I understand cycles, and they have CAUSES. They are not mystically generated by the unknown and unknowable. Here’s a cycle for you, see which makes more sense, the mystical or the causal: Bankers increase the money supply and people prosper. Then when people have prospered long enough for their equity to be greater than the debt, so there is an advantage for the bankers to shrink the money supply, collect the debts and leave people poor again, so that they can start the same fraud over again.
Now, look at the history of the global bankers and people, countries and groups of countries and consider which makes more sense, explains more and is actually controllable by human beings.
If you subscribe to the “cycles of the fourth turning” you must first believe in the author’s premise, and that requires primacy of belief based on the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam — belief in the power, prestige and money of the author. When you fact check, there are many other alternative explanations, and “The Fourth Turning” does not always fit with what actually occurs if we examine causes and effects. And science requires consistency in explanations, with causes and effects. Otherwise it is not science, and it explains nothing. It is a belief system with many words and much dogma that will not permit that the phenomenon be reliably repeated.
Contrast that to the cycle of poverty and prosperity which I outline above and think for yourself: Which makes more sense? Which can be corrected? Which requires human action? Which assumes a deterministic belief that human action is feckless?
We can either be leaves in the wind, or people who can determine their own future for themselves. We have free will or we do not. “The Fourth Turning” assumes we do not. Global banking assumes that we do, and that our future can be manipulated.
That is why we can fight globalism. That is why we must.Tags: globalism reason