The empire used to be evil because it represented a totalitarian millitaristic regime. Nu Star Wars' empire is evil because it's an a expy for nahtzees, leftists would consider it a good thing if the empire were commies
The Star Wars Galactic Empire is evil because the entire thing is a front for a shadowy cult that worships a supernatural evil and spent centuries manipulating others to evil ends.
Legend of the galactic heroes did it better. Both the republic and the empire in legend of the galactic heroes were being manipulated by merchants and a shadowy cult which the empire ended up rooting out but the republic was unable to .. And unlike Star wars, Legend of the galactic heroes didn't make the German-esqe empire look like the bad guys
Honestly you can't even compare the two. Star Wars is and always has been a science-fantasy hero story. LOTGH is an epic sci-fi space opera. They're in completely different leagues. It's like comparing Harry Potter to Lord of the Rings.
that one scene doesn't change the fact that they clearly made the empire to be some expy of the nazis. The stormtroopers is also based on German stormtroopers.
The Soviet Empire was a thing that no Leftist will accept. The Soviets couldn't have been an empire because they had to be good, because they were communists. Same thing with China now.
Put it this way, for all the bad shit the British Empire did, they STILL had higher moral high ground as they put resources and military might to end the slave trade. And most of their former colonies didn't dissolve into shit and many had a good relationship after with the example of the commonwealth.
Then you look to the French example of empire and...oh dear...
Empire's aren't bad depending on leadership and focus, the Roman empire was a great example and it took centuries of bad leadership and a REALLY bad plague to finally kill off the WESTERN half as the EASTERN empire survived for centuries later. The media just enjoys putting it as an evil idea as the thought that a stronger nation can simply bring others under their influence goes against their more subtle and gay way of the UN, WHO and USAID etc.
It's not just the slave trade. It's also that they introduced the good part of modernity (like railroads, rule of law and representative government) where their government structures were sound (indirect rule was quite a different matter).
And if you compare empires to nation states, it's not at all clear to me that nation states are superior. Clearly, they have greater viability, or we'd have more empires and fewer nation states, but a great deal of suffering has been imposed on people to create these nation states - expulsions, forced assimilation, language politics. There are people in France, and all other European countries, who have been made second-class citizens due to their native language - which is not a language brought by invaders, but the language (as naturally evolved) that their forefathers spoke, whether Occitan or Flemish. Empires generally respect nationalities, even as they also have dominant nationalities.
The British colonized like they intended to have their people move and live there to further develop the lands, so they had to establish law and order suitable for their people
Authoritarian autocracy is the most effective, quickest, and most efficient form of government. The primary issue is in so many cases that effective, quick, efficient path is to some form of harm or corruption. If this is evaded, then the secondary issue is the Benevolent Dictatorship only lasts one partial generation, until someone replaces them, who, historically speaking, have a 0% chance of continuing the vision in its purely benevolent form.
If a Benevolent Dictator can get in, make change for the better, improve the area, and then as their final duty set up a system to make it difficult for future elements to cause harm and then cede power to a wider base, well, that's an ideal-case-scenario. In that case, yeah, wonderful. But it doesn't happen often. President Bukele might be an example of this in El-Salvador, depending on if he sticks the landing: Unapologetically autocratic, oppressive, martial law, and everyone agrees is also completely necessary and literally saving their country from the grasp of death.
Empires are lesser versions of this: They keep the idea of the autocracy for the most part, if sacrificing some speed and efficiency for bureaucratic checks and balances, but they do tend to become bloated over time, and while it is slightly harder for a malicious actor to completely tank the whole thing, it is by no means impossible, for there is still usually a single weak point to go for.
the way i see it . If some shit goes down in an authoritarian autocracy, people know who to blame and can overthrow them. But in a democracy or republic, when the system is corrupt literally everything is corrupt and the actual people who make the decisions are hidden in the shadows and normies think they have control over their leaders when they don't so they just keep hoping "the next leader will be better" fruitlessly when in reality nothing ever changes.
The problem is that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Or a dictator, for that matter. Just like there is no such thing as democracy. The only extant form of government is oligarchy.
Insofar as some oligarchies advance the public interest better than others, that is only because there are structures that make it in the self-interest of the oligarchs to do so.
Good counterpoint. I certainly agree that he was a very good 'dictator', if you want to call him that. But I'm not sure if any ruler deserves the title 'benevolent'.
Go back to Europe and be a serf, you aren't welcome in America. All bootlicking goblins begging for an all powerful state are subhumans. Live free or die.
My hot take (which should in no way be interpreted as simping for monarchy, authoritarianism, fascism, or the like, as I do think a representational system is more likely to remain good and free for longer)...is that the primary distinguishing feature we have compared to the feudalist systems of old isn't representation, isn't freedom, isn't democracy, or anything of the like. It's simply more advanced technology, which naturally increases quality of life.
If you took our current system and set it back a couple hundred years, you'd have similar quality of life to the feudalism of the time. If you took a monarchy and advanced it into the present...you'd have similar quality of life.
There are always elites, there is always a disproportionate distribution of power. All those "oppressive" systems were merely systems of their time, and their main failings were just the limits of the time. Again, to be clear, that isn't me saying they're completely equal. I do think a system that tries to provide the people with representation is better...although on the flipside it's also a trap, since people are propagandized to believe they're much freer than they actually are.
If this was a monarchy, we may well have murdered our king many times over by now...for better or worse.
My hot take (which should in no way be interpreted as simping for monarchy, authoritarianism, fascism, or the like, as I do think a representational system is more likely to remain good and free for longer)...
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'? Do you think that Putin and Xi are more in line with the Russian and Chinese populations, than European critters with European populations, or vice versa?
If you took our current system and set it back a couple hundred years, you'd have similar quality of life to the feudalism of the time. If you took a monarchy and advanced it into the present...you'd have similar quality of life.
This is mostly right. But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor. That is unlikely to be the only thing, just like the system of government perhaps also played a role (while also a result of geography and the lack of a rival).
If this was a monarchy, we may well have murdered our king many times over by now...for better or worse.
Or perhaps there would be a modus vivendi between the kings and the elites that would prevent such a thing. It's a mistake to assume that in a monarchy the king has 'all the power'. There is a reason the people who elect the president and the Congress can 'throw the bums out' many times over without anything changing.
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'?
I think all systems get corrupted, but that's a good point. A lot of dictators or authoritarians do represent their peoples better. At least in the short term. Less representational systems can move faster, which is both good and bad. You can have populist leaders who give their people want they want, and you can have out of control despots.
But the same is true in a representational system...but it seems to just make it harder for the populists. Uh oh.
But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor.
I do think founding principles still carry a big impact, but that's more societal than governmental.
you don't even know what "leftist" or "rightist" means. "Right wing" doesn't mean libertarianism. "Right wing" means traditionalism. The first right wingers were not libertarians they were the monarchists of France. Its why a theocracy would be considered right wing. By your retarded logic of what "right wing" is you think a person who wants to ban LGBT is left wing whilst the person who wants it legal is right wing because banning LGBT would be "authoritarian"
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements. Because you are a deluded propaganda victim, or a delusional propagandist. I define them by objective measurement standards. The correct definition for ANY measurement must be objective.
Your goblinoid tactic here is to try to claim my view is wrong through claiming a moral argument against a right wing position. It does not work.
I do not pretend that left and right are the sole arbiters of moral standards. Yes, a right wing government would tolerate fags in theory. I do not advocate for anarchism, nor am I a libertarian. I am a constitutionalist and a nationalist. I argue for limited government. You are a hitler humping clown who argues for authoritarian government but "your guys" because like every retarded commie faggot, you think you or your friends will be in power, and you lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and see the consequences of trying to surrender all responsibility to the state.
The moral superiority of right wing positions doesn't come from individual elements of modern cultural conflicts. It comes from an understanding of history and human nature. No matter how based the ideal benevolent king is, he will be replaced. No leftist system is tolerable because it is infinitely more vulnerable to corruption and will inevitably be turned against the people. Political power attracts sociopaths, who are skilled at manipulating people and systems - they don't care what dogma they need to spout, only that they can use it to gain power. It is objectively better to have systems with minimal power that can be corrected by the people, instead of massive oppressive regimes that are extremely difficult to fight when they become corrupt.this is one of the most BASIC lessons from the founders of the US. All actual AMERICAN NATIONALISTS know this. Subversive goblins and anti-american commie fags should all be deported to Europe. Leave my country, faggot (if you aren't actually some basement shitpost goblin from some inferior country).
You have your own ideal of what you think things should be. That's fine. But you don't get to claim that whatever you think is ideal is what "right wing" is.
You cannot change the fact that "right wing" does not mean "libertarianism"(you claim you are not a libertarian but yet you define the "right wing" by libertarian definitions) . Read a fucking history book. Where do you think the concept of "right wing and left wing" even came from? The very first right wingers were the monarchists of France(you understand what monarchists means right? it means they were loyal to the royal family, loyal to the king), but you can't seem to accept that because you are a retard or you know nothing about history.
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements
Morality is not "subjective" if you believe in God.
You are operating off a worthless definition and a worthless, low IQ base understanding of what "right and left" are supposed to be.
The extreme ends of the political scale are totalitarian and ANARCHIST, not totalitarian and libertarian. Libertarian ideology has strong points and failures. An actual objective political scale is not a figment of libertatian ideology, though. It is a tool, like any other measuring tool. Your nonsense is like trying to tell me a ruler is a vessel meant to hold water. It's nonsense. You try to pervert a tool meant to make clear definitions into a worthless thing.
It's you who doesn't know history, because you've absorbed the "horseshoe theory" propaganda. The purpose of that vomit is to deliberately destroy objective measurement and comparison. Monarchists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. Socialists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. There is no world where ideologies based on reduced and decentralized power wrap around to totalitarianism. What a term was used for in France does not change how it is used correctly in english political discussion.
You are engaging in typical communist activity by attempting to destroy objective measurement. Take your redditor political compass retardation out back and shoot it. It is a tool of subversive goblins.
HellsSmells00: Just logging in to remind you that you're a liberetardian Americunt inbred hillbilly piece of shit.
Dumb fuckers like you are the reason why Americunts are still eating synthetic dyes decades after the rest of the European-descended world banned them. 'Muh guvmint can't ban any of muh food dyes n sheet because dat be author-it-aryan-ism n dat be like the Nahtzees n sheet, mane.'
Took till the second Trump Administration, itself still heavily infected with this ideology, like the transhumanist fuckstick Musk, to finally make the right choice, while all these other fucksticks in the Democratic and pre-Trump Republican parties have been doing wrong for decades.
'Live free or die'.
How about good people like me and the OP that you're complaining about live and fucking retards like you die? That sounds like a good deal to me.
The problem is that empires are really bad if they do become corrupt. All of the interwoven systems designed to maintain the people's daily lives become weapons in the hands of those who seek to abuse them for profit.
Japan is called an empire, but in reality, it's just another nation state. In fact, it's more of a nation state than Western countries (more homogeneous), which is why it's far more sane than we are.
Empires are inherently stupid, and usually evil. Even if you have a "good" empire that brings civilization to other parts of the world, they inevitably commit atrocities, are more expensive to maintain than the empire can afford, and inevitably promote resentment in colonies that they rule over.
The only way that any empire has ever been able to survive is by moving the capital of the empire to it's colonies. Would you like to guess how the former core feels about that?
And finally, almost no empire has ever been as benevolent as the American or British one, and both of those committed serious atrocities. The record of all other empires, is far more horrific.
Again, Israel does what it wants, America wants to use Israel to it's advantage.
I don't care that you don't like Wokeness, other empires are worse, you're just stupid and have a one-track mind.
For example, were you forced to watch your spiritual leaders be eaten in front of you while being belittled, humiliated, and insulted that you deserve to be eaten because your inferior? Well, congratulations, that's the Mayan Empire.
The US and Israel were originally opponents. Gaining influence over Israel and the House of Saud was an opportunity that presented itself and made itself very useful to American political objectives.
Israel tries to influence the US, but you are ascribing insane power by thinking that America is a vassal of Israel.
The empire used to be evil because it represented a totalitarian millitaristic regime. Nu Star Wars' empire is evil because it's an a expy for nahtzees, leftists would consider it a good thing if the empire were commies
The Star Wars Galactic Empire is evil because the entire thing is a front for a shadowy cult that worships a supernatural evil and spent centuries manipulating others to evil ends.
Wait...
Legend of the galactic heroes did it better. Both the republic and the empire in legend of the galactic heroes were being manipulated by merchants and a shadowy cult which the empire ended up rooting out but the republic was unable to .. And unlike Star wars, Legend of the galactic heroes didn't make the German-esqe empire look like the bad guys
Honestly you can't even compare the two. Star Wars is and always has been a science-fantasy hero story. LOTGH is an epic sci-fi space opera. They're in completely different leagues. It's like comparing Harry Potter to Lord of the Rings.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYfn9kad9c
that one scene doesn't change the fact that they clearly made the empire to be some expy of the nazis. The stormtroopers is also based on German stormtroopers.
The entire point of the prequels is showing how the republic and Jedi order deserved their fates
exactly
The Soviet Empire was a thing that no Leftist will accept. The Soviets couldn't have been an empire because they had to be good, because they were communists. Same thing with China now.
Put it this way, for all the bad shit the British Empire did, they STILL had higher moral high ground as they put resources and military might to end the slave trade. And most of their former colonies didn't dissolve into shit and many had a good relationship after with the example of the commonwealth.
Then you look to the French example of empire and...oh dear...
Empire's aren't bad depending on leadership and focus, the Roman empire was a great example and it took centuries of bad leadership and a REALLY bad plague to finally kill off the WESTERN half as the EASTERN empire survived for centuries later. The media just enjoys putting it as an evil idea as the thought that a stronger nation can simply bring others under their influence goes against their more subtle and gay way of the UN, WHO and USAID etc.
It's not just the slave trade. It's also that they introduced the good part of modernity (like railroads, rule of law and representative government) where their government structures were sound (indirect rule was quite a different matter).
And if you compare empires to nation states, it's not at all clear to me that nation states are superior. Clearly, they have greater viability, or we'd have more empires and fewer nation states, but a great deal of suffering has been imposed on people to create these nation states - expulsions, forced assimilation, language politics. There are people in France, and all other European countries, who have been made second-class citizens due to their native language - which is not a language brought by invaders, but the language (as naturally evolved) that their forefathers spoke, whether Occitan or Flemish. Empires generally respect nationalities, even as they also have dominant nationalities.
The British colonized like they intended to have their people move and live there to further develop the lands, so they had to establish law and order suitable for their people
Authoritarian autocracy is the most effective, quickest, and most efficient form of government. The primary issue is in so many cases that effective, quick, efficient path is to some form of harm or corruption. If this is evaded, then the secondary issue is the Benevolent Dictatorship only lasts one partial generation, until someone replaces them, who, historically speaking, have a 0% chance of continuing the vision in its purely benevolent form.
If a Benevolent Dictator can get in, make change for the better, improve the area, and then as their final duty set up a system to make it difficult for future elements to cause harm and then cede power to a wider base, well, that's an ideal-case-scenario. In that case, yeah, wonderful. But it doesn't happen often. President Bukele might be an example of this in El-Salvador, depending on if he sticks the landing: Unapologetically autocratic, oppressive, martial law, and everyone agrees is also completely necessary and literally saving their country from the grasp of death.
Empires are lesser versions of this: They keep the idea of the autocracy for the most part, if sacrificing some speed and efficiency for bureaucratic checks and balances, but they do tend to become bloated over time, and while it is slightly harder for a malicious actor to completely tank the whole thing, it is by no means impossible, for there is still usually a single weak point to go for.
the way i see it . If some shit goes down in an authoritarian autocracy, people know who to blame and can overthrow them. But in a democracy or republic, when the system is corrupt literally everything is corrupt and the actual people who make the decisions are hidden in the shadows and normies think they have control over their leaders when they don't so they just keep hoping "the next leader will be better" fruitlessly when in reality nothing ever changes.
The problem is that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Or a dictator, for that matter. Just like there is no such thing as democracy. The only extant form of government is oligarchy.
Insofar as some oligarchies advance the public interest better than others, that is only because there are structures that make it in the self-interest of the oligarchs to do so.
Lee Quan Yew joins the chat
Good counterpoint. I certainly agree that he was a very good 'dictator', if you want to call him that. But I'm not sure if any ruler deserves the title 'benevolent'.
Proving my point about you crypto leftist
Go back to Europe and be a serf, you aren't welcome in America. All bootlicking goblins begging for an all powerful state are subhumans. Live free or die.
Why are you retarded?
Empires have been a part of human history since the beginning of human history . There's nothing "leftist" about it, shitlib.
How did serfs live? Is it really so far removed from working a shit job to pay for your mortgage or rent?
My hot take (which should in no way be interpreted as simping for monarchy, authoritarianism, fascism, or the like, as I do think a representational system is more likely to remain good and free for longer)...is that the primary distinguishing feature we have compared to the feudalist systems of old isn't representation, isn't freedom, isn't democracy, or anything of the like. It's simply more advanced technology, which naturally increases quality of life.
If you took our current system and set it back a couple hundred years, you'd have similar quality of life to the feudalism of the time. If you took a monarchy and advanced it into the present...you'd have similar quality of life.
There are always elites, there is always a disproportionate distribution of power. All those "oppressive" systems were merely systems of their time, and their main failings were just the limits of the time. Again, to be clear, that isn't me saying they're completely equal. I do think a system that tries to provide the people with representation is better...although on the flipside it's also a trap, since people are propagandized to believe they're much freer than they actually are.
If this was a monarchy, we may well have murdered our king many times over by now...for better or worse.
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'? Do you think that Putin and Xi are more in line with the Russian and Chinese populations, than European critters with European populations, or vice versa?
This is mostly right. But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor. That is unlikely to be the only thing, just like the system of government perhaps also played a role (while also a result of geography and the lack of a rival).
Or perhaps there would be a modus vivendi between the kings and the elites that would prevent such a thing. It's a mistake to assume that in a monarchy the king has 'all the power'. There is a reason the people who elect the president and the Congress can 'throw the bums out' many times over without anything changing.
I think all systems get corrupted, but that's a good point. A lot of dictators or authoritarians do represent their peoples better. At least in the short term. Less representational systems can move faster, which is both good and bad. You can have populist leaders who give their people want they want, and you can have out of control despots.
But the same is true in a representational system...but it seems to just make it harder for the populists. Uh oh.
I do think founding principles still carry a big impact, but that's more societal than governmental.
Empires are by nature authoritarian. Authoritarianism is leftist. You dimwit.
you don't even know what "leftist" or "rightist" means. "Right wing" doesn't mean libertarianism. "Right wing" means traditionalism. The first right wingers were not libertarians they were the monarchists of France. Its why a theocracy would be considered right wing. By your retarded logic of what "right wing" is you think a person who wants to ban LGBT is left wing whilst the person who wants it legal is right wing because banning LGBT would be "authoritarian"
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements. Because you are a deluded propaganda victim, or a delusional propagandist. I define them by objective measurement standards. The correct definition for ANY measurement must be objective.
Your goblinoid tactic here is to try to claim my view is wrong through claiming a moral argument against a right wing position. It does not work.
I do not pretend that left and right are the sole arbiters of moral standards. Yes, a right wing government would tolerate fags in theory. I do not advocate for anarchism, nor am I a libertarian. I am a constitutionalist and a nationalist. I argue for limited government. You are a hitler humping clown who argues for authoritarian government but "your guys" because like every retarded commie faggot, you think you or your friends will be in power, and you lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and see the consequences of trying to surrender all responsibility to the state.
The moral superiority of right wing positions doesn't come from individual elements of modern cultural conflicts. It comes from an understanding of history and human nature. No matter how based the ideal benevolent king is, he will be replaced. No leftist system is tolerable because it is infinitely more vulnerable to corruption and will inevitably be turned against the people. Political power attracts sociopaths, who are skilled at manipulating people and systems - they don't care what dogma they need to spout, only that they can use it to gain power. It is objectively better to have systems with minimal power that can be corrected by the people, instead of massive oppressive regimes that are extremely difficult to fight when they become corrupt.this is one of the most BASIC lessons from the founders of the US. All actual AMERICAN NATIONALISTS know this. Subversive goblins and anti-american commie fags should all be deported to Europe. Leave my country, faggot (if you aren't actually some basement shitpost goblin from some inferior country).
You have your own ideal of what you think things should be. That's fine. But you don't get to claim that whatever you think is ideal is what "right wing" is.
You cannot change the fact that "right wing" does not mean "libertarianism"(you claim you are not a libertarian but yet you define the "right wing" by libertarian definitions) . Read a fucking history book. Where do you think the concept of "right wing and left wing" even came from? The very first right wingers were the monarchists of France(you understand what monarchists means right? it means they were loyal to the royal family, loyal to the king), but you can't seem to accept that because you are a retard or you know nothing about history.
Morality is not "subjective" if you believe in God.
You are operating off a worthless definition and a worthless, low IQ base understanding of what "right and left" are supposed to be.
The extreme ends of the political scale are totalitarian and ANARCHIST, not totalitarian and libertarian. Libertarian ideology has strong points and failures. An actual objective political scale is not a figment of libertatian ideology, though. It is a tool, like any other measuring tool. Your nonsense is like trying to tell me a ruler is a vessel meant to hold water. It's nonsense. You try to pervert a tool meant to make clear definitions into a worthless thing.
It's you who doesn't know history, because you've absorbed the "horseshoe theory" propaganda. The purpose of that vomit is to deliberately destroy objective measurement and comparison. Monarchists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. Socialists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. There is no world where ideologies based on reduced and decentralized power wrap around to totalitarianism. What a term was used for in France does not change how it is used correctly in english political discussion.
You are engaging in typical communist activity by attempting to destroy objective measurement. Take your redditor political compass retardation out back and shoot it. It is a tool of subversive goblins.
HellsSmells00: Just logging in to remind you that you're a liberetardian Americunt inbred hillbilly piece of shit.
Dumb fuckers like you are the reason why Americunts are still eating synthetic dyes decades after the rest of the European-descended world banned them. 'Muh guvmint can't ban any of muh food dyes n sheet because dat be author-it-aryan-ism n dat be like the Nahtzees n sheet, mane.'
Took till the second Trump Administration, itself still heavily infected with this ideology, like the transhumanist fuckstick Musk, to finally make the right choice, while all these other fucksticks in the Democratic and pre-Trump Republican parties have been doing wrong for decades.
'Live free or die'.
How about good people like me and the OP that you're complaining about live and fucking retards like you die? That sounds like a good deal to me.
Get out of my country, parasite. You want to suck off eurotrash government, go there.
Just how free do you think you are in America?
Also, what exactly is 'authoritarianism'? Basically anyone who disagrees with globalism.
The problem is that empires are really bad if they do become corrupt. All of the interwoven systems designed to maintain the people's daily lives become weapons in the hands of those who seek to abuse them for profit.
Japan is an empire, and has a far saner society than ours.
For now.
Japan is called an empire, but in reality, it's just another nation state. In fact, it's more of a nation state than Western countries (more homogeneous), which is why it's far more sane than we are.
They're as beholden to bankers as we are, and they're none too happy about it either
Empires are inherently stupid, and usually evil. Even if you have a "good" empire that brings civilization to other parts of the world, they inevitably commit atrocities, are more expensive to maintain than the empire can afford, and inevitably promote resentment in colonies that they rule over.
The only way that any empire has ever been able to survive is by moving the capital of the empire to it's colonies. Would you like to guess how the former core feels about that?
And finally, almost no empire has ever been as benevolent as the American or British one, and both of those committed serious atrocities. The record of all other empires, is far more horrific.
The American empire is the worst empire of all time. America spreads wokeness and just does whatever israel wants it to do .
Again, Israel does what it wants, America wants to use Israel to it's advantage.
I don't care that you don't like Wokeness, other empires are worse, you're just stupid and have a one-track mind.
For example, were you forced to watch your spiritual leaders be eaten in front of you while being belittled, humiliated, and insulted that you deserve to be eaten because your inferior? Well, congratulations, that's the Mayan Empire.
Its the exact opposite. But we all know you are a JIDF fed that will never admit that
The US and Israel were originally opponents. Gaining influence over Israel and the House of Saud was an opportunity that presented itself and made itself very useful to American political objectives.
Israel tries to influence the US, but you are ascribing insane power by thinking that America is a vassal of Israel.
So it's really the zionist empire.
Based.
It is just a name.
Of course, but "Our Democracy" (media oligarchy) is a Good Thing and it's Her Turn.