The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

[Raz]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Pearl Harbor was attacked because the US was conducting economic warfare on Japan in the form of an oil embargo.

As I've noted in previous posts: oil for Japan was literally the staff of economic growth.

Where is the Chinese embargo on the US? Or vice versa?

Correct. +1

[bart]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

.... So the first point I wish to make is that I did not set out to stir up trouble, nor, do I sincerely believe; did anyone else here.

Fair enough.

My "tribe" is I am a Brit. Churchill once made a very pertinent remark about the difference between the British and Americans which roughly translates into; "one language, two different cultures". I came to iTulip as a means to debate themes; mostly but not always presented to us by EJ as here, where the theme is to postulate the potential for a war caused by economic difficulties. But just like my experience with weeding trees, here I did not think about the very simple fact that others will see the potential for a war as a return to a very dark period during which some very depraved people tried their best to exterminate them. So the second point I feel I must make is that I do not, for one moment, believe that anyone here was thinking to turn the debate in such a negative direction.

I get highly concerned when extremely hot topics like Jews enter in, especially when spin is present - the best example being that Einstein post.

I've so far seen two decent boards go down in flames and attract some real psychos - true guns freaks who think murder is a real answer, and extreme real racists and haters too - and it started off with the subject of Jews and religious evangelism.

Our problem, here, in such a debate, is a matter of tribal description. Being a Brit, never assigns me any religious aspect to my tribal description. But as a Brit, I am not minded to walk away from a debate either, however difficult it gets; because the most important aspect of any disagreement is to talk the matter through, as peacefully as possible; so that we can all get to an agreement of what truly matters.

I'd be cautious if I were you with the tribal assumption on religion - Church of England and the monarchy and Bank of England and all.

Religion and worship is not limited to just organized religious groups.

...

Take this how you will; No one here is any form of a Nazi, and as such, some of the statements made here, against those of us trying to get to grips with the debate can only be seen as deeply objectionable and totally reprehensible. (Yes, on both sides). Our problem is we do not have an easy answer to the matter of identity. No one took a blind bit of notice when we were debating the recent nuclear tragedy in Japan; where the hierarchical structures preclude any debate with everyone in Japanese industrial and political life bowing to seniority. But here, in trying to get at why the Western economy has collapsed; we have run into a storm of dissent caused by our inadvertent religious description of the leadership. If we had a non religious "tribe" description none of this would have occurred. May I be so bold as to ask, does anyone have an answer to that conundrum?

We disagree here. That other poster (Serge?) reminded me greatly in the way he started out of a few others on those two boards that went down. I'm not accusing him of being a Nazi... but reserve judgement. Let's just say it wouldn't surprise me greatly if he is at least a partial Holocaust denier.
While I'm at it, your use of the phrase "dominant group" and the word "tribe" is of concern too - they both have potentially very hit emotional connotations.

Note that I have severely blasted groups/"tribes" like banksters and will likely continue, but have also noted that "banksters" does not in any way mean all bankers - "banksters" are a small minority of all bankers.

As far as a non religious tribe description, "human" works for me - and it carries a message too about "obsessive individualism".

Now, turning to the debate, the potential for war; and why we have got to where we are. What certainly I was trying to get at was the answer to the question: how do we change the mindset of the leadership? For, again, like it or not, famously; The Buck Stops Here.

Perhaps it is actually possible to avoid what EJ is describing, but much of the reason I didn't post here for quite a while is that my own expectations and forecasts of what is ahead are also dark, and I couldn't bring myself to post stuff that dark in any detail - especially after having been attacked so much for being the bearer of bad tidings via various facts and charts.

A friend has noted a few times to me that "despair is a sin" and I certainly haven't given up and do much behind the scenes or anonymously, but I think we passed the point of no return quite a while ago. My efforts now are mostly concentrated on making the period ahead smoother and less painful for folk, and more on what we all put together "afterwards".

Whomever they are, and whatever their background; they must come to terms with their own failure. This is not about trying to set them up for systematic deletion in a fireplace; this is all about getting across the idea that they have to change direction in their own thinking. If, by grouping together, channeling their efforts into circling the wagons to protect themselves from a perceived threat; they entirely misunderstand the debate; then, like it or not, someone has to have the brass cheek to say; "Enough", get real, this is not about religion, this is all about an attitude of mind that has passed over the higher responsibility to lead the nation. Particularly towards a better prosperity for the many whom; without such leadership, have no other option than to fight in a war.

I've posted this quote before, and think it still applies quite well, especially the last paragraph:

"...throughout recorded time...there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low...The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.

Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.

But the problems of perpetuating a hierarchical society go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern."

-- 1984, George Orwell

If I am to be shunned for being so blunt, so be it; that is the price I have decided to pay for the debate. For, to my mind, the central theme for this debate; the potential for war; is far far more important than my iTulip image. We are not debating whether or not any one of us might be drawn into a war, for the chances are the most of us here today are too old to be considered suitable participants; but we must recognize the potential for millions of lives to be disrupted and lost. That is not a trivial matter over which we should be seen, for one moment, bickering between ourselves over a small matter of a tribal description.

I believe it has almost nothing to do with some supposed iTulip image, but rather (at least per my experience) of where it inevitably goes when the area is taken up - basically nowhere on a net basis. Hot emotions, flames, Godwin's Law, using Google to prove anything. etc. etc. - been there, done that and it ends us as "rant vs. rant".

War effects everyone, even us geezers... and I expect way more than millions of lives to be lost.

The national leadership, of all nations involved, at all levels of responsibility, financial, institutional and political; must now sit back and recognize their own input to the current economic difficulties. All of them; all, must rethink their own responsibility and look again at why they have made such desperately bad decisions in the past and learn the lessons through open debate with all of us on the outside; who can see a way forward. No one has all the answers; but neither will anyone succeed without examining their own solution in comparison to every other presented.

That is the great responsibility of leadership. So; get on with it and stop bickering, we are all friends here and everyone is trying their best to find a solution.

Chris Coles.

I still believe the area is best covered, by those that desire to, by a threads or threads in the rant & rave section. Perhaps it can be discussed civilly but I'm not holding breath.

One last point - I put together a large list of logical fallacies, cognitive dissonance issues etc. a while back to try and increase awareness in the area of debate etc.:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

There were a lot of wasp nests; so it was not long before I too swept my grass hook over a nest entrance and suffered some very nasty stings; and this thread has reminded me that, sometimes, without knowing any better, it is still possible to walk into trouble, entirely innocently. So the first point I wish to make is that I did not set out to stir up trouble, nor, do I sincerely believe; did anyone else here.

I now realize that this is a 'taboo topic' among Americans so there is a general avoidance to discuss about it even objectively.

My approach is avoid the emotions and look at hard facts.

The US military policy in the Middle East spun an OBL, led to Iraq war, Afghanistan war, which depleted US treasury, created the opportunity for credit surplus authoritarian nations such as Russia and China to rise, acquire technology and power.

Of cos, on the capitalism side, there is excessive greed for profits, Walmart, Madoff, etc.

Having lived all my life in an authoritarian country, I think I know them well enough. Their ultimately goal is not economic development to better the lives of the people or even profits, but power and control, the former is just a means to fulfill the latter. To secure that power, everything can be sacrificed, the people, religion, god, even their own families members, e.g. Gaddafi. The religious will say he is possessed by the demon.

In my opinion, a sudden shift in world power balance, e.g. rise of Japan after Meiji, is dangerous to long term world peace, and even dangerous to people of the country that is rising - Japanese people were also a victim. I read a bit about Japan post-Meiji in school. Japan had little natural resources and during those times there was no free trade, so as Japan grew economically there is a need to acquire iron ore, copper, etc, and that could only be done by force. So Japan conquered Manchuria which was resource rich, and then went on and on. As their power grew, they went crazy...

A great misconception among the West is that China will cannot embrace consumerism. Those who read history will know that Eastern China, especially the Shanghai, Zhejiang and Jiangsu provinces were once the most prosperous regions on earth since the Roman times, and they used banknotes a thousand years before Europe. People wonder why the people in Shanghai are smarter - it is in the genes. I've no doubt that China will become very successful from the economic point of view.

A stronger Russia and China will mean Iran will rise - 10 years ago - no one could imagine that Iran could openly make nukes. When Iraq tried, they were smacked. Recently, Pakistan declares that it wants to move closer with China.

So post-Iraq & Afghan war, the Middle East has not become more stable, but even more dangerous.

How will all this end up 10-20 years down the road?

Of cos, the US can withdraw from the Middle East entirely leaving allies to the wolves. Without assured oil supply from the Middle East, the US economy will crash, but the US has sufficient food so no one will starve, and besides the people that will have the most to lose are the Wall Street bankers and Walmart billionaires. Life will still continue for ordinary citizens. Within 10 years of that oil shock, people will start to use electric cars, oil becomes less important, the US economy will recover, everyone will wonder why were we so dependent on oil in the past?

[bart]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I now realize that this is a 'taboo topic' among Americans so there is a general avoidance to discuss about it even objectively.

Au contraire - the only points are to take it on to the rant & rave section, and don't divert existing threads. If it really turns out to be a sane discussion after a few weeks, ask Fred to move it elsewhere.

I think you'll be appalled at what turns up though.

My approach is avoid the emotions and look at hard facts.

The US military policy in the Middle East spun an OBL, led to Iraq war, Afghanistan war, which depleted US treasury, created the opportunity for credit surplus authoritarian nations such as Russia and China to rise, acquire technology and power.

Of course, and the area goes way way deeper than that - and is far from just about the US - or Israel.

[sunpearl71]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Remember the Mumbai terrorists attack? Some Indians believe that the Pak military or spy agencies are behind it.

Based on a comprehensive court trial, it has been established that the attacks were supported by the Pak spy agency ISI.
Complete coverage from a local Indian newspaper group here:
http://www.indianexpress.com/fullcov...sab-trial/108/

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I still believe the area is best covered, by those that desire to, by a threads or threads in the rant & rave section. Perhaps it can be discussed civilly but I'm not holding breath.

One last point - I put together a large list of logical fallacies, cognitive dissonance issues etc. a while back to try and increase awareness in the area of debate etc.:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

In the early 1990’s I spotted a small error in a document placed on public record to support a major flood defence proposal for what is a significant City, Salisbury, here in the UK. I wrote to the Council and placed a copy on record for the public enquiry. My input was ignored. Over a long period of time, I tried my best to get someone to look, but every effort was refused. This was a major project for the city and the group of people involved classically, circled the wagons and refused to listen. I even got barked at, right across a public meeting by the Leader of the Council; "You are wrong!" The simplest thing would have been to take a short walk, no more than ten minutes and look at what I had spotted with a mark one eyeball, accept the mistake and adjust their proposals accordingly; but they simply could not do that. From what one can make of it, they perceived the problem as a threat to their authority; they could not see the problem as a minor matter of a detail. In the end, I asked a world class hydrologist to take a look and his confirmation led, eventually, to the abandonment of the entire proposal.

As I see it, this debate is about the exact same mechanism; circling the wagons to protect, when there is no need. All I am trying to get across is that by refusing to accept that there is a misunderstanding of criticism; you miss the wider responsibility; that this is nothing to do with any particular religion, nor origins, nor tribe; this is a problem of an avoidance of debate by trying to make out that the debate is, in some way, improper. Moreover, believe it or not, you have fallen into the trap of actually using, for your own purpose, the rules, particularly 1 & 2 that you yourself asked me to read. But, then, have you the honesty and courage to accept that?

The core problem with the economy is not the people there already; it is a refusal to allow new thinking into the inner circle, and the instinctive, protective, fear based mechanism, and thus consequent use of accusations of racism, to defend that inner circle. What we desperately need is new thinking, right at the top of our elite, our leadership. To be able to achieve that, we need a recognition of the need to bring new people, new thinking, new ideas, new faces, into the inner debate. We cannot force that from the outside; this simply has to be recognised from within. The wagons have to be brought back into line to face the economic problems head on and the leadership must permit outside debate into the mindset of their inner circle.

[bart]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I still hold the same opinion and still suggest a thread in rant & rave.

There is no intent to suppress opinions or posts, but rather to encourage you and others to have at it - I could be wrong and the discussion could turn out to be a relatively sane one... although your very own rather critical thoughts about Americans and truth leave little hope.
My own experience for years on other boards when "Jooz" come up is very far from encouraging. Is there some truth from the anti-Jooz area - of course... but the fixed ideas and refusal to view the "other side" (the example about Asian income is just one) have always condemned sane and balanced discussions. It has always turned into "he said, she said" emotionally hot flaming, logical fallacies, personal attacks etc. eventually.



I also believe that this may apply:

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

— Michael Crichton

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

"My approach is avoid the emotions and look at hard facts."

Good luck with that, Touchring! Let us know how that works out for you. Facts are, in fact , slippery things. Why? Because, as stated succinctly in the abstract below: All facts are a function of interpretation. This applies equally well to so-called historical facts, not just legal facts.
Houston Law Review, Vol. 45, 2009
Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-68

Abstract:
What are facts? More precisely, what are facts within the contemplation of law? We might sensibly seek an answer to this question in the law of evidence, where we find a distinction that seems to furnish the key to understanding just what the law means by a fact - the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. For the promise of direct evidence is that it brings the fact-finder in direct contact with crucial facts about the instant dispute. By contrast, circumstantial evidence is said to give clues that require inferences to connect them to the critical facts of the case. And so, if we can understand how direct evidence enables us to apprehend facts in an unmediated way, then we should be able to understand facticity itself.

The problem with the direct-circumstantial distinction is not just that common beliefs about its significance turn out to be false. (For example, circumstantial evidence is not generally less reliable than direct evidence.) A more fundamental problem is that the distinction makes no logical sense. There simply is no category of evidence that brings us into direct contact with crucial facts, because no such contact is possible.

Fortunately, it turns out that understanding the illusory nature of the direct-circumstantial distinction gives us just the purchase we need to understand what facts are in the context of legal decision-making - and, by extension, what facts are generally. All facts are a function of interpretation. This unavoidability of interpretation makes all facts a matter of inference, and consequently all evidence - direct or circumstantial - nothing more or less than a contribution to that inferential process.

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

PS

I can imagine that a well-intentioned person might respond that the elusive nature of most "facts" is well understood, and this is precisely why we need debate, discussion, and, hopefully, dialogue, so that we can arrive at a better understanding, and so forth. As Bart has explained, experience, most particularly with the medium of communication that we are using, has taught us that this applies wonderfully well to many topics, but not to all, and certainly not to this one.

[c1ue]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

The US military policy in the Middle East spun an OBL, led to Iraq war, Afghanistan war, which depleted US treasury, created the opportunity for credit surplus authoritarian nations such as Russia and China to rise, acquire technology and power.

And why do you say this behavior is due to military policy?

What makes you not consider the possibility that said military policy is an outgrowth of economic policy?

Of ideological and/or nationalistic goals?

Having lived all my life in an authoritarian country, I think I know them well enough. Their ultimately goal is not economic development to better the lives of the people or even profits, but power and control, the former is just a means to fulfill the latter. To secure that power, everything can be sacrificed, the people, religion, god, even their own families members, e.g. Gaddafi. The religious will say he is possessed by the demon.

Living your life in an authoritarian country doesn't itself convey any information.

How can you know what exactly is going through the minds of the 'authorities'?

As a very young child, your parents are god.

As a teenager, often your parents become the devil.

As a young parent, your parents become a godsend.

Yet the parents are the same.

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Living your life in an authoritarian country doesn't itself convey any information.

How can you know what exactly is going through the minds of the 'authorities'?

As a very young child, your parents are god.

As a teenager, often your parents become the devil.

As a young parent, your parents become a godsend.

Yet the parents are the same.

They've got excellent propaganda. There's an adage, If Its Too Good To Be True, Its Not True. Don't believe too much in spins. There is no free lunch or saints iin this world, especially so when it comes to politics and power.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...745c7a17220a06

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Armed Chinese soldiers allegedly beat a Vietnamese fisherman and threatened other crew members before driving them out of waters near disputed South China Sea islands claimed by both countries, a Vietnamese official said Thursday.


A Chinese navy ship chased the fishermen before dispatching a speedboat with 10 soldiers armed with automatic rifles and batons, a border official in Vietnam's central Quang Ngai province said on condition of anonymity, citing policy. The soldiers boarded the fishing boat near the contested Paracel Islands.


The soldiers punched and kicked the Vietnamese captain and threatened nine other crew members in the July 5 incident, he said, adding the captain was not injured.
The Vietnamese official said the Chinese soldiers confiscated one ton of fish from the boat and drove it from the area. The fishermen continued working before coming to shore and reporting the incident to authorities Wednesday, he said.

If you've not experienced their system, it is not easy to understand the mindset of dictators. Is Gaddafi really that bad? Do you know that Libya has free education and healthcare that Americans will envy? Libya is not Egypt, life is actually quite good in Libya.

The problem starts when you try to dislodge them, they will go crazy, their power is like an indispensable part of their life - this is somewhat similar to a love stricken lady, whose love can change to frightening hate. All dictatorships will end up in disaster regardless of how well they start off.

There are trade offs in life, nothing is perfect. If you thought you found a perfect system, that is because you have not seen the end result.

[jpatter666]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

There are trade offs in life, nothing is perfect. If you thought you found a perfect system, that is because you have not seen the end result.

Or as might be expressed another way - TANSTAAFL

[c1ue]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

The problem starts when you try to dislodge them, they will go crazy, their power is like an indispensable part of their life - this is somewhat similar to a love stricken lady, whose love can change to frightening hate. All dictatorships will end up in disaster regardless of how well they start off.

Frankly the only difference is in scale, not in reaction - whether 'democratic' government or not.

Or do you ascribe what is happening in the US as happening due to 'freedom' as opposed to 'hanging on to power'?

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Frankly the only difference is in scale, not in reaction - whether 'democratic' government or not.

Or do you ascribe what is happening in the US as happening due to 'freedom' as opposed to 'hanging on to power'?

I consider the USA a half democracy at best.

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

The problem starts when you try to dislodge them, they will go crazy

Like ticks, I suppose. If you go after one, you want to make sure you get the head.