Mike, thanks for clearing up what you meant. You had me thinking that you had no idea of any generational archetypes with regards to GD.

I kind of agree with most of what you'd say here. I'd worry about oversimplification because I really think that there is a mixture in what you describe as S&H generations and GD generations. S&H heroes are empowered by the war, GD heroes have an aversion to the war. S&H heroes learn martial lessons for their war experience (like the "lesson of Munich"). GD heroes learn "never again." Both of these, in reality, are true, not just one or the other.

Then again, this is John's thing, not mine, but I'd think he'd agree with that. Maybe I've over-stepped my boundaries. I'll back off for a bit.

Originally Posted by Odin

Indeed. GD is just another war cycle theory, and a bad one at that. S&H's saeculae are more complex then a simple war cycle because they include cyclical changes in societal mindset, child-raising styles, religious/spiritual/idealogical Awakening periods in the middle of the cycle, etc. S&H's model also doesn't require a Crisis to have a brutal war (unlike GD which is so full of contradictions caused by John's assertion that a Crisis must have a brutal war with "genocidal enegy" it's pathetic).

What a strange post!

Not only does he disagree with some terminology or method, but he goes as far as to say it is simply a bad, pathetic theory. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have been having private messages with Zarathustra or you were really turned off by John's "Rumsfeld defense".

Or maybe it was me and my silly language skills. You know, I did much better on my math and reading sections.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Mike, thanks for clearing up what you meant. You had me thinking that you had no idea of any generational archetypes with regards to GD.

Now if you are interested in S&H's mechanism for the saeculum read the first three sections of this.

I kind of agree with most of what you'd say here. I'd worry about oversimplification because I really think that there is a mixture in what you describe as S&H generations and GD generations.

What I presented is the core mechanism of GD. John has muddied it up bringing in S&H-like ideas that have no clear connection to GD.

Then again, this is John's thing, not mine, but I'd think he'd agree with that. Maybe I've over-stepped my boundaries.

And this is the problem. It is too much John's thing. Nobody else can apply GD and get Johns answers in a consistent fashion. You can get his results but the way you do this has you putting in new stuff and making interpretations that are not consistent by the basic concept of the cycle. John does this too, but in his case it is his cycle, he can say whatever he wants about it.

There is nothing wrong with this, it just that the explicit wars that define the saeculum in John's opinion do not dovetail with S&H's and McGuinness's saeculum, nor with related cycles and my own empirical work. Since John has presented no empirical work, there is no reason to believe his cycle is better that S&H's or McGuinness's

On the other hand, given a choice between Kurt Horner's pre-3rd cent Roman saeculum and McGuinness's I prefer Horner's because it matches up better with my empirical work than does McGuinness's over that period.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> That's very self-effacing, but remember that it's your
> generation, not the Boomers, that's making the decisions for how
> and where and when we will confront international problems, and
> how this will lead to war.

Originally Posted by BigStar

> In what sense?

The very good explanation by "herbal tee" explains how your votes and
your opinions will affect the country and the world within a few
years.

I'll give a different kind of explanation in my next posting.

Originally Posted by Methuselah

> It's more a matter of WHO causes-starts, wars: not WHAT. Who
> being a nations leader that starts a war for usually personal
> reasons aka. Hitler, Islamic Fundamentalists, Napolean, Ho Chi
> Minh, Chairman Mao, Alexander the Great, Pol Pot, Hirohito, and
> just about every war through history by somebody wanting to annex
> land from a neighbor or avenge a perceived injustice or
> assasination.

This simply isn't true, although egotistical politicians think it's
true.

As you know, the book Eric Hoffer, The True Believer : Thoughts on
the Nature of Mass Movements begins with this sentence: "It is a
truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are
attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their
conditions of life."

It's the "rising revolutionary movement" that starts the war. People
like Hitler and Mao are selected as leaders of the movement because
they promise the "sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of
life" that the followers desire.

Mein Kampf was published in 1925, so every person who voted
for Hitler knew very well what they were getting. That is, they
didn't know that he would build extermination chambers, but they knew
that he was virulently anti-Semitic, and that in office he would take
some action to control the Jews -- perhaps confiscating their
property, perhaps deporting them, perhaps jailing some of them.

But this is a perfect illustration of how the "mob psychology" or
"mass hysteria" works. Persons who voted for Hitler agreed that Jews
were the problem, but they differed from person to person what the
solution was. Some thought confiscating property would be the
solution. Others thought that jailing or deportation would do it.
Probably very, very few considered mass genocide to be the solution.
All of these people had different solutions in mind, but they all
voted for Hitler because Hitler became the solution.

This is "deindividuation" in action. Persons voting for Hitler
might think that confiscating property or jailing or deportation was
wrong, but they weren't voting for those solutions. They were part
of the mob voting for Hitler. "I'm not doing anything wrong," a
voter might think. "I'm just voting for a candidate who shares my
views and has promised to find a solution."

Then, after Hitler is in power, the mob psychology takes the next
step. "I'm just arresting the Jews and putting them on the train.
I'm just doing my job. Whatever happens after the trains leave is
Hitler's responsiblity, not mine."

At each step in the process, it's the mob that demands action, and
it's the leader who implements the desire of the mob. If the leader
refused to take the next step, then the mob would select another
leader.

Even Adolf Eichmann, who masterminded the genocide, could say, "It's
not my fault. I was just following orders. I was just a cog in the
machine. If I hadn't done the job then someone else would have."

The same is true of Hitler. If he hadn't done the job, then someone
else would have. It's not Hitler who started the war; it's the
German people -- specifically the young "hero" generation -- that
started the war.

The same is true of Mao. He may have led the Long March, but he
wouldn't have had tens of thousands of followers if he didn't say to
the mob what they wanted to hear.

We saw something like this happen in the recent midterm elections.
The rising "hero" generation voted for change that in November and
elected Democrats because Democrats promised "sudden and spectacular
change in their conditions of life" that they wanted. Now we'll have
to see how the Democrats react to that. But the Boomer Democrats
have consistently misread the college-age generation for the last few
years, expecting them to act like themselves (Boomers) at college
age, and they appear to be making the same mistake now. I do not
believe that the young "hero" generation will be willing to tolerate
anything like a Vietnam-type defeat in Iraq, and Democrats who assume
they will are making a historic mistake.

Sincerely,

John

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

The Prophet/Hero generational model
and mass hysteria

Earlier this year, I wrote a lengthy posting on "The Prophet/Hero
generational model of mob psychology."
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1082
After the discussions in the previous posting, now might be a good
time for an update.

The Prophet

The concept of a "prophet" appears in literature written millennia
ago, and is central to the foundational documents of generational
theory -- Anthony F. C. Wallace's paper on "Revitalization
Movements," William G. McLoughlin's 1978 book, "Revivals, Awakenings,
and Reform," and Strauss and Howe's books, "Generations" and "The
Fourth Turning." In all of these works, the "prophet" guides the
society through a crisis, and it's therefore the "prophet" who
decides what's to be done and how to do it -- including whether to go
to war.

While these works all focus on the role of the prophet (that is, they
tell the story from the point of view of the prophet), there is much
less focus on the selection (that is, they don't tell the story from
the point of view of the rest of society).

The thing is, lots of people would like to be "prophets," but there
isn't room for all of them. A single "prophet" has to be selected,
and the other would-be "prophets" have to sit on the sidelines.

So let's move our focus from the top (the would-be prophets) of the
generational stack to the bottom (the would-be heroes).

The Problem

There has to be a Problem. The Problem is something that causes a
great deal of anxiety. Common components of a Problem are poverty,
humiliation, fear for one's way of life, or fear for one's life.

In a Crisis Era, all the different generations play important roles:

• The people in the disappearing Artist generation urge caution,
  containment and compromise. The message is: "The Problem isn't so
  bad; don't do anything rash."
  
• The people in the Prophet generation blame each other for the
  Problem. The message is: "The Problem is your fault; I had nothing
  to do with it."
  
• The people in the Nomad generation blame the Prophets because
  nothing is getting done. The message is: "Why aren't you jackasses
  doing something about the Problem?"
  
• The people in the Hero generation are often oblivious and
  confused. Insofar as they recognize the Problem, they want the
  arguing to stop and a solution found. The message is: "The Problem
  is beginning to bother me; fix it."

Mass Hysteria

Sooner or later some shock or suprise causes a substantial increase
in the amount of anxiety that people feel over the Problem. At this
point, mass hysteria begins to take over.

Mass hysteria occurs frequently in history. Teenage girls exhibited
mass hysteria at Frank Sinatra (1940s) and Beatles (1960s) concerts.
In the Salem Witch Trials (1692), four young girls trigger mass
hysteria in the entire community. In the War of the Worlds radio
show (1938), a substantial subset of the nation exhibited mass
hysteria because of anxiety over fear of a Martian -- or German --
attack. Mass selection of a fashion item is another kind of example
that can occur any time.

So mass hysteria can occur at any time, in any turning. But in this
case I'm focusing on only one particular kind of mass hysteria: That
which leads to a new crisis war during the Fourth Turning.

Young girls and women, especially when grouped in schools or social
circles, are highly susceptible to mass hysteria. Men are much less
susceptible, but they do become "infected" by the women in their
lives, or by unambiguous violence or threats of violence.

When understood this way, it's clear why old Heroes and Artists from
the previous crisis war are not affected by the kind of mass hysteria
that causes new crisis wars. Survivors of a crisis war have already
lived through the worst kinds of violence, and having already
survived it once, they aren't likely to become anxious and hysterical
when it happens again. As long as there are plenty of old Heroes and
Artists around, then the entire society is unlikely to feel the kind
of mass hysteria that leads to a new crisis war.

This explains why crisis wars never occur in the first two turnings.
Even if there's an unexpected invasion, the response is not
hysterical; instead it's well-planned and reasoned, by people who
believe that they can survive anything, no matter how horrible. It's
only during the Unraveling era that enough hysteria can be generated
to cause a new crisis war.

When the old Heroes and Artists all disappear, then all kinds of
anxieties arise. The new Prophets and Nomads feel enormous anxiety
simply because their old protectors (whom they scorned during the
Awakening) are gone. This can give rise to a "false panic," as I've
previously described.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1056

New threats can cause further anxieties because the young generations
don't have the experience to handle the new threats emotionally.

Prophet Selection

Recall that we started by saying that in generational theory it's the
"prophet" that leads the society through a crisis, often by means of
war. But how is the Prophet selected?

Normally, there are many people in the Prophet generation would like
to be the selected prophet. Each of these people has his own point
of view, his own solution to the Problem, and each of them blames the
others for not seeing the correctness of his own position.

From the point of view of the young Hero generation, these are all
barking dogs, until one of them says something that makes sense to
them. The Horoes then "select" that person as a prophet.

How do they make that selection? That depends on the mechanisms
available to the society. In a small tribal society, then they may
sit at his feet and listen, or go to the society's Speaker's Corner
and listen, and then carry his message back to the others. In other
societies it may be a coup, ranging from a bloodless coup to all out
crisis civil war. In our society, it's done through polling and
elections and media selection (i.e., if Jon Stewart has the highest
ratings, then he's being selected).

On my web site, I reached a conclusion, based on inferences from news
stories about the London Subway bombers, that young Muslims in London
and suburbs have apparently united around a prophet, or collection of
prophets -- the radical clerics in Pakistan. Instead of sitting at
the clerics' feet, a lot of them are attending madrassas in Pakistan,
and the others are communicating and learning over the Internet. As
far as I can tell, this selection has already been made, and they'll
make their attitudes felt through additional suicide bombings.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...061113#e061113

The prophet is thus chosen by the new Hero generation in much the
same way, using the same kind of mass hysteria, that drives the
selection of a rock star or a fashion item. However, the purpose of
the Prophet selection is to find someone who'll solve The Problem.

Eric Hoffer puts it a little differently in his book, The True
Believer : Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, which begins
with this sentence: "It is a truism that many who join a rising
revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and
spectacular change in their conditions of life."

No one who'd lived through a previous crisis war would be so stupid
as to believe that the choice of a single prophet or idea alone would
ever bring about "sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of
life." But young people don't have that experience, and they charge
ahead.

The Nomads, who don't know any better, go along with the Heroes'
choice because they're frustrated from having nothing to do, and
angry at the Prophets for not doing anything. And the Prophets are
split into two groups: Those who gloat because it turns out they're
right, and those who are bitter because it turns out that they're
wrong.

(Continued in next posting)

Sincerely,

John

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

(Continued from previous posting)

Message Selection

It's not enough to select a Prophet. In order to solve The Problem,
it's also nessary to have a Message that tells the Prophet how to
proceed.

Whatever The Problem is, it almost always involves another
demographic group -- people of another nation or another religion or
another ethnic group, for example. This is why Strauss and Howe
point out that immigration issues come to the fore during Crisis
eras: The first Message in solving the Problem is to control
immigration.

I prefer to use the more general term xenophobia, because it's always
been one of my favorite words anyway, and because it applies to more
situations. Thus, we have The Problem, the problem creates
anxieties, and the major anxiety is Xenophobia. The initial Message
is often related to immigration issues.

As time goes on during the Crisis, as there are more negative
surprises, the anxiety gets worse, which means that the Xenophobia
gets worse, and the value of a human life in the demographic group
perceived to cause The Problem goes down. As time goes on, The
Message changes and evolves and becomes more pointed. The value of
this human life drops to zero, and genocide occurs.

How does The Message evolve? It evolves according to a specific
formula specify by Hannah Arendt in her book, The Origins of
Totalitarianism. Here's her formula, as it applies to the "mob":

Originally Posted by Hannah Arendt

> "In the growing prevalence of mob attitudes and convictions --
> which were actually the attitudes and convictions of the
> bourgeoisie cleansed of hypocrisy -- those who traditionally
> hated the bourgeoisie and had voluntarily left respectable society
> saw only the lack of hypocrisy and respectablity, not the content
> itself."

It's the concept, "cleansed of hypocrisy" that's the key.

So here's an example of how The Message evolves:

• Those people cause The Problem, so let's pass immigration laws to
  solve The Problem.
• Those people cause The Problem, but we can still do business with
  them.
• Those people cause The Problem, but no matter how nice we are,
  things keep getting worse, not better.
• Those people cause The Problem, and now we must take much harsher
  measures with them.
• Those people cause The Problem, and now we must exterminate them.

The hypocrisy in the early versions of The Message is that the
bourgeoisie continue to tolerate "those people," even though "those
people" are causing The Problem. When "cleansed of hypocrisy," the
new message no longer tolerates "those people."

As the Message changes, new ideas from other Prophets may also come
in. I've previously mentioned that in Nazi Germany, there were people
whose anti-Semitic writings were adopted and carried to their logical
conclusion, much to the horror of the author, who wanted to be
anti-Semitic but didn't want to be responsible for a Holocaust. But
that's what happens when mass hysteria sets in.

There are people in this forum are delighted that the young
Millennials are starting to be heard, and are wishing that they'd be
heard even more. My response: Be careful what you wish for.

The Explosive Conclusion

If you look at the civil war in Darfur today, or the 1990s civil wars
in Bosnia and Rwanda, or the 1982 massacre at camps in Sabra and
Shatila in Lebanon, where Christian Arabs butchered Palestinian
refugees, or the 1988 massacre at Halabja, where Saddam Hussein used
poison gas on Kurds, then you can't find a rational explanation
except by mass hysteria.

As time goes on during a crisis era, and one negative shock and
surprise follows another, The Message gets more and more pointed
(more and more "cleansed of hyprocrisy.") At some point the Regeneracy
occurs, and the society is united. At that point, almost anything
goes. Eventually the crisis era ends in an explosive climax, and for
this I'll quote Strauss and Howe again:

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe in TFT pp 258-59

> The Crisis climax is human history's equivalent to nature's
> raging typhoon, the kind that sucks all surrounding matter into a
> single swirl of ferocious energy. Anything not lashed down goes
> flying; anything standing in the way gets flattened. Normally
> occurring late in the Fourth Turning, the climax gathers energy
> from an accumulation of unmet needs, unpaid bills, and unresolved
> problems. It then spends that energy on an upheaval whose
> direction and dimension were beyond comprehension during the prior
> Unraveling era. The climax shakes a society to its roots,
> transforms its institutions, redirects its purposes, and marks
> its people (and its generations) for life. The climax can end in
> triumph, or tragedy, or some combination of both. Whatever the
> event and whatever the outcome, a society passes through a great
> gate of history, fundamentally altering the course of civilization.

> Soon thereafter, this great gate is sealed by the Crisis
> resolution, when victors are rewarded and enemies
> punished; when empires or nations are forged or destroyed; when
> treaties are signed and boundaries redrawn; and when peace is
> accepted, troops repatriated, and life begun anew.

> One large chapter of history ends, and another starts. In a very
> real sense, one society dies -- and another is born.

Once the last chapter ends and the new one begins, everything starts
over, except for one thing: The survivors remember what happened.
They're horrified not only by the atrocities their enemies committed,
but almost as much by the atrocities that they committed on their
enemies. (But among later generations, people never remember the acts
of atrocity their society perpetrated, and never forget the acts of
atrocity perpetrated on their society.)

So the survivors vow: "That was horrible. Let's make sure our
children never have to go through anything like that." So they
impose all kinds of austere rules and restrictions. Their kids are
born, and the kids say, "Screw you old man, I have my own life and
don't have to obey your rules." And the cycle restarts.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Justin,

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> Quote: Vote

> -snort-

> Yes indeed, focus all your attention on selecting between the
> choices that they decide to offer you. That's the way to take
> control! Laughing-smiley Laughing-smiley Laughing-smiley
> http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/la...smiley-014.gif

What exactly do you expect? Big transitions take time, and there was
already a big transition in the midterm elections.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that, by some magic method,
it would be possible for everyone under 30 to cast a vote tomorrow
for a new President. Who would win?

There's no obvious winner except President Bush. He may not get a
majority, but he'll get a plurality because all the other votes will
be split among numerous Republican and Democratic candidates.

The new "hero" generation hasn't yet made up its collective mind.
When it does -- and it will probably be triggered by some very nasty
surprise -- then that's the direction the country will go in.

Are you looking forward to the day when the new Hero generation will
make its choice? Are you so sure that their choice will be your
choice? As I said before, be careful what you wish for.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Matt,

Thanks as usual for fielding Mike's remarks, some of which are
helpful and many of which are inane accusations. A lot of them are
just his usual mind games. I'll just comment on a few of Mike's
remarks.

• Mike says: "Of course" war deaths is a factor in determining a
  crisis war.
  
  This is complete nonsense. I had just written a lengthy message
  explaining why, even in the case of Somme, the number of war deaths
  is NOT a factor.
  
  Notice that Mike didn't make any comment on what I had written, or
  what I had posted about the battle of Somme. I doubt that he even
  read it. I know that he didn't read what I wrote about Malplaquet
  when I posted that analysis a few weeks ago, and it's pretty clear
  that he didn't read this either.
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1451
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1667
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1668
  
  In the Malplaquet case, he read just one paragraph and spewed pages
  of nonsense based on that one paragraph. In this case, he takes just
  one phrase (about "focusing the mind") from the first paragraph, and
  simply contradicts the entire analysis without even having read it.
  
  This is the kind of mind game that Mike plays. Instead of doing any
  actual research or analysis, he just takes a word or phrase and spins
  out an attack, ignoring anything else but those few words.
  
• Mike claims, "What one can then do it see if you can come up with
  a set of rules that can be used to define turnings, political eras or
  crisis wars. I have done this for turnings and for political eras."
  
  Once again, this is nonsense. He's done nothing of the sort.
  
  I analyzed Mike's list of McGuiness Turnings, and I refuted it at all
  levels. I showed that the list was arbitrary, that the methodology
  was wrong, that the justification was circular and inconsistent, and
  that they didn't correspond to actual historical events. I did the
  same thing with the event list. I showed that there's no possible
  logical reason for these choices, and the only remaining possibility
  is bias.
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1578
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1579
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1593
  
  Now you can search all of Mike's postings, and you'll find that he's
  never addressed any of this. I doubt that he even read them. He
  simply ignores them, waits a while, and then claims the opposite of
  what they prove.
  
  It's total mind game.

(Continued in next posting)

Sincerely,

John

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

(Continued from previous posting)

• Mike is claiming that I'm guilty of "unconscious bias."
  
  Once again this is nonsense, but since the "bias" question is
  important, I'll address it at length.
  
  I'm very conscious of the possibility of "unconscious bias," even in
  myself, and I always look for ways to make sure it doesn't happen.
  
  The most obvious example is the crisis war evaluation algorithm
  itself. It doesn't contain one step -- it contains four steps. If
  there are conflicts among the steps, the algorithm still provides an
  answer, but if there are conflicts among the steps then it raises a
  flag that there may be unconscious bias and more research has to be
  done -- usually by reading more historical sources.
  
  This is very important: Consulting additional sources is the way to
  avoid bias. Mike never does that, as far as I know.
  
  The best that Mike can ever hope to show is that I made an error, not
  that I'm guilty of bias.
  
  Take, for example, his claim that WW I is a crisis war for France.
  Now, he makes a very good case for that, and although more research
  is needed, it's not inconceivable he's right. After all, many French
  people did collaborate with the Germans in WW II, so maybe WW II was
  an Unraveling era non-crisis war for France. So let's assume, for the
  sake of argument, that he's right.
  
  Now, I've looked closely at Germany's role in WW I, and at England's
  role to a slightly lesser extent, and it seems clear to me that WW I
  was a non-crisis war for both of them. But I've never looked closely
  at France. Does that mean I'm biased? I don't see how, since it's
  simply one of the dozens or even hundreds of evaluations I really
  wish I had time to do. After all, each evaluation can take me
  from several hours to several days, and I can do only a fraction of
  the ones I want to do. I'd really like to do all the ones in my
  lengthy crisis war list, but there simply isn't time.
  
  But even more important, I have no dog in this fight. If WW I was a
  crisis war for France, that would be an interesting and even powerful
  discovery, but I'm not emotionally tied to the question one way or
  another. Crisis war or non-crisis war makes no emtotional difference
  to me. So I have absolutely no motivation to be biased.
  
  So Mike can criticize me for not having taken the time to do a full
  evaluation of France (and a million other evaluations as well), but
  he's provided no evidence whatsoever of any bias at all.
  
  As I said, I take the question of bias very seriously, even the
  possibility of bias in myself, and in my personal work I'm always
  looking for ways so that my work can "self-check," or check itself in
  some way to keep bias from occurring.
  
  My web site is the best example of using a mechanism to avoid
  unconscious bias. I started writing articles making predictions
  almost four years ago, and every article I've written is still on
  there, and anyone can bring up any article and read it.
  
  Thus, it's impossible for me to have "selective memory bias." I
  purposely set it up that way for exactly that reason. And I can now
  point to three years of successful predictions and prove that I made
  them and they're right. I've repeatedly challenged people to find
  any web site anywhere in the world with a predictive success rate
  that's even close, and there have been no takers. So my web site has
  been incredibly successful, and is now read probably by a couple of
  thousand people on a regular basis. I'm really very proud of it and
  consider it to be an important and significant achievement.
  
  So selective memory bias is impossible, but there's another powerful
  argument: If I had such "unconscious bias" as Mike accuses me of,
  then my predictions would have been wrong; I would have made
  predictions in the direction of whatever bias I had, rather than
  strictly follow the Generational Dynamics methodology precisely.
  Since I followed the methodology precisely, and even made predictions
  that I didn't like or were counter-intuitive, all the predictions
  have been correct.
  
  That's why all other "predictive" web sites fail -- the authors are
  indeed guilty of political bias. Philip Tetlock's recent book,
  <i>Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?</i>,
  found that EVERYONE gets predictions wrong -- obviously he hasn't
  seen my web site. But actually what he discovered is very
  interesting: He found that the more expertise a writer had, the more
  likely he was to get a prediction wrong in his area of expertise --
  and the greatest experts got their predictions wrong MOST OF THE
  TIME.
  
  That's an incredible discovery. It means that you could set up a
  predictive web site that gets predictions right most of the time
  simply by referencing the "experts'" predictions, and negating
  them!!!!
  
  But I don't allow myself to have bias. I follow the Generational
  Dynamics methodology precisely, even when I don't like the results.
  And it turns out that the results are always right, and the web site
  has been incredibly successful.
  
  With regard to the entire development of Generational Dynamics, I've
  used another technique to provide "self-checking" against bias,
  namely by using multiple methods that corroborate each other:
  • Strauss and Howe's theory
  • Theoretical description of the generational cycle
  • The crisis war list
  • Detailed analyses of numerous wars and awakenings in history
  • The Malthusian argument
  • The evolutionary theory argument
  • Integration with economics and macroeconomics.
  • Theoretical development of cycle/generation integration
  • Real-time testing of predictions on my web site
  
  
  All of these methods point in the same direction, supporting the
  validity of Generational Dynamics. Each of these methods by itself
  may have some weakness, but when all the methods are taken together,
  they form an enormous mountain of proof of the validity of
  Generational Dynamics.
  
  Mike is a completely ideological person. In his world, there are no
  real facts, just political opinions. If I said that 2+2=4, he'd
  decide what he'd prefer politically, and if he thought it was better
  politically, he'd say that 2+2=5 and that I'm biased.
  
  The difference between him and me is that if his ideology conflicts
  with something, he'll argue against it, and even claim 2+2=5. But
  I'll says that 2+2=4 even if I don't like that result for some reason,
  because I pursue the facts rather than politics or ideology.
  
  Believe it or not, it is possible for professionals to make judgments
  without being biased. Doctors do it all the time with differential
  diagnosis using an algorithm very similar in style to the crisis war
  evaluation algorithm. Just because some diseases are harder to
  diagnose than others doesn't mean that all of differential diagnosis
  is wrong.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis
  
  Incidentally, it may be worthwhile to look at differential diagnosis
  algorithms as a guide for how to improve the crisis war evaluation
  algorithm. Evaluating a war is, after all, a differential diagnosis.
  
  So Mike hasn't demonstrated any bias at all. All he's done is show
  that I have more work to do, in evaluating many more wars, and I
  already knew that.

(Continued in next posting)

Sincerely,

John

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

(Continued from previous posting)

• Mike says, "In the S&H mechanism generations are based on phases
  of life and necessarily will be of the same length. This is not the
  case for GD. They are two very different systems."
  
  Now we get to a series of points that Mike must have written when he
  was off his meds, but they're totally absurd.
  
  In "The Fourth Turning," which Mike may never have read, the turning
  lengths are almost never the same length. The range from a length of
  5 years to a length of 32 years. There's no rhyme or reason to the
  turning lengths in TFT. They're a little longer in the 1500s and
  1600s, then they get shorter in the 1700s, then longer again at the
  beginning of the 1800s, then shorter, then longer.
  
  To say that the turning lengths in TFT are "are based on phases
  of life and necessarily will be of the same length" is simply a
  hallucination on Mike's part. Talk about bias.
  
• Mike says, "S&H do not use the crisis war concept at all. It is
  completely absent from their theory."
  
  This is bias to the point of stupidity. Every crisis era in TFT
  contains a crisis war. Whether a crisis era can be without a crisis
  war is merely mentioned as a theoretical possibility, but as a
  factual matter, all of their crisis eras have crisis wars.
  
• Mike says, "Similar GD does not use generational constellations
  at all, it is completely absent from the theory."
  
  Where does he get this crap from? I write about generational
  relationships all the time -- here and on my web site. What the hell
  is he talking about?
  
  Maybe he doesn't like the fact that I don't use the word
  "constellation" much, since I consider that word confusing. Maybe if
  I threw in a "constellation" or two, he'd be happy. But the
  generational flow concepts are identical in TFT and GD.
  
• Mike says, "They are two very different systems."
  
  This accusation is a wet dream that Mike has been pursuing for years.
  In this case he's basing it on the preceding three points, which are
  total nonsense.
  
  Understanding the relationship between TFT and GD may be above Mike's
  pay grade since it's based on the underlying models, but since you
  seem to be confused about this as well, I'll address it at length.
  
  As I've said many times, TFT contains a brilliant underlying model
  which few people understand, even in this forum. Mike certainly
  doesn't have a clue about it.
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1184
  
  The GD model is the same as the TFT model, with one very important
  change: The TFT model has only one timeline, and the GD model has
  multiple timelines.
  
  You can point to differences in details between the two models, but
  they almost always derive from the single/multiple timeline
  difference.
  
  Now, although TFT and GD have the same underlying model, S&H and I
  use different approaches to analyzing the model. Both approaches are
  valid, and they both apply to the same model, but people like Mike
  get confused because they appear to be different.
  
  The difference between the two approaches is the same as the
  difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics
  studies things like how prices are set, how products are produced,
  how people are employed, how salaries are set, and so forth on the
  individual level. Macroeconomics is top-down -- price inflation,
  employment and unemployment rates, manufacturing volume, and so
  forth. The micro and macro approaches may appear to be different, but
  they're simply different ways of looking at the same economic model.
  They're related because macroeconomic variables are aggregates of
  microeconomic variables.
  
  Similarly, TFT and GD analyze the same model, and both address the
  micro and macro points of view, but TFT emphasizes the micro point of
  view, which is the generational flow, and GD emphasizes the macro
  point of view, which is the long-range cyclical patterns. But they're
  both describing the same model, with different emphases.
  
  One of the biggest theoretical jobs I've been working on for years is
  to fully integrate the two approaches. Here are some recent postings
  pursuing this theoretical work. Obviously Mike didn't understand
  them or their significance.
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1056
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1521
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1610
  
  Furthermore, a few messages back, I posted a message with the title,
  "The Prophet/Hero generational model and mass hysteria." This is an
  important addition to the theory behind the integration of the micro
  and macro models. I think that I'm really finally closing in on a
  fully integrated theory, and it's pretty exciting.
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1705
  
  At any rate, Mike is completely wrong in his claims about the
  relationship between GD and TFT. He just doesn't understand what's
  going on, but I hope I've cleared this up a little for your benefit.
  
  It's very strange to try to figure out what Mike is doing. By his
  own admission, he doesn't believe that either GD or TFT is correct,
  he doesn't understand either of them, and he doesn't like either of
  them. Yet he's on this crusade to try to prove that they're
  different. It's very weird. Why doesn't he pick something else he
  knows nothing about, like the Sunni and Shia religions, and post
  messages proving that they're completely unrelated to each other?

As you can see from the above, Mike goes through periods when he's
extremely lucid, and other times when he simply goes off the rails.

You have to remember that this must be a time of enormous anxiety for
Mike. He has a HUGE conflict of interest, since his livelihood and
perhaps even his life may depend on his proving me wrong. He has all
his assets in stocks, and he's extremely anxious that a financial
crisis may be coming, and he'll lose everything he owns.

But it's a lot worse than that for him. He has his 8,000 book
purchasers whom he's advised to stay in the stock market. A
financial crisis would cause many of them to be furious with him,
blame him, and possibly sue him. If Mike could, he'd probably sell
his stocks and put his money into 6-month Treasury bonds, which is
what I recommend for many people. But he can't do that, because if
his 8,000 book buyers find out that he protected himself but didn't
tell them, then some of them may come after him with shotguns and
knives.

That explains the hysterical nature of some of Mike's postings. He
has to prove that I'm wrong about everything, because if I'm right
about anything, then I might be wrong about everything, and his life
would be in danger. His only real choice is to sell his stocks and
use the money to move to Tahiti. Come to think of it, maybe he's
already done that. There are internet connections in Tahiti, aren't
there?

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Allan,

Originally Posted by Methuselah

> Come on folks, has anyone using this forum ever fought in a war or
> lived through the devastation of war.

> A war is a war is a war!!!

> Crises my *** it's all about killing people, destroying
> infrastructure, forcing submission, ruining economies. It's a
> horrible experience.

> Find another word - you're trying to force a square peg into a
> round hole.

> methuselah - korean war

If what you say were really true, then all wars would be the same,
and there'd be no need for a "war crimes tribunal," and there's be no
such thing as a war crime. Some wars are definitely worse than
others, in significant ways.

Originally Posted by Methuselah

> Why Is There Antisemitism

> Anyone ever try to determine why Europe is antisemitic?. Same
> thing for the Middle East?

> Consider this. Europe and the Middle East HATE the Jews. What is
> the fundamental cause of hate. It's a proven fact that hatred is a
> result of ENVY.

> Go back in ancient times. Jews were not politicians, military
> people, they were the merchants and lenders of money. They were
> shrewed in business and successful at the expense of those that
> wanted to trade or bargain.

> Think about this. You don't hate people you feel are inferior to
> you. You can dislike, despise, and have all kinds of bad feelings
> about murderers, thieves, etc. But when you accept the fact that
> you are not as smart as the successful you develope an envy that
> turns into resentment that turns in a hate.

> Germany and the rest of Europe after the two World Wars was
> dysfunctional. People had to sell personal items, furniture,
> jewelry, gold from their teeth, to obtain food and other needed
> items. The Jews were the money lenders or pawn brokers. And since
> the borrowers were desperate, the lenders made out extremely well.
> Lookup the word usury. Jews were not the bankers but they were the
> lenders. People don't forget. The hardships in the war's aftermath
> were not forgotten and passed on through generations even today.

> Compare tiny Israel with the entirety of the Middle East and note
> the development of Israel since 1948. 58 years versus centuries.
> Also consider tiny Israel winning 4 wars with the mighty Middle
> East in a matter of days or a few weeks.

> In order for the Middle East to unify, they had to have a common
> enemy just like Hitler had to have to motivate and justify his
> occupations. Stalin had to get rid of the Jews in Russia one way
> or another. No ethnic group has been so displaced and decimated so
> many times in history yet here Israel stands - hated yes but self
> sufficient and powerful.

> So yes Israel is hated but because of envy, not military
> conquest.

> In case you are wondering, I am not Jewish. I am Scots - Irish -
> and English

I've given a lot of consideration to the question of why the Jews
have been specially singled out for discrimination over the
centuries.

It's certainly true that the Jews haven't gotten with a lot of
people. They didn't get along with the Philistines, and that was
centuries ago. And then didn't get along with the Romans, the Spanish,
the French, the Germans, the Russians, etc.

But that's the wrong way to look at it. The Catholics didn't get
along with the Protestants or the Orthodox Christians or the Muslims.
The Shia and Sunni Muslims don't get along. The Hindus don't get
along with the Buddhists. So there's really nothing special about
the Jews not getting along with people.

Still, the Jews are perceived as a special problem, and there's a
reason for that. The following is an extract from my first book on
Generational Dynamics:

Judaism and Diaspora

The seminal crisis war that set the pattern for Hebrew life for
millennia to come occurred somewhere around 1200 BC (give or take a
century), when Moses liberated the Hebrew people from Egyptian
slavery by means of two miracles: the crossing of the Red Sea and
survival in the desert. That legendary story, told in the book of
Exodus in the Bible, has influenced major world events ever since, to
an extent that must not be underestimated. If that event hadn't
occurred, the Hebrews might have been just another cult that
eventually disappeared, and Jerusalem might have been just another
ordinary city, rather than a location that has been the epicenter of
one major historical event after another.

Just as the heroic victory of Athens over the Persians started a
chain of events that spread Greek culture throughout the world, the
heroic victory of Moses and his people over the Egyptians started a
chain of events that sustained Jews and Judaism to this day.

For, in the eyes of the Hebrews, this event made them the "chosen
people." The two miracles caused them to renew their covenant with
God that Abraham had made several centuries, and confirmed their
faith that God would protect them.

In the austere days following the exodus, Moses took steps to make
sure that "nothing like that must ever happen again." He imposed the
Ten Commandments on the people, and then developed an entire moral
and religious code, a code of political and social organization.
The covenant with God, made centuries earlier by Abraham, presumably
during an awakening period, was now confirmed and established by a
crisis war.

This time, the awakening that followed went in a different direction,
to the worshippers of the Golden Calf. There must have been many
struggles and crisis wars in the centuries that followed, creating a
historical fault line between the followers of Moses' law and the
others - the heathens.

The view of Jews as the "chosen people" was sealed several centuries
later when the Jews were conquered, exiled into Babylon, and
eventually allowed to return to their homeland. This was once again
interpreted through Jewish law: God had punished the chosen people for
their heathen practices, but then had shown mercy by ending their
exile.

The point of all of this history is the set of ideas surrounding the
word "Diaspora." This word was originally coined to describe groups
of Jewish people scattered around many countries, but now the word
"diaspora," without capitalizing, is used to describe any group of
people of common religion or ethnicity who are living in a community
not in the native country of their religion or ethnicity.

But while diaspora is a general word, it's the Jewish Diaspora that
have influenced world events the most. Why is that? Mainly because
Judaism has not had a homeland for the overwhelming portion of its
history, and so it's always been mainly a Diaspora religion.

No religion could possibly survive without a base, a homeland, and
certainly not a religion whose adherents have been exiled, moved or
slaughtered so many times in history. Yet, Judaism HAS survived.

It survived because the Jewish law, starting with the laws of Moses,
was designed so that God's chosen people could survive as Diaspora.

As a "chosen people," the Jews could live in any country and still
maintain their Jewish identity. Whether in Jerusalem, Egypt, Italy
or later in other countries throughout the world, the Jews had a
collection of scriptures and laws to live by, and they could
reestablish their identity simply by gathering together in a group of
two or more and reading and discussing those scriptures. This
ability of Jewish Diaspora to live anywhere, anytime, and still
maintain a Jewish identity, without merging into the local society,
makes the Jews almost unique among major civilizations of world
history.

And that's the uniqueness that creates the irrational xenophobia
among other people toward the Jews. Jewish people had their own laws
that took precedence of the laws of the society around them. (They
viewed their laws as coming from a "higher power," a concept that the
Christians later inherited, as did the Muslims even later.) Even in
earliest times, Jewish communities were insulated, and even had their
own courts of law. Some societies tolerated Jewish disobedience of
local laws better than others, and the ones that didn't tolerate it
often responded by moving the local Jewish community elsewhere,
passing the problem on to someone else. This common solution to the
local "Jewish problem" meant that Jewish history has almost always
been of Jews in other countries, rather than of Jews in their own
country.

Historian Henri Daniel-Rops puts it as follows:

Originally Posted by Henri Daniel-Rops

> Everything, then was related to the Chosen People's certainty
> that they were unique, different from all others and superior to
> them: everything, their monotheistic faith, love of their
> country, submission to moral laws, desire to order their social
> and political lives according to given principles, and their
> feeling for the highest kind of mystical experience. It was,
> therefore, theology rather than ethnology that determined their
> racial characteristics. [[Henri Daniel-Rops, <i>Daily
> Life in Palestine at the Time of Christ</i>, Phoenix Press, 2002,
> originally published as <i>La Vie quotidienne en Palestine au
> temps de Jésus</i>, 1962, pp. 31-33]]

It's important to understand that most of this description -- a
monotheistic faith and submission to moral laws -- is common to
Christianity and Islam (and, in fact, was inherited by them). The
distinctive difference is the form those laws took resulting from the
fact that there was no Jewish homeland.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Bob,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> I would think that the seeds of genocidal rage lurk in the hearts
> of men, can be suppressed by trauma in the recent past, but can
> also be nurtured and inflamed by idealist dreamers, bigots or
> power hungry elites. This would be part of my 'spiral of violence'
> schtick. A spiral of violence building to homicidal fury is often
> preceded by a spiral of rhetoric. The revolutionary patriots, the
> abolitionists and Hitler's brown shirts might all be examples.

> Spirals of violence can be suppressed as well as inflamed. After
> the Oklahoma City bombings, government, press and religious
> organizations denounced the violence. There was a broad consensus
> and active pressure that domestic terror was not a proper tool to
> manipulate government policy. After September 11th, many of the
> same organizations spun up the potential for violence. Foreign
> terror was to be answered with violence.

> To some degree, the elites might be able to manipulate emotion to
> achieve hidden motivations. To some degree, the emotions exist in
> and of themselves. The government can get swept up in the same
> waves of emotion as the People. I would just keep a skeptical eye
> on the elites, know that such forces can be manipulated, and keep
> track of which aspects of which culture are spinning which way.

I would argue that this is all turning-dependent. The Oklahoma City
bombings occurred during a third turning, and 9/11 occurred (I
believe) during a fourth turning -- and that's the difference.

I would also argue that the behavior of the elites is driven by the
emotions of the People, driven by the turning, and that elites really
have little or no control over it at all.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Are you looking forward to the day when the new Hero generation will make its choice?

This must just be the present incarnation of Boomer self-image. Even when it is clearly pointed out over and over that their progeny will not
drive the direction of the Crisis, but is fated rather to be the meat on their sacrificial altar, they persist in thinking otherwise.

Again, Civic generations do not come into power until the 1T. Their 'voice' -- such as it is -- consists in the barking of rifles and the screams and whimpers of the mangled and mutilated. I care f-ck-all for the "choice" of the Civic generation (just like, by the way, the Boomers who will lead us into this Crisis, and the Nomads who will pull us out). They get their chance when they start to screw up the workable system that my archetype leaves them. Even then, they can hardly be blamed. Their inability to function effectively as independent, mature adults is the direct result of poor upbringing.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What a strange post!

How? GD is primarily a war cycle. S&H incorporates war cycle theory as one of many considerations. How is this not true?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

but he goes as far as to say it is simply a bad, pathetic theory.

Maybe I didn't understand you here. Are you saying that John thinks S&H's theory is "bad" and "pathetic"? I agree that he has stated that his theory is an "improvement" over S&H. I agree that he has some serious cajones to say such things while utilizing their terminology (out of context) and squatting on their website claiming to own (!!!!) "his" Objections to GD thread, all the while rejecting and being offended by any true objections. Why S&H indulge him is beyond me. My guess is that they don't realize what he is doing.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have been having private messages with Zarathustra or you were really turned off by John's "Rumsfeld defense".

Then the limb would break beneath you. I have never had a PM exchange with Odin (but I might now ).

You have been listening to John too long. His paranoia seems to be rubbing off.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Or maybe it was me and my silly language skills. You know, I did much better on my math and reading sections.

This is becoming obvious.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

This must just be the present incarnation of Boomer self-image. Even when it is clearly pointed out over and over that their progeny will not
drive the direction of the Crisis, but is fated rather to be the meat on their sacrificial altar, they persist in thinking otherwise.

Again, Civic generations do not come into power until the 1T. Their 'voice' -- such as it is -- consists in the barking of rifles and the screams and whimpers of the mangled and mutilated. I care f-ck-all for the "choice" of the Civic generation (just like, by the way, the Boomers who will lead us into this Crisis, and the Nomads who will pull us out). They get their chance when they start to screw up the workable system that my archetype leaves them. Even then, they can hardly be blamed. Their inability to function effectively as independent, mature adults is the direct result of poor upbringing.

Ouch! I'm a Nomad and that still felt painful.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Ouch! I'm a Nomad and that still felt painful.

I calls them as I sees them. And it's what the theory says, too.

Actually, I thought Odin did a great job of cutting through 68+ pages of this discussion that's been going on for years.

Disclaimer: Sean and I *have* been PM'ing, emailing, and telephoning for quite some time. Resistance is futile. It's all about the Great Nest of Being. Integralism rules, baby!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Actually, I thought Odin did a great job of cutting through 68+ pages of this discussion that's been going on for years.

It took me a week just to read through the whole thread!

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Maybe I didn't understand you here. Are you saying that John thinks S&H's theory is "bad" and "pathetic"?

No, no, no I was just repeating what Odin said.

Then the limb would break beneath you. I have never had a PM exchange with Odin (but I might now ).

You have been listening to John too long. His paranoia seems to be rubbing off.

I'm not sure if you are serious or not, but those lines you refer to were half-serious, since Odin said the exact same things you have been saying... and you two have been agreeing on well, everything.

This is becoming obvious.

Ouch.

Differential Diagnosis

This is for those of you who are interested in real research, rather
than just posting silly nonsense.

In a previous posting today, I mentioned the phrase "differential
diagnosis," and wondered if this method could be used to could be
used in the crisis war evaluation algorithm.

I've been checking it out since then, and it looks like a really
exciting possibility. Here are some interesting web sites on the
subject:

A brief description of Differential Diagnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis

An interesting 5-minute tutorial showing how to use their software to
do Differential Diagnosis. (Requires Flash)
http://med.fsu.edu/library/Tutorials...ewlet_swf.html

A fun site that lets you type in up to five symptoms, and then gives
you a list of problems that might cause those symptoms.
http://www.emedicine.com/diagnosis.shtml

A training module that teaches how to use Differential Diagnosis to
distinguish among different forms of plague
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/plague/trainingmodule/3/

A mathematical description of a Differential Diagnosis
implementation.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/peo...tion3_4_3.html

It'll take a fair amount of work, but Differential Diagnosis has the
potential of being the best way to describe the Crisis War Evaluation
Algorithm. A similar methodology can be used for related problems --
e.g., determining which turning a nation is in at a particular time
in history.

Incidentally, if you're searching the internet for some help with a
disease or disorder, you might try using "differential diagnosis" in
your google search. For example, "headache differential diagnosis"
brings up a bunch of sites that provide differential diagnosis for
the different causes of headaches. House lives!

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Justin,

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> This must just be the present incarnation of Boomer self-image.
> Even when it is clearly pointed out over and over that their
> progeny will not drive the direction of the Crisis, but is fated
> rather to be the meat on their sacrificial altar, they persist in
> thinking otherwise.

> Again, Civic generations do not come into power until the 1T.
> Their 'voice' -- such as it is -- consists in the barking of
> rifles and the screams and whimpers of the mangled and mutilated.
> I care f-ck-all for the "choice" of the Civic generation (just
> like, by the way, the Boomers who will lead us into this Crisis,
> and the Nomads who will pull us out). They get their chance when
> they start to screw up the workable system that my archetype
> leaves them. Even then, they can hardly be blamed. Their inability
> to function effectively as independent, mature adults is the
> direct result of poor upbringing.

This is technically true as far as it goes. But leaders can't do
anything they want, if they want to stay on as leaders. They have to
do what the great mass of people want them to do, and today it's the
Millennials who are increasingly telling leaders what to do.

I assume that the news has reached you in Pushkin that we're going to
escalate the war in Iraq by increasing the number of American troops.
That's not the Boomers' choice, and it was always strongly opposed by
the great, supremely evil Donald Rumsfeld.

This choice is being forced on the Boomers by the Millennials: The
Millennials want the Iraq problem to be solved, but they don't want a
Vietnam-style American defeat (which many Boomers would accept).
This leaves only one choice: Sending in more troops.

You're 29 years old. You want your generation to make the decisions,
and now you're doing it, but you're trying to cop out by blaming the
Boomers. The fact is that the Boomers are way too incompetent to do
anything but argue with each other, and they're incapable of making
any decisions. It's your generation that's making the decisions,
including the decisions that are going to bring us to war, and you
have to take responsibility for them. You can blame us for being
incompetent, or you can blame us for not raising you to be nice little
boys and girls, but you can't blame us for making the wrong decisions,
because we're not making any decisions. You are.

As I said in my previous posting to you, be careful what you wish
for.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Taylor,

Originally Posted by Odin

> Indeed. GD is just another war cycle theory, and a bad one at
> that. S&H's saeculae are more complex then a simple war cycle
> because they include cyclical changes in societal mindset,
> child-raising styles, religious/spiritual/idealogical Awakening
> periods in the middle of the cycle, etc. S&H's model also doesn't
> require a Crisis to have a brutal war (unlike GD which is so full
> of contradictions caused by John's assertion that a Crisis must
> have a brutal war with "genocidal enegy" it's pathetic).

This is completely wrong. All of the complexities that you mention
have been incorporated into Generational Dynamics. Every single
crisis period identified by S&H contains a crisis war -- though, I've
identified situations (like Iceland and Switzerland in WW II) where a
country in a crisis era didn't have a crisis war -- so the opposite
of what you say is true.

Originally Posted by Odin

> It took me a week just to read through the whole thread!

Then why did you get everything wrong?

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> Actually, I thought Odin did a great job of cutting through 68+
> pages of this discussion that's been going on for years.

> Disclaimer: Sean and I *have* been PM'ing, emailing, and
> telephoning for quite some time. Resistance is futile. It's all
> about the Great Nest of Being. Integralism rules, baby!

I'm not sure what point you're making about "68+ pages of this
discussion." Is this a bad thing? Are you complaining that I post
too much? I've posted 1.22 posts per day since joining, and you've
posted 4.16 posts per day since you've joined. Am I being pathetic,
or are you?

Taylor appears to be an extremely intelligent young man. I've never
been disrespectful to him, and yet his use of words like "pathetic"
are rude and disrespectful to a man old enough to be his father or
grandfather. Admittedly this kind of rudeness is the tenor of the
times, in Washington and on this forum, but that doesn't excuse it.

I'm extremely proud of my son Jason, who is around Taylor's age,
because Jason is doing very well in college and he has some real
accomplishments under his belt and he's grown up to be a fine young
man. I've always treated him with respect. But I would be very
disappointed to him if he exhibited unprovoked rude and disrespectful
behavior to me or to any other elderly person.

I suspect that Taylor's parents are very proud of him, but I also
suspect that his mother would be very angry at him if she knew how he
was behaving, and his father would be very disappointed in him.

And yet, here you are, Kiff, encouraging him to act in exactly that
rude, disrespectful way.

Do you also teach your own children to be rude and disrespectful?

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

This choice is being forced on the Boomers by the Millennials:

Looking at Bush's presidentcy, there's no evidence of this. The country sent about as strong a rebuke in last month's midterm as was possible. The result? The Baker commission recommendations that equivocate silent style but basicly call for getting out of Iraq. Trying to cut lossses in Iraq, which is the will of the voters, every generation voted Democratic, even the supposidly Republican Xers, has been shelved for trying to reddem a failing policy. They didn't plan for resistance after occupation. They didn't understand that making Iraqs old army unemployed en masse would lead to them joining the resistance. Everything that has been done has shown short term thinking. This government just goes from making the last problem they've made worse by creating another problem on top of that. The American people see this now even if you don't.

It's your generation that's making the decisions,

Bush is now somehow an Xer? Who knew?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Kiff,

I'm not sure what point you're making about "68+ pages of this
discussion." Is this a bad thing?

I didn't say it was. There are plenty of long threads on this forum.

Are you complaining that I post
too much?

Not at all. Much of this thread has been written by others responding to you.

I've posted 1.22 posts per day since joining, and you've
posted 4.16 posts per day since you've joined. Am I being pathetic,
or are you?

No, we both seem to like numbers. Nothing wrong with that.

Taylor appears to be an extremely intelligent young man. I've never
been disrespectful to him, and yet his use of words like "pathetic"
are rude and disrespectful to a man old enough to be his father or
grandfather. Admittedly this kind of rudeness is the tenor of the
times, in Washington and on this forum, but that doesn't excuse it.

Oh, indeed. You aren't immune from spreading rudeness around here on occasion. You insulted me during one of our discussions on feminism. You're impatient and condescending to people here who disagree with you.

We've all done it from time to time. Most of us here are very bright people who don't suffer fools gladly. You're no exception.

I'm extremely proud of my son Jason, who is around Taylor's age,
because Jason is doing very well in college and he has some real
accomplishments under his belt and he's grown up to be a fine young
man. I've always treated him with respect. But I would be very
disappointed to him if he exhibited unprovoked rude and disrespectful
behavior to me or to any other elderly person.

Unprovoked, certainly. But I think it's cowardly to take potshots at the young and then hide behind one's age. Respect goes both ways.

I suspect that Taylor's parents are very proud of him, but I also
suspect that his mother would be very angry at him if she knew how he
was behaving, and his father would be very disappointed in him.

He can tell us how his folks would react. He knows them better than anyone else here.

And yet, here you are, Kiff, encouraging him to act in exactly that
rude, disrespectful way.

He's old enough to take responsibility for his own opinions and the manner in which he expresses them.

Do you also teach your own children to be rude and disrespectful?

No, but I've taught them to cut through nonsense when they see it. You can't achieve intellectual or moral clarity by simply sucking up to the powers that be.