Originally Posted by Mikebert

I can note a parallel between the WOT and the Cold War because both provide opportunities for big government conservatism.

Big government corporatism. Brought to you by people who'd rather steal from other countries and import labor from Mexico and India than hire and train their own. For me the '70s through the present is my own personal 4T and I am still being terrorized by AmeriKKKan assholes who don't need McCarthy, the John Birch Society and so forth when you have these wack jobs in public office (including state-chartered for profit socialist governments that socialize their losses but not mine) and the media. Indeed, if unemployment was really 4 or 5 percent they'd be the ones kissing MY ass even under these conditions.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I can note a parallel between the WOT and the War on Native Americans in that both seek to deal with the indigenous backlash from US expansion.

If only my parents, and other benny snorting loud generation and pot-smoking fops such as the ones at The Ohio Dehabilitation Diservices Ommission who only help hypocrites like themselves and project their own problems onto others until they become somewhat like their own sorry asses were forced to take trifluoperazine or dopamax so they could take their own advice and "let go" of perceived slights and "get their heads screwed on straight"...but I degress (and regress).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I can note a parallel between the WOT and the war on organized crime in the 1930's because both sought to supress criminal behavior.

They seek to create criminal behavior. Get rid of the laws and the crime goes away. Indeed the mobs go away without the laws against drugs not pushed by certain dope pushers such as the Garbage Lows City Zoo District in Cuyahoga County who willfully and negligently misdiagnose agitated depression with more child abuse of their own. Close down ALL the gud gobberment centers of errorism, physical or otherwise. Forget privateering of public zoos run by the animals -- get rid of them. Their purpose is the opposite of what is claimed. It's not about learning to creatively solve problems constructively; It's about "leaning" to taking directions from apes who "learn" by imitating other apes.

MichaelEaston & 1990, your work on this map project is more than valuable. I really appreciate you doing it (as I dont have the time for all of the research you two have put in, haha). But many thanks for all of your hard work. I hope that you guys do create a written record of your work that can be easily accessed so "future generations" can access it.

I have been following along with your posts on this thread for a while now, and i have to say that, looking at your map, 1990, I agree with you almost exactly ... with the exception of three countries: Somalia, Afghanistan, and Ireland. I spent all day doing research on Somalia, because I really do not think it is in a 2T right now.

Before I launch into my Somalia post though, I'd like to raise an issue that has been raised before but I think needs some more analysis. That is the relation between saeculums and identity groups. I dont think that identity groups always align so neatly within the boundaries of nation-states. Often-times (as in the case of Africa and the Middle East) there are diverse groups of people within one country that can be on separate timelines. Case-in-point the Kurds, who seem to be in a 1T right now, although Turkey is in a 5T and Iraq and Iran in a 2T. And it gets even more complex: Are the Syrian Kurds on the same timeline as the rest of the Kurds?? I think this issue of ethnic groups on separate timelines is extremely complex and needs more analysis.

I'll segue that point into my analysis of Somalia ... I think the North (Somaliland and Puntland) and South are on 2 separate timelines. I think this stems from the North being a British possession, and the South being an Italian possession. The two regions developed independantly throughout the last 2 centuries.

Due to the constant fighting the British were afraid to invest in any expensive infrastructure projects that might easily be destroyed by guerillas. As a result, when the country was eventually reunited in the 1960s, the north, which had been under British control, lagged far behind the south in terms of economic development, and came to be dominated by the South. The bitterness from this state of affairs would be one of the sparks for the future civil war.

It seems to me that the North's last 4T was the British campaign against northern clans, especially the Isaaq, from 1899 to around 1920. The South, on the other hand, was relatively peaceful under Italian rule until the mid-20's when the Mussolini tried to incorporate the independent sultanates of Somalia into Italian Somalia. This war lasted up until WWII, and although the environs around Mogadishu never violently revolted against the Italians, they aided the sultanates. I think that this was a 4T for the South. So I think the North is maybe 1 turning ahead of the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ble_for_Africa

Fast forward a saeculum, and you have Somali dictator Said Barre in a car crash in 1986. i think this was the regeneracy for the North's 4T. In the late 70's, northern clans started to rebel against the dictator, and he sent his special forces to quell the rebellion by the Majeerteen clan. The special forces did this by denying their access to water. this is what resulted:

The Red Berets systematically smashed the small reservoirs in the area around Galcaio so as to deny water to the Umar Mahamuud Majeerteen sub-clans and their herds. In May and June 1979, more than 2,000 Umar Mahamuud, the Majeerteen sub-clan of Colonel Ahmad, died of thirst in the waterless area northeast of Galcaio, Garoowe, and Jerriiban. In Galcaio, members of the Victory Pioneers, the urban militia notorious for harassing civilians, raped large numbers of Majeerteen women.

The real repression of the northern clans, especially the Isaaq, started in 1986, after Barre's car crash. Representatives of northern clans within the government became emboldened, but Barre came back to crush them with his "red berets." all of this continued until 1991, when Said Barre was ousted, and Somaliland declared independence. Somaliland has been peaceful since then, and actually has a rather democratic government. This seems to be the extent of the 4T in the North.

But it was the start of the 4T for the South (maybe the catalyst or regeneracy, I dont know). After which chaos pretty much ensued, with southern clans battling on the streets of Mogadishu for control. Then came the failed UN mission and Black Hawk Down in 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_civil_war

I was recently watching a History Channel special on Black Hawk Down (this is how I will refer to the Battle of Mogadishu), and they said some things that really startled me, and really made me believe that this event was without a doubt a 4T for the residents of Mogadishu. In the special, they explained how after Barre's fall, clans formed militias (which wasnt hard because every man, woman, and child is armed in Somalia ... warrior culture and such ...), and at the time these militias were full of young, out-of-work Hero Somalis. At first they welcomed the UN mission, but after a few weeks, militia leaders disseminated propaganda claiming the the Infidels (Americans) were coming to Somalia to convert everyone to Christianity. As a result, the militias united to try to force the "Infidels" out (money from al-Qaeda didnt hurt either).

During Black Hawk Down, surviving American soldiers interviewed for the special claimed that the Somalis fought with a ferocity that they had never witnessed. They used the word "fury," Women and children participated equally in the fighting, and in the desecrating of the bodies afterwards. If this isnt 4T, I dont know what is.

After the UN mission, various Somali provinces declared autonomy. This could possibly be a resolution to the 4T, but then again maybe not. When the Islamic Courts Union was formed in the mid-2000's, they achieved great success in pacifying Mogadishu (from their view, trying to unite the country behind Islam). Im not sure whether this is the end of a 4T right now, or the start of a 1T. But the battles against the ICU did not seem to be genocidal, and I really think that the Somali people now just want order, whether it be Islamic or not. The insurgency now raging doesnt seem to be a Somali revolt against the Ethiopians as much as an al-Qaeda funded jihad (read: Iraq). All in all, i think I would paint ALL of Somalia in blue (although the south may be in the VERY late stages of the 4T, im not sure).

I will post more on Ireland and Afghanistan later.

Originally Posted by Chim Richalds

MichaelEaston & 1990, your work on this map project is more than valuable. I really appreciate you doing it (as I dont have the time for all of the research you two have put in, haha). But many thanks for all of your hard work. I hope that you guys do create a written record of your work that can be easily accessed so "future generations" can access it.

Thanks! That is in the works!

I have been following along with your posts on this thread for a while now, and i have to say that, looking at your map, 1990, I agree with you almost exactly ... with the exception of three countries: Somalia, Afghanistan, and Ireland. I spent all day doing research on Somalia, because I really do not think it is in a 2T right now.

Before I launch into my Somalia post though, I'd like to raise an issue that has been raised before but I think needs some more analysis. That is the relation between saeculums and identity groups. I dont think that identity groups always align so neatly within the boundaries of nation-states. Often-times (as in the case of Africa and the Middle East) there are diverse groups of people within one country that can be on separate timelines. Case-in-point the Kurds, who seem to be in a 1T right now, although Turkey is in a 5T and Iraq and Iran in a 2T. And it gets even more complex: Are the Syrian Kurds on the same timeline as the rest of the Kurds?? I think this issue of ethnic groups on separate timelines is extremely complex and needs more analysis.

This has been discussed and there is certainly a lot of truth to this, especially in a place like Africa. A few things though:

Over time, an ethnic group's timeline will be merged with the surrounding group's timeline. Obviously, this should be well underway in many parts of the continent. Furthermore, with the creation of these nations and with the establishment of mostly functional governments, the merging of a minorities timeline within their country should be quickened.

So I believe that some countries are on one timeline while others are in the process, such as Mali, Niger, and Turkey. As you mention, this is extremely complex and would require years of study for full understanding. So right now, our goal is to finish the map.

I'll segue that point into my analysis of Somalia ... I think the North (Somaliland and Puntland) and South are on 2 separate timelines. I think this stems from the North being a British possession, and the South being an Italian possession. The two regions developed independantly throughout the last 2 centuries.

It seems to me that the North's last 4T was the British campaign against northern clans, especially the Isaaq, from 1899 to around 1920. The South, on the other hand, was relatively peaceful under Italian rule until the mid-20's when the Mussolini tried to incorporate the independent sultanates of Somalia into Italian Somalia. This war lasted up until WWII, and although the environs around Mogadishu never violently revolted against the Italians, they aided the sultanates. I think that this was a 4T for the South. So I think the North is maybe 1 turning ahead of the South.

This is an interesting proposition and a very good analysis. I, too, identify the British campaign as a 4T, but as you say, this was limited to only Northern Somalia.

The Rebellions up North in or near Somaliland during the 1920's and 1930's appear to be brief and insubstantial. Fighting, however, does appear to be heavier near the Northeast, in the Puntland (the capital of the resistance was in Iskushuban), moreso than in Somaliland or in the South, which allows me to believe that this was a crisis war for the Puntland.

Continuing with that line of thinking, the British campaigns in the 1900's and 1910's seems to be mostly limited to just Somaliland as I see little evidence of heavy fighting in the Puntland. This still leaves the South however, and I don't believe that the 1920's were a crisis war for them. The fact that they cleverly aided the Sultanates suggests to me a country in a mid-cycle war. One possibility is that they had the same Crisis War as Ethiopia in the late 19th century.

I'm inclined to believe that at some point during the 19th century, Somalia was on three different timelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ble_for_Africa

Fast forward a saeculum, and you have Somali dictator Said Barre in a car crash in 1986. i think this was the regeneracy for the North's 4T. In the late 70's, northern clans started to rebel against the dictator, and he sent his special forces to quell the rebellion by the Majeerteen clan. The special forces did this by denying their access to water. this is what resulted:

The real repression of the northern clans, especially the Isaaq, started in 1986, after Barre's car crash. Representatives of northern clans within the government became emboldened, but Barre came back to crush them with his "red berets." all of this continued until 1991, when Said Barre was ousted, and Somaliland declared independence. Somaliland has been peaceful since then, and actually has a rather democratic government. This seems to be the extent of the 4T in the North.

But it was the start of the 4T for the South (maybe the catalyst or regeneracy, I dont know). After which chaos pretty much ensued, with southern clans battling on the streets of Mogadishu for control. Then came the failed UN mission and Black Hawk Down in 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_civil_war

I was recently watching a History Channel special on Black Hawk Down (this is how I will refer to the Battle of Mogadishu), and they said some things that really startled me, and really made me believe that this event was without a doubt a 4T for the residents of Mogadishu. In the special, they explained how after Barre's fall, clans formed militias (which wasnt hard because every man, woman, and child is armed in Somalia ... warrior culture and such ...), and at the time these militias were full of young, out-of-work Hero Somalis. At first they welcomed the UN mission, but after a few weeks, militia leaders disseminated propaganda claiming the the Infidels (Americans) were coming to Somalia to convert everyone to Christianity. As a result, the militias united to try to force the "Infidels" out (money from al-Qaeda didnt hurt either).

During Black Hawk Down, surviving American soldiers interviewed for the special claimed that the Somalis fought with a ferocity that they had never witnessed. They used the word "fury," Women and children participated equally in the fighting, and in the desecrating of the bodies afterwards. If this isnt 4T, I dont know what is.

This is very interesting. Do you read John's webpage?

Thanks so much for this analysis. My original label gave me mixed messages but I think we're on the road to resolving them. BTW, if the crisis ends in 1993-94 or earlier, I am going to place the country as a 2T.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...rss-topstories

I didn't hear about this earlier so I figure others didn't. Apparently, the Iranians tried to kidnap American soldiers in Iraq this past September.

Originally Posted by Time

U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans, and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers present at the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed at least one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at their convoy of Humvees.

The revelation comes amid rising tensions over the past week since Iran captured 15 British Navy personnel in waters between Iran and Iraq.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Thanks! That is in the works!



This has been discussed and there is certainly a lot of truth to this, especially in a place like Africa. A few things though:

Over time, an ethnic group's timeline will be merged with the surrounding group's timeline. Obviously, this should be well underway in many parts of the continent. Furthermore, with the creation of these nations and with the establishment of mostly functional governments, the merging of a minorities timeline within their country should be quickened.

So I believe that some countries are on one timeline while others are in the process, such as Mali, Niger, and Turkey. As you mention, this is extremely complex and would require years of study for full understanding. So right now, our goal is to finish the map.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

This is an interesting proposition and a very good analysis. I, too, identify the British campaign as a 4T, but as you say, this was limited to only Northern Somalia.

The Rebellions up North in or near Somaliland during the 1920's and 1930's appear to be brief and insubstantial. Fighting, however, does appear to be heavier near the Northeast, in the Puntland (the capital of the resistance was in Iskushuban), moreso than in Somaliland or in the South, which allows me to believe that this was a crisis war for the Puntland.

Continuing with that line of thinking, the British campaigns in the 1900's and 1910's seems to be mostly limited to just Somaliland as I see little evidence of heavy fighting in the Puntland. This still leaves the South however, and I don't believe that the 1920's were a crisis war for them. The fact that they cleverly aided the Sultanates suggests to me a country in a mid-cycle war. One possibility is that they had the same Crisis War as Ethiopia in the late 19th century.

Earlier I considered North-South turning divides in Sudan (4T North, 1T South) and Mexico (also 4T North, 1T South), so this is an intriguing question.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm inclined to believe that at some point during the 19th century, Somalia was on three different timelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ble_for_Africa


This is very interesting. Do you read John's webpage?

Thanks so much for this analysis. My original label gave me mixed messages but I think we're on the road to resolving them. BTW, if the crisis ends in 1993-94 or earlier, I am going to place the country as a 2T.

Indeed, Black Hawk Down does sound 4T, but it sounds like the climax to a 4T beginning circa 1974-76. Thus by circa 2015 Somalia should definitely be 2T.

Originally Posted by 1990

Earlier I considered North-South turning divides in Sudan (4T North, 1T South) and Mexico (also 4T North, 1T South), so this is an intriguing question.

In order for there to be a split, each region's previous crisis war must be a different conflict. As far as I can tell, this is NOT the case in Sudan or Mexico. I've never heard of a country's timeline actually splitting up.

Indeed, Black Hawk Down does sound 4T, but it sounds like the climax to a 4T beginning circa 1974-76. Thus by circa 2015 Somalia should definitely be 2T.

My post was hastily put together so I'll need to recheck. Another possibility is that the Wars of the 1920s and 1930s weren't crisis wars at all.

The 4T is over! Poverty has been eliminated, war outlawed, and all social woes are taken care of!

April Fool.

Originally Posted by 1990

The 4T is over! Poverty has been eliminated, war outlawed, and all social woes are taken care of!

April Fool.

Isn't it too soon in Chicago? Everyone is too early.

*Edit: Do you think we should create a new thread since it doesn't fully pertain to the title? I'm afraid too many people ignore this thread because it's been dozens of pages of us going back and forth. Can you blame them?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Isn't it too soon in Chicago? Everyone is too early.

It's just 15 minutes away. Plus, I don't have to play by the timezone rules. The 3T hasn't been over that long.

Edited above post.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Isn't it too soon in Chicago? Everyone is too early.

*Edit: Do you think we should create a new thread since it doesn't fully pertain to the title? I'm afraid too many people ignore this thread because it's been dozens of pages of us going back and forth. Can you blame them?

We could start a new thread. "Map Project Thoughts" or something.

The new thread can be found at

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...ead.php?t=2877

This thread can go back to its old purpose.

This post is a continuation of a correspondence with Matt (Michael Easton) in the "When did the Civil War 4T end?" thread.

It belongs here, IIUC.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Generational Archetypes: Maybe you're right, but if his books and websites were just copying what S and H said, that wouldn't be too useful. He keeps the more abstract generational stuff in the objections thread. There is some discussion of generational archetypes there, but the best source on that subject continues to be S&H books and this website.

So you're saying he eliminates the actual workings of S&H's theory on his site, only do use S&H's site to discuss substanive things? Wow. Pays lip service to their theory without actually using it on his own site, then appropriates a thread on S&H's own site to discuss how much of an improvement his theory is and push his books. An improvement that discards the shadow mechanism, generational constellation, and the inner and outer world reconfiguration roles of 2T's and 4T's respectively.

Hmmmm. Sounds like he stole their idea of "generational" theory, devolved it into a simple war cycle, and claimed squatter's rights on this board.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

IMO, the best source on future events is his website, irrespective of your personal problems with him.

Oh yeah, "best source of future events". Like the stock market crash (Dow at 4000) he predicted with "100% certainty" for the years immediately following 9/11 -- now changed to "the 2006/07 time frame". I happen to agree with him about the likelihood of a crash, BTW, and his reference to the 11-year theory in that Barron's article. But GD (not to mention S&H) is useless to predict something as specfic as a 60-80% stock crash in a small year window.

How about his prediction that there would never be a civil war in Iraq, again with "100% certainty"? Can't happen in a 2T he says. Assuming they are even in a 2T (with which I disagree as it is), S&H state that horrific wars can take place outside of 4T's. It is John who insists they can only take place during 4T's and that's because his is a simple war cycle. And it also happens to be wrong, as the facts now show.

How about that war between China and Japan he was gearing us up for that could happen in as soon as a year (from 2005, IIRC)? Again, 100% certainty all the way. Well? How come China and Japan have suddenly started getting along?

Let's see, Japan and China are, according to John, going to have a genocidal war with one another because they had one a saeculum ago. But wait a minute! Didn't Germany and Japan have a genocidal war a saeculum ago? How come he says they are not gearing up for one?

Oh, it's because it's clear China and Japan are antagonistic with one another, therefore it has to be because of their past animosity, I have heard countered. What? Then where is the predictive aspect? China and Japan have kept their animosity whereas Germany and Russia have not. So why is there going to be "genocidal fury" in one and not the other? I don't need GD to tell me China and Japan have geopolitical and historical problems with one another. That's not generational, in and of itself.

Then, finally, the argument is made that because China and Japan have kept their animosity they will experience "genocidal fury" because the older war generation has died off and the new generation would not know the horrors of war. Right there is a huge difference between GD and S&H. GD says a war must come. S&H simply say it's more likely, but not inevitable.

The English and the French populations retained serious animosity toward one another in the 19th century as a result of the Napoleonic Wars and other terrible conflicts reaching back to at least 1337. GD would have predicted, based on all of the above criteria that it holds, that England and France would have had a genocidal war during their respective 4T's in the mid-to-late 19th century. They didn't. In fact, Britain didn't even fight a major war during the "Reform Crisis" 4T.

And on and on. GD is a sad, distorted, simplified, and relatively aprognostic version of S&H theory. What's worse, GD's author appropriated much of S&H's terminology without truly implementing their mechanisms, all the while using their own website (going so far as to feel he "owns" a thread) to announce how his theory is an "improvement" upon theirs.

After years of observation and argument, I submit that is just that simple.

There is also John's crush on Rumsfeld. I think John has ideological leanings he's not telling us...

Sean,

I’ll do my best, and I apologize if we run over the same old ground in the first couple of responses.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

So you're saying he eliminates the actual workings of S&H's theory on his site, only do use S&H's site to discuss substanive things? Wow. Pays lip service to their theory without actually using it on his own site, then appropriates a thread on S&H's own site to discuss how much of an improvement his theory is and push his books. An improvement that discards the shadow mechanism, generational constellation, and the inner and outer world reconfiguration roles of 2T's and 4T's respectively.

Hmmmm. Sounds like he stole their idea of "generational" theory, devolved it into a simple war cycle, and claimed squatter's rights on this board.

That is not what I said. The generational mechanisms are still intact, and they are mentioned every so often as they apply. The basics are there. The web log and articles have a different purpose than S&H books, usually to watch the “pot come to a boil.” He continually refers to S&H’s books, calling them “brilliant” “fascinating” and the basis behind the theory has developed.

Whatever. This ^^ particular argument obviously stems from a personal problem and I’m not going to respond to it further.

Oh yeah, "best source of future events". Like the stock market crash (Dow at 4000) he predicted with "100% certainty" for the years immediately following 9/11 -- now changed to "the 2006/07 time frame". I happen to agree with him about the likelihood of a crash, BTW, and his reference to the 11-year theory in that Barron's article. But GD (not to mention S&H) is useless to predict something as specfic as a 60-80% stock crash in a small year window.

Yes, Dow 4000 by 2004 was wrong. I don’t know if he claimed “100% certainty” (at the time of this writing I don’t have internet access), although I’m pretty sure the 2006/2007 one wasn’t with 100% certainty. He has said if it isn’t by the end of 2007, it will probably be in 2008.

I (and I think he) agree with that final sentence here, if perhaps he didn’t think that in 2003.

How about his prediction that there would never be a civil war in Iraq, again with "100% certainty"? Can't happen in a 2T he says. Assuming they are even in a 2T (with which I disagree as it is), S&H state that horrific wars can take place outside of 4T's. It is John who insists they can only take place during 4T's and that's because his is a simple war cycle. And it also happens to be wrong, as the facts now show.

That’s not true. Don’t you know that? According to GD, the Russian Great Patriotic War took place outside of a 4T. No one, not even anyone as “crazy” or “delusional” as John would argue that it was a “mild” war. Civil Wars are a slightly different case, since I think it is that much harder to actually slaughter your own countrymen on a mass scale.

You can call Iraq whatever you want. I see it as gangsterism and terrorism and think most Iraqis are showing restraint while foreign fighters do the real damage. If you see it as a civil war, fine. There is a discussion some 20 pages ago and there isn’t really anything more to say, except for perhaps newer news that something like only 25-30% of Iraqis believe there is a civil war.

How about that war between China and Japan he was gearing us up for that could happen in as soon as a year (from 2005, IIRC)? Again, 100% certainty all the way. Well? How come China and Japan have suddenly started getting along?

Okay, it wasn’t 100% certainty that the war was to happened in 2005. Just making that clear. He has claimed it for the near future (Clash of Civs WW). As for improving relations, that doesn’t mean the end result isn’t the same. You know that.

Let's see, Japan and China are, according to John, going to have a genocidal war with one another because they had one a saeculum ago. But wait a minute! Didn't Germany and Japan [you mean Russia] have a genocidal war a saeculum ago? How come he says they are not gearing up for one?

Oh, it's because it's clear China and Japan are antagonistic with one another, therefore it has to be because of their past animosity, I have heard countered. What? Then where is the predictive aspect? China and Japan have kept their animosity whereas Germany and Russia have not. So why is there going to be "genocidal fury" in one and not the other? I don't need GD to tell me China and Japan have geopolitical and historical problems with one another. That's not generational, in and of itself.

Then, finally, the argument is made that because China and Japan have kept their animosity they will experience "genocidal fury" because the older war generation has died off and the new generation would not know the horrors of war. Right there is a huge difference between GD and S&H. GD says a war must come. S&H simply say it's more likely, but not inevitable.

We’ve been over this. The fact that Japan and China fought last time doesn’t necessarily mean that they fight this time. Else, we’d be gearing up for war with Great Britain now.

There are a multitude of reasons why Japan and China are gearing up for war. Some of them are generational, some are not. GD uses generational theory + current events.

The new generation not living through the past crisis war is a simpler way of explaining the Artists leaving the scene and the Heroes just entering it. He has people on the site that don’t know much about generational theory in the S&H vain, so that‘s a real simple explanation. There are plenty of references to S&H but I’m sure some readers haven’t pursued that path. Shame on them.

I’m not sure whether S&H specify that there must be a war (I guess not), but in the six speculums they identify, there is one. GD says that there must be a war, but there are some exceptions, the aborted crisis war (English 1860) and your hated “Puritan Flip.” Of course, there can be others that haven’t been found.

***

I wrote this quickly. Let me know if I missed anything, which I‘m sure I did.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Sean,
That is not what I said. The generational mechanisms are still intact, and they are mentioned every so often as they apply. The basics are there. The web log and articles have a different purpose than S&H books, usually to watch the “pot come to a boil.” He continually refers to S&H’s books, calling them “brilliant” “fascinating” and the basis behind the theory has developed.

Whatever. This ^^ particular argument obviously stems from a personal problem and I’m not going to respond to it further.

You can say that's not what you said, but there it was. And you were right the first time.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Yes, Dow 4000 by 2004 was wrong. I don’t know if he claimed “100% certainty” (at the time of this writing I don’t have internet access), although I’m pretty sure the 2006/2007 one wasn’t with 100% certainty. He has said if it isn’t by the end of 2007, it will probably be in 2008.

Or 2009, or 2010, or 2011 . . .

Come on! "Best source of future events" you said. But a stopped clock will still be right twice a day. He keeps breathlessly telling us that his Dow 4000 is "a year or two away". And then two years later it's another "year or two away". That's not prediction. One doesn't need GD to do this. ANYONE with ANY theory could do this.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

That’s not true. Don’t you know that? According to GD, the Russian Great Patriotic War took place outside of a 4T. No one, not even anyone as “crazy” or “delusional” as John would argue that it was a “mild” war. Civil Wars are a slightly different case, since I think it is that much harder to actually slaughter your own countrymen on a mass scale.

His position on the Great Patriotic War is part of the internal contradiction of GD. Xenakis categorically dismisses a whole slew of wars as not possibly being 4T wars based on the lack of "genocidal fury" and total war aspects, but then makes an exception for the GPW. Again, as Mike A. has documented so well, GD is not actually about an objective theory (since there really isn't one because it doesn't work), it's about what John says it is. I am sure there is some kind of "puritan flip" type explanation that makes the GPW a 1T war.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You can call Iraq whatever you want. I see it as gangsterism and terrorism and think most Iraqis are showing restraint while foreign fighters do the real damage. If you see it as a civil war, fine. There is a discussion some 20 pages ago and there isn’t really anything more to say, except for perhaps newer news that something like only 25-30% of Iraqis believe there is a civil war.

"Iraqis are showing restraint"?!?!?! Oh how the dictates of dogma require one to create their own world! Tell the thousands of Sunni families who have lost, and are losing, loved ones that the Shia death squads are showing restraint. Tell the same to the groups reversed. Tell the 2 million who have fled the country and the 2 million more who are internally displaced that there isn't a civil war. What would it take for you to call it a civil war. Two million dead? Don't bother answering since Dogma dictates that Iraq can never have a civil war.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Okay, it wasn’t 100% certainty that the war was to happened in 2005. Just making that clear. He has claimed it for the near future (Clash of Civs WW). As for improving relations, that doesn’t mean the end result isn’t the same. You know that.

He very, very clearly implied that the death spiral had begun. Again, he can't know such a thing is happening. No one can. But YOU are the one who claimed HERE that he is "the best source of future events". What the hell has he accurately predicted? If one took him seriously, then one would expect to have had a Dow 4,000 several years ago, a war between China and Japan, a large fraction of the world dead from the bird flu, and a bunch of other things that didn't happen.

Look, one can predict a multitude of things, and predict some of them perennially. Guess what? Sooner or later one of those things is going to happen if you predict enough of them, often enough. Does that mean the author or theory does anyone any good? Uh, no.

One of these days, something he predicted, or strongly insinuated, will finally occur, and he will herald it as a major breakthrough for GD. And I will laugh my @ss off.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

We’ve been over this. The fact that Japan and China fought last time doesn’t necessarily mean that they fight this time. Else, we’d be gearing up for war with Great Britain now.

There are a multitude of reasons why Japan and China are gearing up for war. Some of them are generational, some are not. GD uses generational theory + current events.

So what good is his theory? What is it predicting? Look, he has stated that GD predicts a war between China and Japan? Why?? Because they don't seem to like each other much right now and had a really nasty war a saeculum ago. But the same generational aspect would predict a near-term war between Russia and Germany. But since they are not currently angry at one another, the generational part somehow goes "poof". Then what good is bringing the "generational" aspect into the discussion at all?

GD is supposed to bring something unique to this. What is it?? Perhaps a more accurate term would be "Xenakis Dynamics" (XD), which I will call it for now on, because that is what it is. He throws around "generational" when it really doesn't mean very much, and certainly doesn't have much bearing on what S&H brought to the table.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

The new generation not living through the past crisis war is a simpler way of explaining the Artists leaving the scene and the Heroes just entering it. He has people on the site that don’t know much about generational theory in the S&H vain, so that‘s a real simple explanation. There are plenty of references to S&H but I’m sure some readers haven’t pursued that path. Shame on them.

First off, that is a secondary aspect of S&H theory. The shadow mechanism is far more important, and Xenakis Dynamics leaves that completely out as far as I can tell (please show me how I am wrong on this).

Second, it would not be that hard to give a brief description of the archetypes and then attribute that to S&H. By leaving the archetypes out of it, along with life phases and the subsequent turnings and constellations, all XD is left with is generational forgetting and a war cycle (and some "crusty bureaucracy").

I submit Xenakis Dynamics doesn't include these things because John has dispensed with them, functionally, if not entirely. What is left is a simplistic, regressive war cycle that pays lip service to S&H and tries to ride it's coattails while claiming "improvement" and using S&H's website to further this. He then provides a list of "exceptions" and "flips" to deal with resultant performative contradictions.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I’m not sure whether S&H specify that there must be a war (I guess not), but in the six speculums they identify, there is one.

You must not have read their works, because no, they do not think a war is required. More likely? Yes. More likely to be a total war (as that saeculum interprets such a thing) when one occurs? Yes. Necessary? No. Furthermore, S&H is open to major wars occuring outside of 4T's, like the English Civil War and the Thirty Years War. Those two were products of a particularly nasty 2T, by S&H's reckoning.

What Xenakis Dynamics misses is the basic, essential point that 4T's are not primarily about war, but about a comprehensive reformation of a society's outer-world (institutional) order. Slightly more accuractly, it's about a particular kind of genertional constellation between archetypal generations. They are not primarily about " genocidal fury" or "generational forgetting". This where XD devolves into a mere war cycle. That is regression of a theory, not "improvement" upon one.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

GD says that there must be a war, but there are some exceptions, the aborted crisis war (English 1860) and your hated “Puritan Flip.” Of course, there can be others that haven’t been found.

"MUST, uh, but with exceptions". Yeah, there seem to be a number of various "exceptions" in XD. The Ptolemic view of the universe needed a lot of those to compete with the Copernican one. But then if one consults a William from Ockham . . . ah nevermind.

BTW, what war got "aborted" c. 1860??

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I wrote this quickly. Let me know if I missed anything, which I‘m sure I did.

It doesn't really matter. You're an acolyte. Nothing I say here really concerns you that much, I'm afraid. I just find it difficult to sit idly by and let Xenakis get away with such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

You can say that's not what you said, but there it was. And you were right the first time.

I suppose that's why you had to substitute my words for yours.

Or 2009, or 2010, or 2011 . . .

Come on! "Best source of future events" you said. But a stopped clock will still be right twice a day. He keeps breathlessly telling us that his Dow 4000 is "a year or two away". And then two years later it's another "year or two away". That's not prediction. One doesn't need GD to do this. ANYONE with ANY theory could do this.

I hope you understand that the predictions that are related to the conflict risk index are part of the Clash World War. I'd be interested to hear how others came to that result.

The generational component dictates the war could have come 5 years ago, or can come ten years from now. If that's too wide a window for you, fine. It's not perfect, but it works well enough for me.

His position on the Great Patriotic War is part of the internal contradiction of GD. Xenakis categorically dismisses a whole slew of wars as not possibly being 4T wars based on the lack of "genocidal fury" and total war aspects, but then makes an exception for the GPW. Again, as Mike A. has documented so well, GD is not actually about an objective theory (since there really isn't one because it doesn't work), it's about what John says it is. I am sure there is some kind of "puritan flip" type explanation that makes the GPW a 1T war.

He has argued that the GPW didn't have the necessary genocidal fury. I wouldn't fully agree with this (although there is more to it than meets the eye). The algorithm presented is imperfect.

So what good is his theory? What is it predicting? Look, he has stated that GD predicts a war between China and Japan? Why?? Because they don't seem to like each other much right now and had a really nasty war a saeculum ago. But the same generational aspect would predict a near-term war between Russia and Germany. But since they are not currently angry at one another, the generational part somehow goes "poof". Then what good is bringing the "generational" aspect into the discussion at all?

...You can't be serious. The generational aspect is not the only determinant. That does not mean it goes "poof" when other factors are brought in.

First off, that is a secondary aspect of S&H theory. The shadow mechanism is far more important, and Xenakis Dynamics leaves that completely out as far as I can tell (please show me how I am wrong on this).

Second, it would not be that hard to give a brief description of the archetypes and then attribute that to S&H. By leaving the archetypes out of it, along with life phases and the subsequent turnings and constellations, all XD is left with is generational forgetting and a war cycle (and some "crusty bureaucracy").

I submit Xenakis Dynamics doesn't include these things because John has dispensed with them, functionally, if not entirely. What is left is a simplistic, regressive war cycle that pays lip service to S&H and tries to ride it's coattails while claiming "improvement" and using S&H's website to further this. He then provides a list of "exceptions" and "flips" to deal with resultant performative contradictions.

Well you're being somewhat reasonable here. I don't know how you can consider the Shadow Mechanism to be more important than Artists leaving. In many ways, they are both tied together since they both have to do with a generational shift.

You must not have read their works, because no, they do not think a war is required. More likely? Yes. More likely to be a total war (as that saeculum interprets such a thing) when one occurs? Yes. Necessary? No. Furthermore, S&H is open to major wars occuring outside of 4T's, like the English Civil War and the Thirty Years War. Those two were products of a particularly nasty 2T, by S&H's reckoning.

I have no problem acknowledging that difference. And The Thirty Years War wasn't a crisis war for England.

What Xenakis Dynamics misses is the basic, essential point that 4T's are not primarily about war, but about a comprehensive reformation of a society's outer-world (institutional) order. Slightly more accuractly, it's about a particular kind of genertional constellation between archetypal generations. They are not primarily about " genocidal fury" or "generational forgetting". This where XD devolves into a mere war cycle. That is regression of a theory, not "improvement" upon one.

You're talking about many different things here. The reformation of the institutional order is a major part of the GD defined crisis war and nearly always happens, if not always. The generational alignment is the major part. That's what is all about.

"MUST, uh, but with exceptions". Yeah, there seem to be a number of various "exceptions" in XD. The Ptolemic view of the universe needed a lot of those to compete with the Copernican one. But then if one consults a William from Ockham . . . ah nevermind.

Blah. Maybe I worded it incorrectly but I was trying to get the point across that the crisis would have to be ever so narrowly averted or the generational alignments would have to be changed due to a Puritan Flip type event.

BTW, what war got "aborted" c. 1860??

English involvement in the American Civil War.

It doesn't really matter. You're an acolyte. Nothing I say here really concerns you that much, I'm afraid. I just find it difficult to sit idly by and let Xenakis get away with such nonsense.

No. Not really. The reason I asked you to start this again was to clear up some misconceptions I thought you had. And it turns out that nothing I say will clear them up, and my best guess is that you are blinded by your seething hate for the style presented. You'll say I'm blinded by a madman. Some of your objections are valid, but those have been covered and there isn't much more to say. Some of them are not, but I can't change your mind.

There was no "aborted civil war" in the UK around 1860 that I'm aware of, but there was definitely the potential of the US getting into a war with the UK (look up The Pig War on Wiki), or the UK joining in on the side of the Confederacy in the ACW, either event would of likely triggered a world war.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I suppose that's why you had to substitute my words for yours.

No just showing what logically followed from what you said. Your later reply was inconsistent with what you originally said.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I hope you understand that the predictions that are related to the conflict risk index are part of the Clash World War. I'd be interested to hear how others came to that result.

Non sequitur. What was behind his "theory" (Clash of something or another -- very "generational", BTW) is irrelevant. The point is he is consistently WRONG in his predictions. His MO is to strongly insinuate, when he is not actually speaking with ex cathedra "certainty", that such-n-such is going to happen "soon" and "probably within the next one or two year time frame". Then it doesn't happen. So he predicts it the same way again. And it doesn't happen. How many times does he have to play William Miller before you see he is full of poop?

The point is ANYONE can do this with ANY THEORY. Hell, our fellow T4Ter Eric Meece has a better track record here with using astrology for Christ's sake. And I don't believe in astrology. You seem to believe in something that has at best an equal track record as astrology, and for the same reason -- it's whimsical subjective silliness (sorry Eric, no offense intended) just like Xenakis Dynamics. I mean come on, at least astrology has millennia of data behind it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

The generational component dictates the war could have come 5 years ago, or can come ten years from now. If that's too wide a window for you, fine. It's not perfect, but it works well enough for me.

The question is: Is it good enough for John? HE is the one predicting things in a much, much shorter time frame. I am not the one using too narrow a criteria here! Are you actually being serious?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

He has argued that the GPW didn't have the necessary genocidal fury. I wouldn't fully agree with this (although there is more to it than meets the eye). The algorithm presented is imperfect.

I don't know how to even respond to this. The GPW didn't have genocidal fury? Being gracious, and assuming you mean only on the Soviet side, how could you even say that? XD claims that the English Civil War was a Crisis War and therefore, by XD's definition, had genocidal fury. Are you saying that the Soviet response to the Nazi's was less ferocious than the animosity between Cavaliers and Roundheads?!? I could use so many other examples to show how utterly silly this contention is. Take your pick: Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, WWI in the Balkans, what-have-you.

And please don't blather about "algorithms". Xenakis is many things (to be sure) but he ain't Hari Seldon.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

...You can't be serious. The generational aspect is not the only determinant. That does not mean it goes "poof" when other factors are brought in.

Of course there are other aspects. And S&H, for example, leave plenty of room for such things. But Xenakis Dynamics does not. It's claim to fame, the thing that endows it with "100% certainty", the magic ingredient, is his "generational component" (as he interprets it, anyway). It either works, or it doesn't. Which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Well you're being somewhat reasonable here. I don't know how you can consider the Shadow Mechanism to be more important than Artists leaving. In many ways, they are both tied together since they both have to do with a generational shift.

Then you don't understand S&H at all, which makes sense. The shadow mechanism is one of the main, if not THE main, driver of saecular theory, regardless of turning. What's more you demonstrate lack of understanding, or perhaps do understand and therefore underscore the regressive character of XD, when you mention only the "Artists leaving" as the main driver behind the triggering of a 4T. There is a constellation of generations involved, not just the Artists. Xenakis, and apparently you, do away with all of those things. Bye bye shadow mechanism, bye bye archetypes, bye bye constellations. Bye bye to the actually working parts of S&H's theory. But HELLO regressive, old hat, been-there-done-that, simple war cycle (with all the bells and whistles subjective, Ptolemaic tweaks have to offer!). Nice.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I have no problem acknowledging that difference. And The Thirty Years War wasn't a crisis war for England.

I didn't say it was. I am assuming that XD thinks it was a Crisis War ( in this case for most if not all of continental Europe). S&H theory sees it as mostly a 2T war.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You're talking about many different things here. The reformation of the institutional order is a major part of the GD defined crisis war and nearly always happens, if not always. The generational alignment is the major part. That's what is all about.

Oh yeah? You're talking a good talk. Where's the walk? When does he use generational constellations? When does he use the shadow mechanism? Why the emphasis and necessity of "genocidal fury" and "total war" when outer-world reformation is that actual primary issue? Sounds like backtracking to me.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Blah. Maybe I worded it incorrectly but I was trying to get the point across that the crisis would have to be ever so narrowly averted or the generational alignments would have to be changed due to a Puritan Flip type event.

But XD is RIDDLED with them! Glorious Revolution can't be a 4T because no genocidal fury and total war, BUT . . . the GPW is a 1T conflict even though it had more "fury" even on just the Soviet side, than many XD-recognized Crisis Wars did. Genocidal fury is necessary, but WWI killed far more people on the Western Front than WWII did, but it's a 3T war (once John even called it a 2T war, which was very funny). The American colonies were peopled by a society that was allegedly in a 3T-to-4T mode (according to XD), but the colonists "flipped" to a 2T mode because . . . I don't know, an algorithm told them to?

For the love of God, Matt. Give me a break. The Civil War Anomaly, S&H's one big fudge factor, is simplicity itself compared to just those examples, let alone all the others I could come up with. And it arguably of "the exception that proves the rule" status, unlike anything I just mentioned in XD.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

English involvement in the American Civil War.

Aborted? It never got started. Read your history books. And don't play fast and loose with the Trent Affair. It won't work.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

No. Not really. The reason I asked you to start this again was to clear up some misconceptions I thought you had. And it turns out that nothing I say will clear them up, and my best guess is that you are blinded by your seething hate for the style presented. You'll say I'm blinded by a madman. Some of your objections are valid, but those have been covered and there isn't much more to say. Some of them are not, but I can't change your mind.

Spoken like a true acolyte. Please pay my respects to Father John.

Sean, there's nothing there I can really respond to further without it being completely useless, for various reasons. You'll need to speak to John directly. I'm not sure if he wants to answer your objections, but your best bet would be to lay them down without the ton of emotional baggage. I would like to point out that "possibly within the next year or two" does not equate to "this year or the next."

------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe this summarizes your objections?:

1) You keep saying 'such and such will happen' within the next year or two. Why? How long is this going to go on? I can't see how this possibly makes your predictions useful as the time frame seems to be constantly changing.

2) The Great Patriotic War for the Russians contains more genocidal fury than other crisis wars. How can you explain this and does this not fit in with your definition of a crisis war?

3) From what I can tell, your track record is not nearly as good as you claim, certainly not 100%, as Dow 4000 was incorrect. Iraq is in a civil war now, showing genocidal fury. What are some of your predictions that actually came true?

4) It appears that you have completely disregarded the work of S&H on your site, devolving and discarding many parts of their theory, such as the Shadow Mechanism (IMO the main driver of the theory) and generational constellations so that the concept of Generational Dynamics is simply "generational forgetting." This is not an expansion of the mechanism of S&H, but rather a regression. Can you explain this?

--------------------------------------------------------

Are these fair? If these were answered would it be a step? Am I missing something major?

Please let me know, thanks.

Originally Posted by Odin

There was no "aborted civil war" in the UK around 1860 that I'm aware of, but there was definitely the potential of the US getting into a war with the UK (look up The Pig War on Wiki), or the UK joining in on the side of the Confederacy in the ACW, either event would of likely triggered a world war.

That's what I was referring to.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Sean, there's nothing there I can really respond to further
> without it being completely useless, for various reasons. You'll
> need to speak to John directly. I'm not sure if he wants to
> answer your objections, but your best bet would be to lay them
> down without the ton of emotional baggage. I would like to point
> out that "possibly within the next year or two" does not equate
> to "this year or the next."

I've answered all of Love's questions many times over. Love is
totally obsessed with me personally, and at times his obsession with
me seems to have totally taken over his entire life. Every now and
then he goes off his meds and comes back, and any way that I respond
to him would only feed his obsession. Now, after several years of
his spew I really couldn't care less what he says or what he thinks.

If you want to argue with him, then have fun, but don't drag me into
it.

The traffic to my web site keeps growing, and it's getting more
notice. Furthermore, I recently started work at a new job as a senior
systems programmer, so my time is limited. I got four e-mail questions
from web site readers just today alone, and I have a moral obligation
to spend what time I can answering those questions. So I don't have
time for Love's crap anyway.

He's all yours. Enjoy!

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Maybe this summarizes your objections?:

1) You keep saying 'such and such will happen' within the next year or two. Why? How long is this going to go on? I can't see how this possibly makes your predictions useful as the time frame seems to be constantly changing.

2) The Great Patriotic War for the Russians contains more genocidal fury than other crisis wars. How can you explain this and does this not fit in with your definition of a crisis war?

3) From what I can tell, your track record is not nearly as good as you claim, certainly not 100%, as Dow 4000 was incorrect. Iraq is in a civil war now, showing genocidal fury. What are some of your predictions that actually came true?

4) It appears that you have completely disregarded the work of S&H on your site, devolving and discarding many parts of their theory, such as the Shadow Mechanism (IMO the main driver of the theory) and generational constellations so that the concept of Generational Dynamics is simply "generational forgetting." This is not an expansion of the mechanism of S&H, but rather a regression. Can you explain this?

--------------------------------------------------------

Are these fair? If these were answered would it be a step? Am I missing something major?

Please let me know, thanks.

They will do, with one change. Though what one decides to call "genocidal fury" is somewhat subjective, I wouldn't say Iraq has reached that point. But I would say a "civil war" has been reached. So I would amend that portion of Question 3.

But Matt, I have presented a simple list of questions a few times before. He NEVER answers the majority of them. When he answers them at all, it is often either with non sequiturs or he provides answers to questions I did not ask. He has probably actually answered at most a quarter of the questions put to him, at least by me. I can't speak for Mike A. or others.

Like all Dogma, like other Beliefs littered with performative contradictions, XD is not amenable to open debate. I submit it can't be exposed to the light of scrutiny without John realizing what he has done is not all that special. He can call me names and diagnose my psychological status all he wants. The fact remains that, at least so far -- what? five years and running? -- he has not allowed XD to be openly criticized by anyone on this board.

He has even been proven dead wrong (with "100% certainty", BTW) on certain items. My favorite is when Neil Howe let it be known that the English Civil War was a 2T to S&H's way of thinking. Xenakis was speechless. Oh how "puritan flips" became all the rage . . .

With his last response, John seems content to hide. But if you're willing, I may also be willing to continue. If you're up for it, let's start by you taking a shot at the questions you distilled.

One last thing. Xenakis goes beyond flattering himself to think I obsess over him. Yeah, sure, it's all about John. As usual, he's being a pompous @ss.

I'll need some time to respond.