A friend recently shared this video “principles for dealing with the changing world order” which stirred up a very solemn feeling in me.
It may be the first time as an American that I felt a sense of duty to compete in regard to our international place. I’ve been wondering if any other Americans (and the west in general) wonder what they personally can do.
In the video, Ray Dalio suggests saving money (fiscal conservatism?), being nice (political tolerance?), and competing technologically.
You can see from Aleksandr Dugin's Russia strategies [1][2] and the way the Russian state (Putin & Co.) have followed those ideas to attack and try to destabilize the West and with generally positive results (particularly given Russia's modest capabilities), that China could run a similar program at several times the potential outcome. Given China's openly stated ambitions (safely assume their non-stated ambitions are that much greater), of course they're doing that. If China wants to become the preeminent superpower of this century, they have to build a new order that is an extension of what they have in mind. The liberal order that has largely been dominant post WW2 is fundamentally incompatible with the CCP's vision for the future and their place in it.
Another thing that's been bugging me is that Liberalism doesn't have a response to the Paradox of Intolerance. It's our Achilles Heel. (Or more likely, one of many.)
To take direct action against disinformation (propaganda) weakens the very heart of Liberalism itself. That's why civil society is impotent against the like of Murdock, troll factories, conspiracy grifters, etc.
I do not like the feeling that free speech, free software, free markets, and entrepreneurial business are under existential threat, but I think it is ignorant to think otherwise.
Part of me wonders if maybe some of these systems are questionable fits for the time period.
The last 500 years were a unique opportunity for the western world:
* Western powers conquered an entire hemisphere of new wealth with (relatively) minor pushback.
* We've had a long string of cheap resource rushes-- pulling the silver and gold out of the Western hemisphere, followed by the "easy" oil and gas.
* Most of the major disruptions to commerce and growth were regional in nature and/or short in duration. For all their carnage, the World Wars were less than 20 years total.
* Overpopulation and resource exhaustion was the stuff of minor nuisance and speculative fiction for all but the last couple of decades.
This has meant it was relatively easy times for free markets and democracy. We haven't really seen how they sway under some of the incoming existential threats.
Can a democratic government bring a meaningful response to climate change? We may be at the point where state actors have to say "you are obliged to do without or change your behaviour for the public good" in the near future, but will elected leaders have the spine to say it, when they know they'll be replaced by someone who will say "Sure, let the next generation burn so you can continue to drive a 12-MPG F-350 to work at a coal mine?"
If we enter a period of significantly tighter resource supplies, will entrepeneurship remain viable? Resource owners, particularly state-level ones, will become gatekeepers and kingmakers. If you control most of the world's (insert valuable commodity here), will you want to sell it to a proven operation with a demonstrated plan, or a wing-and-a-prayer startup who may end up wasting a nonrenewable asset?
Since when was there any rules when it came to war? Inside "China's" playbook for global domination or ours?
Everytime I read propaganda piece about china, I just replace china with the US or the West and it makes sense. We are the global monster ruling over the world, not china.
Not if you compare current time periods. China is genociding Uighurs. There's no USA equivalent in this day and age. And this is not a propaganda piece.
You are far away from reality if you think China and USA are morally equivalent in the current day and age.
It's simply not true. You can repeat lies all you want, but doesn't make it true. You can't commit genocide against a people who's population is increasing and whose culture/language you are protecting. Go watch a simple travel vlog on xinjiang.
> There's no USA equivalent in this day and age.
The native hawaiians, native alaskans and native americans are currently underdoing actual genocide. Ugyhurs are majority in xinjiang. Hawaiians, native alaskasn and native americans are insignificant minorities in their own lands.
> You are far away from reality if you think China and USA are morally equivalent in the current day and age.
No. I say we are worse. Far worse. China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We are ruining people's lives and causing conflict from venezuela to syria to taiwan to africa to ukraine. We are the ones occupying countries all over the world.
Lets just put it this way. In 100 years, ugyhurs will still be around. Not sure about inuits in alaska, native hawaiians and native americans. Maybe china should liberate these people?
You can very obviously commit genocide against a country or people even while the overall population count increases.
The definition of genocide does not require a net reduction in population.
Genocide means to intentionally target a group of people, such as an ethnic group, and to kill a large number of those people. Whether the overall population of that group net goes up or down doesn't factor in at all.
1. noun The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
2. noun The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.
3. noun The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.
sui-cide, regi-cide, homi-cide, geno-cide... What do you think "geno" and "cide" means?
> The definition of genocide does not require a net reduction in population.
That's as absurd as saying sui-cide doesn't necessarily mean the end of your life. Genocide means extermination. Like what happened to the native americans in the US. What happened to jews in europe. What is not happening to uyghurs in china.
What's funny is the chinese government didn't even massacre uyghurs. That's how laughably absurd the uyghur genocide claims are. Ugyhur genocide is literally a made up propaganda. It's so absurd, you can go on youtube and actually see uyghurs vlogging. Crazy for a genocide huh? There are actually uyghurs in the chinese government. Crazy for a genocide.
According to your own definition then Europe and America did not commit genocide because Jews and native Americans weren’t exterminated, they still exist
A simple side note: Most people in China knows what happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989 although CCP has made much effort to conceal it. But almost none of them believes Uyghurs are under genociding. Instead, they believe Chinese government has been making effort in countering terrorism and keeping peace in Xinjiang for over 30 years.
What do Chinese expats think? I can't provide strong statistics but anecdotally I've found the support of this policy is at least in the single digits among expats.
As a non-American, I’ll take American hegemony with all its faults six days a week and twice on Sundays over the alternative, thanks. Most of us have flourished under Pax Americana for nearly 8 decades - including China.
As is our human way, I suspect we’ll only really appreciate it once it’s gone.
Ladies and gentleman the real basic concept we dislike to remember is that to be a power we need to be powerful... Powerful in industry, technology, military, science, ... if at a certain point in time we decide that "unpleasant activities" can be outsourced exactly because we can and some others can't so they are willing to help we start to loose power. It will take time, but sooner or later for the classic principle of communicating vessels will made the loosing power a looser and the nascent one a real power.
China now have no choice but expand: they can't nourish their citizens and without panem citizens will revolt. Also China start to have aging population problems because in their rapid rise they have create a bit of wealth, as always, and that means people who live longer and want better conditions, as always.
Western world is around 50 year ahead, population if far more aged and wealthy, we are living mostly on our power without any real effort to keep it alive except military and economical oppression. Having no more industry, no more real public research for the public we fade into darkness and so we equally need going to war against ascending competitors.
ANYONE want to be a global dictator, who, even a single citizens do not like to dominate? Why cleaning the house is someone do that for me, even for free or nearly for free? Why competing for a partner if in a snap of fingers countless potential partners are there ready to give pleasure without nothing or nearly nothing in exchange? I can go on for long but that's the pattern of essentially anyone, from individuals to empires. Since of course there is not so much disparity while one ascend others of similar "size" do eye it as an enemy. It's the old classic story, only in that case we are on the loosing side and as always that's disturbing. We can of course remain in power but that demand a complete change in our élites who have nourished a population incapable of being adult with the exact purpose of remaining in power. Same old game: all want effective society, army facing enemies but powerless sheep inside. In all regimes.
Long story short my fellow humans... It's about time to REALLY discuss Democracy, but in substantial terms, not in formal terms just to keep up the old new game.
Thanks a lot! Personally, I don't think it's propaganda. It's a valid material for analisys. It's very regretful how many bloggers (especially youtroopers) are promoting chinese online stores. I mean, how for a few dirty bucks can you be feeding the monster which is going to eat you later? I prefer to stay away from a*express and pals.
23 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 60.4 ms ] threadhttps://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8
A friend recently shared this video “principles for dealing with the changing world order” which stirred up a very solemn feeling in me.
It may be the first time as an American that I felt a sense of duty to compete in regard to our international place. I’ve been wondering if any other Americans (and the west in general) wonder what they personally can do.
In the video, Ray Dalio suggests saving money (fiscal conservatism?), being nice (political tolerance?), and competing technologically.
If only it were that simple.
https://youtu.be/2DH4v6FnbvM
“China is as serious as a prison fight.”
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
[2] https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/5/28/putins-pl...
Another thing that's been bugging me is that Liberalism doesn't have a response to the Paradox of Intolerance. It's our Achilles Heel. (Or more likely, one of many.)
To take direct action against disinformation (propaganda) weakens the very heart of Liberalism itself. That's why civil society is impotent against the like of Murdock, troll factories, conspiracy grifters, etc.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Paradox.
The last 500 years were a unique opportunity for the western world: * Western powers conquered an entire hemisphere of new wealth with (relatively) minor pushback.
* We've had a long string of cheap resource rushes-- pulling the silver and gold out of the Western hemisphere, followed by the "easy" oil and gas.
* Most of the major disruptions to commerce and growth were regional in nature and/or short in duration. For all their carnage, the World Wars were less than 20 years total.
* Overpopulation and resource exhaustion was the stuff of minor nuisance and speculative fiction for all but the last couple of decades.
This has meant it was relatively easy times for free markets and democracy. We haven't really seen how they sway under some of the incoming existential threats.
Can a democratic government bring a meaningful response to climate change? We may be at the point where state actors have to say "you are obliged to do without or change your behaviour for the public good" in the near future, but will elected leaders have the spine to say it, when they know they'll be replaced by someone who will say "Sure, let the next generation burn so you can continue to drive a 12-MPG F-350 to work at a coal mine?"
If we enter a period of significantly tighter resource supplies, will entrepeneurship remain viable? Resource owners, particularly state-level ones, will become gatekeepers and kingmakers. If you control most of the world's (insert valuable commodity here), will you want to sell it to a proven operation with a demonstrated plan, or a wing-and-a-prayer startup who may end up wasting a nonrenewable asset?
https://theintercept.com/2022/04/22/anomaly-six-phone-tracki...
There's no conflict between the two notions.
Everytime I read propaganda piece about china, I just replace china with the US or the West and it makes sense. We are the global monster ruling over the world, not china.
You are far away from reality if you think China and USA are morally equivalent in the current day and age.
It's simply not true. You can repeat lies all you want, but doesn't make it true. You can't commit genocide against a people who's population is increasing and whose culture/language you are protecting. Go watch a simple travel vlog on xinjiang.
> There's no USA equivalent in this day and age.
The native hawaiians, native alaskans and native americans are currently underdoing actual genocide. Ugyhurs are majority in xinjiang. Hawaiians, native alaskasn and native americans are insignificant minorities in their own lands.
> You are far away from reality if you think China and USA are morally equivalent in the current day and age.
No. I say we are worse. Far worse. China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We are ruining people's lives and causing conflict from venezuela to syria to taiwan to africa to ukraine. We are the ones occupying countries all over the world.
Lets just put it this way. In 100 years, ugyhurs will still be around. Not sure about inuits in alaska, native hawaiians and native americans. Maybe china should liberate these people?
What?
How about this. When did the genocide start? How many ughyurs were genocided? What is the reason for the genocide?
Try answering that and you'll see what nonsense the ugyhur "genocide" is.
The definition of genocide does not require a net reduction in population.
Genocide means to intentionally target a group of people, such as an ethnic group, and to kill a large number of those people. Whether the overall population of that group net goes up or down doesn't factor in at all.
1. noun The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
2. noun The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.
3. noun The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.
sui-cide, regi-cide, homi-cide, geno-cide... What do you think "geno" and "cide" means?
> The definition of genocide does not require a net reduction in population.
That's as absurd as saying sui-cide doesn't necessarily mean the end of your life. Genocide means extermination. Like what happened to the native americans in the US. What happened to jews in europe. What is not happening to uyghurs in china.
What's funny is the chinese government didn't even massacre uyghurs. That's how laughably absurd the uyghur genocide claims are. Ugyhur genocide is literally a made up propaganda. It's so absurd, you can go on youtube and actually see uyghurs vlogging. Crazy for a genocide huh? There are actually uyghurs in the chinese government. Crazy for a genocide.
As is our human way, I suspect we’ll only really appreciate it once it’s gone.
China now have no choice but expand: they can't nourish their citizens and without panem citizens will revolt. Also China start to have aging population problems because in their rapid rise they have create a bit of wealth, as always, and that means people who live longer and want better conditions, as always.
Western world is around 50 year ahead, population if far more aged and wealthy, we are living mostly on our power without any real effort to keep it alive except military and economical oppression. Having no more industry, no more real public research for the public we fade into darkness and so we equally need going to war against ascending competitors.
ANYONE want to be a global dictator, who, even a single citizens do not like to dominate? Why cleaning the house is someone do that for me, even for free or nearly for free? Why competing for a partner if in a snap of fingers countless potential partners are there ready to give pleasure without nothing or nearly nothing in exchange? I can go on for long but that's the pattern of essentially anyone, from individuals to empires. Since of course there is not so much disparity while one ascend others of similar "size" do eye it as an enemy. It's the old classic story, only in that case we are on the loosing side and as always that's disturbing. We can of course remain in power but that demand a complete change in our élites who have nourished a population incapable of being adult with the exact purpose of remaining in power. Same old game: all want effective society, army facing enemies but powerless sheep inside. In all regimes.
Long story short my fellow humans... It's about time to REALLY discuss Democracy, but in substantial terms, not in formal terms just to keep up the old new game.