The Case for Trump

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, arguments, arguments for trump, arguments in favour of Donald trump, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, debate, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, donald drumpf, Donald Trump, donald trump 2016 defending, drumpf, john oliver, make america great again, mitt, Mitt Romney, trump, trump 2016, trump 2020, trump drumpf, trump romney, trump twitter

The star of English comedian John Oliver (sorry for him, America) has been rising fast this past week, largely (or entirely) due to the viral success of his ‘Make Donald Drumpf Again’ routine, a 20 minute rant that has since been shared over 50 million times on facebook and viewed over 4 million times on YouTube.

The piece has been praised as “timely”, “politically explosive”, and “devastating”. Observers (mainly on the centre left) claim Oliver has ‘destroyed’ Trump’s credibility, if not his entire candidacy in one fell swoop. Is this true? No.

The majority of Oliver’s points in this clip are embellishments of points already made elsewhere, often with greater force and skill. Not one of them is valid. Few of them even have a cogency able to survive the deduction of humour. Let’s go through a few of them.

Oliver repeatedly notes that Donald Trump is unpredictable and has changed his political positions over time. This was likely intended to make Trump supporters question their favoured candidate’s authenticity. Like previous attempts to wound Trump’s reputation, this failed miserably. As Mr Trump himself has noted, Ronald Reagan – the untouchable giant of recent Republican history – shifted position on many important topics prior to settling on his widely adored Presidential agenda. So have many other great political figures. Though this defence is simple, it is also devastating. Why the hell can’t a man change his mind? Do figures on the left hold everyone to this rigorous account? If a right-winger goes to the left later in life, would they be so suspicious of his or her integrity? Of course not. The matter should thus be closed.

Another charge Oliver advanced in the Drumpf routine involves Trump’s claim that we should kill (or threaten to kill) the families of terrorists in order to make them play ball. Trump’s rationale on this matter (almost always excluded from the quote in reports) is that terrorists care about little outside of their own private universe. They are obviously, demonstrably willing to sacrifice the lives of random Muslims for their eschatological cause. They are also obviously, demonstrably willing to sacrifice their own lives, which they view as intolerable spiritual encumbrances obstructing entry into a garden of olives and virgins. It is rational – whatever else it is – for Trump to float the idea that these brutes may care about their families, if about anything at all.

I don’t believe for a moment that Mr Trump would order US airmen to bomb the houses of innocent people. It is more likely that his comments were meant as an argument for intensive bombing – which might result in the deaths of innocents.  This is a crucial distinction; one the media should be more careful to add when they raise the issue.

Oliver’s argument that Trump is a bad businessman is both untrue and completely irrelevant. Trump is obviously a very successful man, worth  – even according to the estimates of his enemies – over 8 billion dollars. Though the son of a wealthy businessman, Trump was supplied with a comparatively tiny loan by his father which he has since multiplied consistently with no outside help. Turning a small amount of money into a huge amount is no small art. If you don’t believe me, try turning $1000 into $80,000. If it was easy, everyone would have a tower.

As I say, Trump’s financial history is not only fake but irrelevant. Trump is not running as a businessman. He is running as a patriot. Even if Trump Steaks or Trump University did fall flat, why would this have anything to say about the billionaire’s competence as a leader? It could even be said to recommend him further. The world economy is like a violent sea. Its current tosses big and small ships alike. Every vessel, however expertly designed, is at risk. What matters most is not the occasional random, unforeseeable shock of fortune, but the staying afloat. Trump has absorbed great turbulence over his life and still managed to survive and flourish beyond it. Experience like that cannot be bought.

The only original conceit of the Drumpf routine is Oliver’s genuinely penetrating insight that ‘Trump’ rhymes in the unconscious mind with ‘luxury’, ‘quality’, ‘exclusive’ and other aspirational nouns and adjectives. Ordinary folk, Oliver explained, instinctively associated names with the qualities their bearers are famous for. Tiger Woods, for a different example, brings to mind victory, health, Black achievement and sporting excellence. You are substantially more likely to buy a product with the name Tiger Woods emblazoned on it than one emblazoned with the name of Vanilla Ice or George Zimmerman. Similarly, in politics – a choice of product like any other – we are naturally drawn to individuals based on positive associations. Trump is wealth. Trump is success, luxury and New York. Trump is a five star hotel on the top floor of the capitalist universe. People find this very difficult to refuse.

But does this observation make choosing Trump for President any less rational? No, it doesn’t. Trump is not only admired for subliminal reasons, but for fully rational, real-world advantages. He is (as he is absolutely right to remind us) the only self-funded candidate. This matters a great deal, much more than Trump’s detractors are willing to admit. Marco Rubio, his articulate speaking aside, is a bought and paid-for puppet of the Republican establishment. His manifesto is ghost-written by wealthy donors who are completely unaccountable to – and disinterested in – the general public. The American people are no longer willing to accept this callous type of flyover politics; the politics of ‘we know what is good for you because we have degrees and you don’t’. 

If Oliver’s routine was a serious attempt to cripple Trump and take him out of the game then it has surely failed. Trump’s polling figures are as high as ever. Not one of the tycoon’s rivals appears able to mount a consequential challenge. Super Tuesday was a splendorous triumph for The Donald. He won states in the north and in the south, perplexing analysts who had long called these for Rubio and Cruz respectively.

Although (surprisingly) Oliver didn’t dwell on it too heavily, we must also address here the idea that Trump is somehow a ‘racist’ or a ‘White Nationalist’. Of all the slurs directed at him, this is by far the most frequent and potentially effective. Where is the evidence?

Some might immediately point to the comments the candidate made about Muslims – namely, his lightening-rod suggestion that the US bar foreign Muslims for a temporary period on security grounds. This proposal has been wildly criticised by all and sundry, but is it racist? No, obviously not. As the world should be tired of hearing by now, Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a biological family. To propose their exclusion is no more racist than proposing the exclusion of Mormons. There are White Muslims, Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turkic Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Indonesian and Malaysian and African Muslims. Under Trump’s policy, all will be subject to the same measure, whereas Christian Arabs, Atheist Turks or Buddhist Malaysians will not be. Bottom line – race is irrelevant.

Trump’s attitudes to Mexicans and Blacks are also far from troubling. As regards the former, the billionaire has famously called for the deportation of 11 million illegal migrants. While sensational to an unreliable and skittish media, this isn’t even a policy shift. It is the enforcement of an existing law. It should be no more controversial than to propose the enforcement of parking legislation. Trump is not opposed to Mexican Americans legally resident in the United States. To the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the ‘spirit’ of the Mexican people and highlighted his determination to improve living standards and job opportunities for the Latin and Hispanic community.

Trump’s anti-immigration posture is for the benefit of all working Americans, with no distinction made of race, religion or class. It is a policy that should be welcomed by the Right and Left alike. Illegal immigration devalues the native labour force and undercuts the wages and expectations of American workers. It isn’t fair. It isn’t right. It cannot be tolerated.

Donald Trump is an opportunity that will not come again. He is a one-off: unscripted, un-bought, willing to fight for real-world advantages and speak up against real-world injustice, strong enough to resist the fury of a whipped up media class, patriotic enough to risk a personal fortune to enter politics – this is far from the ordinary. Should he be rejected, something amazing will have been squandered; something historic will have been rejected, and for no greater reason than a queasy fear of the novel and the real.

Trump’s manifesto is the red pill, the uncomfortable jerk that awakens the comfortably numb out of their demon-haunted repose. Trump will redefine American politics, smash the cross-party liberal consensus and reintroduce essential ideas into a pacified and muddled American consciousness. The ‘conservatives’ who are bulking at the prospect of his presidency never were conservatives to begin with. The liars are being separated from the truth. The cards are being laid on the table.

Will you stand with him?

D, LDN

The Earth is Flat, Islam is Peaceful, Idiocracy was just a Movie.

Tags

America, BBC, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Dysgenics, Dysgenics definition, Facebook, flat earth, flat earth b.o.b, flat earth bob, flat earth idea, flat earth theory, flat earth vs round earth, force, intellectualism, logic, nasa, reason, reason reason, science, science and knowledge, solar system, space, theories, Twitter

The popular hip-hop artist B.O.B (I presume this is pronounced Bob) made headlines last week when he confidently proclaimed the earth to be a flat disk, and not – as we have been cynically led to suppose – a slightly oval sphere. Reactions to these statements ranged from the informed to the ridiculous. It has been pointed out, in a variety of ways, that B.O.B’s assertion is unsound; that the earth is in fact a sphere (or there abouts) and that the flat-disk theory is outdated and no longer taken seriously by the relevant scientific authorities.

You might think the easiest disproof of the flat disk theory is that the earth can be seen as round in photographs released by various space programs. The reason this isn’t accepted by B.O.B’s ilk is because NASA (in particular) is held to be a shadow agent of American malevolence (although what such a demonic force hopes to profit from this deceit remains unclear).

I have been aware of the renaissance in flat earth theory for quite a while now, so wasn’t as surprised by B.O.B’s comments as other seem to have been. Indeed, the flat earth boom is just another symptom of a general human malaise; one that if left unchecked threatens us all with a grim and untenable future.

The Idiocratic reality afflicting (primarily) Western countries is one of the great crises of the modern era. The social and political dominance of certain personality types, bolstered by their increasing organisation via the internet, is beginning to significantly degrade the focus of Western politics, dragging it back, relentlessly back to an era of conspiracy, moral panic and ignorance.

In a rap song (called ‘Flatline’) released just after his flat earth comments, B.O.B made positive noises about other fringe ideas, most notably in the following lyric:

“They nervous, but before you try to curve it/Do your research on David Irving/Stalin was way worse than Hitler/ That’s why the POTUS gotta wear a kippah/I’m a man before an artist/ Get a lawyer, look up Doctor Richard Sauder.”

David Irving I presume needs no introduction. The cretin is an iconic denier of the Holocaust and a large and respected presence on the international and Islamic far-right. Doctor Richard Sauder is probably less well known. Indeed I had to research the name myself (thereby grudgingly following B.O.B’s commands). As I now understand it, Mr Sauder alleges among other things that Western militaries have constructed massive underground and underwater bases, including marvellously infeasible facilities beneath the Atlantic and Pacific ocean floors. Why have they done this? It’s for the usual reason these imagined tyrannies operate behind closed doors – to control us, to keep us from discovering ‘the truth’…..

Internet conspiracy theories and their ballooning popularity must be placed in a greater context in order to be properly understood. Unlike the flat earth, the non-Holocaust, and the peaceful religion of Islam, idiocracy is a grim reality, and one that can only become more problematic as time goes on.

Most population increase is occurring among the less intelligent sections of the human species. Downward selection is now mass-producing gullible and unintelligent personalities, leaving the intelligent at risk of saturation. Why is this not considered a problem?

D, LDN

Defining the ‘West’

Tags

America, America 911, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Facebook, Islam and the West, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, west and east, west vs east, western definition, Western world

In the course of an online discussion last Tuesday, I was asked a deceptively simple-sounding question that has since plagued my thinking. After offering an argument for the inherent superiority of the ‘West’, my competitor stumped me by requesting that I “define ‘the West'” – that is, explain what it actually consists of.

Having had a few days to ponder an answer, during which I have been staring intensely at google maps and rifling through the pages of Wikipedia, I have come up with a list of countries I consider ‘Western’. I must add beforehand the obvious point that ‘West’ and ‘Western’ in this context have no geographic meaning, but rather imply certain standards of civilisation, such as secularism, gender equality, liberal capitalism and a free press. Here then is my answer – presented in no particular order:

Great Britain and all the countries of the EU
Liberal commonwealth nations (such as Jamaica, Trinidad etc..)
The United States
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
India*
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan (Republic of China)
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Uruguay
Mexico
South Africa
Armenia
Israel

*It should be noted that India has an anti-democratic caste system, with different categories recorded by government. This must change if India is to maintain its Western character.

Now, a lot of people would say I’m being far too generous with this list. When such people think of ‘The West’, they think of things like influence, affluence, cleanliness and order, as well as the basic civilizational standards mentioned above. I understand what these people mean and would agree that there exists a ‘core’ inside of the West, without which the whole ‘Western’ construct would begin to fragment or collapse. This core is simply the Anglosphere, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Such nations are not merely of the West, but its original authors.

Needless to say, no Islamic country comes close to membership of this marvellous club. And I doubt that fact will change any time soon.

D, LDN.

President DTMW: My Foreign Policy

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, America 911, Multiculturalism, Europe, Demographics of Europe, Barack Obama, American Liberty, BBC, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Israel, Armenia, Africa, Russia, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, America, Russians, Africa and Europe, foreign policy, us foreign policy, foreign, foreign policy middle east, jordan, Russian policy

What would I do if I were President of the United States of America? It’s a question I often find myself considering, and so I thought I’d share the fruit of my imaginings with you here. These are my policy positions on six of the most important regional issues of our day.

Iran.

Iran is a theocratic state, but not a naturally theocratic society. The regime must be therefore be emphasised as the enemy in contradistinction to the people. We must carry out limited air-strikes against all known nuclear facilities and use global and social media to explain ourselves to the Iranian population. There is no valid reason for Iran to enrich uranium beyond the level required for a peaceful, civil energy program, except for the clandestine manufacture of nuclear arms. Since the regime in Iran is committedly anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist and anti-Western, we are acting in legitimate self-defence by carrying out such attacks.

As to the long term, we should encourage dissident forces within Iran and demand the nation’s elite to hold free and fair elections. I don’t believe an invasion of Iran would solve any problems.

Russia/Eastern Europe

Being a European, Christian and developed country, Russia should rightly be a friend of the West and not its enemy. However, the way Russia and NATO have developed makes the status quo extremely difficult to reverse. Putin is nakedly aggressive towards many former Soviet States (esp. Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Georgia) and would appear to imagine with pleasure the recreation of the former Russian empire. NATO must face this down with confidence and willpower. Troop deployments and missile shield development in Eastern Europe should go ahead and Russian concerns should be ignored.

Outside of Europe, the West should follow the Russian lead when that lead is going in the right direction, the intervention in Syria being a case in point. Economically, we should seek greater integration and trade with Russia. And culturally, we must emphasise our similarities and downplay our differences. Both Russia and Europe will face Islamic insurgencies in the future. When that time arrives, it is obviously preferable that we cooperate rather than present a divided defence.  

The Arab World

As regards the Arab world, our relationships with authoritarian but pro-Western regimes like Egypt and Jordan must be maintained at all costs. No more should we recklessly push for wholesale democratisation in this region. As Iraq and Syria have shown, extremism must first be combatted and extinguished before democracy can truly flourish. In Algeria, Egypt and Jordan, state forces have fought very long and very bloody campaigns against violent Islam. They must be provided with all the military means to continue this struggle until victory. If they fail, we will be drawn in ourselves. Let’s strive to avoid this.

China

Current US policy towards China is roughly correct, I would say. As a guiding objective, it is most important that China remain integrated within the world economy. This is for both financial and strategic reasons. A China that is dependent on the Western market for income is a China less likely to attack Japan or Taiwan. Should that strategy fail, the current US deployment in the region, coupled with the might of the Japanese, Taiwanese and South Korean militaries will surely be enough to repel any aggression forthcoming.

Africa

The Chinese empire being constructed in Africa has proven undeniably popular with the native populations. Beijing’s unique style of ‘hands-off’/long-distance colonialism extracts the continent’s economic resources whilst maintaining an illusion of African autonomy. The West could learn a great deal from this and build much stronger relationships with African countries. On matters like immigration, future demographics, aid, disease-control, solar energy, oil and minerals, a partnership with Africa is essential. It has been neglected for too long.

Israel

We can help Israel most by offering our support in future IDF campaigns. The situation with Hamas and Hezbollah is highly ambiguous and may sometime re-ignite into conflict. If that happens, instead of offering platitudinous sympathies with the enemy, we should remember who we are, who we identify with and what we would do in the same scenario. It stands to reason that we will also continue to trade military technologies with Israel.

D, LDN.

Clown or Prophet? – Glenn Beck and World History

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Beck, Civilisation, Coulter, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Fox, Fox News, Glenn Beck, glenn beck caliphate, glenn beck isis, glenn beck Islam, globalists, Gun Control, Islamists, liberty, Multiculturalism, Obama, progressives, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, The Blaze, TheBlaze, United States

Glenn Beck is regarded by 90% of the world population as being unserious, someone to laugh at, make jokes about and treat with the same caution one would employ with a loudmouth drunk hollering about politics from a park bench. The left and moderate right are united in disliking him. I have more than once heard the phrase ‘to go/going chalkboard crazy’ in everyday conversation and this phrase almost certainly owes its existence to Mr Beck’s habit of scratching elaborate theories onto a blackboard in his various podcasts and YouTube shows. Beck’s heavy-handed and manipulative techniques (tearing up at the mere mention of the ‘constitution’ or the ‘troops’) have even led those in the self-declared ‘mainstream’ to question his mental well-being, although as to whether such concern is genuine or sarcastic must vary from person to person.

The media (with the possible exception of Fox News) is unquestionably part of this majority. CNN journalist Michael Wolraich (for example) spoke for millions when he wrote that Beck is “paranoid”, and that he dwells “in a land of make-believe” in which “devious enemies have infiltrated the government and are plotting to destroy America. Every significant phenomenon, from the recession to the BP oil spill, is part of their master plan. Their final objective is a fascist-communist-Big Brother-world-government-über-tyranny, and they will annihilate anyone who interferes, which is why Beck frequently asks listeners to pray for his safety.”

The 10% of the world population to whom the views above do not apply perceive things as differently as can be imagined. They do not regard Mr Beck as a clown or entertainer, but as a prophet, a seer, an Orwell, unappreciated by the majority simply because they are too scared to look at reality with an open mind.

I tend to fall somewhere in-between. I cannot deny that Beck obviously (and I mean obviously) hams up his delivery for cheap emotional effect. Nor can I deny that his willingness to advertise products ranging from vitamin supplements to insurance, gold-cash conversion services to security alarms is highly unorthodox and must count as evidence for his prosecutors.

But against this, I also cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the theories Beck scrawls on his blackboard have a strange tendency to prove accurate, not some of the time, but most of it.

The other day I watched a lengthy video Beck recorded many years ago. In the clip (using his trusty chalkboard) Beck outlines four forces he believes are jostling to decide the human future. The first is the force of progressivism, a loose and broad grouping of the international Left (or in American parlance, ‘liberals’) who have in mind the goal of a benevolent ‘one-world’ government and the abolition of the nation-state. The second force is that of the Globalists, the academic and business elites of the world who also wish to abolish national distinctions, but for largely economic and non-ideological reasons. The third force is the force of Jihad or militant Islam, the stated goal of which is a universal Caliphate, now represented clearly by the Islamic State and its supporters. And finally there is Beck’s preferred force, the Libertarian Conservatives, those who wish to uphold the old moral and national conventions and preserve liberty and the right of self-determination for the individual.

According to Beck (and to common sense) the first three forces are increasingly allied to each other, even though their eventual utopias differ radically. The Progressives sponsor and allow mass immigration, which enables the spread of Islam into the West. The radical Muslims confuse and delegitimise the societies to which they migrate, leading to a cultural hodgepodge conducive to one-world integration. The Globalists meanwhile are completely at ease with both forces. They lose nothing when Jihad strikes civil society, and may even profit from it. And as to the destruction of national identities, they couldn’t care less. Globalist capitalism strives to make the citizens of the world as similar as possible in order to simplify marketing and trade. The resisting force, that of Conservative Libertarian (often explicitly defined by Beck in religious terms) is thus very much the underdog, outnumbered, outspent and steadily being undone.

While Beck’s theory is imperfect (as any theory on this grand historical scale must be), who can really deny the basic gist of his argument? If the snobs who discount Beck as ‘mad man’ have a better explanation of the political zeitgeist, I would love to hear it.

D, LDN.

American Übermensch: Donald Trump’s Thrilling Confidence

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, Art of the deal, Barack Obama, Capitalism, Civilisation, CNN, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2016, Donald Trump could win, Donald Trump NBC, donald trump speech, donald trump wiki, Envy, Fox News, New York, Philosophy, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Riches, trump speech, United States

So, Donald Trump, the brash celebrity billionaire and star of TV’s ‘The Apprentice’ has dramatically announced a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Cue hysteria. Cue mob humour. Cue intellectual laziness.

I understand how conventional it is to laugh at Trump; at his braggadocio, his squirrelly hair and material emphasis. He is clearly someone who enjoys the media spotlight and who often speaks with the media in mind. But away from the quirks in his character, it cannot be denied that Trump, via his achievements and lived philosophy, also personifies America at its most unapologetic, creative, tough-minded and independent.

He is a throw-back in that regard; the living relic of an era – fast being lost – in which the United States was the country to imitate if you wanted your own to succeed. It was an era of unipolar domination, whether on the economic, cultural or military plain. It was the era in which most of the skyscrapers you see on the dazzling Manhattan skyline were constructed, when the bridges were built (on budget and on time), and when the US army considered concepts like ‘retreat’ and ‘failure’ to be eccentricities unique to Europe.

I believe this American spirit still survives, in pockets and enclaves, but the condition of America in general is increasingly tenuous. Toxic issues are beginning to develop in the marrow of American life; issues that if left without treatment, could prove lethal to its long-term prospects.

Trump announced his bid for presidency this week with a resounding rally held in his Manhattan skyscraper ‘Trump Tower’. The fallout would last for days. Here are some of the more ‘provocative’ statements emphasised by the press:

On immigration  – “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

On jobs – “Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don’t believe the 5.6. Don’t believe it… That’s right. A lot of people… can’t get jobs. They can’t get jobs, because there are no jobs, because China has our jobs and Mexico has our jobs. They all have jobs.”

On health-care reform – “We have a disaster called the big lie: Obamacare… Yesterday, it came out that costs are going for people up 29, 39, 49, and even 55 percent, and deductibles are through the roof. You have to be hit by a tractor, literally, a tractor, to use it, because the deductibles are so high, it’s virtually useless. It’s virtually useless. It is a disaster.”

Shortly after these comments were made, left-leaning cable channels set about presenting them as stand-alone bigotries, considerably more extreme and stupid seeming than in their original context. The television network NBC responded quickly by severing all ties with Trump, accompanied by the retail giant Macy’s, hair-product brand Farouk Systems, and the Latino TV networks Univsion, Televisa and Ora TV.

I won’t deny that the comment about Mexican rapists was lazy and ill-advised. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with sexual violence in Mexican communities more serious than in others. But outside of these unfortunate snippets (incidentally, I don’t share the Republican anxiety over subsidised health-care either), I found the speech rather inspiring.

Trump offered his audience an honest, easy to understand diagnosis of real and important maladies. His remarks about the pathetic failings of the Iraqi ‘military’ were dead on the nail. His comments about China’s cynical devaluation of its currency were timely and brave. His stated willingness to protect Israel should comfort the hearts of besieged democrats around the world.

But more than anything, it was Trump’s call for a ‘cheer-leading’ President who can resurrect the attitude of exceptionalism that truly impressed me. As I have written perhaps too many times before, positivity and the “Let’s Win!” spirit is not only useful on the football field or basketball court. It is the same attitude that destroyed the Empire of Japan and liquidised Iraqi divisions in Kuwait. It is the attitude that built the Hoover Dam, and which drives the world economy.

Trump understands this. He understands the psychological basis of American strength, that this strength is not derived from virtue alone, but from arrogance, determination and unilateralism too.

Despite my enthusiasm, I am soberly aware that a Trump administration is as unlikely Caitlyn Jenner birthing triplets. Impossible, of course, but perhaps not wholly undesirable.

D, LDN.

India Will Not Be a Superpower.

Tags

American Decline, Armies, China Vs America, Defend the modern world, Demographics of the Future, India, India vs China, Indian, Indian Superpower, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Nuclear Weapons, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

It has long been standard practice among foreign policy experts to include into future projections the potential influences of an ‘Indian Superpower’.

Behind this logic lies a demographic determinism which, broadly applied, also promotes the highly fertile nations of Brazil, South Africa and Nigeria to a similar hypothetical prowess later in the century. To put the logic at its most simple:

Big population + stability = China.

Anyone with a less politically-correct mind will of course (correctly) discount the potential of Nigeria or South Africa gaining a seat at the top (economic, political or military) table any time soon. Some however might understandably find the prospect of India ascending to such a rank rather more feasible.

After all, India is due to become the most populous country in the world in a matter of years. The territory of India is large, diverse, and in a geo-strategically important position. The military of India is huge and well-equipped by EU and American exporters. The country is also the world’s largest democracy, with guaranteed representation for all faiths, genders and political persuasions. This status as a democratic counterweight to the rise of Chinese autocracy in Asia may further tighten Delhi’s ties with Washington and secure generous terms of alliance with America long into the future.

It is a strong case then, I concede, and I’ve little doubt most policy-makers will continue to believe it. But I also have a diminishing sense of doubt that they are wrong.

After the population issue is discarded, India has very little in common with its rapidly ascending Northern neighbor. In fact, the differences, considered closely, couldn’t be more stark.

For whatever reason this may be, China has industrialized at a rate that has left India scrambling in the dust. Chinese cities have shifted in just a few decades from semi-rural wastelands to New-York-grade metropolises, complete with financial districts, subways, lightening fast overground train networks and first-class infrastructures. Even the wealthiest and most important Indian cities like Delhi and Mumbai have nothing on a myriad of internationally unknown Chinese urban centres. Comparing Delhi to the prefecture level city of Chongchinq for example, is equivalent to comparing Bogota to Chicago. The distance in modernity, infrastructure and appearance couldn’t be more starkly presented.

In terms of Cultural sophistication (provided we take the West as the standard to measure against) India lags even further behind their Northern counterparts. China, under the dictats of its (albeit heavily qualified) ‘Communism’ has outlawed many tribal practices that only fifty years ago were considered the norm. India however, under the much lighter reforming hand of democracy, has yet to abandon many of its most antique oppressions. Women in India (from all religious backgrounds) are routinely married not by love and choice, but by considerations of caste and family standing.

Should the women in question flee into more modern practices, then honor killing is not unheard of even in large, middle class cities like Bangalore or Chennai.

If rape rates are an adequate measure of cultural misogyny, India is also far behind the expectations of the modern idea. Sexual assault is a horribly common occurrence in India, and this has become especially notorious of late as the ‘Delhi gang-rape’ scandal hit headlines across the world.

As to explanations for the endemic violence against women, the Guardian reported that some consider it “a consequence of the efforts of a growing number of women, even in remote areas, to claim basic freedoms denied for centuries.. ” while “…Others point to India’s acute gender imbalance, tenacious caste system and entrenched patriarchal culture. Conservatives have blamed “western influences”, women’s clothing and even fast food.

“Informal village courts run by local male elders, such as that which ordered this most recent attack, are common across much of rural India and are frequently responsible for inflicting cruel, sometimes lethal, punishments for supposed social transgressions such as marrying without their prior consent. Such courts also frequently oblige relatives to take violent action to restore the “honour” of a community.”

Despite what we might automatically (and given the situation in neighbouring Pakistan, justifiably) assume, those involved are not all Muslims, but Sikhs and Hindus too.

India is also weakened by that very diversity. The country is a very recently woven patchwork of historically divided religious communes, many of which have come to violent confrontation in just the past few decades. Though it might be said that China is equally afflicted by division (Tibetans, Uygurs etc…) – such cleavages are there managed by an efficiently centralized, undemocratic regime. Parliamentary Democracy (like that which governs India) is much less suited to holding religiously or ethnically divided countries together (for comparison, I give you the cases of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Lebanon). China’s authoritarianism also serves to manage the fallout from economic inequality, an increasing problem on both sides of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

In conclusion, although India will certainly become more economically important as the 21st century progresses, an Indian Superpower is a most unlikely prospect.

D, LDN.