The Fourth Turning predicts People vs.Corporations

by Peter Savich, ©2003 per Creative Commons License

Answering the Fourth TurningThis section of the analysis proposes an answer to a question posed at the end of a book. Thatquestion is: "[The history of the next 20 years in America] is not yet written. What will it be?"

The answer proposed by this section is: People vs. Corporations. Furthermore, this section arguesthat this answer falls directly out of the theory described in that book. In other words, the bookanswers its own question -- even though the authors themselves don't seem to have realized that.

The book I'm referring to is An American Prophecy: The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles ofHistory Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous with Destiny, by William Strauss and Neil Howe(1997).

Why might this topic interest you? Reasons this topic interests me include:

The authors predict the next 20 years (or so) of American history will involve a crisis every bitas terrifying and transformative as was the Great Depression and Word War II (1929-1946),the Civil War (1860-1865), and the American Revolution (1773-1794).

1.

Writing in 1997, the authors more or less "called" September 11, 2001. In other words, thisevent seems to have corroborated the authors' claim to have issued a "prophecy".

2.

The book is considered to be politically "conservative" by some . Indeed, the ConservativeBookstore seems to like it. Moreover, judging by the comments on Strauss & Howe'smessage boards for the book, it seems that a number of "conservatives" see Mr. Bush's"pre-emptive war without end against terrorism" as the crisis in question.

3.

I disagree. As noted above, I believe the crisis will be about People vs. Corporations. I derivethat belief from a simple pattern I think I've spotted in Strauss & Howe's book. Moreover, mybelief seems to be corroborated by current happenings (circa December 2003).

4.

In part, based on this belief of mine, my wife and I recently decided to work toward drilling a well,and powering it via solar energy. We are also learning the ancient practice of growing our own food.Don't misunderstand me. We'd be doing this no matter what the future holds. This sort of life is ashared dream of ours. The belief I mention above simply gives the two of us a bit of a kick in thepants.

So it's a win-win for us. If the sh** hits the fan, perhaps, with some luck, we'll be in decent shape. Ifthe sh** misses, then fate willing, we'll be in great shape.

So why am I starting this blog? I am starting it because recent events seem to corroborate my theory.In fact, these events suggest that Strauss & Howe's prediction of 2005 as the starting year for thecrisis may prove, well, prophetic. And hey, if my analysis is right, I figure at least some of you might

want to know about it. Perhaps some among us might even think of ways to lessen the severity of theimpending crisis. I mean if we can see the train coming, perhaps some of us can get off the track intime.

Of course, if my analysis is wrong, I'll be happy to be disabused.

So stay tuned

People vs. CorporationsStudying the Fourth Turning , I come to the conclusion that the nature of the impending crisis facingAmerica will take the form of People vs. Corporations .

Why “vs”? Why does the crisis necessarily mean a struggle between two or more opposing forces?The answer is: because history says so. Every one of the six major American and English crisesidentified by Strauss & Howe going back to the 15th century -- starting with the English War of theRoses (1459-1487), and up through the Great Depression and World War II (1929-1946) -- involveda confrontation among two or more forces. I’ll expand on this in a later post.

Another thing to keep in mind is that neither “People” nor “Corporations” are meant as pejorativeterms. I mean, I’m a person and you’re probably a person too, and that seems OK. Moreover, justbecause corporations are fictional persons (under the law), the fact they are "fictional" doesn’t makethem “bad”. Hey, I enjoy a good fiction from time to time. “Corporation” is just a legal notiondescribing one way of organizing people. In a later post, I will explain my view that, in the past, thislegal notion (“Corporations”) has proven quite useful for the People.

Well, if the Corporations have been so useful for the People, why would the People and theCorporations be facing an impending battle? In a later post, I’ll cite some folks who say that theCorporations have gone too far. Some even say that the Corporations threaten the very existence ofthe People. In some posts, I’ll offer a few examples from our everyday experience of Corporations"going too far." Hey, even Mr. Bush seems to agree that some of these examples constitute "goingtoo far."

Note that I didn’t say this battle would be about Democracy vs. Fascism, or Freedom vs. EconomicTotalitarianism, or the People vs. Aliens. Labels like that tend to be about “spin”.

Nor did I say this battle would be between "Business" and "Anti-Business". Anti-Corporate does notmean anti-Business. A Corporation is just one form of doing business. There are other forms .Business has been conducted through forms other than the Corporate form from the dawn ofrecorded history. But it is the form of business defined by American corporate law, and the sort ofbehavior which that form uniquely enables and encourages, that has put Corporations on a collisioncourse with the People -- a collision that may play out in the next American crisis.

Similarly, I didn't say the battle would be between the rich and the poor, the proletariat and thebourgeoisie, or the blue collar and the blue blood. The next crisis won't be a class struggle --assuming, of course, the notion of "class" is still coherent in a nation that, not once but twice, electeda man of the "social class" from which came Mr. Clinton. Recall that at least one thing held incommon between the "blue collar" Mr. Clinton and the "blue blood" Mr. Bush is the affection both

men bestowed upon the Enron Corporation.

Finally, I didn’t say this battle would be about Liberalism vs. Corporations, or Anarchism vs.Corporations, or Terrorism vs. Corporations, or Communism vs. Capitalism. Nope, I’m saying thisbattle will include anti-Leftists, anti-Anarchists, anti-Terrorists, anti-Communists, Capitalists, andeven Right-Wing-Angry-White-Men , all on the side of the People. The common thread among thePeople will be that they will be people.

In fact, in a later post, I’ll explain my view that these People will turn out to be the very same sort ofpeople that fought and prevailed in the previous six major crises that Strauss & Howe identified.That's because the people who fought and prevailed in each of those previous crises were the samesort of people who had fought and prevailed in the crises that had preceded their own. And so onback to the War of the Roses. It's sort of like Groundhog Day -- same kind of people, fighting forsurvival every 80-100 years.

Given this view of mine, I was curious to see whether anybody else who read the Fourth Turninghad come to the same conclusion. But searching for “corporations” in Strauss & Howe’s messageboards, I couldn’t find anybody saying what I’m saying here. Similarly, searching in late 2003 for“corporations ‘fourth turning’” on the web, I came up dry again.

Maybe that means I’m wrong about People vs. Corporations. If so, yay! I say "yay" because if I’mnot wrong, then, as I’ll explain in the next posting, this battle may prove to be particularly tricky,complex, and precarious. And I don’t know about you, but I’d rather just watch The Simpsons thanhave to worry about stuff like that.

I'm a mixed breed; I'll bet you are tooWell, if the coming crisis of the Fourth Turning is People vs. Corporations, that means it will be acivil war. Sure, there are lots of non-American corporations . And sure, somebody else, probablyEngland, invented the notion of a Corporation in the first place. But we Americans have perfectedthe notion. We’re like the Japanese or the Microsoft of Corporations. We didn’t invent the idea. Butman, we sure took it on a sweet ride.

So if there is to be a People vs. Corporations battle, it will be an intra-American battle. Americans“against” Americans.

In every civil war, there are lots of “mixed breeds” – i.e. people with ties to both sides in the conflict.Civil wars are always about brother against brother.

Well, if it’s true that the coming battle will be between People and Corporations, I must say that thistroubles me deeply. Because I’ll confess that I’m part-Person, and part-Corporation. Yes, I’m amixed breed.

Yes, I can see that the Corporations, as a group, are out of control. Yes, I can see that they’ve “gonetoo far”. Yes, I believe that dramatic and profound changes are needed to the whole notion of what aCorporation is, to what Corporations should and shouldn’t be able to do, and to the process bywhich Corporations are dissolved. So, I suppose, these beliefs put me squarely in the camp of thePeople.

But, on the other hand, I’m 40, and my entire working life has been spent working for Corporations.Most everybody I know and love works for Corporations. Moreover, some of the stuff we Peoplehave – stuff that I believe only Corporations could effectively produce – is the very stuff that has letus know we People are all just people. I’ll write more on that notion later.

Just note that you probably wouldn’t be reading this if it weren’t for the Corporations . In otherwords, without the Corporations, the Internet as we are using it today, probably wouldn’t exist. Sothis is good for the People. Now some People don’t seem to know how to receive a gift. Is a simple“thank you” too much to ask for? I mean, let’s say some guy hands us an apple in the hopes that, inreturn, we will wash his car for him. Well, for one reason or another, let’s s say that we don’t washhis car, but we still keep the apple. After all, it was a gift. The least thing we could do is say “Heybuddy, thanks for the apple.” For the useful gifts of the Corporations, I say: “Thanks Corporations.”

So if you ask me, I’d say “yay!” for the Corporations! And then in the next breath I’d say “yay!” forthe People!

But Strauss & Howe tell me that “People vs. Corporations” has called "dibs" on the next crisis.Moreover, current signs in our culture are indicating that People are slowly waking up to the tricksand schemes of the Corporations. I’ll get to that in some later posts.

That’s all well and good. But what I’m nervous about is the prospect of millions of People suddenlywaking up and panicking. Have you ever been in a deep, dream-filled sleep and had somebody wakeyou, alarm in their voice? In that situation, we bolt up awake, hearts thumping, minds confused. Isthis still a dream, or is it reality? We’re not ready to face the crisis with our “best stuff”.

Remember that deadly fire earlier this year in that Rhode Island dance club? 97 people dead. Rightafter that, 21 were killed in a Chicago nightclub fire. From those tragedies, lots of clubs learnedsome lessons.

But what about the rest of us? Is there anything for us to learn? Is the lesson: “Don’t go intonightclubs”? Is it: “Well if you do go, make sure you make a note of the escape routes as soon as youwalk in”?

I’ll suggest there’s even a deeper lesson beyond dance clubs. The lesson is this: Wake up! Wake upand look around us. Because if we don’t, and the raging fire of history just sweeps over us one day,then we could be the People trampled at the bottom of the pile, unless we’re lucky enough to getpulled out the side window.

The commentary section of this site is a running chronicle what I think the smoke signals of this“raging fire of history” look like in our everyday lives. But for now, I’ll say that if there is indeed animpending crisis, my hope is that few get trampled. But that will happen only if there is little panic.And that will happen only if we wake up and look around us before the smoke turns into flames.

Toward “waking up”, in the next post, I’ll dive into Strauss & Howe.

The Fourth Turning

The Fourth Turning is a book about social/political cycles in American and pre-American history.Specifically, that book focuses on the next cycle due up in American history: Crisis #7.

Now, a number of folks study social/political cycles. Some look to cycles based on economics.Others look at cyclical attitudes towards immigrants. Still other theories are based on cycles ofoscillating political valence – i.e. “liberal” versus “conservative”. For example, Arthur Schlesinger,Sr., and his son Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., have proposed a theory of swings between liberal andconservative phases in American history dating back to the 18th century.

The theory of Strauss & Howe is based on the notion of generations. Actually, I believe their theoryis so fundamental, it subsumes all of the other theories just mentioned. That is, economic,immigration, and political cycles in American society are simply "special cases" of the fundamentalgenerational cycles identified by Strauss & Howe.

The notion of "generations" starts with the observation is that the full lifespan of a human is about 80to 100 years. The authors break this lifespan up into phases of 20 years or so: childhood, youth,maturity, and old age. These phases are analogized to the Springtime of childhood, the Summer ofyouth, and Fall of maturity, and the Winter of old age.

This description of the lives of individuals seems straightforward enough. Indeed, these 20-yearphases can probably be tracked by our lifetime patterns of hormone production and braindevelopment. But I am unaware of any such research. I am interested in looking closer at thesequestions in the future. But today, to my knowledge, no tracers of these phases have been identifiedin the human body. So today, Strauss & Howe’s theory is just that – a theory subject to debate.

In addition to individuals undergoing cycles of 20-year phases, the authors claim that society alsogoes through its own cycle of 20-year phases. In fact, society’s phases are also Spring, Summer, Fall,and Winter.

While cycles in the life of a single human seems a relatively non-controversial notion, the jump fromindividual cycles to social cycles seems trickier. By definition, the two cycles – individual and social– don’t line up.

For example, let’s say that you are 30 years old and that American society is, as Strauss & Howeclaim, on the verge of leaving social Fall and heading into social Winter. But you, at 30, are smack inthe middle of your own personal Summer. Others are just entering their own Spring. Still others arenearing the end of their own Winter. With all of these individuals at different points in differentpersonal “seasons”, how do these individuals collectively come together to form a single point in thesocial “season”? After all, society is simply the collection of individuals.

If Strauss & Howe answer this question, I didn’t find their answer. I believe that the answer willcome from neuroscience. This is the study of the brain. Strauss & Howe’s theory is a social theory.Human are social animals. And brain scientists are hot on the trail of how our social “instincts”manifest in the brain. But as of today, nobody seems to be working on this particular take. I’minterested in it.

The reason I’m interested is that my “gut” tells me Strauss & Howe’s theory is sound. Below, I'lladdress why that is. But I’m not going to use this weblog to debate the validity of Strauss & Howe’s

theory. Absent the sort of research mentioned above, I don’t believe there’s any way to prove thetheory at present. So for the purposes of this weblog, I’m just going to assume that the theory is true.

Starting from that assumption, I’m going to explain how the theory predicts the coming People vs.Corporations battle. After that, I’m going to point to current events, and the theories of others, andsuggest that they corroborate this prediction.

In some ways, this approach of mine resembles the citing of Astrology, Revelations orNostradamus , and trying to connect those predictions with current events. The similarity is that, justas there is no “hard” scientific proof of Astrology, Revelations or Nostradamus, neither is there ofStrauss & Howe’s theory.

But the difference between Strauss & Howe and the others is, I believe, that Strauss & Howe’stheory is “tight”. It’s not metaphorical. It points to actual historical events, and it makes relativelycrisp, non-ambiguous predictions. Moreover it is founded in something prosaic and reasonablysubject to informal self-confirmation: namely, phases in our own lifespan.

Now, calling Strauss & Howe’s theory “unambiguous” may seem like a stretch. I mean, here I amsaying that the theory predicts the next crisis to be between People and Corporations. Yet Strauss &Howe didn’t say that (actually they didn’t even make any such prediction). And most people whopost on Strauss & Howe’s message boards seem to believe the theory predicts the crisis to be theobvious one currently being portrayed on the nightly news – i.e. “Freedom” and “Democracy” vs.“Terrorism” and “Chaos”.

How could that be? How can I assert that the theory is unambiguous when others draw a differentconclusion? Well, let me suggest that one or both of us – i.e. me or these folks -- ain’t reading thebook close enough.

In defense of my reading of the book, I’ll explain that Strauss & Howe seem to have pointed readersin the wrong direction. That is, the authors seem to have made a statement that obscures a clearpattern in their own theory. A pattern even they described. You’ll see what I mean a few postingsfrom now.

But first, we need to drill down further into the theory. That’s up next.

Social PhasesIn the previous posting, I said Strauss & Howe’s theory predicts four phases of social life inAmerica: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. Each phase lasts for 20 years, give or take. The authors givedifferent names to these same seasons: the High (Spring), the Awakening (Summer), the Unraveling(Fall), and the Crisis (Winter).

In the first posting of this subsection, I gave you the last line of Fourth Turning . The first line ofthat book is: “American feels like it’s unraveling.” This was written in 1997.

I don’t know what you were doing in 1997. But that year, I was in an Internet startup that was beingbought up by a larger player. Didn’t much feel like “unraveling” to me. But I think that’s justbecause I was more or less sleep-walking in 1997. That year, the way I could tell what season we

were in was to note the display near the checkout stands at the grocery stores. Chocolate bunniesmeant we were near April; witches and goblins, late October. Hey, I was living in California. Theytell me there’s seasons here, but I have yet to see them.

Well, whatever you can say about 1997, December 2003 is another time altogether. Now, not only isAmerica unraveling, most everybody can feel it. Just read the polls . Even the Corporate spinmachines that pump out the polls can’t hide the increasing unease. For another indicator, just look atthe charts for the price of gold over the past few years.

The Crisis phase, as noted, is a huge catastrophe. Most everyone pulls together – unless the crisis is acivil war. Following the Crisis, the High is a phase in which the people say: “Whew, glad that’s over.I’m just happy to get to work, raise a family, and help raise up this culture so we don’t have to gothrough that again.” The Awakening that follows is a phase when the people say: “Is this all there isto life? Work, work, work? Where is your spirituality?” Following the Awakening is the Unravelingduring which the people say: “Enough of these spirituality freaks. The only person who is going totake care of me is me. Get out of my way.” The Unraveling is then followed by the next Crisisduring which the people say: “Holy sh**! Look, I got your back; you get mine. If we stick together,maybe we can make it through this.” They make it through it, and a High follows in which thepeople say: “Whew, glad that’s over. I’m just happy to get to work, raise a family, and help raise thisculture up so we don’t have to go through that again.” And so on. (This sounds like a beercommercial.)

The phrase “the people say” doesn’t mean that every single human being in the nation says thesethings. Some people are still stuck in previous phases, approaching life like a broken record . Stillothers have a broader view of life, simultaneously incorporating work, spirituality, individualism,and collective action. But the notion is that enough of the people do “say that” to give the times aparticular tenor or character.

To see how the Roaring 1920s, Depressive '30s, Heroic ‘'40s, Can-Do '50s, Psychedelic '60s, Disco'70s, Wall Street '80s, and Dot Com '90s fit into this framework, check out lots of other sites thatgo into detail.

You may be wondering: What causes the shifts from one phase to the next? The answer seems to bethat it’s like eating habits. For example, say you were to eat pizza every day for a month. At the endof that month, you’d be quite tired of pizza, and ready to move on to, say, burgers and fries. But,after a month of that, you might get tired and move on to Chicken McNuggets. Then after a solidmonth of that, you might go Mexican. But after a month of that, you might return to pizza. And soon.

But, instead of simply “getting tired” of your current diet, some event happens to wake you up to thefact that you are indeed tired and ready for a change. The event would be something dramatic. Forexample, let’s say you are toward the end of your “pizza month”, and you are withdrawing money atan ATM. Perhaps Ronald McDonald sneaks up behind you and mugs you. This dramatic incidentmight bring forth many thoughts to your mind, including “Hmm, I could go for some burgers andfries right about now.” (By the way, if this allegory resembles your diet, let me guess: your BMI isover 30, yes?)

This is the nub of Strauss & Howe’s theory. American society falls into a rut. It’s some kind ofconsistent pattern of behavior and thinking. After a couple of decades of that, society gets tired of it,

and people are ready for a change. But they can’t get themselves to change in the absence of anexternal event. But once a shocking external event does happen that reminds them of their malaise,American society suddenly wakes up, and switches to the next phase. Like a big, lazy cow struckwith an electric cattle prod.

The last kicker in the theory is youth. After twenty years or so, there’s a whole new crop of kids outthere. And in America, it seems to be the youth who serve the function of kicking the lazy, sleepingcow awake. So as we look out to the youth of America today, we ask: Which of that sorry bunch isgoing to kick us all awake? And awake to what?

(Hey, before you go laughing at the Americans, just look at the rest of the world. At least weAmericans go through profound changes every twenty years or so. The rest of the world stays stuckin ruts measured in centuries, not decades. Change and growth is the beauty and genius of America.America is the Grand Human Experiment.)

Well the phases are certainly fascinating. But this weblog addresses the Next Crisis. So here, insteadof focusing on all the phases, I’m going to look closely only at the crisis phase. In fact, I'm going tostudy the crisis phases going back to the War of the Roses in the 15th century.

Hey, I’m just following Mr. Santayana’s advice. I mean, if these crises are part of a cycle imbeddedin human nature, and if human nature doesn’t change much over the course of 500 years, then thereshould be a thread of similarity between all of the crises. I think there is. So does Strauss & Howe.

I’ll describe that thread in the next posting.

The meaning of "America"According to Fourth Turning , the previous six crises in American, and pre-American, history are:

War of the Roses (1459-1487)1.Spanish Armada Crisis (1569-1594)2.Glorious Revolution (1675-1704)3.American Revolution (1773-1794)4.Civil War (1860-1865)5.Great Depression and World War II (1929-1946)6.

Concerning patterns of similarity among these crises, Strauss & Howe had this to say about the lastthree:

[E]ach of the past three Crises resolved aggravating value struggles that had beenbuilding up over the prior saeculum [100 year cycle]. The American Revolutionresolved the eighteenth-century struggle between commerce and citizenship. The CivilWar resolved the early-nineteenth century struggle between liberty and equality. TheNew Deal resolved the industrial-era struggle between capitalism and socialism. [page300]

Note that, in these previous three crises, citizenship gained on commerce, equality gained on liberty,and socialism gained on capitalism. In other words, in every case, distributed power gained on

concentrated power.

“Distributed” and “concentrated” here refers to the arrangement of power among people. The mostconcentrated sort of arrangement places one person on top, with the supreme and arbitrary power oflife or death over everyone else. This is known as “ totalitarianism ”. At the other extreme is“populism”. In that structure, every person is of equal power and authority vis a vis everyone else.Obviously, there are many middle structures between pure totalitarianism and pure populism. Butthis gives the flavor.

Actually, this battle between distributed power and concentrated power describes not only the natureof the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the New Deal, as Strauss & Howe explained. It alsoseems to describe the nature of every other major crisis identified in the Fourth Turning:

World War II was fought between the Allies (Americans, British, and Russians, plus localresistance) against the collection of totalitarian regimes known as the “Axis” powers (underthe supreme and arbitrary rule of Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito). So this was a war betweendistributed power and concentrated power. Distributed power prevailed.The Glorious Revolution (1675-1704) was a “pre-quel” to the American Revolution. In thatrevolution, the English colonists rebelled against their imperial overseers. The rebellion didn’tresult in a Declaration of Independence. But as Strauss & Howe explain: “English-speakingAmerica entered the Crisis a fanatical colonial backwater; it emerged a stable provincialsociety whose learning and affluence rivaled the splendor of its European home.” [page 45]Again, the side of distributed power prevailed.The Spanish Armada Crisis (1569-1594) was a war between Spain and England. Spain wasthe most powerful nation of the day and the main defender of the Catholic faith, whileEngland was a Protestant nation of moderate power. At the time, Protestantism was in itsearly, tentative, and precarious days. In the Armada, Spain was attempting to return Englandto the Catholic fold. Since Protestantism was a revolution against the concentrated power ofthe Catholic Pope, and since England relied heavily on privateers like Francis Drake to defeatSpain, we can conclude that in the Spanish Armada Crisis, distributed power prevailed overconcentrated power.The War of the Roses (1459-1487) is a tougher case. That war was actually a series of two orthree (depending on how ones counts) English civil wars. These wars were about claims to theBritish throne. First, the House of York rebelled against the ruling House of Lancaster. Later,the House of Tudor rebelled against the ruling House of York. Henry VII was the Tudor kingwho ultimately secured the British throne for the Tudors. Reading the BBC’s take on thesewars, the most I can say is that the underdog challengers won their wars. Strauss & Howe saythat: “England entered the Crisis a tradition bound medieval kingdom; it emerged a modernmonarchical nation state.” [44] Also, the son of Henry VII was Henry VIII, who broughtProtestantism to England. From these facts, I tentatively conclude that the War of the Rosescan be characterized as relatively distributed power consistently defeating more concentratedpower.

Stepping back and looking at this 500+ year pattern of major wars, the notion known as “America”emerges. “America” is the inexorable force of history chipping away at concentrated power,breaking it up into smaller pieces, and distributing those pieces among the People. True, theforces of history in between the crises exhibit the opposite dynamic at play. During these times of“peace”, distributed power is collected from the many and concentrated in the hands of the few. This

counter-dynamic reaches its apex just before the next crisis. But then the next crisis comes along andbusts up the concentrated power once more.

What an interesting dance. Are we at the entrance to the dancehall today?

The Big American TentThe previous posting described the six major crises of the Fourth Turning as battles betweendistributed and concentrated power. But a point that shouldn’t be overlooked is that the cycle doesn’tjust spin in one place like our washing machines. This cycle moves. So we’re not entirely livingGroundhog Day after all. Sort of. But not completely.

Step back and consider the class of People whose power increased dramatically as a result of eachsucceeding crisis: the family of Henry Tudor (War of the Roses), the Protestant male clergy (SpanishArmada Crisis), passionate male religious leaders (Glorious Revolution), land-owning militia males(American Revolution), African American males (Civil War), and males of the labor class (GreatDepression and World War II).

What do you notice about this pattern? What does this pattern say about the notion called“America”?

Well, for one thing, it seem pretty clear that … it’s a man’s world, baby! Yay, for us men! The worldis our oyster! (Just kidding, just kidding.)

The other thing to notice is that if America is a tent in which the empowered are housed, the tent isgradually filling up. Each succeeding crisis brought forth a new class of men into the tent. After 500years, I’ll bet that tent full of men is getting pretty smelly.

Also, realize that the “Big Tent” metaphor is a major theme of the Republican Party today. Nowsome naysayers think that’s just a scam and that the Republicans are really just closet racists andout-of-the-closet homophobes . But look at the cabinet circa 2003. An African American man . Andan African American woman . Right up there at the top.

Now some might say that those particular African American folks “don’t count” because they’re just“puppets” of a certain white guy who many People don’t like. But hey, if you believe these folks arenot exactly “credits to the African American People”, do you think Messrs. Bush, Cheney, andClinton are exactly “credits to the white People”?

The point is that the American tent is a big one, and it has gotten even bigger since the last majorcrisis. In fact, in 2003, it’s hard to think of any type of Person in America who is barred from thattent.

Now we could quibble about homeless People. Are they welcome in the American tent? Some mightpoint out that the homeless are not exactly the most empowered folk. But is that because of a socialbarrier? Or is it because of the “choices” made by homeless People? It’s an interesting question.

What about gays? “Don’t ask, don’t tell” suggests that the gays have one foot in the tent and one footout. So this particular “battle” to get under the American tent of power is still “live”. But stepping

back for a broader perspective, the forces of history seem inexorable. It’s just a matter of time.

Well, we could try to look all around America and search for “disempowered” groups and argueabout whether the American tent is or is not open to them. But I’ll suggest that that exercise is notthe most useful one for us People in 2003. A more useful exercise is to consider not which Peopleare outside of the tent, who should be in, but rather which People are inside of the tent, who shouldbe out.

“Whoa,” you’re thinking. “This guy is a [fill-in-the-blank]ist!”

I respond: Yes, I am a [fill-in-the-blank]ist. I believe there some People that we should kick out ofthe tent. These People are alien to us. Unlike the rest of us who came in legitimately, these Peoplesnuck into the tent. And now they’re crowding the tent. They’re leaving almost no room left for usnatives. If we don’t start kicking them out, pretty soon there will be no room left for us.

Who are these People? These People are …

Ha! Tricked you! You thought I was going to say “the immigrants”. Hell no! I believe theimmigrants are the driving force behind this inexorable march of American history towarddecentralizing power and distributing it among the People. Greece may be the Land of the Hellenes.Germany the Land of the Teutons. Ireland the land of the Celts. But America is the Land of theImmigrants.

There are no natives here in America. Not even the “Native Americans”. They came over here only40,000 years ago or so. Hey, 4 years and 40,000 years are both under 1% of the 4 million yearhistory of humanity. We’re all strangers in a strange land.

Well, that’s true if one believes the “mythology” of the archaeologists . But of course, following thissame reasoning, every human in the world would be a stranger in a strange land.

Of course. In fact, that's my point. But it is we in the Land of the Immigrants who are the ones whocan see this point most clearly.

Nope, the People I’m talking about here aren't the immigrants. The People I'm talking about are theCorporations. The Corporations are the elephants who snuck their way into the American tent. Ourtent is big, but it’s not that big. These Corporation elephants are leaving huge elephant patties allover the place. The rest of us People can hardly breathe.

“Hey,” you say. “That’s cheating. You said you were talking about a certain class of People, not justany kind of entity. I mean, Corporations aren’t People.”

Ah, that’s where you’re wrong, my friend. Well, I must confess, that’s what I thought too, untilrecently. Hey, I went to law school, and even I don’t remember learning that, under American law,Corporations Are People Too. But it’s Constitutional and everything . Just like Mr. Bush’spresidency.

Yep it’s true. Legally speaking, Corporations are People just like the rest of us (only WAY morepowerful). I’ll have much more to say on that topic in some later postings . But for now, let’s finishup with Strauss & Howe.

The "War on Terrorism" Isn't the NextAmerican CrisisThe previous postings suggest that the last six major crises in American and pre-American historywere about the battle between the forces of concentrated power, and the forces of distributed power.The latter power, the “underdog”, always prevailed.

For this reason, American’s battle today in the "War on Terrorism" doesn’t seem to fit the pattern.The American military certainly isn’t the “underdog” in this conflict. In fact, it is the opponent whoseems to fit that tag. Moreover, it’s tough to say that “their” power distribution is more concentratedthan “our” own. “Semi-autonomous sleeper cells ” doesn’t much sound like concentrated power tome.

Some might point to the way fundamentalist Islam treats its women . This may seem to us like anexample of power concentrated in the hands of men, and denied women. From that vantage point,“we” are certainly a more diffuse power than “them”.

But this discussion highlights the nature of the relevant pattern. The relevant pattern isn’t about justany kind of power distribution. The power distribution that matters in the crisis is the one thatthreatens the survival of the nation. Fundamentalist Islam’s treatment of its women may bedeplorable to the sensibilities of the America that has accepted the feminist revolution. Butfundamentalist Islam’s treatment of its women doesn’t threaten the survival of this nation. Moreover,no one is suggesting the possibility that Mr. Bin Laden stands any chance of ever sitting behind thatbig desk in the Oval Office. This fact alone distinguishes the current “War on Terrorism” from thesix major crises identified by Strauss & Howe.

Finally, think again about the Big American Tent of power. Major crises have the effect of invitinginto the tent a new class of previously disempowered People. Which previously excluded class ofPeople does the “War on Terrorism” promise to bring into the Big American Tent? … tick, tock …tick, tock … OK. Time’s up. That’s right. The answer is “no People”.

Actually, I believe, as far as American history is concerned, the “War on Terrorism” will serveanother purpose altogether. I believe this war will serve to expose to all the People, with painfulclarity, the grave danger posed by the presence of the Corporate elephants in the Big American Tent.

If you don’t believe me, then read the next posting. Maybe you’ll believe Strauss & Howe.

An interesting pattern in the Fourth TurningSince, as the previous posting explains, the “War on Terrorism” is not the war of the next crisis, weneed to go back to the Fourth Turning to find out what it will be.

To guess what’s next, the best place to look is back in the theory. Strauss & Howe say:

Through the last three saecula [i.e since the American Revolution], most liberationistsocial causes (like feminism or civil rights) tend to seed in a High, blossom in an

Awakening, mature in an Unraveling, and decay in a Crisis. [page 310]

I believe this characterization by the authors of their own theory is misleading and perhaps evenincorrect. A couple of postings ago , I quoted the authors in a passage in which they observed thatthe distribution of concentrated power that is achieved by a crisis is the culmination of a process thatspanned the three phases prior to the crisis. In other words, a certain class of People fights for powerduring “peacetime”. But it takes the next major crisis for those People to finally break through and“crash the party” that is going on in the Big American Tent.

“Liberation” is defined as “the act or process of trying to achieve equal rights and status.” It is bydefinition the process of distributing concentrated power. So instead of “decaying” during the Crisis,as Strauss & Howe say above, the situation is reversed for some of the “liberationist”causes. In otherwords, those causes don’t decay in the Crisis; on the contrary, they break through. This pattern isobvious once you look closely at Strauss & Howe.

Specifically, the pattern exhibited by Strauss & Howe’s theory that the authors themselves missed isthe following: the Crisis is about resolving a major “liberationist” issue that was raised in the priorAwakening, but which was not adopted by the nation. In other words, the Awakening is about peoplebringing forth new liberationist ideas. Sometimes, some of the ideas “stick” and are adopted by thenation. Other times, the idea does not stick. And it is precisely those powerful liberationist ideaswhich did not stick that become resolved during the next crisis. The following discussion shows howthis pattern has played out over the past five crises:

The name Strauss & Howe give to the Awakening that preceded the Great Depression andWorld War II is the “Third Great Awakening” (1886-1908). This period involved theblossoming of the labor movement . But by the 1920s, that movement was beaten back, itsleaders jailed. But in the 1930s, the labor movement re-emerged “victorious” in Roosevelt’sNew Deal, and in equal treatment in the military during World War II.The name Strauss & Howe give to the Awakening that preceded the Civil War is the“Transcendental Awakening” (1822-1844). This period involved the blossoming of theabolitionist (anti-slave holding) movement . After that Awakening, slavery only increased inthe nation. But in the Civil War that followed, slavery came to an end.The name Strauss & Howe give to the Awakening that preceded the American Revolution isthe “Great Awakening” (1727-1746). This period involved a religious movement of youthsagainst the “Establishment”. Strauss & Howe say that, after this Awakening, the colonies“emerged having permanently eradicated Old World notions of class distinctions and socialsolidarity from American soil.” [page 48] But this Awakening didn’t buy the colonists politicalindependence. Two generations later, however, the unfinished business of this Awakening wascompleted: the colonists threw off their imperialist masters.The name Strauss & Howe give to the Awakening that preceded the Glorious Revolution is the“Puritan Awakening” (1621-1649). This period involved a radical Protestant fervor that ledsome among the reformers to leave England for America, and to run their own Puritan show inthe New World. But by the time of the next crisis, the Crown was back in control of thesecolonists. So the colonists staged their “pre-quel” to the American Revolution.The name Strauss & Howe give to the Awakening that preceded the Spanish Armada Crisis isthe “Protestant Reformation” (1517-1542). This period involved the European movement ofMartin Luther that gave birth to Protestantism. During this period, Henry VIII convertedEngland from Catholicism to Protestantism. But the following decades saw Catholicism

maintain a strong threat to Protestantism from within the country. But then the SpanishArmada Crisis served to permanently establish the ascendancy of the Protestant Reformationin England.

The applicable Awakening for our present time is what Strauss & Howe call the "ConsciousnessRevolution" (1964-1984). American society knows this period by the name the "Sixties".

Note that the pattern described above precludes the “War on Terrorism” from being the Next Crisis.In the Sixties, who was talking about combating terrorism in the quest to decentralize power? Theanswer is: Nobody that history remembers. So if this is the Next Crisis, Strauss & Howe’s theorybreaks.

Once written out, this pattern – “to understand the next Crisis, look to the major prior Awakeningattempts that failed” - seems so obvious that one wonders why the authors missed it. Why dideveryone else who read the book apparently miss it too?

The only reason I can think of is that these people looked back at the Sixties – recalling the flowerchildren, hippie communes, Transcendental meditation, Timothy Leary, the SLA and Black Panthers– and couldn’t imagine what from that troubled time would be worth risking the nation for. If that’sthe case, they weren’t looking close enough.

Which Major Ideas from the Sixties Stuck?If the patterns of history described in the last posting hold, then to understand what the Next Crisiswill be about, we need to consider which major ideas raised in the Sixties didn’t stick. But to figureout what those are, we need to first eliminate the ones that did stick. Because the next crisis won't beabout these.

Three major movements of the Sixties were:

Civil Rights MovementWomen’s MovementEnvironmental Movement

To assess whether the Civil Rights and the Women’s Movements of the Sixties “succeeded”, oneway is to ask the question: Where, in terms of social, political, and economic power, did minoritiesand women stand in 1963, and where do they stand today, in 2003? Subtract the two values, and ifthe distance between the two places is measured in “light years”, then we can reasonably concludethat the movements “succeeded”. At least, they certainly did so when compared with the Sixtiesmovement that will be discussed in the next posting.

If that analysis was unsatisfying, let’s try another one. I once read that during the First World War,Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis practice fell off considerably. The patients just weren’t coming inanymore. As a biographer of Freud explains, “patients … thought about the war more than abouttheir neuroses.” [page 350] In other words, during wartime, people in Europe were too busy trying tostay alive to indulge in the luxury of going crazy.

Now that may sound pejorative against mentally ill people. But consider our own culture. For

centuries, white men have apparently felt quite free and safe enough to be crazy as jailbirds. Twoexamples I can think of are psychopathic serial killers and criminally selfish businessmen.

In 1963, white men dominated the roll call of psychopathic serial killers and criminally selfishbusinessmen. Nobody could touch the white man’s claim to the throne of sociopathy. Perhapseverybody else (i.e. women and minorities) was too busy keeping a wary eye open for thesociopathic white men to feel relaxed enough to go psychopathically crazy themselves.

But just this year, we read about an African American psychopathic serial killer in Baton Rouge,Louisiana. This fellow, apparently a rather charming sort, prowled some expensive neighborhoods ofBaton Rouge, and practiced his insanity on some relatively affluent white women.

Now, in America, relatively affluent white women seem, in general, to be the sort of victims whoquickly generate the most intense sort of community interest. At least it has seemed that way in thepast in comparison to the serial killings of prostitutes. So the killings in Baton Rouge generated quiteintense interest pretty much right from the start. Yet, despite this heightened attention, the killermanaged to slay between five and ten women before being caught. Presumably, the killer was"blending in" well enough in the relevant communities to avoid detection.

Just a guess, but I’d be willing to wager that in 1963, the moment such a man as the actual killer somuch as set foot in those neighborhoods, the authorities would have had him in leg irons straightaway. Not because they would have suspected that he was mentally disturbed. But rather, merely dueto the color of his skin.

But in 2003, such a man could, like the rest of us, apparently blend in with the ubiquitous electricallines that few of us notice anymore. Slowly, imperceptibly, over the past four decades, it seems thatsubstantial pockets of this nation have become more or less color-blind.

I draw another conclusion from this case, and from other recent cases involving African Americanpsychopathic serial killers. Referring to the earlier story about Mr. Freud and his patients, perhapsthese sorts of cases reveal that, by 2003, many African Americans are more or less feelingcomfortably like "one of us" - at least enough so to go as crazy as the rest of us have been forcenturies.

For the women’s movement, it doesn’t help us to look at female psychopathic serial killers. Yeah,there’s a smattering of them (I'm referring to the "organized sexual murderer" type identified by theFBI). But, now that we men have irrevocably lost golf, at least psychopathic serial killing seems tobe one of the few remaining activities us males can keep to ourselves. While we’re at it, we may aswell put overt farting on that list too.

Instead, to assess the success of the women’s movement, let’s look at criminally selfish businessmen.There’s more men like this than you can shake a stick at. Today, there’s so many of them stackedso high that politically ambitious sorts are attempting to scale the pile, perhaps all the way to theWhite House.

Now as for female criminally selfish businesswomen, you can see that there are also lots of … um …let me think here for minute … ah … just a sec … er …. Wait! I’ve got it! I almost forgot about her.

Phew, I was starting to think for a minute there that women might just be “better” than men. I mean,

there’s a growing number of women business leaders. But if none are criminally selfish, what mightthat say about men and women? Banish the thought.

But, you know, scientists have discovered something very interesting in the human cell. Most of usknow that inside every cell is human DNA. That comes from both parents. DNA is used in criminalcases to identify culprits.

But sometimes, especially in old cases, DNA is not available. So the scientists then rely onsomething called mitochondrial DNA or mDNA. These are little strands of DNA that sit inside littlecapsules called “mitochondria”.

Each cell has many mitochondria. The mitochondria act as the “power source” of the cell. Kind oflike the batteries. In fact, mitochondria can be thought of as the source of human life itself.

Now here’s something interesting: mDNA, unlike DNA, does not come from both parents. Scientistshave found that mDNA comes only from the mother.

In other words, life itself is female. We men are only along for the ride.

Think about it. Women have said: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” To us men,this phrase used to be merely cute, but obviously false feminist propaganda. Now modern sciencehas turned the tables and proven that this phrase is scientific dogma!

Um, women, please stop reading at this point. Men, please continue

…

OK guys, listen up. This mDNA stuff is dangerous. Our most popular men’s magazinehas long said that women come from the rib of a man. But science is now saying thatmen come from the fingernail of a woman — that is, she uses it for while, then cuts it offand throws it away when she doesn’t need it anymore.

Can you believe it?! We men invented science . And now these ungrateful louts aretrying to ruin us. Hey, when I came into this world, it was a patriarchy. And if that wasgood enough for our dads, it should be good enough for everybody.

But listen, here’s the good news. Hardly anybody knows about this mDNA stuff. I askedaround and none of my friends know. So I think we still have a fighting chance here.Hear me out:

I suggest that we men form a Men’s Front Group. It will be non-profit organization.We’ll call it: “Women for Truth in Science”. We’ll raise money from all the men in theworld. We’ll have mondo bucks.

Then we’ll install an all-female board of directors. How will we get women to do ourbidding you ask? Listen, if you don’t know how to manipulate a woman to do yourbidding by now, how can you call yourself a man?

Now Women for Truth in Science will have three targets: science, politics, and themasses. On the science front, we’ll buy off some scientists and have them publish studies

about “pDNA”. We’ll have them say that they’ve looked closer at what these otherscientists have called mDNA, and discovered that mDNA comes not from the mother, butrather from the father. In fact, we’ll have our scientists call it “pDNA”, and say they’vediscovered a tiny phallus on the pDNA. We’ll say this proves definitively that pDNA is aguy thing, and mDNA is just a hysterical female fantasy.

Of course, this will just create confusion in the scientific community. So for the kill, we’llgo into the political arena. There, we’ll buy some key Congressmen. Don’t getsqueamish on me now. That’s how the system works. Everybody does it.

We’ll get our key Congressmen to add a small rider to an appropriations bill. We’ll getthem to call the appropriations bill “Children Apple Pie Mom and the American Way”.Only a handful of Green Party weirdoes will notice our little rider.

But that rider will say: “Any institution caught promoting mDNA as a female thing willget no funding, and will get a swift kick in the pants”. Once that becomes law, all wehave to do is sit back and wait. In no time, the mDNA research will dry up like donkeyturds, and blow away. Mbwahahahaha!

Now for the third prong of our plan. We’ll still have tons of cash at this point so don’tworry. The third prong is directed toward the masses. Even after we kill off all scientificresearch on mDNA, there will still be some wackos who won’t give up so easily. We needto neutralize those people through television.

So we’ll get Women for Truth in Science to buy up ad time on the morning programsthat normally run SSRI and dieting ads for sad, chubby women. Our ad will bemodeled after that old Sixties ad where hippies sat around singing “I’d like to buy theworld a Coke.” (That was a beauty! The original version of the song was “I’d like tobuy the world some high fructose corn syrup and caffeine, and make everybody fat andsick” but the PR folks worked with the wording a bit, and turned the commercial into aclassic.) In our own ad, we’ll have a group of people, say 90% women, sitting around,holding hands and singing. They’ll be singing: “It’s man’s world after all.”

I’m telling you fellas, this will work. We’ll get ten, maybe even twenty more years out ofour old, rusting, patriarchy. And it’ll be worth every penny.

…

OK Women, you can come back now. Well, I suppose it’s still an open question where women standin America today. I, for one, certainly feel your pain . But let’s change the subject anyway and moveon to the environmental movement.

Here is a chart showing the progress of the environmental movement from 1963 to 2003. Based onthat chart, one might conclude that this movement hasn’t exactly succeeded. So maybe the nextcrisis will involve an environmental war.

Well, I don’t think so. I believe the problems facing the environmental movement pretty much comedown to one issue. And that issue is addressed in the next posting.

Which Major Idea from the Sixties FailedMiserably?The major idea raised in the Sixties that has failed miserably in America is the following: “Small isbeautiful”.

Small is Beautiful is the title of a book published in 1973. The book puts forth “the idea thatmodern technological society was headed for disaster because of its obsession with an economicsignorant of natural processes and limits, heedless of basic human values, that regarded big (and byextension fast, expensive, complex, powerful and aggressive) as better, and biggest as best.”

This is the anti-corporate message. This message was raised loudly in the Sixties. But by 1984(Strauss & Howe say that the “Sixties” as a cultural phase ended in 1984), this message was all butlost on American culture. Today, as you’ll be reading about in a number of later postings,Corporations are now bigger and wealthier and more powerful than ever in the history of mankind.And you’ll see that “disaster” is not too strong a word for describing what the People presently faceas a result of this unprecedented Corporate power.

Now the Fourth Turning did “get” this anti-corporate point about the Sixties. Strauss & Howementioned that “corporate liberalism became the enemy.” [page 190] Also: “Like Katherine Ross inThe Graduate, Boomers approached the altar (or corporate ladder) and heard something insidescream ‘STOP!’” [page 193]

Strauss & Howe went further in defining the bounds of this anti-corporate sentiment. First, the youththat held such sentiments failed to vote their sentiments: “[I]n one antiestablishment electionchallenge after another, Boomer interest surged briefly before weakening by election day.” [page192] Moreover, the authors explained that this opposition of corporations was not about social class:“Given how little the youth rage hinged on economics, many leading radicals were themselveschildren of the elite … .” [page 191]

Following the consistent pattern of the Fourth Turning – “to understand the next Crisis, look to theprior Awakening attempts that failed” – one comes to the unavoidable conclusion that the impendingcrisis facing America involves a battle to decentralize the immense power of the Corporations.

It is the battle of People vs. Corporations. Realize that this conclusion derives directly from thetheory of Strauss & Howe. In other words, in order to reach this conclusion, no understanding of ourcurrent circumstances is needed – other than the fact that this major Sixties movement failed.

Later postings will suggest we don’t even need Strauss & Howe to come to this conclusion. All weneed to do is open our eyes.

What Makes Our Generation So "Smart"?Before we leave Strauss & Howe, let us ask one more time: Why did they miss the conclusion thattheir theory predicts the next crisis to be about People vs. Corporations?

Many will say that Strauss & Howe missed it because it ain’t IT. But assuming for the moment that itis IT, I’ll suggest the following: We all tend to make sense of the world from what is directly in frontof us. We listen to the loudest signals and ignore the quieter ones. The loudest signals today are notthe anti-Corporate signals. The anti-Corporate signals are relatively quiet. But although quiet, theyare there.

In defense of Strauss & Howe, let’s ask:

How many in 1928 were predicting an imminent stock market crash, followed almostimmediately by a worldwide economic depression, followed by the ascendancy of thethoroughly beaten-down labor movement, followed by a World War even more vicious andterrifying than the one that was concluded only a decade before?How many in 1859 were predicting a scorched earth war, in which brother would fight brother,the result being the end of slavery?How many in 1772 were predicting a revolution that would give birth to the first nation in thehistory of mankind dedicated to the notion that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, thatall men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienableRights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I suspect the answer to all is “not many”. Probablysome did predict these events in advance. But the vast majority did not.

What about me? What's so special about me that I noticed what I am writing about in this weblog? Ifmy analysis proves correct, does that make me a seer? A wise man?

Hardly. I'm just a guy who has read both the Fourth Turning and When Corporations Rule theWorld . Now, I did specifically seek out those books after I had noticed signs of political cycles inAmerica, and after I "awoke" to some of the stuff concerning Corporations that I will be writingabout later. That is, I was reading the news, and some thoughts popped into my head about politicalcycles and about the Corporations. So then I thought: "I don't need to reinvent the wheel. I'll betothers have already nailed these subjects." Sure enough, I found Strauss & Howe on the onequestion, and David Korten on the other. In my humble opinion, these folks have "nailed" theirrespective subjects.

Now the only interesting thing about me is that I read both books at the same time. If you check outeach book on Amazon.com, you won't find each book cited as "suggested further reading" for theother book. I'd be willing to bet that few people have read both books. That's because Fourth Turningseems to be a "conservative" favorite, whereas When Corporations Rule the World is apparently an"ultra-liberal" (read: Green) favorite.

But I did read them both and it sure seemed to me like they lined up nicely. So if I am correct aboutthat, that doesn't make me particularly "smart". It just might mean that my own curiosity lies inplaces different from that of most.

The interesting question to me is not "Which among us should get a pat on the back?" Theinteresting question is, if what I am saying here is correct, what makes our generation so differentfrom the previous generations that we collectively could correctly predict the coming crisis, and planfor it? That the previous crises are called "crises" is testament to the fact that people weren't prepared

for the radical changes.

But if our generation exhibits preparation, we come back to the interesting question: what makes ourgeneration so different? I believe the answer is "technology". I believe technology impacts the "whyare we so smart" question in that in its advance, technology seems to have had the effect of"speeding up" history.

On the question of "history speeding up", an earlier posting listed the major American crises,including the beginning and ending years of those crises, as identified by Strauss & Howe. Also,those authors predict that the next crisis - the "Millennial Crisis" - will start around the year 2005.Assuming that this prediction proves correct, and then subtracting the ending year of one crisis fromthe beginning year of the next crisis, we arrive at the following list:

82 years from the War of the Roses to the Spanish Armada Crisis81 years from the Spanish Armada Crisis to the Glorious Revolution69 years from the Glorious Revolution to the American Revolution66 years from the American Revolution to the Civil War64 years from the Civil War to the Great Depression and World War II59 years from Great Depression and World War II to the Millennial Crisis

This list powerfully shows that history is indeed "speeding up". But speeding up to where? A socialpessimist would look at the above list and conclude that America is headed for a state of perpetual,endless war. But a social optimist would say that American is headed, instead, toward the end ofwars.

Which is true? Who knows? But we do know something is happening. This speed up of history hasallowed our generation to identify these cyclical patterns with reasonable clarity. Strauss & Howeare the members of our generation who seem to have best identified those cycles.

Many believe that the reason why history is speeding up has to do with advancing technology. Oneof the undeniable effects of technological advance has been to make it a "small world after all". I'llbe writing more on this notion later. But, for now, realize that small worlds allow information to beshared more quickly and broadly. So the pace of collective learning is increasing at an ever fasterrate.

I believe the current apex of that "collective learning" technology is the Internet. I suppose you couldsay that I believe the Internet will "change the world" after all. But not necessarily in the way manyof us were frothing about during the dot com boom of the 1990s. Instead, I believe the Internet willchange the world by helping us to save us from ourselves. I'll have much more to say on what thatmeans in later postings.

This gives me optimism that the next "war" truly will be the "war to end all wars". Yeah, yeah, Iknow. They all said that about the last big one. And about the one before that. And so on.

But the reason I say it here is that this "war" will be "fought" by the American People in a way thatwill be radically different from the way every major war has been fought up until now. History saysthat it has to be. Specifically, I believe the next "war" will be "fought" with the "weapons" of loveand self-reliance.

Do I say this because I believe America is ready for Ghandi? No way. I suspect a preponderance ofAmericans (if pulled away long enough from the television set to be taught about Ghandhi) wouldsay that the skinny fellow could have used a Super-sized meal and an AK-47.

Do I say this because I believe Americans are "spiritually awakening" to the "God" that is insideeach of us? No way. I suspect there are almost as many ideas about "God" in America as there areskinny people (i.e. more than 100,000, but WAY less than 292 million).

Nope, for my belief about Americans "fighting" with love and self-reliance, I'm relying on my beliefthat the vast majority of us Americans are self-centered, selfish bastards interested primarily in thesurvival of "you know who". That's right. We're all looking out for "No. 1". I believe even those ofus who seem to be looking out for No. 2 are doing it as a way of looking out for No. 1 .

Actually, I believe this about everybody in the world. But what makes Americans special is that:

among all the People of the world, it is we American People who are most defenseless in theface of the Corporate assault on People; and

1.

among all the People of the world, it is we American People who are most free to make thechoice to "buck our own culture"

2.

I'll be writing more about this vulnerability in later postings. But on the question of our freedom tomake choices counter to the dominant culture, I don't think I need to expound on that. I believeanyone who has spent significant time outside of America can testify to the greater cultural freedomswe enjoy in America. Hey, it's so free in this country that, unless we are in the midst of a disaster, itcan feel as though almost nobody cares about anybody else.

Speaking of disasters, I believe (based, in part, on the theory of Strauss & Howe) that one or moredisasters will soon visit us. I further believe these disasters will cause this vulnerability and thisfreedom to come together and fuse, leaving us Americans with a stark choice: use the "weapons" oflove and self-reliance, or literally perish. In other words, what I'm saying here is that all of thoseJesus freaks were right all along. They all said: "Repent or perish!"

But you aren't going to be reading about scripture in this weblog. If you read on, you are going to bereading about things in this world in which live. Things that we all see with our own eyes, and touchwith our own hands. Things going on right under our own noses.

"Calling" September 11Oh yeah. One more thing before we leave Strauss & Howe. In an earlier posting, I said that they had“more or less” “called” September 11, 2001, back in 1997. The reason I say “more or less” is thatnobody seems to have anticipated the exact scheme of the 9/11 hijackers, not even Strauss & Howe.But they weren’t far off. Check it out:

A global terrorist group blows up an aircraft and announces it possesses portable nuclearweapons. The United States and its allies launch a preemptive strike. The terroriststhreaten to retaliate against an American city. Congress declares war and authorizesunlimited house-to-house searches. Opponents charge that the president concocted the

emergency for political purposes. A nationwide strike is declared. Foreign capital fleesthe U.S. [page 273]

Remember, Strauss & Howe wrote that in 1997. Yeah, on Corporations, they missed the dynamicthat this weblog is devoted to discussing. But man, on 9/11, they came frighteningly close.

I don't think you need to read the Fourth Turning to understand this weblog. But if you are askingme whether I recommend that book, I'll respond: Hell yeah! Drop what you're doing. Do not pass"Go" until you've read that book. Don't read it to understand this weblog. Read it to gain a profoundunderstanding of the culture in which you live.

Now the reason Strauss & Howe wrote the above paragraph was they were predicting the sorts ofevents that would push our culture out of the Unraveling phase, and into the Fourth Turning. Muchdebate on the Strauss & Howe message boards is about whether or not we are presently in the FourthTurning.

My take: if we were in the Fourth Turning today, the name “Paris Hilton” would never have crossedthe street, let alone the major network television stations.

Oh. One last thing: Recall that Strauss & Howe call the next crisis the “Millennial Crisis (2005? –2026?).” Today is December, 2003. 2005 is 13 months away.

13 months?!