09-20-2020, 11:36 AM
** 19-Sep-2020 World View: Trend lines
I totally disagree with this. I've posted over 6,000 articles
containing thousands of Generational Dynamics predictions about
hundreds of countries and regions, and not only have I "gotten it
right twice," I've gotten it right every time (except for a couple of
times in the early days when I mistakenly made some timing
predictions).
Let's take an example. In 2004 I predicted a stock market crash
and financial crisis similar to 1929. Now you can say that never
happened, and that's true so far, but there was another part to
that prediction. It was that public debt would continue to increase
unsustainably until a crash occurred. For the prediction to be
wrong, it would require that public debt level off and fall, and
that hasn't happened.
The prediction is really about the trend line. Once that's been
established then you can apply the following rule:
> If something can't go forever, then it won't.
Generational Dynamics can't predict the precise time that the crash
will occur, but can predict the unsustainable trend line and the fact
that a crash must occur some time. You might say that the prediction
in that form is useless, and maybe it is for you. But for an
investor, it means don't plan on buying some stocks and just holding
onto them for 20 years. You have to remain alert and be prepared to
sell at a moment's notice, or else lose everything you own, as
happened to many people after the 1929 crash.
Let's take another example. In 2005 I started predicting war with
China. I was ridiculed for that prediction, as I was for the stock
market prediction, but the trend line is clear. Today one can look
back and see a trend line of increasing belligerence, hostility,
nationalism, and xenophobia. The Generational Dynamics prediction is
that all these trends will continue to increase unsustainably, and
that you can apply "If something can't go on forever, then it won't,"
and conclude that there will be a war at some time in the future.
Once again, that prediction may be useless to you, since it doesn't
give a starting date for the war. But to others it might mean moving
one's family or business out of China, rather than counting on China
becoming more peaceful and less insane.
Generational Dynamics cannot predict a date for the start of war.
However, human analysts can estimate a start date. I often refer to
such events as "chaotic events," since they're triggered by random
events like politics or the weather. (This alludes to the Chaos
Theory concept that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause
a chain reaction that leads to a hurricane in America.)
I have made predictions about chaotic events, but I always try to
remember to couch such predictions in phrases like "in my opinion" or
"my expectation." However, these predictions of chaotic events are
not just pure guesswork. I'm always guided by Generational Dynamics
trend predictions, and the result has been that my predictions of
chaotic events have been almost 100% accurate. I don't believe that
there's any journalist, analyst, politician or web site in the world
with a better record of accurate predictions than my web site.
So when will war with China begin? It's a chaotic event, so a random
event may trigger it. For example, a butterfly may flap its wings
somewhere, causing a typhoon in the South China Sea that leads to an
unexpected clash between a Chinese cruiser and Vietnamese fishing
boat, leading to a larger clash, then a regional war, then a world
war. There are a million scenarios that can lead to world war. Go
back and read my descriptions of how World War II started -- because a
Japanese soldier unexpectedly had to pee, got lost in the woods,
leading to the Marco Polo Bridge incident, which led to the Rape of
Nanking and full scale war. There's no way to predict stuff like
that, just as I can't tell you whether America's deficit will go to
$25 trillion, $30 trillion or $50 trillion before a crash occurs. All
I can tell you is the nature of the unsustainable trend.
As for when war with China will begin, I'll just say what I've said in
the past: It might begin tomorrow, next week, next month, next year,
or after that. An exact date cannot be predicted.
It's not clear to me why you characterize an argument as "materialist"
or Socratecian and use that to conclude that the argument is wrong.
Isn't that a pretty common error in logic?
I respect your deeply held Christian beliefs, but I'm a lot more
cynical than that, and history backs me up.
Let's take the question of genocide. In the last century, we had the
Armenian genocide (Muslims killing Christians), the Ukrainian genocide
(Christians killing Christians), the Great Leap Forward (Confucians
killing Confucians), the Nazi genocide (Christians killing Jews, then
Christians), the Cambodian genocide (Buddhists killing Buddhists),
Loatian Hmong genocide (Buddhists killing Christians), the Srebrenica
genocide (Christians killing Muslims), Zimbabwe's Operation
Gukurahundi (Christians killing Christians), the Rwanda genocide
(Christians killing Christians), the Syrian genocide (Muslims killing
Muslims), and so forth.
So every devout believer of any religion claims that his religion is
the best, but no one has ever shown me any evidence to contradict the
observation that people of every religion commit beatings, atrocities,
rapes, torture, massacres, genocide or ethnic cleansing of people of
other religions just the same as everyone else. These things are part
of the human DNA just as much as sex is -- and indeed they have to be
for the human race to have survived -- and any religion denying them
is just talking, and ignoring what is obvious.
There is no difference in this regard between Islam and other
religions. I wrote about this in detail in my book on the history of
Iran, which also contains a history of Islam and the Sunni-Shia split.
It you'd like to actually understand Islam, rather than the media
nonsense about Islam, then I suggest that you become one of the few
people to read my book:
John Xenakis is author of: "World View: Iran's Struggle for Supremacy
-- Tehran's Obsession to Redraw the Map of the Middle East"
(Generational Theory Book Series, Book 1) Paperback: 153 pages, over
100 source references, $7.00
https://www.amazon.com/World-View-Suprem...732738610/
Cool Breeze" Wrote:> John, I chuckled when I saw your response with the heading
> "Orthodox amusement". The point of my question was to understand
> where you are coming from, how you think, and what you know. Your
> answers were revealing. By the way, I'm just amused by how we
> think we are so important and can predict what is happening (and
> some can, some do --- but you'll notice they never really get it
> right twice = mostly lucky) and then go on and on about how or why
> it didn't happen. Having said that, I am actually in your camp
> (can't you tell?) in many ways, including the fact that the world
> is changing dramatically and mostly for the worst, especially if
> you grew up believing that the US Constitution actually mattered
> or that the government in its foundation wasn't really corrupt
> (most didn't realize this until all of the soft coups coming after
> President Trump and the manner in which they are
> attempted).
I totally disagree with this. I've posted over 6,000 articles
containing thousands of Generational Dynamics predictions about
hundreds of countries and regions, and not only have I "gotten it
right twice," I've gotten it right every time (except for a couple of
times in the early days when I mistakenly made some timing
predictions).
Let's take an example. In 2004 I predicted a stock market crash
and financial crisis similar to 1929. Now you can say that never
happened, and that's true so far, but there was another part to
that prediction. It was that public debt would continue to increase
unsustainably until a crash occurred. For the prediction to be
wrong, it would require that public debt level off and fall, and
that hasn't happened.
The prediction is really about the trend line. Once that's been
established then you can apply the following rule:
> If something can't go forever, then it won't.
Generational Dynamics can't predict the precise time that the crash
will occur, but can predict the unsustainable trend line and the fact
that a crash must occur some time. You might say that the prediction
in that form is useless, and maybe it is for you. But for an
investor, it means don't plan on buying some stocks and just holding
onto them for 20 years. You have to remain alert and be prepared to
sell at a moment's notice, or else lose everything you own, as
happened to many people after the 1929 crash.
Let's take another example. In 2005 I started predicting war with
China. I was ridiculed for that prediction, as I was for the stock
market prediction, but the trend line is clear. Today one can look
back and see a trend line of increasing belligerence, hostility,
nationalism, and xenophobia. The Generational Dynamics prediction is
that all these trends will continue to increase unsustainably, and
that you can apply "If something can't go on forever, then it won't,"
and conclude that there will be a war at some time in the future.
Once again, that prediction may be useless to you, since it doesn't
give a starting date for the war. But to others it might mean moving
one's family or business out of China, rather than counting on China
becoming more peaceful and less insane.
Cool Breeze" Wrote:> I addressed this above. Predicting is hard. I love guys that try
> to do it though, most pussies in the modern day won't even try, so
> those that do actually earn a great deal of respect from me. My
> point remains that things coming are hard to see set off and
> usually we keep predicting into the wind though years go by with
> zero happening. I'm willing to be general or have a framework
> ... do you all here also believe that the war is by 2025? or more
> like by 2030?
Generational Dynamics cannot predict a date for the start of war.
However, human analysts can estimate a start date. I often refer to
such events as "chaotic events," since they're triggered by random
events like politics or the weather. (This alludes to the Chaos
Theory concept that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause
a chain reaction that leads to a hurricane in America.)
I have made predictions about chaotic events, but I always try to
remember to couch such predictions in phrases like "in my opinion" or
"my expectation." However, these predictions of chaotic events are
not just pure guesswork. I'm always guided by Generational Dynamics
trend predictions, and the result has been that my predictions of
chaotic events have been almost 100% accurate. I don't believe that
there's any journalist, analyst, politician or web site in the world
with a better record of accurate predictions than my web site.
So when will war with China begin? It's a chaotic event, so a random
event may trigger it. For example, a butterfly may flap its wings
somewhere, causing a typhoon in the South China Sea that leads to an
unexpected clash between a Chinese cruiser and Vietnamese fishing
boat, leading to a larger clash, then a regional war, then a world
war. There are a million scenarios that can lead to world war. Go
back and read my descriptions of how World War II started -- because a
Japanese soldier unexpectedly had to pee, got lost in the woods,
leading to the Marco Polo Bridge incident, which led to the Rape of
Nanking and full scale war. There's no way to predict stuff like
that, just as I can't tell you whether America's deficit will go to
$25 trillion, $30 trillion or $50 trillion before a crash occurs. All
I can tell you is the nature of the unsustainable trend.
As for when war with China will begin, I'll just say what I've said in
the past: It might begin tomorrow, next week, next month, next year,
or after that. An exact date cannot be predicted.
Cool Breeze" Wrote:> Of course you are right, but the first part is a materialist
> (atheist) argument. It is true, but only a small part of the
> story, not all that there is by any means. As for the second part,
> you are again logical and correct, Socrates employed the same
> logic in understanding that there can be only one true
> God.
It's not clear to me why you characterize an argument as "materialist"
or Socratecian and use that to conclude that the argument is wrong.
Isn't that a pretty common error in logic?
Cool Breeze" Wrote:> "What is truth? ... And what is virtue?"
> These questions show us why the USA has been declining, they are
> painstakingly too common. They are evidence that people have lost
> the foundation on which we build civilizations and find meaning in
> life. In the case of all of us of advanced civilizations and
> heritage, Christianity.
I respect your deeply held Christian beliefs, but I'm a lot more
cynical than that, and history backs me up.
Let's take the question of genocide. In the last century, we had the
Armenian genocide (Muslims killing Christians), the Ukrainian genocide
(Christians killing Christians), the Great Leap Forward (Confucians
killing Confucians), the Nazi genocide (Christians killing Jews, then
Christians), the Cambodian genocide (Buddhists killing Buddhists),
Loatian Hmong genocide (Buddhists killing Christians), the Srebrenica
genocide (Christians killing Muslims), Zimbabwe's Operation
Gukurahundi (Christians killing Christians), the Rwanda genocide
(Christians killing Christians), the Syrian genocide (Muslims killing
Muslims), and so forth.
So every devout believer of any religion claims that his religion is
the best, but no one has ever shown me any evidence to contradict the
observation that people of every religion commit beatings, atrocities,
rapes, torture, massacres, genocide or ethnic cleansing of people of
other religions just the same as everyone else. These things are part
of the human DNA just as much as sex is -- and indeed they have to be
for the human race to have survived -- and any religion denying them
is just talking, and ignoring what is obvious.
Cool Breeze" Wrote:> "There's one more thing that all religions have in common: A
> believer can always find a way within the religion to justify any
> action."
> I think more accurately stated, [some] people use religious
> impulses to do and justify anything. Some religions (Islam) do
> have histories of violence and justification of it (they teach it
> as a matter of fact, dogma) and others do not (I can name several
> here).
There is no difference in this regard between Islam and other
religions. I wrote about this in detail in my book on the history of
Iran, which also contains a history of Islam and the Sunni-Shia split.
It you'd like to actually understand Islam, rather than the media
nonsense about Islam, then I suggest that you become one of the few
people to read my book:
John Xenakis is author of: "World View: Iran's Struggle for Supremacy
-- Tehran's Obsession to Redraw the Map of the Middle East"
(Generational Theory Book Series, Book 1) Paperback: 153 pages, over
100 source references, $7.00
https://www.amazon.com/World-View-Suprem...732738610/
