Oddly enough, in the US, (where you would assume that the Right would support common culture over multiculturalism), it is the *Right* that supports what could be the biggest boon to separated cultures:

School Vouchers.

The Right assumes that only Christians will have sufficient mass to generate religious versions of private, voucher-paid schools. Wrong!

Vouchers themselves are a decent idea, but allowing them to go to religious schools will be the death of common culture. Our public schools are the breeding ground of our common culture.

Originally Posted by AAA1969

Oddly enough, in the US, (where you would assume that the Right would support common culture over multiculturalism), it is the *Right* that supports what could be the biggest boon to separated cultures:

School Vouchers.

The Right assumes that only Christians will have sufficient mass to generate religious versions of private, voucher-paid schools. Wrong!

Vouchers themselves are a decent idea, but allowing them to go to religious schools will be the death of common culture. Our public schools are the breeding ground of our common culture.

Actually, you misunderstand the Right's reasons for supporting vouchers on several levels. The schools ought to be one of the breeding grounds of a common culture, but too often they've been converted into the very opposite, with school officials consciously trying to teach the students things directly contrary to the morals and beliefs of their parents.

Make of this what you will.

The following is posted for discussion only without intention of profit or infringement.

tp://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212734,00.html

Oral sex lessons to cut rates of teenage pregnancy


Mark Townsend
Sunday May 9, 2004
The Observer

Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found.

Pupils under 16 who were taught to consider other forms of 'intimacy' such as oral sex were significantly less likely to engage in full intercourse, it was revealed.

Britain's teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Europe. In 2002 there were 39,286 teen pregnancies recorded. The government has spent more than ?60 million to tackle the problem but so far failed to halt the rise.

A sex education course developed by Exeter University trains teachers to talk to teenagers about 'stopping points' before full sex.

Now an unpublished government-backed report reveals that a trial of the course has been a success. Schoolchildren, particularly girls, who received such training developed a 'more mature' response to sex.

The study by the National Foundation for Educational Research found youngsters were 'less likely to be sexually active' than peers who received traditional forms of sex education, dispelling the fears of family campaigners who believe such methods actually arouse the sexual interest of teenagers.

Now the government will recommend the scheme, called A Pause, to schools throughout England and Wales following the success of the trial in 104 schools where sexual intercourse among 16-year-olds fell by up to 20 per cent, according to Dr John Tripp of the Department of Child Health at the University of Exeter, who helped to design the course.

Teachers who sign up to the course are primed to deal with queries from pupils on all kinds of sexual experience. Those behind the course stress the scheme does not suggest teenagers experiment with oral sex. Instead they say A Pause promotes the message that other forms of physical intimacy are safer than full intercourse.

'It teaches people assertiveness skills and that they should be only as intimate as they feel comfortable with,' said Tripp.

A Department for Education and Skills spokesman said the report's verdict would be made available to all schools. 'All teachers respect peer-reviewed material, and this will help influence their decision,' he said.

Make of this what you will.

The following is posted for discussion only without intention of profit or infringement.

tp://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212734,00.html

Oral sex lessons to cut rates of teenage pregnancy


Mark Townsend
Sunday May 9, 2004
The Observer

Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found.

Pupils under 16 who were taught to consider other forms of 'intimacy' such as oral sex were significantly less likely to engage in full intercourse, it was revealed.

Britain's teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Europe. In 2002 there were 39,286 teen pregnancies recorded. The government has spent more than ?60 million to tackle the problem but so far failed to halt the rise.

A sex education course developed by Exeter University trains teachers to talk to teenagers about 'stopping points' before full sex.

Now an unpublished government-backed report reveals that a trial of the course has been a success. Schoolchildren, particularly girls, who received such training developed a 'more mature' response to sex.

The study by the National Foundation for Educational Research found youngsters were 'less likely to be sexually active' than peers who received traditional forms of sex education, dispelling the fears of family campaigners who believe such methods actually arouse the sexual interest of teenagers.

Now the government will recommend the scheme, called A Pause, to schools throughout England and Wales following the success of the trial in 104 schools where sexual intercourse among 16-year-olds fell by up to 20 per cent, according to Dr John Tripp of the Department of Child Health at the University of Exeter, who helped to design the course.

Teachers who sign up to the course are primed to deal with queries from pupils on all kinds of sexual experience. Those behind the course stress the scheme does not suggest teenagers experiment with oral sex. Instead they say A Pause promotes the message that other forms of physical intimacy are safer than full intercourse.

'It teaches people assertiveness skills and that they should be only as intimate as they feel comfortable with,' said Tripp.

A Department for Education and Skills spokesman said the report's verdict would be made available to all schools. 'All teachers respect peer-reviewed material, and this will help influence their decision,' he said.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Make of this what you will.

Oral sex lessons to cut rates of teenage pregnancy

What is going on in Britain in regard to sex education is quite different to what is going on in the USA. In the USA there is a strong move towards abstinence based sex education, while in Britain they are doing what was described above. It is probably due to the factor that Britain is a far less religiously observant nation than the USA, only 5-7% of British people compared 50-55% of Americans attend church on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Make of this what you will.

Oral sex lessons to cut rates of teenage pregnancy

What is going on in Britain in regard to sex education is quite different to what is going on in the USA. In the USA there is a strong move towards abstinence based sex education, while in Britain they are doing what was described above. It is probably due to the factor that Britain is a far less religiously observant nation than the USA, only 5-7% of British people compared 50-55% of Americans attend church on a regular basis.

This matter looks minor, at first glance, but in fact it is a symptom of a basic ongoing debate roiling under the surface in Europe, a debate on the very definition of what Europe is, and what it should become.


Debate Over Status of EU Constitution

The following is quoted without intention of profit or infringement for purpose of discussion only.


NYT

May 26, 2004
God's Place in Charter Is Dividing Europeans
By ELAINE SCIOLINO


ARIS, May 25 - As the Europeans haggle over the final wording of their first constitution, they are bedeviled by a three-letter word: God.

Mind-numbing arguments over budget rules and weighted voting can be delegated to technocrats. The issue of whether the most ambitious document in European Union history should include a reference to the Continent's Christian heritage is different, an emotional, theological wrangle over the meaning of culture, history and faith.

"Of course, we have a Judeo-Christian past, but the constitution is inspired by a heritage that is cultural, religious and humanist all at once," Michel Barnier, France's new foreign minister, said after a news conference at the Foreign Ministry on Tuesday. He made clear that France would not bend to new pressure to inject religion into the draft, noting that the constitution should be "secular." The current wording, he added, is "well balanced."

But with the entry of 10 new members into Europe this month, many of them predominantly Catholic, positions have hardened.

The one issue European officials seem to agree on is that there will probably be no agreement on religion before a June 17 summit meeting in Brussels, where the constitution is scheduled to be completed.

Last Friday, the foreign ministers of seven of the 25 European Union member countries, including two old members (Italy and Portugal) and five new ones (Poland, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and the Czech Republic), sent a brief letter to Ireland, the current holder of the European Union presidency, calling for a last-minute conversion.

"The issue remains a priority for our governments" and "for millions of European citizens," the letter said.

The letter urged "a reference to the Christian roots of Europe," adding in less than perfect English: "The amendment we ask for is aimed to recognize a historical truth. We do not want to disregard neither the secular nature of the European institutions nor the respect of any other religious or philosophical belief."

Granted, the seven may have meant no disrespect. But they know well that Pope John Paul II is firmly on their side. Earlier this month, the 83-year-old pope welcomed the accession of the 10 new member states to the European Union and underlined the Christian values on which the group's unity was based.

At a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday, the group of seven issued the text of their letter to their colleagues.

"We are not talking about a reference to Christian values, but to Christian traditions - hence to a historical fact that no one can change," the Polish foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said at a news conference in Brussels.

The week before, Italy's foreign minister, Franco Frattini, said that all that the seven were asking for was "a small inclusion in the text" that "would not alter the preamble too much."

But other governments have insisted that the preamble of the current draft treaty goes far enough. In its present form, it states that the European Union draws "inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe."

Apparently in a gesture to Europe's Muslims and Jews, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain warned at the Brussels meeting on Monday against singling out religious tradition.

"If we were to go down the road of making specific reference to one religious tradition, we have to bear in mind other religious traditions and reference to them as well within Europe," he told reporters.

In his comments Tuesday, Mr. Barnier agreed, saying that the current wording reflected Europe's "pluralism."

Spain, meanwhile, which had argued vociferously for the God-and-Christianity position, abruptly shifted sides when the Socialists swept aside the center-right Popular Party in general elections in March.

The text, Spain's new foreign minister, Miguel ?ngel Moratinos, told RFI radio on Monday, "is perfect." He added, "Spain is a Catholic country, but at the same time I believe that in this European constitution our government is rather secular, and in this sense we want to respect the text as it currently stands."

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany pointed the finger at others. His own government, he told reporters on Monday, is willing to compromise, but several member states "are not prepared to go beyond" the current draft. As a result, he said, "I dare to prophesy that we will have an unchanged situation on this point."

Mr. Barnier, by contrast, declined to play prophet, saying, "When we speak of God, we should never say never."


H?l?ne Fouquet contributed reporting for this article.

I have been thinking about western European cycles after the Great Awakening of the 18th century. From what I know about the French revolution, the early part of it was a full blown Crisis Event If Western Europe was on the same saeculum as America was back then, which is more than likely. The storming of the bastile was the climax of that Fourth Turning and the reign of terror, which followed, was a nightmare version of the McCarthy years as France entered the High.

During the High Napoleon (very much a Hero) emerged as emperor and stabilised the country around a civic consensus. The same thing happened in Britain during the same time, radicals were purged and society and politics became more conformist and dissent was rarely tolerated. The Napoleonic wars instead of being a Crisis can be interpreted as a High era war, a unusual high era war at that.

More thoughts later.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I have been thinking about western European cycles after the Great Awakening of the 18th century. From what I know about the French revolution, the early part of it was a full blown Crisis Event If Western Europe was on the same saeculum as America was back then, which is more than likely. The storming of the bastile was the climax of that Fourth Turning and the reign of terror, which followed, was a nightmare version of the McCarthy years as France entered the High.

During the High Napoleon (very much a Hero) emerged as emperor and stabilised the country around a civic consensus. The same thing happened in Britain during the same time, radicals were purged and society and politics became more conformist and dissent was rarely tolerated. The Napoleonic wars instead of being a Crisis can be interpreted as a High era war, a unusual high era war at that.

More thoughts later.

Having the Napoleonic Wars in a High would solve a lot of problems, but I can't get over the intense 4T flavor the whole thing has up to 1815. And were the 1780's an example of an early 4T for anyone in W. Europe? Seems more like a jittery, irresponsible 3T to me, esp. in France.

As messy as it seems, it is more likely to me that W. Europe and America somehow go out of synch after the English Civil War. Perhaps King Philip's War and Bacon's Rebellion came early by European standards??

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Having the Napoleonic Wars in a High would solve a lot of problems, but I can't get over the intense 4T flavor the whole thing has up to 1815. And were the 1780's an example of an early 4T for anyone in W. Europe? Seems more like a jittery, irresponsible 3T to me, esp. in France.

As messy as it seems, it is more likely to me that W. Europe and America somehow go out of synch after the English Civil War. Perhaps King Philip's War and Bacon's Rebellion came early by European standards??

I would have research western European history from the 18th century onwards. However I do not have a lot of spare time to do that these days.

Euro Poll Disaster

Latest results

Germany's governing Social Democrats recorded their worst result since World War II. Official results showed the party took just 21.5% of the vote, with the Christian Democrats set to be clear winners with 44.5%.
French President Jacques Chirac's Union for the Popular Movement, with 16.6% of the vote, finished a far second behind the Socialist Party, on 28.9%, according to the final results.

In Britain, Labour and the Conservatives both saw their vote slump. With most results in, the two main parties looked set to secure less than half of the vote between them, for the first time ever. The Tories had 27.4% and Labour 22.3%, while the eurosceptic UK Independence Party was running third with nearly 17%.

In Poland, largest of the new EU members, partial results indicated the governing left party won just 9% of the vote.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi suffered a setback with his centre-right coalition losing ground. His Forza Italia remained the most popular party, but saw its share of the vote drop to 21%, compared with 29.4% in the 2001 general elections.

In Spain, the ruling Socialists appear to have bucked the trend, winning some 43.7%, while the conservatives took about 40.8 %, according to provisional results.

With all the ballots counted in the Czech Republic, eurosceptic Civic Democrats won 30% of the vote to trounce the ruling Social Democrats who only managed to poll 8.8%.

The lowest turnout was in Slovakia, where fewer than 17% cast their votes. Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda's SDKU party led the polls with 17.09%, closely followed by the nationalist HZDS party of controversial ex-Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar on 17.04%.

There's nothing like Euroscepticism to anger the Forces of Progress!

Mr Kilroy-Silk pledged to get Britain back for the British people.

Asked what he would do when he sits in the European Parliament, Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "Wreck it- expose it for the waste, the corruption and the way it's eroding our independence and our sovereignty."


"Our job is to go there and to say 'look, this is what they do, this is how they waste your money, this how they spend it, this is how it gets corrupted, this is how they all go on this kind of gravy train and spend their time in the restaurants'.

May Mr. Kilroy-Silk be complete in his labors!

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Having the Napoleonic Wars in a High would solve a lot of problems, but I can't get over the intense 4T flavor the whole thing has up to 1815. And were the 1780's an example of an early 4T for anyone in W. Europe? Seems more like a jittery, irresponsible 3T to me, esp. in France.

As messy as it seems, it is more likely to me that W. Europe and America somehow go out of synch after the English Civil War. Perhaps King Philip's War and Bacon's Rebellion came early by European standards??

Partition of Poland (1772-1793) ought to be a Polish crisis.

Dutch Revolution of 1785 failed, but could it be a crisis?

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Tristan

I have been thinking about western European cycles after the Great Awakening of the 18th century. From what I know about the French revolution, the early part of it was a full blown Crisis Event If Western Europe was on the same saeculum as America was back then, which is more than likely. The storming of the bastile was the climax of that Fourth Turning and the reign of terror, which followed, was a nightmare version of the McCarthy years as France entered the High.

During the High Napoleon (very much a Hero) emerged as emperor and stabilised the country around a civic consensus. The same thing happened in Britain during the same time, radicals were purged and society and politics became more conformist and dissent was rarely tolerated. The Napoleonic wars instead of being a Crisis can be interpreted as a High era war, a unusual high era war at that.

More thoughts later.

Having the Napoleonic Wars in a High would solve a lot of problems, but I can't get over the intense 4T flavor the whole thing has up to 1815. And were the 1780's an example of an early 4T for anyone in W. Europe? Seems more like a jittery, irresponsible 3T to me, esp. in France.

As messy as it seems, it is more likely to me that W. Europe and America somehow go out of synch after the English Civil War. Perhaps King Philip's War and Bacon's Rebellion came early by European standards??

It should be kept firmly in mind that the Generational Cycle is able to manifest itself much more clearly and regularly in America than was once the case in Europe, because of the way we organized ourselves. In Europe (until relatively recently) the old aristocracies were still quite influential, and sometimes the monarchs retained real powers. Likewise, traditions of 'place' operated far more strongly in Europe, even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, than they did in America.

This had the tendency to somewhat 'mask' the effect of the Cycle, and blur it. (Even if a society was moving into 4T mode, it could, for example, have a lot of older Silents still in high hereditary position, with no way to remove them. This could affect the flow of events. A really long-lived Civic (or even Reactive) monarch could still be reigning when the rest of the society 'wanted' to go 4T).

Also, Europe is a big place, with lots of barriers to travel for low-technology societies. Thus it makes more sense to speak of national cycles than European ones, until perhaps Napoleon's day.

For that matter, the First World War looks suspiciously 4T-ish to my eyes, among the Europeans.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Also, Europe is a big place, with lots of barriers to travel for low-technology societies. Thus it makes more sense to speak of national cycles than European ones, until perhaps Napoleon's day.

Or at least of a Continental cycle that diverges from the English one. Even that's straining things. But basically, I agree; the globalization of the saeculum is a recent thing. And between Europe and America, the barriers were profound in the days when it took weeks for information to pass across the ocean. America developed its own saeculum, and I agree that it diverged from the British one some time between the Puritan Awakening and the Revolutionary War.

For that matter, the First World War looks suspiciously 4T-ish to my eyes, among the Europeans.

Now with this I disagree. It looks like a Crisis war only in that it was terribly bloody and horrid. But consider the outcome. It was not a total war, but was settled by treaty, leaving all of the major participants under their own governments. Some boundaries were moved, and the Germans in particular were subjected to punitive measures and restrictions, but the contrast with World War II, when the losing governments literally ceased to exist, is dramatic and telling.

Also, look at how tentative and temporary the changes to the participating governments that arose from internal disruptions caused by the war turned out to be. The Weimar Republic was quickly replaced by another autocracy. In Russia, the nondemocratic republic that replaced the monarchy was in turn replaced by a dictatorship. Both Hitler and Stalin were monarchs for all intents and purposes. And the new system that would endure in both countries was imposed during what was, in the U.S., a 4T: Stalin's dictatorship didn't outlast his death, but the basic structure of his political and economic system did, while in Germany the new system of parliamentary federal democracy was imposed by the victorious Western allies. Nor was the structure of global power altered by World War I, or at least not in any way that people recognized. The British Empire was fatally weakened, but it took World War II for the role of global hegemon to really pass to the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

The Russians seem to have a pattern (if two makes a pattern) of having governments fall during an Unraveling, but with the new system only becoming established in the following Crisis.

But I would agree that the Napoleonic Wars were a European 4T. We could argue that the storming of the Bastille in 1789 was the Catalyst, Napoleon's rise to power the regeneracy, and Waterloo the climax. So many changes happened in Europe during that time, and the power of the British Empire was so firmly entrenched as a result, yet the seeds of democracy planted by Napoleon were not eliminated, that this looks very much like a 4T. Which would mean that the British were in 3T during the Revolutionary War, and in 4T in the War of 1812 (while we were in 1T), which helps explain why we won the first and were swatted aside like annoying flies in the second.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Also, Europe is a big place, with lots of barriers to travel for low-technology societies. Thus it makes more sense to speak of national cycles than European ones, until perhaps Napoleon's day.

Why should nations be the unit of analysis? Could it be that since countries often produce national histories for state purposes it is simply convenient to analyze history in units of nations. A good example is the Reformation.

A German monk launched the first wave of the Reformation in 1517. A French student, John Calvin after being exposed to Luther's ideas launched the second wave, from his base in Switzerland. It was Clavin's wave that powered the next Crisis, centered in the Netherlands, England and France. It was truly an international movement that produced an intricate international crisis half a century later.

To accomplish change that occurs on a generation time scale does not require rapid communication at all. Already in the 14th century Europe was completely interlinked as shown by the rapid spread of the bubonic plague via trade routes all over Europe. Financial linkage is demonstrated by the default of the British crown on its Hundred Year War debt producing economic depression in Siena Italy.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Also, Europe is a big place, with lots of barriers to travel for low-technology societies. Thus it makes more sense to speak of national cycles than European ones, until perhaps Napoleon's day.

Why should nations be the unit of analysis? Could it be that since countries often produce national histories for state purposes it is simply convenient to analyze history in units of nations. A good example is the Reformation.

A German monk launched the first wave of the Reformation in 1517. A French student, John Calvin after being exposed to Luther's ideas launched the second wave, from his base in Switzerland. It was Clavin's wave that powered the next Crisis, centered in the Netherlands, England and France. It was truly an international movement that produced an intricate international crisis half a century later.

True in large, but the details varied widely in timing and intensity.

It doesn't have to be national cycles, but my point is that Europe's cycle was probably much more 'disjointed' before.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Also, Europe is a big place, with lots of barriers to travel for low-technology societies. Thus it makes more sense to speak of national cycles than European ones, until perhaps Napoleon's day.

Or at least of a Continental cycle that diverges from the English one. Even that's straining things. But basically, I agree; the globalization of the saeculum is a recent thing. And between Europe and America, the barriers were profound in the days when it took weeks for information to pass across the ocean. America developed its own saeculum, and I agree that it diverged from the British one some time between the Puritan Awakening and the Revolutionary War.

For that matter, the First World War looks suspiciously 4T-ish to my eyes, among the Europeans.

Now with this I disagree. It looks like a Crisis war only in that it was terribly bloody and horrid. But consider the outcome. It was not a total war, but was settled by treaty, leaving all of the major participants under their own governments.

Ah, but there is more to the flow of events than the Cycle. It wasn't a total war of destruction, but they tried to wage it that way and failed. They didn't choose to fight a near-motionless trench war endlessly, it was the result of a peculiarity of technological evolution that gave the defense a marked advantage over offense for a time.

What did happen was a massive total committment of national effort in Britain, France, and Germany. There wasn't a lot of opposition to the warfare during it (until the very end). Furthermore, there was an eagerness to take part in some quarters. There were nations looking for excuses to get into it.

If we assume that the Napoleonic Wars were a 4T event, then World War I came at about the right time to be a 4T event, even a bit late, but the Cyclic periods used to be longer, in part for the reasons I noted above in my previous post.

Furthermore, if the abortive 'Revolution of 1848' was an Awakening phenomenon, that would put an Awakening at about the right time to match up with a Fourth Turning in the early 20th Century. There was a lot of confused unrest in the 1830s and 1840s in Europe, especially among the upper middle classes.

Some boundaries were moved, and the Germans in particular were subjected to punitive measures and restrictions, but the contrast with World War II, when the losing governments literally ceased to exist, is dramatic and telling.

Ah, but in many ways the ending of the last American-cycle 4T was atypical, and technologically influenced.

We tend to make a lot of the 'huge changes' Crisis periods bring, but in fact even during Crisis period continuity is stronger than change. The worlds before and after Crisis periods are more alike than different, it's just that we note the differences, since they are 'news', by definition.

World War II ended with one side possessing the power to utterly annihilate their opposition, no matter how hard the opposition might choose to resist. No previous Crisis had ended with such total concentration of power on one side. This enabled the winners to have it all their own way, more or less.

A complicating factor at the end of World War I was that none of the European powers involved had achieved anything close to that level of superiority. Very late in the war, the conviction was widespread in London that England was going to lose, and Lloyd George and others were laying the political foundations for surviving that. Neither side could overcome the other totally, all were bleeding slowly to death as the war (which was supposed to be 'over by Christmas' (a classic 4T warning sign)) dragged on year after year. The newborn USSR was out of the fight, having ceded a huge chunk of land to Germany at Brest-Litovsk as late as 1917(!), leaving the Germans free to focus on the western front.

The entry of America into the war spelled disaster for Germany. A huge influx of fresh troops, ill-trained and equipped at first but not exhausted by four years of nightmare warfare (World War I was something the Europeans had never dreamed of in their wildest nightmares), plus the still-viable if tired French and British, was too much.

Ironically, when Germany started putting out peace feelers, it wasn't totally beaten in a material, military sense. They were losing, but they had not completely lost yet. But the very fact that they were treating for an armistice, once it got out, caused things on the German side tos tart falling apart. Why keep fighting in a losing cause that's asking for a negotiated peace?

But if the Anglo-French-American alliance had pushed for total victory, for the utter destruction of Germany, the fight would have renewed, since the Germans would have had their backs to the wall and nothing to lose. The ensuring fight would probably have finished Germany, but at dire material and moral cost to the 'victors'.

Further, while I suspect Britain, France, and Germany were in 4T, America manifestly was not. When the leaders of the victors met at Versaillies, Lloyd George and Clemenceau were there to divvy up the spoils and try to establish their supremacy, Woodrow Wilson was there to Do Good. The Fourteen Poinst were so classically Adaptive it's almost scary, and Wilson brought a classically Adaptive sense of fairness combined with an equally archetypical naivete about real-world politics and power.

Britain and France could not afford to alienate the United States under the circumstances, but they were at the table as essentially equal players, and even with the restraint the presence of Wilson provided, the 'settlement' at Versailles was a nice form of words over some pretty dire conditions. It was consciously intended to permanently disable Germany as a competitor of Britain and France. It limited Germany's right to a military, imposed dire 'reparations' that would have strained Germany's economy for decades, it carved away chunks of useful land and facilities and transnferred them to France or other rivals, and it incorporated a number of other features designed to keep Germany powerless.

Wilson seems to have perceived some of this, but he was prepared to trade off most of his 14 Points to get the one he really cared about, the League of Nations, which he hoped could later be used to undo the damage (or I think that's what he hoped). But even that ended up being extensively adapted. The League 'mandate system' was intended by Wilson to bring about decolonialization and modernization/westernization of the former empires. The British and French saw it as a nice form of words over business as usual in the empires.

So I think the apparent lack of effect at the end of World War I was a combination of technological/economic reality (which does not reflect the Cycle) and the restraining influence of America.

Also, look at how tentative and temporary the changes to the participating governments that arose from internal disruptions caused by the war turned out to be. The Weimar Republic was quickly replaced by another autocracy. In Russia, the nondemocratic republic that replaced the monarchy was in turn replaced by a dictatorship. Both Hitler and Stalin were monarchs for all intents and purposes.

Which just goes to show that changing a government, while leaving the more important factors of internal cultures and traditions, has little effect in the long term. The government will, one way or another, come to reflect the dominant culture. It so happened that the cultures of Germany and Russia had survived World War I intact.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Nor was the structure of global power altered by World War I, or at least not in any way that people recognized. The British Empire was fatally weakened, but it took World War II for the role of global hegemon to really pass to the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Ah, but the system did change in World War I. It changed profoundly, but in a way that didn't much directly alter the theoretical map lines for Britain and France.

Prior to World War I, the British dreamed to being one of the 20th century empires. It was widely that in Europe in the late 19th century that in the 20th, global political power would be held by a handful of empires, including an American one, and the British hoped to be one of the surviving empires. After World War I, they hope only to survive, all hope of expansion and new imperial growth ended.

In France, the losses were numbing. France has never since been able to overcome the psychological and moral change wrought by their incredible losses and suffering in that war. Every little town in France has its WW I memorial, and the lines of graves march on, and on, and on. Even in France after the victory, the general mood was "it wasn't worth it!" When World War II came, France's 'power' was revealed to have been hollowed out and broken in World War I.

Germany had been an up-and-coming power for decades before World War I, and indeed much of international politics had been driven by the goal of 'containment', aimed at Germany and led by the British and the French, for their separate reasons. Much of Germany's policy in those days was to break out of that containment, and keep it from getting any worse. After the War, Germany was (for the time being) seen as being defeated forever.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire died in World War I, as did the Ottoman Empire.

Second, America had come onto the world stage as a global power equal to Britain and France combined, when we chose to exercise that power. The mere knowledge of that altered European politics.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Nor was the structure of global power altered by World War I, or at least not in any way that people recognized. The British Empire was fatally weakened, but it took World War II for the role of global hegemon to really pass to the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Ah, but the system did change in World War I. It changed profoundly, but in a way that didn't much directly alter the theoretical map lines for Britain and France.

Something else that World War I changed: the world economy. Prior to World War I, there had been a tremendous amount of cross-border capital flow in Europe. There had also been a high level of corporate takeover activity, and the other doings that we today tend to associate with our Third Turning. The words were different, but 'free trade' was an ideal, and many thought that the increased economic inteconnectivity of the European powers made large-scale warfare impossible or deeply improbable.

The level of international trade and economic activity didn't match its pre-WW I period, IIRC, until decades after World War II.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

So I think the apparent lack of effect at the end of World War I was a combination of technological/economic reality (which does not reflect the Cycle) and the restraining influence of America.

Of course, one big gaping problem with my theory that World War I was a manifestation of a European Fourth Turning is the aftermath, which doesn't look, at first glance anyway, much like a High.

But I dislike the term 'High' as a synonym for a First Turning. It carries an implication that things are going well, or that there is unity and agreement, which isn't necessarily the case. The First Turning may be inevitable, but I don't think a High is.

After the American Civil War, there was a First Turning, but it had a bitter flavor, and an edge. A failed Crisis had led to a First Turning with a nation with factions that still hated each other. If, as I have come to suspect (I am not absolutely sure about Fourth Turning nature of World War I, I only suspect it), World War I markes a failed disastrous Crisis period, then the aftermath might be equally divided and uneasy.

Note to the comparison that as soon as Reconstruction ended, the various factions started trying to 'freeze' the aftermath of the Civil War, tying racial relations into a ghastly knot and leaving old power structures more or less in place. Something similar appeaars to have occured in Europe after World War I, or an attempt that way was made.

Also, the growing influence of America, which was in Third Turning at the time, could have produced its effect on Europe.

Still, the fact remains that while a case can be built that the First World War had a 4T look to it, complete with some corroborating evidence from the 19th century, the inter-war period in Europe looks 3T-ish, at least as much as it does 1T-ish. I don't really have a way to reconcile that, not yet anyway. But I remain convinced that World War I was more than just a 3T event.

The following is posted without intention of profit or infringement for the purpose of discussion only.

Euroelites Reel



Leaders rue Euro poll 'disaster'


The disappointing turnout figures have spread gloom in Brussels
Senior politicians across Europe have voiced dismay at EU parliamentary election results, after low turnouts and big gains for opposition parties.
Governing parties in Germany, France and Poland suffered big losses, while many eurosceptic parties had their best result at the polls.

Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot said the outcome was a "disaster for the existing coalition in many countries".

Turnout reached a record low, with just 45.3% of EU voters casting ballots.

European Parliament spokesman David Harley said turnout was "pathetically low" for many of the 10 new member states, which averaged a mere 26.4%.

The lowest turnout was in Slovakia, where fewer than 17% cast their votes.

The figure was slightly higher in neighbouring Poland, where President Aleksander Kwasniewski described his country's apathy as "a disease we will have to look at". He said there was a need to analyse "why we are so far from civic values".

Outgoing European Parliament President Pat Cox described the results as a "wake-up call" and warned European leaders that they had to demonstrate the EU's relevance to voters.

"Regrettably, Europe is too absent from European elections in east and west," he said. "States need to engage, particularly in central and eastern Europe, in voter education of EU institutions."

Mr Cox said eastern and central European countries had successfully mobilised large majorities to vote in favour of EU membership in referendums last year.

"Nothing like an equivalent effort of mobilisation was made on this occasion," he said. "I think a lot of public opinion felt, 'But we voted for that last year, why are you asking us again?'"

The BBC's European affairs correspondent William Horsley says the protest vote across the EU may push the heads of government to water down some of their integrationist ambitions.

EU foreign ministers are now meeting in Luxembourg to consider revisions to the draft EU constitution, designed to make it more acceptable to eurosceptics who made a big impact in Britain and Poland.

Germany's governing Social Democrats recorded their worst result since World War II. Official results showed the party took just 21.5% of the vote, with the Christian Democrats set to be clear winners with 44.5%.

French President Jacques Chirac's Union for the Popular Movement, with 16.6% of the vote, finished a far second behind the Socialist Party, on 28.9%, according to the final results.

In Britain, Labour and the Conservatives both saw their vote slump. With most results in, the two main parties looked set to secure less than half of the vote between them, for the first time ever. The Tories had 27.4% and Labour 22.3%, while the eurosceptic UK Independence Party was running third with nearly 17%.

In Poland, largest of the new EU members, partial results indicated the anti-EU League of Polish Families came second with 16.4%, while the governing left party won just 9%.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi suffered a setback, with his Forza Italia party dropping to 21%, compared with 29.4% in the 2001 general elections. But partners in his centre-right coalition made modest gains.

In Spain, the ruling Socialists appear to have bucked the trend, winning some 43.7%, while the conservatives took about 40.8 %, according to provisional results.

With all the ballots counted in the Czech Republic, eurosceptic Civic Democrats won 30% of the vote to trounce the ruling Social Democrats, who only managed to poll 8.8%.

Voters in 19 of the 25 EU nations cast ballots on Sunday, the fourth day of elections which have already seen the other six countries complete polling for their share of the 732 MEPs.

In all, about 155 million people of some 350 milllion eligible voters in the 25 member states cast their ballots, making it one of the biggest democratic exercises in the world.

Parties of the centre-right are expected to maintain their position as the biggest single bloc in the new parliament when final results are announced.

The unprecedented apathy among voters had been feared by EU observers.

However, the BBC's Oana Lungescu in Brussels says few had predicted that turnout would be lowest not in the UK and the Netherlands, as five years ago, but in the eight central and eastern European countries that joined the EU on 1 May.

Our correspondent says this is unusual, since after previous enlargements, new members showed greater enthusiasm about European polls than voters in the old member states.

However, two of the newest - and smallest - EU members produced the highest turnouts.

Malta saw 82% of its electorate vote, while Cyprus had a participation rate of 71.2%.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Leaders rue Euro poll 'disaster'

I have read it; the article shows an Unravelling mood throughout Europe, which is not surprising to me. A lot of political apathy and distrust of the political establishment. Also European society seems to be fighting over wether it should remain a bunch of independent nations or a super-nation. That might explain the strengthening of political parties opposed to a European supernation.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Leaders rue Euro poll 'disaster'

I have read it; the article shows an Unravelling mood throughout Europe, which is not surprising to me. A lot of political apathy and distrust of the political establishment. Also European society seems to be fighting over wether it should remain a bunch of independent nations or a super-nation. That might explain the strengthening of political parties opposed to a European supernation.

I think we're seeing a political manifestation of the fact that while the Euroelectorates don't know (or can't make up their minds) what they do want, they know precisely what they don't want. Unfortunately, the things they don't want are pressing in on them from all sides.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It wasn't a total war of destruction, but they tried to wage it that way and failed. They didn't choose to fight a near-motionless trench war endlessly, it was the result of a peculiarity of technological evolution that gave the defense a marked advantage over offense for a time.

When I said it wasn't a total war, I wasn't referring to the fact that it bogged down in trench stalemate, or that the combatants (especially the French) had such a poor understanding of what war with rifles, machine guns, and rifled artillery would involve (hence the appalling casualty rates, reminiscent of the American Civil War). I meant only that it lacked the all-encompassing aims of World War II or the Napoleonic war. Hitler wanted to subject France to German rule forever; he wanted to carve up half of Russia, depopulate that half by starvation and working to death, and make it a huge German colony, breeding a vast German nation that would then dominate the world. Japan wanted to create a vast empire in Asia and the Pacific, even going so far as to conquer China. The Allies responded to Hitler with a call for "unconditional surrender." No such aims existed in World War I.

You actually pointed this out, I assume unintentionally, in your discussion of the German peace feelers and the Allied responses to them.

If we do assume WWI was a 4T war, that makes WWII a 1T war, and that I really don't see.

If we assume that the Napoleonic Wars were a 4T event, then World War I came at about the right time to be a 4T event, even a bit late

I don't see this. WWI started almost exactly 100 years after Waterloo. Treating the intervening period as one saeculum rather than two (which I imagine is what you mean to imply) that was some 40 years late, or two whole Turnings, and it should have been an Awakening, not a Crisis. It should be about 60 years from the end of one Crisis to the start of the next one. But if we regard the 19th century, which for Europe as for America was a period of rapid industrialization (though England went through this process a bit earlier than the Continent), as a time when the saeculum was foreshortened, it makes sense to chop this mostly peaceful period into two saeculae. That would give Europe a 4T in the mid to late 19th century, same period as America's or slightly later. You can see this for Germany, France, and England, though it's less clear for other European countries and may not wash outside those three countries.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It should be kept firmly in mind that the Generational Cycle is able to manifest itself much more clearly and regularly in America than was once the case in Europe, because of the way we organized ourselves. In Europe (until relatively recently) the old aristocracies were still quite influential, and sometimes the monarchs retained real powers. Likewise, traditions of 'place' operated far more strongly in Europe, even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, than they did in America.

This had the tendency to somewhat 'mask' the effect of the Cycle, and blur it. (Even if a society was moving into 4T mode, it could, for example, have a lot of older Silents still in high hereditary position, with no way to remove them. This could affect the flow of events. A really long-lived Civic (or even Reactive) monarch could still be reigning when the rest of the society 'wanted' to go 4T).

Also, Europe is a big place, with lots of barriers to travel for low-technology societies. Thus it makes more sense to speak of national cycles than European ones, until perhaps Napoleon's day.

For that matter, the First World War looks suspiciously 4T-ish to my eyes, among the Europeans.

I and others like Brian Rush have seen Western Europe (Latin Christian part) moving in one saeculum since the Reformation. Many movements of the last 500 years have happened at roughly the same time (give or take several years) throughout Europe, The Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Wars of Religion, The Enlightenment, French revolution and it's aftermath, revolutions of the 1830's and 1840's, Wars of Nation Unification in the 1850's and 1860's and etc.

World War One was a 3T event for Europe, despite its effects. Germany after WW1 seem gotten deeper into a 3T, Weimar Republic period was probably the most decadence unravelling of all time. The same thing was happening in the rest of Europe. In 1930's and 1940's Europe had its 4T, which featured the rise of Nazism, The Spanish Civil War and WW2, which was an even more destructive war than WW1.

WW2 had more permanment effects on Europe than WW1 did, Eastern Europe Jewry was almost destoryed and boundaries of whole ethnic groups and nations were changed permanment, that did not happen after WW1.