Yikes, the US$ got massacred again today!

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Was There Really A Puritan Flip?

> I never really liked the idea of a Puritan Flip. I'm wary of
> solely event-based actions changing generations around. True, the
> society had to kind of be built from the ground up, but this is
> not too different from mid-cycle societies who continued on the
> same path when most of their infrastructure was destroyed.
> Furthermore, most of the migrations to colonial American came
> after 1620. Were that many people simply generationally absorbed
> into the existing setup, assuming there was a "flip?"

> Is it possible that there was no "Puritan Flip" at all and the
> long mid-cycle period just included a fifth turning? Does the
> narrative make sense this way?

It really makes sense if you think about what happened.

You had the Prophets from the Armada war who adopted Puritanism as an
act of rebellion against King James in the 1610s. Most of that
generation remained in England and led the country into the 1640s
civil war, following the usual generational flow.

But a subgroup, the Pilgrims, was so dysfunctional that they fled
England, went to Holland, and then to America. They were so
committed to their point of view that they did something completely
abnormal.

Psychologically, in to justify this radical move to themselves and
others, they had to become totally committed to their view.

The dictionary defines Puritanism as: "extreme strictness in moral or
religious matters, often to excess; rigid austerity."

So this subgroup has kids, and those kids are taught this extreme
view. They become a new generation of Prophets, rebelling against
their parents. So the relocation had the same effect as a crisis
war.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Gaudia,

Originally Posted by GaudiaRay

> John posted, " Actually, the Fed's ½% interest rate reduction last
> week evidently continues to have a powerful effect in reducting
> general investor anxiety and panic. I wouldn't have expected it to
> be so effective, but investor anxiety appears to have dropped to
> almost nothing. I don't know anyone who believes that the interest
> rate reduction has any significant REAL effect on the global
> economy, but it is having, for the time being, a significant
> EMOTIONAL effect."

> I disagree. There is a sense of fear which causes people to
> freeze, to defer taking an action...the deer in the headlights
> experience.

Maybe we have two different meanings of the word "fear," but there's
no doubt that the something very dramatic has happened in the last
two weeks, related to a sharp reduction in investor anxiety.
Undoubtedly what you're saying is also correct, but you're describing
a "sense of fear" that's different from what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by GaudiaRay

> That is what's happened. Fear was stemmed for a moment. But it's
> well set in the minds of the public. And when an event which is
> perceived as catastrophic or foreboding arises in the near term
> future, the public will react with full recollection of their
> recent fear. It comes pouring back on them. That's why I am now
> expecting a catastrophic decline in the DJIA within a few weeks
> 2-6, if the pattern of indecision continues. Indecision is a
> narrow trading range, between a top of a "new" high of maybe
> 50-100 points above the recent high, and a low of around 13500. I
> wait to see the sentiment as defined by the pricing materialize.

> I can't predict this will happen, but if the pattern continues as
> it's doing now, it will happen. I only read what evolves; I don't
> force a reality that I want on the reality that evolves.

> The public is fearful yet hopeful. It's not about to surrender its
> survival. Survival depends on being at this point in time
> irrational in one's expectation that the economic terminations
> occurring are nothing more then temporary and that alternative
> work will arise quite quickly to fill the gap.

Now this is more like it. You say, "And when an event which is
perceived as catastrophic or foreboding arises in the near term
future, the public will react with full recollection of their recent
fear. It comes pouring back on them."

That's absolutely right. "Fear" has been dramatically reduced within
the last two weeks, but once a new triggering event of the
appropriate type occurs, the fear will return as before and spike up
again.

There are many things going on that could trigger fear of a new
credit crunch. For example, NetBank has just failed -- the biggest
bank failure in 14 years. Banks in Canada and Europe are facing
serious and liquidity problems. The amount of asset-backed
commercial paper continues to decrease. Any of these stories could
quickly spiral into something creating an adverse reaction.

So I don't really disagree with your 2-4 week projection, but I reach
that conclusion by looking at some of the credit fundamentals, rather
than from a charts. Quite honestly, I don't believe that there's a
way to predict a generational stock market crash from DJIA stock
market chart patterns.

Originally Posted by GaudiaRay

> I have a question of you guys. I believe the DJIA will collapse or
> begin to collapse within 2 to 4 weeks based on a chart pattern.

> Based on what I am saying, gold will scream up and stocks will
> fall down. Assuming this is true, do you see in your views of
> society, prospective reasons, wherein you project or explore
> future alternative outcomes that will now, prospectively, rather
> then historically, explain why or that this will occur?

I get asked a lot about gold from web site readers who want to know
where to put their money.

I tell them to consider short-term (3-6 month) Treasury bills from
http://treasurydirect.gov or cash. People will need some cash anyway
to survive in case they become refugees (such as in a Katrina-like
situation).

Once you're sure you have enough cash to survive, then if there's any
money left over, you can speculate, and gold is a speculative
investment. I have no doubt that it will spike up initially, but
remember that you can't eat gold in a crisis, and you may not be able
to sell it.

Furthermore, I can think of scenarios where gold stays up, and I can
think of scenarios where gold crashes. (For example, suppose that
every family in the world decides at the same time to sell their gold
jewelry.)

As for the future, you're going to have a financial crisis and a
world war. At your home, near LA, you're going to be vulnerable to
Chinese missiles and the new Mexican revolution. Some people will
survive, some won't. As they say, death is part of life.



Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

It really makes sense if you think about what happened.

Okay, I guess this is plausible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you list 1620 as the end date for this crisis. Only a few hundred Pilgrims made their way to the Americas during that year, but 20,000 Puritans arrived in the 1630s. Did they raise Prophet children too?

I'd suppose they were less fanatically committed than the first settlers and society was operating relatively smoothly by the time of their arrival. I suspect that the whole period leading up to the ECW, generation-wise, was very fuzzy.

The current period resembles 1929 more than any period after the crash, the notion of the 1T beginning around 2013 is complete nonsense, the 1T won't begin until 2025 at the earliest with the awakening sometime in the early 2040's. All 4Ts don't require total war, and total war can occur outside of 4Ts. The ECW was not in a 4T period. Finally the notion of a crash upwards in nonsense, crashes can only occur downwards.

Just more boomers thinking that the economic crash or world war cant occur after december 21 2012 because of the promised "new world". I implore you to abandon your mayan influenced heresy and return to actual cycle-theory and generational study.

What are you talking about???

What a mean is the view proposed by GD which suggests a 1T after 2012. This is a common theme among boomer "prophets" which claims that climatic change would occur in 2012. These proponents are strongly influenced by the mayan prophecy-calendar which says the current world would end in december 2012. John X and yourself are apparently part of this school of thought.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yikes, the US$ got massacred again today!

Holy ****!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What a mean is the view proposed by GD which suggests a 1T after 2012. This is a common theme among boomer "prophets" which claims that climatic change would occur in 2012. These proponents are strongly influenced by the mayan prophecy-calendar which says the current world would end in december 2012. John X and yourself are apparently part of this school of thought.

Does GD suggest a 1T after 2012? Don't remember reading that. I've always thought of 2012 as a possible regeneracy point of the 4T. It's only 5 years away, after all, and we're not even obviously in the 4T yet.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What a mean is the view proposed by GD which suggests a 1T after 2012. This is a common theme among boomer "prophets" which claims that climatic change would occur in 2012. These proponents are strongly influenced by the mayan prophecy-calendar which says the current world would end in december 2012. John X and yourself are apparently part of this school of thought.

Cynic, seriously, you are too much!

Show me where GD says the 1T will start by 2012 and then show me where ancient spiritual themes are mentioned by GD. You keep making these increasingly bizarre statements, which just show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ignore Cynic Hero, he's an evil Commie. Look on the future of the West thread for the proof.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Ignore Cynic Hero, he's an evil Commie. Look on the future of the West thread for the proof.

I'm no commie, I am a populist/nationalist.

Here is proof that GD postulates a 2012 climax for the 4T:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Here is proof that GD postulates a 2012 climax for the 4T:

I don't see 2012 anywhere on there. He seems to say a 1T will start around 2020.

Originally Posted by 1990

I don't see 2012 anywhere on there. He seems to say a 1T will start around 2020.

I interpreted it as him saying the 4T has already started in earnest and that it would peak in 2010, which I would disagree. However even 2020 may be too early for the start date for a 1T, it depends on if the 4T started in 2001, 2005, or has yet to start.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I interpreted it as him saying the 4T has already started in earnest and that it would peak in 2010, which I would disagree. However even 2020 may be too early for the start date for a 1T, it depends on if the 4T started in 2001, 2005, or has yet to start.

Evidence for this bizarre claim?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I interpreted it as him saying the 4T has already started in earnest and that it would peak in 2010, which I would disagree. However even 2020 may be too early for the start date for a 1T, it depends on if the 4T started in 2001, 2005, or has yet to start.

But then, where does the 2012 assertion come in?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I'm no commie, I am a populist/nationalist.

Then, why, for the love of God, did you advocate that the U. S. foreign policy toward Latin America be the same as Soviet policy toward the Eastern Bloc?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Here is proof that GD postulates a 2012 climax for the 4T:

No no fan of Xenakis's version of The Theory (to put it lightly), but this is just a dumb assertion. I know Xenakis thinks that the 4Ts have no fixed length, but I've never seen him state a 2012 climax.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Then, why, for the love of God, did you advocate that the U. S. foreign policy toward Latin America be the same as Soviet policy toward the Eastern Bloc?

In order to prevent latin america from drifting into the hands of rival/enemy great powers such as china, russia, and europe US policy should be recalibrated to ensure that the governments of latin america are compliant to US interests. This should include invasion by force if nessesary. In practice latin american nations after these demonstrations of force would be permitted to maintain their internal affairs without US intervention as long as their foreign policy do not oppose US strategic interests.

Originally Posted by Odin

No no fan of Xenakis's version of The Theory (to put it lightly), but this is just a dumb assertion. I know Xenakis thinks that the 4Ts have no fixed length, but I've never seen him state a 2012 climax.

I do remember xenakis once saying that the third world war would be over by 2012.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

In order to prevent latin america from drifting into the hands of rival/enemy great powers such as china, russia, and europe US policy should be recalibrated to ensure that the governments of latin america are compliant to US interests. This should include invasion by force if nessesary. In practice latin american nations after these demonstrations of force would be permitted to maintain their internal affairs without US intervention as long as their foreign policy do not oppose US strategic interests.

I prefer Europe ruling the world, as it was before World War I. We're not all that good at it. And, yes, I do mean a monarchical Europe.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

In order to prevent latin america from drifting into the hands of rival/enemy great powers such as china, russia, and europe US policy should be recalibrated to ensure that the governments of latin america are compliant to US interests. This should include invasion by force if nessesary. In practice latin american nations after these demonstrations of force would be permitted to maintain their internal affairs without US intervention as long as their foreign policy do not oppose US strategic interests.

If you think that's going to work you are deluding yourself. That will just lead to Latin Americans to hate the US even more. Not to mention the fact that it is totally immoral.

Originally Posted by Odin

If you think that's going to work you are deluding yourself. That will just lead to Latin Americans to hate the US even more. Not to mention the fact that it is totally immoral.

Tell him!