Do you think WWII was Ireland's crisis?
I've always thought it the Revolution and Civil War, but was never too sure. I can see why the Emergency could be viewed as a Crisis though.
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,018
Ireland
Do you think WWII was Ireland's crisis?
I've always thought it the Revolution and Civil War, but was never too sure. I can see why the Emergency could be viewed as a Crisis though.
Last edited by Matt1989; 11-30-2007 at 11:42 AM.
In the same sense that World War II could have been a Crisis for Turkey, Switzerland, Sweden, or Portugal -- and could have been an extension of the Spanish Civil War Crisis for Spain. Ireland was one ugly incident away from being drawn into the Second World War. One German landing would have been enough to make the country a battlefield, in view of Ireland's neighbor.Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
World War II was clearly an emergency for any country fortunate enough to be on the sidelines.
Dear Matt,
We've had this conversation before, with respect to the fact that
Venezuela's last two crisis wars were mostly fought in Colombia. This
makes sense because Venezuela and Colombia were originally a single
country. It's like saying that South Dakota's last crisis war was WW
II, even though the war didn't take place on South Dakota soil.
Now you're saying in the above cases that you had a Crisis without a
crisis war. What could that possibly mean? If you didn't have a
crisis war, then what kind of Crisis did you have? You can't
possibly create the next generations of Prophets and Nomads unless
you have an actually Crisis, along with a climax and resolution. And
so, in each of the 5 cases you've given, please tell me what the
Crisis was.
I went and looked at only one of the five - Egypt. I know that I've
called the Egyptian Revolution a crisis war in the past, but now
re-reading the historical sources, you're right that it's not a
crisis war. So the question is: What was the Crisis? And the answer
is: None, because it wasn't a Crisis era, wasn't a fourth turning.
When was Egypt's last crisis war? It looks like World War II to me.
And the one before that? I would say the Urabi Revolt of 1879-82.
There's very little information available online about the Urabi
revolt, except for the final British bombardment and victory in the
battle of Tel al-Kebir in 1882. But the preceding events, in the
actual revolt led by Egyptian Colonel Ahmed Urabi appears to have
enormous significance. There are some books in Google books on the
Urabi revolt, but unfortunately none of them are free to read.
I haven't looked at your other four examples, but they all have to be
analyzed further. Despite all the talk about crisis wars not being
"necessary," no one has ever identified a generational Crisis that
wasn't a crisis war.
That's a very interesting problem to research. We can see today that
investors are desperate and anxious, and we can assume that they were
in the same mood in 1929. Thus, any little negative surprise can
spook the market and cause a mini-panic.
** Shanghai stock market index falls 8.8%, pulling down Hong Kong and Europe
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070227b#e070227b
I recently made a list of all the events that reassured or panicked
investors this year, and plotted them on a graph of the MarketPsych
investor fear index. This turned out to be an interesting exercise.
** MarketPsych investor fear index forecasts sharply increased market turbulence.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e071103b#e071103b
A similar study could be made of 1929 from historical sources, but I
haven't done so.
I assume that you're referring to the article that I posted a couple
of days ago.
** Tony Blair compares the Mideast peace process to the Northern Ireland peace process
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e071130#e071130
In that article I didn't indicate what Ireland's previous crisis war
was. I simply said that the British army firing on northern Ireland
protestors was an "Awakening era event." Well, it was for the
British army, anyway. Also, I assume that there's been a lot of
population migration among the various British isles, and many Irish
fought along with the British against the Nazis, so calling it an
Awakening era event even for the Irish probably isn't too far off the
mark, even if it's more accurate to call it an Unraveling era event
for them.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I'm looking for something that could imitate a Crisis War. This would mean that there would have to be shocking, sometimes violent events, that built up to a frenzy, thus imitating a climax.
I did an extensive amount of research on Egypt for creating my narrative. The Urabi revolt is an obvious crisis.I went and looked at only one of the five - Egypt. I know that I've
called the Egyptian Revolution a crisis war in the past, but now
re-reading the historical sources, you're right that it's not a
crisis war. So the question is: What was the Crisis? And the answer
is: None, because it wasn't a Crisis era, wasn't a fourth turning.
When was Egypt's last crisis war? It looks like World War II to me.
And the one before that? I would say the Urabi Revolt of 1879-82.
There's very little information available online about the Urabi
revolt, except for the final British bombardment and victory in the
battle of Tel al-Kebir in 1882. But the preceding events, in the
actual revolt led by Egyptian Colonel Ahmed Urabi appears to have
enormous significance. There are some books in Google books on the
Urabi revolt, but unfortunately none of them are free to read.
As for WWII, it doesn't make any sense. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/egtoc.html (Click Egypt During the War)
The war just was a turning point to something bigger, and IIRC from my researching, there was no direct fighting by Egyptians. Here is my narrative: http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...d.php?p=205035
I really think I got my dates right. If you look back at the saeculum, the Egyptian Revolution is almost the only possible Crisis.
Let's take a look at Egypt. There isn't a whole lot of information on the others, except for maybe Brazil.I haven't looked at your other four examples, but they all have to be
analyzed further. Despite all the talk about crisis wars not being
"necessary," no one has ever identified a generational Crisis that
wasn't a crisis war.
Oh ok. My mistake.In that article I didn't indicate what Ireland's previous crisis war
was. I simply said that the British army firing on northern Ireland
protestors was an "Awakening era event." Well, it was for the
British army, anyway. Also, I assume that there's been a lot of
population migration among the various British isles, and many Irish
fought along with the British against the Nazis, so calling it an
Awakening era event even for the Irish probably isn't too far off the
mark, even if it's more accurate to call it an Unraveling era event
for them.
Last edited by Matt1989; 12-01-2007 at 04:36 PM.
This is a response to a posting in the "Bad 1T = No Prophet
Generation?" thread.
The 4T ends with the crisis climax, in this case the Battle of
Yorktown.
There is no requirement that everything be settled by this time. To
the contrary, it almost always takes a few years to sort everything
out. That's what the Recovery Era (also called the High Era, also
called the Austerity Era) is for. After the Civil War, America went
through years of Reconstruction. After WW II, it took several years
for Europe's boundaries to be settled, and for Germany to be
partitioned. Japan was actually governed by American General Douglas
MacArthur from 1945-1951. After the Lebanon crisis civil war of the
1980s, climaxing with the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, Lebanon was
controlled by Syria until 2005.
The Bosnia war, climaxing in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, still has
fallout to this day, as evidenced by this story:
The "massive institutional change" that occurred around the
Revolutionary War was Independence from Britain. The next few years
were a very typical Recovery era, where different things were tried,
until the Consitution finally settled them. But once Independence
had been won from Britain in 1782, the Crisis was over.
I haven't researched this nearly as much as Matt has, and I'll defer
to his answers, previously posted. I'll simply make some general
theoretical comments.
When you say that the "Prophets would rebel against such a war,"
that's not what happens. You're thinking the of the 1960s anti-war
movement, but "anti-war" is not what an Awakening is about.
An Awakening era is about a "generation gap." The Prophets are not
opposed to war per se; what they're opposed to is whatever
their parents are for. In this case, their parents were determined
to stay out of the war between Britain and Napoleon; the kids
rebelled against their parents and pushed the country INTO war.
Institutional changes don't occur in a 4T until the regeneracy
occurs. Before that the country is institutionally paralyzed, as
America is today.
It's much more complicated than that. Here's something that I wrote
a year ago.
** Determining Turnings
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1521
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Matt,
A Crisis has to pretty much destroy previous generational differences
and unify the generations. A crisis war does that.
The other example we've discussed is a massive relocation of the
population. This almost always occurs in the context of a crisis
war, so it's not necessarily different.
However, the relocation of Puritans from Holland to America,
resulting in the "Puritan Flip," would be an example of a voluntary
relocation that performs the same function as a crisis war.
We can imagine other examples: An island nation is struck by a
massive natural disaster (tsunami, cyclone, hurricane).
OK, I'll take another look at it. But from a theoretical point of
view, if you have no crisis war, and you have no Crisis that unifies
the generations, then you won't have a first turning.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Last edited by John J. Xenakis; 12-01-2007 at 05:20 PM.
I'm suggesting there doesn't have to be a crisis war to achieve that unity. History will be the best judge of whether this is true or not. The 1952 Revolution is a perfect study. I look forward to your response.
Dear Matt,
The 1952 Revolution is not a crisis war, and it's not a crisis era.
For some reason, the Library of Congress history doesn't mention
Egypt's role in WW II.
But if you read the Wikipedia pages, you see that Egypt played a huge
role. Egypt was attacked from the north by Italy and from the west
by Germany. The Battle of El Alamein is considered a major turning
point in the Allied war against Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Egypt_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_El_Alamein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_El_Alamein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
But no Egyptians officially fought, so Egypt was only important from a geographic standpoint. During the course of the war, Egyptians were super pissed off at the British; and some, like Anwar Sadat, even aided the Nazis. The end result was the Egyptians getting even more pissed at the British government, leading to the Wafd's collapse in '44, and accelerating the road to independence.
We could apply the Switzerland model here and suggest that the institutional transformation in the 1940s and 1950s was just a 1T, but I just don't see it. The WWII era seems too political... almost like they had other things on their mind.
Last edited by Matt1989; 12-01-2007 at 08:22 PM.
Dear Matt,
Well, let's think about the Switzerland model. In the Switzerland
case, they were planning for war with Germany, they were expecting war
with Germany, and Germany was planning for war with them. If WW II
had lasted a little longer, or if Germany had been a little more
successful, then Switzerland might indeed have been invaded.
When we're dealing with hundreds of countries over two dozen
centuries, there are thousands of potential crisis eras to consider.
We know that, as with anything else, there's going to be a 90-10
rule: 90% of the cases will fit neatly into the standard case: "new
crisis war 58 ± 10 years after the end of the previous crisis war."
The other 10% will have some variation. Perhaps the crisis war will
come a sooner than 58-10 or later than 58+10. And we've identified
cases where, like Switzerland and Iceland in WW II, and Britain in
the 1860s, where the country seems to have "skipped" the crisis war.
When we come across an anomalous situation, especially a modern one,
then it's not a problem; it's an opportunity, because it gives us
another case to study. We can use the situation to examine the factors
that might lead to the anomaly.
According to your posting, the situation with Egypt is that: "If you
look back at the saeculum, the Egyptian Revolution is almost the only
possible Crisis." But you can't make something a crisis if it isn't.
You can't make something a crisis just because it's the only choice.
You apply the evaluation criteria to the era, and if they don't fit,
then it's not a crisis. That's all there is to it.
(Old joke by Abraham Lincoln: Q: If you call a dog's tail a leg, how
many legs would the dog have? A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't
make it a leg.)
So you have to look elsewhere. Perhaps Egypt is the anomaly where
the period of time between crisis wars is extremely long. Or perhaps
Egypt is the "Switzerland anomaly."
Now Egypt certainly was in the middle of WW II, but you say that the
Egyptians didn't fight. That's fair enough. If it were a crisis war
for Egypt, then the "genocidal energy" would have come through, and
the Egyptians would have started fighting.
Well, why didn't they fight? It was 58 years after the end of the
previous crisis war, when there are still some Artists around. Maybe
they held back any incipient panic.
What do Egypt and Switzerland have in common? You also have the four
other cases that you mentioned in your previous posting. What do
those have in common with Egypt and Switzerland? And don't forget
Iceland and 1860s Britain. Is there a common thread through all of
them? There are other examples Is there any way to relate them to
fifth turning countries like Mexico, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia
today? What are the factors that make a country delay a crisis war to
the fifth turning, or even skip a crisis war?
Those are the questions you have to answer to solve the conundrum
you've posed.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
[quote=John J. Xenakis;221107]Dear Matt,
My intent was to point out that all the major mid-cycle events centered around the relation to British Rule. During the 1T, the rule was harsh, and there were fears of another revolt, but there were no major incidents. During the 2T, there were mass protests against the government which were cooled by the nominal independence granted by 1922-23 (fortunately for the British, this came at the very end of the Awakening, so it sorta worked). During the 3T (if my original dates are correct) came the rise and fall of the liberal Wafdist government due to its relationship with the British. Finally, during the 4T, following the Arab-Israeli war, there was violence, people were thrown in camps, and a coup topped it all off. This doesn't mean that an overthrow *has* to be a 4T, but it seemed that all events were pointing toward it.
Perhaps if the Soviet Union were still around, I could make a similar comparison and suggest that the 4T would be cold war tensions turning into open conflict.
Hard to say. I imagine it was a combination of chance, not being late enough in the generational cycle, and a general sense of apathy toward the whole conflict (which is largely based off the first two reasons).Now Egypt certainly was in the middle of WW II, but you say that the
Egyptians didn't fight. That's fair enough. If it were a crisis war
for Egypt, then the "genocidal energy" would have come through, and
the Egyptians would have started fighting.
Well, why didn't they fight? It was 58 years after the end of the
previous crisis war, when there are still some Artists around. Maybe
they held back any incipient panic.
The only common thread I've found is their direct context. There was a coup, a period of uncertainty, shock, destruction, and a significant war (be it small guerilla operations against the government or the Arab-Israeli war) which lead to a political (and possibly generational) climax. I've speculated that the emotions surrounding these events may be "good enough" to act as a Crisis.What do Egypt and Switzerland have in common? You also have the four
other cases that you mentioned in your previous posting. What do
those have in common with Egypt and Switzerland? And don't forget
Iceland and 1860s Britain. Is there a common thread through all of
them? There are other examples Is there any way to relate them to
fifth turning countries like Mexico, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia
today? What are the factors that make a country delay a crisis war to
the fifth turning, or even skip a crisis war?
Those are the questions you have to answer to solve the conundrum
you've posed.
I'm afraid that going into anything more ambitious than that will lead to more questions and less answers. These are distinct from England 1860 and Switzerland 1944, which involved a panic that something was to happen... but it never did. In the examples I gave, something major did happen.
Dear Matt,
Matt, if the German army were heading toward you, would you have a
"general sense of apathy"?
This is 58 years after the end of the Urabi revolt, a time for
generational panic. And in fact the men living in the large Italian
community in Cairo were all locked up (leaving all the Italian women
alone, which was very convenient). This is not a sign of apathy.
I'm really puzzled why you reject WW II as a crisis war out of hand,
but focus on the Egyptian revolution, which didn't have any fighting
at all.
Some other relevant factors -- probably more important than chance --
are demographic factors, such as population density and poverty
level.
Egypt's actions in the Arab-Israeli war were very feeble -- in fact,
that humiliation was one of the factors leading to the Egyptian
revolution.
Egypt's performance in the Arab-Israeli war appears very much to be a
1T performance.
I don't know what "good enough" means.
Why is that bad?
England 1860s: When the North blockaded the Southern ports,
this inflicted great hardship on Lancashire's cotton mills. When
Northern Captain Wilkes boarded an British ship and removed two
Confederate envoys, the incident caused Britain to start preparing for
war against the North. It was averted only because the North backed
down, freed the envoys, and apologized.
Both of these events would have been enough to cause the British to
experience some panic because they meant that Britain was no longer
in control of the seas.
Switzerland: Germany's invasion of France would have been
plenty of reason for the Swiss to panic, causing them to prepare for
war with Germany.
Egypt: The planned invasion of Egypt by the Italians and
Germans did in fact cause the Egyptians to panic by locking up the
Italians.
Are you referring to the Egyptian revolution? There was no fighting,
and no sign of panic.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I was not aware of this fact.
I did briefly consider WWII, but none of my sources considered it a major event.I'm really puzzled why you reject WW II as a crisis war out of hand,
but focus on the Egyptian revolution, which didn't have any fighting
at all.
Why?Egypt's performance in the Arab-Israeli war appears very much to be a
1T performance.
Good enough to imitate a crisis war closely, thus moving the generations.I don't know what "good enough" means.
You seemed to be indicated that culture plays a part in these anomalies. I'd rather keep it simple, if possible.Why is that bad?
England 1860s:I clearly need to brush up on my Egyptian history. I'll have a response soon.When the North blockaded the Southern ports,
this inflicted great hardship on Lancashire's cotton mills. When
Northern Captain Wilkes boarded an British ship and removed two
Confederate envoys, the incident caused Britain to start preparing for
war against the North. It was averted only because the North backed
down, freed the envoys, and apologized.
Both of these events would have been enough to cause the British to
experience some panic because they meant that Britain was no longer
in control of the seas.
Switzerland: Germany's invasion of France would have been
plenty of reason for the Swiss to panic, causing them to prepare for
war with Germany.
Egypt: The planned invasion of Egypt by the Italians and
Germans did in fact cause the Egyptians to panic by locking up the
Italians.
Are you referring to the Egyptian revolution? There was no fighting,
and no sign of panic.
Egypt was a colony of the UK in all but name, a puppet state, during World War II.
Egyptian territory played a bigger role than the people did. The key battle in Egypt, in El Alamein, was in nearly-unpopulated territory. The Italians invaded Egypt from the west, only to be routed to the danger of Germany. The Germans effectively took over the North African campaign from Italy and advanced to El Alamein along much the same route, where the British first stopped (First Battle) and then routed (Second Battle) masterfully routed overstretched and undersupplied German forces with some clever ruses and (until then uncharacteristic) daring.But if you read the Wikipedia pages, you see that Egypt played a huge
role. Egypt was attacked from the north by Italy and from the west
by Germany. The Battle of El Alamein is considered a major turning
point in the Allied war against Germany.
The Afrika Korps in fact got withing 110 km (70 miles) of Alexandria... and that close to imposing a full-blown Crisis War upon Egypt. Any discussion of the nature of urban warfare in Egypt in World War II is, mercifully, contrafactual. It wouldn't have been pretty.
Crisis? Sure. Political instability arose from the military situation. King Farouk was on a very tight leash and could have been overthrown at any time. War? Yes, on Egyptian soil, but (mercifully for Egyptians) not where the Egyptian populace was. But close -- close enough that with adequate air power, the Germans could have dive-bombed Alexandria and Cairo as they did Malta. Mercifully for the British and the Egyptians the Germans lacked the air power at the right place with which to pummel Egypt and decide the Second Battle of El Alamein and likely the fate of the Middle East.
For the people? No. Others waged war on Egyptian territory, but not in the Nile Delta where the Egyptians were in large numbers.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 12-02-2007 at 09:11 AM. Reason: word choice
The problem in evaluating these situations is to figure out how the
people were affected, even if they weren't involved in the fighting.
For example, was World War II a crisis war for Kansas? Were people
in Kansas affected by the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
Also, I know that people here in Massachusetts were enormously
affected by 9/11, even though no buildings here were struck by
planes.
So now think about the arrogant Prophets from the Urabi revolt, living
in Egypt in 1940, sure of everything but knowledgeable about nothing,
suddenly hearing that the Italians and the Germans are coming towards
them. What happens? That's the question to be resolved.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
If one was from Kansas and survived Corregidor, one was certainly affected by the Crisis! People from Kansas went to all theaters of the war.
First, it's not clear that 9/11 is a Crisis. Second, lots of people from Massachusetts were in the Towers (Boston-area college graduates working for Cantor & Fitzgerald, for example). One of the jetliners that the perverts crashed into the Twin Towers took off from Boston.Also, I know that people here in Massachusetts were enormously
affected by 9/11, even though no buildings here were struck by
planes.
Are you sure that those few surviving prophets from the Urabi revolt had any use for the racial idolatry that was National Satanism?So now think about the arrogant Prophets from the Urabi revolt, living
in Egypt in 1940, sure of everything but knowledgeable about nothing,
suddenly hearing that the Italians and the Germans are coming towards
them. What happens? That's the question to be resolved.
This can't conceivably have anything to do with it. Speaking
personally, I know that I and many people around me were deeply
affected by the 9/11 attack practically from the moment it happened,
and nobody that I know of had any idea where the planes took off from,
or paused to discuss where Boston area college graduates were
working.
Try again.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I wasn't watching broadcast television at the time. Someone told me by telephone.
I was thinking "Pearl Harbor" as soon as I found out about the attacks. The details came out later. We all had to know who could so hate America to crash airliners into buildings, what perverse systems of thought could create such hatred, and what we could do to obliterate the enemy.
It was clearly not 4T; far from calling upon people to make sacrifices by cutting consumption, our President told us to "go shopping".
Cult of personality: Putin, Roosevelt, Hitler
Cult of personality: Putin, Roosevelt, Hitler
The phrase "cult of personality" is applied to Vladimir Putin today
as the party he leads heads for a landslide victory in Parliamentary
elections.
There are few people who doubt that, one way or another, Putin is
going to retain absolute power after his term as President expires
early next year.
Putin is not eligible to run for President again under the Russian
Constitution, and he's previously promised not to try to amend the
Constitution so that he can run again.
It's been the subject of widespread speculation for a couple of years
how Putin would manage to say in power, assuming he kept his promise.
We can now see several possible scenarios:
- He'll have total control of the Parliament after today, so he can
freely back off from his promise not to amend the Constitution.- He can resign as President, and take a new position as Prime
Minister. He could attain this position through his party's
Parliamentary victory today.- He can resign as President, become Prime Minister, and then run
for President again in the spring, since he would (as I've been given
to understand) be permitted to run for President again under the
Constitution, since the terms would no longer be consecutive.
One thing that's pretty clear is that it doesn't really make any
difference which of these scenarios Putin chooses, since Putin is so
popular with the Russian people that they want him to retain power by
whatever means he desires.
It's been clear to me, ever since I wrote the Yukos articles in 2004
(see list at end of this message), that Putin is absolutely
determined to take anything he wants, by any means possibility, while
still retaining personal deniability.
At the beginning, I was wondering if he was trying to emulate Lenin,
and I quoted this 1917 memo to the Politburo on the destruction of
the Russian Orthodox Church in order to harvest the Church's wealth:
During the entire Soviet era, the leaders were free to take anything
they wanted and keep it for themselves. The "reason" is that there's
"no private property" under Communism, which is the excuse that
Communist leaders used to justify taking what they want. This had
been the entire Russian culture at least since 1917.
Since 2004, Putin has also managed to extort the Sakhalin Island
project from Royal Dutch Shell in 2006, as well as an ExxonMobil
project, and a BP project in the Kovykta gas field in 2007.
Various political enemies have been knocked off mysteriously --
murdered or jailed. The same thing happens over and over again:
Putin's enemies die, and Putin takes what he wants. It always ends
up the same way, even thought there's never any ironclad proof, and
Putin always has deniability.
The question that I'm asking is how these two things are
related:
- Putin's steel-hard determination to take anything he wants
- The cult-like adoration that the Russian people feel for Putin.
The adoration for Putin very much has a generational feel to it, as
Russia goes deeper into a generational Crisis era.
There are only two other leaders that I can think of that have
generated similar adoration: FDR and Hitler.
Now, I'm NOT saying that FDR was a ruthless as Putin or Hitler, and
I'm not saying that Putin is (yet) as ruthless as Hitler (or Lenin).
All I'm saying is that these three leaders have generated what appears
to be a cult-like adoration from a large part of the population, so
much so that they want them to stay even in power, even if
extraordinary means are required. Hitler was enormously popular in
Germany, and Roosevelt was so popular in the US that he was elected
for President for four terms, even when he was near death.
By contrast, George Bush doesn't generate that kind of loyalty today,
and Winston Churchill didn't generate that kind of loyalty until the
war actually began.
There is one major thing that all three appear to have in common: A
kind of "financial regeneracy" had occurred. Putin is viewed as
saving the Russian economy after Yeltsin destroyed it in the 1990s,
Roosevelt is viewed as having saved the American economy after three
years of economic collapse, and Hitler was viewed as saving the German
economy after massive bank failures occurred in 1931.
** The bubble that broke the world
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.i.garrett071009
Does anyone have any insights into a larger context that relates
these three rulers, possibly with other rulers who were similarly
adored?
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
** Appendix: List of Yukos articles
** I wish we knew more about Putin's plans for Yukos
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040706b#e040706b
** Yukos: Bankruptcy is near
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040722b#e040722b
** Kremlin orders Yukos to stop selling oil.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040728#e040728
** Yukos freeze order rescinded after worldwide oil prices soar to all time high.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040729b#e040729b
** Kremlin appears to be backing down on nationalizing Yukos
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040802#e040802
** Incredible! The Kremlin has frozen Yukos' assets again
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040805b#e040805b
** Yukos is now fit only for vultures, as rumors of insider trading fly
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040810#e040810
** Kremlin backs down and hires Dresdner to evaluate Yukos subsidiary
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040813c#e040813c
** Yukos still very close to bankruptcy as oil tops $47 per barrel
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e040818b#e040818b
** After a week of high comedy, who the heck is Baikal? / Yukos
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e041219#e041219
** Now we know - Baikal is a neighborhood liquor store / Yukos
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e041220#e041220
** Yukos nationalization may set the pattern for Russia in 2005
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e041229#e041229
[End of message]
No, you don't need to settle things right after the climax, but you do need to sort things out and create a stable establishment before a 1T can occur. To say that the climax of energy *must* represent the end is absurd and ignores the definition of the word climax.
A climax simply means a turning point, and the height of energy for the 4T. In most cases, the climax will peak, and then drop off, but that doesn't mean that the 4T is finished. Sometimes it will, but most of the time you'll see the crisis continue as people try to pick up the peices and create a new establishment.
A 1T cannot begin until there is a stable institution by which society can function.
Reconstruction was a proper 1T because the South had a stable political establishment very shortly after the Civil War. Economic repairs needed to be made, but there was a stable institution to govern society.After the Civil War, America went
through years of Reconstruction. After WW II, it took several years
for Europe's boundaries to be settled, and for Germany to be
partitioned. Japan was actually governed by American General Douglas
MacArthur from 1945-1951. After the Lebanon crisis civil war of the
1980s, climaxing with the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, Lebanon was
controlled by Syria until 2005.
Europe's borders being unsettled after the 4T merely means that they are several years off in the next saeculum. While I'd need to look at specific situations, I'd imagine that most countries in Europe entered a 1T only by the 1950s, not immediately after 1945. This generally explains why European countries hit by terrorist attacks are not behaving in a very 4T manner in reaction.
The point of a 1T is not to re-establish institutions, it's to build the institutions established during a 4T.
No, indepedence had been won, but society still needed to restructure itself. They still needed to create a stable institution, and that didn't happen until 1789. *That* is when the 4T ended.The "massive institutional change" that occurred around the
Revolutionary War was Independence from Britain. The next few years
were a very typical Recovery era, where different things were tried,
until the Consitution finally settled them. But once Independence
had been won from Britain in 1782, the Crisis was over.
Anti-war is exactly what an Awakening is about, so long as that's what's happening during the Awakening. Prophets cannot cause wars during an Awakening. They will not be in Congress in significant numbers to be making such decisions. Prophets can't be "pro-war" because they have no ability to perpetuate war until a late 2T at best.When you say that the "Prophets would rebel against such a war,"
that's not what happens. You're thinking the of the 1960s anti-war
movement, but "anti-war" is not what an Awakening is about.
That's absurd and it ignores history entirely. The War of 1812 was opposed by the youth of the era. People were draft-dodging in 1812. The people who were fighting for the war in congress were 1770s cohorts, clearly artists.An Awakening era is about a "generation gap." The Prophets are not
opposed to war per se; what they're opposed to is whatever
their parents are for. In this case, their parents were determined
to stay out of the war between Britain and Napoleon; the kids
rebelled against their parents and pushed the country INTO war.
The regeneracy is the beginning of the 4T. What happens before that is happening on the cusp, and while it may be the beginning of a "crisis" it isn't a 4T until there is some effort to make institutional change.Institutional changes don't occur in a 4T until the regeneracy
occurs. Before that the country is institutionally paralyzed, as
America is today.
And what backs these assertions?It's much more complicated than that. Here's something that I wrote
a year ago.
** Determining Turnings
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=1521
Completely untrue, and I gave several illustrative examples. Or, it
depends on what you mean by "stable." In that case, the Confederacy
was "stable."
Total utter nonsense.
Because I've been using them for five years on my web site, and I've
written hundreds of articles describing generational timelines in
dozens of countries, and they work.
In fact, I've tested my assertions in many different ways. See:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220654&postcount=2641
The following two articles don't specifically address turnings, but
they do address some interesting arguments in the Generational
Dynamics framework:
** Book review review: Christopher Hitchens: "God Is Not Great:
** How Religion Poisons Everything" (I)
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070603#e070603
** Book review review: Christopher Hitchens: "God Is Not Great:
** How Religion Poisons Everything" (II)
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070603b#e070603b
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
You didn't prove that those were 1Ts, you just said that they were and expected me to go along with it without providing evidence. You're focusing far too much on the war aspect of 4Ts, ignoring the fact that 4Ts are fundamentally about producing a new institutional paradigm for the next saeculum.
And no, the Confederacy was not stable, because it lead itself into a war with the Union. If it had survived the war, it most certainly would have become a stable institution.
Cause the entire country to go to war with a foreign nation? How do they get the power? How do they compete against Artists and Heroes, who should compose a majority, and a more politically active segment of society?Total utter nonsense.
You're the one speaking complete nonsense if you honestly think that a Prophet Generation can spearhead a movement to bring a country to go to war with an outside enemy. A civil war, perhaps, but not a foreign war. They will not be able to control both Congress and the Presidency during a 2T, two components neccessary to start a war.
That's not backing your assertions, that's making predictions based on how the Saeculum works today, in a day and age when there is some form of republic in virtually every country. Generations and turnings last longer when a single leader can prop themselves up for a thirty-year period, something common before the American Revolution. There's no anamoly there. There's no anamoly in the Civil War or the Great Depression, both are simply a result of shortened 4Ts resulting from the quick establishment of a new instutution.Because I've been using them for five years on my web site, and I've
written hundreds of articles describing generational timelines in
dozens of countries, and they work.
I don't see why we have to use your system when the old system is working completely fine.
I have nothing more to add. You win.
John
On Institutional Change
No old Nick he
Dear Mr. Xenakis,
In my youth, 'liberals-in-a-hurry' aka members of the CPUSA insisited that one use the proper name for the Social Democratic Labor Party leader, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov which was progressed to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Nicolai and its variants are in error.
Thank you for your time.
Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS
