Start a google search with War Cycle.

You will see in the search result a whole series of consultants and articles that revolve around the same cycle values:

- 53.5 years
- 25,049 years
- 17,7 years
- 8,8 years

None of them cite their sources. They are not “authors” who have written a book or a study, but rather consultants who use these cycles to develop a strategy to make money on the stock market. Some are not afraid to write about “The War Cycle and the Coronavirus”. We don’t always understand the rational basis of their approach, but they make money from their consulting business and incidentally from their demonstrations on the “War Cycle”.

When we dig a little deeper to know where all these advanced values such as “War Cycle” can come from, there is an article by Edward R. DEWEY published in January 1967 in the magazine “Cycles” which is probably the origin of it.

Edward R. DEWEY (1895-1978) was an economist who studied cycles in economics. An organization (Foundation for the Study of Cycles) was established in 1941 and is still alive.

Edward R. DEWEY’s article is quite short and is entitled “Systematic Reconnaissance of Cycles in War“. *(You can access it through the link on the title).*

The assumptions are quite different from those of the “War Cycle” developed here.

It is a statistical study that was made by taking the dates of the battles and not the beginning of the wars. The study is interesting because the cycles that are found are quite close to a multiple of the basic cycle of the “Return Cycle”.

The cycles highlighted are:

- The most frequent cycle is around the age of 50 (6 basic cycles).
- The second most important is the one around 17 years old (2 basic cycles).
- The third most important is the one around 24 years old (3 basic cycles).
- The fourth most important is around 11 years (not related to the basic cycle).
- then the 8.8 but less obvious (at 0.4 of the basic cycle).

In principle, this study made on different hypotheses (and extending over periods of a few centuries to 2 millennia) is close in some points but there are also important differences.

The American culture seems to have integrated this reality without having succeeded in making something coherent and constructed out of it. Edward R. DEWEY has made statistics that cannot be disputed as statistics. The data used should be reviewed and replaced by the dates of the beginning of the wars.

Edward R. DEWEY stopped at the beginning of the First World War. Since he was taking the dates of the battles, it would have polluted all his statistics if he had broken the 2 World Wars into successive battles.

The “War Cycle” developed here does the opposite: it begins with the First World War to make it an instrument for predicting the near future and is limited to taking into account the dates of the outbreak of wars. As a result, this study has little data, which weakens its statistical value, whereas Edward R DEWEY’s study is statistically incontestable on the statistical practical level, but questionable in the principles retained to make this statistical study.

The figures are “close” but not completely consistent. This will require changing the value of 3085 days, which is considered to be certainly wrong and should be closer to 3100. The base value from Edward R. DEWEY’s work would rather be a little more than 3200.

In any case, when scientists deign to take care of the Clock of the Unconscious, the data on which the calculation will have to be redone will have to be redefined. This will replace the current value of 3085 days. Today the results are “approximated”. The difference between 3085 and 3100 has no significant impact on the results and analysis, since forecasts are made with uncertainties of several months. If we could find the exact source of this phenomenon, we might have another way to find an exact value. The perfect sinusoid does not exist in nature. There are variations from one peak to another that will have to be integrated later when we understand the phenomenon.

But the similarity of the cycle values allows:

- to be confident about a new study that would be carried out over several centuries
- to question the fact that some multiples of the “basic cycle” may not have value

*October 25, 2020*