Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

CH86 wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

CH86 wrote:
China's territorial disputes are with its neighbors, not with the west. China would be happy with genuine western neutrality in those disputes if it means they get to conquer the disputed territories. The Notion that China deliberate sought western involvement in the disputes is nonsense. Modern Russia and Iran are military/industrial powerhouses, they are not democracies. China is a communist state, not an ethnic nationalist one, Most Chinese ethnic nationalists are anti-CCP because they hate CCP policies that allow non-Han Chinese groups autonomous Zones. Xi is attempting to re-inject more doses of Marxism (a very globalist ideology) into the CCP. The Rural Chinese would not favor the CCP because they are discriminated against under CCP rule. The Islamists in the middle east are mainly the Shiites lead by Iran; Iran is an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, Hezbollah is Shiite and loyal to Iran, the Sunni Islamists generally seek the overthrow of the Sunni governments because they are the opposition party in most of those countries. The Actual Sunni governments are generally either Secular or Traditionalist.

http s://etcetcetc...

And what is your point?


Will China be the leader of the anti-west alliance in the upcoming Crisis war?
Will Russia and Iran both be in the pro-west alliance (even as merely a convenience)?
Will the "maximally chaotic" muslims be allied with China?
Will the "not overly apocalyptic" muslims be (strangely) allied with the west?

What are you arguing?

Your facts and opinions are lovely, but what do they point at? You SEEM to be arguing minutia in support of SOMETHING, but I'm a bit confused as to what the something is in the muddle of your stirred hot and sour bowl of soup of opinions.

Now, if you could state ONE (isolated) thing that you "see coming", and explain why you see it, that would start the process.

I Think the war would be essentially an Asian war. China's war would be with its neighbors, who would end up under Russian Leadership against China. The West may get pulled in later on after Asia is in a state of full-scale war, but your proposed sequence of western involvement first makes no sense given the geographical locations of the belligerents. The Third world war would not be about the west as there is currently no anti-western alliance and the Asian powers do not trust each other. China would want to conquer Taiwan in order to establish the CCP as the undisputed authority within the sinosphere and close the book on the Chinese Civil war regardless of whether Taiwan would be being helped by the US or Not. India and Pakistan are enemies and this would be the case regardless of any western participation. China and India would have their disputes which can only be resolved by one side being defeated or backing down, and this would be the case regardless of whether western countries participate in the conflict or not. In the Middle east Erdogan has taken up the banner of defending Sunnis, that means that an alliance between Erdogan and Assad is impossible as Assad is using gloves off methods against the Sunnis. North Korea is a threat to the region as long as it has Nukes and this would be the case regardless of whether the US is in the region or Not. Given that the Asian countries have contested borders with each other and have military assets directed against one another, while the western countries do no have any territorial disputes with any Asian countries, what would cause the Asian nations to suddenly forget their enmities against each other and ally with one another for any reason?

For Example even if Xi proposed such an Idea let say to India's Modi, even if Modi agreed with him, what would be in it for Modi. Instead such a conversation would go like this:

Xi: Both of our Countries are of tough Asian blood, we are fellow Asians and are superior and More virile than these decadent westerners, together we can crush the west underfoot. Join us.

Modi (to Xi): You have a whole army massed at my border and directed against me, even as we speak our two armies are staring eyeball to eyeball. You have Missiles pointed at my cities and I have Missiles pointed at yours. You are allied with MY blood enemy (pakistan) as well, and now you ask me to join you just to fight the west, why would I have any reason to trust a word that's coming out your mouth, whats in it for us (india), I would gain nothing from this.

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

CH86 wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:....

China's territorial disputes are with its neighbors, not with the west. China would be happy with genuine western neutrality in those disputes if it means they get to conquer the disputed territories. The Notion that China deliberate sought western involvement in the disputes is nonsense. Modern Russia and Iran are military/industrial powerhouses, they are not democracies. China is a communist state, not an ethnic nationalist one, Most Chinese ethnic nationalists are anti-CCP because they hate CCP policies that allow non-Han Chinese groups autonomous Zones. Xi is attempting to re-inject more doses of Marxism (a very globalist ideology) into the CCP. The Rural Chinese would not favor the CCP because they are discriminated against under CCP rule. The Islamists in the middle east are mainly the Shiites lead by Iran; Iran is an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, Hezbollah is Shiite and loyal to Iran, the Sunni Islamists generally seek the overthrow of the Sunni governments because they are the opposition party in most of those countries. The Actual Sunni governments are generally either Secular or Traditionalist.

http s://etcetcetc...

And what is your point?


Will China be the leader of the anti-west alliance in the upcoming Crisis war?
Will Russia and Iran both be in the pro-west alliance (even as merely a convenience)?
Will the "maximally chaotic" muslims be allied with China?
Will the "not overly apocalyptic" muslims be (strangely) allied with the west?

What are you arguing?

Your facts and opinions are lovely, but what do they point at? You SEEM to be arguing minutia in support of SOMETHING, but I'm a bit confused as to what the something is in the muddle of your stirred hot and sour bowl of soup of opinions.

Now, if you could state ONE (isolated) thing that you "see coming", and explain why you see it, that would start the process.

CH86 wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:....

China's territorial disputes are with its neighbors, not with the west. China would be happy with genuine western neutrality in those disputes if it means they get to conquer the disputed territories. The Notion that China deliberate sought western involvement in the disputes is nonsense. Modern Russia and Iran are military/industrial powerhouses, they are not democracies. China is a communist state, not an ethnic nationalist one, Most Chinese ethnic nationalists are anti-CCP because they hate CCP policies that allow non-Han Chinese groups autonomous Zones. Xi is attempting to re-inject more doses of Marxism (a very globalist ideology) into the CCP. The Rural Chinese would not favor the CCP because they are discriminated against under CCP rule. The Islamists in the middle east are mainly the Shiites lead by Iran; Iran is an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, Hezbollah is Shiite and loyal to Iran, the Sunni Islamists generally seek the overthrow of the Sunni governments because they are the opposition party in most of those countries. The Actual Sunni governments are generally either Secular or Traditionalist.

http s://etcetcetc...

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

CH86 wrote:You admit the course of historical events. The problem in my frequent discussions with John, Yourself and Sue/Guest is that they basically state that whatever international alignments that existed in 1968 are the alignments that prefigure the Crisis war. Hence The Notion of Iran as a US ally, in 1968 Iran WAS a US ally and pro-western, yet such an assertion essentially ignores everything that took place after 1978 as irrelevant.

Uh,.. I've no great love for 1968. Just sayin'.

The reason I agree with China being the "Great (upcoming) Enemy" is because there are no other contenders for that position.

The reason I agree with Iran being an ally of "the west" is because it's the most plausible maximally interesting possibility, and that makes me happy (aka intrigued). Also, Iran is an effete "super country" that can't possibly tolerate being subsumed into a racially oriented one-party state like China.

The reason I agree that Russia will side with "the west" is that Russia and "the west" share "frontier asshole" tendencies that will draw us together in extremis.

The actual timing issues as to when the "great conflagration" will crystallize is handily explained by GD Theory's "generational proclivities" concepts.

Israel will obviously side with the west. Period.

The "sane" muslims will side with the west, as they have no other choice. They know their time for a "conquest of the dar al-harb" is long past, and it's better to NOT be a slave to the one-party state that China represents.

The "insane" muslims just want abject and total chaotic destruction, as that'll bring on the "glorious apocalypse" they're after, and will side with those promising the most destruction.

The Chinese won't be able to control their "rural folk", whom they truly don't give a crap about, and those people will simply be a weight on the Chinese war machine (as incompetent soldiers and rebels).

The point is that it's really a binary choice for all the party's involved. China or the West.

The energy supply (and therefore timing as well) is provided by GD forces, but the "side" on which to fall is dictated by "emotional affinities" of the "nations" involved.

Same is the Notion of ...

Remember that piece that John wrote about "Greek Tragedy"?

The tragedy is unavoidable. The audience is not there in hopes of "everything working out peacefully", but is there to watch the particular unfolding of the inevitable forces within the story, and to either learn how those forces work so as to postpone them for as long as possible, or to revel in the emotional power of the expression of those forces and "enjoy" being "a participant" in the drama, in hopes of being an ACTUAL participant in a similar real-life drama during their lifetime.

Tragedy is either cautionary or inspirational. Great lowest common denominator masses of people choose how to "act out" the old stories.

But the tragedies can not be denied or forever avoided,.. as the regretful can not well enough convince the naive to believe them.

CH86 wrote:You admit the course of historical events. The problem in my frequent discussions with John, Yourself and Sue/Guest is that they basically state that whatever international alignments that existed in 1968 are the alignments that prefigure the Crisis war. Hence The Notion of Iran as a US ally, in 1968 Iran WAS a US ally and pro-western, yet such an assertion essentially ignores everything that took place after 1978 as irrelevant.

Same is the Notion of ...

CH86 wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:blah blah blah...

Nothing I've posted is psychotic:

1) that Israel is well-equipped for war vs ill-equipped palestinians is a statement of fact.

2) that the threat to Israel comes from Iran and it allies, with a possible second threat from Sunni Islamism, is a statement of fact.

3) The threat of an israeli-sunni war is currently much less likely than iran attacking israel, Only if unforeseen events (such as radical islamists taking over the Sunni states in masse would lead to war between israel and it's immediate neighbors (egypt, jordan). Again this is a statement of fact.

4) Concentrating on the sunni threat to israel (not Iran). What threat that does exists comes from Islamism, not from "Nasserite" nationalism. Israel prepares for these threats in this order: Iran, possible Sunni Islamism. Modern 2018 Israel doesn't prepare that much against nasserite secular nationalism because currently there is no "Nasserite" threat to israel. Israel has its hands full figuring out how to combat Iran and its allies, as well as the Sunni Islamism, to worry about some non-existent "Nasserite" threat. This is again a statement of fact.

5) That the US won the cold war, again this is a statement of fact.

6) That the US won the war on terror, again that is a statement of fact.

7) That the US Nuclear arsenal and Russian Nuclear arsenal are both far superior in numbers to the Chinese Nuclear arsenal. Again that is statement of fact, and before you post some speculative non-fact about this: Note that the US government agrees with me,and not with you guys on this subject. Their assessments based on far deeper Knowledge of the world scene than any of us civvies have. Note that president trump mentioned this fact in the Putin Summit, that the US and Russia between them control 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.

This next point I'm about to make is a pure speculative point on my part rather than a statement of fact like the seven above points were, but I'm going to make this next point anyway.

8) Judging from the conspiracy theory drivel, you guys consistently post, I speculate that a lot of you guys don't think that Israel even has Nuclear weapons, do you?

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

John wrote:

Guest 2 wrote: > John, after an afternoon on Breitbart, CH's posts are a study in
> inconsistent thought. Amazing how factual history can be
> skewed/skewered. My brain is tired. I'm reading a history of the
> 10th Armored Division. Doubt if I'll get too far tonight. Enjoy
> the summer weather. Hot and humid here. Drought conditions. My
> lawn looks like late August.

It's actually amazing. CH86's posts are completely screwed up and
inconsistent,

I've been dealing with CH86 for almost ten years, and I still don't
know whether he's psychotic because of the stuff that he posts, or
whether he's psychotic because he baits people every day by posting
nonsense that he doesn't believe. It's a conundrum.

"Posting" is never the cause of anything, of course. It's always an "after thought".

A non-psychotic will always be willing to keep a conversation going until, at least, the point where the conversation partners agree to disagree. (I personally like to keep them going "forever" by meandering off onto other proximate topics,.. but that's just me being annoying, as ususal.)

CH86, the psychotic, probably gets to the point in the conversation where he SHOULD elaborate on making his case, can't do it because of the cognitive dissonance "actual thinking/conversation" would cause, and sprints away from the keyboard to bash a wall or some "girlfriend" in the vicinity.

..or at least thinks about it,.. a lot. (What's the proper term for "Pre-Active Shooter"?)

John wrote:

Guest 2 wrote: > John, after an afternoon on Breitbart, CH's posts are a study in
> inconsistent thought. Amazing how factual history can be
> skewed/skewered. My brain is tired. I'm reading a history of the
> 10th Armored Division. Doubt if I'll get too far tonight. Enjoy
> the summer weather. Hot and humid here. Drought conditions. My
> lawn looks like late August.

It's actually amazing. CH86's posts are completely screwed up and
inconsistent,

I've been dealing with CH86 for almost ten years, and I still don't
know whether he's psychotic because of the stuff that he posts, or
whether he's psychotic because he baits people every day by posting
nonsense that he doesn't believe. It's a conundrum.