On 2001-10-15 22:06, William wrote:
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.

Bingo! The national media have discovered that they are not immune to all this, and thus we keep getting headlines like "A Jittery Nation", "A Nervous Country", etc.

[

On 2001-10-15 21:14, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

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.

I've always maintained that the Nomad's greatest power is in the historical veto - the power to say "no". I don't believe that Nomads can ever stop a Crisis because the Crisis offers them something they've been searching for for their entire lives - something to believe, a value to fight for. The High results from the Nomad's determination to enshrine their hard-fought values into the fabric of a new society.

In the end, Nomads stop the Crisis by exercising their unique power, first by winning, and then by saying "The War is won - now we build." They can't do this though, until they can politically outmuscle or outfox the Prophets. Even then they'll have to contend with old Prophets who live into the new High who are still looking for dragons to battle (Franklin and his anti-slavery agitation, MacArthur's adventurism.)

On of the interesting things about the 19 terrorists who carried out this attack was how they didn't fit into the FBI or CIA's standard profile for a suicide bombers - a barely trained 19 year old student shut away from the world. These men were older, smarter, professional, pragmatic and very, very focused on bottom line results. After so many years of foiled plots and strikes that didn't really strike at the heart of their enemies, the WTC plot was of a whole different order - strong, clever, coordinated and devestatingly effective.

I'm terrified that what we're dealing with are the opening wedge of Islamism's Nomad generation.

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?

First off, the former Order can never be truly restored. One of the characteristics of a Crisis is that it irrevocably shatters the old order. Regardless of how this Crisis turn out I don't believe we will ever be the same America we were on September 10. And as for what Prophets will do when it looks like one side or another will lose, that scares the beejeeburs out of me. Prophets have a nasty tendency to want to take their church with them, especially if it looks like they'll lose.

The concept of Bin Laden getting his hands on a nuclear weapon should frighten any sane individual, regardless of which side they're on in this conflict. There is no doubt in my mind that Bin Laden would use a nuclear device on infidels with a smile on his face and a song in his heart. Even worse, I really believe he would try to take his whole nation and the rest of this planet to Paradise with those same nuclear weapons if he thought his side was losing. My hope is that the aforementioned Islamist Nomads will want to win, but be practical enough to know when to cut their losses and stop him.

On 2001-10-15 23:06, Delsyn wrote:

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?

First off, the former Order can never be truly restored. One of the characteristics of a Crisis is that it irrevocably shatters the old order. Regardless of how this Crisis turn out I don't believe we will ever be the same America we were on September 10. And as for what Prophets will do when it looks like one side or another will lose, that scares the beejeeburs out of me. Prophets have a nasty tendency to want to take their church with them, especially if it looks like they'll lose.

The concept of Bin Laden getting his hands on a nuclear weapon should frighten any sane individual, regardless of which side they're on in this conflict. There is no doubt in my mind that Bin Laden would use a nuclear device on infidels with a smile on his face and a song in his heart. Even worse, I really believe he would try to take his whole nation and the rest of this planet to Paradise with those same nuclear weapons if he thought his side was losing. My hope is that the aforementioned Islamist Nomads will want to win, but be practical enough to know when to cut their losses and stop him.

I know that the old order can never be fully restored. Partial restoration might be doable, if necessary, and if a Prophet generation could stand the idea.

But the point of my question was what would the result be if the Prophets on both sides found themselves facing a resolution that smacked of failure. Suppose some external factor rendered the dreams null on both sides. How would the Prophets react?

On 2001-10-15 23:21, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
I know that the old order can never be fully restored. Partial restoration might be doable, if necessary, and if a Prophet generation could stand the idea.

But the point of my question was what would the result be if the Prophets on both sides found themselves facing a resolution that smacked of failure. Suppose some external factor rendered the dreams null on both sides. How would the Prophets react?

I haven't got a clue, I can't think of any historical situation that matches. Given what we know of Prophets, though, I think both would TRY to fight until the world was destroyed.

I don't think that would happen, though because there are at least 2 other generations that act as a check on them. Odds are they might both face insurrections and mutiniess among their own ranks as Nomads took them out and came to their own seperate peace. To a practical Nomad, half a loaf really is better than none, and they would put away their grudges in the hopes of taking them out at a later date. I certainly can't think of a worse outcome for a Crisis, though.

HopefulCynic writes, "But the point of my question was what would the result be if the Prophets on both sides found themselves facing a resolution that smacked of failure. Suppose some external factor rendered the dreams null on both sides. How would the Prophets react?"

If everything I've read from S&H, plus everything I see from reactions of other Prophets, plus the tiny whispered voice from my Joneser heart of hearts, is accurate...the answer to that question is, "If I can't have my toys the way I want them, I'll break them." And, we will try to destroy the world, and hopefully, some dude with baggy-butt pants and a backward ball cap will say, "hey, get a grip."

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.

But I do think it's a fairer comparison to the Gulf War. The fact that it was never completed is part of the similarities. The Gulf War acheived very little, other than causing a major rift between the Mid Eastern states. Either you're grungingly accepting the US, or you're not to keen on the US.

Saddam Hussein was not removed from power, and he continued to thwart attempts to curtail his regime long after the war was over (think back to the UN groups that were thrown out of Iraq).

We basically went over there, slapped his wrist and told him he was a bad bad boy and needed a timeout. We didn't do much else except anger a lot of other people in the region.

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.

Could AIDS possibly be our similarity here as well?
8< snippy >8

Also, I do think that prohibition bears a similarity to the way we treat illegal drugs now. I'm not going to enter an opinion on which side of the "drug wars" I stand on, but you have to admit that the need to demonize the use of mood altering substances (whether alcohol in the first place, marijuana, ecstacy, herion and crack cocaine in the current).

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.

I'll admit that I'm not totally familiar with the details of these incidents, but weren't they generated from an internal source? If so a likely comparison to modern times might be Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, all of which were based in internal struggles.

But I do not beleive we are knee deep into the Fourth Turning, I beleive we're taking the first plunge off the cliff and are still in free fall. Still adjusting to the way this new order is. Of course we're going to stumble and back track. If we didn't screw up there wouldn't be a fourth turning at all.

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.

I'm not sure, actually. I think right now my feelings are that we need to get through this, and complete it, and end it. I think honestly that the nomads take on the role of propelling the Prophets with the "just do it" attitude, so that the crisis can be passed through, and things can move on.

I may be mistaken about this, I'm only talking about my own feelings on this one, and a this progesses these feelings might change, but I think as a generation that's always been raised with the experience it, and leave it attitude, that's about the best we can offer.

Jen

On 2001-10-15 20:57, sv81 wrote:
Kurt63:

How do you know about what militant islam is about? If you rely on the media portrayal, you might be way off. Let me give you a couple of factual quotes, one from Bin Laden, one from Ariel Sharon.

Sv81,

For years I have been something of a junior student of Islam, and the history of the Middle East. Also, I have travelled extensively, including five trips to Bahrain. As such, I do not believe that my views are overly coloured by the Western media. While I agree that the Palestinian-Israeli question is a profound irritant to the situation, I do not believe that it represents the entirety of the issue.

Personally, I believe that Mr. bin Laden is as concerned about the Palestinians as Hitler was about the Germans in Sudetenland. I would also take seriously Mr. bin Laden's concern about Muslims in Kashmir and Xinjiang. He was very serious about the presence of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan and was responsible for the massacre of numerous Shiite Afghans.

I would recommend that you do not limit yourself to one resource, or one topic. This is a highly complex situation.

Kurt '63

Mark Lamb writes? ?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.?

Self serving? Excuse me? I am at this point (and always) more interested in the potential values shifts, culture changes and underlying issues than drawing artificial lines in history then asking if the line has been crossed yet. From my perspective, human history is a chaotic system. Any patterns observed in a chaotic system are repeated in haphazard irregular ways. Each leaf on a tree, each wave on the sea, each cloud in the sky, might have much in common with its neighbors, but each will be unique. This historical epoch too will be unique. It should not be expected to match up precisely with prior eras, not without the passage of time, faded memories, 20 20 hindsight, and the occasional bit of fudged arithmetic.

My suggestion that we are in turning 3.2 implies we are still closer to 3T mentality than 4T, but might be starting to shift. My feeling is that September 11 was a major emotional event that happened a bit too early to be an ideal catalyst event according to 3T theory. Thus it is entirely plausible that any tentative shift into 4T mood might reverse itself. Any drive towards implementing a new world order will be hampered and hesitant. With the anthrax situation, if sustained and/or followed up with other attacks, a reversal into classic 3T seems a bit less likely now than last week. However, the notion of Turning 3.2 is intended to nudge discussion away from isolating exactly where we are in the cycles, as this isn?t really all that important. There really won?t be a firm clear line in history that everyone will agree on as we cross it.

If you wish to go against the ?conventional wisdom,? go ahead. People do.

Also, could you define ?cheesy?? In my war gaming circles, the word ?cheesy? implies over reliance on elite forces with expensive weapons systems, and not using enough basic troops. Thus, a cheesy army might be legal under the rules of the game, but not realistic. ?Cheesy? players are not considered polite. I seldom encounter the word outside of food or war game context. What do you mean, here?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-16 09:03 ]</font>

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

Yes, but there's no denying that SOME form of terrorism is behind it. I do beleive that Bush said we're going to get rid of "all" the terrorists.

I'm not particular if they belong to Al Queada or the some othre group. That's what I mean by the whole if it quacks like a duck.

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.

Not necessarily. Mailing these off to high profile people means maximum media exposure for these attacks, and hence maximum "it could happen to me!" feelings.

Additionally, and one of the things that leads me to beleive that this may have an overseas origin (at least on the directing to action side), is that these are not getting mailed to well-known internal celebrities. At least not yet. THey're being mailed to our more international faces -- the newscasters, newspapers and media.

They're not being mailed to the more internally worshiped celebrities like Brittany Spears, or sports stars.

Now I could be proven quite wrong about this in the next few days.

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?

Once again, how are these "worst practical targets?" It's a horrible thing for me to say, but if Tom Brokaw was dead right now from Anthrax, wouldn't you be a little concerned about their ability to "get to people?"

The other thing, and one thing that's been proven for the most part by Al Queada is that, when it comes to attacking America on American soil, they do not have a lot of resources available to them.

They cannot bring in weapons of mass destruction. They must manufacture them here, or use what's available internally to do it.

I would hope, that even as crappy as our borders were, someone couldn't smuggle a tactical nuke through :smile:

Yes, anthrax is a bumbling sort of way to get a lot of people dead. But I'll admit that I'd not want to be a mail carrier right now. I'm also glad I got out of the news business.

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.

It totally depends on their goals, and if they even have any clearly defined objectives. Right now, and I know it's knee-jerk of me, I think their only objective is killing off a lot of people.

An additional consideration may be that these Anthrax letters were planned prior to the Sept 11th attacks. It could be theorized that the recipients list was made with the assumption that President Bush was successfully assasinated on the 11th.

This would make Daschle an incredibly important man.

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?

At this point, I don't think there's very much anyone could do that involves killing other people that wouldn't end up "driving everyone into Bush's arms."

If they suddently backed off and surrendered and turned themselves in, THEN we'd have a political nightmare. :smile:

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

True. I'll grant you that it might be a decoy duck (to take the analogy to a new level). But still has the same end effect.

Jen

While I agree that the Palestinian-Israeli question is a profound irritant to the situation, I do not believe that it represents the entirety of the issue.

Never thought it was the totality of the problem, but if it is the profound irritant to their culture, it becomes a rallying cry to all followers of Islam, against the U.S. In other words, it is used by their media as the sticking point which unites all their people. When I see a 16 year old kid with a russian rifle, I wonder what motivates him? What causes him to latch on to the war ideology? I think its the image that his people have been displaced, robbed and killed. I think that's enough for him.

The guy killing people with the U.S. Postal System isn't dabbling on the fine points of the conflict - he knows only big things.

So, not wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water, we shouldn't focus on that portion which is not the totality of the problem, (there are many causes), and instead, focus on what they say, over and over again is the problem. (I say major problem.) Some concession in that area could do alot toward calming tensions.

HopefulCynic writes? 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.

I can?t claim to have things pinned down either. I have a few thoughts.

I don?t know if bin Ladin and company expected the strength of reaction he got. After prior operations (Lebenon, the African embassies, the Cole) there only response was at a police level. This time, he got a significant military response. From the terrorist perspective, the current bombing campaign almost demanded immediate retaliation or a loss of face. He had to attack America again, and now.

Was anthrax the only operation he had ready to go? Alternately, does he have a well thought out campaign with several phases? Is he deliberately following up the intense quick September 11 attacks with a slow long drawn out threat? When the current methods become routine, when reports of anthrax have little or no news value, will he trigger phase three? Phase 1 involved our airlines, phase 2 our mail system. Will phase 3 involve some other piece of infrastructure?

Is he targeting the United States, or the people of the Middle East? Are his immediate concerns weakening our resolve, generating favorable opinions on his home front, or both?

Too many questions, not enough answers.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-16 09:00 ]</font>

On 2001-10-15 22:55, sv81 wrote:
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.

i find this comment rather amusing since i am involved in the money world every day. recessions typically end when monetary liquidity is great enough to trigger a stabilization in consumer confidence that then leads to new purchasing which then leads to new capital spending on increased inventory and equipment by businesses to meet the increase in demand.

the economy is now awash in liquidity thanks to recent fed actions. consumer confidence is higher now than before 911. the stock market has retraced all of the losses after 911. yet, as is almost always true at market and economic turning points, pessimism abounds! this is not to say that there won't be intermittent shocks to the system if another attack makes it through security, but i think you will find that from this point forward the markets and the economy will be far more indifferent to such an event than they were recently. fail safe mechanisms the world over are already being laid down to prepare for such an event.

the current liquidity boom is greater even than that triggered by concerns over the Y2K crisis which triggered huge rallies in stock markets the world over. if the economies of the world stabilize and strengthen over the next few years, as they have almost always done under such conditions in the past, then those "staggering job losses and costs for added security" should soon be on their way to being made up.

now all that notwithstanding, it is certainly true that we have learned that our once seemingly peaceful neighborhood has been infiltrated by a bad element. but the "police" are dealing with that currently. and i also have a really hard time calling what is going on in afghanistan a "war." when police raid a murder suspect's home, who also happens to be the leader of a gang, and there is a shoot out, do we call that a war too? when we invaded panama to take noriega was that a war? i don't think so, and neither is this looking like a real war so far either. it really looks to me like a more advanced version of a SWAT team in action.

it is true that these terrorist attacks were a wake up call of sorts for us and are likely to have triggered a growing collective change in the national psyche in the year's ahead. but these kinds of violent acts, by what kurt 63 correctly points out are essentially fringe groups, rarely achieve their intended consequences in the long run. it is only when the opinions of a much larger mass of people coalesce behind them does such violence typically produce anything and even then it is generally on an internal basis, i.e. revolutions, coups. etc. and the muslim world hardly looks united behind bin laden. they might sympathize with some of his goals but i doubt that large numbers of them are ready to take up arms and mount a real holy war against the west, despite osama's most fervent wishes.

i think bob butler is very correct when he says that what the muslim world needs is their own version of "ghandhi." when that happens i think we will know that they are finally truly serious about changing things for themselves in the modern world instead of throwing the occasional destructive temper tantrum like bin laden and his cronies seem to like to do.

On 2001-10-16 08:38, sv81 wrote:
Some concession in that area could do alot toward calming tensions.

I quite agree. A large part of this war will involve the removal of the Zones of Chaos that are the breeding grounds for these movements. Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian situation, the Bekaa Valley, Iraq, poverty in Muslim nations while Muslim elites grow rich. In my youth, I remember being told that it was not proper for the West to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. I'm afraid that that is precisely what we are going to need to do.

I would like to ask everyone to take the time to complete the survey at another survey

Thanks.

Mr. Butler wonders, "Also, could you define ?cheesy?? In my war gaming circles, the word ?cheesy? implies over reliance on elite forces with expensive weapons systems, and not using enough basic troops. Thus, a cheesy army might be legal under the rules of the game, but not realistic. ?Cheesy? players are not considered polite. I seldom encounter the word outside of food or war game context. What do you mean, here?"


Main Entry: cheesy
Pronunciation: 'chE-zE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): chees?i?er; -est
Date: 14th century
1 a : resembling or suggesting cheese especially in consistency or odor b : containing cheese
2 : SHABBY 3c, CHEAP


Main Entry: shab?by
Pronunciation: 'sha-bE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): shab?bi?er; -est
Etymology: obsolete English shab a low fellow
Date: 1669
1 : clothed with worn or seedy garments <a shabby hobo>
2 a : threadbare and faded from wear <a shabby sofa> b : ill-kept : DILAPIDATED <a shabby neighborhood>
3 a : MEAN, DESPICABLE, CONTEMPTIBLE <must feel shabby... because of his compromises -- Nat Hentoff> b : UNGENEROUS, UNFAIR <laments the shabby way in which this country often treated a poet -- Paul Engle> c : inferior in quality <shabby reasoning>


Main Entry: 1cheap
Pronunciation: 'chEp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chep, from Old English cEap trade; akin to Old High German kouf trade; both from Latin caupo tradesman
Date: before 12th century
obsolete : BARGAIN
- on the cheap : at minimum expense : CHEAPLY


Main Entry: cheap shot
Function: noun
Date: 1971
1 : an act of deliberate roughness against a defenseless opponent especially in a contact sport
2 : a critical statement that takes unfair advantage of a known weakness of the target



[Lamb] Pick your favorite. DTH?

On the question of Order vs Chaos, yes. Silents, born into Order, try to loosen it up and tip it over into Chaos. Nomads reverse the process. And the generations raised on role playing games are accustomed to thinking in categories of Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, Lawful Good, LAwful Evil, etc.

On the question of what happens if Prophets on both sides see their dreams slipping away, I'm afraid the answer isprobably Armageddon. :sad

Rolling Stone has an article on the terrorists pointing out that this is neither criminal activity nor war, but an insurgency. There's a long tradition of Islamic reformers coming out of the desert and cleaning up a corrupt old order, and that's that Bin Laden's network has hooked into. And, if we get behind the moderate Muslims, they'll be seen as Western puppets. Very discouraging, but it had a ring of truth.

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

This discussion on the interplay of order and chaos through the agency of succeeding generations is very thought provoking, and well expressed. I thought another perspective might be helpful. The evocation of ?eternal? principles does indeed bring about chaos, because the Prophets like to forget that this is real life. But for many of us, it appears that the Awakening is brought on more by Hero midlife hubris than immature, unreasonable Prophet demands.
In a personal aside, I had just sent my GI-gen mother a copy of ?Generations? and ?The Fourth Turning? in August, because she lives in a retirement community, was complaining about getting bored, and is a big fan on Brokaw?s ?Greatest Generation? books. She?s very impressed with S&H?s prophetic powers, and is now convinced the 4T is upon us.
My dad was a GI in the truest sense ? enlisted in the Army Air Force right after Pearl Harbor, and considering the combat he saw, his survival was something of a miracle. Some of my earliest memories were paging through his album of photos, some of which were from inside the bomber, as flak exploded outside. Neither of my parents talked about it much, but one comment from my mother has always stayed with me. She said she tried hard to get pregnant before my dad left, that the other young wives she knew were doing the same thing, to have something of a family, because, she said, ?We didn?t think any of them would come back.? That?s a pretty concise statement of what a 4T is like to those who don?t know what the outcome will be. And it?s why I still think of my mom as GI-gen, though she was born in 1926.
I was struck hard by the passage in T4T that babies conceived on VJ day were born in April, 1946. That?s my older brother. I was born 2 years later, and I was always conscious of the great trial my elders had just completed. I feel I had something of the Silent-gen sense of envy over the pride and solidarity of the Hero, and the wish to make a patriotic contribution. I took in piously the teachings of the ideals America was founded on. Other countries can adopt ideals as they choose, but America was founded on them. Without freedom, justice, equality, there?s no reason for the USA to exist.
The Vietnam War seemed, at first, a fight for American ideals. Communism had to be stopped where it was spreading, so we could prevent another Pearl Harbor. My keen interest in such things led me to study the situation, and what I learned turned my world upside-down. I saw the Vietnamese insurgency as a continuation of the WWII resistance to the Japanese occupiers, carried over into a resistance war against French colonials (the Vichy French had hosted the Japanese), and carried on to a war against all foreign dominators, which, by that time, were us (OK, we). I wasn?t the least bit comfortable with this stand against the establishment; I felt forced into it by the intolerable hubris of my GI elders, who could only see this conflict as another challenge to their collective power. My own dad, to my surprise, was an exception. I was in the first draft lottery, and drew a low enough number to force me to take a stand. In a way I was glad, because I was feeling that so far, I hadn?t done enough for the cause. I was trembling when I told my genuine GI-hero dad about my decision, and he seemed to sense my sincerity, which was all that mattered to him. (My mom was another story ? she thought I was being disloyal.)
If the 911 Attack had happened in 9/11/71, I probably would have jumped at the chance to fight for my country, instead of facing the emotional torture of opposing it. It seemed at the time that democracy in America had broken down; in 1964, Goldwater was defeated (demolished) by Johnson when he proposed escalating the war, then Johnson sent in a half-million troops. Nixon defeated Johnson?s vice president (Humphrey) on the hope of ending the war, after Robert Kennedy, the real hope, was murdered. Polls showed the majority consistently against the war, yet the war raged on. I think the best expression of what it was like from a young Boomer point of view was in the 1970 ?Monster? by Steppenwolf:

America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

OK, this autobiography started out as a reflection on the Boomers? relation to order and chaos. The other issues of the awakening can also be seen as an attempt, well-directed or not, to preserve order being threatened by the hubris of the GI juggernaut. The environmental movement was inspired by perceived threats to survival by ?business as usual?. Civil rights issues on all levels can be seen more as a demand to conform to ideals at the expense of order. But from the other end, they can be seen as an effort to stop the progressive erosion of the ideals the country was founded on. That erosion, if not stopped by those who care enough, can stop what Toynbee calls the growth of civilization, and bring slow death. Not that I give Boomers the credit for all the progress on these issues. The Silent, like all Artist generations, I believe, set the agenda for the entire saeculum. The prophets make enough noise to force attention to them.

On the subject of what Prophets would do if they thought they couldn?t win, there seems to be a lot said on the order that they can?t compromise, and if they can?t get their way, they?ll reflexively destroy it all. The warnings of S&H are well considered here ? that if anyone?s likely to destroy it all for a principle, it?s one of them, and indeed, a proper role for the other generations, especially the Nomads, is to put the brakes on them. But a wise concern for their children is characteristic of older prophets. Keep in mind, it?s the Prophet that begins to detect the ?chaos? in family life, and begins the process of restoring order to child rearing, which nurtures the Hero generation. Yes, there are nuts among us, who, as a friend of mine likes to joke, would like to ?blow it up and start over?. But most of us, I hope, feel that our posterity is the most important thing we?re really living for.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Carl Fitzpatrick on 2001-10-16 13:30 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Carl Fitzpatrick on 2001-10-16 13:50 ]</font>

On 2001-10-16 12:20, Carl Fitzpatrick wrote:
OK, this autobiography started out as a reflection on the Boomers? relation to order and chaos. The other issues of the awakening can also be seen as an attempt, well-directed or not, to preserve order being threatened by the hubris of the GI juggernaut. The environmental movement was inspired by perceived threats to survival by ?business as usual?. Civil rights issues on all levels can be seen more as a demand to conform to ideals at the expense of order. But from the other end, they can be seen as an effort to stop the progressive erosion of the ideals the country was founded on. Not that I give Boomers the credit for all the progress on these issues. The Silent, like all Artist generations, I believe, set the agenda for the entire saeculum. The prophets make enough noise to force attention to them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Carl Fitzpatrick on 2001-10-16 12:43 ]</font>

I think you're quite right - if the High is very much a Nomad creation (As they are the generation with the greatest political and social power at the time) clearly the other parts of Saeculum are the creation (or the fault depending on your point of view) of the generation that holds the greatest power at the time. Therefore an Awakining results from rebellion against the ever-increasing power of Heros, Unravellings are produced by the loosening strictures of Artists and Crises are fomented by the unchecked passions of Prophets.

There is, unfortunately, a series of value-connotations that go along with the words "Order" and "Chaos". Everyone rhetorically is for Order and against Chaos, so yes, to answer your point, Prophets claim to want to reform Order along more humane lines and never claim that they are fomenting Chaos - that is, however what they do - and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

An excess of Order leads to stasis and repression, without a healthy dose of Chaos to introduce changes, there can be no progress. Pure Chaos on the other hand, though it is constantly changing, can't progress either, because without a healthy dose of Order, Chaos can't formulate a goal.

Bin Laden's group and the Taliban are about as pure an expression of Chaos as you're going to find. I'm actually less worried about the Taliban, however, because I think they're expendable puppets for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Taliban are nowhere near introspective enough to realize that they need to embrace a healthy dose of Order and I think that'll be their downfall.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, strike me as being far deadlier because I believe that they are coming to realize that they're section of the world is tipped about as far into Chaos as it can go. If the Middle East is truly in their Unravelling where Chaos is waxing, then the side that offers the Middle East the best vision of Order are the ones who are going to emerge triumphant. That's why they're beginning to truly organize along the lines of a multinational corporation and why the description of Bin Laden as "a venture capitilist for terrorist groups" should be taken seriously.

Note I said "Vision" of Order, because the Middle East will still have undergo it's own Crisis. The challenge for the West is to offer them a better vision of Order than Bin Laden's crew so that what emerges from the Middle Eastern Crisis won't be a huge threat.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-16 13:19 ]</font>

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.

Mark Lamb writes after providing multiple contexts of ?cheesy? writes? Pick your favorite. DTH?

Got it. The intent was ad hominem fallacy? For some reason, you seem to be getting emotional and personal. My intent was neither. I can respect an opinion that we aren?t yet in a Fourth Turning, or that we might back out of whatever state we are in, or especially that we will encounter far more intense states further on. I am not intending to be spokesman for a ?conventional wisdom.? I certainly am not intending to enforce belief in any majority opinion I am not yet aware of. I?ll leave it to the Religious Police to enforce orthodoxy. Frankly, I believe those on this forum are by their perspective distinctly unorthodox. To buck the common wisdom in a place of uncommon wisdom might or might not be wise. Take your choice.

Still, on one of my very first posts on this forum I focused on both the Somalia, Bosnia spiral of violence as increasing and the Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC spiral as suspended. Since then, I have been pushing a perspective that economics, ecology, religious-ethnic and human rights themes are tightly interlocked, that an international solution to the Balkan / South Asian / African problems are apt to be the center of the crisis. Recent events are so much square on the fault line, that I can?t see them as a sideshow. September 11 is apt to be viewed as a major milestone on the major path. I could be wrong. Certainly, the timing of the event is a bit early. Still, I?ll respect your right to dissent if you respect my right to flow with the crowd.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-16 13:57 ]</font>

Hello all! I don't know if any of you remember me, I was a poster here a long-long time ago then dropped off for awhile. I still came back occassionally - especially for E2K and for 9-11. I haven't posted because by the time I found something I wanted to respond to somebody else had already said what I wanted to better than I could.

Regarding whether or not we are in a 4T - I still don't know. Given that within a week of E2K I was sure we were still in a 3T I think not knowing after a month is a pretty good indication that we are heading in the direction of the crisis. Personally, I believe that we are in the twilight period between the end of one era and the beginning of another. Things have definitely changed, but how they have changed is not yet concrete.

I feel like I have one foot in a 3T and one foot in a 4T. I still watch survivor, but I also watch the news more. I am taking advantage of lower airfares for an impromptu trip to New Orleans, and I'm setting aside a couple days to disaster-proof my house. Part of me is acting "normally", and part of me is battening down the hatches. Occasionaly my behavior is almost manic - I deliberately ignore an undercurrent of fear and uncertainty and throw myself into having a good time.

Even if 9-11 is not the catalyst for the crisis, it is clearly the catalyst for the transformation of the national mood. I believe the mood of the country must start changing 4-5 years before the catalyst for that to have as great an effect as it does. If I'm right about the mood change, look for the 2002 elections for a major revolution. Not from Democrat to Republican or vice-versa, but from Silent to Boomer leaders.

Final comment - about the Anthrax scare. I agree with Jenny Genser that something doesn't feel right about it. It feels more like one of our home-grown loonys targeting the democrats and the media - those "damn liberals".

Jen

Jennifer 70 writes? Final comment - about the Anthrax scare. I agree with Jenny Genser that something doesn't feel right about it. It feels more like one of our home-grown loonys targeting the democrats and the media - those "damn liberals".

Welcome back! I too feel ?something doesn?t feel right? about the anthrax scare. Still, I can?t see the militias or any similar extreme ?home-grown loonys? attacking major American institutions right now, even the liberal press. I?m assuming bin Ladin and company are displeased with the way our liberal media is spinning the story. Perhaps our media?s portrayal of the terrorists doesn?t square with the terrorists? self-image? As the major media mail rooms are by now on full alert, I would expect a change in targeting. We may end up decoding a message from the selected targets.

As I was wondering why on earth the terrorists would target the tabloid press, I passed a grocery store news stand. It seems that bat-boy (half bat, half boy) joined a group of American soldiers near Afghanistan, and volunteered to fight bin Ladin and other ?evil-doers.? There was a good close up photograph of bat-boy, huge eyes, large pointed ears, fangs, wearing an American flag as a scarf-hat.

Yes, something is not right.

I don't think the anthrax is coming from the US for this reason...only someone totally unfamiliar with the way American businesses work would think that either Tom Brokaw or Tom Daschle would open their own mail, or even personally see a strange letter!

The whole anthrax thing is definitely making me feel more and more like a 4T is coming, if it's not here already. The fear level, even among people who are not usually emotional, is extremely high.

Regarding the anthrax letters: This whole thing has not come off as what one would expect from the evil geniuses of the unstoppable international terrorist combine who send messages to their terror cells via bin laden's video statements.
I think we're all trying too hard to find deep meaning in this, at least in direct relation to the events of 911. Remember, there are many disenfranchised nut cases born and raised right here in the United States.
Within the last couple of years I recall reading articles in newspapers and magazines that mentioned that a person could get anthrax by mail order. Is it inconceivable that someone decided to check it out and then did so and then ordered up some poison?
A calamity such as 911 is very exciting for some people, it feeds right into their particular pathologies, an apocalypse which will clean the slate, humble the mighty, and perhaps raise up the people who feel put upon.
There are many people out there who have an ax to grind about society, this may well be an attack by people who don't know each other at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if, when they catch some of them, that their grudges against society are intensely personal, stemming from things like an unfair divorce settlement, a tax issue where they lost their home, or perhaps they simply are stone-crazy.
I doubt that the militia types are doing this; I would expect that in these times they feel like they're the last line of defense for America if the Taliban should attack over the Canadian border.:smile: