Generational Dynamics World View

[Cynic Hero '86]

(02-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-26-2018, 02:28 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers are against implementing political economic and military reform. If the boomer view of not striking is correct we therefore we should continue sanctions which would avoid war with North Korea. Therefore if North Korea knows that there is no chance of the US striking first then there is no danger of a North Korean Attack if the boomer views are correct. But that is not the Correct view; in reality North Korea is building an arsenal to attack the US with nukes or at the very least sell nukes to terrorists and other rogue states. Therefore not striking NK is not a prudent or responsible decision it is an absolutely irresponsible decision. Regard events If boomers refused to strike or lauched a limited conventional cruise missile strike and NK responded with nukes, even if the nukes only targeted bases in the region. Then it would be the "not striking first" crowd that would be discredited. America did not continue listening to Lindbergh's advice after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war.

I'm pretty sure John was just saying that he thought the Boomer establishment would, in fact, strike first against North Korea, and that he agreed with that strategy.

The Boomer establishment has no intention whatsoever of striking North Korea first or on the flip side listening to the NORK demands either. The establishment's policy is to preserve the status quo as long as possible. Thus even attempting strategy of any kind or in any direction is regarded as a cardinal sin by establishment boomers. The globalists leaning of Trump's advisers are desperately trying to restrain Trump because Trump has correctly accessed that striking first is the least bad option.

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I'm pretty sure John was just saying that he thought the Boomer
> establishment would, in fact, strike first against North Korea,
> and that he agreed with that strategy.

Do I agree with the strike first strategy? That's an interesting
question.

I like to think of myself as a weather forecaster. I tell you that a
sunny day is coming or that rain is coming, but I don't advocate
either sun or rain. I realize that I sometimes cross the line and
advocate something, but the weather forecaster model is the ideal.
And, indeed, sun helps some people and rain helps other people, so I
don't know what I'd advocate if I could.

So now let's consider the strike or no strike question, and the
consequences of either decision.

First off, we're headed for a world war either way. So in that sense
it really doesn't matter whether we strike or not.

There's one major thing about Syria that is rarely if ever mentioned,
but it bears very heavily on the North Korea strike or no strike
decision.

When Bashar al-Assad used Sarin gas on civilians on April 4, 2017,
thus once again crossing Obama's red line, Trump retaliated with a
cruise missile attack on April 6 on Shayrat Airbase in Syria, thus
fulfilling Obama's implied threat.

However, al-Assad continues to use chemical weapons -- chlorine,
ammonia, phosphorous, Sarin gas -- almost every day with complete
impunity, fully supported by the war criminals in Russia and Iran. So
in the end the cruise missile attack on April 6 accomplished
absolutely nothing, except symbolically.

So now let's assume that the US makes some "bloody nose" attack on
North Korea, and let's assume that it's done so cleverly that it
doesn't lead to an immediate war with China or to massive retaliation
on Seoul.

Will it accomplish anything? I doubt it. Maybe it will cause a delay
of a few months, but NK's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile
development program will be up and running again pretty quickly -- and
that's true even if Kim Jong-un has been killed.

On top of that, the missile strike completely inflames the entire
region, with the Chinese population becoming far more nationalistic,
xenophobic and belligerent, calling for revenge. A military
confrontation in the South China Sea becomes a lot more likely.

When historians look back at the ensuing world war, they will say that
the US started the war by attacking North Korea.

Now look at the alternative -- no strike. NK builds its arsenal of
nuclear tipped missiles. They're pointed at the US, but they're
mobile, so they could also point to Japan, South Korea, China or
Russia.

Tensions rise throughout the whole region. Sooner or later someone
attacks someone. Maybe NK even uses one of its nuclear weapons on
someone. That triggers a world war.

Depending on how it happens, when historians look back at the ensuing
world war, they will say that the US started the war by appeasing
North Korea.

So if I were going to advocate a strategy, strike vs no strike, I
really don't know what I would select. They're both equally awful.

However, what I would advocate is a different question from what I
think is going to happen.

Putting on my weather forecaster hat, what I think is going to happen
is that there will be some sort of bloody nose attack, because Donald
Trump doesn't want to be regarded by historians as another Neville
Chamberlain or another Barack Obama.

[Cynic Hero '86]

A Strike must go "all In" not striking North Korea or doing a half-measure limited strike is sheer folly. The Boomer refuses to comprehend the causes of the various issues both regarding the Korea issue or the world in general because doing so would force the boomer to admit that their preferences are the problem that the entire "peace dividend" since the late 1980s just led to the US being regarded as a wuss. The Boomer is emotionally attached to globalism and the peace dividend because those are the policies THEY advocated. Yet the same boomers refuse to let Xers and Millies into the government because they think the Xer or Millies MIGHT commit genocide in the future. Thats what makes boomer governance tyranny because boomers insist on trying to control the natural flows of events and social evolution and that is contrary to nature.

[David Horn]

(02-27-2018, 10:35 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: A Strike must go "all In" not striking North Korea or doing a half-measure limited strike is sheer folly. The Boomer refuses to comprehend the causes of the various issues both regarding the Korea issue or the world in general because doing so would force the boomer to admit that their preferences are the problem that the entire "peace dividend" since the late 1980s just led to the US being regarded as a wuss. The Boomer is emotionally attached to globalism and the peace dividend because those are the policies THEY advocated. Yet the same boomers refuse to let Xers and Millies into the government because they think the Xer or Millies MIGHT commit genocide in the future. Thats what makes boomer governance tyranny because boomers insist on trying to control the natural flows of events and social evolution and that is contrary to nature.

You really need to get your meds adjusted.  Really!

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-27-2018, 10:35 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > A Strike must go "all In" not striking North Korea or doing a
> half-measure limited strike is sheer folly. The Boomer refuses to
> comprehend the causes of the various issues both regarding the
> Korea issue or the world in general because doing so would force
> the boomer to admit that their preferences are the problem that
> the entire "peace dividend" since the late 1980s just led to the
> US being regarded as a wuss. The Boomer is emotionally attached to
> globalism and the peace dividend because those are the policies
> THEY advocated. Yet the same boomers refuse to let Xers and
> Millies into the government because they think the Xer or Millies
> MIGHT commit genocide in the future. Thats what makes boomer
> governance tyranny because boomers insist on trying to control the
> natural flows of events and social evolution and that is contrary
> to nature.

When I described the first strike option above, I wrote, "let's assume
that it's done so cleverly that it doesn't lead to an immediate war
with China or to massive retaliation on Seoul."

What you want is both immediate war with China and also massive
retaliation on Seoul. That's why I'm always writing about the
destructiveness and self-destructiveness of Generation-X. You would
welcome a world war that kills four billion people, just as people in
your generation welcomed the financial crisis they created by
knowingly selling fraudulent subprime mortgage backed security.

Your bizarre, vitriolic hatred of Boomers has made you completely
nihilistic, willing to destroy the whole world if it means getting
your revenge against Boomers. The world is in very bad shape today,
but you would bring it to total destruction, which excites you. This
makes you a very dangerous person, and puts people around you in
physical danger.

[Warren Dew]

(02-27-2018, 10:35 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: A Strike must go "all In" not striking North Korea or doing a half-measure limited strike is sheer folly. The Boomer refuses to comprehend the causes of the various issues both regarding the Korea issue or the world in general because doing so would force the boomer to admit that their preferences are the problem that the entire "peace dividend" since the late 1980s just led to the US being regarded as a wuss. The Boomer is emotionally attached to globalism and the peace dividend because those are the policies THEY advocated. Yet the same boomers refuse to let Xers and Millies into the government because they think the Xer or Millies MIGHT commit genocide in the future. Thats what makes boomer governance tyranny because boomers insist on trying to control the natural flows of events and social evolution and that is contrary to nature.

Every generation hangs on to power as long as possible.  You'll have your turn; you just have to be patient.

[Warren Dew]

(02-27-2018, 09:44 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   I'm pretty sure John was just saying that he thought the Boomer
>   establishment would, in fact, strike first against North Korea,
>   and that he agreed with that strategy.

Do I agree with the strike first strategy?  That's an interesting
question.

I like to think of myself as a weather forecaster.  I tell you that a
sunny day is coming or that rain is coming, but I don't advocate
either sun or rain.  I realize that I sometimes cross the line and
advocate something, but the weather forecaster model is the ideal.
And, indeed, sun helps some people and rain helps other people, so I
don't know what I'd advocate if I could.

That seems inconsistent with your constant value judgements about people and nations being evil.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(02-27-2018, 01:31 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-27-2018, 10:35 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   A Strike must go "all In" not striking North Korea or doing a
>   half-measure limited strike is sheer folly. The Boomer refuses to
>   comprehend the causes of the various issues both regarding the
>   Korea issue or the world in general because doing so would force
>   the boomer to admit that their preferences are the problem that
>   the entire "peace dividend" since the late 1980s just led to the
>   US being regarded as a wuss. The Boomer is emotionally attached to
>   globalism and the peace dividend because those are the policies
>   THEY advocated. Yet the same boomers refuse to let Xers and
>   Millies into the government because they think the Xer or Millies
>   MIGHT commit genocide in the future. Thats what makes boomer
>   governance tyranny because boomers insist on trying to control the
>   natural flows of events and social evolution and that is contrary
>   to nature.

When I described the first strike option above, I wrote, "let's assume
that it's done so cleverly that it doesn't lead to an immediate war
with China or to massive retaliation on Seoul."

What you want is both immediate war with China and also massive
retaliation on Seoul.  That's why I'm always writing about the
destructiveness and self-destructiveness of Generation-X.  You would
welcome a world war that kills four billion people, just as people in
your generation welcomed the financial crisis they created by
knowingly selling fraudulent subprime mortgage backed security.

Your bizarre, vitriolic hatred of Boomers has made you completely
nihilistic, willing to destroy the whole world if it means getting
your revenge against Boomers.  The world is in very bad shape today,
but you would bring it to total destruction, which excites you.  This
makes you a very dangerous person, and puts people around you in
physical danger.

There are only two possible options with North Korea, Strike first in a total war strike or sign a treaty ending the Korean war. Those have always been the two options. The Boomers preference of Maintaining the status quo while kicking the can down the road as long as possible is fundamentally untenable. As you mentioned the financial crisis let me remind you that Regarding the financial Crisis it was boomer executives who didn't want to remain bound by the established financial regulations and who hated being restricted to legitimate commerce, began ignoring the law altogether and initiated transactions designed to hoover up as much money as possible using such tactics such as predatory lending and establishing fraudulent trust funds. It was boomers who wanted to break the law, therefore it was boomers who caused the Financial Crisis. The boomer elites by refusing to make any decision and by refusing to allow anyone else to make those decisions regarding important matters; are the ones who have embraced nihilism and destructiveness.

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-27-2018, 01:55 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > There are only two possible options with North Korea, Strike first
> in a total war strike or sign a treaty ending the Korean
> war. Those have always been the two options. The Boomers
> preference of Maintaining the status quo while kicking the can
> down the road as long as possible is fundamentally untenable. As
> you mentioned the financial crisis let me remind you that
> Regarding the financial Crisis it was boomer executives who didn't
> want to remain bound by the established financial regulations and
> who hated being restricted to legitimate commerce, began ignoring
> the law altogether and initiated transactions designed to hoover
> up as much money as possible using such tactics such as predatory
> lending and establishing fraudulent trust funds. It was boomers
> who wanted to break the law, therefore it was boomers who caused
> the Financial Crisis. The boomer elites by refusing to make any
> decision and by refusing to allow anyone else to make those
> decisions regarding important matters; are the ones who have
> embraced nihilism and destructiveness.

So do you own any guns? Do you live near a school?

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 28-Feb-18 World View -- Russia's 'humanitarian pause' in Syria turns into farce on first day

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Russia's 'humanitarian pause' in Syria turns into farce on first day
  
• Report: North Korea is selling chemical weapons supplies to Syria
  
• Areas of control in Syria and Iraq
  

****
**** Russia's 'humanitarian pause' in Syria turns into farce on first day
****


Smoke rising from Eastern Ghouta after air strikes by Syrian and Russian warplanes during the ceasefire on Monday (AFP)

We keep seeing the same horrible script played out over and over.
What we've seen in the last few days is similar to what we've seen
probably a dozen or so times in the UN Security Council in the last
few years:

• Russian and Syrian government warplanes sharply increased the
  frequency of bombing civilian targets in eastern Ghouta, specifically
  targeting hospitals and food convoys.
  
  
• The Syrian government has been freely using chemical weapons,
  including Sarin gas and chlorine gas. They don't even bother to try
  to hide it anymore.
  
  
• UN officials, including Secretary-General António Guterres and US
  ambassador Nicki Haley, made the usual scripted remarks: "Condemn
  ... war crimes ... outrageous ... not acceptable ... must stop
  ... immediate ceasefire ... blah, blah, blah." It's always the same
  script.
  
  
• The members of the Security Council spent two weeks saying stupid
  things to one another, supposedly "negotiating" over a ceasefire. The
  US proposes a ceasefire, and the Russians continue to sabotage the
  "negotiations" because they really want to go on killing people, not
  have a ceasefire.
  
  
• On Saturday they agreed to a farcical ceasefire resolution that
  the Russians had watered down enough to be meaningless. It called for
  a 30-day ceasefire, to start at some time in the future, but the
  Russians and Syrian government would still be allowed airstrikes on
  jihadists and terrorists in east Ghouta, which means everyone, since
  Bashar al-Assad considers all of them to be jihadists and
  terrorists.
  
  
• On Sunday, since the Russians want to prove that they're in
  charge, and they now control things in the Mideast, the Russians
  simply blew off the 30-day ceasefire resolution that they had agreed
  to. Instead, they announced that there would be a 5-hour ceasefire on
  Monday, from 9 am to 2 pm.
  
  
• There was no ceasefire on Monday. The bombing and airstrikes and
  use of chlorine gas continued as before.
  
  
• There was supposed to be a "humanitarian corridor" which a convoy
  could use to deliver food and medicines, and perform medical
  evacuations. But the fighting continued and the corridor was not safe
  enough for the humanitarian convoy.
  
  
• It was supposed to be possible for civilians to flee East Ghouta
  during the 5-hour ceasefire, and reach safety. However, apparently no
  one left because no one trusted the Syrian government or the Russians
  to feel safe.

With regard to the last point, I've heard several interviews with
civilians in Ghouta about whether they were going to take advantage of
the opportunity to leave Ghouta. They all said pretty much the same
thing, that they don't feel safe trying to do so.

This is not surprising, since they're all pretty much aware of what
happened in late 2016 in Aleppo, and two of them actually mentioned
that. Allowing civilians to leave is part of the Syrian-Russian
strategy. Civilians were allowed to leave Aleppo, and travel to
Idlib, where they were killed en masse by Syrian and Russian
airstrikes.

In fact, I've described this strategy several times before. It's
called the "Grozny model," named after the capital city of Chechnya
and the battle of Grozny. The Russians created a "safe zone" to allow
civilians to escape the Grozny siege, and then killed them as they
were escaping.

So in the end, this "ceasefire" in east Ghouta is not a ceasefire at
all, and was never intended by the Russians to be a ceasefire.
Instead, it provides political cover for an intensification of the war
crimes against civilians. There are 400,000 people living in Ghouta,
mostly women and children. There are at most 1,000 fighters who might
be called "jihadists and terrorists." Russia and Syria are going to
use the 1,000 fighters as a reason to kill as many of the 400,000
civilians as they can.

An analogy in America would be if an American city contained some
people from the Black Panthers or Black Lives Matter, then it would be
OK, using the Syrian-Russian strategy, for the army and air force to
exterminate hundreds of thousands of people in the black neighborhoods
in that city, or maybe to permit some of them to escape, and then
slaughter them as they leave.

In my lifetime, I've heard the words "Never again!" applied to the
Nazi Holocaust. And I've heard the words "Never again!" applied to
the Srebrenica genocide. And I've heard the words "Never again!"
applied to the Rwanda genocide. But now it's happening again, just
like it's happened before, but instead of stopping the genocide, the
United States has become a tool to support the genocide, by having
diplomats run around the Security Council and pass farcical ceasefire
resolutions that provide cover for the genocide. It's truly
astonishing. Sky News and NBC News and Reuters

****
**** Report: North Korea is selling chemical weapons supplies to Syria
****

According to an unreleased United Nations report, Syria's president
Bashar al-Assad is receiving supplies from North Korea for supplies to
be used to manufacture chemical weapons. These supplies include
acid-resistant tiles, valves and thermometers.

We can assume that North Korea is selling this technology to Syria to
make money and get around UN sanctions. We can also assume that
either Iran or Russia is providing the money to Bashar al-Assad. Who
knows? Maybe it's some of the money that Iran has gained from the
removal of sanctions after signing the nuclear deal.

At any rate, we can be pretty certain that if the North Korea is able
to complete its development of nuclear weapons and long-range
ballistic missiles, then it will sell that technology to any rogue
state willing to pay for it. CNN and Axios

Related Articles:

• China angrily demands that the US retract the new North Korea sanctions (25-Feb-2018)
  
  
• US considers military options as North Korea continues nuclear weapons development during Olympics (21-Feb-2018)
  

****
**** Areas of control in Syria and Iraq
****


Map of Syria and Iraq showing areas of control (Deutsche Welle)

I wanted to reference this map because it's one of the best that I've
seen, and easiest to understand what's going on.

There are several things that one can see from the map:

• Eastern Ghouta is a small area near Damascus, and it's going
  to take months of massive slaughter to bring it under control. There
  are other larger regions under opposition control.
  
  
• Idlib province, with 2.6 million civilians, could take many years
  to bring "under control," and will require one of the greatest
  genocides in world history.
  
  
• There are still substantial regions controlled by the so-called
  Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) in both Syria and Iraq.
  Right now, it's the American backed Kurdish militias that are fighting
  ISIS, and without them, ISIS could rise again and regain its lost
  territory.
  
  
• Kurds are in control the entire region of Iraq and Syria along the
  border with Turkey, except for one tiny region near Afrin that's
  controlled by the Turkey-supported Free Syrian Army (FSA). The Kurds
  would like to make this entire region into an independent Kurdish
  state called Rojava. This would be an existential threat to Turkey,
  since a Kurdish-based terror group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
  has been conducting an insurgency in Turkey for three decades,
  including a number of violent terrorist attacks. This is why Turkey
  is determined not to give up this little region controlled by the
  FSA.

As I've described before,
there at
least 14 armies and militias operating in Syria now: Syria, Russia,
Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey, Free Syrian Army (FSA), Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF), People’s Protection Units (YPG), Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Israel, United States, al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and
the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh).

This is a country in complete chaos, with a war criminal and
sociopathic genocidal leader, Bashar al-Assad, and with a proxy war
that's nowhere near ending.

As I've written many times, Generational Dynamics predicts that the
Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus
Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each
other. Generational Dynamics predicts that in the approaching Clash
of Civilizations world war, the "axis" of China, Pakistan and the
Sunni Muslim countries will be pitted against the "allies," the US,
India, Russia and Iran.
Deutsche Welle

Related Articles

• Syria's Bashar al-Assad steps up use of chemical weapons on his own people (06-Feb-2018)
  
  
• Russia's Syria peace talks in Sochi dissolve into farce as Lavrov gets heckled (31-Jan-2018)
  
  
• Syria's Bashar al-Assad targets civilians and hospitals in never-ending war of extermination (07-Jan-2018)
  
  
• Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin hug and declare the end of war in Syria (27-Nov-2017)
  
  
• Russia uses the 'Grozny Model' to pursue mass slaughter in Aleppo Syria (02-Aug-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Ghouta, Russia, Bashar al-Assad,
António Guterres, Nikki Haley, Aleppo. Grozny Model, Chechnya,
North Korea, Turkey,
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, HTS, 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,
Eastern Ghouta, Hama, Idlib, barrel bombs, chlorine, Sarin gas,
Kurds, People’s Protection Units, YPG, Afrin, Manbij, Rojava,
Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK

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

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-27-2018, 01:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > That seems inconsistent with your constant value judgments about
> people and nations being evil.

A weather forecaster could say, "That cyclone will have winds of
150 mph. That's terrible because a lot of people will be killed."

Saying that a lot of people will be killed is part of the forecast.
Saying that it's terrible is a personal value judgment, but it's still
not advocacy. Indeed, it can't be advocacy, because there's no way
for a weather forecaster to advocate for or against a cyclone.

When I say that using Sarin gas will kill a lot of people, and is a
war crime, and is evil, then saying that it's evil is my personal
value judgment, but in the end I'm still the weather forecaster just
telling what's going to happen and how it will be viewed. It's not
advocacy, and indeed it can't be advocacy, because there's no way for
me to advocate whether Bashar al-Assad for or against using Sarin gas.
Me calling him "evil" has no effect.

So there are three parts to this. One is the weather forecast. One
is my occasional personal value judgment - "good," "evil," "terrible,"
etc. And one is advocacy, which is extremely rare.

I'm a nobody who cannot control anything but myself, and whose
opinions are widely hated and rejected by almost everyone who
even pays attention. When I express a personal opinion
("good," "evil," etc.) then I'm hated even more. And if I
advocated something, I would be subjected to a great deal
more contempt, scorn and ridicule.

If I were a somebody who could control things, then the hatred,
contempt and ridicule might be put into action, and I would be put
into personal danger, like Steve Scalise and Rand Paul.

So, in summary, me advocating something would be useless or dangerous,
so I don't do it.

[Warren Dew]

Except that:

but instead of stopping the genocide, the
United States has become a tool to support the genocide, by having
diplomats run around the Security Council and pass farcical ceasefire
resolutions that provide cover for the genocide

pretty clearly advocates that the US do something different instead. It's like the weather forecaster saying, "the Coast Guard has said they will not perform rescues during the hurricane, instead allowing people to die".

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-28-2018, 08:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Except that:

> but instead of stopping the genocide, the United States has become
> a tool to support the genocide, by having diplomats run around the
> Security Council and pass farcical ceasefire resolutions that
> provide cover for the genocide

> pretty clearly advocates that the US do something different
> instead. It's like the weather forecaster saying, "the Coast Guard
> has said they will not perform rescues during the hurricane,
> instead allowing people to die".

What policy did I "pretty clearly" advocate? "Do something different"
is not a policy.

Your two examples are completely incomparable.

In the Coast Guard case, it's easy -- you advocate more rescues.

But what do you claim that I'm advocating in the case of Syria? I'm
simply stating the result of current policy, but I'm not advocating
anything different.

In fact, I don't have any idea what I would advocate if I could.

In fact again, the subtext of what I've written is that there is no
policy that would work better. There is no policy that can stop
Bashar al-Assad from committing genocide and war crimes, using Sarin
gas, using chlorine gas, bombing schools and hospitals, etc. He's
determined to exterminate as many of the men, women and children of
Ghouta that he can, with the help of war criminals Putin and Khamenei.

So what policy do you claim that I'm advocating in Syria? "Do
something different" is not a policy.

The North Korea situation is the same, but with a twist. There we
have two alternatives -- strike or no strike. I have no idea which
would have a better outcome, so I wouldn't advocate either.

The Coast Guard example is easy because rescuing people has no cost.
But any policy or non-policy in either Syria or North Korea has a high
cost. So the two examples are incomparable.

[John J. Xenakis]

It occurs to me that I do sometimes advocate things on an individual
basis. Sometimes people ask me about investments or where they should
live, and I try to give them helpful advice, if I know any.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-28-2018, 09:26 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-28-2018, 08:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Except that:

>   but instead of stopping the genocide, the United States has become
>   a tool to support the genocide, by having diplomats run around the
>   Security Council and pass farcical ceasefire resolutions that
>   provide cover for the genocide

>   pretty clearly advocates that the US do something different
>   instead. It's like the weather forecaster saying, "the Coast Guard
>   has said they will not perform rescues during the hurricane,
>   instead allowing people to die".

What policy did I "pretty clearly" advocate?  "Do something different"
is not a policy.

Your two examples are completely incomparable.

In the Coast Guard case, it's easy -- you advocate more rescues.

But what do you claim that I'm advocating in the case of Syria?  I'm
simply stating the result of current policy, but I'm not advocating
anything different.

In fact, I don't have any idea what I would advocate if I could.

In fact again, the subtext of what I've written is that there is no
policy that would work better.  There is no policy that can stop
Bashar al-Assad from committing genocide and war crimes, using Sarin
gas, using chlorine gas, bombing schools and hospitals, etc.  He's
determined to exterminate as many of the men, women and children of
Ghouta that he can, with the help of war criminals Putin and Khamenei.

So what policy do you claim that I'm advocating in Syria?  "Do
something different" is not a policy.

The North Korea situation is the same, but with a twist.  There we
have two alternatives -- strike or no strike.  I have no idea which
would have a better outcome, so I wouldn't advocate either.

The Coast Guard example is easy because rescuing people has no cost.
But any policy or non-policy in either Syria or North Korea has a high
cost.  So the two examples are incomparable.

The Coast Guard could loose a boat or a plane or a helicopter and members of the Coast Guard. Rescuing people can have costs too.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 1-Mar-18 World View -- Moving sharply left, South Africa calls for potentially disastrous land reform

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Moving sharply left, South Africa calls for potentially disastrous land reform
  
• Julius Malema and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) movement
  

****
**** Moving sharply left, South Africa calls for potentially disastrous land reform
****


South Africa's president Cyril Ramaphosa after addressing parliament on Tuesday (Daily Maverick)

In a major shift in public opinion in support of the radical far left
Economic Freedom Fighters and its leader Julius Malema, South Africa's
parliament has passed overwhelmingly a motion for a constitutional
amendment that would allow the government to expropriate land from
white-owned farms with no compensation whatsoever.

A year ago, a similar motion was rejected, with 261 against and 33 in
favor. But on Tuesday, the vote was carried with 241 votes in favor,
and 83 against. Expropriation of private land without compensation is
forbidden by Section 25 of South Africa's constitution, but the
overwhelming acceptance of the motion far exceeds the 2/3 majority
required to amend the constitution. This change within one year
represents a radical shift in public opinion.

The successful campaign to pass the motion was led by left-wing
radical Julius Malema, who was expelled from the ruling African
National Congress (ANC) party in 2012, with the expectation that he
would die a quick political death. Instead, he's successfully led a
racially divisive campaign that's become so popular that the ANC was
forced to endorse the land reform proposal, giving it an overwhelming
victory.

Leading the debate in the parliament, Malena said that "it was time
for justice" on the land issue:

<QUOTE>"We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our
people without compensating the criminals who stole our
land."<END QUOTE>

According to South Africa's new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, who
recently replaced the corrupt Jacob Zuma, taking farmland away from
white farmers is necessary because of "land hunger" among blacks:

<QUOTE>"Land dispossession is a defining feature of
colonialism and apartheid in SA. Land hunger among black South
Africans is genuine and pressing. The time has arrived that we act
decisively to resolve this matter. We must repair the damage
inflicted upon our people.

The time has arrived that we act decisively to resolve this
matter. We must repair the damage inflicted upon our people.

By providing more land to more producers for cultivation and by
providing the necessary support, we are laying the foundation for
what I would call an agricultural revolution. We are determined to
work with traditional leaders to significantly expand agriculture
not only to ensure food security, but also to create jobs on a
significant scale and increase the value of our
exports."<END QUOTE>

This is a typically meaningless political speech, full of hot air.
The promise of an "agricultural revolution" is laughable.

Ramaphosa also promised that the land expropriation would only be used
when the amount of food produced would be increased. This is also
laughable.

What will happen is what always happens in Socialist societies.
Thousands of hard-working white farmers and their families will be
thrown into the streets, and their farms will be turned over to party
cronies who know nothing about farming. This happened in Zimbabwe,
and similar things happen in all Socialist countries. This will be a
disaster for South Africa's economy, and for all of Africa.

I've written many times what happened in Zimbabwe. It's hard to
believe, but Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa,
growing much more food than the country needed and exporting the rest.
Then in 1999 Robert Mugabe instituted a "land reform" plan just like
the one that South Africa is about to implement. Within ten years,
Zimbabwe was an economic disaster, with mass starvation, a worthless
currency, and massive million percent inflation.

We've seen the same thing happen in Venezuela, as Hugo Chávez and
Nicolás Maduro destroyed the economy to the extent that food and
medicines and even toilet paper are unavailable.

Bashar al-Assad is destroying Syria by different means -- with barrel
bombs, Sarin gas, and attacks with other chemical weapons, including
chlorine, ammonia and phosphorous.

We now know that North Korea has been supplying components to Syria to
manufacture poison gas, and it uses the money to develop nuclear
weapons and long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying the
nuclear weapons to the United States, or elsewhere in the world.

And all this is going on with the support and encourage of China,
Russia and Iran.

This is the club of countries where the leaders are destroying their
countries through economic destruction or weapons destruction. It's
not surprising that South Africa is now joining that club. Daily Maverick (South Africa) and Business Live (South Africa) and Citizen (South Africa) and News 24 (South Africa)

****
**** Julius Malema and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) movement
****

Julius Malema was expelled the ruling ANC in 2012 because he offended
large sections of society, and has been accused of racism, sexism and
corruption. He was twice convicted of hate speech in 2010 and 2011,
for inciting violence against whites.

However, he has thousands of supporters, mainly poor black South
Africans who resent the history of apartheid. In 2013 he formed the
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which describes itself as follows on
its web site:

<QUOTE>"1. The ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS is a radical and
militant economic emancipation movement that brings together
revolutionary, fearless, radical, and militant activists, workers’
movements, nongovernmental organizations, community-based
organizations and lobby groups under the umbrella of pursuing the
struggle for economic emancipation.

2. The EFF is a radical, leftist, anti-capitalist and
anti-imperialist movement with an internationalist outlook
anchored by popular grassroots formations and struggles. ...

5. The EFF is a South African movement with a progressive
internationalist outlook, which seeks to engage with global
progressive movements. We believe that the best contribution we
can make in the international struggle against global imperialism
is to rid our country of imperialist domination. For the South
African struggle, the EFF pillars for economic emancipation are
the following:

a. Expropriation of South Africa’s land without compensation for
equal redistribution in use.

b. Nationalization of mines, banks, and other strategic sectors of
the economy, without compensation."<END QUOTE>

We've seen this script before. Socialism has a 100% failure rate, and
South Africa is headed in the same direction, starting with the
nationalization of farms, and continuing with the nationalization of
mines, banks, and other businesses -- all without compensation.

There are a couple of things that are becoming clear.

First, you'd have to be crazy to invest in South Africa, because any
business could be subject to nationalization without compensation at
any time.

Second, you'd have to be crazy to give foreign aid to South Africa,
since any money would just be wasted on corruption.

A country that goes down the path of nationalizing farms without
compensation, with nationalization of other businesses to follow, is a
country that cannot be helped. Economic Freedom Fighters online
and BBC (30-Sep-2014) and South Africa History

Related Stories

• Zimbabwe bans food imports as new 'bond note' currency crashes (21-Oct-2017)
  
  
• Zimbabwe launching a Soviet style command agriculture program (20-Aug-2016)
  
  
• Xenophobic violence against migrants returns to South Africa (27-Feb-2017)
  
  
• Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Puerto Rico - three amigos in Marxist economic destruction (01-Jul-2016)
  
  
• Venezuela's currency becomes worthless, as Zimbabwe introduces new currency (08-Dec-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, South Africa, African National Congress, ANC,
Cyril Ramaphosa, Jacob Zuma,
Julius Malema, Economic Freedom Fighters, EFF,
Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
China, Russia, North Korea

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

[Warren Dew]

Mass starvation, coming to South Africa soon.

[Warren Dew]

(02-28-2018, 09:26 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-28-2018, 08:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Except that:

>   but instead of stopping the genocide, the United States has become
>   a tool to support the genocide, by having diplomats run around the
>   Security Council and pass farcical ceasefire resolutions that
>   provide cover for the genocide

>   pretty clearly advocates that the US do something different
>   instead. It's like the weather forecaster saying, "the Coast Guard
>   has said they will not perform rescues during the hurricane,
>   instead allowing people to die".

What policy did I "pretty clearly" advocate?  "Do something different"
is not a policy.

Advocating against a policy is still advocacy, even if you don't advocate for a specific alternative.  In context, though, you appear to be advocating military intervention, since that's what happened in the other cases you mention.

[pbrower2a]

It turns out that the thug regime in Syria has been getting much of its lethal arsenal from.... North Korea!

[John J. Xenakis]

(03-01-2018, 12:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Advocating against a policy is still advocacy, even if you don't
> advocate for a specific alternative. In context, though, you
> appear to be advocating military intervention, since that's what
> happened in the other cases you mention.

Wow! You've come up with quite a mind-boggling chain of logic
here:

• You say that I'm advocating against a policy (which isn't true)
  
  
• Therefore I'm advocating for some alternative (which isn't true)
  
  
• Therefore I'm advocating for military intervention (wow!!)

Here's the correct chain of logic in most cases:

• I describe what's going on and why it won't work
  
  
• I ridicule the politicians for pretending that it will work, or
  for lying about what's going on, when it's obvious to them and
  everyone else that it won't work, or that they're lying
  
  
• I don't advocate any alternative policy, but imply that the
  outcome is inevitable, no matter what policy is adopted. In other
  words, no alternative policy will make any difference.
  
  
• If I imply advocacy of anything, it's that politicians should stop
  running around like idiots, and should at least be honest about what's
  going on.

That's not advocating a policy, and certainly not advocating
military intervention.

By the way, take a look at the last three paragraphs of today's
article, where I advocate stuff.