What do all the first world nations have in common?

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
Why do all the dirty trashy proles try to come to our awesome nations?

Is it just a coincidence some of us have been so successful?

What are the commonalities that have made 1st world nations succeed?

And if there are such commonalities, shoudln't the things that have made us successful be preserved? Aren't such things worthy? Or should we take the advice of life losers that couldn't fix their own steaming pile of a shit country on how to run our very successful country that they are now desperate to get into? :thinking:
 
Most have ready access to birth control, including abortion.
Religious countries like the Middle East and Latin America produce too many 'Eaters' ... and need to ship them somewhere else.
 
First World Nations have been the 'Colonizers', and have been able to 'buy' the Natural Resources of other countries.
(Wealthy shareholders of International Corporations are able to extract the Wealth from the less advanced countries)
 
First World Nations 'police' the World through NATO and the strategic placement of Military Power throughout and around the Planet.
 
jingoism[jing-goh-iz-uh m]

noun
the spirit, policy, or practice of jingoes; bellicose chauvinism.
RELATED WORDS
fanaticism, nationalism, narrowness, zealotry, ethnocentricity
 
JohnBercow said:
Why do all the dirty trashy proles try to come to our awesome nations?

Is it just a coincidence some of us have been so successful?

What are the commonalities that have made 1st world nations succeed?

And if there are such commonalities, shoudln't the things that have made us successful be preserved? Aren't such things worthy? Or should we take the advice of life losers that couldn't fix their own steaming pile of a shit country on how to run our very successful country that they are now desperate to get into? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Classic ethnocentrism with a touch of nativism
 
Hello JohnBercow,

JohnBercow said:
Why do all the dirty trashy proles try to come to our awesome nations?

Is it just a coincidence some of us have been so successful?

What are the commonalities that have made 1st world nations succeed?

And if there are such commonalities, shoudln't the things that have made us successful be preserved? Aren't such things worthy? Or should we take the advice of life losers that couldn't fix their own steaming pile of a shit country on how to run our very successful country that they are now desperate to get into? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Well, if we look back in history, there are some clues.

The most advanced nations in history have almost always had an overwhelming military, and undertaken conquests of acquisition. After all the available land of the world became claimed, those conquests mostly settled down. From then on, the military might, and the threat of destruction have reinforced the acquisition of wealth rather than land (because that's what it was all about all along, anyway.) So-called imperialism.

Industrialization provided advancement for some through forced labor and slavery, which later gave way to the exploitation of poorly paid labor to create vast wealth for some, and sustenance for others. Socialism and strong regulation of capitalism allowed the formation of a middle class, while providing a safety net for the most heavily exploited. The military might, coupled with the power of great capital, secured a constant flow of needed resources to fuel the industrialization.

Now that cheaper labor and automation have displaced many of the previously exploited workers, nations with less socialism and more resentment of government regulations (read: the USA) are transitioning from a strong middle class to even more extreme wealth inequality. But, since the basic safety net has not been completely destroyed, it is preferable to the [lack of one,] giving rise to the flow of dirt-poor people from places of rising danger and insecurity toward places of more security and opportunity.
 
Last edited:
The first world nations have a lot of similarities, and not all are based on conquest. The one virtue that I can think of among us all though is we have secular governments rather than religion-run govts. Caveat: At least at this moment I can't think of a single first-world nation other than Iran that is ruled by religious leaders. And Iran wasn't always that way.
 
iolo said:
What do all the first world nations have in common? Armed thieving and the exploitation of others.
Click to expand...

If I recall my Welsh history accurately, your ancestors were notorious for conducting armed thieving raids into what is now England.

Then Edward I put you in your place, and Wales has had no place at the table of first world nations ever since.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello JohnBercow,



Well, if we look back in history, there are some clues.

The most advanced nations in history have almost always had an overwhelming military, and undertaken conquests of acquisition. After all the available land of the world became claimed, those conquests mostly settled down. From then on, the military might, and the threat of destruction have reinforced the acquisition of wealth rather than land (because that's what it was all about all along, anyway.) So-called imperialism.

Industrialization provided advancement for some through forced labor and slavery, which later gave way to the exploitation of poorly paid labor to create vast wealth for some, and sustenance for others. Socialism and strong regulation of capitalism allowed the formation of a middle class, while providing a safety net for the most heavily exploited. The military might, coupled with the power of great capital, secured a constant flow of needed resources to fuel the industrialization.

Now that cheaper labor and automation have displaced many of the previously exploited workers, nations with less socialism and more resentment of government regulations (read: the USA) are transitioning from a strong middle class to even more extreme wealth inequality. But, since the basic safety net has not been completely destroyed, it is preferable to the [lack of one,] giving rise to the flow of dirt-poor people from places of rising danger and insecurity toward places of more security and opportunity.
Click to expand...

america didn't always have a great military. We were already kicking ass culturally and were a successful nation before we ever ramped up our military. I think before world war 1 we were ranked like 20th in the world, behind portugal.

Poor nations also participated in slavery. Some nations have de facto slavery even to this day, all poor dirt holes. That doesn't lead to a nation being prosperous.

I love how liberals think the only way we could have been successful is through abuse. That shows what they really think about our country. But again, to point out, these are not exclusive to rich successful nations. Back in the day, all nations had slavery. So that's not what sets us apart. Try again.
 
Last edited:
ThatOwlWoman said:
The first world nations have a lot of similarities, and not all are based on conquest. The one virtue that I can think of among us all though is we have secular governments rather than religion-run govts. Caveat: At least at this moment I can't think of a single first-world nation other than Iran that is ruled by religious leaders. And Iran wasn't always that way.
Click to expand...

thank you for your honest, non trolly answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top