Fox of France

As soon as Professor Fafnir's article was published, it immediately aroused strong repercussions. Because of this article, the American people are openly asked to give up the "unrealistic dream of a great country" and pursue those seemingly small but more tangible happiness.

Professor Fafnir said in the article that the United States of America has deviated from the basic pursuit when he founded the country. When the country was founded, the people of North America did not want to build a so-called "big and powerful country" because they all witnessed a "big country" , How does a "powerful country" oppress and enslave its people.

Back then, it was precisely to escape religious persecution by a "powerful country" that some ancestors fled to North America. Since then, the reason why North America will set off a war of independence is entirely because of the squeeze of a "powerful country".

When North America became independent, one of the worries of the American people was whether they would face 3,000 tyrants within a mile after they drove away the tyrant who was 3,000 miles away. Therefore, at the beginning, the people of North America were very alert to the government. There are many restrictions on the power of the government.

It is precisely because of this that the people of North America were able to enjoy a free, peaceful and happy life for a certain period of time. However, this free and happy life is in danger of being destroyed by the ambition to become a "powerful country".

Because one of the musts of a "powerful country" is that the government must concentrate huge financial and material resources. Wasn't the reason why Britain oppressed and enslaved the people in its country and its territories back then to concentrate these financial and material resources?

There is only so much wealth in the world, and this wealth is not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the government. "Strong country" actually refers to a strong government, so if you want to become a "powerful country", you must search for the people and compete with the people for profit.

Today in the United States, there is a very bad tendency to want to build a "strong country." It is precisely because of this tendency that the United States will continue to try to expand its territory, and engage in armed friction with the surrounding Indian tribes and hostile countries in the north, and even with friendly countries that helped North America win independence. And eventually led to war.

Professor Fafnir worries that it's all one big conspiracy. Some people are using war to try to establish a big government that can arbitrarily interfere with the freedom of the people. The pursuit of becoming a "powerful country" is exactly the manifestation of this conspiracy.

So in the end, Professor Fafnir called on everyone to be more vigilant, refuse the temptation to become a "powerful country", and keep the dignity of ordinary people.

To be honest, Fafnir's article is so full of holes that it doesn't stand up at all. Among other things, isn't France a powerful country? Don't the French people have dignity?

So of course someone came forward to criticize Fafnir. It's just the way they critique is interesting.

They first pointed out that Fafnir's opposition between "the rise of great powers" and "the dignity of small people" is very imprecise. Because in the world, there is a model that can not only guarantee the "rise of great powers" but also maintain the "dignity of small people", and that is the French Republic. It is obviously wrong to fix the "rise of great powers" on the line of an evil country like Britain without considering how to learn from a good example like the French Republic.

So why can France's rise of a great power and the dignity of the small people be at the same time, but Britain's can't?

"This is of course due to the difference between British culture and French culture." Professor of Harvard University and Doctor of Laws of the University of Paris, Mr. Grade made such an answer.

"Traditionally speaking, France is an agricultural country. Agriculture is characterized by restraint, cooperation, and the pursuit of harmony with the world. Therefore, when facing conflicts, the French are always willing to put themselves in other people's shoes. Therefore, we It can be seen that the French people are particularly capable of empathy. Therefore, when building a powerful country, their purpose is very clear, which is to safeguard the rights, freedom and justice of the people.

Let's take His Excellency Napoleon Bonaparte, the First Consul of France, as an example. Many Americans like to compare the administrations of President George Washington and Napoleon Bonaparte. But in fact, they are not comparable at all.

First of all, in terms of merit, in the war against British tyranny, although President Washington was the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, he also won some victories. But let's be honest, before France sent troops to the war, President Washington also had more defeats than victories. Even if it cannot be said that all of the most critical and difficult battles in the War of Independence were fought by General Lafayette and the French army under his command, most of them were due to the French army, which is very certain.

And when Napoleon Bonaparte was in power, under the siege of tyrants all over Europe, he turned the tide and completely defeated the tyrants in Europe. In terms of military achievements, Napoleon Bonaparte's power can completely match that of Alexander the Great. Such military strategists are comparable.

In terms of achievements in governing the country, President Washington is also not enough to compare with Napoleon Bonaparte's administration. The United States implements a federal system, and the states are basically in a state of autonomy. The president, especially President Washington, is more often just a coordinator among the states. But Napoleon Bonaparte was in power differently, he was the real administrator of France. The progress of France under his leadership has truly amazed the whole world. It is also because of this that Napoleon Bonaparte's ruling in France and even in the world has won far more support than any previous leader. Not even Augustus and Charlemagne can compare with him on this point.

Therefore, President Washington's political achievements and prestige cannot be compared with Napoleon Bonaparte's administration. In addition, Napoleon Bonaparte was a great jurist and a member of the French Academy of Sciences. In every respect, Napoleon Bonaparte's administration is the greatest great man of this era, even the perfect man of this era.

Therefore, when people praise President Washington for maintaining the democratic system, don't forget that President Washington has never had enough power and prestige to destroy democracy and establish a dictatorship.

But when Napoleon Bonaparte was in power, his power and prestige were enough to make him go a step further. The French people did not object to him becoming Dictator or even Augustus. However, Napoleon Bonaparte remained loyal to democracy and maintained democracy when he was in power. From this point of view, Napoleon Bonaparte really faced the temptation of power and defeated it when he was in power.

Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to overcome such a temptation when he was in power, never forgetting his original intention and being loyal to the French people? This of course has to be attributed to France's introverted, cooperative, and harmonious culture with the world.

What does British culture look like in comparison? British culture is the culture of pirates. Because of the lack of warm and fertile land, a large number of British people make a living as robbers and plunder. If you pay attention to various British legends, you will find that there are a lot of content in the British stories that praise thieves and pirates. They are not ashamed of looting and killing.

So we can see that, for the benefit of the outside world, the British will use pirates to deal with the Spaniards and the Dutch; internally, the British will use evil laws to deprive farmers of their land and oppress people of different beliefs. Because in British culture, these are not disgraces, but honors.

We Americans are only victims of this shameful culture. Our forefathers were persecuted for their faith in England, and had to risk their escape to North America. Later, it was also because we could not bear the oppression of the British that we launched the War of Independence.

But as another Bonaparte, President of the French Academy of Sciences, said: 'When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. ’ In this world, there is no other nation that has been persecuted by the British like us, and no other nation has been entangled with the British for such a long time. On the one hand, we are resisting the tyranny of the British, but on the other hand, the tyranny of the British has deeply penetrated into our culture, even our soul.

Therefore, when the Mayflower landed in North America, it got help from the local Indians and survived the most difficult period. But then we had conflicts with them because of beliefs and other things, and in the end, we killed them all. I'm not saying that the Indians are completely innocent, but why can't we use advanced culture and correct beliefs to inspire them, but adopt such a tyrannical method? Think about how Jesus Christ reacted when he was denied, insulted and persecuted by others, what about us? Do we still have the right to call ourselves his followers?

Besides, our Declaration of Independence could have been greater. However, when it was about to be published, some key words were deleted. These words criticize the British for aggression and kidnapping of some people who have never sinned against them - African blacks, and sell them as slaves to obtain bloody benefits.

Why do we delete such glorious words full of humanity? Because we too are profiting from the atrocities of the British, and in this case we are complicit in their crimes, and we are not willing to sacrifice our own interests for the sake of justice. Here, we can clearly see that the greed and tyranny of England also exist in us.

Let's compare France again. During the reign of the king, France also participated in the slave trade, and also relied on the exploitation of black slaves to obtain benefits. But when the flags of freedom, democracy, and fraternity were flying high, we saw how France responded to the just demands of the black people in Santo Domingo.

With the military power of France at that time, it was almost easy to extinguish the resistance of some blacks who did not have much combat effectiveness at all. If the British rule Santo Domingo, or even us, what will happen to this matter? There is no doubt that the blood of black people will dye the whole of Santo Domingo red.

But how did France handle the matter? France did not betray their conscience for the sake of profit. Not only did they not suppress these blacks, but they also recognized the citizenship rights of these blacks, and actively supported these blacks to establish their own country, so that Santo Domingo in the past and the current Republic of Haiti became A paradise and a paradise for black people. This is the practice that is truly in line with the spirit of Christ. The superiority of French culture is so perfectly displayed at this moment, which is admirable.

Only a civilization rooted in the thick earth can create such a broad and profound culture, can it breed a perfect man like Napoleon Bonaparte, and can it produce a great country like the French Republic. However, the pirate culture that emerged from the violent ocean can only lead us to continue to struggle in the plunder and slaughter of others and our own people. After all, human beings are not marine creatures. Human legs must stand on solid ground.

Be loyal to the earth, just like being loyal to your own conscience; embrace the earth, just like embracing our mother. Only by standing on the solid earth can we truly become a complete and powerful person.

I am not opposed to America becoming a "powerful country", nor do I think there is a contradiction between "the rise of a great power" and "the dignity of a small people". But the "Rise of a Great Power" must be based on the fact that we leave the tyrannical primitive sea and land on the honest and benevolent land. Otherwise, the "Rise of a Great Power" can become a trample on the "dignity of the small people."

Flee the sea and come to land, America! "

Such an article, of course, caused more controversy, especially those slave owners in the south, who were extremely angry. They cursed Greed crazily in their newspapers, declaring that he must go to hell.

At first, the men tried to argue with Greed in the newspapers. But it is obvious that those bumpkin slave owners can't even understand the most basic syllogisms, and their logical level is as low as those who understand kings. As a result, it was naturally refuted during the debate, and it could only end with a sentence of "what you said is all false".

Since the weapons of criticism can't deal with Grede, those southerners with abundant martial arts naturally thought of the criticism of weapons. And that's exactly what the Ministry of Truth wants to see.

The Ministry of Truth has noticed that some southern newspapers even openly called for "Heaven to punish the country's thieves". Moreover, some soldiers who participated in the massacre were extremely dissatisfied with Grade's criticism of them. For example, a southern militia organization called "Pure Faith" in Georgia had posted Grade's portrait and name on it while practicing target shooting. On target.

Their papers, of course, immediately exposed these things in the Massachusetts papers. Then the public opinion in Massachusetts was naturally in an uproar, although there were also a large number of people in Massachusetts who did not agree with Grade's point of view. But free speech is, after all, protected by the Bill of Rights. So the governor of Massachusetts even had to stand up and shout to Georgia, asking them to respect freedom of speech.

And Georgia's answer was: "Putting that guy's name on the target is also an expression, a speech, and it's also free speech."