SpiritDragon

indoctrination at school

Recommended Posts

So I often get annoyed with the school system and also get tired of being considered a conspiracy theorist for not trusting what is being taught... I know there are sympathizers here.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share some of the latest reports of leftist indoctrination going on that I'd like to say I'm shocked by, but I'm not actually.

https://globalnews.ca/video/4515260/kamloops-high-school-social-studies-assignment-sparks-backlash?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015

This first one has children in British Columbia taking a test in Social Studies where they are answering the differences between the right and left wing of the political spectrum. One of the questions asks them which side of the political spectrum is racist and the "correct" response is supposed to be right wing.

https://thebridgehead.ca/2018/10/11/albertas-ndp-has-declared-open-war-on-all-religious-schools-that-refuse-to-conform-to-their-values/

This next one showcases Alberta's NDP ruining the education system beyond belief to twist the minds of young children into being useless at independent thought and engineering SJW group-think. The Premier is openly attacking religion and the concept of absolute truth and personally visiting schools to read "Mouseland" to the children. I'd never heard of Mouseland before this week so I had to look into it more.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1402847016

Here is an audio excerpt. The idea is that the citizens are mice and always vote in either black cats or white cats who only enact laws that are good for cats, but not for mice. The cats represent the conservative and liberal parties of Canada, while not voting for cats at all, but mice would represent voting for the New Democrats. I'll have to read it sometime in it's entirety but it's certainly bothered some people and doesn't seem to be a good decision for a political leader to choose to visit schools to read what clearly has partisan roots and appears to be propaganda to pollute young minds in an attempt to create society in their own image. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This first one has children in British Columbia taking a test in Social Studies where they are answering the differences between the right and left wing of the political spectrum. One of the questions asks them which side of the political spectrum is racist and the "correct" response is supposed to be right wing.

It's probably not a good idea to ask such questions to school children, but technically racism would belong on the right wing side of things, at least from a historical standpoint.

History lesson (I'm pretty sure that everyone here has already guessed that I like history):

The terms first emerged in the French Parliament during the French Revolution in the 1700's.   Left and Right refer to the side that sat on that specific side of the Parliamentary President.   Those seated to the right were supportive on the old ways or old regime while those seated on the left supported a changing of the old ways and regime.

Canada is part of the British Commonwealth.  Historically in the British Commonwealth, the terms left and right became commonplace during the Spanish Civil War.  The right openly supported nationalism, racism, and anti-immigration policies.

That doesn't mean that everyone on the right was racist or anyone or that no one on the left was racist, but in the British Commonwealth, of which Canada is a part of, but it was the right wing that supported racism in politics.

Right wing is the correct answer.   The question is not a good one because of the implications and assumptions, but the answer is technically correct.

It would be like asking "which religious group was the culprits in the Mountain Meadows Massacre".

Technically, the correct answer is our Church, but it doesn't mean that it's a good question to ask in school; as least the way that it was asked in that manner.  

You can pull out the pitchforks on me if you would like, but the above is the correct answer from a technical or historical standpoint.  

Edit:

Looking at the video though, the way the question was asked was ridiculous.

I agree.   It was not an OK question.  

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scott said:

Right wing is the correct answer. 

It would be the correct answer if the question was in a history class and asked which party supported (past tense) racism.  It wasn't and it didn't.  It was a social studies class and the question was present tense.  I'm pretty sure neither will claim to support racism in the present tense, and both sides have their fair share of racists.

Meanwhile, according the news article, the question asked which person is racist and the answer was the right-wing person.  Assuming the article is correct, regardless of party politics in the past, the question is absurd in the extreme, and the only correct answer would be "a racist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It would be the correct answer if the question was in a history class and asked which party supported (past tense) racism.

Those who do support it (present tense) are usually (but not always) right wing extremists.    Unless you are counting affirmative action and the like as racism (which technically, by some definitions, it is) of course.  

That said though, looking at the video and question, you are absolutely correct.   They way the question was phrased is ridiculous.  That isn't right.  In fact, I'm going to edit my post above to reflect this.   

 

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scott said:

Those who do support it (present tense) are usually (but not always) right wing extremists.

How completely wrong this is. In fact, the Left is far more racist, and bigoted in general, than the Right. Never in my life have I seen such contemptuous bigotry as the Left routinely displays, with no shame whatsoever.

The difference is that the Left refuses to acknowledge their open bigotry to exist, claiming that e.g. you can't be racist against white people or sexist against men. Such utterly absurd opinions would have been laughed off a generation ago, but welcome to the 21st century, where the inmates are firmly in control of the asylum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear @SpiritDragon Thanks for posting! I heard about this. Nuts. The issue was dealt with but..,What’s up with the training that those teachers are receiving? Quite a problem going on there! 

The history that I learnt in ON was so scrubbed free of controversy that it was agony to try to learn it! How times have changed.

In ON we just dumped the new Sex Ed curriculum. This topic is sensitive for most people. You really can’t win. I remember an  Lds friend being really angry that her children were taught that masterbation was beneficial. Hard to win on that in the current climate. I went in search of sex Ed at about age 14 because my parents were too strung out to even attempt. I ended up with Planned Patenthood. Bless them. They were wonderful. 

I guess if I were tasked with this, I would try just to teach facts. I would be boring. Mind you I am pretty boring now! Some are born boring. Some achieve boring and some have boring thrust apon them!

To my ever living shame, I can’t believe that I did this, I got very annoyed with a student who claimed that I had not taught him a legal concept that was on an exam. Must calm down! Sigh. 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

 but technically racism would belong on the right wing side of things, at least from a historical standpoint.

No.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

claiming that e.g. you can't be racist against white people or sexist against men.

OK, I see your point.

Perhaps I should say that those who do support (present tense) racism against minorities are usually (but not always) right wing extremists.  

Although racism (in this country) is usually mentioned as being against minorities, it can also be against the majority.   So yes, you are correct in that regard.

As for the left being the most bigoted, that is very debatable, and hard to quantify.   There is plenty of hatred on both sides.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

It's probably not a good idea to ask such questions to school children, but technically racism would belong on the right wing side of things, at least from a historical standpoint.

 

Canada is part of the British Commonwealth.  Historically in the British Commonwealth, the terms left and right became commonplace during the Spanish Civil War.  The right openly supported nationalism, racism, and anti-immigration policies.

That doesn't mean that everyone on the right was racist or anyone or that no one on the left was racist, but in the British Commonwealth, of which Canada is a part of, but it was the right wing that supported racism in politics.

Technically, that statement above is incorrect.  It's a "logically doesn't follow" thing.  Nationalism and anti-immigration does not equal racist.  Yes, it can be used for racism just like religion can be used for bigotry but religion is not technically bigoted in the same manner that nationalism and anti-immigration is not technically racist (it's cultural rather than racial).

Therefore, if you're going to generally assign "which one is racist" the answer is not right-wing because that logically doesn't follow.  But, if the question was, "which British wing of government ran on a platform of ethnic nationalism using scientific racism as its justification in the 17th-18th century"... that would be the Whigs, right?  So... were the Whigs sitting on the right wing then?  I thought they tried to unseat the Stuarts.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Scratch a liberal, find a racist."  

I have found that to be true on a number of levels. Even when they think they are being your friend and looking out for your interests (because they think you are too stupid, too poor, too uneducated or too whatever to look after your own interests), racism is at the core of their behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Nationalism and anti-immigration does not equal racist. 

You are correct.

Read this part of the post above:
 

Canada is part of the British Commonwealth.  Historically in the British Commonwealth, the terms left and right became commonplace during the Spanish Civil War.  The right openly supported nationalism, racism, and anti-immigration policies.

The right supported (and much of the extreme right still supports) nationalism, anti-immigration, and racism, not just two out of the three.  

Google "British right wing political history".  There are many reputable books on the subject as well.

See this comment:

That doesn't mean that everyone on the right was racist or anyone or that no one on the left was racist, but in the British Commonwealth, of which Canada is a part of, but it was the right wing that supported racism in politics.

This is true.  To claim otherwise is like denying that most slavery supporters were in the Southern States.   Not everyone in the Southern States was a slavery supporter, but most of the supporters were in the south, especially by population percentage.  

===================================================================================

PS, I am talking here about history and definitions.   I am not calling anyone here racist.   I am not saying that all right wingers are racist or that most of them are.

I am only summarizing history, historical context, and definitions.   I did not write history and I'm not the one that wrote the definitions.

Both left wing and right wing politics have their bad marks.

Extreme leftism would be communism while extreme rightism would be fascism/nationalism.   Neither is desirable.   

For the extreme right, the enemy is the lack of nationality and the idea is to suppress or even eliminate those not sharing the nationality.  That's where racism comes in.

For the extreme left, the enemy is economic and social classes and they idea is to create a classless society by taking freedom and choices away.   That's where communism comes in.

Neither is desirable.  I'm guessing (and hoping) that no one here is an extremists on either side.

That said, historically and from a historical and technical definition standpoint, racism belongs to the right wing, just as taking someone's individuality away belongs to the left wing.  Neither is a good thing.

You may not like the definitions and you may not like history either, but that's just the way things are. 


Anyone can argue it all you want, but unless history and/or definitions are changed, that's the way things stand.  

 

  

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scott said:

You are correct.

Read this part of the post above:
 

Canada is part of the British Commonwealth.  Historically in the British Commonwealth, the terms left and right became commonplace during the Spanish Civil War.  The right openly supported nationalism, racism, and anti-immigration policies.

The right supported (and much of the extreme right still supports) nationalism, anti-immigration, and racism, not just two out of the three.  

Google "British right wing political history".  There are many reputable books on the subject as well.

See this comment:

That doesn't mean that everyone on the right was racist or anyone or that no one on the left was racist, but in the British Commonwealth, of which Canada is a part of, but it was the right wing that supported racism in politics.

This is true.  To claim otherwise is like denying that most slavery supporters were in the Southern States.   Not everyone in the Southern States was a slavery supporter, but most of the supporters were in the south, especially by population percentage.  

===================================================================================

PS, I am talking here about history and definitions.   I am not calling anyone here racist.   I am not saying that all right wingers are racist or that most of them are.

I am only summarizing history, historical context, and definitions.   I did not write history and I'm not the one that wrote the definitions.

Both left wing and right wing politics have their bad marks.

Extreme leftism would be communism while extreme rightism would be fascism/nationalism.   Neither is desirable.   

For the extreme right, the enemy is the lack of nationality and the idea is to suppress or even eliminate those not sharing the nationality.  That's where racism comes in.

For the extreme left, the enemy is economic and social classes and they idea is to create a classless society by taking freedom and choices away.   That's where communism comes in.

Neither is desirable.  I'm guessing (and hoping) that no one here is an extremists on either side.

That said, historically and from a historical and technical definition standpoint, racism belongs to the right wing, just as taking someone's individuality away belongs to the left wing.  Neither is a good thing.

You may not like the definitions and you may not like history either, but that's just the way things are. 


Anyone can argue it all you want, but unless history and/or definitions are changed, that's the way things stand.  

 

  

 

The 2nd bolded statement above just negated your 1st bolded statement.  That's why you can't answer the OP's class question in the manner it was asked because you go into generalizations like your 1st and 2nd bolded statement.  Racism in the entire history of the planet is not immutable to the British right-wing.  Rather, it was promoted by non-political philosophers and adopted by both right and left wing factions of governance.  Most of Europe, including the British, were under Roman Catholic rule.  Roman Catholics stamped out racism in their quest to convert Gentile and Jew alike.

And you did not address my question about the Whigs.  Because if we're going to talk British History, the Whigs were the ones that were pro slavery while the Quakers fought to abolish it.  The Whigs were anti-royalty/anti-Roman Catholics which put them on the left wing in that part of history.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scott said:

Those who do support it (present tense) are usually (but not always) right wing extremists.    Unless you are counting affirmative action and the like as racism (which technically, by some definitions, it is) of course.  

 

If you're talking UNITED STATES OF AMERICA wings of government then this is absolutely incorrect even by definition.

The Right Wing is pro-established order.  The Left Wing is anti-established order.  The established order from the founding of the United States of America to which every single State is subservient to is the US Constitution.  The US Constitution is founded on the principle that Man is Created Equal by virtue of their Personhood.  This is what put them in direct conflict to the British Crown which posited that Nobles (Lords) govern Commoners.

Therefore, in the fight against slavery, the Democrats - left wing - posited that Blacks are not Persons and, therefore, attempted to create their own Constitution while the newly formed Republicans - right wing - defended the US Constitution and the Personhood of Blacks. 

In the fight against segregation, the Democrats fought against desegregation even creating their militant arm, the KKK, the Republicans (to which Malcolm X and MLK were members of) fought for desegregation as being the Originalist reading of the Constitution.

You can even extend it to sexism - the Republicans led by A. A. Sargent sympathetic to Susan B Anthony - fought for women's suffrage opposed by the Democrats.

You can extend it to their rule over the Philippines - Henry A. Cooper, another Republican, fought for Filipino representation in Congress, opposed by the Democrats who deemed Filipinos barbarians incapable of self-government.  The Republicans eventually won over the Democrats in this matter paving the way for Philippine Independence.

Now... TODAY... the Democrats continue to support policies such as illegal immigration under the foundation of slavery that only "illegals" pick crops and clean toilets and would then work for pitiable pay outside of regulation.  They also support policies of Affirmative Action under the foundation of ethnic racism that Blacks are not capable of achievement by merit.  They are also the ones supporting policies under the sexist foundation that Men oppress Women (Patriarchy), Men rape Women (Rape culture), etc. etc.  

The latest banner of the Democrats is their opposition to bin Salman who is instrumental in the implementation of progressive changes in Saudi rule, expanding rights of Women.

I can go on and on...

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Therefore, in the fight against slavery, the Democrats - left wing - posited that Blacks are not Persons and, therefore, attempted to create their own Constitution while the newly formed Republicans - right wing - defended the US Constitution and the Personhood of Blacks. 

Sorry, but that's flat out wrong.   The Democrats were not the left wing and the Republicans were not the right wing at the time of the Civil War.  Just the fact that you would even claim that means that you are either completely ignorant as to history or just trolling.

Quote

In the fight against segregation, the Democrats fought against desegregation even creating their militant arm, the KKK, the Republicans (to which Malcolm X and MLK were members of) fought for desegregation as being the Originalist reading of the Constitution.

The Southern Democrats of the time opposing segregation were conservative in most ideals.   Period.

As soon as desegregation started happening, there was a mass migration of Southern Democrats over to the Republican Party.  Do you really deny this?  If you do then you are either ignorant as to history or trolling.  

Quote

I can go on and on...

I'm sure you could, but it's too bad that you can't make your ramblings more accurate and less one sided.

I am neither Republican or Democrat (I'm an independent), but your post demonstrate exactly why I don't want to be.   Both sides are so full of hate (including many members of this forum) that they can't use logic, (accurate) history, or logic to have a civil conversation.  That's exactly what's tearing this country apart.  Don't tell me it's all from one side.  That's nothing but hate talk.  

At least I try to be civil (though sometimes I cross the line, such as in this post). 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really think that you can best me in a history contest?   I won't bet money as to giving it myself, but I will bet you $25,000 that I can best you in any US history contest there is.   Loser pays $25,000 no to the winner, but to the charity of the winners choice (which is completely legal).  I choose the Nature Conservancy.  You choose your charity.  Someone neutral on this forum can choose the contest. 

Are you willing to take that bet?   I am.   If you are, then put your money where your mouth is.  Right here with everyone as a witness.   I will do the same. 

PS, you aren't ignorant in history, you are just pretending to be or using a warped sense to push an agenda.

I would actually like a history quiz challenge with you.  At least you know some history and geography.  I tire of talking of history and geography with people who can't do simply things such as say how long the Hundreds Year's War is or point out Timbuktu on a map.  Bring it.

Quote

Perhaps you aren't aware of the crapton of left-leaning racists and racist organizations out there.  

I am fully aware that there are plenty of left leaning racist.   I said most of them (who are against minorities), not all of them.  

PS, Neuro Typical thank you for being so civil on this forum.  You are always civil.

Also as far as the original topic of this thread goes, no one should be trying to push a rightist or leftist agenda in school.  Perhaps everyone can hopefully agree on this.  

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scott said:

OK; explain, especially from a perspective of Canadian history or even current politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#History_of_the_terms

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott said:

Sorry, but that's flat out wrong.   The Democrats were not the left wing and the Republicans were not the right wing at the time of the Civil War.  Just the fact that you would even claim that means that you are either completely ignorant as to history or just trolling.

The Southern Democrats of the time opposing segregation were conservative in most ideals.   Period.

As soon as desegregation started happening, there was a mass migration of Southern Democrats over to the Republican Party.  Do you really deny this?  If you do then you are either ignorant as to history or trolling.  

I'm sure you could, but it's too bad that you can't make your ramblings more accurate and less one sided.

I am neither Republican or Democrat (I'm an independent), but your post demonstrate exactly why I don't want to be.   Both sides are so full of hate (including many members of this forum) that they can't use logic, (accurate) history, or logic to have a civil conversation.  That's exactly what's tearing this country apart.  Don't tell me it's all from one side.  That's nothing but hate talk.  

At least I try to be civil (though sometimes I cross the line, such as in this post). 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really think that you can best me in a history contest?   I won't bet money as to giving it myself, but I will bet you $25,000 that I can best you in any US history contest there is.   Loser pays $25,000 no to the winner, but to the charity of the winners choice (which is completely legal).  I choose the Nature Conservancy.  You choose your charity.  Someone neutral on this forum can choose the contest. 

Are you willing to take that bet?   I am.   If you are, then put your money where your mouth is.  Right here with everyone as a witness.   I will do the same. 

PS, you aren't ignorant in history, you are just pretending to be or using a warped sense to push an agenda.

I would actually like a history quiz challenge with you.  At least you know some history and geography.  I tire of talking of history and geography with people who can't do simply things such as say how long the Hundreds Year's War is or point out Timbuktu on a map.  Bring it.

I am fully aware that there are plenty of left leaning racist.   I said most of them (who are against minorities), not all of them.  

PS, Neuro Typical thank you for being so civil on this forum.  You are always civil.

Also as far as the original topic of this thread goes, no one should be trying to push a rightist or leftist agenda in school.  Perhaps everyone can hopefully agree on this.  

 

Scott, you aren't going to win here.  Facts are irrelevant. 

The problem is that most people here are conservative and hate the fact that racists are typically grouped with conservatives.  It is quite the sore spot for non-racist conservatives.

I looked at the test.  What an awful test.  It certainly tries to paint people on the right as bad.  But to the OP...  If creationism were taught as truth in school and it is in some places....  isn't that just as bad?

Indoctrination is going to happen.  Teaching your kids to have an open mind and be able to think critically and do research is the best solution.

Edited by Lost Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a cool high school anthroplogy teacher.  We spent a week on Darwin, the evolutionary record, biblical creationism, dinosaurs and Noah's flood.  At the end of the week the class picked an "adam" and an "eve" to stand around a birthday cake and we celebrated the 5708th (or whatever) birthday of the earth according to Bishop Ussher, as the hominid skull progression and dinosaur fossils looked on from a nearby table.  

We did everything in our power to get the teacher to tell us which side she played for.  We lost - she never gave us the tiniest clue.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

 But to the OP...  If creationism were taught as truth in school and it is in some places....  isn't that just as bad?

I'm not sure. First of all I expect that if creationism is taught as fact in some schools, they are not mainstream public schools, but some form of private or charter school chosen by the parents because it aligned with their values. Something like that is probably best explained by teaching that people have differing opinions and we really just don't know. More to the point, though, I question the damage done by teaching creationism compared to teaching the concept that people who vote a certain way are racist. Teaching that conservative voters are racist actually has damaging repercussions to how children may perceive other people who simply have a different viewpoint or even themselves if they find themselves agreeing with right wing ideology but don't want to be thought of as racist. Creationism doesn't demonize anyone for thinking otherwise as far as I've ever encountered, it just suggests that others weren't taught the same or don't believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scott said:

Both sides are so full of hate (including many members of this forum)

What evidence do you have that anyone here is full of hate? Please point out where honest-to-goodness, legitimate "hate" is being displayed on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What evidence do you have that anyone here is full of hate? Please point out where honest-to-goodness, legitimate "hate" is being displayed on this forum.

The trouble is that nobody who does hateful things sees them as hateful.  

People defend the faith, or silence the bigots, or decry the madness, or say things like they are.  But almost nobody sees what they do as hateful.

Like others, i think it will not be the different ideologies that destroy us.  It will be that we quit being able to listen and discourse civilly with one another.  That we really begin to believe that the "other" is evil.  That they have no point, and so must be doing what they do, and saying what they say, and believing what they believe out of malice or willful ignorance.  Then a disruption to the social/economic order comes along, an enterprising madman stokes the coals of anger and indignation into a blaze to further their personal power, and the whole society gets burned right down to the ground - either all by themselves or with a little help with another country's military.

It's like the really bad song that plays on loop through your head.  Except it's a tragedy that is stuck on loop throughout history.  Divide and conquer is a very tired truism, but it really is true.

Edited by lostinwater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scott said:

Do you really think that you can best me in a history contest?   I won't bet money as to giving it myself, but I will bet you $25,000 that I can best you in any US history contest there is.   Loser pays $25,000 no to the winner, but to the charity of the winners choice (which is completely legal).  I choose the Nature Conservancy.  You choose your charity.  Someone neutral on this forum can choose the contest. 

Are you willing to take that bet?   I am.   If you are, then put your money where your mouth is.  Right here with everyone as a witness.   I will do the same. 

Ken Jennings, is that you? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

The trouble is that nobody who does hateful things sees them as hateful. 

Which is entirely irrelevant.

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

People defend the faith, or silence the bigots, or decry the madness, or say things like they are.  But almost nobody sees what they do as hateful.

So defending the faith and speaking truth is hateful?

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Like others, i think it will not be the different ideologies that destroy us.

Of course it will. It is and always will be Satan's ideologies that destroy us and God's ideologies that save us.

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

It will be that we quit being able to listen and discourse civilly with one another.

Ah yes. The failure to have civil discourse is what caused the war in heaven. And of course, WWII could have been averted if only we'd been willing to sit down and talk civilly with the Nazis. And if only someone had just sat down to speak kindly with Ted Bundy, Jeffry Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy... Yes. Civil discourse...the end of evil.

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

That we really begin to believe that the "other" is evil. 

Evil is evil. Not believing evil is evil is much more likely to bring destruction than believing evil is evil.

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

That they have no point, and so must be doing what they do, and saying what they say, and believing what they believe out of malice or willful ignorance. 

You mean like when a person accuses others in a forum of being hateful because they don't all agree with that person?

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Then a disruption to the social/economic order comes along, an enterprising madman stokes the coals of anger and indignation into a blaze to further their personal power, and the whole society gets burned right down to the ground - either all by themselves or with a little help with another country's military.

O.......kay......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now