Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

One possibility is that seeing the U.S. and European awakenings continue following the 1968 climax, some Mexican students tried to prolong their awakening, so I wouldn't be surprised to see awakening events continue throughout the 70s.



What 4T? Do you mean Colombia (La Volencia)? I don't see much evidence of a spill into Venezuela, so that's why my map has Venezuela (and Panama) in grey.



Yeah, I got the same feeling reading that. I can't be sure though.

As far as Venezuela, I was referring to the military juntas and coups between (I think) 1947 and 1958, which resemble the 4T instability and turmoil of most of South America some 20 years later. The military rule in Venezuela, on paper at least, conforms to the oppressive and unstable model I/we used to judge Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Peru, etc. as 4T during the '70s.

I did a little quick lookover on Panama, too, and it looks like Panama's situation during the 1950s did resemble the instability and government turnover of Venezuela and Colombia at that time. In fact, Panama's situation was remarkably similar to Venezuela's.

I still am trying to figure out when exactly Mexico's timeline got messed up. It sounds like, indeed, the 2T was on by the early 1950s, because while I can't find a lot of information about that era, several sources briefly mention mounting protests and unrest during the '50s. And they all mention Tlatelolco as a climax. It doesn't sound like an "early uprising", but more, as you said, Tiananmen-like. So that all conforms with the old Mexican timeline. Then, this is interesting: from about 1986-2000, it sounds like a drawn-out transition from 3T to 4T. Really a 3T/4T hybrid: PRI leaders were desperately attempting reforms to stay on top of the game, and there were economic crises and uprisings (such as the Zapatistas in 1994). But no obvious 4T -- nothing as violent as the Mexican Revolution 80 years before, or as dramatic as the Soviet collapse. So in the end, my conclusion about Mexico is rather unsatisfying, but it's the best I can come up with: Mexico was primed for a crisis in the '90s, like the U.S. now; but the Regeneracy never came, and so the true 4T never kicked in. Does this at all make sense?

The Two Maps

The Two Maps as of February 21, 2007

I'm starting to think that John is probably right about Iraq being 2T. Lebanon and Syria are leaving me baffled, though I'm starting to lean towards 2T.

My latest map:

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm starting to think that John is probably right about Iraq being 2T. Lebanon and Syria are leaving me baffled, though I'm starting to lean towards 2T.

While we all seem to agree that Mexico is in 4T now, do you have a theory on why its timeline got "merged"?

And what say you about Panama?

How sure are you about Nepal being 1T?

What about Guyana/Suriname/French Guiana?

I'm itching for some new insight. I just keep finding the same information online, again and again.

Originally Posted by Odin

My latest map:

Venezuela in 2T? That's a theory I haven't heard often. I have Venezuela in 3T for the following reason: the 1950s appears to have been a decade of instability during military rule, like many of the South American crises 20 and 30 years later. This is later confirmed by a major student revolutionary movement (and coup attempt) in 1992, I believe, which appears to be a 2T climax like Nixon's resignation in 1974 for the U.S.

So, then, you consider Venezuela's last 4T to have been somewhere during the 1960s-80s turning?

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot about the caracazo wave of protests in 1989 that led to the 1992 coup attempt.

Originally Posted by 1990

While we all seem to agree that Mexico is in 4T now, do you have a theory on why its timeline got "merged"?

And what say you about Panama?

How sure are you about Nepal being 1T?

What about Guyana/Suriname/French Guiana?

I'm itching for some new insight. I just keep finding the same information online, again and again.

I'm not totally sure why the timeline became merged. Something for me to look into.

I'm speculating that the fall of Noriega was the start of Panama's 2T so they should be just starting a 3T.

I'm not totally sure on if the pace in Nepal is stable, but I'm being optimistic.

I honestly don't have a clue on the Guyanas, haven't looked into them yet.

Well, now that Odin has eaten his words..

Something that I have been fooling around with (in my mind) is how 4th turning events and mood can become present without a catalyst. I will need to think about this more, but I am not surprised that you mention that crisis mood in the 1990s in Mexico.

Mexicos timeline merged because it did not have a crisis, and there are countless reasons for that.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Well, now that Odin has eaten his words..

Something that I have been fooling around with (in my mind) is how 4th turning events and mood can become present without a catalyst. I will need to think about this more, but I am not surprised that you mention that crisis mood in the 1990s in Mexico.

Mexicos timeline merged because it did not have a crisis, and there are countless reasons for that.

Speaking of confusing situations in the '90s...I did a little more research. (Yeah, this was a big day for research on my end, forgive me...)

And...I began to wonder...if my map is supposed to be the way the world will look around 2015, at the height of the 4T, Afghanistan should really be 1T, right? I mean, if you think about it, their civil war was probably much uglier circa 1996 than it is now. If anything Karzai's reign so far seems to suggest a skiddish and awkward transition to Recovery. When we went into Afghanistan in 2001-2002, the struggle against the Taliban had been going on for a good decade.

Sure, right now maybe Afghanistan is at the tail end of their 4T. But my map is supposed to project ahead a few years. I'm putting it in blue.

Anyway, back to Latin America and Nepal...

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Well, now that Odin has eaten his words..

Oh, you little...

Originally Posted by 1990

1) This has always bugged me. But I simply cannot find a 4T in the '80s or '90s. It seems that the Arabian peninsula has had an expanded saeculum, possibly due to merging timelines. (WWII seemed to merge some previously-separate timelines into the WWII crisis timeline).

There hasn't been one. Perhaps Arabia didn't go 1T until the discovery of oil in the 1940's? That would put them on line with us. The Saudis didn't attack Mecca and Medina until they knew the Hashemites were waaay too busy in the north, so they were already running later than the WWI-cycle countries...

2) Lebanon can be classified either as late 1T or early 2T. I say early 2T due to the turbulence there right now, and certainly that isn't a shocking claim since it has been almost 17 years since the end of the civil war. I think Lebanon was clearly 1T during the '90s - as a child, I was always hearing how Lebanon had "cleaned up its act" or whatever.

2T would explain why, on the one hand, the Shi'a are siding with their doctrinal (and sugar daddy) patron Iran... but why are the Sunnis and Christians partnering? An ecumenical Awakening?

3) Don't know. To me, it looks like Russia's saeculum wasn't upset or "messed up" at all. In fact, it looks textbook: crisis in the 1910s (Revolution), awakening in the 1950s (Khruschev's reforms, which led to his falling out of favor with the old guard), crisis in the 1990s (Soviet collapse, regional wars, and economic disaster).

Khruschev as an Awakening? I confess that idea had never occurred to me. A Reformation of the Communist Church? :lol:

As far as Mexico, my current line of thinking is that WWII merged Mexico into the American timeline. While the Mexican Revolution in the 1910s was clearly a crisis, WWII and the Depression had enough of an impact to prolong the bloodshed from the revolution into the '40s, according to several sources. Delving further, I discovered that Mexico had its last 2T exactly when we did, and in a remarkably similar fashion. So it would seem to me that Mexico was drawn into the US timeline (also my explanation for Panama) during the '30s and '40s.

Hmm, not quite. I agree that the Mexican Revolution can't be anything but a crisis, and I agree that the bloodshed extended into the '30s, as the PRI structure became better delineated. There is a clear generational handoff with the Alemanistas in the '50s; I have the 2T *ending* soon after the Tlaleloco protests of 1968 (where our Awakening was just starting). By 1980 Mexico cannot be described as anything but Unraveling, and the Crisis came with the neo-Zapatista movement in the 1990's, pretty much on cue.

No, it's the behavior in the previous saeculum that bugs me. Mexico had a 1T with the "Indian Summer of New Spain" starting in 1789, but a series of screwups by metropolitan Spain (echoing the screwups by the British Parliament two turnings previously) made Spain ripe for revolution. The Cry of Hidalgo cannot be interpreted as anything but a call to Awakening, and the independence movement was a bloody holy war. But once the independence was secured and the form of a Republic chosen, nobody could do anything, and no one knew how to run the country: Unraveling persisted in the 1830's, 40's, and '50s, and not even invasion by the United States could stop it. Texas wasn't the only state that thought about secession in this period.

Crisis came with the war of Reform: Yucatan declared independence and went into genocidal crisis war (which didn't really end until 1901), while Juarez & Co. broke the Church's strangehold and started to move towards a less caste-based society. This project was interrupted by the French intervention, which was messy but had the positive effect of breaking the back of the conservadores (who were only out for themselves anyway, and then not competently).

The problem arises with the Porfiriato, 1877-1908. The early Porfiriato looks 1T, and the late Porfiriato is clearly 3T. Where'd my Awakening go?... and my working hypothesis must be that the Church supression caused Anomaly and flushed it down the drain.

Originally Posted by 1990

Venezuela in 2T? That's a theory I haven't heard often. I have Venezuela in 3T for the following reason: the 1950s appears to have been a decade of instability during military rule, like many of the South American crises 20 and 30 years later. This is later confirmed by a major student revolutionary movement (and coup attempt) in 1992, I believe, which appears to be a 2T climax like Nixon's resignation in 1974 for the U.S.

So, then, you consider Venezuela's last 4T to have been somewhere during the 1960s-80s turning?

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot about the caracazo wave of protests in 1989 that led to the 1992 coup attempt.

I think Venezuela's last crisis ended in the mind to late 60's with the crystallization of a 2-party system, with the climax being the overthrow of Marcos Pérez Jiménez in 1958 and the presidency of Rómulo Betancourt. The Caracazo seems like an early 2T even so Venezuela is probably very late 2T or very early 3T

Originally Posted by Odin

I think Venezuela's last crisis ended in the mind to late 60's with the crystallization of a 2-party system, with the climax being the overthrow of Marcos Pérez Jiménez in 1958 and the presidency of Rómulo Betancourt. The Caracazo seems like an early 2T even so Venezuela is probably very late 2T or very early 3T

So we agree!

Originally Posted by catfishncod

There hasn't been one. Perhaps Arabia didn't go 1T until the discovery of oil in the 1940's? That would put them on line with us. The Saudis didn't attack Mecca and Medina until they knew the Hashemites were waaay too busy in the north, so they were already running later than the WWI-cycle countries...



2T would explain why, on the one hand, the Shi'a are siding with their doctrinal (and sugar daddy) patron Iran... but why are the Sunnis and Christians partnering? An ecumenical Awakening?

The Sunnis have to partner with the Christians. They are the minority; they can't win power on their own. Awakenings can often create unholy alliances.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Khruschev as an Awakening? I confess that idea had never occurred to me. A Reformation of the Communist Church? :lol:

No, seriously. Khruschev attempted a lot of reforms. He could smell the political winds blowing. And his being forced-out is a classic 2T "peetering out", wimpy ending and transition to 3T.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Hmm, not quite. I agree that the Mexican Revolution can't be anything but a crisis, and I agree that the bloodshed extended into the '30s, as the PRI structure became better delineated. There is a clear generational handoff with the Alemanistas in the '50s; I have the 2T *ending* soon after the Tlaleloco protests of 1968 (where our Awakening was just starting). By 1980 Mexico cannot be described as anything but Unraveling, and the Crisis came with the neo-Zapatista movement in the 1990's, pretty much on cue.

Ah...so you actually put Mexico as entering 1T soon? You consider the neo-Zapatistas and Zedillo's reign to be the 4T? Hmm...

I guess one could make the analogy between Zedillo and Yeltsin, and between the peso collapse and the ruble collapse, and between the Chiapas Uprising and the Chechen War, but two key differences. First, Russia is a lot more conformist now (a tell-tale sign of a 1T) than Mexico, which is still seeing ever-deeper fault lines in society (usually the precursor to a very bloody crisis). Second, if there is no gigantic crisis war, there is usually a massive reordering of the political system -- can you say "Soviet collapse"?. And while you may say the fall of the PRI in 2000 was that massive reordering, the PAN does not seem to be ruling with the same kind of arrogant "we have a mandate" mindset typically seen as 4Ts wind down. Compare the razor-close 2006 election in Mexico to the overwhelming support for Putin's United Russia coalition.

You may be right. I'd actually like to believe you are, as anomalies are very annoying to me! But there's still an element or two missing.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Khruschev as an Awakening? I confess that idea had never occurred to me. A Reformation of the Communist Church? :lol:

Makes sense, actually. Marxism as practiced in the USSR was pretty much a secular religion. Also, there was a glut of "Reformist Communists" thinking they could fix the system with Stalin out of the way.

Ok what about somalia, ethiopea, and eritria? Eritria should be 1T, Ethiopea 2T and Somalia can't be anything but 4T. As for Guinea-Bissau it should be transitioning from 3T to 4t because they had a civil war in the late 90s but the president that was deposed then got reelected again last year. Niger and Mali may be going from 3T to 4T too. Now Burkina faso is interesting because it was once called Upper Volta but there was a revolution and then a name change to Burkina Faso in the early 1980s.Would something like that reset the Cycle? Camaroon seems to be 2T, Senagal 3T,Benin 2T,Gabon 3T, Equalorial Guinea 3T,Gambia 3T, and Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda 3T and as for Togo either 2,3,or4T because that may be the hardest county to guess. Zimbabwe Now is going Into a 4T or will have a very bloody 2T due to their curent leadership.

Also an other thing; can an awakening fail like a crisis can turn out bad? I have read on here that if a country fails in a crisis that it becomes like a 5th turning? the only other way I have seen that a 5th turning can happen is when the cycle is lengthened/surpressed. But what if an awakening fails for one segment of a county's population and for another segment it succedes?, then what happens? Becuase I think the problem for America is that for ONLY the elites the 60s awakening worked and now that we are just about offical 4T here we are seeing how the 60s Failed the common people of America. I was born in 1977 the beginning of the Xer Millie transition (The genY anomally)- I personally think that america is on a borderline regular 5th tuning (like a milder version of the suppression that Hait, Mexico, And Saudi Arabia have undergone) and a split Good/bad awakening for the Upper/lower classes and that when things finally start happening for real we will see America and most of the world go though a Hellstorm of trouble

Originally Posted by 1990

Speaking of confusing situations in the '90s...I did a little more research. (Yeah, this was a big day for research on my end, forgive me...)

And...I began to wonder...if my map is supposed to be the way the world will look around 2015, at the height of the 4T, Afghanistan should really be 1T, right? I mean, if you think about it, their civil war was probably much uglier circa 1996 than it is now. If anything Karzai's reign so far seems to suggest a skiddish and awkward transition to Recovery. When we went into Afghanistan in 2001-2002, the struggle against the Taliban had been going on for a good decade.

Sure, right now maybe Afghanistan is at the tail end of their 4T. But my map is supposed to project ahead a few years. I'm putting it in blue.

Anyway, back to Latin America and Nepal...

Afghanistan will almost certainly be drawn into our crisis (and the rest of the world's), so I wouldn't count on it.

Originally Posted by 1990

Ah...so you actually put Mexico as entering 1T soon? You consider the neo-Zapatistas and Zedillo's reign to be the 4T? Hmm...

I guess one could make the analogy between Zedillo and Yeltsin, and between the peso collapse and the ruble collapse, and between the Chiapas Uprising and the Chechen War, but two key differences. First, Russia is a lot more conformist now (a tell-tale sign of a 1T) than Mexico, which is still seeing ever-deeper fault lines in society (usually the precursor to a very bloody crisis). Second, if there is no gigantic crisis war, there is usually a massive reordering of the political system -- can you say "Soviet collapse"?. And while you may say the fall of the PRI in 2000 was that massive reordering, the PAN does not seem to be ruling with the same kind of arrogant "we have a mandate" mindset typically seen as 4Ts wind down. Compare the razor-close 2006 election in Mexico to the overwhelming support for Putin's United Russia coalition.

You may be right. I'd actually like to believe you are, as anomalies are very annoying to me! But there's still an element or two missing.

It's very rare to not have a crisis war. However, in absence of one, you have to be careful where you step. To have political scenario change isn't enough, because the crisis comes from the people so their reactions to what is going on around them is more telling. What I tend to look for is some sort of mass panic and a huge shock to the psyches of the population.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Afghanistan will almost certainly be drawn into our crisis (and the rest of the world's), so I wouldn't count on it.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean that they internally as a society will be 4T like us.

Originally Posted by purple-state extreamist

Ok what about somalia, ethiopea, and eritria? Eritria should be 1T, Ethiopea 2T and Somalia can't be anything but 4T. As for Guinea-Bissau it should be transitioning from 3T to 4t because they had a civil war in the late 90s but the president that was deposed then got reelected again last year. Niger and Mali may be going from 3T to 4T too. Now Burkina faso is interesting because it was once called Upper Volta but there was a revolution and then a name change to Burkina Faso in the early 1980s.Would something like that reset the Cycle? Camaroon seems to be 2T, Senagal 3T,Benin 2T,Gabon 3T, Equalorial Guinea 3T,Gambia 3T, and Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda 3T and as for Togo either 2,3,or4T because that may be the hardest county to guess. Zimbabwe Now is going Into a 4T or will have a very bloody 2T due to their curent leadership.

Also an other thing; can an awakening fail like a crisis can turn out bad? I have read on here that if a country fails in a crisis that it becomes like a 5th turning? the only other way I have seen that a 5th turning can happen is when the cycle is lengthened/surpressed. But what if an awakening fails for one segment of a county's population and for another segment it succedes?, then what happens? Becuase I think the problem for America is that for ONLY the elites the 60s awakening worked and now that we are just about offical 4T here we are seeing how the 60s Failed the common people of America. I was born in 1977 the beginning of the Xer Millie transition (The genY anomally)- I personally think that america is on a borderline regular 5th tuning (like a milder version of the suppression that Hait, Mexico, And Saudi Arabia have undergone) and a split Good/bad awakening for the Upper/lower classes and that when things finally start happening for real we will see America and most of the world go though a Hellstorm of trouble

Thank you for your input. Now I need to do a lot more research on Africa!

Thanks for offering a theory on Ethiopia, as that is the most populous country still not tackled. So do you consider the '70s and '80s under what's-his-name-dictator to be the last Ethiopian crisis? I suppose that would make sense. Why is Eritrea a turning behind, though?

And as for Somalia, the reason I'm not sure is that Somalia has had a civil war going since 1988. Now, that doesn't mean it's been 4T this whole time, but if it has been, then Somalia should be at the tail end of a 4T, entering 1T in a few years. Then again, since this civil war has had varying stages of activity, it's possible that it started in a 3T, and thus Somalia is only now entering the bloodiest part. Not sure.

Must look into all those other African countries. You are running a step ahead of me, and that's cool!

As for your question, I don't think a 5T is triggered by a "failed awakening". No, I don't think a country can truly be "overdue" or "5T" unless it's been over 80 years since the last 4T ended. If we Americans are still waiting for a 4T by the late 2020s, that would be 5T. But right now, we're running right on schedule.

ETHIOPIA NOTE: Aha, Mengistu was his name. Yes, it looks like you're right. The '70s was a highly bloody decade for Ethiopia, with demonstrations and political turnover galore. Mengistu is rumored to have ordered the strangulation of aged Emperor Haile Sessalie (sp?) in 1975, and Mengistu's reign was one of violent socialist control. "The Red Terror" looks like a 4T happening, especially since the Ethiopian people backed socialist rule through the end of the '80s! (This sort of nationalism and inexplicable support of an oppressive government is very 4T). So I am putting Ethiopia in green. Thank you.

No, seriously. Khruschev attempted a lot of reforms. He could smell the political winds blowing. And his being forced-out is a classic 2T "peetering out", wimpy ending and transition to 3T.

That's only a ten-year Awakening, though. (Awakenings were impossible while Uncle Joe was alive: show signs of it and you were off to the gulag.)

Ah...so you actually put Mexico as entering 1T soon? You consider the neo-Zapatistas and Zedillo's reign to be the 4T? Hmm...

The neo-Zapatistas declared themselves the day NAFTA went into effect, 1 January 1994. Zedillo, Fox, and now Calderon have been managing a 4T South Mexico with a lagging North Mexico still showing 3T signs due to American influence. (Having read a history of Mexico, I am more convinced of that division than ever. South Mexico coincides with the Aztec Empire (except Yucatan, which was Maya), while North Mexico was colonized after the Spanish Conquest. The cultural differences are immense.)

South Mexico will want to go 1T in about seven years, but Mexico will still be in 4T because by then North Mexico will be fully engaged. So no, Mexico as a whole won't Turn soon.

You may be right. I'd actually like to believe you are, as anomalies are very annoying to me! But there's still an element or two missing.

I think the missing element is the North/South Mexico dichotomy, but I'll have to go through the history again looking for North/South differences to be sure. It is the certain that movements in Mexico tend to start in the center or south (as South Mexico enters 2T/4T?), be run off to the north and west (as lagging North Mexico catches up?), and return later (as South Mexico enters 3T/1T?)

Originally Posted by catfishncod

That's only a ten-year Awakening, though. (Awakenings were impossible while Uncle Joe was alive: show signs of it and you were off to the gulag.)

But that doesn't mean there wasn't a 2T during Stalin's reign. Just because he tried to suppress it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Governments always try to suppress awakenings, but eventually the changes occur anyway.

See: Tiananmen, Tlatelolco, Kent State, Watergate, Vietnam War, May 1968 in Paris

I consider the Soviet Awakening to be 1945-1964. The fury peaked during Khruschev, but the seeds were planted right after WWII, as Stalin's oppression and cruelty became common knowledge. (Before the late '40s, Stalin was more popular than FDR, or so they say)

Originally Posted by catfishncod

snip

South Mexico will want to go 1T in about seven years, but Mexico will still be in 4T because by then North Mexico will be fully engaged. So no, Mexico as a whole won't Turn soon.



I think the missing element is the North/South Mexico dichotomy, but I'll have to go through the history again looking for North/South differences to be sure. It is the certain that movements in Mexico tend to start in the center or south (as South Mexico enters 2T/4T?), be run off to the north and west (as lagging North Mexico catches up?), and return later (as South Mexico enters 3T/1T?)

This is a very interesting theory; I believe you argued for it before, but I forgot that it was you who mentioned it. It would explain the supposed discrepancy, and it would explain why, for example, the 2T probably ended in Southern Mexico with Tlatelolco, but continued through the mid-1970s up north. So I'm curious: did the violence of the Mexican Revolution peak out in the South several years before the North? If so, that would explain why the Revolution dragged on into the early '30s in some areas, but was well over by 1920-25 in others.

Originally Posted by 1990

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean that they internally as a society will be 4T like us.

What's your analysis of the history of Afghanistan (since 1900)?

Originally Posted by catfishncod

That's only a ten-year Awakening, though. (Awakenings were impossible while Uncle Joe was alive: show signs of it and you were off to the gulag.)



The neo-Zapatistas declared themselves the day NAFTA went into effect, 1 January 1994. Zedillo, Fox, and now Calderon have been managing a 4T South Mexico with a lagging North Mexico still showing 3T signs due to American influence. (Having read a history of Mexico, I am more convinced of that division than ever. South Mexico coincides with the Aztec Empire (except Yucatan, which was Maya), while North Mexico was colonized after the Spanish Conquest. The cultural differences are immense.)

South Mexico will want to go 1T in about seven years, but Mexico will still be in 4T because by then North Mexico will be fully engaged. So no, Mexico as a whole won't Turn soon.



I think the missing element is the North/South Mexico dichotomy, but I'll have to go through the history again looking for North/South differences to be sure. It is the certain that movements in Mexico tend to start in the center or south (as South Mexico enters 2T/4T?), be run off to the north and west (as lagging North Mexico catches up?), and return later (as South Mexico enters 3T/1T?)

Cultural division isn't enough to set one country back a turning, nor is influence from foreigners, especially those who have not invaded. The merging of timelines is due to random occurences, not necessarily aspects of a culture infiltrating another.

Can you explain that even if America suddenly influences Mexico, why does the generational alignment remain for 20 years? If you have an anomaly, you'll have to explain why.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What's your analysis of the history of Afghanistan (since 1900)?

Well, it looks like the anti-British rebellions and ensuing independence in the 1910s is a 4T. In fact, I see a 4T starting in the early 1910s and going till the early '30s. Then sometime after 1946, a 2T begins with Sardar Shah attempting reforms. The 2T may have ended in 1967, when Zahir's "experiment in democracy" fizzled out and extremist parties began to segment and form.

The instability in the '70s sounds like an ugly 3T, not a 4T, because order was deteriorating, not already at rock-bottom, and most of the changes attempted didn't last. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is eerily reminiscent of our Iraq War today (and I'm not being political here, I'm saying in terms of the Superpower being at the height of late-3T overreaching, it's very similar). Then in 1988-89 I see a 4T beginning, and the Regeneracy hits in 1992 with the start of the Civil War.

So this fits a 1910s/1990s crisis model. Unless I am missing something?

BTW, what are your thoughts on the African countries purple-state extreamist mentioned?