Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 24-Dec-16 World View -- South Sudan increasingly parallels Syria in genocidal violence

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• UN Security Council fails to impose arms embargo on South Sudan
  
• Leaders of South Sudan and Syria following parallel paths to genocide
  

****
**** UN Security Council fails to impose arms embargo on South Sudan
****


UN peacekeeping forces in South Sudan (AP)

Humanitarian organizations are expressing outrage as the United
Nations Security Council failed on Friday to pass a US-sponsored
resolution to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan and placed a
travel ban and asset freeze on three senior South Sudanese leaders.

According to the UNSC rules, for the resolution to pass it would have
required 9 of the 15 members to vote in favor, and none of the 5
permanent members (US, UK, Russia, China, France) to veto it. As it
turned out, those who opposed the measure needed only to abstain,
since there were not 9 votes available to pass it. Japan, Russia,
China, Angola, Malaysia, Venezuela, Egypt and Senegal all abstained.

South Sudan is the world's youngest nation, having gained independence
from Sudan in 2011. The region's last generational crisis war was an
ethnic war mainly between two tribes, the Nuer and the Dinka. That
war climaxed with the "Bor Massacre," which began on November 15,
1991. The Nuer army marched toward the provincial capital Bor and
massacred the people of the Dinka tribe. Over the next three months,
2,000 civilians were killed, thousands more wounded, and at least
100,000 people fled the area. Famine followed the massacre, as
looters burnt villages and raided cattle, resulting in the deaths of
25,000 more from starvation.

A new conflict began on December 15, 2013, led by the president Salva
Kiir, of the Dinka tribe, fighting against forces led by vice
president Riek Machar, of the Nuer tribe. Kiir and Machar signed a
peace agreement in August 2015, but that did little good.

Human Rights Watch is expressing outrage that the UNSC resolution
failed to pass. According to HRW, both sides have been importing
weapons and using them to fight the other side. HRW says that African
Union and UN investigators have documented war crimes, including
killings and rape of civilians, and forced recruitment of children by
the warring parties in South Sudan. In the last few months there has
been an increase in incitement to violence, hate speech by senior
leaders, and targeting of civilians, sometimes based on ethnicity.

United Nations officials had been calling for the arms embargo and
also an injection of peacekeeping forces, saying that South Sudan is
getting closer and closer to a "Rwanda-like genocide." However,
they've been saying that for months, and no Rwanda-like genocide has
occurred, largely because South Sudan is in a generational Awakening
era. not in a Crisis era, which would be required for a Rwanda-like
genocide to occur.

Earlier this year, the Security Council adopted a resolution
authorizing 4,000 troops from African nations to join 12,000
U.N. peacekeeping forces there. However, South Sudan's president
Salva Kiir rejected the peacekeeping troops to enter the country,
saying that he would fight them as if they were an invading army.
Those peacekeepers who did serve in South Sudan were withdrawn in the
summer, after they were accused of failing to protect civilians from
rape and sexual violence.

As an aside, you may wonder why decades of international aid to Africa
has failed to have any effect whatsoever on poverty. The situation in
South Sudan provides a good illustration of what happens. Usually the
international aid goes into foreign bank accounts of leaders, but
otherwise it's spent on weapons to kill, rape and torture people
opposing the leaders. Reuters and Human Rights Watch and NPR (11-Nov)

Related Articles

• The African Union proposes an all-African peacekeeping force for South Sudan (20-Jul-2016)
  
  
• Generational history of South Sudan and Dinka-Nuer clashes (11-Jul-2016)
  
  
• U.S. and Britain evacuate citizens from South Sudan as unrest spreads (19-Dec-2013)
  

****
**** Leaders of South Sudan and Syria following parallel paths to genocide
****

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, Syria and South Sudan
are in very similar generational eras, with leaders who are behaving
in similar ways.

South Sudan's last generational crisis war was an ethnic civil war
between the Dinka versus the Nuer tribes, climaxing with the Bor
Massacre in November, 1991, as described above. The Bor Massacre
stands as a defining moment in the history of South Sudan. It was so
shocking that it largely ended the war.

Syria's last generational crisis war was a religious/ethnic civil war
between the Shia Alawites versus the Sunnis. That war climaxed in
February 1982 with the destruction of the town of Hama. There had
been a massive uprising of the 400,000 mostly Sunni citizens of Hama
against Syria's Shia/Alawite president Hafez al-Assad, the current
president's father. He turned the town to rubble and killed or
displaced hundreds of thousands. Hama stands as a defining moment in
the Middle East. It was so shocking that it largely ended the war.

So both Syria and South Sudan today are in generational Awakening
eras, as the first generation of children growing up after the
previous crisis civil war come of age. These children did not
personally experience the wars, but they listened to stories of how
the other side committed massacres and rapes while their fathers were
heroes who endured despite those atrocities. The children never hear
about how their fathers also committed atrocities and rapes.

Another parallel between Syria and South Sudan is that the wars depend
on outside intervention, almost to the point of being a proxy war. In
South Sudan, Kiir is receiving military aid from Uganda, while Machar
is receiving military aid from (northern) Sudan. In Syria, Bashar
al-Assad is receiving military aid from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah,
while different opposition groups are receiving military aid from
Turkey and from Salafist groups in Saudi Arabia.

From a theoretical point of view, when a country goes through a civil
war that's also a generational crisis war, then as the first post-war
generation grows up, the leaders become increasingly oppressive and
violent towards peaceful opponents (usually a different religious or
ethnic group), and use as an excuse the claim that they might start
another civil war (which is almost impossible during a generational
Awakening era). This is a generational pattern that's followed over
and over, in country after country, throughout history.

What we're seeing in both Syria and South Sudan is a familiar pattern
that I've described many times in countries like Burundi, Thailand,
and Zimbabwe, starting 5-15 years after the climax of a generational
ethnic crisis war. The leadership in the country, which represents
one ethnic tribe or group, decides that in order to prevent a new
civil war, it's necessary to impose "security" by having the security
forces commit atrocities against the other ethnic group.

There's a wide spectrum of violence of this type. In Thailand,
there's been sporadic violence by the army, backing the "yellow shirt"
market-dominant light-skinned Thai-Chinese elite minority against the
the "red shirt" dark-skinned Thai-Thai indigenous ethnics, but so far
the violence hasn't been too serious.

In South Sudan, possibly the biggest driver of the war is not ethnic
differences but oil. South Sudan has a wealth of oil, and all the
warring parties would like to control as much of that oil as they can.
A particularly interesting example of this is China, which is heavily
invested in South Sudan and is supporting Salva Kiir. Chinese
officials scream bloody murder when anyone complains about their
massacring of Tibetans, saying that no one has the right to interfere
in their internal affairs, but China has no hesitation to interfere in
other countries' internal affairs when their own interests are a
stake.

Another parallel between Syria and South Sudan is that as genocide by
the countries' leaders continues right under the noses of everyone in
the world, the United Nations is powerless to do anything about it
because the two nations that fully support massacres, rapes, genocides
and other atrocities are Russia and China, and they have veto power in
the UN Security Council.

In Syria and South Sudan, in contrast to Thailand, the violence is
reaching the highest levels, approaching full-scale genocide. What
makes this difference from a crisis civil war is that in the latter
case, the violence is "organic", in that it comes from the people and
cannot be stopped. In the case of Awakening era genocide, the
violence could be stopped simply if the leader stopped massacring the
opposition tribes, or if outside countries would stop supporting the
genocidal acts. NPR and Sudan Tribune and Al Jazeera

Related Articles

• Japan's troops in South Sudan become first test of new 'collective self-defense' policy (19-Nov-2016)
  
  
• Uganda and China intervene in South Sudan conflict (10-Jan-2014)
  
  
• Uganda enters the war in South Sudan (18-Jan-2014)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, South Sudan, Dinka, Nuer, Bor Massacre,
Salva Kiir, Riek Machar, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Russia, China

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]

*** 25-Dec-16 World View -- Tunisia fears more terrorism after Berlin attack by Tunisian national

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Bartella Iraq celebrates Christmas after liberation from ISIS
  
• Tunisia arrests three people over the Berlin terror attack
  
• Hundreds of Tunisians rally against jihadism at Bardo Museum in Tunis
  

****
**** Bartella Iraq celebrates Christmas after liberation from ISIS
****


Christmas eve mass held in Bartella on Saturday (Agora Magazine)

Christians from around the region are flocking to Bartella, Iraq, to
join in the celebration of Christmas, the first since Bartella was
liberated.

Bartella, just 24 km from Mosul, used to be home to thousands of
Assyrian Christians. They were forced to flee in August 2014, when
the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) overran
Mosul and neighboring villages. Bartella was liberated from ISIS two
months ago, on October 20, by the Iraqi army operation to recapture
Mosul. Rudaw (Iraq, Kurdistan) and Agora Magazine (Italy)

Related Articles

• Iraq begins battle to recapture Mosul from ISIS (17-Oct-2016)
  
  
• Iraq in major crisis after catastrophic fall of Mosul to ISIS (11-Jun-2014)
  

****
**** Tunisia arrests three people over the Berlin terror attack
****

After Anis Amri, the 24 year old perpetrator of Monday's terror attack
in Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring dozens by ramming a large,
hijacked truck into a crowd at a Christmas market, was shot to death
in Milan Italy by police on Friday, there have been hundreds of
investigators all over Europe trying to determine whether Amri had
help from other jihadists.

Amri himself was a Tunisian national who sought asylum in several
European country, including Germany, but was refused. He had a
criminal record in Italy and Tunisia, and spent four years in an
Italian prison before traveling to Germany.

Tunisian authorities have arrested three people on suspicion of being
part of a "terrorist cell... connected to the terrorist Anis Amri."
Two of the three were arrested in the capital city Tunis.

The third arrest was Amri's own 18-year-old nephew, Fedi, his sister's
son, arrested in Amri's home town of Oueslatia. During initial
questioning, Fedi said that he had been in contact with uncle Anis
through the mobile app Telegram, which provides for encrypted
communications that can't be traced. He also said that uncle Anis had
sent him money to come to Germany, and asked him to pledge allegiance
to ISIS. Sky News and AP

Related Articles

• Terror in Berlin and Ankara as Russia's ambassador to Turkey shot dead (20-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Germany criticized for too few CCTV cameras, and Britain for too many (23-Dec-2016)
  

****
**** Hundreds of Tunisians rally against jihadism at Bardo Museum in Tunis
****

Hundreds of people rallied at the Bardo Museum in Tunis, Tunisia's
capital city, on Saturday, protesting the lack of government action to
prevent jihadists who fought overseas from returning to the country
without facing punishment.

The news that Anis Amri, a Tunisian, was the perpetrator of last
week's terror act in Berlin has embarrassed and infuriated the
Tunisian people.

Tunisians are proud that their country launched the "Arab Spring" that
began in 2011, and the resulting transition of power was largely
peaceful. The Arab Spring uprisings were triggered on December 17,
2010, when a street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself in
Sidi Bouzid in central Tunisia, in protest of the police confiscation
of his vegetable cart. After days of clashes between protesters and
the police, long-time dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was forced to
flee the country to exile in Saudi Arabia.

However, that peaceful transition has come at a price. Since its 2011
revolution, Tunisia has faced repeated jihadist attacks, killing more
than 100 soldiers and policemen, as well as about 20 civilians and 59
foreign tourists, according to official figures.

In March of last year, two terrorist gunmen infiltrated security at
the well-known Bardo Museum in Tunis, right next door to the
parliament building. They took and killed 22 hostages, with 50 people
injured. Almost all of the casualties were foreign tourists.

Tunisians were still in shock from that attack, when another attack
occurred in June. A gunman disguised as a tourist opened fire at a
Tunisian hotel in Sousse on Friday, killing 37 people.

Perhaps the most significant fact about Tunisia is that it's been the
number one source of foreign fighters who have gone to Syria to join
ISIS. Some 5,500 Tunisian citizens have left the country and are now
fighting in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and to a lesser extent Mali, far more
than the citizens of any other country.

It's believed that about 800 of these jihadists have returned to
Tunisia in the last year. It's always been feared that Tunisian
nationals returning would form terror cells in Tunisia and conduct
more terror attacks, like the ones that have occurred frequently since
2011, but the actions of a Tunisian national in the Berlin attack has
heightened those fears and created new anxieties. In fact, with
ISIS losing territory in Syria, Iraq and Libya, it's feared that
these jihadists are going to be flooding back into the country.

The purpose of Saturday's rally was to demand that further action be
taken. In particular, they demanded that the government to bring home
all Tunisian nationals living abroad who have links to extremist
organizations, so they could face trial in their home country.
Deutsche Welle and ITV

Related Articles

• A look back at Libya in 2011 as the West debates another military intervention (05-Mar-2016)
  
  
• Concerns grow about Tunisia's stability as economic protests escalate (17-Sep-2016)
  
  
• Tunisia declares a 'state of war' as Mideast meltdown continues (05-Jul-2015)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Bartella, Iraq, Mosul,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Germany, Berlin, Anis Amri, Fedi, Tunisia, Milan, Italy,
Oueslatia, Tunis, Bardo Museum, Mohamed Bouazizi, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali,
Sousse, Syria, Iraq, Libya

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]

(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2016, 11:13 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   The Problem with the interpretation above is firstly that Russia
>   has been primarily threatening the US for the past several
>   years. Secondly while the quality of the Chinese nuclear arsenal
>   is improving as it is being modernized, total inventory of Chinese
>   missiles has largely remained the same. 300 Missiles can't take on
>   two 5000 missile arsenals at the same time and hope to win.
>  

When did Russia threaten the US?  China repeatedly threatens war with
the US, over Taiwan and over the South China Sea, but not Russia.

China has rattled sabers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, but had never threatened war with the US.  In fact, their artificial island activities in the South China Sea only started after the US had abandoned its prior regular traversals of the area with carrier battle groups due to the sequester, leaving a power vacuum.

Meanwhile, Russia has actually invaded two nations friendly to the US, Georgia and Ukraine.  Notice how China has not invaded Taiwan.  Russia has also done saber rattling, and in some cases that saber rattling has been explicitly nuclear.

Quote:Non-crisis wars are fought on rational considerations, such as
by counting numbers of missiles.

Crisis wars are like sex.  They're driven by raw emotion, DNA and
hormones, and are often completely inappropriate and irrational.

From a purely rational point of view, the South never had a chance of
beating the North, and Japan never had a chance of defeating America.
And yet those wars went forward.  Go figure.

The South thought they were likely to be able to secede peacefully; essentially their miscalculation was in failing to realize that the North would fight the war like a crisis war.  Japan miscalculated similarly with respect to the US.

My understanding of your own theory is that this kind of miscalculation is exactly what causes crisis wars:  people lose direct memory of the previous crisis war and aren't careful enough not to get into another one.  Am I wrong?  Are you saying people actually become insane about starting wars?  That makes your theory a lot less credible, in my opinion.

[Warren Dew]

(12-23-2016, 05:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2016, 02:43 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: >   In the SCO schema, which John stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as
>   an alternate outcome to his pet crystal ball, Russia provides the
>   long range nuclear fire power whereas the PRC provide short to
>   medium range nuclear firepower. Russia provides the global heavy
>   bomber force although the updated Tu-16s of the PLAAF will over
>   time add to this. Naturally the PRC provides the millions of
>   cannon fodder troops. In the SCO Axis model, the Allies would face
>   a nearly unwinnable war. The Fourth Reich (which I believe the SCO
>   to be) may end up conquering the Earth (and beyond)

It's totally incomprehensible how you keep pushing this bizarre SCO
theory.  No country is going to go to war with the US because it
belongs to a political group like the SCO.  Why on earth would
Kazakhstan go to war with the US?  For that matter, why would Russia?

The Chinese people have this "China Dream," where they completely
replace the US as the principal superpower in the world, with Chinese
navies controlling the seas from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian ocean
to Africa and the Mideast.  It's a dream that's completely emotional,
erotic, nationalistic, self-delusional, irrational, unrealistic,
inappropriate, and disastrous.

Is it only Chinese that have that delusional dream, or do the US and Russia have similar delusional dreams?  If the latter, can you describe the US and Russian versions?  If the former, why only Chinese?  Do you think their skin color or eye shape makes their thinking alien?

I know a lot of Chinese people, and none of them have that dream.  Granted, a few leaders of the Chinese military would like to do that.  And if it's limited to the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, it would hardly be replacing the US as the principal superpower, since it wouldn't even touch the Atlantic or Europe; it would be limited to regional power.  Even then, China has been careful not to move except when the US has abandoned the field, for example by keeping their (our) carriers in home port rather than patrolling the seas, including the western Pacific.

Now, it's possible that the Chinese rationally thought that was a reasonable strategy in the context of Obama's multipolar world view:  the stable numbers of poles are in the form (2^n)-1, and if the US occupies one pole, three is the largest number that is realistic.  In that world, the three poles would presumably be the Americas, Eurafrica, and Australiasia, based on geographical barriers.  The US would presumably dominate the Americas, China would vie with India for Australiasia, but let's not forget Eurafrica, control of which would be contested between the EU and Russia.  And a war between the EU and Russia is exactly what your own theory predicts, since the previous crisis war in the area was also between a German dominated Western Europe and Russia in the east.

So how sure are you that the US will side with Russia against the EU?  And under Trump, why wouldn't the US try to guide the world to a unipolar solution, with the US as the only global pole?  Especially when playing appropriate balance of power politics, we can get them to use their nukes against each other, instead of against us?  If the US uses the approach of Victorian England, we have a good chance of staying out of the primary fighting, and stepping in to pick up the pieces afterwards.

[John J. Xenakis]

(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > When did Russia threaten the US? China repeatedly threatens war
> with the US, over Taiwan and over the South China Sea, but not
> Russia.

(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > China has rattled sabers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, but
> had never threatened war with the US. In fact, their artificial
> island activities in the South China Sea only started after the US
> had abandoned its prior regular traversals of the area with
> carrier battle groups due to the sequester, leaving a power
> vacuum.

> Meanwhile, Russia has actually invaded two nations friendly to the
> US, Georgia and Ukraine. Notice how China has not invaded Taiwan.
> Russia has also done saber rattling, and in some cases that saber
> rattling has been explicitly nuclear.

• In 2005, China passed an "Anti-Secession Law" that required
  China to take military action against Taiwan if Taiwan takes any
  formal steps towards independence. Even simply talking about
  independence could trigger the Anti-Secession Law.
  
  
• The US has a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. This was put into
  place decades ago to guarantee that China would not invade Taiwan,
  since doing so would automatically trigger war with the US.
  
  
• The Anti-Secession Law is threatening invasion anyway, and
  statements by Chinese officials almost on a daily basis reinforce that
  threat.
  
  
• Therefore, China is threatening war with the US almost on a daily
  basis.

One could make a similar argument for the Senkaku Islands, and for the
South China Sea. These are all very real threats of war with the US.

The comparison with Russia, Crimea, South Ossetia and Abkhazia is very
interesting to me. Russia invaded those regions and annexed them, but
there was never a hint of war from either side. By contrast, a
Chinese invasion of Taiwan would lead to war within six hours.

(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > Non-crisis wars are fought on rational considerations, such as by
> counting numbers of missiles.

> Crisis wars are like sex. They're driven by raw emotion, DNA and
> hormones, and are often completely inappropriate and irrational.

> From a purely rational point of view, the South never had a chance
> of beating the North, and Japan never had a chance of defeating
> America. And yet those wars went forward. Go figure.

(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The South thought they were likely to be able to secede
> peacefully; essentially their miscalculation was in failing to
> realize that the North would fight the war like a crisis war.
> Japan miscalculated similarly with respect to the US.

> My understanding of your own theory is that this kind of
> miscalculation is exactly what causes crisis wars: people lose
> direct memory of the previous crisis war and aren't careful enough
> not to get into another one. Am I wrong? Are you saying people
> actually become insane about starting wars? That makes your
> theory a lot less credible, in my opinion.

You've answered your own question. The South and Japan made
miscalculations based on totally self-delusional considerations,
involving xenophobia and nationalism. This is similar to the erotic
self-delusion that occurs when someone believes that an affair won't
harm his or her marriage.

(12-23-2016, 02:43 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: > In the SCO schema, which John stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as
> an alternate outcome to his pet crystal ball, Russia provides the
> long range nuclear fire power whereas the PRC provide short to
> medium range nuclear firepower. Russia provides the global heavy
> bomber force although the updated Tu-16s of the PLAAF will over
> time add to this. Naturally the PRC provides the millions of
> cannon fodder troops. In the SCO Axis model, the Allies would face
> a nearly unwinnable war. The Fourth Reich (which I believe the SCO
> to be) may end up conquering the Earth (and beyond)

(12-23-2016, 05:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > It's totally incomprehensible how you keep pushing this bizarre
> SCO theory. No country is going to go to war with the US because
> it belongs to a political group like the SCO. Why on earth would
> Kazakhstan go to war with the US? For that matter, why would
> Russia?

> The Chinese people have this "China Dream," where they completely
> replace the US as the principal superpower in the world, with
> Chinese navies controlling the seas from the Pacific Ocean to the
> Indian ocean to Africa and the Mideast. It's a dream that's
> completely emotional, erotic, nationalistic, self-delusional,
> irrational, unrealistic, inappropriate, and disastrous.

(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Is it only Chinese that have that delusional dream, or do the US
> and Russia have similar delusional dreams? If the latter, can you
> describe the US and Russian versions? If the former, why only
> Chinese? Do you think their skin color or eye shape makes their
> thinking alien?

These days, when someone encounters an argument or view that he
doesn't like, it's typical to dive into the sewer and respond to the
argument by saying that the person making it must be racist,
misogynistic, homophobic, deplorable, a hater, a tea-bagger, sexist,
or any of the other assortment of personal attacks that typically come
from the left. I don't know if diving into the sewer in that way
helps you in discussions with other people, but it certainly won't
help you with me.

If you've been following what I've been writing for any period of
time, then you know that I talk about an increase in nationalism,
xenophobia and racism on a worldwide basis during this generational
Crisis era. I've given numerous examples of delusional views held by
politicians in many countries, including America, Europe and the
Mideast. Just a couple of days ago I characterized a statement by the
US State Dept. spokesman as "particularly laughable and moronic." In
the last couple of years, I've written frequently about the delusional
views of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin, as well as by Chinese
officials. This is the same kind of self-delusion that led Japan to
attack Pearl Harbor and the South to attack Fort Sumter.

(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I know a lot of Chinese people, and none of them have that dream.
> Granted, a few leaders of the Chinese military would like to do
> that. And if it's limited to the Indian Ocean and the Western
> Pacific, it would hardly be replacing the US as the principal
> superpower, since it wouldn't even touch the Atlantic or Europe;
> it would be limited to regional power. Even then, China has been
> careful not to move except when the US has abandoned the field,
> for example by keeping their (our) carriers in home port rather
> than patrolling the seas, including the western Pacific.

You can google the words "China Dream" and see that I'm not making
this up, despite what your Chinese friends are telling you.

When you say "China has been careful not to move," I have no idea what
you're talking about. China has been "moving" to heavily militarize
the South China Sea, which the US has not "abandoned," despite the
fact that these military "moves" have been declared illegal by the UN
Tribunal in the Hague. China is clearly preparing for war in the
South China Sea, and that means war with the US.

(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Now, it's possible that the Chinese rationally thought that was a
> reasonable strategy in the context of Obama's multipolar world
> view: the stable numbers of poles are in the form (2^n)-1, and if
> the US occupies one pole, three is the largest number that is
> realistic. In that world, the three poles would presumably be the
> Americas, Eurafrica, and Australiasia, based on geographical
> barriers. The US would presumably dominate the Americas, China
> would vie with India for Australiasia, but let's not forget
> Eurafrica, control of which would be contested between the EU and
> Russia. And a war between the EU and Russia is exactly what your
> own theory predicts, since the previous crisis war in the area was
> also between a German dominated Western Europe and Russia in the
> east.

No, that's completely wrong. I have never "predicted" war between the
EU and Russia. However, it's quite possible that individual European
nations will be split and fight among themselves and with Russia or
the US, just as they did in WW II.

(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > So how sure are you that the US will side with Russia against the
> EU? And under Trump, why wouldn't the US try to guide the world
> to a unipolar solution, with the US as the only global pole?
> Especially when playing appropriate balance of power politics, we
> can get them to use their nukes against each other, instead of
> against us? If the US uses the approach of Victorian England, we
> have a good chance of staying out of the primary fighting, and
> stepping in to pick up the pieces afterwards.

This is all fatuous political nonsense.

[Cynic Hero '86]

The younger generations of Americans will never fight for the UN/human rights/globalist construct. Things like the UN charter have been incredibly unpopular with the American people especially since 9/11. Donald Trump's election was in many ways a repudiation of the UN based world order. The Taiwan issue and Japanese pacifism/disarmament are prime examples of globalism run amuck. Why should Americans fight to defend Japan when Japan has the resources and wealth to provide its own defense itself.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 26-Dec-16 World View -- Greece calls its European lenders 'Ebenezer Scrooge' from A Christmas Carol

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Greece evokes Dickens' Christmas Carol, calling its lenders 'Ebenezer Scrooge'
  
• European lenders relent and unblock the frozen bailout loan
  

****
**** Greece evokes Dickens' Christmas Carol, calling its lenders 'Ebenezer Scrooge'
****


Ebenezer Scrooge meets Jacob Marley's ghost -- by John Leech, from the 1843 edition of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Greece used this picture to accuse European officials of being Scrooges. (Gutenberg)

Greece's finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos has sent a Christmas card
to journalists, apparently mocking Greece's bailout lenders, and
accusing them of being as stingy and hard-hearted as Ebenezer Scrooge
in the 1843 book A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens.

Greece's Christmas card displays the picture shown above of Ebenezer
Scrooge meeting the ghost of his dead partner Jacob Marley. The
picture was an illustration by John Leech in the original 1843
edition. The picture in Tsakalotos's card was accompanied by the
following caption:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Perhaps in all of our Christmas tales there is a
> terrifying character like Ebenezer who receives the season's
> spirit in an immense solitude, and closed like an oyster. And
> maybe our Christmas tale is no exception.
>
> But, dear friends and colleagues, our wishes go beyond all the
> Ebenezers of this world. We don't give up on our
> wishes."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Greece is undoubtedly alluding to the decision by Greece's creditors to
cancel a planned bailout loan, after Greece's prime minister Alexis
Tsipras announced new social spending -- a one-time pre-Christmas
bonus to poor pensioners, and a reduction in taxes for Greece's Aegean
Sea islands whose tourist industry had suffered because of the refugee
crisis. Greece needs the bailout loan to meet its debts
and avoid bankruptcy.

Charles Dickens describes Ebenezer Scrooge as follows:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone,
> Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching,
> covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel
> had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and
> solitary as an oyster. The cold within him froze his old features,
> nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait;
> made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in
> his grating voice. A frosty rime was on his head, and on his
> eyebrows, and his wiry chin. He carried his own low temperature
> always about with him; he iced his office in the dog-days; and
> didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas.
>
> External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth
> could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was
> bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its
> purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty. Foul weather
> didn’t know where to have him. The heaviest rain, and snow, and
> hail, and sleet, could boast of the advantage over him in only one
> respect. They often “came down” handsomely, and Scrooge never did.
>
> Nobody ever stopped him in the street to say, with gladsome looks,
> “My dear Scrooge, how are you? When will you come to see me?” No
> beggars implored him to bestow a trifle, no children asked him
> what it was o’clock, no man or woman ever once in all his life
> inquired the way to such and such a place, of Scrooge. Even the
> blind men’s dogs appeared to know him; and when they saw him
> coming on, would tug their owners into doorways and up courts; and
> then would wag their tails as though they said, “No eye at all is
> better than an evil eye, dark master!”
>
> But what did Scrooge care! It was the very thing he liked. To edge
> his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human
> sympathy to keep its distance, was what the knowing ones call
> “nuts” to Scrooge."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

So that's what Alexis Tsipras and other Greek ministers think of
Greece's creditors. Tsipras may particularly be thinking of Germany's
cranky finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who would undoubtedly be
quite effective playing the part of Scrooge in a new production of A
Christmas Carol.

In 1843, an elderly man like Scrooge would have been of the same
generational archetype of today's Silent Generation, the generation
that grew up during World War II.

Scrooge would have grown up during the French Revolution and the
Napoleonic Wars. Many people in Scrooge's generation had died in wars
or in poverty. Dickens talks about prisons, Union workhouses, the
Treadmill and the Poor Law. London's Panic of 1825 had been
financially devastating.

In Dickens' story, the three ghosts that visit him convince him to
forget all that, and start being generous with his time and money.
Tsipras is hoping the Schäuble and Europe's other finance ministers
turn out the same way. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, 1843 edition (Gutenberg) and Kathimerini and Deutsche Welle and AFP

Related Articles

• Greece financial crisis threatened after Tsipras announces new spending program (15-Dec-2016)
  
  
• European officials refuse to unblock the next bailout loan to Greece (22-Dec-2016)
  
  
• A generational interpretation of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (05-Dec-2004)

****
**** European lenders relent and unblock the frozen bailout loan
****

There's no word about whether Greece's Christmas card played any part
in the European officials' Christmas eve change of heart, but Dutch
Finance Minister and Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem said on
Saturday that negotiations would restart for the debt bailout loan to
be unfrozen in January.

The softening the Eurogroup's hearts came about not because of visits
by three ghosts, but because Greece's finance minister Euclid
Tsakalotos had sent a letter saying that the pension bonus was a
one-time thing, and reaffirming the government's commit to financial
reforms. According to Eurogroup officials and Dijsselbloem:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We have received a letter by the Greek authorities in
> response to the concerns raised by the institutions as well as the
> Euro Working Group on the recently legislated fiscal measures.
>
> We have been reassured by the accompanying assessment of the
> institutions indicating that their initial significant concerns,
> both on process and on substance, are alleviated by this letter as
> regards MoU commitments, especially regarding pension. ...
>
> I'm happy to conclude that we have cleared the way ... to go ahead
> with the decision-making procedures for the short-term debt
> measures, which will be conducted in January."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

As Scrooge said to Bob Cratchit:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"A merry Christmas, Bob! A merrier Christmas, Bob, my
> good fellow, than I have given you, for many a year! I’ll raise
> your salary, and endeavor to assist your struggling family, and
> we will discuss your affairs this very afternoon, over a Christmas
> bowl of smoking bishop, Bob! Make up the fires, and buy another
> coal-scuttle before you dot another i, Bob Cratchit!"<END QUOTE>[/indent]

And so, as Tiny Tim observed, "God bless Us, Every One!" Reuters and Reuters


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, John Leech,
Ebenezer Scrooge, Jacob Marley,
Greece, Euclid Tsakalotos, Alexis Tsipras, Wolfgang Schäuble,
Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim

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]

(12-25-2016, 01:29 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > The younger generations of Americans will never fight for the
> UN/human rights/globalist construct. Things like the UN charter
> have been incredibly unpopular with the American people especially
> since 9/11. Donald Trump's election was in many ways a repudiation
> of the UN based world order. The Taiwan issue and Japanese
> pacifism/disarmament are prime examples of globalism run
> amuck. Why should Americans fight to defend Japan when Japan has
> the resources and wealth to provide its own defense itself.
>

The whole "regeneracy" concept in generational theory says that they
will indeed go off and fight, just like the GI generation in WW II.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(12-26-2016, 11:09 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The whole "regeneracy" concept in generational theory says that they
will indeed go off and fight, just like the GI generation in WW II.

I did not say they would not fight. They will fight, just not for the pathetic values that you keep highlighting. Millies will never allow the regeneracy to be based on the human rights tyranny.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 27-Dec-16 World View -- Furious Israel retaliates against UN for condemning West Bank settlements

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Palestinians declare a defeat for the forces of darkness
  
• Statements by diplomats show they live in fantasyland
  
• Israel's Netanyahu orders retaliation against the United Nations
  

****
**** Palestinians declare a defeat for the forces of darkness
****


When Netanyahu and Obama met in Washington on May 20 2011, it didn't go too well.

The United States Security Council on Friday passed Resolution 2334,
which says that Israel's West Bank settlements constitute "flagrant
violation of international law." Similar resolutions in the passed
have failed because of a United States veto, but in a major reversal
of policy by the Barack Obama administration, the United States
abstained on Friday's vote, allowing the resolution to pass.

The Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, interviewed on the BBC, was
ebullient, and said that the resolution was a major victory for
Palestinians and the "two-state solution, and a defeat for the forces
of darkness (my transcription):

> [indent]<QUOTE>"This is a day for peace. This is a day for hope.
> This is a day when the international community stood tall. To
> tell the Palestinians and Israelis that peace is possible.
> Through the establishment of a two-state where the state of
> Palestine can live side by side with the state of Israel in peace
> and security on the 1967 line.
>
> This is a day where the international community unanimously have
> told the Israeli government stop the settlements. Stop the
> dictation. Stop the occupation. This is a day when the
> international community have told the Israeli people if you want
> to live in peace and security, it's not going to be through
> dictation and occupation and settlements. It's going to be
> through fairness, through neighborly relations, through the
> freedom of the Palestinian people, through international law. I
> hope this clearcut message to the Israeli government will be
> understood. I think that this is a major defeat for the forces of
> darkness and extremism and dictation. [Inaudible] for
> Palestinians and Israelis in peace. So today, it's really a day
> of hope not only for Palestinians and Israelis, but for the whole
> region as a whole, for the people of this region as a
> whole."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Resolution 2334 contains the following text:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter
> of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the
> inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
>
> Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to
> abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities
> under the Fourth Geneva Convention ...,
>
> Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic
> composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory
> occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter
> alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of
> Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and
> displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of
> international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
>
> Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement
> activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the
> two-State solution based on the 1967 lines ...
>
> 1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in
> the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East
> Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant
> violation under international law and a major obstacle to the
> achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and
> comprehensive peace;
>
> 2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely
> cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian
> territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all
> of its legal obligations in this regard. ..."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

In another interview, Saeb Erekat said that the Palestinians will pull
membership in the United States for the State of Palestine. United Nations
and WAFA (Palestine News & Information Agency)

****
**** Statements by diplomats show they live in fantasyland
****

One can't help but laugh at the statement by Saeb Erekat quoted above,
and his victory over the forces of darkness, but statements by other
diplomats were equally idiotic.

The problem is this "two-state solution" fantasy. The very first Generational Dynamics prediction that I
wrote was in May 2003, when President George Bush announced his
"Mideast Roadmap to Peace." President Bush called for a Palestinian
State by 2005, to live in peace and security side by side with Israel.
It provided a series of steps for both sides to follow, mostly having
to do with eliminating violence against both Palestinian and Israeli
civilians.

As I wrote at that time, the Jews and Arabs were headed not for a
two-state solution, but for a full-scale war, as the generations of
survivors of the 1949 war that followed the partitioning of Palestine
and the creation of the state of Israel died off. Since I wrote that
analysis, there are certainly no signs of a two-state solution, as
there have been numerous Mideast wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon,
Gaza and Libya, with skirmishes in other countries. The Mideast is
still headed for full-scale war, pitting Jews against Arabs, Sunnis
against Shias, and various ethnic groups against each other.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see all that. Talking
about a two-state solution today is nothing more than political
posturing in order to gain power and votes. Any politician who
actually believes what he's saying is living in fantasyland.

Here's what Samantha Power, US Ambassador to the UN, said after the
Security Council vote:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"One cannot simultaneously champion Israeli
> settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would
> end the conflict. One has to make a choice between settlements
> and separation. In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution
> that focused exclusively on settlements, as if settlements were
> the only factor harming the prospects of a two-state solution.
> The circumstances have changed dramatically. Since 2011,
> settlement growth has only accelerated. Since 2011, multiple
> efforts to pursue peace through negotiations have failed. And
> since 2011, president Obama and secretary Kerry have repeatedly
> warned publicly and privately that the absences of progress toward
> peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the
> two-state solution at risk and threaten Israel's stated objective
> to remain both a Jewish state and a democracy."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

This statement, which attempts to explain the Obama administration's
complete reversal of policy, makes no sense at all. There are no
prospects for a two-state solution, or Power would have been more
specific. Instead, Power uses her statement to blame, by implication,
Israel for the failure of the two-state solution.

Even under the most benign interpretation of Obama's policy reversal,
I cannot see how it improves chances for any peaceful solution, or for
how it benefits the Israelis, the Palestinians, the UN, or anyone
else. Under any reasonable interpretations, all of those groups are
hurt by the policy reversal.

It was clear from the start that this policy reversal would have
consequences that would have to be dealt with. If Obama had made the
policy reversal a year or two ago, then he would have had to deal with
the consequences, and Power's statement might be more credible.
Instead, Obama waited until three weeks before leaving office, so that
other people will have to deal with the consequences, while he sits on
the sidelines and probably provides commentary.

Barack Obama and Israel's president Benjamin Netanyahu have always had
a visceral dislike for each other. President Obama comes from an
activist community of black leaders many of whom are openly
anti-Semitic (google the words "anti-semitic black leaders" for plenty
of examples). This doesn't mean that Obama himself is anti-Semitic,
but the company he keeps certainly inflames the situation. Netanyahu
has returned the favor by being openly hostile to Obama, including
open support for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election. So
it's possible that Obama may simply have been looking for a way to get
revenge against Netanyahu before leaving office.

Anti-Semitism has always been prevalent in America, as I wrote in 2006. In the Catholic Church,
it was official policy for centuries that Jews were responsible for
the murder of Jesus Christ, and that all Jews must be punished for it.
A Papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV on July 14, 1555, began:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost
> that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God
> to eternal servitude, can under the pretext that pious Christians
> must accept them and sustain their habitation, are so ungrateful
> to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they
> return contumely, and among themselves, instead of the slavery,
> which they deserve, they manage to claim
> superiority."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

This teaching, which goes on to justify forcing Jews to live in
ghettos, was never withdrawn and was certainly known to Hitler. It
was only reversed on April 13, 1986, when Pope John Paul II gave a major speech at the Great Synagogue of Rome.

In this generational Crisis period, it appears that anti-Semitism is
reviving, just as all forms of racism, xenophobia and nationalism are
increasing in countries around the world. This is undoubtedly part of
the scenario that will lead the Mideast to full-scale war as described
above.

Dennis Ross, a Mideast diplomat who served under both Presidents
Clinton and Bush, said in a BBC interview that the UN Security Council
resolution was the wrong way to go (my transcription):

> [indent]<QUOTE>The language in the resolution equates all settlement
> activity beyond the June 4 1967 lines, and yet the position of the
> US as stated by the president in the two speeches he gave in 2011
> was that the final border should be determined by settlement
> blocks and swaps. ...
>
> What I'm suggesting - if you turn this into a legal question, then
> you're not going to find a simple way, or any way, of actually
> resolving this through negotiations. When you turn this conflict
> into a legal conflict, when in fact it is a historic conflict
> between two national movements, then you move away from being able
> to come up with compromises that would be able to resolve the
> issues. I think what we want to do is find a way to have
> negotiations, not find a way try to try to impose things from an
> international perspective, meaning from a UN perspective, or even
> from a legal perspective, because that isn't going to produce an
> outcome."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Of all the statements from politicians that I heard, this is probably
the closest to making sense. None of the politicians that I heard who
praised the UNSC resolution explained how the resolution in any way
promoted peace. Ross's statement that it's a "historic conflict
between two national movement" comes closest to the Generational
Dynamics analysis.

Related Articles

• Pope Francis visits Mideast to reconcile with Jews, Orthodox, and Muslims (25-May-2014)
  
  
• The World View of President Barack Hussein Obama (15-Mar-2016)
  
  
• Obama and Netanyahu in sharp disagreement after speech (20-May-2011)
  

****
**** Israel's Netanyahu orders retaliation against the United Nations
****

After the UNSC vote, a furious Israeli prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu ordered that steps be taken to respond:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I share ministers' feelings, anger and frustration
> vis-à-vis the unbalanced resolution that is very hostile to the
> State of Israel, and which the [UN] Security Council passed in an
> unworthy manner. From the information that we have, we have no
> doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it,
> coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be
> passed."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Reports indicate that Israel has suspended working ties with 12 of the
Security Council countries that supported the resolution: Britain,
France, Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay, Spain,
Senegal and New Zealand.

Even if these suspensions are only temporary, what this shows is that
this reversal of US policy has not only harmed the Palestinians and
Israels, it's harmed the United Nations itself. Israeli Prime Minister and The Hill and Jerusalem Post


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, UN Security Council, Resolution 2334,
Saeb Erekat, Palestinians, Mideast Roadmap to Peace,
Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Samantha Power

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]

(12-26-2016, 11:09 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > The whole "regeneracy" concept in generational theory says that
> they will indeed go off and fight, just like the GI generation in
> WW II.

(12-26-2016, 12:23 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > I did not say they would not fight. They will fight, just not for
> the pathetic values that you keep highlighting. Millies will never
> allow the regeneracy to be based on the human rights tyranny.
>

What you're suggesting is an incorrect interpretation of generational
theory. You're assuming that the event triggering a war is just some
social issue. But that wouldn't be a regeneracy event. By
definition, the regeneracy regenerates civic unity for the first time
since the end of the preceding crisis war, and a social event would
not regenerate civic unity. Regeneracy events like bombing Pearl
Harbor and the Bataan Death March were not a social events, and so they
regenerated civic unity.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 28-Dec-16 World View -- Bank run worsens Italy's banking crisis

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Bank run worsens Italy's banking crisis
  
• Following the money, Sao Tome and Principe switches allegiance from Taiwan to China
  

****
**** Bank run worsens Italy's banking crisis
****


A horse-drawn carriage passes a branch of Banca Monte dei Paschi bank in Rome.

A week after Italy's government announced that it would bail out the
failing the Banco Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS) bank, with a
"bail-in" that would put the life savings of tens of thousands of
depositors at risk, the European Central Bank said on Tuesday that
MPS's financial situation is deteriorating far more rapidly than
expected.

MPS has &euro;55.2 billion in bad loans. Three weeks ago, MPS said
that it had enough funds to stay afloat for 11 months. Then last
week, MPS said that it would run out of money within four months.

According to one financial analyst:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"It’s a national tragedy. Monte Paschi survived the
> Inquisition, the unification of Italy, fascism and two world
> wars. But it couldn’t survive the mismanagement and corruption of
> bankers and politicians in the 21st century."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The government of Italy announced last week that the size of the
bailout would be &euro;5 billion, the amount needed to allow MPS to
meet its immediate obligations and avoid bankruptcy. However, the ECB
said that MPS's financial position has suffered a "rapid
deterioration" during the period from November 30 to December 21, now
the &euro;5 billion figure is too small. &euro;8.8 billion will be
required to get past the immediate emergency.

It's believed that the "rapid deterioration" is being caused by run on
the bank. It's known that from June to September of this year,
customers removed deposits of &euro;6.7 billion, and it's believed
that this run on deposits is continuing, or even accelerating and
spiraling out of control.

ECB rules require that if any government bails out the country's
banks, then a percentage of the bailout must come from the assets of
investors who had invested in the shares and bonds issued by the bank.
In most countries, that would "bail in" sophisticated investors, who
would then "take a haircut." But Italy has a special problem that
many ordinary savers have invested their life savings in bonds, so
that would put their life savings at risk. This situation has been
the subject of intense public debate in Italy at least since June, and
that would explain why depositors have been rushing to move their
funds out of the bank.

Italy's government is looking for a way under ECB rules to avoid
having to "bail in" bond holders. Since MPS is still technically
solvent, the plan is to take advantage of a loophole in the ECB rules
by calling the cash injection a "precautionary recapitalization"
rather than a bailout. However, this path limits the amount of money
that the government can inject into the bank, so it's far from clear
that it will work.

Jens Weidmann, the president of Deutsche Bundesbank, Germany's central
bank, says that Italy's bailout plan requires careful scrutiny:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"For the measures planned by the Italian government
> [to work], the bank must be economically healthy at its core. The
> money cannot be used to cover losses [that are] already expected.
> All this must be carefully examined. ...
>
> These [rules] aim to protect taxpayers in particular and keep
> responsibility on investors. Government bailout is only meant to
> be a last resort, that's why the bar is high."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Italy's rescue plan requires approval by both the EU and the ECB.

Banco Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS) was founded in 1472, and is the
world's oldest operating bank. Seeking Alpha and MarketWatch and Financial Post

Related Articles

• Italy announces bank bailout that will 'bail in' ordinary depositors (22-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Italy bank crisis more dangerous to EU than Brexit (05-Jul-2016)
  

****
**** Following the money, Sao Tome and Principe switches allegiance from Taiwan to China
****

China scored a victory over Taiwan on Monday, when the nation Sao Tome
and Principe officially resumed diplomatic relations with China after
breaking relations with Taiwan. The former Portuguese colony Sao Tome
and Principe is an impoverished island nation off the coast of
west-central Africa with a population of almost 200,000.

China will not have diplomatic relations with any nation that has
diplomatic relations with Taiwan. There are now about 20 countries
that still have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

It's often a question of money. China would like Taiwan to be
recognized by as few countries as possible, and so China will offer
financial aid and investments to a country willing to switch. It
sometimes gets into a bidding war, but China is much wealthier and
always wins such battles.

Other countries, including The Gambia, Malawi, and Senegal, have in
recent years broken off relations with Taiwan, in the hope of enjoying
financial largesse from China. China has not always been willing to
establish relations with these countries because of a long-standing
"diplomatic truce" between China and Taiwan, designed to prevent
countries from playing China and Taiwan against each other. However,
China abandoned the diplomatic truce after this year's election as
president of Tsai Ing-wen, who is lukewarm to the "One-China Policy"
that makes Taiwan a province of China.

The United States officially recognizes the One-China Policy and does
not officially recognize Taiwan, but has a close relationship with
Taiwan anyway. President-elect Donald Trump has said that he'll
review the US position.

It's not just China who is playing this diplomatic game. After Russia
invaded Georgia in 2008, it declared two Georgia territories, South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, to be independent nations until Moscow's
protection. Only five countries sided with Russia in recognizing at
least one of the two territories as independent. In 2011, Tuvalu
recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia in return for "promising areas
for bilateral cooperation [with Russia], including trade, fisheries
and education." However, Tuvalu switched sides in 2013, for a reason
that was not explained. Med Africa Times (Switzerland) and China Post (Taiwan) and New Republic (2-Apr-2014)

Related Articles

• New Taiwan poll shows overwhelming support for independence from China (02-Jun-2016)
  
  
• China demands new Taiwan leader explicitly affirm that Taiwan is part of China (26-May-2016)
  
  
• Taiwan's pro-independence party wins historic presidential election (17-Jan-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Italy, Banco Monte dei Paschi di Siena, MPS,
European Central Bank, ECB, Jens Weidmann, Deutsche Bundesbank,
China, Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, One-China policy,
Sao Tome and Principe, The Gambia, Malawi, Senegal,
Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Tuvalu

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

[Cynic Hero '86]

(12-27-2016, 06:10 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: What you're suggesting is an incorrect interpretation of generational
theory.  You're assuming that the event triggering a war is just some
social issue.  But that wouldn't be a regeneracy event.  By
definition, the regeneracy regenerates civic unity for the first time
since the end of the preceding crisis war, and a social event would
not regenerate civic unity.  Regeneracy events like bombing Pearl
Harbor and the Bataan Death March were not a social events, and so they
regenerated civic unity.

But social events are often precursor events to war, often determining either whether a war occurs or not or which nation would be the aggressor or the defender. Xers and Millies would never allow the human rights tyranny to determine the american "crisis identity" because following said doctrine leads to the crisis war being with either Russia or China which even if victorious would result in a globalist government whose current extant analogous ways of governing is the pathetic governments of present day Europe. All the strong systems of government would be suppressed in the likely postwar consensus even in a "victorious" outcome boomer globalists if the western world is allowed to continue on the course set by the boomers. By contrast embracing anti-muslim patriotism leads to the crisis war being a war of "deislamization" and colonization of the Mideast and North Africa. The different character of the boomers on one hand and xers/millies on the other is obvious. When a boomer learned about WW2 and the holocaust, they sympathized with the Jews and those who hid them from the Nazis and tend to imagine themselves bringing Nazis to justice. We Xers and millies draw inspiration of WW2 Germans themselves, this unstated idea frequently came up in regards to how to win the war on terror after 9/11. Instead the boomer tyrannically excluded Gen-x and Gen-y/Millennials from the government, especially as the younger generations began to openly formulate their political views. Note the boomer hostility to the new "alt-right" as an example of this phenomenon. Xers and Millies admire the methods of Putin and Assad displayed to great effect in Aleppo and other places in Syria as well remember those of Milosevic and Mladic in the 1990s.

[Eric the Green]

(12-26-2016, 12:23 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(12-26-2016, 11:09 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The whole "regeneracy" concept in generational theory says that they
will indeed go off and fight, just like the GI generation in WW II.

I did not say they would not fight. They will fight, just not for the pathetic values that you keep highlighting. Millies will never allow the regeneracy to be based on the human rights tyranny.

"human rights tyranny" lol

George Orwell could have hired you as his doublespeak writer.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 29-Dec-16 World View -- China punishes Mongolia for Dalai Lama visit during financial crisis

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Mongolia's herders faces a 'dzud' weather catastrophe
  
• China punishes Mongolia for Dalai Lama visit during financial crisis
  

****
**** Mongolia's herders faces a 'dzud' weather catastrophe
****


During a Mongolian 'dzud', animals starve because they cannot dig through a thick, solid layer of ice to reach food

An extremely harsh winter in Mongolia is sending temperatures to
-50&deg;C (-70&deg;F), causing a humanitarian disaster, and
threatening both lives and livelihoods.

Mongolia appears to be headed for another winter "dzud." The
word "dzud" refers to a phenomenon that appears to be somewhat
unique to Mongolia.

It usually occurs after a dry summer combines with heavy snowstorms
creating an ice crust that makes it difficult for livestock, mostly
cows, sheep and goats, to dig through to reach grass. This year, the
dry summer in the northeast and late autumn rains means the dzud risk
is high. Heavy snowfall from October has refrozen after more heavy
snow in November.

A third of Mongolia's population rely directly on livestock -- milk,
cheese and meat for food, dung for heating, fur for clothing, and
income from selling these items. Over 1.2 million livestock died in
last winter's dzud, leaving tens of thousands of herders in poverty.
The worst dzud in memory occurred in 2010, killing 8 million animals.
UB Post (Mongolia) and Deutsche Welle

****
**** China punishes Mongolia for Dalai Lama visit during financial crisis
****

In 2011, Mongolia economy grew by an astronomical 17.5%, thanks to its
huge reserves of copper, coal and gold, making the economy seem
invincible. Instead of saving some of that money, Mongolia borrowed
billions of dollars more to invest in huge road and infrastructure
projects. Now Mongolia is in a major economic crisis, thanks to
reduced purchases by China and falling commodity prices, at a time
when it's being hit hard by a new harsh winter "dzud."

In the midst of this economic and financial crisis, the Buddhist
leader the Dalai Lama visited Mongolia's capital city Ulaanbaatar in
November for a six-day visit. More than half of Mongolia's population
are Buddhist, and tens of thousands of them flocked to see the Dalai
Lama, with some traveling hundreds of miles.

China does not like the Dalai Lama, as he is worshipped by millions of
Tibetan Buddhists in China. So China punished Mongolia by closing
part of the border, leaving hundreds of trucks carrying copper and
coal backed up on the highway in sub-zero temperatures.

Mongolian officials quickly saw the error of their ways. Foreign
minister Tsend Munkh-Orgil made what is apparently an official apology
to China:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"You can understand that during the full term of this
> government, the Dalai Lama will not be allowed to visit Mongolia
> even for religious purposes."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

According to a Chinese analyst: "China shall accept Mongolia's apology
because China doesn't want to create friction in Northeast Asia
either, particularly at a time when it is facing tensions with other
nations, such as Japan and South Korea." Shanghaiist and Global Times (Beijing) and Al-Jazeera

Related Articles

• Mongolia in economic crisis asks the IMF for a bailout (05-Oct-2016)
  
  
• China's yuan devaluation causes currency chaos in Asia (20-Aug-2015)
  
  
• Mongolia's natural resource riches lost to corruption and foreigners (08-Aug-2013)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Mongolia, dzud, China, Tibet,
Dalai Lama, Tsend Munkh-Orgil

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]

*** 30-Dec-16 World View -- Russia and Turkey announce a new ceasefire in Syria

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Russia and Turkey announce a new ceasefire in Syria
  
• Damascus Syria is without water after reservoirs were poisoned
  

****
**** Russia and Turkey announce a new ceasefire in Syria
****


Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan

There have been two major ceasefire announcements so far this
years, plus a few smaller ones. None lasted more than a few days.

But Russia and Syria have previously declared that a victory in Aleppo
would mean victory in the entire war, and an end to the fighting. The
rebel groups would be so decimated, despondent and dispirited that
they'd lose the will to fight. So Russia's president Vladimir Putin
had to make good on that promise.

So even though the rebel groups fighting against Syria's president
Bashar al-Assad are nowhere near defeated, Russia and Turkey
on Thursday declared that there would be a nationwide ceasefire.
Let's point out a few things.

• "This time it's different." That's because, this time the
  U.S. was completely excluded, and the negotiations took place in
  Moscow rather than Geneva. I guess the Putin decided that it wasn't
  that much fun anymore to make a fool of John Kerry again and again.
  This agreement was reached between Russia, Turkey and Iran.
  
  
• Seven "moderate" rebel militias signed on to the deal, but a
  number of others did not.
  
  
• There will be no ceasefire for jihadist groups, against whom
  military action will continue. These include al-Qaeda linked Jabhat
  al-Nusra (al-Nusra Front, now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham or JFS), and the
  so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh).
  
  
• In September, Bashar al-Assad said with respect to a ceasefire
  ceasefire deal:
  
  > [indent]<QUOTE>"We as a nation ... are delivering a message that the
  > Syrian state is determined to recover all regions from the
  > terrorists and restore security, infrastructure, and everything
  > else that was destroyed in both human and material
  > aspects."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
  
  In fact, rebel groups control vast regions of Syria, and al-Assad is
  left in control of a small part of country mockingly called
  "Alawite-istan," named for al-Assad's ethnic group, Alawite.
  
  
• Al-Assad has signed on to the deal and promised not to target
  moderate rebel groups or civilians, all of whom al-Assad considers to
  be "terrorists." This means that Russia is controlling al-Assad, at
  least for the time being.
  
  
• Turkey has troops in northern Syria, preventing the Kurds from
  achieving their goal of taking control of much of northern Syria,
  creating an independent Kurdish state called "Rojava." Turkey
  considers the Syrian Kurds to be a major security threat to Turkey.
  The Syrian Kurds have not signed on to the deal.

Why would the Syrian rebel groups sign on to the agreement? A
representative gave the answer in an interview on RFI on
Thursday (my transcription):

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Obviously after Aleppo I think everyone realizes that
> there is no limit to the level of violence and barbarism that can
> be exercised against any target, including hospitals and
> civilians, to reach some object. And therefore if one get that to
> stop, the military solution should absolutely be
> stopped."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

In other words, some of the "moderate" rebel groups signed on,
but only to stop the bombing.

And that's the problem with the whole deal. There's no compelling
force behind the ceasefire. It's all transitory. As soon as any one
of a number of factors on the ground changes, the whole ceasefire will
unravel, as previous ones have done.

I consider Bashar al-Assad to be the most volatile of the
participants. His air force is going to continue bombing al-Nusra and
ISIS forces, many of whole will be indistinguishable from the
"moderate" rebels that he's promised not to target. He considers all
of these rebels to be like cockroaches to be exterminated, and he
seems likely to be unable to control his impulses and target any of
them. As soon as another barrel bomb hits a hospital or a marketplace
or a hospital, it will be clear that there's no ceasefire.

Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan is also very volatile.
He used to get along with al-Assad until 2011, when al-Assad's
bombers started targeting innocent women and children, including
Palestinians in a refugee camp near Latakia. Erdogan must have
had to swallow hard to sign this deal, as he's watch Syrian
and Russian bombers target Turkmens and other ethnic groups related
to Turks, as well as Palestinians, whom Erdogan supports.

Iran could be pretty volatile as well. They're known to be strongly
against any Turkish presence in Syria, and Erdogan has no intention of
withdrawing from northern Syria. Also, there are pockets of Shias
living in regions controlled by rebels, and Iran will feel compelled
to protect them.

The only thing that's really changed on the ground in the last few
weeks is that the Russians have taken control of Aleppo. The rest of
Syria is still an uncontrolled scattered collection of militias,
armies and jihadists of various ethnicities and religious sects.

Peace talks are scheduled to be held within a month in Astana, the
capital city of Kazakhstan, assuming that the ceasefire is still
holding. The choice of Kazakhstan makes it clear that this is deal
involving Turkey, Russia and Iran, and not including the United
States, the United Nations, or the European Union. BBC and
Russia Today and Gulf News (Dubai) and Vice News

Related Articles

• Syria and Russia see 'the light at the end of the tunnel' after Aleppo victory (18-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Syria's civilians fear worse violence from US-Russia 'ceasefire' agreement (11-Sep-2016)
  
  
• As Syria ceasefire begins, Bashar al-Assad quickly rejects it (13-Sep-2016)
  
  
• South Sudan increasingly parallels Syria in genocidal violence (24-Dec-2016)
  

****
**** Damascus Syria is without water after reservoirs were poisoned
****

Four million people in Damascus, Syria's capital city, have been
without water for five days after water reservoirs were poisoned with
diesel. It's not clear who was responsible for the poisoning, but
it's believed that the perpetrators are some of the same militias that
signed on to the peace agreement on Thursday. However, they claim
that they're not responsible, since they would be harmed more than
anyone else.

Despite the ceasefire, Syrian warplanes have been bombing a valley
northwest of Damascus to recapture the region that provides most of
the water to Damascus. Reuters and Middle East Eye and Russia Today

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Russia, Turkey, Iran,
Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Bashar al-Assad,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, JFS, Front for the Conquest of Syria,
Alawite-istan, Rojava, Kazakhstan, Damascus

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]

*** 31-Dec-16 World View -- Hacking of Democratic National Committee computers - I blame the victim

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Obama and Putin play bizarre diplomatic game after expulsion of Russian spies
  
• It's almost always the victim's fault when computer networks are hacked
  

****
**** Obama and Putin play bizarre diplomatic game after expulsion of Russian spies
****


Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin

So President Obama is pissed off because Russian hackers hacked into
the Democratic National Committee, and so, just three weeks before
he's leaving office, he ordered 35 Russian diplomats to leave the
country.

Russia's president Vladimir Putin, who always permits his security
people to threaten and harass American diplomats just for the fun of
it, announced on Friday that Russia would not reciprocate. Instead,
Putin invited the children of US diplomats in Moscow to a New Year's
party in the Kremlin.

In the back and forth between Obama and Putin, I sometimes feel as if
I'm watching the psychodrama of delusional politicians -- a tale
rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched in one-sided peace
negotiations over Ukraine and Syria over eight long years -- played
out on the international stage. Russia Direct (5-May) and Belfast Telegraph

Related Articles

• Barack Obama to Boomers: Drop dead! (23-Jan-2007)
  

****
**** It's almost always the victim's fault when computer networks are hacked
****

As a Senior Software Engineer who has developed many web sites, I'm
pretty much in the camp of "blame the victim" when a company's
networks get hacked. At one company where I worked several years ago,
I told my managers that they needed to encrypt the social security
numbers in their database, and I even told them how to do it easily.
I reminded them again after one of their servers got hacked. But the
problem is that protecting your networks doesn't generate sales, and
Gen-X managers think that when a Boomer software engineer tells them
what to do, they'd rather eat mud than do it.

So that's one reason there's a news story almost every week about
another company whose networks have been hacked. I write about these
every now and then.

However, the real monster hack, the mother of all hacks, was announced
last year. Chinese hackers stole the personal and security
information of many millions of Americas from the servers at the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Department of the
Interior. That hack included the SF-86 forms that everyone fills out
when applying for security clearances.

There is little doubt that the Chinese military is still sifting
through this massive amount of data and using it in a variety of ways
-- from simple blackmail and extortion of individuals to the creation
of sophisticated "spear phishing" e-mail messages used to hack into
networks of other agencies and corporations. This massive collection
of espionage data will be a powerful weapon in any future military
confrontations.

OK, so the DNC hack hurt President Obama's feelings, while the OPM
hack is putting the survival of the country at risk. So which is more
important? Why, the DNC hack is more important, because President
Obama's feelings are always more important than the survival of the
country. That's why there have been no expulsions of Chinese
diplomats.

I was really appalled when I read the stories about Hillary Clinton's
home server and other flagrantly stupid violations of common sense.
Apparently the same stupidity pervaded all of the networks of the
Democratic National Committee, so it's not surprising at all that they
got hacked. The CIA and other intelligence agencies have concluded
that the perpetrators were linked to Russia's government, and I
believe them, but the DNC servers were apparently so poorly protected
that the hacker could have been from anywhere.

I last wrote about the hack of the DNC's computers in July. At that
time, I made the following points:

• No self-respecting hacker would attack the Democratic party
  servers without also attacking the Republican party servers. However,
  there have been no leaks of Republican party e-mails.
  
  
• If the hacker's intent was to help Trump beat Hillary, then
  releasing the e-mails was risky because it might have backfired, and
  created sympathy for Hillary.

So my personal conclusion is that most likely explanation of what
happened was that the hacker tried to hack both parties' servers, but
succeeded only with the Democratic party servers, and then released
the e-mails because that's what hackers do, and probably didn't care
who won the election.

It's not always the victim's fault when computers are hacked, of
course. Hacking is a huge worldwide industry, and hackers are always
finding new ways to get around firewalls or to install malware or
ransomware. A good idea is to keep separate backups of all your data,
so that if you're hacked then you still have the backup. All you can
do is reduce the probability that you'll be hacked, and for that you
need to be totally paranoid. Lawfare (11-Mar-2016)

Related Articles

• FBI investigates alleged Russian hacking of Democrats' servers (31-Jul-2016)
  
  
• Hackers steal thousands of employee W-2 tax documents from Seagate Inc. (10-Mar-2016)
  
  
• Speculation grows about China's purpose in giant OPM hacking breach (06-Jun-2015)
  
  
• Anthem health insurance data breach puts even non-customers at risk (02-Mar-2015)
  
  
• U.S. charges China's People's Liberation Army with cyber espionage (20-May-2014)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Russia, Vladimir Putin,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, OPM,
Department of the Interior, SF-86, China

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]

(12-25-2016, 08:16 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: When did Russia threaten the US?  China repeatedly threatens war with the US, over Taiwan and over the South China Sea, but not Russia.  

(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: China has rattled sabers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, but had never threatened war with the US.  In fact, their artificial island activities in the South China Sea only started after the US had abandoned its prior regular traversals of the area with carrier battle groups due to the sequester, leaving a power vacuum.

Meanwhile, Russia has actually invaded two nations friendly to the US, Georgia and Ukraine.  Notice how China has not invaded Taiwan. Russia has also done saber rattling, and in some cases that saber rattling has been explicitly nuclear.

• In 2005, China passed an "Anti-Secession Law" that required
  China to take military action against Taiwan if Taiwan takes any
  formal steps towards independence.  Even simply talking about
  independence could trigger the Anti-Secession Law.
  
  
• The US has a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan.  This was put into
  place decades ago to guarantee that China would not invade Taiwan,
  since doing so would automatically trigger war with the US.
  
  
• The Anti-Secession Law is threatening invasion anyway, and
  statements by Chinese officials almost on a daily basis reinforce that
  threat.
  
  
• Therefore, China is threatening war with the US almost on a daily
  basis.
  

One could make a similar argument for the Senkaku Islands, and for the South China Sea.  These are all very real threats of war with the US.

The comparison with Russia, Crimea, South Ossetia and Abkhazia is very interesting to me.  Russia invaded those regions and annexed them, but there was never a hint of war from either side.  By contrast, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would lead to war within six hours.

Your arguments rely on data that are decades out of date.  The US hasn't had a mutual defense treaty with the government in Taiwan since 1979.  The official policy of the US is the "One China policy", so secession of Taiwan is against US policy as well as against mainland Chinese policy.  It is possible that the US would remain aligned with Taiwan in the case of secession, just as the US was aligned with Georgia when the Russians invaded them and occupied South Ossetia, but that still boils down to China merely threatening military action where the Russians have actually carried out such action.

As for the Senkaku, also known in Taiwan as well as the mainland as the Daiyu, China and Taiwan are aligned against Japan in their claims.  It's far from clear that the US has a dog in that fight.

As for "hint of war", it's not a coincidence that the Russians ceased their advance in Georgia the moment US transport planes touched down there.  They were returning Georgian troops from Iraq, where they had been fighting alongside US troops, proof that there was a de facto alliance between the US and Georgia.

Quote:

(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Non-crisis wars are fought on rational considerations, such as by counting numbers of missiles.

Crisis wars are like sex.  They're driven by raw emotion, DNA and hormones, and are often completely inappropriate and irrational.

From a purely rational point of view, the South never had a chance of beating the North, and Japan never had a chance of defeating America.  And yet those wars went forward.  Go figure.  

(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The South thought they were likely to be able to secede peacefully; essentially their miscalculation was in failing to realize that the North would fight the war like a crisis war. Japan miscalculated similarly with respect to the US.

My understanding of your own theory is that this kind of miscalculation is exactly what causes crisis wars: people lose direct memory of the previous crisis war and aren't careful enough not to get into another one.  Am I wrong?  Are you saying people actually become insane about starting wars?  That makes your theory a lot less credible, in my opinion.  

You've answered your own question.  The South and Japan made miscalculations based on totally self-delusional considerations, involving xenophobia and nationalism.  This is similar to the erotic self-delusion that occurs when someone believes that an affair won't harm his or her marriage.

I'll try to keep in mind that when you talk about "delusion" and lack of rationality, you're including actions that can only be identified as mistakes with the benefit of hindsight.

Quote:

(12-23-2016, 02:43 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In the SCO schema, which John stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as an alternate outcome to his pet crystal ball, Russia provides the long range nuclear fire power whereas the PRC provide short to medium range nuclear firepower. Russia provides the global heavy bomber force although the updated Tu-16s of the PLAAF will over time add to this. Naturally the PRC provides the millions of cannon fodder troops. In the SCO Axis model, the Allies would face a nearly unwinnable war. The Fourth Reich (which I believe the SCO to be) may end up conquering the Earth (and beyond)

(12-23-2016, 05:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: It's totally incomprehensible how you keep pushing this bizarre SCO theory.  No country is going to go to war with the US because it belongs to a political group like the SCO.  Why on earth would Kazakhstan go to war with the US?  For that matter, why would Russia?

The Chinese people have this "China Dream," where they completely replace the US as the principal superpower in the world, with Chinese navies controlling the seas from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian ocean to Africa and the Mideast.  It's a dream that's completely emotional, erotic, nationalistic, self-delusional, irrational, unrealistic, inappropriate, and disastrous.  

(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Is it only Chinese that have that delusional dream, or do the US and Russia have similar delusional dreams?  If the latter, can you describe the US and Russian versions?  If the former, why only Chinese?  Do you think their skin color or eye shape makes their thinking alien?

These days, when someone encounters an argument or view that he doesn't like, it's typical to dive into the sewer and respond to the argument by saying that the person making it must be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, deplorable, a hater, a tea-bagger, sexist, or any of the other assortment of personal attacks that typically come from the left.  I don't know if diving into the sewer in that way helps you in discussions with other people, but it certainly won't help you with me.

If you've been following what I've been writing for any period of time, then you know that I talk about an increase in nationalism, xenophobia and racism on a worldwide basis during this generational Crisis era.  I've given numerous examples of delusional views held by politicians in many countries, including America, Europe and the Mideast.  Just a couple of days ago I characterized a statement by the US State Dept. spokesman as "particularly laughable and moronic."  In the last couple of years, I've written frequently about the delusional views of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin, as well as by Chinese officials.  This is the same kind of self-delusion that led Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and the South to attack Fort Sumter.

(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I know a lot of Chinese people, and none of them have that dream. Granted, a few leaders of the Chinese military would like to do that.  And if it's limited to the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, it would hardly be replacing the US as the principal superpower, since it wouldn't even touch the Atlantic or Europe; it would be limited to regional power.  Even then, China has been careful not to move except when the US has abandoned the field, for example by keeping their (our) carriers in home port rather than patrolling the seas, including the western Pacific.

You can google the words "China Dream" and see that I'm not making this up, despite what your Chinese friends are telling you.

I googled it and it appears from several sources that you are indeed making it up.  All the sources I read say the "China Dream" is something cognate to the "American Dream" - at most a hope that Chinese can be as prosperous as Americans.  I have not been able to find any sources saying anything about replacing the US as the principal superpower, nor about Chinese navies controlling the Pacific or Indian oceans.

Quote:When you say "China has been careful not to move [except when the US has abandoned the field]," I have no idea what you're talking about.  China has been "moving" to heavily militarize the South China Sea, which the US has not "abandoned," despite the fact that these military "moves" have been declared illegal by the UN Tribunal in the Hague.

You should investigate the historical movements of the carrier battle groups of the US Seventh fleet.  Prior to 2013, these battle groups engaged in forward patrols which regularly traversed the South China Sea.  Starting in 2013, with the sequester, the carrier battle groups remained in home port, except when one carrier was on station off Arabia supporting operations in Afghanistan.  From the standpoint of naval presence, the US abandoned the South China Sea.  It is not a coincidence that the artificial islands started getting built just when the US left a power vacuum there.

[John J. Xenakis]

Lol! So it's all my imagination, huh? I dreamed up the "China dream"
myself? Maybe I hallucinated those illegal military bases on
artificial islands in the SCS as well.

I've been discussing the Taiwan issue with people for 15 years, and
there are a lot of people in Congress and the military that are very
protective of Taiwan. So I'm telling you that if China invades
Taiwan, then we'll be at war within 6 hours. Beijing knows this. If
they didn't know it, then they would already have sent troops into
Taiwan, as they did in Tiananmen Square, as they have into Tibet and
Xinjiang, and are threatening to do in Hong Kong, and as they do
anywhere on the mainland at the slightest hint of dissent. Therefore,
any threat of war against Taiwan is inevitably a threat of war against
the United States. Chinese, Taiwanese and American officials are all
aware of this, even if you claim not to be.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Taiwan at its closest point to the mainland is over 120 miles away from the mainland. By contrast britain's closest point to Europe is only 20 mIles away at Dover and because of those 20 miles Hitler was unable to invade Britain even though he controlled the entire western European coast in 1940.