Originally Posted by Barbara

Agreed with today's "uses" of Christianity in general. But from what I've read of Farah, do you really think he is a lobbyist hired gun or was that your humor? I had gotten the distinct impression he was very sincere and passionate in his assertions..... :o . I had thought that Farah represented a distinct and sincere voice in America, as HC would probably remind us.

Prior to 911, I enjoyed reading his columns because he represented himself as being somewhere between a conservative and a libertarian and he definitely had not been bought off or otherwise corrupted by the Bush people as had so many other commentators on the Right with their incessant absurd cheerleading of the Bush people's continuous enactment of the Democratic agenda. But since 911 Middle East talk has dominated his columns and from the Likud Party point of view at that (note Farah's complete disregard for the cost in American blood and treasure much less the utter lack of justification for American involvement in that mess over there in the first place). His commitment to something so outside America's interests is so total that surely he is either a hard core Christian dispensationalist or a paid lobbyist. Either way, I don't care. I am an American concerned about my own country, not in false theology or somebody else's country. So I rarely ever bother to read one of Farah's columns all the way through anymore. And here in one of his rare columns unconcerned with the Middle East, he goes off on a pointless pharisaical rant. It really is very disappointing.

This reminds me of Joe Scarborough, who I guess I'd have to rate as more favorable in conviction than Farah at least used to be. I watch Joe regularly, and do not agree with him on many things, but he strikes me as quite willing to disagree vigorously and audibly with his party when their actions don't jive with his convictions. I admire that very much, regardless of what his posit is. And, of course, I'm quite desperate :wink: to hear anyone talk so fervently about their opposition (and mine) of the way we are totally mishandling immigration. Joe regularly feeds me well in that regard. :wink: But on the drug war he regularly raises my blood pressure. I'm pretty in line with Bill Maher on that one. BELIEVE IT. OR NOT. :o 8)

I really do not know what Scarborough is saying these days. In light of the unbelievable propaganda in the American establishment media, I began by no longer watching American news of any sort and ended by ceasing to watch television altogether. I never could fathom those funky college professors who did not own a TV set as a matter of "principle" but surprisingly I find that I do not miss the mess one bit.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

None of us can "prove" that we are in 3T or 4T. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we may be able to look back and say "Obviously the fourth turning had already begun with 911 (or not)".
The touchstone which I keep coming back to is the generational constellation of that book by Strauss and Howe. (remember them? :wink: ) And of those generations I refer to my own, boomer (1950), which keeps me from skating on thin ice by pretending to understand anyone else's gen.
We boomers are supposedly going to be Elders in the 4T. S and H discuss all the various characteristics of the Elder gen in the book, I'm not going to rehash it again here.
Boomers are not in Elder mode at this time. I also don't think that the other generations are quite into their appointed positions yet, but I'm going to stick with my own group which I understand somewhat better.
I believe that this shift into a more sober, serious frame of mind is beginning to happen ( the beginning of awareness of mortality, death of parents, all those wonderful things) but it certainly is only beginning to show up on the social radar at all.
To give credit where due, Marc has consistently pointed out the problem of the generational constellation over the last couple of years....we tend to want to define 3T/4T by events, not by generational positions, which is not how S and H define turnings in the book.

You assume that S&H are correct that turnings are determined solely by generational constellation. That is not proven. Indeed Mike Alexander's predictions based upon economics predicted a 4T catalyst around 2000 (as compared to, first 2013, later 2005, by S&H). Mike does not discount that generational constellation may have something to do wtih it but challenges that it is necessarily the sole determinant.

In any case, turning change is indicated by change in societal mood. For example, it is clear to the hsitorian that the societal mood after 1929 was different from that which existed prior to 1929. Indeed it is our ability to discern a change in mood which provides S&H with a framework in which to offer a theory, generational or otherwise, in the first place.

In order to test S&H's theory, we must first discern whether the societal mood has changed from that which we knew in the roughly 20 years prior to the proposed turning (911 or otherwise). I think it is abundantly clear the mood has changed from that which we knew in the '80s and '90s. We be 4T, but pre-regeneracy 4T which seems to be a source of confusion to a lot of people. There is no necessity that the bulk of the Crisis period to come even concern itself with the Middle East or a "war on terror" or anything else we are discussing today. All that is relevant is the fact that the societal mood is now not what it was through the '80s and '90s; that we crossed a watershed and things suddenly began getting worse and worse and worse. And in the end, S&H's generations are not really out of alignment anyway. But certainly Mike Alexander would get credited with a more accurate prediction.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

None of us can "prove" that we are in 3T or 4T. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we may be able to look back and say "Obviously the fourth turning had already begun with 911 (or not)".
The touchstone which I keep coming back to is the generational constellation of that book by Strauss and Howe. (remember them? :wink: ) And of those generations I refer to my own, boomer (1950), which keeps me from skating on thin ice by pretending to understand anyone else's gen.
We boomers are supposedly going to be Elders in the 4T. S and H discuss all the various characteristics of the Elder gen in the book, I'm not going to rehash it again here.
Boomers are not in Elder mode at this time. I also don't think that the other generations are quite into their appointed positions yet, but I'm going to stick with my own group which I understand somewhat better.
I believe that this shift into a more sober, serious frame of mind is beginning to happen ( the beginning of awareness of mortality, death of parents, all those wonderful things) but it certainly is only beginning to show up on the social radar at all.
To give credit where due, Marc has consistently pointed out the problem of the generational constellation over the last couple of years....we tend to want to define 3T/4T by events, not by generational positions, which is not how S and H define turnings in the book.

You assume that S&H are correct that turnings are determined solely by generational constellation. That is not proven. Indeed Mike Alexander's predictions based upon economics predicted a 4T catalyst around 2000 (as compared to, first 2013, later 2005, by S&H). Mike does not discount that generational constellation may have something to do wtih it but challenges that it is necessarily the sole determinant.

In any case, turning change is indicated by change in societal mood. For example, it is clear to the hsitorian that the societal mood after 1929 was different from that which existed prior to 1929. Indeed it is our ability to discern a change in mood which provides S&H with a framework in which to offer a theory, generational or otherwise, in the first place.

In order to test S&H's theory, we must first discern whether the societal mood has changed from that which we knew in the roughly 20 years prior to the proposed turning (911 or otherwise). I think it is abundantly clear the mood has changed from that which we knew in the '80s and '90s. We be 4T, but pre-regeneracy 4T which seems to be a source of confusion to a lot of people. There is no necessity that the bulk of the Crisis period to come even concern itself with the Middle East or a "war on terror" or anything else we are discussing today. All that is relevant is the fact that the societal mood is now not what it was through the '80s and '90s; that we crossed a watershed and things suddenly began getting worse and worse and worse. And in the end, S&H's generations are not really out of alignment anyway. But certainly Mike Alexander would get credited with a more accurate prediction.

This isn't strictly "evidence", unless you count the mood of an author of fiction in expecting to look back on 9/11 as a catalyst. In any event, it's a cool essay, especially when you consider he probably doesn't have a clue about turnings.

http://silentrunning.tv/archives/002932.html

This isn't strictly "evidence", unless you count the mood of an author of fiction in expecting to look back on 9/11 as a catalyst. In any event, it's a cool essay, especially when you consider he probably doesn't have a clue about turnings.

http://silentrunning.tv/archives/002932.html

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You assume that S&H are correct that turnings are determined solely by generational constellation. That is not proven.

Indeed, if you apply the same math for the 1929 catalyst that I did here (and went into more detail with on another thread) it comes several years late for the GIs, several years early for the Lost and a few years late for the Missionaries. So it's not exact - but it confirms for me that this catalyst wasn't that early. (And I'm glad to have found T4T a year or two before because that at least helps explain what's going on.)

In order to test S&H's theory, we must first discern whether the societal mood has changed from that which we knew in the roughly 20 years prior to the proposed turning (911 or otherwise).

See The Best of Times by Haynes Johnson for plenty of examples of that. The balloon has burst - and anyway I'm thinking more lately about what I remember of 2T (and how much simpler things were then.) 3T seems so jumbled.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You assume that S&H are correct that turnings are determined solely by generational constellation. That is not proven.

Indeed, if you apply the same math for the 1929 catalyst that I did here (and went into more detail with on another thread) it comes several years late for the GIs, several years early for the Lost and a few years late for the Missionaries. So it's not exact - but it confirms for me that this catalyst wasn't that early. (And I'm glad to have found T4T a year or two before because that at least helps explain what's going on.)

In order to test S&H's theory, we must first discern whether the societal mood has changed from that which we knew in the roughly 20 years prior to the proposed turning (911 or otherwise).

See The Best of Times by Haynes Johnson for plenty of examples of that. The balloon has burst - and anyway I'm thinking more lately about what I remember of 2T (and how much simpler things were then.) 3T seems so jumbled.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yet, I can't help remembering Marc's statement: What a Boring 4T.

Land's sakes, Barbara, we're only two years into it, not even, by date.

Of course, you would think that, Brian, you believe we be 4T. :wink:
My new tagline says it all for me.

None of us are old enough to remember the early years of a Crisis, Barbara, not even you.

Technically that is correct. When you folks would tell me that before, I'd just agree and give it to you. But, lately, I'm willing to give myself some credit for my memories and things learned from adults about the 20's and 30's, impressions and memories and other anectodal stuff no one else here has except from reading books. Chris68's emerging theory about mass media's effects on us has me thinking about how these can create false moments. 9/11 could well be something like that. There was nothing like that in the late 20's - early 30's. Almost immediately after Black Tuesday, people's material daily lives were changed, even if in a preventive manner at first, as well as a definitive consistant mood change. The Depression was the biggest event of the century for those still experiencing it as I came of the age to study it in school and listen / observe anectodally. Most of what I've seen since 9/11 is changed only through media, and it has quickly passed.

There's lots more I can offer, but we still either agree or not, because it's only a prediction, and everyone has their own opinions.

I wish I could realistically hope that this would be a boring Crisis, but considering the trio of awesome problems bonking on us, one of which hasn't really manifested yet and none of which we've properly faced, I can't.

Nor I. But, that tells me we've a ways to go and moodier to get. Look, Marc's whole point was, if it IS 4T it's pretty boring stuff, not that it is 4T and it's pretty boring stuff.

Problem One: / Problem Two: / Problem Three:

Those were good assessments of potential problems, but I'd bet them to be more the stuff of the next saeculum's Awakening Divisions / Crisis Resolutions. I do not see things moving that quickly for it to be this time's. Some of that stuff just started forming after this last Awakening....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yet, I can't help remembering Marc's statement: What a Boring 4T.

Land's sakes, Barbara, we're only two years into it, not even, by date.

Of course, you would think that, Brian, you believe we be 4T. :wink:
My new tagline says it all for me.

None of us are old enough to remember the early years of a Crisis, Barbara, not even you.

Technically that is correct. When you folks would tell me that before, I'd just agree and give it to you. But, lately, I'm willing to give myself some credit for my memories and things learned from adults about the 20's and 30's, impressions and memories and other anectodal stuff no one else here has except from reading books. Chris68's emerging theory about mass media's effects on us has me thinking about how these can create false moments. 9/11 could well be something like that. There was nothing like that in the late 20's - early 30's. Almost immediately after Black Tuesday, people's material daily lives were changed, even if in a preventive manner at first, as well as a definitive consistant mood change. The Depression was the biggest event of the century for those still experiencing it as I came of the age to study it in school and listen / observe anectodally. Most of what I've seen since 9/11 is changed only through media, and it has quickly passed.

There's lots more I can offer, but we still either agree or not, because it's only a prediction, and everyone has their own opinions.

I wish I could realistically hope that this would be a boring Crisis, but considering the trio of awesome problems bonking on us, one of which hasn't really manifested yet and none of which we've properly faced, I can't.

Nor I. But, that tells me we've a ways to go and moodier to get. Look, Marc's whole point was, if it IS 4T it's pretty boring stuff, not that it is 4T and it's pretty boring stuff.

Problem One: / Problem Two: / Problem Three:

Those were good assessments of potential problems, but I'd bet them to be more the stuff of the next saeculum's Awakening Divisions / Crisis Resolutions. I do not see things moving that quickly for it to be this time's. Some of that stuff just started forming after this last Awakening....

Barbara:

The first two problems are already part of this saeculum's 4T (whether we are yet in it or not). Problem One is the real reason for 9/11. Problem Two is something you've talked about yourself from time to time.

I suspect the real sticking point for you may lie in Problem Three? If so, consider how totally dependent the world is on oil not only to drive cars, heat houses, produce electricity, and run machinery, but also to feed itself. An oil shortage would result in a food shortage within a year, and famine on a massive scale. And that's just for starters . . .

We face a natural oil shortage that will exceed the artificial one caused by OPEC in the 1970s, and be permanent, starting in about 2010. That's the timeline, and I very much doubt that the next Awakening will be here by then. Other environmental problems, all related, have been growing for decades, but that's the one that will push the whole business into the public consciousness big time.

Barbara:

The first two problems are already part of this saeculum's 4T (whether we are yet in it or not). Problem One is the real reason for 9/11. Problem Two is something you've talked about yourself from time to time.

I suspect the real sticking point for you may lie in Problem Three? If so, consider how totally dependent the world is on oil not only to drive cars, heat houses, produce electricity, and run machinery, but also to feed itself. An oil shortage would result in a food shortage within a year, and famine on a massive scale. And that's just for starters . . .

We face a natural oil shortage that will exceed the artificial one caused by OPEC in the 1970s, and be permanent, starting in about 2010. That's the timeline, and I very much doubt that the next Awakening will be here by then. Other environmental problems, all related, have been growing for decades, but that's the one that will push the whole business into the public consciousness big time.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Barbara:

The first two problems are already part of this saeculum's 4T (whether we are yet in it or not). Problem One is the real reason for 9/11. Problem Two is something you've talked about yourself from time to time.

I suspect the real sticking point for you may lie in Problem Three? If so, consider how totally dependent the world is on oil not only to drive cars, heat houses, produce electricity, and run machinery, but also to feed itself. An oil shortage would result in a food shortage within a year, and famine on a massive scale. And that's just for starters . . .

We face a natural oil shortage that will exceed the artificial one caused by OPEC in the 1970s, and be permanent, starting in about 2010. That's the timeline, and I very much doubt that the next Awakening will be here by then. Other environmental problems, all related, have been growing for decades, but that's the one that will push the whole business into the public consciousness big time.

I can see that if the 3T lasts as long as Marc and a few others have proposed, these could be 4T issues and not contradict my thoughts that it'll take more time for those things to gel to become whoppers.

Brian, I may have to ask you to summarize those 3 more succinctly, if you'd be so kind. Wait for me to ask, though. Right now, I must be too sleepy to see clearly the points you just reiterated in your original 3 points. Sorry. I'll check back tomorrow and see if I can follow along better...

In meantime, I know the end of oil website we all were guided to long ago. (die-off.org or something like that?) I remember the general predictions you cite. Thing is, do those take into account if American was to start a drilling and exploration frenzy, say right after E2004? You see, right or wrong, I get more and more convinced we are in the Middle East for the oil. The access and the control to everyone else. I sense a real push for grabbing what's left, whether they tell us that or not. Does that website theory account for that possibility in its 2010 cut-off? Does it account for any new tech ideas along same lines as catalytic and hydro 2 for 1 cracking of stock in the 80's? What about any new potential reserves? I don't keep up with that stuff at all, but I guess one new thing would be if we controlled what was left.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Barbara:

The first two problems are already part of this saeculum's 4T (whether we are yet in it or not). Problem One is the real reason for 9/11. Problem Two is something you've talked about yourself from time to time.

I suspect the real sticking point for you may lie in Problem Three? If so, consider how totally dependent the world is on oil not only to drive cars, heat houses, produce electricity, and run machinery, but also to feed itself. An oil shortage would result in a food shortage within a year, and famine on a massive scale. And that's just for starters . . .

We face a natural oil shortage that will exceed the artificial one caused by OPEC in the 1970s, and be permanent, starting in about 2010. That's the timeline, and I very much doubt that the next Awakening will be here by then. Other environmental problems, all related, have been growing for decades, but that's the one that will push the whole business into the public consciousness big time.

I can see that if the 3T lasts as long as Marc and a few others have proposed, these could be 4T issues and not contradict my thoughts that it'll take more time for those things to gel to become whoppers.

Brian, I may have to ask you to summarize those 3 more succinctly, if you'd be so kind. Wait for me to ask, though. Right now, I must be too sleepy to see clearly the points you just reiterated in your original 3 points. Sorry. I'll check back tomorrow and see if I can follow along better...

In meantime, I know the end of oil website we all were guided to long ago. (die-off.org or something like that?) I remember the general predictions you cite. Thing is, do those take into account if American was to start a drilling and exploration frenzy, say right after E2004? You see, right or wrong, I get more and more convinced we are in the Middle East for the oil. The access and the control to everyone else. I sense a real push for grabbing what's left, whether they tell us that or not. Does that website theory account for that possibility in its 2010 cut-off? Does it account for any new tech ideas along same lines as catalytic and hydro 2 for 1 cracking of stock in the 80's? What about any new potential reserves? I don't keep up with that stuff at all, but I guess one new thing would be if we controlled what was left.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

None of us can "prove" that we are in 3T or 4T. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we may be able to look back and say "Obviously the fourth turning had already begun with 911 (or not)".
The touchstone which I keep coming back to is the generational constellation of that book by Strauss and Howe. (remember them? :wink: ) And of those generations I refer to my own, boomer (1950), which keeps me from skating on thin ice by pretending to understand anyone else's gen.
We boomers are supposedly going to be Elders in the 4T. S and H discuss all the various characteristics of the Elder gen in the book, I'm not going to rehash it again here.
Boomers are not in Elder mode at this time. I also don't think that the other generations are quite into their appointed positions yet, but I'm going to stick with my own group which I understand somewhat better.
I believe that this shift into a more sober, serious frame of mind is beginning to happen ( the beginning of awareness of mortality, death of parents, all those wonderful things) but it certainly is only beginning to show up on the social radar at all.
To give credit where due, Marc has consistently pointed out the problem of the generational constellation over the last couple of years....we tend to want to define 3T/4T by events, not by generational positions, which is not how S and H define turnings in the book.

You assume that S&H are correct that turnings are determined solely by generational constellation. That is not proven. Indeed Mike Alexander's predictions based upon economics predicted a 4T catalyst around 2000 (as compared to, first 2013, later 2005, by S&H). Mike does not discount that generational constellation may have something to do wtih it but challenges that it is necessarily the sole determinant.

In any case, turning change is indicated by change in societal mood. For example, it is clear to the hsitorian that the societal mood after 1929 was different from that which existed prior to 1929. Indeed it is our ability to discern a change in mood which provides S&H with a framework in which to offer a theory, generational or otherwise, in the first place.

In order to test S&H's theory, we must first discern whether the societal mood has changed from that which we knew in the roughly 20 years prior to the proposed turning (911 or otherwise). I think it is abundantly clear the mood has changed from that which we knew in the '80s and '90s. We be 4T, but pre-regeneracy 4T which seems to be a source of confusion to a lot of people. There is no necessity that the bulk of the Crisis period to come even concern itself with the Middle East or a "war on terror" or anything else we are discussing today. All that is relevant is the fact that the societal mood is now not what it was through the '80s and '90s; that we crossed a watershed and things suddenly began getting worse and worse and worse. And in the end, S&H's generations are not really out of alignment anyway. But certainly Mike Alexander would get credited with a more accurate prediction.

The events of 9/11/01 were traumatic, especially considering the telegenic way in which they unfolded. My guess is that such events would've been considered tragic regardless of what turning they occurred in. But they happened when a third turning was, in 'Strauss-n-Howian' terms (T4T neologism, pass it on), quite mature but admittedly not quite ripe for a turning change. As most of you know, I believe this explains this Phony Fourth limbo we reside in.

I can be placed more or less in the orthodox camp of our little community of the saecularly interested, and as such I currently see generational alignment and interactions as the primary engine of the saeculum. But I am open to the "material cause" theory and other ideas, and I think some combination of economic, technological, and cultural factors in the 15th and 16th centuries precipitated the intensification of a cycle that was already there.

So I see the Phony Fourth as being one of two things. One is as an immature triggering of a fourth turning mood. The mood, thus partially ignited, has been smoldering, neither raging out-of-control or going out. The second is as a very intense third turning reaction; kinda like having 1917-1920 happening several years later.

As for the first way, the result of having 9/11 occur so close to the end of a third turning is a strange transition. On the one hand you have a massive reorganization involving the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (note: "Homeland"), you have beat cops being asked for the first time in our history to enforce federal immigration laws, you have the selective suspension of the writ of habeas corpus supported by the Supreme Court, you see us going into Iraq with a surprising amount of consensus (at least initially), you see the transmorgification of soccer moms into "security moms", you see the public willing to support radical changes to our basic foreign policy positions (at least for now), and you see host of other things all pointing at a fourth turning.

Yet . . . on the other hand we also see people spending and going into debt like there is no tomorrow, we see house prices staying ludicrously high beyond any rational support, we see celebrity circus trials continuing in popularity, we see Culture Wars arguments continuing ad nauseum, and for crying out loud we have Madonna frenching Britney . . . and what is with this Nip & Tuck show?!?!?!

In essence we could argue that there is a mish-mosh of turnings going on here. A long, strange transition with blatant aspects of both living side-by-side for the time being.

A second way I see the Phony Fourth is as possibly an intense third turning reaction given a brief fourth turning flavor at the outset. All of the fourth-esque (neologism alert!) "blatant aspects" I mentioned above seem similar to me to our society's reaction to WWI and the anarchist events that followed. Mitchell Palmer, meet John Ashcroft. And the Patriot Act doesn't seem so unprecedented when you look back at 1917-1920. I'm sure many of you can see more comparisons.

Either way, whether the Phony Fourth is a turning hybrid or an intense 3T reaction, we are very likely on the cusp of a "real" fourth turning soon, or at least one would think so if they adhere to saecular orthodoxy. If other 3T-to-4T gateways (i.e., pre-regeneracy periods) are any indication, the smoldering whisps of smoke emanating from this strange post-9/11 period are about to flashover like a Christmas tree in February.

I agree that, overall, the Silent are still keeping the light on, that early-wave Boomers are not rushing into Elder mode just yet, and that Xer's, esp. the Nintendo wave, or still partying-hardying. But if Strauss & Howe are right (about both boundries and mechanisms), then the Boomer 61, Xer 43, Millenial 22 line up we'll see next year is some fairly dry pine needles awaiting some dumb kid with a match (and we know Kim Jong-Il, for example, likes playing with them). And I'd venture that with the Phony Fourth already priming the kindling, we should be in for a nice, hot roast.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

None of us can "prove" that we are in 3T or 4T. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we may be able to look back and say "Obviously the fourth turning had already begun with 911 (or not)".
The touchstone which I keep coming back to is the generational constellation of that book by Strauss and Howe. (remember them? :wink: ) And of those generations I refer to my own, boomer (1950), which keeps me from skating on thin ice by pretending to understand anyone else's gen.
We boomers are supposedly going to be Elders in the 4T. S and H discuss all the various characteristics of the Elder gen in the book, I'm not going to rehash it again here.
Boomers are not in Elder mode at this time. I also don't think that the other generations are quite into their appointed positions yet, but I'm going to stick with my own group which I understand somewhat better.
I believe that this shift into a more sober, serious frame of mind is beginning to happen ( the beginning of awareness of mortality, death of parents, all those wonderful things) but it certainly is only beginning to show up on the social radar at all.
To give credit where due, Marc has consistently pointed out the problem of the generational constellation over the last couple of years....we tend to want to define 3T/4T by events, not by generational positions, which is not how S and H define turnings in the book.

You assume that S&H are correct that turnings are determined solely by generational constellation. That is not proven. Indeed Mike Alexander's predictions based upon economics predicted a 4T catalyst around 2000 (as compared to, first 2013, later 2005, by S&H). Mike does not discount that generational constellation may have something to do wtih it but challenges that it is necessarily the sole determinant.

In any case, turning change is indicated by change in societal mood. For example, it is clear to the hsitorian that the societal mood after 1929 was different from that which existed prior to 1929. Indeed it is our ability to discern a change in mood which provides S&H with a framework in which to offer a theory, generational or otherwise, in the first place.

In order to test S&H's theory, we must first discern whether the societal mood has changed from that which we knew in the roughly 20 years prior to the proposed turning (911 or otherwise). I think it is abundantly clear the mood has changed from that which we knew in the '80s and '90s. We be 4T, but pre-regeneracy 4T which seems to be a source of confusion to a lot of people. There is no necessity that the bulk of the Crisis period to come even concern itself with the Middle East or a "war on terror" or anything else we are discussing today. All that is relevant is the fact that the societal mood is now not what it was through the '80s and '90s; that we crossed a watershed and things suddenly began getting worse and worse and worse. And in the end, S&H's generations are not really out of alignment anyway. But certainly Mike Alexander would get credited with a more accurate prediction.

The events of 9/11/01 were traumatic, especially considering the telegenic way in which they unfolded. My guess is that such events would've been considered tragic regardless of what turning they occurred in. But they happened when a third turning was, in 'Strauss-n-Howian' terms (T4T neologism, pass it on), quite mature but admittedly not quite ripe for a turning change. As most of you know, I believe this explains this Phony Fourth limbo we reside in.

I can be placed more or less in the orthodox camp of our little community of the saecularly interested, and as such I currently see generational alignment and interactions as the primary engine of the saeculum. But I am open to the "material cause" theory and other ideas, and I think some combination of economic, technological, and cultural factors in the 15th and 16th centuries precipitated the intensification of a cycle that was already there.

So I see the Phony Fourth as being one of two things. One is as an immature triggering of a fourth turning mood. The mood, thus partially ignited, has been smoldering, neither raging out-of-control or going out. The second is as a very intense third turning reaction; kinda like having 1917-1920 happening several years later.

As for the first way, the result of having 9/11 occur so close to the end of a third turning is a strange transition. On the one hand you have a massive reorganization involving the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (note: "Homeland"), you have beat cops being asked for the first time in our history to enforce federal immigration laws, you have the selective suspension of the writ of habeas corpus supported by the Supreme Court, you see us going into Iraq with a surprising amount of consensus (at least initially), you see the transmorgification of soccer moms into "security moms", you see the public willing to support radical changes to our basic foreign policy positions (at least for now), and you see host of other things all pointing at a fourth turning.

Yet . . . on the other hand we also see people spending and going into debt like there is no tomorrow, we see house prices staying ludicrously high beyond any rational support, we see celebrity circus trials continuing in popularity, we see Culture Wars arguments continuing ad nauseum, and for crying out loud we have Madonna frenching Britney . . . and what is with this Nip & Tuck show?!?!?!

In essence we could argue that there is a mish-mosh of turnings going on here. A long, strange transition with blatant aspects of both living side-by-side for the time being.

A second way I see the Phony Fourth is as possibly an intense third turning reaction given a brief fourth turning flavor at the outset. All of the fourth-esque (neologism alert!) "blatant aspects" I mentioned above seem similar to me to our society's reaction to WWI and the anarchist events that followed. Mitchell Palmer, meet John Ashcroft. And the Patriot Act doesn't seem so unprecedented when you look back at 1917-1920. I'm sure many of you can see more comparisons.

Either way, whether the Phony Fourth is a turning hybrid or an intense 3T reaction, we are very likely on the cusp of a "real" fourth turning soon, or at least one would think so if they adhere to saecular orthodoxy. If other 3T-to-4T gateways (i.e., pre-regeneracy periods) are any indication, the smoldering whisps of smoke emanating from this strange post-9/11 period are about to flashover like a Christmas tree in February.

I agree that, overall, the Silent are still keeping the light on, that early-wave Boomers are not rushing into Elder mode just yet, and that Xer's, esp. the Nintendo wave, or still partying-hardying. But if Strauss & Howe are right (about both boundries and mechanisms), then the Boomer 61, Xer 43, Millenial 22 line up we'll see next year is some fairly dry pine needles awaiting some dumb kid with a match (and we know Kim Jong-Il, for example, likes playing with them). And I'd venture that with the Phony Fourth already priming the kindling, we should be in for a nice, hot roast.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Yet . . . on the other hand we also see people spending and going into debt like there is no tomorrow, we see house prices staying ludicrously high beyond any rational support, we see celebrity circus trials continuing in popularity, we see Culture Wars arguments continuing ad nauseum, and for crying out loud we have Madonna frenching Britney . . . and what is with this Nip & Tuck show?!?!?!

Good post, Sean. I posted over on your thread, would appreciate your comments.

As to Britney's french kiss, ugh. :x As to Nip & Tuck, it rocks! :wink:

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Yet . . . on the other hand we also see people spending and going into debt like there is no tomorrow, we see house prices staying ludicrously high beyond any rational support, we see celebrity circus trials continuing in popularity, we see Culture Wars arguments continuing ad nauseum, and for crying out loud we have Madonna frenching Britney . . . and what is with this Nip & Tuck show?!?!?!

Good post, Sean. I posted over on your thread, would appreciate your comments.

As to Britney's french kiss, ugh. :x As to Nip & Tuck, it rocks! :wink:

Originally Posted by Barbara

As to Britney's french kiss, ugh. :x

Did you know that I have YET to hear who won at the awards because all they are talking about is the kiss?

Originally Posted by Barbara

As to Britney's french kiss, ugh. :x

Did you know that I have YET to hear who won at the awards because all they are talking about is the kiss?

One more thing to think about in considering if we are still 3T or early 4T:

In every Crisis, it was a world conflagration, not a local one.

I think that the 4T is still a little ways off because things aren't yet lined up in other countries either, although we are most assuredly moving in that direction.

One more thing to think about in considering if we are still 3T or early 4T:

In every Crisis, it was a world conflagration, not a local one.

I think that the 4T is still a little ways off because things aren't yet lined up in other countries either, although we are most assuredly moving in that direction.

I think that 4T crisis is coming soon. Tomorrow the tax on a liter of beer will increase by 47 cents in the state of Washington!

I think that 4T crisis is coming soon. Tomorrow the tax on a liter of beer will increase by 47 cents in the state of Washington!

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

I think that 4T crisis is coming soon. Tomorrow the tax on a liter of beer will increase by 47 cents in the state of Washington!

My sympathies. Hope you went today to stock up?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

I think that 4T crisis is coming soon. Tomorrow the tax on a liter of beer will increase by 47 cents in the state of Washington!

My sympathies. Hope you went today to stock up?