site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So Ed West has a good piece up on immigration. He's British, so naturally he will focus on the British angle but I think his main takeaways have wider applicability across the West. His argument is that so-called "experts" have consistently underestimated the potential for mass migration for decades. Ed makes the case that given a confluence of factors (established migrant communities, English being the lingua franca, a whole apparatus of NGOs/judicial activists and a very pro-immigration media envionrment), we're likely to see a continued rise in immigration unless there is a drastic shift in policies.

For my part, I think any serious restriction is out the window. That ship has basically sailed for the West. Trump did what he could but was sabotaged by the courts and political insiders at every step. So instead of trying to prevent what is essentially the inevitable, better ask what our future look like.

American social scientist Garrett Jones has written an important new book which argues that new research suggests that assimilation is fact very rare and cultural patterns persist for decades, perhaps even centuries. Even if we were to restrict ourselves to white immigration, how many of the Catholic and East European immigrants who came to the US during the 1870-1924 period truly assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon ethos of limited government? Was JFK's and FDR's winning coalitions not in small part due to these new immigrants?

Jones makes the case that even attitudes like propensity to save or social trust are passed down through generations. This would suggest that the future of the West is a hyper-unequal and low-trust society. Perhaps we are already well on our way. Politically, it could paradoxically help the right since to enact a leftist agenda on economics you need a cross-racial coalition among the working class and this seems to be unlikely if you cannot have assimilation across population groups even after decades, as Jones suggests.

we're likely to see a continued rise in immigration unless there is a drastic shift in policies.

For my part, I think any serious restriction is out the window. That ship has basically sailed for the West. Trump did what he could but was sabotaged by the courts and political insiders at every step. So instead of trying to prevent what is essentially the inevitable, better ask what our future look like.

Agree. I don't see any reason for this to change. Both sides benefit from immigration ,either more votes or more consumers, cheaper labor, etc. It does not even have a be a serious restriction, just any attempt seems doomed to fail.

American social scientist Garrett Jones has written an important new book which argues that new research suggests that assimilation is fact very rare and cultural patterns persist for decades, perhaps even centuries.

I think this is wrong. 2nd, 3rd gen Irish, German, Hispanic, etc. immigrants seem pretty assimilated. Irish and Italian Americans used to be reliably blue, but now much more red. They may not be assimilated in the sense of caring about the hagiography of the founding US, but they are assimilated in terms of culture.

It might be a good idea to post this in the new thread tomorrow.

Britain's economy has been unusually poorly performing, primarily due to all this migration IMO. There's no need to mechanize if labor is cheap. Why bother raising wages if there's another 100K arriving this quarter? Though there are also issues with planning laws and endless delays/community consultation.

Migration now is peanuts compared to what's coming when climate change starts really hitting Sub-Saharan Africa. They're one of the only remaining regions with high population growth. Africa is supposed to hit 2.4 billion by 2050, much of that will be in the least developed parts. There's little water, few jobs and already considerable political dysfunction.

If Europe does not adopt an Australian-style migration policy, they'll experience serious problems. There's a fairly high cap for skilled immigration. However, Australia had a policy that no asylum seekers who arrived by boat would be resettled in the country, regardless of whether they were legitimate or not. They get sent to Nauru for processing. At best they'd get to be resettled in Papua New Guinea, an unappealing prospect. Boats that came to Australia would often be turned back to the port of origin. Europe has more naval power/km of coastline than Australia. They have the power to turn back the boats, it is only a matter of will. The EU is very troublesome here, human rights lawyers are mostly ignored in Australia but hold power in the EU. There appear to be various NGOs who shuttle refugees across the Mediterranean, these could be broken up.

/images/1669589440237527.webp

There's no need to mechanize if labor is cheap

Isn't this disproven by China, which had a lot of cheap labor but 'mechanized' - or any country that's gone from poor agriculture to first world?

And for explaining the economy - a very quick google claimed 'There were a record 44.8 million immigrants living in the U.S. in 2018, making up 13.7% of the nation's population', while 'Last year 16.8% of people in England and Wales had been born outside Britain, up from 13.4 in 2011'. Those are quite close, so that can't be it. Comparing in europe - "As of 2019, around 13.7 million people living in Germany, or about 17% of the population, are first-generation immigrants", despite a gdp/capita higher than the UK.

It's funny how 'there is a broad correlation between X and Y across countries' can't prove 'X causes Y', but 'there isn't a broad correlation across countries' serves as evidence here against 'X causes Y'. But it's fine because - I'm not using this to claim 'therefore, immigration doesn't hurt economies' - just claiming that 'britain's claimed economic underperformance can't be caused by more immigration in a simple sense'. i.e. - yeah, maybe most higher-immigration countries have some factor Z that improves the economy that correlates with immigration, so it 'looks like' Z and immigration don't affect the economy, but britain has immigration and no Z, so its economy is impacted. Even then, though, britain's "unusually" poorly performing economy, relative to the world, can't be caused by immigration - that'd be the difference in Z (or britain having a different kind of immigrants or something)

Add this to the fact that America has indeed stayed powerful and effective despite multiple waves of mass immigration. I think the idea that naturalization is rare and/or difficult needs to have extremely strong evidence behind it to be believed.

Naturalization and remaining powerful are two different things.

I hope Jones credited anechonicmedia for that insight.

The sentiment is centuries old.

He(?)'s the only person I've seen doing the actual math on it with General Social Survey data though. Is that the same way Jones supports his argument?

Trump did what he could but was sabotaged by the courts and political insiders at every step.

It's the job of Congress to set immigration policy, not the President. The focus on the President as the end-all of the American government is understandable but misplaced. Congress is a large body and it's difficult to assign individual responsibility to particular legislators so its gets kind of diffused out. But for better or worse, they are in a far stronger position to steer the ship of state than the President.

In any event, looking at the tally it seems fairly clear that this policy doesn't command anything close to a majority of the House even when it was GOP controlled.

It's the job of Congress to set immigration policy, not the President

And if Congress passes vague enabling acts empowering the President with immense discretion, then it becomes the President's job de facto.

Fair point. And indeed a lot of the INA is maddeningly non-specific.

At the very least, though, when the President does anything that can be defended under the statute (+Chevron deference), we ought to assign responsibility.

The whole thing is a vicious cycle. Congress' vague language enables massive discretion, the assignment of responsibility ("Obama did", "Trump did") fuels further for Congress to pass the buck.

If you read the actual immigration policy, as set by the Congress in the actual acts it passed, you’ll observe that Trump’s actions were very much in line with what the immigration laws actually are. For example, he made some moves to enforce the public charge rule, for the exact reasons this rule was passed into the law in the first place. His problem was not so much that he was blocked by the Congress, which passed different policy, but instead by judiciary and lawfare, which instituted policies contrary to what the Congress passed into law, and the Executive actually tried to enforce.

It would seem that Congress did not agree with your fiat that the public charge rule meant what Trump said it meant, or else it would have amended the statute to say so. Congress is more than capable of being precise when it suits them and conversely of being extremely vague when they'd rather pass the buck. And Trump could very well have asked for specific language to that effect but AFAICT he didn't make a specific push for it.

What I mean to get at here isn't the object level of any particular provision, but more broadly that the government is a huge ship and the best way to make policy change is to get both Congress and the President steering in the same direction at the same time.

In the US women are more likely to register for voting and have a higher turnout:

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/gender-differences-voter-turnout

It has been so since the 60s. For Presidential elections, it amounts to roughly 10 million more votes coming from women than men.

Why do you think it is the case?

Yes. My girlfriend has voted like five times in San Francisco this year. She complains they have too many elections there, but keeps voting anyway.

I haven't voted since 2008.

Probably many factors, but if we're in CW thread I'll notice if it were the other way, somebody would already have declared it a national crisis and got a big budget allocation for fixing it. I mean, almost 3% sexist gap! That's millions of people oppressed and disenfranchised!

Probably a mix of a big pile of factors:

-- Homeless people, whether in the true sleeping rough sense or the more vague no-fixed-abode sense, don't vote. The vast majority of homeless people are men (though felony disenfranchisement might take care of most of these anyway)

-- Felony disenfranchisement. Which is also pretty vaguely understood, probably a good number of misdemeanor convictions that guys think mean they can't vote. Given @ymeshkout's work on the topic, authorities themselves might not even be sure who can vote, so why risk it?

-- On a related note, men are more likely to have open warrants, unpaid fines, unpaid taxes, child support arrears, or other legal issues. Such men will frequently avoid all contact with "the system" assuming that something like voting would immediately get him reported to the cops who would come pick him up for his unpaid parking tickets or whatever.

-- Correlation vs causation is tough to gage, but educated people vote. More girls graduate high school and college.

-- Women are more involved in civic organizations, who in turn lead get out the vote efforts. Women are more likely to attend church, churches lead GOTV in many demographics

-- Women are more likely to have friends, who will keep in touch with them about voting. This is a huge part of how people get out to vote, I can say personally every Primary and General election I'm calling friends of mine to remind them.

-- Many stereotypically male professions, manufacturing or construction work for example, are jobs that would be difficult to duck out for a few hours to vote in the afternoon. Where female dominated office and retail jobs might make it easier to take a few hours off.

-- Men tend more towards extremes. Men are more likely to follow cockamamie ideologies, and more likely to whine that politics are dumb and doesn't affect anything anyway.

Maybe it is because men understand voting isn’t really individually useful?

Your vote will probably never change an election outcome (though, you never know - see Exeter in 1910 and some other examples), margins do matter. A bigger margin of victory will obviously embolden a candidate to be more aggressive in pursuing their policies, and vice versa, so your vote does make an (albeit very small) contribution in that respect.

I'm seeing vote difference in CO-3 district of about 550 votes. Given how close the House results are in general, this seat could (though it isn't now) plausibly be crucial for House majority. So 550 votes would change the course of national politics for at least 2 years. Sure, it's not individual vote, but it's not that far from it. There are even closer races, probably - I didn't check every one, I just noticed this one because Boebert is a figure of some prominence.

Yet 550 votes is not 1 vote.

I would suggest this preoccupation with what might be "individually useful" is symptomatic of the toxic femininity that has come to infect the whole of our intellectual class.

To quote George S. Patton...

An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, and fights as a team. This individual hero stuff is bullshit. The bilious bastards who write that stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real battle than they do about fucking. And we have the best team—we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor bastards we're going up against.

All the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters. Every single man in the army plays a vital role. So don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of the shells and turned yellow and jumped headlong into a ditch? That cowardly bastard could say to himself, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' What if every man said that? Where in the hell would we be then? No, thank God, Americans don't say that. Every man does his job. Every man is important. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the quartermaster is needed to bring up the food and clothes for us because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last damn man in the mess hall, even the one who boils the water to keep us from getting the GI shits, has a job to do.

This is a good point. The individually useful thing is the result of a kind of libertarian transactionalism that once learned is difficult to unlearn. You can posit a possibly naive but socially useful state of mind wrt politics before coming into contact with it.

But I'm too far gone now. I can't pretend like I didn't learn it.

There is a stereotype that men like to fix problems; women like to talk about problems. If that is true, voting seems to fall (from an individual perspective) more into the latter category instead of the former. A single man might focus his energy into something that can make a difference.

There is also in your Patton quote a bit of Marx’s alienation of labor. Sure, the cook has to abstract why what he does helps the unit. But at the same time he sees a tangible result (food is made). Voting is more abstract.

Agreed. In my earlier years I was interested in WW1 and especially WW2 eating all the autobiographies of fighter pilots and tankers from all sides. I made extra effort to watch every war movie that was on TV. And then my world was upended when I read Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe. His book was all about port capacity, supply line security and throughput and where to open fronts strategically or where to hamper German capacities all with tables and numbers. It really opened my eyes - no amount of heroism on any side could ever made the difference against such a well oiled machine. It did not matter if Germans had "better" tanks or jet fighters or even more experienced troops. They lost the moment US entered the war.

On a kind of related note, this is another thing I find funny about Paul Verhoeven's adaptation of Starship Troopers. Verhoeven famously didn't read the book and basically set out to to subvert what he saw as "some warmonger's manifesto" yet accidentally made a decent enough adaptation that Heinlein's core point about the importance of "doing one's part" even when it may be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things remains readily legible.

I find it weird to invoke this idea about voting of all things. Old Blood and Guts wasn't exactly elected into the position.

No he wasn't but this is also one of those bits if inferential distance. "Old blood and guts" was "old blood and guts" because he acted in contravention to rationalist conceptions of power rather than accordance with. His degree of success exists as a sort of "fuck you" to the modern academic ethos which is why he is so despised by the modern academic. The grand Irony of course being that Patton was probably more of a "democrat" than any one currently in the democratic party. After all where does the power of an army lie if not in the rank and file? IE "the demos"

Adding my vote (haha!) to this one. Women are just more susceptible to propaganda in general, and this includes "YoUr VoTe MaTtErS!" propaganda.

'Your vote matters' isn't really intended to mean 'your vote might decide the next President/Mayor/legislator', it (at least in my mind) is intended to convey the point that the result of elections matters in more ways than deciding the winner. The more crushing the margin of the winner, the less they have to worry about winning over voters other than their core base, or alternatively the closer the margin the more they have to appease their less enthused voters and potential swing voters voted for someone else.

Now, of course, one vote won't make an enormous difference to the overall perception of the margin, but it is basically true that ever vote matters just a little bit even if you almost certainly won't change the winner. This is especially true because not just margin in isolation, but margin also gets significant attention paid to it. In the 1970 UK election, which saw Heath replace Wilson in No. 10, the average swing to the Conservatives was only about 4% - now some seats only had about 30,000 votes cast (many even fewer), which means that a pretty small number of voters could change the swing significantly.

Women tend to score higher on conscientiousness than men, and voting is a boring activity that requires planning and deferred gratification.

I know in my house, my husband’s mail-in ballot would never make it out the door without my prodding (even though I know his vote will undo mine).

As a note, women score about the same as men on conscientiousness, however men score more on subcategory of industriousness and women more on subcategory of orderliness: the tendency toward tidiness, routine and perfectionism. So your premise stands but with this caveat.

Where is the gratification? Voting seems like a cost without any real reward. It isn’t “defer a marshmallow today for two tomorrow.” Instead it’s defer a marshmallow today for nothing tomorrow.

Winning elections is the reward?

Probably more that 'watching the victory of the side you supported' is the reward.

If vicarious enjoyment of a win you personally did (almost) nothing to contribute to wasn't a thing, professional sports wouldn't be a trillion dollar industry.

Elections aren’t won by you voting; they are won by influencing a multitude of people to vote.

But if you vote, you become part of the "winning team". Voting is like going to watch your favourite sports team: you have almost no influence on the result, but you feel part of something.

Or the majority of the time they're determined by a relatively small population in swing seats

At a macro level I think the big thing is it would mean the democrats assumption they crush the popular vote is misleading.

And under the surface tough to sort thru because of felons and the heavy black proportion. But these non-voters I would guess are still heavy gop leans.

Women live longer and old people like to vote.

Politics today is about persuasive emotional messaging, which women are more receptive to.

This isn't a place for low effort comments and memeing. Don't do this.

Two ideas:

  1. The start of the mainstreaming of modern second-wave feminism was basically in the 60s. This perhaps demoralizes many (if not most) men and of course demoralized people vote less over time.

  2. As modern politics developed, voting became more often driven by social/moral/etc. panics (commonly of the "They're coming for [X]!" or "Think of the [children/women/oppressed minorities]!" variety, though of course variations of these take hold to some degree at times on both sides) and emotional/moralistic appeals, and naturally the more socially-attuned and emotionally-driven gender would be more vulnerable to them. (Though this effect likely works in both directions, with more women voters causing politics to trend in that direction just as much as they're more likely to turn out for it.)

There's over 20 million felons in the country, the vast majority of which are men, I'd imagine that's a big chunk of it.

I think this is the largest confounder.

Naively assuming that ~1/3 of all voting-aged people vote, And assuming that roughly everyone in prison is a man, this explains around 6 million of the missing votes. There are a lot more hidden variables but I'll leave that for the "social scientists".

Are felons less likely to vote demographically, though? Wild speculation but I'd imagine a variety of factors that correlate with felonious inclination are anti-correlated with voting.

Since they are banned by law from voting in most places, yes.

No as in 'things that make you more likely to be a felon also make you less likely to be a voter'

To put out an alternative to all the theories you'll frequently see here about women controlling soft power, maybe women just have more follow through?

Could be that men are better/more capable of signaling socially but then not actually committing to the corresponding action, because they have a more isolated sense of identity. Whereas the identity of women is more directly socially mediated, so their actions are more affected by what they say to others and how they identify on along tribal lines.

To put out an alternative to all the theories you'll frequently see here about women controlling soft power, maybe women just have more follow through?

The conventional wisdom is that "easy voting" (i.e. policies that reduce the friction to vote) helps the left. If your theory is correct, then that's partially backwards -- the follow through required in a low-barrier system would result in more men voting, which in turn would (in aggregate) help the right.

I'm not convinced (at all) of this, but it seems like an interesting corollary.

The type of men and women who benefit from easy voting are not similar to the median voter. When you are discussing the least likely 20% of each coalition to vote that is what you are targeting in get out the vote efforts.

That depends on the distribution of reasons for the set of voters in the least likely 20%.

Above /u/FiveHourMarathon suggests that part of the holdup is that some typically-male jobs don't accommodate ducking out to vote. That's one example of a reason that's not likely to have a large skew on those voters.

My model is a bit different than that. Democrat get out the vote efforts is about cajoling demographics with 80%+ D lean to actually go to the polls. These are basically college students, blacks, and poor single mothers. There aren't really any 80% R lean demos that can be harvested in this manner.

The R strategy would have to be getting a bunch of 60/40 people into the booth by convincing them that the 60 is really worth it.

That's just a question of how you slice up what constitutes a demographic. People who drive pickup trucks, or own boats, or belong to a gun club, or operate heavy power equipment are probably as R as college students are D; Republican failures to target them effectively are a failure of imagination and effort rather than existence.

Before I get accused of saying this to boo outgroup: I've worked with the campaign targeting software offered by both parties. It's playing a World of Warcraft raid with a full suite of add-ons and macros; versus playing SNES Yoshi's island.

Also, huffing my own paint, as I pointed out in a prior post churches are in some ways restricted on political advocacy, this weakens the ability to use churches as demographic groupings for GOTV. But that advantages women anyway.

People who drive pickup trucks, or own boats, or belong to a gun club, or operate heavy power equipment are probably as R as college students are D

But which of those are low-propensity voters? Gun club guys almost certainly are not. Boat and truck ownership puts you solidly in the middle incomes, which is also not associated with low voting rates. Heavy power equipment operators also make good money and its not a 70 IQ job. The low propensity R-voter is adjacent to those sorts of people, but is working a shittier job than those people you pointed out. And they are right next to a 60/40 hispanic guy whos propensity is to vote Dem not Rep.

the follow through required in a low-barrier system would result in more men voting, which in turn would (in aggregate) help the right.

You imply that the male

thought process goes:

"I have a certain amount of willpower X and the effort barrier to my voting is >X, therefore I will not vote"

and thus if the effort barrier for voting is lowered to <X, men will vote. If instead we posit that the male thought process goes

"I have a certain amount of willpower X and the effort barrier to my voting is >0, therefore I will not vote"

then male voters actually WON'T be tempted out to the polls by reductions in effort barriers, because the effort barriers would have to be impossibly small.

Yes, we can debate a threshold vs no-threshold model here. My understand from the empirical results studying Motor Voter and similar programs is that they do something which suggests that there is at least some sensitivity to effort.

I think what I was trying to get at in my original comment is that men could be more likely to 'socially optimize' or lie about voting than women are, for some reason. Not sure I fully endorse that.

the effort barriers would have to be impossibly small.

I think this depends on the context. For instance I would imagine if the 'effort barrier' was that everyone could track if you voted and there was real social status to be gained/lost on your actual participation (as opposed to stated participation), we might see more men vote than women.

Some truth here. My engagement in online economics and politics is probably too 1%. I’ve voted once in my life. Though a confounding variable that mostly lived in areas where my team was going to lose.

This seems to be contradicted by how much more likely men are to sign up to go to war though, even though that's a collective action that doesn't reinforce any isolated sense of identity.

I think war has been the historically 'male' past time, and the activity most associated with glory and/or status. It's natural that more men are drawn to war than women, given the historic focus on war as a way to win glory.

If anything it's amazing that modern society has allowed women to be grunts in war so readily. The modern Western idea of letting women participate formally in the armed services is a remarkable innovation. Given that most of human cultural development has happened in the last ~15,000 years, it's significant that women are only now involved in the armed forces' ground troops of the hegemonic U.S.

All that being said, I see war as one of the last male holdouts, especially since men are still more powerful today in a physically violent sense.

Seems like a straightforward corollary of the Things vs People difference in preferences among genders. Men tend to be more interested in doing physical things and making things and thinking about object level things, while women tend to be more interested in social things and people and interactions.

Voting is an indirect social thing. You are not making the world a better place directly on the object level, you are not building bridges or earning money or arresting criminals as a voter. Instead, you are exerting influence on the assignment of people to a role that will do those things. Voting is not a central example of social interactions, but it fits into it better than it fits into object level things. As such, we should expect women to be more interested in and engaged in voting, and men to be more interested in running for office where they actually get to do stuff directly. (I'm somewhat hesitant on the latter conclusion. You can make an argument that being a politician is still social since you're directing other people to do things rather than physically doing it yourself, but the same is true of being a manager or CEO and we see more men rise to those roles anyway, so it's probably object level enough).

Because women control soft power. Men are simply subservient to women.

Pleasantly surprised with this book. Very easy to read, I can read it half-distracted. Specks of humor thrown randomly, and well-referenced for a book of its nature.

Any other works from this author you recommend?

I haven't read his other works. But if you enjoyed this book you may also like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manipulated_Man

C19 - Catchall term to refer to various covid mitigating restrictions, not the disease.

Anti-lockdown protests spread to Wuhan, China

In Shanghai, protesters called for president Xi Jinping to step down while others cried out “give me liberty or give me death” in the city of Chengdu.

^LOL, I don't know what to say about that. I can only hope they get what they want.

So looks like it's finally happening. It's too much even for the Chinese. Enough to go out and protest. 3 years is the upper limit to how long you can carry on with the C19 fugazi it seems.

For the uninitiated: It's really a different world in China. They are still treating C19 with an "abundance of caution". Probably infinitely more caution than most places in the world right now. Notice how all of the protestors are still wearing masks, outdoors! The sad part is that I could have made this post anytime in the last year and it would have been almost exactly the same.

I think one of the frustrating things about C19 was how much it felt like Groundhog Day, regardless of where you were in the world, outside of the US Red States and certain Balkan states- C19 Policies were kept around for so long past their expiry date, time became a meaningless concept.

I mentioned Groundhog day because I made a post about China's C19 excessiveness 1 year ago back in the old country. And keep in mind most countries got rid of the bulk of their restrictions at the time of making that post. My post was about small protests in various places in China. And in a year they have changed exactly 0%.

Many speculated on the reasons behind China's doggedness. Ranging from covid actually being bad and them knowing about it.. because they made it ha!; to China just not willing to lose face.

Not many of those reasons make sense now. China is not run by idiots. It's clear as the day the rest of the World looks down on them for this at the time of writing this. And covid wasn't that bad. So what gives?

Are they that high on their own supply? I think this is strong evidence that China's national consciousness is not connected to the "Real World" enough to actually be a threat to the US long term; A criticism often levied at The Cathedral. GDP can only save you so much from cutting your own dick off. There is really no kind way to say this, they are living in fantasy land.

Remember that a good and just world is one where everything that you have ever wished upon another is visited upon you and those you love a thousand times over. That is why the wise and intelligent man does not pray for justice, he prays for mercy.

Remember that a good and just world is one where everything that you have ever wished upon another is visited upon you and those you love a thousand times over. That is why the wise and intelligent man does not pray for justice, he prays for mercy.

Utter hogwash. Wishing good things on your enemies won't stop them from cutting your throat.

Wishing good things on your enemies won't stop them from cutting your throat.

It might not, but it does is make you better than them.

Cold comfort if you are dead. Another reason why I despise shonen manga/anime, that kind of thinking can't die soon enough.

Remember that a good and just world is one where...

This sounds like trying to build consensus. Why should I "remember" something that I don't think is true?

I have no good reply beyond that if you should you choose to be both an idiot and an enemy of Christendom I have no ability to stop you.

Don't call people names. 3 day ban

Isn't Christendom having a pretty hard time of it nowadays? Why would anyone worry about being allied with the losing side?

Not as hard as it has seen, and I think it says something about you that you seem to care more about being on the "winning" and "losing" side than being on the right side, but then I should have guessed as much given your user name and flair.

My flair aligns me with an entirely obscure and wholly powerless at the moment political ideal. I only chose it because I think it's the ultimate right side (hardly the winning side at the moment I must admit, though we've got momentum and potential in many areas), even though even I recognize that a conventional organized political movement is unlikely to be the primary mechanism by which its subordinate principles gain any real social influence (should they) and is far more likely, in proportion to my commitment to pursuing it (luckily I've been reasonable thus far about my investment in it, restricting myself solely to online/anonymous rhetorical dabbling in its favor), to make me a martyr than a victor.

Of course it also promises great reward (which is no moral crime*!) beyond "You'll feel good because you... avoided making your enemies feel bad?" It seems to me like that's kind of the natural lottery principle of politics. The more of an immediate long shot (as I actually think at least the partial supremacy of pedofascist-adjacent ideals is not all that unlikely in the semi-mid-to-far future) your goals are, the more you have to offer in return. "Join us in the counterintuitive plan of wishing fortune on those who oppose us, so that if it succeeds regardless... well, we won't do anything because we're the party of mercy." doesn't seem like a winner to me.

To me, a good and just world is one where the correct wish for the incorrect who stand unjustly in their way to reform in time if possible and ideally make as many reparations as possible for all that they've impeded or, absent a reasonable consummation of that, be brutally subjugated and/or destroyed, and have that wish come true. (We have this now; it's just that in my view it's happening in the reverse, with the incorrect persecuting the correct.)

In this world, all sins would be promptly rectified by the fallen if possible in a reasonable time frame (which would greatly shorten around the time our opposition turns into mere dissidents) or even more swiftly rectified for them. I don't want to pray for mercy for myself or my enemies: I want to be the one deciding who grants mercy to whom.

This is not just what I believe either but also what I can only imagine any properly Aryan and masculine (for there is no true masculinity in "turn the other cheek to get slapped again") Christ and Christendom (should it exist, which I'm not convinced it does at the moment, though some past varieties were close) would also believe. So I may be more aligned with the true, non-semitic, and non-Satanic Christendom of an ideal Godly world than you (surely I'll take the Crusaders, who were far closer to what I'm asking for, than whatever you're offering). Deus vult paedofascismus**!

*says non-slave morality (in the Nietzschean sense, which is not an endorsement of his ideas in general).

**Very loose Latin formulation

What exactly is your political ideal? I do not understand your flair.

libertAryan = Valuing liberty (the positive, invigorating liberty of the non-gender-traitorous man seeking the reasonable fulfillment of his masculine birthright, not degenerate or effeminate "liberty") + the promotion of Aryan power and recognition of Aryan nobility (There's a character limit on flairs you see so linguistic economy via pun was necessary here.)

monarcho- = Possessing of a monarch (who would be mostly ceremonial in my formulation unless he has also independently earned via merit the nonheritable position of fuhrer)

pedo = I doubt I need explain the simple meaning of this. The primary effect of its presence here is that under pedofascism all men shall enjoy their natural masculine birthright of sexual age freedom, which means there shall be no age-based restrictions (ages of "consent" for example) on their enjoyment, particularly in the sexual/romantic realm, of their feminine property (which the feminine shall all be due to androsupremacism).

fascism = This would take the most amount of words to explain the exact desired contours of but also probably needs the least explanation of what it's generally aiming at so I'll just leave it.

absolute androsupremacism = Absolute dominance of masculinity over femininity, with the feminine reduced in status to somewhere around/between wardship, pet status, and/or chattel slavery (depending on the exact requirements of the situation)

public choice appreciator = I like public choice theory and think it deserves more recognition, independently of (though also in addition to) my pedofascism. Should pedofascism not be possible, I'm willing to accept an increase in reasonable governance incorporating public choice theory insights as a consolation prize. (Let this not be confused with me appreciating the choices of the public, which I generally absolutely do not.)

More comments

There have been protests in China for decades. Does nobody remember the huge regular protests in the 2000s every other month in various regions about various issues that western commentators so earnestly predicted would surely be a Serious Challenge to The Regime? Of course, they weren’t. Xi actually did deal with a lot of corruption.

The demise of the Chinese system has been much predicted over the last forty years and almost none of the projections have been borne out. China’s state capacity allows for possibilities the West’s doesn’t. That includes in times of crisis or serious threat to the ruling ideology. The biggest challenges are a) awful birth rates, but automation may allow for possibilities there too and it remains to be seen whether most people will actually be employed in 30 years time, and b) restriction on export of advanced semiconductor tech, although there are possibilities there too and it’s unclear how many of the major barriers in AI right now are hardware vs software ones.

China’s ruling elite is the sole thing preventing the country from descending into anarchy. People forget that if China was a democracy it would have attempted to invade Taiwan like five times by now. It’s better for the world that the CCP is in charge, but it’s better for Chinese too.

It seems like there's a bit of a Gell-Mann amnesia effect with how people treat 'happenings' in foreign countries. COVID protests in US (or Canada); danger to democracy, but also just a bunch of idiots who know nothing. COVID protests in China? That's DEMOCRACY™ in action, the will of the people.

No you see China didn't use Putin's entirely unrelated invasion of Ukraine to sweep its pointless restrictions under the rug like they didn't happen so it's the bad guy because of them, unlike the prudent West and its wise, Scientific™ agenda which ended them exactly at the appropriate time.

People forget that if China was a democracy it would have attempted to invade Taiwan like five times by now.

I suspect that a democratic mainland would find Taiwan much more willing to re-unify peacefully.

Maybe, that depends what kind of state a ‘democratic’ mainland was in.

The irony of this comment coming from the Motte's resident CCP cheerleader is sufficient to generate it's own magnetic field.

China's economy was on the rocks before COVID hit, then they destroyed their supply system, and now they're seriously looking at fuel, fertilizer, and food shortages in the coming year(s) due to Ukraine... major ones.

And all this right as their demographics were set to completely implode, and their housing market (the largest market of any asset in the world) had already started to collapse.

China was always attempting a long takeoff on a short runway given how poor they started and how bad the one child policy fucked them, there has been talk for decades "Will China get old before it gets rich?" (and ergo not be able to afford to care for its elderly, crashing its economy)

Seriously in 2012 at the peak of "China will replace us" hysteria, Niall Ferguson, the Harvard historian, was making documentaries about how China had so little runway and risked plummeting off the abyss if it didn't do everything exactly right, Peter Theil has also spoken extensively on this, ditto Peter Zeihan

And now we know both their engines just exploded before they could take off.

.

This is has been an understood thing amongst the Chinese elite for decades... Get your money out, get your kids to western schools and then residency permits... Who knows if it could all come falling down. There's a reason they were buying millions worth of real estate in western cities they let sit empty , they wanted their money the hell out of China.

And now you can't leave.

Beijing has choked off all new permits to leave the country, has restricted removing capital even further, has some of the harshest travel restrictions that have ever existed outside orthodox communist states...

And well you either had really good plans in place and boxes checked before things went belly up, or now you're screwed.

.

The CCP for the longest time acted as if its legitimacy depended on high growth rates, above 10% ideally, above 5% for sure, down to maybe 1 or 0 in an emergency... But THREE years negative!? And under those conditions, the worst years China has had since Tiananmen or probably Moa, that's when Xi Jinping just declared himself ruler for life...

There's a hell of a lot of turmoil everyone expects to Erupt in China right now... like the memes and clickbait are "China's going to collapse this month/week/hour/minute", but for decades very respected experts have been saying "You know china looks strong but it could get nasty real fast if even a fairly routine economic or geostrategic crisis hits it, they don't have a lot of wiggle room" and we've just seen the equivalent of 5 of 6 hard scenario crises hit them in rapid succession.

.

Think of how scared people got with US politics in 2020 how high the temperature rose, lockdown protests, the summer of Floyd, the election, Jan 6th... Think of how many times it was "Wow that could have death spiraled really quickly"...

And then think the US is a wealthy country, that didn't lockdown that hard, could afford to just pay people not to work, the government didn't respond to protests with the need to assert their authority in the most violent way, and even the politicians openly calling each other traitors all pretty much knew they'd all of them retire with their millions.

In China politicians were being executed for partisan corruption charges well before 2019... there's basically no safety net, people die in their homes from lockdown (lack of medicine, food)... Every second there and for the past 2 years has been at a higher defcon level than those first nights of Floyd, or Jan 6 or the first week of lockdown.

Hell we don't know if one the biggest geostrategic events in history has occured, which factions are in charge of Xi, if they've already had lesser coups against eachother that were hushed up...

And that probably the main reason China's doubling down of Zero Covid, sure there's the face saving, and punishing less loyal regions, etc...

But with that much inherent instability in the air it gives the central government an excuse to already have the security state forward deployed incredibly aggressively, already be expanding the camps, already be dragging undesirables out of their homes...

Because if Xi isn't moving against lots of people and moving fast... the obvious question is who's going to move against Xi.

I maintain that the Chinese think this was a biowarfare attack against them. They're using COVID to screen for their biological counterattack.

  1. Dodgy US NGO Ecohealth was messing around with chimeric coronaviruses in Wuhan - 'loses' their files on what viruses they had back in late 2019.

  2. China thinks the US used biowarfare against them in the Korean war, that's their official history.

  3. Conspiratorially minded Chinese elites aren't going to think 'oh it was just random chance: a sick Laotian bat flew to Wuhan and infected a pangolin who infected people'. They're not going to think an American NGO just happened to accidentally leak an extremely dangerous virus in a major Chinese city. Of course, Chinese BSL-4 biolabs are very well run and safe! Why wouldn't the leak happen in America if it were natural? Their most natural explanation is deliberate sabotage from the same country with a history of using biowarfare against them.

  4. They coped with the virus very well in the first two years, squelching it up until Omicron. Chinese death figures are very low, nearly 1000x times less than the US. Even the Chinese can't lie that much.

Given these assumptions, doesn't it make sense to launch a biological counterattack? The US is 100-1000x more vulnerable than China to biowarfare. China has finished setting up all their totalitarian surveillance structure, they've got camps and everything ready. They're 'justified' on the basis that they think the US shot first. If they release something in America, they'll have the advantage of distance and time, something they lacked the first time.

Maybe the MSS is taking their time, ensuring no evidence leads back to China. It's difficult to make it look like an accident and ensure it's lethal enough to be useful. Maybe the Chinese vaccine industry is suffering delays - they have to prepare a vaccine for the new weapon along with their COVID vaccine work. That might explain China's weakness on that front - diversion of effort. The frontline troops for Taiwan will need to be immune to the People's Liberation Plague. Maybe the nuclear forces aren't quite ready - the new subs and missile siloes take time to field. There could be all kinds of things causing a hold-up.

In conclusion, I think Chinese zero-COVID is a rational strategy to buy time for biowarfare and create an excuse for their ultra-high level of readiness. A few small riots and some economic damage are nothing compared to knocking out the entire West in a single blow and securing hegemony in Asia.

They coped with the virus very well in the first two years, squelching it up until Omicron. Chinese death figures are very low, nearly 1000x times less than the US. Even the Chinese can't lie that much.

China absolutely can lie that much. And with such a large population, it's relatively easier to obfuscate deaths. And the west seemed motivated to INFLATE covid numbers, as well. Lots of deaths with COVID, rather than from COVID. Actual COVID deaths are probably somewhere inbetween.

And you might talk of excess deaths, but consider this; China has a lot more deaths of young people from accidents and such. When you lockdown, you have far fewer young people getting killed by machinery, run over in the street, things like that. China also isn't grappling with a drug epidemic. And the average person has a healthy BMI, even the elderly. China would have weathered COVID well regardless of how it handled things. By locking down and making it look like that drove their success, the west was doomed to follow. Telling overweight westerners to stay at home and do nothing was probably the biggest danger to their health.

Agree with @sarker. It seems that even if major powers develop bioweapons, the nuclear truce has held. Why are bioweapons different than nuclear weapons?

Sure you can have deniability, but if Covid-19 were an actual bioattack, it would be a laughably bad attempt. All it does is kill old people who are burden on the system - when China because of the One Child Policy will be hit the hardest by the demographic collapse. If anything Covid is great for China, as it kills older less productive people, and lets the young refill the ranks.

Maybe the nuclear forces aren't quite ready

What does this mean? Is China going to launch a plague, then launch nukes? I'd argue bioweapons only make sense as a deceptive attack, crippling the West before they can strike back with nukes or other superweapons.

Maybe the Chinese vaccine industry is suffering delays - they have to prepare a vaccine for the new weapon along with their COVID vaccine work. That might explain China's weakness on that front - diversion of effort.

This is a far more important argument than you give it credit for. The advantage right now for the US especially is a specialization in research of 'hard sciences,' with biology/medicine being a lucrative and prestigious field. Virology maybe not, but I'd be surprised if Western defense agencies didn't have a much better understanding of viruses than standard academia.

What does this mean? Is China going to launch a plague, then launch nukes? I'd argue bioweapons only make sense as a deceptive attack, crippling the West before they can strike back with nukes or other superweapons.

China doesn't quite have second-strike capability against the US at the moment. They can cause some damage certainly, but a lot of their arsenal could be taken out with a pre-emptive strike. This has implications on the credibility of threats and deterrence. China obviously would want a secure arsenal before taking any risky moves like invading Taiwan. Hence they are building missile siloes and a new class of missile submarines for 2024-25.

I'd be surprised if Western defense agencies didn't have a much better understanding of viruses than standard academia.

I would. Biology and medicine is a huge field, and the vast majority of the research is conducted either in the open (at universities etc., and published in public journals) or by private companies. The US military has some research capacity (Fort Detrick etc.), but it is tiny compared to "standard academia".

Sure you can have deniability, but if Covid-19 were an actual bioattack, it would be a laughably bad attempt. All it does is kill old people who are burden on the system - when China because of the One Child Policy will be hit the hardest by the demographic collapse. If anything Covid is great for China, as it kills older less productive people, and lets the young refill the ranks.

Honestly the biggest frustration of COVID is that it provided a convenient out for the biggest Demographic issue of most affluent states right now and yet every major economy dug the hole even colossally deeper instead of taking the short-term hit to fix their issues.

Last time you posted this (a month ago) I said I'd be happy to bet against a Chinese bioattack in the next year. You didn't take the offer, indicating that you think it's not going to happen in the next year. So when is this going to happen already?

The whole point is that we don't know whether it's a bioattack or not. There's plausible deniability. We live in a world where Daszak and the whole Ecohealth team have not even been arrested! How do you separate bioattack from lableak or natural evolution with great reliability? You can't. Let alone determining that it was Chinese specifically.

There is no plausible universe where I can say 'oh X plague has been proven to be a specifically Chinese bioattack, it's not just American propaganda or whatever else'. I can't get my money if I bet. And if I am right, the money isn't worth very much because we'll have bigger concerns like coughing our lungs out.

Okay, let's bet about a "plague" of any origin coming about in the next year.

If you want to be specific, I'd say 'novel disease kills 500K Westerners by the end of 2025' (about when the Chinese should've finished their preparations). That still excludes the chance that their biowarfare attempt squibs out or gets nipped in the bud. It also excludes them using another novel strain of COVID. I'm rather suspicious of how Omicron had such a huge genetic gap from Delta. What was it doing for those 18 months where it was barely evolving? Trapped in ice, in a lab somewhere?

This is a subject that is very opaque and hard to bet on. Imagine betting on 'US elections are rigged in favour of X'. If they're rigged properly, nobody will be able to prove it. And the definition of rigged can be very expansive, from intelligence agencies suppressing harmful stories to ballot harvesting to making up votes wholesale.

500k Westerners? Covid has killed a million Americans alone despite a 0.1% IFR. Most of the damage came from overreaction than the actual disease.

That's a piss poor bioweapon if there ever was one. If that's the most they can muster even in your imagination we've got nothing to worry about.

Well I was thinking about the time it would take to kill. COVID has been going for 3 years now.

Sure, but it's also a million deaths.

After the first covid death, the USA hit 500k dead in about a year. Again, with a 0.1% IFR.

^LOL, I don't know what to say about that. I can only hope they get what they want.

Laughing at people protesting against tyranny is cruel and small-minded. In my opinion.

I'm laughing at the fact that a Chinese man is using the most American quote of all time given the surrounding historical context that we are living in right now (China hates America more than ever).

There are more dimensions to things than just what's happening at the object level.

this sort of stuff triggers my "made for Western audiences" propaganda alarms

I mean the coverage is what is made for Western audiences, so of course they will use an example that's most recognisable and understandable to Americans, even if most of the protestors wouldn't (and didn't) use that American idiom. I don't find this particularly nefarious or 'propaganda-y'.

particularly nefarious or "propaganda-y" compared to what?

my default position is anything being written about an adversary of the global american empire by corporate media is likely tainted by their influence, i.e., "propaganda-y," so compared to that I agree this isn't particularly so

while others cried out “give me liberty or give me death” i

^LOL, I don't know what to say about that. I can only hope they get what they want.

I don't hope that they get death.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say either is preferable to the most likely outcome: a lifetime spent being reeducated in Correct and Harmonious Xi Jingping Thought at his local inpatient therapy/organ donation facility.

And given how unlikely the liberty part is... I hope it's at least quick.

Not many of those reasons make sense now

when I look at places especially hit hard by the China's zero covid policies, they look to correlate well with power centers of political opposition to the Xi wing of the CCP, e.g., Shenghai

lockdowns are generally harming all of china, but some are being harmed more than others

it appears many Chinese officials ardently and genuinely believe their response works and take pride in it, but I also suspect it continues despite the absurd costs because it comparably benefits Xi's political block

Hundreds of people... for China. That's small. It's basically nothing.

Wikipedia

I would wager there are more than a few hundred given how relatively widespread they are.

China makes gigantic high on their own supply Middle Kingdom complex policy mistakes every 50-60 years or so, this seems like the current example that will hopefully kill fewer people than the great leap forwards/cultural revolution, or the boxer rebellion.

I’m wondering if the same people who were really supportive of lockdowns in the West will pivot and publicly endorse these protests.

Never... It'd actually be kindof interesting on the 1% this is the thing that Berlin wall's China: The western elite would either have to pivot really fast ,spin hard, or put up with the newly opened China basically being the first of the new generation of revolutionary governments who reject the technocratic class.

Same way monarchist Europe all fretted about Constitutional brittain and then America... then Brittain and the Dutch and the rest became the old guard against republican France... then all the contitutional, repulican, and remaining absolutists all tried to contain bismarkian nationalist Germany then they all were allies almost imediately after ww1 to try and contain socialism... then swung back again to contain fascism... then again to contain internationalist post-war industrialized communism...

Its very likely a chinese revolution would bring in an ideology going hard on right wing Arch-American slogans, the kind our elite loath in their own population, you see it not just in this case but the Hong Kong protests waved American revolutionary slogans, the Chinese Expat and nationalist community, especially the falun gong, is littered with major American-Patriot influence... the Taiwanese swing this way on a lot of stuff.

And right as our own elite are doubling down on treating these as hate symbols, and these sentiments as dangerous extremism... (not to mention what would be revealled if it came out every western figure China was funding or buying off, something the new revolutionaries might tweet out before any of their leaders can tell them no those are their bargaining chips)

.

There's a real chance our elites would try t snuff that revolution out rather than let every ideal they ever scorned coalesce there.

They've long seen the chinese leadership as people like them or even people to be admired (remember all the glowing new york times pieces on how China was a model for how the us should run its economy back in the 2010s?)... And they'd rightly perceive that a full throated movement rejecting the CCP and the Chinese bureaucracy could easily coalesce into a wider movement rejecting them...

There's a reason the US prefers former communist countries to become failed states and only became more aggressive against Russia after it converted to capitalism and nominal democracy... young systems of governments run off ideas, and the most prominent ideas are always the ones taboo elsewhere

There's a real chance our elites would try t snuff that revolution out rather than let every ideal they ever scorned coalesce there.

Our elietes aren't going to look a gift horse like 'China unironically embracing The West' in the mouth. It would be a huge vindication for liberal values. It would be a geopolitical upset.

remember all the glowing new york times pieces on how China was a model for how the us should run its economy back in the 2010s

That was off the back of more liberal Hu Jintao. Xi has proven to be more authoritarian and more inclined to sabre rattle.

Our elietes aren't going to look a gift horse like 'China unironically embracing The West' in the mouth. It would be a huge vindication for liberal values. It would be a geopolitical upset.

I've seen no evidence that our elites hold liberal values, so I don't how China embracing them would be equivalent to embracing the West, and if China went actually liberal, we'd probably see hostilities increase.

The problem is that The West these protesters want to embrace already ceased to exist.

Well jeez, nobody tell them that!