Originally Posted by Silifi

FDR is probably the man who has come closest to being an American monarch.

As the first president, George Washington had the option to become a autocrat, as do all miltary leaders of successful revolutions/revolts. Nobody since has been this close.

Another answer is all of them, since the American president is an elected constitutional monarch.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

As the first president, George Washington had the option to become a autocrat, as do all miltary leaders of successful revolutions/revolts. Nobody since has been this close.

Another answer is all of them, since the American president is an elected constitutional monarch.

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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).


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.

The demography just doesn't pan out for that. If anything it looks like history is going to all but write the hippies out as much as possible. The projected breakdowns will be 60-65% Hispanic, 10-12% Black, and about 5% Asian and other heritage. That leaves 20% or less as white people. Hippies were a minority amongst Boomers as a whole even when they were really prevalent, plus they were really only prevalent amongst the early wave of Boomers, the late wave were decidedly not hippies. Now as grandparents, early wave Boomers will have the most direct influence on the latest Millennials and early wave Homelanders. There maybe some really late wave Boomer grandparents of the next prophets, but that would be very, very rare. More than likely the grandparents of the new prophet generation is going to be Xers.

The minority contingent of white new prophets will likely be Xers. While there will be an exodus from E-Life amongst the new prophets, their religious background will either be none or evangelical Christianity, and their musical upbringing will likely be late 2T underground (metal, punk, etc.) through the 3T grunge era from their grandparents, and then mid 4T to early 1T from their parents. The closest to Dylan most of them will get is Sabbath and Zepplin in age range and Some folk punk like Against Me! or This Bike is a Pipe Bomb in sound.

I fully expect that exodus of that 15-20% white population of prophets to leave their parents technologically augmented world not out of fear of the matrix, but in pursuit of something real. It will be a spiritual pursuit, but it will look a lot more like that of the consummate outdoorsman like Teddy Roosevelt mixed with some of the more daring and adventurous activities of Xers. More of a base jumping, flying squirrel suit your of activity rather than the Hunter Tracker activities of early conservationists.

Originally Posted by Kepi

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.


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.

When i look at movies and media from the late 90s and early 00s it just looked very casual and bland, just t-shirt and jeans. I guess if that was the fashion at the time..it just looked anti-fashion in my opinion. I mean wasn't grunge trying to reject the fashion culture..of course it just ended up being adopted by the high fashion world. But yeah the mid-00s were gaudy. Anyway my point is, millenials really aren't that different from other generations when it comes to interest in fashion and fashion consciousness..and I think they spend more money on clothes than anything else. And I really don't see a downplay of formality for actual formal events like parties, social events etc. And I don't see a downplay of displaying wealth. But i do agree with you that they are more class-blind...I actually have trouble imagining my peers rejecting someone based on how wealthy they are. It seems odd that other generations did that. Whether this kinder attitude lasts into the 1T...I don't know.

Originally Posted by hkq999

When i look at movies and media from the late 90s and early 00s it just looked very casual and bland, just t-shirt and jeans. I guess if that was the fashion at the time..it just looked anti-fashion in my opinion. I mean wasn't grunge trying to reject the fashion culture..of course it just ended up being adopted by the high fashion world. But yeah the mid-00s were gaudy. Anyway my point is, millenials really aren't that different from other generations when it comes to interest in fashion and fashion consciousness..and I think they spend more money on clothes than anything else. And I really don't see a downplay of formality for actual formal events like parties, social events etc. And I don't see a downplay of displaying wealth. But i do agree with you that they are more class-blind...I actually have trouble imagining my peers rejecting someone based on how wealthy they are. It seems odd that other generations did that. Whether this kinder attitude lasts into the 1T...I don't know.

Your peers are spending more on clothes than anything else because they're in college. I mean, what do you really expect them to spend their money on? Copyright infringement is easy, which covers media costs. Colleges usually provide entertainment, which cuts down on event costs. When I was in school I spent most of my monthly budget on beer, cigarettes, and shows. That sort of thing is so heavily cracked down on now at most schools, I know of, including my own which still has a party school reputation, I wouldn't have bothered. My next largest expense would have been clothes.

What gets interesting is when you get out of college, because what you'll see is one of two things. Either a grad will move from school to work and rent or own a place of their own and be forced to scale back frivolous spending on excess fashion and impulsive purchasing, or they will get jobs, continue to live with their parents, and spend recklessly for a good long time. I know girls who are still doing the latter and I'm in my 30's. College kids in this area start out underemployed, but in a few years max you will have a living wage (not how it should be, mind you, but it's reality), and these people spend living wage money living with mom and dad. Their expenses are basically clothing and outside entertainment, but man they spend it all. There aren't many of them, but those people exist, have always existed, and probably will always exist.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The demography just doesn't pan out for that. If anything it looks like history is going to all but write the hippies out as much as possible. The projected breakdowns will be 60-65% Hispanic, 10-12% Black, and about 5% Asian and other heritage. That leaves 20% or less as white people. Hippies were a minority amongst Boomers as a whole even when they were really prevalent, plus they were really only prevalent amongst the early wave of Boomers, the late wave were decidedly not hippies. Now as grandparents, early wave Boomers will have the most direct influence on the latest Millennials and early wave Homelanders. There maybe some really late wave Boomer grandparents of the next prophets, but that would be very, very rare. More than likely the grandparents of the new prophet generation is going to be Xers.

The minority contingent of white new prophets will likely be Xers. While there will be an exodus from E-Life amongst the new prophets, their religious background will either be none or evangelical Christianity, and their musical upbringing will likely be late 2T underground (metal, punk, etc.) through the 3T grunge era from their grandparents, and then mid 4T to early 1T from their parents. The closest to Dylan most of them will get is Sabbath and Zepplin in age range and Some folk punk like Against Me! or This Bike is a Pipe Bomb in sound.

I fully expect that exodus of that 15-20% white population of prophets to leave their parents technologically augmented world not out of fear of the matrix, but in pursuit of something real. It will be a spiritual pursuit, but it will look a lot more like that of the consummate outdoorsman like Teddy Roosevelt mixed with some of the more daring and adventurous activities of Xers. More of a base jumping, flying squirrel suit your of activity rather than the Hunter Tracker activities of early conservationists.

Another big factor to consider is that especially with Hispanics is the large rise in Hispanic Evangelicals--it's projected that by 2025 a quarter of all Hispanics will be Hispanic Evangelicals as it's currently the fastest growing denomination amongst Hispanics in America.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Kepi

Your peers are spending more on clothes than anything else because they're in college. I mean, what do you really expect them to spend their money on? Copyright infringement is easy, which covers media costs. Colleges usually provide entertainment, which cuts down on event costs. When I was in school I spent most of my monthly budget on beer, cigarettes, and shows. That sort of thing is so heavily cracked down on now at most schools, I know of, including my own which still has a party school reputation, I wouldn't have bothered. My next largest expense would have been clothes.

What gets interesting is when you get out of college, because what you'll see is one of two things. Either a grad will move from school to work and rent or own a place of their own and be forced to scale back frivolous spending on excess fashion and impulsive purchasing, or they will get jobs, continue to live with their parents, and spend recklessly for a good long time. I know girls who are still doing the latter and I'm in my 30's. College kids in this area start out underemployed, but in a few years max you will have a living wage (not how it should be, mind you, but it's reality), and these people spend living wage money living with mom and dad. Their expenses are basically clothing and outside entertainment, but man they spend it all. There aren't many of them, but those people exist, have always existed, and probably will always exist.

Well...yeah, I mean I never said it was unusual for college kids to be spending money on clothes. I was just pointing out that if they have the money, they'll buy designer or whatever is "in"..if they don't have the money they'll obviously not. I was just saying that the focus on high fashion has not disappeared, despite the fact that lack of money doesn't make it a reality for many..hence that Thrift Shop song becoming popular. But the desire to show off wealth hasn't left..and if the economy were booming right now a song like Thrift Shop wouldn't be popular. Which is why I disagreed that the next 1T will not have any status or 1 percent to emulate..even in the last 1T we had this. We always have this. Millenials are a diverse group like any group, they have all different kinds of people. I don't think there is a lot of classism there..but then there isn't a lot of discrimination in general, but focus on wealth and clothes and expression is alive and well..even if it has to be discount clothes from the thrift shop.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The demography just doesn't pan out for that. If anything it looks like history is going to all but write the hippies out as much as possible. The projected breakdowns will be 60-65% Hispanic, 10-12% Black, and about 5% Asian and other heritage. That leaves 20% or less as white people. Hippies were a minority amongst Boomers as a whole even when they were really prevalent, plus they were really only prevalent amongst the early wave of Boomers, the late wave were decidedly not hippies. Now as grandparents, early wave Boomers will have the most direct influence on the latest Millennials and early wave Homelanders. There maybe some really late wave Boomer grandparents of the next prophets, but that would be very, very rare. More than likely the grandparents of the new prophet generation is going to be Xers.

Hispanic immigration is already slowing down; I expect as Latin American economies improve, it will slow further. But it doesn't matter. Having a more fulfilling and freer lifestyle, open to spiritual experiences, is a universal interest. So "hippies" will return on schedule. Hispanics as well as blacks will improve their position economically, as equality replaces Reaganomics in the 4T through the next 2T. That will allow them to look beyond mere economics, just as young whites did in the 60s.

The minority contingent of white new prophets will likely be Xers. While there will be an exodus from E-Life amongst the new prophets, their religious background will either be none or evangelical Christianity, and their musical upbringing will likely be late 2T underground (metal, punk, etc.) through the 3T grunge era from their grandparents, and then mid 4T to early 1T from their parents. The closest to Dylan most of them will get is Sabbath and Zeppelin in age range and Some folk punk like Against Me! or This Bike is a Pipe Bomb in sound.

I have no idea what "E-Life" refers to, but it will not matter what the religious background of the next prophets will be. What will matter is what is true and real, for prophets do not depend on their background, but on their own inner realization. 3T grunge and punk will have zero influence, because they are not good music. Only Xers like them. Evangelical Christianity is old age stuff; the new age will still be dawning, and most of all during Awakenings. No religion? Possibly, but you don't need religion or a religious background in order to be interested in inner awakening, mysticism and spiritual development. It is always there.

I fully expect that exodus of that 15-20% white population of prophets to leave their parents technologically augmented world not out of fear of the matrix, but in pursuit of something real. It will be a spiritual pursuit, but it will look a lot more like that of the consummate outdoorsman like Teddy Roosevelt mixed with some of the more daring and adventurous activities of Xers. More of a base jumping, flying squirrel suit your of activity rather than the Hunter Tracker activities of early conservationists.

Teddy Roosevelt outdoorsmanship was not the spirituality of the social gospel 2T. The next prophets will be looking for the real thing, which has to do with the spirit and the soul, not daring physical activities of Xers and Xtreme sports. No doubt that may be popular too; sport is always interesting to many young people. But look for prophets to reject the limited and overly-pragmatic and physical outlook on life of typical nomads.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Another big factor to consider is that especially with Hispanics is the large rise in Hispanic Evangelicals--it's projected that by 2025 a quarter of all Hispanics will be Hispanic Evangelicals as it's currently the fastest growing denomination amongst Hispanics in America.

~Chas'88

Yeah I'm not quite sure what to do with the Hispanic protestants. There's a chance they'll flip to Catholicism, there's a chance they'll identify with the Catholic causes culturally and ally, there's a chance they'll side with the still existing WASPy churches, or they could do their own thing. Three out of 4 of those options lead to the same ends, which would be the cultural realignment of the US to a Hispanic, rather than European, associated nation. This would push Central and South America into the economic core, which will further cripple Europe economically. The fourth would probably less to those same results initially but make for a Protestant v. Catholic 3T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hispanic immigration is already slowing down; I expect as Latin American economies improve, it will slow further. But it doesn't matter. Having a more fulfilling and freer lifestyle, open to spiritual experiences, is a universal interest. So "hippies" will return on schedule. Hispanics as well as blacks will improve their position economically, as equality replaces Reaganomics in the 4T through the next 2T. That will allow them to look beyond mere economics, just as young whites did in the 60s.

I have no idea what "E-Life" refers to, but it will not matter what the religious background of the next prophets will be. What will matter is what is true and real, for prophets do not depend on their background, but on their own inner realization. 3T grunge and punk will have zero influence, because they are not good music. Only Xers like them. Evangelical Christianity is old age stuff; the new age will still be dawning, and most of all during Awakenings. No religion? Possibly, but you don't need religion or a religious background in order to be interested in inner awakening, mysticism and spiritual development. It is always there.


Teddy Roosevelt outdoorsmanship was not the spirituality of the social gospel 2T. The next prophets will be looking for the real thing, which has to do with the spirit and the soul, not daring physical activities of Xers and Xtreme sports. No doubt that may be popular too; sport is always interesting to many young people. But look for prophets to reject the limited and overly-pragmatic and physical outlook on life of typical nomads.

It doesn't matter that immigration has slowed, it's the birth rate that counts. There's no way that you're going to see white people as the majority by the end of the 1T. It doesn't matter if you like the music or not. You don't get to pick your fundamental musical influences, they come from what you hear, which when you're young is what your parents play. Xers listened to a lot of grunge. Most white Millennials do, too. It'll be a major influence merely by being present.

E-life was me shorthanding people's digital lives into a single linear existence as opposed to a thousand different individual activities. As to background, it's very relevant in the 2T, in that it furthers the identity of a people. Much of the Black wave of our most recent 2T was spent establishing a new black culture around a furthered black identity. The IRA arose out of a new found sense of Irish Identity. What, do you think that a majority Hispanic nation isn't going to wake up and realize one day that a culture that is not their own is running what has become their nation? Especially while Europe is dying in relevance and population? While the satellite economic conquests of Europe like Japan are all but dead from relevance? Absolutely not. That imbalance isn't something that will stand in a 2T.

Meanwhile, if the Hippie spiritual ideas were relevant they'd have spread and propagated amongst Xers and Millennials. They didn't. Must not have been what society was looking for. It was just a byproduct, not what was being cultivated.

I do expect spirituality to be an aspect of the 2T as it always is. However as usual it will not be the productive aspect that transfers ideas forward to the 3rd, then 4th Turnings. Despite all attempts, most of the most beloved ideas of the 2T are the most discarded outside of it. If you can't get your nomads and civics to follow it, what odds would another set of prophets have? Especially with the painfully obvious example of why it wasn't a good idea in the first place. The first evangelically or Catholic raised kid starts showing hippie thinking and their parents and grand parents will simply point out how unproductive the mentality is. All they'll ever need to do is look at their kids and ask them where all the white secular people's kids are. Ask them why Europe declined and is now dying. Right there, that will be the end of that. The proof will be in the pudding as far as where the Hippie ideals got the last people who tried that, and it's over. Look at prohibition. There's enough power in the anti-tobacco lobby, but Boomers will never ban it. Why? Because they remember the lessons of prohibition, and that didn't even have the dramatic effect that the decline of European economic core will. The Missionaries didn't act like Abolitionists for much the same reason.

The group's that fail in the 2T don't get to come back, though crowing like super-villians is frequently a popular exit. The leaders of the prohibition movement exited the ratification on the 21st amendment making claims that prohibition would be back once people realized how awful things got when it was legal. Slighted prophets are often classic villain stereotypes. Examples of this particular habit include Claw from Inspector Gadget and Dr. Doom from The Fantastic Four.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Well...yeah, I mean I never said it was unusual for college kids to be spending money on clothes. I was just pointing out that if they have the money, they'll buy designer or whatever is "in"..if they don't have the money they'll obviously not. I was just saying that the focus on high fashion has not disappeared, despite the fact that lack of money doesn't make it a reality for many..hence that Thrift Shop song becoming popular. But the desire to show off wealth hasn't left..and if the economy were booming right now a song like Thrift Shop wouldn't be popular. Which is why I disagreed that the next 1T will not have any status or 1 percent to emulate..even in the last 1T we had this. We always have this. Millenials are a diverse group like any group, they have all different kinds of people. I don't think there is a lot of classism there..but then there isn't a lot of discrimination in general, but focus on wealth and clothes and expression is alive and well..even if it has to be discount clothes from the thrift shop.

Just wait a few years. I think you'll be surprised.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Just wait a few years. I think you'll be surprised.

I think people always change as they mature. But from what I've seen I think in general the millies that are into fashion now will always mostly like fashion and won't entirely give up "dressing up" when appropriate. But I agree with you that in general, they're inclusive and won't be that classist..at least not to the extent that maybe preceding generations were. This goes well along with the fact that they are generally less prejudiced and discriminating across the board. Although I think the super wealthy top .1 percent will always be somewhat classist. And there is always a super wealthy status to aspire to for many, no matter what times you're in.

Also I'm talking about my cohorts, I don't interact much with older milies to be honest. I'm just trying to point out that expression through clothing and fashion isn't universal in any generation and isn't in millenials either. For every "casual" dresser, I see a formal one, or an edgy one, or a trendy one. People have their own styles, there isn't necessarily a universal casual style. Also, I think it's clear that most of this generation still has a line between formal and casual and still adheres to formalities in traditional situations like weddings or funerals or date-night outings. One thing I can see is millenials transforming the workplace environment into a much more casual one, both in rules of acceptable attire, getting rid of little unnecessary formalities, and making things more flexible.

Also I hang out more with female millenials, so that might affect what I think of them all generally. There's definitely little anti-fashion I see..and I don't really view the trendy fashion that's popular with millenials right now as casual really..(fashion from the late 90s, early 00s looks a lot more casual to me), although it's not too stuffy and formal either. Of course, many can't afford what's trendy...we are after all in a "crisis" period. I just don't see this widespread rejection of formality you seem to speak of, across the board..maybe with some but not all. But that's pretty much how every generation is.

I'm not sure if we're in agreement or disagreement here because I do think it's clear that millenials are in general more class-blind (to be honest, to me this seems like accepting and continuing some trends in culture and society that were already under way before this generation), and may tend to be more accepting of a person from a different subculture, but I don't think there's a universal or majority view on fashion or what they like to wear or expression or showing off or wealth..it's a generation of 90 million it's going to be diverse like every other generation filled with different classes, backgrounds and experiences.

Originally Posted by hkq999

I think people always change as they mature. But from what I've seen I think in general the millies that are into fashion now will always mostly like fashion and won't entirely give up "dressing up" when appropriate. But I agree with you that in general, they're inclusive and won't be that classist..at least not to the extent that maybe preceding generations were. This goes well along with the fact that they are generally less prejudiced and discriminating across the board. Although I think the super wealthy top .1 percent will always be somewhat classist. And there is always a super wealthy status to aspire to for many, no matter what times you're in.

Also I'm talking about my cohorts, I don't interact much with older milies to be honest. I'm just trying to point out that expression through clothing and fashion isn't universal in any generation and isn't in millenials either. For every "casual" dresser, I see a formal one, or an edgy one, or a trendy one. People have their own styles, there isn't necessarily a universal casual style. Also, I think it's clear that most of this generation still has a line between formal and casual and still adheres to formalities in traditional situations like weddings or funerals or date-night outings. One thing I can see is millenials transforming the workplace environment into a much more casual one, both in rules of acceptable attire, getting rid of little unnecessary formalities, and making things more flexible.

Also I hang out more with female millenials, so that might affect what I think of them all generally. There's definitely little anti-fashion I see..and I don't really view the trendy fashion that's popular with millenials right now as casual really..(fashion from the late 90s, early 00s looks a lot more casual to me), although it's not too stuffy and formal either. Of course, many can't afford what's trendy...we are after all in a "crisis" period. I just don't see this widespread rejection of formality you seem to speak of, across the board..maybe with some but not all. But that's pretty much how every generation is.

I'm not sure if we're in agreement or disagreement here because I do think it's clear that millenials are in general more class-blind (to be honest, to me this seems like accepting and continuing some trends in culture and society that were already under way before this generation), and may tend to be more accepting of a person from a different subculture, but I don't think there's a universal or majority view on fashion or what they like to wear or expression or showing off or wealth..it's a generation of 90 million it's going to be diverse like every other generation filled with different classes, backgrounds and experiences.

I think you're seeing all the right stuff, but what I'm trying to point out is an important facet which you're missing: how you dress in the 90's and early 2000's had consequences. It still has some consequences now. In the future it won't. When I say formal, I'm talking not about presentation, which always changes (compare high society dress in England from 1200, 1500, and 1800, which is more formal in terms of the clothing? There's no comparison dress as one in the era of another and you're going to look like a clown), but rules and consequences both explicit and implicit.

So, this past 1T, the rules were informal, but inflexible and and very specific. You show up to work with out a tie, you're sent home without pay to change at best, fired was another possibility. Show up at a wedding and it doesn't matter who you are, you're getting kicked out. Most restaurants beyond diners and dive bars won't serve you.

So then you get to the next 1T. Like you said, work wear goes anything goes. Honestly, most of the millennial weddings I've been to have failed the dress code down to an untucked button down and nice jeans or slacks, and whatever for footwear. Most of them even had the groom as business casual to bridge the gap between their friends who they insist on including and who haven't had a real wardrobe upgrade since college, which was 5 years ago, or belong to a specific subculture which depends on dress wear, or who just doesn't like formal wear and won't show if he has to wear it, and their older family members who insist on wearing formal suits. Big difference from now and the 90's where the groom & entourage were expected to wear tuxedos whose colors matched the wedding theme. The mileage varies on how formal weddings and other events pay out in formality, but it's categorically less formal now.

So we get rid of the formal rules, people can where what they want and nobody cares right? Do you see the difference that makes? The last 2T saw a society which was totally made fragile by the rules they kept. Simply sitting around with long hair in t-shirts & jeans in public. So are the next prophets going to be able to do that? No. And quite frankly the death of formality will probably be seen as dull and boring. Check out the Boomers, they love ceremony, pomp and circumstance, and procedure. Millennials are different, especially Millennial guys. So when the 2T hits and the new prophets decide the new fashion is capes, leggings, a loin cloth and thigh high boots, no shirt and elbow length silk gloves for men, that won't really change the culture at all. It's not breaking any structures or rules. So what will? Pushing for rules. Establishing dress codes for specific events, having establishing events where ceremony and not people is the focus.

Boomers smashed up the rules, but never cleared them out or made new ones. This left a mine field of classist, elitist rules individualized by the elite running the show. Millennials, being inclusive sorts will step those rules away. The new prophets, response is most likely to do what prophets do, and raise the bar in areas that civics gave people the pass the most.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Yeah I'm not quite sure what to do with the Hispanic protestants. There's a chance they'll flip to Catholicism, there's a chance they'll identify with the Catholic causes culturally and ally, there's a chance they'll side with the still existing WASPy churches, or they could do their own thing. Three out of 4 of those options lead to the same ends, which would be the cultural realignment of the US to a Hispanic, rather than European, associated nation. This would push Central and South America into the economic core, which will further cripple Europe economically. The fourth would probably less to those same results initially but make for a Protestant v. Catholic 3T.

It doesn't matter that immigration has slowed, it's the birth rate that counts. There's no way that you're going to see white people as the majority by the end of the 1T. It doesn't matter if you like the music or not. You don't get to pick your fundamental musical influences, they come from what you hear, which when you're young is what your parents play. Xers listened to a lot of grunge. Most white Millennials do, too. It'll be a major influence merely by being present.

White people were not hippies before the 60s. It is not a white person's pursuit. Freer expression of your life, and spiritual understanding, are not racial matters. Someone could say it is racist to think so. Yes they WILL do their own thing and become hippies of some sort. Catholicism could change, and is changing. The esoteric lies at the root of all religions, waiting to be discovered there.

Young people in the 2040s and 50s will be influenced somewhat by prior music, but it will be largely the music of the previous 1T which doesn't exist yet. To some extent music from further back will influence them, but this will likely be the same roots of rock'n'roll in the blues, jazz etc. But mostly, as in the 60s, the music of the next late artists and prophets will spring from their own attitudes, desires and experiences. It will not at all be what their parents played, just as the hippie music had nothing in common with big band music and crooning.

E-life was me shorthanding people's digital lives into a single linear existence as opposed to a thousand different individual activities. As to background, it's very relevant in the 2T, in that it furthers the identity of a people. Much of the Black wave of our most recent 2T was spent establishing a new black culture around a furthered black identity. The IRA arose out of a new found sense of Irish Identity. What, do you think that a majority Hispanic nation isn't going to wake up and realize one day that a culture that is not their own is running what has become their nation? Especially while Europe is dying in relevance and population? While the satellite economic conquests of Europe like Japan are all but dead from relevance? Absolutely not. That imbalance isn't something that will stand in a 2T.

Nothing could be more certain than that Hispanic immigrants will throw off and abandon their empty and ugly hispanic roots culture. You think they will still be listening to mariachi bands? Gimme a bleepin break The trend of our time is inexorable; the "E life" you speak of is one world culture. Today all people enjoy and reap the benefits of the whole world's heritage.

Meanwhile, if the Hippie spiritual ideas were relevant they'd have spread and propagated amongst Xers and Millennials. They didn't. Must not have been what society was looking for. It was just a byproduct, not what was being cultivated.

You have a point there. They weren't looking for it. You guys have really missed out, since spirituality is what life IS. If they didn't like the hippie version, they needed to refine and update it. But they merely played out their archetypal saecular roles, rather than forwarding the change to a spiritual society in all turnings that is our destiny. Your dismal music totally failed too. Except for the hippie revival trends in electronica and raves, your culture is a complete downer; it does not uplift the spirit, as all music is supposed to do. So that is precisely why the next 2T will be a do over, as most 2Ts are. With some exceptions, your generations have failed to carry it forward, as was your task. So future generations will need to do it.

A contrary point though: why is the spiritual epic Stairway to Heaven still voted the #1 all-time classic rock song, even as late as 2011? Someone besides boomers must be appreciating this piece. 60s classic rock is by far the most respected pop music.

I do expect spirituality to be an aspect of the 2T as it always is. However as usual it will not be the productive aspect that transfers ideas forward to the 3rd, then 4th Turnings. Despite all attempts, most of the most beloved ideas of the 2T are the most discarded outside of it. If you can't get your nomads and civics to follow it, what odds would another set of prophets have? Especially with the painfully obvious example of why it wasn't a good idea in the first place. The first evangelically or Catholic raised kid starts showing hippie thinking and their parents and grand parents will simply point out how unproductive the mentality is. All they'll ever need to do is look at their kids and ask them where all the white secular people's kids are. Ask them why Europe declined and is now dying. Right there, that will be the end of that. The proof will be in the pudding as far as where the Hippie ideals got the last people who tried that, and it's over. Look at prohibition. There's enough power in the anti-tobacco lobby, but Boomers will never ban it. Why? Because they remember the lessons of prohibition, and that didn't even have the dramatic effect that the decline of European economic core will. The Missionaries didn't act like Abolitionists for much the same reason.

It is the deep deficiency in our culture that 2T spirituality is not carried forward to the next turnings. We let the deficiencies of all 4 of our archetypes ruin it. THAT is why our society fails. The real task of your generation is to rediscover these spiritual ideas from past 2Ts, and carry them forward and advance or revise them. It is not up to us to convince you, you must discover for yourself that materialism alone is false, and that life is art. Only then can we Americans enter the new age, rather than decaying and declining, as all civilizations do which are not based on spirituality. The hippies brought the best life into the world that had yet existed. They also were seeds of the tech culture as well. Your unawareness of the value of hippies is your own deficiency, and the next prophets will see beyond your blindness. No cultural expression is perfect; we learn lessons and move on.

The groups that fail in the 2T don't get to come back, though crowing like super-villians is frequently a popular exit. The leaders of the prohibition movement exited the ratification on the 21st amendment making claims that prohibition would be back once people realized how awful things got when it was legal. Slighted prophets are often classic villain stereotypes. Examples of this particular habit include Claw from Inspector Gadget and Dr. Doom from The Fantastic Four.

Prohibition has nothing to do with this. The 2T liberates. Prohibition came from previous turnings, mostly 3Ts. 2T spirituality always comes back, and the next hippies will bring an advanced and expanded form of hippie, just as the hippies advanced and greatly expanded the commune and new life experiments of the 1890s and 1900s.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I think you're seeing all the right stuff, but what I'm trying to point out is an important facet which you're missing: how you dress in the 90's and early 2000's had consequences. It still has some consequences now. In the future it won't. When I say formal, I'm talking not about presentation, which always changes (compare high society dress in England from 1200, 1500, and 1800, which is more formal in terms of the clothing? There's no comparison dress as one in the era of another and you're going to look like a clown), but rules and consequences both explicit and implicit.

So, this past 1T, the rules were informal, but inflexible and and very specific. You show up to work with out a tie, you're sent home without pay to change at best, fired was another possibility. Show up at a wedding and it doesn't matter who you are, you're getting kicked out. Most restaurants beyond diners and dive bars won't serve you.

So then you get to the next 1T. Like you said, work wear goes anything goes. Honestly, most of the millennial weddings I've been to have failed the dress code down to an untucked button down and nice jeans or slacks, and whatever for footwear. Most of them even had the groom as business casual to bridge the gap between their friends who they insist on including and who haven't had a real wardrobe upgrade since college, which was 5 years ago, or belong to a specific subculture which depends on dress wear, or who just doesn't like formal wear and won't show if he has to wear it, and their older family members who insist on wearing formal suits. Big difference from now and the 90's where the groom & entourage were expected to wear tuxedos whose colors matched the wedding theme. The mileage varies on how formal weddings and other events pay out in formality, but it's categorically less formal now.

So we get rid of the formal rules, people can where what they want and nobody cares right? Do you see the difference that makes? The last 2T saw a society which was totally made fragile by the rules they kept. Simply sitting around with long hair in t-shirts & jeans in public. So are the next prophets going to be able to do that? No. And quite frankly the death of formality will probably be seen as dull and boring. Check out the Boomers, they love ceremony, pomp and circumstance, and procedure. Millennials are different, especially Millennial guys. So when the 2T hits and the new prophets decide the new fashion is capes, leggings, a loin cloth and thigh high boots, no shirt and elbow length silk gloves for men, that won't really change the culture at all. It's not breaking any structures or rules. So what will? Pushing for rules. Establishing dress codes for specific events, having establishing events where ceremony and not people is the focus.

Boomers smashed up the rules, but never cleared them out or made new ones. This left a mine field of classist, elitist rules individualized by the elite running the show. Millennials, being inclusive sorts will step those rules away. The new prophets, response is most likely to do what prophets do, and raise the bar in areas that civics gave people the pass the most.

Okay well I'm pretty sure we're agreeing then because I did say millenials would break a lot of formal rules and expectations, I just think a lot of them wlll still dress formally. And I personally can't see millennial women in the future giving up the elaborate wedding dress and formal details. I'm sure the rules of what guests are allowed to wear will be relaxed though. When I was talking about the late 90s, early 00s I was talking about everyday out and about fashion not wedding or date-night fashion. But anyway, that's not really relevant to what I'm saying. I guess I'm just saying that the rules will be relaxed, but the wardrobe for many may not necessarily be as we don't know what will be in fashion in the 2030s and it could be something formal or it could be casual or both. Who knows.

You can't expect a generation to act beyond its archetype. I mean, if it does, great, but expecting a nomad to react like a prophet is like expecting a hammer to do the same task as a screwdriver. Even if the Boomers had been a successful prophet generation, expecting the spiritual whatever you cultivated amongst the prophets to translate the same to nomads or civics is so absurdly rare, that I don't think it's ever happened. Again, it's Boomers who failed, the remaining generations who followed and the ones that came before did their jobs. Expecting the rest of us to intrinsically just show up and rep your interests is ridiculous especially in light of the fact that the Boomers never repped much of anything than their own basic immediate desires.

Next up, yes, I expect people from a particular ethnic background to generally listen to the music that culture produces. The entire reason that American pop music propagates around the world isn't because it's somehow better than others, it's because our empire is able to export it easily because the rest of the world has to worry about what we're doing so generalized American interest spreads. The places where American music is most poplar are places that we have strong economic ties to. Meanwhile, I live in a place where there is no white majority. White people are the largest minority. You know what music Hispanic people listen to here? The same kinds they listen to in their country of origin. They shop at grocery stores that cater to their culture, right down to the language. Their churches are in Spanish, their television is in Spanish, and pretty much the entire way of life for them is Hispanic except for public life. What do you expect them to do? Integrate? To what? A culture that is disappearing?

Finally, I think you're very much confusing American Imperialism with a one world culture. When you force an outside culture on a people, that's not okay. E-life is an American cultural phenomenon, largely. It's how Americans have begun to do life. Because other people do not participate in our culture, that does not make their culture "ugly", nor does it make it some how less than. Likewise, incorporating a little pop-up culture and food does not mean or cultures are integrating, when you're the empire, usually it means you're appropriating. That's not a culture merge, that's just spoils and frills from being the empire. Despite many attempts from Japanese super fanboys, they've never managed to become Japanese. A little sushi, some K-pop, and a couple French films doesn't make a universal culture. Nor does any amount of cultural consumption and appropriation. You have to be raised in the traditions of that culture. It's why first and second generation immigrants usually don't fully integrate, and if a group is large enough third, fourth, and fifth generation immagrants don't fully integrate and infant can spread their cultural heritage into the dominant one. At over 50%, it'll be a take over.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Okay well I'm pretty sure we're agreeing then because I did say millenials would break a lot of formal rules and expectations, I just think a lot of them wlll still dress formally. And I personally can't see millennial women in the future giving up the elaborate wedding dress and formal details. I'm sure the rules of what guests are allowed to wear will be relaxed though. When I was talking about the late 90s, early 00s I was talking about everyday out and about fashion not wedding or date-night fashion. But anyway, that's not really relevant to what I'm saying. I guess I'm just saying that the rules will be relaxed, but the wardrobe for many may not necessarily be as we don't know what will be in fashion in the 2030s and it could be something formal or it could be casual or both. Who knows.

Girls usually get the dress and the ring, but the conventions of the ceremony are usually hammered out when they realize that they're asking their gay friends to enter a church with their boy friends and girl friends and how awkward that is, or they realize that a third of their friends are nonreligious, and some outliers are from a completely different religious background. That inclusiveness thing can include eliminating a whole lot. Plus then there's the cost of two venues, which is prohibitive, so that has to be factored in. Usually one person in any collective group of friends has an elaborate destination wedding and it serves as a cautionary tale to everyone else in that group, and they tone it down a whole lot.

As to the fashions in the late 90's to the early 2000's, the street wear was more informal with regards to our cultural conventions on what's formal and in formal, but that just meant people had more than one wardrobe, which is another display of wealth. When I was in college the in thing for girls to wear was black stretch pants, a handkerchief top, no bra, and a thong hanging out the back. Never mind that the entirety of that outfit could run $100. They weren't wearing that to class (well, most of them weren't). They had other, more appropriate clothes, and come about 9 o'clock they would change for the party. Guys of course, didn't do this. But in one day, a normal college girl could wear about $300 worth of clothes easily, and it was as much a decadent display as anything going on today if not more so.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Girls usually get the dress and the ring, but the conventions of the ceremony are usually hammered out when they realize that they're asking their gay friends to enter a church with their boy friends and girl friends and how awkward that is, or they realize that a third of their friends are nonreligious, and some outliers are from a completely different religious background. That inclusiveness thing can include eliminating a whole lot. Plus then there's the cost of two venues, which is prohibitive, so that has to be factored in. Usually one person in any collective group of friends has an elaborate destination wedding and it serves as a cautionary tale to everyone else in that group, and they tone it down a whole lot.

As to the fashions in the late 90's to the early 2000's, the street wear was more informal with regards to our cultural conventions on what's formal and in formal, but that just meant people had more than one wardrobe, which is another display of wealth. When I was in college the in thing for girls to wear was black stretch pants, a handkerchief top, no bra, and a thong hanging out the back. Never mind that the entirety of that outfit could run $100. They weren't wearing that to class (well, most of them weren't). They had other, more appropriate clothes, and come about 9 o'clock they would change for the party. Guys of course, didn't do this. But in one day, a normal college girl could wear about $300 worth of clothes easily, and it was as much a decadent display as anything going on today if not more so.

Well I think the "street wear" is less informal now. But that's besides the point anyway. We are pretty much in agreement that milies don't care much for stuffy rules, and I think we can agree that it doesn't mean they won't dress up or buy that gucci handbag if they can..because I honestly cannot see them turning weddings or formal gatherings into an anything goes venue with t-shirts, jeans, and flip flops. Like I said, I don't think they'll be as strict with the rules..but that doesn't mean they won't wear the nice expensive clothes for the night out. Not caring about clothes and just wearing a t-shirt and jeans wherever and whenever implies the death of the fashion industry and the concept of fashion, and that has never happened before in recent history and milies are not anti-fashion at all so there is just no way that's going to happen. There is always going to be a "nice" wardrobe, a "casual" wardrobe or a "nightlife" wardrobe. Can you really imagine a culture where people wear the same thing at work, at their first date, at home, and at the club?

Originally Posted by hkq999

Well I think the "street wear" is less informal now. But that's besides the point anyway. We are pretty much in agreement that milies don't care much for stuffy rules, and I think we can agree that it doesn't mean they won't dress up or buy that gucci handbag if they can..because I honestly cannot see them turning weddings or formal gatherings into an anything goes venue with t-shirts, jeans, and flip flops. Like I said, I don't think they'll be as strict with the rules..but that doesn't mean they won't wear the nice expensive clothes for the night out. Not caring about clothes and just wearing a t-shirt and jeans wherever and whenever implies the death of the fashion industry and the concept of fashion, and that has never happened before in recent history and milies are not anti-fashion at all so there is just no way that's going to happen. There is always going to be a "nice" wardrobe, a "casual" wardrobe or a "nightlife" wardrobe. Can you really imagine a culture where people wear the same thing at work, at their first date, at home, and at the club?

For men? Absolutely I can. Keep in mind that I come from a subculture where it wasn't unheard of to wear a suit in a most pit. I frequently wear street wear to work, sometimes I wear a suit, sometimes I wear a sweater & tie. I wear streetwear at home, and I wear it out, and when I went to shows (punk-ska scene equivalent of the club) I dressed down as much as possible most of the time. I turned down dates if I thought the girl was aiming for something that would require me to dress up for the occasion. At my wedding, I went from up to down, wearing a jacket, button up, vest, a pair of Dickie's and a pair of Fallen sneakers. I was there so my wife could wear her formal wedding dress while all our friends could wear t-shirts and not feel over dressed and our families could dress formally and not feel like they didn't get it.

I can totally see a generation of men who wear pretty much only what they have to most of the time, because it's just tedious to put that much thought into what you're wearing and to have to maintain two wardrobes I'd you're not into it. I like fashion. I don't mind it. Most guys don't care. And that majority, without having formal rules, in a 1T? It's totally T-shirt and jeans time. Or at least dress will be guided by the weather, not by rules or fashion.

Women? No. I think they'll keep their game going. I think that it's something intrinsic to women to want to do that, and I think that no matter what you do, women will find a way to force the fashion competition. It's one of those things they do.

Originally Posted by Kepi

For men? Absolutely I can. Keep in mind that I come from a subculture where it wasn't unheard of to wear a suit in a most pit. I frequently wear street wear to work, sometimes I wear a suit, sometimes I wear a sweater & tie. I wear streetwear at home, and I wear it out, and when I went to shows (punk-ska scene equivalent of the club) I dressed down as much as possible most of the time. I turned down dates if I thought the girl was aiming for something that would require me to dress up for the occasion. At my wedding, I went from up to down, wearing a jacket, button up, vest, a pair of Dickie's and a pair of Fallen sneakers. I was there so my wife could wear her formal wedding dress while all our friends could wear t-shirts and not feel over dressed and our families could dress formally and not feel like they didn't get it.

I can totally see a generation of men who wear pretty much only what they have to most of the time, because it's just tedious to put that much thought into what you're wearing and to have to maintain two wardrobes I'd you're not into it. I like fashion. I don't mind it. Most guys don't care. And that majority, without having formal rules, in a 1T? It's totally T-shirt and jeans time. Or at least dress will be guided by the weather, not by rules or fashion.

Women? No. I think they'll keep their game going. I think that it's something intrinsic to women to want to do that, and I think that no matter what you do, women will find a way to force the fashion competition. It's one of those things they do.

Maybe you're right. Do you think there'll still be fashion trends in the future?

Originally Posted by Kepi

You can't expect a generation to act beyond its archetype. I mean, if it does, great, but expecting a nomad to react like a prophet is like expecting a hammer to do the same task as a screwdriver. Even if the Boomers had been a successful prophet generation, expecting the spiritual whatever you cultivated amongst the prophets to translate the same to nomads or civics is so absurdly rare, that I don't think it's ever happened. Again, it's Boomers who failed, the remaining generations who followed and the ones that came before did their jobs. Expecting the rest of us to intrinsically just show up and rep your interests is ridiculous especially in light of the fact that the Boomers never repped much of anything than their own basic immediate desires.

The point really is, the 60s spiritual movements are a revolution; the aim is to change society. That was so was its beginning. From that point of view, it transcends generations. You are correct that I can't expect such from nomad and civic archetypes, but the fact remains, the United States is pathologically dysfunctional because it lacks spirituality. That is a need for change as great as pollution, inequality, racism or militarism within our society. Your opinion of boomers may be popular in some quarters; that does not make it true; and the spiritual movements of the 2T were created by many besides boomers, and its background extends back centuries and millennia. Other societies are spiritual through all their turnings; that is the normal condition. Modern Western society especially the US is the exception and the anomaly. But science and tech has had a hypnotic effect, and this distorts everything.

Next up, yes, I expect people from a particular ethnic background to generally listen to the music that culture produces. The entire reason that American pop music propagates around the world isn't because it's somehow better than others, it's because our empire is able to export it easily because the rest of the world has to worry about what we're doing so generalized American interest spreads. The places where American music is most poplar are places that we have strong economic ties to. Meanwhile, I live in a place where there is no white majority. White people are the largest minority. You know what music Hispanic people listen to here? The same kinds they listen to in their country of origin. They shop at grocery stores that cater to their culture, right down to the language. Their churches are in Spanish, their television is in Spanish, and pretty much the entire way of life for them is Hispanic except for public life. What do you expect them to do? Integrate? To what? A culture that is disappearing?

You would expect incorrectly. People today are part of a world culture; that is the destiny and condition of our times, and people will be listening to music of all cultures. Sure, American pop culture benefits from the empire, I agree. But large-scale Hispanic immigration dates mainly only back into the 3T. Their attachment to their ugly music will be temporary. And it is ugly not because it is theirs, but because it is ugly. The USA is a country of immigrants, and all other groups have assimilated within one generation and become part of American culture. It is strange to expect anything different from a group whose pop culture of origin is so inferior. There are deeper levels to this culture, but these are the things that are of interest to new agers and other spiritual people. So if Hispanics start getting interested in their deeper roots, that will gell nicely with the spirituality of 2Ts.

A culture that is disappearing? Come on! The whole issue is that there never has been much of an American culture! Even if you say there is, it only dates back a century, for the most part. Our "culture" is dominated by money. As Spengler said, we are a nation of dollar trappers, without past or future. The whole point of the recent 2T was to create a real American culture for the first time. And you guys are ignoring it. If we have no future, it will be because a 2T does not remake our civilization.

Finally, I think you're very much confusing American Imperialism with a one world culture. When you force an outside culture on a people, that's not okay. E-life is an American cultural phenomenon, largely. It's how Americans have begun to do life. Because other people do not participate in our culture, that does not make their culture "ugly", nor does it make it some how less than. Likewise, incorporating a little pop-up culture and food does not mean or cultures are integrating, when you're the empire, usually it means you're appropriating. That's not a culture merge, that's just spoils and frills from being the empire. Despite many attempts from Japanese super fanboys, they've never managed to become Japanese. A little sushi, some K-pop, and a couple French films doesn't make a universal culture. Nor does any amount of cultural consumption and appropriation. You have to be raised in the traditions of that culture. It's why first and second generation immigrants usually don't fully integrate, and if a group is large enough third, fourth, and fifth generation immigrants don't fully integrate and infant can spread their cultural heritage into the dominant one. At over 50%, it'll be a take over.

If you don't see that we live in a world culture now, you are not paying attention. It is not American culture; it is an exchange of cultures. My heritage now includes the traditions of Asia especially, as well as Europe (as was already the case among the educated, which was a tiny minority until this saeculum), and also southern cultures. The heritage of people who reside in these other cultures includes The West, and the other cultures as well. Diffusion of culture is the condition of our times, not as a result of the American Empire, but of the Western empires that preceded it, and perhaps some Asian modern empires as well. It is a result of technology too. Those who are paying attention are getting a lot more from other cultures than trivial things like K-pop. You don't have to be raised in other cultures at all to "get" things like Buddhism. Eastern philosophy has deeply influenced me and many other people, and not because I was raised in it. To a great extent, the things I was raised in I threw out! So that is completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Maybe you're right. Do you think there'll still be fashion trends in the future?

For Millennial men? Probably not until in and around the 2T. Nothing new anyway. We'll probably keep all the stuff amalgamated over the past 20 years, like different fits of pants, and the various athletic wear options, and a lot of the subculture fashions, but I think in a 1T environment, guys will want to wear what they've always worn. In a lot of ways the 1T is supposed to be a nice nap, I don't expect to see major innovations in adult men's fashion until late 1T, and that will probably be a young man's amalgamation. Kinda like you saw with early rockabilly styles in the 50's. Relatively simple and made up of things which already exist in men's fashion, just done a little different. I don't think it will be until the 2T when you start to see men experimenting with fashion trends. Artists have a habit of starting them when the grow up.

Now, there are times where fashion changes with the 1T, but that's when you're really altering the social fabric in a fundamental way. It'd take a whole lot, though, and I don't think that major changes are going to be in order. Even if we switch over to a Direct democracy, it won't be so novel a change in our direction that you'd see a drastic difference in dress to correct a division from the old world to the new.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The point really is, the 60s spiritual movements are a revolution; the aim is to change society. That was so was its beginning. From that point of view, it transcends generations. You are correct that I can't expect such from nomad and civic archetypes, but the fact remains, the United States is pathologically dysfunctional because it lacks spirituality. That is a need for change as great as pollution, inequality, racism or militarism within our society. Your opinion of boomers may be popular in some quarters; that does not make it true; and the spiritual movements of the 2T were created by many besides boomers, and its background extends back centuries and millennia. Other societies are spiritual through all their turnings; that is the normal condition. Modern Western society especially the US is the exception and the anomaly. But science and tech has had a hypnotic effect, and this distorts everything.

You would expect incorrectly. People today are part of a world culture; that is the destiny and condition of our times, and people will be listening to music of all cultures. Sure, American pop culture benefits from the empire, I agree. But large-scale Hispanic immigration dates mainly only back into the 3T. Their attachment to their ugly music will be temporary. And it is ugly not because it is theirs, but because it is ugly. The USA is a country of immigrants, and all other groups have assimilated within one generation and become part of American culture. It is strange to expect anything different from a group whose pop culture of origin is so inferior. There are deeper levels to this culture, but these are the things that are of interest to new agers and other spiritual people. So if Hispanics start getting interested in their deeper roots, that will gell nicely with the spirituality of 2Ts.

A culture that is disappearing? Come on! The whole issue is that there never has been much of an American culture! Even if you say there is, it only dates back a century, for the most part. Our "culture" is dominated by money. As Spengler said, we are a nation of dollar trappers, without past or future. The whole point of the recent 2T was to create a real American culture for the first time. And you guys are ignoring it. If we have no future, it will be because a 2T does not remake our civilization.

If you don't see that we live in a world culture now, you are not paying attention. It is not American culture; it is an exchange of cultures. My heritage now includes the traditions of Asia especially, as well as Europe (as was already the case among the educated, which was a tiny minority until this saeculum), and also southern cultures. The heritage of people who reside in these other cultures includes The West, and the other cultures as well. Diffusion of culture is the condition of our times, not as a result of the American Empire, but of the Western empires that preceded it, and perhaps some Asian modern empires as well. It is a result of technology too. Those who are paying attention are getting a lot more from other cultures than trivial things like K-pop. You don't have to be raised in other cultures at all to "get" things like Buddhism. Eastern philosophy has deeply influenced me and many other people, and not because I was raised in it. To a great extent, the things I was raised in I threw out! So that is completely irrelevant.

Yes Eric, the 2T was all about throwing out the old traditions and really relaxing them with nothing. I get it. It's an imperial posture, not any great new world culture. The Romans did it, and they were conquered from within by early Christians. I'm sure you would have found their music ugly, too. In a Turnings time America has been taken from within by another culture as well. No big. It happens to every empire ever. But there's no coming world culture, and the west is already fallen, it just doesn't know it yet.

Hey Kepi, enjoy this documentary that shows the 7 wonders of the Buddhist world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ZIpVKZaI4

At this point, the host specifically mentions how the hippies helped bring Buddhism to America, and how big it has grown in "the last 40 years" since the 2T, as well as how it first came to America in the previous 2T. Boomers have had a good impact.
http://youtu.be/H7ZIpVKZaI4?t=1h1m34s

One of the 7 wonders of the Buddhist world is in Los Angeles, imagine that! And built in the 1980s.

The 2T has left its mark on Xers and Millennials too. The revolution is proceeding apace, as well as could be expected.

Yes Eric, the 2T was all about throwing out the old traditions and really relaxing them with nothing. I get it. It's an imperial posture, not any great new world culture. The Romans did it, and they were conquered from within by early Christians. I'm sure you would have found their music ugly, too. In a Turnings time America has been taken from within by another culture as well. No big. It happens to every empire ever. But there's no coming world culture, and the west is already fallen, it just doesn't know it yet.

I'm not sure what you "get" New traditions exploded in the 2T. And old traditions were brought back, even as the superficial non-traditions of America were thrown out. Justifiably so, because they consisted of nothing at all.

The Romans did indeed create a world culture, by the standards of their time. There was lots of exchange in the Empire, and even with the east along the Silk Road. Then the new culture of Christianity conquered the Roman culture, although it was not what brought down the Empire itself. But that took 300 years. We are only a century or so into our own new "imperial" era. Our current civilization will be around another 400 years. Indeed, the West has already fallen. It fell in 1914. What has succeeded it, is the world culture (not a "coming" world culture, but the now-existing one!), which the West (and not America) created by making it possible. But the result is cultural exchange, just as happened in Rome.

And Christianity was a very rich source of art in the Western world; the biggest source by far in fact. No, you can't compare it to mariachi bands!

Originally Posted by Kepi

I can totally see a generation of men who wear pretty much only what they have to most of the time, because it's just tedious to put that much thought into what you're wearing and to have to maintain two wardrobes I'd you're not into it. I like fashion. I don't mind it. Most guys don't care. And that majority, without having formal rules, in a 1T? It's totally T-shirt and jeans time. Or at least dress will be guided by the weather, not by rules or fashion.

Women? No. I think they'll keep their game going. I think that it's something intrinsic to women to want to do that, and I think that no matter what you do, women will find a way to force the fashion competition. It's one of those things they do.

Fashion? Its basically a womens' thing. For males the choices are limited, dull, and boring-so why care about clothes?

And there is a reason why men refer to formal garb as "monkey suits".

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Fashion? Its basically a womens' thing. For males the choices are limited, dull, and boring-so why care about clothes?

And there is a reason why men refer to formal garb as "monkey suits".

I think that ended with the 2T. Men wear many colorful and sensual fashions as well as more formal ones.