02-05-2017, 10:06 PM
(02-05-2017, 10:00 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]> Yeah, that's what I thought. You've got nothing, so you've gone
> from bluster and insult to hiding. My bad, I thought I was
> talking to a man.
Whatever.
(02-05-2017, 10:00 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]> Yeah, that's what I thought. You've got nothing, so you've gone
> from bluster and insult to hiding. My bad, I thought I was
> talking to a man.
(02-05-2017, 07:43 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Or, you know, it could mean that some of them don't participate at all. Just because India and Pakistan go to war, or the Chinese and the US go to war, or the US and Iran go to war, does not mean that everyone else on the planet is obligated to pick sides and immediately attack one of their neighbors in a fit of hysteria. I mean, really, is that how you imagine the world works? India and Pakistan go to war, and China and Russia are going to look at each other and go, "To hell with it, we should go to war, too! With each other! Sure, we've been cooperating against the Americans for years now, spent decades resolving outstanding issues, and they're still our primary geopolitical concern. But we can't just get left out like this. The missiles are launching in five minutes!"? The only way what you are talking about makes sense is if you assume that every country on the planet is run by a complete lunatic. Popular hysteria plays a part, but it isn't just a random spasm, it's a sign of pressure that has been building up for years. Absolutely no "reference" you've cited bears out your conclusion that these things happen out of the blue.
"What about Pearl Harbor! What about Fort Sumner, huh!"
The only way you could think that is if you've been coasting entirely off of the history you learned in middle school.
Speaking of references, where's the actual Generational Dynamics research you keep claiming exists? Every time I or anyone else asks you a question, you either sputter indignantly or toss off some link that obviously came from the first result you found on a Google search. Need I remind you of the article from a white supremacist website you posted in response to a question of mine a couple of years ago? I can dig up the post if you like. I thought this was supposed to be based on MIT's System Dynamics, and a complex analysis of contemporary events and history? Do you ever do original research? All I've seen is a half-assed attempt to take S & H's work and pass it off as your own, coupled with a skimming of news stories which you then twist to fit an interpretation that you seem to have based on nothing more than your own opinions. Take your Chinese missiles story. The article you quoted basically says that they were moved to China's border to better target the United States, and that with their range it would be unecessary to move them their to target Russia, and yet you immediately crow about how this is "proof" that the Chinese are years away from nuking and invading Russia. It's like you don't even read your own sources before putting it out.
I guess there's a reason Bannon and others keep referencing S & H, while nobody ever seems to reference the Xenakis model except you.
(02-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> I don't know what your definition of "planning war" is; that's why
> I'm asking for a clarification. You say that the only use for
> China having "thousands of missiles targeting the US and Russia"
> is that they're "planning war"; by that logic, it seems to me that
> the US and Russia are also "planning war", since we both have
> thousands of missiles targeting each other and China as well.
> I feel reasonably confident that I understand what the US is
> planning. We have contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios in
> which war could occur; in that sense we are "planning war". We
> may well be planning conventional strikes in Syrian territory, and
> keeping our nukes in reserve as a deterrent against unwanted
> escalation; in that sense also we may be "planning war", or at
> least we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, we
> aren't likely to attack China or Russia in an unprovoked war of
> aggression; in that sense, we are not "planning war".
> I'm trying to get a feel for which of these senses you are using
> when you say China is "planning war". If it's in the contingency
> plan sense, I'd agree; I think all nations with significant
> military power "plan war" in that sense. If you're talking about
> use as a deterrent against escalation while they wage a limited
> conventional war, I'd be interested in what limited conventional
> war you think is planned. If you think they are planning an
> unprovoked war of aggression against the US in the sense that we
> are not planning an unprovoked war of aggression against China,
> I'd want to know why you think the situation is not symmetric. And
> if you think the US is planning an unprovoked war of aggression
> against China, I'd be interested in that too.
> So, can you clarify in which of those senses you are using
> "planning war", and in particular, do you see the US and Russia
> fitting that sense as well?
(02-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> Except in the deterministic sense that what happened is obviously
> what happened, yes, I think there are scenarios where the US could
> have sided with Nazi Germany in WWII. If the Great Depression had
> hit France harder, causing the centrist French government to be
> replaced by a militant Communist government strongly allied with
> the Soviet Union, for example, I can see Churchill and the US
> intervening to help Nazi Germany survive to prevent Communist
> hegemony over the continent. I can think of other scenarios too,
> up until 1938 or 1939. I'm not sure what relevance that has,
> though.
(02-05-2017, 09:39 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> -- what if Grandpa Bush had been successful in overthrowing
> Roosevelt? Grandpa was a big Hitler fanboy, even after WW2
> started. In 1942 he was busted for "trading with the
> enemy"
(02-05-2017, 09:32 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> What do you make of this?
> https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/bre...di-arabia/
>
(02-05-2017, 09:42 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]> This is nothing new in the sense that the Houthis have been
> launching missiles from the Yemen border striking Saudi military
> targets for a couple of years now. What IS new about this is that
> the missile reached Riyadh. It's not surprising that the Saudis
> would like to cover it up, but that obviously isn't going to
> happen. What will happen is that this will substantially increase
> tensions further between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and in some
> scenarios might result in retaliation against Iran.
> It will be interesting to see how the BBC covers this tomorrow,
> after everything's been confirmed.
(02-07-2017, 08:17 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ](02-05-2017, 09:32 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> What do you make of this?
> https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/bre...di-arabia/
>
(02-05-2017, 09:42 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]> This is nothing new in the sense that the Houthis have been
> launching missiles from the Yemen border striking Saudi military
> targets for a couple of years now. What IS new about this is that
> the missile reached Riyadh. It's not surprising that the Saudis
> would like to cover it up, but that obviously isn't going to
> happen. What will happen is that this will substantially increase
> tensions further between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and in some
> scenarios might result in retaliation against Iran.
> It will be interesting to see how the BBC covers this tomorrow,
> after everything's been confirmed.
This is turning out to be a very strange story. This story is being
reported by multiple media sources --- al-Masdar, al-Manar, Mehr,
Ahlul Bayt News Agency, Press TV -- but all of these media sources are
linked to Iran. Mainstream media sources are almost completely
ignoring the story, except for an occasion report that describe it as
a "claim" by Houthis.
(02-07-2017, 03:54 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ](02-07-2017, 08:17 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ](02-05-2017, 09:32 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> What do you make of this?
> https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/bre...di-arabia/
>
(02-05-2017, 09:42 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]> This is nothing new in the sense that the Houthis have been
> launching missiles from the Yemen border striking Saudi military
> targets for a couple of years now. What IS new about this is that
> the missile reached Riyadh. It's not surprising that the Saudis
> would like to cover it up, but that obviously isn't going to
> happen. What will happen is that this will substantially increase
> tensions further between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and in some
> scenarios might result in retaliation against Iran.
> It will be interesting to see how the BBC covers this tomorrow,
> after everything's been confirmed.
This is turning out to be a very strange story. This story is being
reported by multiple media sources --- al-Masdar, al-Manar, Mehr,
Ahlul Bayt News Agency, Press TV -- but all of these media sources are
linked to Iran. Mainstream media sources are almost completely
ignoring the story, except for an occasion report that describe it as
a "claim" by Houthis.
-- l 've been checking the BBC, they aren't reporting it. Could it be fake news?
(02-07-2017, 08:13 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ](02-05-2017, 09:39 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> -- what if Grandpa Bush had been successful in overthrowing
> Roosevelt? Grandpa was a big Hitler fanboy, even after WW2
> started. In 1942 he was busted for "trading with the
> enemy"
What does "overthrow" mean? As I wrote in my previous answer,
I believe that we would have sided with whichever side Britain
was on, and that there's no scenario where we could have
joined the Nazis in bombing London.
(02-08-2017, 09:08 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]*** 9-Feb-17 World View -- Mainstream media frets over Steve Bannon, the Fourth Turning, and Donald Trump
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- China-Philippines détente unravels over Scarborough Shoal
- Mainstream media frets over Steve Bannon, the Fourth Turning, and Donald Trump
****
**** China-Philippines détente unravels over Scarborough Shoal
****
China's now-famous 'nine-dash line' illegally claims sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, including territories belonging to other nations (Reuters)
When Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte announced last October that
he was throwing the US military out of the Philippines and would be
turning to China instead, I wrote that this flip-flop could not last
for long, because the Philippine people had an overwhelmingly
favorable view of the U.S., and a far less favorable view of China.
It's a core principle of Generational Dynamics that, even in a
dictatorship, major decisions are made by masses of people, by
generations of people. The attitudes of politicians are irrelevant,
except insofar as they represent the attitudes of the people.
Last October, Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said that
the country would not allow the US military to use its base in the
Philippines even for its freedom of navigation patrols in the South
China Sea. Since then, Duterte has already been forced to backtrack
on his threat to throw the US military out.
Now Duterte's own ministers are expressing alarm that China may be
building a new military base on Scarborough Shoal, which has been a
fishing ground for Philippine fishermen for centuries.
Now the very same Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana is now
saying that China should not be permitted to build military
facilities on Scarborough Shoal because, in combination with China's
other illegal military bases, this would give China complete military
control of the entire South China Sea:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"They encroached. They occupied three islands [in the
> Spratlys] plus they are trying to get Scarborough. So to us that
> is unacceptable.
>
> If we allow them, they will build. That’s very, very disturbing.
> Very much [more] disturbing than Fiery Cross because this is so
> close to us. ...
>
> "The Americans, that’s their red line. Red line meaning you can’t
> do that there, so they [China] did not do it.
>
> If we had a strong military presence [in the South China Sea], we
> can stop them [China] but we don’t. I am still hoping in the
> future some reasonable guy there in Beijing will come to see the
> light that this is ours. That is shooting for the moon but who
> knows?"<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The "red line" refers to a warning that President Barack Obama gave to
China's President Xi Jinping last year against building an artificial
island at Scarborough Shoal. A Chinese military base on Scarborough
Shoal would put Chinese fighter jets and missiles within easy striking
distance of US forces that are stationed in the Philippines, as well
as the Philippines' own forces. The shoal also commands the northeast
exit of the sea, so a Chinese military outpost there could stop other
countries' navies from traveling through the South China Sea.
Early last month, during his confirmation hearing for Secretary of
State, Rex Tillerson said that China's artificial islands and military
bases in the South China Sea were an "illegal" activity and added:
> [indent]<QUOTE>"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that
> first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those
> islands also is not going to be allowed."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
Chinese media have responded that the US cannot implement this threat
without waging a large-scale war. On Wednesday, China's foreign
ministry promised Peace In Our Time: "We are absolutely not interested
in conflicts with other countries and call for maintaining peace and
stability in the South China Sea as this is in the interests of all
states." International Business Times and AFP and Tass (Moscow)
Related Articles
- Tensions rise between China and Trump administration (07-Feb-2017)
- Philippines to reject US use of its bases for South China Sea patrols (09-Dec-2016)
- Philippines leader Rodrigo Duterte in comic dance with China (23-Oct-2016)
- Philippines humiliates China in harsh Hague Tribunal ruling over South China Sea (13-Jul-2016)
****
**** Mainstream media frets over Steve Bannon, the Fourth Turning, and Donald Trump
****
Needless to say, I'm fascinated by the sudden interest by the
mainstream media in Steve Bannon and The Fourth Turning. An article
last week about Steve Bannon in Time mentioned the Fourth Turning.
A more important article came out this week in the form of an
analytical article by Linette Lopez in Business Insider.
Unfortunately, she has no idea what she's talking about, and knows
absolutely nothing about generational theory, although she thinks she
does.
Her thesis is that Steve Bannon wants to use this theory to bring
about a world war. That's crazy. What generational theory does is
predict that a world war is coming, whether we like it or not, and
tells us to prepare for it.
The Fourth Turning was the foundational work for generational theory.
It was a brilliant work when it was written by Neil Howe and William
Strauss in the early 1990s, but they applied it only to English and
American history since the 1400s, and today their work is badly out of
date.
In 2003 I took over further development of generational theory,
corrected a number of the early errors, and expanded it to all
countries and places at all times in history. I launched the website
http://GenerationalDynamics.com, which has been a platform
of continuing development of generational theory. There are now
almost 4,000 articles on the website containing hundreds of analyses
and predictions, all of which have come true or are trending true.
None has been proven wrong. No web site, analyst, journalist, or
politician has come even close to the analytical and forecasting
success of GenerationalDynamics.com. It's a truly historic
development.
It's true that generational theory predicts a new world war. But it
makes no difference whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton had won
the presidential election, because no politician can either cause or
prevent a world war.
However, to use an analogy, if your boat is sailing through a storm,
then the boat captain can neither cause nor prevent a storm, but if a
storm is coming, then one captain may do a better job than another in
guiding the boat through the storm. The crazy thing would be for the
boat captain to know that a storm is coming, but ignore it completely,
and make no preparations whatsoever.
My personal belief is that America will be best guided through the
coming storm by a president who has the benefit of an understanding of
Generational Dynamics, because that's the only methodology that
describes what's actually going on in the world.
So the reason that Linette Lopez is completely wrong is that she has
no understanding whatsoever of generational theory. She has no clue.
Lopez would tell a boat captain not to prepare for a storm, even if
the weather forecast says that a storm is coming. She thinks we
should just all be Pollyannas and pretend that nothing bad will ever
happen. Linette Lopez is recommending the path to total disaster.
Ironically, Neil Howe himself has almost completely abandoned his own
Fourth Turning theory by supporting views similar to those of Linette
Lopez. This is explained by the fact that Howe supports Democrats,
and so is committed to opposing anything from Donald Trump, even when
it's his own Fourth Turning theory. This is just one more of the
bizarre twists that are common in today's world.
Generational Dynamics says that a world war is coming, and that no
politician can either cause or prevent it. But what politicians can
do is prepare for it, and that's what we can hope that Steve Bannon
and Donald Trump are doing, to the benefit of all of us. Business Insider and Time
Related Articles
- How a world war with China would unfold (21-Feb-2014)
- President Trump's inauguration speech links today's America to the 1930s (21-Jan-2017)
- Protests grow over Trump's executive order to restrict immigration (29-Jan-2017)
- No war erupted from Trump's ten minute phone call with Taiwan's Tsai Ing-wen (05-Dec-2016)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Philippines, Scarborough Shoal, China,
Rodrigo Duterte, Delfin Lorenzana, Fiery Cross, South China Sea,
Xi Jinping, Rex Tillerson, Steve Bannon,
the Fourth Turning, Neil Howe, William Strauss, Linette Lopez
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
(02-08-2017, 02:35 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]> Also JohnX seems convinced on certain Alignments of
> countries. Take for example China's military alliances, China has
> traditionally (for most of the last 35 years or so) relied on Iran
> as its primary partner for military alliances. Saudi Arabia has
> usually been a distant second in terms of technology sharing for
> China than Iran has Been. Turkey has traditionally been Firmly in
> the US sphere. Yet JohnX says that Russia and the US will ally and
> that Iran would be aligned to the west, while turkey and Saudi
> Arabia, two countries that have been western aligned since before
> WW2 would suddenly ally with China against both the West and
> Russia?
(02-08-2017, 12:34 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> Grampa Bush was plotting to oust Roosevelt from power in the
> 1930s. He was thwarted by Gen Smedley Butler. You can read about
> it here:
> https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20...ate-elite/
(02-08-2017, 09:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> Speaking of which, you stated that even in a dictatorship,
> decisions are made by masses of ppl. Are you saying that the
> German people of that time were responsible for WW2 & death camps?
> Can you explain further plz?
(02-09-2017, 10:31 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ](02-08-2017, 12:34 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> Grampa Bush was plotting to oust Roosevelt from power in the
> 1930s. He was thwarted by Gen Smedley Butler. You can read about
> it here:
> https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/20...ate-elite/
The point is that the coup attempt did not succeed, and could not have
succeeded because the people would not have allowed it. America has
gone through multiple traumas, including a civil war, assassination of
Abraham Lincoln, assassination of JFK, forced resignation of Richard
Nixon, impeachment of Bill Clinton. In each case, the government
simply continued on as before. So even if Prescott Bush had achieved
some kind of partial success, his coup attempt would have failed
anyway.
(02-08-2017, 09:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]> Speaking of which, you stated that even in a dictatorship,
> decisions are made by masses of ppl. Are you saying that the
> German people of that time were responsible for WW2 & death camps?
> Can you explain further plz?
Yes, of course. The German people were overwhelmingly supportive
of the Holocaust, or it could not have succeeded.
Kristallnacht occurred on November 10, 1938. Jewish businesses were
smashed, some Jews were killed, and tens of thousands of Jews were
arrested and sent to concentration camps. The Berlin correspondent
of London's Daily Telegraph wrote:
> <QUOTE>"Racial hatred and hysteria seemed to have taken
> complete control of otherwise decent people. I saw fashionably
> dressed women clapping their hands and screaming with glee, while
> respectable middle-class mothers held up their babies to see the
> 'fun.'"<END QUOTE>
So yes, Hitler and Goebbles were following the will of the German
people. It's like the Buddhists trying to exterminate the Rohingyas
in Burma today. One way or another, the German Catholics were going
to try to exterminate the Jews.
JohnX Wrote:If you're unable to grasp this kind of widespread vitriolic hatred,
JohnX Wrote:the same thing is happening today right in this country, right in this
forum. In 2006, Hollywood came out with the movie Death of a
President which portrayed (advocated) the assassination of President
Bush. Numerous people on the left have referred to Tea Partiers as
"teabaggers." Obama's pal, Teamsters Union leader James Hoffa,
frequently called for violence against Republicans and Tea Partiers.
Obama himself incited violence by blacks against police, and invited
to the White House the violent, racist "Black Lives Matters" people
who constantly incite violence by blacks. In postings in this forum
in this and other threads, there's enormous vitriolic hatred directed
at Trump.
To show how completely ridiculous this is, someone who merely says
that men should not be allowed to use the women's room is racist,
sexist, homophobic, and so forth.
And anyone who objects to any of this left wing stuff is immediately
thrown into Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" -- "racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it."
So here's what you should do: Imagine taking all this vitriolic hatred
directed at Bush, Republicans, Tea Partiers, Trump, and so forth, and
putting into a single deplorable basket. Then transform that entire
basket of vitriolic hatred into equivalent vitriolic hatred directed
at Jews, and use a time machine to transfer it into Nazi Germany, and
you can understand why the Holocaust was brought about by the German
people, and that Hitler and Goebbles were just doing what the people
wanted.