Fighting The Fourth Reich

[X_4AD_84]

I call them as I see them.

Back in the 90s, I read about the Trans Asian Axis via a series of white papers by Yossef Bodansky. This was the first inking that, in fact, we did not "win the Cold War" and that the shape shifting Beast was regrouping for another round. Bodansky's concept was of an Axis inclusive of the PRC and various radical Islamist groups and nation states. It did not include Russia. In my own mind's eye, I figured that was merely an omission and it was only a matter of time before it would.

Along came 7/16/2001. Nestled neatly between the infamous EP-3 incident, and, 9/11. That was the day that in fact, the Trans Asian Axis officially came out as the Shanghai Cooperation Org. That was the overt, transparent arrangement. Below the surface I reckoned that the ongoing care and feeding of terrorism by Anti Western Fiends of The East had never ceased. Bodansky would soon be proven correct. Sadly, on the aforementioned 9/11 he was.

Back then, I never imagined that Kremlin (and other SCO?) ops would be able to penetrate our system more than they already had. Sure, they had their ops here and agents. Another day another spook. Still, I felt that our American values would not allow the sorts of chicanery that had created satellites and Quisling states in the past. How naive.

Now here we are. Such Ops have cultivated a branch of the National Bolshevik / Eurasianist menace right here in the good old US of A. Your own neighbor may now be caught up in this shit. The enemy is within the gates. Meanwhile, the Anti Western Fiends plot their "War Against the Great Satan." Build ups of strategic WMD destined to tear huge holes in Western defenses are ongoing. So it is a pincers movement. On half within and one half without.

To the Anti Western Fiends and their supporters here, there will be a fight. It is the coming 4T Total War. May the West, and Freedom, win.

http://observer.com/2017/08/charlottesvi...elligence/

'Although our country has always had white supremacists, Russia has given them renewed focus and energy, as well as a ready-made worldview. This take on the world includes overt white nationalism which despises the United States as a decadent and multiracial society. The Moscow menu suspiciously includes support for a range of foreign issues such as adulation of Bashar al-Assad and his nasty Syrian regime.'

'To anyone versed in Russian intelligence tradecraft, Spencer and those of his kook-right ilk who espouse nakedly pro-Kremlin views, are at least agents of influence, to use the proper Chekist term. However, there are connections between Moscow and the Western far-right which are more troubling than mere ideological fellow-traveling.

'In Europe, security services have tracked the activities of Russian military intelligence, known as GRU, and in recent years their operations have included violence. Russian football hooligans who caused mayhem in Europe last summer, leading to dozens of casualties, many of them seriously injured, included known Kremlin special operatives—some of them possessing GRU tattoos.

'More ominously, GRU has been training and arming neo-Nazis in Europe, with sometimes lethal consequences. Last October, a Hungarian policeman was shot dead by István Győrkös, a far-right radical who had been running paramilitary training camps for neo-Nazis from Hungary and Germany. Győrkös had met frequently with GRU representatives, and these war-games were clandestinely supported by Moscow, Hungarian security officials quickly deduced, with Kremlin officials even taking part in the “training.”

'This problem is hardly confined to Hungary. German counterintelligence has noted strange connections between GRU operatives and neo-Nazis in their country, using martial arts clubs as cover for recruiting Moscow-friendly radicals. Things have moved even farther along in Sweden, where a failed bombing of a refugee center in January turned out to be the work of two Swedish neo-Nazis who had received military training in Russia from GRU instructors.

'There are no publicly known cases of American right-wing radicals receiving terrorist training from Russian intelligence, but this may only be a matter of time. Across Europe, Kremlin ideological outreach to far-right circles has led to military training and the supply of weaponry. The weekend tragedy in Charlottesville was at least partly inspired by Moscow’s propaganda. If we don’t start to take this problem seriously, like Europe we will soon be facing more and worse extremism with a distinct GRU footprint.'

[Bob Butler 54]

The ‘Third Reich’ was a propaganda term attempting to historically legitimize Nazi rule by referring back to their newly labeled first and second reichs. These were the Holy Roman Empire (962 - 1806) and the German Empire (1871 - 1918). It implies a deep established German heritage.

Now, I’m no fan of authoritarian government, but throwing around a ‘Fourth Reich’ label seems like cheap strawman. Yes, authoritarian government should be watched and resisted. One should be very dubious about ruling elite classes pushing authoritarian forms. Still, cheap comparisons with Hitler are absurd enough to leave articles in the trash bin.

Meanwhile, ‘Holy Roman Empire’ was itself a propaganda term trying to legitimize things by referring back to the Roman Empire. It was sort of legit, pertinent at least, in 962 AD. It’s a mild curiosity today.

[Kinser79]

Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia. Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

[noway2]

(08-18-2017, 04:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Meanwhile, ‘Holy Roman Empire’ was itself a propaganda term trying to legitimize things by referring back to the Roman Empire. It was sort of legit, pertinent at least, in 962 AD. It’s a mild curiosity today.

As my high school world history teacher used to say, it wasn't Roman, it wasn't holy, and it wasn't much of an empire.

[noway2]

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia. Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

Reich simply means realm and was meant to embody the term nation as meaning people who share common heritage, values, and customs. This is also a large part of what is wrong with the US today, it is no longer a cohesive body of peoples who share common values or identity of what it means to be American. It is why I believe that a breakup and balkanization is both ultimately inevitable and about the only way to possibly short circuit the cycle and prevent the violence that is certainly coming that will likely result in a breakup anyway.

Things get a little messier today with the mixed geography. As I was discussing with a coworker yesterday, the (college) town we work in is surrounded by a large part of the state that would like to see this area excised from the state. Following the breakup there would naturally be a period of migrations as people gravitate towards the regions that share their 'national' identity, just like there was during the so called reconstruction period.

[pbrower2a]

Quite possibly the next Vice-President of the United States has something to say about President Trump's mealy-mouthed dismissal of the demonic evil that is the Alt Right:

Quote:Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney spoke out Friday against President Trump's response to the violence in Charlottesville, Va., warning that he had caused "the vast heart of America to mourn."

In a statement posted on his Facebook page, Romney said that Trump's words blaming "many sides" for the violence were celebrated by white supremacists across the country, and he called on the president to issue a rare apology.

"Whether he intended to or not, what he communicated caused racists to rejoice, minorities to weep, and the vast heart of America to mourn," Romney said Friday.

"What we heard is now the reality, and unless it is addressed by the president as such, with unprecedented candor and strength, there may commence an unraveling of our national fabric," he added.

Trump shocked the nation Tuesday when he said there were "very fine people" on both sides of a white supremacist rally in Virginia, accusing counterprotesters of gathering "without a permit."

Romney argued that Trump's words risked painting the entire country as racist, and warned that other nations would be less likely to come to our aid if they view the United States as a racist country.

"Our allies around the world are stunned and our enemies celebrate; America's ability to help secure a peaceful and prosperous world is diminished," he added. "And who would want to come to the aid of a country they perceive as racist if ever the need were to arise, as it did after 9/11?"

The former GOP governor called on Trump to take "extreme" measures and apologize for his press conference in which he blamed "many sides" for the violence.

"The president must take remedial action in the extreme. He should address the American people, acknowledge that he was wrong, apologize," Romney said.

"Once and for all, he must definitively repudiate the support of David Duke and his ilk and call for every American to banish racists and haters from any and every association," he added.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-18-2017, 09:52 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 04:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Meanwhile, ‘Holy Roman Empire’ was itself a propaganda term trying to legitimize things by referring back to the Roman Empire.  It was sort of legit, pertinent at least, in 962 AD.  It’s a mild curiosity today.

As my high school world history teacher used to say, it wasn't Roman, it wasn't holy, and it wasn't much of an empire.

It lasted a while though.  Lots of places would envy that.  Otherwise, yah....

[pbrower2a]

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia.  Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

As "noway" reminds us, "Reich" simply means "realm".  As a remarkable coincidence, the German name for the country to the south and west is "Frankreich", even though France has largely been a Republic since 1792. The official name for Austria is Republik Österreich, even if Austria has not been a monarchy since 1918.   The Weimar Republic heavily used the word "Reich" to describe itself.

In the German version of the Lord's Prayer, what equates to "Thy Kingdom come" is "Dein Reich komme".

Only after the defeat of the Third Reich did "Reich" become an anathema as a description of Germany.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-18-2017, 01:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia.  Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

As "noway" reminds us, "Reich" simply means "realm".  As a remarkable coincidence, the German name for the country to the south and west is "Frankreich", even though France has largely been a Republic since 1792. The official name for Austria is Republik Österreich, even if Austria has not been a monarchy since 1918.   The Weimar Republic heavily used the word "Reich" to describe itself.

I occasional bump into descriptions of eras in France following the naming convention.  If one talks of the Third Republic or Second Empire, one is defining an era pretty well.  In the United States one can talk of the colonial era, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution breaking things up, but we've been under the Constitution for so much of our modern history that it isn't as convenient or pertinent.

If you understand the numbered reich convention that way, labeling alliances well away from Germany as reichs becomes way questionable.

[pbrower2a]

(08-19-2017, 03:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 01:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia.  Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

As "noway" reminds us, "Reich" simply means "realm".  As a remarkable coincidence, the German name for the country to the south and west is "Frankreich", even though France has largely been a Republic since 1792. The official name for Austria is Republik Österreich, even if Austria has not been a monarchy since 1918.   The Weimar Republic heavily used the word "Reich" to describe itself.

I occasional bump into descriptions of eras in France following the naming convention.  If one talks of the Third Republic or Second Empire, one is defining an era pretty well.  In the United States one can talk of the colonial era, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution breaking things up, but we've been under the Constitution for so much of our modern history that it isn't as convenient or pertinent.

If you understand the numbered reich convention that way, labeling alliances well away from Germany as reichs becomes way questionable.

"Fourth Reich" references have usually been in reference to any possibility of a dictatorial, right-wing, and probably expansionist Germany. Germans have learned their lesson well. America is clearly in more danger of a fascistic government (indeed, the current President has many characteristics of a fascist and acts more like a dictator than any prior President). Reich does not refer to any country other than Germany now.

[Kinser79]

(08-18-2017, 09:58 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia.  Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

Reich simply means realm and was meant to embody the term nation as meaning people who share common heritage, values, and customs.  This is also a large part of what is wrong with the US today, it is no longer a cohesive body of peoples who share common values or identity of what it means to be American.  It is why I believe that a breakup and balkanization is both ultimately inevitable and about the only way to possibly short circuit the cycle and prevent the violence that is certainly coming that will likely result in a breakup anyway.

Things get a little messier today with the mixed geography.  As I was discussing with a coworker yesterday, the (college) town we work in is surrounded by a large part of the state that would like to see this area excised  from the state.  Following the breakup there would naturally be a period of migrations as people gravitate towards the regions that share their 'national' identity, just like there was during the so called reconstruction period.

In principle I agree.  However, I'm pointing out the absurdity of calling any attempt to establish ethnic or national homelands in the US a reich, much less a fourth one is absurd.  The name "Third Reich" is directly the result of in Germany there were three distinct imperial periods.  The Holy Roman Empire (or first riech), the German Empire of the Kaisers (or second reich) and of course Nazi Germany (or third reich).

If we were speaking of the US specifically it would be more suitable to use the English word nation or republic or state rather than reich, much less a fourth one.

[Kinser79]

(08-19-2017, 03:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 01:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia.  Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

As "noway" reminds us, "Reich" simply means "realm".  As a remarkable coincidence, the German name for the country to the south and west is "Frankreich", even though France has largely been a Republic since 1792. The official name for Austria is Republik Österreich, even if Austria has not been a monarchy since 1918.   The Weimar Republic heavily used the word "Reich" to describe itself.

I occasional bump into descriptions of eras in France following the naming convention.  If one talks of the Third Republic or Second Empire, one is defining an era pretty well.  In the United States one can talk of the colonial era, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution breaking things up, but we've been under the Constitution for so much of our modern history that it isn't as convenient or pertinent.

If you understand the numbered reich convention that way, labeling alliances well away from Germany as reichs becomes way questionable.

I would actually argue that the US has maintained the constitution of 1789 through three successive republican systems.  By and large my boyfriend* would organize US history as follows:

Colonial Period:  1607-1763
Revolution and Confederation:  1763-1789
First Republic:  1789-1865
Second Republic:  1866-1932
Third Republic:  1933-Present

*Note:  He actually teaches history in this fashion, though he avoids using the term republic as I would.

[The Wonkette]

(08-20-2017, 01:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-19-2017, 03:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 01:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia.  Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

As "noway" reminds us, "Reich" simply means "realm".  As a remarkable coincidence, the German name for the country to the south and west is "Frankreich", even though France has largely been a Republic since 1792. The official name for Austria is Republik Österreich, even if Austria has not been a monarchy since 1918.   The Weimar Republic heavily used the word "Reich" to describe itself.

I occasional bump into descriptions of eras in France following the naming convention.  If one talks of the Third Republic or Second Empire, one is defining an era pretty well.  In the United States one can talk of the colonial era, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution breaking things up, but we've been under the Constitution for so much of our modern history that it isn't as convenient or pertinent.

If you understand the numbered reich convention that way, labeling alliances well away from Germany as reichs becomes way questionable.

I would actually argue that the US has maintained the constitution of 1789 through three successive republican systems.  By and large my boyfriend* would organize US history as follows:

Colonial Period:  1607-1763
Revolution and Confederation:  1763-1789
First Republic:  1789-1865
Second Republic:  1866-1932
Third Republic:  1933-Present

*Note:  He actually teaches history in this fashion, though he avoids using the term republic as I would.

Geez, your BF's three Republics fall neatly in with the US Saeculum. Is he a supporter of S&H?

[Kinser79]

(08-20-2017, 02:54 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: Geez, your BF's three Republics fall neatly in with the US Saeculum.  Is he a supporter of S&H?  

I says that is a coincidence.  He does not subscribe to S&H theory even though he will admit that their pattern conforms to the US and UK.  Once we get into broader history he's far more skeptical of generations driving history.

[Mikebert]

(08-20-2017, 01:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-19-2017, 03:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 01:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 06:55 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not only that any Reich formation would have to take place in Germany rather than the US or Russia.  Otherwise using the "reich" label even for propaganda purposes becomes absurd.

As "noway" reminds us, "Reich" simply means "realm".  As a remarkable coincidence, the German name for the country to the south and west is "Frankreich", even though France has largely been a Republic since 1792. The official name for Austria is Republik Österreich, even if Austria has not been a monarchy since 1918.   The Weimar Republic heavily used the word "Reich" to describe itself.

I occasional bump into descriptions of eras in France following the naming convention.  If one talks of the Third Republic or Second Empire, one is defining an era pretty well.  In the United States one can talk of the colonial era, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution breaking things up, but we've been under the Constitution for so much of our modern history that it isn't as convenient or pertinent.

If you understand the numbered reich convention that way, labeling alliances well away from Germany as reichs becomes way questionable.

I would actually argue that the US has maintained the constitution of 1789 through three successive republican systems.  By and large my boyfriend* would organize US history as follows:

Colonial Period:  1607-1763
Revolution and Confederation:  1763-1789
First Republic:  1789-1865
Second Republic:  1866-1932
Third Republic:  1933-Present

*Note:  He actually teaches history in this fashion, though he avoids using the term republic as I would.

This is an established theory, to which I subscribe. The S&H concept of structural change during 4Ts neatly dovetails with the idea of sequential republics.  Basically a 4T sees the death of the old republic and birth of the new.

I also see a correspondence between the eras and Turchin's secular cycles. These cycles typically feature a crisis period when the society starts to break down, which is then followed a resolution and the start of a new cycle.  This resolution happens during 4Ts.  Not all 4Ts do this (the Armada 4T did not for one), but it seems that in the modern era the secular cycle, republics and the saeculum all are roughly aligned.

I have submitted a paper on this and will discuss more when I find out what the reviewers have to say.

[Kinser79]

(08-21-2017, 06:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: My usage of Fourth Reich is alluding to World War 3 as unfinished business from World War 2.

Of course this new Axis is not centered in Germany.

However, it is the confluence of the Red and Brown ... of two Germanic ideas  .... which is the basis for this new incarnation of the shape shifting monster.

So your use of this particular title is based on a nothing burger.  There is no unfinished business from World War 2.  The Allies won and demanded and got unconditional surrender.  That you've not moved on from 1945, not withstanding.

As for a battle between Red and Brown, that is to be expected.  What passes for a left these days is unmitigated communism, often of the Trotskite stripe, and as such fascism is going to arise.  Fascism is the reaction to communism and both are inherently flawed.

I think I'll leave this here:

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-21-2017, 08:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 06:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: My usage of Fourth Reich is alluding to World War 3 as unfinished business from World War 2.

Of course this new Axis is not centered in Germany.

However, it is the confluence of the Red and Brown ... of two Germanic ideas  .... which is the basis for this new incarnation of the shape shifting monster.

So your use of this particular title is based on a nothing burger.  There is no unfinished business from World War 2.  The Allies won and demanded and got unconditional surrender.  That you've not moved on from 1945, not withstanding.

As for a battle between Red and Brown, that is to be expected.  What passes for a left these days is unmitigated communism, often of the Trotskite stripe, and as such fascism is going to arise.  Fascism is the reaction to communism and both are inherently flawed.

I think I'll leave this here:

And.... the circle is now complete. 






And yet again, what was old is new again. 




Look at all that red.


Reds under lots of beds.




Of utmost service and peace out.
Mob violence is such a drag.
--- Rags

[pbrower2a]

(08-21-2017, 10:31 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 08:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 06:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: My usage of Fourth Reich is alluding to World War 3 as unfinished business from World War 2.

Of course this new Axis is not centered in Germany.

However, it is the confluence of the Red and Brown ... of two Germanic ideas  .... which is the basis for this new incarnation of the shape shifting monster.

So your use of this particular title is based on a nothing burger.  There is no unfinished business from World War 2.  The Allies won and demanded and got unconditional surrender.  That you've not moved on from 1945, not withstanding.

As for a battle between Red and Brown, that is to be expected.  What passes for a left these days is unmitigated communism, often of the Trotskite stripe, and as such fascism is going to arise.  Fascism is the reaction to communism and both are inherently flawed.

And.... the circle is now complete. 

Mob violence is such a drag.
--- Rags

America needs to avoid becoming an Evil Empire or part of an authoritarian Moscow-Washington or Beijing-Washington Axis.

As an Evil Empire, America risks facing a Berlin-Tokyo-Brasilia-Delhi Axis that has the potential for defeating and partitioning America because that alliance won't commit genocide or plunder liberated countries. The thug Axis alliance gave even the defeated cause to fight back. Yes, America is an Empire -- but it has been far more effective as an Empire of Liberty. An Evil Empire (and Donald Trump is evil, as shown by his mealy-mouthed response to political thugs who tried to revive Nazi-like ideology or adapt it to old American trends).

The sort of America that has political prisoners (Donald Trump is vindictive enough to have them, except that the courts and law enforcement won't go along) and commits war crimes (senior Army, Navy, and Air Force officers will not go along) is the sort most likely to be defeated by a lethal coalition. After all, it was the weak nation of playboys (as Hitler saw them) that marched into Dachau and Mauthausen to put an end to the nightmare of the most Evil Empire in existence.

History moves far faster in recent centuries (the partitions of Poland in the late eighteenth century are the first portent) and really-fast in any 4T. Incompetence and cruelty are even more destructive than ever.

[Kinser79]

(08-22-2017, 02:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: America needs to avoid becoming an Evil Empire or part of an authoritarian Moscow-Washington or Beijing-Washington Axis.

As an Evil Empire, America risks facing a Berlin-Tokyo-Brasilia-Delhi Axis that has the potential for defeating and partitioning America because that alliance won't commit genocide or plunder liberated countries. The thug Axis alliance gave even the defeated cause to fight back. Yes, America is an Empire -- but it has been far more effective as an Empire of Liberty. An Evil Empire (and Donald Trump is evil, as shown by his mealy-mouthed response to political thugs who tried to revive Nazi-like ideology or adapt it to old American trends).

The sort of America that has political prisoners (Donald Trump is vindictive enough to have them, except that the courts and law enforcement won't go along) and commits war crimes (senior Army, Navy, and Air Force officers will not go along) is the sort most likely to be defeated by a lethal coalition. After all, it was the weak nation of playboys (as Hitler saw them) that marched into Dachau and Mauthausen to put an end to the nightmare of the most Evil Empire in existence.

History moves far faster in recent centuries (the partitions of Poland in the late eighteenth century are the first portent) and really-fast in any 4T. Incompetence and cruelty are even more destructive than ever.

Tell me PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?

There will be no Washington-Beijing axis. Economically speaking China is perhaps our greatest rival. A Washington-Moscow axis while not objectionable to me (I've been to Russia several times, Putin is doing good things and is a good man, a strong leader, etc, etc, etc) is just not possible as long as the Dimocrats still walk about in the halls of Congress. Their RINO buddies don't help either.

As for a Berlin-Tokyo-Brazilia-Delhi axis that is so without a clue as to be absurd. Germany is busy with its national suicide. Unless they chuck out Merkel and dismantle the EU and PDQ at that Germany as we understand it won't exist. It will be Germanistan. Japan has a demographic winter, so unless you expect them to send over their hoards of elderly to invade...well their military might even if they had such would be declining.

Brazil has problems keeping the lights on let alone taking on the US. What are they going to do? Invade us with immigration? Delhi could be a threat but they'd rather fight China or Pakistan instead.

From this I can conclude your understanding of current geo-realpolitik is minimal.
As for an America with political prisoners....it isn't as far fetched as you think. Alt-Left escalating violence will bring a dictatorship, the likes of which will make Daddy seem like an uber-democrat. There is a reason why Sargon called it Weimar America--unfortunately it will be an internal conflict than an external one. Europe has no ability to fight a world war, and Asia has no desire to.

[pbrower2a]

History shows that fascistic regimes start wars that democratic countries dread -- but that the democracies win. Twist America in 1940 into a fascist society (1915 Klan) and Germany and Japan into liberal democracies, and... our freeways in the East are called Autobahns, and some of the most common names for little girls on the West Coast include "Michiko" and "Sumiko".

Fascistic regimes greatly overestimate the likelihood of winning because of the 'ethnic' superiority of the people that they lead... to disaster. Once the democracies start winning, they establish themselves as the best of all possible worlds, and make sure that people who happened to be on the wrong side have no cause to resist.

You should be concerned about a possible Washington-Beijing Axis. What the Russians could have done in 2016, the Chinese can also do. Maybe they would be more subtle, supporting Americans more amenable to free trade without the knowledge of such people that the support for their candidacies has come ultimately from China. If the Chinese dislike the way America is going now, then maybe they will support Democrats.