I'll try, Robert.

There was a big deal made about all the money that was raised (over $1 billion among all the different groups, if I recall correctly) and is still being raised through private efforts. As the number of people killed continues to drop, it probably seems, on the surface at least, that there is now more money per person available for the survivors.

I'm using the term "survivors" deliberately here. Maybe they should, too. Calling yourself a "victim" can only go so far. Being a "victim" can indicate that you're unable to help yourself.

Anyway, in spite of all the hoopla that Bill O'Reilly and others have made about the distribution of the funds, it would appear that there is plenty of money to hand out. And maybe in these recessionary times, John Q. Taxpayer might be saying "Geez, I sent fifty bucks to the September 11th fund, why are they asking me for more? I'm worried about paying my own bills right now."

A lot of it is the perception game. Probably people are assuming that the survivors have been taken care of, and that they should start moving on with their lives, the way other survivors have.

I'm not saying that I agree with this thinking, but it could explain the kind of backlash that was described in the article.

Kiff '61

msm writes...

Describing recent or current events to justify or forecast 3T or 4T boundaries doesn't provide observations to support the S&H theory. It's fun to gossip about recent or current events but it doesn't have anything to do with the S&H theory.

The core theory focuses on generations as cohorts fulfilling different roles over time. People respond to external events based on their values and beliefs.

Richard Turnock responds...

Keep in mind, Richard, that many of us have been on this site for two or three years. As such, the debate over whether the Theory works or doesn't add up is long-over-- most of us support it in the absence earth-shattering evidence to the contrary. Moreover, we have discussed the Turning Theory in such great detail for so long that further explanation of how it works often seems unnecessary except when addressing newcomers.

I would add that the authors seem more interested in the generational mechanics than the political transformations. Many critics of the ?American Prophesy? comment on how vague the prophesy is, how lacking in specifics. I find the authors are a very good read on the mechanics of social change, but are in their hearts conservative. They are not eager to see a grand upheaval of American society, thus they don?t advocate one. Thus, their recent publications are focused far more on the personality traits of this generation or that, rather than the specifics of the pending political upheaval their theory predicts.

A few years back, William posted a warning that in the near future, US is apt to follow dangerous political extremists. I countered with a post ?Black Champions? (see http://polyticks.com/) which suggested that some of the changes brought about by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR were positive. Possibly, major change might be a good thing. Thus, while S&H talk with reasonable detail and evidence about the deeper mechanics of social change, they seem to avoid specific modern issues on the grand scale. They seem to avoid making specific predictions, or taking specific stands on any issue. This might be prudent. Predictions go wrong. Political stands alienate people. As politicians avoid specific stands on issues people feel strongly about, the better to avoid alienating voters, so authors might prudently avoid alienating critics and readers.

I feel that this board and these forums provide a much needed supplement to the base theory. S&H have provided an excellent basis for understanding social change. If they are avoiding applying their theory to modern issues and problems, somebody?s got to do it.

Tim Walker writes...

I'm interested in Tofflers networked civilization and how it relates to generations. Will future generations strongly relate to-and interact with-their archetypal counterparts in other countries? If so, how would that affect turnings? Would networking create a substantial reorganization of society, or would the effects be minor?

The Third Wave is the book that most firmly addresses these issues. (First Wave = Agricultural Civilization, Second Wave = Industrial Civilization, Third Wave = Networked Civilization.) He makes a reasonable case that the gap from the printed word to computer networks will be as significant as the jump from written to printed. A similar argument might be made for sword to rifle to weapons of mass destruction. To Toffler, technology drives social change. However, the focuses on a three phase linear progress model. I found no hint of cyclical patterns.

Sitting in front of me on my desk are Samuel Huntington?s The Clash of Civilizations, Strauss and Howe?s The Fourth Turning, Jared Diamond?s Guns, Germs and Steel. These and The Third Wave each advocate an unusual perspective for examining history. I get dizzy trying to view the Post September 11th world through all four filters. Still, any one filter is insufficient.

Guns, Germs and Steel tells how European nations were able to put colonial imperialism in place, how Western Civilization came to dominate. Mao?s ?paper tiger:? evaluation, that guerrillas with small arms and determination can defeat major western powers, suggests that Imperialism was an artifact of the Second Wave. Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction furthers the paper tiger analogy. One perspective on the Millennial Crisis is that everyone will shortly have guns, germs and nukes in essentially equal measure. The inequality that started with the Second Wave might not be permanent.

The one warning on The Third Wave is that the Tofflers are far more interested in immediate individual experience within the workplace than long term political perspectives. In many ways S&H and the Tofflers are examining different problems, thus choose different perspectives. Both are valid, though Third Wave is already a bit dated.

My spin is that since roughly the Magna Carta, most S&H crises have been at base about transforming the culture from agricultural feudal to industrial democratic, several issues at at time. Recent incidents in Africa, the Balkans and Middle East still have echoes of this perspective, with warlord governments of agricultural states putting up last ditch resistance against a world dominated by industrial democracies. This might be the last First Wave / Second Wave crisis. It might also be the first Second Wave / Third Wave crisis. We are dealing with ecology, global information sharing, weapons of mass destruction, and post industrial economics. (Third World colonies are no longer a source of cheap raw materials and captive markets, but rather a source of cheap labor for multinationals. The form of exploitation has changed.) Solving these problems might obsolete the Second Wave competition between ?great powers? perspective, requiring a global cooperative Third Wave perspective. However, Toffler doesn?t address this strongly. He doesn?t see the cyclical crises, and focuses more on every day life than grand politics.

Firstly, not to nitpick, but Bob Butler's recent post incorrectly attributes a paragraph to me that was written by someone else. 'Nuff said.

Bob Butler writes:

"Sitting in front of me on my desk are Samuel Huntington?s The Clash of Civilizations, Strauss and Howe?s The Fourth Turning, Jared Diamond?s Guns, Germs and Steel. These and The Third Wave each advocate an unusual perspective for examining history. I get dizzy trying to view the Post September 11th world through all four filters. Still, any one filter is insufficient. "

Those are all good books. I'd only comment that some of the arguments of Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_, which I've read, are responded to interestingly in Victor Davis Hanson's recent book, _Carnage and Culture_. VDH argues somewhat convincingly that JD *overemphasizes* non-cultural factors in explaining the historical domination of western powers.

I'm not asking you to read another book (I know how annoying that can be). I'm just making you aware that good arguments exist that the historical domination of western powers is less a factor of germs and guns than a factor of strengths (in economic and military affairs) that flow from western cultural traditions.

(In a post in another folder, I argue that VDH, while not a political figure, often displays the rhetorical characteristics of a "Gray Champion".)

The 9/11 survivors, in general, are going to receive more charity than survivors of other tragedies because of the amount of money collected for them. (For example, the survivors of the original WTC bombing in 1993 received much less than the 9/11 survivors will, generally speaking.)

Perhaps it is knowledge of this that is causing the backlash when they complain that it's not enough.

Actually, much of the complaints by the survivors is not that the money raised is not enough, but that the manner in which the funds are being divided up among survivors is unfair. Unfortunately, the ethics of this are very complicated. Should every survivor get an equal amount? What if some are already quite rich? What if some had huge credit card debts? Should they get more than those who were frugal (and thus have less debt?). If a victim has no dependents, does anybody in his family (his mother, for instance) get anything? Ethically, it's very complicated. I don't see how any formula would satisfy everyone, but these matters were all considered in the formula that was decided upon.

I'm not sure whether the backlash had any bearing on the 3T/4T argument, but I'm inclined to think that a no-nonsense, "this is what you're getting, stop whining about it" attitude is slightly 4T-ish.

On 2002-01-22 20:43, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Moreover, we have discussed the Turning Theory in such great detail for so long that further explanation of how it works often seems unnecessary except when addressing newcomers.

Thank you Kevin. As number 19 on this board, you probably have had a lot of basic discussions with newbies. Back in the 1980's when the internet was text only on green screens, I was taking the time to introduce people to genealogy and spent a lot of time online at 300 baud. So, I have some empathy for your comment.

At 170+ posts you have spent a lot of time helping others understand the theory. Thank you for your contributions before the rest of us came along.

Interesting that 363 people have joined this forum since 9-11. We now have a total of 456 members, however some have never posted a message. Each time I check to see who is browsing the board there are several "guest" listed. Lots of lurking going on. Lots of people reading what you write.

The process each of uses to take action (like typing an email for this discussion forum) goes through assumptions, conclusion and is filtered by our beliefs and values. The S&H theory seems to use the scientific method instead of our natural instinctive response system. So, living in the experiment what can we measure to justify improving or revising the S&H theory?
Thank you.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-01-24 20:37 ]</font>

Networking. Suppose that two countries are out of phase in respect to the saeculum. How would middle age Prophets react to coming-of-age Prophets or coming-of-age Heros or coming-of-age Artists? Or middle aged Nomads react to coming-of-age Prophets? Or middle-aged-Heros and coming-of-age Nomads? Middle aged Prophets with elder Nomads? Elder Prophets with post-elder Nomads? If they are of similar cultural backgrounds, could there be a significant interaction? (Consider the pluralism of Western Civilization) Would it resemble some sort of warped saeculum? And just how much entertainment are the regular posters providing for the lurkers?



Could a virtual saeculum be possible?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-01-24 21:03 ]</font>

On 2002-01-23 20:17, Tim Walker wrote:
Networking. Suppose that two countries are out of phase in respect to the saeculum. How would middle age Prophets react to coming-of-age Prophets or coming-of-age Heros or coming-of-age Artists? Or middle aged Nomads react to coming-of-age Prophets? Or middle-aged-Heros and coming-of-age Nomads? Middle aged Prophets with elder Nomads? Elder Prophets with post-elder Nomads? If they are of similar cultural backgrounds, could there be a significant interaction? (Consider the pluralism of Western Civilization) Would it resemble some sort of warped saeculum? And just how much entertainment are the regular posters providing for the lurkers?

Well, I was a lurker for years before I was a poster, and I can tell you that it was very entertaining! :smile:

Seriously, your question about off-phase Cycles in a single system is one I've often pondered. It would be difficult for it to come to full fruition in the United States as we are currently constituted, but imagine, say, a monarchy that is otherwise similar to America. A royal marriage could combine two societies, and bring Prophets in Elderhood face-to-face with Prophets in Rising Adulthood. That's a dynamic I'd be interested to see (from a safe distance).

In Generations and T4T, S&H postulate a few very old Boomers still around when the next Awakening rolls around, able to fondly recall when they saw it all before. Personally, I suspect that the actual reaction would be closer to fire and brimstone fury.

Cyclically, Rising Adult Idealists tend to clash with Elder Civics, tangling over ideas, personal style, etc. I have long suspected that in part, the Civics in this equation are playing stand-in for the previous Idealists. Thus, in a sense, the Boomers were rebelling against the Missionaries, back in the sixties/seventies.
If I'm right, that is.

Now, picture that same confrontation with lots of Elder Idealists backed up by mid-life Civics, matched against young Idealists and mid-life Adaptives, maybe with very very old and very very young Reactives looking on in dread.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-01-23 22:23 ]</font>

I too must admit to being one of the former
lurkers on this forum.

I read the book back in '97. Since then I
have re-read it several times. I also found
myself referring to it many times as things
came up. When I saw the image of the second
plane plow into the WTC I immediately got up
and pulled T4T down from the shelf. Only then
did I wonder if there was a T4T website. You
see, up until last year I had not touched an
operational computer.

As it turns out, I found the forum ont the
very day that this thread was activated
(sept. 13). Since then I have attempted to
catch up with all the discussions on most of
the threads. Believe me, the task is formidable when one comes in so late. And up
until now I have been content to take in all
discussion here. For it was obvious to me
that the posters here represented: aware,well
read,well educated, curious, smart and active
people.

How can I possibly have anything to contribute? Each time that I felt a comment
coming on someone else would make it. Besides
I'm still "internet shy". In recent days,
however it has occured to me that it can't
hurt to say what I feel and believe. I may
not have any earth-shaking insights. But so
what? I must say that I've read a few lame
posts on this forum. At least I have a unique
perspective--mine.

I too have wondered about all the people who
Have been visiting but have never posted
anything. All in good time.

By the way, I have wanted to ask if anyone
here has read Non Zero by Robert Wright. If
so, what do you think about it? I have an
image in my head which I can't shake of the
cycles of history being represented as more
of a spiral. History never exactly repeats.
And if one subscribes to the theory that
evolution is progressive, it would make sense.

Finally, I must say that if 911 wasn't the
catalyst, it sure was a good imitation.
--------------
Buz Painter--Never for a long time I been
this confused.

I discovered the original T4T web site, and started posting, April 2000 (I got a pc two years ago). New posters add to the interplay of ideas that makes this site exceptional. Most of my own posts have added little or nothing to the discussion, but I have pointed out interactions with other theories. I recall posting ideas from Non Zero in "The Future Of The Media" thread a while back-perhaps the theme of increasing degrees of freedom have helped to drive the saeculum. My contributions? Pointing out the interaction of media prophet Marshall McLuhan's theories (with elaboration by Levinson) with the Great Power and current saeculae. Correlating Sheehy's "Pathleaders" with mid-life Artists (such as Martin Luther King) as well as Grey Champions. I have attempted to correlate civilizational theories with the beginning of the cycle five centuries ago-I do think there is a connection there. As for the generational paradign itself I have not actually contributed any new information.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-01-26 19:11 ]</font>

I discovered the original T4T web site, and started posting, April '99 (I got a pc two years ago). New posters add to the interplay of ideas that makes this site exceptional. Most of my own posts have added little or nothing to the discussion, but I have pointed out interactions with other theories. I recall posting ideas from Non Zero in "The Future Of The Media" thread a while back-perhaps the theme of increasing degrees of freedom have helped to drive the saeculum. My contributions? Some book reports. I have started one or two threads, such as the archived great grandparent one, that have drawn interested and illuminating responses. Pointing out the interaction of media guru Marshall McLuhan's theories (with elaboration by Levinson) with the Great Power and current saeculae. Pointing out that Sheehy's term "Pathleaders" can apply to mid-life Artist leaders-such as Martin Luther King-as well as Grey Champions. I have attempted to correlate civilizational theories with the beginning of the cycle five centuries ago-I do think there is a connection there. As for the generational paradign itself I have not actually contributed any new information.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-01-24 06:53 ]</font>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26183

Wow, how are we going to possibly indefinitely imprison the tens of millions of Christians in this nation? :wink: :lol:

On 2002-01-23 22:22, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
In Generations and T4T, S&H postulate a few very old Boomers still around when the next Awakening rolls around, able to fondly recall when they saw it all before. Personally, I suspect that the actual reaction would be closer to fire and brimstone fury.

Cyclically, Rising Adult Idealists tend to clash with Elder Civics, tangling over ideas, personal style, etc. I have long suspected that in part, the Civics in this equation are playing stand-in for the previous Idealists. Thus, in a sense, the Boomers were rebelling against the Missionaries, back in the sixties/seventies.
If I'm right, that is.

Now, picture that same confrontation with lots of Elder Idealists backed up by mid-life Civics, matched against young Idealists and mid-life Adaptives, maybe with very very old and very very young Reactives looking on in dread.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-01-23 22:23 ]</font>

You know, the last Missionaries were born in 1882 and the Consciousness Awakening began in 1964. The youngest Missionaries would have been 82. So it is certainly possible that a few Missionaries would have lived through much of the Awakening. A 1882 cohort would reach 90 in 1972 and 100 in 1982.

Did any of you know any very old people who were in their eighties or nineties during the late sixties or seventies? Did you have any feeling for how they reacted to the state of society?

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-01-24 11:32 ]</font>

On 2002-01-24 11:31, Jenny Genser wrote:


Did any of you know any very old people who were in their eighties or nineties during the late sixties or seventies? Did you have any feeling for how they reacted to the state of society?

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-01-24 11:32 ]</font>

They though it perverted.

On 2002-01-24 21:27, rc51 wrote:
They though it perverted.

You rang?

On 2002-01-25 00:54, The Pervert wrote:

On 2002-01-24 21:27, rc51 wrote:
They though it perverted.

You rang?

Not Your Time Yet.

http://www.nationalreview.com/george...int012502.html

That ?90s Show
Don?t say goodbye to the Clinton era yet.


Mr. George is an editorial writer for the New York Post.
January 25, 2002 9:15 a.m.



The popular conceit is that "everything" changed with September 11, 2001. But is that really the case?

One theory shared by a social scientist or two says that while time marches on eras don't move with the explicit beginnings and endings that the calendar indicates. In fact, there is one body of thought that decades actually end approximately three years after their "official" temporal turn.

For example, the 1950's "began" with Eisenhower becoming president and ended with (either the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 or on November 22, 1963 as Camelot came to a shocking close with an assassin's bullet. The social uproar of the '60s were bookended by Kennedy's assassination and Nixon's reelection. The '70s were the "Me/Malaise Decade" [1973-1982] typified by three failed administrations (Nixon, Ford and Carter) and the sloth produced by Watergate and the "stagflation" economic hangover. The '80s "began" with the Reagan Recovery in 1983 and ended with the Bush Recession of 1992. Bill Clinton ushered in the 1990's in 1993 with his inauguration.

If we accept this view, it means that, as much as we might wish it to be not the case, the Clinton Era ain't over. We might want to believe that 9/11 was the "real" beginning of the 21st century and the true launch of the Bush presidency. But there's a lot of evidence laying around that suggests that the values and "lessons" of the Clinton '90s still call the cultural and political tune.

Item: '90s Maudlin Voyeurism. In New York, we have Ground Zero Deification. In recent days, the cops have been coming down hard on vendors who have been selling "bootleg" NYPD and FDNY hats and clothing paraphernalia. One particular company makes "official" memorabilia, and then licenses them. Well, as anyone who has visited New York City lately can tell you, street vendors all around have been selling hats, jackets, scarves, lapel pins, etc. with the logos ? and most of them are knock-offs. This is portrayed as being, not just illegal, but an insensitive treatment of the city's heroes. The vendors are particular prevalent in the Ground Zero. Thus, the cops have been confiscating the bootleg stuff and ticketing the vendors.

That's all well and good, but while this is going on, the city is giving away "tickets" to see Ground Zero from a viewing stand. True, they are not selling tickets. Yet, considering that ? technically ? this is still a bodies-and-remains reclamation project, the scene smacks of the maudlin voyeurism that was the earmark of the Clinton weeping White House. (An international phenomenon, actually: How can we forget the weeks following the death of Princess Diana?)

Of course, former Mayor Giuliani helped create this culture, first by approving the building of a Ground Zero viewing stand and then suggesting that the entire area be transformed into a "soaring" memorial. On ABC's This Week, Cokie Roberts chimed in with her opinion that the entire sixteen acres upon which the World Trade Center stood must be considered "hallowed ground" upon which no economic activity should take place. Which means, to use a clich?, that the terrorists have really won.

Item: The '90s Victim Culture. Congress' well-intentioned Victim Compensation Fund ? passed in the heat of the moment last fall with the intent to forestall mass lawsuits ? has had what should have been considered predictable results. It has glued the victim culture to the entitlement culture. The fund's special master, Kenneth Feinberg ? a Democrat lawyer, in fact ? came up with a formula to assess the economic impact to the victims of the terrorist attacks. The average payout will be $1.6 million per individual (minus deductions for insurance and pensions).Feinberg used various criteria such as age of the victim at time of death, salary, number of children, etc. Feinberg also caps the "pain and suffering" aspect of the award at $250,000. Apparently, this is not enough. One widow of a firefighter cried, "Setting limits on our pain and suffering is a slap in the face to our loved one's memories."

This attitude has opened the door to bipartisan piling on Feinberg. Republican Gov. George Pataki, Democratic senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chuck Schumer, plus House members of both parties have all decried Feinberg's criteria and the stipulation that the families have to forego their right to sue airlines for damages. Amazingly, all of these people (save Pataki) voted for the fund, in the first place, even understanding its restrictions. Needless to say, one of the reasons for going ahead with the fund was the belief that it was more compassionate to give the victims money straight-away rather than let them go for years trying to win lawsuits.

Item: Multiculturalism Run Amok. The Firefighter Statue. Enough said.

Lest anyone think that the Clinton Era hangover is solely a New York phenomenon:

Item: Closed door White House meetings with private citizens discussing a sensitive issue central to the economy. In 1994, it was Hillary Clinton and health care. In 2001, it was Dick Cheney and energy policy. Yes, there are superficial differences, not the least of which is that Cheney was an accountable, duly elected public official running the meetings, while Hillary was none of the above. Fine, but stiff-arming and tempting a lawsuit from the General Accounting Office does a disservice to the administration that promised a restoration of "honor and dignity" to the White House. That means coming forward and giving the information on who the veep met with. As NR's Rich Lowry has observed, it's not as if a Bush/Republican energy plan would ideologically be that different from whatever suggestions that Enron or other business individuals might suggest. Republicans do tend to believe in things such as free markets and less regulation. Adopting a stonewall strategy, on the other hand, gives foes of the administration a perfect sword ? especially now that Enron has exploded in all directions. And, no, Hillary's hypocrisy in calling for all information on Cheney's meetings doesn't exonerate the current administration's stonewalling.

Item: Creative Language Interpretation. In response to a reporter's question about his contacts with Ken Lay, President Bush responded that he first "got to know Ken Lay" when he was an "Ann Richards supporter" in the 1994 gubernatorial campaign. Well, apparently the days of parsing presidential statements are no longer in the past. Bill Clinton had the nerve to tell the nation that it depended on the definition of "is." Are we now supposed to figure out what Bush means when he uses the words "know" and "support"? Lay's relationship with the entire Bush family goes back decades. Yes, Lay gave money to Richards, but he also helped launch Bush's campaign as well ? and ended up giving more money to Dubya.

The problem with these Bush statements is two-fold: First, the most infuriating too-cute wordplay is that which is most easily verifiable. Why even bother saying it? More importantly, by trying to minimize the relationship, it makes Bush seem, again, that he has something to hide. It also buys into the liberal/McCain myth that the campaign finance system is inherently corrupt. It suggests that if someone is a supporter of a politician, the relationship is by definition suspect.

Such dissembling gives the Democrats ammunition on both policy (campaign finance reform) and politics (scandal) grounds.

War? What war? It's like Bill never left.

Bill never left?
A load of crap if I ever heard one.

On 2002-01-24 11:31, Jenny Genser wrote:

You know, the last Missionaries were born in 1882 and the Consciousness Awakening began in 1964. The youngest Missionaries would have been 82. So it is certainly possible that a few Missionaries would have lived through much of the Awakening. A 1882 cohort would reach 90 in 1972 and 100 in 1982.

Did any of you know any very old people who were in their eighties or nineties during the late sixties or seventies? Did you have any feeling for how they reacted to the state of society?

My paternal grandfather was a late wave Missionary, born in 1882, who lived until 1975. He wasn't the world's most talkative man-- the strong, silent type (VERY small 's'), alot like me in many ways, though certainly far more conservative than I. What I know of him I learned mostly from my parents.

My grandfather was always very kind to my siblings and I, but he did have a mean streak. It seems that he often verbally mistreated my older cousin because he despised his dad, my late aunt's ex-husband. He was very old fashioned on moral issues, had no love whatsoever for free-lovers, campus radicals or urban rioters. A lifelong Republican, he was Nixon-all-the-way back in the 60s and almost certainly would have been for Reagan had he lived another five years or so. I'd say he was an almost quintessential fire-and-brimstone Prophet. Then again, he didn't seem to have many friends (they could have been all dead by the 1960s, but somehow I don't think he ever had very many), which suggests that he had a strong Nomad streak-- which makes sense for a Missionary/Lost cuspite.

On 2002-01-26 21:52, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-01-24 11:31, Jenny Genser wrote:

You know, the last Missionaries were born in 1882 and the Consciousness Awakening began in 1964. The youngest Missionaries would have been 82. So it is certainly possible that a few Missionaries would have lived through much of the Awakening. A 1882 cohort would reach 90 in 1972 and 100 in 1982.

Did any of you know any very old people who were in their eighties or nineties during the late sixties or seventies? Did you have any feeling for how they reacted to the state of society?

My paternal grandfather was a late wave Missionary, born in 1882, who lived until 1975. He wasn't the world's most talkative man-- the strong, silent type (VERY small 's'), alot like me in many ways, though certainly far more conservative than I. What I know of him I learned mostly from my parents.

My grandfather was always very kind to my siblings and I, but he did have a mean streak. It seems that he often verbally mistreated my older cousin because he despised his dad, my late aunt's ex-husband. He was very old fashioned on moral issues, had no love whatsoever for free-lovers, campus radicals or urban rioters. A lifelong Republican, he was Nixon-all-the-way back in the 60s and almost certainly would have been for Reagan had he lived another five years or so. I'd say he was an almost quintessential fire-and-brimstone Prophet. Then again, he didn't seem to have many friends (they could have been all dead by the 1960s, but somehow I don't think he ever had very many), which suggests that he had a strong Nomad streak-- which makes sense for a Missionary/Lost cuspite.

That's interesting, Kevin. My grandparents were all Lost, but I remember meeting the Missionary grandmother of a cousin of mine on my mother's side of the family. I don't know how old the woman was, but it was 1968--the height of the Awakening--so she must have been *quite* old. She was the stereotypical old Missionary lady, actually wearing a dark-colored unrevealing dress with a high collar. She sat stiffly, tight-lipped and silent at the head of the table, saying not a word but nonetheless making the merrymaking relatives *very* aware of her presence. I am not aware of what her opinion was of the Awakening taking place outside the walls of that home, but i have no doubt it could not have been a positive one. Surely not with a face like that!

Yet Missionaries, like Boomers and all young Prophets, were fun-loving idealists in their youth, breaking old taboos (taking liberties, of course, they would later clamp down during Prohibition, etc.)

If I remember correctly, the last living Missionary died a year or two ago. She was 125 years old or something near that.

I hope I live long enough to catch at least a glimpse of the next Awakening. I only hope my mind remains sharp enough to comprehend what I see.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12190

<font color="blue">
Land of the Oil Free? Redefining the American Way of Life
Keith Schneider, AlterNet
January 9, 2002
Viewed on January 26, 2002

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

It took only a quick glance at the guts of the blasted, black-charred remains of the World Trade Center to immediately agree with President Bush that the Sept. 11 attacks were a direct strike at what he called "the American way of life."

Bush's assessment, meant to stir public passion and lay the political foundation for a sustained military campaign to eradicate global terrorism, has also had another, quite different effect. Spurred by the president's regular reference, the American way of life is suddenly the focus of new public scrutiny and a substantive national discussion about who we are and how we live.

With so many Americans dead on their own soil, the terrorist attack in effect opened a new chapter in a decades-old skirmish about the real meaning of national security and the consequences of a way of life based on the profligate use of oil and other natural resources.

The debate, which has taken on unprecedented urgency, could dramatically reshape American politics and economics, perhaps as soon as the 2002 mid-term election. Moreover, say theorists on all sides of the dispute, never before has the environmental community had the opportunity to play such an influential role in deciding the outcome. The reason: To the extent the horrendous attacks were prompted by America's oil dependency and its unwelcome presence in the Middle East, the environmentalists' vision of a more energy-efficient, less resource-dependent way of life is the most cogent long-term response yet put forward about how to truly strengthen national security.

If something heartening has come out of the Sept. 11 tragedies, it is that this vision is no longer limited to environmentalists. With energy security on everyone's mind, solutions that have long been advocated by environmentalists -- renewable and alternative energy sources, and dispersed as opposed to centralized generation -- are suddenly being touted even by some who have generally been far from eco-friendly.

That also takes into account the Bush Administration itself. In mid-January, 2002, for instance, U.S. Energy Secretary Spence Abraham returned to his home state of Michigan to tout Freedom Car, a new collaboration between the government and automakers to develop cars powered by hydrogen. Abraham was effusive in his vision of a more secure nation whisking around the countryside in nonpolluting cars and trucks.

Critics, among them prominent newspaper editorialists, immediately noted that developing a new fleet of hydrogen-powered vehicles was probably a generation away, and that the Administration's plan's real effect was to scrap the $1.5 billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. That was a nine-year old Clinton-era program to develop by 2004 hybrid electric vehicles capable of getting 80 miles per gallon. Said the St. Paul Pioneer Press in an editorial on January 15 the Administration's announcement was a "bait and switch" adding that "the abrupt dismissal of high-mileage vehicle research for the near term has all the markings of a political stall."

Still, environmentalists can take credit both for the Administration's sensitivity to how to market the hydrogen fueled vehicles and the widespread criticism. Movement leaders have been thinking about the foreign and domestic consequences of U.S. energy policy for years; in the wake of Sept. 11, they mobilized fast to share those thoughts with the public. Even some conservatives were impressed.

"The ability of the environmental community to regroup after Sept. 11, and regain momentum around the debate over energy in particular, shows confidence and sophistication in reaching a national audience," said Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an influential Washington, D.C.-based libertarian research and policy organization. "It shows a skill level that is admirable."

But conservative thinkers haven't just been impressed by environmentalists' strategy; some of them, recently, have also been impressed by environmentalists' policy.

Nonsense and Sensibility

The main proving ground for post-Sept. 11 energy policy has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Republican leaders in Congress and their allies in the energy industry hope to open the refuge to oil drilling, a move that is vehemently opposed by environmentalists. Bill Bush, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade association in Washington, D.C., said, "We believe we're going to need more oil and gas in the future, regardless of what else we do. There are reasons it makes sense to develop in Alaska. It's a secure supply and we believe it can be done safely."

Environmentalist, however, say Alaska oil would be far from secure: They point out that last fall, a single drunken man managed to puncture the trans-Alaskan pipeline by firing a rifle at it, causing a 285,000-gallon oil spill. As for supply, the United States Geological Survey and the Union of Concerned Scientists, a technical research group in Washington, D.C., note that at peak production the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may yield only 500,000 barrels per day. The U.S. uses 19.45 million barrels of oil daily, according to the Department of Energy, or more than a quarter of global production.

In other words, the United States cannot drill its way out of oil dependence. A more rational response to energy insecurity, say environmental groups, is to focus on alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels, and to reduce demand. Improving the average fuel economy of American vehicles by just 3 miles per gallon, for instance, saves 1 million barrels of oil daily, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, twice what would be produced in the refuge.

These arguments are not new, but some of their advocates are. Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C., said, "The environmentalists are right. A lot of conservatives buy into the analysis made by most pro-business groups that without ANWR we are vulnerable to the oil weapon. But you can't make that case on the grounds of national security. The idea that you can protect yourself from Middle East production behavior by pumping oil out of Alaska is nonsense. There just won't be enough production there to make a difference."

Terrorism Is Scarier Than Global Warming

Progressives and some conservatives agree that terrorism lends a graphic sense of urgency to environmental problems that more amorphous long-term global environmental threats like climate change were unable to conjure.

Precisely for that reason, there hasn't been a better opportunity to incorporate a green vision in national policy since the great decade-long period of national environmental policy-making from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. Even before Sept. 11, environmental leaders were calling attention to an important shift in American priorities. Public opinion polls and 2000 election results indicated that many more Americans valued environmental safeguards, public health protections, and good government reforms designed to achieve both.

In recent interviews, both conservatives and environmentalists noted that the president's low polling numbers prior to Sept. 11 were due in large measure to Bush's disregard for environmental safeguards and his administration's efforts to weaken standards for arsenic in drinking water, undo Clinton-era protections for nearly 60 million acres of wilderness, and abandon international treaty negotiations to curb global warming.

The polls, which also demonstrated the public's declining esteem for the right-wing leadership in Congress, indicated that voters viewed the conservative message of lower taxes, less government, and opposition to abortion and gun control as out of touch. In a world where the American economy was shrinking, and concern about health care, education, traffic congestion, and environmental degradation were rising, the public understood that the solution was not more tax breaks for the rich, deregulation, subsidies for big industry, and neglect. The new priorities required a community response overseen by an engaged national government.

The Sept. 11 attacks have raised the stakes in the battle for effective government. In no arena are the choices more starkly apparent, or the chance for a progressive victory more readily attainable, than in the debate over energy.

Immediately after the attacks, Democratic support for a more sensible energy strategy was weakened by many members' fear of being tarred by the right as unpatriotic. Republican leaders and the president, arguing that opening the Arctic Refuge was a national security concern, sought to capitalize on this fear and simultaneously avoid a public debate by trying (unsuccessfully) to attach to new security and tax legislation a House bill that would open up the refuge to oil exploration as well as provide $27 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies to oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear producers.

Democratic resolve has since stiffened. Sen. Tom Daschle (D), the South Dakota majority leader, has blocked a vote on the energy bill until it can be fully discussed. And Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat of Massachusetts, vowed to lead a filibuster if the House energy bill somehow made it to the floor of the Senate.

In a speech in early November to the League of Conservation voters in New York, Kerry called the House energy bill "a charade." He added: "We're remembering the acts of those average, everyday Americans who went in that building and ran up some 40 flights with hoses over their backs to rescue people, and police officers who went in to maintain order in our country. There is somehow something grotesquely inappropriate in $20-plus billion in subsidies to oil and gas that are giveaways."

Meanwhile the environmental community is making the case to its membership and the media that energy interests are trying to loot the treasury and that an entirely new kind of energy strategy is warranted. Gregory Wetstone, the program director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said his group alone has generated 510,000 email and fax messages to Congress in support of a more economically efficient, environmentally sensitive, and secure energy plan.

He said, "The Sept. 11 attacks added a new dimension to what the environmental community has been saying for years, because it is increasingly clear that we have to move beyond oil to find security, and not just energy security."

</font>

On 2002-01-26 22:11, Susan Brombacher wrote:

That's interesting, Kevin. My grandparents were all Lost, but I remember meeting the Missionary grandmother of a cousin of mine on my mother's side of the family. I don't know how old the woman was, but it was 1968--the height of the Awakening--so she must have been *quite* old. She was the stereotypical old Missionary lady, actually wearing a dark-colored unrevealing dress with a high collar. She sat stiffly, tight-lipped and silent at the head of the table, saying not a word but nonetheless making the merrymaking relatives *very* aware of her presence. I am not aware of what her opinion was of the Awakening taking place outside the walls of that home, but i have no doubt it could not have been a positive one. Surely not with a face like that!

Yet Missionaries, like Boomers and all young Prophets, were fun-loving idealists in their youth, breaking old taboos (taking liberties, of course, they would later clamp down during Prohibition, etc.)

If I remember correctly, the last living Missionary died a year or two ago. She was 125 years old or something near that.

I hope I live long enough to catch at least a glimpse of the next Awakening. I only hope my mind remains sharp enough to comprehend what I see.

These comments would seem to add some anecdotal evidence to my earlier statement about Old Idealists not approving of later Awakenings.

Susan, I don't think it's a problem of comprehension. Odds are the Missionaries comprehended the Boom Awakening well enough. They just didn't approve of it. I'm sure there would have been exceptions, but for the most part, I'm betting that old Prophets in general are going to dislike (at least) later Prophets' activities, especially in youth.

Why? Well, I think it's because the Old Idealists have shaped their ideals into the society. When a new batch rebels, it's not just youthful high spirits, it's an active attack on the very principles they hold dear, and for which they themselves overturned the previous order. In the Old Prophet mind, as far as I can perceive, those principles are supposed to be eternally valid.

If you look at the rhetoric that tends to get spouted at the height of 4T, there's often a lot of talk about 'ultimate efforts', and turning points in history, and allusions to Revelations and Daniel, and so on. Partly that's hyperbole to drive the cause, but it's partly sincere, I think, too.

When a new batch of Prophets starts kicking over the traces, the Old Prophets see their eternal principles challenged, and they don't like it. It also implies, at least by omission, that the great struggle and effort of the previous 4T was not the great, fundamental turn in history that they wanted to believe. How can it be, if it's result is being attacked and savaged and ridiculed?

It's a great deal more palatable to believe that the rebellious youth have something wrong with them, than to accept that the ultimate principles for which so much was risked and often lost were in fact ephemeral.

Add to that the tendency of all archetypes to edit memory to soothe the ego, and it's awfully hard for Old Prophets to see any of themselves in the new batch. I was never anything like that!

Of course, none of this is consciously thought out. It's mostly automatic. Or that's my strong suspicion, anyway.

Will today's Boomers seem to the next batch of Prophets much as the Missionaries seemed to them? I can't say, but I'm betting yes, depending on how things go. Oddly enough, the better things go in the short term, the worse the rebellion will probably seem later. The more successful the upcoming 4T, the more likely the Old Boomers are to resent any challenge to the results.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-01-27 20:16 ]</font>

The great achievement of Western culture since the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over the wall and grant some respect to
people outside it; the great failure of Western Culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important.
-James Q. Wilson

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/

On 2002-01-27 20:32, rc51 pointed us to:
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/

uh.....yeeeeahhhhhhh.


TK

On 2002-01-27 20:12, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Susan, I don't think it's a problem of comprehension. Odds are the Missionaries comprehended the Boom Awakening well enough. They just didn't approve of it. I'm sure there would have been exceptions, but for the most part, I'm betting that old Prophets in general are going to dislike (at least) later Prophets' activities, especially in youth.

Why? Well, I think it's because the Old Idealists have shaped their ideals into the society. When a new batch rebels, it's not just youthful high spirits, it's an active attack on the very principles they hold dear, and for which they themselves overturned the previous order. In the Old Prophet mind, as far as I can perceive, those principles are supposed to be eternally valid.

If you look at the rhetoric that tends to get spouted at the height of 4T, there's often a lot of talk about 'ultimate efforts', and turning points in history, and allusions to Revelations and Daniel, and so on. Partly that's hyperbole to drive the cause, but it's partly sincere, I think, too.

When a new batch of Prophets starts kicking over the traces, the Old Prophets see their eternal principles challenged, and they don't like it. It also implies, at least by omission, that the great struggle and effort of the previous 4T was not the great, fundamental turn in history that they wanted to believe. How can it be, if it's result is being attacked and savaged and ridiculed?

It's a great deal more palatable to believe that the rebellious youth have something wrong with them, than to accept that the ultimate principles for which so much was risked and often lost were in fact ephemeral.

Add to that the tendency of all archetypes to edit memory to soothe the ego, and it's awfully hard for Old Prophets to see any of themselves in the new batch. I was never anything like that!

Of course, none of this is consciously thought out. It's mostly automatic. Or that's my strong suspicion, anyway.

Will today's Boomers seem to the next batch of Prophets much as the Missionaries seemed to them? I can't say, but I'm betting yes, depending on how things go. Oddly enough, the better things go in the short term, the worse the rebellion will probably seem later. The more successful the upcoming 4T, the more likely the Old Boomers are to resent any challenge to the results.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-01-27 20:16 ]</font>

Good points. I'm wondering if those Prophets who have read and "bought off on" 4T, Generations, and the whole theory will have a more benign attitude about the Awakening than non-4T Prophets. For us (Eric Meese, Marc Lamb, Brian Rush, Susan Brombacher, S&H themselves, and all the other Boomers), should we live that long, we'll be posting each other and asking if 2T has begun yet and starting threads on those crazy New Prophets. :lol: