In fact, no one really seems to be opposed to that given that we have all sorts of laws around bribes, child labor, etc that expand beyond US borders. It's hard to sustain this kind of thinking. Saying that being responsible to the US govt is the same system as China is just wrong, they are nothing alike, there is no comparison. You see, we can't even have a meta-conversation about liberty without it immediately going to racism. It is ultimately always tractable. The Nixons gave the royal couple a tour of Washington's … There's a lot of rehashing the old 'glory days' of the cold war with the Soviet Union and trying to apply that to modern China, while explicitly acknowledging that they collectively have no clue about modern China (the discussion about factions and Xi). It just reminds me of the kind of distusting behaviour that happened post 9/11 where the concepts being defended were destroyed by those who claimed to be concerned about defending them. Guests can safely explore the history and beauty of the Pat Nixon Gardens and the new outdoor exhibit, The President and the Planet: Richard Nixon and the Environment. Adversity drags us down into the weeds. [12] In the communiqué, both nations pledged to work toward the full normalization of diplomatic policy. But now all HN can see if someone says they "want liberty" is that they want liberty to do wrong things that must be stopped, and there is no other conceivable reason that someone may be resisting your efforts to control them. In his understated and unorthodox way he had set forth the main lines of Chinese policy, he had made clear the features that he considered very important, and that other things could fall into place. > Thiel and company repeatedly claim that there is no meaningful difference between the Chinese military and individual Chinese nationals who work for American companies, because China is essentially a fusion state where the government dictates the flow of capital. This is exactly the sort of comment I was hoping for. We should focus on reversing the decline of our own per-capita wealth, such as focusing on fixing the problems destroying our middle class and domestic industry. Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit: login: Peter Thiel on US-China Relations at the Nixon Foundation (youtube.com) 6 points by misotaur 2 hours ago | hide | past | favorite | 1 comment: yhoneycomb 1 hour ago [flagged] nibsfive 21 minutes ago. Will they use some of the tactics they used to build the momentum for the invasion of Iraq? Fuck warring over little bits of mud down here. The latter is very explicitly a "fusion" (i.e., Chinese) approach to state and capital; isn't that exactly what the Thiel and paleoconservative types are claiming to be against? Once you reach a certain point, it's surely not a big motivator. "when you accuse me of that, are you denying that there were racially motivated actions being taken that harmed significant populations?". Should US move to be more like China? > Do you ever hear about Huawei declining to work with the Chinese government because of its treatment of the Uighurs? See Trump, see Gawker for example. I would need more concrete counterexamples, not just generalizations of the past being claimed to be better. Success in any respect -- wealth, fame, accolades, awards, anything -- is incredibly dangerous to one's capacity for objective and rational thought. Or where there’s a standing house committee dedicated to detecting “Unamerican Activities” and creating explicit blacklists for Hollywood actors and writers based on their supposed political beliefs. > I've done two quick passes over this transcript, and a theme stands out to me: Thiel and company repeatedly claim that there is no meaningful difference between the Chinese military and individual Chinese nationals who work for American companies, because China is essentially a fusion state where the government dictates the flow of capital. In July 1971, President Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger secretly visited Beijing during a trip to Pakistan, and laid the groundwork for Nixon's visit to China. It's like they've wheeled him out to denounce so he can silence any doubts about his loyalties. Thinks he’s super smart because he made a ton of money as an entrepreneur and believes it makes him some kind of statesman. Thank you. And what we have said today is that we shall build that bridge. [12], Nixon and his aides carefully planned the trip to have the biggest possible impact on television audiences in the United States. Thiel and company are explicit about the policies they'd like to see the state advance by strongarming private capital: strategic investment in Taiwanese technological interests, not banning hateful content, &c. So my question: what gives? We wouldn't just be dealing with Moscow. Gates seems less idealistic, thiel more concerned with universal principles imho. It's all a fight now over who gets to use the government to impose their views on the US and its individual citizens, not whether views should be imposed by the government. Perhaps I was not clear; I'm not saying that it was ever necessarily what I'd call the "gestalt" or "consensus" view. But it's hard to say they were BETTER based on their actions. Maybe. [8] For this ambitious goal to be reached President Nixon had carried out a series of carefully calibrated moves through Communist China's allies Romania and Pakistan. It’s not an egalitarian society by any means.". I'm not sure there was ever a time in the US where that was the case necessarily; always the local concerns have. We could deal with Eastern Europe, of course, and we could deal with China because the former Communist Bloc was no longer a bloc. He sees a strong American state as fundamentally necessary for libertarian values? Early in his first term, Nixon, through his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, sent subtle overtures hinting at warmer relations to the PRC government. The normalization of ties culminated in 1979, when the U.S. established full diplomatic relations with the PRC. The comments that struck me were: AI is Communist, Cryptocurrency is libertarian. I actually had to hunt for it to find it, was almost ready to say there wasn't one. In China, from the beginning of the Sino-Soviet Split in 1956, there was a perceived necessity for external allies to counterbalance the power of the USSR. But the reason this opinion is controversial is: you have people who don't like their own govt for various reasons (and know so little about other countries that they will make comparisons with places like China), and China has almost totally co-opted the globalist wing of world politics (again, this group usually understands very little about politics...the difference here is that China being like us fits with their globalist ideology, and they are usually getting paid somewhere to support this view). The only two policies I would really advocate re: China are: (1) Making sure we stop treating them like a developing nation and establish fair trade with them instead of trade that is favorable to China. You may not owe "textbook pseudo-intellectuals" better, but you owe this community much better if you're posting here. The relationship between China and the U.S. is now one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world, and every successive U.S. president, except Jimmy Carter, has visited China. Gates is a programmer, thiel a lawyer; quite different in terms of worldviews and ethics. If it’s a prisoner’s dilemma, you might believe cooperation is the best way, and yet defect if you’re playing the game. I don't think he's saying that the US government should force the private companies to work with the US government. [9], President Nixon, his wife, and their entourage left the White House on February 17, 1972, spending a night in Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, Oahu, Hawaii. Which does seem "borderline autistic", perhaps unsurprisingly, because Thiel claims he's "on the spectrum." My understanding is that Bernie Sanders is not woke -- he's mainly progressive, even socialist, but that's different than woke which is a contingent that focuses on issues of identity excluding (or at least de-emphasizing) class. He's saying that Americans should voluntarily pursue their national interest, not that they should be subservient to the state. Can you point where you saw this conclusion? [1] The seven-day official visit to three Chinese cities was the first time a U.S. president had visited the PRC; Nixon's arrival in Beijing ended 25 years of no communication or diplomatic ties between the two countries and was the key step in normalizing relations between the U.S. and PRC. It's easy for them to do that: they have 4X as many people so all they need is 1/4 US per-capita GDP to equal ours. Or where using the post office to educate people about birth control is a crime. The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at … Or...maybe all he cares about is power and ambition, and he'll do whatever it takes to climb that ladder, integrity be damned.