Dark thoughts.

N.S. Lyons, in “The China Convergence”, offers a through and convincing analysis of the convergence of the political systems of China and the United States. I was unaware of Lyons’s post when I published “China to the Rescue?” a few days later. But my post rests on the same observation (mine casual; Lyons’s, analytical): We are fast approaching the point at which most Americans (the non-elite “deplorables” who actually produce things of value) will be better off (or at least not worse off) if the U.S. were to surrender (de facto) to China and its allies of convenience: Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

In the course of my argument, I linked to two pieces of evidence (this and this) for the growing likelihood of such a surrender. Here’s another one.

More deeply, of course, there is the corruption of the current president by China, and the extent to which America’s “elites” are in China’s pocket because of globalization.

Some decades ago, the U.S. government under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, made it clear that our main enemy of the time — the USSR — would not prevail in any kind of military confrontation: conventional or nuclear. Now, there is serious doubt that today’s leaders — because of their corruption and failure to maintain adequate military strength — would even try to deter from attacking Taiwan.

That failure, which will occur sometime in the next few years, will open the floodgates to acts of aggression by Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The U.S. will become the functional equivalent of store owners whose merchandise is looted brazenly by flash mobs, which are likewise undeterred because of America’s growingly obvious moral and institutional failures.

A logical proof.

Legislative activism = passage of unconstitutional laws exceeding the limited and enumerated powers of Congress.

Executive activism = issuance of executive orders and agency regulations that exceed the powers of the executive branch.

Judicial restraint = unwillingness of a majority of the Supreme Court (often led by CJ Roberts) to curb legislative and executive activism.

Judicial restraint (in such cases) therefore allows legislative and executive activism and is therefore activist in its effect.

How much worse could it be?

Over the years, I have suggested that a militarily and morally weak West will surrender to the New Axis led by China with Russia, Iran, and North Korea in tow. The surrender won’t be formal but, rather, marked by significant concessions on trade and further reductions in the scale of Western military power and influence.

The concessions will be sugar-coated for domestic consumption and packaged in the form of measures (rationing, lock-downs) to fight the crisis du jour, be it a pandemic, inflation, a depression, or the ever-popular threat of incineration by a temperature rise of a degree or two (which has almost nothing to do with human activity other than the presence isolated urban heat islands that bias temperature measurements upwards).

The real aim of the concessions will be to avert armed conflict with the New Axis. Yes, Russia is currently bogged down in its war with Ukraine, but China, Iran, and North Korea are flexing their muscles. (Regarding China, see this and this, for example.) And when the dust settles and Ukraine becomes a non-nation, Russia will turn its threatening gaze westward.

There will be no more talk of “fair trade”, as the products and technology of China come to dominate world markets. There will be no more (hypocritical) talk of China’s human-rights violations and other aggressions as Western nations accommodate themselves to the necessity of keeping China (and its partners) happy.

Keeping China happy will mean several things, all centered on producing more goods and services, mainly for the benefit of China’s population. (There will be residual benefits for Westerners, of course, because China will want to incentivize greater Western productivity). What things will the West do to keep China happy? Here are my top candidates:

• Put an end to the scientifically unsound and economically destructive policies that are meant to combat “climate change”. Drill-baby-drill will be a leading order of the day.

• Put an end to leftist policies (“wokeness” among them) that penalize the productive in favor of the unproductive, and which reward various identity groups qua identity groups instead of rewarding individuals for their actual accomplishments.

• Put an end to endless campaigning for political office, and the surrounding barrage of punditry. The charade of democracy will be eliminated and replaced by a permanent bureaucracy with, perhaps, some ceremonial leaders (e.g., the monarch of Great Britain). The permanent bureaucracy — unlike that which now rules in the West — will be focused on economic growth and efficiency, which will favor rigorous education (with no room for classroom louts or soft subjects), and which will not require the frills that have accumulated over the years (e.g., most U.S. government departments).

• Put an end to the favoritism toward identity groups (notably blacks) which has been economically and socially costly, and which verges on immunity for violent conduct.

• Put an end to the silliness that men can become women, and conversely, and other such politically fraught distractions.

Before you object to this regime, ask yourself if oppressive governance by bureaucrats isn’t the actual or imminent state of the West. And ask yourself if the dictatorial aspects of the new dispensations wouldn’t simply formalize what already exists or is coming to fruition.

Then ask yourself if — given the direction in which the West is headed, which includes a much lower standard of living and much more violence — you wouldn’t rather live under a regime like the one outlined above. I am strongly tempted to say “yes”.

I especially tempted because China’s bureaucracy is in fact much less costly (as a percentage of GDP) than the bureaucracies of the West.

I am especially tempted because I am a despised straight white male of European descent whose taxes support louts, lay-abouts, and a huge army of counterproductive bureaucrats.

I would say “no” only if the U.S. shows signs of reverting a bastion of liberty with the means and will to defend it. Election 2024 will be the Flight 93 election.

---

Related:

A Grand Strategy for the United States

The Way Ahead

Is This How It Ends?

America Is Dead

The Remaking of America (Victor Davis Hanson)