The GOP will run against San Francisco Democrats' because those issues motivate their base. Their base sees them as survival issues for the country. The Left will continue running against 'the Christian bigots' and the South because their base sees that as a survival issue for the country.

The GOP will drag out every tired old scapegoat they can find to frighten, stir up and confuse their base... they have been dragging all the ole scapegoats out all year long... mostly to roars of laughter. Flag burning? Honestly. As for the left? What's good for the goose is very tempting for the gander. But at this point the groups I am in are trying to get all the votes...and that means as many republicans as we can find... and a very surprising number of them are listening.

They're arguing over the fundamental definition of what America is and should be. Neither side is currently interested in compromise and as Boomers increasingly dominate the movement the hard-liners will gain in strength for some time yet.

The Bush Republican Party has no plan or program to do ANYTHING except give tax cut to the rich and benefits to the oil companies. They cannot run on anything but fear and hatred. They are not arguing about issues. Do you really think Bush and his very gay administration are against gay marriage? Give me a break. The only fundamental thing they believe about American is no government, no taxes for the rich, no regulations, no benefits for anyone except the rich.

"Culture" in this administration is just a political strategy used to bamboozle the rednecks into voting for them.

The advantage that the Democrats have is that they believe in government. And after 911, Katrina, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the energy crisis, global warming and the globalization squeeze in the middle class, people are starting to think a little good government might be better than the utter chaos and thievery that we now have.

Hence, the GOP must try desperately to continue to distract them with flag burning illegal aliens from San Francisco who will no doubt be exempt from the draft when we all go to WWIII. Who ever said the republicans were incompetent?

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by herbal tee

And this is a big part of why I say that we are still 3t. There's going to have to be a lot more specific hardship on a daily basis for several years before a regeneracy can be formed around a new ethos. The main reason why I think that this 3t is lasting so long is because the GI's did such a good job of bringing many of their missionary parents' dreams into real world reality that the system continues to function well enough to prevent total collapse long beyond when historical models would suggest that it could.

Now that's an interesting theory. Herbal Tee, this probably deserves it's own thread.

I have also thought the GIs did fold in many of the ideas of the Blue Awakening. Civil Rights, women's equality and ecology were addressed to a significant degree. America also stayed out of significant wars until very recently. As a culture, the hippies were rejected. Nixon's clean flag waving version of America triumphed in many ways over the culture of the Long Hot Summers. And yet, where there was truth in the protests of the Blue Awakening there was considerable response. There have been no more Long Hot Summers in part because the issues which drove the Long Hot Summers were moderated.

Thus, the culture wars have been noisy but aren't about issues apt to spiral up into violence.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Bob Butler has covered a lot of what I was planning to say. I will add however that in talking about "running against San Francisco Democrats" as he did in the first of Mr. Reed's postings, he is activly trying to incorporate the 3t culture war into what will be if he's right, the first 4t midterm.

Dangerous. Very dangerous.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that the cultural divide is not going away by magic. It's not something purely 3T-ish and it won't fade away just because oil runs out or a war starts. We can bet on the cutlure war being part of the 4T.

Instead, a massive external crisis will cause each side to demand that the other 'get serious' and quit obsessing over trivia, since deep down, each side sees the other side's culture-collision concerns as trivial (if not malicious).

The GOP will run against San Francisco Democrats' because those issues motivate their base. Their base sees them as survivial issues for the country. The Left will continue running against 'the Christian bigots' and the South because their base sees that as a survivial issue for the country.

They're arguing over the fundamental definition of what America is and should be. Neither side is currently interested in compromise and as Boomers increasingly dominate the movement the hard-liners will gain in strength for some time yet.

The bottom line is that there's probably nothing that will make the Right drop their objections to the Left's cultural agenda, and vice versa. It's either a compromise in which both sides make massive concessions, or disaster.

First, I don't expect the cultural devide to go away by magic. However, and this may be where the X'ers in general need to stop being so detached from politics, if we are going into a 4t that starts with external events, there needs to be an understanding that the foreign threat needs to be dealt with first. To deal with a primarily external threat, the culture war needs to be put on the backburner. The lost forced the missionaries to "get real" after the stock market crash. It may be close to time for the reactives to step up to the plate again. You can't get involved in what Gingrich wants to call WWIII a.k.a. the current middle eastern troubles while vilifying half of your citizenry vote for us red state interior America to fight those towel heads over there as well as the faggot lovers here.

If he really believes that this is WWIII then why is he advising president Bush to wait until September to declare war? And who will they declare war on? This is nothing more than the same Rovian style devisiveness that worked so well after 911. If the middle east gets hot enough, and it may, I am not predicting at this time how big this will get, it may work again. But if it does the irrepairable internal fracturing it will cause America will be permanent.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

You should hope that he's not.

Why should I hope not?

See above.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

My trade paperback copy of Generations says this on the back cover:

Hailed by national leaders as politically diverse as Senator Albert Gore and Representative Newt Gingrich, Generations has been heralded by reviewers as a brilliant, if somewhat unsettling, reassessment of where America is heading.

Looks like Gingrich believes We Be 4T. Interesting.

In other words, Gingrich either doesn't believe in this theory or even worse he knowsthat he's mixing 3t motives with 4t ends. :evil:

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by herbal tee

And this is a big part of why I say that we are still 3t. There's going to have to be a lot more specific hardship on a daily basis for several years before a regeneracy can be formed around a new ethos. The main reason why I think that this 3t is lasting so long is because the GI's did such a good job of bringing many of their missionary parents' dreams into real world reality that the system continues to function well enough to prevent total collapse long beyond when historical models would suggest that it could.

Now that's an interesting theory. Herbal Tee, this probably deserves it's own thread.

I have also thought the GIs did fold in many of the ideas of the Blue Awakening. Civil Rights, women's equality and ecology were addressed to a significant degree. America also stayed out of significant wars until very recently. As a culture, the hippies were rejected. Nixon's clean flag waving version of America triumphed in many ways over the culture of the Long Hot Summers. And yet, where there was truth in the protests of the Blue Awakening there was considerable response. There have been no more Long Hot Summers in part because the issues which drove the Long Hot Summers were moderated.

Thus, the culture wars have been noisy but aren't about issues apt to spiral up into violence.

I hope your right Bob, but there seem to be plenty of self serving boomers like Gingrich who know this theory and if they believe it then they are doing things that they know are wrong for short term political gain. The culture war on its own does not have the power to split America in the 4t.

But, what if the current corrupt GOP power brokers believe that they can win an internal division? I'm beginning to believe that the generation of right wingers trained and sustained on the funds to right wing think tanks and their allies that have been made available scince the Powell Manifesto became known to wealthy reactionaries has brought forth a political class that may have no reservations about using any means to acheve their ends. If this is true then America will have to deal with this rouge element sometime during the 4t lest they get to deal with America on their own 'take no prisoners' terms.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by herbal tee

And this is a big part of why I say that we are still 3t. There's going to have to be a lot more specific hardship on a daily basis for several years before a regeneracy can be formed around a new ethos. The main reason why I think that this 3t is lasting so long is because the GI's did such a good job of bringing many of their missionary parents' dreams into real world reality that the system continues to function well enough to prevent total collapse long beyond when historical models would suggest that it could.

Now that's an interesting theory. Herbal Tee, this probably deserves it's own thread.

Thanks. I can't really take credit for an original idea here, it's just the synthesis of what others have written about the last 4t. If you look at the period in American history from the stock market crash in 1929 to 1945, it's hard to imagine a 16 year long story with a happier ending. While conditions change, I think that the last 4t should be used as a model as much as it possibly can be. Unfortunatly, I have to say that I don't believe that it will be. The forces that Eisenhower warned about within the military-industrial complex have made a political alliance with the social right to bring about a fundamentally undemocratic and unsustainable state. Democracies cannot stand endless war, be it internal or external. It's becoming apparent that there are some who at best don't see where the current path leads or even worse, do understand and have calculated that a civil war style 4t is winnable for their side.

Fourth Turning thoughts.




Published on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 by Yes! Magazine
The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community
by David Korten

By what name will future generations know our time?

Will they speak in anger and frustration of the time of the Great Unraveling, when profligate consumption exceeded Earth’s capacity to sustain and led to an accelerating wave of collapsing environmental systems, violent competition for what remained of the planet’s resources, and a dramatic dieback of the human population? Or will they look back in joyful celebration on the time of the Great Turning, when their forebears embraced the higher-order potential of their human nature, turned crisis into opportunity, and learned to live in creative partnership with one another and Earth?

A Defining Choice

We face a defining choice between two contrasting models for organizing human affairs. Give them the generic names Empire and Earth Community. Absent an understanding of the history and implications of this choice, we may squander valuable time and resources on efforts to preserve or mend cultures and institutions that cannot be fixed and must be replaced.

Empire organizes by domination at all levels, from relations among nations to relations among family members. Empire brings fortune to the few, condemns the majority to misery and servitude, suppresses the creative potential of all, and appropriates much of the wealth of human societies to maintain the institutions of domination.

Earth Community, by contrast, organizes by partnership, unleashes the human potential for creative co-operation, and shares resources and surpluses for the good of all. Supporting evidence for the possibilities of Earth Community comes from the findings of quantum physics, evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, anthropology, archaeology, and religious mysticism. It was the human way before Empire; we must make a choice to re-learn how to live by its principles.

Developments distinctive to our time are telling us that Empire has reached the limits of the exploitation that people and Earth will sustain. A mounting perfect economic storm born of a convergence of peak oil, climate change, and an imbalanced U.S. economy dependent on debts it can never repay is poised to bring a dramatic restructuring of every aspect of modern life. We have the power to choose, however, whether the consequences play out as a terminal crisis or an epic opportunity. The Great Turning is not a prophecy. It is a possibility.. ........

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0718-31.htm

More on... E grande virada, die grosse Wandlung, el gran cambio




The Great Turning as Compass and Lens
by Joanna Macy


What it means to be alive at a moment of global crisis and possibility.

“Thinking of the Great Turning reminds me I don’t have to save the world by myself; then there’s more energy for my little piece of it — getting the military out of my son’s school.” — Anti-recruitment activist in San Francisco

“It strengthens me to see my work for renewable energy in the context of the grande virada.” — Corporate consultant in Brazil.

“I love telling the children in our eco-camp that their restoration project is part of the grosse Wandlung, and they are part of it, too.” — Teacher in Germany’s Black Forest.

“Now I recognize el gran cambio right here in Barcelona, and at the same time it links me with activists around the world. I feel less isolated.” —Spanish community organizer.




E grande virada, die grosse Wandlung, el gran cambio… Wherever I go, in every group I work with, the Great Turning becomes
more rewarding as a conceptual frame.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1473

There are more than 5 articles in that issue of Yes Magazine about The Great Turning.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Fourth Turning thoughts.




Published on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 by Yes! Magazine
The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community
by David Korten

By what name will future generations know our time?

...Developments distinctive to our time are telling us that Empire has reached the limits of the exploitation that people and Earth will sustain. A mounting perfect economic storm born of a convergence of peak oil, climate change, and an imbalanced U.S. economy dependent on debts it can never repay is poised to bring a dramatic restructuring of every aspect of modern life. We have the power to choose, however, whether the consequences play out as a terminal crisis or an epic opportunity. The Great Turning is not a prophecy. It is a possibility.. ........

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0718-31.htm

I've been looking for movements like this, equivalent to the Sons of Liberty or Abolitionists of prior crises. The 'netroots' liberal bloggers are another such, but to this point they have been excessively negative, much more into the 3T culture war and dislike of the Republican establishment than the sort of major transformation one might expect out of a 4T. This 'Great Turning' certainly isn't a mature force yet, but it seems worth watching.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The lost forced the missionaries to "get real" after the stock market crash.

Exactly what did the missionaries have to "get real" about? Was there a culture war then that is analogous to the one today? I don't think so. I think the issues back then were more clearly economic than they are today. The GOP of the 1920's was upfront about their economic agenda; they didn't need to hide it like they do today.

Hopeful is wrong when he maintains that the culture war will continue even if a disaster develops. The culture war will continue, however, but this is because the disaster will never materialize.

There is simply not going to be the "dooziness" that Sean and others here expect that will force Boomers to "get real". The culture wars will continue because they are part of the fabric of society for this 4T.

The issues of the crisis will still get addressed, because that is what happens in a 4T. But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will happen. HOW a hegemonic society has a crisis that isn't forced on it is one of the problems that will have to be solved in this 4T. Remember we have nukes nows. We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will likely be the end of civilization. So the key problem to be solved today is how to have a Crisis without having a crisis--so we all get to continue living.

4T's don't solve old problems that were addressed in previous crises. They deal with new ones. We aren't going to have another Depression; we know how to prevent a recurrence today. We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003).

We won't have a civil war either because we know how to deal with that too. We had our civil war in 1995-2000.

Today we allow partisan fights to be waged in the political arena. We extinguish our domestic spirals of violence (e.g. Oklahoma city) rather than let them fester as we did before the Civil War. Look what happened in the 1990's. A right wing spiral of violence was stopped, yet at the same time the Right gained politically. Had the Left gained, the spiral would not have been extinguished.

The anger of the militias was channeled into political activity and away from violence. This did not happen in the 1850's when the South felt under attack with nowhere to go.

We probably won't have anything that galvanizes us to do anything (e.g. fling nuclear missiles around). What we probably will have is more and more dissatisfaction with the lack of leadership on both sides. A successful 4T this time will probably see power shift back and forth between the parties as each tries to find the formula that gains them dominance. Once that formula is obtained, the consensus will have arisen and the 4T will be over. Folks here will still be debating whether or not the 3T is still going on. Finally when it becomes clear the 1T is here, we will, after the fact, denote the 4T ran from year X to year Y.

I believe that year X is already in the past now.

Mostly what they had to get real about was Prohibition and other attempts to force Edwardian virtues down the throats of the Lost Generation.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with
> it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will
> eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will
> happen. ...

> We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will
> likely be the end of civilization. ...

> We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003). ...

> We had our civil war in 1995-2000. ...

I don't know, Mike. I'm getting the feeling that you're completely
losing it. Maybe you never fully recovered from that 1990s civil war
we had.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The lost forced the missionaries to "get real" after the stock market crash.

Exactly what did the missionaries have to "get real" about? Was there a culture war then that is analogous to the one today? I don't think so. I think the issues back then were more clearly economic than they are today. The GOP of the 1920's was upfront about their economic agenda; they didn't need to hide it like they do today.

Hopeful is wrong when he maintains that the culture war will continue even if a disaster develops. The culture war will continue, however, but this is because the disaster will never materialize.

There is simply not going to be the "dooziness" that Sean and others here expect that will force Boomers to "get real". The culture wars will continue because they are part of the fabric of society for this 4T.

The issues of the crisis will still get addressed, because that is what happens in a 4T. But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will happen. HOW a hegemonic society has a crisis that isn't forced on it is one of the problems that will have to be solved in this 4T. Remember we have nukes nows. We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will likely be the end of civilization. So the key problem to be solved today is how to have a Crisis without having a crisis--so we all get to continue living.

4T's don't solve old problems that were addressed in previous crises. They deal with new ones. We aren't going to have another Depression; we know how to prevent a recurrence today. We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003).

We won't have a civil war either because we know how to deal with that too. We had our civil war in 1995-2000.

Today we allow partisan fights to be waged in the political arena. We extinguish our domestic spirals of violence (e.g. Oklahoma city) rather than let them fester as we did before the Civil War. Look what happened in the 1990's. A right wing spiral of violence was stopped, yet at the same time the Right gained politically. Had the Left gained, the spiral would not have been extinguished.

The anger of the militias was channeled into political activity and away from violence. This did not happen in the 1850's when the South felt under attack with nowhere to go.

We probably won't have anything that galvanizes us to do anything (e.g. fling nuclear missiles around). What we probably will have is more and more dissatisfaction with the lack of leadership on both sides. A successful 4T this time will probably see power shift back and forth between the parties as each tries to find the formula that gains them dominance. Once that formula is obtained, the consensus will have arisen and the 4T will be over. Folks here will still be debating whether or not the 3T is still going on. Finally when it becomes clear the 1T is here, we will, after the fact, denote the 4T ran from year X to year Y.

I believe that year X is already in the past now.

My reading of American cultural history in the 1920's is different from yours. I see events like the Scopes monkey trial as part of a continous thread that runs throughout American history. While it is true that 'modernism"-however you want to define it, was less of an issue in the 1920's, it still was a challenge for the traditionalists of that time. Do you not see the similarities between the speakeasy prohibition era clubs of the 1920's and today's "rave" parties? Alcohol is a drug in the medical sense of the word and drug smuggling was a problem in the 1920. The difference was they were smuggling liquids then and are smuggling solids now. In 1928 when Al Smith was the Democratic candidate for president, the fact that he was a "wet" on the prohibition issue as well as being a Roman Catholic, caused five of the then "solid south" Democratic states to go Republican. Being catholic does not preclude on from being president, but who would argue that the "church" issue is not still with us as a partial determinant of ones political loyalties. The point is, the culture war of the 1920's effectivly ended in a truce. Yes, the "wets' won the prohibition issue but religion and other cultural, inner world based issues had to be put aside. Economic survival became paramount for both sides and before conditions could improve enough for cultural issues to split apart the emergent new deal coalition, WWII had to be dealt with. By then the regeneracy was too strong for cultural issues to split it."Getting real" was what the new deal was about. Remember, FDR had been a "dry" during the 1920's. Prohibition ending because of his government's need for liquor revenues to fight the depression is perhaps the epitome of a missionary "getting real" in the last 4t.

I can't share your optimism about the future being completely managable. I don't see the recession of 2000-2003 being another depression. Where were the breadlines? Where were the land riots that were caused by the massive foreclosures? Where were the million or more homeless roaming from town to town looking for work and being greeted by billboards saying "Unemployed move on, we have no work here." Has any depression in history ever last only three years? No, because true depressions like 1837-43, 1873-79, 1892-97 and the great depression last for longer periods. In terms of right wing extermism being our "civil war" I can't buy that. In the 1920's there was a resurgance of the klan and not just in the south. Lynching was more common in that era than rightist terrorism was in the 1990's, yet the last 4t avoided a civil war dispite worse statistics for "hate related' violence. I saw no civil war nor a depression in the last ten years. What I did see was an annoying culture war that continues followed by a short, but severe recession.

I also can't share your optimism that a real depression can't happen. The twin deficets-trade and budget- are going to have to be paid for in the future. We have a federal reserve that insists that our current cost push inflation-rising oil prices-is actually being caused by wage increases. The result is that the fed continues to tighten credit in hopes of slowing wage growth. I don't believe that the current governement is competent to manage things without the risk of problems like those of the past recurring. Just because problems happened in a past 4t doesn't preclude them from recurring. The solutions for one cycle by definition break down during the 3t. It wouldn't be called an unraveling otherwise.

The lady who wrote this studies American culture and identity. She recognizes that we are moving into a Crisis mood.

The Millennium's First Five Years
BY DELIA M. RIOS

WASHINGTON -- Bruce Springsteen, as well as anyone, put words to the feeling that permeates America five years into the first decade of the new millennium -- a sense that life is the same, except that it's not.

"The sky is still the same unbelievable blue," Springsteen marvels in a song from "The Rising," his redemptive response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The brilliant clarity of that blue is tied in our memory to America as it was. But there was danger hidden in that vast sky.

The decade's first half ended as it began, with a catastrophic blow. Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Gulf coast Aug. 29, 2005, closing out five years in which Americans found their homeland under attack, went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and mourned the loss of the space shuttle Columbia's crew. President Bush cautions that in 2006, "we will see more sacrifice -- from our military, their families and the Iraqi people."

Stress points, historian Dwight Pitcaithley calls times like these. We ask ourselves, what does it mean to be an American? Who are we?

"There wasn't a golden age when we weren't thrashing them out," Brent Glass, director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, says of these questions. But now -- as during the Great Depression of the 1930s, with the future of our economic system then hanging in the balance -- they feel especially urgent.

Glass took his job in 2002 because he wanted to be part of this national conversation. So did Springsteen, reversing his self-imposed ban on political campaigning to stump for the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry. "I believe the essential ideas of American identity are what's at stake on November 2," he told tens of thousands at a rally that fall in Madison, Wis.

We know that we live in the post-Sept. 11 era. We know the precise hour it began. But when does it end -- if ever?

Sept. 11 remains the defining event of this young decade, providing the framework for all that has followed -- and eclipsing the contested 2000 election that engulfed the country in political turmoil for weeks before Bush finally prevailed over former Vice President Al Gore.

"What we experienced on Sept. 11, 2001, was the loss of the known world," says Dr. Luis Leon, rector of St. John's on Lafayette Square, parish church to presidents since 1815. "We are feeling our way through that loss."

Zogby pollsters revealed just before the attacks' most recent anniversary that seven of 10 Americans think about Sept. 11 at least once a week; 87 percent say it was "the most significant historical event in their lifetime." The president casts this time in just those terms, saying in a Dec. 14 speech, "We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom."

In this new era Miss Manners addresses questions about the propriety of a Sept. 11 wedding -- "Have you put down a deposit?" The father of a 4-year-old details how his daughter plays at fairy godmother by waving her wand over him "like an airport security guard." A Harvard student recounts the stares directed at her Muslim headscarf, and how a small kindness from Al Gore -- he picked up her dropped keys from a gym floor -- reassured her that "I belong to America and that America belongs to me."

We've grown accustomed to seeing the names of our daughters alongside those of our sons among the war dead -- including that of 1st Lt. Laura Margaret Walker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who was killed in action in Afghanistan last Aug. 18, and who, her obit recounted, had "a deep love for all the holidays, especially Christmas."

America is the land of the self-made man, of the happy Hollywood ending, of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The belief in the American dream runs throughout our history. Glass oversees the Smithsonian's telling of that story -- and he believes Sept. 11 was a direct attack on that dream, challenging our confidence in its power.

It is also a matter of American faith that problems have solutions, says Marc Pachter, who preceded Glass in his job. And so what happens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina should concern every American.

"If we get New Orleans rebuilt and without the loss of its soul ... we will have regained our faith in survival and resilience," Pachter says. "If we abandon New Orleans ... it will say, in the end, that there are some things that cannot be fixed. It would be a sadness that would extend over generations."

On another front, military historian Victor Davis Hanson already sees a success story:

"On Sept. 12, 2001, I doubt that anyone would have believed you could have taken out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and had constitutional elections and had this ripple effect in Beirut and the Gulf states, and Libya and Egypt. On Sept. 12, 2001, looking at the smoke of the Pentagon and World Trade Center, people would not have believed that we would not have had another attack in the United States."

What happens next, Hanson has come to believe, may hinge on the outcome in Iraq. He likens the high stakes there to "a poker hand where everybody has upped the ante."

Now would be the time for a vibrant, civic discussion of who we are. "There's a lot of discussion," notes Pitcaithley, former chief historian of the National Park Service, "but are we getting anywhere?"

His students at New Mexico State University recognize echoes of today's "cross-talk" in the rhetoric of the 1850s, as the country moved steadily toward civil war. The problem isn't conflict -- that serves a critical role in a democracy. As Pitcaithley explains, "It's let me tell you what I'm thinking and you tell me what you're thinking, and maybe we'll end up in a different place."

The problem is that it's hard to find that level of engagement -- in the halls of Congress or at the family dinner table. The extraordinary national unity after Sept. 11 long ago disintegrated into virulent partisanship, with opponents often convinced the other side has lost all reason.

Karlyn Bowman has tracked polls since Sept. 11 for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and watches for signs that we are losing a basic confidence in our democratic system. We criticize plenty, she says, but our confidence holds. Of the impact of 9/11, she said, "The data don't answer questions satisfactorily about whether or not something is fundamentally different about us."

Bowman is particularly interested in end-of-the-year polling that gauges how Americans view the future. They almost always express optimism -- will they again?

Americans overwhelmingly say they prefer living in their country to anywhere else in the world. This is true even as they believe that terrorists are now on our soil, that another attack is a matter of when, not if.

The Rev. Leon says he is reminded, in this new century, of words written by the 30-year-old Ernest Hemingway in his novel of World War I, "A Farewell to Arms":

"The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places."[/url]

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with
> it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will
> eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will
> happen. ...

> We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will
> likely be the end of civilization. ...

> We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003). ...

> We had our civil war in 1995-2000. ...

I don't know, Mike. I'm getting the feeling that you're completely
losing it. Maybe you never fully recovered from that 1990s civil war
we had.

Sincerely,

John

As it occured in his mind, perhaps he took more damage from it than the rest of us?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with
> it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will
> eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will
> happen. ...

> We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will
> likely be the end of civilization. ...

> We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003). ...

> We had our civil war in 1995-2000. ...

I don't know, Mike. I'm getting the feeling that you're completely
losing it. Maybe you never fully recovered from that 1990s civil war
we had.

Sincerely,

John

As it occured in his mind, perhaps he took more damage from it than the rest of us?

Or perhaps he's simply... damaged! :lol:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with
> it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will
> eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will
> happen. ...

> We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will
> likely be the end of civilization. ...

> We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003). ...

> We had our civil war in 1995-2000. ...

I don't know, Mike. I'm getting the feeling that you're completely
losing it. Maybe you never fully recovered from that 1990s civil war
we had.

Sincerely,

John

As it occured in his mind, perhaps he took more damage from it than the rest of us?

Or perhaps he's simply... damaged! :lol:

Perhaps I should comment here. Mike was responding to an earlier post by me and while I was surprised that he made those specific comments, my impression was that he was probabaly using symbolic language and because of lack of time or other considerations, he didn't have a chance to elaborate on his points. After all, the culture wars did heat up noticably in the 1990's and the recession of 2000-2003 was more severe than the manipulated "official" statistics would suggest. For example, we don't count people as unemployed anymore after their 13-26 weeks of unemployment pay run out. This is why the unemployment rate often goes down at the same time the total number of employed persons also falls.

Wheather he chooses to comment here or not , let me say that I enjoy his postings and have learned a great deal from reading him and the rest of you. I look forward to my opportunities to check in with all of you who feel that this theory has the potential to give us greater understanding of how and why history often takes unexpected turns that those who were taught to believe in linear progress, as I was, would otherwise expect.

These final two paragraphs of a review of the latest Marilyn French novel are eerie. This is from a review by Joyce Johnson, in the Sunday Washington Post Book Review.

Although this novel is only now being published in the United States, French completed it before we learned what the 21st century had in store for us. It is no fault of hers that time has hurled us with brutal speed into strange new psychic territory, making the kinds of story lines that once fed our dreams seem painfully thin. From our present vantage point, the year 2000 seems nearly as distant as Jane Austen's era -- a halycon period we can return to only in escapist fiction. Jenny's baby, like my own granddaughter, is born only months before September 11, 2001. Only five years afterward, I find it increasingly difficult to look into my granddaughter's eyes without thinking of polar ice caps crashing into the sea. Will the choices she and her generation make when they grow up have to do less with self-actualization than with sheer survival?

Wherever we are headed, God help us, I doubt we will find ourselves in Steventon.

Marilyn French, The War Against Women

This review comes from my book, "Fraternizing Against the Enemy: A
book on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about
men"

One of the clearest expositions of the feminist view of men's hatred
and control of women is The War Against Women, by Marilyn
French, Summit Books, 1992, which says, "The entire system of female
oppression rests on ordinary men, who maintain it with a fervor and
dedication to duty that any secret police force might envy. What
other system can depend on almost half the population to enforce a
policy daily, publicly and privately, and with utter reliability?"
(p. 182)

The War Against Women is, in many ways, a monumental feminist
work. The section titles of her book tell her point of view: "The war
against women in education," "the war against women's personhood,"
"the war against women as mothers," "sexual war," "wars of control:
legal system," "wars of control: scientific researchers," and so
forth.

French has compiled women's complaints about men from every
discipline and from every country around the world. There's no male
action which she can't find a way to interpret as proof that men hate
women.

Consider her view of historians:

• Men obliterate women from history, and "close ranks to
  appropriate women's projects or attribute them to men. Male
  historians present a united front in omitting women from all kinds of
  history." [p. 48]

Consider her view of the Catholic Church:

• The Catholic Church teaches boys that "they must renounce the
  mother, be reborn through men, and maintain male solidarity against
  women. They are taught men's secret ways of terrifying women (with
  the fearful sound of a swinging whip, say), taught that the essence
  of maleness is control of female power. The ritual teaches boys to
  war against women, to subjugate _them_ as they are being subjugated,
  by male solidarity and intimidation." [p. 85]

She argues over and over that men subjugate women, not only making
them sexual objects, but even forcing "women into the position of
domesticated animals." [p. 104] And yet, she later argues that men
consider women so worthless that they massively eradicate them [p.
114]. Well, if women are such useful sexual playthings and
workhorses, why would men even want to eradicate them? She doesn't
answer that.

With regard to rape, she says "so automatic is society's acceptance
of male rapists as a fact of life that journalists often conceal this
form of male predation." [p. 194] She says that men who commit
rape and incest are in fact "normal," and adds, "My own informal
survey of adult women suggests that very few reach the age of
twenty-one without suffering some form of male predation -- incest,
molestation, rape or attempted rape, beatings, and sometimes torture
or imprisonment." [p. 195]

One issue that some feminists don't answer is the fact that many more
men than women are killed, either by crime or by war, indicating by
the logic of feminism that it's not women but other men that men
hate. However, French has an answer to even this: "wars kill the
children to whom most women devote their lives." [p. 157] So if
women are killed, it's proof that men hate women; and if men are
killed, they're depriving women of their sons, so once again it's
proof that men hate women!!

This book is so bad that, like the worst grade B horror movies of all
time, this book brings badness and dreadfulness to an art form, and
is almost good for that reason.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> But there won't be a threat that forces us to unite to deal with
> it. Rather it will be a host of minor irritations that will
> eventually make life miserable for enough people that change will
> happen. ...

> We cannot afford a crisis that is "forced on us" because that will
> likely be the end of civilization. ...

> We already HAD our Depression this time (in 2001-2003). ...

> We had our civil war in 1995-2000. ...

I don't know, Mike. I'm getting the feeling that you're completely
losing it. Maybe you never fully recovered from that 1990s civil war
we had.

Sincerely,

John

As it occured in his mind, perhaps he took more damage from it than the rest of us?

Or perhaps he's simply... damaged! :lol:

Perhaps I should comment here. Mike was responding to an earlier post by me and while I was surprised that he made those specific comments, my impression was that he was probabaly using symbolic language and because of lack of time or other considerations, he didn't have a chance to elaborate on his points. After all, the culture wars did heat up noticably in the 1990's and the recession of 2000-2003 was more severe than the manipulated "official" statistics would suggest. For example, we don't count people as unemployed anymore after their 13-26 weeks of unemployment pay run out. This is why the unemployment rate often goes down at the same time the total number of employed persons also falls.

Wheather he chooses to comment here or not , let me say that I enjoy his postings and have learned a great deal from reading him and the rest of you. I look forward to my opportunities to check in with all of you who feel that this theory has the potential to give us greater understanding of how and why history often takes unexpected turns that those who were taught to believe in linear progress, as I was, would otherwise expect.

Oh, I was just giving ol' John a hard time :lol:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Marilyn French, The War Against Women

This review comes from my book, "Fraternizing Against the Enemy: A
book on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about
men"

One of the clearest expositions of the feminist view of men's hatred
and control of women is The War Against Women, by Marilyn
French, Summit Books, 1992, which says, "The entire system of female
oppression rests on ordinary men, who maintain it with a fervor and
dedication to duty that any secret police force might envy. What
other system can depend on almost half the population to enforce a
policy daily, publicly and privately, and with utter reliability?"
(p. 182)

(and so on)

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

You do realize that my post above was not about Marilyn French, but about a passage of a review of her latest book that really struck me. I personally have not read any of Ms. French's ouevre and thus, cannot comment one way or another. However, the passage quoted above seemed to fit this thread....

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Marilyn French, The War Against Women

This review comes from my book, "Fraternizing Against the Enemy: A
book on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about
men"

One of the clearest expositions of the feminist view of men's hatred
and control of women is The War Against Women, by Marilyn
French, Summit Books, 1992, which says, "The entire system of female
oppression rests on ordinary men, who maintain it with a fervor and
dedication to duty that any secret police force might envy. What
other system can depend on almost half the population to enforce a
policy daily, publicly and privately, and with utter reliability?"
(p. 182)

(and so on)

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

You do realize that my post above was not about Marilyn French, but about a passage of a review of her latest book that really struck me. I personally have not read any of Ms. French's ouevre and thus, cannot comment one way or another. However, the passage quoted above seemed to fit this thread....

Sorry, it's just that the name "Marilyn French" makes me see red.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Marilyn French, The War Against Women

This review comes from my book, "Fraternizing Against the Enemy: A
book on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about
men"

One of the clearest expositions of the feminist view of men's hatred
and control of women is The War Against Women, by Marilyn
French, Summit Books, 1992, which says, "The entire system of female
oppression rests on ordinary men, who maintain it with a fervor and
dedication to duty that any secret police force might envy. What
other system can depend on almost half the population to enforce a
policy daily, publicly and privately, and with utter reliability?"
(p. 182)

The War Against Women is, in many ways, a monumental feminist
work. The section titles of her book tell her point of view: "The war
against women in education," "the war against women's personhood,"
"the war against women as mothers," "sexual war," "wars of control:
legal system," "wars of control: scientific researchers," and so
forth.

French has compiled women's complaints about men from every
discipline and from every country around the world. There's no male
action which she can't find a way to interpret as proof that men hate
women.

Consider her view of historians:

• Men obliterate women from history, and "close ranks to
  appropriate women's projects or attribute them to men. Male
  historians present a united front in omitting women from all kinds of
  history." [p. 48]

Consider her view of the Catholic Church:

• The Catholic Church teaches boys that "they must renounce the
  mother, be reborn through men, and maintain male solidarity against
  women. They are taught men's secret ways of terrifying women (with
  the fearful sound of a swinging whip, say), taught that the essence
  of maleness is control of female power. The ritual teaches boys to
  war against women, to subjugate _them_ as they are being subjugated,
  by male solidarity and intimidation." [p. 85]

She argues over and over that men subjugate women, not only making
them sexual objects, but even forcing "women into the position of
domesticated animals." [p. 104] And yet, she later argues that men
consider women so worthless that they massively eradicate them [p.
114]. Well, if women are such useful sexual playthings and
workhorses, why would men even want to eradicate them? She doesn't
answer that.

With regard to rape, she says "so automatic is society's acceptance
of male rapists as a fact of life that journalists often conceal this
form of male predation." [p. 194] She says that men who commit
rape and incest are in fact "normal," and adds, "My own informal
survey of adult women suggests that very few reach the age of
twenty-one without suffering some form of male predation -- incest,
molestation, rape or attempted rape, beatings, and sometimes torture
or imprisonment." [p. 195]

One issue that some feminists don't answer is the fact that many more
men than women are killed, either by crime or by war, indicating by
the logic of feminism that it's not women but other men that men
hate. However, French has an answer to even this: "wars kill the
children to whom most women devote their lives." [p. 157] So if
women are killed, it's proof that men hate women; and if men are
killed, they're depriving women of their sons, so once again it's
proof that men hate women!!

This book is so bad that, like the worst grade B horror movies of all
time, this book brings badness and dreadfulness to an art form, and
is almost good for that reason.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Rather than rail against Madame French, wouldn't it be kinder to yourself to have pity on her, John? If your quotations are accurate and in context(and, mind you, I don't know that they are), it would appear she is quite consumed with animosity toward men, likely because of her personal maltreatment by men in her life... and the only way she can deal with it is to project her feelings onto other people.

By reacting to this woman with such vitriol, all you are really doing is allowing her to make her problems... yours. Why give anyone that much power, let alone a perfect stranger?

At any rate, a strong dislike of males doesn't preclude her from observing the course of America's slide into what we call a Fourth Turning. She may still, in fact, have some ideas that could prove useful even to us guys.