Low-IQ Vocab

~ Clarissa

People who use the word multipolar in the context of politics are as stupid as those who use the word gender-fluid.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

36 thoughts on “Low-IQ Vocab”

      2. So the idea is, not that a multipolar world has never existed or could not exist, but that in the current world, the United States is the only real power, so long as it chooses to exercise that power?

        Like

        Reply

        2. “So the idea is, not that a multipolar world “

          Who would these other “great powers” be?

          China? A surveillance state nightmare currently undergoing military purges and economic breakdown?

          russia? A full on death cult busy destroying its future so that a handful of oligarchs can send their prostitute children to the west?

          EU? Paralyzed by bad design and bureaucratic inertia that hoped that enough business regulations and trade with dictatorships would lead to eternal world peace and prospertiy?

          India? ha ha ha ha ha ha!

          Brazil? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

          “Multipolarity” is cope that russians came up with the justify their idiotic and awful socio-political system…. another example of russia trying to get ahead through magic words than doing the hard work of creating a strong civil society.

          Don’t get me wrong, the US is doing its best to destroy its won superpower status, not least by jumping into a quagmire as a favor to the worst Israeli government ever and destroying public infrastructure. But still, it is a superpower for the foreseeable future and no other polity comes close.

          Like

          Reply

          1. It’s funny, after reading this comment I came across a video by Richard Spencer (the Trump-supporting white nationalist who is now some kind of Hanania-esque advocate for cultural Eurocentrism) in which he distinguished between multipolarity as Russian ideology – which he described ironically as “liberalism for the world”, in which each geopolitical region gets to do its own thing – and multipolarity as purely descriptive concept. He went on not only to reject ideological multipolarity, but descriptive multipolarity too. However, he did so, not on the grounds that America reigns supreme, but rather that modernity is creating a homogeneous universal sensibility – everyone believes they have rights, everyone lives in the global village, etc. (He then went on to speak as if Jerusalem is the capital of this homogeneous world, on the grounds of its importance in the three Abrahamic faiths, though he added that he was still trying to figure out how Asia fits into this model.)

            Personally I consider that the world became multipolar in the mid-2010s. Certainly it was different to the world of the 1990s, which was the real apex of unipolarity. America and the American model reigned supreme, everyone was imitating the American system in various ways, no one was challenging the American security concepts except for a few small “rogue states”. 9/11 was the first crack in this world order, and by the mid-2010s you have Xi, Modi, Putin 2.0, the Islamic State, and even Trump, all rejecting the 1990s world order. There was no other single power to equal America, but Russia + China together looked like it could be a counterweight.

            Trump 2.0 could be interpreted as a new kind of unipolarity. After the drift of the Biden years, Trump has again made America the crossroads of all the world’s politics. But instead of the 1990s universal liberalism, 2020s unipolarity is outright adversarial, it’s about America imposing its will on all the other powers and blocs and regions, in the name of its own national self-interest. It’s most reminiscent of Peter Zeihan’s scenarios, ironic because Zeihan loathes Trump.

            Until Trump 2.0 came along, I thought America’s best chance at renewed unipolarity lay in the AI revolution, but I thought this would come at the price of posthumanism. An America that embraced the power of AI would not be quite human any more, it would be an increasingly cyborg polity. On the surface, the unipolarity of Trump 2.0 is due instead to Trump’s audacity and autocracy, empowered by the cult of personality. But the AI-loving tech right is part of Trump’s coalition, and they have been given full rein to develop the technology, so things are headed in that posthuman direction anyway.

            Like

            Reply

            1. “I consider that the world became multipolar in the mid-2010s”

              In theory, maybe. But in reality…. neither russia nor china has been able to actually act like a “great power” and the ability to do so now is grows more remote by the day.

              Like

              Reply

              1. All Russia ever do is pout. It’s been a 300-year-long pout. Zero achievements, inventions, technology. Almost nothing in terms of art. Two novelists and four poets for a country of 120 million across three centuries is a worse result than Cuba.

                China is even worse.

                You can’t be a leader if your citizens are running away at the slightest opportunity and if nobody wants to be around you, let alone be you.

                I can’t believe people are discussing this seriously regarding countries whose best and brightest would go to any lengths to not be in those countries.

                Like

              2. Clarissa writes

                “Russia… Zero achievements… Almost nothing in terms of art… China… even worse”

                I’ve noticed a few times before on this blog, these proclamations that not only Russia, but the rest of the world outside the West, contributes nothing to modernity, technically or culturally. It’s almost 19th-century in character – “Better fifty years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay”.

                As a westerner, it’s somewhat bracing to see such opinions, after a generation of globalized cultural studies (world history, world philosophy, etc) intended as a corrective to “Eurocentrism” (or worse, “white supremacy”). If it promotes a more realistic sense of the West’s achievements, that’s good.

                But I also wonder if there’s something specifically Ukrainian about this attitude. It’s not just that Ukraine has chosen to affiliate with Europe rather than Russia, but that most of the world outside the West has chosen to be neutral regarding the war, and many countries have signed on to would-be multipolar associations like BRICS. So maybe Ukrainians are saying, the hell with you all, ours is the side of progress, you are all museum cultures that are going nowhere?

                Like

              3. These multipolar BRICS losers all confirm that I’m right by being desperate to emigrate to Western countries. Don’t listen to me. Listen to the evidence. I’ll take “BRICS” seriously the moment they decide to stay home instead of inflicting themselves on the West.

                The only thing worse than being a beggar is being an ungrateful beggar.

                Like

              4. But in reality…. neither russia nor china has been able to actually act like a “great power”

                Have some shame or self-awareness. Imagine uttering these words while the president of your country is in the middle of a suicide mission with zero planning, losing 80 years of American military basing in the gulf in 1 week, and in the most expensive way possible, with untold consequences for the domestic and world economy.

                Like

              5. Acting like a great power, exhibit #517694141.

                WHITE HOUSE: The president had a feeling.

                REPORTER: The president launched a war on a feeling ?

                WHITE HOUSE: That is what Jared Kushner told the president and it was final.

                Like

              6. That was a wrong characterization of the interaction, even though the bigger point stands. I withdraw my last comment.

                Like

              7. There was another thought I meant to express, about the criticism of Russia and China as cultureless, which is that the same is often said of America. Now, regardless of how true or false that is, it strikes me that all these powers do have mastery of technology. Russia was first into outer space, China is the manufacturing hub of the world, America invented the atomic bomb and artificial intelligence. This is still the machine age, the age of technology, so it makes sense that the preeminent powers would put technological prowess first and culture second. I don’t doubt that there are many second-tier countries with wonderful cultural treasuries, who are nonetheless at the mercy of the technological powers. (And then perhaps there are third-tier countries who have neither culture to admire nor technology to respect.)

                Like

  7. “the criticism of Russia and China as cultureless, which is that the same is often said of America”

    Culture shmulture…. do more russians and chinese want to move to the US or do more Americans want to move to russia and/or china?

    And mostly people who say America doesn’t have ‘culture’ are simply ignorant of the very strong American traditions in the fine arts and the US doesn’t wave them around to try to convince others that it’s a great country like russians hopeless hawking pushkin as if he were something more than a provincial author or chinese bleating about their great history while gliding over the worst humanitarian disasters of the 20th century. But American literature, classical music, architecture, painting is easily among the strongest in the world (compared with contemporaries in Europe).

    As stupid and destructive as the current Iranian adventure is, it will not do serious longterm damage to the US domestically.

    One definition of superpower might be: Ability to withstand stupid and ill-conceived adventures.

    The US has that, russia didn’t (it won’t come close to recovering for decades even if it stopped the invasion tomorrow) china isn’t (xi’s misrule is having ever worse effects on the lives of Chinese people).

    Like

    Reply

    1. One definition of superpower might be: Ability to withstand stupid and ill-conceived adventures.

      That is certainly one definition and it’s almost useless. And even under this rubric america seems to be failing.

      Cultural power is overrated. Being a superpower means the ability to impose your will when necessary, and the ability to maintain trust with the allies who make your power sustainable. Right now US has fucked up both. Our gulf allies are pissed because we’ve shown conclusively we don’t give a shit about their security. We’ve taken the THAAD system from korea which absorbed billions of dollars of economic retaliation in order to host them, and now we just took it away from them. Launching a war on iran without even considering the possibility of the strait of hormuz being shut down is seriously stupid.

      And this right after pissing off your euro allies over the whole greenland thing.

      The US has lost control in the middle east and it’s there for everyone to see.

       it will not do serious longterm damage to the US domestically.

      lol sure. Please whitepill me on this golden age that I’m somehow not seeing. What makes you think this? Will this war not have any effect on the economy?

      This is clown stuff:

      On the question of the apparent nuclear threat, we have learned

      that

      Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who led the U.S. negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, conducted the talks without nuclear technical experts and based their concerns on a research reactor, unaware that such a reactor is incapable of enriching uranium. When the Iranians made a good-faith offer to hand over their highly enriched uranium but keep the Tehran Research Reactor built for them by Eisenhower. Witkoff and Kushner, due to their ignorance of the subject, apparently interpreted this as a demand to become a nuclear power:

      Elena Sokova, the executive director of the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, called the administration’s assessments of the Tehran Research Reactor “confusing and misleading” and riddled with “technical errors.”“It mixes up different elements of the nuclear program and their potential proliferation capabilities,” Sokova said. “Research reactors are not capable of doing enrichment of uranium, whether for civil or military purposes.”

      Witkoff defended the decision to bring no nuclear experts by saying he had “read quite a bit about it.”

      * Aside from having no technical knowledge and bringing no advisors or nuclear experts, Witkoff was

      apparently ignorant of previous agreements and negotiations with Iran, did not bring a diplomat who was knowledgeable of these things, did not take notes, and did not understand Iranian proposals.

      Like

      Reply

    2. “do more russians and chinese want to move to the US or do more Americans want to move to russia and/or china?”

      At best this shows that America is a stronger power, or a power with a specific asset among its strengths. America has many many strengths. It dominates outer space and cyberspace and the oceans, it essentially has an entire hemisphere to itself and has absorbed many other strong countries (Japan, Germany, Britain) into an alliance system which it dominates, it is the crossroads for world science, world diplomacy, and many other things.

      Nonetheless, American strategists are correct to regard China as a “peer competitor” or potential peer competitor. It is already the main industrial power of this epoch, it has deep economic ties with the entire world, and broadly speaking it’s an equal in high technology. Its spy power, hacking skills, and capacity for economic intrigue are also world-class.

      As for Russia, in certain respects it may look weak compared to America, China, or the European Union. Maybe it’s a bit like Ottoman Turkey on the eve of World War I. But it still has that cold-war-vintage nuclear parity with America. Someone, possibly Nixon, emphasized that it is the one country with the capacity to physically destroy North America. Like it or not, that alone would mean it remains a power player at the highest level, and it means that their strategic concepts can make a difference, e.g. Yevgeny Primakov’s notion that Russia, India, and China could be the nucleus of an alternative to NATO and the G-7. Those three countries have an uneasy coexistence, but none of them wants to be an American satellite, and that’s enough to keep the eastern hemisphere out of American control.

      Like

      Reply

      1. ” American strategists are correct to regard China as a “peer competitor””

        Dictatorships cannot become ‘great powers’ under conditions of modernity. In the period of the Cold War military resources were enough. Under early neoliberalism money and/or industrial production was enough.

        That’s not the world we’re in now. Mobility (esp ability to attract people who want to live there) and original thinking (for good or ill) are the name of the game and russia and china are pathetic in both. Both russia and china have tremendous potential but are locked into backwards and primitive systems of global control and neither will come close to realizing its potential until they can modernize the mentality of their populations.

        china has a great fire wall around its internet and russia is busy shutting it down entirely to force people onto its Big Brother government app = losers.

        For all its many flaws (about which we can talk until the bovines return to their wood domicile) the US is the only superpower game in town.

        Like

        Reply

        1. 20% of Russians don’t have indoor plumbing, which is especially cute given the weather conditions. By 2050, Russia will be 50% Muslim.

          Muslims shitting in outhouses is not an image of a superpower. Nobody but the Chinese take this as a projection of strength. Which tells us all we need to know about China.

          Like

          Reply

        2. “Dictatorships cannot become ‘great powers’ under conditions of modernity”

          Unless they have 5000+ nukes left over from the cold war. Or a billion-strong workforce with fifty million engineers and a strong mercantile tradition. (Note that no one leaves China because they can’t start a business there.)

          Also, presumably you mean 2020s modernity and not 1930s modernity…

          By my reckoning there are three contemporary powers or quasi-powers that have open societies: the United States, the European Union, and the Republic of India. Which is notable, but it’s not all of them.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “they have 5000+ nukes left over from the cold war”

            Who knows how many they have? It’s not a culture that values things like routine maintenance. My own idea is that if they really had a lot of nukes they would have used it already in Ukraine counting on the West to rationalize retaliation away… russia has begun shutting down the internet… not something a superpower does because a superpower isn’t terrified of a docile population.

            And china doesn’t have anywhere near a billion strong workforce, for one thing they can’t pay them. I’m not sure if it’s still happening but several months ago factories being set on fire by employees who haven’t been paid was a real thing (one example of many bad things going on there). Chinese women don’t want to get married and the newest plan is to ‘award’ wives to officers in the PLA….

            Why are you so invested in the idea of russia and china being ‘superpowers’ against all evidence to the contrary?

            Like

            Reply

            2. Plus, all the engineers and people with the brains to do maintenance on the nukes emigrated from Russia. This is not a country that knows how to preserve its human resources. The army is led by geriatric oldsters. Younger people have no chance at advancement. Unlike the Ukrainian leadership where everybody is young.

              One has got to be a complete loser to support Russia. There’s literally nothing positive. All of the talented artists they had have been chased out of the country. It’s a reign of decrepit, angry oldsters.

              Like

              Reply

            3. “china doesn’t have anywhere near a billion strong workforce”

              Three-quarters of a billion, seems to be the more accurate number.

              “Why are you so invested in the idea of russia and china being ‘superpowers’ against all evidence to the contrary?”

              I don’t think I have used the word superpower once, just power or great power.

              Anyway, I am insisting on this in order to maintain a sense of reality. Pardon me for saying it, but I think you are motivated to believe and say that Russia is a paper tiger because Poland and Ukraine are facing off against them. The same goes for China because it is supporting Russia, and if I’m fully honest, I even think there’s also a bit of white superiority in your attitude towards that country.

              I live in Australia, a little closer to East Asia, so maybe its countries are realer to me. China has a permanent space station, humanoid and military robotics, biohackers and cyberhackers, drone delivery services in the big cities, and an entire parallel Internet with its own AIs. It uses Pakistan and North Korea as nuclear proxies to keep India and Japan in check, and it economically dominates southeast Asia.

              Like every big country, it’s always grappling with a web of complicated short-term issues and facing enormous long-term issues. But that’s life! The biggest real problem it faces is conflict with America, and that has come about because it has continued to advance without becoming a democracy.

              Like

              Reply

              1. ” you are motivated to believe and say that Russia is a paper tiger because Poland and Ukraine are facing off against them”

                Actually the results of the invasion are more evidence of that. Before the invasion I’d assumed it was a lot more powerful than it’s turned out to be. It’s only power asset, the military, was hollowed out by internal corruption and looking at russian videos posted by russians make that even more clear. And its economic leverage was destroyed (despite Trump’s best efforts to save it).

                That said, it can still do massive damage since the country that could most easily destroy its imperial ambitions has chosen instead to prop it up…

                I’m not a fan of the whole ‘great power’ discourse but if you do want to play that game then

                Israel : able to project force at great distance can hold off 20 times its population that wants it dead… what it lacks in soft power (everything) it makes up in hard power (including being able to get the US to act as its enforcer when need be).

                Turkey : I despise Erdogan but he’s brilliant played west and russia against each other and has a good amount of soft power with the potential for a lot more.

                Both Koreas come close in different dystopian ways but are hampered by dictatorship and infertility… a country that can’t reproduce is not in a good place no matter how strong its popular culture is…

                Like

              2. Yes, this is an inverted logic. It’s become obvious to everybody with at least one functioning eye that Russia’s incapacity to defeat the country that literally had no army at the beginning of the war and that had Russian citizens controlling its security apparatus is sign of catastrophic weakness in Russia. Look at the map. Look at the comparative sizes of Russia and Ukraine. And look at what happened. If you are not seeing the complete collapse of the mighty Russia myth, it can only be because you are biased.

                Like

              1. I’m sorry, I only now noticed and I’m restoring them. There’s a whole bunch of comments that were mysteriously spammed.

                Like

  8. Real superpower hours.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Clarissa Cancel reply