Dear Anthony,

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

> The biggest objection to generational dynamics would be a Bush
> victory - and that's getting more likely by the minute; for if it
> happens, it will be living proof that 9/11 didn't catalyze any
> Crisis, and that none is forthcoming, since a Bush re-election
> would mean the continuance of 3T economic policies in perpetuity.

Whether America has yet entered a generational crisis period has been
the subject of much discussion in this forum, but for me there's
little doubt that America did so in 2000, after the Nasdaq crash.

On my web site I've been posting a number of stories that indicate
that America is increasingly in a crisis period:

• Even though the number of military deaths in Iraq has just passed
  the 1,000 milestone, it's barely of interest to the public. Compare
  this to what happened in Somalia in 1993, when we fled after just a
  few battle deaths.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...weblog#e040906
  
• Related to the above is that recent news about international
  terrorism has caused terrorism to become a more important election
  issue than Iraq. The change has been dramatic in the last 6 weeks.
  This kind of concern is highly characteristic of a generational
  crisis period.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...weblog#e040908
  
• If you're willing to consider Western Europe as well, then the
  French people have massively supported the new Muslim headscarf ban
  in schools, after two French journalists were kidnapped in Iraq and
  threatened with death unless the headscarf law was rescinded. This
  show of national unity at the expense of individual rights is highly
  characteristic of a generational crisis period.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...weblog#e040902
  
• With regard to the election, it's true that Bush is currently
  ahead, but the issue of greatest concern to Americans is the economy,
  ahead of terrorism, and things could still move in Kerry's direction.
  History's three greatest presidents are Washington, Lincoln, and
  Roosevelt. Whoever wins in 2004, Bush or Kerry, will become
  history's fourth great President.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...0.i.bush040824
  
• If you're willing to consider central Asia, the most dangerous
  place in the world right now is the Caucasus. The Chechen war has
  been going on for ten years, and Georgia has been threatening war to
  expel Russia from South Ossetia. The recent horrific terror act in
  Beslan, North Ossetia, has inflamed the region: Ossetians are
  threatening revenge against neighboring Ingushetia, and Moscow is
  threatening revenge against Islamic terrorists anywhere. This region
  may be very close to all-out war, and this would spark the famed
  "clash of civilizations" world war within a year or so.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...weblog#e040907
  
• Related to the "clash of civilizations," Arab views worldwide
  have become significantly more hostile to America and Israel in the
  last two years. This hatred is the stuff that crisis wars are made
  of.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.zogby040726
  
• If you're willing to consider eastern Asia, then China and Taiwan
  appear to be committed to policies that will lead to a war between
  then by 2008. Such a war would engulf America and all of southeast
  Asia.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...i.taiwan040823
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...i.taiwan040706

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

> And seemingly getting slightly off the subject, Dick Cheney's
> comment (which got pretty-boy trial lawyer John Edwards so
> lathered up) about what would happen if Kerry won - that there
> would be another major terrorist attack - is actually true as far
> as it goes (and such an attack would constitute the regeneracy of
> a Crisis era proven to have already existed, in this case starting
> with 9/11).

Cheney is quite correct that there would be another terrorist attack
if Kerry won, but what he forgot to mention is that there would be
another terrorist attack if Bush won. Everything that's going to
happen is currently "in the cards," and it makes little difference
whether Bush or Kerry is elected.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

> This is beginning to look to me like the things Ravi Batra was
> predicting throughout the '80s - that there would be a Great
> Depression starting in 1990. One Friday in October of 1989 there
> was a big drop in the DJIA, and I was absolutely sure that Batra's
> depression had arrived - but of course it was not to be.

> Have I been fooled again?

I don't know what Ravi Batra predicted in the 80s, but don't forget
that Japan had a huge stock market crash in 1990, and it has yet to
completely unravel. Generational Dynamics predicts that America will
be entering a new Great Depression; it would have happened already,
but has been postponed by the Fed's near-zero-interest policy until
recently. Morgan Stanley says that the Euro currency could completely
collapse next year.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...reenspan040706
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...eblog#e040815b

I could go on, but I don't want you to become too cheerful.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Ah, but it does work, but only from the mid-19th century onward.

It only seems to. There are several ways to see this.

1. Central to the S&H mechanism is the relation between generations and phase of life. The phase of life is not very malleable. Consider the divisions given by S&H:

0 -21 Youth
21-43 Rising Adult
44-65 Mid-life
66-87 Elderhood

Note that the youth phase ends at the traditional age of majority and mid-life ends at the traditonal age of retirement. These phases of life fit in very well with our everyday conception of what those phases should be. But S&H's post-1820 generations don't average 22 years long. If they did then you should be a Boomer. GenX would 7x22=154 years after the Gilded or in 1976-1996. Even small differences in geenration length add up over time. The actual average length of generations since 1821 has been 20 years, while that of turnings had been 18 (the difference reflects the skipped Civil War hero gen). A 20-year generative gives these phases of life:

0 -19 Youth
20-39 Rising Adult
40-59 Mid-life
60-79 Elderhood

Age 59 seems awfully early for retirement/elderhood.

2. S&H have a Prophet generation beginning in 1860, the first year of a Crisis. Normally Artists are supposed to be born then. According to the model, the lack of empowerment in the Civil War failed to create a dominant rising adult generation, and they (Progressives) ended up recessive, becoming artists.

Based on the S&H model I would expect that the result of the CWA would be an enormous Artist generation. According to the model there is nuturing bond between two-apart generations (i.e. dominant-dominant, recessive-recessive) in which the older tries to instill a peer personality complimentary to it own in the younger. For young prophets, it is Heroes who fulfill this role, but since there are no Heroes to do this job for the Missionaries it seems unlikely that they would develop as Prophets. There is an older two-apart generation (Gilded) who is in a position to instill an adaptive peer personality. Thus, the Missionaries should have developed as Artists and be appended along with the Progressives as a big Artist generation. This is the outcome predicted by the S&H model, but not what happened.

This failure of the S&H model in 1860 is important because this is exactly the point where the old model stops working. That is, it is precisely when the saeculum became largely endogenic in it's tetralogical form. Some new mechanism was sufficiently powerful to direct the progress of the saeculum away from where the old model would have it go. (The old model would have had the Crisis begin in the late 1860's and last until the 1890's.) This new mechanism cannot be the model described by S&H because that model did not predict what happened, and so was invalid at the time.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

According to the model there is nuturing bond between two-apart generations (i.e. dominant-dominant, recessive-recessive) in which the older tries to instill a peer personality complimentary to it own in the younger. For young prophets, it is Heroes who fulfill this role, but since there are no Heroes to do this job for the Missionaries it seems unlikely that they would develop as Prophets...

I must confess, as I have before, I have very little in common with those guys coming of age during the Vietnam War. I have no idea what it would be like to graduate from High School with a military draft starring me in the face. Sheesh, that's just about all of what this whole presidential campaign has been about, for crying out loud.

I dunno. If there are some commonalities that I share with people like Bush and Kerry, it would only be the stuff that the aftermath of the war brought about; the aftermath of the "national nightmare," as President Ford called it.

The leftist playwright, Arthur Miller, once observed that we know an era has ended when its basic illusions have been exhausted. Ford's infamous "veto pen" may have signaled that end, an end to FDRish "liberal dominance" on the American political scene. Shoot, even Brian Rush called Nixon the "last liberal president."

At anyrate, I just can't relate much to that sixties boomer bunch. Theirs is a quagmirerish -- yes, I just invented a new word -- "never ending argument" that I wish would quite simply come to an end.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

According to the model there is nuturing bond between two-apart generations (i.e. dominant-dominant, recessive-recessive) in which the older tries to instill a peer personality complimentary to it own in the younger. For young prophets, it is Heroes who fulfill this role, but since there are no Heroes to do this job for the Missionaries it seems unlikely that they would develop as Prophets...

I must confess, as I have before, I have very little in common with those guys coming of age during the Vietnam War. I have no idea what it would be like to graduate from High School with a military draft starring me in the face. Sheesh, that's just about all of what this whole presidential campaign has been about, for crying out loud.

I dunno. If there are some commonalities that I share with people like Bush and Kerry, it would only be the stuff that the aftermath of the war brought about; the aftermath of the "national nightmare," as President Ford called it.

The leftist playwright, Arthur Miller, once observed that we know an era has ended when its basic illusions have been exhausted. Ford's infamous "veto pen" may have signaled that end, an end to FDRish "liberal dominance" on the American political scene. Shoot, even Brian Rush called Nixon the "last liberal president."

At anyrate, I just can't relate much to that sixties boomer bunch. Theirs is a quagmirerish -- yes, I just invented a new word -- "never ending argument" that I wish would quite simply come to an end.

Now I'm going to be accused of hacking into your account and signing in as you!

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> I asked if I summarized your mechanism correctly. That is,
> what causes the cycle? My question had nothing to do with your
> empirical methods of identifying the cycle. So I ask again,
> did I summarize the GD mechanism correctly?

This is way too "semantic" an argument. It's not that easy to
separate these things out in an informal discussion like this, unless
a big effort is made to provide very sharp distinctions.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> I did not mean to imply that a war is equivalent to an unrest
> event. I said that the empirical characterization is sensitive to
> the determination of crisis wars. A single disagreement about
> whether a particular war is or is not a crisis war has serious
> effects. ... On the other hand you can find a bunch of events I
> missed in the 17th century and it won't change things much.

My whole point was that, yes, if I find a bunch of events in the 17th
century that you missed, it will change things a good deal.

In fact, all I need to find is just four or five events in England in
the 1610s, and that would move your "awakening" from the 1640s back
to 1610. And finding a few dozen events shouldn't be too hard,
especially since we have no idea what an "event" is.

I'll bet that if you went back in time to 1620 and spoke to an
English labor leader or an English clergyman, he would be able to
give you a list a mile long of events that you didn't consider in the
1610s.

But if you went back in time to 1720, then you might learn a number
of new details about the War of the Spanish Succession, but none that
would effect the evaluation of WSS, since evaluating crisis wars
depends on what might be called "macro events," that can be much more
easily determined.

Changing the subject temporarily, one thing I've always avoided in GD
was the common practice in this forum of drawing conclusions from the
actions of one person or small number of politicians who happen to
belong to a certain generation. It's clear that you cannot predict
the future based on the actions of one or a few individuals. GD
explicitly says that it measures the beliefs and behaviors of large
masses of people. No smaller group than "large masses of people" can
be meaningfully measured by the generational paradigm.

So if you look at the list of evaluation criteria, their intention is
to try to understand the attitudes the large masses of people --
specifically, for a crisis war, whether they feel genocidal fury.
Thus, a massive uprising indicates genocidal fury, but a political
decision that people actually listen to indicates the opposite.
(Think of Tolstoy's description of the invasion of Moscow: If
Napoleon had ordered his army not to invade, they would have killed
him and invaded anyway.)

Insofar as judgment is required in the crisis war evaluation
criteria, it's to determine whether a particular portion of the
evaluation reflects on just one or a few people, or whether it
reflects on the large masses of people. In my experience, this
distinction has always been very clear, in fact requiring very little
judgment.

The problem with looking at a few "unrest events" to make an
evaluation is that it violates the rule that "large masses of people"
have to be meaningfully measured. Thus, a labor strike might
indicate a nation in distress, or it might indicate that one
particular company owner is a bastard. It's this focus on a few
"micro events" that represents the methodological issue I have to
take with what you're doing.

It may be possible to use unrest events to evaluate awakening, but
great care has to be taken. One or two labor strikes is pretty much
meaningless, but a series of strikes all across the country is
significant because it indicates the behaviors and attitudes of large
masses of people. A local political protest doesn't mean much, but a
series of protests on the Washington mall, each involving hundreds of
thousands of people from across the country is significant.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> No they don't. They do in your opinion. I disagree. Application of
> the GD criteria requires judgement. In matters of judgement,
> opinions will differ. You have never done what I asked: Compare WW
> I with the WSS side by side on each criterion separately and show
> specifically where they are different. You always just say "it
> evaluates to a crisis war" or "it evaluates to a non-crisis war"
> without specifically applying each criterion to both wars
> side-by-side and showing how the wars differ. I am asking you to
> do this, sort of like an example problem in a textbook.

I've done this so many times, I hardly know what to think. Keep in
mind that WSS and WWI are, in fact, both crisis wars, though for
different regions, and this makes the evaluations complex.

So I'll just mention a couple of things, comparing WSS and WWI for
England:

(*) The August, 1709, battle of Malplaquet exhibited the violent burst
of energy that can only occur in a crisis war. There was no such
battle in WWI in Western Europe.

(*) The aftermath of WSS, the Treaty at Utrecht, had as its purpose
to prevent another war. It defined Western European borders that
lasted throughout the saeculum, until the French Revolution. The
Treaty of Versailles that followed WWI did not resolve anything. Its
purpose was to punish Germany, and West European borders had to be
changed again after WW I.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> That's right. I have purposely left the criteria open. I would
> like to work with a group of people who would vote on which events
> to include and which to discard. The best way to do this would be
> have many people contribute events and vote on their inclusion.
> Then it isn't so dependent on my opinion of what constitutes
> unrest.

This is a copout, Mike. Even if you got a group of people together,
you'd still have to provide guidelines.

For example, what are your criteria for a labor unrest event? Is a
sickout good enough? Do ten people make it an unrest event, or do
there have be hundreds or thousands? If it lasts only a day, is that
enough, or does it have to last for months? How about just providing
a little about what you have in mind as the answers to these
questions.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> Its easy to respond. Of course the criticisms apply. Surely you
> have opinions on what might constitute unrest? Surely they won't
> be the same as mine. Each of us would obtain different lists of
> events. However we may find that analysis of the events you find
> gives essentially the same results as analysis of the events I
> find. This is what I am getting at by sensitivity or its inverse,
> robustness.

Not unless I know what you mean about "unrest." Go to the library
and pick up ten newspapers from ten random dates in the last year, or
any year, and I'll bet you can find some "unrest event" every day.
Is the protest against Janet Jackson's boob-baring an unrest event?
Is today's Jakarta bombing an unrest event? Are the massive Moscow
rallies, following the Beslan hostage-taking, an unrest event? Is
the fighting in Najaf an unrest event? Was the Catholic Church
pedophile scandal an unrest event? I genuinely have no idea
whatsoever which of these or a million other events I could name
are "unrest events" in your concept. Nor do I have any idea how many
of these micro events would have to be identified as unrest events
because you would consider it significant.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> In your mind what would be indicators of increasing social tension
> or popular unrest? Should I count riots? What about peasant
> revolts? Strikes? Slave uprisings? What about "demonstrations" or
> protest marches? Do these count? Here's a toughie. What about
> legislation passed in response to unrest, or unrest-producing
> conditions? For example do I count the Elizabethan poor laws
> passed in response to increasing pauperization reflecting
> population pressure (the putative cause of social moments in my
> model). What about laws/treaties affecting divisions between
> people that can produce conflict? For example, things like the
> Edict of Nantes or the peace of Augsburg.

I would have to answer these questions as I did above: When does an
event reflect the beliefs and attitudes of large masses of people?
Thus, I would count the Elizabethan poor laws because they changed
the legal relationships between the huge masses of poor people as
opposed to the people with money and power.

But your whole methodology falls apart for me if you're trying to
identify unrest events in the middle of a civil war. If you have
neighbors killing neighbors, or brothers killing brothers in massive
numbers, then a labor strike is totally meaningless. This is an
objection that goes well beyond the evaluation of the English Civil
War; it's something that makes no common sense to me whatsoever.
Unless you're willing to distinguish between war events and
politically-based civil events, then one could argue that Jews going
to concentration camps was a simple unrest event.

I believe that the "unrest event" concept can work, but you have to
make political evaluations and judgments -- the same kinds of things
I had to worry about in deciding crisis vs non-crisis wars. I
seriously suggest you look at the criteria I developed for crisis
wars, and look at how they could be modified to evaluate awakenings.
There are many commonalities.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> One is faced with a timeline containing a hundred events and will
> abstract a half a dozen or so of these as "unrest events".
> Sometimes its easy, "so and so becomes King" obviously doesn't
> count. What about something like The Atterbury Plot or The
> Gunpowder plot or an assassination? The best way to deal with this
> would be to have a panel of amateur historians each construct a
> list of "unrest events" for a particular century and then vote to
> obtain a consensus or majority opinion on what to include. Would
> you be interested in such a panel?

If you're going to abstract a half dozen or so of these unrest
events for presentation to a panel, then an evaluation has already
been made. The criterion has to be "macro event" versus "micro
event" - whether the event reflects the attitudes of large masses of
people, or just a few politicians. Sure, I'll be on your panel if
you want, but keep in mind that I'm a very bitchy person.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

. . . but keep in mind that I'm a very bitchy person.

I know people who take Midol for that. :wink:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

If you're going to abstract a half dozen or so of these unrest events for presentation to a panel...

No, all the panel members contribute events. We are talking about hundreds of events to be voted on, not half a dozen. My timeline has 1100 events and I would like many. many more, especially from before 1800.

It is not a difficult as you make out. Suppose the panel decides to include race riots as a criterion. Then one can put all of these events (that occurred in the US) into the database. One can check other timelines and see many of the same events, but also new ones mentioned.

Suppose the groups decided to use strikes recorded in historical timelines as unrest events. Then you can include all the strikes in this timeline as well as others.

Just as you use the criterion that a war has to be well-known to be a candidate for a crisis war, I assume that if a strike, race riot, peasant revolt etc. appears in a timeline it is important enough to have been mentioned by historians so that the person who put together the timeline can be aware of it. I, of course, use many timelines (dozens), just as you probably use dozens of histories. I note that many of the same old events get reported over an over again, suggesting that are not as many events to be found in the earlier centuries as you might think. Challenge: see if you can find on the net a dozen strikes that occurred in Britain in the 17th century, and that are not listed in the timelines I gave (I have these already).

The idea is simple. What I am doing is sampling history. If a time is filled with strikes, there should be lots of specific instances of them that historians have noted. A period with few strikes will have less mention of them in histories. People who put together labor timelines and put them on the internet will find more strikes from strike-filled periods and so their timelines will have more of them listed for those periods. As long as I have no reason to suspect that the timeline authors are trying to show cyclical history, I have no reason to believe their timelines are biased to show more strikes at certain periods than others because they want them to.

On the other hand, I don't use "red" events from here as unrest events. I recorded "red" and "blue" events in a separate database and did a moving average analysis on them. Sure enough, 63-year cycles were revealed. Since Christie is trying to demonstrate 64 year cycles in "unrest" or "red events" and he uses judgment (as you do) on what to include as examples of red events, I can't be sure if the events he has selected might be unconsciously biased to show 64-year cycles.

This is why I do NO analysis on the context of the events. I record all the events in the timeline being considered that fall into one of the classes of "unrest events". I use equal weighting, even when some events are obviously far more sweeping that others. If I did what you do and considered the size of a strike or the context of a demonstration then I would keep some events and reject others and I would weight them differently. What cycles emerge from my analysis would then depend on my judgment. If I then found a cycle how could I be sure that it doesn't reflect unconscious bias on my part? I can't. I would be in the same boat as Christie, talking about my 54-year (two 27-year gens) cycle like he talks about his 64 year cycle (two 32-year gens).

The unrest event analysis is not necessary for recent history, so I don't have to worry about the protest about Janet Jackson. It is true that in recent times the sheer number of events requires some kind of filter or information processing. But I don't have to sample strikes to get a feeling for the ebb and flow of labor unrest in the 20th century. The BLS records all strikes (and the total days of work lost) in the US and presents aggregate numbers on these. But the stats don't go back very far. Before that the unrest plot can be used. I have tracked the unrest events plot into the 20th century so I can compare it to the BLS strike data. Strike data peaked in 1919, 1946 and 1970. The 10 YMA unrest plot shows peaks in the same years, so it seems to do a reasonably good job of approximating the strike index before the 1881, when official strike statistics begin. Thus, I would expect that if the strike index did go back before 1881 it would have recorded peaks in the 1840's, mid 1790's and 1740's.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> >>> John J. Xenakis wrote: . . . but keep in mind that I'm a very
> bitchy person.

> I know people who take Midol for that. Wink Very Happy

They do that because they want to preserve their marriage, something
that doesn't concern me. Also, in my case it's not cyclic.

John

Dear Mike,

I think that the method that you're proposing to identify awakenings
looks good and should pan out with a lot more work.

The misgiving I have is the idea of trying to find a panel in order
to select relevant events by vote. Even if you found such a panel,
you'd still need to educate the members extensively about your ideas.
I gather there are hundreds of events, and each event would have to
be researched. Even if you did all the research and presented
information about each one, each panel member would have to review
your information before taking a vote. So we're talking about an
awful lot of tedious work by each panel member.

But fundamentally I think the panel is the wrong approach.

In my own experience in identifying crisis wars, I developed an
intuitive feeling about it reasonably quickly, but I wasn't able to
get it down into words for a very long time. In the meantime,
several people (including yourself, as I recall) told me that they
didn't know what I was talking about.

Frankly I think that you have an intuitive feeling about awakenings
that I and others don't necessarily have. I think you have to have
faith in yourself and go ahead and develop your own evaluations. I'm
willing to help with difficult ones, as I'm sure others are, but
you're the one who knows what to look for so it'll probably have to
be you that decides.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,The misgiving I have is the idea of trying to find a panel in order to select relevant events by vote.

The idea is to select relevant classes of events. For example, if strikes are decided to be relevant we don't have to collect events, the government keeps statistics on it. We do need to find a method of extending these statsitics back further. The approach I take is sampling. Do you have to poll the entire population to get an idea of who is ahead in a lopsided electoral race? Of course not, most samples, as long as it is not overtly biased will probably work. Similarly, we do need to collect data on all historical strikes (as BLS does today), a sample will do.

We can calibrate our method by comparing the results obtained form the sample with the official data. Are similar trends shown? If so then we can have reasonable confidence that what the sample shows before the BLS data is avaialbe will show the same trends that government data would had it been collected.

Even if you found such a panel, you'd still need to educate the members extensively about your ideas.

This would defeat the purpose of the panel. Educating them about my ideas would then create a biased panel.

I gather there are hundreds of events, and each event would have to be researched.

Not all of them would have to be researched. Members of a class (e.g. race riots, strikes, slave revolts) don't, simply include all of them you find. But as we go back further the numbers of strike becomes small. I known of no race riots before 1829. Thus more classes of events must be found, but how to classify these events becomes harder. A strike or race riot is easy because the timeline creator calls it a strike or a race riot. Or the description involves terms known to be associated with strikes or race riots. Thus a civil disturbance in which blacks and whites fight and some ar killed can be seen as a race riot even if it is called a " massacre" or "battle". Similarly a "lockout" can be placed in the strike class.

But as you go back further the easy classes disappear. There are no race riots before 1829 that I have in my timeline. Slave revolts and strikes petter out before the 16th century. And even after 1500 there are sparse. I need more events, and they aren't easy ones like strikes.

Even if you did all the research and presented information about each one, each panel member would have to review your information before taking a vote. So we're talking about an awful lot of tedious work by each panel member.

No kidding. You see the difficulty.

In my own experience in identifying crisis wars, I developed an
intuitive feeling about it reasonably quickly, but I wasn't able to
get it down into words for a very long time. In the meantime,
several people (including yourself, as I recall) told me that they
didn't know what I was talking about.

This is precisely the risk that your approach runs. Intuition is tricky. Once you have established a mental picture or model (paradigm) of what you are studying it is like a habit or first impression, very difficult to change. Finding more information will likely not improve the model because almost all of it will fit.

I think you have to have faith in yourself and go ahead and develop your own evaluations.

I did so and published two years ago.

Dear Mike,

OK. I'm very interested in what you're doing, and I'll be watching
to see how it comes together. Let me know when I can be of help.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

There is, rather interestingly, a common "centripetal" (that's the opposite of "centrifugal" for those of you in Rio Linda, West Palm Beach and Staten Island) force in both the last Crisis and this one: Just as collaborating with the Axis was not an option for African-Americans in World War II due to the Nazis' racial theories, any possibility of gays and lesbians collaborating with Al Qaeda, etc. is out of the question because of the Islamists' teachings on homosexuality.

And this means that just as FDR was able to get away with not lifting a finger against Jim Crow (even though Eleanor dearly wanted him to), the GOP is free to cater to the most extreme whims of the Religious Right, since there is no fear whatsoever that doing so might create a "fifth column" for the terrorists within the gay community.

Apart from the above, however, it seems - to me at least - that the centrifugal forces outnumber the centripetal ones in this country right now; but if the miracle happens and Kerry somehow prevails, that may change.

If the proposed double rhythm is indeed correct, it appears that we are due for an Internally Fracturing Crisis.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

If the proposed double rhythm is indeed correct, it appears that we are due for an Internally Fracturing Crisis.

Though the double rhythm may be an accidental correlation, what you're saying does appear to be the case. This cycle's Prophet archetype is in no way "attenuated", eh? God, I think we're screwed.

I've seen this talk off and on about a new American Civil War, and I
can't make heads or tails of it.

Could someone please provide a concise <u>non-political</u>
explanation of why a Civil War is even a possibility? What would be
the fault line?

There is only one possibility I'm aware of, as I've mentioned before:
There's a big Mexican-American fault line in California, where 1/3 of
the population is Mexican immigrants, but that doesn't appear to be
what people are talking about. What am I missing?

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've seen this talk off and on about a new American Civil War, and I can't make heads or tails of it.

Could someone please provide a concise <u>non-political</u> explanation of why a Civil War is even a possibility? What would be the fault line?

As I understand it, religious traditionals vs. secular non-traditionals.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've seen this talk off and on about a new American Civil War, and I can't make heads or tails of it.

Could someone please provide a concise <u>non-political</u> explanation of why a Civil War is even a possibility? What would be the fault line?

As I understand it, religious traditionals vs. secular non-traditionals.

There's a new book out right now that I've glanced at called The Great Divide, Retro vs. Metro America by John Sperling. It's a pretty Leftist take on the divide or fault line in question. Eric Meece would probably love it. Though they make many good points, I found it a bit shrill (and found some factual errors). It's basically a Red State vs. Blue State argument on too much coffee.

Here's something really spooky:

Shamil Basayev is the Chechen terrorist who's responsible for the
death of hundreds, almost half children, at the school in Beslan,
North Ossetia in Russia a few weeks ago.

In doing an analysis and reading news stories at the time, I came
across this paragraph:

> Born in Chechnya in 1965, Basayev was raised by a generation that
> had just returned to the region after being exiled by Stalin to
> Kazakhstan and Siberia.

Now, that exile took place in 1944. So although Russia's previous
crisis war was WW I and the civil war ending in 1928, Chechnya's
previous crisis war presumably this massive exile.

That makes Basayev an early Nomad: 1965 = 1944 + 21.

So I took a look at some other people of this type:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Jordan - 1966 - 1949 + 17
Osama bin Laden - Saudi Arabia - 1957 = 1932 + 25

Putin - Russia 1952 = 1928 + 24
Hitler Germany - 1889 = 1870 + 19
Stalin Russia - 1879 = 1856 + 23
Trotsky Russia - 1879 = 1856 + 23

Mao is a mid to late Nomad:

Mao 1893 = 1862 + 31

Other crisis era leaders were also early Nomads:

Lincoln 1809 = 1783 + 26
FDR 1882 = 1865 + 17
Saddam Hussein - Iraq - 1937 = 1921 + 16

This analysis appears to indicate that early Nomads are the most
likely to become world leaders - the best and the worst.

On the other hand, today's presidential candidates are way
too old to be Nomads:

George W. Bush 1946 = 1945 + 1
John Kerry 1943 = 1945 + -2
Ralph Nader 1934 = 1945 + -11

Does that mean we're in trouble?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Here's something really spooky:

Shamil Basayev is the Chechen terrorist who's responsible for the
death of hundreds, almost half children, at the school in Beslan,
North Ossetia in Russia a few weeks ago.

In doing an analysis and reading news stories at the time, I came
across this paragraph:

> Born in Chechnya in 1965, Basayev was raised by a generation that
> had just returned to the region after being exiled by Stalin to
> Kazakhstan and Siberia.

Now, that exile took place in 1944. So although Russia's previous
crisis war was WW I and the civil war ending in 1928, Chechnya's
previous crisis war presumably this massive exile.

That makes Basayev an early Nomad: 1965 = 1944 + 21.

So I took a look at some other people of this type:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Jordan - 1966 - 1949 + 17
Osama bin Laden - Saudi Arabia - 1957 = 1932 + 25

Putin - Russia 1952 = 1928 + 24
Hitler Germany - 1889 = 1870 + 19
Stalin Russia - 1879 = 1856 + 23
Trotsky Russia - 1879 = 1856 + 23

Mao is a mid to late Nomad:

Mao 1893 = 1862 + 31

Other crisis era leaders were also early Nomads:

Lincoln 1809 = 1783 + 26
FDR 1882 = 1865 + 17
Saddam Hussein - Iraq - 1937 = 1921 + 16

This analysis appears to indicate that early Nomads are the most
likely to become world leaders - the best and the worst.

On the other hand, today's presidential candidates are way
too old to be Nomads:

George W. Bush 1946 = 1945 + 1
John Kerry 1943 = 1945 + -2
Ralph Nader 1934 = 1945 + -11

Does that mean we're in trouble?

Sincerely,

John

If one agreed with your estimations of turnings and generations, I suppose so. Me, I'm worried plenty enough without agreeing with your esitmates.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> If one agreed with your estimations of turnings and generations, I
> suppose so.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> Me, I'm worried plenty enough without agreeing with your
> estimates.

Well, here's a little more to think (and perhaps worry) about:

Why are there no new terrorist acts on American soil? Why is the
stock market staying so high, when stocks are overvalued by about
100%? Why is oil staying high, but not "too high"?

One answer is that a lot of governments and organizations in the world
are being very careful not to do anything to do anything to disturb
the American election. It's not that people favor Bush instead of
Kerry, or vice versa; it's that no one wants to risk being seen as
trying to exert influence. So foreign governments are being careful
not to do anything that might appear to be opposing or not cooperating
with America's war on terrorism, and financial institutions are being
very careful not to do anything that might appear to favor either Bush
or Kerry. Essentially, most of the world is walking on eggshells
until November 2.

Mike Alexander has already noted that political cycles affect
economic cycles. For example, all recessions (panics) prior to WW II
occurred in odd-numbered years.
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=103758#103758

Now, let's expand this concept to both economic and political events.

Notice the following: Something "big" happened in every (election
year + 1) in previous crisis periods since the nation's founding:

(*) In 1857, the Panic of 1857.

(*) In 1861, Civil War began.

(*) In 1929, stock market crash.

(*) In 1933 - can't think of anything.

(*) In 1937 - major "second crash" of stock market

(*) In 1941 - Pearl Harbor

(*) In 2001 - September 11

These events seem to indicate that "something big" will happen next
year, in 2005.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> If one agreed with your estimations of turnings and generations, I
> suppose so.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

No offense. I am simply more orthodox on interpreting S&H.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> Me, I'm worried plenty enough without agreeing with your
> estimates.

Well, here's a little more to think (and perhaps worry) about:

Why are there no new terrorist acts on American soil? Why is the
stock market staying so high, when stocks are overvalued by about
100%? Why is oil staying high, but not "too high"?

One answer is that a lot of governments and organizations in the world
are being very careful not to do anything to do anything to disturb
the American election. It's not that people favor Bush instead of
Kerry, or vice versa; it's that no one wants to risk being seen as
trying to exert influence. So foreign governments are being careful
not to do anything that might appear to be opposing or not cooperating
with America's war on terrorism, and financial institutions are being
very careful not to do anything that might appear to favor either Bush
or Kerry. Essentially, most of the world is walking on eggshells
until November 2.

Mike Alexander has already noted that political cycles affect
economic cycles. For example, all recessions (panics) prior to WW II
occurred in odd-numbered years.
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=103758#103758

Now, let's expand this concept to both economic and political events.

Notice the following: Something "big" happened in every (election
year + 1) in previous crisis periods since the nation's founding:

(*) In 1857, the Panic of 1857.

(*) In 1861, Civil War began.

(*) In 1929, stock market crash.

(*) In 1933 - can't think of anything.

(*) In 1937 - major "second crash" of stock market

(*) In 1941 - Pearl Harbor

(*) In 2001 - September 11

These events seem to indicate that "something big" will happen next
year, in 2005.

Interesting. 1933, that's funny. :wink:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> If one agreed with your estimations of turnings and generations, I
> suppose so.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

No offense. I am simply more orthodox on interpreting S&H.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> Me, I'm worried plenty enough without agreeing with your
> estimates.

Well, here's a little more to think (and perhaps worry) about:

Why are there no new terrorist acts on American soil? Why is the
stock market staying so high, when stocks are overvalued by about
100%? Why is oil staying high, but not "too high"?

One answer is that a lot of governments and organizations in the world
are being very careful not to do anything to do anything to disturb
the American election. It's not that people favor Bush instead of
Kerry, or vice versa; it's that no one wants to risk being seen as
trying to exert influence. So foreign governments are being careful
not to do anything that might appear to be opposing or not cooperating
with America's war on terrorism, and financial institutions are being
very careful not to do anything that might appear to favor either Bush
or Kerry. Essentially, most of the world is walking on eggshells
until November 2.

Mike Alexander has already noted that political cycles affect
economic cycles. For example, all recessions (panics) prior to WW II
occurred in odd-numbered years.
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=103758#103758

Now, let's expand this concept to both economic and political events.

Notice the following: Something "big" happened in every (election
year + 1) in previous crisis periods since the nation's founding:

(*) In 1857, the Panic of 1857.

(*) In 1861, Civil War began.

(*) In 1929, stock market crash.

(*) In 1933 - can't think of anything.

(*) In 1937 - major "second crash" of stock market

(*) In 1941 - Pearl Harbor

(*) In 2001 - September 11

These events seem to indicate that "something big" will happen next
year, in 2005.

Interesting. 1933, that's funny. :wink:

Something big did happen in 1933, but not in the US. Hitler came to power. :shock:

My sense is that 4Ts are becoming global. I sense on this board that most of us (except Tristan :wink: ) are focusing too narrowly on the US and not on the world-wide situation. We think that things are pretty normal still in the US so it must still be 3T. I don't think it works that way, and I also think that the world situation is definately becoming darker by the month.

Dear Jenny,

Originally Posted by Hermione Granger

> Something big did happen in 1933, but not in the US. Hitler came
> to power. Shocked

> My sense is that 4Ts are becoming global. I sense on this board
> that most of us (except Tristan Wink ) are focusing too narrowly
> on the US and not on the world-wide situation. We think that
> things are pretty normal still in the US so it must still be 3T. I
> don't think it works that way, and I also think that the world
> situation is definately becoming darker by the month. Sad

You're preaching to the choir. Actually, you're preaching to the
preacher. A major point I've been making a long time via the
"Principle of Localization" is that every war, every awakening, has
to be analyzed from the point of view of each society or nation
involved. Just as a husband and wife arguing over money are probably
arguing about completely different things, two nations at war are
probably at war over completely different things. Everything has to
be analyzed locally. That was the idea in the next-to-last posting,
that shows that if you analyze Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Basayev, etc.,
each on a local basis, then you discover that they're all early
Nomads.

However, the issue in my last posting is different. Here, the
question is: why do all America's big crisis-era events always occur
in the year following a Presidential election?

This that I posted looks real remarkable to me. Whenever you post a
list like that, the obvious criticism is that you're "cherry-picking"
events - just selecting the events that make your pattern come out.

The thing about the last list is that I can't see that it's cherry
picking at all. Every one of those events was a major crisis-era
event, and I can't think of any crisis-era events that I've left out.
I'd be curious to know if you or anyone else thinks that I'm wrong
about that.

That brings us to 1933. Hitler's coming to power was certainly an
important event, but only in retrospect. It's hard to argue that
Hitler in 1933 was a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor type event, since I don't
believe that Hitler was very well known in America.

If I had to pick a crisis-era event in the year 1933, the event I
would pick is Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations.
Americans and Japanese already distrusted each other, and this was an
early sign that Japan was intending war.

But I can't really claim that withdrawing from the League of Nations
is an event comparable to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, so that's why I said
that I can't think of anything "big" in 1933.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ20Aa02.html

Dear Tom,

This article shows how shallow some of these typical articles are.

There is no way that Europe will present either an economic or
military threat to America for decades.

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec wrote that Arno Tausch

> The rift between Europe and the United States - especially between
> France, Germany and Russia on the one hand and the US on the other
> - has a very basic political economic background: the growing
> hegemonic rivalry between the world's leading capitalist blocs
> that have characterized world capitalism since 1450. An EU
> comprising up to 40 nations of the third and fourth enlargement
> wave indeed would be a major change in the structure of the
> international system and could be driven by America's power play,
> but also by its own internal deficient dynamics, characterized by
> low innovation, into such a position.

> A large, wider Europe, driven into hegemonic rivalry by the
> present hyperpower play by the United States, is a somber
> scenario. It enjoys high probability, and it has dire world
> political consequences.

Here you see the shallow thinking. Just because France, Germany and
Russia joined to oppose America's invasion of Iraq does not in any
way mean that their alliance will continue.

Quite the contrary, the EU has been very critical of Putin's handling
of the Beslan massacre and its aftermath. This has alienated Russia,
and Russia is moving much closer to Israel and America.

The EU is on the ropes. Unemployment is 10-20%. There's a strong
Islamic terrorist movement and a strong Nazi movement in East
Germany. The Euro is creating enough disparities that it may be
discarded by some countries in favor of returning to the old national
currencies. Generational Dynamics predicts that there'll be a new west
European war, and I'm tentatively guessing that Germany, or at least
parts of it, will be in our corner, not France's.

Tausch's allusion to the fall of Constantinople (which occurred in
1453, not in 1450) supports the point that I'm making, since it was a
historic victory of Islam over Orthodox Christianity. Tausch's
implication that somehow the fall of Constantinople is a sign that
American and Russia will be enemies is silly.

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec wrote that Arno Tausch

> Very sharp and bitter confrontations might arise between the
> United States and Europe over access to the Caspian Sea and its
> 150 billion barrels of oil reserves, and over foreign policy
> vis-a-vis the Balkans, and the Middle East, with Europe favoring a
> rapprochement with Serbia after its October 2000 transition, a
> rapprochement with the Palestinians and the Kurds, while the US
> staunchly favors its own privileged access to the oilfields in the
> Caspian Sea and in Iraq.

In my opinion, the Caucasus is the most dangerous region of the
world, even more dangerous than Palestine, since it's farther into a
generational crisis period. It won't be the US and Europe fighting
over the Caspian, but the Orthodox and Muslim civilizations, with
America and France most likely tied down fighting each other in the
Mideast and Eastern Asia, and within Europe itself.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com