[Fasces]

I think this channel really touches on something when he discusses the shift from American focus on 'dominance', which is having enough force to win the game, to 'primacy': the desire to maintain enough force to set the rules of the game. This is what makes the United States one of the great dangers in the world and it stems out of fear and insecurity.

[AFAIK]

Only a monster would want the power to attack others without fear of retaliation. Anyone sensible accepts restrictions will be placed on their behavior and that actions have consequences.

[late]

I think this channel really touches on something when he discusses the shift from American focus on 'dominance', which is having enough force to win the game, to 'primacy': the desire to maintain enough force to set the rules of the game. This is what makes the United States one of the great dangers in the world and it stems out of fear and insecurity.

After WW2, America worked up hundreds and hundreds of agreements, treaties, trade negotiations. We became the global hegemon.

After the USSR collapsed, ending the Cold War, we slowly reduced our domination. You got it backwards. Last time Iran got frisky, we put an entire fleet in the Gulf. This time, nothing...

The thing that is creating the current insecurity is a war that threatens to spread across Europe. Same way the first two World Wars started..

That's obvious.

[Fasces]

After WW2, America worked up hundreds and hundreds of agreements, treaties, trade negotiations. We became the global hegemon.

So the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, occupation of Poland and other Eastern European states, division of Korea and Vietnam and the breaking of the world into two camps of influence was a deliberate American decision, then, that they had the power to stop?

The entire Cold War was because of hardliners like Dulles, Truman and Byrnes trying to assert some concept of American primacy and being forced to settle for 'merely competing' with the Soviets.

[ckaihatsu]

To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation."[39]

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... _and_later

[ckaihatsu]

I'll note that that's a classic example of rightist rhetoric, where an *ideological* indication ('American exceptionalism'), is conflated with an empirical *fixture* ('the heart and soul of this nation').

One can't deny the *fixture*, of course -- *everyone* has a heart and soul, right? Since heart-and-soul is an anatomical *given*, and irrefutable, then one probably won't want to 'deny' *America's* heart-and-soul, which happens to be *American exceptionalism*, or imperialism.

So then *no one* will want to 'deny' 'American exceptionalism', and so no one *does* deny it. And the status quo *wins*, and continues-on, *with* American exceptionalism.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show

[late]

So the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, occupation of Poland and other Eastern European states, division of Korea and Vietnam and the breaking of the world into two camps of influence was a deliberate American decision, then, that they had the power to stop?

If you want to try and argue we weren't the global hegemon, be my guest. I could use a good laugh.

[ckaihatsu]

So the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, occupation of Poland and other Eastern European states, division of Korea and Vietnam and the breaking of the world into two camps of influence was a deliberate American decision, then, that they had the power to stop?

If you want to try and argue we weren't the global hegemon, be my guest. I could use a good laugh.

The U.S. can always *walk away from* being the global hegemon, at any time.

[Fasces]

If you want to try and argue we weren't the global hegemon, be my guest. I could use a good laugh.

Not even your hero Zeihan would agree that the US was global hegemon in 1945.

[Rich]

So the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, occupation of Poland and other Eastern European states, division of Korea and Vietnam and the breaking of the world into two camps of influence was a deliberate American decision, then, that they had the power to stop?

The entire Cold War was because of hardliners like Dulles, Truman and Byrnes trying to assert some concept of American primacy and being forced to settle for 'merely competing' with the Soviets.

I'm not quite sure what your view is here, but the Cold War was just an extension of the conflict that started in November 1917. Many grievances championed by Communists were just, but the Communists were totalitarian expansionists and needed to be resisted.

What we know as the Cold War was a result of FDR's disastrous policy of unconditional surrender. One doesn't have to demonise Nazism or idealise non Nazi German nationalism to see the potential great advantage of distinguishing between Nazism and German nationalism and being prepared to accept a negotiated peace treaty with Germany on the condition that the Nazis were removed from power.

[Fasces]

Your quick descent into Nazi apologism and calls to genocide the Chinese has been fun to watch, Rich.

[ckaihatsu]

[EDITED]


1917

I'm not quite sure what your view is here, but the Cold War was just an extension of the conflict that started in November 1917.

---

1917

Many grievances championed by Communists were just,

---

circa 1956

but the Communists were totalitarian expansionists and needed to be resisted.

---

1945

What we know as the Cold War was a result of FDR's disastrous policy of unconditional surrender.

Sounds more like what *Japan* did.

According to *your* calculations it *wasn't* FDR -- it was a nationalist *choice* / decision (to use the 2 atomic bombs pre-emptively against the USSR, on Japanese cities, thus kicking off the Cold War).

One doesn't have to demonise Nazism or idealise non Nazi German nationalism to see the potential great advantage of distinguishing between Nazism and German nationalism and being prepared to accept a negotiated peace treaty with Germany on the condition that the Nazis were removed from power.

Is this 1917 or 1945, Rich -- ?

[late]

Not even your hero Zeihan would agree that the US was global hegemon in 1945.

What I mentioned earlier was the world order we set up after WW2. There were hundreds of things going on, and that took over a decade to build.

Sorry, but you are way out of your depth here.

[late]

What we know as the Cold War was a result of FDR's disastrous policy of unconditional surrender.

Psst, we won the Cold War...

[Fasces]

What I mentioned earlier was the world order we set up after WW2. There were hundreds of things going on, and that took over a decade to build.

Sorry, but you are way out of your depth here.

Sure, bud. The US was global hegemonic hyperpower in 1945.

[ckaihatsu]

Psst, we won the Cold War...

('We'. Gotta own-the-Ruskies.)


= /

[late]

('We'. Gotta own-the-Ruskies.)

I don't have much use for vague language, or the equally vague pretense of thinking behind it.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't have much use for vague language, or the equally vague pretense of thinking behind it.

Nothing but *good news* here -- you're *not obligated* to use it.

[late]

Sure, bud. The US was global hegemonic hyperpower in 1945.

You are really quite good at missing the obvious.

We built a fence around Russia that restricted them enough that their economy eventually collapsed.

Pretending this is only about 1945 is brain dead, for a number of reasons.

But in 1945, WW2 had nearly devastated Russia, and we had kept them going with Lend Lease. We had nukes, even if we had given a few to Russia, they had no way to deliver them to us. They wouldn't have ICBMs for years, and their bombers didn't have enough range.

There are a number of component parts to being the hegemon. Russia was in no shape to take us on. The global economy was a wreck, our economy was about to boom.

First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, it's time to stop digging.

[ckaihatsu]

First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, it's time to stop digging.

---

'In a Hole'

Ideologies & Operations -- Bottom Up

Spoiler: show