Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

Well, theoretically all major powers want/ed to control the world. That doesn't mean they were all about to invade the planet tomorrow.

Britain basically controlled the world from the fall of Napoleon until the end of WWII, and could be argued from the fall of the Armada until the end of WWII.
 
Maybe not "tomorrow," but Hitler pursued versions of extra-European expansion even during his lifetime. The point is that Hitler invited preemptive measures from the West. His actions and words weren't subtle. I'm not saying the war was moral, but I'm also not saying anything was irrational. Buchanan makes too little of Germany before WWII. Not only did Hitler make it clear he had plans for expansion beyond Europe, even if he lacked the immediate resources (he did talk with Japan about taking the war to North America); his regime was founded on an ideal of conquest, and he saw much worth destroying in America (which he saw a Judeo-negrified cesspool, to paraphrase).

The USSR and Germany may have significantly weakened each other; but if the West saw advantages to joining with the Soviet Union in order to see to it that Hitler's Germany couldn't succeed, then it makes sense they would do so.

I'm not arguing for the moral destruction of evil Germany. I'm saying that all things considered, Hitler provided enough justification for the West making preemptive moves.
 
Maybe not "tomorrow," but Hitler pursued versions of extra-European expansion even during his lifetime. The point is that Hitler invited preemptive measures from the West. His actions and words weren't subtle.

Well I'm not sitting here saying he was a pacifist or anything. He was pretty clear about wanting to take back the territory lost in WWI, specifically where German speaking peoples resided. But there weren't really any "extra-Euro" moves. The Wehrmacht was dragged into Africa by Italy's incompetent forces. Where else?

I'm not saying the war was moral, but I'm also not saying anything was irrational.

Well, from a Anglo-French perspective Germany appeared a much more present danger than Russia did, so in that case it definitely wasn't irrational. Hind-sight suggests this was a mistaken analysis, but it is hindsight. My original point going back to the other thread was much more about the error of the US getting involved in WWI at all, much less on the Allied side. Pure Anglophilia. Neither war was "moral", particularly when one of the Allies in WWII was a bloodier regime.

he did talk with Japan about taking the war to North America);

I'd be interested in reading anything on this that predated say, 1941-42, and in addition a conversation that wasn't one sided by Japan. Japan had determined the US naval power in the Pacific had to be smashed before they could do anything in the East. This has nothing to do with Hitler's ambitions. Once war starts getting declared though and nations start jumping in and picking sides, all conservative intent flies out the window and you start having to play it as it comes/lies.
 
He approached Japan prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor suggesting a joint offensive against the U.S.A. Even considering that such a declaration would be unlikely, Hitler was looking at options; and much of Germany's actions can be read entirely as provocation. Hitler may not have wanted war per se, but he certainly wanted to be able to go to war militarily.

Not all countries seek imperialism via military force. The Nazi ideology espouses a culture of military dominance and force, and that's what they sought to do to the best of their ability.
 
He approached Japan prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor suggesting a joint offensive against the U.S.A. Even considering that such a declaration would be unlikely, Hitler was looking at options; and much of Germany's actions can be read entirely as provocation. Hitler may not have wanted war per se, but he certainly wanted to be able to go to war militarily.

I didn't look hard but I couldn't find this. Also, we have plans on file in the US for invading pretty much every country in the world btw, so take that with a grain of salt. Standard military procedure. NATO probably has war plans for taking on Russia and China.

Not all countries seek imperialism via military force. The Nazi ideology espouses a culture of military dominance and force, and that's what they sought to do to the best of their ability.

You don't have imperialism without militarism....

On militarism though, Trump gave the first interview today where he sounded more intelligent than the rest of the candidates running now or in the last 2 decades. Still a lot of the standard eyerollable braggadicio, but he said (partial paraphrase) "I'm more militaristic than anyone, and the war in the Middle East was stupid, Vietnam was stupid.....Putin is going to get mired in there (the ME) now, I don't care if he's hitting ISIS....GWB was a disaster.....the TPP is a disaster. Almost sounding like Ron Paul until he starts saying money manipulation in our favor is good lol
 
Standard military procedure. NATO probably has war plans for taking on Russia and China.


You mean definitely, because despite innumerable fuckups they're not total morons.

(although, that said, the people that go on and on and on about how we're definitely going to be going to war with Russia are fucking mongs)
 
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6254

Now Muslim women are being physically attacked on the street (not that there’s anything especially new about this, I suspect, beyond the sudden attendant publicity) and Justin Trudeau ineffectually bleats “This is not Canada!” But he’s wrong: this is exactly Canada. Harper’s ploy wouldn’t stand a chance if this wasn’t Canada. And Trudeau should know: he was right there helping Harper build the damn thing when he cravenly supported a panopticon bill redefining “terrorist” as anyone who expresses support for someone the government doesn’t like. And because this is Canada, the only major political party with the ‘nads to vote against C-51 is now trailing badly in the polls.

Don’t talk to me about percentages. Don’t tell me that I’m being too harsh, that two thirds of Canada’s population wouldn’t spit on Harper if he was on fire, that he owes his power entirely to gerrymandered riding boundaries and vote-splitting on the left. That shouldn’t matter. Harper’s contempt for empirical fact, his evangelical devotion to ideology over evidence— his ongoing campaign to actively destroy evidence when it doesn’t accord with said ideology— is so blatant that gerrymandering every riding in the whole damn country shouldn’t be enough to save him in any nation whose mean IQ rises above room temperature. It’s like trying to claim that the USA is not populated by scientific illiterates; you’re not gonna make that case by pointing out that hey, when you give them a multiple-choice question about how long it takes the Earth to circle the sun, only half of them get it wrong.
 
I thought you were diggin' at the people who want to move to Canada if X Y and Z occur.

That needs to be criticized too.

The author's analogy interests you or?

I mean, yes; but I'm more generally fascinated by the way that scientific illiteracy informs larger political illiteracy. This doesn't mean that everyone needs to know the mathematics behind general relativity, but I think that comprehension of the basic premises of observation and perspective can have valuable consequences for our ability to discuss ethical and social issues.

Obviously, discussing literary thematics or ethical hypotheticals isn't the same as discussing the arithmetic behind Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation - but coming to terms with the Uncertainty Relation in an abstract sense can help us better understand things like relativity in social circumstances. I see arg make appeals to common sense all the time, and this is a nearly ubiquitous move. I encounter people wedded religiously to their convictions, without the capacity for self-criticism or skepticism. These things lead to the kinds of asinine ignorance Watts is talking about: for instance, people not knowing something simple like how long it takes for the earth to circle the sun.
 
http://qz.com/527844/im-a-phillips-and-even-i-dont-trust-the-phillips-curve/

As a Phillips, I take little pleasure in saying this. But all curves—Phillips included—are economic models. And economic models, as we’ve written before, are always wrong.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Nobel Prize-winning economist Lars Hansen, who said this in a discussion on the terrific Econtalk podcast.

Models are always wrong. It seems kind of strange to hear that initially, but there is a sense in which models are simplifications; they are abstractions. And they are wrong.
 
Was reading an article on autism Land linked to at SSC, and then it linked to this, which was just as interesting as a sort of a confirmation of my bias:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biology-is-mutable/

Society is really hard to change. We figured drug use was “just” a social problem, and it’s obvious how to solve social problems, so we gave kids nice little lessons in school about how you should Just Say No. There were advertisements in sports and video games about how Winners Don’t Do Drugs. And just in case that didn’t work, the cherry on the social engineering sundae was putting all the drug users in jail, where they would have a lot of time to think about what they’d done and be so moved by the prospect of further punishment that they would come clean.

And that is why, even to this day, nobody uses drugs.

On the other hand, biology is gratifyingly easy to change. Sometimes it’s just giving people more iron supplements. But the best example is lead. Banning lead was probably kind of controversial at the time, but in the end some refineries probably had to change their refining process and some gas stations had to put up “UNLEADED” signs and then we were done. And crime dropped like fifty percent in a couple of decades – including many forms of drug abuse.

Saying “Tendency toward drug abuse is primarily determined by fixed brain structure” sounds callous, like you’re abandoning drug abusers to die. But maybe it means you can fight the problem head-on instead of forcing kids to attend more and more useless classes where cartoon animals sing about how happy they are not using cocaine.

What about obesity? We put a lot of social effort into fighting obesity: labeling foods, banning soda machines from school, banning large sodas from New York, programs in schools to promote healthy eating, doctors chewing people out when they gain weight, the profusion of gyms and Weight Watchers programs, and let’s not forget a level of stigma against obese people so strong that I am constantly having to deal with their weight-related suicide attempts. As a result, everyone…keeps gaining weight at exactly the same rate they have been for the past couple decades. Wouldn’t it be nice if increasing obesity was driven at least in part by changes in the intestinal microbiota that we could reverse through careful antibiotic use? Or by trans-fats?

What about poor school performance? From the social angle, we try No Child Left Behind, Common Core Curriculum, stronger teachers’ unions, weaker teachers’ unions, more pay for teachers, less pay for teachers, more prayer in school, banning prayer in school, condemning racism, condemning racism even more, et cetera. But the poorest fifth or so of kids show spectacular cognitive gains from multivitamin supplementation, and doctors continue to tell everyone schools should start later so children can get enough sleep and continue to be totally ignored despite strong evidence in favor.

Makes sense SA is a psychiatrist (or at least claims to be). Seems to be a particular outlook that attracts people to the field of psychology.