It's exam season for UK universities so I've been so busy! I don't intend on being quite so lacklustre in my responses in the future!

It's a vicious cycle, distrust of established global narratives through a belief that they are inherently geared toward individual preservation and inequality has the effect of dissolving these narratives - that's a good thing. It's quite possible, however, that without a unifying 'enemy', and with distrust of cultural rules or truths, we are left with infighting. It's the final stopping call of postmodernism in a sense.

Following the archaeology of this phenomenon is something that is universally useful though. Honestly, this 'ramping up' effect you've noticed I think started with the establishment of the American war economy in the 1930's/1940's - The GDP of the US rose from 6,000,000,000 pre-ww2 to over 300,000,000,000 post. From this point, American history very much becomes a story of war and subversion. The individual, me and you, the average person, are rarely filled with hate. Within our small communities and friendship groups, we cooperate and evolve. I just have this impossibly strong suspicion that global economics dictate that international relations must always be adversarial. I was recently talking to a friend of mine, who is studying for their PhD in Chinese/US relations and their likely evolution. His conclusions are hopelessly dark but I would like to introduce them into this conversation because I think from them we can begin to build the parameters of our future dialogue.

He stated rather firmly that Chinese expansion and growth is incompatible with the current US-centric global economic and political climate. As China develops it will encroach on US profit, that's not a contentious argument, as the world starts to move toward the Yuan the US will simply be unable to support itself. It has become a country of entitlements and services. Simply - it is very expensive to give 300 million people the 'American Dream'. China's expansion can be contorted into an assault on this dream and from that it is easy to see how the next 'red threat' can be born.

I know, this sounds unlikely but a cursory look through American history shows a pattern. Macarthyism didn't die with the Soviet Union.

Perhaps this is why I value platforms such as this so heavily. I love your comment on it starting with us. Certainly, this rings true. Nazism could have been stopped with one well placed and passionate objector early enough in its historical trajectory. I fear I've rambled a bit, but I'm halfway through a several thousand word essay on the logistics of evidential admissibility in rape trials, so forgive if I'm writing literally anything to procrastinate from that.

You know, you saying that actually set me off on an interesting train of thought. We often forget that we are responsible for making the world, as much or even more so than it is responsible for making us. Again, bringing this back to environmentalism - it is so easy to project you most lofty ambitions onto a governmental body, whilst simultaneously asking for a plastic bag to carry the single pear you bought from the shop. To me, the simultaneous externalisation of responsibility, the erosion of grand unified truths, the adversarial nature of global economics and subversion of truth for finance - have lead me to draw similar conclusions to you. We are, as we stand here today - The most powerful human beings to ever live - and a significant reason for it - as inconspicious as it might seem, is platforms like this.

I'm not going to read that back - but what I will do I reply something perhaps a bit more relevant down the road. Please do a follow up though! I'll try and engage a bit more with your points next time instead of just sounding off - again, rape law is sad and mandatory, global collapse is sad and optional - it's a law of exam procrastination that what needs to be done will always come after what wants to be done.

Have an awesome day