Originally Posted by Chas'88

Yes, but another thing to remember is that Anne of Green Gables & Avonlea depict Canadian Generations.

~Chas'88

True.

.......................

I just ran into a great term that describes very well the dark side of Atonement saeculum thinking: "Hair-Shirt Narcissism".

Before saying more, I'll start with the sadly necessary disclaimer for people who don't get shades of gray: I understand that there is plenty of stuff this country has done wrong and that humanity in general has done wrong. Just because I'm commenting on the problem of "hair shirt narcissism" DOES NOT MEAN I support the exact polar opposite.

From Michael Reynolds' comment:

I think some liberals — not most, and not me — have a very hard time acknowledging any awful event which is anything other than “our fault.” They start from an assumption of guilt and twist events to fit that narrative. As though the world existed in a state of grace before “we” came along and screwed things up. It’s hair shirt narcissism.

The right wing, of course, has a lot of the opposite sentiment, the full-tilt American Exceptionalism "My country right or right" crap that results in people sneering that you "Blame America first!" if you dare suggest that Americans (or at least good Republican Americans -- the rest don't count as "true" Americans anyway) have ever done any wrong in the world or might have contributed to some of their own problems.

Environmental issues seem to bring out the most "hair shirt narcissism" around here. Even the seemingly unconnected story of new high resolution pictures from the surface of the Moon, showing the remnants of past lunar missions, brought forth this attitude from one DUer recently. Instead of seeing one of mankind's greatest adventures, to this particular DUer those pictures were just one more example of awful human beings "trashing" another world because that's apparently all we do is trash as much as we can, and now trashing one planet just wasn't enough for us miserable evil beings.

For some people accepting a little responsibility for our faults isn't enough. They seem to need to wallow in country-wide or species-wide self loathing. I've read DUers cheering on the extinction of the human race, certain that the world would be a better place without us (although they don't seem ready to start the process by checking out early from the planet themselves). Rarely, but it has happened, I've heard DUers say that the US "deserved" 9/11.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I get damned tired of that kind of shit.

I was thinking about something else and realized something about advancement and atonement. One sort of think prevents the other from happening. Atonement saeculms are filled with "crisis thinking" everything is done to prevent or prepare for crisis. For instance, if I'm worried about the direction of the world and think we may end up with Mad Max as an ending I probably will spend time and money one things that would help me in that sort of situation. That person will be behind someone who doesn't worry about things as much before anything bad actually happens, but if there is an apocalypse then the crisis oriented person will be much better of.

The two types of thinking get in the way of each other. Advancement gens don't want to worry about collateral damage while Atonement gens are preoccupied with it. If generation X is an advancement generation then we see that happening right now. They just want to get things done. Get the system working and let the cards fall where they may. While the atonement gens are not willing to cut any fat or risk anything before the risk from not doing something is greater than actually doing something about a problem.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I was thinking about something else and realized something about advancement and atonement. One sort of think prevents the other from happening. Atonement saeculms are filled with "crisis thinking" everything is done to prevent or prepare for crisis. For instance, if I'm worried about the direction of the world and think we may end up with Mad Max as an ending I probably will spend time and money one things that would help me in that sort of situation. That person will be behind someone who doesn't worry about things as much before anything bad actually happens, but if there is an apocalypse then the crisis oriented person will be much better of.

The two types of thinking get in the way of each other. Advancement gens don't want to worry about collateral damage while Atonement gens are preoccupied with it. If generation X is an advancement generation then we see that happening right now. They just want to get things done. Get the system working and let the cards fall where they may. While the atonement gens are not willing to cut any fat or risk anything before the risk from not doing something is greater than actually doing something about a problem.

This post made me immediately think of the song "It's The End of The World" by REM.

I believe our saeculum's obsession with impending disaster stems from the threat of nuclear war. Silents, Boomers, and Xers had it drilled into them that there will eventually be a nuclear war and billions would die. Xers and Millies grew up with all the discussion about the implications of global warming which, if we f*ck up, may also lead to billions dying.

Originally Posted by Odin

This post made me immediately think of the song "It's The End of The World" by REM.

I believe our saeculum's obsession with impending disaster stems from the threat of nuclear war. Silents, Boomers, and Xers had it drilled into them that there will eventually be a nuclear war and billions would die. Xers and Millies grew up with all the discussion about the implications of global warming which, if we f*ck up, may also lead to billions dying.

That post was definitely me trying to write down my thought before I lost it. I'm glad it made sense.

I didn't even consider the Cold War, but that is a great example of Crisis thinking in an atonement i.e. prevention thinking. The whole point of the Cold War was trying to avoid nuclear annihilation. We did that by arming ourselves to the teeth, but the goal was defend. At least, that was the point by the time Gen X was growing up in the 60s.
Think about all our country has invested in preventing some sort of crisis. Our defense budget is astronomical because we are trying to make sure nothing bad happens. If we invested that money elsewhere we could advance and who knows get green energy to work or colonize the moon or something, but we would be risking WWII like events because we would weak in another way. Right now we are trying to preserve America not advance it.

Think of all the preservation themes in this 4T. We need to preserve the environment, preserve America's way of life, preserve values. That is crisis thinking. In sports we say that "Instead of playing to win we are playing not to lose."

Originally Posted by pizal81

Think of all the preservation themes in this 4T. We need to preserve the environment, preserve America's way of life, preserve values. That is crisis thinking. In sports we say that "Instead of playing to win we are playing not to lose."

Goodness, I must be an optimistic/ half full guy, after all.

"Playing not to loose?"

Who said that even have to be an option?

Are you all predicting a good outcome for the US from this crisis? Popular opinion where I am seems to be that we will be in an indefinite period of slow decline, with China taking our place on the world stage.

This could have fit in many of our threads, but I thought that it might bring about a different take to this one.

Originally Posted by NYTimes

...like many politically active Americans at the time (and since), a partisan, who cheered his party’s advances the same way he would cheer a sports team. What’s remarkable, though, was how flippantly he reacted to the obvious consequence of the 1860 election: secession and war. “No matter what sad disaster may follow,” he wrote, “I shall regard it as a less grievous affliction than the continuance of that party in power.” In other words, Vaughan would rather see his neighbors descend into fratricidal civil war than see the Democrats hold onto power...

...The Democrat-Whig party structure, called the Second Party System, was established in the 1830s ...But that seemingly stable two-party structure was not to last; if the parties were stable, the political landscape was not.

So, it doesn't matter how bad things getas long as the other team loses and loses big. Maybe we have skipped backwards to the previous 4T like this one.

Dana Blankenhorn notices how many Crisis Eras are echoes, not only of their own prior Great Awakening, but of an even earlier one, and has decided that the Occupy movement is a reflection of the reaction against the Gilded Age. He states:

"the 1960s were an echo of the Civil War, and the 1930s an echo of the Jacksonian era. You might say we're now playing The 1899 Game."

My comment: every Crisis leaves unfinished business behind it. I know the Civil War did because we lived through the cleaning of of that business in our own time. But also -- at the end of the Civil War, the national consensus, by and large was, reaction. So the '60s had to take up the banner again. And what was the national consensus with regard to class and the economy throughout the last few decades? Reaction, again.

Originally Posted by pizal81

The two types of thinking get in the way of each other. Advancement gens don't want to worry about collateral damage while Atonement gens are preoccupied with it. If generation X is an advancement generation then we see that happening right now. They just want to get things done. Get the system working and let the cards fall where they may. While the atonement gens are not willing to cut any fat or risk anything before the risk from not doing something is greater than actually doing something about a problem.

The catch is that during the 4T, problems must be solved; time is lacking for endless debate.

Originally Posted by niedermen

Are you all predicting a good outcome for the US from this crisis? Popular opinion where I am seems to be that we will be in an indefinite period of slow decline, with China taking our place on the world stage.

If you think it will be a SLOW decline, I consider you an optimist.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

The catch is that during the 4T, problems must be solved; time is lacking for endless debate.

Perceived problems must be solved. The theory is based on people and what they think about any given system. All that has to happen is the old institutions failing and then either being replaced or adapting. Oh, and some promblems get solved and replaced with new ones. I know of a country where they were starving to death from the 1st turning to through the 2nd turning. It's not as if a 1T has no problems.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Perceived problems must be solved. The theory is based on people and what they think about any given system. All that has to happen is the old institutions failing and then either being replaced or adapting. Oh, and some promblems get solved and replaced with new ones. I know of a country where they were starving to death from the 1st turning to through the 2nd turning. It's not as if a 1T has no problems.

Hey, welcome to the forum! I'm MillennialX!

I was wondering if this observation had been made elsewhere: The Tea Party movement is basically GenX, while the Occupy Wall Street movement is essentially Millennial. (There are of course a couple of other important differences, such as the Tea Party movement being genuinely grass roots, while the Occupy movement is establishment financed.)

The important thing to keep in mind from a generational standpoint is that the Occupy movement is the one that truly reflects the future of this country. The reason, of course, is that Nomads can never win over other generations the way that Heroes can. Whether it is staged or not, the Occupy movement is a vehicle for the establishment of the Boomers’ “anti-establishment” attitudes of the Viet Nam era.

Earlier, I suggested that a better term for the 4T was a “Quenching.” I see evidence that Tea Party enthusiasm will ultimately be quenched by a very carefully orchestrated display of Millennial socialist uniformity. As an Xer, I have been slow to understand Obama’s appeal to the Millennials, but now I understand that he speaks to their sense of entitlement. Conversely, it appears to be lost on Millennials why Xers (i.e., Tea Partiers) would care so much about limited government.

Socialism is here to stay. And Millennials are fine with that.

Originally Posted by JDW

I was wondering if this observation had been made elsewhere: The Tea Party movement is basically GenX, while the Occupy Wall Street movement is essentially Millennial. (There are of course a couple of other important differences, such as the Tea Party movement being genuinely grass roots, while the Occupy movement is establishment financed.)

The important thing to keep in mind from a generational standpoint is that the Occupy movement is the one that truly reflects the future of this country. The reason, of course, is that Nomads can never win over other generations the way that Heroes can. Whether it is staged or not, the Occupy movement is a vehicle for the establishment of the Boomers’ “anti-establishment” attitudes of the Viet Nam era.

Earlier, I suggested that a better term for the 4T was a “Quenching.” I see evidence that Tea Party enthusiasm will ultimately be quenched by a very carefully orchestrated display of Millennial socialist uniformity. As an Xer, I have been slow to understand Obama’s appeal to the Millennials, but now I understand that he speaks to their sense of entitlement. Conversely, it appears to be lost on Millennials why Xers (i.e., Tea Partiers) would care so much about limited government.

Socialism is here to stay. And Millennials are fine with that.

Hey whatchu you go and do this for???

Valid contribution, but this is a political message and should be on another thread. I run to threads like this to escape those and now you're going to bring the get- along gang here! LOL.

Originally Posted by JDW

(There are of course a couple of other important differences, such as the Tea Party movement being genuinely grass roots, while the Occupy movement is establishment financed.)

You got it backwards. *rolls eyes*

Originally Posted by millennialX

Hey whatchu you go and do this for???

Valid contribution, but this is a political message and should be on another thread. I run to threads like this to escape those and now you're going to bring the get- along gang here! LOL.

Sorry about that, but didn't Odin prove my point?

Originally Posted by JDW

I was wondering if this observation had been made elsewhere: The Tea Party movement is basically GenX, while the Occupy Wall Street movement is essentially Millennial. (There are of course a couple of other important differences, such as the Tea Party movement being genuinely grass roots, while the Occupy movement is establishment financed.)

The important thing to keep in mind from a generational standpoint is that the Occupy movement is the one that truly reflects the future of this country. The reason, of course, is that Nomads can never win over other generations the way that Heroes can. Whether it is staged or not, the Occupy movement is a vehicle for the establishment of the Boomers’ “anti-establishment” attitudes of the Viet Nam era.

Earlier, I suggested that a better term for the 4T was a “Quenching.” I see evidence that Tea Party enthusiasm will ultimately be quenched by a very carefully orchestrated display of Millennial socialist uniformity. As an Xer, I have been slow to understand Obama’s appeal to the Millennials, but now I understand that he speaks to their sense of entitlement. Conversely, it appears to be lost on Millennials why Xers (i.e., Tea Partiers) would care so much about limited government.

Socialism is here to stay. And Millennials are fine with that.

And back in the last saeculum, nearly 100 years ago, Oswald Spengler suggested that socialism was here to stay in the Civilization that would follow our once-vibrant Culture. I don't think he was overly fond of the idea, either.

It has occurred to me that a Jet Lag Saeculum would occur during a MegaUnraveling.

Originally Posted by JDW

I was wondering if this observation had been made elsewhere: The Tea Party movement is basically GenX, while the Occupy Wall Street movement is essentially Millennial. (There are of course a couple of other important differences, such as the Tea Party movement being genuinely grass roots, while the Occupy movement is establishment financed.)

I think Tea Party support is also high among Silents.

Whether it is staged or not, the Occupy movement is a vehicle for the establishment of the Boomers’ “anti-establishment” attitudes of the Viet Nam era.

OWS is staged in the sense that it was not brought about by a small group of friends in someone's basement. Adbusters came up with the idea. However, OWS responded negatively when unions, Van Jones, and MoveOn.org tried to co-opt it.

I see evidence that Tea Party enthusiasm will ultimately be quenched by a very carefully orchestrated display of Millennial socialist uniformity.

Or, conversely, Millennials could become convinced that corporatism cannot be changed and fold back into the system leaving Xers in charge of the dialogue of the next 1T. I think the jury's still out on who gets to control the dialogue of the 1T.

As an Xer, I have been slow to understand Obama’s appeal to the Millennials, but now I understand that he speaks to their sense of entitlement.

In what fashion?

I've mentioned this before, but I think that Obama's appeal to Millennials came from both his appeal to the so-called "common good" over partisanship and the matter-of-fact way he came across as a campaigner. Millennials like people that are blunt and tell it like it is over euphemistic language. This cartoon by a Millennial illustrates what I'm talking about. It may be hard to remember this but in the beginning Obama was like that. Unlike Clinton, he said "this country is fucked up, this is why, this is how I'm going to fix it, and this is how you're going to help." This came across as very genuine.

Obama as President has both been deceptive and partisan. This makes Millennials feel betrayed. I can assure you however that it took a long time for this to sink in. Had Obama's chief group of supporters been Boomers, there would have been outrage since day 1 (and there was among Boomers). Millennials kept quiet and hoped for the best instead. There were endless arguments on Millie-dominated corners of the internet about Obama before Occupy began. OWS is as much a response against Obama as it is against corporations. The chief attitude I get out of the movement right now is not righteous, Boomer-esque outrage but betrayal. It's an attitude of "you promised us change so we voted for you. You have failed to deliver so now we're going to do it ourselves." The leaderlessness of OWS further illustrates that. Millennials are normally followers. They find an older person or a fellow Millennial who is a natural leader and give them trust and complete dedication in exchange for respect and approval (see the anecdotes from Xers about Millennial coworkers who latch onto them in an almost filial way and feel hurt when Xers are put off by it.) To see a group of followers form a leaderless movement is a sign that their leader has pissed them off to the point where they've not only rejected him, but have also rejected the very idea of leaders in of itself. Overall, I think that, as a generation, Millennials are beginning to realize that the way they had approached leadership as kids was immature and misguided. Support for OWS is just one response to this.

Conversely, it appears to be lost on Millennials why Xers (i.e., Tea Partiers) would care so much about limited government.

What I do not understand about Xers in the Tea Party is their individualism. I feel like Xers in the Tea Party sort of assume that as long as people are able to get their own needs met, society will follow. I think that has to do with how they grew up with uninvolved parents.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well right now I see Western culture as slowly reverting to a chaotic primordial state from which a new culture will emerge to replace the old one. This was started by the Missionaries, continued by the Boomers, and will be pushed even further by the New Prophets. ~Chas'88

And the Grey Badger said that a new era would begin after the projected Crisis of 2100. Once it has fully jelled, the new era will have its own themes and distinct outlook.

Originally Posted by JDW

I was wondering if this observation had been made elsewhere: The Tea Party movement is basically GenX, while the Occupy Wall Street movement is essentially Millennial.

Sounds good, fits your whole theory, but one problem: it isn't true. The majority of Tea Partiers are boomer and silent generation.

Thanks for playing, please try again sometime.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

And the Grey Badger said that a new era would begin after the projected Crisis of 2100. Once it has fully jelled, the new era will have its own themes and distinct outlook.

I think the Crisis of 2100 will make this 4T look like child's play.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Sounds good, fits your whole theory, but one problem: it isn't true. The majority of Tea Partiers are boomer and silent generation. Thanks for playing, please try again sometime.

Could you lay off the snark? One of the things that I liked (and missed) about this place was that it was relatively snark-free.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I think the Crisis of 2100 will make this 4T look like child's play. Could you lay off the snark? One of the things that I liked (and missed) about this place was that it was relatively snark-free.

This place is snark free? If we could do something about the Xers hanging about, it would be completely snark free I'm sure.

These Xers seem to think snark is an art form not understood by the "virtuous ones" known as Millie. They say it isn't meant to insult, just a form of humor.



Why yes I am a snarkist.