Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> No problem John. I like it when the information is easily
> accessible.

Several months ago you asked me whether I'd ever studied Venezuela to
determine its generational timeline, and I said that I'd never looked
at it. The discussion involved the point that we can't seem to find
any crisis wars for Venezuela since the War of Independence in
1811-22.

Well, a few weeks ago I was looking through some old files, and I
found that I had indeed done a small study of Venezuela, and posted a
message to this very thread in 2004.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=103573#103573

I was quite shocked to see this, since I have no memory of writing
it. Apparently I really am completely losing my mind.

Anyway, what I concluded in 2004 was that Venezuela was following the
same time timeline as its next door neighbor, Colombia, for the
reasons explained there. Therefore, Venezuela's crisis wars are:

1811-22 War of Independence
1899-1902 War of a Thousand Days - prolonged civil war
1948-60 La Violencia - civil war

This would appear to indicate that Venezuela is currently in the
early part of an Unraveling era.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> 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.

I agree. I've had people tell me that they don't disagree with
anything I'm saying, but they just don't want to think about it, and
I can't say I blame them. Focusing on politics is just another way
of not thinking about it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> 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.

I haven't seen any book on terrorism that I'd really recommend,
though I haven't looked very hard.

You can get a popular book like Thomas Friedman's The World is
Flat. Friedman is an excellent reporter and he can connect the
dots, but like 99.99% of all journalists he swims in the dots he's
connecting, and in the end he connects all the dots back to something
George Bush did do or didn't do, said or didn't say. He's unable to
take a step back and look at the dots as part of the flow of history,
so he misses the point.

So I would say this: Go to a local bookstore, go to the history
section, and look through all the books until you find something you
like.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> 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. ...
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...src=rss&rpc=22
>

No, I'm not. Today all the idiots in Washington spent the days
arguing about whether Iraq was going to have a civil war, which is
impossible. (Why, I ask myself a million times a day, is this
something that I know, but the Washington brain trust is clueless
about?)

In the meantime, we see news every day of this incredible expansion
of this new worldwide "axis" led by China and Iran: North Korea,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria, Hizbollah, Venezuela, Malaysia. These
are among the countries that we're going to be fighting in the next
world war, possibly as soon as next year.

I have to mention one very interesting thing about the article that
you posted: It doesn't mention China.

I thought it was very interesting that North Korea shot off its 8
missiles on July 4, after China told them not to. On my web site, I
opined that North Korea had humiliated China in doing this, and
that's the reason why China voted for the UN Security Council
resolution condemning North Korea.

Later it turned out that Iranian representatives were present at the
July 4 missile launching. And now, the new article you've posted
indicates new cooperation between North Korea and Iran, but
excluding China.

This indicates that the new axis is having a few squabbles, so that
should provide some reassurance that our enemies don't get along any
better than we do with our allies.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Several months ago you asked me whether I'd ever studied Venezuela to
determine its generational timeline, and I said that I'd never looked
at it. The discussion involved the point that we can't seem to find
any crisis wars for Venezuela since the War of Independence in
1811-22.

Well, a few weeks ago I was looking through some old files, and I
found that I had indeed done a small study of Venezuela, and posted a
message to this very thread in 2004.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=103573#103573

I was quite shocked to see this, since I have no memory of writing
it. Apparently I really am completely losing my mind.

Anyway, what I concluded in 2004 was that Venezuela was following the
same time timeline as its next door neighbor, Colombia, for the
reasons explained there. Therefore, Venezuela's crisis wars are:

1811-22 War of Independence
1899-1902 War of a Thousand Days - prolonged civil war
1948-60 La Violencia - civil war

This would appear to indicate that Venezuela is currently in the
early part of an Unraveling era.

I rented three books on Venezuela following that discussion and came to a similar conclusion. Without a doubt, the War of Independence was a crisis war, but anything after that was impossible to determine. The information on Venezuela is hard to come by, as most sources focus on either Bolivar or Chavez, and occassionally both. The period between the two men seems to be completely ignored, for the most part.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In the meantime, we see news every day of this incredible expansion
of this new worldwide "axis" led by China and Iran: North Korea,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria, Hizbollah, Venezuela, Malaysia. These
are among the countries that we're going to be fighting in the next
world war, possibly as soon as next year.

I haven't heard anything about Malaysia. What information do you have?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I haven't heard anything about Malaysia. What information do you have?

Only that Ahmadinejad was in Malaysia yesterday saying that the cure
for the world's ills is the elimination of Israel.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Today all the idiots in Washington spent the days
arguing about whether Iraq was going to have a civil war, which is
impossible. (Why, I ask myself a million times a day, is this
something that I know, but the Washington brain trust is clueless
about?)

Impossible?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

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.

You actually think Rumsfeld knows what's going on???

John, John, John . . . . .

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

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.

You actually think Rumsfeld knows what's going on???

John, John, John . . . . .

Mr. R, Sec of War, is as clueless as that previous Sec. of War and CEO Superstar - McNamara. If you just apply the proper principals of business to things unrelated to business, you get a business result ... as is blatantly obvious to all that look at it from the proper angle.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

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.

You actually think Rumsfeld knows what's going on???

John, John, John . . . . .

Mr. R, Sec of War, is as clueless as that previous Sec. of War and CEO Superstar - McNamara. If you just apply the proper principals of business to things unrelated to business, you get a business result ... as is blatantly obvious to all that look at it from the proper angle.

It's pretty funny that at the precise moment that Bush became interested in his Legacy, events transpired such that he will be overshadowed by his Sec of Def, just like Johnson. Only Cheney can save him from repeating history to the letter. Some choice, huh?

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

> You actually think Rumsfeld knows what's going on???

> John, John, John . . . . .

Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that you (or anyone else
not directly on the firing line) knows more about what's going on
than the Secretary of Defense?

At any rate, I've written about this a number of times. It's not a
political judgment; it's a generational judgment. Rumsfeld was born
in 1932, he grew up during the time when Hitler was fooling the world
while preparing for war, and he also lived through that horrible,
sickening moment when the incompetence of the War Department permitted
almost the entire Pacific fleet to be destroyed in a single day. The
fact that he actually lived through those horrible events means that
he knows what's going on in the world more than any Boomer or Xer
could.

I'm 62 years old with high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so
who knows how long I'll be around. But you're still very young,
being an Xer and all, so you'll be one of the people who'll have to
pick up the pieces after a bunch of Chinese nuclear icbms have landed
on American cities. So the amount of preparation that America does
right now will be very important to you personally some day.

I've been telling this to people lately: Treasure the time you
have left, and use it to prepare yourself, your family, your community
and your nation.

Because there's absolutely nothing that anyone can do to
(predictably) affect the 4T "clash of civilizations" world war that's
coming except for one thing: One can prepare for it, and thus
increase the probability of survival.

People who criticize Don Rumsfeld focus on his perceived mistakes --
not sending enough troops into Iraq, etc. -- as if any war could be
pursued without mistake.

But I focus on what he's done right, especially in preparing the
country for what's coming.

Don Rumsfeld has been preparing the nation for the clash of
civilizations world war in a way that no Boomer or Xer could possibly
have done. He's brought the armed forced into the 21st century,
despite massive criticism from those whose fiefdoms were endangered,
and he's refocused the armed forces much more on the Pacific than
before. And whatever one may think of the Afghan and Iraq wars, he's
used them as an opportunity for the armed forces to develop many new
skills in using new high-tech weaponry -- skills that no other nation
has or will have for years.

In addition, in the just the last two weeks I've come to realize
something else really amazing that Rumsfeld has done, that I never
understood before, and this goes to the heart of many discussions
that you and I and many others in this forum have had.

In the last few weeks, we've seen a war between in progress between
Iran and Israel on Lebanese and Israeli soil.

Iran appears to have pursued the war masterfully, planning for it
well in advance, making provocative statements about the Holocaust to
infuriate the Israelis, manipulating the press, pulling the Israelis
into a ground war in southern Lebanon that they can't win, even
purposely using Lebanese apartment buildings to store weapons so that
Israel will be blamed when women and children are killed. In other
words, Iran has been pursuing a methodical 2T strategy.

Israel, by contrast, has exhibited full 4T crisis era fury. They
were overconfident at first, then escalated on almost a daily basis,
destroying more Lebanese infrastructure, calling up more and more
reserves, sending more soldiers into Lebanon. And just in the last
24 hours, Israel has had to replace its top commander for Lebanese
operations. Israel appears to me to be in a state very close to
panic, and is in danger of spiraling out of control.

Now contrast that with how Don Rumsfeld pursued the Afghan and Iraq
wars. The wars were pursued coolly and methodically, with no
panicking, no overnight replacement of top commanders. He resisted
the calls for more troops, something that he's now criticized for.
In other words, America was in full 4T crisis era fury (in my
opinion) following 9/11, but Don Rumsfeld pursued the two wars in a
cool, methodical 2T/3T style. So it may be that the reason there's
so much confusion in this forum about whether America is in a 3T or
4T era is because of Donald Rumsfeld!

I look at Don Rumsfeld with awe. In my opinion, he's the most
valuable person in Washington of either party. He's not a
politician, but he is managing the armed forces brilliantly, in a way
that only someone of his age could do. I dread the day that he's
replaced with a Boomer or Xer, because no one younger could possibly
do what he's doing.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> Today all the idiots in Washington spent the days arguing about
> whether Iraq was going to have a civil war, which is impossible.
> (Why, I ask myself a million times a day, is this something that I
> know, but the Washington brain trust is clueless about?)

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Impossible?

I've written many times on my web site why a civil war in Iraq is
impossible because Iraq is in a generational awakening era. In fact,
I just wrote a lengthy new article a couple of days ago.

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...60807iraqcivil

Check it out!

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

...so you'll be one of the people who'll have to
pick up the pieces after a bunch of Chinese nuclear icbms have landed
on American cities...

John, John, John, this is hyperbole and you know it. Why would China want to nuke America when it owns most of our debt and needs our cities and our working stiffs of capitalism to keep up with the payments? To China, America clearly is the goose that lays those golden eggs. I don't think China intends to cook it our goose anytime soon.

—Croak

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

...I look at Don Rumsfeld with awe. In my opinion, he's the most
valuable person in Washington of either party. He's not a
politician, but he is managing the armed forces brilliantly, in a way
that only someone of his age could do. I dread the day that he's
replaced with a Boomer or Xer, because no one younger could possibly
do what he's doing.

John, you may be right about how effectively Rumsfeld does his work. He's an industrial giant in his own right, and that is why he is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Your love for the military/industrial complex — the one Ike warned us about — is misplaced, I think. Your admiration for Silent values is also misplaced. We are good for some things, like fulminating cultural awakenings by questioning Heroic (Civic) values, but none of us should be put in charge of the Imperial American war machine. We, generationally, are not competent. We sell out easy. We will compromise our painfully learned principles and values for another perceived political/economic benefit. I'm recalling the Missouri Compromise.

—Croak

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

> You actually think Rumsfeld knows what's going on???

> John, John, John . . . . .

Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that you (or anyone else
not directly on the firing line) knows more about what's going on
than the Secretary of Defense?

No. My powers don't compare to yours. :wink:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

At any rate, I've written about this a number of times. It's not a
political judgment; it's a generational judgment. Rumsfeld was born
in 1932, he grew up during the time when Hitler was fooling the world
while preparing for war, and he also lived through that horrible,
sickening moment when the incompetence of the War Department permitted almost the entire Pacific fleet to be destroyed in a single day. The fact that he actually lived through those horrible events means that
he knows what's going on in the world more than any Boomer or Xer
could.

Yes. He is a Silent. That much has been established.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I'm 62 years old with high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so
who knows how long I'll be around. But you're still very young,
being an Xer and all, so you'll be one of the people who'll have to
pick up the pieces after a bunch of Chinese nuclear icbms have landed
on American cities. So the amount of preparation that America does
right now will be very important to you personally some day.

Eat more oatmeal.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've been telling this to people lately: Treasure the time you
have left, and use it to prepare yourself, your family, your community
and your nation.

Because there's absolutely nothing that anyone can do to
(predictably) affect the 4T "clash of civilizations" world war that's
coming except for one thing: One can prepare for it, and thus
increase the probability of survival.

People who criticize Don Rumsfeld focus on his perceived mistakes --
not sending enough troops into Iraq, etc. -- as if any war could be
pursued without mistake.

Uh, his mistakes were pretty grievous. One third the amout of troops recommend for occupation by his top army general? Greeted with flowers? "Things happen", like the utter chaos of those first few months. The loss of irreplacable Iraqi historical treasures? The loss of huge amounts of Saddam's weapons from depots? Being unable to protect even the pipelines to get more than 50% of the oil flowing?

Sure, cutting him some slack is one thing. But Jesus H. Christ, John. He and his boss have totally f*cked this thing up.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But I focus on what he's done right, especially in preparing the
country for what's coming.

Don Rumsfeld has been preparing the nation for the clash of
civilizations world war in a way that no Boomer or Xer could possibly
have done. He's brought the armed forced into the 21st century,
despite massive criticism from those whose fiefdoms were endangered,
and he's refocused the armed forces much more on the Pacific than
before. And whatever one may think of the Afghan and Iraq wars, he's
used them as an opportunity for the armed forces to develop many new
skills in using new high-tech weaponry -- skills that no other nation
has or will have for years.

All the while demoralizing the army and marines and killing recruitment. Moreover, he's putting all of our eggs into a force multiplier basket. Risky.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In addition, in the just the last two weeks I've come to realize
something else really amazing that Rumsfeld has done, that I never
understood before, and this goes to the heart of many discussions
that you and I and many others in this forum have had.

In the last few weeks, we've seen a war between in progress between
Iran and Israel on Lebanese and Israeli soil.

Iran appears to have pursued the war masterfully, planning for it
well in advance, making provocative statements about the Holocaust to
infuriate the Israelis, manipulating the press, pulling the Israelis
into a ground war in southern Lebanon that they can't win, even
purposely using Lebanese apartment buildings to store weapons so that
Israel will be blamed when women and children are killed. In other
words, Iran has been pursuing a methodical 2T strategy.

Israel, by contrast, has exhibited full 4T crisis era fury. They
were overconfident at first, then escalated on almost a daily basis,
destroying more Lebanese infrastructure, calling up more and more
reserves, sending more soldiers into Lebanon. And just in the last
24 hours, Israel has had to replace its top commander for Lebanese
operations. Israel appears to me to be in a state very close to
panic, and is in danger of spiraling out of control.

Now contrast that with how Don Rumsfeld pursued the Afghan and Iraq
wars. The wars were pursued coolly and methodically, with no
panicking, no overnight replacement of top commanders. He resisted
the calls for more troops, something that he's now criticized for.
In other words, America was in full 4T crisis era fury (in my
opinion) following 9/11, but Don Rumsfeld pursued the two wars in a
cool, methodical 2T/3T style. So it may be that the reason there's
so much confusion in this forum about whether America is in a 3T or
4T era is because of Donald Rumsfeld!

Cool. Methodical. And incompetent.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I look at Don Rumsfeld with awe.

Apparently.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In my opinion, he's the most
valuable person in Washington of either party. He's not a
politician, but he is managing the armed forces brilliantly, in a way
that only someone of his age could do. I dread the day that he's
replaced with a Boomer or Xer, because no one younger could possibly
do what he's doing.

I half agree. He could be replaced by someone far, far, far more competent, yet a psychopath with prophetic visions. Your generation has more than it's share of those, both historically by archetype, and in the here and now.

Originally Posted by Mr. John Derbyshire in the [i

New English Review[/i] weirdly]For Israel this is a “crisis war” , at least as much as WWII was for us.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by JD

Some Americans, to judge from my email bag, apparently believe we are in a crisis war today.*I don't agree;* but I do think it possible that, if we continue to permit the proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons—and all the evidence indicates we shall so continue—we could be in a crisis war in a decade or so.* And Israel, a nation we regard as a friend, is in a crisis war right now, against an enemy that has sworn to annihilate her.

*
Perhaps it’s time to take out the doctrine of collective responsibility and take a look at it, make up our collective mind about it.* Or else, brace ourselves to lose that coming crisis war, or—what really amounts to the same thing—to end it inconclusively.

They, the People :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:


Mr. Steve Sailer examines the weird logic of the Crisis Mentalism

Originally Posted by Mr. Sailer

Here is the full foreign policy logic that is bubbling under the hysteria:

• 1. All Muslims everywhere are Them.
  
  Arabs who are shooting rockets at Israel, Iranians who supply the rockets, Pakistanis who try to blow up planes, Shi'ites like Ahmadinejad, Sunnis like bin Laden, all Muslims are "Them." (Christians who live in Arab countries like Lebanon are probably Them too, but it's best not to think too hard about this.)
  
  2. America and Israel are Us.
  
  3.They want to kill Us.
  
  4. Our merciful strategy of trying to democratize Them by conquering Them just makes Them perversely want to kill Us more.
  
  5. Trying to blow up Their weapons from the air doesn't seem to work, as We have seen in Our war in Lebanon, and just makes Them want to kill Us even more.
  
  6. Even if We did destroy all Their rockets and cyclotrons, They will still try to kill Us with Their sports drink bottles, which will only become more deadly as technology progresses.
  
  7. Unlike sane people like Stalin and Mao, They cannot be deterred by threats of military retribution because They are religious maniacs who want to die.
  
  8. It is either Us or Them.
  
  9. We must run any risk to be safe.

Therefore:
They must die.
All of Them.
We have 10,000 nuclear warheads.
That should be sufficient.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Mr. Saari,

I found Derbyshire's logic very disturbing. Most so because it actually made sense. I just hope (against hope) that he is wrong.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Mr. Saari,

I found Derbyshire's logic very disturbing. Most so because it actually made sense. I just hope (against hope) that he is wrong.

I have also given you and the rest, the sensible Mr. Sailer's more comforting logic! :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: 's to Armageddon.


I think some might be interested in the stories of:


Ms. Christabel Bielenberg,

Mr. Adam von Trott zu Solz, &

HH Marie Vassiltchikov,

who worked to imagine a future after the last Crisis when all LOGIC was against them at home, from abroad, the then present, and the Logical Future. They didn't succumb to the several Logics of their Crisis. Some here at T4T might wish to follow their example.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Mr. Saari,

I found Derbyshire's logic very disturbing. Most so because it actually made sense. I just hope (against hope) that he is wrong.

I have also given you and the rest, the sensible Mr. Sailer's more comforting logic! :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: 's to Armageddon.


I think some might be interested in the stories of:


Ms. Christabel Bielenberg,

Mr. Adam von Trott zu Solz, &

HH Marie Vassiltchikov,

who worked to imagine a future after the last Crisis when all LOGIC was against them at home, from abroad, the then present, and the Logical Future. They didn't succumb to the several Logics of their Crisis. Some here at T4T might wish to follow their example.

Yes. There were lots of good people inside of Nazi Germany. No argument there.

Originally Posted by John Derbyshire

You can see where this is going. As you work down my list from (a) to (e) you are meeting ever greater levels of national destruction and killings of noncombatants. The more thoroughly you lay waste a nation—level its cities, slaughter its people, its noncombatant people—the more conclusive your victory will be, the higher the level of “attitude adjustment” in the enemy population. If you want to turn a psychotic aggressor nation into a well-mannered commercial one—if you want to beat swords into plowshares, and infantry training manuals into business cards—your best bet is to go for high levels of national destruction.

John, does your research support this argument?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by John Derbyshire

You can see where this is going. As you work down my list from (a) to (e) you are meeting ever greater levels of national destruction and killings of noncombatants. The more thoroughly you lay waste a nation—level its cities, slaughter its people, its noncombatant people—the more conclusive your victory will be, the higher the level of “attitude adjustment” in the enemy population. If you want to turn a psychotic aggressor nation into a well-mannered commercial one—if you want to beat swords into plowshares, and infantry training manuals into business cards—your best bet is to go for high levels of national destruction.

John, does your research support this argument?

Mr. Saari,

Could you please get Mr. Derbyshire to answer Mr. Easton?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by John Derbyshire

You can see where this is going. As you work down my list from (a) to (e) you are meeting ever greater levels of national destruction and killings of noncombatants. The more thoroughly you lay waste a nation—level its cities, slaughter its people, its noncombatant people—the more conclusive your victory will be, the higher the level of “attitude adjustment” in the enemy population. If you want to turn a psychotic aggressor nation into a well-mannered commercial one—if you want to beat swords into plowshares, and infantry training manuals into business cards—your best bet is to go for high levels of national destruction.

John, does your research support this argument?

Mr. Saari,

Could you please get Mr. Derbyshire to answer Mr. Easton?

John J. Xenakis, does your research support this argument?

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> ...so you'll be one of the people who'll have to pick up the
> pieces after a bunch of Chinese nuclear icbms have landed on
> American cities...

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> John, John, John, this is hyperbole and you know it.

It's definitely not hyperbole. On my web site I've documented a few
analytical pieces, by both American and Chinese analysts, indicating
that China is planning a war with America. China has been
militarizing at double-digit increases for years. With regard to the
Taiwan issue, last year General Zhu Chenghu, a top-level officer in
China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) said, “If the Americans are
determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond. We .
. . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities
east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that
hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

So please stop kidding yourself. As a Silent, you're supposed to
know better. This is not hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Why would China want to nuke America when it owns most of our debt
> and needs our cities and our working stiffs of capitalism to keep
> up with the payments? To China, America clearly is the goose that
> lays those golden eggs. I don't think China intends to cook it
> our goose anytime soon.

What payments? America's debt has been continuing to rise, so that
even if you're the most Pollyannish optimist, you can't possibly
believe that America will even begin repaying that debt in less than
a decade or two. And if you're a realist, then you know that America
will NEVER repay that debt.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Your admiration for Silent values is also misplaced. We are good
> for some things, like fulminating cultural awakenings by
> questioning Heroic (Civic) values, but none of us should be put in
> charge of the Imperial American war machine. We, generationally,
> are not competent. We sell out easy. We will compromise our
> painfully learned principles and values for another perceived
> political/economic benefit. I'm recalling the Missouri
> Compromise.

Well, there are competent and incompetent people of any generation,
and given your statements about China, I will happily agree that it
would be a disaster for America if you were Secretary of Defense.

However, I disagree with your general statements about Silents. I
wrote an article on my web site, comparing Donald Rumsfeld with
Chinese President Hu Jintao, both of them Artists from their
respective Artist generations.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...060420#e060420

The point that I made is this: Either of these Artists would "sell
out," to use your words, rather than make a decision to wage war. But
neither Rumsfeld nor Hu have made or will make any such decision.
Others make the decision to go to war. But once the decision has
been made by someone else, the Artist will pursue the war
energetically and ruthlessly.

Thus, your Missouri Compromise analogy doesn't apply. You're right
that Artists have difficulty making decisions, but once a decision is
made for them they can't be stopped.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Mr. Saari,

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. John Derbyshire in the [i

New English Review[/i] weirdly]For Israel this is a “crisis war” , at least as much as WWII was for us.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by JD

Some Americans, to judge from my email bag, apparently believe we are in a crisis war today. I don't agree; but I do think it possible that, if we continue to permit the proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons—and all the evidence indicates we shall so continue—we could be in a crisis war in a decade or so. And Israel, a nation we regard as a friend, is in a crisis war right now, against an enemy that has sworn to annihilate her.


Perhaps it’s time to take out the doctrine of collective responsibility and take a look at it, make up our collective mind about it. Or else, brace ourselves to lose that coming crisis war, or—what really amounts to the same thing—to end it inconclusively.

They, the People :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Thank you, thank you VERY MUCH for finding this ... it was apparently
posted on August 1, and I had no idea it was there.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Strauss and Howe are quoted frequently
in papers and magazines, but always on their stuff on Millennials,
but absolutely never on their TFT stuff. This corresponds to my own
experience of always getting blown off when I try to interest a
journalist on Generational Dynamics.

But in this case, John Derbyshire has gotten interest in the concept
of what a "crisis war" is, and whether Israel is in a crisis war, and
whether we're in a crisis war. Maybe this is the way to get a foot
in the door -- talk about what a crisis war is, and raise the
question about whether there's a crisis war in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Lebanon, etc.

I posted the following comment to John Derbyshire's article:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> John,

> We Americans are incapable today of remotely understanding the
> anxiety and horror that our grandparents felt in 1944 when they
> sent their sons, brothers and fathers onto the beaches of
> Normandy, fully knowing that they would be massively slaughtered;
> or the fury and desire for revenge they felt when they firebombed
> and nuked German and Japanese cities, killing millions of
> civilians. Concepts like "good," "bad" and "collective
> responsibility" recede in relevance in a crisis war, when a
> panicky country believes that its very existence is in danger.

> Recent crisis wars include the Balkans and Rwanda wars of the
> 1990s, and the Darfur genocide of today, which numerous U.N.
> Resolutions have somehow failed to stop.

> In the Lebanese war, it's interesting to contrast the styles of
> the two belligerents. Israel is fighting in a "hot" crisis war
> style, furiously bombing infrastructure, calling up new reserves
> every day, confronting Hizbollah terrorists on their own soil, and
> now feeling very anxious about the U.N. peace deal.

> Iran/Hizbollah terrorists have been fighting in a "cool"
> non-crisis war style, planning for six years, launching missiles
> from the comfort of home, manipulating and drawing in Israel,
> forcing them to kill civilians, and now methodically using the
> U.N. deal as a pawn to advance its longer-term strategy.

> You've listed the options when a nation loses a war, but when
> something goes wrong in a crisis war there's a lot more going on.
> Here's how Carl Von Clausewitz described it in his 1832 classic,
> On War:

> "The effect of defeat outside the army -- on the people and on
> the government -- is a sudden collapse of the wildest
> expectations, and total destruction of self-confidence. The
> destruction of these feelings creates a vacuum, and that vacuum
> gets filled by a fear that grows corrosively, leading to total
> paralysis. It's a blow to the whole nervous system of the losing
> side, as if caused by an electric charge. This effect may appear
> to a greater or lesser degree, but it's never completely missing.
> Then, instead of rushing to repair the misfortune with a spirit of
> determination, everyone fears that his efforts will be futile; or
> he does nothing, leaving everything to Fate." The concept of
> "good v. bad" means something completely different at such times.

> And it's hardly an exaggeration to say that neither the Germans
> nor the Japanese have yet fully dealt with their defeats 61 years
> ago.

> You write:

> >>> "Some Americans, to judge from my email bag, apparently
> believe we are in a crisis war today. I don't agree; but I do
> think it possible that, if we continue to permit the proliferation
> of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons—and all the evidence
> indicates we shall so continue—we could be in a crisis war in a
> decade or so. And Israel, a nation we regard as a friend, is in a
> crisis war right now, against an enemy that has sworn to
> annihilate her.

> >>> "Perhaps it’s time to take out the doctrine of collective
> responsibility and take a look at it, make up our collective mind
> about it. Or else, brace ourselves to lose that coming crisis
> war, or—what really amounts to the same thing—to end it
> inconclusively."

> Israel is indeed in the early stages of a crisis war, as is
> America. The Afghan, Iraqi and Lebanese wars are just early
> skirmishes. The real gathering storm can be seen in increasing
> cooperation of the members of the new axis: Iran, China, Korea and
> Pakistan. Before it's over, we'll all remember again the same
> anxiety, fury and desire for vengeance that we felt in 1945.

> It's impossible to predict many things, such as who the winners
> and losers of this crisis war will be. But there's one thing that
> can be predicted with total, absolute, almost mathematical
> certainty: It will not end inconclusively.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by John Derbyshire

> You can see where this is going. As you work down my list from
> (a) to (e) you are meeting ever greater levels of national
> destruction and killings of noncombatants. The more thoroughly you
> lay waste a nation—level its cities, slaughter its people, its
> noncombatant people—the more conclusive your victory will be, the
> higher the level of “attitude adjustment” in the enemy population.
> If you want to turn a psychotic aggressor nation into a
> well-mannered commercial one—if you want to beat swords into
> plowshares, and infantry training manuals into business cards—your
> best bet is to go for high levels of national
> destruction.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> John, does your research support this argument?

This isn't really a Generational Dynamics question; it's a question
about how you decide who won a war. This is a very mysterious kind
of thing, and it's not decided by how many people have died or how
many cities have been leveled. It depends entirely on public mood.

Strauss and Howe were also mysterious about this question. Here's
what they wrote in TFT pp. 258-59: "Whatever the event and whatever
the outcome, a society passes through a great gate of history,
fundamentally altering the course of civilization. Soon thereafter,
this great gate is sealed by the Crisis resolution, when
victors are rewarded and enemies punished; when empires or nations are
forged or destroyed; when treaties are signed and boundaries redrawn;
and when peace is accepted, troops repatriated, and life begun anew."

So, once society passes through that "great gate," the outcome is
decided, and then is frozen in time forever. But no one knows what
chaotic events will influence or determine that decision.

However, feel free to write to Mr. Derbyshire to get him to answer
your question.

Sincerely,

John

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

Israelis Saw The Kosovo-Lebanon Similarities

I don't think Not-War is the model for a Crisis War.

Originally Posted by Mr. Daniel Larison

Originally Posted by Mr. Seymor Hersh in the [i

New Yorker[/i]]

Kosovo has been cited publicly by Israeli officials and journalists since the war began. On August 6th, Prime Minister Olmert, responding to European condemnation of the deaths of Lebanese civilians, said, “Where do they get the right to preach to Israel? European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket. I’m not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: don’t preach to us about the treatment of civilians.” (Human Rights Watch estimated the number of civilians killed in the NATO bombing to be five hundred; the Yugoslav government put the number between twelve hundred and five thousand.)

Curious, isn’t it, how virtually nobody in this country, or anywhere else in the West, seemed to see the connections between the two campaigns?* The Israelis apparently noticed them quickly enough, and no wonder.* The two bear many striking similarities to those who paid close attention to Kosovo.* But here’s a question: if Mr. Olmert believes that 10,000 civilians died in the Kosovo War (which is higher than any figure I have ever seen cited from any source), and he believes that was justified, how many Lebanese civilian deaths would have been considered acceptable for what he considered his far more justified war?

Lebanon Literally Was Another Kosovo

Originally Posted by Mr. Larison

Originally Posted by Mr. Hersh

In the early discussions with American officials, I was told by the Middle East expert and the government consultant, the Israelis repeatedly pointed to the war in Kosovo as an example of what Israel would try to achieve. The NATO forces commanded by U.S. Army General Wesley Clark methodically bombed and strafed not only military targets but tunnels, bridges, and roads, in Kosovo and elsewhere in Serbia, for seventy-eight days before forcing Serbian forces to withdraw from Kosovo. “Israel studied the Kosovo war as its role model,” the government consultant said. “The Israelis told Condi Rice, ‘You did it in about seventy days, but we need half of that—thirty-five days.’ ”

I am actually a little shocked that I had this right all along–what sort of buffoon would use the Kosovo War as an example of a successful air campaign?* It was, by the standards set by the administration when it started, a failure in every respect except that it did eventually result in the withdrawal of Serb forces from Kosovo–eight weeks after it was supposed to have already been finished.* Did the Israelis really think they were going to break Hizbullah in half the time it took NATO to force*concessions from Milosevic?


The Israelis could not have been unaware that the population of Yugoslavia rallied around the despised Milosevic in just the same way that the Lebanese rallied around Nasrallah–not because they really admired or even tolerated the man, but because the people bombing them had made him the embodiment of all evil and thus, ironically,*a symbol of their common resistance to the punitive measures being used against their entire country.* In defiance of such brutal treatment, people will latch onto the most disreputable figures as their champions for lack of an alternative.

The Not-War in Kosovo did little injury to the Yugoslav military machine. The same may be true for the Lebanese militia. This doesn't sound like it was a Crisis War (contra Mr. Derbyshite, et al.) but more of a 3T jerkoff of the Clinton years. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

> You actually think Rumsfeld knows what's going on???

> John, John, John . . . . .

Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that you (or anyone else
not directly on the firing line) knows more about what's going on
than the Secretary of Defense?

No. My powers don't compare to yours. :wink:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

At any rate, I've written about this a number of times. It's not a
political judgment; it's a generational judgment. Rumsfeld was born
in 1932, he grew up during the time when Hitler was fooling the world
while preparing for war, and he also lived through that horrible,
sickening moment when the incompetence of the War Department permitted almost the entire Pacific fleet to be destroyed in a single day. The fact that he actually lived through those horrible events means that
he knows what's going on in the world more than any Boomer or Xer
could.

Yes. He is a Silent. That much has been established.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I'm 62 years old with high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so
who knows how long I'll be around. But you're still very young,
being an Xer and all, so you'll be one of the people who'll have to
pick up the pieces after a bunch of Chinese nuclear icbms have landed
on American cities. So the amount of preparation that America does
right now will be very important to you personally some day.

Eat more oatmeal.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've been telling this to people lately: Treasure the time you
have left, and use it to prepare yourself, your family, your community
and your nation.

Because there's absolutely nothing that anyone can do to
(predictably) affect the 4T "clash of civilizations" world war that's
coming except for one thing: One can prepare for it, and thus
increase the probability of survival.

People who criticize Don Rumsfeld focus on his perceived mistakes --
not sending enough troops into Iraq, etc. -- as if any war could be
pursued without mistake.

Uh, his mistakes were pretty grievous. One third the amout of troops recommend for occupation by his top army general? Greeted with flowers? "Things happen", like the utter chaos of those first few months. The loss of irreplacable Iraqi historical treasures? The loss of huge amounts of Saddam's weapons from depots? Being unable to protect even the pipelines to get more than 50% of the oil flowing?

Sure, cutting him some slack is one thing. But Jesus H. Christ, John. He and his boss have totally f*cked this thing up.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But I focus on what he's done right, especially in preparing the
country for what's coming.

Don Rumsfeld has been preparing the nation for the clash of
civilizations world war in a way that no Boomer or Xer could possibly
have done. He's brought the armed forced into the 21st century,
despite massive criticism from those whose fiefdoms were endangered,
and he's refocused the armed forces much more on the Pacific than
before. And whatever one may think of the Afghan and Iraq wars, he's
used them as an opportunity for the armed forces to develop many new
skills in using new high-tech weaponry -- skills that no other nation
has or will have for years.

All the while demoralizing the army and marines and killing recruitment. Moreover, he's putting all of our eggs into a force multiplier basket. Risky.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In addition, in the just the last two weeks I've come to realize
something else really amazing that Rumsfeld has done, that I never
understood before, and this goes to the heart of many discussions
that you and I and many others in this forum have had.

In the last few weeks, we've seen a war between in progress between
Iran and Israel on Lebanese and Israeli soil.

Iran appears to have pursued the war masterfully, planning for it
well in advance, making provocative statements about the Holocaust to
infuriate the Israelis, manipulating the press, pulling the Israelis
into a ground war in southern Lebanon that they can't win, even
purposely using Lebanese apartment buildings to store weapons so that
Israel will be blamed when women and children are killed. In other
words, Iran has been pursuing a methodical 2T strategy.

Israel, by contrast, has exhibited full 4T crisis era fury. They
were overconfident at first, then escalated on almost a daily basis,
destroying more Lebanese infrastructure, calling up more and more
reserves, sending more soldiers into Lebanon. And just in the last
24 hours, Israel has had to replace its top commander for Lebanese
operations. Israel appears to me to be in a state very close to
panic, and is in danger of spiraling out of control.

Now contrast that with how Don Rumsfeld pursued the Afghan and Iraq
wars. The wars were pursued coolly and methodically, with no
panicking, no overnight replacement of top commanders. He resisted
the calls for more troops, something that he's now criticized for.
In other words, America was in full 4T crisis era fury (in my
opinion) following 9/11, but Don Rumsfeld pursued the two wars in a
cool, methodical 2T/3T style. So it may be that the reason there's
so much confusion in this forum about whether America is in a 3T or
4T era is because of Donald Rumsfeld!

Cool. Methodical. And incompetent.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I look at Don Rumsfeld with awe.

Apparently.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In my opinion, he's the most
valuable person in Washington of either party. He's not a
politician, but he is managing the armed forces brilliantly, in a way
that only someone of his age could do. I dread the day that he's
replaced with a Boomer or Xer, because no one younger could possibly
do what he's doing.

I half agree. He could be replaced by someone far, far, far more competent, yet a psychopath with prophetic visions. Your generation has more than it's share of those, both historically by archetype, and in the here and now.

No reply, John? I am not surprised. :wink:

Dear Mr. Saari,

Seymour Hersh really disgusts me. His seething hatred of America
comes through every time he opens his mouth, and he shares with John
Kerry the belief that the soldiers in our armed forces are the same as
Nazi storm troopers.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> The Not-War in Kosovo did little injury to the Yugoslav military
> machine. The same may be true for the Lebanese militia. This
> doesn't sound like it was a Crisis War (contra Mr. Derbyshite, et
> al.) but more of a 3T jerkoff of the Clinton years. Rolling Eyes

I've never looked closely at the Kosovo war, but I believe that
you're correct that, unlike the Bosnia war, which was definitely a
crisis war, the Kosovo war is what I'd call an "Austerity era" war,
designed to seal the gains made during the preceding crisis war.

And in view of that assessment, you're obviously right that the
Kosovo war was a "not-war," probably fought with as little enthusiasm
as our Korean war.

And I also agree with you about the Lebanese militia. Lebanon just
had its crisis war in the 1980s, and they're all still traumatized by
the 1982 massacre of thousands of Palestinian refugees in camps in
Sabra and Shatila. That massacre hangs over everything they do
today. I've never felt that Hizbollah was taking this as a serious
war either, and I like to describe their side of the war as "shooting
off missiles from the comfort of home." And all the claims of
victory we're hearing from Nasrallah now make it sound more like a
public relations war.

There's a very interesting Debka analysis of Lebanese war, saying
that Iran considers the war to be a total disaster.
http://www.debka.org/article.php?aid=1201

Iran has spent billions of dollars building up Hizbollah's
infrastructure over the years, and supplied them with 10-15K missiles.
Now, this trivial, pointless (from Iran's point of view) war has
resulted in the destruction of much of Iran's military
infrastructure.

Iran had wanted to keep Hizbollah available to use at any time as a
proxy army to make an instantaneous attack on Israel -- at a time of
Iran's choosing. Instead, Nasrallah frittered away Iran's huge
investment for nothing.

However, the Debka article says that Iran does share one opinion with
Seymour Hersh (along with hating America): They both believe that
we're planning an "October surprise" and invading Iran in October.

Sincerely,

Mr. Xenakis

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