I may be slow to respond, however, for which I apologize in advance. Work and family call and I do not log in here often.

In that case, if you are interested I can explain why the historical data indicates that two-thirds of your statement is incorrect. The horrors of slavery benefitted the slaveowners, quite obviously, but not the American economy as a whole. (The same applies to the Mexican Cession.)

I would engage in a conversation but I suspect that you will block me. My feed on this app is interesting! I wonder how the algorithm works?

Absolutely!

Why was it irrelevant? There is a current in the UK that feels guilty about colonialism -- sufficiently so to pay Mauritius £165 million per year!

So it's my turn to scratch my head. You're sure you're not taking issue with the relevance for other reasons?

Hmm. I think I failed as a writer, then. I had no intention of stating that I didn't understand /why/ the UK would toss Mauritius out. May I ask where I gave that impression?

I did, of course, mean to say that the British reaction was both unusual and unseemly. Vive la France!

New York City taxpayer here. Eric Adams is bad in
"a big showboaty way." (Great description!) And if you're hoping for major changes, nope, not great. But he's fine in a managerial way and housing policy is not bad.

I checked, and word "unusual" doesn't show up in the post. I will stick by "perplexing" for the decision. If you're going to say I'm off-base, then you should say where! I will either talk you out of it, or learn something, or have us both conclude that there is a difference in values.

OK, what part are you referring to? That's strong language, sir!

They are still impossible to find in New York and trivially easy to get in Washington, DC. I have no explanation.

That is bad, but in 1870 the Census recorded 162,540 familes, so roughly 5,200 household heads leaving would make for an annual rate around 3 percent. If that was a crisis peak, it does not sound very high, but am I using the wrong metric?

Well, did you not say that earlier?

I am getting a bit bored.

Respect is not deference ... sir? Ma'am? I feel terrible for you that you think that it is.

For example, I have treated you with respect during this entire amusing exchange, other than being a bit condescending by pointing out that I find it amusing.

I like this. I am important enough to receive death threats from my real work so I do not want anyone on social media to know who I am? But the haters already know who you are from your putative other work, do they not? Apologies, but I do indeed smell a rat. Perhaps it is just a dead rat.

It is quite silly, as is your distaste for people who disagree with you.

Well, you have only corrected me in your own head. And you continue to be obnoxious and quite disrespectful. I do find it amusing, however.
Of course, your framework is useless. All societies have mainstream elements of traditionalism and nationalism. Therefore all societies will trend to fascism.