Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
COVID-19 is the climax to this 4T
#61
(04-06-2020, 11:42 AM)Isoko Wrote: Also in regards to turnings, I think that maybe we have just entered a 4T right now. Obviously there is the traditional view that the 4T started in 2008 or even 2001 but in my eyes, a 4T is a period of time when lots of stuff happens and normality cannot be resumed until after the crisis.

This is not so with either 2001 or 2008. Life went on. There was no major disruptions to life. None whatsoever. The coronavirus pandemic is the first major disruption to life, at least on a global scale, since world war 2.

Once you have that key event, everything starts to collapse pretty quickly and in the end things need to be rebuilt a new for a true recovery to take place.

With this event, expect new events to add onto this existing one, making a true 4T time period to live in. My estimation is that for the West, the next 1T should be about the 2030 - 2040 phase. Depends once again where you live.

(04-07-2020, 04:33 AM)Isoko Wrote: Hi Warren,

I have to disagree with this statement. First, the great depression did trigger events in the world that helped page the way for the climax. It led to the Italian invasion of Abbysina, the Japanese occupation of Manchukuo, the rise of Hitler and the subsequent occupation of the Rhineland. The Great Depression did trigger a lot of events  in a short order. So in that case, yes, the 4T did start in 1929.

However in 2008, you say it was survival? I remember that period quite well. There was a shortage of jobs but due to the immense government bailouts, there was no crash. People just got on with their lives. People still got jobs, they still bought houses, there was plenty of food on the shelves, etc. The only major decline in economic living was a result of globalisation and neo liberalism but not actually 2008.

The events that followed really felt like more of a 3T. However, I still stand by that Corona virus is the beginning of this 4T. Like with 1929, expect events to open up now in short succession rather then a slow line that what transpired from 2008.

My family in the UK tell me how difficult it is to buy food. That is 4T tier. Italy wants to leave in the EU and is in a huge crisis. That is 4T tier. Russia is giving aid to the United States. That is 4T tier. Compared to 2008,  1Twe really are entering the 4T.

Actually a lot of things happend after 2008, that shows the world is in a crisis. Eurocrisis, Arab Spring, syriian ciivil war, annexation of Crimea, refugee crisis, Brexit, Trump iitself, the Cold Saudi-Iran war
Everywhere on the World populist strongmen pop up The international institutions of the 1T crumble, in Europe the 1T party systems disolves. We see hate and irrationality grows in all societys and there is no venttil for this, because a big crisis war is  impossible and the people in charge did everthing to prevent a second Great Depression. But now the Virus iss there, and he may cause the climaax of the crisis, because he gives society aan enemy and may bee force the people to chose between the strongmen and the old, boring 1T democracy..
Reply
#62
(04-07-2020, 04:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: What may change, and must if sanity is to rule, is the practice of off-shoring critical production.  We're seeing how smart that was right now.  Trade is good; mercantilism isn't.

Certainly we should reinstate the requirement that defense goods be entirely produced domestically.  Maybe some medical goods too, but we need to change the pharmaceutical rules to prevent pharmaceutical companies from saddling Americans with 100% of the R&D costs, selling drugs overseas cheaply while keeping prices high in the US.

Not sure what that has to do with mercantilism.  Mercantilism involves keeping all production domestic, and getting only raw materials from the empire.  That's not the kind of empire the US has.
Reply
#63
(04-07-2020, 06:17 PM)freivolk Wrote: a big crisis war is  impossible

Why?  I'm not disagreeing, but I am wondering why you think that is?

To me, it seems like the main reason a war might not be likely is that population is shrinking in developed countries, not growing, so the population pressure isn't there.  In equatorial countries, though, population is still growing.
Reply
#64
Racial disparities in contracting and dying of COVID-19 are real. 


Quote:As the novel coronavirus sweeps across the United States, it appears to be infecting and killing black Americans at a disproportionately high rate, according to a Washington Post analysis of early data from jurisdictions across the country.The emerging stark racial disparity led the surgeon general Tuesday to acknowledge in personal terms the increased risk for African Americans amid growing demands that public-health officials release more data on the race of those who are sick, hospitalized and dying of a contagion that has killed more than 12,000 people in the United States.

A Post analysis of available data and census demographics shows that counties that are majority-black have three times the rate of infections and almost six times the rate of deaths as counties where white residents are in the majority.


[Image: J75WABDPQJCPTMX5GFAGGJ7OU4.jpg]

Thank you, Washington Post:


PLEASE NOTE

The Washington Post is providing this story for free so that all readers have access to this important information about the coronavirus. For more free stories, sign up for our daily Coronavirus Updates newsletter.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/20...rc404=true


Nothing significant in Florida, marginally significant in Connecticut...

It could be poverty, utilization of the health-care system, and 'cultural' habits such as church attendance, playing basketball (two five-man teams constitute ten people, the margin of some "large gatherings") or use of mass transit. While COVID-19 is active I would be wary of using any mass conveyance -- jetliners, subways, passenger trains, ferries, or buses of any kind.
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
#65
(04-07-2020, 09:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-07-2020, 06:17 PM)freivolk Wrote: a big crisis war is  impossible

Why?  I'm not disagreeing, but I am wondering why you think that is?

To me, it seems like the main reason a war might not be likely is that population is shrinking in developed countries, not growing, so the population pressure isn't there.  In equatorial countries, though, population is still growing.
Partly for that, mostly because the time, where you could win a war by mobilising milions of cheap rifle-men, are gone. Modern armies are capiital-intensive, even rag-tag guerilla groups (Syriia!) seems to have an upper limit. Second, the potential gains are mostly not worth the risks and costs (Example Iraq or Eastern Ukraine). And third, over a ccertain level, there iis stiil a chance, that nukes will fly.
Reply
#66
(04-07-2020, 09:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-07-2020, 04:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: What may change, and must if sanity is to rule, is the practice of off-shoring critical production.  We're seeing how smart that was right now.  Trade is good; mercantilism isn't.

Certainly we should reinstate the requirement that defense goods be entirely produced domestically.  Maybe some medical goods too, but we need to change the pharmaceutical rules to prevent pharmaceutical companies from saddling Americans with 100% of the R&D costs, selling drugs overseas cheaply while keeping prices high in the US.

Not sure what that has to do with mercantilism.  Mercantilism involves keeping all production domestic, and getting only raw materials from the empire.  That's not the kind of empire the US has.

Mercantilism is also a private sector idea, where the "producer" makes all the decisions to best profit the business, and the country be damned.  In the 18th century, that was a purely domestic mandate. When the idea of optimum markets arrived, the idea morphed.  It was bad then and it's still bad today.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#67
(04-07-2020, 09:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-07-2020, 04:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: What may change, and must if sanity is to rule, is the practice of off-shoring critical production.  We're seeing how smart that was right now.  Trade is good; mercantilism isn't.

Certainly we should reinstate the requirement that defense goods be entirely produced domestically.  Maybe some medical goods too, but we need to change the pharmaceutical rules to prevent pharmaceutical companies from saddling Americans with 100% of the R&D costs, selling drugs overseas cheaply while keeping prices high in the US.

Not sure what that has to do with mercantilism.  Mercantilism involves keeping all production domestic, and getting only raw materials from the empire.  That's not the kind of empire the US has.

That is correct. The US runs it empire in traditional style. That is to say, the US loots a lot of its informal empire through shake downs, invasions, like all of the stuff we did in the MidEast, IOW, Operation Iraqi Liberation = OIL, which was the real intent after all. However, Rags is doing a snoopy dance. Looks like GenX is gonna remake it into a more economic populist thing.

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-n...imagines-a.

And this.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/...t-medical/

Shit yeah!   


The only thing that needs to go is this China, China, China stuff.  China didn't put a gun to Corporate America for those factories.  Rubio needs to go and talk to Tulsi.  But yeah, this is amazing.  Republicans discussing autarky, I mean wow, just wow.   Just a few more shifts, and perhaps, the US can get a combo of Gorbachev and Bismark.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#68
(04-08-2020, 08:57 AM)freivolk Wrote: Partly for that, mostly because the time, where you could win a war by mobilising milions of cheap rifle-men, are gone.  Modern armies are capiital-intensive, even rag-tag guerilla groups (Syriia!) seems to have an upper limit. Second, the potential gains are mostly not worth the risks and costs (Example Iraq or Eastern Ukraine). And third, over a ccertain level, there iis stiil a chance, that nukes will fly.

War was capital intensive in the late medieval cycle, though, and the Wars of the Roses still occurred.  I grant it would include fewer people.  I don't know if it would result in fewer casualties.

Potential gains not being worth the costs, maybe, though Russia didn't see that as a problem for seizing Crimea.  There's definitely a chance that nukes will fly, and that would affect the approach to war.  I'm not sure if it would prevent it.  John Xenakis considers nuclear war a certainty.

I think it might be great if the necessary destruction could happen without war, but I'd like to get a better handle on the mechanism.
Reply
#69
(04-08-2020, 02:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-08-2020, 08:57 AM)freivolk Wrote: Partly for that, mostly because the time, where you could win a war by mobilising milions of cheap rifle-men, are gone.  Modern armies are capiital-intensive, even rag-tag guerilla groups (Syriia!) seems to have an upper limit. Second, the potential gains are mostly not worth the risks and costs (Example Iraq or Eastern Ukraine). And third, over a ccertain level, there iis stiil a chance, that nukes will fly.

War was capital intensive in the late medieval cycle, though, and the Wars of the Roses still occurred.  I grant it would include fewer people.  I don't know if it would result in fewer casualties.

Potential gains not being worth the costs, maybe, though Russia didn't see that as a problem for seizing Crimea.  There's definitely a chance that nukes will fly, and that would affect the approach to war.  I'm not sure if it would prevent it.  John Xenakis considers nuclear war a certainty.

I think it might be great if the necessary destruction could happen without war, but I'd like to get a bech could tter handle on the mechanism.

The medival example don´t really fit. I would it more compare it to the mass armies o the Roman Republic,which could lose 80000 man in a battle and shrug it off, and the high-tech legions of Augustus, which in the end were to valubale to get wasted in germanic swamps.
I simply see no foreign battlefields, were the USA would sacrifice hundered thousands of lives
On the other side, 2 of Americas 3 crisis wars were civil wars.
Reply
#70
(04-07-2020, 06:17 PM)freivolk Wrote:
(04-06-2020, 11:42 AM)Isoko Wrote: Also in regards to turnings, I think that maybe we have just entered a 4T right now. Obviously there is the traditional view that the 4T started in 2008 or even 2001 but in my eyes, a 4T is a period of time when lots of stuff happens and normality cannot be resumed until after the crisis.

This is not so with either 2001 or 2008. Life went on. There was no major disruptions to life. None whatsoever. The coronavirus pandemic is the first major disruption to life, at least on a global scale, since world war 2.

Once you have that key event, everything starts to collapse pretty quickly and in the end things need to be rebuilt a new for a true recovery to take place.

With this event, expect new events to add onto this existing one, making a true 4T time period to live in. My estimation is that for the West, the next 1T should be about the 2030 - 2040 phase. Depends once again where you live.

(04-07-2020, 04:33 AM)Isoko Wrote: Hi Warren,

I have to disagree with this statement. First, the great depression did trigger events in the world that helped page the way for the climax. It led to the Italian invasion of Abbysina, the Japanese occupation of Manchukuo, the rise of Hitler and the subsequent occupation of the Rhineland. The Great Depression did trigger a lot of events  in a short order. So in that case, yes, the 4T did start in 1929.

However in 2008, you say it was survival? I remember that period quite well. There was a shortage of jobs but due to the immense government bailouts, there was no crash. People just got on with their lives. People still got jobs, they still bought houses, there was plenty of food on the shelves, etc. The only major decline in economic living was a result of globalisation and neo liberalism but not actually 2008.

The events that followed really felt like more of a 3T. However, I still stand by that Corona virus is the beginning of this 4T. Like with 1929, expect events to open up now in short succession rather then a slow line that what transpired from 2008.

My family in the UK tell me how difficult it is to buy food. That is 4T tier. Italy wants to leave in the EU and is in a huge crisis. That is 4T tier. Russia is giving aid to the United States. That is 4T tier. Compared to 2008,  1Twe really are entering the 4T.

Actually a lot of things happend after 2008, that shows the world is in a crisis. Eurocrisis, Arab Spring, syriian ciivil war, annexation of Crimea, refugee crisis, Brexit, Trump iitself, the Cold Saudi-Iran war
Everywhere on the World populist strongmen pop up The international institutions of the 1T crumble, in Europe the 1T party systems disolves. We see hate and irrationality grows in all societys and there is no venttil for this, because a big crisis war is  impossible and the people in charge did everthing to prevent a second Great Depression. But now the Virus iss there, and he may cause the climaax of the crisis, because he gives society aan enemy and may bee force the people to chose between the strongmen and the old, boring 1T democracy..

Actually these are mainly 3T events with the exception of the wars. My reasoning behind 4Ts is that they become very hard for governments to control and average daily life of people is disrupted. The more powerless a government or institution is, the more the people turn to more radical alternatives.

All of the events you described could have led to a 4T but instead they were controlled and people's daily lives continues on as normal, albeit a slow decline in living standards. Not exactly crisis standards but perfect for an unraveling.

You mention the populists taking power but they haven't really as of yet. Brexit and Trump were basically protest elections but the actual system of government has remained the same aside from some flavourings. The main places to look for a true Populist movement taking power would be in Europe and so far no party has been able to do it. Mainly just increased seats and coalition governments where there power has been effectively muted.

However Corona virus and the coming world depression is going to alter politics in a huge way that you can no longer just kick the can down the road.

My predictions is that this isn't a climax but the start of the 4T. What we will see is the following:

The emergence of new powers taking the scene of global power, namely Russia and China, perhaps India down the line, and the final end of western hegemony for the current time period.

The actual election and installation of power of populist parties in Europe, where they have real power. Expect with this strong action to problems, maybe even semi dictatorships forming. However expect most of these to be on the Salazar model and not the Hitler model. This will cause the collapse of the EU and remoulding European countries into a new centre of power.

The coming isolation of America.

These are the big three trends I forsee. Now any events could escalate but this is going to be the foreseeable trend.

My prediction also is that the fireworks will settle down and a new economic model will come about in one or two decades.
Reply
#71
(04-08-2020, 02:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-08-2020, 08:57 AM)freivolk Wrote: Partly for that, mostly because the time, where you could win a war by mobilising milions of cheap rifle-men, are gone.  Modern armies are capiital-intensive, even rag-tag guerrilla groups (Syria!) seems to have an upper limit. Second, the potential gains are mostly not worth the risks and costs (Example Iraq or Eastern Ukraine). And third, over a certain level, there is still a chance, that nukes will fly.

War was capital intensive in the late medieval cycle, though, and the Wars of the Roses still occurred.  I grant it would include fewer people.  I don't know if it would result in fewer casualties.

Potential gains not being worth the costs, maybe, though Russia didn't see that as a problem for seizing Crimea.  There's definitely a chance that nukes will fly, and that would affect the approach to war.  I'm not sure if it would prevent it.  John Xenakis considers nuclear war a certainty.

I think it might be great if the necessary destruction could happen without war, but I'd like to get a better handle on the mechanism.

War has become much less attractive. It can be profitable to the merchants of armaments, but a real war now means that the manufacturing plants for those armaments are more likely to be destroyed in airstrikes. I can also imagine tycoons, executives, and lobbyists for such warmongers being dispossessed or even prosecuted as war criminals. War has become risky for even the profiteers. 

Add to this, smart youth have read such books as All Quiet on the Western Front, The Good Soldier Schweik, Doctor Zhivago, Catch-22, and Corelli's  Mandolin that give views of war as bleak, destructive, and absurd. If they don't read, then they can see such movies as Full Metal Jacket , Platoon.  and The Hurt Locker . It is getting far more difficult to find semi-literate boys on the verge of adulthood who see no better prospect in life than being a farm laborer or a servant a rifle and telling him that nothing could be more glorious than to charge a machine-gun nest in a human-wave attack. Maybe the horrible Iran-Iraq war in which the opposing sides showed consummate disregard for human life of the sort that one associates with World War I allowed such; Henry Kissinger said about that war that he wished that both sides could lose. Kissinger knew who would pick up the pieces.

It remains possible to get young men who know what war is to join an army, navy, or air force; even so they need to receive some promises from the political leaders and the senior officers. The best military leadership endeavors to minimize casualties of the troops, which is good for ensuring that the armed forces can avoid running out of soldiers and supplies. World War I ended basically when the German Army ran out of cannon fodder. Minimizing casualties is one way to ensure that an army has plenty of competent NCO's who might have been raw recruits two or three years earlier instead of a gigantic toll of "fallen for God and Country". Soldiers, sailors, and airmen may be promised secure employment and after service advantages in the workplace, educational opportunities, and cheap loans for housing -- which gives them all the more reason to not be treated as cannon fodder. 

Wars between Great Powers have been rare, although interventions and proxy wars that look at the time to have small costs for participants at the political and economic apex have happened frequently. Unless one counts India and Pakistan both as Great Powers (India is) in the war of Bangaladeshi Independence, the last war between Great Powers was for all practical purposes the Korean War in which the People's Republic of China and the USA were fighting each other for all practical purposes. That war was 70 years ago.

Great wars depend upon great hatred, but most people now know enough to recognize that the political leadership, however odious (you know how I have frequently described Saddam Hussein), comes with pity for the people under the rule of that leadership. It wasn't German culture that slaughtered Jews who often had much the same culture, and it wasn't Japanese culture that performed the Bataan Death March or brutally treated captive laborers on the Burma Railway. Does anyone hate German or Japanese high culture anymore? I did not have to be around during World War II to hate Nazis: I hate Nazis for disgracing nearly half of my ethnic origin and murdering people that I consider my cultural and moral brethren. I consider Japanese aesthetics delightful (the other part of my ethnic origin does not include "Japanese" origin), but don't ask me to forgive the culprits for the Bataan Death March. 

The Axis Powers made the gross blunder of giving much to hate. As I once told a neo-Nazi on the Internet, if I had to choose between becoming a Nazi and converting to Judaism I would convert to Judaism because a Jew could easily hold moral and cultural values like mine. I loathe having to make moral compromises. Let's put it this way -- I was broke and I had to drive on bald tires until I got a little income, and my first purchases was a set of new tires to replace the bald tires. I preferred that to some long journey to a delightful and enriching place, an upgrade to my sound system, or some nice new clothes.
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
#72
(03-22-2020, 12:43 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I decided to check back here, since it seems pretty obvious that this pandemic crisis is the climax of this 4T and I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this already (although I may have missed it).  Nevertheless, here are my thoughts.

...
Hi Drakus et al.,
Thanks for opening this thread which I thought was also "obvious" but will be missed by most people. Even ardent followers of the generational theory will by now be so tired and frustrated by our current 4t that they miss the climax while it stares them in the face. Regarding the intensity - I think there is a general trend towards less intense and deadly 4ts. As a percentage of population loss from the Wars of the Roses to WW2 and now COVID - it's less and less, thanks Goodness! I am impressed by Strauss/Howe foresight when they state that "governments will decide winners and losers and no-one has a choice". This applies to who's job will be shut down right now vs. who still makes money. There are breadlines of 4+ miles in Las Vegas right now (albeit in cars to maintain social distancing and even the financially dead of our 4t are much better off than those of the Great Depression - not to minimize anyone's suffering which is VERY real).
Regarding consequences we seem to agree. The one country I look to as a harbinger is Russia. The October Revolution 1917 foreshadowed the trend to social-democrat / socialist policies like the New Deal 16 years later across the globe. It also foreshadowed the rise of extreme autocratic, aggressive and anti-human regimes across the globe in the 1930s. The Red Mass Terror was a glimpse to come for Jews, Chinese, Ethiopians and many more. The National Socialist regime in Germany became the epitomy of this trend. 
In our present cycle Putin came to power around 2000, again 15ish years before we see leaders from the traditionalist, nationalist and populist spectrum arise to power across the globe. Once again, no Western country will become a quasi-dictatorship, but sooner or later they all become traditionalist, populist and nationalist. Some sooner, some later. This is indeed the end of globalism. I have noticed a lot of underlying trends confirming this that the media ignores whether on purpose or not. Conservative-Christian families still have 3.5 children per family and the fall in the birthrate is mostly due to liberal families. Political attitudes are largely genetic so liberal globalist elitist attitudes fall out of the gene pool. If you rank all US counties by birth rate top to bottom then Trump one all the upper ones and Hillary all the lower ones. The future is traditionalist, populist and nationalist.
Finally, the three defining secular movements in the last Turnings are: fascism, socialism and classical liberalism. They dominated societies in the last 200 years. Everyone vying for power had to position himself between those three. The last 4t required a total war (WW2) to defeat fascism. In the last 3t Socialism collapsed more by itself following a lengthy cold war. Currently, it's liberalism's turn to die and it just requires a Cultural War to accomplish this. Less intensity each time. After this, it's a brave new world of traditionalism, populism and nationalism waiting for us and generations to come.
Reply
#73
The death count is beginning to look like the casualty count of a very nasty war. Americans (and others) are accepting personal regimentation in stride as they would not in a 3T culture. People accept economic deprivations characteristic of the 1930's (other than rejecting the high technology that can keep people connected and keep people from going nuts) as a temporary measure. Maybe we don't have rationing. That there is really no place to go has cut down on driving.

The federal and state government will need to expand the welfare system to accommodate mass unemployment. Economic behaviors will change. I expect people to replace some habits with others. The biggest one? I expect the saving habit to revive after the current time of mass hardship. Six months of income in a savings account will look much better to many people than the shiny objects that people have bought with little thinking.
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
#74
(04-12-2020, 12:32 PM)Generational Wrote:
(03-22-2020, 12:43 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I decided to check back here, since it seems pretty obvious that this pandemic crisis is the climax of this 4T and I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this already (although I may have missed it).  Nevertheless, here are my thoughts.

...
Hi Drakus et al.,
Thanks for opening this thread which I thought was also "obvious" but will be missed by most people. Even ardent followers of the generational theory will by now be so tired and frustrated by our current 4t that they miss the climax while it stares them in the face. Regarding the intensity - I think there is a general trend towards less intense and deadly 4ts. As a percentage of population loss from the Wars of the Roses to WW2 and now COVID - it's less and less, thanks Goodness! I am impressed by Strauss/Howe foresight when they state that "governments will decide winners and losers and no-one has a choice". This applies to who's job will be shut down right now vs. who still makes money. There are breadlines of 4+ miles in Las Vegas right now (albeit in cars to maintain social distancing and even the financially dead of our 4t are much better off than those of the Great Depression - not to minimize anyone's suffering which is VERY real).

America's twelve deadliest wars:

1
American Civil War
1861–65
750,000 (est.)(U.S./Confederate)[86]
520
31,443,000
2.385% (1860)
2
World War II
1941–45
405,399
297
133,402,000
0.307% (1940)
3
World War I
1917–18
116,516
279
103,268,000
0.110% (1920)
4
Vietnam War
1961–75
58,209
11
179,323,175
0.032% (1970)
5
Korean War
1950–53
54,246
45
151,325,000
0.036% (1950)
6
American Revolutionary War
1775–83
25,000
11
2,500,000
1.00% (1780)

(CORVID-19 deaths just reached 20,000 as a comparison)

7
War of 1812
1812–15
15,000
15
8,000,000
0.207% (1810)
8
Mexican–American War
1846–48
13,283
29
21,406,000
0.057% (1850)
9
Iraq War
2003–11
4,576
2
294,043,000
0.002% (2010)
10
Philippine–American War
1899–1902
4,196
3.8
72,129,001
0.006% (1900)
11
Spanish–American War
1898
2,246
8.9
62,022,250
0.004% (1890)
12
War in Afghanistan
2001–present
2,216
0.36
294,043,000
0.001% (2010)

One of those, the Philippine war, is largely forgotten -- but it was nasty. The raw number of American deaths from COVID-19 now exceeds those of all but six American wars, and it seems on the brink of surpassing the deaths of the American Revolutionary War. 

But not so fast: the real measure of the deadliness of war to a nation is the percentage of people killed. The numbers of American military deaths in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War (both sides), and even the Second World War involve a nation with far fewer people. 


1
American Civil War
1861–65
750,000 (est.)(U.S./Confederate)[86]
520
31,443,000
2.385% (1860)
6
American Revolutionary War
1775–83
25,000
11
2,500,000
1.00% (1780)
2
World War II
1941–45
405,399
297
133,402,000
0.307% (1940)
7
War of 1812
1812–15
15,000
15
8,000,000
0.207% (1810)
3
World War I
1917–18
116,516
279
103,268,000
0.110% (1920)


The death rate as a share of the population is highest for the three wars that Howe and Strauss suggest as Crisis wars. The War of 1812 may not have been a Crisis War for the United States, but it was for America's enemy of the time (Britain under the still-tyrannical George III) World War I may have been a short war for America, but it had a high death rate per day... and it was beginning to take on Crisis characteristics in some of the participants. The War of 1812 and the First World War are spill-overs from the Crises of other countries. 

2000 deaths per day? Only the Civil War surpasses that with respect to impact per capita. I do not expect that number to fall soon.  If you were looking forward to a Crisis to bring pervasive change to your life, then here it is. The only good thing about it is that it isn't as lethal as thermonuclear war, which is about like saying that dying of a stroke is better than being ripped to pieces by feral dogs. 


Quote:The one country I look to as a harbinger is Russia. The October Revolution 1917 foreshadowed the trend to social-democrat / socialist policies like the New Deal 16 years later across the globe. It also foreshadowed the rise of extreme autocratic, aggressive and anti-human regimes across the globe in the 1930s. The Red Mass Terror was a glimpse to come for Jews, Chinese, Ethiopians and many more. The National Socialist regime in Germany became the epitome of this trend. 

Unless Donald Trump is re-elected and Democrats lose the House, and the GOP finds its majorities an excuse to entrench power permanently in an authoritarian order in which complicity with the new and sordid system gives one a better chance in life than competence and skill, Russia is not a political portent for America. To be sure, the Bolshevik Revolution was a harbinger of other political changes, beginning with Mussolini's Fascist  regime that slowly adopted the totalitarianism while supporting plutocracy instead of socialism. It is hardly surprising that most of the shaky democracies that formed in the wake of WWI (including, most catastrophically Weimar Germany) eventually became authoritarian right-wing regimes; even the well established French Republic came close to going fascist in 1934. Let's not forget one of the vilest of fascistic movements, the 1915 KKK, which shared much the same objects of hatred as the Nazis did even before Mussolini adopted the fasces as a symbol of his inhuman cause. At times the 1915 was bigger than the Nazi Party in Germany. 

Fascist movements ranged from conservative-traditionalist causes (let us say the comparatively gentle ones of Dollfuss/Schuschnigg in Austria, Metaxas in Greece, Pilsudski in Poland, and Salazar in Portugal) to the full-blown genocidal causes of the Nazi Party, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, and the Ustase of Croatia. Does anyone want to guess what the Klan would have done in America had it achieved Nazi-like power?  

Weak institutions invite demagogues to tell people exactly what they want to hear, and once those demagogues take power they reward supporters and punish opponents. Generally incompetent to achieve their contradictory promises they quickly establish near-absolute power for themselves and suppress all dissent. Maybe we Americans have learned fast enough about a President who shows despotic tendencies to weaken his power before he could achieve his sick dream. It may be too early to predict, but a President who has proved inept as much may be defeated, along with enough of his political enablers; in the aftermath Americans will get a quick resolution of the Crisis with a swift transition to a new political and economic paradigm. The ethos that holds that the common man exists solely to enrich and pamper those already super-rich, which came in on little cat feet  with Reagan and has become a charging tiger under Trump.  

A well-placed gunshot can take a tiger down. If impeachment did not remove Trump, then an economic meltdown and a bungled response to COVID-19 together do. 

So what will we get? Most likely we will have a tendency to eschew debt in favor of pay-as-you-go, to decentralize the economic system to foster small business, and much more respect for the well-honed intellect as a solution. The banking system will become more dependent upon personal savings for the funds for loans. The celebrity culture will be gone, and anyone who makes good money in mass media will do so without resorting to such bilge as fart jokes. We already see people who will be models of behavior across ethnic divides -- our model minorities. In the 1940's and 1950's that meant the Jews. Will it be (East) Asian-Americans, (South) Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, middle-class blacks, middle-class Hispanics... or Jews again? Educational standards will be high again -- even in the Mountain and Deep South.           
 

Quote:In our present cycle Putin came to power around 2000, again 15ish years before we see leaders from the traditionalist, nationalist and populist spectrum arise to power across the globe. Once again, no Western country will become a quasi-dictatorship, but sooner or later they all become traditionalist, populist and nationalist. Some sooner, some later. This is indeed the end of globalism. I have noticed a lot of underlying trends confirming this that the media ignores whether on purpose or not. Conservative-Christian families still have 3.5 children per family and the fall in the birthrate is mostly due to liberal families. Political attitudes are largely genetic so liberal globalist elitist attitudes fall out of the gene pool. If you rank all US counties by birth rate top to bottom then Trump one all the upper ones and Hillary all the lower ones. The future is traditionalist, populist and nationalist.


Hungary has come to approach a full-blown dictatorship, and Brazil is on the brink. Venezuela has a left-wing dictatorship. Populism is a disaster unless humanist first; nationalism has validity in bringing independence where a country is under another country's thumb. Traditionalism is fine as a default when radical reforms fail... so long as part of the tradition is democratic norms. Churchill was no less a traditionalist than was Franco, but we know which one stood for old decencies and which one stood for romantic nostalgia for a hierarchical order.  


Quote:Finally, the three defining secular movements in the last Turnings are: fascism, socialism and classical liberalism. They dominated societies in the last 200 years. Everyone vying for power had to position himself between those three. The last 4t required a total war (WW2) to defeat fascism. In the last 3t Socialism collapsed more by itself following a lengthy cold war. Currently, it's liberalism's turn to die and it just requires a Cultural War to accomplish this. Less intensity each time. After this, it's a brave new world of traditionalism, populism and nationalism waiting for us and generations to come.


Nobody admits to being a fascist. Calling an authoritarian rightist a fascist is like calling a woman who sleeps with anything that moves a "slut". She will take offense at the word even if it fits her character. I look at a racist, violent organization that seeks to restore an economic hierarchy of either the post-Civil-War "restoration" in the South or its last hurrah in Jim Crow practice (surely you know what group) and see almost everything about it characteristic of fascist causes elsewhere, past and present. But these people will tell you that they are Americans and not fascists. Those sorts of people figure out quickly (and wrongly) that I am Jewish and deserve to be beaten, robbed, and killed. My values hold that nobody deserves to be beaten, robbed, and killed.   

Socialism seems to mean whatever one wants it to mean, whether it means a regimented but nominally-egalitarian order (think of a military barracks that destroys individuality, and you have the typical Communist order), a muted form of Marxism-Leninism ("reformed" Commies such as the German PDS, or "party of democratic socialism" that often showed its origins in the old East German SED (the commie-dominated "Socialist Unity Party"), social democrats, anarcho-syndicalists, and parties that have unionized blue-collar workers as mass support in elections. Even Hitler's extreme-right party that one easily describes as a workers' nightmare called itself the "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Socialism is a political cuss word in America almost as egregious as fascism and communism.          

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).
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
#75
(04-12-2020, 02:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The death count is beginning to look like the casualty count of a very nasty war. Americans (and others) are accepting personal regimentation in stride as they would not in a 3T culture. People accept economic deprivations characteristic of the 1930's (other than rejecting the high technology that can keep people connected and keep people from going nuts) as a temporary measure. Maybe we don't have rationing. That there is really no place to go has cut down on driving.

The federal and state government will need to  expand the welfare system to accommodate  mass unemployment. Economic behaviors will change.  I expect people to replace some habits with others.  The biggest one? I expect the saving habit to revive after the current time of mass hardship. Six months of income in a savings account will look much better to many people than the shiny objects that people have bought with little thinking.

Good point. There are bread lines in Las Vegas 4 miles long at food banks. In cars though, not walking like during the Great Depression. But still this is a climax event and like Howe/Strauss proclaimed the government will set the rules, decide about winners and losers and people will largely fall in line.
Reply
#76
(04-12-2020, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 12:32 PM)Generational Wrote:
(03-22-2020, 12:43 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I decided to check back here, since it seems pretty obvious that this pandemic crisis is the climax of this 4T and I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this already (although I may have missed it).  Nevertheless, here are my thoughts.

...
         

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).


Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…
Reply
#77
(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 12:32 PM)Generational Wrote:
(03-22-2020, 12:43 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I decided to check back here, since it seems pretty obvious that this pandemic crisis is the climax of this 4T and I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this already (although I may have missed it).  Nevertheless, here are my thoughts.

...
         

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).


Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#78
(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 12:32 PM)Generational Wrote:
(03-22-2020, 12:43 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: I decided to check back here, since it seems pretty obvious that this pandemic crisis is the climax of this 4T and I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this already (although I may have missed it).  Nevertheless, here are my thoughts.

...
         

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).


Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger  Smile but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal  Wink
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.
Reply
#79
(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 05:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 04:49 PM)Generational Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:          

Classical liberalism has become a cover for pure plutocracy; a few people get to live like sultans, and most of the rest are obliged to endure grinding poverty yet praise its cruelty as benefice. Modern technologies, including those that allow a high level of productivity, alone make it obsolete. 

I see another force of the last few decades: religious fundamentalism. Before one ascribes this strictly to Islam, one need remember that America has plenty of people would like to transform America into a Christian version of Iran.  Women would of course submit to men, abortion would be outlawed; schools would promote young-earth creationism as historical and scientific truth; religious authorities would wax rich while getting away with incredible corruption. (Iran is one of the most corrupt societies on Earth, the regime-connected ayatollahs getting rich by confiscating property of dissidents who want to leave Iran).


Super-correct on our current globalism being a plutocracy. Hence, you get the populist revolts among the electorates. Interestingly, the left-leaning parties are now in favor of plutocracy, globalism, elitism, whereas right-leaning parties embrace the populism to end the globalist-elitist system. Btw Islamic Terrorism (largely sponsored by Iran) is the Muslim version of globalism - one size of religion and lifestyle to be imposed on all. The other two versions are the Western-liberalist and the Chinese-economic ("belt and road") globalism.

Towards the 1T we can expect conservative religious views to dominate. The roles of men and women will separate mightily from where they are now - women nurture and men earn (acc. to the book). Women will stay at home and raise (many) children, men will earn the dough. You mentioned Hungary - it's a model for this. Around 2010 the birthrate in Hungary was 1.1 and it had significant emigration on top. Ten years into nationalist populist government, the birthrate is at 1.6, marriages are up 43%, divorces down 23% and abortions almost eliminated. Hungary now is a net-immigration country attractive for all Westerners (they refuse refugees as we know). Seriously, if ever there was a successful turnaround this is the poster child. The policies massively favor traditional marriage and childbirth. For example, you are exempt from income tax for life by child #4 (as working or middle class). How about that…

You are young, Generational? A new poster, and new to the world? Welcome. I agree with fellow boomer Brower though. The right remains the upholder of both plutocracy, and the social conservatism you appear to favor. No, both will decline in the next decade. Most younger people can see through the veil. Trump is an oligarchist, not a populist, and so are Bolsonaro, LeFey, Johnson, Morrison, Deterte, Steve Bannon, and all the other Trump clones. Phony populists supporting "classical liberalism" (now known as neo-liberalism), and putting it on steroids. Trump may be correct on one issue, being against the libertarian trade policies, although he carries it out poorly in every way, but you can't elevate that one issue into an entire populist program. The rest of it is pure Reagan-Bush-Thatcher, and pure Hayek, Mises, Friedman and Rand. Tax cuts for the rich, and gutting the administrative state that protects us from the oligarchs and their exploitation and abuse of workers, consumers, the environment and the economic system.

The corona virus is bringing back what is needed, the administrative state and quasi-socialism, at least for a little while, and I hope it's permanent, and that it expands. We need to rein in the oligarchs and depose Reaganomics and social conservatism forever. That way, we may be able to arrive at a proper balance, a mixed state of smaller capitalism, socialism, tradition, and freedom.

I wish I was younger  Smile but we may disagree on this - the future looks to me socially conservative and fiscally liberal  Wink
I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.
Is there anything that could explain why Generation Z is even more socially liberal than previous generations?

With people like Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids, I just don't see that happening.
Reply
#80
(04-12-2020, 06:50 PM)Generational Wrote: I see us moving away from socialism towards populism, away from fascism towards nationalism and away from classical liberalism including the current form of globalist-elitism PC-ism to traditionalism. The last of the three moves may be perceived as the biggest difference. This is either withheld in the media or demonized, but nothing can stop it. Btw this is nothing but Strauss/Howe orthodoxy and how they describe the social mood in a 1T. If you postulate anything different you do not follow the generational theory. Not a problem, but it's not Strauss/Howe generational theory of history then. Plus, it stares you right into the eyes in the many and growing examples you mentioned.

What do you see as the difference between fascism and nationalism?  To me, nationalism is a broader category, but fascism is a subset, so I'm having trouble envisioning a move away from fascism that's toward nationalism.

Then again, I don't see us as very close to fascism now, so I guess that's another reason to understand what you're trying to say there.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "Climax" year of each turning Ghost 99 12,175 06-08-2020, 05:30 AM
Last Post: Isoko

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)