And lo and behold he is a thick cunt.

I wooD have it murdered. In it’s bed. along with it’s family.

And Should they form this or that is not the issue, I am saying what they will be compelled to do or what will be the general tendency, not what they should do!! This doesn’t mean you can explain what every country will end up doing! It is a process that will be inexact especially as the imperialist nations will do all they can to influence events. As I have stated on numerous occasions what makes economic sense may not happen!! But the struggles of the future will be around it happening or it being prevented from happening!!

What type of industries really is a strange question, the EU countries haven’t changed their industries as a result of its formation but because of absolute monetarist economics, which are part of the globalisation of capital. These blocks would develop in the same way I would imagine.

I don’t think it’s beyond the imagination to see the Arab nations forming a unified economic block if one can imagine no interference from imperialist nations. After all Europe has centuries of bitter conflict and built up xenophobia but it has managed to develop the EU, even though there is still much protest the project goes on regardless.

I think the medium term (20 to 30 years) could be marked by struggles and battles around the formation or otherwise of these ‘super blocks’.

But how is this to be achieved, by screaming at someone, there is no God you idiot or by changing the material and social relations of society. I think for Marx it was the latter.

“”Freedom of conscience”! If one desired, at this time of the Kulturkampf to remind liberalism of its old catchwords, it surely could have been done only in the following form: Everyone should be able to attend his religious as well as his bodily needs without the police sticking their noses in. But the Workers’ party ought, at any rate in this connection, to have expressed its awareness of the fact that bourgeois “freedom of conscience” is nothing but the toleration of all possible kinds of religious freedom of conscience, and that for its part it endeavours rather to liberate the conscience from the witchery of religion. But one chooses not to transgress the “bourgeois” level.

SOURCE: Marx, Karl. “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (1875), Part IV. Published abridged in Die Neue Zeit, Bd. 1, No. 18, 1890-91.

“listening” to him means you are also a thick cunt (take note Osler).

The Sceptics reduced the theoretical relation of people to things to appearance, and in practice they left everything as of old, being guided by this appearance just as much as others are guided by actuality; they merely gave it another name. Epicurus, on the other hand, was the true radical Enlightener of antiquity; he openly attacked the ancient religion, and it was from him, too, that the atheism of the Romans, insofar as it existed, was derived. For this reason, too, Lucretius praised Epicurus as the hero who was the first to overthrow the gods and trample religion underfoot; for this reason among all church fathers, from Plutarch to Luther, Epicurus has always had the reputation of being the atheist philosopher par excellence, and was called a swine; for which reason, too, Clement of Alexandria says that when Paul takes up arms against philosophy he has in mind Epicurean philosophy alone. (Stromatum, Book I [chap. XI], p. 295, Cologne edition, 1688.) Hence we see how “cunning, perfidious” and “clever” was the attitude of this open atheist to the world in directly attacking its religion, while the Stoics adapted the ancient religion in their own speculative fashion, and the Sceptics used their concept of “appearance” as the excuse for being able to accompany all their judgments with a reservatio mentalis.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03a.htm#c.1.3
SOURCE: Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. The German Ideology (1845-6), Vol. I, Chapter III: Saint Max, section 1.3: The Ancients.