Originally Posted by pbrower2a

> Something is different this time. We have copious records of the
> worst consequences of the last Crisis War. We have all become
> witnesses to the Holocaust. We all know about Bataan and T-731. We
> know what a kamikaze attack is. We know the consequences of thug
> rule -- that a criminal syndicate such as the Nazi Party or the
> Imperial Rule Assistance Party brings misery and death. The
> blatant exceptions are in the Arab world, in part because Arab
> stats are unwilling to see Jews of the last Crisis as victims of
> injustice when they are easily seen as conspirators against
> everything humane and decent.

> We know the personality of Adolf Hitler as well as if he were a
> family member and as such we can truly despise him. There won't be
> another one of him. Even Stalin has been debunked.

Really, how could anyone in this forum possibly believe this?
Any of a number of world leaders today could be the next Hitler,
and you wouldn't know it, just as nobody knew that Hitler was a
thug before the war with Britain.

The last time we had this discussion in this forum, I referenced a
story about how British girls were still being sent to finishing
school in Berlin in 1938, because it was "the thing to do":

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-905617.html



"In the 1930s, many English families sent their daughters to schools
in Germany. Rachel Johnson, the sister of London Mayor Boris Johnson,
interviewed many of them in preparation for her new novel. Here, a
group of young women give the Nazi salute on board the Wilhelm
Gustloff in Tilbury in 1938."

*** 13-Sep-13 World View -- Philippine troops in clashes with al-Qaeda linked terrorists

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Philippine troops in clashes with al-Qaeda linked terrorists
• Tensions grow between Egypt and Gaza's Hamas

****
**** Philippine troops in clashes with al-Qaeda linked terrorists
****


Philippine troops clash with MNLF terrorists on Thursday (VOA)

Tens of thousands driven from homes by Muslim terrorists in the mostly
Christian city of Zamboanga on the Philippine island of Mindanao. An
estimated 180 terrorists from the al-Qaeda linked separatist group
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) are holding as many as 180
hostages. The army says that it has the situation "contained," but it
is feared that the fighting will spread. Previous peace agreements
between the government and the MNLF's predecessor, the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF), but the army did not honor their pledges to
reduce poverty and reduce security either failed or never
materialized. President Benigno Aquino III, who took office in 2010,
vowed to spend time and money to resolve the issues, but has not been
effective. CNN and International Crisis Group (PDF) and VOA

****
**** Tensions grow between Egypt and Gaza's Hamas
****

When Hamas was formed in 1988, it was a branch of Egypt's Muslim
Brotherhood. It took control of Gaza in 2008 in a war between
Palestinian factions. During the year when Mohamed Morsi and his
Muslim Brotherhood party were controlling Egypt, until he was deposed
by a coup on July 3, Morsi never did very much for Hamas. But now
that Egypt's army is in charge, tensions are growing rapidly between
Hamas and Egypt, largely because of terrorist attacks on Egyptian
soldiers in the northern Sinai region of Egypt, near the border with
Gaza. The Egyptian military has been making threatening actions
towards Hamas, such as sending warplanes over Gaza airspace. On
Thursday, two Egyptian army tanks for the first time crossed into the
corridor that separates Egypt and Gaza. Egypt state TV is reporting
that Hamas has been training Egyptian terrorists how to plant bombs in
cars, and that Hamas gave 400 landmines to Egyptian militant groups.
Reuters and AFP

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Philippines, Zamboanga, Mindanao,
Moro National Liberation Front, MNLF,
Moro Islamic Liberation Front, MILF, Benigno Aquino III,
Egypt, Gaza, Hamas, Mohamed Morsi,
Muslim Brotherhood

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Are you serious? Here are just a few possibilities:

• Pakistan versus India. They almost went to war after the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai by the LeT.
• In Central Asia, Kyrgyz versus Uzbeks
• Tensions between China and Japan are growing quickly over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands
• A clash between China versus Vietnam or the Philippines that spirals out of control.
• Iran versus Saudi Arabia.
• Hezbollah versus Israel.
• Tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh are growing rapidly. Israel is supporting Azerbaijan, while Russia is supporting Armenia.
• Buddhists versus Muslims in Burma (Myanmar)

Any one of these could start out as a small regional war and
expand into a larger war, drawing in allies.

With the exception of India/Pakistan, none of these conflicts would be more than a petty regional war or possibly a proxy war. That said, the Indians and Pakistanis didn't go to war when the provocation was there, because they still have enough elders with experience of chaos from 1949 through the '70s to forestall one.

Originally Posted by Xenakis ...

These people are acting like jerks, but I was referring to their world view, rather than their living habits.

However, let's speculate a little. Why do Silents act like this?

You say that they consider younger people to be lazy, so they may have decided that they've worked hard all their lives and they've paid into Social Security and other taxes their whole lives, and now they deserve the benefits they've already paid for, and so they're going to act like this.

So that's how a Silent jerk acts. How does a similarly jerky Gen-Xer act? He decides that he hates Boomers and Silents, and joins a financial institution and defrauds anyone he can.

So there are jerks in every generation, but their world views are very different.

Sadly, I find that most people have no world view. Instead, they tend to share a severe case of myopia, with their focus stopping realtively close to home. That's not to say that they won't go about flag-waving and mouthing platitudes, but they have virtually no appreciation for the positons their platitudes imply. In short, they have no depth of belief, so they are as changeable as the weather.

We who do care about these things are an unusual bunch, and we tend to be viewed as weird by those who see no reason to even consider the implications of policy unless it impacts them personally. Then they care a lot, but how they care is unpredictable. Many will cling to a charasmatic leader. How else to understand the rise of a Hitler or a Stalin? If any country could fall prey to that thinking it's the US, but for now, we're floundering.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

With the exception of India/Pakistan, none of these conflicts would be more than a petty regional war or possibly a proxy war. That said, the Indians and Pakistanis didn't go to war when the provocation was there, because they still have enough elders with experience of chaos from 1949 through the '70s to forestall one.



Sadly, I find that most people have no world view. Instead, they tend to share a severe case of myopia, with their focus stopping realtively close to home. That's not to say that they won't go about flag-waving and mouthing platitudes, but they have virtually no appreciation for the positons their platitudes imply. In short, they have no depth of belief, so they are as changeable as the weather.

We who do care about these things are an unusual bunch, and we tend to be viewed as weird by those who see no reason to even consider the implications of policy unless it impacts them personally. Then they care a lot, but how they care is unpredictable. Many will cling to a charasmatic leader. How else to understand the rise of a Hitler or a Stalin? If any country could fall prey to that thinking it's the US, but for now, we're floundering.

India/Pakistan were not in Crisis through the 70s: Not to say that there weren't problems, but I don't think they have to wait several more decades till the next one.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

India/Pakistan were not in Crisis through the 70s: Not to say that there weren't problems, but I don't think they have to wait several more decades till the next one.

I didn't intend to imply that a Crisis existed that long, but war and war-tensions were pretty dominant throughout. Add to that, the assassinations of political leaders in both countries, and you have a environment that favors under rather than over-reacting. Both are nuclear powers, so they've deicded to manage their adversarial relationship by proxy in Kashmir. It's the Indian/Pakistani version of the Korean model - a lot of marching and occassional shooting, with tea at 4.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> With the exception of India/Pakistan, none of these conflicts
> would be more than a petty regional war or possibly a proxy
> war. That said, the Indians and Pakistanis didn't go to war when
> the provocation was there, because they still have enough elders
> with experience of chaos from 1949 through the '70s to forestall
> one.

The death of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was just a petty
assassination, at the hands of a couple of petty high school students.

Today the world is well into a generational Crisis era, and in this
era, any one of the potential "petty regional wars" that I listed
could quickly expand, through a series of "regeneracy events," into a
much wider war.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> Sadly, I find that most people have no world view. Instead, they
> tend to share a severe case of myopia, with their focus stopping
> realtively close to home. That's not to say that they won't go
> about flag-waving and mouthing platitudes, but they have virtually
> no appreciation for the positons their platitudes imply. In short,
> they have no depth of belief, so they are as changeable as the
> weather.

What you mean is that they disagree with the platitudes that people in
your generation mouth. Once again, when I talk about their world view
I'm not talking about whether they're entitled to Medicare. I'm
specifically referring to things like this:

> FWIW, I don't see a crisis war this time. The stakes are still too
> high, and the big nuclear powers are content to fight proxy
> wars. That could change, but there are no indications of that
> today.

Once again, my point is that, in my experience, this is a fairly
standard, common, every day world view among Boomers, Gen-Xers and
Millennials, but WW II survivors are very unlikely to hold the world
view represented by this quote. Instead, they believe that the worst
could happen at any time, even tomorrow, and their "depth of belief"
is great, since they've seen it all before.

Crisis wars were discussed in another thread. As I recall, one country was said to have a "time of ugliness" with a very large anount of very nasty violence between groups-without conventional armies fighting conventional battles. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what seem to be petty regional wars. What if multiple countries should all experience a time of ugliness?

It occurs to me that there could be a sort of two front war-regional conflicts between countries (consider China versus Japan) while everybody is also fighting Muslims in the background.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The death of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was just a petty assassination, at the hands of a couple of petty high school students.

Today the world is well into a generational Crisis era, and in this era, any one of the potential "petty regional wars" that I listed could quickly expand, through a series of "regeneracy events," into a much wider war.

But the motivation isn't there this time. We aren't in the Empire-building mode any more. It proved to be a bad model. We also have, for the first time ever, the capability to end human civilization. The last Crisis era ended with a demonstration of what nuclear war is like ... and eveyone has seen the videos, which were also not available during the last Crisis era. More to the point, the current crises are local and economic. War doesn't fix that.

Originally Posted by Xenakis ...

What you mean is that they disagree with the platitudes that people in your generation mouth. Once again, when I talk about their world view I'm not talking about whether they're entitled to Medicare. I'm specifically referring to things like this:

Why would any generation be focussed on war when they are seeing economic difficulties impacting their lives every day? The world's hot spots are burning, or at least smoldering, but they are mostly left smoldering. The French interventionin Mali may be an exception. If we intervene in Syria, do you think the Russians will jump in on the other side?

Originally Posted by Xenakis ...

Once again, my point is that, in my experience, this is a fairly standard, common, every day world view among Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials, but WW II survivors are very unlikely to hold the world view represented by this quote. Instead, they believe that the worst could happen at any time, even tomorrow, and their "depth of belief" is great, since they've seen it all before.

I think they fear another Great Depression, since no one has replealed the law of greed, but a world war seems so unlikiely that, prior experience to the contrary, it won't be happening again in our collective lifetimes.

Last time, the trigger was war reparations (Germany) and resource acquisition (Japan and Italy). What would trigger one this time?

Perhaps this time around wars will be many, but play out as local or regional.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> But the motivation isn't there this time. We aren't in the
> Empire-building mode any more. It proved to be a bad model. We
> also have, for the first time ever, the capability to end human
> civilization. The last Crisis era ended with a demonstration of
> what nuclear war is like ... and eveyone has seen the videos,
> which were also not available during the last Crisis era. More to
> the point, the current crises are local and economic. War doesn't
> fix that.

No, a new world war would not end human civilization. I estimate that
some 4 billion people (out of the current 7+ billion) would survive
the war and rebuild the world.

But I give up. You and I obviously have completely different world
views. But I think we can agree that you also have a completely
different world view than most WW II survivors, and that's really the
only point I was trying to make.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

No, a new world war would not end human civilization. I estimate that some 4 billion people (out of the current 7+ billion) would survive the war and rebuild the world.

I didn't intend to mean the end of humanity, just the civilization we ocupy today. I can't fathom any modality that supports the continuation of civilization as we know it, after a global nuclear war. What would emerge should be a better civilization in the long run, since the example of mass devastation will push the emerging model toward a peace-management paradigm of some sort.

It's academic in any case. If such ever occurs, we'll both be long dead.

Originally Posted by Xenakis ...

But I give up. You and I obviously have completely different world views. But I think we can agree that you also have a completely different world view than most WW II survivors, and that's really the only point I was trying to make.

I don't share your views nor the views of some GIs, but for others I do. Because they are departing so quickly now, we've had a real run of interviews printed in the local paper where the subject was involved in WW-2 as a grunt (Battle of the Bulge), a bomber pilot, a seaman (at Pearl Harbor no less), three nurses who served overseas and several others that don't come quickly to mind. I never got the impression that they considered today's times to be an analog of the late '30s. Most were optimists ... much more than I am. They seemed most worried about the economic futures of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Would we be less of a target if jihadists turned their attention towards China?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I didn't intend to imply that a Crisis existed that long, but war and war-tensions were pretty dominant throughout. Add to that, the assassinations of political leaders in both countries, and you have a environment that favors under rather than over-reacting. Both are nuclear powers, so they've deicded to manage their adversarial relationship by proxy in Kashmir. It's the Indian/Pakistani version of the Korean model - a lot of marching and occassional shooting, with tea at 4.

Kind of like how the memory of Vietnam prevented Iraq? Are you really so sure the NK/SK faultline will NEVER flare up?

I don't agree with a lot of Xenakis' opinions, but he's got at least this right: You are far too sanguine and complacent that nothing will fundamentally change.

I wouldn't be complacent, not with most of the world primed for a Crisis.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

> Would we be less of a target if jihadists turned their attention
> towards China?

Actually, this has been happening for some time. The al-Qaeda linked
Turkestani Islamic Party has been training terrorists in Pakistan to
conduct terrorist attacks in China's Xinjiang province, and promote
the separatist movement among the Uighurs there. I wrote about this
last year:

** 9-Jan-12 World View -- Instability in Xinjiang causes China to threaten Pakistan
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...09.htm#e120109

*** 14-Sep-13 World View -- Ban Ki-moon accidentally tells the truth about Syria

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Syria discussion on Framingham Mass. TV on Sunday
• Ban Ki-moon accidentally tells the truth about Syria
• Russia elated by its diplomatic victory on Syria
• Reports: Assad's troops dispersing them throughout Syria
• The Way the World Works

****
**** Syria discussion on Framingham Mass. TV on Sunday
****

Massachusetts residents who have access to Framingham TV should tune
in on Sunday (9/15) evening at 6 pm, where I'll be the guest on the
subject of Syria on Jim Pillsbury's news/talk show.

****
**** Ban Ki-moon accidentally tells the truth about Syria
****


Ban Ki-moon thinking he's speaking privately on Friday (Al-Jazeera)

I keep trying to stay away from the Syria situation frankly because
it's depressing to keep seeing first Congress then KGB officer
Vladimir Putin and psychopathic Bashar al-Assad continue to make fools
of the community organizer President of the United States and the
administration, as the latter bumble from one flip-flop and gaffe to
the next. But I keep getting pulled back in by the sheer astonishment
I feel because of the unbelievably ridiculous play that's being acted
out in the international community.

Friday's stunner occurred when United Nations secretary-general Ban
Ki-moon told the truth about Syria's president Bashar al-Assad when he
thought he was talking privately. Instead, his remarks were seen and
heard by all the U.N. journalists. Here's what he said:

<QUOTE>"What happened is that [al-Assad] has committed many
crimes against humanity. Therefore, I'm sure that there will be
surely the process of accountability when everything is over. ...

Our team will come out soon with the report. But I believe the
report will be overwhelming, overwhelming report that the chemical
weapons were used, even though I cannot publicly say at this time
before I have received this report."<END QUOTE>

Ban also gave a U.N. estimate that the August 21 chemical weapons
attack killed 1,400 people. Ban did not say that the al-Assad regime
was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, though he arguably
implied it. The "many crimes against humanity" that Ban was referring
to were committed with tanks and missiles and bombs and other
"conventional" weapons, that have killed over 100,000 people and
displaced millions from their homes. The U.N. official report is
expected on Monday.

Now Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are negotiating over this
ridiculous proposal to destroy Syria's chemical weapons. This has
been endlessly discussed on every news show, and every analyst has
said that it would take years to accomplish this, which means that
it's never going to happen. This is just one more way that Russia and
Syria are making fools of the U.S. administration. AFP and Fox News

****
**** Russia elated by its diplomatic victory on Syria
****

It was just a couple of weeks ago when President Barack Obama was
snubbing Russia's president Vladimir Putin because Putin was gloating
over having given asylum to American traitor Edward Snowden. Now
Putin has not only completely humiliated the American administration,
but has also stopped cold the President's avowed intention to respond
forcefully to Syria's use of chemical weapons. In fact, the military
action was going to destroy al-Assad's air force, the principal weapon
that he had to commit crimes against humanity against his own people.
Al-Assad is now free to resume full mass slaughter of his people,
using the heavy weapons supplied by Putin.

So now we come to Thursday's stunning event: Vladimir Putin's
op-ed, published by the NY Times.

<QUOTE>"The United Nations’ founders understood that
decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus,
and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent
members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound
wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international
relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League
of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This
is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and
take military action without Security Council
authorization."<END QUOTE>

This is laughable. The United Nations is already as useless as the
League of Nations, and Putin has made it so. As I wrote in 2011,
Russia's policy since the Libyan action has been to use the United
Nations to cripple NATO and the United States, leaving it free to
pursue any military operations it wants.
( "22-Apr-11 News -- Russia seeks to cripple Nato through Libya United Nations politics" )

Thus, Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, without asking for approval from
the United Nations. Russia still has troops in Georgia, without
asking for U.N. approval. Russia has annexed to of Georgia's
provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, without asking for
U.N. approval. Russia is supplying masses of heavy weapons to
al-Assad, where they're being used to commit crimes against humanity,
all without asking for U.N. approval. So Putin's policies have been
astonishingly successful. He's free to pursue any military policies
he wants, and at the same time he's using the United States to cripple
American and Nato policy. It's absolutely incredible, and it's only
possible because of America's phenomenally incompetent foreign affairs
policies.

<QUOTE>"My working and personal relationship with President
Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully
studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather
disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating
that the United States’ policy is “what makes America
different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely
dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional,
whatever the motivation."<END QUOTE>

This is making my head explode. Of course he appreciates Obama's
Tuesday address to the nation, because Obama totally capitulated
to Putin. What's there not to like for Putin?

Well he found something. It's dangerous, according to Putin, for
America to see itself as exceptional.

The concept of America being exceptional is a new one for Obama,
who's spent most of his life listening to his mentor, Reverend
Jeremiah Wright, say things like "God Damn America! God Damn
America!" And Obama began his presidency by apologizing for
almost everything. So apparently the president has even
"evolved" enough to say that America is not exceptional. It
was such a strange thing for Obama to be saying, that perhaps
even Putin was astonished.

It's possible that Putin went too far. Democratic Sen. Robert
Menendez said that Putin's op-ed made him almost want to throw up, and
House Speaker John Boehner said he was "insulted." Washington Post and CNN

****
**** Reports: Assad's troops dispersing them throughout Syria
****

The chemical weapons negotiations between America and Russia are
farcical on their face, as described above, since even in the best of
circumstances it would take years to accomplish the goal of destroying
the chemical weapons. But now there are numerous reports that Bashar
al-Assad's army has been moving the chemical weapons about 50 other
sites within the country. This means that the entire negotiation is
just another joke that Russia and Syria are playing on Obama and
Kerry. Independent (London)

****
**** The Way the World Works
****

Some people are suggesting that after President Barack Obama and
Secretary of State John Kerry have been so incompetent and shown such
weakness and confusion, that now many nations -- China, Iran, Russia,
etc. -- will feel free to do whatever they want because they know they
can get away with anything.

But that's not the way the world works.

At some point, community organizer Barack Obama is going to be sick
and tired of being made a fool of by one person after another, and
he'll get angry and strike back. That may mean, for example, taking
some military action WITHOUT first asking permission from Vladimir
Putin or Congress. The military action might be successful, but also
it might impulsive, might be disastrous, might even cause a war.

Even forgetting that, the Syria debacle will have further inflamed
Sunni and Shia jihadists who are heading for Syria to fight, and will
dash the hopes of the millions of Syrian refugees who had been hoping
that they might return to their homes soon.

Those who believe that Putin's victories this week mean the world is a
safer place should understand that the opposite is true. The Syria
debacle has made the world a much more dangerous place. That's the
way the world works.


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, Russia, Vladimir Putin,
John Kerry, Edward Snowden

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Hey John, can we expect to hear something on the nomination of Narendra Modi as the BJP's candidate in the 2014 election? I think if you'll look into it you'll see that he has a very solid chance, and might be just the guy to help lead South Asia into its next crisis.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

But the motivation isn't there this time. We aren't in the Empire-building mode any more. It proved to be a bad model. We also have, for the first time ever, the capability to end human civilization. The last Crisis era ended with a demonstration of what nuclear war is like ... and everyone has seen the videos, which were also not available during the last Crisis era. More to the point, the current crises are local and economic. War doesn't fix that.

Failure to address the bad practices and depraved tendencies of the 3T that led to disaster in the 4T implies at best superficial solutions and at worst an even greater disaster. The degeneracy of the 3T -- neglect of the necessary but unglamorous aspects of life that make life tolerable and workable -- has resurfaced because it got rescued. Sure they are local -- if one considers San Francisco and Miami "local" with respect to New York and Washington DC. Failure to solve problems ensures that one tries to drink his way out of a hangover, so to speak.

We have done nothing to undo the concentration of economic and bureaucratic power in America. We have done nothing to improve ourselves as a people, especially those who wield economic power. We have bailed out corrupt figures of the 3T and those corrupt figures basically demand the right to exercise their old vices on a bigger scale with fewer constraints. Just look at the politicians we got in 2010.

Why would any generation be focused on war when they are seeing economic difficulties impacting their lives every day? The world's hot spots are burning, or at least smoldering, but they are mostly left smoldering. The French intervention in Mali may be an exception. If we intervene in Syria, do you think the Russians will jump in on the other side?

The common man does not want war. He'd rather work in a warehouse and go home to eat Twinkies and watch TV... OK, one can update "Archie Bunker" some and say that he would play video games in which he saves the world from intergalactic invaders... than go to war. But the not-so-common man might have a financial stake in armaments industries and in "securing" raw materials and cheap labor or in creating or maintaining captive markets. The not-so-common man might wish to be the new Alexander or Bismarck without concern for the multitudes who die for his egomania. The not-so-common man might more 'moderately' consign millions to serfdom on behalf of his class. The common man can't avoid being drafted as cannon fodder unless he is too old to be a soldier -- but in that case he can't shield his sons or grandsons. He feels the full brunt of inflation and economic contraction that elites can safely shield themselves from or even profiteer from. His kids can't avoid the propaganda that the public schools offer when corrupt politicians have an agenda to promote.

Economic hardships make people more susceptible to demagogues who promise everything and then deliver only to insiders. Maybe our contemporary technologies can expose a politician who says one thing ("Save the magnificent trees!") in San Francisco and then says the opposite ("Trees? When I see great trees I see plywood!) in Houston, but if someone gets control of the media we will be denied such exposure of contradictory statements. If there is another economic downturn some demagogue might offer "Jobs, jobs, and more jobs!" -- never mind that the jobs come with brutal discipline, starvation pay, and no right to quit or strike, and that someone who falls short of the work quota might find himself in a concentration camp.

Elites can profiteer from crony capitalism, controlled markets, and the imposition of peonage. They can also buy media that offer their message that their cruelty is beneficence and that their greed is generosity.

I think they fear another Great Depression, since no one has repealed the law of greed, but a world war seems so unlikely that, prior experience to the contrary, it won't be happening again in our collective lifetimes.

Last time, the trigger was war reparations (Germany) and resource acquisition (Japan and Italy). What would trigger one this time?

"Law of greed"? No -- the law of myopic stupidity of economic elites is in operation.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Really, how could anyone in this forum possibly believe this?
Any of a number of world leaders today could be the next Hitler,
and you wouldn't know it, just as nobody knew that Hitler was a
thug before the war with Britain.

Hitler carefully showed the 'best' of Germany -- clean, fit, disciplined people, people in touch with folk traditions, the glorious achievements of German music and literature. He kept foreigners from seeing the ugly side -- the torture chambers, the concentration camps, and of course the mistreated Jews. But that is little different from the carefully-guided tours that Stalin offered to people willing to see the 'bright side' of Soviet life.

The last time we had this discussion in this forum, I referenced a
story about how British girls were still being sent to finishing
school in Berlin in 1938, because it was "the thing to do":

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-905617.html

A pair of words usually applied to people like Lincoln Steffens who returned from the Soviet Union and said "I have seen the future, and it works!":

useful idiots

Hitler had his, too. So did Apartheid-era South Africa, so did Mao's China, so did Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, so did Iraq under Saddam and Libya under Qaddafi, and so do Iran, North Korea, and Syria today.

"In the 1930s, many English families sent their daughters to schools
in Germany. Rachel Johnson, the sister of London Mayor Boris Johnson,
interviewed many of them in preparation for her new novel. Here, a
group of young women give the Nazi salute on board the Wilhelm
Gustloff in Tilbury in 1938."

It seemed harmless at the time (unless one gave the salute to a Jew), no more significant than dancing a samba in Rio de Janeiro today, but only a few months later it was something abhorrent. Foreigners not invited to the truest horrors of Nazi Germany (and those accelerated in intensity until the collapse of the regime) either as victims or as accessories didn't get to see the worst until they came with uniforms and weapons.

Of course few but the master of accessible and realistic horror (Alfred Hitchcock) could express what the Nazi salute really meant. This is what we most remember about the last Crisis Era as a warning to humanity deep into the future. Such is the consequence of the dehumanization of people because they have the "wrong" religious heritage and have gone from being the Model Minority to objects of vehement hatred:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joWT9RGKYo4

That was "only" Belsen.

Originally Posted by jordangoodspeed

hey john, can we expect to hear something on the nomination of narendra modi as the bjp's candidate in the 2014 election? I think if you'll look into it you'll see that he has a very solid chance, and might be just the guy to help lead south asia into its next crisis.

ok .......

*** 15-Sep-13 World View -- Hindu nationalist nominated as India's prime minister

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Syria discussion on Framingham Mass. TV on Sunday
• Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi becomes India prime minister candidate
• John Kerry thanks Russia for it's hard work in Syria

****
**** Syria discussion on Framingham Mass. TV on Sunday
****

Massachusetts residents who have access to Framingham TV should tune
in on Sunday (9/15) evening at 6 pm, where I'll be the guest on the
subject of Syria on Jim Pillsbury's news/talk show.

****
**** Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi becomes India prime minister candidate
****


Narendra Modi (AP)

A strong populist movement in India has resulted in the selection of
Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist who in 2005 was banned from entry
into the United States, as the candidate for prime minister for the
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). BJP will be running against
the more liberal Congress Party, which has not yet named its lead
candidate for next year's elections.

Hindu nationalism is controversial in India because opponents
associate it with "Hindutva violence," where the Hindutva movement
began in 1923, led by terrorist Veer Savarkar (Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar), mostly as a movement against British colonization. (See
"'Hindutva' terrorist violence against Muslims shocks Indians"
from 2008.) In particular, a
large terrorist bombing in Malegaon in India in 2008 was initially
blamed on Muslim Jihadists, but evidence led to a Hindutva terrorist
group that seeks revenge against Muslims.

Modi became associated with Hindutva violence in 2002, soon after the
time he became, Governor of the Gujarat province (on the border with
Pakistan), where he still serves as Governor. On February 27, 2002, a
train with activists shouting Hindutva slogans passed through the city
of Godhra in Gujarat province. There were some unsavory incidents,
including an attempt to molest a Muslim girl and pull her into the
train. Stone-throwing by Muslims led to a fire in one of the coaches,
and deaths by burning of 58 people. This triggered several days of
sectarian violence between Hindus and Muslims, killing hundreds and
displacing more than 150,000 people, of which the majority were
Muslims, who have since been living in refugee camps in dire
humanitarian conditions.

As Governor, Narendra Modi was accused of complicity in the violence
against Muslims -- for provoking it, and looking the other way when it
occurred. An investigation eventually cleared him, but suspicions
remained, and he was denied entry into the United States by President
Bush's administration in 2005.

Modi has become extremely popular, either despite or because of his
Hindutva connection. This popularity is part of a growing that began
in the 1970s of increasing hostility between the Hindu and Muslim
populations. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this
mutual hostility is expected to increase, and the region is headed for
a new war between Hindus and Muslims, refighting the genocidal war
that followed Partition, the 1947 partitioning of the Indian
subcontinent into India and Pakistan. Hindustan Times and AFP and Telegraph India

****
**** John Kerry thanks Russia for it's hard work in Syria
****

John Kerry and Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov gave a joint
press conference at 6 am ET on Saturday morning. I assume that the 6
am time was chosen in the hope that no Americans would hear it, since
it was so painfully embarrassing for the United States. I transcribed
the first three minutes of it, which was the first part of John
Kerry's statement:

<QUOTE>"I'm particularly grateful to Sergei Lavrov who stayed
extra time from what he had originally planned, hoping we'd finish
sooner, and this gave us additional opportunity to be able to work
through some of the issues.

I especially wanna thank the cooperative effort of Sergei Lavrov,
who has worked hard and his entire delegation, including teams of
the world's foremost chemical weapons experts, who have joined us
here for the important discussions that we've had over the last
two days.

Two weeks ago made the decision that because of the egregious use
of chemical weapons in Syria against innocent Syrian citizens,
women and children, all indiscriminately murdered in the night
that claimed the lives even of people trying to rescue people, he
believed it was critical for the world to say "No more."

The president made the difficult decision that after multiple
warnings, it was his decision that the time had come to take
military action to deter future use of such weapons.

But he also made the decision that we needed to take time to
enlist the support of the congress and the American people, and I
have no doubt that the combination of the threat of force, and the
willingness to pursue diplomacy helped to bring us to this moment.

But diplomacy requires willing partners, and I wanna thank
President Putin for his willingness to pick up on the possibility
of negotiating an ended to Syrian weapons of mass destruction.
His willingness to embrace ideas for how to accomplish this goal,
and his willingness to send foreign minister Lavrov here to pursue
12:03 this effort was essential to getting to this point.

And I wanna thank Sergei Lavrov for his diligent efforts and the
efforts of his entire delegation who worked hard and in good faith
to overcome difficulties and even disagreements. In order to try
to find a way through tireless efforts to get us where we are
today."<END QUOTE>

It's good to see that Sergei Lavrov was effusively thanked several
times for his magnificent effort of staying an extra day to fully make
fools of the U.S. administration once again. I wouldn't want Lavrov
to think that his magnificent efforts were not appreciated by John
Kerry. John Kerry also expressed thanks to Vladimir Putin for sending
the magnificent Lavrov to meet with Kerry. I was disappointed,
though, that Kerry never took a moment to thank Syria's president
Bashar al-Assad for his magnificent efforts as well.

As for the terms of the agreement, as I understand them, they are as
follows:

• The U.S. completely backs down on its threats of violence.
  Those ships in the Mediterranean Sea can all go home.
  
• Bashar al-Assad is supposed to produce a list of all his chemical
  weapons within seven days, by Friday.
  
• There are supposed to be U.N. inspectors on the ground sometime in
  November.
  
• All of al-Assad's chemical weapons will be destroyed or removed by
  mid-2014.
  
• If anything goes wrong, the U.N. Security Council will debate it
  (where Lavrov has a veto). There is a "commitment to impose
  measures," such as sanctions. Typical "measures" in the past have
  been to threaten to hold another meeting.

The Obama administration is taking credit for this agreement, saying
that the threats of military intervention, as well as all the
flip-flops and gaffes, were actually done on purpose, just to bring
this agreement about. (Do I need to comment on this claim?)

We can expect to see the following scenario one or more times in the
weeks to come: Syria breaches the agreement. John Kerry complains to
the U.N. Security Council. Lavrov says it's just a technical detail,
and anyway there's no evidence. Kerry offers a resolution. Russia
vetoes it.

Reports indicate that now that the threat of American force has ended,
Syria's air force is doubling its attacks with conventional weapons.

Russia's 2011 strategy of using the United Nations to cripple the Obama administration
and
American policy is continuing to succeed spectacularly.

At some point, Kerry and Obama are going to be forced to react to
Putin and al-Assad repeatedly leading them by the nose and making a
fool of them, and the result may not be pleasant for anyone.

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, India, Narendra Modi,
Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP, Congress Party,
Hindu nationalism, Hindutva violence, Malegaon,
Gujarat, Godhra,
Russia, Syria, John Kerry, Sergei Lavrov,
Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Thanks. I think it might become relevant as events progress.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

> A pair of words usually applied to people like Lincoln Steffens
> who returned from the Soviet Union and said "I have seen the
> future, and it works!":

> useful idiots

> Hitler had his, too. So did Apartheid-era South Africa, so did
> Mao's China, so did Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, so did Iraq under
> Saddam and Libya under Qaddafi, and so do Iran, North Korea, and
> Syria today. ...

> It seemed harmless at the time (unless one gave the salute to a
> Jew), no more significant than dancing a samba in Rio de Janeiro
> today, but only a few months later it was something abhorrent.
> Foreigners not invited to the truest horrors of Nazi Germany (and
> those accelerated in intensity until the collapse of the regime)
> either as victims or as accessories didn't get to see the worst
> until they came with uniforms and weapons.

The problem with your "This time it's different" argument is that it
can easily be turned against you. If it was so easy for Hitler to
turn almost all of the British public, including journalists,
intellectuals and politicians all the way up to Neville Chamberlain,
into "useful idiots," then you have no response to the argument that
various dictators today are using people who believe as you do as
"useful idiots."

As for "truest horrors," there are plenty of horrors going on today
that are greater than in Nazi Germany prior to the start of the war.
The most obvious one is Syria, but there's also Russia's treatment of
minorities in Chechnya, China's treatment of minorities in Tibet and
Xinjiang, and clashes with rebels in Democratic Republic of Congo.
There are also semi-governmental atrocities from groups like the
Taliban in Pakistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and violence in Burma led
by Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu. Any one of the leaders in these
situations could become the next Hitler.

The belief that "This time it's different" is a delusion, but it's a
common delusion in all generational Crisis eras that explains a lot of
the predictions of generational theory. The truth is that, today,
"This time it's almost identical."

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The problem with your "This time it's different" argument is that it
can easily be turned against you. If it was so easy for Hitler to
turn almost all of the British public, including journalists,
intellectuals and politicians all the way up to Neville Chamberlain,
into "useful idiots," then you have no response to the argument that
various dictators today are using people who believe as you do as
"useful idiots."

Indeed, except for the concentration camps, the ghettos, and the places where people actually worked, Nazi Germany didn't look "that bad" to outsiders. One needed know the ideology to what potential existed for unspeakable horror. One had to examine the unreadable Der Stuermer to recognize the vileness of the Nazi mind. The Germans were showing their alpine scenery, the castles on the Rhine, and the symphony and the opera.

I hope that it is no insult, but I look at the Greek movement "Golden Dawn" and I see thuggery.

"Members of Golden Dawn march down the street with a robust step"

reminds me of

"SA marschiert mit ruhig feste Schritt"

(The SA marches with a firm and measured step).

Greece looks as if it is becoming a failed state, probably because the government and the people borrowed too readily to live a new Good Life, only to find economic reality hitting it hard. People might want to see the antiquities and enjoy the ouzo before the country goes bad.

Failed states are the portents of political nightmares. Germany in 1930 was a failed state.

As for "truest horrors," there are plenty of horrors going on today
that are greater than in Nazi Germany prior to the start of the war.
The most obvious one is Syria, but there's also Russia's treatment of
minorities in Chechnya, China's treatment of minorities in Tibet and
Xinjiang, and clashes with rebels in Democratic Republic of Congo.
There are also semi-governmental atrocities from groups like the
Taliban in Pakistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and violence in Burma led
by Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu. Any one of the leaders in these
situations could become the next Hitler.

I know of western China. People visiting Shanghai or Hong Kong would have no more idea that anything was out of line by world standards in the other side of the country. I would know enough to not mention the two words Falun Gang. Likewise I would not drop the name "Chechnya" at the Bolshoi.

The horrors of this Crisis will not likely begin with Germany invading Poland.

The belief that "This time it's different" is a delusion, but it's a
common delusion in all generational Crisis eras that explains a lot of
the predictions of generational theory. The truth is that, today,
"This time it's almost identical."

Gettysburg was a horrible place to be in early July in 1863. Eighty years later it was a good place to be if one belonged to one of the oldest religions in the world.