Originally Posted by pbrower2a

First of all, I see far more Nomad characteristics in Josef Stalin than I see Prophet characteristics, and not only because of his overwhelming evil. His diplomacy was cynical in the extreme, and he proved terribly indecisive during the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War. I see a very different character in him than I see in the more ideologically-driven early Bolsheviks. The man was thoroughly amoral in every aspect of his personal life. He could never frame any aspect of the struggle against the Third Reich except as a call to patriotism or an appeal to revenge. That sort of leadership is catastrophic in a Great Struggle/4T.

That's of course quite true in a political system that, like the United States, compartmentalizes power, limits the Executive, has civilian control of the military, has some measure of democracy or at least some human rights, and has no extra-constitutional centers of power. Under a despot the only constraint on the ability of a leadership to continue an unpopular or destructive war is the potential of a coup or a revolution -- or utter defeat. An absolute tyrant like Stalin or Hitler who can kill anyone who gets in his way can impose a Crisis at will until he is debilitated or overthrown. The tyrant almost invariably staffs every formal position of power, economic, military, judicial, police, or legislative, with flunkies who will commit any crime on his behalf.

Between 1922 and 1945 the Soviet Union did not play by the normal rules of society, just as Germany did not play by the normal rules of society between 1933 and 1945. Tyrants who can kill anyone that they want killed, can order any theft of personal or public property, and can wage war at will tend to do so.

The idea that a younger generation of leaders might supplant the flunkies of a tyrant means little because as a vacancy opens due to death or retirement of some flunky because the successor will be another flunky -- or else. Not until the tyrant dies can anything change. The personality of the tyrant does not change, and the leadership does not truly change whether the tyrant dies at 50 -- or 95. I concede that the Soviet system changed dramatically upon the death of Josef Stalin... but not until then except for choices that he made and realities imposed from outside. That people of Stalin's generation died off in the puppet Presidency, the Central Committee of the CPSU, the highest ranks of the armed forces, the economic leadership, the leadership of the secret police, and the formal judiciary and were replaced by persons from later generations changed nothing. Stalin could still order any war, any murder, any deportation, or any exaction; all that he could not dictate was success. People could be killed for their failures -- but that ensured someone else living under the Sword of Damocles while enjoying unimaginable privileges.

Such was impossible in the United States or Great Britain at the same time. Even if FDR had won one term after another while living to an extreme age, the Supreme Court and Congress would have changed, the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have changed, State governors and big-city mayors would have changed. The transfer of power on the whole from the Missionaries to the Lost and in turn GIs would have been a certainty.

It's safer to say that the USSR/Russia between the 1910s and the 1940s was a special case. The generational cycle operates differently with pathological leadership than with honorable leadership (FDR, Churchill) than with pathological leadership (Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek).

Right, because everyone knows the man at the top drives the masses, and therefore, the generational cycle

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

And? What does this have to do with generational theory?

I've asked you a time where, relative early in the saeculum, a society has been reset to a 4T, followed by a 1T and the rest of the saeculum. You mentioned Ethiopia. I refuted that and you didn't respond.

It doesn't make sense anyway, since there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of mid-cycle cases where a nation has been invaded and its life was put on the line, and then proceeded right on schedule.

You're really stepping away from generational theory.

The Italian conquest and occupation of Ethiopia seems to reek of a Crisis for Ethiopia because of its severity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...Abyssinian_War

It was after all a major change of government with a brutal New Order:

In addition to conventional weaponry, Badoglio's troops also made substantial use of mustard gas, in both artillery and aerial bombardments. In total, the Italians deployed between 300 and 500 tonnes of mustard gas during the war, despite having signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The deployment of gas was not restricted to the battlefield, however, as civilians were also targeted by the Italians, as part of their attempt to terrorise the local population. Furthermore, the Italians carried out gas attacks on Red Cross camps and ambulances.[6]

The armed forces disposed of a vast arsenal of grenades and bombs loaded with mustard gas which were dropped from airplanes. This substance was also sprayed directly from above like an "insecticide" onto enemy combatants and villages. It was Mussolini himself who authorized the use of the weapons:

"Rome, 27 October '35. A.S.E. Graziani. The use of gas as an ultima ratio to overwhelm enemy resistance and in case of counterattack is authorized. Mussolini."

"Rome, 28 December '35. A.S.E. Badoglio. Given the enemy system I have authorized V.E. the use even on a vast scale of any gas and flamethrowers. Mussolini."

Mussolini and his generals sought to cloak the operations of chemical warfare in the utmost secrecy, but the use of gas was revealed to the world through the denunciations of the International Red Cross and of many foreign observers. The Italian reaction to these revelations consisted in the "erroneous" bombardment (at least 19 times) of Red Cross tents posted in the areas of military encampment of the Ethiopian resistance. The orders imparted by Mussolini, with respect to the Ethiopian population, were very clear:[7]

"Rome, 5 June 1936. A.S.E. Graziani. All rebels taken prisoner must be killed. Mussolini."

"Rome, 8 July 1936. A.S.E. Graziani. I have authorized once again V.E. to begin and systematically conduct a politics of terror and extermination of the rebels and the complicit population. Without the lex talionis one cannot cure the infection in time. Await confirmation. Mussolini."

The predominant part of the work of repression was carried out by Italians who, besides the bombs laced with mustard gas, instituted forced labor camps, installed public gallows, killed hostages, and mutilated the corpses of their enemies. Graziani ordered the elimination of captured guerrillas by way of throwing them out of airplanes in mid-flight. Many Italian troops had themselves photographed next to cadavers hanging from the gallows or hanging around chests full of detached heads. One episode in the Italian occupation of Ethiopia was the slaughter of Addis Ababa of February, 1937 which followed upon an attempt to assassinate Graziani. In the course of an official ceremony a bomb exploded next to the general. The response was immediate and cruel, as he said "Avenge me! Kill them all!". The Black Shirts of the Fascist Militia fired randomly into the Ethiopians present at the ceremony killing large numbers, and immediately after poured out into the streets of Addis Ababa where they killed the Ethiopian civilians that they encountered. They also set fire to homes in order to prevent the inhabitants from leaving and organized the mass executions of groups of 50-100 people. [8]

On March 29, Graziani's forces firebombed the city of Harar. Two days later, the Italians won the last major battle of the war, the Battle of Maychew. Haile Selassie fled into exile on May 2, and Badoglio's forces took the capital, Addis Ababa, on May 5.

Italy annexed the country on May 7, and the Italian king, Victor Emmanuel III, was proclaimed emperor on May 9. Italy merged Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somaliland into a single state known as Italian East Africa.

If I am mistaken, it is because many of the characteristics of the Italian rule of Ethiopia -- mass murder, obliteration of the Old Order, and incorporation of a once-independent state into some larger entity suggests a Crisis.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

First of all, I see far more Nomad characteristics in Josef Stalin than I see Prophet characteristics

Which makes absolute sense. In case you have forgotten, Nomads make up the leadership during 1T periods.

So we more or less totally agree on that point. Of course, one of the answers you received, along the lines of 'one guy doesn't make the Turning,' is also valid.

He could never frame any aspect of the struggle against the Third Reich except as a call to patriotism or an appeal to revenge. That sort of leadership is catastrophic in a Great Struggle/4T.

Maybe (though strictly speaking, fighting against an invader it's hard to see any particular need for ideology beyond 'get him out of our homes!'). Good thing it didn't come during a 4T, but during a 1T -- where calls to patriotism and unity are pretty much par for the course. Otherwise, Russia might not have been able to beat the Germans.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Italian conquest and occupation of Ethiopia seems to reek of a Crisis for Ethiopia because of its severity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...Abyssinian_War[

It was after all a major change of government with a brutal New Order:


If I am mistaken, it is because many of the characteristics of the Italian rule of Ethiopia -- mass murder, obliteration of the Old Order, and incorporation of a once-independent state into some larger entity suggests a Crisis.

Yeah, I see Crisis energy... from Italy. Nowhere are actions of Ethiopia mentioned, and yet you see it as being indicative of a Crisis for Ethiopia. Whatever. As I mentioned a million times before, this has nothing to do with generational theory, and actually acts as a refutation. Evidence actually contradicts your claim, as Ethiopia had another Crisis some 30 years later.

So the country is wrecked by death and destruction. Where is the border line? At what point does the country, with Prophet kids and Hero elders say, "OMG let's flip roles because our survival is threatened?"

That's exactly what they are not supposed to do, so your assertion throws out generational theory. If Sean Love can call GD a simple war cycle, then yours is merely a simple war non-cycle.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Which makes absolute sense. In case you have forgotten, Nomads make up the leadership during 1T periods.

His birth year (1878) also makes him a Nomad.

Maybe (though strictly speaking, fighting against an invader it's hard to see any particular need for ideology beyond 'get him out of our homes!'). Good thing it didn't come during a 4T, but during a 1T -- where calls to patriotism and unity are pretty much par for the course. Otherwise, Russia might not have been able to beat the Germans.

If history is any indicator, this is probably true. Countries tend to fight mid-cycle wars with less zest than they do in the Crisis era. I think this fact is especially favorable for Russia during the mid-cycle, with the country being so frickin' huge and all.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

If you can't find anything popular, you can always just call them the Hero generation.

I believe most of the countries we do will not have the luxury of a generational analysis (i.e. heroes, nomads etc.).

Maybe we should reserve the generational analysis for the U.S. and have all other countries just broken down by turning?

I have to say, and this may sound crazy, but...in putting together this Mexico country study (which I will post shortly), I have begun to wonder - again - whether Mexico's 4T is not delayed at all, and Mexico really is entering a 1T.

The reason is this: while the 1990s lacked the excessive bloodshed that historically Mexico is prone to - just pick out any period in the 19th century - it could have been a rebellion 4T, a low-bloodshed but significant overthrow akin to the Glorious Revolution, the UPC Revolt in Cameroon, the 1952 Revolution in Egypt, etc.

There are arguments to be made for it. The Mexico City Earthquake in 1985 was a remarkable reflection of the breakdown of the effectiveness of Mexico's government, very reminiscent of Chernobyl in the USSR or certainly Katrina in the U.S. 10,000 people died in this earthquake and the cleanup was inefficient and ineffective. And notably, the resistance to the 1988 election, unlike its equivalently controversial in 2006, helped galvanize an anti-PRI movement which would stay active in bringing down the government through the '90s. The year 1994 included a peso collapse and ensuing economic crisis (which was so bad the U.S. had to essentially bail Mexico out), and of course the Zapatista Rebellion. Finally, the 2000 election brought a new political order to power, an order confirmed by the razor-thin 2006 election in which the PRI came in third. While the PAN may be no less corrupt than the PRI, Calderon's popularity is currently quite good, and the tension that characterized Mexico throughout my childhood seems to have eased. This may not be a fabulously prosperous 1T, but it could still be a 1T.

I would also note that the anger about the 2006 election fizzled out, akin to the very-close U.S. elections of 1800, 1876, and 1960, all of which were in 1Ts, and all of which created some sharp but brief controversy. We certainly don't remember Illinois in 1960 creating the same kind of anger Florida 2000 did, and for Mexico, 1988 will always be remembered as a more outrageous election than 2006.

Maybe the situations in the former USSR and Mexico are analogous. I still believe the collapse of the USSR qualifies as a 4T, and that, while Putin may not be a good man, his overwhelming popularity despite being a borderline dictator, as well as Russia's increasing power and confidence on the world stage, indicates that the 1T has arrived. While I will leave Mexico in red until I'm more convinced, there is an argument to be made for a rebellion 4T from about 1982 (the year of a brief economic crisis) until 2000 or so.

Mexico Turnings and Generations


Here is the second-to-last Mexican saeculum. The most recent will be posted later today.


1808-1829: War of Independence (Crisis)

Encouraged by growing instability in Spain stemming from a Madrid revolt, pro-independence forces in Mexico began mobilizing for a massive rebellion. In 1810 Father Miguel Hidalgo launched the uprising, and despite his execution a year later, the struggle repeatedly found new champions during the next decade. Independence was finally achieved when General Agustín de Iturbide, a former pro-Spanish royalist, signed an 1821 compromise by which Mexico would gain self-rule as a limited monarchy with relative class equality. Iturbide ruled as emperor for just a year before being forced to abdicate to Guadalupe Victoria as the first President of the Republic.

Gray Champion: Miguel Hidalgo

Child Generation: The Reform Generation (Artist) of 1857-1872 President Benito Juárez grew up watching colonial rule fall and a new republic struggle with an extraordinarily rough post-independence. Later in life they broke free from a painful coming-of-age to become the great reformers of the liberal era, helping dislodge the European monarchy and always working to improve Mexican society for the masses.

1829-1855: Divisions & Mexican-American War (Recovery)

In one of the world’s most troubled Recovery eras of all time, Mexico found itself immediately confronted with daunting challenges, including an anemic economy, deep and ever-worsening political fault lines, and a northern rebellion originating in Texas. War with the United States was further disastrous for the new nation, though it did have a temporary unifying effect in reconfirming Mexico’s independence and reviving feelings of national pride.

Child Generation: The Porfirio Generation (Prophet) is so named because of its most famous member, longtime President Díaz. They were raised with unusual protection for a Prophet generation due to the harsh conditions of Mexico’s first Recovery, and came of age with passionate pro-individual politics. As youth they fought in both the Reform War and against Maximilian’s European monarchy, and later became the great moralists of the Porfiriato, debating with staunch conviction the merits of Díaz’s dictatorship and the state of the nation.

1855-1884: Era of Reform (Awakening)

This Awakening began with the overthrow (in the Revolution of Ayutla) of longtime on-again, off-again President Antonio López de Santa Anna by liberals and the subsequent Reform War which prompted European intervention. The overthrow of the short-lived Maximilian monarchy in 1862 ushered in a new era of liberal dominance and social reforms. The mood began to soften when General Porfirio Díaz won power in an 1876 rebellion, and ended when he re-won power (this time for good) in 1884.

Child Generation: The Revolutionary Generation (Nomad) was nearly abandoned as children as internal ideological wars dominated Mexican life. They came of age seen by their elders as undereducated and under-civilized ruffians, and later in life produced the key figures of the Mexican Revolution, from the populist Francisco Madero to the ruthless Victoriano Huerta, the radical Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata, and the pragmatic Plutarco Elías Calles.

1884-1910: The Porfiriato (Unraveling)

Díaz’s long hold on the presidency is known as the Porfiriato era. While he presided over prosperity, peace, and strong economic growth, his business-friendly policies widened class divisions and income gaps, as well as badly hurting rural agricultural workers. By the end of the Porfiriato, dissatisfaction with Díaz’s dictatorial regime was fomenting an underground revolutionary movement.

Child Generation: The PRI Generation (Hero) of Lázaro Cárdenas and Adolfo Ruiz Cortines grew up with increasing protection while class, racial, and ideological tensions rose steadily within an anxious populace and an eerie political calm. They came of age as determined foot soldiers for battling camps in the Revolution; later in life, they were the hubristic and ambitious leaders of one-party Mexico, popular during the PRI’s peacetime heyday but attacked as student activity grew and ubiquitous corruption was challenged.

Originally Posted by 1990

I have to say, and this may sound crazy, but...in putting together this Mexico country study (which I will post shortly), I have begun to wonder - again - whether Mexico's 4T is not delayed at all, and Mexico really is entering a 1T.

Heh. I have been thinking about this, but not for Mexico. It puzzles me that Justin '77 can say Russia is 1T when the 1990s really don't fit a complete definition of a Crisis, for me at least. It really is unlike anything I've found, if Russia is 1T.

Yet, Russia is experiencing what could easily appear to be a 1T. I don't know if it is merely an illusion, an 1T experience without actually being 1T (hm?), or my conclusion - that Russia is past its regeneracy, but with few problems - is wrong.

We'll have a much better idea in a few years.

The reason is this: while the 1990s lacked the excessive bloodshed that historically Mexico is prone to - just pick out any period in the 19th century - it could have been a rebellion 4T, a low-bloodshed but significant overthrow akin to the Glorious Revolution, the UPC Revolt in Cameroon, the 1952 Revolution in Egypt, etc.

I consider the beginning of the Arab-Israeli War to be the catalyst for Egypt, with the climax in 1952.

There are arguments to be made for it. The Mexico City Earthquake in 1985 was a remarkable reflection of the breakdown of the effectiveness of Mexico's government, very reminiscent of Chernobyl in the USSR or certainly Katrina in the U.S. 10,000 people died in this earthquake and the cleanup was inefficient and ineffective. And notably, the resistance to the 1988 election, unlike its equivalently controversial in 2006, helped galvanize an anti-PRI movement which would stay active in bringing down the government through the '90s. The year 1994 included a peso collapse and ensuing economic crisis (which was so bad the U.S. had to essentially bail Mexico out), and of course the Zapatista Rebellion. Finally, the 2000 election brought a new political order to power, an order confirmed by the razor-thin 2006 election in which the PRI came in third. While the PAN may be no less corrupt than the PRI, Calderon's popularity is currently quite good, and the tension that characterized Mexico throughout my childhood seems to have eased. This may not be a fabulously prosperous 1T, but it could still be a 1T.

I would also note that the anger about the 2006 election fizzled out, akin to the very-close U.S. elections of 1800, 1876, and 1960, all of which were in 1Ts, and all of which created some sharp but brief controversy. We certainly don't remember Illinois in 1960 creating the same kind of anger Florida 2000 did, and for Mexico, 1988 will always be remembered as a more outrageous election than 2006.

Maybe the situations in the former USSR and Mexico are analogous. I still believe the collapse of the USSR qualifies as a 4T, and that, while Putin may not be a good man, his overwhelming popularity despite being a borderline dictator, as well as Russia's increasing power and confidence on the world stage, indicates that the 1T has arrived. While I will leave Mexico in red until I'm more convinced, there is an argument to be made for a rebellion 4T from about 1982 (the year of a brief economic crisis) until 2000 or so.

When is the climax?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Heh. I have been thinking about this, but not for Mexico. It puzzles me that Justin '77 can say Russia is 1T when the 1990s really don't fit a complete definition of a Crisis, for me at least. It really is unlike anything I've found, if Russia is 1T.

Yet, Russia is experiencing what could easily appear to be a 1T. I don't know if it is merely an illusion, an 1T experience without actually being 1T (hm?), or my conclusion - that Russia is past its regeneracy, but with few problems - is wrong.

We'll have a much better idea in a few years.



I consider the beginning of the Arab-Israeli War to be the catalyst for Egypt, with the climax in 1952.



When is the climax?

Are you defining the beginning of the Arab-Israeli War as the Palestine revolts in 1929? Or the uprising of the late 1930s?

The climax for Mexico could be the 2000 election. It's surely not a slam dunk, but would this be any less of a 4T than Cameroon's in the 1950s? The driving event there was a political rebellion, very much like the Zapatistas of 1994, and the climax (or resolution) there was independence from British rule. The fall of the PRI after 71 years of monopoly was an equally dramatic event.

I'd also be interested in hearing about Odin's theory of the Sahel Drought as a 4T. This could alter the way we look at West Africa.

Until you reply to my last two comments, I'm going to proceed on old assumptions. Here is the last Mexican saeculum:

1910-1929: Mexican Revolution (Crisis)

In 1910, Díaz allowed the first election since retaking power in 1884. When his nearly unanimous (and likely fraudulent) victory against challenger Francisco Madero was announced, Madero organized a revolt which brought him to power. The next decade brought repeated coups and constant instability and bloodshed as different factions – radicals, liberals, and otherwise – fought for power. Then the Cristero War violently reintroduced the role of the Catholic Church as a fundamental question. Finally the mood eased when Plutarco Elías Calles managed to create a new political system which would ensure stability and peace through “puppet presidents” and a new party machine.

Gray Champion / Defining Leader: ?

Child Generation: The Stifled Generation (Artist) was overprotected as Mexico endured a bloody and destructive period of civil war and thorough national upheaval. They came of age while leaders confidently pursued a popular agenda and the country witnessed its most agreeable economy since independence. Later in life, as some remained technocrats and apologists, many broke free from a stilted and quiet youth to become the most articulate and impassioned advocates of reform.

1929-1946: El Milagro Mexicano (Recovery)

In 1929 Calles founded the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), which would govern Mexico for seven full decades. Under the reformist leadership of early PRI presidents, society saw impressive economic growth and grand government projects which sought to improve life for the common people. At the same time, the PRI machine grew entrenched and corrupt through infiltration of local bureaucracy.

Child Generation: The Protest Generation (Prophet) was raised with increasing looseness during a Recovery which has sometimes been called the Mexican Renaissance. Coming of age, however, they rebelled as students against the corruption and perceived amorality of Mexican society under the PRI. Later in life, they became the first generation in 71 years to elect leaders of other parties, and are today seen as moralists (Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas), stabilizers (Vicente Fox), and unwitting visionaries (Miguel de la Madrid).

1946-1968: Tlatelolco Awakening (Awakening)

Resistance to the establishment grew slowly as local riots and student protests mounted and spread. Major reforms were passed under the presidency of Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, who not only passed women’s suffrage but attempted to clean up his party and root out corruption (such as la mordida, the custom of small bribes paid by ordinary citizens to “keep the engine running”) before it became insurmountable. His agenda was eroded by successive presidents, allowing popular furor to reach a traumatic climax when thousands of students were shot at in a 1968 protest at Tlatelolco Square.

Child Generation: The Resistance Generation (Nomad) was underprotected while young, and came of age being called, variably, lazy, disengaged, apathetic, and even stupid. In midlife they became the impetus for political change (as the heart of 1990s resistance to the PRI), and as leaders – whether tough-on-crime conservatives or neo-revolutionaries – they have retained reputations both (positively) as shrewd and gritty pragmatists, and (negatively) as demagogues.

1968-1988: The Malaise (Unraveling)

The tragedy at Tlatelolco killed organized resistance and allowed PRI rule to continue by default. Economic crisis became standard every six years when one PRI president would be succeeded by another. While leaders struggled with complex demographic challenges and widening class divisions, apathy surged; even the discovery of oil could not shake the public’s mounting pessimism. By the late 1980s, the PRI was clearly beginning to fracture, and a mandate for change was becoming apparent.

Child Generation: The ? Generation (Hero) grew up with increasing protection in an era of gradual social decay as elections were conducted without opposition, economic issues postponed for the next president, and an omnipresent pessimism stagnated Mexican society from advancing. The disastrous 1985 Mexico City Earthquake, hitting as this generation was finishing its childhood, influenced them enormously, and catalyzed the public pressure for reform in the late 1980s. As the youth vote in the 2000 election, they helped overthrow the PRI and radically reshape Mexican politics.

1988-present?: Fall of the PRI (Limbo)

The 1988 election, the first true multiparty contest since the Revolution, was marred by fraud, and the official victory of yet another PRI candidate did nothing to slake a growing hunger for change. 1994 was marked by an armed rebellion by radicals in Chiapas, a peso collapse, and another tense election. By the late 1990s, opposition parties were winning significant minorities in Congress, and 2000 was the first election in a saeculum to produce a non-PRI president – Vicente Fox of the conservative PAN. An election no less contentious than 1988 occurred in 2006 between the PAN’s Felipe Calderón and Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the leftist PRD. Calderón’s narrow victory in a regionally and ethnically divided vote has served to raise tensions, while the new leader pursues an aggressive agenda of cracking down on drugs, crime, and insurrections. It is not clear whether this turning has been a continued Unraveling or a Crisis.

Child Generation: Unknown

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

It puzzles me that Justin '77 can say Russia is 1T when the 1990s really don't fit a complete definition of a Crisis, for me at least. It really is unlike anything I've found, if Russia is 1T.

What for you is missing? Maybe it happened, and we just didn't see it from over there. If you've gt something specific, I'd be happy to check around. Bound to learn something, in any case...

Originally Posted by 1990

I'd also be interested in hearing about Odin's theory of the Sahel Drought as a 4T. This could alter the way we look at West Africa.

It's just a hypothesis right now. I'm fairly sure that Mauritania is late 1T about to go 2T (in agreement with your map). I'm less sure about Niger, but the short period of democratic government in the early to mid 90s seems like a climax and early high to me. Mali is still confusing me somewhat, Burkina Faso had events in the late 80s that seem 4T (crazyish dictator goes on radical "reform" spree, changes the name of the country, etc).

Originally Posted by 1990

I have to say, and this may sound crazy, but...in putting together this Mexico country study (which I will post shortly), I have begun to wonder - again - whether Mexico's 4T is not delayed at all, and Mexico really is entering a 1T.

The reason is this: while the 1990s lacked the excessive bloodshed that historically Mexico is prone to - just pick out any period in the 19th century - it could have been a rebellion 4T, a low-bloodshed but significant overthrow akin to the Glorious Revolution, the UPC Revolt in Cameroon, the 1952 Revolution in Egypt, etc.

There are arguments to be made for it. The Mexico City Earthquake in 1985 was a remarkable reflection of the breakdown of the effectiveness of Mexico's government, very reminiscent of Chernobyl in the USSR or certainly Katrina in the U.S. 10,000 people died in this earthquake and the cleanup was inefficient and ineffective. And notably, the resistance to the 1988 election, unlike its equivalently controversial in 2006, helped galvanize an anti-PRI movement which would stay active in bringing down the government through the '90s. The year 1994 included a peso collapse and ensuing economic crisis (which was so bad the U.S. had to essentially bail Mexico out), and of course the Zapatista Rebellion. Finally, the 2000 election brought a new political order to power, an order confirmed by the razor-thin 2006 election in which the PRI came in third. While the PAN may be no less corrupt than the PRI, Calderon's popularity is currently quite good, and the tension that characterized Mexico throughout my childhood seems to have eased. This may not be a fabulously prosperous 1T, but it could still be a 1T.

I would also note that the anger about the 2006 election fizzled out, akin to the very-close U.S. elections of 1800, 1876, and 1960, all of which were in 1Ts, and all of which created some sharp but brief controversy. We certainly don't remember Illinois in 1960 creating the same kind of anger Florida 2000 did, and for Mexico, 1988 will always be remembered as a more outrageous election than 2006.

Maybe the situations in the former USSR and Mexico are analogous. I still believe the collapse of the USSR qualifies as a 4T, and that, while Putin may not be a good man, his overwhelming popularity despite being a borderline dictator, as well as Russia's increasing power and confidence on the world stage, indicates that the 1T has arrived. While I will leave Mexico in red until I'm more convinced, there is an argument to be made for a rebellion 4T from about 1982 (the year of a brief economic crisis) until 2000 or so.

I think you might be on to something. I was expecting the furor over the 2006 election to have resulted in something big happening, and was mystified when the whole thing fizzled.

Originally Posted by 1990

Are you defining the beginning of the Arab-Israeli War as the Palestine revolts in 1929? Or the uprising of the late 1930s?

Sorry, I mis-worded it. I was thinking 1948.

The climax for Mexico could be the 2000 election. It's surely not a slam dunk, but would this be any less of a 4T than Cameroon's in the 1950s?

Yes it would. Cameroon achieved Independence while a minor event turned into a major rebellion that engulfed much of the country and turned into a Civil War. The 2000 election in Mexico was a landmark, but not the type of Climax as described by S&H:

Originally Posted by The Fourth Turning pg. 258-259

The Crisis climax is human history's equivalent to nature's raging typhoon, the kind that sucks all surrounding matter into a single swirl of ferocious energy. Anything not lashed down goes flying; anything standing in the way gets flattened. Normally occurring late in the Fourth Turning, the climax gathers energy from an accumulation of unmet needs, unpaid bills, and unresolved problems. It then spends that energy on an upheaval whose direction and dimension were beyond comprehension during the prior Unraveling era. The climax shakes a society to its roots, transforms its institutions, redirects its purposes, and marks its people (and its generations) for life. The climax can end in triumph, or tragedy, or some combination of both. Whatever the event and whatever the outcome, a society passes through a great gate of history, fundamentally altering the course of civilization.

Mexico The driving event there was a political rebellion, very much like the Zapatistas of 1994, and the climax (or resolution) there was independence from British rule. The fall of the PRI after 71 years of monopoly was an equally dramatic event.

Dramatic? Yes. A climax? No.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Sorry, I mis-worded it. I was thinking 1948.

A catalyst in 1948 and climax in 1952??? That's an awfully quick 4T.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Yes it would. Cameroon achieved Independence while a minor event turned into a major rebellion that engulfed much of the country and turned into a Civil War. The 2000 election in Mexico was a landmark, but not the type of Climax as described by S&H:






Dramatic yes, a climax? No.

Hmm...okay.

How did my country study on Mexico go? I still wasn't able to name the recent Hero or Artist gens, and it feels incomplete, but I guess it's a start...?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What for you is missing? Maybe it happened, and we just didn't see it from over there. If you've gt something specific, I'd be happy to check around. Bound to learn something, in any case...

I need some more time to flesh out my thinking wrt Russia. It might be a complex situation or a very simple one, and I'll have to consider both.

Originally Posted by 1990

A catalyst in 1948 and climax in 1952??? That's an awfully quick 4T.

Yes, yes. You know I am in strong disagreement with the notion of a 20 year Crisis. I say, the time when the climax occurs is impossible to predict. More on this later.

Hmm...okay.

How did my country study on Mexico go? I still wasn't able to name the recent Hero or Artist gens, and it feels incomplete, but I guess it's a start...?

I took a quick look and it seems fine. I'll need some more time and will let you know. We'll need a divide and conquer strategy. I know John X. has his sights set on a few, and hopefully we will acquire some other contributors.

This quote is from another thread.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

My point, such as it is, is simply to add whatever data I can towards the further refinement of a theory that seems to me to have some potential. I've long thought that a true test of the theory would be to see how broadly applicable it could be. The dearth of information about foreign lands available to the majority of students of the generational theory (particularly when viewed relative to the wealth of information about the USA), however, presents a serious challenge to even beginning to make a serious mapping of the model onto any of them. If generational theory is to hold, it must hold for Azerbaijan, Thailand, and Botswana as well as America. But to even begin to assess it against other places, the level of understanding of those other places needs to be seriously advanced. For example, I view the whole 'map project' thing as a worthy effort; but at the same time, it should be recognized only as a first draft attempt to put some guesses on places -- a starting point for actual informed discussion.

I agree with most of this. It is clear to me, and is clear to many others, that the theory must be universal among all civilizations. In the Map Project, we have worked under this assumption, and by this, we are also evaluating our assumption. At the very least, we have found that social upheaval and something resembling the turnings can be found in every region of the world. The 'country studies' (side note: we need a new name, this is stolen from the loc study) part of the map project will attempt to showcase the theory in regions not covered.

How far one can take our conclusions is up to the reader. I am convinced that the theory holds true, pretty much to a T. Finding cycles of Crises isn’t merely enough, you have to understand the generational dynamics (no relation) within an area. I, 1990, you, and everyone on this board has observed it. Some have observed in more places than others. I have not once heard that there is no concept of generational archetypes in a certain area on this forum.

I’m way past that point. The interactions that have been observed have been supported by turning identification. The turning follows generations, and generations follow turnings. I previously outlined my methodology in a lengthy post here. The point is to establish universal conditions for turning determination, which are based on the four seasons that S&H identified. Sometimes the information isn’t readily available, so some filling in the blanks has to be made. Sometimes I string together Crises and Awakenings. The method is certainly far from perfect, and I do make mistakes -- like when I changed my mind on Costa Rica -- but these are rare. There are certainly a couple errors to be found, but I’m not sure which.

So this certainly is a draft -- in the sense that everything is a draft. It is always open to debate and interpretation, even though I may howl at someone who holds what I consider to be a nonsensical viewpoint.

(continued)

Along those lines, I’d like to make a couple of suggestions, and I know I’m stealing much of John Xenakis’ ideas (sorry), but I think anyone who has analyzed each country individually, without doing the regional hand sweep, would come up with similar conclusions:

1. Merge the Climax and the Resolution. When I read John Xenakis’ second book, he listed the Climaxes of Crises next to the beginning, without any regard for the resolution. This puzzled me, since I figured that the Resolution would begin the process where you can say, “Oh, 60 years until the next catalyst.” My mind was changed when I reasoned that the post-climax period of a 4T may actually have more in common with a 1T, since it is a change in trend, making it completely different than the other parts of the crisis. It is falling action, and represents a yearning for return to normalcy. To seal this up, 1990 and I looked at some wars that spanned years and years. It often became clear that the war started in an Unraveling and ended in a High, thereby ruling out a “Resolution.” These wars had clear climaxes, after which the energy was sapped, and would remain at that level until its completion, years after the Crisis. So I would make the concept of a Resolution defunct.

2. Allow for length discrepancy. #1 is more stylistic than anything else, but this one is a must. To put it frankly, a rigorous interpretation of the Fourth Turning Theory doesn’t allow for a turning to be less than 15 years or 25 years, and even those numbers stray too far from the 20-year rule. This simply doesn’t work all the time. For reasons we can’t be quite too sure of, as I believe it’s impossible to have a full understanding of this subject, mid-cycle periods can be as little as 41 years long (extremely rare) to as much as 105 years long (also extremely rare). While a mid-cycle period typically last 55-65 years, an unexpected invasion, or oil money, or anything, can bring about a Crisis with Artists or Nomads in charge. The 4T can be as short or as long as it allows for. It’s unpredictable, since you cannot know when the energy reaches a point where the climax occurs. Because of mid-cycle discrepancy, a country will enter a Crisis mood around the 60 year mark without actually being in a Crisis. This is similar to what the U.S. has gone through since 2001. However, more research has to be done on this.

3. In terms of turning identification, it matters more how a religious revival is manifested than the religious revival itself.. I’ve said this a million times. It’s quite logical, actually. 2Ts are times of spirituality, but if a religious revival is to pursue political means, or violence, or unity, or whatever, a more detailed look is required.

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

Dear John,

Not off-hand. There would have to be a much more obvious commerical opportunity. I have a few friends who I am trying to persuade do small aspects of the effort.
In addition, that number seems absurdly high considering we should be able to leverage cheap programming, graphic design and project management talent from all over the world at a fraction of the price of NorAmericans.

But if you'd like to run your technical plan and budget by me, I'll make some calls. you know how to reach me on email.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Along those lines, I’d like to make a couple of suggestions, and I know I’m stealing much of John Xenakis’ ideas (sorry), but I think anyone who has analyzed each country individually, without doing the regional hand sweep, would come up with similar conclusions:

1. Merge the Climax and the Resolution. When I read John Xenakis’ second book, he listed the Climaxes of Crises next to the beginning, without any regard for the resolution. This puzzled me, since I figured that the Resolution would begin the process where you can say, “Oh, 60 years until the next catalyst.” My mind was changed when I reasoned that the post-climax period of a 4T may actually have more in common with a 1T, since it is a change in trend, making it completely different than the other parts of the crisis. It is falling action, and represents a yearning for return to normalcy. To seal this up, 1990 and I looked at some wars that spanned years and years. It often became clear that the war started in an Unraveling and ended in a High, thereby ruling out a “Resolution.” These wars had clear climaxes, after which the energy was sapped, and would remain at that level until its completion, years after the Crisis. So I would make the concept of a Resolution defunct.

2. Allow for length discrepancy. #1 is more stylistic than anything else, but this one is a must. To put it frankly, a rigorous interpretation of the Fourth Turning Theory doesn’t allow for a turning to be less than 15 years or 25 years, and even those numbers stray too far from the 20-year rule. This simply doesn’t work all the time. For reasons we can’t be quite too sure of, as I believe it’s impossible to have a full understanding of this subject, mid-cycle periods can be as little as 41 years long (extremely rare) to as much as 105 years long (also extremely rare). While a mid-cycle period typically last 55-65 years, an unexpected invasion, or oil money, or anything, can bring about a Crisis with Artists or Nomads in charge. The 4T can be as short or as long as it allows for. It’s unpredictable, since you cannot know when the energy reaches a point where the climax occurs. Because of mid-cycle discrepancy, a country will enter a Crisis mood around the 60 year mark without actually being in a Crisis. This is similar to what the U.S. has gone through since 2001. However, more research has to be done on this.

3. In terms of turning identification, it matters more how a religious revival is manifested than the religious revival itself.. I’ve said this a million times. It’s quite logical, actually. 2Ts are times of spirituality, but if a religious revival is to pursue political means, or violence, or unity, or whatever, a more detailed look is required.

I pretty much agree with this. In my U.S. and Mexico studies, I'm going to add into the Crises two categories. First, the "Honor General". Every 4T in both these countries seems to have had a Nomad general serving under the Prophet grey champion. In the U.S. it's been Washington, Grant, Eisenhower. In Mexico, Iturbide and Calles (yes, he was a general as well as influential President). Seems to me the lack of a Prophet GC and Nomad Honor General has helped prevent Mexico's 4T from moving clearly.

Second, I'm going to name the catalyst and climax for every 4T. Will re-post studies when those things are done.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

2. Allow for length discrepancy. #1 is more stylistic than anything else, but this one is a must. To put it frankly, a rigorous interpretation of the Fourth Turning Theory doesn’t allow for a turning to be less than 15 years or 25 years, and even those numbers stray too far from the 20-year rule. This simply doesn’t work all the time. For reasons we can’t be quite too sure of, as I believe it’s impossible to have a full understanding of this subject, mid-cycle periods can be as little as 41 years long (extremely rare) to as much as 105 years long (also extremely rare). While a mid-cycle period typically last 55-65 years, an unexpected invasion, or oil money, or anything, can bring about a Crisis with Artists or Nomads in charge. The 4T can be as short or as long as it allows for. It’s unpredictable, since you cannot know when the energy reaches a point where the climax occurs. Because of mid-cycle discrepancy, a country will enter a Crisis mood around the 60 year mark without actually being in a Crisis. This is similar to what the U.S. has gone through since 2001. However, more research has to be done on this.

Uh, doesn't this go against S&Hs "evenly spaced phase of life" explanation for the saeculum?

Originally Posted by 1990

I pretty much agree with this. In my U.S. and Mexico studies, I'm going to add into the Crises two categories. First, the "Honor General". Every 4T in both these countries seems to have had a Nomad general serving under the Prophet grey champion. In the U.S. it's been Washington, Grant, Eisenhower. In Mexico, Iturbide and Calles (yes, he was a general as well as influential President). Seems to me the lack of a Prophet GC and Nomad Honor General has helped prevent Mexico's 4T from moving clearly.

Second, I'm going to name the catalyst and climax for every 4T. Will re-post studies when those things are done.

Sounds like an excellent addition. The Catlyst is sometimes harder to find, but the Climax should be clear.