Quote: (01-22-2019 12:03 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:
Quote: (01-22-2019 11:51 AM)Waqqle Wrote:
This is along the lines of what I said earlier and I agree with you. When you are losing, appeal to compassion.
When you are winning, either destroy your enemy completely or make an ally of them lest they re-form and re-engage you at a later point in time.
A former enemy who has been made into an ally is more loyal than an ally who has always been an ally because, unlike the latter, the former will forever feel that they must prove themselves and their loyalty lest the job of their complete destruction be resumed and brought to completion.
This is very untrue. If we look at history, former enemies are much more likely to betray you because they often do not give up their former grudges and are resentful of your power.
What makes men loyal is when they fight by your side and share in the spoils. If you seek to make an enemy into a loyal ally you must give them significant benefits.
There is no way to turn Liberals to the cause. No way to "red pill" them. They are in that group because of who they are, not what they believe. The majority of people just do and say what's popular... those people will just follow whoever is in control.
I'm just saying here that this is like Herpes. Its going to keep flaring up and the only thing that will stop it is if someone in a position of power and authority starts punishing media people for their evil.
Just went back and edited that to say "often." Thanks for catching it. I make typos a lot. When I referred to enemies who become allies, I don't mean people who accept subjugation under humiliating conditions after surrendering in a war like the Koreans under the Japanese Empire. I mean enemies who, after you have killed or expelled most or all of their leadership, are made allies through the provision of various benefits and privileges that they could not secure on their own and even in many cases made full citizens within the empire with all the rights and status of one of your native-born subjects.
This can be seen in the case of Scotland. Once bitterly anti-English, virtually all major population zones in Scotland voted against independence (with the exception of Glasgow) and Scots account for a disproportionately high number of both British military veterans and casualties in British wars. Since their absorption into the UK as allies, they seem to have gone out of their way (speaking generally of the nation as a whole, not individuals) to prove themselves and contribute to the UK. And why did they refuse independence? Because Scotland is a money fire. It consumes far more than it gives in terms of economics and tax revenue. The benefits it gets as a member nation of the UK are those benefits which it would not likely be able to secure on its own and, now that its people are accustomed to said benefits and the lifestyles which they afford, a great many of them will likely be willing to fight to preserve the UK should independence ever come up as a serious possibility again.
Another example of this is Puerto Rico which follows a virtually identical pattern to that of Scotland. Formerly at war with the US as part of Spain, vastly overrepresented among US military personnel, entirely reliant upon the imperial government as it is an economic basket case incapable of sustaining its current affluence independently, etc.
Like London did with Scotland, Washington made allies of the Puerto Ricans by throwing money and benefits at them, increasing the value of their travel documents, and bringing massive numbers of them into the US military. The same can also be said for American Samoa and Guam which are the two American territories which now have the highest per capita representation in the ranks of US military despite the fact that they used to be part of separate countries. They have been made allies and are now more loyal to the empire than even most white Americans born in Virginia and New York because their homelands are entirely dependent upon the empire for absolutely everything.
Another example is the Philippines where the general population tends to have a higher opinion of the US than Americans do. This is in spite of the fact that the US was horribly brutal in the Philippine-American War and did originally enter the country as a foreign invader. So why do Filipinos love America so much? Because, unlike the Spaniards (who previously ruled and never managed to fully subdue the population), the US (after killing and/or exiling most of the major resistance leaders) built schools, taught people to read and speak English, built the postal system, infrastructure, etc. and provided Filipinos with the privilege of living and working in the US where they could send money back home in amounts previously unimaginable. Virtually the entire education system of the Philippines was built by the US and still follows the American model. During the American colonial period, the Philippines had the best postal system, roads, education, and infrastructure in all of Asia (possibly just behind Japan) and they were only able to have that because of the US. On average, Filipinos have more good things to say about the US than Americans do even still today as they are no longer a colony and it is a rare individual who does not wish to visit the US at least once. This is because they were made allies and still today benefit hugely from their closeness with the US, a colonial overlord which at one time only a little over a century ago ruled them with a bloody iron fist. Filipinos are strongly represented in the ranks of the US military as well.
Examples could go on all day but that's the basic pattern: Eliminate most or all of the leadership, shower the populace (most of whom have no real loyalty or stake in the elite leadership) with benefits that they could not secure independently, and continue this until they become used to their status within the empire and/or as an ally to it. Once this pattern has been run through, it is more likely than not that the majority of the populace will be more loyal to the empire than most of the natives who originally built it because, more than the natives, they are truly dependent on it and would stand to lose much more if it should be dissolved or compromised whereas the natives are likely putting in more than they get back from their own elite ruling class to sustain the empire as well as all of its holdings and alliances.
As for liberalism as a philosophical plague, yes, it will keep popping up as we see explained in the Fate of Empires. None of this is entirely new.