Critique of the theory

[Drakus79]

I put together a three part video presenting my in depth critique of the theory.  This was essentially an embellishment of a blog post I made 2 years ago which was, in itself, based on a number of posts I had made on the old forum over the past decade or so.  Anyway, I hope you enjoy it.

https://youtu.be/9gdA31UPGzc?list=PLFNzc...iWgRBDsIrJ

[Eric the Green]

I see you mentioned astrology, so I might have some comments on that. But for now, I like that you made a video well-summarizing the generational theory. I'll have some comments as I listen. I'm enjoying your reasonable account. It's kind of a relief to our forum, actually

First of all, I notice, like another poster here (unless that was also you, I forget), you called the great war after the glorious revolution as "King Phillip's War." Actually it was called King William's War (c.1689-1697). It was a great world war in Europe, fully deserving of the title of the "total war" of a 4T. Just as the Glorious Revolution was in Britain, so the great war that it triggered was mainly in Europe, because Louis XIV and his allies were hearing none of this so-called glorious revolution. And it was William of Orange who stepped up and waged a determined war to take power in England, protecting the advances in parliamentary rule established in the glorious revolution.

Of course, the ideas of "cusps" is astrological. I don't know if you recognized that. But I don't think "cusps" are mentioned anywhere else. But yes, I agree that is an oversight by S&H. Those born on the border are likely to be combos, or at least some of those born on the cusps go one way and some the other.

Steve Bannon has actually been pictured as Darth Vader on SNL.

The main regeneracy, in my opinion, will be seen as the left-reaction to Trump's election, currently on-going.

The main battle today is left vs. right, as you say, and I would point out that libertarian economics vs. social programs is the primary ideological battle. It is now expressed as the regeneracy vs. Trump and the GOP. Earlier it was Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street and Obamacare. In the 3T, of course, it was Clinton vs. the culture warriors who impeached him and the Gingrich contract. Globalism is not the nub of the issue, because it is not a left vs right issue.

I agree with you about cusps, and how you don't specifically date them. But since Generation X was not a cusp, I disagree with calling the X/millennial cusp as Gen Y (and this seems to have gone out of fashion; the Millennials now = Gen Y), and with calling the millie-homelander cusp as Gen Z. Maybe Bannon's label works, but Generation Z per se is equal to whatever we call the next artists. One letter per generation!

I don't think it's necessary to name the cusps, and I would limit them to two or three years on each side, not long enough to warrant separate archetypes (which you sort of admit). It seems like the 1924-era cusp people are NOT very "king-like," according to your description. The jokers seem to be the best artists; their prophet aspect sharpens them. The war babies also are marked by a Uranus-Neptune trine, which indicated more than usual creative vision. This also occurred at the previous prophet-nomad cusp around 1880, which made them more creative and visionary than today's Jonesers. That group were the main prophets of modernism, such as FDR, Einstein and Picasso.

You are at the very beginning of the nomad/hero cusp, so I would claim you were much more nomad than hero. The stats show the earlier nomads were more crime-prone than the "thief" cusp. You have a point that the earlier generation's influence is strong, but there's also the fact that the next generation begins just before the turning, so that late wavers and cuspers have less time in life to have the turning of their childhood impressed and stamped upon them. But in your third video, I see that your method makes some sense in moving generations back a few years.

I have never agreed with the anomaly, because it seemed to me they prolonged the Transcendental prophet generation far too long. It had more years than even the length of a medieval/renaissance generation during the 100+ year saecula of those times, while the other generations of the revolution/civil war times were shorter. I also never agreed with a 5-year fourth turning.

The political circle is valid, IMO, and many good questionnaires online are based on it. The way that we have an oppressive liberalism today, is that the real government today is corporate, and the corporate bosses are the authority that enslaves us. "Less government" has come to mean less restraint on the bosses.

My impression is the reverse of yours, as to when people say the recent 3T began, from my observation of this forum. Conservatives date the 4T from 2001, liberals from 2008. Conservatives date the 3T from 1980; liberals from 1984. The "facebook" forum appears to be secret and invisible.

Good work editing the wikipedia page!

Using astrology again, and Uranus-Neptune again (the two planets that correspond to the saeculum and its double rhythm), they made a conjunction around 1821, which could explain why people born around that time were more visionary and creative than would be typical of the nomad "gold rush" generation you have created. It was quite a powerful group. It just shows how astrology can inform cycles. Looking at Uranus and Neptune in connection with the saeculum is quite appropriate, considering the length of their cycles (Uranus = 84 years, Neptune 165), which is what I've been saying here since 1997, when both my book and The Fourth Turning were published on the same day. These two planets have a particular connection with modern (rather than renaissance/medieval/ancient) times because of their discovery only in modern times (Uranus 1781, Neptune 1846).

People here need to get past the compulsion to see astrology as false because it is not based on mechanical cause and effect. It's not, but mechanical cause and effect is also outdated in science. The universe today has been shown to be far-more astrological, since everything is connected (non-locality), and holographic (= the hermetic principle "as above, so below" on which astrology is based).

I basically agree with your revision of the dates. I don't know if I would completely adopt them; the alternative approach is to call the gilded and maybe the progressive as hybrid generations. I am pretty much in agreement with your civil war 4T dates. Of course, I've been saying this since I started on this forum in 1997. I have put the other turning dates just a bit later than you did.

Astrology cycles tend to confirm the S&H generation dates, even though they confirm the turning dates you have given. That's because the start of modern dominant generations (including the gilded as heroes) coincide with Neptune entering cardinal signs very closely. Including the GI generation in 1901, when Neptune entered Cancer. So:

Gilded 1822 = Neptune entered Capricorn 1821
Missionary 1960 = Neptune entering Aries in 1861 (on the day Ft. Sumpter was bombed)
GI 1901 = Neptune entering Cancer in 1901
Boomer 1943 = Neptune entering Libra 1943
Millennial 1982 = Neptune entering Capricorn 1984
Generation A 2025 = Neptune entering Aries 2025-26?

I think the generation cycle HAS proven its predictive value. The millennial generation has turned out very much as they predicted back when they were just "babies on board" in 1991. And the fact that we have apparently entered a fourth turning. It turns out that they had predicted 2005 as the start date for the 4T, and here on this forum and elsewhere I predicted the Fall of 2008 as the start time, with a great economic crash. That is what happened, and although the start date is still controversial, Mr. Howe has adopted the date I had predicted. I also predicted here and elsewhere that the US would go to war in the Summer of 2001 (9-11).

See my videos:
https://youtu.be/oKmyB1q3H68
https://youtu.be/WAoeW5fXJYU

Good work, and I think you have improved on the theory.

[beechnut79]

(03-28-2017, 01:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I see you mentioned astrology, so I might have some comments on that. But for now, I like that you made a video well-summarizing the generational theory. I'll have some comments as I listen. I'm enjoying your reasonable account. It's kind of a relief to our forum, actually

First of all, I notice, like another poster here (unless that was also you, I forget), you called the great war after the glorious revolution as "King Phillip's War." Actually it was called King William's War (c.1689-1697). It was a great world war in Europe, fully deserving of the title of the "total war" of a 4T. Just as the Glorious Revolution was in Britain, so the great war that it triggered was mainly in Europe, because Louis XIV and his allies were hearing none of this so-called glorious revolution. And it was William of Orange who stepped up and waged a determined war to take power in England, protecting the advances in parliamentary rule established in the glorious revolution.

Of course, the ideas of "cusps" is astrological. I don't know if you recognized that. But I don't think "cusps" are mentioned anywhere else. But yes, I agree that is an oversight by S&H. Those born on the border are likely to be combos, or at least some of those born on the cusps go one way and some the other.

Steve Bannon has actually been pictured as Darth Vader on SNL.

The main regeneracy, in my opinion, will be seen as the left-reaction to Trump's election, currently on-going.

The main battle today is left vs. right, as you say, and I would point out that libertarian economics vs. social programs is the primary ideological battle. It is now expressed as the regeneracy vs. Trump and the GOP. Earlier it was Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street and Obamacare. In the 3T, of course, it was Clinton vs. the culture warriors who impeached him and the Gingrich contract. Globalism is not the nub of the issue, because it is not a left vs right issue.

I agree with you about cusps, and how you don't specifically date them. But since Generation X was not a cusp, I disagree with calling the X/millennial cusp as Gen Y (and this seems to have gone out of fashion; the Millennials now = Gen Y), and with calling the millie-homelander cusp as Gen Z. Maybe Bannon's label works, but Generation Z per se is equal to whatever we call the next artists. One letter per generation!

I don't think it's necessary to name the cusps, and I would limit them to two or three years on each side, not long enough to warrant separate archetypes (which you sort of admit). It seems like the 1924-era cusp people are NOT very "king-like," according to your description. The jokers seem to be the best artists; their prophet aspect sharpens them. The war babies also are marked by a Uranus-Neptune trine, which indicated more than usual creative vision. This also occurred at the previous prophet-nomad cusp around 1880, which made them more creative and visionary than today's Jonesers. That group were the main prophets of modernism, such as FDR, Einstein and Picasso.

You are at the very beginning of the nomad/hero cusp, so I would claim you were much more nomad than hero. The stats show the earlier nomads were more crime-prone than the "thief" cusp. You have a point that the earlier generation's influence is strong, but there's also the fact that the next generation begins just before the turning, so that late wavers and cuspers have less time in life to have the turning of their childhood impressed and stamped upon them. But in your third video, I see that your method makes some sense in moving generations back a few years.

I have never agreed with the anomaly, because it seemed to me they prolonged the Transcendental prophet generation far too long. It had more years than even the length of a medieval/renaissance generation during the 100+ year saecula of those times, while the other generations of the revolution/civil war times were shorter. I also never agreed with a 5-year fourth turning.

The political circle is valid, IMO, and many good questionnaires online are based on it. The way that we have an oppressive liberalism today, is that the real government today is corporate, and the corporate bosses are the authority that enslaves us. "Less government" has come to mean less restraint on the bosses.

My impression is the reverse of yours, as to when people say the recent 3T began, from my observation of this forum. Conservatives date the 4T from 2001, liberals from 2008. Conservatives date the 3T from 1980; liberals from 1984. The "facebook" forum appears to be secret and invisible.

Good work editing the wikipedia page!

Using astrology again, and Uranus-Neptune again (the two planets that correspond to the saeculum and its double rhythm), they made a conjunction around 1821, which could explain why people born around that time were more visionary and creative than would be typical of the nomad "gold rush" generation you have created. It was quite a powerful group. It just shows how astrology can inform cycles. Looking at Uranus and Neptune in connection with the saeculum is quite appropriate, considering the length of their cycles (Uranus = 84 years, Neptune 165), which is what I've been saying here since 1997, when both my book and The Fourth Turning were published on the same day. These two planets have a particular connection with modern (rather than renaissance/medieval/ancient) times because of their discovery only in modern times (Uranus 1781, Neptune 1846).

People here need to get past the compulsion to see astrology as false because it is not based on mechanical cause and effect. It's not, but mechanical cause and effect is also outdated in science. The universe today has been shown to be far-more astrological, since everything is connected (non-locality), and holographic (= the hermetic principle "as above, so below" on which astrology is based).

I basically agree with your revision of the dates. I don't know if I would completely adopt them; the alternative approach is to call the gilded and maybe the progressive as hybrid generations. I am pretty much in agreement with your civil war 4T dates. Of course, I've been saying this since I started on this forum in 1997. I have put the other turning dates just a bit later than you did.

Astrology cycles tend to confirm the S&H generation dates, even though they confirm the turning dates you have given. That's because the start of modern dominant generations (including the gilded as heroes) coincide with Neptune entering cardinal signs very closely. Including the GI generation in 1901, when Neptune entered Cancer. So:

Gilded 1822 = Neptune entered Capricorn 1821
Missionary 1960 = Neptune entering Aries in 1861 (on the day Ft. Sumpter was bombed)
GI 1901 = Neptune entering Cancer in 1901
Boomer 1943 = Neptune entering Libra 1943
Millennial 1982 = Neptune entering Capricorn 1984
Generation A 2025 = Neptune entering Aries 2025-26?

I think the generation cycle HAS proven its predictive value. The millennial generation has turned out very much as they predicted back when they were just "babies on board" in 1991. And the fact that we have apparently entered a fourth turning. It turns out that they had predicted 2005 as the start date for the 4T, and here on this forum and elsewhere I predicted the Fall of 2008 as the start time, with a great economic crash. That is what happened, and although the start date is still controversial, Mr. Howe has adopted the date I had predicted. I also predicted here and elsewhere that the US would go to war in the Summer of 2001 (9-11).

See my videos:
https://youtu.be/oKmyB1q3H68
https://youtu.be/WAoeW5fXJYU

Good work, and I think you have improved on the theory.

Am curious as to whether you predicted that so-called Trumpcare would go down to defeat, and do you believe it happened because the people were wise in their convictions? What do you believe is the outlook for the next agenda, the tax reform which is said to be another big giveaway to the already wealthy? On another forum somewhere I read a prediction that protests will increase during the fall of 2017. This would be just in time for the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution. See this as being on target?

[Eric the Green]

(03-28-2017, 11:42 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(03-28-2017, 01:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I see you mentioned astrology, so I might have some comments on that. But for now, I like that you made a video well-summarizing the generational theory. I'll have some comments as I listen. I'm enjoying your reasonable account. It's kind of a relief to our forum, actually

First of all, I notice, like another poster here (unless that was also you, I forget), you called the great war after the glorious revolution as "King Phillip's War." Actually it was called King William's War (c.1689-1697). It was a great world war in Europe, fully deserving of the title of the "total war" of a 4T. Just as the Glorious Revolution was in Britain, so the great war that it triggered was mainly in Europe, because Louis XIV and his allies were hearing none of this so-called glorious revolution. And it was William of Orange who stepped up and waged a determined war to take power in England, protecting the advances in parliamentary rule established in the glorious revolution.

Of course, the ideas of "cusps" is astrological. I don't know if you recognized that. But I don't think "cusps" are mentioned anywhere else. But yes, I agree that is an oversight by S&H. Those born on the border are likely to be combos, or at least some of those born on the cusps go one way and some the other.

Steve Bannon has actually been pictured as Darth Vader on SNL.

The main regeneracy, in my opinion, will be seen as the left-reaction to Trump's election, currently on-going.

The main battle today is left vs. right, as you say, and I would point out that libertarian economics vs. social programs is the primary ideological battle. It is now expressed as the regeneracy vs. Trump and the GOP. Earlier it was Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street and Obamacare. In the 3T, of course, it was Clinton vs. the culture warriors who impeached him and the Gingrich contract. Globalism is not the nub of the issue, because it is not a left vs right issue.

I agree with you about cusps, and how you don't specifically date them. But since Generation X was not a cusp, I disagree with calling the X/millennial cusp as Gen Y (and this seems to have gone out of fashion; the Millennials now = Gen Y), and with calling the millie-homelander cusp as Gen Z. Maybe Bannon's label works, but Generation Z per se is equal to whatever we call the next artists. One letter per generation!

I don't think it's necessary to name the cusps, and I would limit them to two or three years on each side, not long enough to warrant separate archetypes (which you sort of admit). It seems like the 1924-era cusp people are NOT very "king-like," according to your description. The jokers seem to be the best artists; their prophet aspect sharpens them. The war babies also are marked by a Uranus-Neptune trine, which indicated more than usual creative vision. This also occurred at the previous prophet-nomad cusp around 1880, which made them more creative and visionary than today's Jonesers. That group were the main prophets of modernism, such as FDR, Einstein and Picasso.

You are at the very beginning of the nomad/hero cusp, so I would claim you were much more nomad than hero. The stats show the earlier nomads were more crime-prone than the "thief" cusp. You have a point that the earlier generation's influence is strong, but there's also the fact that the next generation begins just before the turning, so that late wavers and cuspers have less time in life to have the turning of their childhood impressed and stamped upon them. But in your third video, I see that your method makes some sense in moving generations back a few years.

I have never agreed with the anomaly, because it seemed to me they prolonged the Transcendental prophet generation far too long. It had more years than even the length of a medieval/renaissance generation during the 100+ year saecula of those times, while the other generations of the revolution/civil war times were shorter. I also never agreed with a 5-year fourth turning.

The political circle is valid, IMO, and many good questionnaires online are based on it. The way that we have an oppressive liberalism today, is that the real government today is corporate, and the corporate bosses are the authority that enslaves us. "Less government" has come to mean less restraint on the bosses.

My impression is the reverse of yours, as to when people say the recent 3T began, from my observation of this forum. Conservatives date the 4T from 2001, liberals from 2008. Conservatives date the 3T from 1980; liberals from 1984. The "facebook" forum appears to be secret and invisible.

Good work editing the wikipedia page!

Using astrology again, and Uranus-Neptune again (the two planets that correspond to the saeculum and its double rhythm), they made a conjunction around 1821, which could explain why people born around that time were more visionary and creative than would be typical of the nomad "gold rush" generation you have created. It was quite a powerful group. It just shows how astrology can inform cycles. Looking at Uranus and Neptune in connection with the saeculum is quite appropriate, considering the length of their cycles (Uranus = 84 years, Neptune 165), which is what I've been saying here since 1997, when both my book and The Fourth Turning were published on the same day. These two planets have a particular connection with modern (rather than renaissance/medieval/ancient) times because of their discovery only in modern times (Uranus 1781, Neptune 1846).

People here need to get past the compulsion to see astrology as false because it is not based on mechanical cause and effect. It's not, but mechanical cause and effect is also outdated in science. The universe today has been shown to be far-more astrological, since everything is connected (non-locality), and holographic (= the hermetic principle "as above, so below" on which astrology is based).

I basically agree with your revision of the dates. I don't know if I would completely adopt them; the alternative approach is to call the gilded and maybe the progressive as hybrid generations. I am pretty much in agreement with your civil war 4T dates. Of course, I've been saying this since I started on this forum in 1997. I have put the other turning dates just a bit later than you did.

Astrology cycles tend to confirm the S&H generation dates, even though they confirm the turning dates you have given. That's because the start of modern dominant generations (including the gilded as heroes) coincide with Neptune entering cardinal signs very closely. Including the GI generation in 1901, when Neptune entered Cancer. So:

Gilded 1822 = Neptune entered Capricorn 1821
Missionary 1960 = Neptune entering Aries in 1861 (on the day Ft. Sumpter was bombed)
GI 1901 = Neptune entering Cancer in 1901
Boomer 1943 = Neptune entering Libra 1943
Millennial 1982 = Neptune entering Capricorn 1984
Generation A 2025 = Neptune entering Aries 2025-26?

I think the generation cycle HAS proven its predictive value. The millennial generation has turned out very much as they predicted back when they were just "babies on board" in 1991. And the fact that we have apparently entered a fourth turning. It turns out that they had predicted 2005 as the start date for the 4T, and here on this forum and elsewhere I predicted the Fall of 2008 as the start time, with a great economic crash. That is what happened, and although the start date is still controversial, Mr. Howe has adopted the date I had predicted. I also predicted here and elsewhere that the US would go to war in the Summer of 2001 (9-11).

See my videos:
https://youtu.be/oKmyB1q3H68
https://youtu.be/WAoeW5fXJYU

Good work, and I think you have improved on the theory.

Am curious as to whether you predicted that so-called Trumpcare would go down to defeat, and do you believe it happened because the people were wise in their convictions? What do you believe is the outlook for the next agenda, the tax reform which is said to be another big giveaway to the already wealthy? On another forum somewhere I read a prediction that protests will increase during the fall of 2017. This would be just in time for the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution. See this as being on target?

I didn't have an astrological reading on Trumpcare, but it was already said how complicated it was going to be to repeal and replace Obamacare, and how little the Republicans had done to develop a replacement.

Obamacare came under a reform conjunction (Jupiter-Neptune-Chiron in Aquarius), and so I predicted it would pass. Right now I don't see any such reform era indicated, so that might have been why (astrologically) it didn't pass. Obamacare was certainly indicated to be much-more historically significant than Trump/Ryancare. Maybe that's why it survived.

I'm not sure about tax reform. It might be worth a look.

Off hand, it seems like another project that is too ambitious. If Trump just wants to adjust and simplify the income tax brackets and the income tax % to benefit the wealthy more, that might pass. If it's more than that, it is something that could not get done before, so the best bet is that Trump cannot get it done.

I think protests are increasing now, which I did predict; I'm not seeing that the protests will be greater in the Fall.

The USA is entering the peak of its crisis period, as Pluto approaches its return to its 1776 position. Turmoil will continue and climax in the 2020s. But the world at large seems likely to be somewhat calmer in the next few years than in the period 2010-2017, as the Uranus square to Pluto separates, and Uranus enters Taurus, although a major war is very likely to break out at the end of 2020.

Of course, my predictions are a bit off topic here! I encourage everyone to listen to Drakus79' video, especially part 3. I can post more in the astrology forum if anyone wants more info or predictions from me.

[Drakus79]

Thanks for the kind words Eric.  For the record, I wasn't really trashing astrology, I just said it didn't have as credible a leg to stand on as S&H Generational theory.  I actually do find astrology to be very interesting, and while I don't believe in its predictive powers per se, I don't rule out that there may be something to the way we apply our understanding of the universe based on the historical significance of astrology and that astrology has had a powerful effect on the way we live our lives.  But like a lot of models that try to predict the future (including S&H's), it relies heavily on vague language, past experiences, self fulling prophecies and an over saturation of guesses that covers a broad base so that it's less likely to be proven wrong.  I'd still be interested in reading your book though because I do find it interesting that the planetary changes match up with the turning changes (even the ones I suggested). But I admit that a lot of the ideas I came up with were influenced by members of this forum both consciously and subconsciously so those civil dates may have indirectly been influenced by your ideas (I know you've redrawn the Civil War cycle as well, before I made my attempt in 2012).

I actually did predict that the Ryancare bill would fail.  Not because of astrology or S&H theory though.  Just because it seemed obvious based on the reaction it got.  Everyone hated it, including most Republicans.  Trump even tried to distance himself from it, branding it as Ryancare instead of Trumpcare, saying that it was open to negotiation, trashing Ryan underhandedly.  It became especially clear when he tried to strong arm the freedom caucus pass it quickly. The freedom caucus are the most libertarian group of Republicans in congress, surely he and Bannon would have known that that strategy would have backfired. Unless they're total idiots, it's likely they were using reverse psychology. Trump has said in the past that he wants Universal Healthcare.  I doubt now that he will outright say it since there's a Republican controlled congress and he's still trying to appease the Republican base, but I have a feeling he still prefers an expanded public option.

https://youtu.be/dMauSoC45e0


I would prefer something closer to what Rand Paul proposed to pass because it will put less of a burden on public spending and, long term, it would lead to lower costs and better quality healthcare.  But people rarely think in the longterm, they only focus on their short term interests.  That's why we're so far down the government spending rabbit-hole now and going back seems impossible.  Everyone's just become too reliant on government.  They just won't accept a move back in the other direction.  Most of congress, especially Democrats, will reject Paul's plan even if it is tweaked (and will probably start to look more like Ryancare anyway).  It's more likely a bill like John Conyers' Medicare for all will get more traction and support, especially with Bernie Sanders pushing it. But we already spend over a trillion dollars on medicare and it's the largest part of the federal budget so I'm not even sure how Trump's tax cuts are going to cover medicare as stands it now, much less if we expand it to cover everyone.  And Trump's "spending cuts" don't add up to a hill of beans if he's increasing military spending by 5.3 billion. But I guess there's always borrowing and quantitative easing. I wonder how much longer we can get away with that.

[TnT]

Just out of curiosity, since I've not been hanging out on this forum for a while ...

Steve Bannon is said to be an adherent of the Fourth Turning model. Does anyone know if he has been on this forum, participating in our discussions over the years?

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-29-2017, 06:09 PM)TnT Wrote: Just out of curiosity, since I've not been hanging out on this forum for a while ...

Steve Bannon is said to be an adherent of the Fourth Turning model.  Does anyone know if he has been on this forum, participating in our discussions over the years?

Well, no, I don't think we'll ever know. A lot of us use in old CB radio parlance [shit yeah, that was my "*social media" when I was a teen. ], "the handle".  A handle can mean all sorts of things, but does not disclose the person behind  it  (unless the person uses their name) but rather, something that is relevant to the person behind it.

*Heh, "social media" is a case of what was old, is new again, man.   Old call sign letters = KAWP-<I forgot the suffix>

[David Horn]

(03-29-2017, 06:09 PM)TnT Wrote: Just out of curiosity, since I've not been hanging out on this forum for a while ...

Steve Bannon is said to be an adherent of the Fourth Turning model.  Does anyone know if he has been on this forum, participating in our discussions over the years?

I believe David Kaiser indicated that he had not, at least to the point where DK left the forum himself.  I suspect that's right, since Bannon is really a bomb-thrower.  Repartee is not his cup of tea.

[The Wonkette]

(03-30-2017, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-29-2017, 06:09 PM)TnT Wrote: Just out of curiosity, since I've not been hanging out on this forum for a while ...

Steve Bannon is said to be an adherent of the Fourth Turning model.  Does anyone know if he has been on this forum, participating in our discussions over the years?

I believe David Kaiser indicated that he had not, at least to the point where DK left the forum himself.  I suspect that's right, since Bannon is really a bomb-thrower.  Repartee is not his cup of tea.

How would that deter Bannon from participating in the forum? :;

[David Horn]

(03-30-2017, 11:10 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(03-30-2017, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-29-2017, 06:09 PM)TnT Wrote: Just out of curiosity, since I've not been hanging out on this forum for a while ...

Steve Bannon is said to be an adherent of the Fourth Turning model.  Does anyone know if he has been on this forum, participating in our discussions over the years?

I believe David Kaiser indicated that he had not, at least to the point where DK left the forum himself.  I suspect that's right, since Bannon is really a bomb-thrower.  Repartee is not his cup of tea.

How would that deter Bannon from participating in the forum?  :;

We've had a few bombastic types over the years, but none I might label as a potential Bannon.  Of course, using the forum as a research tool is always possible, but it doesn't seem like his style.  If he was doing that, he have might lurked rather than registered as a member.

Note: I have no evidence of any of this.  DK apparently asked, and received a negative response -- also not definitive.