Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

** 02-Sep-2019 World View: Xinhua Hong Kong 'threat"

Guest Wrote:> https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Hong-K...protesters

> Xinhua warns 'end is coming' for Hong Kong protesters. Chinese
> state media blasts West for attempting to 'kidnap' the
> city

Quote:> The commentary said three lines must not be crossed: no one
> should harm Chinese sovereignty, challenge the power of the
> central authorities or use Hong Kong to infiltrate and undermine
> the mainland.

> "Anyone who dares to infringe upon these bottom lines and
> interfere in or damage the 'one country, two systems' principle
> will face nothing but failure," the piece declared. "They should
> never misjudge the determination and ability of the central
> government... to safeguard the nation's sovereignty, security and
> core interests.

Reading through the article quoting Xinhua, it looks like BS to me.

First, the three "red lines" are completely meaningless, or mean
whatever the CCP wants them to mean on any given day. It looks like
the article author was ordered to include some "red lines," and just
used some boilerplate that popped into his head.

Second, the warnings contain no threats whatsoever. It reminds me of
when the UN Security Council says that some behavior is
"unacceptable," and, if the behavior continues, threatens to hold
another Security Council meeting.

The article looks like desperation to me. The CCP have no idea what
to do. As stupid as CCP officials are, even they can see that there
is no path that wins, and lots of paths that lose.

On the other hand, you can't overestimate the stupidity of the CCP, so
anything could happen.

[pbrower2a]

1. Nobody is threatening the sovereignty of China with these protests. Nobody seems to want the PRC to disintegrate or to have it partitioned.

2. One country, two systems is the best that the Communist Party of China could have gotten in 1997. The alternatives would have been either to maintain colonial rule, turn Hong Kong over to the Republic of China, or to grant the city independence.

3. Nobody among the protesters seems to want to impose the Hong Kong political system upon the whole of China, even if such would be an improvement for the political life of most Chinese.

The Chinese Communist Party abandoned Marxist economics without abandoning the dictatorship.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 02-Sep-2019 World View: Carrie Lam's anguish in Hong Kong

As I wrote a month ago, I saw Carrie Lam give a press conference,
almost in tears, saying "this is very dangerous for Hong Kong, the
city we love, the city we built."

On Monday, Carrie Lam was addressing a group of businesspeople in Hong
Kong, and her anguish has clearly turned to anger, mostly at herself
at having failed Hong Kong and its people (and also probably at the
CCP, for forcing her into this situation).

She expressed deep regret by trying to pass the extradition bill that
triggered the protests:

Quote: "This is not something instructed, coerced by the
central government. ... This has proven to be very unwise given
the circumstances. And this huge degree of fear and anxiety
amongst people of Hong Kong vis-à-vis the mainland of China, which
we were not sensitive enough to feel and grasp. ...

For a chief executive to have caused this huge havoc to Hong Kong
is unforgivable. ...

If I have a choice, the first thing is to quit, having made a deep
apology."

Lam was confirming unconfirmed reports that she had wante to resign
weeks early, but had been blocked from doing so by the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) in Beijing. Her personal bitterness with her
remarks about how the crisis has affected her daily life:

Quote: "Nowadays it is extremely difficult for me to go out.
I have not been on the streets, not in shopping malls, can’t go to
a hair salon. I can’t do anything because my whereabouts will be
spread around social media.

[If I were to appear in public] you could expect a big crowd of
black T-shirts and black-masked young people waiting for
me."

Lam says that Beijing is running out of options, but said Beijing had
not yet imposed any deadline for ending the crisis ahead of National
Day celebrations scheduled for October 1. And she said China had
“absolutely no plan” to deploy army troops on Hong Kong streets, as
happened in the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

Beijing is scheduled to hold a press conference on Hong Kong on
Tuesday at 3 am ET (3 pm in Hong Kong). I intend to be sound asleep
at that time, so if anyone else is awake, feel free to post a report
on the press conference.


---- Source:

-- Special Report: Hong Kong leader says she would 'quit' if she
could, fears her ability to resolve crisis now 'very limited'
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongk...SKCN1VN1DU
(Reuters, 2-Sep-2019)

[Warren Dew]

China apparently announced that they were ready to intervene militarily. There was some mention, I'm not sure on whose part, that the Hong Kong basic law permitted Hong Kong to request emergency help from China. I'm not sure whether that means they would wait for Lam to ask for the military, or whether they were saying they might just go in and quash the protests.

In the photos I have seen, all the protesters at this point are young people. To me, this looks more like a 2T protest than a 4T protest. John, is there any precedent for 4T crises to look like that in the early stages?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 03-Sep-2019 World View: Young people rioting in Hong Kong

(09-03-2019, 07:52 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > China apparently announced that they were ready to intervene
> militarily. There was some mention, I'm not sure on whose part,
> that the Hong Kong basic law permitted Hong Kong to request
> emergency help from China. I'm not sure whether that means they
> would wait for Lam to ask for the military, or whether they were
> saying they might just go in and quash the protests.

> In the photos I have seen, all the protesters at this point are
> young people. To me, this looks more like a 2T protest than a 4T
> protest. John, is there any precedent for 4T crises to look like
> that in the early stages?

I've always thought of rioting as a "young man's game," but you make a
good point that the Hong Kong protesters seem exceptionally young, as
if it were a second turning Awakening era, like America in the 1960s,
or like the recent anti-government riots in Iran.

I think that it can be thought of as an Awakening era following the
Hong Kong handover in 1997. If we think of the handover as a kind of
"crisis climax," then the first turning Recovery era was spent by
everyone trying to adjust to the Beijing government. Now the
generation of kids growing up after the handover are coming of age and
making themselves heard as in every Awakening era, as in America in
the 1960s.

We've seen from the 58-year Hypothesis that we can have several
"turning timelines" going on at once. The 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic
led to the 1976 Swine Flu false panic. The 1929 global financial
panic led to the 1987 false financial panic. The 1945 nuking of
Hiroshima led to the 2003 WMD panic and the Iraq war, and the start of
the fourth turning. All of these timelines are going on
simultaneously.

So the interesting question is whether all of these 58-year timelines
have identifiable turnings. Let's take the 2018 Spanish Flu pandemic
as an example. I'm just guessing here, but during the first turning
Recovery era, which would run through the 1920s, I assume that
government agencies and medical organizations would be taking steps to
prevent a new pandemic. But would there also be something
corresponding a second turning Awakening era? There were all sorts of
left-wing riots and violence during the 1930s, but were any of them
motivated by anti-government protests that they weren't being
sufficiently protected from the flu? I don't know, but it would be an
interesting thing for a college student to investigate for his thesis.

So anyway we have an Awakening-type era going on in Hong Kong today,
22 years after the handover, and young people are protesting.

There's another reason for young people in Hong Kong to panic. They
know that the "one country, two systems" agreement expires in 2047,
well within the lifetimes of Hong Kong's young people, and then they
will lose all their special rights and just become fully subject to
the CCP bashing. That would be enough to make anyone panic.

[Warren Dew]

Okay, so there's a climax in 1997 for Hong Kong, but it was peaceful because it happened in an unraveling instead of in a crisis era. To the younger generation, that makes no difference, because they don't remember whether climaxes are peaceful or not.

So the younger generation is rebelling against the "high" following 1997; they're tired of the mainland rule and want full democracy. I could see that.

And they aren't being coopted by the previous generation of idealists, because the cycle was disrupted in 1997?

What I'm trying to figure out is whether these protests fizzle or precipitate a crisis. If Beijing steps in militarily, do they successfully suppress it the way authoritarian governments seem to be able to suppress awakening rebellions? Or does it set off a full scale revolt, in which southern China would participate?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 04-Sep-2019 World View: Hong Kong's secondary cycle

(09-04-2019, 01:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Okay, so there's a climax in 1997 for Hong Kong, but it was
> peaceful because it happened in an unraveling instead of in a
> crisis era. To the younger generation, that makes no difference,
> because they don't remember whether climaxes are peaceful or not.

> So the younger generation is rebelling against the "high"
> following 1997; they're tired of the mainland rule and want full
> democracy. I could see that.

> And they aren't being coopted by the previous generation of
> idealists, because the cycle was disrupted in 1997?

> What I'm trying to figure out is whether these protests fizzle or
> precipitate a crisis. If Beijing steps in militarily, do they
> successfully suppress it the way authoritarian governments seem to
> be able to suppress awakening rebellions? Or does it set off a
> full scale revolt, in which southern China would
> participate?

Jumping ahead to the final answer, the Hong Kong protests are kids
having fun, with no desire for war or a violent coup. If there's a
full-scale revolt, it will come from southern China, perhaps triggered
by the Hong Kong protests. However, even if that doesn't happen, the
Hong Kong protests won't fizzle.

For example America's anti Vietnam war protests in the 1960s-70s
continued for 15 years. So the Hong Kong protests won't just fizzle,
but could continue for many years, unless the CCP stops them by force.

However, there's an important distinction. America's anti Vietnam war
protests could reach a natural climax -- Nixon resigns and the war
ends.

But there's no similar climax possible for the Hong Kong protests.
Even if Carrie Lam steps down, it wouldn't make any difference. The
problem is that is each one of those kids protesting in Hong Kong is
thinking something like, "How can I get married and have kids and a
family, if I'm dooming my children and grandchildren to be completely
trapped by the CCP dictators in 2047? How can I bring kids into the
world under those conditions?"

This is undoubtedly a major anxiety for many Hong Kong kids, and the
anxiety will just get worse and worse as each year goes by. So
there's really no hope that the protests will ever just fizzle.

Today's announcement by Carrie Lam of the formal withdrawal of the
extradition bill, after refusing to do so for months, is a major
humiliation for the CCP, and a major victory for the protesters. This
will energize the pro-democracy protesters in both Hong Kong and
Taiwan.

Returning now to the core theory, they're not co-opting the war cycle,
but they're coexisting with it. If you think of the Spanish Flu
example, it didn't have any effect on World War II, and yet the 1976
Swine Flu panic still occurred after 58 years, and so both cycles
coexisted. The war cycle might be thought of as a "dominant cycle,"
while the Spanish Flu cycle is a "secondary cycle."

The Spanish Flu example is a one-time event, and a more interesting
example is 1929 crash, which led to a false panic in 1987.

Global financial crises seem to have their own repeating cycles. The
bubble grows through massive creation of money through securitization
of debt, and the bubble collapses when things like margin calls cause
a chain of bankruptcies. The major major debt bubbles are:

* How money is "created": Securitization of debt
* Tulipomania - 1637 - Tulip future shares
* South Sea Bubble - 1721 - South Sea shares
* Bankruptcy of French Monarchy - 1789 - 'assignats'
* Panic of 1857 - Railway Shares
* Panic of 1929 - Foreign bonds and stock shares

This is a repeating set of cycles which is secondary to the war cycle.
One might picture it as follows:

• Two sine waves with the same frequency and amplitude but
  different phases. The blue wave represents the war cycle, which is
  dominant, and the red wave represents the financial crisis cycle,
  which is the secondary cycle

As the above diagram suggests, the global financial crisis cycle and
the war cycle operate independently. One does not cancel the other,
but the war cycle is dominant (for a given country) and the global
financial crisis is secondary. There is a difference between the two
cycles, not really conveyed by the above diagram. By the Principle of
Localization, there are multiple war cycles, one for each country or
society, and countries like Iran, Syria, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam
and others have different war cycles from the West. However, the
global financial crisis is mostly universal.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 05-Sep-2019 World View: Winning the trade war?

guest Wrote:> Hi John. Who do you think is winning the trade war?

> Mohammed El-Arian says Trump is winning, but the MSM says America
> is dying "because of Trump's tariffs".

> What is your opinion?

What does "winning" mean? Here's what we know: China won't give up
cheating and extortion at trade, and stealing intellectual property.
Trump won't agree to a trade deal unless China gives up those things.
There's no chance that either side will back down.

China is now planning for a new US president in 2020, so that things
will return to "normal" -- i.e., China could continue cheating and
extortion at trade, and stealing intellectual property with impunity,
since the new president will just go along, like Obama, Bush, Clinton,
and Bush. However, most Democrats (like Chuck Shumer) have encouraged
Trump, and I doubt that a different president could say, "OK, China,
go ahead with cheating, extorting and stealing. It's fine with me."

So China and the US are at a total impasse that can only be resolved
by war.

So who's winning the trade war?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 05-Sep-2019 World View: Merging timelines

Quote:> By the Principle of Localization, there are multiple war cycles,
> one for each country or society, and countries like Iran, Syria,
> Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and others have different war cycles
> from the West. However, the global financial crisis is mostly
> universal.

Guest Wrote:> Yeah, but now we are living in a 'globalized world', so wouldn't
> that affect the war cycles? Wouldn't they start to
> converge?

You're right. Particularly in the last century, most countries merged
into what I call the "World War I timeline" and the "World War II
timeline." However there are variations even within those two large
groupings. The five countries that I listed above all had their
generational crisis wars in the 70s and 80s, so they're on a different
timeline from most other countries.

[Tim Randal Walker]

A friend of mine described Chinese exports as "cheap trinkets". This obviously is not stuff that the United States is dependent on. (Quite unlike the situation with the OPEC oil embargo). It is very easy to imagine getting this kind of stuff from Mexico.

In terms of money the U.S. has a humungous trade deficit with China. Financially, China is much more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is dependent on China. A trade war may bring economic pain to some U.S. industries, but over all the United States has the advantage.

I don't think the Chinese quite grasp something important...just how little enthusiasm Americans have for globalization.

[David Horn]

(09-05-2019, 11:36 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A friend of mine described Chinese exports as "cheap trinkets".    This obviously is not stuff that the United States is dependent on.  (Quite unlike the situation with the OPEC oil embargo).  It is very easy to imagine getting this kind of stuff from Mexico.

In terms of money the U.S. has a humungous trade deficit with China.  Financially, China is much more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is dependent on China.  A trade war may bring economic pain to some U.S. industries, but over all  the United States has the advantage.

I don't think the Chinese quite grasp something important...just how little enthusiasm Americans have for globalization.

China hasn't been selling cheap trinkets for a while now.  What they sell is high quality final assembly (iPhones being a great example) and tech they've stolen from others (Huawei being a good example here).  Beyond that, they've purchased companies to get their tech (Volvo among others).  Remember, they have a first rate space program and make good military hardware too.

They are what we worried the USSR would become but never did.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I stand corrected.

If China is now exporting high end manufacturing goods, it follows that the U.S. would move to protect its own high end industries.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-05-2019, 01:55 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I stand corrected.

If China is now exporting high end manufacturing goods, it follows that the U.S. would move to protect its own high end industries.

Nope.  Trump's beef is specifically against China.  After the supply chains adjust, the the US will import stuff from Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, etc. etc. Trump will never, ever, interfere with the profits from his corporate buddies. The bring the jobs back is just pablum really. There are structural problems which is why the jobs aren't gonna come back.
Some of these are deskilled workforce, the healthcare system, and degraded infrastructure. These structural problems are just one reason why the Neoliberalism order is gonna crash and burn. The other factors are degraded customer base and climate change induced costs.

[Warren Dew]

(09-05-2019, 11:36 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I don't think the Chinese quite grasp something important...just how little enthusiasm Americans have for globalization.

China understands just fine; if it were just the economic issues at stake, China would be willing to level the playing field.

The issue is that people like Bolton and Pompeo insist that China compromise on national security issues as well.  I can't think of a case where a nation has compromised on national security issues.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 07-Sep-2019 Compromising on national security

(09-07-2019, 09:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The issue is that people like Bolton and Pompeo insist that China
> compromise on national security issues as well. I can't think of
> a case where a nation has compromised on national security issues.
>

Just off the top of my head:

• America compromised on national security issues when it allowed
  China for 30 years to cheat and extort on trade issues, and steal
  intellectual property.
  
  
• America compromised on national security issues when George Bush
  ended North Korean sanctions in 2007
  
  
• America compromised on national security issues when it signed the
  Iran nuclear treaty, after making one concession after another.
  
  
• America is compromising on national security issues right now with
  the faracical peace negotiations with the Taliban in
  Afghanistan.

I'm sure we can come up with a bunch more if we tried.

[pbrower2a]

(09-05-2019, 11:36 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A friend of mine described Chinese exports as "cheap trinkets".    This obviously is not stuff that the United States is dependent on.  (Quite unlike the situation with the OPEC oil embargo).  It is very easy to imagine getting this kind of stuff from Mexico.

I'm old enough to remember when cheap, shoddy stuff was often disparaged as "Made in Japan". Japanese manufactures became better, outpacing American manufactures in quantity and becoming applied to bitter-ticker items such as televisions.  With CRT televisions, there was a time when Sony Trinitron was the one to get if you wanted something that had a chance of lasting fifty years. Well, obsolescence made a joke of that. The actor Patrick Stewart shocked his Hollywood buddies by driving a Honda Accord to the lot -- he could have bought any new car that he wanted except for a Duesenberg, and that only because it has not been manufactured for eighty years.  The Honda Accord is a perfectly good car, one that people have been known to keep for twenty years. (Whether the car was made in Japan or Ohio might be a different story). 

Then it was South Korea and Taiwan. Then China. Maybe Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia are next?  

Quote:In terms of money the U.S. has a humungous trade deficit with China.  Financially, China is much more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is dependent on China.  A trade war may bring economic pain to some U.S. industries, but over all  the United States has the advantage.

What Trump promised was that jobs would return to places like Rochester, New York; Youngstown, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Anderson, Indiana; St. Louis, Misery; and Camden, New Jersey. He promised much and will deliver far less -- lower real wages, more power to shareholders and corporate bureaucrats in business. The only job boom that I can imagine in Trump's America is in domestic servants, always a sign of a shrinking middle class and the filthy rich getting even more filthy-rich. .    

Quote:I don't think the Chinese quite grasp something important...just how little enthusiasm Americans have for globalization.

What it will take will be the disappearance of discount marketing in Big Box stores, with people being satisfied again to buy less at list price and make it last or do without -- as they did before Wal-Mart and K-Mart.

[Warren Dew]

(09-07-2019, 09:45 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 07-Sep-2019 Compromising on national security

(09-07-2019, 09:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   The issue is that people like Bolton and Pompeo insist that China
>   compromise on national security issues as well.  I can't think of
>   a case where a nation has compromised on national security issues.
>  

Just off the top of my head:

• America compromised on national security issues when it allowed
  China for 30 years to ... steal
  intellectual property.
  
  
• America compromised on national security issues when George Bush
  ended North Korean sanctions in 2007
  
  
• America compromised on national security issues when it signed the
  Iran nuclear treaty, after making one concession after another.
  
  
• America is compromising on national security issues right now with
  the faracical peace negotiations with the Taliban in
  Afghanistan.
  

I'm sure we can come up with a bunch more if we tried.

All this is true, and these were all mistakes.

[David Horn]

(09-08-2019, 10:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-07-2019, 09:45 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 07-Sep-2019 Compromising on national security

(09-07-2019, 09:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The issue is that people like Bolton and Pompeo insist that China compromise on national security issues as well.  I can't think of a case where a nation has compromised on national security issues.  

Just off the top of my head:

• America compromised on national security issues when it allowed China for 30 years to ... steal intellectual property.
  
• America compromised on national security issues when George Bush ended North Korean sanctions in 2007
  
• America compromised on national security issues when it signed the Iran nuclear treaty, after making one concession after another.
  
• America is compromising on national security issues right now with the faracical peace negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I'm sure we can come up with a bunch more if we tried.

All this is true, and these were all mistakes.

Mistakes? Yes. But why they were made is far more important. All were driven by money concerns to one degree or another. All were the result of even worse mistakes further in the past, though the willingness to give China free reign seems almost uniquely tied to commercial interests in the 1st world. Greed is greed.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 11-Sep-19 World View -- Donald Trump fires John Bolton over Afghanistan 'Peace Negotiations'

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Donald Trump fires John Bolton over Afghanistan 'Peace Negotiations'
  
• Donald Trump with Steve Bannon and John Bolton
  
• The Afghan 'peace negotiations'
  
• End of relationship with Breitbart
  

****
**** Donald Trump fires John Bolton over Afghanistan 'Peace Negotiations'
****


John Bolton


President Donald Trump fired National Security Advisor John Bolton
on Tuesday, asking for his resignation on Monday evening, and receiving
it on Tuesday morning.

There are reports that there was a very heated argument in the White
House on Monday evening, principally between Trump and Bolton, over
the collapse this weekend of the Afghanistan "peace negotiations" with
the Taliban.

As readers know, I evaluate policies and actions based on Generational
Dynamics principles. Left-wing and right-wing analyses are usually
delusional and idiotic, and usually turn out to be wrong more often
than right. I've written thousands of Generational Dynamics analyses
in 15 years, and they've been almost 100% correct. Unfortunately for
me, being right all the time when everyone else is wrong doesn't makes
me popular, but only makes me universally hated and shunned, but
that's the way the world is today. Maybe that's also why Bolton was
fired.

So I've had mixed emotions about John Bolton. Bolton has the most
realistic view of the world among the major figures in Washington,
Republican or Democrat, and having someone with a realistic view of
the world advising Trump is valuable. That doesn't mean that I would
agree with all of Bolton's recommended policies, and in fact I don't.
For example, Bolton's recommendations to force regime change in Iran
is overreach, and is clearly in conflict with the Generational
Dynamics view of Iran that I've been posting for years. But Bolton is
still one of the few people in Washington who know what's going on in
the world.

****
**** Donald Trump with Steve Bannon and John Bolton
****

My view of Trump has changed over time. During the election campaign
in 2015-16, it was initially clear every time Trump opened his mouth
that he had absolutely no clue what was going on in the world. But
then something very surprising and unexpected occurred -- Trump hired
Stephen K. Bannon as chairman of Donald Trump's campaign, and later as
Trump's principal adviser in the White House.

This is something I never dreamed would happen. I had worked off and
on with Bannon over a period of years, and he's an expert on both
military history and Generational Dynamics analysis. I was comforted
by the fact that Trump would be guided by one of the very few people
in Washington who knew what was going on in the world.

Even after Bannon left the White House, I wrote numerous articles
about how Trump's foreign policy actions were completely baffling to
the mainstream media, but made perfect sense once you understand
Generational Dynamics analyses, particularly China's plans for war.

Trump pursued extremely successful policies (though completely
baffling to the mainstream media) with respect to North Korea, China,
Russia, India, and others, and I've attributed this to his grasp of
the Generational Dynamics view of the world, that Bannon educated him
on, along with Bannon's knowledge of history and Trump's own "Art of
the Deal" instincts that have been so successful.

****
**** The Afghan 'peace negotiations'
****

That brings us to Trump's Afghanistan policy. Here's the NBC News
description of how John Bolton got fired:

<QUOTE>"Most recently, the two had clashed over Trump's
desire to have leaders of the Taliban visit Camp David in the days
before the Sept. 11 anniversary to finalize peace talks. The idea
was strongly opposed by Bolton, even as officials at the State
Department argued it could move the parties closer to an
agreement, officials said.

Bolton has been deeply skeptical of negotiations with the Taliban.
U.S. negotiators have been working under the president’s demand
that a drawdown occur before November 2020 when he’s up for
re-election."<END QUOTE>

One has to be careful referencing NBC news, since NBC news frequently
lies about White House news, in order to make Trump look bad. However,
other reports seen to confirm this explanation, so it's probably
safe to assume that it's true.

Reports indicate that there was a major disagreement in the
aftermath of the collapse of the Afghan war "peace negotiations,"
and the cancellation of last weekend's "secret meeting"
at Camp David with the Taliban and Afghanistan's president. Bolton
was opposed to the meeting, while Trump was apparently looking
for a photo op.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the Afghan "peace
talks" with the Taliban are completely farcical. The Taliban simply
want to get the Americans to withdraw, so that they can go back to
closing girls' schools and killing Hazaras. The Camp David photo op
was harmless, but silly.

My concern with the situation is not that Trump may have wanted the
meeting for domestic political purposes. My concern is that Bolton
was fired for telling Trump what was actually going on, even though
Bolton and Bannon and perhaps only one or two others are the only ones
in Washington that have any clue what's going on in the world. So
with Bolton fired, I'm not aware of anyone left in the White House who
knows what's going on in the world, beyond any simplistic fatuous
left-wing or right-wing ideological or political considerations.

Barack Obama never had any idea what was going on in the world, which
was particularly apparent when he appointed that idiot John Kerry as
Secretary of State. At the end of his term, Obama seemed to have no
more knowledge of the world than he did at the beginning.

Originally, it appeared that it would be the same for Trump, until he
hired Bannon as his principal advisor to educate him. Trump is still
on the correct path with China and North Korea, but with Bolton gone,
we may be returning to the same path as Obama, at least in
Afghanistan.

So the main problem in firing Bolton is not that Trump fired someone
who disagreed with him, but that Trump fired one of the very few
people in Washington who know what's going on in the world.

As for the situation in Afghanistan, Generational Dynamics analysis
makes it clear that there is no chance whatsoever for "peace" in
Afghanistan. A meeting at Camp David is just a meeting, and has no
relevance. But if all American troops withdraw, then the Taliban will
take over completely, as they did until they were dislodged by the
Americans in 2001. They would restore hardline jihadist policies,
such as closing girls' schools, and they would beat, rape and torture
the Hazaras and other ethnic enemies. They might even sponsor a new
bin Laden. The Chinese, who have been developing relationships with
the Taliban since 2017, would take over. Fair or not, like it or not,
America will be blamed for all of it. I think Bolton understands
that, but I don't know whether Trump does.

****
**** End of relationship with Breitbart
****

A number of people have asked me why I no longer cross-post articles
on the Breitbart news web site. This is a summary of what happened.

Starting in 2010, I posted over 3,000 articles on the Breitbart web
site. For a couple of years, they had almost no international
coverage at all on Breitbart, except for my articles. From 2011
through 2018, I posted one or two articles every day, 7 days a week,
365 days a year, missing only about 15 days during that entire eight
year period.

Frances Martel took over as editor of Breitbart international news
coverage in 2014. She and her staff knew little of international
events and issues, beyond the usual right-wing delusions, and so my
daily articles served to educate both her and her reporters about what
was actually going on in the world. (Both the left wing and the right
wing are totally delusional these days.)

And yet Martel always made it clear to me that she would never pay me
a penny for the articles I was writing for Breitbart, even though
Breitbart was making money from the ads that ran with my articles.

So a few months ago, I cross-posted an article as usual, but this one
announced my book, "War between China and Japan." Martel refused to
post the article unless I paid her for an "ad buy."

That was insulting and humiliating enough, but there's more. Last
year, when I posted the article announcing my Iran book, I estimate
that it resulted in 10-20 additional sales, so it was worth about $50
to me, give or take. I would have expected the same result from the
announcement of my China book.

I don't know how much this "ad buy" would have cost -- probably
hundreds or thousands of dollars -- but it's pretty clear to me that
running an ad on Breitbart is almost completely worthless. In fact,
if you look at the ads that they do run, they're almost all garbage.

So I've written thousands of articles for Martel, she got ad revenue
from the ads that ran alongside my articles, I educated her and her
staff about international events, and she refused to pay me a penny.
And then she insulted me further by demanding that I pay hundreds or
thousands of dollars for a worthless "ad buy," after all I'd done for
her, over a period of many years. I did a lot of work for Martel and
Breitbart, and they made money from me, but refused to pay me a penny.
I wasn't expecting to be treated as a hero, but Martel and Breitbart
treated me as a piece of garbage, and I certainly deserved better than
that. But with Gen-Xers in charge, that's the way the world is today.

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

John Xenakis is author of: "World View: Iran's Struggle for Supremacy
-- Tehran's Obsession to Redraw the Map of the Middle East"
(Generational Theory Book Series, Book 1) Paperback: 153 pages, over
100 source references, $7.00, https://www.amazon.com/World-View-Suprem...732738610/

Sources:

• Trump fires John Bolton as national security adviser (NBCNews, 10-Sep-2019)
  
• Afghanistan / Trump says he canceled peace talks with Taliban over attack (Reuters, 7-Sep-2019)
  
• Afghanistan / Taliban / US-Taleban talks: An imminent agreement without peace? (AfghanistanAnalysts, 30-Aug-2019)
  
• Afghanistan peace talks open way for China's Belt and Road (Nikkei, 27-Aug-2019)
  
• Afghanistan / A Deal With the Taliban Is Only the First Step Toward Peace (ForeignAffairs, 5-Sep-2019)

Related Articles:

• New head of US Central Command says Afghanistan war is unsustainable (06-Dec-2018)
  
  
• Afghanistan's president Ghani announces ceasefire with Taliban (20-Aug-2018)
  
  
• Afghan Taliban launches multiple terror attacks, then declares farcical ceasefire (10-Jun-2018)
  
  
• American army general warns of imminent defeat in Afghanistan war (26-Sep-2009)
  
  
• Afghan peace talks collapse day after they're announced (20-Jun-2013)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Donald Trump, John Bolton,
Afghanistan, Taliban, Stephen K. Bannon, China, North Korea,
Camp David, John Kerry, Hazaras,
Breitbart News, Frances Martel

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

[Warren Dew]

I feel the same as you about Bolton. I think he pushed things too far with Afghanistan, though; he almost certainly leaked to sabotage the Camp David meeting.

If we had a peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban would take over, sure. But so what? This is the place where it costs us $1000 to get a gallon of gasoline in to fuel our tanks. It's an expensive place for us to keep a military presence, and as a landlocked nation, it has zero fundamental geopolitical importance to us.

Yes, Bin Laden launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan. He could just as easily have done it from Pakistan, though, where he hid for years. If the Taliban agreed not to harbor international terrorists, which they probably don't want to do any more anyway, that would satisfy the only possible interest the US had in the place. Some sort of enforcement mechanism would be nice, but having had to fight for two decades the first time they did it would probably be deterrence enough.

I would agree it would have been better if Bolton had been able ultimately to support the President on this, and stayed in the administration.