rather than dine like this. :o

The musings of a provider of Security

Guaranteed to infuriate! :wink:

There are no terrorists in the United States. There never have been, there aren't any now, and there aren't likely to be any in the future.

And I can prove it.

In my "day job" I am an information systems security specialist. My job is to be a professional paranoid. My clients pay me to think up ways that an individual might compromise sensitive data, and then to mitigate against that risk. This ranges from physical security to network security to procedural security. I've been doing this kind of work for something like ten years, now, and I don't mind saying that I'm good at what I do.

In my capacity as a professional paranoid, I have occasionally turned my mind to notions of more general physical security. I have marveled at the occasional stupidity of America's few terrorists. From a tactical perspective, Timothy McVeigh was a low-grade moron. Someone with my training would have bombed a much larger building and never been caught. Catch me sometime in person, and I'll explain what someone could have done to the Sears Tower with the same material, yet by simply catching the El to O'Hare could have been on a plane to South America when Upper Wacker Drive collapsed onto Lower.

Since September 11, the FedGov has used the claim of terrorists insinuating themselves into every fabric of American life to justify all manner of draconian "security" measures.

As to the "security" of these measures, in my professional opinion, they're worse than useless. One cannot reliably place access controls on public places short of putting a cordon of armed guards around it with orders to shoot everyone who tries to breach it. Anything less -- such as "airport security" — is a waste of time, from a security perspective. Similarly, "enhancing" security by violating individual rights as the FedGov has done achieves nothing but further accustoming individuals to the notion that they have no rights save those granted by government.

In any case, as I've already stated, there are no terrorists in the United States, and the proof of this is simple.

The United States — despite all the efforts of the FedGov to enslave it — is still the most free society in the world. No doubt our freedoms will continue to be curtailed, but for the moment, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from existing.

Nor, frankly, should there be anything to prevent their existence. In a free society, one of the accepted dangers is that it's possible for individuals to harm one another. The great lie about laws is that they exist to prevent behavior that would cause harm. In fact, laws exist to punish or exact restitution from individuals who've already harmed others. The only way to prevent harm is a total police state in which individuals are allowed no freedom whatsoever.

Consider the following, then: given that the United States is reasonably free; given that in a free society, it is possible for individuals to harm one another. Now, as an intellectual exercise, let's add a given: the FedGov's paranoid fantasies are all true, and terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying America are hiding behind every rock, shrub, and tree.

Here's where my training as a professional paranoid comes into play. Given these notions, imagine with me that you are a terrorist bent on destroying America. How would you go about doing so?

You wouldn't do it through direct military confrontation. The United States military has become an enormous group of individuals carrying out the Unconstitutional policies of those in power. Direct confrontation against the military is simply an involved way of committing suicide.

Similarly, because individuals are in many areas of the country still allowed to carry deadly weapons, attempting any kind of military victory in even a small town is suicidal. The local residents will kill you the moment some 12-year-old with a .22 calibre rifle lines you up in his sites.

What options have you? Guerrilla and terrorist tactics.

Terrorist tactics seem the most likely to succeed, given the limited funds and personnel of a secret terrorist organization. The next problem becomes, what sort of weapons will you use?

The options are fairly broad in today's era: traditional explosives (bombs, rifles, pistols, etc.), nuclear weapons, biological, and chemical weapons.

Remember, one of the goals of a terrorist organization would be to remain secret. This being the case, it has a shortage of trained technical personnel, as well as a shortage of specialized materiel. Remember, too, that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are expensive, difficult to obtain and refine, and are rife with all manner of toxic side effects. They're additionally very difficult to transport and deliver with any degree of accuracy and success.

Given all this, it seems likely that the average terrorist will choose simple, cheap, easy-to-manufacture, easy-to-hide, easy-to-deliver explosive-based weapons. In fact, this is what we find worldwide: terrorists use explosives rather than nuclear or biological weapons.
...

I'm a South Dakotan, so when I turn loose the professional paranoid inside me, I look to South Dakota's beautiful Black Hills. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit every year, concentrated around Mount Rushmore. This makes it a perfect target for terrorists.

As a major tourist attraction, Mount Rushmore has no access controls. Access is granted to anyone who has the trivial amount of money to pay the parking fee. Access is then entirely open, and anyone is free to wander the visitor's center, the huge amphitheater used for the evening lighting ceremony, and the hiking trail to the base of the mountain's debris field. There are no real access controls to prevent individuals from leaving the hiking trail, though in short order they'd probably be noticed.

The highest concentration of people at Mount Rushmore occurs during the evening lighting ceremony. During this ceremony, the area is dark to facilitate a DVD display in the amphitheater. During tourist season, the ceremony plays to packed crowds. There aren't even enough seats, and individuals sit, stand, and watch shoulder-to-shoulder in some cases.

It is the perfect terrorist target — like hundreds of thousands of other all over the United States.

There would be nothing — absolutely nothing — to prevent a terrorist from filling a small knapsack (of the kind worn by hundreds of tourists) full of pipe bombs. Such explosives are identical to those used at the Olympic Park bombing and are simplicity itself to make. For a few hundred dollars, one could fill one's garage to bursting with them, and it requires only a trip to the local hardware and sporting goods stores to obtain the materials for them.

If there were hundreds of thousands of terrorists in this country, there would necessarily be thousands of basements filled with cheap, easy-to-make pipe bombs to choose from for the job of terrorizing Mount Rushmore's tourists. They would throw a few into a knapsack, spend a few extra dollars for a timed detonator, and rent a car in Rapid City. They'd then arrive at Mount Rushmore in time for the lighting ceremony, take a seat in the center of the crowd, and quietly slide their knapsack under the concrete bench in the amphitheater. They'd then leave, ostensibly to go to the bathroom (if an excuse is even necessary), get in their car and drive back to Rapid. With appropriate timing, about the time their car hits the town of Keystone, the explosive will go off, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. They'd then return the rental car in Rapid and disappear back into obscurity.

That's just one possible scenario. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of potential targets such as this throughout the United States. If one allows one's paranoid fantasies free reign, one realizes that if terrorists existed in the United States, there should be a news story every single day about how some public place was bombed somewhere in America.

There is nothing — literally nothing — preventing the devious terrorists the FedGov claims exist from performing such acts every day. And yet, such acts never occur. Not today, not yesterday, and not ever.

Terrorists aren't stupid — the ease with which they took advantage of the way the FedGov immorally disarms airline passengers proves this. If they wished to plant a bomb in the middle of the evening lighting ceremony at Mount Rushmore, they'd have done it long ago.

How can we account for this discrepancy? How can there exist terrorist in the United States — each capable of coming up with schemes far more nefarious than my paranoid musings — and yet, no terrorist acts of this type have ever been committed?

The answer is simple: there are no terrorists. If there were, we'd see their acts every day. Terrorism wouldn't be confined to US- occupied countries like Iraq, they would literally occur every day somewhere in the United States, in a manner similar to — or worse than — that which I outlined.

They don't exist. Terrorists in the United States are a stark, raving, paranoid fantasy — at best. More likely, it's a cold, calculated attempt on the part of those in power to terrify Americans into rash actions that they otherwise would never take.

There is no war on terrorism because there are no terrorists in the United States. There is a war on your freedom, being waged from the office of the President, his cronies and accomplices all through Washington, DC, and in every Federal building in every town and city in America.

You have nothing to fear from terrorists: they're a figment of the imagination of those in power. The real enemy is those who would manufacture nonexistent terrorists in order to further their own ends.

The musings of a provider of Security

Guaranteed to infuriate! :wink:

There are no terrorists in the United States. There never have been, there aren't any now, and there aren't likely to be any in the future.

And I can prove it.

In my "day job" I am an information systems security specialist. My job is to be a professional paranoid. My clients pay me to think up ways that an individual might compromise sensitive data, and then to mitigate against that risk. This ranges from physical security to network security to procedural security. I've been doing this kind of work for something like ten years, now, and I don't mind saying that I'm good at what I do.

In my capacity as a professional paranoid, I have occasionally turned my mind to notions of more general physical security. I have marveled at the occasional stupidity of America's few terrorists. From a tactical perspective, Timothy McVeigh was a low-grade moron. Someone with my training would have bombed a much larger building and never been caught. Catch me sometime in person, and I'll explain what someone could have done to the Sears Tower with the same material, yet by simply catching the El to O'Hare could have been on a plane to South America when Upper Wacker Drive collapsed onto Lower.

Since September 11, the FedGov has used the claim of terrorists insinuating themselves into every fabric of American life to justify all manner of draconian "security" measures.

As to the "security" of these measures, in my professional opinion, they're worse than useless. One cannot reliably place access controls on public places short of putting a cordon of armed guards around it with orders to shoot everyone who tries to breach it. Anything less -- such as "airport security" — is a waste of time, from a security perspective. Similarly, "enhancing" security by violating individual rights as the FedGov has done achieves nothing but further accustoming individuals to the notion that they have no rights save those granted by government.

In any case, as I've already stated, there are no terrorists in the United States, and the proof of this is simple.

The United States — despite all the efforts of the FedGov to enslave it — is still the most free society in the world. No doubt our freedoms will continue to be curtailed, but for the moment, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from existing.

Nor, frankly, should there be anything to prevent their existence. In a free society, one of the accepted dangers is that it's possible for individuals to harm one another. The great lie about laws is that they exist to prevent behavior that would cause harm. In fact, laws exist to punish or exact restitution from individuals who've already harmed others. The only way to prevent harm is a total police state in which individuals are allowed no freedom whatsoever.

Consider the following, then: given that the United States is reasonably free; given that in a free society, it is possible for individuals to harm one another. Now, as an intellectual exercise, let's add a given: the FedGov's paranoid fantasies are all true, and terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying America are hiding behind every rock, shrub, and tree.

Here's where my training as a professional paranoid comes into play. Given these notions, imagine with me that you are a terrorist bent on destroying America. How would you go about doing so?

You wouldn't do it through direct military confrontation. The United States military has become an enormous group of individuals carrying out the Unconstitutional policies of those in power. Direct confrontation against the military is simply an involved way of committing suicide.

Similarly, because individuals are in many areas of the country still allowed to carry deadly weapons, attempting any kind of military victory in even a small town is suicidal. The local residents will kill you the moment some 12-year-old with a .22 calibre rifle lines you up in his sites.

What options have you? Guerrilla and terrorist tactics.

Terrorist tactics seem the most likely to succeed, given the limited funds and personnel of a secret terrorist organization. The next problem becomes, what sort of weapons will you use?

The options are fairly broad in today's era: traditional explosives (bombs, rifles, pistols, etc.), nuclear weapons, biological, and chemical weapons.

Remember, one of the goals of a terrorist organization would be to remain secret. This being the case, it has a shortage of trained technical personnel, as well as a shortage of specialized materiel. Remember, too, that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are expensive, difficult to obtain and refine, and are rife with all manner of toxic side effects. They're additionally very difficult to transport and deliver with any degree of accuracy and success.

Given all this, it seems likely that the average terrorist will choose simple, cheap, easy-to-manufacture, easy-to-hide, easy-to-deliver explosive-based weapons. In fact, this is what we find worldwide: terrorists use explosives rather than nuclear or biological weapons.
...

I'm a South Dakotan, so when I turn loose the professional paranoid inside me, I look to South Dakota's beautiful Black Hills. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit every year, concentrated around Mount Rushmore. This makes it a perfect target for terrorists.

As a major tourist attraction, Mount Rushmore has no access controls. Access is granted to anyone who has the trivial amount of money to pay the parking fee. Access is then entirely open, and anyone is free to wander the visitor's center, the huge amphitheater used for the evening lighting ceremony, and the hiking trail to the base of the mountain's debris field. There are no real access controls to prevent individuals from leaving the hiking trail, though in short order they'd probably be noticed.

The highest concentration of people at Mount Rushmore occurs during the evening lighting ceremony. During this ceremony, the area is dark to facilitate a DVD display in the amphitheater. During tourist season, the ceremony plays to packed crowds. There aren't even enough seats, and individuals sit, stand, and watch shoulder-to-shoulder in some cases.

It is the perfect terrorist target — like hundreds of thousands of other all over the United States.

There would be nothing — absolutely nothing — to prevent a terrorist from filling a small knapsack (of the kind worn by hundreds of tourists) full of pipe bombs. Such explosives are identical to those used at the Olympic Park bombing and are simplicity itself to make. For a few hundred dollars, one could fill one's garage to bursting with them, and it requires only a trip to the local hardware and sporting goods stores to obtain the materials for them.

If there were hundreds of thousands of terrorists in this country, there would necessarily be thousands of basements filled with cheap, easy-to-make pipe bombs to choose from for the job of terrorizing Mount Rushmore's tourists. They would throw a few into a knapsack, spend a few extra dollars for a timed detonator, and rent a car in Rapid City. They'd then arrive at Mount Rushmore in time for the lighting ceremony, take a seat in the center of the crowd, and quietly slide their knapsack under the concrete bench in the amphitheater. They'd then leave, ostensibly to go to the bathroom (if an excuse is even necessary), get in their car and drive back to Rapid. With appropriate timing, about the time their car hits the town of Keystone, the explosive will go off, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. They'd then return the rental car in Rapid and disappear back into obscurity.

That's just one possible scenario. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of potential targets such as this throughout the United States. If one allows one's paranoid fantasies free reign, one realizes that if terrorists existed in the United States, there should be a news story every single day about how some public place was bombed somewhere in America.

There is nothing — literally nothing — preventing the devious terrorists the FedGov claims exist from performing such acts every day. And yet, such acts never occur. Not today, not yesterday, and not ever.

Terrorists aren't stupid — the ease with which they took advantage of the way the FedGov immorally disarms airline passengers proves this. If they wished to plant a bomb in the middle of the evening lighting ceremony at Mount Rushmore, they'd have done it long ago.

How can we account for this discrepancy? How can there exist terrorist in the United States — each capable of coming up with schemes far more nefarious than my paranoid musings — and yet, no terrorist acts of this type have ever been committed?

The answer is simple: there are no terrorists. If there were, we'd see their acts every day. Terrorism wouldn't be confined to US- occupied countries like Iraq, they would literally occur every day somewhere in the United States, in a manner similar to — or worse than — that which I outlined.

They don't exist. Terrorists in the United States are a stark, raving, paranoid fantasy — at best. More likely, it's a cold, calculated attempt on the part of those in power to terrify Americans into rash actions that they otherwise would never take.

There is no war on terrorism because there are no terrorists in the United States. There is a war on your freedom, being waged from the office of the President, his cronies and accomplices all through Washington, DC, and in every Federal building in every town and city in America.

You have nothing to fear from terrorists: they're a figment of the imagination of those in power. The real enemy is those who would manufacture nonexistent terrorists in order to further their own ends.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The musings of a provider of Security

Guaranteed to infuriate! :wink:

BRAVO! Finally, some SENSE!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The musings of a provider of Security

Guaranteed to infuriate! :wink:

BRAVO! Finally, some SENSE!

Originally Posted by Sean Love

....and for crying out loud we have Madonna frenching Britney....

that's what i call a "perk".


TK

Originally Posted by Sean Love

....and for crying out loud we have Madonna frenching Britney....

that's what i call a "perk".


TK

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The musings of a provider of Security

Guaranteed to infuriate! :wink:

There are no terrorists in the United States. There never have been, there aren't any now, and there aren't likely to be any in the future.

And I can prove it.

In my "day job" I am an information systems security specialist. My job is to be a professional paranoid. My clients pay me to think up ways that an individual might compromise sensitive data, and then to mitigate against that risk. This ranges from physical security to network security to procedural security. I've been doing this kind of work for something like ten years, now, and I don't mind saying that I'm good at what I do.

In my capacity as a professional paranoid, I have occasionally turned my mind to notions of more general physical security. I have marveled at the occasional stupidity of America's few terrorists. From a tactical perspective, Timothy McVeigh was a low-grade moron. Someone with my training would have bombed a much larger building and never been caught. Catch me sometime in person, and I'll explain what someone could have done to the Sears Tower with the same material, yet by simply catching the El to O'Hare could have been on a plane to South America when Upper Wacker Drive collapsed onto Lower.

Since September 11, the FedGov has used the claim of terrorists insinuating themselves into every fabric of American life to justify all manner of draconian "security" measures.

As to the "security" of these measures, in my professional opinion, they're worse than useless. One cannot reliably place access controls on public places short of putting a cordon of armed guards around it with orders to shoot everyone who tries to breach it. Anything less -- such as "airport security" ? is a waste of time, from a security perspective. Similarly, "enhancing" security by violating individual rights as the FedGov has done achieves nothing but further accustoming individuals to the notion that they have no rights save those granted by government.

In any case, as I've already stated, there are no terrorists in the United States, and the proof of this is simple.

The United States ? despite all the efforts of the FedGov to enslave it ? is still the most free society in the world. No doubt our freedoms will continue to be curtailed, but for the moment, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from existing.

Nor, frankly, should there be anything to prevent their existence. In a free society, one of the accepted dangers is that it's possible for individuals to harm one another. The great lie about laws is that they exist to prevent behavior that would cause harm. In fact, laws exist to punish or exact restitution from individuals who've already harmed others. The only way to prevent harm is a total police state in which individuals are allowed no freedom whatsoever.

Consider the following, then: given that the United States is reasonably free; given that in a free society, it is possible for individuals to harm one another. Now, as an intellectual exercise, let's add a given: the FedGov's paranoid fantasies are all true, and terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying America are hiding behind every rock, shrub, and tree.

Here's where my training as a professional paranoid comes into play. Given these notions, imagine with me that you are a terrorist bent on destroying America. How would you go about doing so?

You wouldn't do it through direct military confrontation. The United States military has become an enormous group of individuals carrying out the Unconstitutional policies of those in power. Direct confrontation against the military is simply an involved way of committing suicide.

Similarly, because individuals are in many areas of the country still allowed to carry deadly weapons, attempting any kind of military victory in even a small town is suicidal. The local residents will kill you the moment some 12-year-old with a .22 calibre rifle lines you up in his sites.

What options have you? Guerrilla and terrorist tactics.

Terrorist tactics seem the most likely to succeed, given the limited funds and personnel of a secret terrorist organization. The next problem becomes, what sort of weapons will you use?

The options are fairly broad in today's era: traditional explosives (bombs, rifles, pistols, etc.), nuclear weapons, biological, and chemical weapons.

Remember, one of the goals of a terrorist organization would be to remain secret. This being the case, it has a shortage of trained technical personnel, as well as a shortage of specialized materiel. Remember, too, that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are expensive, difficult to obtain and refine, and are rife with all manner of toxic side effects. They're additionally very difficult to transport and deliver with any degree of accuracy and success.

Given all this, it seems likely that the average terrorist will choose simple, cheap, easy-to-manufacture, easy-to-hide, easy-to-deliver explosive-based weapons. In fact, this is what we find worldwide: terrorists use explosives rather than nuclear or biological weapons.
...

I'm a South Dakotan, so when I turn loose the professional paranoid inside me, I look to South Dakota's beautiful Black Hills. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit every year, concentrated around Mount Rushmore. This makes it a perfect target for terrorists.

As a major tourist attraction, Mount Rushmore has no access controls. Access is granted to anyone who has the trivial amount of money to pay the parking fee. Access is then entirely open, and anyone is free to wander the visitor's center, the huge amphitheater used for the evening lighting ceremony, and the hiking trail to the base of the mountain's debris field. There are no real access controls to prevent individuals from leaving the hiking trail, though in short order they'd probably be noticed.

The highest concentration of people at Mount Rushmore occurs during the evening lighting ceremony. During this ceremony, the area is dark to facilitate a DVD display in the amphitheater. During tourist season, the ceremony plays to packed crowds. There aren't even enough seats, and individuals sit, stand, and watch shoulder-to-shoulder in some cases.

It is the perfect terrorist target ? like hundreds of thousands of other all over the United States.

There would be nothing ? absolutely nothing ? to prevent a terrorist from filling a small knapsack (of the kind worn by hundreds of tourists) full of pipe bombs. Such explosives are identical to those used at the Olympic Park bombing and are simplicity itself to make. For a few hundred dollars, one could fill one's garage to bursting with them, and it requires only a trip to the local hardware and sporting goods stores to obtain the materials for them.

If there were hundreds of thousands of terrorists in this country, there would necessarily be thousands of basements filled with cheap, easy-to-make pipe bombs to choose from for the job of terrorizing Mount Rushmore's tourists. They would throw a few into a knapsack, spend a few extra dollars for a timed detonator, and rent a car in Rapid City. They'd then arrive at Mount Rushmore in time for the lighting ceremony, take a seat in the center of the crowd, and quietly slide their knapsack under the concrete bench in the amphitheater. They'd then leave, ostensibly to go to the bathroom (if an excuse is even necessary), get in their car and drive back to Rapid. With appropriate timing, about the time their car hits the town of Keystone, the explosive will go off, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. They'd then return the rental car in Rapid and disappear back into obscurity.

That's just one possible scenario. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of potential targets such as this throughout the United States. If one allows one's paranoid fantasies free reign, one realizes that if terrorists existed in the United States, there should be a news story every single day about how some public place was bombed somewhere in America.

There is nothing ? literally nothing ? preventing the devious terrorists the FedGov claims exist from performing such acts every day. And yet, such acts never occur. Not today, not yesterday, and not ever.

Terrorists aren't stupid ? the ease with which they took advantage of the way the FedGov immorally disarms airline passengers proves this. If they wished to plant a bomb in the middle of the evening lighting ceremony at Mount Rushmore, they'd have done it long ago.

How can we account for this discrepancy? How can there exist terrorist in the United States ? each capable of coming up with schemes far more nefarious than my paranoid musings ? and yet, no terrorist acts of this type have ever been committed?

The answer is simple: there are no terrorists. If there were, we'd see their acts every day. Terrorism wouldn't be confined to US- occupied countries like Iraq, they would literally occur every day somewhere in the United States, in a manner similar to ? or worse than ? that which I outlined.

They don't exist. Terrorists in the United States are a stark, raving, paranoid fantasy ? at best. More likely, it's a cold, calculated attempt on the part of those in power to terrify Americans into rash actions that they otherwise would never take.

There is no war on terrorism because there are no terrorists in the United States. There is a war on your freedom, being waged from the office of the President, his cronies and accomplices all through Washington, DC, and in every Federal building in every town and city in America.

You have nothing to fear from terrorists: they're a figment of the imagination of those in power. The real enemy is those who would manufacture nonexistent terrorists in order to further their own ends.

It infuriates me only in the sense that a bratty kid infuriates me. The author of the article is taking one statement that is essentially true--that few Americans are terrorists--and distorting that into an entirely false statement: that Americans are not threatened by terrorists.

I might add that I have met a number of "information systems security specialists," and have been pretty much uniformly unimpressed--except by the female security guards--excuse me, information systems security specialists--who generally looked pretty good in their tight blue uniforms. (I dated one once, and she generally shared my opinion of male security officers).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The musings of a provider of Security

Guaranteed to infuriate! :wink:

There are no terrorists in the United States. There never have been, there aren't any now, and there aren't likely to be any in the future.

And I can prove it.

In my "day job" I am an information systems security specialist. My job is to be a professional paranoid. My clients pay me to think up ways that an individual might compromise sensitive data, and then to mitigate against that risk. This ranges from physical security to network security to procedural security. I've been doing this kind of work for something like ten years, now, and I don't mind saying that I'm good at what I do.

In my capacity as a professional paranoid, I have occasionally turned my mind to notions of more general physical security. I have marveled at the occasional stupidity of America's few terrorists. From a tactical perspective, Timothy McVeigh was a low-grade moron. Someone with my training would have bombed a much larger building and never been caught. Catch me sometime in person, and I'll explain what someone could have done to the Sears Tower with the same material, yet by simply catching the El to O'Hare could have been on a plane to South America when Upper Wacker Drive collapsed onto Lower.

Since September 11, the FedGov has used the claim of terrorists insinuating themselves into every fabric of American life to justify all manner of draconian "security" measures.

As to the "security" of these measures, in my professional opinion, they're worse than useless. One cannot reliably place access controls on public places short of putting a cordon of armed guards around it with orders to shoot everyone who tries to breach it. Anything less -- such as "airport security" ? is a waste of time, from a security perspective. Similarly, "enhancing" security by violating individual rights as the FedGov has done achieves nothing but further accustoming individuals to the notion that they have no rights save those granted by government.

In any case, as I've already stated, there are no terrorists in the United States, and the proof of this is simple.

The United States ? despite all the efforts of the FedGov to enslave it ? is still the most free society in the world. No doubt our freedoms will continue to be curtailed, but for the moment, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from existing.

Nor, frankly, should there be anything to prevent their existence. In a free society, one of the accepted dangers is that it's possible for individuals to harm one another. The great lie about laws is that they exist to prevent behavior that would cause harm. In fact, laws exist to punish or exact restitution from individuals who've already harmed others. The only way to prevent harm is a total police state in which individuals are allowed no freedom whatsoever.

Consider the following, then: given that the United States is reasonably free; given that in a free society, it is possible for individuals to harm one another. Now, as an intellectual exercise, let's add a given: the FedGov's paranoid fantasies are all true, and terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying America are hiding behind every rock, shrub, and tree.

Here's where my training as a professional paranoid comes into play. Given these notions, imagine with me that you are a terrorist bent on destroying America. How would you go about doing so?

You wouldn't do it through direct military confrontation. The United States military has become an enormous group of individuals carrying out the Unconstitutional policies of those in power. Direct confrontation against the military is simply an involved way of committing suicide.

Similarly, because individuals are in many areas of the country still allowed to carry deadly weapons, attempting any kind of military victory in even a small town is suicidal. The local residents will kill you the moment some 12-year-old with a .22 calibre rifle lines you up in his sites.

What options have you? Guerrilla and terrorist tactics.

Terrorist tactics seem the most likely to succeed, given the limited funds and personnel of a secret terrorist organization. The next problem becomes, what sort of weapons will you use?

The options are fairly broad in today's era: traditional explosives (bombs, rifles, pistols, etc.), nuclear weapons, biological, and chemical weapons.

Remember, one of the goals of a terrorist organization would be to remain secret. This being the case, it has a shortage of trained technical personnel, as well as a shortage of specialized materiel. Remember, too, that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are expensive, difficult to obtain and refine, and are rife with all manner of toxic side effects. They're additionally very difficult to transport and deliver with any degree of accuracy and success.

Given all this, it seems likely that the average terrorist will choose simple, cheap, easy-to-manufacture, easy-to-hide, easy-to-deliver explosive-based weapons. In fact, this is what we find worldwide: terrorists use explosives rather than nuclear or biological weapons.
...

I'm a South Dakotan, so when I turn loose the professional paranoid inside me, I look to South Dakota's beautiful Black Hills. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit every year, concentrated around Mount Rushmore. This makes it a perfect target for terrorists.

As a major tourist attraction, Mount Rushmore has no access controls. Access is granted to anyone who has the trivial amount of money to pay the parking fee. Access is then entirely open, and anyone is free to wander the visitor's center, the huge amphitheater used for the evening lighting ceremony, and the hiking trail to the base of the mountain's debris field. There are no real access controls to prevent individuals from leaving the hiking trail, though in short order they'd probably be noticed.

The highest concentration of people at Mount Rushmore occurs during the evening lighting ceremony. During this ceremony, the area is dark to facilitate a DVD display in the amphitheater. During tourist season, the ceremony plays to packed crowds. There aren't even enough seats, and individuals sit, stand, and watch shoulder-to-shoulder in some cases.

It is the perfect terrorist target ? like hundreds of thousands of other all over the United States.

There would be nothing ? absolutely nothing ? to prevent a terrorist from filling a small knapsack (of the kind worn by hundreds of tourists) full of pipe bombs. Such explosives are identical to those used at the Olympic Park bombing and are simplicity itself to make. For a few hundred dollars, one could fill one's garage to bursting with them, and it requires only a trip to the local hardware and sporting goods stores to obtain the materials for them.

If there were hundreds of thousands of terrorists in this country, there would necessarily be thousands of basements filled with cheap, easy-to-make pipe bombs to choose from for the job of terrorizing Mount Rushmore's tourists. They would throw a few into a knapsack, spend a few extra dollars for a timed detonator, and rent a car in Rapid City. They'd then arrive at Mount Rushmore in time for the lighting ceremony, take a seat in the center of the crowd, and quietly slide their knapsack under the concrete bench in the amphitheater. They'd then leave, ostensibly to go to the bathroom (if an excuse is even necessary), get in their car and drive back to Rapid. With appropriate timing, about the time their car hits the town of Keystone, the explosive will go off, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. They'd then return the rental car in Rapid and disappear back into obscurity.

That's just one possible scenario. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of potential targets such as this throughout the United States. If one allows one's paranoid fantasies free reign, one realizes that if terrorists existed in the United States, there should be a news story every single day about how some public place was bombed somewhere in America.

There is nothing ? literally nothing ? preventing the devious terrorists the FedGov claims exist from performing such acts every day. And yet, such acts never occur. Not today, not yesterday, and not ever.

Terrorists aren't stupid ? the ease with which they took advantage of the way the FedGov immorally disarms airline passengers proves this. If they wished to plant a bomb in the middle of the evening lighting ceremony at Mount Rushmore, they'd have done it long ago.

How can we account for this discrepancy? How can there exist terrorist in the United States ? each capable of coming up with schemes far more nefarious than my paranoid musings ? and yet, no terrorist acts of this type have ever been committed?

The answer is simple: there are no terrorists. If there were, we'd see their acts every day. Terrorism wouldn't be confined to US- occupied countries like Iraq, they would literally occur every day somewhere in the United States, in a manner similar to ? or worse than ? that which I outlined.

They don't exist. Terrorists in the United States are a stark, raving, paranoid fantasy ? at best. More likely, it's a cold, calculated attempt on the part of those in power to terrify Americans into rash actions that they otherwise would never take.

There is no war on terrorism because there are no terrorists in the United States. There is a war on your freedom, being waged from the office of the President, his cronies and accomplices all through Washington, DC, and in every Federal building in every town and city in America.

You have nothing to fear from terrorists: they're a figment of the imagination of those in power. The real enemy is those who would manufacture nonexistent terrorists in order to further their own ends.

It infuriates me only in the sense that a bratty kid infuriates me. The author of the article is taking one statement that is essentially true--that few Americans are terrorists--and distorting that into an entirely false statement: that Americans are not threatened by terrorists.

I might add that I have met a number of "information systems security specialists," and have been pretty much uniformly unimpressed--except by the female security guards--excuse me, information systems security specialists--who generally looked pretty good in their tight blue uniforms. (I dated one once, and she generally shared my opinion of male security officers).

Back to the Phony Fourth topic-

I'm on the fence myself about whether we're in the 4th turning or not, but the thing that occurs to me is that many people on these forums seem to believe that a 4th turning must begin in an explosive way.

I would say however that just because the previous 4th turnings began this way, with an economic collapse, a civil war, a revolutionary war, does not mean that >every< 4th turning must begin in such a dramatic way that everyone immediately knows that society has changed permanently.

Accept for a moment that perhaps the 9/11 terrorist attacks were indeed the beginning of the crisis. If that is so, this would almost be a guarantee that the early years of the crisis would have to be mild.

This is because we have not an economic collapse, not a war against a foe of equal strength, but instead a war against a relatively small number of terrorists with relatively little money or weaponry. We couldn't help but beat them back easily.

Our government did the best it could to expand the war as much as possible, we went to war against and overthrew the governments of two countries, we're rooting out terrorists around the world wherever we can find them, but... from the perspective of trying to begin a crisis, it's all just too easy.

If the south had been smaller, had not been able to raise much of a military force, and had been forced to surrender almost immediately, what sort of civil war would this have been? If the Great Depression had instead been the Somewhat Large Recession, due to different economic circumstances, what would 1931 have been like?

So I think it's likely that we are seeing something unusual for the US, a crisis which begins in a mild way. This would not be problematic overall from the standpoint of the saeculum theory, there is nothing which says this can't happen.

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Back to the Phony Fourth topic-

I'm on the fence myself about whether we're in the 4th turning or not, but the thing that occurs to me is that many people on these forums seem to believe that a 4th turning must begin in an explosive way.

I would say however that just because the previous 4th turnings began this way, with an economic collapse, a civil war, a revolutionary war, does not mean that >every< 4th turning must begin in such a dramatic way that everyone immediately knows that society has changed permanently.

Accept for a moment that perhaps the 9/11 terrorist attacks were indeed the beginning of the crisis. If that is so, this would almost be a guarantee that the early years of the crisis would have to be mild.

This is because we have not an economic collapse, not a war against a foe of equal strength, but instead a war against a relatively small number of terrorists with relatively little money or weaponry. We couldn't help but beat them back easily.

Our government did the best it could to expand the war as much as possible, we went to war against and overthrew the governments of two countries, we're rooting out terrorists around the world wherever we can find them, but... from the perspective of trying to begin a crisis, it's all just too easy.

If the south had been smaller, had not been able to raise much of a military force, and had been forced to surrender almost immediately, what sort of civil war would this have been? If the Great Depression had instead been the Somewhat Large Recession, due to different economic circumstances, what would 1931 have been like?

So I think it's likely that we are seeing something unusual for the US, a crisis which begins in a mild way. This would not be problematic overall from the standpoint of the saeculum theory, there is nothing which says this can't happen.

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Originally Posted by Starkk

If the Great Depression had instead been the Somewhat Large Recession, due to different economic circumstances, what would 1931 have been like?

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

So I think it's likely that we are seeing something unusual for the US, a crisis which begins in a mild way. This would not be problematic overall from the standpoint of the saeculum theory, there is nothing which says this can't happen.

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

I don't think that was so unusual, and this is something I've come to recognize myself. To me a catalyst isn't so much when things changed suddenly and everyone recognized it, as much as a point where people can look back and say, yes, this is where things changed. The catalysts of 1773 and 1929 (and to a certain extent 1860) fit that bill. If September 11, 2001 was the Catalyst (and I see it as such right now, that doesn't mean anyone else has to) it wouldn't be that anamolous. (We're just nowhere near Regeneracy.)

Originally Posted by Starkk

If the Great Depression had instead been the Somewhat Large Recession, due to different economic circumstances, what would 1931 have been like?

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

So I think it's likely that we are seeing something unusual for the US, a crisis which begins in a mild way. This would not be problematic overall from the standpoint of the saeculum theory, there is nothing which says this can't happen.

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

I don't think that was so unusual, and this is something I've come to recognize myself. To me a catalyst isn't so much when things changed suddenly and everyone recognized it, as much as a point where people can look back and say, yes, this is where things changed. The catalysts of 1773 and 1929 (and to a certain extent 1860) fit that bill. If September 11, 2001 was the Catalyst (and I see it as such right now, that doesn't mean anyone else has to) it wouldn't be that anamolous. (We're just nowhere near Regeneracy.)

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Originally Posted by Starkk

If the Great Depression had instead been the Somewhat Large Recession, due to different economic circumstances, what would 1931 have been like?

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

So I think it's likely that we are seeing something unusual for the US, a crisis which begins in a mild way. This would not be problematic overall from the standpoint of the saeculum theory, there is nothing which says this can't happen.

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

I don't think that was so unusual, and this is something I've come to recognize myself. To me a catalyst isn't so much when things changed suddenly and everyone recognized it, as much as a point where people can look back and say, yes, this is where things changed. The catalysts of 1773 and 1929 (and to a certain extent 1860) fit that bill. If September 11, 2001 was the Catalyst (and I see it as such right now, that doesn't mean anyone else has to) it wouldn't be that anamolous. (We're just nowhere near Regeneracy.)

Starkk has hit on one of the frustrating aspects of this. For all we know a crisis could start out relatively mild. Heck, it could possibly stay that way. To keep with Strauss & Howe's seasonal metaphor, it could be a mild winter.

Somehow I don't think it will turn out that way, but its good to think outside-of-the-box and not discount the possiblity of what Starrk has pointed out.

I think John T.'s and Starkk's ideas can both overlap. It is quite likely 9-11-01 will be looked back upon as the trigger, but we will see an unusually slow (and at least at first, mild) transition due to the slightly premature nature of the trigger (assuming you agree with the Strauss-n-Howian generational interaction mechanism).

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

Originally Posted by Starkk

If the Great Depression had instead been the Somewhat Large Recession, due to different economic circumstances, what would 1931 have been like?

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

So I think it's likely that we are seeing something unusual for the US, a crisis which begins in a mild way. This would not be problematic overall from the standpoint of the saeculum theory, there is nothing which says this can't happen.

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

I don't think that was so unusual, and this is something I've come to recognize myself. To me a catalyst isn't so much when things changed suddenly and everyone recognized it, as much as a point where people can look back and say, yes, this is where things changed. The catalysts of 1773 and 1929 (and to a certain extent 1860) fit that bill. If September 11, 2001 was the Catalyst (and I see it as such right now, that doesn't mean anyone else has to) it wouldn't be that anamolous. (We're just nowhere near Regeneracy.)

Starkk has hit on one of the frustrating aspects of this. For all we know a crisis could start out relatively mild. Heck, it could possibly stay that way. To keep with Strauss & Howe's seasonal metaphor, it could be a mild winter.

Somehow I don't think it will turn out that way, but its good to think outside-of-the-box and not discount the possiblity of what Starrk has pointed out.

I think John T.'s and Starkk's ideas can both overlap. It is quite likely 9-11-01 will be looked back upon as the trigger, but we will see an unusually slow (and at least at first, mild) transition due to the slightly premature nature of the trigger (assuming you agree with the Strauss-n-Howian generational interaction mechanism).

Originally Posted by Starkk

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Which is why I think the 2T started in 1966-7 and not 1963-4

Originally Posted by Starkk

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Which is why I think the 2T started in 1966-7 and not 1963-4

Yes, it could very well turn out to be a slow-forming post-catalyst period. And thinking outside the box is probably the best thing to do all around.

But, the history teacher in me wants to point out one thing here:

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

When John says something like the above, it is very misleading. Sorry, John. :wink: In comparing those two periods, it is more like apples to oranges. You are totally discounting what that 1921 recession did to this country between then and 1930. That recession was the beginning of the deathknell for farming as this country knew it. Up to the 20's, roughly half of our country's employed were farmers -- self-reliant, family-centered, local food suppliers. Domestic policy gave them a decade's long middle finger and left them hanging out to blow in the wind. Technology began to shape new occupations. People moved to cities to enter more and more white-collar jobs. During this time, more and more people went on the credit dole and our domestic economic policies, more concerned with the wealthy class as is today, created a dangerous dichotomy of extremely juxtaposed economic classes -- high (few) and low (many). During the 20's, the middle class steadily declined, holding onto any prosperity at all only by way of credit and life-changing work change situations.

The damage for many was already done by Black Tuesday 1929. So, the ensuing financial disaster of 1929 on did not really have to hit "as hard" as the 1921 numbers did. The 1930 numbers reflect a fighter who receives the first of a series of final punches which flatten him as he goes down for the count and does not come back up. He's flattened so easily at the end because he's already been in there for 10 rounds getting steadily pelted. :wink:

Don't compare without reflecting upon the surrounding times. The Roaring Twenties are fondly remembered for all the partying and Flapping and Hooching, but that's the mythical stereotype. Put another way: ever wonder why many of those people were trying to party themselves to death --- escapism, perhaps, from dreary futures or even such drastically changing times that they had problems figuring out what futures to believe in?

Yes, it could very well turn out to be a slow-forming post-catalyst period. And thinking outside the box is probably the best thing to do all around.

But, the history teacher in me wants to point out one thing here:

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

When John says something like the above, it is very misleading. Sorry, John. :wink: In comparing those two periods, it is more like apples to oranges. You are totally discounting what that 1921 recession did to this country between then and 1930. That recession was the beginning of the deathknell for farming as this country knew it. Up to the 20's, roughly half of our country's employed were farmers -- self-reliant, family-centered, local food suppliers. Domestic policy gave them a decade's long middle finger and left them hanging out to blow in the wind. Technology began to shape new occupations. People moved to cities to enter more and more white-collar jobs. During this time, more and more people went on the credit dole and our domestic economic policies, more concerned with the wealthy class as is today, created a dangerous dichotomy of extremely juxtaposed economic classes -- high (few) and low (many). During the 20's, the middle class steadily declined, holding onto any prosperity at all only by way of credit and life-changing work change situations.

The damage for many was already done by Black Tuesday 1929. So, the ensuing financial disaster of 1929 on did not really have to hit "as hard" as the 1921 numbers did. The 1930 numbers reflect a fighter who receives the first of a series of final punches which flatten him as he goes down for the count and does not come back up. He's flattened so easily at the end because he's already been in there for 10 rounds getting steadily pelted. :wink:

Don't compare without reflecting upon the surrounding times. The Roaring Twenties are fondly remembered for all the partying and Flapping and Hooching, but that's the mythical stereotype. Put another way: ever wonder why many of those people were trying to party themselves to death --- escapism, perhaps, from dreary futures or even such drastically changing times that they had problems figuring out what futures to believe in?

Originally Posted by Barbara

Yes, it could very well turn out to be a slow-forming post-catalyst period. And thinking outside the box is probably the best thing to do all around.

But, the history teacher in me wants to point out one thing here:

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

When John says something like the above, it is very misleading. Sorry, John. :wink: In comparing those two periods, it is more like apples to oranges. You are totally discounting what that 1921 recession did to this country between then and 1930. That recession was the beginning of the deathknell for farming as this country knew it. Up to the 20's, roughly half of our country's employed were farmers -- self-reliant, family-centered, local food suppliers. Domestic policy gave them a decade's long middle finger and left them hanging out to blow in the wind. Technology began to shape new occupations. People moved to cities to enter more and more white-collar jobs. During this time, more and more people went on the credit dole and our domestic economic policies, more concerned with the wealthy class as is today, created a dangerous dichotomy of extremely juxtaposed economic classes -- high (few) and low (many). During the 20's, the middle class steadily declined, holding onto any prosperity at all only by way of credit and life-changing work change situations.

The damage for many was already done by Black Tuesday 1929. So, the ensuing financial disaster of 1929 on did not really have to hit "as hard" as the 1921 numbers did. The 1930 numbers reflect a fighter who receives the first of a series of final punches which flatten him as he goes down for the count and does not come back up. He's flattened so easily at the end because he's already been in there for 10 rounds getting steadily pelted. :wink:

Don't compare without reflecting upon the surrounding times. The Roaring Twenties are fondly remembered for all the partying and Flapping and Hooching, but that's the mythical stereotype. Put another way: ever wonder why many of those people were trying to party themselves to death --- escapism, perhaps, from dreary futures or even such drastically changing times that they had problems figuring out what futures to believe in?

Barbara,

The following is just musing.

What if the '82 recession and the early '90's doldrums were to serve a similar function here as you are discussing with the '20/'21 downturn? Now I know the depression of the early 20's was far more intense than those recessions (and that this analogy overall is a little weak). But in 1920 the Second Industrial Revolution was in full swing and causing the displacement you described above. The '82 and '91 recessions were part and parcel of a larger displacement of manufacturing jobs. Think of the mounting consumer debt accompanying this dislocation.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this "mild recession" we're in now could be analogous to 1930-31 in that it's "milder" than the previous downturns, but in fact may be structural much worse in that it is the culmination of decades of maladjustment to new conditions -- and we have yet to see what this downturn has to "offer".

Again, just musing.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Yes, it could very well turn out to be a slow-forming post-catalyst period. And thinking outside the box is probably the best thing to do all around.

But, the history teacher in me wants to point out one thing here:

But that's how it was seen in 1930, in fact as a milder recession than the one in 1921 (when GNP had dropped 24%, double what it did in 1930). Unemployment was lower, too.

When John says something like the above, it is very misleading. Sorry, John. :wink: In comparing those two periods, it is more like apples to oranges. You are totally discounting what that 1921 recession did to this country between then and 1930. That recession was the beginning of the deathknell for farming as this country knew it. Up to the 20's, roughly half of our country's employed were farmers -- self-reliant, family-centered, local food suppliers. Domestic policy gave them a decade's long middle finger and left them hanging out to blow in the wind. Technology began to shape new occupations. People moved to cities to enter more and more white-collar jobs. During this time, more and more people went on the credit dole and our domestic economic policies, more concerned with the wealthy class as is today, created a dangerous dichotomy of extremely juxtaposed economic classes -- high (few) and low (many). During the 20's, the middle class steadily declined, holding onto any prosperity at all only by way of credit and life-changing work change situations.

The damage for many was already done by Black Tuesday 1929. So, the ensuing financial disaster of 1929 on did not really have to hit "as hard" as the 1921 numbers did. The 1930 numbers reflect a fighter who receives the first of a series of final punches which flatten him as he goes down for the count and does not come back up. He's flattened so easily at the end because he's already been in there for 10 rounds getting steadily pelted. :wink:

Don't compare without reflecting upon the surrounding times. The Roaring Twenties are fondly remembered for all the partying and Flapping and Hooching, but that's the mythical stereotype. Put another way: ever wonder why many of those people were trying to party themselves to death --- escapism, perhaps, from dreary futures or even such drastically changing times that they had problems figuring out what futures to believe in?

Barbara,

The following is just musing.

What if the '82 recession and the early '90's doldrums were to serve a similar function here as you are discussing with the '20/'21 downturn? Now I know the depression of the early 20's was far more intense than those recessions (and that this analogy overall is a little weak). But in 1920 the Second Industrial Revolution was in full swing and causing the displacement you described above. The '82 and '91 recessions were part and parcel of a larger displacement of manufacturing jobs. Think of the mounting consumer debt accompanying this dislocation.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this "mild recession" we're in now could be analogous to 1930-31 in that it's "milder" than the previous downturns, but in fact may be structural much worse in that it is the culmination of decades of maladjustment to new conditions -- and we have yet to see what this downturn has to "offer".

Again, just musing.

Sean, I think your "musings" very well could turn out to be the case. Well indeed. It makes as much sense to me what you muse as anything else. I wake up daily usually feeling in my gut that we are very close. I'd actually cling to 911 as the catalyst, except that (and I believe you have posted similar doubts, though not as strong, as you are agnostic like I once was and probably should be again) I truly think we are in for a much worse catalytic event that will dwarf 911.

But, I can well understand the reasons of those who believe it's happened already. And if it happens soon, then that will be moot. 911 will probably be the catalyst unless we go two or more years from now before the rictor 10.0 I'm expecting. :wink:

Sorry, I have a fetish for explaining the extenuating circumstances. Again, that frustration talking, too, that I'm a lonely dinosaur around here in terms of my "back in the day". :oops: :lol: Plus, I don't mind calling them as I see them, even when it might prove me wrong about what T we are in. The recession evidence is pretty persuasive.

Anyway, great call on tieing these 3T events into the overall turning picture. I was remiss in elaborating that as I'm now doing. Too many trees, not enough forest....

I have reflected elsewhere recently that present day reminds me of 1991 in many ways. Curious, did you, as an Xer experience any setbacks financially around then? Remember corporate downsizing and Mcjobs and Xers starting their own career ventiures out of frustration with a job market that was in the midst of permanently losing certain jobs / inventing others, and employers stubbornly hesitant to hire? I know I recall many an Xer refering to that time and the "welcoming" (not) into adulthood it gave them.

Was one of those posters you, old (T4T) timer? :wink:

Sean, I think your "musings" very well could turn out to be the case. Well indeed. It makes as much sense to me what you muse as anything else. I wake up daily usually feeling in my gut that we are very close. I'd actually cling to 911 as the catalyst, except that (and I believe you have posted similar doubts, though not as strong, as you are agnostic like I once was and probably should be again) I truly think we are in for a much worse catalytic event that will dwarf 911.

But, I can well understand the reasons of those who believe it's happened already. And if it happens soon, then that will be moot. 911 will probably be the catalyst unless we go two or more years from now before the rictor 10.0 I'm expecting. :wink:

Sorry, I have a fetish for explaining the extenuating circumstances. Again, that frustration talking, too, that I'm a lonely dinosaur around here in terms of my "back in the day". :oops: :lol: Plus, I don't mind calling them as I see them, even when it might prove me wrong about what T we are in. The recession evidence is pretty persuasive.

Anyway, great call on tieing these 3T events into the overall turning picture. I was remiss in elaborating that as I'm now doing. Too many trees, not enough forest....

I have reflected elsewhere recently that present day reminds me of 1991 in many ways. Curious, did you, as an Xer experience any setbacks financially around then? Remember corporate downsizing and Mcjobs and Xers starting their own career ventiures out of frustration with a job market that was in the midst of permanently losing certain jobs / inventing others, and employers stubbornly hesitant to hire? I know I recall many an Xer refering to that time and the "welcoming" (not) into adulthood it gave them.

Was one of those posters you, old (T4T) timer? :wink:

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Starkk

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Which is why I think the 2T started in 1966-7 and not 1963-4

Me, too, William, me, too. :wink: Don't we also agree on suspicioning that the 3T began sometime during Reagan's second term? Mine is largely based on the appearance of neo-ism in our politiks......

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by Starkk

And as has been pointed out previously in this thread, the last awakening started in 1964, and yet as of 1966, people didn't know that the country had changed forever. 1966 wasn't much different than 1963. Had we been around in '66 looking for proof that we were in an awakening, would we have even found it?

Which is why I think the 2T started in 1966-7 and not 1963-4

Me, too, William, me, too. :wink: Don't we also agree on suspicioning that the 3T began sometime during Reagan's second term? Mine is largely based on the appearance of neo-ism in our politiks......