There is a lot of argument over what makes a Fourth Turning a Fourth Turning -- what makes it a Crisis and not an Unraveling, Awakening, or High? Is it full-scale war? An economic depression? Just a mood shift away from 3T denial? I don't agree with the notion that any one of these is requisite for a true Crisis. The Swiss had a 4T during WWII without actually taking sides in the war. The Russians had a 4T (in my opinion) during the '90s without participating in the nearby Balkans Wars. The Brazilians (and most other Latin Americans) had a 4T during the '60s, '70s, and '80s without any sort of traditional war. These were all still Crises, though.

So again, what makes a Crisis a Crisis? I think the answer is simpler than one would think. It is simply an era when all the chickens that have been postponed and ignored come home to roost. Sometimes this does lead to a war and a depression, just one or the other, or even neither. But what it always is about is a period when the society affected is forced to solemnly consider its priorities and create a new order. And what is the catalyst? If you think the catalyst is always hyper-dramatic and hyper-patriotic, you probably say 9/11 catalyzed the 4T of our time. But this is not always the case. In fact, it is almost never the case.

America was founded in a 4T. Most societies are. In our case, we had a Revolution, a War of Independence. But what catalyzed it? Not an attack on our soil. Not a recession. Actually, what catalyzed it, according to S&H at least, was a few guys throwing tea into the ocean. And what started the Civil War? An election. And the Depression? It was catalyzed by Wall Street having a really bad day.

In none of these cases did the populace immediately rally behind the President and unify in some grand way. As the Revolution began, a large proportion of Americans still backed the British, and considered the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams treasonous. And indeed it was 3 years after the Tea Party that the Declaration of Independence was signed and our heroic Revolution began. The Civil War never had its heroic moment of unity. And World War II, the ultimate "heroic war", did not begin for us until 12 years into the 4T.

If we put aside our assumption that something like Pearl Harbor has to begin a 4T (after all, Pearl Harbor didn't begin a 4T), then the answer to "Be we 3T or 4T?" seems a lot clearer. I am beginning to join the camp that contends that Hurricane Katrina and the surrounding government meltdown in 2005 was the catalyst. While 9/11 was a tragic event, it did not have the effect of permanently throwing people into 4T mode. Well, it did...prematurely, for about five days. And that could not have been a real 4T catalyst because we were temporarily united in patriotism. We were not questioning ourselves, we were all angry at our enemy. This mood, if long-term and not a brief mood, is characteristic of late in a 4T, not the beginning of one.

For that reason, the Culture Wars returned with a vengeance, and so did 3T decadence, economic bubbles, indulgence, and apathy.

Just compare the 2004 election with the 2006 election. In 2004, gay marriage bans probably won the election for George W. Bush, in Ohio at least. The three-tiered division was growing sharper by the day: between people who thought Bush was our Next Great Leader, people who thought Bush was evil, and people who were disillusioned by both sides. In 2006, there was one unified message from the voters. No, it wasn't "Democrats rock!" Actually, it was a lot simpler: NO MORE.

2005 was a year of transition. At the beginning of the year Bush was being sworn in for a 2nd term, causing half the country to cheer and half the country to cry. His approval rating was about 52-55%. At the end of the year Bush's approval was 35-40%, an entire region of the country was destroyed, and the public mood was darker than it had been in any of our lifetimes.

This extreme pessimism has not subsided. While Unravelings are characterized by fragmentation and controversy, Crises begin with a profound malaise coming over society. Russia's last Crisis did not begin with an event like 9/11, it began with an event like Katrina. Or as Katrina is spelled in Russian, Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster symbolized the crumbling of the old order created after the Bolshevik Revolution. Public confidence was extremely low and the mood was highly pessimistic for the next 5 years. As the USSR collapsed in 1991, Boris Yeltsin gave the Russians hope of a new order. Thus began their Regeneracy.

As I said, a Crisis is about the old order finally decaying to a point in which everybody agrees something must be done. If this point can be catalyzed by a tea party, an election, or a bad day on Wall Street, why can't it be caused by the destruction of a city?

1990, I agree with much of what you say here. i just finished the book myself, so much of the theories are still "digesting." I have been coming to the conclusion that 9/11 was 3T as well. I posted to that efeect on another thread.

I also agree that this election was about change. It was not really about parties, but it was about change. Both parties are acting on the "change" mood incorrctly. The D's are acting like it was about the country saying that it their turn. The R's are acting as if a few simple changes in rhetoric and a few more troops in Iraq will stop the bleeding. I think now would be an ideal time for a third party candidate to rise up.

I think the next two years will tell us a lot about whether or not we have begun a bona-fide 4T. The 2008 elections will shed light on this question as well. I noticed you are living in Chicago. I believe this is a perfect time for guy like Obama to run for Pres., because he is still a little bit of an outsider. I also suggest that you jump on the Bears bandwagon if you haven't already. Superbowls are rare for this town and you'll enjoy it a lot more if you get excited.

Originally Posted by 1990

...Or as Katrina is spelled in Russian, Chernobyl.

I'm going to be a pedantic dick (because I can) and point out that in Russian, it is spelled using cyrillic characters:
Чернобыль

But otherwise, Rock On.

Chickens didn't come home on 9/11?

While 9/11 was a tragic event, it did not have the effect of permanently throwing people into 4T mode. Well, it did...prematurely, for about five days. And that could not have been a real 4T catalyst because we were temporarily united in patriotism. We were not questioning ourselves, we were all angry at our enemy. This mood, if long-term and not a brief mood, is characteristic of late in a 4T, not the beginning of one.

What is 4T mode? Patriotism? Americans have been overly patriotic since 9/11. Have you seen anyone get away with thrashing the troops? There was a clear departure from the 90's on 9/11, and even if you think it was a 3T event, you cannot deny that.

The brief surge in support of war and the President is typical of the optimism expressed in the early 4T. The shock of everything not going as planned followed with blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then Katrina. We are still angry at our enemies, but the government paralysis has been present since before Katrina, and questioning ourselves didn't just catalyze with Katrina.

It's no surprise 2006 was more of a 4T election than 2004. It was deeper into the 4T. However, national security was a big issue back then if you remember. The 2006 election was a rebuke of the failed promises from the 2004 election.

Things became more apparent with Katrina. 9/11 was the catalyst.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Chickens didn't come home on 9/11?



What is 4T mode? Patriotism? Americans have been overly patriotic since 9/11. Have you seen anyone get away with thrashing the troops? There was a clear departure from the 90's on 9/11, and even if you think it was a 3T event, you cannot deny that.

The brief surge in support of war and the President is typical of the optimism expressed in the early 4T. The shock of everything not going as planned followed with blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then Katrina. We are still angry at our enemies, but the government paralysis has been present since before Katrina, and questioning ourselves didn't just catalyze with Katrina.

It's no surprise 2006 was more of a 4T election than 2004. It was deeper into the 4T. However, national security was a big issue back then if you remember. The 2006 election was a rebuke of the failed promises from the 2004 election.

Things became more apparent with Katrina. 9/11 was the catalyst.

If 9/11 was the catalyst we would of reached Regeneracy by now, we haven't. According to S&H the pre-Regeneracy phase lasts between 1 and 5 years.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Chickens didn't come home on 9/11?



What is 4T mode? Patriotism? Americans have been overly patriotic since 9/11. Have you seen anyone get away with thrashing the troops? There was a clear departure from the 90's on 9/11, and even if you think it was a 3T event, you cannot deny that.

The brief surge in support of war and the President is typical of the optimism expressed in the early 4T. The shock of everything not going as planned followed with blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then Katrina. We are still angry at our enemies, but the government paralysis has been present since before Katrina, and questioning ourselves didn't just catalyze with Katrina.

It's no surprise 2006 was more of a 4T election than 2004. It was deeper into the 4T. However, national security was a big issue back then if you remember. The 2006 election was a rebuke of the failed promises from the 2004 election.

Things became more apparent with Katrina. 9/11 was the catalyst.

I think we need to examine the terms catalyst and climax. The catalyst of a 4T, I take to mean the event that brings about the 4T. I'm still unconvinced that 9/11 actually brought about the real mood of desperation and fundamental change that marks a 4T according to S & H. I think that Katrina and errors in foreign policy are starting to bring about fundamental change. I agree that AMericans are not questioning government as much since the Congress was able to put the Patriot Act into motion 9/11, but Americans exercised serious change with the power of the vote in the 2006 "mid-term" elections. We must evaluate the mood of the nation between now and election 2008 to really determine if Katrina was the catalyst or if 9/11 was.

Neither event is the climax of the pending/current 4T. The climax will be the event that creates such drastic change that the nation never goes back to the thought processes that prevailed prior to the climax. I believe that we are currently in a time of searching - like the depression years. We are searching for meaning in the aftermath of the two major events. We are searching for leaders that we trust. We are searching for solutions to Social Security, the environment, foreign policy, etc. The climax of the 4T will provide us with the leaders who have practical answers to these issues. S & H predict that many of these leaders will come from the 13er generation. This will frighten the boomers and excite the 13ers and millenials.

In either event, I lean more toward Katrina as being the catalys for a current 4T. Katrina brought about the fundamental mood in the nation that lead to citizens to start to exercise change with votes, not merely Patriot Act rhetoric. Ergo, Katrina = catalyst and climax = "TBD" (and may God help us when it comes)

I have been thinking about this too and I was wandering around the web one day and found an Outline I am using here on someone's site, but did not keep record of whose site it was. So forgive the lack of attribution but I have found the Outline helpful in rethinking what has happened these last few years.

I am officially throwing in the towel. I think we are indeed 4 T. These are my thoughts on events.


=== "A Crisis era begins with a catalyst - a starting event (or sequence of events) that produces a sudden shift in mood"

I began to notice a shift in the general mood well before the catalyst event. A vague undercurrent begins with the Clinton witch hunts...for some reason a lot of people support him rather than the congress and the media. And that undercurrent propels Al Gore to win the popular vote despite many problems with his campaign.

The appointment of George Bush by the Supreme Court sends a small ripple through that undercurrent, but only a small one. There is no crisis yet. The people still do not want activist government, sacrifice, and definitely not a constitutional crisis.

George Bush begins his presidency as a fairly typical Republican, with a fairly typical agenda... cut taxes, privatize everything, etc.

911 rocks the Casbah and the undercurrent goes crazy. I think it was a HARBINGER event that presages what is to come. For a moment there was a "phony" regeneracy, when everyone joins together. But it is too soon. And Bush's inclinations are to act unilaterally as president, tell the people to go shopping, and limit the sacrifice... cut taxes, send a volunteer army. We go to war, but it is a 3 T war, a blip, get the oil and run.

Bush is reelected using 3 T culture war issues. If people will still vote because they are afraid of gay marriage then we are still 3 T.

Then comes Hurricane Katrina. I agree that this is the CATALYST event. This is the event that begins to drive everyone into a crisis mood. I could barely sit still watching day after day. I wanted to jump into the car and take them water. I also began to worry about Global Warming and how it would effect me. And everyone begins to notice that the much hated "government" has been destroyed at every level, state, local and federal...We have occupied the Middle East with our national guard, a major city and port have sunk, and we can't seem to do anything right.

Then the gas prices start to soar and everyone begins to think about OIL. In addition, we begin to notice that the President has unilaterally started eavesdropping on everyone, collecting all sorts of useful (as in blackmail) data on everyone. And now they put habeas corpus on hold. Not to mention, the middle class begins to feel a serious squeeze. Oil, environment, economy, constitutional crisis... the BIG Four of this 4 T.

In a way I think we are close to the regeneracy, mostly because of the general hatred of Bush/Cheney, but it is, so far, a reactive regeneracy... it won't be the real thing until someone engages the country in a positive general vision that can direct us to rebuild our society...

I think the Internet and blogosphere is playing a large part in building a national dialogue and national consensus. But we are still reacting to an unpopular war...we will see the real core of the 4 T when we begin to sacrifice and work to change our society.

It may be that we still have a lot of domestic disputation to go through yet... but this time it will not be faux news culture wars... this time it will be about how to reconstruct our economy around the challenges of globalization and the need to use other energy sources, how to deal with our interests in the middle east and what to do as middle eastern instability spills over into Europe and other places, and many domestic issues moving us away from catering to the needs of the upper class and towards the needs of the middle class, working class and poor.

===The Outline continues with the following reprise of what will happen after the regeneracy...perhaps we can talk a little about "what America could do to deal with these challenges".

"Once catalyzed, a society achieves a regeneracy - a new counter entropy that reunifies and reenergize civic life"

"The regenerated society propels toward a climax - a crucial moment that confirms the death of the old order and birth of the new."

"The climax culminates in a resolution - a triumphant or tragic conclusion that separates the win According to the authors to prepare for the fourth turning, or crisis, America should:

Prepare values - forge the consensus and uplift the culture, but don't expect near-term results
Prepare institutions - clear the debris and find out what works, but don't try building anything big
Prepare politics - define challenges bluntly and stress duties over rights, but don't attempt reforms that can't now be accomplished
Prepare society - require community teamwork to solve local problems, but don't try this on a national scale
Prepare youth - treat children as the nation's highest priority, but don't do the work for them
Prepare elders - tell future elders they will need to be more self sufficient, but don't attempt deep cuts in benefits to current elders
Prepare the economy - correct fundamentals, but don't try to fine tune performance
Prepare the defense - expect the worse and prepare to mobilize, but don't precommit to any one response
For individuals they recommend:

Rectify - return to the classic virtues
Converge - heed emerging community norms
Bond - build personal relationships of all kinds
Gather - prepare yourself (and your children) for teamwork
Root - look to your family for support
Brace - gird for the weakening or collapse of public support mechanisms
Hedge - diversify everything you do "

Originally Posted by 1990

So again, what makes a Crisis a Crisis?

It depends in part on what we refer to when we use the word. Even on this forum, those of us familiar with S&H's theory use the terms somewhat (IMHO) sloppily. In the S&H sense, the 'Crisis' (capital C) is a psychological state, a collective set of responses and actions.

The defining characteristic of the Fourth is the effective asbence of the Adaptives in adult life.

This defines all the Turnings, in fact. At any given time, in the S&H theory, one of the four Generational Archetypes is in childhood, and thus has effectively no influence on society as a whole. In fact, it is this experience tha initially shapes the Gen into their archetype.

To quote from Generations:

Within an era, the most striking pattern is not so much the emergence of a new endowment activity (which is gradual), but the decline of an old activity (which is rapid). Since younger generations have grown accustomed to relying on an older generation to champion its own preferred endowment activity, they are unprepared to fill the gap when that older generation passes on. Like a table with one leg jerked away, therefore, society sufferes from a 'tilt' or disequilibrium from the sudden absence of this endowment activity.

Even since the start of the 3T, the Silent have dominated our national discourse, not just by their own words and actions and lack thereof, but by their selections of which words and actions of their juniors would be allowed to matter and which would not. Thus those chocies and impulses from younger Gens that are 'Adaptive-ish' get acted upon, those that are not tend to get smothered.

(The same phenomenon is true of any Turning, the Elder Gen sets the tone for the whole.)

Today the Silent influence is fading rapidly in America, more slowly in Europe. The Crisis will arrive when that influence becomes too weak to maintain the status quo.

I think the answer is simpler than one would think. It is simply an era when all the chickens that have been postponed and ignored come home to roost. Sometimes this does lead to a war and a depression, just one or the other, or even neither.

But that can happen (and does happen) at any time in any Turning.

It probably is true that the Adaptive Elders have a greater tendency, compared to the other three, to 'defer' intractable disputes and problems that seem to have no acceptable solution, in hopes that things will change or something will think of something new. Often it works, but it also tends to accumulate the worst of the intractables in an ever-growing mass.

Something else that I suspect marks the Crisis is that youngers, who are used from ~20 years of experience to having the Adaptive Elders there to stop any action from 'going too far' come to depend on it, and to thus be caught by surprise when they race for deadman's curve for the nth time and this time nobody hits the brakes.

Right now, I think we're seeing the last desperate effort of the Silent to 'put the lid on' again, here and overseas, in matters military and civilian, economic and cultural, pretty much everything. If I'm right this is the last gasp of the 3T.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Then there's the elephant in the room, which is that not one poster on this board has actually lived through a Regeneracy. All we have to go by is history, and history looks quite a bit different compressed onto a few pages than it does when it's actually happening in real time.

I'm not going to go into this again. I've written about this a few times before, more elequently and in more depth than I care to now. Suffice to say that the Depression and World War II Crisis looked very, very different to people who actually lived it as they were living it than it did when they looked back, or it does to us when we look back now.

Do you (or any other posters) have any suggestions for books that describe individual experiences of the early 30s? I'd like to get a better sense of that time.

Originally Posted by 1990

There is a lot of argument over what makes a Fourth Turning a Fourth Turning -- what makes it a Crisis and not an Unraveling, Awakening, or High? Is it full-scale war? An economic depression? Just a mood shift away from 3T denial? I don't agree with the notion that any one of these is requisite for a true Crisis. The Swiss had a 4T during WWII without actually taking sides in the war. The Russians had a 4T (in my opinion) during the '90s without participating in the nearby Balkans Wars. The Brazilians (and most other Latin Americans) had a 4T during the '60s, '70s, and '80s without any sort of traditional war. These were all still Crises, though.

So again, what makes a Crisis a Crisis? I think the answer is simpler than one would think. It is simply an era when all the chickens that have been postponed and ignored come home to roost. Sometimes this does lead to a war and a depression, just one or the other, or even neither. But what it always is about is a period when the society affected is forced to solemnly consider its priorities and create a new order. And what is the catalyst? If you think the catalyst is always hyper-dramatic and hyper-patriotic, you probably say 9/11 catalyzed the 4T of our time. But this is not always the case. In fact, it is almost never the case.

America was founded in a 4T. Most societies are. In our case, we had a Revolution, a War of Independence. But what catalyzed it? Not an attack on our soil. Not a recession. Actually, what catalyzed it, according to S&H at least, was a few guys throwing tea into the ocean. And what started the Civil War? An election. And the Depression? It was catalyzed by Wall Street having a really bad day.

In none of these cases did the populace immediately rally behind the President and unify in some grand way. As the Revolution began, a large proportion of Americans still backed the British, and considered the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams treasonous. And indeed it was 3 years after the Tea Party that the Declaration of Independence was signed and our heroic Revolution began. The Civil War never had its heroic moment of unity. And World War II, the ultimate "heroic war", did not begin for us until 12 years into the 4T.

If we put aside our assumption that something like Pearl Harbor has to begin a 4T (after all, Pearl Harbor didn't begin a 4T), then the answer to "Be we 3T or 4T?" seems a lot clearer. I am beginning to join the camp that contends that Hurricane Katrina and the surrounding government meltdown in 2005 was the catalyst. While 9/11 was a tragic event, it did not have the effect of permanently throwing people into 4T mode. Well, it did...prematurely, for about five days. And that could not have been a real 4T catalyst because we were temporarily united in patriotism. We were not questioning ourselves, we were all angry at our enemy. This mood, if long-term and not a brief mood, is characteristic of late in a 4T, not the beginning of one.

For that reason, the Culture Wars returned with a vengeance, and so did 3T decadence, economic bubbles, indulgence, and apathy.

Just compare the 2004 election with the 2006 election. In 2004, gay marriage bans probably won the election for George W. Bush, in Ohio at least. The three-tiered division was growing sharper by the day: between people who thought Bush was our Next Great Leader, people who thought Bush was evil, and people who were disillusioned by both sides. In 2006, there was one unified message from the voters. No, it wasn't "Democrats rock!" Actually, it was a lot simpler: NO MORE.

2005 was a year of transition. At the beginning of the year Bush was being sworn in for a 2nd term, causing half the country to cheer and half the country to cry. His approval rating was about 52-55%. At the end of the year Bush's approval was 35-40%, an entire region of the country was destroyed, and the public mood was darker than it had been in any of our lifetimes.

This extreme pessimism has not subsided. While Unravelings are characterized by fragmentation and controversy, Crises begin with a profound malaise coming over society. Russia's last Crisis did not begin with an event like 9/11, it began with an event like Katrina. Or as Katrina is spelled in Russian, Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster symbolized the crumbling of the old order created after the Bolshevik Revolution. Public confidence was extremely low and the mood was highly pessimistic for the next 5 years. As the USSR collapsed in 1991, Boris Yeltsin gave the Russians hope of a new order. Thus began their Regeneracy.

As I said, a Crisis is about the old order finally decaying to a point in which everybody agrees something must be done. If this point can be catalyzed by a tea party, an election, or a bad day on Wall Street, why can't it be caused by the destruction of a city?

I agree with much of what you say. A Crisis Catalyst can be either grand or trivial... what matters most is the public reaction to it, rather than the event itself. The further we get from 9.11, the less likely it becomes that it was indeed the Catalyst... for all I know Katrina may have been it, however we won't know that with any certainty until we can look back on it five years hence.

I disagree that Russia, Latin America and most of the world are on completely different saecula from the United States. World War 2 affected the entire planet either directly or indirectly... Latin America, haven for post-war Nazi escapees, was no more disinvolved than Switzerland. It created a bunch of little Civil War Anomalies that, in effect, put the entire globe on the same cycle plus or minus a few years... possibly for the first time ever.

Russia didn't have a Crisis in the 70s and 80s... hell, no! The Bolshevik Revolution had Awakening written across its collective forehead, the ultimate campus riot and rise against "the Establishment"... classic 2T stuff. There was no sea change in the Russian Order, because In the end, only the faces changed... the Bolsheviks were as or more corrupt than the Tsars. It wasn't a 4T. The Rise Of Stalin and World War 2 was Russia's Crisis as much as it was ours, and arguably more... millions of Russians died fighting the invading Germans on their own soil.

Finally there's Chernobyl, which you correctly noted destroyed what was left of the old Cold War-era can-do-ness of the Russian spirit. But the unravelling of the postwar order is a 3T occurrence, not a 4T one. Chernobyl did for Russia what our Three Mile Island and Challenger explosion did for us... that is to say, either Catalyzed or confirmed a new Unravelling mood.

I can agree with a lot of that... but what does one make of California's 2006 elections, which practically SCREAMED "return to 3T normalcy"?

I'm still of the 'all of the above' school of finding the 3T 4T cusp process. Different people have different interests, and will emphasize different aspects of the transition.

1. An economist might note there is generally an economic downturn before much anything else happens. This makes sense. In a time of relative plenty, one can hide the stresses on society. When things go sour economically, this translates to a push for change in other aspects of society.
2. There is often the 'spiral of violence' leading up to all out 4T conflict. Man doesn't leap to all out conflict lightly. There are often a series of escalating protests and demonstrations that lead up to the Lexington Green / Fort Sumter / Pearl Harbor trigger of full mobilization.
3. There is a similar political build up, the regeneracy, as people realize the old structure won't work and proposals for a new structure come forth.

S&H pick events from all three of the above threads to start their interpretation of the official crisis beginnings. The Tea Party was one of many protests that led up to Lexington Green. Lincoln's election might have climaxed his time's regeneracy. The Crash of 29 was the economic precursor to the Depression and war.

It would be nice if everything always happened in precisely the same sequence, according to a predictable schedule. It would be nice if you could say the spiral of violence starts first, continues to build as the economic downturn hits. The economic pressures and violence trigger the regeneracy, as a new political platform is created, resulting in the election of the Grey Champion. Shortly after the Champion takes power, his attempts at a radical new policy trigger violent conflict.

But the real world is messy, not nice. In the last crisis, we had years of Depression before the military crisis came to a head. In the Revolutionary era, the Grey Champion didn't get elected just before the Revolution as there were no national elections before the Revolution. In the current crisis, September 11th provided a most spectacular catalyst, but the prior violent acts in the spiral of violence had gone so much unnoticed that no regeneracy had yet taken place. There was no new political consensus that was ready to be implemented. Thus, no true mobilization, and no real dedication to solving problems.

At this point, I see September 11th as a significant precursor or catalyst, but the response was not the correct response to resolve the problems the catalyst exposed. I believe Katrina and the Iraq war failures triggered the 2006 election turnover, rejecting the Reagan Bush Bush unraveling pattern. However, I don't see a real consensus towards action yet. I'd put us in the early regeneracy. We may or may not see a decisive platform for action come out of the 2008 election cycle. There seems to be a potential to elect a Champion, but I can find so little to be enthusiastic about in the current crop of candidates to predict a championship with confidence.

I have real problems looking beyond 2008. I anticipate the next president will not be a 'stay the course' guy. Without knowing what new course he might set, it is hard to guess at how the world might respond.

Originally Posted by Odin

If 9/11 was the catalyst we would of reached Regeneracy by now, we haven't. According to S&H the pre-Regeneracy phase lasts between 1 and 5 years.

Well, I honestly don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it.

Either way, I don't buy it. I don't think we hit the regeneracy point until 1941 the last time around.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Either way, I don't buy it. I don't think we hit the regeneracy point until 1941 the last time around.

I think it better to consider the Depression and World War II to be a double Crisis with two regeneracies. The common theme was 'Big Government solves Big Problems,' a theme which the GIs continued through the High and into the Awakening's Great Society programs. Anyway, the first effort was to regulate and stimulate the economy and provide some basic safety nets. The economic regeneracy would center on FDR's first presidential election campaign. The second effort was the suppression of fascism. Edward R. Murrow's radio coverage of the London Blitz was central to the military regeneracy.

S&H turnings last around twenty years, yet awakenings and crisis wars are so intense that they seldom last so long. If you look at non S&H history sources for how long a crisis war or awakening lasts, you would find 5 to 7 years a much more realistic length. Thus, you might have a generation set up favorable to a certain style of social movement last long enough for two such movements. America's recent Blue and Red Awakenings might be another example. During the same time frame, China's Great Leap Forward and Four Modernizations eras might also be understood as a double awakening.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I think it better to consider the Depression and World War II to be a double Crisis with two regeneracies. The common theme was 'Big Government solves Big Problems,' a theme which the GIs continued through the High and into the Awakening's Great Society programs. Anyway, the first effort was to regulate and stimulate the economy and provide some basic safety nets. The economic regeneracy would center on FDR's first presidential election campaign. The second effort was the suppression of fascism. Edward R. Murrow's radio coverage of the London Blitz was central to the military regeneracy.

I really can't buy two regeneracies, just as I can't buy two catalysts, two climaxes, two resolutions, or two crises.

How can World War Two be a double crisis? The catalyst was the 1929 stock market crash, and the crisis lasted until the end of World War Two. While it covered two different components (being the market collapse and the war, hardly irregular), there was no let-up in the crisis mood. You cannot consider Pearl Harbor to be another catalyst that simply restarts the 4T.

S&H turnings last around twenty years, yet awakenings and crisis wars are so intense that they seldom last so long. If you look at non S&H history sources for how long a crisis war or awakening lasts, you would find 5 to 7 years a much more realistic length. Thus, you might have a generation set up favorable to a certain style of social movement last long enough for two such movements. America's recent Blue and Red Awakenings might be another example. During the same time frame, China's Great Leap Forward and Four Modernizations eras might also be understood as a double awakening.

I don't see a problem with a 5-year crisis. By chance, things just turn out a certain way, and a war could be over rather quickly. I do think that once that 5-year crisis is over, the high begins. I don't buy the civil war anomaly. A 5-year awakening is much more doubtful. Can you specifically point to an unraveling occuring less than 10 years after a high? If not, then the "second awakening" is just a continuation of the first, except with different goals. It is still the awakening period.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I think it better to consider the Depression and World War II to be a double Crisis with two regeneracies. The common theme was 'Big Government solves Big Problems,' a theme which the GIs continued through the High and into the Awakening's Great Society programs. Anyway, the first effort was to regulate and stimulate the economy and provide some basic safety nets. The economic regeneracy would center on FDR's first presidential election campaign. The second effort was the suppression of fascism. Edward R. Murrow's radio coverage of the London Blitz was central to the military regeneracy.

S&H turnings last around twenty years, yet awakenings and crisis wars are so intense that they seldom last so long. If you look at non S&H history sources for how long a crisis war or awakening lasts, you would find 5 to 7 years a much more realistic length. Thus, you might have a generation set up favorable to a certain style of social movement last long enough for two such movements. America's recent Blue and Red Awakenings might be another example. During the same time frame, China's Great Leap Forward and Four Modernizations eras might also be understood as a double awakening.

Actually, the more and more I read on the prior Crisis, the harder it becomes to separate the 1930s from the 1940s. I agree with S&H that FDR's election was part of the regeneracy, and believe that the BEF march and riots in 1932 was perhaps the event beginning the regeneracy and leading to the collapse of the political regime and birth of the new. Keep in mind that Crisis does not equal war. Yes, people tend to think of the Revolutionary War, WWII, and the Civil War when thinking about 4Ts. But wars are not as dominant during the entire era as people assume. In the Revolutionary Crisis, only 1775-1783 were war years. The years from 1773 - Concord/Lexington, and also from 1783 - 1794 were not war years, and were perhaps more similar to the hard-bitten 1930s. Reconstruction, much of which I believe is part of the 4T, were more like the 1930s, particularly in the defeated South where violence, economic depression, and suffering were rampant. In the prior Crisis, the years 1929 - 1941 were free of war. Only 1941 - 1945 were war years.

Easton: To say that the regeneracy didn't begin until 1941 makes the mistake of equating Crisis with war. It also ignores the major social upheavals of the 1930s. Even if everyone wasn't united in 1933, most people took a side, just as different factions took different sides in 1775. The regeneracy only begins within a faction. The grass-roots efforts of the 1930s pushed for far-reaching social change. In fact, just the few years from 1930 - 1935 saw more drastic, far-reaching, and decisive change in America than the entire period reaching from the end of Reconstruction. And even if there wasn't war in America, there was a widespread fear that among the GIs, the American system might not have survived. Watching what happened in Germany, Russia, and Spain, people were very aware that a similar outcome was very possible in America. There were many who supported fascism, many who supported the communists, etc. Like was said elsewhere, Huey Long had the best chance of unseating FDR. In fact, if he wasn't shot, there is a very good chance that in 1936, America could've reverted to strongman leadership. In the same year, GIs began to edge away from their anti-war stance when Spain erupted in civil war between the fascists and nationalists. Reportedly, it was the fact that Civil War erupted in Spain that caused corporations like GM to restrain from just gunning down the labor organizers with Tommy guns. In such a Crisis atmosphere, such an event happening during the strikes of 1936 and 1937 could've spiraled into a major civil war. This was an era when the Popular Front was a major political movement among the GIs, pushing an agenda far more radical than the New Deal. The 1930s look like a full-blown Crisis.

All: The 1930s and 1940s are more similar than most people would think. Even while the nation united in time for war, what happened was much more complex than what is assumed. While the Popular Front movement collapsed in America in 1940, the war did not end social agitation. The labor movement peaked during wartime. The year 1944 saw more strikes and more labor violence than any other year in American history. 1943 was a year of upheaval on the home front, as race riots beseiged Harlem, Detriot, LA, and many other cities. Race riots also beseiged military bases. This was a time when many blacks began to stockpile weapons to prepare for a possible "race war" at home. In 1944, FDR wanted to extend the New Deal by forming a "Second Bill of Rights". So I don't really see World War II as a separate Crisis. It is merely the 1930s set to an atmosphere of a catastrophic war.

I'm not sure if any other era can be divided in similar ways. I don't think that the Blue and Red Awakenings were independent of each other. While the upsurges happened in different periods, it was the Blue Awakening that informed the spirituality of the Red Awakening.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Actually, the more and more I read on the prior Crisis, the harder it becomes to separate the 1930s from the 1940s. I agree with S&H that FDR's election was part of the regeneracy, and believe that the BEF march and riots in 1932 was perhaps the event beginning the regeneracy and leading to the collapse of the political regime and birth of the new. Keep in mind that Crisis does not equal war. Yes, people tend to think of the Revolutionary War, WWII, and the Civil War when thinking about 4Ts. But wars are not as dominant during the entire era as people assume. In the Revolutionary Crisis, only 1775-1783 were war years. The years from 1773 - Concord/Lexington, and also from 1783 - 1794 were not war years, and were perhaps more similar to the hard-bitten 1930s. Reconstruction, much of which I believe is part of the 4T, were more like the 1930s, particularly in the defeated South where violence, economic depression, and suffering were rampant. In the prior Crisis, the years 1929 - 1941 were free of war. Only 1941 - 1945 were war years.

snip snip

This is an excellent post, very informative, and it backs up what I said at the beginning of this thread, which is that a Crisis war is not requisite for a 4T, nor is it separate from the other radical shifts of a 4T. The '30s was a more chaotic and challenging decade than the '60s, and by a lot. 2Ts are turbulent, but 4Ts are destructive, even without war.

Even though the Depression came to an end circa 1937, the tension never let up from 1937-1941. People were still afraid of reverting back to the Depression, radical nationalist politics were growing around the world, and the stage was being set for WWII.

So if we agree that a 4T can start with something that destroys public confidence in the old order, and not necessarily a hyper-dramatic economic or military event, then what do people think of 2005 as the start date?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... We may or may not see a decisive platform for action come out of the 2008 election cycle. There seems to be a potential to elect a Champion, but I can find so little to be enthusiastic about in the current crop of candidates to predict a championship with confidence.

I have real problems looking beyond 2008. I anticipate the next president will not be a 'stay the course' guy. Without knowing what new course he might set, it is hard to guess at how the world might respond.

That's my view as well. I can't get serious about any of the candidiates, because they seem equally unable to point at real (i.e. messy and intractable) problems, and posing serious (i.e. unpopular in the polls) solutions. The lone exception is the neophyte and currennt media darling, Barack Obama. But is he ready for this? Somehow, I doubt it.

So we'll have to wait for more evidence that the regeneracy is on. By this time next year, we should know (that's two Friedman Units for those keeping score).

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Actually, the more and more I read on the prior Crisis, the harder it becomes to separate the 1930s from the 1940s. I agree with S&H that FDR's election was part of the regeneracy, and believe that the BEF march and riots in 1932 was perhaps the event beginning the regeneracy and leading to the collapse of the political regime and birth of the new. Keep in mind that Crisis does not equal war. Yes, people tend to think of the Revolutionary War, WWII, and the Civil War when thinking about 4Ts. But wars are not as dominant during the entire era as people assume. In the Revolutionary Crisis, only 1775-1783 were war years. The years from 1773 - Concord/Lexington, and also from 1783 - 1794 were not war years, and were perhaps more similar to the hard-bitten 1930s. Reconstruction, much of which I believe is part of the 4T, were more like the 1930s, particularly in the defeated South where violence, economic depression, and suffering were rampant. In the prior Crisis, the years 1929 - 1941 were free of war. Only 1941 - 1945 were war years.

Easton: To say that the regeneracy didn't begin until 1941 makes the mistake of equating Crisis with war. It also ignores the major social upheavals of the 1930s. Even if everyone wasn't united in 1933, most people took a side, just as different factions took different sides in 1775. The regeneracy only begins within a faction. The grass-roots efforts of the 1930s pushed for far-reaching social change. In fact, just the few years from 1930 - 1935 saw more drastic, far-reaching, and decisive change in America than the entire period reaching from the end of Reconstruction. And even if there wasn't war in America, there was a widespread fear that among the GIs, the American system might not have survived. Watching what happened in Germany, Russia, and Spain, people were very aware that a similar outcome was very possible in America. There were many who supported fascism, many who supported the communists, etc. Like was said elsewhere, Huey Long had the best chance of unseating FDR. In fact, if he wasn't shot, there is a very good chance that in 1936, America could've reverted to strongman leadership. In the same year, GIs began to edge away from their anti-war stance when Spain erupted in civil war between the fascists and nationalists. Reportedly, it was the fact that Civil War erupted in Spain that caused corporations like GM to restrain from just gunning down the labor organizers with Tommy guns. In such a Crisis atmosphere, such an event happening during the strikes of 1936 and 1937 could've spiraled into a major civil war. This was an era when the Popular Front was a major political movement among the GIs, pushing an agenda far more radical than the New Deal. The 1930s look like a full-blown Crisis.

All: The 1930s and 1940s are more similar than most people would think. Even while the nation united in time for war, what happened was much more complex than what is assumed. While the Popular Front movement collapsed in America in 1940, the war did not end social agitation. The labor movement peaked during wartime. The year 1944 saw more strikes and more labor violence than any other year in American history. 1943 was a year of upheaval on the home front, as race riots beseiged Harlem, Detriot, LA, and many other cities. Race riots also beseiged military bases. This was a time when many blacks began to stockpile weapons to prepare for a possible "race war" at home. In 1944, FDR wanted to extend the New Deal by forming a "Second Bill of Rights". So I don't really see World War II as a separate Crisis. It is merely the 1930s set to an atmosphere of a catastrophic war.

I'm not sure if any other era can be divided in similar ways. I don't think that the Blue and Red Awakenings were independent of each other. While the upsurges happened in different periods, it was the Blue Awakening that informed the spirituality of the Red Awakening.

I can't disagree with anything here. I'm open to the possibility of Pearl Harbor not being the regeneracy, although my gut would tell me it is.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I can't disagree with anything here. I'm open to the possibility of Pearl Harbor not being the regeneracy, although my gut would tell me it is.

To my mind, the regeneracy was over well before Pearl Harbor. I'd like to quote again a few lines from the Four Freedoms speech, FDR's State of the Union Speech of January 6, 1941, eleven months before Pearl Harbor.

As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we-will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.

That is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger.

That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history.

That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member of the Congress faces great responsibility and great accountability.

The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily-almost exclusively-to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute peoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.

In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate. Today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production.

Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time; in some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays; and in some cases-and I am sorry to say very important cases-we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans.

The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

Emphasis added.

I would agree that not all crises involve a war. However, I believe the regeneracy must come before the Lexington Green / Fort Sumter / Pearl Harbor trigger event that brings on no doubt about it full mobilization. There were lots of preliminary incidents in the spirals of violence leading up to the Revolution and Civil War. Yet, there was a clear difference between the Tea Party and Lexington Green, between the Harper's Ferry raid and Fort Sumter.

I think part of that difference is that the People are fully aware that something has to be done and that there is a difficult path that must be tread. September 11th was spectacular enough to have been a mobilizing trigger, but neither the People nor the government were focused enough at the time. There was no agreement on a far reaching response. Rumsfeld wanted to exercise his lean mean 3T military, while Bush 43 thought the People ought to spend lots of money on Xmas presents to stimulate the economy. Neither the People nor the government had a firm grasp of how difficult the problem was, let alone how to solve it. They may have thought they knew how to handle the situation, but with a few years hindsight it is clear they did not.

Reading the early parts of the Four Freedoms speech, it seems clear that FDR and the American People were fully aware of what was coming by January 1941. Today, we aren't there yet. I think we know we have to get there, though. That's why I say we are or should be in the early regeneracy.

I'll repeat my traditional warning, though. The established group that benefits most from the status quo will find reasons not to change, will find reasons to reject regeneracy. In any given crisis, one might expect a George III or Jefferson Davis, attempting to maintain the status quo. It is very possible that we might be bad guys this time around, fighting to maintain a perceived special place in the world order. It is not automatic that we will have a successful regeneracy.

Originally Posted by 1990

This is an excellent post, very informative, and it backs up what I said at the beginning of this thread, which is that a Crisis war is not requisite for a 4T, nor is it separate from the other radical shifts of a 4T. The '30s was a more chaotic and challenging decade than the '60s, and by a lot. 2Ts are turbulent, but 4Ts are destructive, even without war.

Even though the Depression came to an end circa 1937, the tension never let up from 1937-1941. People were still afraid of reverting back to the Depression, radical nationalist politics were growing around the world, and the stage was being set for WWII.

Good points all, and the other thing to remember is that at the time Black Tuesday was not recognized as the turning point we perceive in hindsight. As late as December 1930, many (if not most) bankers, pundits and politicians were predicting a mild recession and quick recovery.

It was not until 1932 (when unemployment was starting to fall) that the pundits started saying the sky was falling.

So don't assume that our Catalyst hasn't arrived yet just because the ancien regime is still partying hearty.

Originally Posted by 1990

There is a lot of argument over what makes a Fourth Turning a Fourth Turning -- what makes it a Crisis and not an Unraveling, Awakening, or High? Is it full-scale war? An economic depression? Just a mood shift away from 3T denial? I don't agree with the notion that any one of these is requisite for a true Crisis. The Swiss had a 4T during WWII without actually taking sides in the war. The Russians had a 4T (in my opinion) during the '90s without participating in the nearby Balkans Wars. The Brazilians (and most other Latin Americans) had a 4T during the '60s, '70s, and '80s without any sort of traditional war. These were all still Crises, though.

So again, what makes a Crisis a Crisis? I think the answer is simpler than one would think. It is simply an era when all the chickens that have been postponed and ignored come home to roost. Sometimes this does lead to a war and a depression, just one or the other, or even neither. But what it always is about is a period when the society affected is forced to solemnly consider its priorities and create a new order. And what is the catalyst? If you think the catalyst is always hyper-dramatic and hyper-patriotic, you probably say 9/11 catalyzed the 4T of our time. But this is not always the case. In fact, it is almost never the case.

America was founded in a 4T. Most societies are. In our case, we had a Revolution, a War of Independence. But what catalyzed it? Not an attack on our soil. Not a recession. Actually, what catalyzed it, according to S&H at least, was a few guys throwing tea into the ocean. And what started the Civil War? An election. And the Depression? It was catalyzed by Wall Street having a really bad day.

In none of these cases did the populace immediately rally behind the President and unify in some grand way. As the Revolution began, a large proportion of Americans still backed the British, and considered the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams treasonous. And indeed it was 3 years after the Tea Party that the Declaration of Independence was signed and our heroic Revolution began. The Civil War never had its heroic moment of unity. And World War II, the ultimate "heroic war", did not begin for us until 12 years into the 4T.

If we put aside our assumption that something like Pearl Harbor has to begin a 4T (after all, Pearl Harbor didn't begin a 4T), then the answer to "Be we 3T or 4T?" seems a lot clearer. I am beginning to join the camp that contends that Hurricane Katrina and the surrounding government meltdown in 2005 was the catalyst. While 9/11 was a tragic event, it did not have the effect of permanently throwing people into 4T mode. Well, it did...prematurely, for about five days. And that could not have been a real 4T catalyst because we were temporarily united in patriotism. We were not questioning ourselves, we were all angry at our enemy. This mood, if long-term and not a brief mood, is characteristic of late in a 4T, not the beginning of one.

For that reason, the Culture Wars returned with a vengeance, and so did 3T decadence, economic bubbles, indulgence, and apathy.

Just compare the 2004 election with the 2006 election. In 2004, gay marriage bans probably won the election for George W. Bush, in Ohio at least. The three-tiered division was growing sharper by the day: between people who thought Bush was our Next Great Leader, people who thought Bush was evil, and people who were disillusioned by both sides. In 2006, there was one unified message from the voters. No, it wasn't "Democrats rock!" Actually, it was a lot simpler: NO MORE.

2005 was a year of transition. At the beginning of the year Bush was being sworn in for a 2nd term, causing half the country to cheer and half the country to cry. His approval rating was about 52-55%. At the end of the year Bush's approval was 35-40%, an entire region of the country was destroyed, and the public mood was darker than it had been in any of our lifetimes.

This extreme pessimism has not subsided. While Unravelings are characterized by fragmentation and controversy, Crises begin with a profound malaise coming over society. Russia's last Crisis did not begin with an event like 9/11, it began with an event like Katrina. Or as Katrina is spelled in Russian, Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster symbolized the crumbling of the old order created after the Bolshevik Revolution. Public confidence was extremely low and the mood was highly pessimistic for the next 5 years. As the USSR collapsed in 1991, Boris Yeltsin gave the Russians hope of a new order. Thus began their Regeneracy.

As I said, a Crisis is about the old order finally decaying to a point in which everybody agrees something must be done. If this point can be catalyzed by a tea party, an election, or a bad day on Wall Street, why can't it be caused by the destruction of a city?

Since I can no longer edit any of my previous posts :eyesroll:, I'll simply repost it, for clarification...

I agree with much of what you say. A Crisis Catalyst can be either grand or trivial... what matters most is the public reaction to it, rather than the event itself. The further we get from 9.11, the less likely it becomes that it was indeed the Catalyst... for all I know Katrina may have been it, however we won't know that with any certainty until we can look back on the event five years hence.

I disagree that Russia, Latin America and most of the world are on completely different saecula from the United States. This is because World War 2 affected the entire planet either directly or indirectly.... Latin America, haven for post-war Nazi escapees, was no more disinvolved than Switzerland. The last Crisis created a bunch of little Civil War Anomalies that, in effect, put the entire globe on the same cycle plus or minus a few years... possibly for the first time ever.

Russia didn't have a Crisis in the 70s and 80s... hell, no! Chernobyl, as you correctly noted, destroyed what was left of the old Cold War-era can-do-ness of the Russian spirit. But the unravelling of the postwar order is a 3T occurrence, not a 4T one. Chernobyl did for Russia what our Three Mile Island and Challenger explosion did for us... that is to say, either Catalyzed or confirmed a new Unravelling mood.

The Bolshevik Revolution wasn't a 4T either. It had Awakening practically written across its collective forehead, the ultimate campus riot and rise against "the Establishment"... classic 2T stuff. There was no sea change in the Russian Order, because In the end, only the faces changed... the Bolsheviks were as or more corrupt than the Tsars. The Rise Of Stalin and World War 2 was Russia's Crisis as much as it was part of ours, and arguably more... millions of Russians died fighting the invading Germans on their own soil.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I disagree that Russia, Latin America and most of the world are on completely different saecula from the United States. This is because World War 2 affected the entire planet either directly or indirectly.... Latin America, haven for post-war Nazi escapees, was no more disinvolved than Switzerland. The last Crisis created a bunch of little Civil War Anomalies that, in effect, put the entire globe on the same cycle plus or minus a few years... possibly for the first time ever.

Russia didn't have a Crisis in the 70s and 80s... hell, no! Chernobyl, as you correctly noted, destroyed what was left of the old Cold War-era can-do-ness of the Russian spirit. But the unravelling of the postwar order is a 3T occurrence, not a 4T one. Chernobyl did for Russia what our Three Mile Island and Challenger explosion did for us... that is to say, either Catalyzed or confirmed a new Unravelling mood.

The Bolshevik Revolution wasn't a 4T either. It had Awakening practically written across its collective forehead, the ultimate campus riot and rise against "the Establishment"... classic 2T stuff. There was no sea change in the Russian Order, because In the end, only the faces changed... the Bolsheviks were as or more corrupt than the Tsars. The Rise Of Stalin and World War 2 was Russia's Crisis as much as it was part of ours, and arguably more... millions of Russians died fighting the invading Germans on their own soil.

Gah, I've been in the "Russia be 1T" crowd lately mainly because of Justin 77's observations, but Russia being aligned with Western Europe seems just as plausible. :dizzy:

Originally Posted by Odin

Gah, I've been in the "Russia be 1T" crowd lately mainly because of Justin 77's observations, but Russia being aligned with Western Europe seems just as plausible. :dizzy:

I know, Russia's giving me a migraine. Maybe we should (flinches) do a poll?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

The Bolshevik Revolution wasn't a 4T either. It had Awakening practically written across its collective forehead, the ultimate campus riot and rise against "the Establishment"... classic 2T stuff. There was no sea change in the Russian Order, because In the end, only the faces changed... the Bolsheviks were as or more corrupt than the Tsars. The Rise Of Stalin and World War 2 was Russia's Crisis as much as it was part of ours, and arguably more... millions of Russians died fighting the invading Germans on their own soil.

Right.. so nothing changed in the Bolshevik Revolution...

?