Dear Mr. Saari,

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> 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 the correction, I guess.

It does make me wonder, though, just who the hell is this guy Nicolai
Lenin that I've been reading about all my life.

Sincerely,

Mr. Xenakis

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mr. Saari,



Thank you for the correction, I guess.

It does make me wonder, though, just who the hell is this guy Nicolai
Lenin that I've been reading about all my life.

Sincerely,

Mr. Xenakis

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

Who is anybody who was anybody in a police state?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

It does make me wonder, though, just who the hell is this guy Nicolai Lenin that I've been reading about all my life.

Found an answer on the Russian Wiki

В конце 1901 года у Владимира Ульянова появился псевдоним «Николай Ленин», которым в частности он в этот период подписывал свои печатные работы. Имелось много версий о происхождении этого псевдонима. Например, топонимический — по сибирской реке Лена. По мнению историка Владлена Логинова, наиболее правдоподобной представляется версия[2], связанная с использованием паспорта реально существовавшего Николая Ленина.

Род Лениных вел свое начало от казака Посника, которому в XVII веке за заслуги, связанные с завоеванием Сибири и созданием зимовий по реке Лене, пожаловали дворянство и фамилию Ленин. Многочисленные потомки его не раз отличались и на военной, и на чиновной службе. Один из них, Николай Егорович Ленин, дослужившись до чина статского советника, вышел в отставку и в 80-х годах XIX столетия поселился в Ярославской губернии, где и умер в 1902 году. Его дети, сочувствовавшие зарождающемуся в России социал-демократическому движению, были хорошо знакомы с Владимиром Ильичем Ульяновым и после смерти отца передали Владимиру Ульянову его паспорт, правда с переправленной датой рождения. Есть версия, что паспорт Владимиру Ильичу достался ещё весной 1900 года, когда сам Николай Егорович Ленин ещё был жив [3].

That is:At the end of 1901 Vladimir Ulyanov began using the pseudonym "Nikolai Lenin", with which he often signed his written works during this period. There are several stories regarding the invention of this pseudonym. For example, after the Siberian river Lena.
According to the opinion of historian Vladlen Loginov, the most credible version is connected to the use of the passport of a real living Nikolai Lenin.
The Lenin family line came out of the Posnika cossacks, to whom was granted in the 17th century for services rendered in the opening of Siberia and the construction of palaces on the river Lena a noble title and the surname "Lenin". Its many members more than one time distinguished themselves in both military and civil service. One of them, Nikolai Yegorevich Lenin served up to the rank of State Councillor, left the service in the 80s of the 19th century, and moved to Yaroslavl region to pass his retirement, where he died in 1902. His children, sympathizing with the arising Social-Democratic movement in Russia, were well-known to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, and after his death, passed on their father's passport with a modified birthdate to Vladimir Ulyanov. There is even a version in which the passport was passed on while Nikolai Yegorevich Lenin was still alive..



HTH.

There are really two main possibilities here:


A) Egypt's Crisis climaxed with the fears surrounding World War Two
B) Egypt's Crisis climaxed with the 1952 coup


If A is the case, the road to revolution and the revolution itself should be viewed with a 1T perspective. This would entail a mood of recovery among the populace. The 1952 Revolution would then be viewed as cleanup following the crisis, while the road to Revolution should be based upon consensus, and a general desire to keep something like foreign powers intervening in Europe from happening again. The 1948 war with Israel would have to be a calm, political response along the lines mentioned above. Most of all, there should be a decline in Crisis-level activity and a widespread desire for order and stability.


If B is the case, the unnecessary hysteria and anger would be increasing along crisis lines. The road to Revolution would be bitterly partisan and even violent. The 1948 war with Israel would produce more than a feeling that things needed change, but that change must come at ANY cost. World War Two would be viewed as a precursor along these lines, but at lesser level. The months surrounding the coup would be at an increased level of Crisis-like intensity where the general desire does not place order high on the list.


Hopefully we can arrive at some sort of consensus.


On World War Two:

Originally Posted by The Modern History of EGYPT, P.J. Vatikiotis, pg. 351

In May 1942, Rommel's Afrika Corps against the British Forces in the Western Desert aiming at the capture of Alexandria....The Axis forces were virtually at the doors of Egypt's Delta. The effect of this was immediate and Egyptian reaction was hysterical – if not panicky. There was a run on grocers for hoarding of foodstuffs. More ominous was the run on banks by depositors. Foreign residents were prominent in this panic, many of whom began to leave Egypt for Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. Strangely enough the public was both terrified of an Axis occupation and at the same time pro-Axis in their sympathies... (Note: This is what I mistook for apathy)


The position in Egypt was precarious. Axis agents and sympathizers were encouraging the public to sabotage the British war effort in Egypt. Politicians known to be Axis sympathizers had been arrested or placed under house arrest throughout this period.

The schizophrenic hysteria leaves no doubt: Egypt was in a Crisis period during the threat of invasion during WWII.


On War with Israel:

Originally Posted by LOC Country Studies, Egypt

In 1948 another event strengthened the Egyptian desire to rid the country of imperial domination. This event was the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel by David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv. The Egyptians, like most Arabs, considered the State of Israel a creation of Western, specifically British, imperialism and an alien entity in the Arab homeland. In September 1947, the League of Arab States (Arab League) had decided to resist by force the UN plan for partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. Thus, when Israel announced its independence in 1948, the armies of the various Arab states, including Egypt, entered Palestine to save the country for the Arabs against what they considered Zionist aggression. The Arabs were defeated by Israel, although the Arab Legion of Transjordan held onto the Old City of Jerusalem and the West Bank (see Glossary), and Egypt saved a strip of territory around Gaza that became known as the Gaza Strip.
When the war began, the Egyptian army was poorly prepared and had no plan for coordination with the other Arab states. Although there were individual heroic acts of resistance, the army did not perform well, and nothing could disguise the defeat or mitigate the intense feeling of shame. After the war, there were scandals over the inferior equipment issued to the military, and the king and government were blamed for treacherously abandoning the army.

The British were mainly blamed for their poor military training.

Originally Posted by The Modern History of EGYPT, P.J. Vatikiotis, pg. 366-367

Acts of violence were directed against foreign (and Jewish) owned commercial and trade establishments... In short, the violent terrorist campaign of these years were aimed at everyone: the government, the foreigners, and the British in Egypt.


Fortunately for the government, the hostilities in Palestine had required the imposition of Martial Law in the country as of 15 May 1948... on 8 December Nuqrashi [note: Prime Minister] ordered the dissolution of the Ikhwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhwan), a ban on all its activities, and the confiscation of its funds and property... The answer of the Ikhwan to the dissolution came twenty days later. One of their members... murdered Nuqrashi... A new government was quickly formed by another Saadist, Ibrahim Abd al-Hadi... It proceeded to tighten security and launched a repressive campaign against terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, violent acts of sabotage and attempted assassinations continued unabated...


The cost of the Palestine War placed the government in serious financial difficulties and led to the first huge deficit in Egypt's budget in many years

The Road to Revolution:

Originally Posted by pg. 369-372

The Wafd, terrified by the violence of terrorism in the country, was ready to compromise. It had witnessed the flouting of state authority and power by the Ikwhan... the new government now sped to mollify extremists by a gesture of return to normalcy. It released most political prisoners and promised to abolish martial law...


More serious difficulties arose when the Wafd approached once again the question of Anglo-Egyptian relations, as this released organized popular groups in all their fury...Anti-British demonstrations soon flared up in Ismailiyya and Port Said. These led to clashes with patrolling British army units... Egyptian guerrilla squads were quickly formed... Armed clashes between these squads and British army units occurred for the next three months (November 1951- January 1952) and occasionally pitched battles were fought... By Janurary 1952, it was clear that the British forces were relentlessly moving towards the capital...


Demonstrations in Cairo and student strikes from 16 January 1962, onwards clearly indicated opposition to both the Government and the King. Furthermore, several of the demonstrating students publicly displayed their arms and used them against police... British artillery and armour destroyed the compound and decimated its Egyptian defenders. Over fifty policemen and gendarmes were killed; many more were wounded. The next day, 26 January, the mobs burned Cairo. Over 750 establishments were destroyed, at least thirty people lost their lives in the holocaust, and several hundred others were injured. The chaos- the breakdown of order – was complete. Martial Law was quickly introduced that evening...

The author seeks to show the breakdown of all order during this period. January 26th is known as Black Saturday, or the second Revolution.


The Revolution:

Originally Posted by LOC Egypt

The British believed there was official connivance in the rioting. Wafdist interior minister Fuad Siraj ad Din (also seen as Serag al Din) was accused of negligence by an Egyptian government report and dismissed. The king dismissed Nahhas, and four prime ministers held office in the next six months. It became clear that the Egyptian ruling class had become unable to rule, and none of the radical nationalist groups was strong enough to take power. This power vacuum gave the Free Officers their opportunity.
On July 22, the Free Officers realized that the king might be preparing to move against them. They decided to strike and seize power the next morning. On July 26, King Faruk, forced to abdicate in favor of his infant son, sailed into exile on the same yacht on which his grandfather, Ismail, had left for exile about seventy years earlier.

Originally Posted by pg. 377

At midnight (22-3 July) about three thousand troops and some two hundred officers took control of the the key Army Headquarters Barracks in Abbasiyya.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> There are really two main possibilities here:

> A) Egypt's Crisis climaxed with the fears surrounding World War
> Two

> B) Egypt's Crisis climaxed with the 1952 coup

> If A is the case, the road to revolution and the revolution itself
> should be viewed with a 1T perspective. This would entail a mood
> of recovery among the populace. The 1952 Revolution would then be
> viewed as cleanup following the crisis, while the road to
> Revolution should be based upon consensus, and a general desire to
> keep something like foreign powers intervening in Europe from
> happening again. The 1948 war with Israel would have to be a calm,
> political response along the lines mentioned above. Most of all,
> there should be a decline in Crisis-level activity and a
> widespread desire for order and stability.

> If B is the case, the unnecessary hysteria and anger would be
> increasing along crisis lines. The road to Revolution would be
> bitterly partisan and even violent. The 1948 war with Israel would
> produce more than a feeling that things needed change, but that
> change must come at ANY cost. World War Two would be viewed as a
> precursor along these lines, but at lesser level. The months
> surrounding the coup would be at an increased level of Crisis-like
> intensity where the general desire does not place order high on
> the list.

> Hopefully we can arrive at some sort of consensus.

So what was your conclusion?

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Justin,

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> At the end of 1901 Vladimir Ulyanov began using the pseudonym
> "Nikolai Lenin", with which he often signed his written works
> during this period. There are several stories regarding the
> invention of this pseudonym. For example, after the Siberian river
> Lena.

> According to the opinion of historian Vladlen Loginov, the most
> credible version is connected to the use of the passport of a real
> living Nikolai Lenin.

> The Lenin family line came out of the Posnika cossacks, to whom
> was granted in the 17th century for services rendered in the
> opening of Siberia and the construction of palaces on the river
> Lena a noble title and the surname "Lenin". Its many members more
> than one time distinguished themselves in both military and civil
> service. One of them, Nikolai Yegorevich Lenin served up to the
> rank of State Councillor, left the service in the 80s of the 19th
> century, and moved to Yaroslavl region to pass his retirement,
> where he died in 1902. His children, sympathizing with the arising
> Social-Democratic movement in Russia, were well-known to Vladimir
> Ilyich Ulyanov, and after his death, passed on their father's
> passport with a modified birthdate to Vladimir Ulyanov. There is
> even a version in which the passport was passed on while Nikolai
> Yegorevich Lenin was still alive..

Thanks for digging that out. It clears a lot of stuff up.

Incidentally, I assume that you must realize that you were a large
part of the inspiration for the piece I wrote on Putin.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So what was your conclusion?

I still need to do more research, but my source showed a total breakdown of order in the years leading up to the Revolution. What's key is not the actual events (as it was only a few hundred or thousand doing the assassinations and burning Cairo), but the public response to the events. I need to judge that.

Anyway, my source indicated that the public wasn't begging for order, as they would be if it was a 1T (you can see that in Somalia today). But I haven't confirmed it. I'm looking, but haven't been able to find much.

A puzzle: Russia and Nihilism

I've been researching the role of nihilism in the lead-up to the
Russian revolution.

Here are four articles I've been reading:

http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1917_276.html
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Nihilism.html
http://www.counterorder.com/history.html
http://www.thecorner.org/hist/russia/revo1905.htm

Now, the problem is that Nihilism of the 1860s was clearly an
Awakening era movement. There was even a major book that united the
Nihilism movement: Fathers and Children by Iván Turgénieff, written
in 1862. Another book on the subject is: Lampert, E., Sons Against
Fathers – Studies in Russian Radicalism and Revolution, Oxford at the
Clarendon Press, 1965.

The reason that's a problem is that it means that the Crimean War
cannot have been Russia's crisis war. This makes sense anyway, since
Russia fought the war poorly. However, people who have criticized
the choice of the Crimean War as a crisis war have always argued that
the real crisis war came later, with Russia's emancipation of the
serfs in 1861. For example, here's what someone called "bg115" (a
Millennial named Billy Jeffick) posted here in August 2003:

Originally Posted by bg115 (Billy Jeffick)

> Sorry, but I must disagree with either the Crimean War, or the
> Revolution, or the current times being Crisis Eras. Rather the
> opposite. Even today, the Crimean was is remembered with the
> least amount of sympathy and with greatest humiliation. That war
> did nothing, but showed how weak Russia was compared to Britain,
> France, and even Turkey. It was fought fervently, but with little
> patience and little organization. That was most likely an early
> Unravelling war. Late Prophets like Tolstoy and early Nomads were
> the foot soldiers in that war. That war was one of Russia's
> greatest humiliations, and its soldiers walked away from the field
> with shame and never got respect.

This makes no sense to me, except the part where he argues that the
Crimean War really couldn't have been a crisis war.

Based on the research on Nihilism, Russia's crisis war must have come
earlier than the Crimean War -- somewhere in the 1940s. But I can't
find anything that resembles a crisis.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've been researching the role of nihilism in the lead-up to the
Russian revolution.

Hey, dude, reality check: yer yappin' up the wrong tree.

This place has evolved into a LEFTist CULTure, my friend. By definition, History has no place in the LEFTist CULTure (even Thom Jefferson advocated homosexuals be castrated, you know). Ergo, even pristine 4T-cold-driven Russian History is rather blah blah, dude.

Strauss and Howe have merely re-energized, falsely in my opinion, a cult dulled, numbed and rightfully defeated by Reagan et al inspired freedom and liberty-loving Americans.

But I digress, History, Russian, British, USA or otherwise, has no place here at this website.

Strauss and Howe themselves have demanded it be so, so you, sir, just need to "let it be."

Originally Posted by zilch

Hey, dude, reality check: yer yappin' up the wrong tree.

This place has evolved into a LEFTist CULTure, my friend. By definition, History has no place in the LEFTist CULTure (even Thom Jefferson advocated homosexuals be castrated, you know). Ergo, even pristine 4T-cold-driven Russian History is rather blah blah, dude.

Strauss and Howe have merely re-energized, falsely in my opinion, a cult dulled, numbed and rightfully defeated by Reagan et al inspired freedom and liberty-loving Americans.

But I digress, History, Russian, British, USA or otherwise, has no place here at this website.

Strauss and Howe themselves have demanded it be so, so you, sir, just need to "let it be."

um.....I think you might've added a little bit too much rum in your egg nog my friend

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I've found, in my research (this is an estimate):

98%+ of crisis eras have some sort of war in them
85%+ of crisis eras have a war that adequately meets the crisis war algorithm

South America seems to account for the majority of that ~15% (its usually that the war is not the centerpiece of the 4T), but it's the reason I have slowly backed away from the term "Crisis War" when talking about a Crisis. I think the concept is important for evaluation should the war be the centerpiece, but is not the sole determining factor.

98% - 85% = 13%

Could the noncenterpiece wars be the result of one side being particularly weak? That is, in comparison to the opposing side?

Perhaps a fault line may form between two very unequal sides?

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

um.....I think you might've added a little bit too much rum in your egg nog my friend

By all means, do not attempt to refute my assertion. Attack via a mere coy personal affront upon the Asserter.

Such is the deep wisdom of the LEFTish CULTure.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

A puzzle: Russia and Nihilism

I've been researching the role of nihilism in the lead-up to the
Russian revolution.

Here are four articles I've been reading:

http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1917_276.html
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Nihilism.html
http://www.counterorder.com/history.html
http://www.thecorner.org/hist/russia/revo1905.htm

Now, the problem is that Nihilism of the 1860s was clearly an
Awakening era movement. There was even a major book that united the
Nihilism movement: Fathers and Children by Iván Turgénieff, written
in 1862. Another book on the subject is: Lampert, E., Sons Against
Fathers – Studies in Russian Radicalism and Revolution, Oxford at the
Clarendon Press, 1965.

I haven't read the articles yet, but I have tried to pinpoint the location of the Russian 2T in the past for the purpose of determining the end of the Crisis. I hadn't heard about the Nihilism of the 1860s, but I do know there was an intellectual/radical/revolutionary movement in the 1870s, that clearly had its roots in the previous decade. In 1876 many of these groups resorted to terrorism. One such revolutionary assassinated Alexander II in 1881. Radicalism lasted well into the 1880s.

The reason that's a problem is that it means that the Crimean War
cannot have been Russia's crisis war. This makes sense anyway, since
Russia fought the war poorly. However, people who have criticized
the choice of the Crimean War as a crisis war have always argued that
the real crisis war came later, with Russia's emancipation of the
serfs in 1861. For example, here's what someone called "bg115" (a
Millennial named Billy Jeffick) posted here in August 2003:

Based on the research on Nihilism, Russia's crisis war must have come
earlier than the Crimean War -- somewhere in the 1940s. But I can't
find anything that resembles a crisis.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I've looked. There may be something HUGE that I'm missing, but I seriously doubt it. It's gotta be the Crimean War. Right????? Is it possible to view the 1860s within a 1T context? In the American High, we had the Civil Rights movement, the beatniks, and rock and roll. Is it possible to draw parallels?

Perhaps the intellectual roots were laid in the 1860s, and it became a popular force in 1870.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

98% - 85% = 13%

Could the noncenterpiece wars be the result of one side being particularly weak? That is, in comparison to the opposing side?

Perhaps a fault line may form between two very unequal sides?

Good thought. If my hypothesis is correct, this is almost undeniable. In addition, the thirst for blood varies in 4Ts. Not every single one is a Rwandan -type genocide. I think there are an infinite amount of factors that go into the making of the Crisis, so while I'm wary of pinning down causes, yours seems to be important.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I haven't read the articles yet, but I have tried to pinpoint the
> location of the Russian 2T in the past for the purpose of
> determining the end of the Crisis. I hadn't heard about the
> Nihilism of the 1860s, but I do know there was an
> intellectual/radical/revolutionary movement in the 1870s, that
> clearly had its roots in the previous decade. In 1876 many of
> these groups resorted to terrorism. One such revolutionary
> assassinated Alexander II in 1881. Radicalism lasted well into the
> 1880s.

> I've looked. There may be something HUGE that I'm missing, but I
> seriously doubt it. It's gotta be the Crimean War. Right????? Is
> it possible to view the 1860s within a 1T context? In the American
> High, we had the Civil Rights movement, the beatniks, and rock and
> roll. Is it possible to draw parallels?

> Perhaps the intellectual roots were laid in the 1860s, and it
> became a popular force in 1870.

That makes a lot of sense. You're probably right.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by zilch

This place has evolved into a LEFTist CULTure, my friend. By definition, History has no place in the LEFTist CULTure (even Thom Jefferson advocated homosexuals be castrated, you know). Ergo, even pristine 4T-cold-driven Russian History is rather blah blah, dude.

Some do not find it so. Some on this site are interested in history. Sorry you find it dull.

Originally Posted by zilch

Strauss and Howe have merely re-energized, falsely in my opinion, a cult dulled, numbed and rightfully defeated by Reagan et al inspired freedom and liberty-loving Americans.

I agree Reagan created a new dominant conservative unraveling movement that replaced extensions of FDR’s New Deal that were dominant through the Crisis, High and Awakening. Reagan’s was a very important movement. I’d add that his supporters, in addition to loving freedom and liberty, were no longer ready to embrace the tax and spend policies of the ‘big problems can only be solved by big government’ GI generation. Reagan taped well into the failures of the 1970s -- Watergate, the oil crisis, the hostage crisis, the national malaise -- and correctly judged that the American People were no longer ready to seek tax and spend solutions to all the world’s ills.

As a result, many of the world’s ill have been left free to grow. Solutions cannot be put off indefinitely. The rhythm of the cycles suggests the crisis is the time to address them. Thus, the Reagan ‘cut taxes and start no big new programs’ culture, ever so right for the unraveling, is not necessarily correct for the crisis. I would expect another transformation, a grey champion setting new policies and goals. It tends to happen. And, no, the new champion’s agenda will no more be a copy of FDR’s than FDR’s was a copy of Lincoln’s, or Lincoln’s was a copy of the founding father’s. There are many ways to love freedom and liberty.

I am surprised to hear you advocate an ‘end of history’ perspective, where there is not a major transformation of society at the 4T. This seems very anti cyclic.

Originally Posted by zilch

But I digress, History, Russian, British, USA or otherwise, has no place here at this website.

Strauss and Howe themselves have demanded it be so, so you, sir, just need to "let it be."

Could you provide a reference for that one? A lot of us are having fun and learning stuff discussing history.

John, I seriously doubt Sudan's last Crisis War was WWII.

A) It appears that this recent Crisis War began in the early-mid 1980s and has been at the climax level for a few years.

B) WWII doesn't fit as far as I can tell.

C) I think the Mahdist War was the last CW.

It's really difficult to analyze Sudan, and a more rigorous study is needed. It's a huge country, and I suspect it was, and still is, on multiple timelines; hence, the two bitter civil wars, among other things.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> John, I seriously doubt Sudan's last Crisis War was WWII.

> A) It appears that this recent Crisis War began in the early-mid
> 1980s and has been at the climax level for a few years.

> B) WWII doesn't fit as far as I can tell.

> C) I think the Mahdist War was the last CW.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

> It's really difficult to analyze Sudan, and a more rigorous study
> is needed. It's a huge country, and I suspect it was, and still
> is, on multiple timelines; hence, the two bitter civil wars, among
> other things.

I haven't forgotten about this comment, even though I never answered
it till now.

The problem, as you suggest, is that Sudan is huge, and there are
certainly multiple timelines.

Here are salient points that I've been focusing on:

• The Mahdist war that you mention is clearly a northeastern war,
  centered around Khartoum, linked to Egypt.
  
• The recent genocidal war in southern Sudan cannot, I believe, be
  on the same timeline as the Darfur war. The reason for this
  belief is that if it were on the same timeline then Darfur would
  have been drawn into it -- and in fact various forces tried to
  make that happen.
  
• The Darfur war timeline -- occasional conflict in the 1970s,
  low-level violence in the 80s with a mini-war in the late 80s
  driven by external forces, increased unrest in the 90s with the
  Jenjaweed militia acting as policemen, regeneracy in 2002,
  full-scale war by 2004 -- is really very clear, clean and
  unambiguous.
  
• The Darfur timeline is about a generation behind the southern
  war timeline.
  
• And now we have the involvement with Chad, which may or may
  not metastasize into full-scale war - we'll have to see.

These factors point to a previous Darfur crisis war occurring in WW II
or just a little before, possibly with some linkage to Chad.

Now, I have to agree that I can't identify any crisis war in that
time frame, but that might be because the main focus is on Khartoum.

So I really believe that the previous Darfur crisis war must have
been in the 1930s or early 1940s, but I can't prove it and I can't
disprove it.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

• The recent genocidal war in southern Sudan cannot, I believe, be
  on the same timeline as the Darfur war. The reason for this
  belief is that if it were on the same timeline then Darfur would
  have been drawn into it -- and in fact various forces tried to
  make that happen.

That's a great point.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I agree Reagan created a new dominant conservative unraveling movement that replaced extensions of FDR’s New Deal that were dominant through the Crisis, High and Awakening. Reagan’s was a very important movement. I’d add that his supporters, in addition to loving freedom and liberty, were no longer ready to embrace the tax and spend policies of the ‘big problems can only be solved by big government’ GI generation. Reagan taped well into the failures of the 1970s -- Watergate, the oil crisis, the hostage crisis, the national malaise -- and correctly judged that the American People were no longer ready to seek tax and spend solutions to all the world’s ills.

As a result, many of the world’s ill have been left free to grow. Solutions cannot be put off indefinitely. The rhythm of the cycles suggests the crisis is the time to address them. Thus, the Reagan ‘cut taxes and start no big new programs’ culture, ever so right for the unraveling, is not necessarily correct for the crisis. I would expect another transformation, a grey champion setting new policies and goals. It tends to happen. And, no, the new champion’s agenda will no more be a copy of FDR’s than FDR’s was a copy of Lincoln’s, or Lincoln’s was a copy of the founding father’s. There are many ways to love freedom and liberty.

Just saw this one. Thanks for a very interesting and somewhat non-partisan analysis. That sort of thing is depressingly rare here these days. I personally find it kind of astonishing that on a forum full of folks who are supposedly devotees of a theory that explicitly says the problems of the fourth turning are caused by the actions of the masses of people, many of the members continue to place all of the blame for the fourth turning on politicians.

Yes, Ronald Reagan was ideal for the problems of his time, just as FDR was ideal for the problems of his own time. But, his memory is perhaps as much of a problem to the current conservative movement as it is a benefit. Its members continue to try to apply solutions that were perfect a quarter of a century ago to the very different problems of today. Of course, the liberals who are still trying to apply the solutions of the awakening to today are no less pathetic, but the problem is real nonetheless.

You seem, however, to be saying that Reagan's fiscal discipline set off a pattern of avoiding the implementation of solutions until tomorrow. I have to disagree on that one. You seem to think that throwing money at problems is a solution in and of itself, but if that were true, we would have solved all the world's problems by now. Pretty much every president since Reagan has increased spending by historic amounts.

To all:

I've had a query about about whether S&H's work on generational
differences has been validated by the Myers-Briggs test.

Does anyone know whether S&H themselves have done this kind of
research, or if anyone else has followed on with it?

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

To all:

I've had a query about about whether S&H's work on generational
differences has been validated by the Myers-Briggs test.

Does anyone know whether S&H themselves have done this kind of
research, or if anyone else has followed on with it?

Sincerely,

John

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

The MBTI and its relationship to generations is one of the longest-running topics here, and some attempts at correlating the two have been posted in that topic. However, such efforts have not gotten beyond the anecdotal stage. Perhaps you might wish to conduct such a study yourself, or get a psychologist to perform one, whether by administering the tests himself or herself, or by data mining existing results. That said, I have several caveats.

First, S&H based their generational archetypes in The Fourth Turning on Jung's archetypes (the generational types in Generations lack the Jungian terminology), not Jung's personality types. The two are not the same. The MBTI is the most scientific and accepted way of determining one's Jungian personality type (not archetype), so you might just be measuring the wrong correlation. You'd need to find the relevant literature that establishes a correspondence between archetype and personality type.

Second, what MBTI literature I've seen shows that proportions of various types is relatively steady over time. If you can determine changes in MBTI type over time, you might have discovered something groundbreaking in MBTI research. I have my doubts, but I'll be among the first to congratulate you should you succeed in finding such a pattern and demonstrating it in a rigorous manner.

Third, you might get a very good idea of MBTI by generation, but you might still be measuring the wrong thing. After all, the important changes are not in the mass of personalities, but in who becomes the leaders of each generation. Each generation and time may produce the same mix of MBTI types, but choose very different kinds of leaders. Even then, you have to be careful. S&H noted that the Lost Generation leadership changed during the transition from the Roaring 20s into the Great Depression and predicted a very similar change in Generation X--a "21st Century 'Revenge of the Nerds'"--during the changeover into this 4T.

Finally, there is some controversy about whether the MBTI really reflects Jung's ideas of personality type. That, however is the least of your worries.

Here's another possibility--correspondence of generational leaders with the Enneagram. That seems to produce interesting results, although I haven't run the statistics to see if they are significant.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've had a query about about whether S&H's work on generational differences has been validated by the Myers-Briggs test.

Does anyone know whether S&H themselves have done this kind of research, or if anyone else has followed on with it?

Maybe a better question would be whether or not the MBTI system has been validated by S&H's work? And also, I'm curious as to whether or not S&H's work has been validated by phrenologists or eugenicists.

To all:

Thanks to all of you for responses to my query whether S&H's work on
generational differences has been validated by the Myers-Briggs test.

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised and disappointed. After all
these years, I would have thought that somebody somewhere would have
tried to validate S&H's results using SOME KIND of generally accepted
standardized measure. If that's never been done, it counts against
the credibility of any generational theory. Conversely, such a
validation would greatly strengthen the credibility of generational
theory.

I have little doubt that such a validation would succeed, based on
the enormous amount of anecdotal evidence. But it's a shame that
nobody, including S&H themselves, have attempted to validate in a way
that would be credible to academics.

Sincerely,

John

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

An invitation to contribute to
the GenerationalDynamics.com web site

If you would like to write an article for GenerationalDynamics.com,
then please post a reply here or send me a private message with your
ideas or an outline.

This could be a one-time thing, or if things work out you could
contribute something every day.

GenerationalDynamics.com now has over 5000 regular readers, and I'd
like to expand the content if possible.

I've been kicking around what the "rules," if any, would be for other
contributors to this web site. Basically I'm open to anything, but
the following thoughts apply:

• Prime Directive: Your contributions should make the web
  site and Generational Dynamics look good. Save your "Xenakis is a
  psychopath" screed for your own blog.
  
• I'd particularly like views from "different places": other
  countries, other occupations, other generations, other genders, other
  centuries. Does anyone on Mars read this web site?
  
• An article may discuss a specific disagreement with a specific
  theoretical or practical aspect of Generational Dynamics, if that
  subject is of interest, but as a general rule, your use of
  generational theory should agree with the theory as already presented
  there. It's VERY IMPORTANT to avoid confusing the reader.
  
• Probably the most important aspect of the preceding paragraph is
  this: It's a fundamental principle of generational theory that it
  provides no guide whatsoever to politics: It doesn't tell you who's
  going to win the election, and even tells you that it makes no
  difference who wins the election. Why you love Bush or hate Bush is
  utterly, totally irrelevant to what's coming. Nothing that Bush or
  his successor does or does not do, says or does not say, has any
  PREDICTABLE effect on the great events to come.
  
• Criticisms of religions or ethnic groups or countries (including
  America) may be OK, PROVIDED THAT they're done dispassionately. This
  is a tricky business, and will be judged carefully. It's OK to
  criticize Islamist terrorists, but not Muslims. If you criticize
  Islam, you'd better also criticize Christianity or Judaism in a
  similar manner designed to enlighten people about the fundamental
  differences. I am the final, unappealable judge of what "hate
  speech" is, and it will be rejected.
  
• I will review and possibly edit any contribution prior to
  posting.
  
• On the other hand, if you're a free spirit who just wants to talk
  about life, in the framework of generations, then that should be
  fine. As I said, I'm open to anything, subject to a few concerns that
  I'm listing here.

What are some of the topics that you might want to write about?

Here are some examples:

• How the generational attitudes in your country differ from
  those in America and other Western countries.
  
• "How to survive the coming depression."
  
• Social and gender issues: How are we "returning to the 1950s"?
  
• Is your country close to war or close to some other huge
  change?
  
• What's the future of the Mideast? Of Pakistan? Of China?
  
• I always say, "Treasure the time you have left, and use it to
  prepare yourself, your family, your community, or your nation." How
  do you prepare your community and your nation?
  
• Interesting stories by or about people who remember the 1929
  crash, the Great Depression, World War II, and the 1950s. How is life
  different now?
  
• A generational analysis of some country or some current or
  historical event.
  
• How can generational theory make polls and polling more accurate
  and relevant?
  
• How the Boomers did or didn't change America.
  
• For Gen-Xers, what's it been like living in the shadow of
  Boomers?
  
• For Millennials, the next "greatest generation," what's your view
  of your future?
  
• How have music, fashion and the arts evolved since WW II, as
  generations change?
  
• How have religions -- Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism,
  Hinduism, Taoism, etc. -- evolved since WW II?

The above list is mostly America-centric, but similar contributions
from the point of view of other countries would be particularly
welcome.

Most articles on GenerationalDynamics.com contain predictions. Some
predictions are absolutely certain trend predictions, and some are
probabilistic predictions that depend on chaotic events.

Try to make your article relevant to the reader by telling how what
you're describing will affect him, or how it will affect the world.

For convenience, here's a brief list of the major predictions that
have appeared on this web site since 2003, and the year of first
appearance:

• Macro economy (2003): Deflation, rather than inflation,
  would dominate, and prices would fall by about 30% by 2010.
  
• Macro economy (2003): We're entering a new 1930s style
  Great Depression, and the stock market will fall to Dow 4000 or
  lower.
  
• Palestine/Israel (2003): The "Roadmap to Peace" would fail.
  Once Yasser Arafat disappeared, the region would descend into chaos,
  leading to a new genocidal war between Jews and Arabs.
  
• Iraq (2003): There would be no civil war and no
  anti-American uprising.
  
• Iran (2003): Pro-American and pro-Western student
  demonstrations (like America in the 60s) would continue
  
• America (2003): Unlike the 60s, there would be almost no
  student antiwar demonstrations, and any that start would fizzle
  quickly.
  
• America (2004): Men and women would return to
  stereotypical gender roles, with women focused increasingly on the
  children.
  
• America (2004): Politicians will resort to bitter fighting,
  and become less and less able to get anything done.
  
• Darfur (2004): The UN would be completely irrelevant, and
  would have no effect on the Darfur conflict. It will continue until
  it's run its course.
  
• China (2004): China is headed for a major internal civil
  war, as well as a war with the U.S. over Taiwan with absolute
  certainty.
  
• Lebanon (2005): Despite widespread fear following many
  assassinations, there will be NO new civil war in Lebanon.
  
• Lebanon (2006, as war began): Israel would fight an
  aggressive "existential war," while Hizbollah would fight
  half-heartedly.
  
• Burma / Myanmar (2007): The new burst of violence would
  fizzle soon, and would not spiral into a civil war.
  
• Kenya (2008): The new burst of violence is UNLIKELY to
  spiral into war right away, although a major civil war is almost
  certain within ten years.
  
• Europe (2004): The proposed Constitution would NOT be
  approved. There will be a new European war, one component of which
  will probably be France versus Britain.
  
• World (2003): A new "Clash of Civilizations" world
  war.

Anyone interested is invited to make suggestions, ask questions, or
provide actual articles, either here or in private e-mail.

Sincerely,

John

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