Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

My dream project for several years is to create a computerized "world
model," incorporating the timelines of every country, clan, and
tribe, and every ethno-liguistic-sectarian-endogamous caste division
in the world into a single model. I know exactly how to do it, and
it would have very powerful analytical and predictive capabilities.
It would be the most significant development ever in analytical
history. It would have applications in government, education and
business. I estimate that I need a budget of $2-5 million to get it
developed. Do you know anyone who'd like to fund it?

Sincerely,

John

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

Well I'd like to fund it.

This sounds like a project that would take many many years, huh.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

See now. This is just flatly incorrect. The Russian social system as such budged truly not a bit over the wartime years. Russian people underwent tough times, but the society that celebrated victory over the invaders was much the same as the society that rang in the 1930s. In fact, it was scant years after 1945, the Soviet system underwent a major tremor of sorts as the 1T guard (personified by Stalin & crew) passed out a mere 8-9 years later. But that was the beginning of a 2T...

But...

the borders of the USSR that would remain in place until 1991 were solidified. There were no more big purges. The chaos of World War II was over.

I'm willing to accept that the Central Asian and Caucasus republics were not as traumatized as Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic Republics, and western Russia.
That could explain why Russia itself, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic countries are on the Europe/US/India/China/Japan time line on the 3T/4T cusp and the Central Asian republics, now independent seem likely to explode.

I suggest that how well a polity does during a 4T reflects (barring being overpowered and ravaged in a Crisis war by a much bigger aggressor) is how well the polity resolves possible causes for 4T blowups. The downfall of Communist rule has solved much in Russia and the former Soviet bloc in Europe. Central Asian states seem only to have achieved independence without changing the political order. Bad systems are more likely to crack in a Crisis because they have latent dissidents and fifth columns.

As for a 1930's style depression, It has not started yet. we have yet to have a 1929 style crash. The nasdaq crash was in my opinion closer to the post-ww1 recession of the early 1920's, which was followed by the false boom of the 'rolling" 20's. The very fact that we have a housing bubble means that we have not entered a depressionary phase yet. After the 1929 crash our economy was in a shambles, no further economic bubbles could form because of the depression and later because of government regulation. Your Dow 4000 prediction if it does occur would signal the start of hard times of the such that is common during a 4T. I think that right now we're still 3T because we have not been called to significant changes of our way of life. The basic culture is a continuation of that of the 1990's.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

As for a 1930's style depression, It has not started yet. we have yet to have a 1929 style crash. The nasdaq crash was in my opinion closer to the post-ww1 recession of the early 1920's, which was followed by the false boom of the 'rolling" 20's. The very fact that we have a housing bubble means that we have not entered a depressionary phase yet. After the 1929 crash our economy was in a shambles, no further economic bubbles could form because of the depression and later because of government regulation. Your Dow 4000 prediction if it does occur would signal the start of hard times of the such that is common during a 4T. I think that right now we're still 3T because we have not been called to significant changes of our way of life. The basic culture is a continuation of that of the 1990's.

That's not true and I'd be willing to bet you know it.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

That's not true and I'd be willing to bet you know it.

Do you seriously think extra airport security and clamoring for the enforcement of not new immigration laws, but the ones already on the books, compares to the breadlines, food riots, mass protests, tariffs on trade, the mobilization of youth for public works projects to rebuild the economy. The above was what was going on in the 30's. The pop culture is still celebrity centered, depraved and increasingly stale. If the crash has already occured would we still be sitting here while our government continues to paper over problems rather than actually try to solve them. This is shown for example even with the controversy over iraq, the politicans could not form a discernable policy, only to agree to resume the discussion in september (which would likely result in similar state of affairs). Either way I do not see policy changing on inch on iraq with our current leaders on both parties. Unlike in the 1930's when policy changes were actually able to get done.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

That's absolutely crazy. You don't have the vaguest idea what
a generational crisis is, do you?

John

Germany's Crisis era, which began with the economic meltdown of 1929-1932, ended in 1948 when Germany was effectively divided into two zones that functioned as nations. That's about the same time as the Berlin Airlift. The founding of the Bundesrepublik and the DDR established what sort of government was possible in the rival states. The Berlin "Crisis" was not the most dangerous time for Germany... but it established clearly that the British, French, and American zones of occupation would remain separate from the DDR. Considering what happened in 1980 in the DDR, that was quite important.

I think that most of us have good understanding of the basic history of Germany between 1929 and 1948 -- right? It moves rapidly during that time... and one reads the pages more slowly. After 1948 little changes for forty years in the political realities of either the BRD or the DDR.

(1989-1990 is a typical 3T period in Germany -- political change, however dramatic, with little or no violence -- because cooler heads typical of the time, like Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush, chose that there be no superpower confrontation. Major change in politics is posible in a 3T; it just isn't as bloody as that that often happens in a 4T. Cooler heads can still prevail in a 3T when compromise and concession prove more desirable than apocalyptic winner-take-all conflict, but rarely in a 4T.

If Crises ended in France, Italy, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway in 1945, then such reflected the absence of any postwar instability. I say that the Crisis Era ended in Germany once things got settled definitively -- about 1948 -- with the formal establishment of the two rival German states, the consolidation of Communist Party rule in East Germany, the Berlin Airlift, and the effective marginalization of the Communists in West Germany.

Such is my interpretation.

4Ts are times of potential for apocalyptic wars, genocidal massacres, mass expulsions, and violent change. They end with the crystallization of a situation that veritably freezes. The freeze marks the 4T/1T cusp.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

the borders of the USSR that would remain in place until 1991 were solidified. There were no more big purges. The chaos of World War II was over.

• The borders of Russia were stabilized by the end of Lenin's time (what with releasing Finland and the various other measures they took). But what do stable borders have to do with anything?
• There continued to be purges through the end of Stalin's time. You could even call those a feature of the Russian 1T (perhaps analogous-in-a-way to the McCarthy trials in the US 1T)
• Again, WWII was chaotic from a personal level, but not from a fundamental-to-society level. In fact, Russia owes its ability to defeat the Germans in large part to already have embarked on the program of its 1T, and the productive and technological growth that it had so far been able to achieve by the time of the invasion.

In the 40s, Russia fought a war that mainly occupied a region around its border, was won handily (even one might say relatively quickly), and which occasioned absolutely no sociopolitical changes for them whatsoever. I'm frankly baffled as to exactly what makes anyone think it was a 4T for them...

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Do you seriously think extra airport security and clamoring for the enforcement of not new immigration laws, but the ones already on the books, compares to the breadlines, food riots, mass protests, tariffs on trade, the mobilization of youth for public works projects to rebuild the economy. The above was what was going on in the 30's. The pop culture is still celebrity centered, depraved and increasingly stale. If the crash has already occured would we still be sitting here while our government continues to paper over problems rather than actually try to solve them. This is shown for example even with the controversy over iraq, the politicans could not form a discernable policy, only to agree to resume the discussion in september (which would likely result in similar state of affairs). Either way I do not see policy changing on inch on iraq with our current leaders on both parties. Unlike in the 1930's when policy changes were actually able to get done.

I was actually responding to your last sentence. You make a mistake by assuming the entire 4T must entail hardship. That's event-based. I'm talking about moods.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Germany's Crisis era, which began with the economic meltdown of 1929-1932, ended in 1948 when Germany was effectively divided into two zones that functioned as nations. That's about the same time as the Berlin Airlift. The founding of the Bundesrepublik and the DDR established what sort of government was possible in the rival states. The Berlin "Crisis" was not the most dangerous time for Germany... but it established clearly that the British, French, and American zones of occupation would remain separate from the DDR. Considering what happened in 1980 in the DDR, that was quite important.

I think that most of us have good understanding of the basic history of Germany between 1929 and 1948 -- right? It moves rapidly during that time... and one reads the pages more slowly. After 1948 little changes for forty years in the political realities of either the BRD or the DDR.

(1989-1990 is a typical 3T period in Germany -- political change, however dramatic, with little or no violence -- because cooler heads typical of the time, like Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush, chose that there be no superpower confrontation. Major change in politics is posible in a 3T; it just isn't as bloody as that that often happens in a 4T. Cooler heads can still prevail in a 3T when compromise and concession prove more desirable than apocalyptic winner-take-all conflict, but rarely in a 4T.

If Crises ended in France, Italy, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway in 1945, then such reflected the absence of any postwar instability. I say that the Crisis Era ended in Germany once things got settled definitively -- about 1948 -- with the formal establishment of the two rival German states, the consolidation of Communist Party rule in East Germany, the Berlin Airlift, and the effective marginalization of the Communists in West Germany.

Such is my interpretation.

4Ts are times of potential for apocalyptic wars, genocidal massacres, mass expulsions, and violent change. They end with the crystallization of a situation that veritably freezes. The freeze marks the 4T/1T cusp.

The climax for Germany was years earlier. They weren't 4T in 1946. They weren't 4T in 1947. They don't automatically switch to 4T in 1948 because they marginally fit into your definition.

Go around the world and look at all times of hardship and governmental change. Particularly Africa. You'll find hundreds of times where the crisis 'crystallizes' and 'freezes.' There is no discernible pattern. Do this, and you have effectively butchered generational theory so it is not relevant. Crises can than come at any time.

Or perhaps you can focus on the mass of men and how they react to their unstable surroundings.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I too remember that 2Tish movements and ethos continued in a watered-down form into core 3T of the 1990's. I remember when my parents would often caution us kids not to litter, and to recycle. My parents one year (I think it was 1996)took us to a community service event for earth day, which was itself a 2T era construct. These days no one seems to do that anymore.

Exactly. Captain Planet, anyone? Kid entertainment in the '90s was (pun intended) littered with morals and lessons, especially about environmentalism and tolerance (racial, sexual, religious, etc.). As I've said before, I was taught how to spell "gender" before I was taught how to spell "yes". Not exaggerating. And the worst thing you could do in school was discriminate, or say something politically incorrect.

But for better or worse, today they aren't even trying to instill these things in kids' minds. The suffocating protection has meant they are more concerned with teaching kids "the basics" and keeping them "safe" than with making them "aware" or "enlightened".

Originally Posted by Justin '77

• The borders of Russia were stabilized by the end of Lenin's time (what with releasing Finland and the various other measures they took). But what do stable borders have to do with anything?
• There continued to be purges through the end of Stalin's time. You could even call those a feature of the Russian 1T (perhaps analogous-in-a-way to the McCarthy trials in the US 1T)
• Again, WWII was chaotic from a personal level, but not from a fundamental-to-society level. In fact, Russia owes its ability to defeat the Germans in large part to already have embarked on the program of its 1T, and the productive and technological growth that it had so far been able to achieve by the time of the invasion.

In the 40s, Russia fought a war that mainly occupied a region around its border, was won handily (even one might say relatively quickly), and which occasioned absolutely no sociopolitical changes for them whatsoever. I'm frankly baffled as to exactly what makes anyone think it was a 4T for them...

The war death/destruction factor.

Of course, this has nothing to do with defining a Crisis.

The 4T climax does not automatically mean that the 4T is over. The 4T can take years to wind down even after the climax. The climax does not automatically mean a switch to 1T.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The 4T climax does not automatically mean that the 4T is over. The 4T can take years to wind down even after the climax. The climax does not automatically mean a switch to 1T.

The post-climax period is certainly a gray area since it indicates a change in trend to a more 1T environment. How do you define the end of a Crisis? pbrower calls it a crystallization of the new order and a freeze in the conflict.

This isn't always the truth. In my research, I have seen many cases where violence does not peter out for years after the Crisis. Something dies following the climax. The energy that DEFINES the latter portion of the 4T is sapped. There is a call for order.

I don't mean to say that the climax and the resolution are one, but between them there is a gray area.

It's more accurate to say that east germany and west germany was the resolution of germany's last crisis.

Also the generational constellation is still analagous to the late 1920's the xers still mostly occupy the young adult (age 20-40) bracket the millies are starting the come of age but these are still only the oldest first-wave cohorts analagous to the interbellum generation born in 1901-1912. The GIs that americans usually picture are those whose first job after high school was first a new deal relief program then later were called on to be soldiers in WW2. This goes to my primary question which I am now presenting, what are the turning years and Generation birth years that you use? This would clarify all our positions on this issue one the forum, and provide much new insights.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Also the generational constellation is still analagous to the late 1920's the xers still mostly occupy the young adult (age 20-40) bracket the millies are starting the come of age but these are still only the oldest first-wave cohorts analagous to the interbellum generation born in 1901-1912. The GIs that americans usually picture are those whose first job after high school was first a new deal relief program then later were called on to be soldiers in WW2. This goes to my primary question which I am now presenting, what are the turning years and Generation birth years that you use? This would clarify all our positions on this issue one the forum, and provide much new insights.

Are you asking me? I think the most recent saeculum is spot on. I do, however, note that Crises can come early, earlier than most people on this board think. At this point, in 2007, 62 years after the previous crisis, the age brackets have been filled out well enough that it doesn't make a difference. We could have a catastrophe any moment, and it wouldn't matter if 10% of Millies aren't at the same spot circa 1929.

I think 9/11/01 will be viewed as the catalyst. We really haven't been 3T since, although I can't say we've definitely been 4T either. Another shock to the American public will come, probably within the next two years. I don't expect a regeneracy until a few more shocks.

I agree that more shocks are probably occur until we enter an unmistakable 4T. As for the Question of turning Dates, I was asking John for a clarification.

I just returned home, and updated my map. It now looks almost entirely like Matt's except for the former USSR.

Will resume country studies and hopefully post either the U.S. or Mexico this week. Matt, if you can, try to research some of the tiny island countries, as the last few African countries seem to be dead-enders.

Originally Posted by 1990

I just returned home, and updated my map. It now looks almost entirely like Matt's except for the former USSR.

I'm working on my Crisis categorization thing (slowly!) and I'm thinking a lot about Russia. Will get back to you.

Will resume country studies and hopefully post either the U.S. or Mexico this week. Matt, if you can, try to research some of the tiny island countries, as the last few African countries seem to be dead-enders.

lol no!

I'm curious, when do you start the timelines. What is your previous Crisis for Mexico? John X. has it listed as the Mex-Am. war but I think it is the Mexican War of Independence.

1990, btw, I look forward to it!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The 4T climax does not automatically mean that the 4T is over. The 4T can take years to wind down even after the climax. The climax does not automatically mean a switch to 1T.

Originally Posted by Michael Easton

The post-climax period is certainly a gray area since it indicates a change in trend to a more 1T environment. How do you define the end of a Crisis? pbrower calls it a crystallization of the new order and a freeze in the conflict.

This isn't always the truth. In my research, I have seen many cases where violence does not peter out for years after the Crisis. Something dies following the climax. The energy that DEFINES the latter portion of the 4T is sapped. There is a call for order.

I don't mean to say that the climax and the resolution are one, but between them there is a gray area.

For example, Western Europe following Napoleon's first exile. The real Resolution (Waterloo) had not occurred, although the Crisis had already climaxed. You had the Metternich Conference beginning during the exile, which was clearly a reactionary 1T event.

So, I think the Resolution is more of a political event.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

For example, Western Europe following Napoleon's first exile. The real Resolution (Waterloo) had not occurred, although the Crisis had already climaxed. You had the Metternich Conference beginning during the exile, which was clearly a reactionary 1T event.

So, I think the Resolution is more of a political event.

What I learned in a far different class is that the Crisis comes first. Them the Climax. Then the Resolution. I see no reason why art does not, in this respect, imitate life.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

What I learned in a far different class is that the Crisis comes first. Them the Climax. Then the Resolution. I see no reason why art does not, in this respect, imitate life.

I'm sorry. I don't know what you are getting at or what you mean.

Minor changes:

Costa Rica and Guyana to 3T. I'm just considering that whole area to be on Colombia's timelines.

French Guiana to gray. My old conclusion was forward.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm sorry. I don't know what you are getting at or what you mean.

If you're constructing a plot, this is the order in which things happen in the ending - the Crisis, when everything falls apart and the heroes have to stake everything on the outcome; the Climax, when whatever happens, happens; and the resolution, when the loose ends are tied off. I believe this structure has been adopted by storytellers everywhere because it feels like the way things really happen - that therefore it is an underlying pattern found in many, many events in real life - because it actually follows logically.

Sorry to be obtuse - my head's a little full after two hours of the chat.