Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
skipped an archetype like time before last?
PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis. Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point. Often through a war or civil war. Sometimes not. Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not. War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T. Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions. There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum. This is an inevitability. I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis. Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point. Often through a war or civil war. Sometimes not. Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not. War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T. Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions. There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum. This is an inevitability. I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

How bad is a mega crisis?
Reply
(05-12-2019, 10:19 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

How bad is a mega crisis?


World War II for much of Europe and Asia, followed by Communist takeovers in some countries.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

Very simply, a failed Crisis solves nothing. The overall community gets no institutional change to improve anything. No semblance of stability appears that can allow people to pick up the pieces and build something more sustainable than what preceded. I look at the Gothic sack of Rome in 410 as a failed Crisis. To be sure, the Roman Empire was by then a rotten order, but it was in no way renovated. In AD 476 Odoacer overthrew the Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus and decided to not set up another Caesar -- even an abject puppet. The Roman Empire, at least in the West, no longer had any value as a political concept. This is not an annexation of a country; this is a complete breakdown of a political order.

In essence a large part of a civilization goes from a going concern to something moribund.

I also see the Servile Wars of the late Roman Republic as a failed Crisis. It might have been better for Roman civilization to have lost this war rather than getting a Pyrrhic victory. Slavery became an even-more powerful institution in Rome, and although the Republic survived, the regime became increasingly inegalitarian, repressive, and hierarchical with no compensation. Wealth became more concentrated, and what passed for a middle class (by classical standards) shrank under the stress of rising taxes from which the big landowners exempted themselves. Slavery ensured the absence of a middle class that might have offered entrepreneurial and technological innovation that might have even pushed modernization upon the Classical world. With steam power the Romans could have developed steam ships (and needed no galley slaves), powered saw-mills (which might have allowed the Romans to take over the forested lands of what are now Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Scotland), and perhaps even railroads and a printing press. Steamships make it possible for the Romans to make trade with places like Ethiopia, India,. and China less costly -- and reach the Americas and Australia. Just imagine a Roman city named Scicago on Lacus Missiganus with a glorious amphitheater that has a startling resemblance to Soldier Field.


I am not saying that they would invent any form of football, American or association. But that is alternate history.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(05-12-2019, 10:19 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

How bad is a mega crisis?

The last one culminated in the Napoleonic Wars 4T in Europe.  I'd expect a bloodbath because a whole civilization order will be coming to an end.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(05-13-2019, 12:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

Very simply, a failed Crisis solves nothing. The overall community gets no institutional change to improve anything. No semblance of stability appears that can allow people to pick up the pieces and build something more sustainable than what preceded. I look at the Gothic sack of Rome in 410 as a failed Crisis. To be sure, the Roman Empire was by then a rotten order, but it was in no way renovated. In AD 476 Odoacer overthrew the Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus and decided to not set up another Caesar -- even an abject puppet. The Roman Empire, at least in the West, no longer had any value as a political concept. This is not an annexation of a country; this is a complete breakdown of a political order.

In essence a large part of a civilization goes from a going concern to something moribund.

I also see the Servile Wars of the late Roman Republic as a failed Crisis. It might have been better for Roman civilization to have lost this war rather than getting a Pyrrhic victory. Slavery became an even-more powerful institution in Rome, and although the Republic survived, the regime became increasingly inegalitarian, repressive, and hierarchical with no compensation. Wealth became more concentrated, and what passed for a middle class (by classical standards) shrank under the stress of rising taxes from which the big landowners exempted themselves. Slavery ensured the absence of a middle class that might have offered entrepreneurial and technological innovation that might have even pushed modernization upon the Classical world. With steam power the Romans could have developed steam ships (and needed no galley slaves), powered saw-mills (which might have allowed the Romans to take over the forested lands of what are now Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Scotland), and perhaps even railroads and a printing press. Steamships make it possible for the Romans to make trade with places like Ethiopia, India,. and China less costly -- and reach the Americas and Australia. Just imagine a Roman city named Scicago on Lacus Missiganus with a glorious amphitheater that has a startling resemblance to Soldier Field.


I am not saying that they would invent any form of football, American or association. But that is alternate history.

476 was the final act of the last Roman Mega Crisis.  The one before that saw the rise of the Empire itself with Augustus. in around 4 BCE or so (been a long time since I studied Roman history in detail).

Galley slaves were highly skilled people.  However, the presence of Slavery retarded and would retard industrial development in Rome just as it did everywhere else that slavery was practiced.  (Which was everywhere--but the example in particular I'm thinking of is the US South during the industrial revolution.

I'll leave the alternative history to the likes of Harry Turtledove.  But it might be something you wish to pursue.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(05-12-2019, 10:19 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

How bad is a mega crisis?

First, you have to agree that such even exists, which is dicey at best.  To accept the idea of a Mega-Crisis, you have to accept the idea of the Mega-Saeculum.  The idea is attractive, since it looks like a social science equivalent of fractals: each level made of larger versions of the same "shape" as the level below it.  Thus, a mega-saeculum consist of four standard saecula, each having an equivalent nature to one of the turnings within that saeculum.  Taken to extreme, Turnings can then be deconstructed into roughly 5-year segments, and so on, until the idea becomes totally ridiculous.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(05-13-2019, 10:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 10:19 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

How bad is a mega crisis?

First, you have to agree that such even exists, which is dicey at best.  To accept the idea of a Mega-Crisis, you have to accept the idea of the Mega-Saeculum.  The idea is attractive, since it looks like a social science equivalent of fractals: each level made of larger versions of the same "shape" as the level below it.  Thus, a mega-saeculum consist of four standard saecula, each having an equivalent nature to one of the turnings within that saeculum.  Taken to extreme, Turnings can then be deconstructed into roughly 5-year segments, and so on, until the idea becomes totally ridiculous.

I would disagree.  It seems that on average each turning has four phases where it establishes itself, has its quick and dirty ideological cores established, these two cores duke it out, and then resolves itself. 

As for large civilization archs the Mega-saeculum fits well.  In what I call the Late Medieval Mega-Saeculum we had the Arthurian Saeculum which acted like a 1T, the Reformation the 2T, the English Civil war being 3T with the Napoleonic wars being a 4T.  At the end of the Napoleonic wars feudalism in the case of Western Europe was dead.  Thus started the Modern Mega-Saeculum around 1814ish with the 1T lasting until at 1871 at the latest, which probably explains why Europe is about 10-15 years behind the US we started the Modern Mega-Saeculum earlier than they did, perhaps because we had less underbrush that needed to be burned off. 

The Cold War acted as the primary driver in the current Saeculum and indeed the numerous culture wars in Western Europe and the US clearly indicate that the past saeculum was a Unraveling. 

Where it becomes ridiculous is attempting to make cycles larger than the Mega-Saculum or smaller than the Micro-turning.  They may or may not exist, but it becomes ridiculous due to the Uncertainty Principle.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(05-13-2019, 10:46 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Where it becomes ridiculous is attempting to make cycles larger than the Mega-Saculum or smaller than the Micro-turning.  They may or may not exist, but it becomes ridiculous due to the Uncertainty Principle.

That was my point, though the entire idea of a rhythm is still arguable at all levels. It was much more likely in the Agricultural Age, when that 12 millennia provided a stable platform for an historical rhythm. Today, the rate of change is so high, and the movement from Age to Age so rapid, that making any predications on some consistent model is dicey at best.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(05-13-2019, 10:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 10:19 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

How bad is a mega crisis?

First, you have to agree that such even exists, which is dicey at best.  To accept the idea of a Mega-Crisis, you have to accept the idea of the Mega-Saeculum.  The idea is attractive, since it looks like a social science equivalent of fractals: each level made of larger versions of the same "shape" as the level below it.  Thus, a mega-saeculum consist of four standard saecula, each having an equivalent nature to one of the turnings within that saeculum.  Taken to extreme, Turnings can then be deconstructed into roughly 5-year segments, and so on, until the idea becomes totally ridiculous.

The mega crisis is a tempting idea. There are two problems with it. First, people who describe this megacycle attribute the millennial saeculum we have been in since 1946 to the wrong mega turning. They date the mega-saeculum to the American Revolution, which results in incorrect correlations. The idea just becomes a basis for saying we are on the verge of a mega crisis, and that the mill-saec is a mega unravelling. That is only due to today's Xers and maybe millennials having experienced a 24-year unravelling, and which to some extent is continuing, and they can't see or remember anything else in their lives. It is just a cynical view, which is typical of Xers. But the correlations do not fit, even a little bit. The millsaec is not a mega unravelling. It was the greatest high ever for a nation. We are just enjoying the end of a stable era beyond any stability that has ever been experienced by any nation, and we are complacent and comfortable. We already had the mega crisis in the world wars and depression. You can't get any more mega-crisis than that. The great power saeculum was anything except a mega-awakening; it was the least spiritual and least woke saeculum ever. No, our saeculum was and is a mega-high, and Xers like the hopelessly-deceived-about-everything kinser don't see it.

Second, such a mega-cycle conflicts with the 500-year cycle of civilization, recognized by many historians. If the mega-cycle exists, it gells with that cycle, which more-or-less contains 6 saecula of the modern length, and 5 of the ancient and medieval length.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(05-13-2019, 05:46 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 10:19 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

How bad is a mega crisis?

The last one culminated in the Napoleonic Wars 4T in Europe.  I'd expect a bloodbath because a whole civilization order will be coming to an end.

Good thing I'll be dead by then. That's for the next generations to take care of.
Reply
I believe that someone once pointed out that the only part of the Great Power cycle that felt Awakening-like was the 2T itself. And that 2T was much less intense than the Boom Awakening.
Reply
(05-13-2019, 07:03 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I believe that someone once pointed out that the only part of the Great Power cycle that felt Awakening-like was the 2T itself.  And that 2T was much less intense than the Boom Awakening.

Yes indeed. Since I pointed that out once, it might have been me Smile
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(05-13-2019, 07:03 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I believe that someone once pointed out that the only part of the Great Power cycle that felt Awakening-like was the 2T itself. And that 2T was much less intense than the Boom Awakening.

(05-13-2019, 10:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(05-13-2019, 07:03 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I believe that someone once pointed out that the only part of the Great Power cycle that felt Awakening-like was the 2T itself.  And that 2T was much less intense than the Boom Awakening.

Yes indeed. Since I pointed that out once, it might have been me Smile


IIRC it was Eric that made that statement. However, I would postulate that the reason he was able to do so is because the 2T of that era did not conform to his notion of what a 2T must have. We also have to take into consideration that during that time the modern corporation was developed, hundreds if not thousands of inventions that we even use to this day were invented (light bulbs to airplanes to computers), and that not one but three different political ideologies were fashioned. Seems like the whole era was one big 2T to me.

If we look back a few centuries earlier we see something similar happening during the Reformation.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(05-13-2019, 05:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-13-2019, 12:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-12-2019, 06:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR, there is no such thing as a failed crisis.  Every 4T in history has been resolved at some point.  Often through a war or civil war.  Sometimes not.  Often with economic calamity, but sometimes not.  War and economic hardship do not in themselves indicate one is in a 4T.  Indeed in the so-called American High of the 1950s there was not one, not two, but four recessions.  There was also a very bloody war--though most people seem to have forgotten about it these days.

The point of a 4T is that it ends the saeculum.  This is an inevitability.  I believe that the current 4T will fizzle out setting the stage for the Mega Crisis which is a whole saeculum long and will end approximately in 2100.

Very simply, a failed Crisis solves nothing. The overall community gets no institutional change to improve anything. No semblance of stability appears that can allow people to pick up the pieces and build something more sustainable than what preceded. I look at the Gothic sack of Rome in 410 as a failed Crisis. To be sure, the Roman Empire was by then a rotten order, but it was in no way renovated. In AD 476 Odoacer overthrew the Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus and decided to not set up another Caesar -- even an abject puppet. The Roman Empire, at least in the West, no longer had any value as a political concept. This is not an annexation of a country; this is a complete breakdown of a political order.

In essence a large part of a civilization goes from a going concern to something moribund.

I also see the Servile Wars of the late Roman Republic as a failed Crisis. It might have been better for Roman civilization to have lost this war rather than getting a Pyrrhic victory. Slavery became an even-more powerful institution in Rome, and although the Republic survived, the regime became increasingly inegalitarian, repressive, and hierarchical with no compensation. Wealth became more concentrated, and what passed for a middle class (by classical standards) shrank under the stress of rising taxes from which the big landowners exempted themselves. Slavery ensured the absence of a middle class that might have offered entrepreneurial and technological innovation that might have even pushed modernization upon the Classical world. With steam power the Romans could have developed steam ships (and needed no galley slaves), powered saw-mills (which might have allowed the Romans to take over the forested lands of what are now Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Scotland), and perhaps even railroads and a printing press. Steamships make it possible for the Romans to make trade with places like Ethiopia, India,. and China less costly -- and reach the Americas and Australia. Just imagine a Roman city named Scicago on Lacus Missiganus with a glorious amphitheater that has a startling resemblance to Soldier Field.


I am not saying that they would invent any form of football, American or association. But that is alternate history.

476 was the final act of the last Roman Mega Crisis.  The one before that saw the rise of the Empire itself with Augustus. in around 4 BCE or so (been a long time since I studied Roman history in detail).

Galley slaves were highly skilled people.  However, the presence of Slavery retarded and would retard industrial development in Rome just as it did everywhere else that slavery was practiced.  (Which was everywhere--but the example in particular I'm thinking of is the US South during the industrial revolution.

I'll leave the alternative history to the likes of Harry Turtledove.  But it might be something you wish to pursue.

The deposition of Romulus Augustulus was a prime example of anticlimax, an over-rated event in history. Classical civilization would not fully collapse for about sixty years, the likely result of a climatic catastrophe associated with a volcanic eruption around AD 535 that created some extreme weather.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(05-02-2019, 10:34 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Somebody (the Grey Badger?) posted that in Ancient Rome the Social Wars were so traumatizing that I cohorts became A cohorts...with younger Nomads taking on the Prophet role.

How does that make sense??

(05-02-2019, 04:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: This is due to the mega-unraveling which has lasted the whole saeculum.  That is why many people seem to think the current 4T is so 3T like.

Why not state that we live in the Capitalist Age, which is THE mega-Unraveling? Of course, then we have the question when it started; I'd say, with the American and French revolutions.
Reply
(04-23-2019, 12:40 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does he want to put Fyodor Dostoevsky in the Transcendental Generation?

Would fit his religiousness... then again, he was Russian, their Turnings might work differently. Sure, WW2 killed very many Russians, but it didn't change their political system. The Crisis ending with the Russian Civil War, OTOH...
Reply
(05-14-2019, 09:22 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(05-02-2019, 04:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: This is due to the mega-unraveling which has lasted the whole saeculum.  That is why many people seem to think the current 4T is so 3T like.

Why not state that we live in the Capitalist Age, which is THE mega-Unraveling? Of course, then we have the question when it started; I'd say, with the American and French revolutions.

America hasn't been capitalist since FDR so we're not living in a capitalist age.  Also to start an unraveling sequence at the beginning of the Modern Mega-Saeculum would require there to be an even larger civilization cycle for which there is very little evidence given that the sands of time have blasted much of that evidence away.

One of the reasons why I'm reluctant to go beyond the Mega-Saeculum as I have defined it or Micro-Turnings as they have been defined by others.

Simply put attempting to postulate cycles, which may or may not exist, that are smaller or larger run into problems due to the Uncertainty Principle.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(05-14-2019, 09:34 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(04-23-2019, 12:40 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does he want to put Fyodor Dostoevsky in the Transcendental Generation?

Would fit his religiousness... then again, he was Russian, their Turnings might work differently. Sure, WW2 killed very many Russians, but it didn't change their political system. The Crisis ending with the Russian Civil War, OTOH...

Russia (and I've been there) is on a different saecular cycle than the West.  It could even be argued that the Orthodox East is a completely different civilization from the West as well.

The GPW occurred at the start of the 2T of the Soviet Saeculum and was probably why their 2T was so muted.  The majority of the trouble makers were killed off in the Trenches of the Western Front (from the Russian perspective).
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
(05-15-2019, 01:09 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-14-2019, 09:34 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(04-23-2019, 12:40 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does he want to put Fyodor Dostoevsky in the Transcendental Generation?

Would fit his religiousness... then again, he was Russian, their Turnings might work differently. Sure, WW2 killed very many Russians, but it didn't change their political system. The Crisis ending with the Russian Civil War, OTOH...

Russia (and I've been there) is on a different saecular cycle than the West.  It could even be argued that the Orthodox East is a completely different civilization from the West as well.

The GPW occurred at the start of the 2T of the Soviet Saeculum and was probably why their 2T was so muted.  The majority of the trouble makers were killed off in the Trenches of the Western Front (from the Russian perspective).


My interpretation of Russian history from 1905 (Russo-Japanese War) to 1945 (end of the Great Patriotic War) is an over-extended Time of Troubles. There was a revolution in 1905 after the war -- and some horrible pogroms. Imperial Russia would have been wise to stay out of the First World War, but Imperial Russia bumbled its way into it and demonstrated its backwardness in social conditions and infrastructure. There was a liberal revolution in February 1917, but really too late for salvaging the system. Lenin staged his coup in November, and proved ruthless enough to put Russia back together -- as the world's first totalitarian order. It would take a monstrous civil war in which the Reds and Whites both slaughtered anything that got in their way.

With no concern about elections or a judiciary, Lenin could reform Russia practically at will... and along came Stalin. We all know of the horrors of forced collectivism and of the Great Purge, right? Stalin interpreted Hitler as the final stage of capitalist depravity, the sort that would implode of its own vileness while destroying liberal democracy, and chose to let Hitler divide eastern Europe with him. After that sordid deal, Hitler waited less than two years before invading the Soviet Union.

The Crisis of the West, the Crisis of 1940, came to a country that thought itself exempt from such. World War II was pure Crisis imposed from outside. The Crisis came to an end with the end of the war, and Stalin was weakened in his ability to act as a despot. Russia went into a 1T.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How do neurological disorders or psychiatric disorders affect generation archetype? AspieMillennial 2 456 06-12-2019, 01:36 PM
Last Post: David Horn

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)