Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

John wrote:

Guest wrote: > I heard an economist today say in an interview that the 90 day
> freeze means nothing because the freeze doesn't change
> anything. It's just PR. Is that true?

Trump's policies are completely baffling to the mainstream press and
other politicians, but as I've said many times, they make perfect
sense once you understand that Trump believes (correctly) that China
and the US are headed for a world war, and that Trump is trying to
keep that from happening, even though Generational Dynamics predicts
that it will happen with 100% certainty, no matter what Trump does.

The entire "trade war" policy with China is designed to throw
China off its game of relentless militarization and preparation
for war. However, it's an extremely risky policy because it
may actually trigger war if the Chinese panic. The 90-day freeze
gives the Chinese some breathing room, and keeps them from
panicking.

Having a 90 day moratorium and giving the Chinese a "breathing space" in the trade war makes no sense because the US holds all the cards in the Current situation. The US has a wide range of options it could implement here, however China's options are very limited.

Guest wrote:...
There's no need to be obnoxious. I asked an honest question. Your "answer" was worthless.

Of course there's a need to be obnoxious! There's always a need to be obnoxious.

Your question was indeed an honest one, if a rather "not well formed" one.

My "answer", which was a series of questions that should have been asked, or researched, before presenting others with your question, were intended to start a conversation with "the questioner" (that would be you, by the way) in which he (or she, but in any case "you") might use a little of your critical thinking prowess to form a better question to make actual conversation more worthwhile.

If having better conversation is "worthless" to you,.. well.... <chuckle!>

Of course, it's really easy these days to be unspeakably lazy in matters of critical thinking and interpersonal intercourse.


...is anyone other than me snickering (in hindsight) at the use of "intercourse" in the aforesaid? Anyone,.. anyone,.. Bueller,.. anyone...?

Guest wrote:

John wrote:

Guest wrote: > I heard an economist today say in an interview that the 90 day
> freeze means nothing because the freeze doesn't change
> anything. It's just PR. Is that true?

Trump's policies are completely baffling to the mainstream press and
other politicians, but as I've said many times, they make perfect
sense once you understand that Trump believes (correctly) that China
and the US are headed for a world war, and that Trump is trying to
keep that from happening, even though Generational Dynamics predicts
that it will happen with 100% certainty, no matter what Trump does.

The entire "trade war" policy with China is designed to throw
China off its game of relentless militarization and preparation
for war. However, it's an extremely risky policy because it
may actually trigger war if the Chinese panic. The 90-day freeze
gives the Chinese some breathing room, and keeps them from
panicking.

Thank you, Sir.

And here is where I was left confused. You are right, absolutely right. Now, looking back, Trump's actions makes sense. President Trump is a decent person trying to save his countrymen, if some of them hate him. Trump is true man's man. He is acting selflessly to save the world. Literally.

This still doesn't answer the question as to why "that economist" stated that the freeze doesn't do anything and is only a PR stunt.

That economist IS, in fact, baffled by "the freeze" (as per John), and the only reason that he (not John) would state that "it does nothing" is if he LITERALLY can not see what it does do.

Why can't he see what the freeze DOES do? That is what we don't know.

My opinion is that that economist can't see it because he doesn't "see" the context that would allow him to see it.

And this is where John's "Greek Tragedy" theory comes into play. Inevitabilities that are "completely unacceptable" (impossible to contemplate), and all the "parts" connected to those inevitabilities, are simply denied and disappear from view in a chaotic ball of "poof!", where all the particles of said "poof" ball are the "unexplainable" phenomena that lead up to and surround the inevitabilities.

In other words, when you see an "expert" being "baffled", what you are seeing is someone unconsciously (or maliciously) speaking outside of their domain of expertise, usually in a way that makes them appear a fool in the extreme,.. while those THEY fool into believing them make him (the "economist") into a "hero".

So, when you see a baffled expert being vociferous, he's in a job interview for the position of "Hero of Fools".

CNN et al pays pretty well for effective Heroes!

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

Guest wrote:

John wrote:
Trump's policies are completely baffling to the mainstream press and
other politicians, but as I've said many times, they make perfect
sense once you understand that Trump believes (correctly) that China
and the US are headed for a world war, and that Trump is trying to
keep that from happening, even though Generational Dynamics predicts
that it will happen with 100% certainty, no matter what Trump does.

The entire "trade war" policy with China is designed to throw
China off its game of relentless militarization and preparation
for war. However, it's an extremely risky policy because it
may actually trigger war if the Chinese panic. The 90-day freeze
gives the Chinese some breathing room, and keeps them from
panicking.

Thank you, Sir.

And here is where I was left confused. You are right, absolutely right. Now, looking back, Trump's actions makes sense. President Trump is a decent person trying to save his countrymen, if some of them hate him. Trump is true man's man. He is acting selflessly to save the world. Literally.

This still doesn't answer the question as to why "that economist" stated that the freeze doesn't do anything and is only a PR stunt.

That economist IS, in fact, baffled by "the freeze" (as per John), and the only reason that he (not John) would state that "it does nothing" is if he LITERALLY can not see what it does do.

Why can't he see what the freeze DOES do? That is what we don't know.

My opinion is that that economist can't see it because he doesn't "see" the context that would allow him to see it.

And this is where John's "Greek Tragedy" theory comes into play. Inevitabilities that are "completely unacceptable" (impossible to contemplate), and all the "parts" connected to those inevitabilities, are simply denied and disappear from view in a chaotic ball of "poof!", where all the particles of said "poof" ball are the "unexplainable" phenomena that lead up to and surround the inevitabilities.

In other words, when you see an "expert" being "baffled", what you are seeing is someone unconsciously (or maliciously) speaking outside of their domain of expertise, usually in a way that makes them appear a fool in the extreme,.. while those THEY fool into believing them make him (the "economist") into a "hero".

So, when you see a baffled expert being vociferous, he's in a job interview for the position of "Hero of Fools".

CNN et al pays pretty well for effective Heroes!

You should have read what I wrote more carefully. Kettle, meet pot.

I know what "freeze" means; I wondered if there was something more to the situation and why the economist commented the way he did.

No need to be smug and obnoxious.

Guest wrote:...
You should have read what I wrote more carefully. Kettle, meet pot.

I know what "freeze" means; I wondered if there was something more to the situation and why the economist commented the way he did.

No need to be smug and obnoxious.

No need to take offense when none is offered.

I am who I am, and that person (depending on the occasion and alcohol content ['though I don't actually imbibe terribly much]) is, by definition, "smug" with my opinions and "obnoxious" in their presentation, because I have confidence that my opinions are truly heart felt and honest, and that part of that honesty is presenting my thoughts as if "you" (the "presentees") were "tight" friends in that "fellow viking-ish warriors 'round the campfire" kinda way.

Obnoxiousness is interpreted, and not given, unless the giver of said "presentation" is actually intent on ill will toward his "presentees".

It's best to ASK the presenter if ill intention is intended, as opposed to simply assuming that it is intended.

I can assure you that I intend no ill will toward anyone in here. I, personally, never assume that anyone in a voluntarily entered forum such as this wishes any conversation partner ill will. I find that the best policy, as I don't really care if anyone intends me ill will or not, as I interpret what everyone says as informing me of their true selves,.. and it's simply counterproductive to "feel bad" about being awarded another's inner thoughts.

In other words, don't be such a snowflake around the campfire, snowflake! We don't want you to be meltin', now.<chuckle!> I ain'tcher enemy, buckeroo. Banter doesn't leave bruises.

Aloha a me nā mahalo īa ʻoe! <shaka nui!>

I'm not a snowflake. You are just a rude, bloviating jackass who wastes everyone's time talking in circles and riddles no once cares to answer. You could give lessons on how to speak a lot and say nothing, even less than nothing, to Slavoj Žižek. Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek

Slavoj Žižek



Žižek in Liverpool, England, 2008
Born 21 March 1949 (age 69)
Ljubljana, PR Slovenia,
FPR Yugoslavia
IdeologyMarxismontologypolitical theorypsychoanalysiscultural studiesfilm theorytheologyGerman idealismdialectic

Notable ideas
Interpassivity
Over-identification
Ideology as an unconscious fantasy that structures reality
Revival of dialectical materialism
Influences

AlthusserBadiouBalibarChestertonDebenjakFreudHegelHeideggerJamesonLacanLaclauMarxKantRancièreSchellingSchmittZupančič

Influenced

DeanFisherZupančič

Slavoj Žižek (/ˈslɑːvɔɪ ˈʒiːʒɛk/ (About this soundlisten) SLAH-voy ZHEE-zhek; Slovene: [ˈslaʋɔj ˈʒiʒɛk]; born 21 March 1949) is a Slovenian continental philosopher. He is a professor at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities of the University of London.[2] He works in subjects including continental philosophy, political theory, cultural studies, psychoanalysis, film criticism, Marxism, Hegelianism and theology.

In 1989, Žižek published his first English text, The Sublime Object of Ideology, in which he departed from traditional Marxist theory to develop a materialist conception of ideology that drew heavily on Lacanian psychoanalysis and Hegelian idealism.[3][4] His early theoretical work became increasingly eclectic and political in the 1990s, dealing frequently in the critical analysis of disparate forms of popular culture and making him a popular figure of the academic left.[3][5] A critic of capitalism, neoliberalism and political correctness, Žižek calls himself a political radical, and his work has been characterized as challenging orthodoxies of both the political right and the social-liberal universities.[4][6][7]

Žižek's idiosyncratic style, popular academic works, frequent magazine op-eds, and critical assimilation of high and low culture have gained him international influence, controversy, criticism and a substantial audience outside academe.[6][8][9][10][11] In 2012, Foreign Policy listed Žižek on its list of Top 100 Global Thinkers, calling him "a celebrity philosopher"[12] while elsewhere he has been dubbed the "Elvis of cultural theory"[13] and "the most dangerous philosopher in the West".[14] Žižek's work was chronicled in a 2005 documentary film entitled Zizek! A scholarly journal, the International Journal of Žižek Studies, was founded to engage his work.[15]

Guest wrote:I'm not a snowflake. You are just a rude, bloviating jackass who wastes everyone's time talking in circles and riddles no once cares to answer. You could give lessons on how to speak a lot and say nothing, even less than nothing, to Slavoj Žižek. Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool?

Actually, no. I love playing the fool. I REALLY really do.

I love conversation (which is what "playing the fool" is, by the way), and conversing with people who actually like to communicate meaningfully with others. Or even MIGHT like that, though they may not know it, or are simply bad at it.

The essence of conversation, with human discourse, is asking questions, raised by really listening to people, that clarify what each of the partners mean by what was said.

One of the things that makes for a good conversation partner is the ability to "get over yourself", and receive what is given as if it was given in good will and intention,.. even if it wasn't.

Of course, "getting over yourself" does not mean "not being who you are". It simply means continuing to converse regardless of attempts to "shut down" the conversation. My "good natured" ribbing and "rudeness" COULD be taken as an attempt to "shut down" conversation, but only if one is easily irritated by "grown up" conversation.

If you want a good conversation partner, just keep talking, as I'll always return the volley ("keep the game going"), and we'll get more and more of an understanding of each other and each other's world. If you don't, simply shut the hell up, Snowflake!

<chuckle!>

..ball's back in your court! Aloha nui īa ʻoe! <shaka>

John wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek

Slavoj Žižek ...

Influences

Althusser/Badiou/Balibar/Chesterton/Debenjak/Freud/Hegel/Heidegger/Jameson/Lacan/Laclau/Marx/Kant/Rancière/Schelling/Schmitt/Zupančič

...

Well,.. I do like Chesterton!

The rest of it..? Sounds like an interesting guy, but if he lacks a sufficient sense of humor he MAY be a bit of an energy vampire.

..Iʻm not really into energy vampires.

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

Guest wrote:I'm not a snowflake. You are just a rude, bloviating jackass who wastes everyone's time talking in circles and riddles no once cares to answer. You could give lessons on how to speak a lot and say nothing, even less than nothing, to Slavoj Žižek. Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool?

Actually, no. I love playing the fool. I REALLY really do.

I love conversation (which is what "playing the fool" is, by the way), and conversing with people who actually like to communicate meaningfully with others. Or even MIGHT like that, though they may not know it, or are simply bad at it.

The essence of conversation, with human discourse, is asking questions, raised by really listening to people, that clarify what each of the partners mean by what was said.

One of the things that makes for a good conversation partner is the ability to "get over yourself", and receive what is given as if it was given in good will and intention,.. even if it wasn't.

Of course, "getting over yourself" does not mean "not being who you are". It simply means continuing to converse regardless of attempts to "shut down" the conversation. My "good natured" ribbing and "rudeness" COULD be taken as an attempt to "shut down" conversation, but only if one is easily irritated by "grown up" conversation.

If you want a good conversation partner, just keep talking, as I'll always return the volley ("keep the game going"), and we'll get more and more of an understanding of each other and each other's world. If you don't, simply shut the hell up, Snowflake!

<chuckle!>

..ball's back in your court! Aloha nui īa ʻoe! <shaka>

You aren't even a good conversationalist. You just like hearing the sound of your voice. You're not witty; you're asinine. There is nothing grown up about you. I already have an extremely good understanding of you. You are an angry old windbag, and you have deluded yourself into believing you are clever and charming, when in reality, you are just rude and overbearing. You are the kind of person people go out of their way to avoid. Enjoy another lonely night at the bar...