06-06-2018, 06:52 AM
(06-05-2018, 06:47 PM)TheNomad Wrote:(06-05-2018, 12:14 PM)tg63 Wrote: To the original question, I don't think it was, although it seemed to start some embers glowing (in particular I'm thinking of the willingness to pass the Patriot Act & the mood change to accept more a more authoritarian role of government).
I read somewhere that the leadership generation is critical to establishing/cementing a transition or not. So, looking at the Boomer age ranges (I think I got the math correct) ...
2001: 41-58 (1943-1960)
1930: 48-70 (1860-1882)
1860: 39-68 (1792-1821)
1773: 50-72 (1701-1723)
1675: 58-87 (1588-1617)
In particular, the top of the age range when a 4T hit the previous four times ranged from 68-87. This marks the removal of the Silents from active roles in society. A max age of 58 equates to a heck of a lot of silents still actively in leadership positions across society. So no, I don't see how 2001 could have been part of the crisis.
To the original question, I don't think it was, although it seemed to start some embers glowing (in particular I'm thinking of the willingness to pass the Patriot Act & the mood change to accept more a more authoritarian role of government).
this "beginning" could it be THE beginning as I'm saying? Everyone wants to nail it down in comparison to other 4T but they are always different. I re-read part of T4T the other day and it said the Crisis does not necessarily have to end in or involve war. It isn't a prime necessity.
The math (aka generational constellation) doesn't add up. It's not subjective.
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti