American Influence: More Good or Bad?

[Debate Proxy 1]

You know my vote. In your associated post, please explain why.

Short answer:

The break-up of the British Empire defended millions of Americans, of all "races," from European colonialism.

Long answer:

We've been wrongfully and unjustly blamed for crimes actually committed by others. The very first assaults on the integrity of the constitutional order began when the Indian treaties were violated, in direct opposition to what the Constitution actually says about the legal authority that treaties hold, from there resulting in further violations against the exemption of Indians from taxation which in most cases preceded any treaties. This is the point at which the constitutional order was first breached, and the gap has only widened from there.

The British, after inventing the theory of "race" as an extension of aristocratic heredity, and installing race slavery in the Americas, built the entire Confederate Navy and provided financial aid, diplomatic recognition, and weapon shipments to the Slave Power against the free states of the North. That was because American democracy and European aristocracy are founded upon exactly opposite principles: our system of meritocracy is an existential threat to the system of Europe, founded as it is upon hereditary wealth and the ancient institutionalization of unearned privilege. If there is any reason to consider the European Union and NATO the enemies of the American people, it's because they are a gang of aristocrats who despise the values of the American people. The Europeans on this forum openly vilify America, and that's not how friends behave. That's how national security threats behave.

The unequal enforcement of the NATO treaty and the Indian treaties is not only unconstitutional, but racist. Why are treaties with Europeans honored, but treaties with Americans dishonored, when the law in the Constitution is clear? That is profoundly unfair, and certainly not based on a moral standard. Unequal enforcement runs directly against the principles of the American Revolution and the historical grievances that led to it.

The United States of America were founded as an "exceptional" nation, not as a "Western" one: consider how Thomas Paine, who created the name for the nation, wrote that "all men ought to live as the Indians," not exactly a ringing endorsement of Western Civilization. The American Revolution was started by Abolitionists like Paine, and joined by others who supported less slavery, while the Tories imported race slavery originally and fought to preserve the colonial status quo. The break-up of the British Empire, in truth, delivered arms into the hands of indigenous populations to protect their liberties and slowed the spread of colonialism by over a century.

To see the world of difference between the meritocratic system of American Exceptionalism and the aristocratic system of the so-called "West" that actually lay to our east, one needs only look at the fact that American Exceptionalism brought the greatest mass immigration movement in all of human history to our shores, while Western Civilization sent millions of people fleeing from the tyrannies of Europe to get to America. Everywhere that "the West" and its culture has ever gone, local rights have been crushed, whereas the Revolution in America was fought to secure them. The only problem is, there's far too many Europeans to assimilate now, and they've broken down the assimilation system and undermined the very fabric of government in the East Coast states where they concentrate. One may note that European immigrants are everywhere in Hollywood. The problem with European immigration is that it brings way too many bad ideas over from Europe, and that there's way too many of them to assimilate. This has resulted in the gradual displacement of the American government and the rise of a parallel system of European-style government, which since its inception has operated in ways directly contrary to the Constitution.

If you want to see where structural racism comes from, look at European influence, or, in other words, foreign influence. Colonialism is the exact opposite of the local rights of self-government. Every attack against the rights of self-government guaranteed in the Federal and State constitutions has always been carried out by race-baiting and creating made-up racial divisions to pit Americans against Americans. The Democratic Party leadership then, and the Democratic Party leadership now is engaging in race-baiting to divide and conquer the 99% (a population which includes average, ordinary Republicans and Democrats, I should point out.) What we are witnessing in the form of unchecked European immigration is modern-day colonialism which has been weaponized by the financial aristocracy of Europe against our liberties.

Colonialism is neither right-wing nor left-wing, and will cynically adopt any language it can twist in order to destroy local and national self-determination. Never forget that leftist, even self-described socialist and Marxist parties, such as Labour, were integral to maintaining the system of British colonialism, nowhere more obviously than in Northern Ireland, and the same is true across the rest of Europe.

George Soros? He's European. Those folks at Davos and the World Economic Forum? Europeans. Their influence is right on our border: the Canadian military is controlled by a European, the Queen of England, who appoints its Governor-General. The Dominion voting machines are owned by a European corporation. What European lobbyists are doing to our country looks an awful lot like the return of European colonialism to the Americas. The leftists used to understand this when, in the 1960s, they always mentioned how European rule continued in the Third World due to neo-colonialism. Now that neo-colonialism is right in our backyard, why have they, except for a few dissidents, fallen silent about it? Why is our country starting to look like a Third World country, unless it's because of all the European immigrants who will not assimilate? The other immigrants don't have lobbyist money to oppress us: the Europeans do.

If the Pentagon is paying attention, then look at how this Eurocentric push toward global government is going to drive you out of business. Don't dig your own graves by letting the modern-day Slave Power of European corporate sweatshop labor dictate U.S. foreign policy any longer. They will not stop until all nation-states have been absorbed, all conflicts where popular demand exists for the gun have been repressed, and all militaries have been disbanded, as global colonial imperialism asserts its will over the sovereign nation-state. There are already several countries that have deep, repressed internal conflicts which, due to the end of the Founding foreign policy of "commerce with all nations, alliance with none," have allowed European lobbyists to close off several countries to arms shipments which would do much to spread world democratic revolution to several countries that need it, protect America's sovereignty, and end the Europe Lobby's push toward world government. Anti-colonialism begins as a fight for national preservation.

Since all the America-bashing is coming from foreign places and their admirers, and with European financiers so involved in our politics, it's impossible to disentangle foreign policy from the matter of our national reputation. We need a free and open debate on foreign policy if there's ever any hope of rejoining morality to it. If I am censored this time for my views, then I welcome it: nothing will better underline my case.

[Uiiop]

IIRC This is too bloggy for acceptability.

Also you presume there isn't an genuine anti-western foreign audience here and ignores how NATO mostly takes instructions from America.

[Debate Proxy 1]

IIRC This is too bloggy for acceptability.

Also you presume there isn't an genuine anti-western foreign audience here and ignores how NATO mostly takes instructions from America.

Then why is the London stock market even richer than Wall Street? Follow the money...

[Uiiop]

IIRC This is too bloggy for acceptability.

Also you presume there isn't an genuine anti-western foreign audience here and ignores how NATO mostly takes instructions from America.

Then why is the London stock market even richer than Wall Street? Follow the money...

Foreign policy is hurting the economy more than it's helping so you only prove the opposite of your point.

[Debate Proxy 1]

IIRC This is too bloggy for acceptability.

Also you presume there isn't an genuine anti-western foreign audience here and ignores how NATO mostly takes instructions from America.

Why are there so many Americans who are complaining of being censored? If America were really in charge of all this, our votes would actually count.

[Uiiop]

IIRC This is too bloggy for acceptability.

Also you presume there isn't an genuine anti-western foreign audience here and ignores how NATO mostly takes instructions from America.

Why are there so many Americans who are complaining of being censored? If America were really in charge of all this, our votes would actually count.

Blame our shitty voting system and electoral college for making Democratic and European warping of their opponents viable. But that thing backfires against any foreign policy conspiracy rather than being their intent. So it's kinda irrelevant to this topic.

[Sordhau]

The United States of America has been a force for evil throughout it's entire existence.

[Debate Proxy 1]

The United States of America has been a force for evil throughout it's entire existence.

Then listen to what Thomas Sankara actually said about the American Revolution. He cited it as an inspiration for his own.

[Uiiop]

The United States of America has been a force for evil throughout it's entire existence.

Then listen to what Thomas Sankara actually said about the American Revolution. He cited it as an inspiration for his own.

Giving credit for the idea to do nothing in the past kinda says nothing about what they are in his present and overall.

Edit: You can read him as just saying that to get others to fuck off.

[Grande Germania]

As a European, I can say that this does not make sense, because, surprise, the United States was founded by European slavers, and has maintained slavery even after the British abolished it.

The original nucleus of the USA were English colonies, so if you say that ALL Europeans are imperialists you are very wrong, indeed, most of the current European countries have been victims of imperialism (e.g. Poland, Ukraine, Italy until 1861 etc.).

Continuing to dismantle this crazy discourse, Europe is practically under the US Dominion, just think of the numerous US military bases on European territory, also counting that European countries have a MUCH weaker army than the United States, since they do not invest too much in the military (although some extra military spending these days would be convenient, but the US is far too militaristic) I prefer to focus on things more useful to the population, such as public health and guaranteed, which I think you don't have.


In summary, try to look beyond the colonial past of Europe, which on the other hand is repudiated by the Europeans themselves, Europe has changed from the 19th century to today, you know?

[Alcala-Cordel]

So many other countries would be more developed/stable if it weren't for the US and its illegal wars. In terms of influence the legacy of the US is that of overthrowing democratically elected South American leaders, massacring Middle Easterners, spraying poison on Vietnamese forests, letting its companies outsource slave labor worldwide...

[Debate Proxy 1]

As a European, I can say that this does not make sense, because, surprise, the United States was founded by European slavers, and has maintained slavery even after the British abolished it.

The original nucleus of the USA were English colonies, so if you say that ALL Europeans are imperialists you are very wrong, indeed, most of the current European countries have been victims of imperialism (e.g. Poland, Ukraine, Italy until 1861 etc.).

Continuing to dismantle this crazy discourse, Europe is practically under the US Dominion, just think of the numerous US military bases on European territory, also counting that European countries have a MUCH weaker army than the United States, since they do not invest too much in the military (although some extra military spending these days would be convenient, but the US is far too militaristic) I prefer to focus on things more useful to the population, such as public health and guaranteed, which I think you don't have.


In summary, try to look beyond the colonial past of Europe, which on the other hand is repudiated by the Europeans themselves, Europe has changed from the 19th century to today, you know?

"What, then, is the whole system of Europe towards America but an atrocious and insulting tyranny? One hemisphere of the earth, separated from the other by wide seas, having different climates, different soils, different modes of production, and its own local relations and duties, is made subservient to the laws, the regulations, the wars and passions of the other." -- Thomas Jefferson

Tell us this...

Why would Thomas Jefferson make an alliance with Abolitionists like Paine, unless the Tories were the aggressive pro-slavery faction and the Founders were anywhere from less-slaveryites to outright Abolitionists? The British created and installed plantation slavery long before America ever won its independence.

Why would the open race slavery of Rhodesia and the prison colony of Australia have survived to 1911, whereas millions of American patriots died fighting the Slave Power in the 1860s? No European ever died fighting slavery, except as a private volunteer for the American government.

Among those volunteers was Col. Joseph Weydemeyer, the third man in the Working Men's International after Marx and Engels. Why would the Marxists you all claim to admire sign their very blood for America's cause if America were really a racist country founded in racism? Does that make Marx a racist now, or simply a man who wanted a better world but failed to predict the consequences of his theories?

What about the campaign slogan of "Build Back Better," which was invented in Europe and repeated by multiple European heads of state at the same time? Why would they be so synchronized, why would U.S. media have more European owners than Americans, with the British disproportionately represented in it?

You seem to forget that Davos and the WEF, which invented the slogan, are in Europe. You also seem to forget that the British are still in charge of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, practicing colonialism as we speak.

[Debate Proxy 1]

So many other countries would be more developed/stable if it weren't for the US and its illegal wars. In terms of influence the legacy of the US is that of overthrowing democratically elected South American leaders, massacring Middle Easterners, spraying poison on Vietnamese forests, letting its companies outsource slave labor worldwide...

Hello, Cordel. I will not dispute your point on anything except the source of it. These things did happen. To stop them, it is worth investigating why.

There is a crucial distinction of economic interest in our system that many observers have overlooked, namely, that the slave labor lobby and the military-industrial complex are only in an uneasy alliance, at best. Military industrialists only make money when they can sell weapons, and that often means destabilizing regimes that are under slave labor. However, due to political and diplomatic compromises, the slave labor lobby doesn't want the complex flooding every country with weapons, because that would mean they can no longer profit off the backs of Third World workers who might get a hold of these arms.

As in the 1860s, there is a Slave Power and a less-slavery faction again existing in our country. Evidence of this is the immense backing that our complex provided to the Irish independence fight against British imperialism, and to Rojava more recently.

Military-industrial complex interests are capable of smashing even totalitarian state apparatuses because they are so central to the State. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China is an excellent example of what happens when the military-industrial complex breaks the compromise with bureaucratic-corporate authority and takes over in its own interest.

The public ideology may differ if anything similar happened in America. But the practical result will be the same: reinterpreting the dominant ideology in favor of more individual rights and less overbearing government. Done here, it'd rip the slave labor lobby to shreds.

[Grande Germania]

As a European, I can say that this does not make sense, because, surprise, the United States was founded by European slavers, and has maintained slavery even after the British abolished it.

The original nucleus of the USA were English colonies, so if you say that ALL Europeans are imperialists you are very wrong, indeed, most of the current European countries have been victims of imperialism (e.g. Poland, Ukraine, Italy until 1861 etc.).

Continuing to dismantle this crazy discourse, Europe is practically under the US Dominion, just think of the numerous US military bases on European territory, also counting that European countries have a MUCH weaker army than the United States, since they do not invest too much in the military (although some extra military spending these days would be convenient, but the US is far too militaristic) I prefer to focus on things more useful to the population, such as public health and guaranteed, which I think you don't have.


In summary, try to look beyond the colonial past of Europe, which on the other hand is repudiated by the Europeans themselves, Europe has changed from the 19th century to today, you know?

"What, then, is the whole system of Europe towards America but an atrocious and insulting tyranny? One hemisphere of the earth, separated from the other by wide seas, having different climates, different soils, different modes of production, and its own local relations and duties, is made subservient to the laws, the regulations, the wars and passions of the other." -- Thomas Jefferson

Tell us this...

Why would Thomas Jefferson make an alliance with Abolitionists like Paine, unless the Tories were the aggressive pro-slavery faction and the Founders were anywhere from less-slaveryites to outright Abolitionists? The British created and installed plantation slavery long before America ever won its independence.

Why would the open race slavery of Rhodesia and the prison colony of Australia have survived to 1911, whereas millions of American patriots died fighting the Slave Power in the 1860s? No European ever died fighting slavery, except as a private volunteer for the American government.

Among those volunteers was Col. Joseph Weydemeyer, the third man in the Working Men's International after Marx and Engels. Why would the Marxists you all claim to admire sign their very blood for America's cause if America were really a racist country founded in racism? Does that make Marx a racist now, or simply a man who wanted a better world but failed to predict the consequences of his theories?

What about the campaign slogan of "Build Back Better," which was invented in Europe and repeated by multiple European heads of state at the same time? Why would they be so synchronized, why would U.S. media have more European owners than Americans, with the British disproportionately represented in it?

You seem to forget that Davos and the WEF, which invented the slogan, are in Europe. You also seem to forget that the British are still in charge of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, practicing colonialism as we speak.

Too bad for you that most European countries voluntarily abolished slavery in 1815, and what does it mean that no European died fighting slavery? Apart from that it is not true, since serfdom is considered a form of slavery and many European revolutionaries have died to abolish it, and besides, Europeans have not started to finance dictatorships in South America, have they?

And the Europeans didn't use atomic weapons for the first time, did they?

This hatred of Europe, which has not been a threat to US sovereignty since 1803, is horrible.

And Scotland held a referendum to sell whether to leave the UK or not, and won the stay, even in Northern Ireland and Wales most of the population wants to remain part of the UK, so it's not colonialism.

Europe is probably the continent that lost its importance and sovereignty the fastest in history, given that in a few years most European countries have submitted to an external power, which now, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only the USA, which limits any European initiative, for here we have to "ask permission" from the American government, which has almost always had profound interference in Europe since the end of the Second World War, you seem like a continte that can transform itself into an empire this?


We do not have capable politicians, we do not have complete sovereignty, we have shameful armies, the only thing in here we are superior to the Americans is freedom, since in Europe (and particularly in Scandinavia) human rights are sacred and no one is even Pleased to eliminate the right to abortion, or to make a coup d'état, right?

[Debate Proxy 1]

"What, then, is the whole system of Europe towards America but an atrocious and insulting tyranny? One hemisphere of the earth, separated from the other by wide seas, having different climates, different soils, different modes of production, and its own local relations and duties, is made subservient to the laws, the regulations, the wars and passions of the other." -- Thomas Jefferson

Tell us this...

Why would Thomas Jefferson make an alliance with Abolitionists like Paine, unless the Tories were the aggressive pro-slavery faction and the Founders were anywhere from less-slaveryites to outright Abolitionists? The British created and installed plantation slavery long before America ever won its independence.

Why would the open race slavery of Rhodesia and the prison colony of Australia have survived to 1911, whereas millions of American patriots died fighting the Slave Power in the 1860s? No European ever died fighting slavery, except as a private volunteer for the American government.

Among those volunteers was Col. Joseph Weydemeyer, the third man in the Working Men's International after Marx and Engels. Why would the Marxists you all claim to admire sign their very blood for America's cause if America were really a racist country founded in racism? Does that make Marx a racist now, or simply a man who wanted a better world but failed to predict the consequences of his theories?

What about the campaign slogan of "Build Back Better," which was invented in Europe and repeated by multiple European heads of state at the same time? Why would they be so synchronized, why would U.S. media have more European owners than Americans, with the British disproportionately represented in it?

You seem to forget that Davos and the WEF, which invented the slogan, are in Europe. You also seem to forget that the British are still in charge of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, practicing colonialism as we speak.

Too bad for you that most European countries voluntarily abolished slavery in 1815, and what does it mean that no European died fighting slavery? Apart from that it is not true, since serfdom is considered a form of slavery and many European revolutionaries have died to abolish it, and besides, Europeans have not started to finance dictatorships in South America, have they?

And the Europeans didn't use atomic weapons for the first time, did they?

This hatred of Europe, which has not been a threat to US sovereignty since 1803, is horrible.

And Scotland held a referendum to sell whether to leave the UK or not, and won the stay, even in Northern Ireland and Wales most of the population wants to remain part of the UK, so it's not colonialism.

Europe is probably the continent that lost its importance and sovereignty the fastest in history, given that in a few years most European countries have submitted to an external power, which now, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only the USA, which limits any European initiative, for here we have to "ask permission" from the American government, which has almost always had profound interference in Europe since the end of the Second World War, you seem like a continte that can transform itself into an empire this?


We do not have capable politicians, we do not have complete sovereignty, we have shameful armies, the only thing in here we are superior to the Americans is freedom, since in Europe (and particularly in Scandinavia) human rights are sacred and no one is even Pleased to eliminate the right to abortion, or to make a coup d'état, right?

Superior in freedom? Really, when you rob your citizenry... erm, subjects of arms? When France was convulsed by mass protests over draconian lockdowns, and beaten bloody when no one dared to do the same against us here? When all the electoral fraud problems we see in America are a million times worse in Britain, with its House of Lords and unelected monarchical head of state? That is systemic bias, hands down.

If Americans were really in charge, there'd be republics all over Europe by now, rather than a resurgence of aristocracy as we see in the European Union and British Commonwealth dictating to smaller nations. Half the countries of Europe, even without these "organizations," are already aristocracies founded on hereditary privilege.

[Senkaku]

less-slaveryites

what exactly is a "less-slaveryite"

[Grande Germania]

Too bad for you that most European countries voluntarily abolished slavery in 1815, and what does it mean that no European died fighting slavery? Apart from that it is not true, since serfdom is considered a form of slavery and many European revolutionaries have died to abolish it, and besides, Europeans have not started to finance dictatorships in South America, have they?

And the Europeans didn't use atomic weapons for the first time, did they?

This hatred of Europe, which has not been a threat to US sovereignty since 1803, is horrible.

And Scotland held a referendum to sell whether to leave the UK or not, and won the stay, even in Northern Ireland and Wales most of the population wants to remain part of the UK, so it's not colonialism.

Europe is probably the continent that lost its importance and sovereignty the fastest in history, given that in a few years most European countries have submitted to an external power, which now, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only the USA, which limits any European initiative, for here we have to "ask permission" from the American government, which has almost always had profound interference in Europe since the end of the Second World War, you seem like a continte that can transform itself into an empire this?


We do not have capable politicians, we do not have complete sovereignty, we have shameful armies, the only thing in here we are superior to the Americans is freedom, since in Europe (and particularly in Scandinavia) human rights are sacred and no one is even Pleased to eliminate the right to abortion, or to make a coup d'état, right?

Superior in freedom? Really, when you rob your citizenry... erm, subjects of arms? When France was convulsed by mass protests over draconian lockdowns, and beaten bloody when no one dared to do the same against us here? When all the electoral fraud problems we see in America are a million times worse in Britain, with its House of Lords and unelected monarchical head of state? That is systemic bias, hands down.

So here I have to answer point by point:

1) you cannot take two countries, which are very particular in Europe, and expand them as a representation of the whole continent

2) I wonder why about 40 cases of US police violence against Protestants come to mind.

3) Great Britain is much more democratic than the USA, given that although the head of state is not elected, the House of Commons (which has real power, as in all parliamentary regimes) yes, and consequently is indirectly elected even the prime minister, then yes, is better than your weird undemocratic system of electing the president.

4) no, most of the European countries are republics, and the few remaining monarchies have a long democratic tradition.

5) the European Union guarantees human rights, peace, democracy and stability to the whole of Europe, and is an instrument that has allowed us to stop fighting each other and start collaborating for a better future.

[Debate Proxy 1]

less-slaveryites

what exactly is a "less-slaveryite"

People who are like those in the border states during the 1860s. They had slaves (and slavery and colonialism is a very hard thing to remove, as the French Revolution shows,) but also saw other slave-owners as competitors who were driving them into ruin, and so they provided limited aid to abolitionists to reduce the spread of slavery. This was in contrast to the slavery expansionists, who were aiming to push slavery upon the North (see Fugitive Slave Laws.)

Before anyone brings up Canada, it's simply that Canada didn't have a cotton-growing climate, whereas the British practiced slavery elsewhere; note the genocide that British colonialists committed against indigenous Americans in Canada around the same time to see how British cultural influence is really the source of every crime that's been unjustly ascribed to America.

It happened in Australia, too, complete with not only murder but actual chains.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Superior in freedom? Really, when you rob your citizenry... erm, subjects of arms? When France was convulsed by mass protests over draconian lockdowns, and beaten bloody when no one dared to do the same against us here? When all the electoral fraud problems we see in America are a million times worse in Britain, with its House of Lords and unelected monarchical head of state? That is systemic bias, hands down.

So here I have to answer point by point:

1) you cannot take two countries, which are very particular in Europe, and expand them as a representation of the whole continent

2) I wonder why about 40 cases of US police violence against Protestants come to mind.

3) Great Britain is much more democratic than the USA, given that although the head of state is not elected, the House of Commons (which has real power, as in all parliamentary regimes) yes, and consequently is indirectly elected even the prime minister, then yes, is better than your weird undemocratic system of electing the president.

4) no, most of the European countries are republics, and the few remaining monarchies have a long democratic tradition.

5) the European Union guarantees rights, peace, democracy and stability to the whole of Europe, and is an instrument that has allowed us to stop fighting each other and start collaborating for a better future.

Let's see... Denmark, monarchy. Spain, monarchy. Sweden, monarchy. Britain, of course a monarchy. Those that are called "republics" still bend to the dictates and interests of foreign monarchies and aristocracies, considering who owns the great majority of European corporations, and which moneyed interests control the European Parliament. I can't remember them all, but I seem to recollect that about half the countries of Europe are aristocratic.

Even so, Europe is about as "democratic" as North Korea is if they can't trust their subjects with arms. I mean, the North Koreans even have three political parties to choose from in their elections. Every tyranny in the world these days calls itself a democracy.

EDIT: Removed reference to Italy because I haven't checked on it recently. I know a king at least survived World War II, although nominally the country calls itself the Republic of Italy.

[Grande Germania]

So here I have to answer point by point:

1) you cannot take two countries, which are very particular in Europe, and expand them as a representation of the whole continent

2) I wonder why about 40 cases of US police violence against Protestants come to mind.

3) Great Britain is much more democratic than the USA, given that although the head of state is not elected, the House of Commons (which has real power, as in all parliamentary regimes) yes, and consequently is indirectly elected even the prime minister, then yes, is better than your weird undemocratic system of electing the president.

4) no, most of the European countries are republics, and the few remaining monarchies have a long democratic tradition.

5) the European Union guarantees rights, peace, democracy and stability to the whole of Europe, and is an instrument that has allowed us to stop fighting each other and start collaborating for a better future.

Let's see... Denmark, monarchy. Spain, monarchy. Sweden, monarchy. Britain, of course a monarchy. Those that are called "republics" still bend to the dictates and interests of foreign monarchies and aristocracies, considering who owns the great majority of European corporations, and which moneyed interests control the European Parliament. I can't remember them all, but I seem to recollect that about half the countries of Europe are aristocratic.

Even so, Europe is about as "democratic" as North Korea is if they can't trust their subjects with arms. I mean, the North Koreans even have three political parties to choose from in their elections. Every tyranny in the world these days calls itself a democracy.

EDIT: Removed reference to Italy because I haven't checked on it recently. I know a king at least survived World War II, although nominally the country calls itself the Republic of Italy.

I am Italian, and no, we no longer have a king since 1946, the year of the referendum in which the Italian people chose the Republic instead of the monarchy, and the rulers went into exile, so yes, they are alive but they no longer govern the country.

have you considered that the most economically important country in Europe (Germany) is a Republic? or that France and all the countries of Eastern Europe are also? ah, there is also Portugal, which is a Republic

What then, to have control over the European Parliament are Germany and France (and they are both Republics).

So what you said doesn't match reality, do your research before you write bullshit.

[Senkaku]

what exactly is a "less-slaveryite"

People who are like those in the border states during the 1860s. They had slaves (and slavery and colonialism is a very hard thing to remove, as the French Revolution shows,) but also saw other slave-owners as competitors who were driving them into ruin, and so they provided limited aid to abolitionists to reduce the spread of slavery. This was in contrast to the slavery expansionists, who were aiming to push slavery upon the North (see Fugitive Slave Laws.)

Before anyone brings up Canada, it's simply that Canada didn't have a cotton-growing climate, whereas the British practiced slavery elsewhere; note the genocide that British colonialists committed against indigenous Americans in Canada around the same time to see how British cultural influence is really the source of every crime that's been unjustly ascribed to America.

It happened in Australia, too, complete with not only murder but actual chains.

So you know about the Fugitive Slave Laws and efforts to expand slavery, and you know some slave-owners continued owning slaves while cynically supporting a limited, constrained form of abolition for the sake of advancing their own monetary interests, and you know about the genocides carried out against the indigenous peoples of North America as ethnic Europeans colonized the continent, and you know many Americans were slave-owners and that it was an important part of our economy and political life...

whereas millions of American patriots died fighting the Slave Power in the 1860s?

Didn't notice this earlier-- not even a million people died in the entire war?

When France was convulsed by mass protests over draconian lockdowns, and beaten bloody when no one dared to do the same against us here?

Almost every major city in the US has been repeatedly tear-gassed in the last two years alone lol, is it better that they were doing it over protests against crypto-apartheid than over COVID lockdowns?
When all the electoral fraud problems we see in America are a million times worse in Britain, with its House of Lords and unelected monarchical head of state? That is systemic bias, hands down.

If Americans were really in charge, there'd be republics all over Europe by now,

there are only twelve monarchies left on the entire continent iirc and I think that includes Monaco. idk what definitions of "republic" or "all over" you could possibly be using here

Military-industrial complex interests are capable of smashing even totalitarian state apparatuses because they are so central to the State. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China is an excellent example of what happens when the military-industrial complex breaks the compromise with bureaucratic-corporate authority and takes over in its own interest.

what

In summary, try to look beyond the colonial past of Europe, which on the other hand is repudiated by the Europeans themselves, Europe has changed from the 19th century to today, you know?

okay blaming Europe for the entire course of American empire may be silly but let's not suck their dicks too hard here lol, the idea that Europe has "repudiated colonialism" while no major colonial power has discussed reparations and France is still running a large chunk of its former African empire from the shadows is laughable

The United States of America has been a force for evil throughout it's entire existence.

Then listen to what Thomas Sankara actually said about the American Revolution. He cited it as an inspiration for his own.

Lenin cited the French Revolution, that doesn't mean he would've agreed with Lafayette

IIRC This is too bloggy for acceptability.

Also you presume there isn't an genuine anti-western foreign audience here and ignores how NATO mostly takes instructions from America.

Why are there so many Americans who are complaining of being censored?

because the far right has convinced a large chunk of the population that not having your views enshrined as the sole acceptable public ideology is the same as being actively persecuted, next question

If America were really in charge of all this, our votes would actually count.

what is "all this," and why would America the country being in charge of whatever it is have anything to do with the impact of your vote on the American or global political economy

IIRC This is too bloggy for acceptability.

Also you presume there isn't an genuine anti-western foreign audience here and ignores how NATO mostly takes instructions from America.

Then why is the London stock market even richer than Wall Street? Follow the money...

why is Beyonce richer than Nicki Minaj? checkmate, barbz...

The break-up of the British Empire, in truth, delivered arms into the hands of indigenous populations to protect their liberties and slowed the spread of colonialism by over a century.

that must be why they concluded treaties with the Haudenosaunee, armed them against the French, and forbade settlers moving west of the Appalachians, which Americans were of course hugely in favor of, and which was respected after independence, along with the rights and liberties of indigenous people from the Missouri to California!

If the Pentagon is paying attention,

You think every institution in the country has been captured by Europeans, in a country settled and still primarily populated by European colonists and their descendants, with a culture primarily shaped by European influences, but that we somehow also have a superior mode of government, are fundamentally non-Western, and that our military high command somehow would be separate from this institutional and cultural and literal genetic capture...?

We've been wrongfully and unjustly blamed for crimes actually committed by others.

Since all the America-bashing is coming from foreign places and their admirers

If I am censored this time for my views, then I welcome it: nothing will better underline my case.

I've never seen comfortable elites anywhere make a more contortionist rationalization to justify their own unearned sense of victimhood and accompanying sense of entitlement to power over others. I honestly can't tell if this thread is parody or not, and if not, how someone could be so close to understanding the history and practice of colonialism and yet have appointed themselves as morally independent of and superior to the empire they're attempting to describe all around them. The pompousness and absolute ahistorical lunacy suggests to me it's actually for real, which is unfortunate, but a little funny. Here's a dose of reality: Americans are actors within history with at least the same amount of agency and moral culpability for the present as anyone else, and criticism of the American empire is not some foreign import passing itself off as domestic or puppeteering NPCs, but rather a long and proud tradition developed mainly by the people most familiar with it: those who've lived under it for centuries. I'm sure this will be met with an angry dismissal based on ahistorical fabrications, personal resentments, and conspiratorial ramblings, but this is such a hot mess that I think anyone who reads it needs to just repeat these basics to you in the hopes that one day they'll sink in by osmosis if nothing else.

[HISPIDA]

the united states is the most anti-democratic force in human history

[Senkaku]

EDIT: Removed reference to Italy because I haven't checked on it recently. I know a king at least survived World War II, although nominally the country calls itself the Republic of Italy.

you can't even fucking google if Italy still has a king, but we're expected to treat your revisionist interpretations/fabricated mythologies of the slave trade and colonial plantation economies like the work of some kind of serious scholar or outspoken visionary? are you fucking kidding me lmao

[Heloin]

I think a lot of these threads could be solved by the OP reading books rather then just syphoning half remembering information from a secondary school government class and yahoo answers.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

this is even worse than the great replacement bs

firstly, “Europeans” are not a solid group, and thus “Europeans” aren’t oppressing you.

secondly, this whole post is essentially “European governments did bad stuff like 150 years ago” and then using that to justify categorical distrust and hatred of Europeans.

thirdly, you lack sources for every one of your bizarre claims.

The only problem is, there's far too many Europeans to assimilate now, and they've broken down the assimilation system and undermined the very fabric of government in the East Coast states where they concentrate. One may note that European immigrants are everywhere in Hollywood. The problem with European immigration is that it brings way too many bad ideas over from Europe, and that there's way too many of them to assimilate. This has resulted in the gradual displacement of the American government and the rise of a parallel system of European-style government, which since its inception has operated in ways directly contrary to the Constitution.

could you give examples of how this vaguely-defined horrible European system of government is infecting our amazing, wonderful American system of government?

The Democratic Party leadership then, and the Democratic Party leadership now is engaging in race-baiting to divide and conquer the 99% (a population which includes average, ordinary Republicans and Democrats, I should point out.)

practically any comparison between the civil war Democratic Party and the modern Democratic Party is bs, and this is no exception. this reads as “democrats are the real racists!” for… trying to raise awareness to discriminatory police brutality and race-related killings? how awful of them.

Why is our country starting to look like a Third World country, unless it's because of all the European immigrants who will not assimilate?

I dunno, because half of our country are either fascist religious fundamentalists or are okay with fascist religious fundamentalists to own the libs?