[SpecialOlympian]

What is this bitch's complaint exactly???

I mean it's right there in the tweet, maybe the dumb bitch who can't read is you?

[Rich]

America exists to serve the interests of Americans, first and foremost. It's not a charity development project for all 7 billion people in the world.

But stating this fact does not make it morally right. The US acts selfishly and unjustly as do all sovereign countries. In this it is fundamentally no different to Nazi Germany. Obviously it was a good that Nazi Germany was brought low, but this was not due to German nationalism being fundamentally worse or fundamentally more selfish or unjust but just due to the dynamics of Germany's late unification. Opposing Nazi Germany was a case of opposing the greater evil, the more powerful and virulent selfishness.

When you hear the pathetic fantasies about world War II you would think it was some great conflict between good and evil. In fact only Britain, its Commonwealth and the French empire went to war against the Nazi without being bribed, arm twisted. They were supported to some extent by the US, who were too cowardly / selfish to actually fight. The great irony is that the British, French and US empires were in the least position to complain morally about Hitler's empire building. Yes moral considerations were an important factor. But it was considerations of national selfishness that determined that Britain and France went to war against Hitler, Democratic Finland went to war with Hitler and the other democracies just kept their heads down.

As I see it we entered a moral crisis with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. For the people of the Roman empire, Rome was in effect the world. Other empire's existed but most of Rome's people had no interaction with them. When Rome became Christianised people lived under a human universalist ideology, in a universal empire a universal polity. During the Middle Ages the separate countries, the separate jurisdictions could be justified by the divine right of Kings, monarchs ordained by God. King Charles III claims to be God's Christ in Britain, God's Messiah, God's anointed one. Before the reformation sovereignty at least in the West was heavily curtailed.

In the modern world, we have not merely maintained Christianity's human universalism but intensified it. There is no moral justification for independent countries and their national citizen privileges.

[ckaihatsu]

But stating this fact does not make it morally right. The US acts selfishly and unjustly as do all sovereign countries. In this it is fundamentally no different to Nazi Germany. Obviously it was a good that Nazi Germany was brought low, but this was not due to German nationalism being fundamentally worse or fundamentally more selfish or unjust but just due to the dynamics of Germany's late unification. Opposing Nazi Germany was a case of opposing the greater evil, the more powerful and virulent selfishness.

When you hear the pathetic fantasies about world War II you would think it was some great conflict between good and evil. In fact only Britain, its Commonwealth and the French empire went to war against the Nazi without being bribed, arm twisted. They were supported to some extent by the US, who were too cowardly / selfish to actually fight. The great irony is that the British, French and US empires were in the least position to complain morally about Hitler's empire building. Yes moral considerations were an important factor. But it was considerations of national selfishness that determined that Britain and France went to war against Hitler, Democratic Finland went to war with Hitler and the other democracies just kept their heads down.

As I see it we entered a moral crisis with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. For the people of the Roman empire, Rome was in effect the world. Other empire's existed but most of Rome's people had no interaction with them. When Rome became Christianised people lived under a human universalist ideology, in a universal empire a universal polity. During the Middle Ages the separate countries, the separate jurisdictions could be justified by the divine right of Kings, monarchs ordained by God. King Charles III claims to be God's Christ in Britain, God's Messiah, God's anointed one. Before the reformation sovereignty at least in the West was heavily curtailed.

In the modern world, we have not merely maintained Christianity's human universalism but intensified it. There is no moral justification for independent countries and their national citizen privileges.

So then what *is* this trans-national population, and polity -- like the *EU*, perhaps -- ?

And, of course, what are its *economics*.

[Unthinking Majority]

But stating this fact does not make it morally right. The US acts selfishly and unjustly as do all sovereign countries. In this it is fundamentally no different to Nazi Germany. Obviously it was a good that Nazi Germany was brought low, but this was not due to German nationalism being fundamentally worse or fundamentally more selfish or unjust but just due to the dynamics of Germany's late unification. Opposing Nazi Germany was a case of opposing the greater evil, the more powerful and virulent selfishness.

When you hear the pathetic fantasies about world War II you would think it was some great conflict between good and evil. In fact only Britain, its Commonwealth and the French empire went to war against the Nazi without being bribed, arm twisted. They were supported to some extent by the US, who were too cowardly / selfish to actually fight. The great irony is that the British, French and US empires were in the least position to complain morally about Hitler's empire building. Yes moral considerations were an important factor. But it was considerations of national selfishness that determined that Britain and France went to war against Hitler, Democratic Finland went to war with Hitler and the other democracies just kept their heads down.

As I see it we entered a moral crisis with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. For the people of the Roman empire, Rome was in effect the world. Other empire's existed but most of Rome's people had no interaction with them. When Rome became Christianised people lived under a human universalist ideology, in a universal empire a universal polity. During the Middle Ages the separate countries, the separate jurisdictions could be justified by the divine right of Kings, monarchs ordained by God. King Charles III claims to be God's Christ in Britain, God's Messiah, God's anointed one. Before the reformation sovereignty at least in the West was heavily curtailed.

In the modern world, we have not merely maintained Christianity's human universalism but intensified it. There is no moral justification for independent countries and their national citizen privileges.

There was nothing moral about fighting against Nazi Germany. They attempted to conquer Europe, therefore the security of European nations was at great risk, so they fought back.

The difference between the US and Nazi Germany is that the US doesn't invade and annex other countries to expand their territory. They kill, remove, or covertly support or install politicians friendly to their security and economic interests.

[ckaihatsu]

Before the reformation sovereignty at least in the West was heavily curtailed.

Nice overall recounting, Rich, but this last line is pure *tripe*. I think the whole initial preceding section was simply *build-up*, to this final *punchline*.

Ever hear of *medieval warfare* -- ?

No, the European proto-countries / duchies / whatever, were *not* nice-and-neat, and 'heavily curtailed', by *any* stretch of the imagination.

[ckaihatsu]

The real cause of the crisis [of the 14th century] lay in the increasing burden on society of sustaining the lifestyle of the feudal ruling class. On the one hand, as Georges Duby notes, ‘In the most advanced countries…the grain-centred system of husbandry began to be unsettled by the requirement of the gradual rise in aristocratic and urban living standards’ and increasing demand for luxury products.112 On the other, there was little new investment on technical improvement. As Rodney Hilton reports, ‘The social structure and the habits of the landed nobility did not permit accumulation for investment for production’.113

Class struggles and millenarial movements

The sheer scale of the crisis led to convulsions right across society. Even the ruling class faced difficulties. There was a ‘crisis of seigneurial incomes’114 brought on first by the problems of extracting the surplus from a starving peasantry, and then by the acute shortage of agricultural labour caused by the death toll from famine and plague. The lords turned even more readily than in the past to wars against each other—as in the seemingly endless ‘Hundred Years War’ between English and French monarchs. They also tried to replenish their revenues by taking more from the classes below them, the peasants and the burghers. Economic crisis bred bitter class struggles.

Battles between lords and peasants were not something new.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 149-150

[SpecialOlympian]

But stating this fact does not make it morally right. The US acts selfishly and unjustly as do all sovereign countries. In this it is fundamentally no different to Nazi Germany. Obviously it was a good that Nazi Germany was brought low, but this was not due to German nationalism being fundamentally worse or fundamentally more selfish or unjust but just due to the dynamics of Germany's late unification. Opposing Nazi Germany was a case of opposing the greater evil, the more powerful and virulent selfishness.

When you hear the pathetic fantasies about world War II you would think it was some great conflict between good and evil. In fact only Britain, its Commonwealth and the French empire went to war against the Nazi without being bribed, arm twisted. They were supported to some extent by the US, who were too cowardly / selfish to actually fight. The great irony is that the British, French and US empires were in the least position to complain morally about Hitler's empire building. Yes moral considerations were an important factor. But it was considerations of national selfishness that determined that Britain and France went to war against Hitler, Democratic Finland went to war with Hitler and the other democracies just kept their heads down.

As I see it we entered a moral crisis with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. For the people of the Roman empire, Rome was in effect the world. Other empire's existed but most of Rome's people had no interaction with them. When Rome became Christianised people lived under a human universalist ideology, in a universal empire a universal polity. During the Middle Ages the separate countries, the separate jurisdictions could be justified by the divine right of Kings, monarchs ordained by God. King Charles III claims to be God's Christ in Britain, God's Messiah, God's anointed one. Before the reformation sovereignty at least in the West was heavily curtailed.

In the modern world, we have not merely maintained Christianity's human universalism but intensified it. There is no moral justification for independent countries and their national citizen privileges.

Hell yeah dude, doing moral relativism for Nazi Germany makes you sound really smart.

And oh fuck yeah, the jump back to the Roman Empire was *chef's kiss*

Keep it coming dude, I love this shit. Rome: insular and pure, never interracting with the outside world. A cradle of enlightenment. Beautiful, I love it.

[Rich]

Hell yeah dude, doing moral relativism for Nazi Germany makes you sound really smart.

You were the poster, who when I said, I believed the Earth was an oblate spheroid, responded so you do believe in Flat Earth. I would suggest that your impressions as to what is smart are not entirely to be trusted.

Nazi Germany can be likened to a rabid dog, the dog can not be left to run mad but intelligent people understand that its behaviour does not mean that it was an always an inherently bad dog. The same with German nationalism. It was just that the German nation state was formed very late and people of German culture overlapped with the French, Walloons, Flemish, Danish, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Czechs, Slovens, Yiddish and the Italians. This radicalised German nationalists. We saw with 9/11, how easy it is to radicalise American nationalists.

And oh fuck yeah, the jump back to the Roman Empire was *chef's kiss*

Keep it coming dude, I love this shit. Rome: insular and pure, never interacting with the outside world. A cradle of enlightenment. Beautiful, I love it.

The majority of the Roman Empires would have little to no interaction with the world outside Rome. But the essential point is even for those, like the rulers the soldiers and the inhabitants of the border provinces that did interact with people outside the world, Rome had no serious competitor for legitimacy. Zoroastrian Persia and the barbarian tribes were not moral alternatives for Roman Christians.

[Rich]

Nice overall recounting, Rich, but this last line is pure *tripe*. I think the whole initial preceding section was simply *build-up*, to this final *punchline*.

Ever hear of *medieval warfare* -- ?

No, the European proto-countries / duchies / whatever, were *not* nice-and-neat, and 'heavily curtailed', by *any* stretch of the imagination.

Why don't you try thinking before projecting absurd beliefs on to others. Am I a monarchist? Am I a Catholic? Am I even a Christian? Where did I say that medieval societies were nice and neat?

As to whether sovereignty was curtailed I think Henry II found out the truth of the matter when he was caned by eighty monks and a number of bishops.

So the big fact that everyone ignores is that, given the increase in world population, Jacinda Ardern is worse than Hitler, when it comes to Lebensraum. The Lebensraum she demands for her citizens and her chosen immigrants. Adolph Hitler thought that Germans were entitled to an unfair share of the world's land and natural resources. Jacinda Ardern thinks the same about New Zealanders. The difference is the Germans were forced into a conflict of spiralling barbarism and hatred to try and get their entitlements, while every one just accepts Jacinda's outrageous sense of entitlement without so much as a peep.

[late]

Glad I missed this turn of events, in the discussion..

[ckaihatsu]

Before the reformation sovereignty at least in the West was heavily curtailed.

Nice overall recounting, Rich, but this last line is pure *tripe*. I think the whole initial preceding section was simply *build-up*, to this final *punchline*.

Ever hear of *medieval warfare* -- ?

No, the European proto-countries / duchies / whatever, were *not* nice-and-neat, and 'heavily curtailed', by *any* stretch of the imagination.

Why don't you try thinking before projecting absurd beliefs on to others. Am I a monarchist? Am I a Catholic? Am I even a Christian? Where did I say that medieval societies were nice and neat?

Okay, relax. These things usually take a couple of exchanges to iron-out, anyway, over the message-board medium.

I'll *withdraw* any such perceived 'projection' -- of things being nice-and-neat.

As to whether sovereignty was curtailed I think Henry II found out the truth of the matter when he was caned by eighty monks and a number of bishops.

I'm going to have to ask for a link on that -- Wikipedia shows *nothing* of the sort.

Relations with the Church

Henry's relationship with the Church varied considerably across his lands and over time: as with other aspects of his rule, there was no attempt to form a common ecclesiastical policy.[197] Insofar as he had a policy, it was to generally resist papal influence, increasing his own local authority.[198] The 12th century saw a reforming movement within the Church, advocating greater autonomy from royal authority for the clergy and more influence for the papacy.[199] This trend had already caused tensions in England, for example when King Stephen forced Theobald of Bec, the Archbishop of Canterbury, into exile in 1152.[200] There were also long-running concerns over the legal treatment of members of the clergy.[201]

By contrast with the tensions in England, in Normandy Henry had occasional disagreements with the Church but generally enjoyed very good relations with the Norman bishops.[202] In Brittany, he had the support of the local church hierarchy and rarely intervened in clerical matters, except occasionally to cause difficulties for his rival Louis of France.[203] Further south, the power of the dukes of Aquitaine over the local church was much less than in the north, and Henry's efforts to extend his influence over local appointments created tensions.[204] During the disputed papal election of 1159, Henry, like Louis, supported Alexander III over his rival Victor IV.[120]

Henry was not an especially pious king by medieval standards.[205] In England, he provided steady patronage to the monastic houses, but established few new monasteries and was relatively conservative in determining which he did support, favouring those with established links to his family, such as Reading Abbey, founded by his grandfather King Henry I.[206] In this regard Henry's religious tastes appear to have been influenced by his mother, and before his accession several religious charters were issued in their joint names.[34] Henry also founded religious hospitals in England and France.[207] After the death of Becket, he built and endowed various monasteries in France, primarily to improve his popular image.[208] Since travel by sea during the period was dangerous, he would also take full confession before setting sail and use auguries to determine the best time to travel.[209] Henry's movements may also have been planned to take advantage of saints' days and other fortuitous occasions.[210]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_ ... the_Church

---

So the big fact that everyone ignores is that, given the increase in world population, Jacinda Ardern is worse than Hitler, when it comes to Lebensraum. The Lebensraum she demands for her citizens and her chosen immigrants. Adolph Hitler thought that Germans were entitled to an unfair share of the world's land and natural resources. Jacinda Ardern thinks the same about New Zealanders. The difference is the Germans were forced into a conflict of spiralling barbarism and hatred to try and get their entitlements, while every one just accepts Jacinda's outrageous sense of entitlement without so much as a peep.

It's a shocking characterization, and obviously *reckless* and *exaggerated*, to put it mildly.

I really don't know *why* you're picking on New Zealand:

Population

• September 2022 estimate 5,128,940[6] (121st)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand

Ardern describes herself as a social democrat and a progressive.[9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern

[Rich]

It's a shocking characterization, and obviously *reckless* and *exaggerated*, to put it mildly.

I really don't know *why* you're picking on New Zealand:

New Zealand has a population density of 18 per km2. Weimar Germany had a population density of 770 per km2. This is despite the fact that the world population has multiplied by a factor of three and a half in that time. When it comes to lebensraum Jacinda Ardern is more greedy than Hitler.

[ckaihatsu]

New Zealand has a population density of 18 per km2. Weimar Germany had a population density of 770 per km2. This is despite the fact that the world population has multiplied by a factor of three and a half in that time. When it comes to lebensraum Jacinda Ardern is more greedy than Hitler.

Wait -- so, to *you*, this is all about *population density* -- ?

(!)

[SpecialOlympian]

The Germans had a good solution for population density. It's just that history is written by the victors, and they have to describe their enemies as bad.

[Rich]

The Germans had a good solution for population density. It's just that history is written by the victors, and they have to describe their enemies as bad.

It was a very bad solution. It was a bad solution even for Germans and you didn't care about the welfare of Jews, Czechs, Poles, French, Walloons, Flemish, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Slovenians, Serbs, Greeks, Belorussians, Ukrainians and Russians.

But just because it was a very bad solution and there are no easy good solutions, doesn't mean its not a problem. And we now know that its an even worse problem, because we have much greater scientific knowledge of the environmental impacts of human civilisation. So we have a left that continually lies and tells us that increasing population density is a good. We have a cuckservative right that just goes a long with the left's lies because increasing population density inevitably leads to increasing inequality which makes the rich richer. And we have a nasty right that tries to imply that immigrants are either bad people or stupid people manipulated by the people smugglers.

[ckaihatsu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate

[ckaihatsu]

there are no easy good solutions,

there [were] no easy good solutions

What was the 'problem', exactly, Rich?

that increasing population density is a good

It's called *economics* / capitalism -- 'real estate' property values. No *individual* to point the finger at, here.

(I won't defend property values myself, but that's to advocate the direction of *workers power*, instead of present-day *rentier values* -- as currently favored by the recent Fed increases of the interest rate.)

increasing population density inevitably leads to increasing inequality which makes the rich richer

You're decrying and dismissing all of *urbanization*, based on *population density*, all in favor of some idealist yesteryear *pastoral garden*?

*That's* where you're pointing -- ?

[late]

You're decrying and dismissing all of *urbanization*, based on *population density*, all in favor of some idealist yesteryear *pastoral garden*?

*That's* where you're pointing -- ?

Much of Europe has greater density, and less economic inequality, than Americans.

It looks like he's using one of the old American myths, but I'm not going to go through his word salads to find out if it's Jefferson, or Jefferson Davis.

[ckaihatsu]

Much of Europe has greater density, and less economic inequality, than Americans.

It looks like he's using one of the old American myths, but I'm not going to go through his word salads to find out if it's Jefferson, or Jefferson Davis.

Anyone who's more modern than circa 1800 is a nationalist splitter, and 'European' for living in a city.

I've had to do some mental gymnastics *before*, but this rivals fiction *altogether*.

[SpecialOlympian]

It was a very bad solution. It was a bad solution even for Germans and you didn't care about the welfare of Jews, Czechs, Poles, French, Walloons, Flemish, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Slovenians, Serbs, Greeks, Belorussians, Ukrainians and Russians.

But just because it was a very bad solution and there are no easy good solutions, doesn't mean its not a problem. And we now know that its an even worse problem, because we have much greater scientific knowledge of the environmental impacts of human civilisation. So we have a left that continually lies and tells us that increasing population density is a good. We have a cuckservative right that just goes a long with the left's lies because increasing population density inevitably leads to increasing inequality which makes the rich richer. And we have a nasty right that tries to imply that immigrants are either bad people or stupid people manipulated by the people smugglers.

I have literally never thought of "increasing population density" as a leftist goal. And I don't believe anyone else has either.

Calm down, R'az Al'Ghul. Don't get too racist about that, it's a Batman reference.