Generational Dynamics World View News

[John]

** 13-Dec-2019 World View: Carlos Gutierrez says that China is not an enemy

As I've written in the past, people my age have wondered our whole
lives how it was possible for Hitler to so thoroughly fool the British
people and politicians that they were not a threat, with Winston
Churchill being the major exception. Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain met with Hitler and famously announced that there would be
"Peace in our time."

This morning, George Bush's Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez was on
CNBC to talk about the China trade deal, and he used the opportunity
to criticize administration officials who are worried about war
with China. Here's what he said (my transcription):

I don't believe, as some people in this administration
believe, that war with China is inevitable, and I think that's a
very dangerous assumption, very dangerous to believe that is the
future, because we can just make it happen by insisting on it. ...

There's [Peter] Navarro, [Steve] Bannon -- they believe that a
military war eventually is inevitable. By calling China a
strategic rival -- I mean they're a rival, there's no question,
they're a competitor -- but if they're strategic that means that
we believe they're an existential threat. And if you call someone
an enemy, they will become your enemy. So we need to be careful,
and I hope that at this point, we keep the war in the confines of
economics and the confines of trade.

But this could get out of hand so easily, and yes, there are
people who I believe just see that in the future it is inevitable
that we're headed toward conflict. I think that's a dangerous
assumption.

I wanted to quote this because the reasoning is so totally
harebrained, but is typical of the reasoning among media and
politicians today, many of whom majored in women's studies and
sociology in college and have no clue what's going on in the world.
Gutierrez is old enough to know better, but apparently he doesn't.

Notice that Gutierrez is going a lot farther than even Neville
Chamberlain did. Gutierrez made these points:

• China is not a strategic enemy.
• You must not call China an enemy because doing so is
  dangerous.
• Therefore, if there is a war, then it's your fault because you
  said that China is a strategic enemy.

In other words, if China launches a military attack on the United
States, then it's not China's fault. It's the fault of Navarro
and Bannon and people in the Trump administration.

And yet, for almost a century, the Soviet Union / Russia was called a
strategic enemy by people like Gutierrez, and are still doing so
today. And yet, we haven't had a war with Russia during that entire
century.

People like Gutierrez might say that we should simply shut down the
US military, because we should never view anyone as an enemy, so there
should never be another war, so who needs a military?

Here's a memory from 1938:

• 1938: English girls giving Nazi salute returning from a field
  trip to Berlin - 'We had the time of our lives!' (Der
  Spiegel)

-- 1930s / British Girls in the Third Reich - 'We Had the Time of
Our Lives'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 05617.html
(Der Spiegel, 13-Jun-2013)

[FishbellykanakaDude]

** 13-Dec-2019 World View: Carlos Gutierrez says that China is not an enemy

As I've written in the past, people my age have wondered our whole
lives how it was possible for Hitler to so thoroughly fool the British
people and politicians that they were not a threat, with Winston
Churchill being the major exception. Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain met with Hitler and famously announced that there would be
"Peace in our time."

This morning, George Bush's Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez was on
CNBC to talk about the China trade deal, and he used the opportunity
to criticize administration officials who are worried about war
with China. Here's what he said (my transcription):

I don't believe, as some people in this administration
believe, that war with China is inevitable, and I think that's a
very dangerous assumption, very dangerous to believe that is the
future, because we can just make it happen by insisting on it. ...

There's [Peter] Navarro, [Steve] Bannon -- they believe that a
military war eventually is inevitable. By calling China a
strategic rival -- I mean they're a rival, there's no question,
they're a competitor -- but if they're strategic that means that
we believe they're an existential threat. And if you call someone
an enemy, they will become your enemy. So we need to be careful,
and I hope that at this point, we keep the war in the confines of
economics and the confines of trade.

But this could get out of hand so easily, and yes, there are
people who I believe just see that in the future it is inevitable
that we're headed toward conflict. I think that's a dangerous
assumption.

I wanted to quote this because the reasoning is so totally
harebrained, but is typical of the reasoning among media and
politicians today, many of whom majored in women's studies and
sociology in college and have no clue what's going on in the world.
Gutierrez is old enough to know better, but apparently he doesn't.

Notice that Gutierrez is going a lot farther than even Neville
Chamberlain did. Gutierrez made these points:

• China is not a strategic enemy.
• You must not call China an enemy because doing so is
  dangerous.
• Therefore, if there is a war, then it's your fault because you
  said that China is a strategic enemy.

In other words, if China launches a military attack on the United
States, then it's not China's fault. It's the fault of Navarro
and Bannon and people in the Trump administration.

And yet, for almost a century, the Soviet Union / Russia was called a
strategic enemy by people like Gutierrez, and are still doing so
today. And yet, we haven't had a war with Russia during that entire
century.

People like Gutierrez might say that we should simply shut down the
US military, because we should never view anyone as an enemy, so there
should never be another war, so who needs a military?

Here's a memory from 1938:

[im g]http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/w ... 60527b.jpg[/img]

• 1938: English girls giving Nazi salute returning from a field
  trip to Berlin - 'We had the time of our lives!' (Der
  Spiegel)

-- 1930s / British Girls in the Third Reich - 'We Had the Time of
Our Lives'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 05617.html
(Der Spiegel, 13-Jun-2013)

But Gutierrez is correct!

When you actually call an actual existential threat an existential threat, that threat is more likely to see you as an existential threat, veritably making you an actual existential threat, such that the probability of war between the actual existential threat and the supposed existential threat is hyperbolically increased over time.

What he doesn't get right, of course, is that not describing an actual existential threat as a non-existential threat doesn't make that actual existential threat anything other than an actual existential threat.

Utopians will be utopians, and will hold to their religion (utopianism) regardless of any evidence.

..they're such cute little fuzzy critters, nuzzling about in their soft fluffy bedclothes, with those big watery eyes, begging to be adored and cuddled, oblivious to the wider world.

On the other hand, I really DO appreciate those little furballs distracting the inevitable war-makers from starting wars sooner than they need be.

[John]

** 13-Dec-2019 World View: Hyperbolic existential threat

> When you actually call an actual existential threat an existential
> threat, that threat is more likely to see you as an existential
> threat, veritably making you an actual existential threat, such
> that the probability of war between the actual existential threat
> and the supposed existential threat is hyperbolically increased
> over time.

That's irrelevant. The issue is whether there will be a war. The US
and Soviet Union/Russia have considered each other an existential
threat for almost a century, but there's been no war, which is the
point. If your "hyperbolically increased over time" claim even made
any sense, then by this time the size of the Russia existential threat
would be 10**100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, and the
universe would explode.

[Guest]

One major difference between Soviet Russia and modern China: Russia had (and still has) and abundance of natural resources. (But remains poor because of gross corruption and misallocation of resources.) China is rapidly depleting all of its natural resources (or rendering them highly toxic), including water, soil, and air. While the Soviet union could fall back on its own natural resources and survive, China now finds itself in a situation where they must expand their borders just to stay alive.

War is now a necessity for the Chinese.

[richard5za]

Changing the subject to
Impeachment
The serious determination from the Democrats to impeach Trump would suggest that they think they have a good chance of getting it through both the House and the Senate.
If it gets turned down in the Senate which seems to be the probability then that surely would be to the Democrats political disadvantage versus not having gone the impeachment route in the first place?
Is someone able to explain the Democrats political strategy here?

[John]

** 14-Dec-2019 World View: Impeachment and violence

> Changing the subject to Impeachment

> The serious determination from the Democrats to impeach Trump
> would suggest that they think they have a good chance of getting
> it through both the House and the Senate.

> If it gets turned down in the Senate which seems to be the
> probability then that surely would be to the Democrats political
> disadvantage versus not having gone the impeachment route in the
> first place?

> Is someone able to explain the Democrats political strategy
> here?

The Democrats haven't provided any credible reason for the impeachment
saga, except that they claim that it's the only way to prevent
Donald Trump from being reelected. The plan, insofar as there is
an actual plan, is to use impeachment to weaken Trump support so
that the Democrats will win. Whether that will work remains to be
seen, but so far it appears to be backfiring.

The situation is becoming increasingly dangerous for tribal reasons.
You may not understand what the Democrats are doing, but since you
live in South Africa, the tribal issues are something that you'll
understand well.

The Tea Party is the "tribe" that turned into the 63 million Trump
supporters, and now the Democrats and the media have the same loathing
and hatred for the Trump supporters that they've had for years for the
Tea Partiers.

For years, the Democrats and the mainstream media have expressed
enormous loathing and hatred for the Tea Partiers, repeatedly inciting
violence against them and using the epithet "teabaggers," which is as
bad as the n-word. I still recall Anderson Cooper and Peter Bergen on
CNN giggling and laughing with each other over calling them
"teabaggers." The loathing and hatred was evident, as it was for many
people on CNN and other mainstream media and Democrats.

More recently, we have examples like Peter Strzok referring to "smelly
Walmart Trump supporters," and we have the hag Maxine Waters inciting
violence against Trump supporters by screaming that they should be
confronted in restaurants and gas stations. The Democrats are
encouraging the Fascist group Antifa to attack pro-Trump speakers with
violence.

This Democrats vs Tea Party loathing and hatred is competely
indistinguishable from Shona vs Nbdele, Burmese vs Rohingya, Nazi vs
Jew, English vs Scot, Han vs Uighur, Sunni vs Shia, and so forth. The
only real question is how far the violence will be carried in America,
and whether it will go as far as some of these other similar examples.

Violence and threats of violence played a major role in impeachment
hearings. The Democrats' star witness Gordon Sondland was forced to
change his testimony after his businesses and family were being
threatened with violence, riots and demonstrations, after Democrats
led by Adam Schiff called on the rioters to threaten Sondland.
Jonathan Turley's family was threatened with violence after he said
that impeachment couldn't be justified on the current record.

The mainstream media is fully on board with this incitement to
violence. I wrote a few days ago how shocked I was. I'm probably the
only person reading this post who actually watched all five days of
the intelligence committee impeachment hearings, and what I saw was
almost beyond belief in America. After hearing each day's testimony,
I'd listen to the BBC, al-Jazeera, MS-NBC, and so forth, and their
report on the day's testimony bore no resemblance to what actually
happened. Every single witness was forced to admit under Republican
cross-examination that they had no evidence whatsoever to support Adam
Schiff's charges. Every single one of Schiff's witnesses was forced
to back down. It was all made up.

But then every single news report lied about it, saying something like
"Today, Ambassador X gave explosive testimony that Trump withheld aid
from Ukraine until Ukraine started investigating Joe and Hunter
Biden." In fact, all the news reports used the same words, indicating
that they were all reading the same press releases from Adam Schiff
and the Democrats.

By the way, for those who want to hear the other side about what's
going on in the impeachment circus, I strongly recommend Hannity on
Fox News Channel. This is the best source for understanding what's
actually going on.

It's now expected that there will be a trial in the Senate in January,
and Trump will be acquitted, since there isn't even an accusation that
he committed a crime. The question is: What will the Democrats
do after that?

This is a serious question. One Democrat senator, Al Green, said that
the Democrats should just impeach Trump again and again, until he's
convicted.

The Democrats have experienced one extremely humiliating setback after
another, after the Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax, and the impeachment
hoax. What will they do after Trump is acquitted? The Democrats have
a great deal of pent-up hatred, and it might explode into violence, as
it has in the other tribal examples I gave above. My father, who was
a Greek immigrant, once told me that the violence in the US was so
great in the 1930s that he thought that the country wouldn't survive.
That could happen again.

Even worse, what will the Democrats do if Trump is re-elected? They
will be looking at four more years of Trump, and government control by
the 63 million smelly, loathsome, hated Tea Partiers / Trump
supporters.

The Democrats have shown themselves to be angry, hysterical, and
hormonal men and women, totally irrational and a completely out of
control mob for the last three years. What will they do in the next
four years? It's not pleasant to contemplate.

However, let's remember that we're still headed for war with China.
When a "regeneracy event" occurs, such as a major military setback or
a major attack on American soil, then the entire country, both
Democrats and Republicans, will put aside their political differences
and unite behind the president, just as they did after the attack on
Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.


---- Related posts:

*** 03-Dec-2019 World View: Civil war and impeachment hearings
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 678#p48678

*** 05-Dec-2019 World View: Second American Civil War
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 711#p48711

*** 05-Dec-2019 World View: Corey Booker turns on Democrats' racism
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 712#p48712

*** 06-Dec-2019 World View: Jonathan Turley on impeachment
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 725#p48725

[John]

** 14-Dec-2019 World View: North Korea makes new test as 12/31 deadline looms

North Korea announced that it conducted another "crucial test" which
"will be applied to further bolstering up the reliable strategic
nuclear deterrent of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea."

They didn't announce what was tested, but it's believed that it
was an advanced rocket engine of a type that can be used in ballistic
missiles.

For the past two years, since the talks between Kim Jong-un and Donald
Trump began with a "charm offensive," North Korea has not tested
any nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. However, it has made
numerous tests of things like cruise missiles, which are a threat
to South Korea and Japan.

North Korea originally promised that it would denuclearize, in return
for agreement by the US to end the UN and US sanctions. Kim Jong-un
has used a variety of artifices to trick Trump into removing the
sanctions unilaterally, but has not succeeded. These tricks worked
with president George Bush in 2008, which was a major humiliation
to the US. But Trump has refused to fall for them.

Now, North Korea has set a deadline of the end of this year for the
sanctions to be lifted. They have not said how they will retaliate,
but it's believed that it would be a resumption of nuclear weapon and
ballistic missile tests.

John Xenakis is author of: "World View: War Between China and Japan:
Why America Must Be Prepared" (Generational Theory Book Series, Book
2), June 2019. Paperback: 331 pages, over 200 source references, $13.99
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732738637/

---- Sources:

-- North Korea says it conducted test to bolster its “strategic
nuclear deterrent”
https://www.nknews.org/2019/12/north-ko ... deterrent/
(NK News, 14-Dec-2019)

-- U.S. envoy to visit Seoul as deadline looms for stalled North Korea
talks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... SKBN1YH0QI
(Reuters, 13-Dec-2019)

---- Related posts:

*** 07-Dec-2019 World View: North Korea missile test
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 736#p48736

*** 07-Dec-2019 World View: North Korea ICBM test
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 733#p48733

*** 07-Dec-2019 World View: China - North Korea vassal relationship
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 735#p48735

[FishbellykanakaDude]

** 13-Dec-2019 World View: Hyperbolic existential threat

> When you actually call an actual existential threat an existential
> threat, that threat is more likely to see you as an existential
> threat, veritably making you an actual existential threat, such
> that the probability of war between the actual existential threat
> and the supposed existential threat is hyperbolically increased
> over time.

That's irrelevant. The issue is whether there will be a war. The US
and Soviet Union/Russia have considered each other an existential
threat for almost a century, but there's been no war, which is the
point. If your "hyperbolically increased over time" claim even made
any sense, then by this time the size of the Russia existential threat
would be 10**100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, and the
universe would explode.

Apparently, the US and USSR actually WEREN'T truly existential threats to one another!

..how wacky is that to discover after all this time,.. and expense!? <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle!>

As you've said, the REALLY REAL existential threat to China is CHINA! China is most worried about the internal threat of their own population who seem addicted to regular-ish rebellion.

..but they try to maintain their "stability" through demonizing "outside powers".

I suppose that one could surmise that we should have known that Russia and the US weren't really existential threats to one another long long ago simple by the fact that we hadn't "exponentially heightened" our mutual antagonisms into war somewhere in the 1970's or 1980's,.. or more likely the 1960's.

So, how do we decide that there will be war between antagonists, if not by their mutual level of antagonism?

..we "know" there will be war because their generational condition(s) "matches" the "gotta have a WAR!" template for (one or both of) the belligerents.

BUT,.. it is possible to speed up or slow down the commencement of a war by being "naughty or nice" to "the enemy", while the inevitability of said war is not effected at all.

[John]

15-Dec-19 World View -- US envoy visits S. Korea to prepare for North Korea 12/31 threat


China's confused response to the North Korean threat

** 15-Dec-19 World View -- US envoy visits S. Korea to prepare for North Korea 12/31 threat
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e191215



Contents:
North Korea announces new 'crucial test' to bolster its 'nuclear deterrent'
US envoy Stephen Biegun arrives in South Korea on Sunday
China's confused response to the North Korean threat


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, North Korea, Kim Jong-un,
South Korea, Moon Jae-in, Japan, Shinzo Abe,
Stephen Biegun, China, Chinese Communist Party, CCP,
Terminal High Altitude Air Defense, THAAD

[Guest]

I keep reading how China is winning the trade war, but I live in Asia and the Chinese economy I see is tanking. I cannot fathom the news reports I see in the mainstream media. Is this just hatred of Trump or has the American press just lost the plot?

I read an interesting article recently which is more inline with what I am witnessing over here.

No, China Is Not as Strong as It Seems Despite commentary to the contrary, Beijing's success isn't perfect or unstoppable by Milton Ezrati

I have never heard of this analyst, but he understands the situation better than anyone I have watched on CNBC.

Here is the link: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/no ... ems-105142