Originally Posted by 1990

That's an interesting interpretation. I had thought Greece, like Italy, was on the WWII timeline. They did have a bad civil war right after WWII which climaxed in 1949.

That's what I thought at first, but it doesn't make much sense to me now. Their civil war was essentially political. The Wikipedia article on the conflict is actually quite good for an article of its type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

Anyway, Greece had their War of Independence (from the Ottoman Empire) from 1821-1829, and then I'd put their most recent Crisis from 1912-1921.

I've added this to the world Crisis list. It should have been on there earlier.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Pretty funny, considering in your last post you indicated that you had no idea what a 5th turning is. I wouldn't suspect anything has changed.

Of course, I'd assume you've done the research to prove that a 5th turning does not exist...

I read S&H. If a 5T exists, then S&H's generational theory is invalid, and you need to get off this website.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

That's what I thought at first, but it doesn't make much sense to me now. Their civil war was essentially political. The Wikipedia article on the conflict is actually quite good for an article of its type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

Anyway, Greece had their War of Independence (from the Ottoman Empire) from 1821-1829, and then I'd put their most recent Crisis from 1912-1921.

I've added this to the world Crisis list. It should have been on there earlier.

WWII was part of the last Greek Crisis, as the whole d*** country was occupied by the invading Nazi bastards.

Originally Posted by sean '90

I read S&H. If a 5T exists, then S&H's generational theory is invalid, and you need to get off this website.

Whatever bud. You're the one with "issues." You think you are a Hero (or a knight in shining armor), but you're just a Boomer in a Millennial's skin.... with twice the judgmental tendencies.

Here's an idea: I'm here to discuss generational theory. Seeing as how this is the biggest and only generational theory community, I'll stay. I'm a big fan of the work of S&H, and just because I don't agree with every little thing they write (and I agree with the vast majority of their work) doesn't mean that I shouldn't be here. Try learning what a fifth turning is before you pass judgment.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

Originally Posted by sean '90

WWII was part of the last Greek Crisis, as the whole d*** country was occupied by the invading Nazi bastards.

I'm sure you've spent hours on this subject...

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm sure you've spent hours on this subject...

What about Romania and former yugoslavia. Both the eastern half of former yugoslavia and romania are eastern orthodax. Both of these regions fought in both WW1 and WW2, and in romania's case there were severe peasant uprisings in romania in the 1900s, and the launched an irrational invasion of austria-hungary in WW1, but they also were a major participant in WW2. Yugoslavia was a battleground in both wars.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What about Romania and former yugoslavia. Both the eastern half of former yugoslavia and romania are eastern orthodax. Both of these regions fought in both WW1 and WW2, and in romania's case there were severe peasant uprisings in romania in the 1900s, and the launched an irrational invasion of austria-hungary in WW1, but they also were a major participant in WW2. Yugoslavia was a battleground in both wars.

I have not done a real study of Romania, but for my conclusions on the Former Yugoslavia, you may check the second link in my sig.

Also with Brazil, I still think that the triple alliance war was in a 4T era and vargas' dictatorship in the 1930's and 1940's was another 4T. The military period in my opinion was a 2T era.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Also with Brazil, I still think that the triple alliance war was in a 4T era and vargas' dictatorship in the 1930's and 1940's was another 4T. The military period in my opinion was a 2T era.

Perhaps. I was never too sure about that one.

John X. wrote a quick thing on the war:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=2171

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What about Romania and former yugoslavia. Both the eastern half of former yugoslavia and romania are eastern orthodax. Both of these regions fought in both WW1 and WW2, and in romania's case there were severe peasant uprisings in romania in the 1900s, and the launched an irrational invasion of austria-hungary in WW1, but they also were a major participant in WW2. Yugoslavia was a battleground in both wars.

How brutally the Romanians disposed of Ceausescu after his regime collapsed seem very 4T to me; as does the peasant revolts and the WW1 behavior. you mention. Romania is probably on the Russo-Turkish timeline.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Yes. I have no idea why they aren't included on my crisis list since I recall studying them.

Climax 1922, which puts them in the 85th year of the mid-cycle period. They are 5T.

Don't forget the deadly forest fires of a couple weeks ago. The cause is far from certain... and the T-word can't be ruled out. Arson can be a terror weapon.

World War II and the following Civil War (until 1948) comprise a Crisis era for Greece. A 4T is about on schedule for Greece as it is for most of the West. Greece waged WWII ferociously against Italy and the Third Reich -- only to be overwhelmed by the latter. Nazi occupation of Greece was as nasty as one might expect... complete with genocide and a famine.

*Groan*

I'll ask once more. As we are dealing with theories of history, you will need to back up your reasoning with historical evidence. Please show me a time and a place where there has been a very premature crisis. Of course, the following crisis would have to be on schedule with the the new timeline.

As discussed months ago, Ethiopia does not work.

Originally Posted by Odin

How brutally the Romanians disposed of Ceausescu after his regime collapsed seem very 4T to me; as does the peasant revolts and the WW1 behavior. you mention. Romania is probably on the Russo-Turkish timeline.

Yes, but the Romanians were also a major participant in the invasion of the soviet union during ww2, as well as the holocaust, later they switched sides and fought the germans at the end of the war.

Greece repulsed an italian invasion and attempted to drive the italians out of albania during ww2, they were later invaded and occupied by nazi germany.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

*Groan*

I'll ask once more. As we are dealing with theories of history, you will need to back up your reasoning with historical evidence. Please show me a time and a place where there has been a very premature crisis. Of course, the following crisis would have to be on schedule with the the new timeline.

As discussed months ago, Ethiopia does not work.

Greece is on roughly the same timeline as most of central and southeastern Europe because of the bloody and destructive course of World War II and the attempts to establish commie rule. That the commies failed in Greece about the same time as they consolidated power in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland after World War II suggests that a political order stabilized in Greece in 1948. Such stabilization suggests the beginning of a 1T irrespective of one's desire for the result.

I don't see Greece as having had a Crisis as harsh as that of World War II in World War I. Greece did not come under occupation during World War I; its economy was not as severely ravaged; it was not subjected to genocide. Small countries like Greece (or Ethiopia, a minor power throughout the 20th century) exposed to the aggression and machinations of greater Powers usually have their Crises when the greater Powers so choose even if the timelines aren't ready -- but also when the time is ripe. The Italian Fascists and German Nazis imposed a 4T upon Greece, and the Americans and British did what they could to put an end to a 4T with military and economic assistance to support a non-communist government. (The Greek Civil War died out rapidly when Tito broke with the Soviet Union and quit giving aid to Greek commie insurgents).

A country like the United States can impose a 4T upon another country (example: Iraq or Afghanistan today) if it so chooses. So could Nazi Gangsterland or the USSR.

To be sure, premature Crises are almost always imposed from elsewhere. Were there an Independence Day, V, or War of the Worlds scenario, the invaders would impose a 4T scenario wherever they chose, victims be damned. They would likely pay little attention to the 'preparedness' of the nations that they invade; they would attack flower children as readily as they would attack tank columns.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Greece is on roughly the same timeline as most of central and southeastern Europe because of the bloody and destructive course of World War II and the attempts to establish commie rule. That the commies failed in Greece about the same time as they consolidated power in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland after World War II suggests that a political order stabilized in Greece in 1948. Such stabilization suggests the beginning of a 1T irrespective of one's desire for the result.

I don't see Greece as having had a Crisis as harsh as that of World War II in World War I. Greece did not come under occupation during World War I; its economy was not as severely ravaged; it was not subjected to genocide.

Irrelevant. What happens to you is not so indicative. It's what you do that counts. [/Promotional speech]

The bigger thing is the huge population transfers around the Greco-Turkish war.

Just curious, what is the previous crisis?

Small countries like Greece (or Ethiopia, a minor power throughout the 20th century) exposed to the aggression and machinations of greater Powers usually have their Crises when the greater Powers so choose even if the timelines aren't ready -- but also when the time is ripe. The Italian Fascists and German Nazis imposed a 4T upon Greece, and the Americans and British did what they could to put an end to a 4T with military and economic assistance to support a non-communist government. (The Greek Civil War died out rapidly when Tito broke with the Soviet Union and quit giving aid to Greek commie insurgents).

A country like the United States can impose a 4T upon another country (example: Iraq or Afghanistan today) if it so chooses. So could Nazi Gangsterland or the USSR.

To be sure, premature Crises are almost always imposed from elsewhere. Were there an Independence Day, V, or War of the Worlds scenario, the invaders would impose a 4T scenario wherever they chose, victims be damned. They would likely pay little attention to the 'preparedness' of the nations that they invade; they would attack flower children as readily as they would attack tank columns.

When I say premature, I mean premature. You still have not shown a single scenario where this has happened. We have hundreds, thousands, of years of history at our disposal. Surely you can find one proof for just one example.

What you suggest can make a lot of sense. For me, it doesn't, since I don't believe the generational cycle can be disrupted by an outside force, short of entire destruction of all infrastructure. Like I said, this is a theory of history, so there is no reason not to back it up.

Premature crises will not happen, they will simply be prolonged.

If the social movement is not there, a large war will not cause a 4T. The 4T is more than just a war, it's the drastic, usually voluntary restructuring of society.

If you invade during an Awakening, you'll cause civil strife, and the divisions will be too deep to create a working society. This is why Iraq is failing. They are not in a 4T mood even if they're being faced with a situation comparable to what you see in a 4T.

Turnings are based on social moods, not events. Events don't cause social shifts, they simply make those shifts visible. That's why Katrina can be seen as the beginning of the fourth turning, as opposed to the more dramatic and more consequential event of 9/11: because 2005 happened to be the year when the Fourth Turning mood began, and Katrina conveinently coincided with it.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Premature crises will not happen, they will simply be prolonged.

If the social movement is not there, a large war will not cause a 4T. The 4T is more than just a war, it's the drastic, usually voluntary restructuring of society.

If you invade during an Awakening, you'll cause civil strife, and the divisions will be too deep to create a working society. This is why Iraq is failing. They are not in a 4T mood even if they're being faced with a situation comparable to what you see in a 4T.

Turnings are based on social moods, not events. Events don't cause social shifts, they simply make those shifts visible. That's why Katrina can be seen as the beginning of the fourth turning, as opposed to the more dramatic and more consequential event of 9/11: because 2005 happened to be the year when the Fourth Turning mood began, and Katrina conveinently coincided with it.

I find a lot to disagree with, and a lot to agree with.

First of all, a crisis can happen starting at the 40 year mark, I would guess. The chances are extremely low, but the risk continues to rise until it plateaus at around 57 years. See my sig for a bunch of different mid-cycle periods.

So the fact that 9/11/01 occurred 56 years in, is irrelevant. I don't mean to argue when the Fourth Turning Mood began (btw, 9/11 is my answer, and there it will remain), but using the "9/11 came too early" argument doesn't resonate with me.

I agree to an extent that you can have an accidental/imposed crisis sometime in an unraveling. But at the beginning of one? I doubt it.

That's probably what happened with the American Civil War, though, an unraveling cut short by some sudden, random action, that caused an early crisis. But these crises will not result in the same outcome as a normal 4T. They're less likely to resolve the underlying problems, which is exactly what happened in the Civil War: slavery ended in a very artificial way, continued on through Jim Crow laws and sharecropping. It was barely a 4T at all, which would explain why no hero generation could ever take hold.

So the fact that 9/11/01 occurred 56 years in, is irrelevant. I don't mean to argue when the Fourth Turning Mood began (btw, 9/11 is my answer, and there it will remain), but using the "9/11 came too early" argument doesn't resonate with me.

9/11 clearly didn't begin the crisis because a few months later the culture war mentality remained and prevailed. 2004 was a rehash of 2000, and we continued to have debates about crap like Terri Shiavo and gay marriage and all sorts of meaningless partisanship until Katrina hit.

It was after Katrina that the social mood changed, where we became more critical of the culture wars, became moral critical of celebrities, when Millenial youth culture began to break out, when progressive politics began to take hold.

Our reaction to 9/11 was Unraveling behavior. There was more fear and confusion than there was action, and we behaved in an overall reactionary way. We became more conservative after 9/11.

Fourth Turnings are not conservative times. They're progressive times where 3T radicals become mainstream, and when conservatives have to work for at least gradual progress.

If 9/11 was the spark, John Kerry would not have been labeled as some left-winger by anyone outside the left. If 9/11 was the spark, we would have had a draft and our war in Afghanistan would have been far more total. If it was the spark, Bush might have succeeded with bringing some kind SS reform.

There were many opportunities for a regeneracy after 9/11, but it didn't happen. But one year after Katrina, and the regeneracy was readily apparent, and parties were shifting around and people once labeled as radicals suddenly became mainstream, with Democrats proposing even more ambitious plans for health care than Hillary had done in the 90s, Al Gore becoming a superstar with an issue that was once completely removed from the public eye.

That's why Katrina was the spark. 2005 was just like 1929.

Originally Posted by Silifi

I agree to an extent that you can have an accidental/imposed crisis sometime in an unraveling. But at the beginning of one? I doubt it.

King William's war for the Iroquois is the earliest I've found, at 43 years.

9/11 clearly didn't begin the crisis because a few months later the culture war mentality remained and prevailed.

So?

2004 was a rehash of 2000, and we continued to have debates about crap like Terri Shiavo and gay marriage and all sorts of meaningless partisanship until Katrina hit.

Umm, Katrina didn't make politicians stop talking about meaningless crap.

It was after Katrina that the social mood changed, where we became more critical of the culture wars, became moral critical of celebrities, when Millenial youth culture began to break out, when progressive politics began to take hold.

Yay!?

Our reaction to 9/11 was Unraveling behavior. There was more fear and confusion than there was action

Well, duh. We still haven't hit the regeneracy.

and we behaved in an overall reactionary way. We became more conservative after 9/11.

Since when was pursuing wars in the Middle East conservative?

Fourth Turnings are not conservative times. They're progressive times where 3T radicals become mainstream, and when conservatives have to work for at least gradual progress.

If 9/11 was the spark, John Kerry would not have been labeled as some left-winger by anyone outside the left. Why?If 9/11 was the spark, we would have had a draft Why? and our war in Afghanistan would have been far more total. Why? If it was the spark, Bush might have succeeded with bringing some kind SS reform.

Absolutely not on the last point. The SS reform falling through is a sharp turn from the compromises during the 1980s and 1990s.

There were many opportunities for a regeneracy after 9/11, but it didn't happen.

When?

But one year after Katrina, and the regeneracy was readily apparent, and parties were shifting around and people once labeled as radicals suddenly became mainstream, with Democrats proposing even more ambitious plans for health care than Hillary had done in the 90s, Al Gore becoming a superstar with an issue that was once completely removed from the public eye.

That's why Katrina was the spark. 2005 was just like 1929.

You are just confirming what I always suspected: "Katrina made us 4T" is just liberal partisanship. 9/11 got the ball rolling, giving us a taste of the hysteria and vitriol that was (and is) to come. Katrina accelerated the process.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Premature crises will not happen, they will simply be prolonged.

If the social movement is not there, a large war will not cause a 4T. The 4T is more than just a war, it's the drastic, usually voluntary restructuring of society.

If you invade during an Awakening, you'll cause civil strife, and the divisions will be too deep to create a working society. This is why Iraq is failing. They are not in a 4T mood even if they're being faced with a situation comparable to what you see in a 4T.

Turnings are based on social moods, not events. Events don't cause social shifts, they simply make those shifts visible. That's why Katrina can be seen as the beginning of the fourth turning, as opposed to the more dramatic and more consequential event of 9/11: because 2005 happened to be the year when the Fourth Turning mood began, and Katrina conveinently coincided with it.

IMO 4Ts can be triggered early, but it gets harder and harder to trigger the closer you get to the end of the Awakening. The farther along the Unraveling goes on the more powerful the Prophets are relative to the Adaptives, and thus the weakening of the the Adaptives' ability to put off problems. IMO Had 9/11 been a suitcase nuke that killed 50,000 people it would of been a catalyst even though it was a bit early.

Originally Posted by Silifi

I agree to an extent that you can have an accidental/imposed crisis sometime in an unraveling. But at the beginning of one? I doubt it.

That's probably what happened with the American Civil War, though, an unraveling cut short by some sudden, random action, that caused an early crisis. But these crises will not result in the same outcome as a normal 4T. They're less likely to resolve the underlying problems, which is exactly what happened in the Civil War: slavery ended in a very artificial way, continued on through Jim Crow laws and sharecropping. It was barely a 4T at all, which would explain why no hero generation could ever take hold.



9/11 clearly didn't begin the crisis because a few months later the culture war mentality remained and prevailed. 2004 was a rehash of 2000, and we continued to have debates about crap like Terri Shiavo and gay marriage and all sorts of meaningless partisanship until Katrina hit.

It was after Katrina that the social mood changed, where we became more critical of the culture wars, became moral critical of celebrities, when Millenial youth culture began to break out, when progressive politics began to take hold.

Our reaction to 9/11 was Unraveling behavior. There was more fear and confusion than there was action, and we behaved in an overall reactionary way. We became more conservative after 9/11.

Fourth Turnings are not conservative times. They're progressive times where 3T radicals become mainstream, and when conservatives have to work for at least gradual progress.

If 9/11 was the spark, John Kerry would not have been labeled as some left-winger by anyone outside the left. If 9/11 was the spark, we would have had a draft and our war in Afghanistan would have been far more total. If it was the spark, Bush might have succeeded with bringing some kind SS reform.

There were many opportunities for a regeneracy after 9/11, but it didn't happen. But one year after Katrina, and the regeneracy was readily apparent, and parties were shifting around and people once labeled as radicals suddenly became mainstream, with Democrats proposing even more ambitious plans for health care than Hillary had done in the 90s, Al Gore becoming a superstar with an issue that was once completely removed from the public eye.

That's why Katrina was the spark. 2005 was just like 1929.

I agree. As I have stated many times, the reaction to 9/11 very much goes by S&H's description of Unraveling conflicts: lots of enthusiasm but very little follow-through and staying power.

Reactionaries are the only people who can ever truly lead a successful Western civilization. Progress is always more bad than good.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

King William's war for the Iroquois is the earliest I've found, at 43 years.

What crisis war for the Iroquois ended in 1645?

Are you even sure it was a crisis war? It doesn't seem to me that this could even be that accurate, given the limited information.

So?

Culture wars will seem trivial, even dangerous during a fourth turning.

Did we feel, as a whole, that the culture wars were detrimental in 2001-2005? Not really. We went right along with it. If it were the beginning of the 4T, that kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Umm, Katrina didn't make politicians stop talking about meaningless crap.

It made the consequences for doing so much greater. Name a single trivial issue that got massive attention in Congress since the beginning of the 110th Congress.

Yay!?

Are you intentionally acting retarded or do you have a point here?

Well, duh. We still haven't hit the regeneracy.

We've had a considerable regeneracy in that there is a huge movement towards progressive change rather than regressive or reactionary change.

Since when was pursuing wars in the Middle East conservative?

Pursuing 3T wars with limited amounts of troops and no follow-through is very conservative.

Absolutely not on the last point. The SS reform falling through is a sharp turn from the compromises during the 1980s and 1990s.

Compromises are not the same as widespread reform, which is what Bush proposed and failed to do because there was no will for a massive overhaul like you find in the 4T.

3T reforms are peicemeal, lead by Adaptive technocrats. 4T reforms are massive and sweeping, lead by Idealists.

When?

Draft attempts, huge surge in volunteers for the army and national guard, greater community involvement.

You could probably see greater community involvement after Katrina than 9/11

You are just confirming what I always suspected: "Katrina made us 4T" is just liberal partisanship. 9/11 got the ball rolling, giving us a taste of the hysteria and vitriol that was (and is) to come. Katrina accelerated the process.

Liberal? What's liberal about it?

I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative. I'm a registered member of the Republican Party, I like small government and I like change to be measured. Don't give me this "partisan" bullshit.

Katrina was the first point at which people decided that they wanted to make real change, a big change. Politics changed drastically right after Katrina, and people's attitudes drastically changed.

9/11 didn't do that. It was a comparable event but it simply didn't shift politics around. The same issues that were there in 2000 were there in 2004. The party lines were exactly the same after 9/11. There was no noticable change, and therefor it can't be considered the beginning of a 4T.

Originally Posted by Silifi

What crisis war for the Iroquois ended in 1645?

None. After discussing the matter with John X. I concluded that crisis mode was not reached until 1693, which makes more sense.

1649 was the climax of the previous.

Are you even sure it was a crisis war? It doesn't seem to me that this could even be that accurate, given the limited information.

Limited information is hard to deal with. Even after I looked up everything, I was not anywhere close to being sure. What I can identify, though, are the two crises surrounding KWW; the Beaver Wars through 1649 and the American Revolution. After weighing my options, KWW was the best choice.

Culture wars will seem trivial, even dangerous during a fourth turning.

Did we feel, as a whole, that the culture wars were detrimental in 2001-2005? Not really. We went right along with it. If it were the beginning of the 4T, that kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily. The Civil War was certainly a culture war. What we should see is an increased intensity and hysteria making their way into the scene.

It made the consequences for doing so much greater. Name a single trivial issue that got massive attention in Congress since the beginning of the 110th Congress.

Gee, I don't know. Their pay raise?

Are you intentionally acting retarded or do you have a point here?

No I was being quite serious. Do you really think I'm retarded?

We've had a considerable regeneracy in that there is a huge movement towards progressive change rather than regressive or reactionary change.

Once again, you are viewing this through a political lens. And frankly, I don't see how pursuing wars in the middle east isn't progressive.

Pursuing 3T wars with limited amounts of troops and no follow-through is very conservative.

Call it what you will. That's what I thought too, since I only became cognizant of the outside world since 9/11.

Compromises are not the same as widespread reform, which is what Bush proposed and failed to do because there was no will for a massive overhaul like you find in the 4T.

Once again, you're dead wrong. I claim that it was early 4T, and thus, destined to fail.

3T reforms are peicemeal, lead by Adaptive technocrats. 4T reforms are massive and sweeping, lead by Idealists.

So?

Draft attempts, huge surge in volunteers for the army and national guard, greater community involvement.

Ugh. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I am saying 9/11 was the start of a 4T, crisis era mood.

Liberal? What's liberal about it?

I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative. I'm a registered member of the Republican Party, I like small government and I like change to be measured. Don't give me this "partisan" bullshit.

What's liberal about it is that Katrina happened and the country began to realize that Bush really sucks, and then started pursuing more liberal policies. Thus, 4T-good policies, 3T-bad policies. That was what I meant by "yay."

I don't care what party you belong to, you are subscribing to this thought, even if you don't agree with its holder's political message.

Katrina was the first point at which people decided that they wanted to make real change, a big change. Politics changed drastically right after Katrina, and people's attitudes drastically changed.

More politics. Who would have guessed? Actually, the country was heading left before Katrina. Katrina simply accelerated the process (and brought up deeper into the 4T). Attitudes? I suppose there was a small increase in cynicism, but it fell into party lines.

9/11 didn't do that.

Not true, even looking through your lens. Come on, reread what you wrote.

It was a comparable event but it simply didn't shift politics around.
The same issues that were there in 2000 were there in 2004. The party lines were exactly the same after 9/11. There was no noticable change, and therefor it can't be considered the beginning of a 4T.

*Sigh* You said you want to be a politician right? I should have known better.