If The Grey Badger and Dominic Flandry are correct, then the saecula follow mega-cycles in the same order as turnings. Any 4T (or any other turning at that) can be compared to a previous one in a comparable saeculum.

But which saeculum is comparable to ours? As has been pointed out, this saeculum has been very possibly a mega-Awakening, with cultural upheaval, massive reorganization to the social structure, and religious revolutions on both the left and right. Also, the heart of this saeculum has been the Consciousness Revolution. On the news or in daily life, everybody regardless of politics always seems to be looking back to the '60s, '70s, or '80s for answers.

So if there are mega-turnings for each saeculum, where are we now? What was the last 4T that followed a mega-Awakening? Or is this all B.S. and there's just no way to predict what we're in for?

If you consider this 4T to be at the end of a mega-Awakening, then we might be looking at an equivalent of the Glorious Revolution 4T. This might make sense as that 4T, like this one, began gradually and stayed rather anticlimactic and sporadic until the actual revolution in 1688 (13 years into the turning).

By this theory, WWII was analogous to the Armada, and the Civil War to the War of the Roses.

Or, are we at the beginning of a mega-Unraveling saeculum?

Or none of the above? Vote in the poll, and please post your thoughts.

Originally Posted by 1990

If you consider this 4T to be at the end of a mega-Awakening, then we might be looking at an equivalent of the Glorious Revolution 4T. This might make sense as that 4T, like this one, began gradually and stayed rather anticlimactic and sporadic until the actual revolution in 1688 (13 years into the turning).

By this theory, WWII was analogous to the Armada, and the Civil War to the War of the Roses.

Or, are we at the beginning of a mega-Unraveling saeculum?

Or none of the above? Vote in the poll, and please post your thoughts.

We're in the mega-Unraveling now. I'm of two minds as to when it started. In fact, sometimes it seems to me that each mega-Turning starts with the Turning that parallels it, so that the mega-Awakening started with the Missionary Awakening, and the Victorian Age with the post-Napoleonic Wars Recovery (the post 1812 Recovery on this side of the pond), etc. I may be wrong. They could also start with the Awakening, since the Postwar High felt to me like the climax and culmination of the saeculum (and remember, I was there!) while the Boom Awakening felt like something completely new.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

We're in the mega-Unraveling now. I'm of two minds as to when it started. In fact, sometimes it seems to me that each mega-Turning starts with the Turning that parallels it, so that the mega-Awakening started with the Missionary Awakening, and the Victorian Age with the post-Napoleonic Wars Recovery (the post 1812 Recovery on this side of the pond), etc. I may be wrong. They could also start with the Awakening, since the Postwar High felt to me like the climax and culmination of the saeculum (and remember, I was there!) while the Boom Awakening felt like something completely new.

So if we're in the mega-Unraveling, which previous 4T are we comparing to? Wasn't the Glorious Revolution part of a mega-Awakening? How did you vote in the poll?

Originally Posted by 1990

So if we're in the mega-Unraveling, which previous 4T are we comparing to? Wasn't the Glorious Revolution part of a mega-Awakening? How did you vote in the poll?

mega-Unraveling. The mega-Awakening was the Renaissance. Or as we learned it in schol back in the day, Ren-Ref.

The Glorious was the climax of the Culture Wars that had been building since Anne Boleyn was Queen Consort.

As usual during periods of Culture Wars, people were losing their heads all around.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

mega-Unraveling. The mega-Awakening was the Renaissance. Or as we learned it in schol back in the day, Ren-Ref.

The Glorious was the climax of the Culture Wars that had been building since Anne Boleyn was Queen Consort.

As usual during periods of Culture Wars, people were losing their heads all around.

So the last mega-Unraveling very likely began with the Puritan Awakening, a 2T so influential in its saeculum it can only be compared to the Consciousness Revolution. And like our current confusion, the Glorious Revolution 4T proceeded slowly and subtly, as culture war ridiculousness peaked and a quiet malaise took hold.

I really would like to know more about that 4T to get clues about our next one.

Originally Posted by John Dryden

During his office treason was no crime,
The sons of Belial had a gloriuous time.

Absalom & Achitophel, 1.597

The coming Crisis will be a time of traitors and treasons much as the Glorious Revolution. The remnant of Commercial Republicanism will be swept away by the Forces of Market and Progress and an Undocumented Worker from a land other than Our Commercial Republic will come to head the New Regime. That Regime, unable to even provide a syphilitic heir, will go further abroad to find a True Leader. In 1688 it led to the Germans, I'd bet on the Celestials by say 2030.

Treason will be styled Invitation as it was before. The lower orders will hardly take notice. We will come to consider the Mandate of Heaven as even those before "That Man" did ponder The Constitution.

Originally Posted by Sir John Harington

Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Of Treason, No. 5

Most people are rather ignorant of th Glorious Revolution Crisis. There is a new book out about the English Glorious Revolution. There is an old thread dedicated to that Crisis, but with only a few posts. The 1680s in English America may have been similar to the 1930s, with sporadic rebellions and uprisings, violence between natives and the English, class conflict, and economic warfare in which people destroyed the tobacco plantations of the rich. Also, the English colonies did not have a united Crisis, as Crisis conditions were more specific to regions. Maryland and Virginia experienced a different Crisis than New England.

In fact, I like to divide American history into two different factions, one that would influence politics and society to this day. The first one is the Virginian bloc, which was born out of the Jamestown settlement. This is also the Dixie bloc, which tends to be more socially and politically conservative and very business centered. Remarkably, when conservative politics rules the nation, such as during 1Ts and 3Ts, southern politicians, groups, and ideas have the upper hand. The second one is the Massachusetts bloc, born out of the Plymouth settlement. This, I guess, would be the Yankee(?) bloc, which tends to be more socially and politically radical/liberal, and centered on idealism. Philadelphia, New York/Amsterdam, and Boston were the colonial and Revolutionary centers of the Massachusetts bloc. When radicalism and idealism grips society, such as during Crisis and Awakening periods, northern politicians, groups, and ideas have the upper hand. When people become fed up with things they way they are, want to smash the status quo, become more idealistic, and tired of corruption, and want to change the world, they favor northern politicians. Howard Dean and Obama are northern politicians. When people are tired of social upheaval, chaos, the overthrow of everything, and want to live in a much calmer world and get on with their daily lives, they vote southern.

While the Yankees did not experience the early rebellions that ravaged the Dixies, Increase Mather did write about "The Troubles That Have Happened in New England" in 1677, suggesting that the society had entered Crisis. The main troubles for New England erupted after the revocation of the Massachusetts Bay Charter in 1684 and the formation of the Dominion of New England under Andros in 1686, leading to the Glorious Revolution in 1689. Than in 1690, began King William's War in New England.

A couple of Powerpoint presentations:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/c...ble/lect10.ppt
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/c...ble/lect11.ppt

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Most people are rather ignorant of th Glorious Revolution Crisis. There is a new book out about the English Glorious Revolution. There is an old thread dedicated to that Crisis, but with only a few posts. The 1680s in English America may have been similar to the 1930s, with sporadic rebellions and uprisings, violence between natives and the English, class conflict, and economic warfare in which people destroyed the tobacco plantations of the rich. Also, the English colonies did not have a united Crisis, as Crisis conditions were more specific to regions. Maryland and Virginia experienced a different Crisis than New England.

In fact, I like to divide American history into two different factions, one that would influence politics and society to this day. The first one is the Virginian bloc, which was born out of the Jamestown settlement. This is also the Dixie bloc, which tends to be more socially and politically conservative and very business centered. Remarkably, when conservative politics rules the nation, such as during 1Ts and 3Ts, southern politicians, groups, and ideas have the upper hand. The second one is the Massachusetts bloc, born out of the Plymouth settlement. This, I guess, would be the Yankee(?) bloc, which tends to be more socially and politically radical/liberal, and centered on idealism. Philadelphia, New York/Amsterdam, and Boston were the colonial and Revolutionary centers of the Massachusetts bloc. When radicalism and idealism grips society, such as during Crisis and Awakening periods, northern politicians, groups, and ideas have the upper hand. When people become fed up with things they way they are, want to smash the status quo, become more idealistic, and tired of corruption, and want to change the world, they favor northern politicians. Howard Dean and Obama are northern politicians. When people are tired of social upheaval, chaos, the overthrow of everything, and want to live in a much calmer world and get on with their daily lives, they vote southern.

While the Yankees did not experience the early rebellions that ravaged the Dixies, Increase Mather did write about "The Troubles That Have Happened in New England" in 1677, suggesting that the society had entered Crisis. The main troubles for New England erupted after the revocation of the Massachusetts Bay Charter in 1684 and the formation of the Dominion of New England under Andros in 1686, leading to the Glorious Revolution in 1689. Than in 1690, began King William's War in New England.

A couple of Powerpoint presentations:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/c...ble/lect10.ppt
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/c...ble/lect11.ppt

Really fascinating stuff. Do you consider the Glorious Revolution a likely model of where we're headed this 4T, or do you see a different Crisis as parallel? And if the former, do you expect the same sort of localized regional rebellions, or is the world too globalized now for that?

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

In fact, I like to divide American history into two different factions, one that would influence politics and society to this day. The first one is the Virginian bloc, which was born out of the Jamestown settlement. This is also the Dixie bloc, which tends to be more socially and politically conservative and very business centered. Remarkably, when conservative politics rules the nation, such as during 1Ts and 3Ts, southern politicians, groups, and ideas have the upper hand. The second one is the Massachusetts bloc, born out of the Plymouth settlement. This, I guess, would be the Yankee(?) bloc, which tends to be more socially and politically radical/liberal, and centered on idealism. Philadelphia, New York/Amsterdam, and Boston were the colonial and Revolutionary centers of the Massachusetts bloc.

You are hitting the primary thesis of Kevin P. Phillips The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America. He concentrates on the English Civil War, American Revolution and US Civil Wars as being extensions of the same conflict. As the Puritans and Cavaliers took turns having the upper hand, each side would leave England to colonies friendly to their own religion. Thus, while Boston and New England became home to exported Puritans, the Cavaliers went to Virginia and the south. Thus, the more urban and democratic values of the London faction moved to New England, while the high church, royal rural values established themselves in the south. There were a good many Germans in between.

Phillips includes some interesting charts and graphs showing the dominant religions in various parts of the country during these times, strongly correlating religion to whether a region voted for secession.

In general, the Dixie block has tended towards the religious conservative autocratic side of things, though there is a notable exception in that rural and southern areas provided the initial base for FDR. For about a century after the Civil War, both parties had liberal and conservative wings, while the old Confederacy voted democratic more reliably than they voted liberal or conservative. While in general there is less need for change in rural areas, during the transition from animal pulled plows to tractors the government was also trying to manage farm productivity. The result was a time of progressive farmers in the early 20th Century, and a New Deal born out of the rural south. As that time faded, the old Civil War hatreds got laid to rest, and Goldwater redefined the Republicans, the country flip flopped. The Democrats extended variations of the New Deal while becoming a northern urban party. The Republicans claimed a southern stronghold, taking over the Irish / Scots / Cavalier tradition.

Anyway, yes, there are remnants of the old Cavalier / Roundhead values conflicts echoing to this day, but so much has happened since that these core values have been washed over by many layers of history.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You are hitting the primary thesis of Kevin P. Phillips The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America. He concentrates on the English Civil War, American Revolution and US Civil Wars as being extensions of the same conflict. As the Puritans and Cavaliers took turns having the upper hand, each side would leave England to colonies friendly to their own religion. Thus, while Boston and New England became home to exported Puritans, the Cavaliers went to Virginia and the south. Thus, the more urban and democratic values of the London faction moved to New England, while the high church, royal rural values established themselves in the south. There were a good many Germans in between.

Phillips includes some interesting charts and graphs showing the dominant religions in various parts of the country during these times, strongly correlating religion to whether a region voted for secession.

In general, the Dixie block has tended towards the religious conservative autocratic side of things, though there is a notable exception in that rural and southern areas provided the initial base for FDR. For about a century after the Civil War, both parties had liberal and conservative wings, while the old Confederacy voted democratic more reliably than they voted liberal or conservative. While in general there is less need for change in rural areas, during the transition from animal pulled plows to tractors the government was also trying to manage farm productivity. The result was a time of progressive farmers in the early 20th Century, and a New Deal born out of the rural south. As that time faded, the old Civil War hatreds got laid to rest, and Goldwater redefined the Republicans, the country flip flopped. The Democrats extended variations of the New Deal while becoming a northern urban party. The Republicans claimed a southern stronghold, taking over the Irish / Scots / Cavalier tradition.

Anyway, yes, there are remnants of the old Cavalier / Roundhead values conflicts echoing to this day, but so much has happened since that these core values have been washed over by many layers of history.

OH, just tell either a tidewater Cavalier or a Scots-Irish hillbilly that they came from the same cultural roots and be prepared for a mighty burst of southern laughter.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

OH, just tell either a tidewater Cavalier or a Scots-Irish hillbilly that they came from the same cultural roots and be prepared for a mighty burst of southern laughter.

Yes. There are many subdivisions of southern culture. I don't want to begin touching on the proper sauce to be used on BBQ pork...

Still, the Cavaliers were the rural high church faction. Their strongholds included Scotland and Wales. Ask any Irishman who knows squat about history what he thinks of Cromwell's Roundhead invasion. Aye, it has been a good long time since the tidewater and hillbilly cultures have had a chance to diverge, but Scots-Irish and Cavalier once went together quite nicely, thank you.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Yes. There are many subdivisions of southern culture. I don't want to begin touching on the proper sauce to be used on BBQ pork...

Still, the Cavaliers were the rural high church faction. Their strongholds included Scotland and Wales. Ask any Irishman who knows squat about history what he thinks of Cromwell's Roundhead invasion. Aye, it has been a good long time since the tidewater and hillbilly cultures have had a chance to diverge, but Scots-Irish and Cavalier once went together quite nicely, thank you.

This is an interesting discussion, but I am having trouble following you, Bob. How was Scotland a Cavalier "stronghold"? How is an Irishman's view of Cromwell relevant to either faction? Also, are you suggesting that the Scots-Irish and Cavaliers only diverged culturally after arriving in the Colonies?

It would actually be fascinating if you would try to relate barbecue sauces to all this.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Yes. There are many subdivisions of southern culture. I don't want to begin touching on the proper sauce to be used on BBQ pork...

Still, the Cavaliers were the rural high church faction. Their strongholds included Scotland and Wales. Ask any Irishman who knows squat about history what he thinks of Cromwell's Roundhead invasion. Aye, it has been a good long time since the tidewater and hillbilly cultures have had a chance to diverge, but Scots-Irish and Cavalier once went together quite nicely, thank you.

High church and evangelical Presbyterian?

At least oil & water go together in a salad dressing!

Patricia SHAW Mathews

"Tain't BBQ withouten some chile powder, hot enough to burn yore innards pink - and NOT made in Noo Yawk City!

Just as a tall glass of Lipton's flavored sugar water AIN"T tea! Leastaways, not west of Dallas, it ain't.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

High church and evangelical Presbyterian?

Not unheard of:

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

But I would venture to guess that Bob is referring to the high church party in Scotland, Anglo-Catholic in character, which ultimately formed the Scottish Episcopal Church after the Glorious Revolution. However I was not aware that Scottish Episcopalians were prominent in the Cavalier migration, if that is what Bob is suggesting.

Originally Posted by Mustang

This is an interesting discussion, but I am having trouble following you, Bob. How was Scotland a Cavalier "stronghold"? How is an Irishman's view of Cromwell relevant to either faction? Also, are you suggesting that the Scots-Irish and Cavaliers only diverged culturally after arriving in the Colonies?

It would actually be fascinating if you would try to relate barbecue sauces to all this.

I fear I have no clue how to tie the barbecue sauces in. As far as I know, that is entirely an American divergance.

The core from my perspective is the alliances of the English Civil War. The Cavaliers were the royalist faction. The Roundheads were parliamentarian. Still, there were political, economic and religious aspects of it. The English Civil War was on the cusp where the protestant - catholic religious divide was becomming less important, while the democratic - royalist divide started to take the fore. Earlier crises are best understood as religious. Later crises are more political. The English Civil War had strong overlays of both.

The Roundhead faction was progressive across the board. Their support came from around London, from the small crafters who were beginning to build towards the beginnings of the industrial revolution. They were Protestants, while the king still favored high church rituals and perogatives that were too close to Catholicism in the opinion of many. Then, too, the king wanted absolute autocratic rule, while the parliament was beginning to work towards modern checks and balances.

If the progressives were concentrated around London and the southeast, that left the more rural west and north dominated by older religion and politics. Away from the cities, there was less exposure to the new ideas. The economy was changing far less, so there was less need for new ideas. Thus, Wales and Scotland provided many supporters for the Cavalier faction, and the royalist faction made common cause with the Irish.

Cromwell is of course the most notorious of the Roundheads, creator of the New Model Army, eventual Lord Protector (military dictator) of Britain and commander of the parliamentarian invasion of Ireland. While there are many causes for friction between Irish and English, Cromwell's name is as black as any from the perspective of the Irish.

At the time, the colonies were often religious sanctuaries. They were places one could go to avoid religious prosecution. Thus, the Roundheads had good reason to go to New England, while the Cavaliers went south.

I don't know that I can be persuasive and throrough in a brief post. I can recommend The Cousins' Wars, though it isn't exactly a light read.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The Roundhead faction was progressive across the board. Their support came from around London, from the small crafters who were beginning to build towards the beginnings of the industrial revolution.

And this is an important point. Puritanism was virtually synonymous with the middling class of rising merchants. Robert Reed earlier suggested that Southern culture is "very business-centered." But that has always been more of a "Yankee" thing. The South was always agrarian while New England was always mercantile (again Puritans). Perhaps Robert would like to argue that Southerners have fully morphed into Yankees, but I do not believe that to be the case.

If the progressives were concentrated around London and the southeast, that left the more rural west and north dominated by older religion and politics. Away from the cities, there was less exposure to the new ideas. The economy was changing far less, so there was less need for new ideas. Thus, Wales and Scotland provided many supporters for the Cavalier faction, and the royalist faction made common cause with the Irish.

In fact, the Scots initially allied themselves with Cromwell and against the Crown. It was only when the Roundheads reneged on their promise to institute presbyterian church government throughout Britain (the Independent Calvinists prevailed in England) that the Scots turned against them. The execution of Charles I (which the Scots vehemently opposed) exacerbated tensions to the point that they summoned Charles II from the Continent and crowned him King of Scotland in 1651, a full nine years before the Restoration in England. But this does not change the fact that the Scots only saw the Stuarts as the lesser of two evils, and only came to that lukewarm view after supporting the Roundheads initially. The Scots were hardly carbon copies of the English Cavaliers from the West Country and I am still not aware of a Scottish cultural element in the early Tidewater.

While there are many causes for friction between Irish and English, Cromwell's name is as black as any from the perspective of the Irish.

True, but I still do not see what this has to do with either Scots-Irish or Cavalier culture. The Irish have never been fond of either the English or the Scots-Irish. If you are pointing to the fact that the Cavaliers, Scots, and Irish were united once in the late 1640s, and arguing that they only diverged culturally afterward, that is the first time I have ever heard such an argument.

This has been done many times on these forums over the years, but one thing to do is to compare each archetype in the past.

Who are the Boomers similar to? People have often compared the Boomers to the Transcendental generation, but they are similar to the Awakening generation in a lot of respects too. I don't have much information on the prior Idealist generations, however. I doubt that the Boomers are similar to the Missionary generation.

The Xers are the most incarcerated generation in American history. They are also the only Reactive generation to grow up poorer than their parents (the males, at least). They are unlike the Gilded generation and the Cavalier generations, but seem more like the Liberty and Lost generations.

The Millennials are the most technologically oriented generation ever. Not much else is known in comparison with other Civics given their early age. But it is unlikely that Millennials will turn out like the GIs.

It is also possible that we are entering new territory given that we are entering the Post-Industrial Era. In fact, I think that the Crisis could have similarities to the War of the Roses and the American Revolution Crises in that those Crises are associated with huge paradigmic changes.

1492 was a major year in the history of the world. That Crisis is generally known to be the birth-point of the nation-state. The late 1400s and early 1500s belong to the High Renaissance. The printing press was an enabling technology, providing the ability to read to Bible to the masses, and leading to the Protestant Reformation. The 1T following the Crisis is also the birth point of modern science (specifically astronomy). In the 1480s, there are some Renaissance texts that speak to the freedom of thought, mind, and conscience. The following Crisis was simply an update of that late 15th century Crisis, with better science and more powerful nation-states, and the last gasp of the Renaissance.

The Glorious Revolution Crisis witnessed the ending of the Renaissance period. Modern physics was invented, and mass economics (in the form of slavery) was conceived. The Age of Reason was born. But the next Crisis would be the one to establish the new intellectual regime. The major pivotal year, similar to 1492, is 1789, during the Enlightenment. Popular revolutions were very popular during this period and afterwards. The concept of human rights was born, as was the ideal of socialism. The American and French Revolutions, the birth of major anti-slave movements in Britain, the rise of Industrialization, the rise of totalitarian (Napoleonic) states, the rise of representative democracy, and violent movements for freedom (Jacobinism) had their origins in this Crisis, and would set the character for the next two. In the Civil War, slavery would be abolished, while Industrialization would proceed at full speed. Industrial society reached its greatest perfection in World War II, and that Crisis would set in motion the process for human rights for all people. Revolutions would show their dark side in Russia and in Germany.

Through these glasses, the prior Crisis was similar to the Glorious Revolution Crisis in that both served as bridges to totally different intellectual paradigms instead of being mere updates to the existing one. In the aftermath of the second world war, America finally advanced on its promise of racial equality. Also in the prior Crisis, science and technology played ever growing roles with fast-pace technological advancement. For the first time, people gained the ability to cause an apocalypse on their planet. While the era witnessed the perfection of Industrial society, it also seeded the plants for its eventual destruction with ENIAC in 1946. And the fact that humans could travel anywhere on the globe within a day and even travel to another celestial body definitely changes things. Electronic media is another region where the old paradigm is being destroyed.

And this is where I believe we are at. The cusp of a Crisis equal to the ones in 1492 and 1789. Unless nuclear shields are perfected, then it is impossible for anyone to win a full nuclear exchange. So it is likely that war will play less of a role. In exchange, there will be a "moral equivalent to war" such as a technological crisis such as an energy, environmental, or resource crisis. Also, individuals will have an ever growing ability to cause destruction, which could make terrorism more of a problem. But while individuals can cause extreme destruction, they will be able to build lots of material wealth with very little financial resources. And with our ability to severely damage or destroy the biosphere, it is likely that humans will emerge as stewards of the planet, managing biodiversity, the climate, etc, even as the human population continues to grow and living standards improve.

And this is why I think you are hearing the world "singularity" thrown around more and more. Technological change is proceeding far ahead of social change (that will change, or course, as the Crisis deepens). The idea of a singularity, IMO, is merely a failure in the ability of people to imagine what's ahead. I don't buy into the idea of a singularity, and believe that humans will remain in control of technology. But advancing technology will lead to a radically different world. By next Awakening, we could well be living in a magical, enchanted world(s) where fantasy and science fiction seem to be on a collision course.

Of course, there will need to be a new heir to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The new sciences should replace the old mechanical sciences, and become the intellectual basis for such a society.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

This has been done many times on these forums over the years, but one thing to do is to compare each archetype in the past.

Who are the Boomers similar to? People have often compared the Boomers to the Transcendental generation, but they are similar to the Awakening generation in a lot of respects too. I don't have much information on the prior Idealist generations, however. I doubt that the Boomers are similar to the Missionary generation.

The Missionaries were Idealists raised by Reactives instead of Civics, that explains a lot. The Boomers are a typical Idealist generation as were the Transcendentalists, Awakener's and the Puritans (the American Puritans came from a limited section of that European generation). While I do not believe the 4T has come, once the Silents aren't stopping the Boomers the 4T will start. The Missionaries most likely just waited until the Great Depression before the 4T started. Other 4T's have been started by events which you would not think were dramatic like a protest in Boston or an presidential election.

The Xers are the most incarcerated generation in American history. They are also the only Reactive generation to grow up poorer than their parents (the males, at least). They are unlike the Gilded generation and the Cavalier generations, but seem more like the Liberty and Lost generations.

The Millennials are the most technologically oriented generation ever. Not much else is known in comparison with other Civics given their early age. But it is unlikely that Millennials will turn out like the GIs.

Both X'ers and Millennials are typical Reactive and Civic generations. Then again then every generation has it's own character.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

The Millennials are the most technologically oriented generation ever. Not much else is known in comparison with other Civics given their early age. But it is unlikely that Millennials will turn out like the GIs.

I keep getting updates from the Ron Paul campaign tracking Paul's popularity at Youtube and Myspace. If I remember correctly, Paul now has twice the number of subscribers as his nearest competitor (Barack Obama) at one or both of these places. This astounds me. I can only presume that the bulk of that support is coming from Millies (with an Xer minority). If so, then Millies may be demonstrating a strong libertarian leaning, which may suggest that this Crisis may mimic the Rev. War Crisis.

Originally Posted by Mustang

I keep getting updates from the Ron Paul campaign tracking Paul's popularity at Youtube and Myspace. If I remember correctly, Paul now has twice the number of subscribers as his nearest competitor (Barack Obama) at one or both of these places. This astounds me. I can only presume that the bulk of that support is coming from Millies (with an Xer minority). If so, then Millies may be demonstrating a strong libertarian leaning, which may suggest that this Crisis may mimic the Rev. War Crisis.

A lot of the Republican generation supported a strong federal government. The 'libertarian' view of the period would have supported a weak federal government, like many of the Liberty Generation did.

I selected "Depression / WW2 4T", but by that I mean that this 4T in the USA is most similar to the last 4T... in Europe. Yes, the F-word.

Originally Posted by Finch

I selected "Depression / WW2 4T", but by that I mean that this 4T in the USA is most similar to the last 4T... in Europe. Yes, the F-word.

I reluctantly chose the same, but for different reasons. I doubt we'll have a full-out 4T war, due to the risks of nuclear holocaust, but the economic part will likely play through from the last 4T. There are issues that were unsettled in that arena during the last crisis, due to the need to fight a must-win war, that will now be resolved, for good or ill. If war is defined as diplomacy by other means, we have allowed economics to become war by other means. This cannot be allowed to be permanent.

I would have preferred None of the above as one of the choices. I doubt this 4T is similar to any of those on the list. I've always held that the saeculum is a spiral that has a motion unrelated to the cycle, and one that makes repetition a matter of style and mood rather than one of particulars ans substance.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would have preferred None of the above as one of the choices. I doubt this 4T is similar to any of those on the list

Which is why I haven't voted this poll, and don't intend to.

I see the War of the Roses as a dynastic struggle which selected a dominant clique but did not transform the nation. We then had some religious struggles as the fallout of the printing press filtered into the culture. Then there were some internal political struggles as Enlightenment philosophy and the implications of arming large fractions of the population reshaped government. Finally, there were several conflicts as various flavors of autocratic government attempted and failed to compete with the industrial democracies.

While there are still large fragments of the world's population under autocratic rule, none of them are threatening 2GW war of aggression as was once the tradition. As long as there is a large division of wealth, there will be insurgency and terror. As long as autocratic dictators and global crony corporatists dominate government and economics, there will be a large division of wealth. Given insurgent tactics and weapons of mass destruction, the major powers aren't going to be able to solve all problems at gunpoint as has long been the tradition.

So we have a nice gordian knot. This problem seems different in kind than the revolutions and civil wars that established industrial democracy, or the world conflicts which suppressed monarchy, fascism and communism. Thus, I'm not content comparing the upcoming crisis to any predecessors.