Originally Posted by Finch

Very interesting. Doesn't the fact that a Silent has any influence at all at the highest levels of goverment mean that the 4T has not yet begun?

Not if the Silent in question, in fact, fails!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Not if the Silent in question, in fact, fails!

I see. So it won't be until the Iraq Study Group fails that we'll know we're 4T. Fair enough. If you find out any more about it, post it here.

Bush uses the G-Word.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091101257.html

More evidence that he knows of the theory?

"The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

He reminds me of Newt Gingrich, ready to push us into full 4T mode. Seems to me like a misunderstanding of the theory, if he is aware of it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Bush uses the G-Word.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091101257.html

More evidence that he knows of the theory?

"The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

Bah. He's just trying to pull a Reagan, harking back to the Greatest Generation. Bush has been talking 4T for five years now, but he and his cronies haven't been doing anything. For that matter, they're barely even talking it: along with the "decisive struggle", do we get calls for shared sacrifice? No, we're told to go shopping.

It just confirms ever more in my mind the notion posited by (IIRC) a commenter on DKos: that Bush and Co. have read 1984, but took it to be an instruction manual rather than a warning. In particular, it brings to mind the passage where Orwell, writing in the voice of Archenemy-of-the-State Emmanuel Goldstein, describes the purpose of the slogan IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low...

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim... is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again...

By the late nineteenth century the recurrence of this pattern had become obvious to many observers. There then rose schools of thinkers who interpreted history as a cyclical process and claimed to show that inequality was the unalterable law of human life. This doctrine, of course, had always had its adherents, but in the manner in which it was now put forward there was a significant change. In the past the need for a hierarchical form of society had been the doctrine specifically of the High. The Middle, so long as it was struggling for power, had always made use of such terms as freedom, justice, and fraternity. Now, however, the concept of human brotherhood began to be assailed by people who were not yet in positions of command, but merely hoped to be so before long. In the past the Middle had made revolutions under the banner of equality, and then had established a fresh tyranny as soon as the old one was overthrown. The new Middle groups in effect proclaimed their tyranny beforehand...

The new movements which appeared in the middle years of the century, Ingsoc in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia, Death-Worship, as it is commonly called, in Eastasia, had the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. These new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology. But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment. The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more, and then stop. As usual, the High were to be turned out by the Middle, who would then become the High; but this time, by conscious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently.

(Read the whole linked text; it's quite enlightening.)

In other words, in the parlance of this forum, the governing elites do understand the Saecular cycle, but hope to avoid 4T (and their overthrow) by consciously prolonging the 3T as long as possible.

Thus we have Orange Alert after meaningless Orange Alert, Terror Porn instead of honest investigation, infotainment instead of news, and vilification instead of debate. "Gays and abortion" serve to keep all sides riled up instead of seeking solutions.

But unfortunately for BushCo, Emmanuel Goldstein had it wrong. The 4T is something like a law of nature, and the pendulum can't be stopped any more than the tide. By trying to avoid ending up like Herbert Hoover, he has only made it more likely that he'll wind up like Louis XVI. (How apropos that the movie Marie Antoinette will open just before the election...)

Perhaps because I'm in the middle of a strong lime daiquiri, I'm in a frank mood. . .sigh.

Yes, Bush is talking the talk. But there's no way we have EVER had a President so TOTALLY disconnected from reality. Obviously, as Fred Kaplan has pointed out recently for Slate, if he meant what he said we'd have a draft and a huge tax increase--but being a typical Boomer, he not only wants the world to obey his every whim, he wants it for free!

But how are we going to get beyond this? Is the next President going to say, hey, guys, guess what, our work is at home--not trying to bring Arabs into the 21st century? I suppose he doesn't need to say it--just to do it.

As all of you know, I've written about most of the major events in international politics during the last five centuries--but I can't remember ANYONE like Bush--the leader of a major power without a clue. .. Well, as Bismarck said, "A special Providence looks after fools, drunks, and the United States of America."

I hope so.

David K '47

Kais -

I would just add that the guy that's "a heart beat away" (if his own keeps ticking) is actually even more scary than our POTUS-without-a-clue. Cheney’s interview on Meet the Press was astonishing; Russert seemed flabbergasted. The VP admitting to no Iraq link to AQ (claiming he never implied that!), no WMDs, and the spread of democracy being more than just a little in doubt, yet he would still do it all over again if given a second chance.

With the VP, you don't get the sense of not having a clue, you get a sense of something, again, a lot more troubling.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Perhaps because I'm in the middle of a strong lime daiquiri, I'm in a frank mood. . .sigh.

Yes, Bush is talking the talk. But there's no way we have EVER had a President so TOTALLY disconnected from reality. Obviously, as Fred Kaplan has pointed out recently for Slate, if he meant what he said we'd have a draft and a huge tax increase--but being a typical Boomer, he not only wants the world to obey his every whim, he wants it for free!

But how are we going to get beyond this? Is the next President going to say, hey, guys, guess what, our work is at home--not trying to bring Arabs into the 21st century? I suppose he doesn't need to say it--just to do it.

As all of you know, I've written about most of the major events in international politics during the last five centuries--but I can't remember ANYONE like Bush--the leader of a major power without a clue. .. Well, as Bismarck said, "A special Providence looks after fools, drunks, and the United States of America."

I hope so.

David K '47

Your taxes at work in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Finch

But unfortunately for BushCo, Emmanuel Goldstein had it wrong. The 4T is something like a law of nature, and the pendulum can't be stopped any more than the tide. By trying to avoid ending up like Herbert Hoover, he has only made it more likely that he'll wind up like Louis XVI. (How apropos that the movie Marie Antoinette will open just before the election...)

To be followed by a democratic party government who would try to continue 3T policies to disasterous effect, which would be followed by a totalitarian military government run by fringe types who would be itching for an excuse to wipe the mideast off the map, including israel.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

To be followed by a democratic party government who would try to continue 3T policies to disasterous effect, which would be followed by a totalitarian military government run by fringe types who would be itching for an excuse to wipe the mideast off the map, including israel.

I agree generally with that sequence, but I would be more specific with the timing: we'll see the Democratic Party take Congress in 2006, who will try to continue the 3T policies as you say; then the Republicans will take back Congress (and keep the White House) on a totalitarian platform in 2008.

Originally Posted by Finch

I agree generally with that sequence, but I would be more specific with the timing: we'll see the Democratic Party take Congress in 2006, who will try to continue the 3T policies as you say; then the Republicans will take back Congress (and keep the White House) on a totalitarian platform in 2008.

The one consistant policy of this Bush administration is cutting taxes on the very wealthy. Yes, it's a very 3t mindset and explains why they would never adequitely tax to fund the war correctly, even in the early going when they had the political support to do so. Do you believe that the "rightist populists"-close the border-types will be able to take control of the party away from the plutocrats as soon as 2008?

I'm not saying that it can't happen, but this gravy train has been as good as or better than the guilded age for people with the highest incomes. The right wing think tanks and other institutions of power that have arisen in this 3t will fight hard and won't go down easily.

Call it a non civil war if you want, but the Kurds are getting ready to say 'good bye.'

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Call it a non civil war if you want, but the Kurds are getting ready to say 'good bye.'

That's Saddam's (pre-invasion) Iraqi flag, not the new (Israel-blue) national flag. Doesn't surprise me. Also, since the announcement was made two weeks ago and almost nobody noticed, it's hardly an escalation.

Originally Posted by Finch

That's Saddam's (pre-invasion) Iraqi flag, not the new (Israel-blue) national flag. Doesn't surprise me. Also, since the announcement was made two weeks ago and almost nobody noticed, it's hardly an escalation.

Ah, you mean these flags. Even better, these.

If the Kurds are in a 4t as I think, problems like this will get worse.

I agree with those who say that the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-88 was, along with the revolution and hostage crises, a 4t for Iran. However, as others have noted, that war, which the Islamic revolution survived, didn't really change Iraq fundamentally. Iraq has changed fundamentally scince 2003 and will likely change more before their current 4t is over..

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Do you believe that the "rightist populists"-close the border-types will be able to take control of the party away from the plutocrats as soon as 2008?

The plutocrats rely on their control of the mass media to maintain their down-is-up message in the minds of their supporters. Certainly the excessive repetition of their message and the exclusion of other viewpoints are an effective tool, but their message of class envy only thrives because it has such a receptive audience of down-and-out individuals who buy into their lies about upward mobility.

Their mass media control is weakening, to be sure, but the real blow to the effectiveness will be after the housing crash, when the average American finally starts to recognize that the game is rigged. When the masses abandon them, the plutocrats will realize how little leverage they have over the Republican Party -- after all, they're pretty much stuck with the GOP, while the isolationists would easily find a home with the Democrats.

As a result, the isolationists will bend the GOP to their will, or start to abandon it, which produces the same result: anti-immigrant sentiment will be the dominant theme of the 2008 GOP platform. No surprise there -- S&H predicted this ten years ago.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I agree with those who say that the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-88 was, along with the revolution and hostage crises, a 4t for Iran. However, as others have noted, that war, which the Islamic revolution survived, didn't really change Iraq fundamentally. Iraq has changed fundamentally scince 2003 and will likely change more before their current 4t is over..

I question the conventional wisdon that the Iranian Islamic revolution and subsequent war with Iraq was a 4T for Iran. I'm on the fence here, but one thing argues for the revolution to be an Awakening rather than a Crisis -- Ahmadinejad. He sure seems like a crazy Prophet to me. If the Islamic Revolution was a Crisis, Ahmadinejad would be a Civic.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I question the conventional wisdom that the Iranian Islamic revolution and subsequent war with Iraq was a 4T for Iran. I'm on the fence here, but one thing argues for the revolution to be an Awakening rather than a Crisis -- Ahmadinejad. He sure seems like a crazy Prophet to me. If the Islamic Revolution was a Crisis, Ahmadinejad would be a Civic.

I question whether the four-turning concept can be applied to an area of the world that is in continuous turmoil. After all, there has been at least one regional source of chaos in the ME since the birth of Israel, and changes are only constrained, where they are, by autocrats sitting on the boiling kettle their respective citizenry seemed destined to become. Given half a chance, the entire region would come to a full boil.

Then, of course, there's the meddling of the US and Great Powers of Europe, as Randy Newman calls them. Some western power has been involved in every conflict, petty squabble and attempted land-grab in the region since the Ottoman Empire fell following WW-I. How can a regional rhythm establish itself with so much external input? Much of what goes on is not triggered by the locals, but in response to some outside entity, public or private, angling for advantage.

Is Exxon 3T ... or 4?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I question whether the four-turning concept can be applied to an area of the world that is in continuous turmoil.

Agreed. I once tried to apply the turnings to China of the not-too-distant past, and came up with continual chaos between the Opium Wars and Mao's revolution. While the Great Leap Forward and Four Modernizations movements have strong taints of awakening, even the Great Leap is quite deadly by awakening standards.

Turning theory is an interesting tool, but I'd beware of the "If your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" problem.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I question the conventional wisdon that the Iranian Islamic revolution and subsequent war with Iraq was a 4T for Iran. I'm on the fence here, but one thing argues for the revolution to be an Awakening rather than a Crisis -- Ahmadinejad. He sure seems like a crazy Prophet to me. If the Islamic Revolution was a Crisis, Ahmadinejad would be a Civic.

Who says it's conventional wisdom? I've always assumed... correctly, of course... that the 1979 Iranian Revolution was their Awakening Social Moment, analogous to our own Summer of Love. That would put Iran one half-turning behind us, at worst.

Not too long ago, we had someone suggest that the great apes might be on a cycle. I disagreed with the idea of applying human history to other spieces. I have more intellectual tools than just a "hammer." I'm aware that every culture is not on the saecular cycle. Primitive ones are not, survival takes up all of their time.

In the case of an area like the middle east that is in constant turmoil, I believe that you must look at the results. Are things changing rapidly and in a profound way? If they are, then you are in a social moment. A political revolution may happen in a 2t, but as happened here in America, a 2t "revolution" is more likely to be cultural. Young prophets are unlikely to bring down a country not already in decay. There are a lot of middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia that have become technologically modernized but have what we would call a traditional culture. Aside from the warning that the US needs to get off of middle eastern oil ASAP, it also means that so far the house of Saud has managed to escape what to outsiders seems inetivable. As the Sauds put their kingdom in modern form together about 80 years ago, the likelihood of a social moment in Saudi Arabia soon is strong.

What about the rest of the middle east? Most of the region was thrown into turmoil after WWI. One of the states that was not in the war was modern Iran. They are likely to be on a diffeent cycle from their arab neighbors.Is the current president of Iran a crazy prophet? Might he be an overreaching civic? The use of bombastic and hubristic language is not limited to prophets. I'm not saying that he has to be, but the use of provocative language would be similar. If the situation with Iran gets closer to brinksmanship (and it probabally will) all doubt about the nature Iran's current social moment will be resolved. Israel is a case in which a cycle was imposed on an area by outside events. I have read the argument that the cycle is so unbending that a case like Israel has to conform to that of its Arab neighbors just because it too had been a part of the Ottoman Empire. The argument there seems to be that the land rather than the people go through the turnings, which if it were possible would make the generations concept invalid.

Watching the Saud's is like watching the house of Romanov. I call dibs on Anastasia!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

What about the rest of the middle east? Most of the region was thrown into turmoil after WWI. One of the states that was not in the war was modern Iran. They are likely to be on a diffeent cycle from their arab neighbors.Is the current president of Iran a crazy prophet? Might he be an overreaching civic? The use of bombastic and hubristic language is not limited to prophets. I'm not saying that he has to be, but the use of provocative language would be similar. If the situation with Iran gets closer to brinksmanship (and it probabally will) all doubt about the nature Iran's current social moment will be resolved.

What about the Irainian Constitutional Revolution ending in 1909? The ferocity of the Iran-Iraq war? The youth today in Iran? Seems to me like a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What about the Irainian Constitutional Revolution ending in 1909? The ferocity of the Iran-Iraq war? The youth today in Iran? Seems to me like a no-brainer.

What about them? How are they no brainers?

Iran like the middle east in general is currently in an unravelling, it's 4T is not due to start until around 2019. The current president is an Idealist complete with the fire and brimstone. Mid 3T Iran vs early 4T USA, that could be a interesting conflict indeed, not likely to happen although.

Iran like the middle east in general is currently in an unravelling, it's 4T is not due to start until around 2019. The current president is an Idealist complete with the fire and brimstone. Mid 3T Iran vs early 4T USA, that could be a interesting conflict indeed, not likely to happen although.

The Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's was a very firey 2T, the zeal of the Iranian soliders during that war, reminds me a lot of the US soliders during the Spanish American war or the British Empire soliders during the Boer War. Young Idealists make excellent warriors when they believe the war they are fighting for is a just cause, no other archetype matches their sheer zeal and decitation to the cause.

Does that mean that ahmadinejad is more of an iranian clinton rather than an iranian GWB?