That honey badger analogy is interesting. I haven't been in touch
with Bannon in a long time, except once. On the day before
Thanksgiving I heard a report on CNN that he was depressed because
everyone was saying he was a racist. I wrote him a short Happy
Thanksgiving note saying that his friends know that he isn't a racist,
and the real truth would come out sooner or later. I wasn't sure I'd
even get a response, given his new responsibilities, but two minutes
later came back a message -- "I'm not getting depressed !!! Give me a
break!!!!" This is consistent with the honey badger analogy. So I
guess no one should be worried about him.
The Time magazine article of course doesn't mention Generational
Dynamics, but talks about Neil Howe and David Kaiser, and the Fourth
Turning (FT). Both Howe and Kaiser really despise me and GD. This is
an example of my own initial naïveté. Back 12-13 years ago, I naïvely
thought that Howe and Strauss and Kaiser would actually welcome my
contributions to the fourth turning theory. Haha. I'm like dirt to
them.
The current fourth turning community, as represented in the Fourth
Turning Forum (
http://generational-theory.com/forum/) is also deeply
split because of me, with many of them also deeply despising me. But
the really funny thing about this is that they've all almost
completely adopted the GD view of generational theory, rather than the
original FT view. The original FT view is that generational theory
only works for Britain and the US since the 1400s, does not work for
other countries or time periods, and other countries simply follow the
Anglo-American timeline. Theoretically, the FT view is that
generational cycles are generated by the Awakening era, which doesn't
really make sense, rather than the crisis war.
Generational Dynamics expanded generational theory to include all
countries at all times and places in history (called the "principle of
localization"). Each country or ethnic group can be on a separate
timeline, and generational cycles are generated by crisis wars.
Pretty much everyone in the FT forum, including the people who despise
me, have adopted the principle of localization, as I like to remind
them whenever they try to argue with me, since the original
mono-timeline view is clearly wrong. What I find really remarkable is
that many of them reject generational theory entirely, mainly because
they want to reject the concept of an approaching world war, and yet
they've been in the FT forum for years. To them, and recently to Howe
and Kaiser, FT is just a left-wing sociology theory, and a fourth
turning crisis is just some vague kind of sociological crisis.
This brings us back to the Time magazine article. As far as I know,
Bannon completely accepts the GD view of the future. But Howe doesn't
even believe his own theory any more. Kaiser is far left-wing, and
Howe is almost as far, so they're committed to not agreeing with Trump
on anything, which means that they are committed to not agreeing with
the GD view, which they never did anyway. Time Magazine is also a
left-wing magazine, so they would also have to reject the GD view,
though to be fair a lot of people reject the GD view for
non-ideological reasons, because they can't stand the thought of a new
world war.