Originally Posted by noway2

On that note, the current situation is definitely one of being like a stopped up drain. The politicians are ineffective, the economy is ineffective, conflict is starting to happen around the world. Domestically, we have reached a point where the populace is polarizing under the false flag Red and Blue banners, which is I believe being deliberately organized by the powers behind the curtain, but there also seems to be a number of people, like myself who are starting to reject both. I say it's being deliberately organized because the rhetoric from even the people is too coordinated and much of it comes down from the media mouthpieces. Over the last several months, I've been noticing a ratcheting up of tensions between the groups and a growing intolerance. It is becoming clear that cooperation and mutual respect are not possible and every case is a matter of cramming your way down the opposition's throat. Again, over the last several months, I've been noticing a trend with more and more people saying that they believe the only solution to the problems in America is to stop talking and start fighting against the government and against others of the "opposite" political persuasion with a feeling that ones very way of life is at stake.

Nah, it's becoming clear that if we want to clear the drain, we are going to have to get behind the Blue flag. Yes, the tension is ratcheting up and people will have to choose between progress and reaction. If anything, the media mouthpieces are lilly-livered moderates who straddle the fence. It won't work.

I wrote out what micro-turning dates I came up with here:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...633#post489633

with an analysis in the posts above it. We are IMO in a "crisis-high."

Here's the list:
Micro-turning approximate and tentative dates, based on the paradigm that a turning begins with a micro-turning of the same archetype as the turning itself, and proceeds through the order; then jumps to the next double micro-turning. Emphasis on the USA events, with some European events that may affect the USA then or later.

crisis-crisis: crisis breaks out; depression, revolution, or near-civil war. Major reforms or agreements.
1774-1778
c.1850-1853
1929-1933
2008-2012

crisis-high: mini-recovery, relative stability and peace, proceeding toward accomplishment. "Indian Autumn."
1778-1783
c.1853-1856
1933-1936
2013-2018

crisis-awakening: agitation and rebellion increasing, dreams and fears
1783-1787
c.1856-1860
1937-1940
2018-2024

crisis-unraveling: the crisis "unravels" and all hell breaks loose. Conflict, controversy, new order founded.
1787-1794
1861-1864
1941-1946
2025-2028

high-high: adjustments and crisis aftermath. Hatred of foreigners and enemies. Institutions founded and start to work. Stability established, and reform retreats. Conformity advances or is enforced. Some conflict(s) continue.
1794-1799
1865-1871
1946-1952
2028-2033

high-awakening: social and cultural mini-awakening give hints of the awakening to come. Upheavals in Europe late in the period that bring trouble for the USA later.
1800-1805
1872-1877
1952-1956
2033-2037

high-unraveling: stable period of industrial advancement and concentration. Impatience with status quo on the rise though, and international tensions that break out in the next period.
1806-1810
1878-1882
1956-1959
2037-2042

high-crisis: international crisis occurs. First stirrings of awakening reform movements.
1811-1815
1882-1886
1960-1964
2042-2046

awakening-awakening: explosive outburst of awakening social movements and awakening of liberation impulses, and spiritual revelations.
1815-1821
1886-1892
1964-1969
2046-2052

awakening-unraveling: disillusion with the radical movements, or increasing suppression or defeat of them. The awakening is quieter and more feminine.
1821-1825
1892-1897
1970-1974
2052-2057?

awakening-crisis: international crisis, revolution and war affect the USA, and stir up counter-awakening or new awakening impulses.
1825-1831
1898-1902
1974-1979
2057-2062?

awakening-high: blustering president inspires confidence. Calmer and less socially-active period. Attacks on big government and/or big corporations.
1831-1835
1903-1908
1980-1984
2062-2066?

unraveling-unraveling: presidential restraint increases; socially calm, financial panics likely. Policies that support business and inequality grow.
1835-1838
1908-1912
1984-1989
2066-2072?

unraveling-crisis: short, successful international war likely, or soon to follow, which makes conquests and/or attempts to reshape international order. Financial reforms and tax increases. Many tech innovations.
1757-1763
1839-1844
1913-1918
1990-1996

unraveling-high: The unravelling takes a reactionary turn. Explosion by militants or some other excuse inspires repression, and/or a war that continues the one in the previous micro-turning. Suspicion of enemies. Return to normalcy and conformity; reform era ends. War, repression and reaction sets the course for the 4T to come.
1763-1769
1844-1848
1918-1922
1997-2003

unraveling-awakening: mushrooming social or revolutionary ferment and concern amidst continuing conservative policies. Social and tech fads. Rampant financial speculation.
1770-1773
1844-1849 (overlap anomaly)
1923-1929
2003-2008

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nah, it's becoming clear that if we want to clear the drain, we are going to have to get behind the Blue flag. Yes, the tension is ratcheting up and people will have to choose between progress and reaction. If anything, the media mouthpieces are lilly-livered moderates who straddle the fence. It won't work.

No, the purple flag, like the flag held by FDR, Truman, Ike and JFK.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

You're quite the optimist.

Total War in 21st century conditions will bring on a whole new phase of human history. It will be a discontinuity that far exceeds any previous human-caused discontinuity. While not quite rising to the level of discontinuities caused by Mother Nature, it will approach that level closely enough to give rise to legends and lore that will last for thousands of years.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

No, the purple flag, like the flag held by FDR, Truman, Ike and JFK.

FDR, Truman and JFK were blue; Ike was purple. FDR was the best Crisis leader. Whether there will be another FDR is doubtful, but there will be movement forward, as in his era, in the 2020s, when the Red resistance is broken and the "drain" flows again. The Republicans are just blocking the drain; that is their only function.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Total War in 21st century conditions will bring on a whole new phase of human history. It will be a discontinuity that far exceeds any previous human-caused discontinuity. While not quite rising to the level of discontinuities caused by Mother Nature, it will approach that level closely enough to give rise to legends and lore that will last for thousands of years.

I guess you could call that "optimistic"! If a legendary era is what you look to. Myself, I think the 21st century will be more peaceful than the 20th, by far, and upcoming 4T wars will be milder than the previous two 4T wars. It is indeed Mother Nature, as we have despoiled her, that will bring the greatest discontinuity-- during this 4T and going forward through the century. Our task now, in this century, is to retool and readjust to the reality of what we have done, and bring on the changes needed to live sustainably within Mother Nature from now on.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nah, it's becoming clear that if we want to clear the drain, we are going to have to get behind the Blue flag. Yes, the tension is ratcheting up and people will have to choose between progress and reaction. If anything, the media mouthpieces are lilly-livered moderates who straddle the fence. It won't work.

In order for that to happen a few things would have to change, such as dropping the neo liberal economic policies and gun control. These are some of the, as you put it, reactive, aspects of team Blue. As long as they are still nothing but another group of plutocrats who wish to use the force of govt to impose their utopian views upon people they are no different than team Red who wishes to do the same but on different issues.

From where I stand today, I think both teams need to burn.

Originally Posted by noway2

In order for that to happen a few things would have to change, such as dropping the neo liberal economic policies and gun control. These are some of the, as you put it, reactive, aspects of team Blue. As long as they are still nothing but another group of plutocrats who wish to use the force of govt to impose their utopian views upon people they are no different than team Red who wishes to do the same but on different issues.

From where I stand today, I think both teams need to burn.

Drop the neo-liberal economic policies; for sure. The "new Democrats" compromise policies from the Clinton era are passe. But gun control is good and necessary for public safety, and certainly not reactionary; those who don't like it can grab their guns and talk trash and stir up trouble. They'll get their asses kicked. But, I know people like to argue about it and call it something to "drop." It doesn't have to be front and center, but it has to happen sooner or later. The gun lobby cannot forever be allowed to rule America.

Plutocrats are private-enterprise corporate barons, not people who use the govt. Blue people who use the govt are mostly the people who want justice and fairness; that's the Blue team.

But yes, utopian views should be viewed with caution. Ideals are good, as long-term goals. Some on the Left, however, cannot tolerate any deviation from leftist party lines. We blues and greens need to realize that politicians are never going to give us everything we want; not in America, certainly. And they have political and economic realities to deal with, once they are actually in office. Theories may not quite measure up to facts. Someone like Obama is about the best president America can hope for, for the time being, until we wise up someday.

Even though it looks like blue vs. red today, it's also possible that the 2-party duopoly could be challenged during this 4T. Most other countries don't consider it the best way to govern or legislate, and parliamentary rather than presidential systems are the norm. Our system is archaic. If this doesn't happen, though, our only hope is with the Blue team, and to "occupy" the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

No, the current situation is more like the mid 30s not the late 30s. When we reach that point, you and the rest of the world will know it. Millions will be dying at that point. When we reach the early 40s equivalent, billions will be dying and most cities will look like Warsaw / Hiroshima / Dresden or worse (maybe just a series of craters).

We disagree....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Drop the neo-liberal economic policies; for sure. The "new Democrats" compromise policies from the Clinton era are passe. But gun control is good and necessary for public safety, and certainly not reactionary; those who don't like it can grab their guns and talk trash and stir up trouble. They'll get their asses kicked. But, I know people like to argue about it and call it something to "drop." It doesn't have to be front and center, but it has to happen sooner or later. The gun lobby cannot forever be allowed to rule America.

Plutocrats are private-enterprise corporate barons, not people who use the govt. Blue people who use the govt are mostly the people who want justice and fairness; that's the Blue team.

But yes, utopian views should be viewed with caution. Ideals are good, as long-term goals. Some on the Left, however, cannot tolerate any deviation from leftist party lines. We blues and greens need to realize that politicians are never going to give us everything we want; not in America, certainly. And they have political and economic realities to deal with, once they are actually in office. Theories may not quite measure up to facts. Someone like Obama is about the best president America can hope for, for the time being, until we wise up someday.

Even though it looks like blue vs. red today, it's also possible that the 2-party duopoly could be challenged during this 4T. Most other countries don't consider it the best way to govern or legislate, and parliamentary rather than presidential systems are the norm. Our system is archaic. If this doesn't happen, though, our only hope is with the Blue team, and to "occupy" the Democratic Party.

Do you still feel as if the smelly brown stuff won't really hit the fan until after this decade is out?

Originally Posted by millennialX

We disagree....

Yeah, do you get the feeling that this crisis era is going to be a lot less explosive than the last, at least domestically? Also I kinda get the vibe that our "disposable" society will be largely regarded as a "disposable" time in history the farther we get from it. We like it fine, but I think our era will not have lots of nostalgia generated after the fact. No celebration.

December 2013 - January 2014 was a shift in mood that I thought very noticeable when I observed it, I was actually surprised to see the entire field shift so suddenly--it struck me as rather peculiar, and the funny thing was I recognized the attitude quite clearly with how laissez-faire it was. It was almost as if the 3T had returned, but with a 4T flavor. The recently short-lived "gas bubble" (which I saw minuscule effects of where I lived) and the cultural response it spawned only confirmed my opinion on the subject.

We be in Micro 3T. Problems like Ferguson will continue to pop up or get worse, but very little action will be done to solve the problems as society continues to split into its respective camps and build loyalty within those camps--preparing for the events to come in the Micro 4T. The attempt to discover (or re-discover) ideas and convert people to these new ideas the Micro 2T (as we saw with the Tea Party, the Coffee Party, Occupy, etc.) is over. The sides know who they are, and they no longer care about trying to convert the other--only about making their model the most likely to take over when the other one (in their mind) either collapses under its own weight (Red dream) or falls apart due to how patchwork it is (Blue dream). That's the game plan I see society having divided itself into. The time for conversion and discovery is over. The time for developing those ideas, building team loyalty and brand name is here; and here to stay for the nonce.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

December 2013 - January 2014 was a shift in mood that I thought very noticeable when I observed it, I was actually surprised to see the entire field shift so suddenly--it struck me as rather peculiar, and the funny thing was I recognized the attitude quite clearly with how laissez-faire it was. It was almost as if the 3T had returned, but with a 4T flavor. The recently short-lived "gas bubble" (which I saw minuscule effects of where I lived) and the cultural response it spawned only confirmed my opinion on the subject.

We be in Micro 3T. Problems like Ferguson will continue to pop up or get worse, but very little action will be done to solve the problems as society continues to split into its respective camps and build loyalty within those camps--preparing for the events to come in the Micro 4T. The attempt to discover (or re-discover) ideas and convert people to these new ideas the Micro 2T (as we saw with the Tea Party, the Coffee Party, Occupy, etc.) is over. The sides know who they are, and they no longer care about trying to convert the other--only about making their model the most likely to take over when the other one (in their mind) either collapses under its own weight (Red dream) or falls apart due to how patchwork it is (Blue dream). That's the game plan I see society having divided itself into. The time for conversion and discovery is over. The time for developing those ideas, building team loyalty and brand name is here; and here to stay for the nonce.

~Chas'88

Have you decided on the 2001ish start date, then? For what it's worth, I am still on the fence (though still leaning for a later date), but the microturning lineup posted by Debol above does look very intriguing.


Kepi,

I think you're probably right, unless you're very, very wrong, do you know what I mean?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Have you decided on the 2001ish start date, then? For what it's worth, I am still on the fence (though still leaning for a later date), but the microturning lineup posted by Debol above does look very intriguing.

Long ago decided on 2001--not it. Nothing that's come since then has convince me otherwise. I'll agree it was the start of the micro-4T for the Unraveling, when all the issues of the Unraveling started being resolved and action very quickly began being taken. That all characterizes a micro 4T, sudden action and a shift to action after a long period of inaction. When it settles down to where immediate action no longer is needed then you've shifted to micro 1T (2005).

My definitions of Micro-Turnings are more about observing how people react:

Micro 1T - a calm, a lull after a tremendous shift of action, a settling down into the new environment created by the Micro 4T

Micro 2T - a discovery of new ideas & attempts at conversion & doing battle, usually prompted by a Micro 1T's overreach which inspires blow back

Micro 3T - a developing of those ideas into game plans, attempts to create or develop their own team to be ready if needed, a pull back into their own camp

Micro 4T - a sudden need to take action to solve pressing issues long ignored that were set up during the micro 1T that all of a sudden come to a head in the Micro 4T after having been ignored for the majority of the turning due to the development of the Micro 2T's ideas; it's where one side rams through their game plan at the expense of the other to establish a new order of things. When that order has been established and further action isn't seen as pressing, you get to the lull of a micro 1T.

Popular opinion would front load a Turning (essentially looking at micro 4T - micro 3T as one turning), but I base my model on how S&H lay out their theory, by putting a 4T at the end. A 4T creates the Saeculum to come but concludes the issues of the current turning. Technically it belongs to both Saeculums IMO, with little arguments like we have over here about when things start or finish as essentially acknowledging a 4T of sorts--whether it be of the Turning or Micro-Turning label.

The big theme of this overall Turning quite obviously is the relationship of the Government with the American People. 9/11 was a nice conclusion to the issues that Reagan inadvertently set up by supporting the Afghani resistance when the Soviet Union began their invasion in the 1980s.

What Reagan didn't realize was he was interfering with the Muslim world as it was undergoing the equivalent of its own Reformation. Quite frankly the Muslim world's problems resemble quite startlingly the issues which Christianity faced during its Reformation IMO. And Reagan was helping a Radical Muslim equivalent to a group similar enough to Radical Anabaptism as seen most prominently in the strain begun by Melchior Hoffman, whose followers brought about the Muenster Commune (really juicy story to compare to Jonestown, by the way if anyone is curious). Now imagine that say a wealthy foreign power came in and funded the Muenster Commune and kept it from falling apart for many years to come. All of a sudden that Commune which claimed it was going to conquer the earth and kill all those who didn't believe what they did in order to bring about the end of the world isn't going to be going away, and they're going to stir up trouble as they actively try to bring about the end of the world through resistance movements.

Yeah, in comparison the Muslim world is undergoing it's own variation of the Reformation and we went and messed with it...

And like any good 4T, both Turning and micro-Turning, the solution to the problem that's given, becomes the problem to be solved in the next 4T. I.E. the stronger relationship between Governments and Corporations & Government and the people that was the solution to the Great Depression & WWII (and was born out of the Missionary Awakening when the Progressive Generation started campaigning that we should be a "big nation" that does "big things"--thank you Teddy Roosevelt--the ultimate solution to which in the last 4T being that a "big government" (bolstered by a marriage with "big corporations") was needed for us to be a "big nation" of "big people" and to do "big things"), have now been taken to their ultimate extremes and is seen AS the problem. Likewise the solution to 9/11--a problem caused by Reagan's determination to bring an end to Communism by helping the Afghanis--has brought with it the problem of big government overreach: Patriot Act, which will be dealt with in some manner by the end of this overall Turning, but most especially in the micro-4T--either being confirmed and upheld or overturned and denied--the two most obvious answers--while other options such as "partially repealed" or "modified to some degree" also being possibilities. 9/11 was a micro 4T event, most definitely, but whether or not you consider a micro 4T the start of a Turning proper or as the dying part of a Turning (a view that matches S&H's outlined theory given how they frame 1T - 4T the way they do) comes down to personal preference. Any way you frame it a 4T, whether it be micro or macro is a period of transition belonging to both periods on either side of it.

~Chas'88

All of which is well and good, and I agree with a lot of it, though I remain agnostic on the existence of microturnings. However, assuming that such a thing exists, I don't see how the timeline works out for us to be in a micro3T. Could you clarify?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Have you decided on the 2001ish start date, then? For what it's worth, I am still on the fence (though still leaning for a later date), but the microturning lineup posted by Debol above does look very intriguing.


Kepi,

I think you're probably right, unless you're very, very wrong, do you know what I mean?

Very much so. And honestly, if I'm wrong about it, I'd prefer to be that level of wrong. Like "oh obviously, we were all secretly controlled by trans-dimensional lizard men all along" wrong.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

All of which is well and good, and I agree with a lot of it, though I remain agnostic on the existence of microturnings. However, assuming that such a thing exists, I don't see how the timeline works out for us to be in a micro3T. Could you clarify?

From 9/11 to Katrina I think most of us can agree that Bush had a blank check to push through things that his side had wanted for a long while, labeled as solutions to the problems which America faced.

Katrina to the Global Market Meltdown was a quiet period in comparison--very little got done, and it seemed as though Bush was out of ideas.

Global Market Meltdown to the Government Shutdown 2.0 was a busy and active period, full of discovery of new ideas and attempts from both sides to try and convert one another.

Government Shutdown 2.0 to the present is the new "can't get anything done" & "I don't care much" period.

Morning in America - Berlin Wall = Micro 1T for the 3T (again look for a calm, quiet period)
Berlin Wall - Government Shutdown 1.0 = Micro 2T for the 3T (active, fit of change)
Government Shutdown 1.0 - 9/11 = Micro 3T for the 3T (I don't care much, while the warning signs of the problem getting bigger occurs)
9/11 - Katrina = Micro 4T for the 3T (active, fit of change)

Katrina - 2008 Global Meltdown = Micro 1T for the 4T
2008 Global Meltdown - Government Shutdown 2.0 = Micro 2T for the 4T
Government Shutdown 2.0 - present = Micro 3T for the 4T

Again, this takes the model that S&H laid out for their saeculums and applies it on a smaller scale to their turnings.

1T = calm, quiet period of exhaustion after much change, a restful period of consensus where if there's any discontent it's looked upon as a minority or is underground

2T = active challenge of the consensus, discovery and search for new ideas, attempts to convert people to those ideas, in America the new ideas eventually get funneled into a duality--even if they don't fit very well

3T = conversions stop, an armistice is drawn up between competing sides, the consensus is continually unwinding, but nobody can agree on how to move forward, or really gives a shit anymore, people build their own "community's version" at home and build team/brand loyalty

4T = the problems have come to a head and need to be addressed with solutions--whatever will work things occur too fast for people to think things through, old widely contested culture transitions to a new one of general consensus


A good example of a populace's desires in a micro 4T vs a micro 1T: (and how a similar event can be reacted to during a micro 4T and a micro 1T)

1902 - Anthracite Coal Strike - seen as a national problem, ushers in a policy of changes associated with the Square Deal

vs

1910 - 1911 Westmoreland Strike - shutdown and kept a local problem

Keep in mind that I'm not comparing the events themselves, so much as widespread reaction the general populace had to these events.

~Chas'88

Ok, I'd buy that. So that would put the end of the micro3T in the late 2016-2018 range, and the end of the macro-4T somewhere in the 2020-2024ish timeperiod? I could see that. For me, cause I follow international affairs/current events instead of sports, I always leaned towards a 2008 startdate because that is clearly what it was for Europe and China, but since I think we exited the last saeculum a few years before everyone else I could buy us leaving the 3T a few years sooner. Thanks.



Anyone want to make bets on the likely catalyst for the micro-4T? Market Meltdown 2.0? Foreign conflicts? A disputed election? Something else?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Anyone want to make bets on the likely catalyst for the micro-4T? Market Meltdown 2.0? Foreign conflicts? A disputed election? Something else?

Market Meltdown? Very likely.
Foreign conflict? Both parties leading candidates look hellbent on doing it.
Disputed election? Also possible but less likely.

It may well be all of the above.

I'm betting on two out of three, for much the same reasons you gave.

I think a market meltdown will actually be what takes us out of major foreign conflict.

We melt down and get bogged down with the resulting problems, leaving room for the foreign players to make big moves, fragmenting the economic world into smaller chunks with 3 or 4 different cores.

The US crashes.

Russia takes Europe and finally gets the spoils of victory (they won the Napoleonic Wars and World War II and got the shaft both times).

Meanwhile the US is reworking it's finances and basic governmental structure.

The Middle East reorganizes, possibly taking out the Zionist government in Israel. The US is too preoccupied to back Israel.

Asia reorganizes (I know you and I disagree on this, but it's where I put it) around South Korea and India as China is crippled economically because the US is basically seizing on the table and unable to funnel billions of dollars in interest into China, causing massive internal problems (in lieu of South Korea, it could also be a newly independent Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even possibly Singapore, but I'm really thinking it's going to be a small but powerful nation strapping India to their backs like diesel powered jet pack).

Meanwhile in Latin America, with the US occupied, criminal cartels take total run of the place. So once the US gets itself back together, getting Latin America back in order is the first order of business and that becomes the US's new primary sphere of influence.

Fin.

That's where I think things are going.

If you look at the candidates running, unless we get a Paul or Warren type I think that the more likely response to a meltdown would be a Military Keynesianism expansion. The Republicans aren't losing the House, at the very least, and military spending is one of the few big expansions of federal funds I could see them approving, along with an infrastructure program with big give aways for the oil/gas industry (keystone, export terminals, maybe rail, etc). I think that's more likely, given the nature of the political consensus, but I could see scenarios where what you're talking about happens. Russia expanding in plodding, round-about 1T fashion is already here and a given. We still disagree on the China thing (and I really do mean to respond once midterms is over), and I think the China/Taiwan dynamics are such that that situation will be the crux of their 4T. India/Pakistan situation is unstable, and I'm waiting for the next Pakistani government to take them on a collision course with Modi's India. The Middle East is going through a 30 years war equivalent, and borders will be drastically different in 20 years. Pretty sure the death of Jong il and accession of Jong un marks the start of the NK 4T, so we'll see how that turns out. Don't think there is a force in the ME that can best the Israelis this saeculum, and I bet the Palestinian issue gets resolved when the Israeli right uses the chaos globally to shove them out of the West Bank into Jordan, which is already majority Palestinian anyways. Latin American countries are going to be going through their 2T during this time period, so nothing to dramatic (though I'm looking for some cool cultural products). The EU is probably not willing to be a German financial colony indefinitely, so I'm expecting anti-system forces on the right and left to break the common market/currency right when their aging demographics and peak oil fry their economies. So, once again, minor quibbles in interpretation, but basically seeing the same things. I don't expect the dust to really settle until 2030 globally, though I am willing to entertain notions of an early exit for this or that country, like the US.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I think a market meltdown will actually be what takes us out of major foreign conflict.

We melt down and get bogged down with the resulting problems, leaving room for the foreign players to make big moves, fragmenting the economic world into smaller chunks with 3 or 4 different cores.

The US crashes.

Russia takes Europe and finally gets the spoils of victory (they won the Napoleonic Wars and World War II and got the shaft both times).

Meanwhile the US is reworking it's finances and basic governmental structure.

The Middle East reorganizes, possibly taking out the Zionist government in Israel. The US is too preoccupied to back Israel.

Asia reorganizes (I know you and I disagree on this, but it's where I put it) around South Korea and India as China is crippled economically because the US is basically seizing on the table and unable to funnel billions of dollars in interest into China, causing massive internal problems (in lieu of South Korea, it could also be a newly independent Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even possibly Singapore, but I'm really thinking it's going to be a small but powerful nation strapping India to their backs like diesel powered jet pack).

Meanwhile in Latin America, with the US occupied, criminal cartels take total run of the place. So once the US gets itself back together, getting Latin America back in order is the first order of business and that becomes the US's new primary sphere of influence.

Fin.

That's where I think things are going.

This carries on from conversations started many yesterdays ago. Today there is more urgency but still a lack of confidence. While there are things that need to be said and just can't wait, we nevertheless don't seem to have the balls to proceed. We seem to have given up hope especially when it comes to challenging the corporate-controlled establishment. Maybe after the Occupy movement failed to gain the necessary muster, so many feel that what's the use trying. Does any news on the global front echo these themes? Do you see any unprecedented agreements and exciting new liaisons taking us into new territory?

If shit really goes pear-shaped in the Northern hemisphere in the 2020s the way Thompson/Howe/Goldstein/Wallerstein et al were predicting in the 90s, we could see places like Brazil and Australia become cultural refuges during and in the aftermath, which ties into our thesis of Latin America becoming really culturally relevant in the next saeculum.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

If shit really goes pear-shaped in the Northern hemisphere in the 2020s the way Thompson/Howe/Goldstein/Wallerstein et al were predicting in the 90s, we could see places like Brazil and Australia become cultural refuges during and in the aftermath, which ties into our thesis of Latin America becoming really culturally relevant in the next saeculum.

Brazil, specifically, was one of my thoughts as being a major front runner as hegemon of the western world, at least eventually.

Australia is interesting. Culturally, they'd probably most likely fit in with the west, but financially it makes more sense for them go with the east. What might happen is that they become a sort of regulatory trade hub between the east and west. I think trade will slow down as with the rest of the economy, but it will never stop. It makes sense that the Australians would prop themselves up to run trade between the east and west, possibly including the Middle East and Africa as well.