Of course no race is inherently bad, it's just that in the nineteenth-century some Brits discovered modern industry and used that to RAPE THE PLANET

Even the Mongolian Empire, which was the largest contiguous empire in history was basically just an Asian event. The British Empire held sway over 25% of the Earth surface.

TL;DR Although other civilizations did bad shit, none of them had the scale and impact of European colonization. Even the Roman Empire wasn't even close.

it was event for the mongolian empire was very short lived (sure it survived a long time but it was hardly an empire or mongolian at that point)

Fuckin Mongorians

okay first off the Carthaginians were a mix between white and milado. Many nobles were as white as the Romans. Hannibal was probably white.

2ndly how do you not mention the multiple chinese empires? Or Japanese Empire? come on dude, THOSE are non-caucasian Empires

3rdly The Huns were hardly an empire, really just wandering nomadic barbarians who had mastered horse archery (a tactic that historically had been a very big problem for the Romans.)

4thly the Seljuk Turks were not an empire. They were a feudal system with no kings and many warlords (politically fragmented). It was the Ottoman empire before the Ottoman Empire. they are represented together because you cant draw all the Seljuk kingdoms on a map and they are similar culturally and ethnically.

Lastly The Moors really aren't an empire either. If you are going to call them an empire then you call the Medieval English, the Medieval French, the Medieval Spanish empires which in all honesty, they weren't.

Actually Lastly How'd you forget the Aztecs? The Mughals, the Songhai Empire, The Babylonian, The Incan, the Maratha Confederacy. and so on and so on.
tl;dr I agree with you but heres some extra evidence and Carthage was white.

Carthage wasn't white.
It consisted mainly of Berbers and Phoenicians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage

Phoenicians came from greece.
also any upper class Carthagians were NOT berbers, its like saying that some of the US founding fathers were black people, so berbers were basicly slaves and people to fill the crappy jobs and soldiers.

oh god, why am i even writing stuff without checking my sources.. yea that's true, the greeks replaced phoenicians later on in trade, but not in carthage.

I thought they were just "non-white" empires.

huh huh ''mongorians''

the ugly truth, sorry kim jong il's laborer but it seems people are still not ready for it.

Roman Empire

I'm sure you're fun at parties.

mfw I am incredibly knowledgeable in history, and have demonstrated that multiple times on this website.

mfw I was making a joke

mfw I have no face

I am thanks for noticing

Man, I like you.

american football season starts in like 3-4 months

it's almost over, depending what football you mean

If Israel fucked off for five seconds maybe there wouldn't be a fear of getting killed on 'any given morning'.

People have the right to self-determination. Israel is participating in an occupation. Your (not you specifically) stupid religion shouldn't deter that.

Maybe its because you've never lived anywhere during a time of possible separatism. Living in Quebec opens your mind to a lot of things that you don't get elsewhere.

It's irrelevant, repost. You asked why do people hate Israel and I told you: they're imperialists.

The German Empire pioneered the welfare state - its model is still used today - but that doesn't change the fact they're imperialists.

Besides, what valeriya said: give any country billions upon billions in aid and they'll do pretty okay. The success of Israel destablised the region and arguably was a significant factor in making it the clusterfuck it is.

Polandball explains.

Are you American, also autocrat is the wrong word, you mean authoritarian autocrat implies I'd concentrate power into one person, nope.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that even though Israel isn't perfect, they're a step forward (at least in the Middle East)? Isn't that the same sort of shit you scold me for saying about the USSR? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

No, I'm not saying Israel is bad altogether; in fact, most of them detest the occasionally dickish nature of their government. Just like us.

The problem with Israel is the left is so divided that they can't win. So you have these nationalistic Zionist assholes running the show every time election.

Is gaining territories in defense legal? I wasn't aware. Thats what i though the whole debate was about.

Basically what arisaka said. Being ulta-nationalist imperialists.

Their foreign policy isn't the point I'm trying make. I am just saying that life in Israel is way better than life in any Arab country or in a future Palestinian state, even for arabs. By any measurable standard. Per capita income, human rights, democracy, standard of living, and there isn't a fear of being killed on any given morning.

If Israel fucked off for five seconds maybe there wouldn't be a fear of getting killed on 'any given morning'.

People have the right to self-determination. Israel is participating in an occupation. Your (not you specifically) stupid religion shouldn't deter that.

Maybe its because you've never lived anywhere during a time of possible separatism. Living in Quebec opens your mind to a lot of things that you don't get elsewhere.

It's irrelevant, repost. You asked why do people hate Israel and I told you: they're imperialists.

The German Empire pioneered the welfare state - its model is still used today - but that doesn't change the fact they're imperialists.

Besides, what valeriya said: give any country billions upon billions in aid and they'll do pretty okay. The success of Israel destablised the region and arguably was a significant factor in making it the clusterfuck it is.

Polandball explains.

That's a very interesting question, is it because they're jews? Or is it because they're a state born out of war guilt and imperialism which has destabilized a region, now I'm bored so I'm going to quickly strike everything out of there which wouldn't have been possible with the stupid amount of foreign aid dumped on Israel.

Almost completely westernized
superior military
technologically advanced
Completely modern economy
turned marshes and desert into lush green hills

Out the window, give any country a billion dollars constantly they'll suddenly grown, I'm curious are you American?

Only legitimate democracy in the Middle East(Fine, I'll give you Turkey) - You goofed it, you're implying that democracy is important.
Only reliable ally - Not to anyone in middle east I'm certain.
women have rights - And rights are human constructs to begin with.
gays have rights - And I should care because?
a superior civilization to any other nation in the Middle East in every way. - Because that's not subjective bullshit if I've ever seen it.

Out the window, give any country a billion dollars constantly they'll suddenly grown, I'm curious are you American?

We do that to many countries including others in the Middle East, and it never has tangible results.

And if you don't care about democracy or natural rights then there is no point in arguing that with an autocrat.

Are you American, also autocrat is the wrong word, you mean authoritarian autocrat implies I'd concentrate power into one person, nope.

You're over complicating things. I've heard this kind of over annualization before when discussing Hong Kong and the rest of China. You see,you can critique every aspect of a society trying to find its flaws,but in the end you can tell which place is preferable when people vote with their feet. People from China came to Hong Kong,not the other way around.

So let me ask you this,you have to choose which middle eastern country to live in(i.e. states around or close to israel),which country would you choose,please answer honestly and explain why.

Now here's the thing, Israel Palestine isn't China / Hong Kong that's possibly the most far-fetched comparison I've ever seen, they're lot more different they're two different religions they've entirely different cultures, I could go on but I'd bore you, Arab people don't want to be live in Israel, or for there to be a state of Israel, and that's why they live in Palestine and now you have a lot of them moving out of Palestine to go to Jordan not to go to Israel, you don't see many Palestinians voluntarily living in Israel long term, simply because they don't want to, and when you consider they're treated like second class citizens I wouldn't want to either

To finish up you don't simplify the Israel-Palestine problem or you are quite frankly stupid, oh and Egypt by the way, since people there were incredibly... Welcoming? also copts are bro tier christians and being orthodox that's a pull factor

i was trying to explain to you what vote with your feet meant,it can be applied anywhere.For instance mexicans come to the us in droves,that means that the US is the preferable country to live in.I never once mentioned religion,race,or culture because that doesnt matter,its just a method of comparing two places.Maybe try comprehending my post before jumping to conclusions and implying that I was "stupid".

And if your reasoning is youre going to eygpt because the cops are "bro tier christians" then I hardly think you're in a position to be calling anyone stupid,especially considering the religious persecution in eygpt.

But it does matter, that's why lots of them move to Jordan, more culturally similar more religiously similar, you're really oversimplifying it you can't do that without losing the backstory/context

I dont think youre grasping the vote with your feet concept. For instance,mexicans are leaving mexico because of the civil war,the chinese are leaving china to go to hong kong for economic prosperity,people of the middle east are going to israel for safety,ect. The only thing that matters is that people are choosing one country above another country.

Its a means of determining a countries worth when matched with another country,thats all.Understand?

2simple4me, it overlooks too much, out the window it goes!

I dont think ive ever met someone who couldn't understand what "vote with your feet" means,and then reasoning that its to simple to understand.

But ok.

You're pulling things out of your ass. I've been to Israel. Spoken to Arabs. There is a clear distinction that needs to be made between Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians(living in the Occupied Territiories.) Israeli Arabs have it very well. They get to vote, have citizenship and per capita make a lot more money than in any arab country. Arabs living on the Israeli side of East Jerusalem don't want there to be A Palestinian State because they don't want to live there. Life in Arab countries sucks ass. Being a minority in Israel is a whole lot better than being an Arab in say, Syria.

A lesser evil is still an evil, church.

But we were discussing if israel is the most preferred country in the middle east. I think you'll find the answer to that question in the vote with your feet scenario.

Besides,I can not think of one country on this earth that does not have its evils.Utopia is a long ways away.

Dat reply limit. Again.

>since they'd likely be destroyed?by who?

Their pissed of neighbours. Like Syria: Syria: Attack on military facility was a 'declaration of war' by Israel

>I think saying "since Israel is always provoking them." is a purely partisan statement that cant be backed up by anything but opinion,so i wont acknowledge it.

There's plenty of evidence. Israel's always pushing their luck.

>And saying "read history",isnt an oversimplification? Come on,were two guys online talking about how to fix one of the longest conflicts in human history,some things are going to get simplified.Its the core of the idea that matters.

Saying 'read history' is a simplification of a complex issue. I'm proposing we study the history of the region. And by 'we', I mean the international community and policymakers. Of course, a discussion between you and me will be subject to some simplification, but oversimplification is what we need to be careful of.

The "evidence" you speak of is subjective,what you may consider an unprovoked assaulted might be a pre-emptive strike to another,and vice versa,so thats why i dont want to get into a long drawn out convo about that.

And I propose that instead of just reading history like weve done a billion times before with no results,we try to move forward with progressive(not communist) policies aimed at pushing the surrounding regions into a thriving economy not just based on oil,a mixed economy like israels.

The best way to do that would perhaps be nationalising oil and using it to reinvest in a given state's economy. That didn't go so well for Iran, in the long run.

i think they should start off by creating a business friendly image,both for economic and diplomatic reasons.By presenting themselves as a stable,freedom respecting people,investors will seek to bring their companies there,giving the workers jobs that will pay them income that can then be funneled back into the local economy.

Basically follow some basic economic guidelines of less taxes,less gov spending,and more foreign investors,they should do just fine.

Also getting rid of the islamo fascism(that reminds me of another fascist,Saddam Hussein) is a must. That doesnt do to well marketing wise.

Every instance of industrialisation has been undertaken with protectionism, relatively high taxes, and state direction.

*Every instance of industrialization has been undertaken in spit of protectionism, relatively high taxes, and state direction.

Ehh,this seems like a new beast of burden all together though.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that i find your original statement highly questionable,especially considering the industrial revolution,the differences in "high taxes" then and now,and your definition of protectionism.

Even so,all of these hinder a nations ability to grow and if a nations succeeds with these its most likely in spite of these policies.

I'll talk more later but i have to get ready for work.

Well, doubt it all you want, but every industrialisation of every country has occurred with a combination of what I said above (the use of 'and' in my last post was a mistake).

Protectionist policies enabled infant industry to actually develop, and therefore make a state competitive. That, and the fact that EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY THAT HAS INDUSTRIALISED HAS EMPLOYED A SYSTEM THAT INCLUDED TAXES TO FUND THE PUBLIC SECTOR, PROTECTIONISM AND/OR NATIONALISATION tells us that states didn't succeed 'in spite of' these policies. Just look at the way local industry and the economy was destroyed in Chile when they underwent radical market 'reforms'. In the end, the nationalised copper industry saved the economy.

The fact that the USSR industrialised within a decade from barely - I stress barely - any industry to the world's second largest industrial power highlights this.

I also see what you included 'in spite of' as an edit in your last post. Sorry.

Have fun at work.

Also investing in a good chamber of commerce wouldnt hurt.

Dat reply limit.

>Who created that definition?

The Russian revolutionaries well before the USSR was even founded.

The hammer represents the industrial proletariat, and the sickle the peasantry. Placing them together represents the unity between the two classes. Unlike the swastika as a Nazi symbol, it has no reference to any nation, race or ethnicity intended.

You mean the russian revolutionaries that later founded and controlled the USSR?

the swastika represents fascism across the board now,they dont belong to any nation,or even any race really.Many different groups don that arent german and arent white.I remember reading up on an arab group that brandished the swastika at anti immigration rallies.

Some, yes.

Why is it that the swastika is the symbol of the much broader ideology of fascism, but the hammer and sickle is the symbol of Stalinism (I'm substituting Stalinism for Russian nationalism in the USSR, since that the return of such nationalism was a result of Stalin's policies)?

I can only think of three rulers that practiced fascism,and they all practiced nearly identical forms of the same government.Batista,Hitler,and Mussolini. Communism being around for a lot longer has produced Leninism,Stalinism,Troskyism,Maoism,Marxism,and probably a whole lot more that i cant think of right now.

Fascism is a much more tight knit ideology.

The Left has always been plagued by sectarian nonsense.

Still, that doesn't give any explanation as to why the hammer and sickle is a reference only to Stalinism when there's numerous variations of communism.

You said it yourself,Stalinism is basically russian nationalism. The hammer and sickle were created by the future rulers of the ussr and under stalin,who used them extensively in propaganda. Im not sure if lenin did the same,but that hammer sicle represented russia.It was their flag.

Thats like if i started waving an american flag and you called me a nationalist,and I said "no,I just believe in constitutional republics and/or capitalism".

It represented soviet russia,thats pure nationalism.

No, I said that Stalin oversaw the rise of Russian nationalism in the USSR. The hammer and sickle was first used in 1917. A stylised version of the hammer and sickle is used as an identifier for Trotskyites, whom oppose Stalin and Stalinism.

The hammer and sickle was a feature on the flag of every Soviet Socialist Republic, from Lithuania to Kazakhstan. Today, it's a feature of almost every communist party in the world.

Now, the hammer and the sickle is different from the Red Banner - the flag of the USSR. So, if you were waving the American flag, I'd probably assume you a patriot, considering the American flag had nothing to do with nationalism.

So you dont equate patriotism with nationalism?

No. They're distinct concepts. Patriotism is a dedication/love/whatever of one's homeland. Nationalism is dedication/love/whatever of one's nation or ethnicity.

For example: Germany. The state of Germany and the state of Austria are both German nations. That's why German nationalists wanted both the state of Germany and Austria to be part of greater Germany. A patriot on the other hand would only have dedication to either the state of Germany or the state of Austria, for example.

so the states that seceded during the civil war were patriots?

Citizens of the Confederate States that were loyal to the CSA would have been patriots to the CSA. Citizens of the Union that were loyal to the union would have been patriots to the Union.

I think we have to take into account the effect that establishing Israel has had on regional stability. Moreover, I think we need to examine all the reasons the Middle East is the clusterfuck it is. Iran, for example, is a clusterfuck because the nationalisation of oil, which enabled rapid gains in living standards for the Iranian people, lead to the Shah being installed by imperial powers, which lead to the Islamic Revolution.

Things like that contribute to the reasons why Israel is a preferable state to live in compared to its neighbours. I don't think valeriya was overcomplicating the situation, I think you were oversimplifying it.

But were not talking about why a nation is better,were talking about which nation is better,you and him both want to study the history of the nations when that really doesnt factor into the current discussion of here and now.

If you want to have a discussion about the history of the middle east thats all well and good but you'e getting off subject,and therefor over complicating things.

The fact is,most people outside of the theocratic islamic nations would live in israel.

>History doesn't factor into the current discussion

Please tell me you're not serious...

ok,lets see if this makes sense.

Me and you are in a race.You had a better trainer than me,you worked harder than me,you trained longer than me.You beat me.Now are people going to give you first prize based on training or on the fact youve won the race?

If you wanna have a talk about the history of the middle east,thats fine,but were talking about the best country right now.

Understand?or is that to simple?

Okay, we agree that living in Israel is preferable to other Middle Eastern countries. But what's the point of asking then?

OP asked why people dislike Israel, and we answered. I answered imperialism, and so did valeriya, basically. Then he began to criticise the points made by OP to promote Israel. I don't see how that's really over complication.

Well lets go a bit farther than that,

OP stated that he didn't understand why people hated in israel,a question that can earn the response youve given me,but after that valeriya attempted to "refute" the points made by OP,which I took as meaning that he though that israel wasnt the most prefered country in the middle east,which was later confirmed when he said eygpt was the most prefered place in the middle east (lol wut).I was simply trying to point out that with all its faults its still the greatest middle eastern country and perhaps doesnt really deserve all of the critiques made by arabs who ignore all the faults of their own countries.

Now as I see it,you wouldnt judge a boxing match by who trained the hardest,youd judge it by who won.And israel won hands down in this round of history.

Again, I ask what's the point of asking the question OP asked if we're not going to further examine Israel, and the reasons why they may be the preferable state?

Because I was asking a separate question than OPs? I dont care about history as much as results,and israels results are admirable.Ask repost if your inquires answered his question.

But you criticised valeriya's response TO OP, and not you, as overcomplicated.

Only concerning yourself with results is a gross simplification.

Oh and I didnt originally say I "only" cared about results,i just care about them more than the history behind them.

Yes because his response to OP appeared TO ME as claiming that Israel is somehow not the best place to live right now,so I responded.Why would my response to his response matter in regards to OPs question?I asked a different question.

Only concerning myself with results on the subject of living standards and human rights is only logical.If there was an undiscovered native island that still lived in the stone ages that had a clean history i wouldnt just throw off my clothes and live as an ape.Id go with the country with the highest standard of living,regardless of how it got there.It would be illogical to do anything else.

> i wouldnt just throw off my clothes and live as an ape.Id go with the country with the highest standard of living,regardless of how it got there.

Indeed, but the topic of Israel and its neighbours is a little different. It's still important to realise why its neighbours aren't enjoying the same quality of life. That way, we can fix the countries, bring them up to standard, stabilise the region, and fucking work on more important things instead of shitty cultural feuds.

I'm not so sure.This whole situation in the middle east cant be solved by reading through the history books for what must be the billionth time and expecting a sudden realization.

A better method would be forgetting the past and have the neighboring states cut their losses and model themselves after israels government as well as stopping all hostilities.But thats most likely not going to happen in my lifetime.

>model themselves after israels government

A silly idea. Each country has its own conditions to account for. Modeling yourself on a state that has different conditions is the same reason states were the German Democratic Republic were, overall, a failure. Not to mention Israel is an ultra-nationalistic terrorist state - what a great model for ensuring peace.

History gives us insight into the causes of the problems we face. If we know the source, we can actually make changes.

and you talk about nationalism like its some mortal sin.I cant think of a more nationalist state than soviet russia. You're hammer a sickle is a testament to that.

>USSR exists at the same time as Nazi Germany
>USSR is better example of a nationalist state

Anyway, I'm actually firmly against nationalism in the USSR - I think that's one of the many things they fucked up on. The hammer and sickle is hardly a reference to nationalism. While I simply use it for its identification with communism, I'd concede that it could be taken as a reference to the USSR, but not a reference to nationalism.

Its a reference to the USSRs nationalism.

'The hammer and sickle (☭) are a part of communist symbolism and their usage indicates an association with communism, a communist party, or a communist state. This symbol features a hammer and a sickle overlapping each other. The two tools are symbols of the industrial proletariat and the peasantry; placing them together symbolizes the unity between industrial and agricultural workers.'

Nope.

Who created that definition?

I meant model in the sense of its success,you can only chalk so much up to foreign aid ox,they're doing something right,or at least better than their competitors.I'm not going to acknowledge the terrorist state thing,all i can say is israel is in a much better place to talk about peace than actual terrorists states.

Dont you think weve already gone over history enough?It's time for some countries to grow up and get into the 21 century. Thats the only solution.

History is one of the most important disciplines we have. Without history, we can't improve ourselves. Not only would we not have anything to compare ourselves to, but we would have no idea what went wrong, what works and what doesn't.

But theres a point where we have to implement the things we learned,if weve learned anything at all.

The middle east has had plenty of time.No,its time to move forward and forget the past,because harping on what was isnt doing them any good.

Who starts, then? Does Israel start? Probably not, since they'd likely be destroyed. Do their neighbours start? Probably not either, since Israel is always provoking them.

The situation is too complex and simply 'moving on' is another oversimplification.

since they'd likely be destroyed?by who? I think saying "since Israel is always provoking them." is a purely partisan statement that cant be backed up by anything but opinion,so i wont acknowledge it.

And saying "read history",isnt an oversimplification? Come on,were two guys online talking about how to fix one of the longest conflicts in human history,some things are going to get simplified.Its the core of the idea that matters.

*She, if you don't mind, I'm not sure I said the arab countries didn't have issues probably inferred it to you by solely attacking Israel, but either way it's only the way it is because the west throws aid and guns at it, it's not training for the boxing match it's just getting mega steroids for free.

but in this case steroids are legal right?the soviet union gave funds to the arab states at times,but their steroids(funds) werent as good as israels(funds).If they had that funding they would have used it too,why does that matter?

So the solution to the problem of the holy land... Is to give everyone aid so that no one has aid and no one invades each other?

Because that totally what I said.

No,what I'm saying is that if the side you support(im guessing) had enough funding from the soviets then they would have been in israels place right now in terms of technology and living standards,in which case i would support them,but they didnt,and israel is the better place to live.

>is very Western
>is very Jewish
>is very trigger happy

But seriously, Israel is pretty cool

I think what bothers me is that their imperialism is promoted, that's all.

Fuck the rest of the middle eastern governments too.

becus joos r evul

Though really, a lot of people don't like how America ardently defends their every political decision, even when it devolves into petty ethnic tribalism.

I'm not saying we should always support them blindly or fund their government, but if you just compare the societies it is clear which society is backwards and which society is conducive to prosperity. I'm not saying Israel is perfect either.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that even though Israel isn't perfect, they're a step forward (at least in the Middle East)? Isn't that the same sort of shit you scold me for saying about the USSR? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

No, I'm not saying Israel is bad altogether; in fact, most of them detest the occasionally dickish nature of their government. Just like us.

The problem with Israel is the left is so divided that they can't win. So you have these nationalistic Zionist assholes running the show every time election.

I dont really have much of an opinion on the conflict,but I think the declaration that war cannot be used to gain territory is bullshit.

Its a fact that some countries are more stable than others in terms of money,diplomacy,and technology. Why do we allow some states that are completely unstable in all three categories to exist independently if they threaten regional or world peace?

Also those territories that were gained were gained defensively, something that is legal.(I think international law is bullshit but just saying.)

Is gaining territories in defense legal? I wasn't aware. Thats what i though the whole debate was about.

download pSX 1.13

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Gun ownership has been a right championed by communists all over the world. Even Marx himself supported gun ownership. But just as America's Founding Fathers took steps to ensure guns didn't make it into the hands of counterrevolutionaries, so did communists.

I'm actually working assessment items, so I'm not taking this seriously either.

The Soviets, The Chinese and the Cubans didn't get the memo.

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Resembles false consciousness in a capitalist society.

So, you're not going to shoot your workers. Good luck controlling them when they want what they rightfully deserve.

That won't be a problem. The easiest way to enslave someone is to convince them they aren't slaves. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States But as a leftist you know that well. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States is that because the black slaves were offered food and shelter they were convinced they were living the good life. You have the brutal slaveowner examples here and there but for the vast majority of plantations slave-master relations were quite good.

Resembles false consciousness in a capitalist society.

Well, obviously you've described communism incorrectly.

I suppose now I should ask for clarification: in what society - the libertarian paradise society, or communist society?

Well in what communist society are guns allowed to be carried by peasants? And in the libertarian society, its my plantation, my property. I don't have to allow my workers to have guns on my property, do I? Most of what I've said in this thread is semi-satirical. I'm just having a little fun here. I don't condone slavery.

Gun ownership has been a right championed by communists all over the world. Even Marx himself supported gun ownership. But just as America's Founding Fathers took steps to ensure guns didn't make it into the hands of counterrevolutionaries, so did communists.

I'm actually working assessment items, so I'm not taking this seriously either.

The Soviets, The Chinese and the Cubans didn't get the memo.

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Hmm. I dun goof'd. For the question I asked, it was referring to guns.

You've taken a step away from wage slavery, and are fast approaching absolute slavery.

While the workers do all the work and receive only a fraction of the wealth - in this case, not even a fraction they can spend - you do nothing and take the profits. When they realise this, it's when they rise up and shoot you.

Slavery? I was just describing what communism does. And with what guns?

Well, obviously you've described communism incorrectly.

I suppose now I should ask for clarification: in what society - the libertarian paradise society, or communist society?

Well in what communist society are guns allowed to be carried by peasants? And in the libertarian society, its my plantation, my property. I don't have to allow my workers to have guns on my property, do I? Most of what I've said in this thread is semi-satirical. I'm just having a little fun here. I don't condone slavery.

Gun ownership has been a right championed by communists all over the world. Even Marx himself supported gun ownership. But just as America's Founding Fathers took steps to ensure guns didn't make it into the hands of counterrevolutionaries, so did communists.

I'm actually working assessment items, so I'm not taking this seriously either.

The Soviets, The Chinese and the Cubans didn't get the memo.

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Hmm. I dun goof'd. For the question I asked, it was referring to guns.

And begin firing into the crowds of your workers when they demand the money they're owed, right?

Such is life in libertarian utopia.

And no. shooting the workers is terrible for business. self defense on the other hand...

So, you're not going to shoot your workers. Good luck controlling them when they want what they rightfully deserve.

That won't be a problem. The easiest way to enslave someone is to convince them they aren't slaves. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States But as a leftist you know that well. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States is that because the black slaves were offered food and shelter they were convinced they were living the good life. You have the brutal slaveowner examples here and there but for the vast majority of plantations slave-master relations were quite good.

Resembles false consciousness in a capitalist society.

I'll revise that. I won't pay them but give them food and shelter. I'll make barracks for all the workers. That way what do they have to complain about? They're fed and have a bed to sleep in.

You've taken a step away from wage slavery, and are fast approaching absolute slavery.

While the workers do all the work and receive only a fraction of the wealth - in this case, not even a fraction they can spend - you do nothing and take the profits. When they realise this, it's when they rise up and shoot you.

Slavery? I was just describing what communism does. And with what guns?

Well, obviously you've described communism incorrectly.

I suppose now I should ask for clarification: in what society - the libertarian paradise society, or communist society?

Well in what communist society are guns allowed to be carried by peasants? And in the libertarian society, its my plantation, my property. I don't have to allow my workers to have guns on my property, do I? Most of what I've said in this thread is semi-satirical. I'm just having a little fun here. I don't condone slavery.

Gun ownership has been a right championed by communists all over the world. Even Marx himself supported gun ownership. But just as America's Founding Fathers took steps to ensure guns didn't make it into the hands of counterrevolutionaries, so did communists.

I'm actually working assessment items, so I'm not taking this seriously either.

The Soviets, The Chinese and the Cubans didn't get the memo.

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Hmm. I dun goof'd. For the question I asked, it was referring to guns.

Why do you think people flee Mexico, repost? They're trying to get to somewhere safer.

Besides, it's just the free movement of labour. It's what you libertarians want, isn't it?

Oh I love cheap labor. If I could have strawberry fields and pay people a buck a day to pick them so that I could have fresh jam i the morning that would be heaven. Its the drug cartels that are the problem. And I wouldn't mind European/Asian Immigrants.

And begin firing into the crowds of your workers when they demand the money they're owed, right?

Such is life in libertarian utopia.

And no. shooting the workers is terrible for business. self defense on the other hand...

So, you're not going to shoot your workers. Good luck controlling them when they want what they rightfully deserve.

That won't be a problem. The easiest way to enslave someone is to convince them they aren't slaves. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States But as a leftist you know that well. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States is that because the black slaves were offered food and shelter they were convinced they were living the good life. You have the brutal slaveowner examples here and there but for the vast majority of plantations slave-master relations were quite good.

Resembles false consciousness in a capitalist society.

I'll revise that. I won't pay them but give them food and shelter. I'll make barracks for all the workers. That way what do they have to complain about? They're fed and have a bed to sleep in.

You've taken a step away from wage slavery, and are fast approaching absolute slavery.

While the workers do all the work and receive only a fraction of the wealth - in this case, not even a fraction they can spend - you do nothing and take the profits. When they realise this, it's when they rise up and shoot you.

Slavery? I was just describing what communism does. And with what guns?

Well, obviously you've described communism incorrectly.

I suppose now I should ask for clarification: in what society - the libertarian paradise society, or communist society?

Well in what communist society are guns allowed to be carried by peasants? And in the libertarian society, its my plantation, my property. I don't have to allow my workers to have guns on my property, do I? Most of what I've said in this thread is semi-satirical. I'm just having a little fun here. I don't condone slavery.

Gun ownership has been a right championed by communists all over the world. Even Marx himself supported gun ownership. But just as America's Founding Fathers took steps to ensure guns didn't make it into the hands of counterrevolutionaries, so did communists.

I'm actually working assessment items, so I'm not taking this seriously either.

The Soviets, The Chinese and the Cubans didn't get the memo.

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Hmm. I dun goof'd. For the question I asked, it was referring to guns.

How did I not know!?

But a coup goes against the principle of democracy! Isn't that what American spreads to other countries in the world, like Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Chile, and all those other countries?

Don't get me wrong, I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but when other countries are causing problems the non-aggression principle doesn't really cut it. Can't have anyone threaten our freedom and just try to negotiate and shit. The less enlightened peoples on this Earth need to be reminded of their place. And democracy building is retarded. Whether democracy works in a country depends completely on internal dynamics which whoever determines Middle Eastern policy in this country has yet to understand.

Why do you think people flee Mexico, repost? They're trying to get to somewhere safer.

Besides, it's just the free movement of labour. It's what you libertarians want, isn't it?

Oh I love cheap labor. If I could have strawberry fields and pay people a buck a day to pick them so that I could have fresh jam i the morning that would be heaven. Its the drug cartels that are the problem. And I wouldn't mind European/Asian Immigrants.

And begin firing into the crowds of your workers when they demand the money they're owed, right?

Such is life in libertarian utopia.

And no. shooting the workers is terrible for business. self defense on the other hand...

So, you're not going to shoot your workers. Good luck controlling them when they want what they rightfully deserve.

That won't be a problem. The easiest way to enslave someone is to convince them they aren't slaves. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States But as a leftist you know that well. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States is that because the black slaves were offered food and shelter they were convinced they were living the good life. You have the brutal slaveowner examples here and there but for the vast majority of plantations slave-master relations were quite good.

Resembles false consciousness in a capitalist society.

I'll revise that. I won't pay them but give them food and shelter. I'll make barracks for all the workers. That way what do they have to complain about? They're fed and have a bed to sleep in.

You've taken a step away from wage slavery, and are fast approaching absolute slavery.

While the workers do all the work and receive only a fraction of the wealth - in this case, not even a fraction they can spend - you do nothing and take the profits. When they realise this, it's when they rise up and shoot you.

Slavery? I was just describing what communism does. And with what guns?

Well, obviously you've described communism incorrectly.

I suppose now I should ask for clarification: in what society - the libertarian paradise society, or communist society?

Well in what communist society are guns allowed to be carried by peasants? And in the libertarian society, its my plantation, my property. I don't have to allow my workers to have guns on my property, do I? Most of what I've said in this thread is semi-satirical. I'm just having a little fun here. I don't condone slavery.

Gun ownership has been a right championed by communists all over the world. Even Marx himself supported gun ownership. But just as America's Founding Fathers took steps to ensure guns didn't make it into the hands of counterrevolutionaries, so did communists.

I'm actually working assessment items, so I'm not taking this seriously either.

The Soviets, The Chinese and the Cubans didn't get the memo.

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Hmm. I dun goof'd. For the question I asked, it was referring to guns.

what?

I have a better idea

>stop being an asshole about immigration
>embrace diversity
>interculturalism mothafucka, do you speak it

Maybe if you didn't treat immigrants like second class citizens there wouldn't be any issues.

In Quebec we only have issues with language. And the people complaining the most are fucking uni-lingual anglophones who are just a bunch of spoiled brats. You could learn a thing or two about immigration from us.

We take in immigrants on a point system; where you were born gets you a point, your language gets you a point, etc.

Because all the old Quebecois people don't want to fuck and have many kids they discriminate foreign people and only pick those who speak french - destroying their cultural ties - so they can keep the anglophone population in check.

Trust me. We have wayyy bigger issues with 'diversity' than you do (Quebec versus the rest of Canada). However, Canada as a while has dealt with it better than the united states and you can't deny that.

Great plan, repost.

What are we going to accuse the current Mexican government of? Funding, supporting, or hiding terrorists? Have they done anything even remotely socialist lately? We could call them commies.

What do they normally use an excuse when Latin American countries have their annual revolutions? Calling them commies usually worked. And since normal Americans hate Mexicans, no public backlash! Although since the collapse of the Soviet Union we just say they support terrorism. We could just say the current government is ineffective at dealing with the drug cartels, so new leadership is needed.

But a coup goes against the principle of democracy! Isn't that what American spreads to other countries in the world, like Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Chile, and all those other countries?

Don't get me wrong, I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but when other countries are causing problems the non-aggression principle doesn't really cut it. Can't have anyone threaten our freedom and just try to negotiate and shit. The less enlightened peoples on this Earth need to be reminded of their place. And democracy building is retarded. Whether democracy works in a country depends completely on internal dynamics which whoever determines Middle Eastern policy in this country has yet to understand.

Why do you think people flee Mexico, repost? They're trying to get to somewhere safer.

Besides, it's just the free movement of labour. It's what you libertarians want, isn't it?

Oh I love cheap labor. If I could have strawberry fields and pay people a buck a day to pick them so that I could have fresh jam i the morning that would be heaven. Its the drug cartels that are the problem. And I wouldn't mind European/Asian Immigrants.

And begin firing into the crowds of your workers when they demand the money they're owed, right?

Such is life in libertarian utopia.

And no. shooting the workers is terrible for business. self defense on the other hand...

So, you're not going to shoot your workers. Good luck controlling them when they want what they rightfully deserve.

That won't be a problem. The easiest way to enslave someone is to convince them they aren't slaves. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States But as a leftist you know that well. They reason that slavery lasted so long in the United States is that because the black slaves were offered food and shelter they were convinced they were living the good life. You have the brutal slaveowner examples here and there but for the vast majority of plantations slave-master relations were quite good.

Resembles false consciousness in a capitalist society.

I'll revise that. I won't pay them but give them food and shelter. I'll make barracks for all the workers. That way what do they have to complain about? They're fed and have a bed to sleep in.

You've taken a step away from wage slavery, and are fast approaching absolute slavery.

While the workers do all the work and receive only a fraction of the wealth - in this case, not even a fraction they can spend - you do nothing and take the profits. When they realise this, it's when they rise up and shoot you.

Slavery? I was just describing what communism does. And with what guns?

Well, obviously you've described communism incorrectly.

I suppose now I should ask for clarification: in what society - the libertarian paradise society, or communist society?

Well in what communist society are guns allowed to be carried by peasants? And in the libertarian society, its my plantation, my property. I don't have to allow my workers to have guns on my property, do I? Most of what I've said in this thread is semi-satirical. I'm just having a little fun here. I don't condone slavery.

Gun ownership has been a right championed by communists all over the world. Even Marx himself supported gun ownership. But just as America's Founding Fathers took steps to ensure guns didn't make it into the hands of counterrevolutionaries, so did communists.

I'm actually working assessment items, so I'm not taking this seriously either.

The Soviets, The Chinese and the Cubans didn't get the memo.

That's because they're stupid bolshevik twits who hijacked the spontaneous self-organization of workers and then turned down the content by about a billion percent. The party put themselves above the proletariat. Fuck them.

Also your knowledge of socialism is sad. Please join Socialisme ou Barbarie or something.

You can't blame him for associating eastern bloc-style regimes to socialism, these regimes constantly advertised themselves as socialist/communist to gather support from the masses and justify certain policies, the west advertised them as socialist/communist, but to defame socialism/communism.

Either that. or people think socialism is social democracy, thanks to the european "socialists".

I don't excuse ignorance. Not fully, anyways.

critical thinking is what has always been lacking, both on the left and the right. Especially with Lenin and his nasty authoritarian children.

After the revolution, Communist Party members were permitted to own weapons. There were no laws regarding gun ownership in China under Mao, to my knowledge. And as for Cuba, I refer you to: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba

Hmm. I dun goof'd. For the question I asked, it was referring to guns.