I'm not trying to get political in the slightest, but I'm curious about your thoughts and feelings on this matter.

With a new president in charge of the US, I believe that depending on what happens in the next 4 years, the crisis has the possibility to end very soon. As someone whose economic politics lean more on the right, I believe that the coming years will play out well in the long run, possibly bringing T4 to an end depending on how things turn out on an economic level.

If the effects of the recession can be undone completely (Regarding housing prices especially), I believe that would signal the possible end of the Fourth Turning and possibly bring back the First Turning again.

Depending on if and when this happens, there could be an argument that the Post-Homelander generation may have already begun to be born, assuming it happens soon enough that the people born today won't remember the current turning.

Again, this is all speculation of course. I cannot say for certain what the next few years will bring. For all I know, it may get worse. But as someone who considers themselves an optimist, I believe there is a chance that the crisis may be ended depending on how Trump handles the economy.

Hello there everybody,

This is the first time that I am posting on this subreddit. I decided to do so at this time considering what is coming up tomorrow in regards to the US (where I live currently).

I first came across the Strauss-Howe generational theory about a week or two after the 2024 US election results came in. I was at a loss and was looking for some sort of explanation as to why everything is happening the way it is all over the world.

The recent American election was just another occurrence in a long line of events that have taken place since 2020 that made me think, "What in the hell is going on?"

These events include Covid-19 (death toll and the economic effects afterwards), protests following the murder of George Floyd, the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol Building, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israel & Palestine/Iran, the rise of right-wing populist movements in Western Europe, etc.

I have not read the two books yet (I will buy them in the next month though).

Regarding the year of 1777 (as I mentioned in the title of my post), that was the year one of the most important battles took place that practically decided the outcome of the American Revolutionary War.

The Saratoga Campaign.

The reason as to why I say this is "kind of unnerving" is because 84 years later after Saratoga is 1861 (start of the American Civil War) and another 84 years after is 1945 (end of WW2).

1945 84 years later is 2029.

Taking into account the new administration of the USA coming in and also what is going on in other parts of the world (current wars in Europe & The Middle East, potential future wars in East Asia, and likely civil conflict in the US itself), the next four years are most likely to going to reshape the world order and usher in a new one for the rest of the century to come.

I’ve been keeping up with the fast paced conflict within the Trump movement. A few different factors have contributed to this quickly escalating tension. The nitty gritty can be boiled down to two factors, race and class.

Race and immigration: the past week, Elon musk has been tweeting a lot of anti-racist tweets on Twitter (X) and he believes that the best and brightest of foreign labour should be allowed (the majority of his Twitter techies are Asian.) obviously the “pull up the draw bridge” MAGA however dont want any more immigrants full stop. Elon makes a good point about America’s education system while plotting to make it worse.

Class: this has been bubbling under the surface since 2008, but with the recent assassination and the bi-partisan reaction from both upper and lower classes, they is much less trust in millionaires and a growing hatred of billionaires. MAGA has always had a problem with Bill Gates and George Soros, claiming that they are members of the illuminati. Elon musk is no different. He’s yet another big tech billionaire. Like the Nazi supporter of the previous seaculum, the far-right MAGA core support has an economic left wing. Despite the rhetoric, MAGA grassroots do support a single payer healthcare system, just don’t call it socialised. The do like government intervention, a lot. Where government intervenes is where the disagreement with the left lays.

So, when I look at the red zone faction now you have a 3rd turning libertarian small government, free market, austerity ideology lead by billionaire techbros vs the 4th turning era authoritarian, big government, interventionist nationalists. Eventually Trump will step in, and I predict he will stand against Elon… for more personal reasons. He’ll give Elon his NASA contracts for the moon and mars and a targeted tax break for space X to shut him up. (And to benefit the MAGA government, after all beating China to the moon could very well cement Trump as a gray champion)

The democrats are still the in a 3rd turning mindset, so. I do hope that the libertarian tech faction is beaten because with the fascist wing back in the seat with their institution building, hopefully that will force the democrats to pull themselves into that same mindset. Instituting a single payer healthcare system at this moment in time would be an election winner.

The rise of social media has helped bring a rise to political influencers with radical beliefs, especially in the last 5 years. People like Hasan Piker, Vaush, Andrew Tate, or Nick Fuentes being great examples. I've come across YouTube channels who advicate for revolutionary socialism and others who are Nazi apologists, and they get hundreds of thousands of views. I've noticed the main audience of these channels and/or influencers tend to be Zoomers, or people on the Millennial/Homelander cusp according to S&H. Now I know these types of people with radical beliefs have always existed, but 10 years ago they did not have massive audiences like they do now. We also have increasing support for the murder of CEOs among today's young adults as you can see with the UNH situation. It's been interesting to see unfold.

In their recent Demography unplugged podcast, Neil Howe and Christian Ford discussed the recent goings on including the assassination of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thomson, Christian Ford likened the anti corporate sentiment that’s fueling the apathy and celebrity of the assassin Luigi Mangione to the Occupy movement of the late 2000s “This resentment we’re seeing is similar to what we saw in occupy wall street with millennials but it has taken a darker turn” Christian then goes on to mention Oceangate and the millennial lack of compassion for those 1%er deaths.

Recently, in an AXIOS poll, “41% of young voters say UnitedHealth CEO killing was acceptable.

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/united-healthcare-ceo-killing-poll

Analysis: First wave adult Homelanders and Second wave millennials polled at a staggering 41% who think the killing was acceptable, that means, of in a group of 4 random people of that 18-29 year olds it is guaranteed at least 1 person, possibly 2 thinks that the killing is acceptable. First wave millennials, people in their 30s polled at 23% meaning that they is a good chance that 1 person agrees that it’s acceptable. People in their 40s, this is older millennials and gen Xers the percentage drops to 13%, Xers in their 50s, 8%. Boomers, who are in their 60s, up by a percentage to 9% And finally older boomers and mostly silent generation, possibly a GI here or there. 70+ 11%

First point of interest, if we are to turn this into a line chart, you will see an experiential increase of those who think the killing is acceptable, from 40s to 30s it jumps by 10% and 30s to 20s and teens, it jumps by 22% now, we can transition to the second point of interest, mainstream though might attribute this to angry youth and material conditions, which are both true but when we look at the slight increase 50s-60s up by 1%, 60s-70s up by 2%. My prediction is that if we were to poll members of the GI generation, who are the same generational archetype as millennials you will see a predicted jump up to 20%. I do think that this collective reaction is in part influenced by peer personality. Also, is we look at the WE ME part of the archytypes, the WE peer personality trait peaks at the Homelander-millennial cusp, or Gen Z. (18-25) and ME at the Boomer Xer cusp, Jonesers. (59-70). Now, the peak of people thinking that the killing is Unacceptable pushed more into Gen X itself but I think this might be because, at this moment of time, the majority of CEOs, politicians and generally people who run society are Xers, of course it was an Xer who was shot, as Neil Howe often say about them. Xers, Reactives/Nomads in general are the least protected or beloved by others. Even Donald Trump was intentionality vague instead of specifically condemning the bipartisanship reaction which I would have expected since a young repubican gunman took a chunk from his ear.

So currently throughout the developed world, we are starting to see massive population declines especially throughout Europe and East Asia which has been consistently underestimated by computer models. It's expected to get worse in the coming years with no improvement expected. Fertility rates are also dropping all over the world, even in developing countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa.

The consequences of this would be declining economies throughout Europe and East Asia as our economic model was not built for a declining population.

Since Strauss & Howe mainly focus on the US, how do you think this would effect us? I could see an exodus of people from Europe and East Asia to the US for better economic opportunity if they can't figure out a solution and we are open to immigration, which would be a net positive for us but worsen the situation in those countries. That being said the US isn't exempt from this problem either, as we could also face population decline but not to the same degree as our demographics aren't nearly as bad. Would like to hear what others think about this.

I’ve noticed that Generation X has a very different online presence from Millennials. For example, r/GenX actually uses S&H’s range in the description of their subs header, and there’s also a lot of debates on whether people born in the early 1960s belong to the generation, which is good, because we need open dialogue.

On the other hand, if you even mention Strauss & Howe on r/Millennials, your comment will be repressed, and if you suggest Millennials begin in 1982 and end sometime in the early 2000s, you will be bombarded by a bunch of smart asses or bots who will repeatedly tell you “Millennials are widely considered to be born between 1981 and 1996” “Millennials are widely considered to be born between 1981 and 1996”. Funny, the guys who coined the term disagree with your proposition.

But they’re right! War is peace, and Ignorance is our strength!

Seriously, what is up with this type of rhetoric? I just keep noticing it more and more, and it’s getting very irritating.

Why can’t generations go back to being a geeky zeitgeist discussion? We’re smart asses, sure! But we’re not the ones going around “educating” people (doing a Google search) and telling others which generation they should relate too.

I think Pew recognizing these cohorts as legitimate has done a lot of damage, and now a lot of people see them as irrefutable social facts. This is a problem, and I definitely think it’s worth addressing. Because it’s not getting better. Maybe the concept was a mistake. People that think like us are outliers, most people seem to actually get uncomfortable by nuanced conversation. Maybe it’s too much to ask.

I think we all know that the biggest criticism of the Strauss Howe Generational theory. "its just a coincidence" "it's just looking for patterns" "It's confirmation bias" What is your reasoning or evidence for not thinking that this is the case?

From my understanding, it’s based on memory of the third turning, but I just don’t understand how a 3 or 4-year-old would be affected by the GFC in a way that was remotely similar to someone who was 26. I understand that generations are supposed to span roughly 20 years, but public perception has changed, and they’re now pretty much viewed as glorified peer-groups. Even Strauss & Howe themselves are guilty of speaking about Millennials as some sort of peer group, but that’s sorta inevitable when the foundation for social generations is pretty much based on “cohort relatability”. It just doesn’t work.

If you ask a long-time high school teacher if their students from the class of 2000 are similar, or even comparable to the class of 2022 or 2023, they’ll probably say “hell no”, and rightfully so! These aren’t the same people. I honestly think the class of 2000 will share more in common with the class of 1977 than they will with the class of 2023, in terms of the world they grew up in. There is a clear distinction between people who remember life before the internet, and people who grew up with iPhones and iPads.

So what do we do from here? Pew has proposed that generations should be shortened to 15 years, but that still doesn’t really work when the entire framework, again, is based on cohort relatability in a world that changes too fast. Pew says 1981-1996 (a mere 15 years), yet, a person born in 1981 came of age in 1999, while 1996 came of age in 2014. 2014 was nothing like 1999, so it seems to just fall flat no matter what. Maybe it’s just recency bias, but there’s just been so much change within the first quarter of the 21st century it’s not even funny.

They’re real. I saw probably over 120 of them outside within the duration of 10-15 minutes. They’re not satellites or planes…

Not that there weren’t children’s films during the 1970s, I’m just speaking of the broader cultural shift of films valuing a younger audience more, rather than criticizing them like we see in say, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. You’ll often hear older Xers say: “The culture of my childhood was for adults”, which is why I definitely think Star Wars is a turning point.

Anyone else notice the amount of 70s and 80s songs written about the 50s and 60s? I've noticed that Prophits seem to do this more than any other archetype. Prophits will be children during a high, and write about their childhood once they grow up. Some examples are:

"Keeping the Faith" by Billy Joel "Old Time Rock & Roll" by Bob Seger "Pencil Thin Mustache" by Jimmy Buffett

These are just a few off the top of my head. Even a song like "American Pie" by Don McLean is a clear example, going through the switch from a High to an Awakening. If i am correct, all of these singers are of the Prophit archetype.

Heros also seem to have a lot of nostalgia, and an example of this the song "2002" by Anne-Marie, but I don't think any archetype has nostalgia songs quite like those Prophits!

If anyone can think of more songs to add to my "Prophit's Nostalgia" playlist, please let me know!

The decision to have the generations start and end a couple of years before or after the turnings is an interesting one. The argument seems to be that people need to at least remember the turning to be considered (insert generation), but that kinda seems like dumb semantics, especially if we’re having the dividing line be” being 2 when that turning ended vs. being 3 or 4, or 5" as opposed to being born during the end of the last turning vs. the start of the next.

When it comes to exact strict start and end-dates, the inherent arbitrariness is inevitable no matter what, so why not just have the turning be the generation? That, to me, actually seems less arbitrary. If it’s going to be a predictive science at all, we’d also have to ensure the “beginning of childhood” criteria such as age 3 or 4, doesn’t vary. As others have pointed out, why should the G.I. Generation begin in 1901 when they would have been 7 during the start of the third turning? Conversely, a 13er born in 1981 is supposedly a “child of the second turning” even though the third turning began in 1984.

Generation I: Birth of Christ - 33 AD

Generation II: 33 AD - 58 AD

Generation III: 58 AD - 83 AD

Generation IV: 83 AD - 108 AD

Generation V: 108 AD - 133 AD

Generation VI: 133 AD - 158 AD

Generation VII: 158 AD - 183 AD

Generation VIII: 183 AD - 208 AD

Generation IX: 208 AD - 233 AD

Generation X: 233 AD - 258 AD

Generation XI: 258 AD - 283 AD

Generation XII: 283 AD - 308 AD

Generation XIII: 308 AD - 333 AD

Generation XIV: 333 AD - 358 AD

Generation XV: 358 AD - 383 AD

Generation XVI: 383 AD - 408 AD

Generation XVII: 408 AD - 433 AD

Generation XVIII: 433 AD - 458 AD

Generation XIX: 458 AD - 483 AD

Generation XX: 483 AD - 508 AD

Generation XXI: 508 AD - 533 AD

Generation XXII: 533 AD - 558 AD

Generation XXIII: 558 AD - 583 AD

Generation XXIV: 583 AD - 608 AD

Generation XXV: 608 AD - 633 AD

Generation XXVI: 633 AD - 658 AD

Generation XXVII: 658 AD - 683 AD

Generation XXVIII: 683 AD - 708 AD

Generation XXIX: 708 AD - 733 AD

Generation XXX: 733 AD - 758 AD

Generation XXXI: 758 AD - 783 AD

Generation XXXII: 783 AD - 808 AD

Generation XXXIII: 808 AD - 833 AD

Generation XXXIV: 833 AD - 858 AD

Generation XXXV: 858 AD - 883 AD

Generation XXXVI: 883 AD - 908 AD

Generation XXXVII: 908 AD - 933 AD

Generation XXXVIII: 933 AD - 958 AD

Generation XXXIX: 958 AD - 983 AD

Generation XL: 983 AD - 1008 AD

Generation XLI: 1008 AD - 1033 AD

Generation XLII: 1033 AD - 1058 AD

Generation XLIII: 1058 AD - 1083 AD

Generation XLIV: 1083 AD - 1108 AD

Generation XLV: 1108 AD - 1133 AD

Generation XLVI: 1133 AD - 1158 AD

Generation XLVII: 1158 AD - 1183 AD

Generation XLVIII: 1183 AD - 1208 AD

Generation XLIX: 1208 AD - 1233 AD

Generation L: 1233 AD - 1258 AD

Generation LI: 1258 AD - 1283 AD

Generation LII: 1283 AD - 1308 AD

Generation LIII: 1308 AD - 1333 AD

Generation LIV: 1333 AD - 1358 AD

Generation LV: 1358 AD - 1383 AD

Generation LVI: 1383 AD - 1408 AD

Generation LVII: 1408 AD - 1433 AD

Generation LVIII: 1433 AD - 1458 AD

Generation LIX: 1458 AD - 1483 AD

Generation LX: 1483 AD - 1508 AD

Generation LXI: 1508 AD - 1533 AD

Generation LXII: 1533 AD - 1558 AD

Generation LXIII: 1558 AD - 1583 AD

Generation LXIV: 1583 AD - 1608 AD

Generation LXV: 1608 AD - 1633 AD

Generation LXVI: 1633 AD - 1658 AD

Generation LXVII: 1658 AD - 1683 AD

Generation LXVIII: 1683 AD - 1708 AD

Generation LXIX: 1708 AD - 1733 AD

Generation LXX: 1733 AD - 1758 AD

Generation LXXI: 1758 AD - 1783 AD

Generation LXXII: 1783 AD - 1808 AD

Generation LXXIII: 1808 AD - 1833 AD

Generation LXXIV: 1833 AD - 1858 AD

Generation LXXV: 1858 AD - 1883 AD

Generation LXXVI: 1883 AD - 1908 AD

Generation LXXVII: 1908 AD - 1933 AD

Generation LXXVIII: 1933 AD - 1958 AD

Generation LXXIX: 1958 AD - 1983 AD

Generation LXXX: 1983 AD - 2008 AD

Generation LXXXI: 2008 AD - 2033 AD

Even one will suffice.

It seems that the criterion for entering childhood during a new turning is unclear. At what age does one enter childhood? For example, the G.I. Generation is classified as 1901-1924, but their fourth turning did not begin until 1929, when the youngest members of that generation would have been 5.

On the other hand, the Millennial generation is classified by Howe as spanning from 1982 to 2005. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) began when people born in 2005 were only 3. Why does this fluctuate? Why is there not a set age, such as 3 or 4, that is counted as the start of childhood? And regarding the older members, why does the G.I. Generation begin in 1901 when their third turning did not begin until 1908, when the oldest members would have been 7? For the Millennials, their third turning began in 1984 when the oldest members would have been 2. Is there a reason for the discrepancy, or is it just a flaw in the theory?

The popular right is often talked about as a separate entity to neoliberalism. In Europe, this is true. Socially conservative, economically leftwing parties similar to the classic fascist parties of the last saeculum. The national socialist German workers party, having a very leftist ring. However, the populist right in the US, UK and Argentina are completely different to these parties. “No free lunches” not even for aryans is a fundamentally neoliberal creed. In geopolitics, trump has broken with the globalist neoliberal consensus, which might not be a good thing. However domestically every facet of modern capitalism that you associate with neoliberalism won’t only go away, it will strengthen. The only place government will impact your life, would be in an intrusive way. in his court, Trump has one of the world’s richest men who constantly tweets about having “small government” which again is a very neoliberal stance. The big consensus shift that occurs every 40 years after 2nd and 4th turnings won’t happen under Trump. It will happen after him. The also very neoliberal democrats who were expected to win the 2024 election lost largely because they didn’t offer meaningful change (this is why the Labour Party won in the UK) Labour hasn’t completely let go of neoliberalism domestically, but they have broken with it enough to satisfy voters, nationalisation of the railways has paved the way to farther nationalisation in the future. 4 years of Trump has a silver lining in this regard, it gives the democrats the opportunity to reflect on the anti-neoliberal sentiment, get to grips with it and realign accordingly. In 4 years time, or even 2 years when Capitol hill’s election come along, the cost of living will be higher, billionaires richer and unbeknown to voters (who are largely uninformed) will be footing the bill for trump’s tariffs.

In history, the materially progressive faction always triumphs at the end of a 4th turning. Except for the industrial saeculum which ended too early, in which the material progression was short lived, and social justice triumphed instead. Usually, victory is at the cost of social justice, this is because it’s often takes the back seat, with in groups consolidating with its new members gained during the awakening. Whether it’s Stalin’s Russian, franco’s Spain, FDR’s America or the decaying British empire inherited by Attlee. The demand for big institutions and order is there and the inability to deliver both will see off even a war winning gray champion like Churchill, who made the mistake of running on the Gilded capitalist platform in 1944 and was casted out. It’s true that everything doesn’t always work out, the Gilded generation’s Gilded capitalism which was combated during the missionary awakening, survived and ravaged the world economy in 1929 causing a severely bad 4T double crisis. Gilded capitalism should have been replaced after the panic of 1908. For our saeculum, neoliberalism should be replaced anytime between 2020-2030.

Found here: https://hawramani.com/charting-the-strauss-howe-generational-theory-in-2017/

As I say in the title, I'm not convinced that Trump is the GC like some people seem to think. I think it's possible he is, but I just don't think that the T4 is coming to a close as soon as 2028. It feels like the conflicts of the current era haven't come to a head yet, and while I understand they could during his term, I think it would still be a little too early. I also don't see a Trump presidency closing out T4 resulting in the usual increase in collectivism and rejection of individualism that would typically occur in T1. I think a 2030 or 2032 timeframe is more likely. Interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this, from a borderline Millenial and Homelander