Jenny Genser ends? And please, don't bash each others posts or insult each other on these threads!

Already, civil liberties being limited in the name of unity. :wink:

I'm not opposed to Civil Liberties. I am in favor of manners!

Mr. Butler wonders, "However, if we do not hear in our hearts an echo of old words, we will no longer be in ?a pretty good state for any nation to be in.?"

Ummm, I think we already found ourselves no longer be in ?a pretty good state for any nation to be in.?

It's called Conditville, Mr. Butler.


Glad to see your weekend went well, Mr. Doxieman. But is this an excuse to come to the 4T and bash those I still admire?

First, I have an odd confession to make.

I find myself in an extremely irritable mood and I run into others who are having the same problem. Yesterday in a 10 minute car trip I had shouting/honking exchanges with one pedestrian (a jogger who ran into me from the side at an intersection and blamed me) and two motorists trying to usurp the right of way--one an SUV trying to get across four lanes of traffic by sheer intimidation. And in arguments, I find myself wanting to just tell other people what idiots they are, which normally ain't my style at all. This is contrary to the mood of everyone pulling together and I wonder what it's all about.

Another much more important psychological point. I've learned in the last few years that guilt plays a tremendous role in our culture because it preserves the illusion that we control what happens to us. It's easier to blame ourselves for misfortune than to face the fact that events are out of control. Given that chance is playing such a huge role in the nature of this Fourth Turning--maybe in the nature of every Fourth Turning?--is this guilt, the desire to set things right and seem in control, what drives us forward?

The quotes from the Gray Champions were good ones. We are, however, nowhere near that mood--nowhere near knowing where we are going and how we are going to get there--nowhere near that level of certainty. I think that is quite a few years away. (What an amazing crisis the civil war was--so focused, so explosive, so relatively quickly finished. But that is, let us keep in mind, the exception. Of course, it had been building since 1820, with the Republicans and Compromisers holding it in check.)

I can easily see this Administration moving back in a 3T direction; they really were committed to it before this. I'm curious to see.

Thank you for the comments on my last post, concerning information on saecula in other countries/cultures. I haven't had a chance to follow up on the other forum yet, but I noticed (maybe just a coincidence) that a discussion of the seasonal configuration in a variety of other countries has started on this thread. One of the posts opined that the US is very close to 4T, with Canada a couple of years behind, and that the Islamic world is still in 3T. From the point of view of application of force, doesn't a 4T society have an advantage against a 3T society?



In my previous message, I stated that I thought this was the 4T crisis. I am beginning to second-guess that opinion. I live in Northern New Jersey, where there is almost nobody with a degree of separation from a victim greater than 2 (degree 1 == knows a victim, degree 2 == knows someone who knows a victim). A couple of anecdotes:

1) On Tuesday afternoon, at the local blood center, donors were arriving at the rate of 160/hour; a callback list of 650 people accumulated for this facility within 4 hours (at full capacity this will take them a week to work through). The mood of the crowd struck me as "great civility toward fellow citizens, covering suppressed fury."

2) On the other hand, last night in a grocery store, the conversation in the checkout line ahead of me was about a desire for TV coverage of the attack to abate and for regular programming to resume. My initial reaction was "this is a 3T response", but the last 4T did not have multiple cable news channels and websites to feed the news frenzy.

I don't know if we are too close to the event for a steady-state mood to arise, or if even in this area we are still too eager for a return to normalcy to support a 4T crisis identification.

Finally, here (http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109162100.htm ) is a succinct, one-page summary of the underlying problem confronting the U.S., of which the WTC/Pentagon attack is a manifestation. It is reasonable to conclude that for _this_ war, the army that must be constructed has a structure that is a mirror of the table of organization outlined in the article; the type of mobilization that happened after Pearl Harbor would literally not work. The role of the population in this crisis would be:

- Acquiescence in much more intrusive surveillance;
- Tolerance of a much higher degree of covert warfare;
- Tolerance of a higher degree of personal risk (e.g., additional terrorist incidents).

We'll have our chance to find out. On CNN today a call for recruits was issued for university-educated, English and (Arabic, Farsi)-speaking individuals with ability to pass an extensive background check.

A bill (or maybe executive order - I didn't hear the news clearly) modifying wiretapping law to follow the individual being wiretapped, rather than the device, is in progress (this would institutionalize the Carnivore program!).

AOL and Earthlink are cooperating with (in some unspecified manner) government officials to scan e-mail.

Is this degree of participation by society at large sufficient to constitute a 4T?

I think it is human nature when a shock occurs for things to return "back to normal", especially for those not directly affected. The big question, is will they?

It is normal to deny that Things Have Changed, just as it is normal to mourn What No Longer Is. But because some people want to Go Back, doesn't mean it will happen.

As I've posted earlier, only time will tell.

Mark writes? Ummm, I think we already found ourselves no longer be in ?a pretty good state for any nation to be in.? It's called Conditville, Mr. Butler.

While agreeing that Conditville is not a desirable state, not all of us are still in Conditville. As little as one likes Conditville, the price for the ticket out of town seems high. My minor concern is that while the price has been paid for the ticket, some have missed the train. This is not unexpected. Not all colonials were patriots. Not all northerners were abolitionists. Some GI generation folk remained isolationist. Still, very few individuals, after 9-11-01, are trying to draw attention back to the danger of shark attacks. Some, when the world is turning upside down, will bash the Gray Champion while putting no other effort into resolving the issues of the time. It happens. If some have missed the train, so be it. To a great extent those moving on are better off without them.

My real concern remains, as I have quoted often enough over many posts over many years, that we are the establishment power, the nation that benefits most from attempting to use force maintain the status quo. In the last several decades, the world has moved beyond the 1945 world order. An attempt to use brute force to maintain the old order is plausible to likely. The royalists factions of the English Civil War, the loyalists of the American Revolution, and the Confederate faction of the US Civil War were attempting to maintain well justified tried and true power structures. The British Empire and Confederate States were arguably as good and healthy cultures as existed in their times, well worth fighting for from the perspectives of their subjects and citizens. Thus, my concern is for a brute force attempt to retain a 20th Century world order at a time when 3rd World economics and military capacity mandate moving on. A brute force attempt to cling to a privileged position in an obsolete world order is very much to be expected come a 4T, but very very dangerous for the parties so clinging.

From here, this New War isn?t yet about good guys and bad guys, but two world views, neither of which are acceptable. There may be good reasons and bad reasons for either accepting a consensus, attempting to shift it, or just continuing an argumentative unraveling mind set indefinitely.

KaiserD2 adds? The quotes from the Gray Champions were good ones. We are, however, nowhere near that mood--nowhere near knowing where we are going and how we are going to get there--nowhere near that level of certainty. I think that is quite a few years away.

I very much agree. In broad outline, it seems obvious we have to move further in the same direction Lincoln and FDR moved, an expansion of human rights, who has them, and how well they are enforced. The specifics are no where near settled. A mood shift has started. Most are aware that something has to be done. Considerable give and take will be necessary. Further incidents illustrating the nature of the post Berlin Wall political situation will come before the real push will be on.

We might be four generations past the 1929 Crash. The Four Freedoms speech, given in early 1941, well before Pearl Harbor, reflects a decade of movement towards big government world power status. Lincoln?s Second Innagural was 1865, when the fat lady was already singing. Quite plausibly, a decade will pass while the west attempts to maintain the old order while those looking forward decide what the new order ought to look like, and how to build it. The nuts and bolts of building a hypothetical new world order may not start in earnest for quite some time.

Mr. Butler thinks, "From here, this New War isn?t yet about good guys and bad guys, but two world views."

You can't be serious, Mr. Butler. I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

Mark Lamb writes? You can't be serious, Mr. Butler. I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

I am quite serious, Mr. Lamb. I?m not confident you understand what I mean by worldview, a perspective on seeing the world, a set of values through which decisions are made. As an example, when looking at the abortion question, an individual with a secular liberal world view will be apt to reach a different conclusion than one from a fundamentalist religious world view. This is but a single and very broad example. The ?red zone / blue zone? debates are another (related) example of two groups of people with different values and experiences seeing problems from different perspectives thus seeking different solutions.

Or go to the recent budget debates. A CEO, forest ranger, two star general, labor organizer, and NAACP lobbyist might have lived closer to different problems, grown concerned with different issues, and organized their way of looking at the world quite differently. Many of these occupations have associated political movements, such as capitalism, or ecology. It is quite natural, having different experiences in how the world works, to value different information as important, to structure one?s decision making patterns to resolve different problems.

This approach to understanding individuals rejects that idea that because one is right, anyone who disagrees must be wrong. It acknowledges that people have different priorities, different wants, different needs, different methods. One basic assumption is that while one might use logic and observation to debate facts, one seldom if ever manages to change another individual?s values. Values generally change only with traumatic emotional experiences, when one?s old value system conspicuously fails. While individuals might occasionally change values independently, catalyst events and trigger events might be considered culture wide traumas, shifting the values of the nation as a whole.

Freedom from Want : Capitalist Imperialist powers actively sliced the world into impoverish colony nations through the early part of the 20th Century. While Imperialist policies are no longer as extreme as they once were, the Imperialists continue to use political, military and economic power to maintain a division of wealth. They are the haves. We are the have nots. They are actively attempting to keep it that way.

Freedom of Religion. Imperialists use the media to corrupt ancient cultures. If the true form of worship of God is to be continued, the corrupting influence of godless materialists must be eliminated.

Freedom from Fear: If local interests might reduce the profits of capitalist imperialists, they will use military force to ?protect the vital interests? of their countries, terrorizing nations into yielding their own vital interests. The capitalists must be made to realize that they cannot use force abroad with impunity and never pay a price. Only then will we be able to keep some part of what is ours.

Is one?s view of the crisis economic, religious, military, ecological or political? How many other perspectives are worth a mention? Might one assume that ours is not the only culture that can justify its action sufficiently to induce the young males to take up arms and cause death? Might one suspect that most modern people have complex world views, mixing at different levels economic, religious, political and other values? How much of a mistake might it be to cling to a single value system from the perspective of a single culture, never trying to understand other culture?s values, interests and methods? If one puts together a convincing argument based on religious values, would one expect this argument to matter to one whose primary values are focused on economics?

I am most serious. I have had no interest in Conditville for quite some time.

Bob, thank you for some very insightful and interesting posts.


Now if I may interject a minor consideration of partisan politics, it's occurred to me to wonder how difficult it's going to be for Bush to be reelected in 2004. On September 10, I would have said he was dead meat, that the only real question was who the Democrats would nominate. But now that the Crisis is here, the point counters are reset to zero on both sides, and he has a chance to recoup matters. Can he do it?


For an early 4T leader, there are two variables, one objective and one subjective. The objective variable is: How well can the leader show progress in solving the 4T problems? And the subjective variable is: How well can the leader inspire the people with hope and confidence, as well as articulating the problems faced by the community?


Two presidents, since our Constitution was ratified, were in office or elected thereto when the Crisis catalyzed. I count Lincoln in that role, not Buchanan, because Buchanan's reelection wasn't an issue. The other one was Herbert Hoover.


There is no question that Lincoln was a success and Hoover a failure in terms of the subjective variable. Arguably, America has never had a president more eloquent than Abraham Lincoln. As for Hoover, it was said of him as he campaigned for reelection, "If you put a rose in his hand, it would wilt."


There can also be no doubt that Hoover was a failure in terms of the objective variable, but one must argue that Lincoln wasn't terribly successful in that regard, either. That isn't entirely clear, because by the time of the 1864 election, Union victory was actually quite close; the only valid complaint -- and it's a big one -- is that it took so long and so many sacrifices to win a war that could and should have been won much sooner and more easily.


Lincoln was reelected, Hoover was not.


Roosevelt adds a bit of ballast information to the question. He was hardly more successful in objective terms than Hoover, although in subjective terms he was hardly less so than Lincoln. He was also reelected (and reelected, and reelected). So the relative importance of the two measures, objective and subjective, isn't altogether clear, but it looks as if subjective success may be the more important of the two. Lincoln was reelected with subjective success and an ambiguous objective achievement. Hoover was voted out with neither subjective nor objective success. FDR was reelected with objetive failure but subjective success.


On to Bush. Bush, alas, has all the charisma and inspiring leadership ability of an overcooked turnip. So he's going to be a subjective failure, and there isn't much can be done about that. If he's going to be reelected, it has to be on the strength of his objective success, i.e. winning the war and, most likely, achieving success in the other struggles of the 4T. Can he do it? And will it be enough?


There are some hopeful signs for Bush League in that they are approaching the military, diplomatic, and law enforcement side of this situation in a 4T manner and not a 3T manner. Good on them, but there is another side of the problem on which we haven't heard diddly, and that is addressing the foreign-policy defects that add to global resentment of the U.S. In this area, Bush before the attack was actually looking a good deal worse than his predecessors, who themselves weren't very good. Nor did he approach the other Crisis issues, global economics and the global environment, in constructive ways (quite the contrary).


So I submit that the following questions, which at this point can't be answered, will in large measure determine Bush's political success or failure.


1) Will Bush be perceived as having achieved significant success against terrorism by 2004?


2) Will we encounter either a global depression or significant resource shortages or other environmental problems commanding public attention during the same time?


3) Will Bush reverse course on how to deal with the global economy and environment?


4) Can objective success make up for subjective failure? (We know from FDR's example that the reverse is possible.)


We can, I believe, forget about E2K as an issue, however. There has never before been a president elected while losing the popular vote who was reelected -- but nor has there been such a president elected just before the onset of a Fourth Turning. New rules; ignore the precedents.


Now, regarding "Conditville" -- I asked before why some, particularly those on the cultural right, might have a problem with the idea that we are now entering a 4T. I think Marc has illustrated that for us with his frequent references to Condit and thus to political sex scandals.


We aren't going to see much more in the way of Conditville for a while. But that is probably not because behavior of this nature is going to disappear. It may decline somewhat, along with other self-centered and irresponsible acts. But what is sure to decline dramatically is media coverage of such political sexual affairs as do happen. Quite simply, we have far more important matters to grab our attention, and can't be bothered with trivialities of that nature.


Now, I suspect this is not going to sit altogether well with those for whom these matters are not trivialities. And that means that those for whom a reform of sexual mores is high on the agenda are going to be somewhat disappointed that sexual mores are no longer on the public radar, that, in short, the public is no longer to be found in Conditville.


In contrast, those of us who considered the obsession with reforming sexual mores to be the worst sort of Third Turning frivolity are as happy that this is no longer on the radar as we are that all the other 3T stupidities have now been eclipsed by something real -- despite the steepness of the price.

Brian has made a most interesting post. I have two comments.

If this is a 4T, subjective failure cannot make up for objective success, in my opinion. Bush will probably be re-elected (I'm sorry to say) if he captures the mood of the country and rides it. If he doesn't, he won't,whether terrorism declines or not.

Secondly, Brian, your comments on Conditville are just about exactly what I've been saying for YEARS on this site about the Clinton scandals and others. It was WE who gave into the 3T atmosphere by paying attention to them. In other turnings they would have been regarded as just as insignificant as they really were.

Ok, sorry. Conditville draws too many references to pols who can't get over it.

How's this: Spearsville.

Get it?

As Britney Spears is no more significant an issue than Gary Condit, Marc, I think you're the one who doesn't get it.


David, you may well be right. We just don't have a precedent, because we don't have a start-of-the-4T president who achieved real objective success. We do know, from FDR's example, that subjective success can make up for objective failure. We don't know one way or the other about the reverse equation. But it's Bush's only hope, really. (I daresay if the election were held today, he'd win handily, but of course that's not what will happen.)


As a final note -- if Bush captures the mood of the country and rides it, on ALL of the 4T issues that present themselves, we need not lament his reelection. To do so would require reversing just about every Bush policy of his brief pre-Crisis tenure that you or I would have a problem with.

On 2001-09-17 15:42, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
...

Freedom from Want : Capitalist Imperialist powers actively sliced the world into impoverish colony nations through the early part of the 20th Century. While Imperialist policies are no longer as extreme as they once were, the Imperialists continue to use political, military and economic power to maintain a division of wealth. They are the haves. We are the have nots. They are actively attempting to keep it that way.

Freedom of Religion. Imperialists use the media to corrupt ancient cultures. If the true form of worship of God is to be continued, the corrupting influence of godless materialists must be eliminated.

Freedom from Fear: If local interests might reduce the profits of capitalist imperialists, they will use military force to ?protect the vital interests? of their countries, terrorizing nations into yielding their own vital interests. The capitalists must be made to realize that they cannot use force abroad with impunity and never pay a price. Only then will we be able to keep some part of what is ours.
...

I am most serious. I have had no interest in Conditville for quite some time.

Bob,
I'm not sure if you are only pointing out a differing world view that certain peoples might have, or if you are also subscribing to the views you list, since I know there are plenty of Americans who do.


I disagree with these perspectives on a few points.

1) "They are the haves. We are the have nots. They are actively attempting to keep it that way."

As I have already posted, I do think the attack was in part a "have nots vs. haves" attack. But I disagree that we are actively attempting to keep the Third World down. That's dangerous but pervasive thinking, and will perhaps lead to a bad 4T. I think that America would like to raise up the level of the entire world, and has no interest in keeping anyone down. Before I am called naive, let me say that I think those who espouse such a view are in reality the naive ones. Just because the U.S. doesn't create a world welfare state, or because the West (and Japan) industrialized first, which has created a resource shift, making it harder for the Third World to "catch up", doesn't translate to having an interest in the poor staying poor. In reality, overpopulation, internal strife (which is somewhat, but not entirely, correlated to superpower behavior), and traditional cultural worldviews are keeping poor countries poor. The U.S. and the West are not the bad guys, the way the Seattle protestors would have it.

2.) ..."the corrupting influence of godless materialists must be eliminated..."

I addressed this in an earlier post as well. I think that's just a crock. Freedom should be the freedom for citizens to have McDonald's and listen to 'N Sync, if they want to. I'm not telling them to do it. If a country's people don't want it, fine. I don't subscribe much to American culture myself, but I subscribe to the freedom to choose.

To defend "religious freedom" as the freedom to be intolerant and dictatiorial, but then to warn against such behavior in the U.S. at the first mention of the word "God", is inconsistent at best.

3. I don't really know what you are trying to say in the "Freedom from Fear" category. But I agree that local interests should be given protective laws to help them survive vs. multinational interests. An example would be "Campa Cola" in place of "Coca Cola" in India (which, however, is still cultural imperialism, I guess -- drinking a cola beverage).

Then there are your words:

"I am most serious. I have had no interest in Conditville for quite some time.",

and

"And that means that those for whom a reform of sexual mores is high on the agenda are going to be somewhat disappointed that sexual mores are no longer on the public radar, that, in short, the public is no longer to be found in Conditville."

This opinion, echoed by Brian and David K., who indeed has been delivering the same misinformed (sorry to be inflammatory, but there it is -- and I even read how irritable you are today, so I'm already ducking :wink: ) "why is America obsessed with sex?" message ever since Monicagate.

I too hate the nonstop, self-feeding 3T media circus. But it is wrong to focus on Clinton or Condit as "sex scandals", when each has a different important theme, neither of which is sex. (Clinton's was responsibility and breach of public trust, Condit's is potentially murder.)

I know that some of you may wish to respond, and I also know that means dragging out the 3T, which is unpleasant -- albeit while simultaneously discussing the 4T, which is useful.

Rich, I am relatively sure (though he can confirm this himself) that Bob was entering into the mindset of the Taliban and bin Laden in stating his points. There are some of those he might (and I do) agree with, but obviously others that we won't.


I think that America would like to raise up the level of the entire world, and has no interest in keeping anyone down.


Depends on which America you're talking about. Most of the American people, sure. It would be in our self-interest to do that, as well as morally right. American corporations? Only those that don't profit from cheap foreign labor. The problem being that during the 3T, when so many people tuned out politics, government responded to corporations before voters.


This is where the terrorists have a valid point. This is where we need to clean up our act. Unfortunately, it's not their only point, and on others we can't compromise. That's where #2 comes in. I agree that it's a crock, but only because I reject the Taliban's values (for essentially the same reason I reject the Christian right's, only more so). If I accepted their values, I would have to agree with #2 on the basis of the facts.


Your second quote re Conditville is actually from me; only the first one is Bob's.


But it is wrong to focus on Clinton or Condit as "sex scandals", when each has a different important theme, neither of which is sex. (Clinton's was responsibility and breach of public trust, Condit's is potentially murder.)


One must distinguish between the legal case one can find buried under all the smut and the political and media matter, which in each case was one of smut thinly justified by said legal question. Indeed, in each case the "important theme" you cite is quite easily dismissed. Only the juicy stuff made either case more than a footnote in the news.

The mood of impending crisis does seem unmistakable, doesn't it? On the one hand, there's Bush talking about war -not a police action, not an "operation"- with the Taliban, with terrorists, and with "all who support them" without fine distinctions about who is who.

More, on the streets of New York, a few days ago, it was impossible to cross checkpoints at 14th Street, Houston, and Canal without ID proving that you were from inside the cordoned area. These lines were established immediately, and I find it difficult to believe that the niceties of due process were observed.

Divisions have been obliterated, or at least temporarily papered over; and (if the reactions of other nations are any indication) the rest of the world is quite prepared to believe, for that the U.S. means business. But are they right? DO we mean business?

I think that the national mood is less one of furious, unyielding anger than one of deep sadness and a growing reluctance to walk the path that history wants us to take. Upon second reflection, I think that America will enter this conflict with the unenthusiastic resolution of a combatant who has been given no choice.

Left to themselves, at this particular stage in history, I suspect that the American people would eventually cool off, let bygones be bygones, pursue a few obvious malefactors like Bin Laden, and then rebuild; but the looming knowledge that the people who did this to us are still out there, and can and will do it again, if given the chance, will force the United States to take long-term action.

In my opinion, this bombing wasn't the catalyzing event, exactly. . . it's the CATALYST for the catalyzing event. It is the gateway to a long period of murky, shifting conflict that will make the true catalyzing event possible.

Some final thoughts before I check out of here once more. I remember why I stopped posting: it gets trivial in a hurry. No one is changing anyone's mind. Once you say what you think needs to be heard, it's time to leave again. I'll post this one, and then no more, unless (maybe) to respond to replies to my existing posts. I may return again when the next 4T milestone arrives.

Here are my last observations for now:

(1) despite the overboard attempt to revamp airport security, two things need mentioning:

(a) airport security was not breached in this attack; in fact, overall we have been very lucky, considering all the security flaws at airports

(b) airport security will be breached in the future

(2) what needs to be changed is the onboard security; some suggestions:

(a) make the cockpit unreachable by having a solid wall between cabin and cockpit, with separate exterior doors on either side of the wall. An extra flight attendant can operate on the cockpit side of the wall.
This means refitting all jets.

(b) find a way to implement the somewhat-publicized method of the pilot releasing a sleeping gas through vents, to put all the passengers safely to sleep until landing, in the event of an onboard threat.

These measures do nothing to prevent bombs on board or in cargo. THIS is the area of airport security that must be improved. It's not what was breached this time, but could be the one next time.

(3) We will not stop terrorism by making airport and airline security stronger. For one, there's no 100% security. More importantly, there are Amtrak trains, there are buses, sporting events, concerts, private vehicles parked in parking garages underneath public buildings -- the list goes on, especially with a little imagination.

No, we cannot completely stop terrorism. That doesn't mean we should not try. Every effort we make is to the good. And apparently terrorism, while possible, is still no easy matter.

We have to somehow proactively eliminate terrorISTS, not terrorism (as someone wrote in these threads). Against whom are we declaring war? Let's start with the Taliban (and NOT against "Afghanistan", which would be a very bad move), and move on from there as we are aware of other terrorist-supporting bodies.

This will require a new willingness for the world to intervene across national borders of those nations who refuse to cooperate in the war against terrorists.

(4) Let's build a proud memorial edifice of huge proportions, and have it be a new 21st Century America symbol. This would be a visual rallying point for our country, and a historical reminder as time goes by. Don't make it an office building, make it nothing but a memorial, just a ground floor and an observation deck, nothing else in between. All that expense with nothing in mind but symbolic pride.

(5) Let's get ready as a country for the next 15-20 years of unprecendented commitment. Expect domestic issues to be just as much a priority as foreign war.

See ya.

Let me reply to Wulfe, and to any others who may be encountering this discussion and who many not have read Generations or (especially) The Fourth Turning.

I can understand how, when you read a discussion forum like this, you might be confused, or put off, by some of the lingo people use. Like 3T, 4T, Nomads, Prophets, catalysts, crisis, Millennials, and (our newest) 911 (which is our shorthand, here, for the attack on America on Sep 11).

Unfortunately, there's no short answer to all that. Perhaps the best simple thing I can recommend is to spend a little time in our fourthturning.com web site (away from the discussion forum), where you can learn at least the basics about the historical method underlying our theory of generations and turnings. Better would be to read The Fourth Turning (and, if you're really interested in American history, Generations).

Let me assure you, Wulfe--and perhaps some readers here can assure you, too--that this theory is a very real attempt to understand the seasonal (alias, cyclical) nature of history, and not just in America.

Perhaps it's time to update the home page (and other pages) on this web site to make this discussion forum more understandable to newcomers.

Does anyone else have any thoughts for newcomers like Wulfe, who may never have read The Fourth Turning, and who may (quite reasonably) be puzzled about what it is we're all talking about?

uh.. he said, sheepishly peeking in one more time:

"Don't make it an office building, make it nothing but a memorial, just a ground floor and an observation deck, nothing else in between."

Obviously there must be SOMETHING in between! I mean, no building floors for humans, just enough construction material to build a sturdy monument as tall as the WTC was -- hell, make it taller. Make it shiny gold. Make it architecturally interesting. I don't know -- just build it.

Here is a simple thought:

<big>Buy these books ASAP!!</big> How's that for a thought? :lol:

You will not be disappointed.

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Life is not a cancer of matter; it is matter's transcendence of itself." -- John S. Lewis
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert Einstein

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2001-09-17 19:14 ]</font>

Alright alright!!

Well, we definitely need to put up a page of abbreviations, and also a glossary. Everyone needs to know what 4S-3T means.

I must agree with Brian that the Clinton scandals would not have been what they were in other turnings. To impeach a president because he lied under oath about a private matter was overkill perpetrated by a minority of fanatic culture warriors.

The Taliban and bin Ladenites are the same, only much worse (they commit mass murder for their cause, not just political excess).

I think Brian's analysis of Bush and other presidents is correct, except for 2 points: FDR did have some modest objective success compared to Hoover. Despite the relapse of 1937, in 1935-36 there was a palpable recovery which led to his first re-election, and then World War Two ended the depression-- a war that FDR saw the nation through very successfully.

I suspect the comparison to Bush the younger may turn out to be Bush the elder. He's popular now because he has a popular war to fight. The Bushes know how to fight wars. He still has no talent for dealing with other issues. If the war is just a memory by 2004, he will lose.

As an older Xer (33) and a former Naval Officer I find myself torn between the wisdom of a measured response and the desire to take bold action to prove that we can't be kicked around. The rhetoric flying around tends to push me towards the former as I see people who formerly would have opposed ANY US Military action start screaming for blood. This is what scares me. The fact that we have not yet taken any action and the calming sense that "The adults are in charge" (i.e. Cheney and Powell) leads me to believe this will NOT be THE catalyst. But S&H certainly make a good point that this is (at a minimum) a foreshadowing of the catalyst which will force us forward. I just frankly don't see the mood in this country yet to sustain the kind of patriotic fervor which we have seen in the last week. I think it will fade as the realities of jobs and families and that within oru individual lives returns to center stage. I think it is when we reach that point where this DOESNT happen that we will have seen the catalyst for the 4T. And I pray to God that I'm right, because if we just entered the 4T, I fear this will go like the civil war in fits and starts with a climax that will be extremely hard to bear.

Hey, Eric, welcome back! Any answer to the question posed earlier? To repeat: You had expressed a desire to postpone the 4T on the basis that it meant war. Now that, 4T or no 4T, we've got the friggin' war, do you still see it as desirable to have a late Crisis? (A separate question from whether it's possible to do so, I point out.)


Check out this article. Here's a quote:


<blockquote>This is surely the End of the End of History?the notion that after the cold war, ideological or political tussles were dead and life would be spent managing the economy and worrying about consumerism. In his brilliant essay, Francis Fukuyama actually considered the threat of radical Islam but pointed out correctly that, unlike communism, it has no ideological appeal beyond the borders of the Muslim world. Radical Islam as an ideology, in other words, posed no threat to the West. But we pose a threat to it , one its followers feel with blinding intensity. It turns out it takes only one side to restart History.


This is also the end of the triumph of economics. That?s not to say that the economy will not remain central to our society. But the idea that politics was unimportant and that government didn?t matter seems almost absurd in the light of last week?s events. (And not just government and the highest levels. Who can look at the extraordinary sacrifices made by the firefighters and policemen of New York City and still believe that making a million dollars is the meaning of life?) When asked whether the administration?s $40 billion request to rebuild New York and combat terrorism would bust the budget, the president?s spokesman brushed it off, saying simply, ?National security comes first.?


Around the world we will see governments become more powerful, more intrusive and more important. This may not please civil libertarians and human-rights activists, but it will not matter. The state is back, and for the oldest Hobbesian reason in the book?the provision of security.</blockquote>

Subject: Every Ten Years

Along with having a recession every ten years we also seem to have some geopolitical problem that goes along with it. Ten years ago was the Gulf War, twenty years ago was the Iranian Hostage Crisis, thirty years ago was the apex of the Vietnam War, forty years ago the Berlin and Cuban Crisis, fifty years ago Korea, sixty years ago WWII, seventy years ago there was no military crisis but the Depression was a world crisis, eighty years ago WWI, ninety years ago the Nicaraugen Crisis, one hundred years ago the Spanish American War and so on.

So this is not only our decannual recession it is also our decannual geopolitical crisis. Every half Era we have one of each.