Originally Posted by bobd

I found this article from the UK's Guardian on-line today and thought it interesting. Some relevant quotes:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

...

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Any speculation viz. a 4T catalyst should Bush decide to attack Iran prior to either the 2008 election or, more ominously, immediately thereafter? Or would this be yet another non-catalyst catalyst?

Bob D.

If it was, it could be an ugly, ugly, 4T. I'm assuming air strikes would be the order of the day, but the question would be how would Iran and its proxies in Iraq respond. The US has 160,000+ young men and women that are heckuva long way from Kansas. Being plunged into a regional war in the Middle East due to a rash act would be awesomely divisive. America might unite around winning, but Bush would be hated by many more Americans than he is now. If we were forced out of Iraq due to a Shia uprising that could be even worse. A humiliating defeat coupled with a spike in oil prices and a global recession would be a toxic addition to an already noxious political atmosphere.

As much as I love to hate GWB and Dick "what's in a name" Cheney, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea we'd actually attak Iran.

Bombing Iran would clearly be a desperate act by a desperate neocon cabal within the American government. I would think it would have to be done/arranged very quickly and very quietly because (and maybe I'm silly in thinking so) it would cause an uproar in the American public and congress.

I wonder if armed forces personnel would make any effort to stop such folly should the orders come through to proceed? Any service folks on this forum care to comment?

But what's done is done, and if they managed to take hostile action on Iran, It would put us on the outs with the entire middle east.......maybe even most of the planet. We'd be seen, and maybe rightly so, as an evil empire bent on serving its self interest at the expense of...everything else. That would be a tough hole to dig out of with or without the likely oil shortage based recession that would follow.

Personally, I think executive action -- in the form of hostile use of force - against Iran would be an impeachable offence.

Would it unite Americans? Yea, but in what direction? Would we become united in kicking middle eastern/Persian ass, or would be united in booting the neocon cabal out of power, pulling our troops out of the middle east and taking a fresh approach to the whole global mess. I honestly don't know.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

It would put us on the outs with the entire middle east.......maybe even most of the planet. We'd be seen, and maybe rightly so, as an evil empire bent on serving its self interest at the expense of...everything else. That would be a tough hole to dig out of with or without the likely oil shortage based recession that would follow.

We already are thanks to the Bush people's naked military aggression (euphemistically camouflaged as "pre-emption") in Iraq. Attacking Iran would only be consistent with how the world expects the Bush people to act. What hurts is that they might think we Americans are of one mind with the Bush Cabal, that we the people, like those who presume to rule us, are fascists. That is why it is imperative that we pull all the troops out of there right away and apologize to the world for the naked military aggression committed in our name by the fascists who have presumed to rule us.

Would it unite Americans? Yea, but in what direction? Would we become united in kicking middle eastern/Persian ass, or would be united in booting the neocon cabal out of power, pulling our troops out of the middle east and taking a fresh approach to the whole global mess. I honestly don't know.

The blowback that would ensue would give the Bush people the pretext they desire for seizing infinitely greater police powers, consistent with that "emergency" executive order the moron was just told to sign. The American people would be united in opposition all right, but they would be silenced.

From what I am hearing the whole Iraq mess has now turned into a tribal civil war very similar to that in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990's. We were supposedly there to oust the evil empire of Saddam Hussein. He is now not only been ousted but executed, so why are we still fighting over there? Isn't it obvious now that we didn't really learn much of a lesson from Vietnam? But yet if demand for oil continues to rise along with the price, aren't we really supporting those who are hostile to us, or are we of the mindset that if we conserve to the greatest extent possible, that we would think that they have won and brought us to our knees?

Originally Posted by Mustang

We already are thanks to the Bush people's naked military aggression (euphemistically camouflaged as "pre-emption") in Iraq. Attacking Iran would only be consistent with how the world expects the Bush people to act. What hurts is that they might think we Americans are of one mind with the Bush Cabal, that we the people, like those who presume to rule us, are fascists. That is why it is imperative that we pull all the troops out of there right away and apologize to the world for the naked military aggression committed in our name by the fascists who have presumed to rule us.

The blowback that would ensue would give the Bush people the pretext they desire for seizing infinitely greater police powers, consistent with that "emergency" executive order the moron was just told to sign. The American people would be united in opposition all right, but they would be silenced.

That's one thing I worry about. When we were hit on 09/11/01 the world mourned with us. There was some ugly footage from the Middle East, but the authorities quickly hushed up the celebrations and denied the whole thing had happened. Today, I'd wager a similar attack would bring on a "they had it coming" reaction, if not cheering in the streets. I'm wonder if the world reaction to an attack with the U.S. on the giving or receiving end would push America into the Isolationist camp. When we perceive an attack from outside we tend to close ranks. Americans through most of our history have thought of ourselves as isolationists (an assessment many nations would disagree with). Globalization is already facing an image crisis. Americans have turned on Bush, but I don't think they have turned toward internationalism.

Originally Posted by DonRobbie

That's one thing I worry about. When we were hit on 09/11/01 the world mourned with us. There was some ugly footage from the Middle East, but the authorities quickly hushed up the celebrations and denied the whole thing had happened. Today, I'd wager a similar attack would bring on a "they had it coming" reaction, if not cheering in the streets. I'm wonder if the world reaction to an attack with the U.S. on the giving or receiving end would push America into the Isolationist camp. When we perceive an attack from outside we tend to close ranks. Americans through most of our history have thought of ourselves as isolationists (an assessment many nations would disagree with). Globalization is already facing an image crisis. Americans have turned on Bush, but I don't think they have turned toward internationalism.

It probably would make us turn inwards only as long as the 4T took to sort itself out. By that I mean such an attack would be the trigger, and would subsequently cause crisis-level changes in our government and policy. I don't think the American people would stand with the president after another major terrorist attack, even if he did everything he could to stop it beforehand. We've been through that shit already.

Does anybody on here feel that we could have another major attack on US soil, but not until shortly after Bush leaves office, leaving the next President to pick up the pieces and deal with the situation?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Does anybody on here feel that we could have another major attack on US soil, but not until shortly after Bush leaves office, leaving the next President to pick up the pieces and deal with the situation?

Plausible. Iran held its hostages as long as Carter was in power, but turned them over as soon as Reagan was sworn in. I believe Al-Qaida attacked us to escalate the violence in the Middle East, and has not attacked us here since as the violence level is to their liking. An administration in the US that desires to get out of the Middle East might not be to the liking of those seeking violent change.

But I won't pretend to understand Al Qaida's current tactical thinking, let alone what the situation will be that far downstream.

I'm sure our posture of our political leadership has an influence on the choice of terroritsts to attack/not attack US interests be they abroad or at home, however, I think they have a standard theme of attack the US whenever the opportunity arises.

Remeber, various Islamic terror intersts have attacked us repeatedly at various over seas locations, and even once before at the WTC. The only reason 9/11 sticks out is because of the order of magnitude of that attack.

We should expect to be attacked at home and abroad regardless. Get comfortable with the idea folks, it's part of being "world citizens" and there is no reason we as Americans should think we're special. Europe, Asia, Africa, Urasia, everyone has been experiencing the impacts of terrorism (either home grown or abroad) for decades and now we get to have it too.

Here's the rub!!! You either deal with it as a fact of life and move on, or you succumb to it. To date, we have taken the bait! Our knee jerk jackass of a Commander in Chief and his neocon co-conspirators have reacted just as the enemy had hoped: committing troops to two wars, spending millions of paranoid, ineffective homeland security measures and ruining our global status as a power of peace.....if we really ever had one.

The tactic is the same as a pack of dingos: pester the US, prevoke expensive and unproductive lashing out with armed responses, and exhaust the resources -chiefly economic and public consensus based -- until the US comes apart, or, becomes a non factor. This tactic only works if the victim chooses to play along. We've chosen (our leadership at least) to play along.

A more "bottom line" approach is needed. We've got to decide who we're going to pay attention to and who we're going to ignore and then act on that basis. We may gain more by "ignoring" the terrorists (swatting them like flies when we get the opportunity but not dedicating our entire policy to erradicating them) and paying attention to those who show promise on the world scene.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

I'm sure our posture of our political leadership has an influence on the choice of terroritsts to attack/not attack US interests be they abroad or at home, however, I think they have a standard theme of attack the US whenever the opportunity arises.

Remeber, various Islamic terror intersts have attacked us repeatedly at various over seas locations, and even once before at the WTC. The only reason 9/11 sticks out is because of the order of magnitude of that attack.

We should expect to be attacked at home and abroad regardless. Get comfortable with the idea folks, it's part of being "world citizens" and there is no reason we as Americans should think we're special. Europe, Asia, Africa, Urasia, everyone has been experiencing the impacts of terrorism (either home grown or abroad) for decades and now we get to have it too.

Here's the rub!!! You either deal with it as a fact of life and move on, or you succumb to it. To date, we have taken the bait! Our knee jerk jackass of a Commander in Chief and his neocon co-conspirators have reacted just as the enemy had hoped: committing troops to two wars, spending millions of paranoid, ineffective homeland security measures and ruining our global status as a power of peace.....if we really ever had one.

The tactic is the same as a pack of dingos: pester the US, prevoke expensive and unproductive lashing out with armed responses, and exhaust the resources -chiefly economic and public consensus based -- until the US comes apart, or, becomes a non factor. This tactic only works if the victim chooses to play along. We've chosen (our leadership at least) to play along.

A more "bottom line" approach is needed. We've got to decide who we're going to pay attention to and who we're going to ignore and then act on that basis. We may gain more by "ignoring" the terrorists (swatting them like flies when we get the opportunity but not dedicating our entire policy to erradicating them) and paying attention to those who show promise on the world scene.

In other words, we need to pick our battles wisely. Afghanistan we were completely justified in invading on account of 9/11. Pakistan would have been a better followup than Iraq since the former is where OBL is all-but-surely headquartered. Given the choice of ferreting out Osama by any means required, or having their tribal borderlands completely obliterated and irradiated with nukes... guess which option the Musharraf & Company would have likely gone with?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

In other words, we need to pick our battles wisely.

Yea, that's exactly what I mean. In fact thinking about picking not just the battles but HOW YOU WAGE THEM!!!

Afghanistan we were completely justified in invading on account of 9/11. Pakistan would have been a better followup than Iraq since the former is where OBL is all-but-surely headquartered.

See, I'd not likely have invaded either of these countries. Instead, I think I would have set in motion a five year plan to infiltrate and ruthlessly eliminate the terror networks and the Taliban.........SECRETLY!!!! Simultaneously I'd have courted moderates and other factions that were friendly, or at least not hostile, to our interests..........OPENLY!!!!

Now, sending 2 billion dollars on covert operations and intel, and 98 billion on greasing the wheels of foreign favor will get you somewhere!~

Given the choice of ferreting out Osama by any means required, or having their tribal borderlands completely obliterated and irradiated with nukes... guess which option the Musharraf & Company would have likely gone with?

Nah......I think that would have cost 800billion at minimum and would certainly have won us more enemies. Besides, da Pakis got da bomb! so there might have been a real mess. Again, that type of action (armies, invasions, nukes, etc.) strikes me as really 2T,3T approach to the problem.

I really think covert action, bribes, political favoritism and other lower cost options get the job done. For those that oppose that on grounds that covert action and the like are "immoral" I say, suit you kid up in a flak jacket and send him over there to fight the "just war".

From a New York Times article on the third triple-digit fall in the Dow:

Originally Posted by New York Times

“There is the potential for fear generating undue fear,” Tobias Levkovich, chief United States equity strategist for Citigroup, said about the stock market this week. “Nonetheless, it becomes real because its in the market.”

Hmm...

Originally Posted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Dana Blankenhorn's surefire sign of a 4T. Or a 2T: he defines them both as "Generational Crises" but that's just terminology.

["I have a confession to make.

When there is bad news I try to avoid it.

I turn off the TV. I avoid the paper. And I look somewhere else. To sport. To entertainment. To my family. To you.

One hallmark of a Generational Crisis is that this stops working. During a crisis there is no place to hide from the bad news."]

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2007/...me-w.html#more

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Dana Blankenhorn's surefire sign of a 4T. Or a 2T: he defines them both as "Generational Crises" but that's just terminology.... (Snip)

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2007/...me-w.html#more

Interesting link. I can't resist cutting out a few paragraphs....

A generation ago, I remember people I never would have imagined, graduates of the G.I. Bill, with FHA mortgages and solid Social Security accounts, talking seriously about how George Wallace was right, and not just about race, but about everything. Government was the problem, it meddled, it let the kids run riot, it made no sense.

This change of mind proved permanent. Men and women who a few years before had stood with JFK and LBJ would vote for Nixon, Reagan and Bush for the rest of their lives, would contribute to the cause via direct mail, and would adjust their personal habits to avoid "the left" in all its Technicolor horror. The left became the culture, the right the counter-culture, and it was that culture, the culture of talk radio, of the megachurch and the TV evangelist, which won.

The same sort of reversal is happening now among baby boomers. People in their 30s, 40s and 50s, raised on the heroism of Ronald Reagan and the Gulf War, convinced a decade ago that Bill Clinton was evil, Al Gore crazy and Taxachusetts profoundly un-American, are now contributing to Democrats. They are echoing Democratic themes, not just on the war but on other issues. They are changing their minds.

And their minds won't change again. Ever. For the rest of their lives. They will teach their children that these were evil times, that we let ourselves be led by evil men, that government must be watched but also supported. And those children will grow up believing them, mostly, gaining new habits of thought.

In bouncing from link to link, I found myself at a statistical .pdf article about the Millenials. A summary follows...

THE KIDS ARE ALL LEFT. As a final note to today's blogging about sex and religion, an interesting new survey shows that 25% of young people describe their religious affiliation as "none," compared to only 11% of the general population.

The survey (in .pdf form here) was done by Democracy Corp/Greenberg Quinlan Rosen, and has some other nice numbers as well:

Young people think Democrats can do a better job on youth issues (+39 net margin), the environment (+38), healthcare (+35), Iraq (+33), energy independence (+32), the federal budget (+25), the economy and jobs (+24), the war on terrorism (+21), values (+15), taxes (+13), and guns (+4). No issue polled was thought to be better handled by the GOP.

52% of young people support gay marriage. 67% believe "same sex couples trying to get married are courageous in facing opposition and really committed to building happy lives together." 61% think global warming is an immediate threat. 60% believe religion should not play a role in politics.

The conclusion at the end of the survey...

Partisanship and political participation are both habit-forming and this population has the numeric strength to change American politics for the next 20 to 30 years once fully engaged. Given the Republican brand crisis among younger voters, progressives are very close to locking down this vote. While Democrats will win the youth vote in 2008, this cohort needs continued outreach to increase turnout and engagement. The scale of the Democratic margin and the degree to which progressives can energize young people remain in doubt. Young voters are alienated by Republicans but waiting to see if anyone delivers on the issue that concerns them most, their financial struggles. While not necessarily populist in their outlook – in fact, a majority say globalization has been a good thing – they are deeply anxious about how they are going to pay their bills and achieve financial stability in the long term. In focus groups, the depth of their ambition and their attempts to improve their lot in this economy are often very inspiring. But they are also pressed economically by jobs with few benefits, low hourly wages, and rising costs of living. They need help.

The next President will need to deliver that help to secure the long-term loyalty of this generation.

Not exactly news to us T4T folk, but there are few mornings when I have found so many 'generation shift' articles out there in the non T4T real world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/ed...010&ei=5087%0A

Mr. Kushner said he thought society was no longer looking at higher education as a common good but rather as a way for individuals to increase their earning power. “There was a time, not that long ago, 10 to 15 years ago, that the vast majority of the cost of education at public universities was borne by the state, and that was why tuition was so low,” he said. “That was based on the premise that the education of an individual is a public good, that individuals go out and become schoolteachers and businessmen and doctors and lawyers, that makes society better. That’s no longer the perception.”

http://www.morningstaradvisor.com/ar...d=13231&pgNo=1

Finally, despite having 14 illuminating and varied panel discussions from which to choose in the first two days of the conference, a highlight certainly was a look inside some of the thinking behind the American Funds, which are run by Capital Research and Management. Jim Rothenberg, chairman and principal executive officer of publicity-shy Capital Research, ranged over many topics.......

"The United States' position in the world has changed, whether we like it or not. The ability of the our government's Federal Reserve to implement policies that affect the U.S.--and thereby the global economy--has been dampened materially," he said, citing factors such as China's monetary reserves and petrodollars that make the world "far more competitive and much less U.S.-centric."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/ny...JpT2YpTvkRTvHw

CRANFORD, N.J., July 22 — At Gavin Brown’s 4th birthday party, the usual detritus lined the edges of the backyard: sippy cups, sunscreen, water shoes, stuffed animals. There were 44 guests and as many buns on the grill, in addition to an elaborate ice cream cake adorned with a fire truck. For the adults, there was sangria and savory corn salsa.

But the only gift in sight was a little red Matchbox hook and ladder rig. All the bounty from Gavin’s birthday — $240 in checks and cash collected in a red box next to a plastic fire helmet — went to the Cranford Fire Department.

.......In part to teach philanthropy and altruism, and in part as a defense against swarms of random plastic objects destined to clutter every square foot of their living space, a number of families are experimenting with gift-free birthday parties, suggesting that guests donate money or specified items to the charity of the child’s choice instead.

Witness, perhaps, the first hyper-parenting trend that does not reek of wanton excess.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Dana Blankenhorn's surefire sign of a 4T. Or a 2T: he defines them both as "Generational Crises" but that's just terminology.

["I have a confession to make.

When there is bad news I try to avoid it.

I turn off the TV. I avoid the paper. And I look somewhere else. To sport. To entertainment. To my family. To you.

One hallmark of a Generational Crisis is that this stops working. During a crisis there is no place to hide from the bad news."]

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2007/...me-w.html#more

This made me think of the story in the NY Times about Hillary Clinton's letters in the late 60s to a Pen Pal from high school. The letters, among other things, chronicle her transformation from a young Republican to a Democrat leaning law student.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us...5d5&ei=5087%0A

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._tax_code.html

For mysterious reasons, people can suddenly become indignant about government policies they have accepted for years as a matter of course. That sudden seismic shift seems to be happening now in public attitudes toward taxation of America's super-rich financiers.

The three leading Democratic candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- all announced recently that they support higher taxes on what's known as "carried interest," the form of compensation received by financial moguls that has created some of the biggest new fortunes on Wall Street.

We may be seeing a political bubble bursting: For decades, the capitalists who ran private equity, venture and hedge funds managed to convince Congress that the 20 percent carried interest profit share they took on deals wasn't ordinary income (taxed at up to 35 percent) but a capital gain (taxed at 15 percent), even though they typically were risking almost none of their own capital. This gross inequity was taken as a financial fact of nature. But no more.

For mysterious reasons...

This guy hasn't read T4T or Generations apparently.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1187...onsub_page_one

Something on the order of $250 billion worth of subprime home mortgages are set to reset to higher rates next year. A whole lot of people are about to be in some very serious trouble. I do believe we have our loaded gun, our spark-trigger. I'm officially calling it: the spark for this 4T is coming in the fall of this year or next, at the latest. We'll be 4T by next Christmas.

My brother (with a wife and infant daughter) is one of those borrowers, though his may reset in '09. Oh God...

Originally Posted by Odin

This guy hasn't read T4T or Generations apparently.

Yes, he's observing the most common fallacy in the study of current events, the assumption that things will stay the way that they currently are.

We, who are aware of saecular theory are currently having the dark pleasure of seeing an outer world social moment hit. The stock market is as erractic as a blind cobra striking wildly at the mongoose who just blinded it just before the mongoose takes it down for the count. And "gentle Ben" and his governors at the Fed. are not likely to be able to save the large institutions long term. We will likely see a slow implosion of stock prices.

We aren't seeing one thousand point drops on a daily basis because so much of the stock market is tied up in large blocs such as those belonging to retirement funds and the like. As long as these professionals continue to move cautiously, I predict that the market will have more of a deflation in prices rather than a 1929 style crash. That doesn't mean that we can't or won't have another depression. There are just too many independant variables to predict that. But the interesting times, in the Chinese sense of the term, have begun.

So, to fit the mood and to provide a little comic relief, I will now borrow from a theme song that I believe dates back to America's last 4t:

This Is It

Overture, curtains , lights
This is it, the night of nights
No more rehersing and nursing a part
We know every part by heart

Overture, curtains, light
This is it, we'll hit the heights
And oh what heights we'll hit
On with the show this is it!

Originally Posted by dbookwoym

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1187...onsub_page_one

Something on the order of $250 billion worth of subprime home mortgages are set to reset to higher rates next year. A whole lot of people are about to be in some very serious trouble. I do believe we have our loaded gun, our spark-trigger. I'm officially calling it: the spark for this 4T is coming in the fall of this year or next, at the latest. We'll be 4T by next Christmas.

My brother (with a wife and infant daughter) is one of those borrowers, though his may reset in '09. Oh God...

Geez. I am sure glad I did a refi earlier this year. I had a 30-year 5-year ARM that I got in March 03; 4.5 percent but due to become variable next year. I switched to a 20-year fixed 6 percent mortgage that I pay on every two weeks, so it will be paid off in 16 years. I think a fixed 6 percent loan will seem pretty good now.

Another thing hit me -- I've been trying to contact this Toastmaster and he's been in meetings all day. It suddenly occured to me -- he's in the mortgage broker business, so he's got a lot more to worry about than attending Club officer training. Oh my Lord...

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I am curious as to what you mean by the 3T looking into the light. On another thread there was a link to an article about plots to outsource more American jobs, and yet to date there has been very little unrest concerning this issue. I wonder how long it will be before many displaced workers will organize a march on Washington ala the bonus army of 1932. Would love to see it happen in this three-quarter-century anniversary. Does anybody think it actually would? So far it seems as though we are still too disorganized and fragmented.

Event quite similar to the Bonus March.

I read the 4th T like a bible. I have been wondering are we in it or not. Yesterday I came across 2 passages that to me anyway say yes.

1) From 'Gray Champions' chapter pg. 142:
"...few can conjure how an Unraveling-era mood can so swiftly transform into something that feels and is so fundamentally different. Americans have ALWAYS been blind to the next turning until after it FULLY ARRIVES.

2) From '4th Turnings in History' chapter pg. 267:
"A Crisis catalyst occurs shortly after the old Prophet archetype reaches its apex of societal leadership, when its inclinations are LEAST checked by others. A regeneracy comes as the Prophet abandons any idea of deferral or retreat and binds the society to a Crisis course. A climax occurs when the Prophet expends its last burst of passion, just before descending rapidly from power."

I submit that as cited in 1 we have been blind to the 4th T because it hasn't fully arrived. We have not reached the climax as of yet but it is looming ever larger.
Regarding 2, Obama is 13th. He and his generation are already knocking on the door for leadership. How much longer do you think the Prophets have left to lead let alone to reach their apex? We have had almost 16 years of Boomer leadership with perhaps another 4-8 at most. I would say that we've reached the apex.
After 9/11 the inclinations were LEAST checked. Until that point they weren't and haven't really been since that desperate time when everyone rushed to the Patriot Act and War.
The regeneracy came when we went into Iraq. All ideas of deferral or retreat were abandoned then and there. No matter what the argument was even from his own advisers Mr. Bush was determined to bind us to our crisis course. Iraq IS the crisis course. Who can deny that we are not bound to it for a long time to come. All further troubles will and do stem from it. We have sent our Nomads off to die just like The Civil War era.
The Idealist 'Project for a New American Century' is no different from Rush Limbaughs 'The Way Things Ought To Be'.

The Crisis is yet to come. Like many here I believe that it will be financial. The current Boomer Administration has plans to accomplish some kind of totalitarian state IMO. But, as the old saying goes, "Even the best layed plans..." I believe they've overlooked something and have already set their failure in motion. Once the money runs dry everything will come to a screeching halt. They're not perfect just mean.

Welcome!

Originally Posted by HomerJS49

I read the 4th T like a bible. I have been wondering are we in it or not. Yesterday I came across 2 passages that to me anyway say yes.

1) From 'Gray Champions' chapter pg. 142:
"...few can conjure how an Unraveling-era mood can so swiftly transform into something that feels and is so fundamentally different. Americans have ALWAYS been blind to the next turning until after it FULLY ARRIVES.

2) From '4th Turnings in History' chapter pg. 267:
"A Crisis catalyst occurs shortly after the old Prophet archetype reaches its apex of societal leadership, when its inclinations are LEAST checked by others. A regeneracy comes as the Prophet abandons any idea of deferral or retreat and binds the society to a Crisis course. A climax occurs when the Prophet expends its last burst of passion, just before descending rapidly from power."

I submit that as cited in 1 we have been blind to the 4th T because it hasn't fully arrived. We have not reached the climax as of yet but it is looming ever larger.
Regarding 2, Obama is 13th. He and his generation are already knocking on the door for leadership. How much longer do you think the Prophets have left to lead let alone to reach their apex? We have had almost 16 years of Boomer leadership with perhaps another 4-8 at most. I would say that we've reached the apex.
After 9/11 the inclinations were LEAST checked. Until that point they weren't and haven't really been since that desperate time when everyone rushed to the Patriot Act and War.
The regeneracy came when we went into Iraq. All ideas of deferral or retreat were abandoned then and there. No matter what the argument was even from his own advisers Mr. Bush was determined to bind us to our crisis course. Iraq IS the crisis course. Who can deny that we are not bound to it for a long time to come. All further troubles will and do stem from it. We have sent our Nomads off to die just like The Civil War era.
The Idealist 'Project for a New American Century' is no different from Rush Limbaughs 'The Way Things Ought To Be'.

The Crisis is yet to come. Like many here I believe that it will be financial. The current Boomer Administration has plans to accomplish some kind of totalitarian state IMO. But, as the old saying goes, "Even the best layed plans..." I believe they've overlooked something and have already set their failure in motion. Once the money runs dry everything will come to a screeching halt. They're not perfect just mean.

No, the initial invasion was very much 3T, lots of initial enthusiasm and chest-thumping but little follow-through or sacrifice by the populace. The dawning realization sometime in 2005 (which, as it happens, was when S&H predicted the 4T would start) that the occupation was turning into a clusterfuck, along with Katrina and the popping of the housing bubble, was a catalyst.