Generational Dynamics World View News

[Cynic Hero 86]

> At this point, I believe we will go through a financial
> crisis/collapse, followed by a World War. After that, I think most
> of the world will go through a period similar to post World War
> One Europe. To be followed by anarchy then dictators.

> What do you think Europe will look like after WW 3? Will there be
> anyone left to form a government?

World War III will kill hundreds of millions of people in Europe, from
nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, ground war, riots, disease and
famine. Hundreds of millions will live, and they'll get together and
form a new European Union, including the UK, Switzerland, and other
European nations, and everyone will use the new euro2 currency.[/quote]

This sounds like it is being said in jest.

Who is going to be waging this ground war in Europe? Unless Russia attacks it, no one has the force projection to take ground forces into Europe. China and India are too far away from Europe. Regarding the EU, The EU is a 3T creation, and 3T creations usually don't survive the 4T and 1T.

[John]

> Who is going to be waging this ground war in Europe? Unless Russia
> attacks it, no one has the force projection to take ground forces
> into Europe. China and India are too far away from
> Europe. Regarding the EU, The EU is a 3T creation, and 3T
> creations usually don't survive the 4T and 1T.

Europeans will be fighting each other. For example, the Poles and
Ukrainians vitriolically hate each other, and there are many other
examples. The hatred level in the Balkans is off the scale. Italy
and France expressing increasing mutual hostility, and Italy appears
to be aligning with China.

On March 25, 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed, creating a precursor
to the "United States of Europe." The creation of EU#2 should go
faster, since when the peace conference meets right after the war
ends, they'll already have had the experience of EU#1 to fall back on.
For example, the United Nations was formed quickly after WW II,
because they were able to build on the League of Nations experience.

[CH86]

I thought it might help explain my points of view if I explained a bit how I came to Generational Dynamics, and how my views align (or do not align) with this system/philosophy.

As a hobbyist historian, I found it curious that the major events in US History seemed to follow an 80 year cycle. 80 years between the Revolution and the Civil War. 80 years between the Civil War and World War Two. To me, things like this are not chance.

You see, I am a somewhat religious person. I believe that at the most fundamental level, there is either a “Higher Power” or everything happens “by chance”. I think that if you don’t believe in a “Higher Power” then you believe that the Universe/world/mankind were created “by chance”, the so-called random events that would need to occur for life to exist.

Personally, I believe that there is a “Higher Power”. Furthermore, I believe that this “Higher Power’s” greatest creation is not celestial bodies or orbiting planets, but rather the History of this World.

So, when I looked at the cycles that seemed to be occurring, I found that John had developed a good model for explaining the stages of the repeating cycle and how different nationalities/cultures can be in different stages at any given point in time.

I was further enamored of John’s distillation of current world events. His daily articles usually had more insight into what was actually happening than bundles of newspapers and innumerable websites. BTW, I miss those articles very much.

I am in agreement with John over the next basic steps, financial calamity and World War.

However, I do think, in contrast to John, that the “other side” in the war will be a China/Russia main alliance. I, personally, don’t have an opinion on how the Sunni/Shiite thing will split in the war, as I consider both (currently) so far off base as to want nothing to do with either faction. I do have hopes for Iran to fix itself, as Generational Dynamics predicts.

One of the reasons I believe in the China/Russia alliance is my personal belief that Europe is not going to remain untouched by a major war between primarily US and China (or, as John predicts, between US-Russia and China). In fact, I think that a lot of the upcoming future war will take place in Central Europe, and that WW III will have a two-front dynamic for the US that WW II did.

I believe that God (the “Higher Power”) provides guidance and clues regarding what is going to happen next. In some way, I believe that what will happen next is similar to what happened in the last two World Wars.

To me, the First World War was about the destruction of the great absolute monarchies (Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany). The war saw their demise. There followed, for Central Europe, a period of near anarchy, of revolutions, coups, and financial chaos. And out of this arose a number of dictators who were far worse than the absolute monarchs; Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.

This is roughly what I think will happen with WW III. The next world war will utterly destroy the socialist states. They will no longer be able to provide for their citizens. And the people do not have the social structures to compensate for this. This will lead to a post WW III period for Europe that will be FAR worse than the post WW I period. And the individuals with power that will emerge out of this anarchy, I believe, will be far worse than Hitler and Stalin.

As bad as this sounds, I believe it is all part of the plan of history designed by God. I believe that history was designed to fulfill a purpose, and that it has a culmination. In the end, I believe the culmination results in a “greater good”, but it will be an extremely trying and difficult period to experience first hand.

Regarding Europe, Europe would be a battleground only if the main opponents of WW3 were US vs Russia/China with Russia as leader of the eastern forces. In a WW3 primarily between the US/Russia vs China or US vs China/Russia with China as leader of the China/Russia bloc it is unlikely that Europe would be a main battlefield. This is because Europe has different relations than the US, for example the EU generally has friendly relations with the PRC. In a US/Russia vs China war especially, the physics and logistics of the battlefield make it practically impossible for the main battlefield to be in Europe. The US, Russia and China would be busy fighting and targeting each other, to worry about what Europe was doing. Only a Russian-led Russia/China bloc would have the capability and motivation to lead a main attack into Europe. Any other scenario under the current strategic alignments renders such a development of events implausible. Thats why the scenarios advanced on the website are generally implausible, their is no motive. Russia has motive or can gin up motive to attack Europe. China has motive to attack Japan, or Taiwan. Both China and India each have motive to attack each other and a history of hostility. If the US commits to defending Taiwan then the Chinese have motive to attack the US. The US and Russia also have a history of hostility. These are the plausible scenarios. The other scenarios however are implausible; this regarding Notions of Chinese invasions of Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and Africa, these are implausible scenarios as neither country or region has a history of hostility with the other in these latter examples, in some case they have no direct geopolitical connections with each other of any tangible kind. The motive for war Just isn't there in those examples.

[Guest]

Europeans will be fighting each other. For example, the Poles and
Ukrainians vitriolically hate each other, and there are many other
examples. The hatred level in the Balkans is off the scale. Italy
and France expressing increasing mutual hostility, and Italy appears
to be aligning with China.

BINGO!

[CH86]

> Who is going to be waging this ground war in Europe? Unless Russia
> attacks it, no one has the force projection to take ground forces
> into Europe. China and India are too far away from
> Europe. Regarding the EU, The EU is a 3T creation, and 3T
> creations usually don't survive the 4T and 1T.

Europeans will be fighting each other. For example, the Poles and
Ukrainians vitriolically hate each other, and there are many other
examples. The hatred level in the Balkans is off the scale. Italy
and France expressing increasing mutual hostility, and Italy appears
to be aligning with China.

On March 25, 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed, creating a precursor
to the "United States of Europe." The creation of EU#2 should go
faster, since when the peace conference meets right after the war
ends, they'll already have had the experience of EU#1 to fall back on.
For example, the United Nations was formed quickly after WW II,
because they were able to build on the League of Nations experience.

First of all China has been presenting itself as a globalist alternative to the US and Russia over the last few years. The notion that China would embrace a "national sovereignty" standard bearer in propaganda is their implausible. the PRC's ideology is Marxism/globalism not racialism. Italy is aligned with the US/Nato although the nationalists want to align with Russia. The notion of a Sino-Italian alliance is therefore implausible. Just because the nationalists like sovereignty doesn't mean they are pro-Chinese, European nationalists hate Asiatic immigration, they want a Russian alliance not a Chinese one. The Chinese themselves have far better relations with the European globalists than they do with the nationalists anyway. This also applies to Greece, they are currently aligned with the west but the Nationalists want a Russian alliance.

[CH86]

Regarding the Ideological Basis of WW3. John is being deliberately dense, if he thinks WW3 would be about "Democracy vs Totaliatarian". That would be like saying WW2 was being fought about the Issue of slavery. Democratic globalism vs Totalitarianism WAS the issue of the PREVIOUS crisis war (WW2). Much like resisting French imperialism was NOT the Issue of the American Revolution. Much like independence from Britain was NOT an issue of the Civil war, and much like the issue of Slavery was NOT the Issue of WW2. Democratic Globalism vs Totalitarianism would NOT be the issue of any WW3 scenario in the near future. This would be case PRECISELY BECAUSE that issue WAS the issue of the previous crisis war.

[Navigator]

> I was further enamored of John’s distillation of current world
> events. His daily articles usually had more insight into what was
> actually happening than bundles of newspapers and innumerable
> websites. BTW, I miss those articles very much.

Yeah, well, I've become increasingly cynical about that. Sure, a few
dozen people enjoyed reading the daily articles, just as people enjoy
reading comic strips every day, as long as they're free, but in the
end no more than few dozen people really cared one way or the other.
I've been a complete fool to think otherwise. Nobody gives a shit.

I fully understand John. I don't post anymore on the blog I had started as right now I figure its way too much effort for no reward. The number of people interested in what is going on is pretty small.

I think that most figure that they cannot change things, so why worry about what the cannot affect.

On the other hand, I think most just deal with what confronts them daily, and are not prepared in any way (financially, psychologically, etc) for what is coming.

I think the only way to get ahead with information like what you have is to package it in terms of "this is how you can prepare for the future". But even then there are few interested in that.

[Jack Edwards]

Navigator said:

I don't post anymore on the blog I had started as right now I figure its way too much effort for no reward. The number of people interested in what is going on is pretty small.

I read a few of your blogs posts and found your perspective interesting. Intend to read more. So thanks! I can completely see why monitoring peoples comments to your blog posts wouldn't be worth it though.
Regards, Jack

[Navigator]

This is roughly what I think will happen with WW III. The next world war will utterly destroy the socialist states. They will no longer be able to provide for their citizens. And the people do not have the social structures to compensate for this. This will lead to a post WW III period for Europe that will be FAR worse than the post WW I period. And the individuals with power that will emerge out of this anarchy, I believe, will be far worse than Hitler and Stalin.

Do you see countries even existing in Europe after World War 3 or are you talking Mad Max? What will Europe look like after the next world war? I would like you to expand on this?

Also, i'm religious too, and I follow what you are saying. I just wonder if we are heading for another Noah's Ark like event (few survivors)?

I think that countries will try to exist after WW3. The problem with the socialist states is that they have done a lot to destroy the basic building block of society, the family.

Prior to socialism, we had extended families. This meant grandparents living with their children and grandchildren. Socialism and Moral Decay (manifest in divorce rates) have ended the extended family and done a lot of damage to family ties. Without familial bonds, and without government subsidies for individuals (be that social security or welfare of some kind), societies will, IMHO, fall apart.

Concerning families, I wrote about some of this in my blog:
https://comingstorms.com/family-change-part-1/

https://comingstorms.com/family-change-part-2/

Then, of course, there is the problem with people who are living entirely on state support. What do you think these people will do when they stop getting government support? They aren't just going to sit there and starve.

These two things, family disintegration and dependence on state support, put us all in "new territory" as far as the cycle goes.

Add this to what you can read about Germany or Russia at the end of World War One.

[Navigator]

Getting back to current events, I think a worrisome development that is not getting much notice are Putin's efforts to "merge" Russia with Belarus. I think that he may be close to forcing the issue (a financial crisis would allow him to "seal the deal"). This would give him an option to what happens when he can't be President of Russia anymore (he could be head of a new multi-state conglomerate). Plus it would give him a much better strategic position versus Ukraine, the Baltic states, and Poland.