Paul Gibbons wrote:

So by the GR 4T England was 3-5 years behind, but by the FR/Napoleonic 4T they were considerably more so (in your view)?

If you mean in comparison with the American Revolution Crisis, yes they were. First, lets compare when the time for the American Revolutionary Crisis, with England's French Revolutionary Crisis, as I'd discovered through my readings. (Oh, for those of you who don't know me, I have a BA in European History from Penn State (Class of 83), a MA in Early Modern European History, emphesis on the period 1640-1789, from Ohio Univeristy ('85) and an Master of Library Science from Drexel Univeristy ('87):

America's Revolutionary Crisis - 1773-1794

Awakeners entering elderhood
Liberty entering midlife
Republicans entering young adulthood
Compromisers entering childhood


French Revolutionary Crisis - 1783-1806

Evangelicals entering elderhood
Radicals entering midlife
Britons entering young adulthood
Romantics entering childhood

Now, let's look at the the Generations:

In America, the Generations were:

Awakening (Prophets) - 1701-1723
Liberty (Nomads) - 1724-1741
Republican (Hero) - 1742-1766
Compromise (Artist) -1767-1791

In Britain (Or rather England), the Generations were:

Evangelical (Prophets) - 1702-1727
Radical (Nomads) - 1728-1754
Briton (Heros) - 1755-1780
Romantic (Artists) - 1781-1800

Now, if my theory is correct, and I do believe it is, you can already see that Britain (England) and America, generation wise, had started to spilt apart, with the split being clearly seen in the birth years of the two Nomads generations' start and end years. Now why did this happen. Very simple. It was when the Awakening occurred in the two countries. Britain's Awakening period started later then the Awakening did in America.

America:

The Great Awakening - 1727-1746

Glorious entering elderhood
Enlighteners entering midlife
Awakeners entering young adulthood
Liberty entering childhood

Britain:

Evangelical Awakening - 1733-1757

Glorious entering elderhood
Hanoverians entering midlife
Evangelicals entering young adulthood
Radicals entering childhod

If my theory is accurate, and based on my readings, the First Great Awakening, or as it is know in England, the Evangelical Awakening, started in America, then moved over to England, but really didn't get into high gear in Britain until c. 1738 with the conversion of the Wesley brothers and Whitfield, and only after the Wesley had spent some time in the new American colony of Georgia. (In fact, the Wesleys are first wave Evangelicals while Whitfiled is a mid-to-late waver.) The major war for Britain of that period was the War of Jenkin's Ear (Don't laugh, the Evangelicals took it seriously) and the contiental series of wars that go under the general heading, The War of the Austrian Succession, also known here as King George's War. And, for you completist out there, The Jacobite Rising of 1745-46 also happened during this time. Also, an older Glorious Prime Minister (Sir Robert Walpole) was driven out of office after having been in power for over 20 years. Now, since the Awakening occured and lastet longer than it did in the US, the following Unravelling happened later in Britain then it did in America. In fact, the Revolution Crisis in America caught England still in its Unravelling.

America:

French & Indian Wars - 1746-1773

Enlighteners entering elderhood
Awakeners entering midlife
Liberty entering young adulthood
Republicans entering childhood

Britain (England):

Macaroni Unraveling - 1757-1783

Hanoverians entering elderhood
Evangelicals entering midlife
Radicals entering young adulthood
Britons entering childhood.

Now, before someone ask when the French and Indian Wars/Seven Years War, fit in the two countries' Unravelings, it occurs at the beginning of Britain's unravelling, while its near the middle of America's.

Phew. Now, any more questions? :wink: Oh, one last thing, the mood for England's French Revolution Crisis, for lack of a better word(s), was a Conservative Panic, especially among the majority of the ruling elite. The elite feared that what was happening in Revolutionary French (Hello, Madame La Guillotine, you're on in ten minutes. ) would happen to them in England, and they were not going to let that happen if they could help it.

Stanley '61

Wow Stanley. Thank you.

My BA is in European history, but my MA is in American, concentrating on Awakening figures (mostly J. Edwards and W. J. Bryan) and then focusing like a laser beam on Bryan and Darwinism. You're extensive (intensive?)European knowledge is very, very handy here.

I indeed have some questions. :wink:

1. Why do you think the Evangelical Awakening in England lasted so much longer than the Great Awakening in America? This seems to be the point of transatlantic saecular demarcation. Is it because of wasted time in the "low gear" first portion (1733-1738) on the English side?

2. Why do you call the 18th century English Nomads "Radicals"?

3. Macaroni??

4. I assume you have Britain's Napoleonic 4T begin with the painful realizations regarding their loss of America and end with the aftermath of Nelson's triumph. Would you put that later on the Continent? Say 1789-1815? That would put Britain between America and the Continent saecularly which I believe they still are today (though the whole difference is now much more narrow).

5. How do you see the 19th century play out in Western Europe? Big question, I know.

Macaroni n.

a. A well-traveled young Englishman of the 18th and 19th centuries who affected foreign customs and manners.

b. A fop.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Macaroni n.

a. A well-traveled young Englishman of the 18th and 19th centuries who affected foreign customs and manners.

b. A fop.

Does that have something to do with being a Yankee Doodle Dandy?

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Macaroni n.

a. A well-traveled young Englishman of the 18th and 19th centuries who affected foreign customs and manners.

b. A fop.

Does that have something to do with being a Yankee Doodle Dandy?

Originally Posted by Costumes - The Clothes Men Wore

The next and last change was a violent one. In 1770, the Macaroni appeared, whose style of head dress we have already described. He cut his coat much shorter and left it unfastened to show his waist-coat, also shortened till it reached the waist only. His two watches, with
their dangling seals, hung from his pockets ; and a large white neckerchief was tied in a full bow beneath his chin. The turnover collar of his coat was small. The latter fitted snugly and was ornamented with lace or braid, embroidery, frogs and sometimes tassels. His tight breeches of striped or spotted silk reached to the knee and were tied with bunches of ribbons or strings. Small paste or diamond buckles adorned his shoes, and his stockings, of course, were of silk. Upon his enormous toupee, was perched a tiny hat, which he removed with his cane when necessary. The latter was decorated with tassels. A sword also dangled at his side.

He was a very curious object and did not escape caricatures and lampoons of all kinds. The Oxford Magazine for 1770 said : " A kind of animal, neither male nor female, lately started up amongst us. It is called a Macaroni. It talks without meaning, it smiles without pleasantry, it eats without appetite, it rides without exercise." The type originated about 1770, when a number of fashionable young Englishmen who had made the "Grand Tour," formed themselves, on their return, into a club, which they named in honour of Italy's favourite dish. From the Macaroni Club they took their name, and they carried extravagance in fashion, in dress, and in manner to the verge of absurdity. In 1772-'3, they altered their costume slightly, combing their hair still higher above their foreheads in an oval shape, with large curls above each ear. They also wore knots of flowers upon their breasts.

230 years of Progress:


" A kind of animal, neither male nor female, lately started up amongst us. It is called a Metrosexual. It talks without meaning, it smiles without pleasantry, it eats without appetite, it rides without exercise."

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Macaroni n.

a. A well-traveled young Englishman of the 18th and 19th centuries who affected foreign customs and manners.

b. A fop.

Does that have something to do with being a Yankee Doodle Dandy?

Originally Posted by Costumes - The Clothes Men Wore

The next and last change was a violent one. In 1770, the Macaroni appeared, whose style of head dress we have already described. He cut his coat much shorter and left it unfastened to show his waist-coat, also shortened till it reached the waist only. His two watches, with
their dangling seals, hung from his pockets ; and a large white neckerchief was tied in a full bow beneath his chin. The turnover collar of his coat was small. The latter fitted snugly and was ornamented with lace or braid, embroidery, frogs and sometimes tassels. His tight breeches of striped or spotted silk reached to the knee and were tied with bunches of ribbons or strings. Small paste or diamond buckles adorned his shoes, and his stockings, of course, were of silk. Upon his enormous toupee, was perched a tiny hat, which he removed with his cane when necessary. The latter was decorated with tassels. A sword also dangled at his side.

He was a very curious object and did not escape caricatures and lampoons of all kinds. The Oxford Magazine for 1770 said : " A kind of animal, neither male nor female, lately started up amongst us. It is called a Macaroni. It talks without meaning, it smiles without pleasantry, it eats without appetite, it rides without exercise." The type originated about 1770, when a number of fashionable young Englishmen who had made the "Grand Tour," formed themselves, on their return, into a club, which they named in honour of Italy's favourite dish. From the Macaroni Club they took their name, and they carried extravagance in fashion, in dress, and in manner to the verge of absurdity. In 1772-'3, they altered their costume slightly, combing their hair still higher above their foreheads in an oval shape, with large curls above each ear. They also wore knots of flowers upon their breasts.

230 years of Progress:


" A kind of animal, neither male nor female, lately started up amongst us. It is called a Metrosexual. It talks without meaning, it smiles without pleasantry, it eats without appetite, it rides without exercise."

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Thank you Mr. Saari.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Macaroni n.

a. A well-traveled young Englishman of the 18th and 19th centuries who affected foreign customs and manners.

b. A fop.

Does that have something to do with being a Yankee Doodle Dandy?

Originally Posted by Costumes - The Clothes Men Wore

The next and last change was a violent one. In 1770, the Macaroni appeared, whose style of head dress we have already described. He cut his coat much shorter and left it unfastened to show his waist-coat, also shortened till it reached the waist only. His two watches, with
their dangling seals, hung from his pockets ; and a large white neckerchief was tied in a full bow beneath his chin. The turnover collar of his coat was small. The latter fitted snugly and was ornamented with lace or braid, embroidery, frogs and sometimes tassels. His tight breeches of striped or spotted silk reached to the knee and were tied with bunches of ribbons or strings. Small paste or diamond buckles adorned his shoes, and his stockings, of course, were of silk. Upon his enormous toupee, was perched a tiny hat, which he removed with his cane when necessary. The latter was decorated with tassels. A sword also dangled at his side.

He was a very curious object and did not escape caricatures and lampoons of all kinds. The Oxford Magazine for 1770 said : " A kind of animal, neither male nor female, lately started up amongst us. It is called a Macaroni. It talks without meaning, it smiles without pleasantry, it eats without appetite, it rides without exercise." The type originated about 1770, when a number of fashionable young Englishmen who had made the "Grand Tour," formed themselves, on their return, into a club, which they named in honour of Italy's favourite dish. From the Macaroni Club they took their name, and they carried extravagance in fashion, in dress, and in manner to the verge of absurdity. In 1772-'3, they altered their costume slightly, combing their hair still higher above their foreheads in an oval shape, with large curls above each ear. They also wore knots of flowers upon their breasts.

230 years of Progress:


" A kind of animal, neither male nor female, lately started up amongst us. It is called a Metrosexual. It talks without meaning, it smiles without pleasantry, it eats without appetite, it rides without exercise."

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Yet another sign of a dying 3T on it's last legs?

Paul Gibbons wrote:

1. Why do you think the Evangelical Awakening in England lasted so much longer than the Great Awakening in America? This seems to be the point of transatlantic saecular demarcation. Is it because of wasted time in the "low gear" first portion (1733-1738) on the English side?

Answer: The major players of the Awakening, John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield were all in college during those years, but they were all members of a group that was called the "Holy Club" or "The Oxford Methodists" who were more pious then their contemporaries. Another member of that generation of prophets, Henry Fielding, was helping work on plays that was making fun of Walpole's Administration and society in general, and another famous member, Samuel Johnson, was just starting to write in the London papers of the time. Another group of the generation, the Political Wing you might say, known as Cobden's Cubs or the Patriots (Cobden, a member of the Glorious, was a military man and MP who got cashiered (You're Fired! Let go of your paid for commission.) when he got on the wrong side of a political issue with Walpole) among which was William Pitt the Elder, only started to appear around this period. The ones who were really going after Walpole at that time (Bolingbroke, Gay and Pope among others) were Hanoverians who were more thinking of removing Walpole and taking over the government, but, they failed and eventually withdrew, after having gotten blood during the Excise Crisis of 1733-34, (In fact, there were riots and demonstration against the Excise Act during that time, showing how much the (Political) people did not want that measure passed.) when they forced Walpole to withdraw his Excise scheme that would've help the country financially as the money, IIRC, was to be used to end smuggling, thus reducing the costs of the products the average Briton was paying for, but the country at large was told by his opponents that it would just mean more intrusion into their lives, and the people seem to have supported his opponents. (Gee, does that sound familair?) The first and mid-wavers of the Evangelicals were only being noticed starting in 1733, which was the start of the slow eroding of Walpole's power as the PM, but they would only be noticed starting in 1738. (Oh, one last thing. 1738 was the year of the birth of Radical King George III and the publication of Bolingbroke's The Idea of a Patriot King, something a lot of Englanders hope that the new babe would be (a Patriot King) when he became king.)

Stanley '61

Paul Gibbons wrote:

2. Why do you call the 18th century English Nomads "Radicals"?

The generation, especially those who were in politics, appear to be in the forefront of Radical causes and what they thought were necessary reforms of society, especially on the Reform of Parliament. I might change the name later, but, if I change the Britons to Romantics and the Romantics to Reforms, then Radicals would fit, since they were the ones who saw the problems that needed to be corrected, until the French Revolution Crisis, when they, like King George III (Yes, he wanted the government reformed, it was just that the reforms he wanted others folks in the political nation didn't want them) and Edmund Burke, among others, went bloody Conservative with a capital C, and the Reforms were the ones who actually corrected the problems in the 1830s.

Stanley '61

Paul Gibbons wrote:

3. Macaroni??

I would like to thank Virgil for supplying what I think is a lot better answer than I would've supplied Paul. That was the main reason why I used the term for that Unraveling. Man, Paul, you should've seen the long hair get-ups of the female version, especially in print.

Stanley '61

Paul Gibbon wrote:

4. I assume you have Britain's Napoleonic 4T begin with the painful realizations regarding their loss of America and end with the aftermath of Nelson's triumph. Would you put that later on the Continent? Say 1789-1815? That would put Britain between America and the Continent saecularly which I believe they still are today (though the whole difference is now much more narrow).

I would, at the moment, give you a maybe. France might be a few years later than England's start, but the explosion of 1789 obviously needed a short lead to, since the ideas of the American Revolution needed a short time to grab hold inside the country from the officers and soldiers of the French forces that were sent to help America win its independence, as well as for the France's financial debt to go to a crisis stage. As for the rest of Europe, it's been a long time since I'd done a proper study of most of the continent, other than Military, and Military wise, I would have to say that they were lagging behind the US, England (Britain) and France.

Stanley '61

Paul Gibbons wrote:

5. How do you see the 19th century play out in Western Europe? Big question, I know.

No idea. All I can be sure of is that 1848 was an Awakening year, 1859-1871 were years of crisis, especially for the Italian and the German states and I'm sure the years 1870-71 were years of Crisis for France (Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune) and that the 1890s have to be mostly years of another Awakening. But these are mostly guesses, since I am not as well verse in 19th century history as I would like to be.

Stanley '61

Paul Gibbons wrote:

Wow Stanley. Thank you.

You're welcome.

My BA is in European history, but my MA is in American, concentrating on Awakening figures (mostly J. Edwards and W. J. Bryan) and then focusing like a laser beam on Bryan and Darwinism. You're extensive (intensive?) European knowledge is very, very handy here.

Well, I will admit that I'm not as knowledgeable for the period after 1789, but I am learning. And, there are some parts of Europe I am not so knowledgeable about (*Cough* Spain, Portugal, Balkans, Russia *Cough). Oh, did anyone read David Brewer's The Greek War of Independence? I hope to read it, but from what I know about the war, I want to know if anyone else has the feeling that it might've been a Crisis event for Greece?

I indeed have some questions.

All answered above. :wink:

Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

... his Excise scheme that would've help the country financially as the money, IIRC, was to be used to end smuggling, thus reducing the costs of the products the average Briton was paying for...
Stanley '61

This doesn't make sense to me. Ending smuggling would reduce the supply and if anything drive prices up.

jeffw wrote:

This doesn't make sense to me. Ending smuggling would reduce the supply and if anything drive prices up.

You seem to forget, smuggling is illegal and against the law, then and now. And dry up what supply? Depends on what supply you mean. At that time, England was an agriculutral country, so it wasn't food stuff that was being smuggled. In fact, England was a food exporter. It wasn't woolen products, since England was trying hard to find markets for their woolen products. It wasn't coal. The phrase, 'taking coal to Newcastle' comes to mind. So, what was being smuggled? Items that was mostly wanted by the upper 1/3 of English society, like silk and cotton products, certain type of furnitures, spices, etc. People who could afford the smuggled items, they just wanted to avoid paying the excise which was placed on these items, since they were considered luxuries by the government.

Stanley '61

Europe is a few years earlier in it's 3T than the US. One

thing I've noticed in Europe was that in the 1980's the

United States sacrifaced everything to bring the Millennials

into the world. Europe's native birthrates are dropping

drastically. As America inaurgurates it's first Millennial

President, Europe would Muslim republics. The latest 3T

event in Europe is the reluctance to allow Turkey to join

the European Union.

Interesting, Western Europe seems to be showing signs of some of the same patterns we've been seeing in the United States.

The following is quoted without intent of profit or infringement for purposes of illustration.

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1410786,00.html]Cultural Suicide]


We are committing cultural suicide
Anthony Browne
Christianity is being insidiously erased from the map. It?s time we fought back

COMPARE AND contrast 1:
(a) Sikhs storm a theatre in Britain showing a play depicting rape inside a Sikh temple;
(b) The Red Cross bans Nativity scenes in its shops;
Compare and contrast 2:
(a) Christmas trees and decorations are banned in Saudi Arabia;
(b) Christmas trees and decorations are banned in Britain?s Jobcentres.



The extremes that other religions go to preserve their cultural heritage is only matched in Christianity by its extreme death-wish.

Christmas has always stirred passion, attracting opponents and supporters. But until recently banning it has been so culturally offensive that fictional Christophobes entered the English language for their infamy. Ebenezer Scrooge declared ?every idiot who goes about with ?Merry Christmas? on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly in his heart?. Dr Seuss?s How the Grinch Stole Christmas declared that the Grinch?s motivation was ?that his heart was two sizes too small?.

But real-life Scrooges and Grinches have banned Christmas before, not because their hearts were too small, but because their bigotry was too great. And now it is happening again.

In 1647 Oliver Cromwell cancelled Christmas: no parties, no fun, no days off work. Cromwell?s Puritanism was offended by bacchanalian revelry, led by the Lord of Misrule. Each year, town criers went through the land ordering that ?Christmas and all other superstitious festivals? should not be celebrated.

The English were outraged. Secret festivities were held, pro-Christmas riots broke out and dozens of Christmas martyrs were jailed. A pamphlet called An Hue and Cry after Christmas was published, demanding that: ?Any man or woman, that can give any knowledge, or tell any tidings of an old, old, very old grey bearded gentleman, called Christmas . . . let him bring him back again into England.?

In the past century, the godless Communists banned Christmas. In Cuba, Fidel Castro allowed people to take Christmas Day off work only after an intervention by the Pope.

Now the Christophobes are on the rampage again. The heirs of the Puritans and Communists have declared war on Christmas. But this time it is by stealth and guilt-tripping. The first step is to eviscerate the festival of any meaning by taking the Christ out of Christmas. Even as a lifelong atheist who finds all God stuff embarrassing, I appreciate Christmas?s religious message. But you are as likely to find a reference to Christ in civic Christmas decorations as you are to find a sixpence in a Christmas pudding. Almost no companies and few individuals send cards with any religious message. For the third consecutive year Christmas postage stamps will be Christless. A quarter of schools will not have Nativity plays, and almost as many have banned carols.

Once Christmas has been supplanted by a spiritually vacuous post-Christian orgy of consumption, the next phase of the war is to ban it altogether. Simply turn it, as Birmingham famously did, into a generic ?Winterval? to make it equally meaningless to everyone. Tony Blair?s Christmas cards have no reference to, well, Christmas. The Eden Centre in Cornwall has banned Christmas, replacing it with ?a time of gifts?.

The war on Christmas is being waged across Christendom. In Italy, a school replaced the Nativity play with Little Red Riding Hood, while another replaced the word ?Jesus? in carols with ?virtue?. The Mayor of Sydney caused outrage by reducing the city?s Christmas decorations to a single secular illuminated tree with the sign ?Season?s greetings?. The US now has a national ?holiday tree? and schools take ? winter holidays?. Christianity has gone back to its origins, and become the world?s most widely persecuted religion, finally prompting the Vatican to hit back with a campaign against ?Christianophobia?.

So who are the modern-day Scrooges, Grinches, Cromwells and Castros, and what motivates them? In most cases, the Chistophobes use the excuse of multiculturalism, insisting that celebrating Christmas is offensive to non-Christian minorities, often citing Muslims. But the truth is that it is done in the name of Muslims, rather than at the request of Muslims, who accept the existence of Christ. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists don?t mind Christmas celebrations any more than Christians object to Diwali, Eid or Chanukkah. As Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said: ?It?s not offensive to minority communities to celebrate the festival of Christmas.?

No, the real Christophobes are the self-loathing, guilt-ridden politically-correct liberal elite, driven by anti-Christian bigotry and a ruthless determination to destroy their own heritage and replace it with ?the other?. It is the American Civil Liberties Union that is threatening lawsuits against any schools that allow the singing of carols and the BBC?s editorial policy bans criticism of the Koran, but not the Bible.

In reality, the Christophobes are acting against the interests of ethnic minorities. By stripping Britain of its culture and traditions, they are causing a dangerous rising tide of anger. It prevents social cohesion and integration ? who could want to integrate into a culture that is committing suicide?

So do your bit for community relations. Don?t let Scrooge and the Grinch win. Like the English under Cromwell, protest if you spot any Christophobes waging war on Christmas, sing a Christmas carol, and wish your neighbours ?Merry Christmas

Of all the world's religions, only Christianity has made evangelizing a bedrock instituiton of the religion itself. That governments may wisely elect to distance themselves and the states they represent from any suggestion that they are part of the tub-thumping says less about the governements and more about those Christrian sects that seem bent on converting every soul their righteous cause(s).

A religion that is true should be capable of standing on its own. Governement validation should not be needed ... or desired, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Of all the world's religions, only Christianity has made evangelizing a bedrock instituiton of the religion itself.

This statement is simply factually false. Islam is universalist, among others. The universalist element of Christianity is where the West derives its tendency to believe in things like universal rights and universal equality. You can't have one without the other.

As for 'validation', that misses the point. What the self-destructive element of the Western elite wants to do is use state power to de-Christianize the West. The effect of that would be suicide.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Of all the world's religions, only Christianity has made evangelizing a bedrock instituiton of the religion itself.

This statement is simply factually false. Islam is universalist, among others. The universalist element of Christianity is where the West derives its tendency to believe in things like universal rights and universal equality. You can't have one without the other.

I'm sure you tie these two points together somehow. What universal rights has to do with proselytizing is beyond me. Actually, to many non-Christians, it rates as somewhere in the obnoxious-insulting-threatening regime, especially when governement sanction is involved.

BTW, it is unique to Christians. Refer to Differences: Practices for a moderate Muslim view.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

As for 'validation', that misses the point. What the self-destructive element of the Western elite wants to do is use state power to de-Christianize the West. The effect of that would be suicide.

No, you want to use the government to make Christianity 'first among equals'. Refer again to obnoxious-insulting-threatening. Religion is compatible with suassion, but incompatible with force ... even implied force.

The one point that does stand on it's own is the right of the citizen/subject population of a nation to set standards for themselves and others within that nation's borders. It's outrageous for any group to come to another country and demand the 'right' to thier own courts and, more to the point, their own jurisprudence.

If, for example, drinking is punishable in 'your country', but not in mine, I have eveyright to tell you to pound salt if one of your kinspeople get's plastered in 'my country'. If you decide you can't live with that and decide to enact retribution on your own, I have the right to insist you leave. If you decide murder or mayhem is the proper punishment, its you who should go to prison, and not one of you're choosing, either.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

What the self-destructive element of the Western elite wants to do is use state power to de-Christianize the West.

No, you want to use the government to make Christianity 'first among equals'.

Personally, I think that BOTH accusations are equally true - that BOTH sides want to ram their personal preferences on the matter down 'those @&%?*$!' throats - sideways! :evil:

That's one reason why I still refuse to rule out the possibility of another Civil War - each side ultimately wants to use the power of the state to repress the other - by force, if need be (or maybe preferably!). :evil:

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

What the self-destructive element of the Western elite wants to do is use state power to de-Christianize the West.

No, you want to use the government to make Christianity 'first among equals'.

Personally, I think that BOTH accusations are equally true - that BOTH sides want to ram their personal preferences on the matter down 'those @&%?*$!' throats - sideways! :evil:

That's one reason why I still refuse to rule out the possibility of another Civil War - each side ultimately wants to use the power of the state to repress the other - by force, if need be (or maybe preferably!). :evil:

Could be.

5,000 Europeans who vacationed in the regions hit by the tsunami are missing, including 2,500 from Sweden.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0_70?hub=World

For Sweden, this tragedy dwarfs 9/11 -- less than 9 million people live in Sweden.

Any predictions as to whether this will be a spark that helps shake Europe out of the 3T?

Originally Posted by Hermione Granger

5,000 Europeans who vacationed in the regions hit by the tsunami are missing, including 2,500 from Sweden.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0_70?hub=World

For Sweden, this tragedy dwarfs 9/11 -- less than 9 million people live in Sweden.

Any predictions as to whether this will be a spark that helps shake Europe out of the 3T?

Unlikely, I think. While the tsunami was of near-global proportions, it was simply - not to diminish the impact - a natural disaster. It will force many to look harder into understanding the workings of the planet and better prepare for it, but due to the infrequent nature of such events I don't think a paradigm shift is in order for this tragedy.