Originally Posted by Heliotrope

I wonder how much interest will be shown tonight in the Academy Awards. Of course, if people are interested and do watch, that does not mean we're still in a 3T. It just means we want to escape.

That's exactly why I tuned in to the Oscars last night. The war coverage is interesting up to a point, but after awhile it got too repetitive and too depressing.

I also think there's a reason the Orgy thread on this website has been so active. It's a little less active than it was prior to our invasion of Iraq, but I think this is temporary because we've been distracted. That it continues to be active--and to avoid the usual petty quarrelling so common on other threads--to me simply means that we fourthturners, like everyone else, need to seek comfort and cobble together a sort of community, even if it's only an online one.

It makes us all feel a little bit safer.

I feel the same way.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I doubt the world will much care. No offense intended.

But I do care.

You can try to squelch me by saying that my opinions don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

You can hammer me softly with propaganda while Marc Lamb fires off his howitzers overhead.

But I'm not going away.

I don't want to silence you.

Maybe not, but I do get the feeling you're trying to discourage me. Otherwise why make the comment that the world probably doesn't care?

I'm making the point that the peace movement has missed the point. No amount of protesting will alter the world's perception of America, because it isn't about Iraq.

I agree that Iraq is only part of the pattern of a reckless foreign policy on the part of this administration.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

If this be 4T then Nomads presently occupy the Hero soldier role. This may provide new material for post-Crisis editions of the S&H books.

Perhaps. Or it could be that the X/Mill boundary will be pushed back a couple of years, to 1979/80. There will be plenty of 22 and just-turned-23 year olds on the front lines now. I'd say the majority of soldiers are likely younger than 23.

I've occasionally thought that the Gen-X/Millennial boundary might end up being pushed back to 1978/1979, especially if 9/11 was the 4T Catalyst. As for the Millennial/Homelander boundary, I'm tentatively holding out for 2000/2001 (assuming a 4T lasting some 20 years).

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Unforetunately, Al Qaida demonstrated their fanaticism with September 11th. Even if the US gov't were to completely withdraw from the Middle East tomorrow, I would anticipate terrorist attacks for years to come.

Perhaps the 4T will last 27 years. If we get sensible post-Regeneracy administrations it will still take a couple decades for the younger fanatics to age into couch potatos.

Perhaps. But if Al Qaeda/Qaida is mostly liquidated as it presently exists within a year or two, and if the US were to withdraw from the Middle East in 2005, then Al Qaeda would not have enough fanatics to carry out more Sept.11ths. They only get followers for anti-American terrorism because they can get people to blame us for their troubles. Without US troops there, plus our support for Israeli occupation of Palestine, the anti-American propaganda would have little or no resonance with young people there.

If we don't withdraw though, then you are correct (although I don't know what you mean by post-Regeneracy administrations-- Bush will never inspire any so-called regeneracy. All we need to get back to 3T for a few more years is a smart post-illegitimacy administration)

I doubt the X/Millennial boundary would be pushed back just because some 20+ year olds went to Iraq. Pre 1982 cohorts are already Gen Xers. I'd say the Millennial boundaries are likely 1982-2000, although the latter year is still not definite. It could be 1998, or it could still be 2005.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

If this be 4T then Nomads presently occupy the Hero soldier role. This may provide new material for post-Crisis editions of the S&H books.

Millie young males (21 and under) represent a brewing crisis. They are numerous, underserved by our educational and economic institutions and temperamentally amenable to participating in the war against militant Islam. In the last baby boom (1946-1958) young males were given preferential treatment in schools and the workforce and when necessary were willing to spend time in inner-directed activity. Millie young males, on the other hand, are discriminated against in school (females earn better grades, are more likely to enroll and graduate from college and the beneficiaries of affirmative action policies) and in the workforce. In simple terms, they are looking for something to do. The military is the most obvious choice. This solution is tailor made for the Bush policy and additional fodder for evidence we are in a 4T.

Originally Posted by eameece

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Unforetunately, Al Qaida demonstrated their fanaticism with September 11th. Even if the US gov't were to completely withdraw from the Middle East tomorrow, I would anticipate terrorist attacks for years to come.

Perhaps the 4T will last 27 years. If we get sensible post-Regeneracy administrations it will still take a couple decades for the younger fanatics to age into couch potatos.

Perhaps. But if Al Qaeda/Qaida is mostly liquidated as it presently exists within a year or two, and if the US were to withdraw from the Middle East in 2005, then Al Qaeda would not have enough fanatics to carry out more Sept.11ths. They only get followers for anti-American terrorism because they can get people to blame us for their troubles. Without US troops there, plus our support for Israeli occupation of Palestine, the anti-American propaganda would have little or no resonance with young people there.

If we don't withdraw though, then you are correct (although I don't know what you mean by post-Regeneracy administrations-- Bush will never inspire any so-called regeneracy. All we need to get back to 3T for a few more years is a smart post-illegitimacy administration)

I doubt the X/Millennial boundary would be pushed back just because some 20+ year olds went to Iraq. Pre 1982 cohorts are already Gen Xers. I'd say the Millennial boundaries are likely 1982-2000, although the latter year is still not definite. It could be 1998, or it could still be 2005.

What happened to "Generation X-d"?

"Explorers, part two," 1982-84 (Generation X-d) (Uranus and Neptune in Sagittarius, Pluto in Libra) Temperamentally this exuberant group is more like the "mellow ones," but they are also definitely "explorers." They are undisciplined and unfocused, but probably very positive and mature otherwise. This transitional sub-generation will be a great source of visionaries, adventurers, humorists, storytellers, writers and philosophers, but don't look for too many great political leaders.

Is it possible to have a 3T war during the very early 4T? Gulf War II reminds of the first Gulf War-it does not feel as though the country-that is, the USA (I can't speak for Iraq)-is in the grip of total war. And I very much doubt that Dubya is the Grey Champion. Whatever Dubya's true feelings about "the Axis of Evil," Gulf War II seems almost like a side show.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Is it possible to have a 3T war during the very early 4T? Gulf War II reminds of the first Gulf War-it does not feel as though the country-that is, the USA (I can't speak for Iraq)-is in the grip of total war. And I very much doubt that Dubya is the Grey Champion. Whatever Dubya's true feelings about "the Axis of Evil," Gulf War II seems almost like a side show.

However you can saw the GW Bush does see himself as a 4T leader in the mould of Churchill or Lincoln. The adminstration are obessed about this great new world order they are creating his presidency will be remembered by for generations to come, mind you this might not happen. The next few years will probably give us the answer.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Is it possible to have a 3T war during the very early 4T? Gulf War II reminds of the first Gulf War-it does not feel as though the country-that is, the USA (I can't speak for Iraq)-is in the grip of total war. And I very much doubt that Dubya is the Grey Champion. Whatever Dubya's true feelings about "the Axis of Evil," Gulf War II seems almost like a side show.

Dubya is no Gray Champion. I'd say he's the Prince of Darkness. He's evil, he scares me.

Actually most of those captured POWs seem to be about 30.
However most reports I have read said that many soldiers are very young. One called them "teenagers."
I am not as sensitive about this subject as you may think, but talking about what the boundary may be pushed back to is irrelevant as only two people can do that, and I think it is unlikely they will, unless there is some guy born in 1980 who ascends to the public consciousness as a hero.
This is not likely knowing my peers.

I would like to ask you some questions about our whiny Pentagon.
The guys that start the war illegally (only the security council can authorize force, and there has been no threat established of imminent danger) and then complain that the Iraqis are not acting according to the "rules of war."

Then they cite the Geneva Convention on POWs, when the US has ignored the Geneva Convention in dealing with the POWs at Guantanamo Bay.

The message is clear, the US plays by its own rules, everyone else must play according to the rules that they have decided must be played at the time.

Which is why we failed to procure a UN resolution in the first place.
Then they whine about French investments in Iraq, like if France invaded Saudi Arabia (or even Iraq in 1987) we wouldn't be doing the same thing.

The final lesson, as many Gulf War vets will tell you.
Don't trust or do business with Uncle Sam.
He'll give you anthrax in 1986, and then kill you for possessing it in 2003.
He'll give you a strange disease in 1968, or 1991 in a war, and then he won't pay for your health insurance.
In fact maybe he'll make it illegal for you to sue him.

It really is an outrage. Hopefully we can spread our freedom and democracy to the citizens of Iraq.

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

What happened to "Generation X-d"?

"Explorers, part two," 1982-84 (Generation X-d) (Uranus and Neptune in Sagittarius, Pluto in Libra) Temperamentally this exuberant group is more like the "mellow ones," but they are also definitely "explorers." They are undisciplined and unfocused, but probably very positive and mature otherwise. This transitional sub-generation will be a great source of visionaries, adventurers, humorists, storytellers, writers and philosophers, but don't look for too many great political leaders.

That was my idea, which I decided upon before T4T came out. So it's not the S&H boundary.

What do you think, william; do you feel more like an explorer, or a civic hero?

If the boundary ends up as 1984, then Millennials (Gen Y) might be a pretty short generation if the Crisis has now begun. We don't know if it has yet. In my reckonings, Generation Y goes to 2003.

quote]

Right, Xer. It is Dubya's war. Things could have continued to be left in the state they were in. Saddam was mostly or entirely disarmed anyway-- and Clinton helped. I hope the world realizes that this war is Dubya's war. Then they will not hate America, but realize this is only a temporary aberration foisted upon us by an illegitimate and incompetent regime. As President Chirac (I believe) said, if the hanging chads had fallen differently, we might not have been in this whole mess. Regime change begins at home. We'd better do it.[/quote]

Do you really believe that those we are fighting in the Middle East differentiate between Republicans and Democrats? Right or wrong better or worse we are in this now and I suspect that winning would be preferable to losing.

After seeing the reception that was given to Michael Moore received at the Academy awards ceremony and the jokes made about it on letterman and leno do you really doubt that we are in a fourth turning?

I like the third turning too Mr. Meece it was fun, I wish it could have lasted but too much evidence has mounted that it is over. I really enjoyed the third personally I had a hell of a time, but we are in this now and had better win.

As far as the issue of is Bush the gray champion, folks this is supposed to last 20 years he can only serve one more 4 year term. This is roughly a 20 year process, if the authors are correct. Assuming 9-11 was the catalyst we are only a couple of years into it. Even if the election of 2000 was the catalyst ( which I doubt) we are only roughly 3 years into it.

I think you are letting the fact that you enjoyed the third turning keep you from seeing that it is over. Wishing it is so don’t make it so. If the authors are correct it wont come back for a long time. If I live to be around 100 I will see the next third turning but I doubt it will make much difference to me at that point.

Right, Xer. It is Dubya's war. Things could have continued to be left in the state they were in. Saddam was mostly or entirely disarmed anyway-- and Clinton helped. I hope the world realizes that this war is Dubya's war. Then they will not hate America, but realize this is only a temporary aberration foisted upon us by an illegitimate and incompetent regime. As President Chirac (I believe) said, if the hanging chads had fallen differently, we might not have been in this whole mess. Regime change begins at home. We'd better do it.

Do you really believe that those we are fighting in the Middle East differentiate between Republicans and Democrats? Right or wrong better or worse we are in this now and I suspect that winning would be preferable to losing.

But bubba, "those we are fighting" are not really our enemies; that's the point. So winning or losing has no relevance. The "crisis" is that this war is occuring, when it should not occur. That is the only "crisis" that exists. The Democrats are complicit in this error, so you're right, party labels make little difference. If the president who started this war was a Democrat (just like LBJ was), it would be just as wrong. And I also demonstrated against Clinton's bombing campaign in 1998.

What is "preferable" is that we learn from this experience (however long it lasts) that war should be a last resort, not a means of settling differences, and that we learn that we the USA have no right to be the world's righteous bully boy who pushes the world around, just because we can. There is no doubt the USA will "win" this war on Iraq, so it makes no difference at all whether it is anyone's "preference" whether we "win" or not.

I am not "behind our president" just because we are in war, because the war he started is unjust. Just because the war has started, does not make it any less unjust, any more than the Vietnam War was just, just because it was already going on when protests began.

You continue to ignore the protests, and say either that they are not happening, or shouldn't happen, because this is a 4T. You reveal your conservative bias starkly by such statements. In fact, the protests are the real content of the 4T, if it has begun.

After seeing the reception that was given to Michael Moore received at the Academy awards ceremony and the jokes made about it on letterman and leno do you really doubt that we are in a fourth turning?

I didn't see Letterman/Leno, but Moore received both cheers and boos. It shows that the war is controversial. It shows us that that's really what's happening-- controversy, not total war. Does this controversy mean we are in 4T, bubba?

I like the third turning too Mr. Meece-- it was fun, I wish it could have lasted but too much evidence has mounted that it is over. I really enjoyed the third personally I had a hell of a time, but we are in this now and had better win....

This 3T was itself a joke; nothing happened except escapism and distraction. It was not fun, it was very boring. According to the cycles of destiny, we had a chance for a renaissance; a time when a new culture came to fruition. We blew it by allowing our corporate masters to dominate our lives, and now we may have let them plunge us into an early crisis. In either case, the real content of this time is the problem of being dominated by our corporate masters, not by terrorists.

I think you are letting the fact that you enjoyed the third turning keep you from seeing that it is over. Wishing it is so don?t make it so. If the authors are correct it wont come back for a long time. If I live to be around 100 I will see the next third turning but I doubt it will make much difference to me at that point.

Just because someone might not think we are in 4T yet, does not mean we wish it not to be in 4T yet. You like to assume I guess, that if people disagree with you, their ideas are based on wishes and prejudices, while your ideas are totally objective. You might want to look first at the moat in your own eye, bubba.

Originally Posted by bubba

After seeing the reception that was given to Michael Moore received at the Academy awards ceremony and the jokes made about it on letterman and leno do you really doubt that we are in a fourth turning?

Moore notwithstanding, Mr. Meece is quite right. And no matter how many countries we liberate from now till then, you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, or we are seriously invaded by foreign foes along with a considerable anti-America force of Americans within.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Moore notwithstanding, Mr. Meece is quite right. And no matter how many countries we liberate from now till then, you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, or we are seriously invaded by foreign foes along with a considerable anti-America force of Americans within.

Hmmm. Your 4T criterion doesn't sound like 1931 to me.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Is it possible to have a 3T war during the very early 4T? Gulf War II reminds of the first Gulf War-it does not feel as though the country-that is, the USA (I can't speak for Iraq)-is in the grip of total war. And I very much doubt that Dubya is the Grey Champion. Whatever Dubya's true feelings about "the Axis of Evil," Gulf War II seems almost like a side show.

However you can saw the GW Bush does see himself as a 4T leader in the mould of Churchill or Lincoln. The adminstration are obessed about this great new world order they are creating his presidency will be remembered by for generations to come, mind you this might not happen. The next few years will probably give us the answer.

Dubya is pushing a transforming idea. As weapons of mass destruction become more common, it is in the worlds' interest to prevent aggressive tyrants from getting access. During the industrial age, when gunpowder and similar explosives dominated the battlefield, we could better afford to allow nations to be sovereign. The major powers could protect themselves from rogue powers without great risk. As chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and plausibly deniable terrorist delivery become a real risk, something has got to be done about it.

I think something ought to be done about it, but don't necessarily think that Dubya has it right yet. Iraq is an extension of the Somalia - Balkans - Middle East - East Timor pattern of post Cold War ethnic-religious conflicts. During the Clinton Administration, I advocated a pattern of international intervention should severe enough human rights violation take place. I considered genocide, famine, ethnic cleansing and organized rape as sufficient cause for international intervention. If a regime has sufficient disregard for human rights, the population they rule, or a life threatening inability to rule, it is proper for the international community to step in. This new international activism and cooperation was building and becoming a new norm during the Clinton administration.

Dubya is putting the emphasis on defense against terror rather than protection of human rights. He is putting the emphasis on preemption, rather than containment, though we have seen that containment is not sufficient in places like Somalia, the Balkans or East Timor. Dubya is also putting the emphasis on superpower unilateral action rather than international consensus. All of these differences of emphasis are debatable. The world is indeed debating. The Clinton era international consensus on intervention has broken down.

Dubya is also emphasizing the security - military aspects. He has large Gray Champion sized ideas, but only in the security area. Crises transform many aspects of society. I anticipate major shifts as necessary in economic, ecological, political, and ethnic-religious areas. Dubya is in "On to Richmond" mode. He seems to think if one takes the enemy capital, one need not address the underlying issues driving the violence.

I do not see Iraq as the Big War that will dominate the crisis and resolve the issues in question. Like the Spanish Civil War or Bleeding Kansas, Iraq will illustrate the key issues that must be addressed, increase the tension, and raise the stakes.

In short, Dubya may well be right that the sovereignty of nations and the 'right' of nations to develop and use any weapon they please is very dangerous. I believe he is wrong if he thinks the United States can transform the world using force. Someone or something might have to be given the right and power to revoke a nation's sovereignty, to demand and force regime change. I am not surprised that many nations object to the President of the United States assuming such a right and power unilaterally.

I anticipate victory in the conventional war. I am surprised that no major terrorist attacks have yet occurred. Apparently, Saddam believes such an attack would lose him the battle for global opinion. I am very dubious about the hopefully pending reconstruction. Democracies require a culture that believes in democracy. The new Iraqi regime is apt to be either a yankee puppet party, or a new tyrany. Neither seems satisfactory.

I note the conservatives are concerned about security, while the liberals are more aware of the underlying issues. It is not an either/or proposition. The eventual true Gray Champion will have to address both sets of problems.

On a less serious note, I bumped into the following on the net. Perhaps we are in a 4T after all?

You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Is it possible to have a 3T war during the very early 4T? Gulf War II reminds of the first Gulf War-it does not feel as though the country-that is, the USA (I can't speak for Iraq)-is in the grip of total war. And I very much doubt that Dubya is the Grey Champion. Whatever Dubya's true feelings about "the Axis of Evil," Gulf War II seems almost like a side show.

According to S&H total war comes nearer to the climax of the Crisis, not at the beginning.

Only in the anomolous civil war crisis did total war come quickly on the heels of the catalyst. And that crisis did not have a good ending.

I know we are of the generations that want everything immediately, but in this case, I think I'd rather wait.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Moore notwithstanding, Mr. Meece is quite right. And no matter how many countries we liberate from now till then, you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, or we are seriously invaded by foreign foes along with a considerable anti-America force of Americans within.

Hmmm. Your 4T criterion doesn't sound like 1931 to me.

You don't know your history very well. From mid-1932 to mid-1933 this country was on the very verge of armed insurection. This was the case in 1861, and 1775 as well. In 1672, King Phillips nearly cast the bloody Englishlanders back into the cold and freezing Atlantic.

That FDR was able to stem the revolutionary tide that was building in March of 1933, speaks well of him and of a country willing to withhold it's violent impulse (though later, both would emerge in various forms) for the dream of a better future for their children.

Strauss and Howe clearly speak to this issue in both their books. Somehow liberals have skipped those parts, obviously, and have swallowed the myth about how wonderful it was when 25% of the workforce couldn't find work in America. That it was a Democrat that steered the machine through that time, I think, has something to do with this.

But it has nothing to do with the next fourth. Nothing to do with it at all.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Moore notwithstanding, Mr. Meece is quite right. And no matter how many countries we liberate from now till then, you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, or we are seriously invaded by foreign foes along with a considerable anti-America force of Americans within.

Hmmm. Your 4T criterion doesn't sound like 1931 to me.

You don't know your history very well. From mid-1932 to mid-1933 this country was on the very verge of armed insurection. This was the case in 1861, and 1775 as well. In 1672, King Phillips nearly cast the bloody Englishlanders back into the cold and freezing Atlantic.

That FDR was able to stem the revolutionary tide that was building in March of 1933, speaks well of him and of a country willing to withhold it's violent impulse (though later, both would emerge in various forms) for the dream of a better future for their children.

Strauss and Howe clearly speak to this issue in both their books. Somehow liberals have skipped those parts, obviously, and have swallowed the myth about how wonderful it was when 25% of the workforce couldn't find work in America. That it was a Democrat that steered the machine through that time, I think, has something to do with this.

But it has nothing to do with the next fourth. Nothing to do with it at all.

There was lots of unrest by 1932, granted. I just don't recall that there was an extraordinary amount blood shed (certainly not compared to the peaks of the Crises in 1775-1781 or 1860-1865 or 1942-1945. Remember, you said "you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, ".

And anyway, what about 1930-1931? It took a while for Americans to realize that they weren't in Kansas anymore.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Is it possible to have a 3T war during the very early 4T? Gulf War II reminds of the first Gulf War-it does not feel as though the country-that is, the USA (I can't speak for Iraq)-is in the grip of total war. And I very much doubt that Dubya is the Grey Champion. Whatever Dubya's true feelings about "the Axis of Evil," Gulf War II seems almost like a side show.

Dubya is no Gray Champion. I'd say he's the Prince of Darkness. He's evil, he scares me.

I agree he's probably not the Gray Champion, mainly because I don't think we're in 4T yet.

But either way, S&H never promised the Gray Champion would be either good or evil, only that he/she was coming. Their theory explicitly permits the possibility of a totally evil or utterly insane Gray Champion.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Moore notwithstanding, Mr. Meece is quite right. And no matter how many countries we liberate from now till then, you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, or we are seriously invaded by foreign foes along with a considerable anti-America force of Americans within.

Hmmm. Your 4T criterion doesn't sound like 1931 to me.

No, but unfortunately it sounds quite reminiscent of several previous Fourth Turnings. It's not a sure thing, though, let's all just hope that pray this prediction is wrong!

Originally Posted by eameece

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

What happened to "Generation X-d"?

"Explorers, part two," 1982-84 (Generation X-d) (Uranus and Neptune in Sagittarius, Pluto in Libra) Temperamentally this exuberant group is more like the "mellow ones," but they are also definitely "explorers." They are undisciplined and unfocused, but probably very positive and mature otherwise. This transitional sub-generation will be a great source of visionaries, adventurers, humorists, storytellers, writers and philosophers, but don't look for too many great political leaders.

That was my idea, which I decided upon before T4T came out. So it's not the S&H boundary.

What do you think, william; do you feel more like an explorer, or a civic hero?

I think I said this a good many times before... I feel like a VERY LATE explorer with some civic hero in me - considering where the planets were lined up on 5/12/84 being right on the cusp makes perfect sense (and where I ultimately fall could be determined by the way this decade ends up)

If the boundary ends up as 1984, then Millennials (Gen Y) might be a pretty short generation if the Crisis has now begun. We don't know if it has yet. In my reckonings, Generation Y goes to 2003.

hmm... 1985-99 would still allow for 15 years; if we include late 84 in that we could get 16 years (if generation lengths are not as fixed as some think, that would not be completely unrealistic)

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Moore notwithstanding, Mr. Meece is quite right. And no matter how many countries we liberate from now till then, you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, or we are seriously invaded by foreign foes along with a considerable anti-America force of Americans within.

Hmmm. Your 4T criterion doesn't sound like 1931 to me.

You don't know your history very well. From mid-1932 to mid-1933 this country was on the very verge of armed insurection. This was the case in 1861, and 1775 as well. In 1672, King Phillips nearly cast the bloody Englishlanders back into the cold and freezing Atlantic.

That FDR was able to stem the revolutionary tide that was building in March of 1933, speaks well of him and of a country willing to withhold it's violent impulse (though later, both would emerge in various forms) for the dream of a better future for their children.

Strauss and Howe clearly speak to this issue in both their books. Somehow liberals have skipped those parts, obviously, and have swallowed the myth about how wonderful it was when 25% of the workforce couldn't find work in America. That it was a Democrat that steered the machine through that time, I think, has something to do with this.

But it has nothing to do with the next fourth. Nothing to do with it at all.

There was lots of unrest by 1932, granted. I just don't recall that there was an extraordinary amount blood shed (certainly not compared to the peaks of the Crises in 1775-1781 or 1860-1865 or 1942-1945. Remember, you said "you will know we are in a fourth turn when Americans are either killing each other enmasse, ".

And anyway, what about 1930-1931? It took a while for Americans to realize that they weren't in Kansas anymore.

If anything this feels a lot more like 1855-60 than anything else (but not much like anything before at all; the closest analog to the war could easily be the Spanish-American!)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Is it possible to have a 3T war during the very early 4T? Gulf War II reminds of the first Gulf War-it does not feel as though the country-that is, the USA (I can't speak for Iraq)-is in the grip of total war. And I very much doubt that Dubya is the Grey Champion. Whatever Dubya's true feelings about "the Axis of Evil," Gulf War II seems almost like a side show.

Dubya is no Gray Champion. I'd say he's the Prince of Darkness. He's evil, he scares me.

I agree he's probably not the Gray Champion, mainly because I don't think we're in 4T yet.

But either way, S&H never promised the Gray Champion would be either good or evil, only that he/she was coming. Their theory explicitly permits the possibility of a totally evil or utterly insane Gray Champion.

Absoutely. There can be no doubt that Adolf Hitler was Germany's Grey Champion during the last 4T, nor that Josef Stalin was Russia's.