Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

** 25-Jul-2019 War with China

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > John, you have to get rid of this text editor, It's only 30 years
> out of date! No one, and I mean NO ONE, uses fixed line length
> texting anymore. HTML -- even in its infancy -- has always used
> text wrapping.

Don't blame the editor. It's true that I'm using Emacs, which is a
1970s editor, but I'm using the latest 2019 version of GNU Emacs, and
Emacs is perfectly capable of handling arbitrarily long lines when I
need them.

I do all my editing in Emacs -- whether I'm writing my book, articles,
posts, scripts, HTML, Java code, C++ code, SQL code, etc. I very much
appreciate the fact that I can edit almost anything using the same
hotkeys, the same macros, and the same formatting. So I have macros
that can convert paragraphs with short lines into one long line, or
vice versa. I keep almost everything on my disk in a 70-80 margin
format, and that works very well for me. I post messages with the
same margins, and I've been doing so online for decades.

Also, short lines are the easiest to read, since you can speed read
the text without having to move your eyes as you scroll. That's why
newspapers are printed in columns.

I've probably posted hundreds of thousands of messages to thousands or
tens of thousands of people. In all that time, only one person has
ever complained about the short lines, or even pointed them out, and
that one person out of tens of thousands is you.

Which leads me to ask: Why is this even an issue for you?

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > OK, fair enough. I'll accept your self characterization as
> definitive, because everyone gets to be who they wish to be.

The reason that you think that I and Generational Dynamics are
"conservative" is because Neil Howe and David Kaiser are far left
liberals.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama took some policy
decisions that I've described many times as completely delusional.

He was going to heal the world as soon as he took office. He would be
guided by facts, not like President Bush, who was guided by ideology
and ignored facts. He would cure global warming, close Guantánamo,
become friendly with Iran and North Korea, bring a two-state solution
to Palestinians and Israelis, beat the Taliban and al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan, reflate the real estate and stock market bubbles and, of
course, provide universal health care. Possibly my greatest single
shock about the campaign occurred after Obama won the election.
Instead of moving to the center and repudiating some of the looniest
promises, he repeated them, and added that the world was going to
change on January 21, 2009. I believe the exact words that went
through my mind were, "Omigod!! He actually believes his campaign
rhetoric!!" After 8 years of an Obama presidency, it's clear that I
was right to call him completely delusional.

However, Howe and Kaiser extended the delusions one step further.
Kaiser completely adopted Obama's delusions, but extended the delusion
to the view that Obama's delusional policies would bring about major
social changes, and this would be the Fourth Turning crisis that their
1990s book predicted. That's about as delusional as you can get, but
it's what they believed.

This led to what is essentially an amendment to the 1990s TFT theory.
In the 1990s theory, the three previous crisis eras featured full-scale
wars -- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II -- and
so there would be a new war in the 2005-2025 time frame that America
might not survive.

That view was OK during the Clinton administration, but during the
Bush administration it was no longer politically correct for TFT
theory to predict a war, since that would support the
neo-conservatives and other Republicans. Theory had to change, in
order to bend to politics and ideology. So TFT theory was amended to
say there wouldn't have to be a war, and during the Obama
administration this was further amended to say that Obama's delusions
would be the Fourth Turning crisis. Since Howe and Kaiser despised me
and GD anyway, this provided a convenient way to distinguish TFT from
GD.

So the reason that you and other TFT acolytes believe that I'm
conservative is because GD predicts that there will be a war with
China with 100% certainty. This however is not the "conservative"
position. The conservative position is that war with China will be
avoided through military strength.

So from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, both sides (the
TFT/Democratic/Liberal side vs the Republican/neo-conservaitve side)
are completely delusional, since both sides hold the delusion that
a world war with China can be avoided.

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > Cutting defense would be wise on two fronts, one in your
> wheelhouse. Starting there, no nation state can be effective if
> it's unable to self finance, and we're already at the point that
> self finance of the massive debt we have makes that
> questionable. Let's not add to the problem. Second, there is no
> justification for the spending, based solely on results. Are we
> getting anything close to the value of the money spent? I doubt
> it. That's unquestionable in the contracting realm, where it's
> easy to just OK every cost overrun or missed commitment. The
> defense budget is simply larded to the point it's defeating its
> own purpose. That' needs to be addressed, and no time is better
> than the present.

Spending on the military would be justified if it allowed us
to defend against the the certain preemptive attack by China.

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > As far as spending on social programs, they have one redeeming
> virtue that defense spending lacks: the money is put back into the
> economy quickly and efficiently. The poor spend their money. The
> rich, and by extension large corporations, tend to horde their
> wealth. Worse, the products they create and the services they
> perform are isolated from the economy, and only benefit the
> providers. No one, to my knowledge, is in the market for an F-35
> or a guided missile cruiser.

No, that's completely wrong. The money creates a generation of
victims who think that everything should be free, and who are
incapable of functioning in society.

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > And finally, your guilting me and others on making the nation less
> safe is a joke. China has no interest in starting a war with
> us. They want to dominate the Pacific Rim and what remains of the
> Third World. This they are doing thorough their Belt and Road
> initiative, not by threatening war. If there is any potential risk
> of war, its miscalculation by the world's chest beaters, and our
> defense budget has zero impact on that. More to the point, our
> ability to respond is not enhanced by more spending
> either.

I wrote a whole book on this subject, based on thousand of hours of
research. China has no interest in a war with the US, and yet they've
been preparing for it by developing one weapon system after another
with no purpose except to destroy American cities, aircraft carries
and bases. They don't want a war with the US, but they do want a war
of revenge with Japan, and a war of annexation with Taiwan, and they
know that the US will defend Japan and Taiwan.

Also, the chaos in Hong Kong could easily spread to a war between
China and Britain, which we'll be drawn into.

I would add that the Chinese Communist Party is pursuing some of the
stupidest policies of any nation in the history of the world, even
stupider than Nazi Germany's or Imperial Japan's, and so they're going
to start a war whether they want to or not.

So there is definitely a war with China in sight. If you'd like to
learn what's actually going on in the world, you should definitely
read my book, "World View: War Between China and Japan: Why America
Must Be Prepared" (Generational Theory Book Series, Book 2) Paperback:
331 pages, with over 200 source references, $13.99
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732738637/