Very interesting, very deep topics that were highlighted here! Thanks Mary Jane. I think it's likely that we are headed for a more multi-polar world in our lifetime- this process has probably already begun. Whether that will be a good thing or not, I don't know, but I think that's where the world is headed. I was interested by what the woman journalist, Luciana Borsatti was saying, I would have liked to have heard more from her. Specifically, I am interested by what you quoted her as saying: "ethics should be based on reality." This is similar to my feelings about ideology, or ideologies. They usually fail because they do not try to conform to reality, ideologues care more about trying to make reality square with their ideology rather than the other way around. This leads to disappointment and disillusionment among peoples when problems are not solved, and this then leads to political chaos. I think people in the political realm need to create solutions that are firmly grounded in reality. Our overall goals should remain- for example, for progressives this includes reducing hunger and poverty, reducing fossil fuel dependence, improving education, etc. But we should be willing to be flexible and creative about how to solve these issues, because reality, unlike ideology, is not rigid. Not sure if I made sense, but that's my two cents.
Yes. We are fighting instead of cooperating. It feels like when I set the contrast on my TV to maximum and there's nothing left but black and white. We have forgotten our colors of reality.
You say "ideologies fail because the don't try to conform with reality." The problem is, what we consider "reality". One might consider it as the "natural" state of things in a society, as something necessary because "real"; another might think that "reality", in a social context, is something constructed by the members of that society, constructed upon certain ideas and ideals rather than others, and therefore not necessary but changeable, buildable, malleable. So if you say that our morals should be based on reality you belong to the first group, that consider "reality" as something necessary, as if it was natural. But, as a human society, I don't think we are anything natural. On the contrary our society is greatly artificial, in the sense that, how the relationship among citizens and groups of citizens configure today, is completely made up by us, based on and through ideals that we put forth and promoted some time in our past. For example, when you get offended by an angry stranger on the street, you will most likely maintain calm and try to get away from the situation (reality). If you were born in another time or another culture, nonetheless, you'd probably take it as an offense to your honor and get ready to physically fight back. Let's make another example. When you go voting, you would probably choose your candidate based on their program and ideas, no matter what gender or race they belong to (reality). If you, the same Jorge, were born two hundred years ago, it's safe to say you'd have likely not voted for a president candidate who was a woman, no matter her ideas and political program. Based on this argument, although I understand where your sentiment comes from, I would rather work on understanding what are the values and ideals we want to put forth for the society of the future first, and then think about applying them to the "reality".
@@WhatashameMaryJane Maria, you totally misinterpreted my comment! I actually think we completely agree with each other, if anything the point I was trying to make was in alignment with your comment, but I may have not expressed my thoughts very well. Actually, I was pretty clear in the next to last sentence of my comment where I said "reality, unlike ideology, is not rigid." I don't know how you concluded from that sentence that I believe reality is natural and not created. What I meant is that ideologies need to adapt to reality as it changes. You wrote- "So if you say that our morals should be based on reality you belong to the first group." I never said that- I try to choose my words carefully. I didn't say 'morals', I said ideology, and I never said ideology should be 'based' on reality, I said it needed to 'adapt' to the reality of the moment. I think you didn't read my words carefully (it's okay :) !). I agree with you about our reality being a function of the context of the particular moment in time in which we live; as someone who studied history at university and who loves to read history, I think a lot about this. I strongly disagree with people (usually it's very young people) who try to strictly apply the attitudes of the present day to humans who lived in the past, and judge them too harshly. I find that kind of attitude to be way too smug, self-satisfactory and self-congratulatory, as if our present day enlightenment is fully due to our own personal awesomeness, rather than a result of humanity having had to learn through centuries and millennia of human suffering what practices and what values are beneficial and which are harmful. There is little doubt that if you or I were born in the world of 400 years ago, we would be very likely to think slavery was perfectly fine and might even own slaves if we were of a certain socioeconomic background. We might have certain cultural or ethnic prejudices that were more normal at the time, even if we were otherwise perfectly decent people (for the time). You're right, I could have easily had racist and/or sexist attitudes had I been born and raised in a different context. I give most of the credit for my current, hopefully enlightened views not so much to my own inherent qualities as a person but because of the context in which I was raised. (This gets us into a potential philosophical discussion about nature vs. nurture which I would love to talk about with you at some point). And it's certainly possible that some of the things you and I both think right now, which we consider perfectly normal, will be considered horrible 200-300 years from now. It's very possible that many minority viewpoints and practices of today will be more commonplace in just a few decades, and that will be good. So certainly, reality is malleable. Nothing stays the same- I'm pretty sure we have already discussed this in the past, you and I (newsletter-related). What I was talking about with my comment was more about political persuasion. Unfortunately, I think you either misunderstood what I said or I did not express my point very well. I wasn't suggesting that our morals should be based on some absolute, "natural" reality- absolutely not, if that was the case then I would believe that nothing should ever change and that any of the changes that occur in society are by definition undesirable. I never even used the word "morals"- I was talking about political ideologies, like socialism or conservatism. I am very much a progressive, not a conservative, and I think change is inevitable. But if we do want to change things, we need to talk to people in a way that is understandable to them, to reach people where they are, emotionally and intellectually, and practically. One of the tendencies I see with movements that are on the left of the political spectrum is that they only speak in ways that tend to appeal to people that already agree with them- and when I say already agree I mean agree 99.5% or more. Anything less than that is considered a betrayal of the ideology. This attitude accomplishes nothing. So my point was that our end-goals don't necessarily need to change, but I do think that our means of achieving them can and should change if necessary. An example of this could be climate change. The practical end goal for environmentalists is, say, 3 things- reducing carbon emissions, building more sustainable communities, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuel vehicles, for example. Okay great, but different people and groups have different beliefs about how to achieve these goals, and some of these beliefs - about the process, not the end goal but the process - are akin to religious beliefs in their rigidity. Some people are completely opposed to nuclear power as an alternative energy, and are unwilling to give an inch; some people want us to transition to electric cars, while others believe we should only promote bikes and walking and get rid of cars altogether. If people become too attached to the process, and are unwilling to adapt it to what actually will work in that moment and what will bring along the most people into the cause, then their beliefs turn into an inflexible ideology that is doomed to fail. I can anticipate a rebuttal from you. You might be thinking - we have to change reality, not just accept it as it is and adapt to it, but change it! Yes! I agree. But we can only do that by focusing on the bigger picture, the general overall goal, and not being too particular about the specifics. In order to change the current reality, we need to change minds, and I think this is only possible by getting small, short term goals accomplished, to demonstrate to other people that the cause we are fighting for is possible. I don't know if that is a good example, but it's an illustration of not letting an ideology be ruled by the process of achieving the ends that we desire, but instead it actually being about the end goals themselves. Instead of being rigid about the methods of ideological persuasion and implementation, we should be flexible about those things and less so about our long term end-goals. Otherwise, ideological groups will continue to only speak to the converted on school campuses or in political meetings, and will never create the coalitions needed to practically get anything done. I know that you value practical action, i.e. "getting your hands dirty", over theoretical discussions, and this is exactly what I am talking about. Being practical and getting dirty hands means being flexible, which I think fits in well with what you said about reality being constructed rather than natural. I hope my answer was not too long :) and I hope you do read this comment and don't miss it. Please respond so that I know you did see it. Hope you're doing well, Maria- all my best to you. PS- I would vote for you to be president, or prime minister ;)
@@WhatashameMaryJane that’s the most important one of your comments^^: “… you are getting closer and closer… “ The amount of Objects rises exponentially. If there is more than one ‘true’ it’s underlying might work on basis: many-valued logic Objects - try canceling them out 🌊
Spero che Maria non abbia tolto quel commento di "yu yu" perché volevo rispondergli. Ho letto quello che ho scritto come una correzione e mentre sono in accordo con te più o meno, io, però, te mi voglio spiegare perché no faccio a utilizzare il congiuntivo quando, in quel caso, esprimo l'incertezza?
Hey cool, I thought that was Udine from the opening aerial footage. Love it. This is timely for me because I've recently discovered Peter Zeihan who discusses these same topics. Very interesting.
(8:00) What a strange map. Orange: States with American troops. Afghanistan? Ukraine? Mexico? Syria? (9:37) This is false, of course. That all those sanctions didn't have any effect whatsoever on Russia is completely impossible and ridiculous. The Kremlin itself disagrees with Caracciolo: "The illegitimate restrictions imposed on the Russian economy may indeed have a negative impact on it in the medium term," Putin admitted publicly in March. And he is normally forced to use propaganda euphemisms!
Caracciolo did NOT say that, I did, and it was a very poorly reported part of his talk. He brought a couple of points showing how the sanctions affected Russia less than what we initially expected, included that the Russian GDP has increased. I reported it way too simplistically in this video and I warmly encourage everyone reading this to listen to his own words at minute 30:40 of his talk ruclips.net/video/TYLeL2_JjUY/видео.html
@@WhatashameMaryJane As far as I know, there is no American regular soldier in Afghanistan or Ukraine, and I doubt about Mexico and Syria. But maybe I'm wrong.
Ho controllato tra i commenti “spam”, ma non c’è. Sicuro di averlo effettivamente pubblicato? A volte, quando ci si mette lungo tempo a scrivere un commento, quando arriva il momento in cui si clicca “pubblica” il commento sparisce senza che venga effettivamente inoltrato. Non so perché. A me è successo talmente tante volte che ho imparato, quando scrivo commenti particolarmente lunghi, a fare un seleziona tutto e copia prima di cliccare il pulsante.
@@WhatashameMaryJane Urca, non lo sapevo! è molto possibile che sia come dici tu, dato che ero dovuto andare a cercare alcuni titoli ed effettivamente ci ho messo un po'. Teoricamente l'ho visto pubblicato nella pagina appena ho cliccato, ma è sparito quando per caso dopo una mezz'oretta ho fatto il _refresh_ . Riproverò! Grazie comunque per il _feedback_ ; mi era già capitato in due occasioni su altri canali di scrivere due commenti lunghi e vederli sparire senza motivo pensando fossero stati cancellati. La cosa è decisamente seccante!
@@ilmelangolo Molto seccante, concordo. Specialmente perchè accade di solito con commenti che ci hai messo lungo tempo a scrivere. Se lavori su Macintosh, tieni premuto command e schiacci prima A poi V.
@@WhatashameMaryJane Purtroppo non so perchè ma non funziona. Ci ho riprovato a scrivere la lista con i titoli (alla fine era una cosa di neanche dieci righe, non un papiro egizio...), ho fatto copia e incolla come mi hai detto, il commento viene preso ma poi riaggiorno la pagina e il commento sparisce. Ho tenuto apposta aperto il video su due pagine diverse così avevo il back-up, lo postavo su una pagina e poi riaggiornavo sull'altra ma niente, sparisce. Ed era un commento senza link esterni (so che alcuni canali sono pre-impostati per cancellare i commenti contenenti link, non so il tuo). Boh!
How do Italians discuss that Italy is leaning more and more to the right and embracing an isolationist mind set. Oh and that the north wants to split off for decades now
In eastern Germany, the confusion seems closer to the German Empire than to Russia. 🙈 The Federal Republic of Germany has not yet been able to establish itself in its specific indeterminacy in the East, but I am cautiously optimistic that we too will soon arrive at a consistent diversified mood.
@@WhatashameMaryJane In the East, after the fall of the Wall, primarily two directions emerged as dominant. One camp stuck to Russia and the other oriented itself to the pre-GDR, hard-right era. The Russian-oriented camp has basically disappeared today. The East learned Russian as a foreign language back then, which led to a better understanding of the Russian way of thinking than in the West. Which was basically an enrichment for Germany. Personally, the East seems to me to be a bit more open to conspiracy theories in general. But that doesn't have to mean anything. The situation in Germany is perhaps comparable to northern and southern Italy plus Bavaria. (In terms of mutual hostility. Not the reflection north/south to Italy, probably caused by the Alps 😁)
“Die häufigsten in Deutschland gelehrten Fremdsprachen an allgemeinbildenden Schulen sind Englisch, meist als erste Fremdsprache, sowie Latein, Französisch, Spanisch, Italienisch, Russisch, Dänisch und Niederländisch.”
Very interesting series! Please continue. America is an empire though. They don´t have as many pure colonies like European countries in the past, because they can control others otherwise. They had and have colonies though: cuba and Philipines in the past, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii... today.
So they control Guam? Wow, what an empire. To even use the term in the same sense as European colonialism, when entire continents were up for grabs and dominitation, demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the current geopolitical situation.
@@gs7828 His men docked off the shores of what is now known as Nicaragua. This book explains it all. Sanford Libraries - Nicaragua, cuna de América. : Nicaragua, cradle of "América." Managua, 1969.
Udine bella città .
Very interesting, very deep topics that were highlighted here! Thanks Mary Jane. I think it's likely that we are headed for a more multi-polar world in our lifetime- this process has probably already begun. Whether that will be a good thing or not, I don't know, but I think that's where the world is headed.
I was interested by what the woman journalist, Luciana Borsatti was saying, I would have liked to have heard more from her. Specifically, I am interested by what you quoted her as saying: "ethics should be based on reality." This is similar to my feelings about ideology, or ideologies. They usually fail because they do not try to conform to reality, ideologues care more about trying to make reality square with their ideology rather than the other way around. This leads to disappointment and disillusionment among peoples when problems are not solved, and this then leads to political chaos. I think people in the political realm need to create solutions that are firmly grounded in reality. Our overall goals should remain- for example, for progressives this includes reducing hunger and poverty, reducing fossil fuel dependence, improving education, etc. But we should be willing to be flexible and creative about how to solve these issues, because reality, unlike ideology, is not rigid. Not sure if I made sense, but that's my two cents.
Yes. We are fighting instead of cooperating. It feels like when I set the contrast on my TV to maximum and there's nothing left but black and white. We have forgotten our colors of reality.
@@Qwerty8 Very nicely said Qwerty, I agree 👍 that's why I don't watch TV :)
You say "ideologies fail because the don't try to conform with reality." The problem is, what we consider "reality". One might consider it as the "natural" state of things in a society, as something necessary because "real"; another might think that "reality", in a social context, is something constructed by the members of that society, constructed upon certain ideas and ideals rather than others, and therefore not necessary but changeable, buildable, malleable.
So if you say that our morals should be based on reality you belong to the first group, that consider "reality" as something necessary, as if it was natural. But, as a human society, I don't think we are anything natural. On the contrary our society is greatly artificial, in the sense that, how the relationship among citizens and groups of citizens configure today, is completely made up by us, based on and through ideals that we put forth and promoted some time in our past.
For example, when you get offended by an angry stranger on the street, you will most likely maintain calm and try to get away from the situation (reality). If you were born in another time or another culture, nonetheless, you'd probably take it as an offense to your honor and get ready to physically fight back. Let's make another example. When you go voting, you would probably choose your candidate based on their program and ideas, no matter what gender or race they belong to (reality). If you, the same Jorge, were born two hundred years ago, it's safe to say you'd have likely not voted for a president candidate who was a woman, no matter her ideas and political program.
Based on this argument, although I understand where your sentiment comes from, I would rather work on understanding what are the values and ideals we want to put forth for the society of the future first, and then think about applying them to the "reality".
@@WhatashameMaryJane Maria, you totally misinterpreted my comment! I actually think we completely agree with each other, if anything the point I was trying to make was in alignment with your comment, but I may have not expressed my thoughts very well. Actually, I was pretty clear in the next to last sentence of my comment where I said "reality, unlike ideology, is not rigid." I don't know how you concluded from that sentence that I believe reality is natural and not created. What I meant is that ideologies need to adapt to reality as it changes. You wrote- "So if you say that our morals should be based on reality you belong to the first group." I never said that- I try to choose my words carefully. I didn't say 'morals', I said ideology, and I never said ideology should be 'based' on reality, I said it needed to 'adapt' to the reality of the moment. I think you didn't read my words carefully (it's okay :) !).
I agree with you about our reality being a function of the context of the particular moment in time in which we live; as someone who studied history at university and who loves to read history, I think a lot about this. I strongly disagree with people (usually it's very young people) who try to strictly apply the attitudes of the present day to humans who lived in the past, and judge them too harshly. I find that kind of attitude to be way too smug, self-satisfactory and self-congratulatory, as if our present day enlightenment is fully due to our own personal awesomeness, rather than a result of humanity having had to learn through centuries and millennia of human suffering what practices and what values are beneficial and which are harmful. There is little doubt that if you or I were born in the world of 400 years ago, we would be very likely to think slavery was perfectly fine and might even own slaves if we were of a certain socioeconomic background. We might have certain cultural or ethnic prejudices that were more normal at the time, even if we were otherwise perfectly decent people (for the time). You're right, I could have easily had racist and/or sexist attitudes had I been born and raised in a different context. I give most of the credit for my current, hopefully enlightened views not so much to my own inherent qualities as a person but because of the context in which I was raised. (This gets us into a potential philosophical discussion about nature vs. nurture which I would love to talk about with you at some point). And it's certainly possible that some of the things you and I both think right now, which we consider perfectly normal, will be considered horrible 200-300 years from now. It's very possible that many minority viewpoints and practices of today will be more commonplace in just a few decades, and that will be good.
So certainly, reality is malleable. Nothing stays the same- I'm pretty sure we have already discussed this in the past, you and I (newsletter-related). What I was talking about with my comment was more about political persuasion. Unfortunately, I think you either misunderstood what I said or I did not express my point very well. I wasn't suggesting that our morals should be based on some absolute, "natural" reality- absolutely not, if that was the case then I would believe that nothing should ever change and that any of the changes that occur in society are by definition undesirable. I never even used the word "morals"- I was talking about political ideologies, like socialism or conservatism. I am very much a progressive, not a conservative, and I think change is inevitable. But if we do want to change things, we need to talk to people in a way that is understandable to them, to reach people where they are, emotionally and intellectually, and practically. One of the tendencies I see with movements that are on the left of the political spectrum is that they only speak in ways that tend to appeal to people that already agree with them- and when I say already agree I mean agree 99.5% or more. Anything less than that is considered a betrayal of the ideology. This attitude accomplishes nothing.
So my point was that our end-goals don't necessarily need to change, but I do think that our means of achieving them can and should change if necessary. An example of this could be climate change. The practical end goal for environmentalists is, say, 3 things- reducing carbon emissions, building more sustainable communities, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuel vehicles, for example. Okay great, but different people and groups have different beliefs about how to achieve these goals, and some of these beliefs - about the process, not the end goal but the process - are akin to religious beliefs in their rigidity. Some people are completely opposed to nuclear power as an alternative energy, and are unwilling to give an inch; some people want us to transition to electric cars, while others believe we should only promote bikes and walking and get rid of cars altogether. If people become too attached to the process, and are unwilling to adapt it to what actually will work in that moment and what will bring along the most people into the cause, then their beliefs turn into an inflexible ideology that is doomed to fail. I can anticipate a rebuttal from you. You might be thinking - we have to change reality, not just accept it as it is and adapt to it, but change it! Yes! I agree. But we can only do that by focusing on the bigger picture, the general overall goal, and not being too particular about the specifics. In order to change the current reality, we need to change minds, and I think this is only possible by getting small, short term goals accomplished, to demonstrate to other people that the cause we are fighting for is possible.
I don't know if that is a good example, but it's an illustration of not letting an ideology be ruled by the process of achieving the ends that we desire, but instead it actually being about the end goals themselves. Instead of being rigid about the methods of ideological persuasion and implementation, we should be flexible about those things and less so about our long term end-goals. Otherwise, ideological groups will continue to only speak to the converted on school campuses or in political meetings, and will never create the coalitions needed to practically get anything done. I know that you value practical action, i.e. "getting your hands dirty", over theoretical discussions, and this is exactly what I am talking about. Being practical and getting dirty hands means being flexible, which I think fits in well with what you said about reality being constructed rather than natural. I hope my answer was not too long :) and I hope you do read this comment and don't miss it. Please respond so that I know you did see it. Hope you're doing well, Maria- all my best to you.
PS- I would vote for you to be president, or prime minister ;)
@@WhatashameMaryJane that’s the most important one of your comments^^: “… you are getting closer and closer… “
The amount of Objects rises exponentially.
If there is more than one ‘true’ it’s underlying might work on basis: many-valued logic
Objects - try canceling them out 🌊
I'm curious to find out how Italians discuss it.
Lasciami prendere uno sparo nel buoi qui per dire che Maria non le piaccia tantissimo il governo di Giorgia Meloni.
Spero che Maria non abbia tolto quel commento di "yu yu" perché volevo rispondergli. Ho letto quello che ho scritto come una correzione e mentre sono in accordo con te più o meno, io, però, te mi voglio spiegare perché no faccio a utilizzare il congiuntivo quando, in quel caso, esprimo l'incertezza?
(West) Germany is not just confused. 🤣🤣🤣
Hey cool, I thought that was Udine from the opening aerial footage. Love it. This is timely for me because I've recently discovered Peter Zeihan who discusses these same topics. Very interesting.
I see from Wikipedia his latest publication is exactly about deglobalization
A better question is why the European Union doesn't seem to have long term staying power.
That deserves a whole talk, if not a whole festival.
(8:00) What a strange map. Orange: States with American troops. Afghanistan? Ukraine? Mexico? Syria?
(9:37) This is false, of course. That all those sanctions didn't have any effect whatsoever on Russia is completely impossible and ridiculous. The Kremlin itself disagrees with Caracciolo: "The illegitimate restrictions imposed on the Russian economy may indeed have a negative impact on it in the medium term," Putin admitted publicly in March. And he is normally forced to use propaganda euphemisms!
Caracciolo did NOT say that, I did, and it was a very poorly reported part of his talk. He brought a couple of points showing how the sanctions affected Russia less than what we initially expected, included that the Russian GDP has increased. I reported it way too simplistically in this video and I warmly encourage everyone reading this to listen to his own words at minute 30:40 of his talk ruclips.net/video/TYLeL2_JjUY/видео.html
(what do you find strange in the map at 8:00?)
@@WhatashameMaryJane As far as I know, there is no American regular soldier in Afghanistan or Ukraine, and I doubt about Mexico and Syria. But maybe I'm wrong.
Finché ancora esistono 😢
I really need some time for your content. This time my brain has to work harder than usual. Very nice 🥰
That’s very good. Thank you Qwerty
*God also has a plan.*
(avevo scritto un commento con dei consigli di lettura sulla Russia; è sparito...)🤔
Ho controllato tra i commenti “spam”, ma non c’è. Sicuro di averlo effettivamente pubblicato? A volte, quando ci si mette lungo tempo a scrivere un commento, quando arriva il momento in cui si clicca “pubblica” il commento sparisce senza che venga effettivamente inoltrato. Non so perché. A me è successo talmente tante volte che ho imparato, quando scrivo commenti particolarmente lunghi, a fare un seleziona tutto e copia prima di cliccare il pulsante.
@@WhatashameMaryJane Urca, non lo sapevo! è molto possibile che sia come dici tu, dato che ero dovuto andare a cercare alcuni titoli ed effettivamente ci ho messo un po'. Teoricamente l'ho visto pubblicato nella pagina appena ho cliccato, ma è sparito quando per caso dopo una mezz'oretta ho fatto il _refresh_ . Riproverò! Grazie comunque per il _feedback_ ; mi era già capitato in due occasioni su altri canali di scrivere due commenti lunghi e vederli sparire senza motivo pensando fossero stati cancellati. La cosa è decisamente seccante!
@@ilmelangolo Molto seccante, concordo. Specialmente perchè accade di solito con commenti che ci hai messo lungo tempo a scrivere. Se lavori su Macintosh, tieni premuto command e schiacci prima A poi V.
@@WhatashameMaryJane Purtroppo non so perchè ma non funziona. Ci ho riprovato a scrivere la lista con i titoli (alla fine era una cosa di neanche dieci righe, non un papiro egizio...), ho fatto copia e incolla come mi hai detto, il commento viene preso ma poi riaggiorno la pagina e il commento sparisce. Ho tenuto apposta aperto il video su due pagine diverse così avevo il back-up, lo postavo su una pagina e poi riaggiornavo sull'altra ma niente, sparisce. Ed era un commento senza link esterni (so che alcuni canali sono pre-impostati per cancellare i commenti contenenti link, non so il tuo). Boh!
How do Italians discuss that Italy is leaning more and more to the right and embracing an isolationist mind set. Oh and that the north wants to split off for decades now
back to Udine
In eastern Germany, the confusion seems closer to the German Empire than to Russia. 🙈
The Federal Republic of Germany has not yet been able to establish itself in its specific indeterminacy in the East, but I am cautiously optimistic that we too will soon arrive at a consistent diversified mood.
Can you explain yourself?
@@WhatashameMaryJane
In the East, after the fall of the Wall, primarily two directions emerged as dominant.
One camp stuck to Russia and the other oriented itself to the pre-GDR, hard-right era.
The Russian-oriented camp has basically disappeared today. The East learned Russian as a foreign language back then, which led to a better understanding of the Russian way of thinking than in the West.
Which was basically an enrichment for Germany.
Personally, the East seems to me to be a bit more open to conspiracy theories in general. But that doesn't have to mean anything.
The situation in Germany is perhaps comparable to northern and southern Italy plus Bavaria. (In terms of mutual hostility. Not the reflection north/south to Italy, probably caused by the Alps 😁)
“Die häufigsten in Deutschland gelehrten Fremdsprachen an allgemeinbildenden Schulen sind Englisch, meist als erste Fremdsprache, sowie Latein, Französisch, Spanisch, Italienisch, Russisch, Dänisch und Niederländisch.”
Very interesting series! Please continue.
America is an empire though. They don´t have as many pure colonies like European countries in the past, because they can control others otherwise. They had and have colonies though: cuba and Philipines in the past, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii... today.
USA, not America.
@@wetguavass America.
@@Top-Kek America - 1483 / USA - 1776
93
So they control Guam? Wow, what an empire. To even use the term in the same sense as European colonialism, when entire continents were up for grabs and dominitation, demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the current geopolitical situation.
"America" is a Spanish word, means, land of the Amerisque. ... a tribe from Nicaragua.
No
Amerigo Vespucci.
@@Alessandro_Berlusc si
@@gs7828 His men docked off the shores of what is now known as Nicaragua.
This book explains it all.
Sanford Libraries - Nicaragua, cuna de América. : Nicaragua, cradle of "América."
Managua, 1969.