[hagbard_c]

Most authoritarian states are 'stable and predictable'. When you meet a lion on the savannah the beast is stable and predictable in that it will most likely try to eat you unless it isn't hungry. Step on a snake and the outcome is stable and predictable in that you will get bitten.

It is good for Europe to learn to stand on its - our - own legs, to become less dependent on the USA for territorial defence and probably also to learn the hard way that peace and tranquillity is the exception rather than the rule. Si vis pacem, para bellum. It is not good for Europe to swap dependence on the USA with dependence on China, we're more than 500 million people with access to most of the resources we need to stand on our own legs so let's get crackin'.

Also, let's drop the silly panic around Trump, the man is doing what he was elected to do which is put America first. We should do the same, in a serious way. Not in an isolationist way but sensibly. Stop importing the world's problems, stop with the silly self-chastisement around 'climate' and 'colonialism', stop the import of islamism and make serious work of getting rid of the islamist factions which have been allowed to establish themselves or Europe as it once was - the birthplace of the enlightenment - will succumb to the sectarian infighting which destroyed Lebanon after they invited Arafat and his PLO.

So, 'Europe first' in the sense that the ideas which formed the continent are worth defending and so are people who subscribe to those ideas no matter where they come from. Those who want to get rid of these ideas to replace them with their own intolerant society - whether that be an islamic caliphate or a Chinese-style fascist [1] surveillance state - are not welcome. I realise this includes a number of EU bureaucrats who are enamoured of the latter system and I would be pleased to see these individuals removed from power, preferably by truly democratic means.

[1] Fascism and Communism are closely related so it is not that odd to call the current government form in China by the former name even if they claim to be the latter. See https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism for a definition or read what Mussolini had to say about the subject and you'll see the parallels.

[bluebarbet]

You're going well off-topic here and into inflammatory territory. This whole debate should probably best happen somewhere else.

But just one thing: while I personally share your take on the political and societal issues, I do think it's unfortunate that you lump "climate" in there, in scare quotes. The climate issue is informed by hard science. America's tendency to politicize everything will have terrible outcomes if climate gets completely caught up in the culture war. Whatever we think about the solutions, we have to find a way to agree that this particular problem is bad and needs to be addressed urgently.

Still, again, here is not the best place for this whole discussion.

[genewitch]

you say the climate is decided by hard science. You mean the models say it's decided, right?

I just want to be clear what you mean by hard science.

[nis0s]

For secular and democratic nations, multiculturalism isn’t inherently dangerous if there are principles and ideals around which newcomers to any nation can assimilate and integrate. America attempted that to some degree of success with its melting pot ideals till the 90s, but there wasn’t enough emphasis on civic duty, from either the commoners or the elite. The US founding fathers included everyone in their vision, btw, including Muslims. The failure in any integration and assimilation goals from the past few decades result from enabling unjust narratives which pose America as the only country with the social ills and issues it’s being criticized of, when there isn’t any other country in recent memory with a more socially diverse congress.

[chgs]

> The US founding fathers included everyone in their vision, btw

Of course many were only 3/5th included. And half the population weren’t included at all.

[nis0s]

That’s not a fair or reasonable thing to point out given that few countries at that time gave slaves or women voting rights. The U.S. was one of the first majority White countries to give Black men voting rights in 1870, after France did some time in late 1700s. Haiti was the first country to give all people, regardless of race, voting rights in 1804. I agree that the U.S. was really late to enter into women’s suffrage compared to other majority white countries.

[chgs]

So the vision included a tiny minority of land owners.

General suffrage in 1789 was about 1 in 20 people, almost entirely white land owning men.

20 years later the vote was actually taken alway from many of the few black men who had it. White men still needed property. In parts of the US this property requirement lasted until the 1850s, and after that the requirement to be rich enough to pay taxes survived well into the 20th century.

I’m not criticising anything other than this idea that america was a government of the people by the people - at least until the 20th century.

[nis0s]

I don’t dispute anything you’re saying, I just don’t understand what frame of reference any leader or policymaker at that time could have used to do anything differently. What country at that time was some paragon of social justice or progressivism? I think the US founding fathers did pretty well for their time, when most countries in the world were part of empires, or were monarchies.

People are more socially progressive now because of the passage of time, and the accumulation of sociopolitical observances it allowed. The average person now is only less of a brute because of the cultural training they’ve experienced, but it’s not something to be taken for granted.

In general, there are very few people (sages) who are more moral, ethical or curious than the average person of their own time. Often times their behavior makes them look like a loser or a weirdo to their contemporaries or society.

[chgs]

Your statement was “The US founding fathers included everyone in their vision”

It isn’t true. And the idolisation some people have for wealthy white landowners from 250 years ago is just weird. Judge the world on today

[alienthrowaway]

> It is good for Europe ... to learn the hard way that peace and tranquillity is the exception rather than the rule

I don't know if you're being serious here, but this (Ameri-centric? C21-centric?) view is laughable. Europe is well-acquainted with war and never saw lasting peace for much of it's history until the second half of the 20th century.

[hagbard_c]

> Europe ... saw lasting peace [in] the second half of the 20th century.

Which happens to coincide with the lifetime of the majority of Europeans. War was mostly something which happened to other countries, in other places - not in 'civilised' Europe, surely?

So yes, I am being serious - deadly serious. Most European countries neglected national defence after the fall of the Soviet Union in the expectation that Fukuyama was right when he claimed we were at 'The end of History' [1]. There is a good Swedish term for this condition: fredsskadad which translates to 'peace-damaged', the opposite of 'war-damaged'. It is the condition of a people who have gotten so used to peace being the norm that they assume that everyone everywhere else also considers peace to be the goal and thus no longer need to consider the possibility of ending up in a conflict.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57981.The_End_of_History...

[suraci]

> So, 'Europe first' in the sense that the ideas which formed the continent are worth defending and so are people who subscribe to those ideas no matter where they come from. Those who want to get rid of these ideas to replace them with their own intolerant society - whether that be an islamic caliphate or a Chinese-style fascist [1] surveillance state - are not welcome. I realise this includes a number of EU bureaucrats who are enamoured of the latter system and I would be pleased to see these individuals removed from power, preferably by truly democratic means.

> Fascism and Communism are closely related

[hagbard_c]

Some explanation would make your point clearer. What did you mean when you combined - or juxtaposed? - these two segments from my earlier reply?