Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

CH86 wrote: > That's a funny thing for you to say, especially given what I
> posted. Saying that Israel is well-equipped for war vs
> ill-equipped Palestinians is definitely NOT a delusion, it is
> statement of fact. Literally every source of information anywhere
> would say what I've said regarding Israel/Palestine and relative
> force strengths and equipment's, every single one. Your statement
> directly contradicts consensus reality. As is a statement saying
> that Egypt is Israel's main enemy, if we lived in 1973 such a
> statement would be true, in 1973 Israel had no reason to fear (a
> then pro-western and pro-Israel) Iran and had every reason to fear
> Egypt; but it is not 1973, its 2018 and the Iran is recognized by
> global popular consensus as Israels primary adversary, and all
> major military and political events during the last few decades
> have backed up the view of Iran as Mortal enemy of Israel. No
> events of any kind after 1974 have lent support to the Notion of
> Egypt as implacable enemy of Israel.

The population of Israel is 8 million, while there are 300 million
Arabs in the region. Being "ready for war" did not help America in
Vietnam, and is not helping the Saudis in Yemen today. There's no
guarantee that Israel will even survive a war against 300 million
Arabs, but if Israel has any chance at all, it will be because the
Arabs will be fighting each other as well -- but even in that case,
Israel may be collateral damage.

John wrote:

CH86 wrote: > That's a funny thing for you to say, especially given what I
> posted. Saying that Israel is well-equipped for war vs
> ill-equipped Palestinians is definitely NOT a delusion, it is
> statement of fact. Literally every source of information anywhere
> would say what I've said regarding Israel/Palestine and relative
> force strengths and equipment's, every single one. Your statement
> directly contradicts consensus reality. As is a statement saying
> that Egypt is Israel's main enemy, if we lived in 1973 such a
> statement would be true, in 1973 Israel had no reason to fear (a
> then pro-western and pro-Israel) Iran and had every reason to fear
> Egypt; but it is not 1973, its 2018 and the Iran is recognized by
> global popular consensus as Israels primary adversary, and all
> major military and political events during the last few decades
> have backed up the view of Iran as Mortal enemy of Israel. No
> events of any kind after 1974 have lent support to the Notion of
> Egypt as implacable enemy of Israel.

The population of Israel is 8 million, while there are 300 million
Arabs in the region. Being "ready for war" did not help America in
Vietnam, and is not helping the Saudis in Yemen today. There's no
guarantee that Israel will even survive a war against 300 million
Arabs, but if Israel has any chance at all, it will be because the
Arabs will be fighting each other as well -- but even in that case,
Israel may be collateral damage.

That's because America in Vietnam and even today's Saudis to a more limited extent, are shackled by human rights tyranny. Assad has been winning battle after battle in Syria due to his ignoring of such niceties. Assad is using gloves-off methods and has been able to carry out successful clearings of far larger Sunni populations as a result.

CH86 wrote: > That's because America in Vietnam and even today's Saudis to a
> more limited extent, are shackled by human rights tyranny. Assad
> has been winning battle after battle in Syria due to his ignoring
> of such niceties. Assad is using gloves-off methods and has been
> able to carry out successful clearings of far larger Sunni
> populations as a result.

So now you've changed your story. It used to be: "The Palestinians
are a nuisance but not a real threat."

Now your new story is: "Israel will use barrel bombs, chlorine gas,
Sarin gas, and mass extermination and ethnic cleansing techniques to
exterminate 300 million Arabs. That's how 8 million Israelis will
defeat 300 million Arabs."

Delusional at every level and in in every possible way.

Guest 2 wrote: > John, after an afternoon on Breitbart, CH's posts are a study in
> inconsistent thought. Amazing how factual history can be
> skewed/skewered. My brain is tired. I'm reading a history of the
> 10th Armored Division. Doubt if I'll get too far tonight. Enjoy
> the summer weather. Hot and humid here. Drought conditions. My
> lawn looks like late August.

It's actually amazing. CH86's posts are completely screwed up and
inconsistent,

I've been dealing with CH86 for almost ten years, and I still don't
know whether he's psychotic because of the stuff that he posts, or
whether he's psychotic because he baits people every day by posting
nonsense that he doesn't believe. It's a conundrum.

John wrote:

Guest 2 wrote: > John, after an afternoon on Breitbart, CH's posts are a study in
> inconsistent thought. Amazing how factual history can be
> skewed/skewered. My brain is tired. I'm reading a history of the
> 10th Armored Division. Doubt if I'll get too far tonight. Enjoy
> the summer weather. Hot and humid here. Drought conditions. My
> lawn looks like late August.

It's actually amazing. CH86's posts are completely screwed up and
inconsistent,

I've been dealing with CH86 for almost ten years, and I still don't
know whether he's psychotic because of the stuff that he posts, or
whether he's psychotic because he baits people every day by posting
nonsense that he doesn't believe. It's a conundrum.

"Posting" is never the cause of anything, of course. It's always an "after thought".

A non-psychotic will always be willing to keep a conversation going until, at least, the point where the conversation partners agree to disagree. (I personally like to keep them going "forever" by meandering off onto other proximate topics,.. but that's just me being annoying, as ususal.)

CH86, the psychotic, probably gets to the point in the conversation where he SHOULD elaborate on making his case, can't do it because of the cognitive dissonance "actual thinking/conversation" would cause, and sprints away from the keyboard to bash a wall or some "girlfriend" in the vicinity.

..or at least thinks about it,.. a lot. (What's the proper term for "Pre-Active Shooter"?)

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

John wrote:

Guest 2 wrote: > John, after an afternoon on Breitbart, CH's posts are a study in
> inconsistent thought. Amazing how factual history can be
> skewed/skewered. My brain is tired. I'm reading a history of the
> 10th Armored Division. Doubt if I'll get too far tonight. Enjoy
> the summer weather. Hot and humid here. Drought conditions. My
> lawn looks like late August.

It's actually amazing. CH86's posts are completely screwed up and
inconsistent,

I've been dealing with CH86 for almost ten years, and I still don't
know whether he's psychotic because of the stuff that he posts, or
whether he's psychotic because he baits people every day by posting
nonsense that he doesn't believe. It's a conundrum.

"Posting" is never the cause of anything, of course. It's always an "after thought".

A non-psychotic will always be willing to keep a conversation going until, at least, the point where the conversation partners agree to disagree. (I personally like to keep them going "forever" by meandering off onto other proximate topics,.. but that's just me being annoying, as ususal.)

CH86, the psychotic, probably gets to the point in the conversation where he SHOULD elaborate on making his case, can't do it because of the cognitive dissonance "actual thinking/conversation" would cause, and sprints away from the keyboard to bash a wall or some "girlfriend" in the vicinity.

..or at least thinks about it,.. a lot. (What's the proper term for "Pre-Active Shooter"?)

Nothing I've posted is psychotic:

1) that Israel is well-equipped for war vs ill-equipped palestinians is a statement of fact.

2) that the threat to Israel comes from Iran and it allies, with a possible second threat from Sunni Islamism, is a statement of fact.

3) The threat of an israeli-sunni war is currently much less likely than iran attacking israel, Only if unforeseen events (such as radical islamists taking over the Sunni states in masse would lead to war between israel and it's immediate neighbors (egypt, jordan). Again this is a statement of fact.

4) Concentrating on the sunni threat to israel (not Iran). What threat that does exists comes from Islamism, not from "Nasserite" nationalism. Israel prepares for these threats in this order: Iran, possible Sunni Islamism. Modern 2018 Israel doesn't prepare that much against nasserite secular nationalism because currently there is no "Nasserite" threat to israel. Israel has its hands full figuring out how to combat Iran and its allies, as well as the Sunni Islamism, to worry about some non-existent "Nasserite" threat. This is again a statement of fact.

5) That the US won the cold war, again this is a statement of fact.

6) That the US won the war on terror, again that is a statement of fact.

7) That the US Nuclear arsenal and Russian Nuclear arsenal are both far superior in numbers to the Chinese Nuclear arsenal. Again that is statement of fact, and before you post some speculative non-fact about this: Note that the US government agrees with me,and not with you guys on this subject. Their assessments based on far deeper Knowledge of the world scene than any of us civvies have. Note that president trump mentioned this fact in the Putin Summit, that the US and Russia between them control 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.

This next point I'm about to make is a pure speculative point on my part rather than a statement of fact like the seven above points were, but I'm going to make this next point anyway.

8) Judging from the conspiracy theory drivel, you guys consistently post, I speculate that a lot of you guys don't think that Israel even has Nuclear weapons, do you?

CH86 wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:blah blah blah...

Nothing I've posted is psychotic:

1) that Israel is well-equipped for war vs ill-equipped palestinians is a statement of fact.

Non-psychotic, agreed.

2) that the threat to Israel comes from Iran and it allies, with a possible second threat from Sunni Islamism, is a statement of fact.

Quite so.

3) The threat of an israeli-sunni war is currently much less likely than iran attacking israel, Only if unforeseen events (such as radical islamists taking over the Sunni states in masse would lead to war between israel and it's immediate neighbors (egypt, jordan). Again this is a statement of fact.

True. With the proviso that "iran attacking israel" actual means "israel destroying iran".

4) Concentrating on the sunni threat to israel (not Iran). What threat that does exists comes from Islamism, not from "Nasserite" nationalism. Israel prepares for these threats in this order: Iran, possible Sunni Islamism. Modern 2018 Israel doesn't prepare that much against nasserite secular nationalism because currently there is no "Nasserite" threat to israel. Israel has its hands full figuring out how to combat Iran and its allies, as well as the Sunni Islamism, to worry about some non-existent "Nasserite" threat. This is again a statement of fact.

Uh,.. I have to look up "Nasserite"... <working... working...> Anti-communism, good,.. nationalism, goodish,.. socialism (one party state), not good,.. Nasser is dead, inevitable,..

So, I suppose it's "threat value" is relatively low, therefore, I'll agree with you until other evidence points at you're being wrong.

5) That the US won the cold war, again this is a statement of fact.

Yeah. Agreed.

6) That the US won the war on terror, again that is a statement of fact.

Uh,.. I suppose, but that seems like winning the war on rust.

7) That the US Nuclear arsenal and Russian Nuclear arsenal are both far superior in numbers to the Chinese Nuclear arsenal. Again that is statement of fact, and before you post some speculative non-fact about this: Note that the US government agrees with me,and not with you guys on this subject. Their assessments based on far deeper Knowledge of the world scene than any of us civvies have. Note that president trump mentioned this fact in the Putin Summit, that the US and Russia between them control 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.

Agreed, in principle, 'cuz I don't really KNOW the reality of the numbers, and it's rather irrelevant (to me) how true this fact is.

This next point I'm about to make is a pure speculative point on my part rather than a statement of fact like the seven above points were, but I'm going to make this next point anyway.

8) Judging from the conspiracy theory drivel, you guys consistently post, I speculate that a lot of you guys don't think that Israel even has Nuclear weapons, do you?

Of course they do. Smart people always have the good stuff. D'uh!

And I'd like to hear more of this "conspiracy theory drivel", 'cuz it's always interesting and amusing as all getout!


The "psychotic" part that I was referring to (personally) was the "odd conclusions that you don't support with further conversation". I also fully admit to having some "odd conclusions" myself, but I love nothing more than blithering ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about it.

I'm very anti Onandonanon (the 12 Step Self-Help Organization),.. probably funded by Soros...

Aloha!

You admit the course of historical events. The problem in my frequent discussions with John, Yourself and Sue/Guest is that they basically state that whatever international alignments that existed in 1968 are the alignments that prefigure the Crisis war. Hence The Notion of Iran as a US ally, in 1968 Iran WAS a US ally and pro-western, yet such an assertion essentially ignores everything that took place after 1978 as irrelevant.

Same is the Notion of Russia as an ally against China: in the period of reduced US/Soviet tensions after the Cuban missile crisis, there was talk of various circles of a US/Soviet alliance against China and the US and Russia opened various consulates and sent exchange students to each other's countries briefly during this period. At the same time China was regarded as a rogue state, essentially how Iran and North Korea are regarded today. Alot of Americans and Soviets in 1968 regretted the ongoing Cold war and still remembered when both Countries fought together against Nazi Germany.

The Notion that the enemies of Israel would be lead by an Arab Nationalist egypt is another notion that was a concise explanation of the situation in 1968 but is completely illogical in 2018. In 1968 The Arab world was lead by secular Sunni regimes of which Nasser's regime was the textbook expression of this Arab nationalism. This would lead to the "war of attrition" of 1970 and the Yom Kippur war in 1973. But the arab nations were eclipsed as threats to Israel by the first Egyptian/Israeli peace treaty in 1979 and later the rise of Iran and Islamism after 1979 with a secondary threat of Sunni Islamism. In 2018 the Notion of a "Nasserite" threat to Israel would be nonsense, an anachronism.

The Notion of Chinese leaders seeking the preserve the Rural Chinese as being the true expression of "Chineseness" with the urban population being sacrificed as war fodder is another delusion that made sense in 1968 but no sense in 2018. In 1968 China was dominated by Red Guard fanatics lead by the Hardline Maoist faction and they were very anti-urban. The problem is that the Pro-rural Maoists lost the Chinese Awakening, they were overthrown in 1976 by a coalition lead by Deng Xiaoping which implemented economic reforms and liberalization. This also shifted the CCP power base to the Cities. This strange coalition Ruled China from 1976 to 1989. In 1989 the liberals made a bid to establish actual democracy in China which was rejected by Deng Xiaoping who sent in the tanks to crush the liberals, resulting in the bloodbath at Tienanmen square, after which Deng consolidated what is essentially the Current System while continuing to consolidate power based on the support of the Industrial and Trading Cities in China. In 2018 the notion of a pro-rural China and a pro-rural CCP is nonsense. The Rural Areas are discriminated against are essentially serfs to urban-based elites in china.

CH86 wrote:You admit the course of historical events. The problem in my frequent discussions with John, Yourself and Sue/Guest is that they basically state that whatever international alignments that existed in 1968 are the alignments that prefigure the Crisis war. Hence The Notion of Iran as a US ally, in 1968 Iran WAS a US ally and pro-western, yet such an assertion essentially ignores everything that took place after 1978 as irrelevant.

Uh,.. I've no great love for 1968. Just sayin'.

The reason I agree with China being the "Great (upcoming) Enemy" is because there are no other contenders for that position.

The reason I agree with Iran being an ally of "the west" is because it's the most plausible maximally interesting possibility, and that makes me happy (aka intrigued). Also, Iran is an effete "super country" that can't possibly tolerate being subsumed into a racially oriented one-party state like China.

The reason I agree that Russia will side with "the west" is that Russia and "the west" share "frontier asshole" tendencies that will draw us together in extremis.

The actual timing issues as to when the "great conflagration" will crystallize is handily explained by GD Theory's "generational proclivities" concepts.

Israel will obviously side with the west. Period.

The "sane" muslims will side with the west, as they have no other choice. They know their time for a "conquest of the dar al-harb" is long past, and it's better to NOT be a slave to the one-party state that China represents.

The "insane" muslims just want abject and total chaotic destruction, as that'll bring on the "glorious apocalypse" they're after, and will side with those promising the most destruction.

The Chinese won't be able to control their "rural folk", whom they truly don't give a crap about, and those people will simply be a weight on the Chinese war machine (as incompetent soldiers and rebels).

The point is that it's really a binary choice for all the party's involved. China or the West.

The energy supply (and therefore timing as well) is provided by GD forces, but the "side" on which to fall is dictated by "emotional affinities" of the "nations" involved.

Same is the Notion of ...

Remember that piece that John wrote about "Greek Tragedy"?

The tragedy is unavoidable. The audience is not there in hopes of "everything working out peacefully", but is there to watch the particular unfolding of the inevitable forces within the story, and to either learn how those forces work so as to postpone them for as long as possible, or to revel in the emotional power of the expression of those forces and "enjoy" being "a participant" in the drama, in hopes of being an ACTUAL participant in a similar real-life drama during their lifetime.

Tragedy is either cautionary or inspirational. Great lowest common denominator masses of people choose how to "act out" the old stories.

But the tragedies can not be denied or forever avoided,.. as the regretful can not well enough convince the naive to believe them.

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

CH86 wrote:You admit the course of historical events. The problem in my frequent discussions with John, Yourself and Sue/Guest is that they basically state that whatever international alignments that existed in 1968 are the alignments that prefigure the Crisis war. Hence The Notion of Iran as a US ally, in 1968 Iran WAS a US ally and pro-western, yet such an assertion essentially ignores everything that took place after 1978 as irrelevant.

Uh,.. I've no great love for 1968. Just sayin'.

The reason I agree with China being the "Great (upcoming) Enemy" is because there are no other contenders for that position.

The reason I agree with Iran being an ally of "the west" is because it's the most plausible maximally interesting possibility, and that makes me happy (aka intrigued). Also, Iran is an effete "super country" that can't possibly tolerate being subsumed into a racially oriented one-party state like China.

The reason I agree that Russia will side with "the west" is that Russia and "the west" share "frontier asshole" tendencies that will draw us together in extremis.

The actual timing issues as to when the "great conflagration" will crystallize is handily explained by GD Theory's "generational proclivities" concepts.

Israel will obviously side with the west. Period.

The "sane" muslims will side with the west, as they have no other choice. They know their time for a "conquest of the dar al-harb" is long past, and it's better to NOT be a slave to the one-party state that China represents.

The "insane" muslims just want abject and total chaotic destruction, as that'll bring on the "glorious apocalypse" they're after, and will side with those promising the most destruction.

The Chinese won't be able to control their "rural folk", whom they truly don't give a crap about, and those people will simply be a weight on the Chinese war machine (as incompetent soldiers and rebels).

The point is that it's really a binary choice for all the party's involved. China or the West.

The energy supply (and therefore timing as well) is provided by GD forces, but the "side" on which to fall is dictated by "emotional affinities" of the "nations" involved.

Same is the Notion of ...

Remember that piece that John wrote about "Greek Tragedy"?

The tragedy is unavoidable. The audience is not there in hopes of "everything working out peacefully", but is there to watch the particular unfolding of the inevitable forces within the story, and to either learn how those forces work so as to postpone them for as long as possible, or to revel in the emotional power of the expression of those forces and "enjoy" being "a participant" in the drama, in hopes of being an ACTUAL participant in a similar real-life drama during their lifetime.

Tragedy is either cautionary or inspirational. Great lowest common denominator masses of people choose how to "act out" the old stories.

But the tragedies can not be denied or forever avoided,.. as the regretful can not well enough convince the naive to believe them.

China's territorial disputes are with its neighbors, not with the west. China would be happy with genuine western neutrality in those disputes if it means they get to conquer the disputed territories. The Notion that China deliberate sought western involvement in the disputes is nonsense. Modern Russia and Iran are military/industrial powerhouses, they are not democracies. China is a communist state, not an ethnic nationalist one, Most Chinese ethnic nationalists are anti-CCP because they hate CCP policies that allow non-Han Chinese groups autonomous Zones. Xi is attempting to re-inject more doses of Marxism (a very globalist ideology) into the CCP. The Rural Chinese would not favor the CCP because they are discriminated against under CCP rule. The Islamists in the middle east are mainly the Shiites lead by Iran; Iran is an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, Hezbollah is Shiite and loyal to Iran, the Sunni Islamists generally seek the overthrow of the Sunni governments because they are the opposition party in most of those countries. The Actual Sunni governments are generally either Secular or Traditionalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Br ... d_in_Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ic_of_Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_i ... _of_Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_industry_of_Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_ ... n_in_China

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-04/c ... al/9724720

In a final nugget, Israel has been transferring and Selling US military tech to China for several decades now. This has been known by various intelligence sources for several decades.

http://ariwatch.com/OurAlly/IsraelsTech ... oChina.htm

https://www.newsweek.com/china-israel-m ... ons-607117

https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... y-to-china

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/15/opin ... china.html

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... india.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =1&vwsrc=0