These type of things, below, perfectly highlight what I find so despicable about the West, such things infuriating me as they simultaneously fill me with a sense of despair and deep shame; the arrogance overshadows the ignorance, unfortunately, and a desire to see bad things happen to one's perceived foe overwhelms good sense. 

The first is from the British The Economist's Editor-in-chief, Zanny Minton Beddoes, this being the intro to the magazine's weekly "Highlights from the latest issue" email; it states:

How bad is it? Our cover this week tackles this important—and much debated—question about China’s economy. Our leader argues that things are very bad indeed. The blame lies with Xi Jinping and China’s increasingly autocratic government. Mr Xi’s centralisation of power and his replacement of technocrats with loyalists is leading to damaging policy failures, not least a feeble response to tumbling growth and inflation. This week my colleagues provide detailed coverage on the consequences inside China and for the rest of the world.

In the 2000s Western leaders mistakenly believed that trade, markets and growth would boost democracy and individual liberty. But China is now testing the reverse relationship: whether more autocracy damages the economy. The evidence is mounting that it does—and that after four decades of fast growth, China is entering a period of disappointment.

There's so much in there that's totally absurd, such interpretations and conclusions being the product of limited minds who can't help but see the world through their paradigms, which they want to impose on all.

The inverse is actually what happened and accounts for China's success: over 70% of industry assets now belong to the private sector, the complete reverse being true a few decades ago. Further, regional heads and city mayors are granted huge amounts of power to attract industries.

The mention of "centralisation" is purely for propaganda purposes, it acting as a dog whistle for Communism, any notions of centralisation scaring the bejesus out of libertarian-minded folks. And, no; in the 2000s, greedy and arrogant Western leaders assumed that Capitalism would win and crush 'government' rather than it being absorbed by said government and spat back through a far more efficient system. They assumed subjugation through markets, never once giving a thought that, one day—and quite so rapidly—they'd find themselves forced to 'collaborate with' rather than 'rule over'. 

Also, by "our leader," is the author referring to Rishi Sunak? Honestly, who cares what he thinks? His economy is truly down the crapper, whereas China's will weather this forced difficult moment—Xi (and the gang) planned for it; in great part, they are forcing it. That last part, that's something so very few seem to address. Why?

And, while the West seems to panic and points to it while declaring China a failed system, reality is, the government decided to let Evergrande go belly up, an event it triggered after "authorities cracked down on developers' debt-fuelled building boom" in 2021.

Central Garden, another major developer who had expected to be bailed out by the government for their bad decisions—after all, the real estate presents too big a risk to the economy—were also met with a slap in the face, forced to default on their interest payment; the company's creditor's delivered a vote late Friday, yesterday, for a bond extension that will let the company repay the $540 million (USD) owed over three years rather than having to cover the entirety today. It's an onshore 'private' bond. The government is, I'm certain, relieved that it went through, but they refused to interfere except to guarantee that citizens wouldn't be hurt or, in some cases, lose their deposits.

They're letting the market bleed, but controlling the flow of blood, one may say. How successful will they be? The West seems to be in a bigger panic. That says much.

Economists are baffled by the fact that the government is not doing anything to counter the huge drops in prices that developers are forced to swallow, nor is Beijing doing anything to counter competitive approaches taken by some regional heads in order to attract homebuyers, these having noted: "this signifies a clear change in local government's attitudes towards the real estate market, notably, without any intervention from the central government." This also lays waste to the "centralisation" BS.

In a way, China is being more American than they. Yes, China is currently undergoing a tough economic period, but that's because errors were made and the real estate market presents too big a chunk of China's current economy (30%), and the debt-level reached by developers has had too adverse an effect on the entire country's financials. As such, the Chinese government is taking advantage of the post-COVID situation and slow recovery to rectify matters, letting companies suffer the consequences of their decisions, refusing to bail out the tycoons though they're easing matters on banks hit by mortgage-related issues, injecting money when necessary, this being Beijing's current position on real estate matters. If events and the times should inform the entire machine that is the Chinese government—not just Xi Jinping—to take a more direct approach in the real estate market, then that's what they'll do if that's what's decided to be the best for the country.

And therein lies a major difference with Western ways; the entire Chinese government works together to constantly correct course, always making sure that what's 'going on' is what's best for the people, not just a few.

Along the same lines: the West may try to turn governmental folks being arrested for corruption in China or Russia as oppressive acts by totalitarian governments, but all points to, simply, governments that actually try to combat corruption, the problem with that view perhaps having far more to do with the propaganda Westerners have ingested?

On every level, China's is an entirely different model that can't be compared to ours, and the more I learn, the less of anything resembling all that feeds Western fearmongering is what I see. And you can stick those ingrained notions of an oppressed people where the sun don't shine, which is where your head obviously is.

For there's much to China's way of life that seems like a turn off to me, but that's because I'm a 'long-time' Westerner. I'm certain that, were I born in China in recent decades, I'd be utterly perplexed by the West and wouldn't want what we have. Those who come here now do so for education (increasingly less so) or for work opportunities, as the number of people in China make it far more intensely competitive and, thus, more difficult, depending on current demands, to secure certain types of jobs or revenues. Hence, convenience stores the world over have been overtaken by the Chinese, who work crazy hours to save money they can use to move on to something bigger, selling the store to another Chinese family who repeats the cycle. They're hard-working folks who seize an opportunity, not believing themselves born into, and owed, managerial positions, unlike too much of the West. And most of them end up going back to China.

There's good and bad everywhere. And there's much we can all learn from one another. Xenophobia has never produced anything positive.

The second is a recent Daily Express US article titled,  "Kissinger's prophetic warning would have helped the West stop Putin's war on Ukraine."

If you don't know how to recognize intellectuals who have absolutely nothing to say but choose to say something anyway, believing that what they're saying makes them seem intelligent and that, somehow, it validates their so-called expertise, here's an example to learn from:

Dr Sergey Radchenko, the Wilson E. Schmidt Distinguished Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, well, he's a "top historian" who read some stuff, coming across a passage in Henry Kissinger's "1,400-plus page memoirs" that carried a "prophetic hidden message"  that "could have even helped prevent the Ukraine war if it was [sic] listened to." 

Can someone who fails to use the subjunctive form be trusted? For a 'doctor', he does say stupid things.

My problem: 

"The passage from the White House Years book, published in the 1970s, reads: "All experience teaches that Soviet military moves, which usually begin as tentative, must begin resisted [sic] early, unequivocally and in a fashion that gives Soviet leaders justification for withdrawal.

"If this moment is to pass, the commitment grows too large to be dismantled short of a major crisis."

'According to Dr Radchenko, this suggests the Russians "always back off when faced with superior force.'

He said: "In the memoir, Kissinger argues that a more decisive reaction by the West against Soviet encroachment would have signalled to the Soviets that they could not go on, and they would back off. This particular episode relates to the Middle East (1970), but I think it is applicable more generally.

According to Radchenko, the West should have had "this logic in mind and responded more strongly to Russia's illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014." If only the West had been more aggressive in 2014, he claims, "we would have avoided all that followed."

First off, WWII, and Stalingrad alone, disproves Radchenko's conclusion regarding "superior force". 

Second, how can this idiot be considered an expert in anything is beyond me, if those are the types of ignoramus and wholly juvenile assessments he manages to provide, seeing value in any of that.

This idiot bases himself on Western BS, to boot, Crimeans refusing to be a part of Ukraine, the US-led coup being what triggered the civil war and Crimea's willing division from Ukraine.

Further, failing to understand Crimea's significance for Russia, geopolitically, is failing to understand what, in actuality, prompted the launch of Russia's SMO, and it's severely failing to understand that if Russia launched that SMO, it would have ramped up aggression if met with aggression, and things would have turned far more deadly for Ukraine then, though Russia would not have fared as well on the economic front, I'm sure.

His whole view fails to understand that these past eight years were used in preparation for this conflict that NATO's US-led neocons were determined to have, no matter what.

And 1970s Russians are much different than 2020s Russians, the 90s and the memories left by Western plundering having solidified an Eastern resolve while intensifying a national paranoia. 

The Wilson E. Schmidt people should give the fool the boot. He's wasting their time and money.