I've been looking at another BBC drama (of more recent vintage than the 1970s) concerning the reign of Charles II. The two Turnings he's ruling in are quite distinctively a Third Turning with Charles' return (all the characters line up quite well as Charles' mother is quite obviously a Prophet, Charles himself a lustful but very pragmatic Nomad, and there's other examples of Prophets and Nomads to be found throughout this series) and a very early Crisis as Charles himself comes off as a Nomad... and what's more this gives us an intriguing study of what Nomads do when leading through a Crisis. (I know Pat will disagree with me that this isn't a 4T)

Charles II had the "Popish Plot" to diffuse and there were several turns that he could've made which would've led to open rebellion and another civil war, but he managed to steer clear.

My posit is simply this, that perhaps when Nomads govern us through a Crisis, that their pragmatism and caution stifles the 4Ting and softens its blow?

Here is the first part of the four part Mini-Series:



~Chas'88

Oh, yes, Charles II was pure Nomad.Other Nomads leading through Crisis: Elizabeth I and George Washington. But I draw a blank on any others. Anyone?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Oh, yes, Charles II was pure Nomad.Other Nomads leading through Crisis: Elizabeth I and George Washington. But I draw a blank on any others. Anyone?

Currently you could possibly count Obama. I wouldn't put Washington as leading us through a Crisis, but being a leader of the Crisis perhaps?

~Chas'88

The last two crisises were lead by prophets and they were the bloodiest friggen things ever might lend some weight to this.

This is not to say that there are some Nomads who aren't themselves not suited for the reigns of leadership during a Crisis--one think of only Hitler or Stalin to find those examples--but hopefully they be but a few.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Oh, yes, Charles II was pure Nomad.Other Nomads leading through Crisis: Elizabeth I and George Washington. But I draw a blank on any others. Anyone?

Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Juan Peròn, Ion Antonescu, Jozef Pilsudski and Francisco Franco to name a few... basically every Fascist you can think of.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This is not to say that there are some Nomads who aren't themselves not suited for the reigns of leadership during a Crisis--one think of only Hitler or Stalin to find those examples--but hopefully they be but a few.

~Chas'88

Again, Stalin was born in 1878 and therefore couldn't technically be considered a Reactive.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Again, Stalin was born in 1878 and therefore couldn't technically be considered a Reactive.

He was born in 1878 in Georgia. Different turnings-timing. He could have been an early-wave Nomad. Though I can just as easily imagine his reign as what happens when a Prophet holds on too long.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

He was born in 1878 in Georgia. Different turnings-timing.

Only according to a private theory that I admit is held by many on this site. But where does Neill Howe stand in regards to an independent cycle for Russia?

Though I can just as easily imagine his reign as what happens when a Prophet holds on too long.

Are you referring to Lenin and the Bolshevik terror?

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Only according to a private theory that I admit is held by many on this site. But where does Neill Howe stand in regards to an independent cycle for Russia?

Who cares? He's never been there or dealt with their society on any more than a fifth-hand basis (although it is worth pointing out that he's definitely on-board with the idea that turning timings don't necessarily line up among different societies).

Primary sources, man. They're the thing.

Are you referring to Lenin and the Bolshevik terror?

Nah, I'm thinking of the early days of Stalin's reign, around the time he was having Kirov (an indisputable Reactive) whacked. The Bolshevik Terror was more of a "timely" thing than a held-on-too-long. Classic 4T. Lenin left the game right about at the right time.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Juan Peròn, Ion Antonescu, Jozef Pilsudski and Francisco Franco to name a few... basically every Fascist you can think of.

So are you saying Washington and Elisabeth were the exceptions to the rule or are you saying they are fascists as well?

Originally Posted by Yorick's Skull

So are you saying Washington and Elisabeth were the exceptions to the rule or are you saying they are fascists as well?

Washington, Charles II, Elizabeth I.

To look at the evidence... both Charlie and Liz are bad examples (if you look at the latter end of their reigns) as both had to eventually resort to stringent authoritarian actions. Heck, even Washington went "that way" in the end as well (or should we not talk about his putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?). Perhaps the best way to put this is that the Nomads who get it wrong--are oppressive from the first. While Nomads who get the good press of "getting it right"--are oppressive at the last.

Charlie worked with Parliament for as long as he could, but closed Parliament when they continued to get uppity and were sticking their noses in trying to establish who would succeed after him. This was a point of principle that Charlie wasn't going to budge on. His daddy had been killed by Parliament which had usurped plenty of power in doing so, so it was a personal matter to him, that he wouldn't give Parliament this right, though I believe he expected it to be taken by Parliament shortly after his death--but the principle he stood by was that he wasn't going to be the one to allow them to take it. He also wasn't going to allow them to hang every Catholic in England--though Parliament wanted to. He instead insisted on religious toleration. Which again, Parliament didn't really want to hear about as they were too busy listening to a guy who went on and on about how there was a "Popish plot" to kill the Protestant king (the plot included the Queen, who was a Portuguese Catholic by birth). I mean, sure you could blame Charlie for being "unreasonable" about letting Parliament do everything they wanted, but keep in mind they wanted to make Catholics second-rate citizens and he starts to look a little nicer there.

As for Liz--or "Good Queen Bess"--I think it's safe to say that after so many assassination attempts you start to get a little paranoid for a good reason. Her police state had odd rules to be sure--but they usually had their rhyme or reason (such as not wearing cloaks at court so her men could reach their swords faster to protect her in case of assassination), and of course there was the wool monopoly her kingdom maintained for the "sake of the economy"--speaking of which there was a law in Liz's time that everyone had to wear a wooly hat on Sundays in order to "support the wool trade" for the "sake of the economy". Sure you can blame Liz for being rather horrible, but keep in mind that there were a lot of people who actually did want her dead. She was #1 on the Pope's hit list since the Pope actually made it so that it wasn't a sin to kill her--don't know how he arranged that with God, but whatevski. And of course the security and safety of the English Wool Trade was the basis of the economy, so black market dealers (like that notorious John Shakespeare, father of one William) had to be put down--for the sake of the economy.

As for Washington, he'd lived and breathed to see the establishment of two governments for America (one ramshackle one during the war, another immediately there after that fell apart because no one could agree) and was on its third attempt, of which he was the head of. He wasn't going to see it fail and flounder simply because a couple of country bumpkins had little-to-no concept of money and traded in Whiskey--and so a tax on Whiskey was almost incomprehensible to them. He was going to do what he had to do for the sake of the country: put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Keep in mind that a Crisis is a time when everyone has "gone mad" and the populace is baying for blood of some kind. Anyone who can keep a bridle on that irrational passion with good "common sense" usually comes out looking rather good to historians. There comes a point in a Crisis/early High that for the country's "best interest" giving in to every whine or whim of the public becomes irresponsible and not to mention impossible without it completely descending into chaos and so actions are "taken" to ensure that the nonsense ends once and for all. It's when Nomad leaders finally take the step up into evolving into what they'll be for the High: Authoritarians. Because how can they ensure that this mess is properly "dealt with" if there's still "hangers on" who keep wallowing in the mud? A world of chaos, that's no place for their Artist children to come of age in! No, no, no--it shall be dealt with!

But IMO we need Nomads to be in power at the very least by the latter end of the Crisis, if for no other reason than that decision to be made. If Nomads consistently hold back on the leash they might stifle and suffocate any genuine reform movement, this is true. However, if they let "just enough" reform through, while still keeping the dogs at bay, they might be able to come out rather well with regards to establishing a High that's reasonably decent, and that gives them good press in the history books thereafter. IMO that's why having Prophet/Nomad cuspers usually turn out all right (because they let just enough reform through--without letting the chickens flying the coup completely). But you can't always be sure of getting a Prophet/Nomad leader, in which case, a core Nomad works as a back up if tempered with a very good Prophet adviser--a la: William Cecil & Good Queen Bess, and one could argue Ben Franklin for Washington perhaps...

It also of course helps if said Nomads aren't part of the "frothing mad" whims, but distinguishing that is another matter entirely.

~Chas'88

If Washington gets a leadership credit, Patton deserves one. He's as much the crisis lead as Washington was, and I knew some WWII vets who served under Patton and they revered him way more than FDR, even while making them do some awful stuff.

Originally Posted by Yorick's Skull

So are you saying Washington and Elisabeth were the exceptions to the rule or are you saying they are fascists as well?

No, I'm merely pointing out how many leadership characters in the last 4T were actually Nomads, since The Grey Badger had a hard time coming up with any.

That said, Losts worldwide seem to have had a certain affinity for Fascism and related phenomena, such as authoritarianism and right wing revolutionary ideology at large or even isolationist America Firstism. How much this constituted a generational rebellion against supposedly Missionary dominated left wing/internationalist/utopian movements seems to pose an interesting question.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nah, I'm thinking of the early days of Stalin's reign, around the time he was having Kirov (an indisputable Reactive) whacked. The Bolshevik Terror was more of a "timely" thing than a held-on-too-long. Classic 4T. Lenin left the game right about at the right time.

Yes, the sketchy file I have on Kirov (b. 1886) does make him look like a blueprint of the Nomad thug, a ruthless and efficient killer.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Washington, Charles II, Elizabeth I.

To look at the evidence... both Charlie and Liz are bad examples (if you look at the latter end of their reigns) as both had to eventually resort to stringent authoritarian actions. Heck, even Washington went "that way" in the end as well (or should we not talk about his putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?). Perhaps the best way to put this is that the Nomads who get it wrong--are oppressive from the first. While Nomads who get the good press of "getting it right"--are oppressive at the last.

Charlie worked with Parliament for as long as he could, but closed Parliament when they continued to get uppity and were sticking their noses in trying to establish who would succeed after him. This was a point of principle that Charlie wasn't going to budge on. His daddy had been killed by Parliament which had usurped plenty of power in doing so, so it was a personal matter to him, that he wouldn't give Parliament this right, though I believe he expected it to be taken by Parliament shortly after his death--but the principle he stood by was that he wasn't going to be the one to allow them to take it. He also wasn't going to allow them to hang every Catholic in England--though Parliament wanted to. He instead insisted on religious toleration. Which again, Parliament didn't really want to hear about as they were too busy listening to a guy who went on and on about how there was a "Popish plot" to kill the Protestant king (the plot included the Queen, who was a Portuguese Catholic by birth). I mean, sure you could blame Charlie for being "unreasonable" about letting Parliament do everything they wanted, but keep in mind they wanted to make Catholics second-rate citizens and he starts to look a little nicer there.

As for Liz--or "Good Queen Bess"--I think it's safe to say that after so many assassination attempts you start to get a little paranoid for a good reason. Her police state had odd rules to be sure--but they usually had their rhyme or reason (such as not wearing cloaks at court so her men could reach their swords faster to protect her in case of assassination), and of course there was the wool monopoly her kingdom maintained for the "sake of the economy"--speaking of which there was a law in Liz's time that everyone had to wear a wooly hat on Sundays in order to "support the wool trade" for the "sake of the economy". Sure you can blame Liz for being rather horrible, but keep in mind that there were a lot of people who actually did want her dead. She was #1 on the Pope's hit list since the Pope actually made it so that it wasn't a sin to kill her--don't know how he arranged that with God, but whatevski. And of course the security and safety of the English Wool Trade was the basis of the economy, so black market dealers (like that notorious John Shakespeare, father of one William) had to be put down--for the sake of the economy.

As for Washington, he'd lived and breathed to see the establishment of two governments for America (one ramshackle one during the war, another immediately there after that fell apart because no one could agree) and was on its third attempt, of which he was the head of. He wasn't going to see it fail and flounder simply because a couple of country bumpkins had little-to-no concept of money and traded in Whiskey--and so a tax on Whiskey was almost incomprehensible to them. He was going to do what he had to do for the sake of the country: put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Keep in mind that a Crisis is a time when everyone has "gone mad" and the populace is baying for blood of some kind. Anyone who can keep a bridle on that irrational passion with good "common sense" usually comes out looking rather good to historians. There comes a point in a Crisis/early High that for the country's "best interest" giving in to every whine or whim of the public becomes irresponsible and not to mention impossible without it completely descending into chaos and so actions are "taken" to ensure that the nonsense ends once and for all. It's when Nomad leaders finally take the step up into evolving into what they'll be for the High: Authoritarians. Because how can they ensure that this mess is properly "dealt with" if there's still "hangers on" who keep wallowing in the mud? A world of chaos, that's no place for their Artist children to come of age in! No, no, no--it shall be dealt with!

But IMO we need Nomads to be in power at the very least by the latter end of the Crisis, if for no other reason than that decision to be made. If Nomads consistently hold back on the leash they might stifle and suffocate any genuine reform movement, this is true. However, if they let "just enough" reform through, while still keeping the dogs at bay, they might be able to come out rather well with regards to establishing a High that's reasonably decent, and that gives them good press in the history books thereafter. IMO that's why having Prophet/Nomad cuspers usually turn out all right (because they let just enough reform through--without letting the chickens flying the coup completely). But you can't always be sure of getting a Prophet/Nomad leader, in which case, a core Nomad works as a back up if tempered with a very good Prophet adviser--a la: William Cecil & Good Queen Bess, and one could argue Ben Franklin for Washington perhaps...

It also of course helps if said Nomads aren't part of the "frothing mad" whims, but distinguishing that is another matter entirely.

~Chas'88

So Midlife Nomad Authoritarianism can be summed up as "Hey, stop this BS!"?

Originally Posted by Odin

So Midlife Nomad Authoritarianism can be summed up as "Hey, stop this BS!"?

Sure, I'd say in some cases--but in others (Hitler and such) it might simply be an organizing and codification of the "BS". I think it depends upon how "damaged" the specific Nomad has been.

As for why the European Lost seemed enamored of Fascism--for that one has to blame them actually experiencing the horrors of WWI--it made them come back as radicals. Because it was the old Romantic assumptions and Humanism that supposedly "sent them of to glorious war and fight the noble cause" to begin with, and made a lot of them come back feeling inhuman.

~Chas'88

I always saw Nomadic authoritarianism as a matter of efficiency. You know who the boss is, what they expect of you, and you push through the obstacles. And yeah, you trample people in the way because, well, they're in the way of something you need done.

Nice? Absolutely not. Necessary? When it's done for a Just Cause, yes. When it's not it's disasterous.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I always saw Nomadic authoritarianism as a matter of efficiency. You know who the boss is, what they expect of you, and you push through the obstacles. And yeah, you trample people in the way because, well, they're in the way of something you need done.

Nice? Absolutely not. Necessary? When it's done for a Just Cause, yes. When it's not it's disasterous.

^^^ Agreed on this, Kepi. Very succinctly and efficiently put.

~Chas'88

That's not a list of nomads, that's a list of sociopaths. Sociopaths do not have an archetype; they do not have personalities that are molded by life. They have a single shared archetypal 'personality'. The fact that civilizations exhibit periodic spikes where sociopathic dominance becomes manifest seems to be the way of the human world. This exists outside of S&H's theory (hypothesis?).

Due to massification of society after the industrial revolution, these sociopath waves were quite large and resulted in mass slaughter. This will continue until humans evolve past them. But it's par for the course to see the blame being laid on a scapegoat, in this case nomads. Sociopaths rarely face the consequences of their mischief, which is what allows the cycle to continue.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

That's not a list of nomads, that's a list of sociopaths. Sociopaths do not have an archetype; they do not have personalities that are molded by life. They have a single shared archetypal 'personality'. The fact that civilizations exhibit periodic spikes where sociopathic dominance becomes manifest seems to be the way of the human world. This exists outside of S&H's theory (hypothesis?).

Due to massification of society after the industrial revolution, these sociopath waves were quite large and resulted in mass slaughter. This will continue until humans evolve past them. But it's par for the course to see the blame being laid on a scapegoat, in this case nomads. Sociopaths rarely face the consequences of their mischief, which is what allows the cycle to continue.

My list?

Yeah, one does not have to like those guys, but the truth is they were Nomads and they were leading in a Crisis. To call them "sociopaths" (how do you know?) and try disregard them simply because one does not agree with their politics or worldview does not change this fact a single bit. Such an approach would simply be unscientific.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I always saw Nomadic authoritarianism as a matter of efficiency. You know who the boss is, what they expect of you, and you push through the obstacles. And yeah, you trample people in the way because, well, they're in the way of something you need done.

Nice? Absolutely not. Necessary? When it's done for a Just Cause, yes. When it's not it's disasterous.

Thought experiment. A dictator of an Anglo Saxon country who is in the vein of Cromwell, who rises during the early to mid 21st Century. His or her values are informed by all the great Western thinkers, he or she has vast respect for the concept of Monarchy, yet does not oppose a return to republican democracy per se, and is motivated by love of country. Ego-less dictatorship. Would it be so wrong?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Thought experiment. A dictator of an Anglo Saxon country who is in the vein of Cromwell, who rises during the early to mid 21st Century. His or her values are informed by all the great Western thinkers, he or she has vast respect for the concept of Monarchy, yet does not oppose a return to republican democracy per se, and is motivated by love of country. Ego-less dictatorship. Would it be so wrong?

IIRC, Julius Caesar seemed to be operating in that mode, or thought he was - or claimed he was. The way to tell is if he lays down his dictatorship and retires into private life after the crisis which brought him into power is over. And the one dictator I know of who did that also used purges and proscriptions as a money-raising device. ("He was executed for his villa in Tuscany.")

@XYOMX

I don't feel it would be. If you've got an astute, responsive, intelligent ruler who is looking out for the best of society and is effective in his pursuits to do so, it might be preferable in many instances to representative democracy or even direct democracy, depending on the situation. Also, for the average person, I don't think that the effect would be that much different from now.

Usually the preference to a democratic government arises only in eras of massive economic expansion. In eras with very limited expansion, directed governance becomes much more preferable, because society is going to be more or less the same when you die as when you were born. You don't need to have a lot of say because there's not a need for a bunch of new laws or new oversights. Things get crazy when you go through some major economic advances and new stuff starts cropping up.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Sure, I'd say in some cases--but in others (Hitler and such) it might simply be an organizing and codification of the "BS". I think it depends upon how "damaged" the specific Nomad has been.

As for why the European Lost seemed enamored of Fascism--for that one has to blame them actually experiencing the horrors of WWI--it made them come back as radicals. Because it was the old Romantic assumptions and Humanism that supposedly "sent them of to glorious war and fight the noble cause" to begin with, and made a lot of them come back feeling inhuman.

~Chas'88

But... Spain, not a participant in WWI, went fascist. Neither Britain nor at the least the Czech part of Czechoslovakia had a powerful fascist movement. The British Union of Fascists and National Socialists was more offensive than menacing.

Among European participants in WWI (aside from Russia, in which any form of opposition to the Bolsheviks was quickly snuffed out) and arguably Turkey almost all had some strong fascist movement that eventually took power from the inside. Even France came close in 1934 with the Cagoulards, and the swift fall of the Third French Republic was possible in part because of defeatists who thought that they could get a good deal with Hitler.

Could it be that survivors got too many concussive effects upon their heads, weakening the centers of the brain that guide conscience, during the war? Could it be that the carnage of war promotes sociopathic behavior by numbing people to empathy? Lead in the drink and victuals?