HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| Sovietmaster
Sovietmaster
βοΈ
[9153869]
[2008-12-23 01:56:11 +0000 UTC]
"Blessed is ALMSIVI"
(United States)
# Statistics
Favourites: 756; Deviations: 38; Watchers: 73
Watching: 153; Pageviews: 18822; Comments Made: 2411; Friends: 153
# Interests
Favorite movies: The InternationaleFavorite writers: Karl Marx, Fredreich Engels,Vladimir Lenin,Joseph Stalin,Mao-Tse Tung, and Enver Hoxha
Favorite games: World in Conflict:Soviet assault and LOTR Conquest
Favorite gaming platform: Action
Other Interests: TV,Movies,Reading, and video games.
# Comments
Comments: 338
Hi! I realize we've never met before, but I just wanted to wish you a good day (or evening), and if it hasn't been so good so far, I hope that it will get better! Remember to smile and laugh; please enjoy what's left of the day.
p.s. if you're wondering how I got to your page, I used the Random Deviant button
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah, uhhh, my computer's been snatched up by someone who for some reason takes precedence. He likes to drool over the keyboard and do very little in a large amount of time, so I'm not sure how long he'll be ;/ Seems this appointment is another dud; I'm really sorry.
π: 0 β©: 1
Alrighty a.a not sure what to suggest...
π: 0 β©: 1
Will you be available next week..?
π: 0 β©: 1
Alrighty cx give me a heads up if you can't make it
π: 0 β©: 1
>.> a little late theri
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah..The goddamn tests. But we completed it today. It's done.
Just. Damnit, I keep fucking forgetting and now I'll fuck this RP up too? Fuck..
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't mean to be rude, but I don't do swearing; have fun with your little fit.
π: 0 β©: 1
Would you like to do it this week? This time, I will remind myself in case I have something. For the moment - there isn't anything.
π: 0 β©: 1
Uhm... yeah. Wednesday then? Or want to try for Monday?
π: 0 β©: 1
*Is on-time ...for once cx*
π: 0 β©: 1
Will try to continue another day then? ;/
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah..I slept after a while. Maybe today (Thursday) or Saturday?
π: 0 β©: 1
Ahhh, well, mmm; not likely. Tonight I watch Doctor Who, and Saturday I tend to my garden. Sorry ;/
π: 0 β©: 1
eh..guess next week,
π: 0 β©: 2
Couple hours from now; still up for it?
π: 0 β©: 1
Oooh come on 
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry. I slept. Do you think you can make it Saturday/Friday?
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, it's alright; I don't think rping is better than sleep... is it that late over there? Jus long days I suppose. Not sure, I might be able to make it fri or sat; we'll just have to see I guess.
π: 0 β©: 1
it's 11 pm. It's not that late.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I didn't think I was that boring
π: 0 β©: 1
you aren't boring! You're pretty amazing.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, heh cx thanks; I appreciate that... I bore myself a lot of the time.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oooof cx alright; I'm on my way
π: 0 β©: 1
Alrighty c: see you then
π: 0 β©: 0
No prob, fellow Dunmer...Or are you one of those Aldmeri? D: But it is always nice to find a fellow Morrowinder. We're almost an extinct species.
π: 0 β©: 1
I only got into it a year ago. I tried before that, couldn't, but now I adore it.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's good. It's a bit difficult to get used to..but then it's kinda like, this amazing master piece that you can't get enough of. You know they have a mod of adding the whole of Mainland Morrowind, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
Tamriel Rebuilt or something. Last I heard it was still under construction? Or has it been released? I haven't really looked into it that much.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's released maps. Which are, more or less, sections of Mainland tamriel. So - they've released maps 1-3. Though they are, still, under construction. They're planning on doing the actual maps first - then the quests/NPCing. But there are some quests to do - just not alot. Map 1 and 2 is all of District Telvannis - or Telvanni territory. Map 3 is the first half of Indoril territory, with the City of the Dead/Necrom. Map 4 will be Almalexia, crown jewel of TR. Then so on and so forth. The last map will be of the Dres, which will be the MOST interesting. Because they'll be making new meshes and such, entirely 'making' of House Dres. Though you need all the expansions to use it, and another mod to give you the ability to use the map.
..But yeah. Only thing they're working on atm is the questing, they got the maps down for all the regions.
π: 0 β©: 0
Alright I haven't responded in quite a while due to many things happening. As for Rhodesia we can objectively argue what the west did to them was wrong. Ian Smith didn't allow black majority rule because they simply were not ready.
[link]
hree days after becoming Prime Minister, Smith announced there would be no plans to bring Rhodesia under "black majority rule" in his lifetime;[15] later, in his memoirs, Smith maintained that he was referring to black rule as it was in other African countries such as Ghana, Uganda and Tanzania, which after independence and the implementation of black control had become dictatorships.
White minority rule originated in property and education qualifications for voting that were in place when the British government introduced self-government in 1923. Such qualifications were unexceptional by the standards of the 1920s, and, although slightly modified over the years, they ensured a situation up to 1979 in which whites had 95% of the votes in national elections, while they were never more than 5.5% of the population. Despite this imbalance in the Rhodesian electoral system, Smith and other white politicians argued there was nothing fundamentally racist about it: They stated that improvements in black education and wealth would, over time, ensure a gradual move to majority rule. The Rhodesian government retained the African community's traditional tribal structure, and regularly consulted the tribal chiefs β seen by the government as the legitimate voice of the country's black people β to gain an insight into the feelings of those parts of the population that were difficult to reach by other political means. This was often done by the calling of an "indaba", a large scale conference of tribal leaders to air opinions and concerns.
[link]
[link]
"Reporters who visit the white-rule states think they know better than the people who live there. At one time this would have been called βprejudiceβ. Such people know all the facts except the obvious ones, and constantly pretend that if Africans were treated as something which they are not, African would be as democratic as Switzerland. The truth is that Africans will not share power with each other, much less with you, and such theorists are seldom willing to invest their own lives and property in the experiment."
βItβs meaningless to talk about prejudiceβ, said an English immigrant to South Africa. βPrejudice means pre-judging, it means forming an opinion in the absence of factsβ¦ expressing an opinion when you donβt know what you are talking about.β He shrugged. βIf a Zulu girl wanted to marry a Xhosa man or vice versa, their parents would kill them, theyβd kill both of them. Butβ¦ thatβs not prejudice, thatβs just a fact of life. If youβre a Zulu and sheβs a Xhosa, you just bloody well donβt get married!β
"Rhodesia has segregated schools. Whites are fee-paying, black schools are free; the whites pay twice, tuition and tax as well. Blacks are educated separately from each other. Why not? Every time you put them together, they kill each other. "
"It is also because the Africans have no mutually intelligible language, apart form English, which they have to learn. It is impossible to imagine how basic their education must be. Many of them have never seen a table, a chair, a stairway, a handkerchief, a toilet. They must be taught to think in an entirely different way: for instance, there is a tribe in Angola who use a compound word for βsevenβ which means, literally, βsix plus twoβ. They do not need intellectuals. They need basic skills. An intellectual cannot make a living in rural America. How many can Black Africa absorb?"
The blacks in Rhodesia were not naturalized blacks living in the USA; these were tribalist blacks EXTREMELY behind the modern world with NO concept of modern governments. It is not entirely a racial issue; the Rhodesian government was giving them free education and the plan in the long term was to gradually ease them into responsible government.
The western countries that put sanctions on them did so in principle; they were thinking like sick intellectuals who segregate themselves from reality. "in principle, I hate white minority rule, so it is bad regardless of the context and I do not need to consider the situation any further".
The fact they elected an authoritarian Stalinist who gave up on most or all of his promises and is blatantly genocidal, outwardly opposes homosexuals, is simply proof that everything the Rhodesian government did was perfectly sensible and a realistic assessment of the situation. The current situation is in EVERY WAY WORSE even if you still think Smith's government was bad; which I just proved it wasn't by any huge extant. It was them considering the realities of ruling and doing what they had to do to maintain a stable, strong, modern government.
I don't even see it as an economic thing; I am in fact a Syndicalist, and what happened to Rhodesia to me was still one of the worst crimes in the 20th century since World War II and there are people who need to pay for it. Knowing that the blacks were NOT ready to run a government for multiple reasons yet still deciding that it is morally wrong to keep them from ruling out of "principle" is inherently a neurosis.
π: 0 β©: 1
Er, they became dictatorships due to be influenced by the West. (Look at Angola - everyone went in and in the end it was just opportunists who tried to get the most support.)
In the end the basic argument is - Rhodesia was a white apartheid. Because of this it's already politically suppressing the african majority in the country. More so when several wanted to have political independence.
But basically why couldn't they give over the power, education and wealth to the blacks right then and there? Why not? It'd be the same argument if we went all the way back to Rome. How come the Plebians or the Proletarii could not get many votes or get their issues talk about? How come the aristocrats could not give them the power right then and there and GIVE them the education.
In this argument - you're not really Syndicalist. You're supporting the status quo and is giving the implimation that 'Hey the africans couldn't rule because they were tribals!'
Why could the white rules? They're just europeans. Europeans have done shit with ruling if you've noticed history. (Remember the HRE? Byzantium? Rome? Weren't they such high class rulerships that lasted very long)
But tell me how he's genocidal. Has he killed whites? Did he do what Smith did and directly target any african village who may or may not have had connections with the rebels? That's genocide. I don't see your proof on how Zimbabwe is held by a genocidal maniac.
Does he oppose homosexuals? Likely, but no one is perfect. Then again you're saying the Apartheid of Smith is dandy. So the Apartheid of America and South Africa are also dandy, Africans weren't fit to vote or rule in those locations just by using your same arguments.
π: 0 β©: 1
"In the end the basic argument is - Rhodesia was a white apartheid. Because of this it's already politically suppressing the african majority in the country. More so when several wanted to have political independence."
I am arguing that their civilization is indeed inferior to ours, and that is just common sense. It would be the same if we found isolated stone age white Celtic tribalists somewhere in Ireland; they would have no concept of modern government and would have to be naturalized to the west for a while before given some form of self rule. So it is not really a racial argument. The far left is retarded because it believes in things on principle; as do neo-liberals/libertarians and most western rulers. They don't think within the bounds of reality. The left would in principle attack X country because it has some form of segregation WITHOUT considering the reasons for it. This is a form of neurosis, and in fact something us Fascists recognize and are against; we see the concept of "rights" and principles as metaphysical and detracting from pragmatism, and the situation of Rhodesia is one of the biggest examples I can think of this form of neurotic thinking.
From a humanistic standpoint, letting them rule when they have very primitive morals and values would be a disaster and lead to terrible things...which it has.
[link]
There's many more sources for tremendous, direct human rights abuses - and I am sorry, any claims you make of propaganda would be ridiculous because they would be coming from the same source that put propaganda on Ian Smith's regime - which was the west, by the way, and the western governments of the 60's, 70's, and 80's were more right wing in general, and also fighting a cold war against communists, and yet still condemned Rhodesia and let marxist-funding black nationalists kill them. I find that quite surprising, actually - even if Rhodesia was the racist, horrible regime the left makes it out to be, you would think the west would still pragmatically support it. The U.S.A. has had a history of supporting right-wing dictatorships such as Pinochet during the cold war - yet we let the morally clean Rhodesia die. What? That genuinely confuses me.
"But basically why couldn't they give over the power, education and wealth to the blacks right then and there?"
They were educating them...they put them in separate schools because if they put different tribes together, the tribes would kill each other. That was one of the main issues.
[link]
-"Rhodesia is criticized for spending more money on the education of white children than black. What do you expect? The whites are outnumbered every year simply by the number of black babies born. Either the whites must adopt an African standard of culture and educate no one, or they must spend more of their money on themselves."-
-"Rhodesia has segregated schools. Whites are fee-paying, black schools are free; the whites pay twice, tuition and tax as well. Blacks are educated separately from each other. Why not? Every time you put them together, they kill each other."-
You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that blacks are some monolithic group. Two different tribes living within miles of each other have completely different customs and cultures. Letting all the tribes in Rhodesia collectively run a government would be a fucking disaster of epic proportions...which is what happened.
-"It is also because the Africans have no mutually intelligible language, apart form English, which they have to learn. It is impossible to imagine how basic their education must be. Many of them have never seen a table, a chair, a stairway, a handkerchief, a toilet. They must be taught to think in an entirely different way: for instance, there is a tribe in Angola who use a compound word for βsevenβ which means, literally, βsix plus twoβ. They do not need intellectuals. They need basic skills. An intellectual cannot make a living in rural America. How many can Black Africa absorb?"-
-"Africans have no tradition of political voting. They may or may not choose their own chief, but after that they will ask him how to vote and they will all vote that way. Another fount of political wisdom is the witch doctor. Consequently it is a matter of great importance to the terrorists and Smith government to have the chief and witch doctors on their side."-
They didn't even have a concept of Democracy.
I strongly suggest you watch this: [link]
The Smith regime was sending the black areas free money (incidentally, the South African apartheid regime pumped free money into the bantustans as well). They WERE giving them free education and such, but at that point for whatever reason, they were not ready. For you to say that is a lie and they clearly were ready would merely be speculation on your part, and obviously due to fear of having "racist" views.
"In this argument - you're not really Syndicalist. You're supporting the status quo and is giving the implimation that 'Hey the africans couldn't rule because they were tribals!'"
Yes, the Africans couldn't rule because they were tribals. That is me being totally realistic and accepting reality, and in this case supporting the status quo would have been a more realistic thing to do for the time being. The problem with the far left, as well as a lot of neo-liberal/libertarians is that they tend to support things "in principle", and are not pragmatic. This leads to idiotic decisions based on the concept of "rights", which in many cases ends up fucking shit up. Zimbabwe is in every way worse than Rhodesia now. I'm sorry you CANNOT use the excuse of economic sanctions because Ian Smith's Rhodesia was recognized by NO ONE. Not even the South African apartheid regime recognized Rhodesia, but just sent them aid and security help for a while, in addition to Portugal and Israel. Israel is, by the way, still selling Zimbabwe weapons.
I think Zimbabwe has more people recognizing it than Rhodesia...in fact I think everyone recognizes Zimbabwe.
[link]
[link]
If you do your research a metric ton more crimes against humanity were comitted by the insurgents. Shooting down airliners and raping and murdering the survivors has no strategic justification outside terror.
"Does he oppose homosexuals? Likely, but no one is perfect."
My point in pointing that out was to show that it is worse now for anyone who is a leftist, so opposing Ian Smith's regime on principle was idiotic. That is inherently a neurosis.
[link]
[link]
"Did he do what Smith did and directly target any african village who may or may not have had connections with the rebels? That's genocide."
No, that's not genocide at all. That's desperation and war. (This is presuming Smith did indeed do this) If the Smith regime had the intent of trying to wipe out Africans they could have done it. I've never seen that intent from any white colonials, or else it would have been done fairly easily. I am NOT saying groups were not murdered by white colonials historically, but there was no organized intent to genocide - the word genocide, like racism, is nowadays somewhat of a doublespeak - it is whatever it is defined as to the user. They define the word genocide, they define the word racism - it does not matter /why/ one does X, it is still racism, or genocide, or whatever.
You didn't give me a specific example of him deliberately wiping out a black village, but more importantly if you were a Rhodesian there, fighting for your life because the rest of the world is not helping you and letting you die you'll start to do desperate things as well - that goes for anyone. The black nationalist groups were also murdering their own, probably more blacks than whites. The bottom line is the huge amounts of murder on ether side wouldn't have happened if not for economic sanctions and completely isolating Rhodesia from any help. You put people in a desperate situation and they will do desperate things. I think the issue with oldschool Marxists is their segregation from human nature.
I've had neo-Marxists agree with my arguments here, because neo-Marxists understand that old Marxists don't fundamentally realize how much human nature and psychology plays a role - in addition my previously pointed out "principle over pragmatism" never gets anything done. You can't argue for a marxist utopia until other demands are met - presuming one is even possible. Arguing for stable, democratic socialist/marxist government composed of multiple tribes that HATE EACH OTHER is beyond childish; it is pure insanity.
The fact you're telling me that, as a Syndicalist, I should somehow support something I KNOW will wreck a country is rather telling of your mindset - it is neurotic, ironically "Enlightenment" thinking. I don't think this issue we are arguing over really has much to do with economics of any form, ether. That is fundamentally irrelevent and the Marxist tendency to equate all problems with economics is beyond ridiculous.
'In principle, I oppose X for any reason, so even though I know that it is likely that forcing Y country to end Z will cause more problems than solve, I will still oppose it.' - that is mental illness. That is like saying 1+1=4
The bottom line is this, you can make any argument you want to make, but if you were a Rhodesian you could tell the blacks were not ready to rule. If you do not believe them than anything you say is pure, 100% speculation. I am not going to make a racial commentary, and whilst I do have some doubts about the racial equality propaganda we are pushed in modern societies, for whatever reason, as I said, they were not ready to rule then. There are A LOT of things genetics has told us, and a lot of holes in racial equality narratives, and whilst white nationalist narratives are always retarded, saying that all genetics are the same is as well. If you accept that Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids have different physical characteristics, then there is an equally likely possibility different mental characteristics exist.
In the west blacks were naturalized due to being brought over as slaves and brought up in European culture for more than 200 years. Sometimes I don't think the American government understood that difference and why segregation here was mostly stupid (debatably pragmatic to keep the South from rebelling again, at least at the beginning, granted) but things like Rhodesia and South Africa had an entirely different justification. The U.S.A. never took that into account when putting economic sanctions on them - just loads of white guilt and principled thinking, and now things are worse.
For the record South African apartheid had a lot of moral flaws compared to Rhodesia (I personally think Rhodesia was not really doing anything morally wrong, but just being realistic), so I am not going to blindly defend the Nasionale party, but as is the case of Rhodesia the way it was dealt with made things worse, and a lot of the arguments I made in defense of Rhodesia do, in fact, apply to South African apartheid.
Most of the massacres, if not all of them, were the result of paranoid police and security. Sharpeville and the hilariously propagandically named "Trojan Horse Massacre" are good examples, especially the latter, which is clearly frightened rookies not knowing what to do. You can't judge people who do seemingly horrible things so much, if you were in a truck and surrounded by tons of angry people throwing rocks at you and advancing, and you had a gun, you may start shooting because you fear for your life. That is natural human instinct.
This is just an acceptance of reality, that is not the apartheid regime intentionally disguising a food truck to massacre africans; that is just objectively ridiculous. If they had an intent to do so they would have done it in totally different ways. These things are indeed sad, but that is simply reality and we must accept it. When you propagandistically exaggerate things and turn them into a narrative, no one benefits if you care about the objective truth. And us Fascists have done that too, I will admit, but so have communists and neo-liberal democracies. In my eyes narratives like that are plainly Orwellian in nature - and I believe it is in our best interests to oppose such things.
π: 0 β©: 1
To make a long response short - the core arguments here are mostly based around a few concepts.
One is the White Man's Burden. As the colonization of America, Africa, Asia and so on were basically bringing 'modern civilization' to the 'lesser ones'. Not only is this rather fundamentally wrong, but then you basically ignore the Imperialism behind it.
How super-profits are made because of it, the endless genocide and the creation of racism itself (as a system).
The rest of the long post (dealing with the actual details or how Africans can not rule a state due to their inferiorty..) reminds me alot of Eugenics. That thing that was to make Africans 'genetically superior' while conducting human right violations that even you'd condemn.
Though with the 'desperation and war' argument; it goes for every single army. The Nazis were totally justifed to slaughter millions. Why? Desperation and War. The white settlers were as well, they could kill every-single native American with this.
Ultimately, I'd like to know how you'd support the proletarian masses when you advocate for their literal suppression. (remembering that Proletariat is the most oppressed class, thus the workers in Africa were proletariat. Imperial workers in France and Britain? No - more receiving end of Imperialism.)
π: 0 β©: 1
"One is the White Man's Burden. As the colonization of America, Africa, Asia and so on were basically bringing 'modern civilization' to the 'lesser ones'. Not only is this rather fundamentally wrong, but then you basically ignore the Imperialism behind it."
Okay let me put it this way - Ian Smith wasn't a colonizer, he was born there. That was as much his home as any black African. If you leftists are so pro-immigration and you call any white person in their home country opposing immigration "racist" (which you do all the time, and my fucking God is it hypocritical) then you should recognize this. Any white person born there has as much a right to be there...wait what the fuck, I don't get you people. So what, even first generation immigrants in the west have a right to be there? Really I am confused by your logic. I could throw in the Fascist worldview on this, but you couldn't relate to it so it'd be irrelevant, at best it'd be "Agreeing to disagree" and you'd call me immoral or something so I'll skip.
"How super-profits are made because of it, the endless genocide and the creation of racism itself (as a system)."
What is the relevance here? This isn't "racism" this is just being fucking realistic. We are fundamentally talking about a white minority government who knows, for a fact, that tribalists who HATE EACH OTHER should not, at least at this time, be allowed to run a modern democracy. At that point in time it does not matter WHY the white minority government is there or the history behind it - you need to think IN THE NOW. It would be dangerous to the whites, dangerous to the blocks, and just bring down a modern society. They were educating the blacks over time to bring them up to European standards.
"The rest of the long post (dealing with the actual details or how Africans can not rule a state due to their inferiorty..) reminds me alot of Eugenics. That thing that was to make Africans 'genetically superior' while conducting human right violations that even you'd condemn."
...what? We're not talking about biology here. It has to do with the society these Africans live in. Thousands of years ago Europeans were at that stage, and it took us them thousands of years to get where we are today. Cavemen could not run a modern government. It is not a racial argument I am making, but a cultural one. Are you saying that a tribe of Africans at that stage are fit to rule a modern government? Seriously? That is insanity. I'm sorry but has the marxist "economic analysis" of history fried your brain? You are not taking into account the psychology and sociology of the situation at all.
"Though with the 'desperation and war' argument; it goes for every single army. The Nazis were totally justifed to slaughter millions. Why? Desperation and War. The white settlers were as well, they could kill every-single native American with this."
Okay? There was no plan to systematically exterminate Africans anywhere (outside maybe an American white nationalist context), especially in Rhodesia - they only had good intentions. You have no idea what it is like to fight in such a situation - you have no right to judge people in those situations.
And okay if we're going with the "official" mainstream account of the holocaust, there was no direct connection between "horrors of war" and the genocide of Jews and other groups, that was political. I do not see how Rhodesia even compares, was there a plan to kill off African tribes? No. I am not saying attacks weren't done, but with some sort of intent to kill off Africans? No. If tribes were harboring insurgents then what had to be done had to be done - and I am saying this without you having given me any examples. Nevermind the fact the insurgents killed black civilians along with white ones, in fact I believe more Africans died to them than whites. How ironic. You can't even prove how your side has the moral highground here. Nevermind the fact - you are presumably a white European, rooting for people fighting your own blood and kin? How disgusting, there is not anything in your brain telling you that is wrong, to wish destruction on fellow Europeans?
The bottom line is this, let's get the facts:
- Ian Smith didn't give blacks the right the vote because he was being realistic and they were not ready. He planned to eventually give them the vote when they were educated after a few generations, to ensure a stable society could form. Economics are irrelevant. I am sorry you CANNOT apply economics to everything. Marx was a delusional neurotic who never worked a day in his life, I think there is a severe detachment on his part with his analysis of history, making obvious blunders- thinking everything in history was economic. Really? That's a stupid analysis even for it's time. And guess what? Neo-Marxists would agree with me, and that's why they apply sociology to their theory. They're in a fundamentally different ballpark from me, being a Fascist and all, but at least they are consistent within their own context, whereas old-school Marxists are deluded. The point is if you were in his position and knew exactly what was going on you'd know giving in to UN pressure would end in disaster - and that is what happened.
- It was war. A lot of the shit wouldn't have gotten as horrible as it did if the UN didn't completely isolate Rhodesia and force them into desperation. But even ten you gave me no direct evidence of massive warcrimes on Rhodesia's part, and I doubt you could provide me with anything that in any capacity outweighs what ZANU and ZAPU did during the war. Can we just be honest here and say you don't give a shit that ZANU and ZAPU shot down Rhodesian airliners and raped European women and murdered them because you're a communist? Like let's just be clear here - you only support them because they are your ideological interests. In my case Rhodesia was not Fascist or even authoritarian or syndicalist, so my support is far more genuine I would think.
"Ultimately, I'd like to know how you'd support the proletarian masses when you advocate for their literal suppression. (remembering that Proletariat is the most oppressed class, thus the workers in Africa were proletariat. Imperial workers in France and Britain? No - more receiving end of Imperialism.)"
I explained in my previous post - economics is irrelevant given the social realities of the situation. If you know doing X would be bad you don't do it, even if it violates some shitty human rights principle.
Just for the record I don't see "classes"; I come from a Fascist worldview, I support Syndicalism idealistically but I think Corporatism may be more realistic, at first at least. You need to ease people into revolutionary economics. My worldview sees society as an organic whole and preaches class-collaboration. In that sense I am more like a Falangist in that sense, I guess. Economics is not the be-all end-all with me, because that would be soulless materialism.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>