Tooting Carmen's list of relatively benign dictators

[Tooting Carmen]

He wasn't wrong at denouncing the continous decline of the western world post-1789 and you know it.

I don't think the French Revolution was all sweetness and light, but do you really think the quasi-feudal society it overthrew was such a paradise? The discontent and appetite for change were real and widespread, whatever the cruelties and excesses that came along with it. In any case, while it can be argued that the West has undergone a certain amount of spiritual and ecological decline (I actually believe that to an extent myself), all the same we are living in an age of unparalleled affluence and technological development, for good and for ill.

[Andullero]

I don't think the French Revolution was all sweetness and light, but do you really think the quasi-feudal society it overthrew was such a paradise?

Not a paradise, but certainly better than the near destruction it caused on my island and the rest of the colonial world outside North America, for sure.

[Tooting Carmen]

Not a paradise, but certainly better than the near destruction it caused on my island and the rest of the colonial world outside North America, for sure.

It could be argued that the main problem with France throughout the world is that they most certainly did not practise their supposed values of liberte, egalite et fraternite when dealing with 'lesser' peoples. And it is ironic how you say "outside North America", since reactionaries have usually lumped the American and French Revolutions together.

[Sebastianus Rex]

The economy is important, but of course it is certainly not the be all and end all. All the same, however much you, I or others ridicule Argentina for its periodic economic crises, the fact remains it still surpasses Brazil (and many other countries in Latin America and elsewhere) when it comes to healthcare, education and even (believe it or not) salaries.



Granted, but I am just sceptical that turning his country into a giant prison is really such a sustainable way of going about things. And his libertarian economic ideas are indeed important, because they show that his approach is overwhelmingly based on security and coercion, rather than proper investment in public services, infrastructure and welfare.



I am perfectly aware of NATO's misdeeds and broken promises regarding Russia, and I have talked about them myself both on this forum and elsewhere. And I am certainly no fan of US imperialism in the slightest - surely that must be bloody obvious. Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly, the former Soviet bloc countries and even Scandinavian countries do fear Russia and don't have fond memories of being under its rule, so NATO has provided them with a security blanket, however opportunistically and recklessly.

What's more, is there not something at least a little dissonant about how you praise Russia for wanting to de-Westernise itself, yet you have (conditionally) praised Western European imperialism across the Global South? I am sure you would at best laugh and at worst actively hate an African or Asian leader who wanted to eliminate Western influences in their country's culture and politics.

As it happens, it is mostly over the economy that you have attacked the Castro regime, yet you criticise me for focusing on the economy too much when looking at other leaders. Despite my recantation, I still maintain that his regime was arguably necessary and even successful in its early years. Even leaving aside the notable improvements in healthcare, education, science and sport, the even more crucial point was that his regime dismantled both the semi-Apartheid system and the US-dominated Mafia/neocolonial economic structures and associated decadence of the Batista regime.

Bukele was reelected by 92% of the population, they certainly don't feel like their country is a giant prison, much the opposite, finally they feel free and safe to live without fear of the gangs. Don't let your mind be afftected by the "owners of the truth" like the BBC moron reporter who got bitch slapped by Bukele on the press conference.

Regarding NATO, I was not talking only about being aggressive towards Russia, I was talking also about Serbia, Irak, Lybia, Afghanistan etc, it has become a tool of US expansionism to dominate Eurasia, not a defensive alliance against the USSR has it was initially created. But it's curious that it is always the Baltic chihuahuas (who were tge most ardent collaborators of the Nazi and the SS" perhaps only second to the western Ukrainians, the first to say "let's go invade Russia before it's too late". Let them fight their own wars, fuck them all.

Western colonialism is also an invented label, the models of colonization were very different from each other, but hey, nowadays even countries that were never colonial powers are accused of being colonialists because they are white, that's how low and ideological these debates have become.

The current westernization process it's a different animal, it means the construction of a hegemonic bloc and the complete subjugation of other nations to the power of that bloc led by the USA, trough the means of wars, political influences, economic blackmail, media propaganda, NGO's and other funded organizations.

There will be no reason for African or American nations to eliminate the old western influences (such as christianism) from their root cultures and go back to practicing cannibalism and human sacrifices, but it would benefit them to get rid of the modern western political, economic and cultural influences.

I don't see in what Cuba is now better than in the time of Batista, women prostitute themselves with foreign tourists for a candy or a soap bar, the men will suck your cock for even less, there is no food, the buildings are falling apart and their cars are 60 years older. Are you serious with commie propaganda that Cuba improved so much with the Castro regime?

[Sebastianus Rex]

It could be argued that the main problem with France throughout the world is that they most certainly did not practise their supposed values of liberte, egalite et fraternite when dealing with 'lesser' peoples. And it is ironic how you say "outside North America", since reactionaries have usually lumped the American and French Revolutions together.

In one way they were not lying, the guillotine was very egalitarian and liberating.

[Tooting Carmen]

Bukele was reelected by 92% of the population, they certainly don't feel like their country is a giant prison, much the opposite, finally they feel free and safe to live without fear of the gangs. Don't let your mind be afftected by the "owners of the truth" like the BBC moron reporter who got bitch slapped by Bukele on the press conference.

And likewise when Stephen Sackur got owned by the Prime Minister of Guyana for lecturing him about climate change, even though his country has some of the world's largest and well-conserved rainforests.

Regarding NATO, I was not talking only about being aggressive towards Russia, I was talking also about Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, it has become a tool of US expansionism to dominate Eurasia, not a defensive alliance against the USSR has it was initially created.

Enoch Powell, no left-winger in the slightest, even during the Cold War itself regarded it as a scam for the US to dominate Europe. As for NATO nowadays, yes I agree it is a serious threat to both world peace and national sovereignty.

But it's curious that it is always the Baltic chihuahuas (who were tge most ardent collaborators of the Nazi and the SS) perhaps only second to the western Ukrainians, the first to say "let's go invade Russia before it's too late". Let them fight their own wars, fuck them all.

True, they have tainted histories of their own, but then so do most if not all countries. And like I said, they do have legitimate fears and grievances regarding Russia, even though such sentiments are admittedly exploited by rapacious Americans and Western Europeans.

Western colonialism is also an invented label, the models of colonization were very different from each other, but hey, nowadays even countries that were never colonial powers are accused of being colonialists because they are white, that's how low and ideological these debates have become.

No one accuses Finland or Iceland of colonialism. Stop deflecting. Like I said in another thread, if Bulgarians have the right to feel aggrieved by the legacy and actions of the Ottomans and Soviets, then surely Bangladeshis and Burkinabines have the right to feel aggrieved by the legacy and actions of the British and French.

The current westernization process it's a different animal, it means the construction of a hegemonic bloc and the complete subjugation of other nations to the power of that bloc led by the USA, through the means of wars, political influences, economic blackmail, media propaganda, NGO's and other funded organizations.

True.

There will be no reason for African or American nations to eliminate the old western influences (such as Christianity) from their root cultures and go back to practicing cannibalism and human sacrifices, but it would benefit them to get rid of the modern western political, economic and cultural influences.

I see what you mean.

I don't see in what Cuba is now better than in the time of Batista, women prostitute themselves with foreign tourists for a candy or a soap bar, the men will suck your cock for even less, there is no food, the buildings are falling apart and their cars are 60 years older.

As you said yourself, this has only really been the case since the collapse of the USSR. In the early years of the Revolution, the various brothels and casinos operated largely by the American Mafia were shut down, and there were numerous cases of e.g. prostitutes who were retrained as nurses. At least equally crucially, the semi-Apartheid system was banned and Black/mixed-race Cubans had access to various clubs, hotels, beaches and educational and employment opportunities previously restricted if not forbidden for them. Even today, for all the country's problems and lousy salaries and shortages, life expectancy and literacy rates are still not much different to many Western countries.

[Sebastianus Rex]

And likewise when Stephen Sackur got owned by the Prime Minister of Guyana for lecturing him about climate change, even though his country has some of the world's largest and well-conserved rainforests.



Enoch Powell, no left-winger in the slightest, even during the Cold War itself regarded it as a scam for the US to dominate Europe. As for NATO nowadays, yes I agree it is a serious threat to both world peace and national sovereignty.



True, they have tainted histories of their own, but then so do most if not all countries. And like I said, they do have legitimate fears and grievances regarding Russia, even though such sentiments are admittedly exploited by rapacious Americans and Western Europeans.



No one accuses Finland or Iceland of colonialism. Stop deflecting. Like I said in another thread, if Bulgarians have the right to feel aggrieved by the legacy and actions of the Ottomans and Soviets, then surely Bangladeshis and Burkinabines have the right to feel aggrieved by the legacy and actions of the British and French.



True.



I see what you mean.



As you said yourself, this has only really been the case since the collapse of the USSR. In the early years of the Revolution, the various brothels and casinos operated largely by the American Mafia were shut down, and there were numerous cases of e.g. prostitutes who were retrained as nurses. At least equally crucially, the semi-Apartheid system was banned and Black/mixed-race Cubans had access to various clubs, hotels, beaches and educational and employment opportunities previously restricted if not forbidden for them. Even today, for all the country's problems and lousy salaries and shortages, life expectancy and literacy rates are still not much different to many Western countries.

Sweden and Ireland were never colonial powers, in the case of the Irish they were victims of a brutal English rule for centuries, and yet they are accused by the usual parasitic migrants and woke crowd of being colonialists because they are white, and therefore must pay for being the benefactors of "systemic racism". You know this very well, so it is you who are deflecting.

It was not the british or the french who invented the Hindu caste system, on the contrary, thanks to the British rule some of the most savage aspects of Hinduism and the caste system were abolished or mitigated. Still today around 30% of the Indian population belongs to the lower Dalit caste, who are considered untouchable because according to their belief system, they don't have a soul! And that's one of the reasons why India is the gang rape capital of the World, it is historically documented that mass rape is a widely practiced form of punishment among the several ethnic and religious groups in the Indian subcontinent.

When a dalit dies on the streets, since only other dalits will collect the corpses, they will be left rotting for several days, until there's enough money around the corpse, kind of a sanitary blackmail. That's why the dalit caste are converting en masse to Islam and India will have a huge internal problem in the near future.

The old Hindu tradition of Sati, in which a widow was sacrified by sitting atop her deceased husband's funeral pyr and immolated alive, was abolished by the english governance in 1829, altough it kept being practiced until much recently.

Why should Bangladesh (founded as East Pakistan) have any reason to complaint about the English rule? Pakistan was officially created one day before the Indian independence.

If anything, the Indian subcontinent is less of shithole thanks to the British rule, but hey, they are all free to go back which we know very well it won't happen since that hypocritical speech is just a form of taking advantage of the victim card.

[Tooting Carmen]

Sweden and Ireland were never colonial powers, in the case of the Irish they were victims of a brutal English rule for centuries, and yet they are accused by the usual parasitic migrants and woke crowd of being colonialists because they are white, and therefore must pay for being the benefactors of "systemic racism". You know this very well, so it is you who are deflecting.

It was not the british or the french who invented the Hindu caste system, on the contrary, thanks to the British rule some of the most savage aspects of Hinduism and the caste system were abolished or mitigated. Still today around 30% of the Indian population belongs to the lower Dalit caste, who are considered untouchable because according to their belief system, they don't have a soul! And that's one of the reasons why India is the gang rape capital of the World, it is historically documented that mass rape is a widely practiced form of punishment among the several ethnic and religious groups in the Indian subcontinent.

When a dalit dies on the streets, since only other dalits will collect the corpses, they will be left rotting for several days, until there's enough money around the corpse, kind of a sanitary blackmail. That's why the dalit caste are converting en masse to Islam and India will have a huge internal problem in the near future.

The old Hindu tradition of Sati, in which a widow was sacrified by sitting atop her deceased husband's funeral pyr and immolated alive, was abolished by the english governance in 1829, altough it kept being practiced until much recently.

Why should Bangladesh (founded as East Pakistan) have any reason to complaint about the English rule? Pakistan was officially created one day before the Indian independence.

If anything, the Indian subcontinent is less of shithole thanks to the British rule, but hey, they are all free to go back which we know very well it won't happen since that hypocritical speech is just a form of taking advantage of the victim card.

I am not saying that the British in India didn't do some good things, most notably its railway network, but at the end of the day as with all Empires it was largely incidental. The two main drives behind British rule in India were tea and cotton. Kolkata was as or more industrialised than many European cities before the British arrived, but the British forcibly deindustrialised it so it could not compete and captured the city's cotton to export to British textile mills to make products to export back to India again. Also, I am no fan of many if not most aspects of South Asian cultures, but ultimately (1) who has the right to decide how different societies function internally in the first place and what the guiding philosophies and beliefs are and (2) as with the British in South Asia and the French in West Africa, so with the Ottomans and later on Soviets in Eastern Europe: who has the biggest weapons gets to conquer. Debating which Empires were more 'moral' or beneficial than others is largely a fool's errand. (3) Specifically in Bangladesh's case: the Bengal Famine was a major atrocity.

[Tooting Carmen]

And while the Indian caste system is certainly abhorrent, is it really much if at all worse than Jim Crow and Apartheid, both of which were in part the creations of the descendants of British settlers and were actually enforced by their respective states?

[Sebastianus Rex]

I am not saying that the British in India didn't do some good things, most notably its railway network, but at the end of the day as with all Empires it was largely incidental. The two main drives behind British rule in India were tea and cotton. Kolkata was as or more industrialised than many European cities before the British arrived, but the British forcibly deindustrialised it so it could not compete and captured the city's cotton to export to British textile mills to make products to export back to India again. Also, I am no fan of many if not most aspects of South Asian cultures, but ultimately (1) who has the right to decide how different societies function internally in the first place and what the guiding philosophies and beliefs are and (2) as with the British in South Asia and the French in West Africa, so with the Ottomans and later on Soviets in Eastern Europe: who has the biggest weapons gets to conquer. Debating which Empires were more 'moral' or beneficial than others is largely a fool's errand. (3) Specifically in Bangladesh's case: the Bengal Famine was a major atrocity.

Kolkata was not industrial, it was pre industrial. The industrial revolution started in Britain not in India.

There was never political unity in the Indian subcontinent, it was a conglomeration of several despotic kingdoms and many ethnic and religious groups that were always fighting against each other and allied with the europeans or became their vassals to gain advantage or be protected against rival kingdoms.

The great Bengal Famine in the 18th century was caused by crop failures due to climate disasters which are very common in that region.
The Bengal famine of 1943, it happen mostly due to the disruption of rice imports from Burma which was occupied by Japan. During the British Raj the population of the Indian subcontinent increased exponentially, which means that the overall living conditions improved regarding the previous periods. Anyway, great famines are common in the history of the region, the period with less famines was precisely the British Raj and thanks to the railway system built by the British, those famines are now much less common than ever in history.

Burning widows alive is a savage practice but feel free to disagree.

Dilapidation of women under suspicion of adultery is a savage practice.

A caste system where the lower caste members are considered soulless and prohibited from practicing most jobs, is an extremely backward social system and yet the higher castes complain about the british oppression. LOL!!