Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Objections to Generational Dynamics - Page 94







Post#2326 at 06-10-2007 12:49 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-10-2007, 12:49 PM #2326
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Tristan,

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
> I know online a young guy from Venezuela, what he describes about
> his country sounds a lot like a country currently in a third
> turning, complete with a demogue midlife prophert leader (Hugo
> Chavez)
I agree with this completely. I've been writing about Venezuela on
my web site, and they really do fit the Unraveling paradigm.

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
> Much to Xenakis credit China is going to head for an economic
> collapse soon, which will most likely trigger the 4T. The ruining
> of the Chinese economy will release all hell in China. Revolution
> or maybe Civil War could be likely. ... Sorry my bad, I was
> meant to say I give Mr. Xenakis credit for predicting China's
> forthcoming economic collpase.
Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for not blaming me for China's
woes after all!

Interestingly enough, I do get occasional e-mail messages accusing me
of things like causing a stock market crash or causing a war. Gee, I
wish I had that much power.

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
> However I feel Japan is nowhere near a 4T, I've researched
> Japanese history to some extent and they are either now at the end
> of an awakening or beginning of an unraveling. The current
> Japanese Prime Minister is a member of an Artist generation.

> Japan does have a prophet generation, but they fill more or less
> the cohorts where the X'ers are, the name for their generation is
> the 'New Humans'. Interestingly they have rejected the conformist
> salaryman lifestyle which was a part of Japanese society in the
> 70's and 80's, questioned established values, experimenting with
> new lifestyles and spirituality (many of that generation say their
> childhoods were a spiritual void.
In 2005, the Wall Street Journal had a front page article saying that
Japan was becoming more assertive and confrontational, and giving
generational reasons. I wrote an article about it at the time.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...050628#e050628

Also, here's an article on increasing nationalism in Japan and China.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/07/news/sino.php


Here's the full text of the Wall Street Journal article:

Quote Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal
> The Wall Street Journal

> June 28, 2005

> PAGE ONE

> Altered States Breaking Taboos, Japan Redefines Its Role With
> China New Breed of Leaders Sheds Traditional Passiveness And
> Promotes Harder Line A Rap CD's 'Call to Reform'

> By MARTIN FACKLER
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> June 28, 2005

> TOKYO -- Ten years ago, when Chinese navy ships were spotted in
> waters between Japan and China, a newly elected lawmaker named
> Keizo Takemi warned that the Chinese were surveying energy
> resources also claimed by Japan. He was ignored by senior
> colleagues, who said they wanted to keep smooth ties with
> Beijing.

> This year, as China prepares to drill for natural gas below that
> same part of the East China Sea, Japan is reacting very
> differently. Mr. Takemi, now a leader on foreign affairs in
> parliament, put together a response that was surprisingly robust
> by Japanese standards: In March, Tokyo announced it will launch a
> rival drilling effort, to be protected by Japan's high-tech
> military if necessary.

> "Our nation's sovereign rights are at stake," says Mr. Takemi, 53
> years old.

> Relations between Japan and China are at their tensest level in
> decades. One cause has been Chinese outrage over visits by
> Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to a religious shrine
> that commemorates Japan's war dead, including people convicted of
> war crimes against China and other Allied countries. In Japan,
> there has been rising anxiety about China's growing economic and
> political strength. But behind the scenes in Tokyo, another factor
> has also altered ties between Asia's two biggest powers: the
> emergence of a new generation of leaders with new notions about
> Japan's role in the world.

> These younger lawmakers, most in their 40s and 50s, want their
> nation to be more assertive. They are also willing to break old
> taboos about shows of military force, something Japan long avoided
> for fear of conjuring memories of World War II aggression. That's
> a big change from their predecessors, who avoided confrontation
> with China, instead showering it with billions of dollars in
> development aid out of guilt over Japan's brutal 1930s invasion.
> Memories are still raw in China of the Japanese attack, which
> historians say caused fighting and famine that killed millions of
> Chinese civilians.

> The younger lawmakers in the Diet, Japan's parliament, are more
> likely to view China as a rival than a former war victim. Many
> have vowed to end what they see as their nation's traditional
> kowtowing to China. They have almost shut off the aid spigot, and
> they are pushing Japan to respond more aggressively to perceived
> slights from Beijing.

> A CENTURY OF CONFLICT

> The generational change could eventually lead Japan to shed its
> traditional passiveness in its dealings with the rest of the world
> as well. Many younger lawmakers say they want their country to be
> a more active partner of the U.S., even in military operations
> like Iraq.

> "The younger generation is more willing to voice nationalist
> ideas," says Michael Auslin, a professor specializing in Japanese
> diplomacy at Yale University. "They don't want to come in second
> to China, though they still haven't figured out how to take a
> leadership role."

> The immediate result has been a willingness to challenge China
> that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. When a Chinese
> nuclear attack submarine entered Japanese waters last fall, Tokyo
> chased it with destroyers and aircraft in one of its biggest
> military operations since World War II. When China announced it
> wanted to help build a pipeline to buy Russian oil, Japan suddenly
> offered Moscow a richer deal to try to win the oil for itself. In
> April, as Chinese protesters stoned Japanese businesses amid
> demands that Japan apologize for its 1930s invasion, Tokyo replied
> with demands of its own that China apologize and pay for the
> damages.

> These more assertive gestures have proven popular with voters
> here, who in recent years have shifted noticeably toward the right
> and a more nationalistic stand in foreign affairs. A big reason
> for the shift is fear and envy of China, whose roaring export
> engine seems to be stealing jobs at a time of economic uncertainty
> for Japan.

> The amount of Chinese-made goods flowing into Japan has tripled
> since 1995, a time when Japan's overall growth was flat because of
> a stubborn banking crisis and glut in factory capacity.

> The younger lawmakers say they don't want to paint China as an
> enemy, but want to redefine the relationship to reflect the
> realities of China's rapid economic and political emergence.
> Unlike their predecessors, who left the details of foreign policy
> to the mandarins in Japan's powerful bureaucracy, these younger
> lawmakers are taking policy into their own hands, drawing up
> strategies and legislation. Also unlike their predecessors, who
> followed a traditional career path through Japan's education
> system, many hold graduate degrees from top U.S. universities, and
> have adopted a more outspoken American political style.

> "A new breed has appeared in the Diet," says Ichita Yamamoto, a
> 47-year-old upper house member who studied under former U.S.
> Secretary of State Madeleine Albright while earning a master's in
> foreign policy at Georgetown University in the early 1980s. "We
> have no illusions about China. China is an economic opportunity,
> but it is also a threat."

> Mr. Yamamoto has emerged as a vocal advocate of a changed
> approach toward China. A thin, energetic man with a boyish face,
> he exemplifies the new style of politics in Tokyo. In 2003, he
> released his own CD, titled "Reform Songs," on which he sings rap
> songs, including one urging Japan to overcome the past and build a
> new relationship with the rest of Asia. "A call to reform that I
> want to heed!" says an endorsement on the CD's cover by Prime
> Minister Koizumi.

> "Japan has been too wishy-washy in foreign affairs," says Mr.
> Yamamoto. "It's OK to clash with other countries when necessary."

> When he was first elected to the Diet in 1995, the older
> generation of parliamentarians left policymaking largely to the
> Foreign Ministry, which was dominated by "China School" diplomats
> who had built their careers on maintaining wrinkle-free ties with
> China. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party's Foreign Affairs
> Division, a committee of lawmakers, was a sleepy affair in which
> ministry diplomats showed up to explain their policies to a
> half-dozen Diet members.

> Then, starting in the late 1990s, a series of spats erupted with
> China, including one in 2002 when Chinese military police entered
> a Japanese consulate to seize North Korean defectors. That served
> as a wake-up call to the Japanese public about China's rise. More
> and more young lawmakers grew critical of traditional China policy
> as voters in their districts voiced anger at Chinese actions,
> lawmakers say.

> By 2000, debates were heating up at the LDP's foreign-affairs
> committee, held about once a week at party headquarters in
> central Tokyo during the fall budget-writing season, say Mr.
> Yamamoto and others. Soon, the room was packed with as many as 60
> lawmakers, many forced to stand, as they faced half a dozen
> Foreign Ministry officials seated behind a table.

> One hot-button issue was development aid to China, which has
> totaled 3.34 trillion yen, or about $30 billion, since it started
> in 1979. A growing number of lawmakers called for halting the aid,
> saying it was being used to strengthen a rising economic rival and
> potential military threat. They also pointed out that China's
> incomes were on the rise -- though they remain just a fraction of
> Japan's -- and that China had started giving money to other poorer
> countries. But bureaucrats and senior LDP members warned that
> China was still a developing country and cutting aid would hurt
> ties.

> Mr. Yamamoto and others say the tide began to turn in their favor
> as younger lawmakers heavily outnumbered older ones. He recalls
> one meeting last fall when it was clear the consensus of opinion
> among lawmakers in the room, and in the ruling party as a whole,
> had swung in favor of ending most aid to China.

> "Why do we need this for a country that can put up satellites?"
> one lawmaker demanded of the Foreign Ministry officials present.

> Mr. Yamamoto says he warned the bureaucrats against opposing the
> lawmakers: "This is a political decision. Don't try to block us."

> In March, the LDP voted to phase out most aid to China by 2008,
> when Beijing will host the Summer Olympics.

> "Those who opposed development aid to China became more vocal and
> ended up swaying the others against us," said one Foreign
> Ministry official who was present.

> The Foreign Ministry also lost its staunchest supporters with the
> disappearance of the older generation of lawmakers. Now in their
> 60s and 70s, many have retired. Others have fallen victim in
> recent years to a political fight within the ruling party, as
> Prime Minister Koizumi has steadily gained in a struggle for
> control of the LDP against the old guard.

> The dwindling number of older LDP politicians has been left fuming
> on the sidelines. One is Takeshi Noda, 63, a second-generation
> lawmaker who fought to continue aid to China, which he said was
> still needed to assuage Chinese anger over the war.

> Mr. Noda, who first joined the Diet in 1972, the year Japan
> established diplomatic ties with China's communist government,
> says he feels a personal stake in China relations. His father,
> former Diet member Takeo Noda, played a key role in
> re-establishment of relations with Beijing. The elder Mr. Noda
> held talks with Chinese leaders Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai,
> including a secret trip to China during a 1959 border war between
> China and India to try to broker peace, his son says. The younger
> Mr. Noda says he too has made several trips to China, the first in
> 1974.

> "We had to overcome a deep resentment of Japan because of the
> war," Mr. Noda says. "In Chinese, there is a saying: doing
> something hard is like filling a well. My father's generation and
> my generation filled that well." He blames Mr. Koizumi for leading
> a nationalist turn among lawmakers, whom he says are simply
> pandering to public opinion.

> Mr. Koizumi has helped set an antagonistic tone toward China by
> insisting on making annual visits to Yasukuni Shrine in central
> Tokyo, which honors Japanese soldiers fallen in wars since Japan
> emerged from feudalism in the mid-19th century. China, South Korea
> and other former victims of Japanese aggression complain loudly
> because Yasukuni also honors the souls of war criminals executed
> by the Allies after World War II. Outrage over Mr. Koizumi's
> annual visits to Yasukuni was one cause of April's anti-Japanese
> riots in Chinese cities. But Mr. Koizumi persists, partly because
> the visits have proven popular among conservative voters, who make
> up a core support group of the LDP.

> One goal of the new generation of lawmakers has been to wrest
> control of policy from bureaucrats in the Foreign Ministry. Among
> the most successful has been Mr. Takemi, who has emerged as a
> leading voice in the new line toward China. Mr. Takemi's pet issue
> has been the East China Sea, between Shanghai and the Japanese
> island of Okinawa, where both countries make overlapping claims to
> economic rights.

> Mr. Takemi says it wasn't until two years ago that his ideas
> started to get attention in the LDP. In 2003, Mr. Takemi created a
> working group of 26 LDP lawmakers to formulate policy
> recommendations. To lessen dependence on China experts in the
> Foreign Ministry, Mr. Takemi, himself a former professor of
> international affairs who was a visiting scholar at Harvard
> University, added a staff of three university and think-tank
> researchers.

> He says the real wake-up call came last year, when China started
> building an offshore platform in disputed waters to drill for
> natural gas. The platform will start extracting natural gas as
> early as this summer, says builder China National Offshore Oil
> Corp. Japan dispatched its own survey ship to the area, which
> Chinese ships tried to block. Interest in Tokyo was suddenly so
> high that in March, Mr. Takemi led a multipartisan group of 14
> young lawmakers on an inspection of the East China Sea aboard a
> Japanese Coast Guard plane. "When we saw how huge the Chinese
> drilling platform was, we realized we needed to act right away to
> start drilling, too," Mr. Takemi says.

> A week later, he guided the drafting of a three-page "emergency
> proposal" that recommended Japanese drilling. The recommendation
> won quick endorsement by the Koizumi Cabinet, which ordered the
> trade ministry to act on it. Beijing has criticized Japan's
> actions, saying they infringed upon China's sovereignty.

> "In the old days, the bureaucrats drew up policy," Mr. Takemi
> says. "Now, we make the decisions, and they have to implement
> them."

> Write to Martin Fackler at martin.fackler@wsj.com3 URL for this
> article:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...670770,00.html

> Hyperlinks in this Article:
> (1) javascript:window.open('http://online.wsj.com/documents/info-cjconflict0505.html','cjconflict0505','toolbar=no, scrollbars=no,location=no,width=750,height=623,lef t=20,top=0');void('');
> (2) javascript:window.open('http://online.wsj.com/documents/info-cjconflict0505.html','cjconflict0505','toolbar=no, scrollbars=no,location=no,width=750,height=623,lef t=20,top=0');void('');
> (3) mailto:martin.fackler@wsj.com
> Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
> http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...age%5Fone%5Fus
All of this, and other things as well, indicate pretty strongly to me
that Japan is in a fourth turning.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2327 at 06-10-2007 12:51 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-10-2007, 12:51 PM #2327
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Mike,

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
> Empirical methods fall apart

> After my discussion with John about my event density methods, I
> decided to return to the basic task and collect a fresh set of
> data. It is much easier to find stuff on the net today than in
> 2000 and so I felt I could probably find more info. The gold
> standard of the type of data is a long list of relevant events
> that spans many centuries all obtained from a single source whose
> reason for compliing the list has nothing to do with cyclical
> history. THe best database I had found was a list of classical
> composer birthdates. I used it to answer the question, is there a
> saecular pattern to the frequency of composer births. That is, are
> some turnigns more conducive to the study of music and so some
> periods would feature more activity than others? It was easy to
> analyze the composer data and find no regular cycles in composer
> births and no correlation with turnings.

> When I did this analysis with the birth dates of relgious or
> spiritual people (mostly founders of relgious groups like Joseph
> Smith or Roman Catholic saints like St. Francis of Assisi) I did
> find a correlation with the saeculum. There was a statistically
> significant correlation between spirtual people and prophet
> generations.

> I repeated this analysis with a new set of spiritual people. Its
> contains almost all of the previous people plus hundreds of new
> ones, almost all RC saints. My data base now has over 600 names
> and aproaches the size and quality of the composer database. Alas,
> I found no regular cycles and no correlation with the saeculum. It
> is just like the composers. This forces me to take out all the
> saints in my second database of religious spiritual events, that I
> use to identify awakenings. The cycles in this data base no longer
> show the regular cycle nor do they show statistically-significant
> correlation with the saeculum.

> I also re-examined the unrest data I use for social moment
> identification. I assembled a brand new data set taking advantage
> of a few exhaustive sources that list many events of a particular
> type over along period of time. One such resource lists all
> peasant uprisings, broken down by country in Europe over
> 1300-1800. Another source lists important US strikes with hundreds
> of entries. Another lists of slave uprisings, a fourth race riots
> and a fifth list US civil disurbances since the 18th century. This
> data still shows a cyclical structure, but the significance level
> is in the 90% range, it does not exceed the 95% level.

> I now feel very confident of the quality of my event-based
> data--but no longer have any statistically signficant results. The
> results I had obtained with other data sets (alcohol use, crime,
> prices, etc) was always suggestive rather than definitive. With
> the loss of the multicentury religious and unrest correlations I
> am left with a set of correlations over realtively short periods
> of time, none of which rise to 95% condience level, that are
> weakly correlated with each other--but not to the 95% level.

> The joint probability of all these factors lining up the way they
> do is still 99% significant. But cycles and alignment between
> prices, economic output, and unrest can be considered as evidence
> for a Kondratiev cycle, not the saeculum per se. It was the
> saeculum-aligned religious cycle, which would not be expected to
> correlate with economic cycles that created the compelling
> connection between the two cycles. It was the religious data that
> made the crime data cycle relevant, which now it is not.

> Without the religious cycle, most everything I have can be
> considered a K-cycle thing just as easily as a saeculum thing. And
> I don't have to do an inversion of the relation and deal with a
> civil war anomaly if I just drop the saeculum altogther as a
> useful concept. The only benefit to the saeculum has been to allow
> for high stock market values (and kept me in the market longer). A
> purely K-cycle approach would have me much more bearish than I
> actually am. Being bullish has been the right view.

> Having fooled myself into seeing saeculum where there weren't any,
> I wonder whether there is anything to this stuff. Like for
> example, our inability to "see" the 4T. Why is it so hard to see?
> Unless, maybe, there is nothing to see?
I really don't think you should give up this approach, but it has to
be done more rigorously.

For some research it's enough just to count events, but for these
kinds of studies, where data is so variable, individual events have
to be examined. Essentially, there has to be some sort of function or
algorithm that provides a rating to each of the events in the data
set.

How this is done depends on the dataset, but each event has to be
evaluated for how it affected large masses of people. A local labor
strike against the autocratic owner of one company has a completely
different impact than a nationwide strike.

Thus, at a minimum, the following data has to be collected for each
event: (*) The number of people impacted; (*) Geographical region,
as specifically as possible; (*) Time period, as specifically as
possible; (*) Also, information about relevance to class or ethnic
group; (*) also, the bias of the person collecting the information
has to be evaluated, to make sure that he wasn't cherry-picking only
events that supported his political views.

Here are some examples:
  • You mention composer's birth dates as an example. It's hard to
    see how birth dates would correlate, but the popularity of their
    music and the type of music would be relevant.

    For example, we can look at our own last saeculum. The carefree
    music of the Crisis era gave way to the sweet, romantic music of the
    Recovery Era, which gave way to the rebellious music of the Awakening
    Era and the nihilistic music of the Unraveling era.

    Now, maybe music always follows something resembling this same
    pattern: carefree -> romantic -> rebellious -> nihilistic and back to
    carefree. That's worth studying.

    Then, for each composer, find a way to evaluate his music and
    determine when it was most popular. I would expect that to reveal a
    correlation.

    There's one more distinction: In our own saeculum, there was a clear
    distinction between "white" and "black" music. When music is
    associated with particular ethnic group, that should be noted.
  • Saints. It's interesting that there's a correlation between
    Saints and Prophets, though I would want to see that broken down
    geographically.

    It seems to me that the most important thing would be to determine
    the time when the Saint was most popular with the people for whom he
    was working. Here the region and ethnic group are very important, as
    well as the time period.
  • For news events -- strikes, slave uprisings, riots and
    demonstrations -- I believe that the best source would be newspapers,
    when available. The New York Times ( www.nytimes.com ) and the
    Scotsman ( archive.scotsman.com ) have online papers all the way back
    to the first half of the 1800s. The advantage is that each event
    would be collected from a newspaper article that would provide the
    context you would need to evaluate the importance of the event.
  • Events recorded by institutions like government bodies,
    monasteries and universities could be very valuable, provided that
    they can be validated as not having been cherry-picked.


Particular problems arise when combining datasets from different
sources. It can be done, but detailed evaluation becomes important to
determine the relative reliability of different sources.

Finally, it's important to keep different kinds of cycles distinct.
You mention correlations with K-cycles, and that's not surprising.
K-cycles are global cycles, so if you use global datasets, then
they'll correlate. Generational financial crises are global as well.
But generational saeculae / war cycles are regional, and so datasets
have to be broken down by region to find a correlation. Thus, unless
you break down datasets by region, I would expect you to get what you
actually got: correlation to K-cycles and generational financial
cycles, but no correlation to generational saeculae.

You've done so much work on this over so many years, I hope that
you'll take this to the next step.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
> None of these biases exist with the saints. If Awakenings exist
> then the extraordinarily religious people who get canonized would
> be more commonly "doing their saintly thing" during Awakenings.
> The saint data don't have the bias I mentioned above because all
> their "firsts" would have been more than a 1000 years ago. Besides
> the popes don't have the saeculum in mind when they choose people
> to canonize. John Paul II canonized a huge number of people,
> probably more than any other pope (his choices weren't in the
> database in 2000). I rather doubt he he would "cherry pick"
> Prophets by canonizing them preferentially over the other
> archetypes just to make the saeculum come out right. The fact
> appears to be that saints fall more or less equally into all kinds
> of generations. Prophets aren't any more likely to be saints over
> the long stretch of history
I would be careful about this, Mike. It seems to me that Saints
would be very busy during Crisis eras.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2328 at 06-10-2007 12:54 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-10-2007, 12:54 PM #2328
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Bob,

Quote Originally Posted by salsabob View Post
> Sorry for not responding earlier. I sort of lost the thread and
> other threads had an emotional hold over me (i.e., see crosswalk
> vigilante justice under Plame/Treasongate). However, it looks like
> you got some very good responses from others to your thoughtful
> presentations.

> It seems that there is general agreement that internal strife is a
> growing threat within those nation-states nearing or within their
> 4T. Further, there seems to be agreement that these internal
> conflict have or will have significant likelihood of 'bleedover'
> into other nation-states (e.g. Pakistan strife bleeding over into
> India).

> Historically, such bleedover can lead to nation-on-nation conflict
> due to either (1) the perception (real or not) that the other
> nation is supporting the internal strife within the other (e.g.
> Iran's purported support of the Iraqi insurgency) or (2) the
> nation's leadership needing an external enemy to rally unity
> amongst its internal conflicting elements (e.g. China attacking
> Taiwan to unite its population in a common cause).

> As Michael Easton so elegantly stated elsewhere, I too don't count
> on cool heads always prevailing in a 4T, and I do expect that both
> (1) and (2) will more than likely occur. However, I think the
> trend will be an increasing awareness and eventual clear
> understanding that these strategies will be ineffective in
> quailing the internal strife from continuing towards a failed or
> hollowed-out nation-state. We are learning that now in Iraq.

> It is one thing to risk nuclear exchange (with its consequences
> ranging from a failed world economic system to nuclear winter) to
> use these two strategies when they are viewed as helpful, it would
> be something else to use them if they are clearly known to have
> become ineffective.

> Why they will increasingly be seen as ineffective is that the
> nature of the bleedover is not nationalistic, it comes from
> non-state entities driven by religious, tribal or criminal
> motivations. To attack another nation-state for the bleedover will
> be like using the wrong dimensions to solve a problem (sorry, I've
> been helping my son study the balancing of chemical equations).

> Sure China's current desire for Taiwan is nationalistic but the
> internal conflicting forces currently expanding within China are
> not; and the nation-state's charging of Taiwan while it may be
> attempted will not appease those growing internal conflicts.

> What is likely to rip apart Pakistan, religious and tribal fever,
> does not provide any nationalistic basis for attacking India; it
> is driven by a religious hatred of the Hindu that exceeds even
> that toward the West. Would that Muslim hatred of the Hindu be
> eradicated by turning all of Pakistan and much of India into
> radioactive glass? I think not.

> The growing Mexican 5GW that we so far have only seen a mere
> trickle of what is to come is not going to be solved by us
> attacking Mexico. At best, we will need to work with the Mexican
> government to slow the hollowing-out of our nation-states'
> credibility on both sides of the border.

> The coming 5GW that will eventually make Venezuela the next
> Nigeria will have Chavez screaming that it is a Yankee plot (and
> at least initially, it might be ;-), but even if he could do
> something to attack us (and he may foster 5GW in our homeland), it
> won't quail his nation-state from being hollowed out. We, in fact,
> with our huge dependency, will likely try to rescue him.

> Where I see the difference between this 4T and the last is that in
> the last one it was the nation-on-nation conflict that was the
> prime; in this 4T, it will only be relegated to an occasional
> tactic used by non-state entities to hallow-out or eliminate the
> nation-states involved.

> In one of your posts above, you said it doesn't matter
> if-Bush-or-not or what-he-does-or-does-not-in-Iraq. This reminds
> me of the old nature-vs- environment argument where the
> inevitability of the 4T is our nature, our inevitability fate. But
> let's not forget our "environment" influences. Perhaps the 4T is
> inevitable, but certainly its scope, magnitude and most
> importantly, its outcome will be dictated in large measure by the
> actors on the stage.

> It is hard to imagine the intensity of WW2 without being driven at
> least initially by the charismatic personal appeal of Hitler to
> the German people. It is hard to imagine the staying power of the
> Union forces without the personal will of Lincoln, and the same is
> true of George Washington. And the inevitability of the 4T doesn't
> mean it all goes well, just ask King George or Jeff Davis.

> I would prefer, for my inevitable 4T, the best and the brightest.
> Unfortunately ....
We seem to agree pretty much on what's happening today, and some
elements of where we're going, and really only differ in our views of
how far things will go.

As I mentioned in a previous message, you probably think that human
beings observe a norm of decency that would preclude the kinds of
wars that I talk about.

And yet you're very familiar with what's happening in Iraq. You may
even believe that most nations will be as decent as America tries to
be in Iraq.

But instead of thinking of America as the norm after the regeneracy,
think of al-Qaeda as the norm after the regeneracy. Think of the
beheadings and mass murders that al-Qaeda is perpetrating in Iraq,
and go back into all the examples that you gave and assume that
al-Qaeda's behavior will be the norm in all those examples.

Let's take one example that you gave:

Quote Originally Posted by salsabob View Post
> The growing Mexican 5GW that we so far have only seen a mere
> trickle of what is to come is not going to be solved by us
> attacking Mexico. At best, we will need to work with the Mexican
> government to slow the hollowing-out of our nation-states'
> credibility on both sides of the border.
Now, you make this out to be a political problem -- with the right
kind of American diplomacy, and the right kind of Mexican diplomacy,
we can work things out, and everything will be OK again. Oh sure,
there'll be some troubles, perhaps a gunfight or two in Laredo,
Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, but we're all men of the world, and
we'll figure it out.

Well, in that view, exactly what's going to happen to the 20 million
plus people of Mexico City, about 12 million of whom live in slums?

What exactly is your scenario for those people when war causes food
distribution systems to break down completely, and even water may be
unavailable, and disease starts spreading? Do you think that
diplomacy in the middle of a war will settle it all? Or do you
think, as I do, that there will be a massive civil war along the
European/indigenous fault line, and that this war will spread into
southwestern U.S., where some regions have majority Latino
populations, and even other big cities with large Latino populations?

Now, you say that a war with the intensity of WW II requires a
Hitler. Well, who was the Hitler in the American Civil War? Who was
the Hitler in WW I? If you say Lenin, then I could say that the
Hitler in the coming war is bin Laden or possibly even Ahmadinejad,
or perhaps some now quiet warmonger in China. So even if you claim
that some sort of leader is required, why wouldn't there be some new
leader emerging to lead whatever is going to happen?

Quote Originally Posted by salsabob View Post
> Sure China's current desire for Taiwan is nationalistic but the
> internal conflicting forces currently expanding within China are
> not; and the nation-state's charging of Taiwan while it may be
> attempted will not appease those growing internal conflicts.
I agree with this up to the point where one reaches the conclusion
that there won't be a national war between China and U.S. There will
be multiple wars going on at the same time.

In the East (with respect to China): Taiwan + Japan + South Korea +
America versus China + North Korea

In the middle: Massive civil war in different regions of China.

In the West: Secessionist wars involving (mostly Muslim) Xinjiang
province and (mostly Buddhist) Tibet province. Possibly joined by
India and Russia.



Now, I don't claim to have any crystal ball to discern how this will
all pan out. I don't know the relative importance of these three
wars. Maybe Russia won't join in after all, as some people claim.
Maybe central Asian nations or even Mongolia will breach the Great
Wall and invade China. Who knows?

But I claim that we know the final result: Close to a billion dead in
China, and comparable death rates in neighboring Asian countries.

I also don't know where America's forces will be focused. Just as we
fought two separate wars in WW II, we'll have multiple fronts in the
next war. Will we focus on Europe, the Mideast, Southeast Asia, or
China? Or all of the above? I don't know the answer, but I claim
that we know the final result: Tens of millions of American armed
forces dead. Plus: Unknown number of civilians dead thanks to the
Mexican war, terrorist acts and nuclear strikes on American soil.

Quote Originally Posted by salsabob View Post
> In one of your posts above, you said it doesn't matter
> if-Bush-or-not or what-he-does-or-does-not-in-Iraq. This reminds
> me of the old nature-vs- environment argument where the
> inevitability of the 4T is our nature, our inevitability fate. But
> let's not forget our "environment" influences. Perhaps the 4T is
> inevitable, but certainly its scope, magnitude and most
> importantly, its outcome will be dictated in large measure by the
> actors on the stage.
Here I very strongly disagree, and remember that it's not just me
saying this -- the fact that politicians will have no predictable
effect on the course of war is at the heart of BOTH the Fourth
Turning theory and Generational Dynamics.

Look, I can easily imagine two different possible views when
historians look back: (1) Maybe they'll say that America got
involved in the war too quickly, because we were so heavily involved
in Iraq. Or, (2) Maybe they'll say that America was able to end the
war quickly because their forces were preposition in Iraq.

I have no idea which of those views will prevail, and that's exactly
the point. What Bush does or doesn't do in Iraq will have NO
PREDICTABLE EFFECT on what happens in the world war. Maybe it will
be good, or maybe it will be bad. But we don't know today, and it's
impossible for us to know. That's why it's futile to argue about it.

Quote Originally Posted by salsabob View Post
> Perhaps apocalyptic, but I think the simplistic charge is unfair.
> I think John is trying to reach the power brokers and get them
> thinking about cyclical history and all its ramifications. I
> myself would think it beneficial for our power brokers to give
> more thought to history's lessons, whether cyclical or not.

> But, if you accept this as a useful objective, then given that the
> intended audience of power brokers are those in the current
> Administration and in Congress, it is important for John to be as
> simplistic as possible and still get his message across. Further,
> if he does get their attention, he should plan to talk reeeaaallll
> sslllowwww.....
I would point to the following:

Quote Originally Posted by Random House Unabridged Dictionary
> a·poc·a·lyp·tic –adjective

> 1. of or like an apocalypse; affording a revelation or prophecy.

> 2. pertaining to the Apocalypse or biblical book of Revelation.

> 3. predicting or presaging imminent disaster and total
> or universal destruction: the apocalyptic vision of some
> contemporary writers.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apocalyptic
I'm not predicting anything to do with total or universal
destruction. What I'm predicting has happened many times before,
most recently in WW II. What I'm predicting is very ordinary, when
you look at the entire span of human history. It's exactly what makes
the Prophet generation panic -- the belief that what happened before
can't happen again.

Quote Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV
> What has been will be again, what has been done will be done
> again; there is nothing new under the sun. {10} Is there anything
> of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here
> already, long ago; it was here before our time. {11} There is no
> remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will
> not be remembered by those who follow. {12} I, the Teacher, was
> king over Israel in Jerusalem. {13} I devoted myself to study and
> to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy
> burden God has laid on men! {14} I have seen all the things that
> are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing
> after the wind. {15} What is twisted cannot be straightened;
> what is lacking cannot be counted. {16} I thought to myself,
> "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who
> has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of
> wisdom and knowledge." {17} Then I applied myself to the
> understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I
> learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. {18} For with
> much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more
> grief.
Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Last edited by John J. Xenakis; 06-10-2007 at 06:37 PM.







Post#2329 at 06-10-2007 12:59 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-10-2007, 12:59 PM #2329
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Planet of Slums, Mike Davis, 2006 - Excerpts

Code:
Largest slum populations by country:

               Slum %           Number
              urban pop.       (millions)
              ----------       ----------
China           37.8            193.8
India           55.5            158.4
Brazil          36.6             51.7
Nigeria         79.2             41.6
Pakistan        73.6             35.6
Bangladesh      84.7             30.4
Indonesia       23.1             20.9
Iran            44.2             20.4
Philippines     44.1             20.1
Turkey          42.6             19.1
Mexico          19.6             14.7
South Korea     37.0             14.2
Peru            68.1             13.0
USA              5.8             12.8
Egypt           39.9             11.8
Argentina       33.1             11.0
Tanzania        92.1             11.0
Ethiopia        99.4             10.2
Sudan           85.7             10.1
Vietnam         47.4              9.2

These estimates are derived from the 2003 UN-HABITAT case-studies and
other sources. [p. 24]


Accompanying text, pages 23-25:

Indeed, neoliberal capitalism since 1970 has multiplied Dicken's
notorious slum of Tom-all-Alone's in <i>Bleak House</i> by
exponential powers. Residents of slums, while only 6 percent of the
city population of the developed countries, constitute a staggering
78.2 percent of urbanites in the least-developed countries; this
equals fully a third of the global urban population.

According to UN-HABITAT, the world's highest percentages of
slum-dwellers are in Ethiopia (an astonishing 99.4 percent of the
urban population), Chad (also 99.4 percent), Afghanistan (98.5
percent), and Nepal (92 percent). Bombay, with 10 to 12 million
squatters and tenement-dwellers, is the global capital of
slum-dwelling, followed by Mexico City and Dhaka (9 to 10 million
each), and then Lagos, Cairo, Karachi, Kinshasa-Brazzaville, Sao
Paulo, Shanghai, and Delhi (6 to 8 million each).

The fastest growing slums are in the Russian Federation (especially
ex"socialist company towns" dependent on a single, now-closed
industry) and the former Soviet republics, where urban dereliction
has been bred at the same stomach-churning velocity as economic
inequality and civic disinvestment. In 1993 the UN Urban Indicators
Programme reported poverty rates of 80 percent or higher in both Baku
(Azerbaijan) and Yerevan (Armenia). Likewise, the
concrete-and-steel Soviet-era urban core of Ulaanbaatar is now
surrounded by a sea of 500,000 or more impoverished, former
pastoralists living in tents called <i>gors</i>, few of whom manage
to eat more than once a day.

The poorest urban populations, however, are probably found in Luanda,
Maputo, Kinshasa, and Cochabamba (Bolivia), where two-thirds or more
of residents earn less than the cost of their minimum required daily
nutrition. In Luanda, where one quarter of the households have per
capita consumptions of less than 75 cents per day, child mortality
(under five) was a horrifying 320 per thousand in 1993 -- the highest
in the world. [pp. 23-25]

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2330 at 06-10-2007 01:00 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-10-2007, 01:00 PM #2330
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

The Riots in Venezuela

One of the most fascinating recent news stories of the last few weeks
(besides Paris) is the riots in Venezuela. Anyone who wants a flavor
of what antiwar riots in 1960s America were like should take a look
at the pictures that I posted on my web site.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070530#e070530

However, Venezuela is not in an Awakening era -- it's well into its
Unraveling era. Thus, the demonstrations can be more accurate
compared to the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in China in 1989.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...070531#e070531

From a generational point of view, here's what's going on:

The major fault line in Venezuela, as it is throughout Latin America,
is between indigenous peoples ("Amerindians") and those of European
descent. There's been constant political and violent conflict between
these two identity groups that continues to this day. The Europeans
were in full control until Simón Bolívar's War of Independence,
1811-22, that brought the indigenous groups to power, and power has
gone back and forth ever since.

The major fault wars have been:

1811-22 War of Independence
1899-1902 War of a Thousand Days - prolonged civil war
1948-58 La Violencia - civil war (mostly fought in Colombia)

In recent times, you have Venezuela's Prophet generation (like
America's Baby Boomer generation, but 15 years younger today), that
got Chávez into office some years ago as a reaction to the
European-ancestry leadership, as a kind of an Awakening era "velvet
revolution" Awakening climax. But now the fault line is reasserting
itself in the younger Nomad generation, which is now at college age.
The older Prophets really don't care who's running the government --
they just want to have an argument, but they're put off by the
violence. The college-age Nomads are much more bloodthirsty and
willing to slit throats to get what they want. In the normal course
of events, this would lead to another extremely bloody civil war in
the 2015-2025 time frame, but the world war might derail that.

Hugo Chávez has been extremely confrontational with the
anti-government demonstrators, calling them fascist and threatening
reprisals. It's possible that the demonstrations will just peter out,
as often happens in Unraveling eras, but if they continue, then Chávez
will escalate the violence. This would most likely lead to something
that will be remembered as a massacre, like 1989 Tiananmen Square
massacre, and South Korea's 1980 Kwangju massacre. Both of these
massacres occurred during the Unraveling era, so they would have
similar characteristics. If Chávez continues as he has, then someone
is going to get killed, and the word "massacre" will apply.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Last edited by John J. Xenakis; 06-10-2007 at 01:38 PM.







Post#2331 at 06-10-2007 01:57 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-10-2007, 01:57 PM #2331
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
According to multiple analysts I've heard, the cyber attack on
Estonia was so large that it required a lot of resources -- more than
an ordinary hacker or group of hackers could muster.
Huh. Apparently, on the other hand Estonia's Computer Emergency Response Team chief security officer (among others) seems to hold my opinion on the matter over that of your 'analysts'. I wonder, how much do your sources know about hacking? Nothing at all? Evidence seems to point that way...
According to other analysts, polonium can only be obtained from government nuclear institutions.
Those 'analysts' again! Then again Polonium has been available for sale even in toxic quantities for quite some time. In fact, it still is.

How does it feel to get suckered so badly by people who call themselves 'analysts'? Embarrassing, I'd bet.

...especially when you have Putin threatening Europe with missiles.
I suppose you got that from an 'analyst', too? I wonder, did he explain that Putin was mainly simply warning about the dangers of renewing the arms race? The threat is more chronic than acute. And I suppose he also failed to mention to you the follow-up to Putin's statement regarding maintaining the balance? You know, the one where he offered to help the US set up exactly what they said they wanted? It'll be illuminating to see the excuses pulled out to justify turning that offer down...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#2332 at 06-10-2007 02:58 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-10-2007, 02:58 PM #2332
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Justin, I don't think that you would be able to convince john that russia is not aggressive. Just from reading john's posts it is clear that he gets his news entirely from sources like newsmax and worldnetdaily, and that he regard tv news sources as 'fake news'. This is shown by the preposterous claim that in a WW3 countries like china and india would only suffer a few million casualties while western countries would suffer hundreds of millions. When any resonable person would conclude that modern world war would likely have asia and the middle east as the main battefields and that most of the war deaths would occur in those regions, with europe and the western hemisphere emerging relatively intact since they are relatively distant from likely war zones.
Last edited by Cynic Hero '86; 06-10-2007 at 03:07 PM.







Post#2333 at 06-10-2007 03:33 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-10-2007, 03:33 PM #2333
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Most likely given the lower population density in the US and canada and the lack of slum conditions would translate into less casualties per percentage of population than in more crowded eurasian and certain latin american countries. Thus post-crisis america should be more powerful relative to rival power centers than it is today.







Post#2334 at 06-10-2007 03:36 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-10-2007, 03:36 PM #2334
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

As for mexico, the notion of mexico being a major threat is nonsense. Our army would wipe the floor of the mexican forces if they dared to challege the US.







Post#2335 at 06-10-2007 04:02 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-10-2007, 04:02 PM #2335
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
Justin, I don't think that you would be able to convince john that russia is not aggressive. Just from reading john's posts it is clear that he gets his news entirely from sources like newsmax and worldnetdaily, and that he regard tv news sources as 'fake news'. This is shown by the preposterous claim that in a WW3 countries like china and india would only suffer a few million casualties while western countries would suffer hundreds of millions. When any resonable person would conclude that modern world war would likely have asia and the middle east as the main battefields and that most of the war deaths would occur in those regions, with europe and the western hemisphere emerging relatively intact since they are relatively distant from likely war zones.
I think he has some arrogance problems and some circular reasoning going on the causes him to dismiss anything that goes against his glorified war cycle as "fake news" or "dumb Democrats in Congress who don't know what REALLY is going on in Iraq". His "Iraq can't have a civil war" BS being a case in point.

He's an archetypal Boomer in other words.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#2336 at 06-10-2007 04:26 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
06-10-2007, 04:26 PM #2336
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
I'm just really overwhelmed with work these days. Not that I'm unhappy about that -- it's good to have a steady income again, and I really like being a systems programmer again. And I like what's happening with my web site as well.
Great! Cash coming in is always a good thing. And congrats on the success with your site.







Post#2337 at 06-10-2007 08:03 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-10-2007, 08:03 PM #2337
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
Justin, I don't think that you would be able to convince john that russia is not aggressive. Just from reading john's posts it is clear that he gets his news entirely from sources like newsmax and worldnetdaily, and that he regard tv news sources as 'fake news'. This is shown by the preposterous claim that in a WW3 countries like china and india would only suffer a few million casualties while western countries would suffer hundreds of millions. When any resonable person would conclude that modern world war would likely have asia and the middle east as the main battefields and that most of the war deaths would occur in those regions, with europe and the western hemisphere emerging relatively intact since they are relatively distant from likely war zones.

As for mexico, the notion of mexico being a major threat is nonsense. Our army would wipe the floor of the mexican forces if they dared to challege the US.

Most likely given the lower population density in the US and canada and the lack of slum conditions would translate into less casualties per percentage of population than in more crowded eurasian and certain latin american countries. Thus post-crisis america should be more powerful relative to rival power centers than it is today.
You clearly didn't read too carefully and have no idea what you are talking about.







Post#2338 at 06-10-2007 08:06 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-10-2007, 08:06 PM #2338
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

John, why are you so quick to assume Tiananmen Square wasn't an awakening? It was 40 years after the end of the Civil War and I'd always assumed it as the end of the awakening.







Post#2339 at 06-10-2007 08:12 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-10-2007, 08:12 PM #2339
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I think he has some arrogance problems and some circular reasoning going on the causes him to dismiss anything that goes against his glorified war cycle as "fake news" or "dumb Democrats in Congress who don't know what REALLY is going on in Iraq". His "Iraq can't have a civil war" BS being a case in point.

He's an archetypal Boomer in other words.
What fake news?

He's repeatedly said that Democrats match the Republicans in "dumbness." Whether they usurp them probably varies from Congressman to Congressman. Do you really trust their knowledge?

Odin, believe it or not, there are reasonable people who don't think Iraq is in a Civil War. A while back, I posted a poll that showed Iraqis believed it was not a Civil War by a 2:1 margin. I'm not absolutely sure of its validity however, but the numbers are impressive.







Post#2340 at 06-10-2007 11:17 PM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
06-10-2007, 11:17 PM #2340
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
What fake news?

He's repeatedly said that Democrats match the Republicans in "dumbness." Whether they usurp them probably varies from Congressman to Congressman. Do you really trust their knowledge?

Odin, believe it or not, there are reasonable people who don't think Iraq is in a Civil War. A while back, I posted a poll that showed Iraqis believed it was not a Civil War by a 2:1 margin. I'm not absolutely sure of its validity however, but the numbers are impressive.
How's about a Goldilocks solution? Iraq can be in a civil war and still be 2T. See Algeria from 1991-2002. Not all civil wars have that uniquely 4T determination to kill. Some are low-level and sporadic (The Troubles) or chaotic and bloody (Iraq) without the powerful group dynamics of a Crisis.
My Turning-based Map of the World

Thanks, John Xenakis, for hosting my map

Myers-Briggs Type: INFJ







Post#2341 at 06-10-2007 11:20 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
06-10-2007, 11:20 PM #2341
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

My inner statistician speaks

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
A while back, I posted a poll that showed Iraqis believed it was not a Civil War by a 2:1 margin. I'm not absolutely sure of its validity however, but the numbers are impressive.
If you cannot verify the validity of a set of statistics, they should not impress you. For example, I live in South Carolina. If I ask 15000 South Carolinians "what is your favorite state?", the chances are high that South Carolina will be the hands down winner.

Does that mean that South Carolina is America's favorite state? No. My survey measures only one state.

Would such a survey even prove that South Carolinians preferr their own state? Possibily. It would depend on how representitive my sample was of the whole state. Large numbers in a sample population by themselves prove nothing. If I choose my population from one or two counties out of the state's 46, my numbers can only represent those two counties at best.

Again, that "study" does not explain how the Iraqis questioned were selected, nor from what region they were from. If they are all Kurds, then there is a good chance that they feel that there is no civil war for Kurdistan has mostly escaped violence.

In life a lot of people are going to try to sell you crap based on crap numbers. Hopefully, you'll learn to be skeptical the easy way rather than the hard way.







Post#2342 at 06-10-2007 11:35 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-10-2007, 11:35 PM #2342
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
If you cannot verify the validity of a set of statistics, they should not impress you. For example, I live in South Carolina. If I ask 15000 South Carolinians "what is your favorite state?", the chances are high that South Carolina will be the hands down winner.

Does that mean that South Carolina is America's favorite state? No. My survey measures only one state.

Would such a survey even prove that South Carolinians preferr their own state? Possibily. It would depend on how representitive my sample was of the whole state. Large numbers in a sample population by themselves prove nothing. If I choose my population from one or two counties out of the state's 46, my numbers can only represent those two counties at best.

Again, that "study" does not explain how the Iraqis questioned were selected, nor from what region they were from. If they are all Kurds, then there is a good chance that they feel that there is no civil war for Kurdistan has mostly escaped violence.

In life a lot of people are going to try to sell you crap based on crap numbers. Hopefully, you'll learn to be skeptical the easy way rather than the hard way.
I'm well aware of this. But don't you feel, that if it were a true civil war, like 90%+ would believe it??







Post#2343 at 06-10-2007 11:42 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-10-2007, 11:42 PM #2343
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Can't edit above.


*EDIT*: The survey was at least partly conducted in Baghdad it seems (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...le1530762.ece). Hardly the center of tranquility.







Post#2344 at 06-10-2007 11:45 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-10-2007, 11:45 PM #2344
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
How's about a Goldilocks solution? Iraq can be in a civil war and still be 2T. See Algeria from 1991-2002. Not all civil wars have that uniquely 4T determination to kill. Some are low-level and sporadic (The Troubles) or chaotic and bloody (Iraq) without the powerful group dynamics of a Crisis.
Well sure, this works. I mean, what's going on in Iraq depends on your definition of a Civil War. Iraq clearly is not 4T, and there aren't any signs to indicate otherwise.







Post#2345 at 06-11-2007 12:21 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-11-2007, 12:21 AM #2345
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

The Necessity of a Crisis War

John,

England - American Civil War
Egypt - 1952 Revolution
South Africa - Early Apartheid
Iceland - WWII
Venezuela - La Volencia
Ireland - Potato Famine

These are a wide variety of examples where a true Crisis War has not taken place. There can either be no identifiable war or the country may not have been actively involved. These are only off the top of my head, but there are more that have been researched and there are certainly some that have not been unearthed.

For England, the American Civil had a profound effect on English life. The two countries were very close to war, and negotiations and compromises diffused it, presumably setting England back to the 1T. This was evidenced by how coolly they played the Franco-Prussian War. The lesson learned was to avoid entangling oneself in openly violent disputes between great powers. The fact that they were reset to 1T is extremely bizarre however. Barely an ounce of blood was dropped and at first glance one's eyes might gloss over this 'footnote.' John, you say that this was an aborted Crisis War. Has there never been a country that came closer to the Crisis War in a 4T era?

In Egypt, the 1952 Revolution featured riots and coups, but not really an active, violent rebellion based upon fault lines. If the aborted crisis war is one exception, what is this? Why is this a crisis war or why does it act as one?

Similarly, in South Africa, there was a huge underground resistance movement to the apartheid with sporadic acts of violence, culminating in the Sharpeville Massacre, but this doesn't even approach the level of the relatively (to other Crisis Wars) 'mild' violence of something like the American Revolution.

In Iceland, why did they reset to 1T following WWII? Were they on pins and needles? Switzerland makes a lot of sense for this, but I don't get that feeling with regard to Iceland.

And in Venezuela, for which you seemed to have concluded that La Volencia in neighboring Columbia acted as a Crisis War, what is the cause? Is this an aborted Crisis War?

We know that in order to display the genocidal violence, the country must have a 4T generational lineup. Genocidal violence does not have to be displayed 100% of the time, but substituting 'Crisis' for the term 'Crisis War' implies that there must be some sort of War during the crisis.

I'm just venting here, and it's sort of along the same lines as this post of yours:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1669

How does the breakup of the Soviet Union play into all of this? I wonder if by assuming a Crisis War is necessary, you may have overlooked the possibility that we have another exception? If not, then how does it differ from another Crisis non-Crisis War?







Post#2346 at 06-11-2007 12:44 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-11-2007, 12:44 PM #2346
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
Justin, I don't think that you would be able to convince john that russia is not aggressive. Just from reading john's posts it is clear that he gets his news entirely from sources like newsmax and worldnetdaily, and that he regard tv news sources as 'fake news'.
Why is it that you think ad hominem is a useful or desireable addition to a discussion?

In so using such a fallacy you only act to discredit those on your side with fact-based arguments. Please avoid using it in association with me.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#2347 at 06-12-2007 01:42 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
06-12-2007, 01:42 AM #2347
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
John,

England - American Civil War
Egypt - 1952 Revolution
South Africa - Early Apartheid
Iceland - WWII
Venezuela - La Volencia
Ireland - Potato Famine

These are a wide variety of examples where a true Crisis War has not taken place. There can either be no identifiable war or the country may not have been actively involved. These are only off the top of my head, but there are more that have been researched and there are certainly some that have not been unearthed.

For England, the American Civil had a profound effect on English life. The two countries were very close to war, and negotiations and compromises diffused it, presumably setting England back to the 1T. This was evidenced by how coolly they played the Franco-Prussian War. The lesson learned was to avoid entangling oneself in openly violent disputes between great powers. The fact that they were reset to 1T is extremely bizarre however. Barely an ounce of blood was dropped and at first glance one's eyes might gloss over this 'footnote.' John, you say that this was an aborted Crisis War. Has there never been a country that came closer to the Crisis War in a 4T era?

In Egypt, the 1952 Revolution featured riots and coups, but not really an active, violent rebellion based upon fault lines. If the aborted crisis war is one exception, what is this? Why is this a crisis war or why does it act as one?

Similarly, in South Africa, there was a huge underground resistance movement to the apartheid with sporadic acts of violence, culminating in the Sharpeville Massacre, but this doesn't even approach the level of the relatively (to other Crisis Wars) 'mild' violence of something like the American Revolution.

In Iceland, why did they reset to 1T following WWII? Were they on pins and needles? Switzerland makes a lot of sense for this, but I don't get that feeling with regard to Iceland.

And in Venezuela, for which you seemed to have concluded that La Volencia in neighboring Columbia acted as a Crisis War, what is the cause? Is this an aborted Crisis War?

We know that in order to display the genocidal violence, the country must have a 4T generational lineup. Genocidal violence does not have to be displayed 100% of the time, but substituting 'Crisis' for the term 'Crisis War' implies that there must be some sort of War during the crisis.

I'm just venting here, and it's sort of along the same lines as this post of yours:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1669

How does the breakup of the Soviet Union play into all of this? I wonder if by assuming a Crisis War is necessary, you may have overlooked the possibility that we have another exception? If not, then how does it differ from another Crisis non-Crisis War?
Iceland had a sort of Crisis between 1940 and 1945, when it came under (to be sure) the comparatively mild occupation of Great Britain -- far nicer than the Germans in Denmark, and that the Germans behaved better in Denmark than elsewhere tells how nasty Nazism was... Iceland canceled its political bonds to Denmark in 1944, which is sort of a Crisis.

Countries like Sweden, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, and Turkey that missed the outright combat of WW II could hardly avoid some of the effects -- like tense diplomacy to avoid becoming war zones, like having to deal with wartime shortages as old trade partners were knocked out, and ending up with one possible purchaser for the raw materials and agricultural produce. Sweden and Switzerland were effectively under blockade.

South Africa was a significant participant in World War II, as was the entire British Empire.

I'm not so sure that Britain had no mid-19th-Century Crisis. It had the bloody Sepoy Rebellion in India and the Crimean War. Perhaps Britain was more out of phase than "lucky". Countries that had just been in Crisis Eras generally avoid extending their Crisis Eras by meddling in other countries' Crises. The American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War both seemed to offer far too little for the cost.

Perhaps that Spain had just undergone a bloody Civil War deterred Francisco Franco from becoming a willing participant in World War II -- unlike Mussolini in Italy, who had barely bloodied himself before his insane declaration of war upon France and Britain. (Spain's 20th Century Crisis Era ended before World War II was underway).

The possible exception of continuing a Crisis is an insane ideology with a despotic leader -- Josef Stalin, who could sacrifice millions for some absurd concept of ant-hive socialism devoid of freedom or humanity.

So here's my take on Russia/USSR, 1914-present:

World War I: 3T/4T cusp. The Tsarist system exemplified social rottenness, military ineptitude, and economic marginality, all of which would blow up..

February Revolution (overthrow of Nicholas II) -- an attempt to get out of a failure... and a gross failure at that. Abortive Regeneracy. A pity, in view of what happened later.

Bolshevik coup/Civil War: 4T begins -- early. As the American Civil War demonstrates, a war that begins at the start of a 4T is unusually destructive because of the polarization of society into hostile camps. But the Russian Civil War was far worse because the opposing sides sought to annihilate each other and because, as a class war, the enemies were in proximity to each other until one side obliterated the other. To be sure, the Union and Confederate sides were comparative gentlemen -- much unlike the Reds and Whites.

With the consolidation of the Soviet Union about as Lenin died, Russia began to make its way into a 1T with NEP -- but Stalin aborted that in favor of his murderous collectivization that entailed carnage on the scale of the Russian Civil War. Back to a Crisis. Stalin's purges sderved as an exhausting culmination of a Crisis Era. Then came another attempted 1T.

Conflicting stories relate to Stalin's conduct between 1938 and 1940. Surely he misjudged the leadership of the other Evil Empire... he could hardly recognize that the "Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939" would have few costs for the gain. The Soviet takeovers of eastern Poland in September 1939 and the Baltic countries in 1940 are clearly Crisis events for the lands in question. The Poles fought back, and the Finnish-Russian war of 1939-1940 was waged as a Crisis War by both sides, so the USSR was in Crisis again in late 1939.

Then came Operation Barbarossa, the most murderous campaign since at least the Thirty Years' War with respect to the populations of both sides. This was another Crisis complete with ferocious combat -- and genocide on both sides.

Russia lay as much a wreck as a victor after World War II. Satellization of Eastern Europe might have been Crises for countries in eastern Europe... but not for Russia/USSR. Few Soviet soldiers, if any, were killed in the process.

The 1T began in the USSR in 1946. Could another Crisis have happened? There was the absurd "Doctors' Plot" in 1952 which could have been the start of a new series of purges. Stalin died, and saner leaders took over. The 1T continued.

The usual characteristics of a 1T lasted until at least the accession of Gorbachev in 1985 -- secularism, gigantic projects, monolithic ideology, and cultural staleness. One can argue that the Soviet Union had the most (ahem!) conservative social order in Europe except perhaps for Spain during the 1960s and early 1970s. There wasn't going to be an Awakening Era in the Soviet Union if the Brezhnev leadership had its way. Such as there was happened underground.

If there was an open 2T in Russia/USSR it was telescoped into 1985-1991, when glasnost and perestroika allowed an Awakening to emerge from underground. The culture opened up considerably and religious activity flourished. After the Soviet System fell, the 3T was underway as in the West.







Post#2348 at 06-12-2007 02:17 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-12-2007, 02:17 AM #2348
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Iceland had a sort of Crisis between 1940 and 1945, when it came under (to be sure) the comparatively mild occupation of Great Britain -- far nicer than the Germans in Denmark, and that the Germans behaved better in Denmark than elsewhere tells how nasty Nazism was... Iceland canceled its political bonds to Denmark in 1944, which is sort of a Crisis.
But not a Crisis War.

Countries like Sweden, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, and Turkey that missed the outright combat of WW II could hardly avoid some of the effects -- like tense diplomacy to avoid becoming war zones, like having to deal with wartime shortages as old trade partners were knocked out, and ending up with one possible purchaser for the raw materials and agricultural produce. Sweden and Switzerland were effectively under blockade.
Turkey's crisis occurred earlier.

Perhaps that Spain had just undergone a bloody Civil War deterred Francisco Franco from becoming a willing participant in World War II -- unlike Mussolini in Italy, who had barely bloodied himself before his insane declaration of war upon France and Britain. (Spain's 20th Century Crisis Era ended before World War II was underway).

So here's my take on Russia/USSR, 1914-present:
I had no clue that Russians had children so late and lived to be 120. That's some toxic spill!







Post#2349 at 06-12-2007 08:28 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
06-12-2007, 08:28 AM #2349
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Iceland had a sort of Crisis between 1940 and 1945, when it came under (to be sure) the comparatively mild occupation of Great Britain -- far nicer than the Germans in Denmark, and that the Germans behaved better in Denmark than elsewhere tells how nasty Nazism was... Iceland canceled its political bonds to Denmark in 1944, which is sort of a Crisis.

...
Iceland was occupied by the forces of the UK on 10 May 1940. The forces of another non-belligerent ("That Man's") nation then occupied the country on 7 July 1941. The later remained after entering WWII as a war-fighting country.







Post#2350 at 06-12-2007 02:03 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-12-2007, 02:03 PM #2350
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Where is everyone getting the idea that a crisis war leader has to be a lunatic like hitler was. As for mussolini's declaration of war remember that france was essentially beaten at the time and it looked like britain would soon capitulate. Mussolini was hoping to gain spoils from hitler's victory for himself. In that context mussolini actions were not irrational. As for germany in 1940, remember that at the time hitler was fighting only britain and france. He had a neutrality pact with the russians and the US was still firmly isolationist.
Last edited by Cynic Hero '86; 06-12-2007 at 02:07 PM.
-----------------------------------------