Interesting post.
I concur with most of the points above, MS.

This is an essay written by a Saudi. He hates the Saudi royal family. It forecasts a big mood swing about to happen in Saudi Arabia that may take the royal family down with it. Then go our oil. Maybe a good thing because we'll finally clean up our energy act. Who knows, right?

http://members.aol.com/ufppdatum/saudi.htm

I've come to the conclusion that since the 4th Turning has been more or less in sync (not THAT Nsync) with Europe since at least the 1860's and failry in sync with the rest of the world since the last 4T we need to keep an eye on the global mood. This especially includes the Middle East and three key countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel/ Palestine (ok, fine, four countries if you prefer).

Apparently, the USA is not worthy of PT Barnum. I guess all every-minute-born suckers have overwhelmed the nation.

Again, the last forth turning began in 1929 not 1942.

Buz writes,
"Again, the last forth turning began in 1929 not 1942."

I submit, Buz, that had the "Blame America First" crowd of Clinton/Gore et al been in the White House on September 11, 2001, America could possibly steered into a disasterous, and early, fourth turn.

When one considers what drove the Hoover administrations thinking (before it was too late) following the 1929 Crash, it isn't hard to see how important leadership can be at these times:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." --Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury

But thank God, Clinton/Gore, and the "Blame America First" crowd, are not in office at this time.

And the American people are quite thankful, as evidenced by the following Zogby poll (October, 2001):
Q. Who would you rather have sitting in the White House during this time of crisis, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?

Bush: 72%
Clinton: 20%


Are you thankful, too, Buz? :smile:

On 2002-03-17 18:47, Marc Lamb wrote:


"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." --Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury

...live a more moral life...

Was Andrew Mellon a Missionary? Secretly welcoming disaster as a corrective for lifestyle failure is a classic Idealist attitude, if S&H are right.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-17 19:21 ]</font>

Andy Mellon, born 1855 (Progressive). Died 1937. :smile:

On 2002-03-17 19:53, Marc Lamb wrote:


Andy Mellon, born 1855 (Progressive). Died 1937. :smile:

Many thanks.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-17 20:02 ]</font>

Bush himself said that OBL and Al-Queda are no longer threats.

We are no longer fighting a "War on Terror", which is a war we have already won. The war is now between nations. Bush may be right that this war mimics World War II more than Vietnam, but which side are we fighting on?

If Bush's remark isn't another blunder, then I harbor the opinion that this war should immediately come to an end. We authorized the President to fight a war against terrorists, not a war of hegemony.

The fact that the war is greatly being expanded beyond its original purpose is proof that we are in the very beginning stages of 4T.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...4/MN233349.DTL

<font color="blue">
Bush says bin Laden no threat
Options open against rogue states ? including nuclear weapons
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Thursday, March 14, 2002
?2002 San Francisco Chronicle

Washington -- President Bush declared Osama bin Laden all but vanquished yesterday, saying the al Qaeda leader -- dead or alive -- no longer poses a serious threat to America.

"We haven't heard from him in a long time," Bush told reporters at the White House. "I truly am not that concerned about him."

During a hastily called news conference that was dominated by questions about war and terror, Bush also refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against nations like Libya and Syria if it would destroy their ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

"We've got all options on the table," Bush said when asked about last week's disclosure that the Pentagon is pursuing a more aggressive nuclear strategy that could target rogue nations that do not themselves possess nuclear weapons.

"We want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends," he said.

Many view the Pentagon policy as a departure from a decades-old Cold War strategy of stockpiling nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack from other nuclear powers such as the Soviet Union.

"The reason we have a nuclear arsenal that I hope is modern, upgraded and can work is to deter any attack on America," Bush said, insisting that he is merely continuing a policy established under previous presidents.

At the same time, Bush said he is "committed to reducing the amount of nuclear weaponry and reducing the number of nuclear warheads" and hopes to sign such an agreement when he visits Russia in May.

Bush's dismissive comments on bin Laden stand in stark contrast to his declaration in the first days after the Sept. 11 that he wanted the al Qaeda leader "dead or alive."

BIN LADEN 'MARGINALIZED'

Yesterday, Bush said the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan has effectively "marginalized" bin Laden and "destroyed" his terrorist network.

"I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban," Bush said. But now, "we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore."

Asked whether the United States, with military advisers being dispatched throughout the world, might get caught in a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam, Bush said he learned lessons from that war.

"First there must be a clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam War," Bush said.

"I believe this war is more akin to World War II than it is to Vietnam. This is a war in which we fight for the liberties and freedom of our country," he said.

PICKERING NOMINATION

Bush opened the news conference with strong words to Senate Democrats trying to scuttle his nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Charles Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Pickering has the support of enough Democrats to win confirmation were the matter to reach the Senate floor, but the appointment faces rejection in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats are nearly united in their opposition. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who serves on the committee, has said she will vote against Pickering.

"We now face a situation in which a handful of United States senators on one committee have made it clear that they will block nominees, even highly qualified, well-respected nominees, who do not share the senators' views of the bench," Bush said.

The president complained that of the 92 judicial appointments he has made, only 40 have made it to the Senate floor for a vote.

"This is unacceptable. It is a bad record for the Senate," Bush said.

But foreign affairs, not domestic politics, dominated the news conference.

-- On the violence in the Middle East: Bush made his strongest criticism of Israel's military offensive against Palestinians, led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Frankly, it is not helpful what the Israelis have recently done," Bush said. "I understand somebody trying to defend themselves . . . but the recent actions are not helpful."

-- On Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein: "This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons; a man who won't let inspectors into the country; a man who's obviously got something to hide," said Bush. "He is a problem, and we're going to deal with him. But the first stage is to consult with our allies and friends, and that's exactly what we're doing."

-- On the belated notice that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had approved student visas for two of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center, the president said he could "barely get my coffee down" when he read about it in "my local paper."

"I was stunned and not happy. . . . I was plenty hot."

-- On the military's capability to fight the war against terrorism: "People shouldn't worry about a draft," Bush said. "We've got ample manpower to meet our needs" and "a vast coalition of nations willing to lend their own manpower to the war."

"The mission's clear. The training is good. The equipment is going to be robust," the president said.

Bush appeared stiff at the outset of the 45-minute news conference at the White House briefing room. Though he frequently answers questions from reporters following White House events, or when meeting with foreign dignitaries, it was the first formal press conference since last October. Bush loosened up as it progressed, chiding reporters for asking multipart questions and noting that Gen. Tommy Franks, who is overseeing the military action in Southern Asia, graduated from the same high school as his wife.

"That's an interesting thing for the social columns -- for those of you who allow your news-gathering to slip into social items," he laughed.</font>

Bush is correct that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. What he neglected to mention is that Saddam got the technology for it from the West with the acquiesance of his father in the Reagan administration and unleashed it on Iran with the urging of the Reagan administration.

I recently attended a session of the Massachusetts chapter of the World Futurist Society. The subject was conflict resolution in the near future. The speakers work with the government to improve our war fighting capability. They were an MIT professor, and the head of a Newport think tank.

They were optimistic about our ability to win conventional wars in the near future. We are the only country with a significant ability to project power far from our borders. Canada and Mexico are not a significant threat. The Atlantic and Pacific are significant barriers. We are committing far more funds to R&D than all of Europe combined. China is moving towards putting a carrier to sea, which is a good thing, as they are unlikely to be able to beat us at our own game.

One major question was information sharing. Do we wish highly automated systems, many robot sensors, programmed to present the right information to the right soldiers at the right time? Or is it better to keep humans in the loop? Other questions were political. The military has considerable inertia, resists change. Should the MIT professors and think tankers be telling the professional soldiers how to do their jobs? Should soldiers with a vested interest in the status quo be setting research budgets?

It was noted that America is risk adverse. The current generation is seen as protected and coddled. The professors do not expect boomers to put millenials at risk, thus they expect machines will dominate or supplement humans. One question is whether we will go with Industrial Age combat, with a huge logistics train hauling tons of bombs and shells to the front, and pulverizing any enemy before front line troops are asked to leave their foxholes. The alternative is information age combat, where scout drones tell computers where the enemy is, and the computers suggest targeting solutions to be rubber stamped by the humans, coordinates forwarded to smart weapons hung beneath drone aircraft.

They do not foresee large scale clash of infantry against opposition in similar strength. This would be unacceptable to a risk adverse America. Yet, they do not foresee an enemy they can't defeat. They were confident that for the foreseeable future (30 to 50 years) we would remain a dominant power capable of projecting force abroad and capable of defending ourselves.

I briefly tried to project my worse case. Opposing powers, unable to contest with the US if they allow the US to define a conventional style of battle, must define a non-conventional battle. Terrorism using weapons of mass destruction is the obvious approach. The defensive solution - preventing terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from crossing our borders - is a difficult problem. The prohibition and war on drugs illustrate the difficulty of sealing our borders. Nothing presented at the meeting suggested a plausible defense against terror.

The alternative is taking the offensive against terror. This assumes we can identify, invade and defeat all nations that support terror. This assumes these states will stand idle while we quite obviously strive to take them out one at a time. Current projections indicate we can fight one conventional war at a time. The old two war standard has been abandoned, and has been a daydream for quite some time. Can we reasonably expect to fight multiple opponents while clinging to our life saving doctrines that will spend more money per soldier than the rest of the world? Offensive war on terror is also a very difficult problem.

I did not hear a reasonable approach to fight either a defensive or offensive war against terror. Still, I can almost understand how Dubya is optimistic about the US being able to take on the world. If he is being told what the think tankers told the Futurist Society, the US can win conventional wars.

Terrorism was defined as a police problem. It was in the expertise of neither expert. Neither began to address a realistic solution to terrorism. Neither had answers for the enemy strategy I proposed. They were experts in conventional war, and are making very sure we will continue to be able to win conventional wars. They assumed the advantage of large budgets and the disadvantage of a population unwilling to put its young people at risk. In fact, they clung rather firmly to a set of assumptions that would result in continued large government contracts being sent their way.

And they were very concerned that the professionals in the military have a prejudice towards old ways of thinking, and were not ready to embrace outside of the box thinking.

I left the meeting nervous. Our young people are already at risk. We are all at risk. I understand it took two years to plan and execute September 11th. Those particular barn doors are closed. There are many other barn doors wide open. People seem very determined to look the other way. Our attempts at an offensive domino approach are obvious enough that future planning by those with opposing values might be accelerated.

I am having more and more difficulty arguing here on this web site that we are in a fourth turning mode. We had a sense of urgency, a willingness to sacrifice, a willingness to change, for a short time after September 11th. This is fading. The World Trade Center is not forgotten, but there is no longer impetus to change our priorities and thinking. If you watch late night TV, airport security is considered a joke, the target of more comments than Enron, Dubya's pretzel, or a certain French skating judge. There seems little that an individual might do about to rekindle a sense of urgency. If we are backing away from the 4T mood, the problems that might drive the hypothetical crisis seem clear enough.

Mr. Reed writes,
"We are no longer fighting a "War on Terror", which is a war we have already won. The war is now between nations. Bush may be right that this war mimics World War II more than Vietnam... The fact that the war is greatly being expanded beyond its original purpose is proof that we are in the very beginning stages of 4T."


Continuing a trend I posted about back in January in the Is the Fourth Turning Coming?



I [still] dunno about all this...

1999 - Clinton Impeached: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2000 - Y2K meltdown: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2000 - NASDAQ Crash!: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2000 - E2K: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2001 - Economy recedes: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2001 - September 11th: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2001 - RECESSION!: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2002 - Enron Collapses: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2002 - Bush War on Iraq: Is it the 4T trigger?


Did Paul Revere have to ride this many times?


<center> </center>

Marc asks... Did Paul Revere have to ride this many times?

There were quite a number of incedents, mostly near Boston, leading up to the Revolution. Tea dumped in harbor... Citizens massacred... Port closed... There was what I call a spiral of violence, neither side backing down, both sides willing to risk lives, with propaganda and gunfire reinforcing one another.

Your modern list reflects a more complex reality. It is hard to link Enron, the Clinton impeachment and Middle East violence into a common theme. (I'd start with capitalist imperialst arrogance, but that's just me.) If it is fairly clear this is not the Best of Times, not the Best of All Possible Worlds, it is much more difficult for a propagandist to utter a unifying phrase (Taxation without representation is tyranny!) that results in a united consensus, drastic action, drastic change.

I would suggest that the Middle East spiral of violence is much more impressive than the efforts of Sam Adams or John Brown. Hitler's Phoney War has not yet been exceeded. Among the incedents listed that have already occured, I think September 11th is most likely to be given pride of place in the history books. A US invasion of Iraq might become a true Pearl Harbor, a true "the shooting has started, no turning back" moment. Or maybe not. We seem to have settled back into 3T squabbling with Afghanistan fully active. Iraq might be perceived by the public as a minor war against a minor power, the equivalent of one of Queen Victoria's Little Wars that dotted the Pax Britannia.

There seems to be a discontinuity between "the shooting has started" and public perception that a crisis has started. I'm not sure just now whether the perception or the reality is more significant.

On 2002-03-18 06:29, Marc Lamb wrote:


Mr. Reed writes,
"We are no longer fighting a "War on Terror", which is a war we have already won. The war is now between nations. Bush may be right that this war mimics World War II more than Vietnam... The fact that the war is greatly being expanded beyond its original purpose is proof that we are in the very beginning stages of 4T."


Continuing a trend I posted about back in January in the Is the Fourth Turning Coming?



I [still] dunno about all this...

1999 - Clinton Impeached: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2000 - Y2K meltdown: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2000 - NASDAQ Crash!: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2000 - E2K: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2001 - Economy recedes: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2001 - September 11th: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2001 - RECESSION!: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2002 - Enron Collapses: <s>Is it the 4T trigger?</s>

2002 - Bush War on Iraq: Is it the 4T trigger?


Did Paul Revere have to ride this many times?


<center> </center>

LOL you're right; it is also worth noting that a little more than halfway thru our last 3T we had a WORLD WAR

This is fascinating, the debate between Mr. Lamb and Mr. Reed.

Let's bear in mind, however, that sooner or later, we'll all find out when 4T began. We just have to be patient! In a few years, we'll know whether 2002 is 1930 or 1922. Just hold your horses everyone. The jury is still out on whether Mr. (Marc) Lamb or Mr. Reed is correct.

I have to interject here, though, that none of Marc's listed events prior to E2K was seriously suggested at the time as a 4T trigger. (There was speculation about Y2K beforehand, but not during.)


Also, the list of events post-9/11 suggests the abandonment of 9/11 itself as catalyst and seizing upon subsequent events instead. That hasn't happened.

I concur with Mr Butler. All the events that Marc mentions have connections. They may not be triggers, but rather a potrait of the state of the union circa 1998-2002

Is it any surprise that the word normalcy has made such a remarkable return to the national vocabulary?

The word was first invented just previous to a very famous war in American history.

Anyone care to guess when that was? :smile:

There seems to be a discontinuity between "the shooting has started" and public perception that a crisis has started. I'm not sure just now whether the perception or the reality is more significant.

I would agree with you. The perception and the reality are two different things.

There is a perception from some on this list that this country has already gone back to "normal" and yet I do not have that perception at all. In fact, I believe we are still in the denial phase of our grief. Some of us pretend things are as they were before September 11 but we are bluntly reminded that they are not. The late-night humor about airport security, for example, does remind us that this is a strange, new normal. We would like to forget, like to go back and yet we cannot.

At the same time, we are not yet ready to really go forward and so we are in strange place in which nothing seems to be quite real and we "act normal" even though we perceive that everything is, in fact, out of kilter.

This strange new reality that we have not yet made real reminds me of the time between the diagnosis and treatment of my cancer. That niggling reality just would not go away although I was not able yet to move forward.

I suspect that we are in the very beginnings of a 4T--remember that three years passed between the stock market crash of '29 and the bank failures of 1932. The New Deal really started in 1933, and Pearl Harbor didn't happen until almost 10 years later.

I think the critical point in the crisis is still a long way off. The Millenials only started graduating from high school in 2000. There are still a lot of cohorts left in that generation before the crisis constellation will be aligned.

In chemistry, a catalyst gets a reaction going but does not participate in the reaction. I would suggest that 9/11 is a catalyst to the 4T. The chemical change has begun and has been speeded up but the steps of the reaction itself still take time to be completed.

On 2002-03-18 15:58, Marc Lamb wrote:


Is it any surprise that the word normalcy has made such a remarkable return to the national vocabulary?

The word was first invented just previous to a very famous war in American history.

Anyone care to guess when that was? :smile:
I don't know about the "previous" invention of the word "normalcy", but my little internet search says that good old Warren G. Harding called for a return to normalcy in the 1920 presidential election, which he won. So....I must assume that this fine word appeared in our vocabulary at the time of WW1.

On 2002-03-18 10:32, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

There seems to be a discontinuity between "the shooting has started" and public perception that a crisis has started. I'm not sure just now whether the perception or the reality is more significant.

Mr. Butler, Mr. William Bennett wants <a href="http://www.avot.org/"Y-O-U!</a> HTH

On 2002-03-18 17:58, elilevin wrote:

There seems to be a discontinuity between "the shooting has started" and public perception that a crisis has started. I'm not sure just now whether the perception or the reality is more significant.

I would agree with you. The perception and the reality are two different things.

There is a perception from some on this list that this country has already gone back to "normal" and yet I do not have that perception at all. In fact, I believe we are still in the denial phase of our grief. Some of us pretend things are as they were before September 11 but we are bluntly reminded that they are not. The late-night humor about airport security, for example, does remind us that this is a strange, new normal. We would like to forget, like to go back and yet we cannot.

At the same time, we are not yet ready to really go forward and so we are in strange place in which nothing seems to be quite real and we "act normal" even though we perceive that everything is, in fact, out of kilter.

This strange new reality that we have not yet made real reminds me of the time between the diagnosis and treatment of my cancer. That niggling reality just would not go away although I was not able yet to move forward.

I suspect that we are in the very beginnings of a 4T--remember that three years passed between the stock market crash of '29 and the bank failures of 1932. The New Deal really started in 1933, and Pearl Harbor didn't happen until almost 10 years later.

I think the critical point in the crisis is still a long way off. The Millenials only started graduating from high school in 2000. There are still a lot of cohorts left in that generation before the crisis constellation will be aligned.

In chemistry, a catalyst gets a reaction going but does not participate in the reaction. I would suggest that 9/11 is a catalyst to the 4T. The chemical change has begun and has been speeded up but the steps of the reaction itself still take time to be completed.

Good points. In fact, S&H point out that in a normal crisis era (The Civil War being considered anything but normal!), the regeneracy phase doesn't begin until one to five years after the catalyst event. (T4T pp. 256 - 257). It's only been just over six months since the 9/11 attack - less than the minimum amount of time allowed for by S&H.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-03-18 20:35 ]</font>

On 2002-03-18 20:17, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

Mr. Butler, Mr. William Bennett wants <a href="http://www.avot.org/"Y-O-U!</a> HTH

Don't leave out Alan Keyes! He just joined the AVOT crusade by calling for governmental censorship of Ted Rall on the grounds that his cartoons hurt the war effort. We can't be having any dissent around here, doncha know. It hurts the cause of "freedom." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Let's get a group shot of this neocon revival:

(L to R): Bob Butler, Bill Kristol, Bill Bennett, George W. Bush, John Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Alan Keyes.


I'm just kidding, Bob. I wouldn't lump you in with those worms, blowhards, frauds, puppets, and lackeys. But you have to admit that it would make one hell of a shot.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-03-18 20:35 ]</font>

"Anyone care to guess when that was?"

Well, according to Merriam-Webster...

Main Entry: nor?mal?cy
Pronunciation: 'nor-m&l-sE
Function: noun
Date: 1857
: the state or fact of being normal

Get the Top 10 Most Popular Sites for "normalcy"




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-18 20:36 ]</font>

Let's get a group shot of this neocon revival:

(L to R): Bob Butler, Bill Kristol, Bill Bennett, George W. Bush, John Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Alan Keyes, and MARC LAMB :grin:


I'm proud, Bob, to be lumped in with those worms, blowhards, frauds, puppets, and lackeys.