Generational Dynamics World View News

[Cool Breeze]

There will be no world war IV.

If 3 even happens, you know who will be on the scene to solidify world "peace" and "prosperity" - with all the solutions.

But you must submit first. That's why all of these control mechanisms are already being spun out and they are hints as to what will happen, and who people put their faith in to "save" them.

[Navigator]

When will WW4 happen? A couple decades after WW3, like the WW1-WW2 gap? A lifetime after WW3, like the WW2-WW3 gap?

I would estimate about 3-5 years after WW3. WW3 will accelerate everything.

[DaKardii]

I would estimate about 3-5 years after WW3. WW3 will accelerate everything.

Such an outcome could be enough to reconcile your prediction and John's. If the interwar period is short enough, one might as well consider the two wars to be part of a larger war that happened to have a few-years-long ceasefire.

Some historians view the first two World Wars that way, but because the "ceasefire" was around 20 years long most historians disagree with that analysis.

ALSO, while I don't see them being used on population centers in WW3, I do believe that they will eventually be used. This is because I believe that WW3, like WW1, will see the destruction of the "established order" and allow for the rise of truly scary people, ala Hitler, Stalin, Mao. These new leaders, who, without WW3 would have no chance at obtaining power, will use nuclear weapons in a WW4.

I've been thinking about what ideology those future tyrants would promote, and in the end I can think of three possible candidates.

The first is a much more radical form of neoliberalism that has alt-left or even neo-communist overtones.

The second is a much more radical form of neoconservatism that has alt-right or even neo-fascist overtones.

The third is "Fourth Theory," a fiscally far-left and socially far-right ideology that presents itself as being the ultimate antithesis to both neoliberalism and neoconservatism, while also rejecting both the alt-left and the alt-right as being (1) too ideologically orthodox; and (2) too closely related to neoliberalism and neoconservatism, respectively. Much like communism and fascism before it, "Fourth Theory" considers itself to be the final revolution that overthrows the old order and creates a new one designed to last for eternity. It also believes in a totalitarian state and in imposing itself on the whole world through any means necessary, even war.

[DaKardii]

Speaking of "Fourth Theory," that ideology is already making inroads into both the far-left and the far-right now, even before WWIII has begun.

And remember when a few months back I talked about the "pro-China right?" Many if not most of those people come from the "Fourth Theory" crowd. Now it makes more sense, doesn't it?

For ideological reasons, followers of "Fourth Theory" wish Germany won World War II, and that the USSR won the Cold War. And they wish that China wins the upcoming war. They hope that the CCP will "succeed" where the Nazis and the CPSU "failed."

[tim]

When will WW4 happen? A couple decades after WW3, like the WW1-WW2 gap? A lifetime after WW3, like the WW2-WW3 gap?

I would estimate about 3-5 years after WW3. WW3 will accelerate everything.

This makes no sense and completely contradicts John's work and Generational Dynamics.

GD has shown how its impossible for a crisis war to occur while the previous generation who was around to experience the last one is still alive running things.

[tim]

While many think WW3 will include a nuclear holocaust, I do not. Here is what I wrote about it in the book "How to Prepare for the Coming Storms":

Most people think that a global war would mean the immediate and widespread use of nuclear weapons: the doomsday scenario of everyone firing all their missiles at roughly the same time. Fortunately, almost everyone, especially the leadership of major powers, understand that the widespread use of nuclear weapons would mean that EVERYBODY will die, and all territory, including the homeland, would be radioactive. This is the primary reason why they haven’t been used. The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction means that both sides will show a large measure of restraint.

Every time throughout history someone has said "This weapon is too terrible to be used in war" the weapons are then eventually put into widespread use. Not everybody will die from nuclear war. The primary reason they haven't been used is because until recently the countries that have them didn't enter their crisis era.

Do you apply GD to your work or just speculate based on what you've seen happen in your own time on Earth?

The Fourth Turning is total war. Cities and civilians will be targeted. It will be unlike anything anyone alive today in the U.S. has ever experienced.

Crisis Wars - think Japanese soldiers throwing Chinese infants into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Think of the people in Rwanda that butchered their neighbors with machetes, only to stop because they could no longer raise their arm. Think of Yugoslavia where women and children were targeted.

In World War II, the Germans had nerve gas. Allied gas masks offered only limited protection against this. The Germans could have put nerve gas canisters on submarines, had them surface at night to the west of Great Britain in the Irish sea, then unleashed clouds of atomized nerve agent across the island. The results would have been horrific. In fact, early in World War II, by far the greatest fear concerned the use of gas against the civilian population. So why didn’t the Germans do this?

The answer is because they feared that the Allies would do the exact same thing to them as a result. So, if even a maniacal nut job like Hitler was dissuaded from using a weapon due to the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (granted, his personal experience in WWI helped here), leaders today will be mostly dissuaded from doing the same thing.

Hitler originally wanted to ally with the British as they are a Germanic race. He saw them as being the same as the Germans and did not want to exterminate them at first when the war was going well for Germany. The tribal hate he had of other people never applied to the British. By the time he wanted to destroy Britain it was too late, the German Air Force had been taken out in the Battle of Britain and would never recover.

From my readings it appears to me the Germans didn't get really out of control until the war started to turn for the worse. In Albert Speer's book he talks about arguing with Hitler how the jet fighter planes they had would be more efficient by using them to defend the skies over Germany from allied bombers instead of using them as bombers which was a waste as they were not designed for it. Allied bombers were attacking Germany unopposed destroying cities and industry while the German jet fighters were being used for bombings. Speer also talked about the obsession with the V2 rocket and the vengeance weapons. The resources used on those also were inefficient and while causing terror in London they were not effective killers of people.

When Hitler decided to bomb the city of London into submission, do you doubt had he been able to get a nuclear warhead on a V2 rocket he would not have used it? When Japan refused to surrender and were going to fight to the last man even knowing they were defeated do you doubt they would have launched all their nuclear weapons at the U.S. if they had them? What were they going to say, "Well we are all going to fight to the death anyway but the radiation will cause fallout so we better not"

The German submarines were largely a failure:

From September 1942 to May 1945, Blair writes, "99.4 percent of Allied merchant ships sailing in North American convoys reached their destinations intact." During this time, the Allied sailed 953 convoys east and west on the North Atlantic and Middle Atlantic runs. Of 43,526 merchant ships in these convoys, 272 were sunk.

It was the German subs that were in perilous waters. Blair attributes to the German historian Axel Niestle the conclusion that of 859 U-boats that set off on war patrols, 648 were lost -- 75 percent. Of these, 429 yielded no survivors.

What Blair finds "most shocking of all, 215 U-boats (33 percent) were lost on first patrols, usually before the green crews had learned the ropes or inflicted any damage on Allied shipping."

[John]

** 24-May-2021 World View: Bifurcated World War

> When will WW4 happen? A couple decades after WW3, like the WW1-WW2
> gap? A lifetime after WW3, like the WW2-WW3 gap?

> I would estimate about 3-5 years after WW3. WW3 will accelerate
> everything.

> This makes no sense and completely contradicts John's work and
> Generational Dynamics.

> GD has shown how its impossible for a crisis war to occur while
> the previous generation who was around to experience the last one
> is still alive running things.

When you think about World Wars I and II, you have to remember that
they were geographically separate, with separate climaxes.

World War I was an East European and Mideast war. It climaxed with
the destruction of the Tsarist and Ottoman empires.

World War II was an Awakening Era war for the Soviets and the Mideast,
and those countries were relatively passive. Recall for example
that Stalin allowed himself to be completely fooled by Hitler, and did
nothing until it was too late.

World War II was a West European, North American, and Asian war.
It climaxed with the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

And it's good to pepper this discussion of the two world wars with a
joke: In 1929 the US led the world in signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact,
which outlawed war and made war illegal. Frank Kellogg earned the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1929 for his work on the Peace Pact. Oh wait.
That wasn't a joke. That actually happened. Oh wait. It was a joke.

So anyway, I don't know if a bifurcated World War could occur in the
current era. I guess the candidates would be a Mideast World War,
followed some time later by a completely separate Asian World War. I
don't think that's possible, but who knows? Of course, if these two
"separate" World Wars occur too close together, then they'll just be
combined into World War III.

[Xeraphim1]

** 21-May-2021 World View: Modern Barbarism


Barbarism means "extreme cruelty or brutality." This is the way
people are today and always have been. Torture and beatings are
common in many countries today. I cannot fathom why you believe
otherwise.

That is one definition but I'm using the more common one; backward or uncivilized.

I am very much aware of the brutality that exists in many countries.

[Tom Mazanec]

The Fourth Political Theory (Russian: Четвертая политическая теория, Chetvertaya Politicheskaya Teoriya) is a book by the Russian political analyst and strategist Aleksandr Dugin, published in 2009. In the book, Dugin states that he is laying the foundations for an entirely new political ideology, the fourth political theory, which integrates and supersedes liberal democracy, Marxism, and fascism.[1] In this theory, the main subject of politics is not individual, not class, and not nation, but Dasein.
The book has been cited as an inspiration for Russian policy in events such as the war in Donbas,[2] and for the contemporary European far-right in general.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourt ... cal_Theory

For a story I plan to write, I postulate one several seculae ahead as "The Transcension", based on memetics as Communism was based on economics. It postulates controlling the growth of memes to create a world society (Mars in this case) in which each individual ends up linked to all others by superadvanced communication technology (such as BMI) to become effectively neurons in a group mind which will transcend the individual as the person transcends a neuron, producing a "Phase Change" into a Hyperintelligent entity (since I assume that AGI is impossible).

[Navigator]

Every time throughout history someone has said "This weapon is too terrible to be used in war" the weapons are then eventually put into widespread use. Not everybody will die from nuclear war. The primary reason they haven't been used is because until recently the countries that have them didn't enter their crisis era.

Nuclear weapons are the new and special case. Nothing prior to them had the capability to render earth uninhabitable. That would be the consequence of a US/Russia or even a US/China exchange.

Here is a decent site that goes into the consequences of such a superpower exchange (and even discusses the outcome of an India/Pakistan exchange that I too consider very likely):

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconse ... sequences/

Here is the first paragraph on the extract from this site:

Quote
Despite a two-thirds reduction in global nuclear arsenals since 1986, new scientific research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can still end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies, performed at several U.S. universities, predict the detonation of even a tiny fraction of the global nuclear arsenal within large urban centers will cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective stratospheric ozone layer. A nuclear war fought with several thousand weapons would leave the Earth uninhabitable.
Unquote

Even marginally rational leaders like Putin/Xi understand this. They will want, even as losers in a war, an outcome like that of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, who spent the rest of his life on a rather nice estate in Holland.

I would expect WW3 to end in a similar "negotiated" fashion as WW1 did, with the victors poised to achieve a major breakthrough (ala the prepared Allied "Plan 1919" designed by JFC Fuller), but not yet having achieved complete military dominance.