I'm good with this. You're absolutely right that we are making no gains at enormous expense. We've spent over $1 Trillion on this, and have not made a dent, but the drug cartels are still doing well.Originally Posted by radind
Einstein's dictum against doing the same thing applies in spades.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Sudan had its Crisis climax with its referendum to allow South Sudan to split off.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Perhaps the 4T resolution for Mexico will be this-the Mexican central government will co-exist with the drug lords, who assume the function of feudal lords.
Or the US could simply throw up the white flag and give up fighting the War on Drugs. Which we're kind of doing in baby steps with the de-criminalization (and in some cases outright legalization) of marijuana, restoring parity to the sentences for crack cocaine versus powdered cocaine, letting nonviolent offenders go in some states (including those convicted on drug charges). This isn't the 1980s any more. I feel like the tide is turning and within the next few years or so there could be some major shifts in drug policy. I could be wrong, but I think things may finally change soon.
Sudan, like many other troubled nations in Africa, seems like it's in a sort of permanent 4T, no? S&H mentioned the possibily that some societies simply do not operate on a four-stroke saeculum (I think they labeled them "traditional" societies or something).
African countries aren't the only ones that are like this. Does North Korea operate on a saeculum with a clearly identifable High, Awakening and Unraveling (a Crisis seems obvious). Even Russia seems this way sometimes.
A lot of the third world is made up of what might be called composite countries. It is not unusual to have a dozen or more tribes with over 5 or ten percent of the population. Add to this the experience of being European colonies for roughly a cycle or more and things can get very muddled.
North Korea is a sad case in so many ways it is a true outlier. I have to disagree on Russia however. Russia has a very clear history of 4T. The last two featured total system changes in 1991 and earlier 1917. Russia also has 4Tish era around the age of Napoleon, during the war with Sweden i the early 1700's and the Time of Troubles from 1598-1617, which established the Romanov dynasty that would be overthrown 300 years. or 3 long cycles later.African countries aren't the only ones that are like this. Does North Korea operate on a saeculum with a clearly identifable High, Awakening and Unraveling (a Crisis seems obvious). Even Russia seems this way sometimes.
I hope that you are correct about this. At least, we can continue to make progress on a state by state basis.
I think that's pretty much the de facto situation now.
Meanwhile, here in Albuquerque, a few days ago, an undercover narc cop shot another undercover narc cop for ... wait for it ... in the midst of a $60 drug bust!!
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
What's up with ALBQ. lately Tim? With the balloon race every year and posters like you and the Badger, I used to think of it as a fairly together city. More and more it's sounding as whacked as St. Louis.
S&H also said that you can't track English turnings between the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Wars of the Roses... and yet we have thread devoted to that topic that last I checked got us back to Alfred the Great's childhood in the mid-800s, showing that pre-Wars of the Roses turnings were just as much there in Medieval England. The reason going back further becomes more difficult IIRC is that the ability to find data points that one can use to trace patterns in history becomes harder and harder to find, and a lot of that simply has to do with the fact that Europe is overrun by a bunch of Germanic Tribes whom the best modern example I've heard to think of as a comparison is to think of these Germanic Tribes as "Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs" in their manners, behaviors, and lifestyles.
I do think that what level of "civilization" you are at matters to some degree, but at this point (having recently decided to take a break from the S&H view and recover a non-S&H view and being inspired by little bits and pieces outside of the S&H doctrine on how it can better inform that doctrine) I think that simply changes a few flavorings--not the overall pattern: such as whether or not you get a bohemian movement amongst the youth generation or not--minor little things like that. And a lot of those flavorings simply comes down to how much wealth you as a civilization has accumulated and whether or not a question of survival and need to have children contribute to the society in a meaningful way. Values-challenging Prophets (like Boomers) become much more common in extremely wealthy and highly developed civilizations, while more Religious-focused Prophets are much more common in poorer and less developed civilizations (all the various Medieval monastic movements such as the Benedictines & Cistercians). That's not to say you can't find the Values-challenging and the Religious-focused in each Prophet Generation--just in greater or lesser numbers depending upon how "satiated" your society is with itself. In a poorer society you'll get far more Religious-focused & fewer Values-challenging Prophets, while in a wealthier society you'll get far more Values-challenging & fewer Religious-focused Prophets. And that's just using Prophets as an example (they're really the easiest IMO). Nomads are the same no matter the wealth of your society from what I can tell, the only things that change is what they're complaining about or "traumatized" by. Artists in poorer societies do far worse typically than they do in more "civilized" societies, but generally Artists in poorer societies do their best to try and get their society more civilized as best they can with what they have available to them (whether that be encouraging being a literate society or making deals/exchanges with wealthier societies). Civics also do their best to push their poorer societies forward--but usually through technological and standard of living means and institution building. Alfred the Great is one example of that.
Whether or not we know about these things from things being written down or not is another matter entirely. Poorer societies tend to be less reflective (and rightly so as their focus is on surviving day to day), and while that changes a few things, the beats still continue.
I wouldn't say that North Korea and South Korea have been "separated" long enough to have developed separate cultural identities beyond superficial differences at this point. If North Korea lasts longer than a saeculum, then that's time to start considering the cultural identities being rewritten or splintering off. But while there might be a few minor surface details that are different between them and their neighbors to the south, North Korea still has the basics roots that kept the Korean people united for centuries under the Yi Dynasty and even under Japanese rule and attempts to subjugate & overwrite their cultural identity with that of Japan's.African countries aren't the only ones that are like this. Does North Korea operate on a saeculum with a clearly identifable High, Awakening and Unraveling (a Crisis seems obvious). Even Russia seems this way sometimes.
You can see the same idea with East and West Germany--while there are noted superficial differences (enough that there's been a bit of Ost-algia for the ideals and a bit of the lifestyle of East Germany--while strongly critiquing the reality of the harsh regime that existed), ultimately both East and West Germans still think of themselves as Germans. Likewise a saeculum can be chalked up to a "period" or a "phase"... as the "Soviet Saeculum" appears to be taken as in Russia. It's when a situation starts lasting for longer than a Saeculum that more permanent and lasting notions really start creeping into the society IMO.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
It is war on ourselves. Make war on druglords by cutting off their income.
Well, I don't think it's as bad as the media portrays, but then what IS as bad as the media portrays??
The DOJ issued a report on our over-militarized police force. So now they are really defensive and spooky. On the other hand, overall violence, etc. really isn't much worse than any place else, from my perspective.
Given the Homeland Security's wild-ass giveaway of all kinds of heavy equipment to all kinds of fire and police departments, plus the hiring of lots and lots of ex-military folks into both fire and police departments, can anyone wonder why they then behave like military folks? It it really any different in other similar size cities?
Yet, given our proximity to the border, there is probably a bit more of the Mexican dysfunction influence that bleeds across.
I enjoy being in a truly diverse society. Here in NM, the "anglo" population is a minority. It is an interesting experience to go into a mostly hispanic small town and actually experience discrimination on a first-hand basis. After that, one can't help but wonder what it must have to be like to live with it on a day-in, day-out basis, like many folks of color.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
I wonder if anyone has any more thoughts regarding Mexico. I just got back from Mexico City..........it is not immediately apparent from visiting Mexico City (D.F) that the country is deep into crisis (or Crisis with a capital "C" as the case may be). Here we are in 2015, roughly 10 years into the current drug war, and D.F. appears to be pretty functioning very normally, although other parts of the country are a different story altogether.
Is the general consensus that Mexico is deep into a 4T, perhaps at or very near the Crisis climax? As stable as D.F. may be, the relatively thinly populated northern states are essentially lawless and out of the government's control, and the influence of the cartels has seeped into other parts of the country as well. I know a person from Guerrero (south of D.F.) who is having her mother and other family members move to D.F. to escape the cartels.
I guess part of what interests me so much about Mexico is that not only is it a country I have direct experience with, but if it is indeed deep into a 4T, it may provide some insight on what the U.S. will look like roughly 10 years from now. If Mexico is deep into a 4T, at or near the Crisis climax, I think the fact that D.F. is as safe as it is (no more dangerous than your average American big city) may provide some glimmer of hope for us as well - maybe, even in the event of a second civil war in the U.S., there will be safe havens that Americans can flock to in order to continue living a somewhat normal life.
It does seem like what's going on with the Mexican central government's inability to establish law and order in the lands ruled by the cartels is something of a civil war, albeit not on the scale of other countries (for example, Syria).
I'm really interested to know if Mexico's presumed 4T crisis with the cartels provides any insight, if any, into what our own society will look like deep into the 4T, around the climax. I guess I should have more insight given that I just returned from there today, but I wanted to know what others think.
No, I always thought the consensus was Mexico was in a 1T, with the fall of the PRI single party state being the big political shift, and the thing with the cartels being more remniscient of America's battle with the Indians after the Civil War (1T not always resembling the US in the 1950s). After all, surely the Mexican Revolution was their last 4T, and the PRI ruled for about one saeculum. Having Mexico still be in a fourthturning would make the saeculum awfully long, and it isn't like the cartels have a political program/pose a risk of toppling the government.
A 1T that was full of turmoil that was labeled as one by S&H: The Tudor Renaissance (1487 - 1516). Especially in the first half when you had several attempts to crown a different king and invade or rebel (each growing a little more desperate), add in the First Cornish Rebellion, and you get a rather upheaval filled 1T. It only stopped being upheaval filled when Henry VII started fining all the nobles for every small thing, then the second half of the 1T was rather quiet until Henry VIII inherited from dear old dad.
But then again I've taken to noticing the first half of 1Ts tend to be darker than the second half--the last 1T was like that, the nostalgia 1T that "felt so good" didn't really crop up until 1955 when Rock 'n' Roll came around. 1946 - 1954 were darker by comparison--from McCarthyism & the fear of nuclear annihilation, etc.
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
If that's the case, then perhaps the country is in an early Awakening - the PRI fell in 1994, correct? If 1994 is the beginning of their 1T, then it's been 21 years since the beginning of the saeculum. I understand that turmoil and violence can and does happen in a 1T, but what's happening in Mexico now places the country on the verge of being declared a failed state; entire provinces (or states, as they're actually called) are no longer controlled by the legitimate government, and are instead controlled by cartels. That is an extremely serious situation that to me sounds like anything but a 1T.
Also, the Mexican Revolution ended in 1920 (I was thinking it ended in 1929, but most sources say 1920). Given the 1920 end date for the Mexican Revolution, 1994 would only make for a 74 year saeculum. Possible I suppose, but a bit on the short side.
If you don't mind, can you give me your turning start and end dates, going back at least one saeculum or more? I'm curious to see what you come up with. Others please feel free to do the same. Again, I thought the Mexican Revolution ended in 1929 with the end of the Cristero War, which would make us 86 years into the saeculum if we used 1929 as a start date. That, combined with the dire situation with the cartels, made me believe that the country was deep into a 4T, right around the climax. I would've thought that the fall of the PRI in 1994 would've been the beginning of a 4T. But I'm open to discussion and debate.
The PRI fell in the 2000 election. I'd say the 4T start with the Latin American debt crisis cir. 1982. Looking at this report immigration from Mexico to the US dropped sharply after 2005 so I'd put the start of the 1T as 2005.
I understand why the fall of the PRI is monumental, they were similar to Japan's LDP party in their dominance in national politics. But did that really constitute a 4T climax/resolution? Is that really the Mexican equivalent of the US winning World War II or the treaty at Appomattox?
Also, I think that the drop in immigration from Mexico to the US has more to do with our economy than theirs. The economic bubble of the 2000s began to rapidly slide downhill after 2005, culminating in the crash of '08.
Immigration from Central America and Asia have both increased despite the US economy; it's only immigration from Mexico that has declined.
The climax of the Civil War Saeculum was actually the death of Lincoln (ministers at the time commented on the biblical analogues and puffed the event up to the level of mythos we know today--which still overshadows Appomattox to this day). A climax does not imply a resolution as one and the same thing. There's always the falling action to consider. For instance the climax of WWII in each respective theater was D-Day (even S&H labeled that the climax) & Mid-Way, with all that came after it, falling action. It isn't until you've gotten out of the falling action and come to the plateau of a resolution that you've gotten to a 1T.
The falling action which came after Lincoln's death was a Crisis mood that lingered for a few more years (1865 - 1868) during Johnson's era of Reconstruction--which was a far different thing than Grant's era of Reconstruction.
~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 04-08-2015 at 03:08 PM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Eh, don't have a lot of time to get down in the weeds on this, so a few placeholders (sorry, winding up semester/applying for first white collar jobs eats up a lot of time and attention).
- At quick cursory glance of the wiki, a hundred year saeculum is clearly visible in 19th century Mexico, going from the rise of Santa Ana (concluding the 4T and initiating the 1T) starting around 1833, the final toppling of his government and beginning of La Reforma and the fights between liberals and conservative groups, a reactionary phase under the Porfiriato (3T and beginning of the 4T), and the Mexican Revolution from 1910 to 1920. However, while the revolution ended in 1920, the PRI wasn't formed until 1929, with the 1920s seeing squabbles between military leaders, the Church, and the people, including the Cristero Wars from 1926 to 1929. Considering that the rise of the PRI ousted the last of the generals as powerbrokers and launched several decades of rapid growth and industrialization, your initial guess might be a better way of looking at it, considering the end of the revolution as being 1929. I know the wiki agrees.
- Turnings for the 20th century seem much fuzzier, and I'm not really able to do enough research to give you a good answer. In the mean time, here is an interesting article on the Mexican economy since the mid 90s. (I'm a subscriber, but I think if you type in your email address they'll send it to you for free, or provide you the html code to embed it here).
- I suppose it might be interesting to think of Mexico still being on a 100 year saeculum, in which case the war against the cartels would be on time to mark the start of a long 4T. I know there are non-T4T people who have made that argument before. In this case, you could describe the 80s and 90s as being an unraveling. I'm not endorsing this view, but it is an interesting way to think about it.
- It is worth pointing out that a lot of the cartel violence hasn't necessarily been directed at the military or the government, except when they've been interefering, but rather than between the cartels themselves. The same website I linked to above actually does a good job of tracking the ins and outs of the drug war, I'll try and find a summary later.
Hope that's a start.
Last edited by JordanGoodspeed; 04-08-2015 at 03:20 PM.
