Narcissism as a Mass Psychosis

Will the tattoo madness ever end?

Nigel Jones writing in The Spectator:

The sheer uglification of public spaces by tattoos is reaching intolerable levels.  Those who prowl the streets with hideous inky splodges crawling up their thick necks are not a pretty sight.  These are not the picturesquely decorated heroes of Moby Dick or jolly Jack Tars with tales of Tangiers and Trafalgar:  They are making a visual statement of their own crass stupidity.  Modern mass tattoos do have one useful purpose, however:  They silently tell us that the wearer is a moron without putting us to the trouble of speaking to them to verify that fact.

I have made the very same point on this website.  As for women with tattoos, when I encounter one, which these days is quite frequent, I am overwhelmed with a sense of loss.  It's like watching the burning of a beautiful painting or the desecration of some sacred place.  Tattoos are not merely ugly, they are heartbreaking.

Filipinas further undermine their own natural beauty

The cancer of women's tattoos has also come to the Philippines.  What I have noticed here is that women who lighten their skin are much more likely to acquire tattoos than women with the lovely and natural morena (brown) skin.  Of course the correlation is that women who want to fit in with the porcelain-skin-crowd are also much more likely to follow any trend.  The result is the double eyesore of artificially whitened skin emblazoned with indelible ink.  It's tragic.

Now the Filipina perspective seems to be:  Because of the expense involved, white skin is the reserve of those who can afford it.  Likewise tattoos.  But other than celebrities, upper class women here (as everywhere) are not running out to get some ink.  Decidedly not.  So sure, Filipinas may want white skin to emulate the upper class.  But they get tattooed to fit in with their peers.

Raging Narcissism

As I have written previously:  Acquiring a tattoo is a fundamentally narcissistic pursuit.  It might be argued that one or two tattoos are a personal artistic indulgence or remembrance.  But to get a sleeve or more, that has the look at me quality of the true narcissist.  Tattoos have become a manifestation of narcissism:  Look at me, look at me!

The self-esteem movement, followed by social media proliferation have turned a whole generation into raging narcissists.

Tattoos were sure to follow.

To go back to Nigel Jones' point, what I find so very sad about the acquisition of tattoos is that people willingly mutilate themselves, make themselves ugly, sacrifice their own beauty, and desecrate their bodies...for attention.  Even if at least half of the attention is disapproving.  Such is the strong pull of narcissism.  It is like an addictive drug.

Clearly we are doing something wrong when raising our children.

𓐵

Individual Accountability Warfare, Part Two

How to deal with a dangerous world

Back in May, I wrote about Individual Accountability Warfare.  This is what it looks like.  And the results.  Here's my question:  Would ANY Democrat act this way?  Name one, just one.  But is this story about Trump true?  I certainly hope so.

THIS is how President Trump handled terrorists. It’s why in his last 18 months we didn’t lose a single American soldier in Afghanistan.

President Trump kept America safe because he made our enemies FEAR us.

FULL Interview LINK in BIO. pic.twitter.com/WM5C7MPjZh

— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) July 3, 2024

𓐵

President Michelle

The Obama Theory

Here's a question:  Why has Obama not called on Biden's cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Biden?

Answer:  Because it would automatically make Kamala Harris President and therefore the presumptive nominee for the 2024 election.  And Obama does not want her to be the nominee.

Is there any other possible answer?

But this begs a second question:  Who then does Obama want?

Answer:  Himself.

But okay, since he is constitutionally ineligible, he'll settle for...Michelle.

Of course.

Of course this is the explanation for everything we are currently seeing with Biden.  This explains why they (all of them) have been hiding Biden's true condition.  To keep Kamala out and leave the slot open for Michelle.

Plus this:  As Vice President, Kamala may very well make a big stink if she is not chosen as Biden's replacement.  Of course she will.  She will cry racism!  And sexism!  And this would absolutely work, if the Democrats were considering Gavin Newsom.  And choosing Newsom over Harris will definitely lose the Democrats even more black voters.  But none of this is a problem if Michelle is the replacement.

But there is another reason as well.  Michelle will make a terrible candidate.  As popular as she may be on the left, she's just not very likable.  I think the Obama's are perfectly well aware of this.  So their goal is to limit the amount of time that she has to be a candidate.

And as far as I am aware, the latest they can leave the slot open is until the Democratic Convention.  Which will conveniently provide the opportunity to slip her in over Harris.  Harris will not be happy, but she will be unable to cry racism or sexism.

Obviously both Obamas will vehemently declare that Michelle does not want the job.  But at the last minute, for the sake of the party and for the sake of the country, she will relent, and grudgingly accept the nomination.  They might even extend the convention a day or two for dramatic effect.  I can imagine an intervention by Oprah.  The press will eat it up.

And there are a number of reasons Michelle is a good choice.  The Democrat base absolutely loves her.  She provides a palatable defenestration of Harris, without losing black voters.  And further, Michelle will reverse the black voter exodus to Trump.  But most importantly it is to insure that Barack Obama gets to remain SPOTUS.

Shadow President of the United States

But there is one other little thing.  Consider the Democratic alternatives.  Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, the loathsome Gretchen Whitmer, the long shot J.B. Pritzker; maybe there are others.  Hillary?  None of these guys can beat Donald Trump.  Even from a jail cell, Trump beats these clowns.  No, Michelle is the only viable candidate who can hold the Democratic coalition together and beat Trump.  And this is before we even consider whether the election will be fair.

So my prediction is that Michelle will be the nominee and she will be the next president.  Say it with me:

President Michelle.

𓐵

Feudalism 2030, Part Two

More on the coming Neo-Feudalism

Back in April, I wrote about what I see coming and described it as Neo-Feudalism.  Well someone else has seen it.

It's a fascinating conversation from beginning to end.  Oliver first uses the term feudalism at 58:30.  He goes on to use neo-feudalism as well.  He calls feudalism a natural state, and I do not disagree.

But afterwards he is more positive that I am on our ability to fend off the powers pushing for feudalism.  He feels duty bound to be optimistic about our fight.  But you know, people prefer a positive message, and maybe he is simply giving it to them.  In any case, it is impossible for me to share his optimism.

I believe neo-feudalism will be feudalism dressed up as some kind of progressive, technological utopia, with the trappings but not the substance of democracy.  That is, sure there will be elections.  But they will not mean anything other than providing the populace with the illusion that they are participating in a democratic system.  And most people today do not have enough capacity for critical thought to see through it.

𓐵

Schumer's Photo

The real problem with Chuck Schumer's Father's Day photo

My question is:  If the man will lie about something this simple and innocent and commonplace, can you just imagine what else he would (and does) lie about?  The answer can only be:  Just about everything.

And of course, he's bad enough.  But for the life of me, I just cannot imagine the type of person who would vote for someone like this.  Repeatedly.  As bad as he is, Schumer's not the real problem.  You are.

You absolutely have the government you deserve.  And I can only take solace in the fact that it is going to get worse...for you.  As the Instapundits like to say (quoting H.L. Mencken):  Gooder and harder.  You deserve it all.

𓐵

Three Questions

Three questions we should all ask ourselves about Israel

As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?

Now, why these questions?  Because without American assistance the state of Israel, which is surrounded by its enemies, would cease to exist.  The surrounding Arab states are too rich, too powerful, and too fanatical for Israel to survive without American support.  We are about two trillion petrodollars away from the Six-Day War.

When people argue that we should not help Israel, what they are really saying is that the state of Israel should not exist.  They may truly believe this, and it may in fact be a legitimate political, anti-Zionist argument (we will come back to this below).  But let's be honest about this existential question.

I think when you put it in the form of these three questions, to ask the questions, is the answer them.  Nevertheless, let's take them in turn:

As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

What is the alternative?  The resulting Palestinian state would resemble every other Middle Eastern state.  That is, it would be either ruled by a strongman, like its next door neighbors Jordan and Syria, it would be a theocracy like Iran, or it would be a combination of these two, like Saudi Arabia.  Those are the only possible results.  So we can kiss a western-style democracy goodbye.  Meaning there will be no western-style democracy in the region.

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

The state of Israel protects the holy places of Christianity.  And welcomes tourists and pilgrims of all religions.  Without Israel, these places will simply be destroyed.  And how much Christianity would an Islamic Palestinian state allow?  How many Christian churches would they tolerate?  Tell me again how many churches you can find in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?

Again, what is the alternative?  Another Arab/Islamic country.  This question is really a summation of the first two.  You must decide:  Is the world a better place with or without Israel?

Now this is not simply a left-of-center dilemma.  There is a branch of the right that believes that Israel's problems are, and should remain, solely Israel's problems.  But they should all ask themselves the above three questions.  When they say, I don't believe in sending American money to other countries, any other countries, when we have so many problems here at home, that's fine.  I actually agree with this sentiment, with the one exception of Israel.  Why?  Again, ask these questions.  There's your answer.

Also, ask these questions regarding any other country, say Ukraine.  I think you will find completely different answers.  No, we do not have to treat Ukraine the same way we treat Israel.  The idea is preposterous.  

Now let's come back to the question of whether or not the state of Israel should exist?  Is this a legitimate political question?  Or is it anti-semitic?  Well, if you honestly believe that the state of Israel should not exist, I think you have a duty to explain what happens to all the Jews currently living there?  If you say:  They should go back to Poland; or, they should live under an Islamic regime; these are not serious answers.  And believe me, many Muslims have much more uninviting ideas.

Don't look to me for an answer to this question; I believe entirely that Israel has a right to exist.  This is a problem for those of you who say it does not have a right to exist.  So give us a reasonable answer to this question.

Or yes, you are simply just another garden-variety anti-semite.

Finally, what about those who say:  Yes absolutely, Israel has a right to exist...but that does not mean America should be supporting them with money and arms.  This is the Tucker Carlson position.  I completely agree with almost every other position he holds.  So I assume his heart is in the right place, and I absolutely give him the benefit of doubt on this.

But I do not see a difference in the result of this position and in the result of the they do not have a right to exist position.  Your motivations may be different, but we will end up with the same result.

𓐵

Truth versus Hope

How to counter Islam:  Truth or Christianity

Richard Dawkins is skeptical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion to Christianity.  I was also skeptical when I wrote about her conversion last year.  But today (this was recorded a month ago), she does seem to accept, and claims to believe, at least some of the tenets of the Christian faith.

But listening to her, I am still led to believe that her newly professed faith is mostly a political, anti-Islam mission.  Her position seems to be that enlightenment values do not offer an adequate alternative to Islam, so she's going to try Christianity.  Her newfound faith seems to be based on the hope that Christianity offers a viable alternative.

As I see it, the problem with Hirsi Ali's argument is that she is setting aside truth for the sake of winning the hearts and minds of the masses as a counter to Islam.  She believes that Christianity is necessary to halt the expansion of Islamic tyranny.  Dawkin's position is that we should counter Islam the same way we counter all religions, with truth and rationality.  But here Hirsi Ali's point reigns supreme:  We must offer something rather than nothing.

I'm still not sure that she is a sincere Christian.  But she is so invested in offering an alternative to Islam, that she will call herself a Christian if that's what it takes.

I think the real difference between the two is that Dawkins believes the masses must respond to rationality.  Ultimately there is no other choice.  And Hirsi Ali believes that it is going to take more than that to appeal to the masses.  She believes that the masses need a better story than Islam.  Who cares if it's true or not.  It is a cynical and patronizing position.  Surely people will see that.

Besides, can we really rely on the beliefs of the masses in our existential fight with Islam?  The masses will always believe some nonsense.  That is a huge part of what makes them masses.  Just look how the masses accepted government propaganda on Covid.  Look at their social media addictions.  Look at how they vote in the United States and Great Britain and Western Europe.  Even if we continue to believe in democracy, I think we should be extremely cautious of the masses.

And regarding western masses' perspective on Islam, most people seem to believe that it is just another religion, and therefore, while they may have little knowledge of its teachings, they view it as a positive:  It is a religion, therefore it must instruct its adherents to behave righteously.

So while I agree that something must be done to counter Islam, it will not be a mass Christian movement that stops it.  It will not be the malleable hearts and minds of the western masses.  They are too soft and too unthinking.  And eventually the Muslims will kill them.  It is convert, submit, or die.

No, it will take sterner stuff.  Which will start with...truth.

We might start with the truth of what exactly do Muslims believe?  Forget a new story, or a better story.  Just tell the awful truth about their story.  Let's tell Queers for Palestine what happens to them when they get to, you know, Palestine.  Let's tell women the truth about life in Iran.  Let's be honest about Muslim apostasy and blasphemy and honor killings and anti-semitism and sharia.  And tolerance; let's talk about Muslim tolerance.  Not in the West, but in Saudi Arabia.  Let's tell the story of the history of Islam and its maniacal, murderous prophet.

Let us explain the difference between Muslim behavior when they are less than five percent of a population and when they are more than twenty percent.  This is very difficult for most western people to understand.  And it will quite literally be the death of them.  Here the United States has an advantage.  They can simply watch what happens in Europe.  But will they learn?

Let us be so busy telling the truth about Islam that we don't have time or need to preach an alternative.

𓐵

On Our Parchment Guarantee

An extra-constitutional response is necessary

Is anyone on the Right willing to do what it takes to stop the Left from behaving unconstitutionally?

I have written before that when one side acts unconstitutionally, the other cannot hope to win by adhering to the Constitution.  You may retain the moral high ground, but what does that gain you?  You think dictators care about the moral high ground?  No, they only care about power.

In the United States today, the situation is this.  The Democrats will do anything they can get away with to retain power.  Not anything constitutional.  Anything they can get away with.  And it is worth noticing how genuinely and smugly gleeful they are about it.

Will anyone stop them?

I have no faith that anyone will.  By the end of 2024, the United States will officially have become a one party state.  How long after that will it take to become fully Soviet?

They want to put Donald Trump in the gulag.  You think he will be the last?  No, no, they will find a way to imprison any serious opposition candidate.  Now that they know they can get away with it, this will become their go to strategy.

But what could be done?

Well, firstly, other states, other red states, could simply refuse to extradite Donald Trump to New York.  Nope, we are not going to honor our constitutional responsibilities simply to fulfill your unconstitutional kangaroo court orders.

Further, red states simply must be willing to not comply with US government policies and any court orders to enforce them.  For instance, red states should militarize the southern border.  That's what any other sovereign nation would have done already.

But these are really just intermediate steps that could eventually lead to civil war.  Sure one can hope to avoid war.  But we simply must not allow the possibility of war to deter us from appropriate (necessarily extra-constitutional) responses.  And I just don't think we have the moral leadership on the Right to act in this principled manner.

Could someone emerge?  I guess it's possible.  But it will not be Donald Trump.  How do we know this?  Because he was in power for four years, and did not really put up much of a fight.  He is a man who simply enjoys the trappings of power.  And like most people on the Right, he is under the misconception that the Constitution still matters.

That's what they all think.

In fact, the Right is so deluded that we still live in a constitutional republic that they will allow Trump to be jailed.  I guess as some kind of martyr who will eventually, constitutionally, prevail.  But even if he is not immediately jailed, Trump's appeals process must work its way through the New York courts before the US Supreme Court will consider it.  How many years will that take?  It's a game for suckers.  Even if Trump does ultimately prevail, it will be late in Michelle Obama's first term.  And by then, he will be too old to be a threat.  And even if there are aspects of this case that can be immediately appealed to federal court, they are not going to be resolved before Michelle takes office in January.

But if the constitutional process is over, just for fun let's imagine what could be done?  Well, Trump could go home to Florida and pick a fight with the New York judge (really the whole state of New York).  Campaign on the fact that the New York legal system has gone full Blue Kangaroo.  Disregard any gag orders.  DeSantis would have to reject any extradition request.  Same for other red states.

In other words, a unified Right must start fighting the Left under the new rules, the extra-constitutional rules, set by the Left.  Otherwise, the Left will happily put Trump in jail.  Like any other banana republic.  If this scenario sounds ridiculous or unlikely to you, it is.  But it is where we are today; the ridiculous has become reality.

I don't really think Trump has it in him.  And even if he could find the moral courage, I think he still loses the election.  The Democrats control the election process (the machinery and logistics) and they will not and cannot allow any Republican to win.

As I have written previously, I just cannot see the Right engaging in civil war.  Even if it becomes necessary.  That is, even if it becomes the only option available.

Even if it becomes the only moral option.

So we either live under Democrat one-party rule, or we leave the country.

𓐵

Ridiculous versus Interesting

How to be ridiculous

Tattoos

Piercings

More tattoos and piercings

Fake nails and eyelashes

Any bling whatsoever

Constant smartphone use

Social media presence

So-called content creation for social media

Keeping up with the Kardashians

Kardashian-like vocal fry and uptalk affectations

Plastic surgery

Computer/video games

Ridiculousness guaranteed.

How to be interesting

Get a job

Start a business

Read a book

Write a journal

Learn a new word everyday

Keep up with current affairs

Travel

Learn to cook

Learn to play the piano

Practice in-person conversation

Take a walk

Take a walk with a friend

Leave your smartphone at home

Go camping

Interesting guaranteed.

Both of these lists could be endless, but I think you get the idea.  My father used to call the type of people who partake in the first list common.  It was about the worst insult he could muster.  But I've never necessarily believed that common equated to bad.  I mean, we all eat at McDonald's occasionally.  But at some point it does seem that the ridiculous became common.  And things that used to be common (as most things in the second list were) became less common if not rare.

𓐵

Smartphone Nation

On the looming smartphone crisis

How many of us have been waiting in line in the supermarket only to witness the customer ahead of us not paying attention because she is on her smartphone and the cashier is waiting for her?  How many drivers are barreling down the road on their smartphones?  Have you noticed young people in restaurants not engaged with others at the table?  Evidently whatever is happening in their smartphone-world is more important.

The schools are an absolute disaster.  

And these users are not working or even doing something mildly important.  It's nonsense.  I mean whatever has them so engrossed in their smartphone, it is almost always absolute nonsense.

When I was a young commuter, it was common to read the newspaper on the train.  Today, understandably, people are on their smartphones instead.  But how many of them are reading the news?  Forget about it.

In fact, without being overly obvious, I have started to notice how people are using their smartphones.  It's social media, games, and frivolous chat (you can tell by all the emojis).  The most productive use might be dating apps because young people no longer have any interpersonal skills.  Everyone has a computer in their pocket more powerful than a Cray supercomputer.  And they are basically using it as a toy.

When I was a kid, I'll tell you something I used to hear all the time.  "Pay attention."  This was long before smartphones.  Sadly this seems to be a skill that is no longer taught or appreciated.

Pay attention and be present in the moment.  Or how about simple courtesy:  Give the person or people in front of you your attention.  If you do not or cannot, why are you there?

Why are you there?  You could simply go back to the pod you came out of.  Pod.  P.O.D.  Personal Opium Den.  Coming soon.  But for now, maybe do all the rest of us a favor, take your smartphone and go stand in the corner.  Then, at least, you will not be in the way.

Yet I am skeptical of the addiction argument.  I don't know, maybe so.  But I think it is more likely simple narcissism and rudeness.  Have we really created so many rude narcissists?  Again, I do not know.  But whether addiction or narcissism or both, or something else entirely, what are the larger implications for society?

Yes absolutely, this is the rant of an old man.  But this is not going to end well.

𓐵

On Conscription

Concerning conscription, here is the only question that matters:

If a political leadership class cannot rally willing volunteers for their cause, should we allow them to conscript the unwilling?

Two follow-ups:

Is their cause a national cause?  Because so often, the answer is no.

Who should define a national cause, the political leadership or individual families with husbands and sons?  If the families agree with the politicians, they may volunteer.  If not, leave them alone, you murderous egomaniacs.

When I first discussed conscription, I used the US involvement in Vietnam as an example.  As I asked then, can anyone tell me the US national interest?  I don't think so.

I am talking to you, Lyndon Johnson.  And you, Vladimir Putin.  And you, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  These monsters want to force others to die for their respective causes.  And since hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian men have fled the draft, Zelenskyy wants their current countries of residence to ship them back to his death machine.

Why?  For Zelenskyy's glory of course.

These men have made the decision that Ukraine is not worth fighting and dying for.  Who can say they are wrong?  Many young American men made a similar decision about Vietnam.  And with all due hindsight, they were absolutely correct to do so.  Who should have died for Lyndon Johnson's murderous pipe dream?

I don't think conscription would work today with American young men.  What, with their participation trophies and social media and video games.  But just as an exercise, can you imagine any cause where the American leadership class would be willing to draft young men to fight and die?  I think a good number of them, the leadership class, would be willing to draft young men to fight for Ukraine.  But if Lindsey Graham wants Americans to fight for Ukraine, give him a gun.

Thankfully, we have a willing and able, professional warrior class.  Let them do their thing.  Ripping some kid away from his video game is not going to help.

But this post is not so much about the unlikely idea of a twenty-first century American draft.  It is about the concept of conscription itself.  I have come to believe that it is never justified, and most often immoral.  I mean, can we consider confederate conscription moral?  How about Nazi Germany conscription?  If American families were unwilling to volunteer their children to fight the Nazis, then we should have stayed out of it.  For what it's worth, I do think Americans would have volunteered.  Enough anyway.  Just as we do today.

Here's another question:  How many Russians would volunteer to invade Ukraine?  I'm guessing it would be close to zero.

Point is, whose decision is this?  Should we allow corrupt politicians, with questionable motives, to make this decision?  Or should we retain this decision for individual families to make?

𓐵

A Culture of Cheating and Shortcuts

We need to stop worrying about China

If you read Thomas Friedman, you might come to believe that China will lead the world in the twenty-first century.  But the man knows little to nothing about China or Chinese culture.  He seems to only regurgitate CCP propaganda.

If you watch Winston Sterzel or Chris Chappell you will come away with a new understanding of just how ridiculous China has become.

Both Sterzel and Chappell lay a big part of the blame on the CCP, and I am sure they deserve it.  But I spent a number of years immersed in the Chinese-American community, where I came to understand Chinese shortcut culture.  At least that is how I started thinking about it.

Yes, the CCP are dangerous thugs.  For their own citizens and for everyone worldwide.  Both Sterzel and Chappell have made the point that there is little difference between the CCP/Chinese government and actual criminal thugs.  In fact, the criminals have taken to pretending to be government agents in order to insure victim compliance.  Works like a charm because who can tell the difference?

Sure, because of family ties to mainland China, Chinese-Americans, both residents and citizens, are still heavily influenced by the CCP.  But I would say that the CCP is just as much a result of Chinese culture as the other way around.  If there is any society in the world today that has the government it truly deserves, it is China.

Because the Chinese have a culture of cheating and shortcuts.  This culture and attitude leads to incompetence, lack of seriousness, and dishonesty.  About anything and everything.  Of course, not everyone falls into this.  But is it half?  I don't know, but it is enough that you have to worry about everyone you deal with.  Are those red chili peppers actually red, or have they just been painted red?  Why would you even take the chance?

And I would guess that practically all government functionaries fall into the dishonest category.  Watch a few of these videos, and you will be a lot less concerned about Chinese aggression.  Chinese hypersonic missiles?  Most likely just another scam.  They only recently mastered the ballpoint pen.  And I'm not even sure that is believable.

What about China's nuclear weapons?  Here the risk is so high that we have no choice but to consider it a legitimate existential threat.  And act accordingly.  But I would not be a bit surprised to learn that it, too, is all smoke and mirrors.

All we know for sure is that the Chinese can produce a working water cannon.  It is worth noting that they use their water cannons, and their spy balloons (not satellites), against people who they know will not fight back.  It's typical Chinese government thuggish behavior.  And we all know, thugs only respond to force.

Singapore and Taiwan are both overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese.  While it takes decades, both prove that a society can change its culture and behavior.  But there must be incentives in place.  Judicial or market-driven or even just media-driven.  But you will not find any such incentives in mainland China.  I once read that culture is what a society tolerates.  If you tolerate bad behavior, then you have a culture of bad behavior.  And yes, it is just that simple.  If you don't believe me, you should visit Singapore.

Anyway, here's some practical advice.  It is difficult to avoid Made in China products entirely.  But I would never buy or use any such product with the potential to kill you or cause you serious harm.  China has become a large exporter of automobiles.  I would avoid them like the plague.  And I would never allow myself or my family into one.  Likewise, avoid any food product made in China.  Because you simply have no way of knowing what's in it.  You certainly cannot trust the packaging.

Point is, we cannot and should not take China seriously.  Whether we are talking about overseas aggression or the safety of food exports or automobile manufacturing.

As for the ridiculousness of China's internal culture, treat it like a Keystone Cops movie.  Because that is exactly what it is.

𓐵