Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

** 06-Dec-2019 World View: Jonathan Turley on impeachment

(12-05-2019, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote: > Turley's argument goes to criminal standards -- uniquely his
> interpretation, and decidedly different from his opinions when it
> was Clinton in the box*. His idea that the bribery statute, and
> the court cases around it, have a bearing on the impeachment
> clause in the Constitution is simply bizarre. The Constitution can
> oily be modified as it allows within the document -- the Congress
> deciding on the nature and extent of the inferior courts and the
> number on the SCOTUS being the prime examples. I see no similar
> language regarding impeachment. More to the point, the activity
> is not the same as a criminal trial, because it deals in the
> political sphere. Being POTUS, or any of the other
> impeachment-eligible government officials, is a privilege that can
> be removed. Note that no one goes to prison or forfeits any
> wealth, unless a follow-on criminal persecution and conviction is
> secured.

> I actually like Turley, though I rarely agree with his
> interpretations. In this case, he's being highly partisan, though
> the others were as well. I think it's good that the public got a
> quick tutoring on constitutional law, but I doubt it took with
> most of them.

> * During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Turley argued that
> he had no right to limit access to an evidence of his guilt,
> and, among other things, his personal Secret Service detail
> should be forced to testify.

When he testified, Jonathan Turley went out of his way to make several
things clear: He was a liberal Democrat, he didn't like Trump, he
didn't vote for Trump, he voted for Hillary Clinton, and he voted for
Obama.

So at that panel of so-called "scholars," it was four Never-Trumpers
against zero who were on Trump's side. This is the Democrat's idea of
"fair and balanced," as we see all the time if we watch cnn or msnbc.

However, Turley also said that he had opposed the Clinton impeachment,
because impeachment would be too divisive -- which he said is what
happened.

Turley said that Nixon and Clinton had been guilty of crimes, with
Clinton having clearly committed the crime of perjury, which is a
felony for which people go to jail for all the time.

Under Republican questioning, Turley said the same thing that I said,
that there was absolutely no evidence that Trump had done anything
wrong. He agreed that the so-called evidence against Trump was
hearsay and speculation, nad that there was no basis for an
impeachment -- or what he called a "shoddy impeachment" based on
"anger."

He particularly singled out the Democrats' accusing Trump of abuse of
power for refusing to respond to Democrats' subpoenas and for going to
court to challenge them. Turley said that Trump had a perfect right
to go to court to challenge them. Nixon had been charged with abuse
of power after he'd gone to court to protect his tapes, but then
defied the court after he lost. That was the act that had resulted in
the abuse of power charge. But Trump had a perfect right to challenge
the subpoenas in court, and had not received any adverse ruling.
Under those cirumstances, there would indeed be an abuse of power --
but it would be the Democrats committing abuse of power.

So even though Turley is a left-wing liberal Democrat Never-Trumper,
he still ran rings around the Democrats.

The three other "scholars" looked like complete idiots. They went
into inane constitution arguments about what constitutes grounds for
impeachment. But under Republican questioning, they acknowledged the
same thing that I've been saying and that Turley said -- Trump has not
done anything wrong.

The worst and most disgusting of the so-called "scholars" was Stanford
law professor Pamela Karlan, who triumphantly attacked Trump via his
13-year-old son by saying, "The Constitution says there can be no
titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he
can’t make him a baron."

This is the kind of hysterical, angry hormonal woman who is dictating
this impeachment -- all anger, all hysteria, no actual evidence. In
fact, the entire Democratic party is being run by hysterical, angry
hormonal women like Karlan, AOC, the Squad, and Hillary.

And just so I won't be called a sexist, Adam Schiff is also an angry,
hysterical hormonal man. The Democratic party is gender-neutral on
hormonal, angry, hysterical leaders, but is not worth anything more.

Ironically, I would not include Nancy Pelosi in the category. I even
think it's possible that she's telling the truth when she says that
she's praying for Trump. Unlike the angry, hysterical, hormonal
people that she's taking orders from, she's old enough to know that
the party is headed for an electoral disaster in November.

Returning now to Jonathan Turley, he says:

Quote: "My call for greater civility and dialogue may have
been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before
I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with
threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George
Washington University for arguing that, while a case for
impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this
record."

That's the way the Democrats are these days -- all hormones, all
anger, all rage, no evidence, and no substance of any kind except
lies, fabricated charges, criminal activities, abuse of power, and, of
course, threats and violence.

---- Sources:

-- Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/47...mpeachment
(TheHill, 6-Dec-2019)

[Warren Dew]

(12-06-2019, 04:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: HK has plenty of economic problems, but there are ALSO major political
problems.  The elections were a historic "stunning upset" of the view
that "a substantial part of the public do not support the
demonstrators."  It's true that much of the public do not support the
violence, but polls and the election have shown that they support the
political goals of the demonstrators.

There are political problems no doubt.  However, it is also the case that "a substantial part of the public do not support the demonstrators".  In the recent elections, pro-Beijing parties won 42% of the popular vote.  That's not a majority, but it is absolutely "a substantial part of the public".

Indeed, the fact that there are substantial numbers on both sides of this question is part of why Hong Kong's problems are severe.

[David Horn]

(12-06-2019, 02:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-06-2019, 09:36 AM)David Horn Wrote: FYI, the whistleblower's identity is protected by law.

No, it's not.  Retaliation is prohibited by law, exactly so that his identity doesn't need to be protected.

Fair enough; I got that wrong. ]The protections are still intended, though that's even less true for members of the security agencies. They can't sue for retaliation, because much of what they report can't be discussed in court: catch-22 on a huge scale.

Warren Wrote:The rest of your post equally displays ignorance of actual facts.

Meaning what exactly? Based on many years of internet argument, generic admonishments tend to be unreliable. Fell free to add something more substantive than finger waving.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 07-Dec-2019 World View: Hong Kong election results

(12-06-2019, 09:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > There are political problems no doubt. However, it is also the
> case that "a substantial part of the public do not support the
> demonstrators". In the recent elections, pro-Beijing parties won
> 42% of the popular vote. That's not a majority, but it is
> absolutely "a substantial part of the public".

> Indeed, the fact that there are substantial numbers on both sides
> of this question is part of why Hong Kong's problems are
> severe.

The pro-democracy victory was certainly not unanimous, but everything
I've read describes it as stunning. Here's a concise summary:

• Hong Kong election results

Hong Kong Election Results

Over the weekend, Hong Kong held local elections which saw a landslide
victory for pro-democracy candidates. More than half of the 452 local
district council seats were flipped from pro-Beijing to pro-democracy
candidates, giving pro-democratic forces control of 17 out of 18
district councils. The election also saw record high voter turnout
with 4.1 million registered voters, a 71% increase since the last
election cycle in 2015. These council members are eligible to be
elected to six seats in Hong Kong’s legislature and will control 117
of 1,200 seats in the panel that selects the city’s leader. Current
Chief Executive Carrie Lam, whose administration has been the target
of ongoing pro-democracy protests, has promised to respect the results
of the election.

https://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/...on-results

[pbrower2a]

(12-06-2019, 04:49 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 06-Dec-2019 World View: Jonathan Turley on impeachment

(12-05-2019, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   Turley's argument goes to criminal standards -- uniquely his
>   interpretation, and decidedly different from his opinions when it
>   was Clinton in the box*.  His idea that the bribery statute, and
>   the court cases around it, have a bearing on the impeachment
>   clause in the Constitution is simply bizarre. The Constitution can
>   oily be modified as it allows within the document -- the Congress
>   deciding on the nature and extent of the inferior courts and the
>   number on the SCOTUS being the prime examples. I see no similar
>   language regarding impeachment.  More to the point, the activity
>   is not the same as a criminal trial, because it deals in the
>   political sphere.  Being POTUS, or any of the other
>   impeachment-eligible government officials, is a privilege that can
>   be removed.  Note that no one goes to prison or forfeits any
>   wealth, unless a follow-on criminal persecution and conviction is
>   secured.

>   I actually like Turley, though I rarely agree with his
>   interpretations.  In this case, he's being highly partisan, though
>   the others were as well.  I think it's good that the public got a
>   quick tutoring on constitutional law, but I doubt it took with
>   most of them.

>   * During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Turley argued that
>     he had no right to limit access to an evidence of his guilt,
>     and, among other things, his personal Secret Service detail
>     should be forced to testify.

When he testified, Jonathan Turley went out of his way to make several
things clear: He was a liberal Democrat, he didn't like Trump, he
didn't vote for Trump, he voted for Hillary Clinton, and he voted for
Obama.

So at that panel of so-called "scholars," it was four Never-Trumpers
against zero who were on Trump's side.  This is the Democrat's idea of
"fair and balanced," as we see all the time if we watch cnn or msnbc.

If a thief or arsonist is put on trial, then we do not reasonably expect that a trial of his peers will include thieves or arsonists.  In any event, the presumption of innocence practically requires that those trying the accused have the same legal status as the accused during the trial -- innocent. 

Quote:However, Turley also said that he had opposed the Clinton impeachment,
because impeachment would be too divisive -- which he said is what
happened.


Turley said that Nixon and Clinton had been guilty of crimes, with
Clinton having clearly committed the crime of perjury, which is a
felony for which people go to jail for all the time.

Nixon resigned, making the further process of impeachment moot. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was about deeds comparatively harmless. Bill Clinton's fornication may have been disgusting, but it is not in league with money laundering, bank fraud, blackmailing a foreign power, or who knows what else. 

Quote:Turley said that Nixon and Clinton had been guilty of crimes, with
Clinton having clearly committed the crime of perjury, which is a
felony for which people go to jail for all the time.

People go to prison for perjury when the perjury involves some other offense or personal statements (whether deliberate or in reckless disregard of the truth) that lead to a miscarriage of justice.   Multitudes of people have made false or misleading statements on behalf of the President and have been convicted thereof. As the mandatory disclaimer says, "prior results are no guarantee of future results"... 

Quote:Under Republican questioning, Turley said the same thing that I said,
that there was absolutely no evidence that Trump had done anything
wrong.  He agreed that the so-called evidence against Trump was
hearsay and speculation, and that there was no basis for an
impeachment -- or what he called a "shoddy impeachment" based on
"anger."

No evidence, perhaps. There is written order by Adolf Hitler to initiate the Holocaust. Such is not necessary. Subordinates who do horrible deeds on behalf of the Big Boss  demonstrate the culpability of the gangster. (The German Nazi Party is the most horrible crime syndicate in human history). Some speculation is appropriate. Nobody does perjury for there mere fun of it.  

Quote:He particularly singled out the Democrats' accusing Trump of abuse of
power for refusing to respond to Democrats' subpoenas and for going to
court to challenge them.  Turley said that Trump had a perfect right
to go to court to challenge them.  Nixon had been charged with abuse
of power after he'd gone to court to protect his tapes, but then
defied the court after he lost.  That was the act that had resulted in
the abuse of power charge.  But Trump had a perfect right to challenge
the subpoenas in court, and had not received any adverse ruling.
Under those circumstances, there would indeed be an abuse of power --
but it would be the Democrats committing abuse of power.

The impeachment of Richard Nixon is about very different deeds. Trump associates have not been caught in a third-rate burglary, and they have not broken into the medically-confidential files of a dissident. 

 

Quote:So even though Turley is a left-wing liberal Democrat Never-Trumper,
he still ran rings around the Democrats.

In my opinion he is setting up a strawman argument. 

Quote:The three other "scholars" looked like complete idiots.  They went
into inane constitution arguments about what constitutes grounds for
impeachment.  But under Republican questioning, they acknowledged the
same thing that I've been saying and that Turley said -- Trump has not
done anything wrong.

Trump may not have done the deed himself, but he can create the climate in which his subordinates act. His administrative chaos is not itself impeachable any more than Herbert Hoover's catastrophic handling of an economic meltdown was impeachable or military reverses in Korea under Harry Truman were impeachable. Impeachment is not the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence; it is rightly over serious misconduct. Professor Karlan established that there were criminal deeds that the Founding Fathers could have never imagined because the technologies of later time that made such crimes (for example crimes involving communication devices and motor vehicles) did not then exist.     

Quote:The worst and most disgusting of the so-called "scholars" was Stanford
law professor Pamela Karlan, who triumphantly attacked Trump via his
13-year-old son by saying, "The Constitution says there can be no
titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he
can’t make him a baron."

A triviality manifesting itself as a joke. Jerry Seinfeld could just as easily have made that joke. In any event, I can name a pet dog "Prince" or "Queen", and that does not make the dog nobility. I can name a cat "Tiger", but that does not make the cat a tiger even if the cat has stripes. Besides, "Barron" is the wrong spelling for the title of nobility. The idea to prohibit titles of nobility was to keep some public figure from granting those in return for doing some political work. Even the British "K" (as in "Knighthood") is too much here. 

So what? Our economic elites can live much like sultans if they have the means.   

Quote:This is the kind of hysterical, angry hormonal woman who is dictating
this impeachment -- all anger, all hysteria, no actual evidence.  In
fact, the entire Democratic party is being run by hysterical, angry
hormonal women like Karlan, AOC, the Squad, and Hillary.

...as if testosterone were a fount of wisdom and humanity. I associate testosterone more with bar-room brawls than with commercial, intellectual, or creative achievement. Yes, women like Magda Goebbels, Chiang Ching (Mao's widow), Elena Ceausescu, Imelda Marcos, and Sajida (Mrs. Saddam) Hussein can be consummately vicious. That's before I start naming some black-widow types and real-life harpies such as the late and unlamented Aileen Wuornos. But note well: women can be as chilly rationalists as men. Fools beware!  

Quote:And just so I won't be called a sexist, Adam Schiff is also an angry,
hysterical hormonal man.  The Democratic party is gender-neutral on
hormonal, angry, hysterical leaders, but is not worth anything more.

Well, some people who would have gassed Adam Schiff if they had a chance seem to have been members of the testosterone-rich, estrogen-poor cliques associated with the bad-boys clubs of Blackshirts and Brownshirts. Even if Stalin was in a cause (Bolshevism) that asserted the equality of women, Stalin's henchmen were all male. Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in 1923? All male. SA and SS taking over the streets in Germany? Clearly a (bad boy's) club.  

I would prefer that there were principled figures within the Republican Party as a default for those conservatives who insist upon a sane foreign policy. Well, there still is the Democratic Party, and Obama foreign policy is far closer to that of Reagan and the elder Bush than is the reckless, glory-seeking foreign policy of Donald Trump. History can take strange twists as a tale. 
 

Quote:Ironically, I would not include Nancy Pelosi in the category.  I even
think it's possible that she's telling the truth when she says that
she's praying for Trump.  Unlike the angry, hysterical, hormonal
people that she's taking orders from, she's old enough to know that
the party is headed for an electoral disaster in November.

She is a chilly rationalist, but she might be praying for Donald Trump on behalf of the United States as a whole. That is consistent with devout Catholicism. Electoral disaster in November? 


[/url]

Quote:[url=https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3650]Quinnipiac, Nov. 21-25, 1355 RV (1-month change)

Approve 40 (+2)
Disapprove 54 (-4)

Strongly approve 32 (+4)
Strongly disapprove 50 (-3)

Appears to be reversion to the mean after an outlier.  Q polls since September:

9/25: 40/55 (strongly 29/48)
9/30: 41/53 (35/48)
10/8: 40/54 (29/47)
10/14: 41/54 (31/48)
10/23: 38/58 (28/53)
11/26: 40/54 (32/50)

The margin of error for nationwide and statewide approval polls is 4%. Much lower than for Obama eight years ago. Demographic change (older and more politically-conservative people dying off or going senile while younger people replace them in the electorate) does not favor either Trump or the GOP. Say what you want about Obama, but he was closer to 50% and was a more adept politician than Trump is. Trump can win re-election with much less than a plurality of the vote should Democrats simply run up vote totals in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington, (and possibly Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia)... but I see Republicans having a tough time of it. This time it involves a politically-crippled President.  
  

Quote:Returning now to Jonathan Turley, he says:

Quote:    "My call for greater civility and dialogue may have
   been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before
   I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with
   threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George
   Washington University for arguing that, while a case for
   impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this
   record."

That's the way the Democrats are these days -- all hormones, all
anger, all rage, no evidence, and no substance of any kind except
lies, fabricated charges, criminal activities, abuse of power, and, of
course, threats and violence.

---- Sources:

-- Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/47...mpeachment
(TheHill, 6-Dec-2019)

Donald Trump has had every chance to bring civility and dialogue into the political arena. He has instead acted as if a majority of Americans lost all relevance in American politics after his Party got the trifecta of the Presidency, House, and Senate in 2016. Well, we Democrats are still here, and we can be the consequence of a catastrophic failure by a President with neither political acumen, moral compass, nor respect for objective truth. 

We Americans have a choice between fascism and freedom, and even if we must sacrifice prosperity and comfort to thwart fascism then such is a fair deal. Mercifully that is not the choice that we have. It will be up to Americans to choose politicians who have reason and a moral compass. Yes, we are in an economic pickle -- ironically one that many dreamed of, one in which we can have material objects quite dear a few years ago that are now very cheap. So it is no longer easy to profit off scarcity except in real estate or if one has cornered the market, as Big Pharma has done in medicine. The factory that gave intellectual mediocrities and sub-mediocrities a middle-class standard of living in places like Rochester, Buffalo, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis has folded and gone to the Third World... but even if it were to return to America it would pay starvation wages by American standards. The parts of America that got the manufacturing sector to move South due to low wages and weak unions is itself losing its factory jobs.  





Do you want my prediction of what household interiors will look like around 2030? They will look austere by current standards, mostly because people will have no taste for clutter. Utility will make many of the old status symbols irrelevant, and miniaturization and the Internet will make it easy for people to stream intellectual property cheaply and easily. The stuff that people paid dearly for in the 1980's is often trash not so much due to its breakdown as for its obsolescence or irrelevance. Mass-manufacturing has come to the end of the line as a means for making easy money for makers, sellers, and shareholders. 

But not only is Donald Trump morally lacking; he is clueless about the economic trends that he promises to revive. The latter is not impeachable.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 07-Dec-2019 World View: North Korea ICBM test

Guest Wrote:> If NK launches a ICBM at the end of the year, what do you think
> Trump will do?

Assuming that the North Korean ICBM launch is a test that lands in the
sea and not on some city, then Trump would do as he's always done --
try to find a way using diplomacy to stop North Korea from making
further tests. This might a combination of sanctions and meetings,
working with the South Koreans. Keep in mind that China will not be
happy with Kim for doing that, so Kim will be feeling pressure from
both ends.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 07-Dec-2019 World View: China - North Korea vassal relationship

Guest Wrote:> Shouldn't it be easy for China to control NK? They feed
> it. Couldn't NK just be their puppet?

"Puppet" really isn't the right word. Neither is "ally." For
centuries, Korea has had a vassal or tributary relationship with
China. This means that Korea paid China a great deal of money,
usually gold and slaves, in return for guarantees of defense from
outsiders (i.e., Japan). Although China does not directly govern the
vassal, China expects the vassal to do as it's told, and will not
hesitate to punish a vassal that disobeys.

North Korea today pays tribute to China not in the form of gold and
slaves, but in the form of massive amounts of coal and "workers," both
of which are also used to provide financial aid to North Korea.

Relations between China and North Korea took a hostile turn in October
2006, when North Korea began testing nuclear weapons. North Korea did
not do as it was told, and China punished North Korea by agreeing to
United Nations sanctions targeting North Korea.

However, China cannot punish North Korea too severely. If, as you
suggest, China tries to starve North Korea, the result could be a
massive refugee flow from North Korea, across the Yalu River, into
northeast China, which would be an economic disaster for China.

The reason that China does not want North Korea testing nuclear
weapons is simply because such tests provide the US with an excuse to
increase its military presence in the area.

The Chinese were particularly infuriated in 2016 when North Korean
tests provoked South Korea to reverse a previous policy and agree to
deploy the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD), supplied by the
United States military, to protect itself from North Korean missile
attacks. The THAAD does not do a very good job at protecting South
Korea from North Korean short-range missiles. But what the THAAD
system does, through its sophisticated long-range "over the horizon"
radar capabilities, is provide early warning to the American military
of a missile attack from China.

What China would like is for America to reduce its military presence
in the region, which a North Korean missile test would certainly
make less likely.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 07-Dec-2019 World View: North Korea missile test

Within the past couple of hours, North Korea has announced
a "very important test" at its long-range missile site:

https://www.ktre.com/2019/12/08/north-ko...tant-test/

North Korea says it carried out ‘very important test’

North Korea threatening US with ‘Christmas gift’

December 7, 2019 at 8:11 PM CST - Updated December 7 at 8:50 PM

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea said Sunday it carried out a
“very important test” at its long-range rocket launch site that will
have a key effect on the country’s strategic position.

The Korean Central News Agency said the test was conducted at the
Sohae Satellite Launching Ground on Saturday afternoon. It said that
the result of the test was reported to the Central Committee of the
ruling Workers’ Party.

The test results will have “an important effect on changing the
strategic position of (North Korea) once again in the near future,”
the agency reported.

The report didn’t say what the test was about. But media reports say a
new satellite image indicated North Korea may be preparing to resume
testing engines used to power satellite launchers at the site.

The reported test came as North Korea is stepping up pressure on the
U.S. to make concessions in stalled nuclear talks.

The U.N. bans North Korea from launching satellites because it is
considered a test of long-range missile technology.

After repeated failures, North Korea successfully put a satellite into
orbit for the first time in 2012 in a launch from the same site. North
Korea had another successful satellite launch in 2016.

At the United Nations, a statement released by North Korea’s
U.N. ambassador, Kim Song, said that denuclearization had “already
gone out of the negotiation table.” It said North Korea does not need
to have lengthy talks with the United States as the end-of-year
deadline set by its leader Kim Jong Un for substantial
U.S. concessions in nuclear diplomacy looms.

The statement accused the Trump administration of persistently
pursuing a “hostile policy” toward the country “in its attempt to
stifle it.” The ambassador also said Washington’s claims it is engaged
in a “sustained and substantial dialogue” with Pyongyang solely for
“its domestic political agenda.”

“We do not need to have lengthy talks with the U.S. now and the
denuclearization is already gone out of the negotiation table,” he
said.

Song’s statement was a response to Wednesday’s condemnation by six
European countries of North Korea’s 13 ballistic missile launches
since May. He accused the Europeans — France, Germany, Britain,
Belgium, Poland and Estonia — of playing “the role of pet dog of the
United States in recent months.” He called their statement “yet
another serious provocation” against North Korea’s “righteous measures
of strengthening national defense capabilities.”

“We regard their behavior as nothing more than a despicable act of
intentionally flattering the United States,” Song said.

Copyright 2019 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 9-Dec-19 World View -- Hong Kong holds massive peaceful pro-democracy demonstration

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Hong Kong holds massive peaceful pro-democracy demonstration
  
• Protesters renew their 'five demands, not one less' chants
  
• The CCP fights the democracy 'ideology' with the Patriotic Education Campaign
  

****
**** Hong Kong holds massive peaceful pro-democracy demonstration
****


Hong Kong November 24 election -- summary of results

Hong Kongers filled the streets on Sunday with a massive peaceful
pro-democracy demonstration. According to organizers, the size
of the protest was 800,000, although the police estimated 300,000.
Unlike other recent protests, the crowd was filled with children and
families, and there was almost no violence.

In previous recent demonstrations, protesters have vandalized public
buildings belonging to the government or private buildings belonging
to mainland businesses. The also blocked streets and shut down the
public transit system. This has had the effect, since the protests
began six months ago, of bringing Hong Kong's economy to its knees,
as the protests became more violent each week.

However, Sunday's protests were like the initial peaceful
demonstrations six months ago. Furthermore, activists had called for
a citywide strike on Monday, but no such strike occurred.

Pro-democracy demonstrators were apparently placated by the November
24 local council elections, where pro-democracy candidates won a
stunning landslide victory, as summarized by the chart above. More
than half of the 452 seats switched from pro-Beijing to pro-democracy,
giving pro-democratic forces control of 17 out of 18 district
councils. The election also saw record high voter turnout with 4.1
million registered voters, a 71% increase since the last election
cycle in 2015.

****
**** Protesters renew their 'five demands, not one less' chants
****

While Sunday's protests were peaceful, it was undoubtedly infuriating
to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials in Beijing that many
protesters were waving US flags and singing "Glory to Hong Kong."

The original protests were triggered by a proposed "extradition bill"
that would have allowed any Hong Kong citizens accused of a crime to
be extradited to China with no hearing, where they would be at the
complete mercy of the CCP, and it's record of torture and indefinite
jailing for anything deemed to be political opposition to the CCP.

Hong Kong's leader, Carrie Lam, took several months to agree to
withdraw the extradition bill. Some people believe that if she had
taken that step immediately, then the protests would have fizzled.
But the long delays triggered increasingly strident demands, and the
number of demands increased to five.

The five demands are as follows: withdraw the extradition bill
completely (this has been accomplished); do not classify past
demonstrations as riots; drop all charges against those arrested in
relation to the protests; set up an independent commission to
investigate the use of force by the police; and call for fully
democratic elections for the Legislative Council and the chief
executive.

The CCP will never agree to the last two of the demands. If the CCP
and Carrie Lam were smart, they would find a way to agree to the
second and third demands, as a way of reducing tensions. But as I've
said many times, the CCP do one stupid thing after another, and you
can be sure that whatever they do in Hong Kong will only make things
worse.

****
**** The CCP fights the democracy 'ideology' with the Patriotic Education Campaign
****

Instead, according to news reports, Carrie Lam has found the solution:
To increase patriotic education in schools, so that protesters will
understand the advantages of Communism.

The fact that CCP leaders even think that this kind of reeducation
program could ever work explains how stupid CCP officials are, and why
they consistently get everything wrong. This is such an incredibly
stupid idea, that only the CCP would think of it. It's like trying to
end race riots in the United States by teaching black children in
schools how to be more white.

CCP officials do not view "democracy" as a form of government.
They view it as an ideology that is opposed to the communist ideology
and can bring down the CCP, just as it brought down the Soviet
Communist Party in 1991. The CCP view is that they must crush
the democracy ideology, or the democracy ideology will crush them.

After the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests and the
subsequent massacres of thousands of college students by security
police, the CCP saw that the use of the democracy "ideology" brought
about the 1991 collapse of Soviet communism, and they realized that it
might happen to them.

In the 1990s, the CCP launched the Patriotic Education Campaign, a
propaganda campaign designed to teach school students to reject the
"democracy" ideology, and instead to adopt a highly vitriolic form of
anti-Japan hatred as the ideology replacing the democracy ideology.
As I explained in detail in my book, "War between China and Japan,"
this vitriolic and nationalistic campaign anti-Japan hate campaign,
which has continued to today, is the crucible of the coming war
between China and Japan.

At the same time in the 1990s, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
began to take on a whole new and far darker and more sinister meaning.
Any criticism of the CCP leadership could lead to torture, rape and
jailing. Any serious adoption of any religious "ideology"
(Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Daoism) would be treated the same way.

So today, the CCP sees the hated democracy "ideology" rapidly
gaining ground in Hong Kong and Taiwan. However, they don't know
what to do about it since, as stupid as the CCP leaders are, even they
realize that a violent response in Hong Kong could trigger a widespread
rebellion among Cantonese speakers in southern China, and a military
invasion of Taiwan would trigger a war with the United States that
they're not yet fully prepared for.

So the peaceful demonstrations this weeked were a welcome respite from
the violence, and most people hope that the peace will last a while.
However, 2020 promises to be a time of renewed violence in Hong Kong,
and the CCP will be running out of options.

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/dp/1732738637/

Sources:

• Hong Kong Election Results (Maps On The Web, 28-Nov-2019)
  
• Biggest Hong Kong Protest in Months Signals More Unrest in 2020 (Bloomberg, 8-Dec-2019)
  
• Beijing’s Solution to Hong Kong’s Protests: More Patriotism (Atlantic, 8-Dec-2019)
  
• What people in Hong Kong are saying after six months of demonstrations (Reuters, 8-Dec-2019)
  
• Hong Kong protesters stay at home as citywide strike turns out to be non-event, day after hundreds of thousands took to streets in peaceful protest (South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 9-Dec-2019)
  
• Hong Kong sees biggest protests since democrats' election boost (Reuters, 8-Dec-2019)
  
• Hong Kong march: Thousands join largest pro-democracy rally in months (BBC, 8-Dec-2019)
  
• Hong Kong will never be Macau. Beijing’s comparison of the two shows it is in denial (South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 9-Dec-2019)

Related Articles:

• Historic Hong Kong elections throw relations with China mainland into disarray (25-Nov-2019)
  
  
• UK-China war of words escalates sharply over Hong Kong riots (04-Jul-2019)
  
  
• Hong Kong protests show historic split between northern and southern China (22-Jun-2019)
  
  
• China's 'Anti-secession law' provokes massive Taiwan riots (27-Mar-2005)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Hong Kong, five demands,
extradition bill, democracy ideology, Carrie Lam,
Tiananmen Square massacre, Soviet Union collapse,
Patriotic Education Campaign, Taiwan,
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

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]

** 09-Dec-2019 World View: Start of World War III

Trevor Wrote:> Sometimes I wonder what's holding China back from attacking
> us. They're currently capable of pushing us out of the South and
> East China Sea. Whether they could hold the line against our
> current capabilities. . . not sure. I know not everything is
> public knowledge.

I think you're contemplating a Pearl Harbor style attack. I know you
have my book on war between China and Japan, and in the chapters on
theory of war, I describe how world wars start -- usually with some
trivial military clash that escalates. The massive attacks come
later. The attack on Pearl Harbor came four years after war had
already begun between Japan and China.

Right now, the populations of many countries have become extremely
nationalistic and xenophobic. This is in contrast to the 1990s, when
the WW II survivors were running things. At that time, a minor
military clash would fizzle quickly, while today it would be much more
likely to escalate.

So I expect WW III to begin with some small confrontation that
escalates, with nuclear weapons not used until months or years later.
This could happen, for example, in Kashmir, the South China Sea, or
the Mideast.

The most interesting example of such a possible confrontation would be
a clash between Chinese and Japanese assets in Central Asia. Since no
one in the West pays any attention to Central Asia, such a
confrontation could escalate to a small war, and the West would be so
consumed with Brexit and impeachment that they wouldn't even know it
was happening. This would be an example of a scenario that could lead
to WW III, as both China and Japan bring in reinforcements and have a
small war for several months. At that point, China might decide to
end the war once and for all by a nuclear attack on Japan, warning the
US not to interfere. Within a few more days or weeks, China might
attack the US -- and this would be the analog to the Pearl Harbor
attack.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 09-Dec-2019 World View: Japan vs China in Central Asia

Xeraphim1 Wrote:> I don't think Japan would risk war with China over Central
> Asia. Too much risk for too little reward and Japan has been very
> low risk in foreign policy over the past 70 years and Japan has
> little ability to project force outside it's immediate
> neighborhood. They might go to war over the Senkaku Islands but I
> doubt anything further away.

> Considering the number of US forces in Japan and the fact that the
> US and Japan share many bases, any Chinese attack on Japan would
> kill American forces. The US would not be able to stay out of the
> conflict even if it wanted to. That is the ultimate brake on
> Chinese ambitions that doesn't exist in the South China Sea. The
> Philippines would have been wise to not listen to the leftists in
> kicking the US out of Subic Bay and Clarke. China would have
> thought twice or thrice about steeling territory with a major US
> base just a couple hundred km away.

The problem with arguments like this is that they're too logical in a
generational Crisis era. If Japan came to the aid of Japanese
businesses in Central Asia, then they wouldn't do a risk-reward
analysis.

Let's take an example. Japan Tobacco International (JTI) claims to be
the leading tobacco company in Kazakhstan, with offices, a factory,
and hundreds of employees in the country.

There are also Chinese enclaves in Kazakhstan. Let's suppose that a
Chinese and a Japanese got into a fistfight in Kazakhstan. Suppose
that the Chinese community violently attacked a JTI office in
retaliation. (This kind of things happens frequently in China). JTI
asks for protection, and Japan sends a few security personnel. China
counters with a few army personnel. There's some local fighting
between the Japanese and Chinese forces.

There's a temporary truce, but both sides bring in more soldiers. A
month later there's a new clash. Both sides send in more forces. The
clashes spread to other Japanese businesses and Chinese businesses.
The escalation continues.

This is how these wars start. No one makes a conscious, reasoned
decision to start a war. This is how WW I started, this is how WW II
started. In recent times, this is how Israel's 2006 invasion of
Lebanon started, although that fizzed out because Lebanon was in a
generational Awakening era.

This is all a made-up scenario, but this is how WW III is going to
start. Not with a massive missile attack on the US, but with some
minor clash that grows over a period of months, and finally explodes.

[pbrower2a]

Correction: there is no written order by Hitler calling for the Holocaust, although the level of coordination among all aspects of upper German government at the time leaves no doubt that the Holocaust could have been done only with the overt consent of the Fuehrer.

[Tim Randal Walker]

There is now a military build up in Japan. They are building aircraft carriers. I came across a reference to another project-a land based anti-ship missile (fwhich could be deployed to the island countries of east Asia). I came across a reference to a "hypersonic glide bomb".

It has been known that the Japanese have the technical resources to readily construct a nuclear bomb. I suspect that they started that project awhile back when North Korea flew a missile over Japan.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 10-Dec-2019 World View: Japan military buildup

(12-10-2019, 11:59 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: > There is now a military build up in Japan. They are building
> aircraft carriers. I came across a reference to another project-a
> land based anti-ship missile (fwhich could be deployed to the
> island countries of east Asia). I came across a reference to a
> "hypersonic glide bomb".

> It has been known that the Japanese have the technical resources
> to readily construct a nuclear bomb. I suspect that they started
> that project awhile back when North Korea flew a missile over
> Japan.

The Japanese don't need me or anyone else to tell them that the
Chinese have spent the last 30 years teaching a vitriolic
nationalistic anti-Japan Patriotic Education Campaign ideology
campaign in their schools, and that the Chinese are preparing for war
with Japan.

There's still a strong "pacifist" constituency in Japan that wants to
stay away from nuclear weapons, and only permit military engagements
for defense when Japanese soil is attacked. Shinzo Abe has managed to
whittle away at that by reinterpreting the "self-defense" to mean
"collective self-defense," which means that Japan can take action when
an ally (the US) is attacked.


---- Related Articles:

** 8-Apr-18 World View -- US will sell submarine technology to Taiwan, as Japan launches first marine brigade since end of WW II
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e180408


** 13-Aug-17 World View -- Japan will shoot down N. Korean missiles via 'collective self-defense'
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e170813

[pbrower2a]

(12-10-2019, 11:59 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: There is now a military build up in Japan.  They are building aircraft carriers.  I came across a reference to another project-a land based anti-ship missile (which could be deployed to the island countries of east Asia).  I came across a reference to a "hypersonic glide bomb".

It has been known that the Japanese have the technical resources to readily construct a nuclear bomb.  I suspect that they started that project awhile back when North Korea flew a missile over Japan.

About thirty years ago the Japanese government warned that it would secure nuclear weapons in the event that North Korea developed or stole them. At the time there was no protest from any of the then-current "nuclear club" (that then included the Soviet Union). I am guessing that the Japanese could have bought Soviet nukes or hired Soviet physicists and engineers to develop nukes suitable to Japanese military specifications. There was no protest even from China. 

Any North Korean nuclear missile that flies over Chinese, Russian, or Canadian territory to the US mainland is a death warrant for the North Korean regime.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 12-Dec-2019 World View: Boris Johnson / Tories win overwhelming victory - Brexit now certain

The polls closed in Britain a few minutes ago, and exit polls indicate
an overwhelming victory of Boris Johnson's Conservative (Tory) party.
He will have 368 MPs, which is 86 above the minimum required for a
majority.

Assuming that the exit polls hold, Brexit in January is now all but
certain -- Britain will come out of the European Union.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labor party suffered a disastrous loss, with only 191
MPs. Corbyn is a super-obnoxious Socialist, and so this result may
have implications for the US elections next year.

The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), which is restricted to Scotland,
will have 55 MPs, which is a lot for the SNP.

This will give the nationalists in Scotland a reason to push for a new
referendum for Scotland to secede from the UK. However, this will be
complicated by the fact that even if Scotland secedes from the UK,
there's no guarantee that Scotland will be able to join the EU.

[Warren Dew]

(12-12-2019, 05:17 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: He will have 368 MPs, which is 86 above the minimum required for a
majority.

Minor correction:  it would have been an 86 seat majority, but that's only 43 more than required.  43 more than required for him also subtracts 43 from his opponents, which is what makes it an 86 seat majority.

The rest of the post is undoubtedly correct, though Corbyn was more outspoken about being a socialist than Warren was.

[David Horn]

(12-13-2019, 01:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-12-2019, 05:17 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: He will have 368 MPs, which is 86 above the minimum required for a
majority.

Minor correction:  it would have been an 86 seat majority, but that's only 43 more than required.  43 more than required for him also subtracts 43 from his opponents, which is what makes it an 86 seat majority.

The rest of the post is undoubtedly correct, though Corbyn was more outspoken about being a socialist than Warren was.

Corbyn also seemed unable to be pro-anything, and topped it off with a reputation for being anti-Semitic.  He couldn't even state his position on Brexit.  In short, Labour got the drubbing they deserved, but don't assume it means all that much here in 2020.  On he other hand, if it is truly a harbinger, then we know where the 4t is going this time.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 13-Dec-2019 World View: Where is 4t going?

(12-13-2019, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: > On he other hand, if it is truly a harbinger, then we know where
> the 4t is going this time.

We do? Where is the 4t going this time?

[Warren Dew]

(12-13-2019, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: Corbyn also seemed unable to be pro-anything, and topped it off with a reputation for being anti-Semitic.  He couldn't even state his position on Brexit.  In short, Labour got the drubbing they deserved, but don't assume it means all that much here in 2020.  On he other hand, if it is truly a harbinger, then we know where the 4t is going this time.

Corbyn was very pro socialism.  He didn't have a position on Brexit because he didn't care; what was important to him was that the UK be socialist, Brexit or no Brexit.