It's a Model, Not Prophecy!

[David Horn]

(02-10-2017, 12:25 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 06:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 03:38 PM)Marypoza Wrote: ... The Theory may very well survive Bannon. In fact, Bannon could be a test as to its validity

Or who knows.... a few months down the road the Donald could look into Bannon's eyes & say his 2 favorite wds: you're fired
Hey we can hope

OK, except for one of the underlying premises: the cycle works because we are unaware of it, or at least unimpressed enough to ignore it.  Bannon mucking about may actually disrupt the normal cycle, assuming (a) one exists, and (b) normalcy is even in the cards.

What makes you think that?  The cycle may work irrespective of whether we are aware of it - or may even require some people to be aware of it to work.

It was discussed more than once in T4T.  The authors noted the difference between societies that were forward looking, and less tied to their own past, and those that were dogmatic and insular.  In short, they argued that the cycle requires a bit of amnesia to operate, since the passing of a generation removes that generation's direct knowledge of the previous cycle in the same position as the current one.  That allows inherent human instincts to operate, rather than be suppressed by direct knowledge of the past.

[Mikebert]

(02-12-2017, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 12:25 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 06:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 03:38 PM)Marypoza Wrote: ... The Theory may very well survive Bannon. In fact, Bannon could be a test as to its validity

Or who knows.... a few months down the road the Donald could look into Bannon's eyes & say his 2 favorite wds: you're fired
Hey we can hope

OK, except for one of the underlying premises: the cycle works because we are unaware of it, or at least unimpressed enough to ignore it.  Bannon mucking about may actually disrupt the normal cycle, assuming (a) one exists, and (b) normalcy is even in the cards.

What makes you think that?  The cycle may work irrespective of whether we are aware of it - or may even require some people to be aware of it to work.

It was discussed more than once in T4T.  The authors noted the difference between societies that were forward looking, and less tied to their own past, and those that were dogmatic and insular.  In short, they argued that the cycle requires a bit of amnesia to operate, since the passing of a generation removes that generation's direct knowledge of the previous cycle in the same position as the current one.  That allows inherent human instincts to operate, rather than be suppressed by direct knowledge of the past.

I don't see knowledge of the cycle as an issue at all.  It's not like anyone knows the cycle or what turning we are in. Back in 2000 some thought a 4T may be beginning with the election going to something who did not win the most votes (for the first time in 112 years).  When 911 happen many more thought that's it.  Then came the financial crisis and 2001 was dropped for 2008.  The financial crisis is the biggest recent event.  Suppose a terrorist sets of a nuke in NYC, or we get another financial crisis and this time we get 20% unemployment.  Might not 2008 become another 2001?  A 3T event that looked like it might be a trigger but wasn't.

Here's the problem.  The 4T start is supposed to start a sequence of related events that form a narrative. This is why it is called a trigger. The 1773 Boston Tea Party was a milder event than the 1770 Boston Massacre. Yet is was the the former that started the a sequence of events directly leading to the formation of a new nation:  Coercive Acts, 1st Continental Congress, insurgent takeover of domestic armed forces, outbreak of violence, formal declaration of intent to secede, full scale war, post-war crisis and rebellion, formation of a unified polity with the Constitution.  This series of events forms a cohesive narrative* for the crisis.

So, now that Trump has been elected, why does he not start his own narrative, as opposed to being part of a larger Obama narrative?

*Although it is harder to see, the same is true for the Glorious Crisis in America (not Britain).  The 1675-78 period contains major events. In New England you have King Phillip's War, an existential conflict that showed they threat posed by the Indians.  This began a process of nation-building in accordance with the Simmel-Coser principle. I note that New England had the most established militia and provided the original nucleus to the American Revolution.

In Virginia there were Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia.  This rebellion also involved anti-Indian issues.  It saw some cooperation between lower class whites and blacks, which were of concern to elites. Long term consequences in accordance with the Simmel-Coser principle led to the creation of a nation of white settlers united opposition to uncivilized Indians and rebellious blacks slaves.  The Slave Codes in Virginia (1705) would eventually emerge out of this.

[David Horn]

(02-12-2017, 06:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't see knowledge of the cycle as an issue at all.  It's not like anyone knows the cycle or what turning we are in.

Steve Bannon knows, though how much that matters is hard to fathom at this point. He is certainly trying to drive the narrative in a favored direction, but Trump is so unpredictable, it may make no difference. The background noise level is so high, it's hard to make sense of anything.

Mikebert Wrote:Back in 2000 some thought a 4T may be beginning with the election going to something who did not win the most votes (for the first time in 112 years).  When 911 happen many more thought that's it.  Then came the financial crisis and 2001 was dropped for 2008.  The financial crisis is the biggest recent event.  Suppose a terrorist sets of a nuke in NYC, or we get another financial crisis and this time we get 20% unemployment.  Might not 2008 become another 2001?  A 3T event that looked like it might be a trigger but wasn't.

I agree. I'm not sure what nearly two decades of crisis-like events means in this context ... at least for now. Knowing 50 years from now is nice, in the academic sense, but useless to anyone today.

Mikebert Wrote:Here's the problem.  The 4T start is supposed to start a sequence of related events that form a narrative. This is why it is called a trigger. The 1773 Boston Tea Party was a milder event than the 1770 Boston Massacre. Yet is was the former that started the a sequence of events directly leading to the formation of a new nation:  Coercive Acts, 1st Continental Congress, insurgent takeover of domestic armed forces, outbreak of violence, formal declaration of intent to secede, full scale war, post-war crisis and rebellion, formation of a unified polity with the Constitution.  This series of events forms a cohesive narrative* for the crisis.

All true, but less important in this modern era. Looking for trends is really hard when the pace of events is so high, and what qualifies as significant is still TBD.

Mikebert Wrote:So, now that Trump has been elected, why does he not start his own narrative, as opposed to being part of a larger Obama narrative?

He is, after a fashion. Of course, his version of a narrative involves a lot of false-flagging to keep people off balance. He's operating like a CEO, not a POTUS.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:All true, but less important in this modern era.  Looking for trends is really hard when the pace of events is so high, and what qualifies as significant is still TBD.

I don't think it has anything to do with this "modern era" being somehow faster paced than any of those other periods, just that we don't have the same perspective since we are in the middle of it.  You read a history book, you can skim over the events of several years in so many pages, and only get the highlights, those events considered to be part of the narrative by historians with the benefit of hindsight.

[Mikebert]

(02-13-2017, 01:48 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I don't think it has anything to do with this "modern era" being somehow faster paced than any of those other periods, just that we don't have the same perspective since we are in the middle of it.  You read a history book, you can skim over the events of several years in so many pages, and only get the highlights, those events considered to be part of the narrative by historians with the benefit of hindsight.

True, which is why I looked for marker events (e.g. sociopolitical unrest levels, spiritual event frequency, crime, alcohol consumption, critical elections) that are correlated with past turnings of the same type or correspondence with other cycles (K-cycle, leadership cycle, secular cycle) that can be empirically characterized.

[David Horn]

(02-13-2017, 01:48 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:All true, but less important in this modern era.  Looking for trends is really hard when the pace of events is so high, and what qualifies as significant is still TBD.

I don't think it has anything to do with this "modern era" being somehow faster paced than any of those other periods, just that we don't have the same perspective since we are in the middle of it.  You read a history book, you can skim over the events of several years in so many pages, and only get the highlights, those events considered to be part of the narrative by historians with the benefit of hindsight.

All true, but we don't live in hindsight.  We live today.  The news has been delivered by firehose for a while, but the size of the hose is now H-U-G-E, to quote a "famous American". Even more to the point, the ability to fact-check is overwhelmed by the shear volume to the point that fact-checking is now "old news", and quickly if not totally ignored.

So yes, I consider it important.  YMMV.

[SomeGuy]

Dave,

me:

Quote:just that we don't have the same perspective since we are in the middle of it.

You:

Quote:All true, but we don't live in hindsight.  We live today.

Learn how to read. 

[Odin]

Bannon's problem is that while he is smart, he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is. If he is aware of our online community and read the old forums he obviously missed all the criticisms a lot of us have had about S&H's socially conservative biases, for example. If Bannon thinks Millennials are going to willingly fight and die in a Christian holy war he is going to be sorely mistaken.

[freivolk]

There is also the possibility, that crisis-events just don´t have the same impact anymore, because societys have more anti-fragil in the last 70 years.
1929 a crash really meant a crash. 2008 it was obvious, that the goverments wouldn´t allow a repeat of 1929 and so they drowned the crash in money. This didn´t create a real healthy economy, but is still far better then the Great Depression.

[TeacherinExile]

(02-14-2017, 05:31 PM)Odin Wrote: Bannon's problem is that while he is smart, he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is. If he is aware of our online community and read the old forums he obviously missed all the criticisms a lot of us have had about S&H's socially conservative biases, for example. If Bannon thinks Millennials are going to willingly fight and die in a Christian holy war he is going to be sorely mistaken.

If the war is characterized as a "Crusade" or "Christian Holy War," you're probably right, especially if the pretext for war is flimsy.  On the other hand, what if the US--in concert with our European allies--declared total war on "radical Islamic terrorists," in response to a mass-casualty attack perpetrated by jihadis using a weapon of mass destruction?  Might not Millennials--here and abroad--be persuaded to enlist in a fight against Islamofascism, whose attacks finally reach a threshold that poses a genuine existential crisis?

The problem that I'm beginning to see with a war from a US standpoint is this: according to S&H theory, isn't any war supposed to be fought by Millennials?  They range in age now (by my own generational markers) from 16 to 35.  My point being that a large contingent of Millennials are getting too old to fight. (On its recruiting website, the U.S. Army reported an average enlistment age of just under 21 in 2012.) The Homelanders (which I date from the 911-attacks) are now turning 16, i.e., rapidly approaching the minimum age (17 or 18) for enlistment in the US military.  And the Homelanders are supposed to be the Artists, not the soldiers, according to S&H theory. 

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Marypoza]

(02-14-2017, 05:58 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(02-14-2017, 05:31 PM)Odin Wrote: Bannon's problem is that while he is smart, he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is. If he is aware of our online community and read the old forums he obviously missed all the criticisms a lot of us have had about S&H's socially conservative biases, for example. If Bannon thinks Millennials are going to willingly fight and die in a Christian holy war he is going to be sorely mistaken.

If the war is characterized as a "Crusade" or "Christian Holy War," you're probably right, especially if the pretext for war is flimsy.  On the other hand, what if the US--in concert with our European allies--declared total war on "radical Islamic terrorists," in response to a mass-casualty attack perpetrated by jihadis using a weapon of mass destruction?  Might not Millennials--here and abroad--be persuaded to enlist in a fight against Islamofascism, whose attacks finally reach a threshold that poses a genuine existential crisis?

The problem that I'm beginning to see with a war from a US standpoint is this: according to S&H theory, isn't any war supposed to be fought by Millennials?  They range in age now (by my own generational markers) from 16 to 35.  My point being that a large contingent of Millennials are getting too old to fight. (On its recruiting website, the U.S. Army reported an average enlistment age of just under 21 in 2012.) The Homelanders (which I date from the 911-attacks) are now turning 16, i.e., rapidly approaching the minimum age (17 or 18) for enlistment in the US military.  And the Homelanders are supposed to be the Artists, not the soldiers, according to S&H theory. 

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

-- it seemed to me that in  Generations it's the younger Civics & older Artists who fight the wars. For instance Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence & spent the Revolution in France, while the younger Civics & Artist Compromisers like Andrew Jackson actually fought the war. I was watching a documentary about the Revolution & the narrator said that alot of teenage kids (ie, Compromisers) even girls like Betty Zane, fought in the Revolution. As for WW2, Interbellums were too old (in their 40s) the Greatest Generation was late wave GIs & 1st wave Silents. In Genrations S&H used Interbellum Robert Oppenheimer (who developed the Bomb) to represent the GIs, while the soldier/sailor in the field was a Silent. So yeah, if Bannon should be stupid enough to start a war, it'll come just in time for the last wave Millies & 1st wave Homies.

That said l think WW2 was an anomaly war. The 2 wars before it were civil wars (yeah the Revolution was actually a civil war, we just don't see it that way today) & considering all the civil unrest of the past few yrs, l can see it all escalating into a civil war. Throw in the secessionist talk....

Meanwhile l really don't see any foreign asshole on the horizon worth fighting WW3 over. Yes Eric, l know Assad is a pos bastard. He's also a pisspot. Not exactly the global threat Hitler was. Neither is that pisspot in Korea. Besides, if he gets overly annoying China will crush him like the spoiled gnat he is

[Marypoza]

(02-14-2017, 08:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-14-2017, 05:58 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(02-14-2017, 05:31 PM)Odin Wrote: Bannon's problem is that while he is smart, he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is. If he is aware of our online community and read the old forums he obviously missed all the criticisms a lot of us have had about S&H's socially conservative biases, for example. If Bannon thinks Millennials are going to willingly fight and die in a Christian holy war he is going to be sorely mistaken.

If the war is characterized as a "Crusade" or "Christian Holy War," you're probably right, especially if the pretext for war is flimsy.  On the other hand, what if the US--in concert with our European allies--declared total war on "radical Islamic terrorists," in response to a mass-casualty attack perpetrated by jihadis using a weapon of mass destruction?  Might not Millennials--here and abroad--be persuaded to enlist in a fight against Islamofascism, whose attacks finally reach a threshold that poses a genuine existential crisis?

The problem that I'm beginning to see with a war from a US standpoint is this: according to S&H theory, isn't any war supposed to be fought by Millennials?  They range in age now (by my own generational markers) from 16 to 35.  My point being that a large contingent of Millennials are getting too old to fight. (On its recruiting website, the U.S. Army reported an average enlistment age of just under 21 in 2012.) The Homelanders (which I date from the 911-attacks) are now turning 16, i.e., rapidly approaching the minimum age (17 or 18) for enlistment in the US military.  And the Homelanders are supposed to be the Artists, not the soldiers, according to S&H theory. 

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

2001 is a real stretch for the end of Millies. In 2001 the Boomers still heavily dominated most seats of power in both the public and private realms. Silents were still very much on scene as well. Exhibit A, my parents. They were both still working in high paid professional jobs. You can't really claim the Millie cut off until Silents are mostly out of the working world. That's mid 00s in my book. 2005 at the earliest. Maybe later if we actually had a long 3T and 2008 was not the actual lynch pin kicking off the 4T.

-- l think Neil Howe said 2005 too

[disasterzone]

You can use the generational cycles to learn the lessons of the turning before it happens. Then you don't have to suffer through the same things. You can do that by living post-seasonal. People's reactions to things seem to be reacting to the past reality instead of the present reality. For example, people reacted to rising crime rates when crime was going down. You should instead react to the present as it happens and be prepared to fight whatever you have to.