As soon as Professor Fafnier's article was published, it immediately aroused a strong reaction. Because of this article, it openly asks the American people to abandon the "unrealistic dream of great power" and pursue happiness that seems small, but more tangible.

In the article, Professor Fafnier said that the United States of America has deviated from the basic pursuit of its founding, and that 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" and "great power" oppressed and enslaved its people.

At that time, it was precisely in order to escape the religious persecution of a "powerful country" that some ancestors fled to North America. After that, the reason why North America set off a war of independence was entirely because of the oppression of a "strong country".

At the time of North America's independence, one of the worries of the American people was whether they would face 3,000 tyrants within a mile when they drove out the tyrant 3,000 miles away. So, in the beginning, the people of North America were very wary of the government. There are a lot of restrictions on the power of the government.

It is precisely because of this that the people of North America were able to enjoy a happy life of freedom and peace for a certain period of time. However, this free and happy life is in danger of being destroyed by the ambition to become a "strong country".

Because one of the requirements of a "strong country" is that the government must concentrate huge financial and material resources. Wasn't the reason why Britain oppressed and enslaved the people of its country and its dependencies in order to concentrate these financial and material resources?

There is only so much wealth in the world, and this wealth is not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the government. "Strong country" actually refers to a strong government, so if you want to become a "strong country", you will definitely loot the people and compete with the people for profit.

Nowadays in the United States, there is a very bad tendency, that is, to build a "strong country". It is precisely because of this tendency that the United States will constantly try to expand its territory, and will engage in armed friction with the surrounding Indian tribes and hostile countries to the north, and even with friendly countries that have helped North America win independence. And eventually led to war.

Professor Fafnier fears that it is all a big conspiracy. Some people are using the war to try to establish a big government that can arbitrarily interfere with the freedom of the people, and the pursuit of becoming a "great power" is a manifestation of this conspiracy.

So in closing, Professor Fafnier called on everyone to be vigilant, to reject the temptation to become a "strong country", and to maintain the dignity of the small people.

To be honest, Faveniel's article is full of holes and simply does not hold water. If nothing else, isn't France a great power? Is there no dignity for the French people?

So, of course, there are people who stand up and criticize Fafnier. It's just that the way they criticize is very interesting.

First of all, they pointed out that Fafnier's opposition to "the rise of a great power" and "the dignity of small people" is very unrigorous. Because in the world, there is a model that can not only ensure the "rise of a great power" but also maintain the "dignity of small people", that is, the French Republic. It is clearly not right to fix the "rise of a great power" on the course of an evil country like Britain without thinking about how to learn from such a good example as the French Republic.

So why is it that France's rise as a great power and the dignity of its small people can be taken into account, while Britain's cannot?

"Of course, it comes down to the difference between British culture and French culture." Mr. Greid, a professor at Harvard University and a doctor of law at the University of Paris, gave this answer.

"France is traditionally an agrarian country, and agriculture is characterized by restraint, cooperation, and the pursuit of harmony with the world. Therefore, when faced with contradictions, the French are always willing to put themselves in the shoes of others. So we can see that the French people have a special capacity for empathy. Therefore, when building a strong state, their purpose is very clear, that is, to protect the rights, freedoms and justice of the people.

Let's take the example of His Excellency Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul of France. Many Americans like to compare President George Washington to the administration of Napoleon Bonaparte. But in fact, they are simply not comparable.

First of all, in terms of merit, in the war against British tyranny, President Washington, although he was the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, also won some victories. But let's be honest and say that before France sent troops into the war, President Washington was also more defeated than victorious. It is quite certain that the most crucial and difficult battles of the War of Independence, if not all of them were fought by General Lafayette and his French army, were largely the work of the French army.

As for Napoleon Bonaparte's administration, it was under the siege of the tyrants of all Europe, turning the tide and completely defeating the tyrants of Europe.

And in terms of the country's achievements, President Washington is also not comparable to Napoleon Bonaparte's administration. The United States is a federal system, the states are largely autonomous, and the president, especially Washington, is more often than a mediator between the states. But Napoleon Bonaparte was not the same when he was in power, he was the real administrator of France. Under his leadership, France's progress really surprised the whole world. Because of this, Napoleon Bonaparte's rule gained far more popularity in France and around the world than any previous leader. Even Augustus and Charlemagne could not compare with him on this point.

Therefore, President Washington could not be compared with Napoleon Bonaparte's political achievements and prestige. In addition to this, Napoleon Bonaparte was a great jurist, as well as a member of the French Academy of Sciences. In every sense, Napoleon Bonaparte was the greatest man of his time, even the perfect man of his age.

So, while people praise President Washington for upholding democracy, don't forget that President Washington never had enough power and prestige to undermine democracy and establish a dictatorship.

But what about Napoleon Bonaparte, his power, his prestige, was enough to take him further, and the French people did not object to him becoming Diction or even Augustus. But Napoleon Bonaparte's administration remained loyal to democracy and defended it. In this sense, Napoleon Bonaparte's consult, who really faced the temptation of power and conquered it.

Why was Napoleon Bonaparte able to overcome such temptations and remain loyal to the French people? This, of course, comes down to France's culture of restraint, cooperation, and the pursuit of harmony with the world.

What is British culture like? The culture of England is that of pirates, because of the lack of warm and fertile land, a large number of British people live by being robbers and raiding. If you pay attention to the various English legends, you will see that there are a lot of stories about the English that praise thieves and praise pirates. They are not ashamed of looting and killing.

So we can see that, for the sake of profit, the foreign British will use piracy against the Spaniards and Dutch; Internally, the British would use evil laws to extort the peasants of their land and oppress people of different faiths. Because in British culture, these are not shame, but glory.

We Americans are only victims of this shameful culture. Our ancestors were in England and were persecuted for their faith, so they had to flee to North America. Later, it was also because we could not bear the oppression of the British that we launched the War of Independence.

But as another Bonaparte, President of the French Academy of Sciences, said: 'When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes at you.' There is no nation in the world that has been so persecuted by the British as we are, and no other nation has been so entangled with the English as we have been. On the one hand, we are rebelling against the tyranny of the British, but on the other hand, the tyranny of the British is deeply ingrained in our culture and even in our souls.

So, when Mayflower landed in North America, she was helped by the local Indians to get through the most difficult times. But then we had a conflict with them over their faith and other things, and as a result, we killed them all. I'm not saying that the Indians are completely innocent, but why can't we inspire them with advanced culture, correct beliefs, but adopt such a tyrannical way? Think about how Jesus Christ reacted when he was denied by others, when he was insulted and persecuted, and what about us? Are we still qualified to claim to be his followers?

Moreover, our Declaration of Independence could have been even greater. But when it was about to be published, some key words were deleted. These words criticize the British for invading and kidnapping black Africans, who have never sinned against them, and selling them into slavery for bloody gains.

Why did we delete such words that are full of humanity and brilliance? Because we are also profiting from the atrocities of the British, we are complicit in the crimes of the British, and we are not willing to sacrifice our own interests for the sake of justice. Here we can clearly see that the greed and tyranny of England are equally present in us.

Let's compare it to France, which also participated in the slave trade during the royal era, and also relied on the exploitation of black slaves to obtain profits. But when the banner of freedom, democracy, and fraternity is raised high, we see how France responds to the righteous demands of the blacks in Santo Domingo.

With the military power of France at the time, it was almost easy to extinguish the resistance of some blacks who had little combat power at all. What would happen if it was England, or even us, who ruled Santo Domingo? There is no doubt that the blood of the Negro will stain the whole of Santo Domingo red.

But how did France deal with it? France did not betray their conscience for the sake of profit, not only did they not suppress these black people, but also recognized the civil rights of these black people, and took the initiative to support these black people to establish their own country, so that the former Santo Domingo, the current Republic of Haiti, has become a paradise for black people. This is what is truly in keeping with the spirit of Christ, and the superiority of French culture is so perfect at this moment that it is admirable.

Only a civilization rooted in the thick earth can create such a broad and thick culture, can it give birth to a perfect man like Napoleon Bonaparte, and can it give birth to a great country like the French Republic. And the culture of piracy, which emerged from the raging sea, can only carry us to the constant struggle of plundering and slaughtering others and our own people. Humans are not sea creatures after all, and human legs must stand on solid ground.

Be faithful to the earth as to your own conscience; Embrace the earth as if you were our mother. Only by standing on the thick earth can we truly become a whole, strong person.

I am not opposed to the United States becoming a 'great power,' nor do I believe that there is a contradiction between the 'rise of a great power' and the 'dignity of small people'. However, the 'rise of a great power' must be built on the basis of us leaving the tyrannical primitive sea and ascending to a generous and benevolent land, otherwise, the 'rise of a great power' can become a trampling on the 'dignity of the small people'.

Escape the sea and get on land, America! ”

Such an article, of course, caused more controversy, especially those slave owners in the south, who were extremely angry. They frantically cursed Greid in their newspapers, declaring that he would go to hell.

At first, the men also tried to debate Gray in the newspapers. But obviously, those slave owners of dirt buns can't even understand the most basic syllogisms, and their logical level is so poor that they are comparable to those who understand the king. As a result, he was naturally criticized in the debate, and in the end, he could only end with the sentence "What you said is false".

Since the weapon of criticism can't deal with Gray, those southerners who are full of martial virtues naturally think of weapon criticism. And that's exactly what the Ministry of Truth wants to see.

The Ministry of Truth has noticed that some newspapers in the South are even openly calling for "the punishment of the thief." And some of the soldiers who participated in the massacre were extremely unhappy with Greid's criticism of them, for example, a Southern militia in Georgia called "Pure Faith" had put Greid's portrait and name on the target when it practiced target shooting.

Naturally, their newspapers immediately exposed these things in the Massachusetts newspapers. Then public opinion in Massachusetts was naturally in an uproar, although there were also a large number of people in Massachusetts who did not agree with Greid's views. But freedom of speech is, after all, protected by the Bill of Rights. So the governor of Massachusetts even had to stand up and shout out to Georgia and demand that they respect free speech.

And Georgia's answer was: "Sticking that guy's name on the target is also an expression, a speech, and the same freedom of speech." ”