Why do politicians embrace anti-intellectualism and do these same politicians regret their actions?

Asked on Quora. My answer.

I am not sure what is meant by the phrase anti-intellectualism anymore. The term has been so abused that it appears to have lost meaning. If you are referring to an opposition against various avenues of intellectual/elitist idealism than the reasons are obvious.

All too often these ideals lack empirical support and prejudice the ‘ought’ over the ‘is’. Many are formulated on assumptions that fall short when tested in reality. However they have the potential to cause great harm at the local level by their zealous drive in removing necessary structures that have working utility.

Opposition is usually a function of resisting the tendency to fix what is not broken. As for the signs of regret..that is a consequence of the individual dynamic. Who knows what goes through a person’s mind? People have different motivations.

Why does the magnitude of acceleration remain constant?

Asked on Quora. My answer.

This happens when the net force is constant (read about Newton’s Second Law of Motion). A free falling object, that is one being impacted by the force of gravity only, is subject to a constant net force that is equal to the weight of the object. (mg). Since the gravity field (g) is roughly uniform close to the Earth’s surface this results in a constant net force and therefore a non-changing acceleration.

In uniform circular motion the magnitude of the acceleration also stays constant if the Centripetal force (another net force) has constant magnitude. However the direction of the acceleration will change though as the net force is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the object which forces a change in velocity but not speed.

What are similiar ideologies to classical liberalism?

 My answer on Quora.

The vision of classical or authentic liberalism (as my friend the very astute, Charles Tips prefers to call it) today is most closely associated with Modern Free Market Libertarianism. Both favor economic entrepreneurship, private ownership of property, an emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, free speech, freedom of belief, limited government intrusion, meritocracy, the necessary rule of law and skepticism of the elite authority. Positions on social issues and foreign policy will vary.

The Anarcho-capitalist version of Libertarianism (Rothbard and co.) does incorporate many of the talking points of Classic Liberalism but its ideological commitment to an extreme form of limited government (not to mention its strong emphasis on the Non-Aggression Principle) detract somewhat from a fuller overlap.

The US Constitution is an authentic liberal document as most of the Founding Fathers were greatly influenced by the British liberal movement. In the 20th century I would argue that the economist Friederich Hayek was the leading proponent of Classical Liberalism.

"F. A. Hayek and the Rebirth of Classical Liberalism" - Econlib

In the recent revival of public and scholarly interest in the values of limited government and the market order, no one has been more centrally significant than Friedrich A. Hayek. His works have figured as a constant point of reference in the discussions both of the libertarian and conservative theories of the market economy; they …

https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryHRC.html

However in the US like all umbrella descriptors classical liberalism casts a larger net with most of its ideals being incorporated into the framework of Modern Conservatism via the Fusionism model.

Liberty and Virtue: Frank Meyer’s Fusionism (June 2021)

Welcome to our June 2021 edition of Liberty Matters.  This month Stephanie Slade, managing editor at Reason magazine , has written our lead essay on Frank Meyer . Liberty Fund publishes Meyer’s most widely cited book In Defense of Freedom and related essays which also includes a number of Meyer’s more well known essays.  Meyer was one of the founders, along with William F. Buckley, of National Review .  Meyer later was credited with being the founder of the political philosophy of fusionism.  Fusionism was his effort to combine libertarian and conservative principles to maintain markets and more traditional values in society.  Meyer believed that while virtue was critical to the maintenance of a free society, virtue could not be coerced by the state.  This focus on the individual rather than the collective as the source of virtuous action, along with a commitment to free markets and limited government, helped animate conservative political thought under President Reagan and forge an alliance between libertarians and conservatives during the latter part of the Cold War.  Today conservatives are heading in a very different ideological direction, but Slade argues in her provocative essay it is worth returning to Meyer’s thought during this dynamic period in American politics. The Debate Lead Essay Stephanie Slade, " Freedom and Virtue: Masters of Their Own Domains " [Posted June 7, 2021] Responses Jonathan Adler, " Is Fusionism a Zombie Ideology? " [Posted June 10, 2021] Henry Olsen, " Fusionism: Freedom's Handmaid " [Posted June 14, 2021] William Dennis, " Friendly AND Ferocious Fusionism " [Posted June 18, 2021] Stephanie Slade, " Righteous Meddling and Human Excellence " [Posted June 22, 2021] Jonathan Adler, " Conservatives' Burden " [Posted June 25, 2021] Henry Olsen, " Conservatism: A Better Guarantor of Liberty " [Posted June 29, 2021] William Dennis, " Virtuecrats versus Liberty for All " [Posted July 2, 2021] Stephanie Slade, Freedom and Virtue : Masters of Their Own Domains It’s an old productivity maxim that a person who has multiple priorities in fact has no priorities. If priority denotes that item or consideration which exceeds all others in importance, then there can, as the movie trope goes, be only one. This would seem to pose at least a potential problem for “ fusionism ”—the idea, most closely associated with the late National Review literary editor Frank S. Meyer, that the essence of American-style conservatism is a dual mandate to preserve both liberty and virtue. To trade away one for the sake of the other, Meyer thought, would amount to a hollowing out of the American founding and, indeed, a rejection of the ideals of Western civilization itself. But as our friendly neighborhood management consultant might point out, a person can’t have two No. 1 priorities. Undoubtedly, the demands of virtue and the presumption of liberty will at times conflict. In cases when one or the other must take precedence, which should it be? There ar

https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/liberty-matters-frank-meyer-fusionism-stephanie-slade

Fusionism essentially brings together the free market thinking of Classic Liberalism with various elements of Social Conservatism. It has served as the bedrock for the GOP since the Reagan era.

On a philosophical level one can make the case that Fusionism merges the Liberalism of the Scottish Enlightenment (Hume, Smith etc), with the Lockian beliefs that arose during the Age of Reason and the Burkean emphasis on transcendence. It seeks to preserve the working core of the essence of the nation state that has empirical utility with the critical need to guarantee freedom of individual agency.

As expected this merger has some choke points that tends to underpin the internal conflict within the GOP (most evident during primary election season). This is further complicated by the fact that the GOP has a Progressive wing that played an integral role in the party since its founding. Big government initiatives - not strictly the domain of the Democratic Party - initiated by the GOP largely originate with this influential party sector.

In the United States by political necessity most Classical Liberals would probably still align with the GOP or the Libertarian party. Neither of which though is a strictly classical liberal party but the electoral alternatives are even further removed from Classical Liberalism. The Contemporary Democratic Party today is largely a bulwark for various Progressive and Identitarian movements that tend to de-emphasize the role of the individual in favor of directed state and collectivist action. This stands in sharp contrast to the ideals of Classic Liberalism.

Classic Liberalism in Europe falls today under the broad spectrum of Modern European Conservatism and is just called Liberalism. This would have been the case in North America if the term liberal had not been appropriated by Progressives prior to WWII. The ‘classical’ moniker is used to emphasize the distinction. Australia also uses the word Liberal in its original sense.

Science v Scientism

 Pure Science itself isn’t inherently an ideology. It a method of examining claims through empirical investigation and then drawing conclusion that have predictive value. It uses the framework of mathematics and statistics to analyze the evidence thereby opening up further avenues of investigation to test deeper claims. In this regard it has been very successful.

Having said that though Paul Feyerabend has a point when the practitioners of science become dogmatic and political in their outlook to the point that they transform the practice of science into a milieu dominated by groupthink, the willful neglect of contrary evidence and the elevation of the power dynamic of credentialism.

This invariably results in stagnant thinking, the formation of a closed secretarian priesthood/authority and the sacrifice of the rigorous scientific methodology to preordained conclusions.

The further venture of science into realms which are less quantifiable or indeed falsifiable (eg. morality and metaphysics) further challenges the scope of science’s applicability. A realism that seems lost to those who with each passing moment are intent in transforming science into the ideology of scientism.

Is the Democratic Party split?

(My answer on Quora)

Yes it is and it is not just along one single axis. Essentially you have five different groups in the contemporary Democratic Party. The divisions that exist today have obvious historical overlap from yesteryear but also differ as a consequence of the events that have ensued over time.

So what are these divisions? Well in my opinion they are: The New Progressives, the Identitarians, the Globalists, the Old Progressives and the Realist/Moderates.

None of these factions have sufficient power on their own, or indeed the numbers, to govern independently without the support of three of the other four groups, which necessitates an uneasy system of alliances. Herein lies the fault.

Looking at the factions.

The New Progressives (NPs) - These are the strong champions of social democratic politics, woke culture and anti-capitalist rhetoric. At one point they existed on the fringe of the Democratic Party (and often outside the party) but have made tremendous gains since the Obama era and indeed exhibit a great deal of forward momentum. More so in fact then any other faction. This was evident by the strong showing of the Bernie Sanders ticket in 2020 and the high profile accolades given to the vocal members of the so called ‘Squad’. Their strength resides with younger voters but they have an added dimension that taps into the various intersectionalities.

NPs weaponize the politics of catastrophic climate change and generally support more open borders, grievance politics and class warfare to further their transformative agenda. They have picked up strength courtesy of the left’s long march through the institutions (especially education and academia) and although they are still under represented on a national level in Congress they enjoy far greater support within the party base. They demand attention and get it.

AOC - the face of the NP faction although not its most powerful player (for the time being that is Bernie Sanders) picture source : The Guardian

The Identitiarians (Is) - Have a very similar platform to the NPs although they tend to focus on the politics of the specific Identity group that they are associated with. They are usually splintered along lines of race, gender and sexual orientation. Political motivations often necessitates alliance formation with the NPs (for which there is much overlap).

Identitarians to a fault are extremely hostile to dissenting voices within the Identity group (just ask Larry Elder). Unlike the NPs they aren’t as critical of capitalism (so long as the money is flowing in the right direction) but definitely fall on the same side of the wealth distribution continuum debate as the former.

The strength and influence is demonstrated in the numbers game as they have the ability to deliver a substantial political block to a chosen candidate. Identitarians make effective use of guilt and grievance issues to attack the mainstream and are strong advocates of the mechanism of cancel culture. Like the NPs they are open to the use of rage politics but often run into problems when intersectionalities collide (eg. race vs gender vs religion). They have a significant footprint in the urban political machines.

Source: Maxine Waters - one of many Identitarians. picture source: The Black Wall Street Times.

Globalists - The Globalists have largely dominated the elite of the Democratic Party since the Clinton era and indeed without globalist backing no Democratic Party hopeful can secure the Presidential ticket. Many globalists see themselves as world citizens and often espouse a type of superiority that envisions the rest of the country as being ‘lost’without deference to their expertise (a sort of skewed version of Platos’s cave).

While this is incredibly patronizing it has broad appeal in the world of the Big corporations who for the sake of enhancing their international footprint and securing cheap sources of labor are strong backers of the Globalist faction. At present the greatest threat to the Globalist domination of the party hegemony comes from the NPs. However Globalists have the backing of the bulk of the Democratic caucus in Congress and can usually mobilize establishment money, big tech and political back room deals to outflank inconvenient challenges (as they did for Joe Biden against Bernie Sanders in 2020).

Globalists rely on the backing of the Democratic Party friendly mainstream media and draw heavily from the confluence of super powerful PACS and corporate donors. However they still need the support of Identiartians or NPs on the national front to make up the numbers. This explains the need to virtue signal or ‘grift’ while delivering only a toned down version of the agenda of the other factions.

Globalist figurehead Joe Biden picture source: Politico

The Old Progressives (OPs)- These were your mom and dad’s Democrats. They still envision the party as that of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK even though that ship has sailed some time ago on that descriptor. Many but not all have a Blue Collar working background and see themselves as the little guy/gal fighting against the man. They vote Democrat as they always have and are generally well meaning people who still see the United States as a great country. If called to, they will defend the nation with earnest.This flies in the face of many of the New Progressives and Identiarians who regard the United States as tarnished at birth by a smorgasbord of isms.

The greatest weakness of OPs is that they are a dying breed. Many still cling to the belief that the party bigwigs care about them and others refuse to acknowledge that their beloved Democratic Party has shifted all the more to the left since the 1960s. Some have woken up over time with many breaking rank to become Reagan Democrats or Trumpists.

At one time the OPs were the base of the Democratic Party. That is no longer the case. However they still possess historical inertia and exhibit strong support in many grassroot Democratic Party organizations at the local level.

Old Progressive Kansas governor Laura Kelly picture source: Wikipedia

Realist/Moderates - If the Realists dominated the Democratic Party the country would be in a far better place. Calls for unity for one would not ring as hollow they currently do. Even though I am not a Democrat I believe that it is important for the nation to have two healthy parties and the realists would have the best chance of delivering that from the Democratic front. However since the Obama era realists have been losing more and more ground. Realists tend to fuse Keynesian economics with a strong support for the institutions of the United States. They still believe the country is a force of good and genuinely care for small business and the challenges facing the eternally shrinking middle class.

Their thinking is not wedded in doctrinal purity and they are the most likely group to reach across the aisle to bring about a necessary compromise. However the radical shift of the party nucleus and its internationalist bias has relegated the Realists in the Democratic Party to a no-man’s land.

They do have one key utility in that they allow the Democratic Party to be competitive in Purple and some Red States and can survive by playing this card.

Oddly enough it has been by experience that most non-Americans who are not familiar with the nuances of American politics still see the Democrats as being dominated by the realists. This has not been the case for several decades now. Only Tulsi Gabbard and to some extent Andrew Yang espoused the reality position with any political traction in 2019/2020. The party establishment marginalized both of them.

Joe Manchin Realist Picture source: Time Magazine

So indeed there are serious fault lines within the Democratic Party (the GOP to a lesser extent has points of fission as well). However when brought together against a common enemy (the evil Orange Man Trump) this can ensure electoral success.

In the more challenging role of day-to-day governance and policy formation tensions inevitably flare up. At the forefront is the divide between those who see the United States as a nation to be transformed along various ideological and internationalist lines and those who fundamentally believe in the goodness of a country, whose structures while largely solid can always be improved.

It is these critical points of differences that go someway to explain why the Biden presidency continues to fumble and trip over itself.

What did Italy own in WW2?

 (My answer on Quora)

Italy controlled territory in Somalia, Libya and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) prior to WWII. There was also a small Italian presence in Tianjin, China. During the war she would go on to occupy British Somaliland, sections of south-east France, Yugoslavia, Albania, western Egypt and Greece.

By 1943 all of this territory (including pre-war holdings) would be liberated from Italy.

My grandfather was a Lieutenant in the South African Army that helped defeat the Italians in Abyssinia in 1941.

Do you think Joe Biden should have evacuated all the citizens of Afghanistan first and then the troops, or was it right the way he did it?

(My answer on Quora)

I suspect by the phrase ‘all the citizens of Afghanistan’ you are referring specifically to those who hold Green cards or assisted the United States in various capacities (usually translators between 2001 and 2021). Afghanistan after all has a population of 38 million souls. The well being of all is not an American responsibility.

Whatever you cut it the Biden Administration made a hash of the process.

The correct order of operation in my opinion would be

1. Evacuate All American citizens other than embassy staff. Embassy staff ought to be reinforced for adequate vetting.
2. Evacuate allies and Green card holders
3. Withdraw part of the ground troops while giving considerable support to the Afghan army
4. Withdraw the rest of the Embassy staff and various stragglers - use special forces to assist in evacuation of those stranded in difficult positions (as did the British and the French)
5. Maintain air support at Bagram base with Army contingent until the situation settles down. Leave according to a US mandated timetable. The US controls the shots here not the Taliban. Who is the superpower?

What happened instead is that

1. The US closed the air base at Bagram (in July) leaving both its own troops and the Afghan army with little air support despite the fact that the latter’s training had been predicated on such support.
2. Biden then told the world that the situation was under control and it was unlikely that Kabul would fall to the Taliban (even though the leaked voice transcript that he had with the Afghan President indicates otherwise).
3. With little air support the Afghan army crumbled in the face of a Taliban drive that had the blessings of Pakistan.
4. Seeing the writing on the wall and not wishing to see himself hanging from a lamppost the Afghani President left Afghanistan with a great deal of his possessions.
5. Leaderless and rudderless the army completely collapsed leaving Kabul at the mercy of the Taliban.
6. It was at this point that it believed the US had the opportunity to reach a deal with the Taliban ensuring American control of the airport until complete evacuation. This option was not exercised so that the Taliban (including the Haqqani network) had control of the key gates to the airport (at least three of the four).
7. The chaos of the evacuation begins. Crowds gather outside the embassy. Taliban controls all in and out privileges. US officials makes dangerous decision to supply the Taliban with list of Afghanis seeking to leave. It is all rush, rush at this point as the August 31st deadline looms.
8. A suicide bomber claims a dozen American lives causing numerous injuries as well. A retaliatory US drone attack takes the lives of innocent Afghan citizens including some children.
9. The Biden Administration signs off on the leave on the 31st of August patting itself on the back for a job well done. Changing estimates as to how many people are still left behind grow more disturbing.
10. American credibility receives its biggest kick in the teeth since Vietnam (perhaps more so) with American allies questioning the competency of the decision making by the talking heads at the State Department, Pentagon and Oval Office.
11. ISIS-K and Al Qaeda are back in Afghanistan and in the words of Yogi Berra it is deja vu all over again.

The FUBAR of all FUBARS. If that isn’t bad enough the lies told by the Administration should make any thinking or caring person wretch.

How many Americans are still left in Afghanistan? Good luck getting getting a straight answer from anyone in the Biden Administration.

Why has China always been so powerful a country?

 (My answer on Quora)

Actually this isn’t the case.

Within the context of survival as a civilization China has performed remarkably well. Relatively high population numbers and the overwhelming predominance of its Han Chinese core in safeguarding its cultural heritage, have played a significant role for most of its history towards ensuring a residual endurance. However this has been realized at a very great cost.

While the cultural element has taken somewhat of a beating recently under Communist domination, the momentum of centuries of Confucian thought have supplied China with an innate buffering system that has proved largely resilient to radical change (for better or for worse).

More often than not the outsider philosophy or power that has come to dominate China has been forced by necessity to integrate the outside beliefs within the Confucian framework.

The framework tends to stress a necessary meritocracy although this has come at the expense of a tolerance for the type of creative thought that challenges existing orthodoxies. This was reflected in China’s failure to initially grasp the technological drive that defined the First Industrial Revolution. The Japanese to the contrary, during the Meiji Era (1868–1912), did not make the same mistake. Further shortfalls in China were compounded by China’as insularity and top down hierarchy of power.

However the notion of China as a strong political player throughout most of recorded history is one that does mesh with reality. China has on numerous occasions been overrun by foreign invaders. The Yuen dynasty (1271–1368) was set up by the Mongols following a brutal conquest as was the later Qing (1644–1912) who have external Manchurian origins. The latter came at the cost of 25 million lives.

Manchu Conquest source: Historica Wiki Fandom

From 1839 to 1949 China suffered what was called the ‘century of humiliation’. It was defeated in the First and Second Opium Wars (1839–1842 and 1856–1860), lost suzerainty in Vietnam to France as a consequence of the Sino-French war (1884–1885) and had to admit defeat against Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895).

The failure of the Boxer Rebellion (1899–1891) further entrenched foreign trade domination. Indeed for the first half of the Twentieth century China was at the receiving end of growing Japanese territorial gains that followed the Treaty of Versailles. This would persist with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931–1932) that in turn was followed by the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945).

China would recover all territory lost to Japan by 1945 (although it lost Outer Mongolia) however the war is believed to have resulted in 15–22 million casualties.

It is also important to note that China has often been cursed with deadly civil wars that have produced extremely high death counts and wreaked havoc with its economy for decades afterward.

The threeway struggle between the Han and Wang Mang usurpers and Red Eyebrow rebels likely cost ten million lives between 9 and 24 CE. The later war between the Three Kingdoms (Wu, Wei and Shu) added another 3.4 million to the death count between 189–230 CE, The An Lushan Rebellion (756–763) caused a drop in the population by 36 million souls.

These continued throughout Chinese history with the Fang La Rebellion (1120–1122, 2 million dead) and the Mongol invasion (1162–1227, 40 million death toll).

The Fall of the Yuan Empire between 1340–1370 added 30 million deaths to the dark side of China’s historical ledger. Between 1755–1757 the Central Asian Sino-Dzungar war cost 600,000 lives. However this figure pales in comparison to the mass killings associated with the Taiping Rebellion of 1850–1864, that ultimately saw the defeat of the Taiping rebels at the hands of the Manchu forces, although not before the loss of a further 20 million lives.

The Taiping Rebellion source: Grunge

The Hui Rebellion (1862–1873), that engulfed Gansu Province between 1862–1873 took 640,000 lives as Han Chinese forces battled Hui Muslims.

To this we can add the mass death tolls suffered under Mao Zedong's CCP regime (Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution) between 1949–1976 whose human toll sits in the neighborhood of 40 million lives. This of course followed the Chinese Civil (1927–1949) where casualty figures likely surpassed the 15 million mark (although there is substantial overlap between the number supplied here and losses incurred in the contemporary Second Sino -Japanese War

So while on the surface China has portrayed a veneer of strength once the curtain of simplicity is removed the history depicts a disturbing timeline of humanitarian and political disasters that demand attention in a deeper analysis.

Source:

Death Toll Numbers

The Great Big Book of Horrible Things

Evangelists of human progress meet their opposite in Matthew White's epic examination of history's one hundred most violent events, or, i...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10955068-the-great-big-book-of-horrible-things

China's Bloody Century

China's Bloody Century By R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1991. Truth should be told and the fact[s] be faced ----Thomas Hardy. A Plaint to Man CONTENTS Figures and Tables Preface Acknowledgments 1. Introduction and Overview [ China's Bloody Century ] I. TRANSFORMATION AND THE NATIONALIST STRUGGLE, 1900 TO SEPTEMBER 1949 2. 105,000 Victims: Dynastic and Republican China 3. 632,000 Victims: Warlord China 4. 2,724,000 Victims: The Nationalist Period 5. 10,216,000 Victims: The Sino-Japanese War 6. 3,949,000 Victims: Japanese Mass Murder in China 7. 4,968,000 Victims: The Civil War II. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 8. The People's Republic of China: Overview 9. 8,427,000 Victims: The Totalization Period 10.7,474,000 Victims: Collectivization and "The Great Leap Forward" 11. 10,729,000 Victims: The Great Famine and Retrenchment Period 12. 7,731,000 Victims: The "Cultural Revolution" 13. 874,000 Victims: Liberalization Methodological Appendix References Index IMPORTANT NOTE: Among all the democide estimates appearing in this book, I have revised two upward. I have changed that for Mao's famine, 1958-1962, from zero to 38,000,000. And thus I have had to change the overall democide for the PRC (1928-1987) from 38,702,000 to 76,702,000. Details here. FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1.1 . China: Accumulative Low, Mid, And High Genocide, 1900-1987 Figure 1.2 . Sources Of Chinese Deaths 1900-1987: Democide, Famine, War And Rebellions Figure 1.3 . Comparisons Of Chinese Democide Figure 1.4 . Accumulated Democide: China Versus Soviet Union Figure 1.5 . China Versus Soviet Democide Figure 1.6 . China's Democide And Annual Rate By Period Figure 1.7 . Nationalist Vs. Communist Annual Democide Rate Figure 1.8 . Annual Risk Of A Chinese Citizen Being Murdered By Their Government In Comparison To Some Other Death Risks. Figure 6.1. Japanese Democide In China: Range Figure 6.2. Sino-Japanese War Deaths FIGURE 8.1: PRC Democide Range FIGURE 8.2: PRC Democide and Annual Death Rate by Period FIGURE 8.3: PRC Democide by Source FIGURE 8.4: PRC Democide, Famine, and War and Rebellion Deaths by Period TABLES Table 1.1 . China's Democide, Famine, And War And Rebellions Dead, 1900-1987 Table 1.2 . Comparisons Of Chinese Democide Table 1.3 . China: Period And Annual Democide Rates (%) Table 1.A . Estimates, Sources, And Calculations, 1900 To 1987 Table 2.A . Estimates, Sources, And Calculations, 1900 To 1916 Table 3.A . Estimates, Sources, And Calculations, 1917 To 1928 Table 4.A . Estimates, Sources, And Calculations, 1929 To June, 1937 Table 5.A . Estimates, Sources, And Calculations, July, 1937 To August, 1945 Table 6.1 . Japanese Democide In China Table 6.2 . Sino-Japanese War Deaths Table 6.A . Estimates, Sources, And Calculations, July, 1937 To August, 1945 Table 7.A . Estimates, Sources, And Calculations, Septem

http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

5 Of The 10 Deadliest Wars Began In China

China's long, bloody march towards becoming a stable, centralized state

https://www.businessinsider.com/bloodiest-conflicts-in-chinese-history-2014-10