Originally Posted by B Butler

I don't see significant changes in gun laws until after a hypothetical regeneracy puts Blue culture clearly in the congressional driver's seat. Thus, a spiral of violence built around gun issues leading up to a regeneracy is implausible. The regeneracy would have to happen first. After the regeneracy, the game could change big time.

Yes, that's about how I see it. The "regeneracy" will consist of a gradual progressive breakthough in the stalemate accelerating in the early 2020s. The temper of society will be rising, but not yet too violent. At some point gun laws will be passed; not too stringent, and not as a provocation; but that doesn't matter. America's gun fanatics are irrational, and they will scream and yell if any gun laws are passed, and combined with other frustration on the right because their precious Reaganomics has finally been overturned and social programs and more taxes are passed, they will likely start shooting and/or seceding.

At the moment I think the NRA is pushing a mild advantage. Conceal carry is still expanding in rural areas. The fallout from recent 2nd Amendment court cases is reducing the urban gun prohibition. At the national level there is still a burst of rhetoric after every violent incident, but no one is seriously pushing legislation. There are a few steps the prohibition advocates could reasonably take at the state level, but I haven't heard much about such legislation getting passed.

It came close in congress before the latest election meltdown because millies don't vote in midterms. It was within a few votes. Other laws have passed in Washington, Maryland, Colorado and other blue and purple states.

I think the difference between the lone actors we are seeing today and organized groups like the Sons of Liberty or John Brown's group significant. We tend to see the lone actors as unstable to insane losers. To a great degree I believe many of them are using political or racist excuses in attempting to fight personal demons.

But I wouldn't say you are totally wrong. The number of violent individual acts may well in some way reflect the frustrations and anger of society as a whole. Should such tensions continue to increase, organization would be the next step.

Yes indeed.

I'm honored that you say I'm not totally wrong this time. That's a welcome change of pace from you.

The step I'm watching for is a violent lone actor being declared a hero rather than a nut. Suppose someone managed to kill the Koch Brothers and a bunch of Blue media outlets declared this to be a great day for America. I would see such encouraging press coverage as likely to greatly increase the chance of a spiral of rhetoric and violence escalating. I could anticipate a significant increase in copycat loners and the beginnings of organization.

Kill the Koch Brothers! Now there's a neat lunatic idea. Actually, I think it won't be too long now before they die off.

Not happening yet. I don't really anticipate it yet. Still, when I see the more fanatic members of the forum wistfully daydreaming about revolution and civil war, that sort of thing ought to be on their list of near future daydreams.

Yes indeed. The daydreamers just need to adjust the date, and get on board with the 4T starting in 2008 and lasting 20 years. They can then afford to be more patient. Folks like Kepi keep saying it's right over the horizon, but it's a bit farther down the road.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Indeed, Eric is actually right on this one. It's not at all unheard of for a Fourth Turning to consist primarily of fractious debate and political stalemate.

Yes, thank you.

Consider the Glorious Revolution for the best example, which is of course part of the Saeculum most proponents of Mega-Theory compare to our own. William of Orange's invasion of mainland Britain and Scotland were quite late in that Turning, which also featured no immediately apparent "Regeneracy" of note. It was full of contentious religious debate, and to a degree that the invasion only suppressed the debate - England was by no means united sympathetically around William the way they were around Churchill in the Second World War, or Americans around Roosevelt. And, unsurprisingly, that Fourth Turning is considered part of a MegaUnraveling.

Remember this comparison also works in the double rhythm theory.

That theory was sometimes taken too far as well here, but it's better and more plausible than the mega-saeculum theory, since the actual trends during these "mega" periods don't match the theory of how they are supposed to be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, that's about how I see it. The "regeneracy" will consist of a gradual progressive breakthough in the stalemate accelerating in the early 2020s. The temper of society will be rising, but not yet too violent. At some point gun laws will be passed; not too stringent, and not as a provocation; but that doesn't matter. America's gun fanatics are irrational, and they will scream and yell if any gun laws are passed, and combined with other frustration on the right because their precious Reaganomics has finally been overturned and social programs and more taxes are passed, they will likely start shooting and/or seceding.

I still see your vision of how those with rural values will act as being closer to vile stereotype than True. Their reaction will depend highly on what gun laws are passed and whether the Constitution is honored. Yes, if their core values are blatantly trampled on, there could be a problem. Still, the court system won't make it easy to trample on the Constitution. Gun prohibition fanatics are seldom willing to study the law journal articles, the court precedents, the writings of the founding fathers, etc... Thus they tend to make predictions that seem very silly to those who have.

Edit: Correction: Predictions that the 2nd Amendment is about to vanish might seem silly to someone like me whose interest is academic and somewhat abstract. Such predictions would not seem silly, would be profoundly disturbing, if gun rights are close to the core of someone's world view. The right to protect one's self on one's family in a potentially dangerous world is of critical importance to many. A desire by certain (insert a vile stereotype of blue people here) to render one helpless is not silly but a threat to hearth and home.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm honored that you say I'm not totally wrong this time. That's a welcome change of pace from you.

Every once in a while one has to sew confusion and chaos into the proceedings.

Actually, much of what you are saying in this last post seems to indicate a reality check. Our positions at this point are less divergent.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Kill the Koch Brothers! Now there's a neat lunatic idea. Actually, I think it won't be too long now before they die off.

That it seems lunatic indicates how far from violent conflict we are. If there is to be civil war or revolution, would we not be making war on the one percent? Does it still seem ridiculous to shoot one's enemies? If so, the spiral of violence isn't far along at all.

I do have another lunatic idea, a notion of what the next step in the escalation might be. I'm reluctant to share it as there really are lunatics out there. Somebody might try it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I still see your vision of how those with rural values will act as being closer to vile stereotype than True. Their reaction will depend highly on what gun laws are passed and whether the Constitution is honored. Yes, if their core values are blatantly trampled on, there could be a problem. Still, the court system won't make it easy to trample on the Constitution. Gun prohibition fanatics are seldom willing to study the law journal articles, the court precedents, the writings of the founding fathers, etc... Thus they tend to make predictions that seem very silly to those who have.

I see no likelihood that the Blue side would pass gun prohibition. 4Ts can be drastic, but that would be quite a switch from current opinion. I suppose it's possible. It would be a declaration of war, since gun owners today (even in the 2020s) would fight to keep their guns. But since I have observed the behavior of these gun fanatics, and their vows to organize opposition even to the most lenient gun laws, I say the reaction from the Red side is more likely than over-reach by the Blue side. And rural America still has more power than its population warrants, because of the system; so that might have to change too in order to pass severe gun laws. I do see changes in the system happening, but taking away the power of rural states in the Senate doesn't seem on the minds of many folks right now. And the blue side does not need to abolish the electoral college right now in order to win the White House.

Edit: Correction: Predictions that the 2nd Amendment is about to vanish might seem silly to someone like me whose interest is academic and somewhat abstract. Such predictions would not seem silly, would be profoundly disturbing, if gun rights are close to the core of someone's world view. The right to protect one's self on one's family in a potentially dangerous world is of critical importance to many. A desire by certain (insert a vile stereotype of blue people here) to render one helpless is not silly but a threat to hearth and home.

The "right" to have a gun does not equal the right to self-protection.

That it seems lunatic indicates how far from violent conflict we are. If there is to be civil war or revolution, would we not be making war on the one percent? Does it still seem ridiculous to shoot one's enemies? If so, the spiral of violence isn't far along at all.

I do have another lunatic idea, a notion of what the next step in the escalation might be. I'm reluctant to share it as there really are lunatics out there. Somebody might try it.

Yes, that's right.

I don't think assassination of fossil fool barons and other .1% aristocrats is very likely, because they are so remote, invisible and well-protected, and because no-one has even suggested such a thing yet. What will actually happen in this 4T, are things that people are already thinking about now, even though they are not possible yet. It's partly because it would not accomplish much; you'd have to bring out a veritable guillotine and start lopping off the heads of the whole class to make much of a difference. So it would go over about as well as what Roof did. Shooting a few people to start a war probably won't work. Then there's the fact of how old they already are anyway.

It's more likely to start as a group shooting something up like a fort or armory or something like that. And it's more likely to be the Right-wing that starts it. They believe in guns and violence. The Left is too much into peace and love.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I see no likelihood that the Blue side would pass gun prohibition. 4Ts can be drastic, but that would be quite a switch from current opinion. I suppose it's possible. It would be a declaration of war, since gun owners today (even in the 2020s) would fight to keep their guns. But since I have observed the behavior of these gun fanatics, and their vows to organize opposition even to the most lenient gun laws, I say the reaction from the Red side is more likely than over-reach by the Blue side. And rural America still has more power than its population warrants, because of the system; so that might have to change too in order to pass severe gun laws. I do see changes in the system happening, but taking away the power of rural states in the Senate doesn't seem on the minds of many folks right now. And the blue side does not need to abolish the electoral college right now in order to win the White House.

If there isn't a total gun prohibition, I doubt the reaction would be large scale lethal by 4T standards. I could be wrong. A lot of yelling and screaming at even the smallest and most sensible gun law, certainly, so long as the Blues seem to be advocating total prohibition.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The "right" to have a gun does not equal the right to self-protection.

I would not count on everyone agreeing with you on that.

Every once in awhile, it is necessary to provide a friendly slap upside the heads of my Lefty friends.

Given some of the silly crapola stated on this thread, I think you're due.

First, look at the video of the crowds Sanders is bringing in - how can I put this, oh yea, Lilly White. The Dems don't win without minorities being greatly enthused and some old White guy from VT battling it out with another old White guy ain't it. Sure Bernie's numbers look good in NH, IA but lets see what happens in SC and NV and most importantly, Super Tuesday ("Bernie? How u'all spell that?")

Second, can we knock off this false equivalency thing (i.e. "corporatist Dems are no better than GOPers)? It's gotten pretty old; it's always been stupid and whinney. If Bush 2 didn't cure you of this, then you were either in a coma or your willful stupidity should qualify you for the other Party. For my Socialist friends - the difference is while Clinton will listen to you and may not take your specifics but go in the general direction, the other guys are looking at you and trying to figure out how to put you away in Gitmo. The stakes are very very high regarding consequences for you for a big chunk of your remaining lifetime - imagine the difference between having a Scalia clone replacing Ginsburg with a GOPer in the WH as opposed to getting the exact opposite with Hillary in the WH - this is something that you will live with long after the next President has left office. If that doesn't terrify you enough to quit with the false equivalency horseshit, then you are simply and willfully brain dead.

Third, I bring up the consequences because Sanders could really hurt our chances of having a Dem in the WH for eight long years and leaving us praying especially hard for an atypical life expectancy for Ginsburg and the other Supreme beings. HC has a very good shot at this, in part, as a Clinton (Bill is going to rally those desperately needed minorities), and as the first woman Prez (I actually see a big crossover of women GOPers - that's why Fiorina - not Palin dumb but just as nasty - as likely VP to staunch the blood lost). But what Clinton really has going for her is the polling against White guys in a Party that is increasingly out-of-touch. If Sanders makes some big dents in that inevitability, it's going to start a lot of hand-wringing and second guessing that could become a civil war within the Dems. The only hope is if Warren enters as the Party's savior and Clinton graciously bows out. If not, a greatly wounded candidate will emerge and folks will forget the clown car GOP troubles pretty fast because, for better or for worse, Clinton trails-and-tribulations overshadow everything. Sure, you can sit back now and say that a blood bath in the Dems is long over do; just remember that when President Trump invades Mexico and raises your payroll taxes to cover his 0.01% hedge fund buddies' tax cuts - can you really be this stupid?

I too like Sanders a lot, but he's not going to be Prez. And if I could wave my magic wand, I'd put Warren in the WH in a millisecond. But the risks and consequences of trying to make that happen are very very high.

Fourth, can we stop the Obama bashing? You know, that little speciality of the stupid false equivalency meme? Obama doesn't have to be FDR, winning the real Great Depression and WW2, to be considered a great PROGRESSIVE President. In the last hundred years, sure LBJ's Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid) could put him as #2 slot of most Progressvie, but then there was that little thing called Vietnam - look it up. Obama has brought health insurance to around 26 million people, the vast majority of them for the very first time. That is something that's been tried, and failed, since Teddy R. and unlike LBJ he's gotten, getting or keeping us out of wars. And most important, he's broke the lock on the Presidency as a White man's club. Really, who's been more Progressive than that? And he's done it with t-baggers, McConnell, Boehner, Scalia, Thomas, etc at his throat the entire time. If you think Clinton, Bernie or Warren are going to obviously succeed with a more substantial Progressive agenda (other than replacing Scalia or Thomas with a Ginsberg clone), then you need to stop hitting the bong so much.

Get your heads screwed on for this election or you will certainly deserve the big clusterfuck that will come - one that could exceed in degree and time of the last Lefty ambiguity that gave us the W clusterfuck.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If that doesn't terrify you enough to quit with the false equivalency horseshit, then you are simply and willfully brain dead.

Or they aren't as amygdala-dominated (ie "terrified") as you would like them to be.
But I'm sure being insulted by a one-percenter like yourself will go far in convincing them.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Or they aren't as amygdala-dominated (ie "terrified") as you would like them to be.

Being terrified by the prospects and long-term consequences of a Scalia clone replacing Ginsburg is a rational cerebral lobe deduction.

I also understand why you are not able to grasp that.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Or they aren't as amygdala-dominated (ie "terrified") as you would like them to be.
But I'm sure being insulted by a one-percenter like yourself will go far in convincing them.

I thought he had a trust fund or something.

To my Lefty friends, this is both good news and gives you a chance to make a positive difference -

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/al...running-senate

Alan Grayson Is Running For The Senate

Alan Grayson announced this morning that, despite the strong efforts of the Democratic establishment to push Patrick Murphy, a recently-switched Democrat, as the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat left open by Marco Rubio's presidential race, he's running.

Naturally, the D.C. Dems are flinging all kinds of mud to smear him (including one story about his investment fund). I was on a call with him last night and he explained the allegations in great detail. I don't think he'll have a problem.

He pointed out last night that every time the establishment Dems try to run someone in Florida who's more of a Republican (which Patrick Murphy was until not that long ago), Democrats don't even bother coming out to vote. He won't have that problem.

Republicans just hate him. He's running, and he intends to win. Send him money, he'll need it.

Imagine this firebrand in the Senate alongside Warren. Whoa.

Send money! Plan a week in Florida for canvasing!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I thought he had a trust fund or something.

I'm a board member on a multi-generational trust fund that mostly provides to charities and causes (including one that Rani turned me onto) but does have provisions for support to members of an extended family should they get into dire straights. Neither I nor my immediate family has or likely ever will benefit financially from it. It's actually a really big pain in my otherwise retired ass.

Rani has known this for years but never mentions these little details. Part of her persona I guess.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Being terrified by the prospects and long-term consequences of a Scalia clone replacing Ginsburg is a rational cerebral lobe deduction.

I also understand why you are not able to grasp that.

Obviously, because I'm a moron. Not a neuroscience expert like yourself.
Thanks for clarifying the nature of frontal lobe "terror," genius.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Obviously, because I'm a moron. Not a neuroscience expert like yourself.
Thanks for clarifying the nature of frontal lobe "terror," genius.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'm sure it makes sense to you and this guy -

Originally Posted by playwrite

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'm sure it makes sense to you and this guy -

A super genius like you can't figure it out?
I'm bowing down to your expertise in manipulating others by "terrifying" them. Have you and the team at Harvard developed any new pharmaceuticals along these lines? The ignorant masses must be managed.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If there isn't a total gun prohibition, I doubt the reaction would be large scale lethal by 4T standards. I could be wrong. A lot of yelling and screaming at even the smallest and most sensible gun law, certainly, so long as the Blues seem to be advocating total prohibition.

What is VERY likely, is that (just as you appear to do here), the conservatives will equate a stated desire for reasonable gun laws with prohibition.

I too doubt, absent prohibition (which I think the Blue side would know is provocation), that the right-wing reaction will be as massive as in the civil war or the revolution. But, that may be the scale of violence in this 4T, in these tamer times. But remember too you also have to add on the other resentments that the right-wing would harbor against other progressive programs and taxes. The right-wing feels entitled to rule this country, and they won't surrender that entitlement easily.

I would not count on everyone agreeing with you on that.

I don't count on people agreeing with me. That would be silly

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What is VERY likely, is that (just as you appear to do here), the conservatives will equate a stated desire for reasonable gun laws with prohibition.

There are too many folk dreaming about absolute prohibition, and too many folk dreaming about absolute obstruction of any gun laws. As Shakespeare once wrote, a pox on both their houses. I don't anticipate either group going away until the other group goes away first.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I too doubt, absent prohibition (which I think the Blue side would know is provocation), that the right-wing reaction will be as massive as in the civil war or the revolution. But, that may be the scale of violence in this 4T, in these tamer times. But remember too you also have to add on the other resentments that the right-wing would harbor against other progressive programs and taxes. The right-wing feels entitled to rule this country, and they won't surrender that entitlement easily.

Does the left wing not feel entitled to a regeneracy?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't count on people agreeing with me. That would be silly

But it does happen on rare occasions?

Originally Posted by B Butler

During the English Civil War era, the Parliament was favoring elites controlling the developing small craft sector centered in London. The king favored the old rural agricultural economy.

That's not my sense. From what little I have gleaning in my general readings, the parliamentary faction were the large landowners and perhaps rising urban elites, while the king favored the old aristocratic families now in decline and the smaller landowning elites (gentry). That is economic winners versus losers, with the king representing the losers.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

the overthrow of the financial elite and the end of our continuing conflicts overseas, ie the end of the empire, is going to be spearheaded by foreign actors and not a domestic uprising.

I very much doubt any involvement by foreign actors. The reason is simple. There is only one thing they would want from the US (access to US markets) and they are already getting it.

The US spends more on our military than the rest of the remaining powers do. The US maintains 800 overseas bases. The next ten biggest powers collectively have about 30 (see 0:44 in linked video). All this has given America the unique ability to project substantial military force anywhere on earth in a fairly short period of time.

Why does America have so much power relative to everyone else? Is it because we spend so much more as a % of GDP than we did 30, 40, 50 years ago? No! It's because THEY spend much less. Why?

Well how much benefit has come from all that power? The first Bush executed an almost textbook intervention in the Gulf War, held up as an example of unparalleled success. And yet a direct consequence from that was the almost textbook clusterfuck that was the second Iraq war and now, a bonus clusterfuck with ISIS.

Another consequence was the explusion of Osama bin Laden from Saudi Arabia to Sudan. And from Sudan his organization then launched its first terrorist strikes in 1993, predictably against the US presence in Saudi Arabia (the cause of his expulsion) and the US itself. It was followed by attacks on US targets in Africa and the Arabian peninsula, and in 2000 & 2001 the American homeland. The last of these resulted in nearly 3000 American civilians dead and the Afghanistan war. Saddam was right after all, it gave the mother of all blowbacks.

None of the other interventions in which the US has engaged in my lifetime (Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya) has given outcomes better than what seemed to have happened from the Gulf War. The Gulf was the single bright spot and it was the worst of all of them. In other words our mighty empire has repeatedly fucked the American people and the rest of the world. Who in the hell wants that, besides Americans, of course (who also seem not to mind when their drug companies do the same)?

So is it really surprising that nobody else has seen fit to play empire? Even Putin, for all his bluster is playing his great game right in his own backyard. His intervention in Ukraine is no different than our intervention in Panama. And he is doing for purely domestic reasons, as he is pretty willing to admit. Can you imagine any American politician being so upfront?

Originally Posted by B Butler

You seem to be suggesting that we have had three near simultaneous catalysts that effectively act as a trigger. If so, the feel good attitude of that week will inevitably snowball into a decisively Blue White House and Congress elected next year? A decisive majority in both houses will enable transforming legislation in early 2017 as the new president and Congress take the reigns?

Prediction noted. If this is not what your are predicting, please clarify.

Not necessarily - but I am noting, Frederick Lewis Allen style, a mood shift that is bewilderingly rapid.

Even if you are square on correct, I don't know that the 3T 4T cusp point is clearly defined, or whether the regeneracy marker should be placed at the decisive event that shifted the mood or when the new Congress actually starts passing legislation. But that would be a question of definition rather than a question of what is happening.

While I'm ready to agree we've had a triple catalyst that could well be important, it is not clear to me that a Blue president and clear progressive majority in both houses of Congress are inevitable at this point. It is entirely within the ability of Bernie and Hillary to blow it, and shifting Congress doesn't seem inevitable either.

The South Carolina assembly voting 94-20 to remove the Confederate flag is about as Blue as it gets.

And I'll be watching it come down - probably on MSNBC because I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News doesn't even cover it.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The South Carolina assembly voting 94-20 to remove the Confederate flag is about as Blue as it gets.

Or the majority of reds have decided that they no longer want to be associated with racism. And I say good for them.
P.S. But I don't see this as a magical end to racism or even a mood shift. Donald Trump's surge in the polls shows otherwise.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

P.S. But I don't see this as a magical end to racism or even a mood shift. Donald Trump's surge in the polls shows otherwise.

Liberty League - google it.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Liberty League - google it.

??? ... don't see your point.
Just curious, have you ever lived in a southern state?

My point is that there will always be resistance to even the "bewilderingly rapid" changes that a 4T uncorks.

See also the Tories of the Revolutionary War Crisis.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

My point is that there will always be resistance to even the "bewilderingly rapid" changes that a 4T uncorks.

See also the Tories of the Revolutionary War Crisis.

I guess that's a "no."

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Or the majority of reds have decided that they no longer want to be associated with racism. And I say good for them.
P.S. But I don't see this as a magical end to racism or even a mood shift. Donald Trump's surge in the polls shows otherwise.

A magical end to racism? No.

A mood shift? For some but hardly all.

Those that fit in the "hardly all category" are likely not pleased at all. Polling for Trump is a nice politically correct form of protest. I'm not seriously worried about a President Trump, though.