(07-20-2018, 12:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 11:30 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recall that the paleo site had a thread listing 4Ts for various countries.

Not every one had a war.  During the 19th century, Britain had a bloodless Reform Crisis, and Canada had a rather low key Confederation Crisis.

That is interesting when I read the books the authors really never talked about other nations very much. And when they talk about America they really only use examples that involve kind of ideology. 

American Revolution was ideology that America did not want to be subjugated to a crown. Then after that you have the Civil War which was obviously based on an ideology North vs South. After that we have World War II obviously a clash of ideologies on a global scale.  

All three of those resets in American civilization involved violence great amounts of violence.  I'm trying to remember if there was anything in the texts that was an example of a bloodless American fourth turning. Can anyone remember that?

(07-20-2018, 12:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 11:30 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recall that the paleo site had a thread listing 4Ts for various countries.

Not every one had a war.  During the 19th century, Britain had a bloodless Reform Crisis, and Canada had a rather low key Confederation Crisis.

That is interesting when I read the books the authors really never talked about other nations very much. And when they talk about America they really only use examples that involve kind of ideology. 

American Revolution was ideology that America did not want to be subjugated to a crown. Then after that you have the Civil War which was obviously based on an ideology North vs South. After that we have World War II obviously a clash of ideologies on a global scale.  

All three of those resets in American civilization involved violence great amounts of violence.  I'm trying to remember if there was anything in the texts that was an example of a bloodless American fourth turning. Can anyone remember that?

(07-20-2018, 03:17 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 12:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 11:30 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recall that the paleo site had a thread listing 4Ts for various countries.

Not every one had a war.  During the 19th century, Britain had a bloodless Reform Crisis, and Canada had a rather low key Confederation Crisis.

That is interesting when I read the books the authors really never talked about other nations very much. And when they talk about America they really only use examples that involve kind of ideology. 

American Revolution was ideology that America did not want to be subjugated to a crown. Then after that you have the Civil War which was obviously based on an ideology North vs South. After that we have World War II obviously a clash of ideologies on a global scale.  

All three of those resets in American civilization involved violence great amounts of violence.  I'm trying to remember if there was anything in the texts that was an example of a bloodless American fourth turning. Can anyone remember that?

There was no such fourth turning. For a milder war crisis you have to go back to the English cycle from which America was descended, the battle against the Spanish Armada. The authors titled an entire turning based on the rivalry of England and Spain, and the underlying religious and dynastic conflict.

(07-20-2018, 05:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 12:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 11:30 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recall that the paleo site had a thread listing 4Ts for various countries.

Not every one had a war.  During the 19th century, Britain had a bloodless Reform Crisis, and Canada had a rather low key Confederation Crisis.

That is interesting when I read the books the authors really never talked about other nations very much. And when they talk about America they really only use examples that involve kind of ideology. 

American Revolution was ideology that America did not want to be subjugated to a crown. Then after that you have the Civil War which was obviously based on an ideology North vs South. After that we have World War II obviously a clash of ideologies on a global scale.  

All three of those resets in American civilization involved violence great amounts of violence.  I'm trying to remember if there was anything in the texts that was an example of a bloodless American fourth turning. Can anyone remember that?

But I see it possible that one could interpret the Second World War as the civil war of Western civilization itself. This fits Toynbee's explanation that the civilization is the unit of history. It may have been seen as the clash between Good and Evil -- and Nazism was about as pure evil as the world could ever know. But Hitler could see the British as 'Aryans' in good standing except for their tolerance of the supposedly non-Aryan Jews that Hitler saw as debasing all that he cherished. As is difficult to explain any irrational ideology, I will not try.

(07-20-2018, 05:40 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 03:17 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 12:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 11:30 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recall that the paleo site had a thread listing 4Ts for various countries.

Not every one had a war.  During the 19th century, Britain had a bloodless Reform Crisis, and Canada had a rather low key Confederation Crisis.

That is interesting when I read the books the authors really never talked about other nations very much. And when they talk about America they really only use examples that involve kind of ideology. 

American Revolution was ideology that America did not want to be subjugated to a crown. Then after that you have the Civil War which was obviously based on an ideology North vs South. After that we have World War II obviously a clash of ideologies on a global scale.  

All three of those resets in American civilization involved violence great amounts of violence.  I'm trying to remember if there was anything in the texts that was an example of a bloodless American fourth turning. Can anyone remember that?

There was no such fourth turning. For a milder war crisis you have to go back to the English cycle from which America was descended, the battle against the Spanish Armada. The authors titled an entire turning based on the rivalry of England and Spain, and the underlying religious and dynastic conflict.

What do you mean there was no such fourth turning?

(07-20-2018, 11:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 05:40 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 03:17 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 12:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 11:30 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recall that the paleo site had a thread listing 4Ts for various countries.

Not every one had a war.  During the 19th century, Britain had a bloodless Reform Crisis, and Canada had a rather low key Confederation Crisis.

That is interesting when I read the books the authors really never talked about other nations very much. And when they talk about America they really only use examples that involve kind of ideology. 

American Revolution was ideology that America did not want to be subjugated to a crown. Then after that you have the Civil War which was obviously based on an ideology North vs South. After that we have World War II obviously a clash of ideologies on a global scale.  

All three of those resets in American civilization involved violence great amounts of violence.  I'm trying to remember if there was anything in the texts that was an example of a bloodless American fourth turning. Can anyone remember that?

There was no such fourth turning. For a milder war crisis you have to go back to the English cycle from which America was descended, the battle against the Spanish Armada. The authors titled an entire turning based on the rivalry of England and Spain, and the underlying religious and dynastic conflict.

What do you mean there was no such fourth turning?

Come on, Nomad. I was just answering your question. There was no American 4T without bloodletting and war, which includes all the 4Ts that Strauss and Howe mentioned.

(07-20-2018, 03:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 01:25 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Me -- if you look at the 1st 2 Crises Wars, they were both civil wars (yes the Revolution was a civil war. We think of it as a war with England bcuz we have been these 2 separate countries for so long  but at the time it was a civil war, with Americans wanting to bcome a separate nation vs Tories who wanted to remain with England ) lt was only the last Crisis War where we fought an external threat (Hitler) which makes me wonder if that was an anomaly, & the next Crisis will be another civil war. I see alot of pisspot dictators around the globe, but nothing really comparable to Hitler as far as being a global threat goes. Evil maybe, but a global threat? Not so much. OTOH, wtr to the Mideast, esp considering some of these Congresscritters consider themselves entitled to the keys to the 1000 Yr Kingdom, & considering we already got troops in lraq & Afghanistan, l can see us getting involved in an expanded all out hot war over oil  or some other flimsy pretext. I can also see us being  the aggressor in such a war.

Full disclosure: l am a pacifist & l really don't care to see us get involved in any wars.

Do you think it's possible to get thru a Crisis without a war?


Eric--I would call the Revolution an external threat war. The military forces against the rebels were almost entirely gathered by the British, who had to invade. The Tories may have left the new country or kept silent; they weren't fighting as far as I know.

The previous war was a mixture, but it was originally the great rebellion civil war during the 2T. The Glorious Revolution gave one side the victory. But then it was William of Orange vs. Louis XIV. There were people on both sides in the colonies, I think.

The previous crisis war was short and comparatively easy and mild: the defeat of the external threat from the Spanish Armada. The previous one to that was a prolonged dynastic civil war of the roses.


-- Eric you are a trip. You call the Revolution an external threat war bcuz the Brits had to invade. Then you refer to the previous Crises- The War of the Roses,  Spanish Armada, Wm of Orange.. that's all English shit. What does any of it have to do with the United States?  The reason l call the Revolution our 1st  Crisis War is bcuz it was the 1st one where the United States is a separate entity, or @ least attempting to bcome one severing political ties with England. The Brits did not have to invade btw. Not only did they had troops over here, they were forcing ppl here to house them. That's what the 3rd Amendment ( no quartering of soldiers) is all about. Mass was under martial law since the early 1770s, ie  before 1776. Also Tories did fight for England in the Revolution. The battle of the Cowpers, for instance, in which Dan Morgan was able to turn the tide of the war in the South towards the US, was fought against Tory troops. There were a few Brit officers running the (shit)show, but the bulk of the troops there were Tories

Eric--the crisis war in this 4T might be smaller, because war is getting obsolete, and our place in the larger 500-year cycle is basically positive. The external threats are smaller now than in the past 4T, as you say. But Russia is likely to start a war around the 2020/2021 boundary, in which the USA is not involved directly. But Russia is an evil and large threat now to our allies, so there could be an external war with Russia by 2025. Or it could be a response to the continuing mid-east terrorist threats. 

We could also have a small civil war, if the Left is in charge of America by 2025 and institutes reforms such as gun control, court packing and higher taxes. The Right-wing in this country feels entitled to rule, so I consider a right-wing rebellion like that of the civil war to be a likely event long about 2025, with smaller outbursts possible before then if the Left gains enough power to put in these reforms. If the right-wing stays in charge, I expect secession movements in blue states and/or portions of blue states. I don't know if they could succeed, but I would expect a leftist violent revolution in the USA to be crushed unless it is accompanied by a virtual coup against Trump or a Trumpist tyrant within the government itself.

The most likely scenario I see, therefore, is small wars both domestic and foreign in the middle to late 2020s.

A lot more of us are pacifists since the sixties, but that did not stop the Bush presidents from destroying the Vietnam Syndrome and sending thousands of troops abroad to die in oil wars. If the Left is in charge in the mid-2020s though, I would expect the threat to come from abroad and from domestic rebels rather than the war to be of the USA's own making. The peace movement may also rev up too if there's another war or two in the 2020s.

-- do you have charts on all this or are you just speculating?

(07-19-2018, 09:59 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 02:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 02:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-09-2018, 12:40 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-05-2018, 04:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Full disclosure: l am a pacifist & l really don't care to see us get involved in any wars. Do you think it's possible to get thru a Crisis without a war?

Can we have a 4T without a hot shooting war?  Yes, I think so.  The only restriction I would impose, as if I have any authority to impose anything, is the need for a clash of ideas that invalidates one set of arguments while validating the other.  Using war as a tool is intellectually easy, but getting there without war isn't impossible, just unlikely.  A more likely outcome, sans war, would be a truce or some sort that tilted more one way than another … think the armistice on the Korean peninsula as an example, albeit one that required war to achieve.  Typically, we would consider that a failed 4T.

-- of course a civil war doesn't necessarily have to be a war with traditional armies or militias. Just look @ the cops, the police brutality. It could devolve into a situation where groups of ppl fight back guerilla style. Or maybe the mob gets involved like in the 1920s. Of course that was over Prohibition. I can't think of anything these daze that would cause the mob to ramp it up like they did in the 1920s. But l see situations where groups of ppl band together against police brutality, destabilizing cities, the Govt steps in, & then they are fighting the Govt, & at that point maybe the mob would get involved. I dunno

The one viable option I simply forgot is cyber war.  It's the exact opposite of the neutron bomb, that would have been designed to kill everyone but do no harm to the infrastructure.  Cyber destroys the infrastructure, and leaves all the people alive and wondering what to do next.

BUT is that akin to an invasion or a hostile takeover?  If a "cyber war" type of thing is what we are looking for as a signal, is that not the same as the 2008 financial graft that still lingers in America even now a decade later?  I think of it as "was there a winner and a loser"?  I'm not sure like even if there was some natural disaster like an earthquake that decimated Japan and the civilization was brought low, is that really a 4T event?  There was no real "winner" in that and things were not "reset" so much as just left destroyed. 

But I think possibly based on the s/h text, civilizations CAN in a 4T simply collapse and never return?  Maybe there doesn't have to be a winner.  What does anyone think?

(07-20-2018, 05:46 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 05:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-20-2018, 12:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 11:30 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recall that the paleo site had a thread listing 4Ts for various countries.

Not every one had a war.  During the 19th century, Britain had a bloodless Reform Crisis, and Canada had a rather low key Confederation Crisis.

That is interesting when I read the books the authors really never talked about other nations very much. And when they talk about America they really only use examples that involve kind of ideology. 

American Revolution was ideology that America did not want to be subjugated to a crown. Then after that you have the Civil War which was obviously based on an ideology North vs South. After that we have World War II obviously a clash of ideologies on a global scale.  

All three of those resets in American civilization involved violence great amounts of violence.  I'm trying to remember if there was anything in the texts that was an example of a bloodless American fourth turning. Can anyone remember that?

But I see it possible that one could interpret the Second World War as the civil war of Western civilization itself. This fits Toynbee's explanation that the civilization is the unit of history. It may have been seen as the clash between Good and Evil -- and Nazism was about as pure evil as the world could ever know. But Hitler could see the British as 'Aryans' in good standing except for their tolerance of the supposedly non-Aryan Jews that Hitler saw as debasing all that he cherished. As is difficult to explain any irrational ideology, I will not try.

I like the first sentence, pungent.

Were there examples in the text(s) about a non-violent fourth turning?  And btw now that we have progressed from a self-contained internal crisis of internal ideologies and then a GLOBAL clash as you say, what is next?  As in, you fight with your brother... then the chieftan, then the tribe down the river, then the nation-state near you, to the continent over there, then the whole world lines up to battle .... where can it go from there?  It seems like there is nowhere to go with that. 

Or does it just reoccur in some other global location with different alliances than previous.  As in, last time it was britain/france and ultimately US and Russia versus nazi aliiance (and toss Japan and Italy in there?) ............. but then this time it will be US/Russia/Israel v China/Iran/Pakistan or some concoction.  Just endless versions of war with different participants each time?  That sucks.  I hope we find out the cause of all this and change our minds collectively,,,, isn't that the only way

(07-21-2018, 02:17 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 09:59 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 02:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-19-2018, 02:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-09-2018, 12:40 PM)David Horn Wrote: Can we have a 4T without a hot shooting war?  Yes, I think so.  The only restriction I would impose, as if I have any authority to impose anything, is the need for a clash of ideas that invalidates one set of arguments while validating the other.  Using war as a tool is intellectually easy, but getting there without war isn't impossible, just unlikely.  A more likely outcome, sans war, would be a truce or some sort that tilted more one way than another … think the armistice on the Korean peninsula as an example, albeit one that required war to achieve.  Typically, we would consider that a failed 4T.

-- of course a civil war doesn't necessarily have to be a war with traditional armies or militias. Just look @ the cops, the police brutality. It could devolve into a situation where groups of ppl fight back guerilla style. Or maybe the mob gets involved like in the 1920s. Of course that was over Prohibition. I can't think of anything these daze that would cause the mob to ramp it up like they did in the 1920s. But l see situations where groups of ppl band together against police brutality, destabilizing cities, the Govt steps in, & then they are fighting the Govt, & at that point maybe the mob would get involved. I dunno

The one viable option I simply forgot is cyber war.  It's the exact opposite of the neutron bomb, that would have been designed to kill everyone but do no harm to the infrastructure.  Cyber destroys the infrastructure, and leaves all the people alive and wondering what to do next.

BUT is that akin to an invasion or a hostile takeover?  If a "cyber war" type of thing is what we are looking for as a signal, is that not the same as the 2008 financial graft that still lingers in America even now a decade later?  I think of it as "was there a winner and a loser"?  I'm not sure like even if there was some natural disaster like an earthquake that decimated Japan and the civilization was brought low, is that really a 4T event?  There was no real "winner" in that and things were not "reset" so much as just left destroyed. 

But I think possibly based on the s/h text, civilizations CAN in a 4T simply collapse and never return?  Maybe there doesn't have to be a winner.  What does anyone think?

-- l think it depends upon the natural disaster. If Yellowstone blows big time, which it does every 600,000 yrs or so give or take a few- & it is supposedly some 40,000 yrs overdue- then the United States & Canada would both be toast. So yeah our civilization would collapse. But never return? I'm thinking something will rise up from the volcanic ashes

(07-22-2018, 09:43 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Yellowstone.... here's a question, if a natural disaster happens, is that part of a saeculum?  Can some natural disaster be considered the cause of a Crisis?

I would personally say no because it involves no trend or "reaction" to any previous cultural impact.  I think strauss and howe mention that America has been a good model for the saeculum "science" because it has not been affected generally by things like annexation by larger power or on-soil wars or natural disasters.  Although I do not think they actually used the words natural disaster.  Can a force of nature be considered a valid component of saeculum movements?  

Seriously what does anyone think??

(07-24-2018, 07:47 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I have been reviewing some archived threads.  The MegaSaeculum thread, the Alternating Paradign thread, the Two Lifetime thread.

In the MegaSaeculum thread, it is predicted that this 4T will be a "Mild Crisis".    I mention this because, so far, the USA seems to be experiencing a relatively mild 4T.

In the Two Lifetime thread, it was suggested that there are two alternating kinds of questions:  1.  Stick with the status quo, or return to a past status?  2.  Stick with the status quo, or transform the outer world?  Number one would correspond to to a Dionysus cycle, and number two would correspond to an Apollo cycle.  If choosing the status quo, the 4T of a Dionysus cycle may offer, in addition, some comparatively minor reforms.

With our present cycle we have been seeing an attempt to revert to the Gilded Age.  Preserving the status quo means preserving the New Deal paradigm.  Such worldly reforms growing out of the Boom Awakening are basically about patching up the old status quo.  We may get health care reform, for example, but nothing as drastic as revamping the economy (The Great Power cycle) or founding a new country (the Revolutionary cycle).

(07-25-2018, 07:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-24-2018, 07:47 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I have been reviewing some archived threads.  The MegaSaeculum thread, the Alternating Paradign thread, the Two Lifetime thread.

In the MegaSaeculum thread, it is predicted that this 4T will be a "Mild Crisis".    I mention this because, so far, the USA seems to be experiencing a relatively mild 4T.

In the Two Lifetime thread, it was suggested that there are two alternating kinds of questions:  1.  Stick with the status quo, or return to a past status?  2.  Stick with the status quo, or transform the outer world?  Number one would correspond to to a Dionysus cycle, and number two would correspond to an Apollo cycle.  If choosing the status quo, the 4T of a Dionysus cycle may offer, in addition, some comparatively minor reforms.

With our present cycle we have been seeing an attempt to revert to the Gilded Age.  Preserving the status quo means preserving the New Deal paradigm.  Such worldly reforms growing out of the Boom Awakening are basically about patching up the old status quo.  We may get health care reform, for example, but nothing as drastic as revamping the economy (The Great Power cycle) or founding a new country (the Revolutionary cycle).

-- a Mild Crises could explain why we can't figure out if we're in a 4T or still in an extremely long 3T.  Maybe we're supposed to be fighting the Culture Wars this time around.  I honestly can't see a civil war involving 2 opposing armies. I can & do see guerilla style civil unrest, & on the non-violent side, mass protests as we move forward into this 4 T

(07-25-2018, 07:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- a Mild Crises could explain why we can't figure out if we're in a 4T or still in an extremely long 3T.  Maybe we're supposed to be fighting the Culture Wars this time around.  I honestly can't see a civil war involving 2 opposing armies. I can & do see guerilla style civil unrest, & on the non-violent side, mass protests as we move forward into this 4 T

(08-03-2018, 11:28 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I was reviewing an archived civil war thread.  In it gianthogweed commented that there are two types of Civic generations:  1.  Builders of public empires.  2.  Builders of private empires.  These correspond to Apollo and Dionysus cycles respectively.

This time around, without a blue print for a grand new public order, we can expect the Millenials to not be builders of great public institutions..  They may uphold a patched up system, but their focus will be on building private institutions.