When China Rules the World [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Joe McCarthy

01-20-2011, 08:27 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/5788080/When-China-Rules-the-World-by-Martin-Jacques-review.html

Watching Tim Geithner, the US treasury secretary, in Beijing last month, it was easy to be struck by how times have changed. Most visiting American dignitaries not long ago seized the opportunity to harangue the Chinese over human rights, or over their undervalued currency that was unfairly helping export sales at the expense of competitors. Geithner instead beseeched the Chinese to keep buying US government bonds, as they have done by the hundreds of billions, or else sink the US by impairing its ability to raise money. He went out of his way to reassure the Chinese that the steps taken by the Obama administration were going to work to restore growth.

The collapsed global economy stands as a damning criticism of unfettered capitalism and the light regulation that would seem to separate the West from countries such as China. As if that were not a big enough blow, the West has also taken to asking China for far greater assistance with a host of other problems, from North Korea to the environment. China isn’t on the ascent any more; it has risen.

Goldman Sachs has predicted that China will overtake the US as the world’s largest economy in 2027. Its growth from 100 years ago, when it was a peasant economy being comprehensively exploited by foreigners, has been extraordinary. But China’s insignificance on the world stage was but a blip between hundreds of years of influence until about 1850 and hundreds more years of influence to come.

How will the newly restored China look, and how will other countries interact with it? Will the West be undermined fatally, or will the astonishingly successful Western models for the economy, state and society be adopted by China? No one knows the answers to these questions, so that makes it an alluring subject for writers. We have had, among the most lauded of recent books, The Writing on the Wall by Will Hutton, the Left-leaning journalist and economist, and China Shakes the World by James Kynge, a former Beijing correspondent of the Financial Times.

Those titles were scary enough. Now comes Martin Jacques with When China Rules the World: the Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World. Jacques is the former editor of Marxism Today, co-founder of the think tank Demos, Guardian columnist and visiting academic at numerous institutions.

Jacques’s thesis stands as a rejoinder to US triumphalism at the collapse of Communism in Europe. It is an implicit attack on Hutton’s views that Enlightenment values and institutions – competition, elected government, balance of powers, promotion of inquiry, openness, an independent judiciary and press – are a requirement for China to continue its current success. Where Hutton sees huge contradictions in China and troubles ahead, Jacques says “Western hegemony… will come to an end” and sees China continuing to prosper. Moreover, Jacques imagines that many other countries in China’s orbit will be pulled into China’s way of doing things, turning away from the methods advocated by a dying West.

Jacques agrees with Hutton that something has to give. He understands that China cannot grow at its current rate without consuming all the world’s resources. It cannot continue to grow on exports alone and it must improve its productivity and capital efficiency. It must tackle social inequality and foster consumption at home, and to do that, it must build a welfare system that enables poor Chinese to take money out from under the mattress.

Why don’t the Chinese consume? The only statistic you need to understand this is that the Chinese state currently accounts for just 16 per cent of the country’s health care expenditure. In the US, the state accounts for 44 per cent and in western Europe the figure is greater than 70 per cent. China has reined back in an incredible manner from the days of Mao, when all health care spending came from the state.

Jacques is right that there is nothing inevitable about China prospering only by becoming like the West. On giving its people the vote, for example, he points out that almost all developing nations – India is the exception – had something far less than universal suffrage. Britain was already developed before most people had the right to vote.

But his book would carry considerably more weight if it were not so sloppy and selective in its presentation. There are frequent errors and apparent inconsistencies. Some are minor, though they detract from credibility – Jacques says that Zambia’s last presidential election was in 2006 instead of 2008 – but most are important since he is building a case by cherry-picking the evidence.

To explain how East Asia can be faster and more innovative than the West, he says the Western fashion industry is happy to turn out two collections a year while Japanese designers seem to bring out new clothes all the time. But it was the Western companies Inditex – which owns Zara – and H?&?M that pioneered “fast fashion” and often change their offerings weekly. Meanwhile “high” fashion all over the world, including Tokyo, remains on a twice-yearly cycle.

Jacques says of the East that the only constant is change, marvelling at how the new parts of cities can spring up with no reference to the past. Four pages later, he is talking about how China’s deep sense of identity, derived from its long, rich history, stands in contrast to some Western attitudes. He spends too long confusing cultural differences with state and economic structures.

He is disingenuous at times. He says the Chinese have helped to pressure the Sudanese into accepting international peacekeeping in Darfur without mentioning, as James Kynge does, that China is the biggest supplier of arms to the murderous Sudanese regime. Jacques just says separately that the West has done worse things in Africa. He says there hasn’t been an arms race in East Asia, yet China announced a 14.9 per cent increase in military spending this year, Australia wants new warships, India and South Korea are building up their navies, Japan has signalled it may follow and North Korea is testing nuclear weapons and firing off missiles.

Some of these and other problems could no doubt have been solved with more rigour and explanation. But their presence is a pity, because the book’s general thrust is undoubtably correct, even if it would seem profound only to the most diehard neoconservatives.

When China Rules the World: the Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World

by Martin Jacques

550pp, Allen Lane, £25

Buy now for £23 (plus £1.25 p&p) from Telegraph Books

Albion

01-20-2011, 08:41 PM

- Of the top ten largest economies only two will be European, Germany and Britain.

What??? Will France really stagnate that much? At the moment I wouldn't put any bets on this, and what of Russia? Surely they must emerge from their relentless decline sooner or latter?

- Four of the five largest economies will be non-Western - China, India (which will be about even with the US), Brazil, and Mexico.

China is probably right, but India, Brazil and Mexico are going to eventually find it tough to keep the pace up with largely dumb masses as their core populations and a wide variety of different ethnic groups competing for control.
Of course there are clever people amongst them which will be the driving force of the nation and these more intelligent people will probably number more than some European nations, but I think in the end the masses will be a millstone around their neck, concrete boots so to speak.

Joe McCarthy

01-20-2011, 08:45 PM

China is probably right, but India, Brazil and Mexico are going to eventually find it tough to keep the pace up with largely dumb masses as their core populations and a wide variety of different ethnic groups competing for control.
Of course there are clever people amongst them which will be the driving force of the nation and these more intelligent people will probably number more than some European nations, but I think in the end the masses will be a millstone around their neck, concrete boots so to speak.

Well, the problem is this: even if these projections are wrong, the West is losing power in relative terms. The US is losing power in its own hemisphere as Brazil and Mexico gain steam. This is bad news, even if the worst case scenarios don't pan out.

Radola

01-20-2011, 08:50 PM

Well, the problem is this: even if these projections are wrong, the West is losing power in relative terms. The US is losing power in its own hemisphere as Brazil and Mexico gain steam. This is bad news, even if the worst case scenarios don't pan out.

It´s a sad fact, but honestly, wasn´t it expected by many? The European civilisation ruled the world for 2 000 years, it´s time for the others. I guess it´s a cyclical development , few thousands of years ago, the "centre of the world" was in Asia and Africa (northern) + Middle East.....Then the centre was Europe...and now it´s gonna be...you see.

Agrippa

01-20-2011, 08:55 PM

All those forecasts are for nothing if something unexpected happens and as a rule of thumb, over such a relatively long time span, something will happen for sure.

I wouldn't bet on such conclusions, even less so if it is about telling us which emerging market will be top in 50 years. There are some serious candidates and some less serious ones.

- Four of the five largest economies will be non-Western - China, India (which will be about even with the US), Brazil, and Mexico.

What exactly is more "non-Western" about Brazil than about let's say the USA in its current state?

Joe McCarthy

01-20-2011, 08:55 PM

It´s a sad fact, but honestly, wasn´t it expected by many? The European civilisation ruled the world for 2 000 years, it´s time for the others. I guess it´s a cyclical development , few thousands of years ago, the "centre of the world" was in Asia and Africa (northern) + Middle East.....Then the centre was Europe...and now it´s gonna be...you see.

The problem in this case is that whereas in other cycles other civilizations survived, the West may not survive this one. China's history is an ocean of blood - directed at its own people, no less. If they get the capacity to dictate to others...

Joe McCarthy

01-20-2011, 09:01 PM

What exactly is more "non-Western" about Brazil than about let's say the USA in its current state?

Latin America is usually seen as a distinct civilization in itself with Western leanings. Israel is often seen in the same way.

Agrippa

01-20-2011, 09:20 PM

Latin America is usually seen as a distinct civilization in itself with Western leanings. Israel is often seen in the same way.

Yes, in the USA, but seriously, Southern Brazil is more European overall, like Argentina and Uruguay, than some parts of the USA are now.

And one can't really compare those areas with Israel, because they are obviously European.

Mexico is something different, the more Indian or Afro-American countries (like Haiti) for sure.

Joe McCarthy

01-20-2011, 09:30 PM

Yes, in the USA, but seriously, Southern Brazil is more European overall, like Argentina and Uruguay, than some parts of the USA are now.

I think the problem here is that you're comparing two related, yet distinct concepts - civilization and race. By the logic you're using, Serbia, a non-Western country, is more 'Western' than Marseilles or Rotterdam - or Siberia is more Western than Manhattan.

Agrippa

01-21-2011, 07:48 AM

I think the problem here is that you're comparing two related, yet distinct concepts - civilization and race. By the logic you're using, Serbia, a non-Western country, is more 'Western' than Marseilles or Rotterdam - or Siberia is more Western than Manhattan.

What is "more Western" than a civilisation based on Catholicism and the Western European countries?

What is, if looking at Southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, less "Western" than what you can find in many parts of the USA?

What makes Latin America "un-European" is primarily the strong Indio-influence, in regions where this isn't true, we deal with an essentially European culture and people - if further excluding Negroids and Jews, of which the USA have enough too.

The religious identity? In that sense American sects of Evangelicals are less Western to me...

Albion

01-21-2011, 01:16 PM

What is "more Western" than a civilisation based on Catholicism and the Western European countries?

What is, if looking at Southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, less "Western" than what you can find in many parts of the USA?

What makes Latin America "un-European" is primarily the strong Indio-influence, in regions where this isn't true, we deal with an essentially European culture and people - if further excluding Negroids and Jews, of which the USA have enough too.

The religious identity? In that sense American sects of Evangelicals are less Western to me...

I see Argentina and Uruguay as European but Brazil is way too mixed and has quite a Latin American-centric culture. It might be European in origin but Brazil and most of Latin America have built on top of what Europe left them culture-wise and in the process have become very different. This is true of all the nations but lesser so the Southern Cone.

Joe McCarthy

01-22-2011, 09:34 PM

Agrippa

01-23-2011, 10:43 AM

Fundamentally, Latin America is a place involving a meeting and blending of cultures and civilizations, and its present expressions reflect this long legacy. If anything, this is especially the case with Brazil, as the Porguguese crown actively encouraged settlers to breed with the indigenous peoples and African slaves in order to make up for manpower shortages. Brazil has an unusually pronounced African cultural component unknown most elsewhere in Latin America, nevermind the US.

Yet the predominant element is and was always European and in daily life and general culture, especially in the pred. European South, you find an European cultural environment largely which is not less European than many places in the USA.

What's more important than the political borderline between Uruguay and Argentina to Brazil is the climatic borderline inside of Brazil.

The South and to a certain degree the coastal line is good for Europeans, even if they live as simple farmers, the rest less so:
http://www.visionofbrazil.com/images/Country-Info-Climate-Map.jpg

Not by accident this are the European dominated areas, the most favourable places for the European people, plus their domesticated animals and plants.

I know there are other factors to consider as well, but Brazil as a whole is like a colony of those Europeans spanning throughout rather foreign terrain...

Obviously in this colony you can find many things, which doesn't make the South less European however.

Rio Grande do Sul (Portuguese pronunciation: [ˈʁiu ˈɡɾɐ̃dʒi du ˈsuɫ] ( listen);[1] lit. "Great River of the South") is the southernmost state in Brazil, and the state with the fifth highest Human Development Index (HDI) in the country

The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) counted 8,776,000 White people (80.80%), 1,495,000 Brown (Multiracial) people (13.77%), 529,000 Black people (4.87%), 43,000 Amerindian people (0.40%), 11,000 Asian people (0.10%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande_do_Sul

Santa Catarina (help·info) ("Saint Catherine"; Portuguese pronunciation: [ˈsɐ̃ta kataˈɾina][1]) is a state in southern Brazil with one of the highest standards of living in Latin America.

The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) census revealed the following numbers: 5,297,000 White people (86.96%), 608,000 Brown (Multiracial) people (9.98%), 160,000 Black people (2.63%), 15,000 Asian people (0.25%), 5,000 Amerindian people (0.09%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina_(state)

Curitiba, the capital, is famous for its high quality of life, compared to the Brazilian average, and the Ilha do Mel, next to the historical Paranaguá, is another destination for eco-tourists.

The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) census revealed the following numbers: 7,601,000 White people (71.68%), 2,577,000 Brown (Multiracial) people (24.30%), 274,000 Black people (2.59%), 108,000 Asian people (1.02%), 38,000 Amerindian people (0.36%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paran%C3%A1_(state)

São Paulo (Portuguese pronunciation: [sɐ̃w̃ ˈpawlu] ( listen)) is a state in Brazil. It is the major industrial and economic powerhouse of the Brazilian economy. Named after Saint Paul, São Paulo has the largest population, industrial park and economic production of the country. It is the richest state of Brazil. The capital, São Paulo, is also the largest city in South America.

Often dubbed the "locomotive of Brazil", the state alone is responsible for 33.9% of Brazilian GDP, being the state with the highest GDP. In addition to increased GDP, São Paulo also has the third highest Human Development Index, the second highest GDP per capita, the second lowest infant mortality rate and the fourth lowest rate of illiteracy among the states of Brazil.

The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) census revealed the following numbers: 29,245,300 White people (70.0%), 10,026,000 Brown (Multiracial) people (24.0%), 1,671,000 Black people (4.0%), 584,000 Asian people (1. 8%), 83,000 Amerindian people (0.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_(state)

Now compare that with a colony:

The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) census revealed the following numbers: 4,988,000 Brown (Multiracial) people (69.9%), 1,641,000 White people (23.0%), 470,000 Black people (6.6%), 35,000 Asian or Amerindian people (0.5%).

Share of the Brazilian economy: 1.8% (2005).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%A1

The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) census revealed the following numbers: 4,271,000 Brown (Multiracial) people (66.74%), 1,636,000 White people (25.57%), 410,000 Black people (6.41%), 43,000 Asian people (0.67%), 39,000 Amerindian people (0.60%).

Maranhão is one of the poorest states of Brazil

Share of the Brazilian economy: 0.9% (2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maranh%C3%A3o

Especially if talking about the Brazilian economic powerhouse, you come back to the European core of the country primarily!

And those Northern regions were for good often settled by the multiracials, because as I said, in some of those regions, European Europids are just not suited for, especially not for low and manual work under that conditions.

However, that doesn't make the whole country "a different civilisation" in my book.

Joe McCarthy

01-23-2011, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
However, that doesn't make the whole country "a different civilisation" in my book.

They're immersed in a culture that is part of a civilization that is decidedly non-Western. Brazil's identity was forged centuries ago. One shouldn't just assume that a country will be Western just because it has whites from Western backgrounds. Many Brazilians are relatively recent immigrants, and have assimilated into what has long been a non-Western cultural mosaic.

Agrippa

01-24-2011, 06:03 PM

They're immersed in a culture that is part of a civilization that is decidedly non-Western. Brazil's identity was forged centuries ago. One shouldn't just assume that a country will be Western just because it has whites from Western backgrounds. Many Brazilians are relatively recent immigrants, and have assimilated into what has long been a non-Western cultural mosaic.

I'm not just talking about their ancestry, but also the way they organise themselves, the culture the practise and the like.

Name to me exactly what are the huge differences, bigger than what you can find between Western people, MUCH BIGGER, between "Westerners" and "Brazilians"?

And don't come up with some music, dances, the carneval or Catholicism, because those are either European traditions or not more African influenced than what you have in many parts of the USA.

Joe McCarthy

01-24-2011, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
I'm not just talking about their ancestry, but also the way they organise themselves, the culture the practise and the like.

This sort of yardstick could be used to say Japan is Western. In fact, it often is.

Name to me exactly what are the huge differences, bigger than what you can find between Western people, MUCH BIGGER, between "Westerners" and "Brazilians"?

I think I've already adequately demonstrated the distinctions. Our fundamental disagreement seems to be that you're defining culture and civilization in particularist terms, i.e., applying it to a people independent of the larger society in which they live. Culture and civilization is probably at least as much a matter of assimilation as it is race. If a country adheres to what is very much a hybrid culture, such as Brazil, then it matters not what particular individuals within that culture do. Otherwise we'd be left with absurdities such as saying Germany is Islamic, rather than Western, because certain individuals within it express Islamic cultural traits.

Lurker

01-24-2011, 11:13 PM

This sort of yardstick could be used to say Japan is Western. In fact, it often is.

I think I've already adequately demonstrated the distinctions. Our fundamental disagreement seems to be that you're defining culture and civilization in particularist terms, i.e., applying it to a people independent of the larger society in which they live. Culture and civilization is probably at least as much a matter of assimilation as it is race. If a country adheres to what is very much a hybrid culture, such as Brazil, then it matters not what particular individuals within that culture do. Otherwise we'd be left with absurdities such as saying Germany is Islamic, rather than Western, because certain individuals within it express Islamic cultural traits.

Is the US culture not a hybrid as well, since most of its music comes from the African diaspora there?

Joe McCarthy

01-24-2011, 11:22 PM

Is the US culture not a hybrid as well, since most of its music comes from the African diaspora there?

You might ask the same, of say Spain, given that much of its artistic expression, including dance, comes from Gypsies.

Agrippa

01-25-2011, 10:54 AM

This sort of yardstick could be used to say Japan is Western. In fact, it often is.

Well, Shintoism and Buddhism are definitely less European than Catholicism and their ancestry and other expressions are - let's put it that way: Very modern, in many respects a copy of the West, but A CHANGED copy.

To me someone living like traditional Catholics 100 years ago in Europe is more European than an Asian with a cell phone and better BNP.

I'm not talking about superiority in this respect, just about traditions and culture and what's more occidental. Because Western = occidental European, not American Capitalism...

I think I've already adequately demonstrated the distinctions.

Not to me, sorry, I don't see it.

Our fundamental disagreement seems to be that you're defining culture and civilization in particularist terms, i.e., applying it to a people independent of the larger society in which they live.

Well, the majority of Brazilians is closer to what I call occidental civilisation, individually even more so.

After all, living in a state means nothing, don't you agree? Or do you have more in common with your resident Jews, Amerindians, Mexican mestizos and Near Eastern Muslims than with people living close to the way their ancestors lived in Brazil, people with a Spanish, Italian, German, Scandinavian etc. background?

Even some US-slum-like areas are less European than some Southern Brazilian cities...

Culture and civilization is probably at least as much a matter of assimilation as it is race.

Point is, the Southern Brazilians in particular are European by race AND culture.

If a country adheres to what is very much a hybrid culture, such as Brazil, then it matters not what particular individuals within that culture do.

What else than music and dances or the like is really non-European in the whiter parts of Brazil? Tell me that? And tell me the difference to the popular US-culture.

You said US-whiggers are less "African" than white Brazilians - I say they aren't.

Otherwise we'd be left with absurdities such as saying Germany is Islamic, rather than Western, because certain individuals within it express Islamic cultural traits.

Yes, they are foreign elements, which is why they should be, if becoming too many and too influential, removed and going in their sphere.

Yet in Brazil the European part is the absolutely dominant one in every respect throughout the country, so if you don't go for race, seriously, Brazil would be even more European than what I would have said.

Because to me many parts and cultural aspects of Brazil are less European, also because of race...for little other reasons.

You might ask the same, of say Spain, given that much of its artistic expression, including dance, comes from Gypsies.

It is completely normal and healthy to adopt foreign cultural elements which seem to be favourable, the crucial aspect is to do it in a selective way, so chosing as a group what you like and what not.

F.e. Germans don't want Islam, but they got Islamicised in a way by force, through politicians and foreign birth rates, foreign mass immigration.

They could have decided to accept this or that practise of Muslims, which wouldn't have changed their European status overall - if being done selectively.

Now the same here. Brazil has an European culture which adopted just certain foreign aspects, same for the US.

The more European parts are as European in EVERY RESPECT as the US. I don't see the difference. If you don't like Catholicism and some more traditional European aspects, it is an INNER EUROPEAN ISSUE!

And if you define "Western" by the American Capitalism and Liberalism, oh well, then Western is a worthless term and even hostile towards what being European really mean or at least meant.

We should better use occidental civilisation then and oh yes, Brazil is part of that - at least its still more European parts and those are THE DOMINANT inside the country, regardless of what outsiders think to see.

Joe McCarthy

01-25-2011, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
Well, Shintoism and Buddhism are definitely less European than Catholicism and their ancestry and other expressions are - let's put it that way: Very modern, in many respects a copy of the West, but A CHANGED copy.

To me someone living like traditional Catholics 100 years ago in Europe is more European than an Asian with a cell phone and better BNP.

I'd agree, but then in moving beyond ancestry you basically delved into the arena of technics and forms, and Japan is rather 'Western' in that regard. The important point though is that neither Brazil nor Japan have a dominant Western culture.

Because Western = occidental European, not American Capitalism...

Your hatred for capitalism is well known, but there are few things with more history in the West than capitalism, and America, as you rightly affirm, is its leading proponent.

Not to me, sorry, I don't see it.

It's pretty simple. Brazil, from its inception, involved a blending and meeting of cultures. The Portuguese were the trailblazers in niggerfication. On the other hand, America is a very late comer in that regard, having only had our racial system overthrown in the last few decades after centuries of Anglo Protestant white supremacy.

After all, living in a state means nothing, don't you agree?

I wouldn't say it means nothing. It's safe to say that an American black is more culturally American than you are, and that a German Turk is more culturally German than I am.

[Or do you have more in common with your resident Jews, Amerindians, Mexican mestizos and Near Eastern Muslims than with people living close to the way their ancestors lived in Brazil, people with a Spanish, Italian, German, Scandinavian etc. background?
/QUOTE]

Overall I have more in common with the whites you mention, if only because of shared origins. But we are speaking of cultural attributes and it's safe to assume that white Brazilians have more in common with non-white Brazilians culturally than they do with Danes.

[QUOTE]F.e. Germans don't want Islam, but they got Islamicised in a way by force, through politicians and foreign birth rates, foreign mass immigration.

Americans never wanted Mexicans, and still really don't, but we have them nonetheless.

You said US-whiggers are less "African" than white Brazilians - I say they aren't.

Well, you seem to have a romantic vision that white Brazilians are yeoman farmers on the Volga. Perhaps you should spend some time watching Brazilian media.

Agrippa

01-25-2011, 05:10 PM

I'd agree, but then in moving beyond ancestry you basically delved into the arena of technics and forms, and Japan is rather 'Western' in that regard. The important point though is that neither Brazil nor Japan have a dominant Western culture.

The first time I read that was with "The Clash of Civilizations" from Samuel P. Huntington. Before that, I never read that, it must be typically American in a way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Clash_of_Civilizations_map2.png

It is much to simplified and he even gave Argentina and Uruguay to his "Latin American Civilization", which is just crazy if you make such a big deal out of it and put Argentina together with countries like Bolivia and Guatemala?!

What's that worth?

It's pretty simple. Brazil, from its inception, involved a blending and meeting of cultures. The Portuguese were the trailblazers in niggerfication. On the other hand, America is a very late comer in that regard, having only had our racial system overthrown in the last few decades after centuries of Anglo Protestant white supremacy.

Yet the Southern states of Brazil are more European in every regard than various states of the USA!

I'm not talking just about individuals, but about some of the biggest and most important states here!

I wouldn't say it means nothing. It's safe to say that an American black is more culturally American than you are, and that a German Turk is more culturally German than I am.

American black has no real other identity than a newly constructed one, after all they came from slavery and Protestantism, but you can't really compare that with Europeans in South America or Muslims in Europe...

Overall I have more in common with the whites you mention, if only because of shared origins. But we are speaking of cultural attributes and it's safe to assume that white Brazilians have more in common with non-white Brazilians culturally than they do with Danes.

Yes in some aspects surely, but funnily, exactly not in those which are important for civilisation!

Because whether they speak the same language and dance to the same music is not exactly the same like the same civilisation..

Americans never wanted Mexicans, and still really don't, but we have them nonetheless.

Many Brazilians didn't liked Negroids, slavery lasted long there, you know?

Also Americans love Mexican food it seems, probably they Anglos get "Mexicanicised" that way? :cool:

Well, you seem to have a romantic vision that white Brazilians are yeoman farmers on the Volga. Perhaps you should spend some time watching Brazilian media.

Well, I can also watch US-media. Evangelicals behave quite often like some Voodoo fetishists in Africa, they are no occidental Christians.

Or talking about the music? Even the way many speak!

Honestly, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Lurker

01-25-2011, 05:12 PM

A good part of Brazil was settled much like the Caribbean, with very large slave owning plantations that produced cotton, sugarcane, cocoa, etc. Those slaves came mainly from captured Native American tribes (at the beginning) and imported African slaves (until 1850). That's the case of the colonization that happened in much of the Northeast, the North and in three states of the southeast (Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and Espirito Santo). So the civilization that was created in those parts can't be considered Western if the Caribbean can't.

(I'd also say that Southern United States (the Confederate States of America) couldn't be considered Western as well, since the basis of their civilization is also slave-owning farms. Both Brazil in 1808 (the time when the Portuguese Crown left Europe) and 1850 (the date when slave importation was prohibited under British pressure) and the CSA in 1860 had 33% of their population as Black slaves. But that's a different discussion.)

The point is that the colonization pattern in Southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Parana) is much different from the rest of Brazil. That region was supposed to be under Spanish territory, so the first settlements happened in military outposts (like Sacramento, in nowadays Uruguay). Then the Portuguse sent Azorean families to settle in those lands in the 1700's and early 1800's, to occupy them in the Crown's name and make a better claim in the negotiation tables with Spain.

After Brazil was independent, the Southern region still remained dangerously underpopulated. Argentina, Uruguay or Paraguay could take those empty lands. So the Brazilian government started importing European colonists (from Italy, the German states, Poland, Russia, etc) to settle in those lands. The Brazilian military or those colonists themselves would fight the Native American tribes in those lands, killing them/sending them to reservations and taking their territory. They would then establish several small farms in those lands, planting wheat, corn, potatoes, raising cows, chicken, etc.

The pattern of colonization of Southern Brazil is very much like of the US West/Australia/New Zealand, with the military or colonists fighting the Natives, then several immigrant families from Europe settling in those lands. There wasn't much of a mixing of civilizations in those cases as the replacement of one with another.

Brazil has many differences between its regions. It'd be a similar case if the US had not only made itself independent in the 1700's, but also conquered the other British colonies (Canada, Jamaica and other Caribbean islands, Guyanna). Would you consider the US to be nonwestern because part of it (Jamaica, Guyanna) isn't? Would you consider France to be nonwestern because part of it (legally) is formed by Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guyanna? Its the same case with Brazil, except that the non-White/non-Western part is larger and is more known in other countries than the White/Western part.

Joe McCarthy

01-26-2011, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
It is much to simplified and he even gave Argentina and Uruguay to his "Latin American Civilization", which is just crazy if you make such a big deal out of it and put Argentina together with countries like Bolivia and Guatemala?!

Not at all. Uruguay and Argentina have much more in common culturally with other Latin American states than they do with the West. This is reflected in their shared experience of revolt against Spain, their attitudes toward the outside world, and their grouping together in political-economic organizations. If they were truly standouts in the region, such as say, South Africa was in Africa, their political and cultural outlook would be reflected in membership in European organizations rather than Latin American ones.

Agrippa

01-26-2011, 09:17 PM

Not at all. Uruguay and Argentina have much more in common culturally with other Latin American states than they do with the West. This is reflected in their shared experience of revolt against Spain, their attitudes toward the outside world, and their grouping together in political-economic organizations. If they were truly standouts in the region, such as say, South Africa was in Africa, their political and cultural outlook would be reflected in membership in European organizations rather than Latin American ones.

You organise with the regionals - or doesn't have the US of A Mexico in the NAFTA?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Sorry, that argument is ridiculous.

Looking a Buenos Aires normal districts, it is a totally European appearance!

I would even say that many of those cities have a more European character than many others in the US.

Strongly influenced by European culture, Buenos Aires is sometimes referred to as the "Paris of South America".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buenos_Aires#Culture

There come various American cities to my mind which are less European...

Joe McCarthy

01-26-2011, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
You organise with the regionals - or doesn't have the US of A Mexico in the NAFTA?!

Just as France organizes with North Africa. The key though is that no one will seriously contend that France or the US primarily sees itself as part of North Africa or Latin America, just as no one would seriously contend that Argentina and Uraguay sees itself as part of North America or Europe.

Let's put it this way: in the conflict over the Falklands between Britain and Argentina, which side do you think Brazil and Uraguay is on, the West, or Latin America?

Joe McCarthy

01-26-2011, 09:43 PM

And similarly, when Portugal was battling African insurgents in Angola, which side do you think Rhodesia and South Africa was on? ;)

Agrippa

01-26-2011, 09:54 PM

Just as France organizes with North Africa. The key though is that no one will seriously contend that France or the US primarily sees itself as part of North Africa or Latin America, just as no one would seriously contend that Argentina and Uraguay sees itself as part of North America or Europe.

Let's put it this way: in the conflict over the Falklands between Britain and Argentina, which side do you think Brazil and Uraguay is on, the West, or Latin America?

That is geopolicy, to me, that is something different from Civilisation.

You can have a deadly war with people of the same Civilisation, that's not the point neither.

Joe McCarthy

01-26-2011, 09:59 PM

That is geopolicy, to me, that is something different from Civilisation.

You can have a deadly war with people of the same Civilisation, that's not the point neither.

Yet geopolitics is influenced by culture and civilization. Muslims back Muslims in conflicts with other civilizations regardless of place. Similarly, Latin America closes ranks for the most part in inter-civilizational disputes, such as the Falklands. The rarity is when a state steps out of civilizational lockstep, such as the French alliance with the Ottomans, which predictably elicited cries of treason from European Christendom, despite the fact that much of it, particularly the Habsburgs, were regularly at war with France.

Savant

01-27-2011, 03:44 AM

Agrippa

01-27-2011, 10:18 AM

Protestantism is by far more "western" than Catholicism. The majority of Americans are not what you call "evangelicals". Even if they were, that's still more "western" than Catholicism, or other orthodox forms of Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, etc). Any form of Protestantism is decidedly more "Western" than the aforementioned.

My point was something different, because Catholicism and social structures in some parts of Latin America are further removed from Catholic European culture as well.

But if you take this as a yardstick, the Evangelicals are MINIMUM as much removed from European standards as well.

And there is no big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism insofar, as the Protestant culture is solely based on the Western civilisation founded by Catholicism and the Catholic states and people.

It is an offspring of it, or would you say that Protestantism in its current form would have been even possible in the Orthodox world?

I doubt it!

So if some mixed ones in Latin America, practicising a changed Catholic-Western culture, alienated from real Europeans, this doesn't make all of Latin America a special "Civilisation", same for the US of A.

Just the same yardstick.

Evangelicals are in no way more European - they might be more Western, but not more European, because they practise Judeo-Christianity, even more so the Capitalist Calvinist sects.

They are in no way more European than Latin America, if you say "Western", Western means only protestant work ethic and Capitalism, pretty meaningless.

Savant

01-27-2011, 12:03 PM

Ok, so now you are changing your tune a bit. Now you are saying Evangelicalism is "more Western" but not "more European", and that South American Catholic countries are now "as European" as American Evangelicals. This is a different statement than the one you initially made, you revised a bit :D .

There is a HUGE difference between Protestant and Catholic cultures. You make the claim that South America is not "more Western" but "more European" in culture, but there is more than one "culture" within Europe. The Northern and Western nations of Europe (UK, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands etc) are Protestant nations and Protestant in culture. These are the more developed nations of Europe and generally thought of as "more western" than the Catholic world. These are a part of the Protestant cultural tradition shared with America, also shared by the other more developed nations of the Western world such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. America lies within, and in many ways leads, this cultural enclave.

Now, the other European cultural enclave, the Catholic/Orthodox one, is the one you are talking about, which is shared with South America, and many other 3rd world destinations. The constituencies of the Catholic/Orthodox cultural enclave in Europe are obviously Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Austria, and most all the Eastern European countries. There are a few countries on the cusp, such as Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium(with the more prosperous regions within these nations usually being the more prosperous, commercially active ones). This cultural enclave is the one which South America belongs in. You were trying to combine these two cultures and cherry pick which belongs to which.

Your point that Protestantism would not exist without the "Orthodox world" is kind of moot because neither would exist without Judaism. So, by your logic, since Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity was an offspring of Judaism that means the Orthodox world is an extention of Jewish culture? LMAO! Oh and just FYI, Evangelicalism started in the 1700s in Holland, England, and Germany. Not in the USA.

My point was something different, because Catholicism and social structures in some parts of Latin America are further removed from Catholic European culture as well.

But if you take this as a yardstick, the Evangelicals are MINIMUM as much removed from European standards as well.

And there is no big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism insofar, as the Protestant culture is solely based on the Western civilisation founded by Catholicism and the Catholic states and people.

It is an offspring of it, or would you say that Protestantism in its current form would have been even possible in the Orthodox world?

I doubt it!

So if some mixed ones in Latin America, practicising a changed Catholic-Western culture, alienated from real Europeans, this doesn't make all of Latin America a special "Civilisation", same for the US of A.

Just the same yardstick.

Evangelicals are in no way more European - they might be more Western, but not more European, because they practise Judeo-Christianity, even more so the Capitalist Calvinist sects.

They are in no way more European than Latin America, if you say "Western", Western means only protestant work ethic and Capitalism, pretty meaningless.

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 12:35 PM

Savant

01-27-2011, 12:50 PM

LOL!! Then by that logic, because all Catholicism is "rooted in" Jewish monotheistic theology (and indeed Christianity for much of the first era of it's existence was merely a denomination of Judaism), thus the entire concept of "Western" is Jewish. LMAO @ Western = Catholic. There are more non Western Catholics in the world than European Catholics. This is just too funny...

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/News/Religion/Catholic_world.gif

Protestantism is not "more Western" than Catholicism, the entire concept of Western is rooted in Catholic Christianity (Western vs. Eastern Christianity). Protestantism was a reformation within the Catholic world. Protestantism departed from some principles, which had been core to a "Western" understanding.

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 01:42 PM

LOL!! Then by that logic, because all Catholicism is "rooted in" Jewish monotheistic theology (and indeed Christianity for much of the first era of it's existence was merely a denomination of Judaism), thus the entire concept of "Western" is Jewish. LMAO @ Western = Catholic. There are more non Western Catholics in the world than European Catholics. This is just too funny...

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/News/Religion/Catholic_world.gif

So tell me then, what is the concept of "Western" based on? According to which basis was the division of East and West made in Europe? Was it the protestants who came up with it? What is it that makes Protestantism more Western?

Also, I would like to know how Christianity is a denomination of Judaism, when Judaism rejects the NT, which is the basis for Christianity?

As for there being non-Western Catholics, which religious groups are most active in missionary work in the third world? It ain't Catholics.

Lurker

01-27-2011, 01:57 PM

That is geopolicy, to me, that is something different from Civilisation.

You can have a deadly war with people of the same Civilisation, that's not the point neither.

I agree. That's geopolitics. Chile sided with Great Britain on that issue, even helping some lost British soldiers. That happened because Chile and Argentina are rivals.

Civilization is a whole different issue, that has to do with religion, language and traditions.

Savant

01-27-2011, 02:18 PM

So tell me then, what is the concept of "Western" based on?

The concept of "Western" is based on many things. Among them is the Protestant work ethic, Liberalized economic policy, iand Enlightenment/Post Enlightenment ideals. It's far more contemporary and the rate of development and industrialization in it's nations reflect that.

According to which basis was the division of East and West made in Europe? Was it the protestants who came up with it?

Generally speaking, the Protestant Reformation. Each nation threw in their lot with the culture of their choosing. Some would-be protestant regions further south were either forced back into Catholicism, or the Protestants were kicked out (i.e. French Huguenots)

What is it that makes Protestantism more Western?

See above.

Also, I would like to know how Christianity is a denomination of Judaism, when Judaism rejects the NT, which is the basis for Christianity?

I didn't say that, you just made it up. I said that Christianity WAS a denomination of Judaism for much of it's initial era, and it was. No Christian scholar disputes this fact, and it's pretty much universally known and accepted. The NT is based on the OT, and Christianity does not reject the OT, it merely holds that some parts of it are revised, but the OT is very much a part of Christianity.

As for there being non-Western Catholics, which religious groups are most active in missionary work in the third world? It ain't Catholics.

More importantly MOST Catholics are 3rd worlders. Catholicism is mostly a 3rd world religion. Fact.

Don

01-27-2011, 02:53 PM

Agrippa

01-27-2011, 03:06 PM

Ok, so now you are changing your tune a bit. Now you are saying Evangelicalism is "more Western" but not "more European"

That is because I see now, that what some of you have in mind with "Western" is just Americanism or however you want to call it, but not the same as being European or Neo-European (colonies).

and that South American Catholic countries are now "as European" as American Evangelicals. This is a different statement than the one you initially made, you revised a bit :D .

Take into consideration what I wrote in the last paragraph and then tell me how so?

There is a HUGE difference between Protestant and Catholic cultures. You make the claim that South America is not "more Western" but "more European" in culture

To me they are both, but some here use "Western" in a strange way, that's why I tried to point to their definition-problem, which makes "Western" not the same as European.

but there is more than one "culture" within Europe.

Yes, but only one Civilisation in the Catholic-Protestant countries AT LEAST.

Now, the other European cultural enclave, the Catholic/Orthodox one, is the one you are talking about, which is shared with South America, and many other 3rd world destinations.

Sure, the Catholic parts of Europe are all backwarded, like France, Northern Italy, Southern Germany, half of Switzerland, Austria, Czechs etc.

The constituencies of the Catholic/Orthodox cultural enclave in Europe are obviously Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Austria, and most all the Eastern European countries. There are a few countries on the cusp, such as Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium(with the more prosperous regions within these nations usually being the more prosperous, commercially active ones). This cultural enclave is the one which South America belongs in. You were trying to combine these two cultures and cherry pick which belongs to which.

No, I just point to the same Civilisation, being more Capitalist and having a more pronounced ("Protestant") "working ethic" (what a name), doesn't make you part of different civilisation.

Your point that Protestantism would not exist without the "Orthodox world" is kind of moot because neither would exist without Judaism.

You misinterpreted what I said: Without Catholicism, without that basic Western culture with the Pope and all of that, European Protestantism would be unthinkable!

It would have never grown out of the orthodox world in my opinion.

So, by your logic, since Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity was an offspring of Judaism that means the Orthodox world is an extention of Jewish culture? LMAO! Oh and just FYI, Evangelicalism started in the 1700s in Holland, England, and Germany. Not in the USA

Now you are just trolling, because I never said that, re-read what I wrote or stop the trolling!

Protestantism is not "more Western" than Catholicism, the entire concept of Western is rooted in Catholic Christianity (Western vs. Eastern Christianity). Protestantism was a reformation within the Catholic world. Protestantism departed from some principles, which had been core to a "Western" understanding.

Exactly!

Among them is the Protestant work ethic, Liberalized economic policy, and Enlightenment/Post Enlightenment ideals.

Ok, if for you Liberalcapitalism is what "Western" is about, than "Western concepts" are the greatest enemy of Europeans.

And for the better elements, like parts of the Enlightenment, you probably forgot how much of it came from France, a Catholic nation...

Some people's definitions of "Western" seem to be really thin and poor after all, no wonder there is such a confusion about the European character of Latin America...

By the way, here for the "whiteness" of American regions:
http://i56.tinypic.com/evc412.png

From this thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23365

Wyn

01-27-2011, 03:15 PM

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 03:45 PM

By the logic that Protestantism is more Western than Catholicism, Atheism must be the most Western religion of all. :p

Savant

01-27-2011, 03:46 PM

That is because I see now, that what some of you have in mind with "Western" is just Americanism or however you want to call it, but not the same as being European or Neo-European (colonies).

Not at all, that's just your fantasy idealism, because all of the things you define as "Americanism" originated in Europe. LMAO!

To me they are both, but some here use "Western" in a strange way, that's why I tried to point to their definition-problem, which makes "Western" not the same as European.

Not at all, they use "Western" in the same way that most of the rest of the world does. It's largely just in your fanciful world view that your definition holds, and in that of your few your co-romanticists. It's just that you tried to draw a distinction between "western" and "european" as a maneuvering tactic when your inaccuracies were pointed out, that's all. Don't worry, it wasn't really obvious or anything. :D

Yes, but only one Civilisation in the Catholic-Protestant countries AT LEAST.

They are two distinctive cultures. To deny that just makes you look desperate or ignorant. Particularly with all of the well documented history of said distinction (Protestant reformation etc)

Sure, the Catholic parts of Europe are all backwarded, like France, Northern Italy, Southern Germany, half of Switzerland, Austria, Czechs etc.

LOL!! Yeah, because only the Northern part of Italy is Catholic... LMAO!

No, I just point to the same Civilisation, being more Capitalist and having a more pronounced ("Protestant") "working ethic" (what a name), doesn't make you part of different civilisation.

See above, Catholic and Protestant sub cultures within Europe are very distinctive. Culturally, politically, economically, with even wars and violent conflicts having transpired between them. To argue otherwise is to appear ignorant or desperate. Sorry if that bursts your little fantasy world view, but it's true.

You misinterpreted what I said: Without Catholicism, without that basic Western culture with the Pope and all of that, European Protestantism would be unthinkable!

It would have never grown out of the orthodox world in my opinion.

Yes, and Catholicism/Orthodox Christianity grew out of Judaism. So, by your rationale, all Westernism, including Catholicism and all Christianity is just an extension of Jewish culture.

Now you are just trolling, because I never said that, re-read what I wrote or stop the trolling!

I'm not trolling at all. In fact I have presented coherent and factual basis for all my assertions, which are already the commonly accepted notions. That's just an ad hominem attack because you don't like the points I've made and inaccuracies of your flawed premise I have pointed out.

^

Exactly!

Ok, if for you Liberalcapitalism is what "Western" is about, than "Western concepts" are the greatest enemy of Europeans.

Funny, you should tell that to the Europeans who created it... You should also tell that to the Western, Protestant nations which have become the most industrially, technologically, and economically developed nations because of it, I don't think they got the memo... :D Also, I didn't say that free market capitalism was the only criteria for being Western, you just made that up. Nice strawman though :D

And for the better elements, like parts of the Enlightenment, you probably forgot how much of it came from France, a Catholic nation...

LOL! Wow, well I guess this comment solves the ignorant/desperate conundrum... Just FYI

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority. It is also known as the Age of Reason.
Developing simultaneously in France, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the American colonies, the movement culminated in the Atlantic Revolutions, especially the success of the American Revolution, which resulted in independence from the British Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Some people's definitions of "Western" seem to be really thin and poor after all, no wonder there is such a confusion about the European character of Latin America...

Actually, you are the one who seems to be confused. The commonly accepted notions are mine.

By the way, here for the "whiteness" of American regions:

Nice ad hominem. You should at least get accurate figures if you are going to make irrelevant ad hominem attacks though, that map is far from accurate...

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 03:54 PM

LOL!! Yeah, because only the Northern part of Italy is Catholic... LMAO!

I'm not sure what's so funny? Northern Italy is Catholic and one of the wealthiest areas of Europe. The fact that Southern Italy is also Catholic doesn't change that fact.

Nice ad hominem. You should at least get accurate figures if you are going to make irrelevant ad hominem attacks though, that map is far from accurate...

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is. If you are going to use big words, at least use them where they fit, not where you think they make you sound smart. That way it doesn't have the opposite of the intended effect.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/MrMacMan/Forum%20stuff/roflcopter.gif

Savant

01-27-2011, 04:07 PM

I'm not sure what's so funny? Northern Italy is Catholic and one of the wealthiest areas of Europe. The fact that Southern Italy is also Catholic doesn't change that fact.

It's just a form of cherry picking facts to justify a premise, that's why he was so desperate he had to specify Northern Italy, because his premise is factually flawed, which is why he's forced to resort to cherry picking individual examples to argue for a broad premise. Much like anti racists try to pick single examples of black phds to then claim that blacks are the cognitive equals of whites. It's a form of non sequitur.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is. If you are going to use big words, at least use them where they fit, not where you think they make you sound smart. That way it doesn't have the opposite of the intended effect.

You obviously don't know what it is, but then again you are not a native anglophone, so I'll throw you a bone and help you out...

Ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.

You're welcome. :cool:

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 04:17 PM

It's just a form of cherry picking facts to justify a premise, that's why he was so desperate he had to specify Northern Italy, because his premise is factually flawed, which is why he's forced to resort to cherry picking individual examples to argue for a broad premise. Much like anti racists try to pick single examples of black phds to then claim that blacks are the cognitive equals of whites. It's a form of non sequitur.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Europe-GDP-PPP-per-capita-map.png

Many of the wealthiest areas in Europe are Catholic, while some of the poorest are Protestant. Who's cherry-picking? Iceland went bankrupt, despite being Protestant. :rolleyes:

You obviously don't know what it is, but then again you are not a native anglophone, so I'll throw you a bone and help you out...

Ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.

You're welcome. :cool:

So you know what it is but don't know how to use it? He provided a statistic on White people in the Americas. How is this related to your person? Not at all, it was related to your argument of Catholicism being a religion for non-whites. LMAO?

Savant

01-27-2011, 04:26 PM

You are cherry picking. Iceland consistently has one of the higher standards of living in Europe. Sure, you can find some wealthy catholic areas, as can you find poor protestant ones- just as you can find white idiots and black particle physicists. However protestant nations are on average wealthier than catholic ones. Protestant nations on average have higher living standards than catholic ones. Protestant nations on average have higher economic, industrial, and technological development than catholic ones. Can you find individual outliers? Of course, just as you can find black geniuses and white idiots... But of course, that's more non sequitur... Your little map is meaningless because it doesn't compare protestant nations to catholic ones, and of course the protestant ones are on average wealthier. Whine, scream, and stomp your feet all you like, but it will still be true... Of course it's not coincidental that the wealthier catholic nations are the ones nearest to the protestant nations, just as it's not coincidental that the materially better off blacks, are the blacks who live in white nations...

Yes, it is ad hominem, because I am a white person from America. It has very much to do with me personally. Another example of ad hominem would be if I said something like... "This entire argument is over your head anyways because you are a moron, simpleton Catholic who can't grasp these topics. That's why you are only able to make invalid and irrelevant counter arguments..."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Europe-GDP-PPP-per-capita-map.png

Many of the wealthiest areas in Europe are Catholic, while some of the poorest are Protestant. Who's cherry-picking? Iceland went bankrupt, despite being Protestant. :rolleyes:

So you know what it is but don't know how to use it? He provided a statistic on White people in the Americas. How is this related to your person? Not at all, it was related to your argument of Catholicism being a religion for non-whites. LMAO?

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 04:31 PM

You are cherry picking. Iceland consistently has one of the higher standards of living in Europe. Sure, you can find some wealthy catholic areas, as can you find poor protestant ones- just as you can find white idiots and black particle physicists. However protestant nations are on average wealthier than catholic ones. Protestant nations on average have higher living standards than catholic ones. Protestant nations on average have higher economic, industrial, and technological development than catholic ones. Can you find individual outliers? Of course, just as you can find black geniuses and white idiots... But of course, that's more non sequitur...

I'm not saying Protestant countries don't tend to be wealthier. Catholic countries tend to be more traditional. But I can understand if you think that having more money means you're more Western, I sort of expect it from you. :D

Yes, it is ad hominem, because I am a white person from America. It has very much to do with me personally. Another example of ad hominem would be if I said something like... "This entire argument is over your head anyways because you are a moron, simpleton Catholic who can't grasp these topics. That's why you are only able to make invalid and irrelevant counter arguments..."

So... When you speak of American Whites, and someone disagrees and uses a statistic to back his claim, that constitutes and ad hominem against you and all American whites? :D And is your stance an ad hominem against all Catholic Whites of S. America?

Dare I say...

http://m8up.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ROFL-MAO.jpg

Savant

01-27-2011, 04:39 PM

Way to edit my post...

I'm not saying Protestant countries don't tend to be wealthier. Catholic countries tend to be more traditional. But I can understand if you think that having more money means you're more Western, I sort of expect it from you. :D

Being industrially and technologically more developed is highly associated with being more western. Producing more economic output per capita is highly associated with being more western, very much so. Yes catholic countries tend to be "more traditional" (less advanced and less developed). That's the very same thing they say about South America, Africa, and Arab states.. LOL!! Thanks for proving my point...

So... When you speak of American Whites, and someone disagrees and uses a statistic to back his claim, that constitutes and ad hominem against you and all American whites? :D And is your stance an ad hominem against all Catholic Whites of S. America?

He didn't use any statistic to back his claim, he used a map made with faulty statistics. But more importantly, his map had nothing to do with any "claim" or any part of the debate. American demographics were not a part of the discussion. It was irrelevant, and related to me personally hence rendering it ad hominem. My what an educational day this is turning out to be for you... :D

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 04:52 PM

Way to edit my post...
Dude, you're getting paranoid. I can't edit your posts.

Being industrially and technologically more developed is highly associated with being more western. Producing more economic output per capita is highly associated with being more western, very much so. Yes catholic countries tend to be "more traditional" (less advanced and less developed). That's the very same thing they say about South America, Africa, and Arab states.. LOL!! Thanks for proving my point...

Aha! I should've known Japan is more Western than France. Of course, I proved your point: those that are traditionally western are actually non-western because of it! :D LIKE Ay-rabs!

He didn't use any statistic to back his claim, he used a map made with faulty statistics.

You are the king of contradicting yourself, in one sentence no less. :D

But more importantly, his map had nothing to do with any "claim" or any part of the debate. American demographics were not a part of the discussion. It was irrelevant, and related to me personally hence rendering it ad hominem. My what an educational day this is turning out to be for you... :D

You seem to be suffering from short-term memory loss. Let me refresh your memory: in this thread, there has been an item of debate spanning over several pages, on which you've voiced your own opinion on several occassion.

Exhibit A

There are more non Western Catholics in the world than European Catholics. This is just too funny...

Exhibit B

You make the claim that South America is not "more Western" but "more European" in culture, but there is more than one "culture" within Europe.

Exhibit C

More importantly MOST Catholics are 3rd worlders. Catholicism is mostly a 3rd world religion. Fact.

This prompted Agrippa, in his eternal patience and burning passion for educating the illiterate, to use a picture (seeing as words were to no avail) to teach you something (i.e. that there are lots of Whites in S.America, too).

Calling you a cuntflap is an ad hominem. You cuntflap. Disagreeing with your opinion on the "Europeaness" / "Whiteness" / "Westerness" of whatever place with sources backing it up is not.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/lmao-new.jpg

Joe McCarthy

01-27-2011, 08:25 PM

Joe McCarthy

01-27-2011, 08:28 PM

I agree. That's geopolitics. Chile sided with Great Britain on that issue, even helping some lost British soldiers. That happened because Chile and Argentina are rivals.

Civilization is a whole different issue, that has to do with religion, language and traditions.

Here's what Chile did against Germany in the Luxburg affair during the Great War:

CHILE BACKS ARGENTINA.; Press Urges the Solidarity of South American Countries. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B15F93B5E11738DDDAD0A94D1405B 878DF1D3)

Chile only backed Britain because of its extensive trade ties with Britain. The moment that expediency dries up, I think we know which way Chile will go...

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 08:29 PM

Joe McCarthy

01-27-2011, 08:33 PM

There was a game, a war videogame, with 3 factions: the west, the islam and the Chinese.

If I don't remember bad, the chinese, eventually, decides to enter in the war as "allies" of the "West" against the Islam, spread in the third world countries.
Of course the chinese took their prize, global rule.

2 losers, Islam and, in some way, the West.

1 winner.

Thank you for actually discussing the topic of the thread. I'm much obliged. :thumb001:

However, Islam is a bit player, and will remain so. Its economies will stay in the stoneage by current projections. The really scary scenario is a Chinese rapprochement with India. If they decide to team up, the West would likely have to use nukes just to stay in the game at all. At the moment though India and China have major issues over territory on their border.

Joe McCarthy

01-27-2011, 08:46 PM

As regards this religious diversion...

American Evangelicalism is mostly an offshoot of dissenter, independent, and separarist Protestantism that arose in England during the reign of Bloody Mary, a Catholic tyrant who attempted to restore Catholicism in England. Such people are better known in history mostly as the Puritans.

I'm unsure precisely what would make such people 'less Western' than Catholics, as Protestantism is mostly just warmed over Catholicism anyway. Moreover, the Reformation is seen as a cornerstone of the West just as Catholicism is, and obviously the present Catholic countries were less affected by the Reformation than Protestant countries.

And the Orthodox are not Western at all. States like Russia are radically different from Western Europe culturally.

Wyn

01-27-2011, 08:53 PM

Catholic tyrant who attempted to restore Catholicism in England.

Restore? It never vanished completely.

States like Russia are radically different from Western Europe culturally.

I agree with you here, but I don't know if that's necessarily (purely) to do with their Orthodoxy. I think as well they've probably become significantly more Westernised - in the most broad sense - culturally over the years with increased exposure to American culture and the like. Probably another topic for another day.

Savant

01-27-2011, 08:57 PM

Dude, I'm a flaming homosexual, I think it's because my grandpa used to make me play "smile like a doughnut" alot when I was a child, I always thought that was really strange. It's really funny that other Catholics had to go to confession for their sins, but the priest always told me "grab your ankles and go to a happy place". I can't edit your posts.

Of course you can't, neither can I.

Aha! I should've known Japan is more Western than France. Of course, I proved your point: those that are traditionally western are actually non-western because of it! :D LIKE Ay-rabs!

Is this what they taught at Catholic school?

You are the king of contradicting yourself, in one sentence no less. :D

There was no contradiction at all. Posting a picture is not the same thing as citing a statistic. Regardless, it has no relevance to the point of the argument which is precisely why you are bringing it up; to obfuscate the fact that you've had your ass handed to you in this debate :D

Exhibit A

Fact, there are more non European Catholics in the world than there are European Catholics. That's precisely what I said, and it's a fact. Whine and stomp your feet all you like, but it wont change the fact. Catholicism is mostly a 3rd world religion.

Exhibit B

Another fact, there is more than one culture within Europe. To say otherwise is utter stupidity. Then again, you do have a predilection for that...

Exhibit C

See A.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/News/Religion/Catholic_world.gif

^ Mostly a 3rd world religion.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against European Catholic nations, I'm just citing the facts. Don't have a whiny temper tantrum with me if you don't like it, I didn't make things how they are. I'm simply not under any illusions.

there are lots of Whites in S.America, too).

They are a small minority, if you'd ever been there you'd know that. They also include Arabs, mixed white/indios, and SW Asians as being "white". In terms of actual "white" regarding what Americans, Canadians, or Australians consider white? Those are a very small portion of the population. If your stupid ass, or Agrippa had ever been there, you'd already know this and wouldn't need me to tell you. Then again you guys are so far out of touch with reality, I'd be surprised if you've left your moms' basements anytime recently, much less your continent...

Calling you a cuntflap is an ad hominem. You cuntflap. Disagreeing with your opinion on the "Europeaness" / "Whiteness" / "Westerness" of whatever place with sources backing it up is not.

Way to go corky, you are learning :D LOL!!! You have disagreed with me but you haven't backed anything up. In fact all you and that Agrippa guy have done is make yourselves look ignorant and delusional. In fact I have already received some rep and 2 PMs about how hard I wiped the floor with you guys, and how good of a job I did with factual references. Of course that wasn't my intention, I was just addressing an absurd and ignorant premise, and presenting the facts of the matter. Of course that claim about the Enlightenment being somehow uniquely French didn't help much, LMAO!!!!!!!! Btw, I like Northern Italy very much. It has a lower standard of living than 75-80% of America, but it's still a charming place... I went to Milan/Lombardy, and also Piedmont. Have you actually been?

http://thejosevilson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/cry-baby.jpg

Yes, I'm sure it does suck to feel like such a clown but hey, you should be getting used to it by now... LOL!!

Joe McCarthy

01-27-2011, 09:05 PM

Restore? It never vanished completely.

True, but Mary was sort of the English version of Julian the Apostate. I'm sure you love that one. :p

[QUOTE][I agree with you here, but I don't know if that's necessarily (purely) to do with their Orthodoxy. /QUOTE]

It isn't. It's just that Russia is best defined by Orthodoxy. Much of it had to do with insularity, so it was almost completely cordoned off from Western developments like the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, etc. What little Westernization there was came from Peter the Great.

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 09:09 PM

I'm unsure precisely what would make such people 'less Western' than Catholics, as Protestantism is mostly just warmed over Catholicism anyway. Moreover, the Reformation is seen as a cornerstone of the West just as Catholicism is, and obviously Catholic countries were little affected by the Reformation.

Well I would say that some forms of protestantism embraced a far more philo-semitic and Old Testament approach, which might them somewhat suspect. ;) But I don't think anyone was seriously implying that protestants would be non-western, it was more of a response to assertions that Protestant countries are clearly more western than Catholic ones - due to perceived technological and economic superiority. I find that to be a terribly modernist and materialistic point of view that ignores the deep roots and foundations of what we today term the West. I know that it is a very attractive point of view for WASPs and others from wealthy protestant areas or backgrounds. I at least feel that the reformation and the enlightenment that followed in its footsteps introduced a lot of ideas and paradigms that have undermined our cohesion to a great extent. It gave birth to the kind deracinating materialist rationalism that, granted, has spurred economic development, but at what cost? With accelerating globalization it finally becomes evident in its entire tragedy - must we really compete with Chinese factory workers in cost efficiency in order to deserve employment? Must I see the influx of the excess populace of third world as something natural? Why is it normal that Finnish nurses go to work in Norway and Britain while our hospital personnel is slowly turning Philippino? Local communities are entirely at the mercy of the economy, over which they have no control.

And the Orthodox are not Western at all. States like Russia are radically different from Western Europe culturally.

I think Russia has been overly exoticized. It is not that radically different, when considering what's on the other side of them. I can easily include them in a "macro-definition" of the West, much more so than South American countries. Is Greece terribly non-Western in your opinion?

Wyn

01-27-2011, 09:17 PM

True, but Mary was sort of the English version of Julian the Apostate. I'm sure you love that one. :p

You have a way with comparisons. ;) She probably had a good few fans. Popish Recusants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recusancy) were never in short supply.

It isn't. It's just that Russia is best defined by Orthodoxy. Much of it had to do with insularity, so it was almost completely cordoned off from Western developments like the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, etc. What little Westernization there was came from Peter the Great.

True. Isn't there/wasn't there actually some cultural movement that attempted to play-up Russia's 'Eastern' character (as opposed to Western/European)? Their relationship with the West/Europe is quite an interesting one, and the last 20 years or so especially have probably been quite irksome to Russocentrists.

Er, many apologies for post after post of off-topic chat. :D

Joe McCarthy

01-27-2011, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Riipumatto
Well I would say that some forms of protestantism embraced a far more philo-semitic and Old Testament approach, which might them somewhat suspect.

I don't think so. Protestantism, particularly the Calvinists, did 'Judaize' but the Holy Bible is as integral to the West as the more Greco-Roman forms of Roman Catholicism, as much as many of the forum members here may not like hearing that.

But I don't think anyone was seriously implying that protestants would be non-western, it was more of a response to assertions that Protestant countries are clearly more western than Catholic ones - due to perceived technological and economic superiority. I find that to be a terribly modernist and materialistic point of view that ignores the deep roots and foundations of what we today term the West. I know that it is a very attractive point of view for WASPs and others from wealthy protestant areas or backgrounds. I at least feel that the reformation and the enlightenment that followed in its footsteps introduced a lot of ideas and paradigms that have undermined our cohesion to a great extent. It gave birth to the kind deracinating materialist rationalism that, granted, has spurred economic development, but at what cost? With accelerating globalization it finally becomes evident in its entire tragedy - must we really compete with Chinese factory workers in cost efficiency in order to deserve employment?

I don't think anything is any less Western because it is modern or perceived to be destructive. I'd argue that modernism has been far more beneficial than the Middle Ages, but that is REALLY another thread especially as we're WAY off topic already. It's mostly just a judgment call between competing ages of the West.

Is Greece terribly non-Western in your opinion?

Less than Russia, for obvious reasons, but the Orthodox members of the EU are the most fractious members on policy issues, which has led to some people, such as Geert Wilders, to call for their expulsion.

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 09:24 PM

Less than Russia, for obvious reasons, but the Orthodox members of the EU are the most fractious members on policy issues, which has led to some people, such as Geert Wilders, to call for their expulsion.

Sorry to keep going on about this, you can reply by PM if you wish, but what are the obvious reasons that make Greece less exotic?

Savant

01-27-2011, 09:30 PM

Well I would say that some forms of protestantism embraced a far more philo-semitic and Old Testament approach, which might them somewhat suspect. ;) But I don't think anyone was seriously implying that protestants would be non-western, it was more of a response to assertions that Protestant countries are clearly more western than Catholic ones - due to perceived technological and economic superiority. I find that to be a terribly modernist and materialistic point of view that ignores the deep roots and foundations of what we today term the West. I know that it is a very attractive point of view for WASPs and others from wealthy protestant areas or backgrounds. I at least feel that the reformation and the enlightenment that followed in its footsteps introduced a lot of ideas and paradigms that have undermined our cohesion to a great extent. It gave birth to the kind deracinating materialist rationalism that, granted, has spurred economic development, but at what cost? With accelerating globalization it finally becomes evident in its entire tragedy - must we really compete with Chinese factory workers in cost efficiency in order to deserve employment? Must I see the influx of the excess populace of third world as something natural? Why is it normal that Finnish nurses go to work in Norway and Britain while our hospital personnel is slowly turning Philippino? Local communities are entirely at the mercy of the economy, over which they have no control.

Well I must say there's a bit more cognitive activity in this post. I'm proud of you! This + the understanding of what ad hominem is? All in one day?! Good for you!!

However, you inevitably dove right back off a cliff... Chinese industrialization is now somehow the fault of the Enlightenment and/or the Protestant reformation? Globalization too? That's a pretty unfathomable logical leap... International commerce is nothing new and predates both the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. More than economic freedom, the Enlightenment also introduced such "novel concepts" as freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, habeas corpus, etc. You know, some of those other defining features of Western Civilization??? Now somehow Protestants and the Enlightenment are to blame for mass 3rd world immigration?! When it was Catholics who initiated those policies in the first place?! GTFO. Your world view is out of touch with reality. But hey, I'm glad to hear you admit that your little temper tantrums earlier were just a product of your inferiority complex regarding the Protestant West. You know what they say, acceptance is the first step...

Savant

01-27-2011, 09:37 PM

China is destructive because of a LACK of laissez faire policies. They do not allow their currency to be freely priced in the marketplace. They practice mercantilism; They use fiscal and monetary policy to encourage exports and discourage imports. Then they use the money they have made by shafting us to lend back to us and charge us interest on it. That's not capitalism, that's mercantilism.

See more, well worth the few minutes:

EvgKbZgwHGk

Joe McCarthy

01-27-2011, 10:00 PM

Sorry to keep going on about this, you can reply by PM if you wish, but what are the obvious reasons that make Greece less exotic?

Its role as one of the foundation stones of Western culture given its Classical age. But the Classical era should be distinguished from the Western, or as Spengler called it, the Faustian.

However, a closer look at Greece reveals that it has most of the backwardness typical of Orthodox states - high levels of corruption, poor economic development, and a poor record on human rights and civil liberties. Most of this comes from its weak exposure to the Enlightenment which had much to do with it being under Islamic rule.

The Ripper

01-27-2011, 10:11 PM

But hey, I'm glad to hear you admit that your little temper tantrums earlier were just a product of your inferiority complex regarding the Protestant West. You know what they say, acceptance is the first step...

I am from The Protestant West. :coffee:

Eldritch

01-28-2011, 03:05 PM

Why do I get the impression that this whole off topic clusterfuck is yet another attempt to denigrate the United States?

Because there is nothing that people on this forum can do, or refrain from doing, that does not give you that impression.

Clusterfuck not cleaned up.

Agrippa

01-28-2011, 03:55 PM

What's amusing is that there is very little discussion about China on this thread. We're reduced to the absurdity of arguing over whether a nation whose core and founding population are mostly half-caste coons is as Western as the nation of John Winthrop and George Washington.

Oh well, now you denigrate the people of white Latin Ameirca once again!

As if there wouldn't have been miscegenation in the USA and as if the US system was so much more successful for the Europeans on the longer run!

And now I see we're discussing whether Protestantism is more Western than Catholicism...

Because that is one of the main differences between Latin and Anglo-American white regions, if not that, what else do some people talking about if saying they are of a "different Civilisation".

Why do I get the impression that this whole off topic clusterfuck is yet another attempt to denigrate the United States?

The USA caused great troubes for Europeans worldwide and they introduced many foreign principles in European countries, so it is really just ridiculous if exactly the USA is the cradle of Europeanness, while Southern American white areas are said to be "of another civilisation".

If that's the case, then Western has nothing to do with being European - actually something some Liberals claiming anyway if they want to spread "Western values" = Pseudo-Individualism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Cultural Marxism.

I'm pretty sure if Brazil would be the American superpower and the USA falling back to a regional power, it would be better for Europeans worldwide, because right now, the USA are just the watchman at the gates of the extermination camp for Europeans, ready to shoot anybody who wants to escape, that's what they are!

For their own people too of course, but that doesn't change things. And to put it like a threat that Brazil is growing is like a joke, can't imagine a more European friendly superpower out of Europe than Brazil right now.

Different Civilisation, what a joke...

American Evangelicalism is mostly an offshoot of dissenter, independent, and separarist Protestantism that arose in England during the reign of Bloody Mary, a Catholic tyrant who attempted to restore Catholicism in England. Such people are better known in history mostly as the Puritans.

I'm unsure precisely what would make such people 'less Western' than Catholics, as Protestantism is mostly just warmed over Catholicism anyway. Moreover, the Reformation is seen as a cornerstone of the West just as Catholicism is, and obviously the present Catholic countries were less affected by the Reformation than Protestant countries.

And the Orthodox are not Western at all. States like Russia are radically different from Western Europe culturally.

Protestantism is no block, Lutherans made up great Europeans, until Germany lost the 2nd World War of course, after that they became American and Liberal puppets, being among the worst around.

But some Calvinist sects, including the Puritans, where from the start Anti-European and different from the European occidental culture. They went back to what Judeo-Christianity was about, leaving the path of European Christianity and were not by chance often closely allied with Jews and responsible for the Capitalist turn.

The old Testament is just the mythological background story for Jews, nothing else, if a Christian religions takes that literally, they become Philosemites by default or can become some, and they in fact keep up a foreign tradition, centered around a foreign and different people, the Jews.

That is why something like "British Israelism" would have been in the same way unthinkable in the Lutheran states, yet alone the idiocy of Calvinist sects in the USA.

Savant

01-28-2011, 04:34 PM

Oh well, now you denigrate the people of white Latin Ameirca once again!

There was nothing denigrating about that observation at all, it is factual. Even they themselves vehemently protest that they are in any way "white" or "european" for the most part.

LOL! Another hilarious addition to your long list of faux pas is the notion that Buenos Aires or Paraguay look like European communities. If ANYTHING they look like 3rd rate versions of New World Western civilizations, which you'd know if you'd ever traveled to the region, which you clearly have not.

As if there wouldn't have been miscegenation in the USA and as if the US system was so much more successful for the Europeans on the longer run!

Indeed Americans have done more for Europe than anyone else by far. We've had to save you guys' ass on numerous occasions, and will probably have to again. That's why European leadership knows good and well that they want to keep very good relations with us.

Because that is one of the main differences between Latin and Anglo-American white regions, if not that, what else do some people talking about if saying they are of a "different Civilisation".

I'd be happy to respond to this, if it weren't incoherent gibbrish. It made no sense whatsoever.

The USA caused great troubes for Europeans worldwide and they introduced many foreign principles in European countries, so it is really just ridiculous if exactly the USA is the cradle of Europeanness, while Southern American white areas are said to be "of another civilisation".

LOL. What a historical illiterate you are. This is almost as stupid as your claim that the Enlightenment was somehow uniquely French... LMAO!!! Or not knowing that Evangelicalism is European, and started in Europe. LOL!!!!

The USA has saved Europe's ass twice in actual wars, and has continually protected it economically. It has the economic prosperity it enjoys to day BECAUSE of the United States and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon economy, despite their outdated and dysfunctional economic models we have blessed them with our economic favor. Only a delusional moron would say that North America and South America aren't culturally distinctive, or racially distinctive for that matter. You sound like some cultural Marxist. It's becoming more apparent that you have never been to either the United States or South America, and live in some factually devoid fantasy land...

If that's the case, then Western has nothing to do with being European - actually something some Liberals claiming anyway if they want to spread "Western values" = Pseudo-Individualism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Cultural Marxism.

Funny that you'd offer such criticisms, as much of your rhetoric is pretty damned Marxist. You are using terms which you clearly do not understand. Individualism and Cultural Marxism are not compatible, and are in many ways highly oppositional. Liberalism and Capitalism are pretty much total opposites. You obviously have no idea what these terms even mean. LOL!!! Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this??

I'm pretty sure if Brazil would be the American superpower and the USA falling back to a regional power, it would be better for Europeans worldwide, because right now, the USA are just the watchman at the gates of the extermination camp for Europeans, ready to shoot anybody who wants to escape, that's what they are!

LOL!!! LOL!! LOL!!! Brazil a regional superpower??? You are about two peels short of a banana. Brazil is a 3rd world dump, and is more "multicultural" and "pro diversity" than America or anywhere in Europe ever thought about being. Your geopolitical ignorance is truly baffling.

Protestantism is no block, Lutherans made up great Europeans, until Germany lost the 2nd World War of course, after that they became American and Liberal puppets, being among the worst around.

Protestant groups have outpaced catholic ones by any objective measure. Economically, technologically, industrially. Catholicism is mostly a 3rd world religion. There are more catholics in the 3rd world than there are in europe.

But some Calvinist sects, including the Puritans, where from the start Anti-European and different from the European occidental culture. They went back to what Judeo-Christianity was about, leaving the path of European Christianity and were not by chance often closely allied with Jews and responsible for the Capitalist turn.

No, the original Puritan groups were highly European, and were the next evolutionary phase in Western culture. America, Canada, Australia, etc EVOLVED Western culture, from the less evolved, now outdated model which is left behind in Catholic Europe. But, like our older, sick parents who need our help as they grow old and vulnerable, we will always be there for them...

Oh, and since you are obviously ignorant of this, Jews are not known for spreading capitalism. Jews most often spread progressivism and socialism, not capitalism. Of course because you live in an imaginary fantasy world, and have an inaccurate world view, you aren't aware of this...

The old Testament is just the mythological background story for Jews, nothing else, if a Christian religions takes that literally, they become Philosemites by default or can become some, and they in fact keep up a foreign tradition, centered around a foreign and different people, the Jews.

Judaism was the foundation for Christianity. In it's initial era Christianity was just a denomination of Judaism. Neither Catholics nor protestants reject the Old Testament. And by your rationale, since protestantism is "an offspring" of Catholicism and that means that Protestantism shares the same culture with Catholicism, then that means that because Catholicism came from Judaism, then Catholicism is just an extension of Judaism. So either Catholicism is an extension of Jewish culture, or Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism are all different cultures. Which is it? You can't have it both ways...

The Ripper

01-28-2011, 04:48 PM

http://setonstun.com/wp-content/the-stupid-it-burns.jpg

Agrippa

01-28-2011, 04:51 PM

Brazil a regional superpower???

I'm not saying that it is realistic in the next - don't know what time frame...

But that was one of the premises at the start of this thread, comprende amigo? :D

Neither Catholics nor protestants reject the Old Testament.

Yes, but Lutherans did to a certain degree! And Catholics kept it under control - the nonsense was unleashed by the Calvinists again, in a way inappropriate for Europeans...

Savant

01-28-2011, 04:58 PM

Way to cherry pick and ignore every point I have decimated you on... Don't worry, it's really not noticeable... LOL!!!

I'm not saying that it is realistic in the next - don't know what time frame...

But that was one of the premises at the start of this thread, comprende amigo? :D

Yes, but Lutherans did to a certain degree! And Catholics kept it under control - the nonsense was unleashed by the Calvinists again, in a way inappropriate for Europeans...

Lurker

01-28-2011, 06:24 PM

Indeed Americans have done more for Europe than anyone else by far. We've had to save you guys' ass on numerous occasions, and will probably have to again. That's why European leadership knows good and well that they want to keep very good relations with us.

The USA has saved Europe's ass twice in actual wars, and has continually protected it economically. It has the economic prosperity it enjoys to day BECAUSE of the United States and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon economy, despite their outdated and dysfunctional economic models we have blessed them with our economic favor. Only a delusional moron would say that North America and South America aren't culturally distinctive, or racially distinctive for that matter. You sound like some cultural Marxist. It's becoming more apparent that you have never been to either the United States or South America, and live in some factually devoid fantasy land...

Excuse me, but the USA has not saved "Europe's ass" in two wars. It has saved USA's European allies' ass (Great Britain and non-Vichy France). That's a big difference. A very big difference.

Who's to say an Europe with Germany as a victor of WWI wouldn't be better than what we have now?

One of Europe's greatest enemies is communism, specially bolshevist communism that originated in Russia. The fascist countries' actions in 1930-1939 avoided the communist contamination in many countries of Europe. In 1939 Nazi Germany signs a pact with Soviet Russia and a small part of Eastern Europe (Baltic states, Moldavia, half of Poland) goes under Communist rule. In 1942 Nazi Germany breaks that treaty and invades Soviet Russia.

In 1942 the US starts helping Soviet Russia against Nazi Germany. The US's actions in WWII led to half of Europe being under communist rule for 50 years. Nazi Germany's actions made 1/4 of Europe (at best) become under Communist rule for 3 years, and this was being reversed at the end of the time.

The US has not saved Europe. It has saved only its more immediate allies. Europe is more than Great Britain and more than France as well.

Savant

01-28-2011, 06:36 PM

Yes, and after we kicked the fascists ass in Germany, we stuck around and left our own forces there (the most elite on the face of the Earth) there to protect Germany, since Germany's mediocre army had largely been decimated. This allowed Germany not to have to worry about national defense, and focus more on industrial and commercial efforts instead. Hence, it was only because of Americans that Germany was able to develop industrially at the rate which it did... Germany owes America a great deal of gratitude for that...

Excuse me, but the USA has not saved "Europe's ass" in two wars. It has saved USA's European allies' ass (Great Britain and non-Vichy France). That's a big difference. A very big difference.

Who's to say an Europe with Germany as a victor of WWI wouldn't be better than what we have now?

One of Europe's greatest enemies is communism, specially bolshevist communism that originated in Russia. The fascist countries' actions in 1930-1939 avoided the communist contamination in many countries of Europe. In 1939 Nazi Germany signs a pact with Soviet Russia and a small part of Eastern Europe (Baltic states, Moldavia, half of Poland) goes under Communist rule. In 1942 Nazi Germany breaks that treaty and invades Soviet Russia.

In 1942 the US starts helping Soviet Russia against Nazi Germany. The US's actions in WWII led to half of Europe being under communist rule for 50 years. Nazi Germany's actions made 1/4 of Europe (at best) become under Communist rule for 3 years, and this was being reversed at the end of the time.

The US has not saved Europe. It has saved only its more immediate allies. Europe is more than Great Britain and more than France as well.

The Ripper

01-28-2011, 06:41 PM

Savant

01-28-2011, 06:56 PM

Breedingvariety

01-28-2011, 06:58 PM

Agrippa

01-28-2011, 09:37 PM

America didn't wreck Germany's economy, it was fucked before the Americans even joined WW2. And yes, theres no way Germany would have made the economic strides they did if it weren't for America there protecting it so they didn't have to spend anything on national defense. They owe America much gratitude for those economic strides (even though they were mild compared to the ones being made by the members of the Anglo Saxon economy)...

That is a pure provocation and trollish behaviour!

The German economy grew even during the war, despite the Western blockade and bombardments!

Without those blockade and bombardments, without the help for Bolshevism, Germany would have won.

To be even more exact, without the gambles of the English and American Plutocracy and states, the whole war wouldn't have happened!

Without the manipulations in 1914, no 1st World War, no 2nd World War, Europe would still have its colonies most likely, being a white continent, using Eugenic measurements so or so, sooner or later, being not the slave of the High Finance and Plutocracy.

So what did change thanks to America's interventions?
The USA became the watchmen at our extermination camp's gate. That's it.

Big THANKS for this "great contribution" of the "Western Civilisation".

By the way, without the US interventions, most of Latin America would have sided with Germany and a true Europe. Supported us with material and probably even troops, especially those with German and Italian ancestry.

But of course, the US-Plutocracy considered Southern America their playing field, so they blackmailed and manipulated all those nations into their "alliance".

And they never forgot that Argentina was once a very successful and powerful nation, which tried to be independent and had close ties to Europe. That's why they had to ruin it, over decades the USA tried to ruin Argentina like Cuba!

They are like the Sephardic Jews which supported all enemies of Spain, just to bring that nation down, which they never could forgive.

Yes, I'm sure the "Western civilisation" will protect Europeans worldwide from all evils...

If they do such a good job like in the last 100 years, there will be not much left to protect from our European heritage, 2job done, job completed" then I guess.

Thanks "Western Civlisation" with Capitalism, Liberalism and Cultural Marxism, the true columns of "Freedom".

Joe McCarthy

01-29-2011, 09:07 PM

Because there is nothing that people on this forum can do, or refrain from doing, that does not give you that impression.

Clusterfuck not cleaned up.

What's hilarious about your latest case of willful denial here is that in the very next post after yours, as if to confirm my suspicion, our German friend arrives and launches into probably his most fanatical anti-American diatribe yet. :D

Oh well... at least it's good for shits and giggles.

Savant

01-29-2011, 09:37 PM

Very odd I made a post which was deleted here. LOL!!! That's funny, someone has to resort to censorship to refute my points...

Savant

01-29-2011, 09:53 PM

That is a pure provocation and trollish behaviour!

Nonsense, making points or citing facts which you don't like is not "trollish" or "pure provocation".

The German economy grew even during the war, despite the Western blockade and bombardments!

The German economy "grew" only due to the conquering nations and consuming their resources and production, and from slave labor generated from work camps. Also the government acquisition of corporations and companies also helped...

Without those blockade and bombardments, without the help for Bolshevism, Germany would have won.

In your fantasy world maybe. Germany never stood a chance, and the most intimidating foe was Japan, not Germany. That's why we had to drop A-bombs on them, we never even had a need to do that with Germany.

To be even more exact, without the gambles of the English and American Plutocracy and states, the whole war wouldn't have happened!

It happened as soon as Germany started trying to go into Western Europe. Sure they could conquer little slavic and med states, but once they started trying to Fck with the west, they were screwed.

Without the manipulations in 1914, no 1st World War, no 2nd World War, Europe would still have its colonies most likely, being a white continent, using Eugenic measurements so or so, sooner or later, being not the slave of the High Finance and Plutocracy.

Europe had lost nearly all of it's colonies by 1914, the few they had left were mostly the African ones. Germany lost two consecutive world wars, and was gracefully still allowed to exist. Deal with it.

Big THANKS for this "great contribution" of the "Western Civilisation".

You're welcome. You are finally adopting a more appropriate attitude.

By the way, without the US interventions, most of Latin America would have sided with Germany and a true Europe. Supported us with material and probably even troops, especially those with German and Italian ancestry.

This is what's really hilarious. The notion that Latin America could 1) make any difference in the war, being that they are a bunch of 3rd world banana republics even now, and even moreso then. and 2) That they would have wanted to side with Germany, who didn't have a chance in hell of winning... That's the height of desperation: "If only South America would have helped us, we would have won!!" ROFLMAO!

But of course, the US-Plutocracy considered Southern America their playing field, so they blackmailed and manipulated all those nations into their "alliance".

No, in fact South America did, and regularly does kiss our ass for economic partnerships. We were far bigger trade partners with them then, and are now. The notion that hey would have ever seriously considered siding with Germany is laughable.

And they never forgot that Argentina was once a very successful and powerful nation, which tried to be independent and had close ties to Europe. That's why they had to ruin it, over decades the USA tried to ruin Argentina like Cuba!

LMAO!! Yeah, Argentina was a "powerful nation"... when? In the 1600s? The usa ruined it? How? The usa has no trade sanctions on it like they do with Cuba... LOL!! You rant against Marxism then defend Cuba. What a geopolitical illiterate you are. Yeah, it's the US's fault that Cuba is a dump, not because of Marxism... Riiight...

Thanks "Western Civlisation" with Capitalism, Liberalism and Cultural Marxism, the true columns of "Freedom".

Funny how all the things you mention here originated in Europe, not the United State...

Joe McCarthy

01-29-2011, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
Oh well, now you denigrate the people of white Latin Ameirca once again!

Stating that Brazil is mostly a nation of niggers and mongrels isn't so much denigrating them as it is a factual observation. It implies no insult toward white people there, but should there erupt hostilities between the United States and Brazil, or even the United States and Venezuela, I have little doubt about where the sympathies of white Brazilians will lie.

As if there wouldn't have been miscegenation in the USA

I'm unsure what this is supposed to mean. We DID prevent a GREAT DEAL of miscegenation that would have occurred withour our race laws.

and as if the US system was so much more successful for the Europeans on the longer run!

It unquestionably has been. We are not Brazil, and in fact, a common fear of American nationalists is that we will become like them.

The USA caused great troubes for Europeans worldwide and they introduced many foreign principles in European countries

'Foreign principles' were introduced by France into Germany, Germany into Britain, Britain into France, and so on. What does any of this mean exactly?

so it is really just ridiculous if exactly the USA is the cradle of Europeanness

Huh?

Even what the modern West has become with its modernist ethos did not originate in the US, but in Britain, Holland, Germany, and France primarily...

I'm pretty sure if Brazil would be the American superpower and the USA falling back to a regional power, it would be better for Europeans worldwide

Well, here's the reality: Brazil will not be a superpower. What is more likely is that it'll bundle with Mexico and other Latin American states and become a threat to the US. But if it did become a global superpower, its culture of miscegenation - which is MUCH stronger than that in the US - would be exported globally.

Of course, the real threat - and the subject of this thread that you seem uninterested in discussing - is that China, given its massive size, will exercise far more global influence than we do now. If you think 'Americanization' sucks, wait'll you see what China does. You can expect Germans to be wearing Chinese fashions, speaking Mandarin, being taught about Chinese emperors instead of American figures, and eating Chinese takeout as a matter of course - that is if far worse doesn't occur and Chinese settlers aren't swimming in the Rhine in a hundred years.

And though there is some chance this can be forestalled, it certainly won't be Brazil that stops it, if it's stopped. There is only one country that can stop it...

because right now, the USA are just the watchman at the gates of the extermination camp for Europeans, ready to shoot anybody who wants to escape, that's what they are!

German nationalists seem to be under the assumption that American policymakers force European governments and Europeans to take in immigrants and not have babies. That, at bottom, is the ridiculous nature of anti-Americanism on the far right fringe. In point of fact though, the rise of respectable nationalist parties - that is those that have some chance to affect immigration policy for the better and are doing so - began in Denmark due to European reactions to 9-11. So 'American influence' has actually helped Europe. Moreover, it's safe to say that men like Wilders have more supporters in America than they do in most of Europe, and Wilders too has succeeded in getting immigration reduced.

Protestantism is no block, Lutherans made up great Europeans, until Germany lost the 2nd World War of course, after that they became American and Liberal puppets, being among the worst around.

Probably the two most prominent religious opponents of Nazism in Germany, Neimoller and Bonhoeffer, were Lutherans. Though I appreciate the fact that Nazi lapdogs is your definition of 'great Europeans'.

But some Calvinist sects, including the Puritans, where from the start Anti-European

These 'anti-European' Calvinists created three, count 'em, THREE Western superpowers. Lutherans have created zero so far, and the time they came the closest was when some Catholic knucklehead decided to declare war on the whole world at the same time and ran the effort into the ground.

Eldritch

01-29-2011, 10:03 PM

....

Joe McCarthy

01-29-2011, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Lurker
Excuse me, but the USA has not saved "Europe's ass" in two wars. It has saved USA's European allies' ass (Great Britain and non-Vichy France). That's a big difference. A very big difference.

Fair enough. By the same token, let us dispense with the idea, furthered by some, that Germany was 'fighting for Europeans'. Germany was fighting for Germany, and perhaps its allies to a much lesser extent. Had it won WW2, it's safe to assume that it wouldn't have been building apartment flats for Poles or Russians as America did for West Germany after the war. Indeed, even the Communists treated Poles, Russians, Latvians, Ukranians, etc., post-war better than the Nazis would have given their plans in Generaplan Ost to boot whole nations across the Urals in order to make way for German settlement.

In the end Germany got off well. Historically, most conquered peoples are enslaved or exterminated. The US gave Germany development aid...

One of Europe's greatest enemies is communism, specially bolshevist communism that originated in Russia.

It was due to Germany that Communism triumphed in Russia. Lenin was sent by the German government with the expressed purpose of overthrowing the government so he'd make peace with Germany.

Joe McCarthy

01-29-2011, 10:38 PM

1799-1815 - Europe would have been better off with French victory;
1914-1918 - Europe would have been better off with German victory;
1939-1945 - Europe would have been better off with German victory.

Strange mix. Why should a liberal dictator have triumphed over German autocracy in one war, but German autocracy should have triumphed over liberal nations in the others?

Agrippa

01-30-2011, 06:40 PM

The German economy "grew" only due to the conquering nations and consuming their resources and production

No, because there were new economic programs activated, just compare with what Albert Speer did.

and from slave labor generated from work camps.

That's ridiculous. Do you real think those did a better job than all those workers at the front, leaving a large gap at home? Make me laugh.

Germany never stood a chance, and the most intimidating foe was Japan, not Germany.

Well, now you moved yourself in a dead end...

That's why we had to drop A-bombs on them, we never even had a need to do that with Germany.

Well, probably Germany would have dropped an "A-bomb" on you rather if not losing so early because of the Soviet war machine, massively supported by the Western backstabbers?

The notion that Latin America could 1) make any difference in the war, being that they are a bunch of 3rd world banana republics even now, and even moreso then. and 2) That they would have wanted to side with Germany, who didn't have a chance in hell of winning... That's the height of desperation: "If only South America would have helped us, we would have won!!" ROFLMAO!

That wasn't my point. I just respect their attitude, which was ok unlike that of the Plutocratic slaves in the US of A, you know the difference?

The notion that hey would have ever seriously considered siding with Germany is laughable.

Because the big evil was closer than Germany, yes, but did you know that Germany became the 2nd largest economic partner to various Latin American nations just before the war?

Fact is, Great Britain and the USA, their corrupted Anglo-Jewish Plutocracy, wanted to eliminate a competitor, that's what it was.

Yeah, Argentina was a "powerful nation"... when? In the 1600s? The usa ruined it? How? The usa has no trade sanctions on it like they do with Cuba... LOL!!

Argentina was once one of the most developed nations in the Southern hemisphere, if you don't believe, it look at the sources.

You rant against Marxism then defend Cuba. What a geopolitical illiterate you are. Yeah, it's the US's fault that Cuba is a dump, not because of Marxism... Riiight...

Everybody knows what the USA did to Cuba and other Latin American states, how can you deny that? That is delusional.

Funny how all the things you mention here originated in Europe, not the United State...

Those "things" flourished in their worst and most important way only in two states: Great Britain and the US of A.

Go figure.

It doesn't matter where f.e. a Jew was born which introduced a destructive doctrine, what matters most is where his ideas were adopted and became powerful.

Looking at the worst things in this respect, you always end up with the US of A if searching for the current demise' causes.

Stating that Brazil is mostly a nation of niggers and mongrels isn't so much denigrating them as it is a factual observation.

Brazil is as white as the US of A.

Just because the mass media show you otherwise, doesn't change a thing.

We DID prevent a GREAT DEAL of miscegenation that would have occurred withour our race laws.

That is true, but your "Western Civilisation" ended that once they lost its European character, with all the aspects mentioned.

'Foreign principles' were introduced by France into Germany, Germany into Britain, Britain into France, and so on. What does any of this mean exactly?

Point is, they were more dangerous than anything before and more foreign, not shared by European to the point of their introduction to the US of A neither.

German nationalists seem to be under the assumption that American policymakers force European governments and Europeans to take in immigrants and not have babies. That, at bottom, is the ridiculous nature of anti-Americanism on the far right fringe.

They did and it can be proven. Just because they use strawmen by now and the system runs on its own doesn't change those facts, because without the US interventions, Germany would have never ended there!

Calvinists created three, count 'em, THREE Western superpowers.

What does that matter, if they became corrupted by the Plutocracy and Jews, developed in the wrong direction and finally ruin their own carriers and people?!
It just means it is a sickness that spread too successfully...

Strange mix. Why should a liberal dictator have triumphed over German autocracy in one war, but German autocracy should have triumphed over liberal nations in the others?

The Plutocrats of the City of London always wanted to prevent a great European power, which could have united the forces of the continent. So they fought every trial, no matter who tried it, in the history of the past hundreds of years.

In the end, they just agree on a "European system", when it WAS THEIR Liberalcapitalist System = the EU free after Coudenhove-Kalergi.

Napeoleon himself became a foe of the Plutocracy, you can read that up, especially how the Rothschilds plotted against him and he knew it.

Obviously it wouldn't have been optimal, but Napoleon had at least certain positive aspects, so they could use the whole wars just to create the huge debts and even larger Capitalist-Plutocratic structures.

F.e. Austria always refused to cooperate with the Jews and bankers on eye level, after the war, they had no choice, because in the end, the only side which truly won the wars were the Plutocrats! After that, the Habsburgs became a very Plutocrat- and Jew friendly dynasty...

Joe McCarthy

01-31-2011, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
They did and it can be proven.

Erm, it would truly be fascinating to have you produce a 'stop having babies' order to Europeans from American officials.

Just because they use strawmen by now and the system runs on its own doesn't change those facts, because without the US interventions, Germany would have never ended there!

The German government did not have to bring in Turks, nor did it have to extend their work permits, nor did it have to agree to family unification initiatives in the 70's and 80's. You make the US role sound like that of colonial viceroys or Persian satraps. Not only is it patently absurd, but it's highly demeaning toward your own people. This stuff comes off like an African chief blaming Europeans for his people living in huts.

Savant

01-31-2011, 09:33 PM

Indeed, I've heard stories about how many Africans think that Western nations get money by simply going in to get it out of a bank, and that they keep Africa poor by selfishly withholding this "bank" technology from them... Agrippas argument sounds not unlike that mythos.

Erm, it would truly be fascinating to have you produce a 'stop having babies' order to Europeans from American officials.

The German government did not have to bring in Turks, nor did it have to extend their work permits, nor did it have to agree to family unification initiatives in the 70's and 80's. You make the US role sound like that of colonial viceroys or Persian satraps. Not only is it patently absurd, but it's highly demeaning toward your own people. This stuff comes off like an African chief blaming Europeans for his people living in huts.

Albion

02-01-2011, 09:28 AM

Restore? It never vanished completely.

I've read people suggesting that its basically repackaged Catholicism in many respects, it does seem quite different from Lutheranism and seems to have developed indepdently of it.

Agrippa

02-01-2011, 12:00 PM

Erm, it would truly be fascinating to have you produce a 'stop having babies' order to Europeans from American officials

Well, if they destroy the traditional family, make propaganda against man and husbands, tell women to go for the man's way and don't be bound to marriage and children, re-educate the masses and introduce selfish-egoistic, highly pseudo-individualist "moral standards", akin to American Capitalism they did their job. There are many aspects of which we have clear proves, the CIA and other organisations worked directly on the re-education of the German people, they also re-organised or mass media and economy, manipulated or exchanged the political class - so it is a pretty clear case actually.

Your cynicism can't change that.

The German government did not have to bring in Turks, nor did it have to extend their work permits, nor did it have to agree to family unification initiatives in the 70's and 80's. You make the US role sound like that of colonial viceroys or Persian satraps. Not only is it patently absurd, but it's highly demeaning toward your own people.

Why so? At least our people fought the Plutocracy, we did so against a huge force and finally lost in a rather unlucky way, while the Americans adopted the hostile and dangerous memetic structures on their own, without a war.

After that, the menials of the Plutocracy could force us into submission, but at least we tried to defend ourselves with all means - the people guilty for spreading that poison live further West...

Also, the Americans blackmailed Germany to accept more Turks, because they wanted to stabilise their and Israel's ally in the Near East, in fact, documents prove that it was Turkey which wanted to get rid of the uneducated, lowest level masses they had. Germany accepted, some in the higher ranks wanted to use them indeed, but a large portion of the initiative came from the USA.

Wyn

02-01-2011, 12:24 PM

I've read people suggesting that its basically repackaged Catholicism in many respects, it does seem quite different from Lutheranism and seems to have developed indepdently of it.

Well, Henry VIII was an opponent of Protestantism and a firm believer in Catholic theology, even after his separation from the Catholic Church. Thus there has always been a kind of quasi-Catholic strain within Anglicanism and many Anglicans go so far as to reject the label 'Protestant' altogether.

When I said that it never vanished completely however I was referring to the fact that regardless of the Church of England becoming the main church in this country there has always been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recusancy) a significant Catholic presence.

Joe McCarthy

02-01-2011, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Agrippa
Well, if they destroy the traditional family, make propaganda against man and husbands, tell women to go for the man's way and don't be bound to marriage and children, re-educate the masses and introduce selfish-egoistic, highly pseudo-individualist "moral standards", akin to American Capitalism they did their job.

A very strange contention, as it comes nowhere close to establishing that American officials were deliberately trying to drive down the birthrate. Worse still is that when de-Nazification was instituted the American family and sexual roles were still traditional. I would also never mistake the German economy, with its onerous labor legislation and collective government-labor management as a bastion of individualism. It's interesting too that the West German birthrate was above replacement even by the 60's and German governments have instituted natal programs to bring it back up since it sank. This theory of a dastardly American conspiracy to exterminate the German people has a flaw or two, no?

There are many aspects of which we have clear proves, the CIA and other organisations worked directly on the re-education of the German people, they also re-organised or mass media and economy, manipulated or exchanged the political class - so it is a pretty clear case actually.

Hardly clear, but de-Nazification was carried out for a simple reason - the attempt was made to make Germans into democrats so they wouldn't try the Lebensraum nonsense again. It of course worked.

Why so? At least our people fought the Plutocracy

More like Germany was trying to supplant Britain as the superpower along with giving it the sort of might that would have endangered the national security of everybody. There is no real mystery as to why the Allies resisted Germany's ambitions.

Essentially these arguments of yours are repeatedly undergirded by sore loser syndrome. The Germans gambled. They lost. Time to move on.

we did so against a huge force and finally lost in a rather unlucky way,

The German people of course put up quite a fight. It took the whole world to stop them. But that the whole world was fighting them at all reflects a failure in the German leadership.

while the Americans adopted the hostile and dangerous memetic structures on their own, without a war.

I've read enough literature on race to know that Nazi extremism did much to undermine racialism even in the US, but ultimately we're responsible for our own policy decisions, just as Germany is in their decisions. Blaming others in such cases is the proper course for Africans, not Germans or Anglos - or at least it should be.

Also, the Americans blackmailed Germany to accept more Turks, because they wanted to stabilise their and Israel's ally in the Near East, in fact, documents prove that it was Turkey which wanted to get rid of the uneducated, lowest level masses they had. Germany accepted, some in the higher ranks wanted to use them indeed, but a large portion of the initiative came from the USA.

We've covered this in the past. This 'blackmail' amounted to a suggestion via a US diplomatic cable after West Germany had already broached the idea in response to the Soviet building of the Berlin Wall which cut off East German labor during the economic miracle. West Germany could have ignored the US, and at the time it was meant to be a temporary guest worker program anyway. That the work permits were extended and more Turks brought in later was all West Germany's doing.

Anyhow, we seem to be discussing about everything but China in this discussion. I think I'll call it quits on this thread.

Megrez

02-01-2011, 07:39 PM

LOL @ people saying Brazil would blindly side with Venezuela if the USA attacked that country. This implies lack of knowledge about other countries and how people in other countries see the USA. Brazil as a peripheral western nation just follows the only 2 values spread by the USA "West" these days: "democracy" and material wealth. If the US were to invade Venezuela to overthrow Chavez and give Venezuelans "democracy" and hope for material wealth, Brazilians would support the US. If the US just wanted to exterminate Venezuelans (how much likely is this?), then of course Brazilians would be against the USA.

I'm trying to figure now, how can the USA save Europe from... Europe?

Brazil sent some soldiers to fight the Nazis in Italy. What if I started saying that Brazil helped "save Europe's ass"? I can barely figure how ridiculous it would be. Now it only misses people saying that Siberian rapists and their Georgian boss helped "save Europe's ass" as well.

Simple question to Europeans, do you feel saved at all?

Btw, this thread should be split lol.

Agrippa

02-02-2011, 08:00 AM

Worse still is that when de-Nazification was instituted the American family and sexual roles were still traditional

The Cultural Marxists were expelled from Europe by the Ns., but got a warm welcome in the US of A and there they could flourish, were sent back to test their ideas and helping "re-educate" the Germans. Point was, this experiment became so successful, that they soon expanded it to all of the West of course.

And, American families at that time were not "traditional", they were just bourgeois in the Western-Liberal sense, in no way "traditional". Of course they were closer to traditional, than they are today, but still...

Point is, you don't see the USA as what they were and still are, just a tool of the Plutocrats and the whole Liberalism-Capitalism is there to catch the simple minded people, legitimating the Plutocratic rule, making it easier for that Oligarchy to make more profits and power, while the dumb mass even thinks that is right.

And this crap, together with other harmful aspects of Liberalism and Cultural Marxism, was brought over Europeans with the American force, the human and natural material the continent had, in a superb geostrategical position.

It was really the worst thing in Europe's history so far, that the wrong people settled that country in America and the worst people took it over, making it their exclusive tool.

And you now talk about Europe's fault, when all that mess came from the US of A? Of course, Britain played its role, no doubt about it, but if you say continentals are to blame...

That is so cynical, since still the US force strangles us and forces us into this darkness with Financial Capitalism and various institutions and networks which control and corrupt our politicians...

What Europe was is no longer there and that catastrophy would have never happened without the US doing that to us.

Savant

02-02-2011, 11:37 AM

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/lunatic.jpg

The Cultural Marxists were expelled from Europe by the Ns., but got a warm welcome in the US of A and there they could flourish, were sent back to test their ideas and helping "re-educate" the Germans. Point was, this experiment became so successful, that they soon expanded it to all of the West of course.

And, American families at that time were not "traditional", they were just bourgeois in the Western-Liberal sense, in no way "traditional". Of course they were closer to traditional, than they are today, but still...

Point is, you don't see the USA as what they were and still are, just a tool of the Plutocrats and the whole Liberalism-Capitalism is there to catch the simple minded people, legitimating the Plutocratic rule, making it easier for that Oligarchy to make more profits and power, while the dumb mass even thinks that is right.

And this crap, together with other harmful aspects of Liberalism and Cultural Marxism, was brought over Europeans with the American force, the human and natural material the continent had, in a superb geostrategical position.

It was really the worst thing in Europe's history so far, that the wrong people settled that country in America and the worst people took it over, making it their exclusive tool.

And you now talk about Europe's fault, when all that mess came from the US of A? Of course, Britain played its role, no doubt about it, but if you say continentals are to blame...

That is so cynical, since still the US force strangles us and forces us into this darkness with Financial Capitalism and various institutions and networks which control and corrupt our politicians...

What Europe was is no longer there and that catastrophy would have never happened without the US doing that to us.

BeerBaron

10-04-2011, 05:12 PM

The books economic assessment is wrong, right off the bat. I will read it tonight and give my comments, but that is one thing that is glaring right off the bat.

Joe McCarthy

10-04-2011, 05:13 PM

The books economic assessment is wrong, right off the bat. I will read it tonight and give my comments, but that is one thing that is glaring right off the bat.

In what way is the assessment wrong? The economic projections are from Goldman Sachs, btw.

Wadjet Horus

10-04-2011, 05:54 PM

Hahahaha, it is fun to see adult people crying at the horror house mirror. Is the west losing power? Or did the west really have the power? Is it the mirror goes wrong or yourself?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tzu/lowres/tzun411l.jpg

You fear China, I feel it, it is true, however, you fear that India, Mexico, Brazil would be aligned with China against the west, the No.4 heroin would even make you soberer :lightbul:

Brazil-India-Mexico have become a backwater just because you had made them to be so, they are not going to rise under chinese influence? They are your primary responsibility, if they choose us as their masters, it might because you never really have ruled the world. Accept the reality.

Wadjet Horus

10-04-2011, 06:13 PM

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tzu/lowres/tzun411l.jpg

The western mentality before the challenges from the East Asia, is like a man facing to the horror house mirror, they creat their own perception of world think they rule the world, a world exists within his distorted mirror, a disfugured man standing before the distorted mirror will be looking at an image of a straight, normal person.In fact both of the mirror and the person are disfigured, the western majority do not care to look at the reality of the world, they just looking at their distorted dillusion for comfort and fun. When a up-right person, standing at your mirror, he laughs, it is funny. Putting India, Brazil, Mexico, Zionism all the distortions make up by your own hands into our future is like forging a distorted mirror for us, why? because your mind is distorted first, but I will just accept the joke and take a laugh at your fragile, distorted up-rightness, and you are laughing too, at my distorted ugly image. :D

Wadjet Horus

10-04-2011, 06:36 PM

China will not interfere with the aftermanth of western colonialism(continuing untill tis day), created by the power infiltration. Why would us? You think you have control of those countries becaue they do not pose any challenge, if we can challenge the west alone why would us use them? You concept of ruling the world is wrong from the very start, we would not need to exert the power in the way of the west to make the things right. People will decide for themself, which mirror they will use, we only shatter you mirror after tired of the old joke. By this you mean we rule the world? no, we will just walk away, and you will be slitting your own wrists, it is how China will rule the world or we togather build a right mirror.

Aces High

10-04-2011, 06:44 PM

Brazil-India-Mexico have become a backwater

They always were.

W. R.

10-04-2011, 07:02 PM

Doesn't China just follow the example of South Korea, Japan after WWII, Singapore? The Chinese have created highly competitive society where the notion of "welfare" doesn't exist and a half of members of the communist party are businessmen. Plus luckily China is an autocratic state, and the ruling elite can exploit the people without taking their woes into account. I grinned when I read that Lukashenka referred to China as to "socially oriented state". Where is your "socially oriented state" now, L? Capitalism gets sh*t done, socialism doesn't. China's double digit growth confirms that.

For better future of Europe European socialists should be lined up and shot.

Wadjet Horus

10-04-2011, 07:29 PM

Doesn't China just follow the example of South Korea, Japan after WWII, Singapore? The Chinese have created highly competitive society where the notion of "welfare" doesn't exist and a half of members of the communist party are businessmen. Plus luckily China is an autocratic state, and the ruling elite can exploit the people without taking their woes into account

Social responsibility not taken up will result in the death of nation, the souvereignty of China is not a free-lunch for any elites any citizen.

Gamera

10-05-2011, 03:12 AM

LOL @ people saying Brazil would blindly side with Venezuela if the USA attacked that country. This implies lack of knowledge about other countries and how people in other countries see the USA. Brazil as a peripheral western nation just follows the only 2 values spread by the USA "West" these days: "democracy" and material wealth. If the US were to invade Venezuela to overthrow Chavez and give Venezuelans "democracy" and hope for material wealth, Brazilians would support the US. If the US just wanted to exterminate Venezuelans (how much likely is this?), then of course Brazilians would be against the USA.

You as a Brazilian must know better than I, but I don't think the current government would support such thing. They would be neutral at most.

Contra Mundum

10-05-2011, 07:14 AM

http://www.futurevigil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/when-china-rules-663x1023.jpg

A key and sometimes overlooked point is that the basis for cultural, political, and military power is economic power, and in this paradigm altering book, the following astounding yet credible projections are discussed:

By 2050

- China's economy will be twice that of the United States.
- Four of the five largest economies will be non-Western - China, India (which will be about even with the US), Brazil, and Mexico.
- Of the top ten largest economies only two will be European, Germany and Britain.

Those familiar with the discussion of the BRIC nations will be up on some of this, but Jacques takes it much further as he discusses the historical, political, and military ramifications of all of this. The end result can only mean one thing: trouble for the West.

The book can be read here. (http://www.cui-zy.cn/Course/course2009/MID&IMPA/chinarulesworld.pdf)

LOL@Mexico..I strongly disagree with them being in the top 5. Mexico has a large population of ignorant people and their birthrate has dropped dramatically.

France's GDP will be as large as the UKs. Where is Russia?

ikki

10-05-2011, 07:35 AM

one of the great parts about china being in control of the world is that they arent judgemental. They dont care crap about affirmative action and other such nonsense. It will be a freer world.

SwordoftheVistula

10-05-2011, 07:58 AM

Where is Russia?

Ran out of oil by 2050, I suppose

Logan

10-05-2011, 08:25 AM

Another and others.
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/legacy/255-5.gif

http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/09/21/publics-of-asian-powers-hold-negative-views-of-one-another/

zack

10-05-2011, 08:27 AM

I dont like the book. Because it does not take into account the scarcity of natural resources. The world wont be able to survive another united states that consumes and consumes and consumes.

Contra Mundum

10-05-2011, 08:28 AM

Ran out of oil by 2050, I suppose

So will Mexico.

Joe McCarthy

10-05-2011, 08:33 AM

Where is Russia?

They're projected to be number 6.

W. R.

10-05-2011, 08:59 AM

They're projected to be number 6.According to Latynina the Chinese themselves refer to Russia as "slowly sinking ship".

Joe McCarthy

10-05-2011, 09:21 AM

According to Latynina the Chinese themselves refer to Russia as "slowly sinking ship".

Could go either way, imo. Massive systemic corruption is a huge hurdle. Putin is Al Capone with nuclear weapons. Then there is the demographic situation...

BeerBaron

10-05-2011, 09:38 AM

Could go either way, imo. Massive systemic corruption is a huge hurdle. Putin is Al Capone with nuclear weapons. Then there is the demographic situation...

Russia will sell everything it has to keep going, their sales of arms to china, in particular the advanced anti ship missiles is a big concern.

ikki

10-05-2011, 09:49 AM

I dont like the book. Because it does not take into account the scarcity of natural resources. The world wont be able to survive another united states that consumes and consumes and consumes.

nah, we arent even close to running out of resources. Just the easy ones... if you can call them that. Ya know 1 grams per 3000 tons of crushed rock is supposedly easy :D

Its all a question of energy, with enough energy anything is possible. And that means nuclear... yes its true that if the energy is supposed to be generated from wind, tide, sun and prayer... yes, then indeed the world cannot survive another america. The energy production must be much more efficcient.

Just like the switch from horsies to cars was a act of ecology, the world could not survive all those horses (and their dung piled up several floors high along the streets). Guess it leaked thru those windows... and no wonder penthouses became so popular

zack

10-05-2011, 10:03 AM

nah, we arent even close to running out of resources. Just the easy ones... if you can call them that. Ya know 1 grams per 3000 tons of crushed rock is supposedly easy :D

Its all a question of energy, with enough energy anything is possible. And that means nuclear... yes its true that if the energy is supposed to be generated from wind, tide, sun and prayer... yes, then indeed the world cannot survive another america. The energy production must be much more efficcient.

Just like the switch from horsies to cars was a act of ecology, the world could not survive all those horses (and their dung piled up several floors high along the streets). Guess it leaked thru those windows... and no wonder penthouses became so popular

There is also peak oil. America consumes so much oil....can you really handle over a billion consumers on the level of america? The chinese middle class is the entire size of the united states population...

Oil is used for many things other then filling the car tank up...plastics...pesticides(that allow those huge cop yields that feed the world).

Joe McCarthy

10-05-2011, 10:15 AM

one of the great parts about china being in control of the world is that they arent judgemental. They dont care crap about affirmative action and other such nonsense. It will be a freer world.

Tibet would have a few things to say about whether China is judgmental. Historically China has demanded its neighbors kowtow to it in a show of obedience and recognition of its superiority. Do you want the tributary system made part of international relations? I don't.

As for a 'freer world', I trust the internal dynamics of China along with previous historical epochs featuring Asian dominance (e.g., Mongols in the 13th century, Ottomans in the 16th century, etc.,) will be enough to disprove such an absurdity.

Aces High

10-05-2011, 10:28 AM

Tibet would have a few things to say about whether China is judgmental.

Laos,Chile and Cambodia to name a few have a few things to say about wether the US is judgemental.:rolleyes:

Joe McCarthy

10-05-2011, 10:49 AM

Laos,Chile and Cambodia to name a few have a few things to say about wether the US is judgemental.:rolleyes:

American judgmentalism is a far sight better than having the Chinks doing it. And those are looking to be your choices. It's funny how you're effectively taking a pro-Communist posture with that comment too. All of those cases involved fighting Marxism in the broader context of the Cold War.

But then I've learned that to neo-Nazis any weapon will do if it can be used to bash 'ZOG'.

Aces High

10-05-2011, 11:04 AM

It's funny how you're effectively taking a pro-Communist posture

Making an objective comment about US involvment agaisnt foreign countries when the US has no right to be there doesnt make a person pro communist you fucking tool.

SwordoftheVistula

10-08-2011, 07:33 AM

Laos,Chile and Cambodia to name a few have a few things to say about wether the US is judgemental.

Chile is now the one of the best economies in South America, nearly tied with Uruguay, despite not having any oil wealth like Venezuela

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

At any rate, the US did not 'interfere' in Chile to much of any degree. The only interference came from Spain reasserting its colonialism, their government issued an arrest warrant and tried to put him on trial despite Chile having been independent of Spain since 1818.

Mordid

10-10-2011, 09:22 AM

China is not likely to rule until it learns to abide by the rules.

Wadjet Horus

10-10-2011, 10:58 AM

As for a 'freer world', I trust the internal dynamics of China along with previous historical epochs featuring Asian dominance (e.g., Mongols in the 13th century, Ottomans in the 16th century, etc.,) will be enough to disprove such an absurdity.

The Mongol empire was a result of western colonialism that had been lasted for 2 thousand years untill the rise of the mongols. Tocharian culture and their descendents were central and instrumental to the creation of the mongol empire. The mongols, were the heirs of the neolithic central asian aryans not mongoloid people. Mongoloid siberians within the nomadic union were the reason why people misunderstand that mongols were mongoloid, adding the colonial mentality of the western people, which dismisses everything, historical or contemprary from the east as savage, infidel, blasphemous, the west would pick on the minority mongoloids among the predominant eastern caucasian population to be accountable for the whole eastern caucasian population. This is a heritage from the highly conceited colonial era, when the naive science and crooked hypocrisy coexisted. Wthout regarding to the implication of recent genetic findings, but relying on the traditional crooked disdain and fear toward the east, it is easy for mongoloid-mongol misconception to be propagate persist. In this case, the chinese propaganda of Ghengis Khan as a mongoloid also has a hand in creation of this misconception, due to the tradition of chinese people regarding their successful conquerors as ancestors, some post-mongol alleged portraits depict Ghengis Khan like a fat average chinese. More doubt can arise if considder the tradition of chinese art never learn to highlight the features which modern people use as racially distinct traits.

Modern genetic study has showed clearly, mongol invasion did not leave any trace of mongoloid people within the western Eurasia, Europe. The mongoloid admixture happened not in the territory where mongols ruled for 400 years but rather in northwesthern Europe--Finland/Estonia/Lithuania, and the mixture happened long before the mongol invasion.

Colonialism is never a new phenomenon, it started with the neolithic caucasians migrating on their chariots from the west, they were pure europids. They settled around the vicinity of ancient China, would occaisionally invade and assimilate other native elements. India, exactly a proof of ancient colonialism, where the aryans invaded and en mass massacred te natives, created their earliest written and spoken languages. A part of europids stayed in Europe, neverthlessly, they were somehow influenced by the indo- aryan culture, started the geek civilization, while those who migrated to the east, they formed powerful nomadic union, based on their nomadic culture/technology, assimilated probably older form of indo-aryan culture and middle eastern, persian cultures, thus gave birth to the turkic heritage. This heritage is obviously dominated by the caucasian race, the mongoloid elements were the forced assimilation under their long colonial power. The huns, mongols, all rose from this heritage, racially, culturally predominantly caucasian. This can be proven by the genetics of central asians, modern turkic people, siberian tartars, middle easterners.

According to Cinnioglu et al., (2004)[16] there are many Y-DNA haplogroups present in Turkey. The majority haplogroups are primarily shared with European, Caucasian and Middle Eastern populations such as haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, R1a, R1b, K and T which form 78.5% from the Turkish Gene pool (without R1b, K, and which notably occur elsewhere, it is 59.3%) and contrast with a smaller share of haplogroups related to Central Asia (N and Q)- 5.7% (but it rises to 36% if K, R1a, R1b and L- which infrequently occur in Central Asia, but are notable in many other Western Turkic groups), India H, R2 - 1.5% and Africa A, E3*, E3a - 1%. Some of the percentages identified were:

Y chromosome Haplogroup distribution of Turkish people[16]J1=9% - Typical amongst people from the Arabian Peninsula and Dagestan (ranging from 3% from Turks around Konya to 12% in Kurds).
J2=24% - J2 (M172) Typical of populations of the Near East, Southeast Europe, Southwest Asia and the Caucasus, with a moderate distribution through much of Central Asia, South Asia, and North Africa
R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian,Caucasus,Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people.
I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans, Western Caucasian and Balkan populations.
R1b=14.7% -Typical of Western Europeans and Eurasian People [17]
E1b1b1=10.7% - Typical of people from the Mediterranean
G=10.9% - Typical of people from the Caucasus and to a lesser extent the Middle East.
N=3.8% - Typical of Uralic, Siberian and Altaic populations.
T=2.5% - Typical of Mediterranean, Northeast African and South Asian populations
K=4.5% - Typical of Asian populations and Caucasian populations.
L=4.2% - Typical of Indian Subcontinent and Khorasan populations.
Q=1.9% - Typical of Northern Altaic populations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people

Also ironically, the only mongoloid genetic haplogroup that can be historically linked to the mongol empire, haplogroup C stayed in the far east. and around the border of China. Western Eurasia stay clean of any mongoloid C haplogroup admixture.

From " The genetic legacy of the Mongols " The study was based on the premise that mongols were mongoloid. So we have that, most mongoloid genes turned out to be east asians or western chinese hybrids, whatever the mongol haplogroup is, there are more western admixture present within western China population.

http://usera.imagecave.com/Binarigamma/AJHGv72p717fg2.jpg

Summing up the genetic and historical facts, it is very clearly that mongols and huns were all caucasian, they descended from neolithic europids from Central Asia, like Andronovo and Afanasievo Cultures. The turks and mongols did come from Mongolia, but before that, they came from the west during the neolithic age and conquered Siberia and Mongolia since 500BC and assimilated a part of siberian native(now the mongolians). Just like Colonists came from the west, conquered natives, and then went back to the west again. It is not that Mongolia was their homeland, but it was where they conquered first, their homeland was the west originally.

European blood

10-10-2011, 11:07 AM

LONDON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- An ugly momentum is building in the South China Sea, where an official Chinese newspaper called last week for war against Vietnam and the Philippines to uphold China's assertion of sovereignty over the mineral-rich seabed, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The lead article in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times

Tuesday carried the headline "The time to use force has arrived in the South China Sea; Let's wage wars on the Philippines and Vietnam to prevent more wars."

"The South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars," the article said. "Of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?"

The article went on to argue that "the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Walker/2011/10/03/Walkers-World-War-in-South-China-Sea/UPI-23491317637140/

research_centre

10-10-2011, 11:20 AM

It’s disturbing these people are going to be ruling the world very soon. Between the Zionists and the Chinese, the real horrors for the white race are yet to come.

The only realy horrors are for those who have fallen into their trap. Those they have too medicated (drugged,) brainwashed and overly addicted to technology devices, or just plain too fucking dumbed down to see what they are doing. :coffee:

Wadjet Horus

10-10-2011, 11:29 AM

Persian historian Racid Al-Hamadani during the reign Kublai Khan described Ghengis Khan as a pale skinned, blued eyed caucasian. This is the only description of Ghengis Khan in racial details. His work was commissioned and supervised by mongol embassy.

Joe McCarthy

10-10-2011, 01:20 PM

Wadjet Horus

10-10-2011, 01:50 PM

International capitalism=domestic communism, while I do not like our government, the US government is also nothing better. Can you imagine how dangerous can the internationa capitalists are? they can manipulate, infiltrate, contaminate every sector possible without being detected. To detect the criminals you will need to be another criminal. I do not support China ruling the world, but I would not want the US to dominate either.

Gamera

10-11-2011, 04:30 AM

Chile is now the one of the best economies in South America, nearly tied with Uruguay, despite not having any oil wealth like Venezuela

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

At any rate, the US did not 'interfere' in Chile to much of any degree. The only interference came from Spain reasserting its colonialism, their government issued an arrest warrant and tried to put him on trial despite Chile having been independent of Spain since 1818.

I will try not to write too much about this since it's not the main topic, but I just wanted to clarify a bit on this.

First of all, there's no way I'd have taken that as the Spanish reasserting their colonialism, it was just "International justice" at work.

As for Chile, it's not as simple as it may seem. While I usually agree with the thesis that the US did not directly interfere as much as they're credited for and that had there been no Allende there would have been no Pinochet, the US did play an important role in the events that led to the coup, if you see the whole background scenario at least.

Allende blew it, yes. He was not even elected by the majority of the popular vote and it was a very divided election, yes. However, the US at the time Allende was elected had a very major share of most of Latin America's economy. Phone companies, banks, oil and rubber companies, fishing industries, copper mines, etc. In plenty of countries, the US ambassador had almost as much influence as the president itself. If one were to stretch it, I'd say that if there was ever something called "American Empire" in Latin America, this was the time (1920-1980, varying according to each country and peaking in the 50's, in my opinion).

Allende could have done better by being more pragmatic in some ways, and probably then there wouldn't have been any Pinochet, and by extension neither the need to support him. But when you analyze the whole scenario, and not just specific events, you can see the US did interfere a lot in Latin America indirectly.

That Chile is nowadays much better than the rest of South America thanks partially to Pinochet's economic reforms is a given. I'm not going to say that they were simply "lucky", I'd just say not everyone else had such a good outcome out of US-backed dictatorships.