anon_lylu said in #5338 3w ago:
Some debate recently broke out in the local cell about whether "beating China" is a useful goal to orient around, and in particular whether China is our main enemy. On the yes side we have allegations that China is behind fentanyl, AI deceleration, boomer socialism, and race communism based on their obvious interest in weakening us so they can become "China numba one". Hasan Piker is a big Mao guy and Bernie Sanders invited a Chinaman to his AI safety and diplomacy conference for example.
On the no side is the observation that these things all have much more obvious and proximate causes at home. No Chinaman ever forcibly desegregated your neighborhood then engaged in a generations long suppression effort to stop you from talking about it so intensely that you stopped talking about anything important at all to the point that your kids would have died of confusion and despair if they hadn't died on fentanyl. It wasn't the Chinese who sold out American industry for insider gains, even if they gladly took the other side of the trade. It wasn't the Chinese who firebombed dresden, dismantled the British Empire, destroyed Europe and Latin America, and engineered the Rising Tide of Color Against World White Supremacy.
Now our boy Stoddard had some choice words about the Chinese. It's been long known that in the long run they would become the primary external threat to European civilization. They hate us, they are shockingly numerous, intelligent, and hardworking. They certainly want us dead, even in their lamer older Dengist phase. In their Maoist phase they actually were involved, if only symbolically, in the race communist revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. So certainly they are enemies, and dangerous ones. We should have backed Japan against them in the 1930s, but the communists had already seized control of our state.
But none of that is a sufficient argument that they are *the* enemy. Far more pressingly *the* enemy is gay race communism itself that is much more proximally the direct cause of all of the above. The traitors and invaders in your own midst stealing your copper, defrauding your institutions, marginalizing your youth, murdering your leaders, turning all public discourse into variations on "how do we stick it to the white man today?" seem far more urgent than "beating china". At best it seems to me we have to hold China at bay while primarily focusing on our domestic rot.
If our domestic problems are best addressed as Chinese foreign influence, they have already won. I don't think that's how it is though. I think we would in an ideal world be better off more or less ignoring them while we rebuild our industry, secure our borders, and overhaul our politics. That said, I want to say a bit for the *rhetorical* utility of China-as-enemy-numba-one:
I dislike lies, but it's true that our industrialists should be focused on "beating China" as our most dangerous competitor and best stimulus for growth. We should be agressively reshoring industry, building up rapid local supply chains, getting ahead on quality and quantity so we and not the chinese can dominate the global means of production. It's true that the Chinese model of totalitarian surveillance thought control is a major threat to our free American way of life, and we need to be building tools for free speech and capital flight that would hold up for even Chinese dissidents. That these tools will be primarily useful to us as resistance against domestic communism need not feature prominently in the rhetoric. It's true that many of our enemies domestic and abroad are increasingly Chinese-aligned, and can be rhetorically countered as such.
But politics is the art of fine distinctions in friend and enemy, not unthinking jingoism. My primary worry with "China enemy numba one" is that we forget that our biggest problems are internal. We could nuke China out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make us one bit better off.
On the no side is the observation that these things all have much more obvious and proximate causes at home. No Chinaman ever forcibly desegregated your neighborhood then engaged in a generations long suppression effort to stop you from talking about it so intensely that you stopped talking about anything important at all to the point that your kids would have died of confusion and despair if they hadn't died on fentanyl. It wasn't the Chinese who sold out American industry for insider gains, even if they gladly took the other side of the trade. It wasn't the Chinese who firebombed dresden, dismantled the British Empire, destroyed Europe and Latin America, and engineered the Rising Tide of Color Against World White Supremacy.
Now our boy Stoddard had some choice words about the Chinese. It's been long known that in the long run they would become the primary external threat to European civilization. They hate us, they are shockingly numerous, intelligent, and hardworking. They certainly want us dead, even in their lamer older Dengist phase. In their Maoist phase they actually were involved, if only symbolically, in the race communist revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. So certainly they are enemies, and dangerous ones. We should have backed Japan against them in the 1930s, but the communists had already seized control of our state.
But none of that is a sufficient argument that they are *the* enemy. Far more pressingly *the* enemy is gay race communism itself that is much more proximally the direct cause of all of the above. The traitors and invaders in your own midst stealing your copper, defrauding your institutions, marginalizing your youth, murdering your leaders, turning all public discourse into variations on "how do we stick it to the white man today?" seem far more urgent than "beating china". At best it seems to me we have to hold China at bay while primarily focusing on our domestic rot.
If our domestic problems are best addressed as Chinese foreign influence, they have already won. I don't think that's how it is though. I think we would in an ideal world be better off more or less ignoring them while we rebuild our industry, secure our borders, and overhaul our politics. That said, I want to say a bit for the *rhetorical* utility of China-as-enemy-numba-one:
I dislike lies, but it's true that our industrialists should be focused on "beating China" as our most dangerous competitor and best stimulus for growth. We should be agressively reshoring industry, building up rapid local supply chains, getting ahead on quality and quantity so we and not the chinese can dominate the global means of production. It's true that the Chinese model of totalitarian surveillance thought control is a major threat to our free American way of life, and we need to be building tools for free speech and capital flight that would hold up for even Chinese dissidents. That these tools will be primarily useful to us as resistance against domestic communism need not feature prominently in the rhetoric. It's true that many of our enemies domestic and abroad are increasingly Chinese-aligned, and can be rhetorically countered as such.
But politics is the art of fine distinctions in friend and enemy, not unthinking jingoism. My primary worry with "China enemy numba one" is that we forget that our biggest problems are internal. We could nuke China out of existence tomorrow and it wouldn't make us one bit better off.
referenced by: >>5349 >>5353
Some debate recently
