Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm more inclined than ever to equate September 11th timing wise with the 29 stock market crash, though the former was part of an external conflict while the latter was economic. September 11th isn't alone. It was just the most spectacular single incident in a larger spiral of violence, while Katrina and assorted political scandals contributed to climaxing the unraveling as well.

I'm still willing to compare Bush 43 with Buchanan and Hoover as conservative presidents not embracing large enough changes, and thus not being remembered well. Iraq might fit in the same mold as the Spanish Civil War and Bleeding Kansas, serious precursor fights which none the less fell far short of the total wars that followed.

The 2006 mid terms might or might not start a regeneracy depending on whether the Democrats can move their populist centrist for-the-people agenda, or whether they revert into partisan stagnation. Too soon to tell. If no regeneracy has created vision and values for the crisis resolution it isn't surprising that resources haven't been shifted from luxury and selfishness towards problem solving and crisis resolution.

It isn't clear, though, that a major war is necessary or inevitable. Internal to the United States, there is no spiral of violence. In the greater world, we are as close as it gets to an aggressor power intending to expand by force. I still have vague hopes that the lessons learned in Iraq might discourage exporting values or controlling resources by force. During the Industrial Age, from Columbus through Hiroshima, Imperialism was the accepted wisdom. Major powers increased their stature and power by seizing territory from minor powers and from each other. Vietnam, the Soviet experiences in Afghanistan, and Iraq are challenging the wisdom of using armies as an extension of politics.

It is still possible that the primary focus might be economic, ecological and ethnic rather than military. Security can't be ignored. We won't have the other three if we forget Freedom from Fear.

But I wouldn't assume the crisis need inevitably be centered on a conventional war. The lesser powers know they can't take on the major powers in open battle. The major powers might prudently develop an allergy to occupation and insurgency. There might be no options left but equality and justice. These might be more difficult goals than subduing aggressor powers.

The issue isn't conservatism; it's the murky philosophy known as neo-conservatism. The neo-conservatives created a coalition between corporate interests intent on transferring wealth from the middle class to the super-rich as one part and as the other, the Religious Right, which seemed to care little about economic concerns (God will take care of His sheep, or so they think) so long as they are promised 'family values'. Effectively the more secular liberals and labor interests, who are to be shut out of the electoral coalition around Bush and Cheney and isolated in the legislative process, are treated as irrelevant. Religion is to be used as an anodyne, much as Marx said that it was, in the service of amoral and rapacious prople who care only of themselves.

Part of the unraveling of this coalition is that the neo-cons failed to deliver the cultural values of the Religious Right. There has been no ban on contraception or even abortion. Homosexuality is still at least de facto legal. School prayer has not been re-introduced, and evolution remains the norm in science teaching. The mass culture remains as depraved as ever. Meanwhile the Christian fundies recognize that they are the ones to be hit hardest due to mass layoffs, and their kids are a disproportionate part of the cannon fodder in Iraq and will be in any imperialist wars that the neo-cons choose to start. The cornerstone of propsperity becomes the more rapid exploitation of natural resources, which also implies ecological ruin.

There's just too much profit to be had from offering a depraved culture.... pornography, slasher films, violent and sex-charged television, and anti-social parts of pop music remain profitable. The corporate clique has no intention of abandoning the cash cow that is mass low culture to give the Christian fundies the culture that they want.

One can attribute the the repudiation of neo-conservatives in the 2006 election to the hypocrisy of their leadership toward the "sheep" that they promised the culture in return for economic dominion by a rapacious elite and the prospect of imperialist wars. But much as Marx was excessively simplistic about the role of religon as the opiate of the masses, so are the neo-cons who see religion as an object to be manipulated for political and economic ends. It offers means of judging amoral, rapacious, selfish, reckless, dishonest people. To be sure, secular liberals might have their own means of expressing contempt for the worst tendencies in human behavior by either rapacious elites or the garden variety of cirminals, but that takes some formality of thought that most people lack the time and cognitive ability to develop on their own.

The neo-cons have discredited themselves, but the coalition characteristic of the leadership through a 4T has yet to form. Secular liberals and religious fundies might have to agree on a few basics -- greater equity in the economic order, less consumerism in return for a sustainable environment, some sanitization of the culture, a crackdown on sexual predators and drug traffickers, more rigor in education -- while making compromises on some sexual matters. Perhaps liberals will have to sacrifice abortion for gay rights -- or vice versa. The neo-cons had their chance to establish their 4T coalition, but they ended up cheating their partners, partners that they believed were too naive to become alienated.

No two fourth turnings are alike in their causes. A regional split seems unlikely because of the presence of large 'red' areas in 'blue' zones, and vice-versa. An economic meltdown like that of 1929 remains a possibility -- but it will be different in cause and effects if it does happen. (Reforms from the 1930s prevent a speculative boom in the stock market followed by bank failures that wipe out savings; real estate valuations are far more vulnerable). Foreign control of America is a reality only to nutcases who believe that some conspiracy associated with the Mossad or the House of Rotschild really rules America. We are going into one, and nobody knows what it is. But the neo-cons aren't going to lead America through it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The issue isn't conservatism; it's the murky philosophy known as neo-conservatism...

I can second the bulk of your post. I'd just add that the factions in every crisis are different. Quite commonly, there is a rich elite that wishes to sustain an existing system that keeps them rich and elite. Quite commonly, the opposition faction is progressive and populist. There are often opposition elites whose wealth depends on new technology, who wish to modify political policies to enable new wealth. Quite often, the People are promised additional rights and / or democratic influence over the elites.

Your description of the Neocons is apt. Calling them Neocons rather than conservatives is more descriptive. Yes, the current Neocons are not fighting for the same things as the slave owners, royalists, or isolationists. I am just broadly displeased at all rich elites through history that attempted to sustain a dated if enriching status quo. And yes, that characterization fits today's military industrial complex half of the Neocon alliance far more than it fits the Christian fundamentalist half.

The liberal desire to help the common man and the Christian commandment to love one's neighbor are not at core incompatible. Studio 60's Christian comedienne character has been running around the last two episodes repeating a basic quote. "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It also says judge not lest you be judged." There is a third sentence which says she isn't the one to resolve the conflict and pass judgement. We could do with a lot fewer people, Red or Blue, trying to pass judgement.

This almost has to happen if a Christian liberal populist movement is going to take on the military industrial complex and its ruling elite.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I can second the bulk of your post. I'd just add that the factions in every crisis are different. Quite commonly, there is a rich elite that wishes to sustain an existing system that keeps them rich and elite. Quite commonly, the opposition faction is progressive and populist. There are often opposition elites whose wealth depends on new technology, who wish to modify political policies to enable new wealth. Quite often, the People are promised additional rights and / or democratic influence over the elites.

No question. Such is so in every Crisis since at least the late 1600s. Privileged classes intensify their dominion over the economy and use that domininon to concentrate power in their hands. The best times for workers as a rule are those in which ownership elites (typically agrarians versus technologists) vie for the support of workers. But those times are as a rule not times of Crisis.
Severe disparities of economic results are themselves contributors not so much to motivation to success and investment as to to resentments that only intensify domestic discord. As the most obvious example, the need for capitalists of the 'high tech' boom c. 1900 to maximize profits depended upon the proletariat to become a market for the new manufactures. But that came during a High, and Awakening Era, and an Unraveling. Conflicts between economic elites, to be sure, usually result in improvements for workers -- but those as a rule occur in times other than Crisis eras. In a Crisis, survival means more than does the expansion of market.

Your description of the Neocons is apt. Calling them Neocons rather than conservatives is more descriptive. Yes, the current Neocons are not fighting for the same things as the slave owners, royalists, or isolationists. I am just broadly displeased at all rich elites through history that attempted to sustain a dated if enriching status quo. And yes, that characterization fits today's military industrial complex half of the Neocon alliance far more than it fits the Christian fundamentalist half.

Thanks. I consider neocons anything but conservatives. They do not believe in limited government; they do not believe in keeping government out of the business of choosing "winners" (themselves and their super-rich clients) and "losers" (a middle class to be pauperized). They exploit demogoguery as crassly as the worst populists. They seem intent more on creating a New Order than in preserving an Old Order. They want the world to be a continuing struggle against who-knows-what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAZm9giVY40&eurl=

The liberal desire to help the common man and the Christian commandment to love one's neighbor are not at core incompatible. Studio 60's Christian comedienne character has been running around the last two episodes repeating a basic quote. "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It also says judge not lest you be judged." There is a third sentence which says she isn't the one to resolve the conflict and pass judgement. We could do with a lot fewer people, Red or Blue, trying to pass judgement.

This almost has to happen if a Christian liberal populist movement is going to take on the military industrial complex and its ruling elite.

In my opinion, Jesus Christ did not establish a wealth cult. I can see little in the neo-con ideology compatible with any of His teachings. I cannot imagine Jesus lying to get a country into a war. I can't imagine Him taking personal revenge against someone who wronged or inconvenienced Him. To say such things as "Blessed are the haughty", "Blessed are the rapacious", or "Blessed are the warmongers" is to negate His teachings. He told people to give up their possessions to the poor before even pretending to follow Him.

To be sure, one cannot state that He would tell people to liquidate their successful businesses to give to the poor because the people that one would leave unemployed would themselves become poor. I cannot imagine Him telling people to exploit others as the neo-cons suggest that the insiders do.

.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The questions are, of course,

(1) how good could the mullah's regime be in getting infiltrators into the US?

Rather easily, I imagine. People come and go between here and Iran all the time, not to mention through intermediate countries.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

(2) how successful would those infiltrators be in avoiding conflicts with Iranian expats who loathe the Iranian regime?

If they're trained sleeper cells, conflicts would be avoidable. Iran has had 25 years to cultivate cells here.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

(3) how many intended infiltrators would remain loyal to their bankrollers?

Now THAT is a very good question. I suppose those who are still loyal would pop turncoats. Furthermore, if it's built on a cell system, damage would be limited.

Murdoch pulls the plug on the OJ Simpson "confessional."

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Murdoch pulls the plug on the OJ Simpson "confessional."

That's a start. Now, who pulls the plug on Murdoch???

NOTE: This post was written not knowing my post of yesterday had successfully posted.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The questions are, of course,

(1) how good could the mullah's regime be in getting infiltrators into the US?

(2) how successful would those infiltrators be in avoiding conflicts with Iranian expats who loathe the Iranian regime?

(3) how many intended infiltrators would remain loyal to their bankrollers?

It is worth remembering that the 9/11 conspirators avoided Arab communities. Americans as a rule know little Arabic other than "Allah Akbar" and perhaps "As-salam alaikum". They scrupulously avoided Dearborn, Michigan, where some waiter or barber who understands Arabic might hear something that the FBI might find interesting.

Iranian agents would avoid "Tehrangeles" as long as possible.

American law enforcement doesn't tell people "Vee haff vays to make you talk"; it prefers to find people who will talk. I'd squeal about a murder plot -- wouldn't you?

I don't see getting Iranian agents into the US as a problem for them. They have a very large population of expats here, many well integrated. They have much more money than Al Qaeda (Iran is an actual state) to train and equip agents so as to help them blend in.

There unfortunately are members of the expat community that do hate the US and glorify today's Iran. I have met one and he told me of more. This was before 9/11 by a few years. But though he was born in Iran, he grew up here. And he had been infected by the same kind of mental virus that seems to grip many disaffected muslims in Europe. I am sure this acquaintance (who I have not seen in over eight years) is not alone in that population, if luckily still part of a very small minority. Such people could act as a substrate that could aid Iranian agents or even be convinced to become domestic Hezbollah members if things get hairy.

Furthermore, Iran has had a quarter century to infiltrate and learn about us. I would be surprised if they did not have well-established cells here.

As for the agents being enticed to join the Great Satan, that is always a possibility. But many a KGB agent was motivated, and that was ideology at work. These guys will likely have religious motivations. As we've seen, that makes the difference between sabotage and suicide bomber.

In short, though you may be right, I can easily see Iran having something stashed away here ready to use when the time is right. And it would make Al Qaeda's infiltration look pale by comparison.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

No question. Such is so in every Crisis since at least the late 1600s. Privileged classes intensify their dominion over the economy and use that domininon to concentrate power in their hands. The best times for workers as a rule are those in which ownership elites (typically agrarians versus technologists) vie for the support of workers. But those times are as a rule not times of Crisis.
Severe disparities of economic results are themselves contributors not so much to motivation to success and investment as to to resentments that only intensify domestic discord. As the most obvious example, the need for capitalists of the 'high tech' boom c. 1900 to maximize profits depended upon the proletariat to become a market for the new manufactures. But that came during a High, and Awakening Era, and an Unraveling. Conflicts between economic elites, to be sure, usually result in improvements for workers -- but those as a rule occur in times other than Crisis eras. In a Crisis, survival means more than does the expansion of market.

.

Do you think we are having a conflict between economic elites now? Between the technological age computer economy vs industrial age oil economy? With the Internet as the Bible in German, undermining the power of "The Church"? With different elites running different candidates (Gore vs Bush)?

King Cotton was no longer king after the Civil War. Railroads went down hill quickly after WWII. I expect oil will go the way of the other two.

Utube seems to be taking the ananimity out of modern life. Kramer, Macaca, the UCLA tazer all seem to take us back to when communities truly knew each other--not just the surface.

Originally Posted by jadams

Do you think we are having a conflict between economic elites now?

Between the technological age computer economy vs industrial age oil economy? With the

Internet as the Bible in German, undermining the power of "The Church"? With different

elites running different candidates (Gore vs Bush)?

Originally Posted by MaryT

King Cotton was no longer king after the Civil War. Railroads went down

hill quickly after WWII. I expect oil will go the way of the other two.

Utube seems to be taking the ananimity out of modern life. Kramer, Macaca, the UCLA tazer

all seem to take us back to when communities truly knew each other--not just the

surface.

Two years ago, there was an article written about combining

T3W (The Third Wave) with

T4T.

” The Third Wave has to help the Second Wave finish its business. Just as tractors,

fertilizer and other gifts of industrialization helped farmers increase their productivity,

computers must help solve the remaining problems of industrialization. This means using

information technology to tame energy, prevent pollution, cure the traffic congestion and

other ills of the Second Wave.

Look at a Prius or an all-electric car, and you'll see them bristling with information

technology. Similar applications of technology such as computer controls that ensure the

safety of nuclear energy would be a decisive way to solve a Second Wave problem.
What about the big war predicted in 2020 by the Fourth Turning? To fit the wave theory, the

war would have to pit an information-based civilization against one that wants to perpetuate

industry. In this corner, representing the Second Wave are the people who will control

energy and manufacturing: the red states, the Saudis (or their replacements) and China. In

the opposite corner, representing the Third Wave are information enthusiasts: the blue

states, Japan, Bangalore and Europe.

Obviously, this sort of alignment splits many existing political entities. For example,

Oakland has signed up for the Third Wave while "Dahntahn" is stuck in the Second. I look

forward to the battle of Fifth Avenue, the proximal cause of which might be an attempt to

tax the universities.”

While I think that this Crisis will pit the Third and Second Waves against each other, I

don't think that it will pit Third and Second Wave nations against each other. For one

thing, there is no true 3W (Third Wave) nation just yet, even though most are moving towards

that direction. Over the rest of the saeculum, the first of the 3W technologies coexisted

with the dominant 2W technologies, and the 2W was dominated almost completely. It was not

until the 3T until the two were in conflict. And this is not just in America, but in pretty

much ALL nations. This has been true everywhere, from Japan, to Russia, to Australia, to

Saudi Arabia, to Egypt, to Brazil, to Argentina, to Venezuela, to Ghana, to South Africa, to

Rwanda, to Somalia, and more.

Think of the prior Crisis. Virtually no nation escaped the depression, nor both the various

socialist and fascist movements. No nation will be able to escape the 3W, and I doubt that

any nation will be able to escape conflict with 2W or even 1W elements in society. Several

nations are experiencing increasing Intellectual Property conflicts.

Brazil is one of them, and

they are looking to move into a 3W society. These issues will be a problem even in the

poorest, least developed nations. The 3W is happening fast even in these nations. In the

poorest of African nations, cell phones are exploding in popularity, as is Internet access

by the cell phones. Nigeria is an emerging space faring nation, and they plan to sell

broadband Internet access from satellites. Net Neutrality is fundamentally a 2W vs. 3W one,

with those against it operating off a 2W worldview, while those for it are operating under

3W principles. The emerging worldview of the 3W is already pitting 2W leaders against 3W

leaders. Even Microsoft itself is not entirely operating under the 3W paradigm.

I doubt that it will come to a point in which there is a war between a 3W US and a 2W China.

China, too, is moving towards 3W. But because of their totalitarianism, the break will

likely be very violent and bloody. Or, perhaps, this might merely manifest in a 3W form of

totalitarianism. What I think will happen is that the 2W/3W conflict will be internal to most societies. So I think that there is a much greater chance that the US and China will fight civil wars over these issues than them fighting each other over the same issues. And with rapidly advancing IT, including the rise of fabbers, the issues of 2W/3W will become ever more urgent. Not that I think that a "big war" is likely. At least not in the US. But it is of course possible.

Dana Blankenhorn writes a good blog on this issue. You'd think he read S&H books. But he clearly thinks that we are entering another period of social unrest, and that 3W values are needed to solve our problems (which includes the problem of oil as an energy source).

November 28, 2006

Pastor Chosen to Lead Christian Coalition Steps Down in Dispute Over Agenda

By NEELA BANERJEE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — The president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, which has long served as a model for activism for the religious right, has stepped down, saying the group resisted his efforts to broaden its agenda to include reducing poverty and fighting global warming...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

Originally Posted by jadams

Do you think we are having a conflict between economic elites now? Between the technological age computer economy vs industrial age oil economy? With the Internet as the Bible in German, undermining the power of "The Church"? With different elites running different candidates (Gore vs Bush)?

That is a possible explanation, one contrary to the (simplistic and long-obsolete) Marxist assumption that all economic elites operate in lockstep with the exploitation of the work force as the core of their purpose. Henry Ford may have been no liberal, but he wanted people to buy and drive his plebeian cars, something that destitute people exploited by the leftover old industry and agraran elites couldn't do.

Business profit depends even more upon getting customers than it does upon controlling costs. Book publishers might want to keep wages down for printers and bookbinders, but they more want to get people to buy books. No matter how fully book publishers might control costs through the immiseration of workers in the publishing industry, book publishers depend upon widespread literacy that makes people potential readers and upon a general prosperity that allows masses to have disposable income that allows them to buy books. Without the literacy (that itself depends upon public expenditures on education) and disposable incomes, books would be rarities allowing small profits from small sales on even huge margins.

New technologies have generally caused increases in real wages. Those in new technologies often see themselves as the vanguard of prosperity and modernity (note the parody of the Marxist phrase "vanguard of the proletariat") and must ordinarily offer higher wages to attract people from older industries. At the least they tend to cut costs and reduce the selling prices to the benefit of consumers.

It is possible to look at American politics of a century ago as a conflict between agrarian elites of the South and West (Democrats who aligned themselves with the industrial proletariat which, however different, posed no threat) and the industrial and commercial elites of the Northeast (Republicans who aligned themselves with southern blacks, who, however different posed no threat). Agrarian interests sought reduced tariffs to ensure that farmers got more value for the food and fiber that they sold; industrial interests wanted high tariffs to ensure that farmers bought "American". That's no class struggle.

Fast forward to more recent times. Imagine that you are a techie in Silicon Valley. Owner, engineer, or worker, you are paid well. The employer wants a worker to have enough of a stake in the system that he won't steal some computer chips to sell on the black market and have little to lose if caught. You have an obvious interest in ensuring that your children can live as well as you can, so you support heavy spending on formal education. You want good roads for your nice car. So you are for Big Government. Defense? Government is buying missile systems with high-tech controls.

As a techie are you a socialist in the sense of wanting leveled incomes? Far from it; you stand much to lose. After all, part of the Good Life is first-rate dining at a modest price, which implies ill-paid workers in the restaurant industry and grocery retailing. It's also consumerism, so you have a stake in department store salesclerks being paid as little as possible. The restaurants and retail stores are buying high-tech equipment as newfangled cash registers and computers to keep track of sales volume and inventory. After all, the shelf-stockers, waitpersons, counterpeople, and cashiers aren't 'techies' unless they are still living with their parents and their incomes function as allowances instead of as the means of marginal survival.

Thus even workers can have conflicts.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is a possible explanation, one contrary to the (simplistic and long-obsolete) Marxist assumption that all economic elites operate in lockstep with the exploitation of the work force as the core of their purpose. Henry Ford may have been no liberal, but he wanted people to buy and drive his plebeian cars, something that destitute people exploited by the leftover old industry and agraran elites couldn't do.

Business profit depends even more upon getting customers than it does upon controlling costs. Book publishers might want to keep wages down for printers and bookbinders, but they more want to get people to buy books. No matter how fully book publishers might control costs through the immiseration of workers in the publishing industry, book publishers depend upon widespread literacy that makes people potential readers and upon a general prosperity that allows masses to have disposable income that allows them to buy books. Without the literacy (that itself depends upon public expenditures on education) and disposable incomes, books would be rarities allowing small profits from small sales on even huge margins.

New technologies have generally caused increases in real wages. Those in new technologies often see themselves as the vanguard of prosperity and modernity (note the parody of the Marxist phrase "vanguard of the proletariat") and must ordinarily offer higher wages to attract people from older industries. At the least they tend to cut costs and reduce the selling prices to the benefit of consumers.

It is possible to look at American politics of a century ago as a conflict between agrarian elites of the South and West (Democrats who aligned themselves with the industrial proletariat which, however different, posed no threat) and the industrial and commercial elites of the Northeast (Republicans who aligned themselves with southern blacks, who, however different posed no threat). Agrarian interests sought reduced tariffs to ensure that farmers got more value for the food and fiber that they sold; industrial interests wanted high tariffs to ensure that farmers bought "American". That's no class struggle.

Fast forward to more recent times. Imagine that you are a techie in Silicon Valley. Owner, engineer, or worker, you are paid well. The employer wants a worker to have enough of a stake in the system that he won't steal some computer chips to sell on the black market and have little to lose if caught. You have an obvious interest in ensuring that your children can live as well as you can, so you support heavy spending on formal education. You want good roads for your nice car. So you are for Big Government. Defense? Government is buying missile systems with high-tech controls.

As a techie are you a socialist in the sense of wanting leveled incomes? Far from it; you stand much to lose. After all, part of the Good Life is first-rate dining at a modest price, which implies ill-paid workers in the restaurant industry and grocery retailing. It's also consumerism, so you have a stake in department store salesclerks being paid as little as possible. The restaurants and retail stores are buying high-tech equipment as newfangled cash registers and computers to keep track of sales volume and inventory. After all, the shelf-stockers, waitpersons, counterpeople, and cashiers aren't 'techies' unless they are still living with their parents and their incomes function as allowances instead of as the means of marginal survival.

Thus even workers can have conflicts.

It all boils down to a fundamental ignorance (or conscious rejection) of ecological principles. One cannot systematically devastate the lower trophic levels upon which one depends for sustenance and expect to survive. Elites believe themselves to be demigods, but they are in fact the most vulnerable members of the human race, because their wealth and power depend entirely upon the acquiescence of their so-called inferiors. The history of civilization has been one continuous cycle of parasitism/predation (of the masses by the elites) and decomposition (of the elites by the masses).

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

It all boils down to a fundamental ignorance (or conscious rejection) of ecological principles. One cannot systematically devastate the lower trophic levels upon which one depends for sustenance and expect to survive. Elites believe themselves to be demigods, but they are in fact the most vulnerable members of the human race, because their wealth and power depend entirely upon the acquiescence of their so-called inferiors. The history of civilization has been one continuous cycle of parasitism/predation (of the masses by the elites) and decomposition (of the elites by the masses).

You exaggerate when you say 'continuous.' When muscle powered weapons and elaborate armor were state of the art, it took considerable training and expense to become a first class warrior. The nobility often excluded the serving classes from the possession of weapons and by the way political power. Revolts were few and far between, though there was no lack of cause or talk.

With the printing press and the musket wielding soldier wearing no armor, ideas spread faster and it took a lot less training and expense to field an effective soldier. Once a few nations invented the citizen soldier, the rest had to follow suit or be badly outnumbered in battle. For some reason, about the time all men were armed, the People jumped to the conclusion that God wanted all men to have certain unalienable rights. Enter the age of revolution.

The result has generally been representative democracy. In principle, the People ought to have the advantage over the Establishment. The power of the ballot box ought to render armed revolution obsolete. The elite ought to be badly outnumbered. The fundamental problem with representative democracy, however, would be representatives. Once elected, the representatives instantly become part of the elite. They have this persistent habit of turning on the People. The divide between the People and the Establishment seems to be as wide as ever, even if both lead lives unimagined by their predecessors from before muskets and printing presses.

Computer networks, weapons of mass destruction and the need for renewable energy might prove as fundamental a set of forces working for change as the musket, printing press and steam engine. Among other things, imperialistic war and hegemonic war might be no longer cost effective, and thus obsolete. Among other things, direct vote computer network democracy has the potential to cut the representative out of representative democracy.

Yes. I know. Very few want to consider such a basic fundamental change. Most -- going on all -- do not believe it possible. I'm not sure I believe it either. I just recall S&H's proposal that the degree of change that falls out of a Fourth Turning is generally much larger, much more basic, than anticipated going in.

Thus, once in a while I do a direct vote network democracy post. If Bush 43 is a secret advocate of networked democracy, his secret agenda being to so thoroughly disgust the People with representative democracy that they will be ready for direct votes to replace the Senate's functions, he is doing a helluva job. All we need next is for the Democrats to drop the ball.

Could that possibly happen?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Thus, once in a while I do a direct vote network democracy post. If Bush 43 is a secret advocate of networked democracy, his secret agenda being to so thoroughly disgust the People with representative democracy that they will be ready for direct votes to replace the Senate's functions, he is doing a helluva job. All we need next is for the Democrats to drop the ball.

Could that possibly happen?

You mean a heck of a job, don't you?

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

It all boils down to a fundamental ignorance (or conscious rejection) of ecological principles. One cannot systematically devastate the lower trophic levels upon which one depends for sustenance and expect to survive. Elites believe themselves to be demigods, but they are in fact the most vulnerable members of the human race, because their wealth and power depend entirely upon the acquiescence of their so-called inferiors. The history of civilization has been one continuous cycle of parasitism/predation (of the masses by the elites) and decomposition (of the elites by the masses).

Much the truth. The grass will surely outlast the sambar (deer) that feed upon it, and tigers, formidable predators that they are, might not avoid extinction even without human hunting. Should something happen to the large deer, then the tiger goes, and should the deer get smarter or faster, the tiger goes into oblivion. If you want to speak of the sorts of families most associated with (feudal) economic exploitation -- the Royals -- you find that the oldest reigning house in Europe is the Hanover (Windsor) dynasty, and they date from the early 18th century. The Windsors have been clever enough to ride the inevitable changes, which is more than I can say of the Romanovs.

Predatory elites as a rule destroy whatever made them great. If they push the peasants to starvation or industrial workers to destitution (the only reason for working in a factory is that it pays well enough to compensate for the soul-crushing environment) then their rule ends with revolutionary overthrow at some convenient time, typically a military calamity. Predatory elites tend to start wars to advance their realms, a practice that has often imploded.

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

Granted, while this will put me into a minority, I believe 911 was the start of the 4T.

For the past couple of years I've been living with a 4T mindset. It's my opinion that the reason why this community has been reluctant to accept this year as being in the Crises is due to a couple ideas. First is the idea that any military conflict has to a glorious crusade lead by a grey prophet. However the past Crises were generally split into a flashpoint, cause, and effect events. I believe 911 was the flashpoint, the War on Terror the Cause, and a future event as the effect when the generations will be able to shine.

As a comparison it appears to me that we're in the Hoover years of the Great Depression. It won't be until 2008 that we might see a Boomer FDR appear on the scene. While I'll probably vote for Obama in 2008, I think Juliani is the best chance for a FDR style leadership. McCain keeps shooting himself in the foot, Hillary is too 3T, and Obama is a self-professed Nomad.

I suspect many main line history books will agree with you, marking September 11th as a major event of note, using it to open the chapter on the 'War on Terror' or whatever the Grey Champion might come to label it. S&H theory nuts have a surplus of opinions. We haven't been able to agree on just what marker would indicate the precise moment of 3T 4T switchover.

There are a bunch of things one might expect at such a cusp. There might be an economic downturn, one or more spectacular catalyst events that illustrate problems in the culture, a spiral of violence as the two factions to be involved in a crisis war attempt to force the other to back down, the election of a new and decisive leader, and perhaps a Lexington Green / Fort Sumter / Pearl Harbor moment when the crisis war is clearly pushed underway. Crises might involve some or even all of the above, not always occurring in the same order. S&H with their official 4T start dates have selected any and all of the above types of markers for their official crisis start dates.

Me, I think the transition is a process. There is no decisive instant that everyone will spot and agree upon. At one level, I tend to agree with you, that September 11th is a spectacular enough event that it will draw the attention of historian as a defining moment. On the other hand, the generations really only properly aligned in 2005. Many on this site will sincerely argue that it was Katrina that solidified dissatisfaction with the unraveling style of running a government. Some might mark the 2006 mid terms as verifying a rejection of the status quo, perhaps signaling a start to regeneracy. Some might want to wait for a Grey Champion style being to start implementing a new agenda before they will say the 4T is well and truly underway.

And any of the above 'markers' might be equally valid. I myself think we are in early regeneracy, acknowledge all of the markers, but I'm reluctant to peg any one marker as being greatly more significant than any of the others.

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

The second reason is that I believe that the community thinks that a 4T will inspire a left-wing revolution. Yet as the theory points out the 4 & 1st Turning will be suffocatingly Conservative. It won't be until the 2nd T that society will return to more Liberal ideals

If by 'Liberal' you mean a return to the values, policies and mood of the New Deal or the 1960 Awakening, no, the 4T won't be liberal. The problem is that 'liberal' is such a slippery word, used to describe different values and policies in different eras.

I've tried to define an 'arrow of progress.' One side in a crisis conflict tends to be rural, religious, conservative and autocratic. The other side tends towards urban, secular, progressive and democratic. Well, before the Enlightenment, the conservative faction was high church or Catholic while the progressive low church or Protestant. Both factions were religious. Still, the broad evolution of western culture has been away from the medieval culture dominated by nobility and Church towards the democratic industrialized modern pattern. Each crisis is but a step in that broad movement.

Not all agree with that broad pattern. It is also a broad trend rather than a rigid deterministic mechanistic thing. If one looks, one can find exceptions. In the 1930s, for example, when American farmers were transitioning from animal power to tractors, the rural areas were progressive, but in general there is a greater need for change in the urban areas than rural areas. Changing technology manifests more in cities than in farms, thus the pressure for cultural change often focuses more in urban areas.

But you can't snapshot values and cultures. In many a crisis, the status quo being defended by the conservative faction is essentially the culture created by the previous Grey Champion. FDR advocated meddling in the economy, becoming a superpower, and greatly enabled the military industrial complex. Today's conservatives have embraced much of what FDR did, while today's progressives want to deal with flaws in how the solutions to FDR's problems aren't ideally suited for today's world.

Basically, we are having a crisis because yesterday's society can't solve today's problems. The military threat is now insurgencies, rather than other major powers. The ratio of population to resources is becoming less favorable. Ecological stresses in many parts of the world are creating poverty, ethnic strife and failed states. These and other problems need solving. Not solving them is not an option. Still, those with wealth and power will defend systems which give them wealth and power. Religious and absolute value systems claiming perfection -- centered on the idea that all answers are known, the current values and society perfect -- are an obstacle to the new values required to resolve crisis era problems.

Me, I see 4Ts as a progressive time. The forces that resist change (notably artist generations) are suppressed. Pragmatic solutions to problems are discovered. Those resisting the solution of problems are dealt with. The 1T is apt to be a conservative time. Everyone is sick of change and turmoil. All the lessons learned in the 4T are codified into a fairly rigid cultural pattern. Those who dislike the common wisdom are not allowed to make much trouble. Thus, a 4T's new progressive values morph into the next cycle's conservative values.

But if the 4T is a progressive time, don't assume that the progressive values and policies of an earlier era will suffice for the new crisis. Yesterday's liberal is today's fossil.

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

I agree that Katrina had and will have a greater effect on history than just the actual storm itself, the levy in New Orleans wasn't the only bulwark to crumble away. This was the event that made me finally turn away from the partisanship I grew up under. Since then I've taken stock of every posistion individually rather than trying to ignore or cram them into one belief template. And during the last election for the first time I voted across the board, from the ultra conservative Constitutional Party to the ultra liberal Greene party. For the first time voting was fun.

If I'm a sample of that bulwark, than I believe that the next few elections will prove to be interesting. Rather than each side depending on a body of polarized electorates, each party will have to prove itself the better choice. To be honest I have no solid idea as to whom I will vote for president.

Finally I have to say to the Democratic party to take heed. I think that if they make the mistake that Bush did in 04, believing that their electorial victory was a "mandate from the people" then it may backfire on them as well. People are getting tired of 3T solutions, no matter what party they're coming from. If the conditions are right then we might even see the creation of a crediable third or even fourth party.

Glad to see someone else who is undecided for the upcoming election. I was a blindly conservative and devout Republican in my younger years because I assumed that I would make lots of money and own a business, etc. As the reality of my 30's has set in, and after a tour in the USMC, I am much more practical and independent minded when it comes to politics. I have become so jaded by the political rhetoric of the Boomer politicians (no offense intended for all boomers, some of you search for solutions over process) that I assume that neither party is going to do me any good.

Like many nomads of the 13th Generation, I am looking for solutions. I want solutions to healthcare and solutions to social security. I am sick of politcians talking about being "all-inclusive" or whatever their strategists say the buzz-words will be. If I see Hillary Clinton pretend to be Southern again, or John McCain 'rattle' his proverbial 'sword' again, I'm going to scream.

I want change, but I am apprehensive as to the way or the means by which change must come about. I agree that it is simple to point to 9/11 as the start of the 4th turning, but I think the real shift in attitude occured post Katrina and with the mid-term elections of '06. Mainstream historians will cite 9/11 as a watershed moment, but those of us in the "know" will realize that the fundamental shift in attitude - which I believe is the true indication of a change of a "turning" - occured a few years later with the dual events of Katrina/'06 election cycle.

Originally Posted by 13thGenLawyer

...no offense intended for all boomers, some of you search for solutions over process...

Amen, preach it, brother! Most Boomers only know Silent process and disdain it. They will soon have Nomad process shoved down their throats. It will be a very interesting show...

Like many nomads of the 13th Generation, I am looking for solutions. I want solutions to healthcare and solutions to social security.

Might I suggest the word "results" instead? Boomers tend to value rhetoric over results. Bill Clinton was atypical for his gen in that he actually cared about getting things like welfare reform and budget balancing passed. Hillary is sadly true to generational form, caring more about looking presidential than achieving presidential goals. BushCo is the ultimate example; most of the errors of the Administration can be traced to the single principle that the prescriptions of neo-conservative ideology may not be modified to achieve better performance.

The dynamic where Silents create form and Boomers content is about to yield to a dynamic where Xers create form and Millies content... and the Boomers will only wield the powers of general direction. Not many Boomers are preparing for this. Al Gore is... but Gore has read S&H.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Amen, preach it, brother! Most Boomers only know Silent process and disdain it. They will soon have Nomad process shoved down their throats. It will be a very interesting show...

Might I suggest the word "results" instead? Boomers tend to value rhetoric over results. Bill Clinton was atypical for his gen in that he actually cared about getting things like welfare reform and budget balancing passed.

POSSIBLYyy. It certainly helped that Bill Clinton was president during an unraveling so I doubt he's as atypial as you might think.

Yes, there were those who shook up the rigid cultural order of the last 1T. There were Rosa Parks, Elvis Presley, the beatniks, and to a perhaps somewhat lesser extent, James Dean and his comtemporaries in film.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by catfishncod

... Might I suggest the word "results" instead? Boomers tend to value rhetoric over results. Bill Clinton was atypical for his gen in that he actually cared about getting things like welfare reform and budget balancing passed...

POSSIBLYyy. It certainly helped that Bill Clinton was president during an unraveling so I doubt he's as atypial as you might think.

Clinton had an adversarial Congress, so he pushed GOP-lite at them, and dared them to say 'no'. I'm not sure whether he wanted results or politics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Clinton had an adversarial Congress, so he pushed GOP-lite at them, and dared them to say 'no'. I'm not sure whether he wanted results or politics.

My point was that a really core Boomer would have pushed heavier Dem at a GOP Congress, spoiling for mano-a-mano ideological tussles. It's what Gingrich did when he shut down the government over budget trivialities.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

My point was that a really core Boomer would have pushed heavier Dem at a GOP Congress, spoiling for mano-a-mano ideological tussles. It's what Gingrich did when he shut down the government over budget trivialities.

Gingrich, a 1943 cohort, is actually a first wave Boomer, in cusp territory. Clinton, born in 1946, is a more mainstream Boomer, at least in terms of cohort.

However, If Mariniss, who wrote "First in His Class", a bio of Clinton, is to be believed, Clinton's disfunctional family background made him a "want to be liked" person, which made him more willing to compromise than someone who perhaps had a more secure childhood.

Fellow authors, I don't really intend to pick on Boomers, but the politics of the boomers drive me crazy. Did anyone else pick up on the story where Obama is being criticized for not appointing an advisor for "African-American voters." The Clinton Camp blasted him for this, and then touted their own African-American Advisor that Hillary has that is "very out-front."
As a 13er, I have 2 problems with this senselesss rhetoric. 1) Why does an African-American need an advisor for the African-American vote and 2) If a candidate feels the need to appoint such an advisor, isn't that candidate admitting to the country that he/she can't relate to the block of the population for which the advisor is appointed and that the candidate needs someone to tell them how to talk to that particular segment of society?
So this story indicates several troubling issues. Hillary can't relate to African Americans, so she needs an advisor. Obama apparently believes he can't relate to his "own" segment so he has been pressured into appointing an advisor and is entering the dreaded "mainstream" of politics (and I had such high hopes for him). Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Clinton campaign is very fearful of Obama and is sniping at him every chance they get, and would rather talk about the PROCESS of who an advisor is, then the RESULTS (props to catfishncod for the suggestion of this word) of what the campaign will actually DO for African-Americans.
It is all so disgusting..... oh winds of change, when will you blow harder?