As soon as Professor Fafniel''s article was published, it immediately sparked strong reactions. In his piece, he publicly urged the American people to abandon their "unrealistic grand national dreams" and pursue smaller, more tangible happiness.


    Professor Fafniel stated in his article that the United States has strayed from its founding principles. At the time of its founding, the people of North America did not aim to build a so-called "great power" because they had witnessed how such powers oppress and enve their people.


    Originally, it was to escape religious persecution from a "great power" that ancestors fled to North America. The subsequent American Revolution was entirely spurred by the exploitation from a "great power."


    Upon gaining independence, a major concern for the American people was whether, after driving away a tyrant thousands of miles away, they would face thousands of tyrants within a mile. Therefore, initially, North Americans were very cautious of government power, imposing significant restrictions on it.


    It was because of this caution that North Americans could enjoy a period of free and peaceful happiness. However, this happiness was at risk of being undermined by ambitions to be a "great power."


    A "great power" necessitates a government that amasses substantial financial and material resources. Historically, Britain exploited its people and colonies precisely to amass these resources.


    The world''s wealth is finite; if it''s not in the hands of the people, it''s in the hands of the government. A "great power" really refers to a powerful government. Therefore, to be a "great power" inevitably leads to plundering the popce andpeting with them for benefits.


    In America today, there is a dangerous trend towards building a "powerful nation." Under this trend, America continues to try to expand its territories, leading to military conflicts with neighboring Native American tribes, northern adversary nations, and even countries that helped America win its independence, eventually culminating in war.


    Professor Fafniel worries that all this is part of a grand conspiracy. Some are using war to try to establish a big government that can interfere with people''s freedom, and striving to be a "great power" is a manifestation of this conspiracy.Thus, in conclusion, Professor Fafniel calls on everyone to be vignt and resist the temptation to be a "great power," to preserve the dignity of themon people.


    Honestly, Professor Fafniel''s article is full of holes and doesn''t stand up to scrutiny. For one thing, isn''t France a great power? Don''t the French people have dignity?


    Naturally, there are those who havee forward to criticize Professor Fafniel. Their method of criticism is quite interesting.


    They first point out that it is very imprecise to set "the rise of a great power" against "the dignity of themon people." There are examples in the world that manage to ensure both "the rise of a great power" and "the dignity of themon people," such as the French Republic. To not consider how to learn from such a good example as the French Republic, and instead fixate on the evil path of countries like Britain, is clearly wrong.


    Why can France''s rise as a great power coexist with the dignity of its people, while Britain''s cannot?


    "Of course, this is due to the differences between British culture and French culture," replied Mr. Greded, a professor at Harvard University and a Doctor of Law from the University of Paris.


    "Traditionally, France is an agricultural country, where agriculture is introspective, cooperative, and seeks harmony with the world. Therefore, when faced with contradictions, the French are always willing to empathize with others. This is why the French people have a particrly strong capacity for empathy. When establishing a powerful state, their goal is very clear: to protect the rights, freedoms, and justice of the people.


    Let''s take the First Consul of France, Napoleon Bonaparte, for example. Many Americans like topare President George Washington with Consul Napoleon Bonaparte, but in fact, they are fundamentally iparable.


    Firstly, in terms of achievements, although President Washington was themander of the Continental Army and also won some victories, we must realistically say that before French troops participated in the war, President Washington was more often defeated than victorious. In the most critical and difficult battles of the War of Independence, even if we cannot say that they were all fought by General Lafayette and his French troops, most were indeed due to the efforts of the French military, which is very certain.


    As for Consul Napoleon Bonaparte, he was under siege by tyrants across Europe, turned the tide, and thoroughly defeated these European tyrants. In terms of military achievements, Consul Napoleon Bonaparte can bepared to military leaders like Alexander the Great.


    In terms of state governance, President Washington''s achievements are notparable to those of Consul Napoleon Bonaparte. America operates a federal system, where states arergely autonomous, and


    the president, especially President Washington, often acted more as a coordinator between the states. But Consul Napoleon Bonaparte was a true manager of France. Under his leadership, France''s progress amazed the entire world. That is why Consul Napoleon Bonaparte''s support in France and globally far exceeded any previous leader. Even Augustus and Charlemagne cannotpare with him in this regard. ?á?????S


    Therefore, President Washington''s political achievements and prestige also cannotpare with Consul Napoleon Bonaparte. Besides, Consul Napoleon Bonaparte was a great jurist and a member of the French Academy of Sciences. In all respects, Consul Napoleon Bonaparte was the greatest figure of his time, even a perfect man of the era.


    So, when people praise President Washington for upholding the democratic system, do not forget that President Washington never had enough power and prestige to undermine democracy and establish a dictatorship.


    But Consul Napoleon Bonaparte did. His power and prestige were sufficient for him to go further, but the French people did not oppose him bing a dictator or even an Augustus. However, Consul Napoleon Bonaparte remained loyal to democracy and upheld it. In this respect, Consul Napoleon Bonaparte truly faced the temptations of power and overcame them.


    Why could Consul Napoleon Bonaparte ovee such temptations, always remembering his origins, loyal to the French people? This, of course, can be attributed to France''s introspective, cooperative culture that seeks harmony with the world.


    In contrast, what is British culture like? British culture is a culture of piracy. Due to theck of warm, fertilend, many Britons lived by robbing and plundering. If you pay attention to British legends, you''ll find that there are many stories praising thieves and pirates. They do not consider robbery and murder shameful at all.


    So, we can see that for the sake of interest, the British use pirate methods against the Spanish and Dutch abroad; domestically, they use unjustws to dispossess peasants of theirnd and oppress citizens of different faiths. Because in British culture, these are not shameful but glorious.


    We Americans are victims of this shameful culture. Our ancestors in Britain, persecuted for their faith, had no choice but to risk escaping to North America. Later, unable to endure the British oppression, we initiated the War of Independence.


    But as another Bonaparte, the president of the French Academy of Sciences, said: ''When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.'' In this world, no nation has suffered as much persecution from Britain as we have, nor has any nation been entangled with the British for as long. We are resisting British tyranny, but at the same time, British tyranny has deeply infiltrated our culture, even our souls.


    So, after the Mayflowernded in North America, we initially received help from local Native Americans and survived the toughest times. Butter, we shed with them over faith and other issues, and eventually, we annihted them. I''m not saying that the Native Americans werepletely innocent, but why couldn''t we use advanced culture and correct faith to win them over instead of resorting to such brutal methods? Think about how Jesus Christ reacted when denied by others, insulted, and persecuted. Are we still qualified to call ourselves his followers?


    Moreover, our Deration of Independence could have been much greater. But at the moment of its publication, some critical sentences were deleted. These sentences criticized the British for invading and enving some nations—African cks—who had never wronged them, selling them into very for bloody profits.


    Why did we delete such sentences full of humanitarian glory? Because we were also profiting from British atrocities,plicit in their crimes, unwilling to sacrifice our interests for justice. Here, we can clearly see that English greed and tyranny exist in us as well.


    Let''spare with France. During the monarchy, France also participated in the ve trade and relied on oppressing ck ves for profit. But when the gs of liberty, democracy, and fraternity were raised high, we see how France responded to the just demands of the ck people in Saint-Domingue.@@novelbin@@


    With France''s military power at the time, it would have been easy to crush the hardly powerful ck resistance. If Saint-Domingue had been ruled by Britain or even us, what would have happened? Undoubtedly, the blood of ck people would have dyed all of Saint-Domingue red.


    But how did France handle this? France did not betray its conscience for profit; they not only did not suppress these ck people, they recognized their citizenship rights and actively supported them in building their own country, turning the former Saint-Domingue, now the Republic of Haiti, into a paradise for ck people. This is the real practice in line with the spirit of Christ, the superiority of French culture demonstrated so perfectly, admirable to all.


    Only a civilization rooted in rich soil can create such a broad and profound culture, produce a perfect man like Napoleon Bonaparte,


    and create a great nation like the French Republic. The pirate culture born from the violent seas can only lead us to struggle painfully in plunder and ughter, both against others and ourselves. Humans are not marine creatures; we must stand on solid ground.


    Be loyal to thend, just like being loyal to your conscience; embrace thend, just like embracing our mother. Only by standing on solid ground can we truly beplete, powerful people.


    I do not oppose America bing a ''great power,'' nor do I think there is a contradiction between ''the rise of a great power'' and ''the dignity of themon people.'' But the ''rise of a great power'' must be based on us leaving the tyrannical primitive sea and stepping onto the generous and benevolentnd; otherwise, the ''rise of a great power'' can only trample on the ''dignity of themon people.''


    Flee the sea andnd on earth, America!"


    Such an article, of course, sparked even more controversy, especially among the southern ve owners, who were extremely angry. They furiously cursed Greded in their newspapers, dering that he would surely go to hell.


    At first, these people even attempted to debate with Greded in the newspapers. But clearly, those simpleton ve owners, who couldn''t even understand basic syllogism, were logically so deficient that they were refuted into silence in the debates, ending up with a mere "what you said is false."


    Since criticism couldn''t tackle Greded, those spirited southerners naturally thought of the critique of arms. And this was precisely what the Ministry of Truth wanted to see.


    The Ministry of Truth had noticed that some southern newspapers even openly called for "heavenly punishment for the national traitor." And some soldiers involved in massacres, highly resentful of Greded''s criticisms, like a southern militia in Georgia called "Pure Faith," had already put Greded''s portrait and name on their shooting targets.


    Their newspapers naturally immediately exposed these actions in the newspapers of Massachusetts. Then the public opinion in Massachusetts was naturally in an uproar, although many in Massachusetts did not agree with Greded''s views. But freedom of speech is protected by the Bill of Rights. So the Governor of Massachusetts even had to step forward to call on Georgia to respect freedom of speech.


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