I think it's false to only consider the 1T as always being the happy and prosperous time when the party seemed endless during past 3Ts, too. Do you think folks during the Gold Rush/ First Industrial Revolution 3T and the 1920s saw the Crisis coming, despite the darkness looming underneath the bubble?

IMO 1T's are better looked at as Recovery's while 3T's seem like Bubbles.

Meanwhile during the 00s and now, the threat of fear and paranoia seem to loom. The last cold war 1T had that type of vibe and pair Ferguson with the early Civil Rights movement. Even though we have similarities with the last 1T there, I wouldn't call this a 1T and I wouldn't call the 90s 3T a 1T either.

Chas, what if you reminded everyone that the Glorious Revolution 4T didn't always feel like the end of the world?

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.

It all depends on how old the actual civilisation is. For a young civilisation such as North and South America then no, there is not that much concern. Yet for societies such as the European nations and even nations in Asia such as Japan, Korea, China, India, etc, etc, then there is more of an emotional collective memory of said civilisations in question. The truth is that Europe never abandoned its nationalism. It abandoned the jingoistic nationalism of the 19th/early 20th centuries but European countries never abandoned their own innate patriotism and pride when it comes to their own homelands. One of the biggest pitfalls of the EU has been each member state arguing for a more favourable position of their own country and refusing to truly compromise for the rest of the group.

I'd like to point out also that the EU itself has been forcibly 'put together' by elitist bureaucrats at the top. The vast majority, which includes the millennials, never wanted to sacrifice their own national independence and would prefer to have something of a Europe that trades and lives at peace with each other but without a dominating state beaucracy ruling them from the top. They also want no more wars which is very noble. So Millennials in Europe do indeed have an interest in preserving European identity and its old culture.

I was talking to a friend of mine from Finland and he told me that when he went to America, he found the country was divided into three mindsets. The first has no issues whatsoever with liberal culture and are quite happy to engage in multiracial relationships, homosexual activities and the like. Then there is as what you describe "the red rebels" - those that steadfastly refuse to bow down to any form of liberal culture, refuse to have mixed raced relations and remain focused on preserving the past ways. Then you have a third group which dosen't give a damn and will quite happily do anything as it pleases.

This is in stark contrast to Europeans to which he admitted were more racist, more xenophobic and more conservative deep down then their American counterparts. Moreso when you go towards Eastern Europe which is staunchly traditionalistic. Even so, Western Europe too is quite traditional in its ideas compared to America with France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, even Denmark and Norway that refuse to abandon their own nationalistic outlooks on life.

When it comes from France, Greece, Italy and Austria in particular, these nations have a strong Millennial presence in their own nationalist groups such as Marine LePen's Front National, the Freedom Party in Austria and of course the Golden Dawn in Greece. Italian youth too are very fond of nationalism, even going as far as to advocate splitting the nation up from the central governing authorities in Rome. Which is another thing - not only are Europeans patriotic towards their own homelands but also patriotic towards which region of the nation they actually come from. Hence the belief that eventually, European nations, let alone the European Union, could split up into independent entities.

So no, I think that Europe is a very different kettle of fish. I'd argue that it has only been down to strong American influence that has contributed to a rise in liberal New Age culture in Europe. The more America starts to decline in international power though and the more Europe will start to move back towards the right. Yet have they not the right to do so? Have they not the right to preserve their homelands just as other races, ethnic groups and cultures wish too? This is the fundamental question.

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.

You have a good point with this although I would argue that when it comes to a true socialistic society, the Russian population under Communism actually lived a more purer form of it then anything the Boomers brought about in the West. Russia was back then and still is a very conservative society. Religion never really disappeared despite Communism hence traditional Christian morals and values were interspersed within the Communist mindset. Yet the main difference was the economic and socio-political model. The Russians did fully abolish a class system, they did truly embrace a brotherhood of man and they did move away quite successfully from the materialist culture many of us on here do despise.

There was no main banking industry with the use of usury being something unheard of. People actually felt more relaxed with their lives. They did work hard but they did not have the extra pressures of the traditional 'rat race'. There was no jealousy or hatred because someone had more then somebody else. People actually felt content with their lives during the high period of the USSR between the 1950s - 1980s. Only recently has a more capitalist culture started to move into Russia but the overall culture of the people pretty much remains that same socialistic ideal it was before.

It amazes me to talk to Russians and hear their stories of how no one will look down on you if you don't have a car and use the bus for example. Or however families still live together and never would even dream of considering kicking their children out of the house at the age of 18 or sending their grandparents to old age homes.

Despite the Boomers and the 1960s cultural revolution in the West - when did Westerners ever embrace such ideals? They may have liberalised their view points yet still remained firmly committed to the capitalist culture of greed, materialism and want that previous generations had had. Sure, the USSR made some mistakes but I still feel Casey was very much on to something. I mean, would not the Russian model of living be good for Westerners in the long run when it comes to protecting the environment, saving on natural resources and improving Human relationships? I think it would actually.

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.

Europe will not go back to the 1930s where everyone was gunning for a war and genocidal ideals were in mind. Instead Europe will probably eventually adopt a more "tough guy" approach of "go home, we have nothing else left to offer." I predict that Europe will vote in national conservative governments - nothing extreme as the National Socialists of the past but more about defending the rights of the nation and its identity. I suspect Europe will go down a protectionist road too I'd like to add.

Russia actually isn't an aggressive nation despite what people mis believe it to be. Russians actually are incredibly defensive nationalistic peoples. They never make the first move. Its always the case that if you poke the bear then the bear will growl back in retaliation. Russians will defend what is theirs but will not advance any further. It is not in their interest and they are quite content to run their own large nation. Look at Napoleon and Hitler. Russia never made the first move. Even in the Cold War, the USSR was firmly committed to a "no first strike doctrine." Putin is of the same mindset. When America started poking its nose into the Ukraine and funding Maidan, then obviously Putin struck back and took Crimea. Yet had America left the Ukraine alone then Putin would have continued with "business as usual".

The more America pushes the bear with missile shields in Eastern Europe, conventional military regiments on border countries and colour revolutions in Russia's back yard, then yes Russia is going to retaliate. Leave them alone though and work with them as an equal partner and you will have no problems. Putin has no intention for a large scale conventional military campaign in Europe. In other words, leave the bear alone.

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.

Actually I would like to point out that the Afrikaners were in a better position despite being in a minority position to actually win a civil war in South Africa during the early 1990s. The military would have sided with the civilian extremists and the old SADF was a very advanced fighting force. The extremists back then ran the government, something very different from America today. I tend to find the radicals in America are of a "sofa troop brigade" mindset. They like to moan on the internet and post online petitions yet when it comes to actually doing something, they won't do it. They are still too comfortable and it would take a major economic downturn to actually shake them out of their laziness. I do see some shootings taking place but it'll be more spree attacks by desperate extremists.

I think though if it ever did reach a full blown civil war, then the best bet would be just to let both sides peacefully separate and form their own new nations. If it makes people happy to live with the values they want, then let them be. I fully disagree with people having to live in a society with values they do not share. If one groups wants a more liberal, cosmopolitan society then let them have it. If one group wants to live in an homogeneous, conservative society then let them have it. If they are willing to live in peace and not try to rule over others then it is not our right to tell them how to live their lives. Let them live peacefully if it makes them happy to live in such a society.

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.

My apologies, I meant to say "Greatest" and not "Boomers", that was a mistype on my end. I do concur with this pattern and this is pretty much what I was thinking myself.

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.

I actually feel that the whole concept of "the global society" is another new form of imperialism in a similar way to the old European colonial imperialism of the 19th century. I tend to find that particularly from America there is this big push that the only way forward is by enacting a liberal, global society whereby the world itself becomes a melting pot and diversity of difference dies out. Nations and religions, as you have pointed out, are regressive and even perhaps revanchist elements of the past that need to be stamped out in order to move forward. Yet is this not the same thinking the European colonialists had in the 19th century? The whole concept of the white man's burden and that it is ultimately the destiny of the white man to build civilisation in non-European nations? Forcing religious conversions, technological advances and culture knowledge in order to build a global society that ultimately was European in nature?

This is how I see the modern day globalist movement on both the left and on the right. Personally I feel it is wrong to push values and tell people their nation and religions, yet alone cultures are outdated concept and they need to modernise and get with the times. What about if nationhood makes a people happy? What about if traditional religious and cultural values make a people happy? Certainly, like with the Arab Spring, they may wish to borrow some elements from the West yet when it comes to abandoning their traditions and identity, I think you'd find they'd be appalled at such an idea.

I like to think the tribes in Africa and South America that still live hunter-gatherer lifestyles yet are quite happy doing so. It is not right to disturb them. They should be able to live in peace as they want. If they don't want advanced technology, if they don't want Western culture and religion, then let them live as they so please. I also add this statement to European, Asian and African nations. Let them have their own homelands, their traditions, their cultures and let them live in peace. If it makes people happy then it is not right for us to interfere with this.

You know, my ideal vision of a global society is an Earth of the nations. I believe in every group to have their own nation, their own identity and their own religious beliefs but instead of conflict, I believe in the USSR vision of a "friendship of the nations". That is the concept that we will work together, we will live peacefully together, we will help one another yet we will not intrude upon the other's sovereignty and how they wish to conduct the affairs of their own nation or society. I believe in having a global summit such as the UN to help discuss international difficulties yet ultimately it ought to be up to the people of whatever nation or group they are from to make their own destiny.

This in my mind would solve the problems in the Middle East. If Europeans adopted a "we will help you but you must not settle here" mindset and Muslims did the same, then there would be no problems. Each group would live quite happily in their own homeland and could prosper from a mutual benefit of friendship. Muslims too would be just as upset if the Chinese or Brazilians started to settle en masse in their homelands for example. Fair is fair.

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.

Oh we are very aware of Ferguson. To be honest it was very shocking, especially how the United States police force came out in a very militaristic fashion. In my own opinion to the question that you asked, I don't think it was really a case of challenging the status-quo but actually continuing with the status-quo. I feel that it was a case of opportunism on the part of the rioters and a chance to keep the memory of the civil rights legacy alive by the leaders. Lets be honest - today's main civil rights debate in America is about Mexican immigration. African-American civil rights remains part of history. Obviously extra funding and support to keep the legacy alive would have been on the mind of the leaders.

I'd agree with Eric that the only main challenge to the status-quo would come from the red rebels of Conservative America. Only they would attempt to challenge the status-quo yet once again, I do debate if they will do anything active or prefer to remain as sofa troops and complain. Its a good question.

When it comes to Ferguson - the only thing it did show was that America is still a deeply divided nation and has a lot of work to do in order to bring a more permanent peace between the races living in 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.

The difference between the U.S and the UK is that ultimately the U.S is still a society that values the individual and a more open, free market capitalist mindset of doing things. The UK on the other hand actually is a nation that is rooted in socialism due to the early industrialisation of the country and the strict class system that never has left the nation since William the Conqueror established it. Due to terrible working conditions and the patronising cruelty showed by the upper class over the working class, the UK to this day remains a nation where the society as a collective expects the government to take care of them. There never was any true meritocratic promotion in the UK like the U.S. The concept of working really hard and becoming Prime Minister for example never really has existed until the mid 20th century and even now, that is once again being dissembled as the old aristocratic class system comes into play on who governs the nation.

What this overall means is that David Cameron could not truly keep pressing on too hardly with austerity. The more cuts Cameron makes to the welfare budget and other social amenities, the more likely the people will revolt and vote for the Labour Party. The British public will not tolerate abandoning the welfare state. It is like a religion here almost. Hence why Labour, despite having one of the most unpopular leaders in a generation, is actually doing well the polls.

Cameron is going to have a very tough re-election, thats for sure.

Originally Posted by Ksim

When it comes from France, Greece, Italy and Austria in particular, these nations have a strong Millennial presence in their own nationalist groups such as Marine LePen's Front National, the Freedom Party in Austria and of course the Golden Dawn in Greece. Italian youth too are very fond of nationalism, even going as far as to advocate splitting the nation up from the central governing authorities in Rome. Which is another thing - not only are Europeans patriotic towards their own homelands but also patriotic towards which region of the nation they actually come from. Hence the belief that eventually, European nations, let alone the European Union, could split up into independent entities.

Oh come on, you're defining your perspective of European Millennials based on what you see in far right, fringe parties that have openly associated themselves with nazis. You mentioned the BNP too, but they can't even hold a single MP. How is this representative of anything except the next generation of cranky old guys who are incredibly out of touch with the modern world?

Unlike the previous waves of immigration that was from Europe and could easily assimilate into the mainstream Anglo population

Wait a minute - if we wanted a mainstream Anglo population, we wouldn't have come to America. You're like, 250 years late dude.

I just have one question left: do you live somewhere you can vote "no" on independence referendums? Your cultural similarity to the WASP settlers of the deep south is striking.

(PS: Nowhere in America is as stagnant as those red places that have not seen immigration since the WASPs brought their slaves. Your reading of history seems completely backwards unless your goal is to actually live out the middle ages again.)

Originally Posted by Ksim

The difference between the U.S and the UK is that ultimately the U.S is still a society that values the individual and a more open, free market capitalist mindset of doing things. The UK on the other hand actually is a nation that is rooted in socialism due to the early industrialisation of the country and the strict class system that never has left the nation since William the Conqueror established it.

Values? No. Pays lip service to.

Our capitalists are the descendants of your class system's elites and barons. Our economic regulations and banking systems are the result of royal investment demands and loan conditions imposed after the Civil War.

You said that Russia was a relatively egalitarian society if you ignore a few oligarchs? Well, America is pretty much the same way if you isolate the politically-connected, billionaire oligarchs. Compared to these oligarchs, the doctor and the burger flipper are practically paid the same! But, the best bet you've got to become a doctor, is being born in to a top 10% income family. Even then, you'll come out of the educational system with an average $250,000 student loan debt. Compared to buying access, government-issued exams sounds like the liberation of actual merit.

As to becoming a billionaire, or even a Senator, well, your best bet is to have a dad who already was one.

Meritocracy is not and never has been and never will be a conservative ideology. It's radical. It's anti-authoritarian. And it isn't scared to compete with immigrants or different cultural outlooks.

Originally Posted by Ksim

Oh we are very aware of Ferguson. To be honest it was very shocking, especially how the United States police force came out in a very militaristic fashion. In my own opinion to the question that you asked, I don't think it was really a case of challenging the status-quo but actually continuing with the status-quo. I feel that it was a case of opportunism on the part of the rioters and a chance to keep the memory of the civil rights legacy alive by the leaders. Lets be honest - today's main civil rights debate in America is about Mexican immigration. African-American civil rights remains part of history. Obviously extra funding and support to keep the legacy alive would have been on the mind of the leaders.

I'd agree with Eric that the only main challenge to the status-quo would come from the red rebels of Conservative America. Only they would attempt to challenge the status-quo yet once again, I do debate if they will do anything active or prefer to remain as sofa troops and complain. Its a good question.

When it comes to Ferguson - the only thing it did show was that America is still a deeply divided nation and has a lot of work to do in order to bring a more permanent peace between the races living in the nation.

At the end of the day I believe this 4T will continue to be a mild one because the status quo isn't exactly stifling enough to the everyman (who is pretty comfortable with binge watching life) for a complete overhaul and the elite won't allow the real issues to change yet. Meanwhile, I don't see us getting involved in a big deal war because no country is going to start one with us at this point in time.

What's going on in Washington is people just doing busy work to make us think stuff is happening. I was listening to a guy on NPR talking about his next 100 years predictions and he believes the US biggest problem is that we are insecure with our Global Power status. I can see that and/ or also consider that the themes of this 4T prove that we can't fix shit and therefore aren't the shit like we try to portray.

So this 4T Crisis is an IDENTITY CRISIS.

BTW, that same author believes the US/ Mexico, who will rule the North America, issue will be one of the next Crisis or Awakening issues. Well he didn't use the words Crisis and Awakening but the dates he gave fit in with those projected times.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

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.

Yes, it's always easy to build a sand castle when you have plenty of sand. Exploiting the available is the essence of good business practice, and religiosity has been ubiquitous in the New World since day one.

[QUOTE=millennialX;522600]I think it's false to only consider the 1T as always being the happy and prosperous time when the party seemed endless during past 3Ts, too. Do you think folks during the Gold Rush/ First Industrial Revolution 3T and the 1920s saw the Crisis coming, despite the darkness looming underneath the bubble?

IMO 1T's are better looked at as Recovery's while 3T's seem like Bubbles.

Meanwhile during the 00s and now, the threat of fear and paranoia seem to loom.

To rather laughable proportions and actions. Freedom Fries. Car Window Flags.

And this...

The last cold war 1T had that type of vibe and pair Ferguson with the early Civil Rights movement. Even though we have similarities with the last 1T there, I wouldn't call this a 1T and I wouldn't call the 90s 3T a 1T either.

That's how you know we're still in the same saeculum. Irregardless of turning, there should be common themes.

Chas, what if you reminded everyone that the Glorious Revolution 4T didn't always feel like the end of the world?

Ahh yes, after James II fled England. Call the Glorious Revolution a regeneracy? Most definitely. Though it didn't last long in New England as Indian raids & massacres, French encroachment, King William's War, and the Salem Witch Trials soon supplanted the positivity which the Glorious Revolution had created.

Another thing to note: The Glorious Revolution, the obvious regeneracy of that Turning occurred about 10 years after the start of the 4T in England (Popish Plot starts the 4T off in England), and 13 - 14 years after the start of the 4T in America (King Philip's War starts the 4T off in New England, and Bacon's Rebellion starts the 4T off in the Southern Colonies). So regeneracies starting shortly after the crisis catalyst is disproved by this example quite plainly.

What's more, there had been a false regeneracy... after the death of Charles II when James II first came to power in 1685 there was a tentative mood shift for a regeneracy that sputtered quite quickly once James II more firmly established that he wasn't going to be the kind of monarch that anyone (English or Colonist) wanted.

1675 - 1702 = American Glorious Revolution 4T
1678 - 1702 = English Glorious Revolution 4T

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Values? No. Pays lip service to.

Our capitalists are the descendants of your class system's elites and barons. Our economic regulations and banking systems are the result of royal investment demands and loan conditions imposed after the Civil War.

You said that Russia was a relatively egalitarian society if you ignore a few oligarchs? Well, America is pretty much the same way if you isolate the politically-connected, billionaire oligarchs. Compared to these oligarchs, the doctor and the burger flipper are practically paid the same! But, the best bet you've got to become a doctor, is being born in to a top 10% income family. Even then, you'll come out of the educational system with an average $250,000 student loan debt. Compared to buying access, government-issued exams sounds like the liberation of actual merit.

As to becoming a billionaire, or even a Senator, well, your best bet is to have a dad who already was one.

Meritocracy is not and never has been and never will be a conservative ideology. It's radical. It's anti-authoritarian. And it isn't scared to compete with immigrants or different cultural outlooks.

I could have written this. Now, I don't have to.

Originally Posted by Ksim

So no, I think that Europe is a very different kettle of fish. I'd argue that it has only been down to strong American influence that has contributed to a rise in liberal New Age culture in Europe. The more America starts to decline in international power though and the more Europe will start to move back towards the right. Yet have they not the right to do so? Have they not the right to preserve their homelands just as other races, ethnic groups and cultures wish too? This is the fundamental question.

Such a right is not desirable as people advance and learn. National identity and homeland is not important to enlightened, free-thinking folks who enjoy life and culture. It just doesn't matter. What's good is good and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Europe moved well in advance of America in its liberal values and policies. I doubt most young people will want to give up this advanced condition and embrace fear and zenophobia instead.

You have a good point with this although I would argue that when it comes to a true socialistic society, the Russian population under Communism actually lived a more purer form of it then anything the Boomers brought about in the West....
Despite the Boomers and the 1960s cultural revolution in the West - when did Westerners ever embrace such ideals? They may have liberalised their view points yet still remained firmly committed to the capitalist culture of greed, materialism and want that previous generations had had. Sure, the USSR made some mistakes but I still feel Casey was very much on to something. I mean, would not the Russian model of living be good for Westerners in the long run when it comes to protecting the environment, saving on natural resources and improving Human relationships? I think it would actually.

I don't see how a lifeless, oppressed society where everyone is poor is one of brotherhood and pure socialism. They never got a chance to embrace materialism, though now some oligarchs, led by the chief one, have embraced greed. The communist model in Russia and Eastern Europe was very bad for the environment.

Europe will not go back to the 1930s where everyone was gunning for a war and genocidal ideals were in mind. Instead Europe will probably eventually adopt a more "tough guy" approach of "go home, we have nothing else left to offer." I predict that Europe will vote in national conservative governments - nothing extreme as the National Socialists of the past but more about defending the rights of the nation and its identity. I suspect Europe will go down a protectionist road too I'd like to add.

Le Penn is declining, and so will all right-wing parties. Nationalism is passe.

Russia actually isn't an aggressive nation despite what people mis believe it to be. Russians actually are incredibly defensive nationalistic peoples. They never make the first move. Its always the case that if you poke the bear then the bear will growl back in retaliation. Russians will defend what is theirs but will not advance any further. It is not in their interest and they are quite content to run their own large nation. Look at Napoleon and Hitler. Russia never made the first move. Even in the Cold War, the USSR was firmly committed to a "no first strike doctrine." Putin is of the same mindset. When America started poking its nose into the Ukraine and funding Maidan, then obviously Putin struck back and took Crimea. Yet had America left the Ukraine alone then Putin would have continued with "business as usual".

The more America pushes the bear with missile shields in Eastern Europe, conventional military regiments on border countries and colour revolutions in Russia's back yard, then yes Russia is going to retaliate. Leave them alone though and work with them as an equal partner and you will have no problems. Putin has no intention for a large scale conventional military campaign in Europe. In other words, leave the bear alone.

Putin has made the first moves in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia is quite aggressive in how far it has advanced. Look at their huge territory, almost as big as Genghis Khan's. No, Russia is not as aggressive as imperial German Reichs, but it needs to be contained. It will be, and will inspire no-one.

Actually I would like to point out that the Afrikaners were in a better position despite being in a minority position to actually win a civil war in South Africa during the early 1990s. The military would have sided with the civilian extremists and the old SADF was a very advanced fighting force. The extremists back then ran the government, something very different from America today. I tend to find the radicals in America are of a "sofa troop brigade" mindset. They like to moan on the internet and post online petitions yet when it comes to actually doing something, they won't do it. They are still too comfortable and it would take a major economic downturn to actually shake them out of their laziness. I do see some shootings taking place but it'll be more spree attacks by desperate extremists.

I think though if it ever did reach a full blown civil war, then the best bet would be just to let both sides peacefully separate and form their own new nations. If it makes people happy to live with the values they want, then let them be. I fully disagree with people having to live in a society with values they do not share. If one groups wants a more liberal, cosmopolitan society then let them have it. If one group wants to live in an homogeneous, conservative society then let them have it. If they are willing to live in peace and not try to rule over others then it is not our right to tell them how to live their lives. Let them live peacefully if it makes them happy to live in such a society.

I agree; may it be so, if that's what people decide. When the 4T climaxes, however, in the 2020s, the right and left in America will be more belligerent than today. But this is a saeculum of success and comfort in the USA, and Americans are used to it; and so we'll see just how far it goes.

I actually feel that the whole concept of "the global society" is another new form of imperialism in a similar way to the old European colonial imperialism of the 19th century. I tend to find that particularly from America there is this big push that the only way forward is by enacting a liberal, global society whereby the world itself becomes a melting pot and diversity of difference dies out. Nations and religions, as you have pointed out, are regressive and even perhaps revanchist elements of the past that need to be stamped out in order to move forward. Yet is this not the same thinking the European colonialists had in the 19th century? The whole concept of the white man's burden and that it is ultimately the destiny of the white man to build civilisation in non-European nations? Forcing religious conversions, technological advances and culture knowledge in order to build a global society that ultimately was European in nature?

This is how I see the modern day globalist movement on both the left and on the right. Personally I feel it is wrong to push values and tell people their nation and religions, yet alone cultures are outdated concept and they need to modernize and get with the times. What about if nationhood makes a people happy? What about if traditional religious and cultural values make a people happy? Certainly, like with the Arab Spring, they may wish to borrow some elements from the West yet when it comes to abandoning their traditions and identity, I think you'd find they'd be appalled at such an idea.

I don't see that at all. I'm with John Lennon, and was so even before his song came out. I'm one of those who is "not the only one."

Globalization, like every other system, can be good or bad, depending on how it is structured. If it is one society or corporate monoliths ruling the world, no, that is not what we want. Instead, it means that we all are learning from all cultures, without any one dominating, and moving beyond traditions that oppress us and limit our thinking. That's what nations and religions do. They don't make people happy. Traditional "identity" is not that important to people who rise up and glimpse what life is about, as all young people today can do. Real identity is shaped by what we each offer as creative spirits. The Three Revolutionary Movements are global, and they are liberating. Look to those ideals, and there will be no oppressive globalization, but instead, global freedom.

If old traditions and values give people life and freedom, they will survive and inspire the world-- as they should. Great art and great insight comes from the past, and we are the first people to be able to learn from and be inspired by all of it, everywhere on Earth. But where they oppress and limit people, in those aspects they will die.

Global society is just the fact today. We are all part of one world. Accepting the facts means seeing that freedom and liberation is not emerging from an evolving religion or a nation, but from movements to which all young people now have access. You can't confine these movements. That's the point. Put your hope and faith in these, and not in national and religious identities.

The young people want new ideas; their dictators impose old ideas upon them in order to stay in power. It is the dictators and fanatics who are destroying old traditions; look at the obscene actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of the IS in Mosul. And Al Qaeda and Boka Horam. Yet these are the assholes trumpeting themselves as protecting "identity!" They are just bullies, and the world needs none of them ever again. They need to be blasted back to hell where they belong, and the sooner the better. Don't you agree?

I like to think the tribes in Africa and South America that still live hunter-gatherer lifestyles yet are quite happy doing so. It is not right to disturb them. They should be able to live in peace as they want. If they don't want advanced technology, if they don't want Western culture and religion, then let them live as they so please. I also add this statement to European, Asian and African nations. Let them have their own homelands, their traditions, their cultures and let them live in peace. If it makes people happy then it is not right for us to interfere with this.

You know, my ideal vision of a global society is an Earth of the nations. I believe in every group to have their own nation, their own identity and their own religious beliefs but instead of conflict, I believe in the USSR vision of a "friendship of the nations". That is the concept that we will work together, we will live peacefully together, we will help one another yet we will not intrude upon the other's sovereignty and how they wish to conduct the affairs of their own nation or society. I believe in having a global summit such as the UN to help discuss international difficulties yet ultimately it ought to be up to the people of whatever nation or group they are from to make their own destiny.

Nothing wrong with all that. I agree. By global society, I mean that people can get ideas on how to live from anywhere they want. They can embrace their own traditions, share them with others, or learn from others, and the more important point is, THEY WILL.

People from now on will seek and find their own identity, as spiritual seekers and souls on a journey. Some people will find fulfillment through their homeland and group, and others will not. Many will depart from their inherited group, and join another one. Still others will identify with the revolution; that is a group too. I am a Green, and that makes me happy. As for being an American, I don't care about my identity. I only want my country to do what is best for itself and others.

This in my mind would solve the problems in the Middle East. If Europeans adopted a "we will help you but you must not settle here" mindset and Muslims did the same, then there would be no problems. Each group would live quite happily in their own homeland and could prosper from a mutual benefit of friendship. Muslims too would be just as upset if the Chinese or Brazilians started to settle en masse in their homelands for example. Fair is fair.

You can't stop immigration as long as one area is more desirable than another. And you shouldn't. Recognize their value as people just like you. The only solution is for more freedom and opportunity to come to Middle East lands, as the young Arab rebels want. Only then will immigration slow down. Entrenched dictators and imperialists stand in their way. The Revolution will overthrow them and establish freedom and justice in those lands. But Europeans should understand the need for people to escape the trauma that is inevitable until the Revolution succeeds. Europeans need to help these people, and understand their needs. Accept them into their countries until they can go home, and help them go home by helping the Revolution succeed; not by imposing on others' sovereignty, but when rebels ask for help they should get it. Not doing all this is just cruel nonsense. We are all one people on one planet.

The "sovereignty" of King Assad means less than nothing. The monsters like him and the IS must be stopped there before immigration from there will stop. That's quite simple and clear-cut.

Originally Posted by Ksim

I tend to find that particularly from America there is this big push that the only way forward is by enacting a liberal, global society whereby the world itself becomes a melting pot and diversity of difference dies out.

This notion was at its peak 15 - 20 years ago. Because the 4T is scary and dangerous, there are still Americans who cling to such flawed and naive notions. I feel sorry for my fellow Americans who still cling to lies. They are going to be freaking out when reality starts to vaporize cities.

[QUOTE=Chas'88;522627]

Originally Posted by millennialX

I think it's false to only consider the 1T as always being the happy and prosperous time when the party seemed endless during past 3Ts, too. Do you think folks during the Gold Rush/ First Industrial Revolution 3T and the 1920s saw the Crisis coming, despite the darkness looming underneath the bubble?

IMO 1T's are better looked at as Recovery's while 3T's seem like Bubbles.



To rather laughable proportions and actions. Freedom Fries. Car Window Flags.

And this...





That's how you know we're still in the same saeculum. Irregardless of turning, there should be common themes.



Ahh yes, after James II fled England. Call the Glorious Revolution a regeneracy? Most definitely. Though it didn't last long in New England as Indian raids & massacres, French encroachment, King William's War, and the Salem Witch Trials soon supplanted the positivity which the Glorious Revolution had created.

Another thing to note: The Glorious Revolution, the obvious regeneracy of that Turning occurred about 10 years after the start of the 4T in England (Popish Plot starts the 4T off in England), and 13 - 14 years after the start of the 4T in America (King Philip's War starts the 4T off in New England, and Bacon's Rebellion starts the 4T off in the Southern Colonies). So regeneracies starting shortly after the crisis catalyst is disproved by this example quite plainly.

What's more, there had been a false regeneracy... after the death of Charles II when James II first came to power in 1685 there was a tentative mood shift for a regeneracy that sputtered quite quickly once James II more firmly established that he wasn't going to be the kind of monarch that anyone (English or Colonist) wanted.

1675 - 1702 = American Glorious Revolution 4T
1678 - 1702 = English Glorious Revolution 4T

We are not in a 1T.

Welcome to the forum, Ksim!

The 4T is when all the forces and implications unleashed in the 2T come to a head as the elderly Artist-Adaptive generation dies off and is no longer able to restrain the Prophets and Civics. One can see this continual loss of restraint by the increasingly hysterical political and cultural polarization of this country since 2008, Congress can't even pass a god damn proper budget.

This goes back to the emergence in the 2T of a new culture that was post-Judeo-Christian, The Consciousness Awakening was the first Awakening in the history of Western Civilization that was not predominantly Christian in tone. This set off a conservative reaction, mainly centered in the South and the High Plains, looking to preserve their "Judeo-Christian Values". Despite this reaction the new culture continuously gained ground over the course of the 3T in people's hearts and minds. Silent Generation moderate conservatives generally kept any possibility of an extreme reaction under wraps.

Then in 2008 the influence of the Silents had declined enough for the combination of a financial panic and the election of Obama as President to cause something within society to snap. I remember exactly when I realize that something very bad was happening when I turnwd on MSNBC on morning to get election-related news and saw to my absolute horror images of Republicans with openly racist signs about "The Lyin' African". The Social Reactionaries, "Red America", saw the election of a Black person as president as a sign of ultimate victory of the new culture, of "Blue America", and without the Silent "grown-ups" around they have been throwing a collective temper tantrum ever since.

How to deal with the temper tantrum of Red America and how it is completely fucking the country is the heart of this Crisis.

Over in Europe the 4T is mainly about the failure of the EU. I'm a left-wing internationalist who despises nationalism with a passion, and so I find the rise of the nationalist Right in Europe to be deeply disturbing. If we have to bail you guys out again when Europe spawns a lunatic who decides to Holocaust all Muslims in Europe Your nationalism will deserve to be crushed for good.

Welcome to the board, dude.

I am really digging the spluttering disbelief being exhibited by "blue" Americans on this thread when confronted by someone who doesn't share their belief system. Colin Woodward's thesis confirmed again, as usual.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

This notion was at its peak 15 - 20 years ago. Because the 4T is scary and dangerous, there are still Americans who cling to such flawed and naive notions. I feel sorry for my fellow Americans who still cling to lies. They are going to be freaking out when reality starts to vaporize cities.

Try more like 100-115 years ago!

In the early 20th century, the meaning of the recently popularized concept of the melting pot was subject to ongoing debate which centered on the issue of immigration. The debate surrounding the concept of the melting pot centered on how immigration impacted American society and on how immigrants should be approached. The melting pot was equated with either the acculturation or the total assimilation of European immigrants, and the debate centered on the differences between these two ways of approaching immigration: "Was the idea to melt down the immigrants and then pour the resulting, formless liquid into the preexisting cultural and social molds modeled on Anglo-Protestants like Henry Ford and Woodrow Wilson, or was the idea instead that everyone, Mayflower descendants and Sicilians, Ashkenazi and Slovaks, would act chemically upon each other so that all would be changed, and a new compound would emerge?"^[13]

Jews from Eastern Europe were changing their names from ethnic names such as "Bernstein" to "Burns". Children of Italian and Polish immigrants were refusing to learn the mother tongue. Boarding schools for American Indians were designed to "kill the Indian and save the man". It's hard to imagine now, but that was the progressive ideal around the turn of the last century.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Welcome to the board, dude.

I am really digging the spluttering disbelief being exhibited by "blue" Americans on this thread when confronted by someone who doesn't share their belief system. Colin Woodward's thesis confirmed again, as usual.

I don't know which of Woodward's theses you're referring to, but here's the one I'm emphasizing:

"Its central tenets are entirely in sync with the Deep South and Appalachia but are entirely anathema to other parts of the country," Woodard said. "The Tea Party is doomed on a national scale."

Woodward's still really understating the fact because the ideology isn't even gaining traction with Millies in the cities and suburbs that line the edges of this WASP-centric nation. The business conservatives are drifting further and further from the social conservatives. In the 10-20 year time frame, neoliberalism has no serious threats while the WASP-Southern-Baptist coalition is sinking to a real low in influence and wealth. For fuck's sake, Wal-Mart just told Arkansas to knock it off with the gay-bashing and they're bragging about the fact that they're going to start competing for labor above the minimum wage.

We can also look at polls from Europe and realize that most Millies there aren't joining up with far-right, racist, nationalist parties. The few that do are definitely using the internet as a recruiting tool, but mostly because they can't get any traction anywhere else.

I welcome a nationalist to the board, or anyone who's view are different from mine. It stimulates the discussion for me.

In the 10-20 year time frame, neoliberalism has no serious threats

It is THE ideology that is threatened in this 4T. The 1% are shaking in their boots.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

This notion was at its peak 15 - 20 years ago. Because the 4T is scary and dangerous, there are still Americans who cling to such flawed and naive notions. I feel sorry for my fellow Americans who still cling to lies. They are going to be freaking out when reality starts to vaporize cities.

What I find naive is the notion that the blending of races and cultures can be stopped.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I don't know which of Woodward's theses you're referring to, but here's the one I'm emphasizing:



Woodward's still really understating the fact because the ideology isn't even gaining traction with Millies in the cities and suburbs that line the edges of this WASP-centric nation. The business conservatives are drifting further and further from the social conservatives. In the 10-20 year time frame, neoliberalism has no serious threats while the WASP-Southern-Baptist coalition is sinking to a real low in influence and wealth. For fuck's sake, Wal-Mart just told Arkansas to knock it off with the gay-bashing and they're bragging about the fact that they're going to start competing for labor above the minimum wage.

We can also look at polls from Europe and realize that most Millies there aren't joining up with far-right, racist, nationalist parties. The few that do are definitely using the internet as a recruiting tool, but mostly because they can't get any traction anywhere else.

Oh, I know you are, dude, your accusing him of being a spiritual cousin to white Southerners is part of what brought Woodward to mind. I was thinking more of the main"progressive" nations being the heirs of the old Calvinist Protestants, personally, a thesis he really confirmed at the end when he chose to eschew emphasizing the continuity of the new beliefs of the Yankee/Left Coast with the old, as he had done for the other regions, in favor of calling for a new crusade against the South and emphasizing the glorious New Jerusalem (ie Canada) if the heirs of Jackson were finally forced to the one true faith. I'm seeing a lot of that attitude here (really everywhere, my present school being pretty much a vicar mill for the post-60s awakening). I'm really liking the refernces to previous Yankee victories being directed at Ksim by Eric, Odin, and M&L.

I dunno, we're definitely in the 4T "cleansing of the culture" phase of the new value system, but I'm agnostic to skeptical of America's continued ability to impose its values worldwide. We'll see how things shake out.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Try more like 100-115 years ago!


Jews from Eastern Europe were changing their names from ethnic names such as "Bernstein" to "Burns". Children of Italian and Polish immigrants were refusing to learn the mother tongue. Boarding schools for American Indians were designed to "kill the Indian and save the man". It's hard to imagine now, but that was the progressive ideal around the turn of the last century.

I was not referring to the efficacy of the melting pot (or even the less ideal salad bowl) within the US. I was referring to the way that naive people in the US try to apply such notions globally, melding them in with globalist utopianism ... ah, shopping malls and Starbucks from Tierra Del Fuego to the Kamchatka Peninsula, whorled peas until eternity.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What I find naive is the notion that the blending of races and cultures can be stopped.

You need to differentiate between what is happening here in the US / The Americas versus the rest of the world. You seem to really struggle with this concept.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Oh, I know you are, dude, you're accusing him of being a spiritual cousin to white Southerners is part of what brought Woodward to mind. I was thinking more of the main"progressive" nations being the heirs of the old Calvinist Protestants, personally, a thesis he really confirmed at the end when he chose to eschew emphasizing the continuity of the new beliefs of the Yankee/Left Coast with the old, as he had done for the other regions, in favor of calling for a new crusade against the South and emphasizing the glorious New Jerusalem (ie Canada) if the heirs of Jackson were finally forced to the one true faith. I'm seeing a lot of that attitude here (really everywhere, my present school being pretty much a vicar mill for the post-60s awakening). I'm really liking the evocations of previous Yankee victories being directed at Ksim by Eric, Odin, and M&L.

I dunno, we're definitely in the 4T "cleansing of the culture" phase of the new value system, but I'm agnostic to skeptical of America's continued ability to impose its values worldwide. We'll see how things shake out.

I'm not agnostic at all about this (obviously). We have already failed and those who do not see it are whistling past the graveyard. The world is a mean place. Calvinism only works within a certain cultural framework. Outside that framework, it is hopeless. The US / Calvinists are in for a very rude awakening. I believe it will happen prior to 2025. BTW - this is some real crow for me to eat personally, as a recovered Globalist Utopian who was a teen aged Trotskyite!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm not agnostic at all about this (obviously). We have already failed and those who do not see it are whistling past the graveyard. The world is a mean place. Calvinism only works within a certain cultural framework. Outside that framework, it is hopeless. The US / Calvinists are in for a very rude awakening. I believe it will happen prior to 2025. BTW - this is some real crow for me to eat personally, as a recovered Globalist Utopian who was a teen aged Trotskyite!

I know, dude, we've had this conversation many times before.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You need to differentiate between what is happening here in the US / The Americas versus the rest of the world. You seem to really struggle with this concept.

Where is it NOT happening?

Watch this one:
https://youtu.be/i94TSwnFsHM

It's possible by the end of this century that genetic signposts will become hidden.

His final words are epic and undeniable.

You seem to struggle with the naive notion that cultural and racial blending will not be stopped.

The human family tree:
https://youtu.be/lkexKLCak5M