensible. He represents the consequences of the celebration of ego, the culture of celebrity, and the rejection of objectivity.

With generational theory as a guide, I can predict that conservatism will get a revival as a defense of benign traditions and as a default alternative to radical Leftist efforts that implode or become excessively costly or disruptive.

[Eric the Green]

(01-13-2020, 05:10 PM)Remy Renault Wrote: I predict if the Democrats win in 2020, a major overseas shooting war is unlikely, not because there aren't Democrats with a vested interest in America's current foreign policy trajectory (there are many), but because the political polarization at home ushering in the Cold Civil War will escalate to such a degree and become too big to ignore that whoever's in the White House will have no choice but to table foreign policy preoccupations in order to conquer the demons at home. This may of course entail major sacrifices on the part of the American foreign policy establishment, such as allowing Putin to "have Europe" just as they allowed Stalin to have Central Europe after World War II. Who knows what would happen in the Middle East...

Once the domestic issues have been sorted out, the US will be too politically exhausted and won't be motivated enough to 'Stop Putin' in my opinion, which means he'll get exactly what he wants, the end of Atlanticism.

And as for the issue of economic inequality vs. climate change, one issue could conceivably resolve the other by proxy or at least be a big step in the right direction for the other, just like with the Depression and World War II. You never know.

And quite honestly, a war for the "soul of Western civilization" with Putin will not be worth it on our part, even if liberal Europeans will be infuriated. And they'll have no power to stop him without American military might seeing as the E.U. is just as political fractured as the US is right now.

I think by 2025 the USA may have no option but to do both. Fortunately, the Putin problem may be confined to their support for tyranny in the Middle East, behavior already established but not yet dealt with at all. Until 2025 both problems will be increasingly but haltingly confronted until further delays in full action can't any longer be indulged in by then. This is what the planetary cycles decree, in my observation. Putin might not attempt an invasion to The West, because he will be preoccupied with this Middle East effort and by his own problems at home, although I can't rule it out entirely.

I guess you are saying "who knows what will happen in the Middle East" and I am saying "who knows what will happen in Europe"

Probably really correct actions on either front won't be possible until the blocks which the right-wing has put up are finally all moved out of the way. Then, lots of action will happen fast. Violence is not inevitable, if we have reached some kind of new age, but according to the record of past 4Ts, such violence is probably likely. It will only take about 4 years from 2025 to handle these situations until somewhat of a consensus is reached and things can move more smoothly, with some conservatism returning.

As I see it, the 1T of the saeculum cycle must begin no later than 2029, because the next 2T can't be held back any longer than 2047, according to the cosmic timetable.

[Eric the Green]

(01-13-2020, 09:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-11-2020, 07:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(01-07-2020, 11:55 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Because we live in a Crisis and find it frustrating and viscerally offensive. There is no obvious flow.

If one is a liberal, one almost feels as if America has succumbed to something that offends every sensibility that mandates a resistance that we are not yet sure will prevail.

And conservatives can feel offended as well since conservatism has been debased and has nothing better to offer than Trump.

Conservatism will need to sort out much -- like casting out the Radical Right, the hucksters and demagogues, rediscovering the utility of rational discourse, and finding something worthy of protection (class privilege is never an adequate basis of conservatism unless the system is able to suppress dissent). Conservatism fares best when opportunity is a norm instead of a privilege, and such may depend upon liberal reforms of a recent time. (Aside from some better treatment of the handicapped and the establishment of LGBT rights, such "reforms" as America has had have had the enrichment of elites as the first objective. Conservatism used to be the defense of old virtues against radical assaults on a workable culture... and now Movement Conservatism (the only conservatism now relevant) is the defense of superstition (pre-modern thought) and elite egoism (postmodern thought) that have allied against rationality (that is, the Enlightenment). Conservatism may have never had a warm relationship with the Enlightenment, but when it acquisced with the Enlightenment it was far more defensible. 

Donald Trump is absurdity and cruelty, neither intellectually nor morally defensible. He represents the consequences of the celebration of ego, the culture of celebrity, and the rejection of objectivity.

With generational theory as a guide, I can predict that conservatism will get a revival as a defense of benign traditions and as a default alternative to radical Leftist efforts that implode or become excessively costly or disruptive.

I would say Trump also represents the rejection of subjectivity as well as objectivity. The former represents an ability or inclination to self-reflection and self-observation, something of which Trump is incapable. The Enlightenment represents an outdated worldview, although the worldview that Trump represents is probably akin to that of 2000 to 4000 years ago (the red meme/Mars age of empire gods).

Generally, the dominant political ideology of the last 40 years is a distortion of the orange meme of individual freedom and the rational application of technology for achievement i.e. the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. I see it as nothing but a distortion exaggerating the worst aspects of that worldview, especially justifying oligarchy and abuse of the people in the name of "free enterprise," which is really robber barons unleashed. It is also a convenient home for racism, which is another distortion of the ancient tribal purple meme combined with more modern theories of neo-darwinian racial superiority. This "neo-liberalism" is racist because it extols the virtues of "self-reliance," which for many people (especially southerners and rednecks) translates to "I work for my money, why should I be compelled by force to pay taxes for welfare to those who don't work" i.e. those "lazy" races who think they are "welfare queens" entitled to my tax money.....

[Bill the Piper]

(01-14-2020, 12:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: the worldview that Trump represents is probably akin to that of 2000 to 4000 years ago (the red meme/Mars age of empire gods).

Trump represents the brodude or locker room culture. "I'm a real man so I can sleep with all women I fancy while everybody who has ever had gay sex is an incurable faggot". Both Christian asceticism and feminism are a threat to the brodude's PUA way of life, but now he's more scared of feminism because it threatens him with things like Metoo, somebody fighting back against his supermassive cock. The hatred of Christianity lies dormant and may be awakened if serious Christianity becomes again a force to be reckoned with. I've heard neoreactionaries mocking the men in dresses (Catholic priests) and praising Satanism or racist brands of neo-paganism, but they are too scared of losing mainstream conservatives to say this in public. It's funny how Evangelicals defend Trump: "Oh, I know he cheated on all of his 508 wives, but we're not voting for a pope". The brodude also hates Islam - it means no beer or pole dancers. Tribalism or nationalism is an extension of standing for "our gang" like locker room dudes do. Dislike for rationalism or the Enlightenment is simply the jock's hatred for the nerd. When it comes to economics, the brodude supports capitalism because he likes competition and showing off his wealth. But he can be persuaded to socialism if it's presented in terms of a team of workers running a business together, rather than in terms of helping the needy (who are likely losers).

I suspect the brodude mindset might indeed be similar to the mindset of testosterone fuelled Bronze Age warriors. But these dudes never wielded a sword, which makes them little more than poseurs.

Quote:This "neo-liberalism" is racist because it extols the virtues of "self-reliance," which for many people (especially southerners and rednecks) translates to "I work for my money, why should I be compelled by force to pay taxes for welfare to those who don't work" i.e. those "lazy" races who think they are "welfare queens" entitled to my tax money.....

It's not racist it's simply selfish. The money obsessed Yellow types wouldn't even help their close relatives if they deem them lazy. But there might be an overlap. My diagram doesn't show that, but there are many mixed Yellow-Brown types.

[Remy Renault]

(01-14-2020, 12:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-13-2020, 05:10 PM)Remy Renault Wrote: I predict if the Democrats win in 2020, a major overseas shooting war is unlikely, not because there aren't Democrats with a vested interest in America's current foreign policy trajectory (there are many), but because the political polarization at home ushering in the Cold Civil War will escalate to such a degree and become too big to ignore that whoever's in the White House will have no choice but to table foreign policy preoccupations in order to conquer the demons at home. This may of course entail major sacrifices on the part of the American foreign policy establishment, such as allowing Putin to "have Europe" just as they allowed Stalin to have Central Europe after World War II. Who knows what would happen in the Middle East...

Once the domestic issues have been sorted out, the US will be too politically exhausted and won't be motivated enough to 'Stop Putin' in my opinion, which means he'll get exactly what he wants, the end of Atlanticism.

And as for the issue of economic inequality vs. climate change, one issue could conceivably resolve the other by proxy or at least be a big step in the right direction for the other, just like with the Depression and World War II. You never know.

And quite honestly, a war for the "soul of Western civilization" with Putin will not be worth it on our part, even if liberal Europeans will be infuriated. And they'll have no power to stop him without American military might seeing as the E.U. is just as political fractured as the US is right now.

I think by 2025 the USA may have no option but to do both. Fortunately, the Putin problem may be confined to their support for tyranny in the Middle East, behavior already established but not yet dealt with at all. Until 2025 both problems will be increasingly but haltingly confronted until further delays in full action can't any longer be indulged in by then. This is what the planetary cycles decree, in my observation. Putin might not attempt an invasion to The West, because he will be preoccupied with this Middle East effort and by his own problems at home, although I can't rule it out entirely.

I guess you are saying "who knows what will happen in the Middle East" and I am saying "who knows what will happen in Europe"

Probably really correct actions on either front won't be possible until the blocks which the right-wing has put up are finally all moved out of the way. Then, lots of action will happen fast. Violence is not inevitable, if we have reached some kind of new age, but according to the record of past 4Ts, such violence is probably likely. It will only take about 4 years from 2025 to handle these situations until somewhat of a consensus is reached and things can move more smoothly, with some conservatism returning.

As I see it, the 1T of the saeculum cycle must begin no later than 2029, because the next 2T can't be held back any longer than 2047, according to the cosmic timetable.

Is foreign intervention on the Americans' part what you predict or simply what you want? Putin is nowhere near the geopolitical threat Hitler was. The latter was a raving lunatic. Putin is a tactically-minded ubermensch more in the vain of someone like Napoleon. "Stopping Putin" is really just neoliberal virtue signalling. He'll leave you alone so long as you stay out of his way. Granted, the endurance of Atlanticism "gets in his way", since it's essentially outdated Cold War politics under a different name. The US has bigger fish to fry on the domestic front. Needless to say, the country wasn't as politically fractured during the Depression.

And the US has enabled it's fair share of tyrants, as well, especially in Latin America, and also in Saudi Arabia as we speak. So the Americans don't have the moral upper hand on this one.

There'd be no justifiable reason to go to war with Putin unless he launches an unprovoked attack on the contiguous United States, Alaska, and/or Hawaii, which he's not going to do, so...Otherwise, there'd be no reason to justify expending the resources given the domestic turmoil we're facing.

[Eric the Green]

(01-14-2020, 11:41 AM)Remy Renault Wrote:

(01-14-2020, 12:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-13-2020, 05:10 PM)Remy Renault Wrote: I predict if the Democrats win in 2020, a major overseas shooting war is unlikely, not because there aren't Democrats with a vested interest in America's current foreign policy trajectory (there are many), but because the political polarization at home ushering in the Cold Civil War will escalate to such a degree and become too big to ignore that whoever's in the White House will have no choice but to table foreign policy preoccupations in order to conquer the demons at home. This may of course entail major sacrifices on the part of the American foreign policy establishment, such as allowing Putin to "have Europe" just as they allowed Stalin to have Central Europe after World War II. Who knows what would happen in the Middle East...

Once the domestic issues have been sorted out, the US will be too politically exhausted and won't be motivated enough to 'Stop Putin' in my opinion, which means he'll get exactly what he wants, the end of Atlanticism.

And as for the issue of economic inequality vs. climate change, one issue could conceivably resolve the other by proxy or at least be a big step in the right direction for the other, just like with the Depression and World War II. You never know.

And quite honestly, a war for the "soul of Western civilization" with Putin will not be worth it on our part, even if liberal Europeans will be infuriated. And they'll have no power to stop him without American military might seeing as the E.U. is just as political fractured as the US is right now.

I think by 2025 the USA may have no option but to do both. Fortunately, the Putin problem may be confined to their support for tyranny in the Middle East, behavior already established but not yet dealt with at all. Until 2025 both problems will be increasingly but haltingly confronted until further delays in full action can't any longer be indulged in by then. This is what the planetary cycles decree, in my observation. Putin might not attempt an invasion to The West, because he will be preoccupied with this Middle East effort and by his own problems at home, although I can't rule it out entirely.

I guess you are saying "who knows what will happen in the Middle East" and I am saying "who knows what will happen in Europe"

Probably really correct actions on either front won't be possible until the blocks which the right-wing has put up are finally all moved out of the way. Then, lots of action will happen fast. Violence is not inevitable, if we have reached some kind of new age, but according to the record of past 4Ts, such violence is probably likely. It will only take about 4 years from 2025 to handle these situations until somewhat of a consensus is reached and things can move more smoothly, with some conservatism returning.

As I see it, the 1T of the saeculum cycle must begin no later than 2029, because the next 2T can't be held back any longer than 2047, according to the cosmic timetable.

Is foreign intervention on the Americans' part what you predict or simply what you want? Putin is nowhere near the geopolitical threat Hitler was. The latter was a raving lunatic. Putin is a tactically-minded ubermensch more in the vain of someone like Napoleon. "Stopping Putin" is really just neoliberal virtue signalling. He'll leave you alone so long as you stay out of his way. Granted, the endurance of Atlanticism "gets in his way", since it's essentially outdated Cold War politics under a different name. The US has bigger fish to fry on the domestic front. Needless to say, the country wasn't as politically fractured during the Depression.

And the US has enabled it's fair share of tyrants, as well, especially in Latin America, and also in Saudi Arabia as we speak. So the Americans don't have the moral upper hand on this one.

There'd be no justifiable reason to go to war with Putin unless he launches an unprovoked attack on the contiguous United States, Alaska, and/or Hawaii, which he's not going to do, so...Otherwise, there'd be no reason to justify expending the resources given the domestic turmoil we're facing.

No, I for sure don't want US intervention, as far as I know now. I pretty much agree with you about Putin and the USA. Putin's aggressive and tyrannical but he's not insane. He's an excellent strategist. I believe you were the one who said Putin might invade Europe and end Atlanticism. That would be insane and aggressive on Putin's part, even if the USA is weakened by its likely domestic squabbles.

If Putin did attack NATO countries, though, I think the USA would have to fight him. And the Baltic countries are in NATO. The danger with Trump is he seems to give the impression the USA might not oppose such an invasion, which would tempt Putin to try one. I don't see it happening now though, because the war cycle is not around. Things do move in cycles, and the USA is war weary now. The cosmic signs do point to the Kurdish area in 2025 rather than to northern Europe, generally speaking, as the likeliest war zone at that time, although that's rather unclear to me right now. And something is likely to break out there near the end of 2020.

[Anthony '58]

It is the Third Turning that is being very slow and dragged out (if anything, the Culture Wars have intensified since 1984-2001) - and whoever loses the November election will start the 4T, which will be brief but brutal.

Indeed it will be a redux of the Civil War anomaly - including a second Civil War itself, to the 10,000th power, with the left openly collaborating with Iran etc., and Trump, if he gets re-elected, neutron-bombing cities like Detroit and Baltimore (the neutron bomb kills people but does not damage property).

[David Horn]

(01-15-2020, 01:07 PM)Anthony Wrote: It is the Third Turning that is being very slow and dragged out (if anything, the Culture Wars have intensified since 1984-2001) - and whoever loses the November election will start the 4T, which will be brief but brutal.

Indeed it will be a redux of the Civil War anomaly - including a second Civil War itself, to the 10,000th power, with the left openly collaborating with Iran etc., and Trump, if he gets re-elected, neutron-bombing cities like Detroit and Baltimore (the neutron bomb kills people but does not damage property).

I don't see either side collaborating with anyone, though the right seems pretty pro-Russia at the moment.  Yes, there will be intensity, but this time, it may be resolved somewhat peacefully.  Will the US survive as a single entity? TBD.

BTW, the neutron bomb was never deployed, and the program was scrapped.  So were the warheads.  Even the one that were developed were never city-buster size.  They were intended for tactical use against massed troops ... an outdated concept theses days.  Here's a bit more on them, if you're interested.

[Tim Randal Walker]

From what S&H wrote, if the Millenials became a hybrid they would be like the Progressives-a sort of Civic/Artist hybrid. A Nomad/Civic hybrid is the result of a Nomad generation taking on some Civic-like behaviors .

[Eric the Green]

(01-16-2020, 11:59 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: From what S&H wrote, if the Millenials became a hybrid they would be like the Progressives-a sort of Civic/Artist hybrid.  A Nomad/Civic hybrid is the result of a Nomad generation taking on some Civic-like behaviors .

I am sure it's way, way too late for millennials to become a "hybrid." By the time people are 17 (about the age of the youngest millennial, even according to S&H dating instead of the Pew dating which makes them about 24), peoples' attitudes are well formed and their generational identity is set. And most millennials are a lot older than 17 by now. Millennials are typical civics, which is one of the two great predictions S&H made, and both came true (the other was that a fourth turning would begin sometime around 2005-2008). Millennials are collegeal networkers, good with tech, confident, optimistic, outer-directed and concerned with the world issues, etc. There is and won't be any hybrid generations in this cycle. Gen Z is already typical artist as well from what I have seen reported about them.