Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Generational Dynamics World View
(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. Rolleyes

Whatever.
Reply
*** 6-Feb-17 World View -- Trump will honor Australia refugee deal, despite calling it 'worst deal ever'

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
  • Trump will honor Australia refugee deal, despite calling it 'worst deal ever'
  • Australian politics in turmoil over refugee deal

****
**** Trump will honor Australia refugee deal, despite calling it 'worst deal ever'
****


[Image: g170205b.jpg]
Australia's refugee detention center on the Pacific island of Nauru

Australian officials, led by Australia's prime minister Malcolm
Turnbull, have said that the plan to resettle up the 1,250 refugees
from Australia in the United States had been "confirmed several times
over" by Donald Trump administration officials.

The deal was made in November by President Barack Obama in the waning
days of his administration. The US will take 1,250 refugees that
Australia has sent to two "detention centers" on Pacific islands, one
on Papua New Guinea's (PNG's) Manus Island, and one on the island
nation of Nauru, under agreements reached with both countries. The
reason that they had been sent to detention centers is not because
they were known to have committed crimes, but because they had arrived
by boats run by human traffickers. Australia has refused to let them
resettle on Australian soil in order to discourage human trafficking,
and the policy has actually been very successful in that regard.

Nonetheless, the detention centers are considered to be violations of
international law for several reasons, including the fact that they're
described as filthy and rat-infested, with numerous stories of
beatings, torture, and sexual abuse.

Although the deal was announced in November, it's been mostly ignored
until last week when president Donald Trump held a phone conversation
with Australia's president Malcolm Turnbull. The mainstream media
described the phone call as contention, and claimed that Trump had
hung up on Turnbull, something that both Trump and Turnbull have
derided as "fake news."

Trump characterized the refugee deal as "the worst deal ever," and
there was speculation that Trump would cancel the deal. However,
Trump took the position that he was bound by the international
agreements made by the previous administration, and he has confirmed
that the US will take in up to 1,250 of these refugees, after
subjecting each of them to "extreme vetting." Australian Broadcasting and Business Insider and CNBC

Related Articles

****
**** Australian politics in turmoil over refugee deal
****


Australian politics were already pretty toxic over the use of
the Pacific island refugee detention centers, but the news about
the Trump-Turnbull phone call and the new attention given to
the US-Australia refugee deal has caused additional turmoil:
  • People on the left generally want all the refugees in the
    Pacific island detention centers to be brought to Australian soil and
    settled there. They point out that Australia is the sixth-largest
    country in the world geographically, with the seventh-lowest
    population density, and so they could easily resettle many
    refugees.

  • People on the right point out that the real evil is the human
    traffickers who charge thousands of dollars per refugee to transport
    them by boat, hoping to reach Australian soil. They say that the
    detention centers have drastically reduced the number of refugees
    attempting the boat trip, and so have also drastically reduced the
    amount of human trafficking.

  • Turnbull is being accused of giving Trump a quid pro quo in
    return for going ahead with the refugee deal. In particular, the
    accusation is that Turnbull was forced to agree to military
    participation in a future war when Trump requests it. Turnbull has
    vigorously denied this accusation.

  • Some people are accusing Australia's government of humanitarian
    cruelty for having a policy of refusing to bring refugees from the
    detention centers to Australia in the case of a medical emergency, for
    fear that once on Australian soil, they'll never leave.

With regard to the last point, the Trump-Turnbull phone call was
not the only event in the last week to reignite the refugee debate.

A 37 year old woman refugee known only as "Dee" had requested in
December to be flown from the Nauru detention center to Australia to
care for a high-risk pregnancy. Australia refused, infuriating
activists, but finally was forced on Friday to permit her to come to a
hospital in Brisbane.

Ironically, citizens of Nauru may be approved for transfer to
Australian hospitals, but since Dee was a refugee, her transfer was
not approved (until Friday). Canberra Times and Special Broadcasting Service (Australia) and Stuff (New Zealand) and BBC and Red Flag

Related Articles

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Australia, Malcolm Turnbull,
Papua New Guinea, PNG, Manus Island, Nauru

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
Reply
(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!"  Rolleyes

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.  Wink

This is a great post and the shortcomings of GD are also apparent in Xenakis' analysis of Past wars. Take his explanation for WW1 and WW2; Hitler just didn't appear out of the blue. JohnX completely omits the role WW1 and the way that war ended in particular shaped Germany and set the stage for the rise of the Nazis. JohnX mentions that Germany Broke the treaty signed in 1919 but completely omits the fact that the 1919 treaty was a diktat imposed on Germany under duress and that any German government would have probably broke the treaty a soon as their country was strong enough to challenge it.
Reply
*** 7-Feb-17 World View -- Tensions rise between China and Trump administration

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
  • China sails warships near Japan's Senkaku Islands
  • Tensions rise between China and Trump administration

****
**** China sails warships near Japan's Senkaku Islands
****


[Image: g170206b.jpg]
Senkaku Islands

In a show of military force, China sailed three warships past the
Senkaku Islands on Monday, just two days after Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis visited Japan and reaffirmed the US commitment to defend
the islands if attacked by China.

Although the Senkaku Islands are just a collection of large, barren
rocks, it's believed that they lie in a region with vast oil and gas
reserves. Japan says that the islands have been their sovereign
territory since the 1800s. China says that they've been their
sovereign territory since "ancient times," and that their claims are
"indisputable," but China says exactly the same things about any other
country's territory that it wants to confiscate. China's claims in
the South China Sea are not only "disputable," they're also illegal
according to a ruling by a United Nations court in the Hague. Some of
China's "ironclad proof" was investigated by the BBC and found to be a
hoax.

The United States has taken no position on whether Japan or China own
the Senkaku Islands, but have agreed that Japan is currently
administering the islands. During the early part of the
administration of President Barack Obama, there was some question
whether Obama would agree to defend the islands under the US-Japan
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security that was signed in 1960.
The issue was cleared up in April 2014 during a visit by Obama to
Japan, he announced, "The policy of the United States is clear -- the
Senkaku Islands are administered by Japan and therefore fall within
the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation
and Security. And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine
Japan’s administration of these islands."

The administration of President Donald Trump once again reaffirmed the
US defense of the Senkaku Islands last week when ]US Defense Secretary
James Mattis visited Japan and said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I made clear that our long-standing policy on the
> Senkaku Islands stands -- the US will continue to recognize
> Japanese administration of the islands and as such Article 5 of
> the US-Japan Security Treaty applies."<END QUOTE>
[/indent]

China's Foreign Ministry responded quickly:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Diaoyu [Senkaku] and its affiliated islands have been
> Chinese territory since ancient times. These are historical facts
> that cannot be changed. The so-called US-Japan security treaty was
> a product of the Cold War, and it should not harm China's
> territorial sovereignty and legitimate rights
>
> We urge the US side to adopt a responsible attitude and stop
> making wrong remarks on the issue of the sovereignty of Diaoyu
> Islands."<END QUOTE>
[/indent]

It's getting very tiresome to hear that China always describe their
empty claims as indisputable facts, but the real concerns is that the
Chinese are becoming so angry and frustrated that they'll take real
military action. Sending three warships near the islands, as they did
on Monday, is harmless as far as it goes, but with nationalistic
feelings high in both China and Japan, a miscalculation leading to a
military clash is a real possibility. CNN and Fox News

Related Articles

****
**** Tensions rise between China and Trump administration
****


US-China tensions have been growing steadily for years, especially as
China has built illegal artificial islands and illegal military bases
in the South China Sea. But these tensions seem to have taken a major
spurt since Donald Trump became president, because of Trump's
willingness to go much farther than Obama in challenging "politically
correct" norms.

Even before taking office, Trump accepted a phone call from Taiwan's
president Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai has refused to endorse the "one-China
policy" that precludes Taiwan's independence, and Trump has said that
the one-China policy is open for negotiation. Younger generations in
Taiwan increasingly favor independence, and it's clear to China that
time is not on their side.

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]

An editorial in Chinese state media said, "Unless Washington plans to
wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to
prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish."

This talk of war has led to some media questions about how ready China
is for war.

China has only one aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, but it's much
smaller than US aircraft carriers, having been purchased from the
Soviet Union in 1988.

The Liaoning can carry up to 24 fighter jets and about 12 helicopters,
while U.S. Navy’s current Nimitz-class warships, such as the USS
Ronald Reagan, stationed in Japan, can handle more than 60 aircraft.
An even larger carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, will be put into service
in 2017.

That would indicate that China is far behind the United States in sea
power, but the first of two new all-Chinese aircraft carriers, the
Shandong-1, is expected to begin sea trials this year.

People frequently point out to me that China would not attack the
United States because the US has a superior military. From the point
of view of Generational Dynamics, that makes sense for most wars, but
not for generational crisis wars. When America's South attacked Fort
Sumter, launching the American Civil War, it was predictable that the
North would win because it was three times as big, but the South
attacked anyway. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was predictable
that America would win because it was five times as big, but Japan
attacked anyway.

As a population, China is in a highly emotional state right now.
They've become extremely nationalistic. Their younger generations are
looking for action, believing that China is strong enough to beat the
US. On the US side, most people believe that President Trump means
business in a way that President Obama never did, and that Trump may
well take some military action to fulfill Rex Tillerson's threat to
prevent China from accessing its artificial islands in the South China
Sea.

Generational Dynamics predicts that the US and China are going to war.
It's impossible to predict what will trigger that war, or when it will
begin. But whether it begins next month, next year, or thereafter, it
will be part of the greatest world war in history. VOA and The Diplomat and The Statesman

Related Articles


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Japan, Senkaku Islands, China,
U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security,
Jim Mattis, Rex Tillerson, Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen,
Liaoning, Shandong-1, USS Ronald Reagan, USS Gerald Ford

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
Reply
(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?

Well, you're right, I suppose every country is always "planning
war" in the sense of preparing to defend itself in case of war.

In the case of China, it's a lot more than just building one weapons
system after another whose only purpose is to destroy American cities,
military bases, and aircraft carriers. It's the series of aggressive
actions that China is taking on all its borders, similar to Hitler's
actions in the late 1930s. I think that with some thought, one could
distinguish between defensively or offensively "planning for war."

(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.

That's an interesting answer, not one that I was expecting. You're
saying that if a communist Hitler had risen in France who was
worse than Germany's Hitler, then we would have sided with France.

The reason that I asked the question was to show that the choice
of sides in a generational crisis war is pretty much
predetermined. If we assume that there was no such French
communist Hitler, then I would say that the choice of France
our ally was predetermined.

But if you're going to make that kind of assumption, then you
could also have assumed that America's leader could have become
another Hitler, and sided with the Nazis.

So I would say two things. I think that if you look back in history
and analyze the 100 years war, the 30 years war, the war of the
Spanish succession, the French Revolution, the American Civil war, WW
I -- then Hitler could not have arisen in America, Britain or France,
and only Germany has the history and geography that would have
permitted the rise of Hitler. And second, under those circumstances,
we could never have sided with the Nazis.

So maybe I asked the question the wrong way. I should have asked: Is
there any scenario where we would have sided with Britain's enemy,
whether Germany or France, assuming that Britain maintained it's
historic government (and that there was no British Hitler). I would
argue that we would have chosen whatever side Britain was on, and that
there were no circumstances where we would be joining some other
country in bombing London.

The same kind of reasoning could be used today. Could we side with
China and Pakistan against India? I don't believe so. Could Russia
join China and Pakistan in war against India and Iran? Once again, I
don't see any reasonable scenario where that's possible. I believe
that the alignments that I've been describing for ten years -- the US,
India, Russia and Iran versus China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim
countries -- are pre-determined and will not change.
Reply
(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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
Human Rights doctrine is a tyranny imposed by selfish tyrannical boomers. Because boomers were largely educated by refugees from the losing sides of the Russian and Chinese Civil wars and were therefore given a predominately negative view of the governments there. Because of that Boomers have never truly accepted the legitimacy of either China or Russia's governments. Xers and Millies have however largely grown up with those Countries having always had more or less the same regimes those countries have now. The younger generations in the west do not regard the rise of Putin as some kind of moral failure on the part of the Russian people or seek to replace the PRC with the ROC in China. This is shown by the new rights willingness to form an partnership with Putin and how opposition has generated from both the traditional boomer dominated right and the boomer dominated left.
Reply
(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?
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply
*** 8-Feb-17 World View -- Investigation reveals depraved new atrocities by Syria's Bashar al-Assad

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
  • Investigation reveals depraved new atrocities by Syria's Bashar al-Assad
  • Epicenter of Syrian conflict moves from Aleppo to Idlib and al-Bab

****
**** Investigation reveals depraved new atrocities by Syria's Bashar al-Assad
****


[Image: g170207b.jpg]
Each week, up to 50 people at the Saydnaya prison were taken out of their prison cells for arbitrary trials, beaten, then hanged (AFP)

Just when you think you know all the depraved atrocities that Syria's
president Bashar al-Assad has committed, new evidence leaks out that
shows even more grotesque actions by this psychopathic killer and war
criminal.

These actions began in 2011, when there were thousands of people
peacefully demonstrating against al-Assad. They took place in secret
in Saydnaya Prison, a facility that al-Assad turned into a "human
slaughterhouse," according to Amnesty International, based on
interviews with 84 people, including 31 former inmates, four former
guards, three former judges and three doctors. Thousands of these
peaceful demonstrators were brought to Saydnaya for extreme torture
and execution.

The prisoners were people who were perceived to oppose the government
in some way. They came from all sectors of Syrian society. Many are
demonstrators, long-time political dissidents, human rights defenders,
journalists, doctors, humanitarian aid workers and students.

According to one former inmate, they were tortured from the moment
they arrived:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"You are thrown to the ground and they use different
> instruments for the beatings: electric cables with exposed copper
> wire ends — they have little hooks so they take a part of your
> skin — normal electric cables, plastic water pipes of different
> sizes and metal bars. Also they have created what they call the
> “tank belt”, which is made out of tire that has been cut into
> strips. ... They make a very specific sound; it sounds like a
> small explosion. I was blindfolded the whole time, but I would try
> to see somehow. All you see is blood: your own blood, the blood of
> others. After one hit, you lose your sense of what is
> happening. You’re in shock. But then the pain comes."<END QUOTE>
[/indent]

Prisoners are stripped naked and thrown into cells for months.
Prisoners were severely beaten regularly. Prisoners were forced to
rape each other. There were starved and given little food and water.
The only escape was death, with regular mass hangings of up to 50 at a
time. At least 17,723 people were killed in government custody
between March 2011 and December 2015, an average of 300 deaths each
month.

As far as is known, these actions are still going on today, in
Saydnaya and other Syria prisons.

This is not the first time al-Assad's horrors have leaked out into the
public. In 2014, an al-Assad defector supplied 55,000 photos of about
11,000 men whom al-Assad had tortured using electrocution,
eye-gouging, strangulation, starvation, and beating on prisoners on a
massive "industrial strength" scale. Al-Assad was so pleased and
proud of this torture that he made sure each act was photographed.

Throughout my lifetime, I've heard people describe the Holocaust and
say, "Never again!" But al-Assad is a man who gets obvious pleasure
from gouging out people's eyes or pulling out their fingernails, or
sending missiles into school dormitories to kill children, or dropping
barrel bombs laden with metal, chlorine, ammonia, phosphorous and
chemical weapons on civilian neighborhoods, or using Sarin gas to kill
large groups of people. He considers all Sunni Muslims to be
cockroaches to be exterminated. Bashar al-Assad is the greatest
genocidal monster in today's world, comparable to Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao
Zedong and Stalin from the last century. There is no mass weapon of
destruction, nor any gruesome form of torture, that he won't use to
satisfy his psychopathy. Amnesty International and CNN and Vox

Related Articles

****
**** Epicenter of Syrian conflict moves from Aleppo to Idlib and al-Bab
****


The destruction of East Aleppo was supposed to be the shock and awe
that brought Syria's civil war to an end, but that hasn't happened
yet. Tens of thousands of residents of Aleppo have fled to Idlib,
which is now being controlled by a combination of "moderate"
anti-Assad rebels, fighters from the so-called Islamic State (IS or
ISIS or ISIL or Daesh), and and fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra
(al-Nusra Front, now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham or JFS).

Once again you have air strikes killing civilians. Although the air
strikes appear to be from Russian warplanes, once again you have
Russia denying that it's conducting air strikes. In Aleppo that would
have meant that Syria's warplanes were conducting the airstrikes, but
in Idlib there's the complication that US warplanes are attacking ISIS
targets.

There's also continued fighting in northern Syria, led by Turkey's
Operation Euphrates Shield. The fighting is now centered around the
city of al-Bab. At the beginning of the operation in August of last
year, the main fighters were the Free Syrian Army (FSA) of "moderate"
anti-Assad rebels. But now in al-Bab, it's elite Turkish army
fighters leading the effort, supported by Turkish fighter jets.

This situation is a time bomb for several reasons:
  • The US considers the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG)
    to be allies and an effective fighting force against ISIS, but Turkey
    considers them to be linked to the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party
    (PKK).

  • Turkey's forces now effectively control a region of northern Syria
    along Turkey's border, and has made it clear that it has no intention
    of leaving. Syria's government is demanding that Turkey
    withdraw.

  • Despite the détente that Russia and Iran have arranged between
    Syria's al-Assad and Turkey, al-Assad's Shia/Alawite forces and
    Turkey's Sunni forces are still historic enemies.

BBC
and AP and Al Jazeera

Related Articles


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Saydnaya Prison,
Amnesty International, Aleppo, Idlib, al-Bab,
Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Nusra Front,
Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, JFS, Front for the Conquest of Syria,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Operation Euphrates Shield, Kurds, People’s Protection Units, YPG,
Turkey, Russia, Iran, Free Syrian Army, FSA

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
Reply
Needless to say, I'm fascinated by this sudden interest in Steve
Bannon and The Fourth Turning, and by reactions to it in view of Steve
Bannon's interest.

Last week, there was an article about Steve Bannon in Time Magazine
that mentioned the Fourth Turning:

http://time.com/4657665/steve-bannon-donald-trump/

This week there was a major 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.

http://www.businessinsider.com/book-stev...ing-2017-2

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 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 world war. But it makes
no difference whether Trump or 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.
Reply
(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?


If the story were not true, then the Saudis would have denied it by now,
which they haven't. Striking a Saudi city is a major coup for the Houthis.
Reply
(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.

-- 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/
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply
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?
Reply
I almost forgot about this, but in 2014 I wrote a lengthy article on
how a world war with China would unfold, with several historical
parallels:

** 21-Feb-14 World View -- U.S. naval intelligence chief confirms worst fears of China's military buildup
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e140221
Reply
*** 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
****


[Image: g170208b.jpg]
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

****
**** 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


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
Reply
(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
****


[Image: g170208b.jpg]
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

****
**** 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


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

-- my take on the Lopez article is that Bannon is going to misuse S&H, twist it for his own twisted purposes, so to speak. Much like Goebbles twisted Nostradamus for his twisted purposes. 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?
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply
(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?

You answered your own question in the words "China has traditionally
(for most of the last 35 years or so)." I sometimes joke about people
who believe that "history always begins this morning."

History did not begin 35 years ago. Particularly when you're talking
about China, history began centuries or even millennia ago.
You have to go back at least to WW I and WW II when you ask
about these alignments. The last 35 years are irrelevant.
Reply
(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.

If you're unable to grasp this kind of widespread vitriolic hatred,
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.
Reply
(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.

-- you think they knew what was really going in in those death camps?
Maybe they wanted the Jews to just "go away", but not be tortured or anything

JohnX Wrote:If you're unable to grasp this kind of widespread vitriolic hatred,

--you're right, l'm unable to. That doesn't mean l'm unaware of it's existence, bcuz obviously it exists. But l can't fathom how ppl can (mis)treat other human beings the way they do

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.

- mebbe.. l think they cranked it up a few notches
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why the social dynamics viewpoint to the Strauss-Howe generational theory is wrong Ldr 5 5,151 06-05-2020, 10:55 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Theory: cyclical generational hormone levels behind the four turnings and archetypes Ldr 2 3,569 03-16-2020, 06:17 AM
Last Post: Ldr
  The Fall of Cities of the Ancient World (42 Years) The Sacred Name of God 42 Letters Mark40 5 5,074 01-08-2020, 08:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 15 16,939 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
Video Styxhexenhammer666 and his view of historical cycles. Kinser79 0 3,453 08-27-2017, 06:31 PM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)