The Sea Dies Young

Professor Fafnir's article immediately sparked a strong reaction upon publication. This was because the article openly called on the United States people to abandon their "unrealistic dreams of becoming a great power" and pursue happiness that may seem small, but is more tangible.

In his article, Professor Fafnir stated that the United States of America has deviated from its original aspirations at the time of its founding. At the time of its founding, the people of North America did not want to establish a so-called "great power" because they had all witnessed how a "great power" or "strong power" oppressed and enslaved its people.

In those days, it was precisely to escape religious persecution by a "powerful nation" that early settlers fled to North America. And the reason why North America subsequently experienced a war of independence was entirely due to the exploitation by a "powerful nation."

When North America gained independence, one of the concerns of the United States people was whether, after driving out a tyrant three thousand miles away, they would face three thousand tyrants within a mile. Therefore, initially, the people of North America were very wary of the government and imposed many restrictions on its power.

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

Because a prerequisite for a "powerful nation" is that its government must be able to concentrate enormous financial and material resources. Wasn't the very reason Britain exploited and enslaved its people and those of its territories in order to concentrate these resources?

There is only so much wealth in the world, and it is not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the government. A "powerful country" actually refers to a powerful government, so if a country wants to become a "powerful country," it will inevitably exploit the people and compete with them for profit.

Today in the United States, a very unhealthy trend has emerged: the desire to build a "powerful nation." It is under this tendency that the United States has continuously attempted to expand its territory, engaging in armed conflicts with surrounding Native American tribes, hostile countries to the north, and even friendly nations that helped North America gain independence, ultimately leading to war.

Professor Fafnir feared that this was all part of a grand conspiracy. Some people were using the war to try to establish a large government that could arbitrarily interfere with the freedom of the people, and the pursuit of becoming a "powerful nation" was a manifestation of this conspiracy.

Therefore, Professor Fafnir concluded by urging everyone to be vigilant, resist the temptation to become a "powerful nation," and safeguard the dignity of ordinary people.

Frankly, Fafnir's article is riddled with flaws and completely untenable. Putting everything else aside, isn't France a powerful nation? Don't the France people have any dignity?

So naturally, some people stood up to criticize Fafnir. But the way they criticized him was quite interesting.

They first pointed out that Fafnir's opposition between "the rise of a great power" and "the dignity of ordinary people" is highly imprecise. Because in the world, there are exemplary models that can guarantee both "the rise of a great power" and the maintenance of "the dignity of ordinary people," namely the French Republic. It is clearly wrong to fixate "the rise of a great power" on the path of an evil country like Britain without considering how to learn from such a good example as the French Republic.

So why could France balance the rise of a great power with the dignity of its ordinary citizens, while Britain could not?

"This is certainly due to the differences between Britain and France cultures," replied Professor Greg, a Harvard University professor Gred Law from the University of Paris.

"Traditionally, France is an agricultural country. Agriculture is characterized by its introverted, cooperative nature and pursuit of harmony with the world. Therefore, when faced with conflicts, the France are always willing to put themselves in others' shoes. As a result, we can see that the France people are particularly empathetic. Consequently, when building a strong nation, their goal was very clear: to safeguard the rights, freedoms, and justice of the people."

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

Firstly, regarding his achievements, although President Washington was the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army and achieved some victories in the war against Britain tyranny, it is fair to say that before France intervened, President Washington also suffered more defeats than victories. While it cannot be said that all the most crucial and difficult battles of the War of Independence were fought by General Lafayette and his France troops, it is certainly true that the majority of the credit went to the French Army.

As for Napoleon Bonaparte's rule, it was a remarkable feat. He turned the tide amidst the siege of tyrants across Europe, completely defeating Europe. In terms of military achievements, Napoleon Bonaparte's rule was comparable to that of military strategists like Alexander Great.

In terms of governance achievements, President Washington is also far inferior to Napoleon Bonaparte. The United States follows a federal system, with states largely autonomous; the president, especially Washington, often acted as a coordinator between the states. Napoleon Bonaparte, however, was different. He was the true ruler of France. Under his leadership, France's progress astonished the world. For this reason, Napoleon Bonaparte garnered far more support in France and worldwide than any previous leader. Even Augustus and Charlemagne could not compare to him in this respect.

Therefore, President Washington's political achievements and prestige cannot be compared with those of Napoleon Bonaparte. In addition, Napoleon Bonaparte was also a great jurist and a member of the French Academy of Sciences. In every respect, Napoleon Bonaparte was the greatest man of his time, even the most perfect man of his time.

Therefore, when people praise President Washington for upholding democracy, they should not forget that President Washington never had enough power and prestige to undermine democracy and establish a dictatorship.

However, when Napoleon Bonaparte came to power, his power and prestige were enough to propel him further, and the France people did not object to him becoming Dickens or even Augustus. Yet, Napoleon Bonaparte remained loyal to and upheld democracy. In this respect, Napoleon Bonaparte truly confronted and overcame the temptation of power.

Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to resist such temptations and remain true to his original aspirations and loyalty to the France people? This can certainly be attributed to France's reserved, cooperative culture and its pursuit of harmony with the world.

In contrast, what is Britain culture like? Britain culture is a pirate culture. Due to the lack of warm and fertile land, many Britain made a living by being bandits and plunderers. If you pay attention to various Britain legends, Britain will find that there are many stories that praise thieves and pirates. They have no shame in plundering and killing.

Therefore, we can see that, for the sake of profit, the Britain would use piracy to deal with the Spain and Netherlands; internally Britain would use harsh laws to seize land from farmers and oppress citizens of different faiths. Because in Britain culture, these were not shameful, but glorious.

We United States are victims of this shameful culture. Our ancestors suffered persecution in Britain because of their faith, and were forced to risk their lives to flee to North America. Later, it was because we could no longer endure the exploitation by the Britain that we launched the War of Independence.

But as another Bonaparte, the president of the French Academy of Sciences Bonaparte, said, "When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." In this world, no nation has suffered as much persecution at the hands of the Britain as we have, nor has any nation been so entangled with the Britain for so long. While we were resisting Britain tyranny, on the other hand, Britain tyranny had deeply seeped into our culture, even our souls.

So, after the Mayflower landed in North America, they received help from the local Native Americans and survived their most difficult period. But later, conflicts arose between us and them over beliefs and other issues, and what happened? We slaughtered them all. I'm not saying the Native Americans were entirely innocent, but why couldn't we use advanced culture and correct beliefs to inspire them, instead of resorting to such brutal methods? Think about how Jesus Christ reacted when he was denied, insulted, and persecuted. How did we react? Do we still have the right to call ourselves his followers?

Furthermore, our Declaration of Independence could have been even greater. However, just before its publication, some crucial phrases were deleted. These phrases criticized the Britain for aggression and kidnapping of peoples who had never wronged them—the Black people of Africa —and selling them into slavery for bloody profits.

Why did we delete such radiant words of humanity? Because we too profited from the atrocities committed by the Britain. In this matter, we were accomplices in the crimes of the Britain, and we were unwilling to sacrifice our own interests for justice. Here, we can clearly see that the greed and tyranny of England also exist within us.

Let's compare this to France. During the monarchy, France also participated in the slave trade and profited from the exploitation of Black slaves. But when the banners of liberty, democracy, and fraternity were raised high, we saw how France responded to the just demands of the Black people of Saint-Domingue.

Given the France military strength at the time, suppressing the resistance of some Black people who had little fighting ability would have been incredibly easy. If Saint-Domingue had been ruled by Britain, or even by us, what would the outcome have been? Without a doubt, the blood of Black people would have stained the entire Saint-Domingue red.

But how did France handle this matter? France did not betray its conscience for profit. Not only did they not suppress these black people, but they also recognized their citizenship and actively supported them in establishing their own country, turning the former Saint-Domingue, now the Republic of Haiti, into a paradise and haven for black people. This is truly in line with the Christ spirit, and the superiority of France culture was perfectly demonstrated at this moment, worthy of admiration.

Only a civilization rooted in the solid earth can create such a vast and profound culture, nurture a perfect figure like Napoleon Bonaparte, and produce a great nation like the French Republic. The pirate culture, born from the raging seas, can only lead us to a painful struggle of constant plunder and slaughter of others and our own people. Humans are not sea creatures; our legs must stand firmly on solid ground.

Be loyal to the earth, as loyal to your own conscience; embrace the earth, as you would embrace your mother. Only by standing on solid ground can we truly become whole and strong.

I do not oppose the America becoming a "great power," nor do I believe there is a contradiction between "the rise of a great power" and "the dignity of ordinary people." However, "the rise of a great power" must be based on leaving the tyrannical, primitive sea and settling on the benevolent and tolerant land; otherwise, "the rise of a great power" can become a trampling on "the dignity of ordinary people."

Escape the sea and set foot on land, America!

Such an article naturally sparked even more controversy, especially among the slave owners in the South, who were furious. They vehemently cursed Gred in their newspapers, declaring that he would surely go to hell.

At first, these people tried to debate with Gred in the newspapers. But it was clear that these bumpkin slave owners couldn't even understand the most basic syllogism, and their logic was as bad as Trump's. As a result, they were refuted and left speechless in the debate, and could only end with "What you said is all false."

Since the weapon of criticism couldn't deal with Gred, those Southerners with a strong sense of martial spirit naturally thought of using weapons to criticize him. And this was exactly what the Ministry of Truth wanted to see.

The Ministry of Truth has noticed that some Southern newspapers have even openly called for the "punishment of the traitors." Moreover, some soldiers who participated in the massacre are extremely dissatisfied with Gred's criticism of them. For example, a Southern militia group in Georgia called "Pure Faith" has pasted Gred's image and name on the targets during target practice.

Their newspapers immediately exposed these matters in Massachusetts newspapers. Public opinion in Massachusetts was naturally in an uproar, even though many in Massachusetts disagreed with Gred's views. However, freedom of speech is protected by the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the governor of Massachusetts even had to speak out to Georgia, demanding that they respect freedom of speech.

Georgia's response was. "Putting that guy's name on a target is also a form of expression, a form of speech, and also a form of freedom of speech."