The new cold war with China

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I guess China is locked into the SJW narrative because that is the narrative now winning across the West, so they can just pile on and stroke it, they don't need to go against the grain. They're kind of taking a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, that of holding your opponents to their own rules.

They could have instead captured a large segment of red pilled people by pointing out that, for example, there won't be a mandatory covid vaccine in China, because their authorities have deemed it an unnecessary, and potentially harmful measure:

Not everyone in China will need to get vaccinated against Covid-19, according to the country's top medical official, as Beijing looks to prioritize frontline workers and high-risk populations in a move that underscores rising confidence among policy-makers of their ability to contain the virus. "Since the first wave of Covid-19 appeared in Wuhan, China has already survived the impact of Covid-19 several times," Gao Fu, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said at a vaccine summit in the city of Shenzhen on Saturday, according to state-run news agency China News Service.

The question of vaccinating the public was one of balancing "risks and benefits," he added, pointing to factors like cost and
potential side effects. There isn't currently a need for mass vaccination at this stage -- though that could change if another serious outbreak takes place, Gao said.
The policy marks China apart from many Western governments, most notably Australia, that have outlined plans to introduce mass public vaccination drives.


When was the last time you've heard a public official in the "Free World" talking about the side effect risks of vaccines, and taking that into account in their policies, instead of morbidly conditioning their masses through fear tactics?!? It's almost as if Chinese authorities were more concerned about the health of their citizens than our leaders and policymakers, who are in the deep pockets of big pharma, of the oligarch psychopaths and their minions like Fauci...

The plandemic control grid is about to tighten up on us, starting with mandatory vaccine programs enforced at every level of society through unprecedented digital biometric means, which will force you to get a string of vaccines in order to go to college, to send your kids to school, to attend a concert, a sports event, a shopping mall, a work conference if not to just go to most workplaces:




Meanwhile Chinese youth are free to party and live their lives unencumbered, while we might be headed to a dystopian dark winter with people like Ezekiel Emmanuel who want to cull the population, destroy small businesses and demoralize the population using the plandemic to destroy the country ("never let a crisis go to waste", as his brother Rahm said) running the show:

 

Troller

Kingfisher
China is an open air prison. China and CCP will be the biggest threat of the 21st century. I also believe it´s China who is subverting the west. Communism is a filthy ideology. There´s nothing to praise about China or the CCP. All China recent wealth is due to the gutting of the west industrial fabric. And I don´t praise that. I don´t praise western factories closing and western people going unemployed and driving Uber´s or any other worthless work in this sharing/communist society. I don´t praise chinese copying and stealing shamelessly all the developments made. China is a parasite country. You know what China is good at? Bribing and stealing. They have one good thing. There´s no bullshit.

The western companies are ruled by CEO´s who have no connection/love for the company. These CEO´s make cheaper goods in China. So they relocate factories to China. Receiving kickbacks. At the same time they bribe western politicians in accepting the delocalization to China. And afterwards allowing worthless shit to enter and saturate western markets. Sooner or later the chinese replicates the good he was hired to produce. And directly competes with the western company to whom they are supplying.

Chinese politicians with western CEO´s bribe western politicians for not complaining about the complete destruction of the industrial fabric of western countries. For the western CEO it´s a win/win. He will leave the company with stock options. And by then the company will be gutted and hollow. He just as to leave before the meltdown. In a shortsighted perspective he is a winner.

For chinese company they benefit by stealing/bribing/spying all the R&D which can cost millions for free. Besides slave labor it makes impossible for western companies to compete.

Imagine you´re writing a book. Hours of research. Travels to study. And the week before you publish a yellow demon steals your laptop and publishes it under his name. This is what China has been doing.

Who wins? The western company CEO who receives kickback and improves company metrics until the chinese company hired to produce the good start producing under their name. The western politician who receives bribes from the western CEO, chinese CEO and chinese politician.
Who gets screwed? Western population.

My gut feeling is China is also bribing western politicians for not allowing western companies to compete with chinese. It´s common in china. To bribe for competitors to be screwed.

These destructive spiral/cycle has been going on for some time. Western countries were so rich they could cope with the stealing. But the parasite is killing the host. And there´s a clear deterioration of western standards of living.

People who praise China should pack their shit and live there. They are traitors to west. They are traitors to every factory employee who got sacked. They want to live in the west but are praising another entity which wants their demise?

Trump is the first one to stand up to China. Imagine all the gigantic bags full of cash/gold bars he refused. I believe his strategy is wrong by only putting tariffs. What he should do is apply western standards to Chinese goods entering western countries and the ones who fail the test pay a gigantic fine or deny entry. Chinese investment in west should be allowed in non strategic sectors.
If there´s copyrights/quality issues how can it be sold in western markets?

Germans believe their goods are too advanced for the yellows to copy. They will be surprised.

A chinese is a negative in any society due to communist ideology.

 
Last edited:

Troller

Kingfisher

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
The problem with the "globalist" vs. "nationalist" argument is that people don't actually know what these terms mean.

Globalism isn't some nebulous economic system that loves trannies. Gays and Muslims and multiculturalism aren't agendas, they're tools used to destabilize certain populations and nations.

The actual goal of the "globalists" is one world government ruled by a small number of technocrats.

It's pretty obvious from that perspective how the largest, most openly technocratic government in human history, which is building a railway across half the planet and buying up property/businesses all over the world is a continuation of that agenda.

Not sure if I 100% agree. I think their motivations are less explained by ideology and more by practicality, and we are incorrectly attributing it to their compliance (or lack of) with some nefarious globalist agenda.

1) They are 1.4 billion people crowded onto limited arable land and have faced floods and famine throughout their history because they were operating at the Malthusian limit. Naturally they will want to expand and acquire more resources, just like every single powerful nation has done throughout all of human history. The U.S. was no exception.

2) They want to stay in power and have to control their population and gain face saving wins abroad and restore national prestige to do so.

3) Their people have a different cultural background and value set than those on the West. Individualism takes backseat to hierarchy and conformity.

As for nationalism, the CCP literally took power in China by defeating the Chinese Nationalist Party. They then supported anti-nationalist/anti-royalist coups and purges all over Southeast Asia, including in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Are the CCP more "nationalist" than, say, Macron in France? Sure. But if that's your only standard for "nationalism", the word really has no meaning.

And from that perspective, most of Asia is fairly "nationalist".

This was over 50 years ago, and in the last few decades there's been an explosion of interest in ancient history, a complete reversal of the cultural revolution. Nowadays there's increasingly xenophobic and anti-foreigner sentiment in society and their visa policy. I don't see anything they are doing that would decrease their sovereignty and subject it to some UN or Brussels bureaucrat.

But as I've pointed out before, China has completely humiliated and neutered Duterte, who was one of the most outspoken world leaders against the UN, EU, etc. The Vietnamese can't stand China. And how is China's relationship with Modi, who many were hailing as an "anti-globalist" figure?

In other words, "nationalist" China doesn't get along with any of their "nationalist" neighbors. Instead, they exploit and threaten them economically and militarily.

That's not nationalism. That's imperialism.

There is a very fine line between nationalism and imperialism. How would you define Germany's aggression in WW1 and WW2, or Japan in the 1930's? The current iteration of nationalism that we see in the U.S. is more inward looking, because for decades we've been inundated with invite the world/invade the world. However, the Chinese were never forced to accept mass immigration in exchange for imperialism so it would make more sense that they would be more adventurous.

They see the interests of Han seeking their liebenstraum take precedence over the dreams of some loudmouth dictator in a backwards shithole with valuable land. Seems like self interested nationalism to me.

Two nationalist countries can absolutely fight each other in a war. Just look at the Armenian - Azerbaijan conflict now. Has nothing to do with ideology - it's a pure nationalist conflict over land and ethnic separatism.

Even Russia, you'll notice, is not all that openly friendly with China, even when the West is doing everything possible to drive them into each other's arms. And while Russian relations with some of their neighbors, like Belarus and Ukraine, are complicated at times, you don't see nearly the same kind of open parasitism and hostility that you see from the Chinese in Southeast Asia, where they own 75%+ of every single country's economy.

No one is under any illusions that any Sino-Russian agreement is permanent. Parts of the Russian Far East were originally part of China till a series of conflicts in the 1600's. They even nearly went to nuclear war during the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960's, a major factor behind the U.S. later normalizing relations with China. Even to this day, Russians are pretty xenophobic and look down on the Chinese, while the Chinese do the same to them.

And regarding Chinese immigrants in SE Asia, they are a bit better assimilated in Thailand, but the average Chinese Han IQ is a standard deviation above that of the indigenous locals, it's inevitable that they would dominate their economies, especially adding network effects of diaspora connections. Russian IQ doesn't have the same gap with Belarus and Ukraine, plus Russia is relatively sparsely populated so there's no Malthusian trap for them to escape from to low IQ lands with fertile soil and populations easy to exploit. Ask anyone on this forum who has spent significant time in SE Asia and it's clear as day that there's a completely different work ethic between the Chinese descendants and the indigenous locals.

And you definitely don't see the social credit score, genetic modification, and other technocratic, anti-human BS in Russia on the same levels that you do in China. Why hasn't Putin set up "re-education" camps for Muslims in Chechnya, Dagestan, Central Asia, etc.? Is it because Putin is a "weak globalist cuck"? Or is it for another reason?

There was a major war in Chechnya but Putin was able to come to an understanding with Kadyrov to keep a handle on things. In terms of the technocratic stuff, partially would attribute that to a lower sense of individualism in China. The genetic stuff is hard to say - if you see my posts on other stuff I'm not 100% opposed to that and I wouldn't be surprised if the more secular minded folks on this forum supported soft eugenics.

So wait, is the forum now pro-Muslim all of a sudden? I could remember a year ago everyone was praising 'based' China for how they treated their Muslims and how the U.S. should shut up and stay out.

I don't know why we have to fall into either the pro-China or anti-China camp. They are a resource poor nation of high IQ hard workers who are hungry to regain their former power and will take advantage of the West to do so. Their rise is a clear conflict of interest with white Christians and most other nations that have resources to be plundered or industries to be usurped. You can acknowledge that they are pursuing their rational self interest, and also at the same time recognize them as a threat. This is the tragedy of great power politics and the cycle of human conflict that has dated back since before civilization.
 
Last edited:

Liberty Sea

Pelican
If you understand nationalism as the philosophical ideal honoring the right to national sovereignty and self-determination of all nations, then China is not truly nationalist. If you understand nationalism as the realpolitik will to advance national interest even at the expense of other nations, then China is nationalist.

It would be more correct to designate China as ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is a sub-branch of nationalism. China is the most ethnocentric nation in the world. They literally call themselves the central nation (zhongguo - 中國). They have, since ancient times, been viewing themselves as the center of the world, surrounded by barbarians (hua-yi distinction).

The modern Chinese state is the first mature fascist state. Communism is only a disguise that the Chinese stopped believing in. If Nazi Germany didn't go to war it would have possibly evolved into something quite similar to today's China. Do you call the Nazi technocratic globalists because they operated concentration camps with industrial rigour and far harsher than what's going on in Xinjiang?
 
Last edited:

Enigma

Hummingbird
Gold Member
@Arado
Not sure if I 100% agree. I think their motivations are less explained by ideology and more by practicality, and we are incorrectly attributing it to their compliance (or lack of) with some nefarious globalist agenda.

1) They are 1.4 billion people crowded onto limited arable land and have faced floods and famine throughout their history because they were operating at the Malthusian limit. Naturally they will want to expand and acquire more resources, just like every single powerful nation has done throughout all of human history. The U.S. was no exception.

That's what the "globalists" tell us their goal is. This includes people like David Rockefeller, who was incredibly influential in China's rise, and has explicitly laid this out in both speeches and his published Memoirs.

"But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure, one world if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


Brzezinski, who was also heavily involved in China and the head of the CFR, has said similar things, as have people like Kissinger.

As have dozens of other globalist figureheads over the past century. And we even see this playing out today with things like the "global reset".

That is the agenda. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not.

By the way, Malthusianism and eugenics were pushed by globalist groups, like the Royal Society. "Overpopulation" and other ideas are part of the globalist agenda. Not only do they want to literally depopulate the earth, it also gives them control through austerity measures, carbon taxes, etc.

And regarding Chinese immigrants in SE Asia, they are a bit better assimilated in Thailand, but the average Chinese Han IQ is a standard deviation above that of the indigenous locals, it's inevitable that they would dominate their economies, especially adding network effects of diaspora connections. Russian IQ doesn't have the same gap with Belarus and Ukraine, plus Russia is relatively sparsely populated so there's no Malthusian trap for them to escape from to low IQ lands with fertile soil and populations easy to exploit. Ask anyone on this forum who has spent significant time in SE Asia and it's clear as day that there's a completely different work ethic between the Chinese descendants and the indigenous locals.

1. Chinese "average" IQs are wildly inflated. Why would Russia and Ukraine have very similar IQs, as you pointed out, but China and Vietnam have 20 points difference? If you actually look at the numbers, it becomes an obvious farce.

Are they higher? Sure. But not the huge difference that would be necessary to account for the "adjusted" average in countries where there is huge direct and indirect Chinese ancestry, like Vietnam and Thailand.

And it's a fact that China only pulls test scores from the most educated individuals in the wealthiest regions of China.

2. Even from a historical perspective, Chinese have not prospered in business simply based on intelligence. Them being more business oriented is certainly a factor, but I don't take it as a given that being more business oriented makes one somehow superior. And I certainly don't believe that's justification for completely economically exploiting another people group in their own country.

How on earth can someone argue that they're "pro-nationalist" and yet think it's okay for a foreign people to control 90% of a country's economy just because their IQ is higher or they're better at banking?

Ironically, the same arguments made for the Chinese is the same one that's been made for Jews in the West for centuries. Your own arguments are used against you and you don't even realize it.

There was a major war in Chechnya but Putin was able to come to an understanding with Kadyrov to keep a handle on things. In terms of the technocratic stuff, partially would attribute that to a lower sense of individualism in China. The genetic stuff is hard to say - if you see my posts on other stuff I'm not 100% opposed to that and I wouldn't be surprised if the more secular minded folks on this forum supported soft eugenics.

So wait, is the forum now pro-Muslim all of a sudden? I could remember a year ago everyone was praising 'based' China for how they treated their Muslims and how the U.S. should shut up and stay out.

Do you realize this "forum" isn't a single person with a single worldview? This is really silly rhetoric, especially considering I've been consistently critical of China on this forum going back at least 5+ years.

I'm not "pro-Muslim". I'm against forcing someone to convert religions through coercive brainwashing, especially considering those brainwashing tactics were largely created by the globalists, have been used by globalists both in war and in propaganda, and have also been used against Christians in places like the Soviet Union, as I've already posted about in this thread.

As for genetic modification:

1. Genetic modification and transhumanism are part of the technocratic agenda.
2. Neither are compatible with traditional Christian anthropology.

Why would someone created in the image of God and who will live eternally in the afterlife need to gene mod their babies so they can live longer? Of course, you don't have to accept that.

But that's the thing. Most of the so-called anti-globalist crowd actually accepts most of the scientific materialist worldview. You can see that in your comparing a war against Muslims to brainwashing Muslims to become atheists in camps. These are two distinctly different things both in Christian theology and in Western philosophy for most of human history.

I brought up Russia specifically because they've had long-term conflicts with Muslims, much longer and more severe than China's, in fact, without using the same tactics China is.

As with the distinction I made about nationalism earlier, in most cases, most people won't even consider an actual traditionalist option, whether from a political or ethical perspective. Your choices are either super technocracy or soft technocracy.
 
Last edited:

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
So wait, is the forum now pro-Muslim all of a sudden? I could remember a year ago everyone was praising 'based' China for how they treated their Muslims and how the U.S. should shut up and stay out.

I don't think the globalists should be allowed to funnel millions upon millions of Muslims into the west. I also don't think it's right or just for the Chinese government to incarcerate millions of Muslims in Xinjiang for the crime of living in the same land their people have lived in for centuries.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
@Arado
That's what the "globalists" tell us their goal is. This includes people like David Rockefeller, who was incredibly influential in China's rise, and has explicitly laid this out in both speeches and his published Memoirs.

"But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure, one world if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


Brzezinski, who was also heavily involved in China and the head of the CFR, has said similar things, as have people like Kissinger.

As have dozens of other globalist figureheads over the past century. And we even see this playing out today with things like the "global reset".

That is the agenda. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not.

By the way, Malthusianism and eugenics were pushed by globalist groups, like the Royal Society. "Overpopulation" and other ideas are part of the globalist agenda. Not only do they want to literally depopulate the earth, it also gives them control through austerity measures, carbon taxes, etc.
Globalists generally shy away from discussions about pure conflict of interests clashes over resources. They tend to frame things in moral terms and use human rights and 'violating international norms' arguments against countries they don't like. In what way is China acceding to globalist demands and allowing non-Han to make decisions about the future of the Han people? I just don't see it.

I don't want to get off on a tangent, but malthusianism is alive and well. We just happened to have a massive burst in agricultural productivity mid century, combined with feminism and birth control that cut reproduction rates that decreased pressure on the food supply. But there can never be enough arable land - countries will always want more, there is never a downside to having an excess of arable land for your population. Humanity has always fought over arable land and resources, all animals fight over territory as well. After humanity is long gone, whatever replaces us will also fight over resources.
1. Chinese "average" IQs are wildly inflated. Why would Russia and Ukraine have very similar IQs, as you pointed out, but China and Vietnam have 20 points difference? If you actually look at the numbers, it becomes an obvious farce.

Are they higher? Sure. But not the huge difference that would be necessary to account for the "adjusted" average in countries where there is huge direct and indirect Chinese ancestry, like Vietnam and Thailand.

And it's a fact that China only pulls test scores from the most educated individuals in the wealthiest regions of China.
I would disagree here. It's true that PISA tests are generally pulled from the richest cities, but we are yet to see an example of a single Chinese diaspora community in the entire world that doesn't beat the local population in any IQ intensive competition. Ethnic Han that make up the majority population of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, and U.S. based Asian Americans crush the competition in the PISA exam. Chinese also dominate the U.S. Math Olympiad team.

Ukraine is the ethno origin of a large chunk of Russia's population and many Russians still view at least the eastern part of the country as fundamentally a part of Russia. If you did a genetic analysis on the population you would find MUCH more commonality between Ukrainians and Russians vs. if you analyzed a Han Chinese and some bargirl from Isaan thailand or a backwoods peasant in Philippines or Cambodia or Indonesia. Vietnam is a bit different - they've had much more genetic exchange with the Chinese and their IQ is likely higher than the other countries in SE Asia. Point being there is a clear genetic and personality/IQ difference between SE Asian indigenous and Han that give the latter a huge advantage.
2. Even from a historical perspective, Chinese have not prospered in business simply based on intelligence. Them being more business oriented is certainly a factor, but I don't take it as a given that being more business oriented makes one somehow superior. And I certainly don't believe that's justification for completely economically exploiting another people group in their own country.

How on earth can someone argue that they're "pro-nationalist" and yet think it's okay for a foreign people to control 90% of a country's economy just because their IQ is higher or they're better at banking?

Ironically, the same arguments made for the Chinese is the same one that's been made for Jews in the West for centuries. Your own arguments are used against you and you don't even realize it.
As Liberty Sea mentioned, I'm thinking of nationalism more as realpolitik to advance self interests rather than a commitment to sovereignty. If I was an ethno nationalist Han, I could give a crap about the sovereignty of some shithole in southeast Asia where the local population can't do much beyond basic agricultural, hospitality, prostitution, and low level manufacturing work. I would think it my natural right to dominate their economy. This is how most of the world thought before WW2. This is the same manifest destiny drive that led to the ethnic cleansing of the North American native population. No globalism or multiculturalism there - it's a pure drive to increase resources and territory. Totally natural. Can't compare to the Jews - the Chinese have built a giant largely successful economy back home and are just taking advantage of low hanging fruit in nearby countries because of the incompetence of the locals. If the West lost the Jews there wouldn't be close to the same impact as if the Chinese descendants disappeared from SE Asia - in that case all of the economies would collapse.

Do you realize this "forum" isn't a single person with a single worldview? This is really silly rhetoric, especially considering I've been consistently critical of China on this forum going back at least 5+ years.

I'm not "pro-Muslim". I'm against forcing someone to convert religions through coercive brainwashing, especially considering those brainwashing tactics were largely created by the globalists, have been used by globalists both in war and in propaganda, and have also been used against Christians in places like the Soviet Union, as I've already posted about in this thread.
That's fair, I'm just noting that there was a significant rooting for China's practices in Xinjiang on the forum and no one at the time thought that their practice as NWO dystopian. As long as the world is too weak or greedy to do anything about it, why wouldn't they want to forcefully assimilate a hostile group in order to more easily dominate the Xinjiang territory? Seems rational, though cruel, on their part. No Soros globalism required, just pure greed for territory and resources.
As for genetic modification:

1. Genetic modification and transhumanism are part of the technocratic agenda.
2. Neither are compatible with traditional Christian anthropology.

Why would someone created in the image of God and who will live eternally in the afterlife need to gene mod their babies so they can live longer? Of course, you don't have to accept that.

But that's the thing. Most of the so-called anti-globalist crowd actually accepts most of the scientific materialist worldview. You can see that in your comparing a war against Muslims to brainwashing Muslims to become atheists in camps. These are two distinctly different things both in Christian theology and in Western philosophy for most of human history.
I don't want to get off thread, but yes, genetic modification is part of the materialist worldview. I also break with the forum and am not 100% against Elon Musk's Neuralink either. I think humans have since the dawn of civilization tried to overcome their genetic limitations through technology and we are creating arbitrary lines where we think we'e crossed the line into 'playing God.'

My point was also that China will march forward in these techs and we can yell at them all we want that they are doing the devil's work and spoiling the afterlife, but they'll just laugh at us while they colonize the solar system, monopolize the Earth's resources, and develop doomsday weapons to take out the white Christian god-fearing nations. Keep advancing or prepare to be dominated/destroyed. China has a 5,000 year old civilization, why would they care what the Abrahamic religions have to say? Where were the Christians when England was forcing them to allow opium in? Where were the Christians during the Rape of Nanking?

Materialist and cynical? Perhaps, but tell that to the Native Americans who couldn't adapt, or the Neanderthals, or any other indigenous tribe that's been wiped out by stronger competition since time immemorial.
I brought up Russia specifically because they've had long-term conflicts with Muslims, much longer and more severe than China's, in fact, without using the same tactics China is.

As with the distinction I made about nationalism earlier, in most cases, most people won't even consider an actual traditionalist option, whether from a political or ethical perspective. Your choices are either super technocracy or soft technocracy.
I don't think you can perfectly compare Russia's relations with its Muslim minorities with how China is running it. Many countries struggle with this issue and no one has figured out the perfect solution. China is doing it in their own way, and the U.S. should be out and about criticizing it in order to gain the moral authority over China in the world community. But I don't think their practices are any indication of China's willingness to go along with the globalist agenda.

My main point is that white Christians should be against China's rise because of the natural clash of interests that will occur when China's hungry population seeks greater power in the world. We don't need any wacky theories about globalist control and we don't need to over-demonize the CCP. They are largely just pursuing the interests of their people. Those interests just happen to be contrary to the long term security and economic interests of the world's white Christian population.

I am looking at this through a Darwinist/materialist lens. I think it's more objective than trying to fit this into a moralistic or globalist/nationalist frame. You can't morally judge the CCP based on their conformity to a Christian ideal that's just simply not applicable to their historical experience.
 
Last edited:

Enigma

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I am looking at this through a Darwinist/materialist lens. I think it's more objective than trying to fit this into a moralistic or globalist/nationalist frame.

Yes, I know you are, and Darwinism and materialism are both retarded.

If materialism were true, for instance, you couldn't even be having this conversation right now, as neither consciousness and the self, nor the intellectual capacity for reasoning and logic, are material. This has been proven again and again by neuroscience.


This is just one of many, many ways in which materialism has been debunked over and over for centuries, both philosophically and scientifically.

But this is particularly relevant because it supports my original point: you have no actual understanding of traditional nationalist nor right wing political philosophy.

Because if you did, you'd know that almost every significant "right wing" thinker rejected materialism.

The Russian Slavophiles, which could generally include people like Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, rejected materialism. The Russian Eurasianists, including people like Dugin, reject materialism.

The traditionalists, like Guenon and Evola, rejected materialism. Heidegger and Hegel rejected materialism. The conservative Catholic thinkers, like Chesterton and Belloc and Wolfgang Smith, rejected materialism. Conservative Anglicans, like C.S. Lewis and T.S. Eliot, rejected materialism. The American agrarians rejected materialism.

Materialism is not only completely at odds with Christianity, it's totally incompatible with classical Western philosophy, most notably Plato and Aristotle.

And this also applies to traditional thinkers and religions in Asia. Even Confucianism isn't materialist, let alone Daoism and Buddhism. And if you actually read the response of political philosophers in Japan, China, Vietnam, etc. to Western ideas early in their interactions with Europe, they were also critical of materialism.

By the way, all of the above applies to both philosophical materialism, which posits that everything consists of base matter, and economic materialism.

And these conservative thinkers didn't just reject materialism offhand, they saw it as one of the main causes of decline and degeneration in Western society, whether it was Socrates arguing with the Sophists in Athens or Spengler tracing the Decline of the West.

You claim that my view is "moralistic" -- and yet you yourself are making moral claims.

Not only are you implying that pragmatism is right and should be followed, pragmatism is based on what "works". But how do we define that?

Is my nation destroying or enslaving every other nation on earth pragmatic? Why or why not? Is it better to improve as many people's lives as possible, thus providing good to the greatest number of people, or to kill off a bunch of people, so that the remaining population can have the greatest possible life?

It requires a value claim.

Even your implied values about the superiority of certain marks of civilization, like wealth and economic growth, are value judgements. Ones, I might add, that most traditionally right wing or conservative thinkers would disagree with.

The only difference is you, like all of the other liberals in history, have no valid justification for your claims, so you pretend that they're not necessary.

You want to tear down the Christian and Greco-Roman ethics that Western civilization is based on and replace them with your naive pragmatism on a whim, either not understanding or not caring what you're doing.

There's no point in us even squabbling about the particulars here because our worldviews are completely antithetical to each other.

You can't morally judge the CCP based on their conformity to a Christian ideal that's just simply not applicable to their historical experience.

So I, as a nationalist, who is "pragmatically" looking after the interests of my nation, can't make judgements about whether other nations' goals are compatible with that of my nations'?

This is completely incoherent.

And this is why all of the historic critiques cited above exist. Because your position is inconsistent and falls apart under basic scrutiny, destroying the possibility for truth in the process.

By the way, as I hinted above, I don't need to judge the CCP by the "Christian ideal". They aren't even compatible with pagan, Asian, or Chinese ideals.

How do you make an Imperial China operating under a Mandate of Heaven, ruled by an emperor who was mediator between heaven and earth in a maintaining of cosmic order, compatible with scientific materialism? You can't.

Which is why the communists and other materialists had to destroy the monarchy and traditional religion, both in China and all throughout Asia.

We don't need any wacky theories about globalist control and we don't need to over-demonize the CCP.

I quoted David Rockefeller directly, someone who was involved with China economically and politically for his entire life. But that's just a "wacky theory" because it doesn't jive with your modernist worldview.

In reality, it doesn't really matter what terms we use.

Is China a giant technocracy based on scientific materialism? Yes. Are these values incompatible with and ultimately a threat to traditional values, as posited by many of the thinkers and traditions I cited above? Yes.

Does this mean that I'm a proponent of "globohomo", want to nuke China, or any other of the typical strawmen that come out right about now? No.

It's really that simple.
 

Beaker

Robin
Yes, I know you are, and Darwinism and materialism are both retarded.

If materialism were true, for instance, you couldn't even be having this conversation right now, as neither consciousness and the self, nor the intellectual capacity for reasoning and logic, are material. This has been proven again and again by neuroscience.


This is just one of many, many ways in which materialism has been debunked over and over for centuries, both philosophically and scientifically.

But this is particularly relevant because it supports my original point: you have no actual understanding of traditional nationalist nor right wing political philosophy.

Because if you did, you'd know that almost every significant "right wing" thinker rejected materialism.

The Russian Slavophiles, which could generally include people like Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, rejected materialism. The Russian Eurasianists, including people like Dugin, reject materialism.

The traditionalists, like Guenon and Evola, rejected materialism. Heidegger and Hegel rejected materialism. The conservative Catholic thinkers, like Chesterton and Belloc and Wolfgang Smith, rejected materialism. Conservative Anglicans, like C.S. Lewis and T.S. Eliot, rejected materialism. The American agrarians rejected materialism.

Materialism is not only completely at odds with Christianity, it's totally incompatible with classical Western philosophy, most notably Plato and Aristotle.

And this also applies to traditional thinkers and religions in Asia. Even Confucianism isn't materialist, let alone Daoism and Buddhism. And if you actually read the response of political philosophers in Japan, China, Vietnam, etc. to Western ideas early in their interactions with Europe, they were also critical of materialism.

By the way, all of the above applies to both philosophical materialism, which posits that everything consists of base matter, and economic materialism.

And these conservative thinkers didn't just reject materialism offhand, they saw it as one of the main causes of decline and degeneration in Western society, whether it was Socrates arguing with the Sophists in Athens or Spengler tracing the Decline of the West.

You claim that my view is "moralistic" -- and yet you yourself are making moral claims.

Not only are you implying that pragmatism is right and should be followed, pragmatism is based on what "works". But how do we define that?

Is my nation destroying or enslaving every other nation on earth pragmatic? Why or why not? Is it better to improve as many people's lives as possible, thus providing good to the greatest number of people, or to kill off a bunch of people, so that the remaining population can have the greatest possible life?

It requires a value claim.

Even your implied values about the superiority of certain marks of civilization, like wealth and economic growth, are value judgements. Ones, I might add, that most traditionally right wing or conservative thinkers would disagree with.

The only difference is you, like all of the other liberals in history, have no valid justification for your claims, so you pretend that they're not necessary.

You want to tear down the Christian and Greco-Roman ethics that Western civilization is based on and replace them with your naive pragmatism on a whim, either not understanding or not caring what you're doing.

There's no point in us even squabbling about the particulars here because our worldviews are completely antithetical to each other.



So I, as a nationalist, who is "pragmatically" looking after the interests of my nation, can't make judgements about whether other nations' goals are compatible with that of my nations'?

This is completely incoherent.

And this is why all of the historic critiques cited above exist. Because your position is inconsistent and falls apart under basic scrutiny, destroying the possibility for truth in the process.

By the way, as I hinted above, I don't need to judge the CCP by the "Christian ideal". They aren't even compatible with pagan, Asian, or Chinese ideals.

How do you make an Imperial China operating under a Mandate of Heaven, ruled by an emperor who was mediator between heaven and earth in a maintaining of cosmic order, compatible with scientific materialism? You can't.

Which is why the communists and other materialists had to destroy the monarchy and traditional religion, both in China and all throughout Asia.



I quoted David Rockefeller directly, someone who was involved with China economically and politically for his entire life. But that's just a "wacky theory" because it doesn't jive with your modernist worldview.

In reality, it doesn't really matter what terms we use.

Is China a giant technocracy based on scientific materialism? Yes. Are these values incompatible with and ultimately a threat to traditional values, as posited by many of the thinkers and traditions I cited above? Yes.

Does this mean that I'm a proponent of "globohomo", want to nuke China, or any other of the typical strawmen that come out right about now? No.

It's really that simple.

The issue with nationalism is that if all nations follow its premise, war is inevitable. That's why there needs to be some sort of international cooperation, albeit not based on materialism. There is also no real issue with having minorities if they behave accordingly, and aren't fed propaganda that makes them not accept their place and turn power hungry. It's the same with women, they just need to accept their place and role in life.

No system will make your life better, this is the biggest lie; you are what you are, and intelligent, attractive people will do well in all regimes. As a lover of order, it would be great to have a society that follows it though. The merchants that run things now are not suited to impose order, they rose to the top through being materialists and have a lack of understanding.
 
Last edited:

Lunostrelki

Woodpecker
By the way, as I hinted above, I don't need to judge the CCP by the "Christian ideal". They aren't even compatible with pagan, Asian, or Chinese ideals.

How do you make an Imperial China operating under a Mandate of Heaven, ruled by an emperor who was mediator between heaven and earth in a maintaining of cosmic order, compatible with scientific materialism? You can't.

Which is why the communists and other materialists had to destroy the monarchy and traditional religion, both in China and all throughout Asia.
This. The CCP is anything but Chinese or restoring China to its former glory.

European philosophers were amazed by traditional Chinese culture and some even realized the Chinese possessed a natural religion that was compatible with Christian theology. The CCP destroyed all of that. Read the comments by "nationalist" CCP trolls on Quora and other places, you can see that they only believe in the Party-approved trappings of Chinese culture, such as wearing Han clothing, but not the essence. If the CCP were actually traditional, they would not have to keep their entire population under watch, incarcerate millions of people, harvest their organs, or keep indoctrinating them with atheism (including stories about Jesus being a murderer).

Communist China, like the Soviet Union, Paris Commune, and all other Marxist movements around the world, came from the same batch of conspirators in Enlightenment-era Europe whose influence we understand to be "globohomo."
 
Last edited:

the high

Woodpecker
Can't believe people are still shilling China with all that we've seen and found out this year. So what globohomo isn't fostering in China like it is in the West. That's just the deal China has worked out with the globalists. It's like when a criminal gets caught and works out a plea bargin with the prosecutor to rat out his accomplices. He gets probabtion they do hard time. That's why they are on the UN board condemning the US's racial inequality. Since when did the Chinese give a f about racial inequality? Doesn't even sound right coming from them.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
Yes, I know you are, and Darwinism and materialism are both retarded.
I think your post and mine show a pretty clear split in worldview and others on this thread can see which view resonates more with their view and which worldview is a more realistic picture of how humans and nations have interacted since the dawn of civilization. There are certainly some aspects of CCP behavior that are unnecessarily dystopian and disturbing and contrary to more traditional Chinese spiritual thinking, but they are much less extreme than they were during the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution. Even if it wasn't the CCP in charge now but rather the KMT I think we would still clash with them on many issues. These are issues that come down to pure clashes of interests rather than one side being immoral.

I'm certainly not "shilling" for China as I've warned about the massive threat they pose on this thread and many other threads multiple times. If anything, taking an overly ideological approach to analyzing them often underestimates the threat they pose - a Western or Christian centric approach makes observers think that the CCP is destined to fail and therefore doesn't merit serious attention in the West. I'm just saying that we need to look at them as their own beast with their own interests and civilization, and not rather than try to fit them into our Western cultural clashes.

Regardless of which of us is right on whether the CCP is an immoral tool of the globalists or pursuing the rational self-interest of Han supremacy, we will still have to figure out how to deal with Taiwan, China's growing technological might, thirst for resources, etc.
 
Last edited:
Arado wrote:
I don't want to get off thread, but yes, genetic modification is part of the materialist worldview. I also break with the forum and am not 100% against Elon Musk's Neuralink either. I think humans have since the dawn of civilization tried to overcome their genetic limitations through technology and we are creating arbitrary lines where we think we'e crossed the line into 'playing God.'

My point was also that China will march forward in these techs and we can yell at them all we want that they are doing the devil's work and spoiling the afterlife, but they'll just laugh at us while they colonize the solar system, monopolize the Earth's resources, and develop doomsday weapons to take out the white Christian god-fearing nations. Keep advancing or prepare to be dominated/destroyed. China has a 5,000 year old civilization, why would they care what the Abrahamic religions have to say? Where were the Christians when England was forcing them to allow opium in? Where were the Christians during the Rape of Nanking?

Materialist and cynical? Perhaps, but tell that to the Native Americans who couldn't adapt, or the Neanderthals, or any other indigenous tribe that's been wiped out by stronger competition since time immemorial.

Amen... I worry that the West and U.S. are so internally conflicted that China will be the dominant superpower of the world as our politicians and citizens get consumed with our culture wars. As our national vision and economic growth stagnate, they will be economically colonizing Africa, heavily investing in science and technology R&D, building an economy greater than the U.S. that can afford an equally good or better military, create a world class space program, and build a new silk road and other major global projects to create a flourishing economy.

We have always just assumed democracy is the best system that is bound to triumph. But ours has become flawed due to special interests/lobbyists, short political attention spans for longterm planning and goals due to the election cycle, economic inequality that only grows larger, corruption, etc.,... China's politburo and top down command structure can be very unwieldy and corrupt at times, and they have weak respect for the rights of their citizens, but when their senior leaders choose to act, they can as one swiftly allocate *huge* amounts of resources to greatly expand and upgrade the military, build gigantic research and development centers of learning, put men on the Moon and beyond, and whatever else they put their mind to do. It is done without the time consuming massive debate and lack of will that often holds back such major decisions in the West.

But America seems to operate best when facing a monstrous threat to it's national security. And China is most certainly that threat! Already, the U.S. Navy and Marines have publicly identified the challenge, and are asking for major budget increases to prepare for what may be coming, possibly before this decade is over. China's soft and hard power will slowly but steadily over the decades enchain us, unless we fully wake up, and take serious intelligent longterm action to protect our interests and those of our global allies. We need India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and other regional powers to collectively help us to contain China's growing influence. We just cannot do it on our own, especially as the century goes on and China's economy eclipses ours. This will be a challenge that will dwarf even our legendary cold war with the now defunct Soviet Union. China is proving to be a much savvier, intelligent and resourceful rival for world dominance. I hope their government mellows out or has a regime change, but that may never happen.
 

Transsimian

Ostrich
Gold Member
Joe Biden has consistently downplayed China and dismissed its intentions and goals. In May of 2019, Biden told supporters that China poses no economic threat to the United States, despite the fact that it has stolen American manufacturing jobs and intellectual property for decades, allowing it to become the world’s second-largest economy.
“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us,” Biden told the audience in Iowa. Leaders in both parties found his comments appalling.
 
Top