And I remember when he 1st started to buy into it

only went further and further down that road, and even at the beginning he was rather chauvinistic about it

understandably so, because his opposition wishes to degrade any English identity as much as possible

but I think he might be playing into their hands a bit

I think that he should have went nationalist but not chauvinist. As a strategy that is. Politically I think both are gay options.

but that is another story

I agree. He plays far to much into the Britain has been for freedom for a really really long time guys while we castrate homosexuals for winning the war

Land of the free (ultra puritans who's national religion was an attempt by the monarchy to gain ultimate moral authority over its citizenry as well as political)

(The castration of gays always just fucking confused me as a Pollack... To us this is such an outlandish idea... Like, gay bad, ok... But mutilation far worse so... Wtf? And why do you even care that much?! It's such a niche issue that rarely ever comes up to begin with... S'not like they suck dick in public...)

You know how the Russian Empire punished gays? It called them pansies behind their backs. Fucking ultra-authoritarian, the Tsar is above morality Russian Empire.

I've probably said it before in here but Sargon also said something rather silly in regards to the "battle" of cable street. That he would of been on the side opposing the British Union of Fascist.
Of course a charitable interpretation would be that he means he'd be on the side opposing the fascist.
However if we're to take this statement for what it is, Sargon is saying that he'd of allied himself with the violent rioting communist and I believe mostly foreign Jews in this case against the police. You know pouring human waste on them, throwing marbles under their horses (I.e trying to cripple them). In opposition to the fascist who instead turned around and had a peaceful March in the other direction.
Not looking good is it.
Especially when you've got the WW1 veteran campaigning for peace not war (in the form of Oswald Mosley) vs the WW1 general who sent tens of thousands of men to their death in a failed military campaign. And then wanting into war that cost hundreds of thousands of British deaths.
(Winston Churchill if you hadn't caught on)

Then of course if I'm to just compare the moral fortitude of Churchill vs Mosley just a little more.
Take the issue of India.
Mosley who held great sympathies to the suffering of the Indian colonies, decrying the crimes of sweatshop labour endorsed by globalist capitalism.
Churchill on the other hand compared Indians to rabbits when they were starving to death in the millions from a famine because he'd diverted food away for the war effort.

it's funny too

ethiopia as an italian colony prospered as it had never before while the brits left bangladesh to starve

of course, i'm not going to pretend the acquisition of fascist italy's colonial territories wasn't accompanied by a fair amount of brutality

but i find this interesting

brandon

incorrect

semitic peoples period show some relations to early europeans

as do early egyptians

not surprising

Well what colonies weren't?
It's simply a fact of life. Shit was shit.
That's why although it's highly convenient to do so I'm not terribly interested in the beating over the heads of commies with the various deaths caused by their socialist comrades.
Just address what's fundamentally true.
Putting lots of people who are different from one another always leads to conflict and conquest.
Hierarchy exists and is inevitably a part of human nature.
Violence is part of human nature.
So called Social constructs are naturally determined.
Despite being 13% of the population
Etc
That's enough justification for me to reject socialism and globalism without all the yeah but those chinky and Russian bastards killed a lotta people.

Well first

its primarily a meme

but the issue is the fundamental point is that at a certain point one can determine the logical end state of ideologies

as well as the repeated issues baked into the political application of it

If every single time it results in totalitarian governments , famine or lack of productivity

etc

at a certain point it becomes a valid critque against it and not just something you can wave your hand and say "well we promise we will do it right this time. Trust us ;))))

what you're getting at isn't true though

eastern bloc had higher levels of food security on average than capitalist countries at a similar level of development and developed at roughly the same rate

"totalitarianism" is probably an apt descriptor for marxism-leninism though

not so much socialism as a whole

but marxism-leninism has been the historically dominant socialist ideology

Wait wait "well we promise we will do it right this time"
So no famines caused under capitalist systems?
And then I just come back to wondering when does the Liberal state begin?
Before or after the slave trade?
Before or after the outlawing of homosexuality?
Before or after segregation and miscegenation laws?
And if the Liberal state isn't actually about individual liberty and freedom then I'm not sure why I should want it exactly.
Or is the argument that wasn't real Liberalism, real Liberalism hasn't been tried.

Death in june

okay first

outright calling in BS

First eastern germany ( for example ) started around same point as west germany after ww2

by 1990 eastern germany

no it didn't

which was by far the most productive of the bloc countries

it started out with less than half of west germany's gdp per capita