Most of us, I imagine, think a big crisis is coming. Said crisis being necessitated by the mountain of new debt; the rock-bottom interest rates currently making it look less horrible (but they can't drop much more); the continued economic slump in the US, and the expectation, based on the quantitative easing, of a double-dip before we can get unemployment down; the economic crisis in Europe, being delayed now by temporary measures. Of course, we could also have a non-economic crisis, depending on what Iran decides to do with the nukes it's developing.
Authors of that book, I think, would also argue: it's not that trouble is on the horizon, but that we no longer agree on how to handle trouble when it comes. So an upset that could be resolved ordinarily will be gridlocked today, until it's bad enough people get desperate enough to cooperate. Maybe I misunderstand them.
What should we be doing to prepare for any upcoming crisis? Can we prepare for it? Prevent it? Or is it an illusion?
What will stop us from preparing or preventing?
Do you think your answers are common? How does the general public view those answers?
...and what about different countries? That is, is your country sitting pretty, while others are headed for trouble, or the reverse?
What about the political parties? Should your party win to prevent or ameliorate current problems? Or would it be better for it to lose, so the public will reject the other party for a couple of decades, so your party can fix the problem?
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity."
I love that quote.
It was also the one I was thinking about when I said I think we got to be open to change. It a big crisis hits, I think those who can roll with the punches stand the best chance to survive it (be it war or economic collapse). I think to stand your ground and hunker down will just mean you will get crushed.
They just give the adversary a stationary target to shoot at or walk around like the Germans did in WWII with the Maginot line in France.
He was speaking specifically of the Seigfreid Line. A monument, today, to German stupidity.
You welcome Canada as the 51st state? haha
In the book they suggest something like this as one of the options that might happen. The book isn't a doomsday novel, just an interesting way of looking at American history (by looking at it in a cyclic timeline involving four generational archetypes repeated over and over moving through four time periods as opposed to a linear timeline that we usually think in). Actually, in reading the book, they described the generation of the nomad's (13th generation/genX) role in the 4th turning (the period of the next crisis). The nomad generation, who were the antisocial risk takers in their 1980s-90s youth, mature and lead the next generation (millenniums) into battle (just as the last nomads like Patton lead the GI generation into battle during the last crisis). Also, they said that the latchkey GenX will grow up to be more involved and conservative in parenting their kids (the generation after the millenniums; the next artist/silent generation) than their selfish silent and boomer gen parents were to them. When reading this, a rebel punk turned involved parent, I was reminded of you.
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
In four generations, Americans are to turn into weaklings of the worst kind, eh? What liberalism does to people is apparently as old as the founding liberalism. I have often wondered why he wrote that letter, or why he wrote this sort of thing, more specifically; I do not doubt that he was in earnest. Tapestry? Porcelain? -- I am not sure you know about the disastrous sons of the Adams family, but at least the fourth generation still had a very famous man, Henry Adams, who is said to have been quite a historian of the Virginia Dynasty, not to mention that he wrote his 'The education of Henry Adams.' For a man who had seen & heard Lincoln, he was unusually incapable of recognizing heroic greatness... He was depressed & in a sense a degenerate: He wanted to believe in something, but just felt there was little or nothing left...
Regarding that quote: maybe because of our time in history, but I read that and think: Mr. Adams, you make it sound as though civilization can persist without defending. If your grandchildren follow your wishes, and study art to the exclusion of war, politics, and engineering, that ensures your great-grandchildren are back to war and politics.
But that may not have been obvious at the time.
Actually, Adams was writing about how he had needed to abandon his law career and engage in international politics and war, in order to ensure that his sons would not need to put the study of politics and war first in their lives. And the irony is that his sons, grandsons, and great grandsons made effective study of politics (and in one case, war) the hallmarks of thier lives.
That may not have been obvious at the time.
Really? When can that be said of any man aware of political things? What about 'the time' suggests to you that delusions were in the air? Further, the suggestion that the degenerate descendants would have the chance to wage war & involve themselves in politics is hopeful.
If anything happens I'm pretty sure it's going to happen sooner rather than later. The US at least cannot keep going on the same track it is right now and expect everything to be fine and dandy. We should at the very least be working to keep spending levels at what they are now instead of throwing money at everything. As far as prepping goes I have what I need and other then that I don't really get into specifics.