What Will Come of This 4T?

[David Horn]

(04-18-2020, 09:12 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: I find the following scenario most likely:
The nationalist-populists will win the 4T in America, the UK and most of the continent. They will be backed by poorer, less educated people, while the more educated will retreat into their ivory towers after the Left fails to win elections. I think politics will calm down in the late 2020s because the Left loses its motivation. There might be islands of Inclusivism, like the Scandinavian countries, and possibly Scotland or California if they manage to become independent. Anyway, this will be a failed 1T because it won't be supported by the best hearts and minds of societies. Thus the 2T will be a "civic awakening". It will focus on political freedom and global citizenship, rather than on religion, art or free love.

If your premise proves true, and it certainly may, I agree with your conclusion.  I won't live to see the worst of it, but you will.  How will you, and others like you, act to change the course of that disaster?  If only the well placed are able to get by and stay healthy, the restless rest will rise … at least at some point.  Chaos is not a solution to anything, but chaos is what you'll get.

[Ghost]

(04-18-2020, 09:12 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: I find the following scenario most likely:
The nationalist-populists will win the 4T in America, the UK and most of the continent. They will be backed by poorer, less educated people, while the more educated will retreat into their ivory towers after the Left fails to win elections. I think politics will calm down in the late 2020s because the Left loses its motivation. There might be islands of Inclusivism, like the Scandinavian countries, and possibly Scotland or California if they manage to become independent. Anyway, this will be a failed 1T because it won't be supported by the best hearts and minds of societies. Thus the 2T will be a "civic awakening". It will focus on political freedom and global citizenship, rather than on religion, art or free love.

I think the most likely scenario is that both the nationalists/populists and fringe left will be called out by "normies".

"Normies", I believe, are the ones who would win. I can't imagine people like Richard Spencer or Anita Sarkeesian winning 4T because that would really just escalate (as they are won by dangerous people) the 4T and lengthen it. The former wants ethnostates and hardcore traditionalism (women having a lot of children, anti-LGBT, anti-interracial marriage, "trad Catholics" and "Odalists", etc) while the latter wants militant left-wing ideas (extreme socialism, communism, militant feminism, etc).

If either of them win, the world will be screwed big time by authoritarian ideas.

I really think it's more of an authoritarian vs. libertarian thing.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-18-2020, 10:53 AM)Ghost Wrote: I think the most likely scenario is that both the nationalists/populists and fringe left will be called out by "normies".

Who are the normies? Neoliberals?

[Isoko]

Well, my own thoughts regarding the end of this 4T are rather grim. I have been trying to post for days but could not get out the right words so I'll just be honest on this.

I think 4T is going to lead to the collapse of the current Western world order. I think America could either divide up into states or withdraw from the international scene with alot of domestic problems for the coming decades.

Europe will probably fall into the hands of the Populists. This will collapse the EU. The end result of all of this will be a USSR moment where the West enters into its very own version of the hard 90s. It's not a pretty prediction but I just cannot see this 4T ending peacefully and everything going back to business as usual.

That said, there will be a revival and I think the Millennials and Zoomers will build a new economy. There won't be a major war to fight so that is the good news. Might be some potential domestic conflicts in European states but we won't have WW3 this time around. Just expect depression like economic times.

As for the BRICs, they will dominate for the next few decades. However they are sort of having their own weird 2T events. For China, it will be about less strict rules and more freedom without persecution. I expect the end result for China will be a sort of liberalising period like the USSR went through with Khrushchev.

For Russia, it'll be about money and improving the country's economy. They have big problems in terms of only Moscow and St. Petersburg are growing with the rest of the country declining. A future Russian government is going to see this as a priority to fix.

Not sure about the others but I suspect that countries like Iran either have a revolution or more reforms at the top down to the bottom, which has been sort of attempted only half heartedly.

[Warren Dew]

(04-19-2020, 12:44 PM)Isoko Wrote: Well, my own thoughts regarding the end of this 4T are rather grim.

That's not grim at all.  Not only do you not expect a nuclear war, you only expect breakups in the EU and maybe the US.  You don't even expect a revolution in China.

I think we will be extremely lucky to get away with what you are describing.

Iran, by the way, is in a second turning, not a fourth turning, so while the Ayatollahs better watch out, the country as a whole is not likely to break up, barring war with a stronger external power.

[Eric the Green]

(04-19-2020, 12:44 PM)Isoko Wrote: Well, my own thoughts regarding the end of this 4T are rather grim. I have been trying to post for days but could not get out the right words so I'll just be honest on this.

I think 4T is going to lead to the collapse of the current Western world order. I think America could either divide up into states or withdraw from the international scene with alot of domestic problems for the coming decades.

Europe will probably fall into the hands of the Populists. This will collapse the EU. The end result of all of this will be a USSR moment where the West enters into its very own version of the hard 90s. It's not a pretty prediction but I just cannot see this 4T ending peacefully and everything going back to business as usual.

That said, there will be a revival and I think the Millennials and Zoomers will build a new economy. There won't be a major war to fight so that is the good news. Might be some potential domestic conflicts in European states but we won't have WW3 this time around. Just expect depression like economic times.

As for the BRICs, they will dominate for the next few decades. However they are sort of having their own weird 2T events. For China, it will be about less strict rules and more freedom without persecution. I expect the end result for China will be a sort of liberalising period like the USSR went through with Khrushchev.

For Russia, it'll be about money and improving the country's economy. They have big problems in terms of only Moscow and St. Petersburg are growing with the rest of the country declining. A future Russian government is going to see this as a priority to fix.

Not sure about the others but I suspect that countries like Iran either have a revolution or more reforms at the top down to the bottom, which has been sort of attempted only half heartedly.

I agree, some grim things will happen. I past 4Ts, very grim things happened. That does not at all mean that the outcome was grim. We have gone through crises and re-organization, and came out ahead. The progressive side has always won. A relatively safe and calm first turning recovery period followed, and then an awakening, which is the peak of the cycle and releases new ideas for what will come out of the next crisis, for which the battle lines appear, and the cycle moves forward. Time is cyclical, not linear. or why else do we have circular clocks. Motion is circular, interacting with the linear. The wheel moves around, and moves us forward on the road.

I have predicted a possible US break up and/or withdrawal from international institutions for decades for this period. Whether it actually happens will be up to us. Perhaps what comes out of it will be better. At best, I see lots of reform proposals beings made, and for the first time in 40 years, some movement on it will happen, because for the first time in 40 years, the neo-liberal Reaganomics forces will be sent back on their heels.

It depends whether you use the real definition of populism, or the phony one being used today. Populists advocate power to the people. The right wing demagogues in Europe today, like those in the USA, are and will be losing ground.

[Isoko]

Warren,

Why thankyou. I am glad that it is rather optimistic, heh. Yeah, I honestly don't see anything happening about from the decline and eventual collapse of the West. 

When it comes to a major war, then no. The reason for that is apart from the West, the BRICs are actually doing fine. They have no reason to go to war as it is not in their best interests. There is still alot of economic growth to be had for the BRICs.

What instead is likely to happen is that the West goes belly up and the BRICs go into a sort of neo-imperial mode, dominating markets and territories in a weird 21st century play on the 19th century. Today's BRICs are the European great powers two centuries ago.

The next major war to occur will be when the BRICs start to reach their 4T period which should be around the late 21st to early 22nd century. This fits in quite well with my analysis. When they stop growing, they will decide to turn on one another.

Eric,

I have seen you mention this several times, that the "progressive" side always wins. However I have to disagree with you on this for two reasons.

1) The only historical periods where the progressives have actually "won" has predominately been in Anglo countries, particularly the United States. In the case of let's say Russia for examples, the progressive side never wins and instead it is always the conservative side.

Take the Russian Revolution. The early Bolsheviks actually were the first government to permit gay sex. No other European country would touch the prospect. What happened? A man called Stalin took over, thought it was too bad for healthy family relations and made it illegal again.

Then we had Khrushchev who was a liberal reformer and then Brezhnev who started to scale back the reforms. Then we had Yeltsin who allowed everything to pretty much happen and then Putin who has followed in the footsteps of Stalin and Brezhnev.

This seems to be a repeat cycle in Russian history. There is a brief period of liberalism then the door is shut and it is back to conservatism again. Russia is just one example of this case on why the progressives do not always win. 

2) There is nothing else left to progress too. Everything has already been done that is, essentially, progressive. If you go any further down the liberal tree, you are going into some pretty vile territory. Therefore, the pendulum for the next few awakenings is probably going to swing more to the right. It's about the balance and you cannot keep progressing when there is nothing else left to progress too, otherwise you are going to end up in a very bad Sodom and Gomorrah situation.

As for the Populists, I agree when it comes to the Anglo countries. They are pretty comfortable where they are right now and there is no desire for major changes with I think Brexit and Trump being the big push.

However Europe is different. Europe is going to have right wing Populists like Le Pen, Salvini and Wilders getting into power. Another major economic meltdown there, another refugee crisis and it is pretty much guaranteed. When they get into power, well it'll be closed borders, mass deportations, etc. 

You will have protests and riots from the lefties but the people will support it. It won't be like the Nazis or anything but I think that it is pretty much inevitable for Europe. Europe always has these spikes of craziness every century as is the nature of the continent.

Overall Europe will go the right and that is pretty much inevitable.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-20-2020, 09:45 AM)Isoko Wrote: As for the Populists, I agree when it comes to the Anglo countries. They are pretty comfortable where they are right now and there is no desire for major changes with I think Brexit and Trump being the big push.

However Europe is different. Europe is going to have right wing Populists like Le Pen, Salvini and Wilders getting into power. Another major economic meltdown there, another refugee crisis and it is pretty much guaranteed. When they get into power, well it'll be closed borders, mass deportations, etc.

I certainly agree in case of France. Macron is an equivalent of Bush/Blair, and Le Pen will be the proper 4T leader, probably setting the direction for the 1T.

BTW, are you a fan of either Dugin or Mencius Moldbug? (I dislike both)

[Isoko]

Blazkovitz,

Definitely for France. Unlike Germany, France still has desires of being a great power again. So we could see a LePen government trying to achieve such objectives along with following a more radical right policies at home.

As for the Netherlands, they have alot of strong alt right inspired parties now that will end up into power at some point. I think that Wilders party and the new forum for Democracy could end up in a coalition at some point. Italy is a no brainer.

Ah, Dugin and Moldburg. To be honest, I think Dugin is a crack pot that is stuck in the past with crazy ideas such as a Russian/Islamic alliance which wouldn't go down too well with the Russian people. His old fourth ideology could have been great but it was just one big rehash of the past that wouldn't work in the modern world. However, some of his ideas are influential in the Kremlin...

Moldburg has a point with the Cathedral and I have noticed that such a system does exist in western countries. Christianity is out and the new post enlightenment liberalism is the dominant ideology. I remember growing up in a time that was neo Soviet in the UK. If you dared express views that was anathema to the majority consensus (like how about we restrict immigration?) You were almost outed like a heretic and life became rather difficult for you...

As for the rest of his philosophy? I found it very boring and confusing.

[Isoko]

But to add on to the debate, I remember chatting to a guy in South Africa who told me that the left had simply run out of any new ideas and that the new ideas were coming from the right. He was correct The left has simply become too dogmatic and people are fed up with it.

He also made that prediction about the 22nd century, telling me at the time that globalisation was the new toy and the elites want to keep playing with it until they get fed up. He predicted a revolutionary and war engulfed 22nd century. However, when it comes to this round of globalisation, I think that it has run its course and when the more populist elite in certain countries take over, that revolutionary sort of zeal could hit alot earlier...

[Warren Dew]

(04-20-2020, 09:45 AM)Isoko Wrote: Warren,

Why thankyou. I am glad that it is rather optimistic, heh. Yeah, I honestly don't see anything happening about from the decline and eventual collapse of the West. 

When it comes to a major war, then no. The reason for that is apart from the West, the BRICs are actually doing fine. They have no reason to go to war as it is not in their best interests. There is still alot of economic growth to be had for the BRICs.

Crisis wars are not governed by best interests, or indeed by anything rational.  They happen because leaders miscalculate and end up in a war they don't want, or because nationalist populations refuse to permit their governments to compromise.  Sometimes what happens is that internal divisions get too severe, as happened in the American Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion, the Chinese Communist Revolution.  Brazil, Russia, and India may not be fully entrained into the WWII time line, but China most certainly is.

I could easily see a US President deciding that the way to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons is to nuke the relevant North Korean sites while they're still unable to retaliate against most of the US.  Would China and Russia just accept that?  What about after the US pressures India into giving up its nuclear weapons, and next applies pressure to China?

Quote:The next major war to occur will be when the BRICs start to reach their 4T period which should be around the late 21st to early 22nd century. This fits in quite well with my analysis. When they stop growing, they will decide to turn on one another.

You mean their next 4T period?  Or do you not believe in the 80 year generational cycle?

Quote:Eric

Just keep in mind that what Eric sees as progressive is progress toward a socially liberal version of Stalinism.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2020, 09:45 AM)Isoko Wrote: Eric,

I have seen you mention this several times, that the "progressive" side always wins. However I have to disagree with you on this for two reasons.

1) The only historical periods where the progressives have actually "won" has predominately been in Anglo countries, particularly the United States. In the case of let's say Russia for examples, the progressive side never wins and instead it is always the conservative side.

Take the Russian Revolution. The early Bolsheviks actually were the first government to permit gay sex. No other European country would touch the prospect. What happened? A man called Stalin took over, thought it was too bad for healthy family relations and made it illegal again.

Then we had Khrushchev who was a liberal reformer and then Brezhnev who started to scale back the reforms. Then we had Yeltsin who allowed everything to pretty much happen and then Putin who has followed in the footsteps of Stalin and Brezhnev.

This seems to be a repeat cycle in Russian history. There is a brief period of liberalism then the door is shut and it is back to conservatism again. Russia is just one example of this case on why the progressives do not always win. 

2) There is nothing else left to progress too. Everything has already been done that is, essentially, progressive. If you go any further down the liberal tree, you are going into some pretty vile territory. Therefore, the pendulum for the next few awakenings is probably going to swing more to the right. It's about the balance and you cannot keep progressing when there is nothing else left to progress too, otherwise you are going to end up in a very bad Sodom and Gomorrah situation.

As for the Populists, I agree when it comes to the Anglo countries. They are pretty comfortable where they are right now and there is no desire for major changes with I think Brexit and Trump being the big push.

However Europe is different. Europe is going to have right wing Populists like Le Pen, Salvini and Wilders getting into power. Another major economic meltdown there, another refugee crisis and it is pretty much guaranteed. When they get into power, well it'll be closed borders, mass deportations, etc. 

You will have protests and riots from the lefties but the people will support it. It won't be like the Nazis or anything but I think that it is pretty much inevitable for Europe. Europe always has these spikes of craziness every century as is the nature of the continent.

Overall Europe will go the right and that is pretty much inevitable.

I agree the progressive side may not always win in the non-anglo saeculum. But it often does. Not in Russia, as you point out; a very conservative country that rarely sees any progress that sticks. The Awakening does not end up shaping the crisis, as it does in the anglo saeculum. It's just cracked down on then.

Populists are never right wing. Populism means power to the people, not power to the prejudiced.

I couldn't disagree more with your #2, of course. We just barely opened up the Awakening when it was squashed and unfairly discredited. More Awakening along the same line as the sixties would be wonderful. It was peace and love, care for the Earth, respect the rights of all people, awakening to spiritual and sensory awareness. We need much more of this; the USA is too commercial and materialist. We need a renaissance. We need to come alive. We have the potential, because so much from the past and from the world is available to us at our fingertips to inspire us, but commercialism ties us down and keeps us focused on making money. The USA needs much-more powerful Awakenings. Most countries and peoples past and present are much more awake all through their saecula.

There is so much further to go politically and economically too. After 40 years of regression in the USA, it is in the most need of further progress of any nation. Health care for all has been put off for a century! It's way past time. And climate change is a real threat that means we need massive shifts in the energy we produce. Only the uninformed deny this. After 40 years of Reaganomics, wages for many are far too low and a few people are far too rich and too influential. Our democracy is totally ineffective now, and has been for 40 years, because it is bought and paid for and dominated by massively-deluded fools of the red trumpist tribe. We only didn't get Sanders because boomers were afraid of the power of the right-wing, and they voted for Biden because they thought he could beat Trump more easily. OK, Boomer. But we still need to move left, and you know it! And the exit polls proved that you know it.

Europe's flirtation with right wing nationalism is over, and with brexit severe damage was done by it to the UK. It may never recover. Also, Eastern Europe has fallen back to its earlier Soviet-era condition. This right-wing spasm was, as I pointed out, solely due to excess migration because of the dire situation in Syria caused by horrific genocide imposed by Assad, and also due to war and famine troubles in Africa. Much more real populism will be needed in Europe, and the left will therefore revive, because although the arc of history is long, it bends toward justice. The left is always the direction of history, without exception. Fallbacks into rightwing prejudice just reinforces peoples awareness that this is true, as the Nazis and what has followed them proved. The left IS justice, and IS what is best for all the people, not just for the wealthy few, the better race or the most hoodwinked.

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-19-2020, 03:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(04-18-2020, 10:53 AM)Ghost Wrote: I think the most likely scenario is that both the nationalists/populists and fringe left will be called out by "normies".

Who are the normies? Neoliberals?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Normie

Neoliberal [ism]  - An ideology that adheres to the liberalized flows of labor/capital/raw materials across nations states so as to achieve the maximization of profits. It's "success" is measured by this thing called "GDP".  GDP = gross domestic product.  The stuff it measures is stupid since MIC spending is a plus sign while a bunch of externialities like pollution never, never get a minus sign. Reagan,Thatcher,Blair,Bill Clinton, the EU, US "establishment", are all evil, nice festering fomites of this mind virus.

[pbrower2a]

(04-21-2020, 12:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-20-2020, 09:45 AM)Isoko Wrote: Eric,

I have seen you mention this several times, that the "progressive" side always wins. However I have to disagree with you on this for two reasons.

1) The only historical periods where the progressives have actually "won" has predominately been in Anglo countries, particularly the United States. In the case of let's say Russia for examples, the progressive side never wins and instead it is always the conservative side.

Take the Russian Revolution. The early Bolsheviks actually were the first government to permit gay sex. No other European country would touch the prospect. What happened? A man called Stalin took over, thought it was too bad for healthy family relations and made it illegal again.

Then we had Khrushchev who was a liberal reformer and then Brezhnev who started to scale back the reforms. Then we had Yeltsin who allowed everything to pretty much happen and then Putin who has followed in the footsteps of Stalin and Brezhnev.

This seems to be a repeat cycle in Russian history. There is a brief period of liberalism then the door is shut and it is back to conservatism again. Russia is just one example of this case on why the progressives do not always win. 

2) There is nothing else left to progress too. Everything has already been done that is, essentially, progressive. If you go any further down the liberal tree, you are going into some pretty vile territory. Therefore, the pendulum for the next few awakenings is probably going to swing more to the right. It's about the balance and you cannot keep progressing when there is nothing else left to progress too, otherwise you are going to end up in a very bad Sodom and Gomorrah situation.

As for the Populists, I agree when it comes to the Anglo countries. They are pretty comfortable where they are right now and there is no desire for major changes with I think Brexit and Trump being the big push.

However Europe is different. Europe is going to have right wing Populists like Le Pen, Salvini and Wilders getting into power. Another major economic meltdown there, another refugee crisis and it is pretty much guaranteed. When they get into power, well it'll be closed borders, mass deportations, etc. 

You will have protests and riots from the lefties but the people will support it. It won't be like the Nazis or anything but I think that it is pretty much inevitable for Europe. Europe always has these spikes of craziness every century as is the nature of the continent.

Overall Europe will go the right and that is pretty much inevitable.

I agree the progressive side may not always win in the non-anglo saeculum. But it often does. Not in Russia, as you point out; a very conservative country that rarely sees any progress that sticks. The Awakening does not end up shaping the crisis, as it does in the anglo saeculum. It's just cracked down on then.

People try things in a 4T. Major reforms find opposition from entrenched elites more intent on protecting their privilege an sybaritic indulgence by supporting mean-spirited, reactionary causes that dehumanize a society. At the milder level that means Trump in America or Bolsonaro in Brazil, people who hold people not already filthy-rich in contempt. At worst they use their power to bring about a Hitler who promises to make the common man responsible to irresponsible only to people like themselves -- aristocrats, executives, financiers, and industrialists... the contemporary equivalents of medieval nobility. Contrary to the meaning of the word noble, there is nothing noble in people who see no human suffering in excess if it serves their power, indulgence, and greed. At a low level such people are but common criminals if they survive at a low level and gangsters if they are more economically successful.    

Quote:Populists are never right wing. Populism means power to the people, not power to the prejudiced.

Sorry, Eric -- that is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Some truly shady characters have called their ideologies populist. Populism needs humane values to have any attractiveness to me. Hypocrisy is commonplace on the extreme Right, as with Hitler's anti-human crime syndicate calling itself the National-Socialist German Worker's Party. Take out the "German" and "National" parts of the title and one has a frequently-used title for extreme-left (really Communist) parties. The most extreme-right political party in France in the late 1930's, a cadre of defeatists who welcomed Hitler to 'cleanse' France of what the French extreme right (fascists, antisemites, and people with a fondness for the pre-1789 France) called themselves the Parti Populaire Français.  Supposedly it was for the "French people" and claimed to call for freeing France from 'alien' and 'foreign' influences on French life (I interpret this to mean French Jews). This party was populist, but without humanizing qualities much like the dominant elite in the demonic regime that conquered France in 1940. 

I have no desire to 'free' my country from the influence of model minorities who differ from me in appearance, culture, or religion. I would far prefer to join such people than endure poverty or endorse stupidity... let alone plunder and kill. Maybe we Americans get through the political mess that we now have because we have multiple "model minorities". 

Populism without humane values and respect for the creative potential of the intellect is as vile as socialism without democracy. Populism without humanism gave the Germans Hitler; socialism without democracy gave the Russians Stalin and the Chinese Mao. One might as well have traditionalist conservatism as either a populism without human values or socialism without democracy.  

Quote:I couldn't disagree more with your #2, of course. We just barely opened up the Awakening when it was squashed and unfairly discredited. More Awakening along the same line as the sixties would be wonderful. It was peace and love, care for the Earth, respect the rights of all people, awakening to spiritual and sensory awareness. We need much more of this; the USA is too commercial and materialist. We need a renaissance. We need to come alive. We have the potential, because so much from the past and from the world is available to us at our fingertips to inspire us, but commercialism ties us down and keeps us focused on making money. The USA needs much-more powerful Awakenings. Most countries and peoples past and present are much more awake all through their saecula.

It won't be until the 2040's that we see an opening of culture as in the 1960's. This time some of us old Boomers might be around to give some frank and necessary advice to youth challenging the strictures of what might become a soulless, conformist, unimaginative society. Most obviously, stay away from drugs. Second, don't get full of yourself only to become mirror images of the likes of Robert McNamara. Third, look out for your children. Once you have children you can no longer act like a child without hurting real children.

I can't say that the Boom Awakening on the whole was more benign than harmful. From it came the reactionary 'born-again' movement in Christianity... one of the most mindless, authoritarian, and reactionary causes possible but with the obnoxious self-righteousness that allowed people to do horrible things under the delusion that such was good. Maybe the 2040's will be less nasty when the last people who remember those who lived in the Gay 'Nineties'. Maybe we can tell the up-and-coming youth of Gustav Klimt and Gustav Mahler. Better than LSD! 

Quote:There is so much further to go politically and economically too. After 40 years of regression in the USA, it is in the most need of further progress of any nation. Health care for all has been put off for a century! It's way past time. And climate change is a real threat that means we need massive shifts in the energy we produce. Only the uninformed deny this. After 40 years of Reaganomics, wages for many are far too low and a few people are far too rich and too influential. Our democracy is totally ineffective now, and has been for 40 years, because it is bought and paid for and dominated by massively-deluded fools of the red trumpist tribe. We only didn't get Sanders because boomers were afraid of the power of the right-wing, and they voted for Biden because they thought he could beat Trump more easily. OK, Boomer. But we still need to move left, and you know it! And the exit polls proved that you know it.

For now, pragmatism will have to serve as the pretext for positive change. Crony capitalism, the consequence of Reaganomics meeting the untrammeled power of entrenched elites, is proving itself a failure in meeting the most dangerous threat to the American life since fascism. Americans may have seen Communism as a menace, but Marxism-Leninism had no appeal beyond alienated intellectuals and people brought up in "Red Diaper" families. Heck, McCarthyism was more dangerous to America as a whole than any Soviet machinations. 

Reality has a way of showing the consequences of denying it. Failure to heed warning labels and signs is one way to meet bad ends. So it will be with anti-vaxxer types, people who throw stones at large predators, speeders, people who text while they drive... 

Quote:Europe's flirtation with right wing nationalism is over, and with brexit severe damage was done by it to the UK. It may never recover. Also, Eastern Europe has fallen back to its earlier Soviet-era condition. This right-wing spasm was, as I pointed out, solely due to excess migration because of the dire situation in Syria caused by horrific genocide imposed by Assad, and also due to war and famine troubles in Africa. Much more real populism will be needed in Europe, and the left will therefore revive, because although the arc of history is long, it bends toward justice. The left is always the direction of history, without exception. Fallbacks into rightwing prejudice just reinforces peoples awareness that this is true, as the Nazis and what has followed them proved. The left IS justice, and IS what is best for all the people, not just for the wealthy few, the better race or the most hoodwinked.

The Hard Right solved nothing. It has left countries more polarized -- not less. It did not create prosperity -- only economic chaos. It appealed to old vices and got a predictable result in calamity. The old institutions -- academia, the military, the police, the churches -- 
proved how wrong the Hard Right was. Superstition kills. Bigotry kills. At the best superstition and bigotry make life miserable.

[Isoko]

Warren,

You have some very good points to be made. Crisis wars do come from the uncertain. Right now it is the U.S that is in a crisis period and they could do something very irrational like what we saw with Soleimani earlier this year. However, the other BRIC countries are in a period of economic growth and prosperity so they will be more willing to keep the peace this time around. If say the U.S did nuke North Korea for example, they would probably go and sanction the U.S, not start a war over North Korea.

As for 80 years of generations, I think and this is only my opinion that it changes with the times. There will always four turnings but due to the nature of change, things are not quite as clear cut as they were say in the 20th century. Remember that the traditional 4Ts did not even exist in 80 year cycles in the Roman Empire or middle ages as time was a very slow moving concept. You could have 100 years that remained predominantly one turning phase.

So once again, it depends on the times. I think a lot of Strauss and Howe theory was built on a 20th century period that has truths but it is up to us to try and find a meaning in it for the 21st century. We cannot blindly say this or that will happen with utmost confidence.

[Eric the Green]

(04-21-2020, 02:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: People try things in a 4T. Major reforms find opposition from entrenched elites more intent on protecting their privilege an sybaritic indulgence by supporting mean-spirited, reactionary causes that dehumanize a society. At the milder level that means Trump in America or Bolsonaro in Brazil, people who hold people not already filthy-rich in contempt. At worst they use their power to bring about a Hitler who promises to make the common man responsible to irresponsible only to people like themselves -- aristocrats, executives, financiers, and industrialists... the contemporary equivalents of medieval nobility. Contrary to the meaning of the word noble, there is nothing noble in people who see no human suffering in excess if it serves their power, indulgence, and greed. At a low level such people are but common criminals if they survive at a low level and gangsters if they are more economically successful.    

I probably attribute this to the fact that 4Ts are not times of unity, as is sometimes supposed just because FDR did so well in unifying the country. But it's always a conflict between the progressive and authoritarian/reactionary forces in society, and the authoritarian side can come from abroad too.

Quote:

Quote:Populists are never right wing. Populism means power to the people, not power to the prejudiced.

Sorry, Eric -- that is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Some truly shady characters have called their ideologies populist. Populism needs humane values to have any attractiveness to me. Hypocrisy is commonplace on the extreme Right, as with Hitler's anti-human crime syndicate calling itself the National-Socialist German Worker's Party. Take out the "German" and "National" parts of the title and one has a frequently-used title for extreme-left (really Communist) parties. The most extreme-right political party in France in the late 1930's, a cadre of defeatists who welcomed Hitler to 'cleanse' France of what the French extreme right (fascists, antisemites, and people with a fondness for the pre-1789 France) called themselves the Parti Populaire Français.  Supposedly it was for the "French people" and claimed to call for freeing France from 'alien' and 'foreign' influences on French life (I interpret this to mean French Jews). This party was populist, but without humanizing qualities much like the dominant elite in the demonic regime that conquered France in 1940. 

I have no desire to 'free' my country from the influence of model minorities who differ from me in appearance, culture, or religion. I would far prefer to join such people than endure poverty or endorse stupidity... let alone plunder and kill. Maybe we Americans get through the political mess that we now have because we have multiple "model minorities". 

Populism without humane values and respect for the creative potential of the intellect is as vile as socialism without democracy. Populism without humanism gave the Germans Hitler; socialism without democracy gave the Russians Stalin and the Chinese Mao. One might as well have traditionalist conservatism as either a populism without human values or socialism without democracy.  

I very much prefer the original definition, which was entirely based on the Populist Party of the previous Awakening. From it came all the reforms of the last saeculum, and it reappeared in the McGovern campaign. Just because some tyrants and demagogues claim to be populist, does not at all mean that they are. Such pretenders always confuse the people with false names and slogans, just as Trump does today. Only populism as originally defined brings power back to the people. The false versions do not. Instead they use the prejudices of deceived people to create tyranny. That's not populism at all; just demagoguery.

Quote:

Quote:We just barely opened up the Awakening when it was squashed and unfairly discredited. More Awakening along the same line as the sixties would be wonderful. It was peace and love, care for the Earth, respect the rights of all people, awakening to spiritual and sensory awareness. We need much more of this; the USA is too commercial and materialist. We need a renaissance. We need to come alive. We have the potential, because so much from the past and from the world is available to us at our fingertips to inspire us, but commercialism ties us down and keeps us focused on making money. The USA needs much-more powerful Awakenings. Most countries and peoples past and present are much more awake all through their saecula.

I can't say that the Boom Awakening on the whole was more benign than harmful. From it came the reactionary 'born-again' movement in Christianity... one of the most mindless, authoritarian, and reactionary causes possible but with the obnoxious self-righteousness that allowed people to do horrible things under the delusion that such was good. Maybe the 2040's will be less nasty when the last people who remember those who lived in the Gay 'Nineties'. Maybe we can tell the up-and-coming youth of Gustav Klimt and Gustav Mahler. Better than LSD! 

As I have said before, calling a turning by the name of only one generation that was involved is not very accurate. The S&H term is Consciousness Revolution. That is a good term for it. Before the last 2T, American society had very little awareness that it was even conscious. Everything was explained physically. The reason LSD was good is that it cut through this blind spot and opened Americans to spiritual pursuits.

The gay nineties era did also include movements like New Thought and Theosophy, which were much greater in those days than they are today. No LSD was required. Europe had modern arts and hypersensitive culture, partly powered by opium and stuff. It was a very transformative time, but as you imply, more so in Europe than the USA. In due course it was swallowed up and even taken over by the right-wing nationalist movements. Industrial society was very powerful then and overwhelmed contrary trends.

I can't get with Mahler though, I have to admit. Most of his middle and later symphony movements are incoherent, and certainly don't evoke transcendent experience in the way that the greatest 18th/early 19th century composers did, or that the impressionists and nationalists of the late 19th century did either.

The born again movement was a different part of the Awakening, involving entirely different people and different regions of the country (what we now call the red states). Of course I agree with you about how nasty and harmful it was, although it was partly based on the same stuff that happened in the previous awakening as well. Traditional religion is a part of every Awakening, although in the transcendental era it probably happened mostly in the 1T, the early 1800s. The 1950s arguably saw something similar as well. The reactionary part of the 2T awakening of course in no way came from the counter-cultural part; these are two different cultures. The former was very much a reaction against the latter, in fact. It was a counter-awakening.

The counter-culture itself was by no means without limits and problems, and we had lessons to learn. A cultural revolution has collateral damage of many kinds. The LSD tore through the limited consciousness of American society, and that break can never be entirely sown back. The cat is out of the bag; transcendental awareness is now part of society. It was dangerous for some people to take LSD without proper set and setting, however. Only the positive aspects really count in the long run, and are worth reconnecting to. Be sure and review my post about the great Awakenings, and follow the links. These are truly the formative movements that shaped our lives, and they are not strictly limited to second turning periods as defined by Strauss and Howe.
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid50881

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2020, 05:01 PM)Warren Dew

Quote: Wrote: Just keep in mind that what Eric sees as progressive is progress toward a socially liberal version of Stalinism.

Stalinism has nothing to do with progress. Most oppressive communist tyrannies are socially liberal to a degree. Every group in such a society is equally poor and oppressed, except the top functionaries. The state and its ruler wipe out all other distinctions and tribal loyalties. That has nothing to do with the progressive tradition in the USA and The West from the 1900s, 1930s and 1960s. Oppressive business tycoons and other neo-liberals use that "Stalin communism" slogan to disguise the fact that their own system is almost as oppressive, even though it claims to be "free enterprise." Opposition to progressives (whether they are what I see them as or not) is merely boosting the established authority, which in America is the oligarchical corporate elite. Progressives are democratic and pro-civil liberty; neo-liberals are often also cultural conservatives. Progressive movements are not opposed to genuine small-business free enterprise, and do not lead to state capitalism or total ownership of the economy.

[David Horn]

(04-21-2020, 01:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-19-2020, 03:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(04-18-2020, 10:53 AM)Ghost Wrote: I think the most likely scenario is that both the nationalists/populists and fringe left will be called out by "normies".

Who are the normies? Neoliberals?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Normie

Neoliberal [ism]  - An ideology that adheres to the liberalized flows of labor/capital/raw materials across nations states so as to achieve the maximization of profits. It's "success" is measured by this thing called "GDP".  GDP = gross domestic product.  The stuff it measures is stupid since MIC spending is a plus sign while a bunch of externialities like pollution never, never get a minus sign. Reagan,Thatcher,Blair,Bill Clinton, the EU, US "establishment", are all evil, nice festering fomites of this mind virus.

I agree with Rags: the neoliberal philosophy is now totally, as compared to partially, rancid.  None of the neoliberal concepts were promulgated for the betterment of anyone other than those actually pitching the ideas.  That they have had the economic clout and the balls-on patience to push them regardless of the situation speaks highly of their perspicacity, and badly about their humanity.  Now those ideas are asked to solve problems they actually caused, and the chickens are flying home in droves.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-20-2020, 10:55 AM)Isoko Wrote: Moldburg has a point with the Cathedral and I have noticed that such a system does exist in western countries. Christianity is out and the new post enlightenment liberalism is the dominant ideology. I remember growing up in a time that was neo Soviet in the UK. If you dared express views that was anathema to the majority consensus (like how about we restrict immigration?) You were almost outed like a heretic and life became rather difficult for you...

As for the rest of his philosophy? I found it very boring and confusing.

I'd say every society has a dominant culture and a set of opinions favoured by the elite. In 17th century France it was Catholicism, Thomism and monarchy. In 1930s Russia it was Bolshevism. In today's Saudi Arabia it is Wahhabism.

If there is a Cathedral conspiracy, it's rather ineffective cos it didn't prevent Brexit or the Trump presidency.

[Isoko]

Blazkovitz,

I don't view the Cathedral concept as a conspiracy but more a dominant reality that has its roots in the enlightenment which eventually gave birth to the modern globalist system. In a sense it became the dominant set of beliefs and values which governs Western societies. So in essence it is a cathedral. 

However it is starting to come apart now as people are starting to realise that it doesn't work. It will eventually be replaced by another cathedral as time goes on.