the near future for america

[StilesBC]

As far as a civil war goes, it would be along the same lines as the last civil war: Federalists against Constitutionalists (no the civil war was not about slavery). It was about federal power.

No it wasn't, and this revisionism reeks of some of the worst stuff found on LRC. No one really cares about federal power insofar as it does not affect them (or those who they sympathize with) in a personal matter. (Or to be more blunt, people only respect constitutions insofar as they reflect their specific ends.) "States' rights" were merely a clever sort of justification for upholding southern practices; Constitutionalist ideology was simply a means to that end. The issue of slavery was the catalyst, and although most southerners didn't own slaves, they were convinced to join in the struggle since there were huge cultural differences (note: fault line) between the industrialized north and the agrarian south.

Today, there are so many ethnic differences in the West that a town 3,000 miles away may have more in common with yours than one only 20 miles away -- so if fighting breaks out, it will look nothing like the last one.

Matt,

If slavery was the real catalyst for the Civil War, you are essentially claiming that all Southerners were stupid. Why would they fight a war where they could have their own "slave state" upon victory? Surely they would know that upon their independence, their slaves would simply run away to the north???

Slavery was invented as an issue in order to recruit african-americans for the war effort and to prevent the British from intervening. Lincoln himself was a total racist. Read this quote:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

It's easy to look at it from today's perspective and say, "Those roughnecks were stupid. Why would they try to secede from the US?" But the US was not the same type of state as it is now. The federal government was not intended to have any real legislative power whatsoever over the individual states. It was widely understood that if any state didn't like what was happening, they were free to leave the union. Lincoln wanted to change that - no he wasn't the first.

But just look at the opportunism by the northern states upon Southern secession in passing all sorts of federally minded legislation: (from Wiki) Morrill Tariff (increased trade protectionism), the National Banking Act (consolidating the issuance of currency), a Federal Income Tax.

No, slavery was not really seen as a big issue at the time. If it was such a big deal, then why did nearly every other major slave owning country manage to avoid fighting similar wars over the issue, while it was enough to expedite the coming of a crisis war a generation "too soon" in America?

And isn't one of the defining characteristics of "crisis wars" that they resolve the underlying issue? If slavery was the issue, it could hardly be considered "resolved". Segregation and racism continued for 100 years thereafter. Through most of which it could be argued that african-americans were no better off, despite their technical "freedom." However, the clout of the Federal government over the States was never again questioned. It was, in fact, a victory for the centralization of power all over the world. Canada federated 2 years later. Brazil 15 years later. Australia 30 years. The British used it as affirmation to continue with their empire.

There's far more evidence against the slavery citation. Read through the memoirs of soldiers or generals Lee and Jackson. Many didn't even care about the slavery issue or were pro-abolishment themselves (privately).

Slavery's common citation as the "catalyst" for the civil war is just a case of the victors writing the history books. That's not to say it wasn't an issue at all. Most southerners were bigoted racists. So were most northerners. But absent the slavery issue altogether, the war would have happened regardless.

[Matt1989]

If slavery was the real catalyst for the Civil War, you are essentially claiming that all Southerners were stupid. Why would they fight a war where they could have their own "slave state" upon victory? Surely they would know that upon their independence, their slaves would simply run away to the north???

Slavery was invented as an issue in order to recruit african-americans for the war effort and to prevent the British from intervening. Lincoln himself was a total racist.

You're misrepresenting me. Slavery was an issue, the main one actually, to which the cultural fault line between north and south were most visibly expressed. So when I say it was the catalyst for the outbreak of the Civil War, I don't mean that the war was fought over slavery (see below), but that it served as the prime motivation for southerners to preserve their way of life (at all costs). Combined with the generational forces in play, this led to secession.

It's easy to look at it from today's perspective and say, "Those roughnecks were stupid. Why would they try to secede from the US?" But the US was not the same type of state as it is now. The federal government was not intended to have any real legislative power whatsoever over the individual states. It was widely understood that if any state didn't like what was happening, they were free to leave the union. Lincoln wanted to change that - no he wasn't the first.

But just look at the opportunism by the northern states upon Southern secession in passing all sorts of federally minded legislation: (from Wiki) Morrill Tariff (increased trade protectionism), the National Banking Act (consolidating the issuance of currency), a Federal Income Tax.

I'm well aware of the growth of Big Government around and after the Civil War. But this doesn't represent so much of an ideological chasm, but rather, the nature of power in creating more power. A crisis is a prime opportunity for such acts. But hear me: government is a means to an end. It is, by nature, unprincipled -- unless you consider overall utility a legitimate principle. The reasoning is not, "OMG look how much legislative power they have!" but "OMG look how much legislative power they have over us!"

No, slavery was not really seen as a big issue at the time. If it was such a big deal, then why did nearly every other major slave owning country manage to avoid fighting similar wars over the issue, while it was enough to expedite the coming of a crisis war a generation "too soon" in America?

I don't think this follows. First, slavery was huge -- the abolitionist movement had reached a moral and political climax just prior to the war. Now, I wouldn't suggest that the war was "fought over" slavery; I actually don't think the war was fought over much of anything. It's only poor "educational" textbooks have only created the opinion that slavery was the cause.

And isn't one of the defining characteristics of "crisis wars" that they resolve the underlying issue? If slavery was the issue, it could hardly be considered "resolved". Segregation and racism continued for 100 years thereafter. Through most of which it could be argued that african-americans were no better off, despite their technical "freedom." However, the clout of the Federal government over the States was never again questioned. It was, in fact, a victory for the centralization of power all over the world. Canada federated 2 years later. Brazil 15 years later. Australia 30 years. The British used it as affirmation to continue with their empire.

Not quite; at least in my mind. Crises produce a spirit to resolve issues -- the question as to whether it actually gets done is far from certain. As you note, racism exists long after the war ended -- but I can't recall a steadfast determination to end racism except by the radical abolitionists. Nevertheless, full-blown 'resolutions' were attempted during the latter stages of the war and through Reconstruction, but the energy does not keep as the Recovery progresses.

There's far more evidence against the slavery citation. Read through the memoirs of soldiers or generals Lee and Jackson. Many didn't even care about the slavery issue or were pro-abolishment themselves (privately).

I'm not entirely sure about those two men. Lee was a brutal slave-whipper; and despite southerners attempts to paint him as a hero, he was not one. Jackson was certainly tolerant of slavery.

Slavery's common citation as the "catalyst" for the civil war is just a case of the victors writing the history books. That's not to say it wasn't an issue at all. Most southerners were bigoted racists. So were most northerners. But absent the slavery issue altogether, the war would have happened regardless.

I don't disagree. See above.

[zyrktec]

john's latest blog article put the idea of civil war into better perspective for me. I can see where there will be riots but the fault line for civil war definitely doesn't exist. the possibility of a generational crisis foreign war ie china is a more realistic probable future.

[StilesBC]

I actually thought John contradicted himself in that article. His quote: "A civil war requires a fault line based on differences in skin color, religions, geography, or something similar," contradicts the previous paragraphs where he describes France's "Reign of Terror" which was between the wealthy/ruling elite vs. the masses. I don't see why that couldn't happen again as the newly jobless realize they've been robbed blind by the bankers and stuck with the bill.

But I agree in principal. A foreign war is far more likely. Though it could take a decade to actually climax. WWII didn't really get going until 10 years after the '29 crash. I see proxy wars developing between the Chinese and US on two separate fronts. Pakistan and Sudan. The US could fund the Indians and Kenyans respectively to carry out their interests before getting involved themselves. But it's all just speculation. All we know is that we're more drawn toward the escalation of conflicts that occur regularly. We can narrow down the possibilities through the use of GT, but we can't tell the specifics.

[John]

-- Criteria for a civil war fault line

When there's a clear geographical distinction between two warring
parties (e.g., the North versus the South), then it's easy to
understand the fault line across which a crisis war is fought.

The American Civil War was not fought over slavery, since nobody was
advocating ending slavery. Abraham Lincoln had a plan for ending
slavery over a 30 year period, compensating the slave owners, so
there was no rush to fight a war over this issue.

My research indicated that the visceral fear triggering the panic
that caused the Civil War was fear of servile insurrection.

** Chapter 3 - Visceral Causes of Crisis Wars
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... ok2.causes

When there's no clearcut geographical distinction, it's another
story.

If you want to explain a civil war, then you have to explain why
somebody (like yourself) would decide to pick up a machete and go
next door, kill your neighbor and cut him up, rape his wife, then
kill her and the children and chop them up. Just saying that they
disagree over the TARP or some ideological issue doesn't make sense.

My research indicates that the two warring groups have to be
determined by a fault line that's determined by birth and can't be
crossed.

Thus, in the French Revolution, if you were born into the aristocracy
then you would be an aristocrat, but otherwise you would not.

The same distinction is true in China today, where the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) élite are determined by birth.

More specifically, the miserable people in the Artist generation
have to be able to tell their Prophet and Nomad kids the following:
"I've been poor and miserable, but you can have all the advantages
I've missed if you work hard for a better life." In that case, a
civil war can be avoided.

Otherwise the Artists have to tell this to their kids: "You can do OK
as long as you know your place." In that case, the Prophets and
Nomads abide, but the kids in the new Hero generation decide they
won't take it any more, and they go to war.

Sincerely,

John

[jwfid]

One point about the US Civil War cause debate. I think the underlying issue was probably that Kansas had decided to be a free state upon admission. This and the fact that future states would probably have been admitted as additional free states would have swung the balance of power in the US Congress overwhelmingly in the favor of the North. This would have forced anti-slavery federal legislation on the southern states eventually. The South's way of life was now in jeopardy at some point. The South saw the writing on the wall with the election of Abraham Lincoln and decided to secede.

What really escaped my mind was why the North decided to fight the war to the bitter end. I believe the answer is found in the mindset of the North. Many in the North really believed that the US "needed" the south to become the great country it was meant to be (it's "Manifest Destiny").

Joe

[Marshall Kane]

Joe,

What really escaped my mind was why the North decided to fight the war to the bitter end. I believe the answer is found in the mindset of the North. Many in the North really believed that the US "needed" the south to become the great country it was meant to be (it's "Manifest Destiny").

This is an interesting question. Most people in the north had no reason to be concerned with the moral issues of slavery. In fact, to many of the fighting men abolition was actually a threat their own economic interest, in that a sudden influx of cheap, unskilled black labor to threaten their jobs, as well as cultural status.

The question may come down to luck and leadership. Does a 4th turning create a leadership vacuum, where a generation finds itself aimless and open to anyone who comes along and is willing to take charge? This would explain why the success of the United States at times of crisis. Unlike more stratified societies, our culture allows people to find themselves in the right place at the right time. So, when a 4th turning comes along, we're most likely to end up with the right people in the right places. The north had the more open and dynamic society, and was eventually able to spit up the Lincolns, Grants & Shermans from nowhere.

[Centuron]

So throughout all the reading and attempts at absorbing the new information, there are some things I've observed.
First, on the topic of American Civil War, I find it very unlikely that the US will fall into another civil war this time around. As mentioned several times, the fault lines aren't there. There are 'conservative' people and 'liberal' people (red and blue), but there's no urge, at least in the younger generations, to destroy the one or the other. And while there is a lot of anger and resentment at the government and financial heads, they are not a fixed cultural group (as caste system aristocrats) and can be changed, so there's no feeling of wanting to destroy that either. This anger and resentment occurred during the Great Depression as well, but there was no civil war (though it did lead to lasting distrust of financial people and suspicious practices). Really, it seems Americans (at least the younger ones) are tired of internal squabble and simply want to system corrected, which makes civil war less likely, but foreign war more likely (in that it provides a common enemy).

Thus, what more concerns me is what war America will be involved in and how it will be handled. So far it seems the two most likely places for a trigger are Pakistan-India and China. I have an idea how the Pakistan-India start might work, but I'm less clear (and thus worried) about the conflict with China, which I assume would most likely start over Taiwan. What I wonder about the most is the fact that I've heard "China is preparing for war with the US" and "China is on the verge of civil war." So really, if this stands correct, is China the country that actually faces a 2-sided war? And if so, what does that mean for the US? Would this mean a conflict with all of China? Or would this mean a conflict with just the elite and its supporters? A military buildup in China against the US is very worrying considering the US's current situation, and makes those questions feel all the more relevant.

I don't want war, most people I know don't want war, but it feels we are becoming a small minority. If major war is what's coming, knowing the possible logistics in regards to America would be good simply because that is where we live. America's current track record has become terrible, so the one silver lining I could see would possibly be the upheaval needed to clear out the old toxic mind-frames and restructure.

[malleni]

Even if I do not like any kind of "predictions" - this guy is quite interesting.
Namely, he predicted (CORRECTLY and IN TIME!) major events in the last 20 years!
(Perhaps he had just little luck with predictions, but definitely those are not funny as Johns.)

He had those days an interview about future development in USA.
http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009 ... lente.html
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCP7FaYe ... r_embedded
and his site:
http://www.trendsresearch.com/index.htm

You can like it or not, but as said, Gerald Celente is DEFINITELY not John Xenakis... which is good too.

Generally difference (even if there are similarities!) regarding future of USA between those two (as I understand)are:
1. Both Gerald AND John believe that USA will default on its debt, BUT John believe that "paper" US dollar will be much stronger then that is now. Of course even US debt (Treasury papers) will according John be a good investment.
On the other side, Gerald do not believe that US dollar (in its present "form") will survive this year and he is sure that Treasuries are a bad investment.
2. Both believe that even worse time will come in the USA particularly, BUT John believe that the US System (financial, social and all others) will remain unchanged, with increased firearm crime (i.e. US Empire - will remain)
Gerald on the other side, saying that USA System - will collapsed in some kind of - revolution (i.e. US Empire - will crush)
3. On the end - John believe that USA is the major "democratic" country on the Planet and probably with some kind of "task" to spreading this sort of "democracy and freedom" to the World.
Gerald predicting that USA IS even today a fallen state - due to the merger of state and corporate powers. With other words Gerald describe situation in the USA:
"...It’s not communism where the state controls monopolies – it’s fascism, plain and simple. The merger of corporate and government powers. State-controlled capitalism is called fascism, and fascism has come to America in broad daylight...."



Perhaps this time John has right and Gerald has wrong...

Who knows...?
Only we can do is to wait and see...