Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[feelotraveller]

As it indicates a destruction of civilization so severe that it stops existing...not really.

Wait.  Geopolitical power = Civilization?   Sounds like a right-wing conspiracy theory to me. 

Alternative is to understand power as power to rather than power over and then we're already in a non-zero sum game from the outset.

[Loud Whispers]

Wait.  Geopolitical power = Civilization?   Sounds like a right-wing conspiracy theory to me.

Alternative is to understand power as power to rather than power over and then we're already in a non-zero sum game from the outset.

Smh tbqh famalam no one knows what conspiracies even are, yes there is a right-wing operation to covertly uploads memes to your brain. No that's not what MSH is saying. Geopolitical Power and Civilization are not, as he says, interchangeable terms. He's saying that if the energy and climate crises grow too severe, then geopolitical power will stop being a zero-sum game. This will be because the various lands and waterways great powers contest one another to have control over, will be useless - it will cease to be a zero-sum game where instead of one power gaining at the expense of another, everything will be an expense to anyone. What this will indicate is that everything is completely fucked and instead of a zero-sum game, the great powers start playing a negative-sum game where everyone is fragged no matter what, and are fighting to see who is the least fragged.
So for example, if controlling the USA yielded no benefits to its controller, one could safely assume that the American civilization was bleeding sorely. What would be the use in controlling trading routes when there is no trade, in controlling populations when you can't sustain them, in controlling resources when you can't use them? Power bleeding into the void to human expense.

The alternative of understanding power as power is useful but inadequate, for the simple reason that power is when it comes to the contest of great powers is relative. Consider at the eve of the Napoleonic Wars, how the United Kingdom rose to dominate global affairs, controlling a fifth of the world and outnumbering its competitors at sea 2-1. Yet by the dawn of the Great War, the United States was burgeoning into an industrial Titan, the mess of petty German princedoms rapidly united into a centralized Imperial power, Japan was burgeoning into a brand new Industrial power on the world-stage and all of them expanding their spheres of influence into British influence, all the while the British still contended with the French and Russians, meant that British power in relative terms was much more contested. Of course by World War II this would be an even graver situation, and by the modern age despite the UK being more powerful in absolute terms than it had ever been, in relative terms it is much clearer that there is a gap between the top 3 and the top 12. For this reason power is treated as a zero-sum game because one power's relative increase in strength is to the expense of another, much as how China and the USA both cannot share control over the Pacific Ocean. Whoever successfully contests the Pacific, will do so at the expense of their naval rival.

[smjjames]

Well, the US and China can't share the Pacific universially, but it's big enough that China would probably be happy with us staying on our side of it. Not that we'd actually do so.

[feelotraveller]

Smh tbqh famalam no one knows what conspiracies even are, yes there is a right-wing operation to covertly uploads memes to your brain. No that's not what MSH is saying. Geopolitical Power and Civilization are not, as he says, interchangeable terms. He's saying that if the energy and climate crises grow too severe, then geopolitical power will stop being a zero-sum game. This will be because the various lands and waterways great powers contest one another to have control over, will be useless - it will cease to be a zero-sum game where instead of one power gaining at the expense of another, everything will be an expense to anyone. What this will indicate is that everything is completely fucked and instead of a zero-sum game, the great powers start playing a negative-sum game where everyone is fragged no matter what, and are fighting to see who is the least fragged.
So for example, if controlling the USA yielded no benefits to its controller, one could safely assume that the American civilization was bleeding sorely. What would be the use in controlling trading routes when there is no trade, in controlling populations when you can't sustain them, in controlling resources when you can't use them? Power bleeding into the void to human expense.

The alternative of understanding power as power is useful but inadequate, for the simple reason that power is when it comes to the contest of great powers is relative. Consider at the eve of the Napoleonic Wars, how the United Kingdom rose to dominate global affairs, controlling a fifth of the world and outnumbering its competitors at sea 2-1. Yet by the dawn of the Great War, the United States was burgeoning into an industrial Titan, the mess of petty German princedoms rapidly united into a centralized Imperial power, Japan was burgeoning into a brand new Industrial power on the world-stage and all of them expanding their spheres of influence into British influence, all the while the British still contended with the French and Russians, meant that British power in relative terms was much more contested. Of course by World War II this would be an even graver situation, and by the modern age despite the UK being more powerful in absolute terms than it had ever been, in relative terms it is much clearer that there is a gap between the top 3 and the top 12. For this reason power is treated as a zero-sum game because one power's relative increase in strength is to the expense of another, much as how China and the USA both cannot share control over the Pacific Ocean. Whoever successfully contests the Pacific, will do so at the expense of their naval rival.

Yes, I was thinking that I should apologise (to all but especially to MSH) for the right wing conspiracy comment - vague and inflammatory; and I do.  What I really should have said is something more like "I'm surprised that you believe that geopolitics is a zero-sum game." 

And I intended to post just that and leave it there. But the comment (dismissal by attempted sarcasm, or perhaps satire - where does that tactic come from?) by LW ("there is a right-wing operation to covertly uploads memes to your brain") explains precisely my motivation for making that comment, memes being more or less equivalent to ideas in this context.  And no great surprise that LW's following rubric quickly devolves into the clash of 'Great Powers' and sole bottom line criteria of "Military Force".  This totally forgets (erases might be better) the non-zero sum aspects of geopolitical power such as trade and diplomacy,  We could summarize it as turning Clausewitz on his head to say - 'Politics is the continuation of war by other means'. If we were talking about Geowar a zero-sum game might be more accurate, but even here the sheer absolute increase in destructive power (regardless of relative abilities) would lead us to say the Geowar is not a zero-sum game.

It makes no sense geopolitically (particuarly without an existing state of war but even then) to talk of any nation or group "controlling" the Baltic Sea.*  Geopolitically I believe that China has sent its ships there as an exercise of "face" and not of "force" because that is what they understand shoudl be done by a power of their status on the international stage, given the precedents set by predominantly America but also Russia, and more importantly for them not to do so would be unbecoming.  Translating that for those with strange memes uploaded to their brains is somewhat difficult, but is partially captured by the notion that China feels compelled to demonstrate that they are players of a certain significance on the international stage.  It is an act of theatre rather than belligerent force; but definitely geopolitics.


*  'Controlling' itself is a farcical replacement for the 'owning' that would, presumably but naively, be applied if it were a terrestrial (=land) region, but that in itself descends into farce in the case of disputed claims, etc. 

[Loud Whispers]

Well, the US and China can't share the Pacific universially, but it's big enough that China would probably be happy with us staying on our side of it. Not that we'd actually do so.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

By expanding into the South China Sea, the Chinese government boosts their military and civilian presence in the South China Sea - possession is most of the law, UN rulings have done fuck all to stop China's continual consolidation of it, which of course is valuable in of itself - in addition to increasing Chinese control over maritime lines of communication in the South China Seas. Of additional note however is what goes on beneath the waves; with China's seven dash line expanding into a deep sea basin which would allow China's submarine fleet to dive deeper and have a much better chance of making it from Hainan out into the Pacific, from which they have a much better chance of reaching sea within range of the USA undetected.
Moreover, under Active Defence doctrine, the Chinese recognize that in order to have a credible defensive strategic posture they must have a viable offensive operational posture, as otherwise they can only stave defeat and not utterly defeat the enemy. Moreover, the first strike against China need not be a military one, only such a political or economic event as would force China into war, necessitating a first strike to deprive the enemy of initiative in key strategic areas. Thus, the USA growing lax and allowing China to entrench itself in the Pacific, will only find itself less and less capable of contesting a China that upon consolidating the South China Seas, Taiwan and the straits of Malacca, is more and more the prime source of influence in policy across East Asia & Southeast Asia than the USA. Given the USA's reliance on regional partners for ports and joint operations, US allies switching Washington with Beijing would deal a devastating blow to US world power.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In short, China is minimizing the avenues of attack the USA could use against it, whilst trying to maximize its own avenues against the USA.

Yes, I was thinking that I should apologise (to all but especially to MSH) for the right wing conspiracy comment - vague and inflammatory; and I do.  What I really should have said is something more like "I'm surprised that you believe that geopolitics is a zero-sum game."

No worries famalam

And I intended to post just that and leave it there. But the comment (dismissal by attempted sarcasm, or perhaps satire - where does that tactic come from?) by LW ("there is a right-wing operation to covertly uploads memes to your brain") explains precisely my motivation for making that comment, memes being more or less equivalent to ideas in this context.

I'd err on the side of more, as memes are pretty dank

And no great surprise that LW's following rubric quickly devolves into the clash of 'Great Powers' and sole bottom line criteria of "Military Force".  This totally forgets (erases might be better) the non-zero sum aspects of geopolitical power such as trade and diplomacy,  We could summarize it as turning Clausewitz on his head to say - 'Politics is the continuation of war by other means'. If we were talking about Geowar a zero-sum game might be more accurate, but even here the sheer absolute increase in destructive power (regardless of relative abilities) would lead us to say the Geowar is not a zero-sum game.

You misunderstand, for I speak from the perspective not of Germans, but of Anglospheres - for whom the concept of power has no distinction between military force, trade and diplomacy. The sole bottom line criteria of power is not military force, it is power. A powerful military controls the world's trade, and enacts the foreign policy of civil government in order to protect the state's economic interests abroad. This in turn ensures the economic security and prosperity of the state, which can then reap the economic benefits of such policy in order to modernize their military and so ensure their military power. The British Empire arose to dominance with minimal military presence, controlling a quarter of the world's population directly and indirectly influencing even more - simply through the integration of all these ideas as one. Thus the control of the Suez, the Gulf, the English Channel, the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Straits of Malacca and the Cape of Good Hope allowed the British to dominate world trade and consequently continue expanding their Navy with which to protect their commercial interests, and so continue the cycle. The USA inherited this strategy and took it to its natural conclusion: If they don't have a Naval Base in every ocean and sea outside of the Caspian, they've got an allied base's permission. Where the British Empire outnumbered its rivals at sea 2 to 1, the US Navy outnumbers its rivals at sea 20 to 1. Any nation which is blockaded by the US Navy is not trading with the world by sea, and as 90% of the world's trade is by sea or capable of being attacked by Marines, this can have dramatic effects for making foreign governments see eye to eye with Washington.
I conclude with a quaint quote from a Nepalese King, informing the British as to why he refused British merchants access into his Kingdom. The Merchants would arrive innocuously enough, but after the Merchant comes the Magistrate, after him the Missionary - and after him, the Bayonet. In this same manner the moment American businessmen started having investments abroad worth protecting, the US Armed Forces began their century of commitments abroad.

It makes no sense geopolitically (particuarly without an existing state of war but even then) to talk of any nation or group "controlling" the Baltic Sea.*

Denmark and Sweden were the first nations to actively seek and successfully control the Baltic Sea, enacting this as policy in the 1560s, a policy which would be eroded by Anglo-Dutch efforts to increase their economic share of Baltic trade at the expense of Nordic control by the 1650s. Today it's more complicated as the Baltic is held in a contest between the Joint Expeditionary Force and the Russian Baltic Fleet, all made more complicated by how both the JEF and RBF are underfunded and in trouble - no one is ready to make a contest for hegemony, sans the Swedish worry of the Russians borrowing Gotland.

Geopolitically I believe that China has sent its ships there as an exercise of "face" and not of "force" because that is what they understand shoudl be done by a power of their status on the international stage, given the precedents set by predominantly America but also Russia, and more importantly for them not to do so would be unbecoming.

China is not a cargo-cult nation, imitating the motions of the USA. They sent those 840 sailors across the world to indicate that the Sino-Russian alliance lives, and their cooperation will deepen. While Russia and China have severely limited joint-military capabilities within the same theatres, they are both capable of profiting from relieving defence pressures exerted by the USA. It's no surprise that when China pushes into the South China Sea, Putin annexes the Crimea, and China pushes further into the South China Sea e.t.c.

[feelotraveller]

Given the USA's reliance on regional partners for ports and joint operations, US allies switching Washington with Beijing would deal a devastating blow to US world power.

A question of when, not if, over the longer duration.  America is falling, China is rising - a sheer matter of demographics.  Then India, then Brazil...  Entirely possible that a President dedicated to Making America Irrelevant Again or China a more monolithic state can speed or retard the process though.

I'd err on the side of more, as memes are pretty dank

I'd advise you to put that in your pipe and smoke it but it appears that you already have 

You misunderstand, for I speak from the perspective not of Germans, but of Anglospheres - for whom the concept of power has no distinction between military force, trade and diplomacy.

(Very tempted to flip you off with something like "Well let me know when you start speaking for yourself then" since it is your words that I am engaging with gubba.)

I think there is much greater continuity between the German and the Anglo traditions - here as elsewhere - than is generally admitted.  (Take Ratzel's notion of the merchant marine paying for itself which constituted a large part of his argument for increasing German naval force and reach.)  But in the end what is sought by this tradition is power over, the specific military force of containment or to damage an enemy or force them against their will.  Yes this military power can get 'cashed' as a trade deal or perhaps diplomatically in the signing of some document at gunpoint and of course there are flow on effects (...nice anecdote from the Nepalese King btw) but the predominant and ultimate level of discussion always comes back to strategic military engagement.  Reread your own last few posts and see how often the purely military domain is invoked as compared to the purely economic or purely diplomatic.  And there are other factors to geopolitics - the territory itself, culture, and demographics, just to name a few that should be uncontroversial.

It makes no sense geopolitically (particuarly without an existing state of war but even then) to talk of any nation or group "controlling" the Baltic Sea.*

[Denmark and Sweden were the first nations to actively seek and successfully control the Baltic Sea, enacting this as policy in the 1560s, a policy which would be eroded by Anglo-Dutch efforts to increase their economic share of Baltic trade at the expense of Nordic control by the 1650s.

Not according to my history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominium_maris_baltici

The failure of the Scandinavian powers to take control of the Baltic, and steadfast refusal of other powers – local and international – to recognize their claims, is seen as one of the factors that led to the development of the "freedom of the seas" principle in international law.

Let's hope as much for the internet.

China is not a cargo-cult nation, imitating the motions of the USA. They sent those 840 sailors across the world to indicate that the Sino-Russian alliance lives, and their cooperation will deepen. While Russia and China have severely limited joint-military capabilities within the same theatres, they are both capable of profiting from relieving defence pressures exerted by the USA. It's no surprise that when China pushes into the South China Sea, Putin annexes the Crimea, and China pushes further into the South China Sea e.t.c.

You are missing the point, no doubt because it is a cultural one rather than a military one. (Flashback to Trump and Taiwan.) Of course there are elements of sino-soviet solidarity, and of course sending warships halfway around the world (figuratively) is a military exercise, but that's like saying the point of speaking is to make sound.

Anyway, I'm about done and have the best of intentions to leave the East Asian Politics thread to discussion of East Asian Politics.  (Although I have it on good advice that it's exactly the same as Eurasian Politics.)

[Loud Whispers]

A question of when, not if, over the longer duration.  America is falling, China is rising - a sheer matter of demographics.  Then India, then Brazil...  Entirely possible that a President dedicated to Making America Irrelevant Again or China a more monolithic state can speed or retard the process though.

That's a big fucking assumption lel. Demographics are important but you're neglecting the importance of actually making your people useful. In the 19th-20th century China's population and absolute wealth was far in excess of any European or Japanese nation, yet because most of its population was devoted to the maintenance of its population and most of its wealth consumed by its population - it was far less powerful than any of its near or far rivals. There are optimum limits for how large a nation's population can get before its size outstrips the country's infrastructure & wealth, so for example India you pick, has an absolutely nightmarish scenario where 12,000,000 jobs have to be created every year in order to meet all the new young people entering the labour pool. This is why despite India and China both accounting for 36% of the world's population, nearly even split between them, China is the more powerful of the two. China's industrial capacity far outstrips India, her education infrastructure & spending is superior, her workers more productive owing to a technological & education advantage, her military receives four times the funding of India's without putting any strain on her economy (being considerably larger than India's). India's heterogeneous population brings with it the additional costs of security issues from separatists and religious insurgencies, which its heavily decentralized democracy is much less capable of quelling compared to China's authoritarian state. Conversely a state like the USA with 300 million individuals maintains its preeminence owing to its great internal and external security, its strong rule of law, its high productivity of its workers, its abundant natural resources, its extremely well-developed infrastructure and educational institutions, energy security & financial security. Look at GDP per hour worked and compare the US to India; more productive citizens produce more wealth, and a greater number of citizens at lower productivity cannot match the economic output of a hyper-productive individual, as simply increasing the number of citizens also increases the amount of resources they require. No nation, however rich in natural resources and money to make made-up jobs, has an infinite supply.

I'd err on the side of more, as memes are pretty dank

I'd advise you to put that in your pipe and smoke it but it appears that you already have 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

dude memes lmao

(Very tempted to flip you off with something like "Well let me know when you start speaking for yourself then" since it is your words that I am engaging with gubba.)

The temptation is misguided. With great patience I implore you to read my post, and not discount the sections where I talk of controlling land, waterways, trade routes, populations, resources, industrial capability and military power, for you have focused solely on military power. It is not my words you engaged with - rather, but a single word, that of the martial.

I think there is much greater continuity between the German and the Anglo traditions - here as elsewhere - than is generally admitted.  (Take Ratzel's notion of the merchant marine paying for itself which constituted a large part of his argument for increasing German naval force and reach.)

It would be impossible for the English tradition to have derived from German strategists such as Ratzel considering how the English tradition extends far back to the Merchant Navy, which predates the unification of Germany. What's more whereas German strategists argued that merchant marines were advantageous for a state to possess, British strategists argued that for a maritime nation such as itself, a strong Navy was not advantageous, but necessary for the guaranteeing of its security. Where the British tradition argued for control of global trade, development of finance and the preservation of continental balance, the German tradition argued for lebensraum, development of industry and the contesting of the balance of power - simultaneously constructing railroads in Turkey to contest Russia, expanding its army to contest France and expanding its Navy to contest Britain. Where the British tradition stemmed from its experiences at Trafalgar and its search for solutions to traditional British strategy having decreasing relevance in the 20th century, seeking to stop attempts at hegemony within Europe, the German tradition sought to attain hegemony over the world-island via land-based forces, and thus gain hegemony over its maritime rivals. Thus besides the superficial commonalities of the British and Germans both agreeing that ships are good, their approaches naturally diverged. Geopolitics vs Geopolitik

But in the end what is sought by this tradition is power over, the specific military force of containment or to damage an enemy or force them against their will.  Yes this military power can get 'cashed' as a trade deal or perhaps diplomatically in the signing of some document at gunpoint and of course there are flow on effects (...nice anecdote from the Nepalese King btw) but the predominant and ultimate level of discussion always comes back to strategic military engagement.  Reread your own last few posts and see how often the purely military domain is invoked as compared to the purely economic or purely diplomatic.  And there are other factors to geopolitics - the territory itself, culture, and demographics, just to name a few that should be uncontroversial.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There is no such thing as a purely military domain, purely economic or purely diplomatic domain. All domains are in the support of the other;
A nation with a strong military can effect a strong foreign policy with which to secure markets, investments, resources and trade... This in turn causes the nation's economy to grow... Which in turn allows it to increase its military budget without burdening its economy... Which in turn allows it to maintain a strong military... A nation with a strong military can effect a strong foreign policy with which to secure markets, investments, resources and trade... You see how this goes on. It is the apex of power to be holistic in totality. To this end a strong military and successful strategic military engagements are not the predominant level of discussion, being instead but one facet which provides for the security and power of a nation - during Pax Britannica the British never engaged in a single serious maritime battle, and currently under Pax Americana there has never been a single serious maritime battle, for in all domains a contest of American power would see America victor. There is also a balance, for if a strong military was the predominant factor, then a strong military would consistently be key to success. Yet if a nation spent greatly on its military, creating the greatest military in the world - yet its military spending exceeded a depressing drain on public finances, then the long term effect would be to actually decrease the nation's power, as its military would be slowly killing its own state's economy and thus depriving itself of the future funds needed to modernize and keep pace with the progress of technology.

Not according to my history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominium_maris_baltici
The failure of the Scandinavian powers to take control of the Baltic, and steadfast refusal of other powers – local and international – to recognize their claims, is seen as one of the factors that led to the development of the "freedom of the seas" principle in international law.

The Scandinavian (Nordic) powers, who sensed opportunity in the power vacuum created by the weak or non-existent naval power of the Holy Roman Empire and Poland-Lithuania, adopted expansionist policies which fostered conflict over the Baltic. Denmark and Sweden used their control of parts of the Baltic to fuel their militaries. Each claimed the Baltic as their own, and promised to protect foreign shipping. While the Nordic powers vied with one another over control, they both agreed that it should be the domain of one of them, not of an "outsider" like Poland or Russia. The Scandinavian powers tried to prevent the rise of their opposition through diplomatic treaties, which forbade other powers like Russia or Germany to build navies, and through military actions, whether targeting opponent naval forces, or through taking control of the Baltic ports. In one of the most notable actions to retain its monopoly over the Baltic, Denmark in 1637 destroyed, without declaration of war, the nascent Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Navy.

Did you even read the wikishit m9 it just repeats what I said.
Also I do love this example, because in it, the Swedish military - despite its impressive strength, outstripped its capabilities to fund it. The result was the decline cycle I just mentioned now

You are missing the point, no doubt because it is a cultural one rather than a military one. (Flashback to Trump and Taiwan.) Of course there are elements of sino-soviet solidarity, and of course sending warships halfway around the world (figuratively) is a military exercise, but that's like saying the point of speaking is to make sound.

There are not elements of Sino-Soviet solidarity, they are conducting joint military operations in the Baltics to indicate to NATO that the Chinese intend to uphold their commitments to the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship. It is worth noting the Chinese government and USSR didn't get along, shall we say, where the Chinese and Russian Federation do. All in all your last points on the Sino-Russian Baltic exercise cause me far more grief than the really should ;P
But to summarize:
1. You talk of missing the point, but have somehow managed to entirely ignore the military symbolism of military units engaging in joint military operations in a military theatre one of the militaries has heretofore never held any presence in, in order to honour a military alliance that is now 16 years old. The domestic & international cultural impacts of a nascent globally assertive China are important but it's a startling misinterpretation that deliberately overlooks this one simple thing.
2. We are in agreement that sending 3 frigates is not a meaningful force and only a symbolic token, yet we disagree in the meaning of this token; you suggest it is China imitating the USA because 'because that is what they understand shoudl be done by a power of their status on the international stage, given the precedents set by predominantly America but also Russia, and more importantly for them not to do so would be unbecoming' [sic], which I'm going to be frank is insultingly naive and puts the strategic planning of the PRC on the level of youtube commenters and ignores the bleedingly obvious point #1. It is more in line with those Reelya have brought up, who believe China is only a nation of imitators, and are incapable of working on their own initiative.

[Paxiecrunchle]

Your thoughts on this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42436818 madness right here?

[Sheb]

Oh yeah, my indian labmate posted something about that. India can be very stupid sometime. At least no one was seriously hurt I guess...

[Loud Whispers]

Your thoughts on this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42436818 madness right here?

Hugging? Ban this sick filth. Almost as bad as hand holding.

[Paxiecrunchle]

Can someone explain to me whyt those responsible for running the police departments in malaysia appearently don't require even a U.S high school level of education? I ask since that seems like the only way a debacle like this : http://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/04/malaysia-probe-on-bizarre-kid-to-confirm-if-a-man-had-violated-goat-mother/#2pzUzSmTegRfdEDw.97 could happen.

I mean come on, two species have to be closley related to have hybrid offspring, because otherwise the embryos tend not to develop properly, I mean the most distantly related species i've ever heard of giving birth to hybrid offspring were sheep and goats, and even then rarely and with much difficulty, suffice it to say goatmens are not even remotely plausible by conventional(sexual) means.

This seems like a waste of police resources is what I am saying, or at least that angle is, now determining if the areas groundwater is contaminated with something capable of causing deformations might be a better idea.

[Loud Whispers]

Can someone explain to me whyt those responsible for running the police departments in malaysia appearently don't require even a U.S high school level of education?

They do, but the education system runs on a different curriculum. The police force prefers to hire ethnic Malays for political reasons, and ethnic Malays live in a different system to the rest of Malaysians. For this reason Malaysia is effectively both a secular, multicultural state and an Islamic state, because it runs a parallel system. You can see this in grocery stores where the signs will read "no alcohol for under 21s and Muslims." In the school curriculum the efforts to separate ethnic Malays from the other Malaysians start early, so where most subjects are taught in English, things like politics are taught in Malay and different curriculums can be expected based off of which community the school is located in. For ethnic Malays, the system is designed to steer excellent pupils towards revelation based theology & politics. This is why many books are banned when they are written in Malay, but their English translations are allowed to circulate in Malaysia - the government doesn't expect the ethnic Malay to read the English translations. So you get stuff where the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin is available in many bookstores in English, but Malay translations are banned. This creates a politically powerful, conscious and religious ethnic group, which places revelation above reason.

Charles Darwin’s famous book is not the only publication to suffer such a fate. One other example is Karen Armstrong’s Islam: A Short History, which is freely available at bookstores and university libraries in Malaysia, while Sepintas Sejarah Islam, the Malay translation, is also listed as a banned book.
In the last Parliamentary session, I submitted a question on The Origin of Species, enquiring why the Malay translation of the book is banned while the English version is allowed.
According to the written reply by the Home Minister (see attachments), the book is banned because it “endangers public harmony.” Explaining further, the Minister also states that the “translated book depicts a view of the origin and creation of species that goes against Islamic teachings and is in contravention of the Islamic Materials Censorship Guidelines as well as the beliefs of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah….”
Meanwhile, the English version is allowed because the Home Ministry has “not received any complaints regarding the existence of any infringements of Islamic aspects…” according to the very same guidelines by Jakim.
The explanation by the Home Minister not only makes absolutely no sense, it is also a veritable insult to the intelligence of Malaysians. How can the same book be considered a public danger and against Islamic teachings in one language, but perfectly acceptable in another?
Worse, is the Home Minister also effectively telling Malaysians that knowledge is reserved only for those who are English-literate? Is a Malaysian who can only speak and read in Malay considered not mature enough to make informed decisions? As most people who fall into the latter category are Malays, the question then arises whether there is a deliberate policy to keep Malays ignorant.

Ruling over your political class is easy when you decide how they think

[Paxiecrunchle]

You know I countinue to be ashamed to be human whenever I read stuff of this caliber of malice. Thanks for keeping me up at night being thankful for being born in the U.S.A, I mean at least we dont essentially have parallel systems of governance for different people here............well at at least not anymore.

(for clarity I consider amerindian tribal governments fairly autonomous micro states, not parallel governments claiming to also be the United State)

[smjjames]

You know the false missile alert in Hawaii? Japan got hit with thier instance of it, and within days of the Hawaii one.

Unlike Hawaii, which took over a half hour to be corrected, this one got corrected within minutes.

[Reelya]

The fixes for the Hawaii problem were so basic and hard to understand why they didn't already exist, that it's pretty much impossible to lay blame on the guy who pushed the actual button.

The option to send the real alert was literally 1 pixel apart from the option to send the test alert, and it had to be pushed every time they change shift. So it literally could have come down to simply the mouse slipping when you click on the test option. Basically, with the real button directly over the fake button, you can say it was only a matter of time before someone accidentally clicked it.

On top of that, there was no confirmation screen, so merely clicking the button would send out the real alert, instantly. And there were no procedures in place for what would happen if you accidentally clicked it: there was no option to send any other message, e.g. there was no way to cancel the alert or tell people it's a false alarm.

Effectively, the system was so badly designed that any discipline against the worker who clicked the actual button is unwarranted. I'm guessing that whoever did build Japan's system didn't build it like the Hawaii one.