This forum deciated to the study of the saeculum the the Middle East. Islamic and non Islamic countries a like. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisa, Egypt, Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Please share your observations of what saeculum you think the Middle East is following. The main intention is to see what advantage the Western countries might get out of the middle east in the looming conflict ahead. I think this will be a long battle ahead, lasting years.

Perhaps you might get things rolling by posting some content from your recent, and most enlightening emails, Mr. Jones.

Yes, we need to think about this, but I believe it would be useful to think in terms of West Asian, Central Asian, East Asian and African components. Afghanistan, Pakistan,Iran, Bangaladesh and India are Central Asian countries that are cultrally Indo-European. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Iraq,Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Israel are culturally Semitic in West Asia. Turkey too is in West Asia but is culturally Asianic. While all of these countries, save for India and Israel, are Islamic in religious practice but they are not culturally monolithic. In East Asia we find culturally Asianic Muslims in China, Indonesia etc. I might want to call your attention to some work I have done below integrating West Asian culture with both the Eastern and Western European saecular structure. Of some interest might be such turnings as the Islamic Awakening ca. 632-664, Muslim Unraveling ca. 664-697, Abbasid High ca. 732-767,and the Isma'ili Awakening ca.886-912 (I have renamed this Awakening having originally called it the Photian Awakening). During the Ottonian Crisis ca. 936-963, in 956 the Seljuk Turks embrace Islam and in 962 a Turkish officer in the employ of the Abbasids named Alp-tagin seized the fortress town of Ghazna and brought Islam to Afghanistan. Of some interest is the role of "Assasins" in West Asian history. The significance of this to Christians being the Sicarii(lit. "stabbers") who belonged to the miitary arm of the Essene cult during the first century A.D. One of these assasins was an anarchistic nomad archetype named Judas. DMMcG

Actually, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka comprise SOUTH Asian, not Central Asia. Central Asia is Afghanistan, Kyrghistan, Uzbekistan, and all the rest of the post-Soviet "-stans." Also, there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan, due to the enormous population difference between the two countries.

On 2001-09-17 17:18, Neisha '67 wrote:
Actually, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka comprise SOUTH Asian, not Central Asia. Central Asia is Afghanistan, Kyrghistan, Uzbekistan, and all the rest of the post-Soviet "-stans." Also, there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan, due to the enormous population difference between the two countries.

I put India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka into the South Asia saeculum zone. Since they were ruled by the British for a long time. I would put the Central Asian countries into the Russian saeculum zone, because they were ruled by the Russians for a long time. I would put Afghanistan into the Middle Eastern zone, because it has never been ruled by a foregin power like most of the Middle East until 20th century. I think countries which had no local saeculum that were colonized by western powers, adopted the saeculum of their masters. Hence vast areas of globe now have a similar saeculum.

Tristan, you might find this website interesting: http://free.freespeech.org/rationalthinking/
_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Life is not a cancer of matter; it is matter's transcendence of itself." -- John S. Lewis
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Einstein

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2001-09-17 22:22 ]</font>

This is in response to Robert Reed's links regarding the problems inherent in invading and conquering Afghanistan, which he posted on the "By the Numbers" thread. Here's another link:


Opposing forces in Afghanistan


We may not have to defeat Afghanistan. We may be able to employ other Afghans to defeat the Taliban and its foreign helpers.

Tristan, it is foolish to base judgments about how a country's saeculum is aligned based on classifications such as their geographic region or their colonial past. You have to look at each country individually and see what goes on there.

Let us look at the broader region of Central Asia over the last ten years or so: The Turkic former Soviet states of Central Asia are all quiet and tend to have powerful central regimes, often survivals of Soviet era Communist apparati. Tajikistan, an Iranian speaking state, has faced an Islamic revolt that in many ways seems to be a spillover from the Afghan conflict. But the Turkic Uigurs of China's Xinjiang province have been in various stages of low grade revolt since at least the mid 1980s, escalating in recent years (this conflicts with the dominant Chinese cycle, which entered a clear Unraveling after Tiananmen Square).

As for Afghanistan, it began it's descent into chaos (more than it usually is in, that is) with a military coup in 1973, followed by a communist coup in 1978, the Soviets overthrowing them in favor of another communist regime in 1979, a long war between the Soviet backed regime and the mujahadeen (1979-1992, the Soviets pulled out in 1989), civil war among the mujahadeen, and conquest by the Taliban. Since the Taliban took over most of the country in 1998, things have simplified into a low grade conflict between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, with most of Afghanistan at peace. It would seem logical that the Afghan Crisis began in 1973 or 1978, either way it should be over now.

Iran is now clearly in a High, and seems the better part of the way toward the Awakening. When exactly the Crisis started, I don't know, but it clearly included the Iranian Revolution (1978) and probably extended to the end of the Iran-Iraq war (1988). IMHO, the death of Khomeini (1989) is the last possible date for the end of the Crisis. In other words, Afghanistan's saeculum trails behind Iran's.

Pakistan is a very hard country to get a handle on. It had a cataclysmic origin (shared with India) in the late 1940s, but
while India settled down after that, Pakistan returned to a state
of unrest with a military coup in 1958. This was followed by
20 years of unrest which saw several conflicts with India and the secession of Bangladesh. This ended in another military coup, followed by another ten years of peace. After this came a long
period of very nasty, but peaceful political maneuvering, then
another military coup. During this same period, there has been a rise in Islamic Fundamentalism that parallels that in the Arab World
(not Iran or Afghanistan).

Three explanations crop up to explain this: 1) Independence and it's associated events were externally induced anomalies during a Pakistani passive period, followed by an active period 1958-1978, then a passive period somewhat like our own Unraveling, with political squabbling and a rise in fundamentalism. 2) There was an anomaly that caused Pakistan to switch from the Indian cycle to something closer to the Arab cycle. 3) What we are seeing is a sort of interference pattern of two or more cycles in Pakistan. If we have two cycles at half turnings to each other we get a pattern somewhat like this 1938-1948: active-passive, 1948-1958: passive-passive, 1958-1968: passive-active, 1968-1978: active-active. 1978-1988, active-passive, 1988-1998: passive-passive. Doesn't work, 1978-1988 should be fully passive, while 1988-1998 should be at least
partly active. Anyway, this is a mess.

The Arab world generally follows closely related saecula, with a Crisis c.1950-1970 (give or take a few years) with frequent coups by secular, nationalist forces overthrowing the regimes installed by the colonizers, a High c.1970-1990, and an Awakening c.1990- which sees a rise in popular Islam. Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt,
Syria, and Iraq all seem to be on this cycle. Israel and Palestine
show the same basic patterns (although the specifics are different)
and similar trends can be seen in Jordan, although the old regime survived there. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf seem to be on a different cycle, although I haven't really gotten a good take on it. Lebanon is
clearly on a different cycle, with an extremely active period from the mid 1970s to the early 1990s. I haven't really looked into Morocco.

But Turkey seems to be two turnings off from the Arab cycle, with a crisis c.1908-1928, and a new Crisis starting in the 1980s dealing with the Kurds, the status of political Islam, and the tensions between the Kemalist vision of a "modern, western" Turkey and the standards of the EU.


Old Toby

India's cycle is just about 3-5 years after ours. I have a lot of Indian Xer cousins and they are in deep Unravelling. A lot of them are basically software free agents, travelling all over the world on a project basis de-bugging and upgrading systems and then moving on to the next project. They don't seem to have much desire to settle down just yet and are watching us closely to see what will happen here.

Toby's right. You need to look at each country separately. The only reason India is on the same cycle as Britain is that India's crisis independance crisis extended past WWII and Britain's crisis lasted longer than that of the US because it was bombed so heavily. So, India and England are both a few years after us, but for different reasons. You would also think that the rest of South Asia would follow India, but as Toby points out, they don't.

Toby, I always thought that the Iranian revolution was an Awakening -- a religious uprising of the young against the Shah's dictatorship. But you think it was a crisis. Let me think about that some more.

On 2001-09-18 11:04, Neisha '67 wrote:
India's cycle is just about 3-5 years after ours. I have a lot of Indian Xer cousins and they are in deep Unravelling. A lot of them are basically software free agents, travelling all over the world on a project basis de-bugging and upgrading systems and then moving on to the next project. They don't seem to have much desire to settle down just yet and are watching us closely to see what will happen here.

Toby's right. You need to look at each country separately. The only reason India is on the same cycle as Britain is that India's crisis independance crisis extended past WWII and Britain's crisis lasted longer than that of the US because it was bombed so heavily. So, India and England are both a few years after us, but for different reasons. You would also think that the rest of South Asia would follow India, but as Toby points out, they don't.

Toby, I always thought that the Iranian revolution was an Awakening -- a religious uprising of the young against the Shah's dictatorship. But you think it was a crisis. Let me think about that some more.

Neisha is right, All of what was former British India is now in a unravelling. pretty much on the same cycle as Britain/Australia/ New Zealand and anyother countries which were conqeured by the British in the 19th century. Britain exported her saeculum to these countries, countries that were colonized by western powers adopted their rulers saeculum's (because they were living in a pre-saeculum society when they were conquerored). That is why huge areas of the globe match the Western European saeculum. There are some expections to the rule (Japan and Middle East), however they were never colonized by Western powers and developed their saeculum inpendently. The saeculum is invented in renssiance Europe, it came as the same time scienftic method was developed.

Of course, I think I'm right, but Tristan I think you misinterpreted what I said. India and Britain are on the same cycle, but for *different* reasons. Britain is 3-5 years behind the US because they were heavily bombed in WWII and needed a few extra years to get to a 1T. India is 3-5 years behind the US because of the revolution and the partition. India's revolution and partition was India's 4T, not Britain's. British rule was a small blip in the timeline of Indian civilization and not long enough to change the preexisting seculae. The revolution happened when it did because the time was right. It happened a few years after the Depression/WWII because India was still in the Unravelling during the beginning of those events.

I recall reading a book-The Real Future-awhile back that predicted the future of Israel. The author (I don't recall his name) compared the Zionists and their descendents to the Crusaders' presence. Concerning those of European descent he asked this question-"Is Israel the natural home of the Jews, or is New York?" The author was thinking in terms of a gradual migration, but a concievable 4T event would be Muslim armies driving them into the sea.

On 2001-09-19 21:46, Tim Walker wrote:
I recall reading a book-The Real Future-awhile back that predicted the future of Israel. The author (I don't recall his name) compared the Zionists and their descendents to the Crusaders' presence. Concerning those of European descent he asked this question-"Is Israel the natural home of the Jews, or is New York?" The author was thinking in terms of a gradual migration, but a concievable 4T event would be Muslim armies driving them into the sea.

I have a criticism of that event happening. Israel's GDP is larger than Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestianian territories combidied and the Israeli defence force is the best in the region by far and could defeat the neighbouring Arab nations in several weeks. It is more likely the Israeli's will do their 'final soultion' on the Palestianians. Drive them out of Israel, The West Bank and Gaza. :smile:

Here's a link to information on Afghanistan:

http://cnn/countrywatch.com/files/00...Y=001&TP=HISTO

Tristam, I am offended by your use of the term "final solution" on a suggestion that Israel might drive out the Palestinians. If that happened, it would be because most Israelis feel that would be the only way to protect their country. To equate Israel with Nazi Germany is grotesque.

On 2001-09-21 12:47, Jenny Genser wrote:
Tristan, I am offended by your use of the term "final solution" on a suggestion that Israel might drive out the Palestinians. If that happened, it would be because most Israelis feel that would be the only way to protect their country. To equate Israel with Nazi Germany is grotesque.

Sorry Jenny,
I did not meant to equate Israel with Nazi Germany. I should have been more tasteful.

Frankly the Palestian Arabs are a unproductive pain in the ass, sooner Israel puts the boot to their asses the better, Israel would have a lot better off if Palestianians were kicked out of West Bank and Gaza in 1948, lot more peaceful nation with virtually little terrorism. basically they have no interest in becoming good citizens of Israel and also they do not want their own state to co-exist with Israel. They want Israel driven to the Mediterrean and that is a well know fact if you know more than the bare facts about the Palestinians and Arabs in general. I have great respect for the nation of Israel, that little nation has contributed more to the world than entire Arab world combided.

Tristam, apology accepted.

Uh, Tristan, with all due respect to Israel, without the Arab world there would be no mathematics.

Without Phoenician letters there would be no alphabet. Without the alphabet there would be no rational tought. Without rational thougt there would be no natural philosophy. Without natural philosophy there would be no understading of arabic numerals. Without Arabic Numerals there would be no science. Without Science there would be no democracy or airplabes for Islamic fundamentalists to use to attack the the freedom of thought. DMMcG

On 2001-09-23 17:55, DMMcG wrote:
Without Phoenician letters there would be no alphabet. Without the alphabet there would be no rational tought. Without rational thougt there would be no natural philosophy. Without natural philosophy there would be no understading of arabic numerals. Without Arabic Numerals there would be no science. Without Science there would be no democracy or airplabes for Islamic fundamentalists to use to attack the the freedom of thought. DMMcG

I wasn't talking about the Anicent Semities who are not Arabs, since Arabs by defention speak Arabic as their language or Arabs of the past, Arab and Muslim civilization was different back then. I was refering to modern Arabs, I think the Mongol Invasion made Middle Eastern society more conserative and less willing to make changes. That invasion devasted the whole Middle East.

I was refering to the process I call Orientalization. A process that has been extremely important in the history of the West, for good and for ill. While it stimulated reason and science it also gave the West religious fundamentalism and Crusades called ji-hads. DMMcG

And I was just poking a bit of good-natured fun at my favorite Aussie Millie and his tendency toward hyperbole. :wink:

I, for one, am watching to see what effects the coming war will have on the nation of Iran. More than three years ago, I first posited that Iran was actually in a High. If you have been following the news out of Iran for that last few years, you will know that Iran has a very tense internal situation.

The Mullahs of Tehran are suppressing an increasingly restless younger generation. This younger generation, which actually makes up more than 50% of the population, has grown increasingly impatient with the older generation's oppressive rule. Ayatolah Khamenei has sanctioned some fairly despotic measures, and things have quieted down recently. However, this younger generation does not remember the 1979 revolution, and is hungering for a more open and tolerant society.

Below is a July 28, 1999 article from Reuters.

-----

TEHRAN - A senior Iranian cleric said Wednesday that most of those arrested in the recent unrest were less than 20 years old.

"Those arrested are generally under 20 years old. This is alarming," said Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani, a top aide to supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

"The first generation (of the 1979 Islamic revolution) has not been able to transfer values to the second generation. This is a threat and we must not let it slip by easily," he told a gathering of officials and clerics, attended by journalists.

Hundreds were arrested in riots in mid-July that followed pro-democracy student unrest.

"It was a big conspiracy. But, thank God, our people thwarted it like they have always done," Golpayegani said. Officials have blamed the unrest on agitators linked to exiled dissidents.

The article describing unrest in Iran suggests to me that there is an active hero generation of protesters. But remember that heroes are followers. Right now the voices of the young are "pro-democracy." That may change. DMMcG

On 2001-09-25 09:30, DMMcG wrote:
The article describing unrest in Iran suggests to me that there is an active hero generation of protesters. But remember that heroes are followers. Right now the voices of the young are "pro-democracy." That may change. DMMcG

I don't see how the rebelling generation could be Heroes. Indeed, it's mass rising doesn't suggest Hero at all.

It seems to me that an Iranian Saeculum would have to move from the Crisis of the constitutional revolution of the early 20th Century, through the Awakening when Ayatollah Khomeini attracted his followers and the Shah (father of the last Shah) was forced to flee the country before a coup reestablished the secular order, and on to the Crisis when the Iranian state was completely reformed. Therefore, the present rebellious generation would probably be an Artist generation, seeking to add tolerance to very intolerant, elder-built institutions.

The next generation to come along will be the Prophets. As you say, they will set a different course than the Artist. However, my hope is that they will not undertake to continue the work of their "elder-build institutions," but will take Iran on an altogether new trajectory. Imagine a new Prophet generation picking up the torch of the mid-19th Century Persian Awakening that gave the world Baha'ism. :smile: