The idea of the fourth turning is that the way parents raise their children affects the way they act… and react against. This leads to cycles of children… from those raised in poverty who become the voices for change, those raised by the activists (who become cynical, practical, without great vision — the current Generation X), those raised by the Xers who are somewhat more protected, and then those raised by them who are in security.

This theory of generations relies on a certain winnowing effect — if you do not breed your tribe dies.  If the liberal English descendants who formed the revolution do not produce 2 to 5 children per family (depending on the child mortality rate) then you are factng the loss of that tribe. And this is exactly what the liberal elite has done. This means that the next generation with the confidence to change things… which is coming into adulthood about now… will be conservative. And this will roll back the boomers, who were the last generation that shook things up.  Quoting Alte (from today, the same thread…)

I recognize what you say, Hound, but things are slowly turning. It’s the fourth turning.

Tradcons are finally reaching critical mass and they’ve become the main source of productive wealth and efficient human capital in America. Although they’re a small portion of the adult population, they’re increasingly separatist (which raises retention rates) and they’re swiftly becoming a plurality of economic and demographic capacity. Immigration is actually declining quickly, as the employment prospects dry up. Liberals are sterile, immigrants are going home, and tradcons are going to be the future as they’ll be the only ones to show up.

We’ve been a side-show for so long that people are waking up in shock to realize that there a … lot of us now and we breed like rabbits. And — most importantly — our men are hard and stable workers and valiant soldiers. Who else is working? Do you think the oil rigs, farms, utility companies, trash collection, truck companies, and coal mines are manned by a bunch of liberals and pansies? Do you think the military will continue to function as a permanent gay pride parade?

As those same men pull out of the corrupted fighting and working forces to defend and provide for only their own families, the liberals are having a fit. They’re starting to go after the RCC first, as that’s the biggest political prize. Then it’ll be the (mostly Protestant) homeschoolers, then the Mormons, and so on. They’re going to try to pick us off one by one, if we don’t show a unified front and send them packing back to the deviant ghettos they come from.

Tradcons are only irrelevant as long as the debt-money keeps rolling in. Cut off the spigot, and things will get ugly fast. …

It’ll be a resource war, and we’ll have the resources. The land, the food, the energy, the manpower, the fertile women. They’ll have the MSM and oodles of weaponry and godless mercenaries they’ve bought on credit with a toilet-paper currency. It’ll be fun to watch.

 

…

 

Moderation and assimilation is the habit of those welcome in the majority. Things are changing, and the desperate behavior of the liberals is going to accelerate that. People are going to have to finally pick sides, and that’s the game-changer.

In America it’s going to be mostly a religious conflict, with a secondary ethnic one. In Europe it’ll be an ethnic one, with a sharp rise in populism and devolvement of government, with an increase in religiosity coming only afterward. In both cases, people are going to move back to their traditions and the liberal governments (and the bottom-feeders they support) are going to resist, with violent results

Well Alte is 30odd. When I was that age, the wall came down, and the cold war ended. The West won — but during that we set up the seeds for our destruction by expanding the welfare state:

New Zealand has always had a strong welfare state tradition. In its original form, as introduced by Michael Joseph Savage in 1938, state welfare supplemented the community-based charitable efforts that had traditionally assisted the needy. For thirty years until the late sixties fewer than 15,000 people received state welfare, with under a thousand unemployed.

In the late sixties, however, amidst growing concerns that the benefit system was losing relativity with rising living standards, the Holyoake Government established a Royal Commission of Inquiry to review New Zealand’s social security system. The Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Thaddeus McCarthy published its report, Social Security in New Zealand, in March 1972. Many of the recommendations were adopted by the 1973 Kirk Labour Government, but there were three recommendations in particular that were responsible for changing the social structure  of New Zealand by giving rise to a permanent dependency culture and an emerging underclass.

The first of these recommendations changed benefit eligibility from being needs-based and available only to those ‘of good moral character and sober habits’, into a universal entitlement. That destroyed the well-established social contract that had existed between taxpayers and the government that ensured that only good citizens who met community standards were eligible for state benefits. From this point  the welfare system began to reward indolent and destructive behaviours such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminality and removed moral responsibility from those receiving welfare.

The second was the raising of benefit levels to be closer to a working wage. Instead of welfare providing temporary support sufficient to tide people over until they found a new job, the Commission wanted a beneficiary to “enjoy a standard of living close enough to the general community standard for him to feel a sense of participating in the community and belonging to it”. As a result, the need for a beneficiary to find a job to make themselves appreciably better off disappeared. This established a base from which long-term inter-generational welfare has grown.

The third was the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit to provide support for an estimated 20,000 sole mothers and their dependent children to escape from violent relationships. Despite being well intentioned, over the years the numbers on the DPB have mushroomed. There are now 114,000 sole parents and 180,000 children dependent on the DPB. A third of these women became parents as teenagers, and half have spent three quarters of the last ten years on a benefit. Around 29 percent of women on the DPB have given birth to one or more additional children whilst on the benefit since 1993. Over 90 percent of these women are single, and most who started on the DPB with a newborn baby have never had a job. In spite of its lofty ideals, the stark reality is that the DPB has become a lifestyle choice for unskilled teenage girls – despite the overwhelming evidence that the outlook for their children is dismal

Now, the result is that… in my lifetime… we have gone from a nation of stable families and fairly full employment to having one in five on benefits and child poverty, child abuse that was unheard of in my childhood. At the same time, children nowadays are incredibly cosseted. And… most of them are from believers. The bankruptcy of the current welfare state is clear to anyone who will add.

Things will turn. And like Alte, the odds are that they will turn back towards tradition, destroying the liberal, non believing branchlike of every denomination. political party, and club. The boomers will be dying by then, and it will be my bunch who are the elders… fixing up the transition in the hope that we can again avoid conflict, or at least conflict in the West.

For I hope Alte is wrong, and we can peaceably move back to self sufficiency. But my reading of history tells me that she is right.