17-Aug-17 World View -- China opens a new front in its border war with India / North Korea apparently backs down

[Dont tread on me]

Everything you write makes perfect sense to me. It is always reassuring to know that there are people in the White House that know what is going on and what they are doing. I'm glad you are here and that you are making such a valuable contribution to the defense of our country. Thank you.

The sad thing is, I only post here because I can do so anonymously. With the tech companies doxing and blocking people they don't agree with, freedom is slipping away in America. This is something I never thought would happen.

P.S. I will never let anyone put a chip in me. I'll take my guns, head for the hills and lead an insurgency.

Don't tread on me

[FishbellykanakaDude]

...
There's one more point related to earlier posts in this thread. No
one wants to talk about a new world war, but most people are
viscerally aware of what's coming at some level of consciousness or
semi-consciousness. Even though what's coming becomes more obvious
every day, the vast majority of people are in a state of denial, and
use a form of escapism by focusing on political issues like
Charlottesville, which is almost completely irrelevant to what's going
on in the world.

An interesting metric of GD-Panic™ might be "focus shifting". The closer a crisis war becomes, the faster media-pushed distractions become, and more emotional yet superficial reactions become to them.

Bannon, I believe, is actually trying to stem the tide, which I feel is an impossibility, but which he's decided to take on. My guess is that he's trying to somewhat "defuse" the BIG war by starting as large a plethora (?!) of regional wars as possible. A kind of "backfire" strategy.

This wouldn't go over well in public, obviously. And it probably wouldn't work, due to the "unintended consequences" problem, but it might "dull" the overall ferocity of it (the big war), if many nations are "distracted" by their own problems.

Perhaps having more internal conflict within "his" nation might postpone the external conflict with other nations? He can't control the internal affairs of other nations, but since "GD Paranoia™" is a function of perceived genocidal threat, making the US "less threatening" due to internal conflicts MAY make some sense.

The "levers of the machine" that potentially control/influence any manipulation of GD related phenomena are pretty damn vague and uncharted as to efficacy, so I'm just glad that I'M not messing with them,.. and rather proud actually, that someone (on my side) is brave enough to take up the thankless job of trying to help avoid massive suffering.

[Coordinated fires]

...
There's one more point related to earlier posts in this thread. No
one wants to talk about a new world war, but most people are
viscerally aware of what's coming at some level of consciousness or
semi-consciousness. Even though what's coming becomes more obvious
every day, the vast majority of people are in a state of denial, and
use a form of escapism by focusing on political issues like
Charlottesville, which is almost completely irrelevant to what's going
on in the world.

An interesting metric of GD-Panic™ might be "focus shifting". The closer a crisis war becomes, the faster media-pushed distractions become, and more emotional yet superficial reactions become to them.

Bannon, I believe, is actually trying to stem the tide, which I feel is an impossibility, but which he's decided to take on. My guess is that he's trying to somewhat "defuse" the BIG war by starting as large a plethora (?!) of regional wars as possible. A kind of "backfire" strategy.

This wouldn't go over well in public, obviously. And it probably wouldn't work, due to the "unintended consequences" problem, but it might "dull" the overall ferocity of it (the big war), if many nations are "distracted" by their own problems.

Perhaps having more internal conflict within "his" nation might postpone the external conflict with other nations? He can't control the internal affairs of other nations, but since "GD Paranoia™" is a function of perceived genocidal threat, making the US "less threatening" due to internal conflicts MAY make some sense.

The "levers of the machine" that potentially control/influence any manipulation of GD related phenomena are pretty damn vague and uncharted as to efficacy, so I'm just glad that I'M not messing with them,.. and rather proud actually, that someone (on my side) is brave enough to take up the thankless job of trying to help avoid massive suffering.

How would a plethora of small regional wars reduce the intensity of a larger global war? World war 2 was preceded by several "small" wars; the Polish-soviet war, Turkish war of independence, the Chinese, Austrian, and Spanish civil wars, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the sino-Japanese war, Italian-Abyssinian war, and several other smaller incidents. The first world war was also immediately preceded by the Russo-Japanese war and various wars in the Balkans, not to mention the lingering resentments from the wars of the late 19th century.

I don't think small regional wars in any way reduce the appetite for conflict, in fact they probably make the final showdown even more bitter as belligerents seek to settle old scores and regain lost pride and territories.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

...

How would a plethora of small regional wars reduce the intensity of a larger global war? World war 2 was preceded by several "small" wars; the Polish-soviet war, Turkish war of independence, the Chinese, Austrian, and Spanish civil wars, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the sino-Japanese war, Italian-Abyssinian war, and several other smaller incidents. The first world war was also immediately preceded by the Russo-Japanese war and various wars in the Balkans, not to mention the lingering resentments from the wars of the late 19th century.

I don't think small regional wars in any way reduce the appetite for conflict, in fact they probably make the final showdown even more bitter as belligerents seek to settle old scores and regain lost pride and territories.

I agree with you that the intensity of an upcoming GD Crisis war will most likely NOT be diminished by "pre-crisis war small wars", but....

All war is local. War always engenders fatigue (of fighting). Wars also always engender resentment (of "the bad guy [bent on exterminating my people]"). The question is whether there's more resentment than fatigue. If more fatigue can be "engineered" (or occur "normally") than resentment, then the next war (of any kind) will be "kicked down the road".

So, what makes a war more likely to engender fatigue than resentment?

If a war is "top down" (initiated by politicians) it's more likely to generate war weariness in a nation's population. If a war is "bottom up" (initiated by "the people") then more resentment is generated.

So, if a nonsensical war (from the people's POV) brought on by politician's manipulations occurs, it MIGHT postpone a more "bottom up" war simply because people are tired, though I think it will also probably intensify the resentment of the people when the weariness subsides.

That is a possible "chaotic fluid dynamics" path by which politicians could postpone, but ultimately intensify, a GD Crisis war.

..but as with anything related to (chaotic) fluid dynamics, timing of events hinges mightily on smallish groups of particles, but the aggregate effects are pretty well predictable.

Winter is Coming,.. as they say... Where did I put those damned dragons again...?

[Coordinated fires]

...

How would a plethora of small regional wars reduce the intensity of a larger global war? World war 2 was preceded by several "small" wars; the Polish-soviet war, Turkish war of independence, the Chinese, Austrian, and Spanish civil wars, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the sino-Japanese war, Italian-Abyssinian war, and several other smaller incidents. The first world war was also immediately preceded by the Russo-Japanese war and various wars in the Balkans, not to mention the lingering resentments from the wars of the late 19th century.

I don't think small regional wars in any way reduce the appetite for conflict, in fact they probably make the final showdown even more bitter as belligerents seek to settle old scores and regain lost pride and territories.

I agree with you that the intensity of an upcoming GD Crisis war will most likely NOT be diminished by "pre-crisis war small wars", but....

All war is local. War always engenders fatigue (of fighting). Wars also always engender resentment (of "the bad guy [bent on exterminating my people]"). The question is whether there's more resentment than fatigue. If more fatigue can be "engineered" (or occur "normally") than resentment, then the next war (of any kind) will be "kicked down the road".

So, what makes a war more likely to engender fatigue than resentment?

If a war is "top down" (initiated by politicians) it's more likely to generate war weariness in a nation's population. If a war is "bottom up" (initiated by "the people") then more resentment is generated.

The distinction between "top-up" and "bottom-up" wars is an interesting point. I tend to think that no matter how the war is started, once it's over, especially if it is a limited war that doesn't fully resolve the conflict, the loser is usually bitter and the victor is often overconfident and vulnerable to hubris, making things even more volatile the next time around.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

...

The distinction between "top-up" and "bottom-up" wars is an interesting point. I tend to think that no matter how the war is started, once it's over, especially if it is a limited war that doesn't fully resolve the conflict, the loser is usually bitter and the victor is often overconfident and vulnerable to hubris, making things even more volatile the next time around.

Agreed.

If weʻre talking about "small pre-crisis wars", which are by definition NOT crisis wars, then the conclusion of it will certainly create hubris in the victor and resentment in the vanquished.

But this "small distracting war" wonʻt be a war between the combatants in the oncoming crisis war. Itʻll be something like a war between the US and ISIS-remnants, or China and Filipino fishermen.

That would give China, or the US, "something to do" as a distraction to "kick the can down the road" in regard to (their populations) "worrying about" the real oncoming crisis opponent, so that they can continue preparing for the bigger war.

This DOES have the (not particularly) weird effect of also stoking the hubris of the winners populations that "theyʻre invincible", fueling the likelihood and (initial) ferocity of the "Big Game" approaching faster and faster.

The "little wars" are never between the eventual "big league" combatants.

[Brendan]

Whether Bannon is going to be forced out remains to be seen. There's
a perfectly reasonable explanation that says that Bannon and Trump are
in sync on policy, but that the talk about Bannon leaving is just part
of the circus to throw people off the scent of what they're really
planning. If this is true, it would be consistent with the view that
they believe the Generational Dynamics predictions, and are trying to
implement countermeasures.

There's one more point related to earlier posts in this thread. No
one wants to talk about a new world war, but most people are
viscerally aware of what's coming at some level of consciousness or
semi-consciousness. Even though what's coming becomes more obvious
every day, the vast majority of people are in a state of denial, and
use a form of escapism by focusing on political issues like
Charlottesville, which is almost completely irrelevant to what's going
on in the world.

I agree on Bannon's "ousting" today, smells of their tactics. Trump really loves the drama of "firing".

Also John, very much like porn but instead of pleasure it is pain. When it comes to these two human nature has definitively shown pain to be the more powerful of the two. Especially on the level of pain that all of this implies. Some people have the strength to look into the abyss and others prefer to turn their eyes and look away. The problem is most people fall in the latter and so the rare individuals that look at this know from experience that this is worse to discuss than porn because everyone understands porn but many people don't want to deal with the pain and the people that read this site probably don't want to force that on them. I have made the (mistake? attempt?) to discuss this with friends from college via group messaging and with one person face to face. Heres the thing at first (back in Feb) there was a very slow and begrudging response of "yeah I mean I guess that may be a problem... new topic" to now when I bring it up they literally ignore me. I've also yet to hear a coherent counter argument. In most topics people will at least make an attempt to refute it and deny it to themselves on some level but I have never encountered that scenario with this topic. Its because its so obvious if you took the slightest bit of effort it would make a ton of sense but people start to see it, feel the pain that all that would mean and immediately erase it from their minds and hope I never bring it up again.

[John]

> I agree on Bannon's "ousting" today, smells of their
> tactics. Trump really loves the drama of "firing".

> Also John, very much like porn but instead of pleasure it is
> pain. When it comes to these two human nature has definitively
> shown pain to be the more powerful of the two. Especially on the
> level of pain that all of this implies. Some people have the
> strength to look into the abyss and others prefer to turn their
> eyes and look away. The problem is most people fall in the latter
> and so the rare individuals that look at this know from experience
> that this is worse to discuss than porn because everyone
> understands porn but many people don't want to deal with the pain
> and the people that read this site probably don't want to force
> that on them. I have made the (mistake? attempt?) to discuss this
> with friends from college via group messaging and with one person
> face to face. Heres the thing at first (back in Feb) there was a
> very slow and begrudging response of "yeah I mean I guess that may
> be a problem... new topic" to now when I bring it up they
> literally ignore me. I've also yet to hear a coherent counter
> argument. In most topics people will at least make an attempt to
> refute it and deny it to themselves on some level but I have never
> encountered that scenario with this topic. Its because its so
> obvious if you took the slightest bit of effort it would make a
> ton of sense but people start to see it, feel the pain that all
> that would mean and immediately erase it from their minds and hope
> I never bring it up again.

I really have to warn you against talking about Generational Dynamics
with friends -- assuming that you want them to remain friends. It's
the quickest way to get a lot of vitriolic hatred directed at you. I
would suggest that you talk to your doctor about getting a frontal
lobotomy so that you can have the same vapid, vacuous thoughts that
your college associates have.