Originally Posted by Einzige

Ah, I see. How could I have been so blind?

Your theory doesn't require trivialities such as a 'mechanism' or 'independent verifiability'; it is beyond such petty concerns. It has pure evil, in the form of historical actors without agency enough to perform in any other way, pure villainy embodied in the form of the Boomer Left. And naturally, pure doctrinaire Movement Conservatism is the solution: the issues and their answers haven't changed one jot or tittle since Goldwater went down in 1964.

Naturally, I'm simply an indoctrinated, robotic Millennial - even if my political orientation is more Benito Mussolini than Barack Obama - and so am simply incapable of seeing the suppressed wisdom of market neoliberalism (which has not, in fact, held the White House for at least five of the past nine terms). An Evolan neofascist like myself has simply been brainwashed by my Boomer antecedents; what I really need to do to assert my individuality is vote Republican.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Wow! You sure have me figured out. Anyway, if we look at 2Ts and 4Ts as cause and effect, here is what we have:

Reformation: Cause - "The Catholic Church has to much control"; Effect - Nations regain their sovereignty.

Puritan: Cause - "The king has too much influence over religious matters"; Effect - The people are empowered.

Awakening: Cause - "All men are created equal"; Effect - The United States is founded on that very concept.

Transcendental: Cause - "Slavery is wrong"; Effect - Slaves are freed.

Missionary: Cause - "Manifest Destiny"; Effect - America is seen as great.

Boom: Cause - ___________; Effect - ______________

Feel free to fill in the blanks.

You're oversimplifying things, JDW...

Originally Posted by JDW

Reformation: Cause - "The Catholic Church has to much control"; Effect - Nations regain their sovereignty.

Awakening: "The Catholic Church has become corrupt and lost touch with the word of God"

Crisis: Kings and Princes take advantage of that distrust that's been sewn and assert themselves more either as defenders of the Protestant Faith or upholders of the Catholic Faith, while enriching themselves on the land and wealth of the Catholic Church.

Puritan: Cause - "The king has too much influence over religious matters"; Effect - The people are empowered.

Awakening: The Reformation didn't go far enough & it can't go any further while the King controls spiritual matters keeping us tied to the past and even threatening to return to Catholicism! So we'll go and establish a "Shining City Upon a Hill" elsewhere on the fringes of the world so that we can serve as an example back to the Old World.

Crisis: The very example we tried to establish is itself caught in the muck of the past and we need to free ourselves of those old superstitions if we are to truly live in a New World <-- (the lesson of the Salem Witch Trials). And thus we need to open ourselves up to a new way of thinking and better develop the place where we are in an orderly and rational manner, since religious "feeling" is too much attached to the superstitions of the past.

Awakening: Cause - "All men are created equal"; Effect - The United States is founded on that very concept.

This one is especially shoehorning it.

Awakening: Americans as the "New Adam". You need to be "reborn" and awaken your own individual connection with God--that anyone can have. You have to do this in order to truly be "free from sin", and it will give you a feeling of freedom and "liberty". There is no such thing as predestination, religion is an experience which happens inside of you, and it can happen to anyone of any (Protestant) religion, not just the one faith approved by colonial authorities (Congregationalists or Anglicans).

Crisis: When anyone can be "reborn" and have a connection with God, anyone can experience "freedom from sin" and the "liberty of Christian Freedom". Therefore to suppress that connection which gives us liberty is a bad and evil thing, whether that suppression comes from colonial, royal, or even our own newly appointed federal authorities. Therefore we should have "liberty" in reality as much as we have "liberty" in religion--and that liberty of religion needs to be protected, even if we feel threatened by the thought of true "liberty".

Transcendental: Cause - "Slavery is wrong"; Effect - Slaves are freed.

Awakening: America as the "New Garden of Eden". If by the first amendment, we're free to seek any religious experience, then the one I feel is right, must be the right one. We have a rare chance at making a perfect Protestant society that will transcend the limitations and problems of the Old World problems, let's try and build and spread this perfect society across the continent! We can become perfect by improving conditions for prisoners, setting up schools, looking into voting rights for women, and deciding once and for all the issue of slavery--is it part of this perfect Protestant society we choose to create or not? Is it biblically justified?

Unraveling: Catholics (Irish mostly) show up like snakes in the Garden of Eden for Protestant America, and division occurs as people argue over whether slavery is biblically justified or not and thus part of that perfect Eden which our America will be. After all weren't the Hebrews slaves and God freed them? Argue the abolitionists. After all didn't the Hebrews have slaves themselves and God didn't free them? Argue the slave owners.

Crisis: The issue of Catholics is shelved as that argument over slavery overtakes every other issue.

Missionary: Cause - "Manifest Destiny"; Effect - America is seen as great.

Awakening: America as the "Second Kingdom". We're still not a perfect society, though we have gotten rid of slavery. In order for Christ to return, we need to take care of the oppressed, lift up the weak, and cherish the poor. We need to make America Christ's Second Kingdom in order for him to come again. There's one hangup that appears: Is every sentence written the bible true? Or can we simply believe that the Bible is "Divinely Inspired"?

Crisis: America institutes taking care of the poor, the weak, and the oppressed as its national policy through the New Deal and fighting against Nazis.

-----

Much of the Boom Awakening has been about how taking care of the poor, weak, and the oppressed (both at home and abroad) is oppressing (and costly) itself and interferes with the very individual rights we claim to have as Americans, with the radicals seeking to empower the individual to their "fullest potential".

I'd expect that from such an Awakening, America would stop considering that taking care of the poor, weak, and oppressed as its duty or right, but instead to leave "empowered individuals" to sort their own affairs out for themselves.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Much of the Boom Awakening has been about how taking care of the poor, weak, and the oppressed (both at home and abroad) is oppressing (and costly) itself and interferes with the very individual rights we claim to have as Americans, with the radicals seeking to empower the individual to their "fullest potential".

I'd expect that from such an Awakening, America would stop considering that taking care of the poor, weak, and oppressed as its duty or right, but instead to leave "empowered individuals" to sort their own affairs out for themselves.

~Chas'88

Now, you oversimplified that one, Chas. You are wrong if you keep asserting it.

Of course, the visionaries of the consciousness revolution thread has a fuller account.

"Much of the boom awakening" (which should NOT be called "the Boom Awakening"-- STOP calling it that!) is not about its right-wingers or its counter-awakening. Yes, the Counter-awakening was part of the Awakening. But to conflate the two is incorrect. The counter-awakening was the backlash to the awakening.

The Great Society and the McGovern campaign were important parts of the consciousness revolution (that's the correct name, which the authors of T4T correctly give it).

The great issues of the Awakening were peace and ecology. The peace issue was not "seeing taking care of the oppressed as interfering with individual rights." The peace movement was NOT a right-wing trickle-down philosophy. The point about Vietnam and the MIC etc. was not that it was freeing the oppressed, but that it was taking the side of the oppressor. "We are on the wrong side of the world revolution" said the leader of the peace movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The other great new emphasis of the Consciousness Revolution in the social/political sphere was the ecology movement. In this case too, we learned that the runaway industrial machine was oppressing other kinds of beings and destroying our environment. The war machine was also a runaway machine that started huge wars like Vietnam for no reason whatsoever.

So the common thread of the consciousness revolution was to counter-act runaway machines.

That connects completely with the spiritual component. Meditation and psychedelia became part of our culture in the Awakening. For that reason, scientistic positivism was questioned too (the kind of attitudes that vandal exhibits here, for example). The purpose of this spiritual awakening is to counter-act and free ourselves from the runaway machine within ourselves and from the social programming we receive. To be "empowered" is to recover our souls. We are not numbers, we are persons; free men and women.

The other great theme of the Consciousness Revolution was the liberation of "outsider groups" from discrimination and ignorance. Here too "empowerment" was to discover that each person is valuable, regardless of the category s/he is in. Again, the theme is to be liberated and recover our souls from the social programming machine.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This one is especially shoehorning it.

Awakening: Americans as the "New Adam". You need to be "reborn" and awaken your own individual connection with God--that anyone can have. You have to do this in order to truly be "free from sin", and it will give you a feeling of freedom and "liberty". There is no such thing as predestination, religion is an experience which happens inside of you, and it can happen to anyone of any (Protestant) religion, not just the one faith approved by colonial authorities (Congregationalists or Anglicans).

Crisis: When anyone can be "reborn" and have a connection with God, anyone can experience "freedom from sin" and the "liberty of Christian Freedom". Therefore to suppress that connection which gives us liberty is a bad and evil thing, whether that suppression comes from colonial, royal, or even our own newly appointed federal authorities. Therefore we should have "liberty" in reality as much as we have "liberty" in religion--and that liberty of religion needs to be protected, even if we feel threatened by the thought of true "liberty".

~Chas'88

There was no such degree of mystical realization of a connection to God outside of religious authority. Anyone within Protestant religion, is not anyone, and it is not a true connection with God. That came among transcendentals for the first time, in New Thought/Theosophy, and especially in the Consciousness Revolution.

Originally Posted by JDW

I think the Boomer Awakening is proving successful, right now. Somehow there is an expectation that people will automatically work together in a "Crisis" to solve it, but that was never a real goal of the Consciousness Revolution. A weakened America, self-righteously berated for the sins of previous saecula, fits perfectly with the '60s and '70s mindset.

It's well to keep in mind, as has been pointed out here on this forum many times, that people are not united in a 4T. They may be united behind two or three factions only. The Boomers are not successful yet. But they are choosing up sides, and other generations are more-or-less going along.

But you're correct; not in a conservative point of view, but correct in that the issue in this saeculum is primarily an internal problem, not external. So the Revolution, the Crisis, is focused on the need for change in America (its "sins from the previous saecula" if you will). The point now is not to berate them, but to correct them and replace them with the new society. The millies will be enlisted in this effort, even if they think they are carrying out their own agenda and not the boomers'.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There was no such degree of mystical realization of a connection to God outside of religious authority. Anyone within Protestant religion, is not anyone, and it is not a true connection with God. That came among transcendentals for the first time, in New Thought/Theosophy, and especially in the Consciousness Revolution.

Your own non-Christian bias is showing. The Great Awakening was a Protestant Awakening (as was the Second) and the Awakeners were a Protestant generation (I'm sure you can find one or two outsiders scattered here and there, but we're talking about the majority of the people) and as such they talked about it as an experience of "freedom from sin". It's not really until you get to the Gilded generation that you start to see Catholics or Jews in significant numbers appear (thanks to Irish & German Catholic immigrants of the 1830s & 1840s), and they don't play a role in Awakenings until the Missionary Awakening (though they certainly crop up for the Unraveling, Crisis & High following the Second Great Awakening). So looking at Protestant Awakening for the first two Awakenings is not out of line at all, considering that they're the overwhelming majority that make up those generations.

You are also directly contradicting the preachings of the most famous preacher of the period:

George Whitefield

The doctrine of our regeneration, or new birth in Christ Jesus, though one of
the most fundamental doctrines of our holy religion; though so plainly and often
pressed on us in sacred writ, "that he who runs may read;" nay though it is the
very hinge on which the salvation of each of us turns, and a point too in which
all sincere Christians, of every denomination, agree; yet it is so seldom
considered, and so little experimentally understood by the generality of
professors, that were we to judge of the truth of it, by the experience of most
who call themselves Christians, we should be apt to imagine they had "not so
much as heard" whether there be any such thing as regeneration or not. It is
true, men for the most part are orthodox in the common articles of their creed;
they believe "there is but one God, and one Mediator between God and men, even
the man Christ Jesus;" and that there is no other name given under heaven,
whereby they can be saved, besides his: But then tell them, they must be
regenerated, they must be born again, they must be renewed in the very spirit,
in the inmost faculties of their minds, ere they can truly call Christ, "Lord,
Lord," or have an evidence that they have any share in the merits of his
precious blood; and they are ready to cry out with Nicodemus, "How can these
things be?" Or with the Athenians, on another occasion, "What wilt this bumbler
say? He seemeth to be a setter-forth of strange doctrines;" because we preach
unto them Christ, and the new-birth.

...

Indeed, was there no other reward attended a thorough conversion, but that peace of God, which is the unavoidable consequence of it, and which, even in this life, "passeth all understanding," we should have great reason to rejoice. But when we consider, that this is the least of those mercies God has prepared for those that are in Christ, and become new creatures; that, this is but the beginning of an eternal succession of pleasures; that the day of our deaths, which the unconverted, unrenewed sinner must so much dread, will be, as it were, but the first day of our new births, and open to us an everlasting scene of happiness and comfort; in short, if we remember, that they who are regenerate and born again, have a real title to all the glorious promises of the gospel, and are infallibly certain of being as happy, both here and hereafter, as an all-wise, all-gracious, all-powerful God can make them; methinks, every one that has but the least concern for the salvation of his precious and immortal soul, having such promises, such an hope, such an eternity of happiness set before him, should never cease watching, praying, and striving, till he find a real, inward, saving change wrought in his heart, and thereby doth know of a truth, that he dwells in Christ, and Christ in him; that he is a new creature, therefore a child of God; that he is already an inheritor, and will ere long be an actual possessor of the kingdom of heaven.

The religious authorities of the colonies (New England: the Congregationalists aka rebranded Puritans, The South: the Anglicans; Middle Colonies didn't feature one religious authority like those two sections did) did in fact say that preaching about having such an "experience" of being "born again" was not part of the accepted doctrine. To those authorities, his message was chaotic (which God could not be, because God was a god of order to those authorities), and it completely challenged the authority of the colonial authorities as well.

How did it undermine their authority? Well, in those days everyone in New England and the South belonged to a parish. You paid taxes which supported your local parish church, you were expected to attend said parish church--if you did not you would be fined or imprisoned, and other religions in New England and the South were not tolerated or kicked into the Middle Colonies (PA, NJ, DE) where religious freedom was permitted. Religious freedom for unacceptable Protestant faiths (Baptists, Quakers, Anabaptists, etc) was restricted (only allowed to worship in certain places at certain times) and their congregations fined if they tried to exist outside of the Middle Colonies. That should get your Boomer sense of injustice stirred. This why all those religions typically moved to the middle colonies, where Religious Freedom was allowed. But in New England and the South? No. Religion was the State and the State was Religion. In short there was no escaping being Protestant in Colonial America because the state told you that you had to be so, or else. Even the once "Catholic Colony" of Maryland by the time of the Great Awakening had an Anglican establishment that was state-sponsored and enforced.

For the vast majority of American Colonists outside of the Middle Colonies, they had a state sponsored church which they had to pay taxes to and who held strict predestination views about life (people are born sinful and God has already determined what will happen to you when you die, and there's very little you can do to change that) and who offered that the only way to contain that sin was to conform to the state-approved church and live a "moral" life. So again I say, being Protestant in Colonial America was enforced by the state. Had you lived at that time outside of PA, NJ, DE, you would have been told to conform or be constantly fined or imprisoned.

The Great Awakening however happened and completely changed everything. It culminated when a preacher named George Whitefield came along and began preaching up & down all the colonies about how: No, you don't need to conform, you simply need to be "born again" as a religious experience. There's no such thing as predestination, God is ready to save us from our sinful selves if only we are ready to be "born again". And I know this because it happened to me, and it can happen to you as well. You authorities don't like that I'm preaching this message? Well I'll go out and preach it in the fields, the people will come. And they did. Thousands upon thousands in each colony he travelled through of each and every denomonation present in the colonies--even the Diest Benjamin Franklin (who followed Whitefields movements, advertised them, attended them, and published his sermons--even if his own religious beliefs were rather different). The only other name Colonial Americans would have more widely known would have been King George III.


You don't get to judge what other generations found "liberating" when they in fact say what was liberating to them. In the Great Awakening America was "reborn" "freed from sin", and realized that they wanted preachers who were likewise "reborn" and congregations began searching for preachers (either by sacking the old ones who weren't convincing or "voting with their feet" and leaving) who had been reborn--causing havoc for those authorities. And ultimately Americans realized that if religious authorities weren't necessarially reborn themselves and that they the people had the right to change those religious authorities... therefore it was only natural that if the secular authority has less control over us because we are the people--there is no standing army in the colonies, there is no police force--we are the law and the law is what we say it is, just like our religious experience is what we say it is.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JDW

Wow! You sure have me figured out. Anyway, if we look at 2Ts and 4Ts as cause and effect, here is what we have:

Reformation: Cause - "The Catholic Church has to much control"; Effect - Nations regain their sovereignty.

Puritan: Cause - "The king has too much influence over religious matters"; Effect - The people are empowered.

Awakening: Cause - "All men are created equal"; Effect - The United States is founded on that very concept.

Transcendental: Cause - "Slavery is wrong"; Effect - Slaves are freed.

Missionary: Cause - "Manifest Destiny"; Effect - America is seen as great.

Boom: Cause - ___________; Effect - ______________

Feel free to fill in the blanks.

Sure. Let me complete the thought for you, in a way that implicates your values-regime:

Boom: Cause - opposition to war, hyperindividualism. Effect: voting for Republicans.

Don't believe it? Watch this.

http://vimeo.com/54417979

It's a simple transvaluation of values: you begin with a generation that chafes at the herd-conformity of the postwar consensus. They Awaken into a values-regime that prioritizes the individual at the expense of the collective. You then sell them on market liberalism.

Go on. Watch it.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Your own non-Christian bias is showing. The Great Awakening was a Protestant Awakening (as was the Second) and the Awakeners were a Protestant generation (I'm sure you can find one or two outsiders scattered here and there, but we're talking about the majority of the people) and as such they talked about it as an experience of "freedom from sin". It's not really until you get to the Gilded generation that you start to see Catholics or Jews in significant numbers appear (thanks to Irish & German Catholic immigrants of the 1830s & 1840s), and they don't play a role in Awakenings until the Missionary Awakening (though they certainly crop up for the Unraveling, Crisis & High following the Second Great Awakening). So looking at Protestant Awakening for the first two Awakenings is not out of line at all, considering that they're the overwhelming majority that make up those generations.

I don't doubt that there were Protestant Awakenings (of course there were) and that they challenged the religious attitudes and authorities of the times; I just question your description of them as finding a direct connection to God; their experience of "God" was within the traditional Protestant concept. And being "born again" is traditional. It was Emerson and the romantic movement in America (the transcendentalists) who brought God to America as a mystic experience.

This isn't entirely non-Christian, since New Thought is Christian, and claims Christ was a mystic.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Sure. Let me complete the thought for you, in a way that implicates your values-regime:

Boom: Cause - opposition to war, hyperindividualism. Effect: voting for Republicans.

My "values regime" says different. The Boomers who vote Republican were pro-war. Exhibit A: George W. Bush. Exhibit B: What's the Matter with Kansas.

It's a simple transvaluation of values: you begin with a generation that chafes at the herd-conformity of the postwar consensus. They Awaken into a values-regime that prioritizes the individual at the expense of the collective. You then sell them on market liberalism.

That view cuts out everything that the Awakening was about. I already described that. No video can contradict that description; it is history.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't doubt that there were Protestant Awakenings (of course there were) and that they challenged the religious attitudes and authorities of the times; I just question your description of them as finding a direct connection to God; their experience of "God" was within the traditional Protestant concept. And being "born again" is traditional. It was Emerson and the romantic movement in America (the transcendentalists) who brought God to America as a mystic experience.

This isn't entirely non-Christian, since New Thought is Christian, and claims Christ was a mystic.

It was not traditional to the people of the time at all. Today? It's bread and butter. Back then? No--wild and radical. Add to it the power of religious conversion (the point of all these ministerings) which was held to be a very intense and mystical experience itself.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

It was not traditional to the people of the time at all. Today? It's bread and butter. Back then? No--wild and radical. Add to it the power of religious conversion (the point of all these ministerings) which was held to be a very intense and mystical experience itself.

~Chas'88

Yes, but I am glad that genuine mysticism (as opposed to religious conversion) has become the stuff of Awakenings. The religious conversion bit is now an integral part of the reactionary counter-awakening, whereas even up through the social gospel era, it was part of the revolutionary awakening. Genuine mysticism has been a part of human experience for thousands of years, in both east and west, and among both religious and spiritual people, but it was usually suppressed, channeled and covered-up in Christianity, and to a great extent in Judaism and Islam too. In America it was totally absent until the romantic transcendentalists, except among a few privileged leaders. The romantic movement is part of the modern Revolution that has speeded up the saeculum, has brought the common people into the process of change both inner and outer, and is bringing (with reversals along the way) liberation to humankind.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Sure. Let me complete the thought for you, in a way that implicates your values-regime:

Boom: Cause - opposition to war, hyperindividualism. Effect: voting for Republicans.

Don't believe it? Watch this.

http://vimeo.com/54417979

It's a simple transvaluation of values: you begin with a generation that chafes at the herd-conformity of the postwar consensus. They Awaken into a values-regime that prioritizes the individual at the expense of the collective. You then sell them on market liberalism.

Go on. Watch it.

This reminds me of something that I was discussing earlier on this site. When there was a prophet generation that created an awakening that was all about non-conformity, acceptance, and individualism, of course one would expect the resulting civic generation to adopt those values because of indoctrination during childhood by the prophet establishment. How many times were millie's told they were "special" or "to be themselves" or "everyone is unique in their own way".

And I remember so many classrooms with those posters of all differently dressed children of all different nationalities holding hands around a globe. That pretty much screams awakening.

Originally Posted by hkq999

This reminds me of something that I was discussing earlier on this site. When there was a prophet generation that created an awakening that was all about non-conformity, acceptance, and individualism, of course one would expect the resulting civic generation to adopt those values because of indoctrination during childhood by the prophet establishment. How many times were millie's told they were "special" or "to be themselves" or "everyone is unique in their own way".

But what's wrong with allowing people to be themselves?

Originally Posted by decadeologist1011

But what's wrong with allowing people to be themselves?

Nothing, I wasn't saying it was right or wrong. I was just pointing out that that's what milies were told. It's one of the things that initially confused me because in their book S&H says that the prophets should general begin promoting and creating at atmosphere of conformity around the child's world during the unraveling. That didn't happen. Boomers instead passed down their own values, and conformity wasn't one of them.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Nothing, I wasn't saying it was right or wrong. I was just pointing out that that's what milies were told. It's one of the things that initially confused me because in their book S&H says that the prophets should general begin promoting and creating at atmosphere of conformity around the child's world during the unraveling. That didn't happen. Boomers instead passed down their own values, and conformity wasn't one of them.

Do you think this will make for a much different 1T than the last?

Originally Posted by hkq999

Nothing, I wasn't saying it was right or wrong. I was just pointing out that that's what milies were told. It's one of the things that initially confused me because in their book S&H says that the prophets should general begin promoting and creating at atmosphere of conformity around the child's world during the unraveling. That didn't happen. Boomers instead passed down their own values, and conformity wasn't one of them.

I disagree, Prophets passing down their own values which people must conform to is very much conformity--it's just been rebranded to be Boomer approved conformity. Rather than conformity to the past civic ideals, Prophets demand that people conform to their beliefs/ideals. Nomads reject that. Civics accept it (for the large part--there will always be dissinters). And Artists stifle under it.

After all, what is speaking in a PC manner, but conformity? And that's just one of the many examples I can think of.

The only anti-conformists I'd say are Nomads. Prophets, Artists, and Civics, all deal with different levels of conformity to ideals. Prophets just get the honor of redefining what ideals to conform to.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

You're oversimplifying things, JDW...

Of course. Great job of fleshing it out, Chas!

Originally Posted by Einzige

Sure. Let me complete the thought for you, in a way that implicates your values-regime:

Boom: Cause - opposition to war, hyperindividualism. Effect: voting for Republicans.

Don't believe it? Watch this.

http://vimeo.com/54417979

It's a simple transvaluation of values: you begin with a generation that chafes at the herd-conformity of the postwar consensus. They Awaken into a values-regime that prioritizes the individual at the expense of the collective. You then sell them on market liberalism.

Go on. Watch it.

I keep getting interrupted when I try to watch it, but I will attempt to do so later. It does seem to me that you are confusing the 2T-4T relationship with the 2T-3T transition. Reagan did redirect Boomer energy for a season, but I definitely see that style of conservatism as over.

Just to make sure that I have stated my forecast clearly, I see the coming 1T as an era where people tolerate each others' differences and keep their opinions close. (We're kind of there already.) Millennials may even feel that they have conquered bigotry. The next Prophets, however, will take political incorrectness to new levels.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's well to keep in mind, as has been pointed out here on this forum many times, that people are not united in a 4T. They may be united behind two or three factions only. The Boomers are not successful yet. But they are choosing up sides, and other generations are more-or-less going along.

But you're correct; not in a conservative point of view, but correct in that the issue in this saeculum is primarily an internal problem, not external. So the Revolution, the Crisis, is focused on the need for change in America (its "sins from the previous saecula" if you will). The point now is not to berate them, but to correct them and replace them with the new society. The millies will be enlisted in this effort, even if they think they are carrying out their own agenda and not the boomers'.

Eric, I am glad that we can agree to disagree on political matters. One of the main points that I have tried to make on my other current thread is that the big crises do not have to happen during a 4T. They will happen, though, and it is only a matter of when:

When will the USA get to the point that no one is going to extend credit?

When is our military going to be stretched so thin by so many conflicts that a draft becomes necessary?

When will China make a move on Taiwan?

When will the Arabs make a move on Israel?

What happens when retiring Boomers can't find risk-taking Millennials to buy their investments?

I think we are in for a test for which we are not prepared. Or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by JDW

Eric, I am glad that we can agree to disagree on political matters. One of the main points that I have tried to make on my other current thread is that the big crises do not have to happen during a 4T. They will happen, though, and it is only a matter of when:

When will the USA get to the point that no one is going to extend credit?

When is our military going to be stretched so thin by so many conflicts that a draft becomes necessary?

When will China make a move on Taiwan?

When will the Arabs make a move on Israel?

What happens when retiring Boomers can't find risk-taking Millennials to buy their investments?

I think we are in for a test for which we are not prepared. Or am I missing something?

The backlash is going to be awesome.

Originally Posted by hkq999

This reminds me of something that I was discussing earlier on this site. When there was a prophet generation that created an awakening that was all about non-conformity, acceptance, and individualism, of course one would expect the resulting civic generation to adopt those values because of indoctrination during childhood by the prophet establishment. How many times were millie's told they were "special" or "to be themselves" or "everyone is unique in their own way".

And I remember so many classrooms with those posters of all differently dressed children of all different nationalities holding hands around a globe. That pretty much screams awakening.

I don't agree with connecting the notion that people are special and unique, and should "be themselves," with the idea that everyone is individually responsible for their economic well-being at the expense of the collective (trickle-down free-market economics).

Freedom to be oneself, and freedom to exploit others for your own gain (free-market, Republican economics) are NOT the same thing.

Originally Posted by JDW

Eric, I am glad that we can agree to disagree on political matters.

But we agreed on your post #865 above

One of the main points that I have tried to make on my other current thread is that the big crises do not have to happen during a 4T.

But they have, historically.

They will happen, though, and it is only a matter of when:

When will the USA get to the point that no one is going to extend credit?

When is our military going to be stretched so thin by so many conflicts that a draft becomes necessary?

When will China make a move on Taiwan?

When will the Arabs make a move on Israel?

What happens when retiring Boomers can't find risk-taking Millennials to buy their investments?

I think we are in for a test for which we are not prepared. Or am I missing something?

Maybe. The national debt has arisen because Republicans refused to charge enough taxes to pay for their wars and the benefits Democrats insist on. Our wonderful millies and sensitives (homelanders) may be more sensible.

China may not be so aggressive as to attack Taiwan; it is not an aggressive country, and the USA may not protect Taiwan. Israel can and has taken care of itself.

Millennials will have money to invest, since there won't be another crash like 2008. That was a 4T event.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I disagree, Prophets passing down their own values which people must conform to is very much conformity--it's just been rebranded to be Boomer approved conformity. Rather than conformity to the past civic ideals, Prophets demand that people conform to their beliefs/ideals. Nomads reject that. Civics accept it (for the large part--there will always be dissinters). And Artists stifle under it.

After all, what is speaking in a PC manner, but conformity? And that's just one of the many examples I can think of.

The only anti-conformists I'd say are Nomads. Prophets, Artists, and Civics, all deal with different levels of conformity to ideals. Prophets just get the honor of redefining what ideals to conform to.

~Chas'88

Isn't there a difference between "conforming" to high ideals and ethical values, and conformity just for the sake of obedience to prevailing authority and economic pressure ("the rat race")?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I disagree, Prophets passing down their own values which people must conform to is very much conformity--it's just been rebranded to be Boomer approved conformity. Rather than conformity to the past civic ideals, Prophets demand that people conform to their beliefs/ideals. Nomads reject that. Civics accept it (for the large part--there will always be dissinters). And Artists stifle under it.

After all, what is speaking in a PC manner, but conformity? And that's just one of the many examples I can think of.

The only anti-conformists I'd say are Nomads. Prophets, Artists, and Civics, all deal with different levels of conformity to ideals. Prophets just get the honor of redefining what ideals to conform to.

~Chas'88

I guess it's sort of like forcing people to accept non-conformity. Or forcing people to not enforce any kind of conformity and to be accepting and tolerant. Which I suppose is in a way, conformity. It's kind of like how sometime conservatives say liberals are intolerant because they criticize certain things. But it's more like they're intolerant of intolerance. Or that they're closed-minded about being anything but open-minded. I guess that's the kind of conformity I'd say boomers passed down to millenials. It's a strange kind, but I guess it's there nonetheless. I guess in a way it's being forced to tolerate.

Originally Posted by hkq999

I guess it's sort of like forcing people to accept non-conformity. Or forcing people to not enforce any kind of conformity and to be accepting and tolerant. Which I suppose is in a way, conformity. It's kind of like how sometime conservatives say liberals are intolerant because they criticize certain things. But it's more like they're intolerant of intolerance. Or that they're closed-minded about being anything but open-minded. I guess that's the kind of conformity I'd say boomers passed down to millenials. It's a strange kind, but I guess it's there nonetheless. I guess in a way it's being forced to tolerate.

If PC is enforced, then that's forced. But it's not conformity per se. It's obedience to a policy. It's like obeying the law. Law comes from ideals and morals of good behavior. Usually PC is not forced, but it is in some places.