3 Responses to How Many Countries Are There?

  • Brilliant!

    Ben Franklin to James Wilson in the musical 1776 during the vote on independence:

    “Every mapmaker in the world is waiting for your decision.”

    In the same musical the comment about revolutions put into the mouth of Ben Franklin usually equally applies to new nations:

    “Revolutions come into this world like bastard children, Mr. Dickinson – half improvised and half compromised.”

  • Good one Don!

    I had to post this video. It succinctly explains what is difficult to say without offending someone.

    As for Communist China, they could easily break up and form five or six nations and return strips of land back to nations they took it from such as Korea and Mongolia.

    What are these nations? Well there is East Turkestan, the brewing rebellious Muslim province that has no connection ethnically nor linguistically to the Han Chinese.

    There is of course Tibet.

    Then after returning lands to Korea, the border area around North Korea (Most likely North Korea, but I’d prefer it to return to South Korea) and Mongolia, what the Communist call “Inner Mongolia”.

    Then there is ‘China’ itself which could be broken up in many pieces because of of linguistic and ethnic differences, ie, Szechuan, Yunnan, Hun an, etc. But to keep it simple lets say Manchuria and Taiwan right off the bat are free. Then the Mandarin speaking north separates from the Cantonese speaking south and leave it at that.

    Nothing like a bit of geopolitics to start off the morning.

  • As for Communist China, they could easily break up and form five or six nations and return strips of land back to nations they took it from such as Korea and Mongolia.

    What are these nations? Well there is East Turkestan, the brewing rebellious Muslim province that has no connection ethnically nor linguistically to the Han Chinese.

    There is of course Tibet.

    Tibet and Sinkiang are exceedingly low density territories. The slice of Sinkiang which is either predominantly Uighur or predominantly Kazakh has about 6 or 7 million people living in it. IIRC, Tibet has about three million inhabitants. There actually is no supralocal area where Mongols or Koreans constitute a majority. Less than 1% of the population of China lives in these ethnic minority zones.

    About a third of the population does live outside the Mandarin language zone. Not sure whether the various dialects are coterminous with identity formations. Decentralization would certainly be a necessity there given the massive population, but not so sure the people on the ground would aspire to political fragmentation along the lines of Germany prior to 1870 (or 1806).

73 Responses to Bibi & Barry

  • …This is rather depressing– Bibi was cute!

  • You talking about Bibi and Barack or Rahm Emanuel and George W. Bush?

  • Benjamin’s brother, Jonathan, is a legend in Israel. He was the head of Sayeret Maktal (Israel’s Seal Team 6) and the only Israeli commando who died during the raid on Entebbe. Benjamin was also a member of Sayeret.

    Their father, Benzion Netanyahu, was a fierce Zionist and scholar of the Spanish Inquisition, who argued that Jewish efforts to placate the Spaniards were futile from the outset. I don’t think most Americans can understand how the current Prime Minister processes the question of Israel’s survival–it’s hardwired.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17goldberg.html?pagewanted=1

  • “I don’t think most Americans can understand how the current Prime Minister processes the question of Israel’s survival–it’s hardwired.”

    Considering the history of the Jews, especially the recent history of the Jews, I think it is astonishing that the Israelis have been willing to take any steps for peace that involve diminishing their security one iota. If I were a Jew I would suspect that if we were about to be massacred in Israel, the non-Jewish world, with the exception of the US (although under Obama I think that exception might be shaky), would look on with cool indifference, unless they were viewing it with rabid enthusiasm.

  • I completely agree.

    In light of history, the Jews should annex large portions of the West Bank.

    The rest they should divest to Jordan and give Gaza back to Egypt.

    They were invaded and successfully repealed the invading Muslim armies. They have every right to do what they wish with the West Bank and Gaza.

    As for the other point I mentioned, let the remaining land, of whatever is left after Israel fairly stakes their claims decide if they want to be the Lichtenstein of the Muslim world or merge with Jordan and Egypt.

  • RR,

    You mean the Rahm Emmanuel that shot at US Navy ships and killed countless American sailors and the W. Bush that served in the National Guard defending the greatest nation on God’s green earth?

    You need to make a bigger lie, a la Hitler, to even think of getting away with the psuedohistory that you peddle brother.

  • Anachronistic, Tito. Lattes were rare if not unknown in the northeastern United States when B.O. was that age.

  • Art Deco,

    I believe.

    I absolutely couldn’t tell you the difference between 3 day old spoiled chocolate milk and a latte or decaf, or a capuchino.

  • You talking about Bibi and Barack or Rahm Emanuel and George W. Bush?

    Rahm Emanuel served for a couple weeks during the Gulf War as a civilian assistant to the IDF dealing with anti-aircraft defenses.

    George W. Bush served in the National Guard flying fighter jets.

    I’m not clear how Emanuel is supposed to rate as having “fought for the survival of the Jewish State” or Bush gets cast as being like Obama.

    Which is not to say that the comparison of Netanyahu and Obama’s activities in their early 20s is hugely relevant to how good they are as heads of state now — it mostly just serves to underline that Netanyahu is an interesting person while Obama is not particularly.

    Gotta love the pictures, though.

  • “You mean the Rahm Emmanuel that shot at US Navy ships and killed countless American sailors”

    Talk about pseudo-history!

  • The pot calling kettle black.

    It just dawned on you?

    /sarcasm off

  • While I find Bibi an appealing personality, I think he is making a strategic blunder of potentially dire proportions. To quote Jonathan Chait:

    During the first quarter-century of Israel’s existence, the prospect of a massed conventional military invasion constituted the greatest threat to its existence. That’s no longer true. The greatest dangers today are the combination of demographic and political threats posed by the growing relative size of the Arab population west of the Jordan river, terrorism, and the loss of legitimacy posed by a continuing occupation and counter-terrorism policy in the West Bank and Gaza. Those dangers all dwarf the potential that armored columns of Arab armies will cut Israel in half. The tragedy is that huge swaths of the Israeli right and its sympathizers (both Jewish and Gentile) have failed to grasp this, and have placed it in danger of succumbing to the mortal new threat while guarding against the antiquated one.

  • Strategically, they should probably bomb the blank out of the surrounding areas, inform any neighbors that providing weapons to terrorists is an act of war, and generally act in a rather deadly manner to those who live near them.

    Negotiating with those who 1) don’t hold to agreements and 2) aren’t even expected to hold their agreements is a Bad Idea.

    Let’s not hope too hard for them to think strategically, given what the body count would be…. *shudder*

  • Strategically, they should probably bomb the blank out of the surrounding areas, inform any neighbors that providing weapons to terrorists is an act of war, and generally act in a rather deadly manner to those who live near them.

    As strategy this leaves something to be desired.

  • As strategy this leaves something to be desired.

    As does the fool’s bargain with those who will not hold faith, as does falling back to indefensible borders, as does committing mass suicide (directly, since most strategies end up being this….)

    It’s hard to have a really desirable strategy when you’re surrounded by those who think you have no right to exist, let alone be successful.

  • It strikes me that Chait has a point that the 9 mile depth of the old Israeli territory that Netanyahu doesn’t want to go back it is not the danger that it was in the 40s-70s, for the reason that Israel now has such incredible and obvious military superiority over all its direct neighbors that one would imagine that actual states would have the wisdom not to attack and face the choice that either:

    a) The Israeli conventional military would defeat them quickly and spectacularly or else

    b) If things seemed tight, Israel would nuke them.

    That said, for those same reasons, I’m not sure that Israel necessarily needs to make seriously dangerous sacrifices in the interest of “legitimacy” with countries that would tend not to like them anyway. (Turkey and Western Europe seem unlikely to become their fans no matter what, much less their immediate neighbors.)

    This probably means it would make sense for them to pull out of parts but not all of the West Bank and then announce that cross border attacks will be treated as acts of war — but one thing that probably is not in the cards is that the Palestinian leadership announce they are actually happy with any deal that’s ever offered.

  • Being that the West Bank is the high ground and of strategic importance to Israel, I would see their need in taking it back. If I were President Obama, I would stay out of the fray, except to ensure rights for Christians who are native to the area. Unfortunately, our President always makes the wrong moves and ruffles the feathers of the wrong people.

  • Foxfire,

    There’s nothing indefensible about the pre-1967 borders. The idea that Israel would be at risk from an invasion by Jordan if it returned to those borders is a bad joke.

    The Palestinians have long since abandoned the idea that you can defeat Israel by military force. Instead, the new plan is to try and turn Israel into a pariah state akin to Rhodesia or South Africa. The way you counter that threat is by ending the occupation. That was Sharon’s vision (roughly), and if he hadn’t had a stroke he may well have pulled it off.

  • I very much doubt if there is any diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians, the vast majority in any case, have never come to terms with Israel as a permanent reality. They assume that something will occur which will remove Israel from the equation and they only have to wait. Israel is often compared in Palestinian writings to the ephemeral Crusader States of the twelfth and thirteenth century and the Palestinians view time as being on their side.

    The main military threat to Israel is not conventional, although I would note that Israel suddenly has a potentially hostile Egypt now on its southern border. The military threat to Israel comes from a massive terrorist strike involving WMDS probably backed by Iran. I have heard that the Israelis have viewed with increasing alarm the infighting going on within Iran’s leadership fearing that it may presage an attack on them. Things will get very dicey over there before this year is out.

  • BA-
    how about that it involves abandoning tons of their citizens? How about that it involves giving in to terrorists that aren’t going to be happy until they’re gone– and probably not even then? And who on earth limited it to Jordan?

    The military folks that I know are good with this stuff say they’re indefensible to easily foreseeable Arab aggression–even if one ignores whatever the frick happens with the “Palestinians.” (A radio show that is pretty representative of what the folks I trust say would be “Dark Secret Place“– the host of which is no big Israel fan, incidentally, although he’s not hostile.

  • The main military threat to Israel is not conventional, although I would note that Israel suddenly has a potentially hostile Egypt now on its southern border. The military threat to Israel comes from a massive terrorist strike involving WMDS probably backed by Iran.

    The Egyptian army is not a real threat to Israel. Iran is a real threat, but to do that you need U.S. support. The best spin I can put on Bibi’s actions is that he’s written Obama off as an ally and is trying to hurt his chance at reelection in the hopes of having someone more favorably inclined get elected President.

  • I would note the Prime Minister and the Likkud are now saying this was overblown by the media.

    And not to be offering an opinion but just correcting the misstatement that “They were invaded and successfully repealed the invading Muslim armies” I would remind folks that almost all of the uniformed Christians in this conflict were among the invaders.

  • how about that it involves abandoning tons of their citizens?

    What Obama outlined doesn’t involve abandoning any Israeli citizens.

    How about that it involves giving in to terrorists that aren’t going to be happy until they’re gone – and probably not even then?

    It’s not about making the Palestinians happy. It’s about removing their main weapon against you (which I suspect will make them very unhappy).

    And who on earth limited it to Jordan?

    Given where the border is, it’s pretty much geographically limited to Jordan.

    If the idea is that a Jordanian attack would be accompanied by attacks by other Arab states, well, that’s been tried before. In 1967 it took the Israelis six days to rout the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. If there was a repeat today it would probably take about six hours.

  • What Obama outlined doesn’t involve abandoning any Israeli citizens.

    *snort* Yeah, sure, if Israel can talk the Palestinians into trading them.
    “Here, I’ll give you all this land that I have right now– and then we’ll work on trades, how about that? Oh, by the way, will you trade me the west bank where most of our 300,000-ish settlers live?

    It’s not about making the Palestinians happy. It’s about removing their main weapon against you (which I suspect will make them very unhappy).

    How does giving in remove their ability to badmouth Israel? Look at how they removed the last weapon– by destroying the tactic, not by rewarding it.

    Given where the border is, it’s pretty much geographically limited to Jordan.

    And Palestine–wherever that ends up being– and anyone that the Palestinians let march right on in, and Egypt with whoever the Muslim Brotherhood wants to come in, and Syria, and Lebanon.
    That’s before we even start thinking about sea and air power, and assumes that— ha!– terrorism stops.

    If the idea is that a Jordanian attack would be accompanied by attacks by other Arab states, well, that’s been tried before.

    I thought you were upset about fighting the last conflict when the facts on the ground have changed?

    I missed it the first time, but my dark suggestion actually agrees with your statement– the way to win is to end the occupation. There’s two ways to end any occupation, only one of which doesn’t leave Israel with an even bigger border and a reputation for backing down from attacks.

  • The Palestinians have long since abandoned the idea that you can defeat Israel by military force. Instead, the new plan is to try and turn Israel into a pariah state akin to Rhodesia or South Africa. The way you counter that threat is by ending the occupation.

    I get that, and it strikes me as the strongest argument for a unilateral pull-out from most or all of the West Bank. I guess I’m still a little uncertain, though, as to how effective this would be in stopping the attempt to label Israel as a pariah state.

    Admittedly, they haven’t left Gaza entirely alone since pulling out (though their interventions were provoked) but the pull out there has if anything increased the pressure on them from that quarter not reduced it.

    I’m not entirely sure one could be confident that the same would not be the case with the West Bank if they did a unilaterial withdrawal.

    If the idea is that a Jordanian attack would be accompanied by attacks by other Arab states, well, that’s been tried before. In 1967 it took the Israelis six days to rout the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. If there was a repeat today it would probably take about six hours.

    There, I agree. And indeed, if Jordan was willing to actually take back the West Bank, I would imagine that Israel would jump at the chance, as then they’d have the rest of Jordan to also aim force at if the West Bank got out of hand. The thing which makes the West Bank so problematic is that it seems little to willing to immolate itself if Israel is likely to get burned in the process. And it’s so messed up already, it’s not as if threats to blockade or bomb it are really all that efficacious. (Which, at the same time, is why it’s almost impossible for Israel to police when they are in charge.)

  • “The Egyptian army is not a real threat to Israel.”

    It came very, very close to being a major threat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and without Nixon’s airlift of supplies the Israelis might have faced a very precarious military situation in the Sinai. Now the main problem it presents for Israel is that their military can no longer count on a quiet border with Egypt in a crisis.

  • *snort* Yeah, sure, if Israel can talk the Palestinians into trading them.

    The Palestinians aren’t likely to agree to any peace deal. Since the Palestinians aren’t going to agree to a peace deal, it serves no purpose for Israel to let itself be perceived as the one who won’t agree to a peace deal. In fact it is positively harmful, since it allows the Palestinians and their allies to paint Israel, rather than the Palestinians, as the obstacle.

    How does giving in remove their ability to badmouth Israel?

    The Palestinians can say whatever they want. The question is whether anyone will listen.

    I submit that that people are more likely to feel sympathy for the Palestinians if (1) Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, and (2) Israel is perceived as being unwilling to negotiate a peace deal. It therefore behooves Israel to try to eliminate these sources of Palestinian sympathy if it can do so consistent with its own security (which it can).

    And Palestine–wherever that ends up being– and anyone that the Palestinians let march right on in, and Egypt with whoever the Muslim Brotherhood wants to come in, and Syria, and Lebanon.

    As I said before, if it came down to it, the IDF could rout the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in about six hours. They really really are not a threat to Israel’s security. Anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  • I think there’s a lot to what BA is saying, but I agree with Don regarding sweeping generalizations about the Arab militaries. In the air–perhaps. But on the ground, the Egyptians and Syrians fought very, very well in 1973, as did Hezbollah back in 2006.

  • “The Egyptian army is not a real threat to Israel.”

    It came very, very close to being a major threat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War

    That was 40 years ago when Egypt had Soviet backing and was, if not at the height of their power, then at least a lot closer to it than they are now.

  • The Palestinians can say whatever they want. The question is whether anyone will listen.

    If it’s a hammer against Israel, they’ll listen. Facts haven’t changed anything thus far, and I doubt they’ll change things in the future.

  • I wouldn’t overestimate Israel’s ability to fend off another multi-nation attack. Yes, on paper it may look like a cake walk even compared to their earlier victories. However, war doesn’t usually play out like it does on paper. It wasn’t five years ago when Israel entered Lebanon and pulled out in a month. I don’t think they even claim that campaign a success.

  • Darwin,

    There is a kind of fatalism among some on the right when it comes to public perceptions of Israel. The view is basically that it doesn’t matter what Israel does, the people who don’t like her won’t like her, while the people who support her will stand by her.

    I don’t think that’s right. You mention Turkey and Western Europe, for example, as countries that aren’t going to like Israel no matter what. Yet Israel either has or has had excellent relations with both Turkey and Western Europe. Certainly there are some people who will oppose Israel no matter what, but there are also lots of people whose attitude towards the Mideast is going to be determined by whether Israel seems like an oppressive colonial power or a country that wants peace and is only defending its right to exist.

    In the long run continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank is untenable. Either it will have to make the area and its inhabitants part of Israel proper (which for demographic reasons would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state) or it must withdraw from them.

  • It wasn’t five years ago when Israel entered Lebanon and pulled out in a month.

    This was for political rather than military reasons. Militarily the IDF could have occupied Lebanon for as long as it wanted.

    I would note that during the early days of the war, western opinion was almost universal in support of Israel, and even the Arab states were publicly muted and privately supporting (belying the claims that people will condemn Israel regardless of what happens). It was only once it became clear that Israel wasn’t going to really commit to destroying Hezbollah but instead was going to use bombing to affect Lebanese opinion that support evaporated.

  • It was only once it became clear that Israel wasn’t going to really commit to destroying Hezbollah but instead was going to use bombing to affect Lebanese opinion that support evaporated.

    Definitely not how I remember it. More like, Israel was actually attacking Hezbollah instead of doing a quick smack after they were invaded and had their soldiers taken captive. While rockets kept firing into their country, too– I CAN remember failing to be surprised that Israel’s bombing got condemned, but the stuff headed their way was just accepted.

  • There is a kind of fatalism among some on the right when it comes to public perceptions of Israel. The view is basically that it doesn’t matter what Israel does, the people who don’t like her won’t like her, while the people who support her will stand by her.

    I don’t think that’s right. You mention Turkey and Western Europe, for example, as countries that aren’t going to like Israel no matter what. Yet Israel either has or has had excellent relations with both Turkey and Western Europe.

    I think there’s a measure of truth to this, I’m just not sure I’d take it as far.

    Yes, Turkey and Western Europe were both fairly positive on Israel for a while, but in Western Europe there’s a three way set of motivators to stay anti-Israel now that they’ve got there:

    – Opposing Israel as a colonialist power helps them feel about their colonialist pasts.
    – Seeing Israel as a wicked or at least ambivalent power helps them feel less guilty about the Holocaust (since it suggests that the Jews are no better than they are and would have done the same thing given the chance.)
    – It fits with a pattern of Antisemitism which is a lot older and more rooted than the more recent period of good feelings toward Israel.

    Given all these (and the fact that Israel’s enemies can sell them oil while Israel can’t) I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect Europe to feel much differently about Israel any time soon, even if Israel takes the high road in every way possible.

    Turkey, on the other hand, has had it’s own massive demographic shift over the last couple generations which may well make it permanently a religiously oriented power rather than a secular one — and one way for it to try to return to being a leader among religiously focused nations in its region is via opposing Israel.

    That said — I’d agree that some sort of unilateral “peace deal” on Israel’s part, which involves “giving back” the parts of the West Bank which Israel can obviously never govern peacefully is the right thing to do. I just think that they’ll get no credit for it except among their traditional supporters and continue to be portrayed as a colonialist power. (Though behind closed doors, I would imagine that most of the Arab governments will continue to be glad to see them make the heavy blows against the local terrorist organizations when necessary.)

  • An interesting take on the differences of cultures.

  • Despite mass media spin and what Israel would like to believe, it is not “a Jewish state.” There are 500,000 Palestinians living in Israel, a quarter of the population, and this is the reason why the Jews are against “the right of return.” In no time, they would become a minority.

  • Of course the Arabs, after the 48 war, chased about a million Jews over the years out of their countries, not infrequently confiscating their property. The vast majority of these refugees made a new home for themselves in Israel. Too bad the Arab world, with a vastly greater land mass and resources, did not make new homes for the refugee Palistinians, instead keeping them in “refugee” camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan to this very day, the better to stoke their hatred of Israel and use as pawns in the neverending war against the Jewish State. There are even “refugee” camps in the West Bank and Gaza which is absolutely farcial.

  • Yes, Turkey and Western Europe were both fairly positive on Israel for a while, but in Western Europe there’s a three way set of motivators to stay anti-Israel now that they’ve got there

    I don’t think it’s as bad as that. I can think of a number of current or recent European leaders, Blair, Sarkozy, Aznar, etc. who have been decently pro-Israel, and the overall trend in Europe is towards anti-immigrant parties who tend to be more favorably disposed to Israel. Overall Western Europe tends to be a lot more anti-Israel than the U.S. but then in general the political spectrum tends to be shifted leftward in Europe as compared to the U.S. on pretty much every issue.

  • I think Paul Johnson in his excellent book, “The History of the Jews,” points out there were at least 3 times the Palestinians/Arabs could have had a better deal, their own state, etc. but rejected all attempts, always holding out for more while Israel gave more than it got. Perhaps this long-running conflict will never been solved because Esau got outwitted by Jacob and never forgave him and never will.

  • The Palestinians Joe have had the worst leadership of any population since World War II with the exception of the North Koreans, and that is saying a mouthful. They never miss an opportunity to fail to give a forwarding address to all potential opportunities.

  • I have no sympathy or concern for the Palestinians, who have become progressively more radicalized Islamists. I do have concern and pity for the Arab Christians.

    I have only slight concern for Israel, a secular, liberal country which, while formally secular, continuously advances religious reasons for its existence and permanence, reasons ridiculously embraced by American Evangelicals. It’s ironic to see an aborting, sexually immoral, modern western nation defended as the “sacred homeland of the Jewish people,” as if the Patriarchs and Prophets would supporters of the Israeli state.

    In any event, I don’t see that we have a dog in this fight. Support of Israel has done nothing for our national interests since the fall of Communism (when Israel was a counter-weight in the Middle East). I don’t particularly wish to see Israel fall, but don’t think preventing that is worth one drop of American blood.

  • I agree, Tom, that Israel, armed to the teeth by the U.S. already and possessing nukes, can take care of itself no matter how many fronts it has to fight. The Arabs, far from united in purpose and strategy, are vastly overmatched in weaponry and soldiering skills. It should be noted that Israelis are not monolithic either in their views, with a political and religious spectrum that runs the gamut. Nor is a drop of American blood for Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan worth it.

  • I’m warm to the idea of hitting the Islamists, with whom we ARE at war, whether we want to acknowledge it or not (Libyan intervention would not be related to fighting Islam, so I can’t see our national interest there). Only to that extent do I see Israel as offering us anything of interest: they’ve got an impressive military and intelligence leg up on radical Islam. But I don’t care to see the Holy Land in the hands of a secular Israel any more than I would care to see it in the hands of the Moslems.

  • “But I don’t care to see the Holy Land in the hands of a secular Israel any more than I would care to see it in the hands of the Moslems.”

    They are the only two games in town Tom, and I much prefer the Israelis controling the Holy Land than the adherents of the Religion of Peace.

  • Agreed, Don, but only insofar as for the time being Israel shows more willingness to allow Christian access to the holy places. Whether they would be so accomodating if they didn’t need to curry favor with the West, who knows? You can guess and I can guess, but that’s what they are: guesses.

    That issue aside, I see no compelling national interest at stake for us in picking sides in this fight, at least as far as our blood or treasure is concerned.

  • Tom,

    Since 1948 the Christian population under Israeli control has more than doubled.

    In the West Bank and Gaza, it has dropped from 20% to barely 1%.

    Combined with the fact that even though Israel treats Catholic Holy Sites with contempt, they do allow access and have ruled in the Church’s favor time and again whenever it was confronted with Radical Muslims demanding space near Christian holy sites.

    I’ll take a hedonistic Israel over an anti-Christian/radical Islamist state any day of the year, decade, or century.

  • Sure, if that’s the only choice. But that’s hardly reason to support Israel qua Israel, and certainly not to the extent this country has. let’s not forget Johnathan Pollard– Israel spies on us not for just diplomatic reasons, but for military technology.

    We ought to keep both the Islamists and the Israelis at arm’s length.

  • Comparing Esau to the Palestinians is rather unfair ( to Esau). Some time after he had been cheated of his birthright, Esau went on to become a rich man through his own efforts. The Bible records that he forgave his cowardly brother and continued to maintain good relations with him. A most likeable and unusual man. Anyone who has gone through the trauma of a property division would recognise immediately that Esau was a gem of a man, a man in a million. He received some negative publicity from the Talmudists, who were concerned to present Jacob as a paragon of virtue. But the Bible takes a more relaxed view of these things; who among us knows how he will behave under similar circumstances?

    Had the Palestinians been largely Christian, the dispute between them and the Israelis would have been solved years ago, through mutual forgiveness and a sincere desire to let bygones be bygones. Being Muslims, peace with the Israelis is for them impossible short of the Second Coming. Their model and proximate idea of peace is the hudna – the temporarising ceasefire – that the pervert Mohamed agreed to liberally whenever he did not hold the upper hand militarily. Their ultimate ideal of peace is of course far worse, submission to the dead hand of Islam as befell the Bani Quraytha – Jews who could not hold their own against the grasping hand of the prophet of Islam. For this reason I hold all the peacemongers including sadly some nutcases in the Vatican to be misguided fools or worse.

  • Ivan,

    I agree wholeheartedly.

  • Bibi is a soldier and a mensch. Obama is a crafty community agitator and a cunning demagogue.

    Israeli/Jewish interests are not exactly equivalent to American/Catholic interests. They are closer than terrorists” interests.

    The enemy of my enemy . . .

  • I don’t have my comparative religion text on hand, but isn’t Esau the traditional ancestor of the Arab people?

    (Took a class several years ago…it was pretty good once one accepted that they viewed all religion like mythology, dead and with no real authority to what this or that group believed. Compared to the actively hostile to X and Y group ones, that’s pretty good.)

    Other than that, agreed, Ivan.

  • The Muslims Foxfier regard Abraham’s son Ishmael as being the father of several Arab tribes. He is regarded by them as one of the great prophets and a forefather of Muhammed.

  • “The Muslims Foxfier regard Abraham’s son Ishmael as being the father of several Arab tribes. He is regarded by them as one of the great prophets and a forefather of Muhammed.”

    From Dale Price’s Comprehensive Warehouse of Useless Trivia:

    In Byzantine historical sources, the Arabs are routinely referred to as “Hagarenes” in reference to Ishmael’s mother.

  • Malachi 1:3 (New International Version)

    3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”

  • Looking at my Catholic edition of the New American Bible, it notes that “hated” should be read as “rejected,” and “loved” as “preferred,” and notes that St. Paul used the passage to point out God can call the Gentiles to Him if He wishes.

  • Hamas rejects Obama’s call for a return to the 67 borders:

    “Speaking to Al-Emirate Al-Youm, Zahar asked “Why won’t we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won’t we discuss the partition plan which was internationally recognized?””

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/24/hamas-rejects-the-1967-borders-too/

    That would be the partition plan which was agreed to by Israel and rejected by the Arabs. As if Hamas would be satisfied with a do-over that would roll back the clock to 1947. Anything less than a Juden Frei Palestine is merely a step in the right direction as far as they are concerned.

  • ALSO; Bibi knows what the year is, although he doesn’t use AD.

    Obama (today signed register 24 May 2008) believes it’s 2008 in Great Britain.

    Can you imagine the media/intellectualistas’ reaction if Sarah Palin or any Republican was so bloody stupid?

    Maybe Bibi didn’t do HIGH school HIGH on WEED, either.

    Hey, let’s bring the federal budget back to the 1967 limits!

  • BA,

    You may be right on that, I’ll admit that I tend heavily towards the more cynical approach.

  • I’m not upto speed on Malachi, but isn’t it a much later book with all the overlay of subsequent history? The Catholic Encyclopedia appear confused; Jacob had cheated his brother and thus he had every reason to be wary. Unless this a cautionary tale of a fool and his money going their seperate ways, I do not see any significance in describing Esau as a ‘greedy’ man, when to a modern ear Jacob is clearly the malefactor. Yes Esau married many wives, but Jacob was no slacker in that department either.

  • That issue aside, I see no compelling national interest at stake for us in picking sides in this fight, at least as far as our blood or treasure is concerned.

    We have never devoted any manpower to the defense of Israel. About 11% of the foreign aid budget is distributed to Israel, or about $3 bn. That would amount to about 2% of Israel’s domestic product.

    they’ve got an impressive military and intelligence leg up on radical Islam

    But apparently, we should not contribute to maintaining it.

    It’s ironic to see an aborting, sexually immoral, modern western nation defended as the “sacred homeland of the Jewish people,”

    Israel has a lot of black hats. That aside, your objection would apply to the defense of any occidental country, including our own. One is reminded of George Kennan’s remark (ca 1980) that he did not care for the expense and risks necessary to defend the porno shops of Washington, D.C.

    I gather that with the death of Joseph Sobran, you think it necessary to take his place.

  • Ivan-
    looks to me like they made a deal. A bad deal, but a deal. Reading the translation in my home Bible, the main similarity is that they both emphasize that Esau cared so little for what-would-be as opposed to what-is that he sold his birthright for immediate gratification. Betting that’s about as big a no-no as you can get in such a culture, kind of like how we’re horrified that folks name their child after a retail product.

  • Art, yep I figured it would not take long for the ad hominems to start once the most modest suggestion is made that support of Israel is not in our national interest.

    You’re absolutely right, though, I don’t think we should be spending a single dime of our money on any of our 1st world allies, but certainly not on Israel, since whether there’s a Jewish state or a Palestinian state, or a mixture of the two in that region is of zero interest to American security.

    As late as yesterday, Netanyahu was calling Israel “the Jewish state.” I don’t think it’s out of bounds to question the duality involved in claiming that Israel is some sort of religious homeland while simultaneously Israel is as aggressively secular as any western nation.

    And what other country could get away with claiming to be a religious state? Would we tolerate Ireland, for instance, referring to itself as “a Catholic state” much less “THE Catholic state?” We criticize Iran and other Islamic states who are conciously and self-identified as religious… why not Israel?

  • Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?

  • Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?

    I know we spied on them during the Vietnam era– pretty openly, too.

  • Again, in Israel, Bibi could not give 1,372 waivers from Obamacare to his friends; nor tell Boeing to building its assembly plant somewhere far away from South Carolina; nor use Israeli tax police to punish criminal organizations guilty of supporting opposition political candidates.

    Tom,

    I was where you are until 0846 hours 11 Sep 2001.

    From then on (for me), support of israel became our national interest.

    Ditto, Fox. During the 1973 war, we were 24/7 flying SR-71’s over Israel. If I told you more, I’d have to shoot myself.

  • Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?

    Ages ago. Friendly nations spy on each other all the time. We do it, and we’d be stupid not to.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2106079/

  • Art, yep I figured it would not take long for the ad hominems to start

    Rubbish. Your remarks resemble the late Mr. Sobran’s with near precision. (Down to the argumentitive contrivance below). Sorry the comparison bothers you. He remains revered by the Rockford Institute.

    As late as yesterday, Netanyahu was calling Israel “the Jewish state.” I don’t think it’s out of bounds to question the duality involved in claiming that Israel is some sort of religious homeland

    The term ‘Jewish’ denotes an ethnic group and a cultural minority as well as a confessional one. That’s the ‘duality’.

  • “Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?”

    We spied on the Brits during World War II all the time, and they returned the favor. I can’t think of two closer allies, but routine spying is simply a fact of life between nations.

  • Foxfier,
    I have to agree that Esau’s flippancy meant that he did not deserve the responsibility of being the father of Israel.

  • Much of the 3bn that the US provides to Israel is in reality a cross subsidy to the US arms industry. Giving F16s to the Israelis who are unlikely to use them against US interests, is far better than giving them to either Egypt or Pakistan. The Israelis are the only ones who can field test US weapons and associated tactics given their peculiar circumstances. The 3bn aid should considered a part of the defence R&D budget.

WEDNESDAY EXTRA EDITION

Wednesday, May 18, AD 2011

A round-up of some of the best punditry in the Catholic Blogosphere, courtesy of ThePulp.it:

“Why Is Mugabe Visiting the Vatican?” – James Kirchick, New Republic

. . .Mark Stricherz of Catholic Vote wrote about this here. . .

God & Political Science – Timothy Shah, Daniel Philpott & Monica Toft, PD

Exposing the Death Dealers – Amy Welborn, Crisis Magazine

Syria Christians Fear for Religious Freedom – Reuters

Pro-Lifers Help Win Canadian Baby Battle – Maryann Gogniat Eidemiller, OSV

About Face on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ – Joan Frawley Desmond, NCRegister

Abp. Jose Gomez: You Have a Duty to Confront This Culture – Cal Cth Daily

Fig Leaves & Falsehoods (Lying & Planned Parenthood) – Janet E. Smith, FT

Quaeritur: Selling a Rosary & Other Sacred Things – Father John Zuhlsdorf

Paternalistic Violence in the New World – David, The School of Salamanca

Monster Baptism & Chemical Pregnancy – Doctor Stacy Trasancos

The Sistine Chapel, In the Depths of Wales! – Richard Collins, The Guild

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

How Europe Sees America

Monday, October 4, AD 2010

Click on the above map to be able to read it.  The original of the map is here.  Tito had a post yesterday here with a map depicting how America views Europe.  Ambrose “Bitter” Bierce in the 19th Century said that war was God’s way of teaching Americans geography.  Unfortunately, the lessons do not appear to stick.  However, the Europeans are often not that better informed about us.

For example, I have always enjoyed reading the English historian Paul Johnson, and have read almost every book he has written.  Therefore, I was dismayed when reading his history of the US to encounter quite a few factual errors, including his inability to distinguish between Albert Sydney Johnston and Joseph Johnston in the Civil War, and his apparent belief that it was the Texas Rangers and not Army Rangers who landed at Utah Beach on Normandy.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to How Europe Sees America

  • That map has way too much detail in it.

  • Agree with Mr. Blackadder.

    Either they are red states or they’re in various states of ruin.

    I’m emigrating to America when I retire. My new motto: “Red state or bust!”

  • I have to jump on the band wagon about there being much to much detail for a European. That’s more a Map of how American’s see our own country, allowing for everyone to have more knowledge of their own state of course.

  • Some of these are a bit puzzling: “Same last names” in Illinois? Ohio is all bars and drugs (I would think “Burning Rivers” is more evocative)? 2012 starts in Montana?

    My freshman dorm roommate came from Maryland to northern California for college. I still remember the hand-drawn “bon voyage” poster someone had drawn him, with the outline of California filled with endless palm trees. Oh boy, I thought, Someone’s never been to San Francisco before.

  • The “Same last names” tag is applied to SOUTHERN Illinois, which is culturally far more “Southern” than the rest of the state — physically it’s closer to Kentucky or Tennessee than Chicago. Of course this map might also lead one to believe that pizza was invented in the Peoria area 🙂

  • Also, try telling the residents of Nashville that everyone in Tennessee “plays jazz and is black.”

  • Pizza was not invented in Chicago, Illinois…just perfected there.

    Wow, I can’t wait to leave Afghanistan and return to the USA!

  • I believe the Salem witch trials were in Salem, Massachusetts, not Salem, Oregon

  • Apparently Nashville was confused with New Orleans… just kidding… sort of.

  • When I was in the UK in the early ’80’s, I found that just about every person I met thought of the Midwest as a massive corn field with Chicago plopped down in the middle of it. (And more than a few people mimicked the “rat-tat-tat” of a tommy gun when they said Chicago.) The few exceptions I met said “Harley-Davidson!” when I mentioned my hometown. Certainly not beer or cheese – given the excellence of native Brit brews and cheeses, they do not automatically think of America when they think of those products.

    Bawer is right. Euros flatter themselves that they “know” America, but what they know are Hollywood stereotypes. Most Euros visit NYC, LA and Disney World if they visit the States and ignore “flyover country” entirely. A trip spent in Manhattan and Magic Kingdom really doesn’t make you an authority on the States, anymore than a few days spent visiting the Louvre and Notre Dame gives you any great insight into modern-day French folk.

9 Responses to A Map Of How Americans View Europe

Book Review: Empires of Trust (Part II)

Wednesday, June 24, AD 2009

[Empires of Trust, review Part I]

Review of: Empires of Trust: How Rome Built–and America Is Building–a New World

My apologies for taking so long to get back with a second part to this review. In the first installment, I covered the history of Rome’s early expansion, and how its commitment to establishing a safe horizon of allies, and defending those allies against any aggression, led the city of Rome to effectively rule all of Italy. From southern Italy, Rome was drawn into Sicily, which in turn made it a threat to Carthage and drew those two superpowers of the third century BC into a series of wars that would end with the total destruction of Carthage as a world power.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Book Review: Empires of Trust (Part II)

  • Like you (and Madden, I suppose) I found the parallels between the Roman Republic and the U.S. quite striking. The disanalogies, however, were also striking. What ultimately forced Rome to abandon it’s policy of political independence for Greece was the unwillingness of the various Greek city states to stop fighting with each other. By contrast, the countries of Europe seem to be perfectly content not to fight with one another.

  • True.

    I think an important distinction (and a very positive development) is that the US was able to use international institutions to station troops all over the place without actually assuming ruling powers over any of those nations. This allowed the US to remain in Europe after WW2 without getting into the business of trying to rule it (which would undoubtledly have been a disaster for all concerned.)

    I suppose part of the question here would be: If the US had returned to total isolationism after WW2 as it did after WW1, would we see the sort of postwar peace in Europe that we have in the real world? One might after that the development of a fairly conflict-free European political climate after WW2 was to a great extent caused by the fact that US power encouraged those nations to allow their military powers to atrophy.

    I’m sure Europhiles would not buy that argument. I’m not sure to what extent I do. But it does seem interesting that while Europe has a very long history of frequent wars, that history seems to have ended in those areas (and pretty much only in those areas) which have come into the US sphere.

  • Darwin, I don’t think there is any doubt about that. Had the US pulled out of Europe militarily and not assisted the population with the Marshall Plan (both done precisely with the idea of not repeating the mistakes of post WWI), Europe would have been engulfed in war within a year or two. Stalin would have attempted to gobble up Western Europe had it not been for the US presence.

  • “Stalin would have attempted to gobble us Western Europe had it not been for the US presence.”

    Bad Americans. Messing things up again.

  • If the US had returned to total isolationism after WW2 as it did after WW1, would we see the sort of postwar peace in Europe that we have in the real world?

    I’m inclined to doubt it. Even with the U.S. presence, you still had war in the Balkans, war between Greece and Turkey, the conflict in Northern Ireland, a French war in Algeria, a British war with Argentina, and so forth, not to mention the Cold War.

  • Fair point. Maybe I’m overplaying the postwar peace meme.

    Though it does strike me that in all of those cases, the war was either at or beyond the horizon of US presence at the time.

    I dunno. I’m trying to play out and see what I think of this theory. Prior reading this, I’d pretty much accepted the, “After starting two world wars, the Europeans decided that war wasn’t the answer and so the US had to come in and protect them from the Soviets” meme.

    After reading it, and having a couple long, late night discussions with an old history professor friend, I’m wondering if its much more the case that the US decision to stay in Europe is what allowed peace-emphasizing parties to win out — and that the gradual spread of US presence further into Eastern Europe and the Middle East could potentially have similar effects.

  • Don’t know. I think the Cold War was a real war that would have swallowed up a few (many, most)European countries if not for the US presence. Stalin was not opposed to absorbing whatever he could. Even if it would not have taken war for him to do it, he would have.

66 Responses to Russian Professor Predicts Breakup of US in 2010

  • Hey! As a Virginian, I hope you all down in Texas will hold off Mexico while we stand fast against the EU up this way! Russia will pull back nubs if they grab for Alaska. Canada would surely say, “Do we HAVE to take our share? Americans are so hard to manage.”

    United we stand.

    Back to my hole with my religion and gun…

  • I’m not so sure that I agree with the divisions. California, Oregan, and Washington I see going their own way together, being a firm Pacific nation, and certainly I’d agree that a fair amount of the Atlantic coastline would indeed form their own group and join the EU. I deny that Canada, China, or Mexico would take hold as sovereign over any division. We Americans are a little too free-wheeling for that to happen. Any takeover would have to be military. But as for the central divisions, I might have shunted off anything east of the Mississippi to the Atlantic Seaboard Committee and Trust Fund, and included Idaho and Utah in the Western American Union. I don’t know about Nevada, but probably most of it, with Las Vegas and Reno breaking off to California.

    In my dreams, Wyoming would be the lead state in the secession, since we have so much fun with our representation in Congress.

    In reality, I started to think that we’d see such a secession, in that the U.S. seems predominantly left-tilting on the coasts, and right-tilting in the middle. One of the things that help fuel resent in the South at the time of the secession just prior to the Civil War was the clear division between North and South on how the states voted in the presidential election. When that clear division seems cropping up between the heavily-populated coasts and the sparsely populated mid-west-to-western region, it starts to feel like the same scenario. Fortunately, the recent election painted the map by far more blue than I expected, so I guess Wyoming will just have secede on her own.

    Maybe we can convince Texas to join, but the relative isolation might make coordination difficult.

  • I am sure the Union will be maintained, but if anyone would care to make an offer to Illinois for the city-state of Chicago…

  • While I don’t see anything like this as being all that likely, I must admit finding the division question very interesting.

    I’d see Idaho sticking with whatever Montana and Wyoming did — and probably Utah going the same way. Nevada leaches so much money from California that Reno and Los Vegas would be strongly incented to stick with the coastal states, though the rest might want to join Texas. I could see Arizona and Southern California east of Barstowe going with Texas as well.

    Another thing this fellow seems not to have taken into account is economic similarity. Texas, Georgia and Florida all have fairly booming tech economies, and Texas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky benefit a lot from non-union manufacturing. Arkansas could, of course, simply become the Independent Republic of Wal-Mart.

    So I’d tend to see a good chance for a tech and manufacturing-based, moderately conservative and free trading southern republic including the Texas Republic as shown plus the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia. Perhaps the non-DC-suburb part of Virginia as well.

    Then you’d have to sort out the political and cultural differences between the Great Lakes states and the Great Plains & Rocky Mountain states.

  • He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. California is going with the Cylons.

  • This guy’s never been to the South. The Texas Republic, indeed! fah!

    And if you think all the Cubans and Puerto Ricans in Florida are going to knuckle under to Mexico, I’d say you don’t know jack about Hispanics, either.

  • LOL

    Right. Arizonans in league with California. We hate Californians. Actually, I don’t see Arizona tolerating any other state. We would have to go it alone.

    It’s easy for a Russian, who lives in a disordered society that has rarely if ever functioned well except under absolute totalitarianism, to imagine us cutting each others’ throats. We are divided now, but I don’t see any of us willing to drive a tank over our political enemies just yet.

  • I doubt this will happen as well, though it is interesting to note that the same professor predicted Russia’s rise during Yeltsin’s abysmal rule. Hence why he is getting a lot of attention now.

    As far as division is concerned, I find it laughable that Mexico would have ANY control whatsoever. Being that the majority of my extended family are proud Mexicans (living in Mexico), I see the reality of high corruption and a weak central government (considering that the government is created on the French model of a ‘strong central government, this isn’t good news).

    Hispanics cannot be painted as a monolithic group at all. Chris M. is correct on that point for sure. Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans all look down on each other for various reasons. Even among Mexicans, Mexican immigrants look down on Americans of Mexican descent and visa versa (it’s incredibly nasty).

    As far as Canada and China having influence that is beyond fantasy. IF the U.S. were to have “internal conflicts” I can understand Hawaii falling under California or Japan protection, but not under Chinese.

    I certainly see divisions between the two coasts and the rest of America, but if there were to be a break up of the states, seeing the northeastern U.S. (parts of New England) have some of formal relationship with the E.U. seems plausible.

    But for the sake of argument, IF there were to be a Second Civil War, I don’t see how the coastal states would be able to hold-out as combatants against the rest of America.

    Now back to clinging to my guns and religion.

  • Rob,

    Having lived in Arizona for more than 10 years I agree with your analysis. Arizonan’s have contempt for Californians. I’d also have to say that Washingtonians and Oregonians have no love for Californians as well.

    Shoot, Californians don’t like each other for that matter. Northern Californians and Southern Californians don’t like each other. Throw in the central basin and the extreme north I could easily see California breaking up into two to four states (Fredonia, Alta California, Central California, and the city-state of Los Angeles).

  • Enough of this California-bashing. In my experience, there are few people who actually know native Californians. Many Californians are transplants of some stripe or another. They move from NY to west LA, work in The Biz, and think that their little, insular world is “California.” These NY transplants live here a few years, get bored, and move to Washington, Montana, Arizona, etc., and proceed to tick off the locals there. And in turn, those people think these transplants are somehow “Californians.” Sorry to disappoint you all…

  • Reading this Russian analyst, I can now easily imagine how weird and off-base American analysts sound to native Russians.

  • J. Christian,

    I believe south Floridians have that same attitude towards transplanted New Yorkers in Miami.

    California should be able to put up some sort of quota of New Yorkers moving to California. Can states do that amongst themselves?

  • The Professor Doctor’s map looks like nothing more than Government by Sports Mega-Conferences. From Florida to Texas there goes SECLand, populated by large numbers of people still reenacting the Civil War with every football game. Then that large swath of Big 12 Land, taking in Texas, Oklahoma, and anyone else they dadgum well please. Produces high school quarterbacks that conquer throughout the republic. California is heaven knows what. The southern part belongs to USC and the rest to remaining Pac 10 Land. Who woulda thunk it. A third-rate Russian professor, providing minor satisfaction to countrymen afflicted by acute alcoholism, TB and HIV; a pre- WWII infrastructure; and the dreams of tyrants muted by the price of oil- is really a proponent for The College Bowl Structure As We Currently Know It. And no playoff system, thank you very much.

  • At least, Sarah Palin will be able to see Russia from her house!!!

  • Obviously, this professor knows nothing about Tennessee…..(and we ARE in the SEC.) Lol!

  • I just noticed that.. TN and KY join the EU?? Maybe after depopulating both states!

  • Enough of this California-bashing. In my experience, there are few people who actually know native Californians. Many Californians are transplants of some stripe or another.

    True. As a native born Californian I’d certainly assert that most real Californian’s are the most laid back and easy to live-around folks you could meet. (Though that didn’t stop me from wanting to leave.)

    I could certainly see California breaking up, though. In twenty five years of living in California I never once ventured north of Yosemite, and it was no loss. That LA belongs to a state whose capitol was Sacramento was always a source of utter confusion to me. (Though if there’s someone who should be sent off to be their own city state, it should be the Bay Area. Their mayor already thinks he can make state law.)

  • Pingback: Soybeania Forever! « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective
  • I don’t like these teams. I really have to play with California?

    -Arizona Guy

  • This may be an interesting theory that hopefully remains that way. If you’ve watched any of the short-lived series “Jericho” you may see some similarities between Panarin’s theory and the show. The gist of “Jericho” is the country divides into six nations after a domestic terrorist attack in which 24 major metropolitan areas are destroyed by nuclear bombs. It appears that Mr. Panarin has watched the same show or provided part of his theory to the producers. I hope that art doesn’t replicate life in this particular instance. “Do not tread on me,” Mr. Panarin.

  • Russia will suffer their own civil war before it ever happens to the United States.

  • The Central North American Republic would have a larger population than Canada (by around 20 million). I don’t think we’d fall under the influence of the Canucks (although I live in NoVA now, I’d move back to the Midwest to get out of the EU. I think it’s all a scheme to talk about how Russia should get Alaska back (does a certain Russian academic have a crush on Sarah Palin?).

  • The Russians sold Alaska fair and square and it’s ours until the end of time. If anything we may end up purchasing Kamchatka before we let go of Alaska.

    For the record, Texas doesn’t recognize Alaska.

  • Powerline has interesting comments by Mark Falcoff on the article by the Russian professor.

    “When I was a graduate student of international relations at Princeton decades ago I remember one of my professors, the late Harold Sprout, explaining that one way to analyze a foreign country’s behavior was to appreciate its own historical perspective. Given what has happened to Russia in the past two decades, its idea that the U.S. is a fragile empire of disparate entities (while wrong) is at least understandable. In many ways indeed it is a projection onto its supposed rival its own experiences.”
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022456.php

  • Yoh bros. Why don’t youse rebels just split along the Mason – Dixie line? Seems fine and dandy for bible faced hypocrites

  • Andrew,

    Actually, the Russian “prediction” reminds me of the world portrayed in Robert Heinlein’s Friday. Heinlein’s divisions certainly made more sense. Given that it was a Russian doing the predicting, I was also reminded of the old miniseries Amerika.

  • Why would Utah want to go with California? People would still come here to ski, snowboard, visit our parks, do business, etc. Our economy wouldn’t be affected at all!

    We have a large air force base here, the productions plants and companies for the US space program, etc., and a lot of Utahns are already military trained.

    We’re small, so why would we want to be steamrolled politically by the West Coast, especially since we’re more conservative?

    Plus, California is looking like it’s on the road to bankruptcy while Utah’s managed to weather the economic storm fine and we have minimal state taxes and still have sound state finances!

    Utah would be better off by itself.

    And without half of our income going to the Feds or California, we’d be rich, too! People would flock to the Mountain West! We could defend ourselves with air superiority over the western desert but wouldn’t need to since California could take the hit if China decides to invade.

    And all we have to do to hold back others is hold onto the nukes stored here and have Thiokol Co. (which makes the shuttle booster rockets) maintain and produce ICBMs and larger nations wouldn’t want to invade us; we’re small, anyway! Thus, we’d make the risk too high for the benefits a foreign nation (or former US state) would have from trying to take Utah.

    Utah would prosper in this scenario.

    This guy’s crazy but it is kind of fun to think about.

  • The US is a third world economy and has been living on credit for years. A nation where half are banged up, live in pverty with no medical care, rely on tips to make a living and have 3 jobs to make ends meet is headed for self destruction. The Foundation myth that Americans swallow is a smokescreen for the fact that the Revolutionery war was in fact Americas first civil war, between loyalists and rebels. When the rebels were seen to be enriching themselves by confiscationg loyalists property and renaging on their debts the undecided followed the example of the lawless. That is the American weakness, everything has been seized and not paid for. From the genocide of the Native Americans to the non paying of income tax until 1915 allowing the robber barons to prosper. America was not a proper democracy until 1830. The land that was ceded to them was as a result of The Treaty of Vienna, they never won the land in battle. At the start of World War 1 Belgium had a bigger army than the Americans. America has lived beyond its means for years with no competition from abroad the auto industry has been churning out obselite gas guzzling trucks posing as vehicles for years. The only way an American can get medical cover is thru his employer, so if he’s not employed he’s not covered. It’s ironic that the temper tantrum of not wanting to pay taxes for the protection of the Royal Navy has led to an economy which spends trillions of tax dollars on defence. At the end of the war of independance there were more Americans serving in the British Forces tahn Americans in the revolutionery army. The colonies all go the same way. Unleashed to govern themslves they become corrupt and turn on each other. American businessmen appear to model their practices on those of the mafia. Madoff is surely destined to appear in the Wall Street Hall of Fame (or should that be shame?)

  • Thank God for 1776. Without America Great Britain might well now be one of the lesser provinces of the German Reich.

    As to your opinion of America, I prefer that of a greater Englishman who wore a redcoat in his youth:

    “No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war — the first Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand’s breadth; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress, we had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care. Once again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutiliated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals. Hitler’s fate was sealed. Mussolini’s fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder. All the rest was merely the proper application of overwhelming force. The British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the United States, bound together with every scrap of their life and strength, were, according to my lights, twice or even thrice the force of their antagonists. No doubt it would take a long time. I expected terrible forfeits in the East; but all this would be merely a passing phase. United we could subdue everybody else in the world. Many disasters, immeasurable cost and tribulation lay ahead, but there was no more doubt about the end.

    Silly people — and there were many, not only in enemy countries — might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before — that the United States is like “a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate.” Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.”

    – Winston S. Churchill, _The Grand Alliance_

  • The American people revere Sir Winston, it helps that he had a pushy American mother. The British people on the other hand voted him out of office at the first opportunity. It amazes me that so much adulation is given to Sir Winston by Americans who should really go down on their knees and give thanks for Roosevelt, truly he was our and your saviuor, for without his political will, Churchill would have become what many expected, a failed politicion. His grasp of strategy was non too good given his record of attacking the Turks during World war 1 and inflicting murderous casualties on Commenwealth troops at Gallipoli.

    It is always painful for a nation to confront the truth, Americans are as much victims of their own propagan as were the Germans and Russians who were led by the nose into Fascism and Communism. After the fall of these two, there are still those who worship Hitler and Stalin.

    My view is that the original 13 colonies plus Florida should come back into the fold. Imagine the untold wealth this would generate for the inhabitants. Not in the EU as the UK is not, but part of Team GB. From day 1 they would get free medical care, and be entitled to any number of welfare benefits which would really raise up the under class (not just promises as given by Obama). Americans from the other states would flock to a properous economy when the dollar is only fit for wallpaper. In truth Americans are seen abroad as rather gullible, niave, folks who don’t have a good grasp of History or Geography. On the other hand American Business people are regarded as Mafia who wil suck you dry of every last dollar.
    North America includes Canada, and their are still plenty of Empire Loyalists alive and well both in the States and Canada. New Yorkers whose ancestors served in the !st Royal New York Rifles are combing geoneolgy sites to find compatriots. (don’t believe me? just Google it)
    I sense that the good Dr does not believe me, this is not my personal opinion but historical fact. If the 50 States were soveriegn countries you would be far better off in what is in effect a Free Trade Zone. That is all that you have got. A 50 country free trading zone but you introduced a whole new layer of buracracy on yoursleves in the shape of federal taxes. It is truly amazing that despite the song and dance you made about tea tax you now hand over trillions to a governing burearcay and the only way you can some of your tax dollar back is by lobbying and pork barell politics..
    When the UK introduced the NHS under the elected government that took over from Churchill Doctors surgeries were overwhelmed by women presenting with prolapsed wombs. Those who could not afford treatment used towels and rags to hold the womb in place. What is hidden in the US?

    Churchill had a job of holding the Allies together in WW2, the Americans think there industrial might prevailed but in truth the real slaughter was on the Eastern Front where Mother Russia lost 30 million. Churchill sucked up to Stalin as much as he did to Roosevelt, he had too.

  • “The British people on the other hand voted him out of office at the first opportunity. ”

    After the war was won in 1945. Then, after a few years of socialist government, they voted him back into office as Prime Minister in 1951. They also voted for him overwhelmingly in 2002 in a BBC poll as the greatest Briton of all time.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2509465.stm

  • We had to have a socialist government after WW2 because the Liberals left in power after WW1 promised “homes fit for heroes” but failed to deliver. Churchill was past it when he returned and was in his dotage, the Tories used him to get re-elected.
    Meanwhile back to the first American civil war go here to see the list of American units in the British Army.

    This is a list of British units in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) who fought against the American rebels and their French and Spanish allies in the North American colonies, including battles in Florida and the West Indies. In addition to the regular army it includes German auxiliary units (known collectively as Hessians), and militia and provincial units formed from Loyalists, West Indians, and Canadians.

    No battle honours were ever awarded to British regiments who fought in America as it was seen by the British to be a civil war.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Forces_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

    The freed black slaves, the black loyalists, who came over to the British side were rewarded with thier own country, Sierra Leone, and named its capital Freetown. Those black slaves who remained in the rebel hands continued in serfdom until the second American civil war. Some would say the fate of black Americans has not changed much summed up by the phrase, “They swapped the Southern rope for the Northern dope”.

  • The Black Loyalists see

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BMY79c675JsC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=founding+seirra+leone&source=web&ots=8XySXCsPyv&sig=D5ZhDgW363trypwjr6VlnoQ9AUA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

    Rebels and Redcoats: The American Revolutionary War
    Published to accompany a four-part BBC TV series – written and presented by military historian, Richard Holmes, this book offers a somewhat controversial and revisionist view. Most people regard the American Revolutionary War of the 1775-83 (also known as the War of Independence) as a popular struggle for liberty against an oppressive colonial power. This book demonstrates that it was in fact America’s first civil war.

    http://www.amazon.com/Rebels-Redcoats-American-Revolutionary-War/dp/000715626X

  • Redcoat, every American school child knows that the Tories fought for the English. This of course does not detract from the victory of the Patriots but rather magnifies the glory of the victory since they had to contend not only with a foreign foe but also a domestic enemy. The Tories throughout the war were utterly dependent upon the English and showed a striking inability to control territory without protection from the Royal Army. When organized into military units by the English and trained as regulars the Tories proved as effective on the battlefield as the English units they fought beside. Without English assistance the Tories proved totally ineffective to raise armies of their own and wage their own war against the Patriots. Their few attempts to do so ended quickly in routs. When the English decided to toss in the towel, the Tories who fought with them meekly went into exile rather than attempt to carry on the struggle on their own.

    As to Churchill, he was more effective in his old age than most British Prime Ministers at any age. The turn to the socialists in 1945 was part of the process by which Great Britain has been turned into Weenie Britain with a nannie state that crushes intiative and breeds hopelessness. Thatcher, your last great Prime Minister, was a ray of light, but she was unable to undo all the misteps that have made Britain a third-rate power.

  • Greetings to all those who are in search
    of Americans who remained Loyal
    to the British Crown during the
    War for Independence

    http://www.royalprovincial.com/index.htm

  • I am not running Churchill down, that would be silly but in discussing history and miliatary campaigns you have to take in the strategic objective. What exactly was Churhills war aims? The UK declared war on nazi Germany following the german army invasion of Poland. After the war Poland was “liberated” by the Soviet Union not the UK so there is a case to say the UK failed to achieve its objective. Americans woke up after WW2 and decided to run down the British Empire, they wanted one of their own, and the principle architect was John Foster Dulles. In no way could he be described as a friend of the UK. So again as the British Empire faded away into a Commonwealth there is a case for saying that Churhills war aim of maintaining the British Empire came to nothing. So that’s two failures on his part.
    War has to have a point, that is why there was never any danger of the Cold war escalating into a hot war. Neither the US or the Soviet Union could see any point in inheriting a nucluer wasteland.

    California has a GDP just below that of the UK, it seems to many that a prosperous state such as CA is subsidising the non productive states. Some of your states have a lower population than we have in our major cities.

  • California has a GDP just below that of the UK, it seems to many that a prosperous state such as CA is subsidising the non productive states. Some of your states have a lower population than we have in our major cities

    wow, you’re not even remotely familiar with our culture or how our political system operates, are you?

  • Redcoat,

    It’s possible to find the endorsement of impossible historical political grievances charming, but you seem to have your arguments a little tangled up. For instance, you charge that the US is guilt on the genocide of the American Indians, and yet I don’t get the impression that you want to return Canada to the French and the Native Americans, nor that you want to evacuate all whites out of Australia and New Zealand.

    Similarly, you blast the US for having a sky high national debt, calling it a pyramid scheme and a third world economy — yet you then praise California whose state debt is so bad that it may need to declare bankruptcy in the next year or two, if it isn’t bailed out by the Federal Government. Not to mention that California was one of the prime offenders in trashing the national economy with the real estate mess over the last six years. (Which was the reason this native Californian bailed for the saner home market of Texas five years ago — where I bought a home that is still worth more than a paid for it and the economy is humming along.)

    The charm of the Torry cause is mostly a conservative one, yet you try to wile people to support it with promises of a socialized welfare state.

    Still, as I say, quixotic historical causes charm my conservative instincts. So I’ll entertain your advocacy of the US rejoining Britain — after you blokes kick out these imported pretenders from Germany. Get some descendants of James II on the throne, or better yet get rid of the silliness of the whole last thousand years and find some descendants of Harold Godwinson and Edith Swanneck.

  • The verge of bankruptcy looms large for the USA as a whole, not just CA, and all because of the American Financial system lending money to people who have no hope of paying it back. Everything is on credit. Other countries in the same predicament are those with dollar reserves. The UK has no reserves linked to the dollar. Apart from anything else I resist the temptation to go with the herd mentality, so called experts, like this Russian Professor, have a 50/50 chance of being proved right/wrong as the case may be. How long ago was it that “experts” were predicting that oil would go to 200 USD? We in the UK are grateful for the US armed services who laid down their lives in WW2, but, in reality, you were acting then as loyalists as we fought our old foe Germany. To say that the US saved the UK from becoming part of the Reich is like a Brit saying that we saved you from speaking French and Spanish (although you seem intent on importing Spanish) because the Royal Navy defeated the combined French and Spanish fleet at Trafalgar and our Royal Rifle brigades who had learnt their trade in the American war, defeated the French at Waterloo. We don’y make that claim because it is too sweeping a generalisation. Prior to the outbreak of WW2 America had many pro German elements. Go to Youtube and dig up the old archive footage of American Nazi footage. “From Detroit they came, from Chigago they came” and so on.
    I love America and visit many times a year, but when I leave I always have the same thought. “It’s a beautiful country but its wasted on the Americans”.

    I was last in Boston and Rhode Island. It’s always the same, the American motorist appears straight out of the 1950’s. For a start the roads in RI are appalling, full of potholes even on the main roads, plus the signage is laughable, as it is allove the US. As a drive sedately along I am overtaken by hill billies in old crocks of SUV’s doing a reckless 80mph in a lump of old iron while shouting into their cellphones. Later I drive past the carnage with a babys pram strewn across the road. This reminds me of the phrase, “What’s the difference between an SUV and a hedgehog” Why, a hedgehog has the pricks on the outside.

  • Redcoat,

    Being descended from Welshman I demand the return of Cymru, and for that matter the rest of Britain to the original (aborigenes in your language) to the Welsh. We have been part of an apartheid system of being forcebly moved to the fringes of Britain and demand our rightful lands returned to us for posterity.

    I demand that all the Germans (Angles and Saxons) and Danes (Jutes) that infest the holy land that is Greater Wales return from whence they came to rectify the wrongs imposed upon us Celts in the name of Owain Glynd?r.

    The Brythoniaid will rise again!

    Sounds a bit off-base doesn’t it? That’s how we ‘colonials’ read your comments.

  • I must admit, there’s a sort of endearing innocence to Redcoats’ pride in the English social welfare institutions. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that when American progressives try to sell the idea of socialized medicine to the populace here they always assure us: “Don’t worry, it won’t be nearly as bad as the UK’s NHS.”

    Still, lest anything think that one has to sound like a yahoo in order to be all Up With the English, you can always check out Flanders and Swan’s “The English Are Best”

    From back when England was comparatively civilized.

  • “To say that the US saved the UK from becoming part of the Reich is like a Brit saying that we saved you from speaking French and Spanish (although you seem intent on importing Spanish) because the Royal Navy defeated the combined French and Spanish fleet at Trafalgar and our Royal Rifle brigades who had learnt their trade in the American war, defeated the French at Waterloo.”

    Napoleon had no designs on America as he proved through the Louisiana purchase. If he had been foolish enough to send a force over against us, I suspect we would have given them the same reception as the elite of the Royal Army under Packenham received from Jackson and his backwoodsmen at New Orleans in 1815. I do feel grateful for the stand the Brits made against the Nazis from 1939-1941 when there was absolutely no hope of victory and they fought on anyway against an evil second to none. That truly was their finest hour.

  • I might also note that my great Uncle Bill, a Newfoundlander, fought in the Royal Army from 1939-1945. When asked why he was enlisting he said, “Someone has to teach the Limies how to fight!” My own father considered enlisting in the Royal Army after marrying my mother in Newfoundland, but when told that he would have to renounce his American citizenship he declined.

  • -To say that the US saved the UK from becoming part of the Reich is like a Brit saying that we saved you from speaking French and Spanish (although you seem intent on importing Spanish)-

    This from a man in whose country many areas are now run under sharia law. We’ll do just fine absorbing the Latin American population, thank you. Talk to us after they put your wife in a burqha, dhimmi.

  • Anyone who thinks that the EU would take Kentucky and Tennessee or that anyone in Texas would be under “Mexican Influence” needs to have a background check done on their credentials. I don’t care how many degrees he has in Russia or how often State TV there interviews him for these beliefs. This man should take a vacation here. Maybe he’ll go back and suggest to the Kremlin that they put Russia up for sale.

  • Tito Edwards – I’m with you on that one as I am Welsh born myself and find it hard to accept the present Prince of Wales who is an English imposter. A penny for your thoughts and a full and frank discussion has been beneficial to us all without descending into personal abuse. It is always very dangerous to tackle Americans on the foundation myth because it is embedded in their hearts like reinforced concrete and surrounded by a peculiar nationilstic fervour that brooks no challenge. Many myths have been perpetuated by the media and this is something I always encourage my American friends to disassemble.

    The myth that parts of the UK are under Muslim law is like saying some parts are under Catholic law. Practising Catholics where ever they live around the world look to the Pope as thier leader. Muslims look to thier spiritual leaders in the same way. This is completely different to having an alien law imposed on you which obviously is not happening. I don’t want to get drawn into to this but I understand the official Catholic line on abortion is pro-life, notwithstanding this, women in the UK are legally entitled to an abortion, a plane lands in England from the Irish Republic every day carrying women coming over for terminations.

    I simply wanted to opine that the Atlantic States would do better to become part of the UK not the EU. Joining the EU would mean swapping American Federalism for European Federalism. Not a lot of difference there then.

    Despite our true Welsh Prince having been decapitated by the English, his head par-boiled and exhibited on a stake on London Bridge, today Wales has its own Parliament, as does Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Its called devolved Government and that is probably what the Atlantic States would enjoy. Thier own elected representatives caring for the interests of their own state. Those who live in Cornwall are treated as part of England.

    The media easily whips up mass hysteria, after all the news bread and butter is “death, shock, and horror” and “If it bleeds, it leads” Tabloid papers leaven this with “Human interest stories” I have felt for some time that the Americans really believe that the UK is in imminent threat of being taken over by Islam. Fear not, the zenith of the Caliph was when Southern Spain was ruled by the Moors, when they tried to advance further north they were defeated by the French.

    Donald R. McClarey – Napoleon had no designs on America but he had plenty on England. It was the French Navy at Yorktown and the French army that sealed the fate of Cornwallis, redoubt 10 was stormed by dissident French units who were promised that their old unit, which had been disbanded, would be reformed if they carried the redoubt.
    Without the French allies Washington may not have enjoyed the success he did. The Spanish as always jumped in to have a go as well. In defeating Napoleon the British learnt form the American campaign of the importance of aimed shot and taking cover. At that time the accepted practice with a musket was the volley and usually because the blood was up, without waiting to reload, the line broke into a bayonet charge.

    Your hunters and backwoodsmen fought differently, not in the European model, as the British Army was trained for. They took cover behind trees and aimed shot picking off the British Officers first. As a result the British Fusiliers then developed into Riflemaen and adopted the same American practice and used it on the battlefieds of Europe against the French who without this lesson still used volleys. For that we have to be thankful.

  • I find the professor theory interesting and in some ways a very big possibility. Think about it, as we are trying to bailout industries to keep our country afloat and we are believing in a new president and hoping that America is prepared for a minority race to lead us into a better future.

    Everybody keeps mentioning that America will not allow this to happen, but we as Americans have also become very spoiled and don’t seem to want to work anymore but expect things to be handed to us. When we don’t get what we want, we find an easier route. What is easier than fixing a trouble country – allowing another country to fix our lives for us.

    For the U.S. to break apart, we are more than likely not believing in the American dream and are in such a depression that we no longer want to try.

    I am not fighting for the Professor’s theory, but I am only speaking about what could be possbile sometime. To believe that it absolutely won’t happen is to be in denial as every country and government has to rise and fall. Whether we do it together or just give up is going to depend on what morals and values we have invested into the future generations.

  • California has a GDP just below that of the UK, it seems to many that a prosperous state such as CA is subsidising the non productive states. Some of your states have a lower population than we have in our major cities.

    Be careful about linking productivity to population. Wyoming has the least population in the union, only around 500,000 (counting tourists), and yet we run a huge budget surplus thanks to our resources. California for a number of years has either run a budget deficit or has barely gotten by. Moreover, due to their laws, they can’t provide all of their own energy needs. We in Wyoming launder our energy through Oregon, which is then presented to California as “green”. You could claim that we Wyomingites do more than our fair share.

    But there’s no problem with any one state subsidizing other states in the union, anymore than there’s a problem with a rich district in a city subsidizing the poor district. That’s part and parcel of being a union.

  • Redcoat,

    You won’t find malice here at American Catholic (I hope). Your ideas and thoughts are certainly provocative and welcomed here.

    I’m not to bothered by Wales ajoined to England, but I find it insincere to put a German as the Prince of Wales, especially the current holder since he holds almost no Christian values at heart.

    I’m aware of the devolved government under Tony Blair, though if I were an Englishman I would have fought it tooth and nails. From a secular point of view it just adds another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy.

    I’ve only recently have been studying and learning more about my wonderful Welsh ancestry and I do like where Wales stands now, attached as unified kingdom under English with the Scots and Irish. Though I strongly oppose ANY integration whatsoever into the E.U.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

  • Tito,

    Llandilo was the coldest part of the UK last night with a temperature of -14C. It is easy to get to South Wales on the M4 motorway which runs from West London, past Heathrow, practically to Ammanford. Our family along with most inhabitants of these islands have oftened discussed emmigrating. My namesake sailed to Madagascar in 1792, some family went to Fargo, USA, in the 1800’s, but I decided against North America after hearing that an Uncle who went to Canada was killed in the first week when two trains met head on. Many Welsh Christians left to make a promised land, they still speak Welsh in parts of Patagonia, South America. Simon Jenkins was going to write a book on 1,000 Welsh churches, but he was pipped by someone who brought out 100 churches of Wales. He now has a book called “Wales”

    A hat tip to Wyoming, I don’t know if that State was in the dust bowl, but as a family of Welsh farmers, the intensive cultivation of US farmland was hotly debated. Big can be good but sometimes it pays to think small. The US, to us, has the advantage of being 50 countries in middle America, who have sufficient mass to trade with each other. The disadvantage is lack of competition, and the US auto industry is an example.

    I would say the Welsh are happy with their lot. With a devolved Parliament the nationlistic urge is curbed, while introducing beneficial laws for the Welsh (such as free medicines, prescribed by Doctor’s, something they also enjoy in Scotland, so much so, that some English towns on the borders want to join Wales or Scotland) while we still have the embracing arm of being governed centrally.

    If the Atlantic States did revert to the UK I now see a problem, namely many descendants of loyalist families would probably sue for the return of land, property, and businesses confiscated (stolen) by the rebels. These claims could end in in the European courts which are processing many similar claims of Eastern Europeans who had their estates confiscated by the Communist Soviets.

    The hypothesis of the break up of the USA is just that, but nothing can be ruled out, after all our own Defence plans includes the possibility of another war with the US
    with Russia as allies. Russia now free of Communism sits on the fence between Europe and Asia. Under Soviet domination it resembled the US with all countries combining to form one whole. This is where their manpower came from, mainly Asia. Now it is split apart and and we can see what the Russian Proffessor is getting at. The Baltic States favour Europe. Swedes fly and sail to Estonia to do their shopping. European countries are standing in line to join NATO and the EU. What we see today in the break up of the Soviet Union could then be a possibility for the US. But, while the Soviet countries stayed as countries, with their own culture, history, religion and culture, suppressed and now released, the US States are uniformily the same, up to now sharing a common language (albeit somewhat mangled) and an Anlgo Saxon heritage, so the balance is the other way.

  • Nice welcome to join the eu.
    we can use more people to start a war and kill everyone agains us.
    Like: Tito Edwards and Redcoat enz, enz.

  • Hey!! What does this russian think he’s doing? Everyone down south knows that we’d stick together! It’s time to rise again! lol -Arkansas

  • The south will rise again – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

    There is no way that wealthy states will pay for the debt of liberal states in the north. I dont see a civil war as much as I just see a sucession of Texas followed by about 6 other states to form their own country.

    The USA is not going to last- as much as it hurts to say.

  • 4/26/08
    9:45 am

    my soul does see…before the peace
    another zugzwang activity.
    it’s all to real;
    we’re failing with direction.
    corporate scandals and corruption thunders
    confidence in the dollar continues to wane,
    a 4th marker of crude happens on exchange
    with alarming rise
    the petro euro allures the eyes of dubai.
    nymex and ipe must do
    what naturally comes next,
    and this leaves the [u.s.]
    with little trust;
    executed by the posion pawn,
    a trick box of economic destruction.
    abaddon thunder
    behind the veil
    has stolen foreign reserves
    and the dollar no longer services debt
    through investors on dragon shores.
    my soul does see…the collapse of
    [u.s.] soveriegnty.

  • Newton has nothing to do with climate I just like inventors, philosophers, poets. Sorry im a nerd. I love history also. To me life is a paradox. Ill leave im just a 20 something year old in the the medical field. By the way you guys some on here have great agruments, would make good lawyers. ;)! Merci!

  • Sorry, im trying to learn more about our economy and politics and I found some nice people who responded. Can someone tell me what do mean a cival war is going to happen so I can book a plane trip to Europe now and start packing. :`(

  • Do you honestly believe they will let Mexico just have Texas with all the oil?? And some of the largest US military bases and commands are in the areas predicted to go to Mexico??? Come on, Mexico can’t take care of itself now. What has this Professor correctly predicted in the past anyway?

    The economy and climate changes should be watched, but I am not about to loose any sleep over a civil war happening in the horizon.

  • Yesterday they said climate was fraud and it wasn’t a concern and they backed it up with websites and it was on the news and that they are just trying to scare americans. I got bashed for it. 🙁

  • Well, its December 15 with no civil war. It sounds like another conspiracy theory out the window. Of course Pak Alert Press is saying something about Obama organizing something around one million troops for possible civil war by the end of winter 2010. Well see.

  • This is December 29, 2009. The Russian professor said that civil war would break out in November of 2009. He also said that if this did not happen he has a ready explanation. Civil war has not started. We are still here. I looked for the explanation and have not found it. Anyone know where it is?

  • Our Lady of Fatima said “Nations will be annihilated”.
    She specifically didn’t say in what way they will be annihilated. Very bluntly, I would take the Russian Professor seriously, as the Church say’s, God will not be mocked!!!
    Abortion, 50% divorce rate. lukewarmness especially by us “Roman Catholic’s, pathetic LOW numbers of men and women willing to sacrifice themselves( but willing to sacrifice themselves for worldly things, career’s that most likely won ‘t help them get to Heaven actually for real when they die ) for the Kingdom of God by joining Roman Catholic Religious Order’s.
    Pathetic low numbers of Roman Catholic’s going to confession every week and or a month thus presumption they are receiving Holy Communion worthily.
    People having more faith in secular medical than than in the power of the keys, namely Christ Jesus healed people from being crippled, etc by absolving them of their sins.
    Sin’s of the3 parent’s and their little children get to suffer the consequences because the parent’s or grand parent’s or great grand parents ( sin’s of the parent’s past on to the 3rd or 4th generation ) didn’t make enough satisfactory amends either by invincible innocent ignorance or by culpable ignorance or actually knew and blew it off as it was nothing.

  • Pingback: Russian Professor Predicts Breakup of US in 2010 - INGunOwners
  • Son of a gun! Looks like he was right! Look at what’s happening in Arizona – the federal government has refused to protect its citizens! Look what’s happened in DC – a socialist is now president of the US!!

  • The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, how does a nation that is ethnically diverse from sea to shining sea devoid along ethnic lines? This guy is a fool think god he is one of their best! How will Mexico gain control over the South East? Mexico is close to spliting into different parts not The USA. Why don’t he just call it an Aztec empire? I would think they would go for Arazona before the South East USA really this guy is stupid and knows little about the history of North America. Mexico has white flight trust me I am a Taxi driver in Austin, Texas it is plan to see they are fleeing Mexico and buying homes in west Austin. The US immigration problem makes it hard for people of Native decent to come here legally not people of European decent. How would that whole Mexican thing go over in the South East a place where Native American ancestry is very common? Oh yeah and the kill ratio is about 100-1 btw really dude get real!

  • I just wanted to make a comment here. I read only a few posts but enough to give my opinion. I live in Canada and believe me Canada is in no situation to swallow up any part of the US. What we are all afraid of including the American people is this NAU known as the North American Union. We all don’t want any part of it. We are all different even though we have a lot in common with the US. We are great neighbors and want to keep it that way but we are very different in our outlooks and politics. There is going to be a great deal of problems in the US and it is just starting to come to fruition and there will be problems here in Canada as well since so much is multicultural. There are problems in Europe as well and nobody is going to not feel the lumps of what is coming. If you follow the alternative news instead of just mainstream you will learn so much more. All this is done by design by the globalists (secret societies and all) to get us at each others throats. If we don’t jump on one another then we win and they lose. Who do you think did away with our jobs and outsourced them to China, India, etc. Mexico is suffering badly folks. Lately Russian military aircraft have been invading our airspace here in Canada so that is a worry. I do know that they are in tanglements with our government over the Arctic to want to take some of it for their oil drilling as well as some European countries. I don’t put anything past anybody anymore for what I know what is going on. I do know that the US is bankrupt and printing money to survive which will lead to Weimar Germany type of hyperinflation. The US was the greatest economy of the world and now look at what happened. Honestly it will take more decades to pay back if not longer than what any of us will ever see in our lifetime. I do know that Russia and China have their sites on the US so everyone wake up and not let the globalists and secret societies of the world turn us all into slaves. Remember the book in school called 1984 well people that is what is happening and I used to think that it was a very stupid book – fiction – well come to find out it wasn’t fiction but reality. Take care everybody and hold on for the ride. The world’s leaders are only puppets and the real power is behind the screen.