03-20-2017, 05:24 PM
The tags are getting messy again.
Or, and I know this sounds like a crazy theory, the 4T wasn't early at all and that 9/11 was not a 4T catalyst but rather a terrible thing that happened but it happened in a 3T so any response to it was destined to fail.
Mucking about in the Middle East has a long history of failure. I'm starting to think it is something no western country should do.
Not really. My 1921 GI grandmother was still alive in 2001. She said it was no where near the same. There was no country to declare war on and defeat so after a number of years it fizzled--which it did. The problem with a wars on things (poverty, drugs, terrorism, etc) is that they lack the focus that wars on Japan or Germany have.
Is a dangerous game. The fact is that the generations were not in position for a major 4T war. If 9-11 happened this September you can bet that a 4T war would happen. There are enough Xers in Mid-life and in positions of power to call for "kill them, kill them all".
All history of the past decade to decade and a half indicates that the 4T started between 2006-2008. I personally place it at Katrina because that is when people started really saying "business as usual isn't working anymore". That mood shift rather than any flag waving or buildings getting demolished changed the turning.
True, which is why I early on named Trump the GC. He's calling for a new direction. Well it isn't very new to those who have studied history, but rather lain dormant for a saeculum.
Values change is only possible with the correct generational alignment. You're not going to get an Awakening with Civics in young adult hood, and you're not going to get a Resolution/Exposition with Nomads in Mid-Life.
I don't think we're going to have that problem. The collapse of American Empire is baked into the cake. The question is do we have managed collapse ala British Empire or Soviet Union (slow or fast) or do we have rapid catastrophic unmanaged collapse.
Considering the options I'm viewing Trump mostly as a Gorbachev figure rather than a Lincoln, or FDR. We'll have managed collapse until we're a nuclear armed regional power. The other option offered by the Dims and their NeoCon buddies (who are really just going home) is thermonuclear exchange. Given the choice between death of the Empire and death of all humanity....I'll take the former please.
Then you're not going to get a regeneracy until after the 1T has already started. I would suggest that the regeneracy starts when a leader is selected and he says let's go in this direction.
Obama had this opportunity but he squandered it. Because he did so Trump became inevitable. I was arguing that Obama was pre-seasonal as early as 2011. He got re-elected only because the GOP ran an incredibly weak candidate who was viewed by many people as utterly repugnant. Pretty much the same reason he got elected, McCain was a weak candidate and an old man who picked a moron to be his VP. I might have voted for him could he have found a VP candidate who could say "I read my local newspaper and playboy" or well anything other than what she said to the question "what newspapers/magazines do you read?"
That question wasn't one of how informed she was, like the lugenpresse would spin it, but rather one of being able to think on one's feet. Many including myself viewed it as a question of "some black guy with no experience at all" versus "a 72 year old man running with someone who is likely a moron". Coming off Bush II we were as a nation tired of morons so picked the black guy. As I told my sperm donor, "He can't possibly do worse than what we've had for 8 years".
Maybe, but that is more easily explained through Micro-turnings. As a turning plays out it goes through four stages just like a saeculum does: Resolution/Exposition, Awakening (the ideas/artistic movements/etc are born here), Unraveling, Crisis (the turning breaks down here and moves into the next turning here).
Given that we elect a president on 4 year basis and the micro-turning on average is 4-6 years it might appear to have a "false regeneracy" when all that is happening is the natural progression of a turning.
True. However, those people he'll be making "mad" weren't going to vote for him anyway. So I'm not sure it will really matter. What he has to be mindful of is not alienating his own base.
I don't know if there is anything to quibble over. I quite simply find the hole notion of "false regenerates" to be dubious at best. I refer you back to my answer in this post about your definition of a regeneracy--how taking that definition to its logical end results in no regeneracy in the 4T.
Rather, with the case of Bush II I see 9-11 as essentially ending the micro-unraveling of the late 90s. In my view the last micro-awakening ended when Kurt Cobain was found dead in wherever it was he was staying at the moment. (I'm not going to get into theories about him being murdered here as it quite simply isn't relevant.)
It should be noted that I do not subscribe to the Awakening ending in 1980 like S&H do but rather that 1980-1984 was the micro-crisis within the Awakening. With a brief cusp point between Reagan's re-election and the Challenger explosion. Seriously Boomers can remember what they were doing when JFK was shot, well Xers can remember Challenger but probably don't remember JFK at all (except as a historical figure). Just like Millies can remember 9-11 but can't remember Challenger. Seriously I just asked my 1982 cusper BF if he remembered Challenger and he said, only as part of history. Honestly he was too young being an August Baby so he was 3 1/2 at most. I remember it though being 7.
In any event if we break down the late 3T into it's component micro-turnings we find the following
P/E: 1985-1990
A: 1990-1994 (the half decade of grunge, electronica, and so forth)
U: 1995-2001
C: 2002-2007
This lays the ground work for the catalyst to be Katrina.
We actually agree on most points. As to Trump's popularity I have no idea what "wookie" means so I'm not agreeing to that point. At this point Trump's popularity is maintaining at least Honeymoon Average and every new Prez gets one.
I would argue that this phenomenon you call "false regeneracy" is really a product of the mega-saeculum placement of the MillSaec. In my thread Wheels Within Wheels I demonstrate that my theory is that the current saeculum is one of indecision and decay. It is a Unraveling on a Mega-Level. The thread is a good read if you ignore the whole Idealism V Materialism argument between myself and Eric. When I see Dan I'm going to see if I can have him split that crap off as it adds nothing to my theory.
Possible. I would contend that this would be indicative of a Mega-Unraveling.
In general I would agree but I do not subscribe to the Whig Historian notion of an arrow of progress. Rather I see a more spiral like cycle at play. Nations and Empires are born, have their productive time periods, grow old and then die. There may or may not be progress materially or within the realms of rights but often there is not.
Bob Wrote:It was early. That might have contributed to the failure.
Or, and I know this sounds like a crazy theory, the 4T wasn't early at all and that 9/11 was not a 4T catalyst but rather a terrible thing that happened but it happened in a 3T so any response to it was destined to fail.
Quote: However, invading the Middle East was apt to fail even if it had occurred a few years later.
Mucking about in the Middle East has a long history of failure. I'm starting to think it is something no western country should do.
Quote:The mood swing was that of a Pearl Harbor style trigger event, though.
Not really. My 1921 GI grandmother was still alive in 2001. She said it was no where near the same. There was no country to declare war on and defeat so after a number of years it fizzled--which it did. The problem with a wars on things (poverty, drugs, terrorism, etc) is that they lack the focus that wars on Japan or Germany have.
Quote:Perhaps if...
Is a dangerous game. The fact is that the generations were not in position for a major 4T war. If 9-11 happened this September you can bet that a 4T war would happen. There are enough Xers in Mid-life and in positions of power to call for "kill them, kill them all".
All history of the past decade to decade and a half indicates that the 4T started between 2006-2008. I personally place it at Katrina because that is when people started really saying "business as usual isn't working anymore". That mood shift rather than any flag waving or buildings getting demolished changed the turning.
Quote:I'm still thinking that president using those tactics and economics would have failed even with a good generation alignment. If one is going to transform a culture, you have to have a new culture worth transforming into. The public has to perceive the new culture as worth shifting to. I don't think he could have got there combining trickle down borrow and spend with serial preemptive unilateral nation building.
True, which is why I early on named Trump the GC. He's calling for a new direction. Well it isn't very new to those who have studied history, but rather lain dormant for a saeculum.
Quote:To me, the possibility of values change is a more important marker than generation alignment.
Values change is only possible with the correct generational alignment. You're not going to get an Awakening with Civics in young adult hood, and you're not going to get a Resolution/Exposition with Nomads in Mid-Life.
Quote: I'm hoping we don't forget that lesson, that we don't have to learn it again.
I don't think we're going to have that problem. The collapse of American Empire is baked into the cake. The question is do we have managed collapse ala British Empire or Soviet Union (slow or fast) or do we have rapid catastrophic unmanaged collapse.
Considering the options I'm viewing Trump mostly as a Gorbachev figure rather than a Lincoln, or FDR. We'll have managed collapse until we're a nuclear armed regional power. The other option offered by the Dims and their NeoCon buddies (who are really just going home) is thermonuclear exchange. Given the choice between death of the Empire and death of all humanity....I'll take the former please.
Quote:Let me suggest that a true regeneracy is one where new values / doctrines / policies are seen to succeed, are accepted by the population as a whole, and become set in stone as the rigid status quo of the 1T.
Then you're not going to get a regeneracy until after the 1T has already started. I would suggest that the regeneracy starts when a leader is selected and he says let's go in this direction.
Obama had this opportunity but he squandered it. Because he did so Trump became inevitable. I was arguing that Obama was pre-seasonal as early as 2011. He got re-elected only because the GOP ran an incredibly weak candidate who was viewed by many people as utterly repugnant. Pretty much the same reason he got elected, McCain was a weak candidate and an old man who picked a moron to be his VP. I might have voted for him could he have found a VP candidate who could say "I read my local newspaper and playboy" or well anything other than what she said to the question "what newspapers/magazines do you read?"
That question wasn't one of how informed she was, like the lugenpresse would spin it, but rather one of being able to think on one's feet. Many including myself viewed it as a question of "some black guy with no experience at all" versus "a 72 year old man running with someone who is likely a moron". Coming off Bush II we were as a nation tired of morons so picked the black guy. As I told my sperm donor, "He can't possibly do worse than what we've had for 8 years".
Quote:I might propose that every time the White House has changed hands lately might be called a false regeneracy.
Maybe, but that is more easily explained through Micro-turnings. As a turning plays out it goes through four stages just like a saeculum does: Resolution/Exposition, Awakening (the ideas/artistic movements/etc are born here), Unraveling, Crisis (the turning breaks down here and moves into the next turning here).
Given that we elect a president on 4 year basis and the micro-turning on average is 4-6 years it might appear to have a "false regeneracy" when all that is happening is the natural progression of a turning.
Quote:If he wants to get reelected and have a well considered legacy, he's got to keep promises he made to his base. If he follows those promises, he is going to make a lot of people mad.
True. However, those people he'll be making "mad" weren't going to vote for him anyway. So I'm not sure it will really matter. What he has to be mindful of is not alienating his own base.
Quote:[regarding hearts and minds strategy]I too thought it was going to fail. We can quibble about whether to call it a micro crisis or a false regeneracy. That's just word preference. I think we see the reality in a similar way.
I don't know if there is anything to quibble over. I quite simply find the hole notion of "false regenerates" to be dubious at best. I refer you back to my answer in this post about your definition of a regeneracy--how taking that definition to its logical end results in no regeneracy in the 4T.
Rather, with the case of Bush II I see 9-11 as essentially ending the micro-unraveling of the late 90s. In my view the last micro-awakening ended when Kurt Cobain was found dead in wherever it was he was staying at the moment. (I'm not going to get into theories about him being murdered here as it quite simply isn't relevant.)
It should be noted that I do not subscribe to the Awakening ending in 1980 like S&H do but rather that 1980-1984 was the micro-crisis within the Awakening. With a brief cusp point between Reagan's re-election and the Challenger explosion. Seriously Boomers can remember what they were doing when JFK was shot, well Xers can remember Challenger but probably don't remember JFK at all (except as a historical figure). Just like Millies can remember 9-11 but can't remember Challenger. Seriously I just asked my 1982 cusper BF if he remembered Challenger and he said, only as part of history. Honestly he was too young being an August Baby so he was 3 1/2 at most. I remember it though being 7.
In any event if we break down the late 3T into it's component micro-turnings we find the following
P/E: 1985-1990
A: 1990-1994 (the half decade of grunge, electronica, and so forth)
U: 1995-2001
C: 2002-2007
This lays the ground work for the catalyst to be Katrina.
Quote:In the Civil War, both haves of the country were united and had governments each pursing their aims. There was certainly differences in opinion and constant quibbling over strategy, but both factions knew where they wanted to get and strove earnestly to get there. The 100 days at least had everybody united. Later, FDR made some mistakes. Things got harder for him. Still, he kept getting re-elected by ever larger margins.
The Crisis is a time when the problem is clearly identified and lots of trial and error is going on to figure out how to best solve things. The Unravelling is a time when the basic approach is still up in the air, and there is a struggle to do anything. That's how I see it at least. In recent decades, while a newly elected president might be able to push a few initiatives through, they have not been successful enough to become popular enough to build momentum and use it on other issues. They'll spend their political capitol, feel a backlash, lose control of Congress, and we're back in a muddle of 3T going nowhere.
Too early to be sure Trump will go the same way, but he hasn't had clean sailing so far. He hasn't got a lot done yet, but his popularity has gone wookie. We'll have to see.
We actually agree on most points. As to Trump's popularity I have no idea what "wookie" means so I'm not agreeing to that point. At this point Trump's popularity is maintaining at least Honeymoon Average and every new Prez gets one.
I would argue that this phenomenon you call "false regeneracy" is really a product of the mega-saeculum placement of the MillSaec. In my thread Wheels Within Wheels I demonstrate that my theory is that the current saeculum is one of indecision and decay. It is a Unraveling on a Mega-Level. The thread is a good read if you ignore the whole Idealism V Materialism argument between myself and Eric. When I see Dan I'm going to see if I can have him split that crap off as it adds nothing to my theory.
Quote:Or perhaps we've had multiple Hoovers, multiple presidents who were unable to lay down a solid enough legacy for a successor to continue the legacy. We have two sets of values. It seems like having a president advocate his values has recently resulted in the opposing values growing stronger
Possible. I would contend that this would be indicative of a Mega-Unraveling.
Quote:Which gives a Whig like me an arrow of progress. Push for equality. Try to cut back on the power and wealth of the elite ruling class. Try to oppose those attempting to maintaining the influence and privilege of a given race, gender, religion, or culture. Human rights and democracy are useful tools, best aimed at elite ruling classes.
In general I would agree but I do not subscribe to the Whig Historian notion of an arrow of progress. Rather I see a more spiral like cycle at play. Nations and Empires are born, have their productive time periods, grow old and then die. There may or may not be progress materially or within the realms of rights but often there is not.
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out ofUN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of