Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

yes. A thought. I was just reading Lois McMaster Bujold's "The Sharing Knife Volume 1" and thought "This really feels like early 19th Century" and started wondering at the difference between "early" and "mid/late 19th Century" and came up with two serious differences.

The railroads spreading to everywhere.
The telegraph.

Transportation and communication. I don't know quite how those could shift the saeculum, and I may be imagining that the dog's nose causes his tail, but for what it's worth.

Wow, interesting correlation there.

The explaination for my dates:

1804/5: Napoleon declaring himself emperor and his defeat at Trafalgar

1830: The fall of Charles X and the end of the Bourbon Dynasty.

1848: The Liberal Revolution in Germany and Austria ends in disillusionment. The French monarchy is overthrown.

1858: French Emperor Louis Bonaparte decides to support Italian inification after an attempted assasination against him.

1871: Prussian King crowned German Emperor

1890-1910: I'm not well read on this time period, but I know that this period was one of labor movements and the rise of Marxst political parties.

1931: the Great Depression hits Europe

1950: Europe recovers enough from WW2 to shift from a 4T to a 1T mindset

1968: Student radicalism

1989: fall of the Berlin Wall, Neo-Liberalism becomes dogma in many circles.

Hmm... Could the viciousness of WWI be the result of how mild the Unification 4T was? The European equvalents of our Progressives wouldn't have been nearly as scared as the Progressives were and thus acted more like Civics then Adaptives, resulting in the European version of the Great Powers Saeculum having a shortage of Adaptive influence in the 3T, hence the 4Tish elements HopefulCynic (IIRC) noted for WWI and the absolutely deranged situation of the post-war Unravelling in Europe.

I was changing planes at the Madrid Airport on Saturday, en route home from Israel. Fortunately for me, I was completely unaware of anything amiss other than a delay for my flight home (one hour, which I chalked up to normal holiday delays).

From http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Rescue workers on Sunday searched for two people missing in the rubble of a powerful car bomb blast that was blamed on the Basque separatist group ETA and shattered a nine-month-old cease-fire, officials said.

In Madrid and many other Spanish cities people rallied at noon to condemn Saturday's attack at a glittering new terminal at Madrid's international airport. The blast caught the government and much of the country by surprise and ends 2006 on a somber, ominous note.

"Events like yesterday show yet again that all ETA wants to do is kill," Francisco Jose Alcaraz, president of an association of victims of ETA violence, told a demonstration of several thousand people in the Puerta del Sol, a downtown plaza.

He said Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero should have the "courage" to abandon the peace process launched with ETA's cease-fire announcement in March, and not just suspend it as Zapatero announced Saturday after the explosion.

The Interior Ministry disclosed Sunday that the van used in the bombing was stolen at gunpoint in France on Wednesday by three people who identified themselves as ETA members and held the vehicle's Spanish owner captive for three days. They freed him in France an hour after the bomb went off in Madrid, the ministry said in a statement.

At the airport, crews were using heavy machinery to remove tons of concrete and metal at a five-story parking lot that was largely destroyed in the explosion, said Javier Ayuso, a spokesman for the city council's emergency rescue services.
Two Ecuadorean men believed to have been sleeping inside two separate parked cars were missing in the rubble, officials said. The explosion also injured 26 people, most of them with damage to their ears from the shock wave.

Ayuso said it could take days to reach the spot where the van blew up.
Explosives experts with the Madrid regional government estimate the car bomb contained between 500 and 800 kilograms (1,100 and 1,800 pounds) of explosives, said Alfredo Prada, the vice president of that administration.

That is a huge amount even by ETA's standards.

In the past its car bomb attacks have sometimes involved less than 10 kilograms (20 pounds) of explosive.

The blast was so powerful that officials hold out little hope the two missing men are alive, said Luis Villarroel, an inspector with the Madrid fire department. "There is no possibility," he told reporters at the airport, according to the national news agency Efe.

The blast prompted the government to halt plans for negotiations with ETA after a cease-fire that had been seen as the best chance in nearly a decade to end the nearly 40-year-old conflict in Spain's northern Basque region.

ETA did not claim responsibility for the bombing, but a man who placed a warning call before the attack said he was a representative of the group. Following previous attacks, the group has sometimes waited weeks to claim responsibility.

ETA and its political supporters have been warning for months that the peace process was faltering. They have complained that the government has made no gesture to reciprocate for the cease-fire, such as meeting a long-standing ETA demand for its prisoners to be moved to the Basque region from other parts of the country.
The group also has said that continued arrests of suspected members and court rulings against the movement have broken what ETA calls a government promise to relieve pressure on the pro-independence group. It is also angry that the government has refused to allow talks among Basque political parties on the region's future until ETA's outlawed political wing, Batasuna, renounces violence.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I was changing planes at the Madrid Airport on Saturday, en route home from Israel. Fortunately for me, I was completely unaware of anything amiss other than a delay for my flight home (one hour, which I chalked up to normal holiday delays).

From http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Scary! And I was worried about your time in Israel.

Originally Posted by Odin

Hmm... Could the viciousness of WWI be the result of how mild the Unification 4T was? The European equvalents of our Progressives wouldn't have been nearly as scared as the Progressives were and thus acted more like Civics then Adaptives, resulting in the European version of the Great Powers Saeculum having a shortage of Adaptive influence in the 3T, hence the 4Tish elements HopefulCynic (IIRC) noted for WWI and the absolutely deranged situation of the post-war Unravelling in Europe.

World War I was not actually much if any more vicious than World War II or the ACW or the Frano-Prussian War. What it was was grinding, the confluence of several technological, natural*, and social factors made the combatants extremely evenly matched, and tactics and organization were not suited to the needs of the war. The thinking of 1815 and 1871 was being applied in 1914.

By our standards today, WW I was oddly contradictory, it was a war of industrial technology, with the Entente eventually gaining the edge, it was the first large war of telephone-linked and radio-linked combatants, the first war with tanks and ground-air support, and yet one of the major limiting factors for both sides was the supply of horses to pull artillery.

*One example of a natural factor was that the German Navy could not, for the most part, take the battle out away from Europe because they were bottled up in the North Sea by the location of the British Isles, the Royal Navy only had to control the passages north and south. Another example, one that favored Germany for a long time, was that the physical location of the Entente states gave Germany internal lines of communication and support.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

That is what makes blatantly lying to the public, like Dubya has done, so incredibly heinous. It make us all wretched cynics. It kills public trust. It absolutely undermines democracy. We will now question what is actually real, because our trust has been betrayed.

This one thing HC, for all of his Ptolemically epicyclic, Scholastic rationalizing, cannot understand.

I understand the world and what's going on it far better than you do, Sean. That includes understanding the web of lies that the anti-war movement and its media allies had rolled out over the last couple of years, why they did it, how they did it, and what the purpose was.

Sean, the data are in now, and Bush was telling the truth. Joe Wilson's account was the star witness and only real supporting evidence for the 'Bush lied' spin. He was a fraud, working for the Democrats. That's been established beyond plausible doubt at this point, and without him the whole theory collapses for lack of evidence. The news media and the Democrats have tried very hard for three years to paint the 'Bush lied' theory as solid, but it was hollow and that's on display now for those to see who aren't wearing blinders.

It's you who has consistantly believed falsehoods, and you who has been successfully played for a sucker repeatedly over the course of over three years. You've swallowed every lie they've put out, no matter how much it defies common sense or logic.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Keith Olbermann said the same thing last night on "Countdown."

Yeah, but Olberman is a liar himself, or else he's just plain stupid. He was still defending Joe Wilson even after the NYT and WaPo finally admitted what had been apparent for a year, that he was a fraud, he even accused them of 'throwing Wilson under the bus'. You can usually tap into the freaky-Left interpretation of the world by listening to Olbermann, he's the voice of the moonbats.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I was changing planes at the Madrid Airport on Saturday, en route home from Israel. Fortunately for me, I was completely unaware of anything amiss other than a delay for my flight home (one hour, which I chalked up to normal holiday delays).

From http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

The Basque separatist problem has something in common with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute: the ceasefires and compromise deals keep getting stalled by people on both sides who want contradictory things.

If the separtist movement really is determined to create a sovereign Basque state, if that's their goal and they won't swerve from it (and I don't know if it is or not) then that puts Madrid in a bind: sooner or later they either have to let them have what they want, or actively oppose them. This may be another example of the sort of intractable dispute that the Adaptive mindset currently dominant can't cope with.

Originally Posted by Odin

Hmm... Could the viciousness of WWI be the result of how mild the Unification 4T was? The European equvalents of our Progressives wouldn't have been nearly as scared as the Progressives were and thus acted more like Civics then Adaptives, resulting in the European version of the Great Powers Saeculum having a shortage of Adaptive influence in the 3T, hence the 4Tish elements HopefulCynic (IIRC) noted for WWI and the absolutely deranged situation of the post-war Unravelling in Europe.

I have observed that to my eye, the run-up to WW I looks oddly 4T-ish to me, and would bear an odd parallel in being at about the right time to match up with 1848 as an Awakening event, and in fact 1848 looks more like an Awakening to me than anything else.

However, as others have pointed out, there are a lot of things that don't line up with that, too. I still think it's a distinct oddity, and I suspect it partly has to do with the fact that the Cycle could not operate freely in Europe prior to the first world war.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Sean, the data are in now, and Bush was telling the truth. Joe Wilson's account was the star witness and only real supporting evidence for the 'Bush lied' spin. He was a fraud, working for the Democrats. That's been established beyond plausible doubt at this point,

How has it been established beyond a plausable doubt?

and without him the whole theory collapses for lack of evidence. The news media and the Democrats have tried very hard for three years to paint the 'Bush lied' theory as solid, but it was hollow and that's on display now for those to see who aren't wearing blinders.

Yeah, that's why Libby is on trial.

Yeah, but Olberman is a liar himself, or else he's just plain stupid. He was still defending Joe Wilson even after the NYT and WaPo finally admitted what had been apparent for a year, that he was a fraud, he even accused them of 'throwing Wilson under the bus'. You can usually tap into the freaky-Left interpretation of the world by listening to Olbermann, he's the voice of the moonbats.

Yeah, it's tough when you see your whole worldview being repudiated. I went through it in the eighties with Reagan. It took me about five years, but eventually I learned how to "win in the other guy's ballpark" to use sports symbolism.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I have observed that to my eye, the run-up to WW I looks oddly 4T-ish to me, and would bear an odd parallel in being at about the right time to match up with 1848 as an Awakening event, and in fact 1848 looks more like an Awakening to me than anything else.

However, as others have pointed out, there are a lot of things that don't line up with that, too. I still think it's a distinct oddity, and I suspect it partly has to do with the fact that the Cycle could not operate freely in Europe prior to the first world war.

The main reason why I would disagree with the first world war being a crisis is that would make the 1920's a high and the rise of fascism and WW2 being an awakening.

The French being stupid, again:

Pork soup illegal in France - part 2

Originally Posted by Odin

The French being stupid, again:

Pork soup illegal in France - part 2

Mon Dieu!

I think the title is misleading, however.

The issue is whether pork soup should be served in soup kitchens. Given that immigrants from former Franco-phone countries in Africa have the highest poverty rates, and given that most of them are Muslim and don't eat pork, for a soup kitchen to serve pork is insensitive.

Nobody is stopping French families from serving pork soup at home or restaurants from offering it.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Sean, the data are in now, and Bush was telling the truth. Joe Wilson's account was the star witness and only real supporting evidence for the 'Bush lied' spin. He was a fraud, working for the Democrats. That's been established beyond plausible doubt at this point,

How has it been established beyond a plausable doubt?

Because all the evidence for the claims of falsehood have collapsed, the actions of the Bush Administration were consistant with believing what they claimed, while the allegations of their critics were based on the lies of Joe Wilson and a lot of irrational nonsense about trying to 'get the oil'.

The former was, as I noted, lies, the later don't even make sense on their own terms, there was no need to go to war to get the oil, it could only make doing it harder.

There was extensive reasons to believe that Hussein was amassing an arsenal of WMDs, and he was doing the rest of what he was accused of doing.

Since their claims have come apart, the critics have to grasp at straws to try and claim that he lied about something, but notice that what he supposedly lied about keeps changing. But the burden of proof is on them, they're the ones making very serious allegations without visible evidence.

Note that the Democrats have dropped all the talk they were doing about Bush's supposed crimes now that they've won an election. If they had really meant all that talk, then the only legitimate response is impeachment, and they ought to be preparing the country for it now. Instead they're backpeddling on impeachment, backpeddling on the enemy surveillance programt they pretended to be outraged by, backpeddling on pretty much everything.

That leaves three possibilities:

1. They believed their rhetoric at the time, but know now that they were wrong. If so, apologies to Bush and Cheney and Rove for the allegations (which were damned serious) are in order.

2. They believed their claims, and still do, and don't really care about them, which means they see treason, lying to the public about going to war, violating Constitutional rights, etc, as being no big deal.

3. They never believed what they were claiming, but were willing to make wild false allegations against the President during a war just for political gain.

"He betrayed this country, he played on our fears!" -- Al Gore

Remember that lie? The Democrats repeated variations on it endlessly for years. They didn't mean it, of course, but it was good for firing up their anti-war base. Teddy Kennedy tried to characterize the 911 incidents as a 'tragedy' rather than an attack, so he could claim Bush took advantage of it for selfish purposes. Harry Reid lied about the nature of the Valerie Plame case and the Libby indictment to try and pretend it was proof that Bush had lied about the intelligence as well, and he certainly knew better.

(In fact, I'm pretty sure they were basing their talking points on the assumption that they would get indictments of Cheney or Rove, and when that didn't come they were left flat-footed.)

and without him the whole theory collapses for lack of evidence. The news media and the Democrats have tried very hard for three years to paint the 'Bush lied' theory as solid, but it was hollow and that's on display now for those to see who aren't wearing blinders.

Yeah, that's why Libby is on trial.

No, Libby is on trial for perjury duing the course of the investigation, a charge that simply has nothing to do with whether Bush lied or not. You can be guilty of perjury even if the perjury occurs duing the course of an investigation of a crime that turns out never to have happened, it's a separate issue. He might potentially be guilty of perjury, but it's irrelevant to the issue of whether Bush lied.

That said, it's not at all clear that Libby is guilty even of 'secondary' perjury. It's a very shaky point depending on who said exactly what when and under what circumstances. It's made the worse by the fact since revealed that the special prosecutor apparently knew all along that Armitage was the actual 'leak' (to the degree that there was one, this whole scandal was fake).

Notice that Wilson is frantically trying to make sure he doesn't have to testify under oath in the Libby trial, he's afraid of perjuring himself. His lawyer is affiliated with CREW, a left-wing outfit, the mask is off where Wilson is concerned.

Fitzmas was a fizzle when all they got was an indictment of Libby on secondary charges, the moonbats and the Democrats (for different reasons) were hoping for far more, but there was nothing there to find, the scandal was made up. After that disappointment, they tried to spin the idea that Libby was being charged for covering up for Cheney and Bush, but that was visibly nonsensical then and now. The charge in question doesn't have anything to do with that.

The 'old media' spun the scandal for all it was worth until it became inescapably obvious that it was fraudulent, then they basically fell silent about it, even Chris Matthews, who was one of the worst for hyping it. The WaPo and NYT tried to take a high moral ground, which was futile because they were right in the middle of pushing it and hyping it.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Mon Dieu!

I think the title is misleading, however.

The issue is whether pork soup should be served in soup kitchens. Given that immigrants from former Franco-phone countries in Africa have the highest poverty rates, and given that most of them are Muslim and don't eat pork, for a soup kitchen to serve pork is insensitive.

Nobody is stopping French families from serving pork soup at home or restaurants from offering it.

'

On the face of it, the story is simple...but it represents something much more basic, a question of exactly how far the majority must go to satisfy minorities, and in turn what happens if the minority becomes the majority (which is on track to happen in Europe this century if current trends continue).

The biggest story that doesn't get much attention in modern affairs is the low population replacement-rate in much of the advanced world. I suspect that this will be the largest single factor in changing public agendas in the near future...one way or another.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The main reason why I would disagree with the first world war being a crisis is that would make the 1920's a high and the rise of fascism and WW2 being an awakening.

I agree, it doesn't add up.

What I suspect is that one country or region's Cycle can get 'reset' if swept up in another's, and I think that is part (but only part) of what happened in this. I also suspect that in a heavily class-ridden society, one social class can be on a different Cyclic rhythm than another. But that's just my wild speculation.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

partisan rant snipped

Come on, HC, get real. Despite the screaming going on on the left (and it being mostly marginalized/ignored), and the excuses made for overtly partisan behavior on both sides, the Administration wanted the war, got it, and screwed it up.

You've been a consistent supporter of the Administration: Take your public whipping like a man.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

... The issue is whether pork soup should be served in soup kitchens. Given that immigrants from former Franco-phone countries in Africa have the highest poverty rates, and given that most of them are Muslim and don't eat pork, for a soup kitchen to serve pork is insensitive.

Nobody is stopping French families from serving pork soup at home or restaurants from offering it.

On the face of it, the story is simple...but it represents something much more basic, a question of exactly how far the majority must go to satisfy minorities, and in turn what happens if the minority becomes the majority (which is on track to happen in Europe this century if current trends continue).

The biggest story that doesn't get much attention in modern affairs is the low population replacement-rate in much of the advanced world. I suspect that this will be the largest single factor in changing public agendas in the near future...one way or another.

The ruling came about because a right-wing political group was running soup kitchens for indigents, and making a point of offering food Muslims and Jews could not eat. The French have a much more interventionist view of things, so they stopped the practice.

It was certainly a provocative act, and having provoked a reaction they got one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbrief...991046,00.html

usual discliamers apply

A not-so-special relationship

Simon Tisdall
Monday January 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

When Ségolène Royal met a Hizbullah MP in Beirut last month, her relatively limited experience of foreign affairs almost caused an international incident. Ali Ammar told the French Socialists’ presidential candidate that the Bush administration suffered from “unlimited dementia". He also attacked what he called modern-day “nazism" in Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, Ms Royal was unfazed. “I agree with a lot of things you have said, notably your analysis of the United States,” she replied.


Article continues

Amid the ensuing outcry Ms Royal explained she was speaking only of US policy in Iraq and had not heard the MP’s remarks about Israel. All the same, the unguarded exchange raised eyebrows in Paris and Tel Aviv. It also remains unclear whether Ms Royal realised that Ali Ammar was also the name by which the legendary Algerian guerrilla Ali La Pointe was known. He made his name fighting French colonial forces in the vicious battle of Algiers.

As with domestic policy, Ms Royal has so far largely avoided getting into specifics about France’s future role in the world. But it is clear that she is no Angela Merkel. The German chancellor moved quickly in 2005 to mend fences with Washington flattened by her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder. Ms Royal seems disinclined to distance herself from President Jacques Chirac’s anti-Americanism.


“Since General De Gaulle, France has always embodied a certain pride and independence vis-a-vis the United States," she said in a television debate. “We absolutely cannot accept the concept of preventive war, nor the concept of good versus evil, nor disengagement in the Middle East, nor the Americans preaching economic liberalism abroad and practising protectionism at home. We cannot tolerate their refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty when they are the world’s No 1 polluter."


Labour party supporters in Britain may wait a long time to hear their aspiring prime minister, Gordon Brown, give voice to such openly rebellious sentiments. Until now Nicolas Sarkozy, Ms Royal’s main rival in the April-May presidential election and the champion of the French right, has also been playing it safe. Calling himself a “friend of America", Mr Sarkozy toured the US last September at the time of the 9/11 commemorations, meeting Republican luminaries. To the fury of prime minister and political rival Dominique de Villepin, and many others at home, he described French behaviour before the Iraq war as “arrogant".


But in accepting his party’s presidential nomination yesterday, Mr Sarkozy reined in his American poodle tendencies, stressing his opposition to unilateralism and the need to speak truth to power. Having supposedly secured his rightwing base, this appeared part of an overall shift to the anti-Bush political centre.


“Every time there is a presidential election, you hear the same thing," said a seasoned French political insider. “The Americans say: ‘Thank goodness, now at last we are finished with that obnoxious French guy. Here’s a new leader we can work with’. And every time, sooner or later, something happens and it goes ‘Bouf!’ and we are back where we were ... It was the same with Pompidou, with Giscard. But these days the problem is not so much between France and the US. It is the US image in Europe and the world."


If the Iraq war was the issue that “boufed" France’s not-so-special relationship with Washington in Mr Chirac’s second term, Iran could prove to be the next ticking timebomb, the insider said. “France’s position [against military action] is clear. I think Iran may be a much more difficult decision for the next British prime minister."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6264027.stm

Usual discliamers apply

Spain's PM admits ETA 'mistake'


Spain's prime minister says he made a "clear mistake" by being too optimistic about the prospect of peace talks with the Basque separatist group Eta.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he had predicted an improvement in the peace process - the day before a bomb attack on 30 December claimed by Eta.


He called for a "great democratic consensus against terrorism" on Monday.
On Saturday, more than 200,000 people in Spain protested over the bomb blast that killed two at Madrid airport.


"All Spaniards heard me say on 29 December that I had the conviction that things were better for us than five years ago and that in a year's time things would be better for us," Mr Zapatero told a special session of parliament debating Spain's anti-terror policies.


"Although it is not frequent among public leaders, I want to admit to all Spanish citizens the clear mistake I made," he said.


"Eta wasted the opportunity to contribute... to a better future for everyone, and by this decision Eta strives to prolong criminal activity which has already lasted more than four decades".


Mr Zapatero said Eta had in effect broken the peace process launched in March, and that there could be no dialogue while the group was engaged in violence.


However, he said he hoped Eta would accept sooner rather than later that words were superior to weapons.


He also called for unity among mainstream parties, saying it was the best way to overcome the problem.


The deaths of two Ecuadorean migrants at Madrid's Barajas airport were the first attributed to Eta in more than three years.


The group - which declared a permanent ceasefire in March - is seeking an independent state in northern Spain and south-west France.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6263103.stm

usual disclaimers apply

Push for EU Holocaust denial ban

Germany hopes to make Holocaust denial a crime across the EU as part of a package of laws it wants to introduce during its presidency of the bloc.

Berlin is also set to outline plans to ban Nazi symbols like the swastika, which, like denying the massacre of the Jews, is already outlawed in Germany.

Such moves may be seen as curtailing freedom of speech and could prove controversial in several member states.

But the German justice minister says she is confident of winning support.

If it goes ahead, it will be the second time in two years that an attempt has been made to ban the display of Nazi symbols within the EU.

The last bid failed in 2005 after objections from several governments, including the British.

An attempt to criminalise denying the massacre of Jews during WWII meanwhile was blocked by Italy, citing freedom of speech.
But the Italian Government has since changed, and is now seen as more sympathetic to Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries' proposals.


Caveats

However last year's trial of the British historian David Irving, who was imprisoned for Holocaust denial in Austria, sparked a heated debate in Europe and illustrated just how controversial such a move might be.

EU STATES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia


Even his opponents said they were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of imprisoning someone for their opinions, however objectionable they were.

The details of the proposal have yet to emerge, but it is thought likely that member states would have the right to set their own rules determining if and how a Holocaust denier should be punished.

Under any new law, prosecutors might also have to prove that a Nazi symbol was being used with the intention of whipping up racism.

Old symbol

The swastika, while used by the Nazis as an insignia, was not created by them, and a number of groups still use it.

It has featured in traditional Latvian knitwear for centuries, variously known as the Thunder Cross or Fire Cross, and remains a time-honoured good luck symbol for Hindus.

Similarly some MPs from former communist states object to a ban on the swastika without a commensurate ban on the symbols of the Soviet era, such as the hammer and sickle.

While Germany is only country in Europe which has banned the use of Nazi insignia, France, for example, bars the sale of Nazi-related memorabilia.

America's saeculum was diverted from Britain and Western Europe's saeculum.

The great movements of European history since the Reformation have happened at the same time all across Western Europe, clear evidence of a common saeculum. The eastern orthodox countries have been integrated into Western Europe over the centuries, they are now part of the same European saeculum.


I'm pretty sure of the dates after 1870, before then I am at best vague. I do see the French revolution being a clearly 4T event, most likely the climax, there were 4T events in the years before the Revolution. The 1820's and 1830's can be seen as an awakening 'Romantic Awakening'.


Great Power Saeculum
1T 1872?-1890
2T 1890-1910
3T 1910-1930
4T 1930-1950

Millennial Saeculum
1T 1950-1968
2T 1968-1988
3T 1988-

I have a keen interest in this because, it can help me understand the Australian Saeculum in a better context, I can't see Australia and Britain's turnings date being really different to each other.

Well, looks like Sarkozy is going to be the new president of France. Is this their Regeneracy (I'm assuming the 2005 riots were the catalyst)?

Originally Posted by Odin

Well, looks like Sarkozy is going to be the new president of France. Is this their Regeneracy (I'm assuming the 2005 riots were the catalyst)?

Why would an election be a Regeneracy?

Originally Posted by Odin

Well, looks like Sarkozy is going to be the new president of France. Is this their Regeneracy (I'm assuming the 2005 riots were the catalyst)?

It might be but only if it's an overwhelming landslide. A typical 52/48 split would indicate that France is fundamentally unchanged from its recent pattern.