Originally Posted by millennialX

I just came by to say bingo to the above.

Poo on you

Originally Posted by Kepi

C'mon Eric, it's time to face the truth. Not only did Boomers, on average, favor Vietnam more than their parents, with the counter culture generally being a small but noisy contingent at that time... But let's be real here, that small, noisy contingent conveniently became very quiet once they were no longer eligible for selective service. It very much looks like 1) all the way around overly emotional idealists make terrible pacifists, 2) of the minority of anti-war activists, the majority within were rank opportunists, 3) The American government, no matter what subset you speak of, has nothing to offer the normal everyday people that would cause them to do anything from keeping it from getting crushed and that is entirely due to the fact that if a Boomer is managing something, they can't help but turn it into something completely irredeemable. Also, when talking about a 4T lasting into the thirties, all the Boomers will be too old to hold a single power position by then. Even now in 2016, we're pushing it with the ones we have, especially when considering the ramifications of the rapid technological change within our 3T means that even most Xers really don't have the technological background necessary to to hold this place together because they lack the understanding of how the tech actually works. Hell, I'm going back and reintroducing myself to basic networking concepts as they've changed to include a lot more peripherals and components and I used to be very up on my game, and have done at least some programming. People who used to brag about never having sent an e-mail? They don't cut it now, let alone in 15 years? Get real.

EVERYTHING .... is ... a node .... EVERYTHING!!!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK, get real Kepi No, Boomers opposed to the Vietnam War were a vast number, who represent the real Boomers. We nominated McGovern, a process in which I was involved, and McGovern came closest to winning CA than most other states. The stats posted here before showed how liberal core boomers were; just as fully as older millennials in 2008. We weren't small at all. Yes, we ended the draft, but we also ended the war. It took a long time, but we did it. And we protested in great numbers against the overturning of the Vietnam Syndrome by George Bush I. No, we made good pacifists, and we created the ideology of no more war. We opened the spacebridge to Russia, and the Russians used our term. So, we helped end the Cold War too. No, we make good pacifists; the best that have ever existed.

The American government has failed to attract millennial support in full, to the extent that they don't know how to vote in midterms. They vote in presidential elections though, so that proves it is not disillusion with "boomer management" (an obsession of yours only) that caused them not to vote in 2010 and 2014, allowing misrule to fester and deepen, but their own lack of civic skill. They'd rather lounge around and follow football games than to stay informed, stay active and vote. X/Yers like you and Millennials have shown themselves to be slackers when it comes to civic duty. The state is what we the people make it, and nothing else. You do not realize this yet, and you will need to wake up if you are going to wield your power effectively in 2025.

Where did you get that I said the 4T will last into the 2030s? No, I didn't, and no, it won't, but there will be more activism then than in the 1950s, is what I said. Not because Boomers are around, but (I hope) because millennials will be around. And because of the astrological indications, on which I base a lot of my prophecy; not just on what Boomers or Millennials will do or not do.

Millennials like civics in general are tech-obsessed, and think life is about keeping up with it. So be it, but the next prophets are going to throw off this virtual reality and get back to real life, and I wonder what the civic old fogeys will think about that when the time comes.

When the US and coalition started actions to liberate Kuwait, I was living in SoMa, not far from the end of the Bay Bridge. With one eye, I was watching CNN covering ordnance flashes in Baghdad, and with the other eye I was watching a bunch of old burned out hippies plus a number of Xers who were apparently wannabe Boomers, actually walking onto Interstate 80 with their radidical protest drums, and then on out onto the Bay Bridge. They eventually got out of sight. A few minutes later there was the flash of a gasoline explosion followed shortly thereafter by a boom, as a CHP cruiser blew up. At that point, any hold that the 2T revolutionaries might have still had on my heart was lost forever. It was not so much large numbers but really a small number of apparently psychotic individuals.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

When the US and coalition started actions to liberate Kuwait, I was living in SoMa, not far from the end of the Bay Bridge. With one eye, I was watching CNN covering ordnance flashes in Baghdad, and with the other eye I was watching a bunch of old burned out hippies plus a number of Xers who were apparently wannabe Boomers, actually walking onto Interstate 80 with their radidical protest drums, and then on out onto the Bay Bridge. They eventually got out of sight. A few minutes later there was the flash of a gasoline explosion followed shortly thereafter by a boom, as a CHP cruiser blew up. At that point, any hold that the 2T revolutionaries might have still had on my heart was lost forever. It was not so much large numbers but really a small number of apparently psychotic individuals.

Such things frequently happen within any group of otherwise well-behaved protesters.

The point is though that the boomer protests against the Gulf War were large and persistent.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

EVERYTHING .... is ... a node .... EVERYTHING!!!

Have ports, will travel.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK, get real Kepi No, Boomers opposed to the Vietnam War were a vast number, who represent the real Boomers. We nominated McGovern, a process in which I was involved, and McGovern came closest to winning CA than most other states. The stats posted here before showed how liberal core boomers were; just as fully as older millennials in 2008. We weren't small at all. Yes, we ended the draft, but we also ended the war. It took a long time, but we did it. And we protested in great numbers against the overturning of the Vietnam Syndrome by George Bush I. No, we made good pacifists, and we created the ideology of no more war. We opened the spacebridge to Russia, and the Russians used our term. So, we helped end the Cold War too. No, we make good pacifists; the best that have ever existed.

The American government has failed to attract millennial support in full, to the extent that they don't know how to vote in midterms. They vote in presidential elections though, so that proves it is not disillusion with "boomer management" (an obsession of yours only) that caused them not to vote in 2010 and 2014, allowing misrule to fester and deepen, but their own lack of civic skill. They'd rather lounge around and follow football games than to stay informed, stay active and vote. X/Yers like you and Millennials have shown themselves to be slackers when it comes to civic duty. The state is what we the people make it, and nothing else. You do not realize this yet, and you will need to wake up if you are going to wield your power effectively in 2025.

Where did you get that I said the 4T will last into the 2030s? No, I didn't, and no, it won't, but there will be more activism then than in the 1950s, is what I said. Not because Boomers are around, but (I hope) because millennials will be around. And because of the astrological indications, on which I base a lot of my prophecy; not just on what Boomers or Millennials will do or not do.

Millennials like civics in general are tech-obsessed, and think life is about keeping up with it. So be it, but the next prophets are going to throw off this virtual reality and get back to real life, and I wonder what the civic old fogeys will think about that when the time comes.

It won't matter what we think. By that time, our time will be over and it will be time to start moving to something else, be it good or bad. Add for the rest of what you said? False.

It's the politicians responsibility to be worth electing. If the candidate sucks, why bother voting for them? Boomer politicians with Boomer ideas and Boomer myopia got us here, and it obviously won't get us out. It's being informed that has made us not want to give approval to the intellectual dumpster that our elected officials have created.

And the majority of Boomers aren't leftists. That's a small, but noisy, subset. Maybe 5-20% of the cohort were hippy types. The rest of the world is very much unlike the bay area, and that has always been the case.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Such things frequently happen within any group of otherwise well-behaved protesters.

The point is though that the boomer protests against the Gulf War were large and persistent.

They weren't, and they certainly weren't effective. Actually, the priest that I worked with that pretty much did the bulk of the organizing for ending the sanctions in Iraq talked about how nobody was interested in protesting the Iraq war when it happened, and was happy that he was actually getting more support there circa 1999-2000 from students, because nobody else was willing to listen. The only boomers who were there protesting the SOA were Quakers and Catholic clergy. The bulk of the people there were crusters and college students. There were a few hippies at the IMF/World Bank protests, but most of the Boomer representation there was 1) as leadership (and that leadership has a lot to do with exactly why the whole effort failed, they wanted nothing more than to roll over and negotiate so they never found a position of power), 2) as guest speakers, or 3) as union reps and members (also a minority in the general trend).

Originally Posted by Kepi

It won't matter what we think. By that time, our time will be over and it will be time to start moving to something else, be it good or bad. Add for the rest of what you said? False.

It's the politicians responsibility to be worth electing. If the candidate sucks, why bother voting for them? Boomer politicians with Boomer ideas and Boomer myopia got us here, and it obviously won't get us out. It's being informed that has made us not want to give approval to the intellectual dumpster that our elected officials have created.

And the majority of Boomers aren't leftists. That's a small, but noisy, subset. Maybe 5-20% of the cohort were hippy types. The rest of the world is very much unlike the bay area, and that has always been the case.

He's right Eric. Most Leftist Boomers I know were connected with school but in real life, they actually seem more center or even slightly right of center.

I guess it's all about the group you are around and it's a mistake to project your world on the entire world.

Originally Posted by millennialX

He's right Eric. Most Leftist Boomers I know were connected with school but in real life, they actually seem more center or even slightly right of center.

I guess it's all about the group you are around and it's a mistake to project your world on the entire world.

No, he's not right.

It's correct opinion was divided, but to say the Left was a small group, as Kepi did, is wrong. Remember the stats posted about core Boomers here? They were more liberal than conservative in youth.

It's a mistake to project your world on the entire world. So Kepi should not do it.

Originally Posted by Kepi

It won't matter what we think. By that time, our time will be over and it will be time to start moving to something else, be it good or bad.

In the 2030s Boomers in power will be a small minority, but Millennials in power will only just be starting. What starts in the 2020s will carry over into the 2030s.

And for the rest of what you said? False.

It's the politicians responsibility to be worth electing. If the candidate sucks, why bother voting for them? Boomer politicians with Boomer ideas and Boomer myopia got us here, and it obviously won't get us out. It's being informed that has made us not want to give approval to the intellectual dumpster that our elected officials have created.

People of all generations got us here. You keep forgetting that. What got us here goes back before Boomers were even born.

If a candidate sucks, why bother indeed. But most Millennials didn't stay home during the midterms, and then vote in presidential elections, because the candidates suck. Why would they vote for Obama, but not for their senate or house or legislature candidates? So, you're claiming you know that these hundreds of candidates are all worse than Obama? No, the fact is clear, whether you admit it or not. Millennials think only the presidential race is worth coming out for. They think the president is king and he can do everything. Millennials are just uninformed about how politics works in the USA.

If you don't want things as they are, then you younger people need to organize. Find the best candidates, get them to run, and vote for them; or at least vote for the best candidates you can, if you can. Just to stay home means that you don't know what you're doing, or else you really think there are no candidates OR issues on the ballot to vote for. That may be very uninformed too, if you really expect politicians to be perfect. If that's your standard, you'll wait forever to vote. No candidate is going to agree with all your positions, or be perfect in every way. You seem to expect this, or think that all younger people expect this.

And the majority of Boomers aren't leftists. That's a small, but noisy, subset. Maybe 5-20% of the cohort were hippy types. The rest of the world is very much unlike the bay area, and that has always been the case.

So now you claim you had to be a hippie to be a liberal? Think again, young man. I was there; you were not, and it shows.

Originally Posted by Kepi

They weren't, and they certainly weren't effective. Actually, the priest that I worked with that pretty much did the bulk of the organizing for ending the sanctions in Iraq talked about how nobody was interested in protesting the Iraq war when it happened, and was happy that he was actually getting more support there circa 1999-2000 from students, because nobody else was willing to listen. The only boomers who were there protesting the SOA were Quakers and Catholic clergy. The bulk of the people there were crusters and college students. There were a few hippies at the IMF/World Bank protests, but most of the Boomer representation there was 1) as leadership (and that leadership has a lot to do with exactly why the whole effort failed, they wanted nothing more than to roll over and negotiate so they never found a position of power), 2) as guest speakers, or 3) as union reps and members (also a minority in the general trend).

Not true at all. It's true that the anti-Iraq war protests in America were not large enough (as opposed to the anti Gulf War protests, which is what I mentioned). They were large on the Coasts, and all my boomer friends were there with me (that was true both times). But they were 5 to 10 times larger in Europe. I don't know how many of those protesters were Boomers. But the peace movement was well established there by the 1980s, and was able to mobilize huge demonstrations against missiles and against wars.

It's also clear that the Boomer Left was very active and well-organized against the Iraq War. It was centered on publications and politics rather than protests. People like Michael Moore and thousands of others wrote and spoke out constantly. Election turnout in 2004 was way up too. However, by then at least, the Boomer and Xer Right was stronger, and the culture war predominated over the peace movement in the 2004 election. So it was good when millennials joined the fray in 2008.

Protests against the School of the Americas was a much smaller movement.

I went to a large demo against the Keystone Pipeline and fracking in SF last year. Most of the marchers were Boomers.

The issue of the crisis, is the governments refusal to listen to the people regardless of what administration is in charge. The Will of the people is absolute. The elites in DC and elsewhere want to create a system where the money determines who is elected and where political proposals have to go through intense debates over and over again. This results in a heavy status quo bias in our system. What I propose is government by the people for the people which would be led by a new meritocratic elite. An America where decisions get done without fuss and reflect the popular will of the majority. In a Restorationist America, a spectacle like what happened after 9/11 where bush refused to mobilize the military and industry and groveled before Muslims saying that Islam is a "religion of peace", such a spectacle would never have happened in a restorationist America. Instead the people's fury would have been unleashed by a strong government. The baby boomers wanted to create a lovey-dovey money driven utopia: I am convinced that Millennials, late-wave Xers and Homelanders will restore realistic government to America and the world.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Assassination was just a spark for something that had been building for a while.

The caldron is on slow boil now. What would cause it to boil over is unknowable until it happens. An Archduke or a sneak attack at the fright time, and war results. Blow up the World Trade Center and go straight to the circus clowns.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK, get real Kepi No, Boomers opposed to the Vietnam War were a vast number, who represent the real Boomers. We nominated McGovern, a process in which I was involved, and McGovern came closest to winning CA than most other states...

In case you forgot, McGovern lost that election in a landslide. In fact, once you got away from core Blue areas, the balance was even more Red than it is now.

The only time I got spit on was by a couple of sailors who decided they didn't like the hippie I was at the time. Never mind that I was probably the only Vietnam vet in the group.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The issue of the crisis, is the governments refusal to listen to the people regardless of what administration is in charge. The Will of the people is absolute. The elites in DC and elsewhere want to create a system where the money determines who is elected and where political proposals have to go through intense debates over and over again. This results in a heavy status quo bias in our system. What I propose is government by the people for the people which would be led by a new meritocratic elite. An America where decisions get done without fuss and reflect the popular will of the majority. In a Restorationist America, a spectacle like what happened after 9/11 where bush refused to mobilize the military and industry and groveled before Muslims saying that Islam is a "religion of peace", such a spectacle would never have happened in a restorationist America. Instead the people's fury would have been unleashed by a strong government. The baby boomers wanted to create a lovey-dovey money driven utopia: I am convinced that Millennials, late-wave Xers and Homelanders will restore realistic government to America and the world.

I am also convinced of this. Looks at how the GIs dealt with the nasty but necessary business of the late Great Power 4T. We will see it again.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

If the 4T started in 2001, therefore the 3T would only have lasted 17 years, which is too short.

Perhaps the 3T started earlyer than 1984? In 1981 for example? But therefore we would have a 2T of only 17 years and again, it's too short.

Perhaps the 2 started earlyer than 1964 too? In 1960 for example? Well, but in that case, we would have a 1T of only 14 years, and that don't make any sense.

Also, the 2000s where similar with the 1920s NOT with the 1930s. Like in the 1920s, financial speculation and individualism flourished, and there's was nothing like a "national union", culture wars were exacerbated instead.

This whole theory is all Hegelian. I can argue that "the" crisis started in different years for different people.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, he's not right.

It's correct opinion was divided, but to say the Left was a small group, as Kepi did, is wrong. Remember the stats posted about core Boomers here? They were more liberal than conservative in youth.

It's a mistake to project your world on the entire world. So Kepi should not do it.

I like how you're saying I'm not right when I was talking about "Most Leftist Boomers I know."

Originally Posted by Jimbean

This whole theory is all Hegelian. I can argue that "the" crisis started in different years for different people.

Personal crises are irrelevant. Society-wide crisis is the only kind that applies here.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I like how you're saying I'm not right when I was talking about "Most Leftist Boomers I know."

Yes, it seemed you are also saying "most leftist boomers I know" means that most boomers in all of the USA were really all centrists or conservatives. So, I would say, don't project your view of the world on the whole world. Don't follow Kepi's idea; it was not correct. I'm saying that my view of the world is correct, yes And it's not based on "the boomers I know."

Leftist Boomers were a good strong percentage of boomers. Not a majority, but the majority were at least left of center, about like millennials today. The trouble is, some of them later got hooked by the charming actor. And then, a few years ago, they got older too. So, since then (maybe about 10 years ago?), a slight majority of boomers are right of center.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In case you forgot, McGovern lost that election in a landslide. In fact, once you got away from core Blue areas, the balance was even more Red than it is now.

In that election, yes. It's true Boomers didn't get McGovern elected, while millennials pushed the more-moderate and better-candidate Obama past the poorer-candidate-than-Nixon John McCain. But young Boomers in blue areas got McGovern nominated, and voted for him in large numbers; and those states where McGovern did the best, are the same ones that became the blue states once the boomers grew up and the pall of Reagan began to lift.

Remember their horoscope numbers:
Nixon 12-4, McGovern 8-8
Obama 8-2, McCain 9-10

Having a better candidate in 2008 made a difference.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Personal crises are irrelevant. Society-wide crisis is the only kind that applies here.

Yes, of course, says a Marxist

Marx as I am sure you know came from the German historical school of thinking.

Originally Posted by Jimbean

Yes, of course, says a Marxist

Marx as I am sure you know came from the German historical school of thinking.

Nice try but wrong Marx.

And yes, personal life event in and of themselves are not what drives the turnings in this theory. It's only when large groups go through a phase of life at about the same age, ie. a generation, that the archetype in question gets formed little by little as it ages. Some people will always be outliers within their generation but larger groups within a similar age range tend to behave in a similar manner,

If the 4T started in 2001, therefore the 3T would only have lasted 17 years, which is too short.

Perhaps the 3T started earlyer than 1984? In 1981 for example? But therefore we would have a 2T of only 17 years and again, it's too short.

Perhaps the 2 started earlyer than 1964 too? In 1960 for example? Well, but in that case, we would have a 1T of only 14 years, and that don't make any sense.

Also, the 2000s where similar with the 1920s NOT with the 1930s. Like in the 1920s, financial speculation and individualism flourished, and there's was nothing like a "national union", culture wars were exacerbated instead.

1929-1946= 17 years
1946-1964=18 years
1964-1984= 20 years
1984-2001=17 years

seems perfectly in line to me given our turnings so far. and if you go with 2005 its the longest turning yet. in my opinion 2008 is late. Plus culturally everyone "felt" like a nation in crisis.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

1929-1946= 17 years
1946-1964=18 years
1964-1984= 20 years
1984-2001=17 years

seems perfectly in line to me given our turnings so far. and if you go with 2005 its the longest turning yet. in my opinion 2008 is late. Plus culturally everyone "felt" like a nation in crisis.

But look at things from the standpoint of statistics. 20 years +/- a deviation metric. 20 +/- 5 is completely credible as a "General Spec." These things are not set in stone. I think many pay way too much attention to the cultural aspects and not enough to the economic and geopolitical ones. 2008 is when the economy and geopolitics impacting the actual developed world went into the shitter. Yeah, 9/11 and subsequent reactions were dramatic but barely touched places like Europe and East Asia. 2008 was more of a turning point globally than 2001.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

But look at things from the standpoint of statistics. 20 years +/- a deviation metric. 20 +/- 5 is completely credible as a "General Spec." These things are not set in stone. I think many pay way too much attention to the cultural aspects and not enough to the economic and geopolitical ones. 2008 is when the economy and geopolitics impacting the actual developed world went into the shitter. Yeah, 9/11 and subsequent reactions were dramatic but barely touched places like Europe and East Asia. 2008 was more of a turning point globally than 2001.

Until a few days ago I was in the 2008 camp. But now I side with Deb. The point she made is valid although not exactly for the reasons given. It turns out that the 2001 4T start is more consistent with the generations than 2008. Choosing a 2008 start means the generation that creates this 4T when they come to power was born later (beginning in 1947) than the generation that creates a 4T beginning in 2001 (beginning in 1943).

Going back further the 2008 implies a 1935 start for the last 4T, while the 2001 one implies a 1930 start. As you extend the analysis further back you find the 4Ts implied by the 2008 have Civil War and Revolutionary 4Ts beginning after the wars were over. That's no good.

All the turnings are linked to one another through the generations. The saeculum works as follows. A turning creates a generation out of those coming of age. When this generation ages into power they create a new turning. This puts a constraint on the spacing between turnings. This spacing is AL - COA, where AL is the average age of leaders and COA is the coming of age value. Howe provides values for AL, so we have real values for this. You get the best fit of the turnings using 22 as COA (which I point out is also the "standard" generational length S&H proposed).

So given AL values going back (which Howe provides) if you choose a turning you can forecast and backcast the surrounding turnings. If you go to the linked post you will see that 2001 start does a real good job, it nails all the past 4Ts all the way back to the GR. I was impressed enough to switch to Deb's view. And this is after arguing for years for a 2008 date.

I think Deb is on to something when she points out that conservatives are more likely to favor the earlier date. I was once in the 2001 camp and when the presumed 4T was not proceeding in the way I thought 4Ts were supposed to, I gradually joined the we be 3T camp. Then when the 2008 panic happened I figured by analogy to 1929 that was it.

Many here see similarities between this 4T and the Civil War 4T. Well if you date that 4T 1860-1877, you will find that it too had a panic (in 1873) that like 1929 and 2008 was the start of the Kondratiev winter season (it was called the Great Depression, before the 1930's Depression took that name, and today we have the Great Recession. We all know that 1929 led to the New Deal which enacted reforms that prevented future Panics for more than 70 years. This did not happen in 1873 (nor has it happened this time). There was another panic in 1884, 11 years after 1873. This dual panic scenario would be repeated if we had a panic in 2019. I am calling for a huge drop in the stock market to begin by 2018. This would provide the raw material needed for a panic. If Clinton is elected (which I also predict) I could see her in battle with the Republican Congress over what action to take (she would push for stimulus; they would flatly oppose and call for austerity and tax cuts). As the economy collapses the 2020 election becomes interesting, making it a candidate for a 4T climax, regardless of who wins. The 4T would then peter out in the next few years as GenX comes to power.