Column:Xers guard American freedom
by Mike Weber

On Sept. 11, 2001, we Americans entered our fifth great crisis era.

We entered one of history's howling storms, like the American Revolution crisis era from 1773 to 1789, the Civil War crisis era from 1859 to 1865, and the Great Depression and World War II crisis era from 1929 to 1945.

By the mid-2010s at the latest, it seems likely this crisis will expand to include - at a minimum - a fiscal crisis in elder entitlements and energy or environmental crises. In its first three years, it's been a crisis of terrorism.

Millennials born since about 1982 are already on the frontlines of this. Almost half the casualties in Iraq have been Millennials.

What will Millies learn from older generations during this time?

We can build from our knowledge of what Millies thought of older generations before Sept. 11. In 1999, William Strauss and Neil Howe, authors of the book Millennials Rising, surveyed 660 members of America's high school class of 2000.

By a whopping margin of 57 to 11 percent, Millennials had a favorable view of the G.I. Generation born from 1901 to 1924.

Today, our remaining G.I. late elders or "super elders" are age 79 to 103. G.I.s can teach us about heroism, duty and public sacrifice, about what it takes to shoulder a crisis, about teamwork, community and civic ritual.

By just 28 to 19 percent, with a majority not sure, Millennials had a favorable view of the Silent Generation born from 1925 to 1942.

Silent Americans are now age 61 to 79. Since Sept. 11, many of our Silent elders have urged caution. This Civil Rights generation may still have more to teach us about communication, civility, tolerance, multilateralism, diplomacy and compromise.

Millennials had a strong 35 to 12 percent favorable view of Boomers born from 1943 to 1960. Millies see Boomers as smart, political, argumentative, demanding, strict, hypocritical, intolerant and self-loving - and as the least easygoing of generations.

Today's Boomers, age 43 to 61, fully occupy the midlife years.

Ultimately, history will remember Boomers not for their years as '60s radicals or '70s inner explorers or '80s yuppies or '90s culture warriors. History will remember Boomers for how they handle this crisis.

Boomers are at the height of their political power. Boomers hold the presidency, a majority of the Cabinet, two-thirds of the U.S. House and governorships and a plurality of the U.S. Senate.

It is Boomers, largely, who will decide how much outer-world destruction we will all risk on behalf of their ideals, principles and moral imperatives. The Boomers' greatest challenge in this crisis may indeed be self-restraint.

Even if they do everything right, there is still the potential for world-bending tragedy. Even if they make many mistakes, they may succeed triumphantly.

At their best, Boomers will be sages and seers - trustworthy,

reliable, long-suffering and selfless. At their best, Boom leaders will be learned, principled, noble, visionary and resolute - the chieftains of national and global purpose.

Finally, these Millennials had a 37 to 18 percent negative view of us Xers born from 1961 to about 1981. While you Millies see us Xers as fun and as the most easygoing generation, you also see us as selfish, complaining, alienated, punkish and slackers.

Xers now firmly occupy the rising-adult years, age 22 to 43.

Whether our role is a military, intelligence, law enforcement or civilian role, we Xers are the behind-the-scenes and on-site managers and tacticians of this crisis. We are the hands-on, just-do-it officer and managerial corps.

We Xers will take charge of whatever raging conflicts Boom leaders initiate. History is giving us the duty of ensuring the choices America makes work as intended.

Our game plans and quick decisions will determine the crisis's day-to-day triumphs and tragedies. We will make most of the quick triage choices, of who and what to sacrifice and who and what to save.

Certain long-criticized Xer traits - especially our realism and our survivalism - are now vital national resources. America needs our survival skills, our keen observations, our flexible maneuvers, our deft timing.

We Xers are worldly-wise, quick on our feet, cagey and cunning - and ready to accept any bad hand history deals us. We are already adding nuts-and-bolts workmanship to the crisis's resolute mood.

Like it or not, we Xers are now the guardians of national survival.

Millennials, of course, will make their own mark on this crisis era. That, no doubt, will be a recurring topic in future columns.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

Who knows? Anybody want to talk about Vietnam.

Naw! Let's talk about Bush and Kerrys' bowel movements. Let's be unabashedly 3T!!!

I think that even though they're aided along by PJ, Bush's are rock solid and satisfying, in a grunting sort-of-way. Kerry's are more delicate, yet less, shall we say, irritating, to the soft tissue.

I read about it all on the Sh*t Boat Veterans For The Uncouth website. Can Drudge be far behind?

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Sorry to disappoint you, but the supposed "waffling" doesn't much bother me. Out here in the real world, we sometimes call this behavior "thinking."

You may want to explain that to him in a little more detail. He's not well acquainted with the concept. :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Amen, my, brother, Gib! Oops, sorry, I got carried away. sieg heil, i guess. :wink:

p.s. So, do you resemble that pic in your avatar? Nice hat, btw.

Sure you can sieg heil me. Mgibb for 2008!

It's one of my dad's pieces, and I think he modeled it after one of my uncles. He however had a thing for those aussie bush-hats, so I think the western thing reflects artistic license. I am from Nebraska after all.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Sorry to disappoint you, but the supposed "waffling" doesn't much bother me. Out here in the real world, we sometimes call this behavior "thinking."

You may want to explain that to him in a little more detail. He's not well acquainted with the concept. :wink:

(Licking my index finger and touching it to the air) Hissss! :lol:

High-school taunts aside, what do you think about my assertion that "we're going to spend another four years just like this", i.e. that we still be very much 3T?

I used to think that 2004 would be the realigning election, but now I very much doubt it. It's not just that the races (for President and Congress) are still very close, it's that Iraq has sucked all the oxygen from the political debate. There's not even any effort to move toward consensus on healthcare, the environment, the deficit, infrastructure, or any of the other issues that really matter for our collective future. The debate about Iraq isn't about the future or even about the past, it's about the narrowest window into the present. It's "Vote Bush Or Die". Against that, the Democrat's "Bush Is a Lousy President" doesn't have much traction: people are saying "who cares if Bush is a lousy president, we're all gonna diiiiieeeeeee if we vote for Kerry".

Now, while that may be an effective electoral strategy, it's a lousy governance strategy. Even if Bush wins in a landslide, what will his mandate be? "Avoid getting attacked by terrorists"? As obvious advice, that would rank up with "Don't eat the yellow snow", "Don't spit into the wind", and "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Okay, the last one is apparently not so obvious, at least to the current Administration. :?

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Sorry to disappoint you, but the supposed "waffling" doesn't much bother me. Out here in the real world, we sometimes call this behavior "thinking."

You may want to explain that to him in a little more detail. He's not well acquainted with the concept. :wink:

(Licking my index finger and touching it to the air) Hissss! :lol:

High-school taunts aside, what do you think about my assertion that "we're going to spend another four years just like this", i.e. that we still be very much 3T?

I used to think that 2004 would be the realigning election, but now I very much doubt it. It's not just that the races (for President and Congress) are still very close, it's that Iraq has sucked all the oxygen from the political debate. There's not even any effort to move toward consensus on healthcare, the environment, the deficit, infrastructure, or any of the other issues that really matter for our collective future. The debate about Iraq isn't about the future or even about the past, it's about the narrowest window into the present. It's "Vote Bush Or Die". Against that, the Democrat's "Bush Is a Lousy President" doesn't have much traction: people are saying "who cares if Bush is a lousy president, we're all gonna diiiiieeeeeee if we vote for Kerry".

Now, while that may be an effective electoral strategy, it's a lousy governance strategy. Even if Bush wins in a landslide, what will his mandate be? "Avoid getting attacked by terrorists"? As obvious advice, that would rank up with "Don't eat the yellow snow", "Don't spit into the wind", and "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Okay, the last one is apparently not so obvious, at least to the current Administration. :?

No, I also do not see this as some kind of realigning, regeneracy election. I think it will be more like the last of the great de-aligning elections in this 3T series, much as 1860 was in it's time, but hopefully not nearly as intense.

I think the problem is one of two things. Either:

One, we are in a very intense 3T mood edging toward a 4T one, and thus we have the mish-mosh of unusually heavy issues being dealt with in a ridiculously circus-like atmosphere. Or . . .

Two, we are in some stage of the cascade are therefore in some 3T/4T limbo ramping up to a humdinger, which would also explain the dichotomy described above.

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now). The second assumes that it triggered an actual 4T cascade if perhaps somewhat prematurely.

There is also option three, which is not even on my radar screen, that we've experienced the full cascade since 9/11 and this election will be the regeneracy. Ha!

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I think the problem is one of two things. Either:

One, we are in a very intense 3T mood edging toward a 4T one, and thus we have the mish-mosh of unusually heavy issues being dealt with in a ridiculously circus-like atmosphere. Or . . .

Two, we are in some stage of the cascade are therefore in some 3T/4T limbo ramping up to a humdinger, which would also explain the dichotomy described above.

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now). The second assumes that it triggered an actual 4T cascade if perhaps somewhat prematurely.

There is also option three, which is not even on my radar screen, that we've experienced the full cascade since 9/11 and this election will be the regeneracy. Ha!

Option 4 is that there is no such things as Turnings and Unravelling periods followed by Crisis. :?

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I think the problem is one of two things. Either:

One, we are in a very intense 3T mood edging toward a 4T one, and thus we have the mish-mosh of unusually heavy issues being dealt with in a ridiculously circus-like atmosphere. Or . . .

Two, we are in some stage of the cascade are therefore in some 3T/4T limbo ramping up to a humdinger, which would also explain the dichotomy described above.

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now). The second assumes that it triggered an actual 4T cascade if perhaps somewhat prematurely.

There is also option three, which is not even on my radar screen, that we've experienced the full cascade since 9/11 and this election will be the regeneracy. Ha!

There is also the option that in a global crisis, we are the culture that benefits most from maintaining the wealth, status and privilege of the status quo. If the base problem is the large division of wealth between the former colonies and the former mother countries, and both Red and Blue faction within the US agree that we must maintain the life style to which we have become accustomed, the dominant leader of the US during this crisis might end up playing a role similar to George III, Jefferson Davis or Adolph Hitler.

We are not the most downtrodden victims of injustice. We are the fat cats. A crisis is a time when vast changes in society occur, when it is possible for the status quo to change, when the most blatant inequalities and injustices are addressed, when a new structure is created in which these problems are solved.

If history tells us anything, it is that the rich, powerful, strong and connected will attempt to prevent needful change. The progressives battle the conservatives into ruin as the conservatives want to keep what they have, and will not allow equality or justice unless the downtrodden force it upon them.

I haven't pushed the perspectives of Amy Chua's World on Fire or Arundhati Roy's flames against the United States recently, but I still think Amy is right that all the various ethnic and civilization tensions have economic cores. While Arundhati is a rabble rouser in a Sons of Liberty or Abolitionist pattern -- not a candidate for Gray Champion -- understanding her message is key to understanding the nature of the Crisis.

And neither Bush or Kerry is close to putting their fingers on the pulse of the world. Neither is apt to put forth a vision that moves the world forward to the next level of civilization. The United States is not undergoing regeneracy as the primary issues driving the crisis are not here, are not being felt by our people, are just being watched on TV from half a world away. We are not in a refugee camp, living off food provided by charity, but needing to dodge rapists to get fuel to cook the food to feed our children. Our capital has not been invaded, our government overthrown, our buildings in ruins. It is not from among us that a Gray Champion is apt to rise.

Watch for some hybrid between Gandhi and Hitler to rise in southern Asia or Africa. I am hoping for someone closer to Gandhi than Hitler, but that is only hope.

How the USA acts may be influenced by which grouping gains the upper hand in the Regeneracy.

In The Fourth Turning S&H wrote that the USA will probably become more nationalistic and likely experience less cross border trade. Concievably, the winning group may be skeptical of globalism and try to retract the country from international trade/affairs, striving for isolationism & autarky.

Originally Posted by Mr. David Calderwood

To
this end all gun owners are pledging to put colorful bows on their
guns, and dress them up in lace and "Sunday Best" clothes, or
put pictures of Barney the Dinosaur or Powder Puff Girls on them.
So **naturally** they need to take those ugly, scary-looking black stocks off them and replace them with pink, purple, red, maybe
even puce, chartreuse, emerald, and lavender furniture. I really
like the lavender idea, because maybe some enterprising chemist
can add something to the cartridge propellants and make the burned gunpowder smell like lilac.

2/3 Can't Be Wrong

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

So **naturally** they need to take those ugly, scary-looking black stocks off them and replace them with pink, purple, red, maybe even puce, chartreuse, emerald, and lavender furniture.

You may be on to something there. My 8-year-old son, who is afraid of any and all loud noises, thought the gun in the picture was absolutely adorable and wanted one for himself.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

No, I also do not see this as some kind of realigning, regeneracy election. I think it will be more like the last of the great de-aligning elections in this 3T series, much as 1860 was in it's time, but hopefully not nearly as intense.

OK, that helps clarify things a bit. I wasn't gaining much insight from trying to figure out whether 2004=1928 or 1932.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not nearly as intense". True, we haven't had "Bleeding Kansas" yet (although we do have "Bleeding Baghdad") -- perhaps 2004=1856, and "Bleeding Kansas" is just around the corner... It's hard to imagine a more "de-aligned" electorate: it's simply assumed that "Red Zone / Blue Zone" or "50-50 Nation" is the appropriate narrative for this election, that some sort of "civil war" is imminent, and that rank partisanship and below-the-belt attacks are appropriate behavior. Even not-so-veiled threats on the life of the opposition candidate and his supporters are considered fair game. Spend a little time reading the political blogs -- such sentiments are common on not just fringe blogs like FreeRepublic or DemocraticUnderground, but even on more mainstream ones like DailyKos or RedState, not to mention the comments sections on the web sites of ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/Fox et al.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

One, we are in a very intense 3T mood edging toward a 4T one, and thus we have the mish-mosh of unusually heavy issues being dealt with in a ridiculously circus-like atmosphere.

Is this "circus-like" atmosphere typical of 3T/4T cusps; in particular, did it characterize the 1860 election?

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now).

Please elaborate: I'm not as familiar with that time period as I should be.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

My 8-year-old son, who is afraid of any and all loud noises...

He might not be so twitchy if he'd been exposed to boom-sticks (of the lesser calibers, of course) earlier on. My oldest got over his fear of the noises milliseconds after his first (heavily supervised!) trigger squeeze.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

My 8-year-old son, who is afraid of any and all loud noises...

He might not be so twitchy if he'd been exposed to boom-sticks (of the lesser calibers, of course) earlier on. My oldest got over his fear of the noises milliseconds after his first (heavily supervised!) trigger squeeze.

If only, and I have tried. He's still afraid to flush the toilet in public bathrooms because it might be too loud. He was petrified of even birds and squirrels until he was about 6. On the other hand, my 10-year-old son (my eldest, the one in the avatar) has no problem, so it's probably a biological rather than cultural issue.

It's starting to affect his school performance, so we'll likely be seeking professional help soon. :?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I think the problem is one of two things. Either:

One, we are in a very intense 3T mood edging toward a 4T one, and thus we have the mish-mosh of unusually heavy issues being dealt with in a ridiculously circus-like atmosphere. Or . . .

Two, we are in some stage of the cascade are therefore in some 3T/4T limbo ramping up to a humdinger, which would also explain the dichotomy described above.

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now). The second assumes that it triggered an actual 4T cascade if perhaps somewhat prematurely.

There is also option three, which is not even on my radar screen, that we've experienced the full cascade since 9/11 and this election will be the regeneracy. Ha!

There is also the option that in a global crisis, we are the culture that benefits most from maintaining the wealth, status and privilege of the status quo. If the base problem is the large division of wealth between the former colonies and the former mother countries, and both Red and Blue faction within the US agree that we must maintain the life style to which we have become accustomed, the dominant leader of the US during this crisis might end up playing a role similar to George III, Jefferson Davis or Adolph Hitler.

We are not the most downtrodden victims of injustice. We are the fat cats. A crisis is a time when vast changes in society occur, when it is possible for the status quo to change, when the most blatant inequalities and injustices are addressed, when a new structure is created in which these problems are solved.

If history tells us anything, it is that the rich, powerful, strong and connected will attempt to prevent needful change. The progressives battle the conservatives into ruin as the conservatives want to keep what they have, and will not allow equality or justice unless the downtrodden force it upon them.

I haven't pushed the perspectives of Amy Chua's World on Fire or Arundhati Roy's flames against the United States recently, but I still think Amy is right that all the various ethnic and civilization tensions have economic cores. While Arundhati is a rabble rouser in a Sons of Liberty or Abolitionist pattern -- not a candidate for Gray Champion -- understanding her message is key to understanding the nature of the Crisis.

And neither Bush or Kerry is close to putting their fingers on the pulse of the world. Neither is apt to put forth a vision that moves the world forward to the next level of civilization. The United States is not undergoing regeneracy as the primary issues driving the crisis are not here, are not being felt by our people, are just being watched on TV from half a world away. We are not in a refugee camp, living off food provided by charity, but needing to dodge rapists to get fuel to cook the food to feed our children. Our capital has not been invaded, our government overthrown, our buildings in ruins. It is not from among us that a Gray Champion is apt to rise.

Watch for some hybrid between Gandhi and Hitler to rise in southern Asia or Africa. I am hoping for someone closer to Gandhi than Hitler, but that is only hope.

I suppose "Gray Champion" can be relative. We could have ours, someone else could have theirs.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

No, I also do not see this as some kind of realigning, regeneracy election. I think it will be more like the last of the great de-aligning elections in this 3T series, much as 1860 was in it's time, but hopefully not nearly as intense.

OK, that helps clarify things a bit. I wasn't gaining much insight from trying to figure out whether 2004=1928 or 1932.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not nearly as intense". True, we haven't had "Bleeding Kansas" yet (although we do have "Bleeding Baghdad") -- perhaps 2004=1856, and "Bleeding Kansas" is just around the corner...

Cyclically speaking I see 9/11 as "Bleeding Kansas", i.e., a precursor that leads to significantly increased saecular tension.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

It's hard to imagine a more "de-aligned" electorate: it's simply assumed that "Red Zone / Blue Zone" or "50-50 Nation" is the appropriate narrative for this election, that some sort of "civil war" is imminent, and that rank partisanship and below-the-belt attacks are appropriate behavior. Even not-so-veiled threats on the life of the opposition candidate and his supporters are considered fair game. Spend a little time reading the political blogs -- such sentiments are common on not just fringe blogs like FreeRepublic or DemocraticUnderground, but even on more mainstream ones like DailyKos or RedState, not to mention the comments sections on the web sites of ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/Fox et al.

As you've noted, this election has the potential to have us go from de-aligned to "unhinged".

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

One, we are in a very intense 3T mood edging toward a 4T one, and thus we have the mish-mosh of unusually heavy issues being dealt with in a ridiculously circus-like atmosphere.

Is this "circus-like" atmosphere typical of 3T/4T cusps; in particular, did it characterize the 1860 election?

I'm not as sure about 1860 specifically but it is typical of late 3T's generally.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now).

Please elaborate: I'm not as familiar with that time period as I should be.

A short war fought with great passion but without totality and follow-through. New national departments organized. National security laws passed that put a potential chill on civil liberties. Worries of terrorist bombings and global epidemics. Actual terrorist bombings in New York and Washington, DC. An Attorney General running amok looking for and rounding up spies and foreigners. The Writ of Habeaus Corpus in de facto jeopardy in various cases. Massively growing anti-immigration sentiment.

The above paragraph can describe both 1917-1920 and 2001-2004. The only difference is the election of 2004 will not be similar to that of 1920 because this time the intense 3T reaction occured at the end of the turning.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Cyclically speaking I see 9/11 as "Bleeding Kansas", i.e., a precursor that leads to significantly increased saecular tension.

Ah. That fits. 2004=1860 because 2001=1857.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

As you've noted, this election has the potential to have us go from de-aligned to "unhinged".

So what do you see as the primary reasons why 1860 led to "unhinged", and 1932 didn't? To follow S&H, what can we perceive about the attitudes of the various generational cohorts at the time, and how does that compare with today? Bob?

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Is this "circus-like" atmosphere typical of 3T/4T cusps; in particular, did it characterize the 1860 election?

I'm not as sure about 1860 specifically but it is typical of late 3T's generally.

I'm pretty suspicious about any description of 3Ts that includes the word "generally"; they're all different in so many ways. I'm specifically interested in whether the culture wars of the last two 3Ts were perceived as ridiculous by the large majority outside the two culture camps. I get the impression that the culture wars if the 1850's were taken seriously by almost everyone in contrast to the 1920s. That gives me a bit more confidence that we're approaching 1932 rather than 1960.

(Of course, the culture wars were taken deadly seriously by the culture warriors themselves, and since they tend to write the history, I may have a skewed perspective.)

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now).

Please elaborate: I'm not as familiar with that time period as I should be.

A short war fought with great passion but without totality and follow-through. New national departments organized. National security laws passed that put a potential chill on civil liberties. Worries of terrorist bombings and global epidemics. Actual terrorist bombings in New York and Washington, DC. An Attorney General running amok looking for and rounding up spies and foreigners. The Writ of Habeaus Corpus in de facto jeopardy in various cases. Massively growing anti-immigration sentiment.

The above paragraph can describe both 1917-1920 and 2001-2004.

OK, I knew that much. I just couldn't remember an incident where 1917=2001; I didn't recall that any of the anarchist bombings had actually succeeded.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

The only difference is the election of 2004 will not be similar to that of 1920 because this time the intense 3T reaction occured at the end of the turning.

Why at the end instead of the middle? Random chance, external forces or an underlying structural societal change? Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

So what do you see as the primary reasons why 1860 led to "unhinged", and 1932 didn't? To follow S&H, what can we perceive about the attitudes of the various generational cohorts at the time, and how does that compare with today? Bob?

The cascade of 1929-33 seems to have been primarily economic in nature as opposed to the previous ones. Some have guessed on this board that the Missionaries were an "attenuated" Prophet archetype caused by the lack of a true Hero archetype before them, therefore you didn't get quite the same political hysteria at the outset of the 4T.

Heck, if I had to guess, I'd say the Nomad spillover into midlife had more to do with triggering the Great Depression than the Prophet spillover into elderhood. If so, it was unusual and perhaps unique among at least recent 3T/4T transitions.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

I'm pretty suspicious about any description of 3Ts that includes the word "generally"; they're all different in so many ways.

"General" characteristics is almost all we have in terms of finding analogies between like turnings. Like you said, the cycle manifests archetypes and moods to the circumstances of the times.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I guess the difference between the two depends upon how you view 9/11. The first assumes it triggered 1917-1920 type reaction (my guess now).

Please elaborate: I'm not as familiar with that time period as I should be.

A short war fought with great passion but without totality and follow-through. New national departments organized. National security laws passed that put a potential chill on civil liberties. Worries of terrorist bombings and global epidemics. Actual terrorist bombings in New York and Washington, DC. An Attorney General running amok looking for and rounding up spies and foreigners. The Writ of Habeaus Corpus in de facto jeopardy in various cases. Massively growing anti-immigration sentiment.

The above paragraph can describe both 1917-1920 and 2001-2004.

OK, I knew that much. I just couldn't remember an incident where 1917=2001; I didn't recall that any of the anarchist bombings had actually succeeded.

A bomb denoted in the middle of the Wall Street financial district. The holes in one building have been left as a reminder. I took another look at them seven weeks ago when I was there. In another series of bombings Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer was actually injured at his residence, and then went nuts tracking down terrorists.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

The only difference is the election of 2004 will not be similar to that of 1920 because this time the intense 3T reaction occured at the end of the turning.

Why at the end instead of the middle? Random chance, external forces or an underlying structural societal change? Any thoughts?

Vagaries of history. World War One initiated one reaction and occurred in the middle of a 3T. 9/11 initiated the other and occurred when a 3T was not yet ripe for a turning change yet still quite mature.

I have warned elsewhere of the growing Canadian influence on the lives of the citizens of the U.S. and there is a growing threat from another quarter.

Librarians have been heavily funding a certain political campaign. Now the more militant "peoples of the book" are found to be armed!!!

You have been warned! :shock: :shock: :shock:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

And neither Bush or Kerry is close to putting their fingers on the pulse of the world. Neither is apt to put forth a vision that moves the world forward to the next level of civilization. The United States is not undergoing regeneracy as the primary issues driving the crisis are not here, are not being felt by our people, are just being watched on TV from half a world away. We are not in a refugee camp, living off food provided by charity, but needing to dodge rapists to get fuel to cook the food to feed our children. Our capital has not been invaded, our government overthrown, our buildings in ruins. It is not from among us that a Gray Champion is apt to rise.

Watch for some hybrid between Gandhi and Hitler to rise in southern Asia or Africa. I am hoping for someone closer to Gandhi than Hitler, but that is only hope.

I suppose "Gray Champion" can be relative. We could have ours, someone else could have theirs.

I don't think so. The Gray Champion sees the problem and advocates a major transformation in the society. There is a vision of a new future. (One might argue that Lincoln had no such vision, but was forced to create a new future by forces beyond his control, and a stubborn clinging to certain principles.)

In a crisis, I would expect only two sides, the conservatives trying to cling to the status quo, and the progressives attempting to correct inequalities and injustices that have run their alloted time. In recent crises, it is the progressive leader that gets treated well in the history books, though I suppose one can argue that Jefferson Davis is still remembered fondly by some in the South.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

And neither Bush or Kerry is close to putting their fingers on the pulse of the world. Neither is apt to put forth a vision that moves the world forward to the next level of civilization. The United States is not undergoing regeneracy as the primary issues driving the crisis are not here, are not being felt by our people, are just being watched on TV from half a world away. We are not in a refugee camp, living off food provided by charity, but needing to dodge rapists to get fuel to cook the food to feed our children. Our capital has not been invaded, our government overthrown, our buildings in ruins. It is not from among us that a Gray Champion is apt to rise.

Watch for some hybrid between Gandhi and Hitler to rise in southern Asia or Africa. I am hoping for someone closer to Gandhi than Hitler, but that is only hope.

I suppose "Gray Champion" can be relative. We could have ours, someone else could have theirs.

I don't think so. The Gray Champion sees the problem and advocates a major transformation in the society. There is a vision of a new future. (One might argue that Lincoln had no such vision, but was forced to create a new future by forces beyond his control, and a stubborn clinging to certain principles.)

In a crisis, I would expect only two sides, the conservatives trying to cling to the status quo, and the progressives attempting to correct inequalities and injustices that have run their alloted time. In recent crises, it is the progressive leader that gets treated well in the history books, though I suppose one can argue that Jefferson Davis is still remembered fondly by some in the South.

Could Otto von Bismark have been a conservative Gray Champion in the German Unification Crisis?

Furthermore, why can't there be more than one Gray Champion? America having one, Britain having one, Burkina Faso having one, etc . . . .

And yes, I'd see Davis as a GC for the South.

Last time around Britain had Churchill, the USA had Roosevelt....

As I understand it, there's a whole generation of Gray Champions, not just one.

Be that as it may, I thought I'd post this here. It's from the prologue to my novel-in-progress, the which prologue outlines a history of the world from 2001 to 2156, which is when my story starts. I don't want to post too much of it for copyright considerations, but this should be OK.

The Great Crisis, 2001-2022. After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, events moved deceptively slowly for several years, in view of the storm that approached. While the U.S. bogged down in President Bush's disastrous Iraq misadventure, world petroleum approached peak production, and the global economy teetered toward catastrophe. The collapse that followed caught most people by surprise. With petroleum prices skyrocketing, world food production went into a tailspin as farmers could no longer afford to work their fields with machinery or use petroleum-derived fertilizers. Famine followed over much of the world, together with opportunistic plagues. Wars broke out over scarce resources, especially water rights. China imploded into a chaos of civil war, anarchy, and cannibalism. In these two decades, world population declined from a height of over six billion people to just under four billion. The suffering inspired tales of woe for generations to come. The climax of the Great Crisis occurred in 2020, when the India-Pakistan war culminated in a brief but devastating nuclear exchange that left Pakistan all but depopulated and India severely crippled. To deal with all these problems, the remaining great powers met in New York in 2021 and agreed on a constitution for the Earth Union, which replaced the defunct United Nations and provided for the three crucial governing functions of peacekeeping, global economic regulation, and global environmental protection and resource management. The constitution was ratified a year later by popular referendum in the United States, Canada, the European Union, Russia, the Ukraine, Australia, India, and Japan. The remainder of the world would slowly be brought into the Union over the next several decades. The signatory nations had already by this time implemented economic changes that resulted in a high-efficiency, renewable-energy economy. As the exhausted world dug out of the rubble, as the plagues subsided and population stabilized, as the economy recovered and food production increased, hope resurfaced and the world entered a time of relative peace and stability. The election of the first Earth Union Parliament in 2022 marked, as many hoped at the time, the end of over 20 years of horror. In a fitting close of the ring, the session of the first EU Parliament met in January 2023 in the new Union Capitol, in New York City, at the site of what had been the World Trade Center.

Details like the India-Pakistan nuclear war and the building of the EU Parliament building at the WTC site are wholly fictional, but in broad outlines this is what I expect to happen. I agree with most people here that the mood doesn't feel wholly 4T yet, but I think that's because one of the Crisis issues struck us a bit early, and the rest of them are phasing in over time. When historians look back from the future on this Crisis era (which I do indeed believe will be called the Great Crisis or something similarly distinguishing), they will see 9/11 as the beginning of it, simply because of temporal proximity.

I felt at the time that it was early in terms of generational balance. However, I expected something to happen that year, something involving the Middle East, because that was the year the world minus the Persian Gulf region reached its Hubbard peak. While the global peak wasn't upon us yet, that fact increased dependence on Persian Gulf oil to near-totality, virtually guaranteeing something ugly transpiring.

Given time, and a return to normal conditions, I felt that mood shift would have returned to full-bore 3T mode for a while. But I knew that we wouldn't have the time or the leisure.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Bob Butler

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I suppose "Gray Champion" can be relative. We could have ours, someone else could have theirs.

I don't think so. The Gray Champion sees the problem and advocates a major transformation in the society. There is a vision of a new future. (One might argue that Lincoln had no such vision, but was forced to create a new future by forces beyond his control, and a stubborn clinging to certain principles.)

In a crisis, I would expect only two sides, the conservatives trying to cling to the status quo, and the progressives attempting to correct inequalities and injustices that have run their allotted time. In recent crises, it is the progressive leader that gets treated well in the history books, though I suppose one can argue that Jefferson Davis is still remembered fondly by some in the South.

Could Otto von Bismarck have been a conservative Gray Champion in the German Unification Crisis?

Furthermore, why can't there be more than one Gray Champion? America having one, Britain having one, Burkina Faso having one, etc . . . .

And yes, I'd see Davis as a GC for the South.

To some extent, we are disagreeing on the definition of 'Gray Champion.' I see 'The Gray Champion' as being the single leader personifying and enabling the key transformations resulting from crisis. For example, FDR personified government involvement in the economy, a switch from Isolationism to Great Power status, and the triumph of the Military Industrial Complex. If a crisis transforms the culture, the Gray Champion gets credit and blame for the transformation.

By this definition, Jeff Davis is not a Gray Champion. He is a loser. He attempted to preserve the old hierarchical agricultural aristocratic status quo, and failed.

Bismarck did better, and might well count as a Gray Champion. He is pegged as a conservative, but he was a pragmatic compromiser, rather than a stonewaller. He found a middle path between the old aristocracy and the new liberal movement. In doing this, he likely prevented his crisis from exploding to the level of violence Davis had to deal with. Gray champions are often like this. They are not rabid extremists, but people capable of listening, compromising, bridging their era's Red / Blue gap, and pragmatically bringing a people together to grow and transform a culture. With benefit of 20 20 hindsight, it might have been better had a liberal champion built the compromises of middle to late 1800s Germany. The world would have been better off with a more democratic less autocratic Germany. Still, Bismarck was a man of his time and his culture.

It is possible to water down the definition of Gray Champion such that every nation involved in a crisis might be given a champion. If each nation changes in a different way, and has a leader that personifies and enabled such changes, maybe. My concern, though, is that the upcoming crisis feels like a global crisis. The transformation is apt to be global. There is a need for a global leader. I am looking for such a leader, and not finding her.

And we need an entirely different name for leaders who resist change and transformation, who battle to continue privilege, injustice, and the status quo. That might be the difference between Bismarck and Davis. Bismarck knew how much ground to give. Davis clung too heavily to the past.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As I understand it, there's a whole generation of Gray Champions, not just one.

Be that as it may, I thought I'd post this here. It's from the prologue to my novel-in-progress, the which prologue outlines a history of the world from 2001 to 2156, which is when my story starts. I don't want to post too much of it for copyright considerations, but this should be OK.

The Great Crisis, 2001-2022. After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, events moved deceptively slowly for several years, in view of the storm that approached. While the U.S. bogged down in President Bush's disastrous Iraq misadventure, world petroleum approached peak production, and the global economy teetered toward catastrophe. The collapse that followed caught most people by surprise. With petroleum prices skyrocketing, world food production went into a tailspin as farmers could no longer afford to work their fields with machinery or use petroleum-derived fertilizers. Famine followed over much of the world, together with opportunistic plagues. Wars broke out over scarce resources, especially water rights. China imploded into a chaos of civil war, anarchy, and cannibalism. In these two decades, world population declined from a height of over six billion people to just under four billion. The suffering inspired tales of woe for generations to come. The climax of the Great Crisis occurred in 2020, when the India-Pakistan war culminated in a brief but devastating nuclear exchange that left Pakistan all but depopulated and India severely crippled. To deal with all these problems, the remaining great powers met in New York in 2021 and agreed on a constitution for the Earth Union, which replaced the defunct United Nations and provided for the three crucial governing functions of peacekeeping, global economic regulation, and global environmental protection and resource management. The constitution was ratified a year later by popular referendum in the United States, Canada, the European Union, Russia, the Ukraine, Australia, India, and Japan. The remainder of the world would slowly be brought into the Union over the next several decades. The signatory nations had already by this time implemented economic changes that resulted in a high-efficiency, renewable-energy economy. As the exhausted world dug out of the rubble, as the plagues subsided and population stabilized, as the economy recovered and food production increased, hope resurfaced and the world entered a time of relative peace and stability. The election of the first Earth Union Parliament in 2022 marked, as many hoped at the time, the end of over 20 years of horror. In a fitting close of the ring, the session of the first EU Parliament met in January 2023 in the new Union Capitol, in New York City, at the site of what had been the World Trade Center.

Details like the India-Pakistan nuclear war and the building of the EU Parliament building at the WTC site are wholly fictional, but in broad outlines this is what I expect to happen. I agree with most people here that the mood doesn't feel wholly 4T yet, but I think that's because one of the Crisis issues struck us a bit early, and the rest of them are phasing in over time. When historians look back from the future on this Crisis era (which I do indeed believe will be called the Great Crisis or something similarly distinguishing), they will see 9/11 as the beginning of it, simply because of temporal proximity.

I felt at the time that it was early in terms of generational balance. However, I expected something to happen that year, something involving the Middle East, because that was the year the world minus the Persian Gulf region reached its Hubbard peak. While the global peak wasn't upon us yet, that fact increased dependence on Persian Gulf oil to near-totality, virtually guaranteeing something ugly transpiring.

Given time, and a return to normal conditions, I felt that mood shift would have returned to full-bore 3T mode for a while. But I knew that we wouldn't have the time or the leisure.

I agree that due to "temporal proximity" 9/11 will likely be seen in history as the keynote of the greater global crisis. But I also agree that from a purely saecular POV it came too early and the actual trigger (here in America) will come any time now.

I am not convinced that "Hubbard's Peak" is almost upon us, nor do I deny it. But I do agree petroleum will play a major role in the crisis for a number of reasons: Middle East mayhem, global warming, etc . . . .

And I wonder if the coming world community will be somehow largely outside of the nation-state system, not just international, or supernational, or even transnational, but metanational.