Was 911 & the Cultural Aftermath/Change in National Mood Part of This Crisis Period?

[Eric the Green]

(06-07-2018, 01:22 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(06-06-2018, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I knew for decades that in the late Summer of 2001 (which Sept.11 still was) that the US would get involved in a religious war. I thought it might involve "star wars," but it was just in the air and not among the "stars." On p.266 of my 1997 book, Horoscope for the New Millennium, chapter 17, in the section entitled Star Wars or Holy Wars, I wrote, "then comes the combative Saturn-Pluto opposition in the Summer of 2001, joined by a stationary Mars in July. These planets will oppose each other across the Ascendant and Descendant of the U.S. chart. Uncle Sam will be feeling righteous again in a big way, eager to show other nations the truth. Religious issues and trade embargoes will be involved.... late February 2003 could see another flare-up... " In my tables for Jupiter in Gemini/Cancer and Mars stationary, I noted the dates and left them blank; I could later fill them in with what happened. Mars stationary usually means a violent outbreak or war within a week to a month and a half later, especially when combined with Saturn and Pluto, which when in opposition, conjunction or square have corresponded to major wars. And Jupiter in Gemini and Cancer indicates the USA war cycle, which I also detailed in my book and my videos. My 9-11 prediction is also made in this year-2000 video:  



The conclusion was as clear as could be; no event could have been more clearly pre-destined; except maybe the assassination of JFK.

I watched your video, I found it interesting.  I admittedly have really no functional knowledge of star charts or what planet motions have to do with how or why things happen.  But that's why I am here and other places, to see where others are coming from.

You briefly chronicled the decades of the war actions and the rise of consumerism, you really do gloss over tho why those things happen except in a star chart capacity.  You talked about the differing mentalities changing and how the 60s were a radical change but you don't mention the trauma of the assassinations of that decade.  You mention that suddenly everyone mistrusted the government and "official" stories told by them to us to explain the trauma... but you don't really go into functional reasoning as to why would the general populace behave in this manner. 

Your diatribe (I'm not using that word in a negative way here) sounds a lot like the strauss and howe theories but I don't think they ever used planet alignments to explain things.  I could take the idea you are tin foil hat to say planet cycles create policy or whatever, but I don't do that.  Just because I don't understand it does not mean you may not be on to something.

How can I say that method is wrong or crazy if the end result is repeatable and demonstrative?  To the contrary, I could simply ignore your material as outright "bunk" (I love that word, my dad used that word as anything he did not understand so to me it is funny) and malarkey could be another word LOL.  But thanks for sharing that

I really do want to know more, so keep squawking big chicken.  

So based on planet alignment or whatever you would call it, what is in store for us and what do you see in your methodology?  Yes, it really is hard to keep up with all the posts here, so sorry if I missed anything.  I am attempting to supplant reddit as a forum of interaction because that place is the wild west.  I really think people go there with the expressed intention to locate others to argue with (not argue in a productive way) and is filled with spammers and even bots with no purpose except to cause conflict.  I'm not down with that.

The main thing about this video (and my others) that I think it offers, is the prediction of events, which you don't need to understand the basis for; just that I made them, and what happened is basically what I predicted. The American war in the Summer of 2001, and its nature; the economic crash of 2008-2010, the recovery afterward, and so on. Then, if you can understand the basic cycles and aspects that I mentioned, and assuming you were given the dates when they come around again, you have some idea at least when a similar event will happen in the future. More refined study perfects the prediction. It doesn't mean I got everything exactly right, or that you would if you followed this method. The cycles themselves are general, just like the idea of turnings and saecula, even including the additions to the saeculum that people here have made, such as the double rhythm, micro and macro cycles, etc..

Strauss and Howe explicitly did not use planetary correspondences and alignments in their theory, and yet their saeculum archetypally, as stated specifically in The Fourth Turning, exactly matches 1 cycle of Uranus around the Sun through the zodiac. The fact that they apparently didn't know this, strengthens the evidence that the two correspond, because one was not given based on the other. And the reason given for the meanings of the planet Uranus given by reknowned astrologer and philosopher Dane Rudhyar, is that this cycle corresponds to the average length of a human life cycle. And this is exactly the same reason Strauss and Howe give for the reason for the meaning of a saeculum. Symbolically also, the name "turning" means "season," and most astrologers use a zodiac which is based on the seasons of the year.

So that is an impressive correspondence right there between astrology and the S&H turnings/generations theory. And there's more, since the starting birth years for dominant generations, including the nomad/civic hybrid generation called the Gilded in 1822, matches within one or two years the entrance or ingress of Neptune into a cardinal sign in its 165-year trip around the zodiac (in Capricorn in 1821 in the case of the Gilded), which is a sign the sun enters at the seasonal turning points (solstice and equinox). So for example, the hated "Boomers," a dominant prophet generation, begins in the very year 1943 that Neptune entered Libra (Fall Equinox point), while the previous prophets, the Missionaries, started in 1860, one year before Neptune entered Aries (Spring Equinox). The civic generation The Greatest started, according to S&H, in 1901, the year Neptune entered Cancer (Summer Solstice), and Millennials begin in 1982, two years before Neptune entered Capricorn (Winter Solstice). Neptune having a cycle almost twice the length of Uranus, substantiates the saeculum correspondence and establishes the double rhythm.

[Eric the Green]

Using astrology to explain things, means I don't need any other explanation. I am using astrology to explain it!

In my discussion of decades, the only point I established was that there is a 10 and 20-year pattern corresponding to the Jupiter Saturn conjunction and opposition, which indicates that different decades have different meanings, with a similar mood or experience through each decade, and which contrasted with the previous one. I didn't cover why each decade was specifically the way it was, but you can see that to some extent the turnings describe the nature of these decades based on which turning they happened in. There are other astrological indicators too which were beyond the scope of the lecture. Neptune in the signs covers some of this.

What am I predicting in the future? I have given you quite a bit of that in our discussions already, Sir Nomad .

Another video of my lecture from 1998 covered my predictions for 2008-2012

[beechnut79]

(06-07-2018, 01:22 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(06-06-2018, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I knew for decades that in the late Summer of 2001 (which Sept.11 still was) that the US would get involved in a religious war. I thought it might involve "star wars," but it was just in the air and not among the "stars." On p.266 of my 1997 book, Horoscope for the New Millennium, chapter 17, in the section entitled Star Wars or Holy Wars, I wrote, "then comes the combative Saturn-Pluto opposition in the Summer of 2001, joined by a stationary Mars in July. These planets will oppose each other across the Ascendant and Descendant of the U.S. chart. Uncle Sam will be feeling righteous again in a big way, eager to show other nations the truth. Religious issues and trade embargoes will be involved.... late February 2003 could see another flare-up... " In my tables for Jupiter in Gemini/Cancer and Mars stationary, I noted the dates and left them blank; I could later fill them in with what happened. Mars stationary usually means a violent outbreak or war within a week to a month and a half later, especially when combined with Saturn and Pluto, which when in opposition, conjunction or square have corresponded to major wars. And Jupiter in Gemini and Cancer indicates the USA war cycle, which I also detailed in my book and my videos. My 9-11 prediction is also made in this year-2000 video:  



The conclusion was as clear as could be; no event could have been more clearly pre-destined; except maybe the assassination of JFK.

I watched your video, I found it interesting.  I admittedly have really no functional knowledge of star charts or what planet motions have to do with how or why things happen.  But that's why I am here and other places, to see where others are coming from.

You briefly chronicled the decades of the war actions and the rise of consumerism, you really do gloss over tho why those things happen except in a star chart capacity.  You talked about the differing mentalities changing and how the 60s were a radical change but you don't mention the trauma of the assassinations of that decade.  You mention that suddenly everyone mistrusted the government and "official" stories told by them to us to explain the trauma... but you don't really go into functional reasoning as to why would the general populace behave in this manner. 

Your diatribe (I'm not using that word in a negative way here) sounds a lot like the strauss and howe theories but I don't think they ever used planet alignments to explain things.  I could take the idea you are tin foil hat to say planet cycles create policy or whatever, but I don't do that.  Just because I don't understand it does not mean you may not be on to something.

How can I say that method is wrong or crazy if the end result is repeatable and demonstrative?  To the contrary, I could simply ignore your material as outright "bunk" (I love that word, my dad used that word as anything he did not understand so to me it is funny) and malarkey could be another word LOL.  But thanks for sharing that

I really do want to know more, so keep squawking big chicken.  

So based on planet alignment or whatever you would call it, what is in store for us and what do you see in your methodology?  Yes, it really is hard to keep up with all the posts here, so sorry if I missed anything.  I am attempting to supplant reddit as a forum of interaction because that place is the wild west.  I really think people go there with the expressed intention to locate others to argue with (not argue in a productive way) and is filled with spammers and even bots with no purpose except to cause conflict.  I'm not down with that.

I would tend to say that the Watergate scandal was the event that ushered in the "don't trust the government" mood.

[Mikebert]

(06-05-2018, 12:14 PM)tg63 Wrote: To the original question, I don't think it was, although it seemed to start some embers glowing (in particular I'm thinking of the willingness to pass the Patriot Act & the mood change to accept more a more authoritarian role of government).

I read somewhere that the leadership generation is critical to establishing/cementing a transition or not. So, looking at the Boomer age ranges (I think I got the math correct) ...

2001: 41-58 (1943-1960)
1930: 48-70 (1860-1882)
1860: 39-68 (1792-1821)
1773: 50-72 (1701-1723)
1675: 58-87 (1588-1617)

In particular, the top of the age range when a 4T hit the previous four times ranged from 68-87. This marks the removal of the Silents from active roles in society. A max age of 58 equates to a heck of a lot of silents still actively in leadership positions across society. So no, I don't see how 2001 could have been part of the crisis.W

Well look at your younger ages, they range from 39-58.  So 2001 (age 41) 2008 (age 48) or 2016 (age 56) would fit by this criterion. When I first came to T4T in 2000 I had two 4T indicators, one based on the stock market and one on the economy. The first suggests 2001, the second 2008. The tie breaker is a third indicator based on political cycles. It is not consistent with 2001, it might be consistent with 2008, but only if a Democrat wins in 2020. If Trump wins in 2020 and a Republican succeeds him, it will point to 2016. In other words 

"Reply Hazy, Ask Again Later"

It's frickin' 2018, the 4T could be almost over...or not. It's very frustrating.  It's becoming clear that we are not going to know the start date of the 4T until well after it is over. If nothing else big happens, one might then figure Nomad has the timing right. But if nothing else happens then that invalidates the stock market indicator that suggest 2001. If that happens then the collapse of all the cycles and the absence of a clear-cut crisis this time like we had for the last three 4Ts makes it hard to believe that a generational cycle exists.

[Eric the Green]

Remember again my prophetic claim: Trump could actually win in 2020 if the Democrats nominate a loser. The election depends on this more than any cyclic factor. The nominee must have a superior horoscope score. ONLY skilled candidates ever win. And here's the rub; that will not invalidate the cycle. Because trump is sure to face a sunami of opposition if he wins again, and the Democrats may even control the congress by then. He could quickly be removed from office, and certainly if not then, after any 6-year midterm. We know how that turns out; imagine what a 6-year Trump midterm would be like? The signs I see all point to an incredible revving up of society in 2022-23 just like Ryan Deitsch wants. So a progressive era is likely even if Trump pulls off a win in 2020 due to subterfuge and the Democrats nominating another loser.

I think they must nominate Landrieu or McAuliffe, or you heard it here; Trump could win again!

[David Horn]

(06-11-2018, 10:59 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: I would tend to say that the Watergate scandal was the event that ushered in the "don't trust the government" mood.

I think that Watergate certainly solidified it, but it was there already. The release of the Pentagon Papers is a better marker, because it exposed just how badly the government lied about things that directly affected people's lives. When the government at its highest levels sends young men to die in a war they already know is unwinnable, that hit home.

[tg63]

(06-12-2018, 06:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 12:14 PM)tg63 Wrote: To the original question, I don't think it was, although it seemed to start some embers glowing (in particular I'm thinking of the willingness to pass the Patriot Act & the mood change to accept more a more authoritarian role of government).

I read somewhere that the leadership generation is critical to establishing/cementing a transition or not. So, looking at the Boomer age ranges (I think I got the math correct) ...

2001: 41-58 (1943-1960)
1930: 48-70 (1860-1882)
1860: 39-68 (1792-1821)
1773: 50-72 (1701-1723)
1675: 58-87 (1588-1617)

In particular, the top of the age range when a 4T hit the previous four times ranged from 68-87. This marks the removal of the Silents from active roles in society. A max age of 58 equates to a heck of a lot of silents still actively in leadership positions across society. So no, I don't see how 2001 could have been part of the crisis.W

Well look at your younger ages, they range from 39-58.  So 2001 (age 41) 2008 (age 48) or 2016 (age 56) would fit by this criterion. When I first came to T4T in 2000 I had two 4T indicators, one based on the stock market and one on the economy. The first suggests 2001, the second 2008. The tie breaker is a third indicator based on political cycles. It is not consistent with 2001, it might be consistent with 2008, but only if a Democrat wins in 2020. If Trump wins in 2020 and a Republican succeeds him, it will point to 2016. In other words 

"Reply Hazy, Ask Again Later"

It's frickin' 2018, the 4T could be almost over...or not. It's very frustrating.  It's becoming clear that we are not going to know the start date of the 4T until well after it is over. If nothing else big happens, one might then figure Nomad has the timing right. But if nothing else happens then that invalidates the stock market indicator that suggest 2001. If that happens then the collapse of all the cycles and the absence of a clear-cut crisis this time like we had for the last three 4Ts makes it hard to believe that a generational cycle exists.

Fair points. 

One of the takeaways for me is that, no matter how it's sliced & diced, the sample size for this "science" we call generational theory (at least as positioned by S&H), is ridiculously small (i.e. 4 or 5 cycles). With so many variables in play, positioning this with such specificity (as some have tried to do) is IMHO a fool's errand. 

Don't get me wrong, I still think there's still tons of merit in continuing to assess & work through the theory. I just don't see how it can be that prescriptive.

[pbrower2a]

(06-13-2018, 01:42 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(06-12-2018, 06:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 12:14 PM)tg63 Wrote: To the original question, I don't think it was, although it seemed to start some embers glowing (in particular I'm thinking of the willingness to pass the Patriot Act & the mood change to accept more a more authoritarian role of government).

I read somewhere that the leadership generation is critical to establishing/cementing a transition or not. So, looking at the Boomer age ranges (I think I got the math correct) ...

2001: 41-58 (1943-1960)
1930: 48-70 (1860-1882)
1860: 39-68 (1792-1821)
1773: 50-72 (1701-1723)
1675: 58-87 (1588-1617)

In particular, the top of the age range when a 4T hit the previous four times ranged from 68-87. This marks the removal of the Silents from active roles in society. A max age of 58 equates to a heck of a lot of silents still actively in leadership positions across society. So no, I don't see how 2001 could have been part of the crisis.W

Well look at your younger ages, they range from 39-58.  So 2001 (age 41) 2008 (age 48) or 2016 (age 56) would fit by this criterion. When I first came to T4T in 2000 I had two 4T indicators, one based on the stock market and one on the economy. The first suggests 2001, the second 2008. The tie breaker is a third indicator based on political cycles. It is not consistent with 2001, it might be consistent with 2008, but only if a Democrat wins in 2020. If Trump wins in 2020 and a Republican succeeds him, it will point to 2016. In other words 

"Reply Hazy, Ask Again Later"

It's frickin' 2018, the 4T could be almost over...or not. It's very frustrating.  It's becoming clear that we are not going to know the start date of the 4T until well after it is over. If nothing else big happens, one might then figure Nomad has the timing right. But if nothing else happens then that invalidates the stock market indicator that suggest 2001. If that happens then the collapse of all the cycles and the absence of a clear-cut crisis this time like we had for the last three 4Ts makes it hard to believe that a generational cycle exists.

Fair points. 

One of the takeaways for me is that, no matter how it's sliced & diced, the sample size for this "science" we call generational theory (at least as positioned by S&H), is ridiculously small (i.e. 4 or 5 cycles). With so many variables in play, positioning this with such specificity (as some have tried to do) is IMHO a fool's errand. 

Don't get me wrong, I still think there's still tons of merit in continuing to assess & work through the theory. I just don't see how it can be that prescriptive.

But there is a huge difference now. People are living longer and staying active later, a personally-healthy habit, if with effects that we might not yet understand from the generational effects on history. The GI Generation set the example, and the Silent and Boom generations are following it as much as possible. This is almost like saying that "70 is the new 50" or even "80 is the new 60". People with the incentive to take care of themselves are not going to let something so arbitrary as chronological age stop them from cultural, political, or economic activity. Obviously, broken-down people due to poverty and bad habits might not resist the Grim Reaper so effectively.

This may mean that we are now under a paradigm in which we typically have four or even five active adult generations, with the Civic component of public life increasingly going from elderly people (GI) to young adults (Millennial) until it is almost completely the realm of young adults. We will soon see much the same as the Silent die off or go senile in old age as the young-adult Homelander generation (start with some of the survivors of the Parkland shooting as likely members of this generation).

In most times there have typically been three well-defined generations of active adults, and one of the generational types is missing in active adulthood. Between the demise of the Gilded generation (born Reactive, but it took on a Civic character after the Civil War) and the rise of GI influence, the Civic component was extremely weak in public life. Institutions simply did not work well. Although it is hard to imagine either the Progressive or the Silent generation not slamming the Nazis and their Japanese partners in crime, it is easy to imagine either deciding not to incarcerate Japanese-Americans while the Missionary, Lost, and GI generations accepted such as a good idea. As the Missionary generation faded out of public life, so did their culture of controversy -- and American life quit asking questions that it needed to akl. Finally, the Lost, having been burned badly in the Missionary Awakening that badly neglected children was very good at protecting the children that they knew from GIs to Boomers from anti-rational religion, economic exploitation, and general neglect. As they died off or got hauled off in Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi" to the nursing home because their kids couldn't move them about the country in corporate relocations, nobody could tell others that children need to set down roots and learn the basics instead of rediscovering the temptations of an Awakening Era. During the recent Degeneracy the fade-out of the GI generation from the levers of economic power has ensured that corporations and government agencies cannot be both effective and equitable, at least for now.

So here we are now.

[TheNomad]

(06-13-2018, 03:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-13-2018, 01:42 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(06-12-2018, 06:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-05-2018, 12:14 PM)tg63 Wrote: To the original question, I don't think it was, although it seemed to start some embers glowing (in particular I'm thinking of the willingness to pass the Patriot Act & the mood change to accept more a more authoritarian role of government).

I read somewhere that the leadership generation is critical to establishing/cementing a transition or not. So, looking at the Boomer age ranges (I think I got the math correct) ...

2001: 41-58 (1943-1960)
1930: 48-70 (1860-1882)
1860: 39-68 (1792-1821)
1773: 50-72 (1701-1723)
1675: 58-87 (1588-1617)

In particular, the top of the age range when a 4T hit the previous four times ranged from 68-87. This marks the removal of the Silents from active roles in society. A max age of 58 equates to a heck of a lot of silents still actively in leadership positions across society. So no, I don't see how 2001 could have been part of the crisis.W

Well look at your younger ages, they range from 39-58.  So 2001 (age 41) 2008 (age 48) or 2016 (age 56) would fit by this criterion. When I first came to T4T in 2000 I had two 4T indicators, one based on the stock market and one on the economy. The first suggests 2001, the second 2008. The tie breaker is a third indicator based on political cycles. It is not consistent with 2001, it might be consistent with 2008, but only if a Democrat wins in 2020. If Trump wins in 2020 and a Republican succeeds him, it will point to 2016. In other words 

"Reply Hazy, Ask Again Later"

It's frickin' 2018, the 4T could be almost over...or not. It's very frustrating.  It's becoming clear that we are not going to know the start date of the 4T until well after it is over. If nothing else big happens, one might then figure Nomad has the timing right. But if nothing else happens then that invalidates the stock market indicator that suggest 2001. If that happens then the collapse of all the cycles and the absence of a clear-cut crisis this time like we had for the last three 4Ts makes it hard to believe that a generational cycle exists.

Fair points. 

One of the takeaways for me is that, no matter how it's sliced & diced, the sample size for this "science" we call generational theory (at least as positioned by S&H), is ridiculously small (i.e. 4 or 5 cycles). With so many variables in play, positioning this with such specificity (as some have tried to do) is IMHO a fool's errand. 

Don't get me wrong, I still think there's still tons of merit in continuing to assess & work through the theory. I just don't see how it can be that prescriptive.

But there is a huge difference now. People are living longer and staying active later, a personally-healthy habit, if with effects that we might not yet understand from the generational effects on history. The GI Generation set the example, and the Silent and Boom generations are following it as much as possible. This is almost like saying that "70 is the new 50" or even "80 is the new 60". People with the incentive to take care of themselves are not going to let something so arbitrary as chronological age stop them from cultural, political, or economic activity. Obviously, broken-down people due to poverty and bad habits might not resist the Grim Reaper so effectively.

This may mean that we are now under a paradigm in which we typically have four or even five active adult generations, with the Civic component of public life increasingly going from elderly people (GI) to young adults (Millennial) until it is almost completely the realm of young adults. We will soon see much the same as the Silent die off or go senile in old age as the young-adult Homelander generation (start with some of the survivors of the Parkland shooting as likely members of this generation).

In most times there have typically been three well-defined generations of active adults, and one of the generational types is missing in active adulthood. Between the demise of the Gilded generation (born Reactive, but it took on a Civic character after the Civil War) and the rise of GI influence, the Civic component was extremely weak in public life. Institutions simply did not work well. Although it is hard to imagine either the Progressive or the Silent generation not slamming the Nazis and their Japanese partners in crime, it is easy to imagine either deciding not to incarcerate Japanese-Americans while the Missionary, Lost, and GI generations accepted such as a good idea. As the Missionary generation faded out of public life, so did their culture of controversy -- and American life quit asking questions that it needed to akl. Finally, the Lost, having been burned badly in the Missionary Awakening that badly neglected children was very good at protecting the children that they knew from GIs to Boomers from anti-rational religion, economic exploitation, and general neglect. As they died off or got hauled off in Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi" to the nursing home because their kids couldn't move them about the country in corporate relocations, nobody could tell others that children need to set down roots and learn the basics instead of rediscovering the temptations of an Awakening Era. During the recent Degeneracy the fade-out of the GI generation from the levers of economic power has ensured that corporations and government agencies cannot be both effective and equitable, at least for now.

So here we are now.

quote nobody could tell others that children need to set down roots and learn the basics instead of rediscovering the temptations of an Awakening Era

Are you taking into consideration, tho, the children of that era HAD TO move and shake and do anything they had to do to survive?  It wasn't a choice in most cases.  Children of Awakening are throttled.  They are abandoned, used up, institutions are broken, human connections don't exist, etc.  I'm one of them.  And also, we get blamed for everything yet we work the hardest - direct quote from the text.

[pbrower2a]

(06-20-2018, 12:44 AM)TheNomad Wrote:

(06-13-2018, 03:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: In most times there have typically been three well-defined generations of active adults, and one of the generational types is missing in active adulthood. Between the demise of the Gilded generation (born Reactive, but it took on a Civic character after the Civil War) and the rise of GI influence, the Civic component was extremely weak in public life. Institutions simply did not work well. Although it is hard to imagine either the Progressive or the Silent generation not slamming the Nazis and their Japanese partners in crime, it is easy to imagine either deciding not to incarcerate Japanese-Americans while the Missionary, Lost, and GI generations accepted such as a good idea. As the Missionary generation faded out of public life, so did their culture of controversy -- and American life quit asking questions that it needed to akl. Finally, the Lost, having been burned badly in the Missionary Awakening that badly neglected children was very good at protecting the children that they knew from GIs to Boomers from anti-rational religion, economic exploitation, and general neglect. As they died off or got hauled off in Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi" to the nursing home because their kids couldn't move them about the country in corporate relocations, nobody could tell others that children need to set down roots and learn the basics instead of rediscovering the temptations of an Awakening Era. During the recent Degeneracy the fade-out of the GI generation from the levers of economic power has ensured that corporations and government agencies cannot be both effective and equitable, at least for now.

So here we are now.

quote nobody could tell others that children need to set down roots and learn the basics instead of rediscovering the temptations of an Awakening Era

Are you taking into consideration, tho, the children of that era HAD TO move and shake and do anything they had to do to survive?  It wasn't a choice in most cases.  Children of Awakening are throttled.  They are abandoned, used up, institutions are broken, human connections don't exist, etc.  I'm one of them.  And also, we get blamed for everything yet we work the hardest - direct quote from the text.

Yes! Generation X had to find out the hard way some basic realities that the GIs, Silent, and Boom never had to learn. It's not that X had a particularly hard material life (until they became adults). As children, the GI generation often knew real hardship of having to contribute to family income while still children. That changed during the Depression, when government policies discouraged children from dropping out of school (in part to constrict the workforce. Children are lousy workers, desirable only because as cheap as their labor is they can put downward pressure on adult pay). Material life for a farm kid from the GI Generation looks hardscrabble by current standards.

Generation X came of age when college education became really expensive,  found themselves  with student loans instead of mortgage loans, more frequently than older generations found themselves having to do jobs that they thought they would give up in adulthood for better opportunities (as in retail, domestic work, and fast-food), and got burned badly from the housing bubble of the Double-Zero decade. Meanwhile American ideology went from a bland liberalism to a harsh new social Darwinism that Reagan started and that Trump has turned into a nightmare. Today America has a political ideology that holds that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as elites profiteer from it and have the means of repressing all else.

Generation X has always had survival as an objective because they could never expect otherwise. They may make America a better place and undo much of the Boomer damage -- but too late for the 60-something members of Generation X tin the 2020s to get to enjoy fully as did the GIs (whose plush trailers often had the bumper sticker "We're spending our grandchildren's inheritance"); Silent who failed to start enough small businesses that could grow to be mass employers (among the biggest Silent who got super-rich were T. Boone Pickens [oil wildcatting], Ross Perot [government contracting], Carl Icahn [insider trading], Warren Buffett [buy-and-hold investing in the stock market], and Mike Illich and Dave Thomas [both fast food]); and Boomers who often indulged in the Boom Awakening instead of setting up a strong economic basis (unless in high technology). Generation X is solving many of the problems that other generations sloughed off onto them, including the underinvestment in small business that led to underemployment of Generation X. We have a housing shortage that X investors are likely to solve just in time to build good, inexpensive housing for the Homeland Generation to buy in generous mortgages. X is likely to offer entrepreneurial alternatives to crony capitalism and blank-check socialism.

For all that, the Big Yellow Taxi awaits you, and you won't be missed until it is too late if you are sent off to a nursing home for the convenience of the family -- because that will then be cheap.

[Eric the Green]

"Learning the basics" and "avoiding the temptations of the Awakening Era" and "indulging in the Boom awakening instead of setting up a strong economic basis" means that young boomers should not have aspired to anything, but just accepted life as just setting up economic bases for everything. It means accepting life as being robots in factories or computer geeks instead of discovering the potentials of life.

But in less materialist societies than ours throughout history, the arts have been valued and people devoted resources that they had to creating beauty. Instead, Gen Xers and other materialists of all ages (including phoney boomers) want to concentrate only on economics. As Joseph Campbell pointed out, that is the end of the story, not the beginning. Humans do not live by bread alone, but by the word of God. That means inspiration.

Awakenings are the only times that inspiration comes to Americans. It came in the late 60s and 70s. That inspiration during awakenings, including the extraordinarily-innovative turn of the 20th century awakening, fuels ALL progress that happens in all fields too. Where there is no vision, the people perish, and we are on the way to perishing without it. At other non-awakened times, our society is ONLY about material things, wars and technological gimmicks. Sure, the tech stuff can rake in the dough, but what has it created? Just more separations among people.

Gen Xers should appreciate the freedom they were given and the opportunities that came with being a smaller generation, and stop complaining about being neglected in childhood. Cry babies! It's time to grow up and work with those who want progress, especially the young millennials and Gen Zers. ALL generations are neglected in America, because we all live in a materialist, authoritarian, uninspired society that rejects awakenings and separates people from each other. We ALL grew up in a cold, materialist, rejecting society and in bad families. Child abuse was much worse for Silent and GI children and on into the past. I heard their stories. Gen X is not special in this regard. Being brought up as a boomer victory child in a nuke family with a tired and angry mean father authority figure was NO BETTER than being brought up neglected in a single parent family without the angry, tired father.

Whatever we may think of Jesus, he was a wise fellow. He said seek first the things of the kingdom of God, and all else will come. Our emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs are as important, if not more important, than our economics ones. They may be basic, but they are only basic. Awakenings are the lifeblood of society; without inspiration, we perish. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going. It's hard these days to read what people write and be open to others' views. It seldom happens, but it's something to strive for. Best wishes.

[pbrower2a]

(06-20-2018, 11:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "Learning the basics" and "avoiding the temptations of the Awakening Era" and "indulging in the Boom awakening instead of setting up a strong economic basis" means that young boomers should not have aspired to anything, but just accepted life as just setting up economic bases for everything. It means accepting life as being robots in factories or computer geeks instead of discovering the potentials of life.

Boomers who had the chance eschewed industrial work that makes possible the material basis of their indulgence. Yes, school guidance counselors told us to do anything but factory work. Factory work is for losers, they all but said. But let us remember that the factory was the most readily-available means of escaping poverty that there ever was.

The mobility of Boomers depended upon automobiles (built, of course, in factories) and gasoline (processed of course in refineries, basically factories for separating gasoline from other stuff). We were oversold on the desirability of the service and retail sectors as areas of opportunity. Let us remember that the Boom Awakening was heavily a middle-class phenomenon associated with well-educated people. Smart people avoided factory work, and the decline in factory employment accelerated. The factories offered plenty of jobs for such people as cost accountants and production engineers.

Computer geeks? Many of them could not be anything else that pays well.

It's not favoring one thing over another; we need a healthy balance. I'm guessing that lots of people in their thirties working in fast-food places would rather, if given a chance work for union wages in an auto plant -- if the auto plant existed.

Quote:But in less materialist societies than ours throughout history, the arts have been valued and people devoted resources that they had to creating beauty. Instead, Gen Xers and other materialists of all ages (including phoney boomers) want to concentrate only on economics. As Joseph Campbell pointed out, that is the end of the story, not the beginning. Humans do not live by bread alone, but by the word of God. That means inspiration.

The arts flourish in prosperous times because people can buy objets d'art (even if they are 'velvet Elvis' paintings), buy theater and concert tickets, and pay admissions to art galleries. Art festivals flourish today because people actually can spend a couple hundred dollars for a painting or a sculpture. People who have some money from their jobs can decide that there is more to life than watching the idiot screen. If you want to know where life is 'all economics' then look to the world of the peasant farmer depicted in Fiddler on the Roof, where people are greedy and materialistic because such is a survival value. People marry for reasons other than love -- like economic reality. The descendants of the dairyman Tevye who end up in America can live for purposes other than material gain because they have the choice. They are prosperous, and they can buy the stuff in art festivals.  

Quote:Awakenings are the only times that inspiration comes to Americans. It came in the late 60s and 70s. That inspiration during awakenings, including the extraordinarily-innovative turn of the 20th century awakening, fuels ALL progress that happens in all fields too. Where there is no vision, the people perish, and we are on the way to perishing without it. At other non-awakened times, our society is ONLY about material things, wars and technological gimmicks. Sure, the tech stuff can rake in the dough, but what has it created? Just more separations among people.

The tech stuff has given us more access to the great treasures of music, literature, and art. For that alone I praise it. I can listen to the Prague Spring Festival of 1990 through my stereo because of a tiny reader device that I have dedicated to my sound system as a sound source. It is equal in importance to my CD player as a sound source. The problem isn't that technology is sterile; it has an uncanny ability to fill gaps that people perceive in their lives. The problem is that many people see no need for something outside of work that they do so that they can consume mindless entertainment or buy questionable trinkets.

Quote:Gen Xers should appreciate the freedom they were given and the opportunities that came with being a smaller generation, and stop complaining about being neglected in childhood. Cry babies! It's time to grow up and work with those who want progress, especially the young millennials and Gen Zers. ALL generations are neglected in America, because we all live in a materialist, authoritarian, uninspired society that rejects awakenings and separates people from each other. We ALL grew up in a cold, materialist, rejecting society and in bad families. Child abuse was much worse for Silent and GI children and on into the past. I heard their stories. Gen X is not special in this regard. Being brought up as a boomer victory child in a nuke family with a tired and angry mean father authority figure was NO BETTER than being brought up neglected in a single parent family without the angry, tired father.

Generation X has been a force of positive change in American life. Consider that they have already given America a fine President and will probably give some more if Obama is a portent instead of a fluke. Obama fits the pattern of earlier Reactive Presidents (Washington, Adams, Truman, and Eisenhower) of a realist who knows the limits that morality establishes. Generation X is at least as creative as Boomers because it has less of a political or spiritual agenda. It has brought some ice-water realism, and that is exactly what Trump-era America needs. If Generation X has complained more about child abuse (and it includes those who expose the serial sex scandals of people like Bill Cosby and Donald Trump) it is because it is less inhibited about exposing misconduct of people supposedly wiser and who wield power and celebrity status.

The official abuse? The economic policies intended to punish Boomers for protesting and for rejecting the machine-driven world hit X instead. The crackdown on drugs hit X harder. The cost of education beyond high school skyrocketed for X, while college graduates were more likely to face rigid glass ceilings in the workplace. X has found ways to get around it, like avoiding bureaucratic organizations and starting small businesses. Tax policies intended to enrich elites have hurt young adults, X and Millennials.

X faces a government in which lobbyists are the real power in Congress and state legislatures. They have the most to lose in any war for profit that Trump may seek.

Neither materialism nor spirituality is everything. We need both.

[Eric the Green]

(06-20-2018, 12:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-20-2018, 11:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "Learning the basics" and "avoiding the temptations of the Awakening Era" and "indulging in the Boom awakening instead of setting up a strong economic basis" means that young boomers should not have aspired to anything, but just accepted life as just setting up economic bases for everything. It means accepting life as being robots in factories or computer geeks instead of discovering the potentials of life.

Boomers who had the chance eschewed industrial work that makes possible the material basis of their indulgence. Yes, school guidance counselors told us to do anything but factory work. Factory work is for losers, they all but said. But let us remember that the factory was the most readily-available means of escaping poverty that there ever was.

The mobility of Boomers depended upon automobiles (built, of course, in factories) and gasoline (processed of course in refineries, basically factories for separating gasoline from other stuff). We were oversold on the desirability of the service and retail sectors as areas of opportunity. Let us remember that the Boom Awakening was heavily a middle-class phenomenon associated with well-educated people. Smart people avoided factory work, and the decline in factory employment accelerated. The factories offered plenty of jobs for such people as cost accountants and production engineers.

Computer geeks? Many of them could not be anything else that pays well.

It's not favoring one thing over another; we need a healthy balance. I'm guessing that lots of people in their thirties working in fast-food places would rather, if given a chance work for union wages in an auto plant -- if the auto plant existed.

I worked in factories myself, actually. I'm sure that their decline did not happen because boomers didn't want to work there, or were guided not to work there, or because they preferred to indulge in the awakening. They did not go away because boomers were encouraged to avoid them. Trump is trying, in his misguided way, to answer the desire of Rust Belt people to bring them back. But companies have shut them down and moved them overseas for cheap labor. Some might come back, but not all; we are a global economy now. And somehow cheap labor has to end; and I think it will as third world nations get richer thanks to our companies giving them jobs. But meanwhile, the computer geeks, the other line of roboticism I mentioned, has turned factory work and much other work over to robots. So now ready-made jobs to avoid poverty are going away. What will replace our income, if the CEOs who profit from robotic efficiency aren't required to share the benefits with the rest of us? Our conservative friends tell us that high tech will create new jobs, but it's a cinch they will require more education. Meanwhile, shouldn't there be more support for artistic vocations that don't readily pay a living wage? There are many other kinds of activity that inspire, help and teach people.

Quote:

Quote:But in less materialist societies than ours throughout history, the arts have been valued and people devoted resources that they had to creating beauty. Instead, Gen Xers and other materialists of all ages (including phoney boomers) want to concentrate only on economics. As Joseph Campbell pointed out, that is the end of the story, not the beginning. Humans do not live by bread alone, but by the word of God. That means inspiration.

The arts flourish in prosperous times because people can buy objets d'art (even if they are 'velvet Elvis' paintings), buy theater and concert tickets, and pay admissions to art galleries. Art festivals flourish today because people actually can spend a couple hundred dollars for a painting or a sculpture. People who have some money from their jobs can decide that there is more to life than watching the idiot screen. If you want to know where life is 'all economics' then look to the world of the peasant farmer depicted in Fiddler on the Roof, where people are greedy and materialistic because such is a survival value. People marry for reasons other than love -- like economic reality. The descendants of the dairyman Tevye who end up in America can live for purposes other than material gain because they have the choice. They are prosperous, and they can buy the stuff in art festivals.  

Yes, and yet people have been far less prosperous in earlier pre-industrial times, and yet were able to create and were supported in their creation of arts far greater than anything created today; both folk art and royal, church and aristocratic-supported art.

Quote:

Quote:Awakenings are the only times that inspiration comes to Americans. It came in the late 60s and 70s. That inspiration during awakenings, including the extraordinarily-innovative turn of the 20th century awakening, fuels ALL progress that happens in all fields too. Where there is no vision, the people perish, and we are on the way to perishing without it. At other non-awakened times, our society is ONLY about material things, wars and technological gimmicks. Sure, the tech stuff can rake in the dough, but what has it created? Just more separations among people.

The tech stuff has given us more access to the great treasures of music, literature, and art. For that alone I praise it. I can listen to the Prague Spring Festival of 1990 through my stereo because of a tiny reader device that I have dedicated to my sound system as a sound source. It is equal in importance to my CD player as a sound source. The problem isn't that technology is sterile; it has an uncanny ability to fill gaps that people perceive in their lives. The problem is that many people see no need for something outside of work that they do so that they can consume mindless entertainment or buy questionable trinkets.

That, and the idea that we have all these abilities to experience and share great treasures, but create none ourselves, or not as much, because all the attention is given to the means of transmission and not to the content. And the newest means of transmission seem to cost more too.

Quote:

Quote:Gen Xers should appreciate the freedom they were given and the opportunities that came with being a smaller generation, and stop complaining about being neglected in childhood. Cry babies! It's time to grow up and work with those who want progress, especially the young millennials and Gen Zers. ALL generations are neglected in America, because we all live in a materialist, authoritarian, uninspired society that rejects awakenings and separates people from each other. We ALL grew up in a cold, materialist, rejecting society and in bad families. Child abuse was much worse for Silent and GI children and on into the past. I heard their stories. Gen X is not special in this regard. Being brought up as a boomer victory child in a nuke family with a tired and angry mean father authority figure was NO BETTER than being brought up neglected in a single parent family without the angry, tired father.

Generation X has been a force of positive change in American life. Consider that they have already given America a fine President and will probably give some more if Obama is a portent instead of a fluke. Obama fits the pattern of earlier Reactive Presidents (Washington, Adams, Truman, and Eisenhower) of a realist who knows the limits that morality establishes. Generation X is at least as creative as Boomers because it has less of a political or spiritual agenda. It has brought some ice-water realism, and that is exactly what Trump-era America needs. If Generation X has complained more about child abuse (and it includes those who expose the serial sex scandals of people like Bill Cosby and Donald Trump) it is because it is less inhibited about exposing misconduct of people supposedly wiser and who wield power and celebrity status.

The official abuse? The economic policies intended to punish Boomers for protesting and for rejecting the machine-driven world hit X instead. The crackdown on drugs hit X harder. The cost of education beyond high school skyrocketed for X, while college graduates were more likely to face rigid glass ceilings in the workplace. X has found ways to get around it, like avoiding bureaucratic organizations and starting small businesses. Tax policies intended to enrich elites have hurt young adults, X and Millennials.

X faces a government in which lobbyists are the real power in Congress and state legislatures. They have the most to lose in any war for profit that Trump may seek.

Neither materialism nor spirituality is everything. We need both.

Well, that fine but flawed president was a Boomer/Xer cusper and I always maintain he has both traits. I hope we get another such cusper president during this 4T.

I don't think Gen Xers are as creative as Boomers, nor Boomers as creative as their war baby Boom/Silent cusper elders. Music in particular has done nothing but decline since Gen Xers have been the creators and arbiters of taste. TV and movies have declined and become more tasteless and obscene too. And it's the spiritual and political agenda that powered much of the inspiration of the awakening, and it's from that time that the best arts and pop arts of our time come.

The economic policies have hurt all generations, and we all face the consequences of that lobbyist government. But I don't doubt that Xers were hit harder than Boomers, and Millennials hit harder than Xers. As I said though, X had the advantage of less competition from their populous peers.

[pbrower2a]

(06-20-2018, 03:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I worked in factories myself, actually. I'm sure that their decline did not happen because boomers didn't want to work there, or were guided not to work there, or because they preferred to indulge in the awakening. They did not go away because boomers were encouraged to avoid them. Trump is trying, in his misguided way, to answer the desire of Rust Belt people to bring them back. But companies have shut them down and moved them overseas for cheap labor. Some might come back, but not all; we are a global economy now. And somehow cheap labor has to end; and I think it will as third world nations get richer thanks to our companies giving them jobs. But meanwhile, the computer geeks, the other line of roboticism I mentioned, has turned factory work and much other work over to robots. So now ready-made jobs to avoid poverty are going away. What will replace our income, if the CEOs who profit from robotic efficiency aren't required to share the benefits with the rest of us? Our conservative friends tell us that high tech will create new jobs, but it's a cinch they will require more education. Meanwhile, shouldn't there be more support for artistic vocations that don't readily pay a living wage? There are many other kinds of activity that inspire, help and teach people.

An honest day's pay for an honest day's work should be readily available in a healthy economy. Honesty also means that one gets to be true to the dictates of conscience so that the work is not itself a fraud (as with bamboozling people into doing things contrary to their best interests).

I believe that one solution is to heavily tax the proceeds of robot production and economic rent so that we can provide a basic income for everyone. If one wants more, then do some work. Someone will have to buy the stuff that robots make; the robots who produce copies of recorded music and video won't be buying them. Someone must.

Quote:Yes, and yet people have been far less prosperous in earlier pre-industrial times, and yet were able to create and were supported in their creation of arts far greater than anything created today; both folk art and royal, church and aristocratic-supported art.

Art is not done for the money, but prosperous people can buy art. Paupers generally do not buy it -- or fall for mass-produced Kitsch.
We are becoming so productive that we can no longer afford mass poverty that will destabilize our economic order. .

Quote:That, and the idea that we have all these abilities to experience and share great treasures, but create none ourselves, or not as much, because all the attention is given to the means of transmission and not to the content. And the newest means of transmission seem to cost more too.

Technological advances in innovation and improved production techniques tend to make things cheaper and better. The real cost of a 65" flat-screen TV today is much lower than that of a color TV from the 1950s with a 15" screen and expensive cabinetry and tubes that needed frequent replacement. One possible use that I can imagine for one of those old TVs is as a stand for a new one. (OK, it would be fine in a place like Michigan that gets no severe earthquakes, but not California that gets them).

Of course, much of the direction of our current economy is to ensure that through privatization, monopolization, and price-fixing, people pay far more for what they get. Cable-TV providers are a prime example, although blame often goes to providers through which cable TV is a conduit. Where I live, one needs cable because I am 70-80 miles from any broadcast antenna. But most television is schlock, anyway. I can ask anyone whether a TV screen has ever been part of any peak experience -- and the only time in which it has been has been in watching the returns of an election in which I had a personal stake.  Hiking in Isle Royale, Yosemite, or Great Smoky Mountains, or hiking some dunes along the only part of Michigan that at all resembles coastal California -- I had no use for any electronic device. Watching a sporting event? OK, I can't afford tickets to the World Series, NBA or NHL playoffs, any NFL game, the Masters, the Byron Nelson, the AT&T Pebble Beach Tournament, or the Olympics, so TV becomes a surrogate. 

The apparent objective is to get people to pay more for whatever they get, whether in higher rents, new or increased highway tolls, increased taxes to support crony capitalism and enforce its will through wars, cheapened public services, destruction of the welfare system, and of course, pay cuts. This raw deal is much like feudalism -- the common man gets nothing more than what his lord or master deems fit and necessary for him, which implies being treated like livestock. But feudalism implies medieval technology and a nasty legal system. High technology in the service of and enforcement of feudal inequity? that's fascism.

Quote:Well, that fine but flawed president was a Boomer/Xer cusper and I always maintain he has both traits. I hope we get another such cusper president during this 4T.

More likely in the 4T, although we may still get someone resembling S. Adams, Disraeli, Lincoln, Juarez, Garibaldi, FDR, Churchill, Gandhi, or Mannerheim. If we do end up with a cynical and callous leader who gets us into deep trouble then we might be facing one or more enemies like S. Adams, Lincoln, Juarez, Garibaldi, FDR, Churchill, Gandhi, or Mannerheim and experience a great national defeat that becomes or precipitates a liberation. Just imagine what California would be like if history inverts World War II with a MacArthur-like figure laying down the law on the West Coast -- but that figure is Japanese. (But that is part of my projected alternative history of World War II if the Germans and Japanese are the Good Guys defeating a Klan-dominated America in 1945. I attribute the defeat of the fascist powers to the cruelty and exploitation of Evil Empires that could never be at peace with the peoples that they conquered).

I expect Obama to be a model for X pols against whom they will be compared. That will be a tough  comparison. Undoing the damage of Donald Trump and George W. Bush  will be tough and thankless.

Quote:I don't think Gen Xers are as creative as Boomers, nor Boomers as creative as their war baby Boom/Silent cusper elders. Music in particular has done nothing but decline since Gen Xers have been the creators and arbiters of taste. TV and movies have declined and become more tasteless and obscene too. And it's the spiritual and political agenda that powered much of the inspiration of the awakening, and it's from that time that the best arts and pop arts of our time come.

I have seen Generation X students early in my sojourns as a substitute teacher, sometimes in art, and I have seen more creativity among X than I would expect based upon doctrine of Howe and Strauss. That of course is some years ago, as X is fully outside the educational system except as teachers and administrators. Boomers seem less creative (and the youngest ones turn 58 this year and the oldest have turned 75) than the Missionary and Transcendental generations. In music alone, who is 'our' Richard Strauss, Claude Debussy, Jean Sibelius, or Igor Stravinsky who really were well known before age 58?

Quote:The economic policies have hurt all generations, and we all face the consequences of that lobbyist government. But I don't doubt that Xers were hit harder than Boomers, and Millennials hit harder than Xers. As I said though, X had the advantage of less competition from their populous peers.

X had to compete with the GI Generation trying to stay active in the workplace in their late 60s and early 70s, the Silent, and Boomers. Competition among themselves was fierce among early-wave X.... and it never really let up.

[TheNomad]

**shit this was in reply to EricTheGreen but the OP vanished**

This is good.  All of it.  I am unsure to what level of evolution Americans need to be prepared for.  Ultimately, there are A LOT of people and not every one of them can be a CEO or an ultra-skilled employee.  Factories were an amazing way to keep people busy and earning a wage.  Post WWII Hyper Capitalism is what America is right now founded on.  Yet, that Hyper Capitalism defeats Nationalism in a Global Economy.

We can no longer expect or even hope that ANY corporation or business to be remotely ethical or even loyal.

So if that is true, WHERE is America civilization in this current culture?  We are being put in the position of ULTIMATE CONSUMER without even addressing how we are to get the money to consume all these things.  And education is not the answer.  There will always be way more inventory of unskilled or lowskilled labor than executives.  Nobody dreamed up where these people would be employed.  The idea hinges on if a company can use India for cheaper labor, why would they not?  The WWII struggle and concurrent social shifts ensured corporations could be free of any inherent national loyalty.  That is what we wrought in that last 4T struggle.  I wonder how we can reverse it if at all.  Because it didn't turn out well.

[David Horn]

(06-24-2018, 08:12 PM)TheNomad Wrote: **shit this was in reply to EricTheGreen but the OP vanished**

This is good.  All of it.  I am unsure to what level of evolution Americans need to be prepared for.  Ultimately, there are A LOT of people and not every one of them can be a CEO or an ultra-skilled employee.  Factories were an amazing way to keep people busy and earning a wage.  Post WWII Hyper Capitalism is what America is right now founded on.  Yet, that Hyper Capitalism defeats Nationalism in a Global Economy.

We can no longer expect or even hope that ANY corporation or business to be remotely ethical or even loyal.

So if that is true, WHERE is America civilization in this current culture?  We are being put in the position of ULTIMATE CONSUMER without even addressing how we are to get the money to consume all these things.  And education is not the answer.  There will always be way more inventory of unskilled or lowskilled labor than executives.  Nobody dreamed up where these people would be employed.  The idea hinges on if a company can use India for cheaper labor, why would they not?  The WWII struggle and concurrent social shifts ensured corporations could be free of any inherent national loyalty.  That is what we wrought in that last 4T struggle.  I wonder how we can reverse it if at all.  Because it didn't turn out well.

I agree with most of this  but can't agree that this was a direct result of the last 4T.  The empowerment of corporations started much later -- in the 2T. There are many reasons why this occurred, but the most important is the kind of 2T we had.  Since 2Ts tend to focus on what's still unresolved from the previous 4T, the last 2T focused on empowerment (though it wasn't called that at the time).  All the social issues got bundled with freedom to non-conform, and the economic issues were totally ignored.

Well, not totally ignored.  The socio-economic elite focused with laser precision on what they consider "their money", though they also knew that adding libertarian gloss to their message made it both acceptable and much more powerful.  That's why the Kochs are so successful.  They were early adopters.  So now you have the left fighting for social justice and the right for dignity and respect, while the economic elites are grabbing the money as fast as they can.

There seems to be a slow recognition that this is happening, but it's late in arriving … perhaps too late for this 4T to resolve.

[Ragnarök_62]

(06-13-2018, 09:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-11-2018, 10:59 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: I would tend to say that the Watergate scandal was the event that ushered in the "don't trust the government" mood.

I think that Watergate certainly solidified it, but it was there already.  The release of the  Pentagon Papers is a better marker, because it exposed just how badly the government lied about things that directly affected people's lives.  When the government at its highest levels sends young men to die in a war they already know is unwinnable, that hit home.

Yes, that the Pentagon Papers was one of many "Lessons of 'Nam".  Nam is still relevent since we ,
Nixon's Children are still around.

[Eric the Green]

(06-25-2018, 06:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(06-13-2018, 09:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-11-2018, 10:59 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: I would tend to say that the Watergate scandal was the event that ushered in the "don't trust the government" mood.

I think that Watergate certainly solidified it, but it was there already.  The release of the  Pentagon Papers is a better marker, because it exposed just how badly the government lied about things that directly affected people's lives.  When the government at its highest levels sends young men to die in a war they already know is unwinnable, that hit home.

Yes, that the Pentagon Papers was one of many "Lessons of 'Nam".  Nam is still relevent since we ,
Nixon's Children are still around.

The lies about Vietnam were discussed at teach-ins from 1965 onward. The Pentagon Papers was a good summary of some of the lies that further confirmed what the protesters knew and said. And Watergate was the scandal (itself partly catalyzed by the Pentagon Papers that Nixon reacted to) that solidified the mood of distrust such that it never went away.

[pbrower2a]

But the Watergate offenses happened more than 45 years ago, and one has to be at least 50 years old for them to have affected one;s political values. Donald Trump is doing far worse than Nixon ever did, which may be the difference between an Awakening Era (when rewards and harm are both slighter) and a Crisis, when rewards and harm are more severe). The next eighty months might be at stake in an Awakening, but the next eighty years might be at stake in a Crisis.

It's freedom or fascism today. I can easily imagine America as aright-wing mirror-image of the Soviet Union, with Ayn Rand as the prophet instead of Karl Marx, with all people responsible to some Master Class enriching itself as its alleged right, with a similar absence of a Welfare State, and similar repression, brutality, and militarism. Is that enticing? Step right up for your MAGA hat!

[David Horn]

(06-26-2018, 11:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But the Watergate offenses happened more than 45 years ago, and one has to be at least 50 years old for them to have affected one;s political values. Donald Trump is doing far worse than Nixon ever did, which may be the difference between an Awakening Era (when rewards and harm are both slighter) and a Crisis, when rewards and harm are more severe). The next eighty months might be at stake in an Awakening, but the next eighty years might be at stake in a Crisis.

It's freedom or fascism today. I can easily imagine America as aright-wing mirror-image of the Soviet Union, with Ayn Rand as the prophet instead of Karl Marx, with all people responsible to some Master Class enriching itself as its alleged right, with a similar absence of a Welfare State, and similar repression, brutality, and militarism. Is that enticing? Step right up for your MAGA hat!

Yes, Watergate and the Pentagon Papers are only directly relevant to an ever decreasing percentage of the population, but when you lower the bar, it tends to stay down barring a major effort to raise it back to its former place.  We've had two generations raised entirely in the wake of those events, with nothing having been done to offset the negative effects.  Cynicism should be expected, don't you think?  Worse, most of the more powerful events that have occurred since then have only reinforced the negativity.  Stagflation, the Iran Crisis, Reagan declaring the government as the problem, recessions, wars … the list is endless, and none of the entries is fully positive.

This is the reason I believe the 4T will fail to resolve anything -- even with the worst possible example of mediocrity sitting in the Oval Office.  Its just what we expect, so no big deal.   Sad.