Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


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

Thread: Objections to Generational Dynamics - Page 48







Post#1176 at 07-15-2006 08:58 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-15-2006, 08:58 PM #1176
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee
> I have to disagree about Rumsfeld. I don't think Mr. "Six weeks in
> Iraq and they'll be throwing flowers at our feet" can see anything
> clearly even now. He was right about them throwing things at us.
> But they're ain't been no flowers yet.
What I was referring to was that both Manmohan Singh and Donald
Rumsfeld, both born in 1932, grew up at a time when Germany and Japan
were rearming and planning world domination while the rest of the
world wasn't paying attention. Instead of paying attention, the rest
of the world was wasting its time with fatuous, idiotic political
arguments. In the 1930s these arguments were about the dozens of
Roosevelt administration scandals rather than about throwing flowers,
but the result was the same. But since both Singh and Rumsfeld grew
up at that time, they know what it "feels like," and they know
intuitively what's going on in the world today.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1177 at 07-15-2006 09:01 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-15-2006, 09:01 PM #1177
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> It's easy to see now what you (and S&H) mean about "spiraling out
> of control." There is still time to temporarily defuse this
> crisis, but time is running out. The Arab Nations will not forget
> this. It is certain that the actions over the last few weeks will
> have a major effect on things to come.
There really is no time and no way to defuse this crisis, unless by
"temporarily" you mean perhaps a few hours or a few days.

Here's what I wrote in my 2003 book:

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> The future in the Mideast

> What will be the causes and the timing of a new Mideast war?

> The causes will be among those listed by Huntington in
> [The Clash of Civilizations].

> The timing will be determined by the last crisis war,
> which occurred in the 1936-49 time frame.

> Few analysts seem to have any idea of what's in store in the
> Mideast. They all look at the 1967 and 1972 wars, as well as the
> late 1980's intifada, because that's as far back as they can
> remember, and they say, "Any new war won't be any worse than
> those."

> That's completely wrong. Those were mid-cycle wars, led by
> veterans of the extremely violent and bloody 1940s wars who were
> willing to compromise before allowing that much violence to occur
> again. Those veterans are dying off now, and the next war won't
> have their influence. Today we're repeating the steps of the
> early Palestinian-Jewish confrontations in the late 1930s, leading
> up the extremely violent and bloody wars of the late 1940s.
> History shows that there's no guarantee that the state of Israel
> will survive the new wars.

> When will the generational change take place?

> There's an incredible irony going on in the Mideast today, in that
> the leaders of two opposing sides are, respectively, Ariel Sharon
> and Yasser Arafat.

> These two men hate each other, but they're the ones cooperating
> with each other (consciously or not) to prevent a major Mideast
> conflagration. Both of them fought in the wars of the 1940s, and
> neither of them wants to see anything like that happen again. And
> it won't happen again, as long as both of these men are in
> charge.

> The disappearance of these two men will be part of an overall
> generational change in the Mideast that will lead to a major
> conflagration within a few years. It's possible that the
> disappearance of Arafat alone will trigger a war, just as the
> election of Lincoln ignited the American Civil War. (It's
> currently American policy to get rid of Arafat. My response is
> this: Be careful what you wish for.) Most likely, the
> disappearance of Arafat will lead to increased violence, but not
> a full-fledged war for a few months.
So whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and nobody,
including George Bush and Vladimir Putin, can do anything to stop it.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> A few care about the situation. I've been glued to both the news
> on the radio and T.V. and some people have watched (I'm at
> boarding school now) and listened along with me. They don't know
> what is going to happen, but then again, no one seems to.
The only people who don't know what's going to happen are those who
don't want to face up to what's going to happen.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> You know John, I can't help but think that I should take sides on
> this one. Generational Dynamics, in a way, says that everything
> that is going to happen is completely natural. The U.S.A. is going
> to support Israel in the upcoming conflict. Are we/they right?
> Wrong? Neither?

> I think it's all about perspective. But that's not too
> reassuring.
I have personal reasons for not taking sides, and those reasons may
or may not apply to other people. These reasons have to do with
maintaining credibility on my web site, and with a desire to remain
free to criticize all sides in a debate.

I actually came upon this political indifference a long time ago,
during the 1984 presidential campaign, and I can even identify the
exact moment. During that campaign, there was a very bitter
political argument over the size of the defense budget. The
Democrats were saying that the Republican defense budget was so high
that Reagan was going to impoverish the country and start a war with
the Soviets. The Republicans were saying that the Democratic defense
budget was so low that Mondale would sell the country out to the
Soviets, and we'd all have to start speaking Russian before long.

And then I heard the televised debate between Mondale and Reagan, and
that's when I learned that the Republican platform called for a
defense budget increase of (as I recall) 6.0%, while the Democratic
platform called for a defense budget increase of (as I recall) 5.9%.
That was "morning in America" for me, when I realized that the whole
thing was nonsense.

But now let's get back to your question. What do you say when you're
having a discussion with your friends, many of whom see the Mideast
situation as an unambiguous struggle of good versus evil, the evil
being Islamist terrorism.

This is not an unreasonable position to take, but what does that
mean? Taking sides is first step on the slippery slope to fatuous
political arguments, and can get you into trouble, as Mr. Saari
suggests. If you decide that you're "pro-Israel," does that mean that
you can never criticize Israel, no matter what they do? Does that
mean that you can never sympathize with the wretched lives of poor or
starving people, just because they happen to be Arabs?

That's why your question, "Should I take sides," has no simple
answer, and why taking sides is really no simpler than not taking
sides. Taking sides and still maintaining your intellectual honesty
is a tricky matter.

If you want a model to look at, note that I'm "pro-American," and I
say so on my web site. That's natural, and in fact it would not be
credible for me to say otherwise. And yet I still feel free to
criticize America or either political party.

So if you're going to take sides, you might consider starting from,
"I'm sympathetic to Israel, I want Israel to win, but I still get
concerned from time to time when Israel does things that are not in
its own best interest, or the interest of the rest of the world."

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> Well, I'm assuming that you feel that the NASDAQ bubble was a
> generational bubble.

> The difference between a generational bubble and a regular boom is
> clear. But what about a crash? I suppose you could call the 1987
> crash a generational crash. But as for the NASDAQ crash, it
> appears that it was a natural occurence relating to the 90's
> bubble. Does a generational crash require an extremely sharp
> selloff, or are crashes nothing more than the result from the
> bubble?
I've referred to the 1987 panic as a "false panic."
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=150871#150871
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...530panic#false

The 1990s stock market bubble did not end in 2000, and is not ended
today. It started as a tech bubble, and then morphed into more
general stock bubble, a credit bubble, a real estate bubble, and a
commodity bubble. The anticipated generational crash will bring an
end to all these bubbles.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> Also, do you see the Nikkei bubble and crash as being
> generational? Came a bit quick, don't you think?
I'm not sure what you mean by being quick, since the Nikkei bubble
built up throughout the 1980s and Japan still hasn't recovered from
the crash.

The 1990 Nikkei crash certainly appears to be generational. It would
be a very interesting project to study Japanese finance from
1900-1940, in order to see how the 1980s bubble came about.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1178 at 07-15-2006 09:02 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-15-2006, 09:02 PM #1178
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Re: The Crown of Creation's Crème de la Crème

Dear Mr. Saari,

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
> I would urge you and your fellows to ponder The Prime of Miss Jean
> Brodie by Ms. Muriel Spark upon matters heroic and the taking of
> "sides". The "Decider" may be a "deceiver" (often of himself).
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060931736/
Although I agree with your broader point about the dangers of taking
sides, I must comment that point as it applies to this novel.
Written in 1962, it applies a bit of historical revisionism in
implying that support for Benito Mussolini was considered odious in
the 1930s. Actually, Mussolini was quite popular in the West; he
did, after all, keep the trains running on time, or so it was
claimed.

Sincerely,

Mr. Xenakis

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







Post#1179 at 07-15-2006 11:28 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
07-15-2006, 11:28 PM #1179
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee
> I have to disagree about Rumsfeld. I don't think Mr. "Six weeks in
> Iraq and they'll be throwing flowers at our feet" can see anything
> clearly even now. He was right about them throwing things at us.
> But they're ain't been no flowers yet.
What I was referring to was that both Manmohan Singh and Donald
Rumsfeld, both born in 1932, grew up at a time when Germany and Japan
were rearming and planning world domination while the rest of the
world wasn't paying attention. Instead of paying attention, the rest
of the world was wasting its time with fatuous, idiotic political
arguments. In the 1930s these arguments were about the dozens of
Roosevelt administration scandals rather than about throwing flowers,
but the result was the same. But since both Singh and Rumsfeld grew
up at that time, they know what it "feels like," and they know
intuitively what's going on in the world today.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Thanks for the reply John. My understanding of India's cycles needs work. If you would kindly answer I'd like to discuss the following. In your opinion was India's seperation, independence and subsequent first Pakistani war in 1947 a 4t event? If not, which turning do you think that they were in then and now? Considering the modern political state of India is a British creation that lasted over a cycle, it is possible that the British experence put India on the "western cycle." Or, if an earlier cycle managed to survive the British overlay, how do you think the contact between the two cycles impacted India.

Sorry if this is sudden, but I must admit that thinking of Singh as a young subject of the empire does give one a different perspective. :o







Post#1180 at 07-17-2006 02:17 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
07-17-2006, 02:17 PM #1180
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Thanks for your response.

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> Well, I'm assuming that you feel that the NASDAQ bubble was a
> generational bubble.

> The difference between a generational bubble and a regular boom is
> clear. But what about a crash? I suppose you could call the 1987
> crash a generational crash. But as for the NASDAQ crash, it
> appears that it was a natural occurence relating to the 90's
> bubble. Does a generational crash require an extremely sharp
> selloff, or are crashes nothing more than the result from the
> bubble?
I've referred to the 1987 panic as a "false panic."
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=150871#150871
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...530panic#false
I understand that. What I was referring to was your speculation that the cause may have been that the panic occured 58 years after the 1929 crash.

The 1990s stock market bubble did not end in 2000, and is not ended
today. It started as a tech bubble, and then morphed into more
general stock bubble, a credit bubble, a real estate bubble, and a
commodity bubble. The anticipated generational crash will bring an
end to all these bubbles.
I'm a little confused. The Nasdaq may still be overpriced, but it isn't anywhere near the levels it was a few years ago. I concluded that it was like the Nikkei in that the crash had occured, but it still has a ways to go.

The Dow and the S&P on the otherhand, are/were near the historic levels and have yet to truly crash.

Question. I've noticed that no one seems to be calling the current situation a bubble, but they allude to the very similar situation a few years ago as a "bubble." I would be too young to know, but do you have any recollection of those words being used back in the late 90's and early '00s?

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> Also, do you see the Nikkei bubble and crash as being
> generational? Came a bit quick, don't you think?
I'm not sure what you mean by being quick, since the Nikkei bubble
built up throughout the 1980s and Japan still hasn't recovered from
the crash.


The 1990 Nikkei crash certainly appears to be generational. It would
be a very interesting project to study Japanese finance from
1900-1940, in order to see how the 1980s bubble came about.
What I meant by quick was that our stock bubble came about around 1995. Theirs came about much sooner (1985ish?). But their financial history may hold the answer.

*Edit* Then again, didn't the BSE Sensex only bubble last year? Maybe the window of the start of a bubble is quite large.







Post#1181 at 07-17-2006 11:40 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-17-2006, 11:40 PM #1181
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

India's cycles

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee
> Thanks for the reply John. My understanding of India's cycles
> needs work. If you would kindly answer I'd like to discuss the
> following. In your opinion was India's seperation, independence
> and subsequent first Pakistani war in 1947 a 4t event? If not,
> which turning do you think that they were in then and now?
> Considering the modern political state of India is a British
> creation that lasted over a cycle, it is possible that the British
> experence put India on the "western cycle." Or, if an earlier
> cycle managed to survive the British overlay, how do you think the
> contact between the two cycles impacted India.
My list of tasks has contained the item "figure out India's cycles"
for a long, long time. The problem is that I estimate that it will
take a good week of work, and I'll have to refer to half a dozen
histories of India and Pakistan to get it all straight.

So all I can do is list some general things that I've decided are
fairly likely, until I have a chance to do a real job:
  • The main fault line is between Hindus and Muslims. However, there
    are other fault lines.
  • Within Hindus, there are caste fault lines (Dalits vs other
    castes).
  • Maoists -- I think that's a Buddhism vs Hindu fault line, but I'm
    not completely certain.
  • Sri Lanka's Tamils vs Sinhalese spills over into India.
  • I'm pretty certain that the 1946-47 war over Kashmir and Jammu,
    resulting in the partitioning of Kashmir and the Line of Control,
    was a crisis war.
  • However, India is so huge with so many different fault lines, I
    really can't be sure whether other regions of India are on different
    timelines. This is where all the research is required.


If this subject interests you, please feel free to research India's
timeline yourself and post the results here. My list of tasks is so
big it could reach to the moon, and I'd love to be able to scratch
this one off.

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee
> Sorry if this is sudden, but I must admit that thinking of Singh
> as a young subject of the empire does give one a different
> perspective.
Well, according to his biography, he was heavily involved in the
English scene from his youth, so even if there's some timeline
confusion within India, he certainly would have been well aware,
growing up, of what was going on in Europe.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1182 at 07-17-2006 11:46 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-17-2006, 11:46 PM #1182
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Generational crashes

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> I understand that. What I was referring to was your speculation
> that the cause may have been that the panic occured 58 years after
> the 1929 crash.
If I understand you, you're raising a semantic issue -- what does
"generational" mean? That's a good question. I keep looking for
different ways to explain things on my web site, and I try out
different terms or phrases. Right now, at this moment in time, I
really couldn't tell you what I mean by the word "generational."

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> I'm a little confused. The Nasdaq may still be overpriced, but it
> isn't anywhere near the levels it was a few years ago. I concluded
> that it was like the Nikkei in that the crash had occured, but it
> still has a ways to go.

> The Dow and the S&P on the other hand, are/were near the historic
> levels and have yet to truly crash.
Actually, they were all way overpriced in 2000, but the Nasdaq was
way way way overpriced. Here's a comparative graph:



The above graph shows the comparative growth of all three indexes
since 1971, and obviously the Nasdaq grew much faster than the S&P
and DJIA indexes.

However, all three were way overpriced in 2000. Over the long range,
these indexes should grow by about 4.5% per year (including
inflation). So from 1971-2000, they should have grown 1.045^29 =
358%. As you can see from the graph, all three had grown several
times faster than that. From 1971-1006, they should have grown
1.045^35 = 467%, so obviously they're all still far overpriced.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> Question. I've noticed that no one seems to be calling the current
> situation a bubble, but they allude to the very similar situation
> a few years ago as a "bubble." I would be too young to know, but
> do you have any recollection of those words being used back in the
> late 90's and early '00s?
No. Investors never recognize a bubble until the bubble has crashed.

A bubble is like a perfumed woman who takes control of investors'
minds (even women investors). When the bubble speaks, the investors
obey. She says, "I want more. I want more. Give me more, and I'll
make you happy." And the investors, their minds in a complete fog
from her perfume and her beauty, cannot help but comply. "Yes,
Master. I'll do anything you say. Just command me and I'll obey. I'm
yours, body and soul. Take me."

Soon the bubble deflates, but the investors don't learn. The
deflated bubble may be a little less glamorous, and her perfume may
be a little cheaper, but she still commands the dreams and desires of
the investors. "I just needed my space for a little while," she
says. "But I'm back now. Give me more, and I'll make you SO happy
this time that you'll be in eternal bliss." And the investors say,
"Ooooooh yes, Master. You hurt me once, but I still love you, and
I'll do anything you say. Just command me again. I'm still yours,
body and soul."

This keeps happening over and over. Each time, the bubble is even
less glamorous and her perfume is still cheaper, but she knows how to
seduce investors. Even when she's dressed in tatters, she still can
seduce a few more investors.

She isn't finished until the Maximum number of investors suffer the
Maximum amount of ruin. Then she just goes off by herself to collect
child support.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> What I meant by quick was that our stock bubble came about around
> 1995. Theirs came about much sooner (1985ish?). But their
> financial history may hold the answer.
That's true, and I believe that it would be necessary to study
Japanese finance for the 1900s and 1910s to figure it all out.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> *Edit* Then again, didn't the BSE Sensex only bubble last year?
> Maybe the window of the start of a bubble is quite large.
There's a difference between large international bubbles and regional
bubbles. It's possible for regional bubbles to be unsynchronized
with the international bubbles. For example, the American colonies
experienced a bubble in the 1760s that crashed in 1772 when the
English banking system suffered a major crash. In the colonies, the
crash was a disaster, and was a major motivator for the Boston Tea
Party and, later, the Revolution. In England, the banking system
recovered fairly quickly, but then fell to the major bubble crash in
the aftermath of the bankruptcy of the French Monarchy in 1789.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1183 at 07-20-2006 01:33 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-20-2006, 01:33 PM #1183
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

June 5 appearance on Jim Pillsbury "Live"

June 5 appearance on Jim Pillsbury "Live"

On June 5, I appeared on Jim Pillsbury "Live", a cable local-access
interview show.

I've just become aware that a video of the show is available online,
at the following URL:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...pillsbury+live

I was the second of two guests in the one-hour interview show, so my
interview starts at 35:29 (35 minutes, 29 seconds).

The interview took place prior to the recent Mideast crisis, and most
of the discussion was about Iran and the antiwar movement.

I'm scheduled to appear on the Jim Pillsbury show again on Monday,
July 24, to talk about Lebanon, Israel and the Mideast crisis. I'll
post a notice when the video becomes available online.

If you live in Eastern Massachusetts, you can watch the show on most
cable systems. The show times schedule is at:
http://www.jimpillsbury.org/show-times.html

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1184 at 07-23-2006 07:55 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-23-2006, 07:55 PM #1184
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

TFT and Politics

Dear Marc,

I'm responding to the message you posted in another thread.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=165582#165582

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
> I'm not necessarily arguing that there's no cycle in history. Two
> things, however, I am convinced of: 1) the timing of it's turning
> is in near- ridiculous dispute and, 2) the cycle is irrelevant to
> any useful political dialogue.
I have mixed emotions about what you're saying here because this
whole subject has become somewhat emotional for me and I have mixed
agreement about what you're saying here.

I've been telling people lately the following: Treasure the time
you have left, and use it to prepare yourself, your family, your
community and your nation.
I hold Silents to a higher standard,
because they've seen it all before, and I hold people in this forum
to a higher standard, because they should be more knowledgeable.

I've also commented from time to time on the fatuousness of political
arguments in this forum, partially because I'm frustrated when I see
knowledgeable, intelligent people making such arguments when they
should know better. I do believe that "useful political dialog" is
possible, but I believe that it should be forward-looking, trying to
understand how Democrats and Republicans will re-align themselves in
the future, when there are dozens of Chinese nuclear missiles landing
on American cities, for example.

However, the fault is not with S&H and TFT and identifying historical
cycles; the real irony is that people making these political
arguments are showing that they simply have no idea what S&H and TFT
are about. To praise or, more likely, blame George Bush for
something that will or will not happen in the 4T is completely
foreign to the TFT theory. It makes as much sense to do that as it
is to blame WW II on Roosevelt. ("Perhaps if the Roosevelt
administration had treated its allies better, of if Roosevelt had
gotten out of that wheelchair and negotiated with the Japanese, or if
he'd intervened diplomatically in European politics, then WW II would
never have happened.")

On every page of TFT, either by omission or by explicit statement,
the authors say exactly the same thing: That politics cannot change
the generational cycles.

For example, on p. 119, they say: "This suggests that, had the
Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States would have found
some other provocation to declare total war against the Axis powers.
Whether that would have led to a worse outcome or to a better victory
(say, without the concessions at Yalta) is impossible to say. The
saeculum does not guarantee good or bad outcomes."

On page 148 they say, "Whether the American High was a good or bad
era is beside the point. What matters is that, in the seasonal rhythms
of history, it was a NECESSARY era."

On page 14, they quote Arthur Schlesinger as saying: "A true cycle
... is self-generating. It cannot be determined, short of
catastrophe, by external events. War, depressions, inflations, may
heighten or complicate moods, but the cycle itself rolls on,
self-contained, sulf-sufficient and autonomous."

I've looked, and I can't find a single example in TFT where S&H
ascribe a political cause to the timing or outcome of a turning.
Wherever the issue is addressed at all, it's to say or imply that
politics is totally irrelevent.

I've reached the same conclusion by applying Chaos Theory in
Generational Dynamics. The final result is this: There is nothing,
absolutely NOTHING, that George Bush or any politician can do that
will have a PREDICTABLE effect on the 4T. Whatever is going to
happen is going to happen, and arguing about politics only takes away
from what you should be doing: Treasure the time you have left, and
use it to prepare yourself, your family, your community and your
nation.


And so, Marc, you can take some satisfaction in the fact that when
someone in the forum makes a "near-ridiculous" argument that Bush is
making the 4T worse it means that the person making the argument
simply doesn't have the vaguest idea what TFT is about. However,
this may not be totally satisfying to you, because it also means
that, for example, nothing that Reagan did had any predictable effect
on the 3T either.

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
> If there is a cycle it certainly revolves around the competition
> of ideas. Ergo one side is always on the losing end.
I actually don't look at online debate as a win or lose situation. I
look at it as similar to a series of tennis matches. If one side
always wins, then the match isn't very interesting; what makes it
interesting is if each side wins and loses sometimes. Thus, in the
long run, there is no losing or winning side.

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
> Honestly, you have to admit, nearly every poster at this website
> is convinced that a) only Democrats are capable of inheriting the
> fruit of the past "Awakening" and b) if a fourth turn is run by
> Republicans, America is likely to end up like Nazi
> Germany.
The interesting thing is that the war will completely change both the
Republican and Democratic party so much that no one can be sure
which party he'll want to belong to after the war.

There may be a deeper reason why this kind of misunderstanding should
occur.

In a recent posting in the "Objections to Generational Dynamics" thread,
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=165245#165245
I compared a stock market bubble to a perfumed woman who seduces
investors into investing more and more and more, until the maximum
number of investors are seduced into maximum ruin.

But there's a deeper reason why investors don't recognize bubbles: If
they recognized a stock market bubble, then they wouldn't invest, and
the bubble would collapse. Therefore, it's (mathematically)
impossible for investors in general to recognize a bubble, since the
bubble wouldn't exist if they did.

A similar argument appears to apply to political arguments in the
fourth turning: If people were sufficiently aware of the danger of a
crisis war, then there wouldn't be a crisis war. People are only
sufficiently aware of this in a 1T or 2T. That's why, in the well
over 100+ crisis wars I've identified, a crisis war never occurs in a
1T or 2T, and very rarely occur before the middle of the 3T.

That's why I've said many Strauss and Howe's fundamental work is
absolutely brilliant in how it explains the world in a way that's so
counter-intuitive that few people can even grasp its implications. In
order to develop their work, they had to go completely against the
grain of standard political, sociological and historical thought, and
come up with a theory that few politicians, sociologists and
historians are capable or desirous of understanding. That statement
extends to many people in this forum. (There are people in this forum
who understand TFT; I can usually spot them instantly by seeing their
reasoning in just a couple of postings. However, they tend to learn
quickly to keep their mouths shut.)

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
> As our esteemed Professor Kaiser said, the Millennial generation
> are "ours."
In another posting, Professor Kaiser said that I agree with him about
you. I would like to demur.

Sincerely,

John

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

P.S.: If anyone cares to disagree with my characterizations of TFT
and politics, as described above, I'd be very grateful if you could
support your disagreement with specific quotes from TFT or
"Generations."

P.P.S: Treasure the time you have left, and use it to prepare
yourself, your family, your community and your nation.







Post#1185 at 07-23-2006 08:02 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
07-23-2006, 08:02 PM #1185
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

John, I've been away on my summer sail up to the San Jaun Islands, but now I'm back.

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Richard,

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
> So why can't you, John, come up with the magic formula for GD?
> After all, you have a few precious degrees from one of those
> hallowed Halls of Ivy. Come on. Where's the dx/dt = f(x) and so
> on? I'm wondering now if you should change your theatise title to
> either "Generational Macrodynamics" or "Generational
> Megadynamics." The acronym would be "GM," however, which may not
> play so well in Peoria.

> How about "Macrogenerational Megadynamics"?
You're coming perilously close, in these paragraphs, to creating the
perception in my mind that you're mocking me. However, that
perception is offset by the fact I agree with most of what you're
saying, so I'll attribute that perception to my own paranoia, and
assume that you're being sincere.
No, I was sincere. I wouldn't dream of mocking you, John, unless I thought you needed it to help you grow up. No need for any more paranoia at your age. The Chickens of September are Spring-like to you, my man.

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
...But you know, Chaos Theory is a funny thing. It doesn't really tell
you anything new. What it does is give you a handy list of terms
(like "attractor") that you can explain things with, and it gives you
a handy list of reasons why you can't do certain things (like predict
next week's weather). In the case of Generational Dynamics it tells
why you can't predict political events and it tells why political acts
have no predictable effect on major world events. So it's mainly
useful for helping you understand what you CAN'T do -- which is a VERY
good thing, incidentally, because knowing what you CAN'T do saves you
a lot of time. But its value is primarily negative, since it doesn't
tell you what you CAN do, and certainly doesn't tell you how to do
it.
I think chaos theory is potentially useful for identifying and measuring the effective attractors, the boundaries of their influence, and their macro-periodic rhythms. There are several good algorithms available for these purposes. Have you tried on any for an exploratory fitting of your GD principles? I wonder how your perceived attractors worked out.

—Croak







Post#1186 at 07-23-2006 08:22 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
07-23-2006, 08:22 PM #1186
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Re: God and The Formula

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Croak isn't mocking you, or your theory, John. He's merely applying a heavy dose of skepticism, as is his nature. And I concur, but, of course, for differing reasons altogether. While Croak seems to heartily wrestle with S. J. Gould's 1,433 pages to elucidate "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" but still demanding a simple "dx/dt = f(x)" formula for immortality, I think the whole mess to be rather simple really...

...God, or what ever one chooses to call IT/Him/Her/Them et al, can't be explained via formula but only by "faith in things unseen." That's quite an anathema to a scientist, even one degreed from the reddish Univ. of Toledo.

And, according to S&H, one cannot take "God" out of the mystery of even generational cycles of history. 50% of their entire theory revolves around (pun intended) humankind's nutty "inner" drive that's makes mincemeat of sense of logic formula (google "Bishop Pike" for example). This spiritual longing defys even God's own mathmatical equation, which certainly explain all that is material.

In summation, while Croak may eagerly conclude God must thus crazy, I don't. God's just fine. Croak's the ones who's nuts. And so is the cycle of human events. :wink:
Why is God letting us suffer under His divine omnipotence, when He loves us so much? I am suspicious that such a God Himself suffers from extreme bi-polar disorder. And He's mean, too. I am suspicious that any old God Who would let a random asteroid kill off the dinosaurs might also allow for human extinction. After that, what's a good God worth, anyway?

—Croak







Post#1187 at 07-27-2006 09:50 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
07-27-2006, 09:50 PM #1187
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

John, do you have any online information on the PKK war? I've been looking for more information on that subject.

Terrorist attacks are indicative of a crisis war, but the lack of a strong response on Turkey's part makes me wonder if your conclusion is incorrect. Do you have any information to show crisis war actions on behalf of Turkey?

And what do think is in store for Turkey over the next few years?







Post#1188 at 07-28-2006 10:44 AM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
07-28-2006, 10:44 AM #1188
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Re: God and The Formula

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
In summation, while Croak may eagerly conclude God must thus crazy, I don't. God's just fine. Croak's the ones who's nuts. And so is the cycle of human events. :wink:
I have always wanted to pin you down on this, DA. Do you think generational cycles are crap or is your penchant for sarcasm just too much for me to cut through?
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#1189 at 07-29-2006 12:18 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-29-2006, 12:18 AM #1189
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Re: God and The Formula

Dear Richard,

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
> John, I've been away on my summer sail up to the San Jaun Islands,
> but now I'm back.
Sounds wonderful.

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
> I think chaos theory is potentially useful for identifying and
> measuring the effective attractors, the boundaries of their
> influence, and their macro-periodic rhythms. There are several
> good algorithms available for these purposes. Have you tried on
> any for an exploratory fitting of your GD principles? I wonder how
> your perceived attractors worked out.
I discussed all this in a general sense in Chapter 4 of my book
(Generational Dynamics for Historians, the current draft of
which can be read for free on my web site).

However, to discover and prove all the specifics that you're talking
about would be a major research project and a truly significant
achievement. Alas, however, it's beyond the scope of my capabilities
at this time, so that honor will have to go to someone else.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1190 at 07-29-2006 12:19 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-29-2006, 12:19 AM #1190
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Turkey

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> John, do you have any online information on the PKK war? I've been
> looking for more information on that subject.

> Terrorist attacks are indicative of a crisis war, but the lack of
> a strong response on Turkey's part makes me wonder if your
> conclusion is incorrect. Do you have any information to show
> crisis war actions on behalf of Turkey?

> And what do think is in store for Turkey over the next few years?
When I was sorting all these things out 3-4 years ago, I concluded
that the war between Turkey and the PKK Kurds was a crisis war, but
right now I don't remember why, and I don't seem to have any notes
about it. A couple of years ago, someone (perhaps "catfishncod") also
challenged me on this point, and suggested that it might have been a
crisis war for the Kurds but not for the Turks.

I haven't done anything to research it further, but that could
certainly be the case. The war took place mainly in SE Turkey, and
here's an article from 2000 that says that 37,000 Kurds were killed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/The_Kurds/...192983,00.html

Obviously this needs to be researched again. As you point out, the
Turks never really made any kind of explosive response, so I would
have a hard time today defending a claim that this was a crisis war.

As to what's in store for Turkey, my guess is that they'll be
involved in war with the Orthodox Christians in Georgia and Armenia
when the Caucasian wars break out. It's also possible -- and likely
-- that Turkey will get involved with the European wars.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1191 at 07-29-2006 12:19 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-29-2006, 12:19 AM #1191
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Re: God and The Formula

Dear Scott,

Quote Originally Posted by scott 63
> I have always wanted to pin you down on this, DA. Do you think
> generational cycles are crap or is your penchant for sarcasm just
> too much for me to cut through?
Marc will have to speak for himself, of course, but everything I've
seen from him indicates to me that he thinks that the generational
cycles are crap.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1192 at 07-29-2006 01:19 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
07-29-2006, 01:19 AM #1192
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Re: Turkey

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Matt,

When I was sorting all these things out 3-4 years ago, I concluded
that the war between Turkey and the PKK Kurds was a crisis war, but
right now I don't remember why, and I don't seem to have any notes
about it. A couple of years ago, someone (perhaps "catfishncod") also
challenged me on this point, and suggested that it might have been a
crisis war for the Kurds but not for the Turks.

I haven't done anything to research it further, but that could
certainly be the case. The war took place mainly in SE Turkey, and
here's an article from 2000 that says that 37,000 Kurds were killed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/The_Kurds/...192983,00.html
I did some more research and found this:

http://www.kongra-gel.com/index.php?...id=270&Itemid=

Turkish army's new balance for 1984-1999: 18,475 Turkish soldiers killed

TURKEY, June 5 (DozaMe.org) - The Turkish army published a new balance of the Turkish and civilian casualties in the war against the PKK between 1984-1999 during an OSCE-meeting in Turkey. The army put their casualties to 18,475 soldiers and the civilian casualties to 12,485.Former numbers were 5,555 soldiers killed and 5,302 civilians. The army had put the PKK casualties to 23,638. The first official total death toll was 34,495.

The Turkish army didn't publish any PKK casualties in their new report. With these new numbers, the Turkish army now puts the total death toll for the war between 1984-1999 (with their old numbers of PKK casualties) to 54,598. This is 20,103 people more than the initial numbers given by the Turkish army.

The Turkish army has not added the Kurdish civilian casualties caused by Turkish death squads and the state-sponsored Turkish Hizbullah. These numbers are 18,500, according to the facts set forward by the former French Ambassador to Turkey Eric Rouleau in the November/December 2000 edition of 'Foreign Affairs'. Together with these numbers, the death toll reaches little over 73,000.

ARGK (People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan) had issued a statement in 1999 putting the numbers of the Turkish casualties between 1984-1999 to 42,500. 31,418 were Turkish officers, non commissioned officers and regular soldiers. 5,365 were Special Forces, police officers and intelligence agents. 5,717 were paramilitary Village Guards.
This article claims that thousands of villages were burned to the ground by the Turkish military, and torture was widespread. All in all, nearly 380,000 Kurds were displaced from their homes.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turk...m#_Toc97005223

The above article makes note of recent government efforts to assist the displaced people.

This is all very muddled. I'm wary of terrorist attacks being considered "crisis wars," since they often do not represent the feeling of a population. However, the casualty reports, if true, would indicate that this was very widespread. "Terrorist wars" are difficult to decipher, I'm sure. You wouldn't consider the Palestinian Intifadas crisis wars.

If it has been 5 years since the slowing of violence (but not a complete cessation), couldn't it be possible that Turks and Kurds may still have a way to go, especially considering that there is no visible explosive climax that defines a fourth turning (assuming that it was a crisis war)? There does not seem to be a true resolution to the conflict as well. I suppose we'll see how things will play out, but it seems hard to imagine that Turkey will not be caught up in the "Clash of Civilizations."







Post#1193 at 07-29-2006 11:29 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
07-29-2006, 11:29 AM #1193
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Re: God and The Formula

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Scott,

Quote Originally Posted by scott 63
> I have always wanted to pin you down on this, DA. Do you think
> generational cycles are crap or is your penchant for sarcasm just
> too much for me to cut through?
Marc will have to speak for himself, of course, but everything I've
seen from him indicates to me that he thinks that the generational
cycles are crap.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
So then what's he doing in these forums? If I think something's crap, I don't join a list or forum devoted to it!
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#1194 at 07-29-2006 12:30 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-29-2006, 12:30 PM #1194
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Re: God and The Formula

Dear Pat,

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger
Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Scott,

Quote Originally Posted by scott 63
> I have always wanted to pin you down on this, DA. Do you think
> generational cycles are crap or is your penchant for sarcasm just
> too much for me to cut through?
Marc will have to speak for himself, of course, but everything I've
seen from him indicates to me that he thinks that the generational
cycles are crap.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
So then what's he doing in these forums? If I think something's crap, I don't join a list or forum devoted to it!
Because he likes us and enjoys the discussion.

John







Post#1195 at 07-29-2006 03:58 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-29-2006, 03:58 PM #1195
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Re: Turkey

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> I did some more research and found this:

> http://www.kongra-gel.com/index.php?...id=270&Itemid=

> ...

> This article claims that thousands of villages were burned to the
> ground by the Turkish military, and torture was widespread. All
> in all, nearly 380,000 Kurds were displaced from their homes.

> http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turk...m#_Toc97005223

> The above article makes note of recent government efforts to
> assist the displaced people.

> This is all very muddled. I'm wary of terrorist attacks being
> considered "crisis wars," since they often do not represent the
> feeling of a population. However, the casualty reports, if true,
> would indicate that this was very widespread. "Terrorist wars" are
> difficult to decipher, I'm sure. You wouldn't consider the
> Palestinian Intifadas crisis wars.
Thanks for doing this research. I think it clarifies a lot of the
situation.

You're right that "terrorist wars" are by no means crisis wars. Very
often terrorism begins right after the end of a crisis war by
factions that are unhappy with the settlement. Or it begins during
chaos of the awakening era and continues in the form of low-level
violence for decades, sometimes turning into a non-crisis civil war.

Often there's an uneasy "peace" settlement during the unraveling era,
because both sides (the terrorists and the government) realize that
things are getting very serious, and neither side wants a full-blown
crisis war. This sets up an equilibrium that both sides can live
with until further generational changes disturb the equilibrium
enough to trigger a new crisis war. So, all in all, you can have
several decades of on and off low-level violence, finally bursting
into full scale crisis war. This pattern has been playing out in
different places today -- Côte d'Ivoire, Kashmir and Sri Lanka, for
example. Even the Palestine situation can be read this way, referring
to the 1994 peace treaty.

But the Turkey situation doesn't read that way for the reason that
you point out. Here's a quote from your second reference:

Quote Originally Posted by Human Rights Watch
> Evacuations were unlawful and violent. Security forces would
> surround a village using helicopters, armored vehicles, troops,
> and village guards, and burn stored produce, agricultural
> equipment, crops, orchards, forests, and livestock. They set fire
> to houses, often giving the inhabitants no opportunity to retrieve
> their possessions. During the course of such operations, security
> forces frequently abused and humiliated villagers, stole their
> property and cash, and ill-treated or tortured them before herding
> them onto the roads and away from their former homes. The
> operations were marked by scores of “disappearances” and
> extrajudicial executions. By the mid-1990s, more than 3,000
> villages had been virtually wiped from the map, and, according to
> official figures, 378,335 Kurdish villagers had been displaced and
> left homeless.
> http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turkey0305/3.htm
This is clearly a crisis-war type "explosion" for the Kurds, and
bears a striking similarity to the 1915 "Armenian genocide."

However, returning to your original point, this is NOT a crisis war
situation for the Turks.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> If it has been 5 years since the slowing of violence (but not a
> complete cessation), couldn't it be possible that Turks and Kurds
> may still have a way to go, especially considering that there is
> no visible explosive climax that defines a fourth turning
> (assuming that it was a crisis war)? There does not seem to be a
> true resolution to the conflict as well. I suppose we'll see how
> things will play out, but it seems hard to imagine that Turkey
> will not be caught up in the "Clash of Civilizations."
The crisis war for the Kurds is over, as it is for all of Iraq, but
you're right that Turkey is going to be caught up in the Clash of
Civilizations.

One interesting way to look at it is that if we start by roughly
equivalencing the Armenian and Kurd genocides -- 80 years apart --
then we might see if there's some pattern that Turkey followed in
the 1910s and 1920s that they're repeating in some form or other
today.

Here's an excerpt from my first book of what I wrote about Turkey:

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis in 'Generational Dynamics: Forecasting America's Destiny'
> A new major invasion by Russia against the Ottomans occurred in
> 1853, when the Crimean War began. The Ottomans pushed the
> Russians back, but only with the help of the English and French.

> This was very significant because it was the first time that a
> significant number of European forces were present on Ottoman
> soil. This resulted in enormous changes in the decades to come,
> for it led to the way European forces encroaching on Ottoman
> lands throughout the empire.

> Following their stunning defeat with the Treaty at Karlowitz in
> 1699, the Ottomans began more and more to imitate the victors. At
> first the imitation was primarily in the area of military
> technique and weaponry, but by the 1800s began to include some
> cultural imitation.

> However, the Wars of German Unification and Italian Unification
> that occurred in the 1860s and 1870s also had a significant effect
> on the Ottomans in the awakening period following the Crimean War:
> A "pan-Islamic" movement began among the Muslims to unify all
> Muslims along a common front, and Istanbul would be center of
> this worldwide identity group.

> Instead of becoming larger and more unified, however, the Ottoman
> Empire continued to lose large parts of their former empire. By
> 1914, Egypt, Cyprus, Aden and all of North Africa were being
> occupied by European powers. Furthermore, the Europeans were
> exerting influence in the Balkans, and Russia was exerting control
> in Iran and Afghanistan.

> These losses caused increasing discontent among the Ottoman
> people. The most significant development occurred in 1889, when
> students of the military medical school in Istanbul formed a
> secret society to fight the government. Similar secret societies
> sprang up in other colleges and among junior officers in the army,
> despite crackdowns by the authorities. The best-known group was
> the Ottoman Freedom Society, founded in 1906. It united with
> other groups and became the Committee of Union and Progress in
> 1907.

> The Committee of Union and Progress was the leading faction in
> the Young Turk Revolution.

> In 1908, the Young Turks launched a rebellion in the Balkans that
> soon engulfed the entire empire. In 1914, the Ottomans entered
> World War I on the side of Germany, resulting in enormous
> dislocations. Of the three million men drafted for the army, half
> of them deserted. Inflation was enormous, resulting in a 2500
> percent increase in cost of living between 1914 and 1918. A
> famine in Syria and Lebanon (still part of the empire) in 1915-16
> claimed 100,000 lives.

> In the late 1800s, a Turkish identity movement had begun to form,
> promoting Turkish (as opposed to Ottoman) literature and culture.
> However, the Turkish nationalism movement didn't gain much
> traction with the public at that time, mainly because for 1,400
> years the great strength of the Ottoman Empire, and indeed all of
> the Islamic empires, was that they were all multi-ethnic and the
> Muslim rulers were really very good at preserving the rights and
> meeting the needs of their various ethnic minorities.

> Turkish nationalism began to grow during World War I because it
> was becoming clear that only the Turkish people would remain from
> the Ottoman Empire, and furthermore, some Europeans wanted to even
> break off even pieces of Turkey. By 1919, there were so many
> Allied forces in Istanbul that the Ottomans feared that the Allies
> intended to keep Istanbul for themselves.

> Actually, there were three separate Muslim identities within the
> Ottoman Empire that formed in the Mideast around this time: The
> Turkish identity (in what is now Turkey), the Arab identity
> (Saudi Arabia), and the Persian identity (Iran).

> With the encouragement of the English, the Arab nationalists
> turned against the Ottomans.

> Another group that turned against the Ottomans must be mentioned:
> The Armenians. This Orthodox Christian population lives in the
> midst of the Muslim population of what was the eastern portion of
> the Ottoman Empire. An Armenian uprising that occurred in
> Istanbul in 1894-96 was brutally put down, with a large-scale
> massacre of Armenians in Istanbul.

> In 1914, Russia organized four large Armenian volunteer guerrilla
> units to support the war effort against the Ottomans. In
> reaction, the Ottomans began deporting the entire Armenian
> population -- millions of people -- resulting in deaths of over a
> million Armenians in what amounted to a death march.

> Finally, in October, 1922, the Turkish Republic was declared,
> putting an official end to the Ottoman Empire after 600 years.
> The president of the new nation was Mustafa Kemal, an activist who
> had led the fight to keep Turkey from being split up among the
> Europeans.

> Mustafa Kemal, who later took the name Ataturk (father of the
> Turks), led the new country in a distinctly Turkish direction. He
> did everything he could to sweep away the Ottoman past. He
> abandoned the Ottoman policy of territorial expansion, required
> Turks to wear Western-style clothing, abolished polygamy, adopted
> the Christian Gregorian calendar, and adopted the Latin alphabet
> for writing in the Turkish language, which had previously been
> done in Arabic script. He even sought to purge Arabic and
> Persian words from the Turkish language.

> Perhaps most important is that he sought to secularize Turkish
> society. The caliphate, the office of the supreme spiritual
> leader for Sunni Muslims worldwide, was abolished. Religious
> schools were closed, and Islamic law courts were dismantled. A
> new constitution separated religion from the state, and gave all
> male Turkish citizens over 21 the right to vote,

> As for the other pieces of the Ottoman Empire, they were turned
> into independent nations: Iraq in 1924, Saudi Arabia in 1932,
> Syria in 1945, Lebanon and Jordan in 1946.
Reading through this material, you really get the feeling about how
important Turkey was to the entire world at that time, about the
central role that Turkey played to the whole world, perhaps much more
important than almost any other country except Russia.

So it stands to reason that your suspicions are correct, and that
Turkey, with its centralized location in the midst of all the
civilizations that will be clashing, will play a central role in the
next world war.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1196 at 07-29-2006 08:35 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
07-29-2006, 08:35 PM #1196
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

Re: God and The Formula

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Pat,

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger
Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Scott,

Quote Originally Posted by scott 63
> I have always wanted to pin you down on this, DA. Do you think
> generational cycles are crap or is your penchant for sarcasm just
> too much for me to cut through?
Marc will have to speak for himself, of course, but everything I've
seen from him indicates to me that he thinks that the generational
cycles are crap.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
So then what's he doing in these forums? If I think something's crap, I don't join a list or forum devoted to it!
Because he likes us and enjoys the discussion.

John
O.K. :wink:







Post#1197 at 07-30-2006 02:08 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
07-30-2006, 02:08 AM #1197
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Re: Turkey

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Matt,

Thanks for doing this research. I think it clarifies a lot of the
situation.
No problem John. I like it when the information is easily accessible.

You're right that "terrorist wars" are by no means crisis wars. Very
often terrorism begins right after the end of a crisis war by
factions that are unhappy with the settlement. Or it begins during
chaos of the awakening era and continues in the form of low-level
violence for decades, sometimes turning into a non-crisis civil war.

Often there's an uneasy "peace" settlement during the unraveling era,
because both sides (the terrorists and the government) realize that
things are getting very serious, and neither side wants a full-blown
crisis war. This sets up an equilibrium that both sides can live
with until further generational changes disturb the equilibrium
enough to trigger a new crisis war. So, all in all, you can have
several decades of on and off low-level violence, finally bursting
into full scale crisis war. This pattern has been playing out in
different places today -- Côte d'Ivoire, Kashmir and Sri Lanka, for
example. Even the Palestine situation can be read this way, referring
to the 1994 peace treaty.
I would like to learn more about this. Would Robert Pape's book be a good start?

But the Turkey situation doesn't read that way for the reason that
you point out. Here's a quote from your second reference:

Quote Originally Posted by Human Rights Watch
> Evacuations were unlawful and violent. Security forces would
> surround a village using helicopters, armored vehicles, troops,
> and village guards, and burn stored produce, agricultural
> equipment, crops, orchards, forests, and livestock. They set fire
> to houses, often giving the inhabitants no opportunity to retrieve
> their possessions. During the course of such operations, security
> forces frequently abused and humiliated villagers, stole their
> property and cash, and ill-treated or tortured them before herding
> them onto the roads and away from their former homes. The
> operations were marked by scores of “disappearances” and
> extrajudicial executions. By the mid-1990s, more than 3,000
> villages had been virtually wiped from the map, and, according to
> official figures, 378,335 Kurdish villagers had been displaced and
> left homeless.
> http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turkey0305/3.htm
This is clearly a crisis-war type "explosion" for the Kurds, and
bears a striking similarity to the 1915 "Armenian genocide."

However, returning to your original point, this is NOT a crisis war
situation for the Turks.
You know, this is something I never fully understood about Generational Dynamics. I touched on this when referring to Russia in World War Two and left with mixed feelings. In the above Human Rights Watch passage, we hear of Turkish Security Forces committing these acts upon Kurds, not the other way around.

What I don't understand is why you cite the above passage as being indicative of a crisis war for the Kurdish people when these actions are not being carried out by the Kurds but rather, by the Turks. It is the actions that you commit that determine the crisis war for you, not the actions that are committed upon you. If we decided to burn Iraqi villages to the ground and kill and torture civilians in a crisis-like fashion, it wouldn't be a crisis-type "explosion" for the Iraqis, so why would it be for the Kurds (forgetting their terrorist actions for a moment)?

Please clarify this point.

Matt







Post#1198 at 07-30-2006 10:13 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
07-30-2006, 10:13 PM #1198
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Re: Turkey

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> I would like to learn more about this. Would Robert Pape's book be
> a good start?
Well, all of the stuff you quoted came from me, and is not available
anywhere else that I know of. I do try, as much as possible, to talk
about generational theory on my web site and in the "Objections to
Generational Dynamics" thread of the TFT forum, so that if I'm hit by
a car tomorrow, then you or other people will hopefully be able to
pick up where I left off, if anyone turns out to be interested.

No, Robert Pape's book is a statistical study of suicide bombers
since 1980. It has nothing about generational theory. I was able to
use some of his findings to show that most suicide bombers come from
nations in a "fifth turning" -- places that went through their fourth
turnings with no crisis war. But none of that is in Pape's book.

Except for mine, there are no recent books or articles on
generational theory, and this is something that distresses me greatly.
Strauss and Howe gave it up a decade ago, and when you see them quoted
in newspaper or magazine articles, it's never about their TFT work;
the article is always at the level of, "Were the kids in today's
younger generation cuddled enough?" Whenever I try to interest a
journalist or historian or pundit in the subject, I always get blown
off. I have had a few web site readers offer to help out with
publicity, but they get blown off too. One of them said that he
posted info on my web site on several bulletin boards, and there's
never any discussion, which is the same thing that's happened to me.

If you look at the archives of this forum, you can find that in the
early days there were a lot of discussion of TFT and generational
theory, but those days are gone.

So to answer your question, if you want to learn more about
generational theory, the only places you can go are my web site and
the "Objections" thread of the TFT forum. To my knowledge, no one
else in the world is working on generational theory or writing about
it.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> You know, this is something I never fully understood about
> Generational Dynamics. I touched on this when referring to Russia
> in World War Two and left with mixed feelings. In the above Human
> Rights Watch passage, we hear of Turkish Security Forces
> committing these acts upon Kurds, not the other way around.

> What I don't understand is why you cite the above passage as being
> indicative of a crisis war for the Kurdish people when these
> actions are not being carried out by the Kurds but rather, by the
> Turks. It is the actions that you commit that determine the crisis
> war for you, not the actions that are committed upon you. If we
> decided to burn Iraqi villages to the ground and kill and torture
> civilians in a crisis-like fashion, it wouldn't be a crisis-type
> "explosion" for the Iraqis, so why would it be for the Kurds
> (forgetting their terrorist actions for a moment)?
I had a lengthy e-mail conversation with one of my web site readers
on issues related to this question. He raised the issue of Russia in
WW II, and he also raised the question of the Palestinians, who
should have been on the WW I timeline.

He wanted to claim that Iran today was in a fourth turning, even
though he agreed that the Iran/Iraq war was a crisis war. To quote
him, "To me this underlines my assertion that there is an Imperial
clock setting mechanism whereby the dominant geopolitical entity
resets everyone's clock." He claimed that America (the dominant
entity) was somehow part of this wonderful clock that was going
around resetting every society to 4T.

I pointed out that once a crisis war occurs, and the artist and
prophet generations are determined, there is absolutely no way that
any "imperial clock" or anything else could possibly change an
awakening era country to a crisis era country; it would require that
nomads and artists would have to switch places, and prophets and
heroes would have to switch places, which was clearly impossible.

In fact, it's impossible for any society to go through the turnings
in any order other. The only way to get to 4T is from 3T; the only
way to get to 3T is from 2T; and the only way to get to 2T is from
1T.

Thus, Iran could not be a crisis era today, and Russia could not have
been in a crisis era during WW II.

So, how could the 1948 Arab-Jewish war have been a crisis war for
Palestinians, if Palestinians had already had a crisis war in the
breakup of the Ottoman empire?

Well, maybe it wasn't a crisis war for the Palestinians; maybe it was
an awakening war. But it's still the case that once the war ended,
the Palestine region was in an Austerity/High 1T era. In other
words, even though you can't get to any 2T, 3T or 4T except from the
previous turning, you CAN get to a 1T from another turning under
certain circumstances.

What are those circumstances? This is actually something I've
discussed a few times, although only in passing. It has to do with
relocation.

The first time I speculated about this was in what I've been calling
the "Puritan flip" -- when the awakening era Puritans, rebelling
against the Anglican church, came to America, where their kids
rebelled against Puritanism, the Pilgrim society was essentially
reset to a 1T by the relocation.

There are two other cases I've mentioned -- Russia's relocation of
the Chechens after WW II, and the Palestinians' relocation after the
partitioning of Palestine in 1948.

Ordinarily, even a major war cannot move a society from 2T to 1T; but
if there's a forced relocation of an entire population, so that the
entire generational structure is destroyed, then the generational
structure automatically rebuilds itself starting with 1T.

So that's what I was thinking of when I said that the Kurds had a
crisis war in 1994. Actually, I may have misspoke since, as you
point out, that judgment was based on what was done TO the Kurds,
rather than what the Kurds DID. However, I was reflexively thinking
of what came after. A massive relocation of several hundred thousand
Kurds may or may not be a crisis war, but after it's over it forces
the population into a new 1T Austerity/High era, so it has the effect
of a crisis war.

Obviously, like so many other things, this is something that could
use a great deal more research. This ties into the question of what
happens to a society when it suffers a major unexpected invasion
during 1T or 2T. In the 100+ crisis wars I looked at, I never found
a crisis war that began less than 42 years after the end of the
previous one, and very few less than 50 years. Maybe the reason for
this is that the only time it can ever happen is if the population is
completely destroyed or relocated, so the society effectively ends
(or merges with another society).

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#1199 at 07-31-2006 01:45 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
07-31-2006, 01:45 AM #1199
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Re: Turkey

John,

Thanks for your response. When you mentioned the Human Rights Watch
passage as a "crisis-war type "explosion,"" the Puritan-Flip did not come
to mind. This, of course, clears things up.

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
> I would like to learn more about this. Would Robert Pape's book be
> a good start?
Except for mine, there are no recent books or articles on
generational theory, and this is something that distresses me greatly.
Strauss and Howe gave it up a decade ago, and when you see them
quoted in newspaper or magazine articles, it's never about their TFT work;
the article is always at the level of, "Were the kids in today's
younger generation cuddled enough?" Whenever I try to interest a
journalist or historian or pundit in the subject, I always get blown
off. I have had a few web site readers offer to help out with
publicity, but they get blown off too. One of them said that he
posted info on my web site on several bulletin boards, and there's
never any discussion, which is the same thing that's happened to me.
I wonder if today is the wrong time. Things are so politicized that when
any theory that concludes that political decisions don't matter as much as
you may think, people won't want to hear it. And anyone is extremely
skeptical of most forecasting tools. Others, however, just choose to
ignore it, not wanting to face the problems.

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
So to answer your question, if you want to learn more about
generational theory, the only places you can go are my web site and
the "Objections" thread of the TFT forum. To my knowledge, no one
else in the world is working on generational theory or writing about
it.
I was looking for something that really explores modern terrorism. I know
it won't go into generational theory per se, but more how terrorist
violence originated in a particular region, and how it led to war.
Generational theory is great because you can apply it to just about
everything, especially things like this.







Post#1200 at 08-03-2006 03:56 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
08-03-2006, 03:56 PM #1200
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Something tells me you won't be surprised.

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has been working closely with Iran to develop its long-range ballistic missiles, possibly using Chinese technology, and is building large bases to prepare for their deployment, a South Korean state-run think tank said.

Communist North Korea is also building new sites near the Demilitarized Zone border for short-range missiles and is deploying missiles with improved precision that can strike most of Japan, the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security (IFANS) said in a report.

"The development of Taepodong-2 is conducted jointly with Iran, and it is possible China's technology is used in the development of the Taepodong-2 engine," said the IFANS report, which Reuters obtained on Thursday.

The collaboration is part of an international network, including Pakistan, that made it possible for the impoverished North to develop and deploy missiles despite scarce resources and limited testing, the study said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...src=rss&rpc=22
-----------------------------------------