Generational Dynamics World View News

[Guest]

I would rate the boomers as the worst plague to hit the West since the Black Death.

They were the ones at Woodstock, while the West need to get serious about education and industry (to meet the new post-war challenges from rebuilt Asia and Europe).

Instead, they got into debt, exported the industrial base of the US (with the jobs) and discovered their “freedoms” – LGBT, multiculturalism, radical feminism, globalism and the whole free market neoliberal package whereby a tiny elite (with a copyright on “radical leftism”) raped the poor at home and globally.

Also, they have always been the biggest unquestioning supporters of Israel, bringing on a host of other problems.

[Muggles]

The globalists and the elites of the country are deceived. The devil always throws them under the bus. But division and chaos is a larger part of the plan, and the powers that be know that christian europeans are the only real bulwark against the state, so they do their best to propagandize them (and this is also why they hate Russia and China is on the shit list too). That main form of propaganda, as far as fertility or fecundity go, is feminism. Grab a cubicle job while you waste your most fertile and attractive years to men, then complain when they don't want you post 30 when you are supposedly "ready" to have a family. Ha. Promote promiscuity so men also see that you are not their first; convince women to reward guys who are not and won't be their husbands with their most prized assets (first love, virginity, etc).

By the way, yes, there are also too many men out there, not that we can't survive with many men, but rather we promote dysgenic rearing of kids through welfare and unstable families, single moms, etc.

I would note that a real defining construct is digital versus non digital. While “digital” existed pre 2000 most information was conveyed in hard print. Screens didn’t show pictures (until late 90s).

Obtaining information pre-digested by others via digital format greatly reduces the universe of possible information you receive. For one thing, reading long works digitally is biologically inferior to hard print due to your eye/brain rejection of invisible flickering on screens. It tires you out and limits in most the time they can productively spend reading. Yes, you can read long things, but few do. At some point your brain tires of the invisible assault.

With the “social media” infection where everyone is told they too have brilliant thoughts in small chunks, and thus can attract “likes” or “followers” like actual thinkers, you have a flood of garbage constantly touted as trendy by social media promoters. Important stuff is immune to short cutting or truncation by digital means. It isn’t that digital is bad per se, but highly limiting. So few millennials read books. Screens dominate eyeballs with visuals and short mostly inane comments. Don’t think, view! This is mental junk food with the same dismal outcomes. Junk thinking. This infection is due entirely to ad sales by people like Zuckerberg and the Google monsters.

Hello Bernie Sanders, et. al. and “free” everything for everyone! Don’t think, just “follow.”

One can only hope there will be a strong counter reaction to this at some point.

[Xeraphim1]

26-May-21 World View -- The aftermath of the Israel - Gaza war

What did the Israelis accomplish? Mowing the lawn


** 26-May-21 World View -- The aftermath of the Israel - Gaza war
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e210526


Third, the communal violence between Arabs and Israelis in the West Bank and within Israel itself was much greater and more violent than in the past. In particular, for the first time, Arabs living as citizens in Israel took the fight to their Israeli neighbors. This is extremely ominous, and the communal violence is still ongoing.

This is the part I found most striking. Israeli Arabs have typically not engaged in the same kind of violence seen in Gaza or the West Bank. It bodes ill for the future.

[DaKardii]

...and the whole free market neoliberal package whereby a tiny elite (with a copyright on “radical leftism”) raped the poor at home and globally.

Also, they have always been the biggest unquestioning supporters of Israel, bringing on a host of other problems.

First off, what we call neoliberalism is not true free market.

And second, it's our support of Saudi Arabia, not Israel, that has caused most of the problems in the Middle East. It was Saudi Arabia who hung the petrodollar albatross around our necks, thus starting our unnecessary "need" to intervene in the region. It was Saudi Arabia who directly contributed to the rise of both al-Qaeda and ISIS through the Wahhabi madrassas and associated "charities" like the Muslim World League. And It is Saudi Arabia who continues to be their primary financial backers to this day.

Furthermore, most if not all of our post-1991 interventions in the Middle East had more to do with Saudi Arabia than it had to do with Israel. The Gulf War was about protecting Saudi Arabia's monopoly on Middle East oil from Iraq, who previously was an American ally before it "got out of line." The invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation for an attack on our soil by a Saudi-sponsored terrorist group, and I've lately been of the opinion that the Taliban was intended to the scapegoat in place of the Saudi regime. The Iraq War was in retaliation to Saddam trying to undermining the petrodollar by selling oil for Euros. The NATO intervention in Libya was in retaliation for Gaddafi trying to undermine the petrodollar by selling oil for gold. The crisis in Syria was sparked by Assad's decision to forgo a proposed pipeline that originated in Qatar (then a very close Saudi ally) in favor of one that originated in Iran. As for future conflicts, Israel is indeed a critical factor in the debate over whether we should go to war with Iran. But the Saudi petrodollar scheme is also a factor, and there was talk about war with Iran even before Iran began prioritizing destroying Israel in its foreign policy. Iran is one of the six "Eurasian Balkans" powers, after all, and of course there's still ill will from the 1979-81 hostage crisis. And then there's talk about war with Turkey, which is mostly rooted in its growing rivalry with the usual suspect, Saudi Arabia.

[Johnny Bravo]

Israel is not worth it. America is sliding into the abyss, so I guess it really doesn't matter anymore. We should have left the region alone and just bought oil from whomever.

[DaKardii]

Israel is not worth it. America is sliding into the abyss, so I guess it really doesn't matter anymore. We should have left the region alone and just bought oil from whomever.

The whole Middle East interventionism nonsense began with the petrodollar system, which is the result of the Nixon's decision to abandon the gold standard. And why did Nixon abandon the gold standard? Because he wanted to massively increase government spending so he could fund both the Great Society and the Vietnam War without bankrupting the country.

Yes, the truth really is that absurd.

[jmparret]

The whole Middle East interventionism nonsense began with the petrodollar system, which is the result of the Nixon's decision to abandon the gold standard. And why did Nixon abandon the gold standard? Because he wanted to massively increase government spending so he could fund both the Great Society and the Vietnam War without bankrupting the country.


You missed this one, it was the French taking much of the gold that caused this change. Think Vietnam.

Joe

[John]

** 26-May-2021 World View: The whole Middle East interventionism

> Israel is not worth it. America is sliding into the abyss, so I
> guess it really doesn't matter anymore. We should have left the
> region alone and just bought oil from whomever.

> The whole Middle East interventionism nonsense began with the
> petrodollar system, which is the result of the Nixon's decision to
> abandon the gold standard. And why did Nixon abandon the gold
> standard? Because he wanted to massively increase government
> spending so he could fund both the Great Society and the Vietnam
> War without bankrupting the country.

> Yes, the truth really is that absurd.

No.

> The whole Middle East interventionism nonsense began with the
> petrodollar system, which is the result of the Nixon's decision to
> abandon the gold standard. And why did Nixon abandon the gold
> standard? Because he wanted to massively increase government
> spending so he could fund both the Great Society and the Vietnam
> War without bankrupting the country.

> You missed this one, it was the French taking much of the gold
> that caused this change. Think Vietnam. Joe

No.

The whole Middle East interventionism strategy began prior to World
War II (which was an Awakening era war in the Mideast) in the 1930s
with commitments by Saudi Arabia and the United States that Saudi
Arabia would guarantee to supply oil to the world, and the US would
guarantee the security of Saudi Arabia and the Middle Eastern
countries. That agreement has survived OPEC, 9/11, and various
Mideast wars.

People keep wondering why the US didn't dump Crown Prince Salman after
the horrific Khashoggi killing. That 1930s agreement is the reason.

[DaKardii]

** 26-May-2021 World View: The whole Middle East interventionism

> Israel is not worth it. America is sliding into the abyss, so I
> guess it really doesn't matter anymore. We should have left the
> region alone and just bought oil from whomever.

> The whole Middle East interventionism nonsense began with the
> petrodollar system, which is the result of the Nixon's decision to
> abandon the gold standard. And why did Nixon abandon the gold
> standard? Because he wanted to massively increase government
> spending so he could fund both the Great Society and the Vietnam
> War without bankrupting the country.

> Yes, the truth really is that absurd.

No.

> The whole Middle East interventionism nonsense began with the
> petrodollar system, which is the result of the Nixon's decision to
> abandon the gold standard. And why did Nixon abandon the gold
> standard? Because he wanted to massively increase government
> spending so he could fund both the Great Society and the Vietnam
> War without bankrupting the country.

> You missed this one, it was the French taking much of the gold
> that caused this change. Think Vietnam. Joe

No.

The whole Middle East interventionism strategy began prior to World
War II (which was an Awakening era war in the Mideast) in the 1930s
with commitments by Saudi Arabia and the United States that Saudi
Arabia would guarantee to supply oil to the world, and the US would
guarantee the security of Saudi Arabia and the Middle Eastern
countries. That agreement has survived OPEC, 9/11, and various
Mideast wars.

People keep wondering why the US didn't dump Crown Prince Salman after
the horrific Khashoggi killing. That 1930s agreement is the reason.

To clarify, I was talking about the obsession with direct intervention in the region. We definitely did have interests in the Middle East prior to the establishment of the petrodollar system in 1974, and Nixon and Kissinger certainly took those interests into consideration while negotiating that system into existence. But it wasn't until after those negotiations concluded that the obsession with direct intervention began.

That being said, there is no way all those agreements will survive the upcoming crisis war. The Gulf states are predominantly Sunni, and according to Generational Dynamics that means their general populations will be pro-China. When push comes to shove, they will demand that their monarchs either dump the US or face overthrow. Conversely, the American people will demand that the President either dump the Gulf states or face impeachment.

On a side note, it's hardly a secret that my strongest foreign policy opinion is that those agreements should've been dumped after 9/11. 9/11 and al-Qaeda are the reasons why I have a very strong anti-Saudi bias, as well as a very strong anti-Pakistan bias. I also have anti-Turkey, anti-UAE, and anti-Qatar biases for similar reasons, but those are not rooted in 9/11 as much as they are rooted in the Arab Spring and its aftermath, so those biases are obviously not as strong as my anti-Saudi and anti-Pakistan bias. And I'll admit that those biases are one of the key reasons I turned against Trump. I found the great and sometimes even absurd lengths he and his staff (especially Bolton and Pompeo) went to preserve these unholy alliances to be unacceptable.

[Guest]

On a side note, it's hardly a secret that my strongest foreign policy opinion is that those agreements should've been dumped after 9/11. 9/11 and al-Qaeda are the reasons why I have a very strong anti-Saudi bias, as well as a very strong anti-Pakistan bias. I also have anti-Turkey, anti-UAE, and anti-Qatar biases for similar reasons, but those are not rooted in 9/11 as much as they are rooted in the Arab Spring and its aftermath, so those biases are obviously not as strong as my anti-Saudi and anti-Pakistan bias. And I'll admit that those biases are one of the key reasons I turned against Trump. I found the great and sometimes even absurd lengths he and his staff (especially Bolton and Pompeo) went to preserve these unholy alliances to be unacceptable.

You seem to have a a lot of "key reasons" for turning against Trump. None hold water.

Bin Laden was against the Saudi monarchy. Islamists believe in republics, not kingdoms. Iran had never been a republic until the revolution. The Taliban didn't want the king back. Bin Laden wanted to set up a republic. The KSA is good at dealing with Jihadist blowback. And Jihads were a good way to get rid of the anti monarchy Islamist elements. Islamists are generally too extreme to deal in Real Politk. The Saudi monarchy is much more politically savvy. Trump was right to continue the alliance.

As for your strong anti-Saudi, anti-Pakistan bias, I have a feeling that you are just making up excuses to hate Muslims.