---------------------------------snip-----------------------------------------------------------------

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."

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

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, [strike]showing genocidal fury[/strike]. 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.

Sean, I needed time to do a lot of research into the matter, but I changed my mind now since I am sure that, based on your conviction, you are familiar with the many different areas that I will mention. I was not planning to answer the questions as they were not intended for me, but I will give it a shot.

1) Let me put it this way: If there is a stock market crash in 2008 or 2009, and a Clash of Civilizations World War that occurs a few years later and is very similar to what has been described, on the whole, is GD useful? The answer should be 'yes.' It would make it the most useful website in the world. This would be true despite the fact that the stock market crash occurred partially outside of the statement, "Probably by the 2006-2007 timeframe," and the Clash of Civilizations World War didn't turn out exactly as planned.

Part of generational theory is that the crisis becomes more likely with each passing year. You and I both believe that a major crisis is on the horizon. Assuming that there is some crisis, I suppose John will continue to detail his predictions until it is apparent that there is another crisis separate from what he predicted, generational theory is proven incorrect, or when we pass into the first turning.

So if a prediction or two is off by a couple years, then it may not be 100% useful, but it's close enough. I can see why the changing timeframe may cast doubt on the theory for skeptics (and it should), but you have to take into account the scope of this stuff. If it acts as a major hindrance to someone, fine, I can understand that. It doesn't for me.

2) I, too, have had problems coming to terms with Russia in WWII. Personally, I think the facts go both ways when simply analyzing the details of the war. Regardless, the algorithm presented in Generational Dynamics for Historians is an easy way to identify a Crisis War for someone who cannot immerse himself or herself in a country's history. Its accuracy doesn't need to be 100% to be useful, but it should be pretty close. Unfortunately, everyone comes to the evaluation process with their own biases and interpretations, so at the moment, it is impossible for it to be completely objective.

So, according to GD (or me at least), the Great Patriotic War cannot be a Crisis War because it occurred in a Recovery/Awakening Era and lacked the social change that is necessary for a 4T. If it had genocidal fury, it is but a blip in the evaluation process. Remember, the algorithm is meant to follow an observed pattern. A Crisis War is generational first, and the effects come about due to the present generational alignment.

Update: http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=2499

3) IIRC, John sort-of disowned the Dow 4000 prediction. He admits that it was careless and stupid. Still, I do not understand how he can say everything has been right when something clearly was wrong.

I am not going to talk much on the Iraq situation because we have been over this, but everyone's analysis of what constitutes a civil war is different. You should admit that there is reason for not considering it a civil war.

Aside from the Dow 4000, it seems to me that everything has either A) not been proven yet, or B) has been proven. Most things, with the lone exception of Down 4000 and "probably 2006-2007 timeframe" do not have specific boundaries, with most stated as 'pretty soon.' For some reason that I cannot fully comprehend, you say that this makes his predictions useless, since all predictions must have specific boundaries. Whatever. For the scope of stuff that John is predicting (and I am sure no one has the exact same set of predictions) and the methods that are used (generational theory), some slack can be cut. Don't you agree?

While it is impossible to judge the utility of GD at the moment, (we will have to wait 10 years to figure that out) there are a large number of instances where GD has been dead-on. You may disagree, but his predictions on Iraq and Israel-Palestine have been perfect, as have his predictions on government paralysis around the world. True, any idiot could spew out the same predictions as GD, but I have not seen it.

4) This is the hardest one to answer, since I cannot get in his mind. It is completely true that S&H were the prime inspiration behind GD and that they share the same basic generational cycle (with the exception of the optional fifth turning added to GD). With that said, GD is not simply an expansion of TFT, nor is it a regression (as you claim). As I have said, some ideas are expanded upon, some are applied in areas untouched by S&H, and some are for the most part ignored.

It is worth noting that this is 2007, not 1997, and the crisis is the all-consuming focus at the moment. To say, “generational forgetting” is the only aspect that brings about a crisis not quite true. Yes, it is a major factor in begetting a crisis, but there is plenty of mention with regard to Hero generations around the world bringing about a crisis (far beyond the forgetting threshold), with The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt in mind. There also is the Prophet Gen's characteristics in dealing with opposition, etc. etc.

Perhaps in another turning can the focus be more on generational structure.

_----_

I know you will not be satisfied with some parts of my answers, but I hope that we can work to some understanding. Every so often, I run across an old post of yours when you speak of GD and Xenakis with a small dose of respect. GD has not changed much since then.

Matt

Originally Posted by David Krein

Don't forget the Panic of 1857 and the cattle plague of that year. The Crimean War was blundered into, and badly fought by all sides (except the French performed fairly well), and petered out after Nicholas I's death, l;eadin the the Great Reform Crisis in Russiain the 1860s. It was a typical 3rd Turning War. Britain's Crisis lasted until 1873 when Gladstone tried to resign and Disraeli wouldn't let him. The result was an Adaptive Generation born from 1856 to 1872, that not only produced the Fabians but the appeasers of the 1930s.

Pax,


Dave Krein '42

The c.1857-c.1873 crisis era you described David, fits in nicely what was happening on the continent at the same time. Like the Franco-Prussian war, Paris Commune, Spanish Glorious revolution which established the first Spanish Republic and Italian Risorgimento. Unlike the USA which produced a unusual Artist generation raised as Heroes - The Progressives, Europe's 4T must have produced a real Hero generation.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> IIRC, John sort-of disowned the Dow 4000 prediction. He admits
> that it was careless and stupid. Still, I do not understand how he
> can say everything has been right when something clearly was
> wrong.

This is absolutely not true. We're in the middle of multiple huge
worldwide financial bubbles. The stock market is overpriced by more
than 250% today. The stock market will fall to the Dow 3000-4000
level, and possibly lower. In 1929 the stock market fell 90%, which
would correspond to a fall to 1300 today. The only mistake I made --
in the early days of 2002-2003 -- is setting too firm a date. But
the basic prediction has never changed.

Sincerely,

John

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

War with China

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86;

> There is no danger right now of china going to war with the US. In
> order to do so the chinese need three things; One a blue water
> fleet, two a modernized army and, three a cold war sized nuclear
> arsenal. China will have neither of these things for at least
> another decade. As for russia posing a possible threat, not with
> their army being largely obsolete. As for the nazi germany analogy
> remember you should google 'the march of time' there you would
> find a site containing old time magazine and newsreel archives
> from 1931-1941. Nazi germany's as well as italy and japan's
> buildups were heavily reported in the news media at the time.
> Today their are no major military buildups apart from any nation
> apart from perhaps north korea other than modernizing obsolete
> forces.

I get e-mail messages from readers of my web site saying things like
this, so I'd like to answer it at length because it overlooks a
number of things. This is especially appropriate in view of Friday's
release by DoD on Friday of China's military capabilities, especially
its preemptive war capabilities.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=46183

When you talk about China needing a blue water fleet, etc., then I
believe you're using what might be called the "Nazi Germany" model.
There's another model being overlooked, but first I'd like to comment
on the application of this model.

The "Nazi Germany" model might be described briefly as follows:
Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" in 1924, then proceeded to put it into
effect, step by step, first by winning elections, then by rapidly
militarizing, fooling people (Neville Chamberlain) into thinking he
was peaceful, and finally striking at Poland and France.

Note that it doesn't really matter if these facts are 100% correct,
since all that matters is today's perceptions, and I think that the
above summary is pretty close to today's perceptions.

First off, let's do a straight by-the-numbers comparison.

From 1871 to 1939 is 68 years, and so Germany was 68 years into the
saeculum when Hitler struck.

China today is (1949 to 2007) 58 years into the saeculum. So by this
measure, China still has 10 years to go before striking, which
corresponds with your statement, "One a blue water fleet, two a
modernized army and, three a cold war sized nuclear arsenal. China
will have neither of these things for at least another decade."

So, from the point of view of the "Nazi Germany" model, you're 100%
right on.

Is there a "Hitler" in China today? I'm not aware of one, but I have
little doubt that there are many. The hatred of America is growing
in China, and the entire military structure is breeding them. Within
another ten years, it's quite possible that a new "Hitler" could come
to power in China, and once again you would be right on. (China's
current President Hu Jintao was born in 1942, a survivor of China's
last crisis war, and so he's in the Artist generation, similar to our
Silent Generation, and is clearly against war at this time.)

OK, so far so good, but there's another model besides the "Nazi
Germany" model. It's where an east European Archduke got
assassinated, and interlocking treaties spread the war to other
countries. After that, ten million guns got loaded and World War I
exploded.

In the "WW I" model, there's no "Mein Kampf," no waiting until
everything is in place militarily. The crisis war just begins, as if
by spontaneous combustion, and then quickly spreads, like wildfire.

To understand how this can happen, let's go back to the original text
in The Fourth Turning:

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe in Fourth Turning

> History always produces sparks. But some sparks flare and then
> vanish, while others touch off firestorms out of any proportion
> to the sparks themselves. History always produces good and bad
> ideas. Some quickly dissipate, while others bnecome great
> inspirations or horrible scourges. (p. 118)

> Every Fourth Turning starts with a <i>catalyst</i> event that
> terminates the mood of Unraveling and unleashes one of Crisis.
> ... Some sparks ignite nothing. Some flare briefly and then
> extinguish. Some have important effects but leave the underlying
> problems unresolved. Others ignite epic conflagrations. Which
> ones ignite? Studying the sparks of history themselves won't help
> answer this question, because what they are is far less important
> than how a society reacts to them. That reaction is substantially
> in which they are located. Sparks in a [first turning] tend to
> reinforce feelings of security; in an Awakening, argument; in an
> Unraveling, anxiety. Come the Fourth Turning, sparks of history
> trigger a fierce new dynamic of public synergy.

> The catalyst can be one spark or, more commonly, a series of
> sparks that self-ignite like the firecrackers traditionally used
> by the Chinese to mark their own breaks in the circle of time.
> Each of these sparks is linked to a specific threat about which
> the society had been fully informed but against which it had left
> itself poorly protected. Afterward, the fact that these sparks
> were <i>foreseeable</i> but poorly <i>foreseen</i> gives rise to a
> new sense of urgency about institutional dysfunction and civic
> vulnerablity. This marks the beginning of the vertiginous spiral
> of Crisis. (p. 256-57)

One reason that few people think that anything like this can happen
is that nothing like it has happened in our lifetime.

Or has it?

There are, in fact, some examples we can point to. We can look at
the Rwanda war in 1994, where a call to "cut down the tall trees"
resulted in a genocidal massacre of almost a million people.

But we actually have an excellent example to look at last summer:
Israel's war against Hizbollah in Lebanon. This is almost a textbook
example of what can happen.

The "sparks" were, first, the abduction of an Israeli soldier by
Hamas, and then the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah
near the Lebanon border.

Now, Israeli soldiers had been abducted before; it was nothing new.
But Israel's response this time was entirely new. Israel panicked
and went to full-scale war against Hizbollah within FOUR HOURS, with
no plan and no achievable objective.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...061223#e061223

One side note to that war was that Lebanon did not retaliate, because
it was in an Awakening era. If Lebanon had been in a Crisis era, it
would have retaliated, we'd almost certainly have been drawn in, and
the world war would have started, or be close to starting, today.

Anybody who thinks that a war with China today is impossible should
spend some time looking at last summer's Lebanon war. I've posted
several generational analyses on my web site.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070504#e070504

Or, if you'd prefer, just google "Winograd report," and you'll find
plenty of information online.

The point is that, if the mood is right, then a "spark" can trigger a
major crisis war at any time.

Is the mood right today? Absolutely.

Let's look at the numbers again. China is in the 58th year of its
saeculum, while America is in the 62nd year, so we're a little ahead
of them in the respect. However, Israel is also in the 58th year of
its saeculum, and if Israel can panic, then so can China. In fact,
my research shows that 58 years peaks as the time for the beginning
of a new crisis war.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1772

I've been following China for several years, and I can tell you
without a doubt that Beijing government (the CCP or Chinese Communist
Party) is practically climbing the walls with anxiety. The anxieties
are both internal and external.

The internal anxieties come from the increasing instability of the
country's social structure. In March, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said
that China is "unsteady, unbalanced, uncoordinated and
unsustainable."
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070322#e070322

One of the big reasons why China is unstable is because there are
tens of thousands of regional anti-government mass riots and
demonstrations each year, each one involving thousands or even tens
of thousands of people, usually peasants. A recent one that made
international news occurred just last week, when thousands of
peasants in a rural village burned down government buildings over
China's "one-child" policy.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070526#e070526

The CCP has become very skilled at quelling large regional
rebellions, but it would only take the right kind of "spark" to turn
those numerous regional rebellions into one large national rebellion,
and that would be the end of the CCP.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.china050116

China is also unstable economically. There are well over 100 million
itinerant workers, mostly rural peasants who come to the large cities
looking for manufacturing work. A recession would cause a massive
social problem. I've written about this at length many times, but
I'll only point out one more thing now: The Chinese stock markets are
in a huge bubble:


<i>( http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...2Fintchart.asp )</i>

About a million ordinary people have opened stock market accounts in
the last year, and have invested every dollar (err, I mean yuan) they
have in the stock market, borrowing from friends, mortgaging their
homes, selling their belongings, and so forth. This is a HUGE
disaster waiting to happen, and it could happen any day.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070513#e070513

In the meantime, China's skyrocketing trade surplus causing compulsive
xenophobia in Congress, where they seem poised to pass veto-proof
legislation sanctioning China. Thus, we're in a situation where a
major financial crisis in China would destabilize China and would be
blamed on the United States. America's xenophobia would then be
considered an act of war to a panicking CCP.

The external anxieties come from Taiwan and Japan, and I'll focus
only on the former.

According to Friday's DoD report, China continues to amass missiles
along the Straits of Taiwan, preparing for a preemptive assault to
recapture Taiwan. China has repeatedly made it clear that Taiwanese
moves toward independence would be an act of war. This was not a
giggling statement made in passing; it's been a repeated, serious
threat, and there is no doubt that it will happen.

The Taiwanese themselves have been getting extremely anxious. They
were infuriated in 2005 when China passed its "Anti-Secession law,"
which provoked massive anti-Chinese riots in Taiwan.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...050308#e050308
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...050327#e050327

And of course the Taiwanese are getting extremely anxious about those
hundreds of Chinese missiles pointed at them. A former Taiwanese
president adviser recently made the following comments in reaction to
China's military threat:

Originally Posted by Koo Kwang-ming

> "But there won't be a war in the Taiwan Strait, because China
> wouldn't want to drive away foreign investors and risk an economic
> collapse. ...

> [In the worst-case scenario], I would welcome [a war]. ...

> Taiwan's biggest crisis is the lack of a national consensus on
> the nation's future despite the military threat from China. But
> if China were to launch a military attack against Taiwan, a
> consensus would be formed within a week."

This remark shows how oblivious even some Taiwanese people are to the
threat facing them.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070322#e070322

So, all the pieces are in place. The mood is right, and all that's
needed is some kind of "spark." This could come from anywhere -- a
financial panic, an internal rebellion, a Taiwanese move toward
independence, an insensitive Japanese remark, or American xenophobia.

From China's point of view, the time is extremely critical right now.
Taiwan is having new elections early next year, and the Beijing
Olympic games will occur next summer. The Olympic games are
OVERWHELMINGLY important to China, and anything that threatens to
humiliate them could lead to a sharp reaction from the Chinese.

There are many possible scenarios, but here's one: The CCP becomes
fearful that pro-independence politicians will, once again, win the
Taiwanese elections. This causes a panic in the CCP -- and I cannot
emphasize too much how strongly the CCP feels about this. They
decide that they can grab Taiwan before the U.S. could intervene
(just as Israel thought they could destroy Hizbollah quickly), and
get everything cleaned up in time for the Beijing Olympics. The U.S.
counter-attacks, and the war has begun.

The possibility of an early world war is greatly enhanced by the
existing of so many interlocking mutual defense treaties. America has
them with Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Europe (NATO), Israel, and
Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS), and even Iceland.

I'm not predicting a war with China this year, though I think the
probability is significant. What I am saying is that the "Nazi
Germany" model of war, which is the one that most people think about,
is not the only one, and China is ready and poised for the "WW I"
model.

Addendum -- Added in editing

There's one issue that I forgot to cover:

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86;

> As for the nazi germany analogy remember you should google 'the
> march of time' there you would find a site containing old time
> magazine and newsreel archives from 1931-1941. Nazi germany's as
> well as italy and japan's buildups were heavily reported in the
> news media at the time. Today their are no major military buildups
> apart from any nation apart from perhaps north korea other than
> modernizing obsolete forces.

This refers to my claim that people today are oblivious to China's
increasing militarism, just as they were oblivious to Germany's
increasing militarism in the 1930s.

The fact that Italy's and Japan's buildups were heavily reported in
the 1930s is irrelevant. People were still oblivious, as is obvious
from the stories surrounding the discussions in the British House of
Commons and Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement" of Germany.

China's military buildups are being heavily reported today, and have
been for years. My web site alone has tracked the military buildup,
as well as numerous clear, unambiguous statements by Chinese officials
specifically threatening war with the United States. But it makes
absolutely no difference; people remain oblivious to the threat, as
your own posting illustrates.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Bob,

This is a response to your posting in another thread.

Originally Posted by salsabob

> As you may remember, I am a fan of your website and have referred
> some of the cogs-in-the-machine to examine it for insights
> particularly in regard to the likely status of different
> nation-states vis-à-vis their crisis potentials. Another good
> discussion there is the likely disruption of the world’s current
> “Nash Equilibrium.” That said, I think you are somewhat off-key on
> this thread, and I think it reflects where I am in disagreement
> with some of your work in regard to our 4T destiny being a “Clash
> of Civilizations” or a war with China.

I certainly appreciate your supportive remarks, as well as many of
the strategy postings you've made, which have been very educational.

However, it is true that you and I have very different views on
what's coming.

Originally Posted by salsabob

> An important premise for me is that no two 4Ts are identical. In
> particular, comparisons of this unfolding or looming 4T to that of
> the previous one has much potential for leading one astray. I
> think chief among these is viewing the likely emerging conflict to
> again be between nation-states. I think it much more likely to be
> about the vulnerability and possible often demise (or, more
> accurately, incapacitation) of various nation-states at the hands
> of various non-state entities or “Global Guerrillas” (“GGs). You
> touch upon this when mentioning “open source terrorism.” I would
> greatly recommend John Robb’s path-finding work in this area
> http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

> particularly his new book, Brave New War
> http://tinyurl.com/2u48xm

> Here is a review of David Brook’s review of Robb’s book that can
> get you a non-subscription look at the NYT’s piece -

> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ent_advantage/

> In addition to “open source”, you use words like “linked,”
> “affiliated” and “brand name” when descibing al Qaeda entities
> which would indicate your grasping their true nature. However,
> your overview of these AQ-linked entities (including those of
> Iraq) does seem to leave one the opposite impression of an
> inherent organization, or worst, a hierarchical organization.
> Again, if you have fully grasped the nature of the emerging GGs
> and their “open source terrorism,” you would not suggest that --
> so perhaps I, as the reader, might have just misunderstood your
> presentation.

> However, you have other conclusions that suggest that you haven’t
> fully embraced the fullness of the GG threat. For example, China
> is extremely vulnerable to the emergence of GGs and the Chinese’s
> headlong plunge into capitalism for the masses while maintaining
> them within a political authoritarian straightjacket makes the
> rise of the GG s there nearly inevitable (IMHO, others have got
> this wrong as well -- http://tinyurl.com/ytr59l)

> Further, if the nation-state will have difficulty maintaining
> itself against the open source warfare of GGs, then a
> supra-organizational unit, termed ‘civilization,’ is doomed.
> Certainly, Islamism GGs have and will continue to emerge, but
> there is absolutely no likelihood of them organizing into a
> combined seething ‘civilization unit’ – in fact, the internal GG
> wars within Islam will be at least as horrific as any thing they
> throw up against non-Islamic entities.

> And as the diversity of the faces of GGs becomes more obvious, we
> will find it quaint to look back and see our myopic vision of the
> emerging GG threat as soley Islamist. One only needs to track
> emerging international gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha or how close
> to our borders we can now observe GG’s full-on 5GW. -
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...d/4819378.html

> Where your sense of things seems most off-key from the notion of
> ‘open source GG warfare,’ however, is in regard to your seeing the
> desire to end our current involvement in Iraq as “hoping for a
> loss and humiliation...” One needs to come to the understanding
> that our “loss and humiliation” comes first from our attempt to
> occupy Iraq in the first place.

> There has been a trend of decreasing open conflict between
> nation-states such as the Cold War where the advent of potential
> nuclear exchange kept the two superpowers from fighting one
> another directly, instead relying on proxy wars to harass one
> another. This trend of decreasing inter-state conflicts will be
> furthered even more by the emerging understanding that disrupting
> a nation-state, even a bad one, will have an increasing likelihood
> of unleashing uncontrollable open source GG warfare -- as we have
> seen in Iraq. In the future, GGs will look back with longing
> desire on our Iraqi occupation as the penultimate benchmark for
> nation-state conflicts that allow them to spring forth and
> propagate.

> Our ignorance of the potential for unleashing GG warfare in Iraq
> can be, if not forgiven, perhaps rectified. But not so, if we
> continue the bigger mistake of continuing our presence in Iraq, as
> currently configure, for it does not adequately deal with and
> likely enhances the threat of open source GG warfare. This
> understanding will eventually emerge.

> Prior to that understanding fully emerging, it is possible that
> an attack on the homeland might cause rage against those now
> suggesting a different approach for Iraq. That assumes that the
> argument that our changed strategy (including redeployment) made
> us more vulnerable wins over the argument that our presence
> further stirred-up the hornets nest and increased the likelihood
> of the attack. However, even should the former argument win, I am
> convinced that the eventual better understanding of the fullness
> of the GG threat will emerge and make these arguments both seem
> rather sophomoric. What will become increasingly apparent is that
> we wasted money, men and time on an approach that did not help,
> and likely enhanced, the further emergence of the larger threat of
> GGs.

> Again, there is much in your website and postings that are
> valuable. It is just that one needs to begin to see how the GGs
> are becoming the expert diamond cutters that will find the flaws
> and seriously threaten the shattering of the diamonds know as
> nation-states. Weave that through your theories and predictions
> and you may conclude as I have that nation-states are not the
> problem, they are the target.

I wanted to answer the question of war with China first, as I did in
the previous posting, as an introduction to my response to your
posting.

There are several issues that I would raise from your posting.

Probably the most basic fundamental difference is your belief that
politics is involved. Your remarks about what political decisions we
should make about Iraq are completely irrelevant about how the fourth
turning crisis war is going to unfold.

Many people in this forum make this error -- assuming that something
that George Bush says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do, has any
effect on the flow of world events. It does not. No politicians can
have any predictable effect on the major flow of world events during
the fourth turning. This is a basic, fundamental underpinning of
generational theory, and it's a basic, fundamental underpinning of
Strauss and Howe's work, as I've written about previously in this
thread. The political arguments that are common in this forum are
completely irrelevant in evaluating what's coming in this fourth
turning.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1184

Whenever I discuss this, I always have to take a moment out to
explain my use of the word "predictable" in the above paragraph.
I've discussed this frequently on my web site by bring the
mathematical concepts of Chaos Theory into the picture. Political
triggers are chaotic events -- meaning that a small event can have a
big effect, and a big event can have a small event -- and it's
totally impossible to predict.

Strauss and Howe captured this concept precisely when they wrote,
"History always produces sparks. But some sparks flare and then
vanish, while others touch off firestorms out of any proportion to the
sparks themselves." This is exactly what it means to say that these
"sparks" are chaotic events with unpredictable results.

Thus, it's possible that some politician will say or do something that
historians will "blame" the crisis war on, but if that event hadn't
occurred, then some other trigger would have done the same thing.
Historians may write that WW I was "caused" by the assassination of an
Archduke, but if the bullet had missed, then something else would have
triggered the same war.

And so, it makes no difference whatsoever what we do in Iraq. Well,
I have to correct that statement as well. As I recently wrote on my
web site, America is doing what it must do in Iraq. If Al Gore had
been President after 9/11, we would still be in exactly the same place
today. Congress last week voted to fund the war -- they did it
because they had no choice. America has no viable choices today.
America and the rest of the world are being driven by powerful
generational forces that can't be stopped. So, the first sentence of
this paragraph should say that what we do in Iraq makes no
predictable difference.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070524#e070524

And so, when you write:

Originally Posted by salsabob

> Where your sense of things seems most off-key from the notion of
> ‘open source GG warfare,’ however, is in regard to your seeing the
> desire to end our current involvement in Iraq as “hoping for a
> loss and humiliation...” One needs to come to the understanding
> that our “loss and humiliation” comes first from our attempt to
> occupy Iraq in the first place.

you're mis-characterizing what I'm saying. If we're humiliated in
Iraq, it's because it's in the cards that were dealt to us decades
ago, certainly by 1947 when President Truman enunciated the Truman
Doctrine. Nothing that George Bush or Al Gore could have changed
that.

But I still feel that members of Congress have a professional and
ethical obligation to act in America's best interest. So, for
example, when Senator Joe Biden goes on Meet the Press and spends the
better part of an hour saying one unbelievably stupid thing after
another, and says things that imply that he's betting his career on
America's loss and humiliation in Iraq, it really pisses me off.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070429#e070429

(Incidentally, on this morning's Meet the Press, Bill Richardson was
the guest, and Tim Russert challenged almost everything he said.
This is in stark contrast to Russert's automatically accepting every
stupid, moronic thing that Biden said. Why is that?)

On this morning's ABC news talk show, conservative Silent commentator
George Will put it as follows, in response to a question about the war
funding bill that passed:

Originally Posted by George Will

> The tail wagging this dog is MoveOn.org and all that it
> represents. Moveon.org happens to be right. That's not a
> sentence I use often.

> They're right -- they're correct as a matter of constitutional
> fact -- that the Democrats could stop the war if they chose.
> They choose not to.

> But, a majority of House Democrats, including the Speaker, are
> now against funding the war in Iraq. That means that they are
> heavily invested in Petraeus failing.

Will stopped right there, but you could tell from his face how angry
he is. Will is absolutely right and it infuriates me and a lot of
other people. This is ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL behavior by
Congressional politicians, and, in my opinion, it borders right on the
edge of treason.

There are lots of ways to to oppose the Bush administration without
this kind of disgraceful behavior. Carl Levin, a Silent Democrat,
has led the way in this. He's opposed to Bush and war as anyone is,
but he expresses his opposition responsibly.

That's the way I feel about most of what I hear the Democrats saying
today. There are responsible Democrats, and they're not happy
either. Lawrence Kaplan, a senior editor at the liberal,
pro-Democratic opinion magazine, <i>The New Republic</i>, wrote an
article entitled "Congressional leaders are illiterate on Iraq," in
which he basically reached the following conclusions about the
Democrats in Congress: They're morons; they go out of their way to
avoid learning anyting; they make up any "fact" they want as they go
along, since they don't know anything; and they couldn't care less
what happens in Iraq, since they just want votes.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070502#e070502

I think America deserves better than that.

I should point out that working on my web site has put me a bit ahead
of most Americans. After the Regeneracy, most Americans will have
exactly the same attitude I have today. And I almost always avoid
political predictions, but I'll make this one: The Democrats are
going to be screwed for their disgraceful behavior right now, just as
Hoover was screwed for saying, "Prosperity is just around the
corner."

In my next posting I'll return to your arguments about GGs.

Sincerely,

John

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

A model for coming World War scenarios

Dear Bob,

Now let me turn to your arguments about GGs:

Originally Posted by salsabob

> However, you have other conclusions that suggest that you haven’t
> fully embraced the fullness of the GG threat. For example, China
> is extremely vulnerable to the emergence of GGs and the Chinese’s
> headlong plunge into capitalism for the masses while maintaining
> them within a political authoritarian straightjacket makes the
> rise of the GG s there nearly inevitable.

It's true that I see the threat from terrorism -- alone -- as being
less serious than you do, but that's a relative concept. Compared to
a real 4T war, the "war on terror" is nothing. A few trade centers
knocked down, a few night clubs and subways blown up -- those are
horrible acts, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, but
they're nothing compared to the coming world war that will kill
BILLIONS of people. Relatively speaking, the threat from terrorism
alone is minuscule compared to what's coming.

The fact is that I can't even imagine a scenario that leads to a 4T
war without nations being at war with nations. Certainly nothing
like that is going to happen in Iraq, as you seem to be implying.
The Iraqis simply want to expel al-Qaeda and then expel America.
They do not want a war.

In the case of China, as I discussed at length in my last posting,
any number of events might trigger a national panic in China right
now. The mood is right, and conditions are right. Some kind of
chaotic event on the part of America or Japan or Taiwan or Tibet or
India or al-Qaeda could be the trigger that historians will "blame"
as the "cause" of the war.

A war could also be triggered any day now in the Mideast. I
mentioned in my last posting that if last summer's Israeli war had
occurred with Lebanon in a Crisis Era instead of an Awakening Era,
then Lebanon would have retaliated, and the world war would probably
have begun already.

But Gaza IS in a Crisis era, and the level of violence has been
escalating every day recently. This could spiral out of control any
day now.

We already have a crisis civil war going on in Darfur, and the Sri
Lanka civil war is escalating into a crisis war.

But there's another important point that you're overlooking, and it's
something that few people are even aware of.

As world population has continued to increase, and since the gains
from the 1960s "green revolution" petered out in the 1990s, food per
capita has been decreasing, and the price of food has been increasing
dramatically around the world.

Around the world there are "megacities," each containing tens of
millions of people with no access to farmland. Families in poverty in
those cities often survive by foraging in large garbage dumps for
scraps of food left over by people who can afford to buy food. As
population continues to increase, this problem of megacities will
multiply. These problems have occurred in cycles throughout human
history, and have gotten many times worse in the last two centuries
because medical discoveries have lowered the infant mortality rate
from 40-50% to 1-2%. That's why, for example, the death rate (as
percentage of population) was ten times higher in WW II than it was in
the Napoleonic wars.

We're approaching the Clash of Civilizations world war, at a time
when infant mortality has fallen far, leading to masses of people who
are packed by the millions into large megacities, in a fragile world
where any economic dislocation can cause mass starvation, creating
huge pools of young men ready for war.

Here's where you see the real power of GGs and terrorists. Terrorist
acts can inflame populations, and when you have a huge mass of young
men who can't feed their families and have to forage for food in
garbage dumps, then they have nothing to lose by spontaneous riots,
civil wars, or external wars. At least when you're in an army, you
get fed and you get paid with money you can send back to your family.

And one of the largest megacities in the world is Mexico City, the
capital of Mexico, with some 20 million people. A major financial
crisis will strike Mexico very hard (as well as many other countries
with poverty-stricken megacities). Generational Dynamics predicts that
Mexico is headed soon for a new civil war along the
European/indigenous fault line, and that this civil war will spill
over into the southwestern U.S., especially in California where 1/3 of
the population is Mexican.

It's impossible to predict the precise scenario that will lead to the
coming world war, but I do have a model that I've never posted before
that provides a framework for generating possible scenarios.

Let's start with the following hierarchy of world events:

• Level 5 - World War. The Clash of Civilizations world war.
  
• Level 4 - One or two regional wars. A civil war, or a
  nation vs nation war, but confined to a single region.
  
• Level 3 - Sustained low-level violence. Guerrilla warfare,
  a series of terrorist attacks.
  
• Level 2 - Occasional violence or terrorism. A riot in
  Watts, or bomb in a college science lab.
  
• Level 1 - Political conflict. This is typical of Awakening
  eras across generational (horizontal) lines. We're seeing it today
  as well, but across fault (vertical) lines. Also, larges masses of
  population in poverty versus a fault line separating them from
  élite well-fed market-dominant people, usually of a different
  religion or ethnicity.
  
• Level 0 - Era of good feeling. Everyone gets along with
  everyone.

Now, the things you're talking about with GGs are around Level 2 or
Level 3.

Here's the point you're missing: During Crisis Eras (fourth
turnings), chaotic surprises push events UP to higher levels. This
is the opposite of an Awakening era, for example, where chaotic
surprises push events DOWN to lower levels.

The reason that most people don't realize or understand that chaotic
surprise push events UP to higher levels is because they haven't seen
it in their lifetimes. This is exactly the point that Strauss and
Howe made when they say that "some sparks flare and then vanish, while
others touch off firestorms out of any proportion to the sparks
themselves." This is precisely the argument that sparks are chaotic
events (in the sense of Chaos Theory), and these chaotic events can,
during a Crisis Era, move events up to higher levels during a Crisis
Era.

So if we want to develop a scenario leading to the Clash of
Civilizations world war, we can select from menu of events at each of
the six levels, and show how that escalation might occur.

Let's look at the menu of some of the elements:

• Level 1 - Political conflict. America, UK, Israel,
  Palestinians, France, Turkey, China, and other countries that fought
  in WW II as a crisis war are politically paralyzed today, as the
  Artist generation has disappeared. Leaders in these countries can no
  longer govern, but can only whine and complain.
  
• Level 2 - Occasional violence or terrorism. America 9/11,
  UK 7/7, Madrid 3/7, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Russia and other
  countries have had occasional terrorist acts. France had riots in
  2005 by Muslim youth, and then in 2006 by ethnic French youth
  responding to the Muslims. China has tens of thousands of regional
  riots each year.
  
• Level 3 - Sustained low-level violence. This is mainly
  al-Qaeda and, to a lesser extent, Hizbollah, in countries around the
  world. Other guerrilla wars are occurring in Africa and Latin
  America.
  
• Level 4 - One or two regional wars. Darfur is the only
  regional crisis war going on in the world today, though the Sri Lanka
  civil war is getting close.

Now, this list provides a model for coming up with scenarios for the
coming world war. All you have to do is select an event from one of
the levels, and then imagine a chaotic "spark" that might escalate
the event up to higher levels.

For example, start with the political conflict (Level 1) in
Venezuela. Hugo Chávez is shutting down a popular TV station, and
yesterday there were huge anti-government demonstrations in Caracas.
http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-27-voa2.cfm

Let's imagine that these demonstrations begin to involve violence
(Level 2). This leads to a clash between al-Qaeda cells and
Hizbollah cells in Caracas. This leads to a sympathy conflict
between Sunni and Shia group within Iran. These conflicts die out,
because Iran is in an Awakening era, but they spread to Pakistan,
which is in a Crisis Era. The level of violence continues to
increase in Pakistan, leading to an increased level of terrorist
attacks (Level 3). The government of Pakistan becomes increasingly
unstable, causing a civil war between different ethnic groups in
Pakistan. The civil war between these ethnic groups spreads to the
same ethnic groups in India, destabilizing the government there. The
conflict spreads to Kashmir, leading to a ground war between India and
Pakistan (Level 4). China threatens to come in on the side of
Pakistan, causing Russia to threaten to come in on the side of India.
Either Pakistan or India uses a nuclear weapon, bringing China and
Russia into the war (Level 4.5). Other countries in the region are
forced to choose sides, and eventually the U.S. is pulled into the war
(Level 5).

Now of course that scenario is far-fetched, but so is every scenario,
and one of these far-fetched scenarios will lead to world war. You
can come up with other possible scenarios just mixing and matching
events, just like the word magnet game.
http://www.worldvillage.com/kidz/puzzles/scramble.htm

The crisis civil war in Darfur has not spread to other regions
because there are no relevant interlocking treaties. (I'm ignoring
Chad and Central African Republic in this statement.) As far as I
know, the same is true of the escalating Sri Lanka civil war.

I've identified six regions on my web site where interlocking
treaties will cause a regional war to spread to a world war. These
are: Western Europe, Mideast (Arab/Israeli), Russia Caucasus, Kashmir
(India/Pakistan), China, North Korea. In addition, I've identifed
two major non-war events that could trigger world war: a global
financial crisis and a bird flu epidemic.

Acts of terror alone, as horrible as they are, do not constitute a 4T
war in any sense that I'm aware of. However, they're an important
part of almost any scenario leading to the Clash of Civilizations
world war.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

A model for coming World War scenarios

Dear Bob,

Now let me turn to your arguments about GGs:



It's true that I see the threat from terrorism -- alone -- as being
less serious than you do, but that's a relative concept. Compared to
a real 4T war, the "war on terror" is nothing. A few trade centers
knocked down, a few night clubs and subways blown up -- those are
horrible acts, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, but
they're nothing compared to the coming world war that will kill
BILLIONS of people. Relatively speaking, the threat from terrorism
alone is minuscule compared to what's coming.

I don't think even a nuclear world war will kill billions a chinese exchange with india, japan or the US will only kill hundreds of millions at most, mostly in china or india. The chinese pakistani and indian nuclear arsenals are simply too small. In order for such a death toll a war would have to include a US-russian nuclear exchange (highly unlikely, more likely US, and russia would be allies).

If a World war does occur it would most likely be preceded by following events:

1) A great depression style economic collapse, which lasts several years.

2) Roosevelt, stalin, hitler style leaders (GC's) institute large scale military and/or economic buildups to counter economic collapse, this would also last several years.

3) division of the world into factional alliances. The formation of a formal anti-western alliance would most likely occur during this phase.

4) Outbreak of regional wars (similar to spanish civil war, 1937 japanese invasion of china.)

5) Deterioration of relations between factions as a result of regional war.

6) Spark leads to outbreak of open war (similar to poland 1939)

7) Last ditch peace efforts fail, war is limited at first, as opposing factions are initially hesitant, however a growing realization that the war being fought is a total one leads to mobilization of population. Neutral nations are pulled into war. War would most likely coalesce into a two sided conflict.

8) eventually one side gains the strategic advantage over the other.

9) Nuclear war if it does occur would most likely occur when one side percieves that defeat is inevitable and unavoidable.

Also if a catastrophic world war does occur. I don't think that whats left of the participants will suddenly decide "lets be friends" when it ends like you do. Most likely would be mashalling of the remainder of resources in order to prepare for round 2 (most likely 30 or 40 years after the end of the first war).

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

And one of the largest megacities in the world is Mexico City, the
capital of Mexico, with some 20 million people. A major financial
crisis will strike Mexico very hard (as well as many other countries
with poverty-stricken megacities). Generational Dynamics predicts that
Mexico is headed soon for a new civil war along the
European/indigenous fault line, and that this civil war will spill
over into the southwestern U.S., especially in California where 1/3 of
the population is Mexican.

I'm sure you've addressed this question before, but shouldn't Mexico have had this civil war about 10 years ago? Certainly all the ingredients were there: no 4T since the Revolution, which had ended >70 years earlier, increasing economic divide, decay of old PRI political order, mounting unrest in the South...it was all there, and yet all that happened was the party in power imploded. The scariest event was the Zapatista Rebellion, whose casualties were few and whose political effect was only one to confirm national dissatisfaction with the political structure. Mexico run by the PAN is no less racially divided, no less economically unsound, and only slightly less corrupt than it was run by the PRI.

So where was Mexico's crisis war in the 1990s, and if it was simply delayed and is still coming, why is President Calderon so popular? (Check the polls) Every 4T country I look at is getting antsy and impatient with its leaders, from the U.S. to Britain to Italy to Israel to Japan to Turkey...

I did a research paper about Mexico in late March, in which I learned a lot about Mexican history, and I am still bothered by this inconsistency. Before the 1980s, Mexican history followed very clear turnings.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If a World war does occur it would most likely be preceded by following events:

1) A great depression style economic collapse, which lasts several years...

I don't really see anyone thinking in terms of old style 2GW conquering the world. Insurgency and WMDs have just changed the nature of warfare too much. [irony] Conquering the world just isn't as easy today as it was for Napoleon or Hitler. [/irony]

The United States is spending as much money on their military as the rest of the world combined, and we are struggling to pacify Afghanistan and Iraq.

China is the other major power starting to throw more than a little money into their armed forces. While they might plausibly go expansionist, they have an escalating internal spiral of violence. Between environmental problems, corrupt government, seizures of land from the common working people to enrich their new capitalist class, and objections to family planning, I really think they are due for an internal transformation rather than starting a Hitleresque program of serial unilateral preemptive invasions.

In short, there is too much focus about on refighting the last crisis. Focus on today's problems rather than anticipating the last crisis will repeat. We already addressed the problems that surfaced in the last crisis.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't really see anyone thinking in terms of old style 2GW conquering the world. Insurgency and WMDs have just changed the nature of warfare too much. [irony] Conquering the world just isn't as easy today as it was for Napoleon or Hitler. [/irony]

The United States is spending as much money on their military as the rest of the world combined, and we are struggling to pacify Afghanistan and Iraq.

China is the other major power starting to throw more than a little money into their armed forces. While they might plausibly go expansionist, they have an escalating internal spiral of violence. Between environmental problems, corrupt government, seizures of land from the common working people to enrich their new capitalist class, and objections to family planning, I really think they are due for an internal transformation rather than starting a Hitleresque program of serial unilateral preemptive invasions.

In short, there is too much focus about on refighting the last crisis. Focus on today's problems rather than anticipating the last crisis will repeat. We already addressed the problems that surfaced in the last crisis.

I agree that china is most likely going to have an internal crisis. China's crisis eras usually are internal in nature. Also chinese military tradition does not indicate an expansionist tendency unlike japan's was.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I agree that china is most likely going to have an internal crisis. China's crisis eras usually are internal in nature. Also chinese military tradition does not indicate an expansionist tendency unlike japan's was.

That's due to their huge population.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

War with China

IMHO, I think it is more likely that China will simply collapse into warloardism, ecological disaster, and class war then get into a war with us. The whole country is becoming a disgusting, polluted, garbage dump and the peasants are starting to get POed.

Originally Posted by 1990

I'm sure you've addressed this question before, but shouldn't Mexico have had this civil war about 10 years ago? Certainly all the ingredients were there: no 4T since the Revolution, which had ended >70 years earlier, increasing economic divide, decay of old PRI political order, mounting unrest in the South...it was all there, and yet all that happened was the party in power imploded. The scariest event was the Zapatista Rebellion, whose casualties were few and whose political effect was only one to confirm national dissatisfaction with the political structure. Mexico run by the PAN is no less racially divided, no less economically unsound, and only slightly less corrupt than it was run by the PRI.

So where was Mexico's crisis war in the 1990s, and if it was simply delayed and is still coming, why is President Calderon so popular? (Check the polls) Every 4T country I look at is getting antsy and impatient with its leaders, from the U.S. to Britain to Italy to Israel to Japan to Turkey...

I did a research paper about Mexico in late March, in which I learned a lot about Mexican history, and I am still bothered by this inconsistency. Before the 1980s, Mexican history followed very clear turnings.

Isn't there a festering crisis in southern Mexico right now?

Some posters have mentioned that northern Mexico might be aligned with the US saeculum-wise while southern Mexico is around 10 years ahead of us and is thus post-regeneracy.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I agree that china is most likely going to have an internal crisis. China's crisis eras usually are internal in nature. Also chinese military tradition does not indicate an expansionist tendency unlike japan's was.

Also, China is an old Universal State. Aren't the major crises of aging universal states mostly internal (like in the Roman civil wars of the 3rd Century AD)?

Originally Posted by Odin

Isn't there a festering crisis in southern Mexico right now?

Some posters have mentioned that northern Mexico might be aligned with the US saeculum-wise while southern Mexico is around 10 years ahead of us and is thus post-regeneracy.

It's possible, but if so, when did the split happen? All of Mexico was 4T during the Revolution. All of Mexico was 1T during Cardenas' reign -- note that Mexico was actually in a Renaissance of sorts during the 1930s while its northern neighbors scrimped -- and all the ensuing reforms that created El Milagro Mexicano. All of Mexico was 2T during the growing student movement of the 1950s (which was born out of dissatisfaction with the corrupt mordida-reliant Nomad- and Hero-led PRI social structure) and through Tlatelolco in 1968. And all of Mexico appeared to be unraveling through the 1970s and early 1980s with increased dissatisfaction, division (especially within PRI party ranks), and apathy (the 1976 election was almost totally ignored by the Mexican public amid a splintering political order).

Indeed, Mexico is a TEXTBOOK case of the S&H saeculum...until the mid-1980s. At that point a 4T should have come for the entire country. Indeed, the PRI rank-and-file saw this coming, which is why they voted to allow, at least in name, multiparty opposition in the 1988 election. Then that election was rigged, and the anger over it (which was comparable at the very least to the anger after Florida 2000) should have been enough to at least foreshadow a very ugly 4T. But nothing. Instead, a small-scale rebellion happens in the South, the economy goes through a rough patch, and the PRI decays, leading to the ascension of the almost-equally technocratic and corrupt PAN. No regeneracy. No climax. No resolution. No fundamental change in how Mexican society works and sees itself. Hence, no 4T.

Now, maybe the South did have a 4T which is close to climaxing, but if so, it should be a lot more evident! There is no large-scale revolt, revolution, rebellion, uprising, war, struggle, whatever in Mexico right now -- not even in Chiapas, home of the 1994 rebellion and favorite meeting place for radicals. And while tensions are building all over the country, you'd think the process would be much further along.

I just don't get it. You have a country on a clear saeculum, and then suddenly the saeculum stalls. If the country is simply polarized regionally by turning, then some civil war or revolt in the South should be international news every day, on at least the same level as Darfur is in the public conscience. But there is no such war or revolt. And even if there was a regional split, when did it happen and why?

Maybe Mexico had a safety valve to the North?

Pat from Los Estados Unidos

Originally Posted by 1990

I just don't get it. You have a country on a clear saeculum, and then suddenly the saeculum stalls. If the country is simply polarized regionally by turning, then some civil war or revolt in the South should be international news every day, on at least the same level as Darfur is in the public conscience. But there is no such war or revolt. And even if there was a regional split, when did it happen and why?

While I'm into S&H style cycle theory, I would not assume it is the dominant mechanism in human history. The question is whether at the grass roots the risks involved in creating anarchy are perceived of as necessary. Is there a belief that the new government created will be less corrupt than the old? Is the situation perceived of as so bad that going through chaos is perceived of as a desirable path?

Mexico and China went through some extremely ugly times in prior crises. While the cultures are fundamentally flawed, I could quite understand the populations being reluctant to return to civil war and revolution. China does seem to have an escalating internal spiral of violence. Mexico, not so much. I would tend to agree that cycle theory suggests that if it is going to happen it ought to be happening at about this point.

But each crisis solves the most dire problems facing a country. At some point might the problems left unsolved be easier to live with than a revolution or civil war?

And might that be an element of why we are having an extended 3T / 4T cusp here in the United States? Is it easier to let the Supreme Court steal the presidency than to join massed mobs pouring into Washington DC to storm the buildings that are symbols of national power?

We too could fizzle out.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But we actually have an excellent example to look at last summer: Israel's war against Hizbollah in Lebanon. This is almost a textbook example of what can happen.

The "sparks" were, first, the abduction of an Israeli soldier by Hamas, and then the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah near the Lebanon border.

Now, Israeli soldiers had been abducted before; it was nothing new. But Israel's response this time was entirely new. Israel panicked and went to full-scale war against Hizbollah within FOUR HOURS, with no plan and no achievable objective.

I read that one entirely differently. From the short time to kick off to the way Bush backed Israel right from the start, Israel's attack was pre-planned, in the can, waiting for an excuse to launch.

I don't disagree that small sparks might trigger excessively large reactions, but this is just a poor example. Hizbollah has a doctrine to cause regular sparks for morale and political reasons. Last summer, Israel and the US administration thought escalating the conflict would be a good idea. The were attempting to force Lebanon to police the border, and try to draw in international peace keeping forces to help Lebanon police the border. The military operation was planned in advance to create a deliberate political result. It didn't work. The European powers simply didn't want to reward Israel for behaving badly by putting their own people into harm's way. The whole operation was clumsy in that Israel and the USA were clearly working together towards a pre-planned diplomatic result. The Europeans potential peace keepers were being coerced rather than being persuaded, and declined to bite. The result? Lots of people died. Tactically, things went back to the status quo of small sparks. Politically, the US and Israeli establishments lost popularity and influence.

The Americans were trying similar aggressive firefighting tactics in Iraq at about the same time, with a similar lack of results.

If one is looking for a moral to the story, one might suppose that where great imbalance of wealth exists, the establishment ought not to be surprised by small sparks. Escalation, responding to small sparks with larger aggressive actions, doesn't work very well in the modern era against 4GW opponents.

If such wisdom were to become persuasive, that escalation isn't cost effective given modern tactics and weaponry, does the basic thesis that conflicts escalate during a 4T hold as necessarily true? At the moment, the United States is spending as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. With this investment, we can't pacify Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest of the world has already figured out that war of aggression isn't profitable anymore. For the most part, they are declining to play the game. If Operation Iraqi Freedom continues along current trends, the US might possibly figure this out as well.

Such a shift in the common wisdom would be a distinct change from prior crises. To the extent that Generational Dynamics is a 'glorified war cycle theory,' its predictions based on observations of eras when war of aggression was considered cost effective, the theory might well fall apart entirely in the modern era.

Originally Posted by 1990

It's possible, but if so, when did the split happen? All of Mexico was 4T during the Revolution. All of Mexico was 1T during Cardenas' reign -- note that Mexico was actually in a Renaissance of sorts during the 1930s while its northern neighbors scrimped -- and all the ensuing reforms that created El Milagro Mexicano. All of Mexico was 2T during the growing student movement of the 1950s (which was born out of dissatisfaction with the corrupt mordida-reliant Nomad- and Hero-led PRI social structure) and through Tlatelolco in 1968. And all of Mexico appeared to be unraveling through the 1970s and early 1980s with increased dissatisfaction, division (especially within PRI party ranks), and apathy (the 1976 election was almost totally ignored by the Mexican public amid a splintering political order).

Indeed, Mexico is a TEXTBOOK case of the S&H saeculum...until the mid-1980s. At that point a 4T should have come for the entire country. Indeed, the PRI rank-and-file saw this coming, which is why they voted to allow, at least in name, multiparty opposition in the 1988 election. Then that election was rigged, and the anger over it (which was comparable at the very least to the anger after Florida 2000) should have been enough to at least foreshadow a very ugly 4T. But nothing. Instead, a small-scale rebellion happens in the South, the economy goes through a rough patch, and the PRI decays, leading to the ascension of the almost-equally technocratic and corrupt PAN. No regeneracy. No climax. No resolution. No fundamental change in how Mexican society works and sees itself. Hence, no 4T.

Now, maybe the South did have a 4T which is close to climaxing, but if so, it should be a lot more evident! There is no large-scale revolt, revolution, rebellion, uprising, war, struggle, whatever in Mexico right now -- not even in Chiapas, home of the 1994 rebellion and favorite meeting place for radicals. And while tensions are building all over the country, you'd think the process would be much further along.

I just don't get it. You have a country on a clear saeculum, and then suddenly the saeculum stalls. If the country is simply polarized regionally by turning, then some civil war or revolt in the South should be international news every day, on at least the same level as Darfur is in the public conscience. But there is no such war or revolt. And even if there was a regional split, when did it happen and why?

You probably wouldn't have been impressed with England's 4T during the 1860s, either, but it still happened. At least one professional historian has found the Hero, Artist, and Prophet generations that resulted from it.

FWIW, I interpret the events differently than you do. The economic rough patch and southern rebellion--social moment. Allowing effective multiparty elections--regeneracy. Collapse of the PRI and replacement by PAN--climax. The results may be a disappointment to you, but they're still results and still interpretable as 4T events.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

While I'm into S&H style cycle theory, I would not assume it is the dominant mechanism in human history.

Of course it is.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

You probably wouldn't have been impressed with England's 4T during the 1860s, either, but it still happened. At least one professional historian has found the Hero, Artist, and Prophet generations that resulted from it.

FWIW, I interpret the events differently than you do. The economic rough patch and southern rebellion--social moment. Allowing effective multiparty elections--regeneracy. Collapse of the PRI and replacement by PAN--climax. The results may be a disappointment to you, but they're still results and still interpretable as 4T events.

Not a lot I can make out this post, but what the heck, cool, let's doom the naysayers that dominate the the S&H theory!

Uh, not. Doom and gloom always wins every time. Bush sucks, and any Democrat will do just fine.

Originally Posted by 1990

It's possible, but if so, when did the split happen? All of Mexico was 4T during the Revolution. All of Mexico was 1T during Cardenas' reign -- note that Mexico was actually in a Renaissance of sorts during the 1930s while its northern neighbors scrimped -- and all the ensuing reforms that created El Milagro Mexicano. All of Mexico was 2T during the growing student movement of the 1950s (which was born out of dissatisfaction with the corrupt mordida-reliant Nomad- and Hero-led PRI social structure) and through Tlatelolco in 1968. And all of Mexico appeared to be unraveling through the 1970s and early 1980s with increased dissatisfaction, division (especially within PRI party ranks), and apathy (the 1976 election was almost totally ignored by the Mexican public amid a splintering political order).

Indeed, Mexico is a TEXTBOOK case of the S&H saeculum...until the mid-1980s. At that point a 4T should have come for the entire country. Indeed, the PRI rank-and-file saw this coming, which is why they voted to allow, at least in name, multiparty opposition in the 1988 election. Then that election was rigged, and the anger over it (which was comparable at the very least to the anger after Florida 2000) should have been enough to at least foreshadow a very ugly 4T. But nothing. Instead, a small-scale rebellion happens in the South, the economy goes through a rough patch, and the PRI decays, leading to the ascension of the almost-equally technocratic and corrupt PAN. No regeneracy. No climax. No resolution. No fundamental change in how Mexican society works and sees itself. Hence, no 4T.

Now, maybe the South did have a 4T which is close to climaxing, but if so, it should be a lot more evident! There is no large-scale revolt, revolution, rebellion, uprising, war, struggle, whatever in Mexico right now -- not even in Chiapas, home of the 1994 rebellion and favorite meeting place for radicals. And while tensions are building all over the country, you'd think the process would be much further along.

I just don't get it. You have a country on a clear saeculum, and then suddenly the saeculum stalls. If the country is simply polarized regionally by turning, then some civil war or revolt in the South should be international news every day, on at least the same level as Darfur is in the public conscience. But there is no such war or revolt. And even if there was a regional split, when did it happen and why?

Forget the split. It makes no sense. I could only imagine it happening during a crisis.

Personally, I think people should be more open to the concept of a fifth turning.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Of course it is.

Woe is he who tries to pigeonhole history into a mechanistic straitjacket.