Stovo

@Willie I didn't ask, I should have. These things spread, could just be a coworker or social media. A successful invasion of Taiwan would be a big political win for the CCP, which should ensure they stay in power for the foreseeable. Militarily it breaks the island chain that the US has which effectively surrounds China in the Pacific, from Japan to the Philippines. This is also why China is making so many claims in the south China sea too, they are militarily surrounded and need a way out. Economically, they gain a powerhouse of well educated people and strong industries. It would also demonstrate Chinese strength Vs US weakness to the rest of the world. Soon you'd see Korea and Japan trying to forge new relationships and alliances with China out of fear of an attack. Lesser nations side with the powerful. It would be a huge blow to democracy, and a big win for authoritarianism. So yeah Taiwan matters a lot.

@Willie You underestimate the power of propaganda. My Chinese ex recently texted me, a well-educated woman, to tell me that she heard the virus originated in the US. She genuinely thought it was a real fact. I had to tell her to be very careful what both sides are saying because the US and China are in a type of war. You also underestimate the strategic importance of Taiwan.

Well said.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of his videos. It's funny because China is clearly having a stage blue backlash to stage orange, whilst Winston here is having a stage orange backlash to stage blue. There's a ton of propaganda in China yes. They are at war with the US, and the only way to convince their people that freedom and democracy are bad ideas is to use propaganda to convince them otherwise. The US employs propaganda too, but it's more covert. Will it escalate to a shooting war? That's a tough one. The Thucydides trap says in most cases a rising power will go to war with a ruling power, but it hasn't happened directly between two nuclear powers before. There's also the game theory, it would be advantageous for China to wait for war because their strength is growing relative to the US. For the US it would be better to have a war sooner whilst they are still stronger. From what I understand currently is that if a war occurred today then China would win it within its local Asia region, whilst the US would win a larger global war. If I were the US President, and it's difficult because I don't have all the information that military commanders would have, I would concentrate on uniting the US and growing it stronger through big investments in infrastructure and education. This is what Biden is currently doing. I would then speak with the leaders of the US allies, especially Nato allies, and ensure unity between allies whilst helping them to grow stronger too. This would be key because the US has very strong allies that share its values, whilst China does not. I'd then bide my time, I wouldn't strike first because I don't believe in wars. Countries should set themselves up to defend themselves if need be, however. Also, in the very long term, China's population should start declining and they cannot rely on immigrants the way the west can because 1) China is anti-immigration, and 2) nobody wants to live there. This will weaken China in the long term. Potentially Winston is right too, in that they will weaken due to these recent reforms towards a more command-based economy, but I'm not so sure about that. The only very difficult question is the area where war is most likely to break out: Taiwan. On balance I feel it would be right to defend them as they are de facto an ally, but the argument could easily be made that it's China's internal affairs. I think the outcome of any war would probably be decided here. Ie if Taiwan is successfully defended then it'll be a western victory, if it falls to China then it's a China victory.

Sounds like you're making good progress and being a bit harsh on yourself for having some flaws. If anything maybe you're caught up in too much "doing" and you need to concentrate on "being" a lot more. This will help you integrate everything.

Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Taiwan, Hong Kong... You could say that all these parts are a part of China, as the Chinese would, but the history is complex and murky. China has a history of various clans or dynasties fighting between themselves for various parts of what we now call China. Also, although China did not conquer some surrounding areas like Japan, the lesser powers in the region did acknowledge China as the dominant power and paid tributes to avoid any potential wars or invasions, which the lesser powers would clearly lose. The US history you describe there is relatively similar. Ie wars that involved the formation of modern-day USA, and limited in scope to their local region. If one day China has the largest military, and some terrorists in Afghanistan decide to blow up 2 skyscrapers in Shanghai, and going to war to stop those terrorists could be done without antagonising other strong nations, you better believe they would go to war. Yes, I agree

@Fleetinglife China does not intervene in other countries or sanction them because it has limited ability to do so. ONLY the US can do significant sanctions because they control the world's reserve currency. ONLY the US can intervene in other countries in a significant way because their military is, and has been since WW2, by far the most powerful military in the world. Prior to WW2, the US was almost entirely isolationist. They rarely interfered in other countries and had no desire to do so. They were quietly building up wealth and power. Only once a country becomes the predominant world superpower can they intervene in any significant way, and they usually do so to protect their status as the world superpower. If China grows to be the most powerful nation I am absolutely certain that they will intervene militarily when it suits them, and when it suits their interests to do so. My thoughts are that China will never become as dominant as the US was at its height. The US after WW2 was something like half of world GDP, which is absolutely mind-boggling. I'm not sure if a single empire has ever managed this before, which means the US after WW2 was potentially the most dominant power ever to exist in history. My best guess is that western nations will unite as a kind of counterbalance to Chinese influence. China will likely be the most powerful single nation, but with a significantly powerful western bloc on par with them in many ways. In which case, China will be unable to intervene as significantly as the US had been able to because their relative level of dominance will be lower.

Thanks for sharing, interesting perspective. I did think of Japan as extremely blue, but I assumed it had quite a lot of orange too? I mean it's so modern and capitalist at the same time.

@Fleetinglife They just want investment, and China is more accomodating to corrupt/unethical regimes yes. China also happens to have more money to spend due to a flood of US dollars they receive from their trade surplus. They no longer wish to buy US bonds with these dollars because of the poor returns these now offer, so are more inclined to invest it in other countries for their own benefit. How does this make China the lesser of 2 evils, however?

@erik8lrl Yes, you've articulated this well.

China is lower on the spiral than the US, so is more likely to behave in selfish ways. Of course, the US also behaves incredibly selfishly because they are relatively low compared to higher stages. It is true, however, that most Americans believe China to be more "evil" than it really is because they find them threatening and are brainwashed by American media.

"Almost impossible" I agree with all your points in bold.

Not dismiss, just take with a pinch of salt. Feminine women feel in the moment, and those feelings change constantly. She thinks she wants one thing, then a completely different guy shows up and suddenly she's into that. It's just difficult to get dating advice from people who aren't sure what they want themselves.

Agree with this. It's actually almost impossible for men and women to have a sensible discussion on this subject, because they come at it from different angles and attraction is so often misunderstood. Men will always try to rationalise the situation, whilst women will feel in the moment. I've had good dating advice from both men and women, but the best advice I have received are from masculine men who understand how to attract girls. Sometimes dating advice from women should be taken with a pinch of salt. Most women I know end up with completely opposite guys to the type they say they are attracted to, so how can you trust them to give you dating advice? Also, is it very masculine to ask a girl for dating advice? Absolutely not, it lowers your status immediately. General rule of thumb for me, I consult guy friends for actual dating advice. When I am with female friends, I just get to know them and observe their dating preferences Vs what they say.

Less developed countries are more racist, however, so depends on where you're from and what race you are. White people from the west are treated very well because the people believe these people to be from very rich and successful places, they attach status to you straight away. You'll probably find this warm and welcoming aspect doesn't always apply to local people, or other races.

Feminine people ordinarily feel in the moment, that's why feminine women are attracted to confident, masculine men, who can hold a decent conversation and show leadership abilities. BUT a feminine woman will never rationalise it that way. To a feminine woman the underlying emotions take charge, and to her it was just a "strong vibe".

@Opo Revolutions are a game of cat and mouse between the revolutionaries and the government, which start off mild and gradually get worse as each side tests the limits of the other side. The revolutionary leaders are usually young, well-educated, leftists, but not always. It's not usually clear when a revolution starts until you are in the middle of it, or it's over. The objective of the revolutionaries is to change the system, whilst the government wishes to maintain the system. If the revolutionaries are successful then a new order begins, and big changes occur to the system. If the government is successful then the existing system continues, sometimes with small tweaks. The winning side often punishes the losing side by imprisoning them or killing them. The government has a choice of how to handle the revolutionaries. They can either crackdown on them violently, or engage with them peacefully. Both have risks, for example, if you continue to allow the protests then the protests could get bigger as more people join the revolution. If you crack down on the protests you risk angering the people even more. China chose to crack down on its protests in 1989, which resulted in a victory for the government.

@blueberries By the fact, we actually prioritise and teach critical thinking, encourage debates, give students the independence to think for themselves. Eastern culture has more emphasis on hierarchies and discipline. Questioning authority is less acceptable.

@snowyowl Yes, you are probably correct there, but I've never met a minority-race Chinese person.

@Opo Ray Dalio's work, particularly The Changing World Order: https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/ is a fantastic stage yellow analysis of these types of themes. The government's choice at Tiananmen was either to crush the protests violently, or engage with them peacefully. Both were risky options.

@Etherial Cat Are you sure in hindsight that you didn't take too much risk?

@snowyowl Oh, you're from England, me too. We are extremely fortunate to live in the UK, an island country surrounded by allies and no enemies remotely close to us. I speak with a bit of authority on China, because I lived there for half a year, have many Chinese friends, and dated Chinese women - one for 2-3 years. Almost no Chinese person I have spoken to wants to overthrow the government. There was only one girl, who spent a significant amount of time in Hong Kong, that was quite open with the fact that she wants democracy in China. The others, including my ex, are practical people. They feel this is the best government for this period of time because they feel that there are too many uneducated Chinese people, particularly in rural areas, and they feel that they're not ready to have democracy yet. @Opo Yes

They were number 1-2 mostly because of massive populations. They only dropped in recent history because the west's industrial revolution put them so far ahead of the east technologically that much smaller European countries managed to overtake the economies of India and China temporarily. In terms of average living standards, this has varied. In some parts of history, Chinese & Indian people have been relatively wealthy, in other parts relatively poor. I don't think eastern education is superior, or they are smarter, it's just different. They tend to perform better at tests but then lack certain important life skills. Western education teaches critical thinking far better, for example. There are pros and cons to both approaches. I'd also be interested to hear more about India, it's not a country I am overly familiar with. My hunch is, however, that they're really a stage blue country overall, but their traditions have enabled many much higher developed people to emerge.

@roopepa Maybe... I'm not sure that Myanmar is experiencing a stage orange revolution, they're too underdeveloped for stage orange. China, however, I could see it happening this century.

Why do they need to have free elections or opinion polls? Their system works for their culture in their slice of history. When it stops working they will have a revolution. The CCP has bought stability to an otherwise dangerous part of the world. Would you prefer stage blue CCP, or stage purple/red Afghanistan?