(07-18-2019, 11:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(07-17-2019, 09:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:(07-17-2019, 02:06 PM)Ghost Wrote: As some of you may know, I made a thread about how the length of a saeculum should be around 72 years last month. That thread ("Breaking the idea that saeculums are ~85 years") did not seem to get good reception based on the replies I saw and the poll I made. One question that I feel should be brought up is the length of a saeculum because I've heard so many different answers on it, with some being as early as 72 years and some going as much as 110.
The Kondratiev cycle and Michael A. Alexander in Investing in a Secular Bear Market say that a saeculum is 72 years.
Various users on here seem to think that saeculums can be anywhere between 80 and 88 years, with many saying, on average, that it's the span of Uranus' orbit (84.3 years).
S&H says that saeculums can be anywhere between 80 and 90 years.
Mike Ebert believes that saeculums are 90 years in length.
The Romans in the reign of Augustus believed that a saeculum was 110 years.
Saecula used to be about 80 years, which about seventy years ago was a freakishly-long lifetime. More people are obviously living to such ages thanks to greater prosperity and activity among the elderly, starting with the GI Generation who exerciused more, smoked less, and kept alert on current events as people of such age rarely did. Maybe 90 is now a better guess on the length of a saeculum.
Meanwhile, kids are making their cultural influence known earlier as markets for music and video. The voting age is down to 18, which may have some influence upon voting patterns. Extinction of childhood memories of a time -- and childho0od memories can be extremely relevant. It could be that eras can stretch to force a certain length of a saeculum. We have yet to see any semblance of a Regeneracy that defines the social purpose of a Crisis Era. America is extremely polarized in its politics - ominously like Spain in the 1930s or Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Maybe Obama was the wrong sort of President (a mature Reactive who better fits the needs of top leadership mostly after a Crisis than during one), and Donald Trump is simply wrong at so many levels that he could never resolve anything.
It seems like 90 could be the new length, because of one thing I believe. Turnings in the past were too short. Events came a bit early. I include in that the end of world war II, which happened because Hitler was overconfident and too reckless and used up his resources, so the allies rolled over him. And the Kennedy assassination pushed the awakening a bit early. And this latter also involved Uranus conjoined to Pluto coming on (exact from late 1965 to mid 1966) which cannot be denied as an awakener of change.
The Awakening also seemed to end with the establishment cycle ending in 1980 with Reagan becoming president and John Lennon dead. However, I think S&H were right to extend that turning to 1984. The Awakening was losing its steam, but until the morning in America campaign in 1984, the would-be 3T had no momentum behind it. The big 1979 recession only ended in 1983, for example.
And the length of the saeculum of 84 years reasserts itself, because the great crisis that tests America's foundations comes on a regular cycle indicated by the Uranus Return to its position at the founding of Jamestown and the Declaration of Independence. So it will be again; I don't think it can be denied either. But this meant a longer than usual 3T to make up for the shorter 4T and 1T earlier. And the 4T will also be the length of a normal turning. This saeculum seems like it is lengthening because of the recent longer length of the 3T, and the messed up and muddled nature of the 4T so far (due to the double rhythm 1850s redux), plus the draggy end of the last 2T, and these years are all that most young people know today. And most millennials have a poor grasp of what came before them too.
Note also that S&H extend the nomad Gen X right up next to the boundary of the 3T, whereas the Lost ended 7 years before the following 3T according to them. Events seems to run ahead of generations too, pushing the turnings forward on the up cycle.
But this saeculum WILL end in 2028-29, and the next Awakening will once again be rushed to begin a bit too soon, because Uranus and Pluto will oppose each other starting in the mid 2040s. This will fulfill the cycle begun in the sixties with a full-on green revolution. So the 1T will not drag or extend itself; it will end explosively like the last one, although the next 2T will not be as chaotic and flash-in-the-pan as the last one, but pursued with full awareness and dedication to lasting results.
But if there were years that were actually big when it came to turnings in the US (or the start of transitional periods at least), they'd be 1929, 1945, 1963, 1980, 2001, and probably 2016.
1929: Black Tuesday/End of the Roaring 20's
1945: End of World War II
1963: JFK assassination
1980: Reagan vs. Carter election, John Lennon's assassination
2001: 9/11
2016: Trump vs. Hillary election (Kind of like a Millennial or Gen Z's Reagan vs. Carter election)
Do you think that this is correct?