Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Justin, I won with "FUCK JOHNNY ROTTEN", 4 mad faces and all CAPS. I think sean got tired after his broadside on me, and you got less than your due.

Settle for a tie?

Best just to leave this one on the books as unambiguously yours. I already got mine from the youngling(*) back talking about Jesuit schooling.

(*)still unconfirmed

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Best just to leave this one on the books as unambiguously yours. I already got mine from the youngling(*) back talking about Jesuit schooling.

(*)still unconfirmed

Thanks, and good luck on yours.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, but I think I got both of you beat ... has he ever called you a piece of trash, a heretic, or an evil witch?

Just imagine how I'd treat Ann Coulter. It would not be pretty.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Just imagine how I'd treat Ann Coulter. It would not be pretty.

Pervert.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Pervert.

What's so perverted about yelling at Ann Coulter? You're not in love with the whore, are you?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's possible that the Chinese may, in fact, adopt a democratic model. They may also go on as they have for millenia. Democracy is a cultural overlay. It worked in Japan and South Korea because it was grafted-on to these cultures at a time their traditional cultures were stressed and defeated. I don't think that is ever likely to apply to the Chinese.

I think that when democracy comes to China it will succeed. Cultural similarities between China, South Korea, and Japan are so obvious that any claim to the contrary requires some extraordinary explanation.

China has had its spectacular failure with democracy in the 1910s because the country was ill-unified, and warlords became the real powers until Mao. Say what you want about Mao, and much of it is evil, he at least put down the warlords and united the country.

The level of economic development in China has gone from abysmal in the 1970s to formidable; democracy may not need prosperity to flourish if the political traditions are right (India, Costa Rica, Botswana), but it is hard to see how an economy with a broad base of prosperity can't maintain a democracy -- if it gets it in reasonably normal times. Germany in the 1920s exemplifies abnormal times in political culture and economics.

I can see how the Crisis of 2020 can force democracy upon China; should a Depression strike China and leave the country's asset-owners awash in dollars but with little to spend them upon, then the CCP leadership might have one card to play for survival -- the democracy card. So it was with Jaruzelski and the PZPR (Polish Communist coalition) in 1989.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Just imagine how I'd treat Ann Coulter. It would not be pretty.

Ann Coulter's website was hacked and the hoax letter that the hackers added is still up.

Reaction on Daily Kos here.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Ann Coulter's website was hacked and the hoax letter that the hackers added is still up.

Reaction on Daily Kos here.

It's too bad that it's fake. What an earthquake that would create. There would be Rushing around, some Savagery ...

I can't find the letter. Is the link dead?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I think that when democracy comes to China it will succeed. Cultural similarities between China, South Korea, and Japan are so obvious that any claim to the contrary requires some extraordinary explanation.

Actually, it doesn't. The prime difference between China on the one hand and Korea and Japan on the other is that Korea and Japan are edge-nations with easily defended borders. China has a long history of authoritarianism, because it's just too easy to invade a neighbor (if China is divided) or send troops to quell rebellion (if China is unified... which it usually is).

Only at China's edges -- Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan -- has it been possible to get away from the power of both warlords and the Forbidden City long enough to experiment with what I would call "democracy with Chinese characteristics". IMHO, the five-branch innovations of Taiwan (adding to Legislative, Executive, and Judicial a branch of Investigation composed solely of the inspectors-general and a branch of Examination composed solely of the civil service boards) are a major step forward in the theory and practice of representative democracy, as well as having deep roots in Chinese history.

In contrast, it is well known that official corruption is Red China's largest problem; the environment, the product safety, human rights, health, and labor problems are all consequences of the absence of the rule of law via bribery.

China has had its spectacular failure with democracy in the 1910s because the country was ill-unified, and warlords became the real powers until Mao. Say what you want about Mao, and much of it is evil, he at least put down the warlords and united the country.

But this really says nothing about democracy. China was undergoing a cycle that often occurs at the end of an Imperial dynasty, as warlords rise in various territories in an effort to become the next Emperor and found a new dynasty. The difference is that Mao rejected the Imperial mystique and founded an adoptive dynasty with a Western ideology. In the 1910's only a few dozen thousand intellectuals in China even knew what democracy was; it's not a fair test. Essentially, democracy has not yet been tried in the mainland, and the elders of the Party (who are identical in form and function to the Imperial mandarins) are not interested in trying it.

democracy may not need prosperity to flourish if the political traditions are right (India, Costa Rica, Botswana)

India had the superlative Civil Service. Bostwana has an average income of $15k per capita, largely from diamond mining; it's not as bad off as it looks.

I want to learn more about the history of Costa Rica. Somehow they alone have sailed through the bloody history of Latin America with only a few bruises. What went right there that went wrong everywhere else?

I can see how the Crisis of 2020 can force democracy upon China; should a Depression strike China and leave the country's asset-owners awash in dollars but with little to spend them upon, then the CCP leadership might have one card to play for survival -- the democracy card. So it was with Jaruzelski and the PZPR (Polish Communist coalition) in 1989.

The Chinese Depression is inevitable; China has no way to stop a stock market crash, and even 11% GDP/year growth doesn't justify a 100%/year rise in the Shanghai Index. The mandarins know this, which is why they're not interested in democracy; they plan to call out the People's Liberation Army and smash rioters. Whether this plan will be effective or not is a very open question.

The Chinese Communist Revolution was a fraud, as Mao knew well. China was having a peasant revolt, because she had not yet industrialized and had neither bourgeois nor proletariat. Now she does, and a REAL socialist revolution is now a danger. The answer to incipient Communism is well known -- regulations, labor protections, collective bargaining in a free and fair marketplace; social democracy, secret ballots, and a fair wage that prohibits immiserization. Karl Marx was incapable of imagining Henry Ford, and thus was classical Marxism refuted by events. But if the Commies are incapable of implementing that program -- and it looks like they are -- they're in deep mulch, and are likely to buy it when the crash comes.

James Bennett believes that the Anglosphere is becoming a civilization distinct from the West. Actually, he thinks the West is fading as an identity for Europe in general.

An implication is that the Anglosphere is currently in a transitional stage.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

James Bennett believes that the Anglosphere is becoming a civilization distinct from the West. Actually, he thinks the West is fading as an identity for Europe in general.

An implication is that the Anglosphere is currently in a transitional stage.

Europe is defining itself as Europe now, not the West. This is a reaction to the detachment of the colonies; Europe is only one of several centers of what was the West. The West is no longer a good term for the reorganization of civilization, since it now incorporates elements of what was previously called "the Far East". If Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and India are key elements of the civilization, how can it be the West anymore? And regions previously considered part of "the West" are not looking in that direction anymore (thinking of Latin America here).

The Anglosphere is too narrow a concept. I am thinking something along the lines of Maritime Civilization. Europe became mistress of the world by sea power. America is a world power because of her Navy. Canada is preparing for her new role as guardian of the Northwest Passage. Britain, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand... these are all island nations. India cannot extend her trade or power by land, only by sea. All these nations are dependent on trade, which is primarily sea-based even after all these centuries of innovation.

We are the Peoples of the Seas, and (in an idea stretching back to Mahan) our interests are generally opposed to peoples whose philosophies are developed by land-power: China, Russia, the desert Muslims (the seagoing Muslims think more as we do), the interior of Africa. We are the Peoples of the Networks, from trade and diplomacy to the World Wide Web, and we stand against the principle of centralized control and hierarchy (sorry, Pope Benedict -- this is why no one in the West is listening to you).

I am not that certain what you mean by the Anglosphere? If you are referring to a geographic radius including the British isles and possibly Ireland, it is obvious that it is no longer the unique cradle of civilization it once was. Perhaps this is why English literature was a big subject in the schools. Since I don't have kids, I don't have any idea if it still is.

But the broader definition would be the English speaking world, which would also include the US, Canada sans Quebec, Australia, New Zealand and more. For most of the twentieth century London, Paris and New York were considered the holy trinity of modern civilization outposts. Such no longer seems to be the case. The ascent of countries such as Japan and now China challenged that supposed reality.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Europe is defining itself as Europe now, not the West. This is a reaction to the detachment of the colonies; Europe is only one of several centers of what was the West. The West is no longer a good term for the reorganization of civilization, since it now incorporates elements of what was previously called "the Far East". If Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and India are key elements of the civilization, how can it be the West anymore? And regions previously considered part of "the West" are not looking in that direction anymore (thinking of Latin America here).

The Anglosphere is too narrow a concept. I am thinking something along the lines of Maritime Civilization. Europe became mistress of the world by sea power. America is a world power because of her Navy. Canada is preparing for her new role as guardian of the Northwest Passage. Britain, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand... these are all island nations. India cannot extend her trade or power by land, only by sea. All these nations are dependent on trade, which is primarily sea-based even after all these centuries of innovation.

We are the Peoples of the Seas, and (in an idea stretching back to Mahan) our interests are generally opposed to peoples whose philosophies are developed by land-power: China, Russia, the desert Muslims (the seagoing Muslims think more as we do), the interior of Africa. We are the Peoples of the Networks, from trade and diplomacy to the World Wide Web, and we stand against the principle of centralized control and hierarchy (sorry, Pope Benedict -- this is why no one in the West is listening to you).

I like to think of it as an "outward" shift in "emphasis," as you will, of Western Civilization, similar to how the "emphasis" of Graeco-Roman Civilization moved outward and away from the city-states during the Hellenistic Age. Interesting that despite the similarity of the pattern the political effects were the total opposite. In Graeco-Roman society the outward shift resulted in the liberties of the city-states being crushed by monarchy; in the West the result was a victory of Liberalism over "Enlightened Despotism."

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Europe is defining itself as Europe now, not the West. This is a reaction to the detachment of the colonies; Europe is only one of several centers of what was the West. The West is no longer a good term for the reorganization of civilization, since it now incorporates elements of what was previously called "the Far East". If Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and India are key elements of the civilization, how can it be the West anymore? And regions previously considered part of "the West" are not looking in that direction anymore (thinking of Latin America here).

The Anglosphere is too narrow a concept. I am thinking something along the lines of Maritime Civilization. Europe became mistress of the world by sea power. America is a world power because of her Navy. Canada is preparing for her new role as guardian of the Northwest Passage. Britain, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand... these are all island nations. India cannot extend her trade or power by land, only by sea. All these nations are dependent on trade, which is primarily sea-based even after all these centuries of innovation.

We are the Peoples of the Seas, and (in an idea stretching back to Mahan) our interests are generally opposed to peoples whose philosophies are developed by land-power: China, Russia, the desert Muslims (the seagoing Muslims think more as we do), the interior of Africa. We are the Peoples of the Networks, from trade and diplomacy to the World Wide Web, and we stand against the principle of centralized control and hierarchy (sorry, Pope Benedict -- this is why no one in the West is listening to you).

Wow. That was one hell of a thought-provoking analysis. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Odin

I like to think of it as an "outward" shift in "emphasis," as you will, of Western Civilization, similar to how the "emphasis" of Graeco-Roman Civilization moved outward and away from the city-states during the Hellenistic Age. Interesting that despite the similarity of the pattern the political effects were the total opposite. In Graeco-Roman society the outward shift resulted in the liberties of the city-states being crushed by monarchy; in the West the result was a victory of Liberalism over "Enlightened Despotism."

Could this "Enlightened Despotism" also be known as fascism. Just the other day Bush was talking about an enlightened Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro. Would Havana once again resume its one-time role as a gambling mecca? But then again Shanghai was once one too, and to my knowledge it has not resumed that role in post-communist China. If there is such a thing as "Constitutional Despotism" we may be there right now.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Could this "Enlightened Despotism" also be known as fascism. Just the other day Bush was talking about an enlightened Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro. Would Havana once again resume its one-time role as a gambling mecca? But then again Shanghai was once one too, and to my knowledge it has not resumed that role in post-communist China. If there is such a thing as "Constitutional Despotism" we may be there right now.

Yes, Fascism/Totalitarianism is a "Radical Modernist" version of 17th/18th century Absolute Monarchy.

China's government is a fusion of traditional Chinese hierarchical despotism and Fascism.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes, Fascism/Totalitarianism is a "Radical Modernist" version of 17th/18th century Absolute Monarchy.

China's government is a fusion of traditional Chinese hierarchical despotism and Fascism.

Fascism and all forms of totalitarianism have nothing to do with absolute monarchy. First, no one ever called them that. Aboslute monarchs never sought to control every single facet of their subjects' lives as so many dictators and politicans in the 20th century have tried to do. There is no fascism is the PRC, as it is officially a Communist state.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

James Bennett believes that the Anglosphere is becoming a civilization distinct from the West. Actually, he thinks the West is fading as an identity for Europe in general.

An implication is that the Anglosphere is currently in a transitional stage.

That's interesting. Perhaps the Anglosphere will develop closer ties to Asia while Europe will develop closer ties to Russia. I think the "Western" identity will fade away for both Europe and America, i.e. both the "East v. West" and "First World vs. Third World" dichotomies will lose relevance as globalization advances over the next century.

The best model to ensure a healthy western civilization is the centralized state. The napoleonic wars, World war I and World war II showed what the centralized state can do. It is our nation's destiny to rid the world of threats arrayed against it. To this end the unifification of the anglosphere into a centralized imperial state should be accomplished. The conquest of latin america would be to secure resources and manpower. This should be accomplished with diplomacy as well as force; friendly ties and alliances with spain, portugal and the more powerful latin american nations should accompany the conquest of the lesser states in the region, the main exception to friendly relations with greater latin states is venuzuela, which should be conquered. The aim of this policy is the creation of an anglophone political/cultural alliance with our latin brethren. In addition the conquest of the more promising parts of africa should take place.

The growing threats from the mideast and china is a grave threat to the civilized world. While at present these regions do not seem to be capable of overthrowing the world order, the may be in a position to do so in the future. To counter this, campaigns aimed at the destruction of the threats imminating from these regions are to be launched.

These recommendations are more urgent since we are entering a crisis era. As such moderation proposed by elite canditiates such as hilary clinton is unacceptable, as well as such proposed by the the leadership of both parties, indeed to show moderation in the coming decades is suicidal in my opinion, in a crisis the strong must assert themselves and show their will over the weak, or else they are weak and will perish themselves. Obama and edwards seem to show the nessesary will to make the appropriate domestic reforms, but are seemingly unable to deduce a correct foreign policy. The Grey champion (probably a Joneser or first-wave Xer) must link a correct domestic policy as well as a correct foreign policy in order to succeed.

A correct domestic and foreign policy should be as follows:

1) Try to consolidate with a goal to minimizing the losses to our position as a result of the iraq war. Try to minimize damage to economy due to disasterous previous policies.

2) Focus on rebuilding the basis of our economy based on real investment, foreign policy during this period should be self-concentrationing with internal focus, maintain the military and reorganizes/upgrade forces if possible. Reorganize economy with focus on rebuilding manufacturing-machine tool capabilities.

3) Once economy is stabilized with a basis for growth, focus on the international arena, sign arms control and limitation agreements with russia, china, and others, but do NOT assume foreign compliance with agreements, secretly build-up forbidden capabilities without foreign knowledge. This diplomatic offensive should be accompanied by a massive military buildup. Begin emphasizing to the troops the gravity of the foreign threat, train officers and soldiers emphasizing tactical and strategic competence.

4) Agitate for formation of an anglophone union/union of english-speaking peoples in order to better defend against foreign rogue threats. continue military buildup, continue to emphasize to the troops the gravity of the foreign (arab and chinese) threat. Continue to maintain friendly diplomatic and trade relations with rival powers, launch economic offensive toward latin america.

5) Ideally anglophone unity should be promoted, begin conquest of lesser latin american states and economic offensives toward the more powerful, economic offensive should be directed against third world and regions not in the sphere of influence or rival great powers (russia, china, etc). Try to form alliances with more powerful latin american states as well as with india, strengthen alliances with japan, europe. Sign non-aggression friendship pacts with europe, russia, china, india, arabs, etc. Propose "Grand Bargains" with russia, china to insure their neutrality.

6) Once the conquest of latin america as well as the more economically viable parts of africa is completed, launch preemptive wars with china, islamic world in order to decimate their growing military capabilities.

cynic hero, I shall fight you for the honor of HM Queen Elizabeth II! God save the Queen! Long may she reign!

So I see sean that you not only stick to your outdated monarchism but support the free-trade merchantilist posture that england (and later america) has promoted since the glorious revolution of 1688. I on the contrary embrace the continental view that the US and britain should embrace military muscle rather than rely on trusting the intent of foreign countries.

World domination is not-unlike half a millenium ago-in the cards. I would reccommend that Western leaders accept a Spheres-of-Influence world. Seek an understanding with other civilizations: if-you-don't-bother-us-we-won't-bother-you.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The best model to ensure a healthy western civilization is the centralized state. The napoleonic wars, World war I and World war II showed what the centralized state can do. It is our nation's destiny to rid the world of threats arrayed against it. To this end the unifification of the anglosphere into a centralized imperial state should be accomplished. The conquest of latin america would be to secure resources and manpower. This should be accomplished with diplomacy as well as force; friendly ties and alliances with spain, portugal and the more powerful latin american nations should accompany the conquest of the lesser states in the region, the main exception to friendly relations with greater latin states is venuzuela, which should be conquered. The aim of this policy is the creation of an anglophone political/cultural alliance with our latin brethren. In addition the conquest of the more promising parts of africa should take place.

The growing threats from the mideast and china is a grave threat to the civilized world. While at present these regions do not seem to be capable of overthrowing the world order, the may be in a position to do so in the future. To counter this, campaigns aimed at the destruction of the threats imminating from these regions are to be launched.

These recommendations are more urgent since we are entering a crisis era. As such moderation proposed by elite canditiates such as hilary clinton is unacceptable, as well as such proposed by the the leadership of both parties, indeed to show moderation in the coming decades is suicidal in my opinion, in a crisis the strong must assert themselves and show their will over the weak, or else they are weak and will perish themselves. Obama and edwards seem to show the nessesary will to make the appropriate domestic reforms, but are seemingly unable to deduce a correct foreign policy. The Grey champion (probably a Joneser or first-wave Xer) must link a correct domestic policy as well as a correct foreign policy in order to succeed.

A correct domestic and foreign policy should be as follows:

1) Try to consolidate with a goal to minimizing the losses to our position as a result of the iraq war. Try to minimize damage to economy due to disasterous previous policies.

2) Focus on rebuilding the basis of our economy based on real investment, foreign policy during this period should be self-concentrationing with internal focus, maintain the military and reorganizes/upgrade forces if possible. Reorganize economy with focus on rebuilding manufacturing-machine tool capabilities.

3) Once economy is stabilized with a basis for growth, focus on the international arena, sign arms control and limitation agreements with russia, china, and others, but do NOT assume foreign compliance with agreements, secretly build-up forbidden capabilities without foreign knowledge. This diplomatic offensive should be accompanied by a massive military buildup. Begin emphasizing to the troops the gravity of the foreign threat, train officers and soldiers emphasizing tactical and strategic competence.

4) Agitate for formation of an anglophone union/union of english-speaking peoples in order to better defend against foreign rogue threats. continue military buildup, continue to emphasize to the troops the gravity of the foreign (arab and chinese) threat. Continue to maintain friendly diplomatic and trade relations with rival powers, launch economic offensive toward latin america.

5) Ideally anglophone unity should be promoted, begin conquest of lesser latin american states and economic offensives toward the more powerful, economic offensive should be directed against third world and regions not in the sphere of influence or rival great powers (russia, china, etc). Try to form alliances with more powerful latin american states as well as with india, strengthen alliances with japan, europe. Sign non-aggression friendship pacts with europe, russia, china, india, arabs, etc. Propose "Grand Bargains" with russia, china to insure their neutrality.

6) Once the conquest of latin america as well as the more economically viable parts of africa is completed, launch preemptive wars with china, islamic world in order to decimate their growing military capabilities.

Ave! Who did you have in mind for Caesar?

Cynic Hero, you are insane. I think we can be a more honorable country than you envisage.