I'm a sceptic that the 4th Turning started in 2008

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-03-2020, 04:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The Armada doesn't even look like a 4T.  Have you ever seen anyone use examples from THAT crisis to illustrate 4T issues. A few of theorists did talk about the Glorious and WotR 4Ts, but I cannot recall anyone comparing anything to the Armada.  It's so forgettable of a 4T because it isn't a 4T at all. There were no structural changes made. It was just a war, one of the dozens that happened all the time back then.

Chas and I derived pre-1435 turnings for England going back the mid-9th century. I used generations as one of the structural elements, as well as empirical data and Bob's concept of "spirals of violence" a "spiral" that fizzled out means it was not a social moment turning. One that did not indicates one. I also used Chas's idea of archetypical generations playing roles in history analogous to archetypical characters playing roles in a drama, sort of a riff on "all the world's a stage".  Using all these tools I managed to cobble together turnings and running them by Chas for input.

Anyways not all 4T's are equal. Some are obvious, like the Viking crisis. the Norman invasion and the WotR. Others like the 12th century crisis (its not the Anarchy, it simply happened too early) seem stretched, and the 10th and 13th century 4Ts are pretty small beer, like the Armada. 

I don't take the extended crises before the beginning of the Industrial Age seriously.  Sure, you can find where people are less enthusiastic about crisis wars when lots of folks remember the last one.  Also when people can't afford a big war, a little time goes by as the economy recovers.  That much is there.  However you are often not changing the culture.  One bunch of autocrats is fighting another with not much difference between them.  Only later did the rural - urban divide form as some people wanted to continue with power based on land ownership while the other favored urban life and building stuff.  Things started to get a little more hot.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-03-2020, 05:19 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

1. What attracted you to S&H theory in the first place?
   
2. What doubts do you have about the theory, with respect to either process or its conclusions?
   
3. What would it take to disabuse you of the theory completely (i.e., the dealbreaker)?
   

1.  It was way back in Clinton 40's time.  I was worried about Waco and Oklahoma City and was starting to get interested in the spiral of violence.  While the spiral faded with the change in the federal rules of engagement, I had picked up the S&H books and started to make sense of the process by which values changed.

2.  I think I covered that recently, so I won't repeat.

3.  If a turning showed no sign of appearing in the real world it would be hard to believe in the theory.  If we don't get a radical shift of values in the current apparent crisis, if we don't build infrastructure while stomping on the old values in the high, if we don't later get a bunch of young people yelling loudly about what they see as flaws in the culture, then the theory would be broken.  If you stop getting anything like the four turning archetypes you would have to look for another way of looking at history.  

Not impossible given that the ages have shifted and we could be developing a new pattern which has nothing to do with the old pattern.  But as is, the pattern from the old age seems to have some inertia in shaping the new pattern.

[David Horn]

(08-04-2020, 12:34 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I have been debating with folks like Classic, and taking seriously the warnings Dave gives about how dedicated the folks in his area are to the old values.  People tend to form a world view, and not shift it at all lightly.  It takes a really big deal to change it.  A crisis in the 4T is one time when a whole bunch of people do change.  This is because the old values, the old way of thinking, is demonstrated to be no longer viable.  It usually takes a really bad leader dedicated to the old values wildily out of season to cause such a change.  One could look at leaders such as George III, Buchanan, Hoover, Bush 43 and now Trump as playing an important role in turning theory.  (This does not really do enough honor to George III, Buchanan and Hoover.)  In many ways their role is as important as that of grey champion.  One demonstrates how the old values don’t work anymore, and the other demonstrates how the new values do.

If you do not see how Trump is one of the bad leaders, if you can’t recognize how the old values have become untenable, if you cannot even tell the difference between a catalyst and a trigger, you are for some reason keeping your eyes shut, are not looking at reality honestly...

All true but how valid? This is the first time we've had a President who has no compunction using foreign assets and all the propaganda he can get. And it's happening at the very time that the ability to lie with impunity seems virtually unlimited. Those are pretty tall obstacles to overcome. Add in the natural propensity of the Trumpist alliance to believe Trump and his propaganda team above all, and they're armed to the teeth. It's best to assume nothing is set in stone ... not anymore.

[Tim Randal Walker]

As for new values, the New Deal had very broad appeal because it aimed to improve the economic lot of a multitude. There was no regional emphasis.

This time around we have this red/blue thing. These two side seem to be roughly equal in strength. I think that each would reject the imposition of the other's values.

There is nothing comparable to the New Deal, at least not yet. It may well be that America's new civic order will mean loosening up the federal structure, the country decentralizing.

Indeed, I recall a comment from American Nations, that decentralization may be the only common ground for the different regions of the country.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-05-2020, 09:55 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: As for new values, the New Deal had very broad appeal because it aimed to improve the economic lot of a multitude.  There was no regional emphasis.

This time around we have this red/blue thing.  These two side seem to be roughly equal in strength.  I think that each would reject the imposition of the other's values.

There is nothing comparable to the New Deal, at least not yet.  It may well be that America's new civic order will mean loosening up the federal structure, the country decentralizing.

Indeed, I recall a comment from American Nations, that decentralization may be the only common ground for the different regions of the country.

The two crisis events we have seen so far seem aimed at racist and violent policing, ignoring the science, the refusal to look at or solve problems due to ignoring the science.  The Tea Party went at the Republicans leaning towards elitism, even if they chose to follow the wrong guy to ruin.  I can see major flaws being corrected in rural thought, but I see a rebooted version of a Republican party rather than the Democrats splitting into Establishment and Radical wings.  The people writing ads against Trump are just putting an emphasis on conservatism as it should be.  They do not look like a force which will entirely go away.

Looking at the Lincoln Project, Republican Voters Against Trump, and VoteVets there seems to be room to rebuild the Republican Party.  It seems that the rural small government element will remain.  Decentralized government could come, but the desire to solve the bug fast and now regulate the racist violent police by a federal law speaks to federal centralization.  So is the way Trump is dropping the ball on certain problems.  The lessons learned are pointing in the short term to making the federal power stronger.  Decentralization may come, but I do not see it yet.

I am seeing a new sort of New Deal Lite coming in if the Democrats manage to hold onto power for long.  It won't seem like as big a deal this time around, but a good deal of the point is to solve problems the Republicans had let go for a long time, to change the weight to valuing Main Street above Wall Street.  The conflict was between solve problems and small government, and small government had gone way past the point of diminishing returns.  The Republican leaning towards the elites and against minorities and away from the working man might be pushed towards the working man.  The Democrats could push that front for a bit a little bit.

And the economy will wind up in a mess.  The distribution of wealth by making luxuries, by fixing the length of the work week and retirement age might not work.

It depends a lot on what sort of agenda Biden will push.  A good part of it might be held off until the awakening.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-04-2020, 07:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: All true but how valid?  This is the first time we've had a President who has no compunction using foreign assets and all the propaganda he can get.  And it's happening at the very time that the ability to lie with impunity seems virtually unlimited.  Those are pretty tall obstacles to overcome.  Add in the natural propensity of the Trumpist alliance to believe Trump and his propaganda team above all, and they're armed to the teeth.  It's best to assume nothing is set in stone ... not anymore.

I am betting that most of the people will see Trump as not the way to go, the wrong way to do things. I would not underestimate things or take them for granted. A crash of the old values and a massive swing to the new is the way it has always been, and let's take advantage of it when it comes.

But in many ways the swing to authoritarianism is a 3T trend that might be well and truly reversed by the crisis heart. Trump has 5 more months to illustrate how authoritarianism is not a win for the general public. If he holds his current course, that should be clear enough to last living memory.

[TeacherinExile]

(08-05-2020, 09:55 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: As for new values, the New Deal had very broad appeal because it aimed to improve the economic lot of a multitude.  There was no regional emphasis.

This time around we have this red/blue thing.  These two side seem to be roughly equal in strength.  I think that each would reject the imposition of the other's values.

There is nothing comparable to the New Deal, at least not yet.  It may well be that America's new civic order will mean loosening up the federal structure, the country decentralizing.

Indeed, I recall a comment from American Nations, that decentralization may be the only common ground for the different regions of the country.

Yes, exactly. The whole concept of American federalism, which was made possible by our Constitution, seems very much at risk, perhaps more-so than in that rife period preceding the American Civil War. I don’t see a repeat of that bloody episode as possible.  Yes, we have hyper-partisan policy makers and media, a very polarized electorate, divided almost evenly on a host of issues. And now it all comes to a head with a global pandemic exacting its heavy and pervasive toll on the country. If no compromise can be achieved, then there are other unpalatable routes to resolution.  We forged a nation by means of a revolution, then preserved the union by defeating a rebellion, and later saved capitalism by means of reform. There are other much less satisfying avenues for ushering in a new political order: a coup d'etat; more likely, a dissolution like that experienced by the former Soviet Union and later Yugoslavia. If it comes to individual states or regions accomplishing a “Brexit” by means of a referendum, say...well, at least that’s a more peaceful process than a military coup or civil war.  Quite frankly, I don’t see how a Second Civil War would work, Boogaloo or not.  The paramilitaries are too dispersed, and our country lacks the clear geographical demarcation of a Mason-Dixon Line, not to mention a singular divisive issue, such as slavery.  (Sorry, Eric, but even a “soft” civil war probably leads on to the real thing, eventually.)

Violence, to be sure, may break out all over if the competing values regimes cannot reach a bipartisan resolution by means of a legislative compromise. The potential for bloodshed is self-evident when we see protestors clashing on the streets, many armed with long guns and dressed in camouflage. I shudder to think of the possibilities if “the center cannot hold.” Even in my small Western town, there’s an element that’s “gunned-up and rolling heavy.” To cope with it all, I meditate...

[pbrower2a]

(08-04-2020, 07:20 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-04-2020, 12:34 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I have been debating with folks like Classic, and taking seriously the warnings Dave gives about how dedicated the folks in his area are to the old values.  People tend to form a world view, and not shift it at all lightly.  It takes a really big deal to change it.  A crisis in the 4T is one time when a whole bunch of people do change.  This is because the old values, the old way of thinking, is demonstrated to be no longer viable.  It usually takes a really bad leader dedicated to the old values wildily out of season to cause such a change.  One could look at leaders such as George III, Buchanan, Hoover, Bush 43 and now Trump as playing an important role in turning theory.  (This does not really do enough honor to George III, Buchanan and Hoover.)  In many ways their role is as important as that of grey champion.  One demonstrates how the old values don’t work anymore, and the other demonstrates how the new values do.

If you do not see how Trump is one of the bad leaders, if you can’t recognize how the old values have become untenable, if you cannot even tell the difference between a catalyst and a trigger, you are for some reason keeping your eyes shut, are not looking at reality honestly...

All true but how valid?  This is the first time we've had a President who has no compunction using foreign assets and all the propaganda he can get.  And it's happening at the very time that the ability to lie with impunity seems virtually unlimited.  Those are pretty tall obstacles to overcome.  Add in the natural propensity of the Trumpist alliance to believe Trump and his propaganda team above all, and they're armed to the teeth.  It's best to assume nothing is set in stone ... not anymore.

Nothing forces change as does failure. To most people, success confirms that what one does is the right course. It is rare that a creative master makes one masterpiece and does nothing like it again (in music I think of Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps). For something else to be like it it will need another composer who shamelessly rips it off, as did John Williams in a film score for a Star Wars movie.  Ordinarily, if one succeeds one keeps doing the same thing until it fails. I am tempted to think of Napoleon Bonaparte as the most successful military leader of all time, and he succeeded as such for about ten years. Eventually others catch up.

OK, Trump is in no way an innovator or creator. His political success is a fluke, the result of an odd distribution of votes in a highly-polarized country, in which he could get away with offending people heavily concentrated in a few states, exploiting mass Schadenfreude, trivializing his severe faults while magnifying those of his opponent, latching onto a celebrity circus that lasted far longer than was appropriate, cultivating bigotry just under the surface, and rhetorical fraud such as Newspeak. Maybe the Presidency is incompatible with a tycoon as an outsider (Perot might have been a disaster for reasons other than radicalism).

Donald Trump is Ronald Reagan without the humanizing touches... and, yes, the time for Reaganism even with the humanizing touches is past. We have gone as far as we can with the idea that enriching those already rich creates more prosperity even if most people have no chance of enjoying any of the added prosperity. If you want to see the economic symbol of Reaganomics, then just look at the shopping mall... many of which are dying or have died. OK, they are white elephants tailor-made for a reality in which 

(1) there was an over-supply of college graduates who took jobs there just to survive while looking for a career
(2) land was still cheap in many suburban areas
(3) the middle class was still largely lily-white
(4) businesses could get away with authoritarian management and abysmal pay
(5) the people still with money were in a buying mood

The shopping malls eventually became white elephants, places too expensive for ordinary shopping (box stores like Home Depot, Target, and Wal*Mart were more efficient), and they eventually became desirable sites to put to new purposes such as office buildings. Of course, there is a discussion of "dead malls" among our threads in which the economic realities of those dying institutions. 

That's over. Few people have much disposable income anymore. If you are in some areas you may be spending 70% of your income renting a dreary flat.  Taxes rise as the cost of government increase  just to meet higher costs of everything. Medical costs soar due to monopolization that Reagan and later 'conservatives'  have seen as prosperity on the assumption that people paying more for what they get is genuine prosperity. As becomes the norm when things get tight people learn to make it do or do without, whether for some heroic purpose (defeating the evil trinity of Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini) or because the economic order has become as vile and seedy as it has become. What people dislike or find exorbitant they evade or replace.   

Donald Trump is about as awful as Lincoln and FDR were wonderful. The economic leadership of America has taken on the usual vices of an aristocratic elite... and although I am tempted to say without the virtues, I ask what the virtues of aristocratic rule is, and it seems that they are able to spend wildly on what becomes exclusively theirs. Castles and palaces? Art? Think of the great composer Haydn as a retainer of the Esterhazy family in Vienna, whose music became their property. (The late musicologist H. Robbins Landon said that under Commies in Czechoslovakia, the musical scores that had been properties of aristocratic families were often discovered in store-rooms after being lost, never copied for general publication for a century or more). You know Haydn, the man who makes a neat divide in music between what precedes, what is he (except for Mozart, some very late Handel and Telemann, and some very early Beethoven and Rossini) and everything before and everything after? Aristocratic castles and palaces may awe us, but we don't really get to enjoy them until public tours are possible after the aristocrats are overthrown. 

Trump is failure. It is impossible to make success out of contradictory promises, to get a community of good will out of mean-spirited rhetoric, and to get noble achievements out of a very bad leader. People associated with him find themselves in deep legal trouble because the law does not allow one to shade illicit behavior into lawful behavior because of one's quack interpretation of the law to make such an interpretation fit one's convenience. Americans don't like being stepped on (which explains the original meaning of the Gadsden flag (a rattlesnake under which are the words "DON'T TREAD ON ME") which the Hard Right adapted but has been turned to other uses (like a variant with rainbow colors of the LGBT flag).  Oh, it is not about keeping taxes low so that we don't have to do anything fo black or brown people? 

Trump is a fascist, and our institutions are intended to swat down any would-be despot. Those institutions will swat down Donald Trump, who has been effective only at imposing offense and pain. People who do foolish things often find themselves in the equivalent of being slammed to the mat by Andre the Giant (OK, there is a spring under the mat that absorbs most of the force, so pro wrestlers don't get hurt. But pro wrestling is theater, and economic losses and the harm from medical quackery can hurt one badly.

If anything is set in stone... it is checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law in the American political heritage, certain rules of ethical behavior, and the old rules of logic and mathematical and scientific law. Attempt to violate those and you will be hurt. There is no spring under those to absorb the impact.  

...as for Classic X'er -- his values are newer than most of us think. Shallow as someone like "Rash Libel" or "Glenn Dreck" is, these people exploit recent innovations in 'conservative' thought. Such innovations serve economic elites by allowing them to rationalize their own cruelty in economics and politics. I am surprised that the word "sadonomics" (sadism + economics) has come onto the scene.

[David Horn]

(08-05-2020, 11:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-04-2020, 07:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: All true but how valid?  This is the first time we've had a President who has no compunction using foreign assets and all the propaganda he can get.  And it's happening at the very time that the ability to lie with impunity seems virtually unlimited.  Those are pretty tall obstacles to overcome.  Add in the natural propensity of the Trumpist alliance to believe Trump and his propaganda team above all, and they're armed to the teeth.  It's best to assume nothing is set in stone ... not anymore.

I am betting that most of the people will see Trump as not the way to go, the wrong way to do things.  I would not underestimate things or take them for granted.  A crash of the old values and a massive swing to the new is the way it has always been, and let's take advantage of it when it comes.

But in many ways the swing to authoritarianism is a 3T trend that might be well and truly reversed by the crisis heart.  Trump has 5 more months to illustrate how authoritarianism is not a win for the general public.  If he holds his current course, that should be clear enough to last living memory.

All true, but the vehemence of his followers added to large arsenals of unaccountable weapons and ammo may put a spin on this that's very violent.  They can't start a revolution, but chaos is certainly  within their reach.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-05-2020, 02:12 PM)David Horn Wrote: All true, but the vehemence of his followers added to large arsenals of unaccountable weapons and ammo may put a spin on this that's very violent.  They can't start a revolution, but chaos is certainly  within their reach.

Possible, but the spiral of violence picture does not indicate it.  The rural militias might go violent if the feds tried to ignore the Second Amendment.  That isn't likely to be an issue for a little while, until after the mess that is Trump is cleaned up.  

A few bad cops might try to continue their violence against minorities, but that has been action against individuals, not general chaos.  

We have had Trump's secret police allied with the Boogaloo Bois in instigating police riots, but the last few days that has died down.  The AP in the last few days hasn't posted their daily state of Portland story, though local station KATU noted how the police union responded after violent folk broke into their offices, and Portland is still fining the feds or putting up the fence around the US courthouse.  It is just not considered nationally newsworthy these days.  The city mayors seem to be pushing back well on that game.  

Trump hasn't exactly withdrawn his threats to send secret police into blue cities, but the threats have stopped.  I suspect how the Trump's campaign's ceasing of ads reflects that the White House has recognized that his old strategy is not working.  Instigating violence so one can play at being a law and order candidate is not working.  The polls are crashing on him.  The pause in the secret police activity is tying in with that.

The bottom line is that the Republicans are pushing for the 3T mindset.  I don't see them making great sacrifices for selfishness.  Keep your guns, yes.  Protect your neighborhood, sure.  Exercise your right to chant slurs to minorities, that's to be expected of some.  Sacrifice for selfishness?  That doesn't compute somehow.

[David Horn]

(08-05-2020, 02:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-05-2020, 02:12 PM)David Horn Wrote: All true, but the vehemence of his followers added to large arsenals of unaccountable weapons and ammo may put a spin on this that's very violent.  They can't start a revolution, but chaos is certainly  within their reach.

... The bottom line is that the Republicans are pushing for the 3T mindset.  I don't see them making great sacrifices for selfishness.  Keep your guns, yes.  Protect your neighborhood, sure.  Exercise your right to chant slurs to minorities, that's to be expected of some.  Sacrifice for selfishness?  That doesn't compute somehow.

I'll be honest: I haven't the foggiest idea how these people self motivate.  The hyper-individualism has been around before.  Mask wearing and limited contact were also opposed in the 19th century and, later, during the Spanish Flu in 1918-19.  The arguments are even similar to the point of eerie. The big difference between then and now is the constant din of us v. them -- over and over and over. That may be a distinction without a difference ... or not.  Assuming a Trump thumping, how will his acolytes respond?  TBD.

[Bob Butler 54]

I may be erring a bit on the side of optimism. Part of it is that I’m keeping myself occupied during all my newly found spare time flipping through YouTube. I keep running into the anti Trump ads.

VoteVets: The basic pattern is just to focus on one vet at a time’s experience and feelings. In short, “I gave my youth for my country, and feel betrayed.”

Republican Voters Against Trump: They two focus on on Republican’s experience and feelings. “I have been Republican and voted Republican all my life. I am a Christian. I have seen Trump (many variations). Vote for Biden.”

Lincoln Project: More abstract a lot of times. This morning I was presented with an ad simply called Gettysburg. It turned out to be a Lincoln re-enactor reading the Gettysburg Address over images of the battlefield. Why would they do that? Then they got to the ending. “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

So, yes. It is good that some people should be paranoid. They should plan for every variation of worst case. If necessary the time interval between election and inauguration could be shortened via impeachment should he try too blatantly to take revenge or make a profit. Still, stuff is being put out today that might make the conservative movement stand for what it ought to stand for. While it might get ugly for a time, there seems to be lots of room for it to end well.

[Tim Randal Walker]

My own thought, based on what I have read in the past, may be that a few malls may survive. Representing what passes for upscale retail in the suburbs. With most suburban shopping being done in big box stores and at strip malls.

[Eric the Green]

(08-05-2020, 12:09 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(08-05-2020, 09:55 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: As for new values, the New Deal had very broad appeal because it aimed to improve the economic lot of a multitude.  There was no regional emphasis.

This time around we have this red/blue thing.  These two side seem to be roughly equal in strength.  I think that each would reject the imposition of the other's values.

There is nothing comparable to the New Deal, at least not yet.  It may well be that America's new civic order will mean loosening up the federal structure, the country decentralizing.

Indeed, I recall a comment from American Nations, that decentralization may be the only common ground for the different regions of the country.

Yes, exactly. The whole concept of American federalism, which was made possible by our Constitution, seems very much at risk, perhaps more-so than in that rife period preceding the American Civil War. I don’t see a repeat of that bloody episode as possible.  Yes, we have hyper-partisan policy makers and media, a very polarized electorate, divided almost evenly on a host of issues. And now it all comes to a head with a global pandemic exacting its heavy and pervasive toll on the country. If no compromise can be achieved, then there are other unpalatable routes to resolution.  We forged a nation by means of a revolution, then preserved the union by defeating a rebellion, and later saved capitalism by means of reform. There are other much less satisfying avenues for ushering in a new political order: a coup d'etat; more likely, a dissolution like that experienced by the former Soviet Union and later Yugoslavia. If it comes to individual states or regions accomplishing a “Brexit” by means of a referendum, say...well, at least that’s a more peaceful process than a military coup or civil war.  Quite frankly, I don’t see how a Second Civil War would work, Boogaloo or not.  The paramilitaries are too dispersed, and our country lacks the clear geographical demarcation of a Mason-Dixon Line, not to mention a singular divisive issue, such as slavery.  (Sorry, Eric, but even a “soft” civil war probably leads on to the real thing, eventually.)

Violence, to be sure, may break out all over if the competing values regimes cannot reach a bipartisan resolution by means of a legislative compromise. The potential for bloodshed is self-evident when we see protestors clashing on the streets, many armed with long guns and dressed in camouflage. I shudder to think of the possibilities if “the center cannot hold.” Even in my small Western town, there’s an element that’s “gunned-up and rolling heavy.” To cope with it all, I meditate...

A cold civil war may lead to a limited one, and it may be limited by the factors you mention, but may break out anyway. I expect it would be defeated fairly easily, but although the issues are not quite as singular, the red side is very solid and "gunned up" in its passionate loyality to their still-hopeless cause. Or, a dissolution like Brexit may indeed happen; I have predicted that possibility as well. I don't think this situation will be resolved until the end of the decade, according to Mr. Howe's schedule which jives with my cosmic sources.

[Eric the Green]

(08-04-2020, 12:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-04-2020, 12:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Please do remember that there is a double rhythm theory advanced here long ago, and that this links our turning with the civil war era.

It seems the double rhythm theory becomes more viable if you can't tell a high from an unraveling or an awakening from a crisis.  In the Industrial Age one could easily tell the difference.

In the Information Age?  If there are few to no crisis war triggers?  If both the awakening and the crisis can transform the culture and more often use protest, non violence and legislation rather than war?  If the infrastructure building and stomping on the old values in the high were not different from the selfishness and partisanship of the unraveling?  If all these things became more or less true, you could make me a fan of the double rhythm theory, but not yet.  We seem to be moving in that direction in the Information Age, but we have not got there yet.

I don't see the Information Age as wiping out the essential spiritual awakening component of Awakenings, and the decisive liberalizing of culture and lifestyle which so marked the last 2T. These changes are not in the offing for this 4T, except to complete what the 2T started on an institutional level (as in gay marriage and marijuana legalization).

I don't see why a double rhythm theory requires no difference between the social moment turnings or stable turnings. The cycle has still held through the double rhythm so far. The turnings should continue; but if the green revolution and the information age proceed, major crises wars that threaten the world may well be passe. But that's a 4T danger only. And a crisis war can still happen, and certainly a spiritual and cultural awakening 2T, which given the opposite directions this 4T has taken to the previous 2T, will be more necessary than ever next time.

Seeing the 1850s as the 2010s redux only requires changing the author's "anomaly" and thus making the theory more consistent.

[TeacherinExile]

(08-06-2020, 03:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2020, 12:09 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(08-05-2020, 09:55 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: As for new values, the New Deal had very broad appeal because it aimed to improve the economic lot of a multitude.  There was no regional emphasis.

This time around we have this red/blue thing.  These two side seem to be roughly equal in strength.  I think that each would reject the imposition of the other's values.

There is nothing comparable to the New Deal, at least not yet.  It may well be that America's new civic order will mean loosening up the federal structure, the country decentralizing.

Indeed, I recall a comment from American Nations, that decentralization may be the only common ground for the different regions of the country.

Yes, exactly. The whole concept of American federalism, which was made possible by our Constitution, seems very much at risk, perhaps more-so than in that rife period preceding the American Civil War. I don’t see a repeat of that bloody episode as possible.  Yes, we have hyper-partisan policy makers and media, a very polarized electorate, divided almost evenly on a host of issues. And now it all comes to a head with a global pandemic exacting its heavy and pervasive toll on the country. If no compromise can be achieved, then there are other unpalatable routes to resolution.  We forged a nation by means of a revolution, then preserved the union by defeating a rebellion, and later saved capitalism by means of reform. There are other much less satisfying avenues for ushering in a new political order: a coup d'etat; more likely, a dissolution like that experienced by the former Soviet Union and later Yugoslavia. If it comes to individual states or regions accomplishing a “Brexit” by means of a referendum, say...well, at least that’s a more peaceful process than a military coup or civil war.  Quite frankly, I don’t see how a Second Civil War would work, Boogaloo or not.  The paramilitaries are too dispersed, and our country lacks the clear geographical demarcation of a Mason-Dixon Line, not to mention a singular divisive issue, such as slavery.  (Sorry, Eric, but even a “soft” civil war probably leads on to the real thing, eventually.)

Violence, to be sure, may break out all over if the competing values regimes cannot reach a bipartisan resolution by means of a legislative compromise. The potential for bloodshed is self-evident when we see protestors clashing on the streets, many armed with long guns and dressed in camouflage. I shudder to think of the possibilities if “the center cannot hold.” Even in my small Western town, there’s an element that’s “gunned-up and rolling heavy.” To cope with it all, I meditate...

A cold civil war may lead to a limited one, and it may be limited by the factors you mention, but may break out anyway. I expect it would be defeated fairly easily, but although the issues are not quite as singular, the red side is very solid and "gunned up" in its passionate loyality to their still-hopeless cause. Or, a dissolution like Brexit may indeed happen; I have predicted that possibility as well. I don't think this situation will be resolved until the end of the decade, according to Mr. Howe's schedule which jives with my cosmic sources.

I have weighed the possibility of a Second Civil War in the past, for obvious reasons. But the more I pondered how that might come about—if armed violence broke out—my mind kept returning to the same scenario: a swift government crackdown assisted by ever-sophisticated surveillance, drones especially, assuming it is armed Trump sympathizers who open fire first in a Biden administration. 

Who would paramilitaries, such as the Boogaloo Boys, target? Probably minorities, Blacks in particular, but they’ll be well-armed too. Remember the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense? They showed up at the California statehouse with long guns, in accord with their legal right at the time to open carry, too.(Sure got Gov. Ronald Reagan’s attention!) No, we might get some sporadic gunplay, but the majority of peace-loving people in this country won’t stand for that nonsense too long. And besides, if the real troops were ever called out to put down the violence, the Boogaloo Boys will fold like a pup tent when they see what they’re up against.  The U.S. military has drones that can hit a pimple on a gnat’s ass with a Hellfire missile. More likely, there will just be a lot of macho posturing. 

If street-fighting ever did get chaotic and bloody enough, beyond even the control of law enforcement and the National Guard, especially if armed violence choked off the economic activity of our capitalist society...well then, say hello to the next strongman or military junta, South American style.

Before it ever comes to that, though, if our festering problems prove insoluble within the framework of American federalism, then we’re probably looking at something akin to a Brexit, and there are already hints of that. Notice how some states have informally banded together to fight COVID-19 in their own way because of the obvious failure of national leadership. And some “red” states, like Alabama, better hope that there’s no Calexit because California as a sovereign nation would be the world’s fifth largest economy.

[pbrower2a]

(08-04-2020, 03:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-03-2020, 04:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The Armada doesn't even look like a 4T.  Have you ever seen anyone use examples from THAT crisis to illustrate 4T issues. A few of theorists did talk about the Glorious and WotR 4Ts, but I cannot recall anyone comparing anything to the Armada.  It's so forgettable of a 4T because it isn't a 4T at all. There were no structural changes made. It was just a war, one of the dozens that happened all the time back then.

Chas and I derived pre-1435 turnings for England going back the mid-9th century. I used generations as one of the structural elements, as well as empirical data and Bob's concept of "spirals of violence" a "spiral" that fizzled out means it was not a social moment turning. One that did not indicates one. I also used Chas's idea of archetypical generations playing roles in history analogous to archetypical characters playing roles in a drama, sort of a riff on "all the world's a stage".  Using all these tools I managed to cobble together turnings and running them by Chas for input.

Anyways not all 4T's are equal. Some are obvious, like the Viking crisis. the Norman invasion and the WotR. Others like the 12th century crisis (its not the Anarchy, it simply happened too early) seem stretched, and the 10th and 13th century 4Ts are pretty small beer, like the Armada. 

I don't take the extended crises before the beginning of the Industrial Age seriously.  Sure, you can find where people are less enthusiastic about crisis wars when lots of folks remember the last one.  Also when people can't afford a big war, a little time goes by as the economy recovers.  That much is there.  However you are often not changing the culture.  One bunch of autocrats is fighting another with not much difference between them.  Only later did the rural - urban divide form as some people wanted to continue with power based on land ownership while the other favored urban life and building stuff.  Things started to get a little more hot.

History has operated by slightly-different rules in the Industrial Age than in the Agrarian Age, and may operate differently in the post-Industrial age. Cultural, commercial,  and technological change were all r-e-a-l-l-y, r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w in western Europe before, at the latest, Johann Gutenberg introducing his printing press. Political change could be abrupt with such events as the rapid spread of Islam into the Levant and North Africa, waxing and waning of the Crusades,  Mongol invasions, and of course the demise of the Byzantine Empire.  before that one is in the era of classical civilization south of Hadrian's wall, the Rhine and Danube Rivers, and the Caucasus in a time far out of the discussion of Howe and Strauss and probably interesting in its own right. 

Generations define themselves earlier in life, at least in cultural values, in their teens instead of their thirties. Taking on the economic responsibilities of adults does not bring maturity; child labor on the farm or plantation or being cannon-fodder in the war (infantry was originally child soldiers too immature for horse-based warfare) does not cause one to mature. Becoming scarred and cynical is not growing up.  It is in modern times that teenagers such as Juan Crisostomo Arriaga and Anne Frank could develop middle-aged competence so early due to formal education and excellent training. (We all know who Anne Frank was, but we would certainly know who Juan Crisostomo Arriaga was had he lived to thirty. He wrote some impressive music as a teenager, as did Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, and Chopin. Regrettably he died a teenager due to an infection, or music lovers would be speaking of him in the same sentence as Beethoven without failing the "laugh test". One can learn much by reading, whether books or musical scores; it is with the printing press that such became possible. 

It's when kids started having some disposable income that they could influence the culture of their time through their purchases.  Adults had to accommodate, and they often did by letting kids read books with adult concepts accessible to smart kids. It may date me, but I read To Kill a Mockingbird, Nineteen Eighty-Four , The Tin Drum, and Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian as a teenager with the thought that such was slightly rebellious. Silly me!  Those were made available with little prompting, and I could not put them down. The educational experts wanted people like me to read them while thinking that I did so on the sly. Until some canon becomes the rigid norm, as when kids are all reading the same material based on their intellectual skill and listening to the same music or seeing the same images, history can move fast.

How things will change in a post-industrial era is yet to be shown, and this may color events. So of course does the lengthening of life-spans. Having four active adult generations in public life at once suggests the possibility of more cultural and moral balance that could mute the dangers of the generational cycle. That the leaders of both Houses of Congress are Silent and that the next President of the United States seems likely to be Silent suggests that the rule that people completely drop out of influence at age 80 is no longer the case. Having active Adaptive adults in positions of great influence deep into a Crisis Era (as I see it we are likely far closer to the end of this one than to its beginning) may frustrate some of the expected ferocity of a Crisis. Or perhaps this Crisis will end without catastrophic wars, this Crisis exposing any warrior not only to the sensible danger of projectiles and mines but the more pointless menace of a virus like COVID-19. As a writer under the employ of Gene Roddenberry put into the mouth of a Klingon who ordinarily had a proclivity to wage war, "only a fool fights in a burning house". Pandemics can destabilize a world, and even if COVID-19 does not kill on the level of the Black Death or even the Spanish Influenza of a century ago, COVID-19 will shape images of our time significantly. Maybe the images of bodies stacked like cord-wood at Nazi concentration camps or the devastation of great cities in Europe and Japan will have an even longer-lasting effect; maybe our rapacious plutocrats know that a war for profits will destroy their assets and put them at risk for harsh judgment in the aftermath of a war even if the victors are their own side. 

If anyone thinks that this Crisis Era is nasty, then it is a paper tiger in contrast to the Crisis of 1940 and the Crisis of 2100 stands to have global warming as its focus with the cataclysm of inundation of huge swaths of prime farmland and changes of thermal regimes that will make some places close to the equator nearly intolerable and make deserts out of places where people now live in large numbers. No technological fix can shield us from hunger as technological fixes can meet basic human needs not those of hunger and shelter today.

[David Horn]

(08-06-2020, 05:12 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: I have weighed the possibility of a Second Civil War in the past, for obvious reasons. But the more I pondered how that might come about—if armed violence broke out—my mind kept returning to the same scenario: a swift government crackdown assisted by ever-sophisticated surveillance, drones especially, assuming it is armed Trump sympathizers who open fire first in a Biden administration. 

Who would paramilitaries, such as the Boogaloo Boys, target? Probably minorities, Blacks in particular, but they’ll be well-armed too. Remember the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense? They showed up at the California statehouse with long guns, in accord with their legal right at the time to open carry, too.(Sure got Gov. Ronald Reagan’s attention!) No, we might get some sporadic gunplay, but the majority of peace-loving people in this country won’t stand for that nonsense too long. And besides, if the real troops were ever called out to put down the violence, the Boogaloo Boys will fold like a pup tent when they see what they’re up against.  The U.S. military has drones that can hit a pimple on a gnat’s ass with a Hellfire missile. More likely, there will just be a lot of macho posturing. 

If street-fighting ever did get chaotic and bloody enough, beyond even the control of law enforcement and the National Guard, especially if armed violence choked off the economic activity of our capitalist society...well then, say hello to the next strongman or military junta, South American style.

Before it ever comes to that, though, if our festering problems prove insoluble within the framework of American federalism, then we’re probably looking at something akin to a Brexit, and there are already hints of that. Notice how some states have informally banded together to fight COVID-19 in their own way because of the obvious failure of national leadership. And some “red” states, like Alabama, better hope that there’s no Calexit because California as a sovereign nation would be the world’s fifth largest economy.

Wars aren't fought symmetrically anymore. If this turns nasty, look for truly American guerilla actions that target the institutions the guerillas hate. Assuming is Trump supporters incensed that he was robbed of reelection, the attacks could be on anything or anyone that they find objectionable. Colleges and universities are high on the list, as are alternate power systems. Taking out a few wind turbines seems right up their alley, and response can't be fast enough to catch them.

Remember, the Vietcong beat us and the Taliban isn't far behind.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-07-2020, 11:22 AM)David Horn Wrote: Wars aren't fought symmetrically anymore.  If this turns nasty, look for truly American guerilla actions that target the institutions the guerillas hate.  Assuming is Trump supporters incensed that he was robbed of reelection, the attacks could be on anything or anyone that they find objectionable.  Colleges and universities are high on the list, as are alternate power systems.  Taking out a few wind turbines seems right up their alley, and response can't be fast enough to catch them.

Remember, the Vietcong beat us and the Taliban isn't far behind.

Yep.  War is not as cost effective as it used to be.  Insurgent war seems to be playing as important a role as nukes in permanently making nations aware that war isn’t a good idea.

But I am not seeing an insurgent conflict rising in the US.  Oh, some people will be upset that the red mindset lost, but the reds have always accepted transfer of power by election.  They even went along with the first black president without going violent.  Then there is the logical disconnect of sacrificing for selfishness.  Trump may not loose his entire base, but his base will understand they are a lot smaller than they used to be, at least for one election.

[TeacherinExile]

(08-07-2020, 11:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-06-2020, 05:12 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: I have weighed the possibility of a Second Civil War in the past, for obvious reasons. But the more I pondered how that might come about—if armed violence broke out—my mind kept returning to the same scenario: a swift government crackdown assisted by ever-sophisticated surveillance, drones especially, assuming it is armed Trump sympathizers who open fire first in a Biden administration. 

Who would paramilitaries, such as the Boogaloo Boys, target? Probably minorities, Blacks in particular, but they’ll be well-armed too. Remember the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense? They showed up at the California statehouse with long guns, in accord with their legal right at the time to open carry, too.(Sure got Gov. Ronald Reagan’s attention!) No, we might get some sporadic gunplay, but the majority of peace-loving people in this country won’t stand for that nonsense too long. And besides, if the real troops were ever called out to put down the violence, the Boogaloo Boys will fold like a pup tent when they see what they’re up against.  The U.S. military has drones that can hit a pimple on a gnat’s ass with a Hellfire missile. More likely, there will just be a lot of macho posturing. 

If street-fighting ever did get chaotic and bloody enough, beyond even the control of law enforcement and the National Guard, especially if armed violence choked off the economic activity of our capitalist society...well then, say hello to the next strongman or military junta, South American style.

Before it ever comes to that, though, if our festering problems prove insoluble within the framework of American federalism, then we’re probably looking at something akin to a Brexit, and there are already hints of that. Notice how some states have informally banded together to fight COVID-19 in their own way because of the obvious failure of national leadership. And some “red” states, like Alabama, better hope that there’s no Calexit because California as a sovereign nation would be the world’s fifth largest economy.

Wars aren't fought symmetrically anymore.  If this turns nasty, look for truly American guerilla actions that target the institutions the guerillas hate.  Assuming is Trump supporters incensed that he was robbed of reelection, the attacks could be on anything or anyone that they find objectionable.  Colleges and universities are high on the list, as are alternate power systems.  Taking out a few wind turbines seems right up their alley, and response can't be fast enough to catch them.

Remember, the Vietcong beat us and the Taliban isn't far behind.

Your first sentence—no doubt about it.  Bob Butler has essentially said the same about the prospect of symmetrical warfare between superpowers (U.S., Russia, China). The mutually assured destruction of using biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons in a “hot” war would be a deterrent for rational actors, not to mention a violation of Geneva Protocol should civilian populations be deliberately targeted. So if an external war is to be fought at all, it would likely be a Cold War fought primarily by economic means, perhaps supplemented by small-scale cyberattacks.

I know, I know...you and Eric are talking about an internal war (civil, guerilla or otherwise), not an external conflict.  True, a guerilla war is asymmetric by nature, and proved quite successful against conventional forces in the last century (the Cuban Revolution, for instance). But I would rule out even a guerilla war in the U.S. lasting for very long, and here’s why—

I think back to the Weather Underground in the Sixties setting off bombs everywhere, even on a college campus.  They managed to pull off quite a few bombings before going into hiding.  Here’s my point: a guerilla group (Boogaloo Boys, let’s say) operating today would find it much, much harder to organize and map out strategy, communicate throughout the organization, and execute armed violence without being detected by the increasingly sophisticated surveillance of the state. Guerillas with their AR-15s might inflict significant casualties on their targets at first. But once their cells are located, they would quickly be dispatched by the superior tactics and weaponry of law enforcement and/or the American military. And who or what would the guerillas target exactly? Minorities? That’s the “wet dream” of a paramilitary group like the Boogaloo Boys—to start a race war. Good luck with that; our population is too diverse and our law enforcement and military too integrated to have that notion get very far.  

No, more likely than guerilla warfare is the no-less-palatable prospect of more Lone Wolf attacks which, given our saturated gun culture, is a hairy thought too. In short, anarchic violence.

Finally, America is still very much a capitalist nation, and anything or anyone that seriously threatens that political economy with widespread violence will quickly be squashed—by either a Biden or Trump administration. Barring outright societal collapse, of course.