Generational Dynamics World View News

[John]

** 19-Sep-2021 World View: Chinese migration to Japan

> https://news.yahoo.com/study-rewrites-u ... 58811.html
> John, have you seen this. Japanese have roughly 71% Han ancestry.
> There goes the 'racial superiority' claim or partially?

This is not surprising. China has always been subject to massive
internal rebellions, wars, droughts and famines, and people are going
to flee anywhere they can, including Japan, where they intermarry with
the local population. So of course Chinese DNA is going to be mixed
with Japanese DNA.

What I consider a lot more interesting is the spread of Buddhism from
India across Asia and into Korea and Japan in the form of Zen
Buddhism. Displacing an established religion with another one is
incredibly difficult, and I described how hit happened in my book on
Vietnam.

[FullMoon]

** 19-Sep-2021 World View: Chinese migration to Japan

> https://news.yahoo.com/study-rewrites-u ... 58811.html
> John, have you seen this. Japanese have roughly 71% Han ancestry.
> There goes the 'racial superiority' claim or partially?

This is not surprising. China has always been subject to massive
internal rebellions, wars, droughts and famines, and people are going
to flee anywhere they can, including Japan, where they intermarry with
the local population. So of course Chinese DNA is going to be mixed
with Japanese DNA.

What I consider a lot more interesting is the spread of Buddhism from
India across Asia and into Korea and Japan in the form of Zen
Buddhism. Displacing an established religion with another one is
incredibly difficult, and I described how hit happened in my book on
Vietnam.

Thanks for the reply. My apologies for not having read the book yet. I'm told the spirit of Zen is almost gone in Japan although the temples still stand, mostly empty. And it's in America that the spirit of Zen has migrated to. Did you find anything of such in2 your research to substantiate this?

[John]

** 20-Sep-2021 World View: Zen Buddhism in America

> Thanks for the reply. My apologies for not having read the book
> yet. I'm told the spirit of Zen is almost gone in Japan although
> the temples still stand, mostly empty. And it's in America that
> the spirit of Zen has migrated to. Did you find anything of such
> in2 your research to substantiate this?

There is a member of this forum who has been studying Zen Buddhism
with the goal of reaching enlightenment. Perhaps he might be willing
to comment on Zen Buddhism in America.

[DaKardii]

REVENGE: Macron is now trying to sabotage the Quad by making deals with India to "defend truly multilateral international order."

Washington is not gonna like this.

https://www.rt.com/news/535219-france-i ... rld-aukus/

[FullMoon]

** 20-Sep-2021 World View: Zen Buddhism in America

> Thanks for the reply. My apologies for not having read the book
> yet. I'm told the spirit of Zen is almost gone in Japan although
> the temples still stand, mostly empty. And it's in America that
> the spirit of Zen has migrated to. Did you find anything of such
> in2 your research to substantiate this?

There is a member of this forum who has been studying Zen Buddhism
with the goal of reaching enlightenment. Perhaps he might be willing
to comment on Zen Buddhism in America.

That would be great . But I respect your perspective as well and would like to know if you found anything during your study. Acknowledgement and adoption took some during it's westward journey did it not? Slow start, burn bright and then dim or fizzle out. That's what I learned but I could be wrong.

[FullMoon]

REVENGE: Macron is now trying to sabotage the Quad by making deals with India to "defend truly multilateral international order."

Washington is not gonna like this.

https://www.rt.com/news/535219-france-i ... rld-aukus/

Wouldn't helping India be good for US? We need them buffed up for the fight. Anything helps. Old outdated technology is better than nothing. We need them strong enough to help toe the line, or am I missing something?

[Xeraphim1]

Whoa! France just recalled its ambassadors from both the US and Australia over this sub deal.

Could this be the beginning of the end of the Franco-American alliance? And if so, could this be the beginning of a French realignment with China and/or Russia?

And what about NATO? Can the alliance survive a break in Franco-American relations?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/17/france- ... -deal.html

I just realized that the UK is also a party to the sub agreement. Now France's response makes a bit more sense to me.

Relations between France and the UK have been slowly deteriorating since Brexit, as the UK resets its foreign policy to the pre-WWII doctrine of preventing Western Europe from being dominated by a single power while France's clout over the EU is significantly increased due to the lack of an internal British counterbalance.

Thus, it would make sense if France responded the way it did because it sees this agreement as part of a British plot to undermine France's influence around the world, with the USA and Australia collaborating with the UK out of some sort of "Anglosphere superiority complex." And in this specific case, the USA and Australia did most of the dirty work, which is why France retaliated diplomatically against them but not the UK itself.

Of course, this is just my personal speculation again.

France is more angry at Australia and the US. It's treating the UK as an American puppet and didn't recall its ambassador to the UK.

So no, your theory doesn't work. It's more likely that France see's itself losing both prestige and sales, primarily to the US.

[Xeraphim1]

France is never going to align with Russia or China. That's not even a silly question. And NATO survived just fine when France removed itself from the NATO command structure.

France was aligned with Russia ca. 1890-1917. Caused much evil in the world, especially when Britain stopped trying to ride herd on two rival blocs in Europe and started to back France without checking what France's ally Russia was up to. That is how Britain wound up losing a million men in WW I over Serbian machinations in the Balkans. Belgium had nothing to do with it--if France had occupied Belgium (which they would have been able to do in 1917 IF the war had started then (long story) Britain would NOT have done a thing! Historically France has been a Center-Left sort of country, like the US 1933-1980 so being Friendly to the Soviets/Russia is entirely plausible, and the one way the Germans can avoid being called neo-Nazi is by adopting pro-Soviet/Russian policies, this last is the consequence of popular World War II Propaganda whose consequences Britain and America must pay heed to. It's a perverse trap of Popular Democracy to be enslaves to past propaganda. But I don't expect France to go in a Russian orbit now--Putin is no longer a young man and he has no sons so little possibility we'll see a "Boris [Vladimir] Putinov" staged. France will sulk--they usually do--and then come up with something maybe. But I do wonder WHY the Aussies decided in 2016 on such inferior submarines?

France allied with Russia because it was terrified of facing Germany alone. These days Germany is close to impotent militarily and is a close ally anyways. In fact, now that the UK has left, France is the paramount military in the EU.

Australia went with the Attack class because they needed submarines with longer range and endurance than the Collins class. France offered a AIP version of the Barracuda and was willing to transfer technology and experience to Australia to allow them to be produced there. What Australia should have done is looked at previous major French offers and seen how well they worked. India was going to buy 120+ Rafales but the deal fell apart due to rising costs and refusal by France (Dassault really) to fulfill the contracts. That should have been a message.

[Xeraphim1]

That's right. The French officials have been going around describing
this as the English-speaking countries (US, UK and Australia) pivoting
to Asia, leaving France out. They're saying that this betrayal is
extremely serious, and goes far beyond the cancellation of the $90
billion contract.

We keep trying to guess how Europe will split up during a new world
war. Maybe we'll see a new Battle of Waterloo.

The three major powers of Western Europe are Germany, France, and the UK.

My opinion is that once NATO falls apart, the subsequent re-alignment will pit two powers against the third. And it could go one of three ways:

1) France and the UK against Germany, with the divide being over whether Germany should re-assert itself in the aftermath of its re-unification.

2) Germany and the UK against France, with the divide being over whether France should be the sole arbiter of continental affairs (a world that many post-WWII French leaders have dreamt about).

3) Germany and France against the UK, with the divide being over whether the UK, an island nation, should have any influence over continental affairs whatsoever.

Based on what I'm seeing right now, the most likely scenarios are the second and third ones, which would inevitably result in the UK siding with the USA, France siding with China, and Germany being a wild card.

1. Germany seems to have no intention of exerting itself militarily. In fact, one of the problems in the alliance has been the refusal of Germany to spend anything near what it agreed to. Germany is quite happy to free ride on the defense expenditures of others.

2. Germany and France get along quite well and are willing to accept a division of spoils: France gets to be militarily important while Germany runs the economy for its own benefit.

3. The UK was rather intent on getting out of the EU and NOT having much of a say in continental affairs. Why would France and Germany fight the UK over something the UK doesn't even want?

You keep positing all these theories that don't make any sense. It's like wondering what will we do if Alien Space Bats invade the Earth.

[Xeraphim1]

The three major powers of Western Europe are Germany, France, and the UK.

My opinion is that once NATO falls apart, the subsequent re-alignment will pit two powers against the third. And it could go one of three ways:

1) France and the UK against Germany, with the divide being over whether Germany should re-assert itself in the aftermath of its re-unification.

2) Germany and the UK against France, with the divide being over whether France should be the sole arbiter of continental affairs (a world that many post-WWII French leaders have dreamt about).

3) Germany and France against the UK, with the divide being over whether the UK, an island nation, should have any influence over continental affairs whatsoever.

Based on what I'm seeing right now, the most likely scenarios are the second and third ones, which inevitably would result in the UK siding with the USA, France siding with China, and Germany being a wild card.

I also predict a similar situation will befall the Middle East -- where two powers ally against the third -- once push comes to shove.

In that region, the three major powers are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran.

The divide could go one of two ways:

1) Turkey and Iran against Saudi Arabia, with the divide being over Saudi Arabia's historic regional hegemony as well as its support for Wahhabist movements.

2) Saudi Arabia and Iran against Turkey, with the divide being over the Erdogan regime's neo-Ottoman imperial ambitions as well as its support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

3) Saudi Arabia and Turkey against Iran, with the divide being over Sunni-Shia fault lines.

In my opinion, the ultimate factor determining which of these three scenarios comes to pass will be China. China is in desperate need of allies outside its backyard, and by far its best bets for such allies are among the Sunni countries (due to Pakistan being China's closest ally). So naturally, in the leadup to the war China will be actively courting both Saudi Arabia and Turkey as potential allies. Of course, there's one problem, and a serious one at that. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are currently enemies due to their ongoing competition for hegemony over the Sunni world. And if China is unable to broker some sort of peace between them, it will have to pick a side. Should it pick a side, its decision likely will be determined by the amount of influence Saudi Arabia and Turkey respectively have over Pakistan.

If China is able to broker some sort of peace between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, then Scenario #3 will happen. Saudi Arabia and Turkey will ally with China and Iran will ally with the USA.

But if China is unable to broker said peace, then either Scenario #1 or Scenario #2 will happen. Whichever side China picks in the Saudi-Turkish cold war, the other one will (at least initially) ally with the USA. Meanwhile, Iran will be a wild card; who it allies with will be determined by the outcome of a generational conflict, with the older generations supporting China and the younger generations supporting the USA. A similar generational conflict will also play out within whichever Sunni power allies with the USA, with the older generations supporting the USA and the younger generations supporting China.

1. Both Turkey and Iran want to be the local hegemon. They're not going to ally against a third country. besides, they have nothing in common.

2. Saudi Arabia isn't going to ally with Iran, period. Iran want's to take over the Muslim holy sites from KSA and become the local great power. KSA is not going to help it with anything.

3. KSA isn't going to fight Iran if it has any other options. War is bad for business and there are still a bunch of Shiites in KSA. Why stir up needless problems?

Again, you don't seem to be thinking any of these things out.