Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Delogros Only...well, uhm...GB didn't defeat fascism.
That was mainly Stalin, while Winnie "more than measure" Churchill lost the British Empire....
After WW1, British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany (both not invited) would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.)
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = we were bombing alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable", "who started it", etc., etc. are of course all bs premises for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire...
2
-
2
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tomspriggs9478 These are "gender roles.
Do concentrate.
There are 2 sexes.
A "gender role" is whatever a society wants it to be.
Because to anybody even halfway informed, would know that throughout history, gender has been fluid. Joan of Arc playing a "gender role" not foreseen by the society she lived in, proves that for example. Remember her? The woman who didn't want to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" even though society and the rulers expected it of her?
She wanted to be a soldier (note : soldier = gender role for men)
Did you know that "men were women" and "women were men" in literally all cultures throughout history?
It is in fact during the 1,000 years or so of Christian dictatorial rule that it turned "abnormal", as the Catholic church burned people alive they deemed "witches" (basically, everybody who didnt bow to the dogma of the church, or literally the most extreme form of dictatorship you can imagine).
So.
Today.
As some say those "feminazis with their short cut hair, in-your-face" with their logic.
I once saw one, confronted by tatooed wannabe tough guy with some tough slogans. It turned out she served, and the first thing she said to him was "I'm in the military, defending your right to insult me".
Precious.
The debate was over.
Just accept people the way they are, as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence: the unalienable right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@behind you
What about causes of suicides among the transgender?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Concerning the last bit about "causes":
Are you sure you are not doing anything that might contribute to the high suicide rates?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hi there "exactly it's called compromise".
In principle, "compromise" is a good thing.
However, in reality, there is something known as "good compromise vs. bad compromise".
Lemme try and use an example of what I mean, in terms you might be able to follow.
Statement 1:
Let's "compromise with terrorists to find peace"...
Me: Uhm......nope. Terrorism is a fundamental stance, that doesn't accept compromise, and "meeting in the middle" will mean making deals with corrupt crooks that will eventually erode away the compromise, to shift towards a position they want...
Statement 2:
Let's find a moderate position on both sides, based on sound reasoning and logic, that appease a majority consensus, and then make compromises...
Me: yeeeaaahh, cool, peace, yippeeeeee
2
-
@John-lq7hs Yes, I already posted this 3 days ago, and none of you chose to address it.
So, here is my question again...
[note, I'll highlight the important part of the study :-)]
What about causes for such unhappiness and resulting high suicide rates?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Are you sure you are not doing any of the above behaviour, which might then contribute to their unhappiness, and high suicide rates?
[note, you can chose to ignore this question, in typical flawed dogmatic stance of "if I don't answer it, I'll prove my strength, and remain correct"]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hi there Trying to link suicide rates to Christianity is disingenuous and bound to fail.
Here, from Sweden, one of the most atheist countries in the world, which shows that a decent monitoring system avoids suicide.
Note, this monitoring can also be religious in nature, but does not necessarily have to be religious:
Suicide in Sweden
Sweden has a very low suicide rate, but this rate can be misleading because it may not account for physician-assisted suicide, which is legal there. In 2012, Sweden only had 12 reported suicides per 100,000 people.
Historically, Sweden has had a high suicide rate, with the most suicides in the developed world during the 1960s. That may have been due, at least in part, to cultural attitudes regarding suicide and long, dark winters, particularly in the northern regions. The government responded to the crisis with social welfare and mental health services, and the numbers have dropped dramatically. Today, Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland – have very high rates of happiness and relatively low suicide rates. However, the dark winters – 20 hours of darkness or more in each day in some areas – causes seasonal affective disorder (SAD), a form of depression, which has been known to correlate with higher rates of suicide...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 Why get so worked up about hypotheses which might never need occur? [a law being enforced] Do you understand cause and effect, and the fact that such unnecessary laws need never be, if everybody is just nice, doesn't discriminate, or judge others?
My personal "pursuit of happiness" is to be kind to others, and thereby contribute to a peaceful society.
Whether the "delusions" of others fit my own personal convictions, is irrelevant.
I'll be kind, no matter how "delusional" I personally think somebody is...
Therefore I'll call a judge "Your Honor" even though it isn't "an honor" to meet him, or a policeman "Sir", even though he was never knighted and therefore isn't a "Sir". I'm not going to ask them to qualify their delusions (from my pov).
I guess you're ok with a guy calling his gf "doll" if she likes it...even if she isn't one, or at least I hope not...lol
Your teacher "mam", a guy in a black coat "Reverent Jones", and so on....and so on...I don't need a scientific basis (from his standpoint) in order to just be nice to him...
You see, personally, I believe that everybody who believes he was created out of mud by a hitherto unseen nothing, is deluded. Despite that, I'll call the leaders of such "believers" reverent, Rabbi, or whatever they wish.
I don't need a scientific basis, which they couldn't give anyway.
Because the number of "delusions" from any ones standpoint is certainly infinite.
I don't care about the personal convictions of another human being.
Nothing can stop me from being nice (unless a physical attack, of course).
Or would you refuse any these above mentioned their requests, if they ask you?
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 And the "bathroom thingy".
Did you know that men and women actually used the same toilets for centuries, and that it was only rising wealth and the oh so frowned upon "regulation" that forced separate bathrooms onto us?
Do you know that there are still hundreds of thousands of cafes, small restaurants, and bars in Europe which (traditionally) only have 1 bathroom for everybody?
This is simply because for centuries, nobody gave a (literally) "sh*t.* :-)
What's the problem with separate cubicles for all, as it had always been before that oh so dreaded regulation came along and forced cafes and restaurants to have separate bathrooms?
(Note, separate stalls, wheelchair accessible bathrooms, nappy changing rooms, etc. already exist, to ensure your privacy in certain situations).
Or is it a problem for you if somebody sees you washing your hands?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2