At some point in the near future, I hope to define the paradigm of each saeculum and how it took the course that I mentioned. I'll even expand on it to match the S&H turning order:

Incubation (1T), Awakening (2T), Mediation (3T), Consolidation (4T), Establishing/High (1T), Breach (2T), Unraveling (3T), Crisis (4T). As you can see, I have used all four terms, but I have placed them in order for a single paradigm. Right now, we are in the last stage of the post-Civil War advancement cycle that saw America's "manifest destiny" to lead the free world. (The previous advancement cycle, which ended with the Civil War, centered around limited government. The one before that, which ended with the Glorious Revolution, centered around authority of secular rulers in religious matters.)

Doubt me all you want to Eric. I am going to make my case.

Originally Posted by JDW

At some point in the near future, I hope to define the paradigm of each saeculum and how it took the course that I mentioned. I'll even expand on it to match the S&H turning order:

Incubation (1T), Awakening (2T), Mediation (3T), Consolidation (4T), Establishing/High (1T), Breach (2T), Unraveling (3T), Crisis (4T). As you can see, I have used all four terms, but I have placed them in order for a single paradigm.

Based on what you said above and below though, you have switched the order.

Right now, we are in the last stage of the post-Civil War advancement cycle that saw America's "manifest destiny" to lead the free world. (The previous advancement cycle, which ended with the Civil War, centered around limited government. The one before that, which ended with the Glorious Revolution, centered around authority of secular rulers in religious matters.)

Doubt me all you want to Eric. I am going to make my case.

I suppose you can ignore my valid points and still make a good case. Why not?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I suppose you can ignore my valid points and still make a good case. Why not?

Just because I am not immediately responding does not mean that I am ignoring. I am not publishing; I am brainstorming. That means that I don't have to get it exactly right at first. Am I simplifying too much? Maybe, but stay tuned as I give this my best shot.

I occasionally think out loud on these threads.

Originally Posted by tahara999

so i'm curious about something and thought i'd throw it into the pot. if all saeculums involve making progress towards national ideals, then what does that mean for nations that aren't possessed or composed of ideals, but are simply organic cultural entities such as England (not synonymous with the UK, i do specifically mean England) or, say, Sweden? we all know the USA was a deliberate creation, one specifically founded upon a set of ideals that are expounded in its foundational documents. most of the world's nations, however, simply evolved into being without foundational ideals, national goals, and corresponding documents.

so if saeculums involve making progress towards national ideals, what does that mean for nations that aren't based upon ideals?

- and / or -

are nations, as cultural unities (where 'nation' is a cultural entity, such as the Kurdish nation, that isn't necessarily possessed of a political state) always possessed of inherent ideals, whether explicitly stated or not? and, if so, what of nations-without-sovereignty, such as Kurdistan or Catalonia, that find themselves locked inside an external state with one or more sets of conflicting national ideals? how might that affect the ebb and flow of their generational dynamics? if two or more saeculum-timelines are forced to co-exist within a single political unity, what would be the result?

i'm not sure if i'm on solid ground, but this is what occurred to me when i read the quoted line, so i thought i'd throw it into the pot. anyway, just curious to see what others think - hopefully i'm making at least *some* sense.

It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether nations are based on ideals or not; that ideals move history everywhere. That's the nature of human evolution. I probably mis-stated what I think about this; progress in the USA has not just been toward realizing ideals already laid out in original documents, but further developing and unfolding those ideals, and also conceiving new ideals as they become needed and wanted.

The originally-stated ideals of the USA in the late 18th century also evolved into being "organically" out of British, French and Native American history; it's just that at that moment in history, democracy and human rights came into being and began to be elucidated in specific terms; not only in the USA, but in France in their new nation, where a declaration of rights preceded the American version by 2 years (the bill of rights).

The original point though, was that it's not quite true that a saeculum of advancement is followed by a saeculum of atonement, since both happen in both. It might be true, however, that there's a difference in degree; that one saeculum is focused more on internal change, while the next is focused more on meeting external threats. Internal change is inward looking; thus perhaps also more sensitive and atoning; while meeting external threats can also be about making other more-physical changes in the world in greater degree.

Originally Posted by tahara999

if each nation is composed of its own set of ideals, and the realization and development of cultural/national ideals drive the saeculum forward, what happens when a territorially dispossessed nation like Palestine is forced to exist within the boundaries of a political state or states in which the dominant ideals and saeculum-timing differ from that of the absorbed nation? does the subordinated saeculum-cycle continue in muted form? would it sync with that of the dominant nation-culture?

Thanks for your insightful and responsive reply. Personally, I'm not too sure about this question; but I notice the same thing that applies to Palestine today, also applied to the Jews and Israel for 2000 years; and now to the Native Americans. The latter I'm sure have been absorbed into the American saeculum, but it depends on the level of cultural survival I guess. And conqueror and conquered tend to learn and absorb from each other.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether nations are based on ideals or not; that ideals move history everywhere. That's the nature of human evolution. I probably mis-stated what I think about this; progress in the USA has not just been toward realizing ideals already laid out in original documents, but further developing and unfolding those ideals, and also conceiving new ideals as they become needed and wanted.

Indeed.

1. Many political entities can abandon the ideals on which they are founded. A community founded in the name of religious tolerance can in tiem become an oppressive theocracy.

2. Ideals can be re-interpreted. "All men are created equal" can be expanded to include women.

3. The ideals of a victor can become the basis for a pragmatic set of rules for a conquered country (consider the forced restructuring of German, Italian, Japanese, and Austrian governments after WWII).

4. Ideals from a foreign revolution can be adopted after they are shown to work elsewhere. Success attracts imitation.

The originally-stated ideals of the USA in the late 18th century also evolved into being "organically" out of British, French and Native American history; it's just that at that moment in history, democracy and human rights came into being and began to be elucidated in specific terms; not only in the USA, but in France in their new nation, where a declaration of rights preceded the American version by 2 years (the bill of rights).

And in a way we imitated the French, at least in the most benign stage of their revolution.

The original point though, was that it's not quite true that a saeculum of advancement is followed by a saeculum of atonement, since both happen in both. It might be true, however, that there's a difference in degree; that one saeculum is focused more on internal change, while the next is focused more on meeting external threats. Internal change is inward looking; thus perhaps also more sensitive and atoning; while meeting external threats can also be about making other more-physical changes in the world in greater degree.

Atonement, if at all successful, requires the repudiation of bad old ways.

Thanks for your questions/comments, tahara999. This may not be a perfect response, but essentially the theory works among those who believe change is possible. Among cultures that do not try to change, there is no detectable rhythm. Also, Russia is about a decade behind us in their turnings and of the opposite cycle (advancement, not atonement). Great discussion!

Perhaps the biggest challenge to the generational theory is the attempt to make something as subjective as history fit a mathematical model. For those of you who are getting lost in the terminology, the APT (or Double-Rhythm Theory) proposes that each saeculum has a characteristic that is opposite the one before it (and by definition, the one after it).

For background, Strauss and Howe developed a four turning model that can easily be seen as similar to the earth’s orbit – a circle with four seasons, where summer and winter are opposites, as are spring and autumn. The implication is that Awakenings & Crises, Highs & Unravelings, Nomads & Artists and Prophets & Heroes are all opposite-pairs. This forces one to assume that because Prophets make society more open in their “rebellion” against Heroes, that opening society is their actual goal and that only the “rebelliousness” of Hero can close society back up. Not true, in fact Prophets themselves are quiet complicit in laying the groundwork for 1Ts.

The two components (“paradigms”) can be described many ways, but they are basically thinking versus feeling:

Advancement: Intellectual, Doctrinal, Pragmatic, Innovative – “Are we accomplishing what we want to accomplish?”

Atonement: Emotional, Moral, Spiritual, Romantic – “Are we the people that we want to be?”

Society seems capable only of answering one question at a time, while the answer to the other question acts as a conservative force.

Instead of a circle, imagine APT as a figure eight. The top of the eight represents Advancement, while the bottom represents Atonement. The top and bottom each represent a 1T. Where they meet in the middle represents a 3T. The left left side represents 2Ts, while the right side represents 4Ts. (Notice that the 3Ts of each saeculum are the most alike, except for the direction they are going.)

1) We don’t know a lot about the Late Medieval saeculum, but what we do see in its aftermath is that there was great sentiment all over Europe for investing in the church, and simultaneously doing penance for one’s sins. This opened the door great learning. While I can’t prove it, I postulate that the Advancement paradigm that was quenched during the War or the Roses and similar European conflicts was that Church loyalty was essential to a nation’s survival. During the times of the Tudor Renaissance, therefore, penance and aesthetics were instituted, while Catholic loyalty was assumed.

2) The Reformers therefore came along at a time when penance, aesthetics and higher learning were instituted. Catholic loyalty was assumed but (as far as this generation was concerned) negotiable. Note that the Reformers did not question the need for understanding and salvation – only whether Catholic doctrine was scriptural and whether the Church had spiritual authority over rulers. The Reformers’ conclusion (Advancement) was that the Catholic Church was NOT the means to accomplish these things, but the conservative (assumed from the previous Advancement cycle) was that it was. The Reformers (in England and other parts of Europe), with the help of the Elizabethans, settled the question by making churches and kings independent of the papacy. In the process, they instituted a church-state partnership. By instituting Calvinism, they quenched the (Atonement) idea of salvation by works. By placing the Bible into the hands of the common people, they effectively quenched the need for higher learning (languages and classics).

3) The Puritans came to fully embrace the Calvinism and church-state/church-community ideas (Advancement) of the previous saeculum. However, the assumed Late Medieval Atonement ideas of images and classical fineries were not only negotiable, but to be rejected. This put them at odds with the Anglican Church. With the help of the Glorious, though, they made their point. Much of the saeculum involved the Puritans/Glorious striving to interpret the Bible by the letter. Although some experiments (e.g., the Salem trials) went very badly, and slavery was not expressly forbidden (though quite debatable), the governments became much more representative of the people. Perhaps due to Calvinism’s emphasis on predestination, seeming to make one’s pursuit of salvation more passive, the churches’ evangelism lost moment. (That is, Advancement was quenched.

4) The Awakeners accepted the idea that the common people must be represented, but Calvinism was reexamined, as was the church-state partnership. In England, Calvinism was largely rejected in favor of a more intuitive Methodism. The king’s role in the church became more ceremonial and the slaves were set free without bloodshed. In America, Calvinism (and slavery) survived, but the church state did not. In the U.S. Constitution, Atonement issues were quenched through compromise. Meanwhile, Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, et al.) instituted limited government (Advancement) in both domestic and foreign affairs.

5) The Transcendental accepted the Advancement foundation of the United States. With the establishment clause forbidding the federal government to interfere in church affairs, there became an opportunity for the people to determine their own moral direction. The Atonement paradigm became one of being a people worthy of a good government. While the issue of slavery was settled in the Civil War, both the United States and the UK, developed a Victorian morality that effectively defined them as “Christian nations.” One other effect of the Civil War is that, in its aftermath, the Advancement idea of limited government was quenched.

6) The Missionaries accepted the Victorian morality of the Transcendentals, but with limits on government out of the way, they became much more aggressive in America’s expanding role, first advancing Manifest Destiny and, ultimately through the GIs, the “American Dream.” Reforms were made in the workplace and minors were protected by law from exploitation. By the end of World War II, the United States was established (Advancement) as the leader of the free world and the capacity for production was more promising than ever. However, Victorian morality was crushed, as evidenced by the 20th and 21st Amendments.

7) The Boomers were born into an America that was due for a moral checkup. That’s not to say that there weren’t morals, but the introspective soul searching was lacking. The Victorian morality of the past was still in people’s minds, but what was left of it relegated to what the GIs considered moral, and that was without deep thought. It was largely considered one’s Christian duty to go to church and have a large family, but the Bible seemed less credible than science.

The point of this is that the Boomers did not rebel against the concept of the “American Dream” or the scientific advances that made it possible, but they balked at following rules that seemed to have no moral foundation. If the GIs generally did not believe the Bible, then anything based on the Bible was negotiable, from a Boomer standpoint. As a result, the Boomers developed their own free morality.

The conservative response has been in the form of efforts to return to GI morality. The strategic problem in doing so should be obvious. (It has nothing to do with which morality is more valid, but which one is more established.) What we are seeing today is free morality winning. There is enough Millennial support for it to win elections. Simultaneously, we are seeing the “American Dream” quenched, as America is clearly becoming more global. (This should give you an idea of what will replace it the next time around.)

8) Something Millennials may want to keep in mind is that their ethic of tolerance is perhaps a carryover from the previous saeculum, when laws were passed to keep individuals from being exploited. The next prophet generation may not buy into the idea that the weak should be protected, although they will buy into the free morality paradigm. It could be a really bad time to be a Nomad, particularly a young one.

Originally Posted by tahara999

so this is interesting for me ... i haven't really thought this through, but, here goes: if nomads are cynical, and if cynicism denotes an inability to believe (in change, among other things), then does the nomad-dominated cycle represent a death-threat to the host culture because, when nomads dominate, the host culture no longer believes in change, loses direction, and therefore stops attempting to advance? if there is no detectable rhythm in cultures that have ceased in their effort to change/evolve, and if this happens necessarily in each saeculum when the nomads come to a point of dominance, could we say it's as if the patient's heart has stopped beating altogether? does the nomad, though necessary, represent an existential threat to the culture?

"Try to change," I guess was the wrong wording. Rather, the rhythm would seem undetectable among the common people in third world countries or medieval serfdoms where their standard of living does not change and they do not expect it to. Now, if change is forced upon them, then their reaction to it will be part of the rhythm. The rhythm should always be apparent among decision makers, however.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Thanks much for this, JDW--even if I don't necessarily agree for all details u give here.

What part would you like to correct?

Originally Posted by apollonian

Not sure if "correct" is what I want--CLARIFY, perhaps. I sure don't see WWII as any "advancement" at all--it was horrific victory of bolshevism and zionism, following the equally tragic American "Civil War" centralization of gov.--which continues to this day, UN getting ready to seriously try dis-arming American people now, advertising for enforcers to doing this in recent newspapers, we note. Note Oswald Spengler also understood the 19th cent. as integral part of the Western "decline," as I take it, fm enlightenment reason to Kantian irrationalism in favor of moralism/Pharisaism as justification for fascism.

What's daunting about all this fourth turning stuff is the massive jargon and elaborate details attached. For myself, I think details should be ditched and thrown over-board in favor of larger, overall trends, for example, the statism and irrationalism which has advanced steadily since at least American "Civil War" (which wasn't really civil war, strictly understood), continuing.

Observe now Obama, a gross usurper, not even "natural-born," is making up laws as he goes along, deliberately breaking the law of the people, trying to push the NAU over and against the national sovereignty, esp. by means of latest, recent invasion of illegal aliens, along w. other illegal measures he's taken. And of course, Obama is mere mouth-piece/front-man for the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateralists.

Equation of "Victorian" ethic w. "Christian" is gross error--never forget that Victorian era was definitive advance of Rothschilds and their central banking, leading to the bolshevist-inspired world gov. trend and genocides we have today, the real Christian reaction to it only starting to stiffen and grow.

That's another problem for the jargon/terminology not being well or strictly defined, made-up for one instance of history, perhaps, and then forced upon other periods.

And "conservative," as I understand, has nothing to do w. "GI morality," whatever that is, but rather w. the original American founders' ideas for limited gov. There are other problems too. Still, ur expo gives me better idea for how ur fourth-turning theory, such as it is, works. It's not ur fault if fourth turning is deficient, after all. Thanks again for ur commentary.

You've joined the T4T forum lunatic club, along with such folks as southern lady and civic hero 86.

Originally Posted by apollonian

I sure don't see WWII as any "advancement" at all--it was horrific victory of bolshevism and zionism, following the equally tragic American "Civil War" centralization of gov.--which continues to this day, UN getting ready to seriously try dis-arming American people now, advertising for enforcers to doing this in recent newspapers, we note. Note Oswald Spengler also understood the 19th cent. as integral part of the Western "decline," as I take it, fm enlightenment reason to Kantian irrationalism in favor of moralism/Pharisaism as justification for fascism.

First of all, whether society actually advanced is not the issue. The important thing is that by the Gilded age (with slavery out of the way), society was generally satisfied that there was nothing left to atone for. In reality there was, as evidenced by our treatment of the American Indian, but the main issue of the Transcendental awakening was settled. By the time of the Missionary Awakening societies attention was turned toward advancement (that is, improving the general quality of life). Women reluctantly became involved in politics with the hope of voting on laws that would help the family. Child labor violations were seen as an embarrassment to America’s self image as a city on a hill. Americans believed in their country and wanted it to become the greatest it could possibly be.

Secondly, it has been my experience that these discussions break down quickly when one’s political opinions become too heated. If you bring conspiracy theory into this, you’re going to invite a lot of “noise” from both sides. I encourage you (just as I would anyone else) to keep your strong opinions close to your vest and try to discuss this theory as objectively as possible. I’ll even humor your concerns by saying, “Ok, if there is a shadow government that is pulling the strings, how are they using their knowledge of the generation cycle to accomplish their goal?” The point is, whether you believe in conspiracies or not, you can still have this discussion. Just don’t let it get too extreme.

What's daunting about all this fourth turning stuff is the massive jargon and elaborate details attached. For myself, I think details should be ditched and thrown over-board in favor of larger, overall trends, for example, the statism and irrationalism which has advanced steadily since at least American "Civil War" (which wasn't really civil war, strictly understood), continuing.

Then you are discussing something other than the generation theory, correct?

Observe now Obama, a gross usurper, not even "natural-born," is making up laws as he goes along, deliberately breaking the law of the people, trying to push the NAU over and against the national sovereignty, esp. by means of latest, recent invasion of illegal aliens, along w. other illegal measures he's taken. And of course, Obama is mere mouth-piece/front-man for the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateralists.

Those are very strong statements, and most people on this forum will disagree with. However, what you are seeing is a 4T phenomenon, and I think Rahm Emanuel was onto it when he said “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” This is the U.S. Constitution’s third time going through a 4T (not counting the one that created it). In each case, the leader – whether Lincoln, FDR or Obama – felt at liberty to go around some of its provisions. In some of those cases, it could be justified by the emergency. I will agree that Obama has taken it to new level. The question is why the American people are unwilling or unable to hold him more accountable.

Equation of "Victorian" ethic w. "Christian" is gross error--never forget that Victorian era was definitive advance of Rothschilds and their central banking, leading to the bolshevist-inspired world gov. trend and genocides we have today, the real Christian reaction to it only starting to stiffen and grow.
That's another problem for the jargon/terminology not being well or strictly defined, made-up for one instance of history, perhaps, and then forced upon other periods.

I admit that it is the accident of history that Victoria’s reign coincided with two awakenings. I still think the term “Victorian morality” is the best descriptor of the period between Puritan and Boomer morality.

And "conservative," as I understand, has nothing to do w. "GI morality," whatever that is, but rather w. the original American founders' ideas for limited gov. There are other problems too. Still, ur expo gives me better idea for how ur fourth-turning theory, such as it is, works. It's not ur fault if fourth turning is deficient, after all. Thanks again for ur commentary.

There are two main components of what we call “conservatism” today. The first is constitutionalism, which is what you are talking about. It is often linked to libertarianism, and neither has had any discernible success in this saeculum. (They are both “advancement” ideas.) The second is social conservatism, which is what I am talking about. Most social conservatives, if given a wish list, would want to see the end of abortion on demand; same-sex marriage; the banning of prayer in schools; unrestricted borders; the NEA, the EPA, and a few other things. This would essentially be a return to the 1950s, a time when America was void of moral vision. The Boomer Consciousness Revolution would happen all over again!

Originally Posted by apollonian

Ashkenazi?--u mean the Jews?--they're conquerors, un-questionably, absolutely bestriding the world like a colossus, telling USA what to do, USA sending Israel all the NSA data, un-filtered; no less than 3 of the 9 Justices of Sup. ct.; 7 of the 11 places on National Security Council, controlling the central banks, controlling the media and entertainment, etc.

Thus ascendance of Jews is dominance of the Platonist-subjectivist-moralist over the original Christian-Aristotelian and Constitutional rule-of-law

"Fusing"?--isn't that same as extermination? And all empires rise and then fall--as we see present fiat-money/central-banking collapsing.

I suspect fourth turning panoply of jargon can get too un-necessarily complicated and might well use simplification

Reported for Anti-Semitism.

JDW, you seem to be implying "advancement" means justifying the ethically unjustifiable as long as they advance society. If that is what you mean then it is a damn good thing it is getting "quenched".

Originally Posted by Odin

JDW, you seem to be implying "advancement" means justifying the ethically unjustifiable as long as they advance society. If that is what you mean then it is a damn good thing it is getting "quenched".

I'm starting to re-think the phrase "alternating paradigm," because it seems to imply that they are mutually exclusive. In reality, each lays the foundation for the other. The founding fathers advanced with a good moral foundation, while the abolitionists atoned with a good doctrinal foundation. (Those are the two best examples, by the way.) In contrast, Nazi advancement had a poor moral foundation, while Soviet atonement had a bad doctrinal foundation.

Millennials will actually have an opportunity in the 1T to impress young Prophets with the moral principles that will shape their Advancement thinking. (This is a mirror image of the influence that JFK, Walter Cronkite, Arthur Godfrey, Billy Graham and Ed Sullivan had on Boomers, for example.)

Originally Posted by apollonian

Ashkenazi?--u mean the Jews?--they're conquerors, un-questionably, absolutely bestriding the world like a colossus, telling USA what to do, USA sending Israel all the NSA data, un-filtered; no less than 3 of the 9 Justices of Sup. ct.; 7 of the 11 places on National Security Council, controlling the central banks, controlling the media and entertainment, etc.

Yeah, they are so powerful that even when they do nothing wrong they can be burned at the stake for impossible crimes... or in more recent times, being herded into rooms in which they are gassed with the fumes of hydrogen cyanide or being led to a mass grave to be shot.

If they were so powerful they would have converted the Germans and Austrians, arguably the gentiles most like them in culture, to Judaism instead of being murdered by Nazis. They would have never felt the sting of Tsarist thugs and Bolsheviks who punished them for their religion.

Let me say this about the Jews -- they have the most benign of religious traditions. Jewish success is the result of cultural traits that gentiles are wise to imitate -- like sobriety and respect for learning. Jews did not persecute my Mennonite, Quaker, or Huguenot ancestors.

So they chose to do anything but peasant farming. That was a good idea for the time.

Thus ascendance of Jews is dominance of the Platonist-subjectivist-moralist over the original Christian-Aristotelian and Constitutional rule-of-law.

Bullhist! None of the Founding Fathers were Jewish. But Jews could just as easily have come up with a political system like ours, if without the vice of chattel slavery. Washington and Franklin were impressed by the Jews that they met. Except for owning slaves (the one fault of Jefferson), Jefferson might as well have been Jewish.

That Jews fare so well in our legal system (as attorneys and judges, not to mention elected officials, and doing a good job at avoiding it as criminal defendants) that "rule of law" might as well be a Jewish invention. The best preparation that I could imagine for a prospective attorney is early and extensive study of the Talmud.

"Fusing"?--isn't that same as extermination?

Great empires have partially fused their populations in part through some successful assimilation. Of course, assimilation goes both ways, as is shown in the mass assimilation of Italian and Mexican cuisine in America. We are more successful than the Romans, and we will likely have a longer duration for our American empire, one of the most successful empires that has ever existed. (That is a reference to scale more than to form of government. The title President of the United States, even if it precludes despotism, is about as impressive as Tsar of All Russia or Emperor of Rome.

And all empires rise and then fall--as we see present fiat-money/central-banking collapsing.

What makes a currency valuable? Gold? No. It's that people want to buy what the currency buys. In essence, North Korean currency might as well be play money; South Korean currency is as hard as any.

I suspect fourth turning panoply of jargon can get too un-necessarily complicated and might well use simplification

Some of us are creating the jargon, and to the extent that such jargon has specialized use (I introduced the term "Double-Zero Decade" for the years with two zeroes in the middle, and "Degeneracy" for the depraved behavior (economic, political, and cultural) near the end of a 3T that precipitates a 4T.

The theory adapts to more history, and nothing brings history like a 4T. Just think of the last one.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Well, if u have objections, then u should say specifically what they are and why/how--otherwise, this is just blithe assertion on ur part, eh?

My objections to your posts would take all afternoon; pretty much everything you say is bullshit. But, if you like it, go ahead, it's comic relief!

Originally Posted by JDW

I'm starting to re-think the phrase "alternating paradigm," because it seems to imply that they are mutually exclusive. In reality, each lays the foundation for the other. The founding fathers advanced with a good moral foundation, while the abolitionists atoned with a good doctrinal foundation. (Those are the two best examples, by the way.) In contrast, Nazi advancement had a poor moral foundation, while Soviet atonement had a bad doctrinal foundation.

Millennials will actually have an opportunity in the 1T to impress young Prophets with the moral principles that will shape their Advancement thinking. (This is a mirror image of the influence that JFK, Walter Cronkite, Arthur Godfrey, Billy Graham and Ed Sullivan had on Boomers, for example.)

Well, THAT is encouraging! So we Millies have the responsibility to create a good moral foundation for the next saeculum?

Originally Posted by apollonian

For info on holohoax see Codoh.com and ZundelSite.org

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My objections to your posts would take all afternoon; pretty much everything you say is bullshit. But, if you like it, go ahead, it's comic relief!

The attempt to link to a Holocaust-denying site (which of course has no comic value) is itself grounds for banning. Such should solve our problems with that horrible entity.

I second Odin on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschw...z,_Brillen.jpg

The people who had worn these eyeglasses were 'relieved' of their need for them at Auschwitz. No, the Nazis did not pioneer the correction of the eyesight of their victims. The eyes that had been behind those eye glasses would never see again. The brains to which those eyes had been connected would never think again. The hearts that had fed those brains would never beat again. The lungs that had supplied air to the brains would breathe lethal fumes of hydrogen cyanide and stop breathing.

Originally Posted by apollonian

For info on holohoax see Codoh.com and ZundelSite.org

Apollonian, please go to those sites, yourself, and stay there. You are adding nothing of value to this discussion. I apologize to everyone else for taking you seriously.

Originally Posted by Odin

Well, THAT is encouraging! So we Millies have the responsibility to create a good moral foundation for the next saeculum?

Why do you think you're called "Heroes"?

Originally Posted by apollonian

Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

Before you are banned --

People like you make Judaism all the more attractive in part because you compel us to examine it to see it it is as bad as you say. Then I discover that Judaism has been posing much the same questions and giving much the same answers for three millennia -- perhaps because human nature doesn't really change. Maybe we become more sophisticated in our idiocies and cruelties.

I have read your filthy Protocols and have found it ludicrous. The section that suggests that Jews promote "lewdness and lasciviousness" among gentiles so that they can weaken the gentiles ignores that devout Jews would question whether they could promote it without becoming soiled themselves. Just think about it -- if it were true, then Jews would be singularly nasty people to the extent that they are religious. To be sure, I can see what was wrong with the "International Jew" (really a Communist) much as could Sir Winston Churchill -- that the "International Jew" isn't Jewish enough, and that by returning to devout Judaism he would become a decent person. Churchill knew enough Jews to recognize something that you do not know. Churchill was no political angel (he was probably closer to Francisco Franco in core beliefs than to the mainstream of Labour), but it is arguable that unlike many European conservatives he consistently despised Hitler for his mistreatment of the Jews. Many European conservatives fell for Hitler because Hitler promised to eliminate Jewish economic competition; Churchill would have none of it.

Need I remind you? Among those heroic white people who challenged segregation in the South, a disproportionate number were Jews. Jews are the closest things to allies among non-blacks that blacks have ever known. Jews founded the NAACP, the most effective civil rights movement ever.

I hate gangsterism, militarism, corruption, oppression, and plunder. I hate Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein alike for much the same reasons. I recognize evil as consummately dangerous to Humanity as a whole. I have a moral compass, and I accept the historical record as generally true, no matter how distressing a historical fact may be.

Given the choice between Jews and Jew-persecutors, the Jews always seem to be better without really trying. Jews do not do forced conversions even in Israel. Gentiles who do evil to Jews do plenty of evil to gentiles, so if we gentiles can respect the Jews we will probably better respect the sojourners of all kinds within our midst.

Oh, here's something for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTSfZfdEkuM

Be glad that you did not live in Hitlerland, for this music would have been banned to you.

Originally Posted by Odin

JDW, you seem to be implying "advancement" means justifying the ethically unjustifiable as long as they advance society. If that is what you mean then it is a damn good thing it is getting "quenched".

I think the term you are looking for is: Logical Insanity. See its cousin: M.A.D.

~Chas'88