Generational Dynamics World View

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-20-2020, 12:22 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Modi's office posted his speech on the Chinese social media app WeChat.  However, Chinese censors deleted the speech, for "national security" reasons.  Chinese officials are apparently taking steps to prevent China's public from learning anything about the incident.

There's also the strange situation that media reports on Friday say that China has returned 10 Indian soldiers who were captured on Monday, but neither the Chinese nor the Indians are willing to comment on it.

This is certainly not the end of this story.  The barbaric actions by the Chinese soldiers indicate a fury and hatred of Indians that go far beyond a desire to take control of a small strip of land.  And Indians will be certain to seek revenge for the barbaric attack at some time in the not too distant future.

I have three reasons for war, and am dubious with the Generational Dynamics assumption that there is only one.  It makes for a really shallow analysis.

One of the three reasons is that war is a racket.  You should look for how the elites and leaders would make a profit from victory.  Possession of an isolated valley at the top of the world won’t get that.  However, the modern equivalent of the Spice Road passes near the disputed border.

Remember that Iran was one of the early countries contaminated by the virus?  This is because of the heavy interest China and Iran share.  Iran is attempting to modernize.  China is attempting to leverage their huge economy into foreign interests.  The result is a busy Spice Road.  It would severely influence a bunch of elites if the road were blocked even temporarily by a war that could be avoided.

China is trying to keep its people from knowing about the incident?  The leadership are trying to keep the hatred along the border from escalating?  Small wonder.

In the Tiananmen Square incidents, the troops the Chinese brought in had a healthy dislike for the soft rich capitol dwellers.  The leadership knew of this antipathy, and used it to be more certain of their use of an army unit mustered far from the capitol against the people.  While there are obvious reasons to station army units familiar with the region near home, I am wondering if finding troops not infected by xenophobia is suddenly a priority?

I can’t think of an equivalent reason for India to be concerned about preserving or gaining a profit.  I can see how an all out war with China and / or Pakistan would take considerable resources at a time when they could be used elsewhere.  I think they know about the Silk Road too, and figure they would not be allowed to push anywhere near that.  That would escalate quick if they tried.  An opposition party might well push what the people want at the moment rather than what is best for the country.  A regime change could result in some sort of face saving push.  We will see.

The third reason is propaganda or idealistic thinking.  If you think taxation without representation is tyranny, or that slavery is wrong, well, it might lead you to want to fight for principles.  I don’t see that being present here.  It is only the xenophobic reason that is driving this.

Or attackmania.  I don’t see fear as the dominant emotion.  Troops on both sides want at each other.  Describing it as defensive, as fearful, would be entirely wrong.

I for one would watch for the troops on both sides to be replaced by units mustered far from the trouble spot and more concerned with their own rears than proving their manhood by collecting scalps.

I am also confused a bit about the weapons allegedly used by the Chinese.  Metal rods with nail spikes?  Allegedly the Chinese were the aggressors and the victors, yet the Indians have a large collection of these unusual weapons designed to be lethal. Both sides describe only muscle powered weapons being used, when I would think both sides would have assault weapons, grenades, mortars, etc...  Something is not quite adding up.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 21-Jun-2020 World View: Modi and India

(06-20-2020, 02:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > I have three reasons for war, and am dubious with the Generational
> Dynamics assumption that there is only one. It makes for a really
> shallow analysis.

> One of the three reasons is that war is a racket. You should look
> for how the elites and leaders would make a profit from victory.
> Possession of an isolated valley at the top of the world won’t get
> that. However, the modern equivalent of the Spice Road passes
> near the disputed border.

> Remember that Iran was one of the early countries contaminated by
> the virus? This is because of the heavy interest China and Iran
> share. Iran is attempting to modernize. China is attempting to
> leverage their huge economy into foreign interests. The result is
> a busy Spice Road. It would severely influence a bunch of elites
> if the road were blocked even temporarily by a war that could be
> avoided.

> China is trying to keep its people from knowing about the
> incident? The leadership are trying to keep the hatred along the
> border from escalating? Small wonder.

> In the Tiananmen Square incidents, the troops the Chinese brought
> in had a healthy dislike for the soft rich capitol dwellers. The
> leadership knew of this antipathy, and used it to be more certain
> of their use of an army unit mustered far from the capitol against
> the people. While there are obvious reasons to station army units
> familiar with the region near home, I am wondering if finding
> troops not infected by xenophobia is suddenly a priority?

> I can’t think of an equivalent reason for India to be concerned
> about preserving or gaining a profit. I can see how an all out
> war with China and / or Pakistan would take considerable resources
> at a time when they could be used elsewhere. I think they know
> about the Silk Road too, and figure they would not be allowed to
> push anywhere near that. That would escalate quick if they
> tried. An opposition party might well push what the people want at
> the moment rather than what is best for the country. A regime
> change could result in some sort of face saving push. We will
> see.

> The third reason is propaganda or idealistic thinking. If you
> think taxation without representation is tyranny, or that slavery
> is wrong, well, it might lead you to want to fight for principles.
> I don’t see that being present here. It is only the xenophobic
> reason that is driving this.

> Or attackmania. I don’t see fear as the dominant emotion. Troops
> on both sides want at each other. Describing it as defensive, as
> fearful, would be entirely wrong.

> I for one would watch for the troops on both sides to be replaced
> by units mustered far from the trouble spot and more concerned
> with their own rears than proving their manhood by collecting
> scalps.

> I am also confused a bit about the weapons allegedly used by the
> Chinese. Metal rods with nail spikes? Allegedly the Chinese were
> the aggressors and the victors, yet the Indians have a large
> collection of these unusual weapons designed to be lethal. Both
> sides describe only muscle powered weapons being used, when I
> would think both sides would have assault weapons, grenades,
> mortars, etc... Something is not quite adding up.

This stuff is really silly -- Donald Duck comic book level of
silliness.

We already know that you know nothing about Trump and the Trump
administration, so it seems reasonable to assume that you know less
than nothing about Modi and India. And yet, despite knowing less than
nothing, you consider yourself enough of an "expert" to write the
previous post.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you should do some research before
writing something, and then post links to your sources?

[Warren Dew]

(06-20-2020, 12:22 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Unconfirmed reports claim that Chinese soldiers crossed
into Indian territory and unarmed Indian soldiers with barbaric
weapons, including iron rod studded with steel nails, killing 20.

Unconfirmed reports also say 34 Chinese soldiers were killed, which is likely true given China never confirms casualties.  his isn't hatred of Chinese toward Indians, but rather fearmongering toward Chinese by Indians and others.

That said, I recognize that the perception is what matters here, not the reality.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-21-2020, 07:48 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: This stuff is really silly -- Donald Duck comic book level of silliness.

Something might be said for being aware of both systems. We have both pushed rather unusual perspectives from our respective red and blue angle. Mine has given me a mild social advantage. Yours has made you a pariah. I don’t think this is because of accuracy, but rather because of a tendency to think people who disagree with you idiots. Given a choice, who would hang around to be called an idiot?

I have not spoken much of Trump. I have on other threads, often with links to sources. I have a possibly all too familiar blue perspective. He is narcissistic, pepares lightly, talks more than speaks, and is more concerned with his own power than doing his job well.

I have come to think of you as highly partisan. Just from negative views of various blue folk I have read here, I suspect you have a quite rosy delusion to counter what has come out in the impeachment hearings, or the early reviews of Bolton’s book, or so many people in this revolving door of an administration. Thus, I have little trust in how you judge people. Your partisan point of view which neglects how much has changed in the Information Age is of very questionable worth.

I have this scene played out in my head. Bush 43, Obama and several soldiers and marines wind up somehow in the same town hall setting. The former presidents go on for some time about fighting for hearts and minds. These days, if it gets to an insurgent war, we are fighting to be of benefit to the locals. If in the pursuit of our objectives we cannot improve the lives of the locals, we might as well go home. The young soldiers and marines, however, are not impressed. The opposition has a different skin pigmentation. It is so natural and fun to shoot the men and rape their women. This hearts and minds argument is just no fun.

I am trying to imagine the former presidents being impressed by the argument.

Xenophobia and its opposite aggesomania was popular in the Industrial Age. One could keep the elites happy by bringing more territory, resources and wealth under a country’s control. With the invention of the machine gun, nukes and the common use of insurgent proxy wars, it has become more problematic for nations to try to use violence to seize other’s wealth. One is more likely to find one’s self implementing the Marshall Plan or fighting for hearts and minds than it is of raping Nanking.

One thing I have picked up from Generational Dynamics is that is much more common as a major power to pick up war aversion in the west than with with other cultures. India, China and Pakistan are among many who indulge much more in tribal thinking. Autocratic powers are more apt to catch an aggressive attitude from their people or troops, and use it to secure power. This contains a selfish element of doing what is best for yourself in securing power at the expense of doing what is best for your people.

A major land war in Asia wouldn’t benefit anybody. The leaders and elites know this. The people don’t care. They get caught up in the old Industrial Age obsession of hurting those with a different skin pigmentation. The leaders play a perilous game between averting war and placating the people. It seems both sets of leaders in the India China affair are trying to resolve this without war, but the town hall in the US would play out less well in countries who had not run into insurgent proxy wars lately. The war aversion is not as much there. Remnants of the old Industrial Age love of war remain.

Conservatives look at history to determine what has always been. Progressives look at history for what can no longer be tolerated. Kings, slaves, dictators have at various times been lauded as the cornerstone of civilization. In a crisis heart, I am not so impressed. I expect those who don’t believe that leaders should have policy that matches science, that believe in violence against minorities, that government should be of the white people, for the white people, by the white people should continue. I am looking for this attitudes should make one a pariah in the near future, that it will be rejected by most as adherents to kings, slaves and dictators were in their times.

Thus, a historian obsessed with xenophobia who does not notice the attitude changes in Japan and the US doesn’t impress me. One who mixes his obvious red ideological bias with his supposedly objective predictions does not impress me. Like I know blue, and generally lean blue, but I don’t recognized myself or anyone I know in the supposedly blue motivations that you sprinkle into your supposedly objective projections. Mostly, though, it is your clinging to the Industrial Age perspective, and ignoring the many things that have changed since World War II. A healthy dose of what has changed seems required.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 22-Jun-2020 World View: The explosive Ladakh situation

(06-20-2020, 12:22 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > Unconfirmed reports claim that Chinese soldiers crossed into
> Indian territory and unarmed Indian soldiers with barbaric
> weapons, including iron rod studded with steel nails, killing
> 20.

(06-22-2020, 01:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Unconfirmed reports also say 34 Chinese soldiers were killed,
> which is likely true given China never confirms casualties. his
> isn't hatred of Chinese toward Indians, but rather fearmongering
> toward Chinese by Indians and others.

> That said, I recognize that the perception is what matters here,
> not the reality.

I didn't ignore the issue of Chinese casualties. In one article I
wrote "According to some reports, about 40 Chinese soldiers were
killed." In another article I quoted Modi as saying, "Twenty of our
bravehearts were martyred in Ladakh but not before they taught a
lesson to those who raised an eye at Bharat Mata." So the Indian
public has been made aware of Chinese casualties.

However, what's animating the anti-China protests in India is the
photo of those horrific, barbaric weapons used by Chinese soldiers --
iron bars studded with steel nails, used as weapons against unarmed
Indian soldiers.

• Iron rods studded with steel nails, used by Chinese soldiers
  to kill Indian soldiers

In 2017, I wrote about another border conflict, on Bhutan's Doklam
Plateau. There were clashes at that time, but it was almost humorous
that the attacks were of Indian and Chinese soldiers bumping each
other with their chests to push each other back.

So to say that this situation is significantly different from the last
one and far more dangerous is not an overstatement. By decades-old
agreement, neither side was armed, meaning that neither side had guns.
But the Chinese used a loophole to get around the agreement by using
these barbaric weapons, which goes well beyond chest-bumping. It's
this Chinese action that has shocked the Indian public, not some
mindless "fearmongering."

What's very interesting to me is that neither side has yet issued an
official statement on what happened. I would have thought that by
this time, over a week later, we'd have more to go on than uncomfirmed
reports. It seems clear to me that both the Indian and Chinese
governments are trying to control public opinion and the xenophobia
being exhibited on both sides, because neither side (officially) wants
a war. A war would quickly expand to an India-Pakistan war, and to an
India-China naval war in the Indian Ocean.

The international community is also well aware of the explosive nature
of the Ladakh situation. Trump has offered to mediate, and the
Russians are meeting with both sides as well. So there's a lot of
pressure on the top-line political leaders to reach a negotiated
settlement, but the question then is whether the Chinese and Indian
people will accept whatever settlement is agreed, without demanding
further revenge.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 22-Jun-2020 World View: India's change of engagement

Guest Wrote:> http://www.india.com/news/india/ladakh-c...63906/amp/

> This news is nearly 2 days old at the moment. I can't help but
> feel like this ups the stakes.

You're absolutely right. The Indian army is not only moving troops to
the Ladakh region (as is the Chinese army), but is also changing the
rules of engagement so that now their troops can be armed, so that
they won't fall again into another Chinese ambush with those iron rods
studded with steel nails.

[Warren Dew]

(06-22-2020, 04:27 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: However, what's animating the anti-China protests in India is the
photo of those horrific, barbaric weapons used by Chinese soldiers --
iron bars studded with steel nails, used as weapons against unarmed
Indian soldiers.

I'm highly skeptical that the Indian soldiers were unarmed, if they managed to inflict more casualties than they received.

incidentally your photo is of wooden sticks with nails, not iron bars, so someone else was using iron bars if there were any.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 22-Jun-2020 World View: Iron rods studded with nails

(06-22-2020, 07:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I'm highly skeptical that the Indian soldiers were unarmed, if
> they managed to inflict more casualties than they received.

> incidentally your photo is of wooden sticks with nails, not iron
> bars, so someone else was using iron bars if there were
> any.

Maybe you're right, but I've just been quoting the BBC report.

Quote:> "Image appears to show nail-studded rods used in
> India-China brawl ...

> The image that emerged on Thursday showed crude weapons that
> appeared to be made from iron rods studded with nails. It was
> passed to the BBC by a senior Indian military official on the
> India-China border, who said the weapons had been used by the
> Chinese.

> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53089037

The reason that this confusion is occurring is because there are
numerous uncomfirmed reports, and neither side has issued an
official report describing what happened.

[Warren Dew]

(06-22-2020, 08:19 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 22-Jun-2020 World View: Iron rods studded with nails

(06-22-2020, 07:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   I'm highly skeptical that the Indian soldiers were unarmed, if
>   they managed to inflict more casualties than they received.

>   incidentally your photo is of wooden sticks with nails, not iron
>   bars, so someone else was using iron bars if there were
>   any.

Maybe you're right, but I've just been quoting the BBC report.

The Western and Indian press are definitely in the "demonize China" camp.  In a crisis era, press rumors matter as much or more than the truth.  The sides are certainly taking form and they are aligning as you predicted so far.

The big question marks are still Europe and Russia.  I don't think they will be on the same side.

[Warren Dew]

Actually, John, I sort of have a question here. If the US and Russia are on the same side, and each has a much bigger nuclear arsenal than the rest of the world combined, won't the Crisis War be rather one sided? Can Crisis Wars be one sided?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Jun-2020 World View: Demonizing

(06-23-2020, 03:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The Western and Indian press are definitely in the "demonize
> China" camp. In a crisis era, press rumors matter as much or more
> than the truth. The sides are certainly taking form and they are
> aligning as you predicted so far.

> The big question marks are still Europe and Russia. I don't think
> they will be on the same side.

There's a great deal of demonization on both sides.

-- Amidst India China standoff in Ladakh, Chinese state media Global
Times mocks India with a disparaging cartoon, deletes it briefly
later
https://www.opindia.com/2020/06/amidst-i...fly-later/
(Opindia, 19-Jun-2020)

With regard to Europe and Russia, Europe is not monolithic. Some
countries may side with China.

(06-23-2020, 03:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Actually, John, I sort of have a question here. If the US and
> Russia are on the same side, and each has a much bigger nuclear
> arsenal than the rest of the world combined, won't the Crisis War
> be rather one sided? Can Crisis Wars be one sided?

We've debated the course of the war endlessly for at least the last
year in the Generational Dynamics forum. You can't win a war just
by bombing, even with nuclear weapons. The war will be won with
ground forces, with nuclear weapons being used tactically.

The Chinese consider their own people to be the same as bullets --
totally expendable. That's where China will have a big advantage.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 25-Jun-20 World View -- Both India and China reinforce armies in Ladakh, as China makes new claim

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Both India and China reinforce armies in Ladakh, as China makes new claim
  
• Chinese Communists make new claims
  
• Russia will speed up delivery of weapons systems to India
  

****
**** Both India and China reinforce armies in Ladakh, as China makes new claim
****


China military exercise

The situation in Ladakh, on the China-India border, continues to
worsen.

As I've been writing for some time, China and India have been
mobilizing thousands of troops in Ladakh on either side of the Line of
Actual Control (LAC), the nominal boundary between the two countries.
Then, on June 15, Chinese forces ambushed Indian forces in Ladakh's
Galwan Valley, using barbaric weapons consisting of bayonets, poles
studded with steel nails, and wooden clubs wrapped with barbed wire,
killing 20 unarmed Indian soldiers.

While officials from China and India are continuing negotiations for a
"peaceful resolution" to the border conflict in Ladakh, both sides
have been moving in even more reinforcements. According to Indian
media, both the Chinese and India armies have moved troops and tanks
into the regions adjacent to the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

According to a 1993 agreement between China and India:

<QUOTE>"The two sides are of the view that the India-China
boundary question shall be resolved through peaceful and friendly
consultations. Neither side shall use or threaten to use force
against the other by any means."<END QUOTE>

The Chinese took advantage of the unarmed Indians with bayonets, clubs
wrapped with barbed wire, and rocks, despite the agreement that
requires both sides to be unarmed. Last week, in response to the June
15 ambush, the Indians repudiated the agreement and changed the rules
of engagement, so that the Indian soldiers are now armed.

I've said in the past that this dispute is remarkably similar to the
1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident that triggeredd World War II fighting
between Japan and China. The Ladakh dispute looks more and more like
it every day.

****
**** Chinese Communists make new claims
****

In the midst of the latest peace negotiations, the Chinese Defense
Ministry made a new claim on Tuesday that the Galwan Valley in Ladakh
is sovereign Chinese territory:

<QUOTE>"China has sovereignty over the Galwan Valley region
and the Chinese border troops have been patrolling and on duty in
this region for many years."<END QUOTE>

The Indians were jolted by this new claim, and say that this is a lie,
that Galwan Valley is well within Indian territory, and that this is
the first time that China has made such a claim.

It seems that every day, I get a new reason to be impatient with the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP). I see the CCP lie all the time.
They've repeatedly lied about the South China Sea that they've
illegally annexed, they've repeatedly lied about the Uighurs that
they're arresting, torturing and enslaving, and they've repeatedly
lied about the Christians and Buddhists who are regularly beaten and
jailed. They also lied for weeks about the Wuhan Coronavirus, and
purposely infected hundreds of other countries, so that they wouldn't
be alone in dealing with the virus. They're apparently congratulating
themselves for this victory in infecting the world. As I wrote in my
book, "War Between China and Japan," the Chinese Communists consider
themselves to be the Master Race, and everyone else to be barbarians
and vassals.

So the CCP are criminal thugs and liars, and if they're now claiming
sovereignty to the Galwan Valley, then there is absolutely no reason
to believe anything they say.

At any rate, nationalism is very high on both the Chinese and Indian
sides, and neither side will back down. Both the Chinese and Indians
are sending troops and tanks into the regions around the Galway
Valley, and tensions are continuing to rise.

Neither Chinese nor Indian officials have made official statements
about what happened on June 15, except that 20 Indian soldiers were
killed. Chinese media have been claiming that China dealt a "heavy
blow" to the Indians.

According to Chinese media:

<QUOTE>"The PLA is a glorious army. After the founding of the
People's Republic of China, it fought with the armies of the two
superpowers, the US and the former Soviet Union. It has punished
the Indian army for the latter's outright provocations. Some in
India preach that the PLA, which has not fought a war for more
than 30 years now, is an army that does not know how to fight.
Their arrogance is frivolous. It is now clear who is the egg and
who is the rock."<END QUOTE>

At a briefing on Wednesday, the Chinese finally officially admitted
that they had casualties in the June 15 encounter:

<QUOTE>"Exact casualties were not publicised as China did not
want the media to play it up. Now was the time for both sides to
find ways to de-escalate the situation and restore stability.
Comparisons may trigger antagonism on both sides, which is not
helpful."<END QUOTE>

There have been media reports of anywhere from 25-45 Chinese
casualties on June 15. No wonder the Chinese don't want to admit the
exact numbers.

****
**** Russia will speed up delivery of weapons systems to India
****

And so, Dear Reader, start placing your bets. How long can this
"peaceful" standoff remain peaceful?

Donald Trump has offered to mediate, but it seems unlikely that
his offer will be accepted.

The Russians have met with both sides, but India's Defense Minister
said on Tuesday that the Russians will speed up delivery of advanced
S-400 air defense systems and other weapons systems to India. This
gives the impression that Russia is on India's side. This is not
surprising, since Russia has its own problems with China making false
claims to parts of Russia's Far East. China is even claiming that
Vladivostok, the home of Russia's Pacific Fleet, is really China's
sovereign territory.

This is also not surprising in view of the Generational Dynamics
prediction, which I've stated repeatedly for many years, that in the
coming Clash of Civilizations world war, China will be allied with
Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries versus the United States,
allied with India, Russia and Iran. In particular, India and Russia
are historic allies.

I keep seeing claims that Russia and China will be allied. There
isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that will happen. The Russians
have hated the Chinese ever since the Mongols defeated the Chinese in
1206, and then went on to attack and conquer almost all the Russian
principalities, and made them bitter vassals of the Mongol Empire, in
a relationship called the "Mongol Yoke." This hated period, two
centuries long, has defined the relationship between the Russian and
Chinese people forever. There is no possibility that China and Russia
will remain "strategic partners" for long. In fact, Soviet Russia and
China almost went to full-scale war as recently as the 1960s, just as
China and India went to war in the 1960s. So Russia's delivery of
advanced weapons systems to India is just one more step along the same
path.

Another common claim is that World War III will be won by means of
nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can do an enormous amount of damage,
and they will be heavily used. But a war cannot be won with just by
bombing, even by bombing with nuclear weapons. The war, whether it
occurs this year, next year, or later, will be won with ground forces,
and nuclear weapons will be used tactically.

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:

• Ladakh / India gained only casualties from border clash (Global Times, Beijing, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• China issues statement on border clash, proving Indian troops were fully responsible (Global Times, Beijing, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• Amid Talks, China Ramps up Military Presence in Friction Points in Ladakh, Other Areas along LAC (News18, India, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• Ladakh Clash Fallout: Centre Changes Rules of Engagement With China, Army Allowed to Use Firearms (India.com, 21-Jun-2020)
  
• Modi and the Illusion of Chinese Intrusions at Ladakh (The Wire, India, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• Russia will honour weapons contract with India amid Ladakh tension (Deccan Chronicle, India, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• India deploys T-90 Bhishma tank in Ladakh amid border row with China at LAC (India.com, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• Ladakh faceoff will not change locals’ perception towards us, says Shimla’s Chinese community (HindustanTimes, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• China finally admits casualties in Galwan clash, claims ‘numbers not very high’ (HindustanTimes, 24-Jun-2020)
  
• After Occupying Tibet, Chinese Leaders Said They'll Go For Nepal, Ladakh, Bhutan: President Of Tibetan Govt In Exile (Business World, India, 24-Jun-2020)

Related Articles:

• Nationwide protests in India demand revenge against China (19-Jun-2020)
  
  
• China and India mobilize thousands of troops along border in Ladakh (13-Jun-2020)
  
  
• Russia's Far East, Siberia and Vladivostok under threat from China (31-Mar-2018)
  
  
• China resumes military buildup in Bhutan's Doklam Plateau (19-Dec-2017)
  
  
• Analysts draw lessons from the China vs India Doklam border standoff (24-Sep-2017)
  
  
• India and China battle for strategic influence in the Indian Ocean (18-Mar-2015)
  
  
• Generational Theory: Is nuclear war with China inevitable? (17-May-2020)
  

=eod


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, India, Ladakh, Galwan Valley,
Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Wuhan Coronavirus,
Hong Kong, Taiwan, Uighurs, Xinjiang province,
Russia, Mongols, Genghis Khan, Mongol Yoke

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-Jun-2020 World View: Unfathomable stupidity

Higgenbotham Wrote:> I've had a flip in the past 24 hours. I've gone from being pretty
> apolitical and seeing both sides to passionately hating democrats
> in the past 24 hours, and wanting to do something about it. What
> flipped me is democrats making false assumptions about me just
> because I'm a white guy who looks like a typical Trump supporter
> or a typical white cop, and then going off on me like
> lunatics.

I live alone in an apartment, and I look like Methusaleh's
grandfather, so I don't get out much, and when I do, people ignore me.
In fact, one person last week offered me a bottle of gatorade because
he thought from the way I look that I must be homeless.

Nonetheless, I know what you're talking about because I see it on tv
all day long. I watch all the news channels, so I see what's
happening. I used to think that AOC was the stupidest person around,
but it's impossible to characterize the Democrats in any way but being
even stupider than AOC. They're running around tearing down statues,
rioting and looting businesses (mostly businesses of poor black
people), and calling everyone in sight a racist. They've even tried
to tear down statues of that fabulous slave owner, Abraham Lincoln.

They're too stupid to understand that it was the Abraham Lincoln and
the Republicans who ended slavery, and it was the Democrats who wanted
slavery to continue. And it was the Democrats who formed the KKK to
lynch, rape and abuse any uppity black person. If the Democrats had
gotten what they wanted, the blacks today would still all be picking
cotton for their white Democrat masters.

They want to defund police departments, and replace police with social
workers. The phrase "unfathomable stupidity" applies more and more
each day to all the Democrats.

So when you say that people have been "going off on you," are you
talking about what you see on tv? Or are you talking about real life
-- personally, on the streets, in stores, in the office, etc.?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 25-Jun-2020 World View: Appearance

John Wrote:> So when you say that people have been "going off on you," are you
> talking about what you see on tv? Or are you talking about real
> life -- personally, on the streets, in stores, in the office,
> etc.?

Higgenbotham Wrote:> Like you, I'm mostly ignored by others, but all of a sudden in the
> past 2 days that has changed.

> I would see it on TV, but when I saw that I didn't make any
> personal connection to it because I'm not walking around in areas
> that reporters would be in.

> There were two separate incidents where I've been accosted by
> democrats based only on my appearance. I was called a "dumbass",
> "rude", and had "MAGA" directed at me, when I did absolutely
> nothing. I believe it was done to provoke me. Perhaps somebody
> else was secretly filming it. It would make sense that somebody
> might target a white guy on the street who looks like Derek
> Chauvin so that they can provoke a reaction and have their video
> go viral. But whatever the motive, I've now realized that this
> has gone to another level. I'm really pissed off.

Wow! Derek Chauvin is considered good looking, and his wife is a
beauty contest winner. So maybe the Democrats were jealous of your
good looks.

[pbrower2a]

(06-22-2020, 03:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-21-2020, 07:48 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: This stuff is really silly -- Donald Duck comic book level of silliness.

Something might be said for being aware of both systems.  We have both pushed rather unusual perspectives from our respective red and blue angle.  Mine has given me a mild social advantage.  Yours has made you a pariah.  I don’t think this is because of accuracy, but rather because of a tendency to think people who disagree with you idiots.  Given a choice, who would hang around to be called an idiot?

Friends are easier to lose than to make... this is well worth considering. People who believe conspiracy theories are fools and not idiots... then again nobody wants to be called a fool, either. Obama is a US citizen by birth, and even if he had been born in Kenya he would be a US citizen by birth because his mother was an American. Area 51? Strange things in Roswell, New Mexico? Hogwash. 

I try to use persuasion when possible.    

Quote:I have not spoken much of Trump.  I have on other threads, often with links to sources.  I have a possibly all too familiar blue perspective.  He is narcissistic, prepares lightly, talks more than speaks, and is more concerned with his own power than doing his job well.  

I have come to think of you as highly partisan.  Just from negative views of various blue folk I have read here, I suspect you have a quite rosy delusion to counter what has come out in the impeachment hearings, or the early reviews of Bolton’s book, or so many people in this revolving door of an administration.  Thus, I have little trust in how you judge people.  Your partisan point of view which neglects how much has changed in the Information Age is of very questionable worth.

I concur on this. By all the classical rules, Trump is a horrible leader. He has placed himself beyond objective judgment. He contradicts expertise that might give him good counsel. 

Quote:I have this scene played out in my head.  Bush 43, Obama and several soldiers and marines wind up somehow in the same town hall setting.  The former presidents go on for some time about fighting for hearts and minds.  These days, if it gets to an insurgent war, we are fighting to be of benefit to the locals.  If in the pursuit of our objectives we cannot improve the lives of the locals, we might as well go home.  The young soldiers and marines, however, are not impressed.  The opposition has a different skin pigmentation.  It is so natural and fun to shoot the men and rape their women.  This hearts and minds argument is just no fun.

I am trying to imagine the former presidents being impressed by the argument.

... which is why the Armed Forces legitimately seek as diverse staff as possible by religion and ethnicity for every level. Any soldier who shoot the men outside of standard combat and rapes the women and girls is a war criminal and deserves the full punishment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Maybe we behaved better in Afghanistan than in Vietnam... 

Quote:Xenophobia and its opposite aggresomania was popular in the Industrial Age.  One could keep the elites happy by bringing more territory, resources and wealth under a country’s control.  With the invention of the machine gun, nukes and the common use of insurgent proxy wars, it has become more problematic for nations to try to use violence to seize other’s wealth.  One is more likely to find one’s self implementing the Marshall Plan or fighting for hearts and minds than it is of raping Nanking.

Eventually, colonial empires were shown to be not worth the cost to the nation even if they were profitable to special interests. With the nuke, areas "cleared" by the nuke may be unlivable for a time. War as Hitler envisioned it entailed driving 'subhumans' out of areas of conquest (if not killing them outright) and seizing the assets, with conquered people given the dubious privilege of being slaves of the German State and German industry. Nukes would now destroy the precious steel mills, mines, and treasures to incorporate into one's empire.    

Quote:One thing I have picked up from Generational Dynamics is that is much more common as a major power to pick up war aversion in the west than with with other cultures.  India, China and Pakistan are among many who indulge much more in tribal thinking.  Autocratic powers are more apt to catch an aggressive attitude from their people or troops, and use it to secure power.  This contains a selfish element of doing what is best for yourself in securing power at the expense of doing what is best for your people.

 
War is a racket... a hustle... a crime.

Quote:A major land war in Asia wouldn’t benefit anybody.  The leaders and elites know this.  The people don’t care.  They get caught up in the old Industrial Age obsession of hurting those with a different skin pigmentation.  The leaders play a perilous game between averting war and placating the people.  It seems both sets of leaders in the India China affair are trying to resolve this without war, but the town hall in the US would play out less well in countries who had not run into insurgent proxy wars lately.  The war aversion is not as much there.  Remnants of the old Industrial Age love of war remain.

Note well that industrial production is careening into the economists' bugaboo of diminishing returns. One pair of shoes to a barefoot peasant might be a big improvement in his life, but a hundredth pair of shoes? Not much. Cultural enrichment and wisdom might not have such obvious 'diminishing returns'.

Quote:Conservatives look at history to determine what has always been.  Progressives look at history for what can no longer be tolerated.  Kings, slaves, dictators have at various times been lauded as the cornerstone of civilization.  In a crisis heart, I am not so impressed.  I expect those who don’t believe that leaders should have policy that matches science, that believe in violence against minorities, that government should be of the white people, for the white people, by the white people should continue.  I am looking for this attitudes should make one a pariah in the near future, that it will be rejected by most as adherents to kings, slaves and dictators were in their times.

Thus, a historian obsessed with xenophobia who does not notice the attitude changes in Japan and the US doesn’t impress me.  One who mixes his obvious red ideological bias with his supposedly objective predictions does not impress me.  Like I know blue, and generally lean blue, but I don’t recognized myself or anyone I know in the supposedly blue motivations that you sprinkle into your supposedly objective projections.  Mostly, though, it is your clinging to the Industrial Age perspective, and ignoring the many things that have changed since World War II.  A healthy dose of what has changed seems required.

I can hardly imagine a Second Japanese-American war unless one country or the other goes very bad. Should it be America that goes bad, then it is America that gets defeated. Democracies do not go to war against each other even if the cultures are extremely different. It is easier to understand shared humanity than languages that could hardly be more different. 

The Industrial Era, like it or not, is approaching the end. What someone like Marx (for political reasons) saw as a golden age of plenty can scare people for taking away much of what used to be the meaning of life. You work, you make tangible objects that someone  sells for a profit, and you live well.  Your purpose in life is to collect stuff that enriches your life. Instead the real pay for manufacturing work falls and people start getting chary of collecting clutter.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 28-Jun-2020 World View: White Masters

Sue S" Wrote:> Smear all you like, but the BLM movement has struck a cord with
> millions of our fellow citizens fed up with the discrimination all
> too many of them suffer and see their friends, neighbours and
> co-workers suffer - no doubt the lockdown has given people time to
> think.

> You just don't 'get it' do you? - probably because you don't get
> racial abuse yourself.

> Some of the posters here remind me of dinosaurs looking up with
> incomprehension tinged with ignorance as the giant meteor strikes.

> It is not often that the underlying tectonic plates of our society
> shifts - 1945, The 60's, Late 70's spring to mind - but it's
> happening again.

Your complaints are real, but you obviously know nothing about history
and how we got here, and where we're going.

During the Civil War, the Democrats wanted to continue slavery, and
the Republicans wanted to end it. After the Democrats lost the Civil
War, and the Republicans freed the slaves, the Democrats retaliated by
forming the Ku Klux Klan. So the Democrats used the KKK to lynch,
rape, beat and torture uppity blacks for over a century. Finally,
FDR, LBJ and MLK agreed to a way to put the blacks back into virtual
slavery: Blacks were forced to live in black ghetto housing projects
from which they couldn't escape. To make sure that they couldn't
escape, Democrats and Feminists threw massive welfare payments at
black mothers, and told them to get rid of the fathers in exchange for
the money, or their welfare payments would be cut off. In this way,
the Democrats completely destroyed the black family.

So the result is that 75% of black children have no fathers, and their
black mothers are controlled by their white masters through welfare
payments.

Black leaders today are just Uncle Toms doing the bidding of white
Democrats. If a black leader wants to be on CNN or have political
power, then he must obey his white masters in the Democratic Party -
and on CNN.

We see the results today in places like Baltimore and Chicago. The
streets are filled with the bodies of black teenage boys who shoot and
kill each other because they have no fathers and don't know any
better. The blood from these black boys flows through the streets of
the Democratic ghettos, but black leaders ignore them because their
white masters tell them to. The only black lives that "matter" to BLM
are the one or two who are shot by policemen. The other thousands of
black lives, whose bodies are filling the streets of the black
ghettos, are ignored by BLM because their white masters order them to
do so. Since BLM leaders are just Uncle Toms, they do as they're told
by their white masters.

So if you actually care about black lives, and you aren't just a robot
obeying the commands of your white masters in the Democrat Party, then
you should become an activist for getting husbands and fathers back
into the lives of their families.

Because I can tell you with absolute certainty: Blacks will continue
to suffer, and your concerns will never be addressed, until blacks
have fathers again.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 28-Jun-2020 World View: Paternity Court

John Wrote:> Because I can tell you with absolute certainty: Blacks will
> continue to suffer, and your concerns will never be addressed,
> until blacks have fathers again.

Higgenbotham Wrote:> For anyone who doesn't believe this, there's a TV program called
> Paternity Court that shows how deeply entrenched the problem is.
> The gist of the program is to determine the paternity of a child
> through DNA testing where there is more than one possible father.

> Most of the plaintiffs are young black women. The typical
> situation, as questions are asked by the judge and answered by the
> female plaintiff, will reveal that the women had unprotected sex
> with several men during the "window of conception" which runs for
> a few days. Watching the show for awhile will reveal why they are
> doing this. From an economic standpoint, the more men they have
> unprotected sex with during the "window of conception" the better.
> That way, unbeknownst to the rest of the men, several potential
> fathers can be approached for economic help. The best potential
> provider at any given time can be asked to sign the birth
> certificate, and the women will readily admit in court that they
> will ask a man to sign the birth certificate knowing full well he
> is not the father.

I hadn't heard of Paternity Court, but I found it on the internet.

https://paternitycourt.tv/

https://www.youtube.com/paternitycourt

I picked out an episode and watched it:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv6o6INWn7Y

I watched this episode, and I didn't know whether to laugh
or to vomit. I doubt that I'll be watching any more episodes.

John Wrote:> So if you actually care about black lives, and you aren't just a
> robot obeying the commands of your white masters in the Democrat
> Party, then you should become an activist for getting husbands and
> fathers back into the lives of their families.

Higgenbotham Wrote:> That's what the black female judge who runs the Paternity Court
> program is trying to do - find the real fathers and get them back
> into the lives of their children - one family at a time.

How nice.

[pbrower2a]

(06-28-2020, 08:33 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 28-Jun-2020 World View: White Masters

[quote='Sue S']
>   Smear all you like, but the BLM movement has struck a cord with
>   millions of our fellow citizens fed up with the discrimination all
>   too many of them suffer and see their friends, neighbours and
>   co-workers suffer - no doubt the lockdown has given people time to
>   think.

>   You just don't 'get it' do you? - probably because you don't get
>   racial abuse yourself.

>   Some of the posters here remind me of dinosaurs looking up with
>   incomprehension tinged with ignorance as the giant meteor strikes.

>   It is not often that the underlying tectonic plates of our society
>   shifts - 1945, The 60's, Late 70's spring to mind - but it's
>   happening again.

Your complaints are real, but you obviously know nothing about history
and how we got here, and where we're going.

During the Civil War, the Democrats wanted to continue slavery, and
the Republicans wanted to end it.  After the Democrats lost the Civil
War, and the Republicans freed the slaves, the Democrats retaliated by
forming the Ku Klux Klan.  So the Democrats used the KKK to lynch,
rape, beat and torture uppity blacks for over a century.  

If this does not suggest that the Parties have shifted greatly in political orientation or that major constituencies have moved between the two Parties, 

 

Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS. 

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. 

...then what does? Republicans used to do extremely well among the best-educated people, winning the votes of college graduates (so well that "college graduates" actually voted for Goldwater as one of the few demographics that so voted in the landslide loss to LBJ in 1964. Of course there were fare fewer college graduates in 1964 than there were in the last two decades, and college education was very much an elite (WASP)  phenomenon, at least among people in their fifties and older as late as the 1960's.  Even having a high-school diploma was above-average education as late as the 1950's... and the states that Stevenson won look rather unimpressive for educational attainment and quality of life in the 1950's. Tobacco Road, Backwoods, and "Ku Kluxistan".

There's no indication that Stevenson was a gutter racist, and it may be that Ike was able to allay fears of economic policies and practices that Democrats had associated with Hoover (Ike accepted the New Deal and wasn't going to bring back the New Gilded Age of the 1920's). But consider this: if Obama has a closer overlay of state voting habits  to those for Eisenhower than to any other Presidential nominee, indeed even to Hillary Clinton in 2016, then there must be some common threads in their appeals. I am guessing that statewide cultures, barring demographic change (like huge growth in the Latin-American populations in California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico) were much the same around 1955 as they were in 2010.

If you want my prediction of the 2020 election based upon what I see in current polls, then I would basically take the Obama map of victory of 2008 except to exchange Indiana for Arizona. 

I'm not making a definitive prediction yet. Maybe as you think, Americans will come to their senses and recognize what a marvelous leader Donald Trump is. (Trump would be thoroughly awful for his erratic behavior, his corruption, and his irrationality if he were a liberal instead of a conservative. 

Quote:Finally,

FDR, LBJ and MLK agreed to a way to put the blacks back into virtual
slavery: Blacks were forced to live in black ghetto housing projects
from which they couldn't escape.  To make sure that they couldn't
escape, Democrats and Feminists threw massive welfare payments at
black mothers, and told them to get rid of the fathers in exchange for
the money, or their welfare payments would be cut off.  In this way,
the Democrats completely destroyed the black family.

Something else was going on in the 1960's.  About sixty years earlier, Booker T. Washington encouraged most blacks to seek industrial work as the most reliable method of getting out of poverty. Industrial America offered huge numbers of industrial jobs that required little formal education but instead a strong work ethic but offered a middle income. At the time, Big Business in the northern US (almost exclusively Republican, at least among owners and executives) and the agrarian elites of the South (Democrats, and quite hostile to manufacturing industry that would have drawn unskilled labor away from the dismal lives of what were still largely landless peasants) were at odds.  The Republican Party had the allegiance of manufacturing and commercial elites Up North but (not surprisingly) the antipathy of industrial workers whom Big Business sought to keep poor. Working-class Americans in industry and commerce tended to vote Democratic. As late as the 1920's the Republican Party still got majority support from African-Americans; it was, after all, the Party of Lincoln... and as we well know, Southern agrarian elites hated Abraham Lincoln about like northern industrial and commercial elites hated Vladimir Lenin. Not until the Great Depression did blacks move sharply away from the Republican Party, at least in the North,  for the simple reason that the Great Depression hit blacks harder than whites and because the labor unions sought to win over African-Americans to unions. Even then, the New Deal offered improved living conditions in the South due to rural electrification and big spending on infrastructure. Because southern Agrarian interests still treated blacks badly, the New Deal "Down South" was a raw deal for African-Americans, but they weren't voting anyway. (Think of how life is in places in which there are either no elections or elections have no choice -- vulnerable people get the shaft hard).

Still, the Democratic party was an uneasy coalition of Southern agrarian interests and of Northern organized labor, and the two rarely had to meet except at the Democratic national conventions. That worked until the 1960's. What changed? The kids.

The one-car family was the norm until the 1950's, often with Hubby and Wifey driving off to Hubby's job as a bread-winner in the plant, and Wifey driving back, perhaps stopping at the supermarket on the way home... and returning, perhaps after a trip to the dry-goods store on the way to pick Hubby up from his job. (If Hubby had any tendency to stop at the bar and drink up his pay, then the return trip from his job at the plant to home would not include a trip to the saloon).  Hubby and Wifey would enjoy an unprecedented level of economic comfort characteristic in material (if not intellectual) quality of aristocratic elites. The kids would get to enjoy that without having to do any real work. Two cars? It was often the near-adults who got a second car if they got some slight work. It was often a used car, but it was usable.

Cars mean mobility. By the 1950's, adults of retirement age started heading to Florida to get away from real winters Up North... but to get to Florida on 41 from Chicago, 25 and 27 from Michigan and western Ohio, 21 and 19 from Cleveland and Pittsburgh, 15 and 17 from Rochester, and 1 from the great metro areas from Boston to Baltimore. the elderly sojourners drove through the most egregious parts of Dixie. This was before the Interstate Highway system, and as one got into Dixie one had to stop in restaurants to eat and in motels to stay overnight. Lost retirees might see evidence that Southern blacks were getting the shaft with the absurd separate facilities and denials of accommodations. Those elderly sojourners returned in the spring and had their tales to tell -- not all of them about sunshine and beaches in Florida. The kids listened, and (as late-wave Silent or early-wave Boomers) they were disgusted. Some of those kids would participate in Freedom Summer. They would come to despise the Southern agrarians who called black people something that rhymes with "triggers". 

A new technology of communication was emerging: television. Radio did not offer images, so Southern pols could give assurances that they were treating "their" colored folks or Negroes (then much politer than the word they commonly used away from a Damn Yankee reporter) well when talking to a newspaper or radio reporter. With television, a camera crew could expose the squalor that was a consequence of the deliberate decisions of the agrarian elite to treat (it rhymed with "triggers", at least as they called them when no Yankees were around) badly -- and such things as separate facilities or signs that read "NO NEGROES SERVED HERE". Once the confrontations began, the Southern Agrarians revived the Klan and the more genteel "white citizens' councils".

The coalition between Northern organized labor and the Southern agrarian elite broke. No decent people Up North wanted anything to do with the likes of Bull Connor or Lester Maddox, let alone the fascist pigs (sorry about insulting pigs, in case "Arnold Ziffel" is reading this) who bombed places of worship. 

Along came the Civil Rights Act of 1965, blacks got to vote in a democratic South, and for a while there could be a progressive coalition between white working-class Southerners (the South started to accept manufacturing industry) and African-Americans that could result in liberal reformers such as Winthrop Rockefeller (yes, he was a Republican), Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore, Jr. Even George Wallace, who once proclaimed "Segregation yesterday, segregation now, and segregation forever" recognized that the time was over for such rhetoric, repudiated his old racist rhetoric, and started courting African-American votes. Onward and upward, with the South showing signs of becoming more liberal than many other parts of America? Not for long.  
 

Quote:So the result is that 75% of black children have no fathers, and their
black mothers are controlled by their white masters through welfare
payments.

Something else happened. Note well that the kids of middle-income working-class parents often had no desire to do the hard, regimented, mind-numbing factory work that their parents did. They took the advice on public-service ads: stay in school, to get a good (white-collar) job get a good education... and they did exactly that. Young adults from blue-collar families were not flocking to the plants to do industrial labor as they had. Big Business did move much of its manufacturing Down South, where low educational achievement made available plenty of manufacturing workers. Needless to say, manufacturing jobs upon which ill-educated black people depended upon for middle incomes disappeared as factories started closing. Ill-educated black men were often stripped of their roles as bread-winners. But they still had the same sex drive, and so did black women... To be sure, there were many young blacks who took the advice "stay in school" and "to get a good job, get a good education".

Note well that welfare was intended as a stopgap, "relief" for people in dire temporary need. But once the factory jobs were gone, wages cratered in other work (such as restaurants and retail, or domestic service) in which people needed little education.   Such work for blacks was largely for women. There were not enough such jobs to go around, and they did not pay adequately.  

Quote:Black leaders today are just Uncle Toms doing the bidding of white
Democrats.  If a black leader wants to be on CNN or have political
power, then he must obey his white masters in the Democratic Party -
and on CNN.

No, they are not. They want dignity for fellow black people. The "Uncle Toms" of the past sold out fellow black people on behalf of white racists who praised the "Uncle Tom" in public and saw them as (it rhymes with "triggers") behind their backs. The current Republican Party has little to offer African-Americans except extreme poverty in return for toil for Third World wages under brutal management -- to which the current Republican Party will readily consign white people as well. Note well that well-educated non-black minorities (Hispanics and Asians) vote much as does the black bourgeoisie despite having very different backgrounds. See also Jews. The white middle-class is less dependent upon formal education to get its income, but it is trending Democratic. 

I can say this of the black bourgeoisie; it is far too large to be a collection of Uncle Toms for any group. It also knows the "Uncle Tom" game and finds it appalling and offensive. It also gives a damn about poor blacks, which is more than I can say about economic elites that now dominate the Republican Party which seeks monopoly pricing, brutal management, and low taxes on elite income. The current Republican Party seems more like the big landowners, the tycoons, and executives of Germany about 90 years ago. Mercifully Trump isn't Hitler. It's the next right-wing demagogue who promises everything (no matter how contradictory) to everyone, can't deliver on such promises (such is inevitable among demagogues of all kinds) and takes the easiest course possible, which is to please the fewest people that he can get away with pleasing and then repress anyone dissatisfied. That is what Hitler did -- suppressing organized labor, outlawing socialists and other opposition, privatizing the nationalized sector of the German economy on the cheap, and destroying Jewish competition with Big Business. 

Note well that in a system that goes fascistic, the people most vulnerable are the model minorities such as Jews in Germany... Maybe we are safer in America because we have more model minorities, including Jews, Asian-Americans, middle-class Hispanics, gays and lesbians, and of course the black bourgeoisie. 

Quote:We see the results today in places like Baltimore and Chicago.  The
streets are filled with the bodies of black teenage boys who shoot and
kill each other because they have no fathers and don't know any
better.  The blood from these black boys flows through the streets of
the Democratic ghettos, but black leaders ignore them because their
white masters tell them to.  The only black lives that "matter" to BLM
are the one or two who are shot by policemen.  The other thousands of
black lives, whose bodies are filling the streets of the black
ghettos, are ignored by BLM because their white masters order them to
do so.  Since BLM leaders are just Uncle Toms, they do as they're told
by their white masters.

The generational reality is clear. Know well that crime rates are down -- way down-- from what they were in the 1970's and 1980's. Young X of all ethnic groups were more likely than their predecessors to be involved in shady behavior from drunk driving (then treated rather gently) to marijuana use to larceny and violent crime. I give much of the credit to the disappearance of leaded fuels and lead paint. It was easy to see at one time that crime rates were highest in those sectors of urban areas in which fumes and dusts from vehicular exhausts were most concentrated -- where traffic was slowing down and getting into more traffic jams as it approached the central business districts. Lead, an insidious and cumulative poison can pass into the brain where it causes learning disabilities and weakens impulse control -- both of which have strong connections to criminality. The garden-variety criminal is stupid and out of control. (Such may not apply to the pure sociopath who has other psychological dynamics in operation, but this type appears across all lines of class, ethnicity, and culture).

Quote:So if you actually care about black lives, and you aren't just a robot
obeying the commands of your white masters in the Democrat Party, then
you should become an activist for getting husbands and fathers back
into the lives of their families.

It will be difficult to re-create the industrial reality that was good for ill-educated people in the late 1940's and the 1950's. Scarcity was still the norm at the time, and people could make a good living supplying the cars, appliances, consumer electronics, and furniture that Big Business could churn out profitably. Now we are near satiation with those.

Maybe it was the American High following World War II that was the abnormality, and other times are more normal.

Quote:Because I can tell you with absolute certainty: Blacks will continue
to suffer, and your concerns will never be addressed, until blacks
have fathers again.

Those fathers also need well-paying jobs that make them attractive husbands.

[Bob Butler 54]

There are two thoughts I have on that piece.

One is that you present false motives for the Democrats. I lean blue, and the motivations for the blue leaders do not mesh with mine or other blues I know. With ideological partisans this sort of attack on straw men is par for the course. They cannot deal honestly with the real motivations so they invent a motivation they can deal with. With someone trying to present ‘objective’ opinion, it shows how bad you are in evaluating other's motives. You can’t trust Generational Dynamics as the motivations of the people in your predictions are presented so weirdly and obviously off.

My other thought was in LBJ’s great miscalculation. I sort of get that he tried to buy the black vote. By pushing the war on poverty and civil rights, he put the black vote firmly in the Democratic column. Very progressive of him. What he didn’t anticipate was putting the racists in the Republican column, and that there were more racists than blacks in the US. I count the progressive era as lasting from FDR to LBJ. The conservative era runs from Nixon to hopefully Trump. LBJ by going after the black vote ended the time that America was Great.

Hopefully, the current rejection of racist violent policing marks a time where this might turn around.

[David Horn]

(06-29-2020, 09:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ...  I count the progressive era as lasting from FDR to LBJ.  The conservative era runs from Nixon to hopefully Trump.  LBJ by going after the black vote ended the time that America was Great.

Hopefully, the current rejection of racist violent policing marks a time where this might turn around.

I actually push the Progressive era through Carter, but that's it!  Nixon was a scumbag, but he created the Environmental Protection Agency and opened the door to China.  That has to count for something. Carter made the tragic error of being in the job at the wrong point in history.