Basics of Generational Theory

[burt]

Hello,
How do you explain (within the Generational Theory) the H1N1 false panic of the year 2009?

Regards

[John]

> Yes, I agree, I forgot this point. IT IS important for today's
> analysis. BUT the Austrian government did atrocities to their own
> people and to germans, so this was an crisis war for Austria,
> correct?

I've never analyzed the role of Austria in WW I.

> So could you please help me in setting where we are NOW, which
> generation for which country (the main ones are enough)

> GERMANY FRANCE SPAIN GREECE ITALY

Insofar as I've researched these countries, I believe that they're all
in generational Crisis eras.

> You say in your own texts that there are often 58 years between a
> major event and a panic. Nothing important happened in 1952, and
> you speak very often about a major panic on the financial markets,
> as if this would happen this year.?

The 58 year hypothesis says that when a nationwide catastrophe occurs,
and it satisfies certain criteria, then there may be a false panic 58
years later. However, panics can occur for lots of other reasons as
well.

> Could you give me some text to read on the fifth turning point??

This has a pretty good summary:

** Generational Dynamics forecasting methodology
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... cast090503

> This means that France has had its fifth turning point. So what
> will happen between Germany (in its first part of a Crisis Era)
> and France after its fifth turning point (with corrupted budget,
> as much as Greece, and which is no more a democraty but a
> "StreetCracy" (my own expression to say that the government
> decides and then MOVES back if people go on the street, where,
> now, most people don't even know why they are there, (this is new,
> those no-brain demonstrators)))

I don't know how to evaluate the situation in France without a lot
more research. It's possible that a "first turning reset" occurred
after WW I, but I'm not able to sort that whole thing out without a
lot more research. And there's another complication when evaluating
France today: A lot of the Muslim population are immigrants from
Algeria, where the last crisis war was the war of independence that
ended in 1962.

The fact is, Burt, you don't need me to tell you the answers to these
questions. You can do the research yourself, and you'll actually be
able to do it better than I can because you're over there in Europe.
Why don't you start reading histories written in the 1920-1950 period,
and see if you can identify generational era turning points that would
indicate whether or not WW II was an Awakening war for France?

That would be the best way for you to proceed, if you really want to
understand this situation.

> Another note: I'm not sure that WWII was a crisis war for the USA,

I think you're going off in a wrong direction with this remark. WW II
was definitely a crisis war for all of America. And the 1960s were
definitely an Awakening era for all of America.

> I wonder how many large continental empires like our own have
> similar regional generational divides even in this age of instant
> mass communications? I think we may. Russia? China? India, I'm
> reasonably sure, does.

My feeling is that the speed of communications is not the most
important factor in developing generational consciousness. After all,
you're talking about decades of time for a new generation to develop
their own unique consciousness, so there's plenty of time for ideas to
be transmitted, even if it's just by word of mouth, neighbor to
neighbor.

> John, by the way, WHY do you set the Crisis War of North Korea at
> WWII and NOT in 1953, when this catastrophic war of Korea stopped
> withoout stopping, and where human lifes was strictly without any
> importance for people in North Korea (as long as I read the story
> correctly)???

> Sorry, John, but I don't see the basis for the claim that "Korea's
> last crisis war was WW II." What about 1950-53? Enormous
> casualties, especially on the Communist side, along with a
> disregard for human life and acceptance of mass casualties,
> especially on the Communist side.

Every war is "catastrophic." Every war has casualties, sometimes
massive casualties. But you have to be more analytical than that.
You can't just say "X number of casualties means a crisis war, and
less than that means a non-crisis war." It doesn't work that way.

I wrote a brief generational history of South Korea since WW II in the
following article:

** South Korean politicians are 'euphoric' over North Korea nuclear deal
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 16#e070216

If you feel that my analysis is wrong, then don't just complain about
it -- do some actual research. When I got started doing generational
analyses in 2002-3, I sometimes had to read 10-20 books on a country
to determine its generational timeline. You may have to do the same.
You can't just make a judgment based on your "feelings." You have to
do hard research.

I've had people prove me wrong before, and perhaps you can prove that
the 1950s Korean War was a crisis war, but at the very least you have
to explain why the Korean War never ended, since crisis wars typically
end in a genocidal climax. The Korean War has never had a climax.

Or, to put it a different way, I believe that the climax is yet to
come.

How do you explain (within the Generational Theory) the H1N1 false
panic of the year 2009?

There was no panic similar to the 1976 panic. In 1976, the general
population was demanding a flu vaccine. In the 2000s, the push was
almost entirely from WHO and the CDC.

John

[burt]

The 58 year hypothesis says that when a nationwide catastrophe occurs,
and it satisfies certain criteria,

?? What kind of criteria? I haven't found anything in your text, but I could have misread....

> Could you give me some text to read on the fifth turning point??

** Generational Dynamics forecasting methodology

Yes, but... The only sentence I found was "it occurs only when a society goes through an entire Fourth Turning with no crisis war", and how to know if Fourth Turning ends?

You can do the research yourself.

I'm going to do it, but WHAT should I look at first, and then what is, just behind, of second importance, you have the experience and you said the first analysis you have done, took you a lot of time, so could you be kind enough to give me some guidelines, on top of the ones in you book.

I wrote a brief generational history of South Korea since WW II in the
following article:
** South Korean politicians are 'euphoric' over North Korea nuclear deal

Thank you

but at the very least you have to explain why the Korean War never ended, since crisis wars typically
end in a genocidal climax. The Korean War has never had a climax.

Thank you, very good point. I can go wrong in my researches, so thank you in helping me to find these critical points.

Regards

[burt]

I've never analyzed the role of Austria in WW I.

??? It was Austro-Hongrie War against France??? The center of the western world was Wien at that time. You have certainly analysed Austria, it was the center of the war.
What I forgot was the different role of Germany in the war.

I analysed with your method different countries in Europe and I conclude that WWI WAS a Crisis War for France, FOR SURE (or you do not respect your own method or I misunderstood something).
Historicly significant : Support C, as a matter Determines C, People were Pro Napoleon war before, and against any kind of war after, for exemple, but also ready to any kind of agreements after, the government became very unstable betwwen WWI and WWII but only 1 idea: NO revenge, Agreement AND staring form 1933 (15 years after) CHANGES toards a BETTER quality of life (NOT as in Germany AGAINST life)
Genocidal without ANY respect of life: C, not only against soldiers but against what is life, with a LOT of D-Days against the "Boches" (as any kind of german were called)

The historical change was hudge in the mentality of the people + the french where happy to die at the beginning of war and not only the wanted peace at the end of the war, but war was put Out of Law and then they "refused" to fight (never forget that the fight was only 6 weeks long) at WWII, + WWII had very little impact for french (except for the french who where jews). + 1936 was a true awakening crisis very different from what happened in the rest of Europe + the far-right political parties who wanted to extermine the jews (not only) had very little power (compared to what happened in the rest of Europe) AND where inefficient to capture french-jews during the war (the population, as a whole, not as particular persons, helped the jews because they were men and women). I do not want to hurt anyone, I have a lot of friends in any religious community (as I do not belong to any, myself), so I do not want to say that jews were not exterminated (they were), I just say it could have been much, much worse if France whould have been in a crisis era.

The turning point was clearly the "Taxi de la Marne" day, worst than any D-Day (and there was a lot of D-Days conducted by stupid, really stupid generals)

NOW MY QUESTION: What does it change? France is just in the same time frame as Russia and Turkey (I didn't study Turkey, so it is what I understood from you) and France is just more advanced towards the crisis war, BUT France is surrounded by other countries, so what does it change??

And there's another complication when evaluating France today: A lot of the Muslim population are immigrants from Algeria, where the last crisis war was the war of independence that ended in 1962.

Note that they have no political power and try, for most of them, to be integrated, it is the xenophobia atmosphere that USE the algerian people excuse, not the opposite.
If generational theory is correct this could have an impact in 10 years, specialy because there are a lot of ghettos in France today.
But Muslims are too few to change the general atmosphere in France (the media make people, in ALL Europe, thinking as if they were everywhere, but it is wrong), so this is part of the actual story.
This cannot be set aside (or you have to do that for the USA too and almost for any country with SOME immigrants and this wouldn't have any meaning).

Regards

[burt]

Why do you think it will end in a clash of civilizations?

This is very pessimist, and not only world is not prepared for that (I mean, even it was going to be the end point, it has to pe prepared, and this need 10 years of psychological preparation), but what is very close from us, is a lot of civil wars (US is a possibility within the 10 next years, it has been already analysed, but not only US, China, and Europe too, but Europe is NOT ready to fight with weapons) and of what you call genocidal wars (Israel-Palestine where everyone agree with you, India, Pakistan, Korea, Caucase).
A clash is possible between Europe and Mediteranean Arabs (still the probability looks as being exactly the same as 40 years ago), but even there is no reason to become world-wide, on my point of view.

This does NOT mean that it will escalade into WWIII. It can stay local because people ave very individualist, for exemple.

Please explain

Regards

[burt]

Why do you think that there MUST be a PANIC within the Stock Market, BASED on the generational Theory. I understand your fear, but not the rational, it is as if said: BECAUSE of the generational pattern there has to be a panic, I do not understand.

It is quite impossible to have a panic YET, because people panic immediatly as soon as they think about 2008 and that there are too much "panic" in the air.
Because of the structure of the market (and what is the stock market: a poker game and bookmaker game) and because the PER is too low actualy (around 15) (I follow econometric studies which made REAL long term studies and affirm, very rationaly, that it's ACTUAL equilibrum point is 18), a panic [/b]cannot happen.

A true panic is sudden, nobody think about it and never happens when the stock market is in it's high.

So WHY do you think there HAS TO BE A PANIC. Isn't that YOUR panic???

Regards

[John]

Dear Bertrand,

You're asking me some very difficult questions, questions for which
I've only done limited research. I'll try to tell you what I already
know, or think I know.

> John wrote: The 58 year hypothesis says that when a nationwide
> catastrophe occurs, and it satisfies certain criteria,

> ?? What kind of criteria? I haven't found anything in your text,
> but I could have misread....

According to the 58-year hypothesis, if a nationwide catastrophe
occurs, then there may be a "false panic" 58 years later that the
catastrophe will recur.

I first noticed this only about five years ago when I realized that
the 1987 stock market crash occurred 58 years after the 1929 crash,
and the 1976 swine flu fiasco occurred 58 years after the 1918 Spanish
flu pandemic. I wondered if there were any other examples, and I came
up with the following possible theoretical explanation:

That when the disaster occurs, 5-10 year old children are traumatized
by it, and fear for the rest of their lives that the disaster will
recur. 58 years later, they reach ages 63-68, at the end of their
professional lives, and they realize that people younger than
themselves have no conception of the potential danger, and they panic.

** South Korea's government in crisis over beef imports from U.S.
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 12#e080612

** The Iraq war may be related to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 17#e080217

** Kenya settles into low-level violence on the way to Rwanda
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 01#e080201

** Investors commemorate the false panic of Monday, October 19, 1987
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 19#e071019

** Palestinian Interior Minister / escalated Gaza violence
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 15#e070515

=inc ww2010.xr.t1$(D) $(Dsn).is macro061025 "System Dynamics and the Failure of Macroeconomics Theory"
=inc ww2010.xr.t1$(D) $(Dsn).is 060530panic "Speculations about a stock market panic and crash"
** Stock markets melt down: Where is money going?
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 21#e060521

So, to answer your question, here are the criteria I would list for
the catastrophic event:

• The event must be truly catastophic and completely unexpected.
• The event must have been "foreseeable but poorly foreseen," in
  that if proper steps had been taken, then it could have been
  prevented, or at least ameliorated.
• There should have been plenty of "lessons learned" that the
  survivors could apply in the future.
• There should have been massive public vow or determination by the
  survivors that the catastrophe must never be allowed to happen again,
  and that determination is not shared by people younger than the
  survivors.

> Could you give me some text to read on the fifth turning point??

> This has a pretty good summary:
>
> ** Generational Dynamics forecasting methodology
> ** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... cast090503

> Yes, but... The only sentence I found was "it occurs only when a
> society goes through an entire Fourth Turning with no crisis war",
> and how to know if Fourth Turning ends?

Strauss and Howe did a lot of research to determine the kinds of
events that serve as boundaries between the turnings. But S&H never
explained what happened if a fourth turning passed with no crisis war.
This was kind of a hole in their foundational work, and so I've been
developing the fifth turning concept as a way of plugging that hole.

There are two sources of information about each of the other
generational archetypes: One is S&H's research, and the other is
widely available magazine articles on the differences between the
Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials. But neither source of information
provides any light on the characteristics of kids that grow up during
a fifth turning.

Then I had a big breakthrough by accident. After the 5/7/05 London
subway bombings, I saw some work by a Robert Pape who had analyzed
several years of al-Qaeda suicide bombings, to determine the
characteristics of the suicide bombers themselves, including their
nationalities. He found that they come from 11 different countries,
but that they overwhelmingly come from just two countries: Saudi
Arabia and Morocco. These two countries just happen to be the only
two countries of the 11 that are in fifth turnings: Saudi Arabia's
last crisis war was the Ibn Saud conquest, ending in 1925, and
Morocco's was the Rif War, ending in 1927.

** Robert Pape - Dying to Win - Suicide terrorists
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 050718pape

(Incidentally, I wrote to Professor Pape to tell him of this
discovery, but he didn't even bother to answer. Idiot.)

So this was a truly startling discovery, and led me to the following
thought: Crisis wars are common in the fourth turning, and suicide
bombings are common in the fifth turning. Why?

In the fourth turning, you have the nihilistic Nomads who lurch the
country into a crisis war, and use the malleable younger Hero
generation as cannon fodder.

However, if there's no crisis war, then in the fifth turning the
would-be Hero parents tell their kids just to accept the world as it
is. Their kids interpret this to mean that their parents are
suffering because of some enemy, and they become suicide bombers --
commit "altruistic suicide" -- for the sake of their parents, but
without their parents permission.

Thus, according to the hypothesis, the fourth turning kids are sent to
war by their parents, while the fifth turning kids, bored and
frustrated, absorb their parents's anger but ignore their parents
wishes and are willing to perpetrate altruistic suicide in order to be
heroes in their parents' eyes. However, suicide bombings are still
very rare, even among fifth turning archetypes.

As for when the fifth turning begins, just add 20 years or so to the
time that the fourth turning begins. This would be roughly 65-70
years after the end of the preceding crisis war.

What's needed is a study of countries in a fifth turning today --
Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Morocco, Turkey -- to find out how their
personalities differ from those of Prophets, Nomads, Heroes and
Artists. This would be a good time to do that kind of study, but I'm
afraid that if it isn't done now, then it will be harder to do once
the world war begins.

> NOW MY QUESTION: What does it change? France is just in the same
> time frame as Russia and Turkey (I didn't study Turkey, so it is
> what I understood from you) and France is just more advanced
> towards the crisis war, BUT France is surrounded by other
> countries, so what does it change??

Assuming that your analysis of France as having a first turning reset
after WW I is correct, I still don't know what it changes, because I
don't know what people are like in fifth turnings, other than the
discovery I made about suicide bombers.

However, I have express the same caution I did the last time: France
has a mixed population, with many people who came from regions where
WW II definitely was a crisis war, and also Muslims whose parents were
immigrants from Algeria, where the last crisis war was the war of
independence that ended in 1962. So it maybe that a significant
preponderance of the French population are still "Boomers."

There's one more thing that bothers me about saying that WW II was an
Awakening era war for France: The '68er revolution hit France very
hard, and it was clearly an Awakening era event.

So I would have to express caution about the conclusion you reached.
As I wrote in the past, it's possible that the first turning reset
applied only to northeast France, and to Belgium as well, and that
most of France did not have the same kind of experience. Your
research will have to determine the answer to that question.

> Why do you think it will end in a clash of civilizations? ...
> This does NOT mean that it will escalade into WWIII. It can stay
> local because people ave very individualist, for exemple.

I don't know how to answer this, other than what I've written a
million times before.

> Why do you think that there MUST be a PANIC within the Stock
> Market, BASED on the generational Theory. I understand your fear,
> but not the rational, it is as if said: BECAUSE of the
> generational pattern there has to be a panic, I do not understand.

Once again, I've answered this a million times. The die was already
cast by the time that the dot-com bubble began.

John

[The Grey Badger]

I'd have said Mexico was in a Fifth Turning except for one thing: they seem to be on a 100-year cycle for some strange reason. 2010, 1910, 1810 ... earlier I'd have said it was because they were still agricultural, but were they?

Of course, if they're entrained to our own Fourth Turning cycle now, we have a situation like France and Germany being tied to each other's cycle by the 30 Years War.

What do you think about Mexico's truly strange cycle length?

[burt]

So it maybe that a significant
preponderance of the French population are still "Boomers."

Very influenced by boomers from all over Europe, yes, may be, I have to study more.

There's one more thing that bothers me about saying that WW II was an
Awakening era war for France: The '68er revolution hit France very
hard, and it was clearly an Awakening era event.

I'm not at all convinced, the 68er "revolution" was mostly led by strangers (germans for example) AND it was politic and very short (as soon as General De Gaule resigned it stopped) and it was led by communists against De Gaule, the youth followed, they did not led, at the beginning it almost aborted.
+ De Gaule was someone who was officer durring WWI and all what he wanted was peace.
+ 68er so called revolution DID NOT CHANGE ONE THING in France
+ It had a VERY different "smell" from what happened in the US or in Great Britain or in Germany (just to give examples of countries I was already in at that time) and until now you have the ONLY theory that explains this difference in feeling I had at that time.

As I wrote in the past, it's possible that the first turning reset
applied only to northeast France, and to Belgium as well, and that
most of France did not have the same kind of experience. Your
research will have to determine the answer to that question.

It was NOT geographical, but it is possible that France was influenced by all the countries around it and had to take a different attitude to adapt herself to Europe + At the end of WWII, there was NO heroes, but a lot of prisonners coming back, so a lot of new children, and a lot of new families built at that time instead of during 1939-1945.
and for this new children it was a period of peace after a war (so a happy period) surrounded by countries which were in Recovery era, It has to have an influence, I have to study more to understand which one.

> Why do you think it will end in a clash of civilizations? ...
> This does NOT mean that it will escalade into WWIII. It can stay
> local because people ave very individualist, for exemple.

I don't know how to answer this, other than what I've written a million times before.

Yes and no, could you just give me a reference (or only the right Topic Review, that would be enough) that explain why, maybe I lost something in reading your posts.

> Why do you think that there MUST be a PANIC within the Stock
> Market, BASED on the generational Theory.

Once again, I've answered this a million times. The die was already
cast by the time that the dot-com bubble began.

Again could you give me a reference about that specific panic, I know the way you evaluate the stock market.
But again this is NOT a market, it has periodic panics, then why a special one BECAUSE OF generational dynamics.

Again thank you for your patience. I know you're busy this week, so I do not wait for quick answers.

I'm going to study Russia and Turkey next weeks (when I have some time free, I mean), would you recommand some specific research you have done on this countries?

Burt

[John]

Dear Bertrand,

> I'm not at all convinced, the 68er "revolution" was mostly led by
> strangers (germans for example) AND it was politic and very short
> (as soon as General De Gaule resigned it stopped) and it was led
> by communists against De Gaule, the youth followed, they did not
> led, at the beginning it almost aborted. + De Gaule was someone
> who was officer durring WWI and all what he wanted was peace. +
> 68er so called revolution DID NOT CHANGE ONE THING in France + It
> had a VERY different "smell" from what happened in the US or in
> Great Britain or in Germany (just to give examples of countries I
> was already in at that time) and until now you have the ONLY
> theory that explains this difference in feeling I had at that
> time.

Well, you're making a very good case. Keep up the research.

> Yes and no, could you just give me a reference (or only the right
> Topic Review, that would be enough) that explain why, maybe I lost
> something in reading your posts.

I honestly don't know what you're looking for. I write about this
almost every day with respect to different regions. Thus, for
example, a regional war in the Koreas or in the Mideast would spiral
into a major war.

Since you seem to be very analytical, you may find the approach in the
following book chapter useful:

** Chapter 6 - Kondratiev Cycles and Generational Dynamics
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... ok2.cycles

> I'm going to study Russia and Turkey next weeks (when I have some
> time free, I mean), would you recommand some specific research you
> have done on this countries?

See the following book chapter:

** Chapter 9 -- Islam versus Orthodox Christianity
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... easteurope

John