On 2002-05-18 12:15, angeli wrote:

Uh, Stonewall. I haven't criticized the administration as such, and I'm sorry if what I said sounded like it.

Sorry, Angeli. It never would have occurred to me independently that you were deeply engrossed in criticizing the administration, nor XoE for that matter. I was just trying to figure out how I got to be a part of Brian's and Marc's conversation when I had barely been a part of the conversation which spawned it. All I could figure out was that someone had substituted me for you or XoE. I guess I erred in assuming that there even had to be a reasonable explanation in the first place. Such is the way things are going anymore on this board and in this country. My proper response as an Xer should have been: "Whatever."

<FONT SIZE="+1">A Conservative Speaks on President Bush</FONT>

"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." --Charles Krauthammer (Sept. 13, 2001)


I recall, in the weeks following the attacks on the WTC, arguments being fostered as to why FDR had acted with such speed to condemn and respond to the the Pearl Harbor attack but GWB was kinda slow in doing so with Osama. Many were quick to point out that FDR had a depression behind him... and other such things that make the parallels nonanalogous.

So be it... Lincoln couldn't find a "general that would fight." Washington had no army to fight with. King Phillip nearly suceeded in pushing the Puritains back into the sea before he met his match with Ben Church.

True, 9/11 was seen round the world as a big "crash," but a "Crash of 1929" it was not. The whole world felt the latter go on and on and on like a mighty tsunami. On and on, until men's bodies began to resemble "question marks," as Louis Adamic recalled them. But the crash of 9/11 has been dealt with, the sinister forces behind it dealt a severe, if not fatal blow. Even now the clean up at "ground zero" has been completed far ahead of schedule and way under estimated cost.

Now all that is left is Saddam... and GWB's words. The words like "Axis of Evil" and "root out every terrorist" and "to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network," and on and on...

Words that are supposed to mean something.

Alas, GWB has reversed himself with new words, words that supersede the former words. New words that signal that not all terrorists are really terrorist. There are exceptions, like "gennyral Arafat.

And while Iraq will probably feel the power of Bush "words," Saudi Arabia, where all the 9/11 terrorist came from, most certainly will not. Niether will Iran, or North Korea, or... And so the words just kind of begin to lose their flaor, their mystical power, their clear and precise meaning.

And then there are the Bush "words" on the domestic policy... Words like "compasionate conservatism" and "a new tone in Washington" that his spoke during his campaign.

But now Republicans have found out just what those "words" really meant to Bush. They meant capitulation of conservative principles. In the past six months, with one bill after another heartily supported by liberals and moderates on both sides, the GOP conservatives are left eating dust as Bush just signed and signed and signed.

I have counted two strikes on the the man standing at the plate. Two strikes on a man that could hit the damn ball from here to kingdom come if he wanted to.

One issue is left upon the table for president Bush to seize... judges. The line has been drawn as all understand clearly what this battle means. It means the future. And whether or not conservatism will play any role whatsoever, as they did in 1934 by striking done the ultra fascist NRA, in the next fourth turn. In this Battle, I still have hope in Bush, though on all other scores he has disappointed beyond repair.

That's two strikes, Mr. President, and you have but one swing left.

Bush ain't no FDR, Lincoln or even a Washington. Colin Powell, and Karl Rove have won that battle... And they have left President Bush merely eating his words... and just one more swing at the ball.

Swing well, Mr. Bush, swing well.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-05-18 15:01 ]</font>

S'awright, Stonewall. In this latter day, to question is to criticize and to criticize is to be partisan and to be partisan is to be disloyal and to be disloyal is to be unpatriotic and to be unpatriotic is to be a traitor.

In truth, America will only be safe when we stop acting like there is citizen participation in government and suspend critical thinking and act like the good lemmings we are supposed to be in this free country. That will make America safe for everyone, and show Osama bin Laden what a good democratic society we are.

Not.

In any case, from what I can tell, I think the hidden story was generational. Young FBI agents with information about what was going to happen that their older superiors didn't take seriously. A mostly Silent administration that still thinks in terms of conventional terrorism and state to state warfare. A Boomer president who takes criticism of any kind as a personal attack on Him and All His Values. A big hulking bureaucratic GI-era machine that was woefully unable to adjust to a new kind of threat in time.

Just my 2 cents.

Try this for yourself: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

Ok. Some lighter news that may or may not be evidence of where we stand as a 3T or 4T.

http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/3606.1618

Here we go, folks...

Time for an Investigation

This ought to be fun to watch. Only problem: 9/11 was a breakdown in the much, post-Watergate era, maligned Intelligence community. America had had her belly full of government "secrecy" and had opted for "Open: Good, Closed: Bad." So will we compromise whatever's left of the "Closed" in order to find out what went wrong. Or will the "investigation" lead to enough "Open: Good" doors to satisfy the people's "trust" factor without compromising national security and putting America at an even greater risk for future attacks?

It's the Warren Commision all over again, and again, and again, and again. Stoney should be proud of us neocons! :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-05-20 06:31 ]</font>

This one goes out to our resident Millies (and younger Xers). Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stands on Daniel Webster's opposition to conscription. May it never again come to pass here such that the people will decide whether a given war is just or unjust and fight or not fight as their interest, not our masters' interest, demands. Live long and prosper, Millies and young Xers:

http://www.counterpunch.com/paul0520.html

(For info and discussion purposes)


May 20, 2002

Say No to Conscription

by Rep. Ron Paul

I hope my colleagues who believe that the current war on terrorism justifies violating the liberty of millions of young men by reinstating a military draft will consider the eloquent argument against conscription in the attached speech by Daniel Webster. Then-representative Webster delivered his remarks on the floor of the House in opposition to a proposal to institute a draft during the War of 1812. Webster's speech remains one of the best statements of the Constitutional and moral case against conscription.

Despite the threat posed to the very existence of the young republic by the invading British Empire, Congress ultimately rejected the proposal to institute a draft. If the new nation of America could defeat what was then the most powerful military empire in the world without a draft, there is no reason why we cannot address our current military needs with a voluntary military.

Webster was among the first of a long line of prominent Americans, including former President Ronald Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to recognize that a draft violates the fundamental principles of liberty this country was founded upon.

In order to reaffirm support for individual liberty and an effective military, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 368, which expresses the sense of Congress against reinstating a military draft. I urge my colleagues to read Daniel Webster's explanation of why the draft is incompatible with liberty government and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 368.

ON CONSCRIPTION (By Daniel Webster)

During America's first great war, waged against Great Britain, the Madison Administration tried to introduce a conscription bill into Congress. This bill called forth one of Daniel Webster's most eloquent efforts, in a powerful opposition to conscription. The speech was delivered in the House of Representatives on December 9, 1814; the following is a condensation:

"This bill indeed is less undisguised in its object, and less direct in its means, than some of the measures proposed. It is an attempt to exercise the power of forcing the free men of this country into the ranks of an army, for the general purposes of war, under color of a military service. It is a distinct system, introduced for new purposes, and not connected with any power, which the Constitution has conferred on Congress.

But, Sir, there is another consideration. The services of the men to be raised under this act are not limited to those cases in which alone this Government is entitled to the aid of the militia of the States. These cases are particularly stated in the Constitution - 'to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or execute the laws.'

The question is nothing less, than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form. When the present generation of men shall be swept away, and that this Government ever existed shall be a matter of history only, I desire that it may then be known, that you have not proceeded in your course unadmonished and unforewarned. Let it then be known, that there were those, who would have stopped you, in the career of your measures, and held you back, as by the skirts of your garments, from the precipice, over which you are plunging, and drawing after you the Government of your Country.

Conscription is chosen as the most promising instrument, both of overcoming reluctance to the Service, and of subduing the difficulties which arise from the deficiencies of the Exchequer. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion. It contends that it may now take one out of every twenty- five men, and any part or the whole of the rest, whenever its occasions require. Persons thus taken by force, and put into an army, may be compelled to serve there, during the war, or for life. They may be put on any service, at home or abroad, for defense or for invasion, according to the will and pleasure of Government. This power does not grow out of any invasion of the country, or even out of a state of war. It belongs to Government at all times, in peace as well as in war, and is to be exercised under all circumstances, according to its mere discretion. This, Sir, is the amount of the principle contended for by the Secretary of War (James Monroe).

Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.

The supporters of the measures before us act on the principle that it is their task to raise arbitrary powers, by construction, out of a plain written charter of National Liberty. It is their pleasing duty to free us of the delusion, which we have fondly cherished, that we are the subjects of a mild, free and limited Government, and to demonstrate by a regular chain of premises and conclusions, that Government possesses over us a power more tyrannical, more arbitrary, more dangerous, more allied to blood and murder, more full of every form of mischief, more productive of every sort and degree of misery, than has been exercised by any civilized Government in modern times.

But it is said, that it might happen that any army would not be raised by voluntary enlistment, in which case the power to raise armies would be granted in vain, unless they might be raised by compulsion. If this reasoning could prove any thing, it would equally show, that whenever the legitimate powers of the Constitution should be so badly administered as to cease to answer the great ends intended by them, such new powers may be assumed or usurped, as any existing administration may deem expedient. This is a result of his own reasoning, to which the Secretary does not profess to go. But it is a true result. For if it is to be assumed, that all powers were granted, which might by possibility become necessary, and that Government itself is the judge of this possible necessity, then the powers of Government are precisely what it chooses they should be.

The tyranny of Arbitrary Government consists as much in its means as in its end; and it would be a ridiculous and absurd constitution which should be less cautious to guard against abuses in the one case than in the other. All the means and instruments which a free Government exercises, as well as the ends and objects which it pursues, are to partake of its own essential character, and to be conformed to its genuine spirit. A free Government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free Government without adequate provision for personal security is an absurdity; a free Government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man.

Into the paradise of domestic life you enter, not indeed by temptations and sorceries, but by open force and violence.

Nor is it, Sir, for the defense of his own house and home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests and abhorrent to his feelings. With his aid you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles which he detests perhaps and abhors, less from the danger and the death that gather over them, and the blood with which they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin. If, Sir, in this strife he fall--if, while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense of his country, but to prosecute a miserable and detestable project of invasion, and in that strife he fall, 'tis murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; and though millions of years may roll away, while his ashes and yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit and the spirits of his children must be met at the bar of omnipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from any participation in the enormity of this guilt.

A military force cannot be raised, in this manner, but by the means of a military force. If administration has found that it can not form an army without conscription, it will find, if it venture on these experiments, that it can not enforce conscription without an army. The Government was not constituted for such purposes. Framed in the spirit of liberty, and in the love of peace, it has no powers which render it able to enforce such laws. The attempt, if we rashly make it, will fail; and having already thrown away our peace, we may thereby throw away our Government.

I express these sentiments here, Sir, because I shall express them to my constituents. Both they and myself live under a Constitution which teaches us, that 'the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.''' With the same earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their unquestionable right of providing for the security of their own liberties.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. John Derbyshire at the National Review sees a lack of URGENCY in the Crisis mood concerning the invasion of Iraq. It is more of a 3T Not-War than a 4T WAR!

On 2002-05-20 15:16, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Mr. John Derbyshire at the National Review sees a lack of URGENCY in the Crisis mood concerning the invasion of Iraq. It is more of a 3T Not-War than a 4T WAR!

Nah, remember we are dealing with Rove and other "lowest rung" types here. The invasion has to be scheduled to produce maximum return in an election. Start calculating from there.

On 2002-05-20 15:16, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Mr. John Derbyshire at the National Review sees a lack of URGENCY in the Crisis mood concerning the invasion of Iraq. It is more of a 3T Not-War than a 4T WAR!

The notion that the US government is planning an attack on Iraq with the intent of overthrowing Hussein without clear proof the Iraqis were connected in 911 attack, is a good sign of a 4T. Also the anger of conservatives in Americia aganist Bush for not being tough enough in regard to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is another sign of a 4T, the fire eaters (Boomers) are now clearly in charge of the debate.

Also the goals are more 'total' than the Gulf War was, Bush senior and Colin Powell just wanted to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait not to overthrown the Hussein regime.

Why the Strauss and Howe Model is likely invalid

The standard model for the saeculum holds that a constellation of generations produces the turnings. An excellent example of this is the secular crisis turning, in which the three adult generations take specific roles. Prophets provide visionary leadership as wise elders, a role Strauss and Howe call the gray champion. Nomads provide pragmatic leadership as mid-life managers. Heroes are the footsoldiers who do most of the grunt work for the crisis. As examples of gray champions Strauss and Howe use Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Examples of midlife managers include George Patton and U.S. Grant.

When historians are asked to rank Presidents in order of greatness, the top three places are typically occupied by the above two gray champions and a third great man: George Washington. Washington was clearly the single most important figure of the Revolutionary Crisis, playing the major leadership role in both the War of Independence and the post-Constitution government. Surely his role in the Revolution Crisis is completely analogous to the roles played by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt in their respective Crises. Yet while the latter two are gray champions, Washington is relegated to the role of mid-life manager. The reason for this, of course, is that Washington was a Nomad, and as such cannot be a gray champion. But does this make sense? If Washington doesn't qualify as gray champion who does? Strauss and Howe put forward Samuel Adams, who was really an Unraveling figure who played little role in the Crisis itself and Ben Franklin, who it can be argued had a bona fide visionary leadership role. But couldn't Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson be considered a visionary leader too? And he was a Hero.

One could argue that part of being a gray champion is, well, being *gray*. Washington, who was 41 at the start of his Crisis was hardly an elder. Both Roosevelt at 47 and Lincoln at 51 were older than this at the start of their Crises. But consider that men these ages in 1773 would be Nomads, not Prophets. In other words, the gray prophets of the last two Crises would not be "gray enough" for the Revolution.

In Generations, Strauss and Howe played up the role of prophet Benjamin Franklin as a gray champion and employed Hawthorne's "gray champion" figure as an example of prophet leadership in the Glorious Revolution Crisis. With some representatives of prophet leadership in all four crises they used their model to project the beginning of the next Crisis era around 2013. At this date the oldest Boomers would turn 70, a reasonable age for elderhood. This age is in good agreement with the ages of the oldest prophets (69, 68 and 72, avg. 70) at beginning of the last three Crises.

In The Fourth Turning, the authors presented two more crises, both of which were completely devoid of the gray champions predicted by their model. These two prophet-free Crisies, plus the absence of "non-virtual" prophets in the Glorious Revolution means that fully half of the Crises discovered by Strauss and Howe lacked true gray prophets and thus did not fit their model.

The leaders who played the role of gray champion in these three crises were Nomads or even Heroes. When we see that these three Crises have Nomad gray champions, the identification of George Washington as the paramount Gray Champion in the Revolutionary Crisis is perfectly consistent with *most* Crises.

With the elevation of Washington to Gray Champion status along with Lincoln and FDR, we now find that fully two-thirds of the Crises identified by Strauss and Howe don't fit their model. In the Fourth Turning, the authors acknowledge this fact indirectly by noting that generation length has declined over time, and by moving their estimate for the beginning of the next Crisis era from 2013 to 2005, at which point the oldest prophets would be only 62--hardly elders.

Thus, we see that the model for the saeculum put forth in Generations was essentially abandoned in The Fourth Turning. The argument that there are too many Silents for it to be a Crisis now rests on a model that is demonstrably false for the majority of Crises. That is it is an unreliable indicator.

Thus, we see that the model for the
saeculum put forth in Generations was
essentially abandoned in The Fourth Turning. --Mike Alexander

Excellent post, Mr. Alexander!
I would like to express my desire
to see Messrs Strauss and Howe
take some time and
address some of your well stated points
here at T4T.com.







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-05-20 18:03 ]</font>

Mike, your analysis is brilliant. And it is so obvious too:

On 2002-05-20 17:27, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

When historians are asked to rank Presidents in order of greatness, the top three places are typically occupied by the above two gray champions and a third great man: George Washington. Washington was clearly the single most important figure of the Revolutionary Crisis, playing the major leadership role in both the War of Independence and the post-Constitution government. Surely his role in the Revolution Crisis is completely analogous to the roles played by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt in their respective Crises.

This is so unbelievably clear. Washington was so clearly the Revolutionary 4T Gray Champion that it isn't funny. The authors obviously got caught up in some generational hubris in concluding that these GCs always have to be of that "highest caste," their own Prophet generation.

The leaders who played the role of gray champion in these three crises were Nomads or even Heroes. When we see that these three Crises have Nomad gray champions, the identification of George Washington as the paramount Gray Champion in the Revolutionary Crisis is perfectly consistent with *most* Crises.

This would be consistent with the shortening of the saeculum. We would expect Nomad GCs in earlier saecula since Prophets were so old by the time the 4T rolled around. With today's shorter generations (and consequently shorter saecula), we would expect Prophets.

This fact may account for the nature of different 4Ts given that earlier 4Ts were dominated by the Nomad archetype and more recent ones by the Prophet archetype. The early Nomad 4Ts (Glorious and Revolutionary) decentralized power and authority while the more recent 4Ts (Civil War and Great Depression) consolidated power and authority. And this might explain, in part, why I as a Nomad have always liked the Glorious and Revolutionary 4Ts but have never been big on the Civil War and Great Depression 4Ts. Something to think about anyway.

In the Fourth Turning, the authors acknowledge this fact indirectly by noting that generation length has declined over time, and by moving their estimate for the beginning of the next Crisis era from 2013 to 2005, at which point the oldest prophets would be only 62--hardly elders.

OK, let me pin it down more precisely. Back when there were longer generations and consequently longer saecula, the GC was likely to be Nomad or possibly late Prophet. Today, with shorter generations and consequently shorter saecula, the GC is likely to be Prophet or even Artist. So McCain and Nader are not ruled out. If GCs could be Nomads in the past, they can certainly be Artists today. The point is that the world does not revolve around Prophets to the extent Prophets think.

On 2002-05-20 18:47, Stonewall Patton wrote:
The point is that the world does not revolve around Prophets to the extent Prophets think.

That is not orthodoxy, Mr. Patton. The point is that the world does not revolve around Prophets to the extent Prophets wish or dream...thinking is for the <S>lower orders</S> other Gens.

On 2002-05-20 18:57, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-05-20 18:47, Stonewall Patton wrote:
The point is that the world does not revolve around Prophets to the extent Prophets think.

That is not orthodoxy, Mr. Patton. The point is that the world does not revolve around Prophets to the extent Prophets wish or dream...thinking is for the <S>lower orders</S> other Gens.

Good point, Mr. Saari. In fact my first choice of verb was believe. However I got distracted and had to leave my desk before posting. When I came back, I changed it to think forgetting completely that I had deliberately avoided using that verb originally.

On 2002-05-20 18:47, Stonewall Patton wrote:

OK, let me pin it down more precisely. Back when there were longer generations and consequently longer saecula, the GC was likely to be Nomad or possibly late Prophet. Today, with shorter generations and consequently shorter saecula, the GC is likely to be Prophet or even Artist. So McCain and Nader are not ruled out. If GCs could be Nomads in the past, they can certainly be Artists today. The point is that the world does not revolve around Prophets to the extent Prophets think.

Two more points....One: The dramatic lengthening of the human life span in the past hundred years has resulted in a present-day situation where an unprecedented number of Prophets and Artists will be around during the current/next Fourth Turning. There is no saecular law stating that the next GC cannot be an early-wave Prophet or even an Artist. John McCain is mentioned often in this forum as a possible GC-- here, we have the possibility of a Boomerized Silent (much as Carter was a Silentized GI) as a Grey Champion. Mr. McCain may have taken on a more Prophet-like persona due to his experience in the Vietnam War. Another possibility is Rudy Giuliani, a barely-Boomer ('43) who's been hailed as "America's Mayor" in the aftermath of 911.

Point two: Regarding Nomad GC's, one can hardly argue that Adolf Hitler was Germany's "Grey Champion" (for lack of another, more vulgar term) during the Great Power saeculum, every bit as FDR was America's and Churchill was Britain's. Even with longer lifespans and shorter saecula, it is still possible for a Nomad to serve as GC.

On 2002-05-20 19:56, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Point two: Regarding Nomad GC's, one can hardly argue that Adolf Hitler was Germany's "Grey Champion" (for lack of another, more vulgar term) during the Great Power saeculum, every bit as FDR was America's and Churchill was Britain's. Even with longer lifespans and shorter saecula, it is still possible for a Nomad to serve as GC.

Has anyone actually run the German saeculum? Off the top of my head, I want to say that a German 1T likely began about 1871 or 1872. If so, might the first German Nomad birth year have been later than 1889 (Hitler's birthyear)? In other words, are we sure that he was a Nomad and not a Prophet on the Nomad cusp? If Nomads are typically "Leave Me Alone" anti-authoritarians, either libertarians or anarchists, then uber-authoritarian Hitler was a very atypical Nomad. He would fit more easily as a very disturbed Prophet (obviously from the "conservative" side of the Boomer War), in my estimation.

I think S&H have well documented the four phase cycle of modern history. But maybe their interpretation of the *cause* of the cycle is uncertain. They are, perhaps, a little like Copernicus and Galileo and Tycho and Kepler, deducing the heliocentric planetary motions but not yet aware of gravitation. Maybe we are putting to much emphasis on what generation is where, and should look to what is happening in society, if we want to decide how close the next 4T is, or if it has already started.

Probably the Fall of Bismarck in 1890, two years after William II came to the throne in 1888, was the catalyst for the German Awakening. Lots of social and cultural movements swirled through Germany in the 1890s; socialism, modern arts, theosophy, etc. (one of those was, unfortunately, anti-Semitism).

So it is plausible that Hitler was on the cusp; depending on where you draw the lines. I would say the Lost probably began in 1888 or 1886 in Germany.

On the other hand, I'm not sure *German* Nomads would fit the profile of Generation X American Nomads. Were there many libertarians in late 19th century Germany? I doubt it; mostly aristocratic conservatives, nationalists, socialists, Catholics, etc.

On 2002-05-21 00:08, Eric A Meece wrote:

Probably the Fall of Bismarck in 1890, two years after William II came to the throne in 1888, was the catalyst for the German Awakening.

Surely, that is the event (if the 1T began about 1871). The whole face of Germany changed with the departure of Bismarck.

So it is plausible that Hitler was on the cusp; depending on where you draw the lines. I would say the Lost probably began in 1888 or 1886 in Germany.

I suppose the actual turn could have occurred in 1891 since so many of these things are delayed a year (e.g. 1946 and 1964 in US). If so, then imagine the first German Nomad was probably born about 1888 or 1889. Hitler was indeed right on the cusp.

On the other hand, I'm not sure *German* Nomads would fit the profile of Generation X American Nomads. Were there many libertarians in late 19th century Germany? I doubt it; mostly aristocratic conservatives, nationalists, socialists, Catholics, etc.

I would think that the same general rule would apply to Nomads: they are more individualist relative to other generations. German Nomads would probably be a little less individualistic but still seek more freedom relative to other generations.

Hitler was a harcore collectivist and that sounds more Prophet. In fact he sounds like a dead ringer for the "conservative" side of the Prophet War with that "personality conflict" with opposing Prophets being of paramount importance. That explains the harsh treatment of communists and socialists. He wanted to restore Germany to the glory of the 1T under Bismarck by blotting out the leftist side of the 2T.

On 2002-05-21 00:08, Eric A Meece wrote:

On the other hand, I'm not sure *German* Nomads would fit the profile of Generation X American Nomads. Were there many libertarians in late 19th century Germany? I doubt it; mostly aristocratic conservatives, nationalists, socialists, Catholics, etc.

The United States is alone among western countries to have a strong libertarian tradtion, especially on the Conservative Right of politics. American conservatives unlike Australian conservatives uphold things like unlimited free speech (Australian conservatives are opposed to the notion of a Bill of Rights, which I oppose as well). Germany never had that tradtion.

I have always taken the GC notion as a metaphor and would argue that Prophet insistence that the GC be a Prophet is a sign of generational hubris. The whole discussion on 19th Century Germany can be found on the old Western Europe thread where several years ago David McGuinness and I had a lengthy exchange with David Kaiser who insisted, in typical Boomer fashion, that Hitler could not be a Prophet, emphasizing his Nomad traits, McGuiness insisting on his Prophet status, and my arguing that, while there are Nomad traits in the younger Hitler, he becomes more Prophetic as he aged, and was demonstrably Germany's Grey Champion in the 1930s and 40s.

I have found Mr. Lamb's insistence that there are too many Silents in today's leadership for a Fourth Turning to be underway a result of a perhaps too slavish adherence to the Strauss & Howe model, which Dr. Alexander has just nicely poked some holes in.

Adaptive leadership in Crises is not new. During the 19th Century British Crisis (1857-1873), the first part was dominated by Lord Palmerston, aged 73 at its start and seconded by former Prime Minister Lord John Russell, who was age 64. I maintain that Palmerston was a GC of the kind postulated by S & H, providing strong and visionary leadership, while Russell was more of a waffler, an Adaptive characteristic.

Turning to the 1930s, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Leon Blum and Edouard Daladier show the danger countries run when indecisive Adaptives are at the helm, especially when encountering a determined Prophet like Hitler, who does not play the game by the rules Adaptives so loving adhere to.

I have said before that I voted for Bush in 2000, not because I had any illusions about his intellectual acumen, but because he would surround himself with strong Silents (Cheney and Powell, with Rumsfeld thrown into the bargain) in hopes that the imminent crisis would be handled, not in the disastrous fashion of Daladier and Chamberlain, but more like Palmerston, who managed Britain through the first part of a Crisis so tame some on these boards don't even think it was one. I hope I was voting for a mild winter, but only time will tell. I am apprehensive about Boomer leadership as presently constituted, believing as I do that the Culture Wars are inconsequental and the biggest waste of time and energy in my lifetime. With Mr. Saari, I have doubts that Boomers will ever grow up.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Tom Mazanec wrote: I think S&H have well documented the four phase cycle of modern history. But maybe their interpretation of the *cause* of the cycle is uncertain.

Mike replies: Exactly! The observation that (1) there is a cycle (2) it has something to do with pyschologically-defined generations (3) it has four phases; appears to be fairly solid. The *explanation* given, that a "constellation" of three generations *causes* the cycle is probably wrong. In my Kondratiev book I present some alternate explanations.

It is important to note that even if we don't know what *causes* the cycle we can still use it. The ancients were able use their entirely empirical "calendar" to present the seasonal cycle with complete accuracy, even though their various explanations for the cycle (e.g. Persephone and the seven pomegranate seeds) were completely wrong.

But for us to use it we have to be careful to stick with empirical observations with demonstrated correlation with past cycles. We should not "argue from theory". Marc has clearly shown that according to S&H *theory* the Crisis CANNOT be starting now, as there are too many Silents. His argument is flawless. He is quite right, if the S&H theory is correct, the Crisis is ~10 years away.

I have countered that the theory was invalidated by the addition of 10 more turnings, all of which were too long for a generational constellation model to work. I also predicted here in August 2000 ( http://www.fourthturning.com/cgi-bin...re/a.cgi/3--41 ) that the Crisis was already underway. If this prediction turns out to be correct it would be direct evidence against the S&H model for the cycle.

Marc has also shown a number of plots of interesting trends that he uses to support the contention that the Crisis is still far away. None of the plots extend over more than a saeculum however. So we don't know that these trends were correlated with past cycles in the way that Marc is implying. That is, the use of these trends as cycle markers has not been corroborated.

I use trend analysis over centuries in several variables that reveals a set of nested cycles: the saeculum, the half-saeculum (Kondratiev cycle), and the half-Kondratiev (Stock cycle) in my Kondratiev book, which I use to gradually build the case for this cycle scheme.

On the Material Cause thread I have extended trend analysis (for one variable) back 3000 years to broadly corroborate Dave McGuiness's saeculum scheme over this time period.

******************************************
Several people on this site have speculated on the existence of a double saeculum cycle and an even longer "super saeculum" cycle which would extend this series of nested cycles in the longer direction.

Bob Bronson on the Longwaves board has hypothesized a series of shorter nested market cycles: annual (1 yr), biannual (2 yrs), Kitchen (4 yrs), Juglar (8 yr), Kuznets (16 yr) BAAC supercycle (32), Kondratiev (64 yr), a 128 year cycle and a 250 year cycle. The Kitchen, Juglar, Kuznets, and Kondratiev cycles were all first described by the economists whose names they bear. The Kitchen cycle is also known as the Presidential or "4-year" cycle. What Bob calls the BAAC (Bronson Asset Allocation Cycle) Supercycle I call the stock cycle (I think naming cycles after oneself is sort of fatuous). The 128 year cycle would be the saeculum.

I disagree with Bob since his cycles corresponding to the saeculum and the historical K-cycle are too long). Also my analysis for the stock cycle goes back further than his and I show that the stock cycle was still a half-Kondratiev cycle even back when the K-cycle was shorter (~54 years). Since the Civil War anomaly, the Kondratiev cycle has shifted from being a half-saeculum to a full saeculum. As a result, the saeculum has shortened (as we here have detected) and the K-cycle has lengthened (as Bob has detected).

Bob doesn't use the saeculum so he has this idea that the stock cycle has to be 16 years long (to go along with his nested cycle scheme) whereas I think it is 18 years long (1/4 of a 72 year saeculum). As a result, Bob was bearish and (probably) exitted in 1997. He believed (at the time) that the bull market had ended in 1998 (1982+16=1998). I got bearish and exitted in 1999 and wrote in my first book that the bull market would likely end in 2000 (1982+18=2000). It did end in 2000 and since then the market has gone down enough for me to get partially back in at lower prices, whereas Bob needs it to go down much further to justify his earlier exit. So far the market simply has not cooperated (he has been calling for a 3000-4000 point Dow drop every few months since Jan 1999 when he came on to the Longwaves board). Right after Sept 21, (when the Dow had *already* fallen thousands of points) he was calling for yet ANOTHER crash. :wink:

Hence his nasty tone in his posts to me that Marc picked up on.

_________________
Mike Alexander, author of Stock Cycles: Why stocks won't beat money markets over the next 20 years and
The Kondratiev Cycle: A generational interpretation http://www.net-link.net/~malexan/STOCK_CYCLES.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-05-21 07:03 ]</font>

On 2002-05-21 00:08, Eric A Meece wrote:




On the other hand, I'm not sure *German* Nomads would fit the profile of Generation X American Nomads. Were there many libertarians in late 19th century Germany?

There were classic Liberals in the Rhineland as Germany was united. They were to be swamped by the National Liberals who put the emphasis on National rather than Liberal.