Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Generational Dynamics World View - Page 112







Post#2776 at 11-30-2015 09:33 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
11-30-2015, 09:33 AM #2776
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> I appreciate the support, Odin, but I am well aware of John's
> opinions and where they differ from mine (and where he is
> accordingly wrong ). I was less interested in having that
> argument here and more in simply needling him for being a bit
> ridiculous.

> All in good fun, of course.
Actually, that sounds interesting. If you're willing to post it, I
would be very interested in seeing that list of places where you
disagree with my "opinion." In that case, I'll try to respond to each
of the points if I can.







Post#2777 at 11-30-2015 12:32 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
11-30-2015, 12:32 PM #2777
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

What Xers and Millies are asking is that boomers stop pushing their stupid ideals. Xers and Millies demand reforms that if implemented would change America's national character to one that is more similar to how Russia and Germany traditionally treated other countries and behaved.







Post#2778 at 11-30-2015 01:40 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
11-30-2015, 01:40 PM #2778
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
> What Xers and Millies are asking is that boomers stop pushing
> their stupid ideals. Xers and Millies demand reforms that if
> implemented would change America's national character to one that
> is more similar to how Russia and Germany traditionally treated
> other countries and behaved.
So you think our leaders should be more like Stalin and Hitler?

A World War is like a tsunami that can't be stopped. We probably
could have won WW II with a President like Hitler or Stalin, but I'm
rather pleased that we won with a leader like Roosevelt. Either way,
we would have won, but this way our "national character" is that of a
moral nation with "stupid ideals," rather than a nation committing
some of the worst war crimes in history.

There's an interesting philosophical takeaway from generational
theory. If every nation is going to have 20 years of unavoidable hell
alternating with 60 years of relative peace, then it's worthwhile to
think about how to make those 60 years the best possible.







Post#2779 at 11-30-2015 03:07 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
11-30-2015, 03:07 PM #2779
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
Actually, that sounds interesting. If you're willing to post it, I
would be very interested in seeing that list of places where you
disagree with my "opinion." In that case, I'll try to respond to each
of the points if I can.
Almost missed this, sorry. First, a point of order:

Details from open news sources are sketchy, but apparently Gopal
Bahadur Khadka, managing director of NOC, was holding up the official
deal because he was trying to use his privately owned company Birat
Petroleum to purchase the fuel from China at twice the market price,
and then to resell it to NOC at market price.
This is from your 30 November post, and the emphasis is mine. This sounds like an awful, money-losing deal on his end. He's reselling it at half the price he bought it for? Are you sure you don't have that backwards, or is there some fine detail of this I'm missing?

So, many of the disagreements I've had with you on this thread have concerned minor details like this, or the bit where Boko Haram is in fact a Kanuri group and not a Hausa one, etc. More broadly, I am skeptical of the idea of 5th turnings, or the idea that a Crisis must necessarily include a genocidal war. Looking at Russia over the course of the 19th century, I can't help but feel that its cycle was on a 100 year timer, rather than an 80 year one, as befits a country in its (then) state of development. If you look at the reigns of the Russian monarchs in the 19th century, I'm not quite sure your conceptions of the turnings lines up. Let's start with Alexander I. Here we have a monarch who started out making major reforms, but became increasingly reactionary as he dealt with the Napoleonic Wars (the original Patriotic War of Russian history), oversaw the expansion of the Empire in the conquests of much of Caucasus, whose reign culminated in a major revolt. After this we have his little brother Nicholas I, who never left his brother's shadow. He instituted an official reactionary ideology, centralized administration, took up the mantle of reaction in Europe bequeathed to him by his borther, tried to build infrastructure, etc. This culminated in an awkward, ill-fought, and divisive war in the Crimea, presided over by aging generals who sold their men's equipment and food for money. In the wake of this, we have the reign of Alexander II. His reign was not characterized by stasis and consensus, as one would expect from a 1T, but major reforms like the abolition of serfdom, the establishment of universities, the end of capital punishment, the promotion of local government. Despite this, society didn't unify behind him, but intensified its demands. The Nihilist and Anarchist movements emerged in Russia at this time. Poland rose up, crime rose, and Alexander II survived numerous assasination attempts before finally succumbing in 1881. This brought his son Alexander III to power. He moved to roll back reforms, ended major wars, and hunt down revolutionaries of all stripes. Basically, he reacted to the period of his genial, liberal father, and the societal chaos he thought his father had permitted. When he died, his son Nicholas II camed into power, and shortly after we have the Russo-Japanese War, the Revolution of 1905, WWI, and the October Revolution. After an initial period of ferment, we have the reactionary administration of Stalin. Following WWII and his death, we have uprisings in places like Hungary, we have the Khrushchev Thaw , that ended in 1964 with Krushchev's impeachment and an aborted plan of change under Kosygin. This leads us through a 20 year period called the Era of Stagnation, which ended with the ascension of Gorbachev in '85. This new set of reforms saw the dissolution of the institutions put in place during the period of change and chaos once removed.

All of which is to say, there is a clear ​pattern of reform alternating with stasis, which lines up in roughly 20 year blocks in the 20th century and 25ish blocks in the 19th. I can't help but feel this lines up better, as the big time of societal chaos, reform, and upheaval (leading nowhere politically) happened during and after the Crimean War, at which point we had relative stasis until the beginning of the 20th period, leading to a period I'm sure you wouldn't characterize as a 2T.

I suppose I could think of other points (am presently going back and forth on whether Thailand is in a 2T or 4T, leaning towards a 2T right now, and if I become convinced I will post it here with a tip of the hat to you), but I really need to get back to programming.

As for your "opinion", if you've build a giant computer program that is feeding you your predictions, I would love to hear you describe it in terms as specific as your patents allows. Until then, I can't help but feel you're in the same boat as the rest of us vis analyzing historical trends in the context of generational theory.
Last edited by JordanGoodspeed; 11-30-2015 at 06:17 PM.







Post#2780 at 12-01-2015 12:55 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
12-01-2015, 12:55 AM #2780
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

1-Dec-15 World View -- Putin's Syria intervention hobbled by weak Russian economy

*** 1-Dec-15 World View -- Putin's Syria intervention hobbled by weak Russian economy

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

  • France demands that Russia target only ISIS in Syria
  • Putin's Syria intervention hobbled by weak Russian economy


****
**** France demands that Russia target only ISIS in Syria
****



Syrian Turkmen fighters near border with Turkey last week (Reuters)

Russian officials have been claiming that their warplane targets in
Syria are all targets owned by the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS
or ISIL or Daesh). We know from the Ukraine experience that Russian
officials and media never tell the truth except by accident,
and so any claim by Russian officials about warplane targets
can simply be ignored.

In fact, there are been numerous Western media reports indicating that
Russia's warplanes are hitting an occasional ISIS target, but Russia
is mostly leaving ISIS alone, which seems odd when Russia's president
frequently talks about how dangerous ISIS is. Instead, Russia has
been targeting non-ISIS rebels fighting the regime of Syria's
president Bashar al-Assad.

Reuters has done an analysis of data available from Russia's
Defense Ministry, and found that Russia's own data supports
the Western media reports.

Instead, Russia has been targeting regions have no ISIS presence, but
whose population is largely ethnically Turkmen, who are Syrians of
Turkish descent, descended from groups who began moving from
Turkmenistan in Central Asia into present-day Syria in the tenth
century.

Furthermore, Russia has been targeting these Turkmen regions long
before Turkey shot down the Russian warplane.

On Thursday of last week, France's president François Hollande
traveled to Moscow to meet with Russia's president Vladimir Putin.
Hollande said that Putin had agreed that Russian attack should only
hit ISIS and "similar jihadi groups" in Syria. There is no evidence
that Russia is abiding by this statement which, like most of Putin's
statements, is really meaningless.

On Friday, a spokesman for France's former ministry was asked about
Russian airstrikes on Turkmen areas. The spokesman, Romain Nadal,
said:

<QUOTE>"There can be no possible ambiguity on the objectives
being pursued, which must only target the destruction of Daesh
(ISIS)."<END QUOTE>

According to the Reuters data analysis, however, Russia's warplanes
are still heavily targeting ethnic Turkmen areas. Reuters and Independent (London) and Reuters

****
**** Putin's Syria intervention hobbled by weak Russian economy
****


There are two sides to this story, both sides filled with wishful
thinking. On one side, Russia's military intervention in Syria
and the new sanctions imposed on Turkey are so expensive that
Russia cannot afford them for long.

On the other side, Putin is determined to continue his Syria
policy, irrespective of the cost. This view was express
by Henri Barkey of the Woodrow Wilson International Center,
being interview on al-Jazeera (my transcription excerpts):

<QUOTE>"Putin wants to make sure that Erdogan really pays a
very heavy price for this.

This is clearly a case where Erdogan overreached. It was a
mistake to shoot down the airplane. Initially after the shooting
down, Erdogan was very bombastic about it, and said he would do it
again.

And so Putin has ratcheted up the pressure on Erdogan. The Turks
are now realizing that this was a huge mistake, and I think
everyone now realizes it. A Turkish airplane was shot down in
Syria three years ago, and Erdogan had said at the time a minor
violation of the airspace is no reason to attack. And now he does
exactly the same thing for a 17 second violation. So the Russians
are understandably upset. Even Turkey's Nato allies are upset,
because this has given Putin the excuse to bring huge amount of
military equipment into the region, including S-400 very
sophisticated anti-air missiles.

And this is going to make American and allied bombing raids over
Syria much more difficult, because they have now to worry about
this very sophisticated system, even if the Russians have no
intention of shooting down American airplanes. So this has been a
terrible mistake on the part of Erdogan, a completely unnecessary
one, and now he's paying the price for it. Putin is probably
enjoying this, and wants to make Erdogan even more humiliated as
he can."<END QUOTE>

However, Turkey-Russian commerce is worth an estimated $31 billion
annually, with Russian wheat and gas and Turkish agricultural products
making up the bulk. Russia's economy has already been battered by
European sanctions and the collapse in the price of oil, and is
suffering from severe inflation that is approaching 20% per year.
According to one Israeli analyst, Russia's companies will suffer from
Russia's sanctions even more than Turkish companies, especially since
Russia is so much more isolated, while Turkey is being pushed into the
arms of Europe.

Russia's military adventures in invading and occupying Ukraine and
annexing Crimea have been extremely expensive for Russia, and
Russia has already been forced to cut back his military in
eastern Ukraine in order to transfer troops and equipment to
Syria.

Russia's military intervention in Syria is now hobbled for a
non-economic reason. He would like to strike back at Turkey
militarily, but that would result in a confrontation with
Nato, which would be forced to support Turkey.

Turkey has one powerful sanction that it could use against Russia:
According to the 1936 Montreux Convention, Turkey must allow Russia
and other Black Sea states to send ships of commerce and of war
through the Turkish straits (the Bosporus and Dardanelles channels),
which connect the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Ocean. The Montreux
Convention has been very important to Russia following its recent
military occupation and annexation of Crimea, and its plans for a
major expansion of its naval base at Sevastopol, which it's Black Sea
fleet is based. If Russia strikes too hard at Turkey, either
militarily or through sanctions, then Turkey may close the Bosporus
to Russian ships. That would be a powerful sanction, but it would
probably trigger a new war such as those that the Turks and Russians
have been fighting for centuries. ( "25-Nov-15 World View -- Turkey shoots down Russian warplane, evoking memories of many Crimean wars"
)

Jamestown and Debka and Jerusalem Post and International Business Times (12-May-2014) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Turkey)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Russia, Turkey, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, Turkmen, France, François Hollande, Romain Nadal,
Henri Barkey, the Turkish straits, Bosphorus and Dardanelles channels,
Black Sea, Crimea, Sevastopol

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail







Post#2781 at 12-01-2015 01:31 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
12-01-2015, 01:31 AM #2781
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Again, why the emphasis on Turkmenistan, specifically? It's not really where they're from.

Also, without disputing the truth or falsehood of your vision for how this Crisis plays out, in what way is the present friction between Russia and Turkey playing into your scenario of the Russia allying with the West versus Sunni Muslim countries (of which Turkey is one of the biggies)? If anything, it seems to be driving Turkey in with the West and adding additional tension to Russia's relation with the same.

Thoughts?







Post#2782 at 12-01-2015 01:43 AM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
12-01-2015, 01:43 AM #2782
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

The medal bedecked ideologues of the Kremlin are showing their true colors as Anti-Western Fiends. More and more I view ISIS as a smokescreen initiated by SVR/GRU/Spetsnaz. These orgs are masters of "Icebreaker" operations meant to loosen up ground for conquest by the Kremlin. Thus far Beijing has not needed this, conquest in Asia appears more straightforward, almost a throw back to the 19th Century. In any case, just as I've thought ever since 16-JUL-2001, the SCO are the WW3 Axis. Heaven help us all.







Post#2783 at 12-01-2015 12:53 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
12-01-2015, 12:53 PM #2783
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> Again, why the emphasis on Turkmenistan, specifically? It's not
> really where they're from.
The Turkmens are from Central Asia, so I'm pretty sure that at least
some of them came from Turkmenistan. That reference helps the reader
who's less knowledgeable than you understand why they're called
"Turkmens".

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> Also, without disputing the truth or falsehood of your vision for
> how this Crisis plays out, in what way is the present friction
> between Russia and Turkey playing into your scenario of the Russia
> allying with the West versus Sunni Muslim countries (of which
> Turkey is one of the biggies)? If anything, it seems to be driving
> Turkey in with the West and adding additional tension to Russia's
> relation with the same.
That the Mideast is in a trend to realign itself along sectarian lines
is obvious today even without the help of Generational Dynamics.

This is a trend that's going to continue, finally spiraling into a
full-scale crisis war. The United States has been trying to be
friends with both sides, but at some point America will be "forced to
choose" one side or the other, and that will be the Russian/Shia side.

I really have to, once again, express my total astonishment at the way
the Obama administration has blown off the Saudis, the Egyptians and
Israelis, and aligned itself with Iran. This isn't precisely aligned
with the Generational Dynamics trends prediction, but it's so close
that Obama may well have sped things up. Barack Obama is completely
inept at foreign policy, as can be seen just today by his continuing
unbelievably delusional claims relating climate change to terrorism,
so an interesting question arises about what would have happened if
someone else had been president, someone who actually has a clue
what's going on in the world, such as such as former Secretaries of
State Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice. In that case, the same
trend would have unfolded, but perhaps at a slower pace.

I'll try to answer your other questions (or "issues") in the next few
days.







Post#2784 at 12-01-2015 11:25 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
12-01-2015, 11:25 PM #2784
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

2-Dec-15 World View -- In major new escalation, US special forces will conduct combat

*** 2-Dec-15 World View -- In major new escalation, US special forces will conduct combat in Iraq and Syria

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

  • Germany may deploy 1200 soldiers to Syria to fight ISIS
  • In major new escalation, US special forces will conduct combat in Iraq and Syria


****
**** Germany may deploy 1200 soldiers to Syria to fight ISIS
****



German troops in Iraq are already training the Kurdish Peshmerga (DW)

Germany's cabinet voted on Tuesday to recommend sending military
support to Syria to fight ISIS. The support would include 1,200
soldiers, along with Tornado reconnaissance aircraft and the naval
frigate Sachsen.

Four to six Tornado jets would be stationed at two locations. are
underway with Jordan and Turkey about using the airbases in Incirlik
and Amman. The frigate would be assigned to help protect the French
flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, from
where fighter jets carry out bombing runs.

However, defense minister Ursula von der Leyen said, "The top line is:
there will be no cooperation with [Syria's president Bashar] al-Assad
and no cooperation with troops under his command."

Many Germans are wary of external troop deployments, after the Nazi
experience in World War II.

According to a YouGov poll, 71% of Germans fear a terror backlash due
to Germany supporting France in its military campaign against ISIS.

Dietmar Bartsch, chairman of the Left party, expressed skepticism that
there was a military solution to the conflict:

<QUOTE>"We have to impede ISIS, but that means, for example,
through financial means, through the flow of weapons. We must put
an end to the smuggling of oil in this area. We can't defeat ISIS
with bombs. ...

I don't understand why the federal government, why other
countries, have learned nothing from Afghanistan."<END QUOTE>

Green Party chairwoman Simone Peter said, "This deployment also has no
political goal, no political concept and that's why it's
irresponsible."

A final vote by the Parliament is scheduled for Wednesday.

Until now, Germany's biggest foreign mission has been in Afghanistan,
but that has gradually wound down to a force of just under 1,000.
Last week, Germany agreed to send 650 soldiers to Mali, to join 1,500
French troops deployed to fight IS militants. Deutsche-Welle and BBC and DPA and Sky News

****
**** In major new escalation, US special forces will conduct combat in Iraq and Syria
****


Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced on Tuesday that the US
military will be sending an unspecified number of special forces
troops to Iraq and Syria, beyond the 3800 that have already been sent,
and that they will for the first time be conducting combat operations
against the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh):

<QUOTE>"Next, in full coordination with the Government of
Iraq, we're deploying a specialized expeditionary targeting force
to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and to put even more
pressure on ISIL. These special operators will over time be able
to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, and capture
ISIL leaders."<END QUOTE>

This is the second major troop escalation by the Obama administration
in a month. On October 30, the White House announced that, for
the first time, special forces troops would be on the ground
in Syria, as well as Iraq. At that time, press secretary Josh
Earnest said:

<QUOTE>"The President does expect that they can have an
impact in intensifying our strategy for building the capacity of
local forces inside of Syria for taking the fight on the ground to
ISIL in their own country. That has been the core element of the
military component of our strategy from the beginning: building
the capacity of local forces on the ground."<END QUOTE>

Blah, blah, blah. Earnest also said that "These forces do not have a
combat mission." Well, with Tuesday's announcement, now they do.

According to analyst Michael O'Hanlon at the liberal Brookings
Institution, commenting on the 10/30 announcement:

<QUOTE>"Clearly, our Syria strategy has been failing for four
years. The renewed tensions in U.S.-Turkey collaboration, the
lack of progress in establishing a safe zone in the north and
working together with the Kurds, and now the Russian intervention
have underscored how much of a dilemma we face.

So while some of us have viewed the situation in Syria as very
serious for a long time, it is increasingly hard for the
administration even to attempt to argue otherwise."<END QUOTE>

Let's recall what President Obama said on Sept 12, 2014:

<QUOTE>"But I want the American people to understand how this
effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign
soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a
steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist,
using our air power and our support for partner forces on the
ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us,
while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have
successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is
consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use
force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but
to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader
challenges to international order."<END QUOTE>

This is what happens over and over. A president starts out
with "advisors" or "special forces," and ends up in a war.

On Tuesday, President Obama was speaking at the "climate change"
conference in Paris, making his self-delusional statement that climate
change is the cause of terrorism. A couple of commentators pointed
out that Obama seemed to be very "sad" and "depressed" as he was
speaking. Why was he depressed? Possibly because every foreign
policy initiative he's tried has been a disaster, and now he has
"boots on the ground" in both Iraq and Syria, proving that his
contempt for President Bush and for Boomers was also self-delusion.
Rudaw (Iraq) and
CNN (10/30) and NBC News (10/31)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Germany, Iraq, Tornado jets, Sachsen frigate,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
France, Charles de Gaulle, Ursula von der Leyen, Jordan, Turkey, YouGov,
Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Dietmar Bartsch, Simone Peter, Afghanistan, Mali,
Ash Carter, Josh Earnest, Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institution

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail







Post#2785 at 12-02-2015 12:11 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
12-02-2015, 12:11 AM #2785
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
*** 2-Dec-15 World View -- In major new escalation, US special forces will conduct combat in Iraq and Syria

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

  • Germany may deploy 1200 soldiers to Syria to fight ISIS
  • In major new escalation, US special forces will conduct combat in Iraq and Syria


****
**** Germany may deploy 1200 soldiers to Syria to fight ISIS
****



German troops in Iraq are already training the Kurdish Peshmerga (DW)

Germany's cabinet voted on Tuesday to recommend sending military
support to Syria to fight ISIS. The support would include 1,200
soldiers, along with Tornado reconnaissance aircraft and the naval
frigate Sachsen.

Four to six Tornado jets would be stationed at two locations. are
underway with Jordan and Turkey about using the airbases in Incirlik
and Amman. The frigate would be assigned to help protect the French
flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, from
where fighter jets carry out bombing runs.

However, defense minister Ursula von der Leyen said, "The top line is:
there will be no cooperation with [Syria's president Bashar] al-Assad
and no cooperation with troops under his command."
...
Geez, this ISIS thing sure is turning into a tar baby clusterfuck.

OK, let's see if I have the logic correct here.

IS = a conglomeration of Sunni types from world wide. It's a mafia type organisation that controls turf, engages in oil trafficing, extortion rackets and the like. It's natural allies would be other Sunni actors like the Gulf States and economic elements within Saudi Arabia. It differs from actual mafias in that it also has an ideology associated with it. Said ideology is often used as a recruitment aid. Turkey may or may not be working clandenstinly with IS with such things as exporting their oil for them.

Assad = the usual tinpot dictator of some 3rd world country. He's a member a a minority Islamic group known as Alawites. Alawites have natural allies within the Shiite sect of Islam. He also hosts Russia's only military base in the Mideast. Thusly, Iran, Hezzbelloh, and Russia are his allies.

and ...

Quote Originally Posted by John

<QUOTE>"Clearly, our Syria strategy has been failing for four
years. The renewed tensions in U.S.-Turkey collaboration, the
lack of progress in establishing a safe zone in the north and
working together with the Kurds, and now the Russian intervention
have underscored how much of a dilemma we face.
Kurds : The Kurds who are not Arabs, btw, but are Indo-Europeans present another dilemma. Kurds don't like Assad,Turkey, or IS.

Here is why the Iraq/Syria thing is such a clusterfuck:

1. If you choose to support the Kurds, you are opposing Turkey which is a member of NATO.
2. If you choose to support so called "moderate rebels", you are supporting an oxymoron. You will never know who you are really supporting.
3. If you choose of all things to support Assad, you are supporting a sociopath. Putin doesn't care because he's getting a quid quo pro out of it. Putin gets protection for his military base.
4. I don't think any Western country can pick anything here. If you support one entity, you by default oppose another entity. The problem is that any pairing of entities results in an internal contradiction wrt Mideast policy.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#2786 at 12-02-2015 12:30 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
12-02-2015, 12:30 AM #2786
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
> Geez, this ISIS thing sure is turning into a tar baby clusterfuck.

> OK, let's see if I have the logic correct here.

> IS = a conglomeration of Sunni types from world wide. It's a mafia
> type organisation that controls turf, engages in oil trafficing,
> extortion rackets and the like. It's natural allies would be other
> Sunni actors like the Gulf States and economic elements within
> Saudi Arabia. It differs from actual mafias in that it also has an
> ideology associated with it. Said ideology is often used as a
> recruitment aid. Turkey may or may not be working clandenstinly
> with IS with such things as exporting their oil for them.

> Assad = the usual tinpot dictator of some 3rd world country. He's
> a member a a minority Islamic group known as Alawites. Alawites
> have natural allies within the Shiite sect of Islam. He also hosts
> Russia's only military base in the Mideast. Thusly, Iran,
> Hezzbelloh, and Russia are his allies.

> and ...

> Kurds : The Kurds who are not Arabs, btw, but are Indo-Europeans
> present another dilemma. Kurds don't like Assad,Turkey, or IS.

> Here is why the Iraq/Syria thing is such a clusterfuck:

> 1. If you choose to support the Kurds, you are opposing Turkey
> which is a member of NATO.

> 2. If you choose to support so called "moderate rebels", you are
> supporting an oxymoron. You will never know who you are really
> supporting.

> 3. If you choose of all things to support Assad, you are
> supporting a sociopath. Putin doesn't care because he's getting a
> quid quo pro out of it. Putin gets protection for his military
> base.

> 4. I don't think any Western country can pick anything here. If
> you support one entity, you by default oppose another entity. The
> problem is that any pairing of entities results in an internal
> contradiction wrt Mideast policy.
You've hit the nail on the head. Wait until the Americans and the
various European countries are "forced to choose."







Post#2787 at 12-02-2015 12:45 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
12-02-2015, 12:45 AM #2787
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
You've hit the nail on the head. Wait until the Americans and the
various European countries are "forced to choose."
Out of curiosity, why do you think they (we) will be "forced" to choose? I don't really see how you go from "Middle East is experiencing an analogue of the 30 Year's War" to "all outside powers must necessarily line up on specific sides by some point".







Post#2788 at 12-02-2015 12:50 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
12-02-2015, 12:50 AM #2788
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Am really interested to hear your take on the Russia thing, when you have a chance. Have looked over the Russia write-up you have on your site, and don't really think it makes sense. You have an awakening labeled right after the conclusion of the Crimean ('crisis') war, with no recovery in between. You also seem to have bloody but inconclusive rebellions labeled as crises, and major political realignments labeled as Awakenings. Have uncovered more evidence of Russian schismatic movements emerging in the mid-17th and mid-18th centuries, supporting the notion of the Time of Troubles and (a substantial fraction of) Peter the Great's reign as Crises.







Post#2789 at 12-02-2015 01:04 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
12-02-2015, 01:04 AM #2789
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Thanks for responding.

The Turkmens are from Central Asia, so I'm pretty sure that at least
some of them came from Turkmenistan. That reference helps the reader
who's less knowledgeable than you understand why they're called
"Turkmens".
I mean, it's your blog (or whatever), you can write what you want. But you have the writeup on your site reasonably correct, so if you really feel the need to specify where in Central Asia they come from you could probably write 'what is now western Kazakhstan'. Playing up the Turkmenistan thing is just a little misleading, as that and the similarities of the names implies a closer relation than is actually the case.

But, like I said, whatever. It's not a big deal.

his is a trend that's going to continue, finally spiraling into a
full-scale crisis war. The United States has been trying to be
friends with both sides, but at some point America will be "forced to
choose" one side or the other, and that will be the Russian/Shia side.
See my question above.

While I suppose it could happen the way you say (I don't have a crystal ball), I don't see how the recent events confirm it. The West, between the EU-Turkey deal and the NATO concerns with the plane, seems to be drawing closer to Turkey rather than Russia, with whom they (we) are already antagonistic towards, Am not seeing the (potential?) catalyst that would spur the West and Russia to draw together. A war in the Middle East? Please, China? Russia has, if anything, been drawing closer to China, even as its relations with the West deteriorate.

You yourself frequently inveigh against Russia, and Assad, on this thread. I have not seen equivalent venom aimed at US or the Saudis over what we are helping them do in Bahrain or Yemen.







Post#2790 at 12-02-2015 07:21 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-02-2015, 07:21 AM #2790
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
IS = a conglomeration of Sunni types from world wide. It's a mafia type organisation that controls turf, engages in oil trafficing, extortion rackets and the like. It differs from actual mafias in that it also has an ideology associated with it.
That's pretty close. It is a military religious order that holds territory. The closest Western counterpart would be the Teutonic Knights.

They are engaged in jihad. Jihad is a piece of social engineering invented by the early Muslims that formed an Arabic-speaking nation out of the many warring Arabic-speaking polities in the Arabian peninsula. It created the idea of a virtual nation, the Ummah, united by common belief rather than by blood (the US is another example of the same sort of thing). By directing the ambitions of military elites outward, it eliminated intra-societal violence, giving peace and security within the Ummah. Of course the term jihad has often been used for run of the mill wars fought by Muslims states and most of the time has nothing to do with authentic jihad. The same thing has been true for crusade in the West.

The modern jihadists are trying to replicate this earlier success. They are trying to make the claim that their version of jihad is the real deal. Apparently some people buy into it since they seem to be attracting followers.

The Western version of jihad is crusade. Spanish Christians copied jihad from their enemies and used the concept to unify most of Christian Iberia and draw in recruits from France in the Reconquista, their campaign to reclaim that lands lost in 711. The Catholic church got the idea from the Spanish and used it to launch the papal revolution which was the foundation of the Western government. The Teutonic knights were one of the Western military religious orders that practiced crusade, and used it to build a kingdom for the holy Church (and themselves).
Last edited by Mikebert; 12-02-2015 at 07:38 AM.







Post#2791 at 12-02-2015 11:27 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
12-02-2015, 11:27 AM #2791
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Minor quibble, much of what they unified was not Arabic speaking. Outside of the confines of what is now the southern Arabian peninsula (and even there there were generous Persian influences along the Gulf and South Arabian languages spoken in Yemen) most of the rest of the Middle East spoke Aramaic, Coptic, Greek, and other languages, despite an increase in Arab immigration to the Levant (see the Nabataeans, Ghassanids, and others) during late Antiquity.

Arabs were a distinct minority in the Umayyad Caliphate (which admittedly was fairly widespread, and included the Maghreb and Persian lands, which I doubt you were referring to). They weren't even the majority in the core Middle East. It took the better part of a millennium to linguistically assimilate people into a broader "Arab" ethnicity.

It doesn't really detract from your point, though. Insisting that people read the Koran in Arabic was just another piece of social engineering.







Post#2792 at 12-02-2015 04:08 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
12-02-2015, 04:08 PM #2792
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> Out of curiosity, why do you think they (we) will be "forced" to
> choose? I don't really see how you go from "Middle East is
> experiencing an analogue of the 30 Year's War" to "all outside
> powers must necessarily line up on specific sides by some
> point".

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> While I suppose it could happen the way you say (I don't have a
> crystal ball), I don't see how the recent events confirm it. The
> West, between the EU-Turkey deal and the NATO concerns with the
> plane, seems to be drawing closer to Turkey rather than Russia,
> with whom they (we) are already antagonistic towards, Am not
> seeing the (potential?) catalyst that would spur the West and
> Russia to draw together. A war in the Middle East? Please, China?
> Russia has, if anything, been drawing closer to China, even as its
> relations with the West deteriorate.

Roosevelt kept us out of the European war until the Japanese bombed
Pearl Harbor on Dec 7. Then Roosevelt declared war on Germany on Dec
11. What did one event have to do with the other? Why were we forced
to declare war on Germany and Italy, when they had never attacked us?
And why did we ally with our enemy, Stalin?

I think this question goes to the heart of S&H's core concept of what
the Fourth Turning is. The way I've described it is that in an
Awakening era, the public is "attracted away" from war. During a
Crisis era, the public is "attracted toward" war.

The world has been clearly attracted toward war since 2003, which was
the end of the Unraveling era and the beginning of the Crisis era for
much of the world.

Here's an article from my archives from 2004:

> The chilling sights and sounds of war fill newspapers and...

> By Charles J. Hanley, Associated Press, 8/29/2004 13:46

> The chilling sights and sounds of war fill newspapers and
> television screens worldwide, but war itself is in decline, peace
> researchers report.

> In fact, the number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest
> point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year
> by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meantime, are growing in
> number.

> ''International engagement is blossoming,'' said American scholar
> Monty G. Marshall. ''There's been an enormous amount of activity
> to try to end these conflicts.''

> For months the battle reports and casualty tolls from Iraq and
> Afghanistan have put war in the headlines, but Swedish and
> Canadian non-governmental groups tracking armed conflict globally
> find a general decline in numbers from peaks in the 1990s.

> The authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research
> Institute, in a 2004 Yearbook report obtained by The Associated
> Press in advance of publication, says 19 major armed conflicts
> were under way worldwide in 2003, a sharp drop from 33 wars
> counted in 1991.

> The Canadian organization Project Ploughshares, using broader
> criteria to define armed conflict, says in its new annual report
> that the number of conflicts declined to 36 in 2003, from a peak
> of 44 in 1995.

> The Stockholm institute counts continuing wars that have produced
> 1,000 or more battle-related deaths in any single year. Project
> Ploughshares counts any armed conflict that produces 1,000 such
> deaths cumulatively.

> The Stockholm report, to be released in September, notes three
> wars ended as of 2003 in Angola, Rwanda and Somalia and a fourth,
> the separatist war in India's Assam state, was dropped from the
> ''major'' category after casualties were recalculated.

> It lists three new wars in 2003 in Liberia and in Sudan's western
> region of Darfur, along with the U.S.-British invasion of
> Iraq. These joined such long-running conflicts as the Kashmiri
> insurgency in India, the leftist guerrilla war in Colombia, and
> the separatist war in Russia's Chechnya region.

> Other major armed conflicts listed by the Stockholm researchers
> were in Algeria, Burundi, Peru, Indonesia's Aceh province,
> Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Israel, and Turkey. Their list also
> includes the U.S.-al-Qaida war, mainly in Afghanistan, the
> unresolved India-Pakistan conflict, and two insurgencies in the
> Philippines.

> ''Not only are the numbers declining, but the intensity'' the
> bloodshed in each conflict ''is declining,'' said Marshall,
> founder of a University of Maryland program studying political
> violence.

> The continuing wars in Algeria, Chechnya and Turkey are among
> those that have subsided into low-intensity conflicts. At Canada's
> University of British Columbia, scholars at the Human Security
> Center are quantifying this by tackling the difficult task of
> calculating war casualties worldwide for their Human Security
> Report, to be released late in 2004.

> A collaboration with Sweden's Uppsala University, that report will
> conservatively estimate battle-related deaths worldwide at 15,000
> in 2002 and, because of the Iraq war, rising to 20,000 in
> 2003. Those estimates are sharply down from annual tolls ranging
> from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, a time of major costly
> conflicts in such places as the former Zaire and southern Sudan,
> and from a post-World War II peak of 700,000 in 1951.

> The Canadian center's director, Andrew Mack, said the figures
> don't include deaths from war-induced starvation and disease,
> deaths from ethnic conflicts not involving states, or unopposed
> massacres, such as in Rwanda in 1994.

> Why the declines? Peace scholars point to crosscurrents of global
> events.

> For one thing, the Cold War's end and breakup of the Soviet Union
> in 1989-91 ignited civil and separatist wars in the old East bloc
> and elsewhere, as the superpowers' hands were lifted in places
> where they'd long held allies in check. Those wars surged in the
> early 1990s.

> ''The decline over the past decade measures the move away from
> that unusual period,'' said Ernie Regehr, director of Project
> Ploughshares.

> At the same time, however, the U.S.-Russian thaw worked against
> war as well, scholars said, by removing superpower support in
> ''proxy wars,'' as in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Cambodia. With
> dwindling money and arms, warmakers had to seek peace.

> The United Nations and regional bodies, meanwhile, were mobilizing
> for more effective peacemaking worldwide.

> ''The end of the Cold War liberated the U.N.'' historically
> paralyzed by U.S.-Soviet antagonism ''to do what its founders had
> originally intended and more,'' Mack said.

> In 2003 alone, from Ivory Coast to the Solomon Islands, 14
> multilateral missions were launched to protect or reinforce peace
> settlements, the highest number of new peace missions begun in a
> single year since the Cold War, the Stockholm institute will
> report.

> The recent record shows ''conflicts don't end without some form of
> intervention from outside,'' said Renata Dwan, who heads the
> institute's program on armed conflict and conflict management.

> Most new missions, half of which were in Africa, were undertaken
> by regional organizations or coalitions of states, often with U.N.
> sanction.

> The idea of U.N. primacy in world peace and security took a
> ''bruising'' at U.S. hands in 2003, when Washington circumvented
> the U.N. Security Council to invade Iraq, Dwan noted. But
> meanwhile, elsewhere, the world body was deploying a monthly
> average of 38,500 military peacekeepers in 2003 triple the level
> of 1999.

> By year's end, the institute yearbook will conclude, ''the
> U.N. was arguably in a stronger position than at any time in
> recent years.''

> http://www.boston.com/dailynews/242/..._soundsP.shtml
These people believed that the end of all wars was in sight. I saved
this article in 2004 because I knew that we were entering a 4T, and
that therefore this "no war" trend would have to reverse. And it
certainly has.

As I recall, S&H's book contrasts public moods in a 3T versus a 4T.
During a 3T, wars are avoided or ended quickly. In a 4T, you have
"regeneracy events" that drive a nation to war. An event that occurs
during a 3T might be completely ignored, while the same event in a 4T
could lead to war.

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, and nobody cared. (Yeah, I know, the
Manchurians cared.) Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, and
Britain declared "peace in our time." Germany invaded Poland in 1939,
and Britain declared war on Germany. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in
1941, and America declared war not only on Japan but also on Germany,
who hadn't even attacked us.

So bringing this back to the present, the trend is clear that
the world is headed towards WW III, and EVERYONE is going to have
to choose sides.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> You yourself frequently inveigh against Russia, and Assad, on this
> thread. I have not seen equivalent venom aimed at US or the Saudis
> over what we are helping them do in Bahrain or Yemen.
Countries massacre their citizens all the time. I've written about
Bahrain and Yemen many times in the past, when they were in the news,
but I have to focus on the news events that are on the path leading to
WW III.

Al-Assad is committing genocide and massacring innocent Sunni women
and children, with Russia's enthusiastic help, but that's not the
reason why it's important today. It's important today because it
triggered something that may well be a unique event in history -- the
rapid creation of ISIS out of tens of thousands of jihadists from
about 100 countries all over the world. This is a breathtaking
development, and it's a disaster for the world, and that makes it
different from other massacres going on today.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> Am really interested to hear your take on the Russia thing, when
> you have a chance. Have looked over the Russia write-up you have
> on your site, and don't really think it makes sense. You have an
> awakening labeled right after the conclusion of the Crimean
> ('crisis') war, with no recovery in between. You also seem to have
> bloody but inconclusive rebellions labeled as crises, and major
> political realignments labeled as Awakenings. Have uncovered more
> evidence of Russian schismatic movements emerging in the mid-17th
> and mid-18th centuries, supporting the notion of the Time of
> Troubles and (a substantial fraction of) Peter the Great's reign
> as Crises.
I'll try to do that when I can, but I don't have anything like your
knowledge of Russian history, and in fact I haven't even looked much
at it since I was writing my book in 2003. So whatever I do is going
to require a fair amount of study to remind myself what I was looking
at then, and that will be time-consuming, but I'll try to do it when I
can.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> So, many of the disagreements I've had with you on this thread
> have concerned minor details like this, or the bit where Boko
> Haram is in fact a Kanuri group and not a Hausa one, etc.
I don't consider correcting an error to be a disagreement. I produce
a great deal of content every day, and I purposely include as many
details as possible, so it's inevitable that I'm going to make
mistakes, although I absolutely hate it when I do. At any rate, I
always appreciate it when someone points out a typo or other error.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> More broadly, I am skeptical of the idea of 5th turnings, or the
> idea that a Crisis must necessarily include a genocidal war.
>
You can't just extract one element from generational theory and expect
everything else to still work. The 5T concept is very important,
because it deals with the problem that some Crisis eras pass without
anything resembling a 4T crisis. Today we have those situations in
Mexico, Haiti, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, and probably
others, and that's just today. In history, there are many more.

Saying that a 4T doesn't require a crisis war is a copout. Maybe all
you need is a "crisis which is not a crisis war," but one thing you
can't do without is a "crisis (war) climax" that's so explosive and
horrible that it unites the country -- all the political factions and
all the generations -- to vow that they'll never let anything like
that happen to their children. That's the only way you can enter a 1T
Recovery Era.

Russia in the 1990s clearly experienced a crisis, but it was clearly
an Awakening crisis -- like the resignation of Richard Nixon, like the
Tiananmen Square massacre, like the Weimar collapse, like the Glorious
Revolution. None of these qualifies as a 4T crisis because none of
them has a horrible, explosive crisis climax that can lead to a
Recovery Era. Without such a climax, a country simply continues with
its 2T or 3T or 4T or whatever its current turning is. To return to a
1T requires a lot more.

Instead of calling it a "5T", you can call it an "extended 4T", if
that makes it easier to understand. But that doesn't really make any
more sense than calling a 2T an "extended 1T". Each turning is unique
and different, with different characteristics that identifies it, and
each one has to be identified separately. That's simply the same
thing as saying that each new human generation is different from the
one that preceded it, and in fact reacts to its parents' generation in
predictable ways that were documented by S&H.

As an aside, a lot of members of this forum don't understand that
turning changes are not event driven. They're generation driven, and
they occur at fully predictable intervals. I've identified these to
be 1T=0, 2T=18, 3T=38, 4T=58, 5T=78 years after the last crisis
climax. The events that drive generations are the Regeneracy events
and the Crisis War Climax. So the current 4T began in 2003, and until
the Regeneracy occurs then we'll remain in a period that Matt Ignal
called "the post-Unraveling" portion of the Crisis era. Once the
Regeneracy occurs, there won't be any question about it, since we'll
be at full-scale war.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
> As for your "opinion", if you've build a giant computer program
> that is feeding you your predictions, I would love to hear you
> describe it in terms as specific as your patents allows. Until
> then, I can't help but feel you're in the same boat as the rest of
> us vis analyzing historical trends in the context of generational
> theory.
I don't have a computer program, and I don't have any patents. I
describe the details of the Generational Dynamics methodology as much
as I can in my daily World View postings.

But I completely disagree with you about "the same boat." In 2005, I
issued a challenge and have re-issued it many times to everyone to
find any analyst, web site, journalist or politician with anything
even remotely close to the predictive success of Generational
Dynamics. Several people have tried to meet that challenge, but none
has succeeded, because no such analyst or web site exists.

I will agree with you that I'm in "the same boat" as anyone else when
it comes to "gut feel" opinions. On occasions, I've included my
personal opinion in an article, and I've sometimes gotten that wrong.
But my personal opinions are not Generational Dynamics analyses or
predictions.

My web site contains almost 4,000 articles with hundreds of
predictions and analyses with almost 100% accuracy. No one else is
anywhere close to that. And that gives me the right to say that I am
definitely NOT in "the same boat" as anyone else, unless that person
also uses the Generational Dynamics methodology.







Post#2793 at 12-02-2015 05:52 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
12-02-2015, 05:52 PM #2793
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Well, that is certainly a thorough response, thanks.

Roosevelt kept us out of the European war until the Japanese bombed
Pearl Harbor on Dec 7. Then Roosevelt declared war on Germany on Dec
11. What did one event have to do with the other? Why were we forced
to declare war on Germany and Italy, when they had never attacked us?
And why did we ally with our enemy, Stalin?
I think this question goes to the heart of S&H's core concept of what
the Fourth Turning is. The way I've described it is that in an
Awakening era, the public is "attracted away" from war. During a
Crisis era, the public is "attracted toward" war.

The world has been clearly attracted toward war since 2003, which was
the end of the Unraveling era and the beginning of the Crisis era for
much of the world.
Well, you're missing a few key steps, there. Germany and Italy declared war on the US when it declared war on Japan, in accordance with the terms of the Anti-Comintern Pact, to which they were signatories. The USSR started fighting the Nazis after they launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded. And the US had been supporting the Allies in Europe for a little while before (the American participation in) the war started. It certainly wasn't a random spasm.

The formal structures that exist today, OTOH, don't line up along the lines you propose. China and Russia are bound (loosely) together, while the US is bound (much more tightly) through NATO to Europe and Turkey and through bilateral arrangements to its allies in East Asia. Russia is allied with the Assad regime, and the US (somewhat loosely) to the GCC and Egypt. I am unaware of ISIS or Iran having significant binding relations with any of the Great Powers.

So I don't really see how the analogy holds up the way you want it to.

These people believed that the end of all wars was in sight. I saved
this article in 2004 because I knew that we were entering a 4T, and
that therefore this "no war" trend would have to reverse. And it
certainly has.
On the same page. I have always found those "End of History" arguments to be goofy.

As I recall, S&H's book contrasts public moods in a 3T versus a 4T.
During a 3T, wars are avoided or ended quickly. In a 4T, you have
"regeneracy events" that drive a nation to war. An event that occurs
during a 3T might be completely ignored, while the same event in a 4T
could lead to war.
I'm not really sure how this argument holds true given the counterexample of the West during WWI.

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, and nobody cared. (Yeah, I know, the
Manchurians cared.) Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, and
Britain declared "peace in our time." Germany invaded Poland in 1939,
and Britain declared war on Germany. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in
1941, and America declared war not only on Japan but also on Germany,
who hadn't even attacked us.
They did care, the US sanctioned the shit out of Japan. It was one of the major reasons they attacked at Pearl Harbor. What nations do we know that have recently been trying to consolidate their spheres of influence and been sanctioned for it?

So bringing this back to the present, the trend is clear that
the world is headed towards WW III, and EVERYONE is going to have
to choose sides.
See, I agree that we are heading into something that could conceivably escalate to a WWIII scenario. I have written about it elsewhere on this board, including several lengthy discussion with Mikebert. I just don't agree with your proposed alliances, or indeed whether it will line up so neatly.

It's important today because it
triggered something that may well be a unique event in history -- the
rapid creation of ISIS out of tens of thousands of jihadists from
about 100 countries all over the world. This is a breathtaking
development, and it's a disaster for the world, and that makes it
different from other massacres going on today.
ISIS? A unique event in history? That seems a bit of a stretch. Even a successful takeover by them of the Levant or parts further south would not rise to the significance of, say, Communist takeovers of major countries in the first half of the 20th century. To me, it looks a lot more like a Spanish Civil War type of thing.

I'll try to do that when I can, but I don't have anything like your
knowledge of Russian history, and in fact I haven't even looked much
at it since I was writing my book in 2003. So whatever I do is going
to require a fair amount of study to remind myself what I was looking
at then, and that will be time-consuming, but I'll try to do it when I
can.
Take your time, and I appreciate the kind words. I was just going through the write-up some guy (not your name) had on your website and it seemed really off. Shouldn't change things too much, although you might want to be cautious about claiming wars with the West don't count as crises for them.

I don't consider correcting an error to be a disagreement. I produce
a great deal of content every day, and I purposely include as many
details as possible, so it's inevitable that I'm going to make
mistakes, although I absolutely hate it when I do. At any rate, I
always appreciate it when someone points out a typo or other error.
Glad to hear it. They're free of charge.

You can't just extract one element from generational theory and expect
everything else to still work. The 5T concept is very important,
because it deals with the problem that some Crisis eras pass without
anything resembling a 4T crisis. Today we have those situations in
Mexico, Haiti, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, and probably
others, and that's just today. In history, there are many more.
Am going off of S & H here.

Saying that a 4T doesn't require a crisis war is a copout. Maybe all
you need is a "crisis which is not a crisis war," but one thing you
can't do without is a "crisis (war) climax" that's so explosive and
horrible that it unites the country -- all the political factions and
all the generations -- to vow that they'll never let anything like
that happen to their children. That's the only way you can enter a 1T
Recovery Era.

Russia in the 1990s clearly experienced a crisis, but it was clearly
an Awakening crisis -- like the resignation of Richard Nixon, like the
Tiananmen Square massacre, like the Weimar collapse, like the Glorious
Revolution. None of these qualifies as a 4T crisis because none of
them has a horrible, explosive crisis climax that can lead to a
Recovery Era. Without such a climax, a country simply continues with
its 2T or 3T or 4T or whatever its current turning is. To return to a
1T requires a lot more.
I'm thinking of the 30 Year's War/English Civil War, comparing it to the Glorious Revolution/Wars leading up to the War of the Spanish Succession, and am going to have to respectfully disagree. Could also cite Russia under Ivan the Terrible, a brief intermission, followed by the Time of Troubles. Don't think the argument holds up.

As an aside, a lot of members of this forum don't understand that
turning changes are not event driven. They're generation driven, and
they occur at fully predictable intervals. I've identified these to
be 1T=0, 2T=18, 3T=38, 4T=58, 5T=78 years after the last crisis
climax. The events that drive generations are the Regeneracy events
and the Crisis War Climax. So the current 4T began in 2003, and until
the Regeneracy occurs then we'll remain in a period that Matt Ignal
called "the post-Unraveling" portion of the Crisis era. Once the
Regeneracy occurs, there won't be any question about it, since we'll
be at full-scale war.
The generationally driven thing argues against your rule regarding bloody wars.

I don't have a computer program, and I don't have any patents. I
describe the details of the Generational Dynamics methodology as much
as I can in my daily World View postings.

But I completely disagree with you about "the same boat." In 2005, I
issued a challenge and have re-issued it many times to everyone to
find any analyst, web site, journalist or politician with anything
even remotely close to the predictive success of Generational
Dynamics. Several people have tried to meet that challenge, but none
has succeeded, because no such analyst or web site exists.

I will agree with you that I'm in "the same boat" as anyone else when
it comes to "gut feel" opinions. On occasions, I've included my
personal opinion in an article, and I've sometimes gotten that wrong.
But my personal opinions are not Generational Dynamics analyses or
predictions.

My web site contains almost 4,000 articles with hundreds of
predictions and analyses with almost 100% accuracy. No one else is
anywhere close to that. And that gives me the right to say that I am
definitely NOT in "the same boat" as anyone else, unless that person
also uses the Generational Dynamics methodology.
Oh, I dunno. I predicted the War in Ukraine, the election of Narendra Modi, and the rise of nationalism (though I got the politician wrong) in Japan, among other goodies, back in the spring of 2013. I don't think I'm doing too bad for an off-the-cuff stab at what I thought the next few years would look like, based on my understanding of current events and generational theory. YMMV.

This IS interesting, I'm glad you went along.
Last edited by JordanGoodspeed; 12-02-2015 at 05:54 PM.







Post#2794 at 12-02-2015 07:51 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-02-2015, 07:51 PM #2794
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
Minor quibble, much of what they unified was not Arabic speaking. Outside of the confines of what is now the southern Arabian peninsula (and even there there were generous Persian influences along the Gulf and South Arabian languages spoken in Yemen) most of the rest of the Middle East spoke Aramaic, Coptic, Greek, and other languages, despite an increase in Arab immigration to the Levant (see the Nabataeans, Ghassanids, and others) during late Antiquity.

Arabs were a distinct minority in the Umayyad Caliphate (which admittedly was fairly widespread, and included the Maghreb and Persian lands, which I doubt you were referring to). They weren't even the majority in the core Middle East. It took the better part of a millennium to linguistically assimilate people into a broader "Arab" ethnicity.

It doesn't really detract from your point, though. Insisting that people read the Koran in Arabic was just another piece of social engineering.
The Ummah, was composed of Muslims who spoke many languages. The original movement founded by Mohammed was Arabic-speaking, and their scriptures were written in Arabic. These Arabic speakers formed the core around which the Ummah formed. It is analogous to the Romans, who from a tiny core of Latin tribes in central Italy spread their language and authority over a vast empire. What made jihad novel was it speeded up this process greatly. What took the Romans centuries the Muslims achieved in less than one.







Post#2795 at 12-02-2015 09:48 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
12-02-2015, 09:48 PM #2795
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
The Ummah, was composed of Muslims who spoke many languages. The original movement founded by Mohammed was Arabic-speaking, and their scriptures were written in Arabic. These Arabic speakers formed the core around which the Ummah formed. It is analogous to the Romans, who from a tiny core of Latin tribes in central Italy spread their language and authority over a vast empire. What made jihad novel was it speeded up this process greatly. What took the Romans centuries the Muslims achieved in less than one.
Am not arguing that, Mike, I am merely arguing this:

Jihad is a piece of social engineering invented by the early Muslims that formed an Arabic-speaking nation out of the many warring Arabic-speaking polities in the Arabian peninsula.
Emphasis mine. The "vast empire" (gah, keep wanting to just use apostrophes for quotes. This is English, not JavaScript, Jordan), even if only restricted to the Arabian Peninsula, was mainly not Arabic-speaking. That is all. We're not actually disagreeing, I just feel that this particular part is misleading.







Post#2796 at 12-02-2015 11:45 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,012]
---
12-02-2015, 11:45 PM #2796
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,012

3-Dec-15 World View -- HRW: Bahrain's Sunni government continues torturing Shias

*** 3-Dec-15 World View -- HRW: Bahrain's Sunni government continues abusing and torturing Shia majority

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

  • HRW: Bahrain's Sunni government continues abusing and torturing Shia majority
  • NATO formally invites Montenegro to join the alliance


****
**** HRW: Bahrain's Sunni government continues abusing and torturing Shia majority
****



Pearl Square in Manama, Bahrain, after March 15 2011 protests. The beautiful Pearl monument was torn down by the regime on March 18, because it was thought to be encouraging protests.

Bahrain's Sunni government is still targeting innocent Shia protesters
and reporters with arrests, murders and torture, and has not
implemented any reforms since the bloody massacres by Bahraini
security forces and Saudi troops in the capital city Manama in 2011.
These are the findings in a new report by Human Rights Watch. ( "15-Mar-11 News -- Bahrain uprising becomes explosive as Saudi troops arrive"
)

The world was shocked in the days following the "Arab Spring" protests
by the extremely violent and bloody overreaction of the Bahrain
security services, backed up by troops from Saudi Arabia. The
protests began in Bahrain on February 14, 2011. Dozens of protesters
were killed, over 1,600 were arrested, and thousands were injured. A
report published later that year by the Bahrain Independent Commission
of Inquiry (BICI) said that the National Security Agency and the
Ministry of Interior “followed a systematic practice of physical and
psychological mistreatment, which in many cases amounted to torture,
with respect to a large number of detainees in their custody.” Many
Shias were arrested and held for months with no charges, merely
because they had been suspected of protesting. Even after the
protests ended, Bahraini security forces continued to arrest dozens of
Shia professionals, including lawyers and doctors.

After the report was published, Bahrain's government promised reforms,
but recent interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch indicate that
the Bahrain regime has continued to be just as brutal and bloody as
ever.

At a meeting on Wednesday, Bahrain's Interior Ministry Undersecretary
Major-General Khalid Salem Al-Absi said that Bahrain has always been a
gathering of religions and civilizations and a symbol for moderation
and tolerance under the reforms launched by His Majesty the King.

Unfortunately, this is laughable. Besides the Human Rights Watch
reports, Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters without Borders)
reported that on Tuesday, Bahrain sentenced a reporter to ten years in
jail on charges of terrorism. The crime was that he gave mobile phone
SIM cards to protesters, and photographed anti-government protests.

Bahrain has a Sunni Muslim government, which maintains control and
doesn't permit opposition, even though the country's population is 2/3
Shia Muslim. Bahrain is also the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's
Fifth Fleet. Human Rights Watch and Alwefaq.net and
Bahrain News and
Reuters

****
**** NATO formally invites Montenegro to join the alliance
****


NATO has formally invited Montenegro to join the alliance, a move
that's spurred threats from Russian officials. Montenegro's President
Milo Djukanovic tweeted:

<QUOTE>"Today, we proudly receive a #NATO membership
invitation. This is a historic day for #Montenegro. The most
important (since) the 2006 (independence)
referendum."<END QUOTE>

The 2006 referendum refers to Montenegro's secession from Serbia, a
close Russian ally. All three are Orthodox Christian countries.

Montenegro is a tiny country on the Adriatic Sea, which separates it
from Italy by only a couple of hundred miles. Montenegro is thus much
closer to Italy than to Russia, and yet the Russians are extremely
upset that Montenegro might join Nato.

Historically, Montenegro has had a close relationship with Russia, and
has been a close and faithful ally in the Balkans. Both of them are
Orthodox Christian countries. Russian companies have invested
millions in Montenegro, which has also become a favorite tourism
destination, and Russians have been buying property along the Adriatic
sea. According to reports, Russia has offered Montenegro several
billion dollars to build a Russian naval base on Montenegrin coast.
Montenegro is a very poor country, and so the money was tempting. But
Montenegro has refused, preferring instead to join Nato.

According to a Montenegrin official, the country has never considered
Russia's offer seriously:

<QUOTE>"For as long as I have been a member of the Commission
for Defense and Security, and this is already my second term, this
topic has never been discussed. It was not mentioned during the
commission’s sessions. I believe these are irrelevant stories, and
our stance regarding our national priorities has not changed in
the past ten years. Our main national and state priorities are
NATO membership, and after that membership in the European
Union. That is something Montenegro will not give up
on."<END QUOTE>

Russia is threatening to withdraw all its investment projects from
Montenegro. According to Sanda Raskovic Ivic, the leader of the
Democratic Party of Serbia:

<QUOTE>"I think that NATO made a big mistake inviting
Montenegro. The issue of NATO has already divided the country and
created an atmosphere of an imminent bloodshed. ...

It may complicate the situation in Montenegro, because a lot of
people are already against that, and do not want to indulge that
situation and support [Prime Minister Milo] Djukanovic in the
direction to NATO. People want a referendum on NATO in Montenegro,
and that should be done."<END QUOTE>

Montenegro is already involved in NATO's efforts in Afghanistan and
has actively cooperated with the alliance in other ways. AP and CNN and Radio Slobodna Europa / Radio Liberty


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Bahrain, Pearl Square, Manama,
Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia, Khalid Salem Al-Absi,
Reporters Sans Frontières, Reporters without Borders,
Nato, Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, Russia, Serbia,
Adriatic Sea, Italy, Sanda Raskovic Ivic, Afghanistan

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail







Post#2797 at 12-03-2015 12:13 AM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
12-03-2015, 12:13 AM #2797
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

A few weeks back what could have been a massacre was thwarted at UC Merced. The perp was an ISIS inspired student (who hailed from right here in the tolllllllllllllllerant Bay Area). I thought to myself, that's interesting. So even here in Silicon Valley the toxic mentality is brewing.

Today you probably heard about the massacre that was not thwarted, down in San Bernardino County (aka The Inland Empire down in SoCal). Well, one perp of what were apparently 3 was named. One Sayed Farook. Still too early to know if there was ISIS inspiration involved.







Post#2798 at 12-03-2015 12:39 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
12-03-2015, 12:39 AM #2798
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
You've hit the nail on the head. Wait until the Americans and the
various European countries are "forced to choose."
I found a schematic on teh interwebs. It seems to be interesting. (I think the yellow arrow from the US to IS represents clueless arms shipments to incompetent actors such as the Iraqi army who just tossed their weapons down and fled along with giving arms to random rebels. )
Last edited by Ragnarök_62; 12-03-2015 at 12:43 AM.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#2799 at 12-03-2015 12:41 AM by nihilist moron [at joined Jul 2014 #posts 1,230]
---
12-03-2015, 12:41 AM #2799
Join Date
Jul 2014
Posts
1,230

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
A few weeks back what could have been a massacre was thwarted at UC Merced. The perp was an ISIS inspired student (who hailed from right here in the tolllllllllllllllerant Bay Area). I thought to myself, that's interesting. So even here in Silicon Valley the toxic mentality is brewing.

Today you probably heard about the massacre that was not thwarted, down in San Bernardino County (aka The Inland Empire down in SoCal). Well, one perp of what were apparently 3 was named. One Sayed Farook. Still too early to know if there was ISIS inspiration involved.
If there was, so much for our early detection system. Yes it looks like tolerant California is not immune.
Nobody ever got to a single truth without talking nonsense fourteen times first.
- Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment







Post#2800 at 12-03-2015 12:51 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
12-03-2015, 12:51 AM #2800
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by nihilist moron View Post
If there was, so much for our early detection system. Yes it looks like tolerant California is not immune.
Oh come on now, you really think assorted parts of the Deep State exist to actually warn of pending terrorist attacks? The parts comprised of [NSA, FBI, CIA, Patriot Act provisions] are not designed to do stuff like that. The reality is that any part of the Deep State exists solely to enrich the Deep State by stripping freedoms and assets from sheeple. I think the next step will be to outlaw cash so they can asset strip everyone's bank accounts via negative interest rates. Always remember and never forget, sheep exist only to be shorn.

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84
Today you probably heard about the massacre that was not thwarted, down in San Bernardino County (aka The Inland Empire down in SoCal). Well, one perp of what were apparently 3 was named. One Sayed Farook. Still too early to know if there was ISIS inspiration involved.
Check. The Deep State is comprised of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats as a rule are fucking morons. For example I reported getting something like 13 spam calls to the FCC. I got a form email saying they might do something. It's been a month and I'm still getting calls. That means the people working for the FCC are watching porn, masterbating , and cumming all over their computer screens.
Last edited by Ragnarök_62; 12-03-2015 at 12:59 AM.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
-----------------------------------------