Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Cosmored on 29/12/2007 21:45:23
-
These articles and videos are a good summary of what most non-Americans know and most Americans don't know. I hope nobody considers this to be spam just because there are a lot of links. The US exploits a lot of third world countries so I have to post a lot of info.
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
http://michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&pl=true
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159
More here.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/
Enter "Death squads", or "Torture" in this search engine for some really informative stuff.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html
If you live abroad, you can learn about a lot of this stuff without having to read anything.
This post was edited by the moderators due to their being too many external links .(Cosmored you were given time to perform this action yourself).
We expect members to act sensible when linking their post to external sites and video's as the moderators time is not unlimited and as in this case we therefore could not test there suitability under the forum guidelines.
-
The trouble is...we have to check every single one of these links.....and to be honest......I don't have the time (nor the inclination right now)to do this...so whilst this particular post is under discussion I would like to say that at this time all members and non members may click these links at your own risk and that TNS assumes no responsibility for the consequences there after.
-
Not having followed any of the links, nonetheless I'm sure none will particularly surprise or shock me - but I'm sure if the Internet had existed in the 19th century, we#d be saying exactly the same about British Imperialism, or even today, about Russian Imperialism.
I am afraid that as nasty as such things are, they are probably the inevitable consequence of human nature and international power politics, whoever happens to have the power to do such (Machiavelli had a lot to say about all of this 500 years ago).
-
Not having followed any of the links, nonetheless I'm sure none will particularly surprise or shock me - but I'm sure if the Internet had existed in the 19th century, we#d be saying exactly the same about British Imperialism, or even today, about Russian Imperialism.
I am afraid that as nasty as such things are, they are probably the inevitable consequence of human nature and international power politics, whoever happens to have the power to do such (Machiavelli had a lot to say about all of this 500 years ago).
I would just like to say that ultimate power really has to reside in the rule of law and justice. Which ultimately has to come from consensus.
The world is not the same today as it was in the past, it was a lack of legal frameworks that allowed would be empires to roam free. Although many in postions of power hate to be restrained by the rule of law, it is the only the rule of law that can save us from the darker side of some peoples nature.
With the law everything is lawfull, without it, nothing is.
I also take issue with the human nature statement, some may be driven to suppress and control others but I would argue that the vast majority of people really just want to live and enjoy there lives freely.
The trick really is to stop the bad guys getting to the top in the first place. But then isn't democracy itself designed and meant to stop that? To rule by the consensus of the people.
Some would argue that it could never really work or that it has failed, or that it is too weak, I would just say that really all other options would be far worse.
Really the only people that argue that democracy is weak are the same people that want tyranny(normally with them as the tyrant).
It is desire that makes the world go round, and fortunately the vast majority want happiness and freedom, democracy with the rule of law is the only real system that can provide that.
There will always be losers but it also will always be better to lose in a democracy, than in some fascist dictatorship or even just a plain dictatorship.
Don't forget that the rule of law also applies to the market.
It seems to me that it's always when the rule of law fails that truly bad stuff happens(laws not yet made/implemented excepted), The current credit crisis is an example of just that reality.
-
Not happy with that post ,to many links. We are discussing this particular post but in my opinion its a case of reduced them or lose them.
-
I would just like to say that ultimate power really has to reside in the rule of law and justice. Which ultimately has to come from consensus.
Is law and justice synonymous? Not really (although justice itself can be subjective, whereas law seeks to be absolute).
The real problem is when one group seeks to apply its law, which may have some degree of consensus within that group, upon an alien group who has never been involved in the consensus that created that law, and who have a different cultural heritage.
The world is not the same today as it was in the past, it was a lack of legal frameworks that allowed would be empires to roam free.
There were technological differences, but humans were not that different.
It has always been one of the justifications of many major empires that they sought to impose the rule of law upon barbarians beyond its borders (this was certainly the justification of Roman empire, and the British empire). One aspect of this was to seek to portray those beyond their borders as barbaric and lawless, and so provide justification for subduing them in order to impose what one saw as civilised values upon them.
Ofcourse, in some ways, this is also a self fulfilling policy, in that part of the consequence of empires extending their power is that they undermine other sources of power, and so actively create lawlessness along their boundaries, and so create the need to subdue those lawless elements.
In that respect, America sees itself as the policemen of the world, and seeks to justify its imposition (by military means where appropriate) on foreign peoples by suggesting that it is bringing civilised (i.e. American - since that which is not American is clearly barbarian - just as the term barbarian itself originally described all that was not Roman) values to these peoples. Nothing has changed.
I also take issue with the human nature statement, some may be driven to suppress and control others but I would argue that the vast majority of people really just want to live and enjoy there lives freely.
I don't think there was anything I said to the contrary.
You are correct that the vast majority of people do not wish to impose their control upon others, but those people do not seek political power, so they have little influence on matters of power politics. While I do accept that there are a small minority of accidental politicians, those who never sought power, but had power thrust upon them; the vast majority of politicians have power because they sought power, and those people (whether they be kings or presidents) are people who seek power because they do wish to control the lives of other people. This is not to say that all who seek power seek to do evil upon others, for the most part they justify their actions by claiming to seek to do good for others, yet nonetheless they still seek to disempower others even as they justify that disempowerment by claiming to do good.
The trick really is to stop the bad guys getting to the top in the first place. But then isn't democracy itself designed and meant to stop that? To rule by the consensus of the people.
On the contrary - democracy (or, to be more accurate, representative democracy - the same is not true for direct democracy) only allows those to the top who desire power, and desire it desperately enough to commit their lives to the acquisition of power.
Ofcourse, there are ways you could design a representative democracy that did not fall into the hands of a self selecting group of power hungry people, but to achieve that you would have to thrust power into the hands of those who do not thirst for power, and one has to ask whether we are ready to do that.
The ideal democracy is one that spreads power so thinly that so individual has any substantial amount of power, and those who thirst for power have no position they can attain where enough power resides to satisfy their thirst. The reality is that such a dilution of power often creates a political system that is incapable of making rapid decisions, and that creates its own weakness. It is also the case that even small concentrations of power can become a magnate for those who thirst for power, and they can use that position of even slight concentration of power to accumulate more power (this is how the modern parliamentary system developed - parliament started as merely a means to limit the power of the King, but as it ever more achieved this aim, so it accumulated ever more power to itself, and all the powers that were once vested in the monarch, the very powers that parliament was designed to apply limits to, are now themselves vested within parliament, and there is no significant counterbalance that is able to apply limits to the way that parliament uses these powers - which, in reality, are vested in the party leaders - so the system has shifted power from one place to another, but men who thirst for power then merely have to place themselves in the place where that power resides).
Some would argue that it could never really work or that it has failed, or that it is too weak, I would just say that really all other options would be far worse.
Really the only people that argue that democracy is weak are the same people that want tyranny(normally with them as the tyrant).
But representative democracy has also been described as an elected dictatorship.
Representative democracy is not weak because it is far from an ideal democracy.
One of the countries with something closer to a direct democracy than most is Switzerland. One thing one can say about Switzerland is that it will never have an empire (maybe some would regard that as a sign of weakness?). But Switzerland is also the most conservative country in Europe, and was the last (by a wide margin) country in Europe to give women the vote in all elections in all cantons.
It is desire that makes the world go round, and fortunately the vast majority want happiness and freedom, democracy with the rule of law is the only real system that can provide that.
Many people would argue (I am not saying I agree with them, only that if one believes in democracy, then one has to take into account their argument) that democracy undermines the rule of law. Many in Russia are now arguing that their brief flirtation with Western style democracy only brought lawlessness, and they would rather have the rule of law without democracy than democracy without the rule of law. Many, particularly in the Middle East and Far East have tried democracy, and saw it brought into power corrupt politicians, and so many now are looking towards other systems of power (in some cases they see religious theocracies as being less susceptible to corruption than democracies).
Democracy is not a panacea, and this is particularly the case when one is only trying to sell one particular model of democracy, a representative democratic model that has arisen in Europe and some of its colonies out of various accidents of history, but which in no way can be said to have been designed to be robust enough simply to be slotted into any foreign culture and immediately solve all of their problems.
Personally, I am not arguing against democracy, and am myself a believer in democracy; but I am very much arguing against a narrow minded notion that equates democracy with the particular implementation of it that we have inherited in the West. Our democracy is far from ideal, far from robust, and very vulnerable to corruption - and if we are to look to introduce democracies in other parts of the world, we should be more imaginative about how we do it. Ofcourse, the underlying problem is that the people who are in a position to implement change are the very politicians who have benefited from our own 'democratic' system, and so inherently regard that as the gold standard by which other democratic systems should be judged, despite the acknowledgements of its limitations.
-
I would just like to say that ultimate power really has to reside in the rule of law and justice. Which ultimately has to come from consensus.
Is law and justice synonymous? Not really (although justice itself can be subjective, whereas law seeks to be absolute).
The real problem is when one group seeks to apply its law, which may have some degree of consensus within that group, upon an alien group who has never been involved in the consensus that created that law, and who have a different cultural heritage.
Well there is a problem, those that are affected by the law, have to have a say in its implementation and arrangement. People have to know where they stand and what the law is trying to enforce; laws in which citzens have had no say in, can never work.
The law is an evolutionary process therefore those involved have to be considered.
The world is not the same today as it was in the past, it was a lack of legal frameworks that allowed would be empires to roam free.
There were technological differences, but humans were not that different.
It has always been one of the justifications of many major empires that they sought to impose the rule of law upon barbarians beyond its borders (this was certainly the justification of Roman empire, and the British empire). One aspect of this was to seek to portray those beyond their borders as barbaric and lawless, and so provide justification for subduing them in order to impose what one saw as civilised values upon them.
You have to be civil to be civilised. I would argue that a desire for resources combined with an utter lack of respect for other human beings, is what really drove that process, the bringing of the law and civilisation was merely a vannear with which they glossed over the reality of what they were actually doing.
Ofcourse, in some ways, this is also a self fulfilling policy, in that part of the consequence of empires extending their power is that they undermine other sources of power, and so actively create lawlessness along their boundaries, and so create the need to subdue those lawless elements.
For every action there is a reaction.
In that respect, America sees itself as the policemen of the world, and seeks to justify its imposition (by military means where appropriate) on foreign peoples by suggesting that it is bringing civilised (i.e. American - since that which is not American is clearly barbarian - just as the term barbarian itself originally described all that was not Roman) values to these peoples. Nothing has changed.
It's the vannear again, what is being stated as a noble intencion is in reality a lie to gain support for what is actually metaphorically speaking, a greedy land grab.
Things have changed we today have the UN, NATO, and many other international bodies, ICC etc. If the laws that stand today were applied as they should have been, alot of the propblems we are currently going through wouldn't be happening.
I also take issue with the human nature statement, some may be driven to suppress and control others but I would argue that the vast majority of people really just want to live and enjoy there lives freely.
I don't think there was anything I said to the contrary.
You are correct that the vast majority of people do not wish to impose their control upon others, but those people do not seek political power, so they have little influence on matters of power politics. While I do accept that there are a small minority of accidental politicians, those who never sought power, but had power thrust upon them; the vast majority of politicians have power because they sought power, and those people (whether they be kings or presidents) are people who seek power because they do wish to control the lives of other people. This is not to say that all who seek power seek to do evil upon others, for the most part they justify their actions by claiming to seek to do good for others, yet nonetheless they still seek to disempower others even as they justify that disempowerment by claiming to do good.
It's a sad old game really isn't it, I think that's where moral fiber and belief in what they are doing, have to come in, for example if a politician is dedicated to the notion of democracy, they should then work to protect it, but that then takes a deep understanding of what democracy is and needs a certain amount of moral fiber on the side of the politician.
The trick really is to stop the bad guys getting to the top in the first place. But then isn't democracy itself designed and meant to stop that? To rule by the consensus of the people.
On the contrary - democracy (or, to be more accurate, representative democracy - the same is not true for direct democracy) only allows those to the top who desire power, and desire it desperately enough to commit their lives to the acquisition of power.
Ofcourse, there are ways you could design a representative democracy that did not fall into the hands of a self selecting group of power hungry people, but to achieve that you would have to thrust power into the hands of those who do not thirst for power, and one has to ask whether we are ready to do that.
The parties themselves should work to screen those that would run for election. I would argue that the people driven to seek power in the extreme ways some do are really suffering from internal problems. In the interests of the people, the parties should work to restict there activity; They(the power hungry) will ofcourse try to find ways around it.
The ideal democracy is one that spreads power so thinly that so individual has any substantial amount of power, and those who thirst for power have no position they can attain where enough power resides to satisfy their thirst. The reality is that such a dilution of power often creates a political system that is incapable of making rapid decisions, and that creates its own weakness. It is also the case that even small concentrations of power can become a magnate for those who thirst for power, and they can use that position of even slight concentration of power to accumulate more power (this is how the modern parliamentary system developed - parliament started as merely a means to limit the power of the King, but as it ever more achieved this aim, so it accumulated ever more power to itself, and all the powers that were once vested in the monarch, the very powers that parliament was designed to apply limits to, are now themselves vested within parliament, and there is no significant counterbalance that is able to apply limits to the way that parliament uses these powers - which, in reality, are vested in the party leaders - so the system has shifted power from one place to another, but men who thirst for power then merely have to place themselves in the place where that power resides).
Well that is where the rule of law has to take it's position. Politicians keep finding ways around it and often seek loopholes or work to keep themselves from prosecution. That is the main problem there, if the law was enforced properly they wouldn't be able to. Again I would say it is a failure of the rule of law, that allows politicians to gain more power.
Some would argue that it could never really work or that it has failed, or that it is too weak, I would just say that really all other options would be far worse.
Really the only people that argue that democracy is weak are the same people that want tyranny(normally with them as the tyrant).
But representative democracy has also been described as an elected dictatorship.
Representative democracy is not weak because it is far from an ideal democracy.
One of the countries with something closer to a direct democracy than most is Switzerland. One thing one can say about Switzerland is that it will never have an empire (maybe some would regard that as a sign of weakness?).
Some certainly would.
But Switzerland is also the most conservative country in Europe, and was the last (by a wide margin) country in Europe to give women the vote in all elections in all cantons.
It is desire that makes the world go round, and fortunately the vast majority want happiness and freedom, democracy with the rule of law is the only real system that can provide that.
Many people would argue (I am not saying I agree with them, only that if one believes in democracy, then one has to take into account their argument) that democracy undermines the rule of law. Many in Russia are now arguing that their brief flirtation with Western style democracy only brought lawlessness, and they would rather have the rule of law without democracy than democracy without the rule of law. Many, particularly in the Middle East and Far East have tried democracy, and saw it brought into power corrupt politicians, and so many now are looking towards other systems of power (in some cases they see religious theocracies as being less susceptible to corruption than democracies).
I disagree, I would argue that democracy wasn't really implemented, and that democracy has been blamed for the actions of the market.
Democracy is not a panacea, and this is particularly the case when one is only trying to sell one particular model of democracy, a representative democratic model that has arisen in Europe and some of its colonies out of various accidents of history, but which in no way can be said to have been designed to be robust enough simply to be slotted into any foreign culture and immediately solve all of their problems.
True democracy will always reflect those involved in it, if it doesn't then there is a problem, in that sense every countries democracy will differ from the others, which is how it should be. Trying to force other countries to do it the same way as us, again really is an attempt to, in some way, have influence over them.
Personally, I am not arguing against democracy, and am myself a believer in democracy; but I am very much arguing against a narrow minded notion that equates democracy with the particular implementation of it that we have inherited in the West. Our democracy is far from ideal, far from robust, and very vulnerable to corruption - and if we are to look to introduce democracies in other parts of the world, we should be more imaginative about how we do it. Ofcourse, the underlying problem is that the people who are in a position to implement change are the very politicians who have benefited from our own 'democratic' system, and so inherently regard that as the gold standard by which other democratic systems should be judged, despite the acknowledgements of its limitations.
Which is a huge problem, I feel that really steams from arrogance and pride. But also from a desire to make other countries just like us, which again can never work really. ultimately democracy is a system which is meant to give everyone involved a voice, and clearly every country has a different way of talking.
-
Well there is a problem, those that are affected by the law, have to have a say in its implementation and arrangement. People have to know where they stand and what the law is trying to enforce; laws in which citzens have had no say in, can never work.
The law is an evolutionary process therefore those involved have to be considered.
So how do you implement this when the law of the land effects people who are not nationals of the land (e.g. asylum seekers)?
I am not disagreeing with the principle, but am merely highlighting some of the problems (sometimes the principle is not applied even where such inherent problems do not exist, but clearly there are situations where there are innate difficulties in finding ways of applying the principle itself).
Things have changed we today have the UN, NATO, and many other international bodies, ICC etc.
How is the UN and other international bodies any better?
Firstly, while these bodies may be supra-national, none of them are actually democratic (when did you last vote for your UN representative?).
Secondly, these bodies are political bodies, no different from any other political body. They are political bodies with only limited real power, and that limitation on their power makes them fairly benign, but if they had the amount of power vested in them that most national governments would have, they would be very dangerous bodies indeed. This is not to say that the bodies should not be there, but their value lies particularly in the fact that they have little real power, and so since they are to a substantial exert unable to exert their will by force, so they are obliged to exert their will by consensus; but they would be very dangerous bodies indeed if they were given sufficient power that they no longer needed to obtain that consensus (not least because, as I indicated above, they are not actually democratic bodies at all).
If the laws that stand today were applied as they should have been, alot of the propblems we are currently going through wouldn't be happening.
Laws can only be applied if there are institutions with the authority to apply the law, and to enforce their ruling.
The problem is, to have a court that can have a case brought before it, and then have its verdict enforced, one needs the political will to do this, and that requires the co-operation of the very politicians against whom the law might be applied. How do you do this?
The parties themselves should work to screen those that would run for election.
How? The parties are composed of the very same people who seek to become politicians, and so are motivated by the same desires as other politicians.
In any case, if the parties screen out too many people, is that not really counter-democratic? (in fact, I would argue that this is in fact what parties do anyway, although for other reasons, which is why party politics is never really democratic, since only those who rise to the top of their political parties can ever seek election in politics anyway).
Well that is where the rule of law has to take it's position. Politicians keep finding ways around it and often seek loopholes or work to keep themselves from prosecution. That is the main problem there, if the law was enforced properly they wouldn't be able to. Again I would say it is a failure of the rule of law, that allows politicians to gain more power.
While I do agree that having a political elite that is immune from the same legal constraints and sanctions as the rest of the population is an anathema to democracy (not least because if politicians pass laws that they are themselves subject to, then they may be less inclined to pass bad laws); but politicians would themselves, quite rightly, argue one has to be careful about giving the courts too strong a voice in political affairs, since the courts are not themselves democratic institutions either.
The historic justification for the immunity from prosecution of members of parliament goes back to the days when parliament was not itself a law creating body, but was merely a counterbalance to the power of the King, and it was intended to protect members of parliament who displeased the King from being imprisoned by the King, who in that way could influence the votes within Parliament. In a way, we still see similar things happening in other countries, where Hamas, who won the parliamentary elections for the PLA in 2006, and yet are actively prevented from sitting in parliament (many of their members are in Israeli jails, while others simply are prevented from travelling to the parliamentary sessions in Ramallah). Thus, while it is not a common problem that the law might be used to distort the democratic will, it is certainly possible that it could happen, and so there must be some level of safeguard to limit the possibility of it happening, while at the same time still making politicians legally accountable for their actions.
I disagree, I would argue that democracy wasn't really implemented, and that democracy has been blamed for the actions of the market.
I am not sure what the 'market' has to do with the matter; but they implemented that which was sold to them as democracy, and so that is what they have rejected. If someone wishes to try and sell them something else under the label 'democracy', that is a different matter – but then we have to have a clear idea of what it is that we use the label 'democracy' to describe.
As far as most politicians in the West are concerned, they use the term 'democracy' to mean anything that contains multi-party elections; and so as long as there are elections in which two or more parties take part, and each party has a fair chance of winning, then it satisfies their claim for a democratic system. Whether this is really a good way at all to define what democracy should be is open to question, but that is the package that is being sold as democracy.
-
How about if I start with these?
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
http://michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000133.htm
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&pl=true
Please don't delete the others. There is info there that isn't in the above links. People can see the videos and read the articles at their leisure.
I can't see any practical reason to delete them.
-
Well there is a problem, those that are affected by the law, have to have a say in its implementation and arrangement. People have to know where they stand and what the law is trying to enforce; laws in which citzens have had no say in, can never work.
The law is an evolutionary process therefore those involved have to be considered.
So how do you implement this when the law of the land effects people who are not nationals of the land (e.g. asylum seekers)?
Well, (not forgetting that the law is generally driven by moral ideas) asylum seekers, learn of the laws as they enter the country, should a law be extremely negative towards them you would hope that over time, through the legal system itself, which has to be steeped in rational, would work to correct any imbalance(injustice should it exist within the law), The law is also a evolutionary process, good laws maintained, bad laws removed, better laws written. If a person isn't aware of the law, to a degree they cannot be held accountable when breaking it. The same thing arises with holiday makers.
Things have changed we today have the UN, NATO, and many other international bodies, ICC etc.
How is the UN and other international bodies any better?
Firstly, while these bodies may be supra-national, none of them are actually democratic (when did you last vote for your UN representative?).
We don't, they are appointed by the people we elect.
Secondly, these bodies are political bodies, no different from any other political body. They are political bodies with only limited real power, and that limitation on their power makes them fairly benign, but if they had the amount of power vested in them that most national governments would have, they would be very dangerous bodies indeed. This is not to say that the bodies should not be there, but their value lies particularly in the fact that they have little real power, and so since they are to a substantial exert unable to exert their will by force, so they are obliged to exert their will by consensus; but they would be very dangerous bodies indeed if they were given sufficient power that they no longer needed to obtain that consensus (not least because, as I indicated above, they are not actually democratic bodies at all).
The UN will always work through consensus and will always have to. There is most certainly a place for international law generated by the UN. But how it should be strengthened is a touch one.
If the laws that stand today were applied as they should have been, alot of the problems we are currently going through wouldn't be happening.
that requires the co-operation of the very politicians against whom the law might be applied. How do you do this?
The law does not always require the cooperation of politicians, many politicians have been taken to court against their wishes. I would say really it requires a strong judiciary, but it can not solely rest in the hands of the police etc, it is ultimately a duty of every citzen to protect and assist the rule of law.
So other politicians, should also take a part in not allowing their fellow members to restrict its application.
As far as most politicians in the West are concerned, they use the term 'democracy' to mean anything that contains multi-party elections; and so as long as there are elections in which two or more parties take part, and each party has a fair chance of winning, then it satisfies their claim for a democratic system. Whether this is really a good way at all to define what democracy should be is open to question, but that is the package that is being sold as democracy.
Well democracy is certainly more than just that.
-
I realise actually that in a negative freedom society, you cannot have a democracy.
WHY? Well think about it. in a negative freedom society, ideas that are not exceptable must be suppressed.
But how do you suppress an idea, you cant really, so what that means is- you suppress the minds that have the ideas.
But not only that you also need to know who is thinking what, which means everyone in a negative freedom society has to be under surveillance.
And once you have been jotted down as a person with bad ideas, your brain is suppressed, the system demands it, why? to prevent revolution.
How do you suppress a brain? Well you drug it, you drive it crazy, increase the pressure in a person life till they crack, then they go to professionals and get medicated.
There are many reasons for this but I shall list 3
1. The person who has a break down has a lot more trouble in thinking and trusting their thoughts.
2. Once on medication, your are a non-thinker(zombie).
3. And the most important, Who listens to a crazy person?
not forgetting that some kill themselves of course
Understands ladies and gentlemen with the acceptance of negative freedom, Democracy died.
But not just democracy, freedom, human rights, law and order- Negative freedom actively promotes lawlessness, state sponsored lawlessness.
The system itself stands and works against all human rights laws. Why do you think Britain and America are so against the human rights laws? Because they are both negative freedom societies.
And that travesty of a system, they wanna role out around the world. That system is an abhorrence of everything I was brought up to believe in.
Democracy is dead and the greatest tragedy is that the Two countries that were meant to protect it Britain and America, are the very two that have destroyed it. FOR SHAME!
Dead man posting.
A word to the brown hair, in Hitlers world the blond rules. But don't worrie Brown hair you can wait tables and shine shoes and your children and their children can too, the brown haired Nazi fights for his own enslavement.
-
Wait wait wait, I distinctly remember this post from times past. Who revived it?
-
....basically, we'll own you ALL some day! best you get used to driving on the right-hand side of the road, eating buffalo-wings, measuring stuff in inches, and watching american idol!!
-
How about the Spanish genocide of the American indigenous population? Reducing native Americans to church slaves, dismembering them strangling them for their gold and silver, All of this only stopping when Spain ran out of money they got from the Americas.
Imperialism falls on all sides.