The Austro-Prussian War was initiated by Austria, was it? That would explain why Prussia rendered the Gastein Convention null and invaded Austrian-held Holstein.
Not to mention the fact that the French declared war on Prussia in response to increasingly hostile Prussian political intrigue, including the nomination of Prince Leopold to the Spanish throne and the malicious editing of the Bad Ems telegram.
And thus the snake reveals itself.
That you would find militaristic Fascists preferable to a party dedicated to the true people of Germany speaks volumes.
The farmer shall be able to sustain himself and his family without the merchant undercutting him.
The worker is not an invalid; he does not need a pompous petty bureacrat to instruct him.
Yet some are more valuable than others.
Without their slave workforce to order about, let us see how "valuable" the bourgeosie are.
It would seem my colleague has been in a comatose state since the 1870s.
This would no doubt explain his archaic view of the world.
The Weltkrieg was not won through cavalry charges and glorious advances; it was a long, bloody period of attrition where thousands of workers died so that their capitalist masters could protect their imperial interests.
And what, pray tell, do we have now?
Is the Kaiser not our queen ant, surrounded by her snivelling sycophants who pander her while the workers toil endlessly to feed her?
An ant colony is no more equal than the so-called democratic society we live in now.
We do not advocate one thought or one mind; only one people.
Germany does not exist.
Bismarck did not unify the German states; he annexed them into his Prussian empire.
Until we are united with our Austrian brethren, there is no Gross Deutschland.
If the 'Iron Chancellor' was still alive, we would not be having this conversation, as he would have no doubt once again prohibited any ideology that challenged his empire.
You are aware of the literary device known as an analogy, correct?
Wanton strawman arguments. I have argued that the present healthcare system is not sufficient.
That will explain why under 10% of the population controls a majority of the wealth.
Of course, the capitalist - riding on the affluence and influence of his father - will see nothing wrong with the system that loads him with wine and women while the workers exhaust themselves in hard physical labour so that they may be able to afford a loaf of bread.
Ok. So how will you manage order? Large scale industries, research, projects, chain of command. If you look at nature, herds, groups, colonies, etc, all have a hierarchy to them. That's because it's what works best for them.
The sheer fact that humans are all interconnected proves that we do not require authority figures.
The collective shall manage society.
And who were the ones who were predominantly deposited in the trenches to be slaughtered by machine gun fire, while the upper classes downed champagne in their occupied French villas?
The workers.
Is it not fair to allow the soldiers to at least have some knowledge and influence in the conflicts that will inevitably involve their deaths?
If the people are the generals, we shall no longer be faced with the Weltkrieg scenario, where Generals would freely throw legion after legion against the enemy with no aim of conserving numbers and minimising deaths.
Ah, so what happened to the "fair and equal" society you so prescribed?
What happened to humans being "interconnected" social creatures?
By your own admission, we do not live in an equal society - only a Feudalist hierarchy.
If they manage poorly, they shall not be able to sustain themselves and their families.
They have a vested interest in ensuring that the management is effective and efficient.
Last edited:
