9-Feb-17 World View -- Mainstream media frets over Steve Bannon, the Fourth Turning, and Donald Trump

[John]

9-Feb-17 World View -- Mainstream media frets over Steve Bannon, the Fourth Turning, and Donald Trump

China-Philippines détente unravels over Scarborough Shoal

** 9-Feb-17 World View -- Mainstream media frets over Steve Bannon, the Fourth Turning, and Donald Trump
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e170209


Contents:
China-Philippines détente unravels over Scarborough Shoal
Mainstream media frets over Steve Bannon, the Fourth Turning, and Donald Trump


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Philippines, Scarborough Shoal, China,
Rodrigo Duterte, Delfin Lorenzana, Fiery Cross, South China Sea,
Xi Jinping, Rex Tillerson, Steve Bannon,
the Fourth Turning, Neil Howe, William Strauss, Linette Lopez

[psCargile]

Could President Trump be using GD via Twitter to appeal for a mandate by the people?

[shoshin]

Seriously? Trump is complaining about Nordstrom on Twitter, it's all about ME ME ME!

He's not my idea of a ship captain to guide us through stormy waters.

[DaKardii]

1) I'm very pleased by the turn of events between the Philippines and China, given that up until this morning, I was certain that Duterte would side with China and Islam in the upcoming Clash of Civilizations. He has Communists and Muslims in his family background, after all.

2) Time's argument that Steve Bannon is going to use the Fourth Turning as a means to start WWIII is outright ridiculous. However, it reminds me a lot of the main villain of a screenplay I'm currently in the process of writing (I'm no professional, but I'm a cinephile (a person who is fond of motion pictures) and am interested in using screenplays as a means to promote political discourse (I'm currently a double major in political science and international studies at the University of Miami)). For obvious reasons, I'm not going to reveal any other details about my screenplay, but let's talk about the villain. He's supposed to be a Soviet military adviser who was traumatized by the events of the Second World War, during which he witnessed the massive death and destruction Germany waged on Russia. Much like the expatriates of the interwar period, he subsequently became disillusioned with society and turned to the works of academics and intellectuals to formulate an alternate worldview. During the early years of the Cold War, he discovered the historical patterns that you cite in order to justify your "Generational Dynamics" theory (though he doesn't call his findings "Generational Dynamics"). However, instead of using his findings for good (such as education), he decides to use them for evil. During the next 23 years (the story takes place in 1968), he is deployed to various proxy wars between the US and the USSR that can be classified as crisis wars, such as Korea and Vietnam. Knowing that these are crisis wars and that there is a genocidal urge on both sides, he deliberately tries to inflame tensions in order to intensify the genocide. Why? Two reasons. First, he wants to inflict as much pain as possible in order to advance Soviet power. His experience during the Second World War has convinced him that massive atrocities and genocide is the path to power. Second, he wants to wage psychological warfare on the US military by using said atrocities to create propaganda that states: "The only way you can beat us is if you lose your soul and become us. Otherwise, you will be destroyed, because you are weak."

Obviously, the vast majority of people would be horrified by this character's actions. They would call him evil. A man whose mind is beyond warped. However, what do you think of this character's logic, regarding your theory? Also, are there historical examples of people who conducted foreign policy under that particular mindset?

[FishbellykanakaDude]

...Obviously, the vast majority of people would be horrified by this character's actions. They would call him evil. A man whose mind is beyond warped. However, what do you think of this character's logic, regarding your theory? Also, are there historical examples of people who conducted foreign policy under that particular mindset?

To pull off a character like that, you'd need to balance him with,.. SOMETHING,.. BIG.

His logic is perfectly logical (which is a good thing), and dramatically potent. The question is what is the "natural counter-effect" of this character's horrific proclivities,.. and WHO does it affect?

It pretty much HAS to affect the character himself, prompting some kind of "change/evolution" in him, but it can't dilute his "essential persona" without demotivating/de-energizing the story.

You've set yourself an interesting task, there, my writer comrade!

..tiger by the tail time! Hoowah..! <chuckle!>

Aloha nui, ku'u hoaloha.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

Seriously? Trump is complaining about Nordstrom on Twitter, it's all about ME ME ME!

He's not my idea of a ship captain to guide us through stormy waters.

Have you ever heard the phrase: "Honey Badger don't CARE!!"...?

When your enemies fear conversational chaos and impropriety more than they're comfortable with their own persuasiveness, you feed them chaos and impropriety. It creates instability and panic in their thinking.

Art of War 101.

"Normal People" know that people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Bar-room smack-talk is accepted by normal people as acceptable behavior of the denizens of A BAR!

..politics is A BAR!!!

If you don't think politics is A BAR then you're deluded.

..at this "stressed out and anxious" time in world history, to imagine that politics is a genteel salon is deadly, and will get you raped and murdered behind the dumpster in the alleyway that you shouldn't have gone down in the first place.