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 95







Post#2351 at 06-13-2007 11:20 AM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-13-2007, 11:20 AM #2351
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post


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.
But the proper comparison if you want to campare the politics of the 1920's and 30's should be to that of AMERICAN politics of that period NOT British. Therefore before a war could begin I would expect a 1930's style depression and later on a new deal analogue. Neither event has came to pass yet.







Post#2352 at 06-13-2007 11:30 AM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-13-2007, 11:30 AM #2352
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Listen, I admit that if war comes I would rather have it in the 2020's rather than today so that I would likely be able to serve as a unit commander rather than the lot of common soldier if war broke out today. I have no hatred for you or toward the chinese either. However if my commander in chief gave the order to level an enemy city like Qom, riyadh or nanjing I would do the duty happily and without protest.







Post#2353 at 06-13-2007 12:37 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
06-13-2007, 12:37 PM #2353
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
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.
Not all Crisis Wars had raving lunatics set against each other. Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln were both far from raving lunatics. Two of Hitler's arch-enemies (FDR, Churchill) would seem highly rational. (Stalin was a paranoid sociopath, to be sure).







Post#2354 at 06-13-2007 01:15 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-13-2007, 01:15 PM #2354
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Not all Crisis Wars had raving lunatics set against each other. Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln were both far from raving lunatics. Two of Hitler's arch-enemies (FDR, Churchill) would seem highly rational. (Stalin was a paranoid sociopath, to be sure).
Yes, but that is was certain posters earlier posts seemed to imply.







Post#2355 at 06-15-2007 12:58 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-15-2007, 12:58 AM #2355
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Post by Pbrower

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...647#post201647

This is an objection by pbrower2a

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
I'll try to be brief. I shall refer you to this argument that seems more reliable than some materialistic explanation of national behavior as a predictor of wars, famines, and mass slaughters :

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

I see Rudolph Rummel's theory of Democratic Peace as a partial explanation of why genocidal slaughters are likely to be less a part of the next 4T than they were in the previous 4T.

I hardly see a 4T as a certainty of genocide and catastrophic war. It's not because I desire no mass killing; it's because this time we have lessons from the last 4T. In a way, Adolf Hitler has achieved an infamous immortality in that anyone who resembles him in his despotism and bigotry will be compared to him. Such will not end when the last of his intended victims dies off; cultural and political leaders of the Boom and Thirteenth generations born after his demise desire that that horrible man remain in the human consciousness as someone to be kept from power. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong serve much the same end in some other countries as well.

Xenakis holds that genocidal wars happen because 4Ts enforce a Malthusian dialectic that overpopulation leads to catastrophic wars waged with genocidal hatred. Such may have been so in the past -- but humanity has largely found political solutions to economic distress and the means and desire to prevent population explosions. Contraception, abortion, and (even if this applies to only one country -- China -- it applies to what otherwise might be one of the most dangerous countries if it had a rapidly-growing as well as gigantic population) greatly reduce the tolerability of war as a solution for diplomatic failures. Peasants who have five sons may have less objections to sending off three to battle with a high possibility that two or three die in battle; a farm family that has one child is less likely to look upon wartime military service of the one child as simply a good means of bringing in some added income in hard times.

Another contributor to genocidal wars has been pathological leaders -- tyrants. A tyrant full of hate and fear can impose mass killings because he has the will to order mass killings, the means of suppressing knowledge of the killings, and the means of implementing them. Pathological leaders of course make aggressive war and/or genocide a certainty when they wield absolute power and seek military solutions to economic failures or -- worse -- to sate their lust for glory.

Democracy implies that leaders lack the power to order massacres, purges, and persecutions. Democratic leaders are under more pressure to deliver results through such measures as tax reform or public works -- not by invading other countries and raiding them for wealth and slave labor. Democracies allow, unlike tyrannies, effective movements of pacifism and for ethnic, religious, and cultural tolerance. Wars between democracies are rare in part because people in democracies have the freedom to display empathy across national boundaries.

Some good things have happened in the previous 3T that are likely to make the coming 4T less dangerous: most obviously, some very nasty dictatorships have fallen to democracy -- Chile, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania. Five former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Georgia) are now democracies. Since the aftermath of the last 4T Germany, Italy, and Japan -- the mortal enemies of democracy under genocidal regimes during the last 4T -- are at least as worthy exponents of democracy as is America.

We enter the 4T with more widespread knowledge of history. An exact replay of the previous 4T, this time with nuclear weapons in the possession of several major and minor powers, is impossible. The leaders that we now have or are likely to have are less naive about human nature (with one prominent exception until at least January 2009 -- cheap shot to be expected from me) than the leaders of 1933-1939. Intelligence networks are already in place, and all have the means of figuring out whether someone offering "Peace in Our Time" deserves credibility. That could be more important than having weapons systems in place.







Post#2356 at 06-15-2007 01:44 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-15-2007, 01:44 AM #2356
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Lightbulb War?

pbrower2a,

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
I'll try to be brief. I shall refer you to this argument that seems more reliable than some materialistic explanation of national behavior as a predictor of wars, famines, and mass slaughters :

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

I see Rudolph Rummel's theory of Democratic Peace as a partial explanation of why genocidal slaughters are likely to be less a part of the next 4T than they were in the previous 4T.
I've actually been to that guy's site before. But I'd prefer to address your post.

I hardly see a 4T as a certainty of genocide and catastrophic war. It's not because I desire no mass killing; it's because this time we have lessons from the last 4T. In a way, Adolf Hitler has achieved an infamous immortality in that anyone who resembles him in his despotism and bigotry will be compared to him. Such will not end when the last of his intended victims dies off; cultural and political leaders of the Boom and Thirteenth generations born after his demise desire that that horrible man remain in the human consciousness as someone to be kept from power. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong serve much the same end in some other countries as well.

[Moved next paragraph for cohesiveness -- Matt]

Another contributor to genocidal wars has been pathological leaders -- tyrants. A tyrant full of hate and fear can impose mass killings because he has the will to order mass killings, the means of suppressing knowledge of the killings, and the means of implementing them. Pathological leaders of course make aggressive war and/or genocide a certainty when they wield absolute power and seek military solutions to economic failures or -- worse -- to sate their lust for glory.
I can only partially agree here. In a 4T, it is not often that you get so many genocidal madmen as you did in World War Two. I'm not so sure it was a coincidence though. The climate of the early 20th century brought it about. Needless to say, I don't see a similar climate today -- except in the Middle East. It's really impossible to predict the actions of some of those nations, and I'm not sure how far some will be willing to push the 'genocidal envelope.' So it is possible that we will have another Hitler on our hands; however, this is not certain.

If you recall correctly, Hitler didn't call for the mass extermination of the Jewish people until well after the war began. In the midst of a genocidal war, is a repeat really so inconceivable? I mean, who the hell would care about who's Hitler and who's not when we have THAT going on? Or conversely, the term Hitler could become so overused that it doesn't have any meaning. Hell, maybe we've reached that point already.

It's important to note that in Crises, it is the will of the people that provide the force that drive the damn thing. You don't need someone with a Hitler complex to wage 4T warfare. Perhaps a Napoleon complex is more suitable. But then again, maybe not. It's all up the people, right?

Xenakis holds that genocidal wars happen because 4Ts enforce a Malthusian dialectic that overpopulation leads to catastrophic wars waged with genocidal hatred. Such may have been so in the past -- but humanity has largely found political solutions to economic distress and the means and desire to prevent population explosions. Contraception, abortion, and (even if this applies to only one country -- China -- it applies to what otherwise might be one of the most dangerous countries if it had a rapidly-growing as well as gigantic population) greatly reduce the tolerability of war as a solution for diplomatic failures. Peasants who have five sons may have less objections to sending off three to battle with a high possibility that two or three die in battle; a farm family that has one child is less likely to look upon wartime military service of the one child as simply a good means of bringing in some added income in hard times.
Yes, this is one of the most basic tenets of Generational Dynamics. Horrible wars happen all the time, and you really can't find a major society (minor ones too) that hasn't experienced 4T warfare for an extended period of time. There are occasional exceptions to the Crisis War rule, but the pattern is clear.

China's population isn't really growing, but they are still insanely overpopulated and the government -- try as they may -- cannot fully control their people. You don't need to be a genius to show that China is heading toward complete disaster. In the middle of an economic catastrophe, will parents be able keep their sons (of whom there are too many) from joining in the violent rebellion? Remember, this is a 4T, so moderation rarely works.

I really don't buy the 'this time it's different' meme. Through every 4T there have been multiple changes. Political solutions, appeals to reason, etc. They have little meaning in a 4T. We can put away the 3T political correctness.

Democracy implies that leaders lack the power to order massacres, purges, and persecutions. Democratic leaders are under more pressure to deliver results through such measures as tax reform or public works -- not by invading other countries and raiding them for wealth and slave labor. Democracies allow, unlike tyrannies, effective movements of pacifism and for ethnic, religious, and cultural tolerance. Wars between democracies are rare in part because people in democracies have the freedom to display empathy across national boundaries.

Some good things have happened in the previous 3T that are likely to make the coming 4T less dangerous: most obviously, some very nasty dictatorships have fallen to democracy -- Chile, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania. Five former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Georgia) are now democracies. Since the aftermath of the last 4T Germany, Italy, and Japan -- the mortal enemies of democracy under genocidal regimes during the last 4T -- are at least as worthy exponents of democracy as is America.
Democracy is just a safeguard and a poor one at that. Who says Democracy cannot run hand in hand with tyranny? There are plenty of examples throughout history where Democracy hasn't allowed for 'tolerance.' This is especially true in a 4T. It all comes back to the people in a Crisis, Democracy or no Democracy. History has shown that even the mass of men can do terrible, foolish things. Why should this be any different?

We enter the 4T with more widespread knowledge of history. An exact replay of the previous 4T, this time with nuclear weapons in the possession of several major and minor powers, is impossible. The leaders that we now have or are likely to have are less naive about human nature (with one prominent exception until at least January 2009 -- cheap shot to be expected from me) than the leaders of 1933-1939. Intelligence networks are already in place, and all have the means of figuring out whether someone offering "Peace in Our Time" deserves credibility. That could be more important than having weapons systems in place.
It would be foolish for me to say this is going to be an exact replay of WWII. But you're in denial. This isn't the end of history. From our standpoint, we can say, "Nuclear weapons? What? Why the hell would anyone want to do that?" Simple, right? Call me when the brutal fighting is underway. Then we'll see who remains cool, calm, collected, and rational.

You know, I don't think warfare is ingrained in man. I think it's ingrained in men.

Matt







Post#2357 at 06-15-2007 09:22 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
06-15-2007, 09:22 AM #2357
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post

In a 4T, it is not often that you get so many genocidal madmen as you did in World War Two. I'm not so sure it was a coincidence though. The climate of the early 20th century brought it about. Needless to say, I don't see a similar climate today -- except in the Middle East. It's really impossible to predict the actions of some of those nations, and I'm not sure how far some will be willing to push the 'genocidal envelope.' So it is possible that we will have another Hitler on our hands; however, this is not certain.
I consider the Middle East and Central Asia the most dangerous parts of the world to the rest of the world -- at least for now. Those two regions have had more than their shares of madmen. Some of the less-mad (like Mubarak in Egypt) are shaky figures with potential madmen in the wings. Holocaust denial by the President of Iran suggests nazi proclivities in that crackpot.

The last 4T proved unusually dangerous because of the rhetorical sophistication of ethnic and religious bigots and the willingness of elites to promote racism as both an anodyne for mass discontent and as a tool for the expansion of economic exploitation beyond their countries.

If you recall correctly, Hitler didn't call for the mass extermination of the Jewish people until well after the war began. In the midst of a genocidal war, is a repeat really so inconceivable? I mean, who the hell would care about who's Hitler and who's not when we have THAT going on? Or conversely, the term Hitler could become so overused that it doesn't have any meaning. Hell, maybe we've reached that point already.
To the contrary! Hitler was very careful in his use of vituperative language against the Jews. The Nazis of course mistreated the Jews (which everybody knew about before World War II), committed occasional violence, and spread Jew-bashing propaganda everywhere possible. But the Nazis kept the Holocaust very much a secret with such weasel words as "resettlement", "evacuation", and "Jewish question". Almost never did the Jews know what was coming until they were personally doomed -- but because of the absolute control of the press, the secret police that crushed all protest, and the one-sided hectoring the best that Jews could hope for was to outlast the situation.

"Hitler" is overused. It's been used against such vile tyrants as Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein. Idi Amin was a pipsqueak on the international scene, and Saddam Hussein wasn't a racist. So is "Nazi" -- some Israel-bashing propaganda contends that the "Zionists" are just like Nazis. We must be careful to avoid the fallacy of "reductio ad Hitlerum" in which someone with some superficial similarity to Hitler is confused with him.

It's important to note that in Crises, it is the will of the people that provide the force that drive the damn thing. You don't need someone with a Hitler complex to wage 4T warfare. Perhaps a Napoleon complex is more suitable. But then again, maybe not. It's all up the people, right?
A "new Napoleon" would also be dangerous. That said, I am not deluded that people in democratic societies wage war any less ferociously than those in tyrannies. They can seek finality and completeness of victory against a system that has offended the core values of most people. The final defeat of an evil cause clearly resolves a Crisis -- right?

Yes, this is one of the most basic tenets of Generational Dynamics. Horrible wars happen all the time, and you really can't find a major society (minor ones too) that hasn't experienced 4T warfare for an extended period of time. There are occasional exceptions to the Crisis War rule, but the pattern is clear.
I would like to believe that a Crisis might manifest itself in something other than catastrophic war -- this time. The gutter racism that made World War II so horrible lacks the respectability that it had in the 1910s and 1920s because it no longer has the veneer of pseudoscientific rhetoric.

China's population isn't really growing, but they are still insanely overpopulated and the government -- try as they may -- cannot fully control their people. You don't need to be a genius to show that China is heading toward complete disaster. In the middle of an economic catastrophe, will parents be able keep their sons (of whom there are too many) from joining in the violent rebellion? Remember, this is a 4T, so moderation rarely works.
I concur that China is a powderkeg, and I can believe that a successful democratic revolution might have desirable effects for much of the world. (Better yet, of course, would be the steady erosion of the dictatorship until it is no longer sustainable so that some analogue of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution becomes possible in China). But I can imagine even worse leadership in China than that now in existence -- such as one that seeks to incorporate every Chinese diaspora as distant as Hawaii and Australia into China itself. That suggests a new "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", one centered in Beijing instead of Tokyo. The nastiest of systems tend to have the strongest drives to spread their system.

If China erupts in a violent revolution between democrats and its current leadership (ex-commies who have abandoned socialism but kept the commie political structure) then the rest of the world will have huge difficulties to face, including a refugee 'problem' that could stress even the identities of some countries. Contrast the last 4T: the United States could have absorbed six million Jews without compromising its national identity because the European Jews were quite similar to Americans in culture and religious values. Twenty million Chinese -- I could imagine that many Chinese seeking to emigrate to Australia alone during a civil war -- would make Australia wildly different from what it is now and put it in the dangerous position as a base of a Chinese struggle. That's even allowing for the concession that the likely refugees are desirable people.


I really don't buy the 'this time it's different' meme. Through every 4T there have been multiple changes. Political solutions, appeals to reason, etc. They have little meaning in a 4T. We can put away the 3T political correctness.
Every 4T is itself different from the prior 4T. I recognize that "political solutions (and) appeals to reason" are exactly what Chamberlain and Hitler dealt in at the Munich conference. Those proved disastrous. To be sure, the rifles of the American Civil War were more lethal than the muskets of the Revolutionary War; the fighters, bombers, and heavy artillery of World War II were far deadlier than the weapons of the Civil War.

I think that a new Hitler could be stopped... but at the price of some other calamity becoming more possible. We have no idea what the potential Great Calamity is.


Democracy is just a safeguard and a poor one at that. Who says Democracy cannot run hand in hand with tyranny? There are plenty of examples throughout history where Democracy hasn't allowed for 'tolerance.' This is especially true in a 4T. It all comes back to the people in a Crisis, Democracy or no Democracy. History has shown that even the mass of men can do terrible, foolish things. Why should this be any different?
We must remember that Stalin's Soviet Union and Nazi Germany both presented themselves as democracies -- indeed, more "genuine" than the bourgeois "plutocracies" in which money supposedly ruled. Those perverted systems made extensive use of mass rallies and 'perfect' elections as expressions of popularity of the systems in question.

As for the masses -- they can fall for demagogues who replace sober process with mad hatred and promise looting as an alternative to honest toil. That said, the masses are better educated than they were in the last 4T. But that said, democracies are less likely to perpetrate ethnic, class, religious, and racist violence.

I'm more concerned about the conduct of elites who sacrifice freedom to protect class privilege. Hitler rose because the German ruling class found him more attractive than democracy.

It would be foolish for me to say this is going to be an exact replay of WWII. But you're in denial. This isn't the end of history. From our standpoint, we can say, "Nuclear weapons? What? Why the hell would anyone want to do that?" Simple, right? Call me when the brutal fighting is underway. Then we'll see who remains cool, calm, collected, and rational.

You know, I don't think warfare is ingrained in man. I think it's ingrained in men.

Matt
Crisis eras are dangerous times -- more dangerous than other times. Political and economic institutions are often pushed beyond their breaking points. They can bring about the worst tendencies in human nature -- as well as the best. In the last Crisis era, some parts of the world went very wrong. The USA and the British Empire mercifully got it right and successfully imposed their right choices upon the defeated Axis Powers that had gone very wrong so effectively that the nations defeated in World War II will not cause trouble the Next Time.

I have no illusion: the Next Time is coming.







Post#2358 at 06-16-2007 10:44 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 10:44 AM #2358
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Justin,

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
> 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...
> http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com...255548,00.html
This article says: "Attributing a distributed denial-of-service attack
like this to a government is hard," Johannes Ullrich, chief research
officer of the Bethesda, Md.-based SANS Internet Storm Center (ISC),
said in an email exchange. "It may as well be a group of bot herders
showing 'patriotism,' kind of like what we had with Web defacements
during the US-China spy-plane crisis [in 2001]."

This doesn't provide any support for the claim that Putin wasn't
responsible for the attack on Estonia.

Obviously if Putin were going to be responsible for ordering it, the
KGB would do it in such a way as to give him deniability. A "group
of bot herders showing patriotism" is exactly the way Putin and the
KGB would do it, if they were going to do it.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
> 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.
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/...n/edzimmer.php
> http://www.marcoscan.com/2006/11/pol...n_vendita.html
> http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm
The second of your references is in Italian, which I can't read;
however the extremely garbled machine translation was enough to clue
me in on something.

The first article says: "16 curies of polonium 210 — enough to make
up 5,000 lethal doses."

The third web site says: "0.1 microcuries is $69.00."

So the cost of a lethal dose is: $69.00 * (16 / 5000 / 1e-7) =
$2,208,000.

And so, my dear Justin, it seems that the analysts shouldn't be too
embarrassed after all. Do you feel suckered?

In fact, you haven't addressed the most damning evidence of all --
that all these incidents point in the same direction. In one
incident after another, all the circumstantial evidence points to
Putin. Of course there's no "smoking gun" -- if there were, it would
be major international news -- but you have Putin's political
opponents (Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Garry Kasparov) put in jail, you
have intransigent former republics (Georgia, Estonia) avenged for
their disloyal acts, and you have open threats (pointing missiles at
Europe) later retracted with a half-hearted "Oh, I didn't mean to
frighten you."

But I have a question for you.

Suppose that all these accusations against Putin turned out to be
true. How would you feel about it? Would you say, "Turn that
criminal out of office and hang him by his fingernails?"

I don't think you would. I think you would say, "I think it's
absolutely wonderful that Putin is taking these steps to preserve
Great Russia, and I hope that he does more things like that. I'm
proud of him." I think that's what you'd say. Am I wrong?

Sincerely,

John

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

`







Post#2359 at 06-16-2007 10:46 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 10:46 AM #2359
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
> 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.
I agree, although anyone who strikes would target the largest cities.

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
> 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.
The danger isn't from the Mexican Army. Remember - this would be a
civil war in Mexico, replaying the Mexican Revolution of the 1910s,
and we might actually be on the side of the Mexican Army. The danger
is from hand to hand combat spreading into California.

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
> 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.
This is certainly true. And even in the case of Hitler, people
forget that it's the people who elected Hitler, knowing full well
what he represented.

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
> But the proper comparison if you want to campare the politics of
> the 1920's and 30's should be to that of AMERICAN politics of that
> period NOT British. Therefore before a war could begin I would
> expect a 1930's style depression and later on a new deal analogue.
> Neither event has came to pass yet.
Patterns vary. Each one is full of surprises. Anyway, we've already
had the Nasdaq crash in 2000.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2360 at 06-16-2007 10:47 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 10:47 AM #2360
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Mike,

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
> Great! Cash coming in is always a good thing. And congrats on the
> success with your site.
It's great that you're back again talking about research. I realize
how hard it was to write your previous posting, and I want you to know
how much I appreciate it. Thanks for your good wishes, and I hope
you're doing well.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2361 at 06-16-2007 10:52 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 10:52 AM #2361
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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.
Well, you're right that it's on the cusp.

I guess I think of the Awakening Era of usually passing more quickly
than 20 years. I think of it as starting when the first group of
Prophets is close to 20 years old. Then there's a period of wild
political conflict and low-level violence, and then it begins to
peter out as the Unraveling era approaches. But I think of that
petering out period as more typical of the Unraveling era than of the
Awakening era.

Here's an article that I posted early last year:

Chinese Turnings and Generations

The following is my take on listing the Chinese turnings and
generations for the last two saeculae.

1852-73: Taiping era (Crisis)

This is the crisis period that triggered the unification of China
into a single country, rather than a group of independent provinces.
The major war was the Taiping Rebellion, but there were other revolts
in other parts of China. (This is an example of what's called
"merging timelines," when different regions with separate timelines
merge together into a single timeline.) The principal revolts were
the following:

> 1850-64 Taiping Rebellion (Eastern China)
> 1851-68 Nian Rebellion (Central China)
> 1855-73 Muslim (Panthay) rebellion in Yunnan (Southern China)
> 1862-73 Muslim revolt in Shaanxi and Gansu (Northwest China)

Humiliated Generation (Artists) - Growing up during this
enormous and bloody civil war, they missed their chance for the
fight. As adults, they and all of China were humiliated in 1895 in
the Sino-Japanese war.

1874-94: Self-strengthening era (Recovery/High)

The Recovery era began with the “Self-Strengthening Movement," the
study of Western skills, government, technology and industry. China
had been humiliated in the Opium Wars of the 1840s, and it was argued
that China could become stronger by learning Western ways and
adapting them to Chinese culture. It was successful, and the next few
decades saw China advance far towards catching up with the rest of
the world in technology, finance and trade.

Revolutionary Generation (Prophets) - Remarkably, Taiping era
crisis did not dislodge the government of the Qing dynasty of the
Manchus, although the Manchus (from Manchuria), had governed China for
centuries. This generation first brought down the Manchus, in 1912,
and then led the Communist Revolution.

1894-1918: Revolutionary Awakening (Awakening era)

The Awakening era began with the first of many attempts to overthrow
the Qing dynasty by means of secret revolutionary societies. The
first was formed by Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925), who failed and was
forced to flee to Hawaii and the United States, but later returned
after the success of the 1911 revolution to become President.

As soon as the 1894 revolution failed, China was defeated and
humiliated by the 1895 Sino-Japanese War. China was forced to sign a
treaty which ceded Korea, Taiwan and other territories to Japan, a
small neighbor on whom China had formerly looked on condescendingly.

The 1911 Chinese Revolution replaced the Qing Dynasty with a Republic
which lasted only two years, and was replaced in turn by a military
dictatorship.

The Awakening era ended with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and
the formation of the Communist International (Comintern) and its plan
to conquer the world.

??? Generation (Nomads) -

1918-1934 Warlord Period (Unraveling era)

There were massive student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and
elsewhere in 1919, resulting in a student union of the Republic of
China.

The central government disintegrated, leaving power in the the hands
of small groups of militarists and their armies in constant battles
for power. This led to the formation of two power groups:

-- In 1921, the Communist Party was formed in Shanghai. Mao Zedong
(1893-1976) rose to prominence in the Party after a clash in 1925 with
the KMT.

-- In 1922, Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975) formed what
was to become the Nationalist party or KMT (Kuomintang Party).

The two factions fought through an unraveling war until Mao and his
army was surrounded and faced with defeat in 1934.

Communist Generation (Heroes)

All the separate revolts and rebellions of the Taiping era were now
merged into a single civil war between the Mao and Chian, resulting
in the victory of the Communist Revolution.

1934-49 Communist Revolution (Crisis era)

Mao escaped the encirclement through the Long March, the longest
retreat in history, lasting a year. This began the civil war.

The two sides were forced to unify because of Japan's invasion,
especially after the "Rape of Nanjing" in December 1937.

The civil war resumed after WW II, forcing the nationalists onto
Taiwan.

Preparatory Generation (Artists)

Led by the current president, Hu Jintao, this generation has been
preparing China for its greatest challenge, all-out war with the
U.S., Japan and India.

1949-1965 The People's Republic (Recovery/High era)

Mao consolidated his power by executing millions of people in the
1950s. Mao said "Let a hundred flowers bloom," meaning that free
expression should be encouraged, but intellectuals who expressed
grievances were executed or sent off the work camps.

The worst was Mao's Great Leap Forward, 1958-60, during which some 20
to 30 million people died of starvation in a man-made famine. This
was a disaster of almost unimaginable proportions and created many
enemies for Mao.

Miserable Generation (Prophets)

I call them the "Miserable Generation," a name that I picked up
several years ago in an article by a Chinese author. They were
starved by Mao's Great Leap Forward, and they got no education,
thanks to Mao's Great Cultural Revolution. They turned into a
political force after he 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and now
their Falun Gong movement is being violently suppressed.

1965-89 Cultural Revolution (Awakening era)

To retaliate against his enemies, Mao launched the Great Cultural
Revolution (1965-68) and formed the Red Guards, mostly young
students, to implement the assault on dissidents. They brought the
country to the verge of chaos, carrying out summary execution,
forcing tens of thousands from their homes or into labor camps.
Schools and universities were shut down for several years.

During this period, China developed a rapprochement with the United
States, joined the United Nations, instituted many educational and
government reforms, and launched the "Democracy Wall" movement. In
1980, China launched the "one-child" policy. By the end of the era,
Mao was openly criticized.

Tiananmen Generation (Nomads)

Growing up in the aftermath of the chaos of the cultural revolution,
this generation formed the bulk of the millions of students that
crowded into Tiananmen Square in 1989.

1989-present Falun Gong era (Unraveling era)

The era was launched by the Tiananmen Square massacre, triggering the
huge movement, followers of the Falun Gong. Their leaders believe it
to be the modern version of the God-Worshipper's Society, a spiritual
movement which launched the Taiping Rebellion, and was a form of
Christianity combined with Buddhism. By 1999 the movement was so
widespread that Beijing clamped down on it. It's rumored that
millions of adherents have been jailed.

Today, China's social structure is unraveling rapidly, as can be seen
from from the tens of thousands of regional rebellions each year,
over 100 million migrant workers, high food prices, high rust belt
unemployment, addiction to a bubble economy, unraveling of Mao's
social structure and secessionist provinces.

One-child Generation (Heroes) - This generation bore the
brunt of the one-child policy which has created an enormous surplus
of young males, meaning that a large segment of this generation will
never get married. This generation almost has nothing to lose by
going to war -- against Beijing, against Japan, or against the U.S.
And they will be guided by the last Prophets - the Miserables -- and
supported by the last Nomads -- the Tiananmens.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#2362 at 06-16-2007 10:52 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 10:52 AM #2362
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Matt,

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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 War 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?
OK, let me ask you this: When did Kansas last have a crisis war? I
don't recall Kansas being on the list of countries that fought in
World War II.

So what's the criterion for "fighting in a crisis war?" I don't know
how to define the criteria, but there's a big psychological
component.

A person doesn't get up one morning, look at his watch, and say,
"Ohmigod! Look at the time! It's almost 58 years past VJ day! It's
time to go to war!"

A Fourth Turning doesn't automatically mean war; it means "attracted
to war"; it means, "has a propensity to war."

How would a crisis war start? A civil war might start because one
group in poverty is jealous of another, seemingly wealthy group. A
war might start because you're invaded. Or you might invade if you
believe that your interests are being hurt, as when you have defense
agreements with other countries.

People in this forum say that America has no real desire to invade
anyone or go to war with anyone, especially after being disillusioned
by the Iraq, and I'd have to agree. (Or not. Some morons, Senator
Biden for example, who should win the prize as the idiot of the year,
insists that we will lose the Iraq war because it's a civil war, but
he wants to put 2200 American forces into Darfur to stop that civil
war. See? Americans still do want to invade countries after all.
They just want to do it if they think it's easy. Once the going gets
a little rough, they look for scapegoats.)

But we have defense treaties with many countries. And that's
probably how our war will start.

All the common examples of countries that don't actually have a
crisis war -- like Iceland and Switzerland -- are countries where
none of the above three situations arise. In particular, they have
to be countries with fairly small, low-density populations so there
won't be much poverty. I don't know how densely populated Iceland
and Switzerland were during WW II, but I'd be willing to bet that the
density was reasonably low.

In fact, they must have been, because if they had densely populated
pockets of poverty, then those pockets would only have grown.

That's the situation in Mexico City, for example. Suppose Mexico
somehow avoids a new Mexican Revolution. Then the population of
Mexico City will just keep growing, and get denser and denser. There
are several dozen of these megacities / megaslums around the world,
all of them growing in population and density. So far, there's been
enough (money) liquidity and food to deliver food to these cities,
but all we'd need is some global recession.

So if a country's fourth turning passes with no crisis war, then the
following might be the rule: If there's poverty and jealousy of
another identity group, then the country will go into a fifth
turning, and the next generation of kids (the would-be artists) will
become infuriated by the injustices and will turn into suicide
bombers. As long as the country is wealthy enough (as is the case of
Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Russia because of oil) to stave off poverty,
then the country may go into a sixth or seventh turning.

I don't know all the rules for these transitions. What's needed is
to collect a set of examples -- break down crisis wars by types --
civil wars, inward invasions, outward invasions, wealthy countries,
poor countries, and so forth -- and do a complete analysis. I
certainly haven't done that -- maybe you can do it as your PhD thesis
if you survive the war. At any rate, I feel pretty certain that when
that kind of analysis is completed, then the set of rules will be
pretty clear, and it will following something like what I outlined
above.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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?
I wasn't aware of this. I thought they had a real war.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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.
Iceland, as I recall, was part of Denmark, and Denmark had been
invaded by Hitler. As Mr. Saari points out, American forces were in
Iceland to prevent a German attack, as I recall. So Iceland was like
Kansas.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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?
Remember that Venezuela and Colombia really were the same country
after the Bolivarian revolution. Suppose they were still one
country, Gran Colombia, but La Violencia was mostly in the southwest,
not in the northeast. It could be a crisis war then, couldn't it?
Well, why should it matter whether it's one country or two?

In my first book, I used the phrase "common cultural memory." Maybe I
out to revive that phrase -- I think it might be a good one to
describe when a region might not have a crisis war, but feel as if
they were involved in a neighboring country's crisis war.

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
> 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?
Russia fulfills all three of the conditions for starting a crisis war
that I outlined above. They have defense agreements with neighboring
countries. They have internal ethnic groups that hate each other.
Look how furious the Russians got just because the Estonians moved a
goddam statue; imagine what would happen if someone REALLY offended
them. But Russia has oil money, and that's kept them away from a
crisis war for the time being.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2363 at 06-16-2007 10:54 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 10:54 AM #2363
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Quote Originally Posted by "pbrower2a" View Post
> As for the Gödel incompleteness theorem (which, of course, rarely
> appears in the first course in college philosophy), even if it is
> possible to have zero contradictions with infinitely many
> falsehoods, one must remember the need for infinitely many
> falsehoods. Successful and convincing falsehoods require even more
> creativity than most liars and any fools are willing to invest in.
> Few liars have the intellectual skills of Gödel, so the best that
> they can hope for is to avoid the consequences and keep some of
> the goodies acquired dishonestly. A time appears when the liar is
> unable to create more lies to protect earlier lies, at which time
> the lies crash -- as they did for Enron Corporation. ...

> I see a 3T as a time in which people tend to get away with careful
> lies and schemes. In a 4T things come crashing down. The sleaze
> that tempted people doing somewhat well in a 3T becomes
> unmarketable and unsustainable, especially after a financial panic
> that proves that paper profits of a late 3T are fantasies or have
> been siphoned off through corruption or outright theft.
I think that what I was getting at was that different people have
different "world models" in their heads, and therefore they can build
up a set of "truths" that are consistent with their own world model.
I think that people can sometimes lie for a long time if they
convince themselves of the truth of a model of the world in which
those lies are true.

Quote Originally Posted by "pbrower2a" View Post
> I see Rudolph Rummel's theory of Democratic Peace as a partial
> explanation of why genocidal slaughters are likely to be less a
> part of the next 4T than they were in the previous 4T.
Quote Originally Posted by Rudolph Rummel
> # Freedom is a basic human right recognized by the United Nations
> and international treaties, and is the heart of social justice.

> # Freedom is an engine of economic and human development, and
> scientific and technological advancement.

> # Freedom ameliorates the problem of mass poverty.
> http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
I'm afraid that this really doesn't make sense. It's been understood
for centuries that freedom and equality are conflicting ideals: You
have to limit freedom to enforce equality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randolph_of_Roanoke

Therefore, mass poverty can flourish in total freedom. On the other
hand, too little freedom breeds corruption and that causes mass
poverty as well.

Quote Originally Posted by Rudolph Rummel
> Free people do not suffer from and never have had famines, and by
> theory, should not. Freedom is therefore a solution to hunger and
> famine.
This isn't true. There are billions of people going hungry today,
some in freedom, some not.

Quote Originally Posted by Rudolph Rummel
> Free people have the least internal violence, turmoil, and
> political instability.
Where does he get this stuff? He's just making it up. Free people
have just as many crisis wars as non-free people. We've had our
Revolutionary war and Civil war, and we were all free, weren't we?

Quote Originally Posted by "pbrower2a" View Post
> Xenakis holds that genocidal wars happen because 4Ts enforce a
> Malthusian dialectic that overpopulation leads to catastrophic
> wars waged with genocidal hatred. Such may have been so in the
> past -- but humanity has largely found political solutions to
> economic distress and the means and desire to prevent population
> explosions. Contraception, abortion, and (even if this applies to
> only one country -- China -- it applies to what otherwise might be
> one of the most dangerous countries if it had a rapidly-growing as
> well as gigantic population) greatly reduce the tolerability of
> war as a solution for diplomatic failures. Peasants who have five
> sons may have less objections to sending off three to battle with
> a high possibility that two or three die in battle; a farm family
> that has one child is less likely to look upon wartime military
> service of the one child as simply a good means of bringing in
> some added income in hard times.
This sounds nice in theory, but it's just not true in practice.

Population has been growing at the rate of 1.72% per year, according
to U.N. figures. Furthermore, most of the population growth has been
centered in Sunni Muslim countries. Here's a table I put together
for someone last year:

Code:
Population Growth Rate

***** Western countries:
United States                     0.92%
United Kingdom                    0.28%
France                            0.37%
Germany                           0.00%
Israel                            1.20%
Code:
***** Other non-Muslim countries:
Russia                           -0.37%
Burma                             0.42%
China                             0.58%
Thailand                          0.87%
India                             1.40%
Mongolia                          1.45%
Code:
***** Muslim countries:
Iran                              0.86% (Shia Muslim)
Indonesia                         1.45%
Uzbekistan                        1.67%
Turkmenistan                      1.81%
Syria                             2.45%
Saudi Arabia                      3.27%
West Bank                         3.3%
Gaza Strip                        3.89%
Pakistan                          2.01%
Qatar                             2.61%
Kuwait                            3.44%
Yemen                             3.45%
This table shows that most of the assumptions you've made -- about
contraception, or about peasants's attitudes -- are simply not
consistent with the facts.

Quote Originally Posted by "pbrower2a" View Post
> Democracy implies that leaders lack the power to order massacres,
> purges, and persecutions. Democratic leaders are under more
> pressure to deliver results through such measures as tax reform or
> public works -- not by invading other countries and raiding them
> for wealth and slave labor. Democracies allow, unlike tyrannies,
> effective movements of pacifism and for ethnic, religious, and
> cultural tolerance. Wars between democracies are rare in part
> because people in democracies have the freedom to display empathy
> across national boundaries.
It's just the opposite. It's the people who demand retribution
against other countries, even when the political leaders oppose it.
We see that today in the American xenophobia against Latinos and
Chinese, even though the Administration strongly opposes the kinds of
retribution that are being considered.

Genocidal war comes from the people, not the political leaders.

Quote Originally Posted by "pbrower2a" View Post
> Some good things have happened in the previous 3T that are likely
> to make the coming 4T less dangerous: most obviously, some very
> nasty dictatorships have fallen to democracy -- Chile, Argentina,
> Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Poland, East Germany,
> Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and
> Albania. Five former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
> Ukraine, and Georgia) are now democracies. Since the aftermath of
> the last 4T Germany, Italy, and Japan -- the mortal enemies of
> democracy under genocidal regimes during the last 4T -- are at
> least as worthy exponents of democracy as is America.
Democracies have wars, and always have.

Dictatorships and controlled economies don't work, anyway. It's easy
to prove, using the mathematics of Computation and Complexity Theory,
that controlled, regulated economies only work for relatively small
populations. As the population grows, the number of "regulators"
grows exponentially faster than the population, and so either the
government regulates less or it collapses. That's why the countries
of North Korea, Cuba, East Germany and Russia were all stuck in the
1950s for decades under communism. "Laissez-faire capitalism" is not
an ideology so much as a mathematic imperative.

Quote Originally Posted by "pbrower2a" View Post
> We enter the 4T with more widespread knowledge of history. An
> exact replay of the previous 4T, this time with nuclear weapons in
> the possession of several major and minor powers, is impossible.
Absolutely false. Few people know anything about history.

Quote Originally Posted by Satirist Ambrose Bierce (1842-1913)
> War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
When I have an opportunity, I like to ask high school or college
students to tell me anything they know about any international news
story. Mostly I get blank stares. Most don't even know what's going
on in Iraq, let alone Gaza, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, etc. As far as
history is concerned, even journalists don't have a clue.

Which war came first, Korea or Vietnam?
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...0727b#e060727b

And for those of you who criticize Bush for the Iraq war (which
almost nobody did when you thought it was going to be easy), you
should at least know something about the Truman Doctrine.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...wakening060919

For better or worse, we've taken on an enormous commitment and
responsibility by becoming policemen of the world. This happened
after World War II with the Truman Doctrine of 1947. Under this
doctrine, we promised the world that we would do everything in our
power to prevent a new world war, by stopping the spread of
destructive doctrines, like Fascism, Naziism and Communism. Today,
it's radical Islamist extremism. Truman's justification was that,
whatever being policemen of the world cost us in lives and money, it
would minuscule compared to the cost of World War II. Soon we're
going to have to learn that lesson again.

Quote Originally Posted by "pbrower2a" View Post
> I have no illusion: the Next Time is coming.
Amen

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2364 at 06-16-2007 06:11 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
06-16-2007, 06:11 PM #2364
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
I think that what I was getting at was that different people have
different "world models" in their heads, and therefore they can build
up a set of "truths" that are consistent with their own world model.
I think that people can sometimes lie for a long time if they
convince themselves of the truth of a model of the world in which
those lies are true.
True. Of course rulers in a 4T can also create bastions of lies -- especially if they do so in a system that represses all dissent. They can command any crime (purges, expropriations, aggressive wars, massacres) but they cannot command success. Hitler and Tojo underpinned their bastions of lies upon the delusion that the citizens of their tyrannies were supermen incapable of defeat. Of course it's a far greater bastion of lies than was Enron.





It's been understood
for centuries that freedom and equality are conflicting ideals: You
have to limit freedom to enforce equality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randolph_of_Roanoke

Therefore, mass poverty can flourish in total freedom. On the other
hand, too little freedom breeds corruption and that causes mass
poverty as well.
Hunger isn't freedom. Subordination of millions to a few rapacious aristocrats isn't freedom. If anything, freedom implies a government capable of addressing the concerns of the people -- and a free society in these times would be expected to address poverty. If economic inequality were the cause of freedom, then Apartheid-era South Africa would have been the freest society that ever existed except perhaps for the Confederate States of America.

That said, conflicts exist between freedom and equality. It's safely said that most people tolerate the inequality that does them good. Few people begrudge the huge film fees that a Jack Nicholson or Diane Keaton commands -- because great movies enhance life. Few are troubled that the physicians drive nicer cars and have bigger houses... if we are to have good medicine, we are going to need extraordinary preparation by prospective physicians that retail salesclerks don't need. Most people accept that some hourly worker at the same wage rate earns more by working overtime than by working 'only' forty hours a week. We should expect the more competent merchant -- the one who better meets the needs of customers -- to fare better than the one who doesn't.

When people see inequality that lies in something other than talent, competence, effort, or personal sacrifice -- inequality that does no good -- they get resentful, as at abusive elites, whether criminal gangs or political hacks and corrupt or rapacious executives. I see a potential cause of a 4T in America in the increasing enrichment of executives and shareholders who have tightened the screws on everyone else.

This isn't true. There are billions of people going hungry today,
some in freedom, some not.
Hunger is far more common under tyranny than under freedom. India, one of the poorest countries of the world, hasn't had a famine since independence. China has had lots of them in the same time -- and of course no heritage of freedom. The last famine in western Europe was in Holland in 1944 and 1945 -- under Nazi rule, paradoxically in a country that despite its population density was usually a net exporter of food. North Korea, arguably the least free country in the world, has evidence of famine.

Where does he get this stuff? He's just making it up. Free people
have just as many crisis wars as non-free people. We've had our
Revolutionary war and Civil war, and we were all free, weren't we?
He doesn't. Even in World War II, the United States was the last significant power to be drawn into any Crisis war, and then because of fascist aggression.

Free countries are less likely to treat their troops as cannon fodder. Their kill-die rates are higher in wars. They are less likely to murder prisoners or persecute dissidents or minorities. To be sure, democratic societies pursue the enemy as ferociously as tyrannies -- except that once the Other Side has surrendered, the democratic powers stop the horrors of war. Contrast British or American conduct in defeated Germany to that of the Soviets in defeated Germany, let alone the conduct of Nazi Germany or brutalized Japan toward occupied countries.

When the war was over, America -- which had endured monstrous crimes against its prisoners and its subjects in the aftermath of Japanese conquests -- didn't exact retribution from the common people and even the regular soldiers of defeated Japan despite the ability to do so. Sure, the US insisted upon trying the culprits... as examples. We couldn't forget Pearl Harbor -- or Bataan. That contrast, I believe, was appropriate. We could have carpetbagged Japan, Germany, Austria, and Italy... but didn't. Stalin's Soviet Union carpetbagged wherever it conquered.

Say what you want about incendiary bombings of German or Japanese cities -- the Axis Powers did that, too -- and other horrors. Can you imagine the Holocaust occurring in any country that has a free press and free speech, where preachers can safely denounce the amorality of a government? Where a political opposition exists in the open? But in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Amin's Uganda, or even Tojo's Japan, running afoul of the government put one's life in extreme danger.

Go back to the American Civil War. Yes, the carpetbagging was awful. But where were the mass graves of former slaveowners and Confederate soldiers slaughtered after the end of the war? Go back to the Revolutionary War. What happened to the Tories who didn't get out fast enough?

This sounds nice in theory, but it's just not true in practice.
I am fully aware of high birth rates in Islamic countries, as contrasted to countries of European or Sinitic culture. The high rates of population growth (by European standards) in the United States result largely from immigration, and in Israel in part by immigration and in part to the large Muslim population.

At a certain level of industrial development, population growth goes very low. Do you concede that ZPG might stop some of the wars that result from callow demagogues promising expansion as a solution to pressures on land?

I have at least conceded that the Arab world is far more likely to be the source of any catastrophic war than any other because of population pressures on land, dictatorial governments, and political instability.

It's just the opposite. It's the people who demand retribution
against other countries, even when the political leaders oppose it.
We see that today in the American xenophobia against Latinos and
Chinese, even though the Administration strongly opposes the kinds of
retribution that are being considered.

Genocidal war comes from the people, not the political leaders.
Democracy of course implies more tolerance for dreadful ideas, too. Freedom of expression allows some of the vilest pornography and the most vituperative bigotry. It also allows people to rail against both. I am convinced that the Ku Klux Klan is as vicious a fascist cause as any that has ever existed and would have committed Nazi-like horrors had it ever achieved power. But that would have been under a tyranny that crushed any opposition. Of course it is essential that people in democracies not vote for hatemongers as leaders.

The Japanese people did not rampage into China in 1932 or 1937; its Army did on its own or upon orders from the unelected political leadership. The Italian people did not invade Ethiopia; the Italian Army did under orders from Benito Mussolini (likewise Greece in 1940). The German people did not charge the border stations of Poland in 1939; the German army invaded on orders from the Fuhrer (likewise Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, and France in 1940), and Yugoslavia and Russia in 1941. The peoples of the Soviet Union did not overrun Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940; Stalin gave orders to destroy the independence of those countries.

... To be sure, democracies have control of media during a war so that the government can keep secrets essential to the prosecution of a war. Ship sailings and troop movements aren't publicized, and enemy communications are filtered. They especially control what military personnel say, hear, and read... and toward the end of a war they stop the hate messages.

Democracies have wars, and always have.
But not against each other! Such is the core of Rummel's argument.

Dictatorships and controlled economies don't work, anyway. It's easy
to prove, using the mathematics of Computation and Complexity Theory,
that controlled, regulated economies only work for relatively small
populations. As the population grows, the number of "regulators"
grows exponentially faster than the population, and so either the
government regulates less or it collapses. That's why the countries
of North Korea, Cuba, East Germany and Russia were all stuck in the
1950s for decades under communism. "Laissez-faire capitalism" is not
an ideology so much as a mathematic imperative.
Agreed -- with the qualification that democracy itself implies the ability to mitigate some of the effects of monopoly power and to address economic inequality.


When I have an opportunity, I like to ask high school or college
students to tell me anything they know about any international news
story. Mostly I get blank stares. Most don't even know what's going
on in Iraq, let alone Gaza, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, etc. As far as
history is concerned, even journalists don't have a clue.
I question whether the current President of the United States has a clue, and if someone disagrees with him he attributes that disagreement to a personal vice or folly.

For better or worse, we've taken on an enormous commitment and
responsibility by becoming policemen of the world. This happened
after World War II with the Truman Doctrine of 1947. Under this
doctrine, we promised the world that we would do everything in our
power to prevent a new world war, by stopping the spread of
destructive doctrines, like Fascism, Naziism and Communism. Today,
it's radical Islamist extremism. Truman's justification was that,
whatever being policemen of the world cost us in lives and money, it
would minuscule compared to the cost of World War II. Soon we're
going to have to learn that lesson again.
I concede that "radical Islam" is a menace to the West, and also to countries that, like China, India, and Russia, have leadership that thinks that it can avoid trouble. 9/11 is a portent of World War III -- if someone gets reckless. I also concede that this is also a good time for strengthening NATO and establishing alliances with fellow democracies that might become targets for radical Islam.

Radical Islam, like fascism, Nazism, and Communism, has no place for democracy except in rigged elections that 'prove' the Greatness of the Leader. Paradoxically, Saddam Hussein was one of the least radical of Islamic leaders; his evil arose from pure sociopathy, another dangerous tendency in any leader irrespective of culture.







Post#2365 at 06-16-2007 07:36 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-16-2007, 07:36 PM #2365
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post

Chinese Turnings and Generations
This was the same type of format I was planning on using for the Map Project database.







Post#2366 at 06-16-2007 08:57 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 08:57 PM #2366
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
This was the same type of format I was planning on using for the Map Project database.
Start producing them, and I'll set up a whole separate section on
my web site -- "Country Studies" or something -- for them.

John







Post#2367 at 06-16-2007 09:36 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-16-2007, 09:36 PM #2367
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
Start producing them, and I'll set up a whole separate section on
my web site -- "Country Studies" or something -- for them.

John
Alright. Will get started slowly, should boom after we finish the map project.

1990, we'll need to divide it up. Please PM me.







Post#2368 at 06-16-2007 09:41 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-16-2007, 09:41 PM #2368
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
Alright. Will get started slowly, should boom after we finish the map project.

1990, we'll need to divide it up. Please PM me.

And once they reach critical mass, we'll put them onto
Wikipedia.

John







Post#2369 at 06-17-2007 12:30 AM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
06-17-2007, 12:30 AM #2369
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post

1934-49 Communist Revolution (Crisis era)

Mao escaped the encirclement through the Long March, the longest
retreat in history, lasting a year. This began the civil war.

The two sides were forced to unify because of Japan's invasion,
especially after the "Rape of Nanjing" in December 1937.

The civil war resumed after WW II, forcing the nationalists onto
Taiwan.
Actually I think 1927 was the more likely start date for china's last crisis that was when the northern expedition, which led to the end of the warlord era and the nationalists gaining control of china, started and the when the conflicts between the nationalists and communists first got going in earnest.







Post#2370 at 06-17-2007 09:22 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
06-17-2007, 09:22 AM #2370
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
Actually I think 1927 was the more likely start date for china's last crisis that was when the northern expedition, which led to the end of the warlord era and the nationalists gaining control of china, started and the when the conflicts between the nationalists and communists first got going in earnest.

Then you're seeing a 7-year preliminary period of creeping crisis before the whole load was dumped on the fan? That sounds rather familar. 2000-2007 anyone?
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#2371 at 06-17-2007 12:27 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-17-2007, 12:27 PM #2371
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Generational Composition of Congress

Generational Composition of Congress

On my web site I'm constantly pointing out that the reason that
the country is paralyzed and Congress is so incompetent is because
it's run by Boomers, and Boomers are incompetent at governing (and
Xers are even worse).

A reader asked me how this can be true if all the leaders are
Silents.

So I went to this web page:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/demographics.tt?catid=age


And I prepared this table:

Code:
>               Senate   House    Combined
>              -------  -------   ---------
>   Age Group   #   %     #    %    #   %   Generation
>   ---------  -- ---    --  ---  --- ---   ------------
>   30-39       0  0%    20   5%   20  4%   Xer
>   40-49      10 10%    89  20%   99 18%   Xer/Boomer
>   50-59      28 28%   166  38%  194 36%   Boomer
>   60-69      37 37%   124  28%  161 30%   Boomer/Silent
>   >70        24 24%    39   9%   63 12%   Silent
By splitting the 40-49 and 60-69 age groups evenly between the two
generations in each case, you get this result:

Code:
>               Senate   House    Combined
>              -------  -------   ---------
>   Xer           5%     15%         13%
>   Boomer       52%     62%         60%
>   Silent       42%     23%         27%
This table shows that Congress is majority Boomer, and overwhelmingly
Boomer+Xer, especially the House.

Sincerely,

John

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







Post#2372 at 06-17-2007 01:43 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-17-2007, 01:43 PM #2372
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post

On my web site I'm constantly pointing out that the reason that
the country is paralyzed and Congress is so incompetent is because
it's run by Boomers, and Boomers are incompetent at governing (and
Xers are even worse).
WTF? it's the Silents (*cough* Lieberman *cough* Pelosi *cough* Reid *cough*) that stick wrenches in the gears when Boomer Dems try to get something constructive done
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#2373 at 06-17-2007 01:52 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-17-2007, 01:52 PM #2373
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis View Post
Dear Matt,

OK, let me ask you this: When did Kansas last have a crisis war? I
don't recall Kansas being on the list of countries that fought in
World War II.

So what's the criterion for "fighting in a crisis war?" I don't know
how to define the criteria, but there's a big psychological
component.

A person doesn't get up one morning, look at his watch, and say,
"Ohmigod! Look at the time! It's almost 58 years past VJ day! It's
time to go to war!"

A Fourth Turning doesn't automatically mean war; it means "attracted
to war"; it means, "has a propensity to war."
But therein lies the catch. You can't get out of the Fourth Turning until you have the war. So you are continually attracted to war until you eventually have one.

I don't know all the rules for these transitions. What's needed is
to collect a set of examples -- break down crisis wars by types --
civil wars, inward invasions, outward invasions, wealthy countries,
poor countries, and so forth -- and do a complete analysis. I
certainly haven't done that -- maybe you can do it as your PhD thesis
if you survive the war. At any rate, I feel pretty certain that when
that kind of analysis is completed, then the set of rules will be
pretty clear, and it will following something like what I outlined
above.
I mentioned this earlier in my conversation with Mike Alexander. We can do something like this as part of a side project to the Country Studies database. We'll have plenty of wars to cover there.

I wasn't aware of this. I thought they had a real war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Revolution

Russia fulfills all three of the conditions for starting a crisis war
that I outlined above. They have defense agreements with neighboring
countries. They have internal ethnic groups that hate each other.
Look how furious the Russians got just because the Estonians moved a
goddam statue; imagine what would happen if someone REALLY offended
them. But Russia has oil money, and that's kept them away from a
crisis war for the time being.
I don't understand how this is relevant to the fall of the Soviet Union and if they were reset to a 1T. If you say their mood indicates a 4T, fine, but why? Why couldn't the fall of the Soviet Union have acted as a 4T? We're researching South America now, and in the 20th century, most countries had a military coup and military rule that was the 4T. This is clearly not a Crisis War. So why is Russia different? Military treaties and ethnic group resentment don't seem to pertain to generational structure and trends, unless you can show that 4T conflict is on the rise.







Post#2374 at 06-17-2007 02:08 PM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
06-17-2007, 02:08 PM #2374
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Egypt's 1952 Revolution did serve as a crisis war, as much as the Cameroon's UPC revolt or the Malagasy Uprising. You don't need thousands of soldiers shooting each other for it to be a 4T, you just need some kind of climax which allows the clock to be reset and sets the tone for the next saeculum. The 1952 Revolution did exactly that:

- All Presidents of Egypt since have been military officers
- Nasser, one of the key generals of the 1952 coup, became the defining leader of the following 1T, and his ideals of Arab socialism still inform Egyptian politics
- Egypt has been essentially a moderate, Western-aligned autocracy at least since its last 2T
My Turning-based Map of the World

Thanks, John Xenakis, for hosting my map

Myers-Briggs Type: INFJ







Post#2375 at 06-17-2007 07:33 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
06-17-2007, 07:33 PM #2375
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

A web site reader was making comments about Africa and South
America, and I referred him to this thread and the "Official 'Map
Project' Thread" thread.

He sent me a reply which I'm posting here:


Thanks John for the repeated explanations and the links!

I meant to ask you for exactly this direction to a relevant African
generation thread.

Also, it appears that Easton and 1990 and Taylor Selseth largely
concur with my SubSaharan Africa classifications (I haven't yet
compared on other fronts), excepting that

1) they consider Sudan as one country, when it is actually at least 2
if not three countries, with slight offsets, eg South Sudan's war is
already over, Darfur's is reaching a crescendo, and Khartoum hasn't
fully broken out yet. The South Sudan's situation being settled is
already percolating out to Northern Uganda, where the Acholiland
(Lord's Resistance Army) has been routed by the combined actions of S.
Sudan and Ugandan gov'ts.

2) they are agnostic on Southern Africa, whereas I am definitely not
and see it definitely as being in the end of the Recovery era, poised
to enter Awakening before 2015. The formation of the Union of South
Africa in 1910 was clearly and unambiguously the establishment of the
1T. The culmination of both the Boer War and the Zulu War.

The struggle against Apartheid was definitely an existential struggle
which impacted negatively both the Afrikaner White farmers and the
Black tribalists (eg. Inkatha/Buthelezi allied with the Afrikaners).

And the timing of the saeculum tracks back quite elegantly to the
Mfecane, an Nguni term or Difaqane, a Sesotho term), which means "the
crushing," wherein the militarization of the Nguni age-sets had a
civil war between the Ndwandwe and the Mthethwa. The leader of the
Mthethwa was Dinigswayo and his main lieutenant was Shaka Zulu. Shaka
Zulu's forces decisively defeated the Ndwandwe. A dissident offshoot
of his forces, led by Mzilikazi, ended up founding the Ndebele kingdom
in 1840 what is now known as Matabeleland, Zimbabwe.

And in fact, the reverberations of the ~1820 Mfecane were felt, with
some delay, in the establishment of Swaziland and Lesotho, the Gaza
kingdom in Mozambique and impacted Tanzania too.

The South African Saeculum
1820 - Mfecane - Shaka Zulu's Kingdom (blacks united)
1910 - Union of South Africa (whites united)
1995 - Non-racial South Africa (everyone united)

3) Ethiopia is 10-15 years ahead of Somalia

4) Kenya is definitely ahead of Uganda and Tanzania by about 10
years.

5) I'm agnostic on Zimbabwe since the two major peoples: Shona and
Ndebele could be on different timelines.

It's generally believed by Angolans and Mozambiquans that their crises
were long overdue when they occurred, possibly because of
decolonization happening later there than elsewhere in the continent.
Portuguese were the first in and the last out of Africa (and the most
destructive of all other economic systems that existed previously).

It's a little bit hard to compare the maps, since they represent
snapshots at different years, the borders of countries don't really
represent the language groups/modes of production underneath them, and
classifying a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 turning doesn't allow you to see whether a
turning is just being arrived at or just departing.

There needs to be color gradient generational timeline maps, and they
should be overlaid on real ethnolinguistic/mode of production defined
peoples independent of or in hybrid with country-political borders.

The idiotic comments from a few that Africa has no saeculum were a
hoot. Anybody who knows anything about Africa knows that coming of
age-groups are a fundamental mechanism for society's organization
from the village on up through most of the SubSaharan environment.
These age-set loyalties are frateral bonds that last a lifetime and
are central to many forms of social and economic organization. It is
the militarization of the age-sets that signifies crisis.

In any event, it was nice to see my off the cuff generational
classifications largely confirmed by energetic folks who are focused
on this type of analysis.

I think the question of timeline Reset is crucial for understanding
many places.

Africa in particular experienced resets as colonialism invaded deeper
from the coasts, putting strains on available land and/or introducing
new crops and technologies which opened or closed off opportunities
and thus synchronized 1T's.

The scramble for Africa's oil is having another such impact possibly
accelerating or delaying crises in many places, especially the Gulf of
Guinea in Western Africa, but also in Chad and Sudan.

Great book on this called - "Untapped"

http://www.amazon.com/Untapped-Scramble-Africas-John-Ghazvinian/dp/0151011389
-----------------------------------------