Cameroni

So you're saying the USA was number one. Thank you for this tribute. It is always a pleasure to see a table like this, where America reigns supreme at number 1 spot. I don't see Europe on there, is it on the list?

You don't consume sports shoes or hamburgers? What a sad, sad life, You probably eat mushy peas and wear sandals. How can you not know Iggy Azalea, the major Australian pop export since, well, ever. She has a stronger Southern US accent than even Elton John. Actually, I think you'll find it was BRITISH companies who used slaves in the Americas to line their pockets. We Americans stand for freedom, not the cruel exploitation of colored people, like the British Empire. True, the leftists have caused some issues in America, but cometh the man, cometh the hour! The time of reckoning will come in November when Superman and Elvis wrapped into one, Captain America himself, the great, the immortal, the legendary, Donald J Trump will ascend to power one more time to wreak a righteous vengeance on the leftist trolls. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children..

Bollywood? That's like saying "rice" is the most popular food in the world, obviously the point here is internationally not for one particular group. Internationally the Hamburger is the most popular dish in the world, If you look at this list, 8 of the top 10 fast food chains are American. And we see them all over the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_fast_food_restaurant_chains Most people watch Hollywood films, Indian films have a big audience, but not as internationally diverse as Hollywood.

Great song.

Well, in terms of music it's self-evident, American music dominates. Even if English, Thai or Japanese acts are in the charts they're pretending to be American, like that Australian Iggy Azalea. In terms of food, the hamburger is the most successful food in the world. You can say it was really German, but it ascended to that position as an American fast food from American chains. In fashion it's the American version of sneakers that predominates, jeans, baseball caps, etc. In Academia it's American universities getting most prizes In films, well, I rest my case.

American culture is the dominant Western culture. There is no other Western culture that dominates the world in terms of academia, pop music, fast food, popular dress and so on, to the extent American culture does.

American culture is indeed largely Western culture. However, American culture is the dominant Western culture. It is American music, dress and fast food that dominates the world, not any other. You can say Beatles this, Elton John that, but they sang with an American accent and pretended to be Americans.

No, sorry, but culture is a very wide net to cast, what aspect of culture do you see the West being dominant in?

There was coercion involved prior to Ahmed deciding he wants to become a rapper and wear a baseball cap, even if Ahmed doesn't realise it. So yes, whilst Ahmed is not coerced himself in his desire to become a rapper, the fact that US popular music has attained the ever present status it has in the world is linked to US music being the music of the victor of WWII, the economic ascendancy of America due to the self-destruction of Europe in WWII. These are the conditions which led to US Music thriving in the world. History is still with us today. If Mongolia had become the dominant power after WWII and its economy had become the most powerful in the world, Ahmed woud most likely want to wear a Mongolian sheep herders hat and want to be a Mongolian throat singer. There is nothing inherent in US culture that makes it superior to Chinese, Japanese, Thai, German or Russian culture. An American baseball hat is not better than a North German seafarer hat, US popular music is not better than Chinese popular music. It just happened that way for a variety of reasons.

It's more American culture that has become dominant, American clothes, American inventions, American food, the rest of the West not so much. And again, the reason that is the case is very much linked with military, political and economic reasons that led to this being the case, it was not the result of a "superior" culture forcing itself to the fore. Rather it was an accident of fate, the fantastic size of the USA, its resources, and immigration, then the events leading to WWII, these are the real reasons Western culture is so widespread. Not a cultural superiority inherent in the culture itself.

That's obviously wrong. In the case of the West, it did and still does. The global appeal of US culture is unthinkable without the US having emerged victorious from WWII, or having won the Philippines war, or still being ready to send naval forces into the South China Sea to asssit the Philippines. In the case of the West, soft culture appeal and military strength are linked.

No, I think you forget, or rather don't realise, that the soft cultural power you have in mind is a by product of the West having beaten the rest of the world on the head with a big hammer for the last few hundreds of years. It is NOT a result of the superiority of the culture itself, but rather a result of centuries of war, annihilation, genocide, purposeful starvation and similar events.

Let me explain this way, the American culture is the most dominant today in soft culture. Do you think this would be the case if the US had not won WWII? Clearly it would not be the case. The reason why the American culture today is dominant is not because Megan Thee Stallion is superior to Richard Strauss, but because for political, military and economic reason the US ascended to this position of cultural dominance. It is not a result of the culture itself, but of brute force, do you see what I'm saying?

I think, clearly what is required, is to define more precisely what the term "dominant culture" or the term "cultural superiority" is supposed to refer to. Clearly, my view is that the dominant status of American culture today is a result of the US emerging victorious in a war. The entire edifice of culture is built on weapons, without the need for weapons there would be no larger brain, and no culture to speak of really. In fact weapons themselves are an expression of culture. However, the question is does the development of an H bomb say, weigh more heavily in the scales of culture than the development of an alphabet? The author of the Bell Curve, Charles Murray, wrote the book "Human Accomplishment", to try and rank cultures based on accomplishment. Despite his own brilliance, and his brilliant previous work, Murray had some difficulty in ranking cultures by accomplishments. i read the book, and it is far less convincing than the Bell Curve, and received a lot of criticism.

But it does, you spoke of "dominant" culture. The only reason American culture is dominant now is because Russia defeated the Wehrmacht in 1945. If the US had not come out of WWII as the victor would it be the dominant culture today? Probably not. If the British Empire dominated other nations, then really due to the technological advantage of their weapons So I think the analogy is pretty solid, These nations that did become dominant became so through the use of force, which was possible because of a technology gap that gave them an edge.

Well, he has a point that certain cultures, say the US, have an appeal that leads to emulation, there's plenty of Thais copying American pop culture, Lisa of Blackpink and my local buddy playing in a Heavy Metal band. My daughter is starting to talk Korean from all the K-dramas. Does that make Korea a superior strong culture?

Is that the time the snakes wake up in Isan and you have to be alert?

As a capital markets lawyer.

Well, the question I was raising was really, if you put a gun into the hand of a weak person, and that person then shoots 5 people, does that make the killer a "strong" person? Arguably the people he killed were stronger intellectually or physically. The killer just had the benefit of a technology gap. Equally, in the realm of nations (I prefer to use this than "cultures"), if a nation has a technological advantage and subjugates others, is this really a sign of strength or superiority? If the fighting arena is equal, and a winner prevails, then he can be said to be superior. However, if you put a gatling gun into his hand and he wins, is he actually superior or just the beneficiary of a technological gap? Bear in mind also that at one point China was the dominant nation, at one point India, at one point Aztecs, I mean at one point Sumerians, these are all snapshots in time. Can we really extrapolate a unique strength to one of these nations? If subjugation of other nations is the greatest sign of superiority are you then willing to admit the Mongolians as the master race?

What kind of strength would following rules foster? How hard is it to follow rules? It just doesn't seem like a sign of strength. Is it not in Chaos were true strength is found and tested? Protecting people, avoiding danger...all virtues of the weak.

Exactly. So the value is zero. Because most of the transgender and young would have voted for Harris anyway. The 30% of LGBTQ who vote for Trump will not change their mind because Eilish or Swift vote Harris.

Billie Eilish is exceptionally intelligent, her lyrics are clear evidence of this. Also in interviews you can tell she is smarter than average. A very thoughtful girl. But politically a naked child basically, only concerned with her abortion, transgender stuff. She's not exactly "normal". On foreign policy and the economy I doubt she has more knowledge than the average 15 year old. Indeed Harris comes across as a normal woman, who will follow others' leads. But the presidential office is an office that demands leadership. You can't just sit by say and "oh okay, I'll fly to Zelensky to tell him will send weapons and not to sign the peace treaty". It takes a mind that can understand what has to be done. I don't think Harris is equipped for this. Her policy on abortion is understandable, for a woman, but on foreign policy and the economy, she's a a blind led by the one-eyed. Any man should be terrified to vote for Harris, who has made clear she will pour gasoline on the fire that is Ukraine, and that she believes she can solve inflation by fixing prices should warn the most ardent believer that in terms of economics Harris an unwritten page.

That's just not true though, the Americans themselves had made the transition from Do wah diddy to Rock'n Roll, they didn't need the Beatles or the Brits for this. Indeed, it was the Beatles who listed to Rock'n Roll and then simply proceeded to ape it, to the extent of affecting American accidents. Only later did they evolve from the stage of copying American rock'n roll. The lyrical journey of the Beatles you have a point, and the years and consistency of output of course preclude a comparison with new acts. But which Beatles lyrics would you cite as a particular example of genius? I don't much care for "What Was I Made For", tepid and tedious for the most part. No harmonies like in Birds of a Feather.

So gays, lesbians, transgender, queer, swfities and Eilish fans will decide the US election? If enough men turn out to vote for Trump, let's say he develops a 13% lead among men, the way Harris has among women, that would make up for the small number of LGBTQ votes. But we have too many traitors in our rank. Why any man would vote for Harris, when her only distinguinshing policy is reproductive rigths, ie abortion extremism, is a mystifying mystery. I guess some hate Trump so for some reason.

The British empire did start out with a pirate, Francis Drake. The British were basically a bunch of pirates who kept stealing from the Spanish, this is how the British empire got started. Through piracy. Did other nations also engage in piracy, of course, but let's not pretend the British empire did not start out as a bunch of pirates. It certainly did. On the point of plagiarism, it did happen , but I accept that it was common place at the time. Nevertheless it is odd is it not, how when the Chinese copy something they're base copyists, but when a Brit demonstrates the TV using technology developed by Paul Nipkow, the Brit is a pioneer and feted as such. It's ludicrous. The point of language is a good one, though of course German language was far more difficult than English but German academia prevailed in the 19th century nevertheless. However, we see with Tagalog today the problems that can be caused. In terms of the German autoindustry, if you want to drive the finest car, you'd still buy a Porsche Taycan if you buy electric, if you wanted the finest SUV you'd still buy the Mercedes GLS, and if you want the best luxury limousine you would still buy the Maybach. If money were no option. The problem is that German cars are very expensive and now people are more concerned about cheap rather quality. Germans have problem with this, since labour costs in Germany are exorbitantly high. In addition nobody makes bad cars anymore, even a KIA is excellent, so the competition just got a lot better. So the German auto industry has its problems, some home made like the energy crisis, but overall they still make the best cars. The knowledge gap German automakers have still helps them produce cars more reliably than Tesla or Chinese firms. How long that gap will persist is another question.