That's true. American exceptionalism is the same as Italian, Roman, British, Chinese or Russian exceptionalism. A self made myth to justify human nature.

“If your political theory requires humanity to "evolve", then you do not have a theory.... you have a dream.” ― A.E. Samaan

“Nature is always pulling the rug out from under our pompous ideals.”
― Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson

"At times, the most dangerous politicians have been those impelled by dreams and ideals, rather than basic realities." ― Clarence H. Burns

The only periods of peace in history in places with lot of resources and many interested parties such as Asia or Europe was when one empire dominated and forced everyone to submission and was not challenges for a while. Depending the culture this is the time when most literature, arts etc can flourish. Charlemagne and Holy Roman Empire. Italian and northern Europa renaissance etc. But these periods even at best of times last few generations before they go back to fighting.

"is it "neutral" if I would not be unhappy if both Russia and Ukraine were bombed back into the stone age?"

I'll keep that comment as something I can send back to you when the shooting starts in USA and outsiders, claim the same thing for USA. Will you be for bombing USA to stone age as well? Just to keep your argument consistent.

@Krunoslav The point of my rhetorical question is that the battle there is like a bloody fight between two rival street gangs - a so called "Turf war".
I have no doubt that the profoundly corrupt activities of USA in and with Ukraine is one of several reasons for the war itself. "...bomb back to the stone age" is simultaneously metaphorical and hyperbolic. aka "using gross exaggeration" in order to make a point about a particular subject. Believe me - in that context I would like to see Washington DC "bombed back to the stone age"
The real tragedy in such wars is the death and destruction of the innocents. The general population and the conscripts.
Wars such as this are starkly representative of the profound contempt and disregard the Political Machine - the men and women who occupy the very seat of a proverbial King has for the masses.
Having said all that I will also say that despite all its blemishes USA remains the "least worst" country in the entire world. Offered the opportunity to do so I believe more than half of the world population would jump at the offer to immigrate to USA. Only those who hold power and wealth in their home Nations would elect to remain in their countries of birth and residence.

@iThink As a metaphor it might not be the most appropriate but your explication helps.

The story of USA being "least worse", its a comparison I would not like to make. But one thing is true, lot of suffering since the WWII has been caused by fight for supremacy between communists and US hegemony, and after 1970's it has been push for new world order at any cost. What you said that people would immigrate to US, that might be true in the past, is less so today, but to put that in context you must take into account that to keep the US hegemony means to destroy other countries. Just one example could be Mexico. If US foreign policy was not to keep Mexico in the state it is, there is very little reason why Mexicans who love their country would want to leave. The US is the largest market for drug trade in the world, by a wide margin and US is more than happy to work with the cartels to ship money and people and to keep "war on drugs" as excuse for all kinds of dirty deeds. So when Mexicans want to go to USA, don't mistake escaping Mexico for Choosing USA because they love it. Same could be said for much of Latin America, largely kept in state of chaos and poverty by US. Same is true for Middle East and to extent Africa. The list goes on.

Look what US did to Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Libya and the list goes on. If US did not do what it did, would those countries be better or worse off. Its not easy to know, but it is easy to know one thing. We can trace much of their current states of poverty and destruction to US forign policy.

And with Wokness as the new official religion of America with rising communist style regime, and potential for civil war on the horizon, the only people who choose to come to USA are those who either don't know what it is, or those that feel have no choice. And as pretty much sole superpower for so long, much of reasons why many countries are in bad shape is US foreign policy.

Weather its Middle East, or Ukraine or Mexico, you eliminate US influence, and they would be very different places. When you say "least worse", I don't know if that is true or not. Maybe it is. But in the larger context, if it is, its because it is the same US that kept other countries from being what they could be, because it would present rivalry to US. I don't think enough people in US understand or appreciate to what degree lot of their luxury is because someone else in some other country had to suffer not by choice but by US forign policy. As the Empire Empire declines I think many of these things will become more and more apparent to American citizens. And many will be left with the consequences of the actions of the generations before them. Weather its domestic woke religion and all kind of moral decay, national debt, or consequences of forign policies. The "least worse" status is not all that it seems on the surface. If it is true in America, it came at a heavy cost for many countries around the world.

@iThink If America was not involved with various regime changes around the world with devistating consequences for other nations and profited from it, you comment about people wanting to immigrate to US, and "least worse" would be either inaccurate because America would be very different place, or the other countries would possibly be far better off, and would be no need to do mass migration to America. It all comes at a cost. Big cost.

United States involvement in regime change

Since the 19th century, United States government has participated and interfered, both overtly and covertly, in the replacement of several foreign governments. In the latter half of the 19th century, the U.S. government initiated actions for regime change mainly in Latin America and the southwest Pacific, including the Spanish–American and Philippine–American wars. At the onset of the 20th century, the United States shaped or installed governments in many countries around the world, including neighbors Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.

During World War II, the United States helped overthrow many Nazi German or Imperial Japanese puppet regimes. Examples include regimes in the Philippines, Korea, the Eastern portion of China, and much of Europe. United States forces were also instrumental in ending the rule of Adolf Hitler over Germany and of Benito Mussolini over Italy.

In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. government struggled with the Soviet Union for global leadership, influence and security within the context of the Cold War. Under the Eisenhower administration, the U.S. government feared that national security would be compromised by governments propped by the Soviet Union's own involvement in regime change and promoted the domino theory, with later presidents following Eisenhower's precedent.[1] Subsequently, the United States expanded the geographic scope of its actions beyond traditional area of operations, Central America and the Caribbean. Significant operations included the United States and United Kingdom-orchestrated 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion targeting Cuba, and support for the overthrow of Sukarno by General Suharto in Indonesia. In addition, the U.S. has interfered in the national elections of countries, including Italy in 1948,[2] the Philippines in 1953, and Japan in the 1950s and 1960s[3][4] as well as Lebanon in 1957.[5] According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000.[6] Another study found that the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.[1]

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States has led or supported wars to determine the governance of a number of countries. Stated U.S. aims in these conflicts have included fighting the War on Terror, as in the Afghan War, or removing dictatorial and hostile regimes, as in the Iraq War.

1 Pre-1887 interventions

1.1 1805: Tripolitania
1.2 1846–1848 Annexation of Texas and invasion of California
1.3 1865–1867: Mexico

2 1887–1912: U.S. expansionism and the Roosevelt administration

2.1 1880s
    2.1.1 1887–1889: Samoa
2.2 1890s
    2.2.1 1893: Kingdom of Hawaii
2.3 1900s
    2.3.1 1903–1925: Honduras
    2.3.2 1906–1909: Cuba
    2.3.3 1909–1910: Nicaragua

3 1912–1941: The Wilson administration, World War I, and the interwar period

3.1 1910s
    3.1.1 1912–1933: Nicaragua
    3.1.2 1913–1919: Mexico
    3.1.3 1915–1934: Haiti
    3.1.4 1916–1924: Dominican Republic
    3.1.5 1917: Costa Rica
    3.1.6 1917–1919: Germany
    3.1.7 1917–1920: Austria-Hungary
    3.1.8 1918–1920: Russia

4 1941–1945: World War II and the aftermath

4.1 1940s
    4.1.1 1941–1952: Japan
    4.1.2 1941–1949: Germany
    4.1.3 1941–1946: Italy
    4.1.4 1944–1946: France
    4.1.5 1944–1945: Belgium
    4.1.6 1944–1945: Netherlands
    4.1.7 1944–1945: Philippines
    4.1.8 1945–1955: Austria

5 1945–1991: The Cold War

5.1 1940s
    5.1.1 1945–1948: South Korea
    5.1.2 1945–1949: China
    5.1.3 1947–1949: Greece
    5.1.4 1948: Costa Rica
    5.1.5 1949–1953: Albania
    5.1.6 1949: Syria
5.2 1950s
    5.2.1 1950–1953: Burma and China
    5.2.2 1952: Egypt
    5.2.3 1952–1953: Iran
    5.2.4 1954: Guatemala
    5.2.5 1956–1957: Syria
    5.2.6 1957–1959: Indonesia
    5.2.7 1959–1963: South Vietnam
    5.2.8 1959–1962: Cuba
5.3 1960s
    5.3.1 1960–1965: Congo-Leopoldville
    5.3.2 1960: Laos
    5.3.3 1961: Dominican Republic
    5.3.4 1961–1964: Brazil
    5.3.5 1963: Iraq
    5.3.6 1965–1967: Indonesia
5.4 1970s
    5.4.1 1970: Cambodia
    5.4.2 1970–1973: Chile
    5.4.3 1971: Bolivia
    5.4.4 1974–1991: Ethiopia
    5.4.5 1975–1991: Angola
    5.4.6 1975–1999: East Timor
    5.4.7 1976: Argentina
    5.4.8 1979–1992: Afghanistan
5.5 1980s
    5.5.1 1980–1989: Poland
    5.5.2 1981–1982: Chad
    5.5.3 1981–1990: Nicaragua
    5.5.4 1983: Grenada
    5.5.5 1989–1994: Panama
    5.5.6 1989: Paraguay

6 1991–present: Post-Cold War

6.1 1990s
    6.1.1 1991: Iraq
    6.1.2 1991: Haiti
    6.1.3 1992–1996: Iraq
    6.1.4 1994–1995: Haiti
    6.1.5 1996–1997: Zaire
6.2 2000s
    6.2.1 2000: FR Yugoslavia
    6.2.2 2001–2021: Afghanistan
    6.2.3 2003–2011: Iraq
    6.2.4 2006–2007: Palestinian Authority
    6.2.5 2005–2009: Syria
6.3 2010s
    6.3.1 2011: Libya
    6.3.2 2012–2017: Syria

[en.wikipedia.org]

@iThink

To analyze modern instances of United States sponsored regime change, a logical starting point would be the United States nation building after the end of the Second World War. Any efforts of the United States to alter the regime of a nation had very much to do with its expansive interests. The goals of regime change efforts after such point were very much similar in rhetoric, regardless of specific differences on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the baseline year for the study was determined to be 1945, as the year in which the regime was altered is the basis for each case study, not the year in which the United States initiated its efforts. It must be noted that there are differences that exist between US regime ousters, where the US actively assists in the overthrow of a sitting regime and "nation building", where the US takes more of a passive role in changing the existing system, but took a more active role in shaping the regime going forward. Both sets of efforts are lumped into this study. However, it is an important distinction. The cases identified were done so through an article written by William Blum for the Centre for Research on Globalization. There are 38 cases that fit said criteria listed:

Germany, 1945
Japan, 1945
Syria, 1949
South Korea, 1953
Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Congo, 1960
Laos, 1960
Iraq, 1963
Brazil, 1964
British Guiana, 1964
Bolivia, 1964
Dominican Republic, 1965
Indonesia, 1965
Ghana, 1966
Greece, 1967
Cambodia, 1970
Bolivia, 1971
Chile, 1973
Australia, 1975
Portugal, 1976
Argentina, 1976
Jamaica, 1980
Turkey, 1980
Chad, 1982
Fiji, 1987
Nicaragua, 1987
Afghanistan, 1989
Panama, 1989
Bulgaria, 1990
Albania, 1991
Yugoslavia, 2000
Ecuador, 2000
Afghanistan, 2001
Venezuela, 2002
Iraq, 2003
Haiti, 2004
Libya, 2011

[inquiriesjournal.com]

@Krunoslav wow! that's a lot to digest and hard to respond without typing a 1500 word response...but I will give it a go.
How has US hegemony prevented any country or culture from "being all it could be". The fact is that (again - I say "despite its blemishes) USA has been, over all, a profoundly constructive and positive hegemon.

Modernization in manufacturing, agriculture, higher learning etc has quite literally lifted so called "other cultures" up out of the throes of primitive and insufficient, and grossly inadequate methods and into an obviously better, more productive, and much higher life expectancy in nearly all countries around the globe.

We (USA) have literally prevented mass starvation, greatly reduced pandemic spread of diseases, gifted equipment and methods for production of grain and other foods, developed and built infrastructure for sanitation, fresh water...and so on.

Corruption is NOT unique to USA. Primitive Kings, el Presidentes' rulers and ruling organizations are universally corrupt - before USA ever existed - and remain corruptible...so that even after being literally lifted up by USA - they in true form use these things in ways that do profound harm to "their own people".

Please keep in mind that I absolutely do NOT pretend that USA is pure and 100 percent benevolent....after all, why should anyone point a finger and say that USA should have any less "corrupt motivations" than any other country. Just as no one has a monopoly on virtue, they likewise have no monopoly on sin. Right? Right!

BTW, if men like - Oh I don''t know - lets say Stalin, Hitler, Castro, even Justin Trudeau...had the kind of power (military and economic power) equivalent to that of USA since the years after 1930 that they would be benevolent hegemons - or would they rapidly move to occupy and dominate the global population in the mold of socialist dictatorship?

The United States is NOT perfect - as a country we have made profound mistakes. But I think we (USA) never showed any interest in conquest - domination of the entire globe. At the end of WWII USA almost immediately ceased bombing and shooting and went to work rebuilding most of Europe. The communists built a wall separating East from West Europe. People on the East side of that wall lived lives of utter privation and oppression. Whereas people on the West side of that wall lived lives characterized by liberty, self sufficiency, productivity - virtually modeling life in USA where such a thing as a "Bill of Rights" shapes the culture.

Where communism sends bombs and imprisonment USA has sent food and equipment and people qualified to show how to implement water purification and productive agricultural techniques.

We send building supplies and medical supplies along with qualified people to assist in using those things to places like Haiti for example after a devastating earthquake...just as one single example.

Did Russia, Cuba, China, Korea, Mexico, Central and South American countries, African countries, Middle Eastern Countries...did anyone besides USA send ship loads of food and people and equipment to aid in the rebuilding of Haiti...again - that is only ONE example of USA benevolence.

Imagine if you can what the world might look like today - if USA had NOT become the global hegemon. If the Nazis, the communists and Imperial Japan...etc had been victorious in WWII.

I shudder to think of it.

@iThink I don't it is as roasy as you say.
Lot of dark secrets in American forign and domestic policy. Operation mockingbird or operation paperclip, probably not well know to public and yet very important. These are just two to think about. There are thusands of them. Are you sure that your vision of american empire is accurate. There are some valid points you make. But its super late to expand on it from my phone. Maybe tomorrow.

@dd54 it will indeed. Back to east vs west multi polar world. Probably better than globalism.

@Krunoslav as I repeated - without apologizing for it I do not suggest that USA is pure. We're the least worst possible hegemon imho.

@Krunoslav my comment above paints anything other than a "rosey" picture of USA. All through my statement I acknowledged and reiterated that USA is imperfect - to put it mildly. But! Rhetorically I ask you - who is better? Name any culture or Nation that is better morally, practically, better...no, as I said early on - USA is the LEAST WORSE - of them all. that is not like saying USA is "the best"...right?

@iThink The valid points I think you make is that USA indeed has good things it has done domestically and internationally. It has also done many bad things. Hollywood ebfore it became what it is today, even as a propaganda tool in many cases, was the equivalent of renaissance era for innovation and creativity in arts in the age of modernity. At one point Made In USA was a sign of quality of excellent craftsmanship. Great authors, thinkers, artists and musicians came out of what USA was. Something that brings inspiration and joy to many even today. But the rosay picture sold to Americans about how they are benevolent empire.... I must challenge that one.

For the sake of making a point I won't go into gross details of violence, instead I'll focus more on manipulation, extortion and politically strong arming just about every other country, not out of benevolence, but for its own interests. I cover the wars America has been involved, seemingly forever so there is plenty of violence it its aggressive expansion. Usually the less known aspect is how the other financial and political expansion works.

However, I wanted to point out that things that are usually used as examples of what America has done good, tend to be explained as its if was done out of benevolent reasons, until you look a little deeper.

For example: "The fact is that (again - I say "despite its blemishes) USA has been, over all, a profoundly constructive and positive hegemony. "

I don't know how much you know what happened globally after WWII ended, in terms of financial system, but it was indeed very constructive and positive for US economy at the expense of many others. And those that did prosper, did so at a heavy price.

Domestically. After Bankers have started to lose their grip on the system, they set up FED in 1913, and not long after there was the Great Depression, which hit not only USA very badly but it was devastating to many other countries and was one of the catalysts for rise of the Nazi Party in Germany and ultimately lead to WWII. After the WWII, US remained the only real superpower standing. Soviet Union was their superpower, and no doubt was far more brutal to its own people and in the world, however US was fostering communism in universities at home, its eugenics programs have been adopted by the Nazis before the war, right after the war under operation paperclip, US government was more than ok, to use Nazi scientists for space race and to go off gold standard so it does not have to pay its debts and can fund the space program and war in Vietnam etc.

You see, the deal was that after the WWII USA was going to be the big protector to the defeated countries that were destroyed. France, Germany, Japan, UK etc. These countries borrowed lot of money from US so they can rebuild themselves and US provided the military role of a bodyguard. This ensured US remains the hegemony and controls much of the world, except Soviet Union and its proxies. It may seem US was acting benevolently and good for other countries, but it came at a heavy cost for those countries. They lost their independence, and this is still true today. Germany for example. It has to listen to what US tells them, and we can see them shooting themselves in the foot by dragging whole of Europe into trouble against Russia, because US or who ever is in charge of it now, said so.

The same can be shown in Latin America for example. Many countries would be almost certainly better off if US did not go there to keep it destabilize, mine its resources and do regime change when it wanted. There are plenty of books that details countries and methods in Latin America who ended tihs way. Probably the most notorious is Bolivia.

Essentially IMF, World Bank and various NGOs were used to keep much of the world in debt to US and US in debt that it does not have to pay back. When a country did not want to be part of the global financial system that benefits America because of dollar being US world reserve currency, US would send in, economic hit-man as they are called to find ways to bribe the countries to stay in line, if that does not work they would send the assassins, the jackals. And in the case of other countries refusing to do any of it and assassinations fail, the US would find reasons why there is some evil guy somewhere and military must be used to destroy it. US military in essence. acting like mafia debt collectors for the IMF.

I'll post just a few examples of how US hegemony operates and how destructive it is around the world. Damage is incalculable. I haven't even touched in helping modern China rise along with CCP and funding that regime along with other communist regimes around the world.

But here I'll post just few broad strokes of how the world operates under US forign policy. Not sure how much you know of this, but it should be enough to try to point out how benevolent US is not and how much of luxury Americans enjoyed over many decades, have been paid by blood sweat and tears by others against their will.

@iThink

John Perkins, The Economic Hit Man on Globalization

Speaking Freely Volume 1: John Perkins

Volume 1 of 5 in the 'speaking freely' series. (52 minutes)

For many years John Perkins claimed to have been working as something he defines to be like an "economic hit man in the world of international finance"; a function he performed by persuading Third World countries to take on large -scale public works projects. Today, we recognize that these types of projects, financed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), have served to enrich U.S. corporations while creating crippling debt for these countries, effectively turning them into American client states. Experiencing a change of heart, Perkins resigned from the business in 1981. After running a utility company, he founded the nonprofit organization, Dream Change Coalition (http://www.dreamchange.org), which works closely with Amazonian and other indigenous people to help preserve their environments and cultures. Take the time for a conversation with Perkins about globalization and inequality around the world.

Produced: 2007, [imdb.com]

Susan George on Neoliberalism

Volume 2 of 5 in the 'speaking freely' series. (50 minutes)

She is currently focusing her attention on the issue of neoliberal globalization and engaged in a campaign to democratize the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The Chair of the Planning Board of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, a fellowship of scholars living throughout the world whose work is intended to contribute to social justice, Susan George is the author of more than a dozen books. Born in the United States and now living in/near Paris, George became a French citizen in 1994. From 1999 to 2006, she served as Vice-President of ATTAC France (Association for Taxation of Financial Transaction to Aid Citizens). She is currently focusing her attention on the issue of neoliberal globalization and engaged in a campaign to democratize the World Trade Organization. Join this award-winning scholar for an hour as she reveals the truth behind the history of empire building, neo-colonialism, and the causes of poverty in our world today. (Written by Richard Castro)

Produced: 2007, [imdb.com]

@iThink

The Day the Dollar Died - Director's Cut

Remembering August 15th, 1971, the day #Nixon officially closed the #gold window, killing all that remained of honest money. The gold #dollar died and the fiat era was born.

The Economic Hit Man Confesses Again: An Interview With John Perkins

[truthout.org]

Operation Mockingbird - The CIA's Covert Media Manipulation Program Exposed

Inside the CIA's secret Operation Mockingbird program, which is used to secretly control the media in more ways than you could imagine.

Joe Rogan | The Harsh Truths of Operation Paperclip (NASA & Nazi's) w/Annie Jacobsen

Taken from JRE #1299 w/Annie Jacobsen:

@dd54 "I just saw that China announced no Evergrande audit results..."

As a side note. I read somewhere that Forth Knox was not audited in a transparent way since the 1950's. There could be only spiders inside. lol no one really knows, at least not in public sphere. I imagine Evergrand and similar situations are far worse than public realizes.

Looks like they defaulted on their debt, but CCP can't afford to default because of social instability, so they are probably preparing to officially nationalize the Evergrande and use the national banks their control to keep it on life support until they find another solution. Looks like Evergrand is only the tip of the ice berg, there seems to be endless list of even bigger companies and projects that failed because of central planing and corruption, and are serious problem for the stability of the nation and survival of CCP. Their covid zero policy did not help to make things even worse, but communist cannot help themselves, opposed with control.

There was an article I saw the other day, but I have not had a chance to confirm or explore much of it independently.

[technocracy.news]

Also a while back there was this video:

China Has A Debt Problem Three Times Larger Than Evergrande

The Next Evergrande? China's $2 Trillion Railway Debt Bubble

Well, I think that general rule of thumb is do you align with the ruling regime on their mandates and talking points. If you don't take the jab or doubt the efficacy, legality, and agenda behind it, chances are you have probably start to doubt the institutions and goverment before 2020 with Trump, Brexit, and host of other similar issues. And there seems to be a correlating link between those that got red pilled lets say in 2016 with double whammy of Trump election and Brexit vote, and trusting the goverment on the jab thing.

As for pro Russia or neutral, that indeed has another layer to it. In America in particular the Americans have been conditioned to think of Russians as enemies since the end of WWII. All the movies, cold war propaganda etc. So it was not that hard to convince many Americans into another forign conflict lies, but even among Americans there are those that doubted foreign policy because of many lies done by the US goverment, ever since Vietnam and certainly Afghanistan and Iraq.

But you are correct, it does very where one lives. the same cold war propaganda is not as strong in for example Eastern Europe. But there are plenty of people who out of fear and confusion read what google serves them on their phones and listen to TV- pro EU propaganda. The socialism media and smartphones can be devastating for peoples ability to think critically.

@Krunoslav

I was in US government schools in the 70s and 80s, and I caught a lot of anti-Soviet stuff, but being in my twenties through the 90s I mostly put all of that behind. I'm weak with Eastern history but the more I learn the more I sympathize with the ethnicities and cultures that the Soviet nearly burned from history.

@dd54 "Big tar-brush your painting with. Qualifiers are in order. Cheers"

Well, if you look at current politicians, republicans and democrats, from senators to congremen to media, it is not easy to find many who question or oppose the situation in Ukraine. This might be slowly changing , but in first weeks, it was hard to find many who were opposing it. Even individuals who were against MSM lies about domestic issues, were quick to jump of the bandwagon to condemn Russia, and Putin in particular. Most so called conservative media outlets kike PJMedia is similar, all did the same. Beyond Tucker Carlson, it was hard to find people who were not on the bandwagon, even people like Glenn Beck of all people, who supposedly wrong a book on Great Reset , fell for it. Looking from as you pointed out Euro Centric position, the stereotype of Americans is well justified. Stereotype is off course not a description of outliers, and there are those in every country on every issue.

But on this Ukraine vs Russia thing, by and large one can comfortably say that Americans overwhelmingly bought into it. Even now, just now, I had an exchange with someone on this website, who is against all the lies about Ukraine, but thinks Putin is pure evil. So it is hard to convince people. And there are others on this website who are convince Russians are inept and losing.

It is also true that most Americans did not care about most non American issues in any real sense , because they did not have to. This is something most non.Americans can easily see. This is something I've observed for decades now. On topics from what to buy in the store, to what prices are of goods and services to all kind of pop culture issues. Lets face it, America was an island at the center of the world, when it comes to pop culture and influence. More people outside America were following Trump and elections than Americans. And they knew a lot more about it, on average. This is because when America gets a cold, rest of the world gets an pneumonia and especially in recent times many follow American situation very closely, but Americans on every do not follow what is going on outside its border nearly in the same degree.

While not all 300 + mil Americans are the same, far from it, there are enough to create a stereotype of a typical American. This is true for all nations. Including Croatia. I certainly am not a typical Croatian. You could not judge Croatia using me as a measuring tool. I am an outlier. But there are stereotypes of Croatia that exists because it exists for every nation. Honestly I probably am not aware of many of them because a) I live here and b) I follow more foreign culture and politics , especially Americans than Croatian simply because, simply because it has a more powerful global influence.

One thing that is a stereotype about Croatia and truthful one is that we are suckers for any individual that is famous or good at something on international scene, but it is Croatian. Especially true for sports. When Croatian athlete or athletes win on international scene, whole country is living vicariously trough that victory. I suppose its a way to compensate for being a small country with big conquests in other realms.

Fair enough?

@govols Kudos for goinng trough the 90's and putting it behind you.

I must point out that CIA influence over Hollywood was still strong in the 90's and not just 80's. Perhaps less overt or explicit and cartoonish like Rambo, but still it was big.

Top five '80s Cold War movies

[edition.cnn.com]

Top 10 movies about post-Cold War Russia-U.S. conflict

[rbth.com]

It was not until Islam became a target after 9/11 and than later Russia was used again in the whole RussiaGate hoax since the 2016. So the propaganda was strong.

Also there are many video games that were doing what Movies used to do as well. I'm not excusing Soviet union or communism, I'm very much anti-communist, but just like Soviet union had propaganda so did America, and it has created a very binary highly polarized worldview on both sides.

@dd54 Look, stereotypes exist and will continue to exist, weather you like it or not. They are often correct in what they are. Impression people have of something or someone that averages their displayed behavior. There are stereotypes about countries, communities, cultures etc. They exist as a way to quickly get a base line sense of something or someone. If you did deeper you will discover the limitations of stereotypes, but that is because stereotypes serve a particular purpose. Generalization based on displayed characteristics of a group.

I haven't stereotyped Americans solely based on their politicians, I've used the example of politicians because its hard to deny that is where the public discourse has been driven to on this particular issue. However I've observed American culture in many forms for a long time and American culture has been exported around the world more than any other. Maybe being an American you don't appreciate that probably the greatest export of America is its culture in one form of another.

Often this results in Americans being far less interested or informed about other cultures and other culture being influenced much more by American culture. From movies to social media, to foreign policy, to commerce etc.

it is hard to see the big picture when you are inside the frame. And one thing that I've observed about Americans, and this is not one or two, this is virtually every American I've seen describing the world or talked to. Because America was the super power for so long and number one in the world for a long time., it is virtually impossible for Americans to envision a world that does not include America or does not have America in the center off it. That is a fact. its more than a stereotype of Americans, its history fact, seen in virtually every cultural or political export.

". The US has targeted almost a third of the country as 'Domestic Violent Extremists' and they aren't white supremecists but your average white, conservative straight, Christian American citizen. A whole lot of trIp-wires that can be triggered with dure real-life consequences at this time."

Yes, I am aware of this. Question is, are you aware this was done across the world and not just America, by the same mentality or the oppressive globalist regime. Certainly Canada is one place where you have heard that. Germany did it, so did France etc. Or are you America centric?

"It is far more complex and nuanced than your blanket overly generalized assumptions as to what Americans actually think...too much social media consumption which is not an accurate reflection but a carefully curated microcosm for global consumption?, movies? LOL, supposed journalism? You are not an American so you don't know. Have you even lived in the US? Mental traveler you may be but you are not an expert on but a small slice of Americana if that. "

Pretty weak argument. You haven't lived my truth? Really? I expect that from feminists or lefties. Not you. Come you, you can do better than that, can't you?

Its like that story about a coach that trained world class swimming team that won all those medals, and coach could not swim. But he was good at motivating and training swimmers. Don't be so quick to try to equate living in a place with understanding of the place. if that were true, than most Americans would be better at what is going on in America than myself. And yet if you asked random Americans about history of America, politics, even geography? Are you certain they would know on average more than myself? See what I'm saying? Correlation does not mean causation by default. Yes. There are certain unique benefit to living a place to understand it, but it is not a requirement. Not in this day and age.

"As for Russia, it has long been the scapegoat/target of US politicians/leaders since it was the USSR.and this current conflict is just a little too convenient as a geo-political distraction given the mess the world's politicians and leaders have created. The world will always be politically polarized.because its inhabited by humans."

I can't argue with that. It is true.

@dd54 I suppose I'll have to.

About being questioned. I am sure I give out the impression that I think I'm always right. But to be honest I just find too low standards in many people online who haven't done their homework. And I refuse to lower my standards to the level of those who refuse to raise theirs.

That being said. If I recognize that someone is better and more knowledgeable about a topic and he or she is willing to teach me. I'm more than happy to lean, in fact its how I got to where I am in the first place. I learn from others, but there away to many "experts" out there, as I'm sure you know, and there is very little penalty to pay for saying all kinds of things online. More of then than not, the measure is not standard of quality, but weather or not it goes against the prevailing narrative of the regime.

This has created an online world of lot of information, but little understanding. And that is why I'm not quick to be lectured by just about anyone. If someone is a person I respect and they are not hostile to me, I'm more than happy to learn from them.

In the case of me and you, I respect your opinion on some topics as I think you do mine, but we probably will never agree on some other topics. Like the discussion on the topic of God we had the other day.

P.S.

I compared your argument to lefties and feminists because that is what they do. Feelings over facts or logical convincing arguments. Just because I haven't lived in America does not make me blind to what America is. To argue that I must live in America to have a legit observation about it, is the equivalent of "you don't know how its like to be a women, so you can't voice your observation about women". Or "you are not black so you can't have a voice about black issues?" Obviously that is not true. Same as your attempt to criticize my ability to observe American politics and culture, because I have not lived in it.

@dd54 Fair enough my friend. I suppose in principle we agree on main things. We disagree on some things, and that is perfectly fine. Imagine if we were all the same. We would be communists. lol

Respect remains. Its all good. Cheers!