[Heisenberg]

Qatz has a point. With the very few exceptions below, France has never been at war.

I never thought I'd laugh so hard at such a simple post.

[Rich]

Qatz has a point. With the very few exceptions below, France has never been at war.

Battle of Pontlevoy
Norman rule in Southern Italy
Battle of Cannae
Battle of Olivento
Battle of Civitate
Siege of Capua
Duchy of Normandy
Battle of Val-ès-Dunes
Battle of Mortemer
Battle of Varaville
Byzantine–Norman wars
Siege of Bari
Battle of Dyrrhachium

....

OK lets start with just the top of the list for now.

First point Qatz said French not France. Its questionable whether old French speakers count as French. But even allowing you that, your claim that Normandy being at war meant that France was at war is highly dubious, although as the Duke of Normandy was technically a vassal of the King of France, you have a dubious claim. However the Norman lords of Southern Italy were not vassals of the French King, so France was not at war although they could at a very long stretch be classified as French. The Battles of Cannae can hardly be blamed on the French or France, France not having come into existence. I'm at a loss as to why you have included the Battles of Capu or Dyrrhachium.

[quetzalcoatl]

How is Britain conquering India any different than the Mughal Empire which had reigned in India? Do you realize that Britain sent not even ten thousand troops to conquer tens of millions of Indians? And how? Because they willingly fought against each other. There was a lot of bad blood in India before the British ever got there.

Although you do have a great point. Servitude was kind of written into the culture of India long before the British got there. The Indian caste system was an especially useful form of social control, since it essentially mirrored the British people's own prejudice (light skin = good, dark skin = bad).

The Native American and tribal peoples of the Middle East had no concept of ownership over peoples or land in the same sense that the British did, and their economies were not based on mass amounts of trade but rather ecological synergy with the land that they resided on or lands they migrated between.

Genocide of native peoples was partly capitalism, and partly human nature. The Aztec empire at its height controlled the bulk of Mesoamerica, controlling its client states primarily by installing friendly rulers in conquered cities, by constructing marriage alliances between the ruling dynasties, and by extending an imperial ideology to its client states. The same as everybody else throughout history.

Capitalism leveraged this phenomenon by providing an organizing principle for efficient exploitation of people and resources.

Europe was onto this first through accidents of history, geography, and culture. Had the Europeans never existed, native people would have developed these modes on their own. The concept of fake culture (as Qatz elaborates it) is itself a product of fake culture's academic apparatus, and of the endless and incessant requirement for self re-invention. It amounts to little more than a perverse inversion of the rah-rah-we're-number-one culture of his southern neighbors.

The chest-beating negation of liberal academia academia actually serves a quite useful purpose. It serves as a lightning rod, corralling dangerous dissident ideas into safe conduits, and then short-circuiting them to ground.

Qatz is an internet safety officer, patrolling the internet for dangerous concentrations of high-tension leakage:



I am a lineman for my country
and I ride the main road
searching in the sun for another overload.

[The Immortal Goon]

OK lets start with just the top of the list for now.

Oh for Christ's sake, if you think I independently researched, created, and verified that list than you're crazy. It's from Wikipedia. I'm sure you can look for the sources there.

The point was that acting like the French represent some kind of pacifest moral supermen is clearly just wrong.

[QatzelOk]

Um... T.I.G., this thread is about Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Israel, and the type of countries they are. Because they are special in human history.

That you have spammed the thread with so much Napoleonic irrelevance seems to indicate you don't have anything to say about the actual subject of this thread. And who could blame you.

Anglophones have this blocked in their spinal columns. The minute you mention what uniquely genocidal maniacs they were back in the early colonial period, they start dancing around like Napoleon.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was sort of a result of the bankruptcy of France because of all the wars the English started with their navy and their lack of foreign borders.

Uniquely, the British had been used to living on an island, so they couldn't tolerate ANY of the hundreds of other cultures on the same continent with them.

This is why British Empire creations are often ethnic-cleansed. To make them more like the great isles.

[The Immortal Goon]

To accuse me of being an Anglophole is completely delusional

[QatzelOk]

To accuse me of being an Anglophole is completely delusional

But you ARE an anglophone. Someone who speaks English primarily.

This is important to the makers of English-language propaganda, and English-language-propaganda-provoked wars.

Why do you not like that label?

[The Immortal Goon]

I read, "Anglophile."

I am an Anglophone, not an Anglophile. In fact, I'm something of an Anglophobe on my bad days.

But it's all about capitalism and the market, not people's genetic destiny or language magically exempting them from the material world.

[Godstud]

You're an anglophone, QatzelOK!

[quetzalcoatl]

You're an anglophone, QatzelOK!

Along with any of these:

[QatzelOk]

You're an anglophone, QatzelOK!

I grew up with anglophones, learned their culture, but never liked it or committed to it in any way.

As soon as I was old enough to leave it, I did. Because it sucks.

The anglosphere is the most brainwashed group of people in history. Living in the Anglosphere is like living with uptight zombies who are forced to lie all day. It's really boring and dumb.

This is what militarism and greed have created.

[Godstud]

As soon as I was old enough to leave it, I did.

Baloney. You're still an anglophone, but you're in denial. You're simply pretending to be better than everyone else, because that's how you get your jollies. You enjoy being sanctimonious and consider yourself superior, even when you are not.

[QatzelOk]

You're simply pretending to be better than everyone else, because that's how you get your jollies. You enjoy being sanctimonious and consider yourself superior, even when you are not.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm being as honest as possible when expressing my opinions.

In the Anglosphere, people learn "politically correct" opinions, that they then have to adopt. What a brain-dead non-culture. Mandatory ignorance.

Apparently, you live in Thailand, which isn't the Anglosphere either. We both left the Anglo-world behind.

Now, in this thread and others, you're just defending your own identity, and NOT the group of post-genocidal consumer nations that all speak the language of money (and nothing else).

If you really are like these nations, Godstud, you should adopt Decky's old Charles Manson avatar.

[Godstud]

No, Charles Manson is far too scruffy.

I get what you'res saying, Qatz... I think.

[mikema63]

Someone should really get around to burning down quebec.

[Decky]

No, Charles Manson is far too scruffy.

Fuck you!

He had no problem getting with plenty of women, he was rugged and handsome not scruffy.

[Harmattan]

France for example. Ask a Breton a Norman or a Burgundian.

I grew up in Burgundy and I can assure you that very few people would have defined themselves as "Burgundian" in the first place. I never heard someone make such a claim in the sense you mean. Everyone I knew in Burgundy was French first and foremost, without any question. Being from Burgundy is a significant identity nuance for many, but it is not an identity per se.

Now some young people see themselves as Europeans rather than French but they're too busy sucking German cocks to have the time to make such claims.

Finally Brittany may be a different matter: their regional identity is stronger and some of them indeed think of themselves as Britton rather than French but I think they're a small minority. And of course there are the islands where regional identities are even more important: Corsica on one side and, on the other side, the further islands next to different continents and mostly populated by people whose ancestors had very different cultures.

Funny, but the French weren't big on war.

Europe has been a giant battlefield for twenty centuries thanks to the feudal logic and the French nobles played their parts without any doubt. Sometimes it was forced upon us, sometimes we forced it upon others. And given how our borders evolved throughout the course of the time, I would say that we were pretty skilled at it.

[Nattering Nabob]

Europe has been a giant battlefield for twenty centuries thanks to the feudal logic and France played his part without any doubt. Sometimes it was forced upon us, sometimes we forced it upon others. And given how our borders evolved throughout the course of the time, I would say that we were pretty skilled at it.

Qatz has never heard of William the Conqueror...

Please don't say anything...the shock might be fatal...

[Uberak]

Two things.

Smallpox: Most of it happened before the English were even major players in the colonial scene. (16th century, not 17th century.) Not to mention that Europeans knew very little about disease, and there is no evidence of smallpox being weaponized aside from an isolated unreliably sourced incident involving blankets that may or may not have actually spread the smallpox. Most of the population decline happened early on due to smallpox, and the reason why the Native American population is so small is due to a lack of the exponential growth that the colonial and, later, American populations underwent. Mass immigration, industrialization, and the slave trade were bound to make the indigenous peoples a small minority. Even with war deaths included, the English actually had a record that was no worse than what the natives did to each other, though you can say that the fur trade started by the Europeans provided incentive for wars. (This is why the Iroquois grew so much, warfare and fur trade.)

America being "not a real nation": If America is not a real nation, then the same can be said of Mexico and every Latin American country. Even more so actually, since the Americans at least formed a sort of stable nation-state for a decently long period of time. As for the "corporate origins of America", that is really true for Virginia and the Southern colonies (along with the New Netherland colony, but that wasn't the work of the British.) only. As for Canada, I would say that Canada isn't much of a real nation outside of Quebec, but that is mostly due to Canada's identity as an entity being based on loyalty to the British crown as opposed. Again, I would make an exception for Quebec, though you can say that early manifestations of Quebec nationalism were more like Canadian nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_canadien And, there was rebellion to a lesser extent in Upper Canada. Really, I think the real question is no whether America and Canada are not real nations, but rather, how can we make them real nations.

[Decky]

Qatz has never heard of William the Conqueror...

To be fair the Normans were vikings who happened to speak French and settled next to France but they were still vikings.