Dear Matt,

Thanks again for dealing with Mike's head games, which you do much
better than I do, since you're more patient than I am.

Mike is making a big fuss about the War of the Austrian Succession
and the Seven Years' War as major wars following the War of the
Spanish Succession. My statement about wars after WSS may have been
exaggerated, but it was a slight exaggeration. On the other hand,
Mike is well aware that both of the wars he mentions were mainly
fought in colonial lands, and that the only major European
battlefield was Silesia, which is in Eastern Europe, which is on a
different timeline from Western Europe. Both wars were minor in
Western Europe.

Mike is starting to go on and on again because the crisis war
evaluation algorithm requires some judgment. This is all he can talk
about. He likes to claim that Generational Dynamics is all
judgment, while what he does is completely objective, because it has
to do with numbers.

He has a lot of balls to say something like that, because at his
insistence I wrote the evaluation algorithm to be as "computerlike"
as possible. It may not be perfect, but it's 95% of the way there.

Contrast that to what Mike does. He collects datasets and events and
plugs them into his software and claims that he's proven something.
But he never justifies his choice of events and datasets; he mixes
together datasets that are unrelated; he provides no theoretical
justification for anything.

So if the goal is to swim from New York to France, I'm within sight
of the French beaches, and Mike is on the New York docks.

Mike demands an exact algorithm for me, but he has no algorithm for
what he does. Actually, I'll tell you his algorithm: He looks at an
event or dataset and says, "Does this support the claim that I'm
trying to make? If it does, I keep it; if it doesn't, I throw it
out." Any college student knows what "selection bias" is, and the
lengths you have to go to to avoid it. But it's easy for him,
because he doesn't go to any lengths. The result is that he's never
accomplished anything with what he's done; it's all GIGO (garbage in,
garbage out).

Another of Mike Alexander's claims is that my methodology is
unrelated to Strauss and Howe's methodology and his is. (He backs
this up with completely phony data from the 1600s, but I won't go into
that now.) This is total nonsense. He uses a methodology that he made
up. I use EXACTLY THE SAME METHODOLOGY of Strauss and Howe -- reading
contemporary histories. I have a different interpretation because
I've fully developed the concept of multiple timelines -- a concept
that's almost universally accepted now on these forums -- but S&H
didn't have that available to them in the 1980s.

What Mike is doing for his books would be OK. I don't really care if
that's what he wants to do, though I am jealous that he sells so many
books. But instead of just "live and let live," he keeps launching
these attacks on me, claiming that he's objective and I'm not. It's
all crap. Here's one that he launched a few months ago:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...031#post166031
I was going to post a response but I didn't bother in the end. I
still have the notes though, so I might change my mind.

I noticed you got a little impatient with him at one point. Don't be
surprised. He already knows the answers to almost all the questions
he asks, but he's getting more and more anxious because he's bet
everything he owns that I'm wrong. In the end it's all head games.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> It was impossible to evaluate all the wars for over half a
> millennia since wars before European arrival were so poorly
> recorded. I evaluated all wars, both crisis and non-crisis over a
> 100-200 period.

You did???? I didn't know you were doing that. Did you find any
errors in my list?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> OK. This represents a fundamental difference between S&H and GD,
> although it isn't so different. England didn't really have a
> crisis war during the FP war, which puzzles me.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> 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.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> That doesn't describe 19th century England, does it??

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> 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.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> You know, I just can't agree with this having the effects of a
> crisis war. A crisis war somehow has to scar and shock the nation.
> British Imperialism didn't have this effect. Not that the
> Franco-Prussian war did either..

> I'd agree that the Franco-Prussian war was a crisis war for
> England, but I'll still consider it both an anomaly and a
> mystery.

I agree with you, but when I mentioned the food and the poverty and
the wars I had a different reason. Let me just step back a bit.

Every specifies of animal reproduces faster than food and other
resources are available. So every species of animal has some way of
dealing with the killing

Originally Posted by Henry David Thoreau

> Looking farther, I was surprised to find that the chips were
> covered with such combatants, that it was not a duellum, but a
> bellum, a war between two races of ants, the red always pitted
> against the black, and frequently two red ones to one black. The
> legions of these Myrmidons covered all the hills and vales in my
> woodyard, and the ground was already strewn with the dead and
> dying, both red and black. It was the only battle which I have
> ever witnessed, the only battle-field I ever trod while the battle
> was raging; internecine war; the red republicans on the one hand,
> and the black imperialists on the other. On every side they were
> engaged in deadly combat, yet without any noise that I could hear,
> and human soldiers never fought so resolutely.

In other species, they just run out of food, and some die quietly.
Sometimes an entire species goes extinct quietly.

In the case of lemmings and owls, the population is cyclic:



In this case, the lemmings population grows, and the lemmings get
eaten by the owls. The owl population grows and kills off so many of
the lemmings that they're almost extinct. That's when the owls die
off with nothing to eat. Then the lemming population can start
growing again.

So every species has to have some mechanism to deal with the
overpopulation problem.

When you get to human beings, there still has to be a mechanism.
Human beings are not exempt from this basic law of nature. But human
beings are "intelligent," and so the method for dealing with
overpopulation has to be related to intelligence.

Obviously the mechanism is crisis wars. Some people think that if we
can only figure out how to organize the United Nations, we'll never
have a war again. Or if we all just love one another and COMMUNICATE
with one another, there'll be no need for war. That's nonsense.

Genocidal crisis wars are buried deep in our DNA, and they're as
important to our survival as sex is.

Sooner or later, you run out of food or water or something. Someone
has to die. And people don't die quietly. They fight for survival
and kill one another if necessary.

So I look at crisis wars as an established fact, like breathing or
sex. The human race wouldn't exist if it weren't for crisis wars. I
see crisis wars as fact, and now all we're trying to do is to figure
out how they work, what their mechanisms are. It's like you have a
mechanical watch in front of you and you take it apart to see how it
works. You already know that it exists, and you already know that it
works. All you're going to do now is figure out HOW it works.

What part does "intelligence" play? We can postulate that one
function of intelligence is to figure out ways to avoid or postpone
unpleasant things. Even whole societies will try to avoid or
postpone unpleasant things. That means they'll try to avoid war, or
at least try to avoid unpleasant wars, for as long as possible. That
means that when a crisis war occurs, it will have been postponed for
as long as possible, and since all "unpleasant" methods have been
used up, the crisis war will be as unpleasant as human beings can
make it.

The cycle time for crisis wars appears to be about the length of a
human lifetime. Well that certainly makes sense. If there's going
to be a cycle, it makes sense that it should resonate in some way
with the length of a human lifetime.

Mike has been going on about crisis wars being equally spaced. I
can't for the life of me understand why that's become an issue again,
unless Mike has run out of other issues.

Both sex and crisis wars are equally essential for the continued
existence of the human race. Using sex as an analogy, there's
absolutely no reason why crisis wars have to be equally spaced. A
married couple might have sex once a week, or at irregular times. A
country might have crisis wars every 80 years, or at varying
intervals. Even if one person is ready for sex, he may have to wait if
his partner isn't ready yet. A country may be "ready" for a crisis
war, but no one else wants a war; or it may not be "ready," but
someone else may force the issue.

Mike thinks that all he has to do is find some flaw, and all of
Generational Dynamics will be wrong. He thinks that if he finds that
"Great Dataset in the Sky," then it will prove that his beloved War of
the League of Augsburg will suddenly turn out to be the most
significant war in human history, and everything else will turn out to
be wrong.

This is something he completely misunderstands. Even if Generational
Dynamics were right only 98% of the time, it would still be
significant and important.

So with all that in mind, let's return to the subject of 1800s
England, and whether the Franco-Prussian war was a crisis war for
England.

The reason that I mentioned food and poverty and the fact that
England was at war every day of Queen Victoria's reign is because it
goes to the question of whether England NEEDED to have a crisis war.

I mean, if being at war every day for decades somehow gave England a
"pass" of some kind from a crisis war, I wouldn't find that to be
disastrously unsettling.

So the question is: Did England get a "pass" or not?

I have a guess, and this explains the reason why I mentioned food and
poverty. Even if England did get some sort of "pass," the crisis war
requirement is way too deeply embedded in human dna to have been
avoided completely. Even if the actual physical war was avoided,
there would have to be some vestigial components of the crisis war
still in English society.

There's another angle: Perhaps the English were nervously watching
Bismarck's advance into France, and may even have been making some
sort of preparations to oppose him if he reached Paris. But as soon
as Napoleon III surrendered at Sedan, the English may have breathed a
sigh of relief, and just continued fighting all the other wars they
were fighting. They were at war anyway, and there was nothing left
to fight about on the Continent.

So the research project would have to be to figure out what kinds of
crisis war vestigial components, if any, existed in English society at
the time of the Franco-Prussian war.

This kind of information can only be obtained by using the Strauss
and Howe methodology -- read contemporary diaries and histories, and
see what people were saying. However, this is much easier today than
was possible in the 1980s, when they were doing their research. Just
to name two sources:

• <i>The Scotsman</i> has indexed all its articles back to 1820.
  You can go to their site and do a boolean search on "bismarck AND
  sedan" in 1870 and get over 100 articles. You have to pay to look at
  the articles, though, and the price is steep: $15 a day, $80 a month.
  http://archive.scotsman.com
  
• Google books lets you search and read (for free!!) many books
  from a century ago. Do a search on "franco prussian war" and you get
  dozens of books.
  http://books.google.com

By reading these and other sources, it should be possible to figure
out what was going on in England at the time of the Franco-Prussian
war.

Stepping back even further, what kind of societal mind-set is
required for a country to be at war at different places in the world
continually for decades? They considered themselves to be policemen
of the world then, just as we think of ourselves today, but we at
least took a breather after Vietnam. I gather that the English never
took a breather at all. How could that be? What were they thinking?
That's another question that's worth researching.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Justin,

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> Fair enough. Not so hard to do, if you go by such primary-source
> records as are around.

> Japan, greatly suffering from a US-imposed embargo, and 'reading
> the tea leaves' correctly, wrt the US Administration's strong
> desire to embroil themselves in the War, was attempting to both
> pre-emptively degrade the warmaking capacities of the US in the
> Pacific (prior to the expected US entry into the War) and also
> gain some breathing space from the embargo.

OK, that's enough to justify a war today between China and America.

Scenario #1. North Korea, suffering from a US-imposed
embargo, and 'reading the tea leaves' wrt to the Japanese' strong
desire to embroil themselves in a war, attempts pre-emptively degrade
the warmaking capacities of the Japanese AND the US. China comes
into the war on North Korea's side.

Scenario #2. Since you seem to be one of those people who
characterize almost everything that America does as evil and
warmaking, you've really answered your own question. The Chinese
"read the tea leaves" wrt the US Administration's "strong desire" to
embroil themselves in war (over Taiwan, say), and they'll attempt to
pre-emptively degrate the warmaking capacities of the US in the
Pacific.

Scenario #3. All your polemics about the US Administration
are right, and the evil George Bush is determined to push us into a
major war as part of his legacy before leaving office, so that the
major war will be remembered, rather than the "minor" war in Iraq.
Bush "reads the tea leaves" wrt the CCP's (Chinese Communist Party's)
desire for war, and decides to pre-emptively degrate the warmaking
capacities of China in the Pacific, prior to a war.

So under your own assumptions, we're headed for war in many, many
different possible ways.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> So, do you figure the US will be embargoing China anytime soon?
> Oh, whatever will the Chinese do if we cut off their stream of
> imports of ... ... umm.... ... something...

Originally Posted by Finch

> Dollars. Seriously. The Chinese banking system (i.e. the
> government) desperately needs dollars to cover their own massively
> inflationary currency policies. China's annual M2 increase is
> about 18% (their target is "only" 16%) -- compare the US at 4.4%.

> When they stop handing out the easy money, their whole house of
> cards will collapse -- quickly, publicly and painfully. And
> besides, the US is definitely getting the better end of the deal:
> we get cheap DVD players, and all they get is a bunch of pieces of
> paper.

Scenario #4. That's a pretty good answer, and I agree with it.
China's economy is very dependent on exports, which means that the
CHINESE are totally dependent American's purchasing their manufactured
goods. (Notwithstanding the fact that China lends us the money to
purchase those goods.

Scenario #5. China has a bubble economy, having grown at 10%
a year for a quarter century. The entire economy is built on the
assumption that the rate of growth will continue. But every economy
has a recession sooner or later. China now has a trillion dollars in
US Treasury bonds in its coffers, and when a recession occurs, China
will attempt to sell those bonds. Dumping them on the market will
cause the dollar to fall dramatically. China will then suffer
greatly, and blame it on the American dollar devaluation. They'll
"read the tea leaves" wrt the Administration's desire to use a war to
recover from its own financial crisis (caused by the dollar
devaluation). They'll decide to pre-emptively degrade the warmaking
capabilities of the US in the Pacific, prior to the expected war, and
to gain some breathing space from the devaluation.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

(and, by the way, just because they're all slanty-eyed over there
doesn't mean that the Chinese character is anything at all like
the Japanese. Japan is, to borrow from Treebeard, a much more
hasty nation.

I wouldn't count on this. Remember that crisis wars are begun by the
Hero generation, most likely beginning with hysterical reactions by
young girls, and then spreading to their husbands, brothers, fathers
and boyfriends, up the chain to the Nomads who implement the war
plans. I would have to see some evidence that this process takes
longer with the Chinese than the Japanese, but I doubt it very much.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Jenny,

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

> I'll give a little bit of background. I am a "faculty brat" -- my
> Dad taught at the University of Maryland throughout my childhood
> -- and he had two sabbaticals where we spent the academic year in
> Cambridge, England. The first was in 1963-64 and the second was in
> 1970-71. Both times, the family went over to Hamburg, Germany, to
> purchase a new WV "Microbus" and both times we also did a bit of
> sightseeing.

> From what I remember of my impressions and things I've heard from
> my parents is that Germany was in a High in the Sixties, but any
> discussion of its part in WWII was hush, hush -- we don't talk
> about it. (Not in my family, but among Germans). In my childhood
> perspective, they were a Bad Country that became a Good Country.

Thanks for this. This really pulls things together. It must really
have been fun growing up there, with opportunities to visit all of
Europe.

A couple of years ago I posted an updated "generational flow
diagram." I've now updated it again:



This diagram has two major changes from the last one. The first
change is that the "Artist" boxes have been un-grayed, and thus
removed from group of "unified" generations that fight and survive
the war. This makes more sense, because the Artists aren't really
united with the other generations during the crisis war.

The second is to make it clear that the Nomad and Hero generations
experience an "Austerity" era, while the Prophets experience a "High"
era, as illustrated by your information.

This change makes it real clear that the Strauss and Howe
generational constellation has completely reconstituted itself within
two generations after the crisis war.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You report this series of spacings for the same wars: 74, 50, 51, 79, 51, 68.

The 95% confidence interval for these values is 34-96 years. This analysis excludes a new crisis war following a crisis war for a considerable amount of time and so is signficant. Hence the difference between the se of spacings I obtained and the one John provides is the difference between significance and insignificance. But how can the spacings be different? Aren't we both using the exact same crisis wars? The answer is yes, but John uses different dates for his wars.

War of the Roses (1455-1485)
Armada War (1559-1588)
English Civil War (1638-1650)
War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
French Rev / Napoleonic War (1793-1814)
Franco-Prussian (1865-1870)
WW II (1938-1945)

Most of the differences are trivial with one exception. John's Armada war starts 26 years before the Armada War in the history books begins and ends 16 years before the historical war. By shifting the start of the Armada war back 26 years he changes the first spacing from 100 years to 74 years. By shifting the end back 16 years he lengthens the next spacing from 38 to 50 years. Thus both the longest and shortest spacings are removed, creating a much more regular cycle than one would obtain from using the war dates as given in the history books.

Now John can give a good explanation for why he chose the dates he did, but that's not the issue. The issue is if the GD crisis wars do not exactly match the dates of the real wars for which they are named then they become like S&H's generations, a period of time given by the author based on analysis that is not readily replicable.

What does this have to do with anything? In response to this, I looked up the Spanish Armada and immediately came up with 1585, not 1559. Fine. But after looking for five minutes, it seems that 1559 was the best year to start the crisis. So because it took a little more time to find the crisis, this proves ..............?

Maybe Spanish Armada wasn't the best name since it ignores the 1559-1584 period. I'll call it "Corornation of Elizabeth I and multiple crises and uprisings with plenty of religious issues, conflicts with Ireland, and the Anglo-Spanish War, culminating in the Spanish Armada." It's not a good name, but I think it would make it easier to identify the crisis period.

I'm not sure this is entirely different from the U.S. 1929-1941 period, however. But economics and uprisings are two different things.

Going back to your numbers, John has identified many more crisis wars. Plug those in and maybe you'll get a more "useful" range.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Maybe Spanish Armada wasn't the best name since it ignores the
> 1559-1584 period. I'll call it "Corornation of Elizabeth I and
> multiple crises and uprisings with plenty of religious issues,
> conflicts with Ireland, and the Anglo-Spanish War, culminating in
> the Spanish Armada." It's not a good name, but I think it would
> make it easier to identify the crisis period.

Here's what I wrote in my first book:

War with Spain, 1559-88

When Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1558, she immediately moved to
consolidate the position of the Church of England. This raised
tensions with Spain that, as we've seen, was trying to fulfill its
"manifest destiny" to spread Catholicism. Attitudes in Spain were
pretty hostile to England anyway, because that woman whom Henry had
divorced to marry Anne Boleyn had been a Spanish princess.

Spain had a plan: They'd get rid of Queen Elizabeth (somehow), and
then the next in the line of succession would be Mary Tudor, Queen of
Scots -- a Catholic.

Queen Elizabeth had a plan: Stall, stall, stall. Keep the Catholic
Mary Tudor under control, but make sure she's OK. Hold off the
inevitable Spanish invasion until England could build up its weak
navy.

But destiny played a hand in 1568, when Queen Mary of Scotland was
forced to flee for her life from her enemies in Scotland, and ended up
safe and sound in Queen Elizabeth's prison.

Mary was imprisoned, but not helpless. When it was proved in 1587
that Mary was part of a plot to assassinate Elizabeth, Elizabeth was
forced to execute Mary, and Spain was forced to launch the Invincible
Armada to invade England in 1588. Elizabeth's plan had worked: she
had stalled and used the time well to build a powerful navy which was
able to defeat the overconfident Spain.[>weurcivil<]

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What does this have to do with anything? In response to this, I looked up the Spanish Armada and immediately came up with 1585, not 1559. Fine. But after looking for five minutes, it seems that 1559 was the best year to start the crisis. So because it took a little more time to find the crisis, this proves ..............?

Maybe Spanish Armada wasn't the best name since it ignores the 1559-1584 period. I'll call it "Corornation of Elizabeth I and multiple crises and uprisings with plenty of religious issues, conflicts with Ireland, and the Anglo-Spanish War, culminating in the Spanish Armada." It's not a good name, but I think it would make it easier to identify the crisis period.

The 1559-1585 period isn't a crisis war according to the algorithm. First of all, there is no actual war to evaluate. Second, was there was more genocidal fury under Elizabeth than under her predecessor "Bloody" Mary? After all, Elizabeth isn't remembered as "Bloody Elizabeth".

It looks like cherry picking. John includes this 26 year pre-war period as part of the Armada crisis war. S&P have the next crisis begin in 1675, 26 years for the WSS crisis war. But John doesn't include any of the pre-war period as part of the WSS crisis war, even though most war cycle theorists lump the WLA and WSS into one long conflict (the WSS began just four years after the WLA ended). The principal issue of the WLA (containing France) was not accomplished until the WSS was fought. This is one of the reasons the WSS is a crisis war--it settled things that the WLA did not.

However, if the 26 years before the Armada war can be included into the Armada crisis war to make the crisis war a full 29 years long, why can't the 13 years before the WSS be included in the WSS whcih would make it 26 years long--similar to the Armada crisis war? After all, unlike the 1559-1585 period this period does contain a major war, and a revolution, and major structural changes in the government. Following the Glorious revolution, Parliament becomes ascendent, insisting on formal government accounting to prevent the monarch from spendng public money. The Bank of England is established giving the government a way to finance wars in that France did not have (which is why the smaller and weaker Britain was able to beat France in all but one war over the next century). It is these major structural changes to the British government that makes the Glorous Revolution (and not the English Civil War) an S&H-type secular crisis.

The 1688-1701 period was a time of great change--and there was a major war going on as well. How is the 1559-1585 period simultaneously more "crisis war-like" than either the 1688-1701 period or the 1547-1558 period (Edward VI, Lady Jane Grey and Bloody Mary)?

To me it looks like the 1559-1585 period was selected as part of the Armada crisis war (instead of the actual Armada war) to make the spacing more uniform.

Is the algorithm supposed to be applied to wars? If so how can it be applied to the 26 years before the Armada war? And if it can be applied to periods outside of major wars, then doesn't it have to be applied to all periods to see which ones have crisis war-like features even if there is no war going on?

The concept of what is a crisis war seems to be whatever John wants it to be to make the cycle come out right. Hence the current Iraq war can never be a crisis war, no matter how bad things get, because GD predictions are 100% correct and GD has already predicted that the Iraq war is not a crisis war. On the other hand, whatever happens in Palestine, no matter how mild, will be a crisis war (just as the F-P war was a crisis war for Britain even though Britain wasn't involved.)

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Spain had a plan: They'd get rid of Queen Elizabeth (somehow), and
then the next in the line of succession would be Mary Tudor, Queen of
Scots -- a Catholic.

Actually, plan A for Spain was for King Philip to marry Queen Elizabeth, who at the time of her ascension, was a comely, and presumably fertile, 25-year-old. Queen Elizabeth played along, stringing along her former brother-in-law (who had been married to her late older half-sister, Queen Mary), but she knew that the English people hated Philip.

But you are right about Queen Elizabeth, wily fox, who tried to stall as long as possible, playing hard to get with all of Europe's eligible royal bachelors.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

On the other hand, Mike is well aware that both of the wars he mentions were mainly fought in colonial lands, and that the only major European battlefield was Silesia, which is in Eastern Europe, which is on a different timeline from Western Europe.

Here's a site that has info about British battles in all these 18th century wars. Since I was talking about the British timeline, I should look at how these wars involved Britain.

http://www.britishbattles.com/seven-...lhelmstahl.htm

It gives info on four WSS battles involving the British. The battles took place in South Germany (1) and Flanders (3) The biggest of the three was Malplaquet, in which each side had about 100K.

It gives info on four WAS battles. They took place in SW germany (1) Belgium (2) and the Netherlands (1). None of these are in Eastern Europe. In fact they are slightly to the east of the British WSS battles. The largest of these battles was Lauffeldt, in which the sides were 80K and 60K.

It gives five Seven Years War battles. They all took place in Northwest or West Central Germany, not in Eastern Europe. The largest of these battles was Vellinghausen which pitted 92K vs 65K.

It gives four French and Indian War battles. The largest of this is Ticonderoga, in which the British fielded 15K troops.

I fail to see how the bulk of the fighting was in colonial regions. The size of the forces involved outside of Europe was much smaller than what was used inside of Europe.

Once again, you are asserting things that are simply not true. These wars were not largely colonial wars. The relevant fighting (to Britain) was not in Eastern Europe.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

There's another important point that didn't even dawn on me until I
reread that history of the battle of Malplaquet.
http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/...quet/index.htm

Mike said that WW I contained TWO battles of Malpaquet, because over
100,000 were killed at each of the battles of Somme and Verdun. But
"only" 50,000 people were killed at Malplaquet, so WW I must be
worse.

But holy cow, the battles of Somme and Verdun each took many MONTHS.

The Battle of Malplaquet began at 8:30 am and ended by 3:00 pm. There
were 50,000 people killed in SIX AND ONE-HALF HOURS. That's
incredible, and that's what was remembered for decades after that.

This gives me an idea. As I've said many times, the number of war
deaths doesn't seem to indicate much. But maybe the RATE OF WAR
DEATHS does mean something.

Let's pick a couple of numbers, like 300 and 1000. Then, if this
works, it would mean that more than 1000 deaths per hour would mean a
crisis battle, and less than 300 deaths per hour would mean
non-crisis battle.

This would need a lot of work to make sense, if it works out at all.
There would have to be some way of tying together crisis battles and
crisis wars. And I'm not sure whether a terrorist act that kills
1000 people instantly should count or not.

But still, this may be worth exploring. At least it would satisfy
Mike's need to reduce everything in life to a number, and it would
also make it clear that the Iraq war is NOT a crisis war.

Well, to be techinical, probably closer to 1 million died at the Battle of the Somme. Verdun was closer to about 250,000. 20,000 British died (nearly 60,000 casualties) on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the bloodiest day in English history, which well exceeds 1,000 per hour.

With that being said, I do think there is a correlation between rate of battle deaths and crisis wars, since it would indicate "genocidal violence," but I'm sure there will be plenty of anomalies; the Somme being one of them.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You did???? I didn't know you were doing that. Did you find any errors in my list?

Huh? I think you misread me. I was talking about identifying Native American crisis wars. However, I have been attempting to teach myself some history outside of what you learn in some school, and inadvertently stumbled on much of your list. The PKK war wasn't up there, but I when I was looking over it, I remembered that you considered it a crisis war.

But from what I've seen, the list looks pretty good.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The 1559-1585 period isn't a crisis war according to the algorithm. First of all, there is no actual war to evaluate. Second, was there was more genocidal fury under Elizabeth than under her predecessor "Bloody" Mary? After all, Elizabeth isn't remembered as "Bloody Elizabeth".

Mary was famous for internal crackdowns on Protestants. Elizabeth is remembered for other reasons. But this is irrelevant.

It looks like cherry picking. John includes this 26 year pre-war period as part of the Armada crisis war. S&P have the next crisis begin in 1675, 26 years for the WSS crisis war. But John doesn't include any of the pre-war period as part of the WSS crisis war, even though most war cycle theorists lump the WLA and WSS into one long conflict (the WSS began just four years after the WLA ended). The principal issue of the WLA (containing France) was not accomplished until the WSS was fought. This is one of the reasons the WSS is a crisis war--it settled things that the WLA did not.

However, if the 26 years before the Armada war can be included into the Armada crisis war to make the crisis war a full 29 years long, why can't the 13 years before the WSS be included in the WSS whcih would make it 26 years long--similar to the Armada crisis war? After all, unlike the 1559-1585 period this period does contain a major war, and a revolution, and major structural changes in the government. Following the Glorious revolution, Parliament becomes ascendent, insisting on formal government accounting to prevent the monarch from spendng public money. The Bank of England is established giving the government a way to finance wars in that France did not have (which is why the smaller and weaker Britain was able to beat France in all but one war over the next century). It is these major structural changes to the British government that makes the Glorous Revolution (and not the English Civil War) an S&H-type secular crisis.

The 1688-1701 period was a time of great change--and there was a major war going on as well. How is the 1559-1585 period simultaneously more "crisis war-like" than either the 1688-1701 period or the 1547-1558 period (Edward VI, Lady Jane Grey and Bloody Mary)?

To me it looks like the 1559-1585 period was selected as part of the Armada crisis war (instead of the actual Armada war) to make the spacing more uniform.

Is the algorithm supposed to be applied to wars? If so how can it be applied to the 26 years before the Armada war? And if it can be applied to periods outside of major wars, then doesn't it have to be applied to all periods to see which ones have crisis war-like features even if there is no war going on?

The concept of what is a crisis war seems to be whatever John wants it to be to make the cycle come out right. Hence the current Iraq war can never be a crisis war, no matter how bad things get, because GD predictions are 100% correct and GD has already predicted that the Iraq war is not a crisis war. On the other hand, whatever happens in Palestine, no matter how mild, will be a crisis war (just as the F-P war was a crisis war for Britain even though Britain wasn't involved.)

You make a good point here, and I really can't answer it. If one just looked at the pre-1585 period, you may think that it is indicative of a crisis, but I'm not sure if it fits as a crisis war. From someone who knows relatively little about the Spanish Armada, it seems similar to the 1929-1941 period and the 1763-1774 period for America.

However, the WLA doesn't fit this description. It is a war, but not a crisis war.

Cherry-picking is a pretty serious accusation Mike. I'd refrain from claiming dishonesty until John has had a chance to explain his reasoning fully. I'm interested to learn why the pre-Armada period is lumped in.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> You make a good point here, and I really can't answer it. If one
> just looked at the pre-1585 period, you may think that it is
> indicative of a crisis, but I'm not sure if it fits as a crisis
> war. From someone who knows relatively little about the Spanish
> Armada, it seems similar to the 1929-1941 period and the 1763-1774
> period for America.

> However, the WLA doesn't fit this description. It is a war, but
> not a crisis war.

> Cherry-picking is a pretty serious accusation Mike. I'd refrain
> from claiming dishonesty until John has had a chance to explain
> his reasoning fully. I'm interested to learn why the pre-Armada
> period is lumped in.

This is all Mike's ranting and mind games again. It makes no
difference to anything whether the pre-1585 period is included in the
Armada crisis or not. What's important is the climax - the actual
Armada battle. It's the explosive climax of a crisis war that ends up
being the most important thing in generating the eras and generations
of the next saeculum.

This was one of the first descriptions that I wrote. At that time, I
was trying to make the crisis era come out as close to S&H's 20 years
as I could -- in other words, it's the fourth turning that began in
1559. If I were writing it today, I wouldn't bother. I'd just say
that the crisis war ran from 1585-1588. But either way, it still
generated the Puritan awakening beginning in the 1600s decade, and
the English Civil War crisis.

Let's give Mike an unbirthday present. For today only, let's make
his beloved War of the League of Augsburg part of the War of the
Spanish Succession. Heck, he must be delirious anyway, with the
marketing spiraling uncontrollably upward, reaching 12116 today. We
should be at Dow 36000 by Thanksgiving.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Jenny,

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

> Actually, plan A for Spain was for King Philip to marry Queen
> Elizabeth, who at the time of her ascension, was a comely, and
> presumably fertile, 25-year-old. Queen Elizabeth played along,
> stringing along her former brother-in-law (who had been married to
> her late older half-sister, Queen Mary), but she knew that the
> English people hated Philip.

> But you are right about Queen Elizabeth, wily fox, who tried to
> stall as long as possible, playing hard to get with all of
> Europe's eligible royal bachelors.

Well, this is very interesting. I guess that Elizabeth must have
been a super-hot chick.

But a hot chick like that wasn't going to be spending her nights
alone.

So tell me, Jenny, what's the dish? Was she shacking up with
someone? Living in sin? In a meaningful relationship? Was it the
stable guy, like it was for Diana? Details! Details!

Sincerely,

John

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

To all:

Someone in another thread posted the following assessment of a
potential war with China. It makes chilling reading.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ19Ad01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ20Ad01.html

The article lists ten "acupuncture points" that China will attack in
case of war. The author claims that we'll be surprised by these
things, and that we have no defense against them.

I know for a fact that we won't be surprised by any of them (as we
were at Pearl Harbor in 1941). The Pentagon does extensive
multiplayer simulations of situations like these, and has adopted
strategies for dealing with all of them. I can't judge whether we
have any defense against them, but I do know that the whole thing
that Donald Rumsfeld has been doing for six years has been refocusing
the armed forces to handle exactly this kind of war with China.

Finally, I disagree with the author that Russia will be allied with
China. As I've said here and on my web site, I expect the new "axis"
to include China, Pakistan and Iran, while the "allies" will include
Japan, India and Russia.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Cherry-picking is a pretty serious accusation Mike. I'd refrain from claiming dishonesty until John has had a chance to explain his reasoning fully.

It's dishonest only if it is deliberate. In John's case it is certainly not deliberate. John is one of the hardest-working cycle cycle-researchers I have ever encountered and has come up with some truly novel ideas. It is incredibly hard to avoid bias in cycle work because human brains are such good pattern-recognition devices. We see patterns often where there are none.

When I first starting looking into the K-cycle I thought it was bogus because I couldn't readily see the cycle before 1800 or after 1930 and in any case did not buy the supposed economic features associated with it. Much of the literature was poor, authors simply asserting that the cycle existed, giving no evidence, and then using it to make predictions that did not come out right. For example, a 1971 cycle writer predicted a roaring twenties-style stock boom in the 1970's followed by a depression in the 1980's. Another guy, writing in 1974, forecast the stock boom to start in 1974 with the Dow reaching 3000 by 1982. This guy is still around and we went around and around in 1999/2000 with his bullish outlook on stocks and my bearish one. He said his earlier prediction was right, just 8 years early.

Then in the 1980's Ravi Batra has his take with The Great Depression of 1990. 1990 comes and goes with a massive economic boom and stock bull market in place of the depression. Nevertheless, this 1974 guy all through the 1990's was insisting that the post-1987 era was a 1930's-style depression, just as John is calling today a 1930's-style depression. On the other hand, the 1974 guy has made some fascinating calls. He predicted in Dec 1999 that the 2000 election would be a photo-finish in which Gore would win the popular vote. In Dec 2000 he predicted "an ambush" on our nation was in store for 2001.

None of these people are nuts. They simply were using their knowledge of cycles to make forecasts. And its easy to make fun of the guys who got it wrong when you haven't ponied up with your own projection. I took my shot in 2000, where I forecasted that stocks won't beat money markets for 20 years.

I followed up another forecast in 2003: Figure 1.1 from Retiring Rich:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0971804842

I reproduce the figure here and add in what has happened since in red



My track record has been OK, which is why I have sold a fair number of books despite being a totally unknown entity. As you can see from the 2003 figure, the market should go higher than it is now and not peak for several years. I do plan to write one more bearish book around 2008 calling for a catastrophic drop. I hope it is another Stock Cycles and maybe I can get another paid writing gig. Otherwise I am going to abandon this stuff and find another hobby.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Jenny,



Well, this is very interesting. I guess that Elizabeth must have
been a super-hot chick.

But a hot chick like that wasn't going to be spending her nights
alone.

So tell me, Jenny, what's the dish? Was she shacking up with
someone? Living in sin? In a meaningful relationship? Was it the
stable guy, like it was for Diana? Details! Details!

Sincerely,

John

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

I'll let you decide.

http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-Spec...?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

I've been using Mr. Xenakis' GD ideas to make a map of the world color-coding each country by turning. Crisis countries are red, Awakening countries green, Unraveling countries orange, High / Austerity countries blue.

I'd really like other people's input on what turning certain countries are in. I have the general idea that the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Israel, Russia, Japan, India, and Australia are all in or entering Crisis. Also I get that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in the Middle East, plus Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in Southeast Asia are in Awakening. According to John, Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba are in Unraveling (and possibly countries in southern Africa as well).

But that leaves huge gaps. Nearly all of Latin America, all of Africa, and a lot of Europe and Asia (cough, China, cough) are still big question marks. I'd love to hear all of you give your insight into what turnings certain countries or regions are in.

Here are the countries I've already colored in: for Crisis, Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Sudan, Israel, Russia, India, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Japan, Australia. For Awakening, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. For Unraveling, Cuba, Venezuela, and Colombia. As for the rest of the world (this leaves 163 U.N. countries!), I NEED HELP.

BTW, I'm using a blank map of the world from Wikipedia and coloring it with Microsoft Paint. Real bare-bones I am.

Originally Posted by 1990

I've been using Mr. Xenakis' GD ideas to make a map of the world color-coding each country by turning. Crisis countries are red, Awakening countries green, Unraveling countries orange, High / Austerity countries blue.

There has been much discussion on this site in this regard; you can probably find many more countries using the site search. FWIW, I have China as well as Iraq and Iran in mid-3T, about 10 years behind us. Also, I have Russia and Turkey in 1T.

Originally Posted by 1990

I've been using Mr. Xenakis' GD ideas to make a map of the world color-coding each country by turning. Crisis countries are red, Awakening countries green, Unraveling countries orange, High / Austerity countries blue.

I'd really like other people's input on what turning certain countries are in. I have the general idea that the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Israel, Russia, Japan, India, and Australia are all in or entering Crisis. Also I get that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in the Middle East, plus Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in Southeast Asia are in Awakening. According to John, Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba are in Unraveling (and possibly countries in southern Africa as well).

But that leaves huge gaps. Nearly all of Latin America, all of Africa, and a lot of Europe and Asia (cough, China, cough) are still big question marks. I'd love to hear all of you give your insight into what turnings certain countries or regions are in.

Here are the countries I've already colored in: for Crisis, Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Sudan, Israel, Russia, India, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Japan, Australia. For Awakening, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. For Unraveling, Cuba, Venezuela, and Colombia. As for the rest of the world (this leaves 163 U.N. countries!), I NEED HELP.

BTW, I'm using a blank map of the world from Wikipedia and coloring it with Microsoft Paint. Real bare-bones I am.

I'll do what I can to help you out here, young man.

While it's pretty obvious that most of the world is either Unravelling or in Crisis (including the US), JohnnyX is smoking some pretty bad Colombian if he believes that Iran of all places is in an Awakening... when it's equally obvious that's where they were in 1979, with the student-led takover of the US Embassy in Tehran. Ditto for Southeast Asia... WW2 was a Crisis for them as it was for us (and everyone else on the planet), and the VietCong won their Awakening war just as the free-lovers won ours.

Your map is a very clever idea, '90. However, I wouldn't recommend relying on John's pathetic attempts at boosting his own ego, for coloring it in.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I'll do what I can to help you out here, young man.

While it's pretty obvious that most of the world is either Unravelling or in Crisis (including the US), JohnnyX is smoking some pretty bad Colombian if he believes that Iran of all places is in an Awakening... when it's equally obvious that's where they were in 1979, with the student-led takover of the US Embassy in Tehran. Ditto for Southeast Asia... WW2 was a Crisis for them as it was for us (and everyone else on the planet), and the VietCong won their Awakening war just as the free-lovers won ours.

According to him, the Iranian Revolution in '79 was the beginning of Iran's crisis that continued with the Iran-Iraq war in the '80s. The Iran-Iraq war was clearly a crisis, and it could be argued that the '79 revolution was the catalyst for that. He also says that Vietnam was an Awakening for America but a Crisis for Vietnam (I wasn't around obviously, but by his interpretation what was going on in Vietnam was a true genocidal civil war).

Anyway, I don't want to prompt yet another drawn-out argument here. I just want help with my map!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Your map is a very clever idea, '90.

Thank you. And even if you do disagree with John on a lot of this, I find it helpful to hear everyone's take. We all know that none of us has every piece of the puzzle. I would love to hear everybody here contribute what they can. For example, even if I don't change any of the countries I've already colored, what about the rest of Europe and Asia? And we're not even addressing Latin America or Africa! Eek!

I'm going to disagree on two of your list.

Australia is most definitely in an Unraveling phase right now. The 'vibe' in Brisbane is an excellent overlay of Portland/Seattle, ca1992. They've got a low level of street hooliganism every once in a while, and the economy is the sweetest right now for people with a mercenary streak. No way are they in or even near a Crisis (at least as of this past April, when I was last there).

And Russia is also nowhere near a Crisis. My best guess is High verging on Awakening, though Awakening verging on Unraveling is also possible (the business environment might better support that one). 2008 should make it pretty clear which one Russia is in.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'll let you decide.

http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-Spec...?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

Cate Blanchett. Oh. Dear. God. I want puppies with her....

Originally Posted by 1990

Here are the countries I've already colored in: for Crisis, Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Sudan, Israel, Russia, India, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Japan, Australia. For Awakening, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. For Unraveling, Cuba, Venezuela, and Colombia. As for the rest of the world (this leaves 163 U.N. countries!), I NEED HELP.

BTW, I'm using a blank map of the world from Wikipedia and coloring it with Microsoft Paint. Real bare-bones I am.

Also here are some that come to mind, just off the top of my head.

Crisis: All of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, Turkey, Both Koreas, possibly all of India or maybe parts of India and surrounding countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.), Most of South Pacific
Unraveling: China (late), Algeria
High: Balkans, Rwanda, Congo, Some Kurds??

Some areas don't bear the brunt of the crisis, but they will still go through the turnings if they are on the same timeline with a nearby nation who gets hit hard.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Also here are some that come to mind, just off the top of my head.

Crisis: All of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, Turkey, Both Koreas, possibly all of India or maybe parts of India and surrounding countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.), Most of South Pacific
Unraveling: China (late), Algeria
High: Balkans, Rwanda, Congo, Some Kurds??

Some areas don't bear the brunt of the crisis, but they will still go through the turnings if they are on the same timeline with a nearby nation who gets hit hard.

Thanks so much, this is very helpful. In your estimation, did China enter the Unraveling after Tiananmen Square in '89? (That being the last gasp of their Awakening?)

Also, it is weird to see countries that were so scary in the '90s (Balkans, Rwanda) in High. That's just...wow.