Which one is superior? Why? What faults does each one possess?

I realize Europe is so broad a term as to be practically useless, but the European countries have enough in common (especially when contrasted against America) that I think we should be able to come up with enough shared characteristics for discussion.

I shall start with one reason I dislike America....

1) America's fetish for democracy (democracy instantly gives legitimacy to ANY government).

Military-wise? America.
Culturally and historically? Europe.

1) America's fetish for democracy (democracy instantly gives legitimacy to ANY government).

America is democratic? Damn, I must have missed something.

America may be ochlocratic, plutocratic or, to properly name it, kleptocratic, but it is definitely not democratic.

Go visit an italian restaurant, then a McDonalds, and when you come home, play some Beethoven, then some Li'l Kim. Then you'll know which is superior.

Military-wise? America.
Culturally and historically? Europe.
Military-wise, America? I would like to see the american army fighting all european armies at the same time.

Military-wise, America? I would like to see the american army fighting all european armies at the same time.

Most european countries of today have small and/or ill-equiped armies. This is unfortunately due to under-founding by the Leftist-Socialists in power with those European countries.

Most european countries of today have small and/or ill-equiped armies. This is unfortunately due to under-founding by the Leftist-Socialists in power with those European countries. However i doubt the American army will have much chance if all of them were united.

Militarily Europe has better armies than America. If you want to read analysis of military affairs with an actual intelligent basis, read European writings not American. Even the British military shows more common sense and skill than the Yanks. American military writings are just a bunch of "America is number 1, nobody can beat America" type nonsense.

Just on the development of Electro-Magnetic Pulse weapons, I had to read British and Sweedish reports to learn the truth. American publications say the US is at the top in its development(as usual) while the British and Sweedish reports stated that in fact the Russians were.

**** Soldier of Fortune, I prefer Combat and Survival(a British counter-part publication but with more intelligence).

Militarily, culturally, and historically; Europe is certainly superior(or at least old Europe). I often wonder why I was born in North America, since my basic outlook and worldview on things are more characteristically European in nature than American.

However i doubt the American army will have much chance if all of them were united.

Quite true, but that will never happen in a million years.

Would be one big messy conflict.

economically then? I would say USA though i'm from europe myself. USA seems more self sufficient than europe and momentarilly also seems to dictacte world economics.
If i'm mistaking please enlighten me...

economically then? I would say USA though i'm from europe myself. USA seems more self sufficient than europe and momentarilly also seems to dictacte world economics.
If i'm mistaking please enlighten me...

Self sufficient? Everything is imported from Asia.

Self sufficient? Everything is imported from Asia.
the USA trade deficit is huge, the EU is more selfsufficient, a lot more.

Quite true, but that will never happen in a million years. I hope so.

Are you guys comparing America as a continent, or as being the USA?
Because comparing the superiority of a country to a continent is useless.

You can add Canada too for all I care, but if you do, add Mexico too.

The comparison between the USA and the EU would make sense anyway.

Which one is superior? Why? What faults does each one possess?
Its not really America that I dislike so much as it is modernity. Modernity has reached its highest apogee in America, which has never known anything else. There has been more resistance to this in Europe, hence my European bias.

economically then? I would say USA though i'm from europe myself. USA seems more self sufficient than europe and momentarilly also seems to dictacte world economics. If i'm mistaking please enlighten me...
America has really made me despise economics. In America, everything in life is subordinated to economics. The logic of the market is the basis for all social relationships. This is why I have really come to hate America as it is currently incarnated. It probably has a lot to do with my anti-Semitism as well. America is such a bourgeoisie nation. It is ruled by merchants who think fundamentally in bourgeoisie individualist terms. These people were once part of the 'Third Estate' along with the working classes (although the communists have long attempted to build up a division between the two). In the Middle Ages, society was organised along this tripartite division: into those who fight, those who pray, and those who work. These classes were mutually interdependent and each were regarded as having certain obligations to each other. Prior to modernity, the latter two classes were the ruling classes and society was organised along entirely different lines. The obsession with economics and the reduction of everything in life to economics is a modern phenomena that would not have been taken seriously several generations ago. The bourgeoisie were generally looked down upon previously, like the Jews, because they were the uncultured shiftless peddlers and moneymakers. They were seen as dealers in ugliness and dirtiness, the sort of people who would sell their own mothers if the price was right. Such people were not generally regarded as being responsible and thoughtful enough to rule themselves, much less control the fate of entire nations. This was before the bourgeoisie proclaimed notions such as 'consent of the governed' and 'rights of man' (e.g., themselves). Well. . . we can clearly see how all of that turned out.

I see, I had no idea you hated america like this right now. I keep seeing you as that isolationist-capitalist when I first came to the board.

like the Jews, because they were the uncultured shiftless peddlers and moneymakers.

One can hardly say it's their fault. They were forced into banking. Also they have a history filled with violence aimed against them. Initially not for their way of doing bussiness, but for their religion.

In America, everything in life is subordinated to economics.

I agree. Wealth that springs forth from economics should be invested back in the community and the wellbeing of the community should have priority over market value of a given bond(to a certain height of course, else one could loose an important wealth tool).

They were seen as dealers in ugliness and dirtiness, the sort of people who would sell their own mothers if the price was right.

that's rather generalising isn't it? wouldn't you rather look at each person as an individual? or do you believe somehow there is something inherently that makes certain individuals (not just jews) do such things?


By the way, if you currently had to choose between Ayn rand's teachings or Adam smith's teachings which of those do you feel more drawn to?

One can hardly say it's their fault. They were forced into banking. Also they have a history filled with violence aimed against them. Initially not for their way of doing bussiness, but for their religion.





Why don't you read their Talmud and secret writtings? It is a curse for them to do hard labour and the Rabbi tells the little Yids to go into money-leanding, because it is easyer.
Like any gentiles would have prevented a Jew from working on the field. Why did Luther demand that that they should finaly be forced to work like everyone else, if it was "forbidden"?

the USA trade deficit is huge, the EU is more selfsufficient, a lot more.Most of our trade deficit is oil imports. You can't really trust those numbers anyway.

Why don't you read their Talmud and secret writtings?

Why don't you point me some of these a so holy "secret" writings that all jewish people adhere too?

It is a curse for them to do hard labour

I see plenty of jewish people or people from more distant jewish heritage perform hard labout. Also, I think israel was made with their bare hands wasn't it?

and the Rabbi tells the little Yids to go into money-leanding, because it is easyer.

Great hearsay arguments or where you there when this was done?

Why did Luther demand that that they should finaly be forced to work like everyone else, if it was "forbidden"?

Were they or were they not forbidden to go into any bussiness but banking wehr?

There NEVER was a ban on them becoming farmers. Some guilds banned them, but that's no excuse to go into filthy usury.

It is ruled by merchants who think fundamentally in bourgeoisie individualist terms.

I assure you the country is run by lawyers. In better times the shysters were just puppets for the merchants but no longer.

In the Middle Ages, society was organised along this tripartite division: into those who fight, those who pray, and those who work.

Yes and no. If "those who fight" you meant knights then yes that is correct. But knights never formed the majority of any army in the Middle Ages. The common depiction of medieval armies is false, most men did not have heavy armor and such. Most fighting men during the Middle Ages were conscripts taken from the serfs, merchants, etc.(ie "those who work"). However they operated on a militia basis, where they only fought certain actions and then disbanded. Knights were the core professional soldiers, but by no means were the only soldiers on the field. Also with the advent of the Crusades, the line between those who fought and those who prayed began to blur as religious military orders formed. Yet again most members of these orders weren't knights but were common soldiers much like their secular counter-parts.

This was common not only to Medieval Europe(Western Europe that is) but true all over the world were a feudal or feudal-like system reigned. It was so in Kieven Rus, where the Prince relied on his elite Druzhina(his bodyguard units and such) but all male citizens were required to bear arms in times of war. Same thing was definately true in Japan, the Samurai were the elite but never the entire army. In fact Japan further demonstrates what Im talking about, since there were several military forces(including military-religious groups of warrior monks like their western counter-parts) and most armies were made of peasent conscripts. Merchants also organized themselves into militias, like their Western counterparts, and every town and city had a militia for times of crisis.

A little lesson of military history.

Yes and no. If "those who fight" you meant knights then yes that is correct. But knights never formed the majority of any army in the Middle Ages. The common depiction of medieval armies is false, most men did not have heavy armor and such.

Way too expensive of course for the average "man at arms".

Most fighting men during the Middle Ages were conscripts taken from the serfs, merchants, etc.

The overwhelming majority were volunteers, army life paid relatively well in the middle ages especially if looting is taken into account.

Knights were the core professional soldiers

While they tended to be obsessive WARRIORS they were not really core professional soldiers, ussually they could only be called into the field for 40 days of the year and tended to be undisciplined and sought personal glory in battle rather then fighting as a team.

Also with the advent of the Crusades, the line between those who fought and those who prayed began to blur as religious military orders formed.

The Templars etc would mostly be considered "those who fought", they were knights pledged to the church and their grandmaster and under some monastic vows. Oh and the Templars also got involved in commerce and banking( theoretically commerce was beneath the dignity of a noble and banking a sin that was left to jews, until the church got involved lol) so it also blurred the lines between "those who worked".

Yet again most members of these orders weren't knights but were common soldiers much like their secular counter-parts.

The inner order, which in military terms would include the Heavy cavalry was reserved for noblemen.


This was common not only to Medieval Europe(Western Europe that is) but true all over the world were a feudal or feudal-like system reigned.

Very rarely all peasants were armed to defend the realm( after Agincourt the king of France issued the levee en masse but he quickly made terms declaring Henry V heir to the throne), but it was usually in the wake of military disaster near their home soil and when a conscripts fear of the enemy exceeded their fear of their master they would panic and run. Mass levies of peasant conscripts were not often used in medieval armies.

::Yes and no. If "those who fight" you meant knights then yes that is correct.

That was a description of how Medieval Europeans saw the world in which they lived, Perun. Obviously, there was overlap (since yeah, serfs were conscripted), but regardless, it was commonly believed at the time that society was organised along such lines. Most Americans would accept the proposition that they live in a 'free country' as self-evident. That does not necessarily make it so.

::I see, I had no idea you hated america like this right now. I keep seeing you as that isolationist-capitalist when I first came to the board.

My racial views (antecedent) led me to an interest in objectivism (consequent). I was convinced at the time that a society organised along such lines (e.g., a 'free society') might enable us to realise my racial ideals (as individuals would, theoretically, be able to exclude others if they chose to do so). In other words, 'objectivism' was at the time merely a 'means to an end' for me. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the objectivist approach was less than satisfactory for the realisation of such ends. So I discarded that ideal.

::One can hardly say it's their fault. They were forced into banking.

This is a myth. The Jews were into peddling and slavetrading long before the Christian Middle Ages. In fact, they were notorious for participating in the European slave trade in the Slavic East just as they were slavetraders in Roman times (one reason I do not like them, amongst others). They were fundamentally traders and merchants, just as they are today. They were often welcomed into Christian kingdoms for this reason, as they were well known for having long distance mercantile contacts abroad. It was only much later on that they were 'classified' on such a basis in some places, especially after the Gregorian reforms.

::Also they have a history filled with violence aimed against them.

And why do you suppose that is? Here is an idea for you. Perhaps Jews antagonise their gentile hosts who finally get fed up with them.

::Initially not for their way of doing bussiness, but for their religion.

Well. The Catholic Church did hold for centuries that the Jews killed Jesus Christ himself, probably the most harmless man to ever live. I would say that speaks volumes about their character.

::I agree. Wealth that springs forth from economics should be invested back in the community

Its not reinvested back in the community anymore (at least like it used to be). Capital is more mobile today than ever before. At the click of a button, billions of dollars can be moved from one continent to another. That was impossible just a century or so ago. The market no longer operates under the same conditions.

::and the wellbeing of the community should have priority over market value of a given bond(to a certain height of course, else one could loose an important wealth tool).

I am surprised, Spinoza. You expressed a communitarian sentiment.

Quote:
They were seen as dealers in ugliness and dirtiness, the sort of people who would sell their own mothers if the price was right.

::that's rather generalising isn't it?

Language is already a generalisation. Language, by its very nature, is normative, Spinoza. There is nothing wrong with generalisations.

::wouldn't you rather look at each person as an individual?

No. As I have already addressed this issue in a debate with cerberus.

"The notion that we are 'individuals' as opposed to being members of our communities, that we are somehow equal to all other human beings is a primitive superstition that comes directly from the Ancient Hebrews. Any empirical observation of the world reveals nothing but inequality and difference. Racial equality can be observed nowhere. It is a metaphysical dogma held by the faithful."

"The groups create these individuals by imparting their language to the individuals that are born within their communities. All of these so-called individuals are actually immersed within a historically situated linguistic context they take for granted, especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Virtually every single concept these 'individuals' use to construct their own identities were imparted to them by other people."

"I will continue to point out that individualism is itself socially and historically situated. The notion that the one should judge a person as an 'individual' as opposed to his/her being a member of his/her community is a radical break with all preexisting history that only came about in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages. This belief is especially powerful in Protestant societies. It actually comes from Christianity yet most Europeans atheists these days have totally forgotten this. More on this here:

"But why was God's request necessary, since Abraham doesn't seem to have learned anything new from this experience? He had already learned, at least to some extent, that God keeps his promises. Actually Abraham has learned several things. First, he has learned that this new God, who keeps his promises, also doesn't want human sacrifice -- another major breakthrough in the eighteenth century B.C. More fundamentally, however, he has learned that humans have freedom and dignity. In the ancient pagan religions, human sacrifice would not necessarily be considered wrong, because humans were regarded as nothing more than pawns of the gods. But when one encounters a new God, who doesn't want human sacrifice, the implication is that humans have a much more important position in the cosmic order. Furthermore, Abraham has not just learned that humans in general have freedom and dignity, he has discovered that each individual human has a unique identity. Before Issac was simply a son, the bearer of the family line; after, he is a unique person, a gift from God. We are so used to thinking of each person as having a unique identity that we are unaware of how foreign this idea was to the pagan world. Individuals had an identity only as part of a group. In Homer's Illiad, individuals are always introduced in terms of their family line, as in "Agamemmnon, son of Atreus." It is only during the Middle Ages, as Christianity starts to become socially effective on a wide scale, that the concept starts to develop of an individual identity independent of bloodline, occupation, or geographical location."

Murray Jardine, The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society, p.192

"As I pointed out to you, the assumption you are relying upon here is that individuals are fundamentally self-created beings. I utterly disagree with this analysis. No, these individuals cannot escape the facticity of their historical situation, much less the social context in which they are immersed. The concepts these individuals rely upon are imparted to them by others throughout their lives. These concepts structure how these individuals interpret their own experience and their own identities. These 'individuals' are really just artifacts of the culture that molds them."

http://www.thephora.org/showthread.php?t=214&page=5&pp=10&highlight=jardine

:: you believe somehow there is something inherently that makes certain individuals (not just jews) do such things?

See above.

::By the way, if you currently had to choose between Ayn rand's teachings or Adam smith's teachings which of those do you feel more drawn to?

I don't feel drawn to either of the above, as I am not an objectivist. Adam Smith, if I had to make the choice.

Thank you Otto, for basically contributing nothing new to the debate and making a pathetic attempt to refute my analysis of Medieval military organization.

[I]
The overwhelming majority were volunteers,

In some cases yes. But largely there was conscription of "those who work" to fill in. You're thinking more of mercenaries.


The Templars etc would mostly be considered "those who fought", they were knights pledged to the church and their grandmaster and under some monastic vows.

They could also be considered "those who pray" because when they were not fighting they lived the daily routin common to monastaries around Europe. They were monks who fought basically.


The inner order, which in military terms would include the Heavy cavalry was reserved for noblemen.

Where did I say otherwise? But the vast majority of the army were footsoldiers who were not nobles. Not to mention those in the order who filled non-military duties.


Very rarely all peasants were armed to defend the realm

Nice straw man. I believe I only mentioned Kiven Rus where such a system existed. But nevertheless the peasents in significant proportions were armed.

That was a description of how Medieval Europeans saw the world in which they lived, Perun.

Where did I questioned that? I was explaining it was not entirely organized strictly along those lines, there were overlaps. This is common in any society, doesnt mean society isnt seperated by different groups.

By t he way Im agree with Perun ´cause most Americans says the only history that we have is the consumism, we dont have so much backround even if we try. In the other hand we have Europe all we can go, all we can see is history.

America has really made me despise economics. In America, everything in life is subordinated to economics. The logic of the market is the basis for all social relationships. This is why I have really come to hate America as it is currently incarnated. It probably has a lot to do with my anti-Semitism as well. America is such a bourgeoisie nation. It is ruled by merchants who think fundamentally in bourgeoisie individualist terms. These people were once part of the 'Third Estate' along with the working classes (although the communists have long attempted to build up a division between the two). In the Middle Ages, society was organised along this tripartite division: into those who fight, those who pray, and those who work. These classes were mutually interdependent and each were regarded as having certain obligations to each other. Prior to modernity, the latter two classes were the ruling classes and society was organised along entirely different lines. The obsession with economics and the reduction of everything in life to economics is a modern phenomena that would not have been taken seriously several generations ago. The bourgeoisie were generally looked down upon previously, like the Jews, because they were the uncultured shiftless peddlers and moneymakers. They were seen as dealers in ugliness and dirtiness, the sort of people who would sell their own mothers if the price was right. Such people were not generally regarded as being responsible and thoughtful enough to rule themselves, much less control the fate of entire nations. This was before the bourgeoisie proclaimed notions such as 'consent of the governed' and 'rights of man' (e.g., themselves). Well. . . we can clearly see how all of that turned out.
You have it completely right. For the reasons you have described, the upper classes in America (as well as the Capitalist elite in Europe) are more of a subset of the middle classes than an 'aristocracy'; they embody 'middle-class values' (specifically, the avarice that is tied to the 'bourgeois') more than any sort of chivalrous upper-class values. The 'middle-class' mentality confines a person to economic matters and renders them unable to see beyond them. An overemphasis on economics and 'materials' is, in itself, 'bourgeois', whether it is set forth in the name of greed or in that of altruism.