International Events IX: I feel like a mushroom

[SeanF]

On 8/13/2022 at 8:45 AM, Heartofice said:

This is really horrendous. Just imagine spending so many years having that over your head and then someone finally gets to you. Looks like if he does survive he’s losing a lot of bodily function.

This is pure evil.

It boils my piss to encounter people online who argue that Rushdie and others had it coming, for being “provocative.”

It’s like arguing that women who get raped while wearing revealing clothing provoked their assailant.

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

The snippets I have seen and read all mentioned 'Evergrande.' However, they were all sensational in nature, which makes me suspicious of exaggeration on the part of those sources.  If given any credibility, this, combined with the likes of climate change and peak oil (yes, that is still an issue) would have an ugly effect on global civilization, not merely China. Yet, what I had to go on, to me, looked like hype. 

ThinkerX — yes, agreed there’s a sensationalism to the videos I’ve watched. I’m not doubting your reluctance to believe the hype; although it’s a real crisis, the PRC has the will and capacity to pacify it (imo).

It’s the situation itself that I find amusing, and exciting!!! After having participated through it personally in the US, I want to see how the PRC resolves it.

And you bring up (insightfully, to your credit) a key concern of mine, too; (not the climate or peak oil, but) de-globalization as a consequence to what increasingly seems to be the US/Russia/PRC leading the world toward a New(ish) World Order 2030 (NishWO2030).

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It boils my piss to encounter people online who argue that Rushdie and others had it coming, for being “provocative.”

It’s like arguing that women who get raped while wearing revealing clothing provoked their assailant.

This has been happening ever since he released his book, there has always been a significant number of people who basically take the side of fanatical religious extremists, the same thing happened after Charlie Hebdo too.

[ThinkerX]

26 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

ThinkerX — yes, agreed there’s a sensationalism to the videos I’ve watched. I’m not doubting your reluctance to believe the hype; although it’s a real crisis, the PRC has the will and capacity to pacify it (imo).

It’s the situation itself that I find amusing, and exciting!!! After having participated through it personally in the US, I want to see how the PRC resolves it.

And you bring up (insightfully, to your credit) a key concern of mine, too; (not the climate or peak oil, but) de-globalization as a consequence to what increasingly seems to be the US/Russia/PRC leading the world toward a New(ish) World Order 2030 (NishWO2030).

As I stated once or twice in the Ukrainian threads, I have a growing suspicion that one of the major stories of 2023 or 2024 will be the downfall of Putin and Defacto breakup of Russia proper - combination kleptocracy, economic catastrophe, and unrest in the outlying regions, Not 'probable,' but possible enough to warrant alarm bells going off...somewhere. 

 

Add in China going through an economic meltdown, and...

 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

The snippets I have seen and read all mentioned 'Evergrande.' However, they were all sensational in nature, which makes me suspicious of exaggeration on the part of those sources.  If given any credibility, this, combined with the likes of climate change and peak oil (yes, that is still an issue) would have an ugly effect on global civilization, not merely China. Yet, what I had to go on, to me, looked like hype. 

There are certainly plenty of people who want China to have a property fail. After all, if China builds a shit tonne of white elephants as busy work and doesn't suffer economically from it that's not a good look, either for countries that say they can't invent jobs for people, but also it's an incredible waste to consume a whole lot of resources that will not get used for the purpose for which they were consumed.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It boils my piss to encounter people online who argue that Rushdie and others had it coming, for being “provocative.”

It’s like arguing that women who get raped while wearing revealing clothing provoked their assailant.

I don't agree there is a parallel.

Women's clothing choices are not intentional provocation of men's sexual lusts and sense of entitlement over women's bodies. Whereas writing books that make people look bad, or drawing cartoons intended to offend are deliberately provocative, and aiming that provocation at people who you know beforehand are violently unhinged surely yields a predictable reaction. In the case of Charlie Hebdo I would not be surprised if they were hoping for a reaction from extremists in the Islamic community.

Political provocateurs are not naive innocents and they know they are poking a bear specifically to see what happens. Women who get raped are not provocateurs, and they are not setting out to poke a sexually dangerous bear when they put a dress on. Where there is somewhat of a parallel is that in neither case do they deserve, or have it coming, the violence and violation that happens.

I see Charlie Hebdo, perhaps not so much Salman Rushdie, as more like Nancy Pelosi going to Taiwan, and then people acting all surprised that China reacted, as if China reacting was not entirely predictable (and warned of by China in advance), to be  expected and, IMO, a reaction by China being an intended outcome of the visit; to see how much this amount of poking of the bear would do.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't agree there is a parallel.

Women's clothing choices are not intentional provocation of men's sexual lusts and sense of entitlement over women's bodies. Whereas writing books that make people look bad, or drawing cartoons intended to offend are deliberately provocative, and aiming that provocation at people who you know beforehand are violently unhinged surely yields a predictable reaction. In the case of Charlie Hebdo I would not be surprised if they were hoping for a reaction from extremists in the Islamic community.

Political provocateurs are not naive innocents and they know they are poking a bear specifically to see what happens. Women who get raped are not provocateurs, and they are not setting out to poke a sexually dangerous bear when they put a dress on. Where there is somewhat of a parallel is that in neither case do they deserve, or have it coming, the violence and violation that happens.

I see Charlie Hebdo, perhaps not so much Salman Rushdie, as more like Nancy Pelosi going to Taiwan, and then people acting all surprised that China reacted, as if China reacting was not entirely predictable (and warned of by China in advance), to be  expected and, IMO, a reaction by China being an intended outcome of the visit; to see how much this amount of poking of the bear would do.

I’m quite certain that more than one sexual assailant would disagree with that analysis. He would say that the woman was “asking for it.”

[Heartofice]

21 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

I see Charlie Hebdo, perhaps not so much Salman Rushdie, as more like Nancy Pelosi going to Taiwan, and then people acting all surprised that China reacted, as if China reacting was not entirely predictable (and warned of by China in advance), to be  expected and, IMO, a reaction by China being an intended outcome of the visit; to see how much this amount of poking of the bear would do.

Nothing justifies the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

And you bring up (insightfully, to your credit) a key concern of mine, too; (not the climate or peak oil, but) de-globalization as a consequence to what increasingly seems to be the US/Russia/PRC leading the world toward a New(ish) World Order 2030 (NishWO2030).

Russia is too poor, too incapable of forging diplomatic relationships and too economically illiterate to lead the world in anything. The sole reasons anybody paid much attention to them were their nukes and their very large military, and the latter is currently being ground into fine powder in Ukraine.

I think deglobilisation is happening in certain key sectors - the US term is "onshoring" and in some respects makes a lot of sense, like rebuilding the native US chip-building and superconductor industries they allowed to stagnate in the 1990s. Total deglobilisation is unlikely and impossible though, it's just not viable for countries to go back to creating everything they need in each country.

[JoannaL]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't agree there is a parallel.

 

I see Charlie Hebdo, perhaps not so much Salman Rushdie, as more like Nancy Pelosi going to Taiwan, and then people acting all surprised that China reacted, as if China reacting was not entirely predictable (and warned of by China in advance), to be  expected and, IMO, a reaction by China being an intended outcome of the visit; to see how much this amount of poking of the bear would do.

No, you may think it provocative, but I think they were heros,  activly fighting for the right to find things ridiculous. Their death has shown us all that we have lost that right. The parallel to the woman clothing and rape is correct but not far enough. This is about a woman fighting for her right to go on the streets in clothing that she likes even if there are rules to have a certain way of clothing. And this womans fight ends with her rape. we should be much more enraged than we are

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Russia is too poor, too incapable of forging diplomatic relationships and too economically illiterate to lead the world in anything. The sole reasons anybody paid much attention to them were their nukes and their very large military, and the latter is currently being ground into fine powder in Ukraine.

I think deglobilisation is happening in certain key sectors - the US term is "onshoring" and in some respects makes a lot of sense, like rebuilding the native US chip-building and superconductor industries they allowed to stagnate in the 1990s. Total deglobilisation is unlikely and impossible though, it's just not viable for countries to go back to creating everything they need in each country.

Werthead — I appreciate your response, but you’re misreading context. When I say Russia is playing a part in leading the world toward an evolved global framework, it’s not in the direction of progression, but regression (politically, economically, and militarily). This is self-evident given the downward trajectory of global conditions today.

I do agree the world probably won’t see total deglobalization unless some of the great powers leads (again, in negative context) the world toward global nuclear war or some other type of irrevocable global disaster. Amusingly, the Doomsday Clock claims we’re at 100 seconds to midnight, which I think is the closest we’ve come to global catastrophe; it was 17 minutes in 1991, the year the USSR dissolved.

[Ran]

I don't think you can call regression evolution. Devolution would be the correct term.

[Wade1865]

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't think you can call regression evolution. Devolution would be the correct term.

Ran — it seems right, and I hate to get into semantics, but…

Evolution doesn’t always result in progression, does it? Evolution can result in a regression, too. I believe there’s such a thing as regressive evolution — within the context of air combat power, consider the senility of a specific weapons platform. For example, when a single manned fighter is no longer cost- and combat-effective against a swarm of cheap, unmanned drones, we’ll see regressive evolution in action, in the form of the pilot and cockpit removed; i.e., the loss of useless characteristics gradually over time. Or, maybe, the four-butt monkey?

[DMC]

Just because Russia is entirely "de-globalizing" doesn't mean globalization is on a downswing.  Indeed, their invasion has arguably helped in that regard.

[Wade1865]

48 minutes ago, DMC said:

Just because Russia is entirely "de-globalizing" doesn't mean globalization is on a downswing.  Indeed, their invasion has arguably helped in that regard.

DMC -- it certainly does, especially given Russia’s proven outsized impact on the world. And this trend doesn’t start and stop with Russia.

Deglobalization indicates a regression, or a return to a former or less developed state [politically, economically, military]. Where globalization is integration, deglobalization is disintegration; where globalization is centralization, deglobalization is decentralization; where globalization is internationalism, deglobalization is regionalism; and, where globalization is uniting, deglobalization is dividing.

Returning to your point, Russia is not the insignificant country you think She is, but has decisively impacted the world, and well above its weight. For example, in consequence to the Russian [military] invasion of Ukraine, the world moved toward deglobalization in terms of increased [political] disintegration between the West and Russia, manifesting in greater regional fracture, and [military] armed conflict and militarization.

Moreover, in consequence to the Western [economic] response of severe sanctioning, the world again moved further toward deglobalization in terms of [economic] disintegration as manifested in an energy crisis, resulting in skyrocketing costs and increased barriers to commerce.

In addition to Russia, another example is the PRC’s clarified intentions toward Chaiwan. Compared to Russia in the Ukraine, the move towards deglobalization will be even more pronounced when the PRC invades the island sometime in the next 8 years. Add in the BRICS’s desire for a stronger alternative world reserve currency, and you’ll see a concerted effort that cannot help but further move the world toward deglobalization.

So, the question is, why? Why would Russia, the PRC, and even the rest of the BRICS risk the negative effects of deglobalization (i.e., disintegration, decentralization, regionalism, and division)? Because it’s necessary, as a collateral consequence, in their intent to reorient their perceived oppressiveness of the US-dominant world order into something more conducive to their goals.

Ultimately, it’s a gambit; although Russia failed in the Ukraine, the effects of deglobalization remain. The rest of this drama is bound up with the PRC; how far will She go, and will She fail or succeed? In my opinion, the PRC will attempt a reorientation but will also fail. The end-state will be realized, after another war or two, in the Newish World Order 2030 (NishWO 2030) where we will see the US retain dominance despite an increasing decline for Her and the West. Once NishWO 2030 has settled, the US and Allies will again move the world towards reglobalization.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

DMC -- it certainly does, especially given Russia’s proven outsized impact on the world. And this trend doesn’t start and stop with Russia.

Deglobalization indicates a regression, or a return to a former or less developed state [politically, economically, military]. Where globalization is integration, deglobalization is disintegration; where globalization is centralization, deglobalization is decentralization; where globalization is internationalism, deglobalization is regionalism; and, where globalization is uniting, deglobalization is dividing.

Returning to your point, Russia is not the insignificant country you think She is, but has decisively impacted the world, and well above its weight. For example, in consequence to the Russian [military] invasion of Ukraine, the world moved toward deglobalization in terms of increased [political] disintegration between the West and Russia, manifesting in greater regional fracture, and [military] armed conflict and militarization.

Moreover, in consequence to the Western [economic] response of severe sanctioning, the world again moved further toward deglobalization in terms of [economic] disintegration as manifested in an energy crisis, resulting in skyrocketing costs and increased barriers to commerce.

In addition to Russia, another example is the PRC’s clarified intentions toward Chaiwan. Compared to Russia in the Ukraine, the move towards deglobalization will be even more pronounced when the PRC invades the island sometime in the next 8 years. Add in the BRICS’s desire for a stronger alternative world reserve currency, and you’ll see a concerted effort that cannot help but further move the world toward deglobalization.

So, the question is, why? Why would Russia, the PRC, and even the rest of the BRICS risk the negative effects of deglobalization (i.e., disintegration, decentralization, regionalism, and division)? Because it’s necessary, as a collateral consequence, in their intent to reorient their perceived oppressiveness of the US-dominant world order into something more conducive to their goals.

Ultimately, it’s a gambit; although Russia failed in the Ukraine, the effects of deglobalization remain. The rest of this drama is bound up with the PRC; how far will She go, and will She fail or succeed? In my opinion, the PRC will attempt a reorientation but will also fail. The end-state will be realized, after another war or two, in the Newish World Order 2030 (NishWO 2030) where we will see the US retain dominance despite an increasing decline for Her and the West. Once NishWO 2030 has settled, the US and Allies will again move the world towards reglobalization.

In the northern hemisphere, there has been a definite dissolution of whatever was left of the bi-polar cold war world.  Former soviet states have not come to Russia's aid, because they are part of a global network now.   I can't see how that's reduced globalization.  It's a pretty clear increase in the interdependence of trade at the very least.

One country has iced itself out, while the bulk of [its] former client states are operating more independently and not dependent on it for trade and military support.  

Eta: mostly unrelated, but today is the anniversary of the coup that deposed Mossadegh in 1953, a decisive victory for US (and British, credit where credit is due) oil interests over democracy!

[Wade1865]

15 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

In the northern hemisphere, there has been a definite dissolution of whatever was left of the bi-polar cold war world.  Former soviet states have not come to Russia's aid, because they are part of a global network now.   I can't see how that's reduced globalization.  It's a pretty clear increase in the interdependence of trade at the very least.

One country has iced itself out, while the bulk of [its] former client states are operating more independently and not dependent on it for trade and military support.  

Larry of the Lake -- without assessing each example, I couldn't disagree that some (if not all) of the post-Soviet countries have globalized to some degree, leading to a net increase in globalization under its prime driver, the US-dominant world order. Moreover, I couldn't disagree that the world reached peak globalization just before Russia invaded Ukraine. Since then, however, Russia has been leading the world toward deglobalization (politically, economically, militarily; see my examples and its effects in my previous post).

Deglobalization isn't the end-state of Russia, however; but, a collateral consequence of Her drive to curtail the constraints of the US-dominant world order, and reorient it into something more conducive to Her success (national power). Couple this with the PRC's certain (eventual) invasion of Chaiwan, and the growth of a competing organization known as the BRICS, and there will be further deglobalization before the US-dominant world order can halt deglobalization, control Her detractors, and restore globalization (in Her image).

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

mostly unrelated, but today is the anniversary of the coup that deposed Mossadegh in 1953, a decisive victory for US (and British, credit where credit is due) oil interests over democracy!

Larry of the Lake -- The oil must flow

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 8/18/2022 at 5:53 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't agree there is a parallel.

Women's clothing choices are not intentional provocation of men's sexual lusts and sense of entitlement over women's bodies. Whereas writing books that make people look bad, or drawing cartoons intended to offend are deliberately provocative, and aiming that provocation at people who you know beforehand are violently unhinged surely yields a predictable reaction. In the case of Charlie Hebdo I would not be surprised if they were hoping for a reaction from extremists in the Islamic community.

Political provocateurs are not naive innocents and they know they are poking a bear specifically to see what happens. Women who get raped are not provocateurs, and they are not setting out to poke a sexually dangerous bear when they put a dress on. Where there is somewhat of a parallel is that in neither case do they deserve, or have it coming, the violence and violation that happens.

I see Charlie Hebdo, perhaps not so much Salman Rushdie, as more like Nancy Pelosi going to Taiwan, and then people acting all surprised that China reacted, as if China reacting was not entirely predictable (and warned of by China in advance), to be  expected and, IMO, a reaction by China being an intended outcome of the visit; to see how much this amount of poking of the bear would do.

Horse shit.  No words justify physical attack like Salaman Rushdie suffered.  None.  
 

If someone wiped their ass with consecrated communion vestments there is no justification for violence against that person.

[Clueless Northman]

On 8/18/2022 at 11:53 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

I see Charlie Hebdo, perhaps not so much Salman Rushdie, as more like Nancy Pelosi going to Taiwan, and then people acting all surprised that China reacted, as if China reacting was not entirely predictable (and warned of by China in advance), to be  expected and, IMO, a reaction by China being an intended outcome of the visit; to see how much this amount of poking of the bear would do.

That comparison would stand if Charlie cartoonists went to Egypt or UAE and displayed their stuff there. Thing is, they did it in France. Not to mention first that their cartoons were made in reaction to a very long series of ridiculous islamists' complaints, protests and violences, and second, that their Muhammed/Islam cartoons were actually ridiculously mild compared to their French politics or Catholic Church / Pope cartoons. I mean, they didn't draw Muhammed sodomizing young kids, which was quite a common occurrence when they dealt with the Church.