21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by FishbellykanakaDude » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:29 am

..gah,... that's some "stayed up a little TOO long!" kinda poetry, right there, don'tcha know!

Woof....

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by FishbellykanakaDude » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:10 am

John wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > I'm not buying your self-characterization, buckeroo! :)

> You do see the inevitable, but you also leave "wriggle room" to
> allow for a "worthwhile outcome" for the world after the
> aforementioned "inevitable".

> If you didn't, you simply wouldn't bother publishing this copious
> amount of hard gathered information.
The first thing for you to understand is that you (I mean you
personally) often apply rational reasoning to irrational events. ...

So when you attribute rational reasons to my remark about "fatalism,"
you're overlooking irrational reasons like the fact that at my age, I
personally have no desire to even try to survive, and even if I could
survive, the level of discomfort would not make it worthwhile for me.
Surviving generational crisis wars and rebuilding the world is for
young people, not for old people.
(( Firstly, YES,.. I reversed the meaning of "Fatalism". I hate booboo's like that! ))

I my opinion (which I'll stop saying now, as that's always the case..) the "irrational" and the "rational" each have a logic, though not a "meta-rationality", of their own.

The characteristic within "some phenomenon" to look for is it's LOGIC, and not it's rationality. The irrational is quite often quite logical. What GD gives you is the "end state" of the apparently weird situation your looking at.

Before WWII, you would have deduced the "inevitable parts" of the situation (war), and you would have found the logic as to why it would unfold, but no one can deduce the triggers that WILL set off the chain reaction (unless they have MONSTROUS amounts of insider info at ridiculously high resolution).

My "sense" (spidey sense?) picked up a large measure of "Like I Care!?" fatigue in your post(s), and being the hyper-optimist that I am, I had to come to your "defense" against the "any excuse for a reason to be depressed" squad.

I know you don't need little ol' me on the defensive perimeter, but that's part of MY compulsion. :)
The second thing you have to understand is that I believe everything
I write. This may seem like a remarkable thing to say, but in my
experience, most people don't, especially in politics or the media.
I believe that people think that they believe what they say, but upon pressing them (usually by asking them to define their terms), it turns out they haven't actually thought about the reasons they believe what they do.

Casandra HAD to believe what she saw, as that was part of the deal. Only someone who actually says only what they believe is capable of developing "insight" into the "unseen world", as is accomplished with GD theory. There's not enough motivational pressure to keep digging if you don't publicly SAY what you find.

What is Cassandra without a tongue to speak? A stone. An uninteresting stone.
....
On the other hand, I've changed my entire life since I began
this project, starting in 2005 with selling my condo at the
height of the real estate bubble.

Then there's the related issue that I'm obsessed. The obsession is
irrational, but like all obsessions it can be justified by reason,
given the seriousness of the situation. It's also justified by the
fact that it's really cool to know more about what's going on in the
world than almost anyone else in the world.
..and we're back to Cassandra. :)
This may seem like a bold conclusion, but it comes from 2007 articles in the London Times and
the Congressional Quarterly that show that even long-standing experts on the Mideast couldn't answer simple questions like, "Is al-Qaeda Sunni or Shiite?"
Never trust a non-obsessive in any technical field. Period. I was never an obsessive in any way, other than being obsessive about NEVER becoming obsessive. It's a "child of a child of an alcoholic" thing. You wouldn't understand, perhaps. <sardonic chuckle>
Not being able to answer a question like that is like saying you're a
mathematician, but you don't know whether 2+2 equals 3 or 4. ...
..well, that's CERTAINLY close enough, since the 3 MAY be identifying as a 4, and the 4 is probably bi-numeral.
The key to understanding this is that after 15 years of doing this,
and almost 6,000 articles and Generational Dynamics analyses, all of
which have turned out to be true or are trending true, I've come to
the conclusion that I know what's going to happen more than any
politicians, journalists or analysts do, that politicians have no
effect on anything, that political objectives are never more than pure
wishful thinking, and that what's going to happen is going to happen,
irrespective of what the politicians say or do.

That's what fatalism means. What's going to happen is going to
happen. And what you describe as "wriggle room" are just relatively
insignificant details in the entire scheme of things.
Firstly, yes, that is what fatalism is. It's not a negative outlook when it's applied to reality.
Secondly, the "wriggle room" of details around the interfaces of catastrophic events is where humanity lives.

It's the pressure cooker of true humanity, and true human degenerate evil. It's the tidal force that keeps squeezing us toward our (actually "the planet's") not-necessarily inevitable goal of having ONE species that can get around the generational crisis cycle barrier.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Do you agree with this John: This is the best possible world at
> any particular time, and that which happens must happen and must
> have happened, and it is as it is as a "classroom" to allow
> humanity, and individual humans, to either learn or not learn what
> they need to learn to get more of what they want.
No. I do not agree with that, because it assumes that there are
choices. There is no choice. This is the only possible world at this
particular time, and therefore it's the best possible world and it's
also the worst possible world. What's going to happen is going to
happen.
I agree it is also the worst possible world, but I don't see the fact that the world is simultaneously both the best and the worst as taking away any choice.

The chooser is humanity, as a whole (in the aggregate). The basic choices to make are whether to look for, whether to accept, whether to implement, and how to implement the actions necessary to get around the GD barrier.

Trauma, correctly applied, can alter the cycle. It's not abjectly inevitable.

..then again, as said earlier, I'm an optimist. :)
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Does humanity WANT to totally exterminate itself? I would say
> no. I would also say that that would be an impossible task, as
> we're too widely dispersed on the planet for such an occurrence.

> Does humanity WANT to send itself back to "more simple times" by
> destroying their "high technology/culture" and killing the vast
> majority of it's population? Many people do. I see them to be a
> tiny minority.
I've never said that humanity is going to exterminate itself, and I've
contradicted people who, for example, have said that this is the
Biblical "last times." What I have said is that I estimate that 3-4
billion people will be killed from nuclear war, ground war, disease,
famine and suicide, leaving behind 3-4 billion people to hold
international conferences to define a new world order and to rebuild
the world.
You've said, over and over (thanks for being persistent, by the way!) that there WILL be rebuilding after the war. We know you're not absolutely pessimistic about the future.

I just wanted to evoke the most extreme situation as a "higher boundary" condition, then work my way back.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > What does humanity (as a "thing") actually WANT? What they TRULY
> want, they will get. It's not "fatalism" to accept the rising and
> falling of the tide.
Actually, accepting the rising and falling of the tide is EXACTLY what
fatalism is. It's only not fatalism if you're a politician and you
psss laws and regulations that you believe will affect the rising and
falling of the tide.
And here's where I get REALLY embarrassed. :)

Silly me. Fatalism is not a bad thing. What I meant to say was, It's not "giving up"-ism to accept the rising and falling of the tide.

I was feeling some "pessimism" from you, and just HAD to chime in, so.... there ya' go then...
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Perhaps a return to the neolithic will be a "tonic" for
> humanity. After all, what ELSE have we got to do as a species than
> "try shit out" to see if we like it? We're not on a time
> schedule. We ain't got no BOSS!! If it's gonna be 2000 years 'til
> we get back to the 1356 AD level of "human progress", so what?
> There's no "you took too long" penalties!
Sure. Generational crisis wars are FANTASTIC and WONDERFUL. Like
huge forest fires, they clean out all the deadwood, and give rise to
those great international conferences that define a New World Order.
Yeah,.. well,.. no. :) As I've said elsewhere, better to ride the wave than be bounced along the reef until your head gets ripped off after wedging in a crevice.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > What they want, they will get,.. so figure out what they want, and
> surf that wave to achieve your best happiness with the time you
> are given. Thus has it ever been, and will ever be.
I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but who gets what they
want, except by pure luck? Who got what they wanted in WW II?
Unlike baseball, luck has been berry berry guud to me! But when is it ever bad advice to make the best with what you've got?

The people who wanted WWII to end got what they wanted after WWII,.. though many of those got even worse stuff. Gotta be careful what you want, and you might want to make multiple requests.
One quote I left out of today's story about Yemen is from Saleh's
foreign minister, who was asked what 3 years of war had accomplished.
He said, "It's accomplished nothing -- destruction, misery, death."
What's going to happen is going to happen.
Oh,..
my knife, my friend, my blade,
sharper than my wit,
killer for my meals, killer of my enemies,
you called them, they brought your cousins,
you called them, they took my family,
I curse you my friend,
my blade, my friend, my knife,
oh...

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by Tom Mazanec » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:04 pm

Climate change activists, as a group, do not believe what they say,
because they don't live their lives that way. For example, Al Gore
personally uses enough energy and emits enough co2 to be the
equivalent of a small country, so he obviously doesn't believe the
nonsense he writes about.

John, I think they do believe what they say, but just can't accept the sacrifices that must be made to try to reduce their greenhouse emissions. I believe humanity is currently warming the planet, and that there are and will be problems from this. I could eat vegetarian, give up my computer, stop driving, etc. to try to reduce my contribution to this, but I just love 21st century life too much.

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by Daniel Kaffee » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:40 pm

What does Kim want in all of this? I see a lot of escalation but no clear demands from NK. Some could say they want survival and in some sense that is true of all people but pursuing nuclear weapons at the cost of feeding his own people means he really isn't THAT concerned about survival of his general populous. Nor does starting unprovoked fights and threating America really qualify as a route to survival. They have said they want to nuke America (or an ally/territory) and that is probably true on some level but it is hard to say if they would actually do that. If that is true then they have accepted their fate and want only to take as many people down with them (AKA nuke'em and wait to be nuked). This is possible. What I don't think this would explain is why he keeps inflaming tensions. We continue to see a barrage of photos released and rockets shot over and next to Japan. I find this choice revealing. If all you really wanted was to nuke America before you go then why draw attention to yourself? Why release photos and if you have to do specific tests why choose japan? Why not shoot it to another coast or just in the deep blue away from Japan? If you just want to take someone down you wouldn't do all of this signaling. You would hide as much as you can before you make your "final launch". So he clearly wants something beyond survival and taking people down with him.

What cannot be ignored in this picture is china. For all of their talk (and show, look they sent an ENVOY!) they only apply as much pressure as they are made to which, much like a kid being forced to do their homework, means they really don't want to (and after all why should they). Not only do they not want to, they seem pretty willing to use this situation to their advantage. "Oh look America, all that pressure failed. Gee I guess this means you must oh I don't know.... PULL OUT OF ASIA AND NEVER LOOK BACK ... and then maybe kim will come to his senses.... just a thought". But here's what I don't understand, if, as china says, NK is being reckless, is in the wrong, is threatening the world stability and should stop why would you defend them if America strikes first to stop them but not if NK strikes first? Why would they keep dragging their feet to apply pressure? If china views NK to be in the wrong why should it matter if America takes action to stop someone who "we all agree" is in the wrong and is dangerous? Why the two orders, Colonel? If Lieutenant Kendrick gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched then why did he have to be transferred?

After all in a hostage situation we don't wait for the captor to kill one or two of the hostages before we consider taking action and we most certainly don't wait to make sure his gun is actually loaded.

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by John » Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:57 pm

FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > I'm not buying your self-characterization, buckeroo! :)

> You do see the inevitable, but you also leave "wriggle room" to
> allow for a "worthwhile outcome" for the world after the
> aforementioned "inevitable".

> If you didn't, you simply wouldn't bother publishing this copious
> amount of hard gathered information.
The first thing for you to understand is that you (I mean you
personally) often apply rational reasoning to irrational events.
Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and the South's attack on Fort Sumter
were completely irrational decisions, in that they were based on
erroneous assessments of the enemy, and the enemy's supposed
unwillingness to strike back. The same is probably true of China and
North Korea today.

So when you attribute rational reasons to my remark about "fatalism,"
you're overlooking irrational reasons like the fact that at my age, I
personally have no desire to even try to survive, and even if I could
survive, the level of discomfort would not make it worthwhile for me.
Surviving generational crisis wars and rebuilding the world is for
young people, not for old people.

The second thing you have to understand is that I believe everything
I write. This may seem like a remarkable thing to say, but in my
experience, most people don't, especially in politics or the media.

Climate change activists, as a group, do not believe what they say,
because they don't live their lives that way. For example, Al Gore
personally uses enough energy and emits enough co2 to be the
equivalent of a small country, so he obviously doesn't believe the
nonsense he writes about.

On the other hand, I've changed my entire life since I began
this project, starting in 2005 with selling my condo at the
height of the real estate bubble.

Then there's the related issue that I'm obsessed. The obsession is
irrational, but like all obsessions it can be justified by reason,
given the seriousness of the situation. It's also justified by the
fact that it's really cool to know more about what's going on in the
world than almost anyone else in the world. This may seem like a bold
conclusion, but it comes from 2007 articles in the London Times and
the Congressional Quarterly that show that even long-standing experts
on the Mideast couldn't answer simple questions like, "Is al-Qaeda
Sunni or Shiite?"

** Guess what? British politicians and journalists are just as ignorant as Americans
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... m#e070114b


Not being able to answer a question like that is like saying you're a
mathematician, but you don't know whether 2+2 equals 3 or 4. And what
I've seen in the ten years since then, with the idiotic statements
that journalists, analysts and politicians make every day, has made me
even more certain.

The key to understanding this is that after 15 years of doing this,
and almost 6,000 articles and Generational Dynamics analyses, all of
which have turned out to be true or are trending true, I've come to
the conclusion that I know what's going to happen more than any
politicians, journalists or analysts do, that politicians have no
effect on anything, that political objectives are never more than pure
wishful thinking, and that what's going to happen is going to happen,
irrespective of what the politicians say or do.

That's what fatalism means. What's going to happen is going to
happen. And what you describe as "wriggle room" are just relatively
insignificant details in the entire scheme of things.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Do you agree with this John: This is the best possible world at
> any particular time, and that which happens must happen and must
> have happened, and it is as it is as a "classroom" to allow
> humanity, and individual humans, to either learn or not learn what
> they need to learn to get more of what they want.
No. I do not agree with that, because it assumes that there are
choices. There is no choice. This is the only possible world at this
particular time, and therefore it's the best possible world and it's
also the worst possible world. What's going to happen is going to
happen.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Does humanity WANT to totally exterminate itself? I would say
> no. I would also say that that would be an impossible task, as
> we're too widely dispersed on the planet for such an occurrence.

> Does humanity WANT to send itself back to "more simple times" by
> destroying their "high technology/culture" and killing the vast
> majority of it's population? Many people do. I see them to be a
> tiny minority.
I've never said that humanity is going to exterminate itself, and I've
contradicted people who, for example, have said that this is the
Biblical "last times." What I have said is that I estimate that 3-4
billion people will be killed from nuclear war, ground war, disease,
famine and suicide, leaving behind 3-4 billion people to hold
international conferences to define a new world order and to rebuild
the world.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > What does humanity (as a "thing") actually WANT? What they TRULY
> want, they will get. It's not "fatalism" to accept the rising and
> falling of the tide.
Actually, accepting the rising and falling of the tide is EXACTLY what
fatalism is. It's only not fatalism if you're a politician and you
psss laws and regulations that you believe will affect the rising and
falling of the tide.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Perhaps a return to the neolithic will be a "tonic" for
> humanity. After all, what ELSE have we got to do as a species than
> "try shit out" to see if we like it? We're not on a time
> schedule. We ain't got no BOSS!! If it's gonna be 2000 years 'til
> we get back to the 1356 AD level of "human progress", so what?
> There's no "you took too long" penalties!
Sure. Generational crisis wars are FANTASTIC and WONDERFUL. Like
huge forest fires, they clean out all the deadwood, and give rise to
those great international conferences that define a New World Order.
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > What they want, they will get,.. so figure out what they want, and
> surf that wave to achieve your best happiness with the time you
> are given. Thus has it ever been, and will ever be.
I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but who gets what they
want, except by pure luck? Who got what they wanted in WW II?

One quote I left out of today's story about Yemen is from Saleh's
foreign minister, who was asked what 3 years of war had accomplished.
He said, "It's accomplished nothing -- destruction, misery, death."
What's going to happen is going to happen.

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by FishbellykanakaDude » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:19 pm

..that's "kahuna",.... oops. :)

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by FishbellykanakaDude » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:18 pm

Tom Mazanec wrote:If it's gonna be 2000 years 'til we get back to the 1356 AD level of "human progress", so what? There's no "you took too long" penalties!

And in evolutionary time, two millennia is like two minutes.
Bingo! I like you Mr. T!

..and actually we've (humanity has) little chance of regressing THAT far, because our "documentation" has also been distributed pretty widely.

Aloha nui to you, you kanuna na'auao, you! (that's "Master/Chief/Expert of Wisdom", by the way.) <shaka!> :)

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by Tom Mazanec » Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:07 am

If it's gonna be 2000 years 'til we get back to the 1356 AD level of "human progress", so what? There's no "you took too long" penalties!

And in evolutionary time, two millennia is like two minutes.

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by FishbellykanakaDude » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:02 am

John wrote:
I live in Korea wrote:
John wrote:
A better choice would be a prescription for whatever was in that
bottle that the Croatian commander Slobodan Praljak drank from
yesterday.
If Americans have no hope, then you world is hopeless.

Don't judge other Americans by me. I'm a uniquely fatalistic,
hopeless person.
I'm not buying your self-characterization, buckeroo! :)

You do see the inevitable, but you also leave "wriggle room" to allow for a "worthwhile outcome" for the world after the aforementioned "inevitable".

If you didn't, you simply wouldn't bother publishing this copious amount of hard gathered information.

Do you agree with this John: This is the best possible world at any particular time, and that which happens must happen and must have happened, and it is as it is as a "classroom" to allow humanity, and individual humans, to either learn or not learn what they need to learn to get more of what they want.

Does humanity WANT to totally exterminate itself? I would say no. I would also say that that would be an impossible task, as we're too widely dispersed on the planet for such an occurrence.

Does humanity WANT to send itself back to "more simple times" by destroying their "high technology/culture" and killing the vast majority of it's population? Many people do. I see them to be a tiny minority.

What does humanity (as a "thing") actually WANT?

What they TRULY want, they will get. It's not "fatalism" to accept the rising and falling of the tide.

Perhaps a return to the neolithic will be a "tonic" for humanity. After all, what ELSE have we got to do as a species than "try shit out" to see if we like it? We're not on a time schedule. We ain't got no BOSS!! If it's gonna be 2000 years 'til we get back to the 1356 AD level of "human progress", so what? There's no "you took too long" penalties!

What they want, they will get,.. so figure out what they want, and surf that wave to achieve your best happiness with the time you are given. Thus has it ever been, and will ever be.

Aloha (love).

Re: 21-Nov-17 World View -- China's envoy to North Korea fails to end nuclear crisis / Kim Jong-un illness

by OneWhoLurks » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:38 am

John wrote:
I live in Korea wrote:
John wrote:
A better choice would be a prescription for whatever was in that
bottle that the Croatian commander Slobodan Praljak drank from
yesterday.
If Americans have no hope, then you world is hopeless.

Don't judge other Americans by me. I'm a uniquely fatalistic,
hopeless person.
Yeah John is one end of the extreme. We will get through this but it is going to be far from easy.
“The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” ― Abraham Lincoln

Top