Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

If you want to object to Generational Dynamics, then do so in the proper thread, and actually provide some reasoning.

I'll try to be brief. I shall refer you to this argument that seems more reliable than some materialistic explanation of national behavior as a predictor of wars, famines, and mass slaughters :

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

I see Rudolph Rummel's theory of Democratic Peace as a partial explanation of why genocidal slaughters are likely to be less a part of the next 4T than they were in the previous 4T.

I hardly see a 4T as a certainty of genocide and catastrophic war. It's not because I desire no mass killing; it's because this time we have lessons from the last 4T. In a way, Adolf Hitler has achieved an infamous immortality in that anyone who resembles him in his despotism and bigotry will be compared to him. Such will not end when the last of his intended victims dies off; cultural and political leaders of the Boom and Thirteenth generations born after his demise desire that that horrible man remain in the human consciousness as someone to be kept from power. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong serve much the same end in some other countries as well.

Xenakis holds that genocidal wars happen because 4Ts enforce a Malthusian dialectic that overpopulation leads to catastrophic wars waged with genocidal hatred. Such may have been so in the past -- but humanity has largely found political solutions to economic distress and the means and desire to prevent population explosions. Contraception, abortion, and (even if this applies to only one country -- China -- it applies to what otherwise might be one of the most dangerous countries if it had a rapidly-growing as well as gigantic population) greatly reduce the tolerability of war as a solution for diplomatic failures. Peasants who have five sons may have less objections to sending off three to battle with a high possibility that two or three die in battle; a farm family that has one child is less likely to look upon wartime military service of the one child as simply a good means of bringing in some added income in hard times.

Another contributor to genocidal wars has been pathological leaders -- tyrants. A tyrant full of hate and fear can impose mass killings because he has the will to order mass killings, the means of suppressing knowledge of the killings, and the means of implementing them. Pathological leaders of course make aggressive war and/or genocide a certainty when they wield absolute power and seek military solutions to economic failures or -- worse -- to sate their lust for glory.

Democracy implies that leaders lack the power to order massacres, purges, and persecutions. Democratic leaders are under more pressure to deliver results through such measures as tax reform or public works -- not by invading other countries and raiding them for wealth and slave labor. Democracies allow, unlike tyrannies, effective movements of pacifism and for ethnic, religious, and cultural tolerance. Wars between democracies are rare in part because people in democracies have the freedom to display empathy across national boundaries.

Some good things have happened in the previous 3T that are likely to make the coming 4T less dangerous: most obviously, some very nasty dictatorships have fallen to democracy -- Chile, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania. Five former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Georgia) are now democracies. Since the aftermath of the last 4T Germany, Italy, and Japan -- the mortal enemies of democracy under genocidal regimes during the last 4T -- are at least as worthy exponents of democracy as is America.

We enter the 4T with more widespread knowledge of history. An exact replay of the previous 4T, this time with nuclear weapons in the possession of several major and minor powers, is impossible. The leaders that we now have or are likely to have are less naive about human nature (with one prominent exception until at least January 2009 -- cheap shot to be expected from me) than the leaders of 1933-1939. Intelligence networks are already in place, and all have the means of figuring out whether someone offering "Peace in Our Time" deserves credibility. That could be more important than having weapons systems in place.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I hardly see a 4T as a certainty of genocide and catastrophic war. It's not because I desire no mass killing; it's because this time we have lessons from the last 4T. In a way, Adolf Hitler has achieved an infamous immortality in that anyone who resembles him in his despotism and bigotry will be compared to him. Such will not end when the last of his intended victims dies off; cultural and political leaders of the Boom and Thirteenth generations born after his demise desire that that horrible man remain in the human consciousness as someone to be kept from power. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong serve much the same end in some other countries as well.

Well.... I was briefer... but you did cover more ground.

There were proposals that war of aggression was no longer cost effective as early as World War I. Thing is, aggression has been a habit so deeply set in genes and culture that the observable truth of it becoming a road to disaster has not caught up with the government inertia which embraces conflict.

Thus, we may yet have more Iraqs and Vietnams as various politicians revert to the old ways. Perhaps after Iraq, as after Vietnam, we will be inoculated against stupidity for another decade or three.

pbrower, if you want Xenakis to read it, your best bet is to repost in the Objections to Generational Dynamics thread in the Politics and Economics section. Thanks!

Pbrower2a, I've put your post into objections to generational dynamics.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Well.... I was briefer... but you did cover more ground.

There were proposals that war of aggression was no longer cost effective as early as World War I. Thing is, aggression has been a habit so deeply set in genes and culture that the observable truth of it becoming a road to disaster has not caught up with the government inertia which embraces conflict.

Thus, we may yet have more Iraqs and Vietnams as various politicians revert to the old ways. Perhaps after Iraq, as after Vietnam, we will be inoculated against stupidity for another decade or three.

A 4T is as much a state of mind as it is some dialectic. A 4T dictates how people see their world and what opportunities are -- and are not -- available. Some things are possible or at least more likely in a 4T; some things are impossible or at least unlikely. The 3T speculative booms become impossible after too many people have been burned. The flight to the interior that young-adult Idealists of a 2T perform is absurd in a 4T because the material pressures forbid it.

The great blow-ups of history are of course far more likely in a 4T than in any other phase of history. Are those blow-ups inevitable in all 4Ts? I think not. I can't be certain that the absence of Hitler would have prevented World War II; some other German leader might have been drawn into a different conflict that might have been known as World War II. Its character would have been very different.

Generational theory has its limits, and those who promote the theory need know those limits. The rules of nature, including biology, remain the same. Criteria of sanity and madness remain the same. Most of the core virtues and vices remain the same. The Seven Deadly Sins remain deadly and tempting in all times.

I see some patterns of 4T thought and behavior -- mostly the loss of Adaptive/Artist subtlety and sentimentality. The hangover mood of booms that become panic forces people to choose long-term, low-yield, service-oriented and production-oriented investments that imply intimate labor with assets instead of the distant ownership and passive investment that one associates with a 3T.

Aggression is a fact of human character. We must turn the aggression latent in our predatory nature (... think about it -- "Man's Best Friend" is a cunning, voracious, aggressive killer, and our #2 pet is a tiger except for its size) to benign ends.

I am not convinced that the Crisis of 1940 had to end in some huge war for America. Even if America was well poised to win a big war it was not looking for trouble. We rightly fault Hitler and Tojo for American involvement in World War II -- not FDR, not any of our generals or animals, and not public sentiment.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Pbrower2a, I've put your post into objections to generational dynamics.

Super!

It belongs there more than it does here.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I am not convinced that the Crisis of 1940 had to end in some huge war for America. Even if America was well poised to win a big war it was not looking for trouble. We rightly fault Hitler and Tojo for American involvement in World War II -- not FDR, not any of our generals or animals, and not public sentiment.

By the values that came out of World War II, Hitler and Tojo needed to be contained. I just don't know that you can peg WW II on one primary cause. FDR did see it as important that Hitler and Tojo be stopped, long before his people did. The press coverage of the London Blitz caused a big shift in US public sympathy, without which even FDR might have had trouble getting the US in. The attack on Pearl Harbor can only be seen as a mistake on Japan's part, though the US led oil embargo didn't leave them with a lot of choices.

If I were writing an alternate history Science Fiction novel, it wouldn't be that hard to plausibly keep the US neutral. I'd kill of Churchill in the Bohr War, leaving the UK as possibly going neutral after France falls. I'd have Admiral Yamamoto convince his people that Pearl Harbor was a bad idea. Maybe having Hitler die of mustard gas during World War I, and his role being played by a slightly saner personality could do it. With 20 20 hindsight, if the Germans hadn't pushed the London Blitz, the US pro war sentiment might not have built up.

But, still, the US joining the war effort seems more likely than not.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

By the values that came out of World War II, Hitler and Tojo needed to be contained. I just don't know that you can peg WW II on one primary cause. FDR did see it as important that Hitler and Tojo be stopped, long before his people did. The press coverage of the London Blitz caused a big shift in US public sympathy, without which even FDR might have had trouble getting the US in. The attack on Pearl Harbor can only be seen as a mistake on Japan's part, though the US led oil embargo didn't leave them with a lot of choices.

If I were writing an alternate history Science Fiction novel, it wouldn't be that hard to plausibly keep the US neutral. I'd kill of Churchill in the Bohr War, leaving the UK as possibly going neutral after France falls. I'd have Admiral Yamamoto convince his people that Pearl Harbor was a bad idea. Maybe having Hitler die of mustard gas during World War I, and his role being played by a slightly saner personality could do it. With 20 20 hindsight, if the Germans hadn't pushed the London Blitz, the US pro war sentiment might not have built up.

But, still, the US joining the war effort seems more likely than not.

I might start with Hermann Goering being shot down and killed in aerial warfare and Baron von Richthofen (the "Red Baron") surviving the war... and becoming hostile to Hitler (unlike Goering in reality). German democracy survives the Crisis of 1933, and few people contemplate anything else as an alternative. German Communists flee to the Soviet Union as do some Nazis who need change little to become Stalinists. As the 1930s recovery unfolds, Stalin finds his opportunity to spread "world revolution" through 'territorial adjustments'. Having invaded Afghanistan ("a country of which we know little and care little, far away from us", as Neville Chamberlain puts it) in 1938 and seized the Baltic countries by force in 1938 and started a war with Finland, he chooses to "reunite" Ukraine and Belarus and "restore" Moldavia by invading eastern Poland and Romania. The German government issues an ultimatum... and World War II begins. Britain remains neutral. The war stalemates in a World War I - like front between Riga and the Carpathians.

Stalin sees an opportunity to spread revolution in the struggle for Indian independence against Britain by invading India in June 1941 and setting up his own form of Indian independence in a puppet state even if such isn't what the likes of Gandhi or Jinnah seek. The 'lightning campaign' will of course topple the thin British presence, or so Stalin thinks, and make the defeat of Germany more certain because of a sure ally to be formed in war.

You can imagine the rest. Stalin's Soviet Union is eventually defeated, and the Hammer and Sickle becomes the symbol of evil -- and Stalin its personification.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I might start with Hermann Goering being shot down and killed in aerial warfare and Baron von Richthofen (the "Red Baron") surviving the war... and becoming hostile to Hitler (unlike Goering in reality)...

Seems quite plausible. Sort of turns the World War into an Asian war. Britain would defend India, but without the London Blitz or a threat to sea lanes, The US might very well sit things out. It leaves me wondering how China and Japan would fold in, and whether Japan's need for oil might eventually cause a collision with the US.

Lots and lots of what ifs...

Originally Posted by Tristan

What happened in Russia is that the failing war, contributed with economic hardship destroyed popular support in the regime.

How do you know that the reigeme really had popular support. We're talking about a country that had a failed revolution just nine years earlier. Czarist Russia was falling apart in the early part of the 20th century

The same thing happened in Germany and Austria-Hungary during WW1.

Did Austria or Germany have an attempted revolution in the decade before WWI? The German speaking peoples are on the same saecular timeline as the rest of western europe. This has been more or less true scince all of the majority catholic and protestant countries of western europe chose sectarian sides after the reformation. Orthodox eastern europe is not on the same timeline.

Interesting enough like in the rest of Europe at first the war was greeted with massive enthusiasm, in Russia.

By who, nobels looking for medals to wear on their dress uniforms at the officers' balls?

The difference between the initial mood during the starts of WW1 and WW2 is striking in nations which fought in it. During the start of WW2 there was little enthusiasm, however a lot of patience and expectation that the war would be a long one.

Again, how do ypu know how the Soviet peasents felt in 1940? Stalin's regieme wasn't famous for taking polls. The cultural dynamic at work in the post reinasance and reformation west is different from that of eastern europe. Yes, the saeculium works there, but the way behavior manifests itself is societies that have no tradition of freeedom and human rights is different from that found in our western culture. The west lets off the 'steam' better. This why countries like Russia often meltdown in a 4t as happened there in 1917 and 1991. When a controlled state finally blows into a 4t, it's usually a full tilt affair.

BTW, I predict that China is going to get interesting in the next decade.
But, that's for another time.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

How do you know that the reigeme really had popular support. We're talking about a country that had a failed revolution just nine years earlier. Czarist Russia was falling apart in the early part of the 20th century
Did Austria or Germany have an attempted revolution in the decade before WWI? The German speaking peoples are on the same saecular timeline as the rest of western europe. This has been more or less true scince all of the majority catholic and protestant countries of western europe chose sectarian sides after the reformation. Orthodox eastern europe is not on the same timeline.


By who, nobels looking for medals to wear on their dress uniforms at the officers' balls?


Again, how do ypu know how the Soviet peasents felt in 1940? Stalin's regieme wasn't famous for taking polls. The cultural dynamic at work in the post reinasance and reformation west is different from that of eastern europe. Yes, the saeculium works there, but the way behavior manifests itself is societies that have no tradition of freeedom and human rights is different from that found in our western culture. The west lets off the 'steam' better. This why countries like Russia often meltdown in a 4t as happened there in 1917 and 1991. When a controlled state finally blows into a 4t, it's usually a full tilt affair.

BTW, I predict that China is going to get interesting in the next decade.
But, that's for another time.

Somehow I think that Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece had their last Crisis Eras ending in the late 1940s when the commies consolidated power in the first two and were defeated in the last in the aftermath of World War II. I could say the same of Yugoslavia except that Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, and Macedonia have had crises since then.

If you want to consider Lebanon part of the Eastern Orthodox world (it used to be before demographic changes from differentials of birthrates), World War II was no joke there; the Free French and Vichy struggled over Lebanon... with independence as a result. That reeks of Crisis.

If the era 1941-1945 doesn't look like a Crisis for the former Soviet Union (including Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus)... then what does? The Soviet Union may have been ill-prepared for a Crisis in 1941 having gone through a long Crisis that began with the Bolshevik coup. and was extended into the 1930s with Stalin's bloody collectivization and purges.

Adolf Hitler imposed Crisis Eras upon the true eastern Europe (the former Soviet Union) and the Balkans even of those countries were as ill-prepared as Poland or Hungary.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

How do you know that the reigeme really had popular support. We're talking about a country that had a failed revolution just nine years earlier. Czarist Russia was falling apart in the early part of the 20th century
BTW, I predict that China is going to get interesting in the next decade.
But, that's for another time.

The failed revolution of 1805 in Russia brought to mind Xenakis' idea of the "false panic" like the stock market drop in 1987 here, which reassures everyone that if we ever have another such event, it will blow over just like the last one. Wrong....

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

pbrower, if you want Xenakis to read it, your best bet is to repost in the Objections to Generational Dynamics thread in the Politics and Economics section. Thanks!

Xenakis may "read" it. But it won't matter a rat's @ss what it says.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Xenakis may "read" it. But it won't matter a rat's @ss what it says.

It's getting old, Zar.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

It's getting old, Zar.

Oh, you aren't kidding!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Somehow I think that Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece had their last Crisis Eras ending in the late 1940s when the commies consolidated power in the first two and were defeated in the last in the aftermath of World War II. I could say the same of Yugoslavia except that Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, and Macedonia have had crises since then.

If you want to consider Lebanon part of the Eastern Orthodox world (it used to be before demographic changes from differentials of birthrates), World War II was no joke there; the Free French and Vichy struggled over Lebanon... with independence as a result. That reeks of Crisis.

If the era 1941-1945 doesn't look like a Crisis for the former Soviet Union (including Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus)... then what does? The Soviet Union may have been ill-prepared for a Crisis in 1941 having gone through a long Crisis that began with the Bolshevik coup. and was extended into the 1930s with Stalin's bloody collectivization and purges.

Adolf Hitler imposed Crisis Eras upon the true eastern Europe (the former Soviet Union) and the Balkans even of those countries were as ill-prepared as Poland or Hungary.

This is one of those arguments that never dies, but here goes again.

A crisis begins with the disintegration of an old political and social order and ends with the creation of a new one. By that definition the Soviet Union did NOT experience a crisis in 1941-45 at all--just a massive war in a high, the same as France in 1802-15. Stalin and the Communist party remained in power. The generation of veterans (which of course took very heavy losses) did not produce one single leader of the Soviet Union--surely not what one expects from a crisis war? And the Soviet Union, born of the 1915-30 crisis, died on schedule in 1991. So did Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. A crisis is not simply a large number of deaths or a large war. It's a a political phenomenon. Eastern Europe's crisis was about 1910-30 (including Italy), Western Europe's was 1939-62 or so (depending on the country.) It constantly amazes me that people on this site are so committed to a "one world" vision that they can't recognize the obvious.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

... It constantly amazes me that people on this site are so committed to a "one world" vision that they can't recognize the obvious.

David - you know why that is a prevailing attitude perfectly well. There is a belief, hope if that's the word you prefer, that the world is finally entering a state where the entire planet is in sync. It's an emotionally satisfying state. It may even come to pass in the next saeculum, or the one following.

From a connectivity point of view, the world is already much like a very large nation. In 80 years, there may be little difference between a Chinese, a Russian and an Argentine. Other than their respective points of affiliation, they may all live in a homogeneous world.

Culture is already blending. Younger Germans and Italians and Poles are really Europeans, first and foremost. I would expect that might continue, and so would those desiring a whole-world saeculum. We won't be around to see whether it happens or not, so speculation is all we have.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This is one of those arguments that never dies, but here goes again.

A crisis begins with the disintegration of an old political and social order and ends with the creation of a new one. By that definition the Soviet Union did NOT experience a crisis in 1941-45 at all--just a massive war in a high, the same as France in 1802-15. Stalin and the Communist party remained in power. The generation of veterans (which of course took very heavy losses) did not produce one single leader of the Soviet Union--surely not what one expects from a crisis war? And the Soviet Union, born of the 1915-30 crisis, died on schedule in 1991. So did Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. A crisis is not simply a large number of deaths or a large war. It's a a political phenomenon. Eastern Europe's crisis was about 1910-30 (including Italy), Western Europe's was 1939-62 or so (depending on the country.) It constantly amazes me that people on this site are so committed to a "one world" vision that they can't recognize the obvious.

Thank you. This is a lot of what I've been trying to say. 4t's occur according to the saecular rythm, not according to someone's preconceptions of when they should. As you noted, the USSR died in 1991, 74 years after the Russian Empire. Excepting America scince 1700, you will not likely get a clearer cut case of the saeculium at work. Also, western and eastern eyrope are on different cycles. Yes, the widespread harshness of WWII in Europe likely intertwined the two cycles moreso than they have been in a long time, but that's the point, the cycle is not preordained to go a particular way. The odds of a great war are their greatest in a 4t because of the generational allignment being posed for collective action, but nothing is preordained about a 4t except that it will be a rough time with massive change coming suddenly.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Thank you. This is a lot of what I've been trying to say. 4t's occur according to the saecular rythm, not according to someone's preconceptions of when they should. As you noted, the USSR died in 1991, 74 years after the Russian Empire. Excepting America scince 1700, you will not likely get a clearer cut case of the saeculium at work. Also, western and eastern eyrope are on different cycles. Yes, the widespread harshness of WWII in Europe likely intertwined the two cycles moreso than they have been in a long time, but that's the point, the cycle is not preordained to go a particular way. The odds of a great war are their greatest in a 4t because of the generational allignment being posed for collective action, but nothing is preordained about a 4t except that it will be a rough time with massive change coming suddenly.

Agreed 100%. Also just look at the current state of affairs in Russia. Putin's approval is consistently 65-70% even as he undermines democratization and leads the country down a path that is internationally considered worrisome at best. In a 4T he would be booted out of office through an election, a coup, a rebellion, a revolution, or assassination, for being borderline dictatorial. One way or another his regime and everything he stood for would become unwanted as a brand.

Instead, Russia is showing clear signs of 1T confidence, with strong nationalism born out of strengthening unity and pride, a growing outer-world arrogance, and a content and complacent public.

Originally Posted by 1990

Agreed 100%. Also just look at the current state of affairs in Russia. Putin's approval is consistently 65-70% even as he undermines democratization and leads the country down a path that is internationally considered worrisome at best. In a 4T he would be booted out of office through an election, a coup, a rebellion, a revolution, or assassination, for being borderline dictatorial. One way or another his regime and everything he stood for would become unwanted as a brand.

So then; you, too, don't actually know anything about what the Russian president and his government have been doing?


They're 'worrisome' due mainly to the propaganda being issued to you. Frankly, in the past couple years you could point to a clear relaxation of the repressive-authoritarian instinct. Contrasting the reactions of the Russian authorities to the most recent round of protests with the Russians' reaction to the protests earlier this year makes for an interesting exercise.

Well, we've clearly made some progress!

May I also point out that Ireland and Turkey stayed completely out of the Second World War, despite lots of either strategic or emotional reasons for intervening, and that the Soviet Union clearly would have preferred to stay out of it. Why? Because they had just had their 4Ts.

DK

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, we've clearly made some progress!

May I also point out that Ireland and Turkey stayed completely out of the Second World War, despite lots of either strategic or emotional reasons for intervening, and that the Soviet Union clearly would have preferred to stay out of it. Why? Because they had just had their 4Ts.

DK

I doubt it personally, I get a feeling from Irish history their saeculum is the same as Britain's (along with the rest of western europe) and Turkey's is the same rest of the Middle East (WW2 was at the start rather than at the end last 4T for Middle East). Spain and Sweden stayed out of WW2 for various reasons, Spain just had a very bloody 4T civil war and Sweden because they feared being invaded by the Nazis if they decided to join the allies, very understandable.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I doubt it personally, I get a feeling from Irish history their saeculum is the same as Britain's (along with the rest of western europe)

You must be joking. The previous Irish 4T was the Home Rule movement, the Irish War of Independence, and the Irish Civil War, 1910-1925, which collectively established de facto independence for Southern Ireland. The next 4T was the Troubles, 1972-1994. Ireland's economy exploded -- the "Celtic Tiger" -- soon after the IRA ceasefire. I can't see how you think Ireland is 3T or 4T... I can't see them as anything but 1T.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Hilton is catching hell not only because she is not only (a) rich but also (b) patently foolish, (c) patently courting public attention, and (d) highly visible even when not actively courting attention.

Nonetheless, the vitriol does not come from being a celebrity, or even a foolish celebrity -- it is coming from being rich.

Sorry to chime in late here and feel free to ignore it and go on with the other conversation, but I was otherwise occupied for a bit.

Paris being hated has virtually nothing to do with her being rich. If that were it, Warren Buffet's time on this Earth would be measured in microseconds. But someone who devotes an entire television series to the premise of looking down her nose at people who work for a living is hanging a target on her skinny butt. If she finds herself despised by the common people it's only because she has so conspicuously despised them for so long.

As insignificant as it may be in the grand scheme of things, when she was ordered back to jail by the judge I would like to think of that as the curtain call for the 13er brats (she's the tail end of that cohort). The sheriff letting her out was the old (3T) behavior: unethical, pandering to celebrity, obscuring real issues (medical reasons?!?). The judge said, We're done with that nonsense and it's no longer acceptable: get out of our faces.

I know it's a stretch, but I do like the idea.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

You must be joking. The previous Irish 4T was the Home Rule movement, the Irish War of Independence, and the Irish Civil War, 1910-1925, which collectively established de facto independence for Southern Ireland. The next 4T was the Troubles, 1972-1994. Ireland's economy exploded -- the "Celtic Tiger" -- soon after the IRA ceasefire. I can't see how you think Ireland is 3T or 4T... I can't see them as anything but 1T.

This is the analysis I did I posted in another thread

Ireland like the rest of Europe is currently in a late 3T. The Easter Uprising and the resulting Irish civil war can be seen as a 3T event, it divided the country rather than uniting it. For example Six Ulster Counties remained a part of the UK rather than join the Irish free state, even in the remainder many did not accept the legitimacy of the Irish Free State. Very similar to what happened with Russia after the Bolsheviks took over.

The 4T occurred in the 1930's and 1940's when the Irish Free State was replaced with the Irish Republic which lasts to this day, which was seen as legitimate by the big majority of the Irish people. The start of the troubles in Northern Ireland can be dated to 1968, which is the same time the awakening started in Europe. Before 68 the Catholic civil rights movement was a peaceful 1T style movement like the civil rights movement was in the USA, after 1968 it turned radical rather like the US Civil Rights Movement in 1964 turned into the Black Panthers.

It's end is a result that Ireland entered the 3T along with rest of Europe. People just got tried of the endless violence, rage and fury. Get the chance to read Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt, it is an excellent description of an Artist childhood during a 4T. Frank McCourt is a classic Silent imo.

The changes which have happened in the economy and society of Irish Republic in recent years are very similar to what happened to the USA during the roaring 20's another 3T period, time of economic expansion and changing mores.