Yesterday morning, on NPR they interviewed some people from Oneota, AL, about 911. (I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact words.) The interviewer asked one woman, who sounded 60ish (I'm hoping the transcript will say), if she'd noticed any changes around her since the attack. "Yes, I did," she replied. "But what I noticed most is that it reminded me of the way things were when I was a child growing up. There were flags everywhere. People were nicer. Traffic was slower. People made eye contact with each other."

Another interesting interchange from the same program: The reporter asked one of the men (who sounded late 40's), "Since people have a remembrance down here of having your home soil invaded, how will you react if there is more?" He said, "Oh, if [the mayor] tells us to evacuate, I think he'll have a problem on his hands. I think most of us will stay right here and just lock and load." The reporter was audibly surprised by the answer.

HopefulCynic:

On the other hand, I can't fit Jessica into that mold at all

The book doesn't reflect the saeculum exactly, of course. But since you mentioned Jessica, I thought of another connection with the MilSaec 2T: feminism! The Bene Gesserit provide an image of powerful womanhood, in spite of some of the PI details.


I first read Dune around 1970, the year I turned 14. Although too young to participate directly in the events of that time, I was very conscious of them and had been since '68. Dune and the character of Muad Dib were enormously inspirational.


It's too simple to think of the older Heroes purely in an adversarial role in the Awakening. In many ways they are an inspiration. Let me ask this of other Boomers. How many were inspired to a progressive stance, a belief that things could be changed for the better, by John F. Kennedy's rhetoric? I think he may have been the biggest single positive GI factor in the Awakening, despite being dead before it started.


(Or maybe not despite. Who knows how he'd have reacted to some of those things if he'd still been president in '65-'68. I'm thinking of an especially nasty anti-Johnson chant shouted by antiwar protesters, and reflecting that "JFK," like "LBJ," rhymes with "today.")

As someone else has posted on this thread already, Pat Robertson has been known to say things he himself doesn't really mean, not by deliberate lies but by speaking without thinking.

The business about only Christians being eligible for public office is only one example. There is a pattern to his statements that shows a desire to subordinate civic and humanistic values to Biblical ones in a government context. (Doing so in a private-life context is of course an altogether different matter.) If he shot his mouth off about a specific policy idea and then retracted it, it's not because the idea doesn't reflect his basic goals and values (it does), but because he reconsidered it and found it impractical.


What's more, I think that same attitude prevails among the religious right and practically defines membership therein, even for those who disagree with Robertson about the details more often than they agree. Which, I imagine, many do. (I am fairly sure that you do.)

Past a certain point, a sufficient difference of degree becomes a difference in kind. The RR don't want a formalized theocracy, except for a _tiny_ handful of super-extremists.

While that's true, it's not a significant difference from my perspective. Certainly not past the point where it becomes a difference in kind. A theocracy that isn't "formalized" is almost as bad.


What I mean by "theocracy," and perhaps another word would be better, is a situation in which government policy is determined not by an attention to public welfare, public safety, and the protection of rights and freedoms, but instead by attention to the dictates of religious morality. Whether that is achieved by putting priests into actual government offices or by other means is irrelevant unless you, personally, want to run for public office and are not a priest.

Note that one of the biggest groups with doubts about Bush's faith-based charity plan was precisely the RR.

Yes, but I suspect they would have been bothered a lot less by it if it weren't for that pesky First Amendment thingy that would have required government support for non-Christian religious charities as well as their own.

I suspect you're probably right about Bin Laden hating the Saudi government and ruling class, though. After all, they're one of the U.S.'s most consistent Islamic allies

There may also be a purely personal and petty reason. It's his homeland, and the government exiled him. This is after a youth in which his family were considered second-class citizens, rich or not, because his parents had emigrated from Yemen. He may be personally ticked off, and justifying it by reference to the King's allowing infidel troops to taint the sacred soil.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-09-26 06:24 ]</font>

What may be a prime question resurfaced. Dubya announced he was not into ?nation building,? while presenting the conflict with the terrorists as being pure ?good against evil.? In opposition, Clinton pushed efforts to fight third world poverty, while McCain at least briefly mentioned extreme poverty as breeding terror. We might also recall the old debate on whether NATO should intervene in the Balkans. An argument was made that anarchy so close to Europe was a threat to Europe. September 11 emphasizes and extends this argument.

I?m not entirely thrilled by either alternative. If we sent special operations teams, smart bombs, cruise missiles and/or well financed and armed Northern Alliance offensives into Afghanistan, we can kill some yet undetermined number of terrorists, and make some undetermined number of enemies eager to retaliate. I am concerned that the people of that culture just do not quit. What does not kill them will make them stronger, not to mention ticking them off. A 3T style limited war for limited objectives, an attempt to continue the status quo, could be counterproductive.

On the other extreme, if we were to make the entirely debatable assumption that peace and some semblance of prosperity must be restored to Afghanistan to eliminate it as a terrorist threat, the job is still difficult to impossible.

On the third hand, Dubya has promised all out war on terror. Doing nothing would be political suicide. He has to expend considerable energy, shed some blood, at least look like he is trying to do something.

Hunt terrorists like dogs? Do what is best long term for the people of Afghanistan? Both? Are either possible? At a guess, Dubya is going to walk the first path. Whether he is solving the problem or making it worse might be visible by 2004.

Is it written anywhere in S&H that fourth turnings are supposed to be easy?

Just a side comment. Someone said

A point: I was speaking of the _societies_, not the governments. Saudi society is very religiously conservative, even by RR standards, though far short of Taliban standards.

Saudi society does NOT fall *that* short of Taliban standards. Saudi Arabia is one of the most religiously restrictive governments aside from Afghanistan. This is till the society that gives a reward of a year's salary to anyone who turns in Christian worship meetings, prayer groups or evangelists; who executes any Saudi who becomes a Christian and is discovered; who executes any non-Muslim that enters the holy lands; who regularly arrests and imprisons and tortures anyone who is suspected of leading a Christian worship meeting....

Back to T4T... One of the things I keep trying to do is to keep my eyes on the long-term ball here. T4T probably will not characterized by the issue of terrorism, but simply catalyzed by it. Long-term, the issues of T4T will likely dwell on such things as the economy, privacy, security, etc. The threat of terrorism will overshadow us but the practical issues will not be terrorism but the changes in our culture as a result...

Nation building, I think, won't happen in a 4T. (Except building our own nation.)

One issue of paramount importance, of course, is the protection of children and their environment. I think vouchers may be one of the issues resolved in the 4T in this context. NYT is running an article about how the Supreme Court has agreed to look at the constitutionality of vouchers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/na...odaysheadlines

Excerpts from this week's Newsweek:

An article in the "Culture" subcategory is titled "Finding Our New Voice." It discusses the many ways in which the entertainment industry is revamping after 9/11. "You could measure the change by the catch in David Letterman's voice, the pain in his eyes. By the time the master of late-night detachment returned to the air, the entire culture had shifted under his, and our, feet. Suddenly irony seemed like a luxury we could no longer afford, a safety net that offered no protection....Now history has rendered our decadence provincial, naive. Can our artists and entertainers find voices that heal and challenge, and visions that connect--to ourselves, to each other, to the real world?"

And in the CW (Conventional Wisdom):

Among the up arrows: W (Finally finds clear, inspiring voice--just when the nation needs him. Godspeed.); media; public (A people united. Calm, determined, generous; the next Greatest Generation?)

Among the down arrows: Falwell (Blames attack on pro-choicers, gays, ACLU. P. Robertson concurs. How un-American.); intelligence agencies; airlines; reality TV (Eating rats & bungee jumping doesn't seem so compelling anymore. Irony bites.)

It would appear that the media think we're in a 4T.

On the other hand, the "My Turn" column is by an '82 cohort member, a student in NYC, who is a tattooed female musician (among other things). She titled her essay "The Day the World Changed, I Did Too," saying "Just weeks ago, I thought of myself as a musician & a poet. Now I'm calling myself a patriot." Sounds on target for a Millie (discounting the tattoos). *But* she goes on to say that most of her peers are saying, "This is our own failt for getting involved in everybody else's business," & "This is because we support Israel, & we shouldn't be doing that because they took that land from the people it belonged to." That sounds quite 3T.

Based on all that, does it seem likely that the media will pull the public into a 4T, even if the public is still in a 3T mode? Or are the students in a minority & is most of the country already crossing over the 4T boundary?

To Marc, Brian and Stonewall Patton:

My original response to Stonewall had to do specifically with his sense of "disillusionment," but I'm going to surprise you (and please S&H, by getting back on topic) by agreeing with you that generationally, the Unraveling may well have started before Reagan's 1984 "Morning In America" touchstone which I found so ironic in retrospect. I might date it to Prince's "1999," which I believe was released in the fall of 1982 or early 1983. Certainly I partied all through junior high and high school to the tune of "1999" and "Purple Rain." "1999" the title tune seemed to convey accurately my attitude toward the nuclear freeze movement going on at the time (i.e., "If we're gonna get blown to smithereens, it's gonna happen despite these naive Boomer and Silent do-gooders, so let's just have fun in the meanwhile") and probably my unthinking Alex Keaton Republicanism in general. And, with Prince only being a year off in his millennialism (not Millennialism, to anyone reading this who can't legally drink alcohol), the song seems oddly in synch (bad pun, I know!) in retrospect with S&H's generational rhythm of Unraveling leading to Crisis.

Alas, HopefulCynic, that's also about the only explanation I can give you for your own un-Churchillian political dilemma :wink:

Is Usama in possession of WMD?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010926-945878.htm

On 2001-09-26 06:06, Lis '54 wrote:
Yesterday morning, on NPR they interviewed some people from Oneota, AL, about 911. . . . "Yes, I did," she replied. "But what I noticed most is that it reminded me of the way things were when I was a child growing up. There were flags everywhere. People were nicer. Traffic was slower. People made eye contact with each other."

I, too, heard that NPR segment yesterday. I found this article, as well, by Miss Manners - could these be changes that will persist, or is it just a shocked population reeling from a direct attack on our country?


http://womencentral.msn.com/homefood...nners_0924.asp


I, for one, hope that the change in people's behavior will last - our society has become, over the course of the 3T, almost unbearably rude.

Paul Atreides as Idealist/Prophet (literally!)? Interesting, I had never really looked at it like that, but you're right. For that matter, wouldn't that make Leto I (Paul's father, for those who don't remember) a Civic/Hero?

The more I think about that, the more sense it makes. Leto the Elder was a hard-edged soldier, who loved his son dearly but probably wasn't the best as expressing it. He was universally respected as both honorable and capable, but he didn't quite know how to cope with some of the things swirling around him, since he could never quite quantify them. Interesting.

On the other hand, I can't fit Jessica into that mold at all. If anything, she makes more sense as an Adaptive. A very skilled, very powerful Adaptive, but as the story goes on she realizes she's been fed a bill of goods by her Sisters, and changes her allegiance. That sounds familiar.

So a Civic and an Adaptive give birth to a Prophet, who turns the world upside down without really grasping the implications of what he's done until it's too late. Now that I think of it, it's amazing this story was written before Strauss and Howe came up with their theory. It's almost spooky how well it fits!

Actually Jessica was definitely an Artist(She was many years younger than Leto I). She was a member of the Bene Gesserit, an Heroic/Civic organization of political manipulators that masqueraded as a religious organization. These were women who created religions among people to protect themselves and used a form of genetic engineering to literally try and breed themselves a captive Messiah through which they could control the universe. They never realized that they were tapping into some of the deepest, most unexplainable forces that control human destiny. Jessica fully bought into Paul's Awakening crusade and in later centuries is regarded as the Bene Gesserit's greatest traitor.

The theory can also be expanded to the later books in the series. Leto Atriedes II and Ghanima, Paul's kids, are classic Nomads. They do what is necessary to keep the passions of Paul's Awakening from destroying the human race, paying a far greater price themselves than what they asked of others. Leto deliberately induced an Unravelling to do this, which culminated in the Scattering (as good a name for an unravelling period as I've heard). Leto's reward for this was to be remembered by the Bene Gesserit as "The Tyrant".

The Bene Gesseit, that Civic enclave finally come back into their own as Heroes as the Unravelling concludes and Honored Matre Crisis begin.

Wow - that's kind of scary.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-09-26 09:59 ]</font>

On 2001-09-26 06:06, Lis '54 wrote:
Yesterday morning, on NPR they interviewed some people from Oneota, AL, about 911. (I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact words.) The interviewer asked one woman, who sounded 60ish (I'm hoping the transcript will say), if she'd noticed any changes around her since the attack. "Yes, I did," she replied. "But what I noticed most is that it reminded me of the way things were when I was a child growing up. There were flags everywhere. People were nicer. Traffic was slower. People made eye contact with each other."

Another interesting interchange from the same program: The reporter asked one of the men (who sounded late 40's), "Since people have a remembrance down here of having your home soil invaded, how will you react if there is more?" He said, "Oh, if [the mayor] tells us to evacuate, I think he'll have a problem on his hands. I think most of us will stay right here and just lock and load." The reporter was audibly surprised by the answer.

I live a couple of miles south of Oneonta and am surprised at all by the "lock and load" attitude. I had friends in high school who thought that with enough ammo they could hold off the anti-christ himself.

Justin: Robertson can't expect us to buy the "Oops! I mispoke" excuse too often. This is the man who claimed that Scotland was run by homosexuals and that God might have to smite Orlando with a meteorite for putting up rainbow flags. I think he and Falwell say on the 700 Club exactly what their audience wants to hear (regardless of whether they believe it themselves) and then have to mop up later because they are overheard.

On 2001-09-26 06:06, Lis '54 wrote:
Yesterday morning, on NPR they interviewed some people from Oneota, AL, about 911. (I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact words.) The interviewer asked one woman, who sounded 60ish (I'm hoping the transcript will say), if she'd noticed any changes around her since the attack. "Yes, I did," she replied. "But what I noticed most is that it reminded me of the way things were when I was a child growing up. There were flags everywhere. People were nicer. Traffic was slower. People made eye contact with each other."

Another interesting interchange from the same program: The reporter asked one of the men (who sounded late 40's), "Since people have a remembrance down here of having your home soil invaded, how will you react if there is more?" He said, "Oh, if [the mayor] tells us to evacuate, I think he'll have a problem on his hands. I think most of us will stay right here and just lock and load." The reporter was audibly surprised by the answer.

Submitted twice by accident... Sorry!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: scott '63 on 2001-09-26 12:31 ]</font>

The students (HS seniors) in my Contemporary American Studies class and I frequently find ourselves discussing the changes that are apparently taking place in America in this post-911 era. Recently, we discussed the fact that Bill Maher, host of "Politically Incorrect" had apologized for being, well, politically incorrect. The irony did not escape them. (This is not the first time Maher has apologized, but his earlier misstep was insensitivity to the mentally challenged, whereas this was his characterization that "lobbing missiles" from far away was a cowardly act -- and he apologized to U.S. servicemen, not a paticularly downtrodden group...an act probably unlikely a few weeks ago.)

Another part of the cultural scene that interests us, and which may indicate a 4T, is the "X-files" / Roswell phenomenon. In the 1T of the early 50's, Los Alamos was a source of pride. Consequently, SciFi films of the time elevated the lone scientist even above the military. Where guns and generals were useless against nuclear-spawned giant ants, mild-mannered professors provided the answer.

By the time we reach the 3T of "The X-files" and <u>Independence Day</u>, the facilities are portrayed as the HQ of a secret government responsible for every dark moment (real or imagined) in our recent history: JFK's assassination, alien invasions, chemical and biological nightmares.

If further acts of terror include nuclear, chemical or biological events, will we find fault in the "secret government" of Los Alamos and "Area 51," or gratefully seek a solution from them?

My class will be discussing this issue at the beginning of next week (the impact of TV on culture is our next unit) and I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on this.

Also, when <u>Starship Troopers</u> came out 4 years ago, there seemed to be a mixed message there: the heroes were a cross between US GIs and Nazi SS troops (at least Neil Patrick Harris' character was). It confused me at the time; now I wonder if it was in fact a transitional movie: a pro-military film reluctantly (?) directed by a Silent (Paul Verhoeven b.1938) based on a book written by a Hero (Heinlein, b.1907) intended for -- whom? Millenials? Boomers? Xers? Silents?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-09-26 12:59 ]</font>

Finally made it through 69 pages of messages! A lot of really good stuff.

Myself, I am still agnostic on the 911 catalyst question. As some have pointed out, Turnings are not so cut and dry, as we tend to view them. I saw David Letterman's return to the air and think that late-night TV will reflect any new tone. Can Leno go back to the same light-hearted fare he offered America three weeks ago? It will be worth watching these guys on the "front lines" of the entertainment world.

I am a little late in posting my reaction but maybe a little time for reflection is a good thing?

I was in Florida on vacation when this thing broke. Consequently my wife, my in-laws and I had plenty of time to sit around and watch the 24/7 coverage provided us - and we did. There was plenty of speculation and some very thoughtful comments from my co-Xer sister-in-law whom I had hitherto considered a pure reactionary (she still bristles anytime someone fails to praise the President's handling of events.) It was not long before I brought up the Crisis issue with my wife but the conversation did not take-off. I still think it is very early to decide. I feel neither wise nor knowledgeable enough to make the call (which is unusual for me!)

In spite of my reticence, I have found myself affected in what seems to be a profound way. Surely it could fade but it feels real right now. Let me preface this with the fact that one of my 2 year old's very special daycare workers was blindsided by an eighteen-wheeler the week before 911 and my 14 year old dog died the Sunday after. Would you guess that I am facing my own mortality here? My reaction within a couple of days of the bombing was a renewed determination to survive. I haven't enlisted or started stockpiling gasmasks. What I did do was start getting up ? hour earlier every morning and exercising: I want to be in the best possible shape to survive whatever heart attack or cancer is in my future. Isn't that weird?

I guess my point is that the transformation of an Xer from a detached, sarcastic bystander to a determined, pragmatic citizen could start with the realization that I will not live forever and maybe it is time to look toward something bigger than myself like being there for my spouse and children.

My impression of Dubya has not changed much. He is still a horrible communicator. Although his speech to Congress was well written and read competently, most of his other appearances have made him look dazed and stammering. In one photo op around the big table at Camp David he looked like he was wearing his big brother's (or Daddy's?) clothes and they didn't quite fit. I think he has made a number of stupid, avoidable mistakes so far, e.g. inflaming Muslim sensibilities with operation "Infinite Justice." However, like a good little Xer who has endured a lot of empty and hypocritical speech in his lifetime, I am waiting for Dubya's actions to betray his character and competence.

{ramblie}

I, too, found the movie Starship Troopers to be an intriguing look at a 4T society. I would advise anyone who wants to see a potential future for us to rent it, and I apologize in advance for the extreme violence of the film.

Re: Robertson... well, I don't aim to speak for him - I'm not working in that field any more! - all I can say is that, in my experience, it most often *was* a "I misspoke" thing. Sort of like Perot.

So many different factions within America have their image of what the "soul" should look like. One image is of a free society where anyone can do anything they like (within certain limits). Another image is of a free society where anyone can do anything they like (within even tighter limits). Yet another image is a society where we freely choose to do what God wants us to do, based on the imaginer's doctrine.

In Awakenings, we contemplate the nature of God and the nature of our limits. In Crisis, we contemplate survival, the judgement of God, and take action to tighten the limits. We look for enemies and reasons for the current crisis, in order to solve them.

So what Robertson & Falwell - and, probably, others, though I haven't read widely on this subject - anyway, what vocal minorities are doing (both radical conservatives AND radical liberals) is talking loudly about "who our enemies" are (be they perceived as internal or external). They do this because they sense there ARE enemies and that they must be dealt with.

As S&H say, there is a time for every season. I think we are in the very early stages of a 4T - in the "time between times" - so there is a lot of uncertainty about who the enemies are. Everyone's going to be talking about their answers. And believe me the debates are going to get a lot more heated before this is all done.

I am praying for a milder winter, but I *would not* be surprised at an internal conflict scenario, not at all. When you combine religious elements with privacy questions and limits on one's freedom for security issues, I think we have a match in a tinderbox. In the WW2 crisis I don't recall there being a religious element... but was there one during the Civil War?

{/ramble}

I would suggest that anyone interested read the book "Starship Troopers", which gives a rather detailed history of how their society developed after an extreme unraveling at the end of the 20th century. One of the unsettling things about this very prescient book was that in this history it was the returning veterans who survived a Western military disaster in Southwest Asia who decided that things were going to be different now.
The book is very very different in tone than the movie. The film was entertaining but it has little, in my opinion, in common with the novel.

Way back there was discussion of whether a coming conflict would be a WWII experience or a WWI analog. One thing that strikes me about WWI is that it didn't end with the armistice. That conflict laid the foundation for the rise of Hitler and WWII in the reaction of the German people to the loss and following hardships.

The Gulf War aftermath may have sown the crop that will be reaped in the crisis. There is certainly a sense of humiliation among bin Laden and his sympathizers and though Iraqi suffering under the current embargo has not been directly felt by the the like of that wealthy Saudi, it still might fuel their distaste for the West.

Perhaps as an analog

Gulf War = WW1

Terrorist Attack = Stock Market Crash

Current Crisis = Depression before WW2

Wasn't WW1, in S&H Scenario, an Unravelling era war?

I agree with Alan, read the book. The movie actually seemed to have the opposite message from the book. This is one reason I was extremely disapointed in the movie. The other reason I was disappointed was the missing jumpsuits. One platoon of marines in those things and bin Laden and company would be toast.

On 2001-09-26 14:17, scott '63 wrote:
The Gulf War aftermath may have sown the crop that will be reaped in the crisis. There is certainly a sense of humiliation among bin Laden and his sympathizers and though Iraqi suffering under the current embargo has not been directly felt by the the like of that wealthy Saudi, it still might fuel their distaste for the West.

That's an interesting analog - bin Laden has targeted the U.S. because of their continued military presence "on holy ground" in Saudi Arabia, a holdover from Desert Storm. I'm not sure how organized the Al Qaeda movement was then, but it has definitely stepped up in ambition throughout the '90s.

Hitler and the Nazis came to power, resentful of extreme poverty and the unjust (in German eyes) terms of the Armistice. Indeed, Germany was ravaged by WWI. As the Nazis rose to power and started to annex territory, the western nations, exhausted by the toll that WWI had taken, and in denial, turned their backs on the reality of what was happening.

One could make a parallel between this set of circumstances and those that led to the attacks of 911. Bin Laden and co. felt violated and outraged by the terms of the ending of Desert Storm, and by the continued corrupting influence of Western culture. They declared war against the U.S. and started terrorist attacks first against U.S. tourists in other countries, then against embassies and eventually landmarks inside the U.S. Interestingly enough, as a nation we ignored this and denied the reality of the situation, even when the Millennium Bombings plot was discovered. All the way up until Sept. 11th.

Is this a genuine correspondence or am I seeing something that doesn't exist?

Justin,
Good posts! The issue of vouchers will be interesting to watch. Will embattled (Xer) parents hide their children away in "safe" schools or will an emerging collective ethic come to view such moves as "elitist"?

On 2001-09-26 14:31, JustinLong wrote:
Perhaps as an analog

Gulf War = WW1

Terrorist Attack = Stock Market Crash

Current Crisis = Depression before WW2

Wasn't WW1, in S&H Scenario, an Unravelling era war?

I will build upon what Justin has offered. History does not seem to operate to an exact schedule but the parallels here are interesting nonetheless:

Our involvement in WWI spanned the years 1917-1918. Our involvement in Desert Shield-Desert Storm spanned the years 1990-1991. Let us equate the two events and project forward to the current or coming catalyst:

1917 = 1990
1918 = 1991
-
[jump]
-
1929 = 2002

2002 is pretty darn close to 911 as far as this linear progression goes. But given that history does not follow such a strict schedule, even if we allow an uncertainty or error of just one year around each point in time, we can line up 2001 (911) with 1929 and also parallel all our recent elections (and the Roaring Nineties do indeed seem to parallel the Roaring Twenties in so many ways as has been discussed):

1920 Harding = 1992 Clinton
1924 Coolidge = 1996 Clinton
1928 Hoover = 2000 Bush

I did not include all the 3T elections prior to 1920/1992 because they do not line up as cleanly. However they do line up again in an earlier sequence. The net effect is a loss of four years somewhere in this recent 3T. And what is the difference between 2001 and the projected catalyst around 2005? Four years. Let me lay this out just for the heck of it:

Ronald Reagan parallels Theodore Roosevelt in many important ways. Both "carried a big stick" and restored America's strength and pride. TR built his Great White Fleet and RR built his 600-ship navy. And perhaps most importantly in relation to turnings, both led us out of a 2T and into a 3T, although not cleanly if we accept S&H's transition years of 1908 and 1984. But then TR was ahead of his time as a progressive -- a president for the 3T -- and only ascended to the presidency as the result of an assassination. So we probably can in fact equate Reagan's first election with TR's actual election and both did in fact usher in the turnings associated with their respective politics four years later (per S&H). Then Taft ran in 1908 promising to continue TR's program but did not do so. And RR ran in 1984 promising to continue his own program, but did not do so to the extent that Vice-President George H.W. Bush arguably took over the administration. Thus we get:

1904 Roosevelt = 1980 Reagan
1908 Taft = 1984 Reagan
1912 Wilson = 1988 Bush

As you can see, these election years will not mesh with the set higher up. Somewhere along the line, we lost four years in the current cycle. Internationalist Bush Sr. equates to internationalist Wilson as they catered to the same types of organizations and groups. Wilson had his WWI and Bush Sr. had his Gulf War. WWI spawned talk of a League of Nations and the Gulf War spawned talk of a New World Order. Yet Wilson had eight years whereas Bush Sr. had only four. Despite this, the elections immediately beforehand in the 3T line up and the elections immediately afterward do as well.

Obviously we cannot assess the progress of history according to such a tight schedule. Yet there are some stunning parallels between this recent 3T and the one before it. People suggest that this 4T is premature and, according to S&H's projections, it is coming early by about four years. We in fact find that approximately four years were lost in this recent 3T when it is lined up with the earlier one. But the important point is that the four years are not being lost here at the end of the 3T. Comparison with the earlier 3T suggests that those four years were lost at some point between 1984 (Reagan's reelection) and 1990 (Desert Shield-Desert Storm). And, if so, we have been out of synch in some way for the past 11-17 years. Any ideas as to what might have happened?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-09-26 16:11 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-09-26 16:48 ]</font>

"In the WW2 crisis I don't recall there being a religious element... but was there one during the Civil War?"

Yeah, there was. The abolition movement came out of the evangelical churches and the sort of intellectual question of the Civil War ... does the federal government have the authority to tell states how to govern their internal affairs ... got trumped by the question: do states get to determine their affairs when their actions are immoral?

And you had theologians lined up on both sides. One side was the Congregationalist/New England church side that insisted on the inhumanity of owning another living soul. On the other side was the Southern churches, madly twisting the Bible to justify the status quo.

But in the 19th century (at least in America, maybe not so much in Europe) the idea that a moral/ethical question might *not* be a religious question did not compute.

In the 20th/21st century liberals prefer to keep mum on the theological basis of our opinions. I'm not sure why, I missed the Awakening myself. But conservatives basicly got the Church, lock, stock and Bible, which is unfortunate, IMHO.

I'm actually startled that we have just discovered an enemy that both the liberal theologian and the conservative theologian can pretty much agree on. I mean, the Taliban seems to be bad by everybody's standards.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-09-26 16:22 ]</font>

On 2001-09-26 14:17, scott '63 wrote:
Way back there was discussion of whether a coming conflict would be a WWII experience or a WWI analog. One thing that strikes me about WWI is that it didn't end with the armistice. That conflict laid the foundation for the rise of Hitler and WWII in the reaction of the German people to the loss and following hardships.

The Gulf War aftermath may have sown the crop that will be reaped in the crisis. There is certainly a sense of humiliation among bin Laden and his sympathizers and though Iraqi suffering under the current embargo has not been directly felt by the the like of that wealthy Saudi, it still might fuel their distaste for the West.

Scott, the cause and effect with relation to the Gulf War may be more direct than you suggest. Immediately after the WTC attack, a variety of nations offered their intelligence and they all reported that these attacks were of sufficient complexity that they were necessarily state-supported. Unanimously they suggested that Saddam Hussein was ultimately behind it and that Saddam had enlisted the services of "specialists" such as Osama bin Laden and perhaps some Palestinians. Yet, to listen to this administration, you would think that the attacks began and ended with Osama bin Laden. Naturally this administration might be sensitive to the potential embarrassment if the American people were to realize that the WTC attacks only occurred due to the failure of the current president's father to remove Saddam when he should have. But this goes to the heart of your point. The Gulf War, and Bush Sr.'s failure to resolve it properly, quite literally sowed the seeds that are now being reaped. As it happened in the last 3T so has it happened in this one.

On 2001-09-25 22:49, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-09-25 00:32, Brian Rush wrote:

How does _Dune_ foreshadow the Awakening, though? I'm not sure I follow you here.

In a number of ways, actually. Paul Atreides is a classic Prophet figure, although in some ways the large-scale action is more 4T than 2T. But the prophecy, the psychic powers, the questioning of traditional values, and the ecological themes, all foreshadow either 2Ts in general or the MilSaec 2T specifically. Dune was published in the early 1960s I believe, so it was quite close in time. Same with Stranger.

Paul Atreides as Idealist/Prophet (literally!)? Interesting, I had never really looked at it like that, but you're right. For that matter, wouldn't that make Leto I (Paul's father, for those who don't remember) a Civic/Hero?

The more I think about that, the more sense it makes. Leto the Elder was a hard-edged soldier, who loved his son dearly but probably wasn't the best as expressing it. He was universally respected as both honorable and capable, but he didn't quite know how to cope with some of the things swirling around him, since he could never quite quantify them. Interesting.

On the other hand, I can't fit Jessica into that mold at all. If anything, she makes more sense as an Adaptive. A very skilled, very powerful Adaptive, but as the story goes on she realizes she's been fed a bill of goods by her Sisters, and changes her allegiance. That sounds familiar.

So a Civic and an Adaptive give birth to a Prophet, who turns the world upside down without really grasping the implications of what he's done until it's too late. Now that I think of it, it's amazing this story was written before Strauss and Howe came up with their theory. It's almost spooky how well it fits!

Which makes Alia a Nomad, and the GawdAwful Emperor a Civic. Figures, somehow.