Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's the new moon before election method, yes.

Candidate scores refer to individual horoscopes; the new moon method refers to the fortunes of the party in power (occupying the White House). It seems not to work very well if the electoral vote contradicts the popular vote; the method seems to refer to the popular vote. Nevertheless by a razor-thin margin, the method did predict Bush would win in 2000.

The little town that I grew up in, in Wyoming, had a fellow who owned an old set of encylopedias. I think he was probably challenged in some way, as he didn't work at a regular job.

His day consisted of looking up an obscure fact in his books, like for instance the annual estimated tonnage of corn produced in Kansas. Then he would walk around town asking everyone he met if they knew "How many tons of corn are produced in Kansas every year?"

People would, of course, not know. Whereupon Sam would triumphantly state the "correct" answer!

I think every community needs the occasional "Sam." It adds flavor for the rest of the ordinary folks.

Smarty pants; how often did his corn method predict something?

My candidates scores method worked 18 out of 22 times, as you can see. And the new moon method has a similar record, which I have posted. Use both, and add the Saturn Return; it's virtually foolproof. Now that's better than the weatherman does! You don't need a weatherman to know which way the political wind blows, but an astrologer might help!

You and Rags still haven't answered my challenge. Do you even KNOW what it means to "look within?" And I don't mean look at your hands or inside your tummy with a microscope! So who's the naive fool here?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... You and Rags still haven't answered my challenge. Do you even KNOW what it means to "look within?" ...

I doubt it ... at least according to your definitions. I have had what I consider to be the occasional profound spiritual experience. They were very personal experiences. But I'm sure you'd find a way to discount them and maintain that I'm only a "mechanistic" thinker.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In the case of Richard II, who was 14 at the time of the peasant's revolt, and Edgar the Peaceable ascended to the throne at age 16 ending a crisis of secession (though I'm unsure if it was a 4T...I don't delve much into the Early Middle Ages). They were hardly Gray.

William III (of Orange) and Mary II were both adults when they ascended to the throne (in a not disputed 4T), so not so gray...yet.

As to FDR, I think it should be considered that he was involved in a cusp, and as such tended to rule more in the style of a Nomad than as a Prophet. Much the same way that a Boomer born in 1946 is totally different from one born in 1959.

The issues with Edgar the Peaceable's 4T solution has more to do with issues of integrating various parts of Britain (Northumbria, East Anglia, & Mercia) which were semi-independent/semi-dependent and newly reconquered territory won back from the Danes (and in some cases had Danes still living there if they agreed to bend the knee). Earlier in the 2T, Alfred the Great's Artist archetype children (brother & sister: Edward & AEthelflaed) went on a conquest of winning back the lands that the Danish had held for over a saeculum. This process is only finished in 954 when Erik Bloodaxe is driven from Northumbria (the last part of Danelaw held England to fall). This 4T was all about whether or not the lands and people were changed enough to be considered separate or to be under one crown under the Wessex dynasty. Whether the Wessex dynasty SHOULD rule the different regions under one crown or not, etc. It very nearly ended up splitting the isle in half (if you take notice when it nearly happened--Eadwig kept the traditional lands of the Wessex crown: Wessex & Kent; while Edgar the Peaceable was being proclaimed by kingdoms which up until now had either been independent of the Wessex crown but was relatively recently forced to submit to it in union (Mercia--when Aethelflaed died, her brother supplanted the Mercian chosen heir of her daughter--that's right the Mercians so loved Aethelflaed as their ruler that they freely chose her daughter--and only child--to rule them but Uncle Edward wouldn't hear of this, and so he rode in, staged a coup, and either sent his niece to a nunnery or married her off to secure the coup... the Mercians were none too happy about this, but bided their time over the course of the 3T, and used the instability of the Wessex dynasty during the 4T to try and make a move for re-establishing Mercian defiance) Also an instrumental question to this was an emphasis on what bound the people together which was largely religion in its growing force as an institution in England (did its officials have the power to force a King to live or do things in a certain way?). The question was whether this institution also had power over the Wessex dynasty or not, sparked the old split in the Kingdoms and the ones which had been under Danish rule up until recently chose Edgar (Mercia--which I spoke of above, East Anglia, and Northumbria). Under Danish rule there had been little integrating between Viking settlers and the native population I should add. For about 100 years after 884 (when Alfred the Great essentially helped establish the 1T and the Danish were allowed self-rule and stopped pillaging & conquering the Anglo-Saxons), the native English & the Vikings choosing to remain separated before the 980s when they began intermarrying. This speaks to a full saeculum having gone by the issues of Danish rule having been settled & the people beginning to be incorporated into a larger homogeneous whole. All this while, the Anglo-Saxons had maintained their religious beliefs and clinging to them while under Danish rule and saw the influence of the church as a good thing. So ultimately when the Wessex king Eadwig got into a quarrel with Dunstan (future saint) over Dunstan as a church official trying to officiate his life & behavior while being King, an argument that normally wouldn't have caused much issue among many people managed to cause problems across all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms because the issue spoke to underlying unresolved tensions iherited from the issues brought about by re-integrating formerly Danish held and settled territory.

As to how Edgar helps solve this issue, it's simply that he manages to outlive his brother (who dies without any heirs) and reunites the feuding kingdoms and settles the religious matter by bringing Dunstan back from exile in France and then went about for the remainder of his reign cementing the conquests and unity his predecessors had made fighting the Danish through law reforms, and an accepted greater influence from the Church (Dunstan became an adviser to Edgar). When Edgar was crowned towards the end of the 1T as "King of the English", it was done as a culmination and celebration of all the things he'd managed to achieve under his reign thus far--most especially his solidification of the various Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms into one unified English identity. In fact, one example of the legacy of Edgar the Peaceable can be seen in the coronation ceremony of the British Crown. It is based largely on the coronation ceremony of Edgar the Peaceable.

The whole "how it could have possibly gone wrong" scenario then comes down to whether or not that split can be maintained to support a divided Kingdom. Had Eadwig lived longer to not only provide himself an heir who was old enough to defend the Kingdoms. It's very likely that England would have entered the next Saeculum a divided land--even moreso than in the timeline as it exists currently, which with the ramping up of Danish and Viking raids in the coming saeculum (and the calls to make a Viking Kingdom stretching from York to Dublin or avenge Erik Bloodaxe) might have meant the return of the Danes far earlier than Cnut.

......

In any case the point was that PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO BE OLD TO SOLVE THE CRISIS! People of any age & any archetype can and have instigated meaningful change which brings a 4T to its conclusion. Old, young and everything in between. Old people do not have a monoply on it in the least, so looking for "gray" anything is ridiculously narrow-minded.

With the age restrictions put upon by our current form of governing and make up of social leaders, should I look at the young people to bring a solution to the table of government? No. But could a person be middle-aged and do so? Certainly! No reason for them to be completely gray yet.

Were we to fall back to the level of society where you had Germanic nomadic tribes of people roaming the countryside like biker gangs (the best analogy for the Germanic period of European history post-Roman empire) yeah, I'm going to be looking for that leadership to come from that gang's most likely teenage leadership (the old ones get killed in frequent fighting & are challenged and usually taken out once they're old enough to start the age of decline), which was the typical age most of those leaders like Clovis, etc. were when they inherited their roles.

We're at a level of social organization which favors old people being 4T problem solvers, but this is not the way it has always been nor will it be the way it will always be, as any archetype can successfully bring a solution to a 4T--they've all done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's the new moon before election method, yes.

Candidate scores refer to individual horoscopes; the new moon method refers to the fortunes of the party in power (occupying the White House). It seems not to work very well if the electoral vote contradicts the popular vote; the method seems to refer to the popular vote. Nevertheless by a razor-thin margin, the method did predict Bush would win in 2000.

Thanks. I was curious what planetary aspects you use to signify presidential electability.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

And yet, the way it is described in the books, it would seem to be a single individual and not a large mass.

They give examples of multiple GCs for various 4Ts. Sam Adams and Ben Franklin for example.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Considering that I've actually read the book, and given that they spend less than a paragraph on it, I would say that it largely something that should have been edited out. The idea that a single figure is going to come along and tell people what they need to do, is indeed very much in the Arthurian myth variety. It has never happened in any saeculum to date, it will happen in no saeculum in the future. At most, one might be able to say that there will be many different elder states people (and in a 4T that will be Prophets as well as older nomads) who will offer solutions to the problems at hand.

Actually every turning has its GC, or more accurately play the GC role. S&H describe their model as history creating generations and generations creating history. When a generation is creating history it is performing the GC role. The GC is a mythological character from Hawthorne that is used by S&H to refer specifically to a Prophet generation creating a 4T. THh other gens create the other turnings and so play the same history-creating role, S&H simply don't give them a special name. And so the GC is presented as something special, which it is not. S&H were probably not fully aware of this as they were fuzzy on how their cycle works.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

So what you are saying is that it is impossible for Nomad generations to produce great statespersons?

Hardly. Before the 18th century the GC role was implemented by Nomads. It all has to do with life expectancy and the age at which power is waged collectively. In 4Ts before 1700 GC-type roles were performed most often by Nomads, and sometimes Heroes (e.g. Henry Tudor). After 1800 life expectancy had risen to a point where GCs were more often Prophets than any other generation (although the last 4T had a number of Lost GCs and even a Hero). For example, assuming we are in a 4T now, which generation is in leadership. Well the average age of Congress, Governors & Justices is 61, and so collectively they were born in 1951. Thus Boomers war still the majority and should be for another decade or so. Thus Boomers are still playing the GC role. Sometime in the middle of the next decade, Xers will move into leadership and they will be playing the history-forming role. This would be one indication that a the 4T will be coming to an end: think of it as Nomads cutting to the chase and deciding the issue if both (Prophet) sides are still bickering.

I don't think Henry VII is the best example for that 4T. Had Edward IV lived another 10 years Edward V would have taken over as a grown adult and Richard III would not have been able to pull off his coup, it would have been smooth sailing into the 1T. Edward IV was a pretty decent ruler who started fixing the problems left by Henry VI and Henry VII basically continued what Edward started.

So if anyone was the main figure of the War of the Roses 4T it would have been Edward IV, a Nomad, not Henry VII.

Originally Posted by TnT

I doubt it ... at least according to your definitions. I have had what I consider to be the occasional profound spiritual experience. They were very personal experiences. But I'm sure you'd find a way to discount them and maintain that I'm only a "mechanistic" thinker.

I don't discount them at all; they mean something to you. That's great. But, if you think like a mechanistic thinker, then I might maintain that you do. Spiritual experience has not changed your worldview-- at least not enough to keep you from knocking mine, even if in a lighthearted way. Not that I mind, really; it's up to you. But you might consider that for me, spiritual experiences did change my worldview, toward something different from yours. It happens.

Originally Posted by ChrisP

Thanks. I was curious what planetary aspects you use to signify presidential electability.

OK. Since you ask, I guess you know the terms a bit. I can mention a few examples, not the whole list. When I see a chart, I look first for trines and sextiles between the Sun and Uranus for positive points. And then for conjunctions, squares and oppositions between the Sun and/or Moon and Jupiter. There are others less important, but somewhat important, including: Mercury to Uranus or Jupiter, Jupiter to Uranus, (in these cases harmonious sextiles and trines are better, but any aspects are good). And Sun trine or sextile to Mars. Plus, Jupiter or Uranus rising, but that's not included in the raw score.

And the ones that add up on the negative side include Saturn-Pluto squares and oppositions, and aspects between Mars or Venus and Uranus, solar conjunctions to Mars or Mercury, a Saturn-Neptune square or opposition, Mars sq./opp. Saturn or Jupiter, Mercury sq/opp. Mars, Moon sq./opp Uranus, and (I'm less certain about this one) any Mars-Pluto aspects; and others.

Note that aspects in the charts of the "most successful presidents" is an entirely different list. George W. Bush for example has an excellent chart for getting elected (or "selected") for the job, but virtually none of the aspects found in the charts of the great and near-great presidents.

Prophet generation gray champions of the classic type were impossible before the turning in which S&H speak of them. When saecula were 100 or more years long, people didn't live as long; almost all if not all leaders born in a 1T were dead by the time the 4T came along, which was also much later than in the more recent times since William and Mary's era. There were probably only 2 generations in which most people lived around at any one time. Many leaders were relative juveniles.

The saeculum was very different in ancient, medieval and renaissance times. Fewer people participated in society's cycles; maybe only in peasant revolts or famines or doing what the aristocrats ordered. They didn't revolt against their elders and go off on their own either; they did what their parents did. "Progress" was slow and not a part of peoples' consciousness. The classes of society were considered eternal and divinely sanctioned. If you did your part in your caste or class, society worked best for all. Modern saecula depend on revolutions and generation gaps.

[QUOTE=Eric the Green;536618]OK. Since you ask. <snip> Warning Eric's an INTP and here's what happens "when you ask".

Originally Posted by INTP mailing list

(Also posted in the INTP group)
INTPs are generally docile and quite frequently seem oblivious to the world around them. In a phrase, INTPs can probably be best described as "trapped in their own minds". This is because an INTP's inner world is extremely vivid and usually much more interesting to them than the external world. For this reason they often have difficulty concentrating in standardized work & school environments.
Every INTP possesses in their own mind what you might call their "The Truth", which is defined as the best explanation they can possibly give for every single thing in the universe as a whole. The INTP spends a tremendous amount of their time reviewing, adding information to, and revising their "The Truth", constantly trying to bring it as close to perfection as possible, even if they know it will never be truly complete, or they might not ever actually end up sharing it with the world. To the INTP, working on their "The Truth" is the ultimate Sacred effort worth living (thinking) for.
However, if given the opportunity, the INTP will not hesitate to devulge up to several hours' worth of information explaining various different facets of their "The Truth" into whoever is willing to lend an ear, often resulting in the latter's regret. Despite this, it usually takes time for an INTP to warm up to a person enough to get to sharing such information in the first place.

INTPs usually don't mind being wrong about something if they know they won't be judged for it; rather, they are much more interested in the truth itself, especially since their own "The Truth" would be impacted greatly by it. For this reason INTPs often have little patience for factually incorrect statements and logical fallacies.
If someone questions or attempts to disprove a belief that an INTP holds to be absolute, the INTP is known to get extremely defensive of the idea they are trying to protect. This is because they believe that they have done their absolute very best to verify the accuracy of a fact before they have added to their "The Truth", and as such will assume the persecuting individual has not thought as much about this idea nearly as much as the INTP has. But if an INTP does admit to being proven wrong, they won't take it personally and will actually be grateful for the opportunity to further improve their "The Truth" using the newly gained knowledge.
Due to a variety of factors, INTPs are among the most difficult personality types for people to truly understand and get to know, and INTPs themselves aren't exactly great at getting people to understand how their thought process works. INTPs love sleeping at any time of the day EXCEPT for when they're actually supposed to go to bed. It is not uncommon for them to have great difficulty falling asleep because they are thinking so hard about whatever it is they find interesting at that moment.

1. Don't ask Eric or any other INTP here for open ended stuff or you'll get a brain dump.
2. If you do, the resultant brain dump will appear at random times.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK. Since you ask, I guess you know the terms a bit. I can mention a few examples, not the whole list. When I see a chart, I look first for trines and sextiles between the Sun and Uranus for positive points. And then for conjunctions, squares and oppositions between the Sun and/or Moon and Jupiter. There are others less important, but somewhat important, including: Mercury to Uranus or Jupiter, Jupiter to Uranus, (in these cases harmonious sextiles and trines are better, but any aspects are good). And Sun trine or sextile to Mars. Plus, Jupiter or Uranus rising, but that's not included in the raw score.

And the ones that add up on the negative side include Saturn-Pluto squares and oppositions, and aspects between Mars or Venus and Uranus, solar conjunctions to Mars or Mercury, a Saturn-Neptune square or opposition, Mars sq./opp. Saturn or Jupiter, Mercury sq/opp. Mars, Moon sq./opp Uranus, and (I'm less certain about this one) any Mars-Pluto aspects; and others.

Note that aspects in the charts of the "most successful presidents" is an entirely different list. George W. Bush for example has an excellent chart for getting elected (or "selected") for the job, but virtually none of the aspects found in the charts of the great and near-great presidents.

So, soft aspects are favorable for winning elections, while hard aspects are unfavorable. I guess hard aspects may be more favorable for being successful in office?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... As to FDR, I think it should be considered that he was involved in a cusp, and as such tended to rule more in the style of a Nomad than as a Prophet. Much the same way that a Boomer born in 1946 is totally different from one born in 1959.

I've run that as an informal experiment, and I ('47 cohort) am definitely not the same kind of Prophet as my wife ('59 cohort). Of course, a sample of one is pretty thin.

Originally Posted by ChrisP

So, soft aspects are favorable for winning elections, while hard aspects are unfavorable. I guess hard aspects may be more favorable for being successful in office?

I'm a good INTP like Ragnarok said. I don't adhere to a strict, simple theory like that; I wanted to see which aspects are actually favorable and which not. It depends on the aspect. You can see in the list that some hard aspects of the Sun and Moon to Jupiter were more favorable for getting elected than soft aspects among them. The latter are pretty good, but I would assume that easy aspects to a favorable, easy planet like Jupiter don't provide as much "energy" to win. In the case of Mercury-Jupiter, any kind of aspect is good. So, it depends.

Being successful or near-great in office requires more aspects of any kind to Saturn (Jupiter-Saturn, Sun-Saturn, etc.). Saturn is thoughtful, practical, self-restrained, long-term minded, determined and steadfast, talented as an executive, etc. But it's hard to get Americans to vote for such candidates; they prefer the upbeat Jupiter and the charismatic, inspirational, liberty-loving Uranus. They want Bill Clinton (Jupiter sextile Sun sextile Uranus) but not John Kerry (has many aspects to Saturn in his chart).

Originally Posted by TnT

The little town that I grew up in, in Wyoming, had a fellow who owned an old set of encylopedias. I think he was probably challenged in some way, as he didn't work at a regular job.

His day consisted of looking up an obscure fact in his books, like for instance the annual estimated tonnage of corn produced in Kansas. Then he would walk around town asking everyone he met if they knew "How many tons of corn are produced in Kansas every year?"

People would, of course, not know. Whereupon Sam would triumphantly state the "correct" answer!

I think every community needs the occasional "Sam." It adds flavor for the rest of the ordinary folks.

My parents bought a set of encyclopedias when I was about seven or eight, and soon I was doing much the same thing. This may have been how a condition which today is known as Asperger's Syndrome was detected. At that time such issues were never really discussed, and I was sent off to a boarding school at the age of ten. Would you believe that I never got to see my home again until twelve years later. My parents could visit once every three months or so, but not for the first two years. Something I'll probably never fully understand before my dying day. Yet most of what is written about AS is child-related with relatively little regarding the impact it still has during adulthood.

Where the true subject of this thread is concerned, I would guess that Bernie Sanders would be a good candidate, even if he never becomes President. How many have noticed that the MSM continues to give him only very scant coverage?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

In any case the point was that PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO BE OLD TO SOLVE THE CRISIS! People of any age & any archetype can and have instigated meaningful change which brings a 4T to its conclusion. Old, young and everything in between. Old people do not have a monoply on it in the least, so looking for "gray" anything is ridiculously narrow-minded.

With the age restrictions put upon by our current form of governing and make up of social leaders, should I look at the young people to bring a solution to the table of government? No. But could a person be middle-aged and do so? Certainly! No reason for them to be completely gray yet.

Were we to fall back to the level of society where you had Germanic nomadic tribes of people roaming the countryside like biker gangs (the best analogy for the Germanic period of European history post-Roman empire) yeah, I'm going to be looking for that leadership to come from that gang's most likely teenage leadership (the old ones get killed in frequent fighting & are challenged and usually taken out once they're old enough to start the age of decline), which was the typical age most of those leaders like Clovis, etc. were when they inherited their roles.

We're at a level of social organization which favors old people being 4T problem solvers, but this is not the way it has always been nor will it be the way it will always be, as any archetype can successfully bring a solution to a 4T--they've all done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

~Chas'88

Chas, you have to keep in mind that I don't subscribe to the theory that GCs actually exist, as I will point out in my posts later on to Mikebert (who is as usual being so sure of himself being correct fails to see how wrong he is, or rather that the GC theory is and always was utter bullshit because a simpler explanation exists). I would say largely speaking that historical issues arise and that given a time period, and someone with requisite power will rise to address that issue.

In short, what people call grey champions in the forms of Sam Adams, FDR, Lincoln and so forth are merely statesmen being statesmen, doing those things statesmen have done since the formation of states.

Generation archetype only comes into play as a matter of style. Their hair color is of course completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

They give examples of multiple GCs for various 4Ts. Sam Adams and Ben Franklin for example.

Yes, and notice that all of them are statesmen, not all of them are even particularly grey. Sam Adams for example was only a few years older than John Adams and both were clearly Liberty Generation Nomads (John to the core almost--I've made it a point to study the second president). So I have to hand it to S&H for pointing out statement that everyone whose ever cracked open a history textbook knows about.

Interestingly if you re-read the source material you'll see a convenient clause to this craptaistic theory, one can't detect who the GC is once he arrives (and sometimes apparently at all).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Actually every turning has its GC, or more accurately play the GC role. S&H describe their model as history creating generations and generations creating history. When a generation is creating history it is performing the GC role. The GC is a mythological character from Hawthorne that is used by S&H to refer specifically to a Prophet generation creating a 4T. THh other gens create the other turnings and so play the same history-creating role, S&H simply don't give them a special name. And so the GC is presented as something special, which it is not. S&H were probably not fully aware of this as they were fuzzy on how their cycle works.

Not quite. The source material pretty much indicates that GC instead steps in to guide, or influence the 4T. Prophet generations create 4Ts without the help of a GC. That is to say the collective actions of the generation an how it behaves creates the conditions that make a 4T necessary. Furthermore, it seems that you missed the key point--the GC itself is mythological, and from Hawthorne. Given that our resident Literature Expert pretty much says that that myth relates primarily to New England and has its roots in Arthurian Legend, I see no reason to keep it in a theory of history which can be examined in a more logical and rational way.

It has long been my argumentation that the inclusion of the passage of the GC in the books was there to provide a narrative to boomers to sell said books. It is therefore epistemologically irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Hardly. Before the 18th century the GC role was implemented by Nomads. It all has to do with life expectancy and the age at which power is waged collectively. In 4Ts before 1700 GC-type roles were performed most often by Nomads, and sometimes Heroes (e.g. Henry Tudor). After 1800 life expectancy had risen to a point where GCs were more often Prophets than any other generation (although the last 4T had a number of Lost GCs and even a Hero). For example, assuming we are in a 4T now, which generation is in leadership. Well the average age of Congress, Governors & Justices is 61, and so collectively they were born in 1951. Thus Boomers war still the majority and should be for another decade or so. Thus Boomers are still playing the GC role. Sometime in the middle of the next decade, Xers will move into leadership and they will be playing the history-forming role. This would be one indication that a the 4T will be coming to an end: think of it as Nomads cutting to the chase and deciding the issue if both (Prophet) sides are still bickering.

So you're agreeing with the resident astrologer? Really? Okay, I think that would be fair--now go transmute me some lead into gold. Since you've at the same time by this action reduced your job to alchemy. /snark

My point is that there is no GC at all. Never has been one, never will be one. Occam's Razor here cuts cleanly. In order to subscribe to the GC myth one has to construct all number of convoluted systems and types to detect who it is, how they do what they do, and so on and so forth. My theory on the other hand is this: There is no GC at all (being a myth) and what we see in real time is statesmen doing what statesmen do. Differences in style are related to generation, but we are dealing with individual Congress Critters (both on Federal and State levels), individual Judges & Justices of the SCOTUS, individual Presidents/Governors and et cetera.

The argumentation that statesmen do what statesmen do, and that such is related to their individual generation, and to the turning a society is undergoing requires no complex Rube Goldberg device. Of course that also probably makes the theory completely boring to you.

Originally Posted by Odin

I don't think Henry VII is the best example for that 4T. Had Edward IV lived another 10 years Edward V would have taken over as a grown adult and Richard III would not have been able to pull off his coup, it would have been smooth sailing into the 1T. Edward IV was a pretty decent ruler who started fixing the problems left by Henry VI and Henry VII basically continued what Edward started.

So if anyone was the main figure of the War of the Roses 4T it would have been Edward IV, a Nomad, not Henry VII.

Ahem, Edward IV was solidly in the middle of the Arthurian Generation (1433 - 1460) being a 1442 cohort. Henry VII (b. 1457) was the tail end of the generation, Edward IV the middle. He was a Civic, mate--not in any way a Nomad.

The Nomads of that Saeculum (Queen Margaret, Henry VI, Richard Duke of York--Edward's father, the Duke of Somerset, etc.) all began the Wars of the Roses, but typically didn't live to see the wars finished. In fact the best way to think of it is that the fighting lasted as long as the Nomads were alive and in power. And really the reason they were all so eager to fight one another was because they were all sore on one another for having lost in France over the course of the 3T. Nomad vengeance seeking taken to the max--making a big old mess for their typically Civic children to clean up after.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Chas, you have to keep in mind that I don't subscribe to the theory that GCs actually exist, as I will point out in my posts later on to Mikebert (who is as usual being so sure of himself being correct fails to see how wrong he is, or rather that the GC theory is and always was utter bullshit because a simpler explanation exists). I would say largely speaking that historical issues arise and that given a time period, and someone with requisite power will rise to address that issue.

In short, what people call grey champions in the forms of Sam Adams, FDR, Lincoln and so forth are merely statesmen being statesmen, doing those things statesmen have done since the formation of states.

Generation archetype only comes into play as a matter of style. Their hair color is of course completely irrelevant.

I think we're on the same page but have the problem of talking past one another. I agree with this--my notion is that anyone can solve the issues of a 4T, no matter their age or generation. The only thing that is different is the style in which they do so due to archetype and generational placement. That statesmen do it now means different things than when aristocrats & monarchs did it in yesteryear, to be sure, but that's about it.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Kinser79

My point is that there is no GC at all. Never has been one, never will be one.

The GC is a metaphor for generations creating history.

There is no GC at all (being a myth) and what we see in real time is statesmen doing what statesmen do.

Yes. And in a 4T those statesmen are GCs. Here I am using the term GC as people here use it. S&H were very wiggly on the topic.

Differences in style are related to generation, but we are dealing with individual Congress Critters (both on Federal and State levels), individual Judges & Justices of the SCOTUS, Iindividual Presidents/Governors and et cetera.

Differences in style do not create history. Differences in what one believes (paradigm) do.

The argumentation that statesmen do what statesmen do, and that such is related to their individual generation.

And that is my model. As simple as that. Nothing Rube Goldburg about it. The problem is what is a generation? How do you decide the generation to which a person belongs? Do you just accept the ones given by S&H as gospel? If not how do you get them? You can just pull them our of your ass. But anyone can do that.

Finally, how, and more importantly why, does membership in a generation influence what statesmen do? Why would someone born in 1975 prefer different policy than someone born in 1985 when they come to power later in life?

The Rube Goldburg device you refer to provides an answer to this question. Back in 2002, I put our a call at this site for an answer to this question and repeated it from time to time. I got a fairly extensive concept from Sean Love, a former poster. Another poster, Kurt Horner, provided another key idea. The Rube Goldburg device is a mashup of their ideas plus some I got from other sources.

What S&H provided was the concept history creates generations (i.e. generations are not born, the are forged by the experience of living though history) and that generations create history (this is easy to understand, it's just statesmen doing what statesmen do).

To use this concept one has to assume history comes in discrete packets, e.g. the Age of Jackson, the Civil War & Reconstruction, the Progressive era, the New Deal, the Sixties etc. that are so different from what came before and after that they stand out as distinctive. These eras S&H call social moments.

The Rube-Goldburg apparatus is simply a way to start with a social moment of your choice and construct the social moments before and after to see if the predicted social moments make sense to you. It is a tool. I make no claims as to who belongs to what generation. Pick your favorite social moment or generation. If you think that a Generation Jones born over. 1955-1965 is a real thing, then add 22 to these years to get the turning in which they came of age (and were created). Then subtract AL from those years to identify the generation who created the history that created Generation Jones. And proceed from there. You can determine for yourself whether it "works". How else can you evaluate mutually exclusive generations proposed by different posters?

In support of Odin's proposition however, I should list:

After 1471 and the return of Edward IV to the throne following the Readeption, royal policies saw the renewal of an expanded, powerful monarchy under an active king. Post-Victorian analyses of the late medieval shift in monarchical management have largely fallen into two opposing camps: the “New Monarchy” thesis, supported by such historians as J.R. Green, A.J. Pollard, and Steven Gunn, and the “Tudor Revolution in Government” thesis, put forth by Geoffrey Elton. While the former emphasizes a gradual centralization of power beginning under Yorkist rule and credits these monarchs with a return to the medieval – and in no real sense “new” or novel – management techniques of such monarchs as Edward I, the latter posits that such centralization began only after 1485 and was concentrated primarily in the 1530s as a Tudor phenomenon, building upon the Whiggish influence of “Lancastrian constitutionalism.” Looking at the latter half of Edward IV’s reign and all of Henry VII’s, these late medieval monarchs concentrated power by reining in their nobles, renewing effective treasury-bolstering economic techniques within the context of a general Western European economic upturn, and standardizing and expanding the justice system and governmental bodies, thereby creating the momentum necessary for the authoritative tendencies of later Tudor reign. Given these expansions of monarchical authority under both Yorkist and Tudor rule, the theory of New Monarchy is a much more appropriate description of the period’s developments than Elton’s explanation, and both Edward IV and Henry VII’s policies were essential to the development of bureaucratic modernity in the later Tudor administrations of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Acknowledging the role of Edward IV’s reign in paving the way for Tudor interventionism and, eventually, the Henrician Reformation, Green was the first to expound on the idea that the Yorkist and early Tudor monarchs created a new kind of monarchical authority.1 While it is notable that he cited the period of 1471-1509 for this era of change, encompassing both Edward IV and Henry VII within the upswing of crown authority, this initial presentation of what became the New Monarchy thesis equated centralization of monarchical power with despotism, attaching judgment for the perceived removal of liberties in a constitutionalist bend. Again countering Elton’s view of the Tudor dynasty as the starting point of this shift in government and administration, Pollard described the years preceding Henry VII’s rise to the throne as “not years of continuous and all-consuming destructive anarchy,” as both Victorian historians and Elton’s Tudor-centric theory might have portrayed them.2 In a more favorable interpretation than Green’s, Pollard saw this process of centralizing the administration as merely an orderly system returning to Edward I’s successful administrative style of management, and he did not attach Green’s constitutionalist judgment to his assessment of this governmental trend because such admirable values as “chivalry could not provide the means for a lasting political solution to England’s problems.”3 Emphasis on noble obedience to a monarch over considerations of the community, exemplified by the royal control of Tudor monarchs, became the solution to a crisis that arose in the absence of active kingship, the unfortunate state of Henry VI’s reign.4 Pollard even described the period of 1471-1509 as one in which “royal authority recovered and normal politics were restored,” suggesting that the state of increased authority was actually a return to normalcy rather than a divergence from appropriate practice; the lack of innovation creates, to an extent, a nonthreatening historical narrative.5

It's an interesting read if one has the time (only six printable pages long and what I copied is most of one page). Link here: http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/...rd%20Emily.pdf

To put things in theory perspective, according to Mikebert's analysis, Edward I was the last time a Civic archetype had ruled England, as the Civic generation in between Edward I & the Arthurians, had been skipped over after the death of Edward, the Black Prince, in favor of Edward's Artist archetype son: Richard II.

Edward I = Civic
Edward II = Idealist
Edward III = Nomad
Richard II = Artist
Henry IV = Artist
Henry V = Idealist
Henry VI = Nomad

~Chas'88

ETA: But generally it paints a picture of alternating saeculums of weaker and stronger central authority of the monarch IMO. Using Mikebert dates:

• 871 - 960 = Growing Central Authority (Anglo-Saxons beat back the Danes & reconquer territory, culminates in Edgar the Peaceable unifying the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms under a King of the English title)
• 960 - 1071 = Weakening Central Authority (Anglo-Saxons lose control of all of England to the Danes, a brief run as a client state, and then conquest by the Normans)
• 1071 - 1176 = Growing Central Authority (Arguments about whether a woman can inherit or not aside, the period builds towards the great Angevin Empire that stretched from Scotland to the Pyrenees)
• 1176 - 1282 = Weakening Central Authority (Considering this is the time of the breaking apart of the Angevin Empire, Baron revolts & the signing of the Magna Carta, I think it's safe to say that the weakening of Monarchical power occurred in this Saeculum)
• 1282 - 1381 = Growing Central Authority (Culminating in the ascension of Richard II whose reign is often called "the Tyranny"--I say to put it into modern context, think if a Beatnik had become King of the United States in the 1940s and imposed his values on 1950s era America)
• 1381 - 1487 = Weakening Central Authority (deposing Richard II and his "Tyranny" led to a succession of rebellions and a weakening of the control of the crown)

Oh look at that, the APT holds.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

But generally it paints a picture of alternating saeculums of weaker and stronger central authority of the monarch IMO. Using Mikebert dates:

• 871 - 960 = Growing Central Authority (Anglo-Saxons beat back the Danes & reconquer territory, culminates in Edgar the Peaceable unifying the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms under a King of the English title)
• 960 - 1071 = Weakening Central Authority (Anglo-Saxons lose control of all of England to the Danes, a brief run as a client state, and then conquest by the Normans)

These dates comprise the Anglo-Saxon secular cycle. The first part is the integrative phase, the second the disintegrative. I wrote a paper on this that is still under review.

• 1071 - 1176 = Growing Central Authority (ArgumThisents about whether a woman can inherit or not aside, the period builds towards the great Angevin Empire that stretched from Scotland to the Pyrenees)
• 1176 - 1282 = Weakening Central Authority (Considering this is the time of the breaking apart of the Angevin Empire, Baron revolts & the signing of the Magna Carta, I think it's safe to say that the weakening of Monarchical power occurred in this Saeculum)
• 1282 - 1381 = Growing Central Authority (Culminating in the ascension of Richard II whose reign is often called "the Tyranny"--I say to put it into modern context, think if a Beatnik had become King of the United States in the 1940s and imposed his values on 1950s era America)
• 1381 - 1487 = Weakening Central Authority (deposing Richard II and his "Tyranny" led to a succession of rebellions and a weakening of the control of the crown

This is the Plantagenent secular cycle. The data, depending on how you interpret it show one or two cycles over this time. If you look are demographic/economic data (population/economic inequality) it one cycle. If you look at the state (revenues, and other measures of state power) ots two cycle along the lines you have identified. I ended up going with the single cycle as I could not resolve the question conclusively and previous work called for a single cycle.

Would you be interesting in looking at the paper? Send me an e-mail if so.

So I guess it continues this way:
(referring to the S&H dates: http://www.lifecourse.com/about/meth.../turnings.html)

1487-1594 Tudor saeculum, growing central authority
1594-1704 New World, or Stuart/Great Rebellion, weakening central authority
1704-1794 Revolutionary/Georgian, growing
1794-1865 Civil War, weakening
1865-1946 Great Power, growing
1946-2029 Millennial, weakening

A good way to look at the double rhythm.