lord of flies

I have a confession to make: I really like SIE. But I'm not sure that I should. SIE is a great character. She's a very direct approach type of woman (regarding sex or combat) and her being so flirtatious is actually really ****ing funny. It's like it moves past cringe-inducing pandering to 14 year old boys and into SIE being that way, as a human being. But on the other hand, the other three love interests are different, in a positive way. They aren't defined by their sexuality or your ability to have sex with them, unlike love interests in certain other games. It's perfectly plausible that you could play through the entire game without realizing that Mina/Madison/Scarlet were love interests. While it's certainly possible that you could miss that SIE is (some dude didn't get what Confirmed Bachelor meant in Fallout New Vegas), she is not on the same level at all. SIE has other character traits, of course. She's an "aggressive" character, she likes blowing things up. She lives life to the fullest, I guess you might describe it, and her sexuality is just one (loud) part of that personality. The thing is, though, I'm not sure that I can think of much else of her character. I probably wouldn't accept that alone as an excuse, but then there's the ending to her love interest arc, and it really pays the bill. Just as every previous interaction with you on the subject of sex has been dominated by her (if you're actually romancing her, you have to say "thanks, but no thanks" to pretty much every comment she makes) and she dominates the sex act itself when she basically rapes you (though you can avoid this fate by choosing the other option, so it's not "really" rape). I don't know, this is kinda rambling. Thoughts?

As long as they buy me dinner first. ~.0

Never heard of the Milgram experiment? People usually go to extreme lengths before they defy authority. On the other hand, when revolutions do come, we see a huge upsurge of what I'd have to call "revolutionary spirit," embodied in the form of voluntarism and a united people. You can see this in the ongoing conditions of Egypt, with Christian anti-government protesters protecting the Muslims while they pray, or earlier when people formed a human chain around the national museum to protect it.

I just checked through this thread, and as far as I can tell, you didn't. Also, "jihad" doesn't mean violence. Ah, yes, you mean the quotes you took and radically reinterpreted? Like where you decided that the Muslim Brotherhood protecting Jews from AQ was them playing "good cop/bad cop"? Or where you believe that tactics make no difference in ideology? Nominally, social democrats and communists have the same end goals and differ only in tactics (reform versus revolution), yet I think even a political buffoon like yourself would agree that they are for all practical purposes very, very different. Interesting that LoF is weighing in on the side of truth. The Muslim Brotherhood is not some big bad evil monster.

Perhaps if you could cite even the tiniest piece of evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood is an "ooga booga evil Islamist theocracy" party, I would be more inclined to believe you. At present, however, you're simply repeating falsehoods with no factual basis in the hope that they will become true.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not some radical group, it has specifically denounced the use of violence and terrorism and is loathed by Al Qaeda. Throughout the protests, the Muslim Brotherhood has been explicit in their desire not to take over the protests. Don't talk about things you don't understand. Venezuela is an ally with Iran, a strategic alliance against US imperialism does not mean ideological brotherhood. You misspelled "the United States." Perhaps the same could be said of all parties. But seriously though, stop making **** up.

Compare and contrast Lenin's discussion of imperialism as inevitably devouring itself as its constituent states (i.e. "the Great Powers") expand into each others territory with Halbech's attempt to expand its economic influence by starting a second cold war. Halbech's behavior, within the overall structure of capitalism, is inevitable. Halbech, alongside countless other similar corporations, has opportunity, means, resources and motivation to engage in an expansion of its enterprise at the expense of the public. Alpha Protocol portrays, in admittedly romanticized and exaggerated terms, the general extent of modern imperialism. Because it shares many collective interests with its former "enemies" (i.e. competing states that in the 1800s version of politics would have been rival powers, such as China and Russia), the United States instead creates false enemies and endlessly attempts to dominate the world against the world's working poor. This allow capital (especially the military-industrial complex) to expand and obtain greater and greater profits, despite the human cost involved. Imperialism's expansion is no longer physical, but instead largely political, with both the US's attempts to dominate other states (e.g. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempted revolutions in Belarus and Iran, and the ongoing blockade of Cuba) and its attempts to convince its own public that other states need dominating and defending against (e.g. mainstream media propagated anti-Chavez, anti-Egyptian protesters, anti-Lukashenko, anti-Ahmadenijad, etc. lies, the propaganda blitz of the lead-up to the Iraq War, and the general "yellow scare" that has emerged regarding China's emergent economy). Obviously the portrayal is not completely ideologically correct (Scarlet Lake is a hero of revolutionary violence, not an assassin!), but it is a fair approximation.

Finally got + beat this game. It was pretty good. I didn't kill any members of the Arabic terrorist group (don't remember their name) except for the one guy you have to kill with the golden gun. Murdered a bunch of the Russian gangsters though because **** those ****heads ruining what was once a major part of the greatest country in the history of the world. Sexed up ("romanced" would be inaccurate) all the women, except Sis (this is BULL****! *flips table*). Too bad I didn't find all the dossier data, like apparently the first girl I sexed (Madison?) was that analyst's daughter. Didn't manage to kill Marburg (WHAT A LOAD OF BULL****), but I did get Westridge, Leland and Brayko (I can't abide a misogynistic ****wit). I shot Darcy with tranqs but I think he's dead anyway T_T. Sorry bro, you only did what you thought was right. I liked getting that Taiwanese independence wanker killed. How's that feel, bitch? Trying to destabilize the region in pursuit of your bull**** liberal nonsense? Have a bullet for free, courtesy of the PRC! Taiwan isn't a real country, and it never will be!

I am into computer games, actually. I just don't feel the need to post about it incessantly on the internet!

Yeah, the "totalitarian government" they elected four times now. Because he's not actually a scumbag.

Reminder: Sweden has a really ****ty record on rape prosecution.

Don't tell anyone, but lots of people are incapable of actually using ignore and will just click the "show post" option.

The strategies used in black market capitalism and the legal form of capitalism are completely separate. Further, any modern high-ranking drug dealer can leave the business if he so chooses to already, since he is raking in simply ludicrous profits off of the lower-ranking dealers.

Good to see that, as your previous posts decrying Julian as a "contrarian" without evidence suggested, you are an obnoxious wanker with zero reading comprehension. At what point in my post did I suggest that you were a Nazi? Ah, that's right: nowhere. Do you have any evidence, at all, that Julian Assange is purely a contrarian? Or is your only response a desperate attempt at style-over-substance? If you must use ignore (don't, by the way), don't go about announcing it to the entire forum. It's obnoxious and serves no purpose other than to inflame.

OBVIOUSLY, since Assange does not agree with every single word that has left the United States government's lips, he is "contrarian." "Contrarian," it seems, is the great modern day political dismissal, even though it is completely meaningless and never given the slightest shred of evidence. Perhaps, just perhaps, Julian Assange has a complex set of opinions he holds (regarding the ethics of war, the privacy of the state, etc), that lead him to behave the way he does. Perhaps just because Person B falls outside of your view of political acceptability and they disagree with Person A, does not make them a contrarian. No doubt if you were living in Germany in 1933, you'd be calling Ernst Th

Yes, hmm, there has never been any positive social change achieved through extralegal methods. What is civil disobedience? Durr, I'm Walsingham, and I honestly believe that American politicians represent the American public's interests. While I definitely understand how secrecy is essential to simultaneously murdering Iraqi civilians and maintaining public support for the Iraq war, I have a more difficult time seeing how that is a positive thing.

Reminder:

Read "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution." It covers how collectivization was a crucial element of rapid industrialization in the Soviet Union. The fact that Soviet rapid industrialization was a vital part of the defeat of fascism (absolutely necessary without otherwise huge alterations) is pretty well established by virtually every history book ever written. The Ukrainian famine was a consequence of collectivization policies but killed far fewer than the Nazis did (and even fewer in comparison to the number that the Nazis would have killed). They aren't though. The whole "Afghanis are dying because of the leaks" deal was just US Army agitprop intended to undermine and discredit Wikileaks, which has been proven false since (and silently swept under the rug).

Actually, Orwell was a leftie who fought alongside anarchists during the Spanish Civil War and the only reason he didn't join the International Brigades is because the Communists badmouthed the POUM. So he would have been steadfastly against the type of politics you espouse. I've spoken about it before. The 32-33 Ukrainian famine was not a genocide, since it lacked intent, and the related policies (collectivization) were a central part of the defeat of the Nazi menace, a far greater brutality.

I believe that the Great Purge was a bad thing, for one. Saying that the crimes of the Stalin administration must be put in their historical context - that the nation was less than 10 years away from the most brutal war in human history coming to literally murder the entire populace of the country - is not the same as calling them right. With the power of hindsight, I can say that X or Y decision could have been performed more rationally and more justly, but at the time things were not so clear.

What do you mean that the Iraq War "was" a disgrace? I am definitely worried about the oncoming invasion of the United States by Iraq. :roll: "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. "- Eric Blair (AKA George Orwell)

On December 19, 2010, the people of Belarus will turn out for a nationwide election to determine the next President of their country. Almost certainly, the incumbent, Alexander Lukashenko, will win his fourth term as President of Belarus. After this election, there is little doubt that the United States and its European allies will take a negative position on the results, a position of firm disbelief or claims of voter fraud. More worryingly, Russia may do so as well, ending the relatively close ties of Belarus and Russia, two culturally close but in many ways strategically opposed nations. The Independent Institute of Socio-Economic and Political Studies (IISEPS) performs independent public opinion polling in Belarus. Their data consistently puts Lukashenko as the most likely candidate to win by far, with only one other - Milinkevich, who has given up his Presidential bid in the 2010 election (Demotix) - taking double digit percentage points in the close-ended question, while Lukashenko consistently has more than 40% support in their pre-election polling. The single most important facet that guarantees a Lukashenko victory if this poll proves accurate, however, is who people will not vote for under any circumstances. Only about a third of Belarusians will not vote for Lukashenko under any circumstances, but more than half state that they will not vote for any single other politician. In a political system like Belarus's, with a run-off between the two most successful candidates (if neither takes the majority in the "first round"), this alone would mean it is highly unlikely for Lukashenko to lose the election. Coupled with the exit of Milinkevich and Lukashenko's broad public support, it is virtually impossible (IISEPS). The far greater threat to Belarusian democracy then, is not Lukashenko, but foreign and domestic elements which are unwilling to accept the natural result of such broad public support. The domestic opposition has in the past attempted to counter the results of the election, most notably in 2006 when they attempted (and failed) to oust Lukashenko from power. The United States has made it clear that they do not support Lukashenko and have backed opposition elements monetarily, having paid millions of dollars annually (National Endowment for Democracy). What is likely the greatest threat to Belarus democracy, however, is Russia. Belarus and Russia are extremely close culturally, with most Belarusians speaking Russian in their homes, and the two countries are also heavily economically linked. For a time after the fall of the Soviet Union, it seemed very likely that Belarus and Russia would form a new political and economic union, known as the Union State of Belarus and Russia. However, their differences are also crucial to understanding the now rapidly cooling relations between the two countries. Belarus has maintained (or regained after the disastrous rule of Lukashenko's predecessor) many of its socialist institutions and economic characteristics (see further done in this same post). Russia, on the other hand, went straight into the foolishness of rapid privatization following the end of the Soviet era, causing large loss of life as public services disappeared, and has gained many more reactionary institutions and economic policies since. While the Union State and other formations of unity between Belarus and Russia nominally still exist, Belarus has consistently plotted an independent political and economic course from Russia. This independent course is visible in the June 2010 gas crisis that occurred between Belarus and Russia and briefly threatened European access to natural gas (RIA Novosti). He has also sheltered former Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Baklyev, whose ousting had the Kremlin's overt support (New York Times). Lukashenko's brinkmanship with Russia, which simultaneously maintains independence from both East and West, has proven an effective method to maintain Belarus's independence and economic egalitarianism. Unfortunately, this has naturally provoked a hostile reaction from the Kremlin. Earlier this year, while Lukashenko was on a visit to Turkey, a "Minsk media source" stated that Lukashenko had declared that he planned to secede from the Union State, the CSTO, the Customs Union and others, if Russia challenged the validity of the election (Telegraf.by). It was also claimed that he planned to have the Belarusian Orthodox Church secede from the Russian Orthodox Church (Interfax). In addition, the Russian media has released a series of what amount to little more than half hour attack ads, a "documentary" miniseries which, among other things, accuses Lukashenko of killing his political enemies and suffering from "mosaic psychopathy" (MMC News). This is a media tactic that has been used repeatedly by the Russian oligarchy since the fall of the USSR: make so many false accusations that it is not possible for your opponents to effectively counter them. The economic course plotted by Lukashenko in Belarus is an important aspect of the hostility that the West has towards him. This stretches even to Russia, where the Russian oligarchs wish to profit off of Belarus's robust economy. Unlike many other post-Soviet states, Lukashenko has chose to avoid the folly of rapid or in-depth privatization, and during the early period of his reign "re-nationalized" the banks (United States Department of State). By avoiding the encroachment of foreign corporations, Lukashenko has simultaneously angered the United States and Russia while enriching his own people. In 2009, Belarus's GDP per capita (PPP) was 285.83% of its 1992 level. Belarus has had sustained economic growth (in terms of GDP per capita PPP) since 1996, which continued even through the financial crisis of 2009 (Index Mundi). For comparison purposes, Russia's GDP per capita (PPP) in 2009 was 190.73%; obviously significant, but Russia has a massive advantage in terms of raw natural resources and yet still fell behind (Index Mundi). "But wait," you may be saying, "isn't that all oil growth?" Well, no. Firstly, Belarus's "subsidies" from Russia have been significantly cut down recently. Secondly, prior to 2007, Russia paid $0.75 per 1,000 cubic meters passed through 100 kilometers of pipeline in Belarus; after 2007, Russia paid $1.45 (Understanding Belarus and How Western Foreign Policy Misses the Mark). This is significantly below the Ukrainian rate, which in 2009 was $1.70 per 1,000 (Jamestown Foundation). In other words, while Belarus was paying little for its gas, Russia was paying little for its transit. Thirdly, the early growth (1996-2000) can be attributed to "a first-mover competitive advantage for Belarusian exporters" caused by a "considerable (albeit artificial and temporary) price advantage for Belarusian producers" (World Bank). The later growth (2000-2004) can be attributed "especially indirectly" to a "drastically improved external environment" by "accelerating Russian growth and Russian demand" as well as "steadily rising domestic demand" as a result of "excessive government involvement in the economy" (Ibid). Less than 1.6% of Belarus's population subsist at less than the lower regional line of PPP $2.15 a day, and 26.6% subsist at less than PPP $4.30 a day, in comparison to 18.8 percent and 50.3 percent in Russia, 3.0 and 29.4 percent in Ukraine, and 5.7 and 30.9 percent in Kazakhstan (World Bank). The unemployment rate in Belarus is one of the lowest in the world, at about 1 percent, while Russia suffers from chronic unemployment, currently at 8.4% (CIA World Factbook). Belarus's Gini index is 27.9, one of the lowest in the world (CIA World Factbook). Over 80% of agricultural land is state-owned and most agricultural land is communally farmed (Australian Government). As of 2000, only 10% of Belarusian enterprises were privatized (Nations Encyclopedia). About 55% of the economy of Belarus is spent on the social safety net (Valery Dashkevich). The economic victories of Lukashenko's rule have brought a broad swath of public support, and I fervently hope that they will be maintained for the years to come. So let's discuss the ups and downs of Mr. Lukashenko's controversial Presidency, and the upcoming election (which he will win in precisely one month and thirty days). I hope this post has been informative and provides a springboard for further discussion.

Let's face it, folks. People's morality is neither reasoned nor codified. Have you ever heard the old moral question of "you can save five men from a speeding train, but you have to kill one"? Well it turns out that if you shift and alter elements of that question while maintaining the mathematical inequality, people answer differently. For example, in a recent test, "[h]alf of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named

Except for High Stalin (1936-1942)? No, it was not totalitarian. You could argue that it was authoritarian, but totalitarian? Please.