Craig, how's life for your friends in Afghanistan?

If they're so goddamn happy America was under attack, then why don't they become suicide bombers themselves? The turnover rate is pretty high.

If all you care about is culture, then by god watch some movies made in the 1930s and 1940s. Please tell me where Double Indemnity (1944) kisses the government's ass. Maltese Falcon? Wizard of Oz? Anything with Mae West in it. Were the best-selling 78 rpm singles in 1937 nuttin' but patriotic songs? How much do you know about the popular culture from 1929 through 1945? Bear in mind we nearly spent 13 years outside active troop involvement in World War 2.

Interesting statement from Howard Stern (of all people) this morning.

He railed against Colin Powell for advocating "justice" and "calm, reasoned action" in the face of an event such as this when "everyone" wants to just start lobbing nukes. Howard, of course, is at the extreme edge in many ways, but he does typify the beginning of Boomer rage against the moderating influence of the Silents when they desire to "loose the fateful lightning."

As for Millies turning toward extreme love of their nation and community as opposed to feeling the need for vengeance - that's right on track for their archetype. Their looking upward along the generational ladder to their elders (Boomers) for the correct value-laden response to this event.

They are currently too young to decide on what course of action America needs to take - rather they wait for their orders and are ready to carry them out. They are establishing a lifelong trusting relationship with authority and government and will most probably continue to look upward for answers as long as they live.

If we have truly entered the 4T too soon, I hope that the still strong moderating voices of the Silents will keep us from going over the edge. Either that, or the fact the GenX isn't yet senior enough to provide truly effective on-site management

Just one note here, as events will show soon enough which side is right.


As several have pointed out, if this isn't the 4T, it's a trial run. I submit that what this means is that we ARE in a Crisis mode, and the only question remaining is whether we will, in a few months or perhaps a year, back out of it, go back to our frivolities and our mutual sniping, and return to the 4T mood a few years later.


I contend that this is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Not only are we now committed to a very difficult war, which by itself will continue for several years and prevent a return to Unraveling mindset, but the more time this war uses up, the likelier it becomes that one of the other Crisis issues, the instability of the global economy or the collision with ecological limits, will join it. Indeed, the war itself makes both those more likely to be triggered artificially.


I have felt for some time that we were, in terms of physical factors, already in crisis -- small "C" -- and would enter Crisis at such time as events forced our dimwitted collective psyche to recognize the fact. I believe they now have done that, and that, while in theory a move to 4T mode can be reversed if things quiet down, I know of no historical example of them doing so after reaching this point of unified determination, and also I see no possibility of events allowing that to happen. We're here.


One other thing, regarding the pursuit of an international coalition with dubious partners. How much more dubious are these partnerships than our alliance with the Soviet Union in World War II, deep into the Fourth Turning and indeed in its final years? Any more? I don't think so. Nor do I agree that the meer existence of an internationalist approach rather than go-it-alone indicates a 3T mentality or a Silent-dominated one. I believe that is a linear change, not a cyclic one. Such things do exist, after all. This Crisis must replace the international peacekeeping order of the Millennial Saeculum, predicated as it was on the Cold War polarity and thus nonfunctional at this juncture, and it cannot replace it with a nationalistic no-order nor with some kind of empire or Pax Americana. It must replace it with something genuinely internationalistic, and so I find this approach distinctly proper, not so much in distinguishing the Fourth Turning from the Third, as in distinguishing the Millennial Saeculum's Crisis from that of the Great Power Saeculum.


We shall see, of course. But I cannot see how I could be wrong about this.

Turnings have a lot to do with mood, and the change in mood is incredible. Hardly anyone's acting like this is a joke.

Here in LA the entertainment industry has virtually shut down in some areas. Talk show hosts have abandoned their normal wisecracking for real discussion. We've got sudden interest in our FOE (Future of Entertainment) seminar series. Events are being cancelled left and right. The ones that are going on frequently are happening in small, intimate settings. It's the end of "Life The Movie".

My business partner is a musician. People are emailing her poems and begging her to write music (she wrote a memorial song for the Russian sub Kursk recently).

Our company was a guest on Pacifica radio on Tuesday -- and nobody was treating 9/11 as a conspiracy, government plot, etc. The lone person who suggested that nothing be cancelled since "people need entertainment to chill" caught it big time.

My students at the Art Institute stunned me. One I had pegged as a totally cynical, Cartman-level Xr reacted very strongly. He practically threw his friend across the room when he tried to make a joke. Another one turned out to have EMT training, and was out the door to help with blood donations within minutes of learning of the disaster. Another walked up to me and said "so it begins...". Yet another said he had been discussing the "roaring 20s" versus the "roaring 90s" recently and wondered if this signaled a change.

But the most common comment? "I've been trained do do something meaningless with my life. What do I do now? There's nothing left. I have to start over." And some were suddenly planning to get married(!)

I don't remember anything remotely like this except possibly the combined deaths of Martin Luther King & Bobby Kennedy, and the death of JFK himself.

However...I suspect we'll be hearing from the other side Sept. 28-29.

The Islamic Tradtionalists like Bin Laden and the Talbian are offended by the existance of the USA and Western culture in general.

Yet I am worried that Washington is deciding that an invasion of Iraq is the answer, because that's the contingency plan that they have.

Although I would like a end to the Saddam Hussein Regime in Iraq, I do not think War with Iraq is the answer, we should declare war on the Tablian regime which is supporting Bin Laden.

On 2001-09-14 16:01, KaiserD2 wrote:
Hello again. Several observations.

First, there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't define the beginning of the Civil War crisis as 1859 (J Brown) or even 1857 (Dred Scott). I'd certainly go for 1859 at least.

I can see why one might want to think that, as 1859 was such a dramatic event. The question you have to ask there is, what did it trigger? If you said that 1859 got Lincoln elected (I don't know, maybe it did) then putting that as the catalyst makes sense. Otherwise you'd have to say Lincoln's election, which prompted Southern secession,
was the catalyst.

Well, FWIW from this old Silent retired history teacher broad, :wink: some thoughts. Warning: This is long. (And, Neisha, thanks for sharing. I think you are right about your dad's feelings, and we feel just as trapped as you, as is the fatal nature of it all).

1. I have the overwhelming feeling this 4T coming up is going to be differentiated from the past ones by the combined effects of what I'll call the MTV Generation Effect / Information Age, increased generational career / lifespans, and America's Globalization. These 3 variables, IMVHO, will conflugrate to create some kind of material unpredictability to this Crisis pattern. While I originally was incredulous at Virgil's assertion of a faux Crisis preceding the real one, he could be right. May be we will have a trial run first, as richt suggested. I'll have to unearth the old thread discussion sometime, Virgil. But, just consider it: this will be the first saeculum that America has had entirely as a global power, the first in which we've had the evolution of television and Prophets who were raised on it, and the first to materially increase lifespan.

2. I do not see Bush as the GC at all, unfortunately. In fact, I held my nose and voted for him because of my Gen Theory beliefs (I originally saw the Crisis regeneracy around the 2008 election, but it could be 2004, depending upon Bush's performance and 2002 elections). Perhaps I was just spoiled by FDR (and no TV), but I yearn for someone like him right now (not his politics per se as I came from a Republican family), and I am not seeing it. The phrase 'you'll know it when you see it' applies here. Trust me on this.

I want Bush to do well but am consistantly frustrated by him. Just watching the National Cathedral service today, it was Bush's best speech yet, but it turned a bit unseemly for a moment as he reiterated the war element smack in the middle of an Episcopalian Cathedral in a church service stressing peace, no evil for evil, and inward reflection, and then was in and out with only a few handshakes with former Presidents. Whereas Clinton was left to shake hands and do the comfort thing (and overdoing it, as usual) that I was looking to Bush to do! (Poor Gore just looked pretty left out of it all). I walked away thinking that perhaps Clinton could just fill in for Bush in this capacity (perverse humor here). Even Bush, Sr. knew the value of maintaining a cordial exterior. His son should have made sure he shook Gore's hand when he came in; instead, he ignored him. He could have melted a few TV-viewing hearts hard against him, but either chose not to or was clueless to the opportunity. He's been to Florida on presidential business appearances a dozen times since March, and he needs to be presidential and let his brother win his re-election on his own. I'm all for rescinding the Ford executive order on non-assassination and taking bin Laden out, Saddam, too, just for old times' sake, even though it will not resolve the long term; but why am I fighting my instinctual hunch that he's revving up this war to rev up our economy and redistribute some more tax dollars to the military defense contractors. I am reminded that his father had 90% approval ratings during the Gulf War, but it didn't help him come re-election time. His 911 speeches have been peppered with references to how "I am up to the task... I can do the job...". A GC speaks to "YOU" and "WE". I've heard some talking heads urging us to equate him to Lincoln, in that crises can bring out these miraculous attributes from leaders whom you would ordinarily write off. They manage to paint Lincoln as some idiot yahoo whose eggshell hatched the day before he was inaugurated. They forget that Lincoln was already a seasoned debater with the likes of Stephen Douglass, and a well-read thinker and lawyer who was not an irate Abolitionist, but came to agree with them through deep reflection and conscience, and thus lead an agenda brought to him by the people. I can't think of two leaders more different (not to mention that Lincoln would stroke out if he could see his Party of Lincoln (Reagan) today!).

I have been thinking of a GC along the lines of a John Edwards, John Kasich, Tom Daschle (he's apparently very scrappy in the political back room), or even McCain if he stayed healthy and still has some fire. I guess I'd want to see some secular fire and brimstone in the GC's speeches. You have to feel like the GC is in control and that he or she is doing what is "right", and they can communicate that to you in no uncertain terms. Because that will be much of all that we'll have to sustain us in a bad Crisis. I am not getting that from Bush, and cannot see him ever getting to that point. Take Clinton, for example. Forget all of his corruption and filandering: love him or hate him, you believed he was in control, he still IS somewhat.

3. I feel a strong urge to discuss the Culture Wars here, and who will or who has won them. Before the 911 event, I would have said no one has yet. Now, I realize by going down the list of issues, I believe the conservatives will win or have won the Culture Wars. Just two examples: the stem cell decision and the E2K Supreme Court interjection tells me that unfettered abortion rights hang by a thread and so might gun control. The threads can now be easily cut in the next few years. 911 could create a synergy in this direction. A third cultural battle is over religion in schools, and it too is subject to change.

4. There has to be an eventual political change in response to the Crisis catalyst, and it appears that since we have been entrenched in Republicanism for awhile now (really, since 1980), and are growing more and more politically divided. This indicates to me we will go left when the time comes (and isn't that usually the case?). I'm not comfortable with "left"; I think of it as going centrist, populist. I think it will be a vote that says remember the common joe and jane out there, quit privatizing and monopolizing everything, quit the greedy trickledown that never gets down as far as it needs to, and stop the cutthroat partisan dirty tricks (put some morality back there, too). The last two 4T political turns have been about much of that, if you can see Southern Plantationism as huge corporate monopolies with free labor, and if you can see the Industrial Revolution replacing land with labor as the masses' only asset. The first 4T can even be interpreted that way, in a broader sense.

Of course, we could evolve political conservatism further in the 4T. The media is already set up for it, and so is the economy. Were we to stay entrenched in a Terrorism War (destruction of East v. destruction of West in a global war of the democracies), or if other states allow their elections to be as badly corrupted as Florida, it could happen. E2K - Florida embarrassed me greatly as an American and a Republican. The day you have to win that way is the day to admit things have gone too far. Sex isn't the only behavior that is immoral. But if our energies are taken up with such an enormous global warring venture, then there's little time left to change political direction. Washington, Wall Street, and the media have all been infiltrated by unfettered free market conservatism.

5. I've posted before that the Millies are TOO YOUNG, and I believe that with my head and heart. With two early-cohort and two middle-cohort Millie grandkids, I see BIG differences within that one generation. I say this to inform everyone who thinks they know how Millies think by talking to the older ones now, just WAIT until you get to know the younger ones when they get as old! They remind me of the Boomers I taught in the 50's except they are not sheltered from the world. They have a talent toward selective sheltering, IOW, it's on their terms what they want to know. Do I know what this means? No, but it means something and I think we will need them.

And, I do remember GI's having dreams of youth that were a bit too idealistic, and then having to settle for more realistic dreams in the High. I wonder if Millies' views on globalistic fair trade and environmentalism won't be High issues, or issues for the next Crisis, instead of issues for this one. We haven't angered China or a an entire bloc of allied countries enough with our corporate imperialism, nor have we eco-ruined everything we can yet. There's still time for the status quo. Plus, we do have to suffer substantially before we would ever do what the Millies want done on those two issues. We are that materialistic and lazy.

6. Finally, to answer your question, Anne, about living through a Crisis, the last one, anyway: I grew up in a family who didn't vote for FDR, yet we as a nation and people were in such deep doo-doo during my childhood that we were willing to give him a long chance. As David (KaiserD2), posted, "Remember, Hoover tried to cure the depression too; it was supposed to be right up his ally; economic miracles were his specialty. And FDR was regarded as a frivolous second-rater." That was in 1928, yet by the time 1932 came around, FDR sounded like a better gamble than the same old same old. Then, his initial New Deal programs helped the common joe and jane, and young adults, so they were what we would call Family Friendly today. It tended to give regular people hope to think about a future and keep going. We didn't have Fox News in our homes cutting him down 24/7 (we did have a Catholic priest radio personality doing the same thing, though, but not on the same magnitude). The admirers far outnumbered the grumblers (my parents), so you just kept quiet and went on with your business. Then, the War came, and FDR earned his stripes then, even to his distractors. (Which is why we are NOT at the same 4T phase now that we were when Pearl Harbor was hit).

I think it was hard for my parents to go from a freer thinking 2T-3T time to a 4T where their guy was not the Champion. Had they suffered more during the Depression, they might have been more open-minded to FDR. They had the 3T luxury of being able to choose not to like him during the Crisis, and then not have it hurt them much. Growing up, I saw that most FDR detractors (business owners like my father) weren't hurt by his programs; they were just restricted from unfettered profiteering. (Is this perhaps why 4T's are more liberal swings of the pendulum spiral - to protect the least able ????) So, to me, FDR was a good enough GC, because I saw the objections to the restrictions as whining about doing your part to help the whole when times were bad. You can call that Socialist indoctrination if you choose, but it sure went along with what the preachers preached, so I don't buy that conservative hindsight. And, although I criticize Bush, should he improve enough and not endanger the nation and turn out to be the GC and this is the 4T, then I won't be hurt much by having him as a GC, and though I'll whine, I'll do it good-naturedly. :smile: HTH

Barb '31

P.S. - neiltice posted: "After the 1929 Crash, there was no consensus on what to do about the nations problems. What did exist, however, was a consensus on what problems were being faced. The path to take in solving them (socialist or fascist, totalitarian or democratic) was not agreed upon until later."

I respectfully disagree. Hoover had a very detailed gameplan. It just didn't work, because it wasn't applicable to a large segment of the people.

On 2001-09-14 16:03, Steve Philpot '50 wrote:
In the beginning as posts began filling ? Is the Fourth Turning Coming?? it seemed to me some people were trying too hard to stuff current events into the mold of the last 4T. This was also evident outside the forum. As horrendous as this attack was we are fortunate that the terrorists executed a 3T attack. An attack on symbols of U.S. wealth and power. It truly would have been a 4T Pearl Harbor-like event if, for instance, they had crashed the hijacked jets into critical points of our national electrical distribution grid.

You make an excellent point, Steve. If they had done that, or in some other way managed to critically damage vital parts of our infrastructure, sending us into a freefall of chaos and panic nationally, then that would have undoubtedly been a catalyst. I know the air travel system was shutdown, and stock trading suspended, but we did that. We had the ability to say, "Ok, we're doing this as a precautionary measure." As bad as 911 was, we didn't really lose control of our systems. Until something comes along to make that happen, I believe we'll remain in 3T.

Dan '73

I, for #2 would ditto that, Mr. Philpot. Good point.

Heckava post there, Barb.

Bush disappoints at as Grand Champion merely because it ain't time for one yet.

And even then (when it is time), the future GC is gonna piss a heckava lot ova folks off. And it could very well be a lot of those, who can't wait today for him/her/it/whatever to show up, that will get royally pissed!

Love ya, Barb, as always.




_________________
"Also, Bush surely isn't GC. The thought is to puke for." Mr. Brian Rush

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-09-14 21:29 ]</font>

Boomers are sounding like such Transies!! Here is a commentary in New York Post:

<font color="blue">
SIMPLY KILL
THESE BASTARDS

By STEVE DUNLEAVY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



September 12, 2001 -- THE response to this unimaginable 21st century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift - kill the bastards.
No, I don't mean hunt them, arrest them, extradite them and prosecute them in a court of law.

I mean a far quicker and neater form of retribution for this cabal of cowards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to.

President George W. Bush should right now be putting his name to a fresh document - one that rescinds Executive Order 12333, signed by President Gerald Ford on Feb. 18, 1976.

It reads in part: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States should engage in assassination or conspire to engage in assassination."

Right for that time, wrong for this time.

Train assassins (we've done it before), hire mercenaries, put a couple of million bucks up for bounty hunters to get them dead or alive, preferably dead.

As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts.

No, it won't bring back the thousands of innocents and the brave cops and firefighters lost, but it might stop the sacrifice of other innocents.

"This is an act of war of an enormity that is staggering," Sen. John McCain of Arizona said yesterday.

Former Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig said: "We should be ready to take resolute action, which we have failed to in the past."

The point is that Osama bin Laden has been at war with us for a decade - make no mistake, he's behind the attacks.

At the beginning of the year, he issued a video to his followers urging them "to penetrate" the United States.

Only three weeks ago, he was quoted in an Arabic newspaper saying he was preparing a big action against our country.

He is the sole individual who has the billions of dollars, the training camps and the fanatics to have perpetrated this sophisticated bloodbath.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said yesterday: "This wasn't planned in a handful of homes by a handful of fanatics."

When we put a rocket in the pocket of Moammar Khadafy, he went as quiet as a mouse.

If the CIA can't find this ameba Osama Bin Laden, leave it to someone else.

We should give the Taliban, which protects this monster, 24 hours to clear the city of Kabul of innocent civilians and then start the process of urban renewal with high-altitude bombing.

Then we should go into the interior, hunt down the desert rat and execute him and his followers on the spot.

And if Saddam Hussein makes so much as a peep, do him, too.

The time has come. </font>

On 2001-09-14 21:01, Barbara wrote:

These 3 variables, IMVHO, will conflugrate to create some kind of material unpredictability to this Crisis pattern.

Barbara, "conflugrate"? Does not compute. :wink:

A GC speaks to "YOU" and "WE".

I totally agree.

The last two 4T political turns have been about much of that, if you can see Southern Plantationism as huge corporate monopolies with free labor

Interesting parallel!


We didn't have Fox News in our homes cutting him down 24/7 (we did have a Catholic priest radio personality doing the same thing, though, but not on the same magnitude).

Ah, old Father Coughlin.! Makes me embarassed to be Catholic.

Growing up, I saw that most FDR detractors (business owners like my father) weren't hurt by his programs; they were just restricted from unfettered profiteering. (Is this perhaps why 4T's are more liberal swings of the pendulum spiral - to protect the least able ????)

Probably. Goes to the idea of 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.' That leaves you with two primary options. Cut out the weak links, or reinforce them. From what I've read, both end up being done to varying degrees in 4T's, but reinforcing them is more likely to generate sincere loyalty, which is what you really need for long-term survival.

Dan'73

Got home from work awhile ago. The TV was on CNN. They had a discussion segment with retired U.S. General that served with NATO, and a former Army Intel expert. They both appeared to be Boomers. The topic was what possible course of action was needed to take care of the terrorist. The ex Army intel guy said we were going to have to use all resources to find and kill terrorist. That any states we discovered supporting terrorism had to be severly punished militarily. He said this course of action would have to continue to be persued by following administrations, and it would last throughout our lifetimes. I was amazed when the retired General disagreed and said our task was to "find, punish, and humiliate" the terrorists. I couldn't believe he said that. We have an infestation problem. Our task is not to humiliate the vermin!

They really think killing Bin Laden is going to do anything, it will do nothing expect make the terrorists resolve more deterimned

On 2001-09-14 21:42, madscientist wrote:
Boomers are sounding like such Transies!! Here is a commentary in New York Post:

<font color="blue">
SIMPLY KILL
THESE BASTARDS

By STEVE DUNLEAVY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



September 12, 2001 -- THE response to this unimaginable 21st century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift - kill the bastards.
No, I don't mean hunt them, arrest them, extradite them and prosecute them in a court of law.

I mean a far quicker and neater form of retribution for this cabal of cowards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to.

President George W. Bush should right now be putting his name to a fresh document - one that rescinds Executive Order 12333, signed by President Gerald Ford on Feb. 18, 1976.

It reads in part: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States should engage in assassination or conspire to engage in assassination."

Right for that time, wrong for this time.

Train assassins (we've done it before), hire mercenaries, put a couple of million bucks up for bounty hunters to get them dead or alive, preferably dead.

As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts.

No, it won't bring back the thousands of innocents and the brave cops and firefighters lost, but it might stop the sacrifice of other innocents.

"This is an act of war of an enormity that is staggering," Sen. John McCain of Arizona said yesterday.

Former Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig said: "We should be ready to take resolute action, which we have failed to in the past."

The point is that Osama bin Laden has been at war with us for a decade - make no mistake, he's behind the attacks.

At the beginning of the year, he issued a video to his followers urging them "to penetrate" the United States.

Only three weeks ago, he was quoted in an Arabic newspaper saying he was preparing a big action against our country.

He is the sole individual who has the billions of dollars, the training camps and the fanatics to have perpetrated this sophisticated bloodbath.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said yesterday: "This wasn't planned in a handful of homes by a handful of fanatics."

When we put a rocket in the pocket of Moammar Khadafy, he went as quiet as a mouse.

If the CIA can't find this ameba Osama Bin Laden, leave it to someone else.

We should give the Taliban, which protects this monster, 24 hours to clear the city of Kabul of innocent civilians and then start the process of urban renewal with high-altitude bombing.

Then we should go into the interior, hunt down the desert rat and execute him and his followers on the spot.

And if Saddam Hussein makes so much as a peep, do him, too.

The time has come. </font>

Another work week has ended for me. But this Friday is different from the long string of similar Fridays stretching back across the 3T. There is a sense the country is looking ahead to grander times, rather than being steeped in the here and now. I think there is a collective subconscious knowledge of a 4T era to come. Issues long unresolved must finally be resolved -- and with less regard for side effects than in recent decades. I think these issues can take either path of being predominantly internal or predominantly global in nature, with a strong dose of the other in either case.

How does this feel to each generation? I would like to focus on Craig's post, a few pages back. I jotted down three reactions to that post that I would now like to organize:

(1) A person who is born and raised in one turning experiences a type of shock when encountering life's next turning era. Prior to that moment, the concept may not have been truly recognized. I know that for me (born in 1960), having spent my childhood and coming of age during a 2T, I was amazed and disheartened in my own way to realize that we had entered a 3T (no one had invented the term and explained it yet, of course, but still I sensed a change of era). I think people my age (41 and thereabouts) still harbor bad feelings about how the 2T's promise ended up grounded in the 3T's detached skepticism, cultural fragmentation, and other 3T characteristics. We don't like it, and are perhaps more determined than most to set a better course, which makes us prime Gray Champion material for the 4T. I do think that if there is indeed a G.C., it will be someone close to my age cohort, and it will be the first politician with whom I have ever been truly able to identify. This is because it will be someone who shares my disappointment in how our youth (2T) was in some ways betrayed by the 3T as we lived our post-college years until midlife.

So, I can sympathize with Craig, for whom the 3T is life itself, and who now sees a very different turning coming. 3T-to-4T is more of a shock to a young person coming of age than is 2T-to-3T, or 4T-to-1T. 1T-to-2T, on the other hand, which applies to many on this site, include Bill, Neil, David K. and others, has caused them to carry their own unique perspective as we enter the 4T. The 2T for them was revolutionary, but in an empowering way, whereas 3T-to-4T for Gen X is not empowering to them. It's the ill-timed life cycle about which S&H have written.

(2) I have posited (on the old forum) that of a given generation, we can split it into direction-shapers, those who follow that direction, and those who ignore or rebel against it. To illustrate, let's use a split of three thirds. Craig would be in the third third. While important to him, and while remaining true to himself, it really doesn't prevent the course of history from going the direction set by the first third. Craig is reacting, not setting direction, and realizes this, which is why he regrets the inevitability of a new 4T society.

(3) In general, I forgive teens who continue to use snide peerspeak to deride the "establishment" or mainstream America, because of the sheer fact of youth. In 20-30 years, such sentiments will simply embarass those who gave voice to them. To not focus on the hugely important human tragedy first and foremost is to show one's inexperience and immaturity in life, and for teens, that is understandable while not admirable.

Do I understand correctly from the saecular theory that the issues brought out by the Crisis catalyst are partially indicative of the future progress of the Crisis era? Not completely, I know that; the climactic events of the Crisis usually bear no resemblance to the catalyst.

Anyway, I thought it'd be worthwhile enumerating the issues that have come out so far with the disasters in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I figure we're not done with these ones and won't be for a long time:

- terrorism and the Middle East
- status of Muslims and Arabs in North America
- immigration and border controls
- privacy vs. security

Those are the main ones. I could mention more minor issues like 'what is the appropriate waiting time after a national tragedy before one can resume sporting events (I'm not being facetious; I've heard _impassioned_ debates on this in the last couple of days)' or 'patronage at Logan airport'.

Any more I missed?

It has been mentioned often now, but to emphasize:

This event was a wake-up call. People are now paying attention to the need to think in grander terms about our culture and its problems. But we won't experience the true 4T until we feel peril, until there is a real threat to our way of life, with an uncertain societal outcome. Right now, there is no such imminent peril of the magnitude which makes unthinkable (or renders totally irrelevant) further 3T behavior.

Living through such a perilous time, investing real emotion and energy towards a triumphal outcome -- this is what must occur before a 1T can arrive. Simply "adjusting the course" to move from a 3T to a 1T with (virtually) no 4T, as someone suggested, is not going to happen.

Re Barbara's interesting post:

I actually think that the Left, not the Right, has "won" the culture wars, and advanced its agenda. But I think the 4T will see the pendulum swing toward the Right's agenda as a stabilizing force during a time of crisis. The 3T gains by the Left have plateaued for now. Linearly speaking (actually, the spiral), the Left's agenda will continue to gain ground saeculum by saeculum, assuming civilization is not drastically hurt along the way.

3T vs. 4T test:

Do we get even more "extreme", or are we now "exhausted"?

I personally vote for the latter.

I'm citing myself here:

On 2001-09-14 23:09, richt wrote:

...I think people my age (41 and thereabouts) still harbor bad feelings about how the 2T's promise ended up grounded in the 3T's detached skepticism, cultural fragmentation, and other 3T characteristics. We don't like it, and are perhaps more determined than most to set a better course, which makes us prime Gray Champion material for the 4T. I do think that if there is indeed a G.C., it will be someone close to my age cohort, and it will be the first politician with whom I have ever been truly able to identify. This is because it will be someone who shares my disappointment in how our youth (2T) was in some ways betrayed by the 3T as we lived our post-college years until midlife.

I think what this means is that, should we revert to a ueber-3T for a few more years, and elect Hillary in 2004 or 2008, that someone my age will be extra G.C.-like in stepping in to the true crisis in 2008 or 2012. Yet if events play out more 4T-like in the next few years, I think any prominent politicians such as Hillary, who will be identified as 3T champions, will not stand a chance in 4T elections.

Fascinating post, RichT.

You are correct about certain turnings being much more difficult for a young person to make the transition to than others. I completely agree that for late Boomers such as you and I, the transition from the 2T to the 3T was not so terribly difficult, as in a sense, a 3T is just a 2T gone awry. The freedom of self-expression and emphasis on individualism remain, albeit in a less idealized, more cynical version.

However, the transition from a 3T to a 4T, is another story altogether. It is jarring and sudden, and must be particularly hard for young people like Craig just coming of age, as it puts the brakes on behaviors and desires that are only natural to someone who is trying to become independent and find out who they are. For Xers and Boomers, while 4T culture may disappoint finely-honed senses that have become accustomed to something edgier, irreverent, or more experimental, in general the mood of the 4T may come as a relief and respite and is therefore welcomed by these generations who are no longer so young and are just getting plain tired.

For Boomers and late Silents, the transition from 1T to 2T was indeed empowering and exciting, but particularly for Boomers, who were just coming of age at a time when freedoms were expanding. For them, the transition meshed perfectly with their life-phase.

I also agree with you that the GC will probably turn out to be a Joneser, rather than a first-wave Boomer. Late-50s (and 1960) cohorts have two things I believe are necessary to be an effective GC. They possess Prophetic ideals and "the vision thing," but it's tempered with a good-sized dose of Nomadic pragmatism to keep it in check.

Also, keep in mind the GC arises late in the Crisis, and in 15-20 years, Jonesers will be just the right age.

However, there *are* two good candidates right now who are first-wavers: Hilary Clinton and NY Mayor Giuliani (sp?)

This is one of those times when I wish both "Generations" and "The Fourth Turning" had indexes organized by topic instead by person. I'm having a real difficult time finding the section in "Generations" describing the reactions during different "turnings" (actually constellational eras) to a terrorist threat. This is especially aggravating because my girlfriend is an indexer (and I want to become an editor--wouldn't we make a good team? :smile: )

Ah! Found it! Start of Chapter 13 of "Generations"--Completing the Millennial Cycle. Here's what S&H wrote about the reaction to a terrorist threat during a "Third Turning"/Inner-driven era:

[T]he likely national response...would now stress caution, conciliation, and deferral. Silent cabinet officers would consult allies, form committees, review options, and invite full public discussion. After initiating multilateral negociations, leaders would generally try to wait things out. The crisis would frustrate but not anger Boomers...and would hardly ruffle young 13ers....

And here's what S&H wrote about the reaction to the same kind of threat during a Fourth Turning/Crisis:

Boomer leaders...would neither hide nor ponder the rumor; instead, they would exaggerate the threat (who said there was a bomb in only one city?) and tie it in to a larger sense of global crisis.

Now, which one do you think applies better to this news item?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...182531_000.htm

I wasn't going to post to this thread further, but I find there is a thought or two I still need to share that relates to it and to some of the things Bill and Neil stated in their opening article for this thread.


I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the generational cycle theory as presented in their books and as it relates to the later saeculae, and that is that it was originally conceived, and I think by them is still conceived, on a national level as an American saeculum. But over the last two saeculae, civilization has globalized to the point that one can almost say there is no such thing as an American saeculum, only a global one in which America participates. That transition is particularly visible with respect to Fourth Turnings.


A Crisis era revolves around flaws in the civic order which threaten the survival of a civilization. In the first three American Crises (Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, and Civil War), those civic flaws were entirely American and so it is proper to speak of an American Crisis ending those saeculae.


But the Great Power Crisis, although it began as an American event, ended as a global one. The Great Depression resulted from a flaw in the American civic order (gross maldistribution of wealth), but it expanded to a global scale due to accompanying flaws in the global civic order, and culminated in the entirely global events of World War II. And the Millennial Crisis is a global one from start to finish, not an American Crisis at all.


There is nothing else it can be, because, although to be sure there are flaws in the American civic order, they are not all that serious. Certainly they don't threaten the survival of our civilization. They include the problems with the federal budget and entitlements that Bill and Neil discussed in their early work, plus our system of campaign financing, our health care system, our education system, and similar things. I would certainly not mind seeing all of these things getting a good overhaul, but if they don't, we'll manage. No states are going to secede from the Union over them, and they aren't going to plunge the economy into ruin.


The three issues we face that do threaten our civilization are all global ones, threaten it on a global level, and must be approached globally. These are the gross wealth imbalances in the global economy, the ecological unsustainability of our civilization as presently configured, and the breakdown of the global peacekeeping system, that last being the first issue to raise its head in a serious way.


This is why Bill and Neil's prediction that the Crisis would bring a renewal of nationalism at the expense of internationalism, a tendency for America to go it alone rather than in conjunction with allies, has always struck a false note with me. That would only be true if this were an American Crisis like the earlier ones, or even if it began as an American Crisis like the last one, neither of which is the case. So this, I think, is a linear change in the Fourth Turning morphology, and we should no longer expect things to turn out that way, nor use this as an indicator of whether or not the Crisis has arrived.


Regarding questions about "who is the Gray Champion" -- I think this question is misleading. The only reason we think in terms of ONE Gray Champion is because in the last two Crises we Americans had a single national leader with whom we identify it, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. But Lincoln was president throughout most of the Civil War Crisis only because it was truncated, and Roosevelt was president through most of the Great Power Crisis only because he managed to get elected for life, and neither of those is going to happen this go-round. Nor should we think only in terms of the American president. I can give you a number of Gray Champions who have made themselves evident already, young though this 4T still is: Rudi Giuliani, Tony Blair, Usama bin Laden, Bill Clinton -- and, yes, George W. Bush. He's surprising the hell out of me these days.


Anyway, all of us Boomers are GCs. That's the role we need to play. It's what we're here for. We don't need to run a government (or a terrorist organization) to fill that role. I think we should get beyond thinking of a single GC, just as we should get past thinking of the saeculum in national terms. The world is increasingly one, and too big to be inspired by only one person.

First, let me say that this tragedy has convinced me more than ever that there is absoultely no chance that am I a part of the hippie/Woodstock/Sixties generation (aka, the Boomers). There is no way I can make any comparison between the present situation and the JFK assassination, as I can honestly recall nothing about the latter. This type of emergency is an entirely new situation for those my age - something we have never experienced before (and hopefully, never will again).

And the more you think about an incident like this, the more your attitude toward it can change - dramatically.

My original feelings - anger, hatred, and admittedly, prejudice, have given way to defeatism - something that would have been incomprehensible 48 hours ago.

Could we actually lose this "war?" It's just like the IRA said after an attempt by them to assassinate Margaret Thatcher failed: "She has to get lucky every time; we only have to get lucky once." And even if we make all airline passengers take all their clothes off, bend over and touch their toes before boarding every flight in this country, it still won't stop these terrorists. They will simply find other means - like renting a Ryder truck, stuffing it to the gills with fertilizer, and then lighting a match to it on the FDR Drive at 5:30 on a Friday evening. Perhaps it wouldn't kill 5000 or 6000, but it would still kill several hundred and paralyze our transportation system, both structurally and psychologically. Only by literally reverting to the horse-and-buggy days could we thwart terrorist acts entirely.

The only way we could win this might literally be to wipe the entire Arab race off the face of the Earth - most likely with nuclear weapons. Would we really be willing to go that far? And quite frankly, judging by the way they behaved when Vietnam was going on, I don't think Boomers have the stomach for anything even approaching this.

So that leaves us with the question of what should we do? Maybe giving in to the Zionists back in the late '40s was the wrong thing to do after all. Perhaps we should return Israel to the Arabs, and then resettle Israel's population in the West as refugees, with no conditions about taking them in. After the Russian Revolution, the Soviets set aside a territory called Birobaidzhan (a bit inland from Vladivostok) as a Jewish homeland. Maybe something like this could be proceeded with, and the Jewish state could be relocated there, or someplace else. Otherwise our next "Gray Champion" could go down in history as making Adolf Hitler look like Mother Theresa by comparison.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-09-15 03:58 ]</font>

I, like so many other readers of the 4T, have cogitated about it since the book was released, and spent probably every cocktail party opportunity to discuss it with other readers. The 9-11-01 tragedy I believe is the spark that starts the next phase of history.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:11 ]</font>