The Exigent Duality
Do They Get It? - 10:48 CDT, 4/30/22 (Sniper)
I wonder if the Democrats have "The Fourth Turning" theory advocates speaking at their seminars, or if the book is required reading material for their card-carrying members?

The Democrats have been attempting to create a uniparty system, with a "largest in human history" state apparatus behind it, featuring arms designed around censoring all lie-exposing discourse that would steer people away from this establishment. During each and every one of these steps, they steep the justifications in "Civic Duty"-style language, telling "us" how "we" need to make sacrifices, just like how people did during World War II.

It's our "Civic Duty" to support "Black Lives Matter"; to oppose Justice Kavanaugh; to wear face diapers; to get the clot shots; to support Ukraine. Every one of these events, and then some, are framed as obligatory moral crusades, which must be supported ASAP. Anyone who chooses not to participate is shamed, ridiculed, "doxxed", and has their livelihoods destroyed.

An example I just read yesterday involved one of their nutjobs explaining how the country should have one party, with one candidate, which everyone can unify around.

The authors of "The Fourth Turning" predicted this push in the last section of their book. They explain that during every crisis era, civic life is renewed, governments are granted tons of power, and the society-- willingly or otherwise-- coalesces around a new set of values, enforced by the state. They explain that the political movements which move in step with this trend are the ones likely to take control. The outcome can either be favorable, or a Fascist-style dictatorship.

They also explain that benefits should be shifted from the elderly, to the young, during a crisis period (and then in the opposite direction during a high). Meanwhile the crisis, they describe, is when the infrastructure of the next cycle should be laid.

Whether instinctively or by design, the Democrats seem to understand where we are in this cycle. Their choice of values is totally nonsensical, which is why they aren't catching on. But at least they are presenting a holistic world view, attempting to fulfill the need the young have for making some kind of sacrifice, or being "heroes" in some way. They are also non-stop talking about forgiving student loan debt, and about building infrastructure (again, around a nonsensical "climate change" value however).

If the overall cycle theory is correct, it poses a problem for Conservatives: according to the authors, now is not the time for individualistic-centered Libertarianism. Rather, Conservatives should be proposing a competing civic model, with its own set of values for which young people can throw themselves on the sacrificial altar.

The authors-- in 1997, anticipating the condition we're now in-- proposed that such a model could be centered around being honest with people about the State being utterly unable to fulfill its obligations, and so frame the shared sacrifice as everyone rebuilding the country's infrastructure and entitlements, but in a balanced budget sort of way.

Most of the country's Conservative leaders-- Ron DeSantis, Rand Paul, and Tom Massie, to name just a few-- seem more oriented around reacting to and putting the kibosh on the Democrat's dystopian, global-technocracy police state ambitions. This is a good thing. But they shouldn't be as purely reactionary: they perhaps need to paint a holistic, competing civic model.