Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

DaKardii wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2026 11:21 am Well, a merger of the Ukrainian and Iranian conflicts has been averted, for now.

Meanwhile, another crisis is rapidly emerging, as Morocco is forcing tens of thousands of Arab/Muslim migrants into Ceuta. High probability they are doing this to expel the Spanish population and create a pretext for to annex that territory. The Spanish government is accusing Israel of involvement in this scheme, and others are accusing the US of being involved as well. In recent months politicians and media outlets in both Israel and the US have been calling for Spain to cede Ceuta to Morocco, so these accusations are not without merit.

Personally, I suspect the US is doing this to ensure the Strait of Gibraltar is controlled entirely by friendly nations once global war breaks out, as it no longer trusts Spain to remain in its camp as relations continue to deteriorate.

The future in the Mideast

What will be the causes and the timing of a new Mideast war?

The causes will be among those listed by Huntington in [The Clash of Civilizations].

The timing will be determined by the last crisis war, which occurred in the 1936-49 time frame.

Few analysts seem to have any idea of what's in store in the Mideast. They all look at the 1967 and 1972 wars, as well as the late 1980's intifada, because that's as far back as they can remember, and they say, "Any new war won't be any worse than those."

That's completely wrong. Those were mid-cycle wars, led by veterans of the extremely violent and bloody 1940s wars who were willing to compromise before allowing that much violence to occur again. Those veterans are dying off now, and the next war won't have their influence. Today we're repeating the steps of the early Palestinian-Jewish confrontations in the late 1930s, leading up the extremely violent and bloody wars of the late 1940s. History shows that there's no guarantee that the state of Israel will survive the new wars.

When will the generational change take place?

There's an incredible irony going on in the Mideast today, in that the leaders of two opposing sides are, respectively, Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat.

These two men hate each other, but they're the ones cooperating with each other (consciously or not) to prevent a major Mideast conflagration. Both of them fought in the wars of the 1940s, and neither of them wants to see anything like that happen again. And it won't happen again, as long as both of these men are in charge.

The disappearance of these two men will be part of an overall generational change in the Mideast that will lead to a major conflagration within a few years. It's possible that the disappearance of Arafat alone will trigger a war, just as the election of Lincoln ignited the American Civil War. (It's currently American policy to get rid of Arafat. My response is this: Be careful what you wish for.) Most likely, the disappearance of Arafat will lead to increased violence, but not a full-fledged war for a few months.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out many times, the median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.6, indicating the Gaza is being controlled more and more by a population of young people with no concept of the nuances of international geopolitics.

It's worth taking a moment to see what attitudes were like following the end of World War II. There had been two horrible world wars, and it was generally accepted that we might well be headed for a third world war, this time with the Communists.

So there was no Nash equilibrium after World War II. There was no paralysis, no fear of doing something to solve the world's problems; instead, the great fear was that doing nothing would lead to disaster.

Here's what Hannah Arendt wrote in the preface to her 1950 book, The Origins of Totalitarianism:

"Two world wars in one generation, separated by an uninterrupted chain of local wars and revolutions, followed by no peace treaty for the vanquished and no respite for the victor, have ended in the anticipation of a third World War between the two remaining world powers. This moment of anticipation is like the calm that settles after all hopes have died. We no longer hope for an eventual restoration of the old world order with all its traditions, or for the reintegration of the masses of five continents who have been thrown into a chaos produced by the violence of wars and revolutions and the growing decay of all that has still been spared. Under the most diverse conditions and disparate circumstances, we watch the development of the same phenomena -- homelessness on an unprecedented scale, rootlessness to an unprecedented depth.

Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest -- forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries. It is as though mankind had divided itself between those who believe in human omnipotence (who think that everything is possible if one knows how to organize masses for it) and those for whom powerlessness has become the major experience of their lives.

On the level of historical insight and political thought there prevails an ill-defined, general agreement that the essential structure of all civilizations is at the breaking point. Although it may seem better preserved in some parts of the world than in others, it can nowhere provide the guidance to the possibilities of the century, or an adequate response to its horrors. Desperate hope and desperate fear often seem closer to the center of such events than balanced judgment and measured insight. The central events of our time are not less effectively forgotten by those committed to a belief in an unavoidable doom, than by those who haven themselves up to reckless optimism."

It's amazing what the survivors of World War II did. They carefully set up worldwide organizations -- the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, etc. -- whose purpose was, most of all, to prevent another world war. They accomplished huge things. They set up country boundaries, set up world monetary policies, as well as trade and commerce policies. They made sure everyone would be fed. They attacked all of the miseries of the World Wars -- poverty, famine, disease and war -- so that nothing like World War II would ever happen to their children or grandchildren.

But the people who set up those organizations and did those great things are gone now, and the people left behind don't have the skills to make them work effectively.

Today we're much closer to World War III than we were in 1950, but there's no will today to do something to prevent it. What we're seeing is that nations around the world are trying not to disturb the equilibrium, trying not to make things worse, with the result that nations around the world are becoming paralyzed into inaction.

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 21-May-2017

What's most interesting about Trump's visit is the symbolic flip-flop from the previous administration to the current one in attitudes towards Iran and Saudi Arabia.

President Barack Obama repeatedly showed his contempt, in one way or another, for the Saudis, and the feeling was mutual. However Obama, through his Secretary of State John Kerry who believes that America's soldiers are terrorists, repeatedly sucked up to the Iranians, making one humiliating concession after another to close the nuclear deal. However, the feeling was not mutual, as Iran repeatedly insulted Kerry, Obama, and the American people, and still does.

So now president Trump has made a symbolic reversal. Trump is contemptuous of the Iranians, and the Iranians are contemptuous of him. Trump loves the Saudis, and the Saudis love him.

This is a good time to remind readers that it's a core principle of Generational Dynamics that, even in a dictatorship, major decisions are made by masses of people, by generations of people. The attitudes of politicians are irrelevant, except insofar as they represent the attitudes of the people. So the relations between American, Iranian and Saudi leaders is much less important than the attitudes that the masses of Americans, Saudis and Iranians have for one another.

So we note the following:

Although the Supreme Leader and other Iranian politicians say they hate the United States, their attitudes are not shared by the younger generations, who are generally pro-Western and pro-American. So it really makes little difference what Obama and Trump think of Khamenei.

As illustrated by the 1979 terrorist attack on Saudi Arabia's Grand Mosque, there's a major split in Saudi Arabia between those who support the al-Saud government and the Salafists. How this split plays out in the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war remains to be seen.

I believe that a great deal of information can be determined by detailed generational analyses of the various tribes and ethnic groups in the Mideast. I believe that this analysis could be used to predict how events will unfold in the coming years. I certainly don't have anything like the resources to perform such an analysis, but any college student interested in this kind of analysis could make an invaluable contribution to understanding what's going on in the world today by taking on, as a thesis topic, a generational analysis of the tribes and ethnic groups in the Mideast. AP and Arab News

U.S. general warns Pentagon he lacks sufficient forces to protect Israel

A shortage of Navy destroyers, used to defend against Iranian ballistic missile attacks, will force the head of U.S. European Command to prioritize the U.S. homeland instead, officials said.

'Kind of madness': Iran vows to target US, Israeli energy assets if attacked as Trump weighs fresh strikes

John wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:43 pm

Guest in Korea wrote: > Do you have any idea how disturbing this page is to read?

The thing is, you really have to think about what you want to do. In
my case, I've decided that I really don't want to live through a world
war. I live in Cambridge Mass, next to MIT, and the ideal scenario
for me would be that one of the first Chinese missiles kills me
quickly and painlessly. Death is, after all, a part of life.

What this web site and Generational Dynamics give you is an insight
into what's going to happen. Some people ask me if it's better off
just to ignore all this stuff. My answer is that it probably is,
since you can't do anything about it, and you might as well just enjoy
life as normal.

So if you live in Seoul, just forget that you ever came to this site,
and go one with your happy day to day life as usual. Quite honestly,
in the end, it will probably be the best choice.

On the other hand, if you do want to do something about the situation,
then you have to stop being scared, make a plan, and do it. I've
known people who have become survivalists, and are now living in some
unknown bunkers somewhere in the midwest USA.

If you're a young male, you might take this advice:

Higgenbotham wrote: > Based on the information you provided, since you are young
> (presumably wouldn't have a lot of money to invest) and you think
> a nuclear war is probable, I would suggest you first "invest in
> yourself" and your survival. One idea for consideration in that
> regard is to set yourself up to be able to get to a safe haven
> outside the US. A couple countries that come to mind are Chile and
> Namibia. One way to do that would be to try to meet a woman in a
> country you determine to be a safe haven who has a reputable and
> well connected family. Know how you are going to get to her
> family's home within 24 hours and have the money set aside to do
> that, your bags packed and an idea of what news would make you
> ready to act.

So his advice is to pick a country, move there, and move in
with some reputable woman.

Maybe that option isn't available to you. If you're able to leave
Korea, then you have to decide whether you should do that and, if so,
when and where. Or, as I understand it, southern South Korea is
likely to be a lot safer than Seoul, so you might consider taking your
family and moving there.

Once you've figured out what your choices are, you have to pick one of
them and decide to live with it. If you decide to do nothing, live
with that. If you decide to move somewhere, live with that. Just
make up your mind and do it. And I really mean it when I say that
doing nothing may be the best choice, since no place is really safe
from a world war, so why bother?

Iran issues second warning to Ukraine after alleged Caspian Sea attack

Iran issued a second warning to Ukraine on Sunday following what Tehran said was an attack on a vessel in the Caspian Sea.

Iranian officials claimed the attack on July 25 triggered an explosion aboard the vessel, killing one sailor and wounding another.

"Any attack on Iran always comes with a cost, and that remains true today. The U.S. and Israel are well aware of this," Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Commission, said in a post on X.

"Ukraine, too, may soon come to understand that Iran does not let actions go unanswered," he added, warning that the list of those "who have miscalculated continues to increase."

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the attack and said earlier Sunday that the incident "cannot go unanswered."

18-Oct-18 World View -- Ukraine counters Russia's military buildup in the Sea of Azov

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, both Russia and Ukraine are in a generational Crisis era. In 1932-33, millions of innocent Ukrainians – men, women, and children – starved to death as a result of the deliberate policies of the regime of Joseph Stalin. The genocidal atrocity is known as the Holodomor, which means "death by hunger." Stalin's regime seized crops and farms across Ukraine, leaving the population to starve to death. It's quite possible that Russia's president Vladimir Putin would like to find a way to repeat Stalin's achievement. Jamestown and Daily Signal and Sputnik News and Government of Ukraine and (Trans)