, ,

Is Antisemitism on the rise?

This is one of those posts that have been floating half-written for a long time to be kicked out of that limbo by a real-world event. The reaction of the world to Hamas's Oct 7th massacre of Israeli civilians has made the question obsolete. The pro-Palestinian, even pro-Hamas protests in the West, the refusal to condemn the attack from mainstream left-wing political parties and institutions answered it with an emphatic "Yes".

The question is now how has Antisemitism become practically mainstream again in all but name?

From my childhood in the 80s and 90s of Eastern Europe, I don't remember discussing Jews or Antisemitism at all, either at home or in school (apart from the topic of WWII), or among friends. There was simply no ambiguity about racism or the Holocaust. The worst thing you could call anyone was "nazi", barring "pedophile". But I knew the word "Nazi", as a synonym for evil, long before I came across "pedophile". I recall only a couple occasions when someone in the schoolyard used the word "Jew" as a slur, but they were without exception not the sharpest knives in the drawer. 

I was in my late teens when I experienced actual Antisemitism for the first time. A family member of mine, one who then was best described as a Christian nationalist, once expressed the view that the Jews really take advantage of the Holocaust - that is, they abuse the collective guilt of society to get unfair advantages. And one of my best friends at that time, who generally was a very nice person, turned out to be a rather loud anti-semite when he got in the mood. But as I said, he was a decent and generous fellow, and so was the aforementioned relative, so I saw these as personal quirks of otherwise normal individuals and not part of some general trend in any sense. Once I also noticed a Nazi swastika tattoo on a guy in my sports club, but he was a former convict and also not one of the brightest, so I didn't consider him representative either. 

During my university years, I have never heard anyone among my fellow students mentioning Jews a single time, at least according to my recollection. I was in my early twenties and working already when a close colleague of mine during a common lunch in the office's kitchen started talking about how it was actually the British who "invented" concentration camps in South Africa, and Hitler was a bad man perhaps, but not the worst. I was flabbergasted and found myself out of words. But I still remember thinking how bizarre it is that young, university-educated professionals think it perfectly normal to find excuses for Hitler in front of their peers. In his defense, the said colleague was quite supportive of Israel, or at least definitely preferred them to the Arabs.

In the years to come, there was another couple of occasions when acquaintances or distant family members (everyone has a crazy aunt?) brought up the Jews in public. Not many, but enough. My dad told me once half laughing, half exasperated, that people in the local pub, whose knowledge of the outside world ended at some Greek beach, explained to him with great confidence the machinations of New York Jews. My erstwhile friend by that time had completely gone down the rabbit hole, and on one occasion in a small company of friends, he told us in a hushed, conspirational voice that secret multi-party negotiations were being held to import 2 million Jews to Hungary.

These incidents were isolated and anecdotal. Then George Soros started a late-life career as the bogeyman of Eastern Europe and the lid seemed to open. I have heard good faith arguments against my belief that Soros's prominence is due to his Jewishness. None was convincing. Still, by and large, I believed that anti-semitism is mostly spread among the not very-highly educated.

However, very recently a friend of mine, a very elite, a very leftish American, who never misses an opportunity to lambast the US for its racism against the blacks, in the middle of a conversation casually dropped that the Jews have too much influence in Washington. And he followed it up with a reference to the strange sartorial habits of the Orthodox Jews, whom, he said with a wink in his eye, he just calls "penguins".

Another acquaintance from Hungary told me that in his city, among the well-off people, open homophobia and gypsy jokes are now passé, but people don't feel inhibited when the conversation turns to Jews. Which it does not infrequently.

And then came Oct 7, 2023. Thousands of Hamas terrorists broke into Israel and killed more than a thousand Israelis specifically targeting civilians. They gang-raped women, killed children and elderly people, and kidnapped more than a hundred of them. They posted videos of kids lying as bloody lumps in their cribs and dead women barely recognizable as human bodies anymore. And in London, Sydney, and many capitals in the world, and at Ivory League universities like Princeton, Standford, and Berkeley, people stormed to the streets celebrating Hamas and condemning Israel. It merits repetition. There are students and professors at the world's best universities, who celebrated not the vague idea of Free Palestine, but the massacre itself.

In the past two weeks, hundreds of anti-semitic attacks have been reported in Western countries. This absolutely blows my mind.

People have been recently and currently massacred, violently oppressed, and abused all over the world. Minorities in Arab countries. Uyghurs in China, countless ethnicities in Africa, and in the post-Soviet states. Nothing could happen to them that would provoke a similar wave of street protests in the Western world, and what is mind-boggling, is that these protests now are triggered not by what Jews did to Palestinians, but the exact opposite. By a massacre of Israeli civilians carried out by one of the two Palestinian quasi-governments elected by Palestinians. 

After the original shock and inevitable sympathy for Israel, it only took a week for the New York Times to come out with a front page on the bombing of a hospital in Gaza by Israeli forces. They published the report based on information solely from Hamas and didn't think any verification was needed. It turned out that the missile was fired by not the IDF but by an Islamist organization. No apologies came from the Times. Whatever was behind the Times' actions, the story fits very well in the Leftish trend of desperate attempts for bothsideism.

What the fuck is going on?

I have a very simple thesis that partially explains growing anti-Semitism, and goes like the following. Antisemitism, and racism in general, is the natural state of the world. A chronic disease of society, if you will. A leftover from pre-historic times. It causes only mild discomfort when things go well, but sometimes it bursts into a violent fever. In this metaphor, the Second World War and the Holocaust in particular worked as a vaccination against unsavoury ideologies. It was such a strong dose that it has inoculated almost the whole world against racism, permanently and completely pushing it out of the accepted range of public discourse for many decades. Its effect is fading now in tandem with the memories of the war, but for generations, it was so strong that it made people oblivious of how remarkable and novel this new shared mindset was historically.

We tend to think that the ban on open racism and the collective moral judgment of Nazism came into effect right after 1945. People were so shaken by the horrors of the war, that by the time it was over, they were united in rejecting racist ideologies for good. But actually, surveys showed that as late as the 60s, a third of Germans had a positive view of pre-war Hitler. That is, they thought that barring that catastrophic decision to launch a World War, Hitler wasn't a bad chancellor. It took decades until a consensus had crystallized, which lasted for many decades.

The general opinion about eugenics and racial purity right before the war is similarly shocking when someone reads about it for the first time. Quotas on Jewish university admittance were commonplace not only in Germany and Eastern Europe but in the United States as well. John Maynard Keynes, one of the most famous liberal economists of the 20th century was an active supporter of eugenics. And in that regard, he wasn't an eccentric.

And if you think Jews had it bad in the first half of the twentieth century, just go further back in history. Pogroms, lynchings, and witch hunts used to be for the masses what football matches are today.

What is unique about the current anti-semitism, that perhaps for the first time in history, it is driven by Left-wing morons instead of the usual suspects (in the West at least. East from the Elbe, it's the same old story). Bone fide antisemite right-wing nutjobs like Marine Le Pen in France and Marjorie Taylor Green in the US came out immediately in support of Israel (probably because they figured they hate the Arabs more) while Jeremy Corbyn and Jean-Luc Mélenchon on the other hand couldn't even bring themselves to condemn Hamas. Neither could some prominent leftists in the US Congress. From American universities, which never missed any chance to hector society about social justice and the ever-present racism, the silence has been deafening. And Harvard students found that the best time to go to the street for Free Palestine is when Palestinian terrorists massacred Jewish civilians, babies included, and gang-raped women - and posted videos to social media to boast about it. 

Communists and Socialists have always been low-key anti-semites. The hated capitalist financial system was of course run by the Jews, after all. Just eight years after the holocaust, another pogrom (to "thwart" the Jewish Doctors' Plot) was unfolding in the Soviet Union and was canceled only by the death of Stalin. But it was never so outspoken, maybe because of the lofty universal ideas of Communism, maybe because they always posed as anti-fascist, and fascism got intertwined with anti-semitism.

At first glance, it can seem surprising that anti-semitism can surge right now in the current Zeitgeist, which is so loudly anti-racist, when woke idiots find a fascist in every bush. But it's actually not that hard to explain (this is not a sophisticated worldview). A crude but not inappropriate definition of being woke is to be constantly and obsessively on the look for oppression everywhere and sympathize with the underdog unconditionally. Israel, for the first time in thousands of years, is a dominant regional power, and it doesn't matter that it's a tiny island in a sea of Arabs (look at the map. Just take a break and look at the map), the Palestinians are the downtrodden, so the Jews have to be the evil ones.

Still, this explanation is incomplete. The Chechens have been brutalized by the Russians, the Uyghur by the Chinese, Saddam Hussein wiped out Kurdish villages with chemical weapons, and African warlords and dictators did and are doing unspeakable things all the time. Yet, there are rarely any public protests against these in the West. 

The difference is that progressives designate Jews as white and Palestinians as people of color and this tells you all you need to know about who the bad guys are in this simple place called the Middle East. 

Based on all the above, a simplified but useful way of thinking about the question is that there are two strands of anti-Jewish sentiment. Those characterizing themselves as anti-Zionists are nominally agnostic about Jews themselves but critical of the actions of Israel as a state. This itself is a heterogeneous group consisting of general anti-West activists (like Noam Chomsky), people sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, and people who sympathize with anyone who seems to be on the short end of the stick.

The other strand is represented by run-of-the-mill antisemites who vent out their frustration in the local pubs and blame the Jews for their national or personal misfortunes, and talk about Rothschilds and Jewish plots for world domination. Based on my personal experiences, I would estimate at least 30 percent of the population being susceptible to these ideas to varying degrees. This is a spectrum running from rabid anti-semites to otherwise normal men of the street with half-baked ideas about the world which is too complex for them.

The two strands reinforce each other. The first makes criticism of the Jews a morally defensible stance and with that, it provides an umbrella for real Jew-haters for whom Israel is just a pretext. Those are happy to finally find themselves in a respectable company, while progressives don't much care what company they are in as long as everyone joins the choir.

To summarize it from a bird's-eye view, the different forces in play are the following. Our modern moral values rooted in the Enlightenment are locked in a constant battle with the much older grass-root Antisemitism courtesy of religion which is fed heavily by our instinct of xenophobia courtesy of human nature. Against those atavistic tendencies stand the taboo set by the Holocaust, which time erodes a bit more every year. And finally, there is the modern anti-Israel sentiment which is reinvigorated by the woke craze, pushing the taboo more and more to the side, so Antisemitism can flow freer again under some more palatable guise.

, , ,

Zen and Stoicism

Imagine two persons equal in most aspects with one relevant difference. One of them follows Zen teachings, the other is a Stoic. A casual observer of their daily lives would find it hard to guess which is which. In personal relations, both are generous and compassionate. They both take hardships in life with equanimity and rarely give in to rage or anxiety. They notice and appreciate everyday joys but are unperturbed if circumstances stand between them. For those with eyes for this kind of things, they both carry an aura of detachment. And, among other unlisted similarities, they both tend to regularly spend some time of the day with quiet contemplation.

Zen and Stoicism are indeed strikingly similar, especially considering that they emerged independently of each other in very different cultures. One is from a land where spirituality permeated every aspect of life, the other is the product of a society that laid the foundations of the modern rational worldview. I make an attempt below to examine the likeness between the two, then the differences. Considering the many different schools of Zen especially, the observations below will be crude simplifications, but hopefully not far off their marks.

To start with the greatest common denominator, both traditions share the view that real and enduring happiness (or at least peace of mind) is to be found inside one's own mind irrespective of external circumstances. One can be poor or sick or in a prison cell and be free and at peace with oneself at the same time. Their shared psychological observation, thousands of years ahead of their time, is that our perception of reality is the source of our discontentment.

Both advise enjoying what life offers without becoming dependent on them. To be present in the moment and to see everything, possessions, loved ones, and life itself as impermanent that can be and eventually will be taken away. 

They are both indifferent about deities and the afterlife. This is barely worth mentioning today but was remarkable in their times of origin. Buddhism was born in India with its countless gods, and Stoicism emerged in a similarly polytheistic society. The norms in both societies demanded the veneration of gods, spirits, and alike, therefore in the eyes of Zen Buddhists and Stoics who lived thousands of years ago, supernatural entities and the afterlife were a given. They were also unimportant. Both traditions teach the importance of the here and now, and that one's redemption lies not in the hand of gods, but is to be discovered inside. It's safe to assume that indifference instead of hostility to existing religious beliefs was in both cases more of a rational survival strategy than a principled choice in times and places where open atheism could make one ostracized or executed. 

The Buddhists and Stoics were anyway much more interested in practice than theory. They share an emphasis on regular exercises, both mental and in interaction with others.

Finally, they both have the concept of the ideal they aspire to be. What is the Enlightened One for Buddhists, is the Sage for Stoics.

And now come the differences.

Among which, the most significant is the one in aspirations. The purpose of Stoicism is to live a good life, which according to the Stoics, is a virtuous life. The purpose of Zen is to see through the illusion and see the truth, reality as it is. The Zen concept of the world as an illusion is alien to the down-to-earth Stoics.

Instead of breaking free of it, the Stoics encouraged full engagement with the world. They recognized that humans are social animals and strongly advocated, like good Greeks, active participation in the life of the community. In Asian cultures from the Indian to the Japanese, the Enlightened one is expected to transcend the constraints of society.

The roads to perfection might be through continuous practice in both schools, but the concepts of practice itself differ. The Stoics preached continuous self-improvement in the modern sense. Day by day, you hone your skills, mend your imperfections, and slowly and steadily become a better and better version of yourself. Zen is much more ambiguous about gradual improvement. Some schools advocate for it, but some teach that Enlightenment just happens (or not), doesn't matter how long you have been practicing. Practice is simply maintaining a state of being open to possible Enlightenment there and then, and the gains don't accumulate. That being said, I think Western (or Secular) Buddhism is much closer to the Stoic way. 

The practices themselves are quite different. The center of Stoicism is to see obstacles in life (physical hardships, personal slights, social stepbacks) as tests of character and opportunities for improvement. The Stoics actively seek out difficulties (not shying away from hard conversations, abstaining from culinary pleasures, stepping out of their comfort zone) to perfect themselves. The Stoic meditator reviews his actions at the end of the day to identify what can be done better next time. The essence of Zen practice, mediation is wholly missing from the Stoic world. In Zen meditation (nowadays known mostly as mindfulness meditation), one doesn't engage in an active thinking process. On the contrary, one tries to calm his mind and dispassionately observe thoughts rising and passing in the mind. And while doing this one realizes that the self, as the coherent unchanging essence of being, is just an illusion.

The psychological insights Zen and Stoicism impart are profound and very modern, but the overlap is little. The core insight of Stoicism is that humans are affected by the events in the world not directly, but through their own interpretation of them, and the only real control one has in life is that over his own mind. Zen's main discovery is that most of the time we are the slaves of our minds and not the other way around. Thoughts and emotions come and go uncontrollably as they please, but one can learn to be aware of this process and break free of it.

To sum it up, practicing Zen or Stoicism produces very similar characters but through different exercises that are built on very different worldviews.

, ,

The most useful idiot

Noam Chomsky is one of the most famous living linguists in the world and perhaps one of the most cited scholars in modern history. If the MIT professor emeritus had done nothing else in his life but stuck to linguistics, he would have a place in history books as a giant in his field. He would also be little known outside of it. What makes Chomsky a household name for people even marginally interested in world politics is his unrelenting seven-decade (and counting) crusade to uncover the US's misdoings. Chomsky has been active as a political activist since the fifties and even today he continues to write books which now number over one hundred.

His work ethic is legendary. Besides being an incredibly prolific author, and world-class scholar in a field completely unrelated to his political activism, he reputedly replies to every email he receives regardless of the sender's status or importance.

It's nigh impossible to list all the events Chomsky has written about, but one can be sure that whatever geopolitical affairs the US had been involved in since its foundation, Chomsky commented on them all. And his interpretations were damning to America, to a fault. Which is not necessarily a bad thing on its face. The US is now the sole superpower on Earth, and it deserves scrutiny proportional to its status. America, like every great power in history, has intervened in other nations' business countless times and has committed plenty of mistakes and intentional crimes along the way. Especially its general Cold War conduct in South America, which involved supporting murderous regimes by direct intervention or explicitly encouraging torture and bloody oppression of their opposition, is by and large a stain on the nation.

But other great powers have done the same things and much worse. Consider Nazi Germany, pre-WWII Japan, the Soviet Union, or by our modern standards, every single power in earlier history, and the US probably comes out reasonably well in comparison to either of them.

Or not, according to Chomsky who genuinely believes not only that America (and the West) is a net negative force in the world, but that it is the worst of all contenders. He called and US and UK the greatest terrorist states in the world. Comparing the US to the Soviet Union, Chomsky has claimed that the latter was morally superior, if only marginally. Considering that the Soviet Union was practically a slave empire that killed millions of its own citizens, imprisoned ten times as many, and installed similarly brutal regimes everywhere it had its way, that's quite a statement.

As logically follows, Chomsky regards NATO as the most aggressive and violent military alliance in the world. Why countries in the Soviet sphere of influence have been begging to join doesn't merit serious attention from him.

Despite his obvious ideological bias, Chomsky's encyclopedic knowledge of the facts (he copiously cites dates, names, UN resolutions, acts of Congress, ... to support his arguments) makes most of his criticism credible. But with occasionally capital misfires. Anyone opposing the US can count on some sympathy from Chomsky, even unspeakable regimes like the Khmer Rogue. Pol Pot's nightmarish rule had seen almost 1 in every 4 Cambodians killed, which puts Pot far beyond even Hitler, Mao, or Stalin, as mass-murderer dictators go, at least proportionally to population. Chomsky spent years claiming that the regime's genocidal crimes were wildly exaggerated by Western media. After the facts have become undeniable, Chomsky never apologized. On the contrary, he argued that considering the information available at the time, he was right.

Chomsky in general has a poor track record with genocides, as the US hasn't committed any in recent history, and its evil vindicates the crimes of its enemies. Virtually singularly among serious Western scholars, Chomsky denies that the Bosnian massacres during the Yugoslav wars in the nineties were ordered by Milosevic, or in some cases, that they actually took place. In his interpretation, the Serbs were provoked into mass murders by the US to provide a pretext for NATO bombing. The reason? The US could not allow a successful socialist state to exist in Europe. 

After almost thirty years, Chomsky is still the main perpetrator of the lie that the concentration camps, revealed to the world by the infamous photos of emaciated men standing behind barbed wire fences, were a fabrication of Western journalists to besmirch the Serbs. One would think that sentences handed down in The Hague that were based on witness testimonies from both victims and perpetrators would put an end to such speculations. Not for Chomsky. To this day, he is willing to appear on Serb television to be used as a tool of anti-Western propaganda. As a side note, it's worth mentioning that the current leader of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, served as a propaganda minister in Milosevic's bona fide fascist government. To be fair, it's not that Chomsky doesn't acknowledge the war crimes of the Serbs. He just doesn't care about them.

Considering his past stances, Chomsky's assessment of the current Ukraine-Russian war is predictable in its direction. But it's still surprising in its extent. There are many interviews with him on the war today and they generally follow the same pattern. After the mandatory and very short throat-clearing about the brutality and injustice of the Russian onslaught, Chomsky quickly moves on to clarify that it was fully provoked by the US. America refused to respect the Russian sphere of influence (like it refuses to respect the Chinese one, Chomsky adds, if already on the topic). It is a surprising dose of realpolitik from a self-proclaimed anarchist and humanitarian. And something that never appeared in Chomsky's writings vis-à-vis Western powers.

The haste in condemnation of the aggression is balanced by a lengthy and patient monologue about how the color revolutions that toppled corrupt politicians in the region were CIA-staged coups. No credit goes to the oppressed masses Chomsky claims to champion. Georgians, Belorussians, or Ukrainians do not openly challenge the brutal regimes they live under, they are just unwitting puppets in a Western ploy. Chomsky never extends this condescending attitude to people who rise up against American-friendly oppressive regimes. 

One expects similar Pavlovian sentiments from run-of-the-mill leftists, like the thousands of Jeremy Corbyns, who will never recover from the hangover from the Cold War, and will always think that reflexively defending any Russian action is a matter of principle. But Chomsky knows better and even his sympathetic audience anticipates some afterthought that would add a bit of nuance. Chomsky, as a true iconoclast, brushes aside such bourgeois expectations. He declares that the anti-Russian hysteria overtaking the West surpasses even the anti-German hysteria during the Second World War. That's some food for thought.

Although the worldwide anti-American sentiment is inexhaustible, it is also limited, and most people in Europe and the US consider America a flawed but relatively benevolent empire, at least compared to other powers. How does that square with Chomsky's own worldview? Chomsky explains this mass delusion as the result of the brainwashing of corporate media and institutions serving capitalist interests. In Chomsky's mind, liberal democracy is just a thin veneer over the ruthless, exploitative rule of the rich and powerful. Those who help maintain the facade, scholars, politicians, businessmen, and journalists, are either deceived themselves or active agents of the concerted effort to tell a false story of the world. 

To make it more concrete, if Chomsky is right, then every single politically centrist journalist in, let's say the New York Times, and every similarly inclined scholar of geopolitics in academia is either evil or a fool. US politicians of course are the worse of all. When talking about them (not Rumfelds or Dick Cheneys, but old-time Democrats like FDR, Kennedy, or Johnson), Chomsky's voice is dripping with cold contempt. In his interpretation, these people are never simply wrong on some matters or have honest but mistaken beliefs. They are evil.

Ironically, despite his hatred for his motherland, Chomsky is a quintessentially American figure. The US might be the only country in the world where someone so antagonistic to it can achieve status, fame, and respect without the fear of being silenced by administrative or more direct means. His most receptive audience is American, too. Western Marxists are usually not held in high esteem in countries that actually lived under the system they advocate. Chomsky has particularly fallen out of favor with Eastern-European anti-communist intellectuals when he went to Prague and explained to them how pampered their lives were under socialist regimes compared to the people's who rebelled against American-backed dictatorships in South America. Many of these people were imprisoned and persecuted during the socialist era and the audience understandably felt a bit disrespected on behalf of those described as cowards and opportunists by someone who only saw their countries from afar and never risked his life or livelihood.

As noted earlier, despite his advanced age, Chomsky is still very much active. He's been authored or co-authored six books since 2020, and he still makes appearances sometimes and gives interviews on a daily basis. He is astonishingly sharp for a 94-year old and time hasn't seemed to dampen his elephantine memory. Yet his interviews are often frustrating. He is wont to go off on a tangent to deliver long (but coherent) monologues of something he deems important. Chomsky has found one of the few advantages of being a thousand years old. It is the unspoken permission to simply ignore an awkward question. Just answer another one. It works all the time because it would seem very rude to call it out and seem to put verbal pressure on a frail old patriarch. In a recent interview, even Piers Morgan waited meekly every time until the grand old man finished his monologue on a question he wasn't asked. The same Piers Morgan who very rarely gives his guests the opportunity to utter even their opening sentence uninterrupted. 

There is also a pettiness in Chomsky unbecoming of a man with his fame and intellect. He is thin-skinned to the point that he takes disagreements as personal affronts. He rejected a to engage in a public debate with Sam Harris whom he simply labels "slanderer" even though Harris is anything but, and who made his challenge in as much good faith as possible. Nick Cohen, a left-wing British journalist, who called out Chomsky on his mistakes and pernicious influence on the Left, earned the qualifier "maniac".

Having made any misjudgments doesn't fit Chomsky's self-image either. A couple of weeks ago, Tyrell Cowen asked him in an interview if he has any regrets after 70 years of political activism. That's an understandable question, even a saint would make some mistakes in a lifetime. It's also a good one. The answer almost always gives nuance to the person's espoused worldview and lets fans see the human side of their hero. Not Chomsky's, though. His answer was as cringe-worthy as the proverbial job interviewee's who is asked to tell something about his negative qualities and responds with "Sometimes I just work too hard". Chomsky's rephrase was: "My only regret is that I didn't fight even harder". That's something to say after trying to whitewash the Khmer Rogue. Tyler, and others before him, also asked Chomsky to name anyone whose work he admires. Chomsky repeatedly refused to do so and instead said that he admires the young people on the street fighting for justice. No one to look up to from his vantage point, it seems. Noam Chomsky has to be peerless.

And in some respect, he truly is. Very few people in the world have his intellect and factual knowledge about world affairs. And this is what shields him from sounding like a caricature, even though his ultimate judgments often are not better than any reflexively anti-Western idiot's you read on an internet forum. With great intellectual effort - or dishonestly simply by ducking, evading, or explaining away inconvenient facts, like genocides -  he squeezes everything into his warped view of the world according to which Western countries are on the evil side of history, and there is little more to the matter.

But in some respect, he is not unique at all. The old observation about socialists - "they don't love the poor, they hate the rich" - applies to "anti-imperialists" like Chomsky perfectly. Just replace "poor" with "oppressed" and "rich"  by America, and America only. His reversed Christian credo of beams and motes in one's eyes is also common among self-hating Westerns, Chomsky's just stands out by the merit of his caliber.

For better or worse, Noam Chomsky lived in and contributed greatly to this world for 90+ years and will continue to live (and be used) in the world of his admirers and opportunistic propagandists for many decades to come.

, ,

Five Persistent Myths About China

I've been planning to write this piece for at least two years. I've thought for almost as long as that about what I should choose for the title. "On China" came so smoothly in mind, but then I realized that this is the title of Kissinger's book, which explains why it was coming up so readily. Then for a short time, I entertained the not-very-original "Will China own the 21st century?" But it was both more and less than what I wanted to say. I don't have an oracle, and I wanted to put into words a lot of what I think about China instead of concentrating on a single topic. So then came the "How to think about China?", but I dropped that too, eventually, for being too pretentious. The way I think about China is not necessarily "the way" to think about China.

Finally, a surely celestial inspiration hit me. The Chinese have a childish fascination, or rather obsession, with numbers (The Gang of Four, The Three Jewels, The Three Evils, The Four Great Inventions, The Six Harmonies, ... google them), so it's fitting to write about them in kind. Thus was born the title Five Persistent Myths About China, which are the following:

  1. China is a communist state
  2. The Chinese is a superior form of government (superior to liberal democracies, that is)
  3. China is a peaceful giant that merely wants to take its rightful place in the world and to be a good neighbor to the (geographically unfortunately located) countries around it
  4. The Chinese leadership possesses the distilled wisdom of a millennia-old empire and they plan ahead for centuries 
  5. The 21st century will be the Chinese century

All of these statements are wrong and in the following, I try to show why. But first a super-brief history of China. 

The Chinese is one of the most ancient civilizations on Earth which reached its relative zenith compared to the rest of the world around the sixteenth century. It was a technological, cultural, and military powerhouse at the time when Europe was a fragmented backwater. Yet it threw its advantages away when it chose isolation and stagnation while the rest of the world rushed through the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment. By the nineteenth century, China was as backward as it was weak, an easy plunder for the avaricious Europeans. The tumultuous twentieth century saw the Emperor overthrown, a bloody civil war between Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists and Mao Zedong's Communists, the Communist victory followed by thirty years of Mao's nightmarish rule, then the rise of the pragmatic China in more or less the form, if not the power, we see it today.

And now to the myths.

China is a communist state

This myth is shared by the fewest people outside of China, constituted mostly of tiny communist parties and Marxist westerners like Richard Wolf - to whom the 2008 financial crisis was a "collapse" but Soviet gulags merely a "social problem". The rest of the world realized at least two decades ago that the People's Republic of China is a hybrid state, where a single party of plutocrats rules over a more-or-less free-market economy. There is no universal healthcare or cradle-to-grave social welfare programs. No social equality, not even attempts at that. The socialist part is reduced to one-party rule, Marxist-Leninist slogans, and political oppression (to tick all the wrong boxes).

China started its meteoric rise exactly when it ceased to be a communist state. After the death of Mao, whose legacy was the killing of tens of millions of people under the flags of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution - making him the greatest mass-murderer the world has ever seen, eclipsing even Stalin or Hitler -, a pragmatist took over the helm and slowly started to open the economy to domestic and international markets. The less communist China has become, the richer it got, and we might see the reversed course one day.


The Chinese form of government is superior to democratic governments

This notion was fueled by the average 9% annual growth of GDP in the last 30 years, not inexplicably. But the reason for the spectacular multi-decade ride wasn't that the Chinese Communist Party has turned into a group of economic savants overnight some day in the eighties. Instead, it is a combined effect of multiple factors. 

One is the international liberal order that guaranteed free and safe trade and transfer of technical and managerial know-how. By entering the international network of trade and becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the world, China has been the greatest winner of the post-WWII order. Like it did to Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea, economic integration with the world pulled China into the community of developed countries, and hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty.

The second is the increased freedom of internal markets that allowed entrepreneurial Chinese people to create and invest with less overbearing governmental supervision. 

The third is scale. The vast size of the population enabled the government to allocate huge amounts of resources for strategically important purposes. This wouldn't have been constructive if not for the fourth point, which is that, to their credit, the Chinese leadership really proved to be competent in large-scale economic management. And large-scale management is one thing a centralized decision-making system can do really well in the case of the last but not least important factor, which was...

...the utterly miserable starting point. This might sound surprising, but in reality, it is not. Mao left China in a wretched state. If a dirt-poor country with eighteenth-century infrastructure doesn't do more than start building a modern road system, and basic agricultural and industrial infrastructure, it will multiply its GDP. And this is what happened. China entered the international trade system, copied (then stole) first-world technology and know-how, and ceased to be a nightmarish dictatorship. This is enough to rise to a middle-income country level in time if the rest of the world around you keeps pulling you up. It's not that post-1980 China has been run by geniuses. It just stopped being ruled by a madman.

Nevertheless, the scale of changes the size of China made possible has been stupifying. Hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of deep poverty in the span of mere two generations. 

Amazed the by greatest material improvement program in history, many started to see China's state-run capitalism as a model for the future. Some with naive interest, some with fear, and some with longing. Cracks in the new modern Chinese image only started to appear after 2020 when China unleashed the virus that killed around 10 million people worldwide and caused a global economic throwback. Even after that, the picture of a brutal but effective regime, that welds people in their houses if necessary, was shared with something very close to admiration. The sudden abandoning of that approach in 2023 (without a properly vaccinated population) was less awe-inspiring.


Peaceful giant

The story the CCP likes to tell about China is of a peace-loving, benevolent empire nation that strives to live in harmony with its neighbors and merely wants to occupy its natural place among the great powers. 

This is part fairy tale, part misunderstanding (the Chinese interpretation of natural place is not what liberals mean by that idea). First of all, empires have never grown peacefully. A country doesn't get to cover millions of square kilometers and host one-fifth of the world's population by gently accepting willing immigrants. China, like all its big peers, is built on past wars of conquest. Its history is marred by violent civil wars that were no less bloody that the European wars of the ancient and middle ages. With regard to the present time, China is not a conqueror, but a bully. Every single neighbor of hers seeks American protection from Chinese influence, not the way around. That the only exception is North Korea tells all.

China doves in the West often make the point that historically China has never had any ambition for world domination. This is a sloppy argument. At the height of its power, China believed itself the center of the world, the Middle Kingdom. It dominated all its surroundings and demanded tribute from its smaller neighbors. If it did not care for Africa or the Americas, it was because there were far away and had no relevance to it. But the world has shrunk since then, and decisions made on the other side of the globe influence everyone. China's position hasn't changed. It still wants to have its say in only what can affect her, but this time that means the world from the Arctic to Africa. And it's not just about natural resources or security.

When Mercedes used a quote from the Dalai Lama as an advertisement slogan, China threw a tantrum that forced the German giant to issue a cringy apology. When Australia raised the question of a deep inquiry into the origins of COVID-19, China immediately slapped tariffs on its Australian imports and its leading newspaper called Australia "gum stuck to China's shoe". When Canadian authorities arrested Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, China responded by arresting random Canadians (the two Michaels) on flimsy accusations, practically taking them hostage. It's worth pointing out that while Wanzhou was merely under house arrest and could move freely around with supervision (the Canadians being civilized people), the two Michaels sat in prison cells where the Canadian ambassador could visit them biweekly to bring some books.

Hysterical nationalism can manifest in curious ways. In the past years, a Chinese MMA fighter, Xu Xiaodong has gained notoriety by challenging and soundly roughing up self-proclaimed kung-fu masters. The media lambasted him for humiliating China by Western methods and the authorities lowered his social credit score (the soft arm of the CCP) to barr him from buying property or even long-distance domestic train or plane tickets.

These are not merely cherry-picked incidents. Around 2017 China announced the "Wolf Warrior diplomacy", named after a popular Chinese action movie in which the local special forces hero dispatches evil Westerners. This is not a joke (actually, it is). It is as if Americans were running around a world thumping their chest and boasting about "John Rambo"-diplomacy. And the world still likes to think of the Yanks as rednecks and the Chinese as refined Machiavellians...

The Chinese approach to engaging with the outside world is not restricted to verbal aggression. In recent years, it's been revealed that China maintains illegal "police stations" around the world to harass or sometimes kidnap its dissidents. So much for their much-touted respect for territorial integrity - which also shows in their communication over the Ukraine war.

Finally, if you want to assess how a country would behave with its neighbors if its power over them was unchecked, it's a useful proxy to look at how it behaves with its minorities. Over one million of the twelve million Uyghurs have spent time in "re-education" camps in the last five years. Stories of organ harvesting, torture, and forced sterilization are abundant. Parallel to the prisons, the CCP conducts a gentle genocide by artificial birth control. And often by something uglier. To the families where the man has been taken to re-education internment camps, the state often sends male officials to live with the family to provide them guidance and education. It doesn't require reading between the lines to recognize state-mandated rape. It is a system that is beyond disgusting. They make the Russians look good.

Maybe one more point on this, made by a Chinese leader himself. Deng Xiaoping had a motto for foreign policy: "Hide your strength, bide your time". Bide your time for what?

China is a giant. But as peace-loving as the Soviet Union was. It is an insecure, paranoid, ultranationalistic bully. Despite its constant whining about the antagonistic West and its "century of humiliation" - when other powers forced their will on her - Chinese leaders believe might is right. But only as long as they are the mighty.


Oriental wisdom: playing the long game

In common imagination, China is cloaked in some kind of Oriental mysticism. Many are prone to see her as one continuous, ancient empire whose roots reach back thousands of years. With its access to the distilled wisdom of past millennia, it's wiser, more sophisticated, and more manipulative than our puny, infantile modern states.

This is frankly the most laughable myth of all. That Westerners, who are generally credulous to the stories of the exotic, believe it, is not very surprising. But the fact that even the Chinese leadership does, it's positively hilarious.

The Chinese has a reputation of an ancient civilization whose leaders, unlike fickle Westerners, measures times in centuries. One source of this belief is an entertaining story. When the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in the early 1970s was asked by Henry Kissinger what he thinks of the French Revolution, his pithy answer was: "Too early to say". This conveyed the image of the Oriental statesman whose eyes are firmly focused on the grand arc of history. But this is not what happened. His translator told later that he simply misunderstood the question and thought it was referring to the 1968 Paris riots. Nevertheless, the lie was perpetuated by Kissinger, who always admired his enemies more than his allies, and who perhaps wanted to elevate his own importance by overselling the wisdom of his interlocutor.

In fact, the wisdom of long-term planning is conspicuously missing from Chinese history. China has been invaded, conquered, and ruled over by foreigners multiple times in the past millennia. In the times between foreign conquests, civil wars were more the rule than the exception. After reaching their cultural, technological, and military zenith in the sixteenth century, they chose isolation and opted out of the Industrial Revolution, leaving them in the rear-view mirror of European powers. By the 20th century, China became a poor and backward country. Then came the Japanese occupation and the civil war followed by thirty years of terror under Mao. Then Deng Xiaoping replaced the system of one-man dictatorship with the rule of the party, then Xi Jin-Pin is changing it back right now. The last hundred years were constant zig-zags and u-turns.

The latest is on demography. Mao introduced the one-child policy fifty years ago and put his country on a trajectory of halving its population by 2100. Maybe Peter Zeihan is exaggerating when he claims that China is done in ten years, but China has got onto the trajectory of becoming the most aged society on Earth in the span of two generations. This is an economic catastrophe and it's not clear how China can avoid it.

Regarding geopolitics, the image is even poorer. Instead of building up a network of allies as a path to eventually challenge the US, China has resolutely done the opposite. With the aforementioned Wolf Warrior diplomacy, it managed to alienate every single neighbor of hers. For a couple of barren rocks in seas and mountain ridges, it picked up diplomatic fights with Japan and minor but real ones with India. It reacted with extreme rudeness to the Australian request for an open inquiry. It is in constant territorial disputes with the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei. It achieved that the famously hostility-averse European Union in 2019 changed its reference to China from "strategic partner" to "systemic rival". It united the US's Republican and Democratic parties against itself, whose divison on every other issue is at its historical highest.

These are not the actions of cunning master strategists playing the long game but erratic and ham-fisted reactions of geopolitical autists.

The records on domestic policy don't lead to a different conclusion either. Let's look at another recent event. How did the Communist Party handle the pandemic? First, they suppressed all information about it, harassed, jailed, and "disappeared" journalists who were trying to ask questions. Then they closed down their whole economy for years. Instead of using that time to vaccinate their population, they spread lies about the Western vaccination and touted their own ineffective one. They opened up in 2022 for a short time, before closing again at the outbreak of the Omicron variant. Then after being spooked by protests, they took a complete U-turn and canceled the lockdowns overnight.

The Xi Jinping administration proved that in matters of extreme national importance, it doesn't know what it will do in two weeks let alone two centuries.

Does China own the 21st century?

From Hollywood movies and pundits alike, the general message of the early 2000s has been that America is on the decline, and China will take over its place as the biggest economy of the world, then the leading superpower in every respect. I personally know people who have had their kids learn Mandarin from an early age, I suppose to prepare them for the unfriendly future. 

As is probably obvious from the previous points, I think that it is also an unlikely one, for many reasons. Despite its incredible economic journey in the last forty years, China is still a developing country with a GDP per capita on par with Mexico. To break out of the gravitational field of the middle-income trap, it would need to maintain the escape velocity instead of its current deceleration. I think autocratic politics put a heavy brake on economic development after a certain level, and China is closing to that point while already slowing down in the process. This would be a long topic, so I just leave it with a reference to an earlier article about a great book on the subject, Why Nations Fail.

Aside from the limitations imposed by its political structure, China has enormous social challenges as well. Despite the dazzling cities, most of the population still lives in the rural countryside. As mentioned earlier, China has a very underdeveloped welfare state. This problem will only get worsened by the next problem, which is the demographic situation.

China is on the road to becoming the most aged society that ever existed. Even Chinese sources predict the halving of the population before the end of the century, and the Communist Party's attempts to reverse the course the disastrous one-child policy put China on don't seem to work. The specter of declining population looms over most other countries as well, but China is in a uniquely bad position. The US and, to a lesser extent, Europe still act as immigrant magnets. The influx of young people from less-developed countries can set off the effects of the dwindling birth rates. China doesn't have this option. Mandarin is a famously difficult language to learn, and Chinese culture is less than welcoming to foreigners. This is a country where the message of the superiority of the Han people and the maliciousness of the West (and Japanese, and ....) are constantly declared by state propaganda.

The idea that China can take over the role of the military superpower from the US is similarly lightly rooted in reality. The last war China fought (and lost) was more than forty years ago. It can churn out warships and fighter jets that equal in amount to the US's output, but it doesn't have the personnel to command them. Its military leaders own their positions to political connections, not experience. Russia is demonstrating in plain sight how effective the military of a deeply corrupt state usually is.

Countries don't have to rely only on their own resources, of course, if they have allies to support them during military or economic hardships. But instead of creating a network of them, the CCP spent the last ten years inspiring its neighbors to build alliances up against China.

The more probably future for China is a long struggle with mounting social problems and a deglobalizing world, which will turn the Communist Party ever more belligerent and xenophobic.

And with this last rebuttal, we are done. 

, ,

What is Stoicism?

The word "philosopher" means the lover of wisdom. Like many of the intellectual fundamentals of the modern world, the concept of philosophy came from ancient Greece, although its meaning changed over time. For the Greeks, the main purpose of philosophy was to help its students to live better. Philosophers were interested in every aspect of the universe - and before the era of modern science, almost every avenue of seeking knowledge fell under the umbrella of philosophy - but more than anything, they were expected to offer wisdom on how to live your life  - something that their modern peers are explicitly advised against.

One of the most popular philosophical schools of the ancient world was the Stoics. Their teachings haven't really been in vogue in the last couple of millennia, but at least they found their way into the common consciousness as an adjective. In popular imagination, a stoic is someone who takes the travails of life in stride, a stone statue of a human who endures pain and suffering with equanimity. Most of us have met stoic characters predominantly on the silver screen. The oriental monk, the native Indian warrior, the lone cowboy (or its more recent manifestation, the hard-boiled private detective) firing bullets and one-liners with equal skill. The picture these characters convey - that of a silent, strong, solitary figure, emotionally reserved to the extreme -  is not entirely misleading, but incomplete.

I got interested in Stoicism a couple of years ago when I stumbled into a book about it. Since then, the number of Stoicism-related podcasts, articles, and book recommendations I've come across seems to be growing slowly but steadily. In the time of custom-tailored newsfeeds and recommendation algorithms, it's hard to see if this really is a general trend in the outside world or simply my information bubble is getting tighter. But I could readily find some reasons why it would be a genuine phenomenon. In a constantly accelerating and ever less religious world many look for some practical guidance in life especially if it has the veneer of ancient wisdom.

And the Stoics are certainly ancient, and as practical as it gets as far as philosophy goes. Its founders had some theories and assumptions of and about the world as a whole, but these came secondary to the central question of their philosophy:


How to live a good life

The Stoic answer was to live a virtuous life. They defined the four cardinal virtues as Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, and Justice. Each of these covers a number of related traits, but they can be summarized as follows. 

Justice is having a moral compass. Temperance is the ability to restrain oneself and avoid excesses. Wisdom is the capacity to find the right way of dealing with life situations. And Courage, encompassing both moral and physical courage, is the strength to stand up for what is right even in the face of personal danger. 

The Stoics maintained that life visits hardships and difficulties on every one of us, and pursuing these virtues is the only thing that can help one overcome the challenges and find real and enduring happiness. Furthermore, being virtuous is both necessary and sufficient for that. Fortune, health, success, or the opposite of all these are not irrelevant but they are of secondary importance.

So far these are not earth-shattering revelations and they are not supported by evidence in a very obvious way. Everyone knows that life can be hard and courage and wisdom and the rest are important after all, and we all know people, personally or from history books, who have these traits to some degree and yet are or were unhappy. 

What made the Stoics tick and what makes them interesting is not so much their concept of virtues, but a handful of practical ideas directly applicable to life.


Recognize what is and is not under your control 

The first and most important insight of Stoic philosophy is that there are only a few things under your control in this world, and you are responsible for those and you have to accept the rest as they come. If your house burnt down, it will do you little good crying over it endlessly. Making it not happen is not in your power. What is in your power is to interpret the situation and choose your reaction to it.

Shrugging off the destruction of one's home is probably a step too far in an elevator pitch, so let's take a more mundane example. Imagine someone treating you impolitely in the supermarket. Such an event can trigger very different reactions in different people. Some would just be annoyed briefly and forget about it in a minute. Some would find it funny. Some would be enraged. Some would feel so disrespected that it would gnaw at their insecurity for the rest of the day. The Stoic insight in this situation is that the incident already happened and there is nothing you can do about that. Nothing. But you can decide how you choose to react to it. If you are working yourself up over it again and again, and ruin your day, that is your own damn fault. Instead of wallowing in self-pity, you could use the opportunity for self-improvement. To practice how to find humor or to understand yourself better in such situations. Or how to prevent them. Or how to handle them better. In short, life constantly throws stuff at you, and it's up to you to make the best of them. This is how it is.

“Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them.” — Epictetus

The idea that the events happening to you don't directly influence you, but are filtered through personal interpretation, is a very modern one (it arguably forms the basis of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy). It also has interesting implications.


Dettachment

One of the most fundamental and radical of those implications is the realization that you can at will disengage from your current predicament. You can be happy or find tranquility even if you are poor, sick, or down on your luck. If at this point it's tempting to tell the ancient Stoics that "it's easy to say that", then keep in mind that they lived in an era when the average lifespan didn't extend beyond 30 years, and more people died of plague, war, or famine than of old age. One of the most famous of ancient Stoics, Epictetus, was a cripple and a slave. (Two thousand years ago, either of those would have been enough to ruin your day, and all your days).

The Stoics encouraged detachment not only from your life circumstances but from possessions as well, both personal and material. This point is worth elaborating on because it is easy to interpret the wrong way and therefore it is the source of the most common misunderstanding about being a stoic.

The Stoics didn't say you should not enjoy or value what the world can offer. The emotionally impoverished stoic is a misconception. They were not necessarily ascetics who despised physical pleasures. They acknowledged that being healthy is better than being sick. Beings wealthy is preferable to being poor. Having friends is better than being lonely. As the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius, arguably the most famous of all ancient Stoics, put it, if you have to live in a palace, you might as well live well in a palace. You should enjoy good food, health, the company of friends. But you also should avoid becoming dependent on them. All your loved ones will die eventually. One day, at the latest on your last, you will lose everything you have. If you base your happiness on your possessions and personal circumstances, they can be taken away at any moment.

When you kiss your children good night, remind yourself that they can be dead tomorrow. Goulish as it sounds, the Stoics didn't advise it to indulge their morbid fascinations but to remind themselves of the importance of counting your blessings. Don't take your loved ones for granted and think you have all the time in the world to enjoy their presence.

Speaking of misconceptions, let's address another one. The Stoics are sometimes thought to be loners (see gunslingers and private dicks). This is not true. The Stoics recognized that man is a social animal and like good Greek citizens, they actually advocated for engagement in public life.  


Treating life as a training ground

Recognizing that your views and reactions are the only things you are really in control of is the main stoic idea. Treating your life as a training practice is the next best one. A real stoic looks at obstacles in life as challenges. Let's see what fate or the gods can throw at us. The increasing difficulties are like leveling up in a computer game. Your boss told you that you have only one day to prepare the presentation instead of a week? Let's see how much you can do in that time span. You are visiting a country and lost your passport on the day you should be flying home? That's level 2. You had eye surgery and have to live as a blind man for two weeks? At least level 3! A challenge worthy of a seasoned player. The reward is always the satisfaction you get from your accomplishment. 


Practice and self-improvement

As the previous section implies, the Stoics were also believers in another very modern notion, continuous self-improvement. They devised a number of daily practices to hone their skills for the game called Life. The fundamental ones are journaling, the end-of-day review, and the so called negative visualization.

The last one is the practice you should start your day with. Imagine the ways things go awry in the day ahead of you and mentally prepare for them. As Navy SEALS have plan A, B, and C for every mission, so should you be prepared for the most likely things to go wrong.

You should keep a journal. It is a true and trusted practice to help consolidate your thoughts and give the opportunity to see the path you've been travelling.

The evening meditation is what you should do the last time before going to bed. This is the time to reflect on the day. What went well, what went badly, what should have been done differently. Once I listened to a podcaster who rated his performance every day: wage negiotiation went reasonably well, 7/10; handling the stress of the traffic not so much, 3/10; explaining the kid why homework is important could have gone better, 4/10. You get the idea. Honestly admitting the mistakes enables you to avoid them next time, and high scores boost your confidence. 


The Appeal

The appeal of Stoicism is multifold. 

Its daily practice of journaling and of mediations to start and end the day with hammer its message home, well, every day. To be a stoic is to live like a stoic, and the presence or absence of discipline to observe the routine tells you undisputably if you are on the right track or not.

Said routine also provides a framework for life engendering a sense of stability that humans appreciate. It also creates constant opportunities for the practitioner to see her progress, which can create a virtuous cycle.

The Stoic approach of explicitly confronting difficulties and treating them as challenges combined with the clear separation between the things in and outside of our control removes a great deal of anxiety from life. Most of our anxieties come from worrying about other people's opinions, the threat of bad things happening to us, and the perceived lack of control over our own life. Stoicism addresses these problems head-on.

For some reason, the example of this I like most is that of Bryan Cranston, the lead actor in Breaking Bad. His advice to fellow actors was that you should not waste your thoughts on whether you get the role or not. Go to the audition, do the best you can, and drive satisfaction from your performance. If you gave your best, then you did all that was in your power. From that point, the decision is taken out of your hands anyway.


Summary

To summarize the most important points, Stoicism is a life philosophy that is light on theory and heavy on practice. Its concept of virtues may sound a bit anachronistic and high-brow for a modern reader, but its practical tools are as fresh as they get. A Stoic accepts whatever is out of his control without complaint, but takes full responsibility for his reactions to them. For him or her, every event in life is a subject for personal interpretation and an opportunity for self-improvement, every obstacle is a challenge to be conquered. The fleeting nature of life and all things material makes the good things even more precious. Therefore, they are to be enjoyed but not to be dependent on.


Is it just Zen for Westerners?

If the description of an ideal Stoic reminds someone of a Zen Buddhist monk, it's not a coincidence. The two philosophies overlap substantially. The hands-on, no-nonsense approach to life, the constant reminders of the impermanence of things, and the aspiration for tranquility and equanimity in a chaotic world characterize both schools to a roughly equal degree. The next post will explore how these two compare to each other in detail.



, ,

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank

If I had to choose which lesson I ever received that had to most long-lasting effect on me, I would pick my high-school physics teacher's. It went roughly like this: when you want to test if you really understood something, take a blank paper and write it down from scratch. Getting stuck or confused means that you deluded yourself and only thought you understood the subject. Go back to the textbook again, study, then take out another blank paper. Repeat the process until satisfaction or exhaustion.

I find this advice a no-brainer. It's simple and generally applicable, and I have always looked with bemusement at people who never use it (that is, most people). As a bonus, it also justifies why one would bother to write an article about a topic she is not an expert of, nor could she hope to summarize it any better than his sources.

And in the following, I give an example.

One of the most reverberating news of last week was the run on the bank of many Silicon Valley types, appropriately named Silicon Valley Bank. SVB wasn't a fancy bank investing in even fancier Silicon Valley startup high-tech products. On the contrary, it was the Silicon Valley companies that parked their money in SVB, which in turn, invested their money mostly in boring, long-term bonds. That is, like any ordinary bank does, it used the short-term loans (aka deposits) from its clients - for which it paid a small interest -  to buy long-term financial assets with higher-interest rates.

To simplify the process to the basics (using numbers conjured from thin air, as I haven't bothered to check what those numbers really were), for every dollar deposited, SVB promised to pay it back with a 3% annualized profit. From the money, it bought government bonds with a longer expiry date and 5% profit. At the end of the year, it reaped a solid 2% profit.

This worked well while the interest rates were low - which was the case in the past twenty years - but the model was completely upended when the era of high-interest rates suddenly dawned on the world. The bonds SVB bought earlier that promised 5% of profit in a year dropped their real value in the world of 10% general inflation.

Imagine that you bought government bonds for $1000 for which the said government promised you to pay another $50 at expiration, in a year's time (5% profit). It looked fine when the inflation was expected to be 3%, leaving you with a 2% real profit. It doesn't look fine at all when inflation is hovering around 10%. Your real profit will be -5%, so this bond you won't be able to sell for $1000 anymore, because your potential buyer can easily find something that safely promises 12% interest in a year (e.g. a newly issued government bond). You bought something for $1000 and it's suddenly worth only $900. 

What banks usually do is that they hedge against such turn of events. SVB did not. It actually has in the past successfully lobbied against regulations that might have forced it to be more prudent.

The second big mistake SVB made is that it has built out its clientele among the incestuous Silicon Valley start-up community where financial (and many other) decisions were often dictated by fashion and everyone is closely watching what the rest does. If someone suddenly takes all his money out of SVB, the others will learn about it in hours, and for purely rational reasons, assuming the guy knew something they did not, they will follow. A single actor could and did trigger a bank run much faster than in the case of a normal bank with a diverse clientele.

So, maybe out of sync with the Zeitgeist, SVB was not running some pyramid scheme or some bogus crypto-based fraud. Its management was simply incompetent. As one commentator put it, it was not a "bank run" by idiots. It was a bank "run by idiots".

What triggered the run and whether SVB was really insolvent or could have weathered the storm if the trust in it remains, are, as far as I know, open questions. The result is the same nonetheless, without intervention the bank would have collapsed as the panicked clients sucked it all dry. 

But the US government stepped in, took over SVB, and provided deposit insurance for all depositors, which was surprising for many. The US government guarantees deposits up to $250,000, but those deposits made up less than 2% of what the bank owed to its clients. Most accounts - which as I said belonged to Silicon Valley companies - were in the tens of millions. For some reason, the government decided that the danger of starting a contagion is a bigger problem that the moral hazard they introduced by saving the skin of super-wealthy techies who didn't bother to check how well the bank is run where they store their money.

,

The World according to Peter Zeihan

Perhaps you have heard of Peter Zeihan. He is the newest guy trending on Youtube (or at least on my Youtube) predicting the imminent collapse of China. He offers his views not only on China but on any world issue in general. At first glance at least, he seems to be more of a geopolitical entertainer than the geopolitical analyst he claims to be. So was my initial impression. But watching him on Joe Rogan's show made me interested in the guy. So I started actively searching for Zeihan-videos on Youtube and spent a couple of hours listening to his presentations and interviews. My views have evolved.

Zeihan is an entertainer, for sure, and his mannerisms are funny but potentially off-putting for some. The lanky figure sporting a greying beard and a pony-tail has the aura of a Russian-type mystic, or at least a charming con man.

But his goofiness is combined with encyclopedical knowledge. He rattles off technical, economical, geographical, demographical, historical, and energy security details with impressing ease. He offers strong opinions (supported by crisp and convincing-sounding arguments) on virtually everything, let it be the green revolution, Russia, Mexican cartels, nuclear energy, agriculture, global food security, demographics, cryptocurrencies, you name it.

Although pretended omniscience is a realiable sign of a looney, I involuntarily caught myself agreeing with quite of a lot of what he says. I found his quip about crypto especially endearing: "I'm not gonna say it was all a fraud. Some of it was a pyramid scheme".

Below I make an attempt to summarize what I gleaned Peter Zehain's idea of the world seems to be.

The world of yesterday and of tomorrow

The current world order was born at Breton Woods, after the Second World War. The USA, which at that time had an economy bigger than the rest of the world put together, decided that it will bribe the other countries. To make them its geopolitical allies and part of its security system against the Soviet Union (and China), it guaranteed the safety of global trade and encouraged everyone to participate in the liberal world order. The guarantor of safe trade was the US Navy. You could trade with anyone anywhere on the globe without paying the cost of security - a historically novel situation.

By this, the US put politics ahead of economy. From a purely economical perspective, with its vast territory, technological edge, and dynamic population, the US would have been better off in isolation. The real beneficiary of the Pax Americana was the rest of the world. Countries have continued getting richer every decade. 

But this model reached its expiry date. The US has been visibly loosing appetite for being the world's policeman, and even it wanted to stay in the role, it is no longer capable of. The rest of the world have not only caught up with America, but as a mass, dwarfs it in economic power. The second foundation of the liberal world order is also wobbling. One of the basic assumptions of the economic model of the last seventy years is that there is a huge number of active workers and consumers who drive the economy and take care of the relatively small cadre of the elderly. This demographic pyramid is turning upside down as we speak due to the enormous advancements in prosperity, health care, and urbanization. People never lived as long as today and never had fewer children.

Zehain's conclusion is that the current world order will change drastically, for the worse for most. For America, due to its unique geographical advantages, its relatively dynamic demographics, and vibrant economy, this will be an opportunity. It will replace its the global trading partners with inter-US trade, transforming its supply chains cleaner, shorter, safer. And the gap between the US and the rest will grow. For sclerotic Europe, the changes are bad news. For Russia, catastrophic in the mid-term, and for China, catastrophy in this very decade. 

China's fate is sealed for two reasons. One is the abysmal state of its demography. Even according to official Chinese data, which always come with cosmetic uplifts, continuing the trend, the population will halve by the end of the century. No country in history has ever had to face this challenge, and we don't know of any economic model that could manage it. Even if they make U-turn on child-raising policies, which they are doing, it's too late.

China's other fatal problem is the one-man leadership Xi Jinping has built up in the last 10 years. Never in history has been so many people controlled by the single leader, who has concentrated more power in his hands than even Mao. Even if Xi was a genius, he couldn't possibly alone successfully manage something such incomparably vast and complex as the Chinese state. And if his handling of COVID and foreign policy are any signals, he is not a genius. Moreover, he has a reputiation of shooting the messenger, which means by now he is entirely surrounded by yes-men and zealots who won't call out his bad decisions. Vladimir Putin is demonstrating real-time how successful that type of leadership is.


Is Zeihan right?

Zeihan certainly seems to be very informed, and most of his predictions are at least plausible. Some are pretty far-fetched. I think what conventional scholars of geopolitics would say about him is that he draws more often than not reasonable conclusions from facts that are more or less accepted, but does it with such a level of confidence that a real academic would never do. 

Geopolitical predictions are such an elastic subject, anyway. When Zeihan claims that China will collapse in the next decade, what does he mean by it, and how can we verify in 2033 that he was right? Does 20% drop in GDP mean "collapse"? Or civil unrests involving let's say 10% of the population? Or should it be at least 30%? Or maybe we can say China has collapsed if its share of the global trade has dropped by half?

Zeihan also makes predictions about everything. Green technology, nuclear energy, Russia, the US, etc. If he turns out to be right in 70% of them in 10 years, that would be pretty impressive achievement, as much as global predictions fare.

But until then, the reliability of his predicting powers can only be judged by past predictions. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found anything on that.

In the absence of past records, I ususally look for signs of self-deprecating humor or admittance of failures. Zeihan certainly isn't lacking in humor, and recently called his initial assessment of the Ukrainian war, in which he predicted complete Russian victory in six months, "laughably wrong". Which is a good sign. He wasn't trying to explain away his error.

What to make of the Peter Zeihans of the world?

This question was the original reason of writing the post, but I still don't really know what I want to say. Something along the lines that even though charlatans make bombastic statements to impress the hoi polloi, not everyone who is bombastic is a charlatan.

If someone made the same predictons as Zeihan and published them in academic papers, no one would know about him, apart from other academics. The flair for theatre is mandatory to be a public personality.

And finally, even if Zeihan is style over substance, at least he is a refreshing exception in the long line of prophets presaging the end of the word. Instead of predicting that the West and especially the US is going to hell, he claims that everyone else will.

While we are waiting for the end of the decade to prove him right, I recommend subscribing to his podcast. Every 2-3 days he appears with a new, 3-10 minutes long episode, in which he shares his opinion of some current event, form Chinese balloons to American presidents.