>Bismarck soars above all: he is six foot four I shd. think, proportionately stout; with a sweet and gentle voice, and with a peculiarly refined enunciation, wh. singularly and strangely contrasts with the awful things he says: appalling from their frankness and their audacity. He is a complete despot here, and from the highest to the lowest of the Prussians, and all the permanent foreign diplomacy, tremble at his frown and court most sedulously his smile. He loads me with kindnesses, and, tho' often preoccupied, with an immediate dissolution of Parliament on his hands, an internecine war with the Socialists, 100's of whom he puts daily into prison in defiance of all law, he yesterday exacted from me a promise that, before I depart, I will once more dine with him quite alone. His palace has large and beautiful gardens. He has never been out since I came here, except the memorable day when he called on me to ascertain whe[the]r my policy was an ultimatum. I convinced him it was, and the Russians surrendered a few hours afterwards.Benjamin Disraeli to Lady Bradford during the Congress of Berlin (26 June 1878), quoted in William Flavelle Monypenny and George Earle Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield. Volume II. 1860–1881 (1929), pp. 1200-1201
>>522030284>He asked me today whether racing was still much encouraged in England. I replied never more so; that when I was young, tho' there were numerous race meetings, they were at intervals and sometimes long intervals—Epsom, Ascot, Doncaster, Goodwood—and Newmarket frequently; but now there were races throughout the year—it might be said, every day of the year—and all much attended. "Then," cried the Prince eagerly, "there never will be Socialism in England. You are a happy country. You are safe, as long as the people are devoted to racing. Here a gentleman cannot ride down the street without twenty persons saying to themselves, or each other, 'Why has that fellow a horse, and I have not one?' In England the more horses a nobleman has, the more popular he is. So long as the English are devoted to racing, Socialism has no chance with you." This will give you a slight idea of the style of his conversation. His views on all subjects are original, but there is no strain, no effort at paradox. He talks as Montaigne writes. When he heard about Cyprus, he said: "You have done a wise thing. This is progress. It will be popular; a nation likes progress." His idea of progress was evidently seizing something. He said he looked upon our relinquishment of the Ionian Isles as the first sign of our decadence. Cyprus put us all right again.Benjamin Disraeli to Queen Victoria (5 July 1878), quoted in William Flavelle Monypenny and George Earle Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield. Volume II. 1860–1881 (1929), pp. 1203-1204
>>522030379Disraeli, the only peer in quality of statecraft among the men of the latter 1800s, even credited Bismarck with inventing the world's first welfare state in Germany -- to keep the Socialists at bay by meeting them a quarter way with some concessions but never relinquishing the private property of the Junkers and industrial titan commoners who have proved themselves worthy of equality with the born aristocrats. Meanwhile, Bismarck locked up tens of thousands of German Socialists each year without even proper legal process to do so.Disraeli even credited Bismarck with inventing national socialism and even a potential national communism, for Germany and for other modern, industrializing countries to emulate if they wished, to prevent the Socialists from expropriating the natural masters of real property like land and productive means.
>>522030587>When asked what was the greatest political fact of modern times, Bismarck is reported to have responded, that it was "the inherited and permanent fact that North America speaks English." ~ George BeerBismarck also well understood that America could readily become the world's future and master, and that because America speaks English, and her culture is mainly English, this would mean the continued dominance of the English ethnos (all Europeans who have adopted the English way, from Germans to Poles to Italians to Jews and all others besides) in the world, since no state of the day or conceivable in the future could match America's natural might from territorial size, population, natural resources, of a powerful overriding national ideology commonly held and strongly animating the public of Americans.
>>522030829And Bismarck was the last man to care about old morals and religious dogmas and all the rest of that. Like an overman, he made his own God: Germany Reborn. And he nurtured her to basic maturity, protected her in her youth, and gave her a great foundation for the future -- one sadly damaged, even irreparably, by the brash young Kaiser who dismissed the greatest man of the 19th century from service, and who, despite his many good qualities and his intend to do the opposite, set the German Empire upon the course of its demise, indirectly leading even to today's Germany's relative global unimportance, due to the Kaiser's belief in the divinity of his judgment owing to royal blood and his purported anointment by God as Emperor of the Germans. Kaiser Wilhelm II is a sympathetic man, of peering intelligence and good moral character, but he could have used a heavy dose of Bismarckian realpolitik in steering Germany through the treacherous and long waters of its rise to one day eclipse Britain along with its whole Empire, a course for the German Ship of State that was necessarily fraught and hard because Albion could not suffer a non-Anglo power, let alone a German, to master the world in its stead, therefore the Kaiser needed always be ready for Britain to spring its trap and pull Germany into a war to cut the rising star down to size and before its wings grew out enough for the Phoenix of the Second Reich to take flight after being reborn from the smoking ashes of the First Reich brought low by Richelieu's scheming in the early 1600s: intended to ruin Germany so horribly that it could not stand up again for centuries. Finally, through Bismarck's brilliance after the genius work of Frederick the Great (who was Napoleon's equal as a tactician and strategist) and his father, Germany received her chance to reemerge after two centuries of humiliation after the breaking wheel of Europe's machinations to annihilate the prospect of a strong power in the middle of
>>522031429Europe during the Thirty Years' War of 1618 to 1648, during which a third and some four to six million of the world's Germans perished.Now reborn, straddling the center of the continent, Germany was bound to be hated and jealously despised out of fear. Bismarck knew this. He was cautious. The Kaiser was a good man but not cautious enough to prevent Europe from once again ganging up to shatter the Reich.
Could a modern day Bismarck dispense with the ideology and all the minds it has rotted in our era and lead in the name of the West alone, doing only what is best for the West regardless of the concerns or complaints of the Rest?A man of this caliber is nowhere in sight. All the nationalists in the West and South America are men of ideology and, frankly, silliness, lacking the cold, sober seriousness of mind and clarity of purpose Bismarck embodied to perfection.Where do we find such a leader who can think through all the ideology and past the special interests and just rule for the good of Western Civilization?Is such leadership even possible anymore within the minefield of special interest politics that our "democracies" and "republics" have set up? Do we need a true aristocracy (Rule by the Best) that holds power in its iron hand and dismisses the requests of everyone in it for himself (or today, for herself too), great and small, pauper and centibillionaire or multinational corporation?Special interest politics is like a gamut through which every potential policy must first be run before it can be actualized, then its actual form, after all the distortions that occur from the crazed structure of that gamut, resembles the original proposal only in name.
>>522030284Height niggers have defective pineal glands.
>>522033522Politics may have doomed the West. Nothing pragmatic for any Western country, let alone a unified Western Civilization acting together to keep our place atop the world which we have held for five centuries and indeed earned in virtue of being the most dynamic and accomplished civilization in history by far, a West of many countries acting in unison geostrategically and economically again rising blocs that threaten our hegemony and even our survival in the worst case scenarios (many non-Westerners hate us and wish us ill in their hearts) -- nothing just plainly pragmatic and done for the West's interests as one entity seems even possible anymore in our political system of officials acting in the name of monied interests who buy them and the mentally degenerated opposing political mobs they lead in each Western country.
so what did bismarck do?
>>522034615He did anything that was in the interests of Germany's rise to be a dominant power in Europe. And he didn't even want Germany to try to rule of world or even displace the British Empire or even challenge Britain. He was content to have Germany as the Great Power on the continent among a community of Great Powers in the world, with some difference in status between them so that like if Britain were king, Germany would be a grand duke, and, were he alive in the early 1900s, I am sure he would have steered Germany away from the constant temptations to join a great war, so that Germany could pursue its own destiny to its own natural level of greatness determined by its innate potential regardless of the world domination games the Anglo World was keen to play. The Kaiser, smart as he was (and he was brighter than popular and even professional history likes to portray him -- like a brash man who bumbled Germany into the war that spelled the end of its ambitions), was no Bismarck and eventually fell into the trap laid by Britain in allying with France and Germany (ensuring Germany was surrounded) and then waiting for the opportunity, which was sure to come in one form or another, to tempt Germany into a war on two fronts and end her rise.Bismarck would not even have allowed the Alliance to take shape when he was maneuvering in Europe.
>>522034973*the trap laid by Britain in allying with France and Russia
>>522034973How do you think this fits into the current American-led order? the US certainly takes after the British Empire in many ways, but we don't suffer the same weaknesses as them. We are much larger with more people and more natural resources. The US has less interest in Europe and more interest in Latin America and east Asia. Britain and France are suspicious of a remilitarized Germany but the US actively wants it so we can pull out of Europe. I can imagine a future where mainland Europe is led by a joint German-French alliance while the oceans are dominated by an American-Anglo-Japanese naval alliance.
>>522030587>industrial titan commoners who have proved themselves worthy of equality with the born aristocratsThat's interesting to see a generally acknowledged phenomenon stated so plainly but I wonder how many born aristocrats saw them as equals.
>>522036232Some born aristocrats married into upcoming industrialist families. Many such cases, in fact
>>522038179Could you tell me, briefly, how the Germans in their separate states interacted with each other before 1871?Say 1800-1850
>>522036232In fact, in the 1800s and continuing into the 1900s, and even occasionally today -- though the process is all but complete -- many rising industrialists of Captains of Industry, representing the new way of building fortunes by investment in and ownership of productive means like factories and mines and timber companies, were eager to marry into old aristocratic families with grand shiny old names and official hereditary titles (that the industrialists' kids could inherit, like in most European countries), even when the aristocratic family owned much less than the industrialist or even was on the verge of bankruptcy, since in Europe, and the UK most of all, the aristocracy remained (and remains to this day) the backbone of the structure of social status, so that being a lord just carries a level of respectability that even the wealthiest commoner mega-billionaire will never have unless he is ennobled or marries into nobility. In Britain, for example, which has the strongest class system in Europe, everything starts with the monarch, meaning the King or Queen sets the tone for how high status people are expected to behave, what they're supposed to value, just what they're supposed to be about, and access to the monarch, like can be gained by running a giant corporation headquartered in the UK, is the highest honor there is. On the other side, many aristocratic families were eager, back in the 1800s and 1900s, to marry into New Money families who wealth was eclipsing their own as the feudal system of building wealth by owning land was by then nowhere near as profitable as the emerging capitalist-industrialist system of owning factories that make goods. Aristocratic families saw the new world dawning around them and did the sensible thing, in order to remain at the top of the social order, and sought marriage alliances with successful businessmen's sons or daughters. Of course this was the age of "blue bloodism," when proponents of the old aristocracy
>>522030284Bismarck by Alan Palmer is a good read. If you want to learn more about Prussia read Richard Tedor's book who was the same author of Hitler's Revolution.
>>522030379The racing scene is dying. Nobody wants to be a racist anymore.
>>522038468>Could you tell me, briefly, how the Germans in their separate states interacted with each other before 1871?>Say 1800-1850The free trade zone established by Napoleon and then updated after Napoleon wherein the German states and statelets could trade without tariffs or import duties was a major factor, even in building German unity by tying these states together economically. Another way of interacting was the old system of marriage alliances between important families, like binding families -- thus principalities or duchies -- by marriages between these families' children. And of course diplomatic ties were growing in importance as the German states gained a renewed sense of Germany as a distinct place with its own civilization largely as a result of Napoleon's invasion and destruction of the decaying old Holy Roman Empire, as Germans now saw they had more uniting than dividing them when a massive foreign enemy came traipsing through their turf. The Revolutions of 1848 were centered in the German lands above all and were generally about German nationalism insofar as their expression in the German lands. The liberals and nationalists were united, calling for a unified Germany with free trade within the country's borders, since the independent German states would now just be "states" in a federal system with a parliament and monarchy. Nationalism has always been a populist force seeking a better deal for the commoners, like how the merchant class of Germany (and other countries) were pushing for more rights and respect vis-a-vis the landed gentry who had been the top rung of society for centuries. Their ideology was liberalism, mainly economic liberalism or freedom of commerce and government support for industry by setting up a functional but not too strong regulatory framework to facilitate trade. Of course there were also liberals, overlapping with the economic liberals, who wanted freedom for the commoners like the franchise or right to vote
>>522030284lol no wonder kikes loved him.
>>522039046(liberalism is just the belief system of ideology of liberty/freedom, hence both the Republican and Democratic Parties in the US are core liberal regardless of how they scramble the terms), and some who wanted civil rights and workers' rights, claiming basic security for workers is essential for poorer commoners like factory hands to be truly free or free in a meaningful sense.But nationalism is always populist and the nation-state is a populist kind of state with a political system appealing to the populace or public in decision making or at least to gain support for decisions it wishes to make anyway. Before the nation-states, nations existed, of course, but the states heading the nations were concerned with kingly and lordly affairs and generally indifferent to the population at large (the commoners). So the nations of Europe before the 1800s, when nation-states proper formed, were nations with non-nationalist, meaning non-populist or non-representative or non-political states (no mass appeals or political proper going on); they were aristocratic states heading nations already formed in the Dark Age still mainly operating according to the interests of the feudal elites of the Dark Age. So while the nation is nothing new, the nation-state or populist-state that involves the nation or people at large in state affairs and decision making only goes back to the populist, nationalist movements of the 1800s exemplified by the failed Revolutions of 1848.It was the French Revolution that marked the watershed of the new investor class making its will known and heard (loud around the world) to be at least equal to the barons by demanding an end to the ancient feudal system of privilege (literally: private laws) that legally advantaged the nobles at the expense of the common people. But of course the French Revolution was a mixed success, though Napoleon, creature of the Enlightenment that he was, spready its ideals across Europe, to the point that Russian
>>522039046Thank you. So, in that period, no one state dominated or held authority over any other, but I imagine certain states (Prussia most likely) found ways to bully other states to an extent on certain issues.
>>522039375>*kisses your toes*
>>522038468Well we started out by fighting each other since some were on Napoleon's side and some weren't. Then in the mid 1800s, the current version of hippies and weed smoking college student tried to do a revolution and abolish monarchy but failed, which resulted in a reactionary era, making people like Karl Marx flee to anglo countries (Anglos may know these as "forty-eighters" because most fled around 1848). The German Covenant was reinstated, which was a loose alliance of some German states and served as a pseudo-Holy Roman Empire after that one had been abolished by Napoleon.
>>522039447officers (landed aristocrats), coming back from Europe after France's defeat, were excited about what they saw across Europe due to Napoleon spreading the ideals of the Revolution, born in the Enlightenment and its insistence on softening the privileges of the clergy and nobles (old feudal elites), across the land, so much so that a bunch of elite Russian officers in 1825 staged the Decembrist Revolt to pressure the conservative Tsar Nicholas I to try to liberalize/bring Western or European freedom to Russia in at least a basic way, mainly because after seeing Europe's dynamism, these Russian elites back from campaign believed they were missing out on the action of Europe (they were feeling deprived) and were concerned, like Peter the Great more than a century before them, that Russia was stagnant and falling behind due to the country's extremely stuffy feudal system that it would not even attempt to reform in the name of modernizing Russia and making Russia a society at the same level of France or Britain or the Netherlands. The whole of Russian history in the 1800s and until the Revolutions of 1917 is one of growing bitterness, from top to bottom, peasant to noble, against a system refusing to budge from its medieval ways and join the modern world if just for the sake of Russian national prestige and security in a world of rapidly modernizing rival countries. Indeed Russia kept conquering and expanded in the 1800s, hence the Crimean War (the biggest European conflict in the long peace of the Pax Britannica after Napoleon's career and before World War I, and the state policy of the Russian Empire was, as has been seen so many times before in history, to deal with internal strife by external expansion (the Greeks colonized the Mediterranean to allay internal conflicts, the Romans did too, the Vikings did as well, Britain and France had their colonies to send ambitious yet low commoners to seek their fortunes so they wouldn't foment unrest at home, and
>>522039543>Thank you. So, in that period, no one state dominated or held authority over any other, but I imagine certain states (Prussia most likely) found ways to bully other states to an extent on certain issues.Absolutely right. No one state was totally in charge, but Prussia was the big kid on the block.
>>522039873America had the western frontier for ambitious poorer people to settle (free land for anyone willing to farm it) who were dissatisfied with their life prospects in the well established social class structures of the earlier-settled East, both Northeast and Southeast -- and as the frontier closed in the late 1800s with the defeat of the last Plains Indians holdouts, like the Sioux and some other tribes allied with them being forced into South Dakota reservations after Wounded Knee, social theorists and political scientists in America knew the frontier "safety valve" as they called it, to let off the building steam of socioeconomic pressure, was no longer available and so American interior policy shifted toward gearing up for a class fight against what they knew was a coming labor movement); all of which is to say that Russia externalized its internal problems in the 1800s by doing the old thing of conquering new lands for dissatisfied common people to settle and try to build new lives away from the established class orders of the old places that were hard for outsiders to break into and join and, of course, this "safety valve" of settler colonialism couldn't last forever, and so just as in America, as the frontier closed -- and the Russian eastern frontier was nowhere near as hospitable and hence habitable as the American western frontier -- the Russian state had to gear up for socioeconomic conflict that could no longer be avoided by sending its non-elite ambitious discontents father afield. But liberalism is just the ideology, the belief system, or liberty of freedom (Latin and Germanic words for the exact same concept), and the nationalists of the 1800s across Europe, but especially in Germany, were by and far liberals because the ideology of freedom is about basing status not on hereditary ranks recognized by law but about success in commerce, above all, and also, for some, opening up more opportunities for the worst off to get their fair shot at
>>522034973>Trap laid by Britain>France hates you and wants revenge because you literally invaded and sacked Paris>Cancel treaties with Russia for literally no reason>Cheer on Austria knowing full well Russia won't stand aside and let Slavic nations under their protection get bullied>Russia allies with France because you're acting weird. "I won't attack you lol we are family :)" because Kaiser Wilhelm forgets what a history book is>Then he proceeds to bomb Morocco and antagonise France for no real reason>To his credit Wilhelm tried to stop the war and pull back from France only to be met with "We're can't the French are really pissed off" by his top brass>FlagWehraboos really need to accept the fact that is Bismarck lived longer he would've told Wilhelm to not be a retard and burn half of Germany's bridgesYou can't flip flop between laughing at 1870 and mocking France and then being an eternal victim BRITIAIN MADE ME PILLAGE YOU DON'T BE MAD AT MEEEEEYou either accept responsibility for your probably autistic monarchs terrible decisions or you cope, say we did everything and the peak of your civilisation in modern times had our hand up their arse and your people are pathetic puppetsAgain, you can't gloat and be some pathetic victim when things don't go your way. That's what Indians do.
>>522040300material success and a new standard of social respectability based on merit in acquiring wealth through industry as opposed to the old standard of social respectability that was based on being born into an old noble family with a hereditary title and legally recognized rank. It's odd how liberalism and conservatism are defined today in America, unlike anything "liberalism" ever means before the mid 20th century and still unlike anything this concept entails in pretty much the rest of the world. You could say that Germany was reborn in liberalism, therefore in nationalism, in the founding of the Second Reich/Realm/"Empire" because the classical liberals were nationalists advocating for basing social status on membership in the national community, hence opening the doors to high status to common people, and, as the second step to attaining respectability and high status, on achievement in the new commercial and soon enough industrial game of acquiring money through investment in factories and mines and such: endeavors producing goods more than just food, which is what the old feudal system was centered on producing and had as its highest priority, so that a lord's and even the king's real claim to legitimacy came from organizing food producing activities so people could at least survive, while the new commercial system's claim to legitimacy was came from organizing, via deployment of capital through good investments and managing whole new enterprises, the production of myriad new goods beyond just food offering more than just survival but a new level of comfort and human power over the natural world. Really, the rise of the merchant class as a power that would come to contest the position of the barons occurred in two primary stages: 1) the building of preindustrial overseas empires that capitalized European countries via mercantilist economic systems, and 2) industrialization that required the imperial fortunes now held by the early modern aristocratic
>>522040522>Cheer on AustriaIs this accurate? I was under the impression that Germany was not made fully aware of Austria's intentions. Regardless, they could hardly sit by and do nothing after the assassinations. I'm not disputing your other points.
>>522040709states heading the medievally formed nations of Europe (which were not yet nation-states meaning populist or representative or political states with institutions for measuring and reacting to the public will), which fortunes came from the mercantilist hoarding from the preindustrial empires built on sailing ship naval technology and navigation techniques, and which used this saved up capital to launch the new factories that would go on to shape the world and empower the merchant class further as their fortunes grew astronomically as a result of the exponential leap in productive capacity unlocked by industrial processes (and their reliance on carbon fuels, which is another key thread and even pillar of this story of the cause-effect unfolding of history in this era -- Britain was the first to turn to coal and develop steam engines for mining coal, indeed not initially for transportation but for draining groundwater from coal mines, after Britain fells almost all its forests for both ordinary fuel like space heating and for cooking and to build that Royal Navy of so many sailing ships). So the story of early industrial capitalism is the story of wealthy traders, from the age of sailing empires, seeing the new opportunities of industrialism, and betting their fortunes on these new ventures dazzling new technologies and then reaping giant returns that, collectively, made the merchant class, now the industrial-merchant class or the owners or factories and mines and such ultimately selling goods, at least a match, in terms of economic power, for the old gentry and lords and even kings.Of course, the landed aristocrats still had the heavy weight of history and custom and law as well behind them against the nearly insurgent merchant money power (and in 1789, it was an insurgency indeed), and so the landed aristocracy was a lot of momentum behind it, going back a millennium, and wasn't going to be put aside quickly. Instead, after the French Revolution
>>522041158fizzled out, a long, multigenerational process of bargaining and figuring out a new compact between the ancient feudal elite and the emerging commercial alite occurred, culminating in the merger of the old and new, Old Power and New Money, mainly through marriage ties. So you have the son of a duke marrying an industrialist's daughter and a marquis's daughter marrying a banker's son etc. This is how the old feudal aristocracy gave way to today's industrial (now mainly financial -- in the West) elite. Liberalism was the ideology used to appeal to the masses to make the case for the injustice of old baronial and clerical privileges and legal ranks, and the liberals of the 1800s were nationalists because enfranchisement in a new nation-state, or populist state responsive to the will of the public, was essential to gain for the merchant power to rise to become, first, the nobles' equals and then, soon enough, their superiors in the social system of industrialized societies. Thus the story of history and its stages development in the top realm of political economy is one of the traditionally lower, merchant class, whose power is money, displacing (though generally intermarrying with), the traditionally higher warrior class, whose power lay in land conquered by their ancestors in medieval times. Germany underwent this change in two or three generations -- much longer than it took it Britain, where it occurred first. And Bismarck the pragmatist, though a noblemen (Prussian Junker) himself, and having no qualms about welcoming the new industrialists to the club, even listened to that much marginal voice or strain of liberal philosophy in the 19th century, allied with nationalism, that said for the philosophy of freedom, aka liberalism, to be realized broadly and with some real substance, as in the harangues of the merchant liberal-nationalists to include the commoners in general in the top social ranks and in the decision making power of the state, so too
>>522041689use paragraphs ffs
>>522041689must the non-merchant commoners, still peasants farming the land, or increasingly workers handing the factories, receive some basic assurance of security and, more than this, some basically decent life as well. So the workers were given a bone in Bismarck's Prussia and then his reunified Germany, even a bone with actual meat on it, in the form of social programs as Germany became the first welfare state that all other modern states followed to some degree, even the USA which has the least social democracy of them all, while the Nordic countries outdid even Germany in building the most extensive welfare states ever. But this bone was thrown and made juicy enough to satisfy in order to stymy the Socialist Movement found all across Europe by the mid 1800s, particularly in the German lands and then united Germany. Rather like how the New Deal was intended to placate the workers and banish thoughts of ending private/investment property, but half a century earlier. Today, liberalism has detached from nationalism as the economic basis of commerce has outgrown the nation-state and representative government has become a shadow of its former self in its capacity to respond to the will of the public. Liberals today come in two main flavors: the economic liberals who want more freedom for commerce (free trade/no barriers like tariffs and few import laws; free movement of capital or investment money across borders, like to establish factories in countries with lower labor costs; free movement of working populations across national borders to that businesses can recruit professionals from around the world and attract marginal populations from other countries to staff the simple jobs, etc.). Meanwhile, the other liberal tendency, there from the beginning of liberal philosophy, still has some regard for workers' needs in order that workers may enjoy a robust freedom, but this is mainly a concern for uplifting third world workers, and the freedoms the leftish liberals
>>522041789Then you'd accuse me of reddit spacing.There are many paragraphs in what I have written. I just don't put blank lines between them.
>>522042039pursue, while they generally agree with the rightish liberals about free trade and all its entails (think of the San Francisco yuppie liberals, for example, who love their status and money but combine it with heavy moralistic exhortations and self-righteousness about cultural issues), concern race, women, sexuality and gender: that whole thing, which is at least as much just Cultural Liberalism as it is Cultural Marxism, which, please recall, comes from the Marxist development of liberalism's emphasis on robust freedom workers through uplifting their economic situation, now transformed into all manner of ideas about robust freedom for other, "previously overlooked" groups, namely non-European races, women, queers and gays of every stripe etc. So even Cultural Liberalism and Cultural Marxism are really like second cousins, while Economic Liberalism and Culturalism Liberalism are like first cousins or even siblings born in the liberal movement to gain recognition and respect for the growing achievements of the trading class turned industrial class turned financial-trading class again.Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am serious, since this has been a long thing and I hope you gained something from it whether you mostly agree, disagree, or think there is something here but the work is incomplete and perhaps still too nascent to judge definitively as to its merit.
>>522030284The problem with Bismarck is that you got Wilhelm II who squandered and wasted everything Bismarck build.
>>522040876Yes. They given AH full support and practically pushed them into war(not that they needed much). The main thing is that German HQ wasn't afraid of France but was afraid of what future Russia (Stalin proven them right) could do when industrialized AND they knew that right now they are the strongest on the continent.So in the sprit of real politicks Krauts decided to find(or made) pretext and strike now when they though they have biggest chances to win.
>>522035306>mainland Europe is led by a joint German-French allianceIntriguing. They could call it NEATO (North East Atlantic Treaty Org) and cut us out.Seriously , though, such a military alliance would require eye-watering levels of spending to maintain the amount of hardware for it not to be a paper tiger. That would require a completely different kind of Euro politician.
>>522030284I think the West needs an individual who embodies a combination of leadership like that of Napoleon, Bismarck, and someone like Lee Kuan Yew at this point.
>>522044476>Lee Kuan YewWhats so unique about their qualities?
>>522030284A reminder that Bismarck championed socialism. The first and the last nail in the coffin of western civilization.
>>522044476You belong in Africa if you think that a strong leader is what we need.
>>522044476Oh really, how about such strong individuals as comrades Stalin and FDR. To say nothing about (kek) Bismarck.
>>522044959Lee Kuan Yew is basically the founding father of modern Singapore, who was able to turn a poor and racially divided area after British colonialism into a high-trust society and one of the richest countries in the world.>>522045182Yes, a strong and competent leader who can create new and long lasting social, political and economic systems is what we desperately need right now.
>>522045458>long lasting social, political and economic systemsthis is where you strong leadership always fails. They never create systems that can last.
>>522044476You forgot about Genghis Khan. He did create one of the strongest Empires to ever exist - which collapsed as soon as he died.The US on the other hand had a pretty good run - because it had nothing to do with any particular "leader". Same with the peak of European civilization which had more "leaders" that you could count.
>>522045458Cool story but comparing Malays and Indians to American minorities is insane.Just make non whites second class citizens. Frederick the Great did that to the jews
>>522045984>Just make non whites second class citizens. Frederick the Great did that to the jewsAbsurd. Just stop giving them privileges. The same applies to women obviously. You don't fucking need to make women your slaves for them to end up where they naturally belong.
>>522046159they belong in the kitchen - not in parliaments - if someone still wonders
>>522045593When I say ‘strong’, I mean someone strong in character and commitment, not strong in the need to dominate like Alexander the Great or Adolf Hitler. Also, these policies are obviously not going to be enforced by the weakness we see in today’s Western leadership, like Joe Biden or even Trump.>>522045984Yes, I am just giving examples. Obviously a leader in the West would be thinking more along the lines of remigration than anything else.
>>522043578They definitely need to increase spending but I don't think it would be as drastic as you make it sound. The main regions they would need to worry about are eastern Europe, north Africa, and the western side of the middle east (Levant, Suez, Bosphorus Strait). The American-Anglo-Japanese alliance would manage mostly everything else while working with regional partners (Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Philippines, South Korea, etc). These two alliances would have different interests but they would still generally cooperate. Europe would want natural resources and trade to come in from overseas while the naval alliance wants a stable Europe. Both would want to prevent a single power from dominating the Eurasian landmass, so the main threats are China, Russia, and Iran.
4am night shit euro glownigger 4chan pass spam thread hours
