There is mention (either by Jello or someone else) of the Korean war analogue happening at the horn of Africa. So look there.I was thinking of doing a fake AH.com discussion about an "The Interview" style film, about two Sec9 agents assassinating the head of an oppressive fascist regime. I thought about using Cuba, but that isn't as oppressive in modern day, so does anyone have a state that could work?
I was thinking of doing a fake AH.com discussion about an "The Interview" style film, about two Sec9 agents assassinating the head of an oppressive fascist regime. I thought about using Cuba, but that isn't as oppressive in modern day, so does anyone have a state that could work?
How about white Rhodesia?There is mention (either by Jello or someone else) of the Korean war analogue happening at the horn of Africa. So look there.
How about white Rhodesia?
I don't really have any plans for that country, so it is fair game.
So who's the bastard who gets filled with lead?Given recent events in our world Rhodesia really needs to get its shit kicked in. I'd rather see a big budget comedy mocking it, but if it has to be on a thread that few people ready on a website catering to a very niche taste so be it.
So who's the bastard who gets filled with lead?
I'm assuming that Rhodesia exists to the present as an Apartheid-Juche state, so I don't know, who lead Rhodesia?
I was thinking of having a coup in the 70's, which overthrows Ian Smith, and replaces him with a more hardline military leader, who rules to present day, but has to deal with a persistent black resistance group, supported by the UASR and South Africa.
TotalBrit said:So, there has been some controversy surrounding the comedy film "The Interview." The film follows James Franco and Seth Rogen as American journalists, who managed to get permission to interview the military leader of Rhodesia. However, they are recruited by Section 9 to assassinate him. They are equipped with various weapons, and find themselves in the bizarre neo-Victorian world of White Rhodesia. The two are told not to contact the American armed resistance. However, through various hijinks, where they are unable to kill the leader, they find themselves with the resistance, who are in contact with a rogue general wanting reform. Together, they launch an attack, where they finally kill off General Smith. I have read so far that the South African National Party (in exile) has denounced the film (not surprising, given they had supported the regime, right up until their overthrow),but it has sold out tickets in South Africa, who have been supporting the resistance with UASR help. Now, I don't have any love for the traitor regime in Salisbury. Their crimes against humanity are well documented, and frankly, their culture is bizarre. Nonetheless, I feel that killing a real life head of state is somewhat disrespectful. Not to the old dingbat himself, but more to the real life problems that plague Rhodesia. From the widespread hunger to the extreme poverty experienced by most of the population (black and white), to the extreme acts of repression against opposition, it seems insensitive to me to satirize the madman behind these terror acts. Maybe it's just me. I haven't actually seen the film
NestorMakhno said:Well, lucky for you, I have seen the film. It does look at the harsh reality of the Rhodesian fascist state, but also pokes fun at it. There is a scene where Franco's character (previously thinking that Rhodesia was not as bad as he thought,) actually ventures out, and sees the hollow fakeness of the Victorian world they are visiting. It isn't a great satirical comedy, or even an intelligent one, but it does acknowledge the tragedy of 40 years of white supremacist-military rule. Further, I do like Rogen and Franco, and they have good chemistry in this movie. The guy they got to play General Wells was good too. However, I feel the film doesn't deserve the level of controversy it's getting. Although, it does bring up a good discussion about American perceptions of Rhodesia.
In American culture, I think Rhodesia has replaced Cuba as the lead example of a capitalist-fascist dictatorship. Cuba used to be the villain in these sorts of films, and a lot of documentaries from the time used to list the atrocities committed by the military junta. Since Kennedy's reforms, however, and since they had given up any claim to the homeland, the American media has lessened its focus on Cuba, and turned to the failed Rhodesian state, which is universally hated. There are many comedies about the neo-Nazi tendencies, and the extreme fascist state. I hear that even Brits and French don't like Rhodesia.
TotalBrit said:Yeah, most of us don't. The really right wing members of the PA, and the Liberty Party, as well as the Afrikaneer expatriate community support recreating ties with Rhodesia but overall, when they declared independence from the AFS in 1978, and from the outside world after the fall of the Apartheid state in South Africa, we generally think of them as a failed capitalist state
My mom's side of the family are refugees from Rhodesia, and we loved it. The regime is so brutal and over the top that mocking it is the only way to deal with it. The film draws allot of its comedy from the actual absurdity of the whites. That scene in the ballroom where everyone freaked out about the black servant touching a white diner wasn't an exaggeration. That kind of thing literally happens. The regime is a comedy all on its own, until you remember how many people it's butchered. But if we don't laugh we cry, so its ok.
Personally, I think that its a mistake to fund the resistance. We should just support programs to move everyone who isn't a member of the ruling class out of the country. It isn't worth it to fight for the land, the regime has dispossessed everyone. The only reason it still exists is because South Africa refuses to open its boarder. I get why they don't, logistics would be a pain in the ass. But the alternative is spending millions on an endless bloody insurgency while people suffer.
Kalki said:I watched it a couple of days ago. I admit, my familiarity with Rhodesia is limited. I know that it was the inspiration for Genosha in "The Mutants." comic books (You know, the island dictatorship, who captured mutants, and used them as military fodder and slave labor, before the MLF liberated it, and it became Erik Lensherr's base when he ran the team, and made it a mutant homeland.), and how briefly we covered it in school. You know, the independence conflict, the coup against Smith, the peace, its isolationism, all that nice stuff. That said, I rather liked the film. It was a bit over the top in regards to its portrayal of Rhodesia,(like the scene where General Wells shows Franco around his base, showing old momentoes from Generalissmo Franco and PW Botha) but it does show sensitivity towards the issue. I didn't realize how the dictatorship in the country was adversely affecting both blacks and whites. Forrest Whittaker was great as the resistance leader. I was shocked to see the large extent of the apartheid state. I also didn't know that the ZPLU has its own towns on the South African border for Zimbabwean refugees. I suppose it would be better for South Africa if it just opened its borders, rather than keep funding a resistance that isn't overthrowing anything.
Mental Omega said:I'm morbidly impressed by how Rhodesia essentially threatened war if the movie was released only to once again show it was more bluster than bite when it ended up doing nothing when opening day came. It certainly was a provocative movie and not exactly the purveyor of the highest brow comedy, but I think the Americans were right to show the film and I think my country was right to dismiss the Rhodesian state's demands that the Soviet Union not show the film. The fact that the Soviet Union's response to the demands was so amazingly snide in their dismissal of the Rhodesian demands was just an added bonus.
"This Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has no intention of prohibiting its citizens from seeing the Interview and holds the empty threats made by General Smith and his sham of a state in contempt. We shall not be bullied by the demands of a petty Tyrant and condemn this newest addition to a long line of games of brinksmanship by the oppressive and discriminatory regime in Harare."
It's a pretty amazing put down and I can't think of many more states that deserve it than Rhodesia. As for the movie, it's certainly not the Great Dictator and I think that the Interview would have probably sailed into the mists of obscurity if it weren't for the stink Generalissimo Smith rose over it, but in spite of this; I think that its going to be remembered as one of the more important films of this decade. Not for its content, but because of the Comintern's refusal to let a tinpot dictatorship bully it just because it took issue with having the piss taken out of it.
Rear Admiral Jingles said:While related to the topic, this is nonpolitical chat, so I'd advise not treading on that particular road. I've already gone ahead and moved the chatter about Rhodesia as a state to its own thread and I'd appreciate you all taking your politics and pushing it over there.
KittehKommiteh said:Remind me why we continue to tolerate Rhodesia's existence? It's high past time that it find itself in the same ash heap that the Axis powers did and that a People's Republic of Zimbabwe be stablished.
TenebrousGuile said:Rhodesia's got mad backing from its neighbors and the other African Capitalist states. Might not be the biggest shindigs in the world individually but put the chain of bourgie* states together and you've got a mess that China, the Latin Alliance**, us, the Americans and the rest have been p unwilling to poke. 'Specially with the mess of the Congo wars behind us.. Then you gotta go and deal with Rhodesia having approximately five metric fuck tons of chemical ballistic missiles pointed at basically anyone they don't like. They're not kidding when they say they've got enough ordnance to make their neighbors regret a war with them. And while their gear is behind the curve they've got a shit ton of it and they've got a defense grid ready to bite any offense in the ass.
Like laugh all you want at their parks of old as shit AMXes and WW2 to facelifted mid cold war British tanks and their mostly third gen and hella underfueled air force. Make as many jokes as you want about them keeping around world war two era artillery tubes and needing hand outs from the rest of the African members of the ASE/Imperial Federation/FBU Empire/Commonwealth of Nations/whatevs you wanna call it to keep themselves fed and fueled. But they've got a fuck huge army of brainwashed angry racists who can cause a lot of havoc before their tanks run dry or throw around a defense that nobody would be forgetting any time soon. Oh and they've got the A-bomb, and you totes don't play around with that.
Allende_Fan said:Call this Chilean ignorant but where does Rhodesia get the whites, the money, and the industry to make that kind of a military machine? As far as I'm aware, they don't allow Blacks to join the army and they're a pretty small country.
Rear Admiral Jingles said:Rhodesia isn't quite as impovershed as its stereotyped to be thanks to heavy investment from foreigners. Though it most certainly isn't going to be appearing on any wealthiest nations of the world lists. And while the per capita wealth is rubbish, you've got one part of the population that maybe gets to take one apple out of the whole orchard they tend to for themselves, the poor whites who get ten of those apples, the middle classmen who do okay for themselves, and then the filthy rich upper classes; both the old money White elites and the new money Indians and Black Diamonds from other countries. They pass out honorary white titles like candy to wealthy investors.
And while they claim to have an adverserial relationship to the Western European Union*** and friends for any number of reasons; they really do kiss a load of arse to get their allowance money. They know the main thing that stops them from falling to Communist revolution is what amounts to foreign charity, so they're not going to jeopardize it by doing anything too stupid like press an offensive they'd know they'd lose. Now as to where they got all their people; well, when it looked like the FBU and the wider commonwealth was going to throw the pro-apartheid bunch under the bus for the sake of preventing an openly hostile South African government from taking power, you went and got a lot of the racist twits packing up and moving over to Rhodesia where they were welcomed with open arms, often encouraged by European governments who didn't want them tarnishing their reputations but didn't have the stomach to put them down. Then you had the colonial government encouraging the whites to pop out as many kids as they could and the more unstomachably racist types from 'round the world settling down there as well.
Basically it was the promised land for gits.
Edit: And bear in mind that while I said its not quite as desperately poor as many people imagine, its still a shit place to live. If it weren't for the immigration of lunatics I'd imagine its present population would be maybe fifteen million and now its packed with somewhere around twice that. The affluent people are affluent as always, but if you're poor, you're really poor. Thanks to the draft and a lot of the poor whites seeing no better career than the military and you've got more than two and a half million of them in the army, a staggering chunk of both their total population and the population of their "racially enlistable" young males, all having their heads filled with poison. They try to rotate the draft because even they're not crazy enough to think they can keep that much of their population, nevermind their artificially smaller "desirable" population, but its a serious strain on their economy, particularly because they're not a particularly large country either. You can recruit across western Europe and scrounge up more than thirty million for military service; no biggie, we've got more than three hundred million folks here so we've still got plenty to work elsewhere. Can't say the same for Rhodesia proportionally.
The_Red_Dragon said:What sort of rationale do they use to justify a military that big? Even the Soviet Union decided it couldn't keep up a ten percent militarization rate for its people forever.
Eiffel deMaroon said:Firstly, they are terrified of being encircled by communism and socialism and felt very alone when South Africa decided to vote a Socialist party in power after the FBU told the pro-apartheid folk to take a hike rather than risk them sparking a powder keg, believing Latino, East Asian, Eastern European, or American troops would be amassing on the border at any moment. The fears were overblown yes, the ANC was not a party that preached war and their leader was a strong opponent of the idea of a military industrial complex, wanting to build his rainbow nation and show the world a golden path of peace and common prosperity. Unfortunately a lot of people just saw that he was an avowed socialist and assumed he would be the vanguard for a wave of revolutions.
They made a connection between black rule and Socialist take over (one that became increasingly ridiculous as the dominionization of Africa went on) in their own minds, feeding into their already racist beliefs. The populations of racist refugees ranging from Afrikaaners who couldn't accept the FBU siding against them to ex-Klansmen who thought that the best chance they had to practice their beliefs was to find the most racist place they could, Fascists scurrying from their defeat in Europe, and people who just plain liked their cut of the jib settling there probably didn't help. In spite of the big scary neighbor not being even a fraction as powerful relative to them as America was to Canada; somehow, they managed to react to their southern neighbor having a government they didn't like even worse than Canada did.
Despite most of Africa remaining solidly blue (along with most of their neighbors), they believed that they had to prepare for becoming a capitalist island of white rule in an ocean of black socialism. Already fat military budgets grew and they set up a system to let them recruit as many people as possible without crashing their economy. Despite becoming an embarassment to the Capitalist bloc at this point, they became strategically valuable thanks to having a massive and fanatical army they could ship around the world to bludgeon the sides of conflicts they were against and shore up the sides they supported while openly keeping their distance. Rhodesian troops were considered among the most reliable in wars and conflicts around the world, with USA and Thai troops to my knowledge being their closest rivals and they were incredibly eager to ship them out to prove Rhodesia's worth to the blue bloc (and thus get more air pumped into its economy and support against internal revolutionaries). Similarly, they were considered to be important in keeping their region of Africa blue.
Since their most important asset was their military, they just kept it as big as they felt they could get away with since it was what kept the big boys of the Capitalist bloc from just dumping them.
Rule Brittania said:Hah, look at all these Socialist misconceptions. Can't even get their facts on one of the best developed states in Africa straight. They wouldn't need the army they have if the reds would stop threatening an anti-white purge the moment they took over. Do you need me to take out all the statistics of the atrocities that the rebels have done? Oh wait, it's okay if its to "free the proleteriat". Even with a red sword of damocles overhead, they've gotten pretty far.
CyberDoctor said:The main problem with Rhodesia is its belief that state intervention is needed to contain a red tide. Were they to open the flood gates of the freemarket they'd leave the pipe dreamers of the African red states in the dust. But that such a statist place can survive with every effort by the Marxists to knock it down shows how empty Communism is. But of course, no socialist state has ever been established without foreign intervention, even the Russians had the Germans infesting them with Lenin to knock them out of the war.
All because no intelligent freethinking man who hasn't been brainwashed by the left would delude themselves into thinking a system of theft from the successful is preferable to the force that drives all prosperity. Even with its unneeded and deplorable interventionism, Rhodesia has the right idea on how to put down its leftist cancer and prevent envious thieves from playing robin hood. Were every so called "Capitalist" state so bold we wouldn't need worry when collectivists nearly vote in Labor or Communist parties in their greed and laziness.
Perhaps if the Rhodesians were more educated they'd realize their mistake and come to the same conclusions that greats like Rand and von Mises did and shed the dead weight and provide an example to the world and pull the rug out from beneath the Comintern instead of enabling the bad habits of the masses. I'll just have to settle with waiting for the weight of the calculation problem to eventually crush the comintern and continue to enlighten others.
RuleBrittania said:Oh would just shut up you smug Liberty voting twat? Go masturbate to Ayn Rand somewhere else. And maybe instead of blaming old people on their pensions for why you can't build a twenty four karat gold statue of yourself you can go finally get a clue about why Liberty hasn't even come close to winning a single blasted election in ever. Starting with how its impossible for you to be oh so smart when 90% of your brain is devoted to fellating yourself. Jesus Christ, at least the Commies don't sniff their own farts.
Have you ever read any books on economics that aren't bloody Austrian? Because Austrian economics stops at the first unit of economics and assumes spherical cows until they're blue in the bloody face lol. I mean, are you already forgetting that the math objectivists thump for austerity is based on a spreadsheet error? You are literally spouting the same cockamamie bullshyte that socialists do against bank bailouts and defense spending, only you've wrapped it around in a cult where everyone thinks they're the next Crassus. Lemme tell you, someone's still gotta scrub those toilets mate. And I guarantee its going to be a fat slob like you.
The_Red_Dragon said:I'm rather confused, I thought you were both anti-communist?
Rule Brittania said:I'm a tried and tested Tory, maybe they don't teach you the difference in China, but as a Tory; the one thing I find more annoying than a Socialist is a Liberal, who all went and got pissy about becoming irrelevant after the great war and then found Rand and some Swiss fart from Switzerland and became the most stuck up bunch of irrelevant losers you've ever seen.
It is.I love how RB bashes the Objectivists. And is that toilet line from Bioshock by any chance?
Comintern: "We hate Objectivism!"
FBU: "Yeah? Well so do we (stop embarrassing me Rhodesia)!"
And Britain and France spearheading a European union? Cold War makes for strange foreign policy.
What do people think about this game? I understand that allot of Commies found it to be distasteful. Not as distasteful of robbing people of their rightly won property, but victims of the communist mental disorder aren't known for their rationality. I get that the leader of the Vox Populi was modeled after the erstwhile anarchist Emma Goldman, or at least her younger self. However, I feel like the political commentary is really secondary to the personal story of Comstock-Booker. Its about these two men and their mutual self destruction.
If the story was really about politics it would have dealt directly with the American revolution. Instead its set before the revolution, and deals with an internal conflict. Booker-Comstock destroy themselves in the hope of redemption, but only partially. Booker becomes and alcoholic, while Comstock becomes a new man. However, it isn't until the accept true suicide that the cycle is ended.
I think this controversy is akin to the hullabaloo over The Interview. However, its a shame that in this case its a legitimately good game is at the center, rather than a mediocre comedy.
I've been elected to the County Soviet
Kalki: its a bit less complicated in practice, partially cause we are used to dealing with it all our lives. Even if you aren't elected to anything in your life, you participate in some form of self government since you were able to understand it. I was first involved in "politics" as a member of my local Pioneers Club, at 8. Granted, it was heavily adult run and our power was limited but it was framed as part of being a citizen and as learning how to be a Socialist Democratic Worker-Citizen. Its as much a part of our identity as eating burgers.
So I just got elected as a representative to the North Jersey Regional Soviet. The system here is different, and a bit less complicated. Here I'm a member of the Youth Committee and our main responsibility is representing youth interests. We are more like a bourgeois parliament I guess. Less management and more power to party leadership. Its the first time I've encountered "big names". Albeit regional big names, but still. Joseph Ferriero was an interesting guy, the old Italian whip of the Democratic-Republicans. He's a got a tough guy reputation, the enforcer of party discipline. Its true, I'm glad I'm an SEU member, and that we're in alliance with him. Hes not a guy I'd want to cross. I also met Robert Gratoc, the state leader of SEU. He's the guy who brokered a deal with the DRs. We work together on a shared reform agenda, mostly around anti corruption. The issues are left over from the Second Cultural Revolution, a semi racist kickback system that keeps minorities out of power in favor of an Italian-Irish powerstructure. This is tied to the Silk Workers Union and some other cultural institutions. Ferrioro has been a devestating anti corruption fighter, using his bully-tough guy demeaner to get it done.
Kalki said:I think I understand that. Politics is somewhat less important here in the FBU. Yes, you vote in the elections, and all that, but getting involved is less emphasized from childhood. You only really get involved when you're 18 or older. You also have to be 18 or older to be elected an MP. Generally, I avoid politics, but I do participate. I used to vote Conservative, but switched to Labour due to the increased focus by the PA on national security.
So, what youth issues does your committee focus on?