Re: sv81 -- Hollywood is *very* likely a future target. See my earlier post on how the industry rank and file are trying to return to the unreal real and encourage us to do the same. They're trying to keep "life: the movie" going a bit longer, which will only cause problems in the end.

However, the attack might not be on the city itself, but on its personalities. Due to the power of celebrity, it would take a far smaller event to cause an effect similar to 9/11.

To address the question of the forum: It has been a month now, and I don't know that I'm convinced this is IT. The Bush rhetoric seems to be "SIlentized" by the Powell-Rumsfeld wing of things, and I agree with an earlier poster from last week that it may unfortunately take an even greater catastrophe to really move us into a 4T.


OTOH given the Civil War example and anomoly, putting things off just a few more years could well be a good thing. Who knows? Perhaps the WTC attacks will be this saeculum's Dred Scott Decision: something that overturns all sorts of settled assumptions, harden opinions all around, leads to more violence (remember "Bleeding Kansas"?) but is finally only a marker on the way to a 21st century Fort Sumter.


Meanwhile, last week the Minneapolis paper ran an interesting letter to the editor that may offer a generational insight or two. The reader wrote in on what we should do with Osama bin Laden.


"If we kill him, either in battle or by execution, he becomes a martyr. That won't help. If we capture him and imprison him, he becomes a hero. (And everyone will want to bust him out C54)
So how about this? If we capture him, take him to a military hospital, perform a sex change operation on him, turn him into a woman, and send him back to the Taliban."


HTH

Other issues began to come to the fore during the last two years: The World Trade Organization and the protests against it and Election 2000. Perhaps these and related issues will reappear as the initial shock of terrorism wears off. In the meantime there may be more terrorist attacks, if not on the scale as 911, then perhaps comparable to the Oklahoma City bombing. Perhaps the novelty of chemical weapons will create a particularly big shock if used competently (unlike the bungled use of nerve gas in the Tokyo subway). And with the peaking this year of oil-production-outside-the Middle-East we should anticipate some sort of disruption in the not-so-distant future-if only to protest our attempts to defend ourselves.

On 2001-10-12 15:38, sv81 wrote:
It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that the same terrorists that swore that 100 americans would die for each one of their followers, are behind the Anthrax incidents. They declared war on us, and it is also no surprise that the media is being attacked. Primarily because the media can spread fear better thah any individual attack can, and second, because the two enemies these terrorist have is the U.S. Government and U.S. Media. I covered that before.

I have to ask this, and I think this may be one of those lingering "Silent" things. But is anyone else annoyed by the fact that the media, and the govrenment in general is reluctant to link these Anthrax letters to "the" terrorists?

I mean, I understand that one of the personality traits of the Silents is that they want brain over gut. They want to see hard evidence before they act.

But in this case it should be fairly obvious that these attacks are linked in some way. If Bush is promising to attempt to erradicate terrorism from the world, wouldn't these letters count in that particular basket?

I guess this is one of the things everyone has been discussing in regards to this all seeming to happen too soon. Rather than acting (which I think would be the case of the generational constellations were in better alignment) we are studying, and only delaying -- and possibly weakening -- our ability to react to these.

I'm not certain at this point. But one thing is for sure, all the roles aren't played out yet. It's sill hard to beleive that the media is making doubly-sure to report that the government has not determined if these anthrax attacks are terrorism.

If it quacks like a duck...

Jen

(whose admittedly mighty glad I got out of the news business a few years ago)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: oddlystrange on 2001-10-15 09:09 ]</font>

I see Anthrax as the Monica, Diana, OJ, Condit of the day. A story that can fill the cable shows with a lot of people chattering upon a subject that is sublime rather than real "news".


How does Tom Brokaw feel? He was ANGRY!!!!, we are informed. This certainly made my understanding of bio-terror much more complete. How about you? Do advise.

But one man, an idiot fanatic, with a few thugs willing to die for Allah does not, a Nazi "juggernaught" make; nor an "Empire of Japan" create.

Wasn't Hitler "just an idiot fanatic" as well. Sure he built the Nazi juggernaut, but he did so by his own cult of personality, and a lot of shrewd seeking of advantages.

He rose from the ashes of a country that was in turmoil from a previous war. Playing up to the feelings of hopelessness and abandonment that "his people" felt. He made them feel that they were genetically superior, he made them feel that they were indefeatable so long as they kept themselves "pure."

They scape-goated the Jews, they scape goated most of western society eventually.

If this isn't history repeating itself, I don't know what is. Replace Hitler with Bin Laden, replace the false faith in genetic superiority with the false feelings of moral superiority.

Hitler was one man, one very evil and dangerous man able to round up a people into a blind frenzy of hatred and sense of moral superiority.

Please tell me that you can see that if you replace bin Laden in the above sentence, it still makes sense.

On 2001-10-13 07:18, KaiserD2 wrote:
To judge from President W's press conference, he has been studying my two favorite subjects, war and generational theory. To quote:

"I understand that this is an unconventional war. . . It's not the kind of war we're used to in
America. The greatest generation was used to storming beachheads. Baby Boomers such as
myself was used to getting caught in a quagmire of Vietnam where politics made decisions more
than the military sometimes. Generation X was able to watch technology right in front of their TV
screens, you know, burrow into concrete bunkers in Iraq and blow them up."

On behalf of my fellow Boomer W let me apologize to Barbara (as well as Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld) for treating her generation as not only Silent, but Blind and Deaf as well!

If I might inject a little levity into this whole discussion, anyone else out there think Bush was talking about a totally *different* thing when he made the comment that "winter is coming..."

It took me a few minutes to realise he meant that literally.

Jen

Marc, this nomad does not see any "adventure" as this administration has made it clear that it is determined to wage this war in such a way that we can neither see it nor monitor its progress. In other words, just trust them. Wrong answer.

This nomad agrees.

I'm not looking for "adventure" I got over that a few years ago. Right now I want to settle down and get on with my life.

Yeah, I admit, had this all happened a few years ago, I might have been up for a war that seems from the outset to have some different rules than all the others we have seen.

It's hard to explain, but it's been covered in the books that these kinds of things couldn't happen at a worse time for us nomads, and as I'm on the cusp of building my personal and professional life -- in the very infancy of pursuing my own American Dream <tm> I can't help but feel like I just want to get this over with and done so that I can get back to that without fear.

While I'll grant you that the personality of this war seems to be nomadic in nature, I assure you that this nomad isn't up for the nitty gritty of fighting it, and is more for the nitty gritty of getting it over with.

Jen

However, the attack might not be on the city itself, but on its personalities. Due to the power of celebrity, it would take a far smaller event to cause an effect similar to 9/11.

Agreed. It would be much more effective for these terrorists to take out "commonly loved" celebrities well before they take out Joe Schmoe in Po-dink.

Take the Anthrax that was mailed to Tom Brokaw. What could be more scary than seeing someone we watch every night on television (if you watch ABC news that is :smile: [1]) die from a letter mailed to him?

There on the television (even now it's partially true) is a reminder that this could happen to everyone. Even the exhaulted elite of our society.

I'm certainly not condoning what the terrorists have done, but I'm saying that they are quite good at playing this system to their advantage and striking a universal "it could be me too!" fear into everyone.

A little aside, and something I wanted to bring up. I don't know a lot about this, but I'd be interested in knowing if the societies on the other side of this experience the same generational cycles we do? It almost seems as if they are in an awakening of sorts. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Like I said, I don't know enough about their society to have anything other than a hypothesis on this one, but I'd be interested in knowing wheter or not, when we have gone to war with foriegn entities -- if they have these cycles and if these cycles match with ours or conflict with ours.

Jen


[1] I personally loved his Century stuff, but prefer Dan Rather for my news.

On 2001-10-15 08:36, oddlystrange wrote:


Hitler was one man, one very evil and dangerous man able to round up a people into a blind frenzy of hatred and sense of moral superiority.

Please tell me that you can see that if you replace bin Laden in the above sentence, it still makes sense.

Nope, for the followers of Bin Laden aren't, for the most part, acting out of moral, or religious superiority. There is a difference between separation and superiority. In that light, see:http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs964b.html

On 2001-10-15 09:31, sv81 wrote:

Nope, for the followers of Bin Laden aren't, for the most part, acting out of moral, or religious superiority. There is a difference between separation and superiority. In that light, see:http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs964b.html

I must disagree with you. Militant Islam?s agenda of replacing governments throughout the Muslim world with Militant Islamic governments enforcing Sharia, even on unwilling populations, is in fact based on a concept of religious superiority. Also, Militant Islam?s actions against Christian, Jewish, Ba?hai, Buddhist, etc. minorities is motivated by an extreme idea of religious superiority.

Speaking of Hollywood celebrities...Arnold Schwarzenegger on some morning show telling the interviewer that the American public would NOT reject violence and mayhem in their movies. He insisted that those adventure blockbusters would be as popular as ever, despite September 11th. I thought Arnold's opinion was self-serving because violence in the movies is his
bread and butter. I thought that the movie-goers would be craving comedy and fantasy to help them forget 911 and anthrax.

Picked-up the Sunday Arts section of the paper, and what's "America's # 1 Movie!"?..."Training Day". R rated violence.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2001-10-15 11:27 ]</font>

On 2001-10-15 08:22, oddlystrange wrote:
is anyone else annoyed by the fact that the media, and the govrenment in general is reluctant to link these Anthrax letters to "the" terrorists?....it should be fairly obvious that these attacks are linked in some way.

it is probable that the anthrax letters are "linked in some way", but they aren't necessarily from bin laden. since the u.s. can't find a valid, objective link to al qaeda, and since they/we don't really need one anyway to justify our current military actions, it's best politically to simply admit they/we have no proof of a link.


TK

Brian Rush writes? OK, OK. Sheesh. Can you understand the difference between a surrender and a strategic peace? We're not going to gain any significant ground on gay rights or any of the other culture-wars issues in the immediate future. Only the other side could hope to gain by continued struggle at this point in time.

I?m not sure on this. September 11 was a culture changing, a values changing, event. Bin Ladin is a value changing opponent, who could permanently nudge our culture to be the opposite of him. In the great wars, the culture is apt to drift in the direction of having values different from our opponent. One of the early themes is Tolerance, acceptance of those who are different. Other potential themes are a greater emphasis on self defense, rejection of terror, and a rejection of religious laws enforced by secular authorities. If these values shifts stick, the red zone could gain ground on 2nd amendment issues, the blue zone on minority issues. While we are definitely focusing outwards short term, and the 3T issues are not going to be debated as actively and futilely as they once were, the new values generated to solve external problems are apt to effect our internal conflicts as well.

Mark Lamb writes? But then again, if one believes this is a fourth turn then I, Marc Lamb, am all wet.

Why stick with integer arithmetic? Why Third Turning or Fourth Turning? Let?s get real! Turning three point two? A significant mood-shifting event has occurred which is forcing us to seriously address some problems we had been trying to ignore. My personal opinion is that we are still trying to ignore the ecological and economic aspects of the international side. I don?t see a clear agenda to save the world, or a Gray Champion advocating a new and radical path. I think the shift has started, but it is early days still. If this is a 20 year carnival ride, we are at most a month in? Of course we are still in transition. Of course many of the milestones have not yet been reached.

I?ve been lest interested in the timing and the fine tuning of the theory than in understanding the likely cultural and values changes.

Ted Hudson writes Ankle show an' me wan' throw stones

Just hoping you don?t live in a glass house? :wink:

Jenny?s article from the Post included?

Wilkinson sees long waves of economic, corporate and social disruptions in history followed by periods of "lock-in," in which change is digested and normalized. He thinks we may be heading into a period of lock-in.

During the disruptive phases, "innovation outruns the ability of control mechanisms to rein it in. We're socially less cohesive. There's usually a pretty serious redistribution of wealth and power. Fortune 50 companies disappear. Everything about the world our parents knew comes unglued. Everything they took for granted about standards of living and careers began to go away. There's tons of change, and a lot of wealth creation. But it takes some adjusting to. There is a fatigue with change. People end up saying, 'Thank you very much, but we've had enough new stuff now.'

Wilkinson?s ?lock in? reminds me of S&H?s high. Thus, the same article quotes S&H saying we are going into a period of change and Wilkinson saying we are going into a period of rejecting change. I have been concerned about this as well. I take the idea of ?Future Shock? seriously. Has so much been going on in terms of the society absorbing new technology that we won?t be able to adjust to the crisis? Might we not address international ecological and economic issues because we are just too emotionally exhausted to see our culture in upheaval yet again? I am inclined to doubt it. At the moment, I don?t doubt America?s ability to unite and act. I think S&H are closer to right than Wilkinson, though there will likely be a ?lock in? after the crisis is over.

The Post article to me is a jumble of conflicting theories, all worth thinking on, but the length is to short to give any one theory justice, let along give a reader enough information to enlighten. Still, a good post.

Mark Lamb: In all seriousness, 911 was a vicious attack upon Free Market Capitalism, the very economic engine of Freedom and Liberty of our Republican form of Democracy by idiot anarchists. Madscientist: I disagree. 911 was an attack on the post-WWII order. The global economic and political institutions, especially those connected with oil, were attacked. Tim Walker: Other issues began to come to the fore during the last two years: The World Trade Organization and the protests against it and Election 2000. Perhaps these and related issues will reappear as the initial shock of terrorism wears off. In the meantime there may be more terrorist attacks, if not on the scale as 911, then perhaps comparable to the Oklahoma City bombing. Perhaps the novelty of chemical weapons will create a particularly big shock if used competently (unlike the bungled use of nerve gas in the Tokyo subway). And with the peaking this year of oil-production-outside-the Middle-East we should anticipate some sort of disruption in the not-so-distant future-if only to protest our attempts to defend ourselves.

Bob Butler: All of the above.

Bin Ladin and company are attempting to create a Clash of Civilizations between Islamic and Judeo-Christian / Western / Modern civilization. Dubya and company are trying to create a conflict between Second Wave modern nations and evil criminals. Mark and Robert are each describing part of Christian / Western / Modern civilization using slightly different language. One might quibble on which aspect of modern culture is more important in fact, or in Bin Ladin?s eyes. With differences in emphasis, the statements above are more in agreement than in conflict. Judeo-Christian / Modern / Western civilization includes Free Market capitalism, the post WWII world order, oil, economic and political institutions, not to mention corrupting western media that show scantily clad females, violence, and people enjoying alcohol.

Aside from Bin Ladin?s agenda, what is our agenda? I?m seeing a need to even the division of wealth, decrease religious-ethnic tensions where possible, separate the religious-ethnic groups when necessary, limit resource used to resources available, and extend protection of human rights. The above amounts to a new world order, replacing the post WWII world order. Why is a new world order necessary? Nuclear weapons make continued Great Games between major power impossible. Guerrilla and terrorist tactics make it impossible for major powers to continue to suppress the former colonial states and equally difficult for autocratic states to suppress their people. The battlegrounds will arise wherever autocratic governments suppress the rights of the poor, and wherever major powers support autocratic governments suppressing the rights of the poor.

Sixty Minutes interviewed National Security Adviser Rice this week. The firmest point of controversy was in the failure of Bush?s ?propaganda war? in the Middle East. Rice claimed success in building a coalition, and emphasized that only thousands of Arabs were protesting in nations of millions. CBS?s reporter emphasized that Bin Ladin?s support among the common people in the Islamic world was increasing in response to Dubya?s policies. My own gut feeling is that CBS was speaking closer to the truth, that Rice was projecting either wishful thinking or propaganda. (I hope it is propaganda. I greatly fear wishful thinking by a security advisor.) I also fear that Dubya is pushing to use force to destroy the terrorists without sufficient concern as to how this effects the opinions of the people on the streets in Muslim countries. Yes, Dubya?s establishment can make deals with the Middle Eastern establishment. However, if Dubya increases the hatred to ever-greater levels, this might not be beneficial in the long term.

My other thought is that Bin Ladin and the WTO protesters see some of the same policy problems with Western Civilization. Bin Ladin is stating his objections using religious language, and using violent tactics. The WTO uses western values and primarily non-violent tactics. As an off the wall opinion, violence is necessary against autocratic governments, while non-violent tactics might be sufficient in democratic nations. Thus, those growing up under autocratic regimes might be more apt to use violent methods, while those growing up under democracy might try non-violence first.

Currently, Dubya and the entire western establishment seem to be trying very hard to keep US oil policy off the table. Afghanistan?s post-Taliban government can be discussed, but it is acknowledged the West can encourage but not enforce. A Palestinian state can be discussed, but it is acknowledged the West can encourage but not enforce. The India-Pakistan border can be discussed, but it is acknowledged the West can encourage but not enforce.

Oil and western support of autocratic Arab government with poor human rights records cannot be discussed. Dubya wishes to maintain the advantageous division of wealth between the First and Third Worlds. I do not wish to argue with Dubya?s pseudo-moralistic stance that US policies do not justify terror. I agree. A child of the West, I would exhaust non-violent methods before turning to violence. An Islamic leader reminiscent of Gandhi or Martin Luther King could have a major impact on the crisis. However, those who do not grow up in democratic cultures will have no cultural imperatives to exhaust democratic methods before resorting to violence. Assuming other cultures will behave according to our system of morals is just wishful thinking. Non-violent leaders have difficulties operating within autocratic states, and thus do not gain followers or influence in autocratic states. If such a leader exists in the Middle East, his efforts have failed, or have been submerged under the impact of the more violent social movements.

Moral judgements aside, US policies do lead to continued poverty, do lead to continued human rights violations, and have resulted in terrorism. Folding morality back in, while an evil policy might not justify terrorist tactics, the use of terrorist tactics in opposition to evil does not justify unthinking, unquestioned continuation of evil. US policy should be on the table.

The WTO protesters might become the seed of a wider movement to push for all four freedoms, not just Freedom from Fear. Such an argument for the people of the Middle East expressed in terms of western values would be interesting. Currently, the only path available for Middle Eastern people to seek self improvement is to embrace a hate corrupted variant of the ancient Islamic world view. If the world is to step forward, one might seek path such that the Middle East can mix modern western values with classic Islam values while advocating an improvement in life style.

It seems inevitable that the people of the Middle East should seek material self-improvement. They will find a value system that will improve their lot. If western values are perceived as leading to continued poverty and second class culture status, western values will be rejected. Dubya has it half right in dropping meals and supporting the Palestinian peace process. He must not be seen as the Great Enemy of Islam. However, these moves have been coming across as propaganda tactics. They do not seem to reflect a true concern for the people of the Middle East.

Kurt63 writes? Militant Islam?s agenda of replacing governments throughout the Muslim world with Militant Islamic governments enforcing Sharia, even on unwilling populations, is in fact based on a concept of religious superiority. Also, Militant Islam?s actions against Christian, Jewish, Ba?hai, Buddhist, etc. minorities is motivated by an extreme idea of religious superiority.

Agreed. If we were to dwell on first principles, this might be the core of the conflict. Authoritarian governments have a specific set of values. They use military, police and other government powers to force everyone to behave according to their value system. ?Islamism? is thus a special case of authoritarianism, one based on an extreme reactionary / heretical variant of Islam.

Modern democracies ideally try to protect the right of the individual to exercise their own values, though the right to practice one?s own values does not extend to infringing on the right of others to exercise theirs. Thus, such principles as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion are the antithesis of authoritarian government. Do what thou will, but harm none. Be free, save do not limit the freedom of others. We call ourselves ?the free world? but forget too often what freedom is, worry not enough when freedom is limited.

The other distinction is that Authoritarian government must start with an assumption that their values system is perfect, and absolute force is necessary and appropriate to enforce absolute perfection. Modern systems are more apt to negotiate floating versions of truth. Feedback mechanisms allow the people to determine relative truths. The worth of an object is determined by an open market. Law is determined through elections and legislatures. Scientific truth is determined through peer reviewed journals. A jury of one?s peers determines guilt and innocence.

From the perspective of the man on the street in the Middle East, which value system strikes closer to one?s heart? Which system seems like it will bring a better life? From here, as a Child of the West, the choice is obvious. A religious value system based on authoritarian truth, use of force, use of terror, and hatred as a political tool is abomination. Walk not that path. However, this choice would not seem obvious if one?s core values start from an assumption that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet. Fundamentalist religious values can lean heavily towards an authoritarian worldview. Faith can tell one that the truth is known, and written in the Koran (or the Bible). From there, it is not too great a leap to suggest using secular force to impose God?s truth upon all within sword?s reach.

From all I understand, bin Ladin?s and the Taliban?s interpretations of the Koran are heresy. However, the West has not been striving to extend its ideals to the people of the Middle East. Dubya is correct that this is a moral struggle. We have two competing systems of morals. The value system that wins the hearts of that part of the world is apt to be the one that gives best promise of material benefit.

I believe in morality, that value systems are an important part of worldviews and cultures, that a crisis is a mechanism through which worldviews and cultures transform. Both systems of morality are on trial. Possibly, a merged value system might emerge holding the strong points of both current cultures. More likely, both cultures will evolve and grow, but remain distinctly independent. However, looking at previous crises, one observes that people are apt to cling to and fight for the value system that brings them material comfort. Kings could not see the value of human rights or democracy, save at sword?s point. Slave owners could not see what was wrong with slavery, save at sword?s point. Wealthy hereditary monarchs and oil company executives will not be able to see problems with current financial arrangements, save at sword?s point.

Yet, I don?t see the West imposing their culture at sword point. We haven?t enough swords, and this would only inflame. Thus, we ought to work to project a version of western values that will provide a clear road to meeting material, spiritual and human needs of the Middle East. Western values might be altered to provide a clearly more practical solution than authoritarianism.

If not, Authoritarian Islam could become dominant in the region.

Mr. Butler wonders, "Why stick with integer arithmetic? Why Third Turning or Fourth Turning? Let?s get real! Turning three point two? A significant mood-shifting event has occurred which is forcing us to seriously address some problems we had been trying to ignore."

There are 'mood-shifting events' going on all the time. 1992 was a 'mood-shifting event,' with a furthering splintering of the civil-body politic as evidenced by three candidates for president showing pretty solid numbers. 1994 was a 'mood-shifting event,' with the GOP, armed with the 'Contract with America' carturing both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952.

But I find your whole question more than a little cheesy, Mr. Butler. It appears to me self-serving to the max. Like how dare I, Marc Lamb even question the, now, conventional wisdom here at T4T.com.

'A significant mood-shifting event' occured in 1917 which forced this country 'to seriously address some problems we had been trying to ignore.' Namely 'making the world safe for democracy.' It failed badly, Mr. Butler, if you might recall.

I am in no way suggesting that the present 'war' will turn out like the Treaty of Versailles. But then again, all I am seeing as the end-game in this 'war' is to 'root out terrorist,' and 'bring them to justice.'

While that is indeed a noble goal, it surely does not require the stuff of 'fourth turnings' to bring it about.

[Bulter] 'Aside from Bin Ladin?s agenda, what is our agenda?'

[Marc] Right now, I think it's perfectly clear: 'Normalcy' is our 'agenda.'

That, and a little heartfelt justice.

Marc Lamb wrote:

'A significant mood-shifting event' occured in 1917 which forced this country 'to seriously address some problems we had been trying to ignore.' Namely 'making the world safe for democracy.' It failed badly

I think that the era 1917-1921 is the one that could best be used to make the case that the current era is still that of a Third Turning. That should be compared with 1930, 1861, 1773, and other starts of Fourth Turnings, to see which more closely fits the current situation.

In 1917, the US entered a war to end all wars, to make the world safe for Democracy.
The war itself was won militarily, but the allies of the US prevented the desired outcome, and set in motion events that engulfed them again in war 20 years later.

In 1918, still during WW1, there was a flu that killed about 0.5% of Americans and about that many throughout the world. It wasn't the result of bioterrorism, but some people at the time thought that it was.

The society was also in a mood to change institutions, women were allowed to vote,
and alcohol was made illegal. New forms of law enforcement were set up.

In 1920, there was a concerted campaign of terrorism by anarchists, including letter bombs, and a large bomb set off on Wall Street. In the ensuing period, immigrants were treated with suspicion, and left-wing idealogies became politically dangerous.

Was that era a mini-crisis in a larger Unravelling era? Was it a simply part of an Unravelling era since the young adult generation was generally mistreated, rather than treated as heroes?

To explain the current era, it is necessary to explain the 1917-1921 era, and I don't have an answer as to whether the current era is the start of a Fourth Turning, or one which is only an antecedent which will be followed by a much larger scale era.

On 2001-10-15 08:54, oddlystrange wrote:
While I'll grant you that the personality of this war seems to be nomadic in nature, I assure you that this nomad isn't up for the nitty gritty of fighting it, and is more for the nitty gritty of getting it over with.

Jen

Jen - what you've described is the very essence of Nomad contributions during a Crisis. Nomads have never been particularly wild about the Crisis section of the saeculum, simply because, as children born of the chaos of the Awakening and growing up in a world where Chaos seems to be ever increasing (The Unravelling) into a world where chaos seems to be triumphant, they see it as their historical duty to impose some order. since they were born, Nomads never know a world in which order is dominant, therefore, they work to create one - the High is very much a Nomad creation.

For Prophets, the Crisis is their second Awakening in which all the old values of the last High when order reigned supreme can at last be fought for at their most elemental level. On some level, the Crisis is the apotheosis they've been waiting for all their lives.

Indeed, I've long believed that while the struggle between Good and Evil is eternal, The saeculum rotates between two other, equally important forces - Order and Chaos.

A little aside, and something I wanted to bring up. I don't know a lot about this, but I'd be interested in knowing if the societies on the other side of this experience the same generational cycles we do? It almost seems as if they are in an awakening of sorts. Does this make sense to anyone else?

That's been discussed in the past, and to the best of my knowledge, the Islamic world is a good 5-10 years behind us in the cycle. They're currently in the midst of their Unravelling, as evidenced by the incredibly splintered reaction to Bin Laden and each other that various Muslim factions and countries are undergoing. The difference is that their cycle are way more violent than our due to the nature of their society.

Indeed, to return to my previous point, one of the things that mystifies Prophets is why their value laden agenda seems to increase Chaos, when they all claim to want to re-order society and bring happiness to all by making it more humane and just by ordering society along "Eternal" principles.

Simply put, any sort of value oriented revolution is bound to increase chaos because those revolutions attack the very stability of the institutions that allowed it to flourish in the first place. Living a life of revolution doesn't set one up to become much of an institution builder once the revolution is successful since any compromise with the realities of a secular world can be seen as a betrayel of the revolution. (Indeed, if Bin Laden and this conflict with the West didn't exist, there would doubtlessly have been a "counter-revolution" in the Islamic world that might have installed an equally corrupt secular regime. This may still happen with the Northern Alliance.)

This, of course, is what leads to an Unravelling. The increase in disorder can feel like a failure to the most passionate leaders of the Awakening (Consider that both militant feminists and the Promise Keepers felt like their agenda was being lost in chaos and fragmentation in the most recent Unravelling.)

As an example, look at the Taliban - a revolutionary force that's been unable to construct anything or repair any of their own infrastructure. Indeed, if they weren't parasitic off of the industrialized world's ability to make and ship weapons, they wouldn't have so many damned stinger missiles, AK-47s and Chevy trucks.

The Taliban is a Prophetic force for chaos - probably an almost inevetable one considering the extreme corruption of the institutions they were fighting against. Unfortunately, the Taliban's values won't allow them to make the kinds of accomadations with Western Order necessary to improve their own society. Bringing Islamic society up the material standard of the West means accepting many of the values of the West - the two cannot be seperated (to paraphrase James Twitchell, "We are our stuff, our stuff is us. That;s why they call them 'goods' and not 'bads'"

In a larger sense, that's the challenge that faces the Islamic world - they want our stuff, but they don't want the values that go with them. That's the message that we somehow need to send, while at the same time telling them that accepting certain Western values doesn't mean that they have to lose their own ethnic identity. It's that fear of annihilation, physical AND cultural, that demagogues like Bin Laden play on.

Unfortunately, I think we might be losing that propaganda war among the rank and file of Islamic society.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-15 19:44 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-15 21:58 ]</font>

Kurt63:

How do you know about what militant islam is about?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:45 ]</font>

On 2001-10-15 19:43, Delsyn wrote:

On 2001-10-15 08:54, oddlystrange wrote:
While I'll grant you that the personality of this war seems to be nomadic in nature, I assure you that this nomad isn't up for the nitty gritty of fighting it, and is more for the nitty gritty of getting it over with.

Jen

Jen - what you've described is the very essence of Nomad contributions during a Crisis. Nomads have never been particularly wild about the Crisis section of the saeculum, simply because, as children born of the chaos of the Awakening and growing up in a world where Chaos seems to be ever increasing (The Unravelling) into a world where chaos seems to be triumphant, they see it as their historical duty to impose some order. since they were born, Nomads never know a world in which order is dominant, therefore, they work to create one - the High is very much a Nomad creation.

I've always wondered, if the Nomads (Cavelier, Lost, Xer) were in a position to stop the Prophets in their tracks, would the whole Crisis be cancelled? As pragmatists, Nomads may make the best of the 4T while rather wishing they could squelch the Prophets cold. I'm not sure.

For Prophets, the Crisis is their second Awakening in which all the old values of the last High when order reigned supreme can at last be fought for at their most elemental level. On some level, the Crisis is the apotheosis they've been waiting for all their lives.

Indeed, I've long believed that while the struggle between Good and Evil is eternal, The saeculum rotates between two other, equally important forces - Order and Chaos.

A little aside, and something I wanted to bring up. I don't know a lot about this, but I'd be interested in knowing if the societies on the other side of this experience the same generational cycles we do? It almost seems as if they are in an awakening of sorts. Does this make sense to anyone else?

That's been discussed in the past, and to the best of my knowledge, the Islamic world is a good 5-10 years behind us in the cycle. They're currently in the midst of their Unravelling, as evidenced by the incredibly splintered reaction to Bin Laden and each other that various Muslim factions and countries are undergoing. The difference is that their cycle are way more violent than our due to the nature of their society.

Indeed, to return to my previous point, one of the things that mystifies Prophets is why their value laden agenda seems to increase Chaos, when they all claim to want to re-order society and bring happiness to all by making it more humane and just by ordering society along "Eternal" principles.

If the Crisis is when the Prophets can finally put paid to the former order, I wonder what would happen if it became clear that the only way to settle the Crisis would be for the former order to survive? Could a Prophet generation accept that?

Simply put, any sort of value oriented revolution is bound to increase chaos because those revolutions attack the very stability of the institutions that allowed it to flourish in the first place. Living a life of revolution doesn't set one up to become much of an institution builder once the revolution is successful since any compromise with the realities of a secular world can be seen as a betrayel of the revolution. (Indeed, if Bin Laden didn't exist, there would doubtlessly have been a "counter-revolution" in the Islamic world that might have installed an equally corrupt secular regime. This may still happen with the Northern Alliance.)

This, of course, is what leads to an Unravelling. The increase in disorder can feel like a failure to the most passionate leaders of the Awakening (Consider that both militant feminists and the Promise Keepers felt like their agenda was being lost in chaos and fragmentation in the most recent Unravelling.)

As an example, look at the Taliban - a revolutionary force that's been unable to construct anything or repair any of their own infrastructure. Indeed, if they weren't parasitic off of the industrialized world's ability to make and ship weapons, they wouldn't have so many damned stinger missiles, AK-47s and Chevy trucks.

The Taliban is a Prophetic force for chaos - probably an almost inevetable one considering the extreme corruption of the institutions they were fighting against. Unfortunately, the Taliban's values won't allow them to make the kinds of accomadations with Western Order necessary to improve their own society. Bringing Islamic society up the material standard of the West means accepting many of the values of the West - the two cannot be seperated (to paraphrase James Twitchell, "We are our stuff, our stuff is us. That;s why they call them 'goods' and not 'bads'"

In a larger sense, that's the challenge that faces the Islamic world - they want our stuff, but they don't want the values that go with them. That's the message that we somehow need to send, while at the same time telling them that accepting certain Western values doesn't mean that they have to lose their own ethnic identity. It's that fear of annihilation, physical AND cultural, that demagogues like Bin Laden play on.

Unfortunately, I think we might be losing that propaganda war among the rank and file of Islamic society.

I don't believe we ever had any real chance of winning it, since it was over decades ago.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-15 19:44 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-10-15 21:17 ]</font>

On 2001-10-15 01:22, Carl E. '54 wrote:

OTOH given the Civil War example and anomoly, putting things off just a few more years could well be a good thing. Who knows? Perhaps the WTC attacks will be this saeculum's Dred Scott Decision: something that overturns all sorts of settled assumptions, harden opinions all around, leads to more violence (remember "Bleeding Kansas"?) but is finally only a marker on the way to a 21st century Fort Sumter.

That is precisely what the Cynic in me is rather afraid we are facing!

(The Hopeful is more optimistic).

On 2001-10-15 08:22, oddlystrange wrote:

On 2001-10-12 15:38, sv81 wrote:
It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that the same terrorists that swore that 100 americans would die for each one of their followers, are behind the Anthrax incidents. They declared war on us, and it is also no surprise that the media is being attacked. Primarily because the media can spread fear better thah any individual attack can, and second, because the two enemies these terrorist have is the U.S. Government and U.S. Media. I covered that before.

I have to ask this, and I think this may be one of those lingering "Silent" things. But is anyone else annoyed by the fact that the media, and the govrenment in general is reluctant to link these Anthrax letters to "the" terrorists?

I might be, except that I am not absolutely sure that the terrorists are behind them myself. I'm an Xer, by the way.

I mean, I understand that one of the personality traits of the Silents is that they want brain over gut. They want to see hard evidence before they act.

But in this case it should be fairly obvious that these attacks are linked in some way. If Bush is promising to attempt to erradicate terrorism from the world, wouldn't these letters count in that particular basket?

Depends on who is sending them and why. There is something very odd about the whole anthrax business that I can't quite pin down yet, except that it seems self-defeating from the terrorist point of view.

If this is Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or both, or any other such combination, why are they using such an ineffectual weapon, and why are they targetting the worst possible targets from a tactical point of view?

The targets so far: major news media centers (i.e. New York Times, NBC, etc), and Tom Daschle, among others. Most of them have actually been targetted at the very individuals and institutions that might otherwise have eventually questioned Bush's plans. In the case of Daschle, attacking the leader of the Opposition is foolish, it simply gives cause to unify with the party in power that much more.

In the case of the media, they have in many cases been trying in many cases to maintain their 'objectivity' (see a recent article by Howard Kurtz, and the ban on flag pins at ABC). Why do something that only drives the general American media into Bush's arms?

I guess this is one of the things everyone has been discussing in regards to this all seeming to happen too soon. Rather than acting (which I think would be the case of the generational constellations were in better alignment) we are studying, and only delaying -- and possibly weakening -- our ability to react to these.

I'm not certain at this point. But one thing is for sure, all the roles aren't played out yet. It's sill hard to beleive that the media is making doubly-sure to report that the government has not determined if these anthrax attacks are terrorism.

If it quacks like a duck...

Then maybe it's a duck, and maybe it's something meant to look like a duck.

(I'm not saying that it isn't the terrorists, only that it's very odd.)

Jen

If this is the beginning of the fourth turning, then I'm already sick and tired of the whole thing!

The media covers it too much like it is happening to everybody all over the planet.

The media acts like the man who feels that since it's raining in his own backyard, that it's raining all over the world.

I predict that people will get tired of hearing the news and will go back to reality TV and other forms of escapist junk culture.

Yes, ignorance is truly a bliss.

I still want my Survivor!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: William on 2001-10-15 22:14 ]</font>

Or your "Training Day", William.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2001-10-15 22:39 ]</font>

S & H said that at the turning, the celebrity thing would wain: who cares about Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan. I agree.

Now some people cling to the good old days, watching Friends, instead of having any, or tuning their T.V. to Survivor, instead of pondering about people in the real world that fight for a real survival.

Frankly, I'm glad something shakes us to the foundation of our society. We might find out what it is that way. I mean, did we really believe that our lifestyles, consumption and total disregard of the other 94% of the world would go on forever?

WTC showed us just how brittle our ultra-fashionable, sterile, plastic wrapped, hygenic world view is, and how quickly it can change. In only 5 weeks, we have spent billions fighting a new war, have crisis on several domestic fronts and locked in a recession that will last for at least through 2002. The stock market, job losses, costs for added security and the like - all staggering in the grand scheme of things.

Think the fourth turning isn't here? I'd bet that history will read this as the quickest, most decisive change in western society. The disparity between the haves, and the have nots has finally hit home.