Interesting take on the relationship between Britain and France.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4088132.stm

**For Discussion Purposes ONLY**

Franco-British row: Another 100-year war?
By Paul Reynolds

Blair and Chirac: getting personal

You can always depend on the British and French to turn an argument into a row. Having witnessed them over many years, I have tried to identify the various rules governing these encounters.

There is no closed season. Each side can attack the other whenever it wants. The subject doesn't really matter. This is the 100-years war by other means. The key thing is to maintain the offensive on whatever front.

Each party knows that the other can take it. It is a way of continuing history - with nobody killed. France and the UK know underneath that not since Waterloo have they come to blows nor will they again.

The Entente may not be that Cordiale but it is now 101 years old. Both love this at heart. They are two sides of the same coin - both nationalistic, proud and prickly. And a bit absurd to others.

This is an exclusive Franco-British club. It is evenly matched. Nobody else can join. It is impossible, for example, to bring the Germans in. They might take it too seriously and history is just a bit too sensitive. And nobody else counts. You cannot have such fun with Luxembourg.

Treat the other side's arguments with contempt. You present your own, of course, as gospel. Thus, the French see nothing but good in the common agriculture policy and the British see nothing but bad. The same is true with the rebate. You must never concede that the other fellow might have a point. Not in public anyway.

Blame the other side for your own failings. In the recent referendum the French blamed the Brits for something called "Anglo-Saxon" attitudes and policies which were apparently threatening to ruin France. The counter charge is that European (meaning French-inspired) bureaucracy is strangling the plucky Brits.

You can turn this personal if all else fails. Margaret Thatcher used to scowl and rail about "they" during the heights of the original rebate rows. "They" were any Frenchmen. She never forgave the French for their ambivalent attitude, as she saw it and she saw it only one way, towards the Falklands War.
I am sure there must be other rules. It is certainly a very intense game.

Most of these rules apply to the current spat.

Tony and Jacques

Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac are not so chummy anymore.

It all started off well enough. Uncle Jacques kept on saying how fond he was of the Blair's baby - little Leo.

Then, as now, they fell out over the common agricultural policy. In 2002, Uncle Jacques turned on his friend and said: "You have been very badly brought up." For a boy educated at the fine Fettes College in Edinburgh, that must have stung.

Next it was Iraq. Serious differences turned nasty. The French were incensed that the British accused Mr Chirac of refusing a second Security Council resolution whatever the circumstances. A false charge, said Paris. But it was too late. London had someone to blame.

It all started off well enough. Uncle Jacques kept on saying how fond he was of the Blair's baby - little Leo

Now, the stunning French rejection of the EU constitution, which has huge international implications, has been obscured by a coincidental and much narrower argument over the EU budget and in particular the British budget rebate.

This time, it is the Brits who accuse the French of diversionary tactics.

Things have got so bad that it seems that Mr Blair is to give his own news conference after his meeting with Uncle Jacques in Paris on Tuesday. Normally the form on these occasions is to have a joint one, however fraught.

Lessons from history

But has it not always been so? One event - two views.

Remember General de Gaulle and his tones of disapproval as he said "Non" to British membership of the then Common Market? Britain was different, he murmured. For the British, these were words of rejection when they expected gratitude for the refuge given to him in France's darkest hour. For the French (and others) they were words of warning which might just have come true.

And before that, there was that little episode at Dunkirk. For the British, it was heroic (we forget the failure bit). For the French, it looked like the British were running for cover.

And so on, back through history.

1066 and all that

Until we get to the common ancestor, William the Conqueror.

And there one pauses, because then it becomes clear that all these arguments are a bit silly, really. All you have to do is to look at the inscription on the British memorial near Caen, put up after World War II. The original is in Latin but it translates as: "We the sons of William have returned to free his native land."

That lends all this stuff about the EU a bit of perspective.

Originally Posted by Bat Mitzvah Girl

Originally Posted by goldenboy

What is the deeper source of European antipathy to religion?

Maybe the Europeans are having a bad hangover after centuries of viscious religious wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, topped by the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Not to mention wars in Spain and the Balkans against Muslims.

The problem with that is that war went merrily on after it was superficially divorced from religion. I say superficially because the emotional energy that fueled communism, fascism, even to a limited degree capitalistic nationalism were very similar to the energies that drove the former religious wars. The 'wars of the isms' in the 19th and 20th centuries could easily be compared to the previous religious wars in their brutality and intensity.

Modern Europe hasn't just disengaged from religion (or so it would appear, I suspect Europe's current secularism is a passing stage), they appear to be disengaged from most things requiring much committment or passion. I do think war is a big part of the reason for that, the World Wars left Europe littered with corpses, wrecked cities, maimed (physically and emotionally) survivors, and produced little of apparent value to Europe, since at their end power and influence had shifted to the east and west to Washington and Moscow.

IMO, as a result of the World Wars, Europe's version of the Silent, their current Elder Adaptives, are more archetypically 'Adaptive' than America's Silent, and also a few years younger (I believe most of the Generations in Europe are few years younger than their 'matching' American cohorts). I think this because of the unoriginal reeason that America was surging into a vigorous High while Europe was still picking up the shattered pieces from the World Wars.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

1066 and all that

Until we get to the common ancestor, William the Conqueror.

And there one pauses, because then it becomes clear that all these arguments are a bit silly, really. All you have to do is to look at the inscription on the British memorial near Caen, put up after World War II. The original is in Latin but it translates as: "We the sons of William have returned to free his native land."

That lends all this stuff about the EU a bit of perspective. [/color]

One of the oddities of the modernist viewpoint is that it likes to maintain that the Enlightenment transformed everything, but a brief look at European history post-Englightenment gives the lie to the claim. One of Europe's favorite games is 'reassigning' the nationalities and loyalties of past figures in light of present-day (any present-day point in the past) preferences.

For example, William the Conqueror was not actually French, though he was from what is now France. He was Norman, more of a Viking than a Frenchman by ancestry and in some ways by outlook. Also, he was not viewed as a hero in England in the day, he was an outsider who had conquered England, and in fact the Norman aristocracy spoke French and were seen as 'un-English' for a very long time afterward.

The actual French monarchy tended to see Normandy as its problem child, and England was sucked into (and sometimes intentionally stepped into) the argument, back and forth, for centuries. All sides had extensive, and often quite sincerely held, legal justifications for their various actions (the Middle Ages were very legalistic, in their way).

The true 'common ancestor' figure from the early West would not be William, but Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor (a story on its own), and the descendent nations are not France and England/Britain (not that Britain and England are the same thing historically, either), but France and Germany.

Charlemagne's empire stretched over much of today's central/western Europe, and in some ways he could be looked at as the first major political figure of Western Civilization. But his empire was divided along various lines, including a language divide between Latin-speaking Francs in the southwest and native-speaking Francs in the northeast. It took only a couple of generations for the empire to fracture roughly along that divide, into three states held by Charlemagne's grandsons.

The two big chunks would become, over time, the political/territorial entities we call France and Germany (though Germany was once called East France, in recognition of their common ethnic/social/political origin).

The middle strip of the former original HRE, held by Charlemagne's descendant Lothair, later evolved into Belgium, and some pieces of land that France and East France have fought over for a thousand years, up until the last time in the 1940s (if that really was the last time).

Thus my point about continuity. When the World Wars were raging within living memory, the soldiers and peoples fighting on each side were playing out the latest act in a very old show.

Interestingly, a really wild notion has been circulating here and there in modern Western Europe, the notion of Franco-German unification. Of couse, given their pasts, it really should be called Franco-German 'RE-unification'. It's considered a far-out impossibility, a day-dream or a crazy notion...but something tells me that it might just happen, over the course of the next 100 years. The two are, after all, ultimately broken fragments of a past unity.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomas Fleming

Let me say at the outset that there is another technical word for this democratic theory and it is buncombe.

In a case of murder, the victim’s nearest male relatives had to prosecute or their was no case. On the other hand, if they failed to prosecute, one of the man’s friends might enter in a suit against them for impiety—but this again was more like a private or civil action in Anglo-American law.

Little things like this (and there are many others that can be found) are a reminder that Classical Civilization was basically different in some fundamental ways from our own Western Civilization. We tend to notice the similar features, creating an illusion of greater similarity than actually existed.

You beat me to this article, Virgil, IMHO it's one of the best I've seen regarding the recent EU electoral debacles.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Well, not those people.

One reason why the political class so dislikes populist movements is that it experiences them as a direct challenge to its values and worldview. This clash of values became evident during the recent referendums in Europe, where it was obvious that the 'No' campaigns were speaking a language that was morally and emotionally incomprehensible to the political class. The political class talked of subsidiarity, transparency, efficiency, human rights and protocols, while their opponents were discussing the problems of everyday life. By their very existence, the 'No' campaign calls into question the values of an increasingly technocratic and managerial oligarchy.

The exact same disconnect exists in America, too, though it forms up along different lines. IMHO the growing sense of opposition to the elite consensus in Europe is an indicator that the Generational Cycle is beginning to turn. The EU is almost the embodiment, in some ways, of the Adaptive worldview, but that worldview is being challenged more and more now.

One liberal activist, Michael Gronewalter, states that 'civility and intelligent dialogue are useful tools among intelligent people' but are inappropriate for engaging with the public. He argues:

'I really think the problem is that we liberals are in general far more intelligent, well-reasoned and educated and will go to astonishingly great lengths to convince people of the integrity and validity of our fair and well thought-out arguments. The audience, in case anyone has been paying attention, isn't always getting it! I suspect the problem is not the speaker - it is most of the audience.'

In America, while the disconnect exists on both sides of the political aisle, (as witness the growing political uproar over immigration and border control), it's most strongly associated with the left. But it isn't inherently linked to one political alignment, in Europe it turns on on both sides in different places.

The culture collision, in a different form, is spreading steadily to Europe.

One of the peculiarities of the techncratic mindset he describes is to be seen in the reaction in Brussels to the votes in France and the Netherlands: the other nations should keep trying to ratify it, even though by its own wording requires unanimity to be legal, and France is too large and crucial to the EU to be forced to vote again, which has been the past option of choice for the EU when they lose a referendum.

Already, instead of taking 'no' for an answer, the Euroelites are talking about working around it, enacting the key provisions by other means, etc. They share this impulse with American activists of some stripes, and in so doing the take the same political risks.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

1066 and all that

Until we get to the common ancestor, William the Conqueror.

And there one pauses, because then it becomes clear that all these arguments are a bit silly, really. All you have to do is to look at the inscription on the British memorial near Caen, put up after World War II. The original is in Latin but it translates as: "We the sons of William have returned to free his native land."

That lends all this stuff about the EU a bit of perspective. [/color]

One of the oddities of the modernist viewpoint is that it likes to maintain that the Enlightenment transformed everything, but a brief look at European history post-Englightenment gives the lie to the claim. One of Europe's favorite games is 'reassigning' the nationalities and loyalties of past figures in light of present-day (any present-day point in the past) preferences.

For example, William the Conqueror was not actually French, though he was from what is now France. He was Norman, more of a Viking than a Frenchman by ancestry and in some ways by outlook. Also, he was not viewed as a hero in England in the day, he was an outsider who had conquered England, and in fact the Norman aristocracy spoke French and were seen as 'un-English' for a very long time afterward.

The actual French monarchy tended to see Normandy as its problem child, and England was sucked into (and sometimes intentionally stepped into) the argument, back and forth, for centuries. All sides had extensive, and often quite sincerely held, legal justifications for their various actions (the Middle Ages were very legalistic, in their way).

The true 'common ancestor' figure from the early West would not be William, but Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor (a story on its own), and the descendent nations are not France and England/Britain (not that Britain and England are the same thing historically, either), but France and Germany.

Charlemagne's empire stretched over much of today's central/western Europe, and in some ways he could be looked at as the first major political figure of Western Civilization. But his empire was divided along various lines, including a language divide between Latin-speaking Francs in the southwest and native-speaking Francs in the northeast. It took only a couple of generations for the empire to fracture roughly along that divide, into three states held by Charlemagne's grandsons.

The two big chunks would become, over time, the political/territorial entities we call France and Germany (though Germany was once called East France, in recognition of their common ethnic/social/political origin).

The middle strip of the former original HRE, held by Charlemagne's descendant Lothair, later evolved into Belgium, and some pieces of land that France and East France have fought over for a thousand years, up until the last time in the 1940s (if that really was the last time).

Thus my point about continuity. When the World Wars were raging within living memory, the soldiers and peoples fighting on each side were playing out the latest act in a very old show.

Interestingly, a really wild notion has been circulating here and there in modern Western Europe, the notion of Franco-German unification. Of couse, given their pasts, it really should be called Franco-German 'RE-unification'. It's considered a far-out impossibility, a day-dream or a crazy notion...but something tells me that it might just happen, over the course of the next 100 years. The two are, after all, ultimately broken fragments of a past unity.

Yes, yes. But it was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek. You must've had a lot of coffee.

I like the comparison between Britain and France. You'll notice that in the early years of the republic, Jefferson sought an alliance with Revolutionary France, while Adams looked to England for an ally. But then again, Jefferson was Welsh - a Gael. Perhaps he was just looking to revive the "Auld Alliance."

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Modern Europe hasn't just disengaged from religion (or so it would appear, I suspect Europe's current secularism is a passing stage), they appear to be disengaged from most things requiring much committment or passion. I do think war is a big part of the reason for that, the World Wars left Europe littered with corpses, wrecked cities, maimed (physically and emotionally) survivors, and produced little of apparent value to Europe, since at their end power and influence had shifted to the east and west to Washington and Moscow.

Europe is still divided between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodoxy.
You'll notice that, aside from Greece and Cyprus, the EU member states are all Catholics and Protestants.
Of the new ten Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Lithuania are Catholic. Estonia is Protestant. Latvia is half and half. Bulgaria? Macedonia? Don't think so. Not Yet.
You'll also notice that the EU funding that helped countries like Ireland dig their way out of poverty, has disappeared into the pockets of Greek and Italian contractors. There are deep-seeded religious cleavages.

This article posted here for educational and discussion purposes only:

Dropping Baseball, Softball an Olympic-Sized Mistake
IOC Shows Anti-American Bias With Sport Subtractions
By JIM ARMSTRONG, AOL Exclusive


So once again, the IOC has lived up to its nickname: Idiots On Crack.

How else do you explain softball and baseball being dumped from the 2012 Olympics? Well, other than the obvious reason, that is. The powers that be in the Olympics detest Americans.

Apparently, they're not that keen on studying history, either, since they'd all be speaking German and wearing brown shirts if it weren't for Uncle Sam.

But I digress.

All you really need to know is this: Softball and baseball, two of the fastest-growing sports in the world, are out, and synchronized swimming, water polo and archery, the holy trinity of insomnia cures, are in.

Makes sense if you think about it. Provided you're a self-important Eurocrat with an agenda.

Not that it's any of my business, but did any of the stuffed shirts on the International Olympic Committee take attendance at the 2004 Games in Athens? If so, they would have seen packed or nearly packed houses for baseball and softball. Archery? There weren't enough people watching archery to fill the night shift at Denny's.

Talk about ironic. The same week the IOC announced it was bagging baseball and softball, Major League Baseball announced one of its coolest innovations in years. This week's Home Run Derby in Detroit will be contested among players from eight countries.

Moral to the story: The U.S. is just another face in the crowd these days when it comes to baseball. But if you need more proof, check out the past four Olympics, when Team USA has mustered all of two medals - one gold, one bronze.

The reason, of course, is that we don't send Major Leaguers to the Games. If we did, the U.S. would dominate just as it does in basketball, where our NBA players have proven to be invincible. What's that? Oh, yeah. Never mind.

There's been speculation in the aftermath of last week's announcement that the IOC is troubled by allegations of steroid use among U.S. baseball players.

Yeah, right. As if the Olympics has never had issues with steroids. Ever hear of track and field, wrestling and weight lifting? For that matter, some of those East German women's swimmers used to look like Hulk Hogan in curlers.

No, this all comes down to a simple matter of geography. Fifty seven of the 116 IOC delegates come from Europe, and they don't much care for sports Americans care about. Trouble is, Americans aren't the only ones who care about them.

Take softball, for instance. Twenty years ago, it was a niche sport in the United States. Today, there are 126 national softball teams throughout the world. And you thought golf was the fastest-growing women's sport.

You honestly think there are 126 countries with a passion for archery? Or taekwando? Or badminton? They all made the cut ahead of baseball and softball. So did beach volleyball, the national pastime of Iceland, no doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for badminton. Any sport you can play with a cold beer in one hand and a racquet or ball in the other is OK by me. But why keep it and get rid of two sports whose popularity continues to spread? Sounds like synchronized stupidity to me.

What, like the United States and Latin America have a monopoly on talented ballplayers? Apparently those members of the IOC have never heard of Ichiro Suzuki or Hideki Matsui. I'd give you the entire list of big leaguers from Asia, but there isn't enough room in the tight confines of cyberspace.

The only logical conclusion to all this is that the IOC wants to limit the number of medals the United States wins in future Olympics. Either that or its members have been too busy following their own favorite sports to pay any attention to softball and baseball.

Which brings us to soccer, yet another sport that made the cut at the expense of baseball and softball. While most Americans would rather total their cars or eat liver than watch soccer, it was, is and always will be Europe's favorite sport. It shows on the medals stand, too, where the United States shows up about as often as Jimmy Hoffa.

But when is the last time you heard a U.S. Olympic Committee official say soccer ought to be dropped from the Olympics? That would be never. As in, when is the last time the IOC did something that made any sense?

Jim Armstrong is a sports columnist for The Denver Post.

07-10-05 20:12 EDT

Here is an article I will post for discussion, and then post a few comments about. It's Bastille Day.

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

Chirac Comments


We're better than the British, says Chirac
By Henry Samuel in Paris
(Filed: 15/07/2005)

President Jacques Chirac celebrated Bastille Day yesterday by insisting that France had no need to "envy or copy" Britain.

Whether the point of comparison was food, health, education or science, France was in far better shape than its old rival, he said.

Mr Chirac, embattled by a run of crushing defeats and record low ratings in the polls, had clearly decided that the best form of defence was attack.

"I have a lot of esteem for the British people and for Tony Blair," he said. "But I do not believe that the British social model is a model that we should copy or envy."

In his annual Bastille Day television interview he did concede that unemployment was lower in Britain than in France, where it is running at more than 10 per cent. But in public health and tackling poverty the French were "much better placed than the British", he said.

France put a higher percentage of its national wealth into education and scientific research than Britain, Mr Chirac added - "So I don't envy their model."

His remarks were in stark contrast to recent comments by his popular interior minister and bitter rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, who extolled the "Anglo-Saxon model" Mr Chirac so reviles.

Mr Sarkozy even dared to ask out loud whether it was "France that is wrong and the world that is right".

Mr Chirac's response was not only a rebuff to Mr Sarkozy but also part of a concerted campaign to restore French pride at a time of national soul-searching and gloom.

His tub-thumping included French cuisine, which he said undoubtedly played a part in the nation's exceptionally high life expectancy.

An interviewer, referring to Mr Chirac's recent disparaging comments about British food, asked whether he really did consider it the world's worst.

"No, no, I did not say that," he replied, a factually correct answer as far as it went, as he had put British cooking second from bottom, above Finland.

Next in Mr Chirac's litany of praise came his country's birth rate, the highest in Europe with Ireland's, and its status as the world's "second agricultural power".

He reiterated his refusal to make "the slightest concession" on the Common Agricultural Policy, which the Prime Minister argues is in need of urgent reform because it takes up 40 per cent of the EU budget.

Behind all Mr Chirac's macho chest-beating hides a man struggling to salvage his reputation. More and more, the French are wondering how he can carry on as president for two more years when the polls show that fewer than one person in three trusts him.

Asked whether he was worried that France was tired of him, Mr Chirac said: "It is up to the French to decide, not me." He said he had carried out his duties as he thought best.

He even left his options open about running for a third term in 2007, saying that he would respond "at the appropriate time".

Mr Chirac's international credibility has suffered serious damage since French voters' rejection of the European constitution, his bruising clash with Mr Blair over Europe and the failure of Paris to win the race to hold the Olympic Games in 2012. But he remained bullish.

"When I am outside France, I absolutely do not feel on the defensive," he said. "I feel sure of myself."

The president played down reports that Mr Sarkozy had tartly suggested scrapping the traditional July 14 interview because most people would be "at the beach".

The annual television appearance was "without doubt of interest," Mr Chirac ruminated. "It is always good to launch debates."

Before the interview, the president and guests, including Sir John Holmes, the British ambassador to France, observed two minutes' silence in memory of the victims of the London bombings last Thursday.

"No country is sheltered from terrorist attacks," Mr Chirac said.

He was flanked at the Bastille Day military parade on the Champs Elysées by his guest of honour, President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva, of Brazil.

Thousands of people lined the streets as French jet fighters roared over, leaving a trail of red, white and blue, followed by Brazilian Tucano aircraft trailing the yellow and green of Brazil's flag to mark the year of "Brazil in France".

Security was tight to ward off any possible terrorist attacks, with more than 5,000 police officers patrolling the capital.

Don't worry, Mr. Chirac has a foolproof and time-honored way to fire up French crowds to support him come election time: appeal (once more) to their bitter anti-Americanism. :evil:

Of course, if even that fails to save his bacon with the French electorate,... :wink: :twisted:

[quote="HopefulCynic68"]

"I have a lot of esteem for the British people and for Tony Blair," he said. "But I do not believe that the British social model is a model that we should copy or envy."

In his annual Bastille Day television interview he did concede that unemployment was lower in Britain than in France, where it is running at more than 10 per cent. But in public health and tackling poverty the French were "much better placed than the British", he said.

France put a higher percentage of its national wealth into education and scientific research than Britain, Mr Chirac added - "So I don't envy their model."

France is feeling a lot of pressure on this point, but in fact I partly agree with Chirac on this. The French face a choice, and each choice brings good and bad with it. If they prefer their social model to Britain's, and are prepared to pay the necessary price of it to gain the benefits, more power to them.

It's probably a good thing that the West not become totally homogenous, not yet, anyway. One of the advantages of being divided into separate national communities is that it's possible to have different approaches in use at the same time.

Next in Mr Chirac's litany of praise came his country's birth rate, the highest in Europe with Ireland's, and its status as the world's "second agricultural power".

But the birth rate is not spread evenly across all parts of the French society, which is part of Europe's general problem. The highest birth rate is in a subculture that is (at best) poorly assimilated, with a growing tendency toward a cultural separatism. This is a dangerous combination over the long term.

Nationalism has shown some signs of resurging in Western Europe. Given Europe's history of bloody fratricidal warfare, that disturbs many, but at the same time, most of Europe's greatest accomplishments are tied to nationalism as well. The nation-states of Europe are communities with deep roots that can not be simply rearranged at will, which was part of why the Eurocrat's proposed treaty failed when put to the test.

Indeed, the very use of the phrase 'Europe' may be misleading as a political or social/cultural term, I'm not sure there is a distinct Europe, except in a purely geographical sense. It would probably make more sense to speak of 'the West' as the larger entity of which the nation-states are a part, which originated in but is far larger than geographic Europe.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

But the birth rate is not spread evenly across all parts of the French society, which is part of Europe's general problem. The highest birth rate is in a subculture that is (at best) poorly assimilated, with a growing tendency toward a cultural separatism. This is a dangerous combination over the long term.

That birth rate differential is one reason I fully expect that said subculture will end up swallowing up and assimilating not only France, but all of Western Europe, over the next century. Along with southern borders as porous as our own, despite the Mediterranean (which is proving to be no more of a barrier than the Rio Grande is over here).

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Don't worry, Mr. Chirac has a foolproof and time-honored way to fire up French crowds to support him come election time: appeal (once more) to their bitter anti-Americanism. :evil:

Of course, if even that fails to save his bacon with the French electorate,... :wink: :twisted:

France and America are in some ways natural rivals, though there is no inherent reason we can't be basically friendly rivals. America certainly has our own share of jokes about France, it seems to come naturally (you see 'French jokes' much more often than ones about Spain or Germany or Sweden, for ex). American politicians know how to play to anti-French prejudices, too.

A strange affinity/repulsion has existed between us and France almost since the foundation of the United States.

I do not see the current High European Muslim birthrate compared to other Europeans being a problem, in due time the European Muslim birth rate will decrease to levels near the birth rate of other Europeans.

The main problems are that firstly is failure of Muslim minorities to assimilate into mainstream European society, which European governments share a fair bit of the blame. Let me cite an example Germany is not willing to offer even the second generation who are born in Germany citizenship and regard it's immigrants as just 'guest workers'.

Secondly, many Muslims in Europe have no hope of joining the economic mainstream of Europe. Europe’s highly regulated Labor market does not have many low-level jobs, which the US economy have plenty of. Many Muslim and even non-muslims in Europe are unemployed and dependant on government handouts. It is far easier in America for immigrants to join the economic mainstream of society than it is in Europe.

I totally agree with The Optimist.

I would add a third point: America, and other "immigrant" countries, not only make it easy to "belong" but give strong implicit clues on how to do so. Fly some flags, show up on July fourth (or first, here), and you're one of us. Emotional acceptance is important.

Originally Posted by Bruce

I totally agree with The Optimist.

I would add a third point: America, and other "immigrant" countries, not only make it easy to "belong" but give strong implicit clues on how to do so. Fly some flags, show up on July fourth (or first, here), and you're one of us. Emotional acceptance is important.

Good point.

Originally Posted by The Optimist

I do not see the current High European Muslim birthrate compared to other Europeans being a problem, in due time the European Muslim birth rate will decrease to levels near the birth rate of other Europeans.

The main problems are that firstly is failure of Muslim minorities to assimilate into mainstream European society, which European governments share a fair bit of the blame. Let me cite an example Germany is not willing to offer even the second generation who are born in Germany citizenship and regard it's immigrants as just 'guest workers'.

Secondly, many Muslims in Europe have no hope of joining the economic mainstream of Europe. Europe’s highly regulated Labor market does not have many low-level jobs, which the US economy have plenty of. Many Muslim and even non-muslims in Europe are unemployed and dependant on government handouts. It is far easier in America for immigrants to join the economic mainstream of society than it is in Europe.

Agreed, but what exactly are the British doing wrong?

Milo wrote:

The Optimist wrote:

I do not see the current High European Muslim birthrate compared to other Europeans being a problem, in due time the European Muslim birth rate will decrease to levels near the birth rate of other Europeans.

The main problems are that firstly is failure of Muslim minorities to assimilate into mainstream European society, which European governments share a fair bit of the blame. Let me cite an example Germany is not willing to offer even the second generation who are born in Germany citizenship and regard it's immigrants as just 'guest workers'.

Secondly, many Muslims in Europe have no hope of joining the economic mainstream of Europe. Europe’s highly regulated Labor market does not have many low-level jobs, which the US economy have plenty of. Many Muslim and even non-muslims in Europe are unemployed and dependant on government handouts. It is far easier in America for immigrants to join the economic mainstream of society than it is in Europe.

Agreed, but what exactly are the British doing wrong?

I agreed with The Optomist as well. But to your question, I have no answer at the moment, as I haven't gotten to post '85 Britain, yet. But, I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is national baggage that the bombers brought with them. (Look to the countries where their families came from.)

Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

I agreed with The Optomist as well. But to your question, I have no answer at the moment, as I haven't gotten to post '85 Britain, yet. But, I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is national baggage that the bombers brought with them. (Look to the countries where their families came from.)

Stanley '61

Most of England's Muslims came from the Indian sub-continent, which has a saeculum matching England's. A lot of the Islamist fanatics in England and throughout Europe actually were born or been in these countries since they were children. The young men who did the London Bombings were very much reactive (think of Timothy McVeigh).

Watch the British film My Son the Fanatic, it gives out a good explanation of this social trend, it is even set in West Yorkshire.

Originally Posted by The Optimist

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

I agreed with The Optomist as well. But to your question, I have no answer at the moment, as I haven't gotten to post '85 Britain, yet. But, I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is national baggage that the bombers brought with them. (Look to the countries where their families came from.)

Stanley '61

Most of England's Muslims came from the Indian sub-continent, which has a saeculum matching England's. A lot of the Islamist fanatics in England and throughout Europe actually were born or been in these countries since they were children. The young men who did the London Bombings were very much reactive (think of Timothy McVeigh).

Watch the British film My Son the Fanatic, it gives out a good explanation of this social trend, it is even set in West Yorkshire.

Could you give a quick, rough outline of how you see the saeculum and turnings working in India/Pakistan?

"This encourages identity politics," Mr Leonard said. "That's what's happening now. The focus is on individuals like Merkel, not on policies, because nobody really knows what to do. The energy is all on the left. But they are not going to win, so it's a negative force."

Originally Posted by Mr. Simon Tisdall in the [i

Guardian[/i] (UK)]Germany is in a critical economic and social situation. We have to face up to the task. We have to find another direction."

As the September 18 federal election looms, the Left party, comprising ex-communists from the east German Party of Democratic Socialism, governing party defectors and the predominantly west German Work and Social Justice party, is upsetting applecarts left, right and centre.

Only a few weeks ago, Angela Merkel's conservative opposition Christian Democrats (CDU) and their allies seemed assured of an easy victory. But the latest polls show the Left party winning up to 60 Bundestag seats, which would make it Germany's third-largest political force.

And it could deny an outright majority to Ms Merkel while further weakening Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's ruling Social Democrats (SPD).

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Could you give a quick, rough outline of how you see the saeculum and turnings working in India/Pakistan?

Sorry I can't do that but they are about the same position in the saeculum as America and Europe are.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomas Fleming

Let me say at the outset that there is another technical word for this democratic theory and it is buncombe.

In a case of murder, the victim’s nearest male relatives had to prosecute or their was no case. On the other hand, if they failed to prosecute, one of the man’s friends might enter in a suit against them for impiety—but this again was more like a private or civil action in Anglo-American law.

Little things like this (and there are many others that can be found) are a reminder that Classical Civilization was basically different in some fundamental ways from our own Western Civilization. We tend to notice the similar features, creating an illusion of greater similarity than actually existed.

This raises a question...to what other civilizations might the West be usefully compared?

Originally Posted by David Krein

Sean - Here's what I worked out 6-7 years ago, and I am working extensively with the Romantic, Reform, Victorian, and Positivist Generations in my work now, and have plans (in a couple of years, once I get more done on my Reformed House of Commons book that I've been researching for more than 20 years) to write a book about the Reform Generation. I'm not sure that it will line up right visually in a posting, but I know you can sort it out.


Turning Date Archetype Name Born

High 1st (1702-1724) Prophet Augustan 1700-1721
Awakening 2nd (1725-1748) Nomad Georgian 1722-1747
Unraveling 3rd (1749-1777) Hero Romantic 1748-1774
Crisis 4th (1778-1805) Artist Reform 1775-1799
High 1st (1805-1821) Prophet Victorian 1800-1820
Awakening 2nd (1822-1841) Nomad Positivist 1821-1838
Unraveling 3rd (1842-1857) Hero Imperialist 1839-1854
Crisis 4th (1858-1873) Artist Appeaser 1855-1872
High 1st (1874-1890) Prophet Edwardian 1873-1889
Awakening 2nd (1891-1908) Nomad Khaki 1890-1908

As to Disraeli's "Tory Democracy" reforms of the 1870s, they seem to me cosmetic, and the major thrust by then was 1st Turning empire building.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

David,

Good stuff!

Why do you call the 18th century-born Heroes "Romantics"? How do you explain the short 3rd and 4th turnings in the 19th century? What is your reasoning for putting 1805-1815 in a 1T? And what do you call the turnings you identify? I am very, very curious.