American Strategic Deception Bureau

　In every city near and far, large and small, from coast to coast, across every mountain and river, all Americans, please remember this:

　When we are united, America is unbeatable.

　A new national pride will inspire us, lift our vision, and heal our divisions. Whether we are black, brown, or white, we all bleed the red blood of patriots. We all share the same glorious freedom, and we all salute the same American flag.

　Together, we will determine the path of America and the world for many years to come.

　What kind of country we become, what kind of world we live in, and whether we shape the future according to our hopes will all be determined by our actions and choices.

　What history can give

　The greatest honor bestowed upon us is the title of peacemaker. This honor now calls upon America to lead all mankind gradually out of the valley of turmoil and towards the world peace that has been the dream of human civilization since the beginning of history.

　We will live in peace with all nations, but we will also remember old allies, forge new friends, and continue to unite the civilized world.

　We will no longer impose our lifestyle on others by force, but let it become a model that everyone will follow spontaneously.

　Finally, a nation can only survive if it strives forward.

　No matter how difficult the reality is, we must have ambitions and great dreams.

　We stand at the dawn of a new era. We are exploring the mysterious space, we will travel to the distant moon, save Mother Earth from the suffering of disease and pollution, and create new energy, new industries and new technologies that will be used in the future world.

　Don't let anyone tell you it can't be done. No challenge can match the fighting spirit and the will of the American people.

　We will not fail. Our country will prosper again. God bless America! "

　……

　In a White House lounge, watching the replay of President Kennedy's inaugural address on TV, Fieri, who was waiting to meet the president, was quite emotional:

　These words are indeed beautiful, full of idealism, and moving to tears.

　But in the next four years, how many of the promises in President Kennedy Jr.'s inaugural address were fulfilled?

　No matter how you think about it, the prospects for this matter seem very pessimistic!

　You know, the current President Robert Kennedy is far behind the future Trump in terms of the actual power he holds!

　——At least Trump still has the strong support of the rednecks and "MAGA" groups, but President Kennedy Jr. does not have such fanatical supporters behind him!

　Since Kennedy Jr. did not run for office, he did not dare to change a single one of President Johnson's cabinet out of respect for the elders. The cabinet was still filled with Secretary of Defense McNamara, Secretary of State Rusk, and other familiar faces from the Kennedy era.

　Of the two remaining core cabinet positions, Treasury Secretary Henry Hamill Fuller, who took office in 1965, was a brash and arrogant figure. His most famous remark was, "The planets revolve around the sun, and the currencies revolve around the dollar." Before he could even finish his words, the Bretton Woods system collapsed, the dollar was decoupled from gold, and its value plummeted, becoming a laughingstock worldwide.

　The Attorney General was Ramsay Clarke, who had a fierce quarrel with President Johnson because of his radical anti-war attitude and had a very bad relationship with other members of the cabinet (later he almost became a traitor and even defended Milosevic of Yugoslavia and Saddam of Iraq).

　So, poor little President Kennedy, let alone uniting the American citizens, he can't even unite his own cabinet!

　Perhaps it is precisely because this lame new government seriously lacks unity that we have to repeatedly emphasize the importance of unity?

　"The current President Kennedy, like his brother, has lofty ambitions and great ideals. But an empty treasury, a disobedient cabinet, and the division and chaos of the country have severely tied his hands and feet."

　Dr. Kissinger sat on the sofa, watching the replay of the President's inaugural address and the news anchor's comments, and sighed, "He wanted a ceasefire in Vietnam, but the military-industrial complex and the Pentagon generals wouldn't agree. He wanted to increase welfare and appease the people, but the empty treasury made it impossible. He wanted to raise taxes, but the financial groups said they had reached their limit. He wanted to achieve domestic reconciliation, but there was simply no way to start!"

　Fortunately, the Soviet Union suppressed the "Prague Spring" in Czechoslovakia by force, which made their image in Europe extremely bad, and the communists in Western European countries also cut ties with the Kremlin one after another. If the Soviets wanted to start a war in Europe in the future, it would be difficult to find internal support from Western Europe.

　But the problem is that the United States' image in Asia will probably only get worse. It is no exaggeration to say that it is hated by everyone - since the dismemberment of Indonesia, even President Marcos of the Philippines has been terrified of us, fearing that the White House will suddenly order his country to be torn into pieces one day.

　"How could the United States, with its current state, win the Cold War and defeat the Soviet Union?"

　"So, how did the great United States of America get to this point?"

　Fili shrugged and complained, "It's only been a few years since the end of World War II. Back then, the United States had a huge advantage that was enough to crush the whole world, but it has already been lost. It can't even defeat or even attack a third-rate country..."

　In fact, the United States' hard and soft power after World War II had already crushed the whole world. The old colonial empires of Britain and France were nothing but dead bones in the grave. The Soviet Union, which suffered heavy losses in World War II, was only able to hold on to its last breath and barely put on a posture of competing with the United States for hegemony.

　But in fact, even the Soviet Union in the Stalin era was strong on the outside but weak on the inside. When faced with a tough stance from the United States, it had no choice but to give in.

　At that time, no one could have imagined that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union would last for half a century, with both sides advancing and retreating.

　But the question is, what did the United States do after World War II when it had such a good hand?

　On the one hand, they promoted McCarthyism and literary inquisition at home, destroying their own cultural soft power.

　On the one hand, it supported the most reactionary forces abroad, either allowing Europeans to return to colonies or supporting various reactionary elements, putting itself in opposition to almost all progressive forces.

　Well, the imperialists have revealed their true reactionary nature, so let’s be reactionary to the end and spread our military power all over the world like the Mongols!

　It just so happens that the United States is brutal and warlike on the one hand, but lacks martial ethics on the other. What’s even worse is that it has a very rigid attitude and will not retreat even after being defeated.

　The two wars fought by the United States after the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam, would have been too embarrassing to brag about in the British Empire of the 19th century.

　When the British Empire defeated France in the Napoleonic Wars and later in the Crimean War against Russia, they were engaged in a grand contest with a European hegemon far larger and technologically advanced than their own. During the Napoleonic era, Britain had not yet fully conquered India, and its overall strength was actually inferior to that of France. Yet, they fought on two fronts simultaneously, both in Europe and abroad. The Duke of Wellington first achieved a great victory in India before returning to Europe.

　If you praise the British Empire's military achievements in conquering Burma and its expedition to the Satsuma Domain in Japan, people will probably think you are talking nonsense!

　(Don’t underestimate Myanmar. Myanmar’s territory is much larger than Vietnam.)

　However, in Korea and Vietnam, the United States was engaged in a completely unequal competition with its third world opponents who were far behind it in all aspects.

　When Britain fought colonial wars, it basically only put in one or two fingers of strength, while the United States used all its strength to fight Vietnam.

　The result? A draw in Korea, a crushing defeat in Vietnam, and a refusal to cut losses, ultimately leaving China in shambles.

　- Can you imagine that the British Empire in the Victorian era first failed in the Opium War, then got stuck in the quagmire on the battlefield in Burma, refused to withdraw its troops after losing, and finally crashed the British pound and caused the collapse of the domestic economy?

　Furthermore, the British Empire during the Victorian era also suffered defeats. For example, in Sudan, south of Egypt, the Mahdi Army captured Khartoum and killed the British colonial governor, former leader of the Foreign Rifles, Gordon. This was a truly humiliating event.

　But the British at the time did not, for the sake of face, immediately send a large army into the interior of Africa to launch an endless guerrilla war against the natives in the desert. Instead, they waited patiently for more than ten years, and only after seeing the outbreak of civil unrest in the Mahdi Army, did they send another expedition to Sudan and retake the colony.

　Why didn't anyone in Britain at the time propose the "domino theory," declaring that the British army could not retreat from any colony, could not lose any overseas war, and must fight every conflict to the end, otherwise there would be a chain reaction throughout the colonial empire?

　Think about it: during the Victorian era, when the British Empire was at its peak, not only was it defeated by the Mahdi Army in Sudan, but it also suffered two setbacks in Afghanistan, and suffered countless setbacks in various regional conflicts. But it seems that there was never a single instance of the British Empire desperately seeking revenge, right?

　Were there no hardliners in Britain at the time who were creating public opinion to hijack the government and force Number 10 Downing Street to fight the quagmire of the overseas war to the end?

　Why was it that the British army in the 19th century was able to withdraw smoothly and ceasefire after setbacks in Afghanistan and Sudan, while the United States is so inflexible in this regard. Not only is it always unable to win large-scale overseas wars, but every withdrawal has caused chaos both domestically and internationally?

　The only example of the British Empire's poor performance in this regard seems to be the disastrous and unequal Boer War. However, Britain ultimately won the Boer War and maintained stable rule in South Africa for half a century. The United States' performance in Vietnam and the Middle East was much worse than Britain's in South Africa.

　It seems that this can only be attributed to the institutional problems of American politics and the inferior qualities of American culture, right?

　It has been so disastrous externally, so ineffective, and even made things difficult for itself. Its internal governance is nothing like that of a world hegemon.

　After World War II, the United States clearly boasted of its vast territory and abundant resources, and held global financial and technological hegemony, as well as the highest per capita GDP among major countries in the world (in the twenty years after the end of World War II). However, the quality of life and welfare benefits of its citizens quickly fell to the bottom level of developed countries. Despite having several times more per capita resources and the benefits of hegemony, the living standards of ordinary Americans have no advantages over Europe!

　Even in West Germany, which was reduced to rubble during the war, after enduring the difficult postwar years, the local middle class expressed little envy for the lives of ordinary Americans. This led to a significant decrease in European immigration to the United States after World War II, which in turn gave way to Latin American immigrants.

　From the early 19th century to the early 20th century, 25 million white Europeans immigrated to the United States, radically changing the face of North America and the fate of the United States. However, after the United States won World War II and achieved global hegemony, the number of European immigrants to the United States dropped to a fraction.

　Come on, doesn't the United States often call itself the "New Rome"? How come it's only the extravagance and debauchery of the ancient Roman aristocracy that remains?

　What about the free bread and circuses that the Roman Empire offered to its citizens? When did the welfare of Roman citizens become worse than that of the subjects of vassal states?

　Although countless experts and scholars have argued for this, saying that this is the capitalist spirit of "not supporting lazy people".

　They also say that only the jungle law of the survival of the fittest can cultivate real talents.

　But if we really just “don’t support lazy people” and don’t give them benefits, we can

　If capitalist countries had managed things well... then given the British Empire's consistent, cold, and inhumane attitude, they would have continued to force every British worker to death within three years of entering a factory, and every poor British child would have been forced to work as a chimney sweep from the age of five, even after World War II. Instead of establishing some unorthodox welfare state and handing out pounds to the poor, they would have done so recklessly.

　Therefore, this phenomenon only proves the failure of the United States' domestic political management, rather than the capitalist spirit of survival of the fittest and winner takes all.

　Author's words: PS: I have found that since ancient times, all countries that have gone to war have had one idea, that is, in the long run, the population should tend to increase.

　Even if the population drops dramatically due to war or famine, it will soon become densely populated again as long as it recuperates, so people have to fight for living space.

　What if the opposite were true? Even with the nation recovering, the birth rate would remain low and the population would continue to decline due to environmental pollution and other factors. In this case, how would the war be fought?

　—Once the army is damaged, it cannot be replaced, and even if there is no war, its numbers will gradually decrease.

　Just like the worldview of Cyberpunk 2077, the global population has tended to decrease rather than increase throughout the 21st century.

　But because life expectancy has dropped significantly, there is no pressure from aging: because not many people can live to old age.

　It feels a bit like the destruction of the Mayan Kingdom: the destroyed country turned directly into a wilderness, and no one survived there anymore.

　The land that was once inhabited by 1000 million people had only 3 people left by the time of Spanish colonization.

　Chapter 423, President Kennedy Jr.: We will go to the moon this year!

　Of course, no matter what the country has become today, as a new president, and a well-known left-wing progressive and idealist, President Robert Kennedy wanted to do something immediately effective to improve his reputation when he first sat in the Oval Office.

　——There is no way out of the Vietnam War quagmire for the time being, and reviving the economy will not happen overnight. There is also no way to maintain social order: the US president does not have the power to launch a nationwide crackdown... As for the environmental protection problem, which has always been a difficult problem, it is even more unlikely that there will be any improvement in the short term.

　Therefore, in his first few days in the White House, President Robert Kennedy set his goal of improving his political achievements on reforming basic education.

　In the timeline before Ferry's travels, basic education in the United States had long been a mess. Due to the tradition of local decentralization, until the 1980s, the United States had no unified national teaching standards, leaving each state and even each city to develop their own.

　Even if it is the same elementary school in the United States, even if it is an aristocratic elementary school with high tuition fees, there are huge differences in the courses students take.

　Indeed, the United States produced some renowned educational scholars at the time who proposed various educational philosophies and enjoyed considerable prestige both domestically and internationally. However, the extent to which these philosophies were actually implemented is unclear—in reality, they were generally applied only to a handful of "good schools."

　Some early education theories originated in the United States were once used in the Soviet Union and China, but have not yet been promoted in the United States.

　As for the elementary schools attended by poor people in the United States, it all depends on the teacher's ability and self-awareness. Most of them are the worst of the worst.

　If a student is not studious and is naughty, it is hard to say whether he can learn to read and do arithmetic after attending such a school for a few years.

　There are also some religious primary schools run by churches, where students learn nothing except listening to Bible stories.

　Therefore, the knowledge level of American soldiers during World War II was generally lower than that of European soldiers of the same period. Many American soldiers were uneducated. Because they could not understand documents, orders, numbers, maps, etc., they caused all kinds of incredible chaos.

　Why was Nixon sent to keep accounts and manage warehouses during World War II? Because it took someone of his level of education to do the math!

　The United States did not take this issue seriously at first. After World War II, it only funded some veterans to go to college, thereby promoting the expansion of enrollment in American universities. But this was only higher education for a small number of adults, which was obviously not the same as universal basic education for all people.

　American officials generally believe that for true geniuses, as long as they have access to books to read, they will definitely be able to learn without a teacher and become self-taught.

　Therefore, it is sufficient to ensure that every city in the United States has a library. As for school education, it is not that important and should be developed freely.

　It wasn't until 1958, when the Soviet Union's satellite launch shocked the world and led many Americans to mistakenly believe that their country's technological level had fallen behind the Soviet Union, that the Eisenhower administration, determined to address the prolonged Cold War, finally made up its mind and enacted the National Defense Education Act, which significantly increased education funding and mandated federal subsidies for science, mathematics, and foreign language courses in elementary and middle school, as well as the establishment of numerous scholarships.

　It wasn't until President Johnson's "Great Society" program was fully launched in the mid-1960s that the United States saw a significant and noticeable improvement in public basic education, especially in science education.

　But in this dimension, due to the early outbreak and rapid expansion of the Vietnam War, the skyrocketing military spending greatly squeezed the funds that could be used for education and child welfare, causing President Johnson's "Great Society" plan to be stillborn before it even began.

　on

　Even the National Defense Education Act, which was passed by Congress in the 1950s, soon became meaningless due to lack of funds and serious corruption. Various incentive policies could not be implemented without financial guarantees, and became a false joy in the education sector.

　Therefore, the level of public basic education in the United States on this dimension has always been similar to that of the 21st century in another timeline. However, because the United States had not yet deindustrialized at that time, vocational education was relatively developed, and technical schools and driving schools were everywhere.

　In fact, the United States itself has always had a poor ability to cultivate talent. The reason why modern America has so many Nobel Prize winners and gathers so many elites is mainly because it relies on harvesting high-end foreign talents and letting them join the United States, the "beacon of humanity", rather than educating its own people.

　——Just like the "tyrannical Qin" in the Warring States Period, most of the civil and military officials were foreigners hired for a large sum of money, while the people were a cultural desert.

　The cultural situation in the United States is not that bad, but it is not much better either. In any case, it is definitely not as good as the Soviet Union in the field of basic education.

　By the way, public education in the United States has certainly gotten worse over time. With all the talk of happy education, free education, multicultural education, and gender-fluid education, there are so many different kinds of education and chaos that in the end, there are only a few American elementary school students left who can even figure out addition and subtraction of two-digit numbers.

　On the contrary, the number of transsexuals in the United States has soared to a staggering 160 million, far more than the number of transsexuals in Thailand.

　——Think about it, even the eldest son of "Iron Man" Musk was tricked into having a sex change. How rampant do you think the transgender culture in the United States is?

　But as the opposite of public education, don’t think that private education in the United States is great.

　Indeed, those expensive private elementary and middle schools in the United States usually have far better teaching staff and hardware facilities than public schools.

　But the problem is that teaching requires the joint efforts of both teachers and students, and cannot rely solely on the teacher's enthusiasm.

　Irresponsible and bad teachers will certainly mislead students, but naughty, stupid and school-averse children will also make teachers lament that "rotten wood cannot be carved."

　So, even if the elite class monopolizes high-quality educational resources, will their children study hard after entering good schools?

　Think about it, since the purpose of private schools in the United States is to put money first, as long as you have enough money, even an idiot can get in and graduate.

　So... there is no pressure of further studies, no pressure of exams, no parental supervision - rich people have more social engagements and enjoy more, and they don't have the energy or interest to always be a "tiger mom" watching over their children - and there is no need to worry about future employment: the family has its own industry or connections, so why would they need to compete internally to apply for a job?

　In such a "relaxed" environment, how many of these elite children who go to private schools will study hard?

　What? Studying out of interest? How many students in this world are truly motivated to study out of interest, rather than just watching Douyin?

　For at least 90% of people, learning is a very painful thing. How can one gain freedom and happiness through learning?

　If teachers completely "respect nature", they will find that the better children are lazy and afraid of studying, while the worse children are involved in fighting, pornography, gambling and drugs!

　Even worse, because private school students come from wealthy or privileged backgrounds, they often look down on others. If they act mischievously in class, skipping classes, taking drugs, having sex in groups, forming gangs, or bullying classmates, teachers usually don't dare to intervene, and even calling their parents is useless.

　——In modern China, if a teacher calls a parent for a talk, the child will usually suffer when he or she returns home.

　But in the United States, parents generally consider themselves customers and teachers waiters. Since they pay so much money, teachers should adopt the spirit of "customer is God" and serve their children like gods. How can they say that their own children are wrong?

　The idea that all things are inferior except for education has been deeply rooted in Confucian culture in China since ancient times. Even if public education is poor, parents will still invest in private tutoring.

　However, unlike China, which has had the imperial examination system for thousands of years, Europe and the United States lack the tradition of "respecting teachers". The nobles of the ancient Roman Empire generally let slaves teach their children: it is easy to imagine what attitude these students and parents would have towards teachers.