Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


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

Thread: Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning? - Page 89







Post#2201 at 04-04-2002 08:28 PM by pindiespace [at Pete '56 (indiespace.com) joined Jul 2001 #posts 165]
---
04-04-2002, 08:28 PM #2201
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Pete '56 (indiespace.com)
Posts
165

RE: K/T impacts and extinctions. The impact theory is definitely in play, though impacts are not the sole reason for geological eras. For example, the K/T impact happened when volcanic activity had increased -- presumably due to the splitting of Pangea into several continents. This likely causes a degradation of the environment (think acid rain). Dinosaur diversity had already dropped off before the asteroid arrived.

Some other impact ideas (e.g. as part of the terminal Eocene event) are now thought unlikely. Others have proposed more moderate extinctions affecting specific classes of organism may be related to nearby supernovas showering the earth with radiation. This idea is (somewhat) testable.







Post#2202 at 04-04-2002 08:42 PM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
04-04-2002, 08:42 PM #2202
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

On 2002-04-04 10:31, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

Back in Intro to Philosophy 102, the professor assigned three writings on duty. One French philosopher talked about how God created him, provided everything he needed in life, and thus how he owes God a debt which included following God's commandments. A German philosopher waxed poetic about the state, how it had protected him, taught him, fed him, and thus how he owed his country a debt, which included marching with his nation's army. One American philosopher talked about family, how his parents made him, sheltered him, taught him, brought him joy, and how he would resolve this debt through his relationship with his wife and children.

The professor wanted a debate. At most, only one of these three could be correct. Thus, the other two must be wrong. Whichever option the student selected as being correct, the professor would shoot the student down from the perspective of one of the other two.

I worked for synthesis. As with waves, generations and civilizations, I was not content with a, b or c, but went for d, all of the above. There were common themes, of debt, of love, and about giving back all to those who had given one all. I saw love of God, country and family. I saw cultural differences. I found myself unable to insist to a German that he love family more than his country, or to a Frenchman that he should love France more than God. One cannot tell someone whom to love. Given that, one cannot tell him to whom he owes the greater debt, to whom his duty lies.

Duty is an aspect of love. Love is blind.

The German philosopher wrote before Hitler. Can love of one's country justify war of aggression? Can love of God justify holy war, when the war in question violates commandments that God has given? Can a desire to give one's family all one can justify leaving so little that another man's family is left in dire want?

Philosophy and values are cultural. The base premise underlying all the arguments on duty is not logic. It is emotional. It is values. It is also genetic. It is territory, the peer bond, the male-female bond, the child-parent bond, and aggression.

My assumption is that every man deeply feels his values. Every man can justify in his heart what he feels he has to do. Would I argue with an ancient Frenchman about to launch a Crusade? Yes. Would I argue with a Nazi, about to launch his blitzkrieg? Yes. Would I question current day American policies? Yes. Can I see and understand all their cultural inertia, the clinging to past evils? Yes. Does this make their actions any more moral? No.

Human culture is evolving. For the most part, it is becoming more moral, not less. This is a broad trend, not an absolute law, comparable to the tendency for core states to emerge for each civilization. Slavery, war of aggression, and overt colonial imperialism are becoming less common.

S&H's generation / cycles theory ought to teach one that fourth turnings are a time of increased morality, when an habitual injustice is overturned. It ought to teach that the establishment which benefits most from the established status quo will resist changes to the status quo. What was the norm during the prior third turning becomes regarded as an obvious and grievous evil in the following first turning.

Thus, I would attempt to examine all cultures. Which cultures include evils that might ought best be overthrown? Which culture is the establishment culture, which would benefit most from maintaining the status quo? All cultures might be presumed to be understandable and moral if one loves what their people love, if one sees history as their people see it. No culture is perfect. All cultures, if they are to improve themselves, must first examine themselves with a critical eye.

Blind love can be dangerous.

Is America the last best hope for a free world? Yes. If the planet is to advance to the next high in peace and prosperity, it would be better to start from Western values than from agricultural age fundamentalist religious perspectives. Does this imply we should shun fundamentalist religious perspectives? No. God, in all his various guises, talks much about love. Fundamentalists are too often deaf to their God in the desire to remake their neighbor's culture, the desire to expand the size, power and glory of their own culture. While it is dangerous to claim knowledge of God's will, I'll take the risk. God wants no such thing.

America is not perfect. Can a business man, one who has given considerably to major party campaign coffers, expect assistance from the government in establishing himself overseas? Yes. Is any one instance of this morally reprehensible? No. Is a persistent pattern of using US power to gain economic advantage abroad problematic? Yes. If we are seeking advantage for ourselves abroad, we are suppressing others.

Should the US support Israel? Should we support democratic states which share our principles? Does Israel use assassination? Is assassination one of the tactics defined by Dubya as terrorist? Should the US support terrorist states? More broadly, should the wealthy "core" states and their developed allies provide money and arms to ethnic freedom fighters and terrorist seeking to secure territory, wealth and power on civilization boundaries? Or should the core states refrain from supporting and escalating violence? Should they have established policies to resolve the rash of ethnic-religious conflicts no longer suppressed by the Cold War? Should the emphasis be more on peace and prosperity than defending and pushing outward civilization boundaries?

Is US business policy driven by the long term, or the short term? Do corporate executives have an obligation to employees and shareholders? Do companies owe employees any form of loyalty, or, if there is no love, is there no duty? Should the government owe its loyalty to those who give campaign contributions, or to The People?

America is not irredeemably evil. It is redeemably evil. In any given fourth turning, the establishment faction will be striving to preserve privilege and power. The radicals will be righting an injustice. The radicals generally win. The radicals generally get to write the history books. Taxation without representation is evil. Slavery is evil. Hitler, Fascism and war of aggression were and remain evil.

The conservative factions didn't see this before the fact. They were blind to the future, self serving, secure in acting as countless others had acted in the past. The South asserted with confidence that all the highest classical civilizations were based upon slavery. They saw not any handwriting on the wall.

No, we are not irredeemably evil. Redemption is possible. First, a good long hard look in the mirror is necessary. If we do not move forward, if we are content with covert imperialistic supremacy, if we attempt to maintain our superpower superprivileged status, options 5 and 6 are possible. Not desirable, but possible. Not a goal, but perhaps deserved.

My vision of the future includes a US much more responsive to The People, much less to Big Business. US will remain first among equal core states, willing to support other core states in developing their civilizations, but not dictating to other core states. Division of wealth must be reduced. Ethnic conflict must be settled. Resources used must be balanced against resources available and resources recycled. The emphasis is on the word 'must'. If we wish to remain first among equals, we must lead, we must not resist. In a fourth turning, one bets on the radicals, not the reactionaries. In a fourth turning, forget liberals and conservatives, it is radicals and reactionaries.

If we resist, if we attempt to maintain echoes of Industrial Age imperialism, you can guess who will write the history books, and what the history books will say.

Five. Six.
The redemption you speak of would come at a high price. A division into radicals and reactionaries would insure that. I suspect the price would be #6, at the very least, perhaps as a result of another civil war. Of course, that's me. On another forum, I took a test of which past or present military leader I would most resemble, based on personality. I came out as General W. T. Sherman, of Atlanta fame. Not hard to see where my thought processes tend towards ruthlessness, and my tendency to expect others to behave similarly. Hence my past tendency to see you as another Cato the Elder speaking of America as Cato did of Carthage.







Post#2203 at 04-04-2002 09:29 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-04-2002, 09:29 PM #2203
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Pindiespace:


For example, the K/T impact happened when volcanic activity had increased -- presumably due to the splitting of Pangea into several continents.

Are you sure about that timeline? I thought the breakup of Pangaea occurred towards the end of the Triassic, long before the Cretaceous.







Post#2204 at 04-04-2002 10:51 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-04-2002, 10:51 PM #2204
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-04-03 14:27, Brian Rush wrote:
H.C., may I understand, then, that you're speaking of America as the dominant power of Western civilization rather than as a world empire? I think there might be some problems with that as well, insofar as Western civ incorporates an ideal of democracy and self-government, and would not be likely to accept imperial dominance nor America easy in asserting it. But at least it's more doable than a world empire.
True, but if my comparison is valid, we're only about half-way through the process. Recall that the Roman Empire (for example) was not built entirely via conquest. It was actually a pecular patchwork of conquered territories, alliances of greater or lesser degrees of equality, client statelets, and even a few cases where a monarch 'deeded' his realm to Rome, IIRC.

If the pattern does hold, America could end up as the hegemon of the West without necessarily having to conquer everything, and it wouldn't necessarily mean avoiding democratic self-rule, though it would certainly place great strains on it. The process would likely require some time yet to run to completion, if it is a case of an old process repeating itself.







Post#2205 at 04-05-2002 12:44 AM by pindiespace [at Pete '56 (indiespace.com) joined Jul 2001 #posts 165]
---
04-05-2002, 12:44 AM #2205
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Pete '56 (indiespace.com)
Posts
165

True, Pangea began breaking up in the Triassic. However, the known increase in volcanic activity at the end of the Cretaceous is often attributed to the breakup. Huge amounts of volcanic activity took place in what is now India. As you might expect, some people have postulated that an earlier impact triggered this activity(!)







Post#2206 at 04-05-2002 05:56 PM by pindiespace [at Pete '56 (indiespace.com) joined Jul 2001 #posts 165]
---
04-05-2002, 05:56 PM #2206
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Pete '56 (indiespace.com)
Posts
165

More info on Impacts...
-------------
Public release date: 3-Apr-2002
[ Print This Article | Close This Window ]

Contact: Ann Cairns
acairns@geosociety.org
303-357-1056
Geological Society of America

Impact events' kinetic energy may be key to understanding the severity of mass extinctions



The kinetic energy created by asteroid and comet impacts with the Earth may be key to linking some impacts with mass extinction events. Michael Lucas, a geology student at Florida Gulf Coast University, believes that the severity of four extinction events during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic can be correlated with the total kinetic energy released by impacts that occur during the geologic age of the mass extinction.

Lucas will present his findings April 4 at the Geological Society of America?s North-Central Section and Southeastern Section Joint Meeting in Lexington, Kentucky.

Lucas analyzed the kinetic energy released by 31 of the largest impact structures from the last 248 million years and correlated them with the Norian, Tithonian, Late Eocene, and K-T extinction events. The impact energy released during the geologic ages of each extinction event is at least 10 million megatons of TNT equivalent yield per geologic age. Lucas believes that this could represent a minimum impact energy required to cause a global-scale mass extinction. His research results also reveal that synchronous multiple impact events could also have caused extinctions.

?Approximately ten percent of the impact structures on Earth are doublets or twin structures, suggesting a nearly simultaneous impact of binary asteroids or fragmented comets,? he said. An example of a twin impact structure would be the Kara / Ust-Kara twin impact structure in Russia which is about 73 million years old.

By Kara LeBeau, GSA Staff Writer

Contact information:

Michael P. Lucas
College of Arts & Sciences
Florida Gulf Coast University
10501 FGCU Blvd. South
Ft. Myers FL 33965 USA
E-mail: mlucas@fgcu.edu
Phone: 941-590-7225

Abstract available at:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002NC/fin...ract_32110.htm

Geological Society of America
Southeastern Section and North-Central Section Joint Meeting
April 3-5, 2002
Hyatt Regency Hotel and Lexington Civic Center
Lexington, KY

For information and assistance during the meeting, please see the media assistant at the GSA registration table or call 859-253-1234.

###

Geological Society of America
Release No. 02-19
Contact: Ann Cairns
303-357-1056
acairns@geosociety.org







Post#2207 at 04-07-2002 09:35 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
04-07-2002, 09:35 AM #2207
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

jds1958xg wrote...
The redemption you speak of would come at a high price. A division into radicals and reactionaries would insure that. I suspect the price would be #6, at the very least, perhaps as a result of another civil war. Of course, that's me. On another forum, I took a test of which past or present military leader I would most resemble, based on personality. I came out as General W. T. Sherman, of Atlanta fame. Not hard to see where my thought processes tend towards ruthlessness, and my tendency to expect others to behave similarly. Hence my past tendency to see you as another Cato the Elder speaking of America as Cato did of Carthage.
Ahhh... General Sherman. An interesting character...

Gentleman: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.

You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, bu the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta. Yours in haste,

W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding








Post#2208 at 04-07-2002 10:03 AM by Sbarro [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 274]
---
04-07-2002, 10:03 AM #2208
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
274

Excellent message above.
As a socialist I must agree that war is needed from time to time to wipe away the weeds of the old economic system.
Today the old system is Western neo-colonialism and Muslim neo-fuedalism.
Both will be wiped away by the coming war between West and East.
And the Communist Chinese will be laughing at both civilization while they wipe each others' clocks clean.







Post#2209 at 04-07-2002 10:21 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
04-07-2002, 10:21 AM #2209
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

On 2002-04-07 08:03, Sbarro wrote:
Excellent message above.
As a socialist I must agree that war is needed from time to time to wipe away the weeds of the old economic system.
Today the old system is Western neo-colonialism and Muslim neo-fuedalism.
Both will be wiped away by the coming war between West and East.
And the Communist Chinese will be laughing at both civilization while they wipe each others' clocks clean.
*NOW* I see where you hope this 4T will end - with China as the new sole global superpower by default, free to impose it's ideology (and yours, BTW) upon the rest of the planet. With both of their most likely primary opponents reduced to shattered wrecks, that should be easy. And maybe Russia will correct the 'mistake' made under the 'filthy traitors' Gorbachev and Yeltsin? Also, one might also hope that a China in that position would return to the ideological purity of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution?

BTW, as for not condemning Americans as such, I learned in college that *all* Americans, even the homeless, were to be automatically regarded as members by birth of the bourgeoisie capitalist exploiter classes, and dealt with accordingly....







Post#2210 at 04-07-2002 10:37 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
04-07-2002, 10:37 AM #2210
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

Having said all of that, Sbarro, I must congratulate you on your intellectual honesty in fully embracing the ideology which most of the left-liberals on this page borrow bits and pieces from without subscribing to the whole package, and mix those bits and pieces with other ideological bits and pieces that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao would never have recognized.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-07 08:39 ]</font>







Post#2211 at 04-07-2002 09:34 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-07-2002, 09:34 PM #2211
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Sbarro, I must congratulate you on your intellectual honesty in fully embracing the ideology which most of the left-liberals on this page borrow bits and pieces from without subscribing to the whole package,
and mix those bits and pieces with other ideological bits and pieces that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao would never have recognized.
It's fine to congratulate Sbarro, Mr. jds, but why is it "dishonest" to not subscribe to the whole package and instead also borrow bits and pieces from others? If a mixture is what we believe in, why is it dishonest to proclaim or argue for it?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2212 at 04-08-2002 05:16 AM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
04-08-2002, 05:16 AM #2212
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

I have noticed since 911 the Australia public mood seems to be more upbeat than the Americian public mood. The contrast is striking between myself and Americian posters on this group.







Post#2213 at 04-08-2002 07:59 AM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
04-08-2002, 07:59 AM #2213
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

On 2002-04-08 03:16, Tristan Jones wrote:
I have noticed since 911 the Australia public mood seems to be more upbeat than the Americian public mood. The contrast is striking between myself and Americian posters on this group.
Tristan--

Would you say that Australia does not suffer as much from religious persuasion as the U.S.? We are steeped in our beliefs beyond social value, it seems, and our MO puts God out in front of everything we do. Is it a God thing? Or is Australia just a few years out ahead of us in cultural evolution? Or do you Aussies just get to go sailing more often?








Post#2214 at 04-08-2002 08:27 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
04-08-2002, 08:27 AM #2214
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Tristan writes I have noticed since 911 the Australia public mood seems to be more upbeat than the Americian public mood. The contrast is striking between myself and Americian posters on this group.

The difference might be in part that Australia doesn't have superpower status to defend, with the burdens and dislikes that come with a dominant and meddling foreign policy. My vision would see the US becoming more like Austrailia. When violence between two ethnic groups that have been feuding since before Australia was settled as a penal colony flares up, no one - especially the Austrailians - thinks it is Australia's problem.

But, if America wants to meddle, we are stuck meddling. One of many directions I'd like to see us moving towards is letting each civilization handle its own problems. Alas, this isn't likely until there is a common concept of when international intervention should take place, and what sort of intervention is proper. In the meantime, like it or not, the US has the only military designed for power projection far abroad. With the world as it is, the option of not using it doesn't seem attractive either.

Hmm. Do they need software engineers in Austrailia? Maybe I ought to move.







Post#2215 at 04-08-2002 12:26 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
04-08-2002, 12:26 PM #2215
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709


Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Tristan writes:
I have noticed since 911 the Australia public mood seems to be more upbeat than the Americian public mood. The contrast is striking between myself and Americian posters on this group.
The difference might be in part that Australia doesn't have superpower status to defend, with the burdens and dislikes that come with a dominant and meddling foreign policy. My vision would see the US becoming more like Austrailia. When violence between two ethnic groups that have been feuding since before Australia was settled as a penal colony flares up, no one - especially the Austrailians - thinks it is Australia's problem.


But, if America wants to meddle, we are stuck meddling. One of many directions I'd like to see us moving towards is letting each civilization handle its own problems.

Unfortunately, that's not an option. The world wants the US to meddle. It's a lot easier to have someone else settle your differences, while you stand on the sideline and complain. Ask the Brits, who had this jobe before the US, and didn't seem too keen on it either.


Alas, this isn't likely until there is a common concept of when international intervention should take place, and what sort of intervention is proper. In the meantime, like it or not, the US has the only military designed for power projection far abroad. With the world as it is, the option of not using it doesn't seem attractive either.

International intervention is unlikely. That would mean leterally all the nations taking-on the hegemon role, and doing it in a concerted fashio. The rare occassions when that can happen makes it a poor substitute for the current regime.


Hmm. Do they need software engineers in Austrailia? Maybe I ought to move.

I know they need more in India. Is that close enough? :grin:
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#2216 at 04-08-2002 06:52 PM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
04-08-2002, 06:52 PM #2216
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

On 2002-03-30 22:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
On 2002-03-30 20:47, Susan Brombacher wrote:

5. Modernity is not wiped out, but America as we know it is destroyed, and is taken over by another nation who introduces a new form of government.
Item 5 could conceivably happen in the upcoming 4T, and actually covers a range of possibilities. I wouldn't say it's likely, but it's far from impossible.
In the past, I have given consideration to a couple of those Scenario Five possibilities. Both involved ethnic cleansing on a continental scale, with the American people as the targets. I mention this now in light of an article which Marc Lamb shared with us in the 'Israel/Palestine' thread of the 'Beyond America' forum.

Back in the 1970's, I figured on the American people being exterminated to the last man, woman, and child if we were ever conquered. After all, my professors made it clear that we deserve no less, in their view, even if they didn't say so outright. More recently, however, I have thought in terms of the Anglic peoples being made to join the Jews in a new global diaspora. The latter fate would serve to accentuate the very traits Marc Lamb's article said the Europeans and Arabs hate most about both Americans and Jews, as a survival strategy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-08 16:56 ]</font>







Post#2217 at 04-12-2002 02:25 PM by The Almighty [at joined Apr 2002 #posts 4]
---
04-12-2002, 02:25 PM #2217
Join Date
Apr 2002
Posts
4

spam deleted

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Webmaster on 2002-04-12 12:29 ]</font>







Post#2218 at 04-12-2002 02:26 PM by The Almighty [at joined Apr 2002 #posts 4]
---
04-12-2002, 02:26 PM #2218
Join Date
Apr 2002
Posts
4

spam deleted

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Webmaster on 2002-04-12 12:29 ]</font>







Post#2219 at 04-12-2002 05:43 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
04-12-2002, 05:43 PM #2219
Guest

Thank God the "Almighty's" messages were deleted.
:lol:
Thank you, Webmaster. Keep up the good work.







Post#2220 at 04-12-2002 05:54 PM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
04-12-2002, 05:54 PM #2220
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

On 2002-04-08 03:16, Tristan Jones wrote:
I have noticed since 911 the Australia public mood seems to be more upbeat than the Americian public mood. The contrast is striking between myself and Americian posters on this group.
Tristan:

While it is probably true that the mood in Australia is more upbeat that the American mood, please do not be under the impression that the posters in this forum represent a representative cross-section of Americans.

So far in this post, I haven't said anything that any posters would disagree with, I think. Perhaps I should leave it at that, rather than to describe the ways that the posters in this forum are skewed from prevailing American thinking.

Yes, I think I'll leave it at that.







Post#2221 at 04-12-2002 08:12 PM by robbabub [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 4]
---
04-12-2002, 08:12 PM #2221
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
4

Friday. 12 April 2002.

I don't know how many of you paid attention to the news today. I thought the rhetoric of the Israeli crisis was very clearly "Generations" rhetoric today.

Powell's comments to the media were very open and insightful. They went right to the heart of the adminstration's thinking. I am paraphrasing him. "The United States is a strong friend and ally of Israel (that is, we will fight to support them if we have to), but we want Israel to understand that their actions are inflaming and endangering a larger international situation that could end with severe consequences for all of us (that is, cool it, we don't want this crisis to go where it seems to be heading)." Maybe that is not what he said, but that is what I heard.

I believe that the administration is very clearly in touch with and aware of what they (or should I say we) are involved in. I believe they have a grasp on their place in history. No big surprise and kind of a no-brainer, but it puts their actions or inactions in a clear perspective for anyone who still doesn't understand what is going on. Maybe you agree with how they are handling things and maybe you don't. That isn't my point. Right or wrong, they know where we are in the cycle.

The comments that were particularly troubling to me and very much straight from the "Generations" playbook were made by Bill Bennet as a spokesperson (perhaps self appointed) of the "Moral Right." Again, I am paraphrasing. "This is a moral war. The administration is backing down from its duty and its pledge to fight terrorism. The United States is not acting when it should be fully supporting Israel. The Palestinians are clearly wrong and we should be punishing them." These are nowhere near the actual words that he used and again maybe this is not what he said, but it is what I heard.

Once this becomes a "moral war" we are on the "Generations" railroad track headed straight to catastrophe as far as I am concerned. His comments could have come straight off the pages of one of the "Generations" books. That is troubling to me. It is publicly ratcheting up a kind of rhetoric that I have been expecting to hear for some time, but that I do not want to hear, in a situation that is already very serious. The situation doesn't need his help to make things worse. I may agree or disagree with Bush, but I don't want to see him painted into a corner.

Bill Bennet is one of those Baby Boomer moralists who are going to create this upcoming catastrophe. Remember the code words of the civil rights era. "State's Rights" and things like that. Bill Bennet's little speech was nothing but "Generations" code words to me. It shouldn't but, it still continues to startle me how closely events have followed a predictable "Generations" pattern since September 11th. Today was another of those startling days for me. Not unanticipated, but certainly startling when you actually see it in the "buff" so to speak.

Right or wrong in his actions, Bush has more insight than we give him credit for I think. People like Bennet have no insight at all and are dangerous to every one of us.







Post#2222 at 04-13-2002 12:48 AM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
04-13-2002, 12:48 AM #2222
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

I keep thinking about Patton's image of Bill Bennet with his ham sandwich in his back pocket.

He is dangerous....but how much influence does this fat-ass Boomer really have?







Post#2223 at 04-13-2002 05:22 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
04-13-2002, 05:22 PM #2223
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-04-12 22:48, cbailey wrote:

I keep thinking about Patton's image of Bill Bennet with his ham sandwich in his back pocket.

He is dangerous....but how much influence does this fat-ass Boomer really have?
LOL! I believe that ham sandwich-eating son-of-a-gun has more influence than you can imagine. But I don't want to mess up your day so I will not explain it now.

BTW, didn't Bill Bennett model for the Big Boy statue as a child? :wink:







Post#2224 at 04-16-2002 10:25 AM by wolfman18492 [at usa joined Apr 2002 #posts 3]
---
04-16-2002, 10:25 AM #2224
Join Date
Apr 2002
Location
usa
Posts
3

A very good question! In different ways for different generations, it HAS triggered something. For me, a Boomer, it reminds me that the folks who warned to Russians could blow us up anytime they pleased were not full of it. Turns out it's not only them, but any crackpots around the world who hate us. For those younger than me, they notice other changes.


On 2001-09-13 16:27, Neil Howe and William Strauss wrote:
"Is this it?" our readers are asking. Is September 11, 2001, the beginning of the Fourth Turning? Was this attack the catalyst?

Recall what we wrote, in The Fourth Turning (pp373-4), about the catalyst: "A spark will ignite a new mood?. An intial spark will trigger a chain reaction of unyielding responses and further emergencies?. At home and abroad, these events will reflect the tearing of the civic fabric at points of extreme vulnerability-problem areas where, during the Unraveling, America will hav eneglected, denied, or delayed needed action. Anger at 'mistakes we made' will translate into calls for action, regardless of the heightened public risk. It is unlikely the catalyst will worsen into a full-fledged catastrophe, since the nation will probably find a way to avert the initial danger and stabilize the situation for a while. The local rebellion will probably be quelled, terrorists foiled, fiscal crisis averted, disaster halted, or war fever cooled. Yet even if dire consequences are temporarily averted, America will have entered the Fourth Turning."

Was this terrorist attack a jarring "spark" in history, of the sort we described, substantial enough to catalyze a crisis mood. Of course. Will it? That still is open to question--but it could.

There are a lot of rhetorical comparisons being made. Many pundits and politicians are likening this to Pearl Harbor (Newt Gingrich called it a "second Pearl Harbor"), or are talking about a "sudden turn" in history, a "total war," a "great crisis," and so on.

Changes in how we think about events can determine the direction and outcome of the events themselves. Right now, people are beginning to talk the rhetoric of a Fourth Turning. Does that mean we're entering one? The link between the recent 911 attack and our overall location in history certainly seems suggestive.

Recall how, in every prior Fourth Turning, the combatant-enemies have used images of the injustice, decadence, or civic weakness of an opponent's recent Third Turning as motivators. Japanese leaders used images of 1920s-era America to convince themselves and their followers that Japan could defeat a much larger nation. Picture this playing out among Islamic fundamentalists, if they are indeed our enemy (or among our enemies) in the next Fourth Turning. Magnify an image of 1990s-era America--with all of its casual pleasures, sex scandals, globalism, legalism, individualism, careless follies, celebrity carnivals--and you've got a picture of everything these militants despise about America.

Recall, also, how in every Fourth Turning, people looked back, after the fact, and wondered why so many had been so blind and never saw it coming. Now, in light of recent events, we can glimpse why. People do see it coming-but never take it seriously. It's amazing how many threats we "sort of" know are out there, but we just never get around to focusing on. A lot of people "sort of" saw a war over slavery coming, but were utterly surprised when it erupted. Ditto with fascism--or, now, terrorism. We all "knew" it was coming. Or did we?

But let's get back to the central question. Is this the Fourth Turning trigger? As we all know, the answer will lie mainly in how we react to this--and to how our adversaries react to our reactions, and (let's confess) to any number of purely accidental circumstances.

As Marc Lamb points out, the last time we had a big bomb go off on Wall Street was near the end of the post-WWI "Red Scare." The scare was a reaction to an anarchist / Bolshevist bombing campaign, including mail bombs and coordinated multi-city blasts (on July 2, 1919) that succeeded in partially destroying the residence of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. It spawned the notorioius Palmer raids, which in turn may have led to the famous Wall Street bombing of 1920 that killed 20 people. But what did the Red Scare itself trigger? An isolationist reaction, a fervor to shut out the world, a demand to punish as many perpetrators as we could catch and to round up and send the rest "back where they came from." Above all, it triggered a desire to avoid the larger problem--social, economic, political--underlying the violence. We wanted "normalcy." In short, America moved more deeply into a Third Turning, not yet into a Fourth.

In the days, weeks, and months ahead, how can we tell whether this terrorist attack will become a Fourth Turning catalyst? Here are some hallmarks of a reaction that would indicate this:

  1. <LI> A desire to describe the problem in maximalist rather than minimalist terms--in ways that would sweep other problems (fiscal, economic, cultural, moral) into this one big problem.
    <LI> A movement toward grand solutions that would permanently solve the problem rather than solutions that could be interpreted as delay or diversion.
    <LI> An impulse toward total reaction (total war, destruction of enemies) as opposed to calibrated action (legalistic enforcement of rules, "justice" for enemies).
    <LI> A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).
    <LI> The end of the petty arguments of the Third Turning-the blue-zone / red-zone "culture wars," rooted in old Second Turning debates--that may begin to feel ridiculous, even dangerous.
    <LI> The increasing irrelevance of the celebrity culture. Will anyone care about Michael Jackson, or Michael Jordan, in the familiar Third Turning way? Recall how, once the last Fourth Turning started, the flagpole sitters came down, less because they themselves felt any great new purpose than because the public just stopped paying attention.
    <LI> A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally. Recall the old Wired magazine forecast that "open:good; closed:bad" was a permanent attitude. Will our society now move toward "closed:good; open:bad"? Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What will "Globalism"mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.
    <LI> A movement by each generation toward a new archetypal role, in keeping with the phase of life it is about to enter. Are Boomers overcoming narcissism? Gen Xers circling the wagons around family? Are Millennials emerging as young heroes. (Keep an eye on media treatment of Millennials. Will the criticism give way? Will the pop culture change? Will youth fare be less gross, less violent?)
    <LI> A new willingness to pay a human price to achieve national purpose. Will military plans resemble Kosovo-or Iwo Jima? Will we try to rely on exquisite technologies to reduce the risk of military deaths, or will we rely on human courage to reduce the risk of technological failure?
    <LI> A shattering of consumer confidence. Is the economy still expected to veer up and avoid a recession, or will we soon see newly dark forecasts about a likely recession-or worse. What will happen to the Dow and Nasdaq? With every major global economy sinking even before Tuesday, will there be talk of a "perfect storm." As for the direct impact of the event itself, how should we assess the damage to the WTC towers, to the travel and entertainment industries, to America's global reputation for inviolability, and to the immediate household lurch toward consumer caution and liquidity? The longer the up-cycle-and it's been a long one-the graver the risk that the trip down could be vertiginous.

Depending on what happens in all these areas, the result of the terrorist attack may be either a Fourth Turning or a shift toward the nastier edge of a Third Turning mood--followed, in short while, by a shift into the first isolationist phase of a Fourth Turning, perhaps keyed more by domestic than global arguments.

It is worth pointing out that, typically, Fourth Turnings begin with an isolationist, nativist, anti-market-and-anti-global-power phase, filled with huge emphasis on the rebirth of national community--before entering a more optimistic, secular, and global phase. The Revolutionary War and Great Depression-WWII Fourth Turnings were both like that. (The Civil War never did have a "global" phase.) Don't assume that, if we do in fact enter a Fourth Turning, that the U.S. is suddenly going to go all over the world with a sword of terrible swift justice. History suggests a road that loops around a bit more.

Right now, it's too early to tell. One can see evidence both pro- and con- for each of the indicators (1) through (10) described above. Consider President George W. Bush. In some ways, yes, he fits the aging prophet archetype-fixated on values ("good versus evil," he says) and broadly defining the target ("sponsors" as well as perpetrators). But in other ways, both in his uncertain demeanor on the day of the event and his easy deference to a Silent-dominated board of advisors (who, as they did in the China spy plane incident, are already defining the U.S. reaction in terms of procedure, timetables, evidence, custody, multilateral alliances, and so on), he has a ways to go before he fills his archetype.

Or consider the public as a whole. Are the Silent, as yet, sufficiently diminished in institutional influence? And are most Boomers any more ready than the President to leave the shadow of their Silent mentors and assume the Gray Champion mantle? Boomer columnist Charles Krauthammer stated the terms of this generational difference very succinctly: "Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to 'bring those responsible to justice.' This is exactly wrong. Franklin Roosevelt did not respond to Pearl Harbor by pledging to bring the commander of Japanese naval aviation to justice. He pledged to bring Japan to its knees. You bring criminals to justice; you rain destruction on combatants. This is a fundamental distinction that can no longer be avoided."

And what about younger generations? Are Gen Xers truly ready to assume a new midlife role as social anchors, family protectors, and buck-stopping managers. And can Millennials--the oldest of whom are just now celebrating their 19th birthday--yet be expected to participate in a collective rite of passage and become fully aware of their new generational role? (Recall: At the time of the Boston Tea Party, the oldest Republicans were age 31; at the time of the Great Crash, the oldest G.I.s were age 28).

This leads, finally, to the issue of timing. It is still early for a Fourth Turning. In terms of the age of the next civic generation, we are only at 1920 (the House of Morgan bombing, again!) on the G.I. Generation calendar or at 1761 (when colonists were still celebrating Britain's triumph over French Canada) on the Republican Generation calendar. We're only two years beyond the Progressive calendar with the Civil War. Yet, as we wrote, the Civil War crisis began ahead of schedule, leaving the Transcendentals--a very Boomerlike generation--unchecked by younger generations.

This is only one example, of course, but its record suggests a very real danger if this 911 terrorist incident does indeed trigger a new turning. That danger could be averted, to some degree, if the aging Silent and rising Gen Xers each assert themselves more than the Compromisers and Gilded did in that other saeculum. This may be possible, given that the Boomers are a smaller-cohort generation than Transcendentals (18 years, vs. 30 years).

To answer the core question--"Is this the start of a Fourth Turning?"--and to answer the perhaps more important question--will the next Fourth Turning end in triumph or tragedy?--we will simply have see how events unfold, and how each of today's generations play their scripts. It won't be long before we find out.

What do we know already? First, even if this is not the catalyst, we know that America's social mood is nearly ready for one and that the entire 911 episode offers (as did the Stamp Act or John Brown's raid) a pretty good feel for what's just ahead. And second, even if this is the catalyst, we know that we should not confuse it with the climax. It would simply be the tea dumped into the harbor, the surprise election of an Illinois lawyer, the dizzying plunge of the Dow--a gateway, a prelude, not the main event. The climax of the Fourth Turning, the true history-bending moment, remains well in the future, its nature unknowable.

[/quote]







Post#2225 at 04-16-2002 11:01 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
04-16-2002, 11:01 AM #2225
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Wolfman writes...
What do we know already? First, even if this is not the catalyst, we know that America's social mood is nearly ready for one and that the entire 911 episode offers (as did the Stamp Act or John Brown's raid) a pretty good feel for what's just ahead. And second, even if this is the catalyst, we know that we should not confuse it with the climax. It would simply be the tea dumped into the harbor, the surprise election of an Illinois lawyer, the dizzying plunge of the Dow--a gateway, a prelude, not the main event. The climax of the Fourth Turning, the true history-bending moment, remains well in the future, its nature unknowable.
Good summary. Again, my own feeling is that many violent crises are preceded by a 'spiral of violence' not by a single catalyst event. Before a truly major all out war, both sides, perhaps recognizing the risks and costs, escalate slowly, seeking political solutions, but demonstrating through violence they are quite serious. Recent spirals started or focused around Boston, Kansas and Spain. There may be such a thing as a 'point of no return' where one culture or the other becomes committed to a violent solution. There might be some time between the 'point of no return' and the true Ft Sumter / Pearl Harbor mobilization event. (There was almost a year between the "Four Freedoms" speech, where the US was committed to war, and Pearl Harbor.) There are also attempts at compromise, attempts to avoid conflict, such as Crittenden or Munich.

Right now, the ability to compromise on Palestine is very much in question. I would like to think we are not yet at the point of no return, but both Israel and Palestine want Jerusalem, and are willing to commit to violence rather than lose it. Compromise is still on the table, but not looking good. Full mobilization and commitment to violent solution is not there yet, but could happen, perhaps with only a few more escalations in violence. Even given that Israel and Palestine did go fully violent, it is not clear to me how the rest of the world would react. The Middle Eastern problems might not automatically escalate into WW III.

Meanwhile, there are any number of major issues - including globalization, ecology, and campaign finance reform - that aren't clearly tied to the major visible spiral of violence. There is no elect FDR for his economic policy, get his global power policy free linkage. Or at least I hope not. We may have an elect Dubya, fight terror, get pro big business anti-ecology linkage.
-----------------------------------------