Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The angst-ridden "Gen X" (in quotes for a reason) culture has its analogy in the "Lost Generation". The Great Gatsby is a good example of Nomad art that resembles Xer art in the 90s. The gangsters of the Prohibition era have their analogy in the gangsta rap of the 90s. All of that going on in tandem with a booming economy and a technological explosion. Then it all came to a screeching halt on 9/11. The fact that some of it lingered means nothing, unless you want to make the Unraveling (or the Awakening) 30 years long. If the Unraveling started in the late 80s-early 90s, then it could have ended in 2008. But that means the Awakening lasted 25-30 years.

The earliest Millenials turned 18 in 2000. It all lines up. The only thing that doesn't line up is a left wing fantasy repeat of the 1930s, FDR and the New Deal. Which is why this board is so resistant to the obvious reality that the 4T started in 2000/2001. If there is any validity to S&H at all, which there may not be.

All of these things happened in a two year window:

1. The Y2K scare.
2. The crash of the .com bubble.
3. Bush v. Gore election, decided by the courts.
4. 9/11.

The 1980s and 1990s very clearly (to those who remember both) represent one era, marked by economic expansion, relative peace internationally, and growing American influence. The 00s and this new decade clearly represent another, marked by chaos, instability, and economic disaster. The farther you get from this forum and the endless games of mulling minutiae to come up with some new twist on the same subject, the clearer it is that what I've said is true.

That said, there are never perfect 1-to-1 analogies. There is no real analogy for WWI in this saeculum, either in the Awakening or the Unraveling. The post-9/11 wars are too late, Viet Nam is too early, and the first Persian Gulf War, while timed correctly, is too insignificant. However, that war does have the virtue of being a foreshadowing of the later war in Iraq, as WWI foreshadowed WWII.

Hehe, if you're an Xer, you can even watch the 1974 movie version of The Great Gatsby and get uncomfortable flashbacks to your own youth if you happened to spend it in the 90's: the insidious triangles, the overwrought sensitivity, the delusions and falsehoods underpinning it all. Oh, the drama! Though maybe that's true to young adults everywhere in any generation. Nevertheless, I still don't think the 90's rhymes well with the 20's.
For example, the 80's were not least characterized by a great elation of having escaped the Awakening's tyranny of rectitude. Champagne and neon lights were in, liberation movements and unisex were out. This giddy atmosphere has a parallel in the hectic craving for "fun" in the 20's, following and bandaging over the horrors of WWI, when even the early decade rapid inflation crisis, the revolutions and counter revolutions and marches on Rome, managed to keep a kind of clear, lighthearted panache and romanticism to it. It's also true of the stock market, which during the 20's as well as in the 80's (up to 1987), and in contrast to the 90's, when we all were forced to participate through institutionalized mandatory Reaganomics, was something people actually believed in, naively to be sure, and which was associated with luxury and fashion. It could only go up, up, UP! It was a whole new era!
The 90's were nothing like that. It was heavy going and ugly in outlook, and in the vacuum left in its soul, a number of Awakening pathologies, like radical feminism, politically correct multiculturalism and obstinate tree hugging anarcho-environmentalism, were able to crawl back in, entrench themselves and take over. How the hell did we allow that to happen? In part probably because we were all suffering from Cobain fatigue and the dizziness evoked by the opening vistas following the Fall of the Wall, which led to an enormous drop in life force and cultural tension. In the 80's, you could party like it was 1999, yet when 1999 actually arrived, everyone was too burnt out to care. That's why I say the 90's were what the 30's had been, if the Crisis and revitalizing challenges of that decade had not shown up.

I would agree though that the 80's and 90's do probably belong to the same kind of era, namely that of an Unraveling Turning, just divided into two chapters. And so what if this specific Turning happens to be 30 years plus in length? Natural rhythm doesn't beat to the precision of mechanical clockworks. Nevertheless, I might consider said era to have ended at the dawn of the 00's as well, just like you would have it. It's all a matter of argument and perspective. What I won't accept is putting the start of the Unraveling in the mid 80's, which is way too late.

The 80's (1982) - "Ain't we got fun":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-LbvFckptY

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Hehe, if you're an Xer, you can even watch the 1974 movie version of The Great Gatsby and get uncomfortable flashbacks to your own youth if you happened to spend it in the 90's: the insidious triangles, the overwrought sensitivity, the delusions and falsehoods underpinning it all. Oh, the drama! Though maybe that's true to young adults everywhere in any generation. Nevertheless, I still don't think the 90's rhymes well with the 20's.
For example, the 80's were not least characterized by a great elation of having escaped the Awakening's tyranny of rectitude. Champagne and neon lights were in, liberation movements and unisex were out. This giddy atmosphere has a parallel in the hectic craving for "fun" in the 20's, following and bandaging over the horrors of WWI, when even the early decade rapid inflation crisis, the revolutions and counter revolutions and marches on Rome, managed to keep a kind of clear, lighthearted panache and romanticism to it. It's also true of the stock market, which during the 20's as well as in the 80's (up to 1987), and in contrast to the 90's, when we all were forced to participate through institutionalized mandatory Reaganomics, was something people actually believed in, naively to be sure, and which was associated with luxury and fashion. It could only go up, up, UP! It was a whole new era!

I can't say how things looked from Sweden, but S&H does purport to be an "Anglo-American" theory primarily. In the U.S., the 80s were, figuratively, a time when John Wayne rode back into town to straighten everything out after it had gotten out of control. It was the last hurrah of the GIs, with a heavy dose of Silent peace-making. What happened in the 90s is that the Boomers took over. Mommy and Daddy had left town, and the kids finally had the keys to the car. That's when the term "Unraveling" really started to make sense. The fact that there was a lot of dark stuff in the culture was an expression of Xer experience and intuition, but none of it was taken seriously.

The 90's were nothing like that. It was heavy going and ugly in outlook, and in the vacuum left in its soul, a number of Awakening pathologies, like radical feminism, politically correct multiculturalism and obstinate tree hugging anarcho-environmentalism, were able to crawl back in, entrench themselves and take over. How the hell did we allow that to happen? In part probably because we were all suffering from Cobain fatigue and the dizziness evoked by the opening vistas following the Fall of the Wall, which led to an enormous drop in life force and cultural tension. In the 80's, you could party like it was 1999, yet when 1999 actually arrived, everyone was too burnt out to care. That's why I say the 90's were what the 30's had been, if the Crisis and revitalizing challenges of that decade had not shown up.

I would agree though that the 80's and 90's do probably belong to the same kind of era, namely that of an Unraveling Turning, just divided into two chapters. And so what if this specific Turning happens to be 30 years plus in length? Natural rhythm doesn't beat to the precision of mechanical clockworks. Nevertheless, I might consider said era to have ended at the dawn of the 00's as well, just like you would have it. It's all a matter of argument and perspective. What I won't accept is putting the start of the Unraveling in the mid 80's, which is way too late.

The 80's (1982) - "Ain't we got fun":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-LbvFckptY

The two things I feel strongest about when it comes to S&H are that the 3T started around 1980, and the 4T around 2001. That view is based on the cultural climate and social outlook, not which politicians were in office.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It was clear Al Qaeda was making actual war on the USA, and had attacked just like Japan did in 1941. It just took a while to get the American military response ready, just as it did then. But we had already declared war on Al Qaeda immediately after the attack. Bush said "they would hear from us," on Sept.12. As for the Afghans, the issue was whether they would turn over the attackers to us. They didn't, so we attacked them.

Very few people believe such a thing. Notice the foreclosures chart; 2005 was not even a blip in that. And the crisis was not even about that, but on the speculation by finance companies in derivatives that went sour. 2005 was an economic upswing. You can deny it I suppose, if you choose. But "concerns beginning to creep in" is not a crisis mood, or a catalyst for one; so not a 4T by the standards of S&H; which seem valid enough.

Al Queda can't declare war. They're not an army. They're a finance group more than anything. Like lobbists, only with bombs instead of lobster. This is why the War on Terror response was decidedly a 3T response.

Now Iraq, that had "descent into 4T" written all over it. That was where we started talking about the cost of the war on terror, that's where divisions started to appear in the 3T's untimely unity, that's where it was announced that the jobs replacing the jobs lost were low quality. There was just no good news. It was dark times, not darkening.

Forclosures were on an upswing in 2005. A mild one, but an upswing. The economy, on the other hand had a wrench in the gears. It wasn't breaking down, but the gears had grinded to a halt. It was there, but it couldn't move forward. Even then an economic upswing can happen in a crisis, if that economic upswing is disasterous. That's exactly where it was. The economy was expanding, and things were going well for the established, the wealthy, and especially the established wealthy. It had turned on the masses.

Totality of the circumstances really says 2003 to me, because the first half of the economic upswing tended to actually put people ahead of the game. 2003 is where people were really starting to get screwed. 2005, however, is clearly crisis. The good times, for the masses, was well done and over by then.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Al Queda can't declare war. They're not an army. They're a finance group more than anything. Like lobbists, only with bombs instead of lobster. This is why the War on Terror response was decidedly a 3T response.

Now Iraq, that had "descent into 4T" written all over it. That was where we started talking about the cost of the war on terror, that's where divisions started to appear in the 3T's untimely unity, that's where it was announced that the jobs replacing the jobs lost were low quality. There was just no good news. It was dark times, not darkening.

Forclosures were on an upswing in 2005. A mild one, but an upswing. The economy, on the other hand had a wrench in the gears. It wasn't breaking down, but the gears had grinded to a halt. It was there, but it couldn't move forward. Even then an economic upswing can happen in a crisis, if that economic upswing is disasterous. That's exactly where it was. The economy was expanding, and things were going well for the established, the wealthy, and especially the established wealthy. It had turned on the masses.

Totality of the circumstances really says 2003 to me, because the first half of the economic upswing tended to actually put people ahead of the game. 2003 is where people were really starting to get screwed. 2005, however, is clearly crisis. The good times, for the masses, was well done and over by then.

The only people who got "screwed" in this downturn are people who were moderately successful and financially responsible before the crash. Wall Street is to blame, but so are all the people who irresponsibly drowned themselves in debt, and so is the government that encouraged the whole thing by keeping interest rates too low and guaranteeing home mortgages.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The only people who got "screwed" in this downturn are people who were moderately successful and financially responsible before the crash. Wall Street is to blame, but so are all the people who irresponsibly drowned themselves in debt, and so is the government that encouraged the whole thing by keeping interest rates too low and guaranteeing home mortgages.

No, we all got screwed and there were none among us who were "successful and responsible", aside from the banks and investors who did the screwing. Everyone has suffered from this aside from those who've made money off it, and I wouldn't count on them making it out of the turning unpunished.

1980-84 was still the awakening. For one thing, there was still no enthusiasm for Reagan's approach to things. The mood was definitely sullen. I don't think there was anyone singing "Ain't We Got Fun" in 1982! On the contrary, it was the worst part of the big recession that had begun in the last years of Carter. The Reagan programs had a dampening effect, and people were not happy with them until they seemed to work well enough for the upper classes that things could get rolling again in the overall economy after 1983-- although most people never shared in the economic upturn, and the inequality had set in that was to get worse from those days until today.

The anti-nuclear movements, both against nuclear power and nuclear bombs, were the highlight of the late awakening in the early 1980s. The people were really scared about where the Reagan jingoism was leading, climaxing with the movie "The Day After," a huge national event, and the downing of the Korean Airliner. It was the climax of the peace movement, which was the Awakening's biggest and most characteristic movement. The initial counter-awakening that produced Reagan, Prop.13, the moral majority and yuppiedom can be considered the final expression of the 2T (aka the red awakening).

Culturally, even though disco, and bubblegum music before it, were not nearly as good as the Awakening's best music, they still had melody and rhythm, and the most famous disco songs were by Awakening musicians, and were pretty good (the Bee Gees, Donna Summer). 1984 was the last good year for pop music for years to come. After then, Generation X's negativity and cynicism, and the music industry's concentration under Reagan and even more under Clinton, left pop music with a succession of junk styles. Psychedelic and Classic Rock deteriorated into heavy metal noise, with no redeeming aesthetic whatsoever. Punk rock had already appeared, but became even more dominant in the form of new wave, grunge and other boring styles. The Awakening's soul music and motown fell into musical oblivion as rap and hip-hop, and bubblegum was periodically revised until it steadied into the form of the manufactured pop that dominated and ruined pop music in the late 90s and 00s. Now in the 4T (since late 2008), thanks to you tube and other social media, the people are circumventing the corporate media machine, and millies are making music for themselves that they actually enjoy listening to, and in this boomer's opinion at least, is worth listening to. 2012 was the best year in pop music since at least 1984.

Movies are harder for me to discuss. I think there were some classics at the turn of the 2/3T, such as ET and Gandhi, and since then I'd say the genre has been increasingly dominated by blockbusters with lots of special effects and chase scenes. That doesn't mean there weren't some good movies made in the 3T though. Star Wars started a trend of epic hero fantasies like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix and Harry Potter. I don't know if there is any indication of a 4T cinema.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Movies are harder for me to discuss. I think there were some classics at the turn of the 2/3T, such as ET and Gandhi, and since then I'd say the genre has been increasingly dominated by blockbusters with lots of special effects and chase scenes. That doesn't mean there weren't some good movies made in the 3T though. Star Wars started a trend of epic hero fantasies like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix and Harry Potter. I don't know if there is any indication of a 4T cinema.

4T Cinema? That's easy to detect.

Remaking old films with "new/improved" technology and techniques and pushing the bar on technical aspects of film making. Also, just remakes in general. The 1930s and 1940s frequently featured remakes of Silent films from the 1920s. Now we remake (or "re-release") films from the late 1990s and early 2000s (re-releasing Titanic and The Lion King in 3D & remaking the Spider-Man series with: The Amazing Spider-Man). The films that stand out as original (in terms of story and plot) from the 1930s like Citizen Kane and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, stand out for a reason--just like The Social Network and Black Swan stand out for a reason, as welcome exceptions to the environment. Also in the 1930s there were a lot of "filming" of popular plays (Cavalcade, Ah Wilderness!, Pygmalion, etc.), which I'd count as "reusing already tried and tested material" or otherwise known as: "remaking" something.

Stories become simpler and less complex--what will essentially put butts in the seats and get people out there to see the films. The technical side of film making experiences a well-needed overhaul. Both the 1930s and the 2010s (thus far) share that. Think about the film San Francisco (1936), where the film makers managed to replicate what experiencing the 1906 Earthquake was actually like. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) sucks on a story and character level--but in terms of technology, it's groundbreaking. Also how The Wizard of Oz (1939) showed off the still somewhat new technology which brought color to film.

Similarly now, what was the film The Hobbit (2012) about? Nobody except the true Tolkien geeks care that it's rather a not great film with Deus Ex Eagles in it--because everyone's talking about whether 48 frames per second make a film better or worse than the traditional 24 frames per second.

The 2000s? To some degree there were a few "4T" aspects to film, but not a lot.

Late 3Ting cinema begins to turn its attention to updating the technology of film making, but they do so in a Blockbuster and epic manner doing things such as Metropolis (1927) and The Lord of the Rings (2001 - 2003).

~Chas'88

ETA: Links provided for Eric's ease and perusal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

1980-84 was still the awakening. For one thing, there was still no enthusiasm for Reagan's approach to things. The mood was definitely sullen. I don't think there was anyone singing "Ain't We Got Fun" in 1982! On the contrary, it was the worst part of the big recession that had begun in the last years of Carter. The Reagan programs had a dampening effect, and people were not happy with them until they seemed to work well enough for the upper classes that things could get rolling again in the overall economy after 1983-- although most people never shared in the economic upturn, and the inequality had set in that was to get worse from those days until today.

The anti-nuclear movements, both against nuclear power and nuclear bombs, were the highlight of the late awakening in the early 1980s. The people were really scared about where the Reagan jingoism was leading, climaxing with the movie "The Day After," a huge national event, and the downing of the Korean Airliner. It was the climax of the peace movement, which was the Awakening's biggest and most characteristic movement. The initial counter-awakening that produced Reagan, Prop.13, the moral majority and yuppiedom can be considered the final expression of the 2T (aka the red awakening).

Culturally, even though disco, and bubblegum music before it, were not nearly as good as the Awakening's best music, they still had melody and rhythm, and the most famous disco songs were by Awakening musicians, and were pretty good (the Bee Gees, Donna Summer). 1984 was the last good year for pop music for years to come. After then, Generation X's negativity and cynicism, and the music industry's concentration under Reagan and even more under Clinton, left pop music with a succession of junk styles. Psychedelic and Classic Rock deteriorated into heavy metal noise, with no redeeming aesthetic whatsoever. Punk rock had already appeared, but became even more dominant in the form of new wave, grunge and other boring styles. The Awakening's soul music and motown fell into musical oblivion as rap and hip-hop, and bubblegum was periodically revised until it steadied into the form of the manufactured pop that dominated and ruined pop music in the late 90s and 00s. Now in the 4T (since late 2008), thanks to you tube and other social media, the people are circumventing the corporate media machine, and millies are making music for themselves that they actually enjoy listening to, and in this boomer's opinion at least, is worth listening to. 2012 was the best year in pop music since at least 1984.

Movies are harder for me to discuss. I think there were some classics at the turn of the 2/3T, such as ET and Gandhi, and since then I'd say the genre has been increasingly dominated by blockbusters with lots of special effects and chase scenes. That doesn't mean there weren't some good movies made in the 3T though. Star Wars started a trend of epic hero fantasies like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix and Harry Potter. I don't know if there is any indication of a 4T cinema.

Heh, the usual amnesia from the Boom left. You might have thought the Awakening was still on because quite frankly, you were behind the times. You should have asked Thatcher's soldiers returning on the warships from the Falklands, doing an historical re-enactment of the WWII homecoming, whether the mood of that period was "Awakening" or not.

The peace movement of the early 80's was living in its own existential bubble, acting as a refuge for Awakening left wingers who had seen every other liberal issue crash and burn during the 70's, but yes, as institutionalized and organized idealism goes, it was big enough to matter. It mattered in the same way the temperance movement mattered during the Great Power Saeculum 3T upon pushing through Prohibition, that is, essentially out of step with the mood of society and to the nuisance of the young, its moralistic banners covering up the idealism's lack of touch with or comprehension of reality. For such is the fate of Awakening causes as they transform into the 3T. They organize, institutionalize and grow a hard shell, and, as the avenues of opportunity open up for maturing Prophets, generally become part of the establishment power apparatus one way or the other.
The peace movement in the early 80's 3T was like that, it acted as the last refuge of the fossilized remains of the Awakening and as a bridge of some into the corridors of power.

I don't recall the mood of the early 80's as "sullen", yet of course it might have felt like that to a bunch of bitter old hippies. Being released from the Awakening was a rejuvenating and healing experience, probably much to society as a whole. The feeling was adventuresome and almost a bit like spring. Whether economical woes or Armageddon waiting around the corner, it didn't matter. Within a year, girls were getting curly hairdos and British synth pop filled the airwaves; life was returning to normal.

In pop culture, the period not least sounded like this (1980):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9WdUgn0XkU

Or this (1982):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA_5a0miWk

Awakening? I think not.

Couple things... Firstly, punk rock began in the awakening, The Ramones formed in 74, The Damned in 76, The Clash in 76. It was Xer fueled, but initially it was Boomer fronted. Joe Strummer, Joey Ramone, and Jonny Rotten were all born in the mid 50's.

Once Xers started taking over, there was a marked difference in the music (so much so they called it Hardcore instead of punk), which at first was a more stylistic difference than a genric one (but eventually found a stylistic point to hammer home). One key difference was the changing relationship with women and punk rock. By 80 they'd almost all gone goth, gone new wave, or gone home. That Xer take over and feminine disinterest in punk rock? 1980ish. Almost smack on the nose.

Now, that died a quick death, and by 83 or 84 punk rock was entirely musically irrelevant. It had a strong core of diehards to keep the scene alive during it's transitionary phase, and there was a musical rejuvination in the scene that began in 85 in DC, and 87 in both the East Bay and Seattle and these styles did dominate the 90's through about 2002, but they didn't start growing until about 1990, and they didn't start breaking into the mainstream until about 1992.

Also to build off what Chas was saying, take a look at 2005's top grossing movies. I think it pretty clearly fits the bill in terms of crisis era movie making. Also, to build off that horror movies in the form of your classic universal horror creatures started in the early 30's. The zombie and vampire craze started about 2004 with the Dawn of the Dead Remake.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Al Queda can't declare war. They're not an army. They're a finance group more than anything. Like lobbists, only with bombs instead of lobster. This is why the War on Terror response was decidedly a 3T response.

Now Iraq, that had "descent into 4T" written all over it. That was where we started talking about the cost of the war on terror, that's where divisions started to appear in the 3T's untimely unity, that's where it was announced that the jobs replacing the jobs lost were low quality. There was just no good news. It was dark times, not darkening.

Forclosures were on an upswing in 2005. A mild one, but an upswing. The economy, on the other hand had a wrench in the gears. It wasn't breaking down, but the gears had grinded to a halt. It was there, but it couldn't move forward. Even then an economic upswing can happen in a crisis, if that economic upswing is disasterous. That's exactly where it was. The economy was expanding, and things were going well for the established, the wealthy, and especially the established wealthy. It had turned on the masses.

Totality of the circumstances really says 2003 to me, because the first half of the economic upswing tended to actually put people ahead of the game. 2003 is where people were really starting to get screwed. 2005, however, is clearly crisis. The good times, for the masses, was well done and over by then.

I still say that the REALLY good times for the masses were over and done shortly after Reagan busted the unions in the early 80's. The rising tide of the 3T did NOT lift all boats the way it seemed to after WWII.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Also to build off what Chas was saying, take a look at 2005's top grossing movies. I think it pretty clearly fits the bill in terms of crisis era movie making. Also, to build off that horror movies in the form of your classic universal horror creatures started in the early 30's. The zombie and vampire craze started about 2004 with the Dawn of the Dead Remake.

Tracking genres gets a little dicey as genres can be made at any time. Technically I'd say that Monster films have been steadily popular for quite some time and in all Turnings--with certain monsters capturing our fantasy at different times than others. It becomes easier to look at the film industry when you examine what the industry focuses on.

In the simplistic of examples film makers focus on content primarially in a 2T, while they'll focus on how they make a film primarially in a 4T. Between those two extremes you have fading in and fading out of content and technology interest.

What's much easier to track is how different generations make films, because each archetype has a noticeable trademark in how they make films and that is repeating, at least it is thus far with regards to the Boomer/Missionary parallel and the Xer/Lost parallel--Millennial/GI parallel is yet to be proven to follow the pattern. Epic excessive emotional "blockbusters" tend to be made in 3Tings by Boomers & Missionaries, while sparce, restrained but honest films tended to be made by GIs in the 1T (less often are they directors than the technicians who are tinkering with new technologies and seeing what they can get away with). Between them you have the Silents who are interested in the "art" of film making who bring a heart to films, and the Xers & Lost who could give a rats ass about how "artsy" something is--they're either in it to make a good buck or produce something of tremendous quality.

Monster films technically didn't start in the 1930s, it was something that had started much earlier, and is largely German in origin. But in the days of Silent film--language did not matter and films were made and released across the world irregardless of language. In fact that was one argument people had against Talkies when they came out, that film would lose its "universality".

The Haunted Castle (1896)
The Infernal Boiling Pot (1903)
Frankenstein (1910)
The Student of Prague (1913)
The Golem (1915)
The Golem and the Dancing Girl (1917)
The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
A Blind Bargain (1922)
Nosferatu (1922)
Waxworks (1924)
The Lost World (1925)
The Cat and the Canary (1927) - considered the cornerstone of Universal Horror films


The 1930s was simply the saturation of them and what most people remember since everyone likes to forget that Silent films existed...

~Chas'88

I agree tracking genre just as genre is inadequate, but tracking popularity of genre has merit. Case in point:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...vies#section_1

If you sort that list by year you'll notice an interesting trend, in that more zombie movies were produced after 2000 that any other time, especially after you get to 2004. This doesn't mean that these are superior zombie movies, it just means that zombies are where the money is percieved to be.

To draw an analogy to punk rock, since the late 70's there have always been punk rock albums, but there were more bands putting out more albums in the mid and late 90's than any other time before. Did any of them touch the level of brilliance that Operation Ivy's album Energy (rel 1989) did? No way! That album is the reason that anyone gave punk rock a passing glance ever again. However, the popularity of punk rock was at it's height in the mid to late 90's.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I still say that the REALLY good times for the masses were over and done shortly after Reagan busted the unions in the early 80's. The rising tide of the 3T did NOT lift all boats the way it seemed to after WWII.

In terms of social mobility you're correct. The 1980's (and really 1970's for inner city folks) saw economic activity that really knocked some rungs out of the ladder that is the American dream.

However, in terms of "being able to pay for things and doing alright compared to where things were in 1990" I think the late 90's-really early 2000's (up until 2002) were there, while 2003 on could be desribed as rising water in a steel room. Sure, you're not drowning, and sure the guy who put you there said he'd open the hatch just before you started to drown, but it doesn't make it a better situation.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

4T Cinema? That's easy to detect.

I thought it was obvious that the point I was making, is that I don't know if there is a new trend in movies in THIS 4T.

The 1930s are irrelevant to the question of whether the 4T started in 2001 or 2008, or whether the Awakening lasted until 1984. My point concerned especially the last question, and I was refuting the opinions of Tussilago and JPT on that.

Which I assume I can continue doing in response to Tussilago's post. But I shall read it first.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Heh, the usual amnesia from the Boom left.

The only folks with a clue!

You might have thought the Awakening was still on because quite frankly, you were behind the times. You should have asked Thatcher's soldiers returning on the warships from the Falklands, doing an historical re-enactment of the WWII homecoming, whether the mood of that period was "Awakening" or not.

Awakeners are always the ones ahead of the times. That's why it's called an awakening! Those who were behind the times, were those in the counter-awakening, and then those who got the 3T going.

The peace movement of the early 80's was living in its own existential bubble, acting as a refuge for Awakening left wingers who had seen every other liberal issue crash and burn during the 70's, but yes, as institutionalized and organized idealism goes, it was big enough to matter. It mattered in the same way the temperance movement mattered during the Great Power Saeculum 3T upon pushing through Prohibition, that is, essentially out of step with the mood of society and to the nuisance of the young, its moralistic banners covering up the idealism's lack of touch with or comprehension of reality. For such is the fate of Awakening causes as they transform into the 3T. They organize, institutionalize and grow a hard shell, and, as the avenues of opportunity open up for maturing Prophets, generally become part of the establishment power apparatus one way or the other.
The peace movement in the early 80's 3T was like that, it acted as the last refuge of the fossilized remains of the Awakening and as a bridge of some into the corridors of power.

That only mattered if the visions of the left boom awakening were translated into actual policies pursued by those who entered power. As far as I can see, they did not. It was the Reagan and Bush crowd who dominated the 3T, with only the interruption of the Clinton folks. The 3T represented simply a reversion to what the Awakening so rightly protested against-- American imperialism, militarism and arrogance.

I don't recall the mood of the early 80's as "sullen", yet of course it might have felt like that to a bunch of bitter old hippies. Being released from the Awakening was a rejuvenating and healing experience, probably much to society as a whole. The feeling was adventuresome and almost a bit like spring. Whether economical woes or Armageddon waiting around the corner, it didn't matter. Within a year, girls were getting curly hairdos and British synth pop filled the airwaves; life was returning to normal.

No-one can help but be sullen in the middle of a virtual economic depression. 1982 was the bottom of it. There is no spring-like feeling in a depression for anybody. Maybe in your right-wing fervour and delusion, you didn't pick up on that little point of fact. Normal, if to be judged by curly hairdos and synth pop, was the normal dysfunction of a blind materialistic crass society that the Awakening showed the way out of. If some of the pop music was sullen too, that's only to be expected. A 3T begins with a burst of confidence in returning to normal.

@ Eric, sincerely thank you. If you'd never mentioned Punk Rock in the context you did, I never would have realized exactly how much of early punk rock (70's and early 80's) was boomer lead. From Joey Ramone to Jello Biafra, it's pretty mind blowing. Even Billy Idol! He was in a band called Generation X... He's a Boomer. Pretty interesting stuff, and maybe something I'll look into later to see if I notice any stylistic patterns or theme differences.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I thought it was obvious that the point I was making, is that I don't know if there is a new trend in movies in THIS 4T.

It was but I was pointing something out to you that I didn't think you were aware of.

The 1930s are irrelevant to the question of whether the 4T started in 2001 or 2008, or whether the Awakening lasted until 1984. My point concerned especially the last question, and I was refuting the opinions of Tussilago and JPT on that.

And I have gotten into enough discussions on that subject that I'm not going to continue like a broken record on it. My post was simply there to provide a nice little detour subject.

Which I assume I can continue doing in response to Tussilago's post. But I shall read it first.

Go right ahead. As I said, my post was a nice little self-contained detour--meant more for your benefit than anyone else's in this thread, though others were welcome to the observations--which some did.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The only folks with a clue!

Awakeners are always the ones ahead of the times. That's why it's called an awakening! Those who were behind the times, were those in the counter-awakening, and then those who got the 3T going.

No, it's called an Awakening because at a given point, people feel so secure they begin to believe they don't need to follow rules and tradition no more so they want to rid themselves of all convention in the quest of a supposedly more genuine, true and "natural" way to exist. Their growing up being so well ordered and simple with adults doing big things seemingly effortlessly, they also begin to believe they can "change the world in one generation". Naturally, as man is a fallen creature, they only delude themselves and when the destruction wrought to society by their hubris is reaching a certain level, the optimistic belief in natural goodness and human potential starts to evaporate in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary and the growing realization that the road to hell is paved by good intentions. What's left is a disintegrated society unable to gather in any particular direction and a jaded and cynical attitude, and that's called a 3T.

That only mattered if the visions of the left boom awakening were translated into actual policies pursued by those who entered power. As far as I can see, they did not. It was the Reagan and Bush crowd who dominated the 3T, with only the interruption of the Clinton folks. The 3T represented simply a reversion to what the Awakening so rightly protested against-- American imperialism, militarism and arrogance.

The Boom Awakening failed to bring about world peace and crush capitalism (the opposite took place), but it succeeded in instituting political correctness as the moral foundation of society, upheld by the silent self-policing techniques of double think, and that's still with us.

No-one can help but be sullen in the middle of a virtual economic depression. 1982 was the bottom of it. There is no spring-like feeling in a depression for anybody. Maybe in your right-wing fervour and delusion, you didn't pick up on that little point of fact. Normal, if to be judged by curly hairdos and synth pop, was the normal dysfunction of a blind materialistic crass society that the Awakening showed the way out of. If some of the pop music was sullen too, that's only to be expected. A 3T begins with a burst of confidence in returning to normal.

It wasn't like anyone was starving, and yes, there can be such a feeling. The economy tanking wasn't that important. The feeling was partly exhilarating. Something like escaping an insane asylum.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

No, it's called an Awakening because at a given point, people feel so secure they begin to believe they don't need to follow rules and tradition no more so they want to rid themselves of all convention in the quest of a supposedly more genuine, true and "natural" way to exist. Their growing up being so well ordered and simple with adults doing big things seemingly effortlessly, they also begin to believe they can "change the world in one generation". Naturally, as man is a fallen creature, they only delude themselves and when the destruction wrought to society by their hubris is reaching a certain level, the optimistic belief in natural goodness and human potential starts to evaporate in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary and the growing realization that the road to hell is paved by good intentions. What's left is a disintegrated society unable to gather in any particular direction and a jaded and cynical attitude, and that's called a 3T.

You can look at it that way; it's quite plausible. It's a conservative view, and I prefer the liberal one that reasonable security opens up new possibilities and spiritual or aesthetic discoveries. And people feel ready to challenge the status quo in ways they did not feel able to before, because a 1T and 4T society is so repressed and conformingly obedient, and has such a narrow view of what life is about.

The Boom Awakening failed to bring about world peace and crush capitalism (the opposite took place), but it succeeded in instituting political correctness as the moral foundation of society, upheld by the silent self policing techniques of double think, and that's still with us.

But that's a rather trivial concern. It is not a big issue, nor a big aspect of our society.

Some boomer leftists wanted to "crush" capitalism, or maybe just a relative few; but the main thrust was to rein in its arrogance in the form of unnecessary wars and pollution. The leaders emerging from the 1T felt spoiled, just as the emerging youth did; they took for granted by the 2T that their established ways would always work without much thought. So they got the nation involved in Vietnam and in more militarism generally, and allowed industry to expand with no check at all. The youth and the liberals spoke out against these MAD excesses, and proposed alternative ideals. Those ideals and visions, and the platforms to enact them, are the true Awakening legacy, along with what was good in the music, art, and spiritual philosophy of the new age and human potential trends. "Human potential" in the Awakening was not just the belief that people could be good, but ideas and practices on how to reach it. Humans don't have to remain fallen creatures; we can improve. That is what happens in Awakenings and their legacies. Our 2T has a great and wonderful legacy; too bad Generation X ignores it.

It wasn't like anyone was starving, and yes, there can be such a feeling. The economy tanking wasn't that important. The feeling was partly exhilarating. Something like escaping an insane asylum.

You do seem indeed to have amnesia. There was no such feeling. The economy was in serious trouble in 1982, and it effected everyone. It was worse than in 1980 when Carter lost. There was no optimism about moving out of the residue of an awakening that had failed to meet expectations until 1984, when the economy seemed to (but did not really) improve. Reagan proved to be a good cheerleader by then, and was excellent at deceiving the people on behalf of his wealthy cleintele. But Reagan was really a shithead, and everyone who voted for him was stupid.

Oh, and the music you posted was certainly sullen and depressing; not exhilarating in the least. I don't know if that's what you meant to show, but it certainly confirmed my point. And as bad as it was, it was better music than what followed in the 3T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That only mattered if the visions of the left boom awakening were translated into actual policies pursued by those who entered power. As far as I can see, they did not. It was the Reagan and Bush crowd who dominated the 3T, with only the interruption of the Clinton folks.

Please note that my reasoning is not restricted to the narrow confines of the America, but relates to the entire enlightened world based in a European tradition of the modern, to which the United States forms only a constituent part.

No-one can help but be sullen in the middle of a virtual economic depression. 1982 was the bottom of it. There is no spring-like feeling in a depression for anybody. Maybe in your right-wing fervour and delusion, you didn't pick up on that little point of fact. Normal, if to be judged by curly hairdos and synth pop, was the normal dysfunction of a blind materialistic crass society that the Awakening showed the way out of.

To tell the truth, being able to escape the oppressive, puritan anti-materialism of the Awakening was to a notable extent what the liberating feeling in the early Unraveling was about. Yes, dances around the golden calf and all that which I reckon a true blooded prophet who has found his way out of Egypt deeply resents.

A 3T begins with a burst of confidence in returning to normal.

It's an interesting statement. Please explain why you think this is necessary.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Please note that my reasoning is not restricted to the narrow confines of the America, but relates to the entire enlightened world based in a European tradition of the modern, to which the United States forms only a constituent part.

Eric's a Californian. Like their close cousin, the New Yorker, these particular Americans are sufficiently provincial and insular that they are unable to appreciate the reality or significance of your point. Further arguing it is a hopeless cause.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Eric's a Californian. Like their close cousin, the New Yorker, these particular Americans are sufficiently provincial and insular that they are unable to appreciate the reality or significance of your point. Further arguing it is a hopeless cause.

Hehe, let's see what the man says!

Originally Posted by Tussilago

To tell the truth, being able to escape the oppressive, puritan anti-materialism of the Awakening was to a notable extent what the liberating feeling in the early Unraveling was about. Yes, dances around the golden calf and all that which I reckon a true blooded prophet who has found his way out of Egypt deeply resents.

A literal LOL on that one Semo. Well played, very well played.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A 3T begins with a burst of confidence in returning to normal.

This is always one of the things I associate with the 1980s--especially the latter half of the 1980s when there was plenty of references reflecting back to the 1950s floating around. I believe Tussliago linked this video to me before: True Blue. References to the late 50s/early 60s High "Normal" were all over the place: the first few minutes of Adventures in Babysitting is another example. Peggy Sue Got Married takes the concept to its logical conclusion with regards to who's responsible for the entire thing: the late Silents and War Babies.

Here's a link to an interesting abstract of an academic article on the idea.

When I think of the beginning of the Unraveling, I think of society saying "we're gonna turn back the clock before that mess began" and start things over right this time, but this time "we'll fix the problems that led to the mess in the first place". So that our Normal can continue on in existence for forever now that "Happy Days Are Here Again".

~Chas'88