The Nazi's socialist?

[Navarro]

I mean, all Dirtbag has been doing thus far is exposing his lack of knowledge of the history of philosophy, the history of religion, the history of science, Russian history, theology, the very definition of science, economics, recent events in Bolivia, et al.

And now he's just descended into an unhinged incoherent rant.

 

[ShieldWife]

Kaitlin Bennett almost 100,000 subscribers back in, Sargons has nearly a million subscribers. Id you don't think Sargon was mainstream your delusional. I didn't even white nationalists like Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller actually being in the white house. As far as Spencer I support CNN's platforming him. As I said I am broadly against platforming and he needs to be more well known especially given that he was the key figure in organizing and establishing the alt-right and set the agenda. Someone public visibility is not indicative of their influence on public discourse.

Sargon is a moderate. Steve Bannon isn't a white nationalist. Spencer is but his views are unusually extreme even for white nationalists and while I'm okey with CNN giving him a platform, the goal of giving him a platform is to paint anybody to the right of the mainstream as being aligned with Spencer.

I personally think YouTube's TOS is harmful to discourse as it prevents individuals from stating their true positions and causes them to rely heavily on dogwhistles which has a negative impact on discourse. The other problem is that Neo-Nazi's are liars as both Destiny and Vaush have demonstrated repeatedly. When Vaush outed Sargon of Akkad as a white nationalist it was a beautiful day indeed.

I'm all for YouTube relaxing their restrictions on right wingers. I very much doubt that you think that people on the right should have the free speech that you claim.

The difference is that they are not tolerated on the left and are ostracized and excised from discourse.

Wow, you truly live in Bizarro World. The left has multi-billion dollar institutions supporting the most extreme leftist radicals imaginable. A good example are college campuses, which openly advocate Marxism, anti-white racism, extreme misandrist feminism, and so on. Far right people can barely get a few dollars on PayPal without being deplatformed.

But lets take this a step further. Using violence against someone who is soft peddling violence and who is growing a movement who's objective is to exercise a campaign of extermination is a defensive act not an offensive act. Returning to what I said previously about stonewall. If a bully won't stop and you repeatedly tell the adults and they won't listen to you. You break their fucking nose. You break their nose, you break their arms, you break their legs, you break as many bones as it takes for them to get the message that you are not fucking around and you will keep escalating until they decide to stop. You do not sit there quietly after the bully has tormented and brutalized you repeatedly hoping and praying the adults will stop it when they have proven they will look the other way. When the bully stops you stop breaking bones. If the bully starts insinuating through subtle jabs that he is going to start in again (terrorizing you through the threat of violence and grooming you to accept the violence passively) you tell the adults. When he does it again you tell the adults again. when he does it again you gently remind him that you won't put up with his shit by breaking his nose again. You do not cower in fear wait for him to put you in the hospital. You act defensively using enough force to get the point across.

You do not wait for stochastic terrorism to grow to a point where the white nationalists seize political power through intimidation and fear. Something which is often over looked is that Antifa which predates the alt-right is like the alt-right in one aspect. It's not a movement it's a set of political practices with a single goal. Do what it takes to oppose the rise of fascism. Since the 70's this has entailed almost exclusively peaceful demonstrations and getting involved in politics. When the fascists began making snide promises of violence people took them seriously. For decades White Nationalists have preformed the overwhelming amount of political violence in the United States. These were for the most part lone wolf actions. To allow these wolves to gather openly in numbers that haven't been seen since the 80's where they would plan larger even more violent acts of terrorism would have been irresponsible.

Well, the truth is now reviewed. You, like all leftists of your ilk, believe in using violence to silence dissenting opinions. As all leftists do when ever they get the power to do so without exception. Oh you say only use violence against people advocating genocide. Or people who you think are advocating genocide, or actually people who you think want genocide but are using dog whistles to advocate for it. Basically, what you mean is that you can use violence against people you disagree with when ever you want, you just have to use the right magic words to describe your victims. That is why semantics is so important to you. That is why defining the vocabulary is so important, because for you using the right words to describe your victims lets you do anything you want to them. Just like every leftist regime has done to its victims for the past century plus.

As for deceptive editing....yes, that happened, so what? People dishonestly edit things together all the time. I recall a big deal being made of a picture from charlottesville of some black guy getting beaten up by the far right, only for it to surface that the black guy started that particular confrontation. That does not excuse the actions of his attackers responding to him starting a fight by not just fighting back, but fighting back and then beating him when he was on the ground and out of the fight, but it does badly undermine the whole "look at these bad right wingers, running around beating up defenselessly innocents" narrative that sprung up around that photo.Yes I quite agree it does undermine it. Had I been that black guy I would have made sure to have someone there to record the entire event on a phone and then goaded them into action and if not them some other group of white nationalists. If someone were to take a swing at a white nationalist first it should have been some black little old granny. The fact however that you see the two as morally equivalent is what is wrong with you.

As I said, the right wingers in Charlottesville were 100% in the right and the leftist thugs (and their police escort) who attacked them were 100% in the wrong. Heather Heyer played stupid games and won a stupid prize.

White Nationalists have a proven track record of offensive violence. True or false.
White Nationalist have a proven track record of forced deportation. True or false.
White Nationalists have a proven track record of mass killings. true or false.
White Nationalism inherently leads to extermination plans not of ideologies which people can change but of people themselves. True or false.
White Nationalism has a proven track record of oppression. True or false?
When a group with a proven track record of being a wolf in sheep's clothing begins to organize with the closeted intent of genocide you stop them. True or false?

The answer to all of these questions is no unless you count Nazis as White Nationalists, which is silly to do so as almost all Nazi victims were white themselves.

The logical conclusion of an ethno-state when the hegemonic dominant group will no longer be dominate within the next 20 (now 15) years in a multi-cultural society is miscegenation, apartheid, and genocide. True or false?

The left wants to turn white people into oppressed, scapegoated, oppressed minorities in every nation with historic white majorities, including European nations. That is the true genocidal agenda here, not alt-right people in Charlottesville.

Defensive violence does not mean you strike second, it means preventing suffering force or violence through a sufficient level of countering force or violence. True or false?

There you go again, you get to decide what your victim's goals are and then use that straw man to justify violence against them.

My evidence is the persistent and steady growth of white nationalism and the migration of it's memetic influence on the mainstream right. StoneToss meme comics for example were everywhere. Stefen Molynuex a White Nationalist was making his way into mainstream discourse. Richard Spencer was doing a college tour. Milo did college tours. It's called Social Normalization, which is the process of taking a fringe idea, movement, or ideology and making it a part of the normal discourse.

Stefan Molyneux is not a white nationalist, he's an anarcho-libertarian. Milo isn't a white nationalist either, he's just an edgy neocon.

Let me end by asking this. Is 18 your lucky number?

No, 14 and 88, am I right?

 

[Deleted member 88]

Spencer is weak sauce. Compared to actual hard core Neo Nazis.

You know the ones on the Daily Shoah that unironically discuss killing all non white people on the planet, and the folks of Iron March who structured their forum around gas shower references. And who would say outright Hitler's greatest error was that he didn't finish the job.

The overwhelming majority of people on the right...are nowhere near like that. Of course @DirtbagLeft may not be able to tell the difference. Between Sean Hannity and Alisher Mukhitdinov.

But that is an intellectual failing of his, and not anyone on the right.

 

[Navarro]

Spencer is weak sauce. Compared to actual hard core Neo Nazis.

You know the ones on the Daily Shoah that unironically discuss killing all non white people on the planet, and the folks of Iron March who structured their forum around gas shower references. And who would say outright Hitler's greatest error was that he didn't finish the job.

The overwhelming majority of people on the right...are nowhere near like that. Of course @DirtbagLeft may not be able to tell the difference. Between Sean Hannity and Alisher Mukhitdinov.

But that is an intellectual failing of his, and not anyone on the right.

We can also remember the most notable cases of slander ... towards Nixon, Reagan, and GWB, and to an extent every major GOP politician since WW2. Even Romney, as milquetoast as he was. had it claimed about him that he wanted to bring back slavery and had a remark of his that he had plenty of applications open for female staff twisted into something misogynistic.

 

[Deleted member 88]

We can also remember the most notable cases of slander ... towards Nixon, Reagan, and GWB, and to an extent every major GOP politician since WW2. Even Romney, as milquetoast as he was. had it claimed about him that he wanted to bring back slavery and had a remark of his that he had plenty of applications open for female staff twisted into something misogynistic.

The problem here is history is powerful. Nazism casts a long shadow over history and thus the accusation of Nazism has great, as in immensely deep rhetorical weight.

This is why WW2 and Nazism fading out of historical memory is both good and bad-its good in that its rhetorical weight will gradually wear off, and bad because when that happens, similar movements and Neo Nazis will be able to gain from it.

 

[Deleted member 88]

It felt implausible too to have him retain a prominent position so long.

What are you referring to?

 

[Navarro]

Accidentally posted in wrong thread, nothing to see here, move along.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Sargon is a moderate.

A liberal moderate, I might add. He was in the whole "anti-religious" group before the pivot towards Anita and feminism. That's really when he seemed to develop his social and economic stance.

Steve Bannon isn't a white nationalist.

Seem more like a straight up nationalist, but I could be wrong.

Spencer is but his views are unusually extreme even for white nationalists and while I'm okey with CNN giving him a platform, the goal of giving him a platform is to paint anybody to the right of the mainstream as being aligned with Spencer.

Spencer is a useful idiot whose staying power was little better than BLM.

The more people heard Spencer talk, the worse he came off. Part of that was that he lacked any real knowledge of how geopolitics work. Suggesting that you can just put all the black people in Florida or divvy off territory within the US suggests you ought to be nowhere near actual decision making power.

Wow, you truly live in Bizarro World. The left has multi-billion dollar institutions supporting the most extreme leftist radicals imaginable. A good example are college campuses, which openly advocate Marxism, anti-white racism, extreme misandrist feminism, and so on. Far right people can barely get a few dollars on PayPal without being deplatformed.

That's not entirely true. The right has its own halls of established power. The problem has been that those were generally Neo-Cons. Notice the limited state of financial damage that Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro take. Or how long Fox News has been operating. It's generally the nationalist-populists who take the beating or those without a strong network system.

 

[ShieldWife]

A liberal moderate, I might add. He was in the whole "anti-religious" group before the pivot towards Anita and feminism. That's really when he seemed to develop his social and economic stance.



Seem more like a straight up nationalist, but I could be wrong.



Spencer is a useful idiot whose staying power was little better than BLM.

The more people heard Spencer talk, the worse he came off. Part of that was that he lacked any real knowledge of how geopolitics work. Suggesting that you can just put all the black people in Florida or divvy off territory within the US suggests you ought to be nowhere near actual decision making power.



That's not entirely true. The right has its own halls of established power. The problem has been that those were generally Neo-Cons. Notice the limited state of financial damage that Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro take. Or how long Fox News has been operating. It's generally the nationalist-populists who take the beating or those without a strong network system.

Yeah, conservatives do have some institutional power, but like you say it’s neoconservative and neocons just about blend together with the neoliberals in the halls of DC power. Civic (not white) nationalism is relatively mainstream within the GOP base but is disproportionately powerless when it comes to DC and other influential institutions. Trump’s rise to power was just one step towards rectifying that power imbalance.

The right doesn’t have any equivalent to universities in terms of both power in society and ideological extremism.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Sargon is a moderate. Steve Bannon isn't a white nationalist. Spencer is but his views are unusually extreme even for white nationalists and while I'm okay with CNN giving him a platform, the goal of giving him a platform is to paint anybody to the right of the mainstream as being aligned with Spencer.

Alright so from the top. Steve Bannon is a White Nationalist. Reactionaries do this thing which I don't understand. The position they take is that someone cannot be a thing unless they explicitly come out and say "This thing right here. I am that thing.". Bullshit. None of us have access to what is in other peoples heads. This fact acknowledges that 1) people can be a thing and lie about being that thing. 2) people may not realize they are that thing 3) we don't need to know the internal state of someone's thought processes to identify them as a thing. 4) we can use inductive reasoning to discover if someone is a thing. Bernie Sanders runs as a Social Democrat. While he does not deny being a socialist he does not publicly identify as a socialist. But lets not fucking play games. We all know he is a socialist. In the same way I can know Bernie Sanders is a socialist we can know Steve Bannon is a White Nationalist.

The alt-right was founded and run by Richard Spencer as a centralized decentralized cell network. For the slower individuals who cannot figure out what the intended meaning behind that statement means. In 2010 Richard Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com. He is a JQ Neo-Nazi among other things and at the time was in the closet about his true political beliefs seeking to appear as slightly right of moderate. He set policy, hired and fired people. It is not an unreasonable conclusion to believe he would have hired like minded individuals with his same objectives. The site was operated as the central clearing house for alt-right and alt-right friendly creators. Bannon has ties to Richard Spencer which okay in I will completely grant does not make him necessarily a White Nationalist. He did hire open White Nationalists to work for Breitbart. This means he got to decide who did and did not get promoted. Now to quote David Duke “[Bannon is] basically creating the ideological aspects of where we’re going.” and Peter Brimelow, who runs the racist site VDare, said that the Bannon hire was “amazing.”. Now why would the Grand Wizard of the KKK and good old uncle Pete say such things? Especially Mr. Wizard. I mean. That's a rather odd thing to say. What is the ideological aspect of where Mr. Wizard is going? And why say that of Bannon? Then there is Bannon's statement about Breitbart being the platform of the Alt-Right. Now by the time he made that comment Spencer had already been caught on camera in the infamous "Heil Trump" footage. Ah but that is right it was just a meme. Bullshit. Bannon is a stupid motherfucker but he's not that stupid. His polices at Breitbart and the polices he advocates makes him a god damn white nationalist. Don't fuckin play coy with me. We all know the game here and there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate he's a white nationalist. And if he is not then he does a damn fine job playing one.

I'm all for YouTube relaxing their restrictions on right wingers. I very much doubt that you think that people on the right should have the free speech that you claim.

Are you fucking kidding me? After the SkylarFiction take down of Goldenboy Matt Powell and by proxy the NIFB hell yes I want you all out there spouting your disgusting degenerate views for the whole world to hear. Destiny has personally done more damage to White Nationalism than most could even dream of. The damage that he has done to the White Nationalist movement as a whole is incalculable. Vaush came in and cleaned up the rest.
The problem with White Nationalists is 99% of them are liars

The only honest ones are the ones who admit they want to have forced deportation and carry out genocide.
Here is the question how do you plan on achieving your ethno-state?

Wow, you truly live in Bizarro World. The left has multi-billion dollar institutions supporting the most extreme leftist radicals imaginable. A good example are college campuses, which openly advocate Marxism, anti-white racism, extreme misandrist feminism, and so on. Far right people can barely get a few dollars on PayPal without being deplatformed.

So the koch brothers don't fund praguerU and other bullshit content creators? Or how about the multi-billion dollar Christian industry that turns out right wing reactionary content. The left and the right do have multi-billion dollar institutions, leftists do not. As to universities teaching Anti-white racism. Your so fuckin full of shit its not even funny. Misandry? again your full of shit. Marxism? Ya there are Marxist professors. There are conservative professors. But most professors are neo-liberal professors. And ya I don't have a problem taking away peoples ability to be paid for spreading JQ nonsense. Sorry but bigot is not a protected class and you don't have a right to force a company to do business with bigots. So sorry it breaks my heart Nazi's can't go through paypal or patreon.

[qoute]As I said, the right wingers in Charlottesville were 100% in the right and the leftist thugs (and their police escort) who attacked them were 100% in the wrong. Heather Heyer played stupid games and won a stupid prize.[/quote] You truly are a degenerate moral monster. Footage from both in front and behind He was not being attacked he carried out a deliberate act of violence intending to kill people and he is no better than a shooter. He just used a car rather than a gun.

The answer to all of these questions is no unless you count Nazis as White Nationalists, which is silly to do so as almost all Nazi victims were white themselves.

Your a fucking moron. First the Nazi's did not view Jews, Gypse's or Slavic people as white. Nazi's were by any definition nationalists. Nazi's defined themselves as white. They did not define Jews as white. At the time Jews were universally considered non-white. So what your saying is "If I use the definition today Hitler killed mostly white people". Try harder next time.

[qoute]The left wants to turn white people into oppressed, scapegoated, oppressed minorities in every nation with historic white majorities, including European nations. That is the true genocidal agenda here, not alt-right people in Charlottesville.[/quote] The left doesn't give a shit about people with pale complexions. The left also doesn't give a shit about people with dark complexions. Stop peddling your white genocide bullshit. This Octaroon isn't buying it. Being equal is not the same as being oppressed. Nobody is scapegoating you so take yourself off the cross you nailed yourself to. The fact that you are no longer allowed to legally oppress others is not persecution nor does it mean you are oppressed. "Oh no. I have to look at queers on TV. Oh no. Darkie lives next door. I am so oppressed." Sure Karen. Considering that the definition of white has changed drastically over time and used to only apply to anglo-saxons who didn't even exist until the 5th century. You're full of shit. Miscegenation is not genocide you stupid degenerate. Whites are not being rounded up to be slaughtered like cattle. Whites are not being sterilized by force.

There you go again, you get to decide what your victim's goals are and then use that straw man to justify violence against them.

Okay fine. If I am wrong then what are your goals? Understand that I intended to press you on this subject. The main thing I want to know is what do you intend to do to enforce your policies?

Stefan Molyneux is not a white nationalist, he's an anarcho-libertarian. Milo isn't a white nationalist either, he's just an edgy neocon.

Sure Karen whatever you say.

No, 14 and 88, am I right?

Maybe 28? The fact that you actually used one of the dog whistles I listed was funny though.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

A liberal moderate, I might add. He was in the whole "anti-religious" group before the pivot towards Anita and feminism. That's really when he seemed to develop his social and economic stance.

If white nationalism is supposed to be a liberal moderate position than sure.

Seem more like a straight up nationalist, but I could be wrong.

No he very clearly says you cannot be British if you are not "white".

Spencer is a useful idiot whose staying power was little better than BLM.

As someone who has followed Spencer since he first appeared on the scene. Ya. No. Not buying it. The fact that he was the power behind the Alt-Right movement from the beginning means you are factually wrong. His influence is still strong and still there. He just isn't allowed out in public anymore.

The more people heard Spencer talk, the worse he came off. Part of that was that he lacked any real knowledge of how geopolitics work. Suggesting that you can just put all the black people in Florida or divvy off territory within the US suggests you ought to be nowhere near actual decision making power.

Except lets not play games. That was never his real intent as his insane rant proved. That was part of the normalization process for what was supposed to come later. He blew his load to early though. I hear Nazi's have that prolem.

That's not entirely true. The right has its own halls of established power. The problem has been that those were generally Neo-Cons. Notice the limited state of financial damage that Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro take. Or how long Fox News has been operating. It's generally the nationalist-populists who take the beating or those without a strong network system.

The actual difference between the right and the left is the effectiveness of the parties in controlling their more radical elements. The right has been completely in effective in controlling its radical elements and this has caused the overton window in the republican party to shift hard right. The left on the other hand has been too effective in controlling its radical element so the party has moved right (neo-liberalism). The difference is that the Republican Party needed Fascist and Racist voters to hold power so the party needed the base and so was moved right by the base. The Democratic party on the other hand was extremely powerful after the big switch and the leftist needed the party. The neo-libshits have admitted publicly that they know they can do anything they want to it's base because we have no alternative if we want to have any chance at influencing things. The Labour Party Leaks have shown that the liberals are willing to sabotage their own chance if it means keeping a leftist out of office. And if you don't think the DNC does the same thing you haven't been listening to them gloating over Biden, or all but say as much on CNN.
Berry Goldwater was the last of the old Republicans and while I have my disagreements with him he was right. Allowing the Christians to take over the party lead to exactly the consequences he was afraid of. Now the Republican Party which built it's power around Christian White Nationalism in the Southern Strategy is looking at it coming back to bite them in the ass as 2035 approaches. Whites will still be a majority but they won't be a hegemonic majority and the Party rather than distance itself from racism and racist policies is doubling down as that train prepares to dive over that political cliff. I have to give Michael Steel credit. He tried.

 

[ShieldWife]

If we've learned one thing from this thread it's this: everybody is a Nazi and nobody is a socialist.

 

[Deleted member 88]

@DirtbagLeft reasoning seems to be-people aren’t interested in or cannot articulate what they really are, and so must be given the label.

So...people who are supposedly Nazis must be called Nazis even if they don’t identify as Nazis.

I call bullshit.

Give people the credit they deserve. And address them as what they claim to be.

If someone says, “I’m a die hard Nazi”, believe them. You don’t say something like that without meaning it. If someone says on the other hand, “I’m a white separatist”, assume they want a white ethnostate in Idaho or something as a baseline and then question further. Don’t call them a Nazi, they don’t identify as one and thus they aren’t one.

There is a marked and great difference between the two. Whether or not @DirtbagLeft sees fit to acknowledge it.

Far right and right /=/ Nazi. To argue otherwise is inherently deceptive and disingenuous.

 

[Navarro]

Something which is often over looked is that Antifa which predates the alt-right is like the alt-right in one aspect. It's not a movement it's a set of political practices with a single goal. Establish a communist dictatorship.

FTFY.

But here is what I find truly fascinating "Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.". So your objection to black flag groups seems to be a pragmatic opposition not one of principle. Which is interesting because I actually disagree with the antifa use of violence during the protests. It was morally and ethically justified but I think it was counter productive and bad optics. Never give the enemy what they want and all that.

A: You're replying to something that's not what he's saying. Either this is a case of deliberately putting words in @Battlegrinder's mouth or a complete failure to understand what he's saying. And if you're referring to the custom user title, it's a quote from Halo.

B: You actually don't disagree with the use of violence for political purposes at all. You just have the pragmatic opposition that it's counter-productive and bad optics.

The actual difference between the right and the left is the effectiveness of the parties in controlling their more radical elements. The right has been completely in effective in controlling its radical elements and this has caused the overton window in the republican party to shift hard right. The left on the other hand has been too effective in controlling its radical element so the party has moved right (neo-liberalism).

This graph, from the NYT no less:

As we can see here, the Republican Party remains roughly where it was in 2000, and is even left of where it was in 2012. On the contrary, the Democratic Party has shifted faaaar to the left starting in roughly 2007 or 2008. The Democrats haven't "moved right" at all, unless you count the Bush years.

We can also see in this graph from the Economist the end of the overlap between Republican and Democratic House candidates:

See how the Democratic bulge radically changes its shape over the decades and moves away from the centre, but the GOP one doesn't?

 

[Navarro]

If we've learned one thing from this thread it's this: everybody is a Nazi and nobody is a socialist.

What it really is is that they have to meet his eccentric personal definition to qualify as both. Which is really exacting for socialists and not at all for "neo-Nazis".

 

[Navarro]

Dirtbag's thesis that religion would just naturally fade away over time in his system seems unreasonable as well. For instance, we have the Amish in the US and the Hasidim in Israel who retain a strong religiosity surrounded by a broader secular culture and whose demographics are actually growing. I guess he would have to crush them mercilessly and without remorse. In "self defence", of course. Those reactionary degenerates were certainly plotting something.

 

[Navarro]

when are you going to get around to stop running and actually answer my question? What did Lenin think was missing form the USSR to make it soicialist?

The entire USSR, which did not exist yet? Your question has been answered, it's just not been answered to your satisfaction because you don't want to face the fact that Lenin was a socialist who sought to build socialism.

 

[LordsFire]

If nothing else, claiming Sargon is some sort of white nationalist proves dirtbagleft is out of touch with reality.

Sargon openly, repeatedly, readily states his beliefs on his own channel. It's really easy to find out what he thinks, if you actually listen to him, instead of hard leftists criticizing him.

And no, the 'dog whistle' argument doesn't carry any water with people like Sargon, Steven Crowder, or Milo (back when he was still in the public eye). They tell you what they believe. They tell you what kind of policies they support. They say the same things on Youtube, in public speaking events, in livestreams, etc, etc.

The only way to conclude they're fascists, is if you let other people tell you what they really think, and that you need to ignore what they actually say and do.

Like usual, the hard left basically claim to be telepaths.

This thread has been an interesting case-study of someone who actually buys into all the modern leftist rhetoric, trying to push it in a place that isn't an authoritarian-controlled echo-chamber favoring his ideology.

I'm glad he's here. It keeps this place from becoming an echo-chamber by default.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Your answer is both unproductive and not what I am looking for.

Which is the problem, you seem to be presuming that you can dictate other people's actions. Debates don't work that way, you make a point and your opponent counters it, if you think you can force people to agree with you you're delusional, you don't get to "look for" a specific answer if the question was honest in the first place. The answers you're getting aren't "productive" because your question depends on an audience too poorly educated to realize the country you're claiming him to speak about didn't exist. The problem isn't the answers, it's the question. If you asked what Mark Twain's writings showed he felt the EU needed to be a truly free nation it would be just as useful. As is, your quote form Left Wing Childishness has been met and thoroughly debunked and there's not really any point to be had from it about "what he wanted from the USSR" from it.

Honestly I almost get the feeling you're some kind of chess player who's thinking he's setting up a brilliant trap for the enemy queen, only to get mated two moves in, and then has a fit and keeps demanding a do-over where the other player has to actually fall into his fiendish trap and isn't allowed to play any moves he didn't think of. Your tactic failed, try a new one, don't keep insisting we have to answer the way you want. Repeating the question over and over again won't cause people to tell you there are five lights, Gul Madred.

 

[Senor Hortler]

Maybe the real socialists were the friends we made along the way?