Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Is this to be combined with your statement that "super-nomads"
> fought in the civil war?

You're talking about two completely separate issues here, pre-war and
post-war.

Before a crisis war actually starts, there's a great deal of focus on
tiny differences in generational attitudes and behaviors. We see
this just reading through this forum.

The reference to "fifth turnings" and "super-nomads" is to answer a
pre-war question: What happens if the fourth turning goes by and
there's no crisis war?

My answer is based on new research on suicide bombers that was done
by Prof. Robert Pape, and publicized following last year's 7/7 London
subway suicide bombings. Prof. Pape's study revealed that most
suicide bombers overwhelmingly come from just two countries: Saudi
Arabia and Morocco. And it's precisely these two countries the
greatest inter-crisis war periods -- the length of time since their
last crisis wars. Saudi Arabia's last crisis war was the Ibn Saud
conquest, ending in 1925, and Morocco's was the Rif War, ending in
1927.

So I proposed a "fifth turning" concept, and, based on Pape's
research, tried to explain why the young adult generation in fifth
turning societies are so much more likely than young adults in 3rd
and 4th turning societies to become suicide bombers. That's why I
referred to them as "super-nomads." But that's a pre-war concept.

But once the crisis war begins, and the regeneracy occurs, the
pre-war generational distinctions become far less important, and the
only important thing is to survive as a nation. At that point, the
younger adult generation fighting the war turns into the "Hero
generation," irrespective of whether they were Nomads or
"super-nomads" prior to the war. The kids turn into the new Artist
generation, even if they were "scheduled" to be the new Prophet
generation. After the war, the new Prophet generation is born,

By the Awakening era, Strauss and Howe's entire generational
constellation has reconstructed itself, which is pretty amazing when
you think about it.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> This observation also supports my point. If what is happening in
> Are they? The nine southern provinces are overwelming Shite, and
> have expressed a wish to secede from the nation as "Sumer". The
> northern three provices are overwhelmingly Kurdish and have
> already all but seceded and have named their new nation
> "Kurdistan". They, however, would like to take Kirkuk with them
> (and its oil), which will require them to fight a war. Finally
> there is Western Iraq which is overwhelmingly Sunni. In between
> these three territories are the "border provinces" which like the
> border states in the US Civil War are of uncertain allegience.

But that's not the point. The point is that there have been NO
massacres of Sunnis by Shiites, or vice versa, involving ordinary
people, and if this were a crisis civil war (which you may or may not
believe, depending on your mood du jour) then there would be
LOTS of such massacres.

The way that I know that there hasn't been such a massacre by
ordinary people is because it hasn't been on the news.

If there were such a massacre, then the BBC World Service would be
covering it all day, devoting at least a half hour of each hour to
talking about, bringing in all sorts of European leftist wingnuts to
talk about how George Bush is an incompetent Nazi.

Also, it would be covered all day on CNN, with Michael Ware providing
live reports describing and displaying each dead body, and each
dismembered limb, as well as various pools of blood.

But none of that is happening. Every one who kills someone is being
paid to do so. And the suicide bombers aren't even Iraqis -- they're
Saudis and Jordanians.

Instead of continuing to post this thumb-sucking nonsense, why don't
do some actual research, and actually accomplish something? Wouldn't
that be better?

There's a project that's begging to be done. Go back and identify
four or five historical civil wars, and analyze them to determine to
what degree they exhibit "genocidal energy."

But you can't do this just by download some dataset from the internet
and feeding it into SPSS. That's the reason you keep getting this
stuff wrong -- you're depending these datasets, and you have no feel
for what people where actually thinking and feeling.

You have to do what Strauss and Howe did. For each of the civil wars
that you identify, go and read four or five separate histories of the
war, preferably from both sides. See what people actually thought
and felt. You have to get to the point where you understand the
intense emotion that someone must feel in order to pick up a machete,
kill and dismember his neighbor, rape his neighbor's wife and then
kill and dismember her and her children. Until you can go past your
numbers get into that person's head and "feel" the same intensity that
he feels, then you won't understand what a civil war is about.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> This is for Mr. Xenakis. I sent you this as a comment on your
> website, but just in case you don't check that, here it is on the
> board too:

I check them both, and I got both your messages at around the same
time. I've been pretty good about answering e-mail, and I've
actually been able to keep up, even though workload may keep me from
answering for several days.

Originally Posted by 1990

> Wonderful site. I would like more specific predictions though on
> what is coming in this Crisis, if possible. What I find confusing
> is that while the Culture Wars-era obsession with individualism
> and social fragmentation seems to have gone out of vogue (in other
> words, "social issues" and other distractions don't win elections
> anymore for either party), I don't see the unity and sacrifice yet
> that we saw during the last Crisis. Of course, we are still early
> in the Crisis, and we haven't yet had an economically devastating
> event like Black Tuesday, but when will this sort of event come?

The kind of unity and sacrifice that you're talking about come at a
certain point called the "regeneracy" by Strauss and Howe. In
today's world, the regeneracy has not yet occurred. (In this forum
there have been many debates as to whether America is currently in a
third or fourth turning era. I'm completely in the "fourth turning"
camp, but whichever it is, it's certain that the regeneracy has not
yet occurred.)

The regeneracy will require some sort of trigger; examples would be a
major terrorist act on American soil, or a major battlefield loss, or
a preemptive attack by China. It's impossible to predict what the
trigger will be or when it will occur,

Last March I wrote some additional material on the relationship
between Prophets and Heroes during the fourth turning. You may find
it helpful.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...696#post169696

Originally Posted by 1990

> You say frequently that we are headed for a "clash of
> civilizations" war. Are you referring to a clash between the
> developed world's Crisis era and the Middle East's Awakening era?
> What does this mean? What stages are Africa, Asia, or Latin
> America in? Any more specifics?

On my web site I've been trying to keep track of what's going on in
dozens of countries, and it can't be summarized in a few sentences.

I've posted the following summary on my web site: Based on current
trends, the "clash of civilizations" world war will be between an
"axis" containing China, Iran, Pakistan and the Palestinians and
"allies" containing America, India, Russia, Israel and the UK. Other
countries will join one side or the other.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...060828#e060828

Originally Posted by 1990

> P.S. President Bush was totally wrong when he predicted a Third
> Awakening. Typical Boomer, thinking the world will always be about
> protests, revolution, and religion. The next Awakening shouldn't
> be until the 2040s, right?

President Bush's mention of a "Third Awakening" was very interesting,
and it was also interesting to write the article on my web site
explaining how the 1960s Awakening solidified America's support for
Israel.

The next American Awakening should occur in the 2030s and the 2040s,
but it's more complicated than that. By the 2030s the Singularity
will have occurred, and it will be getting clear that computers are
going to take over, and that the future existence of the human race
will be in doubt. How that will interact with the Awakening is hard
to imagine.

Originally Posted by 1990

> Exactly, herbal tee. The societal mood changes with each turning.
> Some catalysts (like the end of WWII starting the 1T, or the JFK
> assassination starting the 2T) are easy to pinpoint. Others, like
> what started the 3T, are more gray-area.

> But there is a clear mood difference. The mood was urgent in 1940,
> proud in 1960, exhausted in 1980, spoiled in 2000. It's quite dark
> today, in the early days of a 4T.

> So it's more about mood than about empirical data. Sure, there's
> no new Depression or WWIII yet to prove that we're in Crisis. But
> the mood has shifted. In 1999 the economy was strong enough that
> we could afford to be mesmerized by the president's sex life, and
> celebrity circuses and Culture Wars divisions were still a-plenty.
> Now people are in such a funk that we see the entire government as
> useless and dysfunctional, and have nothing but dark visions of
> the next few years. Abortion and gay marriage aren't deciding any
> elections anymore. Instead, it's the Iraq War and the weakness of
> the government.

> What's next? No one knows, and whether empirical data can tell us
> ahead of time or not is debatable. But the S&H/GD theory appears
> to be playing itself out so far. I've heard people on this board
> use impatience as a reason to discount the theory we all
> supposedly are discussing: "why haven't Millennials stepped up
> yet?" "Why hasn't the economy tanked yet as in the 1930s?"
> "Where's WWIII?"

> There are good answers to these questions. 1) because the oldest
> of them are 24, and generations don't make their mark on history
> until the oldest are in their 30s - witness Silent dominance in
> the '50s, Boomers in the '70s, Xers in the '90s. 2) because we're
> still early in the 4T. 3) it'll come, unfortunately, soon enough.
> But the broader indicator to me that the theory is correct is the
> mood shift. Most Americans today can't remember the last time
> things felt so dark. But as any G.I. or older Silent can tell you,
> they do remember. We've entered a new mood, and just because Black
> Tuesday and Pearl Harbor haven't hit yet (mind you, it's quite
> early for that) doesn't discount anything about the theory.

This is a very sophisticated analysis and I pretty much agree with
all of it. Are you sure that you're only 15 years old?

Sincerely,

John

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

Well, Bush predicting a western awakening soon does not tell us if he has read about this cycle, but it does show that he does not believe it if he has read it.

P.S., Good elaboration on my original point 1990. It's comforting to know that there are many high school students who can already percieve things that clearly. I wasn't where you are now when I was 15. Again, good work.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The point is that there have been NO
massacres of Sunnis by Shiites, or vice versa, involving ordinary
people, and if this were a crisis civil war then there would be
LOTS of such massacres.

Why? I don't understand. I pointed out that such massacres did not happen in the Civil War, yet that is a crisis war. You mention Gettysburg in reply. Gettysburg is a bloody battle in a conventional war like the Battle of the Somme. It doesn't involve large numbers of civilians killing each other like what happened in Rwanda. And bloody battles by themselves don't make crisis war as WW I demonstrates. So I don't see the relevance of Gettysburg.

You then say that the US civil war involved two geographically separate sides, with the violence occurred along the border between the two while in Iraq its all mixed up. I pointed out that Shia, Sunnis and Kurds do have discrete regions of the countries that can form sides and a border region between them (which contains Baghdad). Most of the civilian-on-civilian violence (civil conflict) is in this border region. Violence in other parts of the country is usually against US/government forces and their collaborators (i.e. an insurgency as opposed to civil conflict).

So why are civilians killing each other in large groups required for the Iraq war when this wasn't required for other crisis wars like the US Civil war, the American Revolution, or the Franco-Prussian war.

But none of that is happening. Every one who kills someone is being
paid to do so. And the suicide bombers aren't even Iraqis -- they're
Saudis and Jordanians.

You have no evidence that the killers are being paid to do so. Suicide bombers are responsible for a small fraction of Iraqi deaths.

Instead of continuing to post this thumb-sucking nonsense, why don't
do some actual research, and actually accomplish something? Wouldn't
that be better?

It would help if you had done research and reported facts instead of simply asserting false beliefs (like al Qaeda is responsible for most deaths or that most killers are being paid) as if they were facts. I did show actual data concerning insurgent activity to come to the conclusion that the level was not falling and had never been falling and so that the US was never winning--as HC asserted as if it were a fact. I didn't pull assertions out of my ass and fob them off as if they were true facts.[/quote]

There's a project that's begging to be done. Go back and identify
four or five historical civil wars, and analyze them to determine to
what degree they exhibit "genocidal energy."

But you can't do this just by download some dataset from the internet
and feeding it into SPSS. That's the reason you keep getting this
stuff wrong -- you're depending these datasets, and you have no feel
for what people where actually thinking and feeling.

Because I insist that there be objective evidence before I decide whether or not something is a fact. You construct arguments that seem convincing to you and then use them as facts (figuring they must be true to make so much sense). One might a priori think that al Qaeda is stirring up trouble in Iraq so to produce a result that looks like a crisis war, but is not because it's foreigners who are stirring the pot. These foreigners are on a different timetable and so for them it could well be a 4T.

This a a plausible scenario--but its only a scenario. You cannot simply state this as a fact because it makes sense and then use this to justify a determination that Iraq is not in a crisis war. The facts are that less than 10% of the insurgency are foreigners (al Qaeda), see pages 17 and 18 here http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf Al Qaeda is a small portion of the insurgency, most of the insurgent killings are not by al Qaeda--and none of the Sunnis killed would be by al Qaeda.

You want the current Iraq war to not be a crisis war. You cannot come up with an objective criterion by which you can make this assessment. You try to argue the lack of villages slaughtering each other as evidence but this same lack appears in the American Revolution, US Civil War and the Franco-Prussian war--but there it's OK because you want these wars to be crisis wars because they fit your preferred timing. You can come back with other criteria for why the Franco-Prussian war is a crisis war while WW I is not--but then you don't apply these criteria to Iraq.

You have to do what Strauss and Howe did. For each of the civil wars
that you identify, go and read four or five separate histories of the
war, preferably from both sides. See what people actually thought
and felt.

Yes and the result is so subjective that you get the result you want. The whole idea of genocidal fury is complicated by this subjectivity. You convince yourself that the Franco-Prussian war was somehow more "genocidal" for France than WW I, when the latter war decimated an entire generation of Frenchmen.

You have to get to the point where you understand the
intense emotion that someone must feel in order to pick up a machete,
kill and dismember his neighbor, rape his neighbor's wife and then
kill and dismember her and her children.

But that only happened in Rwanda. There was nothing like this in the American Revolutionary War, the US Civil War, or the FP war--all of them crisis wars. If these wars can be crisis wars without Rwandan-style gencocide then why is it necessary for Iraq?

Thanks so much, Mr. Xenakis (or John? Or Sir?), for your detailed response.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Nathaniel,



I check them both, and I got both your messages at around the same
time. I've been pretty good about answering e-mail, and I've
actually been able to keep up, even though workload may keep me from
answering for several days.



The kind of unity and sacrifice that you're talking about come at a
certain point called the "regeneracy" by Strauss and Howe. In
today's world, the regeneracy has not yet occurred. (In this forum
there have been many debates as to whether America is currently in a
third or fourth turning era. I'm completely in the "fourth turning"
camp, but whichever it is, it's certain that the regeneracy has not
yet occurred.)

The regeneracy will require some sort of trigger; examples would be a
major terrorist act on American soil, or a major battlefield loss, or
a preemptive attack by China. It's impossible to predict what the
trigger will be or when it will occur,

I assume in the last Fourth Turning the trigger for the regeneracy was Pearl Harbor, though there had been some unity building before then what with the popularity of FDR and his New Deal policies around the end of the '30s.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

On my web site I've been trying to keep track of what's going on in
dozens of countries, and it can't be summarized in a few sentences.

I've posted the following summary on my web site: Based on current
trends, the "clash of civilizations" world war will be between an
"axis" containing China, Iran, Pakistan and the Palestinians and
"allies" containing America, India, Russia, Israel and the UK. Other
countries will join one side or the other.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...060828#e060828



President Bush's mention of a "Third Awakening" was very interesting,
and it was also interesting to write the article on my web site
explaining how the 1960s Awakening solidified America's support for
Israel.

The next American Awakening should occur in the 2030s and the 2040s,
but it's more complicated than that. By the 2030s the Singularity
will have occurred, and it will be getting clear that computers are
going to take over, and that the future existence of the human race
will be in doubt. How that will interact with the Awakening is hard
to imagine.



This is a very sophisticated analysis and I pretty much agree with
all of it. Are you sure that you're only 15 years old?

LOL, thank you very much. Yes, I'm sure, as my earliest memories are of the early '90s. Well, I do have one very blurry memory of watching Gulf War coverage, but I remember it in sepia, so it could be some sort of dream hallucination. Or I'm a replicant like in Blade Runner, and I was given someone else's memories.

Do you like our owl, Mr. Deckard?

LOL, thanks for the response. You wrote clearly and patiently. Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by 1990

Thanks so much, Mr. Xenakis (or John? Or Sir?), for your detailed response.



I assume in the last Fourth Turning the trigger for the regeneracy was Pearl Harbor, though there had been some unity building before then what with the popularity of FDR and his New Deal policies around the end of the '30s.

Close. A Regeneracy occurs in the wake of a Social Moment, when most of society begins to realize that there is no going back to the previous Turning. The Social Moment is different from the actual Catalyst, which occurs a few years earlier, and is the event which triggers the actual Turning change. The SM of the last 4T is widely considered to be the deepening Depression and record unemployment, not Pearl Harbor. However, you are on the right track as the Regeneracy was represented by the election of FDR and his subsequent New Deal policies.

LOL, thank you very much. Yes, I'm sure, as my earliest memories are of the early '90s. Well, I do have one very blurry memory of watching Gulf War coverage, but I remember it in sepia, so it could be some sort of dream hallucination. Or I'm a replicant like in Blade Runner, and I was given someone else's memories.

That is so weird... that there are thinking people alive today to whom the early 90s are their first memories! I remember that era (fondly) like it was just yesterday... with more clarity, in fact, than the early 00s. I'm beginning to feel so old!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

That is so weird... that there are thinking people alive today to whom the early 90s are their first memories! I remember that era (fondly) like it was just yesterday... with more clarity, in fact, than the early 00s. I'm beginning to feel so old!

Want something really scary? I feel old sometimes. Several events made me feel that way lately.

First, Ann Richards died at 73. I remember hearing about her in my tween years (2002, 2003) for her famous "silver foot" remark and for the '94 campaign for Governor of Texas which she lost to now-President Bush. I had the utmost respect for her, and when I stopped to think that she was 57 when I was born, it freaked me out. I think of 57 as hip, midlife, still earthy and even, for some people, sexy. 73 is just plain old.

Then, I heard Macarena on a nostalgia radio station that plays mostly '70s and '80s. I was shocked! I remember learning the Macarena in first or second grade at my elementary school. Then I thought: oh my God, it's been 10 years since the Macarena. 8 years since the Monica Lewinsky "scandal". 6 years since Election 2000.

The breaking point hit yesterday. I walked into a grocery store looking for some last-minute junk food, and found, on the magazine stand, three magazines with pictures of once-teenage stars who are now...adults. Britney Spears. Christina Aguilera. Christina Ricci. "When did this happen?", I thought. I remember all three of them as teenagers (Spears singing "Baby One More Time", Aguilera singing "Genie in a Bottle", Ricci starring in the film Casper). I've never felt so old. I seem to be having that "aha! I should be a responsible adult now!" moment at just 15...a moment that usually is supposed to hit around 35. Am I just "overly adult", or are fellow teen Millennials like me experiencing this?

Originally Posted by 1990

Want something really scary? I feel old sometimes. Several events made me feel that way lately.

First, Ann Richards died at 73. I remember hearing about her in my tween years (2002, 2003) for her famous "silver foot" remark and for the '94 campaign for Governor of Texas which she lost to now-President Bush. I had the utmost respect for her, and when I stopped to think that she was 57 when I was born, it freaked me out. I think of 57 as hip, midlife, still earthy and even, for some people, sexy. 73 is just plain old.

Then, I heard Macarena on a nostalgia radio station that plays mostly '70s and '80s. I was shocked! I remember learning the Macarena in first or second grade at my elementary school. Then I thought: oh my God, it's been 10 years since the Macarena. 8 years since the Monica Lewinsky "scandal". 6 years since Election 2000.

The breaking point hit yesterday. I walked into a grocery store looking for some last-minute junk food, and found, on the magazine stand, three magazines with pictures of once-teenage stars who are now...adults. Britney Spears. Christina Aguilera. Christina Ricci. "When did this happen?", I thought. I remember all three of them as teenagers (Spears singing "Baby One More Time", Aguilera singing "Genie in a Bottle", Ricci starring in the film Casper). I've never felt so old. I seem to be having that "aha! I should be a responsible adult now!" moment at just 15...a moment that usually is supposed to hit around 35. Am I just "overly adult", or are fellow teen Millennials like me experiencing this?

I think you're crazy.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I think you're crazy.

Why? Because he fondly remembers the Macarena?

Originally Posted by Finch

Why? Because he fondly remembers the Macarena?

I like Britney better with meat on her bones. But the belching white trash video was big turn-off, I must admit.

Originally Posted by Finch

Why? Because he fondly remembers the Macarena?

The Macarena brings back pleasent memories for me. One in particular stands out. In the office in which I worked at the time, we had a tradition of playing the radio during work on fridays. One friday in the summer of '96 the Macarena came on and soon all of the women in the office were up and dancing. Even the sterotypically quiet girl from accounting joined in. In fact, one of the other single guys in the office liked the way she moved so well, he began to talk to her and they began to date. I've kept up with them, they now have a 7 year old son and a 3 year old daughter. Their 10th wedding anniversery will be next summer.

According to Mr. Xenakis' most recent posting on GD, Japan and China are drifting further and further apart. Shinzo Abe seems to be a tough post-War baby, like the Boomers here, and will probably be a more hawkish ally of the United States than some of his predecessors have been.

Ironically, if Japan and China end up on opposite sides of the World War, it will probably be a total reversal of WWII (in WWII, we were with China and against Japan; this time Japan will almost surely be our friend and China our enemy).

Wild times we're headed for.

Originally Posted by 1990

According to Mr. Xenakis' most recent posting on GD, Japan and China are drifting further and further apart. Shinzo Abe seems to be a tough post-War baby, like the Boomers here, and will probably be a more hawkish ally of the United States than some of his predecessors have been.

Ironically, if Japan and China end up on opposite sides of the World War, it will probably be a total reversal of WWII (in WWII, we were with China and against Japan; this time Japan will almost surely be our friend and China our enemy).

Wild times we're headed for.

And according to the logic of his War Cycle theory, Germany and Russia should be gearing up for a rematch . . . except they aren't, at least not yet.

You're better off reading something else. According to him the Bird Flu should have killed us all this year. But if it becomes a big problem in 2008, I'm sure he'll twist things to say that he predicted it for then. And if he predicts enough things with "100% certainty", he's bound to be right eventually.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

And according to the logic of his War Cycle theory, Germany and Russia should be gearing up for a rematch . . . except they aren't, at least not yet.

You're better off reading something else. According to him the Bird Flu should have killed us all this year. But if it becomes a big problem in 2008, I'm sure he'll twist things to say that he predicted it for then. And if he predicts enough things with "100% certainty", he's bound to be right eventually.

Whatever.

Even if this is so and he is just guessing, you can't argue that Japan and China are drifting further and further apart. When Japan was vying for a Security Council seat in the UN, we (the U.S.) backed them, and China did not, which basically killed the proposal. That's indicative of the growing wedge between them, and with China getting bigger and bigger and Japan contracting, tensions are surely rising. Not to mention that Abe will be a much less conciliatory leader than Koizumi was. So even if you ignore GD and its "100% certainty", you can't ignore the trends.

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> Even if this is so and he is just guessing, you can't argue that
> Japan and China are drifting further and further apart. When Japan
> was vying for a Security Council seat in the UN, we (the U.S.)
> backed them, and China did not, which basically killed the
> proposal. That's indicative of the growing wedge between them, and
> with China getting bigger and bigger and Japan contracting,
> tensions are surely rising. Not to mention that Abe will be a much
> less conciliatory leader than Koizumi was. So even if you ignore
> GD and its "100% certainty", you can't ignore the trends.

Once again an excellent, very sophisticated response, this time to a
pretty idiotic posting.

I'm really proud of you and Matt. You both seem able to understand
what's going on in the world better than many people twice, three
times or four times your age.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by 1990

Even if this is so and he is just guessing, you can't argue that Japan and China are drifting further and further apart. When Japan was vying for a Security Council seat in the UN, we (the U.S.) backed them, and China did not, which basically killed the proposal. That's indicative of the growing wedge between them, and with China getting bigger and bigger and Japan contracting, tensions are surely rising. Not to mention that Abe will be a much less conciliatory leader than Koizumi was. So even if you ignore GD and its "100% certainty", you can't ignore the trends.

Nope. No argument from me on growing tensions in East Asia. It's just that GD does nothing to predict it. Like I said, his exact same formulas would predict all sorts of things that are not happening, and not likely to happen, but Mr. Xenakis conveniently glosses over these items.

Another interesting thing to add to the aforementioned tensions: China is likely approaching a 4T mood soon, but Japan is not. Many here, including one of the authors, Neil Howe, suspect that Japan is significantly out of synch with us saecularly. This is due to their 4T having happened sigificantly later than ours (~1935/40-~1955/60). As a result, they are in the middle of a 3T with all of the, well, "unravelling" that entails.

Japan has not seen it's current level of individual expression in modern times, if ever. The last time there was such expression was arguably during the Sengoku period (1467-1603), and that was a period of unparalleled chaos in their history. They're handling it much better this time 'round, demonstrating the great advancement of their society.

China, OTOH, has been in a 3T for some time and it's effects are wearing. Xenakis, to his credit, points out many chaotic things going on inside of China that the mainstream media generally ignores. China will "go critical" before Japan. The big variable in this case is in what way will China enter a Secular Crisis? As a united nation-state looking for a scapegoat for it's problems? Or as a disintegrating mess? The former could put Japan at a distinct disadvantage, and indeed in great peril. Then again, a disintegrating megagiant with nuclear weapons isn't exactly lacking in peril either.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Once again an excellent, very sophisticated response, this time to a
pretty idiotic posting.

Aw, John. Don't you mean an "utterly moronic" posting?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Nope. No argument from me on growing tensions in East Asia. It's just that GD does nothing to predict it. Like I said, his exact same formulas would predict all sorts of things that are not happening, and not likely to happen, but Mr. Xenakis conveniently glosses over these items.

How does GD do nothing to predict growing tensions in East Asia? You have me confused. You apparently read his site, and he has predicted this for years. Can you give an example of where the formula would predict something that he hasn't mentioned?

Another interesting thing to add to the aforementioned tensions: China is likely approaching a 4T mood soon, but Japan is not. Many here, including one of the authors, Neil Howe, suspect that Japan is significantly out of synch with us saecularly. This is due to their 4T having happened sigificantly later than ours (~1935/40-~1955/60). As a result, they are in the middle of a 3T with all of the, well, "unravelling" that entails.

Did Howe say this on the forums? Why 1955/1960? I actually see 1960 as the start of their awakening (they are in sync with the US, I believe, but without looking at the rest of the world, I would put their awakening there).

Japan has not seen it's current level of individual expression in modern times, if ever. The last time there was such expression was arguably during the Sengoku period (1467-1603), and that was a period of unparalleled chaos in their history. They're handling it much better this time 'round, demonstrating the great advancement of their society.

With some experience, I can say that it's quite difficult to identify unravelings. I think it is the hardest of the turnings. It is very subjective, and it depends on how you interpret these moods. The best indicator for identifying unravelings is probably economics.

First, to Mr. Xenakis, thank you again. I take that as a great compliment.

And to Michael Easton, again you hit the nail on the head in several instances:

"How does GD do nothing to predict growing tensions in East Asia? You have me confused. You apparently read his site, and he has predicted this for years. Can you give an example of where the formula would predict something that he hasn't mentioned?"

Definitely. GD has been quite specific in its predictions worldwide, especially in Asia.

"Did Howe say this on the forums? Why 1955/1960? I actually see 1960 as the start of their awakening (they are in sync with the US, I believe, but without looking at the rest of the world, I would put their awakening there)."

According to GD at least, we are in sync with Japan. They had huge and tumultous expansions and changes to their economy during the '60s and especially the '70s and '80s. Sounds more like an Awakening than like a High. And their gradual weakening during the '90s seems clearly Unraveling-esque to me. Much like the U.S., technology and reality television kept the country distracted and entertained while deterioration occurred. Koizumi leaving and being replaced by Abe (a major political change, despite the two being of the same party; it could be thought of as just as major as the FDR-Truman switch in 1945) could very well mark the beginning of their Crisis.

"With some experience, I can say that it's quite difficult to identify unravelings. I think it is the hardest of the turnings. It is very subjective, and it depends on how you interpret these moods. The best indicator for identifying unravelings is probably economics."

I agree. That's why we'll never really know what started this last 3T in the U.S. 1984 was a year of transition in society, and thus is a convenient choice, but there was no JFK assassination or 9/11 to really mark a dramatic beginning. Similarly, the 3T before that from the 1900s to the 1920s started subtlely. But Japan's contraction economically in the 1990s, plus their similar pop culture trends to ours, seems Unraveling-like to me, and thus I would agree that Japan and the U.S. are synched up. China may be a turning behind - note their rapid and tumultous societal changes since the 1980s (cough, Tiananmen, cough). Now they seem to be on the verge of maxing out, so to speak.

Boys, this thread is chock full of "objections" to GD going back years. If you are truly interested in Xenakis' War Cycle, both good and bad, have at the thread. Or you can just blindly follow the ramblings of a madman. Whatever you prefer.

Yes. I know John has been predicting a conflict between China and Japan for some time now. I have been reading his site for years. I have been arguing with him here for years.

Beyond the fact that GD is a simple war cycle that is a regression from S&H's theory (the latter subsuming war cycle theory), it is a joke in terms of some of things it "predicts", esp. if you add the "100% certainty" claims. Why does he claim that Japan and China are going to go to war, genocidally, no less? Because of A) the hatred of each other they share from their last genocidal war and B) the generations that remember the horrors of such hatred when acted upon are all but dead and therefore not around to halt imprudent actions.

That's fine as far as it goes, and it just so happens that tensions are rising between them. But then please explain to me, if this reasoning leads to 100% certainty, why Germany and Russia are not preparing for conflict with one another? And why France and various neighboring states did not enter into genocidal war with one another in the mid-19th century?

And if the intensity of conflict is indeed the sole indication of a "Crisis War", as is the case with GD, why was WWI not a Crisis War for Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe (as GD claims the latter)? Far more West Europeans killed each other in WWI than in WWII.

And, continuing with GD's logic, why wasn't WWII East Europe's Crisis War? Far, far more people died on the Eastern Front in the second war than the first.

Not only is GD hopelessly one-dimensional with it's crisis war obsession, it isn't even consistent on that score. IOW, it's the ramblings of a crank. A crank who gets horribly offended if you actually "object" to certain aspects of GD even though he started an "Objections to Generational Dynamics" thread himself.

And beyond being offended, there are loads of questions and criticisms put to him by myself, Mike Alexander (now Mikebert) and others that he refuses to answer. I have even listed them on more than one occasion and he still didn't answer most of them.

I can see that you fellows like what he's done (the website does look nice and is full of drama) and like that he says nice things to you (because you agree with him almost to the point of being fawning). And that's fine. But I suggest that you don't have the whole picture.

FWIW

As for Japan, I can't remember if Neil Howe wrote that himself here on the board, or if someone else posted it from a personal communicaiton with him. On that score I will have to ask the other members their recollections. David Kaiser? Robert Reed? Anyone out there?

Also, there are many old timers here who agree with Howe's timeline for Japan. I'd go with Howe before I would with a charlatan like Xenakis.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

As for Japan, I can't remember if Neil Howe wrote that himself here on the board, or if someone else posted it from a personal communicaiton with him. On that score I will have to ask the other members their recollections. David Kaiser? Robert Reed? Anyone out there?

IIRC, at the end of Fourth Turning S&H have a set of recommendations for preparing for 4T. They suggest investing in countries on a different cycle, and they mention South America and Japan.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Boys, this thread is chock full of "objections" to GD going back years. If you are truly interested in Xenakis' War Cycle, both good and bad, have at the thread. Or you can just blindly follow the ramblings of a madman. Whatever you prefer.

I've already read it through twice.

Yes. I know John has been predicting a conflict between China and Japan for some time now. I have been reading his site for years. I have been arguing with him here for years.

Beyond the fact that GD is a simple war cycle that is a regression from S&H's theory (the latter subsuming war cycle theory), it is a joke in terms of some of things it "predicts", esp. if you add the "100% certainty" claims. Why does he claim that Japan and China are going to go to war, genocidally, no less? Because of A) the hatred of each other they share from their last genocidal war and B) the generations that remember the horrors of such hatred when acted upon are all but dead and therefore not around to halt imprudent actions.

That's fine as far as it goes, and it just so happens that tensions are rising between them. But then please explain to me, if this reasoning leads to 100% certainty, why Germany and Russia are not preparing for conflict with one another? And why France and various neighboring states did not enter into genocidal war with one another in the mid-19th century?

I'm no expert on East Asia, by any means, but the level of anxiety and hate on both sides is far greater between Japan and China than Germany and Russia. Often in history, two nations that fought the last "Crisis War" with each other, will often fight the next with each other too. But GD never says that this must happen. Enemies can become friends and friends can become enemies.

John has looked at the events over the past few years and longer to determine that Japan stands in the way of China and North Korea. Combined with the feelings left over from World War II, and assuming that there will be a World War involving Japan, China, and North Korea, it's hard to see any way around it.

And if the intensity of conflict is indeed the sole indication of a "Crisis War", as is the case with GD, why was WWI not a Crisis War for Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe (as GD claims the latter)? Far more West Europeans killed each other in WWI than in WWII.

And, continuing with GD's logic, why wasn't WWII East Europe's Crisis War? Far, far more people died on the Eastern Front in the second war than the first.

This has been endlessly debated, and the thought of WWII not being a crisis war for Russia has always been uncomfortable to me. No matter, it shouldn't have the effects of a Crisis War, the generations were not in the proper place.

Not only is GD hopelessly one-dimensional with it's crisis war obsession, it isn't even consistent on that score. IOW, it's the ramblings of a crank. A crank who gets horribly offended if you actually "object" to certain aspects of GD even though he started an "Objections to Generational Dynamics" thread himself.

OK fine, hate John all you want. But I'd refrain from discrediting GD because John "gets horribly offended."

And beyond being offended, there are loads of questions and criticisms put to him by myself, Mike Alexander (now Mikebert) and others that he refuses to answer. I have even listed them on more than one occasion and he still didn't answer most of them.

You've made your point that you think GD and TFT are vastly different. The same arguments are stated over and over again and we never get anywhere.

I can see that you fellows like what he's done (the website does look nice and is full of drama) and like that he says nice things to you (because you agree with him almost to the point of being fawning). And that's fine. But I suggest that you don't have the whole picture.

I don't appreciate that tone. I may be 17, but I don't buy into things that just look nice and have a lot of drama. TFT had a lot of drama, but I was skeptical and had many problems with their theory. When I discovered GD off this forum, these questions were answered.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I've already read it through twice.



I'm no expert on East Asia, by any means, but the level of anxiety and hate on both sides is far greater between Japan and China than Germany and Russia. Often in history, two nations that fought the last "Crisis War" with each other, will often fight the next with each other too. But GD never says that this must happen. Enemies can become friends and friends can become enemies.

Yes. Japan and China are definitely more at odds than Germany and Russia. I don't think Germans and Russians are building loathing to nearly the degree Japanese and Chinese are with each other. Comparing the two is like saying, if the U.S. and Iran are headed for war, why aren't France and Croatia?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

John has looked at the events over the past few years and longer to determine that Japan stands in the way of China and North Korea. Combined with the feelings left over from World War II, and assuming that there will be a World War involving Japan, China, and North Korea, it's hard to see any way around it.

Again, I agree. He's not just saying the arrangement will be the same as WWII. After all, back then the U.S. and Japan were bitter enemies, and this time they'll likely fight on the same side against China/Iran/etc. But look at the geopolitical situation. The whole world is shivering about China and the Middle East. The Western World, despite tensions between the U.S. and Europe, is united over the threat China poses. Japan and India are definitely with the West on this. That's because they all know that if China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan build some sort of unholy alliance (or perhaps "axis" is more apropos?), world war is inevitable.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

This has been endlessly debated, and the thought of WWII not being a crisis war for Russia has always been uncomfortable to me. No matter, it shouldn't have the effects of a Crisis War, the generations were not in the proper place.

I feel woefully uninformed. I don't know much about Russia's place in WWII. Am I drawing a blank? I think they were Allies, but perhaps they were less vocal/active than America, Britain, and France?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

OK fine, hate John all you want. But I'd refrain from discrediting GD because John "gets horribly offended."



You've made your point that you think GD and TFT are vastly different. The same arguments are stated over and over again and we never get anywhere.



I don't appreciate that tone. I may be 17, but I don't buy into things that just look nice and have a lot of drama. TFT had a lot of drama, but I was skeptical and had many problems with their theory. When I discovered GD off this forum, these questions were answered.

I agree, again. Zarathustra, we get your objections. But when we debate your points and provide strong arguments, you write us off as drama-seeking teenagers impressed with what we read online. Soap operas have a lot of drama too. I don't care. I want to learn about history and about world events, and I want to be informed about possible future developments. That's why I like T4T, and that's why I like GD.