Ideally, I’d like your rules to be consistent. I wander onto your primary thread only when mentioned by name or to make a brief comment that will not divert the thread. Even then, I am usually censored. You are just too insecure in your reading of history to have it commented on. On the other hand, you have no compunctions on writing Dostoyevski length essays here quite unprompted.
The other thing that gets me is your claim to still be a champion of S&H. Now, I have diverged somewhat from S&H too. They focused on turnings to the point of missing out entirely on ages. It is easy to assume that as crisis wars were central to the Industrial Age, it would be true as well in the Information Age, nukes, insurgencies and proxy wars disregarded. You have to be familiar with turnings, ages, civilizations and the instincts man evolved with. You have to study history with more intent to understand it than to justify your agenda.
But the keys are that the crisis is telegraphed by the debates and compromises of the unraveling, the problem is always solved, the progressive side triumphs over the stay the same faction, and the old way of thought is crushed by the uniformity of the high. In order to not acknowledge these basics, you have to butcher what S&H said.
For example, you seem to stand by your Dostoyevski length regeneracy event post in spite of it being debunked thoroughly by mine. A sudden attack will create unity if the government acts on the unity and unless the culture has a defeatist element where such attacks have happened before and nothing good occurred by resisting. Still, an attack which has nothing to do with the major problem the culture faces which has been debated for the length of the unravelling does not stop the crisis. In this case it may delay it, but the crisis eventually occurred.
Whether you noticed it occurring or not.