Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Kinser79]

(05-16-2016, 12:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: It is conceivable that the saeculum as we understand it requires certain material conditions which if not met would cause the pattern to break down.  That being said a long term study of world history would indicate that history is not a liner progression, despite what many Whig Historians would want us to believe.  Therefore a cycle will always develop eventually.  It could have two strokes or four, or even six (though that would probably stretch the lifespan of humans past the 120 year mark).

I see technological advances as a significant factor in forcing culture change.  We've had that for quite a while, keeping a steady pressure on cultures, making sure there won't be a lengthy steady state.  It may be that over the period of Anglo-American development the technology based pressure has been steady enough that the four cycle pattern was stable.  At this point I see factors like computer networks and nukes are actually increasing the pressure.  The 1960s period was as intense as a crisis, might have some aspects of a crisis.  The recent unraveling might have some aspects of a high in an intense resistance to additional change and big government.  I don't see a stop to cultural mood changes.  If there are four basic moods -- high, awakening, unraveling, crisis -- I don't see getting stuck in one and unchanging.  After a generation or so things are apt to change.  I'm just not seeing the 4 stroke pattern as still active and think 20 20 hindsight will be required to spot any new pattern that might or might not develop.

If we assume that the S&H model only works with a certain criteria of material conditions (which are not necessarily industrial given the pattern arising at the end of the Middle Ages in England) then changes in those material conditions which cause the certain criteria to pass away would disrupt the S&H pattern. Should something of that nature happen it should be expected to only be able to detect it hindsight.

If we use the tide metaphor again it would be like the moon's gravitational pull abruptly changing for an unknown reason--tide charts would have to be reworked from the new data drawn from new observations.

Quote:

Bob Butler Wrote:As I've said many times, I see September 11th as a Trigger for a failed regeneracy and crisis.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: And you were wrong then, and wrong now if you still believe so.  The simple fact of the matter is that in 2001 the old civic generation still had some lingering political and social power, and the new one was busy learning their multiplication tables.  It is my feeling that the turning cannot change until at least half of the generation that is supposed to be in rising adulthood (I usually call it young adulthood) has to be in that stage.  Assuming S&H's date for the start of the Millennial Generation, and assuming that Millies are in fact a Civic generation the oldest ones would be 19, and the youngest should have just finished being born on 11 September 2001.

Different people emphasize different aspects of the S&H system.  You are emphasizing the generation personality aspect.  I emphasize the political mood and values changing aspect.  With the four stroke pattern breaking down, I don't think either of us might be entirely convincing.

Political mood changes with the wind. There is a reason it is said "A week is an eternity in politics". I find that if one uses political mood as the metric by which one determines turnings and saecula they never really can accurately pin down beyond the micro-turning level. The reason being, political mood changes with the wind. And like the wind, knowing what direction it is blowing from you might be able to predict the weather for that day, but for a month or a year on...impossible.

I will admit that on that day I was in the military and as such have a minority opinion. My BF was in university when it happened--he was a Freshman. According to him the political mood was fear for a few days, then anger for a few months and then everything suddenly returned to normalcy.

Over all, I stress generation archetype because when we're dealing with masses of people and their movement in masses it is best to think in terms of archetype. Honestly I wish I could break it down into mathematics--I could be Hari Sedon. The S&H theory seems to work best when we're examining large groups of people who are largely ignorant of the forces at work.

Quote:

Bob Butler Wrote:Bush 43 attempted to implement a new set of values including neocolonialism and spreading western values at gunpoint.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yes, and he failed, just as attempting to change someone else's values always does.  People change their values because they want to (for whatever reason), they never change them because someone else wants them to.  In fact if anything attempting to change the values of others makes them seek to "double down" on those values even if that course of action is self-destructive.

Through the bulk of the Anglo-American development, it has been the progressives who have achieved the regeneracy and driven the agenda.  For the most part their agendas have succeeded.  Bush 43 tried as a conservative to push a different sort of agenda and failed.  I have described it as a 'false regeneracy' and 'failed crisis'.  I can pretty much agree with the above paragraph as to how and why he failed.  We're seeing the history in a similar way.  We're disagreeing on how to label it.

I actually don't think so. As I pointed out Lincoln was a unionist first and foremost. Unionism that Andrew Jackson agreed with and Andy J was not exactly a "progressive". (Awesome President, but definitely not a progressive, you should hear some of the shit those people say about him sometime.) The Founders largely had the American revolution to not pay taxes to Parliament (which they never had to do before), the UK government trying to enforce their trade laws (which they never had before--for a century I might add), and imposing laws from without (prior to the 1760s all the colonies were essentially self governing with the Crown just appointing the governor, and often a local at that). Given these facts it seems that the revolutionary war was fought to maintain a status quo rather than to create something new. Even the argumentation of the Declaration of Independence all has content that any person literate in English would have likely have read at the time. FDR did many progressive things but did so for inherently conservative reasons--the preservation of capitalism, and later democracy.

What happened with Bush 43 was there was a tragic event, it gave him some political capital and he spent it like a drunken sailor. There was no "false regeneracy" because someting like a regeneracy would have to have happened to confuse people into thinking it was a real one. Likewise there was no false crisis because 9-11 ultimately did not set into motion an existential threat to the nation. The terrorism and the wars were things that happened "over there".

Quote:

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite.  We were in a 4T, but the regeneracy stalled, as such the best thing possible was to slam on the breaks.  Not only that he had to deal with a Boomer Dominated Congress and of all the generations the one most likely to "be stuck in the 90s" is in fact the Boomers.  Since 2010 Xers have taken over the House and are making headway in the Senate.  It is unfortunate that the President is a Democrat because Xers tend to be overwhelmingly Republican, and when not Republican Natural Conservatives.''

Stalled regeneracy rather than False regeneracy?  Different language, but yah...  Again, I'm more into the values shifts than generational stereotypes.  I see stagnation and inaction.  I'll put the turning boundaries where the mood and values change, not when certain age groups start getting into office.

I say stalled because had the Great Recession deepened at the start (like Great Depression) the need for a change in the status quo would have become apparent sooner. This naturally lead to stagnation and inaction. The Civil War Saeculum had something similar following the Dred Scott decision as both the North and South were too evenly balanced in the Senate. In the more modern case following 2010 the natural conservatives in the House managed to block much of the President's proposed legislation. Mostly because they don't share his particular vision.

Quote:

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That is the S&H narrative.  However, it is only a narrative--and remember they did write their books to sell and sell primarily to Boomers.  What happens if the "new values systems" from the 2T are destructive, stupid or just plain garbage?  What happens then?  S&H are silent about that.

Well, perhaps S&H were silent on stupid and destructive 2T values as such hasn't happened recently.  I see the anti-war, racial equality, gender equality and environmental changes of the recent 2T as necessary and appropriate.  I see neocolonialism and changing cultures at gunpoint as destructive, stupid and just plain garbage, but Bush 43 tried his push in a late 3T, not 2T.

Anti-war movements are not new, and Boomers certainly didn't start them. Racial and gender equality are pretty much the same thing. Environmentalism was actually started by Missionaries. According to S&H it is the prophet generation in the 2T that come up with the new ideas, the new paradigms and so forth. Much of the 60s was recycling Missionary materials and most of the effective leadership was conducted by Silents. From what I've seen the new ideas that Boomers are responsible for are largely equated to mass marketed watered down occultism (aka New Age), fad diets, and various cults. There is a lot of destructive, stupid and just plain garbage to go around from that generation, it wasn't Bush 43 alone.

Furthermore I would argue that Bush 43 failed not because of the turning, but rather because of a complete misunderstanding of human nature and how values interplay with that nature.

Quote:

Bob Butler Wrote:Traditionally it is the progressive values that are enabled by the regeneracy, while the conservatives attempt to maintain the status quo.  If someone like Bernie Sanders could get the presidency with a working majority in Congress, this sort of pattern could repeat.  

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you assume that there were social problems solved in the 2T that were not solved.

Guilty.  Wrote too fast.  Didn't word it properly.  The problems of the last 2T were not completely solved.  Red resistance to change capped what could be done.  Still, significant progress was made, enough for Future Shock.  As a broad principle, I don't think any crisis or awakening will completely solve anything.  There will always be leftovers and polishing to be done.  Periods of transition can only flow so long before the perceived need for change fades and an odd numbered turning is apt to kick in.

Getting edit dizzy.  Might pick it up again later.

You could of perhaps worded it better. I would say that a large part of the Red Resistance you allude to comes from Boomers mostly. As long as the GIs were in charge they could push through an agenda you'd call progressive and the Silents would go along with them--mostly. That being said, one needs to understand that when we're dealing with political movements, even if we're not talking about movement politics, Natural Conservatives are always going to try to "hit the breaks", that is what Natural Conservatives do. Furthermore, Natural Conservatives exist in all generations, they just tend to be over-represented in Nomad generations for some pretty good reasons.

That being said, 2Ts largely do not result in structural social change. Even today we see that some are calling for a re-institution of Jim Crow but on different lines.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261912...greenfield