Originally Posted by salsabob

I don't want to throw this great exchange off; just looking for a quick answer from anyone who liked to take the time.

From just a timing aspect, could Iraq just be the prelude, something like Bloody Kansas/Harper's Ferry or the Spanish Civil War?

IMHO, very easily.

Originally Posted by salsabob

From just a timing aspect, could Iraq just be the prelude, something like Bloody Kansas/Harper's Ferry or the Spanish Civil War?

Sorry, I'm not following: a prelude to what? The two examples you give point in opposite directions. The first point to an escalation of the internal sectarian conflict (which has been discussed to death here, and seems to be more a less a given, although the rate of escalation is in dispute.)

The second points to a much wider war in the Middle East, pulling in other Eurasian nations. How do you see that happening?

Originally Posted by Finch

Most people fail to understand just how dependent China is on the US economy. They desperately need our continued capital inflows to stave off implosion. That ten percent annual growth is all "funny money"; analysts estimate that over 80% of Chinese Central Bank loans will never be repaid.

Responding to myself, since I was bored this morning, starting reading some econ blogs (Shedlock, Roubini, etc) and was struck by something regarding the price of oil that was not-quite said by several posters:

We see that global crude production (i.e. supply) is flat-to-down from a year ago, yet prices are falling. Assuming the market data is valid (i.e. it's not just a massive evil conspiracy to dupe us into voting GOP this fall), this indicates that global demand is dropping even faster than supply. Given that US demand is still rising, this can only lead to one conclusion: non-US demand is down sharply.

Since China was by far the strongest driver of increased global demand, perhaps that 10% announced growth was more than just "funny money" (i.e. credit expansion)... perhaps it was "funny numbers" (i.e. falsified or entirely fictional data), and the slowdown of China's overheated economy is already here. Just some food for thought...

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

It's intellectually dishonest to look at two wars and determine which one should be considered the crisis war.

Huh? How else do you find crisis wars? John compared WW I and WW II to each other to determine which war was a crisis for which side.

You have to find crisis wars by looking at each one individually. If you are looking at England, you have to apply the same criteria to each war. You can't simply say, "Well one of them has to be the crisis war. World War Two has better timing." or conversely, "World War one had more British deaths. That's the best choice." That would be dishonest. If you apply criteria to one war, you have to apply it to all wars. If you don't provide the same criteria, your theory has no basis whatsoever.

That's why you cannot look at World War One and Two for England, and say, "Well if I had to choose one, I'd say World War One because a little more British died." (or there was more violence, energy, etc.) You can't simply choose the "better one." If both fit the algorithm, then both are crisis wars. If none, then none are.

What you can say is the British fought World War Two energetically, targeted civilians and accepted nothing less than total victory, making it an obvious choice for a crisis war. World War One lacked that "genocidal energy", even though casualties were high.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You have to find crisis wars by looking at each one individually. If you are looking at England, you have to apply the same criteria to each war. You can't simply say, "Well one of them has to be the crisis war. World War Two has better timing." or conversely, "World War one had more British deaths. That's the best choice." That would be dishonest. If you apply criteria to one war, you have to apply it to all wars. If you don't provide the same criteria, your theory has no basis whatsoever.

That's why you cannot look at World War One and Two for England, and say, "Well if I had to choose one, I'd say World War One because a little more British died." (or there was more violence, energy, etc.) You can't simply choose the "better one." If both fit the algorithm, then both are crisis wars. If none, then none are.

What you can say is the British fought World War Two energetically, targeted civilians and accepted nothing less than total victory, making it an obvious choice for a crisis war. World War One lacked that "genocidal energy", even though casualties were high.

Also, WWII transformed Britian in permanent ways. From 1945 on, decolonialization of their expensive empire became a priority. Also, the Labor party became a permanent contender for a parlementary majority.

Some would contend that these two examples would have happened anyway due to economic reality and demographic change. Perhaps. But the fact that they did so when they did should be considered.

The main critisism that I have relative to the coming 4t is the concept that a crises "has" to have a major war. I disagree. To continue with the example of the British in the 19th century, the closest they came to a 4t war was when they almost became embroiled in our civil war in the 1860's. Yes, France and Germany did have a crises war during this time and wars are highly likely during 4t's. But, to consider war unavoidable before it even get here, IMHO is a catastrophic misreading of history. The 4t is going to bad enough without preordained hardships.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The main critisism that I have relative to the coming 4t is the concept that a crises "has" to have a major war. I disagree. To continue with the example of the British in the 19th century, the closest they came to a 4t war was when they almost became embroiled in our civil war in the 1860's. Yes, France and Germany did have a crises war during this time and wars are highly likely during 4t's. But, to consider war unavoidable before it even get here, IMHO is a catastrophic misreading of history. The 4t is going to bad enough without preordained hardships.

I would consider mid-late 19th century Britain to be an anomaly. As far as I know, it is the only time when a major power has actually completely avoided a crisis war, being the Franco-Prussian war. Other than that, according to Generational Dynamics, a major war has occured for all regional powers that have been studied.

Hell, I even studied Native American tribes, some of which had only a few thousand people, and all of which weren't true "civilizations," and every tribe that had some power fell right in. Even disease which killed off 90% of the population had no effect. So England is a major surprise.

Maybe we can learn a lesson from England. Immense imperialism can prevent pain and suffering! Oh wait.

However, unlike England, America is not geographically in the same situation. We don't have France and Germany to our South. So there is virtually no chance of an avoidance of war. Maybe knowing of coming hardships will make it better, but then again, probably not.

Have a fun 4T.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

...

However, unlike England, America is not geographically in the same situation. We don't have France and Germany to our South. So there is virtually no chance of an avoidance of war. Maybe knowing of coming hardships will make it better, but then again, probably not.

Have a fun 4T.

Frankly I don't see how we can possibly avoid a HUGE global war this 4T. Tensions are boiling everywhere, and have been for way too long to avoid the inevitable. Just a few of the bubbling conflicts that come to mind: between Japan and China/North Korea; between India and Pakistan; between Israel and Palestine; between Western Europe and Eastern Europe; between the U.S. and Iran; even between Russia and Georgia now! (And really, how many people thought Georgia would be a major chess piece here?)

Let me quickly clarify,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

However, unlike England, America is not geographically in the same situation. We don't have France and Germany to our South. So there is virtually no chance of an avoidance of war.

The reason I said this was because I accepted the fact that most of Western Europe was on the same timeline, so the Franco-Prussian war was the crisis war for most of Western Europe. America's timeline is America's only, so it is a different situation.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Let me quickly clarify,



The reason I said this was because I accepted the fact that most of Western Europe was on the same timeline, so the Franco-Prussian war was the crisis war for most of Western Europe. America's timeline is America's only, so it is a different situation.

I disagree completely. America inherited its timeline from England. The very fact that the Virginia colony began when it did was because England was successful in the Spanish armada crises that climaxed in 1588. In the puratan awakening, four of the five new england colonies were settled, mostly for religious reasons. You can't get any more 2t than that. By the 1670's both mother country and the colonies were ripe for a 4t as the generations had aged in place. In America it was largely indian trouble, such as Bacon's rebellion and King Phillips war, in England there was a constitutional crises known as the glorious rebellion. In Generations the story of Hawthorne's grey champion is retold showing tense 4t interaction between England and her colonies during that time.

Finally, there is that little problem called the American revolution where England lost its best colonies and a new nation was formed. The loss of the ability to transport convicts to America was considered important enough to England that they set out to find another place for them late in the 4t. That problem for England found its solution at Botany Bay in Sydney harbor. I think you know about the articles of confederation and other late 4t issues facing America that led to the Washington presidentcy. Winning and losing on the scale that the new US and Britian did was 4t. To say otherwise is to effectivly repudiate the Generations theory.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I disagree completely. America inherited its timeline from England. The very fact that the Virginia colony began when it did was because England was successful in the Spanish armada crises that climaxed in 1588. In the puratan awakening, four of the five new england colonies were settled, mostly for religious reasons. You can't get any more 2t than that. By the 1670's both mother country and the colonies were ripe for a 4t as the generations had aged in place. In America it was largely indian trouble, such as Bacon's rebellion and King Phillips war, in England there was a constitutional crises known as the glorious rebellion. In Generations the story of Hawthorne's grey champion is retold showing tense 4t interaction between England and her colonies during that time.

I don't have TFT or Generations in front of me, so I don't know what S&H say, but Bacon's Rebellion and King Philips War were not at the same time as the Glorious Revolution (side note: which I do not believe was 4T).

I'm glad that you mentioned Bacon's Rebellion. I don't know an awful lot about it, but it seems to be the best candidate for a crisis war evolving from the Jamestown colony. With simoultaneous wars on Indians, a political struggle, and a violent rebellion that nearly burned Jamestown to the ground, I'm pretty sure it is 4T. Same time as King Philip's war too, probably by chance.

Finally, there is that little problem called the American revolution where England lost its best colonies and a new nation was formed. The loss of the ability to transport convicts to America was considered important enough to England that they set out to find another place for them late in the 4t. That problem for England found its solution at Botany Bay in Sydney harbor. I think you know about the articles of confederation and other late 4t issues facing America that led to the Washington presidentcy. Winning and losing on the scale that the new US and Britian did was 4t. To say otherwise is to effectivly repudiate the Generations theory.

I don't have the same definition of crisis that you do. I'll take the Napoleonic wars any day.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I don't have TFT or Generations in front of me, so I don't know what S&H say, but Bacon's Rebellion and King Philips War were not at the same time as the Glorious Revolution (side note: which I do not believe was 4T).

Bacon's rebellion and King Phillips war were both in the 1670's. The Glorious Revolution was 1685-88. Also, the Salem witch trials happened in 1692. During all of this you had prophetic elders, nomadic midlifers and soon to be heroic young adults. The burning of Jamestown in 1622, happened one year after the pilgrims had the first thanksgiving with their (then) indian allies. Indian relations were already sour in Virginia long before they would be so in new england. That, along with the fat that the puratan generation was still in young adulthood as 1622 was just 34 years after the 1588 crises prohibits 1622 from being a 4t year for the English settlers.

It may however, have been a 4t for the attacking indians. They certianly attacked with 4t intensity and aimed for finality, but that would not change the turning that the English defenders of Jamestown were in. Just because your enemy is 4t does not make you 4t also.

I'll take the Napoleonic wars any day.

America was France's ally in the period 1812-15. When the English occupied Washington in 1814, they burnt the White House and the patent office but mtre or less left the rest of the city alone. A 4t occupation would likely have burnt congress and the rest of D.C. in an attempt to elimate any trace of the young federal government. The restrained and limited nature of the Washington occupation in 1814 reads 1t to me. The British did not seriously attempt to destroy the American union in 1814. Their limited objectives scream "1t" to me as loudly as the limited nature of the American "police action" in Korea 1950-53 does.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Bacon's rebellion and King Phillips war were both in the 1670's. The Glorious Revolution was 1685-88. Also, the Salem witch trials happened in 1692. During all of this you had prophetic elders, nomadic midlifers and soon to be heroic young adults. The burning of Jamestown in 1622, happened one year after the pilgrims had the first thanksgiving with their (then) indian allies. Indian relations were already sour in Virginia long before they would be so in new england. That, along with the fat that the puratan generation was still in young adulthood as 1622 was just 34 years after the 1588 crises prohibits 1622 from being a 4t year for the English settlers.

What? You're not making sense.

I said Jamestown was nearly burned to the ground in Bacon's Rebellion in 1676. I said nothing about 1622. Was Jamestown burned to the ground in 1622 as well?

It may however, have been a 4t for the attacking indians. They certianly attacked with 4t intensity and aimed for finality, but that would not change the turning that the English defenders of Jamestown were in. Just because your enemy is 4t does not make you 4t also.

Duh.

America was France's ally in the period 1812-15. When the English occupied Washington in 1814, they burnt the White House and the patent office but mtre or less left the rest of the city alone. A 4t occupation would likely have burnt congress and the rest of D.C. in an attempt to elimate any trace of the young federal government. The restrained and limited nature of the Washington occupation in 1814 reads 1t to me. The British did not seriously attempt to destroy the American union in 1814. Their limited objectives scream "1t" to me as loudly as the limited nature of the American "police action" in Korea 1950-53 does.

I can't answer this one. I know virtually nothing about the War of 1812. John?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What? You're not making sense.

I said Jamestown was nearly burned to the ground in Bacon's Rebellion in 1676. I said nothing about 1622. Was Jamestown burned to the ground in 1622 as well?

Yes. It was the first recorded hostility between English settlers and the local indians. This misunderstanding may be more my fault. In my eighth grade social studies class, I did a project on the 1622 attack. To this day, when I think about Jamestown being attacked, I tend to think about this first attack. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

What I object to is your abusive and offensive attacks on people IN
THIS THREAD. Your recent attacks, using words like "boys"

Uh, the two young men, if you will, in question are 15 and 17, I believe. Being a little dramatic, John? If they were fully adult, African-American men, then yes, that would be bad. "Boys" is sometimes used like "guys". Calm down.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

or "fawning" or "you are especially adoring of Mr. Xenakis" or "You can
just blindly follow the ramblings of a madman" was waaaaaaaaaaaay
over the line, and extremely inappropriate. Unfortunately this
wasn't a one-time experience, as you do the same thing regularly.

And it's one man's opinion. And since when have you been Mr. Polite? Your continued rudeness is what turned me off to you in the first place.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

This is MY THREAD, and I don't want your disgusting behavior in MY
THREAD. Stay out of MY THREAD. You're not welcome.

So here's the deal: START YOUR OWN THREAD, and I'll promise to go
over there and answer your questions there. Anyone who wants to
joint YOUR THREAD can go over and you can abuse them as much as you
want.

Funny.

Uh, this is the thread of William Strauss and Neil Howe. It is NOT yours. You use this thread to promote your work, to stifle criticism of your work, to proclaim your theory as an "advancement" over S&H's with "100% certainty", but it is not your thread. You are essentially a squatter.

What you do have is a website of your own. Have you ever thought of developing a discussion board there? Total control (and actual ownership) could be yours!

Not to say you are not welcome here. You can start practically any thread you like here, from my observations. Our friend Kathaksung types about all sorts of "interesting" things. You would be welcome here even if did not want to welcome you, do you know why?: I don't own this thread or any other thread on this site.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So there's your choice: If you insist on continuing in this thread,
then you'll prove that my accusations about you are right.

You're not only good at peformative contradictions, you are also apparently adept at tautologies.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yes. It was the first recorded hostility between English settlers and the local indians. This misunderstanding may be more my fault. In my eighth grade social studies class, I did a project on the 1622 attack. To this day, when I think about Jamestown being attacked, I tend to think about this first attack. Sorry for the confusion.

That's alright. Thanks for the info!

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Incidentally, you must surely be aware by this time that Sean isn't
playing with a full deck and that you're exploiting him for your own
agenda.

Mike's exploiting me? That's precious.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

He's been overwhelmingly obsessed with me for over a year
now, sometimes allowing his obsession to completely take over his
life. He freaks out whenever someone tries to join this thread, as
if he were a jealous, spurned lover, and that's very suspicious. He
has little impulse control, and as far as I understand such things,
he's suffering from something like bipolar disorder and borderline
personality disorder, both of which can be treated with medications.
You aren't doing him any favors by trying to advance your own agenda
by encouraging his personal obsession with me. He needs to get past
that and get on with his life, and if you're really his friend, you'll
help him.

No, I am a serial killer who doesn't just sometimes allow my obsession to take over my life . . . John you are my life. Bwwaaaaahaaahaaahaa.

And yes, I'm kidding. Jeez.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

And this includes Jenny, whom I had to remind of their abusive behavior after she directed a criticism at me.

Jeez again. First, she is one of the most open-minded people on this board, you can't accuse her of much. Second, even if I was being aggressive, Mike was being as rational and sincere as a Vulcan.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

They're very good and very manipulative at their abusive behavior, which is completely planned, and they know that I'm helpless to do anything about it.

Break out the violin!!!

John, there is no coordination between Mike and I. We haven't spoken since he came to visit the Bay Area the better part of a year ago. We've had maybe one or two PM's since and none were about how to "abuse" you. And you say I should be the one taking meds!

Maybe, just maybe, you feel helpless because you are having trouble defending GD. I don't know.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Japan and China would likely be going to war anyways, without the past animosity from World War Two.

Not that I disagree, but why would you say it's likely without the past animosity? Also, is this aspect of the certain upcoming war, the aspect whereby the past animosity is not included in the calculation, covered under GD?

IOW, what, if anything, is GD relying on to predict a war between Japan and China other than the past animosity and the fact that present generations have no direct memory of what tragedy those animosities can lead to? And if there is something, what does it have to do with generational study?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

But it is that animosity that gives it near 100% certainty (happy?).

The "near" descriptive does not help much, no. Is the animosity primary to the prediction or not? The answer to this would tell me much.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

It is relevant in regard to Russia and Germany's case, because past animosity doesn't seem to be affecting relations between those two countries. So it is near 100% in China and Japan because of a variety of factors plus past animosity. If Germany and Russia went to war, it likely wouldn't be cited as a main factor.

Any half-informed, non-GD analysis can tell that there are tensions now between Japan and China, but there are not between Germany and Russia (at least nothing anywhere near close). What makes GD special? All I have seen mentioned about GD predicitive tools is past animosity from genocidal "crisis" wars and the forgetfulness of younger generations (those and something about crusty bureaucracies). Have I missed something?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You have to look at the current situation and the moods and attitudes of the people. It can confirm totality in one case and be the lynchpin, but in the other it can have no effect. So I do not see how GD suffers from "performative contradiction." I cannot explain why some nations can't let go, but others can. It's a mystery to me.

By "it" I'm assuming you mean past animosty. And I am assuming that you're saying that said animosity is just one component of GD's analysis. I think I hear what you're saying. Okay then, but ...

What else does "Generational Dynamics" bring to the table in these analyses that is based on generational studies? Like I said, anyone can tell that one set of nations is on a collision course, and that the other set is not. What is GD bringing to this that is different?

If you cannot supply anything other than the GD generational tools I have mentioned before then they are all John has. Therefore, the only thing GD, as such, can rely on is the past animosity and forgetfulness about it's dangers. Period. If that is all there is to it, and that is what he used to determine Japan & China's problem, then the same should apply for Germany & Russia or it's useless. Therein lies the performatve contradiction.

Unless . . . you're saying that John's GD tools are only secondary to other analytical tools, and the GD tools just offer some leverage. In that case, it's not much different from anything else, let alone and "improvement" on S&H.

Unless (again) . . . you can show me what other generationally-based tools John uses for predictions that are relevant to our Japan-China-Germany-Russia conundrum.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Why would GD predict 100% certainty about a war between Germany and Russia? He has never stated that past crisis wars will always, 100% of the time, lead to a new genocidal war between those new nations in the next crisis war.

When has it been stated that war casualties have anything to do with the cycle. If it was ever about war casualties, GD wouldn't exist. If you look at war casualties alone, the pattern is poor.

First, as a result of John not answering my questions, I am left with the implications that GD relies heavily on war casualties. One of the reasons I recently gave was John's answer on the English Civil War: that it couldn't be a Crisis War because wars of it's magnitude simply don't occur in anything other than 4T's, by (his) definition. This and other argument he has had with Mike leave this as a STRONG implication.

Second, I agree with you. War casualities a relatively poor indicator of 4T wars (though there I would say there is a low-to-medium correlation). And I also agree for this reason that GD has fatal flaws. He may say he doesn't rely on war casualties, but what does GD actually do?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

World War One (Western Front) was a great, intense war. It had some of the most horrific battles in the history of the world, some greater than the most intense of World War Two. But it is not a crisis war. I assume casualties were so great in this non-crisis war because 1. The youth bulge allowed for more manpower and 2. The fact that three great powers went head to head in a war that turned into a prolonged stalemate.

However in World War One (western front), there was an unnecessary capitulation by Germany (while they were in France, no less) and few attacks on civilians. The contrast between World Wars One and Two are obvious.

Oh I agree. WWI is clearly not a 4T for the West, whereas WWII clearly is. I bet 99% of those on this board would agree! That's not at issue.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

As for World War Two and the Soviet Union, I cannot answer that. I'm on the fence about whether World War Two fits into John's algorithm. With the Katyn massacre, "not one step back," and significance of the war (even though it was political), it would seem hard to label it a non-crisis war. Even John listed genocidal violence as "low to medium," in contrast to "low" or "none" for the rest. On the other hand, much of these actions were likely due to the personality and control of Stalin.

Interestingly, S&H only consider war intensity and genocidal "fury" (as they'd say) as one criterion out of many. More basic is the question of whether or not the outer-world of a society is fundamentally changing and reforming. If one were to whittle things down to a primary aspect, that would be it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Hope this clears some things up,

No, but unlike with John, you were civil and lacked overbearing arrogance even though you are obvious attached in some way to GD. Quite refreshing, actually.

Dear Rick,

Originally Posted by Finch

> From my experience living there in the 90's, I would say that your
> assumption is at least partially incorrect. Nowadays, the Germans
> look down the "Ugly Americans"; and the French do as always, of
> course.

> As for the German attitude toward the UK, I'd hardly call
> invading another country an "ephemeral decision"; and as I said,
> it was only one of many things that have changed their
> perception. The Germans recognize that, for better or worse,
> their entire future is bound up in the European Experiment; and
> they see the UK as indifferent at best, and hostile at worst,
> toward the future of a united Europe. "Blair the poodle" is just
> the latest in a long line of caricatures of the UK.

You're arguing that Germany is going to side with France against
UK/America, but your reasons for Germans are heavy with ephemeral
opinions generally held by aging 68ers, just as the American
"antiwar" movement consists of 60 year old grannies holding up "stop
the war" signs.

Using your reasoning, one could also conclude that America is going
to side with France against the UK.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, but I am saying
that you haven't given any meaningful evidence to support it.

However, I do lean in the opposite direction for a couple of reasons.
First, as I've already told in my previous posting, it's was
extremely clear to me in the 1970s that the Germans liked Americans
and the French hated Americans, and everything I seen since then
supports that view.

Second, I haven't seen the political venom in Germany that I've seen
in France.

Both France and Germany opposed the Iraq war, but the quality of the
opposition was very different. Germany expressed its opposition and
stood aside. France expressed its opposition through the sleazebag
Dominique de Villepin, who is Prime Minister now, but was foreign
minister at the time. First de Villepin out and out lied, and stabbed
Colin Powell in the back, humiliating him at a press conference. And
then he went around to different countries, doing everything he could
to sabotage America. He did everything he could to make sure that
America lost. Now we know, of course, that it was all because France
was making billions of dollars in kickbacks from Saddam.

I never saw anything like that kind of venom from German Chancellor
Gerhard Schröder, and Angela Merkel almost classifies as a
sweetheart.

There'll be an election next year in France, and the word is that
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy is more "pro-American" than de
Villepin. This I have to see, but the election may illuminate more
attitudes.

At any rate, I see German and French attitudes toward America to be
as different as night and day.

As for the "European experiment," at the time that Germany will be
forced to choose, it will already be obvious that the "Europe
experiment" will have to be postponed for a while, and will not enter
into their decision.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis;http:182071

> Do you remember what happened after the Enron scandal in 2000?
> This was after the Nasdaq crash, when so many people lost their
> life savings. There was a substantial minority of Americans who
> wanted EVERY CEO jailed.

Originally Posted by Finch

> Yeah, I remember that. What happened... where did all that anger
> go?? CEO salaries are still rising through the stratosphere, but
> we seem to have grown numb to it. I wonder what will happen that
> will be so dramatic as to bring us back to that boiling point...
>

People weren't angry at CEOs because CEOs have high salaries. If
that were true, then they'd also be angry at rock stars and Hollywood
actors.

The point I was making was that a substantial minority of people were
blaming ALL CEOs for the loss of their 401ks, when only a very small
handful were actually corrupt. Americans were almost hysterical at
the time, and it was still before 9/11. That's what happens.

Originally Posted by Finch

> But, to consider war unavoidable before it even get here, IMHO is
> a catastrophic misreading of history. The 4t is going to bad
> enough without preordained hardships.

I really strongly object to this kind of statement, and I'd like to
answer this at length.

I've gotten variations of this before. One person said that my web
site was going to cause a war. A couple of people have accused me of
trying to trigger a stock market crash. I really have to laugh that
anyone could think I have that much influence.

So now you're coming along with a statement like, "The 4t is going to
bad enough without preordained hardships." The implication is that,
somehow, figuring out what's going to happen will make what's going
to happen worse. That's nonsense.

The whole point is that what's coming is coming, and nothing can
change it, even President Bush. What's coming is coming because of
massive generational changes that can't be stopped any more than a
tsunami can be stopped.

But even if you can't stop the tsunami, you can prepare for the
tsunami. That's why I tell people, Treasure the time you have
left, and use the time to prepare yourself, your family, your
community, and your nation.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Justin,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> After 25+ years of 10% growth in China's economy, any recession
> will cause a major financial crisis, as Rick points out. Once that
> happens, the Chinese people will be blaming Americans by the
> hundreds of millions.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> Why Americans? The Chinese character isn't like the American (or
> it's close cousin, the European) character. Historically, the
> Chinese mob has tended to turn against internal, rather than
> external targets. I've often suspected that the expectation,
> Stateside, of a war with China has been the result of projection.
> Maybe this confirms...

I understand how you feel and what you're saying, because I've had
similar conversations with a couple of web site readers who have
complained to me about my statements about China. One of them called
me psychopathic. So I know you love China, and can't believe that
there'll ever be a war between China and America, and there's nothing
wrong with that, but wishes have never prevented war in the past.

You understand that there have been "internal" struggles in the past
-- the Taiping Rebellion, starting in 1852, and the Communist
revolution, starting 72 years later in 1934 with Mao's Long March.

So now it's 72 years later again. I agree with you about the
internal struggles. In fact, I wrote a lengthy article predicting
that there would be a new widespread civil war / rebellion in China.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.china050116

Among the reasons I gave include addiction to the bubble structure,
gender imbalance, huge migrant labor population, high rust belt
unemployment, and secessionist provinces (Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang).

And indeed, China is experiencing tens of thousands of regional mass
riots each year, up from a few hundred a year in the 1990s. Even the
China Prime Minister has warned that the country is becoming
unstable.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...060124#e060124

But what will the Chinese élite do when the rioting gets really
serious? They'll turn the rioters anger against Japan and America --
as they did in April, 2005, when the Chinese provoked several weeks
of anti-Japanese rioting.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...050416#e050416

Of course it can't be predicted how it will all turn out, but I see
no way around it that China will have a civil war, a war with Japan
and a war with America.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> And yet, every actual Chinese person I've talked to has pretty
> much assumed that the short-attention-spanned Americans will
> eventually lose interest, and the Taiwanese and mainlanders can
> come to their own terms. They do take somewhat more of the long
> view there.

If your friends really believe that, then they really are in a
complete "state of denial."

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> What responsible leader these days wouldn't be either preparing to
> deal with American attacks or at least improving the credibility
> of their deterrent? The US certainly hasn't come off as
> particularly pacific these past several years. And don't forget,
> the enemy du jour before 9/11 was China all the way. And that
> China still spends a mere fraction (any way you decide to arrange
> the numbers) of what the US spends on things military.

This is fatuous. Is India preparing for an American attack? Is
Japan? Is Russia? Even France, as much as they hate us, isn't
expecting a war with us.

No one (with the possible exception of Iran) is doing what China is
doing. China is spending huge amounts of money building high-tech
weaponry, including amphibious warfare vehicles for invading Taiwan,
naval vehicles for challenging America in the Pacific, and
submarine-launched missles for conducting nuclear war against
America. China is actively preparing for a major thermonuclear with
America, and they have no doubt that it's coming.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> Maybe. After all, as Albright said, "what's the point of having
> such an expensive military if you don't use it?".

> Or, did you mean that China is bound to attack America?

Madeleine Albright is an airhead. Your second sentence is (I assume)
intended to be humorous, but Albright's remark does apply.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> Why not India? They've had historically spotty relations with the
> Chinese in the past (they actually have right now unresolved
> border disputes, for that matter), and they're certainly more on
> China's level as far as rivalry goes. In fact, as foreign
> investment into China begins to cool, several foreign firms are
> looking to India as a next hot spot. Why wouldn't the Chinese mob
> -- were they to historically look outward rather than inward --
> turn on the next-door neighbors who would be (presumably)
> benefiting from their misfortune?

Yes, India will be an ally with America, Russia and UK in the war
against China, Iran and Pakistan.

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

> The Terror, as any Progressive Pogrom, only took a sixth of its
> victims from the nobility. The rest (5/6) were peasants and
> bourgeois. It also consumed a great many Progressives of the
> milder (Girondin) and then more Progressive (the Mountain) sort as
> the tumbrels rolled along.

I wasn't previously aware of those statistics, but this just shows
what happens during an irrational mob panic. Another example is the
one I gave about the desire to prosecute ALL CEOs in 2001.

One concept that I've been playing with is comparing fourth turning
panics to the panic that followed the 1938 Orson Welles' radio
production of "War of the Worlds."

This was also a fourth turning for us, and America was very anxious
and tense because Hitler was rallying his forces in Europe, having
already taken control of the Sudetenland area in Czechoslovakia,
while the Japanese had invaded China and were in the process of taking
over.

Although the Orson Welles show was about a Martian invasion,
apparently a number of people thought it was a German invasion. It
was a completely irrational fourth turning panic.

In your clionistic view, what's the value of such a comparison?

Sincerely,

Mr. Xenakis

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

Dear Matt,

You're doing a fantastic job of keeping Mike at bay. Thanks.

This gives me a chance to make some related remarks, and just be a
narcissistic boomer.

Mike uses the phrase "punch list," a phrase that I've never used.
I've tried to avoid using the word "judgment" because I used it once
before, and Mike's response was something like, "Aha! You admit you
use judgment." But we're talking about human beings, and there are
no magic formulas for evaluating human actions numerically.

But the Crisis War Evaluation Algorithm that I've created does, I
believe, very substantially reduce the amount of judgment required to
evaluate a war. It turns out that the War of the Spanish Succession
is just about the hardest war to evaluate. If you apply this
algorithm to other wars, it evaluates very quickly and unambiguously.
Even WW I is easy to evaluate, as long as you remember that it has to
be applied to different countries separately.

When I first started studying Strauss and Howe after 9/11, I wanted
to try to verify its validity. It was quickly apparent that TFT only
covered six cycles, and three of the six contained major anomalies.
That meant that unless I could find a way to validate TFT for all
countries and times in history, it would be basically useless.

As I dug into it in 2002, it turned out that the most productive was
to verify that crisis wars occur throughout all places and times in
history. I spent many hours on this endeavor, and the more I looked
at histories of various wars, the more the concept of a crisis wars
was just "common sense."

Basically, the difference between crisis and non-crisis wars is
completely obvious, once you look at numerous examples. You can
"feel" the difference between crisis and non-crisis wars. I use the
phrase "genocidal energy" to describe it, and it's something that you
can feel without much trouble.

But it took the greater part of a year to reach that point. It was a
very long learning experience.

So I see the Crisis War Evaluation Algorithm as a teaching/learning
tool. This tool isn't needed by someone who has taken the time to
develop the needed intuition, but for someone who's just starting
out, it helps to get a feel for the various factors that go into an
evaluation.

--

On another subject, Mike claims that I believe that violence is
increasing in Palestine and decreasing in Iraq. Mike knows that's
silly. There's a tide of increasing violence throughout the Mideast,
as you point out. It's just that it's not a civil war in Iraq.

I got the Mideast and Iraq predicts pretty much exactly right,
scarily so.

When the Mideast Roadmap to Peace was released in May 2003, I made
the following predictions:

• The Mideast Roadmap would fail, and would not produce side by
  side states.
  
• The disappearance of Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat would signal
  a major generational change that would lead the region into massive
  regional war.
  
• It was possible that the departure of Arafat alone would do this,
  and a new regional war would probably occur within a couple of years
  of the disappearence of Arafat.
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...ww2010.i.may01

Then, when terrorist attacks began in Iraq, and particularly when
terrorists blew up the United Nations building in Baghdad, I made the
following predictions:

• There would not be a massive uprisings against the Americans or a
  civil war, since Iraq is in an awakening era.
  
• The terrorist attacks may continue and get worse, and were quite
  possibly funded by Palestinian groups or other external groups.
  
• "The really dangerous scenario is that large numbers of
  Palestinian and "mujahadeen" terrorists will be motivated by identity
  group relationships to move into Iraq as a theatre of war against the
  Americans. That isn't happening now, but it's one of several
  possible scenarios that may unfold in the Mideast region during the
  next few months and years."
  http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...ww2010.i.aug19

These predictions were COMPLETELY novel. I don't know of anyone who
was making these predictions at the time. But they turned out to be
right.

Some people tell me that I should be very happy that these
predictions are coming true. That may be true in an intellectual
sense, like solving a chess problem or a math problem. But I have a
deep sense of foreboding about this "superpower" I seem to have.
Cassandra has the power to make predictions, but no one believed her,
and when her predictions came true she was reviled and raped.

---

With regard to the financial crisis predictions, Mike is right that I
did misjudge the situation in 2002-2003.

I never really paid any attention to the stock market bubble or the
Nasdaq crash until I got into TFT, and was trying to deal with the
"Great Depression" anomaly, which was the only one of TFT's cases
that began with a financial crisis.

Shortly after 9/11, when the stock market was down around Dow 8000, I
opened the Boston Globe one day and on the first page of the business
section, there was a headline "Nowhere to go but up," and a graph of
the Dow back to the 1920s.

I took one look at that grpah and said, ohmigod we're going to have a
stock market crash like 1929. The reason was because, generally
speaking, financial series must grow at steady exponential growth
rates, no slower, no faster, and it was perfectly clear from that
graph that there had to be a crash after the 1990s bubble, just as
there had been one after the 1920s crash.

Now here's where I made my big mistake. For some reason -- and I
can't even explain why now -- I assumed that since I understood that
a crash was coming, everyone would soon understand that a crash was
coming.

I have no real explanation for this, but that's what I thought. I
thought that since I understood this, other people would also
understand it. It must be because I'm a narcissistic boomer.

Anyway, I figured that the stock market would continue to fall. I
got hold of the actual historical figures and discovered that the
trend value of the stock market was around Dow 5500 (actually, this
was wrong, because I didn't have enough historical values -- it
should have been Dow 4500), and so I decided that the stock market
would continue to fall from 8000 to 4500.

It turns out, much to my surprise, that even people who understand
exponential growth forecasting concepts don't believe that they work.
What a shock! I didn't foresee anything of what happened -- the Fed
pouring money into the economy to prevent a stock market crash and
extend the bubble into a housing bubble, credit bubble, and
commodities bubble.

So Mike is right that I let some errors creep into my writing in 2002
and early 2003. But the basic prediction -- that we're entering a
new 1930s style Great Depression was not wrong, and a stock market
crash to Dow 3000-4000 cannot be avoided.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I would consider mid-late 19th century Britain to be an anomaly.
> As far as I know, it is the only time when a major power has
> actually completely avoided a crisis war, being the
> Franco-Prussian war. Other than that, according to Generational
> Dynamics, a major war has occured for all regional powers that
> have been studied.

Actually, there are other cases. There's Switzerland and Iceland in
WW II, for example. But you could also say that Kansas didn't have a
crisis war. This raises the question: What has to happen for a
country to be part of a crisis war? If you're not an actual
belligerent (such as Kansas or Switzerland), then how strong a
connection do you have to have for it to be a crisis war for you?

Here's a web page that talks about Switzerland in WW II.
http://history-switzerland.geschicht...ld-war-ii.html
It provides useful information for an analysis.

With regard to England in the 1800s, my guess is that the
Franco-Prussian war was a crisis war for England, in the same way
that WW II was a crisis war for Switzerland. This is one of those
many things I'd like to research. In particular, were the English
afraid that Germany would beat France, and then go on to England?

I believe it is possible for a country to experience a crisis war in
this way, provided that the country has plenty of food and little
poverty.

Finally, there's another point: England was at war somewhere in the
world every day of Queen Victoria's reign. This all has to be
analyzed by reading diaries and histories that were written at the
time.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> A political state created a little over 80 years ago is getting
> ready to fracture into three parts based on ethnic/religious
> loyalties that predate the nation-state. In my book, that
> qualifies as a crises. Theories are fun, but sometimes evidence
> and facts run counter to the theory.

There are many things wrong with this statement.

First, you don't know that it's going to fracture into three parts.
Many times during the last 80 years, Iraqis overcame their
differences and decided that they were Iraqis before they were Sunnis
or Shias, and they decided to stick together.

Second, you can call anything a crisis. It may be a crisis in "your
book," but that doesn't make it a crisis in anyone else's book. You
can make things up as you go along, but that doesn't mean that the
things you make up are worth anything.

Writing "your book" may be fun, but if it contains nonsense that
contradicts the evidence then it's worthless.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> Unfortunatly, I haven't found GD as consistant.

Well, judging by the stuff in "your book," you don't have the vaguest
idea what Generational Dynamics is about, so you really haven't
"found" anything consistent or inconsistent.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> I disagree completely. America inherited its timeline from
> England. The very fact that the Virginia colony began when it did
> was because England was successful in the Spanish armada crises
> that climaxed in 1588. In the puratan awakening, four of the five
> new england colonies were settled, mostly for religious reasons.
> You can't get any more 2t than that.

You've got this all mixed up in every way possible.

There is no evidence at all to support the concept of one group
"inheriting its timeline" from another group. Strauss and Howe
assumed it, but provided no evidence.

What I've found is just the opposite: When a group is forced to
relocate from one place to another, they don't "inherit" the
timeline; instead, their existing generational structure gets
destroyed, and their timeline gets reset to the First Turning. After
that, it takes only two generations before Strauss and Howe's entire
constellation of generations has been reinstated.

In the case of the English, the Puritan Awakening occurred in England
starting in 1603, and in the colonies starting in the 1620s.

In England, there was the Puritans' Millenary Petition, signed by a
thousand clergymen, presented to King James in 1603, resulting in the
writing of the King James version of the Bible by 1611. In the
meantime, the persecuted Puritans fled to Holland in 1607, and then to
the colonies in 1620. But in the colonies, the Puritan Awakening was
"flipped": here the kids were rebelling against Puritanism,
while in England the kids were rebelling for Puritanism. This
is all described in detail in William McLoughlin's 1978 book,
<i>Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform</i>.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> Finally, there is that little problem called the American
> revolution where England lost its best colonies and a new nation
> was formed.

One thing that REALLY surprised me when I was first getting started
in this stuff is that I learned that the English really didn't
fight the Revolutionary war very hard. In fact, it was a crisis war
for the colonists, but a non-crisis war for the British.

Here's some text from my book:

The British should have won. They had many more soldiers and vastly
greater provisions. But they didn't have the ferocity that the
Americans had.

In passing the Coercive Acts of 1774, England was effectively
declaring war on the colonies, but doing nothing to prepare for the
war. In fact, England did nothing to strengthen its forces in
America that year, and even actually reduced the size of its
Navy.

According to British General John Burgoyne, writing from Boston in
1775, "After a fatal procrastination, not only of vigorous measures
but of preparations for such, we took a step as decisive as the
passage of the Rubicon, and now find ourselves plunged at once in a
most serious war without a single requisition, gunpowder excepted, for
carrying it on."

Once the war began, there was a strong anti-war movement of sorts in
England. The King had difficulty recruiting soldiers, and largely
employed German mercenaries (Hessians) to fight against the
Americans. A loud, vocal English minority denounced the entire war,
and called for withdrawal.

England's next crisis war was the Napoleonic wars.

It wasn't until World War II that England and America's timelines
coincided again.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> America was France's ally in the period 1812-15. When the English
> occupied Washington in 1814, they burnt the White House and the
> patent office but mtre or less left the rest of the city alone. A
> 4t occupation would likely have burnt congress and the rest of
> D.C. in an attempt to elimate any trace of the young federal
> government. The restrained and limited nature of the Washington
> occupation in 1814 reads 1t to me. The British did not seriously
> attempt to destroy the American union in 1814. Their limited
> objectives scream "1t" to me as loudly as the limited nature of
> the American "police action" in Korea 1950-53 does.

This is an over-interpretation of the British role. It was America
that declared war on England because England was cutting the sea
lanes in its fight with Napoleon. England had no desire whatsoever
to destroy the United States; by that time they were glad to be rid
of the burden. But they did fight the French in North America, and
that's where their energy went.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by salsabob

> From just a timing aspect, could Iraq just be the prelude,
> something like Bloody Kansas/Harper's Ferry or the Spanish Civil
> War?

One possibility, possibly the most likely, is that when historians
look back on this time, they'll say that the world war began on 9/11,
and that the Afghan, Iraq and Lebanon wars were early skirmishes.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> Frankly I don't see how we can possibly avoid a HUGE global war
> this 4T. Tensions are boiling everywhere, and have been for way
> too long to avoid the inevitable. Just a few of the bubbling
> conflicts that come to mind: between Japan and China/North Korea;
> between India and Pakistan; between Israel and Palestine; between
> Western Europe and Eastern Europe; between the U.S. and Iran; even
> between Russia and Georgia now! (And really, how many people
> thought Georgia would be a major chess piece here?)

You're absolutely right, and you don't have to be a "generational
theory guru" to see this. It's just common sense. But never
underestimate the ability of people to convince themselves to be
totally oblivious to what's going on in the world.

Sincerely,

John

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