The only way the communist “West” can beat back China is by going back to its prior socio-economic model—i.e. recognizing that economic prosperity and technological and scientific advancement are created by a hundred million well educated individuals who are afforded the figurative and literal space to do it at their own pace.

Instead, the West began rapidly adopting the totalitarian Chinese model, starting with its draconian lockdowns during COVID. This may well have been motivated, or at least justified on the basis of the stream of unverifiable propaganda that started to emerge from the pinko government, claiming that their totalitarian model alone was the shining beacon of hope in the world, as they alone were able to keep the number of related deaths at levels that the rest of the world, and especially the “free” world could only dream of.

Several years later, it is obvious that much of that propaganda turned out to be lies, built on a foundation of unrealistic assertions that could not be independently disproven (by now, the standard Chinese practice of asking for excuse tomorrow rather than permission today should be widely understood—although in reality, it goes more along the lines of asking to go fvck yourself tomorrow, rather than for permission today, TBH).

Anyway, the West bought China’s lies hook, line, and sinker

Predicting the future international policy of the Chinese state on the basis of its cumulative history—which, notably, occurred in an operationally constrained environment that only allowed for economic growth through peaceful means—is a complete nonstarter.

In fact, in light of the blood soaked history of using wholesale violence as a universal method of domestic problem mitigation, the assertions that the Chinese don’t use violence as their modus operandi appears quite droll. Categorically, the Chinese have already consistently shown an innate willingness to use violence and especially psycho-terror as a matter of course—which is pretty much an innate characteristic that so collectivist states share.

In as far as they have simply failed to use violence outside of their own borders—i mean, it goes without saying, right? Does sending their Navy to conquer Taiwan somehow not count as an act of violence? Or…hell, being involved in military conflicts with six neighboring states, simultaneously—while using their superior naval capacity to bully civilian fishing boats of the countries they aren’t explicitly at war with? Or, how about violating a treaty that explicitly restricts territoriality claims in international waters, ratified not 20 years prior, by making the ridiculous claim (that would notably leave neighboring countries with zero maritime territorial claims, or ability to maintain their fishing industries.

I mean, it goes without saying. The idea that evolution could promote religiosity as a survival strategy makes too much sense to me at least, that i would merely discard it because someone i don’t know vehemently disagrees. Which is to say, i have no clue who even came up with the idea in the first place; for all i know, it could have been Richard Dawkins (*)—who may be a prestigious evolutionary biologist, for all i know, but in my opinion still misses the forest for all the trees in some of his fundamental opinions—and that would still not change my view that it makes too much intuitive sense to simply abandon for superficial reasons.

Let me put it another way: if evolution does in fact promote religiosity on a genetic level, then that would incidentally offer the simplest, most intuitive explanation as to why statism as a belief structure:
1. Emerges in The absence of, or during the waning influence of religion: people need to believe in something in over to diffuse the ever-encroaching existential dread of nihilistic absurdism.
2. Explains why it always engages in existential warfare with competing beliefs—just as major religions have always done precisely the same, throughout history.

I’ll even go one further: not only is statism analogous to a religion—
*ducks*
its religiosity is substantially equivalent to any other belief structure, for the same reasons, and because as a form of belief it confers very nearly the exact same benefits on its adherents.

* Anyone who claims to be an atheist has overplayed their card in my view, and inadvertently confessed their own religiosity. Even believing in disbelief is a form of belief, although with very few benefits (which might explain why Dawkins comes across as such a bitter old man). Only agnostics are areligious, much in the way that love and hate as forms of “instinctive irrationality” both have Logos as their commonly shared polar opposite.

Sounds to me like the economic argument for Big Brother to get the foot in the door—while such obviously narcissistic and socially destructive quotes that are intended to be cringe-inducing as the following:

There isn’t enough left to save each month after I do things to reward myself. Getting married might happen at some point but being happy right now – that’s more important, right?

could be interpreted as a subtle way of beginning to advocate for Axolotl Tanks. Women were always a good vehicle to initiate the collapse of society. Conversely, only superficial fools ever thought that “women’s liberation” was the intended outcome.

The author makes some good arguments.

Where his assertion seems dubious is in the idea that somehow he’ll continue swimming in the Mediterranean, with nuclear war raging around him.

Where he is so profoundly out to lunch that i felt compelled to point out the historical consensus is in his assessment that “women civilize men.”

To make things simple, a quote from Cato the Elder (who at the very least, being recognized as a historic figure after more than two thousand years have passed following his death, ought to elicit a bit more authority in his assertions than something a guy on the Internet said, lately):

Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .