Generational Dynamics World View

[Warren Dew]

(06-17-2019, 07:15 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: As a result of research on my book, late last year I had a major
change in views.  China does not want war against the United States,
but does want a war of revenge against Japan for the atrocities
committed during WW II.  China also wants to invade Taiwan, in order
annex it.  China does not want war with the US, but the CCP knows that
it will have no choice, since the US will defend Japan and Taiwan
against China's war of extermination against Japan and war of
annexation against Taiwan.

There's even an alternate explanation for all those missile systems
that China has been developing and deploying for decades.  It's
possible that the Chinese believe that just having those missile
systems will serve as a threat to deter the US and to force the US to
remain neutral when China invades Japan and Taiwan.  If this is what
the CCP hopes, then it's entirely delusional.

Hey, I leave for a year and suddenly you've figured it out!  Of course China couldn't hate the US; their name for the US is "beautiful nation".

Will the US really go to nuclear war to defend Japan and Taiwan?  When, frankly, most Americans can hardly tell the difference between all those "asians"?  I wonder.

[Warren Dew]

(06-23-2019, 06:34 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: I hadn't realized until now the depth of racial hatred between the
"Han" and the "Hao" (assuming I have those terms right)

I don't think you have those terms right.  Both north Chinese and south Chinese are Han.  Note that the one child policy only applied to Han, and it definitely applied to the south.

You do have it right that there is a split, though.  I used to think it was a split between Cantonese speakers and Mandarin speakers, but I think by your definition Nanking was in the south, but the Nationalist government that was based in Nanjing was a Mandarin government.

You do bring up a very interesting point about all the revolutions starting in the South.  The South is generally where the businesses and, let's say, capitalists are.  I don't think of them as very prone to militarism - not as much as the north.

I think the northerners overreacted to your article with their insults because Chinese economic growth in recent decades has mostly been in the south, and some northerners may resent that.

[Warren Dew]

(06-27-2019, 09:19 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: They
started using the phrase "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,"
which is laughable because it means "Socialism that's really
capitalism, but we don't want to call it that." However, China
retained its governmental dictatorship, and "Socialism with Chinese
Characteristics" is really the same as Adolf Hitler's "National
Socialism."

Except that National Socialism was actually still socialist.

Incidentally, I do have a nitpick with your overall good analysis of the situation in China now.  I don't think Xi will be hurt much by the "defeat" on the Hong Kong extradition issue.

That's because the extradition bill wasn't initiated by the CCP.  It was initiated as a reaction to a murder by one Hong Kong citizen of another Hong Kong citizen that occurred when they broke up while on vacation in Taiwan.  The murderer returned to Hong Kong, but because the murder occurred in Taiwan, the Taiwan courts have jurisdiction.  The purpose of the bill was to permit extradition of the murderer to Taiwan so he could face justice, and similarly for other situations in the future.

Ironically, Taiwan said they would not seek extradition under the bill if it passed, because they wanted it to fail.

The CCP would no doubt have been thrilled if the extradition bill had passed, and no doubt worked to try to help it pass, but since it wasn't originally a CCP initiative, I don't think Xi is going to lose much face from its withdrawal.

[pbrower2a]

(06-27-2019, 10:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(06-23-2019, 06:34 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: I hadn't realized until now the depth of racial hatred between the
"Han" and the "Hao" (assuming I have those terms right)

I don't think you have those terms right.  Both north Chinese and south Chinese are Han.  Note that the one child policy only applied to Han, and it definitely applied to the south.

You do have it right that there is a split, though.  I used to think it was a split between Cantonese speakers and Mandarin speakers, but I think by your definition Nanking was in the south, but the Nationalist government that was based in Nanjing was a Mandarin government.

You do bring up a very interesting point about all the revolutions starting in the South.  The South is generally where the businesses and, let's say, capitalists are.  I don't think of them as very prone to militarism - not as much as the north.

I think the northerners overreacted to your article with their insults because Chinese economic growth in recent decades has mostly been in the south, and some northerners may resent that.

China has more often been invaded from the north, the worst invasions by the Mongols. Even the Japanese really invaded largely from the north once they got a hold of Manchukuo. That makes a huge difference between North China and South China.

South Chinese have more often emigrated than invaded.

[Bill the Piper]

(06-28-2019, 12:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has more often been invaded from the north, the worst invasions by the Mongols. Even the Japanese really invaded largely from the north once they got a hold of Manchukuo. That makes a huge difference between North China and South China.

South Chinese have more often emigrated than invaded.

Race might be an important factor. Southeast Asian nations like the Vietnamese have a lot of Melanesian admixture which means some of their genes come from the ancient Denisovan species. To a lesser extent, South Chinese people have some of it as well:



North Chinese are pure Mongoloids, they look more similar to people from Russia's former republics in Central Asia:


It's rather like Italy, Southern Italians are darker and have more Arab admixture, while Northern Italians can look like Germans.

[David Horn]

(06-27-2019, 10:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Except that National Socialism was actually still socialist...

No, just adding the term to your name doesn't not make you anything in particular. North Korea calls itself the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea. Is there anything even vaguely democratic in that nation? Of course not.

The Nazis were a totalitarian populist movement that managed to take control of a country in crisis. There was no socialism in their practice -- none even in their governing platform. None.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I first became interested in geopolitics when I read The Coming War With Japan by George Friedman. In one sense the book doesn't quite fit the present-I don't believe that in the near future we will see war between Japan and the United States. But the list of geopolitical goals he listed-based on geography-remains.

And Japan's geopolitical goals are in conflict with China's attempt to dominate east Asia.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(06-28-2019, 01:37 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I first became interested in geopolitics when I read The Coming War With Japan by George Friedman.  In one sense the book doesn't quite fit the present-I don't believe that in the near future we will see war between Japan and the United States.  But the list of geopolitical goals he listed-based on geography-remains.

And Japan's geopolitical goals are in conflict with China's attempt to dominate east Asia.

That book was written in the 1980s i believe, back then Japan was still economically strong and china was relatively weak and also menaced by the soviets. Today china is much stronger though, John however overestimates Chinese internal fractures, when in fact the majority of the populace over there strongly support CCP rule which is perceived to have modernized their country.

Another book written in the 1980s was the book "China's War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and Implications" By King C. Chen written in 1987. Boomer globalists claiming that China bullying Vietnamese fishermen is somehow an American issue need to remember their own statements from a little more than 30 years ago on exactly this same subject. Back then globalists were very happy with Chinese activity in the South China Sea.

https://books.google.com/books?id=vY4tBf...ea&f=false

The southeast Asian countries if they want to stop being bullied by China, need to build up their own militaries and own WMD arsenals instead of trying to outsource their defense over to the US. Boomer globalists might believe in such nonsensical "principles" of intervention without benefit but the rest of the American Citizenry does not.

Regarding the current Iran crisis: While trump may at first glance be critized by "blinking" by both the right and the left, he may very well be reedeeming himself if he really has the motive indicated in his recent tweet a few days ago.

Here is the relevant tweet:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...2878410752

[Tim Randal Walker]

Just looked at a tweet by Peter Zeihan, who has written a couple books about international affairs.

It looks like Trump is thinking of pulling the USA out of the defense pact with Japan.

If so, that implies a withdrawal of the U.S. military from northeast Asia. Japan-which served as a staging area during the Korean War-has U.S. military bases.

A departure from Japan implies a similar departure from South Korea. Which would in turn open the possibility of a deal with North Korea.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 30-Jun-19 World View -- MIT criticizes 'toxic atmosphere' targeting Chinese students

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• MIT criticizes 'toxic atmosphere' targeting Chinese students
  
• American attitudes towards the Chinese
  
• MIT Lincoln Lab and security
  
• Hong Kong and Taiwan
  

****
**** MIT criticizes 'toxic atmosphere' targeting Chinese students
****


MIT Lincoln Lab

The hostility being directed on a day to day basis towards Chinese
students on the MIT campus has become so great that MIT's president
has warned the entire MIT community against the growing "toxic
atmosphere" directed at Chinese students. However, it's quite
possible that this "toxic atmosphere" is within the Chinese community
itself.

MIT's president L. Rafael Reif sent a letter to the entire MIT
community entitled "Immigration is a kind of oxygen." Excerpts
follow:

<QUOTE>"MIT has flourished, like the United States itself,
because it has been a magnet for the world’s finest talent, a
global laboratory where people from every culture and background
inspire each other and invent the future, together.

Today, I feel compelled to share my dismay about some
circumstances painfully relevant to our fellow MIT community
members of Chinese descent. And I believe that because we treasure
them as friends and colleagues, their situation and its larger
national context should concern us all.

The situation

As the US and China have struggled with rising tensions, the US
government has raised serious concerns about incidents of alleged
academic espionage conducted by individuals through what is widely
understood as a systematic effort of the Chinese government to
acquire high-tech IP.

As head of an institute that includes MIT Lincoln Laboratory, I
could not take national security more seriously. I am well aware
of the risks of academic espionage, and MIT has established
prudent policies to protect against such breaches.

But in managing these risks, we must take great care not to create
a toxic atmosphere of unfounded suspicion and fear. Looking at
cases across the nation, small numbers of researchers of Chinese
background may indeed have acted in bad faith, but they are the
exception and very far from the rule. Yet faculty members,
post-docs, research staff and students tell me that, in their
dealings with government agencies, they now feel unfairly
scrutinized, stigmatized and on edge – because of their Chinese
ethnicity alone.

Nothing could be further from – or more corrosive to – our
community’s collaborative strength and open-hearted ideals. To
hear such reports from Chinese and Chinese-American colleagues is
heartbreaking. As scholars, teachers, mentors, inventors and
entrepreneurs, they have been not only exemplary members of our
community but exceptional contributors to American society. I am
deeply troubled that they feel themselves repaid with generalized
mistrust and disrespect.

The signal to the world

For those of us who know firsthand the immense value of MIT’s
global community and of the free flow of scientific ideas, it is
important to understand the distress of these colleagues as part
of an increasingly loud signal the US is sending to the world.

Protracted visa delays. Harsh rhetoric against most immigrants and
a range of other groups, because of religion, race, ethnicity or
national origin. Together, such actions and policies have turned
the volume all the way up on the message that the US is closing
the door – that we no longer seek to be a magnet for the world’s
most driven and creative individuals. I believe this message is
not consistent with how America has succeeded. I am certain it is
not how the Institute has succeeded. And we should expect it to
have serious long-term costs for the nation and for
MIT."<END QUOTE>

Like many universities, MIT has moved far left and is extremely
hostile to President Trump and 60 million Trump supporters, who have
been publicly referred to as "teabaggers," "racists," "deplorables,"
and so forth.

Nonetheless, Reif has to walk a fine line because his main job is to
beg for grants from agencies in the Trump administration. So the
above letter has soft criticisms of Trump's immigration policies, but
is careful not to incite further hatred against Trump supporters.

However, it's reasonable to believe that his letter is very wide
of the mark.

The fact that Reif felt compelled to write this letter at all
indicates how hostility has been growing nationwide towards Chinese
students, and to the Chinese diaspora in general. However, in the
case of MIT, the question is whether the source of that hostility is
Americans or other Chinese students. In the case of Americans
and Westerners in general, the question is whether the hostility
is directed at the Chinese people or the Chinese Communist Party (CVCP).

****
**** American attitudes towards the Chinese
****

Since the 1950s, Americans' public attitude toward has been almost
always favorable. In the 1960s, left-wing college students were
carrying Mao Zedong's Little Red Book of Quotations in their back
pockets, ready to be pulled out and used to lecture someone at any
time about the evils of capitalism, ignoring that Mao was responsible
at that time for tens of thousands of deaths from starvation, torture,
rape, beatings, and execution. For most Americans, China could do no
wrong. Even the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, which killed
thousands of peacefully protesting college students, didn't change
opinions much, but was considered by many to be just a kind of Chinese
peculiarity of the wonderful Chinese Socialist system, which was
opposed in their minds to the fascist American system.

Furthermore, when China was invited to join the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in 2000, it was hoped that this would make China a
part of the international community, and that China would become a
Western-style liberal democracy, instead of a fascist state like
America. That didn't happen, of course.

However, the West's favorable view of the Chinese has been continually
eroding since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. This is because the
public has become aware of many things that indicate that the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) is actually a fascist criminal organization.
There are many such things, including the following:

• The Tiananmen Square massacre itself
  
• The brutal violence against the obviously harmless Falun Gong
  
• Violence against Tibetan Buddhists
  
• The attack on and downing of an American surveillance plane on
  April 2, 2001
  
• The "Nine-dash map" and bizarre claims to the South China Sea
  
• Demands that CCP select Dalai Lama replacement
  
• Demands that CCP select Catholic bishops
  
• Treating the WTO contemtuously by using it to manipulate trade,
  while ignoring the WTO rules
  
• Artificial islands and militarization of South China Sea
  
• Repeatedly lying and making ridiculous, laughable claims about the
  South China Sea
  
• Contempt for international law and Hague ruling
  
• Destruction of Christian churches
  
• Using students to infiltrate governments in Australia, New
  Zealand
  
• Sending tens of thousands of Chinese to work in American high tech
  firms, and steal intellectual property.
  
• Violence, beatings, rapes, torture and abductions of
  Christians
  
• Abducting free speech advocates in Hong Kong and sending them to
  Beijing
  
• Threatening massive military action against Taiwan
  
• Violence, beatings, rapes, torture and abductions of Uighurs and
  Kazakhs
  
• Locking up millions of Uighurs and Kazakhs in concentration
  camps
  
• The Social Credit Score system which is building up a giant data
  base of personal and surveillance information about every Chinese
  citizen
  
• Extending that database through hacking databases in other
  countries
  
• Participating in US-China trade talks for months, and then
  reneging on the agreements
  
• Passing the National Intelligence Law in 2017, which requires all
  Chinese people and businesses to cooperate with the military in
  stealing foreign intelligence, even when doing so is illegal
  
• Sending out Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei to make laughable claims
  that he would rather go to jail than obey an order by the Chinese
  military to install backdoors in their products
  
• Violence against pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong

I just started typing the above list at random, and I probably could
have added a hundred more items. The point is that these events have
entered the public consciousness over a period of 30 years, and
attitudes towards China and the Chinese have been deteriorating over
that period.

I wrote about this shift in public opinion in January, when
China-lover George Soros announced that he has turned against China
because of its religious persecution and particularly because of the
"Social Credit System," which "will subordinate the fate of the
individual to the interests of the one-party state in ways
unprecedented in history." ( "27-Jan-19 World View -- George Soros speech at Davos marks significant global shift against China"
)

Another recent example was when Democratic party presidential aspirant
Joe Biden recently said that the US has nothing to fear from China,
and then had to walk that back a few days later. In the Democratic
party debates last week, there was lots of criticism of Trump, but not
of the China sanctions, as far as I could tell.

Perhaps the most remarkable sign of this change in attitude is that
there have been few serious objections domestically or internationally
to the Trump administration's harsh sanctions against China, including
tariffs, restrictions on Huawei, and arrest of the Huawei CFO,
although some farmers are being hurt.

****
**** MIT Lincoln Lab and security
****

Reif's letter briefly mentions issues related to national security,
and totally evades the issue. He says:

<QUOTE>"Looking at cases across the nation, small numbers of
researchers of Chinese background may indeed have acted in bad
faith, but they are the exception and very far from the rule. Yet
faculty members, post-docs, research staff and students tell me
that, in their dealings with government agencies, they now feel
unfairly scrutinized, stigmatized and on edge – because of their
Chinese ethnicity alone."<END QUOTE>

This is entirely the fault of the fascist Chinese government. It is
stated Chinese policy that China sends tens of thousands of students
and workers to the United States to collect intelligence information
from China's military, and under the 2017 National Intelligence Law,
every Chinese person and business is obligated to collect foreign
intelligence, even when doing so is against the law.

Reif says that "small numbers" of Chinese researchers may have "acted
in bad faith," but even Reif must realize how ridiculous this
statement is, since all we know about are the ones who were caught.
For all he knows, every person of Chinese descent working at Lincoln
Lab is working directly for the Chinese military, but just hasn't been
caught yet. This is where Reif's argument completely falls apart. The
CCP has forced Chinese citizens to be the targets of suspicion, so
Reif's letter should have been directed at China's government,
not to the MIT community.

There's a related matter, with regard to "back doors" being installed
in Huawei chips and devices. As I've described manyk times,
my personal experience spending five years implementing
board level operating systems for embedded systems has made it clear
that it would be easy for a Huawei engineer with the right skills to
install undetectable backdoors in Huawei chips. Huawei is also
required by China's National Intelligence Law, passed in 2017, to
fully cooperate with China's military in collecting intelligence, so
installation of these undectable backdoors is required by Chinese law.
These backdoors would permit China's military to control these
devices remotely.

Now I have the skills to do this, and there must be a lot of people at
MIT, Americans and Chinese, especially in the electrical engineering
department, who have these skills and are also aware of how easy it is
to do. So if there are Huawei devices brought into the classroom or
the lab, other students are going to wonder if these devices are being
used for spying or communicating with China's military. Reif's letter
says that "MIT has established prudent policies to protect against
such breaches," but the fact is that there are no policies, prudent or
otherwise, that can protect against undetectable backdoors.

The CCP has really screwed Chinese students in America by adopting
policies that make anyone of them a possible spy working for China's
military. This is doing enormous harm to Chinese students, and Reif's
letter can do nothing about it.

****
**** Hong Kong and Taiwan
****

I've written recently about the Hong Kong protests have exposed an
increasingly vitriolic split between northern and southern China.
Mandarin-speaking Beijing and Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong are,
respectively, the current political epicenters of the two sides.
( "22-Jun-19 World View -- Hong Kong protests show historic split between northern and southern China"
)

I continue to see reports that suggest anecdotally that this split is
extremely serious and growing. Here's an extract from a recent
article appearing in Inkstone by a Hong Konger who met a Chinese girl
in a bar in Coventry, England, and they agreed to go out on a date:

<QUOTE>"The vibes were good at the start. Arrived on
time. Greetings. Drinks and snacks. And then, at some point, I
innocently uttered the phrase: “Because we from Hong Kong...” My
date, from mainland China, swiftly interrupted me. She raised her
voice and eyebrows, signaling how angry she was. She rapped the
table with her fingers and snapped: “Stop saying you are from Hong
Kong. You are Chinese and from China.”

I decided not to say “Hong Kong” for the rest of our conversation.
But she wouldn’t let it go. She derisively attributed Hong Kong
people’s denial of our Chinese identity to our low self-esteem. In
her mind, people from mainland China seem to be smarter and more
financially secure than their Hong Kong counterparts."<END QUOTE>

As he described, the evening became increasingly tense, and they
parted without even saying goodbye. Next day, she blocked him on both
WhatsApp and WeChat.

The north-south conflict goes far beyond thwarted love and romance.

Returning now to Rafael Reif's letter to the MIT community, one might
infer that he's criticizing the American male white patriarchy for
creating the "toxic atmosphere." But there are a lot of Chinese
students at MIT, and I wonder if the "toxic atmosphere"
is within the Chinese community.

As I've written in the past, my research for my book "War between
China and Japan" has revealed that the CCP wants a war of revenge
against Japan and a war of annexation against Taiwan, but does not
want a war with America, but consideres it necessary because America
will depend Japan and Taiwan. There's really very little hatred
between Americans and Chinese, while there is great hatred between
Chinese and Japanese, and between northern and southern Chinese.

So my conclusion is that the "toxic atmosphere" described in Reif's
letter is being created by Chinese and possibly Japanese, but not by
Americans.

This is my personal inference from the facts as I know them. Perhaps
more anecdotal evidence will emerge that clarifies the situation.

We in America and the West tend to believe that ethnic and racial
conflict is a thing of the past. However, what I've seen over and
over is that race is everything. Love doesn't make the world go
'round. Racial and ethnic political and military conflicts create the
"toxic atmosphere" that makes the world go 'round, and the Chinese and
Japanese are about to make the world spin a little bit faster.

John J. Xenakis is author of "World View: War Between China and Japan: Why America Must Be Prepared (Xenakis Publishing, Generational Theory Book Series, Book 2)"

MIT/RafaelReif, 25-Jun-2019 and NYPost, 11-Jun-2019 and Inkstone, 25-Jun-2019

Related Articles:

• "27-Jan-19 World View -- George Soros speech at Davos marks significant global shift against China"
  
  
  
• "22-Jun-19 World View -- Hong Kong protests show historic split between northern and southern China"
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, MIT, L. Rafael Reif, Lincoln Lab,
China, Hong Kong, Chinese Communist Party, CCP,
Mao Zedong, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square massacre,
People's Liberation Army, PLA, South China Sea,
World Trade Organization, WTO,
Falun Gong, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims,
Uighurs, Kazakhs, Social Credit Score, George Soros,
Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, Joe Biden,
National Intelligence Law

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

[pbrower2a]

With most of us, it is "like the people, distrust the government", It's been that way since Pearl Buck novels were best-sellers. I've met lots of overseas Chinese, and they seem good enough. I recognize the great divide in language and history between China and America.

The cuisines are very good. So good that I can almost say that the difference between Italian cuisine and Chinese cuisine is often one ingredient: dairy.

The Chinese government is not particularly socialist. To be sure, personal property is not particularly safe, but one can make a huge profit, thanks to underpaid workers. Figure that many American plutocrats would love to import the low pay and bad working conditions of China to America -- and of course eviscerate labor unions and stifle any liberal opposition to crony capitalism. It is dictatorial. Under Mao China was no democracy and nowhere near being one. Under what China has now it is just as undemocratic.

As for Japan -- Japan would be wise to recognize what the thug regime that died nearly three-quarters of a century ago did from Manchukuo to Indonesia was monstrously wrong.

[Warren Dew]

(06-29-2019, 07:58 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The fact that Reif felt compelled to write this letter at all
indicates how hostility has been growing nationwide towards Chinese
students, and to the Chinese diaspora in general.  However, in the
case of MIT, the question is whether the source of that hostility is
Americans or other Chinese students.

What makes you think the hostility actually exists?

Reif toes the progressive political line, and his periodic missives to us alum show that.  Of course, a lot of us alum, especially those of us that actually donate to MIT, are conservatives, and some of us respond to Reif's idiotic emails accordingly.

What Reif is doing here is trying to fan fears of hostility among us alum, especially those with Chinese ties, and then try to use it to gain support for the open borders part of the progressive agenda.  There's no other real connection between the two issues.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 30-Jun-2019 Ethnic hostility at MIT

(06-29-2019, 11:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > What makes you think the hostility actually exists?

> Reif toes the progressive political line, and his periodic
> missives to us alum show that. Of course, a lot of us alum,
> especially those of us that actually donate to MIT, are
> conservatives, and some of us respond to Reif's idiotic emails
> accordingly.

> What Reif is doing here is trying to fan fears of hostility among
> us alum, especially those with Chinese ties, and then try to use
> it to gain support for the open borders part of the progressive
> agenda. There's no other real connection between the two
> issues.

Wow! What you're suggesting is even more cynical than anything I've
written.

Actually, I really don't believe that. For Reif to be purposely
stoking hostility targeting Chinese would be at AOC-level stupidity.
It works for AOC because she's targeting an audience that's even
stupider than she is, if that's possible. But if Reif tried the same
thing in the MIT community, it would evoke a lot of backlash.

That's not to say that Reif has any idea what's going on in the world.
If you want to know how stupid people are in general, check out this
video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRh1zXFKC_o

How do I know that that the hostility actually exists? Reif's letter
is so extreme that I believe that he wouldn't have sent it out unless
actually hostility is a real problem. The fact that he festooned it
with left-wing ideology is there to soften the message that this
hostility actually exists.

Here's what I do know:

• There's enormous hatred between Chinese and Japanese, and the war
  they fought 70 years ago was characterized by massive atrocities.
  
• There's enormous hatred between northern and southern Chinese, and
  the war they fought 70 years ago was characterized by massive
  atrocities.
  
• China has been an economic and political disaster since world war
  II.
  
• Southern people fled Mao's atrocities by going through Hong Kong
  to Formosa/Taiwan.
  
• Colonial Hong Kong became an economic superpower while China
  remained a poor, pathetic, backwater country.
  
• Taiwan became an economic superpower while China remained a poor,
  pathetic, backwater country.
  
• Japan became an economic superpower while China remained a poor,
  pathetic, backwater country.
  
• South Korea became an economic superpower while China remained a
  poor, pathetic, backwater country.
  
• Taiwan is becoming increasingly anti-Beijing and pro-independence,
  as younger generations gain power.
  
• Hong Kong is becoming increasingly anti-Beijing and
  pro-independence, as younger generations gain power.
  
• The recent Hong Kong pro-democracy riots have further infuriated
  the CCP thugs.
  
• The CCP are total barbarians, committing atrocities on a daily
  basis, in Xinjiang, Tibet, and elsewhee.

Reif's letter lumps together all Chinese from southern China, northern
China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, when clearly these different groups are
quite different in motivations, with extremely high levels of hatred.
So I assume those different Chinese groups are reflected in the MIT
community, with the same kinds of hatreds. That would explain Reif's
letter.

And that's only one aspect. Reif's letter makes a point of mentioning
Lincoln Lab. If I were working on a confidential project at Lincoln
Lab, and a Chinese co-worker from Beijing came and started asking me
questions, then I would be VERY concerned. What I would do would
depend on the specific circumstances, but I can definitely see that
some level of "hostility" would be justified, given that China is
conducting constant cyberwar against the US, is weaponizing Huawei,
and the National Intelligence Law requires every Chinese citizen to
provide intelligence to the military, even when doing so is illegal,
which means that it's quite possible that this co-worker was working
for the Chinese military.

So yeah, I believe that Reif's concerns are very real, and I blame the
CCP thugs for putting a target on the back of every Chinese citizen.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Globalists like John and Pbrower still assume that the intellectual academic class (both progressive and conservative wings) would still be running the US when core of the crisis hits. The citizens are getting restless, globalists, we like being Homer Simpson, NOT Ned Flanders, we like our guns and second amendment remedies. We HATE free trade, the globalist demands to china is not about the issue China stealing tech from the US specifically, if it was the sanctions would be focused purely against that. Instead globalists are laughably trying to get china to change its trading practices toward ALL nations to be fair, a laughable notion. Protectionist oriented sanctions would have been far more effective rather than the globalist notion of worldwide fair trade. The American people HATE globalism and free-trade tyranny. Close the damn borders and build our own products.

The Younger generations and Non-globalist boomers despise your EFFETE globalism. An early 20th century Italian ideologist said that "the greatest mind in the world can be silenced with this (he held a knife)", we non-globalists happily and eagerly embrace those words and are ready to translate them into action against the political oligarchy's tyranny.

[Warren Dew]

(06-30-2019, 01:55 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Wow!  What you're suggesting is even more cynical than anything I've
written.

Actually, I really don't believe that.  For Reif to be purposely
stoking hostility targeting Chinese would be at AOC-level stupidity.
It works for AOC because she's targeting an audience that's even
stupider than she is, if that's possible.  But if Reif tried the same
thing in the MIT community, it would evoke a lot of backlash.

To be clear, I'm not saying he's stoking the hostility.  Rather, he's stoking fear of of hostility, by exaggerating it or making it up.

The hostility you describe between different ethnic groups of China and certainly between Chinese and Japanese, most certainly exists.  In my limited recent experience, though, these hostilities don't extend to the MIT campus.  Rather, leftist professors reshape any hostility into a hostility against conservatives and Republicans by accusing them of hating nonwhites, as a side effect promoting racial solidarity among Asians of different groups.

I think Reif is doing a form of that, but targeting alum rather than students.

Do you get these emails directly?  I do, and every one is 90% leftist virtue signaling.  I interpret this email in the same light, since it's from the same person and to the same people.  You can call me cynical, but I call it realistic.

Quote:And that's only one aspect.  Reif's letter makes a point of mentioning
Lincoln Lab.  If I were working on a confidential project at Lincoln
Lab, and a Chinese co-worker from Beijing came and started asking me
questions, then I would be VERY concerned.  What I would do would
depend on the specific circumstances, but I can definitely see that
some level of "hostility" would be justified, given that China is
conducting constant cyberwar against the US, is weaponizing Huawei,
and the National Intelligence Law requires every Chinese citizen to
provide intelligence to the military, even when doing so is illegal,
which means that it's quite possible that this co-worker was working
for the Chinese military.

Yes, the Lincoln Lab part struck me, too.  Given that most of the work there has to do with national security, of course they would need to be concerned about spying.  But for the left, it's more convenient to interpret this, not as justifiable caution about national security, but as racial bigotry against Chinese by the Trump administration. To the extent that there's anything real behind the letter, I think that's what it's about:  maybe there was something that was or looked like spying, but Reif is trying to blame it on racial bigotry instead.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 01-Jul-2019 Ongoing: Hong Kong protests present increasing threat to Beijing

There are currently large, massive pro-democracy, anti-Bejing protests
going on in Hong Kong.

It's now midnight in Hong Kong, and the security forces apparently
are about to attack the protesters to disperse them.

The CCP thugs had to stop the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy
protests, because they were considered a threat to the survival of the
CCP. As a result, they massacred and killed thousands of peacefully
protesting college students.

This growing protest is also a major threat to the CCP because, as
I've previously explained, this could trigger a massive rebellion in
southern China, as happened in the past with the Taiping Rebellion
(1852-64), and Mao's Communist Revolution (1934-49).

This is an ongoing situation.

---- Sources:

-- Hong Kong police take up position to clear protesters who
smashed up legislature
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongk...SKCN1TV0YE
(Reuters)

[John J. Xenakis]

** 01-Jul-2019 World View: Trump's strategy for China and North Korea

As usual, the media are totally baffled by Donald Trump's strategy in
China and North Korea.

Here's the reality check:

• North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons, no matter what
  Trump or anyone else does.
  
  
• China will never give up its illegal trade practices and illegal
  theft of foreign intelligence and intellectual property, no matter
  what Trump or anyone else does.
  
  
• Russia and North Korea will never stop illegally going around the
  North Korea sanctions, no matter what Trump or anyone else does.
  
  
• China will never stop preparing to launch World War III to
  exterminate Japan and annex Taiwan, no matter what Trump or anyone
  else does.

If Trump adopted the belligerent policies that many people in
Washington are demanding, all it would do is hasten World War III.

All of Trump's policies make perfect sense once you understand that
the strategy is to delay the inevitable -- delay deployment of North
Korean nuclear weapons, and delay World War III. This is the best
possible strategy available, and one that very few people besides
Trump could pull off.

I do believe that Trump believes he can prevent World War III. He's
like a terminal cancer payment who believes that if he can forestall
death long enough, then they might find a cure for cancer.

He's wrong about that. Nothing can prevent World War III. Trump may
try to forestall World War III, but he can't prevent it. But as I've
written many times, I'm not going to criticize Trump for taking steps
to forestall or prevent World War III, even though World War III is
100% certain.

At any rate, most of what you hear in the mainstream media is idiotic
nonsense. The above is what's really going on.


See: "World View: War Between China and Japan: Why America Must Be Prepared"
(Generational Theory Book Series, Book 2)
by John J. Xenakis
Paperback: 331 pages, over 200 source references, $13.99
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732738637/

[Warren Dew]

I wonder if your point (1) is accurate.  I think Kim was sincere about the outlines of his agreement with Trump and S. Korea.  Let's recall that the agreement had two parts:  there was opening of trade, which mutually benefited North and South Korea, and there was military deescalation, which included N. Korea giving up its nuclear weapons and the U.S. withdrawing its forces from South Korea.

I think if all of this could be done at once, Kim would be willing to do it.  It's just that Kim wants the economic trade first, because it's easier for him:  it gives him a win to help him with internal support for the military trade, plus it stabilizes the situation so the temptation to invade once the US withdraws from S. Korea won't be too much to resist.

The US wants the military trade first, since it's concerned that the military trade may never happen if the economic trade goes first.  The situation is complicated by the fact that S. Korea wants the economic trade first.  Kim overestimated the influence of S. Korea on the US, and thought that if he and S. Korea agreed to do the economic stuff first, the US would go along, which it would have under previous Presidents.  I'm not sure he's going to do the military trade first.  But again, if everyone else did all of their parts at the same time, he'd give up the nuclear weapons, so it's not that he won't give them up no matter what other people do.

Incidentally, I bought your books on Iran and China and have skimmed them.

I'm still puzzled by your obvious concern about all the nuclear weapons China has that are primarily targeted at the US, but your lack of concern for the many more nuclear weapons Russia has that are primarily targeted at the US.  I'd be interested in your analysis of Russia, as I believe you think their crisis occurred in the 1990s.

I'd also be interested in your analysis of why Germany entered WWII.  As I recall, you believe that Europe had had a recent crisis war in the form of WWI, so how did European WWII become a crisis war?  Did US involvement somehow turn it into a crisis war?  Otherwise Chamberlain's peace would have happened, or what?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 02-Jul-2019 World View: Beijing closes the trap on Hong Kong protesters

• The People's Liberation Army (China's military) Hong Kong
  garrison comes out of hiding and conducts emergency response
  exercises for three days (Global Times)

During the protests on Monday, the BBC World Service entered the Hong
Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) building, and broadcast scenes of
vandalism and graffiti in one room after another. The BBC reporter
wondered why he was being allowed inside the building, and was allowed
to broadcast these scenes to the world. He raised the question about
whether the government was setting some kind of trap.

These scenes were broadcast after hundreds of protesters
smashed through the exterior glass doors and walls of the building,
and entered the building. Previously, they had been smashing
windows, ripping out barriers, and throwing eggs at
police. The demonstrations were protesting the proposed
extradition bill that would allow Hong Kong to extradite anyone
in Hong Kong to Beijing, and they were attacking the LegCo
building presumably because it would be the legislature that
could approve the extradition bill, when it is removed from suspension.

However, instead of forcing the protesters to disperse, the
masses of police forces simply stepped aside, and allowed the
protesters to smash their way into the LegCo building and vandalize
it, and then allowed the BBC and other news organizations to enter
the building and broadcast the vandalism. This has led to
suggestions that the government was setting a trap for the protesters,
so that they could be called rioters and terrorists.

CCP officials closed the trap on Tuesday, with a statement suggesting
that Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" should be brought to an
end:

Quote: "Yet, some extremists on the pretext of opposing the
amendments to the relevant Bill of the special administration
region government, attacked the Legislative Council building in an
extremely violent manner and deliberately damaged its facilities.

This serious illegal act tramples on the rule of law in Hong Kong,
undermines Hong Kong's social order and undermines the fundamental
interests of Hong Kong. It is a blatant challenge to the ‘one
country, two systems’ bottom line."

China's Foreign Ministry warns outsiders to stay out, saying that
"the violent act of storming LegCo" on Monday "constituted serious violations
of the rule of law and endangered social order."

A number of people on Chinese social media are being quoted as
supporting the government position:

Quote: "There's definitely a problem with the policies
towards Taiwan and Hong Kong. Why does the central government
think that as long as it gives enough benefits and special rights,
the people will be loyal to you?"

Here's another:

Quote: "One country, two systems is too lax, and this is the
result. If Hong Kong wants to return to normal, it should start
with decolonization and change the name of Victoria Harbour to
Oriental Pearl Harbour."

On the other hand, many of the young protesters on Monday were
expressing concern that the "one country, two systems" policy is
scheduled to end in 2047, well within the expected lives of
the protesters.

• In an earlier protest, British flag is visible, and placard
  reading, 'Make Hong Kong Great Britain Again' (SCMP)

This is not the end of the story. After Monday's "victory," the
protesters are only going to become more bold in pro-democracy
protests. Pro-independence activists in Taiwan will also be
emboldened. The CCP thugs are seeing the pro-democracy protests in
Hong Kong as a repeat of the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen
Square, which ended with the mass slaughter of thousands of peacefully
protesting college students.

Now that the CCP thugs have laid the trap and sprung it, they've laid
the groundwork for violent repression when the protests recur, and for
proposed legal measures to restrict some of the "one country, two
systems" policies.

Tensions are growing along the Beijing-Hong Kong and north-south fault
lines, and China is overdue for a new massive anti-government
rebellion, following the Taiping Rebellion (1852-64), and Mao's
Communist Revolution (1934-49).

---- Sources:

-- BREAKING: Hong Kong protesters break through final barriers,
overrun LegCo
https://coconuts.co/hongkong/news/breaki...run-legco/
(Coconuts Hong Kong, 1-Jul-2019)

-- China strongly condemns LegCo storming by Hong Kong protesters,
calls it a 'blatant challenge'
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-a...e-state-tv
(Strait Times, Singapore, 2-Jul-2019)

-- PLA Hong Kong Garrison conducts emergency response exercises
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1156525.shtml
(Global Times, Beijing, 2-Jul-2019)

-- China opposes other countries' interference in Hong Kong affairs
http://www.ecns.cn/news/2019-07-02/detai...8700.shtml
(ECNS, Beijing, 2-Jul-2019)

-- Pic: Make Hong Kong Great Britain Again / In former colonies Hong
Kong and Taiwan, ‘national’ identity often emerges from fanciful
nostalgia
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-maga...en-emerges
(South China Morning Post, 29-Mar-2019)

[John J. Xenakis]

** 02-Jul-2019 North Korea denuclearization

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I wonder if your point (1) is accurate. I think Kim was sincere
> about the outlines of his agreement with Trump and S. Korea.
> Let's recall that the agreement had two parts: there was opening
> of trade, which mutually benefited North and South Korea, and
> there was military deescalation, which included N. Korea giving up
> its nuclear weapons and the U.S. withdrawing its forces from South
> Korea.

> I think if all of this could be done at once, Kim would be willing
> to do it. It's just that Kim wants the economic trade first,
> because it's easier for him: it gives him a win to help him with
> internal support for the military trade, plus it stabilizes the
> situation so the temptation to invade once the US withdraws from
> S. Korea won't be too much to resist.

> The US wants the military trade first, since it's concerned that
> the military trade may never happen if the economic trade goes
> first. The situation is complicated by the fact that S. Korea
> wants the economic trade first. Kim overestimated the influence of
> S. Korea on the US, and thought that if he and S. Korea agreed to
> do the economic stuff first, the US would go along, which it would
> have under previous Presidents. I'm not sure he's going to do the
> military trade first. But again, if everyone else did all of
> their parts at the same time, he'd give up the nuclear weapons, so
> it's not that he won't give them up no matter what other people
> do.

I just don't see how that possible. Even if you assume hypothetically
that Kim himself would like to denuclearize, I believe that if he
tried, then his own army generals would shoot him dead, rather than
let that happen.

Even if they did go through with denuclearization, the entire country
would need decades to change its focus from militarization to
consumerism. So even if you assume that denuclearization somehow
occurs, then the follow-on would still be disastrous. And the North
still hasn't changed its plans to reunite Korea under Communist rule.

I've seen too much fanaticism in too many countries at too many times
in history to believe that North Korea has any chance of
denuclearization.

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Incidentally, I bought your books on Iran and China and have
> skimmed them.

Thanks! I hope you enjoy them.

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I'm still puzzled by your obvious concern about all the nuclear
> weapons China has that are primarily targeted at the US, but your
> lack of concern for the many more nuclear weapons Russia has that
> are primarily targeted at the US. I'd be interested in your
> analysis of Russia, as I believe you think their crisis occurred
> in the 1990s.

Russia's crisis has not yet occurred. We discussed this endlessly in
the old forum. The 1990s would have been a crisis era for Russia if
it hadn't been for the brutality of the Nazi invasion, which was an
Awakening era war. David Kaiser analyzed the situation in Russia and
said that the Nazi invasion had caused generational destruction
similar to a crisis war. This would be how a "first turning reset"
occurs.

As I've written many times, Russia, India and Iran will be American
allies in the next war. China plans to attack the US to prevent the
US from defending Japan and Taiwan, but Russia has no motivation to
attack the US. Russia is an existential threat to Ukraine, but not to
the US.

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I'd also be interested in your analysis of why Germany entered
> WWII. As I recall, you believe that Europe had had a recent
> crisis war in the form of WWI, so how did European WWII become a
> crisis war? Did US involvement somehow turn it into a crisis war?
> Otherwise Chamberlain's peace would have happened, or what?

World War I was an Unraveling era war for Germany, and their behavior
was very similar to America's in the Vietnam war.

I discussed this at length in my first book:

** Book I - Chapter 3 -- The Principle of Localization I
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...ation1.htm

** Book I / Chapter 4 -- The Principle of Localization II
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...ation2.htm

Germany's war effort collapsed because of public anti-war activism,
same as America's Vietnam War.

I also wrote about it on Christmas day 2017:

** 25-Dec-17 World View -- Remembering the 1914 World War I Christmas Truce
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e171225