It's at the very least bold to open your article with an argument that your (I assume) people have historically exhibited a certain delusion, but this time feels different. This time, for sure… Even better to cite Huntington anticipating my own rejoinder:
declinist waves come in cycles, there have been no less than five of them since the 1950s, and contrary to popular belief they are actually useful. They play “an indispensable role in preventing what they are predicting.”7 Funny enough, he switched over to the hard declinist camp just a few years later.
– only to proceed in the same direction, inventing a rather dubious narrative about the failure of the new paranoia to take root, because now the decline is already known as true.
As an aside: wasn't Hofstadter himself a yet another Communist sympathizer who sought to pathologize and thus dampen American immune response to a very real infiltration, rather than do unbiased scholarship? (see also: Blacklisted by History, In Denial).
Influenced by his wife, Hofstadter was a member of the Young Communist League in college, and in April 1938 he joined the Communist Party of the USA; he quit in 1939 [45]. Hofstadter had been reluctant to join, knowing the orthodoxy it imposed on intellectuals, telling them what to believe and what to write. He was disillusioned by the spectacle of the Moscow Show Trials, but wrote: "I join without enthusiasm but with a sense of obligation.... [M]y fundamental reason for joining is that I don't like capitalism and want to get rid of it."[46]. He remained anti-capitalist, writing, "I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it," but was similarly disillusioned with Stalinism finding the Soviet Union "essentially undemocratic" and the Communist Party rigid and doctrinaire.
Huh. Communism in 1939. One could scarcely hope to find a purer type of an intellectual who cries only when his little incestuous network is getting Gulag'd, the type Sergei Novikov urges us to not shed any tears for.
Anyway. There certainly exists the dynamic he (and the Substack author) describes – pushed top-down. I'd contend that organic American culture is entirely non-paranoid. It's psyopped; thus the deluge of hare-brained conspiracy theories, at once a manipulated distraction and an outlet for suspicion. As I see them, Americans – at least the type that has built the country and still keeps it running – are trusting, sometimes to the point of gullibility, optimistic, a bit small-minded yet ambitious, mercantile, big believers in win-win and not very big on titanic sacrifice for the common goal decreed by powers that be. They are pretty neoliberal by nature. In short, they can only be hegemonic power material in this paranoid mode imposed on them by misinformation. This stuff is common for all nationalisms, of course, but American case is different on account of how well it works. Maybe it's just the matter of human capital and geography – maybe they just can afford this bullshit, secure in the knowledge that everyone important understands the kayfabe and won't really switch sides out of self-interest.
Exactly like Huntington argues, these spells of declinism and exaggerations of some geopolitical threat are adaptive. @Dean has once stated that American military is one of the few militaries in the world that is willing to test itself to failure; thus, losing to Iraq in wargames, under the condition of an implausible handicap, only to wipe the floor with Iraq in live combat. I'd extend the principle to the whole stack of society: Americans, under the management of their elites, are among the very few who are capable of gaslighting themselves into taking seriously, fearing viscerally, risks that are merely conceivable and far in the future – and acting accordingly. (It's different from e.g. Russian paranoia about NATO-Ukraine, because taking the threat of NATO seriously… would not result in this). On the level of eggheaded analysis, «our models go not yield more than 90% probability that the Chinese regime will collapse on its own before 2050» might be enough of a call for action – expressed as some cheesy Asia'2049 strategy or whatever, but also diplomacy, sanctions, military procurement, using a talking head like Zeihan to tacitly announce your intentions for investors, accelerating the capital flight, and so on. For normies, all this looks like pointless expense. So you've gotta dumb it down: «we are already in decline! THEIR power is growing! They are united and strong, ruthless, rational, ready to do anything to hurt you and your family! It's a matter of time, to arms, to arms! There is a GAP! might attack our allies! Their fleet is oooh, their AI research is aaah, muh IQ, Chinese eugenic superbabies, Chinese hypersonics, we're underdogs here, but we must give our last desperate fight for all that is good and proper! Know, Gook Chink, that you will find a gun behind every blade of grass when you come!»
Of course it's the same now as it was in the 20's century. I hear something something GDP, mumble mumble growing navy, sometimes muh IQ and AI. What's the concrete threat model? China becomes able to chase CSGs out of South China Sea? Attacks Taiwan, threatens Japan, Korea, Australia (lol)? I suppose that could be technically possible, but on every level of looking into the specifics, you see less and less of a realistic possibility. GDP is empty residential high-rises, debt manipulation, and trade with countries which have demonstrated willingness to forgo profits in the name of a better political deal with the US, or are itching to drop China for their own reasons, or are near-failed states. Navy is obsolete before launch – this is a glimpse of the navy of the future, and by the time China approaches the US (forget the entire alliance) in conventional vessels, more advanced versions of such things will have become mainstream. IQ? Chinese IQ writes American papers. Tech? Well, where's their tech? They've been successfully cut off from strategically relevant semiconductors, and that's all she wrote. And, most importantly, that's ignoring their severe internal failings, both cultural and structural, failings which could perhaps be non-fatal – but only on a less competitive planet.
If feels different because it always has to feel real. It's the Sputnik Moment and the Missile Gap all over again. But Americans will only discover this after the fact, having tried hard to prevent an already contrived future. Same as with Japan, and with the Soviet union. No point to discussion.
A nation whose aviation shoots down a «hobbyist radio ballon», where idle commoners cobble together devices which can be mistaken for a superpower's spycraft, is not in decline. It is, perhaps, a slightly unwell nation. In Russian, this mentality is called бесится с жиру – essentially, «going rabid from fat». Very apt, in my opinion.
The one thing I agree with there is that everything is psyop.
However the propaganda I read the most about China is that it is doomed, not that it is going to win. Plenty of ink spilt on China being in existential crisis, because of house debt, Hong Kong unrest, lockdowns, ending lockdowns, demographics. Why?
Not sure - but the idea seems to be that China will have to attack Taiwan soon enough. Which probably allows a buildup of US resources in the area. The Thucydides Trap Applies to the US more than China.
My own belief is that China just has to wait. I don’t buy that its IQ doesn’t matter, or that China’s demographics will lead to destruction any sooner than the Europeans( who have worse demographics) or the US which is trending as bad as either.
Nor do I believe that they have no technology, or industry. Quite the reverse. They are heading to dominance in both.
What do you mean by saying “ trade with countries which have demonstrated willingness to forgo profits in the name of a better political deal with the US, or are itching to drop China for their own reasons, or are near-failed states.” That’s really not who China trades with, or who trades with China. Who trades with China is everybody. Including, and especially, the US.
The rest is just math - a country with a larger population and greater economic growth will catch up with a country with a smaller population and a smaller rate of economic growth Ceteris paribus, and then surpass it.
The "why" is ideology, put simply. In a cold-blooded world where line-go-up is all that matters, all China would have to do, indeed, is just stay put, stay the course, and hope the GDP grows in line with predictions.
But this is not a cold-blooded world of rationality and pure numerics. This is a world where Europe gets into wars every so often because of desires to control parts of it for various reasons; some of which can be charitably described as "ineffable" and uncharitably described as "stupid and irrational." China is little different, having been wedded to a zealous Communist ideology for decades now. While it is not an immutable set of first principles, the desire to see a "One China" united under a red flag has never gone away even when their economy opened up.
It may well be that China will never let go of any revanchism over Taiwan, and that it may well be their undoing if they decide to ever make a move.
As for the "math," yes, I'll concede that, in theory, a massive amount of resources and manpower can be directed as needed to whatever projects are deemed important--by gunpoint, if necessary. But as Dase's last link there shows, there are inefficiencies that even China's size can't overcome.
I mean, yeh, there’s a war on in Europe now but it’s hardly a common occurance post world war II. The US is nearly always involved in some conflict.
China is little different
This is a non sequitur. Europe isn’t that war-like these days and, even if it were, why is is clear that China is “little different”. China also actually is not all that war-like in the modern era.
Anyway i am not saying that China won’t someday try take over Taiwan, I’m saying there’s no rush.
But as Dase's last link there shows, there are inefficiencies that even China's size can't overcome.
Well he didn’t show anything, he said something. And the link didn’t work.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's at the very least bold to open your article with an argument that your (I assume) people have historically exhibited a certain delusion, but this time feels different. This time, for sure… Even better to cite Huntington anticipating my own rejoinder:
– only to proceed in the same direction, inventing a rather dubious narrative about the failure of the new paranoia to take root, because now the decline is already known as true.
As an aside: wasn't Hofstadter himself a yet another Communist sympathizer who sought to pathologize and thus dampen American immune response to a very real infiltration, rather than do unbiased scholarship? (see also: Blacklisted by History, In Denial).
Huh. Communism in 1939. One could scarcely hope to find a purer type of an intellectual who cries only when his little incestuous network is getting Gulag'd, the type Sergei Novikov urges us to not shed any tears for.
Anyway. There certainly exists the dynamic he (and the Substack author) describes – pushed top-down. I'd contend that organic American culture is entirely non-paranoid. It's psyopped; thus the deluge of hare-brained conspiracy theories, at once a manipulated distraction and an outlet for suspicion. As I see them, Americans – at least the type that has built the country and still keeps it running – are trusting, sometimes to the point of gullibility, optimistic, a bit small-minded yet ambitious, mercantile, big believers in win-win and not very big on titanic sacrifice for the common goal decreed by powers that be. They are pretty neoliberal by nature. In short, they can only be hegemonic power material in this paranoid mode imposed on them by misinformation. This stuff is common for all nationalisms, of course, but American case is different on account of how well it works. Maybe it's just the matter of human capital and geography – maybe they just can afford this bullshit, secure in the knowledge that everyone important understands the kayfabe and won't really switch sides out of self-interest.
Exactly like Huntington argues, these spells of declinism and exaggerations of some geopolitical threat are adaptive. @Dean has once stated that American military is one of the few militaries in the world that is willing to test itself to failure; thus, losing to Iraq in wargames, under the condition of an implausible handicap, only to wipe the floor with Iraq in live combat. I'd extend the principle to the whole stack of society: Americans, under the management of their elites, are among the very few who are capable of gaslighting themselves into taking seriously, fearing viscerally, risks that are merely conceivable and far in the future – and acting accordingly. (It's different from e.g. Russian paranoia about NATO-Ukraine, because taking the threat of NATO seriously… would not result in this). On the level of eggheaded analysis, «our models go not yield more than 90% probability that the Chinese regime will collapse on its own before 2050» might be enough of a call for action – expressed as some cheesy Asia'2049 strategy or whatever, but also diplomacy, sanctions, military procurement, using a talking head like Zeihan to tacitly announce your intentions for investors, accelerating the capital flight, and so on. For normies, all this looks like pointless expense. So you've gotta dumb it down: «we are already in decline! THEIR power is growing! They are united and strong, ruthless, rational, ready to do anything to hurt you and your family! It's a matter of time, to arms, to arms! There is a GAP! might attack our allies! Their fleet is oooh, their AI research is aaah, muh IQ, Chinese eugenic superbabies, Chinese hypersonics, we're underdogs here, but we must give our last desperate fight for all that is good and proper! Know,
GookChink, that you will find a gun behind every blade of grass when you come!»Of course it's the same now as it was in the 20's century. I hear something something GDP, mumble mumble growing navy, sometimes muh IQ and AI. What's the concrete threat model? China becomes able to chase CSGs out of South China Sea? Attacks Taiwan, threatens Japan, Korea, Australia (lol)? I suppose that could be technically possible, but on every level of looking into the specifics, you see less and less of a realistic possibility. GDP is empty residential high-rises, debt manipulation, and trade with countries which have demonstrated willingness to forgo profits in the name of a better political deal with the US, or are itching to drop China for their own reasons, or are near-failed states. Navy is obsolete before launch – this is a glimpse of the navy of the future, and by the time China approaches the US (forget the entire alliance) in conventional vessels, more advanced versions of such things will have become mainstream. IQ? Chinese IQ writes American papers. Tech? Well, where's their tech? They've been successfully cut off from strategically relevant semiconductors, and that's all she wrote. And, most importantly, that's ignoring their severe internal failings, both cultural and structural, failings which could perhaps be non-fatal – but only on a less competitive planet.
If feels different because it always has to feel real. It's the Sputnik Moment and the Missile Gap all over again. But Americans will only discover this after the fact, having tried hard to prevent an already contrived future. Same as with Japan, and with the Soviet union. No point to discussion.
A nation whose aviation shoots down a «hobbyist radio ballon», where idle commoners cobble together devices which can be mistaken for a superpower's spycraft, is not in decline. It is, perhaps, a slightly unwell nation. In Russian, this mentality is called бесится с жиру – essentially, «going rabid from fat». Very apt, in my opinion.
The one thing I agree with there is that everything is psyop.
However the propaganda I read the most about China is that it is doomed, not that it is going to win. Plenty of ink spilt on China being in existential crisis, because of house debt, Hong Kong unrest, lockdowns, ending lockdowns, demographics. Why?
Not sure - but the idea seems to be that China will have to attack Taiwan soon enough. Which probably allows a buildup of US resources in the area. The Thucydides Trap Applies to the US more than China.
My own belief is that China just has to wait. I don’t buy that its IQ doesn’t matter, or that China’s demographics will lead to destruction any sooner than the Europeans( who have worse demographics) or the US which is trending as bad as either.
Nor do I believe that they have no technology, or industry. Quite the reverse. They are heading to dominance in both.
What do you mean by saying “ trade with countries which have demonstrated willingness to forgo profits in the name of a better political deal with the US, or are itching to drop China for their own reasons, or are near-failed states.” That’s really not who China trades with, or who trades with China. Who trades with China is everybody. Including, and especially, the US.
The rest is just math - a country with a larger population and greater economic growth will catch up with a country with a smaller population and a smaller rate of economic growth Ceteris paribus, and then surpass it.
The "why" is ideology, put simply. In a cold-blooded world where line-go-up is all that matters, all China would have to do, indeed, is just stay put, stay the course, and hope the GDP grows in line with predictions.
But this is not a cold-blooded world of rationality and pure numerics. This is a world where Europe gets into wars every so often because of desires to control parts of it for various reasons; some of which can be charitably described as "ineffable" and uncharitably described as "stupid and irrational." China is little different, having been wedded to a zealous Communist ideology for decades now. While it is not an immutable set of first principles, the desire to see a "One China" united under a red flag has never gone away even when their economy opened up.
It may well be that China will never let go of any revanchism over Taiwan, and that it may well be their undoing if they decide to ever make a move.
As for the "math," yes, I'll concede that, in theory, a massive amount of resources and manpower can be directed as needed to whatever projects are deemed important--by gunpoint, if necessary. But as Dase's last link there shows, there are inefficiencies that even China's size can't overcome.
I mean, yeh, there’s a war on in Europe now but it’s hardly a common occurance post world war II. The US is nearly always involved in some conflict.
This is a non sequitur. Europe isn’t that war-like these days and, even if it were, why is is clear that China is “little different”. China also actually is not all that war-like in the modern era.
Anyway i am not saying that China won’t someday try take over Taiwan, I’m saying there’s no rush.
Well he didn’t show anything, he said something. And the link didn’t work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link