Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

John wrote:People reference the Nazi Holocaust and say "Never again!", but it's
worthwhile repeating that there are three "holocausts" of Sunni
Muslims going on today:

• China is conducting genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslim
  Uighurs in Xinjiang province (East Turkistan). China has has been on
  a building binge of huge "re-education centers" (concentration camps)
  and crematoria. They've locked up over a million Uighurs in
  "re-education centers," where they are tortured, beaten, raped and
  executed.
• Burma (Myanmar) is conducting genocide and ethnic cleansing of
  Sunni Muslim Rohingyas, led by Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu.
• Bashar al-Assad's genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslim
  Arabs in Syria.

What does it take for genocide and ethnic cleansing to trigger a war?
Apparently it doesn't. The Nazi Holocaust didn't trigger a war, and
the above three apparently aren't doing so either.

So what does trigger a war?

Yeah, John; the Sunnis are the victims here, yeah all these nations are just chomping at the bit to commit genocide against Sunni Muslims of all people. Yeah right, never mention the fact that Sunnis are going into other people's countries and killing "infidels". The Sunnis are in fact the aggressors here, not the victims.

CH86 wrote: > Yeah, John; the Sunnis are the victims here, yeah all these
> nations are just chomping at the bit to commit genocide against
> Sunni Muslims of all people. Yeah right, never mention the fact
> that Sunnis are going into other people's countries and killing
> "infidels". The Sunnis are in fact the aggressors here, not the
> victims.

You should think about the fact that the reasons you're giving to
justify the genocide of Sunni Muslims are similar to the reasons given
by Hitler for the genocide are Jews in the 1930s.

Also, Jews (and Catholics) were almost as unpopular in America in the
1930s as Muslims are today. Attitudes towards Muslims today are
ironically similar to many of the attitudes toward Jews in the 1930s.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, making up over 22% of the
world population. There are 50 Muslim-majority countries. There are
perhaps tens of thousands of "jihadists" scattered around the world.
A particular region might contain millions of Muslims, including a few
thousand "jihadists." Committing genocide of millions of Muslims, in
the hope of killing a few thousand jihadists, is not justifiable.

Furthermore, just randomly killing Sunni Muslims only creates new
jihadists and jihadist groups, including ISIS, the Arakan Rohingya
Salvation Army (ARSA), and new jihadist movements in Central Asia and
Pakistan.

Given that all nukes will be used in the ~5 year WWIII, when will they be used? Will somebody pee and five hours later five thousand mushroom clouds bloom, or will it take some days ,weeks or even months? I hope it is the later...I want some time to prepare my soul.

Tom Mazanec wrote: > Given that all nukes will be used in the ~5 year WWIII, when will
> they be used? Will somebody pee and five hours later five thousand
> mushroom clouds bloom, or will it take some days ,weeks or even
> months? I hope it is the later...I want some time to prepare my
> soul.

There are different scenarios. Initially, there will be an enormous
reluctance to use nuclear weapons, if only for public relations
reasons, and fear of retaliation. But it's also possible that China
will make a massive nuclear attack on the US, and that the US will
retaliate with a massive attack on China.

Recall that in any generational crisis war, the value of an individual
human life goes down. By the time of the climax of the war, the value
of an individual human life goes to zero, and the only thing that
matters is the survival of the nation and its way of life. So all the
nuclear weapons will be used by that time.

But I think we focus too much on nuclear weapons. Most of WW III will
be fought between armies, riots, mobs, and marauding gangs, as in WW I
and II, with some use of tactical nuclear weapons, but mostly
conventional weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are rarely
used, since they can blow back on the army that uses them, and can
also wipe out innocent civilians. The same would be true with nuclear
weapons. In WW II, more people were killed with firebombing Dresden
and Tokyo. Stay away from a big city, and your soul may be saved.

John wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > This is a great "scenario" for some speculative fiction about
> WWIII. I may dive into making a "sketch" of how blah blah blah...

The whole point of my article was that war could break out at any
time, with nobody being "ready." If you imagine a scenario where
everyone waits for 5G or safe families or a loaded powder keg, then
it's not a scenario contemplated by my article.

The point of your article, IN MY OPINION (not yelling, just emphasis), is that war could break out at any time IF the conditions are "right" to allow/permit a small triggering event to escalate into a massive conflagration.

In my opinion the conditions won't be "right" to allow a tiny spark to set off the powder keg simply because of who it is that controls the "buttons of power" to unleash the big guns (to egregiously mix and mangle my metaphors).

The "elites" KNOW that the war will be DEMANDED by the population, but the "elite" DOES have the "privilege" of largely guiding the trajectory of "incoming triggers" (pee breaks and flying sparks) toward the "powder keg" of built up "anxieties/frustrations" that will explode once hit by said "triggers".

..at least the elite has that privilege for a while,.. before the powder's inexorably growing "exposed surface" makes that control/privilege impossible.

Where we disagree is only in how "exposed" the explosive fuel is at present (and in the VERY near future) to being sparked into the BIG war. Little wars of positioning and "relief valve value" will almost certainly happen, but they won't release the big 'ol nukey hounds of war onto the stage, because the fingers on the go-buttons won't do it until their "superiors" give them the go ahead.

My opinion (once again) is that the present "elites" are a bit more "educated" in how to "steer" their national masses insofar as timing of "mass demands" (such as "welfare" or war) is concerned. A World War is a bottom up fueled event (as you've shown) and is impossible to stop, but it is possible to direct by propaganda and "event orchestration".

John wrote:

Tom Mazanec wrote: > Given that all nukes will be used in the ~5 year WWIII, when will
> they be used? Will somebody pee and five hours later five thousand
> mushroom clouds bloom, or will it take some days ,weeks or even
> months? I hope it is the later...I want some time to prepare my
> soul.

There are different scenarios. Initially, there will be an enormous
reluctance to use nuclear weapons, if only for public relations
reasons, and fear of retaliation. But it's also possible that China
will make a massive nuclear attack on the US, and that the US will
retaliate with a massive attack on China.

Recall that in any generational crisis war, the value of an individual
human life goes down. By the time of the climax of the war, the value
of an individual human life goes to zero, and the only thing that
matters is the survival of the nation and its way of life. So all the
nuclear weapons will be used by that time.

But I think we focus too much on nuclear weapons. Most of WW III will
be fought between armies, riots, mobs, and marauding gangs, as in WW I
and II, with some use of tactical nuclear weapons, but mostly
conventional weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are rarely
used, since they can blow back on the army that uses them, and can
also wipe out innocent civilians. The same would be true with nuclear
weapons. In WW II, more people were killed with firebombing Dresden
and Tokyo. Stay away from a big city, and your soul may be saved.

China will attempt a thorough-but-controlled nuclear decapitation of "the West".
..that won't quite work.

China will mess up the West's naval assets within their reach, but won't utterly destroy them.

"The West" will squash, via tactical nukes and a bare minimum of "big nukes", all "exposed" Chinese command/control and offensive/defensive assets.

A weird "treaty" will be agreed to that (seems to) eliminate the possibility of using "the big" nuclear weapons, but not the tactical ones.

The "conventional" war ('though with tacNukes) will commence.

Things will eventually get desperate for China et al, and they will use their remaining nukes.

China, and any territory they reside, will be reduced to rubble by the West's remaining nukes, as there's little to be gained by "being nice".

The West will start to rebuild. The "contested territories" (the Non-West) will enter a warlord period of acquisition and overthrow.

...etc..

FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > The point of your article, IN MY OPINION (not yelling, just
> emphasis), is that war could break out at any time IF the
> conditions are "right" to allow/permit a small triggering event to
> escalate into a massive conflagration.

> In my opinion the conditions won't be "right" to allow a tiny
> spark to set off the powder keg simply because of who it is that
> controls the "buttons of power" to unleash the big guns (to
> egregiously mix and mangle my metaphors).

> The "elites" KNOW that the war will be DEMANDED by the population,
> but the "elite" DOES have the "privilege" of largely guiding the
> trajectory of "incoming triggers" (pee breaks and flying sparks)
> toward the "powder keg" of built up "anxieties/frustrations" that
> will explode once hit by said "triggers".

> ..at least the elite has that privilege for a while,.. before the
> powder's inexorably growing "exposed surface" makes that
> control/privilege impossible.

> Where we disagree is only in how "exposed" the explosive fuel is
> at present (and in the VERY near future) to being sparked into the
> BIG war. Little wars of positioning and "relief valve value" will
> almost certainly happen, but they won't release the big 'ol nukey
> hounds of war onto the stage, because the fingers on the
> go-buttons won't do it until their "superiors" give them the go
> ahead.

> My opinion (once again) is that the present "elites" are a bit
> more "educated" in how to "steer" their national masses insofar as
> timing of "mass demands" (such as "welfare" or war) is
> concerned. A World War is a bottom up fueled event (as you've
> shown) and is impossible to stop, but it is possible to direct by
> propaganda and "event orchestration".

Hey look, yell all you want. I'm used to it, and my feelings won't be
hurt.

I think that it's really sweet you have so much faith in humanity,
especially politicians. You must truly be a sensitive, loving person.

I, one the other hand, am bitchy and paranoid, have been spending 15
years writing Generational Dynamics articles, and having learned that
what I used to think was the worst, most horrific of human behaviors
is actually the norm. I no longer have faith in anyone or anything.

I've given three examples -- WW I, WW II, and the Israel-Hezbollah war
-- all of which contradict your argument, including the 2006 war that
contradicts your "this time it's different" argument.

What you're overlooking is that not only are people not rational,
they're bound by nationalism, xenophobia and treaties to escalate
a war. I was thinking of cutting and pasting a description
of how "one thing led to another" in WW I, but I'll just give
the link:

https://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/alliances.htm

It's a short read, and it shows, how tit-for-tat escalations occur,
step by step, and how each step is, by itself, unexpected and
shocking. There was no judgment involved in these steps, just as
there was no judgment involved in the WW II and Hezbollah examples.
Each step happened because it HAD to happen, almost if it were
programmed by a computer. That's one of the differences between
generational Crisis eras and other eras.

You suggest that "this time it's different," but we have the same
kinds of interlocking treaties today that existed prior to WW II.
After World War II, the United States took on the role of Policeman of
the World, and in doing so, signed some sort of mutual defense treaty
with many countries: Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, the
Philippines, the Marshall Islands, the ANZUS agreement with Australia
and New Zealand, a special treaty with Iceland, and the NATO agreement
with all of Europe. The purpose was to discourage attacks on any of
these allies that would otherwise have the risk of spiraling into
World War III.

And that worked for 75 years, but now it's backfiring in the same way
that the interlocking treaties of WW I backfired.

As for the rest of your "this time it's different" argument, I would
point out that hormones are the same, DNA is the same, bitterness,
anger and a desire for revenge have not changed at all.

But, you know, there's no hurry. Maybe no one will have to pee until
2030.

FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > China will attempt a thorough-but-controlled nuclear decapitation
> of "the West". ..that won't quite work.

I just don't think it will happen that way. I think it will start in
some small, local way -- perhaps even as a regional riot in China --
and escalate step by step. The massive invasion or attempt at
decapitation won't happen for a few weeks or a few months, in my
opinion.

And each step along the way will be a shock and surprise to everyone.

John wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > The point of your article, IN MY OPINION (not yelling, just
> emphasis), is that war blah blah blah...

Hey look, yell all you want. I'm used to it, and my feelings won't be
hurt.

I think that it's really sweet you have so much faith in humanity,
especially politicians. You must truly be a sensitive, loving person.

That is a terrible failing of mine, 'tis true. Although, while I do in fact have no faith in politicians, I do consider them to (sort of) cancel themselves, and other politicians, out in practice.

I, one the other hand, am bitchy and paranoid, have been spending 15
years writing Generational Dynamics articles, and having learned that
what I used to think was the worst, most horrific of human behaviors
is actually the norm. I no longer have faith in anyone or anything.

..yeah,.. I can see that... yeah...

I've given three examples -- WW I, WW II, and the Israel-Hezbollah war
-- all of which contradict your argument, including the 2006 war that
contradicts your "this time it's different" argument.

I'm not actually saying that "this time it's different". I'm saying that those past times were just like this time.

I haven't done the research, so I'm simply blithering out me backside (the "me" was me trying to sound vaguely piratical, btw) based on my inadequate but spookily "truthy sounding" intuition, BUT,...

..you'll find that in the past the REAL "elites" (not necessarily the "rulers") had ALWAYS arranged things, or attempted to arrange things, such that their survival was guaranteed before the advent/"triggering" of their particular Crisis War ("World" war).

The argument hinges on the proposition that the APPARENT "elites" were not the ACTUAL "elites", therefore reducing it to a rather circular argument.

..but,.. who is it that actually DOES survive a "clash of civilizations" and prospers (eventually) that was "advantaged" before the war on BOTH sides?

And the answer is: I have no idea. Sorry for the letdown. I guess I'll have to actually do the research, or "hope" someone else does it, or use this idea for another scintillating piece of speculative fiction.

[/quote]
What you're overlooking is that not only are people not rational,
they're bound by nationalism, xenophobia and treaties to escalate
a war. I was thinking of cutting and pasting a description
of how "one thing led to another" in WW I, but I'll just give
the link:

https://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/alliances.htm[/quote]

I shall read this with extreme interest, as it might answer some part of that stupid proposition that I made above! Thanks chief!

It's a short read, and it shows, how tit-for-tat escalations occur,
step by step, and how each step is, by itself, unexpected and
shocking. There was no judgment involved in these steps, just as
there was no judgment involved in the WW II and Hezbollah examples.
Each step happened because it HAD to happen, almost if it were
programmed by a computer. That's one of the differences between
generational Crisis eras and other eras.

It was a "programmed process" requiring no judgement, but part of that autonomic process (in my opinion!) is the (at least attempted) steering of the "sensitivity window" into and out of "Pee Break Trigger" territory.

I just happen to believe that after the "advances" in "Human Dynamics Technology/Theory" of the last period of time, the "elites" have figured a few things out, as well.

This might also explain why the "resentment" toward Cassandras is so easy to come by.

...

As for the rest of your "this time it's different" argument, I would
point out that hormones are the same, DNA is the same, bitterness,
anger and a desire for revenge have not changed at all.

But, you know, there's no hurry. Maybe no one will have to pee until
2030.

DNA doesn't change (much), I agree. But tech can be an amazing force multiplier.

..or course pee can be an amazing force multiplier too, so,... there's that.

Aloha 'oe, dude! <shaka nui!>

> And don't forget about the hot to the touch and practically
> smoldering tinderboxes of Syria, Ukraine, Taiwan, Venezuela, and
> the DMZ in Korea. If the wrong person decided to pee in the wrong
> place in any of these regions, that could provide the spark that
> would light the fuse that starts WWIII.

> In Taiwan, all it would require is for one politician to say the
> wrong thing or one protest to cross what China considers to be a
> red line...and Chine might forcefully retaliate. And of course, if
> Taiwan and China go at it, the U.S. is bound by treaty to come to
> Taiwan's aid.

> I don't think Russia will try anything too serious in Ukraine any
> time soon but who knows?

> And you never know when Kim Jong-un will decide to shore up has
> base and engage in provocative behavior.

> Syria...don't get me started on Syria. I'm actually surprised that
> a major regional war hasn't broken out there already! If someone
> from Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ever pees
> too close to the Israeli border...all bets are off! And once the
> U.S. pulls out of Syria, Turkey will launch an invasion of Kurdish
> territory within one month of the American military withdrawal.

> And the situation in Venezuela is beginning to concern me. Russia
> and China no longer respect the Monroe Doctrine. And since Putin
> and Xi Jinping will lose many billions of dollars if Maduro falls,
> they are motivated to protect his regime. Maduro will eventually
> fall but the demise of his government may take us down a path that
> no one wanted to venture...or could have foreseen.

> 2019, what do you have in store for us?

John wrote: Wars break out all the time, but they don't always escalate
into something larger.

Some of the examples you mention are unlikely to escalate because of
the generational era. Syria and Iran are in Unraveling eras, and so a
minor clash won't escalate into a major war. Even Russia vs Ukraine
has been going on for five years, with no escalation.

Japan and China are deep into generational Crisis eras. But they
can't go to war directly because of Japan's mutual defense treaty with
the US. So there won't be something similar to Hitler's invasion of
Poland, or Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor. Those scenarios do not
seem likely at the present time.

But it's like there are two different ways to start a major war,
and the other way is spontaneous, unexpected and organic --
such as the Marco Polo Bridge incident or the assassination
of Archduke Ferdinand.

A much more modern example is Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanon border.
Israel went into a state of total panic, and launched the war in
Lebanon within four hours, with no plan and no objectives.
Lebanon is in a generational Unraveling era, so the war fizzled
within a few weeks, but that example shows how a small act
can cause one side to panic, leading to a larger war.

This example is also interesting because it's like the Marco Polo
Bridge incident -- both of them involved abductions of soldiers (real
or apparent) and a reaction that spiralled into a larger war.

Both China and Japan are deep into generational Crisis eras. The
situation between China and Japan is unique because of their history,
and because of China's rapid militarization and preparation for war,
China's contempt for international law -- and because China seems to
be emulating the barbaric actions of Japan in the 1930s.

Good points, as usual sir. It looks like China will be the one who starts the next world war...we just don't know when or where. But we know Japan and Taiwan will be involved...thus so shall we.