[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: What is the textbook definition of a democrat Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Nov 11, 2018 Author: Definition Post Date: 2018-11-11 11:27:06 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 6498 Comments: 68 Democrat noun 1. A murderer of innocent children. 2. A person who is attracted to someone of their same sex. 3. A thief that wants to live off of someone else's labor. Feels a sense of entitlement to others labor. 4. An anti christian bigot who hates God and morals. 5. Someone who cuts off or has someone cut off their penis because they are mentally ill and do not know their own sex. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 67. #24. To: A K A Stone (#0) I think you have misspelled, it what you describe is a demorat; although I know how you could make the mistake as democrats seem individually to have similar characteristics. Allegedly a democrat is some one who believes in free speech, somewhat an oxymoron in the way they behave believing that unless you believe as they do you have no right to express an alternative opinion. There are things you cannot say such as; a baby has a right to live migrants must obey the law I can do what I like on my own property I can own a gun paraclete  posted on  2018-11-12   0:23:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: paraclete (#24) (Edited) I know how you could make the mistake as democrats seem individually to have similar characteristics. Allegedly a democrat is some one who believes in free speech, somewhat an oxymoron in the way they behave believing that unless you believe as they do you have no right to express an alternative opinion. There are things you cannot say such as; a baby has a right to live migrants must obey the law I can do what I like on my own property I can own a gun Yes. These and many other issues are the Democrats' Achilles' Heel. They are totalitarians on social and freedom issues. They want to control speech - unless it's theirs. They don't care about the freedom of religion or the right to keep and bear arms. They don't really care about the Constitution, except when it serves their purposes. They worship at the altar of abortion, and they have made public sexual deviancy into a civil right. They're not at all keen on law and order, or - post Vietnam - national defense. Because of all of these bad traits, Democrats are unable to get a lock on power. Independents like me find them disgusting. Because Republicans are terrible at economics and hate poor people, sick people, old people and anybody they have to spend money on, they're disgusting in their own right. And so the 28% or so who are Republican and the 32% or so who are Democrat take their positions in every election cycle, and the 40% of us who are Independents choose between two bad options, taking a "Shoot the wolf closest to the sled" approach. In general, the key Democratic social programs are so deeply entrenched that a few years of Republican rule - with substantial numbers of Democrats in the Senate and in the judiciary and administrative agencies to slow down or stop any sort of radical elimination program - cannot really touch them. So we can have relative financial irresponsibility under Republican rule but not have to endure the Democrat totalitarianism on religious, speech and personal liberty issues. Once the Republicans fuck up the economy again, as they always do with steep tax cuts uncoupled with spending cuts, we end up putting a Democrat back in their to right them ship. But the Democrats' odious school-marm tone costs them power once things have stabilied. If Democrats weren't such cunts they'd be the permanent majority. The same is true if Republicans didn't hate working people so much. But it is what it is. And that's why Independents decide all American elections, and why neither party gets a lock on power - although Democrats did largely have a lock during a half- century of building the Social Welfare state. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-12   7:04:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Vicomte13 (#26) They had a lock on power when people had nothing, now 64% of voters don't care enough to turn up, but listen to them howl about the result paraclete  posted on  2018-11-12   8:02:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: paraclete (#32) They had a lock on power when people had nothing, now 64% of voters don't care enough to turn up, but listen to them howl about the result When have the American people had nothing? This has always been a relatively rich, middle class country. Slaves had nothing, and immigrants fresh off the boat from Ireland and Italy, etc., often started with nothing, but pretty soon they had something, because they were able to easily get jobs and earn money, and farmers were able to easily buy land (something virtually impossible for the poor in crowded, cramped old Europe). People had something, but there was a gaping hole when they got hold or sick. Social Security covered that. The first universal public school system in the world, for both sexes, was Massachusetts Bay colony, and it was a fantastic success. New England may have been rustic and very much a farmer-and-tradesman society in the 1600s and 1700s, but it was also the most educated place on the planet, with a higher literacy rate than London or Paris or Rome. That New England model spread from there to the Midwest by way of the Northwest Ordnance, which partition one- thirty-sixth of the land specifically for public education purposes. Americans, more than any other people, have mostly always had something, mostly always been "middle class" by the standards of the time. They always "had something". And were relatively well-educated. It was a well-educated middle class population that voted for Social Security and Unemployment benefits and Medicare, because we decided we needed it. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-12   8:39:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: Vicomte13 (#33) Americans, more than any other people, have mostly always had something, You do know that was a depression in the US about 100 years ago, a US led depression, and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda. Of course you conveniently forgot that in the rush of nationalist fervour that acclaimed what the rich did in the eighteenth century that ripped your nation apart and again what they did in the nineteenth century. It seems the rich love to bathe in blood, the blood of the poor. You know what it is they always HAD, pride and it is not a virtue paraclete  posted on  2018-11-12   22:53:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: paraclete (#41) (Edited) You do know that was a depression in the US about 100 years ago, a US led depression, and at that time many had nothing and were prepared to sign on to a socialist agenda. Of course you conveniently forgot that in the rush of nationalist fervour that acclaimed what the rich did in the eighteenth century that ripped your nation apart and again what they did in the nineteenth century. It seems the rich love to bathe in blood, the blood of the poor. Why yes, yes I DO know that there was a worldwide Depression starting in 1929. To blame the Depression entirely on the US is quite blind really: the destruction of Europe in World War I, Revolution and civil war all across the East of Europe, and the trauma of German economic collapse thanks to war reparations and hyperinflation - imposed on Germany by the victorious European powers through the Versailles Treaty (which America did not ratify) - these were the primary drivers of European misery. The American stock market crashed - not for the first time, not for the last time. The reason that was a worldwide depression was primarily because the Europeans were a bunch of cunts, earnestly desiring to devour each other and playing Risk with the world map (British Empires, French Empires, exclusive economic zones, holding down India and Indochina, and holding down Germany). The US withdrew into the Isolation we had ALWAYS PRACTICED since the dawn of our republic. We had come out of it ONCE, just once, to save France and Britain from being overrun by the Germans in 1918. We won the war for the West, but then were ignored in the peace treaty - Germany was punished at Versailles, very much against the will of the United States. So we refused to ratify the Treaty and went home, embittered. We returned to our traditional posture of isolation. It was BECAUSE OF the disregard of the United States at Versailles that the people of US wanted nothing to do with the European War when it broke out again in 1939. France and Britain had relied on us to save them in 1918, but then ignored our wishes at Versailles. Therefore, the American people opted to stay out of European affairs for good. The fall of France in 1940 and the neutrality of the USA during the London Blitz and the long siege of Britain in 1940 and 1941 was the direct result of British and French arrogance at the end of World War I. We came to their rescue in 1918, and they ignored our wishes at the end of that war, imposing their own will, and setting themselves up for a repeat war with Germany - a war that we had no intention of participating in. France and England made their bed in 1918. They were the world empires. Let them lie in it in 1939 and 1940 and 1941. That was the American view. Truth is, the US probably would have NEVER entered the European war at all. After Pearl Harbor the United States declared war on Japan, not Germany. It was Hitler, the madman, who dragged the US into the European war on December 10, 1941, by declaring war on the United States. We didn't declare war on Germany - Pearl Harbor did not trigger war with Germany. The Germans, stupidly, declared war on us. If Hitler had not done so, the US would have concentrated on Japan and made quicker work of the Japanese, and may never have become involved in war against Germany at all. So, this whole business of the US nationalist fervor, and US-led depression and all of that claptrap. Newsflash: in 1929 the US was NOT responsible for running "the world system". The British and French had very arrogantly and confidently pushed us off the stage at Versailles and assumed the role of world co-hegemons. WE did the heavy lifting at the end of the war, stopping the Ludendorff Offensive after the Germans had already broken through the British and French lines. Had the US Army and Marine Corps not been present, Paris would have fallen and Germany would have won that war. We won the war, but we immediately lost the peace. Clemenceau famously said "Wilson bores me with his 14 points. The Almighty only needed 10 commandments." It's funny, and arrogant, and archetypical of the patent disdain with which the English and the French held the Americans at the end of 1918. We were nothing but muscle to them, muscle they were happy to use for their purposes but, having defeated the German threat with American arms, the British and the French had no intention of listening to the Americans, or sharing power, or allowing the US to expand freely into their colonial markets. Nope. They reassumed their "world leadership", and sent the American diplomats home, tail between our legs. The US won the war but was diplomatically humiliated by Britain and France after the war. They humiliated us, and they humiliated the Germans too. But they had to live with the Germans. We went home and stayed there. And they provoked the Germans by what they did, and proved themselves militarily inferior to the Germans once again, and had to rely on American rescue once again, but this time the Americans, rightly, did not come to the rescue of Britain and France. France was overwhelmed. And Britain was bombed flat, and forced to fight alone until she was utterly bankrupted. When the Americans finally came in, only after the Germans declared war on us, Britain was a convenient aircraft carrier, and the British Army and Navy became to us what the American Army and Marines had been to them in the previous war: muscle to be ultimately commanded on the chessboard by Americans. In short, we LEARNED from our humiliation in World War I, and stayed out this time, until France was destroyed and Russia was ruined and Britain was bankrupt, and then we came in, as a colossus, at the end of the war, and have ruled the world ever since. American-led Depression? No. Britain and France were the leaders of the world in 1929, not us. The Americans had a stock market bust, as had happened many times before. The Depression was worldwide because the British and French were cunts to the Germans after World War I - very much AGAINST the will of the Americans - and crashed the German economy with their reparations demands - the Americans did not demand reparations. But Britain and France were too weak to hold down Germany or Russia, so they faced the rise of the Nazis and the Soviets, and had nothing like the power necessary to stop either. Meanwhile, the Americans were back home in their own continent AS THEY ALWAYS HAD BEEN, taking care of their own local affairs AS WE HAD ALWAYS, and protecting our markets AS WE ALWAYS HAD for over a century. There was nothing NEW about American behavior. What WAS new was that the British and French were not strong enough or rich enough to be able to actually rule the world, or to contain either the German OR Soviet threat, or the Japanese threat in the East. They NEEDED American muscle, but they were arrogant cunts who would not share power. They expected America to serve their interests but not let our own will be the rule. They isolated us at Versailles, so we went home. And we did not come back until they were all destroyed. Then we came in, picked up the pieces, and have not shared power ever since. We won World War I but lost the peace at Versailles. So we returned to our native posture of isolation and local development, and did not enter World War II at all. We let the world burn itself down. The world - the Japanese and Germans - dragged us into the war by declaring war on us. When we came in, we conquered them both, and imposed the new world order afterwards. The US did not cause the Great Depression. We merely won it. Europe went Communist, National Socialist and Imperialist. American preserved democracy and capitalism, with just enough social welfare to prevent us from following the stupid path of Europeans and Asians. So we emerged the victor. That's what happened. Could it all have been avoided? Sure. In two ways. One was for the US to stay out of World War I. Then the Germans would have conquered France in 1918, thereby rejuvenating the German economy and allowing the Germans to transfer forces en-masse to the Middle East to shore up their ally Turkey. The UK would have had to sue for peace or lose their empire. The result: a German-dominated Europe, which would have gotten on pretty well with the USA, probably. The other was for the English and French to respect American wishes at Versailles and not impose crippling reparations on Germany. Then the Americans would have stayed allied and engaged, the German economy would not have collapsed, and there would have been no rise of national socialism in Germany. The borders of Free Europe would be pretty much where they are now, and the USA would have been integrated into the structure. You would have had the equivalent of NATO with much more equal partners: the USA, the British Empire (intact), the French Empire (intact), a German Republic, and a free Eastern Europe that never would have fallen under the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those things happened. So the US went home, Britain and France ruled the world for about 20 more years, then lost it all, the US was dragged back out of our shell by Japan and Germany. We beat both of them, and ended up in 2018 where we COULD HAVE ended up in 1920, except that today it's the USA alone as the hegemon, with Britain and France and Germany and Italy and Canada and Australia and the other little countries all part of a grand alliance headed by the USA. It could have been a union of equals, but Britain and France refused to respect the Americans in 1918. Now here you are blaming us for the Great Depression. WE didn't cause it. The British and French did, by imposing reparations on Germany. Nor did we cause World War II. What we did is win both the Depression and the Second World War and essentially conquered the world. That's why you resent us so much and retroject blame upon us that properly falls primarily on the British Empire and the French Empire. Not guilty. We didn't do it. We didn't start it. We didn't cause it. We didn't want to be part of any of it. We wanted to be left alone in our hemisphere. The world dragged us in against our will. So we conquered it. We were able to do so because our political philosophy and economic and military structures are all superior to anything that Europe or Asia ever came up with. That's why we won and they lost. That's why we rule the world, and always will for the rest of our lives, and our children's lives, and our great- grandchildren's lives. The Pax Americana is a good thing, on balance. Except for our enemies. Our enemies choose to be our enemies. It would be better for everybody to just submit. Makes commerce flow better, and that raises all boats. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-13   9:19:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: Vicomte13 (#45) (Edited) It would be better for everybody to just submit. The shout of every tyrant, and tyrant you are. So you took your bat and went home after WW1, you didn't like the fact that those who had done the heavy lifting for four years wanted to call the shots and make sure Germany could not rise again. Unfortunately they we unsuccessful and you still have your knickers in a knot about it. The Soviets did as much to win the war (WWII) in Europe as you did afterall they had more to pay Germany back for. You did not loose millions in either war so stop griping. Your manifest destiny is not to rule the world paraclete  posted on  2018-11-13   19:17:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: paraclete (#49) Your manifest destiny is not to rule the world It was. We do. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-14   20:54:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Vicomte13 (#52) Only in your mind, 95% of the world says you don't, so I'll go with the numbers paraclete  posted on  2018-11-15   0:18:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: paraclete (#53) Oil is traded in dollars. Europe, Japan, North America look to the US for defense and for leadership. The world financial system depends on us, and the UN is located in our principal city. We're not the British Empire or the French Empire or the Soviets, or the Third Reich. It is not important to us that people get down on their knees and perform acts of submission to America the Gweat and Tewwible. What we have required only is orderly markets, the dollar as the currency of energy exchange, and that countries not pull a Cuba or a North Korea, or a Soviet Union, and try to upset or overturn the world order. We're the hegemon, not the dictator. Worldwide there is a Pax Americana, and it has been better than any other thing for keeping the peace so that everybody who joins it - everybody - is more prosperous year after year. Things get better with long peace, and they have. even in Africa and South America. Economies grow like crops in the field - they need peace, long periods of peace - to develop. We have provided that without our nuclear force, our Navy, our Marines, our Army and our Air Force. There have been the rogue nations: the Soviets, the Red Chinese, the North Koreans, the Communist Vietnamese, the Muslim jihadis, the Cubans, the Venesuelans, etc., who have tried to secede from the world order or to impose their new, very inferior paradigm. Those nations have had to withstand the siege of the American legions, and almost all have crumbled under the pressure or been isolated into poverty-stricken little cul-de-sacs whence they can no longer disturb the general peace, and within which they suffer endlessly, and will continue to do so until they submit to the rule of law and get back in line with the rest of nations - stop killing and torture and uphold the world peace. That's the world system as it has existed since 1945, when the US assumed the role of world hegemon, the first ever, and did it with aplomb. Know why we're so good at it? Because we're not an ethnic state. Our people come from everywhere - we are a microcosm (not a very micro one: second largest country in the world by solid land area (you can't live on a lake), and third most populous, with the largest economy by far, with the strongest military - so everybody in the world has a stake in America. And America, in turn, has a substantial population that understands every corner of the world better than any other would-be hegemon. Britain and France bankrupted themselves trying to hold onto an empire held by force. We've gotten richer from a system in which we on'y rule ourselves, but in which we set the basic rules for everybody else. Ours is not the British or French or Russian Imperial system, but the Roman clientela system of Augustus, and it works brilliantly - not just for us, but for the Europeans, the Australasians, the free East Asians and the Latin Americans. People grouse because they want more, more, more - and the defeated former imperial powers still resent the fact that they no longer rule the roost. But the reason they don't rule the roost is because their systems of organisation were inferior too ours. The English, French and Russians ultimately ran a race-based, culture based empire. America runs an economics, energy and security based empire, not one with an ethnic core. Ethnic empires have a weakness: there is a large body of mediocre white ethnics in any imperial county, and those mediocre white ethnics get in their head that the military and imperial glories of their empires are somehow extensions of themselves. So they smugly favor their cultures, but most people in the world prefer their OWN cultures, and really don't give a damn what strange ethnic practices and bad food that working class people in some corner of Europe have. The Europeans TRIED to export their cultures, but only the Spanish and Portuguese really succeeded at it, and that was primarily not the Spanish or Portuguese culture that they exported, but the Catholic Church that came with them - and THAT had an assist from Heaven (the Virgin of Guadelupe came independently to the Indians, and they went over to HER and her son, not the Spanish - they threw out the Spanish soon enough, but kept God, their own way. And now they're Pope. Go figure. You're from some part of the former British Empire, aren't you? The whole notion of "heavy lifting". Why would the Americans do the "heavy lifting" to maintain the British and French empires? Those were not things that were good for us, or good for the bulk of the people who were colonised. We came into World War I because the Germans, in their frantic efforts to defeat England, torpedoed American ships, killed a lot of Americans, and tried to stir up Mexico against the USA. If the Germans had not done that, we never would have come into the First War, and the Germans would have won it. Learning nothing from the experience, the Germans declared war on us AGAIN in 1941, and thereby sealed their fate. It did not matter to the USA whether France, England, Germany or Russia dominated Europe. We came in because WE were attacked. The German (and British, and French, and Russian) mind was very proud. They were accustomed to beating up on other people with their arms. But let's face it, beating up on savages in Africa or Pacific Islands or the ignorant heart and fringe of Asia was easy. it got into the heads of European leaders and caused them to all mistake the industrial and economic superiority which let them put modern armies in the field for a cultural superiority. This hubris died on the battlefields of the Somme, Verdun and the Passchendaele. Among advanced states, God was on the side of the bigger battalions. The English were not better soldiers than the Germans or the French. Nor were the Germans better than the English or the French. Nor, as the second war demonstrated, were the Germans better than Russians. It was purely a matter of economic might being able to create industrial might that could turn out guns and ammunition and transport and tanks and planes. Economic power equals military power among advanced nations. Neither the Germans nor the French nor the British wanted to believe this. They still don't. They still - particularly the English - believe that there is something quintessential to Englishman that made them master, and they mourn that lost. But they were never master. They conquered hinterlands filled with savages. In Europe itself, they were never the dominant military power. Either France or Germany or Russia was, depending on who was industrialised and mobilsed. Now, the USA was not a part of that system. We were apart, developing our own empire internally. Sure, there were scuffles with caudillos here and there in the near abroad of the Caribbean, but those things were temporary: we didn't set up an American Empire on any scale. We set up what would today be called a "neocolonial empire" - a set of states that were independent and self-governing and ruled by their people, but who respected a norm of trade and international law that fit American standards. That's the American model of empire - it is very different from, and much more durable and successful (because profitable for both sides of the equation) than the European empires. Europe, raging with ethnic pride, put its nations to the test on the battlefield. They all failed. The weaker nations fell to the stronger ones, for a time, until the strong ones settled into lines of attrition, where neither could do anything decisive. In World War I that line of attrition was in Flanders and Northern France. In World War II it was the English Channel, the North African desert in Egypt, and the plains of Russia. And then, both times, war planners in arrogant ethnic empires - the German and the Japanese (in the second war) failed to comprehend the basic math: economic power equals industrial power equals military power - and the Americans are vastly more powerful economically than any little country in Europe or than Japan. One listens to Hitler's speech declaring war on the United States on December 10, 1941. He cites the great achievements of the Teutonic race, and speaks of the weakness of the Americans, polluted and Judaised. And he, and they really believed it. The Europeans REALLY BELIEVED that their little ethnic cultures - German, Russian, British, French, Italian, etc., or the Japanese at their end - really, truly believed that these little ethnic filips, their languages and foods and customs of which they were so militantly proud, actually gave them some sort of superiority on the battlefields of war and of the mind. It is mind-bogglingly childish. They really believed, in early days (and in World War II in the Japanese case) that their cute little religions with their gods would help them prevail. But God, the real one, is on the side of the biggest battalions. And America was the biggest by far. We had a continent, and we filled it with individuals from every culture who were more interested in making a way forward for themselves and their family than in some ethnic or religious cohesion. They chose individual achievement over the Gods and their Countries, and came to a place where they had a shot of doing it. And those huge collective numbers DID make a superior economy, with superior innovation, which is to say, American freedom produces superior intellects for engineering and economics, and the huge numbers and scale of the resources produced a massive economy. In 1917 and in 1941, the United States was invincible. VASTLY more powerful economically than Germany or Japan - or England, or France, or Russia. With VASTLY greater manpower to call upon. So, the question is, what were the Germans (or the Japanese) thinking? To declare war on America, to PROVOKE America by torpedoing our ships and killing our people? The Europeans REALLY BELIEVED that, somehow, they had some sort of innate superiority of organisation or culture or...something...that would allow a country one quarter the sise of the United States to declare war on America and win. It was childish hubris, mind-bogglingly arrogant, and stupid - bone stupid, OF COURSE the Germans and the Japanese got crushed. OF COURSE the Soviet Union never had a hope in hell of defeating the United States. Why they ever thought they could is what should be examined. The British and French realised that America was out of their league in warfare back in the 1860s, when they so wanted to come in on the side of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, but they saw the sise of the American Armies, and the weaponry, and the vast logistical supplies. They saw that their own Crimean-War era armies would be swamped. They also saw that fleet of hundreds of ironclad monitors pouring out of American foundries in the north and strangling the life out of every port. The British calculated what would happen if they sent their beautiful wooden sailing fleet against a line of ironclad monitors with their huge rifled guns: they would have been pounded to driftwood and they knew it. The British Army was small - it would have been torn up on the Civil War battlefields by the million-man American armies with their repeating rifles, and then the Americans would have sent their modern battle-hardened armies to take Canada for good measure. The French got out of Mexico as soon as the American Civil War was over, because the American President made it clear he was going to march those big battle hardened armies down and throw them out if they didn't. The British and French both knew, as early as the 1860s, that they could not wage war against the USA - too big, too strong. So they didn't provoke us. They colonised Africa and Asia, and stayed out of the Americas, rather than provoke the American behemoth. Smart. The Germans, though - how stupid could they be? They were already struggling against Russia, whom they managed to beat, but against France and Britain. They were locked in a stalemate that maybe - MAYBE they could break. How could their leaders look across the ocean at the world's greatest economic power and think "They're trading with the British and French. Let's sink their ships and make a deal with Mexico to start a war with them." What the fuck? Germans are supposed to be smart - and that's just bone stupid. It could not result in anything other than the Americans getting pissed off, and standing up, huge, and squashing little Germany like a bug. Which is what happened. Having experienced that twenty years before, what sort of mad, raging distemper was there in Hitler and the German government that thought that gratuitously declaring war on the world's greatest industrial power, when the Germans already were straining against England and Russia, could result in anything other than calamity? They really, really believed that there was something so special about their culture that it could beat the bigger battalions. Worse, the Germans and Japanese (and everybody else) had inferior technology. And, we might note, precisely BECAUSE of the ethnic chauvinism of Europeans (not just Germans), the Einsteins and Enrico Fermis and Oppenheimers were over here, Americans by choice - because of what America is - open to all races - building the atomic bomb, for which there was no answer. The Germans were literally not intelligent enough to build the atomic bomb. Why? Because their greatest scientists were Jewish, and the Germans were so obsessed with their culture that they drove the Jews out of the country - to America - where their minds helped make America world hegemon. The one mind in Europe who probably COULD have gotten them to the bomb, Neils Bohr, was a Dane - and the Germans had invaded his country. He hated the Third Reich and was never, ever going to help them get to the bomb. He DID send them off on goose chases and hinder their efforts - and because they were not smart enough to understand, they had no way of knowing that he was intelligently and maliciously slowing them down at every turn. You're almost certainly sitting in some former English colony. You're English speaking and you think your culture and its history is the cat's meow. You think you're inherently "better" than the Americans: more educated, more "civilised", more cultured. And to a certain extent that is probably true - you're probably more cultured, you're probably better educated, in a formal sense, than most Americans, and to the extent that good manners and etiquette consitute civilisation, you're probably more "civilised". Why, then, is America the world hegemon and not your beloved British Empire? Becayse our systems are better. Our culture is MUCH better at absorbing and assimilating everybody. Because we didn't WANT to be an empire - we wanted to develop internally and be left alone. The world wouldn't leave us alone. Neither Germany nor Japan needed to have a war with the USA. They could have avoided war, forever, by not shooting at our ships, not declaring war on us. But they could not resist it. They went into the cave and poked the bear, so the bear came out of the cave and killed them. The English were on the right side of things in those wars, and because they were smart enough not to tangle with America a third time and stayed out of the American Civil War, the Americans had no animus towards them. But the Irish did. And the Indians did. And the Arabs. And the Africans. Everywhere that England used ITS economic might to arm British people to go and stomp on and rule natives, they produced natives who actively disliked them, and who wanted them out. The World Wars bankrupted England, to the point that England could not have held onto its Empire if it had wanted to. India went peacefully by choice - the British knew they could not hold it, so they negotiated a departure and left on peaceful terms. Had they not decided to retreat in good order, the Indians would have rebelled and overwhelmed them - there was no gas in the tank for England to even attempt to hold onto India. The French, rather stupidly, DID try to hold onto their colonies by force. So they lost an Army in Indochina. With the conquest of Italy, Germany and Japan, and the exhaustion of Britain and France, the US was on the world stage, and never left. But we didn't take over and rule as the British or French ruled their empire. No, we ran, and run, the world empire the same way we ran the Caribbean: let people be self-governing, but protect property and make sure that countries respect the international system. Neocolonialism is much more effective than European-style colonialism. The world can learn things from America, and has. One of the most important things that intelligent leaders - German, Japanese, English, French - have learned, is that a rising tide raises all boats, and that cooperation with America in the world system that America heads is MUCH BETTER for the English, French, German and Japanese people than trying to fight it out of some chauvinist pride. Also, the experience of the two world wars and the depression and the loss of empires has taught the Europeans and Japanese is that their old overweening ethnic and cultural pride - their old nationalism - was really pretty dumb and self-defeating. YOU are displaying it here. in that characteristic Anglo-Saxon sotto voce passive aggressive fashion. Truth is, the whole English speaking world is a LOT better off economically, in terms of peace and prosperity, down to an individual level, with American hegemony. You personally have benefited from it tremendously. Britain was never strong enough, rich enough, organixed enough or tolerant and multicultural enough to ever have pulled it off. America is the only country that could possibly do this. If you think about it intelligently, you know this. America didn't just fall out of the sky a superpower, it was built into one BECAUSE people from everywhere came here, and build an economic behemoth BECAUSE they were freer than anywhere else. And under American neo- colonial hegemony, you're left free in your own country - something the British could NEVER tolerate, being narrow-minded know-it-all prigs. Britain could not protect Australia from the Japanese, and neither could the Australians themselves. America was NECESSARY. And the price of protection was not submitting to American rule in the same way that the price of dealing with England always was. We are much better masters than the English, and much more tolerant people - even than you are - and that's why we are the most suited to rule the world system - because we don't actually think we're better than you, wherever you are. We just want to get along and trade. Govern yourselves. Speak what you want. THAT is much much more free and open, and treating you much more as an equal than the English ever did, or ever COULD, because in the end the English are still Europeans, and Europeans still think they are the best at all things - and only the Americans have the hands-off disinterest to allow the Europeans to go on living in their cultural fantasies within an American empire, and simply not care about it. The Soviets and the Chinese, like the Germans and British and French before them, could NEVER tolerate that cultural laissex-faire. The only people who can pull it off is the Americans, because it comes natural to us, because of who we are. You just have to resort to that Englishness, and cling to it - and resent us on account of that. It's not because of the way we rule the world - which we obviously DO - we do a much better job of it than the English did. You've never been threatened under our watch. But you're British, and still believe that to be best. Now take me. I'm French, and Scandinavian, and Basque, and Dutch, and Irish and Scottish. And my wife is from the French Caribbean so our daughter is all that I am plus Carib and West African and French from the other side. We speak three languages in this house. What culture shall I favor? The French are "better"? Than the Scandinavians? Why? Or vice- versa. The British are better than the Irish? Why? No they're not. Nor vice-versa. All of those petty little ethnic passions of the old countries. How can an American carry them on? Shall we pit our grandparents all against each other? It's nuts. It's petty - and all that - all that baggage over which Europe burnt itself down twice last century, and that still forms the basis of the animus you feel towards us Americans because we're not, well, British - and therefore not SUITABLE to be the rulers - that baggage is not in our minds. We don't have it. And that's why we are the only people suited to rule the world. You can't do it - you're too ethnically chauvinistic. We do it well, because really we don't care about that stuff. We care about what's efficient, what makes money, and what keeps the peace. Yes, there's an American chauvinism, but it's contained within America, and it never sent us out to conquer the world like it did you English, or the French or Germans or Italians or Japanese. Rather, we were (and are) content to sit at home and tend to our business. it was the world that came into our cave and dragged us out to fight. The Germans and Japanese poked the bear and got. well, the bear. Blame them, not us. We rule the world, and it is better for everybody that we do, even you, precisely because we are not like you, and don't feel these resentments you do. Those resentments in you are driven by a cultural chauvinism and wounded pride. Americans are proud - but then we WON. You didn't. Our pride is based on achievement. But it isn't particularly overweening. It gets pricked when folks like you have to make an untrue point about the way the world system works, simply because your bad old ethnic chauvinism cannot tolerate being one of the equals, in a system that your culture doesn't rule. Britain never could have taken over the world. No culture can rule the world. But common sense economic principles, governed by law, based on the concept of human equality, and backed by the armed force of a superpower without an imperial culture - that HAS taken over the world, including all of the English parts of it. That's why you can now live in peace with the French, German, Italian. Spanish, Russian and Japanese parts of it, and not be worried about India rebelling or whatever. That's the genius of American non-rule. Your Britishness could never have gotten you here, but YOU TOO are better off as an equal of the Germans and the French, and the Americans, on the playing field set by America. The Pax Americana is as good for you as it is for me. You should appreciate it more. I know it's hard, because it's not in your DNA. That's why it has to be Americans that run it. We're the only ones without a stake in the 4000-year-old cultural game. I'm related to half of Europe . Whose side am I on? When your mother and your father fight, you don't want one to kill the other. You want them to stop fighting. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-15   7:32:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: Vicomte13, paraclete (#54) A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-15   7:39:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: A K A Stone (#55) you mean you think you have actually been there? How come the technology got lost? paraclete  posted on  2018-11-15   7:42:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: paraclete (#57) Yes we've been to the moon. But that wasn't the point. Hint the lyrics. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-16   0:14:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: A K A Stone (#60) Yes we've been to the moon and a great experience in going nowhere it was, obviously not to be repeated soon. When you have banished poverty from the Earth come and tell me of you achievements paraclete  posted on  2018-11-22   23:55:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: paraclete (#61) (Edited) When you have banished poverty from the Earth Poverty will never be “banished” from this planet. EVER. You over senisitized sheeple just can’t wrap your fucking head around the fact that some people will live a long time, be wealthy as fuck... healthy till they drop. Then some will die at birth, get cancer before they’re a teen... and litter society with their smelly homelessness... people dying young, being poor scumbags is a NECESSITY for the circle of life. Stop spending MY money for the unachievable goals that make you feel better about your wealth. GFY, sheep. GrandIsland  posted on  2018-11-23   8:27:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: GrandIsland (#63) there is a place people like you should go paraclete  posted on  2018-11-23   16:38:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: paraclete (#65) there is a place people like you Yeah... it’s called self reliance... leave me the fuck alone. I don’t need or want your help or compassion... and don’t ask me for nothing. Survive on your own or fucking die. That’s the place for me. GrandIsland  posted on  2018-11-23   20:12:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 67.         There are no replies to Comment # 67. End Trace Mode for Comment # 67. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com