Gurdur

Yes, I agree.
Oneoftheshubumi and also Ruy Lopez have put a lot of work into this all indeed.

However, with all respect, two aspects worry me:
1) the over-intellectualization ---- the bits about the mythologicalization of the neocon movement is not really necessary, and to my mind possibly counter-productive
2) and the ascription of conscious "conspiracy".

Personally, I see the success of the neocons as being owing to the gradual acceptance of --- or surrender to --- certain social and governmental attitudes; and the present rush of the Gaderene swine towards greater privatization, less "government" and deregulation provides a climate in which sociopathic companies and neocons can thrive, with no conspiracy being needed.

Wide-scale social education, issue focus and attitudinal change is what is necessary.

oneofshibumi

1) Bill: �But we are most certainly centuries away from the fall of an empire which has not yet truly arisen. And we must ask ourselves: from where will come the barbarians to storm our gates? There is not now, and by a century from now, there will not be able to be, any place on Earth which is not a part of the coming empire. Thus, it is only by internal strife that this coming empire will eventually fall. The barbarian invasion hastened the fall of Rome. There will not be any barbarians to hasten the fall of our coming empire. Instead, it will take the long and dreadful path of degradation, which Rome avoided.�

Response: When I read your words, I recall what Rockefeller�s Trilateral Task Force Report said in 1977, �The public and leaders of most countries continue to live in a MENTAL UNIVERSE WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS�A WORLD OF SEPARATE NATIONS�and have great difficulties thinking in terms of global perspectives and interdependence.� �The liberal premise of a separation between the political and economic realm is obsolete: ISSUES RELATED TO ECONOMICS ARE AT THE HEART OF MODERN POLITICS.� [Capitals mine.]

I refer to the Corporate Empire, which has risen to power in a short 150 years. The external �Barbarians� will take the form of a lack of resources (energy, portable water, etc.). By the year 2010 the U.S. Government has to begin to pay into Social Security fund reducing available funds for other social needs. Since 1973, the amount of taxes paid by Corporations has dropped from 49% to 12%, shifting the burden on to the workers of society, us.

I also recall The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission in 1975. That states, �THE VULNERABILITY OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT in the United States (thus) comes not primarily from external threats, though such threats are real, nor from internal subversion from the left or the right, although both possibilities could exist, but rather FROM THE INTERNAL DYNAMICS OF DEMOCRACY ITSELF IN A HIGHLY EDUCATED, MOBILIZED, AND PARTICIPANT SOCIETY.� [Capitals mine.]

They recognize that the power of a united people is stronger than the Corporate system.

2) Bill: �In modern times, the imposition of ignorance will be deliberate and forced, as opposed to an accidental side-effect of abundance. Either way, though, religion will rise again.

I think you have your causes and effects backwards, as ignorance leads to religion, and religion thrives off of ignorance; but this is really more of a chicken-and-egg dispute, isn't it?�

Response: Humanity became aware, and humanity knew it was ignorant. The ignorant-humanity eventually organized into religious cultures, which thrived in the Middle East. In time, the Greeks learn how to make an observation and add this knowledge to their education system. Culture flourishes and philosophy takes great leaps forward. Religion adapts and takes power over society again, bringing on the dark ages. Observations begins to be made and overtime science thrives. Reaching the point where the language of science can completely replace knowledge regarding the physical universe. Religion�s only power in the social world lies in, �morality, spiritual leader, explanation to purify oneself or remove one�s sins, raising children, marriage and relationships, etc.� Social science�s language can answer more accurately humanities condition than religious language. If knowledge from the social science were dispersed widely into the public space, religion would retreat into the dark corners. We see this process occur at the beginning of the last century. Something changed the dispersion of the social science�s message. At the beginning of the 1980s certain religious right-wing fundamentalist groups begin to receive millions of dollars from the corporations that allows them in a short 10 years, become a major political force in the U.S. The natural growth and development of social science has been stunted, and religion was artificially inflated to dumb down America.

While at other times ignorance and organized ignorance (religion) occurred naturally. The religious growth process was artificially manufactured to swamp the public space with messages of ignorance.

3) I believe the next great change in humanity will come with a change in language-usage or in the speech-act. In the same way the Greeks were able to create a budding science language, applying the idea of an observation, instead of an evaluation or a judgment. Humanity has learned how to categorize emotions and recognize needs. Then the early social science of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and linguistics help to meet needs; satisfied before by religion. In the last century, people stop going to the preacher and began to visit the psychologist. The social science has developed a knowledge regarding the human condition and the social structures that support them. The human condition becomes observable in the inter-communication between members in the cultural group. I suggest that changing the language-usage or speech-act, also causes change in the organization, or in the society. The social science�s language has the style of the religious rhetoric. If a message is presented in Nonviolent Communication, the likely hood of connecting with the other person is greater. NVC facilitates the transmission of social-science messages. The first chapter gives an idea of the communication model.

Daniel

Bill

That statement is, at best, an excercise in wishful thinking. The "mental universe" of separate nations clearly exists for so long as the people and leaders of the world continue to think of themselves in those terms, which is exactly what the Report is claiming.

The premise, of course, is that multi-national corporations operate over and above all nations, as part of a trans-national oligarchy. The corporations and their leadership may well desire to think that they are above national concerns. But the reality is that they remain subject to the conflicting whims of the nations within which they dispose of any of their corporate assets. And in fact, they deliberately play these nations off against each other for their own advantages. So, once again, the truth is far more complex than any selective quote-mining could ever hope to grasp. In the 1992 race for President, Bill Clinton ran with the well-known slogan of "its the economy, stupid!" Thus, I deny the so-called "liberal premise" is either liberal or a premise of modern politics. Conventional wisdom now holds that elections for President are usually decided based upon the state of the economy (or the perceptions of the state of the economy) at the time of the election. Thus, we have Bush wishing-and-hoping for an economic recovery (which he is very unlikely to get) and the Democrats basically hoping for the worst (which they are very likely to get). "People vote their pocketbooks" is the modern wisdom. Corporations are just forms of ownership for oligarchies. It doesn't matter if Caesar, Pompey, and Crassius had formed a corporation to hold all of the assets they were willing to devote to the First Triumverate or not. Frankly, corporations are a way of allowing the corporate managers to obtain Other People's Money (OPM) without the necessity of actually stealing it from them. Thus, corporations are just a civilized form of waging economic warfare.

The "Barbarians" you mention will not affect the corporate state one iota. Corporations exist to make money off of economic transactions, and scarcity of resources is the stock in trade of what makes economic transactions necessary. Sure, the petrolium industry has a finite lifetime ahead of it. But energy will continue to be required, and those corporations that adapt to the new economic realities will survive and prosper while those that do not adapt will perish. It will not be any different in the future than it has been in the past or present.

The United States survived the Savings & Loan fiasco of the 1980s, and it will survive the current "dot com bubble burst." But lots of corporations came and went in those two major upheavals of the economic system.

We should not forget that a corporation does not really have a separate existence. It is a collection of people. And there have been trans-national organizations of people operating the economy over long distances for as long as we have had international trade, and that goes back at least several thousands of years. The corporations may well think that they are doing something new, but they are merely deluding themselves if they think that way.

At the end of the day, it is not an empire of corporations, but of the managers of corporations. And those managers are as globally or locally oriented as the needs of their own business interests require them to be. But the government is still superior to any (and all) corporate power. The people can arise tomorrow and banish corporations forever. They won't, but they could. It would make no sense to do so because the complexities of the modern economy are much easier to handle when the accounting can be subdivided into this corporation or that corporation doing this thing or that thing.

A corporation is an inanimate object; a piece of paper upon which is recorded a charter from some government. A corporation cannot do anything without the managers who direct it, and those managers are no different in Western Civilization than were the trade cartels of Rome. You really need to take a class in macro-economics. The government can choose to withdraw its taxes from any portion of the economic flow; it really is a political decision rather than an economic one. If you raise corporate taxes and lower individual taxes, but keep the total tax burden the same, it makes no real difference to the overall economy. It is easier to collect large sums of money from large corporations; but those large corporations are also more motivated to fight the taxes than are a plethora of small individuals.

What I am disturbed about is the latest ploy by the Bush administration to allow corporate dividends to go entirely untaxed by lowering the corporate tax rate (as you describe) and then passing the dividends to the shareholders while making them exempt from taxation. Now, that process is unfair for sure. However, it is also unlikely to survive for long because the need of government for money is insatiable, because the power of any given government is directly related to the revenue it receives, and the politicians are greedy folks who want the power of controlling all of that money that they gather from other people.

In fact, national governments are the ultimate super-corporations of the modern era. A business corporation has to entice investors and customers. A national government commands its citizens to pay taxes. That is one heck of a big difference.

As for Social Security, everybody knows that taxes will need to go back up. Howard Dean is even running on a platform of raising the taxes back up to eliminate the deficit. Its no big deal; this sort of thing goes on all the time. Oswald Spengler, who wrote back in the early 1920s, would not disagree one bit. It is "the internal dynamics of democracy itself" which ultimately threatens the demise of all of Western Civilization. Spengler's chapter on politics is extremely depressing to read through because, by the time you reach the end of it, you realize that there isn't any obvious way out. Western Civilization is bound for its own decline and fall because "the internal dynamics of democracy itself" will naturally destroy civilization as we know it. Solving this issue is the ultimate connundrum for social scientists. Which is exactly what I was saying, above, in my reply to your earlier part of this post!

Ultimately, the government is still king. We may call it a democracy, but that is a change in form rather than in function. And, eventually, democracy destroys itself and we return, once again, to a government of kings (or rather, to an "empire"). Don't be so culturally myopic!

Spengler itemized a half-dozen Cultures that managed to achieve the status of "great Civilizations." Toynbee extended that study to itemize roughly two-dozen of them, including the Incas, Myans, and Aztecs in the Americas and certainly at least the Chinese and Japanese in Asia (the Japanese having the unfortunate luck of coming into conflict with the premier powers of Western Civilization before it could bring its own civilization into full flower; Japan has now been absorbed into Western Civilization, which is really a rather odd fit....).

As Spengler points out, each Culture begins with two Estates (the very word "Estates" used in this sense was a product of the Enlightenment), the Aristocracy and the Priesthood. As a Culture transitions into a Civilization, you have the rise of the Third Estate, the Bourgeoisie, which ultimately takes over the power from both the aristocracy and the priests (while generally allowing these relics of a former time to survive in some form or another). Spengler tracked this process for so-called "Classical" Civilization (meaning the combination of Greek and Roman Culture), Arab Civilization (and yes, the Arabs did have quite a civilization; we owe the Arabs the foundation of everything mathmatical that wasn't first invented by the Greeks), and ultimately, Western Civilization. Spengler also discussed Chinese Civilization in these same turns. As I stated earlier, Toynbee extended Spengler's studies to roughly two-dozen civilizations. All of them were easily reducible to the rough model of beginning with a combination of an aristocracy and a priesthood and ending with a Bourgeoisie. The so-called "dark ages" were the time between the fall of Rome and the rise of Western Civilization (which even takes its name from the idea that it represents the rebirth of the western half of the old Roman Empire).

My objection is that you are glossing over a plethora of civilizations by attempting to characterize these developments as being essentially singular when they are not. In actuality, they are cyclical. And, this is a time of transition from Classical to Western Civilization. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, the Arab Civilization was going through this same process, but spaced roughly halfway between Classical and Western Civilizations (at about 2,000 years of length, with about 1,000 years of overlap for each of them; thus Classical goes from about 1500 BCE in its earliest stages up to the fall of Rome in roughly 500 CE; the Arabs go from about 500 BCE to about 1500 CE; and Western Civilization goes from about 500 CE to about 2,500 CE, more or less; with each having a similar pattern of progress). This amounts to what Stephen J. Gould called Non-Overlapping Magisteria, a concept which Gould was promoting in order to try to end the warfare between science and religion. Of course, as we are about to discuss, Gould was proposing what could best be viewed as a temporary truce, as the progress of science inevitibly pushes into the realms of morality that Gould attempted to rope off from scientific inquiry. This seems to me to be the natural process that occurs in every civilization at about this time in the overall life-cycle of the civilization: the political/economic model turns to empire and the masses return to religion and superstition.

What "changed the dispersion of the social science's message?" It is a simple and easy-to-understand thing: FEAR!

People fear the truth! People do not wish to live in a world where they must accept the raw deal handed to them by the brutality of their existence! So, as is the natural habit of fearful humans, they automatically retreat into self-delusion.

No replacement for Western Civilization can possibly succeed until it can offer a positive message of hope, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc. Again, I think you merely lack perspective. This is nothing new!

Spengler explained it perfectly, back in the early 1920s, in his chapter on politics. Yes, the methods change because the Faustian distance culture is different than the Classical point culture. But the religious growth process is entirely NATURAL! Its the same-old, same-old, all dressed up in new clothes. The fact that you perceive it to be financed by a corporate culture which stands to gain in some way by a religious revival doesn't alter the fact that the religious revival and the onset of economic empire go hand-in-hand with each other at this point in the life-cycle of every Culture and Civilization. Again, you have your heirarchy inverted here. You are describing one aspect of the so-called "Faustian Soul" (a la Spengler).

Replacing "classical religion" with a "religion based on social science" won't affect the progress of Culture/Civilization one iota. It is never the specifics of the religion which are demanded by the life-cycle. It is rather that the religion of the "end times" must fulfill a certain role (or "fill a need" that arises in people during these times of the life-cycle).

As I stated above, my goal is to see mankind break out of these cycles of Culture and Civilization by progressing into the third great stage of human development. From foragers-for-food (the so-called "hunter/gatherer" stage of development) to growers-of-food (after the so-called "Agricultural Revolution") we are now ready to divorce ourselves from the land to which we've been bound. We ought to be soaring out into space. But whether we will do so or not depends upon the question of how much of humanity is ready to make that sort of a leap into the next phase of the development of the human species.

Your thesis on Non-Violent Communicaiton is an interesting side issue; but it is clearly only a side issue (in my view, anyway).

== Bill

Celsus

You've got it the wrong way round. Ancient Near East history has been strongly modeled after the European state. Also, your generalisations about ancient history leaves a lot to be desired.

Joel

Ruy Lopez

Ancient Near East history has been strongly modeled after the European state.

Would help greatly if you provide a little explanation. Right now, I can't figure out how "ancient NE history can be modeled after the European state". Which came first?

Have to postpone my comments on the later posts of Daniel, Bill and Gurdur. Taking quite some time to absorb them.

Bill

Actually, the oldest pyramids in Egypt date from 4500 BCE, so I would argue that you would need to go back to at least 6000 BCE to see the rise of what you call the "temple state."

As I've explained in my earlier posts in this thread, the characteristic of human Cultures and Civilizations from the time of the Agricultural Revolution to at least the present point in time has been that they were formed through a combination of a powerful leader (tribal chief; king; or other civil ruler) and a powerful priest (shaman, etc.). We see this combination in most early primitive tribes. We see it at the beginnings of every known large civilization, although in several of them the civil ruler and high priest were the same person (but with two separate groups of servants; one for each of the two main functions). Thus, the Emperor of Japan was, at the same time, both the civil head of the government and the head of the state religion (actually, he was a "living god" until Hirohito renounced that concept at the end of World War II).

With the rise to economic dominance of the Third Estate (the Bourgeoisie), the traditional ruler and the priesthood lose their dominating power. In some cases, they disappear entirely. But democracy has its own life-cycle, since as soon as a democracy forms, it begins to degrade itself with corruption. Eventually, people recognize that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is no more beneviolent than is any other dictatorship. A longing sets in to return to the glory days of the past, and as the civilization declines, a return to the old forms occurs. But instead of a simple king, the new complexities yield up an Imperium, and instead of a simple priest, some other form of religious revival occurs.

Spengler called this late-stage religious revival by the name of the "Second Religiousness." It always accompanied the onset of an Imperium in every known prior civilization. After the civilization itself vanishes, the religiousness lingers on. We see the "Second Religiousness" of the Arab civilization (which "died" in roughly 1500 CE, more or less) exhibited in the Muslim fundamentalists of today. These people cannot be reasoned with!

The genius of human progress is that the delusions we seem to necessarily adopt so as to "stay focused" on what we need to do have not, in turn, inhibited human progress to any great degree. Succeeding civilizations build upon the accomplishments of prior ones, in spite of what some might say. The essential point is that, at some point, this must all come to an end and humanity must, once again, transform itself dramatically.

I propose that the dramatic transformation is upon us, and that (as a consequence) parallels with the past are all but irrelevant. But this is, of course, a necessarily controversial point of view. But certainly, the so-called "Temple State" has been a successful model for humanity for the past 8,000 years, more or less.

But that "Temple State" isn't the "longest trend" by any means. Instead, the "Temple State" cycles in and out of existence with the rise and fall of individual civilizations. What is the "longest trend" is the change from hunter/gatherer to farmers at the time of the Agricultural Revolution, plus the ongoing transformation of humanity which we have been experiencing for the past few centuries, away from farming and on to a technological wonderland. We as yet have no clues as to the implications this will all have for humanity.

== Bill

Celsus

What I mean is that the construction of history about the ANE has been modeled after European states. For example, Keith Whitelam argues that Ancient Israel has been largely constructed as a precursor to European states in The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, though it is controversial--major roles and functions of the state were interpreted in the form of existing European institutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, much the way the modern European state model has been retrojected over the disparate European institutions prior to that period.

Joel

Farren

Thanks everyone for a quality thread. I'm pretty damn clued up on history but underexposed to the historical analysis provided in this thread. Very interesting.

Bill, re your "longest trend" comment, from Ruy's posts elsewhere I assume he's talking about cyclical trends rather than single instance trends (such as more or less the whole history of civilisation)

Ruy Lopez

Personally, I see the success of the neocons as being owing to the gradual acceptance of --- or surrender to --- certain social and governmental attitudes; and the present rush of the Gaderene swine towards greater privatization, less "government" and deregulation provides a climate in which sociopathic companies and neocons can thrive, [crimson]with no conspiracy being needed.[/crimson]

Yes indeed.

Wide-scale social education, issue focus and attitudinal change is what is necessary.

Above comment is similar to oneofshibumi's NVC system or tool. One cannot disagree with them; they are statements of desire or what is needed. How to make them work.

"Interpreted or modeled after European States"

Could be true but does not affect the conclusion re greater ignorance of ancient temple state public.

Was simply saying that in an ancient temple state, one would be lucky to find one or two percent of the population exhibiting critical thinking on matters of philisophy or ethics. In modern times, you could find this number as high as 25% in the US and even higher in West Europe and Canada. In ancient times it was probably the handful of intellectuals around the king or high priest who invented "religious myths" that were fed to the population. One of these myths was "the Torah is the word of God".

It was the "university" that sprouted in Paris and German cities during the renaissance that really kicked off the trend. This trend, to be sure, exhibits cyclicality; three steps forward, two steps backward and so on. It really took a long time to reach our present state of secularism and self-reliance but it is clear that rational thinking is gaining---and this I attribute mainly to education.

From Bill;

I. The first period of human development we know much about is the hunter-gatherer phase, which lasted from the time that humans arose as a species until about 15,000 years ago (more or less; depending upon where on Earth you are talking about; in America, it is more like 8,000 years ago; in parts of Europe, the argument can be made for 20-25,000 years ago).

The great change was the so-called "Agricultural Revolution," which moved men onto farms instead of hunting and gathering. The next great change is to move men off the farms. That change is variously called the "Industrial Revolution," but I prefer the term "Technology Revolution."

[/b]And, this is a time of transition from Classical to Western Civilization. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, the Arab Civilization was going through this same process, but spaced roughly halfway between Classical and Western Civilizations (at about 2,000 years of length, with about 1,000 years of overlap for each of them; thus Classical goes from about 1500 BCE in its earliest stages up to the fall of Rome in roughly 500 CE; the Arabs go from about 500 BCE to about 1500 CE; and Western Civilization goes from about 500 CE to about 2,500 CE, more or less; with each having a similar pattern of progress). [/b]

Don't really have much of a disagreement with Bill's long posts(which I finally finished reading). They're in fact exhilarating. I'm already familiar with Daniel's; he posted them before.

To summarize them briefly we have;

1)Human Stages of Development--whose durations span several thousand years.

2)Civilizations which range from 1000 to 2000 years according to Bill's interpretation

3)And empires and reigns that also rise and fall within civilizations

I have three general observations regarding these long duration phenomena.

a)They are always characterized by cyclical or wave movement.

b)During some periods wave movement is essentially flat as in the 1000 yr middle ages. (Like the price of a stock trapped fluctuating between $25-$30 for 10 years).

c)At other times, cycles exhibit great magnitudinal variability like the period 600BCE to 410 CE, Pythagoras to Alaric in Rome. (stock price starts at $20 and keeps breaking resistance bands as it goes to 100 and then declines to 30 with a net gain of $10.)

That $10 is civilization's net gain after a thousand years. In this particular instance of history, that probably consists of the intellectual treasures of Monasticism. .

Now that Bill mentioned it, I'd like to present two observations I figured out. The first one is a "stretch" because data is incomplete. The second is quite surprising and gratifying, for me that is.

A. Europe

European civilization could have 1000 year cycles. From 600BCE to 410-460CE was a dramatic era of progress, prosperity and decline. From 500 CE to 1500CE was a thousand years of basically .stagnation. From the renaissance to the present is 500 years so far and indicated to end 2500. This could now be reffered to as Western civilization.

B.The Roman Republic/Empire

Quite some time ago I opened a thread to which no one replied. Can't remember the title and rather than look for it, I'll just summarize. What this says is that in a huge long-term cyclical movement of about 600 years, there are four distinct smaller wave movements(averaging 150 years each) that apply to the Roman Republic/Empire. [b]The important point here is the 150 years as it relates to the present.

Picked an arbitrary but crucial date in the life of the RRE as 160BCE, the start of the Third Punic War and Rome's first major success in empire buiding.

--160BCE to 44 BCE-- Rome republic rises to become mistress of the Mediterranean, peaks under Marius and Sulla and declines to civil war. THE FIRST OF FOUR SMALLER WAVES/CYCLES within 600 years.

--34BCE to Nerva Reign 98CE--Battle of Actium liquidates past impedimenta enabling Octavius/Augustus followed by Tiberius to raise Rome, now an empire, to new heights. A series of questionable , weak-willed and deranged emperors drag Rome to the gutter. The second smaller wave.

--98CE to 251CE--Trajano, Hadrian and Antonines(189CE) produced the peak of Roman power and material wealth, a true imperial peak. Commodus sparked the collapse which halted with Decius 251CE. The most important third rise (or Wave 5 in wave theory)

--251 to 410CE--The doomed attempt of Diocletian to bring back glory--also the expected and natural rebound from a collapse. In technical analysis, this is called an attempted "second or double top. It fails of course, the corporate body is exhausted. The fourth "corrective wave"

The above 600 year observation can be charted like the basic Elliott Wave movement. It's the second chart in the link titled "Basic tenets of the Wave Principle" that shows the complete basic movement.

http://www.goldenmuseum.com/1609Elliot_engl.html

Wave 5 covers the reigns from Trajan to Marcus aurelius. Wave letter B is Diocletian's attempt.


Toynbee, Durant and Gibbon won't find what I saw because they were not looking for it. I started to notice its presence after reading an account of Diocletian's reign, and once I connected it to the reported reign of the emperor philosopher Marcus Aurelius. Bingo.

The Elliott wave can be found within an intraday trading of 7 hours or 12 weeks cycle, nine months, 4-5 year cycles and the 8-10 yr Juglar cycle. That I found it in a 600 year great duration of an empire was simply astounding. I would not advise disputing this particular basic wave pattern. I've used it to make money many times. You may of course.

The current episode of the American empire started around 1890 when the US started expanding its vision. If we use the average episode duration of the Roman times of 150 years, of which the British Empire had two 150 yr phases, we are talking of an American slowdown and decline up to 2030-2040 more or less. It would be long-term recovery and ascent again after those bottom years.

What I do not know is whether the religious and political myths in America would gain or lose during this long decline period.

Bill

Well, the longest cyclical trend that I could identify would be the rise and fall of individual civilizations, a process that seems to take about 2,000 years, more-or-less.

Generally, there is about 500 years worth of nearly-invisible "pre-history" (which Spengler analogized to "Winter"), 500 years of high-profile Culture ("Spring"), followed by 500 years of Civilization ("Summer"), and about 500 years of decline into the dust bin of history ("Fall"). These numbers are highly-variable, however. But the three main civilizations we usually concern ourselves with (the "Classical," Greco-Roman one; the Arab one; and the Western one) each fit that pattern fairly well.

The pre-history of Western Civilization begins soon after the fall of Rome (circa 455 CE), is highlighted by the crowning of Charlemagne by the Pope (circa 800 CE) and probably ends by the time of the Battle of Hastings (1066). By that point, an interrelated aristocracy and the Roman Catholic religion controlled virtually all of Europe which amounted to a hill of beans. From that point, feudalism was on the way out and the mercantile class was on the way in. By the end of the 18th century (at the time of the French Revolution if you want to put an exact date on it), Western Culture had reached its peak, the aristocracy was banished and the values from the Enlightenment took over, forming Western Civilization. It sounds a bit trite, but since then, it has been all down hill (culturally speaking, anyway). If Western Civilization were to have a life cycle similar to ancient Rome, we probably have something line 500 to 700 years worth before it vanishes into the dust bin of history as thoroughly as Rome did in the fifth century, CE.

Arab Culture and Civilization run along about 1000 years prior to Western Civilization, and Classical Culture and Civilization run along about 1000 years prior to that. But again, these are rough numbers. By my own best estimate, the current state of Western Civilization is roughly equivalent to the state of Classical Civilization in roughly 100 BCE, about 2100 years ago. We are not yet at the point where a powerful individual, using the force of his own personality, gathers military might for the conquest of great wealth and out of that effort forms an empire (much as Julius Caesar did). On the Arab time scale, the Ottoman Empire was really a dying monument to the greater Arab empire of the Caliphate, which stretched from Baghdad all the way along the coast of Northern Africa and up into Spain, as well as through modern Turkey and much of Greece. It reached its peak around 1200 CE, about 1100 years after Rome reached the peak of its empire (under Hadrian, who actually invaded what is now England).

This phenomena isn't "cyclical" in that the entire world rises and falls in any particular rhythm, but it is "cyclical" in the sense that you can see the cycles of individual Cultures and Civilizations rise and fall at predictable rates.

== Bill