Edric O

We will only be able to stop babies being killed by bombers if we understand the root causes of war, oppression and injustice in the modern world, and if we have a serious plan for ending it. Blind revenge may be good enough for a grieving parent - and trust me, I understand the desire for revenge - but revenge alone isn't going to stop other bombers from killing other babies in other places. Changing the global system, not revenge or grief, is going to make the world a better place.

The British Empire did many horrible things and committed many atrocities and massacres. I am the last person who would ever defend it. Same for the French colonial empire and France's current actions in Mali and elsewhere in Africa. European powers are guilty of many crimes against humanity. But you can criticize the British and the French without accusing them of weird conspiracy theories. * * * The above is my opinion as a regular forum poster. As for my opinion from a moderator point of view, what matters is not so much what you say, but how you say it. You can attack the British government (and the Greek one) all you like, but when you start saying things like "england rule, kill, loot, drink blood, make wold blood bath" and talking about "greek dogs", that's when we have a problem. If you had instead said "England is responsible for much death and violence around the world" and referred to "murderous Greek troops" respectively, that would not be a problem. It's about how you say things.

Expressing hatred towards entire nations or ethnic groups (such as the English or the Jews) for things that you believe some of them have done. Xenophobia as such is not forbidden here, the problem is that you've made many posts in which you simply insulted an ethnic group without saying anything else or adding anything to the discussion. For example (and this is a mild example): "Fakn england is harkonnen." In another post (now deleted) you accused people of being "jewish zombies".

I deleted that post from this thread, because I've decided to restrict his xenophobic rants to the thread he started. All further similar posts he makes will be moved there, unless they're actually on-topic somehow.

Damrankomran, let's make something clear. As far as I am aware we do not have an official policy against xenophobia and Holocaust denial on this forum, but people who deny the most well-documented genocide in modern times (which is also, possibly, the most well-documented genocide in all of history) are either incredibly gullible, or deluded, or blindly anti-Semitic. I don't know which one you are and I am not terribly interested in finding out, so here is what is going to happen. You get one thread - this one - to express your xenophobic views and Holocaust denial. Whoever wants to interact with you can post here. All off-topic posts you make in other threads with xenophobic slurs or badly-worded conspiracy theories about the Holocaust supposedly being fake, will be deleted. If you persist in making such off-topic posts in other threads, further action will be taken. If, for whatever reason, your xenophobic posts are actually on-topic in some thread (for instance, if someone starts a thread about anti-Semitism and you go there to provide an example), that is allowed.

Wait... what...? My "beloved nationalism"? After I blamed nationalism for causing WW1 and after I've been a rather outspoken anti-nationalist for many years? And "holocaust denial in the middle east"? How is that even related to anything, considering the fact that, well, this is a thread about WW1, the Holocaust happened two decades later, and denial of it in the Middle East only became a widespread problem as a result of the conflict with Israel several decades after that? I honestly do not understand what you are talking about. Do you disagree with my split and thread lock? I thought people did not want the flame war to continue, but if I was wrong (that is to say, if you and the other participants want me to unlock the flame thread and perhaps re-merge it here), I will do so.

Well, this was... unexpected. A genuine flame war! I haven't seen one in ages! Ah, the memories. Navaros would be proud. Now where was I? Oh yes. The marble emperor has hereby returned, chased the invaders from the thread and locked the city gates.

On 28 June 1914 - a hundred years ago today - a 19-year-old Yugoslav nationalist named Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, in Sarajevo. This led to the Austro-Hungarian Empire declaring war on Serbia a month later, which started the First World War. In a very real sense, this was the event that marked the beginning of the 20th century and the modern world as we know it. Yes, technically speaking the 20th century started in 1901, but the years 1901-1914 were politically and culturally an extension of the 19th century. Before 1914, the world was still ruled by monarchs with multinational empires, democracy was still a controversial ideal (and, in many places, it was regarded as dangerous extremism), the only major political ideologies were classical liberalism and conservatism, the idea of an extensive welfare state - when imagined at all - was considered an impossibility, women only had the right to vote in four small countries, and the principle of a balance of power between rival empires was the main pillar of international relations. That world ended in the fires of the Great War. A century later, the spark that ignited the Great War still raises many important questions about politics and history. Here are a few that could start some discussion: - Can one man really change the course of history with a single bullet? Did Princip's actions cause WW1, or was the war going to happen anyway and Princip's actions only decided when it would begin? - Who or what is to blame for WW1? Germany? All the great powers? The balance-of-power principle? Imperialism? Capitalism? - The world wars caused immense death and devastation, but they were also the direct cause of many positive developments that we take for granted in the modern world. Democracy and human rights, to name only two, have become the default political principles of the world, supported in theory by almost everyone, largely as a result of the world wars. So were the world wars, in some sense, worth it, because they gave us the modern world? - Is nationalism always wrong and dangerous, or is it sometimes justified?

The flag used by the separatists has nothing to do with the American confederate flag. It's derived from the Russian Navy Ensign. As for Poroshenko... I'm not sure what's weird about him. I guess the fact that he is a billionaire most famous for owning chocolate factories...?

The math just doesn't add up for both Farage and Le Pen to be able to have their own groups, though. Not after ECR scooped up all those minor parties. Either they'll have to work together, or Le Pen will have to work with neo-Nazis (Golden Dawn/Jobbik/NPD), or one of them (either Farage or Le Pen) will be left without a group. Attack didn't get any MEPs, by the way. I've heard people speculating that ECR was so eager to get all those minor parties on board precisely because Cameron is trying to isolate Farage. And, strangely enough, AfD may be forced to remain among the non-inscrits, because of Merkel's pressure on ECR not to accept them. Just goes to show how powerful she has become in Europe. Bismarck would be so proud.

How about this weekend? What times (GMT) are you available?

Some news from the far-left and the far-right: The Communist Party of Greece (KKE), which is the most hardline of the communist parties currently in the European Parliament, has withdrawn from the Left group and published a very strongly-worded statement condemning the Left group for being too soft (and especially for being too weak in their opposition to the EU). I agree with their views, but I question their judgment in choosing to go alone like this. If there were other hardline communist parties in the EU parliament, then sure, this might be a good idea. But what does the KKE expect to be able to do on its own? Ever since the crisis began the KKE has had great policies but horribly bad strategy. I fear this is yet another strategic mistake. Meanwhile, the radical conservative group (ECR) is scooping up minor parties all over the place. The Family Party (Germany, 1 MEP), the New Majority (Slovakia, 1 MEP), Ordinary People (Slovakia, 1 MEP), and Independent Greeks (Greece, 1 MEP) have all joined ECR. The reason why this matters is because it's leaving a lot less hard-right parties available to join other groups and give them the seven countries they need. In fact, there have also been two outright defections from EFD to ECR: The True Finns Party and the Danish People's Party. As a result, EFD is increasingly looking like UKIP and (almost) no one else. They've only got four parties now: UKIP with 24 MEPs and three minor parties with a combined total of only 4 MEPs. So unless UKIP finds some new allies fast, their victory may well turn into a defeat. ...and, as it just so happens, the French National Front and their fellow ultra-nationalists and fascists are also in dire need of allies, as they still only have five countries and therefore can't form a group. So the big question on the far-right is: Will UKIP and the National Front lay aside their differences and join to form a combined far-right eurosceptic group? Or will they refuse to play together and laughably end up with no group at all, despite massive electoral gains in their respective countries?

Newt! Good to see you! How is life treating you these days? If you've just reinstalled Emperor, maybe we could play online sometime. A few weeks ago we were trying to set up a weekend for us to all be online at once and play Emperor, but it didn't work out.

You know, I've been thinking of starting a blog for years (probably something like ten years, at this point). But I never started one, mainly because I don't think I could write new posts often enough to create a community of regular readers, and without such a community it makes no sense to have a blog - I might as well post on forums or make comments on other people's blogs. At least, that has been my thinking so far, essentially based on the assumption that any blog I start is just not going to be popular enough to be worth it. But your comment (and some others I've got recently, elsewhere) are making me reconsider that. Maybe I could start a blog and make it reasonably popular, after all... But let me ask you something: If I were to start a blog, do you think it would be better to have it explicitly focused on commentary from a communist perspective (maybe something like Lenin's Tomb, but more accessible, directed at a general reader instead of other leftists), or do you think it would be more interesting to have it as a place for any and all musings, whether about politics, religion, popular culture, or whatever? In terms of where I get my information, I usually rely on BBC news as the primary source, and then I simply google any event that sounds interesting or that I want to learn more about. I don't actually follow any specific blogs on a regular basis...

We will always be here. Watching. Waiting. Come, join us. :D

Hey, Anathema, it has been a long time! Good to see you, old friend. :) I wanted to take the time to write a full, comprehensive reply, which is why I took so long to respond (and why this post is as long as you can see). Sorry about that - I should have probably been a little more brief. Well, as far as the Russian Duma is concerned, it's true that overall it is more reactionary than most European parliaments, but it also contains the largest Communist Party in Europe (92 seats out of 450, meaning over 20%). The Russian establishment is more right-wing than the EU establishment, but the radical left is bigger and has more popular support in Russia than in the EU (after all, at the EU elections last week, the radical left got only about 9-10% of the vote). But none of that is really important. We should never decide to support or oppose the foreign policy of governments based on their internal politics. Yes, internally, Russia has a far greater wealth gap, a more ruthless capitalism, more conservative policies, and a lot more corruption than the European Union. But that is not what matters here. After all, internally, the United States was superior in every way to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Does that mean we should have supported the US invasion of Iraq? No. Internal politics are irrelevant in such cases. We should decide who to support in international conflicts (both military and diplomatic) based on who has justice on their side, and also - perhaps more importantly - based on who is likely to create a better political situation in the world if they win. Sometimes the side that has the worse internal policies is the one that will lead to the better consequences for the world if they win. In other words, in the case of Ukraine, the question is NOT "is Putin better than the West in the way he runs his country?" Of course he isn't. The question is, "what would be better for Ukraine and the world - a victory for Putin or a victory for the West?" And the answer is, a victory for Putin would be better. It would be better for Ukraine because it would avoid crushing austerity and it would defeat the rising tide of fascism. And it would be better for the world because it would push us in the direction of a more multi-polar world, and away from global domination by a single superpower. From the communist perspective, Leon Trotsky once provided a great imaginary example of a situation where we should feel compelled to support the foreign policy of a ruthless anti-communist dictatorship against the foreign policy of a progressive democracy (namely, if the French colonies in North Africa rose up in rebellion in the 1930s and Mussolini decided to provide the rebels with guns - then we should support Mussolini's weapon shipments and oppose France, in the name of liberation for oppressed peoples). The internal politics of a regime have little to do with the question of whether we should support its foreign policy. But even more importantly, as far as communists are concerned, we are not given a choice of who to support in Ukraine. The Kiev government has made repeated attempts to ban the Communist Party, and communists have been assaulted, threatened, and in some cases even murdered by forces allied to the Kiev government. Grassroots left-wing organizations have been driven underground in Odessa and other government-controlled areas. So, basically, one side wants to destroy us while the other is at least willing to tolerate our existence. The conclusion is clear. There is no choice here. The strength of Right Sector does not lie in electoral support, or popular support of any kind. It lies in controlling the streets with a small but disciplined contingent of paramilitary thugs, while the police does not dare to challenge them. Right Sector and other similar fascist groups operate in ways similar to the mafia and organized crime in general (although, of course, their goals are very different). Also, remember Svoboda? They are a fascist party that is a member of the governing coalition right now. It's amazing how the rise of Right Sector has made people completely forget about Svoboda, when just last year Svoboda was seen as the scary fascist threat! It is a sign of how much Ukrainian politics has shifted to the far-right that Svoboda is now regarded as reasonable or even moderate compared to the neo-Nazis of Right Sector. Basically, if Right Sector is Hitler, Svoboda is Francisco Franco. Should we feel reassured that Hitler only has 0.9% support in polls while Franco sits in government? Crimea was conquered by the Russian Empire from the Tatars in 1783, and it has been ruled from Moscow for 204 of the 231 years that have passed since then (the only exceptions were 1918-1922 and 1991-2014). It's not just a territory that happens to be inhabited by ethnic Russians, the way the Sudetenland or post-WW1 Austria happened to be inhabited by ethnic Germans despite never being ruled from Berlin before the 1930s. Crimea is a territory that has been part of the Russian state for centuries, and would have remained part of Russia after the dissolution of the USSR if Khrushchev hadn't whimsically transferred it to the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. There is no good argument for why Crimea should be part of Ukraine, except stubborn legalism ("That's what the law says, so we've got to follow it, no matter how the law in question was adopted or how little sense it makes!"). The majority of Crimeans obviously don't want to be part of Ukraine, even if that majority is not as large as the referendum made it look. Frankly, it's amazing to see people who reject the legitimacy of the Soviet Union care so much about respecting borders that were drawn by Soviet authorities. Lithuania claims to have been illegally occupied by the USSR, for example, yet it's perfectly happy to keep the city of Vilnius and surrounding areas (using it as the national capital, no less), despite the fact that this city was given to Lithuania by the USSR. Funny... it's almost as if they don't actually care about what was "legal" or not, and simply follow their own interests. The issue of how a certain ethnic group came to live in a certain area cannot be used as a justification to dismiss their grievances or deprive them of rights. Yes, many areas are dominated by Russian speakers because of centuries of Russification. Also, North America is dominated by English speakers because of centuries of colonial expansion and genocide. So does that mean that if the United States collapsed and Native Americans came to rule certain parts of the former union, they would be justified in restricting the rights of people of European descent? Of course not. Likewise for Central and South America, Australia, some parts of southern Africa, and so on. Western Europeans have done the greatest amount of ethnic cleansing and population displacement around the world in recent centuries. Does that mean that it would be justified to try to undo these population changes today? No. The way the Baltic states treat ethnic Russians is no more justified than the way Robert Mugabe treats the descendants of European settlers. Except that the Baltic states are (fanatically) pro-Western, so they get away with it. So yes, Russia most definitely has a legitimate reason to intervene in all of these places, at least through diplomatic and political channels. Military intervention is not justified except in extreme cases - but the current situation in Ukraine is an extreme case. If Austria or the Sudetenland had been annexed by a "normal" German government, instead of the Nazis, would it have been such an indisputably bad thing? Not really. It would have been up for debate - personally, I could see reasonable arguments for both sides in such a situation. The reason the Nazi annexations of the 1930s were so horrible is not because they were annexations, but because they were done by the Nazis. Obviously Nazis should be opposed, because they are Nazis, but is annexation bad in and of itself, no matter who does it? Not necessarily. What is inherently wrong with annexing a territory belonging to a country in political chaos, with no legitimate government, where the majority of the population welcomes you with open arms? For example, if Belgium collapsed into violent chaos, and a majority of Walloons clearly supported French rule, would it be wrong for France to send in troops and annex Wallonia? I don't think so.

Yes, it's that time of the decade again! The voters of the 28 member states of the European Union have just elected the people who will occupy the 751 seats of the European Parliament for the next five years. We had a thread about the previous European elections five years ago, so I thought I would continue the tradition and start a new thread for this round, as well. Here is a breakdown of this year's results from the BBC, and here is a table of results on Wikipedia. Be aware that many of the parties in the "other" category will end up joining one of the pre-existing groups in the next few weeks, so the final breakdown of seats may be different from what you see now. A quick summary of what has happened at these elections is that the mainstream parties have suffered a massive blow and scored the worst results they've had in the entire history of the European Parliament, while turnout remained basically the same as in 2009 (which is to say, very low). The large variety of non-mainstream parties that have gained from these elections can be divided in three broad categories: (a) far-right nationalist eurosceptics, who probably advanced more than anyone else, (b) radical-left and far-left parties, who scored significant gains, but nothing too spectacular, and © vague non-ideological protest movements, who don't stand for anything in particular and will certainly prove to be a disappointment to their voters. Having said that, although the anti-establishment has made the greatest gains and the mainstream parties have lost a lot of seats compared to 2009, the mainstream parties still held on to a solid majority of seats overall (smaller than in 2009, but a majority is a majority), so, if they wish, they could just continue with business as usual and pretend nothing went wrong. If that is what ends up happening (which seems very likely), the elections in 2019 will be very interesting indeed. The tide of popular opinion is finally turning against the EU, even in formerly staunch pro-EU heartlands such as France and Germany. So, for the first time in 20 years, the possibility of ending the European Union appears to be within grasp. For the record, I myself used to be a staunch supporter of the EU ten years ago, but now I want it dismantled. I used to believe that the EU could be reformed and improved, but the last few years have shown that it is an undemocratic neoliberal juggernaut beyond all hope of redemption, and must be destroyed. * * * * * And now a few words in description of the various political groups in the European Parliament. First of all, for those unfamiliar with the whole system, the way it works is that national parties from each member state get elected and send representatives to become Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), and then these MEPs join together in multinational alliances ("political groups") based on ideology. This year, many parties were elected to the European Parliament for the first time in their history (because of the aforementioned anti-establishment vote), and these new parties start out in the "other" category (meaning they are not yet members of any group). That does not mean they will stay there for long. Most of them will join one of the existing groups, and some may start a new group. So the numbers of group members that you see on the BBC page linked above or on any other results page are just the initial numbers, before the new parties have decided what they will do. At the bottom of this post I will estimate the final numbers. The 7 pre-existing groups can be described as follows: 1. The Left (officially, the "European United Left") - a group consisting of socialists and communists. Farther to the left than anything you may find in American politics. They are the only group that actively talks about class struggle. The Left supports workers in strikes and other conflicts with bosses, and they are anti-market and anti-business. Most, though not all, call for the abolition of capitalism. They generally believe that the EU is a good idea in principle but very badly implemented in practice, while a few oppose the EU even in principle. The group can therefore be described as eurosceptic. 2. The social democrats (officially, the "Group of Socialists and Democrats", where the term "socialist" is left over from history) - the mainstream center-left bloc. Used to be roughly the equivalent of the most left-wing Democrats in the US, or the NDP in Canada, but it's not clear what they stand for these days, seeing how they've endorsed austerity after 2009. In theory, they support the welfare state and egalitarian measures within the framework of a market economy. But they have been drifting towards the right for decades. They are vehemently pro-EU. 3. The Greens - pretty self-explanatory, really. They are strong environmentalists with generally center-left views on other political issues. The equivalent of the Green Party in the US and Canada, and most Green parties throughout the world. They are mostly, but not terribly strongly, pro-EU. For some reason, the Green group also includes center-left separatist parties such as the Scottish National Party and some Catalonian separatists. In addition, Pirate Parties usually join the Green group when they get any MEPs, so you could say the Green group is a sort of catch-all for center-left anti-establishment types. 4. The liberals (officially, the "Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe") - your standard classical liberal group, with a number of generic centrists thrown in. They are usually the most pro-business, pro-market group in the European Parliament. They don't have a direct equivalent in American or Canadian politics, but they are very much like the most pro-business elements in the mainstream politics of those countries (note I said mainstream; libertarians are similar, but far too extreme to qualify). The liberals are utterly in love with the EU, making them the most pro-EU group in Parliament. They support the idea of a United States of Europe. 5. The conservatives (officially, the "European People's Party", EPP) - the mainstream center-right bloc. They support capitalism and the market economy, within certain limits, they tend to uphold established tradition, talk a lot about law and order, and are uneasy about immigration. They are pretty much the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the US, as well as the more moderate Republicans. Both Obama and Mitt Romney would fit in here (though most Republicans would not). They are also the equivalent of most Liberals and Conservatives in Canada, again with the exception of the more radical wings of each party. If this sounds like a broad range of opinions, that's because it is. The EPP is by far the "biggest tent" in the European Parliament. Most of them are also vehemently pro-EU, although they don't go as far as the liberals. 6. The radical conservatives (officially, the "European Conservative and Reformist group", ECR) - the farther-right-but-not-extreme-right group. They support capitalism and the market economy, with much fewer limits, they strongly uphold established tradition and law-and-order policies, and they usually oppose immigration. They are the equivalent of most of the Republican Party in the US (but not the Tea Party or other extreme elements), and are also broadly similar to the more hardline Conservatives in Canada. The ECR group is basically an alliance of two major parties - the British Conservatives and the Law and Justice Party from Poland - with a few very minor partners from other countries thrown in (some 90% of their MEPs are either British or Polish). They are eurosceptic and wish to scale down the EU, but not abolish it. 7. The nationalist eurosceptics (officially, the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy group", EFD) - a group formed largely but not entirely of right-wing nationalists. They are united by the goal of either abolishing the EU or at least taking their respective countries out of it. Other than that, they tend to have a broad range of opinions. However, this group is overwhelmingly dominated by one party - the British UKIP - which provides some two-thirds of the group's total MEPs. Therefore, EFD's policies are basically UKIP's policies. * * * * * You can see the current breakdown of elected MEPs for the various groups in the links above, but you'll notice that there is also an enormous group of "others" - 120 MEPs, over 15% of the entire parliament. So, where are these "others" likely to go? - 11 MEPs (3 from Italy, 6 from Spain, 1 from Sweden, 1 from Ireland) are radical leftists and will probably join the Left group - 11 MEPs (6 from Spain, 2 from Greece, 2 from Hungary, 1 from Slovenia) are mainstream center-left/social democrats, so they will probably join the social democratic group - 10 MEPs (3 from Germany, 1 from the Netherlands, 2 from Hungary, 2 from Portugal, 1 from Croatia, 1 from Latvia) are Greens, and will probably join the Green group - 8 MEPs (1 from Germany, 4 from the Czech Republic, 1 from Austria, 1 from Slovakia, 1 from Croatia) are liberals or have said they will join the liberal group - 5 MEPs (1 from Germany, 1 from Bulgaria, 2 from Slovakia, 1 from Croatia) are mainstream center-right and will probably join the EPP group - 10 MEPs (7 from Germany, 1 from Slovakia, 1 from Lithuania) are conservative eurosceptics, so they will probably join the ECR group - 6 MEPs (4 from Poland, 1 from the Czech Republic, 1 from Greece) are hard-eurosceptics/nationalists, and will probably join the EFD group - 35 MEPs (the triumphant 24 - !!! - MEPs from the National Front of France, 4 from the Netherlands, 1 from Belgium, 2 from Sweden, 4 from Austria) are ultra-nationalists or fascists, and will almost certainly attempt to create a new ultra-nationalist group in the European Parliament. Since the rules require a group to include MEPs from a minimum of seven countries and they only have five (and since fascists from different countries have trouble getting along), they may not necessarily succeed. But the European Parliament is closer to having an ultra-nationalist group than it has been in a long time. In addition, there are some wild cards: - 7 MEPs are outright neo-Nazis (3 Golden Dawn members from Greece, 3 Jobbik members from Hungary, and 1 NPD member from Germany), and are therefore probably too far right even for the new ultra-nationalist/fascist group, so they will most likely remain non-aligned. Then again, if Marine Le Pen is desperate enough, she may stoop as low as trying to make a deal with Nazis in order to get the seven countries for her group. - 23 MEPs (1 from Germany, a whopping 17 - !!! - from Italy, 1 from Romania, 2 from Bulgaria, 1 from Ireland, 1 from Slovenia) belong to non-ideological protest parties and could go anywhere, or nowhere. So, to make a long story short, I predict the following final arrangement for the European Parliament during the 2014-2019 term: Socialists and communists: 59 MEPs (8%) Social democrats: 199 MEPs (26%) Greens: 54 MEPs (7%) Liberals: 63 MEPs (8%) Conservatives (EPP): 209 MEPs (28%) Radical conservatives (ECR): 54 MEPs (7%) Nationalist eurosceptics (EFD): 44 MEPs (6%) Ultra-nationalists: 35 MEPs (5%) And 30 MEPs either remaining non-aligned or unpredictably joining some group.

I met up with him in London in the summer of 2012 - almost exactly two years ago. We emailed for a bit around that time, but I haven't talked to him since. I'm pretty sure I still have his email address, though...

Well, to answer the original question, this site has always been more about the Dune games than anything else, and obviously there haven't been any new Dune games in years. We're certainly not about to "move on" - neverrrr! :) - but for most of us old-timers who are still here, the community has become an end in and of itself. For example, I will always be here, but not for any reasons related to Dune. Not any more. Having said that, I don't know why the main page redirects to the Duniverse list, and I certainly don't think it should. If it should redirect to anything, it should redirect to the forums. But maybe we can go back to updating it with news after all. The idea to re-focus it on editing news is excellent. Even one news update per month would be a huge improvement. Let's talk to Gob and get a news update permission for Aqib!

Hehe, I remember my few attempts to play online. They rarely ended well. :P I mostly played with Nema, I think... I did play a lot of LAN games with my friends at home, though. The most hilarious game I ever played was on a Draconis map. I teleported into the enemy base with an dozen or so NIAB tanks just as his army was in the process of tearing my own base to pieces, then we were both left base-less and I made him chase me around the map for about 20 minutes before he finally gave up. Fun times! :D So anyway, how about we actually set up a weekend to play when we are all available and promise to show up? None of us remembers how to play well, anyway. We could even play co-op against hard AIs and it would probably be a challenge. Or we could set up an Old Timers' Tournament with people randomly paired against each other. I know it would give me a reason to practice!

And all three links are from the blog of... uh... some guy, I guess. Totally reliable and everything. The far-right parties in the European Parliament are anti-EU, so of course they would vote against any assertion of power by the European Union. And Putin, like I said, is just looking out for his interests and will make alliances with anyone, depending on what is most convenient at the time. In this particular instance, with regards to Ukraine, Putin stands against the rise of fascism. Not because he is anti-fascist or anything like that, but because these particular fascists, at this particular time, are sworn enemies of Russia. As I said, in the future things may change. I'm certainly not saying that we should always support Putin (ha! far from it!) - I am only saying we should support him now, in this specific crisis. Intelligent communists should also stand against the European Union, and make alliances-of-convenience with other anti-EU forces on a case-by-case basis, as the opportunity arises. The EU, with its rabid neoliberalism and austerity policies, bears primary responsibility for the economic disaster that has fallen upon Europe, and therefore it is indirectly the cause of the rising popularity of the far-right. Without EU-imposed austerity driving people to desperation, neither Golden Dawn nor Jobbik nor the National Front would have much support. Extreme capitalism and the far-right feed off each other in a vicious cycle (capitalism drives people to desperation, so they support the far-right; then the far-right destroys left-wing movements, clearing the way for capitalism). They are both our enemies. And sometimes it is a good idea to play them off against each other.

Ok, so this is the weekend we agreed to play Emperor! I realized too late that I never actually contacted anyone by email, so we'll just have to rely on the people who read this topic and see these posts. So, who wants to play Emperor today or tomorrow? (next time we'll do a better job of organizing an actual event)

Mihail, I've posted numerous links, pictures, and even YouTube videos showing fascists in Kiev. Do you want more? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands. Are they all somehow fake? Is the Kremlin engaged in some kind of vast conspiracy that involves photoshopping fascists into pictures and videos posted by Western news outlets like the BBC? As I've said in another post: Of course it's true that the pro-Russian "self-defence forces" are supported by the Kremlin and probably receive money and weapons from Russia. I'm sure at least some of their members come from the Russian military or special forces, too. The question is: So what? Should I be upset with Putin for lying, for pretending that the "self-defence forces" are independent when he clearly supports them? Of course he's lying. He's a politician, and an authoritarian one at that. They all lie. And his methods are heavy-handed and violent, obviously, because - well, this is Putin we're talking about. When I see Right Sector and Svoboda kicked out of the Ukrainian government, when I see Ukrainian police actually defending the Communist Party and other left-wing organizations from violent attacks and vandalism against their buildings, when I see a strong crackdown against armed ultra-nationalist paramilitary forces in Ukraine, then I will change my views. Until then, I will continue to support the only government in Europe that seems to have noticed the return of fascism and is trying to do something about it. It's too bad that government - the Russian government - is so horrible in many other ways, but, like I said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Putin is bad, but in a conflict between him and a coalition of neoliberals, IMF stooges and fascists... I have no other option but to choose Putin. He is the lesser evil here - and believe me, I'm just as shocked as you are that it has come to this. I never thought I would be supporting Putin as the lesser evil. That just shows what a mess we're in. Also, this isn't just about Ukraine, you know. Look at Greece. Look at Hungary. Look at the polls for the European elections in France, where it looks like the National Front is going to win. Fascism has returned as a significant political movement in Europe. It must be confronted before it is too late. Now let me be clear: Putin is not some kind of principled anti-fascist. He is just following his own interests. I'm sure he would have no problem supporting pro-Russian fascists, if they took power somewhere. As the situation changes, Putin may stop being the lesser evil. We'll see.

Speaking of Right Sector, they have also just organized their first protest against the new government today. Well, that was fast. I expected some kind of gradual cooling of relations between the coalition factions and eventual infighting, but I didn't expect it to come so soon. I guess Right Sector doesn't want to waste any time. They are the most extreme of the extreme-right in Ukraine - if Svoboda is Mussolini, Right Sector is Hitler. So I highly doubt that they intend to turn themselves into a "respectable" parliamentary party competing for votes and influence within the government. It's more likely that they are going to try seizing power by force at some point (and when that happens, hopefully they will be crushed). That might be the point of Yarosh (their leader) running for president in May. He doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning, but if the situation is sufficiently unstable at that point he might try to claim that the election was stolen from him and use that as an excuse to attempt a coup. In other news, the new Kiev government has just accepted an IMF loan that requires them to raise gas prices by 50%. This is hilariously ironic, seeing how they were worried that Russia might charge them higher fuel prices, but instead it's their new Western "friends" who are forcing them into it! And this is only the beginning, of course. The IMF has no mercy. They will impose austerity measures that will make life in Ukraine in 2013 seem like paradise by comparison. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

You're right - we should plan more long-term. Nothing happened the previous weekend, since no one responded to my post. So, let's say... April 26-27? That should give us enough time to gather more old timers, too. I can send a couple of emails to people who don't really post here any more.