MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
Having had a British education, I always find myself chuckling when extremely-online libs start fulminating about how Confederates were "traitors". Maybe you should have paid for your tea!
When I'm in a snarky mood, I refer to the American War of Independence and the American Civil War as the "First Slavers' Treason" and "Second Slavers' Treason" respectively.
Almost 1000 years ago - I think the only autochthonous universities are Paris, Bologna and Oxford with all subsequent universities being founded with professors who graduated from existing universities.
And even if you go back to the three original universities, there is a continuous development from cathedral schools to universities. The doctors who granted the first degrees were learned priests who had a formal education and a formal certification from the Church that they had completed it, even if it wasn't called a degree. So the original authority to grant degrees comes from God, not from a group of autodictats declaring themselves the first professors.
I would say that Argentina was a US ally under the 1976-1983 military dictatorship, and since 1983 has, like most democracies, been a supporter of the so-called "rules-based international order" - i.e. the US-led system - but with the warmth of the Argentina-US relationship varying on which party is in power.
One of the issues with determining which countries are "pro-American" in the Trump era is that the RBIO and US leadership were sufficiently linked that being pro-RBIO and pro-US were practically the same thing, but now Trump is trying to overturn the RBIO as anti-American.
As of 1776, type 3. By 1778, type 1. The British cope for losing the American War of Independence is that we took a tactical drop in what we wrongly thought was the least important theatre of a four-ocean mostly-naval World War. It was the global war that bankrupted the French monarchy, not the cost of the American intervention specifically.
There is a certain etiquette about avoiding a shooting war between nuclear powers which has seen us through the Cold War.
And Russia violated that etiquette by invading Ukraine. The rules of the game post-Korea were that you didn't attack the other side's client directly, only by arming your own client as a proxy. The only countries that a superpower invaded directly during the Cold War were their own clients in order to suppress rebellions. Vietnam is a good example - the Soviets could arm and defend North Vietnam, and the US could arm and defend South Vietnam, but when North Vietnam actually sent troops over the border and invaded the South they were Vietnamese. [The reason why the US couldn't win in Vietnam is that Cold War rules meant you couldn't win by invading the North, and you failed to build a South that could do defend itself without Americans at the pointy end of the spear].
Russia invaded Ukraine, justifying this by saying that Ukraine was a NATO client. They then said that they would consider NATO defending its client to be nuclear provocation. This isn't an obviously insane position, which is why we let Putin get away with it. But Russian troops invading a NATO client with no plausible deniability is a provocation that Stalin or Brezhnev (or Reagan) would have considered excessive. American and Russian planes shooting at each other over Ukraine is nevertheless worse.
Not if the oil market continues to clear.
If x% of the oil supply is cut off in a liquid market, then the price rises until the lowest-value x% of demand is suppressed. The Chinese war machine is not in the lowest-value x% of oil demand for reasonable values of x. And because demand for oil is price-inelastic, that could be a very large price increase with concomitant windfalls to a bunch of unsavoury people like Russia.
It is obvious from his rhetoric that Trump (who does not appear to understand how markets work, apart from the ultra-illiquid and heavily politicised real estate market) is imagining a world where the global oil market does not clear, and somehow Americans have access to $2/gallon gas on tap while the Chinese military has to beg. He even has a vague plan for getting there that would work if Russia didn't exist - namely invading countries which sell oil to China.
I don't know if the Trump administration has a contingency plan for imposing export controls in a way which doesn't create Nixon-era style gas lines, but even though the US is a net oil exporter the domestic politics of the US deliberately cutting oil supply on the global market are toxic-by-default.
China's deterrence power is fundamentally flawed.
Why does this matter? The big geopolitical question in 2027 isn't going to be China's capacity to deter America - it will be America (plus some bit player allies)'s capacity to deter China from invading Taiwan. If China wants to attack Taiwan and thinks they can win, they just do it. The act is self-communicating.
The core point that Tanner Greer is making is that America curb-stomping a weak enemy in days rather than the expected weeks* doesn't change the credibility in Chinese eyes of American deterrence very much.
* No, there isn't a huge body of establishment Iran doves claiming that Iran could beat America. The standard Iran dove argument was (and is) that
- A ground war with Iran would be a 2003-Iraq-style operational victory followed by a 2003-Iraq-style quagmire
- An air-only war would not achieve American political goals
Apart from building and maintaining a world empire, what else did unite the English, Scots and Welsh?
@Botond173 - it really was the Frogs. After the Scottish Reformation, the Scots hated the French (who had attempted to prop up Catholicism in Scotland) as much as the English did.
I would say that Britain isn't a proposition nation any more than England/Scots/Wales is. It's an ethnic one with multiple very similar ethnicities.
I think "ethnic nation with multiple ethnicities" is a contradiction in terms. The non-propositional view that makes sense given the history is that the Britain (or the UK - if you are doing this type of analysis the Irish Question matters) is a multinational state based on an alliance between friendly nations. And in the modern age they don't work (with Czechoslovakia as the textbook example).
Empirically, the folk nationalism of the British nations agrees. Scottish ethno-nationalism has, in fact, defined itself as anti-English first and foremost. Welsh ethno-nationalism is fundamentally pro-Welsh rather than anti-anyone (it focusses on preservation of Welsh language and Welsh-speaking culture). And in England, polling shows that self-identification as English is a proxy for ethno-nationalism and self-identification as British is a proxy for civic nationalism. And "British" nationalists based in England (like Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage) see suppressing Scottish (but not English) nationhood as part of their British national project. English nationalism isn't anti-Scottish per se, but it wants to reduce Scottishness to a cuisine and a costume.
My read was that it defined working age as 15 and over with no upper limit.
female working-age population (ages 15 and over)
Looks to me like the words inside the brackets explain the locally used meaning of the words before them. Given the very wide range of female retirement ages around the world, I think they would say what maximum age they were using if they were using one.
I think the tradwife vision assumes that one of the skills that would be taught in these "I can't believe it's not finishing school" less-academic women's institutions would be healthy eating. But Ozempic solves the problem withe less effort.
Observation: as far as I know, there aren't any large corporate chain daycare (and many other large-scale child service providers), possibly because liability risk bounds the benefits of corporate mergers and acquisitions.
Multisite corporate daycares are a thing in the UK, but the reason you don't see large corporate chain daycares is the lack of economies of scale. It is a business which depends on the quality of on-site management, and the best way to motivate and retain quality on-site management is to let them own the business. This is why so many chain restaurants are franchises. And there is no point in franchising daycare because there is no travelling trade of people who have to choose their daycare based on a national brand.
Critically, the vision assumes a society where no prime-age women are overweight, rather than respectable working class communities in 21st century America where they all are. Most white men think the 20th percentile normal weight woman is hotter than the 80th percentile fatty.
As far as I can see, in real patriarchal societies where food is plentiful, most women start gaining weight immediately after the wedding and are blubberbeasts by middle age.
If she's a housewife, she doesn't just want your money, she needs it. Wanting a housewife and wanting a woman who isn't excessively interested in your earning potential would, in a sane world, be incompatible.
The denominator is all women over 15, so Africa should have a higher ratio just because it has a lower percentage of women past retirement age.
Also remember that before the invention of modern appliances, women in paid work was a sign of poverty, not a sign of feminism. 50+ hours a week of housework was needed to achieve a respectable working class standard of housekeeping, so women only worked outside the home if they really needed the money (there was so much housework that modern women with full-time jobs do more hands-on childcare than 1950's housewives).
Right now, if you think that a Jewish conspiracy is a thing you need to watch out for, the Republican establishments (both the old cucked one and the new MAGA one) are obviously more jewed than the current Democratic establishment. This is the near-inevitable flip-side of the pro-establishment left being more tolerant of anti-semitism in its coalition than the pro-establishment right (also clearly true now, although not historically).
If I was a single-issue "stop Jewish paedophiles taking over America" voter, I would be holding my nose and voting Democrat and it wouldn't be a hard choice. You don't need outgroup/fargroup dynamics to explain this.
I think the more on point precedent is Thomas Friedman's six months to stabilise Iraq. You lose a winnable war one Friedman unit at a time.
In so far as there was a real attempt at British nation-building after 1603, it was mostly based on anti-Catholicism in general and anti-Frenchness in particular. Hence the difficulty of including Ireland.
Empire-building as a national project was an example of civic nationalism, not ethno-nationalism. Upward mobility was always (in theory) and frequently (in practice) open to colonials who displayed the characteristics of an English or Scottish gentleman, starting with loyalty to the Crown and not being Catholic. No ethno-nationalistic society would have elected Benjamin Disraeli Prime Minister.
When did Catholic-Protestant intermarriage become socially acceptable in America? You cant combine Anglos and Italians into a single "white American" ethnicity without it.
Germany coalesces as a stateless (because the Holy Roman Empire is both over-inclusive and not really a state) nation surprisingly early - certainly before 1600, and in my read by 1400. (The academic politics of the University of Prague - now Charles University - up to and including the Hussite crisis make most sense understood as a conflict between Germans and Czechs as national groups). Post-Reformation, there is an issue to resolve about whether the German nation is Lutheran (with Catholic Austria excluded) or biconfessional, but nothing as fundamental as the Breton and Occitan issues in France.
Despite being a state, France coalesces as a nation later than Germany. Perhaps because of being a state - from the point of view of a feudal dynastic monarch national identity among your subjects is potentially awkward.
Bezos was already rich by normal-person standards after four years at DE Shaw, during which he was promoted unusually rapidly so was presumably a high performer. (Incidentally, I think this answers the question about where Bezos Sr got the $600k from - a lot of it was Jeff's own money but in the 1990's startup culture daddy was a better story).
At least two - Germany and Switzerland. (You may have meant only one country in the EU). Belgium and Spain are marginal cases - they don't use the word but they are probably federal in substance - definitely the top-tier subunits have executive, legislative and at least some judicial power entrenched in the constitution.
The UK and USA are both explicitly not nation-states from their foundings - that is why they have "United" in their names. (FWIW, Belgium doesn't work as a nation-state either and the Flemish-speaking Belgians who talk like it is one are somewhat ambivalent about including French-speaking Belgians in their project)
You can have a concept of Britishness as a civic identity shared by a closed class of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish (or Northern Irish) people, although there isn't an attempt to actually do that until modern right-populist movements, and it goes down like a lead balloon with the Scottish and Welsh. But the idea that an Englishman and a Scot are part of the same blood-and-soil folk community is offensive to both of us.
The US just is a nation of immigrants as a matter of historical fact. The de facto leader of the anti-immigration movement in American is the grandson and husband of immigrants.
I use a similar definition - fascism is totalitarian socialism with right-wing aesthetics. (As opposed to communism, which is totalitarian socialism with left-wing aesthetics).
Incidentally, although Singapore is a long way off being totalitarian socialism with neoliberal aesthetics, it is proof of concept that it would be possible.
This is in the context where the US government has accepted a (probably below-market) premium for quasi-commercial insurance. Sending Xi an invoice would be the US ratting out on an obligation it voluntarily accepted as a gutsy move just a few weeks prior.
- Prev
- Next

Back when the PLO was uncomplicatedly a terrorist organisation, the IRA, ETA and PLO saw each other as ideological allies and almost certainly cooperated operationally.
The dominant strain of Irish nationalism is anti-British first and foremost, and therefore anti-Western Civ by implication, which is why it is so hard to organise a right-populist party in Ireland, despite the obvious unmet demand for anti-immigration politics.
More options
Context Copy link