Thanks John,

those are wonderful replies. I must say that within my discipline, there a two things which aggravate me (several really but...) and SnH nail two of them on the head, and hanging around here has helped clarify my thinking as well.

1) Contemporary Sociologists are good at digging through to finding what the undercurrent in our society is. This is really great stuff, except that when it comes to speculation, they make the mistake that they project linearly. This is a problem SnH noted, and they are absolutely right. We have not become the great big orwellian conformist mass that 50s culture critics were worried about. Similarly, wathcing society fragment now does not mean that the end result will be a hobbesian individualism, (although that is what's in the text I am using now).

2) Right now the leadership in my discipline is heavily boomer (I hope none of them are reading). As such, they are big idealistic thinkers and easily confuse their vision with what "should be". After all, they've studied it, they know better. The problem is, we are not balanced, and they are very blue, so we are headed off in a direction of irrelevance. They forget that we once helped the factories dumb down the work and speed up the workers (hardly enjoyable for the workers). They miss that propaganda and political spin is essential to influencing a population, and this would easily fit in the discipline. we were once as conservative as we are liberal now, and SnH gives that a little context for me. I love my discipline, and I even don't mind that it's politically a little liberal. it's the blind excesses that aggravate me.

Dear Matt,

Despite the difference in our ages (16 vs 61), you and I have a
number of similarities. I've been having occasional severe headaches
in the last year or two (not nearly as bad as yours, but bad enough),
and I'm also so gloomy that it's very hard to have high expectations
for the future.

In fact, it still amazes me that I'm alive today. A couple of years
ago, there were no IT jobs whatsoever, I'd been unemployed for a
couple of years already, I was running out of credit, and going
bankrupt would do no good because I had no way of generating income.
I was facing the prospect of going bankrupt, becoming homeless from
not being able to make my mortgage payments, and being sent to jail
by my ex-wife for not being able to make child support payments. I
made a pretty firm decision that I could not or would not physically
survive if it came to that point.

But here's a story that will initially strike you as very weird and
off-topic: I had a broken tooth, and I had the choice of having it
removed, or having the much more painful and expensive procedure of
having a crown put in. Why am I telling you this story? Because I had
the crown put in. Why? Because I keep remembering a quote that
someone famous is supposed to have said: "If I'd known I was going to
live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself." In other
words, I might live another ten years, and if I do, I'm going to want
that tooth.

At any rate, now I'm generating income again -- and if I were a
religious person I would consider that to be a miracle. Also, I've
sold my bubble-overpriced condo and moved into an apartment, so I'm
protected from a real estate crash. On the other hand, with the
apparent imminence of a bird flu pandemic, and the certainty that I
get any flu that's going around, it may yet turn out that saving that
tooth and going through the horror of moving were a waste of time and
effort. Still, I don't regret doing them.

The way I look at life is "preserving choices." This means that,
even in tough times, I keep my life as flexible as possible so that I
can take advantage of an opportunity if it comes along. That, in
fact, is what's kept me alive to this point, much to my amazement.

That's the way you have to look at things too. Getting the cluster
headaches severely limited your choices in life, as long as they
lasted. Finding a way to overcome them was the "miracle" that, once
again, gives you more choices in life.

People are always saying things like, "I'll always love you" or "I'll
always feel that" or "When I'm 90 I won't care if I die." But the
fact is that you never know how you're going to feel next week, let
alone next year or years from now. And you never know what
opportunities will come out of the blue that you never expected.
That's why you should never do anything today that will preclude
choices in the future. You may think you'll never care about X, but
if you unnecessarily preclude doing X in the future, you may deeply
regret it.

That's why you have to plan on going to college. Preparing for
college and applying for college don't mean you have to go, because
you can always decide not to go. But you're giving yourself the
choice. And if you go, it doesn't mean you have to stay, since you
can drop out any time. And there's no point in rushing to pull the
plug, because you can do so any time. You have an advantage that
many other people don't have -- there are people in your life (your
parents and probably other people as well) who are very distressed by
the pain you're in and they want to help you and they're in a position
to help you. So don't do anything you really don't want to do, but
don't assume you won't want to do it in the future. Keep your choices
open.

Everyone has the job of filling 168 brutal, relentless hours every
week. Many people, when they're depressed, develop destructive or
self-destructive behaviors -- they drink, take drugs, or become
violent, for example, or they simply become potatoes and sit on the
couch all day watching tv -- anything they can do to get through
those 168 awful hours. You're very lucky because you've found in
Generational Dynamics something that you enjoy and that can fill the
time in a productive manner. Thanks to GD you can learn history,
learn current events, and learn about how the world works. Instead
of wasting your life sitting on the couch, GD gives you additional
choices for the future along the lines that I suggested in my last
message -- writing a newspaper column, for example. This is another
advantage you have that many other people don't have. You should
feel very lucky to have all these advantages.

You say, "I am 16 years old right now, and the two key moments in my
life are finding GD and my headaches. Maybe I can tie the two
together." You can, by using GD as a vehicle to bypass the temporary
problems that your headaches have caused you.

So if you're asking me what you should do, I'd say that you should
continue to do what you're doing, but make choices that give you more
choices in the future. If you want to spend time with friends,
that's ok because you may be able to help each other later. If you
want to work on GD, that's ok because you'll develop new skills and
learn new disciplines that will bring enjoyment and help you earn
money later. If you want to just take the day off, then that's ok
because you'll have a lot more energy tomorrow. "Hope for sunshine,
but dress for rain." You've already had some bad luck, so just keep
yourself poised and ready for some good luck, because at age 16 it's
sure to find you.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

It's pretty clear to me that you have a good aptitude for the basics
of Generational Dynamics -- although I'll have to wait for your
writeup on the Indian tribes to be certain. There's an element of
mathematical modeling that a lot of people don't get because it's a
bit abstract, but you seem to be able to grasp it intuitively.

Well thanks. In doing my research, I have learned a lot. At first I had to keep asking you about this and that. Now I can find a crisis war with little trouble. I'm sure there is much more to learn though.

However, there's still a lot more for you to learn

Speak of the devil..

Wow. Either reading this yesterday was still in the back of my mind or that was one good coincidence.

-- a lot of history, a lot of current events (for 200+ countries!), some mathematics (calculus and mathematical logic) and economics,
especially a solid grounding in macroeconomics. (When you study
macroeconomics, then the Principle of Maximum Ruin might seem more
intuitive to you.)

Right. I'm sure you couldn't have developed the theory so well if you didn't actually go and review each countries history. You probably can't understand it so well unless you do that. A couple months back I was using Wikipedia researching the history of countries. When I finish with the Indian narrative, I'll probably continue that.

So what should you do in the meantime? The best thing you can do is
write things, and post things in this forum and elsewhere, and you
should certainly finish up that paper on Indian tribes. Beyond that,
I tend to favor things that you can put on your resume. You can start
a blog or a web site, as I did, but you may have more options. Perhaps you could write a regular column for your school newspaper or
your local newspaper. The subject area would be current events,
targeted to young people your age, the ones who'll get drafted.

The Millennial generation is notoriously ignorant of current events,
but this can be to your advantage, since you'll have little or no
competition. The editor of even a major local paper might be
interested in a regular column from a high school student who's
knowledgeable about current events and can explain their importance
to other young people. You still don't feel entirely comfortable
talking about this stuff, but with a little practice you'll be able to
find your own "voice," and then you'll feel a lot more comfortable.

There are certain clubs after school that deal with current events. I try to make many of these and offer my opinion. One day, at the Republican club, I got into a big argument with someone over China. This is probably the smartest kid in school and he got a 2400 on his SATs (I think that is perfect now). He argued that everything I am saying is wrong and I am another one of those conspiracy theorists he likes to debunk by getting inside their head and using psychology. I was simply talking about how the United States can't avoid a war with China. I didn't even mention the word "generation" once. The smartest kid in school felt that China doesn't want to risk war.

I realized that day just how ignorant and stupid some of the smartest people can be. He obviously didn't know what he was talking about since China has been rapidly advancing their military. Whether or not they want war, they are expecting it.

No one wants to listen; no one wants to hear. Except me. This directly concerns my generation and is the most important thing in the world, but no one cares. I don't get it. So I'm a little discouraged talking about these things.

In some scenarios it could even save your life. If you're drafted,
then your experience and knowledge of the world might get you a desk
job.

I'm a Millenial. Whatever I can do to help.

As for "My brain believes in the theory, but my heart does not," I
think everyone's like that. I'm the gloomiest and most pessimistic
person I know, but even I have a wild, secret fantasy to survive the
bird flu and the war, eventually to be famous 15 years from now as
the author of Generational Dynamics. I guess that even my
mind needs something hopeful to hang on to, no matter how unlikely.

Anything is possible.

Don't be so sure that you won't make it. Only 0.2% of the population
died in WW II, and only 0.05% of the population died in the 1918
Spanish Flu epidemic. So things may not be as bad as they seem for
someone your age.

I'm saying I probably won't. Something inside just tells me that. I think about the future, but it just feels so distant and unattainable. If upwards of 1 billion will die, why not me?

Part 1 of 5
Fifth Turnings and Super-Nomads

One of the great unanswered questions of The Fourth Turning is
why there are long saeculae, and why they aren't accounted for in
Strauss and Howe's generational model. This is a question that's been
discussed at length by several people in this thread, as well as in
many other threads in this forum.

The purpose of this essay is to edit and bring together various
postings in this and other threads that answer the "long saeculae"
question in a very elegant way, thanks to research on suicide bombers
done by Prof. Robert Pape and publicized after the 7/7 London subway
bombings. When this research is incorporated into the generational
model, it extends the model so that it appears to properly model long
saeculae.

The correct way to state the question is this: What happens to a
society when the fourth turning goes by without any crisis war? What
happens to the would-be Hero and Artist generations when they're
unable to fulfill the imperatives of their generational archetypes,
because of an accident of history?

This is an important question because long saeculae happen quite
often. Of the six saeculae considered by Strauss and Howe in the
Anglo-American timeline, three of them were long. The following
table summarizes my own findings about saeculae length, based on the
study of 100+ crisis wars, showing the number of years from the end of
one crisis war to the beginning of the next:

Code:

    LENGTH OF INTER-CRISIS PERIOD
             Fraction
    # years  of total
    -------  --------
      0- 40      0%
     41- 49     11%
     50- 59     33%
     60- 69     25%
     70- 79     16%
     80- 89      4%
     90- 99      6%
    100-117      5%

The generational model defined by Strauss and Howe calls for 60 years
in the inter-crisis period, but the above table shows that 15% of all
inter-crisis periods last longer than 80 years.

In those cases, there is clearly a "Fifth Turning," a new era in
which the would-be Heroes are a generation older, and the would-be
Artists have not suffered the "generational child abuse" of growing
up during a crisis war, the experience that gives Artists their
primary characteristics.

What at the characteristics of this Fifth Turning, when it occurs?

An answer came about by accident. After the July 7 London subway
bombings, a study of suicide bombers by Professor Robert A. Pape of
the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, was published in a book
Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400063175

The author compiled extensive data on suicide terrorism, including a
database with all 315 suicide bombing attacks around the world from
1980-2003. He showed that, among the countries he considered (in the
Mideast), the two countries that had supplied overwhelmingly more
suicide bombers than others were Saudia Arabia and Morocco.

This was exciting news, because it's exactly those two countries that
are currently in an extremely long inter-crisis period: Saudi
Arabia's last crisis war was the Ibn Saud conquest, ending in 1925,
and Morocco's was the Rif War, ending in 1927. In other words, these
are the two countries that are currently in a Fifth Turning era.

The summary of Robert Pape's work, and its significance for
Generational Dynamics, can be found on my web site at
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...0.i.050718pape

The Fifth Turning concept appears to provide solutions to a number of
open questions about generational theory.

In particular, it provides a very elegant explanation of Strauss and
Howe's Civil War anomaly.

The phrase "Fifth Turning" is only a name that I'm giving to the
final 20 years of a very long saeculum. It could be called something
like "Fourth Turning Part 2," in order to strictly maintain the
four-part cycle, but I believe that this period is so significantly
different from the the Fourth Turning that it deserves a different
name. The Fifth Turning concept is also a natural extention to
Strauss and Howe's original theory. Of the six saeculae in TFT, three
of them are exceptionally long. The authors were clearly puzzled by
this, but an explanation has had to wait until the publication of
Prof. Pape's work.

In order to encourage others to comment on this proposal, I'm
bringing together new material, together with material that I've
posted before. Some of this older material has appeared in other
threads.

Sincerely,

John

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

Part 2 of 5
Fourth Turning Indicators

(These are lightly edited versions of two postings that originally
appeared in another thread. They serve as an introduction to the
Fifth Turning concepts by discussing the indicators that one can use
to determine whether a country is currently in a Fourth Turning. The
obvious next question will be: What are the Fifth Turning indicators?
That question is answered by focusing on immigration.)

Dear Bill,

Originally Posted by William Strauss

> On this fourth anniversary of 9/11, now is a good time to invite
> comments on the Fourth Turning indicators Neil and I described a
> few days after the terrorist attacks. We did this as part of an
> essay we posted on this discussion forum.

> Let me invite you to comment on all eleven of these indicators,
> with specific reference to the aftermath of 9/11, and also the
> aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Which have been moving in a Fourth
> Turning direction, and which not? Before Katrina, and after?

> I look forward to reading what you have to say about this.

It seems to me that the country was perceptibly more in 4T in 2002
than it is today. In those days, Republicans and Democrats were
hugging each other on the House floor, George Bush was changing
our national military policy from purely defensive to preemptive, and
he was also declaring the "axis of evil."

Since then, the culture wars have perceptively swelled, especially
during the 2004 campaign. Thus, the results of the different
indicators are mixed, and this can be analyzed further.

In fact, the same sort of thing has been happening in other countries
as well:

• (*) Pakistan and India were perceptively close to thermonuclear
  war in 2002, but today they seem to have reached a détente.
  
• (*) Palestine was plagued by the second Intifada from 2000-2004,
  but then there was a great blossoming of peaceful expectations
  following Arafat's death, extending through Abbas' election in
  January. But in the last few weeks, we've seen Gaza descend into
  total lawlessness and chaos on almost a daily basis.
  
• (*) North Korea became increasingly confrontational over nuclear
  weapons from 2002 to early 2005, but now appears to be getting more
  conciliatory. But this example is clouded by the possiblity that Kim
  may be feinting, as Hitler did when he promised peace to Chamberlain.

Thus, indicators can go back and forth between 3T and 4T during the
transition period. This shouldn't be surprising since, after all,
the change in generations is gradual.

A good analogy is the change in weather from summer to winter.
During the fall, the temperature doesn't fall from day to day
every day. The temperature goes up and down from day to day. I can
remember a year when there was a heat wave on Christmas day, but that
didn't mean it wasn't winter.

I've found that a very elegant way to explain this phenomenon is in
terms of chaotic (in the sense of Chaos Theory) attractors.

During the fall, the temperature can go up or down, but it's
"attracted" to a lower value.

And during a 3T to 4T transition, the the 11 indicators that you
posted move back and forth between their 3T and 4T behaviors, but
they'll be "attracted" to their 4T behaviors.

This gives rise to the question of "who do you trust?" What
indicators are more reliable than others?

In the case of the weather, there's a "hidden indicator" -- it's the
obvious one -- just measure the angle of the axis of the earth
relative to the sun.

So what are the "hidden indicators" for the 3T to 4T transition?
Well, you can a census of the generations of people in different
generations, and compare the number of Artists to the number of
Prophets. That's theoretically interesting, but not of much use in
practice.

Actually, this is something that I've been dealing with for three
years on my web site. In the articles that I write each week, I'm
ALWAYS addressing the question: What are the signs that we (or the
people in some other nation) are in a generational crisis period?

The trick is that the "hidden indicators" aren't really hidden after
all. There are certain indicators that are more reliable than
others, and other indicators that vary much more chaotically.

In the case of financial issues, where we're heading for a stock
market crash and a new 1930s style Great Depression. As I try to
follow this, the stock market indexes are NOT reliable. Instead, the
inflation rate and unemployment rate have been the most reliable
indicators, because with near-zero interest rates, inflation should
be skyrocketing and unemployment should be falling.

In the case of 3T to 4T indicators, my experience is that it's "watch
what they do, not what they say."

Talk is cheap, and political talk is cheapest of all. Talk is
unreliable as a 3T to 4T indicator, just as temperature is unreliable
as a summer to winter indicator.

So, referring to your list of 11 indicators, I would downgrade the
importance of numbers: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The rhetoric is irrelevant.
The culture wars are irrelevant. And I'm not saying that they're
irrelevant in the big picture; I'm saying they're irrelevant in
judging the 3T to 4T transition because these indicators are way too
susceptible to chaotic variation.

Indicators 2, 3, 4 and 10 are much less subject to such variation,
and so are much more reliable indicators, as far as I can tell. Thus,
the following factors are important:

• (*) Just this week, news stories revealed that the Pentagon is
  proposing preemptive use of nuclear weapons in certain scenarios.
  This has gotten no reaction, where it would have five years ago.
  
• (*) For all the political fighting over the Iraq war, we're still
  there, with no realistic plan to exit, and no plan to do so.
  
• (*) There's never been any public outcry against the nearly 1,000
  Muslims that were locked up for months after 9/11. (This is related
  to the immigrant issue.)
  
• (*) There's been almost no public outcry as the body bags have
  returned from Iraq, even less from Afghanistan.
  
• (*) Culture war issues, like the Karl Rove scandal of two months
  ago and the Cindy Sheehan-led "resurgence" of the antiwar movement
  have completely fizzled.
  
• (*) From the point of view of the great masses of the American
  people, there's only one issue, or at least only one issue that's
  important: The American people are extremely anxious about war and
  terrorism, and nothing else really matters.

Furthermore, these same kinds of factors are at work in countries
around the world:

• (*) Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was just reelected in
  a landslide, despite "anti-American culture wars," and his strong
  pro-American support. This follows reelections of Tony Blair,
  Australian Prime Minister John Howard, and George Bush, despite Iraq
  being an issue.
  
• (*) Immigration has become a huge issue throughout Europe,
  especially in Holland and the UK.
  
• (*) China is spending enormous amounts on high-tech military
  weapons, but claims they have no plans for preemptive war. (Look at
  what they do, not what they say.)
  
• (*) North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, and also claims it
  has no plans for war.
  
• (*) Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has retained power as
  both military and civilian leader.

So, in summary, looking at your 11 indicators, the ones that have to
do with "talk" are ambiguous, but the ones that indicate actual
policies appear to point clearly to 4T behavior, not only in America
but in other countries for whom World War II was a crisis war.

There's a related issue having to do with the question of what
happens if a 4T passes without a crisis war, essentially extending
the cycle into a 5T. Some recent research by Robert Pape (in his
book on suicide bombers) found that suicide bombers are motivated by
foreign occupation, and most suicide bombers come from Saudi Arabia
and Morocco. Work that I've done indicates that suicide bombers come
from countries whose previous crisis wars were farthest in the past;
once again, this is Saudi Arabia (Ibn Saud conquest, 1925) and
Morocco (Rif war, 1927). Thus, suicide bombers are most likely to
come from countries in 5T, and so suicide bombing becomes a "5T
indicator." This is VERY exciting, because it's the first time that
we have hard data supporting the generational paradigm -- both your
work and mine. History academics have been able to blow off your work
by claiming that it's too vague, but if and when these findings become
better known, then history academics will be forced to look much more
closely.

Finally, I've never commented on your indicator #11, having to do
with finance and consumer confidence. Your indicator talks about how
"newly dark forecasts about how recession—or worse—is nearly
certain."

There's been a little of that but for the most part it's been just
the opposite. We're very close to a major stock market crash, but
the rhetoric across the line is that the market is underpriced. The
journalists, pundits, politicians and high-priced analysts are in a
state of giddy denial.

I'm currently working on an essay for my web site called, "The
Principle of Maximum Ruin," which will show why the upcoming financal crisis
will much more devastating than you or anyone expect. It's based on
the following paragraph from John Kenneth Galbraith's book, "The
Great Crash - 1929":

Originally Posted by John Kenneth Galbraith

> A common feature of all these earlier troubles [previous panics]
> was that having happened they were over. The worst was
> reasonably recognizable as such. The singular feature of the
> great crash of 1929 was that the worst continued to worsen. What
> looked one day like the end proved on the next day to have been
> only the beginning. Nothing could have been more ingeniously
> designed to maximize the suffering, and also to insure that as few
> as possible escaped the common misfortune.

Galbraith documents this in detail, and I'm going to show that the
same thing is happening today. It's almost as if Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" has turned into a perverse hand of doom.

Putting all this material together, along with the detailed
descriptions from your books, provides a very textured description of
what a generational crisis period is like. And I always have to add
that all this would be wonderfully fascinating if it weren't for the
consequences that we're all facing. We're facing a financial crisis,
the bird flu, and a "clash of civilizations" world war. I've
resigned myself to the fact that I'm not going to survive it, but I
hope you do better than I do.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Part 3 of 5
Culture wars and immigration

The purpose of this essay is to provide a theoretical framework for
understanding what's happening today in generational terms, focusing
particularly on culture wars and immigration as indicators.

By way of introduction, anyone who's seen my web site this week knows
that I'm in a state of shock over what happened. The government is
proposing to pay $200 billion for Katrina victims, or $1-2 million
per family of 5.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, my school teachers talked about
the Great Depression all the time, because they had suffered through
it. Those teachers must be spinning in their graves over the
appalling things that are happening now, as a matter of course.

In the 1980s, the Republicans and the Democrats cooperated with each
other to change the Social Security system to make it a sounder
system. After that, they cooperated again to specify new rules to
control the budget deficit. And in 1996, Democratic President Bill
Clinton, saying that "the era of big government is over," cooperated
with the Republican congress to eliminate the welfare entitlement.

Today, even the simplest fiscal agreement is impossible. There's no
discipline anywhere, among any politicians or political party, or
among journalists, investors, analysts or pundits. It's a total free
for all.

Cruise control vs culture wars

Today, America appears to have no direction whatsoever. This is
usually characteristic of the 3t period, but actually it's much worse
today and quite different than it was in the "unraveling" 90s.

In an unraveling era, the country has no direction because politics
is aimed at individual rights rather than at national unity.

But today is different. There's no political aim for national unity,
but there's no political aim for individual rights either. In other
words, there's no direction whatsoever.

Today we're in a shadowy era. It's a 4t era, but no crisis has
yet occurred to force people to make choices. It's as if we're in
suspended animation, not believing that a crisis will ever occur, but
just waiting for a crisis nonetheless.

The country seems to be on "cruise control." It's almost impossible
for any politician to do anything that requires a choice to be made.

What I'm suggesting is that this is what "culture wars" means. A
culture war does not have a positive meaning -- a war of a cultural
nature or a war between cultures. I'm suggesting that "culture
wars" has a negative meaning - a political war with no value or
purpose whatsoever. It's all nasty political rhetoric that has no
value.

Today is a time when rhetoric is venomous and cheap. We certainly
saw that in last year's Presidential campaign, when both candidates
barely ever uttered a word that was above the second grade level.
It's a time of gratuitous nastiness.

"Do something"

With everybody running on cruise control, there's a lot of
frustration because it seems that it's impossible to "do something."

What does "do something" mean? It means to do some major act that
isn't on cruise control.

In the current era, any attempt to "do something" is quickly beaten
down.

There are some things we can look at where someone "did something"
that wasn't on cruise control:

(*) In Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, born in 1928 and so in
Israel's "hero generation," has done two things: Built the barrier
separating Israel from the Palestinians, and unilaterally withdrew
from Gaza.

(*) In Russia, President Putin invaded Chechnya in 1999, and
nationalized Yukos in 2004.

(*) Bush launched the Afghan and Iraq wars in response to 9/11.

I'm not taking any position whether any of the acts were "good" or
"bad." I've already taken the position that we won't know for ten
years whether the Iraq war was good for us or bad for us, and the
same thing is generally true for the other acts.

Nonetheless, it's worth pointing out that all of the acts have been
fraught with problems. The Afghan and Iraq wars have not gone as
well as hoped, and neither has the Chechen war; the Yukos
nationalization has backfired by causing international investors to
invest less in Russia; and the Gaza withdrawal appears likely to cause
Gaza to sink completely into chaos. Of the actions listened above,
the only one that appears to have been almost unequivocally
successful is the barrier, but it has caused enormous international
controversy.

Things were different in the 90s. We had the Gulf War, the Somali
War, two major wars in the Balkans, and two major aerial interventions
in Iraq (Operation Provide Comfort in 1996 and Operation Northern
Watch in 1998). Domestically, as I said, we ended the welfare
entitlement. It was possible to "do something" then, even if there
was political opposition.

Today, the problems in the Iraq war have frozen us. In Russia, Putin
is similarly frozen in place. Israel, which is five years behind us
in the generational change, is just completing the Gaza withdrawal,
and there's no clear idea where it will go from here.

Generational Cycle

In order to understand what's going on today, and what's coming, it's
necessary to go back and review the entire generational cycle leading
up to a new 4t. Much of this is a rehash of S&H's work, though with
some different things emphasized.

A crisis war defines the generational cycles for the next saeculum.
The children suffer a kind of "generational child abuse," and become
the Artist generation. Their older brothers fight in the crisis war
and become the traumatized hero generation. When the crisis war
ends, the heroes impose austere rules and compromises, in order to
fulfill their vow that "nothing like that must ever be allowed to
happen again, especially to our children."

The Prophet generation consists of children born in the austerity/high
era are the first ones who have no personal memory or experience of
the crisis war. This means that they weren't traumatized by it, but
also -- and this is the new thing that I'm emphasizing -- they have NO
SKILLS for preventing or surviving a crisis war.

I want to emphasize this: The Artist and Prophet generations differ
in that the Artists, growing up during a crisis war, fully appreciate
its horror and DEVELOP SKILLS for avoiding it and surviving.

(Since Christmas is approaching, I'll one of my favorite examples.
Ebeneezer Scrooge was ridiculed and taunted for being a
penny-pinching skinflint by his employees in 1840s England. But he
got that way because he survived the terrors and horrors of the
genocidal Napoleonic Wars, which began with the bankruptcy of the
French Monarchy, impoverishing the whole continent. In those days, a
single penny could be the difference between life and death.
Scrooge's own father had died in poverty, and Scrooge had been
separated from his sister because of poverty. So Scrooge was
perfectly justified in saving every penny. This is something that the
kids who ridiculed Scrooge had no concept of.)

OK, so the Awakening era comes, and the Prophets develop a completely
different set of skills: The ability to get what they want through
nasty politics -- the "politics of personal destruction" of their
parents, the hero generation.

So as time moves through the Awakening and Unravelling eras, we have
two different things going on: The Prophets are winning political
victories by humiliating their parents; and the Heroes, though
humiliated by their children, are still able to protect their
children by taking necessary actions to avoid another crisis war. The
Artists also have the skills to do the same, although they're much
more cautious.

This phenomenon has been shown in another way. In the 100+ crisis
wars I've looked at throughout history, there's NEVER been one that
started less than 41 years after the end of the last crisis war, and
ALMOST NEVER less than 50 years. This is a mind-blowing result,
because it shows that as long as the last Hero generation is around,
a country CAN and DOES avoid crisis wars. This is a skill that's
lost to following generations.

The trouble arrives when the 4t generational change brings the
Prophets and Nomads into power. To put it simply, the Prophets know
how to argue, but they don't know how to DO anything.

That's what we're seeing today. The Prophets are arguing with each
other, but that's all they can do, since they don't know how to do
anything else.

There's a personal parallel: When you grow up and go out on your own,
you always know that you can count on your parents when you're in a
bind. If you need a place to live, they'll take you in; if you're
desperate for money, they'll lend you some; if you're deep in some
career or relationship trouble, they can give you advice, and tell
you what to do next.

Even if you didn't get along with your parents, when your parents die,
no matter how old you are, you feel a tremendous loss, because you
suddenly realize how truly alone you are. You're on your own, and
there's no one left to bail you out if you're in trouble.

A 4t era is the generational analogue of your parents dying. The
Prophets and Nomads had previously had everything taken care of, as
if by magic, by their parents. Suddenly, as a generation, their
parents disappear, and the Prophets and Nomads are in charge but don't
know what to do except, of course, argue with one another.

What makes it even worse is the Nomads, born during the Awakening
era, disaffected because of the constant disapproval and criticism by
Prophets. The Nomads grow up in the shadow of the Prophets and end
up palpably hating the Prophets. So you have the Prophets having
nasty political arguments with one another and being hated by the
Nomads. That's how things are today, and it's a vile societal stew.

So what are "culture wars"? They're the output of this vile societal
stew. They're the arguments among Prophets, and the hatreds of the
Nomads.

Today we see these culture wars, but we also see one more thing: An
enormous public anxiety over terrorism and the economy. Once again,
we can relate this to the personal loss of parents. As a country,
we've lost the last generation of parents who can confidently get us
through these dangers. We don't know what to do, and without our
parents, we don't know whether things will just take of themselves as
they used to, or not. In fact, we have good reason to be anxious.

I can't end this section without mentioning the new Hero generation.
Born during the unraveling, this is the nicest, sweetest bunch of
kids that we've had in many decades. They're in the shadow of
generations of people who are just plain nasty to one another, and
they react by being nice to everyone.

Immigration as a 4T indicator

So now that the generational framework has been defined, what are the
4t indicators?

To answer this question, we have to divide the problem into two parts
- the indicators BEFORE and AFTER the crisis begins. We could now go
through the list of 11 items posted by Bill Strauss and ask which
portion of the crisis each one applies to.

I'll leave that to someone else, but I particularly want to focus on
one of them:

Originally Posted by William Strauss

> 7) A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration
> (and, in time, of potential immigrants’ perceptions of
> America)—and of "globalism" more generally. Recall the old Wired
> magazine forecast that “open:good; closed:bad” was a permanent
> attitude. Will our society now move toward “closed:good;
> open:bad”? Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and
> treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of
> do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What
> will “Globalism” mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely
> as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics
> out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could
> easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.

Strauss made this prediction in 1995, and we're seeing it coming true
today in spades - not only in America, where we locked up hundreds of
Muslims after 9/11 with barely an objection from anyone, but even
more strongly in countries throughout Europe.

The most spectacular example of this has been Holland, following the
murder last November of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim
extremist. Holland turned harshly anti-immigrant, even to the point
of considering repeal of freedom of speech in order to suppress
inflammatory rhetoric of Islamic clerics in mosques. England is
currently considering a similar kind of law, following the 7/7 London
subway bombings.

Question: Why is immigration such a strong indicator of 4t? Why do
people turn so dramatically anti-immigration during a 4t?

Answer: I would tie this back to the LACK OF SKILLS in the prophet
and nomad generations. Being anti-immigration is simply the easiest
"cruise control" solution to many problems.

The French referendum on EU constitution

A dramatic example of this occurred in France in May, when a
referendum to ratify the EU constitution failed.

Journalists uniformly analyzed this vote by focusing on only 3t
issues, such as breakdowns by social class and income. One thing
that I've found is that journalists, pundits and high-priced analysts
are totally, utterly blind to generational issues, even when they're
screamingly obvious.

Which they were in this case. For an analysis for my web site, I
obtained the exit poll results, as well as the breakdown in votes for
France's 1992 referendum on the Maastricht treaty. These breakdowns
showed that in 1992 and in 2005 the results were the same: Those who
lived through WW II were in favor of ratification, and those born
after WW II were opposed. As I said, this was screamingly obvious
from the exit poll results, but journalists and analysts were totally
oblivious to it.

This was also evident in the campaigning leading up to the referendum
vote.

During the campaign, the biggest symbol of anti-EU sentiment was the
"Polish plumber." With France's unemployment rate above 10%, the
low-paid Polish plumber who steals a job away from a well-paid
Frenchmen became the symbol of the opponents to the ratification.

Those who campaigned for ratification used the phrase, "Europe built
around peace." The clearest statement was a voter was interviewed on
the BBC: "My grandfather fought in World War I. My father fought in
World Wars I and II. I fought in World War II. And now, for 60
years, my children and grandchildren have lived in peace. That's a
good enough reason to me to vote 'yes' on the Constitution."

Supporting this statement was the BBC's pre-election polls: They
showed that the only age group that was polling in favor of the
Constitution was the elderly.

This is a very dramatic example of the differences between
Heroes/Artists and Prophets/Nomads: The former have developed a set
of skills for avoiding a new crisis war, while the latter are worried
only about social issues.

So if there's a problem with foreign policy, the Prophets/Nomads take
the easiest route, by becoming xenophobic and blaming the problems on
immigration.

Fifth Turning indicators

In the long run, this ties in with something I mentioned earlier,
addressing the question of what happens if a 4T passes without a
crisis war, essentially extending the cycle into a 5T. Some recent
research by Robert Pape (in his book on suicide bombers) found that
suicide bombers are motivated by foreign occupation, and most suicide
bombers come from Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Of the countries
considered by Pape, these two are precisely the ones that are in
generational 5T: Saudi Arabia (Ibn Saud conquest, 1925) and Morocco
(Rif war, 1927). Thus, suicide bombers are most likely to come from
countries in 5T, and so suicide bombing becomes a "5T indicator."

This is the logical extension of the 4t anti-immigration trend. If
the 4t era continues for a long time with no crisis war, then the
anti-immigration trend continues to grow. Since no crisis war has
occurred, the 4t children do not grow up into Artists, since they do
not suffer the "generational child abuse" of a crisis war. Instead,
they develop into a new archetype that I call the "super-nomads,"
because of their evident intensity and their increased anti-immigrant
fervor.

When looking at this issue, it's well to understand that there's one
more 5T country of importance to us: Mexico, whose last crisis war
was the Mexican Revolution, ending in the early 1920s. There haven't
been suicide bombers, but other problems have been growing: Drug
lords are taking greater and greater control throughout Mexico,
especially in the north, and four out of ten Mexicans say they'd
rather live in the U.S. than in Mexico. The increasing lawlessness
in Mexico is perhaps another indicator of 5T.

Summary of attitudes towards immigration

So putting all of this material together, we get a startling picture
that's strong enough that it may indicate that attitudes towards
immigration are the key factors in determining the start of the next
crisis war:

• (*) During 1t, 2t and 3t, the Hero generation uses its skills,
  developed during the previous crisis war, to prevent a new crisis
  war. Based on the French referendum, we can assume that a major part
  of this skill is the integration of immigrants into society. The
  immigrant people, who have their own Hero generation, are presumably
  willing to be integrated.
  
• (*) During 4t, the Hero and Artist generations disappear and, with
  them, the skills necessary to integrate immigrants. The same thing
  happens to the immigrants themselves, and so the natives and the
  immigrants develop a kind of mutual xenophobia which can lead to a
  new crisis war. If not, then society becomes purposeless, running on
  "cruise control," and descends into meaningless "culture wars."
  
• (*) If the 4t extends to a 5t, then the would-be Artist
  generation, presumably frustrated by the culture wars and lack of
  action, takes matters into its own hands in order to foment a crisis
  war. These actions can include suicide bombings and street
  violence.

Sincerely,

John

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

Part 4 of 5
Strauss and Howe's Civil War Anomaly

(This is an edited version of a posting that appeared several
months ago in this thread. It uses some of the findings of Fifth
Turning characteristics to propose a solution to the Civil War
anomaly -- by looking at the Civil War as a Fifth Turning war.)

When I first became aware of The Fourth Turning, shortly after
9/11, I didn't know whether it as credible or not, and long before I
thought of setting up my own web site, I was looking for ways of
verifying it or refuting it for myself. The major problem is that
TFT contains several anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions
that had to be resolved. In fact, most of them are resolved in a ery
simple way: Just modify the generational model so that it specifies
that different countries have different generational timelines.

However, one anomaly remains: Strauss and Howe never found a Hero
generation in the American Civil War.

According to their generational model, every Fourth Turning must have
a Hero generation, and the lack of one in the Civil War is a major
internal contradiction that has caused TFT many credibility problems.
This contradiction has been much discussed in this forum over the
years, and it's lead people even in this forum to say that S&H were
simply wrong about that.

I've never looked at it that way. My feeling was that if S&H had
read all those contemporary histories and diaries in their research,
and found no Hero generation, then they couldn't be wrong about that.
The error would have to be found not in their historical research but
in their abstract generational model.

Initially, I partially resolved this issue in the Generational
Dynamics model by simply defining the "Hero Generation" as the
generation reaching adulthood that fought in a crisis war. Thus, the
Rebels and Yanks who fought in the Civil War were, by definition,
Heroes.

But this didn't really solve the problem. Why didn't S&H find a Hero
generation? How can that be explained theoretically? How could the
generational model be improved so that S&H's Civil War research is
consistent with the rest of the theory, and thus validate S&H's
research? In short, what really happened in the Civil War that made
it so different from the other cycles that S&H studied?

I now have a proposed resolution to S&H's Civil War contradiction.
This is a modification to the Generational Dynamics model which
explains and validates their research, and explains why the Civil War
was different from the other cycles.

Unfortunately, my actual TFT book is packed away in a box that I
haven't unpacked yet, so I can't quote directly from the book, but I
remember one paragraph in particular that talks about it. I remember
the impression that the Rebels and Yanks were really nasty and
brutalized, not at all like Heroes in other crisis wars. (If anyone
has the actual paragraph I'm talking about, please post it.)

What I'm proposing is that this was actually a generation of
"Super-Nomads" in a Fifth Turning (5T) crisis war.

That the American Civil War was a 5T war can be found by recomputing
the dates. The Revolutionary war ended in 1782. The Awakening would
have begun around 1800, the Unraveling around 1820, and the Crisis
Era around 1840. The Mexican-American war wasn't enough to generate
a crisis war (perhaps like our Iraq war?), and a new civil war was
held off by a series of Great Compromises on slavery, and by the
railway bubble that made everyone rich. Once the bubble burst in the
Panic of 1857, disaffection grew.

To support the 5T view, consider the following of description of the
Harpers Ferry raid that I found on pbs.org:

Originally Posted by pbs.org

> The raid on Harpers Ferry 1859

> Resource Bank Contents

> Harpers Ferry Headline

> John Brown's plan seemed fairly straightforward: he and his men
> would establish a base in the Blue Ridge Mountains from which they
> would assist runaway slaves and launch attacks on slaveholders. At
> least that was the plan that the militant abolitionist had
> described to potential funders in 1857. But his plans would
> change. He had been ready in 1858 to launch his war -- he had both
> the men and the money to proceed. Brown was asked to postpone the
> launch, though, because one of his followers had threatened to
> reveal the plan -- a threat that the blackmailer did follow
> through on. So Brown agreed to go into hiding.

> The following summer, after a one-year delay, Brown was eager to
> get underway. He rented a farm in Maryland, across the Potomac
> River from Harpers Ferry. Here he assembled his arms and waited
> for his "army" to arrive.

> The delay had an adverse effect on Brown's plan. Many of the men
> he had recruited the previous year had changed their minds, moved
> away, or simply didn't think the plan would work. Even Henry
> Highland Garnet, the radical abolitionist who advocated
> insurrection, didn't have faith in the plan, believing that slaves
> were unprepared. Brown also met with Frederick Douglass in August
> of 1859, when Brown told his friend of his intentions of seizing
> the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry rather than staging guerilla
> warfare from the mountains. Attacking the arsenal was in effect
> attacking the federal government and, in Douglass' estimation, a
> grave mistake. "You're walking into a perfect steel-trap," he said
> to Brown, "and you will never get out alive."

> On October 16, Brown set out for Harpers Ferry with 21 men -- 5
> blacks, including Dangerfield Newby, who hoped to rescue his wife
> who was still a slave, and 16 whites, two of whom were Brown's
> sons. Leaving after sundown, the men crossed the Potomac, then
> walked all night in heavy rain, reaching the town at 4am. They cut
> telegraph wires, then made their assault. First they captured the
> federal armory and arsernal. They then captured Hall's Rifle
> Works, a supplier of weapons to the government. Brown and his men
> rounded up 60 prominent citizens of the town and held them as
> hostages, hoping that their slaves would join the fight. No slaves
> came forth.

> The local militia pinned Brown and his men down. Under a white
> flag, one of Brown's sons was sent out to negotiate with the
> citizens. He was shot and killed. News of the insurrection,
> relayed by the conductor of an express train heading to Baltimore,
> reached President Buchanan. Marines and soldiers went dispatched,
> under the leadership of then Colonel Robert E. Lee. By the time
> they arrived, eight of Brown's 22-man army had already been
> killed. Lee's men moved in and quickly ended the insurrection. In
> the end, ten of Brown's men were killed (including two blacks and
> both of his sons), seven were captured (two of these later), and
> five had escaped.

> Brown, who was seriously wounded, was taken to Charlestown,
> Virginia (now Charles Town, West Virginia), along with the other
> captives. There they were quickly tried, sentenced, then executed.
> John Brown's statements during his trial reached the nation,
> inspiring many with his righteous indignation toward slavery. The
> raid ultimately hastened the advent of the Civil War.
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2940.html

Now, John Brown himself was born in 1800, putting him on the
Prophet/Nomad cusp, according to this recomputation of the turning
timeline. But his "22-man army" would, I assume, have been young men
just coming of age -- i.e., Super-Nomads.

Reading through the above description, I see many elements in common
with the July 7 London subway bombers -- young, disillusioned men
turning to secretive terrorist violence under the leadership of an
aging Prophet, but disapproved of by their own parents. This is
strikingly parallel to the story of the four London bombers, who were
educated and motivated by a trip to the Madrasses in Pakistan.

If the Civil War was fought by "Super-Nomad" Rebels and Yanks, then
S&H's findings about this generation would be completely validated by
the revised generational model, and S&H's actual description of these
people would be completely explained.

The optional "Fifth Turning" is a new proposed modification to the
generational model originated by Strauss and Howe. Something was
needed anyway, because S&H's theory calls for three 20-year eras
between crisis periods, and most of the six cycles they considered
violated their own theory. The 5T concept is an elegant addition to
the theory, and may resolve a whole collection of contradictions and
questions in the original TFT.

Sincerely,

John

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

Part 5 of 5
Super-Nomads and other open questions

If a Fourth Turning goes by without any crisis war, then the
generational flow is changed:

(*) The would-be Hero generation does not actually fight a crisis
war, so they won't be considered heroes.

(*) The would-be Artist generation do not grow up into Artists, since
they do not suffer the "generational child abuse" of a crisis war.
I've been calling them Super-Nomads because of their ferocity and
hostility to immigration. When the crisis war occurs, they become
the new Hero generation.

Once the crisis war actually occurs (during the 5T), the entire
generational cycle adjusts itself within 40 years, as we discussed a
long time ago in this thread. The Super-Nomads play the part of
Heroes during the Awakening, and the next two generations fit the
traditional Artist and Prophet generations, respectively.

But what happens to these two generations -- the would-be Hero and
would-be Artist generation? What characteristics do they have in
this revised timeline?

I'm just guessing here, but making one more inference from Pape's
work, I see a big attitude gap between these two generations. The
would-be Heroes seem to return to the desire for compromise and
containment that's typical of an unraveling, and the Super-Nomads
rebel against this by actively seeking war -- through terrorist acts,
especially suicide terrorism.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Well thanks. In doing my research, I have learned a lot. At first
> I had to keep asking you about this and that. Now I can find a
> crisis war with little trouble. I'm sure there is much more to
> learn though.

That's good to hear. I'm sure that you're getting into the swing of
things as you practice.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> There are certain clubs after school that deal with current
> events. I try to make many of these and offer my opinion. One day,
> at the Republican club, I got into a big argument with someone
> over China. This is probably the smartest kid in school and he got
> a 2400 on his SATs (I think that is perfect now). He argued that
> everything I am saying is wrong and I am another one of those
> conspiracy theorists he likes to debunk by getting inside their
> head and using psychology. I was simply talking about how the
> United States can't avoid a war with China. I didn't even mention
> the word "generation" once. The smartest kid in school felt that
> China doesn't want to risk war.

> I realized that day just how ignorant and stupid some of the
> smartest people can be. He obviously didn't know what he was
> talking about since China has been rapidly advancing their
> military. Whether or not they want war, they are expecting it.

> No one wants to listen; no one wants to hear. Except me. This
> directly concerns my generation and is the most important thing in
> the world, but no one cares. I don't get it. So I'm a little
> discouraged talking about these things.

This is exactly the same kind of experience that I've had. Once you
begin to understand what's going on in the world, especially with the
increasing militarization of China, you find that most people don't
have the vaguest idea what's going on in the world, and most of them
act like idiots. All you can do is stick to what you know. I've
discovered with my friends that after just a few short months, when
they begin to see that your predictions are coming true rather than
the pollyanish views they've been holding, they start listening to
you more.

China as a country is becoming increasing convulsive and unstable.
Its bubble economy was close to bursting anyway, but now with the
spread of bird flu, everything is speeding up.

Last week, China mobilized it's 2.3 million man army to "fight bird
flu." The mobilization of the army is extremely significant. Bird
flu has provided a convenient excuse for the mobilization, but you can
be absolutely certain that the army will be performing other kinds of
exercises besides practicing how to kill chickens. They'll be
performing "attack Taiwan" exercises and "attack Tokyo" exercises and
maybe even "attack Seoul" exercises.

Furthermore, that army will never be demobilized again -- at least
not without a major war.

The situation is extremely serious and dangerous, and getting more
dangerous every day. The risk of a serious international crisis this
winter is very high and yes, it directly affects your generation.

Are you beginning to get a sense of the meaning of "The Principle of
Maximum Ruin"?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> I'm saying I probably won't [make it]. Something inside just tells
> me that. I think about the future, but it just feels so distant
> and unattainable. If upwards of 1 billion will die, why not
> me?

I unerstand what you're saying because I feel exactly the same way,
although I have a lot less to lose because I'm a lot older. Still,
just follow the suggestion of keeping your options open that I made
in the last message. You can never guarantee your survival, but you
an make choices that increase the probability of your survival.
Keeping your options open means that you might end up with an option
that will save your life.

Sincerely,

John

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

That was really interesting John. Bravo. Are you planning on putting that on the site, adding it to the book, or what?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Are you beginning to get a sense of the meaning of "The Principle of
Maximum Ruin"?

In the sense that "it" comes when people least expect it, yes.

As for economics, I'll need to learn more. From what I see, the market must crash, but it doesn't necessarily have to inflict maximum ruin (although a crash would be pretty damn close). But I'm probably wrong.

Actually, I must understand it more. My arguments against it don't seem as powerful as they used to. Either that, or I'm tired.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> That was really interesting John. Bravo. Are you planning on
> putting that on the site, adding it to the book, or what?

I'm going to have to take the material on fifth turnings and
super-nomads and edit it down and make it more concise. Then I'll
add it to the draft of my book, Generational Dynamics for
Historians, possibly as a new chapter.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But I'll tell you, I'm VERY reluctant to say that there's "no doubt" about something by a certain date. I'll say it's certain in the next few years, or I'll say that it has a high probability of happening in the next year, but putting them together with "no doubt" in the next year is a good way to have a prediction not come true.

So we have given up on "100% certainty"? It's nice to know that something has changed while I have been away.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> Uh, S&H indeed cite McLoughlin as an authority, but obviously
> disagree with him on dates since they tellingly don't mention the
> decades of the Puritan Awakening in the paragraph that mentions
> him [p. 47], wheras a few sentences down they do mention them for
> other awakenings.

> Furthermore, it's been a long time (apx. 11 years) since I've read
> his Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform, but didn't McLoughlin have
> the Puritan Awakening end c. 1640? It may have been 1630. I'm not
> sure. Regardless, that gives English society as little as two
> years, at most twelve, to go through a third turning before this
> alleged "Crisis War" begins. How do you explain that?

Wow! This is a brand new revelation. I never heard this before.
Where did you get the information that S&H disagree with McLoughlin?

When he wrote me a personal message last years (which I posted in its
entirety in this thread), he said, "The entire era of 1620-40s has
been called the "Puritan Awakening" by many scholars before us
(McLoughlin, e.g., in his famous book)--and not just for America and
England but for much of the Continent."

Well, actually McLoughlin says that the Puritan Awakening (which, in
S&H terminology would more or less include both the awakening and the
unraveling eras) ran from 1610-1640, clearly terminating at the
English Civil War.

But now you say that you have information that S&H disagree with
McLoughlin. Could you expand that further?

Where else do they agree?

No, this is not a brand new revelation for you, unless you are either careless or disingenuous (since you certainly are not stupid). S&H have the P.A. beginning in 1621 and ending in 1649. McLoughlin has it at 1610 to 1640, eleven years earlier on one end and nine years on the other. That’s a cumulative twenty years they disagree on, John. And I again reiterate that is the reason they do not mention McLoughlin’s PA dates in T4T but do mention some of the others – because their PA dates don’t match.

But there’s more. If you are right that McLoughlin’s awakenings are roughly equal to S&H 2T’s plus 3T’s, and in some cases it does indeed seem that way, then the discrepancy gets much worse. In such a case McLoughlin has the 3T ending in 1640. S&H don’t even have it beginning until 1649! And they are not clear on when it ends in England, since after that point they concentrate on America only. But let’s assume that it’s 1675 in both cases. That creates a whopping-35 year discrepancy between McLoughlin and S&H by the mid-to-late 17th century (again, IF one agrees that McLoughlin’s awakening is a combined S&H 2+3T).

And it gets even better. If I remember correctly, you push the beginning of the PA up to 1604! Am I right on that? That removes you even further from S&H. Which is not news since you claim the ECW was a 4T for England, not a 2T like S&H claim.

In fact none of this is a “new revelation”, John. What you’re getting all sardonic about is silly on it’s face.

As for where they disagree further, there are some additional, comparatively minor discrepancies between McLoughlin and S&H, but none, I think, nearly as significant as with the 17th century.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> How very magnanimous of you. Rolling Eyes But you do far more than
> correct, or not, a "few inconsistencies". You almost completely
> alter what they define as the function of second and fourth
> turnings, as I have described in previous posts but you never
> answer. Are you afraid to? What gives?

Well, your previous posts rambled on aimlessly, never seeming to go
anywhere but in the swamp. Could you give a list of places where you
believe I "completely alter" their definitions, and try to do so
coherently?

1. The basic mechanism. Yours is essentially a War Cycle. Theirs is a dynamic involving generational archetypes and vacillations between individual vs. community and inner-world vs. outer-world focus.

2. The basic definitions of second and fourth turnings.

3. Significant discrepancies on timing: You have England in a 4T during the ECW while S&H have it as 2T, and you have on more than one occasion referred to WWI as 2T whereas S&H clearly see it as 3T.

4. Your "Fifth Turning" stuff.

Those are some pretty fundamental differences, and I am pretty sure there are more. I will touch on these more later in the post.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> I wrote a (30+ page) pre-thesis in my graduate program on the
> Great Awakening and became intimate with McLoughlin's ideas, thank
> you. But you can arrogantly assume that you are the only one that
> reads him if it makes you feel better.

> And yes, even after knowing what McLoughlin said it still stands
> that this "flip" of yours explaining the ECW as a 4T is one hell
> of a stretch.

Well, another big surprise! I didn't realize that you were an expert
on the Puritan Awakening and the early 1600s.

Where did you get that? I did not say I am an expert on the Puritan Awakening. I said I spent time intensely studying the awakening in America of the following century and that I became very familiar with McLoughlin. You had insinuated that I did not know McLoughlin so I was correcting your misunderstanding. No “big surprises” there either, your poor attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. The Puritan
Flip doesn't explain the English Civil War as 4T. What it explains
is why S&H identify the 1630s-40s as an "awakening." S&H focused on
America, and it WAS an awakening there, thanks to the Puritan Flip --
which is hardly a "stretch" since McLoughlin described it. S&H
simply assumed that if America was having an awakening, then so was
England, and that was an incorrect assumption on their part.

The “puritan flip” can very easily be seen as an (attempted) explanation for the ECW being a 4T. The majority of us here who disagree with you on the saecular context of England’s civil war (i.e., 2T vs your 4T) could see it that way . Just because your specific viewpoint is different does not mean it “doesn’t explain” the ECW as 4T to the rest of us who try to understand what you’re talking about. To you it’s not an explanation. To you.

I, and apparently S&H and a host of others here, disagree with you that this “flip” on the part of the American colonists, both New England and Chesapeake, somehow popped them back a turning or two on the cycle (by rebelling against English society). If you understand S&H’s basic mechanisms you would know that is very unlikely. But you show time and time again that you don’t agree with their basic mechanisms.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Since you're such an expert on the subject, perhaps you can help me
understand. If S&H disagree with McLoughlin, then I assume you must
also. And yet, McLoughlin lays out a fairly detailed timeline of
what went on in England and America from before the 1600s decade in
England through the 1640s in America. Where are the places that you
disagree with McLoughlin? Why do you reject the awakening-type
activities that McLoughlin describes from before 1610? They were
very obviously religious and extremely spiritual in nature, so
exactly what is the nature of your disagreement? In addition, what's
so special about 1621 that the activities are OK after that, but not
before?

Again, the sardonic “expert” moniker is both silly and unfounded in anything I have said. Indeed, it’s been so long since I’ve read McLoughlin (apx. a decade) I must admit I cannot answer your questions in the above paragraph to the satisfaction of either of us. Since I should have a copy of Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform in my collection anyway, this exchange has prompted me to order it from Amazon and I should have it soon. I will read the relevant portions as soon as possible as to be able to respond to these specific questions.

However, I can still respond to a certain extent. Though McLoughlin had our most recent awakening beginning in 1960, he identified, IIRC, certain spiritual activity occurring in the 1950’s, esp. the late 50’s. And he is undoubted right that such activity occurred at that time. Such activity was certainly going on in the early 60’s too. But by S&H’s definition of a 2T, the awakening did not begin until 1964 (technically, very late 1963; some here even argue for a bit later, though I do not).

According to S&H, a 2T is not just a period of spiritual fervor in and of itself – though such fervor is indeed most common during 2T’s. A 2T is most importantly a time when the established values regime is attacked by a new generation that exposes the overall extant values system as, at least in part, dysfunctional and maladaptive to current institutional and technological (read: outer-world) realities. THAT, in conjunction, by definition, with the appropriate generational constellation, is what makes a second turning a second turning. The fact that a rise of spiritual activity is occurring is not by itself proof of a second turning occurring. It is however probably a good sign that a 2T is pending if a fourth turning ended close to two decades earlier.

The spiritual aspects of Billy Graham’s early revivals and of the pre-LBJ-era Civil Right’s Movement may be fascinating and inspirational, but by S&H definitions they do not necessarily prove that an Awakening was in progress unless the other items I mentioned are in play.

When I get McLoughlin’s book I will concentrate on the early 17th century to see if what he describes fits S&H’s description of a 2T. But considering the previous 4T didn’t wind down until the 1590’s, and considering the longer length of turnings in those times, I find it unlikely that a 2T kicked off c. 1610, and extremely unlikely that it started in 1604 like you say!

You seem to miss some basic points about S&H’s mechanism. 2T’s are not just about spiritual fervor, but about a values revolution. And 4T’s are not just about great wars, but more fundamentally about profound, lasting institutional renovation.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> Why is this a problem? WWII occurred during a period of
> fundamental institutional change. WWI solved little in terms of
> that. One is a 4T war and the other is not.

Once again, you're in way over your head.

I've spoken to many, many people about TFT who immediately reject it
-- consider it a worthless piece of trash (in the words of at least
one academic) -- because it ignores WW I.

At the time WW I occurred, it was the biggest war that had every
occurred, but something like almost a factor of 10. It was huge, and
affected everyone in the world, and S&H just sloughs it off.

And you just slough it off: "WWII occurred during a period of
fundamental institutional change. WWI solved little in terms of
that." That's laughable. The Bolshevik Revolution did little in
terms of fundamental institutional change????? The destruction of
the Ottoman Empire and the caliphate in Istanbul did little in terms
of fundamental institutional change?????? You have blinders on.

That's the problem. What's your solution to the problem that so many
people immediately reject TFT because it treats the 2nd hugest war in
world history as completely unimportant?

I see three problems with your answer.

One, we’re primarily talking about American history here. I know that not even you consider WWI as one of your Crisis Wars in the American context. Indeed, you have been quoted as saying WWI was still 2T in America! And yes, the institutional change that occurred as a result of WWI pales in comparison to what occurred during the Great Depression and WWII in America.

So I say again, what is the alleged “problem” with WWI and S&H’s theory?

Two, for those other participants in the Great War of 1914 who are obviously close to us in saecular timing (i.e., Britain, France, Germany) what did WWI fundamentally solve? Did it solve any internal economic imbalances in those countries? No. Did it fundamentally address the position of Germany in Europe? No, it postponed that problem. It took WWII to finally address these issues. The fact that far fewer died on the western front in WWII than in WWI (except for American casualties) is not the issue, and highlights a problem with your “Crisis War” approach vis-à-vis S&H’s approach which you have rejected (and you can deny that all you want, but you have essentially rejected their mechanism).

So I say again, what is the alleged “problem” with WWI and S&H’s theory?

Three, S&H never, ever claimed that all nations on the planet are on the same saeculum. It is entirely possible that other societies involved in WW I are (or at least were) on a different sequence. Neil Howe has been quoted on this board saying, for example, Japan is almost certainly almost a turning out of sequence with America: They are likely early-to-mid 3T now.

So I say again, what is the alleged “problem” with WWI and S&H’s theory?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

And what about some other wars -- the Fall of Constantinople, Ottoman
versus Holy League, Crimean War? Europeans took part in all of them.
Do you think that those wars are completely irrelevant as well?

The issue is not my determination of relevancy, the issue is “Are these fourth turning events?” The Fall of Constantinople was 1452 IIRC. That’s about a century after the Black Death and the concurrent collapse of the High Middle Age (which was arguably 4T). Likewise it is a little more tha a century before the late 16th century wars involving Spain's hegemonic deterioration (arguably 4T). And there were two awakenings (the Hussite/Conciliar Awakening and the Reformation on either side, respectively). So it seems very possible that it was 4T.

The War of the Holy League seems very likely to have been 4T, yes.

The Crimean War was not likely 4T for Britain (more very late 3T like the Iraq War for us) but was likely 4T for the Turks, but I am unsure about the Russians.

But more to the point, you stated there was a problem with S&H’s theory and WWI. I have answered your objections. Digression does not help you in this matter.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> So dispensing with their definition of a fourth turning (to a
> Crisis War only), adding a fifth turning and fifth archetype to
> their decidedly four-stroke mechanism, radically simplifying their
> intergenerational dynamics, and radically changing the dates they
> identified for turnings and generations (including switching 2T's
> to 4T's and much more) is not leaving S&H behind?!?!? How is it
> not?

Your mind is getting confused again, this time by terminology. I
didn't invent long cycles. I just explained them. If you don't like
5T, the call it an extra-long 4T part 1 and extra-long 4T part 2.
That way you get your "four stroke" mechanism, and nothing's changed.
But changing a term doesn't change the reality.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. With a “fifth” turning you don’t have a four stroke mechanism. And without a four stroke mechanism, you are not "building" off of S&H.

In any case, I am sure most of the examples you can come up with for a “long 4T” are easily explained by something else. I have some confidence in that assertion since you seem to have little grasp of what S&H’s mechanism actually is. How can you effectively critique and expand upon something, all in some allegedly professional way, when you don’t comprehend some basic concepts? That and your unjustifiable arrogance are the gist of what makes me find you so easy to criticize. Very easy.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The question of very long 4Ts has been discussed at length in this
forum, including this thread, with nobody ever proposing any
explanation that I found coherent. That's why I never participated
much in those discussions.

Even if you didn’t find mine coherent (though I doubt you know what it is), what is so “incoherent” about Mike Alexander’s explanations?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I only jumped into the subject very recently because of new research
that's just been published, by Robert Pape on suicide bombers,
following the July 7 London subway bombings. This brand-new research
is exciting because it sheds so much light on extra-long 4Ts (or 5Ts,
as I like to call them).

Since you have not yet proven that extra long 4T’s exist, I don’t see the connection.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I'm puzzled by your attitude (among other things). The research for
TFT was done in the early 90s, and for Generations was done in the
80s. That was a looooooooong time ago, and there's been lots of new
research since then, research that could shed new light on them.

That is very possible, indeed likely.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

What's your position on TFT? Do you hold it in the same esteem that
the fundamentalist Christians hold the Bible, or that Muslims hold
the Quran -- as the literal inspired word of God, that can never be
disputed in any way?

Do you hold TFT in the same regard - no new research can affect it,
no word can be disputed?

Nice try. No, I don’t hold it that regard, though I do think they have identified something very important and that this discovery is literally awesome. But of course new research, even old research newly applied, could affect it. Your sophist “research” does not seem to affect it much.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

If so, do you have any explanation for why some aspects of S&H's
theory changed between Generations and TFT? Do you think it would
have continued to change after TFT if S&H had continued working on
it?

They fine-tuned the theory between the books, but the theory remained very consistent in it’s basics. The addition of Jungian archetypes was brilliant. Would they make changes now? Probably, but I am pretty certain it would be nothing major. Why don’t you ask them?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Many people in this forum have suggested changes to various anomalies
in TFT. There have been whole threads devoted to the Civil War
anomaly alone. Are all those people who suggested other explanations
full of crap?

No. But you mostly are. I find you to be special that way. And I keep outlining why. Other people here are generally far more consistent and humble in their explanations. If you have indeed given up your "100% certainty" schtick, then perhaps you are changing for the better.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Are there any things at all in TFT that you consider to be wrong? If
so, could you list a few?

There are A LOT of small things I think could be wrong, like a couple of dates here and there. I also have some additions to understanding the basic mechanism they don’t have but I don’t feel they are developed enough to mention here yet.

But one large issue is the longer length of saeculae in the past and the problematic age of the fourth phased generation in those turnings. But I think that can be handled with one adjustment. I discuss that at length in my multi-modal saeculum theory.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

If there are any people in this forum who have suggested changes to
TFT that you approve of, could you name two or three?

Oh yes. Mike Alexander; all of those who have given more emphasis to generational waves and cusps; all of those who have suggested that S&H GI dates are too early . . . many, many things. I don’t agree with a lot of them. For example, I strongly disagree with Mike that there was a Hero generation in the CW cycle. But I respect him immensely and most of the other people in the other cases.

Hell, I have made a suggestion that requires a major change in the S&H model with my multi-modal saeculum theory. That is the adjustment I just discussed above.

You’re actually one of the few I don’t respect.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> What anomalies?

I guess you weren't paying attention. Do you ever actually read
postings that your respond to, or do you just go off in any direction
you want?

You did not answer this. What anomalies? Just list them. Are you afraid to?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> No contradiction. You don't have to move it to somehow remove the
> English Civil War from it. The ECW was not a 4T war by S&H's
> definition because it was suffused with "inner-world" cultural
> turmoil and ultimately solved nothing in the institutional order.
> By 1660 England was back to having a monarch with Papist
> inclinations who adored the Divine Right concept and a Parliament
> very nervous about those qualities. The change came in the
> Glorious Revolution. What's the problem?

> The problem is you don't recognize a fundamental component of
> S&H's theory which defines what the turnings actually are. To you,
> all great wars must be Crisis Wars. That's NOT S&H's definition
> and entirely changes the theory. You have indeed left S&H behind.
> That may be fine, but to say you are building upon them is
> factually not correct. If I am wrong, please show me how.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. I guess the
Revolutionary War wasn't a 4T war either, because by the end there
was still a King in England. What does the fact that there was a
King even have to do with it? Somebody has to run things. You keep
saying the same thing over and over, but you don't provide a coherent
explanation.

Are you really that dense? The existence of a king in and of itself has nothing to do with it. If you READ what I wrote, you’d see that the ECW did not solve any fundamental outer-world problems. Those problems were solved about half a century later with the Glorious Revolution. And in America the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Crisis that followed dealt with some very fundamental outer-world issues and created a basic institutional template that remained in place until 1861. In either case, the existence of a King was utterly secondary.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Why weren't the pre-1610 "inner world" activities which
are very well-documented by McLoughlin the sign of an awakening?

And I don't have to show you're wrong. McLoughlin has already proved
you're wrong. I'm just the messenger.

As stated, I will get back to you on that. Keep in mind that you seem to take umbrage at my claim that you are essentially not following S&H’s theory. Your radically different turning dates for the 17th century are part of that.

Your arguments are very strange. In the same post you are using McLoughlin to say that you and McLoughlin are in agreement with S&H (the “personal correspondence” where you name-dropped earlier) and then you turn around now and use McLoughlin to show how wrong I am, and in doing so how wrong S&H are (since I agree with them). The cognitive dissonance inherent in your arguments is very annoying.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> It started in 1675, in America. It looks like it started later in
> England. For England, it is likely that the War for Spanish
> Succession was a 4T war for England and all Western Europe. I
> don't see the contradiciton. Where is it?

Omigod! I'm breathless! For once, much to my total astonishment, you
actually have it right! The 4T war in America did INDEED begin in
1675, and the War of the Spanish Succession was INDEED a 4T war for
England. See? We can agree on something.

Don’t get too excited.

I think the War of Spanish Succession was the end of a 4T for England that had already begun by the Glorious Revolution (the ascension of James II seems like the beginning to me, but it’s hard to explain how a 3T lasted thirty-six years, I must admit—that’s why I am open to the 4T coming earlier and ending in 1704). So I suspect England and America were saecularly ten years apart by the late 17th century, but I am not sure.

The way you have it though England only had about half a century between 4T’s (i.e. the ECW to the WoSS) whereas America had almost a century between theirs (i.e., the Anglo-Spanish War to KPW -- since the ECW was not a 4T for America). Oh yeah, that reminds me: Do you even see the Anglo-Spanish War (part of S&H’s Armada Crisis) as 4T for England? If yes, then how do you explain a 4T automatically turning into a 2T in 1604 bypassing a 1T almost completely?!? If no, then what was England’s 16th century 4T?!?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> This exemplifies the problem with GD's connection to S&H. They
> were not "by definition" of the Hero archetype. That archetype
> requires more than just fighting in a big war -- there's several
> other components to it, like the type of upbringing, institutional
> problems, how they are perceived by the other archetypes, and so
> on. By simplying 4T's to Crisis Wars and centering your theory
> entirely on Crisis Wars you warp S&H's theory out of all
> recognition. Is this not so? If not, how? ...

> In S&H's definition of a 4T, that crisis continued for several
> years because of the continuation of serious institutional
> upheaval and reconstruction. There was a nasty depression and a
> severe constitutional crisis in the 1780's. And the stability of
> the new constitutional order was questionable until the successful
> conclusion of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. How do you have the
> 4T end in 1782?

> Furthermore, serious, comprehensive religious ferver did not break
> out until the early 1820's. The items McLoughlin identifies for
> the very, very 19th century mostly occurred in the hinterlands and
> were not as broad and deep as what came decades later.

> You're reworking to create a "fifth turning" does not fit S&H's
> basic ideas at all. Is that now evident? ...

> Far more in line with their theory, not to mention far more
> parsimonious and therefore approved by Mr. Ockham, would just to
> say that turnings and generations took longer prior to the late
> modern era due to a later age of net social autonomy. The Civil
> War anomaly was just a problem with the adjustment from one length
> to another. No more really necessary. What is your view in light
> of this?

> Also, Mike Alexander has proposed interesting ideas that also
> discount some basic tenets of S&H's theory but he admits to doing
> so, and also still keeps pretty true to their dates. Are you now
> willing to agree that you are actually not in line with
> S&H?

You're back to your old self, giving long, almost incoherent, aimless
ramblings that makes no sense at all. Exactly what does the "later
age of net social autonomy" mean, and what does it have to do with
turning lengths?

You can call it “aimless ramblings” if it makes you feel better. And I will explain more clearly presently. But first I would like to point out that once again (how many times is this, half-dozen?) you did not answer a question about your fundamental deviation from S&H. It’s right up there in the quote. I have asked it several times now. Why won’t you answer it? What are you afraid of? Go ahead, say it, it’s not hard: “I do not follow Strauss and Howe”. See? It’s easy. Hey, I have no dog in this hunt. I don’t care if you follow their theory or not. You can believe the cycles of Neptune rule the saeculum or any other silly nonsense for all I care. What I do care about are your misrepresentations coupled with unabashed arrogance. Besides, I enjoy taking on conceited know-it-alls like you.

As for “net social autonomy’, maybe that wouldn’t be so hard to understand if you had read T4T. I don't remember the page off hand (and I can get it for you in the near future) but S&H describe how the length of the Youth phase determines the average length of both generations and turnings. They compared it to how the distance between a solstice and an equinox determine the length of a season.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

And how does a change in turning lengths have to do
with an entire hero generation just disappearing into thin air? It's
easy enough to wave your hands and just say "it happened because it
happened," but you haven't given any sort of coherent explanation.
Why was there a hero generation in the Revolutionary War, and one in
WW II, but NOT one in the Civil War? Can you give a "parsimonious"
explanation that isn't just guesswork and hand-waving?

You haven’t read my multi-modal theory then. It’s quite coherent. I agree that it could very well be dead wrong (in contrast to your “100% certainty” in your own ideas) but it is coherent. And while we’re at it, what’s so incoherent about S&H’s explanation for the CWA?? Again, I think it’s unsatisfying, but they offered a coherent explanation.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Do you think that there'll be a hero generation in the upcoming 4T?
Why or why not?

The fact that you are asking questions when you haven’t yet answered the ones put to you is very telling.

But to answer your question, yes I think it’s very likely we will have one. Why? First because the Millennials show all the signs of being a Hero archetype generation filling up the Youth phase and beginning to spill over into the Rising Adult phase. Second, the fact that they are indeed entering the second phase means that they will not likely be unduly traumatized in a 4T, as children. Such trauma is one of the things that transformed the Progressives from a Hero orientation to a more Artist one. I agree with S&H on that.

Now, there were eight questions I submitted to you in my previous post. You almost entirely ignored answering them in a direct manner, if at all. This is one of my main problems with you. It is very unprofessional, not to mention frustrating. You have stated in the past that it’s difficult to answer questions for various reasons so I am trying to help you by spelling them out. I will do so ONCE AGAIN in a second post. These are almost verbatim from the last time I asked them.

John,

As I said the last time I supplied these questions, this discussion is open for all to see. If you are truly honest about this being a thread on “objections” to GD, and that you are academically capable of answering the questions, then I look forward to your answers.

#1.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The fact that WWI and WW II were only 20 years apart was the biggest problem, but other problems became apparent to anyone who drilled down into the details.

Why is this a problem? WWII occurred during a period of fundamental institutional change for America and Western Europe. WWI solved little in terms of that. One is a 4T war for them and one is not. I have outlined above how The Great War may have been 4T for certain Eastern European players and that S&H do allow for different societies to be on different saecular sequences. In light of all of this, what is the problem?!?

#2

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

People criticize me for “leaving S&H behind,” but that’s completely untrue.

So dispensing with their definition of a fourth turning (to a Crisis War only), adding a fifth turning and a fifth archetype to their decidedly four-stroke mechanism, radically simplifying their intergenerational dynamics, and radically changing the dates they identified for turnings and generations (including switching 2T’s to 4T’s and more) is not leaving S&H behind? How is it not?!?

#3

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I’ve resolved numerous anomalies, including the Great Depression anomaly, the WW I anomaly, . . .

How are these anomalies? You have not explained this. I have discussed above how there is nothing “anomalous” to WW I. Please identify any weakness in my arguments. How are you bringing the Great Depression into this? What is the context?

#4

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

. . . the date contradiction in the Puritan Awakening,. . .

No contradiction. You don’t have to move the Puritan Awakening to somehow remove the English Civil War from it. The ECW was not a 4T war in England by S&H’s definition (and by their direct admission to us here in that regard) because it was suffused with “inner-world” cultural turmoil and ultimately solved nothing in the institutional order. By 1660 England was back to having a monarch with Papist inclinations who adored the Divine Right concept and a Parliament very nervous about those royal qualities. The structural change that dealt with these issues came with the Glorious Revolution. What’s the problem?

Perhaps the problem is that you don’t recognize a fundamental component of S&H’s theory which defines what the turnings actually are about. To you, all great wars must be Crisis Wars. That’s NOT S&H’s definition and that alone (besides your other ideas) entirely changes the theory. You have indeed left S&H behind. That may be fine, but to say you are building upon them is not factually correct. If I am wrong, please show me how.

#5

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

. . . and the contradiction in the 30 year “Glorius crisis”, which supposedly had not war, and begins in 1675 with the bloodiest war in North American history [proportionally], and ends in 1704 in the middle of the bloodiest war in 18th century Europe.

It started in 1675, in America. It may have started later in England. Furthermore, it ended in 1704 in America because . . .
And may have ended for England in 1704 because

#6

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Thus, the Rebels and Yanks who fought in the Civil War were, by definition, Heroes.

This exemplifies the problem with GD’s connection to S&H. Those who fought in the Civil War were NOT “by definition” of the Hero archetype. That archetype requires more than just fighting in a big war – there are several other components to it, like the type of upbringing, institutional problems, how they are perceived by the other archetypal generations, and so on. By simplifying 4T’s into Crisis Wars and by centering your theory entirely on Crisis wars you warp S&H’s theory out of all recognition. Is this not so? If not, how?

#7

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The American Civil War was a 5T war can be found by recomputing the dates. The revolutionary war ended in 1782 . . .

In S&H’s definition of a 4T, the Revolutionary Crisis continued for several years past the end of the war because of the continuation of serious institutional upheaval and reconstruction (not to mention because of generational alignment). There was a nasty depression and a severe constitutional crisis in the 1780’s. And the stability of the new constitutional order was questionable until the successful conclusion of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. By having the 4T end in 1782 you demonstrate your lack of understanding of S&H. Is this not so? Or, if you do understand S&H but reject their basic theory regarding what a 4T is, then you are leaving S&H behind, correct?

Furthermore, serious, comprehensive religious ferver did not break out until the early 1820’s in America. The items McLoughlin identifies for the very early 19th century occurred largely in the hinterlands (though he doesn’t emphasize this) and what did occur in New England proper and the like were, as he admits, “conservative” in nature, IIRC. 1stGA-generated, Davenport-esque Calvinism and Founding Father Deism still ruled the roost. It took the 1820’s to sweep in something new. And this values revolution lasted to the early 1840’s. So a Crisis beginning c.1860 is not “late”. No alleged 5T is necessary. If you think it is still necessary and that the above argument is wrong, please explain how.

And again, you’re reworking of things to create a “fifth turning” is forced and not fit in with S&H’s most basic ideas at all. Is that now evident?

#8

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The optional “fifth turning” is a new proposed modification to Strauss and Howe’s theory. Something was needed anyway, because S&H’s theory calls for three 20-year eras between crisis periods, and most of the six cycles they considered violated their own theory. The 5T concept is an elegant addition to the theory, and may resolve the whole collection of contradictions and questions in the original T4T.

This is the only question you even remotely answered. Any most of your response was just venom and deflecting questions.

In your statement quoted above you completely disregard other theories proposed as you saw “something was needed” to address these issues in S&H’s theory. I suggest you read my multi-modal saeculum theory and ask Mike to reissue his thoughts on the matter. I believe there are others as well. So I invite anyone who has done so to pop into this thread regarding that.

John, maybe you could take an open look at these questions? Whaddya think?

Dear Sean ("Peter Gibbons"),

I've tried to accommodate you, but I no longer have time for your
silly nonsense. You've just posted 10-20 pages of obsessive garbage
that I barely have time to read, let alone respond to. Get a life.

To anyone else who may have stumbled into this thread, which has been
turned into a circus, if you want any more information on any of these
subjects, please see my web site, and also look at my book,
Generational Dynamics for Historians, the current draft of
which can be read for free on my web site.

Also, I'm currently updating the draft text of the book and adding new
material. When I have a new draft, I'll post a notice here and on my
web site.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean ("Peter Gibbons"),

I've tried to accommodate you, but I no longer have time for your
silly nonsense. You've just posted 10-20 pages of obsessive garbage
that I barely have time to read, let alone respond to. Get a life.

To anyone else who may have stumbled into this thread, which has been
turned into a circus, if you want any more information on any of these
subjects, please see my web site, and also look at my book,
Generational Dynamics for Historians, the current draft of
which can be read for free on my web site.

Also, I'm currently updating the draft text of the book and adding new
material. When I have a new draft, I'll post a notice here and on my
web site.

Sincerely,

John

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

So anyone who proves you are not using Strauss & Howe's mechanism and proves that you misrepresent their theory is writing "silly nonsense", eh?

I thought this was an "Objections to Generational Dynamics" thread. But if the "objections" become too rigorous then you refuse to answer them? That makes sense actually, because you have rarely answered a question I have asked.

Consider yourself exposed. Mike Alexander had already done a fairly good job, but I had a hard time standing by allowing you to continue with your claims unconfronted.

BTW, I'm curious, do Strauss and Howe know you are claiming to have "improved" on their theory with Generational Dynamics? I don't think a glorified War Cycle is an improvement. It's in fact a step backwards.

Good luck John.

Dear Sean ("Peter Gibbons"),

Thank you for trashing this thread so much that there's nothing left
to lose.

You've completely misrepresented my work - you have no idea what
you're talking about. You've completely misrepresented the situation
- I've answered your questions over and over. But this isn't about
getting answers to questions; this is about your trash and burn
project.

Since you've never actually accomplished anything yourself, you can't
do anything but trash. In the end you're nothing but a tiny, nasty
little jerk wannabe with little intellectual capability, who's never
actually accomplished anything and makes up for it by taking advantage
of a completely unmoderated forum to trash the real accomplishments of
people who have.

Once again, I apologize to anyone who's stumbled into this thread,
which has been turned into a circus thanks to one individual.

If you want any more information on Generational Dynamics, please see
my web site, where you'll see many essays, including, for example, a
a generational profile of Ben Bernanke, the man nominated to replace
Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman.

And I can't end this particular message without inviting all TFT
readers to read my new book, Generational Dynamics for
Historians, the current draft of which can be read for free on my
web site.

That book starts from Strauss and Howe's brilliant foundational work
on Anglo-American generations, and shows how to expand their work to
all places and times in history, and how to use a generational
methodology to forecast current events, sometimes with near 100%
certainty.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You've completely misrepresented my work - you have no idea what
you're talking about. You've completely misrepresented the situation
- I've answered your questions over and over. But this isn't about
getting answers to questions; this is about your trash and burn
project.

You almost always answered questions I did not ask. I have always answered your questions to the best of my ability (see post above from my response to you on 11/16 as an example). I did so even when you were thrashing about asking your own questions that had nothing to do with answering mine. What the heck does the Holy League War have to do with my saying World War One was not a "problem" for Strauss & Howe's theory?!? Instead of answering the question you went on about something else.

And this is typical of you. Why are you so reluctant to offer straight answers to questions that allege to point out faults in your reasoning? I have on two ocassions now even numbered the questions to make it simpler for you.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Since you've never actually accomplished anything yourself, you can't
do anything but trash. In the end you're nothing but a tiny, nasty
little jerk wannabe with little intellectual capability, who's never
actually accomplished anything and makes up for it by taking advantage
of a completely unmoderated forum to trash the real accomplishments of
people who have.

Hmmm. I am the one who's trashing, eh? And I suppose your paragraph above is not an example of an ad hominem attack?

If you had just answered my questions (and not been so darned condescending from the start) there would be no need for me to repeat them nor any incentive on my part to be snide in return. Why is it you are so afraid to debate?

You know what John? I suspect that somewhere deep down you know your theory is deeply flawed --- or maybe you know your claim to have "improved" on Strauss & Howe is an exaggeration at best, possibly as bad as fraudulent. Why else would you be so incredibly insecure about answering questions? Why else would I have elicited the tirade above?!?

My last point is to note that you categorically disparaged my writings, my thoughts, and my person in your little tantrum up there. I am on record as stating that your GD theory is interesting and probably has something to offer and that I think your analysis on the coming financial armageddon is compelling. What you can't handle, for whatever reason, is criticism. Maybe you should look at why. By discovering the answer and addressing it, you may find more success in your GD pursuits, and indeed your life.

Dear Sean ("Peter Gibbons"),

Here's the problem:

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> You know what John? I suspect that somewhere deep down you know
> your theory is deeply flawed --- or maybe you know your claim to
> have "improved" on Strauss & Howe is an exaggeration at best,
> possibly as bad as fraudulent. Why else would you be so incredibly
> insecure about answering questions? Why else would I have elicited
> the tirade above?!?

You're accusing me of lying. You're accusing me of fraud. And you
have no evidence to support either of those.

I'm telling you the following unequivocally: I did not lie, I don't
lie, and I never lie. I did not commit fraud, and I never commit
fraud. If there is any flaw in the Generational Dynamics model, I do
not know of it, either on the surface or "deep down," and I do not
even suspect it. If I ever did suspect that there was a flaw (which
has happened from time to time), I'd be on it like white on rice, and
I'd resolve it. If there were an unresolvable flaw, then I would drop
Generational Dynamics. That's the kind of person I am.

You go back and look at all your questions. What you'll find is that
you've been (directly or indirectly) accusing me of lying or
defrauding for months. If I don't give you the answer you're looking
for, or I'm uncertain of something, you immediately translate that
into an accusation of lying or fraud. I find such insinuations
extremely offensive. And when you write, "your GD theory is
interesting and probably has something to offer" and "is compelling,"
you're obviously pandering, which is just as offensive.

So I'm sticking to my little "tirade" until I have a reason to change
it.

Sincerely,

John

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

My, my.

I said that in light of your insecurity I suspect those things. I am not "100% certain" of those suspicions, but you make other conclusions difficult. You evade and evade and evade. You have temper tantrums. And you call names.

Well this "tiny, nasty little jerk wannabe" is going to "stick to his" little suspicions "until he has a reason to change it".

And I was not "pandering" (did you mean "patronizing"?). I have said, and I do think, that GD has some interesting components. Your crusty old bureacracy idea is interesting, among others. And as a war cycle theory, GD is engaging. Furthermore I am also on the record on this board for agreeing with you on the coming crash. I would emphasize the global dollar glut aspect of it more. But that 11% Barrons article was compelling.

Dude, if you had just given me straight answers to your questions and not flipped out when I had criticisms of you work, this confrontation would not have occurred.

I am resigned to the likelihood that I will never be able to have a civil, professional discussion with you about Generational Dynamics. You should have called this thread, "Kudos for Generational Dynamics", because you sure as heck don't want objections. That much is clear.

Dear Sean ("Peter Gibbons"),

I'm enjoying your "poor, innocent little me" act, but once again
you're misrepresenting the situation.

This has been going on for months. You ask a question. I mean, you
ask a dozen questions, buried in pages of rambling bloviation, some
of it purposely offensive. When I answer a question, you call me
"pompous." When I skip one of your questions, usually because I've
already answered it five times, you accuse me of not answering your
questions. You've got the game worked out so that you always score,
and if I complain you pretend to be the poor victim.

And not just in this thread. You stalk me in other threads with the
same game. If I were a woman I could have you charged with stalking
and harassment.

You gave the game away in your little gotcha note yesterday: "I
thought this was an 'Objections to Generational Dynamics' thread. But
if the 'objections' become too rigorous then you refuse to answer
them? That makes sense actually, because you have rarely answered a
question I have asked. Consider yourself exposed."

Thus, you've given yourself license to continue stalking me in other
threads, and claiming to have 'exposed' me. That's the payoff to your
little stunt. That's what's really been going on all these months.

This was never about answering questions, because you always asked
the same questions. This was a stunt about relentless stalking and
harassment, and your gotcha game to get me to tell you to get lost so
you could claim some victory and continue stalking me.

As far as I'm concerned, you're still the same pathetic, nasty little
jerk I wrote about yesterday. And yes, I meant "pandering."

Once again, I apologize to anyone else who's stumbled into this
thread, which has turned into a circus thanks to one obsessive
groupie taking advantage of an unmoderated forum to stalk me as his
life project.

If you want any more information on Generational Dynamics, please see
my web site.

There's been a big political firestorm over the Iraq war the last few
days, and I've just posted a new essay in my Web Log with a
Generational Dynamics analysis of the situation. If you want to know
where the Iraq war is really going, check it out.

And if you'd like to know what all the fighting is about, then read my
new book, Generational Dynamics for Historians, the current
draft of which can be read for free on my web site.

Sincerely,

John

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

John,

Here's my question. Why do you have to mooch off the Fourthturning.com message boards when you can just make your own phpbb community for your book?

Have you received permission from Strauss & Howe to use their board to promote your book and your ideas?

It seems like you should be paying rent to Craig Cheslog if you ask me...

Dear "Mary",

First, I'm not mooching off anybody. My web site makes no money
whatsoever, except for maybe a few book sales a year. (Mike
Alexander is the one who sells the huge volume of books.)

This is a very troubled time for America. A bird flu pandemic seems
almost certain, and since I get the flu every time it goes around, I
consider it quite possible that I'll be dead within a few months.

Furthermore -- and I'm just coming to understand this now -- even if
I survive a flu pandemic this spring, it doesn't guarantee immunity
from the next wave in the fall, which may be a different H5N1 virus
strain. So even if I survive the spring, there's a good chance I'll
be dead by the end of the year anyway. Incidentally, that goes for
you too.

And if that isn't bad enough, there's also war with China, and so
forth.

So my web site is no money-making affair. I consider it a public
service to describe what's happening in what may well be the last few
months of my life.

The only reason why I plug my web sites in my response to Sean is to
piss him off. He's been stalking and harassing me for months, and by
plugging my web site in my response to every one of his messages, I
provide a negative disincentive for him to continue.

Which brings me to my question for you, "Mary":

(1) If you're really a woman, then why are you supporting a stalker
and harasser? Do you think stalking and harassing is OK? Or are you
one of those phonies and hypocrites who think that stalking, harassing
and raping is ok as long as it supports your political beliefs?

(2) If you want the plugging to stop, why don't you criticize the
stalker and harasser, and ask him to stop, so that my responses will
stop?

If you're not a total hypocrite, then I expect to see you next post a
message criticizing Sean, and telling him how wrong it is to be a
stalker and harasser. But I won't hold my breath.

With all our lives in danger these days, it's a shame that people
like you will support a stalker and harasser rather than someone
who's performing a public service.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

(1) If you're really a woman, then why are you supporting a stalker and harasser? Do you think stalking and harassing is OK? Or are you one of those phonies and hypocrites who think that stalking, harassing and raping is ok as long as it supports your political beliefs?

Well John, if you are really a man, unfortunately you will have to provide evidence of this stalking and harassing. Can you describe it for the benefit of all? Does it include unsolicited mail? Is Sean calling your house? What's going on here?

(2) If you want the plugging to stop, why don't you criticize the
stalker and harasser, and ask him to stop, so that my responses will
stop?

I never said I wanted it to stop John, if that is your real name. I just was curious as to why you didn't create your own forum.

If you're not a total hypocrite, then I expect to see you next post a
message criticizing Sean, and telling him how wrong it is to be a
stalker and harasser. But I won't hold my breath.

I am sorry but I haven't read every post on your private thread here. I have not read your book, and most of your posts appear to reveal you to be some sort of soothsayer - in the style of Strauss and Howe. So I am not privy to this harassment, nor can comment on it. Unless you provide evidence.

With all our lives in danger these days, it's a shame that people
like you will support a stalker and harasser rather than someone
who's performing a public service.

Sir, I hate to break this to you on the Fourth Turning forum, rather than your own phpbb forum, but it appears that you need help. I have never supported harassment or stalking, nor do I believe you are doing a public service. I just asked why you were forum squatting.

I believe your answer is that you have no money. That's ok. I just was curious.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

This is a very troubled time for America. A bird flu pandemic seems
almost certain, and since I get the flu every time it goes around, I
consider it quite possible that I'll be dead within a few months.

Furthermore -- and I'm just coming to understand this now -- even if
I survive a flu pandemic this spring, it doesn't guarantee immunity
from the next wave in the fall, which may be a different H5N1 virus
strain. So even if I survive the spring, there's a good chance I'll
be dead by the end of the year anyway. Incidentally, that goes for
you too.

There's a good chance that this bird flu pandemic never will happen. In the meantime, I'd rather deal with issues that are a bit more immediate.