I found out the expensive way that most of the boxy NES consoles need a lot of upkeep to function. So instead I give you the budget alternative, the Retron. With HDMI hookup. No, I never played the arcade release of this game.
As we watch the Democrats peddle their warmongering interventionist and laissez-faire let’s-wait-for-war attitudes, ie as they play their war games on their way to the fall brawl known as the midterm elections, where voters will probably vote Democrat to bring us nookular annihilation, I’ll take a look at some literal war games. Cold War video games, anyway.
Image from WWE Network
One popular feature of the Cold War was the Civil Wars, which the left labels as revolutions. Communist revolutions backed by Russia, anti-Communist revolutions backed by the West. Civil wars where the political fate of the country is fought over- Spain was such a victim during I guess what could be called Russia’s brief Cold War with Nazi Germany. The Left sure does love inspiring revolutions, remember ComIntern? Well, today we look at a game focused on one such revolutionary experience: Guerrilla War.
Someone decapitated an M2 Medium Tank
It’s a vertically-scrolling shoot ’em up. In other words, you move towards the top of the screen and kill anything that moves. It’s best if you have a friend with you, while it is interesting to play through on its own you die A LOT. You can’t tell from these pictures, but you are swarmed by enemies. I don’t even know if it’s possible to get through the game without taking a hit, and there’s certainly no replay value unless you and a buddy are laughing it up as you keep dying. Since you see your scores after each death, it seems like you could make a series of mini-competitions out of the game.
Can’t imagine what island this is supposed to be. Leave a comment if you can figure out what island had a revolution and has its capital in the northwest part.
Oh, did I mention you have infinite lives? I really liked that part. I had played Commando prior to this, and hated how I kept getting nowhere and then getting a game over. These games are like After Burner– made for eating quarters in an arcade machine. Just giving you finite lives and telling you game over can be very frustrating when you know in the arcade if you just had $100 in quarters you could win!
The story of this game goes that you’re a generic revolutionary trying to overthrow a generic corrupt government. At least the story in the U.S. release. You’ll notice from the screenshots that the island has quite familiar geography and terrain. And you’ll notice that your character looks kind of familiar.
I thought you were supposed to be Fidel Castro, but the Japanese title of this game is “Guevara”. The story was censored for U.S. markets. Apparently Player 2 is supposed to be Fidel Castro. But Fidel himself is never Player 2. El Comandante was quite fond of himself, so you can understand why I and every liberal out there who believes in Castro (all of them) would think you were playing as him. Also, the Player 1 and Player 2 sprites are just palette swaps.
Looks like a mixture of Castro and Guevara to me. At varying points both had roughly this hairstyle and beardstyle.
Well… that’s it really. It’s insanely difficult if your goal is to get through without losing a life, I like the visuals, it’s an interesting twist to play as the communist revolutionary for once even though the cover art makes it look like you’re a capitalist fighting Soviets. Not that story matters in these games. So I’ll just scatter my pictures throughout this otherwise quite serious opinion piece.
A Quick Note On One Of My Sources
I reference a translation of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs, Khrushchev Remembers, a lot below. I thought it would be nice to have a communist voice tell communists about their revolution gone awry. In fact, Khrushchev claims he had written the memoirs in part because Stalin’s reputation was undergoing a positive rehabilitation, something he did not want to see after remembering Stalin’s excesses (even though he was party to them). The New York Times has been doing something similar (one article they wrote was very sexist, heteropatriarchal, heteronormative, objectifying, and LGBTQ-exclusionary. NYT boasts about how great the sex was for women in Soviet Russia. Meaning women enjoyed men forcing themselves on them a lot more. And the LGBTQ community was nonexistent in the mainstream, because your first step from out of the closet was into a gulag. To be fair, Lesbians could still be lesbians… but only if one of them had a sex change, definitely not if both were in their original body no matter how comfortable they were with their gender identity. Yet NYT apparently wants that exclusionary environment recreated here, and thinks all that a woman should care about is sex with men), and one of the folks who helped with the Left’s anti-Trump Steele Dossier’s fabrication was an ardent Stalin supporter.
But the real reason I reference this now is there was some dispute when this book was initially published about its authenticity. It was even suggested to be a CIA conspiracy. However, tapes of Khrushchev narrating the story were released.
For those who do a quick Google search for “”Khrushchev Remembers” authenticity” and only look at the top two results (or 4 of the first 10), you wouldn’t know that this book is authentic because Google pulls out newspaper articles and reviews from around the time of its publication in the early 70s which question its origins. I’m leaning towards saying this is an example of Google’s biased search algorithm, since the folks at Google are very fond of the USSR, and as you’ll see below their political ideology of “liberalism” is more akin to “Stalinism“, which Khrushchev attacks in his memoirs.
As you’d expect, his memoirs are a trifle one-sided. He glossed over that whole “I had 83 out of 86 members of Ukraine’s Central Committee executed over the course of one year” thing.
Castro personally greeted everyone who sailed into Cuba.
Given how Fidel Castro could do no wrong and was a celebrity for everyone in the liberal media, from actor to anchor, and everyone on the Left I don’t see it as hyperbole to suggest that this game is pretty much what they think happened. One ABC News journalist HAD SEX WITH CASTRO. And the liberal media complains Trump is the one out enabling dictators and encouraging men to treat women as objects. Cuba has the harshest free speech laws in Latin America with 10 years in prison for saying something the government doesn’t like, over 10,000 Cubans simply disappeared because the government didn’t like them, and after all that not only does the liberal press praise Castro, THEY LITERALLY SLEEP WITH HIM!
Liberals don’t particularly care what their communist dictators do, much like in Khrushchev’s analogy they see victims of communism merely as wood chips flying about while Castro axed the tree of capitalism.
(Just as an aside about liberals complaining Trump enables dictators, the media as I write this is accusing Trump of enabling the oppression of journalists by not attacking Saudi Arabia in some fashion over the disappearance of part-time Washington Post Columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and the media’s largest source of information on that issue is also the largest jailer of journalists in the world, Turkey. 33% of the world’s jailed journalists are in Turkish prisons. But liberals have been sucking up to Turkey despite this oppression while saying Trump is the one enabling dictators, something the media was happy to do for the 2018 Winter Olympics when they were literally peddling North Korean propaganda. Plus, this disappeared columnist whom the Left has declared to be a saint of journalism, Saint Jamal Khashoggi, is in fact a radical Islamist, and opposed freedom of the press. Worse, another of the media’s sources is a friend of the journalist whose mentor tried to assassinate the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. They didn’t report that bias, even though one of the folks citing him had reported on that assassination attempt. The media also has yet to report that Saint Jamal was friends with Osama Bin Laden, and both had the common goal of establishing worldwide Islamism. So while it might’ve been wrong for Saudi Arabia to chop the guy up for opposing their government, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer person. But because Saudi Arabia is moderating, actually letting women drive for example, that makes them an enemy of “radical” Islam (I’ve covered why I use quotes around “radical”, at least on the occasions where I remember to put quotes around the word), thus an enemy of the press, a press which meets very few oppressive anti-free speech regimes it doesn’t like.)
Ironically, ABC News who were quite critical of President Trump’s “grab ’em by the pussy” remark ended up having their sexually active reporter prove Trump’s statement to be correct- his statement being that men who liberal women think are celebrities get away with a lot. cough Bill Clinton cough Keith Ellison cough Robert Menendez. Excuse me, I need a drink of water. I’m having a Marco Rubio moment. Maybe the media would like to ask him about why his family fled Cuba.
Liberals really do love Fidel. Sure, he killed a lot of his own citizens after seizing power, kept them living in fear and poverty, but look at that beautiful communist system! Look at how educated his slaves were! Granted, he only let them read so that they can view party propaganda, but they could all still read!
Of course, these same liberals wish the Bible never existed, think the Bible is evil heteronormativepatriarchal propaganda, even though the Bible was singularly responsible for hiking the literacy rate in Europe (thanks to the Protestants deciding that everyone in their religion should be able to read it, much like Castro’s literacy rate came from his campaign to indoctrinate the population, allegedly). But the Bible is evil (Islam is totally cool #MeToo), Christians are mentally ill, and Fidel is an actual God-like figure, right liberal? Remember- Stalin, Mao, Castro: these are the murdering thugs that the Leftist mobs worship. Always have, they just didn’t mob so much under Obama when Democrats controlled everything. Like Hillary said, Democrats will only be civil when they are in control.
Fun Fact: In Final Fantasy III/Final Fantasy VI, Fidel Castro was the only party member you needed in order to beat the train boss. Just like Castro is the only Party member who counts in Cuba.
Leftist mobs. They’re all trying to be Fidel Castro, whom the Left thinks of as a hero and probably have portraits of above their dinner tables. I somehow doubt it’s ignorance of his purges either, given how many liberals openly want to oppress or murder (note that those last two are teachers, as in people whom you are paying to impart their ideology on your children) their opposition. And as for the “mainstream” Leftists who worship Castro? Well, just take a listen to them once in a while and you’ll see their beliefs don’t differ much from the mobs. That’s probably why the liberal media goes to such great lengths to ignore or downplay liberal mobs. They don’t want to alienate the independents and possibly lose an election, thus they want to dismiss or downplay their true colors (red and gold) when they show through.
Whether fascists or communists, organizing a good old fashioned mob to go after your opponents is a fun past-time for a boring evening after a day of party functions.
Speaking of liberals and the mobs having similar points of view, check out this former Clinton adviser’s comments. He mocks opponents of The Revolution by saying that first they paint Leftists as snowflakes but then as angry mobs, and claims this is a confusing bit of hypocrisy, thus trying to destroy the credibility of people who point out what his side of the aisle is doing.
Of course like most things Democrats do (a stopped clock is still right twice per day, there are some areas I’d give them credit on) there is a problem with this gentleman’s statement. Democrats like to be a big tent party, so surely there’d be room for a little snow on the mob? Or is snow now an example of white supremacism? (yes, it is)
But it’s actually pretty simple: your little snowflakes have their mental meltdowns, but instead of slush they form big angry mobs for any reason that pops into their pea-brains. Including money. A box full of sweating dynamite also has the fragility of a snowflake. Sensitive, uneducated thugs that are easily triggered if someone dares divert from party lines. Take a page from Khrushchev’s book (not my copy please, I paid nearly half a cent per page)– he was not fond of the mobbish brutes who attacked anyone for deviating from Stalin’s orthodoxy, he condemned the many “good communists” sent to the “meat-mincer”, and one bit of self-deprecation he did do was criticize his own blind obedience (he downplayed it too of course, it’s HIS memoirs ya know!).
As point of fact, the emotional immaturity that leads to us calling you liberals “snowflakes” is what lets you think temper tantrums, aka mobs, are valid ways to get what you want. Spoiled brats finding another way to cry. A very dangerous way, one which makes us go from mocking snowflakes who need to color or play with play-doh (I’d check the lists to make sure your lawyer’s law school wasn’t in this group, juries tend to judge clients based on their lawyer’s conduct) because their candidate lost an election to standing by to defend ourselves if their mob heads our way.
Also, this gentleman confirms that the DNC hierarchy loves its mobs (keep in mind how tight the DNC and Hillary’s campaign were/are, I doubt she’s letting them forget that she footed the bill for the election). Look at him covering for them and mocking anyone opposed. What a good little Democrat he is. Too bad that as a white male he’ll be first to go if these mobs get power. Such is the fate of the revolutionary.
How Real Are These Mobs?
- I couldn’t find any pictures of liberal mobs, because apparently they don’t exist. Images from Fox News, AP, RWC, and Quora
First they deny that they’re paid, then they deny that they’re mobs. This is my attempt to halfway be fair to the peaceful liberals who might welcome discourse and argument.
I liked what happened here- MSNBC tried to debunk President Trump’s claim that these mobs weren’t paid off. So they interviewed a member of one such mob… who said she was paid off! As a member of a Soros-controlled organization. This is why you always tape interviews, never do them live. You’ll note MSNBC also never covered people witnessing anti-Kavanaugh protesters being paid off by people tied to Soros, nor did they cover witnesses saying that anti-Kavanaugh protesters were being given free meals and money for bail if they get arrested protesting. You’ll also note what a lefty reporter states- that some of the highlights of the anti-Kavanaugh protests were actually the result of paid professional protesters exploiting genuine frustration the media ginned up in hapless people. People only exist to be used by liberals to advance their power, an attitude you’d find liberal icon Castro nodding his bearded head in agreement with. Now, despite the admission you saw above, despite the reporting you saw above, reliably liberal Washington Post denies there’s any such thing as a Soros-funded protester, despite Soros-funded protesting groups being reported by often-left-leaning outlet USA Today as paying protesters (Women’s March got lots of Soros money, despite Politifact saying a few months prior that this was all a lie, showing just how much like Pravda under Stalin the liberal fact checkers and media have become).
That handles the Kavanaugh mobs, it’s worth noting that a lot of these mobs have signs of being less-than-spontaneous, rather than just a bunch of mad people suddenly demonstrating as the media tells you (Vice has an “article” titled “Why the Ridiculous ‘Paid Protester’ Myth Refuses to Die” that I won’t even dignify with a link because even their own editor admitted there were paid demonstrators. I won’t dignify the Washington Compost’s “The real purpose of the ‘paid protester’ lie” with a link either, because clearly someone didn’t do their homework. The Huffington Post on the other hand tries to say that there really are paid agitators, but they’re not the ones Republicans are accusing).
Rewriting The Rules
Remember women, if at all times of day you’re not dreaming of making this a reality, you’re either A: sexist against women, B: internalized your own oppression, C: stupid, D: not a free-thinking being capable of making your own decisions. ie. if you’re not out in the mobs forming against Trump, goose-stepping with your fellow liberals and blindly shouting their slogans, then you’re just not independent. Totalitarian Is Liberal, Independence Is Slavery. These ought to be the new Democratic Party slogans.
Liberals now want a Revolution of their own. Well… let’s be honest, Democrats have been demanding a revolution ever since Hillary lost the election. Just look at the post-election riots- yes, it was just a bunch of paid rioters with no message because they probably got paid per rock thrown (or they weren’t paid and just inclined towards criminal behavior and/or snowflake temper tantrums as discussed earlier), but the media tells us that they were a fierce revolutionary outcry against Trump.
They’re trying to build up such a force in the voting public at large. Identity politics is their preferred method- so far Trump has apparently shown his hatred of minorities, LGBTQ, the elderly, women, liberal millionaires, and Republicans if you listen to what the media screams.
The most recent group who should be voting as one mass because no one thinks independently of the Left- if they do they’re not a free thinker- is women. The Left is hoping that after their libelous and slanderous attacks on Kavanaugh (nothing was ever proven, all legitimate allegations against him fell apart (what Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of doing is general drunken behavior, even women do it- have you not seen a “Girls Gone Wild” commercial? I’d be surprised if Democrats on the Senate had not experienced something similar in college unless they were hermits like me) and were only continued through the hopes and dreams of liberals across the country that refuse to believe a white male conservative isn’t a sexual predator) they can regain a majority of all women in their voter rolls, having lost half of the white women to Trump in 2016 despite their best efforts to paint him as a predator (we’re told that tape NBC held onto for 10 years (because they don’t really care about women if the tape is really as bad as you guys say) was an example, though I already explained above why it’s merely the truth).
So, if liberals somehow managed to pull off such a revolution, if they had one super-Castro like we saw in the game, what would their new system look like?
Fast And Furious, Choke Point, IRS Targeting, pretty much anything involving Hillary, Wars, lying to get warrants. Even when in charge, liberals are not civil. They run Portland, but have roving mobs there suppressing anyone that liberals don’t like, even if it’s just people with the wrong skin color. And obviously having just one part of Congress as Hillary suggested isn’t enough for civility– remember Occupy Wall Street, when anti-semitic liberals mobbed together with $3 million from Democrat George Soros in liberal cities in protest of the government only being 2/3 ran by Democrats (they sure didn’t have a problem with Democrats in charge the 2 previous years, and if as they claim they were just fed up with bailing out Wall Street, why did it take 3 years for them to come together after Wall Street and big banks were the only ones saved from the 2008 crisis, why did they wait until after Republicans had a hold in the government again)?
Khrushchev talked a lot about what liberals do in power, the only difference in the USSR was that the government had a stronger role. In Portland it’s just the government ignoring protesters who happen to believe what the government believes, while in the USSR it was the government actively oppressing opponents. Letting freelance flunkies do it versus doing it yourself. And as Khrushchev noted in his memoirs, and as liberals like Fmr. Sen. Al Franken can attest to, sometimes being sufficiently liberal is not enough. Like I said- he talks a lot about “good communist[s]” sent through the “meat-mincer”. Harvey Weinstein was a good liberal too, so was Rep. Charley Rangel. Not anymore. Like Khrushchev says, real and fake opponents of the State alike met the same fate. Remember when the Left burnt a car belonging to one of those Muslim immigrants they’re trying to protect? Like Khrushchev said, “wood chips”.
The legal system would naturally need to be reformed, to protect liberal supporters. Some liberals already are cheering at the prospect of a woman being believed, without evidence, if they accuse a man of sexual assault (we already see this in colleges, where college officials believe that if a man is unconscious and a woman gives him oral sex without his consent or knowledge it is an act of rape against the WOMAN). Now think about that- there is no evidence, or even evidence against the woman’s statement (and the woman herself might even be the rapist), but the Left wants the courts to find the accused man guilty. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), whom I will discuss more in the section on purges below, gets a mention here: she said Kavanaugh was guilty because of his political affiliations, but that DNC Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison was entitled to an investigation before she would comment on the allegations of domestic abuse against him. So in other words- anyone she politically disagrees with is guilty, anyone on her side has a presumption of innocence, and even if guilty like Bill will probably be forgiven or ignored. Liberals have said outright they’d VOTE for a rapist if he was liberal. That’s the liberal legal system.
Their sweeping reforms won’t stop there of course. Congress would be altered so that, based on the rhetoric, the Senate would be like the House except the largest states would all have representatives of one political party- ie California would still have 53 Senators but all Democrats, while Texas would still have its 36 but all Republicans… until undocumented immigrants vote out the Republicans anyway. Or Democrats might go with Rep. John Yarmuth’s (D-KY) legislation that only the government gets to decide who can be a Senator (or Congressman or President), in which case it’d be just as Khrushchev describes in the Soviet Union where candidates are all pre-approved by those already in power. Kind of like the DNC with its superdelegates.
This argument about the Senate being changed into a parody of the House merits further examination. The reason I assumed they want it done by party is that the first branch Republicans took back was the House, which if things were more Democratic as Democrats want would mean that by their logic a majority of Americans are Republicans and so Republicans should have power. But these proposals came as sour grapes to GOP victories, so obviously they want the system skewed differently in their favor. The reason I give the statement that it merits further examination is because our Founding Fathers had this exact argument- do states get equal votes or is the public equally represented? They settled the discussion by doing both, a compromise. You might notice that the Left doesn’t compromise.
The Left believes that somehow, Republicans are a very small part of the country but control everything (we’ll discuss the control later), so I guess it’d make sense if they really did believe this game was an accurate reflection of Castro’s revolution. As you can see in the picture, just like in Final Fantasy III, El Jefe is the only Party member you need in Super Mario RPG.
Also, let’s look at the implications of what the Left wants. They want a bully-state. They want New York and California to be able to squash all other parts of the country. The Senate keeps states like California from exploiting the workers of Hawaii. You residents of DC understand very well the importance of equal representation- the House has been bullying your tiny city for decades. And now you want to expand that bullying, you want millions of people more to be subject to that tyranny of the majority? Ie mob rule? It’s not hard to assume that the people of California would tell their folks in the House to pass a “Nebraska Redistribution Act”, where all money from Nebraska is forced by law to go pay off California’s large expenses. Remember how, after World War I, European countries imposed such punitive measures on Germany that the country was already so badly broke that the 1929 Great Depression was just a rerun of 1923 for Germans? California and New York would have no problem doing that to Hawaii or Connecticut, to pay for their lavish spending. Khrushchev talks a lot about the Left eating its own, or eating nothing (Holodomor) because its communist leaders had too much power and decided to screw over the population (Khrushchev was not anti-communist, he was just against too much power being concentrated in a small area, like was the case with Stalin, like liberals want to be done with Los Angeles or New York City). So yeah, go ahead and let the mob run the place.
You see, you keep talking like the U.S. is one unified whole. You’ll be the first to say it isn’t- if you claimed we were united, then all of your “women are being oppressed by men” and “blacks being oppressed by whites” rhetoric would fall on deaf ears. The fact is, the U.S. is like 50 countries with different cultures, structures, values, laws, even foods. Remember how bad it is according to you that the U.N. keeps bullying poor little Palestine, and bullying poor little Iran until Obama came along? Well imagine if Congress were bullying poor little Hawaii, Obama’s home state consisting of half of 1 percent of the U.S.’s population.
I suppose your next instinct is to simply remove all internal borders. No more states, all are just the nation of Central-North America. Slight problem with that- humans aren’t quite capable of governing that much land from a central location. Learn nothing from when Rome had to be split, did you? Even your heroes the Soviets had to have separate governments for territories it absorbed. East Germany was still East Germany, just part of the USSR the same as Rhode Island is part of the U.S.
Maybe you think that it’s different now, just create a website and everyone can vote on national issues as if we’re all living in the same city. Well, you yourself certainly don’t believe in the integrity of our electronic electoral systems otherwise how could Russia have broken in and changed the votes as 78% of you believe, despite what your party leaders and media organs told you?
Remember when Obama told Trump to “stop whining” over the possibility that the election was rigged? When will you Democrats take Obama’s advice?
Just who does Red think xhe is, telling Green what to do? And why is Red first? All colors are equal, Red has no right to rule the others!
Besides, I don’t quite understand why you’d want to have everyone united anyway. Or how it’d be possible. Men can’t understand being a woman, that’s why it’s called mansplaining right? So how can men represent women? Do straight white women comfortable with their birth-gender understand what it’s like to be Hispanic and trans? How could even a white lesbian represent a Latinx trans? And where do straight Baptist black males fall in this hierarchy, since they are oppressed but not nearly as oppressed as an atheist black trans? And who is more oppressed- a Hispanic trans Christian Male-To-Female or a Muslim trans white Female-to-Male? How could one group possibly claim to be able to represent another? As diverse as people are, how could one person possibly claim to represent another?
That’s what you tell us. So what you’d want is for a Party Congress where each group has a vote. Oh wait, no you don’t. Because as a member of the Democrat Party, you support a system where superdelegates, usually wealthy whites with strong connections to funding and the Party elders, get to run everything regardless of how the People vote. (To be fair, there was a reform done after Hillary’s loss, but if she’d won you guys wouldn’t have done jack, it’s only a political stunt to appease Sanders supporters, and many of your hero Democrats opposed this reform and only gave-in because of political expediency, not because they truly believe in it).
Stalin was smart about how to play identity politics- he made it so that at the various Party Congresses, delegates from each territory could not speak with each other. So each group was looking out for its own interests, unaware if they even have something in common with the others. Much like your identity-politics, where you say members of one group are incapable of understanding members of another group so they shouldn’t even bother getting together.
You should also watch out, mobby liberal, because you’ll never be Left enough. Even Stalin’s strongest, most ardent-communist supporters, men who helped him rise to power, were purged as right-wing oppositionists. Kind of like what you do to folks who don’t 100% go along with your party line today. Kind of like when you decided that everyone who voted for Obama twice but then voted for Trump was a racist.
But I ramble, there’s still more the Left wants to change. The electoral college. Even the left-leaning Brookings Institution thinks there’s merit to the electoral college. But I’ll add something to it- it’s another step in preventing a tyranny of the majority. The President has to win a majority of electors, not a majority of people. Like in the Senate, how 51 Senators can only represent 44% of the population, so is the case with the electoral college though I believe the numbers end up being closer. But it’s just another way to keep superstates like California and Texas from running the country. By the way liberal, if the superstates run the country and the rural states don’t even get to vote, don’t you think that will disincentivize people from living in the rural states? Won’t we lose farmers if they’re subject to Leftwing crackpottery, instead moving to cities where their voices will be heard? How exactly would you replace them?
The Left of course doesn’t want to stop at changing the Legislative Branch, changing the electoral college, and stopping candidates they don’t like from ever being able to run, they want to stop people they don’t like from even voting. That’s right, they say that because liberals are so much smarter, only liberal enclaves should be allowed to vote.
I would not call this a Democratic majority. Image from the National Conference of State Legislatures
I find it ironic that liberals are fighting for their minority to win all the elections forever, and then claiming that liberals represent the majority of the country. They say Republicans only have control of the House because of gerrymandering, only get control of the Senate because it’s unequal, and got the Presidency because the electoral college isn’t democratic. They claim that most Americans are liberals. They ignore how most state legislatures and governors are Republicans too, how only 6 states are controlled solely by Democrats vs 26 by Republicans, how Republicans control 31 state legislatures to Democrats’12. 34 Republican governors to 15 Democrat governors. So… even though Republicans have the Presidency, the Senate, the House, most state legislatures, and most governors, by a large majority at the state level, somehow Republicans are the minority who’ve stolen power from Democrats.
Where Will You Fall In The Revolution?
These 1890s strongmen start out as bulldozer-driving villains, but help you become Cuba’s newest strongman later by throwing you to your next destination. Twice
Liberals don’t quite get how to be good little liberals. Khrushchev and Molotov had no time even to sit and read. All waking time was dedicated to the party. Khrushchev himself noted that people who had time to read would likely be reproached for ignoring their duties to the Party. So what does that say about the above intelligentsia who have so much time to theorize and write about how we need to change the government? Will you see them in battle next to you, or will they hide in their universities and try to direct your struggle, ie tell you where to die so that they never get their hands dirty? Will you be one of the intelligentsia?
Bernie Sanders has a second house. Khrushchev points out “no one would have permitted himself so much as a single thought about having his own dacha [country house]. After all, we were Communists!” I place it here because somehow, you socialist lovers don’t quite understand what socialism is, and think it’s perfectly ok for Bernie to say “tax the rich yay socialism end income inequality” while standing on the balcony of his summer home. So… will you be a good rich person like Bernie, or will you slip and become an evil, purged, rich person like Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey?
Very few are this lucky.
I wonder who the new Left will use for its forced labor camps, ie slave labor. White males I assume. If Hirono or candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez have anything to say about it, there would be a lot of false claims of sexism or sexual assault and show trials about it. Maybe you will be like Harvey Weinstein- hero today, show trial tomorrow. In case you still think the USSR is a comrade’s paradise, Khrushchev mentions forced labor and notations in the book describe the Soviet’s policies for it. Political prisoners used as a labor force, prisoners who were “good communist[s]” and didn’t deserve to be arrested.
A lot of communist Civil War veterans and communists with pre-Revolution experience were purged too, so don’t count on your current virtue signalling to get you anywhere, same with your participation in the Revolution. Maybe you’ll be one of those instead, or you might not even make it out of the Revolution alive?
Heck, to you on the Left Dr. Martin Luther King jr is no longer a great civil rights leader, his reputation has been rehabilitated because your party judges the past by the radical Leftist standards your party currently upholds. How long before your reputation ends up “rehabilitated”, in the next great shift Leftward?
It starts against the 1% and their death palaces, but ends as far as you’re concerned with a bullet in the sloped basement of the secret police’s headquarters (Khrushchev said the floor was sloped to be more easily cleaned after an execution)
"For over three years a man had had no way of knowing from one moment
to the next whether he would survive or disappear into thin air.
This fear and uncertainty had undermined the morale of the Party."
- Nikita Khrushchev
And for those who STILL don’t get it, Stalin brought in new management to kill off everyone who was involved with his purges. Purging the purgers. So enjoy your Yezhovshchina while you can.
Now who exactly died in the purges? Scientists, pianists, poets, pretty much everyone who right now in the U.S. wants a communist government. Revolutionaries who, presumably like you though I question your motives, believed in the cause.
Khrushchev describes the purges thus: “In those days it was easy enough to get rid of someone you didn’t like. All you had to do was submit a report denouncing him as an enemy of the people; the local Party organization would glance at your report, beat its breast in righteous indignation, and have the man taken care of.” Sounds an awwwwful lot like Hostin talking about how wonderful it is today that all a woman has to do is claim someone raped them and they’ll be believed (and yes, Sen. Hirono, women do that quite often (there were 135,755 rapes reported in 2017, so even at 2% of them being false that means over 2,000 men were falsely accused, and with devastating results to those victims. I know, totally alien concept that women can victimize men, in fact you liberals usually say something like Yahoo news did- “Just because the police say something is an unfounded rape, because they don’t think it happened, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”. So men just need to shut up about this. I have a question, liberal, if you contend that this is the case, that we should judge based on the accusation rather than the evidence, that the accused is guilty until proven innocent, then doesn’t that mean we shouldn’t even bother giving lawyers to blacks accused of murder? You complain about how racist our criminal justice system is, and now you want people to be guilty merely because someone says an incident happened. I guess you never read To Kill A Mocking Bird).
Look at that big smile. Khrushchev told of a dinner where Stalin was smiling and joking with someone, and that poor fellow disappeared very shortly after. As the Ferengi say: the bigger the smile, the sharper the knife”
Speaking of Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), she definitely would fit right in with the purgers. She stated Kavanaugh was guilty because of his political affiliations, exactly as some of those whom Stalin purged were guilty of being loyal to Lenin or to the State rather than to him, ie their political affiliation. Sen. Hirono also said men need to shut up when a woman accuses them of a crime, much as Stalin’s victims were told to just shut up and sign the confession to a crime they didn’t commit. They could either do that and get a swift execution, or refuse and be tortured, and then executed. Just like in Hirono’s world where men accused of rape can either just sign the confession, or have their family (wife and daughter in Kavanaugh’s case, though to be fair they attacked Kavanaugh’s wife before the allegations came out) become political and assassination targets and then still be found guilty by Hirono’s Stalinist cohorts and executed. In Kavanaugh’s case, they tried for a professional execution (Hirono used the Stalinesque euphemism “job interview“) though plenty of liberals want the real thing to happen (I’ve linked to them already in here, the teachers and writers). And just as Stalin, and liberals, denied the purges were happening, denied that the charges were false, and tried to say it was merely justice to enemies of the people, Hirono denies women can fabricate charges and tries to claim stopping Kavanaugh is justice to enemies of the people.
Now granted, the modern Left would side with four aspects of Stalin’s purges (if they even believe they happened, if they read the New York Times from any point in its history they’d never know that the purges happened thanks to its Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting). 1. Show trials (cough Kavanaugh cough– need more water!). 2. Accusing Stalin’s alleged enemies of being foreign agents (Remember: they say Trump is an agent of Russia). 3. Killing off half the Red Army’s officer corps. (and then going into World War II and only winning by sheer numbers and weather since the tacticians that led them to victory in the Russian Civil War had been shot as enemies of the people. Liberals HATE the military, as I may have mentioned before, and they certainly hate members of the military, to the point they’ve tried to disrupt their ability to vote while giving felons the right to vote. The Left prioritizes rapists over the military, remember that next time a liberal yells #MeToo.) 4. Forced Confessions (for crimes or things that are only crimes to the Left).
Why Do American Revolutionaries Think They’re So Good?
Of course this discussion must lead to the whole question of why white communist liberals in America think they’re smarter than South American, African, and Asian communists. Why Ocasio-Cortez thinks she, as a Hispanic woman who grew up wealthy, is smarter than the many other Hispanic women who grew up poor, the many poor African women, the many poor Asian women who endorsed communism and suffered from its failures. And why are American commies so racist and classist that they think they can do this better than the many poor peoples of color before them? Are they saying those races are inferior?
Interestingly enough, aside from blaming local party leaders for communist failures (much like how Democrats blamed election losses on insufficient messaging), Stalin also blamed counterrevolutionary forces for sabotaging his work, despite no such forces being in government (with one leader, Trotsky, having been exiled already). Kind of like 78% of Democrats blaming Russia for altering vote counts despite what their leaders said, as mentioned above. How come Democrats oppose Voter ID laws if they think our electoral system is so fragile?
What Do You Think?
Sounds like a fun game? Vote Democrat and make it so! I’d suggest finding the nearest hole and hiding in it for 30 years though, that seems to be the best way to hide from the purges. Trotsky tried moving abroad after the disaster he helped create went out of his control, but ultimately his spawn caught up with him, upon which in a fit of Oedipal rage it killed one of its fathers (can’t resist the other Oedipus pun here, you could definitely say that the Revolution screwed Mother Russia).
Though honestly, given how the Left already turned into the Sour Grapes Bunch after Kavanaugh’s loss, I can only assume a midterm defeat will send them over the edge. They’re already over the edge, we’re having to imagine new edges for them to go over. They rioted after Trump, they want to replace the government after Kavanaugh, what would a midterm loss do to their fragile psyches?