My main objection about this book is how you managed to write off huge global protests (including the largest protest ever held in February 2003) as "insignificant" opposition to the invasion of Iraq, and how you, and Strauss and Howe continue to see through rose tinted glasses when dealing with conflicts which are quite obviously Third Turning events.
Maybe it will help sell your books, as "impending doom" always seems to sell, but even that - the success of books about impending doom, seems pretty 3T to me.
Now excuse me, I have to go watch the OJ Simpson, I mean Saddam Hussein trial.

Dear Olaf,

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

> My main objection about this book is how you managed to write off
> huge global protests (including the largest protest ever held in
> February 2003) as "insignificant" opposition to the invasion of
> Iraq, and how you, and Strauss and Howe continue to see through
> rose tinted glasses when dealing with conflicts which are quite
> obviously Third Turning events.

> Maybe it will help sell your books, as "impending doom" always
> seems to sell, but even that - the success of books about
> impending doom, seems pretty 3T to me.

> Now excuse me, I have to go watch the OJ Simpson, I mean Saddam
> Hussein trial.

Given the minuscule sales of my book, I don't think I can be accused
of having written something just to sell books.

However, I can tell from nothing more than your comments about "huge
global protests" that you weren't around in the sixties, when there
were huge global protests that went on all summer, and then resumed in
the fall on college campuses.

There were more protests during the one "Summer of Love" in 1967 than
the total of all the protests that have happened since 9/11.

If you'd like, read my piece on 1960s America.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....sixties040501

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

It's nice that there were many protests in the 60s, and lots of acid, and kids threw bricks and such. But the oldest people that were born in the 60s are now forty four years old.
The truth is that in February 2003 more people demonstrated then ever before (even in the 1960s!) against invading Iraq.
I'm sorry if that didn't pass your "Sixties" litmus test.

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

It's nice that there were many protests in the 60s, and lots of acid, and kids threw bricks and such. But the oldest people that were born in the 60s are now forty four years old.
The truth is that in February 2003 more people demonstrated then ever before (even in the 1960s!) against invading Iraq.
I'm sorry if that didn't pass your "Sixties" litmus test.

Nothing is to be accomplished in this discussion. Let's get a little music in here:

Artist: Van Halen Lyrics
Song: Hot For Teacher Lyrics

spoken:

"Oh wow, man !"
"Wait a second man. Whaddaya think the teacher's gonna look like this
year ?"
"My butt, man !"

T-T-Teacher stop that screaming, teacher don't you see ?
Don't wanna be no uptown fool.
Maybe I should go to hell, but I'm doin' well,
teacher needs to see me after school.

Chorus:
I think of all the education that I missed.
But then my homework was never quite like this.

Got it bad, got it bad, got it bad,
I'm hot for teacher.
I got it bad, so bad,
I'm hot for teacher.

spoken:
"Hey, I heard you missed us, we're back !"
"I brought my pencil"
"Gimme something to write on, man"

I heard about your lessons, but lessons are so cold.
I know about this school.
Little girl from cherry lane, how did you get so bold ?
How did you know that golden rule ?

chorus

(guitar solo)

"Oh man, I think the clock is slow"
"I don't feel tardy"
"Class dismissed"

Dear Olaf,

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

> It's nice that there were many protests in the 60s, and lots of
> acid, and kids threw bricks and such. But the oldest people that
> were born in the 60s are now forty four years old.

> The truth is that in February 2003 more people demonstrated then
> ever before (even in the 1960s!) against invading Iraq.

> I'm sorry if that didn't pass your "Sixties" litmus test.

I'm talking about antiwar protests in America itself. It's nice that
you're so excited about a one-day wonder when protestors around the
world got out and bashed America for a few hours, but it's still a
one-day wonder.



And you're right, it doesn't pass the "Sixties" litmus test, when
there were protests every week, on the streets, in the colleges, and
in Congress every day, and as the lead items in every newscast.

There are NO antiwar protests going on in America today, except for a
few fringe Naderites. There are only plenty of anti-Bush protests by
Democrats, and we're having that Kerry's main complaint seems to be
only that Bush isn't sending enough troops into Iraq to do the job.
We'll have to see if anything happens this summer at the political
conventions.

But I'm really glad that young little kids your age were able to
enjoy the February 2003 protests. Maybe if you're around in the
late 2020s or so, you'll get to see what real protests are like.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I'm talking about antiwar protests in America itself. It's nice that
you're so excited about a one-day wonder when protestors around the
world got out and bashed America for a few hours, but it's still a
one-day wonder. No one will buy my book, and one less is paying attention to me.

Oh, boy. Well Seadog - you're right. This one isn't going to go very far.

Actually, this little dialogue has shown me something. Boomers basically have God complexes, cannot tolerate criticism, and get rather angry when critiqued, along with conjuring up the "sixties."
Xers, not wanting to waste their time on Xenakii, Lambs, Erik the Greens etc. of the world, turn elsewhere for comfort - like to Diamond Dave 8)

But then, can't we just see the whole generational cycle of one throwing the other out? Instead of interpreting a crisis as an affront to society that is stopped by dynamic prophets and can do civics - perhaps we can see it as a clash of ideologues, eventually thrown out by a pragmatic, younger set, that ends the bombast for the short time they are in power, until the new generation of people that screw everything up are born?

In this way we can procliam crises over when the Nomads effectively shut the Prophets down or out of steam. The Crisis is catalyzed by prophets as well. So, for example, in the Civil War Saeculum, the crisis began in 1859 with John Brown's Raid, but did not end until Grant was sworn into office in 1869. Remember the time after Lincoln's death was followed by an impeachment trial, the rise of the Klan, and the Radical Republicans.
So in effect, once the troublemakers are effectively pushed out of the leadership role, the new saeculum begins.

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

...and how you, and Strauss and Howe continue to see through rose tinted glasses when dealing with conflicts which are quite obviously Third Turning events.

What makes a conflict an "obvious 3T event". Can you give some examples of "obvious 3T conflicts" in the 15th through 18th centuries? What makes them different from other conflicts that look pretty much the same, but take place in other turning?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

...and how you, and Strauss and Howe continue to see through rose tinted glasses when dealing with conflicts which are quite obviously Third Turning events.

What makes a conflict an "obvious 3T event". Can you give some examples of "obvious 3T conflicts" in the 15th through 18th centuries? What makes them different from other conflicts that look pretty much the same, but take place in other turning?

I draw strong parallels between this 3T's "War on Drugs" and now the "War on Terror" basically because the Silent generation engineered both of them, and both are destined to fail because of their vague objectives. 'Stop people using drugs" "Stop terrorists"?
It slips back into the old 3T dynamic, where the Left says "get rid of the conditions that create terror/people using drugs" and the Right says "kill 'em all" and the politicians say "how much?"

Neither of these policies have any remotely clear objective. Even the definition of terrorist smacks of ambiguity. Couple that with the fact that today I both read and watched actual news pieces on how good Saddam looked in court yesterday, and you get my fervent belief that we still be 3T.
BTW, did you get the new Beastie Boys album? Yauch turns 40 this year, so we're definitely ready...but not there yet.

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

I draw strong parallels between this 3T's "War on Drugs" and now the "War on Terror" basically because the Silent generation engineered both of them, and both are destined to fail because of their vague objectives.

This is tautological. Basically you are saying that these are 3T conflicts because we are in a 3T and that we are in a 3T because these are 3T conflicts. What makes then different from conflicts that take place in other turnings?

I can note a parallel between the WOT and the Cold War because both provide opportunities for big government conservatism.

I can note a parallel between the WOT and the War on Native Americans in that both seek to deal with the indigenous backlash from US expansion.

I can note a parallel between the WOT and the war on organized crime in the 1930's because both sought to supress criminal behavior.

I am sure other comparisons can be drawn to things that take place in all turnings so I don't see how it is obviously a 3T thing.

Couple that with the fact that today I both read and watched actual news pieces on how good Saddam looked in court yesterday, and you get my fervent belief that we still be 3T.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the issue.

Dear Olaf,

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

> Actually, this little dialogue has shown me something. Boomers
> basically have God complexes, cannot tolerate criticism, and get
> rather angry when critiqued, along with conjuring up the
> "sixties." Xers, not wanting to waste their time on Xenakii,
> Lambs, Erik the Greens etc. of the world, turn elsewhere for
> comfort - like to Diamond Dave Cool

When I said that kids your age will have to wait until the next
awakening to see what real protests are like, I forgot to mention
that it'll be you that the protests will be against. Sigh. I wish I
could be around to see them make mincemeat out of you.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

To all:

Here's an interesting description about antiwar protests during the
Civil War. Change a few of the names, and this sounds an awful lot
like today.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com


Copperheads (Peace Democrats)

Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the
secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more
conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called
themselves Peace Democrats; their opponents called them Copperheads
because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges.

A majority of Peace Democrats supported war to save the Union, but a
strong and active minority asserted that the Republicans had provoked
the South into secession; that the Republicans were waging the war in
order to establish their own domination, suppress civil and states
rights, and impose "racial equality"; and that military means had
failed and would never restore the Union.

Peace Democrats were most numerous in the Midwest, a region that had
traditionally distrusted the Northeast, where the Republican party was
strongest, and that had economic and cultural ties with the South. The
Lincoln administration's arbitrary treatment of dissenters caused
great bitterness there. Above all, anti-abolitionist Midwesterners
feared that emancipation would result in a great migration of blacks
into their states.

As was true of the Democratic party as a whole, the influence of Peace
Democrats varied with the fortunes of war. When things were going
badly for the Union on the battlefield, larger numbers of people were
willing to entertain the notion of making peace with the Confederacy.
When things were going well, Peace Democrats could more easily be
dismissed as defeatists. But no matter how the war progressed, Peace
Democrats constantly had to defend themselves against charges of
disloyalty. Revelations that a few had ties with secret organizations
such as the Knights of the Golden Circle helped smear the rest.

The most prominent Copperhead leader was Clement L. Valladigham of
Ohio, who headed the secret antiwar organization known as the Sons of
Liberty. At the Democratic convention of 1864, where the influence of
Peace Democrats reached its high point, Vallandigham persuaded the
party to adopt a platform branding the war a failure, and some extreme
Copperheads plotted armed uprisings. However, the Democratic
presidential candidate, George B. McClellan, repudiated the
Vallandigham platform, victories by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman and
Phillip H. Sheridan assured Lincoln's reelection, and the plots came
to nothing.

With the conclusion of the war in 1865 the Peace Democrats were
thoroughly discredited. Most Northerners believed, not without reason,
that Peace Democrats had prolonged war by encouraging the South to
continue fighting in the hope that the North would abandon the
struggle.

Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by
Patricia L. Faust

http://www.civilwarhome.com/copperheads.htm

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

When I said that kids your age will have to wait until the next
awakening to see what real protests are like, I forgot to mention
that it'll be you that the protests will be against. Sigh. I wish I
could be around to see them make mincemeat out of you.

Luckily, the womb of time will have menstruated the likes of you out of its system by then. We'll just have to deal with a rising generation of individuals who know everything.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

To all:

Here's an interesting description about antiwar protests during the
Civil War. Change a few of the names, and this sounds an awful lot
like today.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com


Copperheads (Peace Democrats)

Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the
secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more
conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called
themselves Peace Democrats; their opponents called them Copperheads
because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges.

A majority of Peace Democrats supported war to save the Union, but a
strong and active minority asserted that the Republicans had provoked
the South into secession; that the Republicans were waging the war in
order to establish their own domination, suppress civil and states
rights, and impose "racial equality"; and that military means had
failed and would never restore the Union.

Peace Democrats were most numerous in the Midwest, a region that had
traditionally distrusted the Northeast, where the Republican party was
strongest, and that had economic and cultural ties with the South. The
Lincoln administration's arbitrary treatment of dissenters caused
great bitterness there. Above all, anti-abolitionist Midwesterners
feared that emancipation would result in a great migration of blacks
into their states.

As was true of the Democratic party as a whole, the influence of Peace
Democrats varied with the fortunes of war. When things were going
badly for the Union on the battlefield, larger numbers of people were
willing to entertain the notion of making peace with the Confederacy.
When things were going well, Peace Democrats could more easily be
dismissed as defeatists. But no matter how the war progressed, Peace
Democrats constantly had to defend themselves against charges of
disloyalty. Revelations that a few had ties with secret organizations
such as the Knights of the Golden Circle helped smear the rest.

The most prominent Copperhead leader was Clement L. Valladigham of
Ohio, who headed the secret antiwar organization known as the Sons of
Liberty. At the Democratic convention of 1864, where the influence of
Peace Democrats reached its high point, Vallandigham persuaded the
party to adopt a platform branding the war a failure, and some extreme
Copperheads plotted armed uprisings. However, the Democratic
presidential candidate, George B. McClellan, repudiated the
Vallandigham platform, victories by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman and
Phillip H. Sheridan assured Lincoln's reelection, and the plots came
to nothing.

With the conclusion of the war in 1865 the Peace Democrats were
thoroughly discredited. Most Northerners believed, not without reason,
that Peace Democrats had prolonged war by encouraging the South to
continue fighting in the hope that the North would abandon the
struggle.

Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by
Patricia L. Faust

http://www.civilwarhome.com/copperheads.htm

Would sound like me, if I was a Boomer, Johnny. Luckily they ditched the Prophet generation of McClellan and Lee, and all those other jerk offs for some stability with Hiram Ulysses Grant.
See you on the scrap heap!

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

...and how you, and Strauss and Howe continue to see through rose tinted glasses when dealing with conflicts which are quite obviously Third Turning events.

What makes a conflict an "obvious 3T event". Can you give some examples of "obvious 3T conflicts" in the 15th through 18th centuries? What makes them different from other conflicts that look pretty much the same, but take place in other turning?

Wars that "are fought with moral fervor but without consensus or follow-through".

The English Civil War. Fought with astounding "moral fervor" but in the end it solved very little. A Stuart king was restored and worries of Catholic intrigue continued.

The French & Indian War. All that land secured from the French and the British Empire refused to use it? Refused to comprehensively occupy Eastern North America once and for all?? They say the couldn't afford it. I think if the Seven Years War had been a 4T conflagration, they would've found a way, even if they had to make it pay for itself somehow.

Off the top of my head I can't think of anything else.

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

When I said that kids your age will have to wait until the next
awakening to see what real protests are like, I forgot to mention
that it'll be you that the protests will be against. Sigh. I wish I
could be around to see them make mincemeat out of you.

Luckily, the womb of time will have menstruated the likes of you out of its system by then. We'll just have to deal with a rising generation of individuals who know everything.

Ouch.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> The English Civil War. Fought with astounding "moral fervor" but
> in the end it solved very little. A Stuart king was restored and
> worries of Catholic intrigue continued.

I know you didn't intend to rattle my cage with this example, but you
did anyway.

The English Civil War was the seminal event of the 1600s, not the
Glorious Revoltion.

The 1640s were a period of extreme violence throughout England, as
regions supporting the Crown raised armies that fought with armies
from regions supporting the Parliament. By 1648, the second civil
war ended in victory for the Parliament. The King was beheaded, and
the country was devastated and exhausted, and in many ways still at
war with itself. The countries of Europe considered England to be
inconsequential.

From the ashes rose Oliver Cromwell, a member of Parliament who had
led the army to victory over the Crown. He then took personal
control of the army and became a virtual dictator of the England. He
ruthlessly crushed Scotland and Ireland, and became dictator over
them as well. He dissolved the Parliament. The army was loyal to
him, and no one could challenge him. He built up the navy, and
defeated Spain in a sea war. When he died in 1658 his son took over,
in another 18 month period of anarchy which almost led to the
dissolution of the empire. Finally the Crown was restored in 1660,
but Charles II had vastly reduced powers than Charles I.

In 1660, England was devastated from 20 years of violence, military
dictatorship, and anarchy. The Crown was restored, but everything
had changed. No longer would the King have anywhere near as much
power as he had before 1640. The vast reduction in powers of the
King versus the Parliament changed English history forever. The
Glorious Revolution was a significant awakening period that
consolidated the results of the Civil War, but there was no greater
change than Nixon's resignation in the 1970s.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I'm talking about antiwar protests in America itself. It's nice that
you're so excited about a one-day wonder when protestors around the
world got out and bashed America for a few hours, but it's still a
one-day wonder. No one will buy my book, and one less is paying attention to me.

Oh, boy. Well Seadog - you're right. This one isn't going to go very far.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Told ya! :wink:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

...and how you, and Strauss and Howe continue to see through rose tinted glasses when dealing with conflicts which are quite obviously Third Turning events.

What makes a conflict an "obvious 3T event". Can you give some examples of "obvious 3T conflicts" in the 15th through 18th centuries? What makes them different from other conflicts that look pretty much the same, but take place in other turning?

Wars that "are fought with moral fervor but without consensus or follow-through".

The English Civil War. Fought with astounding "moral fervor" but in the end it solved very little. A Stuart king was restored and worries of Catholic intrigue continued.

The French & Indian War. All that land secured from the French and the British Empire refused to use it? Refused to comprehensively occupy Eastern North America once and for all?? They say the couldn't afford it. I think if the Seven Years War had been a 4T conflagration, they would've found a way, even if they had to make it pay for itself somehow.

Off the top of my head I can't think of anything else.

Today I watched a television program where women were being stopped in the streets and asked about Saddam. One said he wasn't "her type" but he still looked pretty damn good in the suit.
Saddam, Osama, Zarqawi, Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Mullah Omar - a never ending parade of celebrities, er...bad guys.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> The English Civil War. Fought with astounding "moral fervor" but
> in the end it solved very little. A Stuart king was restored and
> worries of Catholic intrigue continued.

I know you didn't intend to rattle my cage with this example, but you
did anyway.

The English Civil War was the seminal event of the 1600s, not the
Glorious Revoltion.

The 1640s were a period of extreme violence throughout England, as
regions supporting the Crown raised armies that fought with armies
from regions supporting the Parliament. By 1648, the second civil
war ended in victory for the Parliament. The King was beheaded, and
the country was devastated and exhausted, and in many ways still at
war with itself. The countries of Europe considered England to be
inconsequential.

From the ashes rose Oliver Cromwell, a member of Parliament who had
led the army to victory over the Crown. He then took personal
control of the army and became a virtual dictator of the England. He
ruthlessly crushed Scotland and Ireland, and became dictator over
them as well. He dissolved the Parliament. The army was loyal to
him, and no one could challenge him. He built up the navy, and
defeated Spain in a sea war. When he died in 1658 his son took over,
in another 18 month period of anarchy which almost led to the
dissolution of the empire. Finally the Crown was restored in 1660,
but Charles II had vastly reduced powers than Charles I.

In 1660, England was devastated from 20 years of violence, military
dictatorship, and anarchy. The Crown was restored, but everything
had changed. No longer would the King have anywhere near as much
power as he had before 1640. The vast reduction in powers of the
King versus the Parliament changed English history forever. The
Glorious Revolution was a significant awakening period that
consolidated the results of the Civil War, but there was no greater
change than Nixon's resignation in the 1970s.

No offense intended. I respect you and what you are doing and am open to your interpretation being better suited to the facts as we know them. However, at this point, I am still in more-or-less the orthodox Strauss and Howe camp on the basics of saecular theory.

The mood after the 1660 Restoration was still very much an Unraveling mood, not that of a first turning or "austerity". And as bloodless as the Glorious Revolution was (especially vis-a-vis the English Civil War!!!) I believe it actually settled more structural problems than the conflict half a century earlier.

I am very open to the possibility that the ferocity of the English Civil War led to some anomalies. First, that a structural change such as the Glorious Revolution could have been so bloodless (synthesizing your idea about older generations that remember total war being less inclined to repeat it with S&H's timing).

Second, I am open to the 4T starting earlier in the colonies than in Mother England. Not having been directly scarred by the Civil War, somehow the colonies' 3T was shorter, ending in 1675-76 with King Philip's War and Bacon's Rebellion. Yet it perhaps only ended with the Glorious Revolution in England. Therefore, both King William's War and the War of the Grand Alliance would've 4T for the colonies and England; but having their 4T end earlier, Queen Anne's War would be 1T for the colonies, while the War of Spanish Succession could've been, in whole or in part, still 4T for Europe.

This leads to some interesting permutations afterward, such as the American Revolution being 4T for us but 3T for England.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> The mood after the 1660 Restoration was still very much an
> Unraveling mood, not that of a first turning or "austerity". And
> as bloodless as the Glorious Revolution was (especially vis-a-vis
> the English Civil War!!!) I believe it actually settled more
> structural problems than the conflict half a century earlier.

How could the mood in 1660, after twenty years of genocidal violence,
military dictatorship and anarchy have been anything but "austerity"?
Think back to our own Unraveling period in the 1990s, with its gender
wars and national aimlessness. Do you really think that 1660s
England was involved in culture wars after the 20 years of
devastation they went through? It just doesn't make sense.

There was no structural change to speak of in the Glorious
Revolution, at least no more so than in Nixon's resignation.

Actually, the Glorious Revolution had much more to do with religion
and sex than anything else.

The Protestant Parliament had allowed the Catholic James II to become
King in 1685 because he was old, soon to die, and had no children
except for Mary, who was Protestant and married to the Dutch Prince
William. Thus, as soon as James died, the Protestant Mary would
become Queen.

So here you see the structure that preceded the Glorious Revolution.
The decision that Mary and William would have the Crown was already
an accepted fact. There was no reason for the Parliament to block
James II, since he would soon be succeeded by Mary.


The problem arose in 1687 when James' wife became pregnant, raising
the possibility of a male Catholic heir to the throne. When the boy
was born, the Parliament put steps in motion to trick James to leave
the country for France, so that William and Mary could take the
throne as Protestant monarchs.

There was no great structural change -- the whole thing was
orchestrated by the Parliament, proving that the Parliament already
had much more power than the King. If things had been like they were
prior to 1640, then the King's army would have been out fighting the
Parliament's army (which was the English Civil War).

This kind of government change is what happens during awakenings.
The generational dispute forces the old guys to meet the demands of
the kids. (Or if the old guys crush the kids, as happened in
Tiananmen Square in 1989, then the country heads for another secular
crisis civil war.)

The "conquest" of England by the Dutch without firing a shot was
considered a miracle by the English people, who still remembered the
devastation of the Civil War and didn't want to see it repeated. The
fact that a "change of administrations" occurred so peacefully,
replacing the "old" Catholic way of governing with the "young"
Protestant way of governing is a sign that it was a Second Turning
awakening event, not a Fourth Turning crisis event.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> The mood after the 1660 Restoration was still very much an
> Unraveling mood, not that of a first turning or "austerity". And
> as bloodless as the Glorious Revolution was (especially vis-a-vis
> the English Civil War!!!) I believe it actually settled more
> structural problems than the conflict half a century earlier.

How could the mood in 1660, after twenty years of genocidal violence,
military dictatorship and anarchy have been anything but "austerity"?
Think back to our own Unraveling period in the 1990s, with its gender
wars and national aimlessness. Do you really think that 1660s
England was involved in culture wars after the 20 years of
devastation they went through? It just doesn't make sense.

There was no structural change to speak of in the Glorious
Revolution, at least no more so than in Nixon's resignation.

Actually, the Glorious Revolution had much more to do with religion
and sex than anything else.

The Protestant Parliament had allowed the Catholic James II to become
King in 1685 because he was old, soon to die, and had no children
except for Mary, who was Protestant and married to the Dutch Prince
William. Thus, as soon as James died, the Protestant Mary would
become Queen.

So here you see the structure that preceded the Glorious Revolution.
The decision that Mary and William would have the Crown was already
an accepted fact. There was no reason for the Parliament to block
James II, since he would soon be succeeded by Mary.


The problem arose in 1687 when James' wife became pregnant, raising
the possibility of a male Catholic heir to the throne. When the boy
was born, the Parliament put steps in motion to trick James to leave
the country for France, so that William and Mary could take the
throne as Protestant monarchs.

There was no great structural change -- the whole thing was
orchestrated by the Parliament, proving that the Parliament already
had much more power than the King. If things had been like they were
prior to 1640, then the King's army would have been out fighting the
Parliament's army (which was the English Civil War).

This kind of government change is what happens during awakenings.
The generational dispute forces the old guys to meet the demands of
the kids. (Or if the old guys crush the kids, as happened in
Tiananmen Square in 1989, then the country heads for another secular
crisis civil war.)

The "conquest" of England by the Dutch without firing a shot was
considered a miracle by the English people, who still remembered the
devastation of the Civil War and didn't want to see it repeated. The
fact that a "change of administrations" occurred so peacefully,
replacing the "old" Catholic way of governing with the "young"
Protestant way of governing is a sign that it was a Second Turning
awakening event, not a Fourth Turning crisis event.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

As Sean can tell you, I'm in a nitpicking mood today. A couple of nits here:

First, Mary was not the only daughter of James II. Mary had a younger sister, Anne, who in fact succeeded WilliamandMary when they died without issue. Anne reigned for about a dozen years in the dawn of the 18th century, before succumbing in middle age to obesity related disease. She was succeeded by George I from the House of Hanover.

Second, James II was not that old; he was 52 when he succeeded his older brother. Even in an era when the average lifespan was probably around 30, if you made it to 50, chances were excellent that you would make it to "three score and ten". James II came close, dying at age 68, 13 years after he was deposed.
(see http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon50.html ).

FWIW, James II married twice. The contentious prince was a product of his second marriage; Mary and Anne were children from his first wife.

None of this affects the argument on whether the Glorious Revolution was a Second or Fourth Turning event. :wink:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> The mood after the 1660 Restoration was still very much an
> Unraveling mood, not that of a first turning or "austerity". And
> as bloodless as the Glorious Revolution was (especially vis-a-vis
> the English Civil War!!!) I believe it actually settled more
> structural problems than the conflict half a century earlier.

How could the mood in 1660, after twenty years of genocidal violence,
military dictatorship and anarchy have been anything but "austerity"?
Think back to our own Unraveling period in the 1990s, with its gender
wars and national aimlessness. Do you really think that 1660s
England was involved in culture wars after the 20 years of
devastation they went through? It just doesn't make sense.

My (admittedly sparse) reading on this era (i.e., the Restoration period) leads me to believe that the culture/society in England was quite fragmented and troubled. Remember, World War One wrought awesome devastation and loss in Western Europe, yet the 1920's was 3T (and Weimar Germany has been called the most horrid example of a 3T mood ever).

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

There was no structural change to speak of in the Glorious
Revolution, at least no more so than in Nixon's resignation.

No structural change? The transfer of power in and of itself may have been innocuous (esp. seeming so in retrospect) but what occurred was the definitive end of the Monarchial/Parliamentary feud once and for all -- something the English Civil War itself did not decisively end. The fact that something so innocuous could be considered a "miracle" at the time tells me there were 4T reprecussions.

Two more things. England never again had to worry about the Catholic "threat". And this is also the period when "Britain" finally united for good as one kingdom (1707). Pretty structural stuff.

And again, I am open to the Glorious Revolution not necessarily being the biggest event in England in that 4T, and possibly only the keynote(?). One must keep in mind that the larger context/backdrop included the Nine Year's War, the Act of Union, and possibly the War of Spanish Succession.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Actually, the Glorious Revolution had much more to do with religion
and sex than anything else.

I would imagine those could be excellent fodder for 4T activity. Crusades? Helen of Troy?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The Protestant Parliament had allowed the Catholic James II to become
King in 1685 because he was old, soon to die, and had no children
except for Mary, who was Protestant and married to the Dutch Prince
William. Thus, as soon as James died, the Protestant Mary would
become Queen.

So here you see the structure that preceded the Glorious Revolution.
The decision that Mary and William would have the Crown was already
an accepted fact. There was no reason for the Parliament to block
James II, since he would soon be succeeded by Mary.

The problem arose in 1687 when James' wife became pregnant, raising
the possibility of a male Catholic heir to the throne. When the boy
was born, the Parliament put steps in motion to trick James to leave
the country for France, so that William and Mary could take the
throne as Protestant monarchs.

There was no great structural change -- the whole thing was
orchestrated by the Parliament, proving that the Parliament already
had much more power than the King. If things had been like they were
prior to 1640, then the King's army would have been out fighting the
Parliament's army (which was the English Civil War).

This kind of government change is what happens during awakenings.
The generational dispute forces the old guys to meet the demands of
the kids. (Or if the old guys crush the kids, as happened in
Tiananmen Square in 1989, then the country heads for another secular
crisis civil war.)

The "conquest" of England by the Dutch without firing a shot was
considered a miracle by the English people, who still remembered the
devastation of the Civil War and didn't want to see it repeated. The
fact that a "change of administrations" occurred so peacefully,
replacing the "old" Catholic way of governing with the "young"
Protestant way of governing is a sign that it was a Second Turning
awakening event, not a Fourth Turning crisis event.

I will take your comments into consideration.

As always, good food for thought.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

> Two more things. England never again had to worry about the
> Catholic "threat". And this is also the period when "Britain"
> finally united for good as one kingdom (1707). Pretty structural
> stuff.

The problem is that none of this makes sense, and the more I look at
it, the crazier it is.

Let me begin by quoting the description of the crisis period of a
fourth turning:

Originally Posted by Fourth Turning p. 258-59

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

> Soon thereafter, this great gate is sealed by the Crisis
> resolution, when victors are rewarded and enemies
> punished; when empires or nations are forged or destroyed; when
> treaties are signed and boundaries redrawn; and when peace is

> accepted, troops repatriated, and life begun anew.

> One large chapter of history ends, and another starts. in a very
> real sense, one society dies -- and another is born.

Now I don't care what anybody says, there's nothing about the
Glorious Revolution that comes anywhere close to fitting that
description. There's simply no match. Period. But there is a
match for the English Civil War.

But now, let's go back to your statement, quoted above.

First off, what is the range of dates for the "Glorious Revolution
Fourth Turning?" According to Fourth Turning, it's 1674-1704,
and you seem to be extending it farther, to 1707. Why the change?
Why doesn't the crisis period end in 1689?

I assume it's because you and S&H realize that the Glorious Revolution
most certainly did NOT settle the relationship between Parliament and
King, as you've previously said, and that there was a brand new
succession crisis in 1703 that was settled by 1707.

But if you extend the 4T period to 1704 or 1707, then it's very
clearly no longer a "Glorious Revolution" crisis. The reason that
the succession crisis could be resolved in 1704 is because England
won the Battle of Blenheim over France. If England had lost that
battle, then the whole Empire might have dissolved. So if this 4T
period ends in 1704 or 1704, then it's clearly not a "Glorious
Revolution Fourth Turning"; it's a "Battle of Blenheim Fourth
Turning."

Now actually a reasonable argument could be made for a "Battle of
Blenheim Fourth Turning," while there's really no sensible argument at
all for a "Glorious Revolution Fourth Turning." The argument would
be that the Battle of Blenheim was "nature's raging typhoon" that
ended up resolving the crisis.

But really, if you're going to do that, then you might as well extend
the 4T period a few years more to August, 1709, to include the battle
of Malplaquet, which was the bloodiest battle in Europe for all of
the 18th century, and was the battle that resolved the War of the
Spanish Succession for the English and the French. Then the 4T becomes
a "War of the Spanish Succession Fourth Turning," and you get the same
results that I get, so we agree after all.

You know, Sean, I realize that there's an element of loyalty to
Strauss and Howe going on here, and I certainly wouldn't blame anyone
for that, but this absolutely crazy. It makes no sense at all to
call this a "Glorious Revolution" crisis when it ends with the Battle
of Blenheim, which saved the Empire.

But insisting that the English Civil War is a 2T and the Glorious
Revolution, ignoring the Battle of Blenheim, is a 4T is not doing
Strauss and Howe any favors, when the opposite is so clearly true.
There are a lot of knowledgeable people who believe that the Fourth
Turning lacks credibility, and the reason for that belief is the claim
the theory "cherry-picks" fourth turning periods to make the cycles
come out right. To many people, the two most obvious examples are WW
I and the English Civil War. These two problems must be credibly
explained, and using this craziness about the Glorious Revolution
does the opposite.

------

But actually I think I've figured out what's going on. It now turns
out, I believe, that the discussion about the Glorious Revolution
that Mike and I and you have been having has been completely
misguided. There's something completely different going on.

On pages 263-64 of the Fourth Turning, the "New World
Saeculum" is described. It talks about the wars between the settlers
and the Indians, saying that the English came close to being driven
from the continent.

Originally Posted by Fourth Turning p. 264

> Decimated but resolute, the colonists now perceived that the very
> social and political future of their world was in peril and that
> they had been sucked into a collective maelstrom beyond their
> control. Over the next few years, that would enable them to
> withstand the absolutist machinations of the duke of York, the
> Stuart heir. The climax came with the political revolution of
> 1689, the resolution with the advent of global war between England
> and France. But in 1676 the American colonists did not yet know of
> all the trials to come -- nor of the sunny peace to be born of
> such hardship.

This text isn't claiming that the Glorious Revolution was a 4T in
England; it's claiming that it's a 4T in the colonies!!!.
That's a very different thing.

The above text says that the GR was the climax of the colonial
4T. That's something that I could actually agree with.

And if we go back further in time, then the English Civil War could
well have been a colonial 2T. That makes sense, though I've
never thought of it that way before.

Strauss and Howe didn't develop the idea of separate timelines for
England and America, so they couldn't have explicitly described it
this way, but the paragraph I quoted above clearly indicates that
they must have begun thinking that way.

They say that "The climax came with the political revolution of 1689,
the resolution with the advent of global war between England and
France." This could only be a reference to the War of the Spanish
Succession. So S&H must have realized that the GR led to the WSS,
which means that the GR could not have been a 4T in
England. S&H must have been starting to think in terms of GR
being an awakening or unraveling event in England, with the "global
war between England and France" being the next 4T for England. Once
you reach that conclusion, then it makes sense that the English Civil
War was a 4T in England.

But they weren't focusing on England; they were focusing on America,
where the English Civil War was a 2T, even as it was a 4T in England
itself.

There's one more point worth making. The Glorious Revolution has
been used as an argument that a 4T doesn't have to include a crisis
war, since the GR didn't involve a war. But the range of dates,
1675-1704, does indeed include a war -- at least the Battle of
Blenheim. So every Fourth Turning does indeed have a crisis war.

You know, I've been at this for over a year now, and I know better
than to think that Mike and you would ever actually agree with me
about this, but this actually really makes sense, and it resolves the
"Glorious Revolution anomaly." And in doing so it not only doesn't
disagree with The Fourth Turning, but instead it agrees with
the paragraph quoted above, which foreshadows their own evident
movement in the direction of identifying separate timelines.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John,

Strauss and Howe extend the 4T out to include King William's War because it is part and parcel of the overall crisis that the colonists faced in terms of their structural position in the world. King Philip's War and the Glorious Revolution are a part of that.

As for the English Civil War being 4T, I can't buy it. It even contradicts your own theory. It comes much less than a long human lifetime after England's conflict with Spain in the late 16th century. Furthermore, it came on the heels of intense religious activity and upheaval, especially among the younger generation. I see it as analogous to WWI.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on which era finally solved the King vs. Parliament, Protestant monarch vs. Catholic monarch problems. You say it was solved by the English Civil War, I by the Glorious Revolution.

Finally, I am open to the GR being the opening salvo in an English 4T, whereas it was more chronological central to the colonial 4T. That quite possibly puts the WSS in an English 4T (where I think we both agree) whereas the colonial equivilent, Queen Anne's War, would've been 1T for the colonies.