Jump to content

Political Smalltalk


Recommended Posts

@BreakfastBurrito_007 

So since "Russia today is run by Putin who was a member of the secret police."

that means

"...Russian elite are longing for the return of the Soviet Union"

So that's your logic? Philosophers can name this logic, but I'd say it's "incomplete induction" which is problematic.

Analog to that, if I find Germans who was active in some Nazi structures, we will automatically conclude today Germany is longing for the return of Hitler's national socialism? 

Edited by BeTe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BeTe said:

we need to destroy entire Serbian nation

As far as I know, the Serbian nation still exist and nobody ask for its destruction. Don't be a cry baby.

6 minutes ago, BeTe said:

b/c angels from NATO are responsible for protecting innocent people against Evil

As I said, NATO are no angels. But if you are using whataboutism to bring the topic of Yugoslavian wars, accusing them of a unfair attack, I simply did the same to remember you that Serbia made unfair attacks too. Killed civilians in mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

As far as I know, the Serbian nation still exist and nobody ask for its destruction. Don't be a cry baby.

As I said, NATO are no angels. But if you are using whataboutism to bring the topic of Yugoslavian wars, accusing them of a unfair attack, I simply did the same to remember you that Serbia made unfair attacks too. Killed civilians in mass.

Yeah, poor civilians, bad nasty Serbs. You really believe in that Holywood tales?

Edited by BeTe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeTe said:

@BreakfastBurrito_007 

So since "Russia today is run by Putin who was a member of the secret police."

that means

"...Russian elite are longing for the return of the Soviet Union"

So that's your logic? Philosophers can name this logic, but I'd say it's "incomplete induction" which is problematic.

Analog to that, if I find Germans who was active in some Nazi structures, we will automatically conclude today Germany is longing for the return of Hitler's national socialism? 

In fact, the Nazi army was not completely purged only the leadership and certain middle ranks. It is well known that post-World War II the West carried out a face-washing campaign in Germany. It is also well known that important Nazi military leaders were housed in the US in exchange for technological knowledge, in the framework of the arms race with the Soviet Union.
It is also well known that many Nazi collaborators in Eastern Europe were protected by the CIA, which in turn fed nationalist sectors to grow anti-Soviet sentiment in this same sense of hegemony dispute with the USSR.
Those of us who do not reproduce the discourse of the West as puppets may end up falling into "whataboutism". But I am not seeing that those who have stood on the pedestal of good are not doing the same.
Here in Argentina we have a saying to justify (or look the other way) the atrocities that someone commits, which is perhaps common in other parts of the world. And it goes like this: "This man is a son of a @#$%. But you know what? He's OUR son of a @#$%."
Either way, this discussion is becoming quite absurd and apparently we will not get out of this logic of pointing the finger at who is more guilty instead of trying to reach constructive conclusions that allow us to learn or empathize with the other who thinks differently or who has experienced certain events from the other side. I am sure that I have also contributed in this regard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeTe said:

Yeah, poor civilians, bad nasty Serbs. You really believe in that Holywood tales?

Why are you so defensive? 

You mentionned the topic first. This is a reality that the conflicts in former Yugoslavia were nasty and involved ethnic cleansing. Srebrenica massacre was perpetrated mostly by Serbs for example. 

This is why it bothers me your comparison of Serbia with Ukraine. I don't want to portray the conflict as good vs evil, not at all. But there is no doubt Serbia is not clean and bears some responsability for nasty things during the multiple wars. Does it mean they deserved the bombing of Belgrade? Not at all. But if I want to follow up with your comparison with Ukraine, the situation is more unfair for them. Even by considering the terrible civil war in Donbass and the actions of Azov, we are not in the same intensity of violence than the Serbs against Bosniaks and Albanians. And Serbia wasn't threatened to be destroyed as a nation. This is the case with Russia, they tried to invade the country and they are trying to annex territories for themselves. The attack of NATO on Serbia is not comparable to the invasion by Russia of Ukraine.

You are excusing Russia for actions you would never excuses NATO if they did the same to Serbia.

Edited by Genava55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Why are you so defensive? 

You mentionned the topic first. This is a reality that the conflicts in former Yugoslavia were nasty and involved ethnic cleansing. Srebrenica massacre was perpetrated mostly by Serbs for example. 

This is why it bothers me your comparison of Serbia with Ukraine. I don't want to portray the conflict as good vs evil, not at all. But there is no doubt Serbia is not clean and bears some responsability for nasty things during the multiple wars. Does it mean they deserved the bombing of Belgrade? Not at all. But if I want to follow up with your comparison with Ukraine, the situation is more unfair for them. Even by considering the terrible civil war in Donbass and the actions of Azov, we are not in the same intensity of violence than the Serbs against Bosniaks and Albanians. And Serbia wasn't threatened to be destroyed as a nation. This is the case with Russia, they tried to invade the country and they are trying to annex territories for themselves. The attack of NATO on Serbia is not comparable to the invasion by Russia of Ukraine.

You are excusing Russia for actions you would never excuses NATO if they did the same to Serbia.

You missed point - I compare Serbia with Russia not with Ukraine. Check again: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/88190-political-smalltalk/page/4/#comment-541892

I really don't know how to talk to you about war in Yugoslavia when you repeat narrative that only kids can believe.

But, I don't blame you, I understand that you simply don't have time to investigate every bullshit that is happening around the world and in same time you don't have chance to hear full story from  "democratic" and "free-speech" Western media. I'd only suggest you to not judge to early. They lie to you. They present you happenings in way that apologize their crimes. They do same with Ukraine war today apparently.

Anyways, you are free choose what to believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

t is also well known that many Nazi collaborators in Eastern Europe were protected by the CIA

yea especially using that one infamous nazi torturer in south america was not exactly a "USA good" moment. The CIA was out of control of voters and I am pretty sure it still is to some extent. I am not saying people didn't vote for "anti-communist" governments, its just many of the secrets the CIA kept and keeps would not be supported by voters.

 

3 hours ago, BeTe said:

So since "Russia today is run by Putin who was a member of the secret police."

that means

"...Russian elite are longing for the return of the Soviet Union"

Thats not my logic, its an example. There are many russian propagandists along with Mr. Putin himself who call either for Soviet times or Czar times and this makes sense if they are expanding their territory. This is as ridiculous as if the pope called for a new crusade, as if he is somehow deserving of controlling Jerusalem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BeTe said:

But, I don't blame you, I understand that you simply don't have time to investigate every bullshit that is happening around the world and in same time you don't have chance to hear full story from  "democratic" and "free-speech" Western media. I'd only suggest you to not judge to early. They lie to you. They present you happenings in way that apologize their crimes. They do same with Ukraine war today apparently.

Yeah you such a freethinker, amazing. I'm getting a lesson from someone thinking that COVID policies were totalitarian:

On 12/01/2023 at 9:56 PM, BeTe said:

I don't understand how this is not obvious to every person from West, especially after Covid bullshits from governments and medical authorities. During Covid, everybody should see how far from democracy Western countries are. They are totalitarian systems based on soft power, on convincing their slaves that they are free. But we saw when needed, they have also "hard power" to put society under their control. We saw how strong and dangerous they are. Not sure if all that was their test, but it can tell us much. Not necessary what I say, but we should think very deeply about recent ~2 years. We need to ask ourselves and others:

- Why we were in some kind of jail so long?
- Why so many people died and got sick?
- Why economy suffered?
- Why they printed so much money and pumped debt baloon even more? 
- And how the heck that f**cking virus appeared? Is it natural or mistake from "gain of function" researches ?
- Etc.


Anyways,

I wanted to hear more details about your political experience: what exactly you were involved in? How did you come to your conclusions?

:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

yea especially using that one infamous nazi torturer in south america was not exactly a "USA good" moment. The CIA was out of control of voters and I am pretty sure it still is to some extent. I am not saying people didn't vote for "anti-communist" governments, its just many of the secrets the CIA kept and keeps would not be supported by voters.

 

True. Are you refering to Josef Mengele? He lived here in Argentina, in the city of Bariloche in Río Negro province.  He even continued to conduct experiments with newborn twins. One of whom injected different types of substances and the other left intact to use as a control.

Bariloche is a city infamously known for hosting various pro-Nazi groups. There was even a school, I don't remember its name.

There is a famous Argentine drama film inspired by real events called "Wakolda", based on a book of the same name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

500 million euros from the European Peace Facility to supply arms to Ukraine

Truly Orwellian.

"The European Peace Facility (EPF) is an off-budget funding mechanism for EU actions with military and defence implications under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It has a total budget of EUR 5.69 billion in current prices (EUR 5 billion in 2018 prices) for the period 2021-2027, with annual ceilings from EUR 420 million in 2021 to EUR 1.132 billion in 2027."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Genava55 said:

"The European Peace Facility (EPF) is an off-budget funding mechanism for EU actions with military and defence implications under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It has a total budget of EUR 5.69 billion in current prices (EUR 5 billion in 2018 prices) for the period 2021-2027, with annual ceilings from EUR 420 million in 2021 to EUR 1.132 billion in 2027."

So? Whats your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

So? Whats your point?

I simply gave complementary information, a context, lacking to the original message. The European Peace Facility has indeed a name that could bring confusion, so I simply added a short description with the goals of the institution.

Previously, there was a similar situation with the African Peace Facility, of the European Union.

50 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Still Orwell's "war is peace".

Sadly, it is very common for modern governments to merge the concepts of security and stability with the concept of peace. But it is nothing new and something used by every major powers (USA, China, Russia, Japan, UK etc.).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw someone say that China is trying to carry out 18th century colonialism on neighboring countries - I don't know if this is a re-reading of the speech made by then US Secretary of Defense Mattis in 2018, Mattis claimed that China wants to restore the Ming Dynasty model, To plunder and oppress neighboring countries.
If this is the case, I would say that first of all, the Ming Dynasty existed from the 14th to the 17th centuries, and it was destroyed by the Manchurian Qing Dynasty in the 18th century.
Secondly, the Ming Dynasty did not rely on the resources of neighboring countries. In fact, the Ming Dynasty banned foreign trade for a long time, so as to force other countries that wanted to obtain Chinese handicrafts to surrender and restrain those pirates from these countries who plundered the coast of China.
And through the "tributary" method to meet the trade needs of those subject countries that meet the requirements, and in this process, China always gives gifts to the subject countries that are more valuable than the tribute they bring. China was very rich at that time, and wealth was produced and consumed in its own country. This has nothing to do with colonialism.
At the same time, the Ming Dynasty was also the guardian of regional order. Zhu Yuanzhang, the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty, listed China's neighboring countries as "countries that should not be attacked" in the "Emperor Ming Zu Xun", and restrained neighboring countries from fighting each other, such as At the end of the 16th century, when Japan invaded Korea, China sent troops to expel the Japanese army and helped the King of Korea rebuild the country.

It can be said that the Ming Dynasty model is indeed a model that the Chinese have been trying to restore, but this model is obviously not what Westerners understand. If you understand the history I described earlier, it should be clear that all the praiseworthy words that Westerners can give to the United Nations, the United States and NATO can be used to describe the Ming Dynasty model (even more than a lot, because China will really fulfill it. Promise to send troops to defend North Korea instead of treachery like the US did in Ukraine), for us the Ming Dynasty is a symbol of affluence, prosperity, morality and tranquility.
Since 180 years ago, China has long been in anxiety about being invaded. Before describing China as a domineering and powerful country, many people must understand a basic fact, that is, 15 years ago, China was still a weak country. China—Although it is also a big country, it is poor, confused and weak. At that time, the Chinese navy could not even be compared with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, which was a defeated country in World War II. Therefore, the confrontation between Japan and China in the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea occurred. (And we actually know that, according to the Potsdam Proclamation, Japan does not have any sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. Even the Ryukyu Islands are suppressed by the United States in order to keep the military bases it set up to contain China to continue to exist, and to suppress the Ryukyu independence movement , handing over the Ryukyu Islands to Japan for "escrow", which is not recognized by the United Nations.), without nuclear weapons, we don't even know if we can maintain our country's independence.
In the past ten years, with the development of China's navy and air force, China's self-defense capabilities have been significantly improved. Now we are not afraid of the Americans and Japanese bombing us, and we will have further "ambitions". I am not saying that some Taiwan or North Korea that some people imagine, we have always regarded Taiwan as our own business, and the endgame of the Korean Civil War should be left to the North Koreans themselves.
I am referring to Ryukyu. When Japan tried to annex Ryukyu in the 1870s, the Ryukyu people turned to the suzerain Qing Dynasty for help, hoping that the Qing Dynasty could defend the sovereignty of Ryukyu, just like the Ming Dynasty defended the sovereignty of Korea. But the Ryukyu people were disappointed. The weak Qing Dynasty gave up its moral obligations and allowed the Ryukyu country to perish. Now the Chinese are deeply ashamed of this and feel guilty towards the Ryukyu people. The Chinese government morally supports Ryukyu’s restoration of independence. The Ryukyu independence movement has also been promoted in China and has won the support of many Chinese.

Above, I just briefly explained the state of Chinese people's expectations for their own country, as well as the goals they hope to achieve from the outside world, but are generally ignored by the West.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2023 at 3:17 PM, Gurken Khan said:

Still Orwell's "war is peace".

Orwell actually explains the meaning of the partie's parols in the Appendix of the book.
"War is peace" can be interpreted as: "Outer war is inner peace", because the common enemy is used to ensure the stability of the Oceanian state.

Same goes for the other two states of Eastasia and Eurasia. Their corresponding systems are named differently, but they are all the same.

In my opinion, Russia is no better nor worse than EU or USA. It is just painted in a different color.

Concerning China, that might well be argued about. They do indeed have more extreme control measures. But we are actually on the verge of turning to a digital-totalitarian state like China right now; that is what i do state, and that is what i do believe.

Oh, and by the way: It is no use to talk about this state or that state. We need to talk about the deep state, and we need to talk about PEOPLE. The "state" is purely fictional. The actions of people who believe in the state, on the other hand, are real (and everyone does believe in a slightly different state, if you ask me). It is all about beliefs.

Furthermore, it is quite naive to believe that politicians are free to do whatever they deem right and are actually responsible for severe decisions. They are most often fungible pawns of greater powers, because with power over media, they can be destroyed easily.

An example would be the white-hatted guy from Peru, cannot remember his name now :cowboy:. He wanted an agricultural reform, so that his people could again live from their own soil instead of living from working for big agricultural companies which destroyed all local small-scaled farming through competition™ and globalization™.

Or look at german chancellor Scholz. He was involved in Cum-Ex-scandal back in the day, and the trial against Warburg Bank (jewish bank) is still ongoing. In the last voting campaign, there was some bad news about his opponents, but i have heard no bad news about Scholz. Why was that? My guess: he can be blackmailed. I mean: the man is guilty. There was a parliamentary commission on the matter, and he repeatedly said: "i cannot remember that". Not: "I have not done that", but "cannot remember".

...yeah. Sure, bud. You cannot remember.:bangin:

 

However, politics is a very annoying topic in my opinion. It's all going crazy, pushing my depression... fuyeah :down:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Interesting!

I looked up what the book actually says about the war (excerpted):

 

=============

 

"The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event
which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth
century.
With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by
the United States
, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were
already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct
unit after another decade of confused fighting
. [...]

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently
at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is
no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades
of the twentieth centary
[sic!]. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants
who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and
are not divided by any genuine ideological difference.
[...]" - George Orwell, 1984 (1949), p. 109

Quote

[...] The frontiers between the three
super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according
to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. [personal remark: Dnjeper river]
Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-
mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the
Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion
of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western
frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese
islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.
[...] War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth centary [sic!]. [...] This is not to say that
either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less
bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous
and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter
of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against
prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as
normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy,
meritorious.

- George Orwell, 1984 (1949), p. 109

==============
==============
==============

Quote

"To understand the nature of the present war — for in spite of the regrouping
which occurs every few years, it is always the same war — one must realize in
the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-
states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. 

They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable.
Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces. Oceania by the width of the At-
lantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its in-
habitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight
about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production
and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was
a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw
materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three
super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs
within its own boundaries. [...]"

- George Orwell, 1984 (1949), p. 110

==============
==============
==============

"The primary aim of modern warfare [...] is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nine- teenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. [...] The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. [...]
Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired. [...]
It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.
[...]
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. [...] In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. [...] The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."
- George Orwell, 1984 (1949), pp. 111-113

Quote

Moreover, the labour of
the exploited peoples
[...] is not really necessary to the world’s
economy
. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they
produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always
to be in a better position in which to wage another war
. By their labour the
slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But
if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it
maintains itself, would not be essentially different.
The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of
doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the
directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine
without raising the general standard of living
. Ever since the end of the nine-
teenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods
has been latent in industrial society.
At present, when few human beings even
have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have
become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The
world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that
existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to
which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century,
the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient
— a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete —
was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and tech-
nology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume
that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the
impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because
scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought,
which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world
is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago.
Certain backward areas
have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare
and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have
largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have
never been fully repaired.
Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are
still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was
clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to
a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used
deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be
eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any
such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process — by producing wealth which
it was sometimes impossible not to distribute — the machine did raise the living
standards of the average humand being very greatly over a period of about fifty
years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the
destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical
society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat,
lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car
or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form
of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth
would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society
in which wealth
, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be
evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged
caste.
But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure
and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who
are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to
think for themselves;
and when once they had done this, they would sooner
or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would
sweep it away.
In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on
a basis of poverty and ignorance
. To return to the agricultural past, as some
thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not
a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization
which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and
moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in
a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its
more advanced rivals.
Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting
the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase
of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries
was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was
not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and
kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and
since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition
inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without
increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they
must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by
continuous warfare.
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of
the products of human labour.
War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring
into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might
otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long
run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed,
their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without
producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example,
has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships.

Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit
to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is
built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus
that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the
needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there
is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an
advantage.
It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere
near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the
importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one
group and another.
By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a
member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless,
the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large, well-appointed flat, the better
texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his
two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter — set him in a different
world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party
have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we
call ’the proles’. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the
possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and
poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore
in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural,
unavoidable condition of survival.

- George Orwell, 1984 (1949), pp. 111-113

==============

...yeah, it goes on like that. The book is old enough to be free, you you can look deeper into it pretty easily if you want :)

Edited by sternstaub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/01/2023 at 12:31 AM, AIEND said:

The Chinese government morally supports Ryukyu’s restoration of independence. The Ryukyu independence movement has also been promoted in China and has won the support of many Chinese.

At least they are more lucky than Tibet in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/01/2023 at 12:31 AM, AIEND said:

At the same time, the Ming Dynasty was also the guardian of regional order.

The Roman Republic claimed the same. For exemple all the wars in Greece are justified by Rome to help allies or stabilize the region. Nonetheless, the region has been incorporated.

In this regard, the Mong dynasty invaded Viet with the justification of an usurper but ended by to annex the country.

Edited by Genava55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 小时前,Genava55 说:

至少在这方面他们比西藏幸运。

Tibet has established a unitary system since the end of the Qing Dynasty. In fact, it was able to do so because Tibet itself is a vassal under the Chinese feudal system. From the perspective of China, Tibet is no different from the chieftains of Yunnan and Burma. Tibet does not enjoy the status of a kingdom like Korea, Ryukyu, and Vietnam (although even if it is a kingdom, it is also a kingdom within the empire). The change of Tibet's status is as natural as changing the principalities into provinces after the French Republican Revolution in 1893.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

罗马共和国也有同样的主张。 例如,希腊的所有战争都被罗马证明是为了帮助盟友或稳定该地区。 尽管如此,该地区已被合并。

在这方面,蒙朝以篡位者的名义入侵越南,但最终吞并了这个国家。

Because the Roman Republic is not a universal country, it is just the colonial rule of the Italians over the Mediterranean region. It was not until the 4th century, when Christianity was promoted and the monarchy was established, that Rome became a truly unitary country.

In addition, Vietnam itself is a province of China, and 60% of the local population is Han Chinese. When the Ming army arrived, the local Chinese asked the Ming Dynasty to restore the local counties and counties, and they were unwilling to be ruled by barbarians. The ancestors of Mo Dengyong of the Mo Dynasty in Vietnam were on this list at that time.
In the 16th century, Mo Dengyong also surrendered to the Ming Dynasty, abolished his kingdom, and changed it to the Annan Metropolitan Commander.
The Ming Dynasty not only eliminated Vietnam, but actually also eliminated the separatist kingdoms established from the old territory of the Tang Dynasty, such as Dali and Luchuan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 分钟前,AIEND 说:

因为罗马共和国不是普世国家,只是意大利人对地中海地区的殖民统治。 直到公元4世纪,基督教得到推广,君主制建立,罗马才真正成为一个单一制的国家。

另外,越南本身就是中国的一个省,当地60%的人口都是汉族。 明军到来后,当地华人请求明朝恢复地方郡县,不愿被夷人统治。 越南墨朝墨登庸的祖先当时就在这份名单上。
16世纪,莫登庸也投降明朝,废国,改为安南都督。
明朝不仅消灭了越南,实际上还消灭了大理、陆川等从唐朝旧版图上建立起来的割据王国。

In fact, for a long time, Vietnam, also known as "Jiaozhou", has been the area with the largest and densest Han people in the Lingnan area, far higher than those in Yunnan, Guangxi, Guangdong and other provinces. In fact, the independence of Vietnam is the separatist regime of the Jiaozhou warlords, which is similar in essence to the warlords in Liaodong and Gansu that appeared during the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history. The marginal Han warlords no longer listened to the central government and established their own countries. They were eliminated in the Ming Dynasty. Before the Hu Dynasty in Vietnam, the five dynasties in Vietnam were all established by the Chinese (the subsequent dynasties were actually established by the Han people, and the ancestral homes of the royal families were all in China). When we compare ourselves, we will think that Vietnam at the beginning is like today of Taiwan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, this kind of counties is a response to the aggression of European colonists (and Japan after the Meiji Restoration) since the 19th century. In 1840, Mongolia, Northeast Asia, Xinjiang, Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, and Ryukyu in the Qing Dynasty The Qing Dynasty and other regions were actually vassals of different levels under the rule of the Qing Dynasty. The Qing Dynasty originally continued the strategy of the Ming Dynasty, which was to allow the vassals to have great autonomy without interference.
However, this set of principles is inapplicable to European colonialism. According to the Westphalian system, the Europeans required the Qing Dynasty to either convert it into a more controlling protectorate or even a province, or abandon it completely. suzerainty and sovereignty.
Then Japan invaded Ryukyu, Britain invaded Nepal and Tibet, France invaded Korea and Vietnam, the United States also invaded Korea, and Russia invaded Xinjiang and Northeast Asia.
Amid the internal and external troubles of the Qing Dynasty, its suzerainty over its vassals was greatly shaken. Among the above-mentioned vassals who were invaded, only North Korea resisted stubbornly. Therefore, in order to prevent the complete disintegration of its feudal system, the Qing Dynasty could only The vassals are converted into provinces and stationed with this regular army, no longer leaving these areas alone to face the attacks of the colonists and causing the vassals to be ruled by Westerners.
This triggered the Sino-Japanese War of Sino-Japanese War in order to defend Korea, and the Sino-French War in order to defend Vietnam. The Qing Dynasty was defeated in these wars and was forced to recognize the "independence" of Korea and Vietnam, which then became colonies of France and Japan.
Before the fall of the Qing Dynasty, even Xinjiang and the three eastern provinces that had been transformed into provinces faced further aggression attempts by Russia and Japan. Therefore, before talking about China's "cruelty" to the original vassals, it is better to think about the West What did imperialism do to East Asia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...