World = fight between england and germany

Think about it.

representative democracy and it's multitude of contributers = english
fascism, hegel perverted the idea of freedom from tyranny into freedom from "yourself", thus fascism = german

capitalism, hobbes and adam smith, justice and capitalism, enforcing justice so greed is directed towards self-improvement and industriousness = english
communism, marx (a hegelian) and the mistaken belief that you can expect people not to get greedy and to work for nothing = german

Gentleman, the idea that a gentleman is more masculine and honourable than an uncivilised wretch = england
Noble savage, the romantic idea of the noble savage, that a person more in touch with their emotions and nature will inevitably be more honourable aswell as more muscular than some corrupted decadent machiavellian civilisation dweller = german

assimiliation, expansionism is the spread of ideas and values, you do not need to physically dominate other people, just convince them that your way is preferable = england
conquest, only the dominance of the core of your nation and race is dominance, you cannot physically turn a polack into a german so they must be conquerred = germany

individualism, we are all individuals so politics must acknowledge this fact so that we can effectively work together without the powerful stamping on the faces of those underneath = england
collectivism, the fallacy that since we are better off working together we must ignore the individual's rights in the furtherance of the power of the collective = german

Higher pleasures, (john stuart mill) the purpose of life is not hedonistic, but to learn, explore, understand and contribute, to interact with other sentient beings = england
will to power, (nietzche) the unbacked belief that sentience doesn't exist, you are just an animal and your purpose in life is to be a hedonist = german

people, though people can only physically do so much when it comes to ruling a leader can't do everything, successful rulership depends on the resourcefulness and creativity of the people = england
leaders, the major decisions all happen at the top, so the leader's decisions should have as much weight as possible in order for society to do as much good as possible and people should focus more on efficiently carrying out their duties than new developments = german

>>8
Sorry, but please have the common courtesy to look up proper facts, this is the internet after all.

Germany as a unified nation began with the holy roman empire of the German nation and had lasted almost 1000 years before the napoleanic wars divided germany into a confederation.

"You can choose to follow their teachings or not, you can criticise them but you are in no position to say that they are objectively wrong."
My criticism was legitimate therefore the points I criticised are wrong. Whether you believe they are wrong of course is determinned by whether you believe things need rational proof of not. Also I am a free man, I'm not oppressed at all, I can say whatever I want.

"And you think those people know HEGEL?"
Compare Kant's critique of pure reason with some of Hegel's dogma that have been repeated ad nauseum for nearly 2 centuries by various politicians. They may have not heard of Hegel, but can still be swayed by his fallacies.

"This is incorrect. He was a political philosopher as well. His most famous work beeing the Schrift from Ewigen Frieden.
Read Kant and enlighten yourself"
He dabbled in it and what he came up with was picked up by English philosophers who wisely did not pick up where Hegel left off, but where Kant left off. Compared to the tomes of work on rationality, thought and their application to old philosophical questions, Kant wasn't a political philosopher.

"Spoiler: Nietzsche and Marx are enjoyed in every country of the world. Nothing about their teachings is inherently german."
Their teachings are not applied however, since they are insidious and totalitarian in nature. Neither does this make them correct, point in case I don't think Johnathon Mill's essays were widely available in maoist (marx derived) China, whilst you can pick up a communist manifesto in any public library in a representative democracy.

"ASSIMILATION as opposed to conquest. The British conquered their colonies like any other european nation, mostly buying them or tricking the natives which they then ruled with an iron fist.  This is not Assimilation, this is conquest."
Can't you fill in the blanks? All spread of civilisation is a combination of assimilation and conquest, the British used assimilation to a greater extent, allying with the Indian city states, trading with them and providing them with arms to defeat the Maratha. Giving the natives your guns to get on their good side was unheard of. The weapons the French sold to the Maratha were cheap and inefficient, the British guns were state of the art and they even provided training.

"Wow that is really totally simplified. Liberties are not the problem. They have always existed. Roman citizens enjoyed liberties well before firearms were even invented.
The problem has been equality. The french revolution is a direct consequence of this. The solution was a constitutional republic with written law(code civil!) not because kings feared guns."
You're doing this on purpose aren't you.. Stop nitpicking. There are varying degrees of liberty and it is dependant on how much you are worth and what you can do to the people who can harm you. The romans could not enslave or indenture skilled labourers or merchants because other people would hear of it and not go to that city anymore making those in charge slightly less rich. The romans also did not enslave or indenture legionairres as obviously that would be catastrophic to morale. Unskilled peasants on the other hand are worth virtually nothing, overpopulation means many of them are unhealthy, unarmed and un-needed, as a result they often owe people they slave for. 1650 years later and the English monarch is having difficulty maintaining absolute power and high taxes because any peasant can get hands on a gun and kill a soldier, future leaders learn to dish out liberty for the common man to prevent their political opponents gaining enough support to have their head chopped off.