Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Interesting cases, Michael.

I'd also ask people how deeply they think Israel is into the 4T? I see them as closely in sync with the US.

Me too. Israel had their last crisis end in 1949, but there is little doubt they have reached the 4T point. The death of Sharon may have acted as a catalyst.

Anyway, everyone knows I find turning theory useful, but simply looking at turnings to determine which culture might win should a war arise would be clearly simplistic.

True. I was just pointing out that being in a 4T doesn't necessarily equate to victory. There are strengths and weaknesses in every turning. This (or the previous) saeculum is a perfect example.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I was just pointing out that being in a 4T doesn't necessarily equate to victory. There are strengths and weaknesses in every turning. This (or the previous) saeculum is a perfect example.

Agreed. It was more 1990 that implied turnings can be decisive.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

No. Only when they want to warrantlessly wiretap inside the United States, declare the right to suspend habeas corpus for US citizens (forget about the schmucks sold to us by tribal advesaries in Afghanistan), start pre-emptive unilateral wars sold on false reports of imminent Iraqi nukes coming to us via Al Qaeda, write "signing statements" giving the Chief Executive "decidatorial" powers, think that US citizens in New Orleans don't deserve as much help as Haliburton shareholders, that using US attorneys to influence elections is proper and "ethical", that protecting homosexual predators in Congress is acceptable . . . and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on . .

Why tar conservatives with this evil filth? What you are describing is fascism, not conservativism. I'm a conservative. The Satanic One to whom you are responding is a fascist, not a conservative. It is hard to find any conservatives left in the Republican Party in this age of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the Fuehrerprinzip.
.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Why tar conservatives with this evil filth? What you are describing is fascism, not conservativism. I'm a conservative. The Satanic One to whom you are responding is a fascist, not a conservative. It is hard to find any conservatives left in the Republican Party in this age of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the Fuehrerprinzip.
.

Stonewall P., damn good to see you as always!

Please note that I said only "conservatives" who support those things I rattled off. But your point is well taken. You were way ahead of the curve when it came to AuH2O-cons dumping the party. There's a fine fellow here named Wally (handle: "Pink Splice") in a similar situation, though I don't think he shares your paleo religious orientation.

And I more or less agree with your analysis. The Bushie coalition of 2001-2005 is utterly imploding. Goldwaterites and Bob Barr libertarians are bolting because of the Big Brother nonsense. Dobbs and Webb populists are bolting because of transnational business policies and the screwing of the middle class (I belong with them). Fundagelical Talibani's are disillusioned because Bush has not fully employed Second Coming social policies as promised (I'm sure HC is secretly fuming). The military community is wavering because they are beginning to understand how f*cked they are. And even the Mammonites, Dubya's true constituency, are disconcerted because of his God-talk and sheer incompetence. By God, even the goddamn Neocons are disowning this guy.

The remaining "Loyal Bushie" rump is quite simply a gaggle of soft fascists. And as this remnant becomes more rarified, it's fascist tendencies become less "soft". Soon, all that may remain is Darth Dick popping cyanide pills in his Berlin bunker, but not before pinning medals on Jugend Korps draftees.

Sad state of affairs.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

9/11 was most certainly not too early. It was 56 years after the end of WWII, easily within the realm of reason.



Last I checked, Napoleon (4T) lost to the Russians (2T), Hitler (4T) lost to the Soviets (2T), and Israel (4T) "lost" to Hezbollah (2T). There are plenty of other examples. A 4T country will be more emotional, and is therefore prone to many mistakes while a 2T country will be more cool, calm, and collected.

As in not rational enough to worry out microchips from China, Sunburn and Yakhont cruise missle, and other possible threats. It was a year or so after the Lusitania we went to war against Germany. Were it not for the nut cases running AmeriKKKa now, there would be no issue at all with Iran up till and most likely including now since I doubt the "hostage" incident would have even occured.

Why I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Why I haven't heard that charge since FDR and Truman hurled it at the GOP on a daily basis long ago.

Originally Posted by zilch

Why I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Why I haven't heard that charge since FDR and Truman hurled it at the GOP on a daily basis long ago.

Here you go, Something to hate that won't mind a bit.

Originally Posted by zilch

Why I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Why I haven't heard that charge since FDR and Truman hurled it at the GOP on a daily basis long ago.

I don't know what Lamb would do if his people weren't being called brownshirts on a regular basis. He'd have nothing to say.

Something tells me the silence would be too much for him.

A wise man once said: some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

Sadly, the Almightly seems to work even on Lamb's behalf sometimes.

Originally Posted by Linus

A wise man once said: some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

Sadly, the Almightly seems to work even on Lamb's behalf sometimes.

I thought that was Garth Brooks.

Originally Posted by Linus

I don't know what Lamb would do if his people weren't being called brownshirts on a regular basis. He'd have nothing to say.

Something tells me the silence would be too much for him.

A wise man once said: some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

Sadly, the Almightly seems to work even on Lamb's behalf sometimes.

You are observing the tragic long-term effects of Bush Kool-Aid consumption, generally administered via FauxNewx and EIB. Unfortunately, only an exorcism could free this tragically afflicted individual of his current torments, and render him silent with that peace which passeth understanding. I suppose a remote (online) exorcism is feasible, but this ought only be conducted by competent clergy.

Originally Posted by zilch

Why I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Why I haven't heard that charge since FDR and Truman hurled it at the GOP on a daily basis long ago.

First, I said that once you take away those who are primarily libertarian/Goldwaterite, primarily populist-Jacksonian, fundagelical and pissed off that End of Days policies are not being implemented, those who are truly concerned about our military personnel and the state of our military, the global big business thumpers who are worried about Bush's incompetance and mental stability, and the most opportunistic of the neocons who jumping like rats of a burning ship . . .

. . . then what you have left is a rump of "loyal Bushies" whose chief characterisic is that of supporting a Soft Fascism, using the "Mussolini Plus" definition of fascism: Big Government + Big Business + some mystical emotional bond to use as a vehicle for duping the masses. Do the Bushies not support Big Government, at the very least in ways that would have been completely anathema to the Republican Party prior to 2001? Do the Bushies not support Big Business, and at a corporate-friendly and upper class-friendly level not seen since the 1920's? I mean, hey, a rising tide lifts all boats, right? What's good for China, er, I mean General Motors, is good for the country, right?

And then there is the cynical use of religion to gain support from ignorant f*cks like you to act against your own economic and political self-interests.

Moving the entire industrial infrastructure of Ohio to Guongdong province? No problem! I got Jeeeee-sus.

Eliminate the need for warrants and habeas corpus so that the executive branch can do whatever it wants and no-one would ever know? No problem! At least we got those fags where we want 'em.

Vee vill purify our precious Kristian Nation yet! Oh, and our "precious bodily fluids" while we're at it, eh?

You're beyond pathetic. You are disgrace to the history of your own party, let alone our country. And I am going to enjoy watching your man implode. I just hope he doesn't take America down with him (any further, that is).

Originally Posted by Mustang

You are observing the tragic long-term effects of Bush Kool-Aid consumption, generally administered via FauxNewx and EIB. Unfortunately, only an exorcism could free this tragically afflicted individual of his current torments, and render him silent with that peace which passeth understanding. I suppose a remote (online) exorcism is feasible, but this ought only be conducted by competent clergy.

You offering, Reverend? I could assist.

Originally Posted by antichrist

I thought that was Garth Brooks.

In truth, it became painfully obvious that Brooks was just a lib poseur (and therefore no good at writing songs as well as totally unwise) after he suggested that gay people might be human beings. That Chuck Daniels on the other hand is the real deal: a giant of country music and quite wise (even if he isn't quite as wise as that Rudy "kewl mayor type" Giuliani because no one is) for the sole reason that he is a devoted Bushlicker.

Originally Posted by Linus

I don't know what Lamb would do if his people weren't being called brownshirts on a regular basis. He'd have nothing to say.

Something tells me the silence would be too much for him.

A wise man once said: some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

Sadly, the Almightly seems to work even on Lamb's behalf sometimes.

The Silence of the Lamb?

Originally Posted by Linus

In truth, it became painfully obvious that Brooks was just a lib poseur (and therefore no good at writing songs as well as totally unwise) after he suggested that gay people might be human beings. That Chuck Daniels on the other hand is the real deal: a giant of country music and quite wise (even if he isn't quite as wise as that Rudy "kewl mayor type" Giuliani because no one is) for the sole reason that he is a devoted Bushlicker.

Hoo boy! I know some ladies who, reading that, might want to ask him up for a drink.

Yes, I do know what the term is meant to imply, but take it from a woman, in some circles "Bushlicker" has a much different meaning.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Hoo boy! I know some ladies who, reading that, might want to ask him up for a drink.

Yes, I do know what the term is meant to imply, but take it from a woman, in some circles "Bushlicker" has a much different meaning.

H-m-m-m. This could lead us off into a whole different discussion.

This is ultimate "Bushlick'in".

We were fed a lie by Ted Olsen who served as Solictor General for the Bush Administration, when on 9/11 he held a press conference to tell America and the world that his dead wife had called him before her demise from the jet she was on that had just been hijacked.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...1_news_3a_.htm

Originally Posted by cbailey

This is ultimate "Bushlick'in".




http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...1_news_3a_.htm

Uh-buoy. The story might have even been plausible, if not for the stink of the obvious conspiracy theorist who wrote it. I have a co-worker who actually thinks Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to collect his share of the insurance money! Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Uh-buoy. The story might have even been plausible, if not for the stink of the obvious conspiracy theorist who wrote it. I have a co-worker who actually thinks Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to collect his share of the insurance money! Give me a break.

Give you a break? Hell, polls show most Democrats believe Bush knew of the pending attacks and did nothing to stop them. Bush sucks ad infinitum for no good reason, you know? Save, of course, to these "speak truth to power" pathetic lying Democrats, who'll gladly do so in order to reclaim their precious lost power in Washington.

Eh, so what anyhow? Shrug, this lie just adds another reason why.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Uh-buoy. The story might have even been plausible, if not for the stink of the obvious conspiracy theorist who wrote it. I have a co-worker who actually thinks Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to collect his share of the insurance money! Give me a break.

The story was great for the sentimental side of the tragedy exploited immediately afterwards... but that's the detail that people forget quickly.

I'm willing to accept stories of incompetence and inattention by the Busciolini Administration, which fits other episodes of current misrule-- but not of any conspiracy. There are far easier ways in which to commit insurance fraud.

Of course it was al-Qaeda; suicide attacks using vehicles are its modus operandi, as shown in the explosive-laden motorboat attack against the USS Cole. The behavior of al-Qaeda after the fact, a celebration of the horror, indicates who did it.

Originally Posted by William Strauss

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.

We've see this a lot this decade during the post 9/11 era.

A movement toward grand solutions that would permanently solve the problem rather than solutions that could be interpreted as delay or diversion.

Again, seen since 9/11. From that event to the election of 2004, everything was seemingly recast in terms of fighting the War on Terror. Increasingly through the decade, nearly all of our problems were increasingly tied to the current energy regime.

An impulse toward total reaction (total war, destruction of enemies) as opposed to calibrated action (legalistic enforcement of rules, "justice" for enemies).

In the patriotic and war fever that followed 9/11, this was certainly the case. But since that fever has cooled this has not been applicable in war situations. In non-militaristic spheres, the impulse towards total reaction may be showing itself, just as FDR and the New Deal constituted a "total reaction" against the economic crisis. This year's theme of "change" seems to reflect an impulse towards total reaction to the nation's and world's problems, which the president will be forced to deal with.

A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).

Definitely. The Nixon/Reagan/Bush conservative era ended in the immediate aftermath of Katrina. Both parties are using the language of community purpose and survival to engage the electorate. In fact, the language of 3T individualism is all but dead.

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.

In 2004, culture war issues still raged and determined the election. The three top issues were god, gays, and guns. After Katrina, the language of the culture wars came to a striking end. Since then, national and secular issues have dominated the national conversation.

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.

People don't care about celebrities in the 3T way. Although celebrity-circus fanfare still makes the news, the public is paying measurably less attention (while being consumed with "crisis porn"). The polls and other source show that Americans are tired of excessive focus on the celebrity culture.

I am old enough to remember the celebrity social and media environment during the latter half of the 1980s and 1990s. Those times really did seem like a circus. The 1980s was the era of the megastar in sports and entertainment, dominated by people like Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Madonna, and others. Public events took a definitive back seat. This worship began to decline during the 1990s, but the news and focus continued relentlessly, and the public was clearly hungry for it. This decade seems the opposite of the 1980s, as celebrity culture is taking a definitive back seat to events in public life. In the 1990s, people loved to hear about Britney Spears style troubles. But now, people are tired of it.

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.

In the post-911 geopolitical atmosphere, we've seen both. We've seen a new minuteman movement along the Rio Grande Valley and a movement to put up a border fence. At the same time, immigrant perceptions of America became more negative with the War on Terror, the second Persian Gulf conflict, and with significant economic problems.

As for globalization, there was a large anti-globalist movement at the beginning of this decade. The current global economic crisis is sure to make anti-globalism more mainstream.

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?)

I'm not totally sure about the Boomers. As for Xers, I've seen this for a while. And Millies are becoming heroes at times. You don't hear as much youth criticism as you heard during the 1990s. The pop culture is changing, but slowly. The Freddy Got Fingered movies have disappeared, but the Old Media regime is having a tough time making the transition.

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?

At this point, this question is not applicable.

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.

I think that Perfect Storm should be on the list of top phrases for this decade.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed quoting Mr. Strauss

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"?

Basically what Mr. Reed is saying in his post, as is said clearly in every post at this website, is:

Recall the old 1928 forecast that "Republicans: good; Democrats: bad" was a permanent attitude. Will our society now move toward "Democrats: good; Republicans: bad"?

Partisan political hackery rules at this website, dude. It sorta makes a funny mockery of an otherwise nonpartisan political theory of history.

Under the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, the response to 911 was a disaster. The response to Hurricane Katrina was itself a disaster.

We have been seeing 3T responses to 4T public threats, and an attempt to preserve the favored (at least by the Right) aspects of a 3T as if those 3T traits (increasing inequality, political cronyism, attempts to render the opposition permanently irrelevant) were solutions.

It's not good leadership to pick and choose solely on personal likes and dislikes what parts of 3T life are the best solutions to 4T difficulties. It is 3T abuse of the economy (speculative booms doomed to go bust), moral decadence, cultural sleaze, and the neglect of the common good that create a 4T. Maybe left-wingers could have done similar damage, perhaps by forcing PC ideology and depraved mass culture upon people who despise them.

Bill Clinton's time was an Indian Summer -- and now the cold fronts have arrived. That we had some nice weather two weeks ago means little now. We had better have bought some heating fuel, and we had better have put in the storm windows. In fact, Indian Summer is a good time for doing such things while such things are easy.

The first blizzards have just hit.

911, Katrina--and now we have the midwest floods, the last part of a perfect storm trifecta? Will how the government(s) respond to this disaster tell us whether we have turned the corner into the 4T? Some posters have assumed that this has been the 3T that refuses to die. If response to the midwest floods are bungled, will that be the cue that we are not totally 4T yet? I believe we may be turning the corner, and by the time the Oh-oh decade ends in 18 months we will be totally 4T. Agree or disagree?

I'm thinking we be 4T now. People are making major changes in their lives. Deciding not to retire afterall, not to sell the house ... or to sell the house in order to get closer to work, quit job because can't afford the commute, change lifestyle in order to be able to pay for gas, food, goods, insurance, meds, etc. They just announced that we will have another major utilities increase this year (14% increase this time) ... looks like a warm summer ahead. Need stronger vacuum to pick up cat fur being shed. Should I trade the car in for a Prius or wait till they invent something better?

Not to say this 4T won't get worse, but I don't think this is still Indian Summer. Some serious snow's a-fallin'. Can we all spell housing collapse, banking collapse, etc. What do you think will be rationed first?

I have also noticed that the young people want to talk about solutions and the older folks are being a little less self-righteous about their particular politics.