Re: List by John Xenakis
Dear Tim,
Yes, these are all in the works, and any one of them couldOriginally Posted by Tim Walker
trigger the others.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Interning Japs and such...
As I recall Strauss and Howe theorized that baby boomers would transform into "principled moralists, summoners of human sacrifice, wagers of righteous wars" come the fourth turn. Having just witnessed a "draft dodger" defeat a "war hero" in that election, which saw "war" as it's major issue, should cause any liberal (as most posters here now seem to agree) to believe "We be 3T."When did you drop your 40 year-cycle idea? Was it the absence of a 1964-like outcome for the 2004 election? I now see you comparing Bush to FDR. You now think we be 4T?
I was comparing Bush to other "Fascists" like Coolidge, Hoover and Hitler; not the "principled moralist, summoner of human sacrifice, wager of righteous wars," FDR.
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
First, the questions don't require research: They are basically rhetorical. If anything, these rhetorical points are for you to refute since they jive with general history (maybe the specialists know more). Second, you have taken them out out of context. Third, this is just ONE point that you did not answer. You ignored most of my responsive points.Dear Sean,
I've now gone back as far as January 1 in this thread to find your
references to this subject, and here they are:
So this is your important point? If it's so important, why didn't
you provide more information? Why didn't you at least provide a URL
pointing to a web page describing the issue?
You only mentioned this point in passing, and provided no information
whatsoever, not even a name I could google on. I had no idea you
considered this so important.
Even now, I've been trying to find some information about this on the
web without success. Can you provide a URL of a web site or web page
that describes this? Maybe there's something in Wikipedia, if you
know where to look, which I don't.
Which leads me to believe that such an "epiphany" makes you deaf to other viewpoints. Fine.I keep mentioning it because I felt you were ignoring its impact. I
also kept mentioning because it was something of an "epiphanical"
moment for me, and convinced me that TFT was on the right track.
Yes, the detaining of muslim suspects post-9/11 is a significant phenomenon. But did the detaining of suspects during the Anarchist Scare in 1917-1921 mean a turning change? Is the current detaining really equal in scope, in any real way, to the internment of an entire people in the last 4T? Or does it more resemble the First Red Scare of c. 1920? If you take an objective look, I think you'll see your certainty is not justified. You may still be right, but you must admit it's not cut and dried.
Maybe you are used to internet debates operating in this fashion. I am not. And I might add that it's not very professional, if that's what your goal is.
Maybe you are used to internet debates operating in this fashion. I am not, at least with serious people. And I might add that it's not very professional, if that's what your goal is.Believe me, Sean, this happens to everyone. I've been online since
1984, and I can assure you that this happens all the time. If I
could provide some "helpful hints from Heloise," it would be that if
you have an important point then keep repeating it until you get a
response, structure your posting so that your point is emphasized, do
some research to support your point, and provide URLs where further
information can be obtained.
Look, in the big picture I guess it's not that important whether we're 3T or 4T. It either is or isn't and what we say here won't affect it. I myself am not sure, but lean strongly to 3T at this point. But if I have the time and the ambition I will go through and find everything you've ignored or reframed. I'm just not sure it's worth it.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Interning Japs and such...
Marc is a troll. He is not serious.Dear Marc,
I'm not sure that this interpretation applies to Sean in this
situation. He's essentially arguing that the Bush administration's
Muslim incarcerations aren't as politically significant as the FDR
administration's Japanese internments, which is the opposite of what
you'd expect if he were making a purely political argument.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Interning Japs and such...
- "Yet you just keep going on and on about comparing the post-9/11 roundup to the Japanese internment..."
I took the occasion of the kind gentleman's observation to illuminate the more kinder comments of current liberal leaders, like Jonathan Chait, Garrison Keillor, Albert Gore, Howard Dean, John Glenn and Julian Bond:I'm not sure that this interpretation applies to Sean in this situation.That's all. 8)
- ?I hate George W. Bush.?
Republicans are ?brown shirts in pinstripes.?
?It?s the old Hitler business.?
Republicans are ?digital brownshirts?
?I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
?This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
?Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side.?
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
Dear Sean,
I'll try to respond, Sean, but you've made one hell of a weird
posting.
What does "rhetorical" mean? That the events you describe didn't
actually happen? What does "jive with general history" mean?
Next, I don't know if you've noticed, Sean, but I check EVERYTHING
out. You claim to be making a historical analogy, and before I can
respond to it, I need to do may own analysis to determine whether I
believe that historical analysis is valid.
However, not to worry, I finally found what you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
Happy to do your research for you, Sean.
Now that I know what you're talking about I actually don't have a
response. I'll have to do some additional research to understand the
situation better.
I have no idea what this means.
I don't know what other points you're referring to, but I hope that
you presented them better than you presented your 1917 point.
Not hardly.
You're really going off the deep end here.
In my many years online, I've always said that if it's fun to do or
useful to do, then do it, otherwise don't do it. I know that I
always find it useful to organize all my thoughts about a subject and
write them down and post them somewhere. You wouldn't be doing it
for me; you would be doing it for yourself. If it would be useful or
satisfying to you to list your reasons in an organized manner, then do
it and post them, and I'll be interested in reading them.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Interning Japs and such...
- "Yet you just keep going on and on about comparing the post-9/11 roundup to the Japanese internment..."
I took the occasion of the kind gentleman's observation to illuminate the more kinder comments of current liberal leaders, like Jonathan Chait, Garrison Keillor, Albert Gore, Howard Dean, John Glenn and Julian Bond:I'm not sure that this interpretation applies to Sean in this situation.That's all. 8)
- ?I hate George W. Bush.?
Republicans are ?brown shirts in pinstripes.?
?It?s the old Hitler business.?
Republicans are ?digital brownshirts?
?I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
?This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
?Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side.?
Dear Marc,
Well, that's OK then, as long as it's good clean fun.
Sincerely,
John
Yeah,so long as rehtoric doesn't turn into real "streets of blood," it's a rising rather than setting sun in Washington's chair. "Tis well."
Here's to hoping. 8)
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
:lol: Okay, I'll play. Please note the emboldened part below.Dear Sean,
I'll try to respond, Sean, but you've made one hell of a weird
posting.
What does "rhetorical" mean? That the events you describe didn't
actually happen? What does "jive with general history" mean?
What I wrote was obvious. Anyone with a good, general familiarity of American history of that time period knows the answer to what I wrote. For example, you claimed that our relative lack of an anti-war movement during a war is an automatic 4T sign. I was pointing out that history books to do not point out any major Republican party (i.e., the party opposing President Wilson) opposition to our being engaged in WWI during the run up to the 1918 midterm elections.
So as for the rhetorical part: A) A lack of major political opposition to a war is NOT an automatic sign of a 4T, and B) if my example is wrong (and therefore not "rhetorical" as defined above), the onus on you is to find that major Republican opposition, because it's not generally known about if it exists. Maybe it's there, but both my recollection of the period from my studies and my current thumbing through history books don't bring anything up. They do bring up Palmer though. :wink:
Nothing "weird" about it, John. What's weird is you not knowing, or pretending not to know, what "rhetorical" means in this case. I know you're a smart man.
Honestly, no I didn't notice. What I notice is you talking past most of the people you debate.
There are a lot of things you don't respond to.
I already knew about Palmer, that's why I mentioned him. I figured since you're making books for historians and making all sorts of authoritative statements about history you'd know who A. Mitchell Palmer was.
If you didn't know who he was, it would have been polite to have asked me in the immediate response. One would expect that you if you do indeed "research everything" and allegedly read my points you could have done that. Rather, you ignored it. And I am not just talking about that point, but most of the points I have made. It's but one example.
If you wish.
I have no idea what this means.Okay, okay, okay . . . Please see the emboldened below.
So . . . in the post above you took those points, and took them out of the larger framework that participated in giving them their intended meaning. Okay? Or do you need more?? :shock:
They were in direct response to your points, just as I am doing now. If you don't know how to deal with that, we're at an impasse.I don't know what other points you're referring to, but I hope that
you presented them better than you presented your 1917 point.
Prove it.Not hardly.
So ignoring people's points and playing games with not understanding what "rhetorical" and "context" mean is professional? And you're implying that I'm the one being ridiculous? Oy!You're really going off the deep end here.
Look dude, I'm not asking for a lot here. When you posted something, I answered it directly. You tended to ignore most of my direct responses, reframe your original argument with little or any reference to my points, and then later tried to belittle me by calling me "weird" and pretending not to understand things.In my many years online, I've always said that if it's fun to do or
useful to do, then do it, otherwise don't do it. I know that I
always find it useful to organize all my thoughts about a subject and
write them down and post them somewhere. You wouldn't be doing it
for me; you would be doing it for yourself. If it would be useful or
satisfying to you to list your reasons in an organized manner, then do
it and post them, and I'll be interested in reading them.
What I am asking for are direct replies to my points or counterpoints. It's not hard. Will you do that? Please???
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
Dear Sean,
I will concede that the Palmer Raid information does provide a strong
challenge to my reasoning about the 3t/4t issue. I'll have to
analyze it and deal with it in the future.
But the rest of what you say is way off the deep end. What you're
demanding is impossible anyway: If everyone were required to respond
to every point that the other person made, then no discussion would
ever end.
I discovered long ago that in flame wars, two people keep saying the
same things over and over, so I developed a rule that if I can't add
new information, then I won't respond at all, and I follow that rule
most of the time. So if I didn't respond to one of your arguments,
perhaps it's because I felt I had already responded to it as best as I
could, and had no new information to add to what I'd already written.
As a writer, I can tell you that if readers don't understand what
I've written, then it's ridiculous for me to blame the readers. My
job as a writer is to be sure that what I write is going to be
understandable. If a reader doesn't understand me then it's my
fault, not his fault.
It's not my fault that you didn't present your arguments more
clearly. The 1917 jailing argument is symptomatic of the problem.
First, you mentioned it only briefly. Then when you asked me to
respond, I asked for you to "refresh my memory," hoping that you
would provide more information. Instead of providing more
information, you got pissed off and started berating me. Then when I
specifically requested more information, you got pissed off again,
made some remark about not requiring research, but STILL didn't
provide any more information. Then I tracked down what you were
talking about, you got pissed off AGAIN, berating me for not already
knowing. Frankly, it looks like you're more interested in berating
me than in discussing the issue. And now you say that "I already
knew about Palmer, that's why I mentioned him." No, Sean, you DIDN'T
mention Palmer - at least not anywhere I can find, and I checked this
thread back to January. So if you can't remember what you posted,
then why should I remember?
Now look, Sean, we can go in two directions here. I don't remember,
or I never understood, what points you're talking about that you want
me to respond to. So you have two choices. One choice is that you
can get pissed off again and berate me again because I don't know
what points your talking about. And the other choice is that you can
list the points you want me to respond to, and include enough
information so that I can figure out what you're talking about. If
you decide to do the latter, please sequentially number your points so
I won't miss one.
It's up to you.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
Sorry for butting in, but this is getting very painful to watch and I have a couple of points to make.
One thing I've found in usenet arguments is to only put in your strongest arguments, since if you put in your weak arguments those will be the ones responded to, and the strong arguments will get ignored. On the other hand, if you really want to debate fairly, then it seems to me that you should respond to all the points made, even if the response is that you think further debate on that point wouldn't be useful.
<snip>
<snip>It's not my fault that you didn't present your arguments more
clearly. The 1917 jailing argument is symptomatic of the problem.
First, you mentioned it only briefly.
I think that part of the problem here may be that Sean has made this argument at great length on other threads in this forum and perhaps didn't think he needed to repeat it on this thread to.
Jeff '61
Investors are becoming increasingly risk-aversive
Investors are becoming increasingly risk-aversive,
indicating a major correction may be in store.
An increasingly volatile stock market has fallen to six-month lows.
Stocks have fallen 1-2% per day in four out of the last six sessions,
for roughly a 7% fall. Japan's Nikkei index has taken a similar fall,
and as of midday Thursday, the Nikkei is down an additional 2%.
If there's going to be a major stock market crash, then this is
exactly the type of situation that would be a prelude.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, a stock market crash
to about Dow 3000-4000 is near 100% certain. As usual, Generational
Dynamics tells you what the final destination will be, but doesn't
tell you the path or how long it will take to arrive there.
(S&P 500 index, 1950 to present)
In 2002, we predicted that America entering was entering a new 1930s
Great Depression, with a fall to the Dow 3000 range by 2007. This was
based on straightforward analysis using price/earnings ratios and
growth trends, as illustrated by the above graph.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...10.i.fed050324
When a stock market crash occurs, it happens after the kind of
volatility we've been seeing. Thus, there's a possibility that we'll
see a major stock market crash within the next few weeks.
This is not a certainty in this time frame, of course. A stock
market crash is a certainty, but the precise time frame is
not.
There are several reasons factors that indicate that it's coming
sooner, rather than later:
- (*) The level of public debt has been increasing at an exponential
rate, and is now at historically levels with no sign of leveling off.
It is literally impossible for this situation to continue much
longer.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...og0412#e041215- (*) The US Trade deficit has been increasing exponentially. In
fact, the level of imports (mostly from China) has been increasing
exponentially, and the level of exports has been leveling off,
indicating that our hollowed out economy is losing the ability to
provide products that people want. It is literally impossible for this
situation to continue much longer.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...og0504#e050413- (*) The P/E ratio index has been above 20 since 1995, a very long
time by historical standards, and must fall to the 5-10 range before
too much longer.- (*) Analysts are in a state of denial about what's going on. The
most bizarre claim was by Fed Governor Ben Bernanke, the man expected
to become Fed Chairman when Alan Greenspan resigns next year. In a
speech last month, Bernanke blamed America's public debt on other
nations, saying that it was caused by a "global saving glut" in other
countries of the world. This is a typical attitude of people in the
Baby Boomer generation.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...og0503#e050314- (*) Investors are evidently becoming increasing risk-aversive,
indicating that the current credit bubble must burst soon.
I've computed the probability of a stock market crash before the end
of 2007 as being above 50%. For reasons that I described last year,
there's good reason why major disasters (Civil War, 1929 crash, Pearl
Harbor, 9/11) are likely to occur in the fall of the year following a
Presidential election, and so if a stock market crash is going to
occur this year, I would expect it in the fall.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...10.i.big041024
So it's possible that the stock market will temporarily recover from
the past week's downturn. But this past week has been especially
ominous, and I'm posting this notice to readers of my web site to be
prepared for the worst in the next few weeks.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Speaking of the credit bubble, could it be that the new, more stringent backruptcy laws which take effect in October be the catalyst that bursts the credit bubble, and will it make the use of consumer credit cards less desirable?
Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
Dear Sean,
I now have a response to the issue you raised over the Palmer Raids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
One of the reasons that I gave in support of the claim that we've
been in a 4T period since 9/11 is that we started locking up Muslims
in jail with no charges afer 9/11, and that it would have been
impossible to do that just a year or two earlier, indicating a massive
shift in public opinion.
In response you pointed out the Palmer Raids in 1918-21, in which
thousands of "radicals" were arrested without charges, and received
strong support from Congress and the public.
My first reaction was that the Palmer Raid information seemed to
provide a strong challenge to my reasoning about the 3t/4t issue.
However, I've now done some further reading and, upon further
thought, I now believe that the Palmer Raids are completely
irrelevant to the point I was making.
It's not the Muslim jailings per se that indicate that we're
in a 4T; it's the massive shift in public opinion that indicates that
we're in a 4T.
Obviously, jailing innocent people without charges doesn't indicate
that a country is in a 4T. China and Russia have been doing it for
decades.
What makes the jailing of Muslims so shocking is that it was an act
so contrary to the American culture since World War II.
Which leads to this question: Why was locking people up without
charges so contrary to the American culture since WW II, if it was OK
in 1920?
The answer goes back to the Civil War, when Lincoln suspended the
habeas corpus laws.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
Although there was opposition to Lincoln's actions, the public has
always accepted them as a necessary evil at a time when the country's
survival was in danger, and the historians accept them to this day,
as far as I know.
The Palmer Raids of 1918-21 occurred in an awakening/unraveling era,
at a time when the nation's leaders were from the Civil War artist
generation. Woodrow Wilson, born in 1856, was himself from that
generation.
So the generation in power in 1918 were people who had grown up
during the horror of the Civil War, and felt that everything must be
done to keep anything so horrible from happening again.
So when, on June 2, 1919, a number of bombs were detonated in
Washington and seven other American cities, it undoubtedly
reverberated in the minds of those who grew up during the Civil War
that the country might well be close to Civil War once more. Thus, it
was quite natural to people from that generation to lock up the
"radicals" and "leftists" who were perceived to be leading the country
into a new Civil War.
So there was no massive shift in public opinion accompanying the
Palmer Raids. Actually it was just the opposite. Palmer announced
that a Communist revolution was scheduled for May Day (May 1), and
when the revolution didn't materialize, the public turned against
Palmer. The shift in public opinion occurred after the raids,
and it was in the direction of opposing the raids.
If you want to compare the Palmer Raids to something, the best choice
would be the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was pursued so that
nothing so horrible as WW II should ever happen again. Initially the
Congress and the public supported the war, but when things went bad,
the public turned against the war.
In both cases, the generations were playing out their preordained
roles: The older generations were taking action by drawing from their
experiences in the last crisis war to prevent another crisis war, and
the younger generations were rebelling against the austere rules and
compromises required by those actions.
So, the history of the Palmer Raids doesn't really shed any light
whatsoever on the locking up of Muslims in 2001-2.
From a theoretical point of view, when using the generational
paradigm to do comparative historical analysis, it's not really valid
to compare events from different generational eras. Generally
speaking, it's only valid to compare crisis era events to crisis era
events, and awakening era events to awakening era events. Comparing
a crisis era event to an awakening era event is not valid unless
great care is taken.
A related theoretical question of interest is the following: When is
it "ok" during an awakening era for a country to lock up its own
citizens without charges?
It seems to me that the controlling criterion is whether the
preceding crisis war was a civil war. In a crisis war against another
country, it's generally possible to tell who the enemy is from their
appearance and language. But in a civil war, allies and enemies look
the same and talk the same, so the principle of locking up one's own
citizens to prevent another civil war becomes established.
That explains why China and Russia so freely locked up its own
citizens. It's not because they were dictatorships; it's because
their last crisis wars were civil wars.
We see this being played out dramatically in China, where the public
has been generally approving of the Tiananment Square massacre and
the Falun Gong jailings, because the older generations know that the
alternative is a new massive civil war.
I'd now like to return to the question of whether I responded to all
of your points when I responded to your messages.
It's possible that I wasn't sufficiently attentive to all the
arguments you were making. I have several different projects going
on, and I only contribute to this forum every few days, and so I
sometimes lose track of the entirety of what's going on, and I may
have failed to respond to some important point you were making. If
that happened, then I apologize.
I don't know if this matters to you, but I did in fact make a mental
note of your point when I first read it. But at that time, all I
knew about it was your reference to "(potentially anarchist)
immigrants in 1917-1920." So I made a mental note to check that out
at some time in the future. It wasn't until two or three iterations
later that I found out about the Palmer Raids, and then it took some
time to formulate this posting in response. However, I didn't ignore
your argument at the time it was posted.
I'd now like to make some general statements about what I respond to
and what I don't respond to. However, these are general statements
that don't apply to the discussions that you and I have had, unless I
explicitly say so.
This issue with the Palmer Raids illustrates a difficulty that I
always have with generational discussions, and that's the fact that
the reasoning requires almost mathematical precision. You have to
follow very strict rules, and if you don't, then the reasoning is
likely not to be valid.
I had to backtrack just recently in response to one of Mike
Alexander's criticisms. I had to retract something I had said
because I didn't follow my own rules. The reasoning behind the
generational paradigm is actually very complex and precise.
In my first book on this subject, Generational Dynamics:
Forecasting America's Destiny, I used a narrative style that
wasn't always completely precise. As a result, I received a lot of
criticism both inside and outside of this forum. In fact, this
thread, "Objections to Generational Dynamics," was set up just to
deal with all the criticisms I was receiving.
So my new book, Generational Dynamics for Historians, was
written in a very different style, much more in a meticulous and
mathematically precise style, with much less narrative.
A web site reader recently read a little of the online version of the
new book, and wrote to me and began, "Firstly, I disagree with your
feeling that WWII was not a crisis war for USSR." He then launched
into a list of reasons that really had nothing to do with the issue,
and it was obvious that he hadn't really read the crisis war criteria
in my book.
So I wrote back, "The evaluation of the Great Patriotic War as a
non-crisis war for Russia is not a 'feeling,' but is based on clearly
defined criteria that are laid out and applied in Chapter 8."
I have similar problems with political arguments. This forum is
filled with threads on politics, usually by people who love Bush
versus people who hate Bush.
There's nothing wrong with arguing about politics, of course, but
anyone who's read Strauss and Howe's The Fourth Turning and
understands it cannot possibly believe that politics has anything to
do with the generational paradigm. The Civil War would have occurred
with or without Abraham Lincoln, WW II would have occurred with or
without Hitler, and whatever's going to happen in the upcoming crisis
is happening irrespective of whether Bush or Kerry is President.
I don't read most of the postings in the different threads of this
forum, but many that I do read contain political arguments that
cannot possibly be valid. Often these arguments involve long-time
participants of this forum who really should know better. This
always amazes me, and as I've said before, one of the main reasons I
wanted to join this forum in the first place is because I thought
most of the people would discuss TFT independently of politics, and
was quite surprised when I found out it wasn't true.
Now, everyone knows that there a few people in the forum who, as a
matter of policy, do not wish to engage in discourse with me. The
word "arrogant" is frequently used. That's because I piss people off
with answers like the one I quoted above that the analysis of a
crisis war isn't based on a "feeling." Believe it or not, Sean, I
actually don't like to piss people off. I know that will
surprise a lot of people, but it's true. So if someone posts
something that is vague, or based on feelings or politics, then my
inclination is not to answer it at all, rather than risk posting an
answer that won't accomplish anything except to piss more people off.
I don't know if that happened with something you wrote to me, Sean,
since I don't know what points you're referring to that I haven't
answered, but if I mistakenly thought that something you wrote was
vague or based on feelings or politics, then I apologize for that as
well. If that's what happened, then I probably would have simply
chosen not to answer.
All this wouldn't matter so much if the subject matter weren't so
serious. I write here and on my web site in a purposely unemotional
manner, but the fact is that there are many people, including some
friends and possibly myself, who are not going to survive all that's
going to happen. So I consider this subject matter very serious and
I'm much less inclined to joke around or schmooz about it than I
would about something else.
I want to call your attention your attention to the fact that I've
now apologized twice, that I've told you that I didn't ignore the
1920 jailings issue when you first mentioned it, though it took
several weeks to provide a complete response, and that I've given
several different real/perceived reasons/excuses/explanations for why
I might not have responded to some of your points. I don't know any
more that I can do. I do think that your criticism of me was way
overly harsh, however, especially considering the fact that no one can
possibly respond to all the points that others make.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Volatility and Stock Market Crashes
Volatility and Stock Market Crashes
Dear Brian,
This is an interesting question. My first reaction would be to say
that something as obscure as a bankruptcy law couldn't do it, but in
fact, who knows what might be a trigger? As far as I know, there's
no particular trigger for the 1929 crash, although the Panic of 1857
was triggered by the failure of the New York branch of the Ohio Life
Insurance and Trust Company. So I guess it's possible that the
bankruptcy law could be a trigger, perhaps in an indirect way.
The more important question is what will happen after the crash
occurs. With public debt as high as it is, the number of
bankruptcies will be massive, and this new law is coming into force
at exactly the time to affect millions of people.
The stock market has become extremely volatile in the last week, and
investors are becoming increasingly nervous. This is exactly the
kind of atmosphere in which a stock market crash occurs, although it
doesn't mean that a stock market crash must occur at this time.
In the last couple of weeks I've come to understand how stock market
volatility can lead to a stock market crash.
In normal times, an ordinary stock's price may go up and down wildly.
There are many examples of stocks that go up several hundred percent
in one day, or which crash by 70-90% in one day. Very often, these
wild swings are cause by pure emotion, based on some piece of good or
bad news that causes investors to overreact.
In normal times, these wild swings don't matter to the market as a
whole, because different investors buy and sell different stocks. So
if I buy one stock and you sell another stock, then the wild swings
of my stock are likely to be canceled out by the wild swings of your
stock, and so the market as a whole remains steady.
But when the market becomes as volatile as we've seen in the last
couple of weeks, it means that something else is happening. In
normal times, investors make buy or sell decisions based on the
evaluation of whatever stock they're interested in, but when the
market becomes volatile, it means that investors are making buy or
sell decisions based on their evaluation of where the market is going
as a whole. So even if I think that Company X is a good stock, I'll
sell anyway if I believe that the market as a whole is going to fall.
When investors start making their buy/sell decisions in unison in
this way, then the emotional volatility that applies to a single
stock now begins to apply to the stock market as a whole. If an
individual stock can fall 90% in one day, then if investors are
moving in unison, it's possible for the entire stock market to fall
90% in one day.
That's the situation we're in now. Stocks are overpriced by 100%,
according to standard price/earnings ratio measures, and so stock
prices are floating in mid-air, totally unanchored to anything real.
So the stock market is totally at the mercy of unbridled emotions,
and anything could happen at any time.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Landfall Crisis
I was thinking about the description of the Puritan Flip. It seems to me that the initial colonization, 1600-1620, could be described as either an anomalous Crisis or else as a reasonable fascimile of one.
Consider-a struggle to survive in the wilderness, with a high death rate. This might be deemed the functional equivalent of a Crisis War. This struggle was also decisive, in that the colonists were able to establish a foothold.
Unforetunately, all the subsequent Crises-four Crises out of five-have featured the sort of Crisis War described by John X.
Landfall Crisis
One has to wonder if a similar situation reoccurred at Botany Bay.
Re: Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
Right off the bat I question your use of "massive shift". Was there a shift? Yes. But was it "massive"? I'm curious, was there any polling done on this? There may be, but I'm not aware of any. If one asked the question, "Is it okay to lock up in-country foreigners without the writ of habeas corpus for reasons of suspected terrorism?" how different would the answer be before and after 9/11? I strongly suspect that the majority of Americans don't even know about the alien Arabs rounded up let alone have an opinion about it. Massive shift?
Furthermore, I question the massiveness and intensity of the 9/11 "round up". In our recent case, a few thousand were placed in custody, all but two aliens, and most of them illegal. None were executed.
In the WWII internment over 100,000 people, mostly American citizens, were detained. In the Palmer period, 10,000-15,000 were detained, many American citizens, many deported, and a fair number executed.
Let me reiterate, in the 9/11 round up involved much fewer people (esp. when population gain is taken into account), involved mostly people here illegally (by law they should not have been here), involved two American citizens, no-one was executed, summarily or otherwise, and no whole category of people were detained.
Now let me also reiterate that I recognise that you base your argument on a "massive shift" in opinion, not on the specfics of the compared events. I'm saying I question your basis and the specifics to boot.
And allow me to state that I am not saying the post-9/11 round up was nothing, lest you misinterpret. I agree that is significant, and was also blatantly unfair in many cases, even frightening. My arguments are only made to question your assessment that the round-up automatically demonstrates our 4T status.
Lincoln's suspending of habeas corpus for citizens in certain areas occurred inarguably during a 4T. And you're right, there was definitely opposition to Lincoln's actions. The Supreme Court eventually declared them unconstitutional and there was significant public criticism at the time.
I am unaware of any general mindset that would allow occasional suspension of habeas corpus being accepted from the 1860's all the way through 1921. As you stated, it was reserved for a critical period (i.e., the Civil War), and even then controversially. Therefore I don't see how you can argue that Palmer's abuse of the Constitution was not a significant historical discontinuity. And since I don't see how you can, by your other definition (i.e., such actions define 4T's) the 4T must have started while Palmer was AG, which I know you don't agree with and I agree is ridiculous on it's face.
The Palmer Raids did not occur during an "awakening/unraveling era". They occurred during the middle of an unraveling. Where did "awakening" come from? And why later in your post do you discard the unravelling aspect altogether and then say the Palmer Raids are a facsimile to Vietnam as if they both shared awakening periods?? That comes across to me as either very slopping reasoning/debating or disingenuous sleight-of-hand.
Quite possibly. But one could also argue that they forgot about the dangers of suspending civil liberties in the name of national security. And again, locking up, deporting, and (to some extent) executing large numbers of people was a decidedly new thing to come around in the five decades since the Civil War.
Indeed. The shift that had started in 1917 ended late in 1920. As I have already argued, said period was an intense 3T reaction (of a few years in length) that I am comparing to what we've experienced since 9/11.
This is the sloppy (or perhaps disingenuous) part I was talking about. You got your turnings mixed up.
I am in total disagreement and my arguments are stated above. It tells us that our recent round up could very well be a 3T event.
Oh I agree. So please don't compare unraveling events to awakening events. Since I, on the other hand, posit that our current period is very likely still 3T, and since the Palmer Raids occurred in a 3T, I am at least attempting to compare apples to apples, sir.
This is may be interesting, but it is irrelevant to our discussion. As I have established, awakenings have absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Are you bringing this up to say that I am too inprecise and use too much narrative in our discussions? I can't see any other reason to. If so, please just say that and use less narrative to say so. :wink: Otherwise, what you're saying sounds good but I really don't have an opinion on it.
So you say. I don't agree with you. You have too much Hari Seldon Syndrome in my opinion. But that's fine. Mike A. and I will just hold you to the "certainties" you have outlined. Unlike Mike, I tend to agree with you on forseeing an upcoming economic meltdown, but as for all the other things you say will happen with "100% certainty" (BTW, I read your site every few days), I cannot believe that to be true. Sorry.
You are who you are. Honestly, I think you are so full of yourself that most anything any of us write here won't mean a damn, but here's to hopin' . . .
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Landfall Crisis
Dear Tim,
I would tend to agree with this. Any crisis that's so severe that it
threatens the continued existence of a society or its way of life
would unify the generations and would be likely to launch (or
relaunch) the full four-era generational cycle.
You're referring to the English landing in Australia in 1770.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~macinnis/botnybay.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany_Bay
I've never looked at this, but it would appear to me that the same
kind of reasoning is likely to apply.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
Dear Sean,
As I've said before, my "feeling" at the time was that a massive
shift was taking place. I even used the word "epiphany." I don't
have any direct polling information, though I've mentioned changes in
gender attitudes, which is something that interested me because I'd
just written a book on gender issues. Perhaps at some point I'll
take the time to go back through some web sites where archives are
available for free (bbc.co.uk, cnn.com, foxnews.com, etc., and also
the press release archives from gallup.com and other polling sites,
for example) and try to get some polling evidence.
As for the poll question, I wouldn't ask, "Is it okay to lock up
in-country foreigners without the writ of habeas corpus for reasons
of suspected terrorism?."
I would ask: "Muslim terrorists recently / bombed the World Trade
Center / bombed the U.S.S. Cole / flew planes into the World Trade
Center / . The Attorney General would like to jail Muslims without
charges to prevent another such attack. Would you support or oppose
such jailings?" I do believe that the answer to these questions
would be NO in 1993, NO in 2000, and YES in 2002.
I don't believe that the number (10,000 versus 1,000) makes much
difference. The point is the shift in public opinion.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics theory, a crisis
period launches the entire generational cycle. (This is a difference
with TFT theory, which gives a higher priority to the Awakening to
launching the generational cycle.)
Thus, the explanation I gave for the Palmer Raids is derived pretty
directly from Generational Dynamics theory. It's something that
could be researched as a kind of test for GD theory.
Oh, chill out, dude. We discussed this point at length in this thread
last year. I view the mid-cycle periods as a kind of continuum, where
the austere rules and compromises imposed by the Hero Generation are
gradually unraveled by the Prophet generation.
I find the awakening/unraveling border to be extremely unclear in
TFT. To me, the 1960s awakening period should have ended with
Nixon's resignation, but TFT has it as 1984. My own conclusion is
that there really is no clear separation.
I was making a general statement, as I said. The only examples I
gave were about myself - the statement that I had to correct after
Mike Alexander's criticism, and the criticisms of vagueness that
characterized the narrative style of my entire previous book.
That's interesting. So you don't foresee a "clash of civilizations"
world war with near 100% certainty? Doesn't TFT imply that there
will be?
(I try to remember to say "near 100% certainty," because the sun
might blow up tomorrow, and so the predicted events won't happen.)
Very droll. You should do standup.
And incidentally, I've changed my mind about many things since
joining this forum, as a result of criticisms of others, or based on
further research inspired by criticisms of others.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
What happened to your self-imposed requirement for "scientific precision" and not basing things on "feeling", something you have told us you disapprove of in others? If your entire argument on this point hinges on this "massive shift", and you are of the aformentioned position regarding "narrative", your position seems pretty weak by definition. What am I to think? Please advise.
As I've said before, my "feeling" at the time was that a massive
shift was taking place. I even used the word "epiphany." I don't
have any direct polling information, though I've mentioned changes in
gender attitudes, which is something that interested me because I'd
just written a book on gender issues. Perhaps at some point I'll
take the time to go back through some web sites where archives are
available for free (bbc.co.uk, cnn.com, foxnews.com, etc., and also
the press release archives from gallup.com and other polling sites,
for example) and try to get some polling evidence.
Adding those incidents into the polling question is called "leading" and is done by partisan pollsters all the time. I again ask where "scientific precision" fits into this?
Let's say you're right for the moment, i.e., only the opinion shift matters. Like I said before, if you're whole argument hinges on this your position is not very strong considering your lack of evidence. Furthermore your objectivity is in question considering the questions you would ask if you were in charge of the polling. You aren't looking for answers, you're looking for your answers. Which is fine, virtually all of us do that to some degree, but not all of us claim "scientific precision" and "near 100% certainty". :shock:
Another thing, you talk of a "shift". Do you mean in one direction? Has this shift been sustained since 9/11? Or was it more fleeting?
And . . . I question your belief that the sole point is this "shift". What the shift is about is also pretty important. In the WWII internment example, we are talking about a whole category of people being detained, en masse. That was not the case with this. Even the wildest, unconfirmed estimates regarding the 9/11 round up involved a small fraction of the Muslim US population (6,000 out of millions- and 6,000 is likely a big exaggeration).
In the Palmer case, the round up was a whole magnitude larger in size compared to what happened after 9/11. And people were executed.
And a really big qualitative difference . . . a really big difference you utterly ignored . . . is that in both the WWII and Palmer cases many, if not most, of those detained were American citizens. If you research more on the Palmer Raids you'll find that in many circumstances the US deported citizens, since they often didn't check this status. And in the WWII case the outright majority of those detained were citizens. I am not aware if it was a majority in the Palmer situation, but it may have been.
I am aware of only two citizens being included in the post-9/11 round up: Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri (Yaser Esam Hamdi and John Lindh were captured out-of-country so I don't include them in the figures for a domestic round-up). This is worrisome, to be sure. And I think the Bush Administration is capable of more and possibly preparing for more. But so far they compromise 0.03% to 0.2% of those detained (depending upon the total figure of detainees).
By ignoring the size and qualitative scope of the 9/11 detentions relative to the other two examples (i.e., Japanese internment and Palmer) you are making what the "shift" was about, if there was one, considerably less relevant. I also submit by ignoring these qualities you are being willingly ignorant, by definition, regarding this topic.
You didn't answer my point. You said in the previous post that the "massive shift" that occurred after 9/11 was important because of the mindset in between the WWII internment and 9/11 that disallowed the suspension of habeas corpus and/or summary detention. Furthermore your argument is based on such a mindset not prevailing the period between Lincoln's actions and the Palmer Raids, therefore making the Palmer reaction a non-shift. i.e., you say the suspension of habeas corpus was considered acceptable during that period. I pointed out that concluding such about the 1865-1918 period is unsustainable, therefore you argument clearly collapses.From the point of view of Generational Dynamics theory, a crisis
period launches the entire generational cycle. (This is a difference
with TFT theory, which gives a higher priority to the Awakening to
launching the generational cycle.)
Thus, the explanation I gave for the Palmer Raids is derived pretty
directly from Generational Dynamics theory. It's something that
could be researched as a kind of test for GD theory.
You have a habit of ignoring points like this. This is what frustrates me so much about having to deal with you. The only redeeming feature I can find concerning this is that you are so wrapped up in your own view that you can't even see contradicting points when they come your way, let alone answer them. But regardless, I am sick and tired of it because it wastes my time. So answer the point and don't go blithering on about some non-sequitur.
Even if we accept the fuzziness of "continuum" (very convenient I might add) it still does not explain how "awakening/unraveling" became a decided "awakening" during the course of your post and that suddenly the Palmer period got compared to Vietnam! Your "GD" peculiarities (vis-a-vis Strauss & Howe) cannot explain this discrepancy, this sudden omittance of "unraveling" for argumentative advantage. Again, this is either gross sloppiness or disingenuosness. Either way I don't appreciate it.Oh, chill out, dude. We discussed this point at length in this thread
last year. I view the mid-cycle periods as a kind of continuum, where
the austere rules and compromises imposed by the Hero Generation are
gradually unraveled by the Prophet generation.
Furthermore, explain to me how the Spanish-American War, which took place in the middle of an awakening, is not the proper comparison to Vietnam. Why does WWI and Palmer fit so precisely? Even if we allow for your "continuum", surely the 1917-1920 period falls much later in that cycle on the continuum than Vietnam does in our most recent one?
Your credibility, not just your argument's, depends on your answer. Please don't ignore this too.
What's so hard to understand? There are four proposed phases of life, each about two decades long, and four archetypes to fill those phases. When the phases are filled and spill-over occurs a new turning begins.
As for the most recent awakening ending in the early 80's as opposed to 1974, an awakening is about a cultural revolution, a values regime change. This process did not end until the early Reagan era.
You once wrote to Mike A. on this board that you "actually read the Fourth Turning". Maybe so. But did you understand it? And if you did and you're taking on S&H on such a prime point (i.e., as to whether 2T's and 3T's have boundaries, and as to whether they have their dates wrong by as much as a decade on a period one of them is an expert in) then you better come up with some outstanding research to prove them wrong. Otherwise stop the authoritative nonsense.
So you just up and made this "general statement" for no reason relevant to our discussion? You just blurted this out like a Tourette's patient? You are saying that you weren't trying to tell me something? Okay . . .I was making a general statement, as I said. The only examples I
gave were about myself - the statement that I had to correct after
Mike Alexander's criticism, and the criticisms of vagueness that
characterized the narrative style of my entire previous book.
As the Great One once said, "There you go again . . . ". First, I never said anything about "clash of civilizations". Nice move. What I criticize is your saying all sorts of specific things are 100% certain, or even nearly (99.99%?) certain. You say North and South Korea will go to war, that China and Taiwan will go to war, that Japan and China will go to war, and a whole menagerie of other things with "100% certainty" on your website if not also here at T4T.That's interesting. So you don't foresee a "clash of civilizations"
world war with near 100% certainty? Doesn't TFT imply that there
will be?
(I try to remember to say "near 100% certainty," because the sun
might blow up tomorrow, and so the predicted events won't happen.)
Dude, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but your "Generational Dynamics" is not that good. If your mechanism is correct, then Britain and France should have had a nasty war in the mid-19th century and Germany and Russia should be eyeballing each other right now with great hostility among a zillion other things that didn't happen, aren't happening, and may or may not happen.
Are you on to something? Very possibly. But have you found "It". Come on! Even Hari Seldon didn't claim "near 100%" accuracy. :wink:
Oh yeah?!? That's great. What were they?Very droll. You should do standup.
And incidentally, I've changed my mind about many things since
joining this forum, as a result of criticisms of others, or based on
further research inspired by criticisms of others.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
Dear Sean,
You seem to be trying to drag me into a mud-slinging war. I'm really
not in the mood, so I'm not going to answer several of your sillier
"points."
Yes, that's all that matters. When S&H talk about what happens in a
4t, they talk about shifts in opinion. They don't talk at all about
jailing people.
We're getting into things we've discussed before. We've been 3t in
some ways, and 4t in other ways. Furthermore, the humiliation of not
finding WMDs after the Iraq war has been an "anti-spark." This is
consistent with my earlier remarks about awakening and unraveling
forming a continuum.
It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the shift in
opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, since there were almost 1,000
Muslims locked up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1694961.stm
The Generational Dynamics forecasting methodology is explained at
length in my new book, Generational Dynamics for Historians in
Chapter 4, "Chaos Theory and Generational Forecasting." You'll find
the online version of this book on my web site, if you'd like to
actually learn a little bit of the subject matter you're criticizing.
In that same Chapter 4, I contrast the Generational Dynamics
forecasting methodology to the Hari Seldon "psychohistory." It's in
the section titled, "Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy." You
might find it interesting.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
Well, you have confirmed that you are not interested in criticism or feedback, just like I said. That's sad, it's too bad, and it's your loss. Furthermore, your credibility is seriously weakened since you refuse to answer some fairly simple questions (for someone who claims to be an authority on history).
Did American society really consider the suspension of habeas corpus at any time to be acceptable between the Civil War and the Palmer period? Was that really the natural state of things? Were Palmer's abuses really part-and-parcel of a pre-existing mindset and therefore the 1917-1920 era an utter non-shift? Why are you so afraid to answer this question?? Is it because you don't know what you are talking about? Are you afraid you don't have the data to back up the answer you require to make your argument work??
Good luck trying to pawn GD with that attitude. I am nothing. You'll be eaten alive by real historians.
There are mood shifts all the time about all sorts of things. What the shift is about is just as important as the shift itself. Not only do you refuse to analyze this (which severely undermines your argument) but you refuse to analyze it's permanency.Yes, that's all that matters. When S&H talk about what happens in a
4t, they talk about shifts in opinion. They don't talk at all about
jailing people.
But you have said that we are definitely in a 4T. That's what started all of this. Furthermore, you have refused to answer all of my points over the months about the cascading effect that has occurred in all four the past American 3T/4T transitions, which our post-9/11 period does not in the least compare to in terms of dramatic change.We're getting into things we've discussed before. We've been 3t in
some ways, and 4t in other ways. Furthermore, the humiliation of not
finding WMDs after the Iraq war has been an "anti-spark." This is
consistent with my earlier remarks about awakening and unraveling
forming a continuum.
Also, you once again wiggled out of answering for your little tactic of eliminating "unraveling" and making false historical comparisons. Caught you red-handed (or caught you being sloppy) and you can't fess up.
You also did not answer for why you, in a bizarre turn, started going on about "narratives". The ONLY purpose for bringing it up was to criticize me, unless you have some tendency to go off on tangents. But wait! You claim to have such well organized posts after "twenty years" in being in forums like this. That can't be it.
Oh, don't worry. I don't expect a reply on any of this. :wink:
So if the substance of an opinion shift absolutely does not matter one iota, then logic dictates any opinion shift defines a turning change. Okay. The huge shift away from George Bush, Sr.'s massive popularity in 1991-92 (when he lost almost a whopping 40 percentage points in polls) defines a turning shift then, using your reasoning anyway. What turning did we enter in 1992, John? Was it a 2T going into a 3T, or something else?It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the shift in
opinion.
:lol: Yeah, okay. And what's your point? It makes absolutely no mention of American citizens being detained without writ of habeas corpus. In fact, I don't see it mentioning the detaining of America citizens at all. It says it is about people being detained on "immigration charges", mostly from "Muslim countries".I'm not sure what you mean by this, since there were almost 1,000
Muslims locked up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1694961.stm
As I stated in my previous post, I am only aware of two citizens being detained this way, and their detention is highly controversial. I am not even sure Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is being held anymore. Padilla is for certain. If you think hundreds of American citizens have been detained then you know something I don't, and I suspect something the media doesn't know either. Maybe you should give some up-and-coming reporter your scoop.
So far, unless you can present new information, the entire round-up has focused on illegal aliens. It is one order of magnitude less in size than Palmer, and two orders less than the Japanese internment. AND, unlike the last, doesn't include a whole category of people en masse. Going by your stated figure of 1,000, fewer than 0.03% of the US Muslim community has been locked up in this fashion, if you include illegals as part of the community (which many do). And none have as yet been executed as in the Palmer Raids.
I know you say the substance of the shift doesn't matter, but as I demonstrated above, one then has carte blanche to make any argument they want. That's not evidence of a theory at work, that's psuedo-intellectual whim.
Non sequitur. The points in the paragraph you responded to were about correcting you on me bringing up "clash of civilizations" (I did not) and that you can't claim 100% anything with history. And I don't need to read your book to know that you can't predict a loose stool next week with 100% certainty, let alone an ethnic war in the next few years. Your claims are outrageous. And you say my points are silly.The Generational Dynamics forecasting methodology is explained at
length in my new book, Generational Dynamics for Historians in
Chapter 4, "Chaos Theory and Generational Forecasting." You'll find
the online version of this book on my web site, if you'd like to
actually learn a little bit of the subject matter you're criticizing.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, that's great. I gotta spend $14 plus shipping and handling to get an answer! You've shown yourself to be so outstandingly credible in our debate that I surely feel confident that what I get for my +$14 will be worthwhile.In that same Chapter 4, I contrast the Generational Dynamics
forecasting methodology to the Hari Seldon "psychohistory." It's in
the section titled, "Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy." You
might find it interesting.
Dude, it's not that hard to answer questions. You take a paragraph or two, you read them carefully, and you answer the points. It doesn't even take 20 years of listserve experience to do that. Why are you so incapable of answering questions and responding to points? And why do you have a problem with someone being condescending with you? You do not seem to have any compunction about dishing it out.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
Oh, for heaven's sake. The entire book text is available on my web:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, that's great. I gotta spend $14 plus shipping and handling to get an answer! You've shown yourself to be so outstandingly credible in our debate that I surely feel confident that what I get for my +$14 will be worthwhile.
site to read FOR FREE. Why don't you learn something about what
you're criticizing before you start spewing?
John
Re: Palmer Raids vs Jailing Muslims in War on Terror
I was on your site, went to "Book Home" and went to the chapter section and found they were not linked. I did this while I was writing the post. I have just gone back and still can't find the text.Oh, for heaven's sake. The entire book text is available on my web:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, that's great. I gotta spend $14 plus shipping and handling to get an answer! You've shown yourself to be so outstandingly credible in our debate that I surely feel confident that what I get for my +$14 will be worthwhile.
site to read FOR FREE. Why don't you learn something about what
you're criticizing before you start spewing?
John
And I am happy to see you answered all of my questions and points. You really outdid yourself.
POSTSCRIPT:
I took a third look and discovered that you are talking about your new book, so I read the section on Asimov and several others. What was I supposed to see that would convince me that you have 100% certainty on anything specific? I saw talk about fractals, balls of string, attractors, and timelines. Please point out what it is that will point me in the direction of understanding the 100% claim.
For example, why is it 100% likely that China and Japan will go to war with one another again, but yet France and England did not in the mid-19th century and you don't give indication of a new war coming for Germany and Russia?
And I am still waiting for responses to my other points.
Hey, I like the "Puritan Flip" deal. You can't handle that S&H put a "genocidal war" at the end of an awakening so you pushed the awakening up to 1603 (huh??) and had the American Puritans flip sides in your cycle. This smacks of Ptolemaic epicycles.
But your focus on war won't allow you to see the English Civil war as a culturally-driven confrontation. Not much was fundamentally solved. By 1660, England was right back to having Catholic-leaning monarchs scheming to consolidate power. It took the Glorious Revolution Crisis period to allow instititutional change of a fundamental nature.
But then again, you've gone round and round with folks here on that topic, and you didn't change your mind then either.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
