Theme: Civilization

No. I just promote him because I follow the principle that everything is reducible to demographics and location. And he has single handedly converted the myth of endless growth, overpopulation, and resource extraction to the geostrategic consequences of the opposite.
So effectively I see him, like me, arguing from first principles. And I see him as explaining and popularizing my predictions, and justifying my work on legal, constitutional and policy reforms. Even though some of what I say is painful, the time for comforting illusions has passed, and we may need to take responsibility for our posterity or fail to have one.

Reply addressees: @ha27474

I assume this isn’t a serious question, but just for fun: The Song dynasty from the mid 900s to mid 1200s is similar to the earlier Roman expansion a millennia earlier, and gave promise to the rest of the world that had stagnated by 800ad, exhausting the gains of agrarianism. But like the Roman fall to the barbarians from Europe, the dynasty fell to the Mongols.
However, the Germans who like the Mongols wanted essentially to become those they conquered, could not preserve Roman civilization’s administration while the Mongols could preserve the Chinese.
Fundamental issue with Chinese civ is very subtle. But in the broadest sense, despite exceptional waterways and rice farming, and despite the geography being a relative fortress insulating them, the Chinese were bound like every civ by the limitations on the sequence of institutional formation. Religion first is worst. State first is better. Law first is best. Why? That spectrum describes the rate of evolutionary adaptation of civilizations – and yes it’s really that stupidly simple.

Reply addressees: @shirazDom @scrumble_eggs @skullthots @bortisbased @lauferlaw @elonmusk @alx