Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning? - Page 39







Post#951 at 10-09-2001 09:48 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
10-09-2001, 09:48 PM #951
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

In other words, have all of Palestine taken over by the United Nations as an internationally-owned zone. Kind of like the Vatican.
Wow. I didn't know the UN bought the Vatican. How much did they pay for it?
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#952 at 10-09-2001 09:54 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
10-09-2001, 09:54 PM #952
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

Another tack, same subject. <sarcasm=off>

In other words, have all of Palestine taken over by the United Nations as an internationally-owned zone.
You've stumbled backwards into a point I haven't seen here (or have missed). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong: wasn't Palestine comprised of all of today's Lebanon and Isreal? Wasn't the initial idea that Isreal would get Isreal and the Palestinians get Lebanon? Isn't the result of the last 50 years proof that simply separating the two groups is not going to work? They both claim the same sandbox, and neither is willing to give up their claim.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#953 at 10-09-2001 10:17 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-09-2001, 10:17 PM #953
Guest

On 2001-10-09 19:54, Chris '68 wrote:
Another tack, same subject. <sarcasm=off>

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong: wasn't Palestine comprised of all of today's Lebanon and Isreal? Wasn't the initial idea that Isreal would get Isreal and the Palestinians get Lebanon? Isn't the result of the last 50 years proof that simply separating the two groups is not going to work? They both claim the same sandbox, and neither is willing to give up their claim.
Isreal wasn't created by just one land grant in 1948. They have taken more control of the area since then. In six days, the were able (with U.S. Backing) to do what they otherwise couldn't have accomplished in centuries. The U.S. provides billions in foreign aid annually, more than all other middle east countries combined, as well as rockets, jets and nuclear weapons. Fun huh!

There are several sites that indicate the occupation of gaza, the golan heights, Lebanon, etc. Still other sites address specific massacres in the holy lands. However goodwill is running thin for me.

Chris: review the posting that had webpage addresses, or go to Google and type in "Massacre, Isreal, Terrorism, War. There's lots out there.







Post#954 at 10-09-2001 10:26 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-09-2001, 10:26 PM #954
Guest

Want to see an unbiased view of what domestic life is going to be like here soon. Click on an official web page:
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/home.asp







Post#955 at 10-10-2001 02:18 AM by enjolras [at Santa Barbara, CA joined Sep 2001 #posts 174]
---
10-10-2001, 02:18 AM #955
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Posts
174

chris 68, if you want to read an account of what the real debate is between real historians over israel, and not some blatantly biased accounts by ex-klansman david duke, a group ignominiously named "jewwatch", and other apologists for radical right wing anti-semites as sv81 would like you to see, then i suggest you look at the following article:

http://www.linguafranca.com/9708/mahler.9708.html

then, after you read that, go read the blitherings in the posts that sv81 has suggested. you might as well see it for yourself and judge accordingly.







Post#956 at 10-10-2001 04:32 AM by Delsyn [at New York, NY joined Jul 2001 #posts 65]
---
10-10-2001, 04:32 AM #956
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
New York, NY
Posts
65

On 2001-10-10 00:18, enjolras wrote:
chris 68, if you want to read an account of what the real debate is between real historians over israel, and not some blatantly biased accounts by ex-klansman david duke, a group ignominiously named "jewwatch", and other apologists for radical right wing anti-semites as sv81 would like you to see, then i suggest you look at the following article:

http://www.linguafranca.com/9708/mahler.9708.html

then, after you read that, go read the blitherings in the posts that sv81 has suggested. you might as well see it for yourself and judge accordingly.
Interesting - this may be anecdotal evidence that, as several people on this board have suggested, the Middle East is several years behind the West in terms of their Turnings. A debate like thios is classic Third Turning - and if the Mid-East is still in the middle of their 3T, the Israelis certainly wouldn't be immune.







Post#957 at 10-10-2001 08:48 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-10-2001, 08:48 AM #957
Guest

JustinLong, you want to know what I think.

I think I cant tell. In the future they may date the start of the crisis to September 11, 2001. But the way people are acting around here in Denmark, theres no way its the Fourth Turning.
Us Americans here consistently ignore the news. We are Thirteeners, because we all sit and critique Bush every time he opens his mouth, and we are expecting the worst but at the same time not caring.
We have maintained our sharp criticism, sense of irony, skepticism, and sense of humour, even about something like this.
Thats why I wrote up the GenX party platform, as a joke.
We are in no way abandoning our old opinions. We were never really that political to begin with, so the culture wars dont really define our normal discourses. I havent heard one real solution debated amongst us.
We just kind of make up funny solutions, or ignore the war as much as we can to continue with our number one priority, ourselves.
Still personally inside i feel deep anxiety, and celebrity culture is still fodder for mockery. yesterday we had a big discussion about the church of scientology and john travolta.
and we are still quoting austin powers and south park.
so i think we are on very shaky international ground, but if we are to plunge head forward into crisis mode, then its gonna have to take something else to do it. And perhaps that something else would be a real catalyst, and wouldnt leave us with these feelings of ambiguity.







Post#958 at 10-10-2001 09:07 AM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-10-2001, 09:07 AM #958
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

I was reading through the rest of the threads here and I believe that Brian Rush introduced what may be the most reliable indicator of the 4T yet. He stated that he is now considering the unimaginable: he may well vote for George W. Bush in 2004. As Brian contemplates the previously unthinkable in moving toward the Republicans, I find myself contemplating the previously unthinkable in moving toward the Democrats -- that is, if the Democrats can "fill the void" by moving a little further toward me, specifically on two key issues related to this war. In other words, there are pending cross movements present which are consistent with a major political realignment, and major realignment is a hallmark of the 4T. If we are looking at a major realignment in 2004, then we probably are entering the 4T now. The ball is in the Democrats' court.







Post#959 at 10-10-2001 09:43 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
10-10-2001, 09:43 AM #959
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

On 2001-10-10 07:07, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I find myself contemplating the previously unthinkable in moving toward the Democrats -- that is, if the Democrats can "fill the void" by moving a little further toward me, specifically on two key issues related to this war.
You've got my curiosity up, and I'm too lazy to filter through 98 pages to figure it out: what two issues are you referring to, Stonewall?
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#960 at 10-10-2001 09:56 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-10-2001, 09:56 AM #960
Guest

On 2001-10-09 20:17, sv81 wrote:

Israel wasn't created by just one land grant in 1948. They have taken more control of the area since then. In six days, the were able (with U.S. Backing) to do what they otherwise couldn't have accomplished in centuries. The U.S. provides billions in foreign aid annually, more than all other middle east countries combined, as well as rockets, jets and nuclear weapons. Fun huh!
Excuse me, but wasn't Israel ATTACKED by Egypt, Jordan, etc... during the Six Days War? As a result of the war in which they were DEFENDING their land, they did gain control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as the Sinai Penninsula.

Afterwards, the Labor Party in control repeatedly offered "land for peace" deals. In 1977, Egypt, under Anwar Sadat, took up the offer and got back the Sinai Penninsula. The PLO, Jordan, and others repeatedly refused to recognize Israel or give up land. After years of this deadlock, Likud won control over Israel, Zionists began colonizing the West Bank, and things got increasingly messy, so that by the time the PLO was willing to accept land for peace in 1993, it was probably too late. Now, had they accepted Israel's offer in say, 1970, there would be a 30-year-old Palestinian State today.







Post#961 at 10-10-2001 10:00 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-10-2001, 10:00 AM #961
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Stonewall writes? I was reading through the rest of the threads here and I believe that Brian Rush introduced what may be the most reliable indicator of the 4T yet. He stated that he is now considering the unimaginable: he may well vote for George W. Bush in 2004. As Brian contemplates the previously unthinkable in moving toward the Republicans, I find myself contemplating the previously unthinkable in moving toward the Democrats -- that is, if the Democrats can "fill the void" by moving a little further toward me, specifically on two key issues related to this war. In other words, there are pending cross movements present which are consistent with a major political realignment, and major realignment is a hallmark of the 4T. If we are looking at a major realignment in 2004, then we probably are entering the 4T now. The ball is in the Democrats' court.

I find it encouraging that people are examining their positions and at least considering altering allegiances. One nit-pick. Bush?s post-September 11 honeymoon doesn?t quite seem over, yet. For the moment, the ball is still in his hands. It might even stay there if he doesn?t fumble it. By 2004, either Bush will likely be perceived as having recreated some form of normalcy, or he will be the goat for failing to do so. Too soon to tell, though I still suspect a failure to address underlying issues will bite him. Still, he does seem to have learned that he needs allies, and is learning to listen to said allies. We shall have to see.







Post#962 at 10-10-2001 10:15 AM by Carl Fitzpatrick [at 1948 - Runnin' on Empty joined Oct 2001 #posts 14]
---
10-10-2001, 10:15 AM #962
Join Date
Oct 2001
Location
1948 - Runnin' on Empty
Posts
14

A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally.

NO. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE UN AND EXPLAINING WHAT WE HAVE DONE. WE ARE BEING VERY CAREFUL TO DO IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A GLOBAL COMMUNITY, NOT ISOLATED.
First of all, I appreciate Justin Long?s bringing us back to the original question.
This point, and the post by Justin 79 brings up a question that?s been in my mind. I wonder if we can really expect an ?isolationist? beginning when this Crisis period begins in earnest (if it hasn?t begun). The world has shrunk dramatically, and America is more involved with the rest of the world than at any similar time, and our turning cycles are probably more integrated with those of the rest of the world, especially Europe. If this trauma remains part if the 3rd Turning, the reaction to it may be influenced not only by the large number of Artists still influencing America, but also by the fact that the rest of the world, especially that part closest to us in this respect, is slightly behind us.







Post#963 at 10-10-2001 10:19 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
10-10-2001, 10:19 AM #963
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On 2001-10-10 07:56, Jenny Genser wrote:

Excuse me, but wasn't Israel ATTACKED by Egypt, Jordan, etc... during the Six Days War? As a result of the war in which they were DEFENDING their land, they did gain control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as the Sinai Penninsula.


Excuse me, but weren't Egypt, Jordan, etc. ATTACKED by Israel during the Six Days War? As a result of the war in which they were DEFENDING their land, they did lose control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as the Sinai Peninsula. {Is this close to the UN position?-VKS}


...I think the War started with an initial "pre-emptive" strike by the State of Israel. The question of who started it all might be open as to: was a threat of attack by Egypt the same as an attack by Israel? HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-10-10 08:22 ]</font>







Post#964 at 10-10-2001 10:45 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-10-2001, 10:45 AM #964
Guest

On 2001-10-05 17:43, enjolras wrote:

as i have said before, every other crisis period tends to carry with it religious overtones within the nature of the conflict. how can we possibly not consider strongly that radical islam, which hold the same type of appeal as radical marxism did, holds within it the strong potential to eventually engulf both the united states, and the entire world, in an eventual "holy war" that shifts the balance of power for centuries to come?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-10-05 18:02 ]</font>
Well said







Post#965 at 10-10-2001 11:20 AM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
10-10-2001, 11:20 AM #965
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

Apologies for the caps. I was trying to set my comments off from S&H without using blockquotes. Guess I'll look for another way :smile:

On isolationism... some scenarios:

1. Another Event causes us to completely close our borders and not renew foreign visas from certain areas...

2. An Event abroad leads to a large scale regional war, but we decide it's not in our interests and stay out of it, and become increasingly isolated...







Post#966 at 10-10-2001 11:48 AM by Kurt63 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 36]
---
10-10-2001, 11:48 AM #966
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
36

On 2001-10-05 17:43, enjolras wrote:

as i have said before, every other crisis period tends to carry with it religious overtones within the nature of the conflict. how can we possibly not consider strongly that radical islam, which hold the same type of appeal as radical marxism did, holds within it the strong potential to eventually engulf both the united states, and the entire world, in an eventual "holy war" that shifts the balance of power for centuries to come?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-10-05 18:02 ]</font>
In my opinion, Radical Islam is more akin to Nazism. Both ideologies arose in apparently prostrate and recently defeated peoples. (The Islamic world is generally impoverished even though it sits on top of great mineral riches, and has been repeatedly defeated by Western powers, resulting in profound feelings of angry impotence.) Neither ideology is universalistic, but rather focuses on a particular group, and blames the Jews and Western democracies for their suppressed condition.

That said, the West must be extremely careful, the ideology expounded by Osama bin Laden is very powerful, and has great appeal to Muslim people throughout the world. Iran experienced a Radical Islam revolution in 1979, but it was of the Shiite branch of Islam, whereas Mr. bin Laden is militantly Sunni. The West must be careful to not inflame the Islamic world, as the establishment of multiple Radical Islam states could result a major conflagration.

Please note that I do not say, "Arab people." In fact, Radical Islam now has a number of supporters in certain sub-Saharan countries, and Indonesia. I would suggest that we are presently trying to escape a major "clash of civilizations."







Post#967 at 10-10-2001 12:53 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
10-10-2001, 12:53 PM #967
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

On 2001-10-10 09:20, JustinLong wrote:

On isolationism... some scenarios:

1. Another Event causes us to completely close our borders and not renew foreign visas from certain areas...
I recently read an article by Col. David Hackworth, US Army - Retired, in which he presents a realistic possibility of terrorists getting biological/chemical weapons into America through our borders.

Pull quote:

Would it be easy to bring anthrax into the USA? More than 6 million shipping containers enter America each year; only 2 percent are inspected. If we can't stop the narcotics flood, smuggling a few hundred barrels of anthrax -- enough to bring down more warm bodies than bought it during the Dark Ages from the plague -- should be a breeze.

And once it's here, why even bother with planes? A psychopath with a saltshaker spiked with spores could easily sprinkle his way through the specials at your local salad bar. Or the Middle Eastern illegals pulling long hours at your fave mall deli might well spice up those sandwiches finger-lickin' terminal. And if all else fails, there are always air-conditioning and heating conduits -- or a hate letter from hell -- where a little dab'll do you.
The full article is here:
http://www.hackworth.com/08oct01.html

Wasn't it just yesterday (pre-911) that the uproar over an open border with Mexico hilighted the problems at those borders as to gross under-inspection of incoming trucks and their lack of U.S. level of safety standards, etc.? I can't think of an easier way to sneak those barrels in, AAMOF. Heck, they may already be here, it may be too late....








Post#968 at 10-10-2001 01:02 PM by enjolras [at Santa Barbara, CA joined Sep 2001 #posts 174]
---
10-10-2001, 01:02 PM #968
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Posts
174

[...I think the War started with an initial "pre-emptive" strike by the State of Israel. The question of who started it all might be open as to: was a threat of attack by Egypt the same as an attack by Israel? HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-10-10 08:22 ]</font>
[/quote]

the 6 day war occurred under the following circumstances.

1. egypt moved 100,000 troops and 1000 tanks into the sinai peninsula on israel's southern border.

2. on may 17, egyptian president nasser called for the removal of all U.N. personnel who had been there as observers. within a few days they were all gone.

3. on may 22, nasser announced the closure of the strait of tiran, a key source of petroleum shipments into israel. a similar closure in 1956 had precipitated the suez crisis. israel had made clear since that time that any future attempt to close the strait of tiran would be considered an act of war.

4. israel was now surrounded on 3 fronts by egypt, syria and jordan and was severely outnumbered and outgunned.

5. on the morning of june 5, israel launced a "pre-emptive strike" in an attempt to keep the battle on arab and not israeli soil.

now i ask you, if the united states found itself in a similar situation, surrounded by an enemy that had pubicly announced its intentions of completely and destroying us given the opportunity, which had then closed off vital shipping and supply lines to us which we had always said would be considered an act of war if done, what do you think the u.s response would have been? i say it would have been EXACTLY the same response. and if we had managed to take territory from these enemies i suggest that we would also have felt perfectly justified in holding on to it for the sake of our own security as long as these same forces remained even remotely potentially hostile. and even without security reasons, is the history of this country not replete with examples of taking land away from defeated enemies? i don't see the u.s. government offering to give land back to native americans or to mexico? and they aren't even a threat to our security.







Post#969 at 10-10-2001 01:11 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-10-2001, 01:11 PM #969
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2001-10-10 07:43, Chris '68 wrote:

You've got my curiosity up, and I'm too lazy to filter through 98 pages to figure it out: what two issues are you referring to, Stonewall?
Chris, I'm glad you did not go back through the 98 pages because it is not in there. I am looking for two things from the Democrats before they can pluck me from formerly Republican and currently third party-by-default ranks:


1) Firm pressure on this administration to prosecute this war in such a manner that the stated goal of ending terrorism, or more specifically ending the danger here at home, will be achieved (and I do not believe this goal will be achieved if the administration continues on as it has). Related to this, pressure should be applied to bring this war to a close as quickly as possible (contrary to the administration's openly stated desire to let this drag on indefinitely -- and largely in secret -- like the War on Drugs and Our Rights).

2) Relentless, principled opposition to any and all efforts by this administration to further erode our rights and turn us into a police state, such as with this Homeland Security and National ID Card business. Not just let's-make-an-excuse-to-be-different partisan opposition, but absolutely unyielding, over-my-dead-body, principled, visceral opposition.


Judging from recent history, I can see where the Democrats may fulfill requirement #1 though it is certainly not a given. However recent history in no way suggests that they will fulfill requirement #2. But the genius of a major realignment is that these things suddenly become possible. This void will have to be filled by somebody: either the Democrats or a third party "usurper." If the two major parties do reshuffle their decks, then a lot of incoming former Republicans will provide the Democrats with the impetus to meet requirement #2, as well as #1.

This sort of radical transition is unlike anything most of us have ever seen in our lifetimes. But history demonstrates that it does happen on rare, rhythmic occasions. And the timing and circumstances are right for it to begin happening now. It is up to the Democrats. They fulfill these requirements and they have me. If they cannot find it within themselves to fulfill these requirements, then I remain in third party "no man's land."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-10-10 11:13 ]</font>







Post#970 at 10-10-2001 01:57 PM by enjolras [at Santa Barbara, CA joined Sep 2001 #posts 174]
---
10-10-2001, 01:57 PM #970
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Posts
174

stonewall,

i would not be holding my breath for the kind of political realignment you seem to be looking for. if memory serves me correctly, political realignments of the scope and nature that you seem to be describing generally coincide with major periods of crisis such as the american revolution, the civil war, and world war II and fall within the 80 year generational crisis pattern that many others besides myself have alluded to frequently on here. if that cycle continues to hold true, it will not be until sometime in the 2020s before a crisis of sufficient size and scope occurs to precipitate the kind of political realignment that you seem to be looking for.








Post#971 at 10-10-2001 02:40 PM by TrollKing [at Portland, OR -- b. 1968 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,257]
---
10-10-2001, 02:40 PM #971
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Portland, OR -- b. 1968
Posts
1,257

On 2001-10-10 06:48, Justin'79 wrote:
....We just kind of make up funny solutions, or ignore the war as much as we can to continue with our number one priority, ourselves....
i'm not sure if you are speaking in terms of being in denmark v. being in the u.s., or if you mean to apply this to gen-x broadly. but being born in '79 (which i assume from your handle) means you're, what, 22? the vast majority of xers are significantly older and further along in our lives than this. many of us have families, many more have careers (or something like that). we're "dug in". and so, many care deeply about the stuff that's going on, far more than we would have at the age of 22.


TK

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TrollKing on 2001-10-10 12:41 ]</font>







Post#972 at 10-10-2001 02:58 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
10-10-2001, 02:58 PM #972
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2001-10-10 11:57, enjolras wrote:
stonewall,

i would not be holding my breath for the kind of political realignment you seem to be looking for. if memory serves me correctly, political realignments of the scope and nature that you seem to be describing generally coincide with major periods of crisis such as the american revolution, the civil war, and world war II and fall within the 80 year generational crisis pattern that many others besides myself have alluded to frequently on here. if that cycle continues to hold true, it will not be until sometime in the 2020s before a crisis of sufficient size and scope occurs to precipitate the kind of political realignment that you seem to be looking for.
enjolras, if I understand you correctly, you are treating the realignments as regular occurrences in no necessary way related to crises, i.e. on a different schedule than the actual saecula (saeculi?). But my interpretation is that they stem from differences which shift in crises (and awakenings) and manifest themselves specifically at the outsets (at least with crises) whether these events keep to a firm schedule or not. We have had six major realignments in our history:

1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1968

1800 can be excluded as it was simply the original forming up of factions in the first 1T. And 1968 may actually be 1964, I cannot remember precisely. For a while no one even considered that a realignment had taken place in the 1960s until the creation of the Solid South was recognized.

The timing of the Awakening realignments is less specific. However the Crisis realignments consistently occur at the first election after the crisis has begun. Granted, we really only have two past occurrences to use as evidence. But it seems to me that the very nature of a 4T itself dictates that a realignment take place shortly after it begins. At least I cannot separate the two in my mind. Accordingly, I would expect a realignment in 2004 if we are now entering a crisis.

Actually, your suggestion of an independently scheduled sequence of crisis realignments at set intervals would also point to 2004 as I look at this now. 1860 to 1932 was 72 years. 72 years from 1860 takes us back to 1788, the first election and what would have been the first alignment had factions originally existed. 72 years after 1932 is 2004. I think 2004 looks good any way you slice it.







Post#973 at 10-10-2001 03:04 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
10-10-2001, 03:04 PM #973
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

Well said, Stonewall.

Although I tend to quibble with enjolras' belief that the saeculae aren't shortening (what's our latest guess? 72 years?), he also brings up a very good point. Oops, I now see Stonewall has presented that info is his second post of the morning -- thanks, Stonewall.

Stone, what you want to happen is what usually has happened in prior crises, a left-shifting (power to the people) type of alignment. However, what if this coming crisis is a type of anomoly that doesn't follow that trend? What if it does shift us towards a more totalitarian police state as you describe? What if the people let it, or else wake up too late, stand up and are ignored? [insert full body shudder here].







Post#974 at 10-10-2001 03:07 PM by oddlystrange [at oddlystrange joined Oct 2001 #posts 33]
---
10-10-2001, 03:07 PM #974
Join Date
Oct 2001
Location
oddlystrange
Posts
33

Many years ago, in the throws of my teen angst I read "13th Gen," and giggled most of the way through the book. Then I heard about the "The Fourth Turning," and put it aside as something that I'd look into later, one day, when I had the time.

Then the WTC attack happened, and suddenly my interest was piqued again in this book. Because even without reading the book (which I'm most of the way through now), I just *felt* that something more had happened.

I'm a pretty generic 13er (if there is such a thing :smile: ), but I'm a cusper -- born of Boomer parents, pretty much raised around the Boomer generation -- not the silent (I was born in 1974).

But I certainly do not want to consider myself a Millenial because I don't really "get" them.

But one thing did interest me about the earliness of this turning, and cuspers like myself, I think it might be fair to compare us to that hybrid generation of Nomads and Heros from the Cival War era.

While I do feel myself starting to take on the role of self-preservation, societal-preservation, and I feel my sense of survivalism kicking in, at the same time, those who are still 13-ers, but slightly younger than I am don't seem to be taking on this role.

They seem to be taking on the more Heroic archetype role -- they're talking about signing up for the military, or if they already are, are anxious to go and fight this war. Whereas some of my older friends seem more cautious, but are more than willing to offer their ideas about how to manage this whole thing :smile:

I do really beleive that we've crossed the border between fall and winter. The leaves are dropping, I don't see a lot of talk about the "problems" that we had before this happened. No one on any of my mailing lists is talking about going to "pro-this" or "anti-that" rallies, and are inviting people to red cross fund raisers, and never getting a negative response.

Admittedly, I don't remember the entrance into the third turning very well at all. But I do get this sense that we're beyond before now. Things that mattered to me on Sept. 10, don't really seem that important anymore.

And I think personally, that's what is leading me to beleive (in the words of Kosh) that it has begun, despite the fact that from a purely statistical standpoint, the generations aren't in place yet.







Post#975 at 10-10-2001 03:57 PM by enjolras [at Santa Barbara, CA joined Sep 2001 #posts 174]
---
10-10-2001, 03:57 PM #975
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Posts
174

stonewall,

i still stick to my original idea that the 84 year crisis cycle is still in effect until i see something to prove otherwise.

but look at how the political landscape changes as that long cycle progresses. after the first crisis cycle after the american revolution the jeffersonian democrats pretty much held power. in fact, in retrospect you could probably call them the early liberals of the day. but as time progressed they became progressively more conservative until they were the staunchly conservative democrats who opposed the abolition of slavery as the civil war crisis got underway. then you had the civil war crisis political realignment which put the "left leaning" republicans of the time in charge.

as time progressed the republicans also became more conservative until the world war II crisis arose and the liberal democrats took charge again. the democrats have been predominately in charge since that time although they have also followed the same pattern of becoming progressively more and more conservative as we approach the next crisis period.

one thing i have noticed also, is that around the midpoint of the 80 year cycle, there tends to be a period where it looks like the opposition is going to take control, but this turns out to be a weak or fleeting type of realignment. and i think this is where you will find what i am suggesting does somewhat agree with your views. it differs in that i don't count those mid crisis cycle realignments as legitimate as they tend to be far more tenuous and weaker than the ones that occur just after major crisis periods ( the recent but fleeting republican takeovers of the congress as one example). and shortly after the new party takes over there is also often some scandal that often knocks them out for a term or two before they return to take over the reigns of power again.

the interesting thing is that, if past patterns as i see them hold true, and the next major crisis cycle does indeed come down in the mid to late 2020s, then the democrats will probably be viewed as the party of the tired old establishment and the republicans as the new vanguard that may actually have some new answers. and the republicans, if the pattern holds true, will be seen as "liberal" at the time!

-----------------------------------------