Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-May-2020 World View: Inflation and gold

Guest Wrote:> Taking the severe economic damage that Covid-19 has inflicted, do
> you think we are about to enter into a period of inflation or
> deflation? Do you still think gold is a bad investment? I don't
> think real estate is a good investment because of sky rocketing
> property taxes. The black swan has arrived.

Nothing has changed. The world, including the US, is in a
deflationary spiral. In fact, it's probably worse now, because Covid-19
is going to cause people to refrain from buying anything that isn't
absolutely essential. Some items, like food, are showing higher
prices, but that's only temporary until, for example, the meat
packing houses are back at full strength.

Nothing has changed with gold. Its long-term trend value is still
$500, and when there's a crash, it will overshoot and probably fall to
the $200-300 range for a while. And if there's a war, then gold may
be completely worthless, unless you have someone who's willing to buy
your gold.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 24-May-20 World View -- Minister suggests Japan will defend Taiwan against military invasion by China

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Minister suggests Japan will defend Taiwan against military invasion by China
  
• Japan's pacifist constitution and 'collective self-defense'
  
• The Chinese plan for an actual invasion of Taiwan
  

****
**** Minister suggests Japan will defend Taiwan against military invasion by China
****


Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen and VP William Lai Qingde on inauguration day May 20 (Reuters)

Japan's State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Keisuke Suzuki, said on
Thursday Japan would not allow "people living in such a free society
[as Taiwan] to be ravaged by the military power of a one-party
dictatorship of the Communist Party," with the implication that Japan
would militarily defend Taiwan from an invasion by China. This is
a tricky argument to make in view of Japan's pacifist constitution.

The statement came in a Livedoor blog post in which Suzuki described
how strategically important Taiwan is to Japan, and how their fates
are tied together. In addition to challenging China's military power,
he made several other statements making clear Japan's alignment with
Taiwan against China. He congratulated Taiwan on the re-election of
president Tsai Ing-wen, said that Taiwan's participation in the World
Health Organization (WHO) is "of vital importance to the lives and
health of people around the world."

An article in Taiwan's Central News Agency describes the contents of
the blog post (translation):

<QUOTE>"Keisuke Suzuki, the current member of the House of
Representatives, posted an article on the livedoor blog. First of
all, he paid tribute and congratulations on the election of
President Tsai Ing-wen and Vice President Lai Qingde in Taiwan
through democratic elections.

Suzuki said that, as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated
clearly, "For Japan, Taiwan is an important partner and important
friend sharing basic values." Whenever a disaster occurs, Taiwan
and Japan exchange support at all levels, personnel exchanges,
Economic cooperation is close and there is a strong sense of
closeness to each other. Taiwan and Japan are adjacent and jointly
face the threat of China, a powerful military dictatorship that
continues to provoke provocations. Taiwan and Japan are
communities of life.

He said that Japan is one of the few countries in the world facing
a severe security environment. For Japan, based on the viewpoint
of national interests, the significance of Taiwan is difficult to
count. Japan must recognise the fact that Taiwan ’s security and
the strengthening of Taiwan-Japan relations are very important to
Japan.

He pointed out that in terms of safety and security, due to the
impact of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19, commonly known
as Wuhan pneumonia), the media reported that the operations of the
US military ’s aircraft carriers and other operations were
affected. In this case, peace and stability in the East China Sea,
Taiwan Strait, and South China Sea, It is extremely important for
Japan's security. The Chinese military has repeatedly invaded the
"territorial waters" in the Diaoyutai waters, repeatedly carried
out military provocative actions in the Miyako waters, and around
Taiwan.

He emphasized that Taiwan's sharing of values ​​such as freedom,
democracy, human rights, the rule of law and freedom of navigation
is an irreplaceable property for Japan. Japan absolutely cannot
allow people living in such a free society to be ravaged by the
military power of a one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party.

Suzuki pointed out that the World Health Assembly (WHA) has been
held this week. This time, because of the pneumonia in Wuhan,
China, many people know the World Health Organization. Not only
are other international organizations such as the WHO and the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Taiwan ’s
attempt to join is obstructed by China, which poses substantial
risks not only to Japan but also to international peace and
security.

Regarding the WHO, Japan has repeatedly advocated Taiwan ’s
participation in the World Health Assembly. Taiwan ’s success in
the prevention of coronavirus diseases in 2019. If the world can
share Taiwan ’s lessons and experience, it should have great
significance for the lives and health of the world.

Suzuki said that Taiwan is a democratic society with a population
of more than 20 million, and is adjacent to China. The epidemic
was controlled in the early stage of the epidemic. The reason why
such results cannot be shared by the world is because the WHO is
the WHO Secretariat and the Communist Party. One-party
authoritarian military power China is at the mercy of political
thinking. WHO, who emphasizes scientific views, is criticized for
attaching importance to the political thinking of a particular
country rather than human life and health. WHO should reflect
deeply on it.

Suzuki believes that Taiwan's participation in ICAO is also very
important. On Fei'an, because China's political intentions give
rise to geographic gaps and will not allow Taiwan to participate
in ICAO, Japan, which is adjacent to Taiwan, faces various risks
and will suffer the most.

He said that from the point of view of the safety and peace of
mind of Japanese citizens and people traveling to Japan, it is
absolutely impossible to allow China's brutal actions and the
inaction of the secretariats of international
organizations."<END QUOTE>

Of particular note to Americans is that Suzuki implies that American
defense may not be dependable because "the operations of the US
military ’s aircraft carriers and other operations were affected" due
to the impact of the Wuhan Coronavirus (Covid-19).

On Friday, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, speaking at the National
People's Congress (NPC) made the usual call for "reunification" of
Taiwan with China, but signaled an apparent policy shift by omitting
the word "peaceful," as in "peaceful reunification," which is the
phrase used in the past.

****
**** Japan's pacifist constitution and 'collective self-defense'
****

An examination of Keisuke Suzuki's blog post, quoted at length of
above, reveals some complex legal reasoning.

Japan has a pacifist constituion, adopted at the insistence of the
United States at the end of World War II. Article 9 of the
constitution forbids most military action by Japan's military, but
permits military action only when Japan itself is being attacked, and
then only on Japanese soil.

Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to revoke Article
9, but there is a strong pacifist political movement in Japan that
has blocked such attempts.

Finally, in 2015, prime minister Shinzo Abe succeeded in getting the
Diet (parliament), following a bitter debate involving fisticuffs, to
pass a law reinterpreting the defense clause to include "collective
self-defense," which would permit military action under some
circumstances when an ally (such as the United States) is attacked. I
discussed the meaning of "collective self-defense" in detail in 2014
in "5-May-14 World View -- Japan debates 'collective self-defense' to protect America and Japan"
.

So now Keisuke Suzuki is proposing to apply the "collective
self-defense" concept to Taiwan.

I want to repeat the most important sentences of the blog post:

<QUOTE>"For Japan, based on the viewpoint of national
interests, the significance of Taiwan is difficult to count. Japan
must recognise the fact that Taiwan ’s security and the
strengthening of Taiwan-Japan relations are very important to
Japan.

He pointed out that in terms of safety and security, due to the
impact of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19, commonly known
as Wuhan pneumonia), the media reported that the operations of the
US military ’s aircraft carriers and other operations were
affected. In this case, peace and stability in the East China Sea,
Taiwan Strait, and South China Sea, It is extremely important for
Japan's security. The Chinese military has repeatedly invaded the
"territorial waters" in the Senkaku Island waters, repeatedly
carried out military provocative actions in the Okinawa waters,
and around Taiwan."<END QUOTE>

This is actually a legalistic explanation of why the "collective
self-defense" reinterpretation of Article 9 can be used to defend
Taiwan. It explains why a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is also a threat
to Japan, and that even US intervention cannot be counted on.

Keisuke Suzuki's statement is going to be controversial in Japan, but
it probably reflects reality in that Japan could not simply stand by
while China flattens Taiwan.

The CCP also knows all this, which means that if they're going to
invade Taiwan, then they'd also be at war with Japan (which is what my
book is about), and would soon be at war with the US. So a "simple"
invasion of Taiwan would be more difficult than it seems.

****
**** The Chinese plan for an actual invasion of Taiwan
****


Taiwan Airfields

"Navigator," a retired American Army Colonel 30 years experience as an
Army Officer, who blogs at http://www.comingstorms.com, posted in the
Generational Dynamics forum his analysis of how a Chinese invasion of
Taiwan would proceed:

<QUOTE>"The first thing I would tell you is to take a look at
the adjoining map. This shows the locations of airfields in Taiwan
territory.

Taiwan owns territory VERY close to China. The main islands are
Quemoy (now more often called Kinmen county) and Matsu. Matsu is
too far north to really be involved in the Chinese invasion plan,
but not Quemoy (I will use the modern Kinmen hereafter).

Next, note the 3 airfields on islands between China mainland and
Taiwan proper. These are Magong, Wangan, and Qimei. These are in
the Pescardores islands (now called Penghu county). Magong is on
the main island, which is also the location of MAJOR port
facilities.

In an invasion of Taiwan, the Chinese cannot allow for enemy
occupied airfields to remain along the invasion route, and along
the supply lines from China to the landing beaches. Also, the
invasion would have major airfields as immediate objectives.

In a rough outline, what the Chinese would probably do is:

• Secure Kinmen
  
  
• Secure Penghu (with its airfield and port facilities much
  closer to Taiwan than those in Mainland China)
  
  
• Secure beachheads on Taiwan, with the immediate objectives
  including a good airfield (much better to fly in Reinforcements
  than ship by sea).

To do this, the Chinese would first have to mass troops around
Xiamen. This would probably follow landing exercises that the
Chinese would do everything possible to conceal.

Kinmen, so close to China, is not really defensible, and although
the Nationalist Chinese were successful in fighting off a CCP
invasion in 1949, I don't think they could do it now. The Chinese
could conceivably secure Kinmen before the USA, if it even wanted
to, could interfere.

With forces massed, they would then move quickly to sieze Kinmen.
Once done, they would then move to take the Pescadores (Penghu
county). This would be MUCH more difficult, as it would involve a
major sea lift across about 80 miles of sea.

The US would have the opportunity to interfere with the Chinese
landings in the Pescadores. But the Chinese could bring enough
force to bear to defeat or neutralize the Carrier group sent to do
so. This of course would mean war with the USA.

Once the Chinese have the Pescadores secured, they would, in my
opinion, land to move to take either the Chiaya airport, or, more
likely, the Tainan airport, as it is only about a mile and a half
away from a decent landing beach (the Gold Coast), and there is
not a lot of urban area between the beach and airfield.

The Pescadores would be a better staging area for a CCP invasion
of Taiwan than mainland China due to the much closer proximity.
The CCP forces would build up here, and the distance for ferrying
troops and equipment would be less than 20 miles to Taiwan.

By this time, the Nationalist Chinese would have time to prepare
for the landings and fighting. I think that they would have a
good chance of fighting the CCP forces to a standstill, at least
in the short term. Long term they will run out of resources
(ammunition).

The Chinese could attempt landings closer to Taipei initially, but
this is less likely. It would however be more in line with a
quicker strike at Taiwan than landing in the Pescadores first.
But this move would have to be preceded by taking the Matsu
islands (and their Taiwan controlled airfields) first.

Note on the map that the open area of Taiwan is the strip on the
western coast of the country. Further to the east the terrain
becomes MUCH more rugged, and therefore much more militarily
defensible."<END QUOTE>

The above is one possible description of China's military scenario
in invading Taiwan. In my book, "War between China and Japan,"
I predicted that China would invade Japan to get revenge for
World War II atrocities, and would invade Taiwan to annex it.

John Xenakis is author of: "World View: War Between China and Japan:
Why America Must Be Prepared" (Generational Theory Book Series, Book
2), June 2019, Paperback: 331 pages, with over 200 source references,
$13.99 https://www.amazon.com/World-View-Betwee...732738637/

Sources:

• Japan official denounces China for 'ravaging' Taiwan (Taiwan News, 22-May-2020)
  
• Japan's Deputy Foreign Affairs Supports Taiwan's Entry into the World Health Organization (CentralNewsAgency (Mandarin), Taiwan, 22-May-2020)
  
• Keisuke Suzuki blog / WHO General Assembly and Taiwan Inauguration (Livedoor blog (Japanese), 21-May-2020)
  
• Japan seeks deeper ties with Taiwan as Tsai Ing-wen begins second term (Kyodo, Tokyo, 20-May-2020)
  
• China drops word 'peaceful' in latest push for Taiwan 'reunification' (Reuters, 22-May-2020)

Related articles:

• Japan debates 'collective self-defense' to protect America and Japan (05-May-2014)
  
  
• Japan finally adopts 'collective defense' laws, departing from pacifism (19-Sep-2015)
  
  
• Japan will shoot down N. Korean missiles via 'collective self-defense' (13-Aug-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Japan, Keisuke Suzuki, Livedoor,
Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, William Lai Qingde,
World Health Organization, WHO,
International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO,
China, Li Keqiang,
Shinzo Abe, collective self-defense

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

[Tim Randal Walker]

Taiwan's location is important in regards to the sea lanes. Consider the route the tankers take from the Persian Gulf to northeast Asia.

If Japan is to seek resources from the Indian Ocean, it is crucial that Taiwan not fall into the hands of a hostile power.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 24-May-2020 World View: Thanks for your service

To all veterans: Thanks for your service.

To those now in the armed services: Thanks for your service.

To those doctors, nurses and other medical staff working on the front
lines of the war against Covid-19: Thanks for your service.

To all other public employees, including but not limited to police,
firemen, teachers, bus drivers and sanitation workers: Thanks for your
service.

John

[Warren Dew]

(05-24-2020, 05:27 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: To all veterans: Thanks for your service.

You're welcome.

I must point out, though, that Veteran's day is in the fall.  Today is for remembering those who fought and died for us.

[David Horn]

(05-24-2020, 08:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-24-2020, 05:27 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: To all veterans: Thanks for your service.

You're welcome.

I must point out, though, that Veteran's day is in the fall.  Today is for remembering those who fought and died for us.

It was better when it was called Decoration Day, as it still is in the UK, Canada and elsewhere in the British Commonwealth -- assuming no idiot thinks it's an HGTV reference, that is.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 25-May-2020 World View: India-China border conflict in Ladakh

utahbob Wrote:> Thank you John, it is a honor to serve our constitution and fellow
> citizens.

There's a lot of talk these days that Covid-19 has substantially
harmed operations in the US armed forces. Do your contacts have any
view on that subject?

utahbob Wrote:> You might find this interesting:
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongk...SKBN23101T
> The last two sentences are very telling: "China believes Tsai to
> be a “separatist” bent on declaring the island’s formal
> independence. Tsai says Taiwan is already an independent country
> called the Republic of China, its official name."

> I wondering if the CCP can take that laying down?

Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong separatists are all aligning against
the CCP, and time is not on the CCP's side.

utahbob Wrote:> Also, how long can the Indians and Chinese play games before
> ordinance starts flying:
> https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-j...es-2234082

This is a very interesting story. Here's another article:

** Tension mounts in Ladakh as China brings in more troops; India
maintains aggressive posturing

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi...924455.cms

Recall how WW II started -- with a misunderstanding and minor clash in
the Marco Polo Bridge incident that I described at length in my book
and summarized in my May 17 article. It was a small incident, it was
settled quickly, but both sides brought in reinforcements and it led
quickly to the Rape of Nanking and full-scale war.

The Ladakh border incident is remarkably similar to the Marco Polo
Bridge incident. The Chinese and Indians hate each other, the levels
of nationalism and xenophobia are very high on both sides, there was a
brief clash, it was settled, but both sides are bringing in
reinforcements.

This doesn't mean that the Ladakh border incident will lead to full
scale war. But something similar to the Ladakh border incident could
spiral into full-scale war tomorrow or next week or next month or next
year. In fact, we can be certain that it will happen. The only
question is when.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 26-May-2020 World View: The Futility of War

(05-23-2020, 08:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > The biggest difference is that I am looking for a basic pattern
> transformation with nukes and computers. You have incorporated
> many observations of one age, and tried to apply them in
> another. I don’t think you can. The basic pattern would shift, but
> you are still looking at how things were before the change. Thus,
> if anything, you are not seeing how technology drives progress
> enough. The process of how nuclear powers step closer to crisis
> confrontation would be very different from in the Industrial
> Age. Yet, you are still looking at xenophobia rather than the much
> changed way that governments send messages to each other these
> days. You are stubbornly refusing to see that nukes
> traumatize.

Well, maybe I'm stubborn, but this isn't a political or ideological
issue. To the contrary, I've examined thousands of generational
events going back thousands of years, and I haven't noticed any
differences in the way that generational eras change in different
ages. There might be changes in detail or in social trends -- for
example, you won't have college students rioting in an Awakening era
in an age where there are no colleges -- but the core principles
remain the same.

So I've looked at thousands of examples. I believe that if there were
any change from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age, then I
would have noticed it. And if I had noticed it, I would have pointed
out it, and even noted that it was a significant discovery.

For example, I have discovered that Awakening eras are different in a
predictable way depending on the whether the preceding crisis war was
an internal or external war. This is actually a very significant
discovery, though no one gives a shit. Perhaps it will be noticed
after I'm dead. (As the Bee Gees said, "I started a joke, which
started the whole world crying. But I didn't see that the joke was on
me, oh no. ... 'Til I finally died, which started the whole world
living! Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.")

So my point is that if there were differences over the centuries in
going from one age to the next, then I would have noticed it, and if I
had noticed it, I would have declared it as a signficant discovery.
But no such thing has happened.

There are very good reasons why there shouldn't be any differences.
There is one thing that is true of most animals (including humans) at
all times in history -- that the food supply grows exponentially, but
the population grows exponentially even faster. In the case of
humans, this means that at regular intervals there have to be
genocidal wars to kill off enough people so that there will be enough
food and water for the survivors. This is true in the Agricultural
Age, the Industrial Age, and any other age, even in an age with
nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons make no difference except, of
course, that they will be used.

As I've recently suggested, almost 20 years of Generational Dynamics
have made me a believer in the futility of war. That doesn't mean
that I've become a left-wing antiwar pacifist. I remain a fatalist.
Actually wars are necessary to kill off enough people so that there's
enough food and water for everyone else. So wars are futile but
necessary.

Wars are like earthquakes. An earthquake occurs when there is too
much accumulated stress on the fault line between major tectonic
plates. The earthquake isn't good or bad, but it's absolutely
necessary because it's needed to relieve the stress along the fault
line in the earth's crust.

Similarly, genocidal crisis wars occur when there's too much
acculumulated stress on the fault line between different ethnic groups
because of population growth. The genocidal crisis war isn't good or
bad, but it's absolutely necessary because it's needed to relieve the
stress along the fault line between ethnic groups.

There's another similarity between earthquakes and genocidal wars.

Earthquakes kill a lot of people and flatten a lot of buildings, but
over the next couple of decades everything gets rebuilt and things go
back to the way they were. Nothing has really changed. Earthquakes
are futile but necessary.

Similarly, genocidal crisis wars kill a lot of people and topple a lot
of governments, but over the next few decades, by the end of the
Awakening era, things spring back to the way they were. Nothing has
really changed. Genocidal crisis wars are futile but necessary.

One example is the old joke that if the Nazis had won the war, then
today everyone in France and Britain would be speaking German. That's
really ridiculous. The Nazis lost the war, but the same thing
happened with Russia taking control of Eastern Europe, and according
to the logic of the old joke, everyone in all Eastern European
countries should be speaking Russian today. That's obviously not
true, and by the Unraveling era, pretty much everything had sprung
back to the way it was, including the reunification of Germany.
Similarly, Hitler's "Thousand Years" would not have lasted even two
generational eras.

So if there's a world war with nuclear weapons, then in the decades
after it ends, people in China, Japan, the US, and other countries
will pore through the rubble and rebuild their cities in the same way
that the Japanese rebuilt Hiroshima. Nothing will really change. War
with nuclear weapons is futile but necessary. That's the way the
world works.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-26-2020, 10:21 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, maybe I'm stubborn, but this isn't a political or ideological issue.  To the contrary, I've examined thousands of generational events going back thousands of years, and I haven't noticed any differences in the way that generational eras change in different ages.

I would go with stubborn.

Look at the fourth column in the properties of cultures of the era, the form of government.  It goes from tribal chiefs, to a semi hereditary warrior / landowning class, to elected officials.  If  I’m guessing right, in the Information Age we will eventually when we solve the security problem go to direct vote network democracy so the representatives stop identifying with the elites.

Or in conflict, there was a point when you switched from swords to muskets.  Instead of banning peasants owning weapons, you got a right to bear arms.

Or information.  In the Agricultural Age, the library at Alexandria was a big deal.  With the invention of the printing press, every major university had a library to match it.  Today, most people carry a cell phone.

Or the steam engine.  Could the Roman Empire have competed with the factory system of the British Empire, or would it be hopelessly outclassed.

It is possible to be interested only in things that have not been reshaped by the changing technology.  You make a prime exhibit for the case.  You really ought to explore how technology shapes cultures.  You focus heavily on how wars started and governments interacted in the Industrial Age, to the extent of excluding everything else.  You remain profoundly and willfully ignorant of certain things.

Some of us don’t so limit ourselves.

[Warren Dew]

(05-26-2020, 10:21 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: In the case of
humans, this means that at regular intervals there have to be
genocidal wars to kill off enough people so that there will be enough
food and water for the survivors.

If the underlying cause of Crisis wars is population stress, shouldn't that mean that in times of declining population, the wars will be milder or nonexistent?

This question is why I'm interested in whether there were visible generational patterns in the Dark Ages, when population was decreasing due to the Black Plague.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 26-May-2020 World View: Black Plague

(05-26-2020, 10:21 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > In the case of humans, this means that at regular intervals there
> have to be genocidal wars to kill off enough people so that there
> will be enough food and water for the survivors.

(05-26-2020, 12:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > If the underlying cause of Crisis wars is population stress,
> shouldn't that mean that in times of declining population, the
> wars will be milder or nonexistent?

> This question is why I'm interested in whether there were visible
> generational patterns in the Dark Ages, when population was
> decreasing due to the Black Plague.

I haven't researched that, but it certainly makes sense, and it would
be an interesting test of the assertion that some generational
patterns are affected by the per capita availability of food and other
resources.

One example where it appears to be true is the Irish Potato Famine
(1845-49), which several people have claimed completely replaced any
generational crisis war between the Irish Rebellion (1793-98) and the
Independence War (1912-22). That certainly seems to be the case.
However, in other cases, it would seem more likely that a plague would
postpone, rather than replace, a crisis war.

There's a related assertion that a crisis war can be postponed with
wealth. There are several "Fifth Turning" countries today, and some
of them -- Mexico, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia -- have benefited from a
lot of oil wealth, and have used wealth to postpone any internal
threats of civil war. However, other explanations would have to be
found for other Fifth Turning countries, like Turkey and Russia.

About ten years ago I read Barbara Tuchman's excellent book, "A
Distant Mirror - The Calamitous 14th Century," which describes the
plague and the hundred years' war. I'm looking back at some things
that I posted in 2009, and apparently I concluded then, based on
Tuchman's book, that the 100 Years War war began in 1337, and was
barely interrupted by the plague, leading to the British victory in
1356 at the Battle of Poitiers, which is the crisis war climax for the
first phase of the war. This devastated France and settled the
conflict for a few decades. Then, the second part of the war climaxed
in 1429 with the Siege of Orléans, the decisive French victory led by
Jeanne d'Arc, which led finally to the settlement of the war in 1453.

That's all I have on the Black Plague. Higgenbotham, who posts in the
Financial Topics thread of the Generational Dynamics forum, has done
extensive research on the Florentine financial collapse in the 1340s,
and you could ask him if you're interested in that aspect.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-26-2020, 12:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-26-2020, 10:21 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: In the case of
humans, this means that at regular intervals there have to be
genocidal wars to kill off enough people so that there will be enough
food and water for the survivors.

If the underlying cause of Crisis wars is population stress, shouldn't that mean that in times of declining population, the wars will be milder or nonexistent?

This question is why I'm interested in whether there were visible generational patterns in the Dark Ages, when population was decreasing due to the Black Plague.

If the cause of crisis wars were population stress, the earth’s fairly steady increase in population would lead to a corresponding number of crisis wars.  This is not observed.

I would contest that wars used to be cost effective.  It began to shift somewhere between the invention of the machine gun and the nuke.  A culture that did not have a fairly serious military capability would get stepped on by others that did.  As Smedley Butler’s book said, war was a racket.  It is not directly tied to population, but humans have a war drive that all other things being equal results in periodic warfare.  Some one or another would think he had the upper hand.  Sometimes he would get stepped on by other economic powers.  I would give Napoleon and Hitler as examples of the more warlike culture running into a defensive alliance of more economic cultures.

In more recent times, war is not so cost effective.  Cultures that try to acquire power using force get stepped on.  Elites stand a good chance of losing power if they back the wrong aggressive leader, so they don’t.  Then there is the fear of nukes.  This significantly changes how governments send messages to one another, and discourages conflicts among nuclear powers.

One difference is how governments keep a tighter rein these days.  I am sort of with Xenakis that they encouraged loose behavior by troops with a resultant set of incidents in the old days.  A lot of governments wanted an excuse to start the shooting.  Any excuse would do.  Even then it was more calculated than they let on.  Today, if your style of warfare includes xenophobia, if you keep score with a body count and don’t count foreign lives as important, you are apt to get redirected by the government that you are fighting for hearts and minds.  The objective is not to kill people, but to protect people.  If you won’t let the locals on the jury on war crimes, you are sent home.  If your cruiser shoots down a civilian airliner, you are apt to find yourself in front of a bunch of admirals and senators trying to make sure it doesn’t happen again.  After they decide that, you are on the beach, never to get another command.  People are a lot more carful about what messages they send to other governments and how they use force and don’t care for bloody minded and lose disciplined armed men.

All this doesn’t make evolution go away.  We are still bred to acquire resources and territory through violence.  There was a large gap between war becoming less cost effective and war actually slowing down.  It has still not stopped.  We are still learning.

Or at least some people are.

[Bob Butler 54]

I would note that wars tend to occur where the culture in question has enough resources to fight them. Poor cultures, such as those who dwell in the arctic or the mountains, tend to be relatively peaceful. Only when lands are rich and the culture is in many ways successful do you have the resources available to spend on armed forces.

In many ways this could be an argument for population pressure. If you have a surplus of people and labor, the drive towards violence is often given freer rein. You have to get rid of the surplus.

But the elites and leaders have something to do with it. You have to have somebody that believes they have a military advantage over somebody else. That does make a difference. If the elites and leaders see a risk in starting a confrontation, they might not. The whole Domino Theory schtick is making sure everybody can see that risk. The idea of peace through strength is to make sure the risk is formidable and visible.

Thus putting the emphasis on xenophobic troops causing incidents ignores the role of elites and leaders in recognizing a violent opportunity. The US might well have shown a disregard for the Iraqi population early in Bush 43’s war. I don’t see that as the cause of the war. It was either the oil or the alleged WMDs that convinced the leaders that war was worth the negligible risk. It is instinctive for leaders to risk other people’s lives to acquire territory and resources. It is making this risk riskier that is the greater concern today.

[David Horn]

(05-26-2020, 11:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-26-2020, 10:21 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, maybe I'm stubborn, but this isn't a political or ideological issue.  To the contrary, I've examined thousands of generational events going back thousands of years, and I haven't noticed any differences in the way that generational eras change in different ages.

I would go with stubborn.

Look at the fourth column in the properties of cultures of the era, the form of government.  It goes from tribal chiefs, to a semi hereditary warrior / landowning class, to elected officials.  If  I’m guessing right, in the Information Age we will eventually when we solve the security problem go to direct vote network democracy so the representatives stop identifying with the elites...

I hope not!  We have too few capable of understanding and addressing complex problems to assign that as another DIY Project for the People.  We already have the white working class, one step above the poor, aligning with the elites, because those folks one step down need to stay there.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 28-May-20 World View -- US sanctions Hong Kong as activists protest 'March of the Volunteers'

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• US sanctions Hong Kong as activists protest 'March of the Volunteers'
  
• Hundreds protest law forbidding abuse of 'March of the Volunteers'
  
• Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou loses a battle in her extradition fight
  

****
**** US sanctions Hong Kong as activists protest 'March of the Volunteers'
****


Protesters boo Chinese national anthem and sing 'Glory to Hong Kong' in September 2019 (BBC)

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened sanctions targeting China
and Hong Kong on Wednesday, as the streets of Hong Kong were filled
with over 1,000 protesters, confronting police firing rounds of pepper
balls and arresting hundreds.

Pompeo was reacting to a plan by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to
effectively revoke the "one country, two systems" formula that the CCP
committed to honor in its 1984 agreement with the United Kingdom.

According to a statement issued by Pompeo:

<QUOTE>"The State Department is required by the Hong Kong
Policy Act to assess the autonomy of the territory from
China. After careful study of developments over the reporting
period, I certified to Congress today that Hong Kong does not
continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same
manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997. No
reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high
degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the
ground."<END QUOTE>

This certification means that tariffs that the Trump administration
have imposed on China, but exempting Hong Kong, may now be applied
to Hong Kong as well. However, it is not clear when this step
will be taken, if at all.

****
**** Hundreds protest law forbidding abuse of 'March of the Volunteers'
****

More than 1,000 people protested in Hong Kong on Wednesday against a
proposed law that would outlaw "abuse of China's national anthem."

The proposed law is a reaction to what happened at a recent
sports event in Hong Kong. When the national anthem,
"March of the Volunteers," was playing dozens of young people
started booing.

Such things are intolerable to the idiots in the CCP. Recall
that it's illegal to post a cartoon of Winnie the Pooh because
Xi Jinping looks exactly like Winnie the Pooh. Can you imagine
the hilarity if Trump objected to a cartoon mocking him? But
mocking Xi Jinping is a crime in China, and apparently so is
saying "boo" while the national anthem is playing.
That's how it is in the Socialist Paradise of China.

The song was written in 1935 by Shanghai playwrights Nie Er (music)
and Tian Han (lyrics), both members of Mao Zedong's communist party as
a marching song about the fight against the invading Japanese. These
are the original lyrics (translation):

<QUOTE>"Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!
With our flesh and blood, let us build a new Great Wall!
As China faces its greatest peril
From each one the urgent call to action comes forth.
Arise! Arise! Arise!
Millions of but one heart
Braving the enemies’ fire! March on!
Braving the enemies’ fire! March on!
March on! March, march on!"<END QUOTE>

As the Sino-Japanese war progressed, most Americans were on
the side of the Chinese. The song "March of the Volunteers"
became popular in the United States, thanks to the efforts
of Paul Robeson, the deep-throated baritone who was known
for his performance of "Ol' Man River" in the 1927 Broadway
show Showboat. Robeson was a spokesman for the Chinese
resistance against Japan, and he provided star power to
the marching song.

The song remained popular in China, and became the national
anthem of the People's Republic of China in 1949.

In 1966, Mao Zedong's disastrous "Cultural Revolution" was underway.
One of the casualties of Mao's craziness was Tian Han, who had written
the lyrics. (Nie Er had died at the end of 1935.) So Tian was
persecuted and thrown into prison, where he was tortured and killed,
and "March of the Volunteers" became forbidden.

After Mao's death, Deng Xiaoping rehabilitated the song in
1982, making it the national anthem again with updated lyrics:

<QUOTE>"Stand up! Those who are unwilling to become slaves!
Take our flesh, and build it to become a new Great Wall!
The Chinese people have reached a most dangerous time,
Every person is being compelled to send issue a final roar.
Arise! Arise! Arise!
We are millions with one heart,
Braving our enemy’s gunfire, march on!
Braving our enemy’s gunfire, march on!
March on! March on! Charge!"<END QUOTE>

This is the song that the young people in Hong Kong were booing last
year.

Hong Kong protesters have used a variety of their own protest songs,
such as "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from the Broadway musical Les
Misérables.

But last year, Hong Kongers used crowdsourcing to write their own
anthem, titled "Glory to Hong Kong":

<QUOTE>"For the tears that we shed on this soil
For the anguish we had in this turmoil
We keep our heads up, our voices strong
May freedom root in Hong Kong

For the fear that looms overhead
For the hope that moves us ahead
We march in blood, our martyrs along
May freedom glow in Hong Kong

Deepest night we shall not be in fright
In the mist, a new day breaks with chants and light
Stand with us, with virtuous minds and unbending spines
The pearl we hold will always shine

Come children of our motherland
The time has come to wage a revolution
Freedom and liberty belong to this land
May glory be to Hong Kong."<END QUOTE>

In the battle of the anthems, as the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) becomes more nationalistic and belligerent every day,
it doesn't seem likely that "Glory to Hong Kong" will be the winner.

What's interesting about this battle of the anthems is how China has
dissipated its goodwill of the last 80 years. When Paul Robeson was
singing "March of the Volunteers," China was very popular in America.
This popularity continued for decades. During Mao's Great Leap
Forward, when tens of millions of innocent Chinese were starved,
tortured, raped and executed, China remained popular. During Mao's
Cultural Revolution, when millions of Mao's political opponents were
tortured, raped and executed, China remained popular.

Starting with the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when
college students were peacefully protesting in favor of democracy,
and there was international televison coverage of thousands of
college students being tortured and killed, China's popularity
began to wane seriously.

As time went on, and the CCP arrested, raped, tortured and executed
people for their Christian, Buddhist, Falun Gong (Buddhist) or Muslim
religious beliefs, Americans disliked the CCP more and more. This
dislike increased even more, as the CCP arrested, raped, tortured,
enslaved and executed millions of Uighurs, and also illegally occupied
the South China Sea.

Through one incredibly stupid act after another, the CCP has
dissipated and reversed the affection that Americans used to
feel for China 80 years ago.

****
**** Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou loses a battle in her extradition fight
****

There was a surprise announcement on Wednesday that a Canadian court
has ruled against Ms. Meng Wanzhou (Sabrina Meng), the chief financial
officer (CFO) of China's Huawei Technologies, which was founded by her
father Ren Zhengfei. Meng was arrested in Canada in December 2018, at
the request of the United States, on charges of bank fraud and
violating sanctions against Iran.

Meng has been under house arrest since then, living in luxury in her
expensive home in Canada, awaiting the court decision about an
extradition request by the United States. Wednesday's ruling was on a
single aspect of that case -- namely the court ruled that Meng was
being charged with a crime that is also a crime in Canada.

There will be additional appeals, so the case may extend for many
more months.

When Meng was arrested, she was given a fair court hearing, and
was represented by her own lawyers. While the extradition process
is going on, she is allowed to live in her luxurious mansion.

In retaliation, China arrested two Canadian nationals, Michael Kovrig,
a former diplomat, and Michael Spavor, a businessman. They were
thrown into prison, with no court hearing and no charges.

I always like to say that I don't know what the CCP is going to do
about a given situation, but I can guarantee that they're so stupid
that they'll make the situation worse. In this situation, by taking
two Canadian citizens hostage, they've made it practically impossible
for Canada's government to return Meng to China through a political
process, since that would appear to be giving in to Chinese extortion.

Sources:

• March of the Volunteers / Hundreds arrested as Hong Kong citizens protest Chinese anthem law (Kyodo, 27-May-2020)
  
• Hong Kong protesters sing and boo China anthem (BBC, 11-Sep-2019)
  
• Hongkongers write their own anthem, ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ (SupChina, 12-Sep-2019)
  
• Pompeo declares that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China, threatening special status (CNBC, 27-May-2020)
  
• PRC National People’s Congress Proposal on Hong Kong National Security Legislation (US State Dept., 27-May-2020)
  
• March of the Volunteers / There’s an American story at the heart of China’s national anthem (Quartz, 2-Jul-2017)
  
• March of the Volunteers / The Chinese National Anthem (ThoughtCo, 2-Oct-2019)
  
• Meng Wanzhou: Huawei executive suffers US extradition blow (BBC, 27-May-2020)

Related Articles:

• China to pass law threatening full control of Hong Kong (22-May-2020)
  
  
• French scandal over teaching 'La Marseillaise' in school. (01-Apr-2005)
  
  
• China jails Canadian journalist Michael Kovrig in apparent retaliation for Canada arrest of Meng Wanzhou (12-Dec-2018)
  
  
• Canada arrests the chief financial officer of China powerhouse Huawei (07-Dec-2018)
  
  
• Mike Pence's China 'containment' speech signals more contentious US-China relations (26-Oct-2018)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Hong Kong, Mike Pompeo,
March of the Volunteers, Nie Er, Tian Han, Mao Zedong,
Paul Robeson, Deng Xiaoping, Glory to Hong Kong,
Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square massacre,
Canada, Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, Sabrina Meng,
Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor

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

[Bob Butler 54]

Come to think of it, wars might have at least three excuses. 

The first gets the troops ready and eager to fight.  Generational Dynamics labeled it xenophobia.  There is an instinct not to kill as well as a contradictory urge to violence.  You have to get your army ready to use their weapons, on edge so to speak.  The US Army, for example, trains their people in quickly and effectively serving targets.  In Bush 43's war, keeping score by body count, shelling a village that housed a sniper, wiping out a wedding party where weapons were being fired in the air in celebration, show a contempt for life, for the supposed enemy.  This is often very real.

There is a greedy reason.  The leaders see an opportunity to gain something, be it resources, territory or whatever.  This is much more rational and controllable.

There is a propaganda or idealistic reason.  Your motives as reported to the press are made to sound noble or pure.  You are out to free slaves, find WMDs, or trying to create a co prosperity sphere that has Asia for Asians and kicks the foreigners out.  Sometimes it is even real, not just an excuse for the greed.

I'm not convinced you should look at one aspect to the exclusion of the others.  You can have the most contempt filled armed forces, the most idealistic and eager population, and that goes no where if the leaders don't provide the transport and supplies to get folks in harm's way.

[David Horn]

(05-28-2020, 06:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Come to think of it, wars might have at least three excuses. 

The first gets the troops ready and eager to fight.  Generational Dynamics labeled it xenophobia.  There is an instinct not to kill as well as a contradictory urge to violence.  You have to get your army ready to use their weapons, on edge so to speak.  The US Army, for example, trains their people in quickly and effectively serving targets.  In Bush 43's war, keeping score by body count, shelling a village that housed a sniper, wiping out a wedding party where weapons were being fired in the air in celebration, show a contempt for life, for the supposed enemy.  This is often very real.

There is a greedy reason.  The leaders see an opportunity to gain something, be it resources, territory or whatever.  This is much more rational and controllable.

There is a propaganda or idealistic reason.  Your motives as reported to the press are made to sound noble or pure.  You are out to free slaves, find WMDs, or trying to create a co prosperity sphere that has Asia for Asians and kicks the foreigners out.  Sometimes it is even real, not just an excuse for the greed.

I'm not convinced you should look at one aspect to the exclusion of the others.  You can have the most contempt filled armed forces, the most idealistic and eager population, and that goes no where if the leaders don't provide the transport and supplies to get folks in harm's way.

There's a corollary to that: a population ready to go will turn on its own if the PTB fail to launch. It's not common, but these perpetual insurgencies in Africa and elsewhere seem to fit that model.  If you wind 'em up, they're going to go --with you, without you or over your dead body.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-28-2020, 07:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: There's a corollary to that: a population ready to go will turn on its own if the PTB fail to launch. It's not common, but these perpetual insurgencies in Africa and elsewhere seem to fit that model.  If you wind 'em up, they're going to go --with you, without you or over your dead body.

I'd add that the US is more ready than most to fight anywhere in the world they feel like starting a fight. They spend a lot on their military, including on transport. On the other hand, "these perpetual insurgencies in Africa and elsewhere" have lots of local xenophobic relationships. Tribe A is apt to hate Tribe B, which is conveniently located nearby. Perhaps this is another reason why Generational Dynamics is good with the minor power wars, but seems to miss what is going on with the major powers.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-27-2020, 10:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-26-2020, 11:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-26-2020, 10:21 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, maybe I'm stubborn, but this isn't a political or ideological issue.  To the contrary, I've examined thousands of generational events going back thousands of years, and I haven't noticed any differences in the way that generational eras change in different ages.

I would go with stubborn.

Look at the fourth column in the properties of cultures of the era, the form of government.  It goes from tribal chiefs, to a semi hereditary warrior / landowning class, to elected officials.  If  I’m guessing right, in the Information Age we will eventually when we solve the security problem go to direct vote network democracy so the representatives stop identifying with the elites...

I hope not!  We have too few capable of understanding and addressing complex problems to assign that as another DIY Project for the People.  We already have the white working class, one step above the poor, aligning with the elites, because those folks one step down need to stay there.

I do anticipate early teething pains.  However, in the US the Senate has two biases.  The first is the pro slavery bias giving more power to the rural states.  The second is the bias of representative government towards the elites.  The first step might be replacing the senate with a direct democracy veto.  The hope is that if the House doesn't try to do anything egregious, it would hopefully not have to be used often, but any benefits to corporations or the elites might get stepped on.

Cuomo in today''s bug press conference went on a bit about how in order to get a senators vote, you quite often have to give something to that senator's state.  As a result, most bills are full of pork.  There is no sense of passing a bill because it is right.  That is why Alaska wound up getting way more relief per case in the virus bill than New York.  It was about the pork rather than the need.

Still too soon to do much more than daydream.

[David Horn]

(05-28-2020, 01:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-27-2020, 10:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-26-2020, 11:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-26-2020, 10:21 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, maybe I'm stubborn, but this isn't a political or ideological issue.  To the contrary, I've examined thousands of generational events going back thousands of years, and I haven't noticed any differences in the way that generational eras change in different ages.

I would go with stubborn.

Look at the fourth column in the properties of cultures of the era, the form of government.  It goes from tribal chiefs, to a semi hereditary warrior / landowning class, to elected officials.  If  I’m guessing right, in the Information Age we will eventually when we solve the security problem go to direct vote network democracy so the representatives stop identifying with the elites...

I hope not!  We have too few capable of understanding and addressing complex problems to assign that as another DIY Project for the People.  We already have the white working class, one step above the poor, aligning with the elites, because those folks one step down need to stay there.

I do anticipate early teething pains.  However, in the US the Senate has two biases.  The first is the pro slavery bias giving more power to the rural states.  The second is the bias of representative government towards the elites.  The first step might be replacing the senate with a direct democracy veto.  The hope is that if the House doesn't try to do anything egregious, it would hopefully not have to be used often, but any benefits to corporations or the elites might get stepped on.

Cuomo in today's bug press conference went on a bit about how in order to get a senators vote, you quite often have to give something to that senator's state.  As a result, most bills are full of pork.  There is no sense of passing a bill because it is right.  That is why Alaska wound up getting way more relief per case in the virus bill than New York.  It was about the pork rather than the need.

Still too soon to do much more than daydream.

Yes, we have a broken polity, created to do exactly what it's doing.  It may have been a necessity in the Agricultural Age when it was fabricated, but it's long past its sell-by date today. If we were not at the tail end of decades where the value of the social sciences and humanities have been ignored to the point of total neglect, I might feel better about handing things over to the people -- but I don't.  You live in Massachusetts, where the disease of ignorance has not fallen entirely on the commonweal.  I live in Virginia, where it's a much more advanced cancer, but insignificant in comparison to many places in the deep South and much of the center of the country.  The attitudes are, frankly, scary.  

Neil Howe thinks the 4T will end in 2030, give-or-take a year or two at most.  At a minimum, that's 8 more years of strife.  Assuming he's right, where does that leave us?