Originally Posted by Kepi

That conformity was informally, not formally imposed though. I'd say our 3T was more authoritarian in terms of formal rules and regulations than our last 1T. Nobody made anyone wear a gray suit, just everyone did for so long it became extreme to do anything else.

I think it depends. If you worked in tech, then blue jeans and a button shirt were just fine. Now, wrt Wall $treet and sales jobs, yeah sure. One still has to wear monkey suits to look "respectable". I think the odd thing is that the more dressed down one is say computer geeks, auto mechanics, fast foodie servers, the more respectable that person is. If one is wearing a monkey suit, then in actuality, the less respectable their profession is!

[Of course there may be some horridly retrograde companies that require their respectable workers to wear monkey suits. ]

That's not authoritarian, that's just extreme conformity. Boring, granted, but nobody was forced to do so under the threat of a penalty.

Yup. Monkey Suits -> [Politicians, banksters, used car salesmen, and other worthless jobs like accounting , etc.]
Boring attire, yes, but again, can be used as an indicator of sorts. Stuff like accounting can be done with spreadsheets and fixing overdone tax laws.

I always disliked dressing up because that meant being stuck in a monkey suit.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

That's gonna suck [for me at least]. [Unless pot is allowed to be planted in community gardens, that is.]

Hemp should replace cotton,'cause hemp doesn't need pesticides near as much.

Right. It looks like community pot gardens will bloom in the next 1T.

So the stars indicate the next up nomads won't be panning the next prophets as much? I'm sorta thinking that the Lost didn't pan the Missonaries near as much as Xer's pan Boomers.

Sorta figures.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I think it depends. If you worked in tech, then blue jeans and a button shirt were just fine. Now, wrt Wall $treet and sales jobs, yeah sure. One still has to wear monkey suits to look "respectable". I think the odd thing is that the more dressed down one is say computer geeks, auto mechanics, fast foodie servers, the more respectable that person is. If one is wearing a monkey suit, then in actuality, the less respectable their profession is!

[Of course there may be some horridly retrograde companies that require their respectable workers to wear monkey suits. ]




Yup. Monkey Suits -> [Politicians, banksters, used car salesmen, and other worthless jobs like accounting , etc.]
Boring attire, yes, but again, can be used as an indicator of sorts. Stuff like accounting can be done with spreadsheets and fixing overdone tax laws.

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit was a famous metaphor of the time for the conformist corporate slave.
Actually most wore black and white penguins suits. In the 2T, Alan Watts said they dressed like funeral directors.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I think it depends. If you worked in tech, then blue jeans and a button shirt were just fine. Now, wrt Wall $treet and sales jobs, yeah sure. One still has to wear monkey suits to look "respectable". I think the odd thing is that the more dressed down one is say computer geeks, auto mechanics, fast foodie servers, the more respectable that person is. If one is wearing a monkey suit, then in actuality, the less respectable their profession is!

[Of course there may be some horridly retrograde companies that require their respectable workers to wear monkey suits. ]




Yup. Monkey Suits -> [Politicians, banksters, used car salesmen, and other worthless jobs like accounting , etc.]
Boring attire, yes, but again, can be used as an indicator of sorts. Stuff like accounting can be done with spreadsheets and fixing overdone tax laws.

Well, lawyers and businessmen still wear suits. And a lot of C.E.Os. They're respectable. And bankers are pretty respectable. And corporate people. A lot of jobs still requite formality in speech, mannerisms, and attire.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's correct. 1T's are essentially communitarian. The next prophets may be ultra-hippies, but they will be taking things to the next steps, in practical ways too; not merely repeating the ways of the old hippies. The point is that since the last 2T was left unfinished, the next 2T will take it forward and fulfilling it in many ways. Some lessons will have been learned.

Wait, doesn't communitarian imply communist? Wasn't the last 1T extremely anti-communist? And weren't the hippies of the last 2T communitarian? What about all those communes and socialist thinking?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not a chance. Cosmic cycles virtually guarantee another 2T like the last one, and BTW like every other 2T; not something like you're describing that is totally different from any other 2T that has ever happened. It may be that the next prophets won't bother Millennials as much; I expect the next 2T to be less oppositional and confrontational anyway; I expect a more peaceful century in fact, and have written this decades ago. There may be crusades, but that's just like the Boomers and Silents in the last 2T too. The hippies and other sixties radicals may have been outspoken and careless, but little they did or said was "absurd;" that's just your view, and it is mistaken; and btw shows the difference between my prophet orientation and your nomad/civic orientation. That will play out again in the next 2T, between you and the next prophets. What you consider absurd from the sixties and 70s, will be repeated again, and your reaction to it presages what your reaction to it will be again in the 2040s and 50s.

History rarely, if ever repeats. It cycles and there are similarities in the cycle, but repetition doesn't really happen. If it were, I've have expected to see a lot more existentialist philosophy instead of analytic philosophy. The preamble to the 2T was found in the 3rd and 4th Turnings prior. I don't know if that's normal, but it'd be necessary for it to foster a redux of the awakening prior. It's a different batter, which produces a different cake.

The Milllennials (and cuspers like yourself) have fallen heavily back into a materialist worldview, with its lack of curiosity and wonder about life, and its obsession with economic issues. Once they achieve economic gains, they could be quite eager to defend the materialist established order and corporate or bureaucratic lifestyles. I don't see Millies as "lazy" either, now or later. By late middle age, Millies will be somewhat conformist and status-oriented civics rather than cool partiers. To redirect those priorities would be exactly another hippie movement.

Millennials are lazy in that they like least energy solutions. Most 1T are what they are because civic generations aren't constantly being pushed aggressively. Sure they build stuff, they do stuff, but they aren't striving. Prophets like to make things difficult. You know, make sure only "the worthy" can achieve and such. I don't expect Millennials to be big into status. Most of them have no use for ceremony or circumstances. I don't expect them to literally be partying, but the 1T is the party for civics. Millennials aren't much for rank or status, and frankly most of the technology functions best when everyone is running similar equipment, so I definitely expect the Millennials to be much more informal in their conformity. Gray T shirts, not flannel suits.

I also expect the Millies, though perhaps not interventionist or warlike, to be very activist in early middle age (during the late 4T and 1T), and heavily focused on infrastructure and tech advancement. This again will not feel right to the next young prophets. The Matrix could be looming, and the alpha-wavers will want OUT! But it's quite possible that there won't be an anti-war movement in the next 2T, or a need for one; I'm not sure about that one though. But I have never seen that in my crystal ball. I DO see that possibility around 2026 though.

I too, expect to see a sort or Luddite wave amongst the next prophets, but not because of any ridiculous notions regarding the Matrix or fear of the future... That's this era of prophets' fears. My thoughts are that the Millennials will be somewhat negligent with reality while trending to their virtual worlds and that their ruthless informality will annoy people looking for something interesting and meaningful. I think the new prophets craving the rules and structure and formality that Millennials really refuse to impose.

I DO see a crusading mentality taking hold in the 2120s. That looks like the next 2T after the next one.

Maybe in a world wide sense, but I expect to see our 2T to be very Hispanic, very economically disruptive, and maybe not unlike the Irish awakening. Heavily divisive and potentially quite violent. Maybe not quagmire warfare style, but very aggressive and formal. Serious business, not the clownish gonzo mentality of Boomers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why was the recent 3T authoritarian? Lots of countries became democratic in our recent 3T. What formal rules and regulations? Political correctness? Helmet laws and such? Stricter parenting of millennials? Not exactly authoritarian; that's exaggerating. In government, of course, it was libertarian; allowing big business to do what it wants and avoid taxes. Dog eat dog.

Our 3T saw a massive expansion of diffused authority. While big business it was, these obnoxiously technical, often contradictory, rule sets were quite authoritarian. Few people in the 2T were worried about being fined for painting their door the wrong color. Nobody had to worry about their town council passing a law regarding how often one must more their lawn. Sure there was a general culture which told you not to paint your door lime green, but nobody could do anything about it if you decided you were going to. The 3T was authoritarian, it's just that there was a diffusion on the authority.

In the 1T, rules and regulations were quite formal. Many of them prohibited the behavior and associations that people insisted on breaking through in the 2T. Segregration, anti-homosexuality, repression of mental illness, blacklisting of supposed communists, loyalty oaths, etc.

And several of those laws were completely unenforceable, most being circumvented by a simple lie, and were not applicable to the majority of people. Segregation obviously is the exception to that, however most of the ugliest parts of racism still exist to some degree. Sure we gave people rights, but we never backed it up with anything truly tangible, and things like traditions (such as traditionally segregated neighborhoods), poverty, and good old fashioned dishonesty have kept racial equality from coming to fruition.

Originally Posted by Kepi

History rarely, if ever repeats. It cycles and there are similarities in the cycle, but repetition doesn't really happen. If it were, I've have expected to see a lot more existentialist philosophy instead of analytic philosophy. The preamble to the 2T was found in the 3rd and 4th Turnings prior. I don't know if that's normal, but it'd be necessary for it to foster a redux of the awakening prior. It's a different batter, which produces a different cake.



Millennials are lazy in that they like least energy solutions. Most 1T are what they are because civic generations aren't constantly being pushed aggressively. Sure they build stuff, they do stuff, but they aren't striving. Prophets like to make things difficult. You know, make sure only "the worthy" can achieve and such. I don't expect Millennials to be big into status. Most of them have no use for ceremony or circumstances. I don't expect them to literally be partying, but the 1T is the party for civics. Millennials aren't much for rank or status, and frankly most of the technology functions best when everyone is running similar equipment, so I definitely expect the Millennials to be much more informal in their conformity. Gray T shirts, not flannel suits.



I too, expect to see a sort or Luddite wave amongst the next prophets, but not because of any ridiculous notions regarding the Matrix or fear of the future... That's this era of prophets' fears. My thoughts are that the Millennials will be somewhat negligent with reality while trending to their virtual worlds and that their ruthless informality will annoy people looking for something interesting and meaningful. I think the new prophets craving the rules and structure and formality that Millennials really refuse to impose.



Maybe in a world wide sense, but I expect to see our 2T to be very Hispanic, very economically disruptive, and maybe not unlike the Irish awakening. Heavily divisive and potentially quite violent. Maybe not quagmire warfare style, but very aggressive and formal. Serious business, not the clownish gonzo mentality of Boomers.

I don't know, my peers are quite concerned with image and status. You're assertion that millenials are informal I think only applies to some. Millenials are very into fashion, more so than x'ers in the 90s seemed to be.

Originally Posted by hkq999

I don't know, my peers are quite concerned with image and status. You're assertion that millenials are informal I think only applies to some. Millenials are very into fashion, more so than x'ers in the 90s seemed to be.

Millennials are into fashion, but they're not really in to status. As an example, my best friend makes less than half what I do. It doesn't stop me from hanging out with him, and we really don't dress that differently most of the time. Not what Rags is saying about "respectable". There's really not a sense that someone who dressed to a certain subculture's fashion or a certain level of formality is not respectable or shouldn't be allowed in a certain venue. You see upper, middle, and lower class Millennials usually wearing more or less the same things outside of work. There's a lot of different styles, they're not indicative of a particular social status, and when you get down to it, I know far more Boomers and Xers who think of clothing being an indicator of respectability than Millennials.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Millennials are into fashion, but they're not really in to status. As an example, my best friend makes less than half what I do. It doesn't stop me from hanging out with him, and we really don't dress that differently most of the time. Not what Rags is saying about "respectable". There's really not a sense that someone who dressed to a certain subculture's fashion or a certain level of formality is not respectable or shouldn't be allowed in a certain venue. You see upper, middle, and lower class Millennials usually wearing more or less the same things outside of work. There's a lot of different styles, they're not indicative of a particular social status, and when you get down to it, I know far more Boomers and Xers who think of clothing being an indicator of respectability than Millennials.

That isn't my experience at all, but then again I go to a preppy college in new england. I really can't see these kids ever growing out of their status and image obsessed mentality. But I'm around particularly wealthy millenials, and I think they're different from the average. I think you're right, millenials in general probably don't really see clothes as a status symbol and more as a fashion statement if anything. But god across the board it seems milies love shopping for clothes, the fashion consciousness has always been there but it's stronger now than in the past. Maybe it has to do with their conformist attitude? Then again, people love trying to look "unique" so I don't know. But I honestly just don't see class blindness where I am, the uber rich kid is either respected, envied, or hated. I think this is a class thing, there are very few people at my college who are middle class.

Originally Posted by hkq999

That isn't my experience at all, but then again I go to a preppy college in new england. I really can't see these kids ever growing out of their status and image obsessed mentality. But I'm around particularly wealthy millenials, and I think they're different from the average. I think you're right, millenials in general probably don't really see clothes as a status symbol and more as a fashion statement if anything. But god across the board it seems milies love shopping for clothes, the fashion consciousness has always been there but it's stronger now than in the past. Maybe it has to do with their conformist attitude? Then again, people love trying to look "unique" so I don't know. But I honestly just don't see class blindness where I am, the uber rich kid is either respected, envied, or hated. I think this is a class thing, there are very few people at my college who are middle class.

Two things at play here. 1) You've got the class factor, which has always sought to separate itself from the hoi polloi in an attempt to justify themselves as better than and 2) college, which is kinda it's own insular world. In regards to #1, the upper class as a class and segment of society has been cast the villain role in this 4T, and are generally seen as a sort of evil pinata by society at large... not something to be emulated per se. In regards to #2, I only know one fully upper class Millennial, and he's definitely not a high society guy. Generally, he hangs out with lower middle class to working class people, and dresses in his preferred branding our urban skate nerd styling. He makes no apologies for being so rich, but he wasn't rich until after he'd put in work and gotten the college beaten out of him. That's all part of the process. Millennials have to get the college beaten out of them before they really show that full adult civic expression.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Millennials are into fashion, but they're not really in to status. As an example, my best friend makes less than half what I do. It doesn't stop me from hanging out with him, and we really don't dress that differently most of the time. Not what Rags is saying about "respectable".

You quite obviously are someone who has much firmer memories of the 3T culture than the person you're speaking with. I agree with you, for what it's worth--gone are the days of Hilfinger and Abercrombie and in are the days of thrift shopping and consignment shops. It's so dead, even Pop Music acknowledges this now:



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Kepi

Two things at play here. 1) You've got the class factor, which has always sought to separate itself from the hoi polloi in an attempt to justify themselves as better than and 2) college, which is kinda it's own insular world. In regards to #1, the upper class as a class and segment of society has been cast the villain role in this 4T, and are generally seen as a sort of evil pinata by society at large... not something to be emulated per se. In regards to #2, I only know one fully upper class Millennial, and he's definitely not a high society guy. Generally, he hangs out with lower middle class to working class people, and dresses in his preferred branding our urban skate nerd styling. He makes no apologies for being so rich, but he wasn't rich until after he'd put in work and gotten the college beaten out of him. That's all part of the process. Millennials have to get the college beaten out of them before they really show that full adult civic expression.

Hopefully you're right. I just don't personally see it happening. And I definitely see no anti-fashion sentiments among any millenials. Millenials girls are way more interested in clothes than I saw college kids being when I was a kid in the early 00s. I just don't thick you can make a generalization about them when it comes to clothes and spending habits..I just see too much variety. Clothing is the number one think these kids spend on themselves. Followed by gadgets (have to have the latest iPhone to show off). Probably just college kids. One things if for sure though, this generation generally likes to experiment with clothing and like fashion.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

You quite obviously are someone who has much firmer memories of the 3T culture than the person you're speaking with. I agree with you, for what it's worth--gone are the days of Hilfinger and Abercrombie and in are the days of thrift shopping and consignment shops. It's so dead, even Pop Music acknowledges this now:



~Chas'88

Yeah that's definitely that anthem of struggling millenials.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Well, lawyers and businessmen still wear suits. And a lot of C.E.Os. They're respectable. And bankers are pretty respectable. And corporate people. A lot of jobs still requite formality in speech, mannerisms, and attire.

Oh, perhaps it depends on one's age. CEO's, "banksters", and politicians are either known as shysters or clowns if one is born in the early 1960's. I think quite a few should be wearing prison orange myself.

It's fun seeing Millies get back into vintage. Not that Xers artist types didn't do it, but when I first started teaching college back in 1981, I began to see a concentration on designer clothing, something probably began in the mid-to-late-70s and the disco era which I ignored. As a sorta New Wave punkish type with no money, I did a lot of vintage through my teens/20s/early 30s.

Like it does for Millies, it came down to money for me. Also, it was fun.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Wait, doesn't communitarian imply communist?

Not at all. Communitarian in the USA and other Western countries means social democracy, the New Deal, the Great Society, progressive movements; in general it means a society in which the community is held to be more important than individuals. There are advantages and disadvantages to a communitarian society. It can be liberating or oppressive. That's why there's a cycle in which society ossilates between communitarian and individualist.

Communist is a particular form of government in which the state owns the means of production. Communism becomes totalitarian when it dictates to the people how they should live, and where the state and its authority is the highest or only value. The USA has never been a communist state; not even close.

Wasn't the last 1T extremely anti-communist? And weren't the hippies of the last 2T communitarian? What about all those communes and socialist thinking?

The last 1T was communitarian. It continued the policies of the New Deal, which through government action helped people to rise into the middle class. Workers had pensions and social security; most worked for and were loyal to their company their whole working lives. Their company did not fire them to send their jobs overseas. Unions were strong and protected workers' rights.

On the other hand, rabid and phony anti-communism was used to blacklist and take away peoples' rights. Conformity and loyalty oaths were required. The races stayed separate, and authority that kept things as they were was upheld. People did what others in the community did, and didn't rock the boat. Deviants were kept in the closet. The 1T was communitarian in those ways too. Hippies and radicals in the 60s protested and broke down these oppressive rules.

Socialist thinking can be good, if it doesn't veer too far toward materialism, and regimentation. Using the government of we the people to ensure equal opportunity is a good form of communitarian. Libertarian ideas that say "government is the problem," lower all taxes and remove regulations, is destructive individualism. It allows big money interests to oppress the people and keep people in poverty. Reagan was the worst leader in our history, and should be reviled rather than revered. He led America onto the wrong track. It is time now in the 4T to veer back toward communitarian. The more we can keep the right balance, the better off we will be.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

It's so dead, even Pop Music acknowledges this now:

Extremely popular-- and one of the worst pop pieces I have ever heard.

Originally Posted by Kepi

History rarely, if ever repeats. It cycles and there are similarities in the cycle, but repetition doesn't really happen. If it were, I've have expected to see a lot more existentialist philosophy instead of analytic philosophy. The preamble to the 2T was found in the 3rd and 4th Turnings prior. I don't know if that's normal, but it'd be necessary for it to foster a redux of the awakening prior. It's a different batter, which produces a different cake.

I don't see any relation between the previous 2T and the 3T and 4T prior to it. I do see a relation to the prior 2T. Existential philosophy and its offshoots was very popular in the 2T, and into the 3T; analytic philosophy was never anything more than the dead remains of academic philosophy which had already died anyway.

Millennials are lazy in that they like least energy solutions. Most 1T are what they are because civic generations aren't constantly being pushed aggressively. Sure they build stuff, they do stuff, but they aren't striving. Prophets like to make things difficult. You know, make sure only "the worthy" can achieve and such. I don't expect Millennials to be big into status. Most of them have no use for ceremony or circumstances. I don't expect them to literally be partying, but the 1T is the party for civics. Millennials aren't much for rank or status, and frankly most of the technology functions best when everyone is running similar equipment, so I definitely expect the Millennials to be much more informal in their conformity. Gray T shirts, not flannel suits.

The previous civic generation did little else but work. They lacked the vision to lead new movements, but they had leadership ability enough to get good things done in government and companies, for a while. Civics like LBJ also led us into quagmires, and companies later stagnated in rigid hierarchies lacking in innovation. They were short-sighted, but not lazy. They were heavily conformist and group oriented; striving to achieve, but not to revolutionize.

Prophets like the boomers revolutionized and championed important new ideas and movements. They didn't create them all by themselves, but they moved them forward. They "made things difficult" for those in power and authority. Boomer tactics when young were often unwise, and like most older folks, forgot their idealism to a great degree and became the authorities themselves. Moral righteousness was common among boomer prophets at all ages. It's difficult for me to know what you mean by "make sure only "the worthy" can achieve and such." I expect Millennials as they age to become more insecure and conforming like the GIs (Greatest Generation) were. I don't know how many 50-year old millennials will be wearing T-shirts. I suspect that in youth, Millies are conforming to their elders, the Xers and Boomers. Being oriented toward pleasing the group, I suspect as they get older, will be more interested in status, which they will seek to protect when the next prophets arrive to challenge their overly tech, materialist-driven society.

I too, expect to see a sort or Luddite wave amongst the next prophets, but not because of any ridiculous notions regarding the Matrix or fear of the future... That's this era of prophets' fears. My thoughts are that the Millennials will be somewhat negligent with reality while trending to their virtual worlds and that their ruthless informality will annoy people looking for something interesting and meaningful. I think the new prophets craving the rules and structure and formality that Millennials really refuse to impose.

I don't really know if a matrix will threaten us by the 2040s, but there's no doubt that technology such as AI has a momentum nearly impossible to stop, and there's no doubt millennials are interested in even more technology. They look to it for solutions, rather than looking to the human spirit-- which they cannot even see. So fears of a virtual matrix world seem to me well-founded, for all those reasons. Of course Boomers and some Xers have those well-founded fears today, and so will their succeeding prophets the alpha-wavers or green pioneers have those fears. If you are not in favor of a matrix, then it is up to you to go against the trend of the millie generation and rediscover the human spirit.

Millennials will be quite the opposite of ruthlessly informal. Just as they have conformed to the informality of Gen X, they will conform to the needs of protecting their group status, wealth and power once they achieve it. Millennials will achieve a great deal, and succeed in restoring the group spirit and shared wealth for which they rightly see the great need today. The next prophets will take some of that for granted, and may even appreciate it and want more of it (if you're lucky), but will reject the overly tech and materialist orientation that comes with it. Forget the hope that alpha waver prophets will impose the rules, structure and formality that you as a civic really want. It is you who see that as an ideal for prophets to pursue, you who will reimpose the rules, and then try without success to get your prophet children to adopt them too. If you don't reimpose it in the 1T, consider it gone for good. Young people don't crave rules and formality, ever.

I expect to see our 2T to be very Hispanic, very economically disruptive, and maybe not unlike the Irish awakening. Heavily divisive and potentially quite violent. Maybe not quagmire warfare style, but very aggressive and formal. Serious business, not the clownish gonzo mentality of Boomers.

I know you see a 2T in which hispanics strive for economic rights and equality. I think we will see that, among those who are still denied the opportunity they deserve. That need will probably not disappear anytime soon. Boomers sought that too for those who needed it. The Boomers also sought in their youth to restore the human spirit, which had been squelched to near extinction by the industry and conformity-oriented civics. That was important, and it will be important for the next prophets to continue to restore it from the clutches of tech-oriented, economics-obsessed millennials.

Violence is likely to be much less in evidence. There may well be more violence in the next 1T than in the next 2T. Materialist millennials will have succeeded in restoring some measure of equality and middle class prosperity (including for hispanics), which will be a very good thing. But it means that the next prophets, like the last ones, will not be interested as much in economics to the exclusion of everything else, like nomads and civics tend to be. The next prophets will also see abundantly-clearly that economic prosperity is threatened by the environmental crisis, and that is what will concern them.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Our 3T saw a massive expansion of diffused authority. While big business it was, these obnoxiously technical, often contradictory, rule sets were quite authoritarian. Few people in the 2T were worried about being fined for painting their door the wrong color. Nobody had to worry about their town council passing a law regarding how often one must more their lawn. Sure there was a general culture which told you not to paint your door lime green, but nobody could do anything about it if you decided you were going to. The 3T was authoritarian, it's just that there was a diffusion on the authority.

I haven't heard of those kind of laws. None exist here in Silicon Valley, besides those which were already in effect.

The 1T was communitarian, and the 3T was individualist-- which can be in some ways authoritarian in its diffused and deceptive way. Challenge to authority happens in 2Ts, as it did in the last one. Institutions can be changed in 4Ts, and let's hope it happens, with millennials backing it. I predict it will.

And several of those laws were completely unenforceable, most being circumvented by a simple lie, and were not applicable to the majority of people. Segregation obviously is the exception to that, however most of the ugliest parts of racism still exist to some degree. Sure we gave people rights, but we never backed it up with anything truly tangible, and things like traditions (such as traditionally segregated neighborhoods), poverty, and good old fashioned dishonesty have kept racial equality from coming to fruition.

So in the 2T there was progress, with real gains, and in the 3T the libertarian nonsense from Reagan and Co. prevented any more progress, and there was some retrogression. What 3Ts are is the status quo, like 1Ts.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

You quite obviously are someone who has much firmer memories of the 3T culture than the person you're speaking with. I agree with you, for what it's worth--gone are the days of Hilfinger and Abercrombie and in are the days of thrift shopping and consignment shops. It's so dead, even Pop Music acknowledges this now:



~Chas'88

What was funny was the transition, when I was in college American Eagle was taking over Abercrombie's market because it was to expensive and elitist. Being a subculture sort, I couldn't really tell the difference. You were still shopping a brand name for no other reason than status. It was just a clothing company. It's not like it sponsored anything or served a culrural purpose, but there it was.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Hopefully you're right. I just don't personally see it happening. And I definitely see no anti-fashion sentiments among any millenials. Millenials girls are way more interested in clothes than I saw college kids being when I was a kid in the early 00s. I just don't thick you can make a generalization about them when it comes to clothes and spending habits..I just see too much variety. Clothing is the number one think these kids spend on themselves. Followed by gadgets (have to have the latest iPhone to show off). Probably just college kids. One things if for sure though, this generation generally likes to experiment with clothing and like fashion.

The only "anti-fashion" movements from the 3T were derivatives of the punk scene. It was a status of allegiance rather than a status of affluence. Those styles are still in play now, though they're much more downplayed than what they used to be, mainly because they were so ridiculously adopted by the mainstream. When it's the mid 90's in Florida and you see kids running around in flannel, that's ridiculous. When you see a girl's shirt that is such screened with the word "punk" in glitter and sequins with safety pins through pre-made holes stitched specifically to accommodate said safety pins, that's ridiculous. When you see jeans being sold which are already worn frayed or even with holes in them, that's ridiculous. When your studded belt can't fit through your belt loops because it's a quad row, that's ridiculous. The early 2000's were completely silly, and the only thing that really offset them were the mid-2000's which were silly, gaudy, and pretty ugly.

As for girls, they were just as fashion obsessed as ever. Women compete aggressively with fashion. Men use it to display, but for women it's a fight. I know lots of Xer women fighting that fight still, and the ones that aren't either felt they never had a chance to "win" or are that rare sort that never really got the competition. But for the most part, with women, it's a fight. For what, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't really know if a matrix will threaten us by the 2040s, but there's no doubt that technology such as AI has a momentum nearly impossible to stop, and there's no doubt millennials are interested in even more technology. They look to it for solutions, rather than looking to the human spirit-- which they cannot even see. So fears of a virtual matrix world seem to me well-founded, for all those reasons. Of course Boomers and some Xers have those well-founded fears today, and so will their succeeding prophets the alpha-wavers or green pioneers have those fears. If you are not in favor of a matrix, then it is up to you to go against the trend of the millie generation and rediscover the human spirit.

Millennials will be quite the opposite of ruthlessly informal. Just as they have conformed to the informality of Gen X, they will conform to the needs of protecting their group status, wealth and power once they achieve it. Millennials will achieve a great deal, and succeed in restoring the group spirit and shared wealth for which they rightly see the great need today. The next prophets will take some of that for granted, and may even appreciate it and want more of it (if you're lucky), but will reject the overly tech and materialist orientation that comes with it. Forget the hope that alpha waver prophets will impose the rules, structure and formality that you as a civic really want. It is you who see that as an ideal for prophets to pursue, you who will reimpose the rules, and then try without success to get your prophet children to adopt them too. If you don't reimpose it in the 1T, consider it gone for good. Young people don't crave rules and formality, ever.


I know you see a 2T in which hispanics strive for economic rights and equality. I think we will see that, among those who are still denied the opportunity they deserve. That need will probably not disappear anytime soon. Boomers sought that too for those who needed it. The Boomers also sought in their youth to restore the human spirit, which had been squelched to near extinction by the industry and conformity-oriented civics. That was important, and it will be important for the next prophets to continue to restore it from the clutches of tech-oriented, economics-obsessed millennials.

Violence is likely to be much less in evidence. There may well be more violence in the next 1T than in the next 2T. Materialist millennials will have succeeded in restoring some measure of equality and middle class prosperity (including for hispanics), which will be a very good thing. But it means that the next prophets, like the last ones, will not be interested as much in economics to the exclusion of everything else, like nomads and civics tend to be. The next prophets will also see abundantly-clearly that economic prosperity is threatened by the environmental crisis, and that is what will concern them.

Oh, I don't think the Hispanic dominated 2T will be a rights movement, I think it will be about the move of the US out if the Anglosphere, which is dying, and joining the rest of the Western Hemisphere, which is still rising. There's always spiritual whatever in every 2T, look at Alister Crowley or the various seance hucksters from the Great Power 2T. This isn't a movement, it's just a facet that comes into almost every 2T and ultimately dies with it in the 3T. That's not a contribution to society, that's just a facet of growing up in a 2T. What makes a 2T successful is what it manages to contribute to the saeculum as a whole, just like every other turning. Saying that spiritualistic preoccupation was somehow specific to this saeculum's 2T is like saying that economic prosperity is specific to our 3T. These are just byproducts of the turning in general.

Also Silicon Valley is kind of a privileged area. Those places like that aren't usually subject to a lot of the negatives of bad ideas because they are privileged. For instance prohibition wasn't really targeting rich people. The progressives weren't out trying to control the behavior of kids in well to do families. The recession was great for the wealthy. The homestead act and the gold rush weren't products of the wealthy needing to get out of places that were rapidly out pricing them. Affluence, including the affluence of an area, means you get hit with bad stuff a lot less.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Oh, I don't think the Hispanic dominated 2T will be a rights movement, I think it will be about the move of the US out if the Anglosphere, which is dying, and joining the rest of the Western Hemisphere, which is still rising. There's always spiritual whatever in every 2T, look at Alister Crowley or the various seance hucksters from the Great Power 2T. This isn't a movement, it's just a facet that comes into almost every 2T and ultimately dies with it in the 3T. That's not a contribution to society, that's just a facet of growing up in a 2T. What makes a 2T successful is what it manages to contribute to the saeculum as a whole, just like every other turning. Saying that spiritualistic preoccupation was somehow specific to this saeculum's 2T is like saying that economic prosperity is specific to our 3T. These are just byproducts of the turning in general.

The spiritual trends of the 2T is a movement that expanded in the 3T, as long as boomers were powerful enough to shape culture. But it's correct that you guys have mostly discarded it, to your great loss, and society's. But the movement will continue, and so did the last 2T's movement; it just continues from 2T to 2T, the next one influenced by the previous one, just as Aleister Crowley and Co. became widely known and admired in the 60s and 70s. Our society's main malady and challenge, is its materialism and lack of spirituality. Our society will continue to be empty and degrading as long as that is the case. We need the spirituality of our 2Ts to become the main ingredient of society in all turnings. That is the new age movement's goal and society's destiny. Not a by-product (and btw WHAT "prosperity in the 3T"? There was none).

Also Silicon Valley is kind of a privileged area. Those places like that aren't usually subject to a lot of the negatives of bad ideas because they are privileged. For instance prohibition wasn't really targeting rich people. The progressives weren't out trying to control the behavior of kids in well to do families. The recession was great for the wealthy. The homestead act and the gold rush weren't products of the wealthy needing to get out of places that were rapidly out pricing them. Affluence, including the affluence of an area, means you get hit with bad stuff a lot less.

The next prophets will need to restore the human spirit that you guys, as you demonstrate above, do not recognize. That will be as true in Silicon Valley as in Kansas or Washington DC and Virginia. I don't know what you mean by your talk above about rich people. The progressives and the new dealers brought economic reform that created a middle class for the first time in America. That was true everywhere. The civics carried out that ideal. The millennials see the need for it again, and will carry it out again.

Nomads and civics are materialistic and economics oriented, in our overly-materialist and economic-oriented society. It would be great if you nomads and civics could see through that deception, but in your rebellion against boomers, you have thrown that liberation away. So, we'll need a do-over, because the society you create will again be "too dead for dreaming" as Bob Dylan said, and the new prophets will hear the call of the tambourine man and follow him.