A. I think TLOZ has a point about how stale peace contributes to the feminization of America and the West. However I think he exaggerate its role in this feminizing process.
I disagree that there is nothing more. Two other major factors come to mind.
a. Biochemical: As Roosh said in his blog post, the current feminization cannot be solely explained by social condition. Exposure to various Endocrine Disrupting Agents is a major contributing cause. Men's testosterone level won't magically raise to premodern level just because they are under combat pressure. Some improvement in T-level may happen under threat, but it may be insufficient and short-lived.
b. Ideological progression: Our current feminization is not the same as those caused mainly by stale peace in past civilizations. New elements factored in. EDAs are one thing. Another is how our predominant ideology has changed. Most important is the problematic doctrine of human right - the ideological basis of social justice activism - which I had addressed elsewhere.
The doctrine of natural human right is ontologically incompatible with a naturalistic worldview. If you believe that there is no God or divine authority, then you cannot ground human right in the natural order of the world. There is no basis for human right in the laws of physics. It entails that human right is nothing more than a social construct - equal right especially so. Nature isn't equal, and it doesn't care about your right. It only cares about your might and fertility. That some atheists still believe in the objective existence of human right inscribed in some objective moral world order betrays nothing more than the fact that people can simultaneously uphold two contradictory, inconsistent ideas.
This ideology of human right as natural right, however, is enshrined in the US constitution. It is considered self-evident and unquestionable. To deny it would be to reject the very foundation of the US itself.
For a while the early rulers of the US conveniently ignored the logical implication of the doctrine that 'All men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights' for the sake of practical prudence, and hence denied the right to vote of women and the equal standing of blacks. But over time these contractions became clear and impossible to ignore and suppress. That women and minorities must be able to vote are simply the logical conclusion of this doctrine. As Susan B. Anthony put it, Are women persons? They undoubtedly are, so they must be able to vote.
The thing about human right is that, once something has come to be considered a human right, then enacting it becomes a categorical imperative rather than a matter of practical expedience. It ought to be done because it is the right thing to do, and whether it is practical is irrelevant. That is what right is about. It is supposed to be deontological, inviolable and inalienable.
And once society has come to perceive a certain group as possessing personhood and human right, then it's practically impossible to reverse this process without abandoning the sociopolitical framework of human right, without rejecting the very basis of legitimacy of the system itself.
Western society has been increasingly moving left socially since WWII. Partly, and importantly, because social progressivism is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of human right - which inevitably becomes more and more developed, elaborate and encompassing as intellectual/academic activities and activism develop in liberal, affluent societies. Under the spell of this doctrine, society must become increasingly 'inclusive', perceived dehumanization and subhumanization of any group even in the slightest degree become increasingly demonized, more and more rights are recognized - the sphere of human rights inevitably expands over time, and the West burdens itself with more and more shackles, more and more subjecting itself to this 'tyranny of human right'.
Same sex marriage has been recognized as a human right. Many other decadent and feminizing practices will also be recognized as inviolable human rights. Even if the US is nuked, the voting right of women won't be revoked, because doing so would be considered dehumanizing women. Likewise, things same sex marriage won't become illegal. The US may regain a bit of masculinity after the war, but then feminization will be back on its feet quickly, and faster than before.
So, I think the idea that this feminizing process of the Western world can simply be reserved by a major war is naive. Our current society is different from past civilizations in some very fundamental aspects. Even if backroom dealings have great influence on political decision-making, that still doesn't change the important fact that the framework of what constitutes Legitimacy has significantly changed, more acutely in the West than anywhere else - which put definite constraints on public policy and legal decision-makings, resulting in real social changes. This change is more or less organic after the introduction of the concept of human right in the West, and there can be no simple/natural return to the past (in which women can't vote and gays can't marry and so on).
In countries that remains opposed to Western values, such as China, the idea of human right has not taken deep root. People there still take it very superficially. 'Violating human right' sounds horrific and utterly heinous to people in the West, but does not offend ordinary people elsewhere nearly to the same extent. China government in particular takes the red pill view that human rights are socially determined, and it has the right the determine what is human right and what is not in accordance with its practical interest. Some might quibble that the Chinese are 'spiritually barren' in their ruthless pragmatism, materialistic greed and relentless drive upward, desiring ever more wealth and power and status - but how exactly does that put them at a disadvantage in a race for technological and military superiority is unclear.
Usually, when a civilization undergoes feminization, as a result of prosperous stale peace or something else, it does not get back up but collapse within itself and get taken out by barbarian outsiders. How can we sure that the US will escape this fate and that the cold, brutal, 'spiritually barren' Chinese 'technocratic thugs' won't take upon this barbarian role? The barbarians won against rotting civilization not because they are 'morally superior' or more sustained by 'moral structure born of civilized values', but because they are more brutal, more motivated and energetic, more in touch with their primal instincts. After winning they may become more civilized, and become the new bearer of moral standard.
(This is in reference to Quintus Curtius's musing that "China, for all of its supposed economic “prowess,” will never be a truly great global power. Man needs a spiritual center, a moral structure born of civilized values, to sustain him. Without this, he is nothing but an avaricious barbarian.")
B. It's far from obvious that the US will prevail in a nuclear exchange with China by the time it actually happens. Nothing ensures that the US will maintain its technological and thereby military superiority forever, or even by the time the war happens.
a. China is increasing its nuclear power. It's very probable that its nuclear stockpile will surpass America's at some point.
Study: U.S. "Losing Ground" To Russia And China On Nuclear Power
China's national Academy of Sciences recently announced that it just made a Technological Breakthrough That Raises Nuclear Fuel Utilization Rate: below 1% to 95%.
b. China leads in supercomputing. It has two of the world's fastest supercomputers, and is expected to complete world's first exascale supercomputer this year.
NSA, DOE say China's supercomputing advances put U.S. at risk
Chinese supercomputers threaten U.S. security
With China producing 4.7 million STEM graduates each year, the US probably won't be able to close this gap in supercomputing power any time soon with only 0.5 million STEM graduates each year, a significant portion of which are international students. In fact, it's more likely that the gap will widen.
China's missile defense is strong and will get stronger as it makes more technological advances, which has been its focus in the couple of recent years.
What this all pose for future nuclear warfare is highly complex and beyond our ability to predict. The anxious assumption of knowledge in this domain reflects the fear and prejudice of the predictors![[Image: smile.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/smile.gif)
.
One thing to keep in mind is that China has 4 times the population of the US. If each side manages to kill 300 million lives of the other side by nuke, then China would still be fundamentally strong while the US would be crippled. (While China has a demographic problem, as an authoritarian regime it is equipped with far more tools to solve this problem than democracies like Japan and the US)
C. It's not even certain that the war will happen in the foreseeable future.
And how exactly will the trained engineers who run Beijing misestimate the technological and military capacity balance/dynamics between the two, while the lawyers who run Washington won't?
--
China is an authoritarian bureaucracy. The decision making of the technocratic elites won't be swayed by hotheaded young men demonstrating on the street. They call for rational patriotism, which shows they know very well that direct conflict is not their desired optimal outcomes.
The Belt and Roads initiative indicate that they plans to expand their influence peacefully. They need their neighbors to co-operate with them to carry it out smoothly. Even the Vietnamese government has mostly smoothed out with China on the South China Sea disputes - both sides prefer to maintain the status quo rather than escalating conflicts.
China has been wooing countries that was frustrated by Trump leaving the TPP and Paris accord. It's also widening its friend circle through OBOR. We can expect its allies to increase in the future.
Considering the huge risk of nuclear warfare, I hope it won't happen and don't expect it will, at least in the foreseeable future.
Quote:Quote:
All the phenomena of cultural decline that are so frequently documented on this forum and elsewhere are nothing more than a direct consequence of the idiocy, distraction, and concentration on trivia, that characterize the late, stale peace.
I disagree that there is nothing more. Two other major factors come to mind.
a. Biochemical: As Roosh said in his blog post, the current feminization cannot be solely explained by social condition. Exposure to various Endocrine Disrupting Agents is a major contributing cause. Men's testosterone level won't magically raise to premodern level just because they are under combat pressure. Some improvement in T-level may happen under threat, but it may be insufficient and short-lived.
b. Ideological progression: Our current feminization is not the same as those caused mainly by stale peace in past civilizations. New elements factored in. EDAs are one thing. Another is how our predominant ideology has changed. Most important is the problematic doctrine of human right - the ideological basis of social justice activism - which I had addressed elsewhere.
The doctrine of natural human right is ontologically incompatible with a naturalistic worldview. If you believe that there is no God or divine authority, then you cannot ground human right in the natural order of the world. There is no basis for human right in the laws of physics. It entails that human right is nothing more than a social construct - equal right especially so. Nature isn't equal, and it doesn't care about your right. It only cares about your might and fertility. That some atheists still believe in the objective existence of human right inscribed in some objective moral world order betrays nothing more than the fact that people can simultaneously uphold two contradictory, inconsistent ideas.
This ideology of human right as natural right, however, is enshrined in the US constitution. It is considered self-evident and unquestionable. To deny it would be to reject the very foundation of the US itself.
For a while the early rulers of the US conveniently ignored the logical implication of the doctrine that 'All men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights' for the sake of practical prudence, and hence denied the right to vote of women and the equal standing of blacks. But over time these contractions became clear and impossible to ignore and suppress. That women and minorities must be able to vote are simply the logical conclusion of this doctrine. As Susan B. Anthony put it, Are women persons? They undoubtedly are, so they must be able to vote.
The thing about human right is that, once something has come to be considered a human right, then enacting it becomes a categorical imperative rather than a matter of practical expedience. It ought to be done because it is the right thing to do, and whether it is practical is irrelevant. That is what right is about. It is supposed to be deontological, inviolable and inalienable.
And once society has come to perceive a certain group as possessing personhood and human right, then it's practically impossible to reverse this process without abandoning the sociopolitical framework of human right, without rejecting the very basis of legitimacy of the system itself.
Western society has been increasingly moving left socially since WWII. Partly, and importantly, because social progressivism is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of human right - which inevitably becomes more and more developed, elaborate and encompassing as intellectual/academic activities and activism develop in liberal, affluent societies. Under the spell of this doctrine, society must become increasingly 'inclusive', perceived dehumanization and subhumanization of any group even in the slightest degree become increasingly demonized, more and more rights are recognized - the sphere of human rights inevitably expands over time, and the West burdens itself with more and more shackles, more and more subjecting itself to this 'tyranny of human right'.
Same sex marriage has been recognized as a human right. Many other decadent and feminizing practices will also be recognized as inviolable human rights. Even if the US is nuked, the voting right of women won't be revoked, because doing so would be considered dehumanizing women. Likewise, things same sex marriage won't become illegal. The US may regain a bit of masculinity after the war, but then feminization will be back on its feet quickly, and faster than before.
So, I think the idea that this feminizing process of the Western world can simply be reserved by a major war is naive. Our current society is different from past civilizations in some very fundamental aspects. Even if backroom dealings have great influence on political decision-making, that still doesn't change the important fact that the framework of what constitutes Legitimacy has significantly changed, more acutely in the West than anywhere else - which put definite constraints on public policy and legal decision-makings, resulting in real social changes. This change is more or less organic after the introduction of the concept of human right in the West, and there can be no simple/natural return to the past (in which women can't vote and gays can't marry and so on).
In countries that remains opposed to Western values, such as China, the idea of human right has not taken deep root. People there still take it very superficially. 'Violating human right' sounds horrific and utterly heinous to people in the West, but does not offend ordinary people elsewhere nearly to the same extent. China government in particular takes the red pill view that human rights are socially determined, and it has the right the determine what is human right and what is not in accordance with its practical interest. Some might quibble that the Chinese are 'spiritually barren' in their ruthless pragmatism, materialistic greed and relentless drive upward, desiring ever more wealth and power and status - but how exactly does that put them at a disadvantage in a race for technological and military superiority is unclear.
Usually, when a civilization undergoes feminization, as a result of prosperous stale peace or something else, it does not get back up but collapse within itself and get taken out by barbarian outsiders. How can we sure that the US will escape this fate and that the cold, brutal, 'spiritually barren' Chinese 'technocratic thugs' won't take upon this barbarian role? The barbarians won against rotting civilization not because they are 'morally superior' or more sustained by 'moral structure born of civilized values', but because they are more brutal, more motivated and energetic, more in touch with their primal instincts. After winning they may become more civilized, and become the new bearer of moral standard.
(This is in reference to Quintus Curtius's musing that "China, for all of its supposed economic “prowess,” will never be a truly great global power. Man needs a spiritual center, a moral structure born of civilized values, to sustain him. Without this, he is nothing but an avaricious barbarian.")
B. It's far from obvious that the US will prevail in a nuclear exchange with China by the time it actually happens. Nothing ensures that the US will maintain its technological and thereby military superiority forever, or even by the time the war happens.
a. China is increasing its nuclear power. It's very probable that its nuclear stockpile will surpass America's at some point.
Study: U.S. "Losing Ground" To Russia And China On Nuclear Power
Quote:Quote:
Approving new nuclear reactors takes as little as two years in China and Russia, but getting regulatory approval in the U.S. to build a new reactor can take up to 25 years. It took 43 years to build America’s newest nuclear reactor, which was racked by scandals, red tape and environmental concerns.
Quote:Quote:
The U.S. is losing global influence to Russia and China by allowing its nuclear power industry to stagnate, according to a new study by the Global Nexus Initiative.
The study argued nuclear power is a significant element of a country’s geopolitical influence. Technological exchanges and long timeframes involved in building and operating a nuclear plant create diplomatic relationships between nations, and those ties are threatened as the U.S. nuclear industry continues to decline.
“China is poised to become the Amazon.com of nuclear commerce,” Kenneth Luongo, president of the Partnership for Global Security, said during a press conference Tuesday. “The U.S. is losing ground to Russia and China on nuclear power.”
Researchers from the Partnership for Global Security and the industry-funded Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) conducted the study.
China is set to triple the amount of nuclear power it generates by 2026, overtaking the U.S. as the country with the most nuclear power. China plans to spend $570 billion building more than 60 nuclear power plants over the next decade.
...
Worldwide installed nuclear capacity is expected to grow 60 percent by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency. American capacity will likely only grow by 16 percent over the same time period.
“Preserving the existing [U.S.] fleet is also fundamental to achieve these goals,” Korsnick said. “Without the existing fleet and the associated infrastructure it will be increasingly difficult for technological innovation to occur or to maintain a robust supply chain for our nuclear navy.”
China's national Academy of Sciences recently announced that it just made a Technological Breakthrough That Raises Nuclear Fuel Utilization Rate: below 1% to 95%.
b. China leads in supercomputing. It has two of the world's fastest supercomputers, and is expected to complete world's first exascale supercomputer this year.
NSA, DOE say China's supercomputing advances put U.S. at risk
Chinese supercomputers threaten U.S. security
Quote:Quote:
“National security requires the best computing available, and loss of leadership in [high-performance computing] will severely compromise our national security,” the report warns.
Supercomputers play a “vital role” in the design, development and analysis of almost all modern weapons systems, including nuclear weapons, cyberwarfare capabilities, ships, aircraft, communications security, missile defense, precision-strike capabilities and hypersonic weapons, the report said.
China is rapidly developing hypersonic strike missiles that can deliver conventional and nuclear payloads by maneuvering past advanced missile defenses.
“Loss of leadership in [high-performance computing] could significantly reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrence and the sophistication of our future weapons systems,” the report says.
“Conversely, if China fields a weapons system with new capabilities based on superior [high-performance computing], and the U.S. cannot accurately estimate its true capabilities, there is a serious possibility of over- or underestimating the threat.”
With China producing 4.7 million STEM graduates each year, the US probably won't be able to close this gap in supercomputing power any time soon with only 0.5 million STEM graduates each year, a significant portion of which are international students. In fact, it's more likely that the gap will widen.
China's missile defense is strong and will get stronger as it makes more technological advances, which has been its focus in the couple of recent years.
What this all pose for future nuclear warfare is highly complex and beyond our ability to predict. The anxious assumption of knowledge in this domain reflects the fear and prejudice of the predictors
.One thing to keep in mind is that China has 4 times the population of the US. If each side manages to kill 300 million lives of the other side by nuke, then China would still be fundamentally strong while the US would be crippled. (While China has a demographic problem, as an authoritarian regime it is equipped with far more tools to solve this problem than democracies like Japan and the US)
C. It's not even certain that the war will happen in the foreseeable future.
Quote:Quote:
At some point, when the Chinese come to believe -- incorrectly -- that they are ready, they will directly challenge US military supremacy in the Pacific.
And how exactly will the trained engineers who run Beijing misestimate the technological and military capacity balance/dynamics between the two, while the lawyers who run Washington won't?
--
China is an authoritarian bureaucracy. The decision making of the technocratic elites won't be swayed by hotheaded young men demonstrating on the street. They call for rational patriotism, which shows they know very well that direct conflict is not their desired optimal outcomes.
The Belt and Roads initiative indicate that they plans to expand their influence peacefully. They need their neighbors to co-operate with them to carry it out smoothly. Even the Vietnamese government has mostly smoothed out with China on the South China Sea disputes - both sides prefer to maintain the status quo rather than escalating conflicts.
China has been wooing countries that was frustrated by Trump leaving the TPP and Paris accord. It's also widening its friend circle through OBOR. We can expect its allies to increase in the future.
Considering the huge risk of nuclear warfare, I hope it won't happen and don't expect it will, at least in the foreseeable future.