(02-12-2017, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:(02-10-2017, 12:25 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(02-09-2017, 06:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:(02-09-2017, 03:38 PM)Marypoza Wrote: ... The Theory may very well survive Bannon. In fact, Bannon could be a test as to its validity
Or who knows.... a few months down the road the Donald could look into Bannon's eyes & say his 2 favorite wds: you're fired
Hey we can hope
OK, except for one of the underlying premises: the cycle works because we are unaware of it, or at least unimpressed enough to ignore it. Bannon mucking about may actually disrupt the normal cycle, assuming (a) one exists, and (b) normalcy is even in the cards.
What makes you think that? The cycle may work irrespective of whether we are aware of it - or may even require some people to be aware of it to work.
It was discussed more than once in T4T. The authors noted the difference between societies that were forward looking, and less tied to their own past, and those that were dogmatic and insular. In short, they argued that the cycle requires a bit of amnesia to operate, since the passing of a generation removes that generation's direct knowledge of the previous cycle in the same position as the current one. That allows inherent human instincts to operate, rather than be suppressed by direct knowledge of the past.
I don't see knowledge of the cycle as an issue at all. It's not like anyone knows the cycle or what turning we are in. Back in 2000 some thought a 4T may be beginning with the election going to something who did not win the most votes (for the first time in 112 years). When 911 happen many more thought that's it. Then came the financial crisis and 2001 was dropped for 2008. The financial crisis is the biggest recent event. Suppose a terrorist sets of a nuke in NYC, or we get another financial crisis and this time we get 20% unemployment. Might not 2008 become another 2001? A 3T event that looked like it might be a trigger but wasn't.
Here's the problem. The 4T start is supposed to start a sequence of related events that form a narrative. This is why it is called a trigger. The 1773 Boston Tea Party was a milder event than the 1770 Boston Massacre. Yet is was the the former that started the a sequence of events directly leading to the formation of a new nation: Coercive Acts, 1st Continental Congress, insurgent takeover of domestic armed forces, outbreak of violence, formal declaration of intent to secede, full scale war, post-war crisis and rebellion, formation of a unified polity with the Constitution. This series of events forms a cohesive narrative* for the crisis.
So, now that Trump has been elected, why does he not start his own narrative, as opposed to being part of a larger Obama narrative?
*Although it is harder to see, the same is true for the Glorious Crisis in America (not Britain). The 1675-78 period contains major events. In New England you have King Phillip's War, an existential conflict that showed they threat posed by the Indians. This began a process of nation-building in accordance with the Simmel-Coser principle. I note that New England had the most established militia and provided the original nucleus to the American Revolution.
In Virginia there were Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. This rebellion also involved anti-Indian issues. It saw some cooperation between lower class whites and blacks, which were of concern to elites. Long term consequences in accordance with the Simmel-Coser principle led to the creation of a nation of white settlers united opposition to uncivilized Indians and rebellious blacks slaves. The Slave Codes in Virginia (1705) would eventually emerge out of this.