Geopolitics

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Your question also included whether or not she might be arrogant.  Yes is the simple answer.  And since I still have friends and ex-colleagues there, that is all I'm going to say.

Speaking strictly for myself and not for colleague Dan Warnick, I will say that Angela Merkel is the following:

 - blind; - arrogant;  - out of touch; - living in some fantasy; - unable to see the real future; - obsessed; - all mixed up.

OK, that is a mouthful.  Let me spell it out for you.  Germany has a rapidly declining "German" population, in the sense of Germans being these blond, square-jawed Teutonic types that look like me.  That group is in a death spiral in terms of procreation as the fecundity rate is somewhere around 1.4,  In three generations the ethnic German Teutonic population will shrink from 75 million to 25 million.  This forces the debate over:  "Who is a German?" 

Now keep in mind that in the sixties the Germans invited "Gastarbeiteren"  ("guest workers") in from Turkey to do factory work, the idea being that when the work assignment finished, they would go back home to Turkey.  Perhaps in retrospect no surprise, instead the Gastarbeiter simply imported their extended families and settled down.  Even after two generations the children are not considered Germans (or were not, possibly the laws have now changed).  If the Teutons are not reproducing - and it is perfectly common experience to meet some nice German lass approaching age 40 and not having had her first marriage -  then the blond, blue-eyed Aryans will vanish, as they will in Sweden.  I fyou import 2 million from the Middle East, who are black haired and brown or black-eyed, with that genetic background, they will not inter-mingle with the Aryan natives, instead they will reproduce outside that stream and eventually become the New Germans, simply because you are importing 2 million in the prime reproductive years and the fecundity rates in the Middle East can be 4.0 or 5.5 or other high number.  It is because the migrant populations, while only 2 million out of 75 million, are all fecund, that you now set the stage for the overwhelming, genetically speaking, of the native population, and the starving out of the Teutons. 

Could Germany have preserved its Teutonic genetic heritage by concentrating its migrant imports from other places?  Answer:  yes.  Poland, Western Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, and West Russia  (Leningrad typically) all have blond-blue-eyed genetic stock, quite similar to Teutonic.  Angela Merkel did not focus on that aspect, and the result - importing Syrians, Afghans, and Turks instead - will irredeemably alter the German biologic forever.  

Basically, Angela Merkel allowed her personal vanity, arrogance, and rank stupidity to change Germany in an irreversible manner, all by herself.  Amazing, when you think about it.  (And, as an aside, this result is precisely what Donald Trump seeks to avoid with his monstrous, draconian immigration policies, which have brought so much pain to so many.) 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Jan van Eck
scrivener error: "From other places" instead of "for"

[Epic + 390]

50 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Did you notice the 2nd video from 2017 (YouTube published date 2018)?

Yes, I watched them both.  The second one was mostly a rehashing of the first video with all of his 2014 erroneous predictions removed, only to, of course, make even more egregiously error-prone predictions in the second vid.  I mean, 3 world wars in the next 30 years???   Zero is a more likely scenario.  Even if China does start WW3, I find it highly unlikely that they will just roll over and beg for mercy after an oil blockade made by the Allies.  Again, no mention of One Road One Belt, or anything of the like, which is one of China's obvious attempts to make such a blockade less meaningful during such a war.  Peter even suggested that Xi was grovelling before Trump during the negotiations...again, highly unlikely.  I'd believe that Kim would grovel, but never Xi.  Peter's comments about May were interesting, but she has enough to worry about concerning brexit at the moment, and so I am not sure her focus is on the US right now.  Still, Peter's observations concerning the behavior of all of these leaders was rather interesting, and something everyone should keep in the back of their mind when attempting to predict geopolitical movements.  

Another point: Peter made no mention of robotics.  Since Peter's theories center around population growth and its effects on consumerism, then the advancement of robotics (and their effect on the productive capabilities of the average worker) will have a huge impact on his predictions for consumerism in the next few decades...and yet, not a single word was mentioned on this topic.  

Let me reiterate that for emphasis: Peter's entire argument could be rendered null and void by the development of robotics, and yet he somehow managed to "overlook" this aspect when doing his "research."    

Peter is incredibly smart, but like most smart people, he knows how smart he is, and as a result, he is often blinded by his pride. 

Still, as harsh as I may sound against Peter, I did really enjoy the vids.  Lots of great info in them.  I wish the Q&A would have been longer, as that would have given me a better chance understand where his bias might lie.  The hard part is sorting his data (which is very useful) from his theories (which tend to be much less so).   

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Angela Merkel did not focus on that aspect, and the result - importing Syrians, Afghans, and Turks instead - will irredeemably alter the German biologic forever.

...I feel like Hitler would have something to say about this...  

 

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Basically, Angela Merkel allowed her personal vanity, arrogance, and rank stupidity to change Germany in an irreversible manner, all by herself.  Amazing, when you think about it.  (And, as an aside, this result is precisely what Donald Trump seeks to avoid with his monstrous, draconian immigration policies, which have brought so much pain to so many.) 

Were the words "monstrous" and "draconian" meant to be tongue-in-check, or SRS BSNS.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 hours ago, Epic said:

Peter is incredibly smart, but like most smart people, he knows how smart he is, and as a result, he is often blinded by his pride. 

Still, as harsh as I may sound against Peter, I did really enjoy the vids.  Lots of great info in them.  I wish the Q&A would have been longer, as that would have given me a better chance understand where his bias might lie.  The hard part is sorting his data (which is very useful) from his theories (which tend to be much less so).

It's a pitch, no doubt about it.  And doing further searches for video presentations from Peter, I found that it is a pitch that he gives in one fashion or another quite often.  As you say, the data gets updated and the slides improved, removed, added or corrected, but it is essentially the same pitch.  Therefore I took away the fact that he is paid very well to go around to various industry conferences, government and military groups, and think tanks to expand people's worldview.  To shake people up, to wake them up from their inward focused slumber.  As you say, he gives enough reality to get people thinking, hard, about the topic of geopolitics and all that that entails.  It also occurs to me that part of what he is paid to do is to sow a sense of long term security, for the Americans at least, and indeed to influence future actions that other nations and industries might take to improve their odds in this new world he is presenting, and thereby possibly change some of the less desirable outcomes around the world.  Overall, I really like his presentations because they give a global perspective that ties together so many interrelated issues in one place, in one speech.  It helps to widen our view and listen to others, I think you will agree.

Your views, and the views of others that are responding, are also good to consider and I'm sure everyone appreciates them.  Thank you!

Edited September 9, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 hours ago, Epic said:

...I feel like Hitler would have something to say about this...  

 

Were the words "monstrous" and "draconian" meant to be tongue-in-check, or SRS BSNS.

Adolf Hitler (and there remains some debate that his real name was "Schicklgruber," depending on who his biologic father was) did not pursue any policies of assimilation of the non-Nordic peoples.  He pushed out the Slavs from the lands to the East that the armies conquered, but did accept Poles, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Finns and Lithuanians into units of the Wehrmacht, on the principle that they were Teutonic peoples. At one point some 30% of combat soldiers in the Wehrmacht were non-German, something that is not much pondered by historians.  

The approach to the loss of fecundity, and the loss of troops in combat, resulted in the policy of forced Aryan reproduction.  To that end, marriage requirements were brutally abandoned, and young fecund girls, some as young as sixteen, were rounded up and herded into reproduction centers, where Officers on leave were instructed to impregnate them. Basically, a form of forced prostitution, with the specific goal of reproduction.  The idea was to keep the Third Reich exclusively Teutonic, by an influx of next-generation Aryan peoples.  The war did not last long enough for this program to make any difference, yet it did leave a legacy of children with unknown fathers and the social and psychological problems that brought.  There is no reliable data on what the young girls thought of any of this.

As to the question of "draconian" being tongue in cheek, I invite the readership to review the attached from The Atlantic and form their own opinions as to whether this represents what America is, and what Americans are, as a nation and a people:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-family-separation-children-border/569584/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20180907&silverid-ref=MzE1OTQ0MzY0MjgzS0

[TXPower + 643]

15 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

You're welcome.  When I watched that video I just knew this was the right crowd to appreciate it and to get into it.

I have thoughts about a couple of your points:

2) Yes, I believe it is quite plausible, but of course it would be painful and that is where it helps to have a great deal of control over the thoughts and beliefs of the citizenry.  Combine that with an intense nationalism, and a vast military and government bureaucracy, and China should be able to sell the idea that it must be done due to "crazy" outside forces.  There is so much to this question that I am sure my answers won't suffice, but I'll keep trying.  Think about the government a) having an almost monopoly on the transportation systems = individual movement and communication, even or especially within the country.  b) Even if people do travel around internally for work when the country has closed down its borders, the people they meet when they get where they are going will tow the line as instructed AND they are being fed the same nationalistic messages = crops/robust sustenance/healthy industry/government good (no famine/lots of productivity/government good).  c) The government can round up millions of dissenters and fill up those ghost cities they have built, sort of a custom built government holding cell, and they know how to build walls around anything.  d) Ultimate control of telecom, media, social media, and data access = information about what's happening, even in the next province let alone outside of China.  There is limited privatization in some of these sectors, but that privatization comes with strict limits and the knowledge that those privileges can be taken over by the government in the interest of national security. 

Like I said, there is so much to this question that I've really only hit the highlights.  It wouldn't be clean by any stretch of the imagination, but you should see a stoic Chinese when challenged to do the "right" thing.  It is a truly unbelievable condition to behold.  Think of your sister or mother, or your wimpy brother Dan, getting all of their teeth pulled out, without anesthetics or anyone holding them down and no straps, without a tear on their cheek or a whimper, staring straight ahead.  In a room with 100 other patients!  Oh yes, that stoic.  And I have seen it with my own eyes.  I must admit that this is hard for me to accept in the aftermath of the one-child policy, but the older generations have seen with their own eyes the price that can be paid for not converting back to stoicism, so I think the reverse transition from somewhat spoiled only children (one-child policy) to stoic could happen very quickly.  The Chinese equivalent of you are either with us or against us, but the meaning applies totally within the borders of China.

3) There will be others that can answer more about Angela than me, but I will help get their juices flowing, so to speak:  Angela comes from post WWII East Germany where endless studies, unproductive meetings, totalitarian control and the ever present feelings of being cast aside were omnipresent.  That makes for one interesting type of German personality, to say the least.  Angela has been re-integrated and she believes that it can be worked out for others, no matter where they come from.  I asked old friends and colleagues about their thoughts of the mass migration that was causing them so much trouble a few years ago, and I was quickly and firmly told that Germany had handled integration before and they could do it again.  That was then; this is now.  Now the original West Germans aren't so sure it's such a good idea; the original East Germans, such as Angela, may continue to believe that no-one should be turned away, or cast aside, if you will.  I also presume that Angela has seen the videos that I linked to at the beginning of this thread, or may have been present at one of the inter-governmental meetings herself.  If she has or was, she knows she needs young people and she needs them now, not 25-30 years from now.  Being a strong good German, with her background specifically, she has taken the decision to force the immigration upon the country with the firm belief that Germany can make it work.  Who knows, she may be right.

Your question also included whether or not she might be arrogant.  Yes is the simple answer.  And since I still have friends and ex-colleagues there, that is all I'm going to say.

Dan, I agree with your synopsis of China and its ability to hermitize and control outside influences.  Curious though, how do their energy, food needs and dependence on trading status with their biggest buyer, the U.S., comport with that?  Also, China has taken significant steps toward projecting its will internationally of late.  Not to mention their one road plans as mentioned by Epic.  Will they just postpone?  

As to Merkel, her genesis and how that affects her actions, I think you are spot on.  Indeed the slides in the presenters video support the truth that Germany needs more young people to work.  I cannot  however agree with the opinion shared with you, that past success integrating East and West Germany was anything like integrating the folks Germany is currently admitting en masse.  East and West Germans were separated by a wall and not much else.  The folks flooding Germany now are different politically, economically, culturally and perhaps most, religiously.  There are also real questions about inclination to assimilate.  Talk about clash of civilizations.  It’s suicidal for Germany.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Dan, I agree with your synopsis of China and its ability to hermitize and control outside influences.  Curious though, how do their energy, food needs and dependence on trading status with their biggest buyer, the U.S., comport with that?  Also, China has taken significant steps toward projecting its will internationally of late.  Not to mention their one road plans as mentioned by Epic.  Will they just postpone?

Thanks for your feedback.  As for energy and food needs, I attempted to subtly deal with those issues in the following:

a) having an almost monopoly on the transportation systems = individual movement and communication, even or especially within the country.  b) Even if people do travel around internally for work when the country has closed down its borders, the people they meet when they get where they are going will tow the line as instructed AND they are being fed the same nationalistic messages = crops/robust sustenance/healthy industry/government good (no famine/lots of productivity/government good). 

The above would necessarily have to be one of the most guarded propaganda efforts they take on.  However, they have experience and know how to handle it (read about Mao's train trip inspection from Beijing to Guangzhou), and don't forget about the control of information.

The above may also answer your point about their dependence on trading status with the U.S., but from my simplistic view, if they were to close up shop and put a sign on the door, would it matter?  I mean would repayment of loans matter if they chose to implement a closed society, and were no longer trading in dollars around their newly limited world?  Again, I'm not sure I get the question or know the answer to it.

For their "steps toward projecting its will internationally of late":  I think anyone would agree that they would attempt to test Peter's theory about Taiwan, Japan and South Korea (In Peter's scenario, the U.S. would have gone home) blockading their attempts to maintain shipping lanes, including going to war to do so.  However, my feeling is that the Chinese would not risk their entire fledgling Naval fleet on any such exercise.  If it looked like they were going to be destroyed, I believe they would back up to their own coast and use the fleet for defensive missions.  They would not rest, however, and would continue to build up their fleet as best they can in order to venture out again after the new world order has been firmly established.  Just like navies the world over, they would from time to time risk some of their fleet (older ships?) to test the new resolve of their neighbors from time to time, in order to see if/when they are sufficiently prepared to venture out again.  Remember, we're going by Peter's theories here.  I also don't think the world would block China from shipping grains and supplies whose verifiable purpose is to feed its population.  But if we're talking 3 world wars, who knows? 

One early scenario I think would be very likely is that China would finally invade Taiwan (U.S. would no longer stand up for Taiwan in Peter's scenario), wipe out most if not all of the military since they have enough soldiers themselves and don't need the inherent problems or the mouths to feed, take all of the military equipment that survives the invasion and integrate it, kill off all leadership and/or groups they feel would be a nuisance, and either force the farmers to produce for the mainland or kill them off and bring in their own farmers (no nukes!).  They settle the Mao/Chiang question once and for all and they have a lot more agricultural resources to feed the masses, while giving their own military a boost in the process.  The military boost accomplishes a number of things such as experience for the military itself in a real battle, a victory to be touted back to the mainland masses, and a warning back to the mainland masses in the same instant.  

One Road Project: This project could continue where possible, with willing neighbors.  Remember, many of these neighbors would be effectively shut off from the world as well, and may be motivated to work together for their mere survival.  Or they could be run over by China's military.  Their choice.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

As to the question of "draconian" being tongue in cheek, I invite the readership to review the attached from The Atlantic and form their own opinions as to whether this represents what America is, and what Americans are, as a nation and a people:

It was a horrific thing to do, that is for sure.  The thought of having anyone take away my son, for any reason, just makes me shaking-mad even to think about it.  It is the one thing I'm sure I would die fighting against.  Might as well die fighting because I know I would go nuts if I lost him like that.  If you're accusing Trump and company of being draconian, I agree and this inhuman mistake should not be forgotten. 

I would only add that I think the vast majority of Americans share the opinion that the kids should not have been separated from their parents, at all.  What divides them is whether or not the mother (in the example you cite in The Atlantic) should have ever attempted to cross the border illegally.  But even that argument is terribly weak and people need to wake up and not allow themselves to be manipulated so easily, and it doesn't even address the real issue: that the U.S. does not put sufficient resources into a timely asylum process, which I have seen mentioned before in this thread (we can process 150 million tax returns, but can't process "x" number of asylum seekers).  It at least used to be that Americans were very proud of our asylum laws.

Whether or not those border agents realize it yet, I think most of them must be afflicted by PTSD from the entire fiasco.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Further to our discussions of what China might or might not be able to do with regards to keeping the shipping lanes open, have a look at this link to an analysis titled:

FIRST STRIKE

China’s Missile Threat to U.S. Bases in Asia

Thomas Shugart and Javier Gonzalez

While the analysis is about a China first strike against U.S. forces in Asia, one can draw inferences about how similar tactics could, possibly more easily, be used against South Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese forces in the absence of U.S. forces (Peter's scenario).

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 9/8/2018 at 9:04 PM, Dan Warnick said:

 

3) There will be others that can answer more about Angela than me, but I will help get their juices flowing, so to speak:  Angela comes from post WWII East Germany where endless studies, unproductive meetings, totalitarian control and the ever present feelings of being cast aside were omnipresent.  That makes for one interesting type of German personality, to say the least.  Angela has been re-integrated and she believes that it can be worked out for others, no matter where they come from.  I asked old friends and colleagues about their thoughts of the mass migration that was causing them so much trouble a few years ago, and I was quickly and firmly told that Germany had handled integration before and they could do it again.  That was then; this is now.  Now the original West Germans aren't so sure it's such a good idea; the original East Germans, such as Angela, may continue to believe that no-one should be turned away, or cast aside, if you will.  I also presume that Angela has seen the videos that I linked to at the beginning of this thread, or may have been present at one of the inter-governmental meetings herself.  If she has or was, she knows she needs young people and she needs them now, not 25-30 years from now.  Being a strong good German, with her background specifically, she has taken the decision to force the immigration upon the country with the firm belief that Germany can make it work.  Who knows, she may be right.

Your question also included whether or not she might be arrogant.  Yes is the simple answer.  And since I still have friends and ex-colleagues there, that is all I'm going to say.

The over-arching issue for Germany (and Germans, Das Volk) remains reproduction.  I was sitting on a night train from Copenhagen to Koln, in the Bar Car (of course), and struck up a conversation with a German woman who seemed a tad upset.  Turns out she has been husband-shopping for many years with no success.  She was 34.  She went on about having her children (or more precisely, who will father my children?) and how it was so difficult to find a man to marry.  Seems she had been expanding her search into Denmark, there to find a divorced man whom she courted for two years now and had just this trip finally broken it off as it was going nowhere, he had a couple of kids to raise and no job, living off the Danish welfare system, not exactly a promising fellow in the husband-material department.  

It is perfectly common for a German woman today to have her first marriage at age 40, or even later.  Obviously, this limits total reproduction. 

For reasons that remain unclear to me, there is a shortage of marriageable young German males, not enough men to go around.  I suspect part of this is the drift into homosexuality, part is that some young males do not survive risky behavior, and part is getting involved with drugs. the previous big hit was WWII, with some ten million German men killed off; that hit dramatically altered the future generations of Germans, and many German women ended up marrying Western troops, going home to America as war brides.  Aside from that diaspora (those Germans will be assimilated into the conquering countries' stock), you now have this very low fecundity rate, in part due to very late marriages and a preference for marriage as the formation block for reproduction.  Interestingly, in both Canada and the USA the unmarried parent model is very prevalent, and in some cities is dominant.  You don't see that, from what I can tell, back on the Continent.  

The USA is also behind the 8-ball in reproduction; it would face a shrinking population were it not for lots of migration from Central America, Canada, and various countries in Asia. Trump famously stated  "We need more immigrants from Norway."   The Norwegians queried on this thought it was absurd.  But what Donald was really saying is: we want immigrants from the traditional countries of Northern Europe, those that are while-skinned and of light hair and light eyes (preferably blue).  And he needs those migrants, preferably men, to marry and father children with American mothers who are giving birth to children.  Trump seeks to promote the nuclear family model, with white people, to perpetuate the US population model of 1950.  I don't think he is going to get that result. 

Can the USA adjust to Mexican mass in-migration?  It may not have any choice. 

Can Angela Merkel import Polish and Ukrainian women into Germany to reproduce?  Actually, she probably could.  But she imported the peoples of the Middle East, including young males from Afghanistan.  And those males are now causing big problems in the social fabric, remaining involuntarily celibate  (and thus raping).  Not exactly the result Merkel had envisioned.  Let that be a cautionary tale; there is only so far you can go with these mass migrations. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Jan van Eck
added last paragraph.