Ok first of all I would like to apologise for my old thread. I had written it but it just did not come out quite that well so I thought I'd scrap it and write a new thread entirely. I'd have deleted it but could not find the option to do so. For now I will just start a new thread and write my own thoughts and ideas in this one. I hope this is okay for anyone and apologies for any inconveniences this might have caused.

Anyway, to the topic at hand. After much research and thought both on the generational theory proposed by Strauss and Howe and observation of political, economic and social trends in general, I have come to the conclusion that at this present moment in time, we do not live in "The Fourth Turning". In fact I would go as far as to say that we actually now live in a "Third Turning" when it comes to the Western world and the "Fourth Turning" is not upon us at all. Not just yet anyway. So how have I come to this conclusion? Allow me to explain.

First of all, let us look back to the history of Generation X. When researching this generation's history and talking to members of this generation in particular, something hit me. This generation did not at all live in an unraveling. Far from it. In fact this generation actually lived in an economic and political high when they came of age. Now naturally by cyclical history, Gen X should have been an unraveling generation, I do confess to this. With the closure of blue collar industrial jobs and their offshoring to distant countries, this did undo the strong industrial economic high that had been achieved in the 1950s/1960s. In particular, this was heavily felt in my own native Britain with the decline of the industrial north and the rather sudden and violent closing of the coal mines under Margaret Thatcher and her administration in the 1980s. Many fell into the welfare trap and life seemed grim for many.

So this itself would have been an unraveling. Yet something happened and as a result, the unraveling quickly ended and what followed was a high which saved a generation. So what happened? First of all, the end of the Cold War. As we all know, the Warsaw Pact started to collapse in 1989 and by 1991 with the collapse of the USSR, the fear of a potential East-West conflict had all but disappeared. A high feeling of optimism had entered the air in the West by the 1990s as a result of this. Despite a very brief period of recession which ended rather quickly I'd like to add, the Western economies started to embrace a new economic, cultural and political high. Westerners felt confident in their own governments. Many Western governments, particularly in Britain and America, had economies that went into the black during this period. The creation of the internet and the rise of the dot com bubble not to mention the opening up of former Communist markets helped to inspire a growth not before seen since the 1950s. As a result, the youth of Gen X were able to continue on with the middle class lifestyles of the previous generations, embracing the new technology that helped to create a strong service industry at behest of the old industrial model. The unraveling in effect was delayed.

Think about it - how many members of Gen X did not have their own homes in the 1990s? How many still lived with their parents? How many of this generation today do you see living reasonably comfortable middle class lifestyles? University tuition was cheap or even free in the case of Britain. People felt very positive about the future and an optimism not seen since the war days was abundant. In the West, the 1990s was a good time to be alive and few can deny this.

Now in comes Generation Y, the supposed "Hero Generation" that is supposedly "living in a crisis".

The truth is, you cannot go from a high to a crisis overnight. You have to have an unraveling before the crisis happens and this is exactly what is happening to Gen Y right now. The highs of the 1990s finally came to an end with the abrupt surprise attack on September 11th, 2001. For the first time since World War II, the Western world felt very insecure about its own future and paranoia started to set in. Unlike the 1990s, there was a huge turn against the government with many suspecting potential government involvement. Conspiracy theories started to arise and an entire generation became exposed to conspiracy theories such as "The New World Order". The trust once placed that the government would get us through our problems started to, yep, you guessed it, "unravel". The War on Terror has led to many complaints yet in reality, this is nothing more then a repeat of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A brush fire war, not a major conflict.

Then came along 2008. The Great Recession. This has led to a period of economic uncertainty and trust in the government is at an all time low. Due to this event along with intense economic globalisation, we now see an entire generation with few good economic prosperities. The economic boom of the dot com bubble has started to wear out with only a few of Gen Y really profiting from this. Youth unemployment remains at an all time and many are stuck at home living with their parents until their late 20s/late 30s even until they can finally move out. University education is expensive and the hope of a better future remains out of reach for many. For the first time since World War II, parents and grandparents believe their own children will have it "worse off" then they did. The War on Terror still rages on.

Yet this is not a crisis. This is an unraveling.

Why is this not a crisis? Quite simple - the economy is still functioning, the vast majority of Gen Y seem content to put up with the status quo (for now at least) and there has been no major economic collapse. The War on Terror has not produced a mass conflict that really challenges a generation. Its a war far away from home with only a select few going. For the average man on the street, it does not affect him as did previous conflicts. Now 2008 could have led to a crisis but due to the bail out of the banks and other industries, it merely has prolonged the inevitable. My own estimation is that we now live in an unraveling with Gen Y becoming the new "Lost Generation" that essentially has "lost out". In a crisis, you have a major conflict that challenges the status quo, mass rioting on the streets, much poverty and much suffering. None of this has been experienced and instead we have a generation sat at home playing video games. Its not a crisis.

So what will be the next crisis and when will it come? Who will be the new Hero Generation? That answer I believe lies in the Alpha Generation - the Generation being born now. Despite the optimistic predictions they will live in a high, I very much doubt it. The current unraveling will continue for the next 20 years. I predict by the 2030s/2040s at the very latest, the entire Western financial system will eventually not be able to take on the pressures of globalisation and debt based finance anymore and eventually collapse. This itself will trigger a period of mass unrest with the Alpha's demanding social, economic and political change on a mass scale. Occupy Wall Party, the Tea Party and other groups are just mere unraveling organisations. Tomorrow it'll be a generation fighting on the streets, really demanding change to make their lives better.

I predict that America eventually will withdraw from Europe and return to a period of "splendid isolation", focusing on the American hemisphere rather then concerning itself with Europe and international affairs in general. The EU will eventually collapse, leaving much poverty in Europe. Mass immigration into Europe is already creating a strong nationalistic backlash and unlike America, Europe is not a continent of "opportunity". Europe never has been and with its strong nativist ties, there will be conflict between immigrants and natives. I suspect to see asymmetrical conflicts similar to the Ukraine erupt throughout Europe in the 2030s/2040s. There have been a few theorists who also agree with this idea that the 2030s will not be a high but actually a crisis period.

For America - I'm not sure where America is going. I know one thing. America is not going to be a superpower anymore this century and I do feel will demote itself to "Great Power" status. With rising economic inequality, social concerns and fears of mass immigration from Mexico, I could potentially see America breaking up in a similar way like the USSR did in the 1990s. I think America could end up with various new nations built up on different identities. In California and the New York region you could end up with multiracial cosmopolitan societies where social liberalism is the norm where as in the deep South and potentially northern states like Montana and Idaho, you could end up with racial nationalistic sentiments flaring with up with white Americans and black Americans demanding their own homelands along with a rise in social conservatism.

People may think it is crazy but then look at the history of the United States. It always has been a history of division on many levels. During the 1890s - 1960s, the North very much was the liberal capitol of the United States with cosmopolitanism, industrialism and liberalism forming the core identity. In the South on the other hand, social conservatism still was triumphant with many preferring to keep to the old ways. You can still see it in America. Americans in the North have an ancestor from anywhere in Europe where as in the South, people can still trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower and the Revolution. My point is, I could see the same happening to the United States in the long run. Do not think America is going to become one giant liberal Brazil. Think again.

So these are just my thoughts. I'd appreciate other points of view. I look at this post btw and feel "ah, this is just right."

Hmm, I don't post here much (I think a lot of you are crazy) but I like this.

I'm not convinced this isn't a crisis. A lot of programs were put in place during the last one to keep things going if *that* ever happened again. It did and those programs are doing what they should the best they can. Things are at least being held together. I think that we think a crisis needs to be Hollywood apocalyptic to be a crisis. During the Great Depression life went on, it was just anywhere from a bit to very painful and a big mistake could cost some people their lives. That's how life feels right now, just less so. There's less of a pitchfork to our neck. It's more like a bad rash. But we'll get tired of the rash sooner or later.

I don't know anyone Gen Y who thinks the status quo is working okay. For me, I feel like I have to wait before it become obvious to really talk about it. Boomers don't like not hearing what they want to hear. It gives me more time to think about what now fringe political ideas to throw my support behind when the time does come, too.

I don't see the US loosing the superpower status anytime soon because I just don't know who else can take it. It's not just military and *trying* to fix the worlds problems. It's entertainment, science, brands, universities that are household names worldwide. The EU could do it if they realized they're headed down an Articles of Confederation path ("we kinda want to be united") and actually become one big federated nation. But I don't see that happening?

Pushes to form a second confederacy or split the nation up in any other way right now by small political groups seem almost goofy because of how much more integrated the US is now. Things will have to get much more divided than this for it to seem real. If it does happen, I think the resurgence of discussions on race and civil rights could be apart of it. Stuff like that hits a sore spot in the US and probably always will. If you want to fan that flame, get a 28th amendment in the works that modifies the 13th to ban the use of slavery to serve as a punishment for a crime. Not only is it the right thing to do in light of modern events but that national discussion will bring out the true side of many people and politicians.

Ultimately though, the S&H cycle is just a social science theory. All I know is that right now a lot of things aren't working right and when the right moment comes I want to jump in and do whatever I can, cycle or no cycle. That's life, that's wanting to contribute to the world. I suppose that's being young, too.

It's easy to think in this way, given the situation, and I like your thoughtful analysis Ksim. Some people say the 4T is already about to end, while some others such as yourself suggest it has not yet begun.

2008 obviously rhymes with 1929; the Great Recession nearly became the Second Great Depression; we were on the verge of total collapse. That alone qualifies today as a 4T. Prosperity happens in 3Ts; that's not at all unusual, even though they may be built on deception. Economies are weak in 2nd turnings, not 3rd turnings. And weak in 4th turnings too of course. But 4th turnings also feature industrial advancement, partly or wholly spurred by war.

My own research into patterns of history and cycles leads me to keep saying that our times are much like the 1850s. That era too was mistaken, even by the authors S&H, for a third turning. But they had to make an "anomaly" in that saeculum in order to call the 1850s a third turning, when it was really a 4th turning-- but one much like today that didn't quite seem like one yet.

There had been a vast depression, especially in western Europe, in 1846, and this had spawned a wave of revolution in 1848. The same thing happened in 2009 and 2011 (the Arab Spring). Refugees were fleeing Europe in the 1840s and 50s at unprecedented levels; they are fleeing the Middle East today in record numbers too. In 1846-48 the United States had waged an unnecessary war of conquest. It did the same thing in 2003-2011. We have seen the Crimea contested now as it was in 1854. Meanwhile the industrial revolution went into high gear in the 1850s and ended the depression. The congress was in deadlock, but compromised and thereby narrowly avoided civil war in 1850. Similar things are happening today; congress is deadlocked, and the nation is at its most divided since the 1850s and 60s, despite an economic recovery powered by energy booms both black and green.

Just as the nation was divided between blue and grey then, it is so between blue and red today-- much as you point out. Meanwhile, America's incompetent leaders allowed the nation to drift in the 1850s. Much the same is happening today, as confidence in politicians hits all times lows.

You can expect the 2020s to be like the 1860s, although if there's a civil war it won't begin until mid-decade. No-one will be able to deny that we are in a 4th turning then, nor will anyone call it either a 1st or a 3rd turning. But by 2029 it will be over, although the next 1st turning won't be as stable and peaceful as the 1950s. But then, neither were the 1870s.

I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone has a better prediction track record than me. Granted, that's not too hard, given the staggering prediction failure rates of most pundits and prophets. But I predicted the major events of the past few decades, some of them right here in this forum; predictions that the pundits said were impossible to have made. So my predictions bear some watching, I suggest.

People now talk, as you do, of a possible USA break-up in the near future, for example. But no-one was saying that when I first wrote about it as a possibility over 40 years ago.

So Ksim, honest question because perspectives matter: how old are you?

To me, it sounds like you're describing a relatively uneventful crisis followed up by a very hot awakening. In this situation, it would be the next prophets (Alphas) who rise up in to a rebellious/revolutionary role.

For a historical example of this, I don't think you can beat Victorian Era England. It is the story of an empire teetering near the peak of its power: aware that things are starting to go sour, but unable to find direction, purpose, or motivation to change. Evolution was one of the hottest public debates, and people got very angry and worked up over it, but it never really translated in to political action. There were some colonial adventures and half-hearted efforts to stop Russian expansion in to Crimea, but nothing that approached total war for survival.

And the whole time England was in this "non-Crisis," the financial elites of their society kept quietly accumulating all the wealth and assets of the country. Popular ideology said that greed was good - that people should idolize the wealthy and spurn the poor.

Anyway, someone who was hoping for socially and economically progressive policies would have had to wait for the coming 2T. By 1906, the UK Liberal Party would win one of its biggest victories ever, and would continue holding large majorities for years. In this time they passed protections for child workers, compensation for injured workers, school meals for poor students, and pension schemes for old-age citizens. Basically, everything that would wait until America's 4T.

So I don't even think your projections are wrong. But I do think that Boomers are definitely prophets, Xers are definitely nomads, and Millies are definitely civic. The 80s and 90s were pure unraveling. Yeah, the country had issues, but no, we didn't talk about or acknowledge them. It was a huge shift at 2001 to the sudden panic and end of the world thinking that got mixed up in everything.

In most saeculum, Civics amount to foot soldier's in the prophets' wars of ideology. Public opinion polls show us that the most popular ideology, among prophets, is represented by the Republican party. So the war young civics fight is one of survival against low wages and corporate dominance. It isn't really a war we can win, but things will look much different when we're the old guys in charge, and our prophet children are harassing us for our failure to address financial inequality...

From '84 until the crash of 2007, Xers did have some niches of opportunity in Finance and Tech. But overall, it was as Coupland noted "McJobs" in the crap sack service economy that was replacing the economy of making stuff.

The other problem we X had (and that even includes those of us in the Finance and Tech niches) was the fact of the Grey Ceiling (e.g. Boomers and to an extent, Silents) blocking upward mobility. A successful start up run by X was a work around, but less than 10% of start ups ever turn a consistent profit and even fewer IPO. If you are lucky you get acquired and if not, well, Chapter 11. So most X were limited in opportunity as compared with Boom, Silent and GI.

It was definitely a 3T, nothing like a real 2T (where people were getting hired to good paying jobs simply by being alive).

Sorry guys - gonna have to post several pages as it is not letting me post in one go. Really do apologise for this.

Hmm, I don't post here much (I think a lot of you are crazy) but I like this.

Thank you for the compliment sir. I am glad I was able to make a post that stirred up some thoughts on your end. 

I'm not convinced this isn't a crisis. A lot of programs were put in place during the last one to keep things going if *that* ever happened again. It did and those programs are doing what they should the best they can. Things are at least being held together. I think that we think a crisis needs to be Hollywood apocalyptic to be a crisis. During the Great Depression life went on, it was just anywhere from a bit to very painful and a big mistake could cost some people their lives. That's how life feels right now, just less so. There's less of a pitchfork to our neck. It's more like a bad rash. But we'll get tired of the rash sooner or later.

I find this view to be interesting. I do concur with you that the programs and policies enacted during the Great Depression era certainly has migitated the effects of a crisis. In my own native UK though, it has not been so much GD policies but more 1950s policies enacted by the Labour Party such as a strong welfare state, free health care and even free education to an extent that has alleviated any hardship felt in the short term. Despite Conservative plans to reduce the size of the welfare budget, overall the effects have been limited and state benefits have been able to provide for the population rather then everything falling into the trap of absolute poverty. The Tories only know they can go so far before people would rebel over it so state welfare remains a very contentious issue in British politics.

I do agree though that there is not going to be an apocalypse per say but when it comes to life in general, I still do not think we are entirely within a 4th turning as of yet. People know there is something wrong yet there is not a strong desire to get rid of the status quo and build a new destiny. People are still muddling along with the same old, playing the same game and hoping that the system will continue to provide. I feel the only way to ensure that in Britain, even more so in America and other Western European countries, for people to get out onto the street and really fight back and demand change would be another financial crash which this time leads to the collapse in the welfare state and other amenities provided by the state. Only then would there be radical demand for change and looking at my own predictions, I do not see this collapse happening until 2030. The state will try to keep the system going for as long as possible, that much is certain and the people will accept it due to fears of change and not wanting to give up a comfortable lifestyle.

I don't know anyone Gen Y who thinks the status quo is working okay. For me, I feel like I have to wait before it become obvious to really talk about it. Boomers don't like not hearing what they want to hear. It gives me more time to think about what now fringe political ideas to throw my support behind when the time does come, too.

Gen Y is an interesting generation in regards to the current situation. For the vast majority, I find them to be like Gen X and the Boomers. They want to continue with the liberal party lifestyle of free sex and drug taking whilst burying their heads in the sand when it comes to political issues. Most will try to work within the system as they do not want to surrender this lifestyle and do anything about the problems we face. They may know the status quo is not working yet have not the courage to do anything about it. Plus due to the delays in the crisis from happening, Gen Y is now getting old and is either at the 30 year old benchmark, has passed the 30 year benchmark or is close approaching it. As they age, the more least likely they will want to do anything and instead prefer to raise families and carry on with life the best they can. The window of opportunity for radical change in this generation is quickly passing.

However when it comes to the fringe groups of Gen Y, the biggest one that is growing, particularly in Western Europe is that of the Far-Right. We find this section of Gen Y is rebelling against the Boomers ideals of a liberal society and instead embracing nationalism and wanting to preserve their own race. I tend to compare both groups and find that the leftist communist ideals of the Boomers is quickly being replaced by white nationalistic viewpoints mixed in with a socialistic element. The mainstream of Gen Y embrace the predominant liberal status-quo but the minority of radicals are looking towards the right as a form of salvation. Not sure what the situation is like in America but that is the feeling I get in the UK and other European countries.

I don't see the US loosing the superpower status anytime soon because I just don't know who else can take it. It's not just military and *trying* to fix the worlds problems. It's entertainment, science, brands, universities that are household names worldwide. The EU could do it if they realized they're headed down an Articles of Confederation path ("we kinda want to be united") and actually become one big federated nation. But I don't see that happening?

I think the U.S will lose its superpower status but in return, no one will hold the mantle of world policeman anymore. I see the world becoming multipolar in a similar vein as Europe in the 19th century. Competing great powers with their own spheres of influence yet not wanting to engage in all out open warfare due to the mass destruction it would cause. Another "Congress of Vienna" type scenario if you will. The U.S could very well go down Britain's road - an important nation but without the leverage it once had over world affairs.

However I do see America eventually abandoning Europe and Asia. In Europe, due to the mass of problems in the future, I expect to see Russia become the leader of the continent. Europeans are looking towards Russia slowly as their salvation and realise that for a revival in Europe, Russia must be on board. Russia too is experiencing its very own conservative spiritual "great awakening" which I am quite sure they would be more than happy to export to the West once America finally leaves.

We can see this with the Ukraine Crisis. America is firmly in support of Kiev where as the Europeans tend to be at least sympathetic to the Donbass Rebels and see no point in stirring up that hornet's nest. Europe needs Russian gas and resources, Russia needs European trade, Merkel and Hollande are very keen not to upset Vladimir Putin and until the downing of that airliner, the EU was extremely hesitant about sanctions on Russia. Only America was in full favour and Britain to a certain extent.

Give it time and I think Russia will become the dominant key player in Europe by the 2030s/2040s.

As for Asia? I think Japan and South Korea could forge an alliance and even include Australia on board at some point. China will continue though to reign supreme as will India. A U.S withdrawal would permit Japan to finally rebuild its military. South Korea dosen't even need the U.S anymore when it comes to dealing with North Korea as their own military is perfectly adequate enough to fight the KPA on their own.

Ultimately though, the S&H cycle is just a social science theory. All I know is that right now a lot of things aren't working right and when the right moment comes I want to jump in and do whatever I can, cycle or no cycle. That's life, that's wanting to contribute to the world. I suppose that's being young, too.

Young people will do something about a crisis. When those young people get older though and the system keeps functioning, they eventually lose interest and focus on their lives. I used to be like you five years ago. Now I am 27 and I want to have a family, live in peace and just relax with my life. So age really does matter and the longer the situation goes on for, the least likely Gen Y will do anything about it and leave it to the next generation.

It's easy to think in this way, given the situation, and I like your thoughtful analysis Ksim. Some people say the 4T is already about to end, while some others such as yourself suggest it has not yet begun.

2008 obviously rhymes with 1929; the Great Recession nearly became the Second Great Depression; we were on the verge of total collapse. That alone qualifies today as a 4T. Prosperity happens in 3Ts; that's not at all unusual, even though they may be built on deception. Economies are weak in 2nd turnings, not 3rd turnings. And weak in 4th turnings too of course. But 4th turnings also feature industrial advancement, partly or wholly spurred by war.

Thank you for your compliments and once again I am glad to be able to inspire thoughtful replies. 

I agree that we really were on the verge of a total collapse and that much is true. Yet due to bailouts, that collapse has not come and instead has delayed the inevitable. Perhaps we are in a very early fourth turning yet observing society and the way it is behaving, it still reminds me very much of an unraveling taking place. It just does not yet feel like a crisis but instead a greater unraveling. I think had the economy collapsed in 2008, then yes Gen Y would have been truly a Hero Generation and we really would be at a crisis. Yet the delays keep the unraveling going on and on. As I explained above, if something does not happen soon, Gen Y will become another Nomad generation and leave it to the Z's/Alpha's to take the baton.

Interesting though you mentioned that prosperity does happen in 3Ts. I had never considered this and instead viewed it as an era where the economy ever so weakens yet just has not reached that apex of collapse. But if what you say is indeed what does happen in 3Ts, then I would have to concur we have reached the threshold of a 4th turning.

My own research into patterns of history and cycles leads me to keep saying that our times are much like the 1850s. That era too was mistaken, even by the authors S&H, for a third turning. But they had to make an "anomaly" in that saeculum in order to call the 1850s a third turning, when it was really a 4th turning-- but one much like today that didn't quite seem like one yet.

There had been a vast depression, especially in western Europe, in 1846, and this had spawned a wave of revolution in 1848. The same thing happened in 2009 and 2011 (the Arab Spring). Refugees were fleeing Europe in the 1840s and 50s at unprecedented levels; they are fleeing the Middle East today in record numbers too. In 1846-48 the United States had waged an unnecessary war of conquest. It did the same thing in 2003-2011. We have seen the Crimea contested now as it was in 1854. Meanwhile the industrial revolution went into high gear in the 1850s and ended the depression. The congress was in deadlock, but compromised and thereby narrowly avoided civil war in 1850. Similar things are happening today; congress is deadlocked, and the nation is at its most divided since the 1850s and 60s, despite an economic recovery powered by energy booms both black and green

I actually like this post and it has provided food for thought. I must confess, I was looking at this more with a 20th century glint in my eye rather then observing the 19th. I think though this is because European history does always differ compared to American history. Europe did have problems in the mid 19th century yet it never did reach the mass conflict that we see in the Middle East today as a result of the Arab Spring. There never was any mass civil wars that lasted for years. There were brief revolutions and a few battles yet unlike the Arab Spring, it never really toppled the establishments and instead the long peace of the 19th century continued up until the start of World War 1. I tend to find the Arab Spring is similar yet a wholly different phenomenon.

Also in regards to Arab Spring refugees - this itself presents a problem. It is where they are going. Europe has and never will be a land of opportunity in the same way as the Americas. Europe has always been a continent of conflict, of civil strife and of ethno-nationalism. You cannot take away what is in the fabric of the people. This itself will create a big problem as masses of Arabs flee to Europe only to find that there is no place for them. I'd even say North America would be difficult for them to truly migrate and integrate into. The well educated I suspect could go to California and New York but the vast masses would probably be better seeking their chances in South America.

If it continues, this itself will lead to huge revanchist and irredentist nationalism in Europe.

When it comes to the industrial revolution, I just do not see the same happening today. Sure, we have had a digital revolution if some kind but even still, its not lead to masses of people being employed in wholly new industries and what with the rise of robotics come the 2030s, we are going to see even more people unemployed and on some form of welfare. Its quite simple - big business does not need masses of workers anymore so what the people do to survive is going to be of interest in the coming decades.

I have a couple of questions regarding this post. First, do you feel the ever increasing automation, digitalisation and automation of the general workforce will provide a huge economic boom that will benefit the general population and lead to mass employment? Or do you think that the average joe is going to end up going back to a more agricultural way of life combined with a digital future as a means to survive? If jobs are not provided, I could see a huge growth in independent communities forming throughout the West, one that surpasses that of the 1960s and 1880s romanticism. This itself could be where Gen Y really does become the "hero generation" - by building self-sustaining communities.

I see that both the radical left and radical right intend to embrace such a view. The left because they want to build a more communistic commune based society and the right because they want their own living space for their own ethnic group. Both though tend to agree on a more greener, more environmental point of view however. I tend to see this is where the radicalists are moving towards. "We can't change the system so we'll abandon the cities and build up elsewhere." In a way, this is similar to the colonisation on the American frontier in the mid to late 19th century before ever encroaching industrialisation moved in.

Secondly, what do you think a possible American Civil War would be about? My own view is that the reds would be the rebels and would, in a similar guise to the old South, wish to remain ethnically homogenous and keep the traditions of the old America alive. The blues would be the liberal establishment that wants essentially continue with business as usual and would not at all tolerate an uprising. Looking at it, slavery will not be an issue this time and it'll be more to do with states rights like in the previous one yet with maintaining "white America" so to speak.

I think America's problem is mass Mexican and Hispanic immigration into the country. Unlike the previous waves of immigration that was from Europe and could easily assimilate into the mainstream Anglo population, Mexicans and Hispanics are of a completely different racial and cultural background altogether. The previous European immigration waves were essentially complained about yet there wasn't the same fear like there is amongst conservatives today of losing the nation. You did have the Know Nothings and other such groups that primarily advocated for an Anglo only immigration yet studying 19th century history, I just did not see the same mass fears like there is today.

If Mexican immigration continues as it is doing, America will change with it and could end up worse off in the long run. Small groups of Mexicans and Hispanics can assimilate into the general U.S population just like the European immigrants did but when you have a large wave, it really will change the foundations of the nation. So the question must be asked - can the same America with a large Mexican population remain a superpower or will it goes down a very similar road where Mexico is today where you have a small white ruling elite at the top and a Metizo/Indian population at the bottom? Brazil too is of this same makeup and there are many economic inequality problems with Brazil.

I think it depends - a future civil war would be to eek out a conservative white, even black only state if this wave continues. That said, I only predict this for the more working/lower middle class segments of society that are affected by this. In areas such as California and New York, I expect to see a multiracial cosmopolitan consensus formed where by a more mixed race elite start to gather and advance their own interests. The rest of America will of course be left out in the cold with it but these are just my own thoughts on the matter.

You can expect the 2020s to be like the 1860s, although if there's a civil war it won't begin until mid-decade. No-one will be able to deny that we are in a 4th turning then, nor will anyone call it either a 1st or a 3rd turning. But by 2029 it will be over, although the next 1st turning won't be as stable and peaceful as the 1950s. But then, neither were the 1870s.

You know it is interesting but NASA actually predicts a general economic collapse will come in the Western world by the 2030s. Interesting thoughts though about a possible civil war in the 2020s. Question is - would Americans fight it or would they be too lazy to do anything about it? I might throw in a bone here but say that America could collapse by the 2020s and have a revival by the 2030s yet it'll be Europe that'll collapse by the 2030s and have its revival in the late 2040s/early 2050s. Make no mistake though, if Europe collapses, Russia will make sure to play a part in securing its own future dominance over Europe and Europeans would be more than happy to accept it.

I could be wrong, but I doubt anyone has a better prediction track record than me. Granted, that's not too hard, given the staggering prediction failure rates of most pundits and prophets. But I predicted the major events of the past few decades, some of them right here in this forum; predictions that the pundits said were impossible to have made. So my predictions bear some watching, I suggest.

Is there a link to any of your other future predictions? I'd be quite interested in reading them. Should be interesting food for thought as futurology is a hobby of mine I must confess.

So Ksim, honest question because perspectives matter: how old are you?

I am about 27 years old now. Born in 1988 so I fit the traditional Millennial Generation. 

So I don't even think your projections are wrong. But I do think that Boomers are definitely prophets, Xers are definitely nomads, and Millies are definitely civic. The 80s and 90s were pure unraveling. Yeah, the country had issues, but no, we didn't talk about or acknowledge them. It was a huge shift at 2001 to the sudden panic and end of the world thinking that got mixed up in everything.

In most saeculum, Civics amount to foot soldier's in the prophets' wars of ideology. Public opinion polls show us that the most popular ideology, among prophets, is represented by the Republican party. So the war young civics fight is one of survival against low wages and corporate dominance. It isn't really a war we can win, but things will look much different when we're the old guys in charge, and our prophet children are harassing us for our failure to address financial inequality...

I have to say but I do disagree with this. I just do not see Boomers offering any future vision or ideology to Millennials today. I tend to find Millennials are slowly but surely wanting to go back to traditional family life and a more conservative way of doing things. They want to raise children and get away from the more dominant liberal status-quo imposed upon them by the Boomers. I mean I just don't see Millennials fighting and dying for the right to smoke cannabis, the right to burn your bras and the right to sleep around with who you choose so to speak. Millennials don't know what to do yet are tiring of the liberal 1960s Boomer lifestyle imposed. Women's rights has certainly hit hard upon the family and most men who would like to get married fear doing so for the huge ramifications of a divorce proceeding that will wipe them out.

If anything, I'd probably say Millennials are more attracted to the ideology and world view of the Greatest Generation to a certain extent. Working hard, buying a house, raising a family and in general embracing a more conservative lifestyle. Boomers on the right and the left I do feel have moved away from young people, at least over here in Europe. I do not see boomers offering anything new.

That said, a new Prophet generation is being born in Russia right now and will come of age in the 2030s. Could be this generation that inspires by then an aging Gen Y. Food for thought.

For a historical example of this, I don't think you can beat Victorian Era England. It is the story of an empire teetering near the peak of its power: aware that things are starting to go sour, but unable to find direction, purpose, or motivation to change. Evolution was one of the hottest public debates, and people got very angry and worked up over it, but it never really translated in to political action. There were some colonial adventures and half-hearted efforts to stop Russian expansion in to Crimea, but nothing that approached total war for survival.

And the whole time England was in this "non-Crisis," the financial elites of their society kept quietly accumulating all the wealth and assets of the country. Popular ideology said that greed was good - that people should idolize the wealthy and spurn the poor.

Anyway, someone who was hoping for socially and economically progressive policies would have had to wait for the coming 2T. By 1906, the UK Liberal Party would win one of its biggest victories ever, and would continue holding large majorities for years. In this time they passed protections for child workers, compensation for injured workers, school meals for poor students, and pension schemes for old-age citizens. Basically, everything that would wait until America's 4T.

I think what really kept the Empire going and its citizens content was the availability of immigration to the colonies. Many Brits either migrated to America, went to Canada, Australia, New Zealand or even South Africa and elsewhere in search of a better existence. This kept the government functioning and allowed it to drain the poor away from causing any revolutionary upsets. I think this really helped to encourage the "scramble for Africa" and other colonial exercises. Get rid of your mass poor by shipping them out to the colonies so they cannot cause any trouble. Looking at it, it is interesting to note that the liberal revolutions were at their strongest in France and Germany - two countries that did not heavily engage with the colonial experiment as much as the British. Perhaps there simply was more motivation to do something in these countries to help build the lifestyles of ordinary people rather then shipping them away?

Of course this is something that does not really exist today. Whenever a crisis arose in the past, if there was a land of opportunity to go to, people went to it. Nowadays it is very hard to do so as the world itself is not a much better place. If you are a man of working class means who wants to migrate with his family for his "New Israel", forget about it. Where else could you really go?

Originally Posted by Ksim

I have to say but I do disagree with this. I just do not see Boomers offering any future vision or ideology to Millennials today. I tend to find Millennials are slowly but surely wanting to go back to traditional family life and a more conservative way of doing things. They want to raise children and get away from the more dominant liberal status-quo imposed upon them by the Boomers. I mean I just don't see Millennials fighting and dying for the right to smoke cannabis, the right to burn your bras and the right to sleep around with who you choose so to speak. Millennials don't know what to do yet are tiring of the liberal 1960s Boomer lifestyle imposed. Women's rights has certainly hit hard upon the family and most men who would like to get married fear doing so for the huge ramifications of a divorce proceeding that will wipe them out.

Some of the visionaries on the thread "visionaries of the consciousness revolution" were boomers. Not only do prophets supply a vision, but this happens in 2Ts. In 3Ts, prophets have become culture warriors and religious reformers. You have to go back to the Awakening to find the vision, and even then look beyond the hype about sleeping around and drugs. There's a lot more abroad in the land than just the cultural stuff. Everything from the metaphysical foundations for the new age in the revival of spirituality and the esoteric subjects, to political programs for saving the environment, protecting consumers, ending unnecessary wars, and ending inequality. Boomers are the ones offering this vision today. If they are less popular than either the cultural warriors on the left and right or the greedy purveyors of trickle-down economics, that is because of whom our society has decided to pay attention to.

If anything, I'd probably say Millennials are more attracted to the ideology and world view of the Greatest Generation to a certain extent. Working hard, buying a house, raising a family and in general embracing a more conservative lifestyle. Boomers on the right and the left I do feel have moved away from young people, at least over here in Europe. I do not see boomers offering anything new.

That said, a new Prophet generation is being born in Russia right now and will come of age in the 2030s. Could be this generation that inspires by then an aging Gen Y. Food for thought.

I doubt that; civics usually resist the new ideas of young prophets, just as the GIs did. But I agree the millennials might embrace a conservative lifestyle as they get older, and also the social responsibility and civic attitudes that we call liberal; being more willing than Gen Xers and conservative Boomers and Silents to support taxation, social programs and government spending. Millennials are naturally more science and tech oriented than Boomers, and don't question the old materialist paradigm as much. Nevertheless, it is falling apart, whether anyone is paying attention or not. Look to liberal boomers and the ideas that have been around a while, but tend to be ignored.

Of course this is something that does not really exist today. Whenever a crisis arose in the past, if there was a land of opportunity to go to, people went to it. Nowadays it is very hard to do so as the world itself is not a much better place. If you are a man of working class means who wants to migrate with his family for his "New Israel", forget about it. Where else could you really go?

This is a question that faces millennials, and all of us too who would like a lifestyle that affords opportunities for more than working. Prices are too high for housing and education, among other things. Jobs are being exported. You could go to China or Malaysia and get a manufacturing job at a low wage, but that's probably not too much fun. A nation that ends up being owned by the few, will decline.

Millennials and other liberals are going to have to demand reforms in America, and hope a demographic advantage starts to kick in. Rich people speculating in housing and buying up property to rent out at high prices is going to have to get illegal. Business owners are going to have to be taxed higher, and can be given tax breaks if they hire more people at higher wages. Minimum wages will need to rise, and free trade will need to be curbed. The attitude against social spending in America will have to end. Green energy will need to be supported and dirty energy phased out by regulation. On the other hand, some European countries not only need to end austerity and tax the rich more, but promote more entrepreneurs and support education better.

Changes in policy could open up new opportunities for young people. The next artists could benefit the most. Millennials need to get behind these reforms, and develop the civic skills (such as voting in midterms and not just in the hyped presidential elections) to make them happen.

Originally Posted by Ksim

Thank you for your compliments and once again I am glad to be able to inspire thoughtful replies. 

I agree that we really were on the verge of a total collapse and that much is true. Yet due to bailouts, that collapse has not come and instead has delayed the inevitable. Perhaps we are in a very early fourth turning yet observing society and the way it is behaving, it still reminds me very much of an unraveling taking place. It just does not yet feel like a crisis but instead a greater unraveling. I think had the economy collapsed in 2008, then yes Gen Y would have been truly a Hero Generation and we really would be at a crisis. Yet the delays keep the unraveling going on and on. As I explained above, if something does not happen soon, Gen Y will become another Nomad generation and leave it to the Z's/Alpha's to take the baton.

Interesting though you mentioned that prosperity does happen in 3Ts. I had never considered this and instead viewed it as an era where the economy ever so weakens yet just has not reached that apex of collapse. But if what you say is indeed what does happen in 3Ts, then I would have to concur we have reached the threshold of a 4th turning.

I think the crash of 2008 was about the worst possible, given the abilities we have to bailout the banks and the big companies and to pass stimulus programs rapidly. In 1929-1933 the situation was allowed to fester instead. The other point is how slow the recovery has been, in Europe & in America. For many, the crisis of 2008 has not ended, and for others it lasted for several years. The government deadlock is also a crisis mode that recalls the 1850s, and the essence of this crisis is less just the economic one and more the misrule of Republicans in the 3T that continues, is getting worse, and divides the country. Breaking through it is likely to be traumatic. We aren't going to have another economic crash as severe as 2008, though there will be a recession near the start of the decade because much has yet to be reformed. But the 2020s will be a powerful although divisive and potentially-radical reform era.

That would be an interesting anomaly though, if Gen Y becomes a second nomad generation in a row. Perhaps there won't be a civic one, like the previous civil war saeculum. There's a trend on this forum to discuss a double rhythm to the saeculum, so that turnings most resemble those from two cycles in the past. I think most observers see quite a difference from Gen X already, even if our 4T is mild. Millennials are much more group-oriented, more tech oriented, more politically liberal, less adventurous and prone to crime, etc.

I actually like this post and it has provided food for thought. I must confess, I was looking at this more with a 20th century glint in my eye rather then observing the 19th. I think though this is because European history does always differ compared to American history. Europe did have problems in the mid 19th century yet it never did reach the mass conflict that we see in the Middle East today as a result of the Arab Spring. There never was any mass civil wars that lasted for years. There were brief revolutions and a few battles yet unlike the Arab Spring, it never really toppled the establishments and instead the long peace of the 19th century continued up until the start of World War 1. I tend to find the Arab Spring is similar yet a wholly different phenomenon.

Thanks. I agree, and yet on the other hand the revolutions of 1848 did lead to a series of serious nationalist wars which juggled up governments and national maps in the 1860s. In effect, both Europe and America had wars of unification.

Also in regards to Arab Spring refugees - this itself presents a problem. It is where they are going. Europe has and never will be a land of opportunity in the same way as the Americas. Europe has always been a continent of conflict, of civil strife and of ethno-nationalism. You cannot take away what is in the fabric of the people. This itself will create a big problem as masses of Arabs flee to Europe only to find that there is no place for them. I'd even say North America would be difficult for them to truly migrate and integrate into. The well educated I suspect could go to California and New York but the vast masses would probably be better seeking their chances in South America.

If it continues, this itself will lead to huge revanchist and irredentist nationalism in Europe.

It's possible, but Europe has made great strides since the 1940s and I don't see a severe and huge anti-ethnic attitude dominating entirely over Europe's other very-advanced ways.

When it comes to the industrial revolution, I just do not see the same happening today. Sure, we have had a digital revolution if some kind but even still, its not lead to masses of people being employed in wholly new industries and what with the rise of robotics come the 2030s, we are going to see even more people unemployed and on some form of welfare. Its quite simple - big business does not need masses of workers anymore so what the people do to survive is going to be of interest in the coming decades.

I have a couple of questions regarding this post. First, do you feel the ever increasing automation, digitalisation and automation of the general workforce will provide a huge economic boom that will benefit the general population and lead to mass employment? Or do you think that the average joe is going to end up going back to a more agricultural way of life combined with a digital future as a means to survive? If jobs are not provided, I could see a huge growth in independent communities forming throughout the West, one that surpasses that of the 1960s and 1880s romanticism. This itself could be where Gen Y really does become the "hero generation" - by building self-sustaining communities.

I see that both the radical left and radical right intend to embrace such a view. The left because they want to build a more communistic commune based society and the right because they want their own living space for their own ethnic group. Both though tend to agree on a more greener, more environmental point of view however. I tend to see this is where the radicalists are moving towards. "We can't change the system so we'll abandon the cities and build up elsewhere." In a way, this is similar to the colonisation on the American frontier in the mid to late 19th century before ever encroaching industrialisation moved in.

Yes I think something like that is due in the next Awakening. You are on to something that I have foreseen too. I don't think that's a hero's role, but rather artist and prophet. I propose however that millennials embrace a liberal 4T hero program that requires businesses that benefit from automation and continue to amass profits, to share them with workers and society. The bosses have not earned these huge benefits they are getting; they belong to all of us. I see share the wealth campaigns in our future.

Right now the right is opposed to environmentalism, so I'm not sure they would agree in the future. We can't solve climate change without government action, which Republicans oppose on principle. They are also denying that the problem even exists. But it will have to be dealt with to a great extent long before this next independent communal-community Awakening we are forecasting. If the system continues to defy change, as it does today, then the only alternative could be this mass exodus. But I still see a more progressive period coming before the 4T ends.

Secondly, what do you think a possible American Civil War would be about? My own view is that the reds would be the rebels and would, in a similar guise to the old South, wish to remain ethnically homogenous and keep the traditions of the old America alive. The blues would be the liberal establishment that wants essentially continue with business as usual and would not at all tolerate an uprising. Looking at it, slavery will not be an issue this time and it'll be more to do with states rights like in the previous one yet with maintaining "white America" so to speak.

I tend to agree that the reds will be the rebels, if demographics work out so that the government is progressive in the 2020s. The reds simply don't want taxes raised, and react to gun control and other liberal measures. They do fear the loss of the older white America too. The reds feel entitled to the rulership they've had for 35 years, and this will be taken away. So seditions and secessions could occur. I think they could be put down rather quickly this time. But one solution could be to allow the break-up of the country, if red and blue are just too incompatible.

I think America's problem is mass Mexican and Hispanic immigration into the country. Unlike the previous waves of immigration that was from Europe and could easily assimilate into the mainstream Anglo population, Mexicans and Hispanics are of a completely different racial and cultural background altogether. The previous European immigration waves were essentially complained about yet there wasn't the same fear like there is amongst conservatives today of losing the nation. You did have the Know Nothings and other such groups that primarily advocated for an Anglo only immigration yet studying 19th century history, I just did not see the same mass fears like there is today.

If Mexican immigration continues as it is doing, America will change with it and could end up worse off in the long run. Small groups of Mexicans and Hispanics can assimilate into the general U.S population just like the European immigrants did but when you have a large wave, it really will change the foundations of the nation. So the question must be asked - can the same America with a large Mexican population remain a superpower or will it goes down a very similar road where Mexico is today where you have a small white ruling elite at the top and a Metizo/Indian population at the bottom? Brazil too is of this same makeup and there are many economic inequality problems with Brazil.

I think it depends - a future civil war would be to eek out a conservative white, even black only state if this wave continues. That said, I only predict this for the more working/lower middle class segments of society that are affected by this. In areas such as California and New York, I expect to see a multiracial cosmopolitan consensus formed where by a more mixed race elite start to gather and advance their own interests. The rest of America will of course be left out in the cold with it but these are just my own thoughts on the matter.

Hispanic immigration is shifting the demographic toward more liberal trends, and the red state rebels will resist this. I think hispanics can assimilate after a generation; I have seen many folks of hispanic descent that have become just like whites. Their original ancestry, after all, is a small group that broke off from Caucasians before the latter came to Europe. So they aren't really so different from whites, and sometimes call themselves white in fact. Another consideration is, can we really be sure that the wave will continue, as hispanic and other liberal pundits claim? I'm not so sure. If conditions improve below the border, and stay not so hot above, immigration to America might slow or stop.

You know it is interesting but NASA actually predicts a general economic collapse will come in the Western world by the 2030s. Interesting thoughts though about a possible civil war in the 2020s. Question is - would Americans fight it or would they be too lazy to do anything about it? I might throw in a bone here but say that America could collapse by the 2020s and have a revival by the 2030s yet it'll be Europe that'll collapse by the 2030s and have its revival in the late 2040s/early 2050s. Make no mistake though, if Europe collapses, Russia will make sure to play a part in securing its own future dominance over Europe and Europeans would be more than happy to accept it.

American and European history have moved in tandem for quite some time, so I don't see this happening.

Is there a link to any of your other future predictions? I'd be quite interested in reading them. Should be interesting food for thought as futurology is a hobby of mine I must confess.

http://philosopherswheel.com My book Horoscope for the New Millennium was published the same month as The Fourth Turning.

Also I have you tube videos that show both my past predictions that came true, and more current ones coming true already.
See http://philosopherswheel.com/hna.html

I do use "esoteric" methods as well as historical research and visionary ideas.

I used to think this too, but upon careful reading of the Fourth Turning I realized that we did hit the Crisis in 2008, it's just that we haven't had a clear regeneracy as of yet which makes it seem like we're still in a 3rd turning. Still, it's pretty clear that the mood shifted to a Fourth turning after 2008. We're in crisis mode now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Some of the visionaries on the thread "visionaries of the consciousness revolution" were boomers. Not only do prophets supply a vision, but this happens in 2Ts.

Actually, it's a Smörgåsbord of assorted visions. Some are tasty like reindeer steak, while others, well you know, are fishy like lutfisk.

In 3Ts, prophets have become culture warriors and religious reformers.

IOW [Vandal] fruitbats [/Vandal]

You have to go back to the Awakening to find the vision, and even then look beyond the hype about sleeping around and drugs. There's a lot more abroad in the land than just the cultural stuff. Everything from the metaphysical foundations for the new age in the revival of spirituality and the esoteric subjects, to political programs for saving the environment, protecting consumers, ending unnecessary wars, and ending inequality. Boomers are the ones offering this vision today. If they are less popular than either the cultural warriors on the left and right or the greedy purveyors of trickle-down economics, that is because of whom our society has decided to pay attention to.

Who is supposed to separate the grain from the chafe?

I doubt that; civics usually resist the new ideas of young prophets, just as the GIs did. But I agree the millennials might embrace a conservative lifestyle as they get older, and also the social responsibility and civic attitudes that we call liberal; being more willing than Gen Xers and conservative Boomers and Silents to support taxation, social programs and government spending.

Uh, what about the cruft, there Eric?
1. Obviously, military spending on useless weapons programs and wars of choice are cruft.
2. On education, now that's top heavy with administrative overhead and Taj Majal buildings on college campuses. It would be wise to delete the cruft first, then see where the funding stands wrt amounts saved to be redirected to important stuff like teacher pay and educational equipment/text books. I'd also nuke vice principals for example in K-3. That cruft didn't exist when I was in school and it's not needed now. I'd also nuke cruft like too many tests and dumb rules that require teachers to waste time form filling than doing lesson plans.
4. Houses: Again, why the fuck are we still subsidizing houses? Well, there's that and tax breaks for oil companies, ad infinitum as well. Raise revenue via tax break deletia. After all, the best tax policy should be designed to raise revenue, not for public officials to whore themselves out to special interests, which is what we have here. Trickle down should be called tinkle down golden shower economics for proles and golden parachutes for fat cats. After the tinkle is over, the fat cats get blown.

Millennials are naturally more science and tech oriented than Boomers, and don't question the old materialist paradigm as much. Nevertheless, it is falling apart, whether anyone is paying attention or not. Look to liberal boomers and the ideas that have been around a while, but tend to be ignored.

Jonesers say, look at the above and look at where the "establishment" has stuff that needs a match.

This is a question that faces millennials, and all of us too who would like a lifestyle that affords opportunities for more than working. Prices are too high for housing and education, among other things. Jobs are being exported. You could go to China or Malaysia and get a manufacturing job at a low wage, but that's probably not too much fun. A nation that ends up being owned by the few, will decline.

The bolded stuff has tax breaks.

Millennials and other liberals are going to have to demand reforms in America, and hope a demographic advantage starts to kick in. Rich people speculating in housing and buying up property to rent out at high prices is going to have to get illegal. Business owners are going to have to be taxed higher, and can be given tax breaks if they hire more people at higher wages. Minimum wages will need to rise, and free trade will need to be curbed. The attitude against social spending in America will have to end. Green energy will need to be supported and dirty energy phased out by regulation. On the other hand, some European countries not only need to end austerity and tax the rich more, but promote more entrepreneurs and support education better.

Ick.
a. Tax breaks = whore jobs.
b. Uh, Mr. robot will happen, especially with low capital prices courtesy of the Federal Reserve.
c. Promoteing entrepreneurs means you need a cleaned up law book. Fat cats can afford a platoon of lawyers, an individual can't.

Changes in policy could open up new opportunities for young people. The next artists could benefit the most. Millennials need to get behind these reforms, and develop the civic skills (such as voting in midterms and not just in the hyped presidential elections) to make them happen.

You forgot the book. No new social contract can be enacted without Xer stamp of approval.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Actually, it's a Smörgåsbord of assorted visions. Some are tasty like reindeer steak, while others, well you know, are fishy like lutfisk.

...Who is supposed to separate the grain from the chafe?

That's a good question; I hope some of the younger people over the future 4T, 1T and 2T.

Uh, what about the cruft, there Eric?
1. Obviously, military spending on useless weapons programs and wars of choice are cruft.
2. On education, now that's top heavy with administrative overhead and Taj Majal buildings on college campuses. It would be wise to delete the cruft first, then see where the funding stands wrt amounts saved to be redirected to important stuff like teacher pay and educational equipment/text books. I'd also nuke vice principals for example in K-3. That cruft didn't exist when I was in school and it's not needed now. I'd also nuke cruft like too many tests and dumb rules that require teachers to waste time form filling than doing lesson plans.
4. Houses: Again, why the fuck are we still subsidizing houses? Well, there's that and tax breaks for oil companies, ad infinitum as well. Raise revenue via tax break deletia. After all, the best tax policy should be designed to raise revenue, not for public officials to whore themselves out to special interests, which is what we have here. Trickle down should be called tinkle down golden shower economics for proles and golden parachutes for fat cats. After the tinkle is over, the fat cats get blown.

Joneser Xers like you can be among the cruft-clearers. I still like your ideas on education. Deleting tax breaks won't be enough though.

The bolded stuff has tax breaks.

Yes on job export; no on housing; high prices there are due to land running out in desirable places, plus lots of speculation and refusal to regulate. Prices have gotten so high that it's too hard for people to let go of the phony "value." Another housing crash seems likely. Subsidized housing programs for poor people help to bring down the price, not raise it.

Ick.
a. Tax breaks = whore jobs.
b. Uh, Mr. robot will happen, especially with low capital prices courtesy of the Federal Reserve.
c. Promoteing entrepreneurs means you need a cleaned up law book. Fat cats can afford a platoon of lawyers, an individual can't.

You forgot the book. No new social contract can be enacted without Xer stamp of approval.

I dunno bout that, but certainly all generations will be involved in the decisions. Xers are the most conservative generation, at least for their age; but Boomers and Silents are the most conservative now and in the near future. There will have to be a strong minority of the older generations joining a strong majority of millennials and homies. The millennials will be in the demographic driver's seat as the Crisis climaxes in 2024-25. The elections of 2020 and 2024 will show just how much muscle the millennials really have, and 2022 and 2026 will show whether they have learned to use it.

I think the crash of 2008 was about the worst possible, given the abilities we have to bailout the banks and the big companies and to pass stimulus programs rapidly. In 1929-1933 the situation was allowed to fester instead. The other point is how slow the recovery has been, in Europe & in America. For many, the crisis of 2008 has not ended, and for others it lasted for several years. The government deadlock is also a crisis mode that recalls the 1850s, and the essence of this crisis is less just the economic one and more the misrule of Republicans in the 3T that continues, is getting worse, and divides the country. Breaking through it is likely to be traumatic. We aren't going to have another economic crash as severe as 2008, though there will be a recession near the start of the decade because much has yet to be reformed. But the 2020s will be a powerful although divisive and potentially-radical reform era.

An interesting point you make here. To be honest, I always felt that we would have another crash much worse then 2008. I know several pundits have predicted a likely scenario. But you could also be onto something that the worst essentially has passed. You are very much correct though about the vast majority still have not recovered from the 2008 crash. Here in the UK, despite the government claiming it is "business as usual", the vast majority have not recovered the lives they once had before the crash. I would say and it is probably the same case in the States, that the vast majority of the nation has not recovered to pre-crash levels where as only London has been able to pull itself out. London has been able to attract a lot of foreign investment, new ideas and it being an immigration hub has also benefited those at the top. Yet outside London, the economy has not really been growing with few new industries popping up and lay offs still occurring. In a realistic sense, London itself lives in an entirely separate world compared to the rest of the UK and the politicians ruling from the city do not really take into consideration the rest of the nation.

When it comes to UK politics, I can see the same happening here. We are in an 1850s mode with the government under David Cameron trying to keep the "status quo" whilst reducing the deficit. The only way to truly solve the situation would be a very painful default but not one has the stomach for this hence the same old will carry on for the time being. What is interesting though is how much of the blame for the financial crisis has been placed on the EU. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) has made history with being one of the first minority parties to become the third most supported party in the UK. It advocates stopping immigration, pulling out from the EU and essentially Britain entering a free trade zone with Brussels but no more.

Compared to America, I do not think Britain will go down the path of civil war or disruption but I do concur with you that the 2020s will be an 'exciting' time in politics and for the UK, it'll be withdrawing from the EU. The more the EU continues to struggle economically, the more Britain will turn towards the possibility of an exit. That itself will be our revolution. A very British one too I might add. Already David Cameron is promising something of a referendum and it is expected Nigel Farage and UKIP will win several seats in the GE this May.

As for Europe? I expect to see by the 2020s various members such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and even those in Eastern Europe pulling out (or being forced out) with a smaller version taking shape with just Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg being members. That itself will be firmly a crisis period for Europe as the core of the EU was founded after World War II and has continued to expand in a more intergrationist direction. I expect to see a lot of rioting, radical parties getting into power and financial misery in Europe although Britain will I think have the least worries considering its strong financial base. I don't expect to see the UK booming but it'll fare better then the rest.

That would be an interesting anomaly though, if Gen Y becomes a second nomad generation in a row. Perhaps there won't be a civic one, like the previous civil war saeculum. There's a trend on this forum to discuss a double rhythm to the saeculum, so that turnings most resemble those from two cycles in the past. I think most observers see quite a difference from Gen X already, even if our 4T is mild. Millennials are much more group-oriented, more tech oriented, more politically liberal, less adventurous and prone to crime, etc.

I have pondered that Gen Y could become the second nomad generation and once again, it all depends on time. If as you say the main of the crisis hits during the 2020s, particularly the mid to late 2020s for America, it is quite simple to observe that Gen Y will be 'too old' to really participate or do anything about it. By 2025, the vast majority of Gen Yers will be in their early 40s/late to mid 30s. If we look at the Boomers, they fought their crisis in their 20s to very early 30s. They grew up as teens during the Great Depression, not young adults like the Yers have.

Now I'm not saying that Gen Y will not get wrapped up in any potential conflicts but the vast majority will quite simply be wanting to live in peace, raise their families and try to avoid conflict as much as possible. You fight a conflict when you are young and enthuiastic, not when you are approaching the mid stage of life. Hence why the young have always been the soldiers on the front line. There is something in our genetic code that makes us want to fight when we are young and when we get older, we want to take it easy. Of course you will always get your radicals no matter your age group and I suspect some Gen Y radical fanatics will insist on joining a fight if it brews but overall, the rest will stay out of it.

It all depends on how long they keep delaying for. If it gets to 2020 and nothing happens, then I would bet that Gen Z will instead become the hero generation and abandon the silent generation role they were going to play. Instead it could lead to the Alpha's being the silents and the future Prophets being delayed for at least 50-70 years when it comes to the Western world.

Thanks. I agree, and yet on the other hand the revolutions of 1848 did lead to a series of serious nationalist wars which juggled up governments and national maps in the 1860s. In effect, both Europe and America had wars of unification.

You know I just had a very interesting thought. When it comes to the liberal revolutions of 1848, I do actually feel the 2020s could very much be a new 'springtime of nations' for Europe. Many of the old concerns at the time are now starting to rise once again. Fears of the welfare state collapsing, concerns about the government not listening and representing the people as they should, rising nationalist feelings, etc, etc. If anything does happen though in Europe, it'll be the same old club of France, Italy and Spain that will lead the charge, possibly with Portugal. Greece too will be a major player in such a development, possibly Hungary as well. I don't see Germany playing a major role like they did the last time and neither the same for Scandinavia. Britain will remain the same as it was the last time around. Brits are not a revolutionary population by any stretch of the imagination.

Either a new full springtime of nations when the EU collapses or something akin to a more 'lite' springtime nations.

As for the Islamic world? Unlike the one in Europe, I view the Islamic one as more extreme. The problem with Islam is that it has not yet had its reformation, yet alone an enlightenment. It is still a very young religion. The original springtime of nations occurred in nations that had gone past the reformation and the enlightenment. The Islamic world does not really have anything as an ideal to guide it towards a more enlightened era like Europe had with Greece and the Italian city states. As a result, I think you will find that the Arab Spring will become a battle between secular nationalistic conservatism and radical fanaticism. In the end though, I expect the Islamic world to lose a generation to this fighting and possibly start to rebuild and follow a more enlightened way of thinking within 100 years. I suspect the mid to late 21st to early 22nd century could be a period of Islamic reformation.

I base this off Europe. Before 1914, Europe was still very jingoistic and gung-ho for conflict. After 1914 and the next world war that followed, Europe lost its generation and had to come to the table and think of new ways to help create a better world to live in. I expect Islam to follow the same path. Iran in fact has gone down something of a similar route. After the fanatical theocratic of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s, the Iranians have started to move towards democracy and tend to be very hesitant about a possible future conflict. For now they are just focused on defensive minded projects and building up their own countries. Mass conflict does that towards a nation.

It's possible, but Europe has made great strides since the 1940s and I don't see a severe and huge anti-ethnic attitude dominating entirely over Europe's other very-advanced ways.

I can appreciate your point on this but what we have to remember is that Europe is an entirely different kettle of fish to the United States. America has always been a land of immigration, adventure, exploration and mixing of both new and old ideas. Europe on the other hand has always traditionally been a conservative continent. It is the homeland of the European peoples and even today, they cannot get entirely along with one another. There is still some disagreement and tension amongst the various member states so large numbers of foreign immigrants from distant shores are not looked too kindly upon.

When it comes to immigration, I tend to find Europeans have a more nationalistic and conservative outlook then Americans. It is interesting to note that when it comes to Gen Y, in America they are overwhelmingly more liberal and acceptive to immigration where as in Europe, it tends to be "forced". In certain countries such as Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc, etc, due to political correctness, Gen Y will probably say "they have no issues" but get them on their own in private and they will tell a very different story.

In America, I find the anti-immigration viewpoints happen to be of conservative boomers, Gen Xers and a small smattering of Gen Y. In Europe, its the opposite with Gen Y becoming increasingly resentful towards mass immigration, fearing it is destroying their homelands and cultures with the Gen Xers being in the middle and the Boomers seeing no problems at all. It is quite amusing but browse the internet and when it comes to Europe, you find the radical left is made up of aging boomers and the radical right is made up of young, disenchanted millennials.

However if it is one thing leading to European 'unity' and that is Europeans rallying together to fight immigration from outside the continent. You see the British, French, German, Dutch, Polish, Italian, Russian, Danish, etc, etc nationalists all siding and pledging to fight for a Europe of their ancestors and for peace between the nations. So this itself is an interesting phenomenon. Could the fear of mass immigration actually in the end trigger a united European brotherhood? Its a good question. For the first time since the Roman Empire, Europe could potentially unite itself out of a necessity to defend their common interests and actually become similar to the Islamic world. That is a united force, not a continent of nations fighting each other.

Certainly food for thought. Still, make no mistake, nationalism is growing in Europe and unlike America, Europeans will start to resist if they feel their identity and homelands will be lost.

Yes I think something like that is due in the next Awakening. You are on to something that I have foreseen too. I don't think that's a hero's role, but rather artist and prophet. I propose however that millennials embrace a liberal 4T hero program that requires businesses that benefit from automation and continue to amass profits, to share them with workers and society. The bosses have not earned these huge benefits they are getting; they belong to all of us. I see share the wealth campaigns in our future.

You know I would like to point out but I presume you are aware of Edgar Cayce's prophecy regarding Russia? He actually said that "from Russia will come a Communism that Christ Himself would approve of." To be honest, I can only really see the Russians leading us down a more socialistic road. I know many Russians and the entire society still is very much a collectivist based society compared to the more material minded, individualistic spirit of the West. When it comes to "sharing the wealth", I think these ideas will come from Russia. Westerners simply do not have the same mindset of collective based ideals like the Russians have so only the true masters of such an ideology could teach it.

For example, there is no class system in Russia. You do have the very wealthy oligarchs but by and the large, whether you are a doctor, a garbage collector, a lawyer or a mechanic, everyone tends to live pretty equally and are quite happy with this arrangement. There is no concept of "the middle class" and Russians do believe in sharing the wealth. Kind of makes sense such ideas would come from Russia because let us be honest, the original ideas of the Boomers in the 60s of socialism came from where? Russia! Even Britain and its working classes were strongly motivated by Russia and the trade unions always had strong links with the nation.

I think when Russia's prophets come of age in 20-30 years, these will be new ideas they bring to the table that eventually will encourage the future prophets of the West.

Right now the right is opposed to environmentalism, so I'm not sure they would agree in the future. We can't solve climate change without government action, which Republicans oppose on principle. They are also denying that the problem even exists. But it will have to be dealt with to a great extent long before this next independent communal-community Awakening we are forecasting. If the system continues to defy change, as it does today, then the only alternative could be this mass exodus. But I still see a more progressive period coming before the 4T ends.

I do feel that communities will spring up into action and eventually become city states in due time. This is how history has always formed. First communities that eventually become city states. Look at the history of the Pilgrims. They felt they had no voice in England, no power to change things so hopping on a boat and formed a "community". However unlike in the past where a community led to a new nation, this time it could be city states although in some areas it could lead to a new nation.

When it comes to environmentalism, the only ones denying such an event is the mainstream right. Yet all the radical movements realise something big is happening. I know of some liberals and nationalists that actually want to abandon industrial society altogether and go back to living on the land. They feel that progress is destroying their liberty and traditions and would prefer to preserve the environment as their ancestors had done. Others advocate a two tier approach, a new 'feudalism' whereby masses of rural communities surround hi-tech city states and provide this city with domestic labour and raw materials. Just like it was in the past with the renaissance. So that itself could very well be the future once worldwide resources start to decline - preserve the wealth and technology for the highly educated cities and leave the masses to their own devices.

I tend to agree that the reds will be the rebels, if demographics work out so that the government is progressive in the 2020s. The reds simply don't want taxes raised, and react to gun control and other liberal measures. They do fear the loss of the older white America too. The reds feel entitled to the rulership they've had for 35 years, and this will be taken away. So seditions and secessions could occur. I think they could be put down rather quickly this time. But one solution could be to allow the break-up of the country, if red and blue are just too incompatible.

You know I have thought the same. I agree that it won't be a large scale civil war and the question is - will there be a civil war? Think about South Africa during its last days of apartheid in the early 1990s. Back then there was much talk of civil war. Had it not been for Nelson Mandela, it very well could have led to a civil war. Many were stocking up on supplies and reading old prophecies, preparing for an apocalyptic revelation type battle of armaggadeon. Others were too busy getting their passports ready to flee the nation. If there was any country that was going to have a civil war, it was South Africa. Unlike the reds in America, the Afrikaners were far more (and still are in many areas of that nation) fanatical and willing to "fight to the bitter end" for what they believed to be their right to rule.

Somehow I am sceptical if American reds would do the same. You do have hot heads in America, yes but not the same religious zeal like fanaticism you had in South Africa. Yet if South Africa did not come to blows and to be honest, I very much doubt it will at this point, then I am sceptical if Americans would fight back. Maybe they would stage protests and demonstrations with calls for secession. You might have a few nut jobs that do decide to take up violent means. But overall, is it possible for Americans to rise up against their own government and fight back?

To be honest, I think white conservative Americans will go down the path of the Mormons. They'll do their own community building, have large families such as the Quiverfull movement and essentially build a nation within a nation whilst keeping their own beliefs and ideals strong on the ground, away from the federal government. This was pretty much the case in the post-civil war American South and pretty much continued up until the 1960s and the civil rights movement. When it comes to the reds, I see this as being their only main option.

I'll reply later tonight. I have to head off now but enjoying this discussion. Have more ideas and questions I wish to throw at you and discuss. Certainly is fun to get the old brain thinking.

Ksim, if anything, I think the 1950s 1T was an unusual HIGH, when most HIGHs are really RECOVERIES.

Anyway, have you examined the faux (Bubble) prosperity of the 1920s? You can find lot's of similarities there with the 90s and even into the 00s a little.

There's a lot here, so I'll just respond to one point.

Originally Posted by Ksim

... To be honest, I always felt that we would have another crash much worse then 2008. I know several pundits have predicted a likely scenario. But you could also be onto something that the worst essentially has passed. You are very much correct though about the vast majority still have not recovered from the 2008 crash. Here in the UK, despite the government claiming it is "business as usual", the vast majority have not recovered the lives they once had before the crash. I would say and it is probably the same case in the States, that the vast majority of the nation has not recovered to pre-crash levels where as only London has been able to pull itself out. London has been able to attract a lot of foreign investment, new ideas and it being an immigration hub has also benefited those at the top. Yet outside London, the economy has not really been growing with few new industries popping up and lay offs still occurring. In a realistic sense, London itself lives in an entirely separate world compared to the rest of the UK and the politicians ruling from the city do not really take into consideration the rest of the nation...

Unlike the states, the UK followed the austerity model until it hit a brick wall. Cameron is not a Keynesian, that's for sure. So we've recovered more than you have, but didn't get the full Keynesian treatment either. But as you noted, London did fine, and why shouldn't it? After all, that's the home of The City, and finance has been doing great everywhere. It's the rest of us who need help, and help is not coming.

Originally Posted by Ksim

I can appreciate your point on this but what we have to remember is that Europe is an entirely different kettle of fish to the United States. America has always been a land of immigration, adventure, exploration and mixing of both new and old ideas. Europe on the other hand has always traditionally been a conservative continent. It is the homeland of the European peoples and even today, they cannot get entirely along with one another. There is still some disagreement and tension amongst the various member states so large numbers of foreign immigrants from distant shores are not looked too kindly upon.

When it comes to immigration, I tend to find Europeans have a more nationalistic and conservative outlook then Americans. It is interesting to note that when it comes to Gen Y, in America they are overwhelmingly more liberal and acceptive to immigration where as in Europe, it tends to be "forced". In certain countries such as Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc, etc, due to political correctness, Gen Y will probably say "they have no issues" but get them on their own in private and they will tell a very different story.

In America, I find the anti-immigration viewpoints happen to be of conservative boomers, Gen Xers and a small smattering of Gen Y. In Europe, its the opposite with Gen Y becoming increasingly resentful towards mass immigration, fearing it is destroying their homelands and cultures with the Gen Xers being in the middle and the Boomers seeing no problems at all. It is quite amusing but browse the internet and when it comes to Europe, you find the radical left is made up of aging boomers and the radical right is made up of young, disenchanted millennials.

However if it is one thing leading to European 'unity' and that is Europeans rallying together to fight immigration from outside the continent. You see the British, French, German, Dutch, Polish, Italian, Russian, Danish, etc, etc nationalists all siding and pledging to fight for a Europe of their ancestors and for peace between the nations. So this itself is an interesting phenomenon. Could the fear of mass immigration actually in the end trigger a united European brotherhood? Its a good question. For the first time since the Roman Empire, Europe could potentially unite itself out of a necessity to defend their common interests and actually become similar to the Islamic world. That is a united force, not a continent of nations fighting each other.

Certainly food for thought. Still, make no mistake, nationalism is growing in Europe and unlike America, Europeans will start to resist if they feel their identity and homelands will be lost.

All quite possible, and your points are worth considering. But I don't see how Gen Y/Millennials could have that much interest in European identity and the old culture. Wouldn't that be more an older person's concern? I think Europe will recognize, and so will Americans, that Muslims are not only just people, but that if they have better times in their homelands, immigration will decline. The Arab Spring, if successful, would reduce immigration. That Spring needs to revive and continue for many more "seasons." Right now though, it has caused a great spike (as I predicted would happen in this time), because the revolutions have failed.

You know I would like to point out but I presume you are aware of Edgar Cayce's prophecy regarding Russia? He actually said that "from Russia will come a Communism that Christ Himself would approve of." To be honest, I can only really see the Russians leading us down a more socialistic road. I know many Russians and the entire society still is very much a collectivist based society compared to the more material minded, individualistic spirit of the West. When it comes to "sharing the wealth", I think these ideas will come from Russia. Westerners simply do not have the same mindset of collective based ideals like the Russians have so only the true masters of such an ideology could teach it.

For example, there is no class system in Russia. You do have the very wealthy oligarchs but by and the large, whether you are a doctor, a garbage collector, a lawyer or a mechanic, everyone tends to live pretty equally and are quite happy with this arrangement. There is no concept of "the middle class" and Russians do believe in sharing the wealth. Kind of makes sense such ideas would come from Russia because let us be honest, the original ideas of the Boomers in the 60s of socialism came from where? Russia! Even Britain and its working classes were strongly motivated by Russia and the trade unions always had strong links with the nation.

I think when Russia's prophets come of age in 20-30 years, these will be new ideas they bring to the table that eventually will encourage the future prophets of the West.

I don't see this happening. I don't think socialism in The West came from Russia; it came from Germany and England. Russia was a model of where not to go. Russia was correctly seen as an oppressor, at least by 1949. Socialism is a worldwide revolution, and a very necessary one. It has been present since the mid-19th century in all countries, and was a natural succession to the democratic, capitalist movement. Business cannot simply be allowed to become the new boss; it's as bad as the old boss. So the dialectic went on. As for the 60s, that's the next revolution in the dialectic: the Green. It will climax in the next Awakening. And inspiration for it came from Boomers and Silents here in America. Europe adopted those movements and carried them further, while in America in 1980 the powers-that-be fought back against ecological, peace and consumer movements and elected Reagan in order to reverse those green movements-- and they succeeded. Europe is more advanced than America today as a consequence.

European nations will not give up those advances and allow a temporary spike in immigration to send them back to the 1930s. Russia has ambitions now, under Putin, and will pursue them into the 2020s, but they will be resisted; they will not provide any inspiration to Europe; Europeans have plenty of their own native inspiration, and they also have the movements from the 60s and the Boomers that originated in America. They don't need a half-dead, declining society of oligarchs and mass poverty to guide or inspire them.

I do feel that communities will spring up into action and eventually become city states in due time. This is how history has always formed. First communities that eventually become city states. Look at the history of the Pilgrims. They felt they had no voice in England, no power to change things so hopping on a boat and formed a "community". However unlike in the past where a community led to a new nation, this time it could be city states although in some areas it could lead to a new nation.

That would be a more drastic restructuring that I envision for these times. It's a possibility, if this 4T does not break out and ends badly. But I think we live in an early phase of a civilization cycle, so such a collapse in the current civilization is not in "the stars" as I see it.

When it comes to environmentalism, the only ones denying such an event is the mainstream right. Yet all the radical movements realise something big is happening. I know of some liberals and nationalists that actually want to abandon industrial society altogether and go back to living on the land. They feel that progress is destroying their liberty and traditions and would prefer to preserve the environment as their ancestors had done. Others advocate a two tier approach, a new 'feudalism' whereby masses of rural communities surround hi-tech city states and provide this city with domestic labour and raw materials. Just like it was in the past with the renaissance. So that itself could very well be the future once worldwide resources start to decline - preserve the wealth and technology for the highly educated cities and leave the masses to their own devices.

You'd have to include the Tea Party and the extreme right in your definition of the "mainstream right" when it comes to environmentalism, and also most libertarians. They are fanatically dedicated to stopping the environmental movement, because they think it means higher taxes and socialism. But yes, anti-industrialism goes back to the 1960s, and exists among various strains of radicals. So I don't disagree that a lot of what you are foreseeing here could happen. It could be a mixture of automated corporations and many communities involved with their land. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "feudalism," which is an anachronism from a less liberal, less-civilized time than today.

You know I have thought the same. I agree that it won't be a large scale civil war and the question is - will there be a civil war? Think about South Africa during its last days of apartheid in the early 1990s. Back then there was much talk of civil war. Had it not been for Nelson Mandela, it very well could have led to a civil war. Many were stocking up on supplies and reading old prophecies, preparing for an apocalyptic revelation type battle of armaggadeon. Others were too busy getting their passports ready to flee the nation. If there was any country that was going to have a civil war, it was South Africa. Unlike the reds in America, the Afrikaners were far more (and still are in many areas of that nation) fanatical and willing to "fight to the bitter end" for what they believed to be their right to rule.

Somehow I am sceptical if American reds would do the same. You do have hot heads in America, yes but not the same religious zeal like fanaticism you had in South Africa. Yet if South Africa did not come to blows and to be honest, I very much doubt it will at this point, then I am sceptical if Americans would fight back. Maybe they would stage protests and demonstrations with calls for secession. You might have a few nut jobs that do decide to take up violent means. But overall, is it possible for Americans to rise up against their own government and fight back?

To be honest, I think white conservative Americans will go down the path of the Mormons. They'll do their own community building, have large families such as the Quiverfull movement and essentially build a nation within a nation whilst keeping their own beliefs and ideals strong on the ground, away from the federal government. This was pretty much the case in the post-civil war American South and pretty much continued up until the 1960s and the civil rights movement. When it comes to the reds, I see this as being their only main option.

I'll reply later tonight. I have to head off now but enjoying this discussion. Have more ideas and questions I wish to throw at you and discuss. Certainly is fun to get the old brain thinking.

Thanks for the discussion.

Your view of American red rebels may be optimistic; they are certainly zealous, religious, fanatic, and well-organized now; hell-bent on keeping power. Nor are they in such a minority as the Afrikaners are. It will be hard for them to win a civil war, IF they don't hold the presidency, and their demographic position is declining; so some serious outbreaks rather than full-fledged civil war is more likely in THAT case. Break-up of the country could also be proposed by some on both sides as a peaceful way to deal with the divide. The notion of a huge federal government is not all that popular today. Similarly, our outdated elected-king system of the imperial presidency may be replaced by a parliamentary system, or at least the idea may be considered. Most likely, our system of self-empowered, money-dominated politics is due for an overhaul, and the two party duopoly may implode.

Originally Posted by Ksim

To be honest, I think white conservative Americans will go down the path of the Mormons. They'll do their own community building, have large families such as the Quiverfull movement and essentially build a nation within a nation whilst keeping their own beliefs and ideals strong on the ground, away from the federal government. This was pretty much the case in the post-civil war American South and pretty much continued up until the 1960s and the civil rights movement. When it comes to the reds, I see this as being their only main option.

This was pretty much the case up until the late 1970s, when televangelists began preaching it was "time for God's people to come out of the closet".

Thus the Religious Right was born.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Ksim

As for Europe? I expect to see by the 2020s various members such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and even those in Eastern Europe pulling out (or being forced out) with a smaller version taking shape with just Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg being members. That itself will be firmly a crisis period for Europe as the core of the EU was founded after World War II and has continued to expand in a more integrationist direction. I expect to see a lot of rioting, radical parties getting into power and financial misery in Europe although Britain will I think have the least worries considering its strong financial base. I don't expect to see the UK booming but it'll fare better then the rest.

I have thought that the 2020s may see a revival of nationalism. I don't look forward to the scenario you suggest, so I haven't dwelled on it. I don't hope for it, but I'll keep it in mind.

I have pondered that Gen Y could become the second nomad generation and once again, it all depends on time. If as you say the main of the crisis hits during the 2020s, particularly the mid to late 2020s for America, it is quite simple to observe that Gen Y will be 'too old' to really participate or do anything about it. By 2025, the vast majority of Gen Yers will be in their early 40s/late to mid 30s. If we look at the Boomers, they fought their crisis in their 20s to very early 30s. They grew up as teens during the Great Depression, not young adults like the Yers have.

You mean the GIs or "Greatest," the previous civics; not the Boomers, I presume. I'd just point out that most soldiers in WWII were younger GIs, and even some Silents toward the end. The older members of the GI generation were not the footsoldiers, but they were still civics. So the same pattern will hold as our 4T climaxes in the mid-2020s. The foot soldiers of any civil war or other wars in The West and Middle East/Russian sphere will be young millennials/Gen Y, and also some of the oldest next-artists/Gen Z by the time the 4T is in its last years.

Now I'm not saying that Gen Y will not get wrapped up in any potential conflicts but the vast majority will quite simply be wanting to live in peace, raise their families and try to avoid conflict as much as possible. You fight a conflict when you are young and enthuiastic, not when you are approaching the mid stage of life. Hence why the young have always been the soldiers on the front line. There is something in our genetic code that makes us want to fight when we are young and when we get older, we want to take it easy. Of course you will always get your radicals no matter your age group and I suspect some Gen Y radical fanatics will insist on joining a fight if it brews but overall, the rest will stay out of it.

The younger guys fight; the middle-aged ones organize the fight. In this case, those organizers will be Gen Xers and older Millennials.

It all depends on how long they keep delaying for. If it gets to 2020 and nothing happens, then I would bet that Gen Z will instead become the hero generation and abandon the silent generation role they were going to play. Instead it could lead to the Alpha's being the silents and the future Prophets being delayed for at least 50-70 years when it comes to the Western world.

Gen Z starts in about 2005, so they will still be too young to go off to war in 2020.

You know I just had a very interesting thought. When it comes to the liberal revolutions of 1848, I do actually feel the 2020s could very much be a new 'springtime of nations' for Europe. Many of the old concerns at the time are now starting to rise once again. Fears of the welfare state collapsing, concerns about the government not listening and representing the people as they should, rising nationalist feelings, etc, etc. If anything does happen though in Europe, it'll be the same old club of France, Italy and Spain that will lead the charge, possibly with Portugal. Greece too will be a major player in such a development, possibly Hungary as well. I don't see Germany playing a major role like they did the last time and neither the same for Scandinavia. Britain will remain the same as it was the last time around. Brits are not a revolutionary population by any stretch of the imagination.

Either a new full springtime of nations when the EU collapses or something akin to a more 'lite' springtime nations.

As for the Islamic world? Unlike the one in Europe, I view the Islamic one as more extreme. The problem with Islam is that it has not yet had its reformation, yet alone an enlightenment. It is still a very young religion. The original springtime of nations occurred in nations that had gone past the reformation and the enlightenment. The Islamic world does not really have anything as an ideal to guide it towards a more enlightened era like Europe had with Greece and the Italian city states. As a result, I think you will find that the Arab Spring will become a battle between secular nationalistic conservatism and radical fanaticism. In the end though, I expect the Islamic world to lose a generation to this fighting and possibly start to rebuild and follow a more enlightened way of thinking within 100 years. I suspect the mid to late 21st to early 22nd century could be a period of Islamic reformation.

I base this off Europe. Before 1914, Europe was still very jingoistic and gung-ho for conflict. After 1914 and the next world war that followed, Europe lost its generation and had to come to the table and think of new ways to help create a better world to live in. I expect Islam to follow the same path. Iran in fact has gone down something of a similar route. After the fanatical theocratic of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s, the Iranians have started to move towards democracy and tend to be very hesitant about a possible future conflict. For now they are just focused on defensive minded projects and building up their own countries. Mass conflict does that towards a nation.

Some people here in this forum are lacking a bit of the global perspective. Young people today and civilizations in general are not limited in their sources of inspiration to their own nations and religions. Inspiration for the Arab Spring came from young people who want the same opportunities that Americans and European have. They organized through modern social media. It will not be necessary for Islam to go through further stages. The Revolution that began in the 18th century and has gone through 3 major phases now is worldwide, and it will transform the world, as it sought to do from the beginning. The Girondists and Napoleonic imperialists offered to bring their revolution to all peoples seeking to recover their liberty. The process continues, in whatever way is needed and acceptable today. Don't look in too narrow a way at nations and religions. We are a global society, and it's movements that count, not nations and religions. These latter may still be regressive influences, but they will not set the agenda for the future. The challenge is for the movements to overcome the traditions-- religions and nations.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This was pretty much the case up until the late 1970s, when televangelists began preaching it was "time for God's people to come out of the closet".

Thus the Religious Right was born.

~Chas'88

I thought that too, until I heard Terry Gross interview Kevin Kruse about his book, One nation Under God, How Corporate America Invented Christian America. Apparently, the business community got scared when Roosevelt successfully launched the New Deal, and countered with a religious revival they paid to create. Interestingly, Billy Graham was version 2.0 of this model, and the prelude to Jerry Falwell and every rightwing, tub-thumping preacher since.

Originally Posted by Ksim

Thank you for the compliment sir. I am glad I was able to make a post that stirred up some thoughts on your end. 



I find this view to be interesting. I do concur with you that the programs and policies enacted during the Great Depression era certainly has migitated the effects of a crisis. In my own native UK though, it has not been so much GD policies but more 1950s policies enacted by the Labour Party such as a strong welfare state, free health care and even free education to an extent that has alleviated any hardship felt in the short term. Despite Conservative plans to reduce the size of the welfare budget, overall the effects have been limited and state benefits have been able to provide for the population rather then everything falling into the trap of absolute poverty. The Tories only know they can go so far before people would rebel over it so state welfare remains a very contentious issue in British politics.

I do agree though that there is not going to be an apocalypse per say but when it comes to life in general, I still do not think we are entirely within a 4th turning as of yet. People know there is something wrong yet there is not a strong desire to get rid of the status quo and build a new destiny. People are still muddling along with the same old, playing the same game and hoping that the system will continue to provide. I feel the only way to ensure that in Britain, even more so in America and other Western European countries, for people to get out onto the street and really fight back and demand change would be another financial crash which this time leads to the collapse in the welfare state and other amenities provided by the state. Only then would there be radical demand for change and looking at my own predictions, I do not see this collapse happening until 2030. The state will try to keep the system going for as long as possible, that much is certain and the people will accept it due to fears of change and not wanting to give up a comfortable lifestyle.

I'm sure that even over across the pond as they say, you heard about the unrest over police brutality, the most apparent being in Ferguson, MO. Do you believe this was a start to challenge the status quo more than has been the case up until now? Still next to nothing is being done to challenge the supremity of the corporate culture and the buying of the government, though.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I thought that too, until I heard Terry Gross interview Kevin Kruse about his book, One nation Under God, How Corporate America Invented Christian America. Apparently, the business community got scared when Roosevelt successfully launched the New Deal, and countered with a religious revival they paid to create. Interestingly, Billy Graham was version 2.0 of this model, and the prelude to Jerry Falwell and every rightwing, tub-thumping preacher since.

I'll see your Terry Gross interview and raise it a PBS Frontline documentary: God in America - http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/view/ The pertinent parts are episodes 5 & 6.