Land is often expensive in Japan, so it does not seem to be related to declining population.

The Japanese build differently. Homes are not built to last. They are often not re-sold but demolished and built again after 25 years. Their postwar culture has always been this way. Maybe, it has to do with mass bombing of cities - is government incentivized to promote the building industry. Maybe, it has to do with Buddhism?

Seems pretty wasteful. I think any move to pro-natalism would probably require some sort of housing plan.

IMO, the Japanese are afraid to do what it takes to increase fertility because of their constrained geography, even though they probably have the state/societal capacity to do it. You can't make a spiritual appeal and ask for replacement fertility of 2.1. To turn things around, you've got to go all-out - make a total propaganda/economic effort.

Replies: @128, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

My takeaway from Japan, as an American who spent a few very enjoyable weeks there and did some traveling in suburbs and smaller cities: a lot of the real estate and infrastructure just looks bad. Even in a lot of prosperous-seeming parts of Tokyo. I have to think a big part of this is that no one wants to invest too much capital into renovating real estate in a country where the population is declining 0.4% per year, so the real estate is just going through a depreciation process even in parts of the country where the population is holding up for the moment.

I would guess another factor is that in the US there is an active desire to signal that places are good and safe, not "sketchy", because it's a more dangerous country. I recall going to a dilapidated and dimly-lit train station in Japan at night that, had it been located in the US, white people wouldn't dare set foot in the place, imagining they'd be extremely lucky to not get mugged. Instead I saw, among other things, a 10-year-old girl alone there in her school uniform, standing about fearlessly.

Though, to be clear, I'd still take crappy-looking real estate over migration-driven population growth.

Replies: @128, @songbird, @128, @mal

My takeaway from Japan, as an American who spent a few very enjoyable weeks there and did some traveling in suburbs and smaller cities: a lot of the real estate and infrastructure just looks bad. Even in a lot of prosperous-seeming parts of Tokyo. I have to think a big part of this is that no one wants to invest too much capital into renovating real estate in a country where the population is declining 0.4% per year, so the real estate is just going through a depreciation process even in parts of the country where the population is holding up for the moment.

I would guess another factor is that in the US there is an active desire to signal that places are good and safe, not "sketchy", because it's a more dangerous country. I recall going to a dilapidated and dimly-lit train station in Japan at night that, had it been located in the US, white people wouldn't dare set foot in the place, imagining they'd be extremely lucky to not get mugged. Instead I saw, among other things, a 10-year-old girl alone there in her school uniform, standing about fearlessly.

Though, to be clear, I'd still take crappy-looking real estate over migration-driven population growth.

Replies: @128, @songbird, @128, @mal

In labour market dynamics and social standing yes agreed, but that wasn’t my point - rather I’m saying that both in the US and Russia there are large groups numbering in the millions (Tatars, Hispanics but also I guess groups like Lebanese Christians or Georgians) which on paper give the ‘mental impression’ of a non-European element which is in rigid contrast to the majority European population.

However, this is not always so clear-cut and there is overlapping and leakage across these groups - for instance, there are of course many millions of Hispanics who are either totally Spanish/Italian in origin or Tatars who look and act almost entirely Russian and intermarry with children being absorbed into Russian ethnic.

Replies: @128, @melanf, @EldnahYm

Yes, I’d peg France at around 10 million Afro-Arabs (from Malagasy to Moroccans to Caribbeans), maybe even a little less.

But that’s still an enormous quantity - and indeed, higher birth rates mean this group (including second generation) probably accounts for 175k-200k of the annual 725k births. Everything isn’t so black and white though, to pardon the pun - there is a large and growing mixed population in France, I know people in the following categories and all of them pass as European and are people you would want to help build a country in terms of behaviour and intelligence:

- Breton/Kabyle
- Berber/southern french
- Malagasy/Italian

Agree with the previous commenter that both Russia and the US aren’t as bad as they seem on paper due to groups like ‘Hispanics’ and ‘Tatars’ being more nuanced than most people realise

Replies: @AltanBakshi, @melanf, @128

In Sweden itself, the northern rural part of the country supports the socialist party the most. In Finland this isn't the case.

In the US there isn't so much a "north/south divide" as there is an "urban/rural divide"

With the exception of some rural parts of the Upper Midwest, and New England, rural whites are uniformly GOP.

Wrt to Canada, while they've always been more economically interventionist than the US, Canada was in many ways more culturally conservative until the 1990s.

If latitude is relevant, is New Zealand more "left" than Australia?

Replies: @Blinky Bill, @128

Your comments are always great, welcome back.

At this point I would suspect that Russia would have some trouble even in the most pro-Russian areas, such as Kharkiv; that city is the home base for the Azov organization. It would probably be scattered but deadly IRA style attacks, but still something. More serious guerrilla warfare and urban street fighting would probably be in limited to the west and center. But also remember that Ukraine does field some good special forces capable of operating behind enemy lines.

Replies: @128, @Boomthorkell, @reiner Tor

It will again trail India this year.
 

https://i.imgur.com/x7ej1O7.png

Notably, Bangladesh managed to grow through the pandemic. India fell by almost 7%. Why would this year much different? Bangladesh will add to their lead.

Its index of economic complexity is well below that of Pakistan

 

As for Islam not being so bad if you really are a Swede based in Sweden I think you will be treated to more cultural enrichment from this glorious religion than any other European country.
 

No, culture plays a more important role than religion. Indonesian moslems tend to be better behaved than Christian Arabs in my experience. Anyone who disagrees can be more than welcomed to visit Södertälje. Pre-2015 refugee crisis the vast majority of its MENA inhabitants were Christians. It didn't matter, their behaviour was similar as to their moslem compatriots.

Albanians, "despite" being moslems, have integrated faster than Christian Africans in Sweden. This is especially the case for the second generation. You are Indian, so your world view is overly religious. But culture plays a more important role. Religion, of course, still matters (Serbs tend to integrate even faster than Albanians) but between the two, culture is a far stronger predictor.

In general, I find your comments outside of engineering to be of low quality.

Replies: @128

Kenya’s economy is a crapshow, it is not even at the level or Indonesia, Nigeria, or Viet Nam.
 

https://i.imgur.com/98VLaW2.png

I suspect Kenya will pass Nigeria before too long. Vietnam is not even a fair comparison given that they are following in the path of Korea, Taiwan etc. Indonesia is not a fair comparison either. I've noted before that ASEAN is the last major region of the world that can still sustain high growth rates to at least ~$10,000 per capita income, without losing their currency in the process (like Turkey).

I'm very skeptical of SSA, LatAM and MENA's potential. I am somewhat less skeptical of South Asia - India will likely get to where Mexico is and stay there, though with much lower crime and better food. India is also being much more aggressive on climate change early on, which will give rich dividends down the road. The major challenge is related to water stress, but I hope they can overcome it.

I am less much less optimistic about Pakistan, but not for religious reasons. Bangladesh is now richer than India "despite" being moslem, so I think it has more to do with local culture than religion. The same reason why Islam in places like Indonesia tends to be much more mellow than in Arabia. In this regard, I think Vishnugupta's comments are colored by his lens as an Indian, he thinks of Islam from a Indian-Pakistani and to a lesser extent MENA context (Arabs have considerable influence on Indian moslems) and projects that to the rest of the world. If Islam was as horrible as he thinks, then Bangladesh would have remained poorer than India and Indonesia would have been poorer than the Philippines, let alone Vietnam.

Local culture, rather than religion, plays the decisive role. Though religion plays some part.

More generally, we should be careful in distinguishing broad-based economic convergence among developing countries (where I am a skeptic overall with partial exceptions) and technological progress (which is rapid and ongoing, though highly concentrated in the "Global North"). The two are not the same and should not be conflated.

Replies: @Vishnugupta, @128, @Anatoly Karlin

There are three components of nominal growth. real growth + inflation + currency appreciation (or depreciation). I haven’t seen anyone put together a single chart that incorporates all three components of the top 10 fastest growing economies over a decade.
 

Replies: @128, @mal, @reiner Tor

Aside from banking and real estate, what else does Britain have as a basis for an economy? The French and Italians otudo the British in luxury goods, it does not have much mineral resources at competitive prices, and as a manufacturing hub Germany or even France makes more sense.

Plenty of data on the distribution of value-added between sectors in Britain, courtesy the World Bank and the Office for National Statistics in London. (Luxury goods will almost certainly be a small sliver in any economy in a country with more than a six-digit population).

Replies: @128

Replies: @128, @Beckow

I think that's his point though. Whether they can keep "improving/growing" after they reach the Kenyan-level. They are finally making the big early leaps (one chemical factory at a time!), but what follows after is probably not Germany or China.

Replies: @128

The story goes something like this. The NED cut its fangs deep into the country for many decades. The main beneficiary of this support has been Aung San Suu Kyi. This could be surprising given the recent demonisation campaign of her, but this was likely a pressure tactic done to weaken her hand.

The critical background is that containing China is much older than recent rhetoric would suggest, though the noise has merely escalated in recent years. Amazingly, The Guardian (!) carried an honest story reporting on US attempt of sabotage of a dam. The key factor was China's backing. This is the role that she has been playing for years and for which she was handsomely paid.

Aung San Suu Kyi is an old Western asset, and she has been the recipient of US "NGO support" and dark money for many years. In addition, there are various ethnic militant groups that the US has funded and enabled. The Rohingya crisis some of you may remember was a policy of the US to stoke both sides. The outcome sought was to destabilise the country sufficiently so that any Chinese projects would become untenable.

When Aung San Suu Kyi was in power, she did do a few deals with the Chinese, which is what may perplex outsiders. If she's an asset of the US, why would she do that? The simple answer is economic necessary. Myanmar is just as dependent on China economically speaking as Mexico is of the US. The inevitable gravity of China in that part of the world forces some kind of pragmatism. However, this pragmatism enraged the US, which is another reason why she was given the cold shoulder by her former patrons.

The army perspective is almost impossible to come across. All their accounts have been deleted across US social media. I did managed to dig up a few statements from generals made in the early 2000s. They clearly made the point that if she and the ethnic guerillas that the US came to power, the country would descend into a Bosnian-style conflagration of the 1990s. This statement was prescient given the Rohingya crisis later on.

The US fundamentally does not care about Myanmar. Nor does it think it can meaningfully shift the country to a loyal US puppet, given how close its economic links to China is. The goal is to destabilise it sufficiently by drumming up support among critical factions within it as to render it useless to Beijing, by perpetuating constant turmoil. If the Myanmar people are casualties, then so be it. In this sense, the playbook is similar to the one being played out in Syria, Venezuela or arguably even Ukraine.

One last point. You often read in the Western press about "hundreds killed". The impression one gets is that the army is mowing down innocent protestors on the streets for the sake of it. What a lot of people don't appreciate is to just what an extent that the US has cultivated various ethnic groups inside the country and armed them to the teeth precisely for these kinds of eventualities. The army is in violent conflict with many of these.

I do not think we will see a formal invasion of the US, into a country on the doorstep of China. But I do think we could potentially see every step leading up to that, but short of it, as in Syria. Myanmar allowed itself to be destabilised by letting groups like the NED, the NGO-industrial complex more broadly to proliferate for decades. That price for that lack of vigilance is coming home to roost.

Replies: @Blinky Bill, @sher singh, @EldnahYm, @128, @128, @winnepeggreg

The story goes something like this. The NED cut its fangs deep into the country for many decades. The main beneficiary of this support has been Aung San Suu Kyi. This could be surprising given the recent demonisation campaign of her, but this was likely a pressure tactic done to weaken her hand.

The critical background is that containing China is much older than recent rhetoric would suggest, though the noise has merely escalated in recent years. Amazingly, The Guardian (!) carried an honest story reporting on US attempt of sabotage of a dam. The key factor was China's backing. This is the role that she has been playing for years and for which she was handsomely paid.

Aung San Suu Kyi is an old Western asset, and she has been the recipient of US "NGO support" and dark money for many years. In addition, there are various ethnic militant groups that the US has funded and enabled. The Rohingya crisis some of you may remember was a policy of the US to stoke both sides. The outcome sought was to destabilise the country sufficiently so that any Chinese projects would become untenable.

When Aung San Suu Kyi was in power, she did do a few deals with the Chinese, which is what may perplex outsiders. If she's an asset of the US, why would she do that? The simple answer is economic necessary. Myanmar is just as dependent on China economically speaking as Mexico is of the US. The inevitable gravity of China in that part of the world forces some kind of pragmatism. However, this pragmatism enraged the US, which is another reason why she was given the cold shoulder by her former patrons.

The army perspective is almost impossible to come across. All their accounts have been deleted across US social media. I did managed to dig up a few statements from generals made in the early 2000s. They clearly made the point that if she and the ethnic guerillas that the US came to power, the country would descend into a Bosnian-style conflagration of the 1990s. This statement was prescient given the Rohingya crisis later on.

The US fundamentally does not care about Myanmar. Nor does it think it can meaningfully shift the country to a loyal US puppet, given how close its economic links to China is. The goal is to destabilise it sufficiently by drumming up support among critical factions within it as to render it useless to Beijing, by perpetuating constant turmoil. If the Myanmar people are casualties, then so be it. In this sense, the playbook is similar to the one being played out in Syria, Venezuela or arguably even Ukraine.

One last point. You often read in the Western press about "hundreds killed". The impression one gets is that the army is mowing down innocent protestors on the streets for the sake of it. What a lot of people don't appreciate is to just what an extent that the US has cultivated various ethnic groups inside the country and armed them to the teeth precisely for these kinds of eventualities. The army is in violent conflict with many of these.

I do not think we will see a formal invasion of the US, into a country on the doorstep of China. But I do think we could potentially see every step leading up to that, but short of it, as in Syria. Myanmar allowed itself to be destabilised by letting groups like the NED, the NGO-industrial complex more broadly to proliferate for decades. That price for that lack of vigilance is coming home to roost.

Replies: @Blinky Bill, @sher singh, @EldnahYm, @128, @128, @winnepeggreg

You bet!

Pure meritocracy leads to gayness, factionalism and backstabiness. Having some warriors on top to bitchslap and keep the nerds in line tends to be a more stable solution.

Qing was less meritocratic than Song or Ming, there was a system of ethnic quotas for Manchus and Mongols.

 

CCP is definitely a Northern dynasty or power unlike KMT.

 

Replies: @128

Indians as a whole have the lowest human capital of any major population group except Africans, their entire history is one of repeated subjection to numerically tiny foreign elites. Say what you will about East-Asian risk-aversion, but at least they invented gunpowder, printing press and oceanic-capable ships in the first place, which you can't say for India. It has the advantages of sheer scale and nothing else.
Pegging humanity's future on the last remaining caucasoid breeders, glory to greater Albania-Chechenia!

Replies: @128, @Vishnugupta

It will be near impossible to govern Mars from Earth. Two year launch period and any rocket needing to be like 99% fuel means no police or warship fleet from Earth will threaten you there.

You will be living in domes underground, but you will not be required to wash black people feet or do whatever else woke religion will demand in the decades ahead.

For a lot of people, personal dignity and psychological coherence will be worth trying to make a living as a mole. You will have to become mostly self sufficient first of course, but the type of people who go to Mars will be different from those who stay behind and likely easier to cooperate with.

Think of Mars as a gated community with "really good schools". As in, genetic engineering will not just be welcomed on Mars, it will be a requirement for survival. Over time, Mars with genetically engineered Martians will become vastly more powerful than Earth. Just like American colonies become more powerful than European motherland.

Replies: @128, @Caspar Von Everec, @Epigon

Good points. I agree that its not an insurmountable obstacle.

The Russian strategy seems to be an offensive defense. The solution is to attack NATO airbases and destroy them on the ground.

I believe that's why Russia is developing the Khinzal missile. The Iskander-M and the Kinzhal are imo the most deadly Russian weapons. About 300-500 Kinzhals and Iskanders can probably destroy all NATO air assets and command posts in Eastern Europe and Germany. The Kinzhal has a range of 2000 km and a burnout speed of mach 9-11, this along with its ability to maneuver makes it nearly unstoppable.

If it really has a CEP of 3 m then it can destroy NATO aircraft in hardened bunkers as well. If not, then it can still destroy control towers, fuel depots and ammuntion storage, and render these aircraft unusable. The Kalibir missile is highly capable as well and imo one of the best anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles out there.

The question is whether Russia has so many missiles, and the issue of storage. A big cost missiles is storage. For example, the US left the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with thousands of stinger missiles yet they were unable to use any of them later on. Its because the heat seeking sensors deteriorate without maintenance and proper storage.

Since Iskander and Kinzhal are solid fuel propelled missiles with inertial guidance and electro-optical targeting, I think it might be possible to store them in the thousands like Iran stores missiles in the thousands.

Don't know how many cruise missiles the Russians have. Numbers range from 1400-2000.

As for air defense, I think the sound strategy is to have a sort of defense in depth against the F-35s. Have a dense mesh of S-400s but keep most of their radars in passive mode. Scan the skies from afar with AWACS using low frequency radars. LFRs can detect stealth but they can't provide a targeting solution due to the low resolution.

Ultimately the plan is probably to lure the F-35 within firing range of an S-400 battery. Since they'll be camouflaged and in passive mode, the F-35 will probably veer unaware into a firing spot. At about 50 km or so, the S-400 will be able to clearly see the F-35 and provide a firing solution.

At that range, its practically impossible to escape active homing missiles travelling at mach 7 or more. The F-35 has low maneuverability to begin with. An S-300 could kill an F-35 this way as well.

The S-400s chances will be greatly increased if it has an AESA radar with LPI characteristics. There are many conflicting claims on this regard, some say the S-400 does have AESA others say they it doesn't. However, the Nebro-M radar seems to be a major upgrade and the increased computational capacity facilitated by a large mobile ground radar will increase the odds.

However, all these assume that the F-35s will be engaged in a deep strike behind Russian lines. The thing is that these strategies are not applicable close to the front lines. Over contested air space Russian Su-27 derivatives will be mauled by the F-35. Russian SAMS can provide cover some 30-50 km from the front lines. But scanning in active mode will render them vulnerable to attack by anti-radiation missiles and glide bombs.

So the Russian air force will have to tightly follow the Russian army and not be able to project power any further. Russians will have to rely on their artillery.

The F-35 is kind of like the Polish Hussars of the 17th century. The Russians were fine were as long as they stuck to their defenses and barricades, but as soon as they sallied out to fight them on open ground they'd be butchered.

Though in fairness, similar fates befell Germans and Turks as well. The Hussars even mauled the Swedes repeatedly, the strongest army of that era.

The Russians certainly have a plan but its better to have an aircraft capable of fighting the F-35 head on.

Replies: @128

There are only 4 sources of Jet Engines
USA, UK, France and Russia
 

Replies: @128

I've wondered if the decline in testosterone might have afflicted peoples differently. For example, perhaps the physiological basis of ethnocentrism in Europeans is more dependent on testosterone than that of other groups.

But I think neo-Confucianism only goes so far. First, there is dysgenics and demographic collapse which is diminishing China's traditional competitive environment.

Then, one can make a comparison to Germany. Traditionally-speaking, Germany is geared very differently in education to America - it is very track and test dependent. The same amount of money is not thrown into higher education. The people who go to higher education are a much lesser percentage, and the average IQ in university students is likely higher than in America. Yet, it would be difficult to find a more cucked country.

Replies: @128, @Daniel Chieh

All the Taliban have to do is not lose and they win.

Here, perceptions count. The moment the US puppet regime falls, the US will be perceived as a defeated power, and more importantly, it will perceive itself as a defeated power. They have invested too much in victory.

Victory over Japan and Germany meant the creation of client states that controlled their national territory. For "the most powerful military in the world" to be unable to finish off a bunch of low-IQ barbarians is slowly, and very obviously, chipping away at America's sense of self-worth.

I am 56. I remember visiting the US with my parents before my father "came out" as a woman. We were vacationing in Hawaii when Saigon fell. The other hotel guests looked like they had had the life kicked out of them, but they still had more self-belief then that Americans do now.

Replies: @128, @BB753

India wouldn't be that big of an issue honestly. It would be like the Italian front of ww1. The entire Indo-Chinese border is inhospitable himalayas ridge. No offensive can break through it.

The Chinese can however easily overrun the seven sister provinces of India in the East.

Japan would be a deadly foe however. It has a phenomenal fleet and a capable air force.

Replies: @Rahan, @InnerCynic, @128

Replies: @128, @Anatoly Karlin

It’s quite interesting–do you think that Russia could have ever been brought into the Western bloc, Anatoly?
 

Then in circa 2006 there was a WSJ op-ed by a Russian elder statesman. I forget the name, but it was someone I recognized. He said he was baffled that the US was prosecuting a war on terror without trying to involve Russia. He saw several ways the two countries should be working together, but someone from the US needed to make the case. Russia was waiting, but the window was closing. It looks like Bush was still fighting the cold war.

There was our chance to forge close ties with Russia, and declare that in the 21st century we had a common enemy. Heck, we probably could have gotten China and India involved as well. Muslim terrorists have managed to piss off a lot of people. Sadly, it was not to be.

If I sound upset, it was because this line of reasoning occurred to me within ~60 seconds of people saying Iraq was going to be another Vietnam. It seemed obvious that we wouldn't be fighting another superpower in a proxy war, and could even get the regional powers on our side.

Replies: @128, @AltanBakshi, @Tor597

That seems to indicate that the Battle of France would have been a lot harder than it did in OTL?
 

Keeping in mind that France and Britain can basically bring every man they can get across to the Franco Belgian region, while Germany can not divert its entire army to the West.
 

Replies: @128, @128

That seems to indicate that the Battle of France would have been a lot harder than it did in OTL?
 

Keeping in mind that France and Britain can basically bring every man they can get across to the Franco Belgian region, while Germany can not divert its entire army to the West.
 

Replies: @128, @128

The first remark I’d make is that Jews are, in a sense, not that special. Any minority group excluded from political power will resent being excluded and will support outsiders, conquerors, revolutions, whatnot. It’s a human universal. The Romanian Communist Party in the 1930s had a number of ethnic Hungarian leaders (besides the usual Jews). The Hungarian communist party, in contrast, had Jewish and (to a smaller extent) ethnically German leadership. The ethnically Hungarian leaders were oddities, like Kádár, the later Hungarian general secretary, was born to a half-Slovak maid in Fiume, a largely Italian city, as a bastard child of a Hungarian soldier who he first met when he was already 48 years old and a dictator. He then grew up in great poverty (and being much smarter than most of his peers in poverty, he must’ve resented it a lot). Such people were bound to harbor resentment against the political system and society at large the same way ethnic minorities were resentful against the oppressive rule of the ethnic majority, and were likely to join utopian political movements.

Jews were only different for two reasons. One is their higher ethnocentrism and their culture already geared towards loathing the ethnic majority and its traditions. The other is their higher intelligence and organizational abilities, which make their role indispensable for those utopian movements, including wokeness.

When Lenin (25% Jewish, 0% Latvian) died, there were four leaders who eventually fought it out among themselves to replace him: Trotsky (100% Jewish, 0% Latvian), Stalin (100% Caucasian, probably all Georgian, 0% Latvian), Zinoviev (100% Jewish, 0% Latvian), and Kamenev (50% Jewish, 0% Latvian). By my count this is a group over 60% Jewish and just 0% Latvian. The proportion increases if you take wives into account.

As to the Latvian vote, it was obviously a protest vote for the only political party which promised Latvia the right of secession. If Russia was a province of the Chinese Empire, would you vote for Mao Zedong if he was the only one to promise Russian independence?

I think that while the Latvian role in the Bolshevik Revolution is a good retort to Latvian arguments about evil Russia, and it’s interesting to an extent, constantly bringing it up comes off as butthurt. Especially given how much bigger and stronger Russia is than Latvia, it really looks disproportionate.

Replies: @Svidomyatheart, @John Gruskos, @128

When the Japs were landing, they came under fire from one machine gun, until it jammed. Their landing was practically unopposed, even though it was fairly predictable where they would try to land.

MacArthur allowed the planes at Clarke Air Base to be clustered together, against the threat of sabotage.

MacArthur did quite well in Bataan later on
 

where the terrain favored him
 

Replies: @128

First mistake by French was giving Germans strategic initiative.

Mansteinplan was high risk high reward. The execution of Guderian, Rommel, et al was even riskier as after Ardennes breakthrough, their spearhead could have easily been cut off.

Better lucky than good. The French also had internal dissension between right wing and commies.

But Germans luck ran out in Russia first by delaying Barbarossa to bail out the Italians in Balkans. Then running into autumn mud season, then Stalins best generals January and February without winter gear.

In second part of Ostfront, Soviet generals really stepped up their game. It was not a foregone conclusion that Wehrmacht would get totally rolled back. After 3rd Battle of Kharkov they never again made the mistake of over-extending.

Replies: @128, @reiner Tor

I mean anyone who has a decent knowledge of military tactics would find it hard to seriously mess up a defence
 

Replies: @128

True. The Japanese army was qualitatively superior to the Soviets and perhaps even the Americans. They were very well led and incredibly fanatical and professional. But they lacked heavy equipment. No Japanese tank or artillery could put a dent in the T-34s and their ww1-era guns stood no chance before 105 mm soviet guns

Replies: @128, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

Replies: @128

Perhaps, Japan should try it to draw out the Hikikomori.

Replies: @128

IIRC Lynn's study of Mongolians in China found they had 5 points higher spatial IQ than neighboring Han Chinese, but 10 points lower verbal. However, he noted that Mongolians speak two languages, which may have hurt their verbal scores.

Replies: @128

Later estimate brings it down to 95, I think. Not necessarily the top Flynn-effect level, though.

Replies: @128, @Some Guy

Replies: @128, @Some Guy

Had America just minded its own bloody business and stayed out of war in 1917, Europe would have been a thousand times better off today. WW1 would have ended in a negotiated peace a year earlier and no renewal of the conflict 20 odd years later. American involvement in Europe has been a curse and disaster for Europeans.

Replies: @128

Some of this stuff may have been precipitated by demographic trends. South America has probably been becoming less white for quite a while.

Replies: @128

It is far more different. In the West you have inverted society - the locals must give up, and the migrant groups and basically everyone must be above them. The psychologically broken and cucked locals facilitate woke behaviors.

There is also WW2 effect (among other things) which causes the locals to try to prove how "good" they are.

In the Third World, it is Me First for all groups. No WW2 effect there. No one feels guilty for anything. And it is this selfishness exhibited by everyone which makes woke behaviors there less likely.

Replies: @128

AI filtering of their comments and harassment is more likely than "dungeon."

Replies: @128

Bolsonaro, Noem, and most definitely de Santis would be vanned straight into a work camp because they are Anti-China, and therefore pro ZOGSA/Trumpenstein/globohomo.

Replies: @128

No shit black nationalism and Afrocentrism will harm the development of African nations -- consider Rhodesia or South Africa. Already has in plenty of places.

Otherwise this comment is very good, but you don't elucidate how the two strands work with each other, which is that the former strand -- queer/feminism/LGBT -- always beats the latter strand when they conflict. This is because anybody who gets really into wokism is predominantly concerned about this strand (either because they are gay or because society has convinced them to care about this), while those who actually care about black culture go to black churches or rap or something. Whenever the latter conflicts with the former, everyone just pretends that it doesn't.

This is why Anatoly is right, incidentally. When wokeness spreads, it'll spread LGTB-ism wherever it goes. Because wokeness is a Western idea and Western ideas have the highest levels of memetic fitness (the idea Trubetskoy was gesturing towards, but didn't have), it will out-compete its competitors and spread, even in the Third World. (Hell, you already have trans politicians in Brazil and such.) Then it will reduce birth-rates. (His prognosis for the First World is optimistic -- I'd put more faith in direct genetic engineering than Amish/Haredi/Arkansas-Quiverfull breeder colonies if things end up working out; given France's experience I don't think selection on breeder traits happens very fast in practice -- but his prognosis for the Third World is spot on.)

Because Western societies are open -- there is no real censorship, someone here will complain about SJWs but no one will ever come to shut down Unz and it is very easy to find -- the most convincing-sounding ideas with the greatest memetic fitness will always be exported from Western societies to others. The idea that Iran or China or Africa can resist Western fashions in the long-term is bogus (even with high fertility, but then, Iran and China don't actually *have* high fertility). Xi can go ahead and try to build a functioning society if that's what he wants. Wokeness will eventually reach China too, and win there.

Replies: @silviosilver, @Boomthorkell, @Boomthorkell, @Coconuts, @128, @Passer by, @Jatt Aryaa

The reason why I say the West will be like Brazil and not Islamistan is because the huge wave of migrants to come will be Sub-Saharan Africans and not MENA people. See Steve Sailer's world's most important graph series.

Will the world continue? Yeah, I think it will. Performance will be degraded. But Brazil has electricity and internet just like everyone else.

Replies: @128, @Europe Europa