The Only Good Republican Is A Dead One


R.I.P., guy who was shot down near the Sevii Islands during WWII. That’s probably the most politically neutral obituary he got, so take what you can get.

While the country mourned the passing of former President George H.W. Bush, the media tried its best to act civil towards him. We had Maureen Dowd, noted Bush critic who used to lash at him over things as petty as the way he talks and what TV shows he watched because let’s face it the NYT has been a bunch of petty snobs pretending to be relevant for its entire history (why else would a NATIONAL NEWSpaper have a section reviewing local plays except to show off how snobby they are?), Dowd was someone who was the go-to reporter for the Left when they needed to bash the Bush family, someone who made her career lying about them and generating hate towards them (and fantasizing about kicking George Bush jr’s VP in the shins), suddenly talk about how great they were, in an attack on Trump. Well, it sure would’ve been nice if you said that about George and his family during his life!

You know, I think all these whiplash-inducing turnarounds- when the Left suddenly decides a villain is now a hero because someone they don’t like even more has appeared- has made it easier for me to believe plotlines in WWE. You never know one week from the next when a creative change or real-life injury will make a bad guy into a good guy to fill a gap in a program, or vice versa. While the badly done ones are a put-off to fans, I can just go right along with it because I see the media and politicians undergo worse attitude adjustments all the time. Undertaker going from zombie-thing to motorcycle-midlife-crisis-dad? Believable. Just look at Ann Navarro going from battle-hardened defender of the GOP to liberal pundit. Daniel Bryan going from prototypical good guy to some weird bad guy with poorly-developed motivations? Believable. Just look at Maureen Dowd going from Bush critic to Bush praiser. I bet one of the most pivotal and shocking moments in wrestling history: when Hulk Hogan, who made his career as a good guy, turned bad in 1996 wouldn’t have surprised anyone monitoring the contemporary transition of then-far-right activist (now liberal millionaire hit squad ringleader) David Brock. Based on the info at one of the links provided, it seems that being a turncoat was David Brock’s answer to “whatcha gonna do when Clintonmania runs wild on you?”.

Using The Past, Past Presidents, and Past Precedents To Attack The Present President’s Precedents

They’ve cried wolf over the next Republican SCOTUS nominee making abortion illegal (27 years since Clarence Thomas was supposedly going to end Roe V. Wade, 13 since Alito and Roberts were going to, yet we still have it… their predictions for the abortion apocalypse are as accurate as their prediction on the climate change apocalypse) and the next Republican President being fascist so many times, that now they finally acknowledge their past hyperbole and openly admit in the case of Trump “we were wrong then (but we’re right on him)”. When the Left cries “demon”, it’s about as believable as when they lie about Trump putting his hand over his heart at George H.W. Bush’s funeral… which is to say, it is as believable as when the Left claims to even care about patriotic displays.


According to a Vox headline, for the article this image came from, President Obama and I agree on something: “President Obama really really really really hates Maureen Dowd”.

The aforementioned reversal on who the evil Republicans are turns up as of late at the funerals for Republicans. Like with Maureen Dowd above- she despised those “Bushies(and all men in general), until the day one died and she could insult Republicans for electing Trump because Trump is worse than one of their old leaders. I assume that’s her reasoning, though it could just be she genuinely forgot she hated George H.W. It’s hard to tell with the Left, whether their lack of memory is feigned or genuine.

As for Dowd herself, you’ll notice she loves the word “chutzpah”. Fitting she’d overuse a Yiddish word I guess, since “haza” is an accurate description of her.

John McCain


Isn’t your hair supposed to turn gray when you gaze upon Him? Image from

This opinion piece pretty much makes my point. You should


Obama on the Left, McCain on the Right. It’s 2008 all over again. Image from

really read my links, no telling what nuggets of info are in them. As you may have guessed, the assertion is that prior to dying John McCain was the media’s enemy. 2008 probably didn’t help much, when the media’s ideal perfect messiah suddenly came down from heaven and poor McCain was stuck opposing him.

Before McCain’s death, the Left danced on his grave. After McCain’s death, the media called for civility. Called for unity. And attacked Trump’s daughter for showing up at McCain’s funeral to pay her respects. She was invited, by the way. Civility! And using the funeral as a rallying point for attacking Trump is apparently what “unity” means.

Antonin Scalia


Image From Ballotpedia

Just two months before he died, he was a crazy racist according to the media. After his death, he was a praised legend, and the Left attacked the GOP for quickly rushing to block any Obama nominees, despite that being the then-Vice President’s own idea (I picked that Politico link just so I could attack one of its points- does Obama look like the kind of guy who’d pick a nominee the GOP would compromise with? Just look at his approach– “If I want it, it’s your job to make it happen GOP whether you agree or not”).

That’s about the best the Left got out of Scalia’s passing, since the future was bright with what they thought was a guaranteed Hillary win they were quite open about their contempt for a conservative like Scalia. Since it was a Democrat in the White House, rather than criticizing the Republican in power as not worthy of the guy who passed, they opted for hoping the bad guy who was there would be replaced by a good guy in a “historic” moment.

Bonus: Gerald Ford


Image From Ballotpedia

2006, back when George W. Bush was still a demon being controlled by the king of darkness Dick Cheney. We learn that the media actually liked Gerald Ford (even saying he was too nice of a guy), whom hitherto was portrayed as incompetent and stupid. The reason for their newfound respect was some last-minute criticism of the soon-departing ex-President, directed at George W.

Get The Point?

I hope so, I’m running out of prominent dead people. Keep in mind it’s the mainstream media we’re talking about with the duplicitous praise. The liberal base has always been quite vocal about its true feelings, even in times of death.

Hey! These S.O.B.’s stole my idea! (To be fair, I only thought to write this 2 days after New York Post wrote theirs, but I didn’t see theirs until the morning of the day this post was published).





Google Search Algorithms


A lot changed since 1997. Image from Wikimedia commons

Google needs to fight to ensure that populist movements around the world are merely a “blip” and a “hiccup” in the arc of history that “bends towards progress.”   – Google Global Affairs VP Kent Walker

“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. FUCK. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL… I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.” – Google Design Lead Dave Hogue

Much has been made about bias at Google. Leaked internal documents show bias, they’ve gone on the record being biased, employees were penalized over fighting this bias. They’ve considered everything from censorship, rigging search results, and outright murder. Here I’ll be looking just at the searches.

When it comes to search results, I hardly look for patterns. My first assumption is always user error, as I am a user who makes a lot of errors. Sometimes though a few things leap out at me, especially if the pattern is recurring over the course of several searches.


As evidence here, since at least 1974 liberals have been of the “you’re either with us or evil” attitude. Outlets like “The Nation” and “New Republic” would have you believe this film and other such things are myths.

I’ve referenced this phenomenon before, when trying to find information on North Vietnamese atrocities. While the reason for there not being much info about that on the internet likely is because any scholars or web-based outlets writing about it support Hanoi Jane, think “The Trial of Billy Jack” is a documentary, and would’ve spat on our soldiers at the time if they could, it still wouldn’t explain why the top search results for “North Vietnamese atrocities”, “atrocities committed by North Vietnam”, and similar searches didn’t give me results about North Vietnamese atrocities on the first page. Instead, the results I was greeted with first and foremost, and as the overwhelming majority of search results, were items related to American misconduct. I know supposedly Google ranks results by popularity and reliability, but here it was like searching for a sushi recipe and getting a thousand ways to make sake instead.

I had considered referencing such matters as I went along in the posts, and may do so in the future, but while doing the midterm stuff I decided to just pile everything here. Besides, I think it’s more potent if you see all the search issues I’ve had in one spot, instead of scattering them in each article. Granted, it’s more likely you’ll see it should I complain about it more often, but it doesn’t have so big an impact as seeing it all at once if it just becomes steady background noise.

Anyway, let’s get to it.

Burying Scalise

On August 5 I tried to find an article showing that the claim Steve Scalise spoke at a white nationalist rally was debunked. Page 4 is where I found it in one of my searches. I tried several before that, but the first one or two pages of each were completely full of Leftwing news sources and even blogs or forums talking about how he was guilty of it. The search that I finally found the article in, it was 3 pages of all that before I got to the truth. Full disclosure- it didn’t help matters that Scalise admitted to it- assuming that the allegations made by a loser Democrat’s son, a loser Democrat who claimed that Scalise’s district was mostly composed of bigots because they wouldn’t vote for her, was true. By the way- even after Scalise was shot, vaunted liberal outlets like Mic were still repeating this debunked conspiracy theory as truth.

Memory Holed History

I tried to find an article on August 8 dealing with how the Mexicans, in colonizing the Southwest, killed the natives instead of merely pushing them out as Americans tended to do (we had reservations and guns, the Mexicans just had guns). Particularly this was an issue near Texas, around the southern part of the 4 corners states. No luck, aside from a wikipedia page I found nothing, even though such things did happen. The search results were solely devoted to what Americans and centuries prior Spanish Conquistadors did to the natives. In other words- Mexico is given a pass. Maybe that’s a reflection of Google’s algorithms, or a reflection how the researchers at our universities believe Mexico should reclaim the lands that were given to us after they defaulted on their debt and started a war that left 13,000 Americans dead.

Hellraisin’ Hillary


The only face she or Google want you to see. Image from AP

Each time I reference Hillary Clinton being an angry monster behind closed doors, I need to find the link again. I end up trying different searches to find this article, usually searching for content related to the part on Hillary demanding that soldiers wear business suits while in the White House. Usually one of the first two results glorifies Hillary, the rest are mostly unrelated or positive about her.

Specific Searches

  • “trent franks resigned” -the first page was entirely liberal outlets. Page two had a Fox News link in the middle, but was liberal otherwise.
  • “violence against trump supporters” –first result is “FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?” from snopes. Found to be true of course. Snopes does not believe Tim Kaine, Loretta Lynch, New York Times columnists, and ACLU lawyers called for violence (either through ignoring/hiding/burying or “debunking” these claims… “debunking” in quotations because it’s kind of hard to say “that person never said what they are on tape saying” as Snopes does, and still be considered credible by anyone not partisan like they are).
  • “press make death threats against trump” mostly yielded threats against the press or Maxine Waters or people on Trump’s enemy’s list, rather than results about an NYT columnist who made a death threat against Trump.
  • “death threats against trump” started with Maxine Waters, but gave like a 60-40 mix of death threats against journos and anti-Trumpers vs threats against Trump. For both this and the “press make death threats against trump” searches, the wikipedia article for assassination threats against Obama came up.
  • “former government official threatens trump” led to top stories about Trump threatening to take away the clearances of former government officials.
  • “dc police 1990 illiterate scandal mayor”/”dc police academy illiterate graduates”/”marion barry police illiterate” – not one result I wanted, with that last search only getting 2 pages. The story here is that DC’s mayor at the time, literally a crack smoker, lowered the standards for the police such that illiterate people were allowed in. Gang members, drug dealers, even people arrested recently were allowed in. But the mayor was a black liberal, so it’s natural any relevant search results would be hidden. Or perhaps even nonexistent.
  • “Trump, without citing evidence, says China hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails” – Washington Post headline, top news story for the search “comey hillary not hacked” according to Google. One minor problem- WaPo is right that Trump cited no evidence, but wrong in the implication that there isn’t any. A reporter at the Daily Caller had discovered that the FBI knew China had breached Hillary’s emails in 2015 and did nothing about it. WaPo, either jealous of not getting that story in its anti-Trump anti-Russia fervor or jealously guarding Hillary, sent out this misleading headline with Google more than happy to promote it to the top result.
  • “hillary intent Saucier” – the first result is a Snopes story claiming that Navy sailor Saucier was not held to a different standard than Hillary Clinton in regards to the treatment of classified information. Saucier was arrested while Hillary nearly became President. According to the FBI’s one-time-only-for-Hillary-and-her-aide interpretation of the law, Hillary and her aide had to deliberately want to endanger national security to be guilty. Saucier didn’t want to endanger the country, and he was put in prison. As for the difference being that the sailor (Saucier) knowingly did something while Hillary unknowingly did something wrong, I’ll point out that A: ignorance is no excuse as we’re always told, and B: Hillary MUST HAVE KNOWN because emails in her private server were MARKED classified, something Hillary’s apologists at CNN and Snopes or even Google since Snopes is their first result seem to have forgotten, lest it make the Left-proclaimed “most qualified candidate” look like a reckless idiot, or something worse given the emails about stripping classification headings from her messages (a Google search for this info had politifact,, and politico as the top sources, such bastions of liberalism). 
  • The first PAGE of results for “clinton emails remove classification” consisted of politifact, 2 factchecks, 2 politicos, a dailybeast, ABC News where Clinton crony/former Clinton White House operative George Stephenopolous resides, USA Today, theconversation, and wikipedia. ALL left-leaning or outright leftwing media outlets. On Aug. 5 2018, the 3rd result from the bottom of page 2 was the first rightwing outlet, Fox News. The next was WSJ at the top of page 3

To ruin one result may be regarded as a misfortune, to ruin two looks like carelessness, but twelve times…?


Pretty sure the section header came word-for-word from “The Importance of Being Earnest”. Image from Encyclopedia Britannica

Well what do you think? Am I just bad at using Google, does Google’s search algorithm favor Leftwing sites because Google employees think they are reliable, or is it more malicious with the search algorithm targetting thought that Google disagrees with and ensuring it is rarely the first thing we see, or perhaps even not showing it at all? (One last personal experience, there was once an article for rightwing outlet “The Stream” that did not show up AT ALL well after it had been published, even when I quoted the title or quoted chunks of it.)

Now, some people try to spin Google’s actions. In the case of the employee they fired, Laurie Penny at The Guardian headlined “James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies”. It may interest her to know that the Left is starting to believe Dr. Martin Luther King jr was not tolerant enough. So Ms. Penny, are you just hoping to keep ahead of the Leftist wave until you die a natural death or are you prepared for the day when you too aren’t tolerant enough and someone says it’s ok to discriminate against you? I’ll refer you to Khrushchev Remembers, wherein we learn of real people like you- radicals saying it’s ok to discriminate based on subjective and ever-changing notions like “bigot” and “bully”- ended up being killed by the crusading government they created.

We also get efforts to spend Google’s own leaked docs to say that they’re struggling with censorship, but these defenders of Big Tech give away their partisan cheerleading, like the poor bloke at Techdirt who wrote “The Good Censor Document Shows Google Struggling With The Challenges Of Content Moderation”. In that piece, the author states that an 85-page leaked document on censorship that “Trumpkins” (DailyWire reported negatively on the document, and they are often at odds with Trump) jumped on as proof of Google censorship showed that Google was in fact struggling not to censor results. The insults at Trump supporters gave away the bias, the cheerleading happens when the author stupidly states that Google doesn’t want governments to abuse its platform. It looks REALLY bad now that we know Google had considered censoring conservative news outlets.


ÇINLI!!!!! Image from M*A*S*H season 3 episode 12

I say the cheerleading “stupidly” happened because it was a well-known public FACT at the time that Google built a censorship engine for the Chinese government. So we are left with this: the author must have known this, and decided to “forget” about it. And if Google truly wonders about evil governments abusing its platform in that 85-page document, then Google has some serious issues with self-delusion. Or, maybe, Google thinks the Chinese government is NOT a government that would abuse its censorship powers. Worse, and probably true, maybe Google doesn’t care about what the Chinese government does because they AGREE with its decisions. None of this looks good for Google, and certainly not for the Techdirt writer supporting them. Maybe that writer loves what China is doing too.

Oddly enough, the Techdirt piece was the 2nd search result for “Google “the good censor””. The first was the original Breitbart article talking about it. I find it odd because A: Breitbart is the first result and B: there isn’t a more reliable source as one of the top two results to counter Breitbart’s assertion.









Midterms: Some Runoff and Fallout

Well… we still have undecided races a week out. Neat.  Democrats have gained in the House, while Republicans… so far have the exact same amount of seats in the Senate as before, at best maybe gaining two seats once all is settled later this month.

It still looks like Democrats will have the House, Nancy Pelosi will be the next House Speaker, and Republicans will keep the Senate.

How far off were my predictions from election night as to what Democrats will do? Why are you asking me now, they haven’t done anything yet!

  • I said to expect impeachment hearings. They already have 85 subpoenas ready to go (and though you’d never have heard when watching the news, Democrats were funded by a large political machine dedicated to impeaching Trump).
  • I mentioned Democrats attacking people based on race and gender. Well, guess what. It seems white women, who by a slim majority voted for Republicans overall, are gender-traitors and racists. Also, because they did not vote as Democrats commanded them to, they don’t think for themselves.
  • I went over Democrats wanting to restructure the system to remove the Senate. Still going at it, they are.

Now, what else do we have on them for policy that I can pick on? Not much really that I’ve seen, aside from vague unfundable promises of medicare-for-all from certain candidates that only won because of intense partisanship and identity politics (her district was always Democrat so no Republican would win, and the district largely matches her ethnicity so out goes the old white guy in an ironic Frankenstein’s monster fashion given the identity politics games that establishment Democrats like him played- and note that in that USA Today article, they tout a district that is over 50% Hispanic as being “diverse”, because “diverse” only means “non-white”. 99% Hispanic would be “diverse”.).


Total pushovers. We’ll have the boys home by Christmas!

Well, here’s something. Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) pledges to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal and push green energy on the military as House Armed Services Committee chairman. So… solar-powered electric military vehicles with no way to recharge on the battlefield because our logistical structure is gas-based, no nuclear weapons, and by the way we’re at war with Russia now.


Speaking of military matters, an irony here is that the socialist left does not truly believe in everyone paying their fair share, at least in foreign military agreements. They believe in welfare and handouts from the rich, hence their NATO policy: America must pay for it all and get ripped off by the deadbeats. Irony two is that the Left complained Trump would start a war with North Korea if public opinion turned against him, meanwhile the Left was frantic for a war with Russia after losing an election.

Liberals never change. In Khrushchev Remembers, we’re told how liberal Stalin (I’ve outlined the modern Left’s Stalinism already in earlier posts linked earlier here, thus I am justified in retroactively callin’ Stalin a liberal, because by today’s standards that is what he was) purged the military, and then went to war with Finland, and then the Nazis declared war on the still-unprepared Soviets. The Soviets had a totally incompetent force after the purges. Obama had a similar political purging going on (and similarly ignored the advice of the military), and now Democrats want to purge weapons from our arsenal, and then declare war against a resurgent nuclear-armed Russia of all people.

A swift and sure way to destroy a country is to disarm it and then declare war on a superior. As Jimmy Kimmel said, Democrats are smarter, thus they MUST know this to be the case. Which means it can only be a deliberate act to destroy the country, if they are as intelligent as they claim. Or maybe they just want soldiers to die, afterall, Democrats believe soldiers are terrorists based on how much support they gave to the Senator who made that remark.



Nationalism and ethnic pride is perfectly ok for Mexicans living the U.S. and Mexican-Americans, it’s just the whites who are evil when they do it. Pay no attention to the “Make America Mexico Again” signs. Image from The Yucan Times.

These Democrats coming in are riding a wave of anti-nationalism. Right before the election they said love of country (nationalism) was anti-Semitism and white supremacism (notice how it’s wrong when whites say such things, but the Congressional Black Caucus which is practically Farrakhan’s spirit squad gets away with it). Patriotism is evil to these people, which made it bizarre when one pundit (and later the French Prime Minister, making me wonder if there is like a modern ComIntern for liberals spreading this script to its members) tried to say there was a difference in nationalism and patriotism.


To the Left, and to the Democrats they’ve voted for, there is (or used to be until their disjointed responses to Trump) little distinction except in the amount of racism. Nationalists are more racist than patriots because of that “white nationalism” thing which the networks say “nationalism” is synonymous with, but both are ignorant rightwing savages. Anyone wanting to help America is a savage, anyone wanting the world to stomp on America is an enlightened liberal. This philosophy certainly explains Adam Smith’s “let’s go to war with Russia after we disarm the military” attitude.

We Didn’t Know How To Count Right The First Time


Seems legit. Orignal image was from WPEC.

The elections are still ongoing, as I mentioned before. But special attention again goes to Florida. We have a Democrat with a history of corruption and allowing illegal ballots/felons to vote/illegal aliens to vote, who destroyed ballots that were part of a pending court case and may have unseated a Democratic establishment figure, who is now going to determine if a Democrat becomes governor of Florida. Boxes of votes keep turning up in all sorts of weird and illegal places. 5,000 mail-in votes turned up at 7pm on election night out of nowhere, somehow ballooned to 9,000 and flipped several races to keep establishment figures in. Empty ballots are being filled-in by her operatives (as seen in an earlier link). I have no idea what a more clear example of fraud would be, but apparently the Left feels nothing is wrong at all. Guess this is how they like their elections.


Andrew Gillum, a Democrat who stands to gain a lot from this, certainly believes this is a legitimate exercise in Democracy.  Apparently calling out a clearly partisan Democrat with a history of botching things in favor of the party establishment is equal to racism. Also, to Gillum’s point, even IF Republicans were making the accusation that because the Broward County Elections Supervisor is black then she’d support Gillum, they have about a 90% chance of being correct. Also to Gillum’s point, Democracy does not work when a box of votes all for Democrats suddenly appears in the trunk of someone’s car.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that this is accurate. That people have been for days keeping legitimate Democrat votes in the back of their car, all votes 100% are for Democrats. Aside from a question of violating election law, doesn’t that also beg the question- did they remove the Republican votes? Is there a pile of ashes somewhere representing the votes of Republicans? Is THAT perhaps why these ballot boxes were kept out of the


How come no one wants to count the ballots I keep in a box in MY car?

official record for so long?  You hear Gillum talking? He knows these thousands of votes are all for Democrats.


No proof of voter fraud, and everyone’s ballot should count, Gillum says as his lawyers try to allow non-citizen votes to count. And of course, Andrew Gillum’s team last week claimed they were told of at least 20,000 more ballots in Broward that hadn’t been counted at a time when the electoral supervisor in Broward wasn’t revealing how many ballots remained and was illegally refusing to share this data with the Republican campaign. But no, no corruption or fraud here, and Republicans are just trying to suppress blacks or whatever, and voter fraud doesn’t exist. So the Left tells you. And despite a judge saying Snipes broke the law, liberal politicians apparently know better. And you’re racist for challenging Snipes on her admitted incompetence. To be fair, it makes sense that corrupt officials in Broward would be friendly to Gillum, birds of a feather and all that.

Another link between liberals and Stalin materializes here; allegedly he stated (he probably never did though) “it is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Broward County is embodying that maxim right now.

My Beef With Arizona

I keep referencing Arizona’s Senator who openly despises the state and hid her true feelings when running. I figure I might as well go into detail here, since she won the race and all.

As quoted from Lifezette:

"Sinema... said in her victory speech on Monday, 
“Arizonans had a choice between two very different ways forward: 
One focused on fear and party politics, and one focused on 
Arizona and the issues that matter to everyday families.” 
“Arizona rejected what has become far too common in our country: 
name-calling, petty personal attacks, and doing and saying 
whatever it takes just to get elected,” Sinema added."

Sinema is chiding McSally for something Sinema has made a livelihood out of doing. “Doing and saying whatever it takes just to get elected” is precisely Sinema’s record. And as for representing families? Forget it, she HATES families as much as she hates the military! Comparatively speaking Jeff Flake wasn’t that bad. I guess it takes abusing the electorate to make them vote for you.

Leaked Plans


Fun fact: She is from Baltimore, with her brother and father serving as mayor of Baltimore. Image from wikimedia.

It was overheard in a conversation on a train from a Democratic Congressman that Dems will use fake news to justify impeaching Kavanaugh. Why would it stop at Kavanaugh? They have free rein now to impeach whoever they want, they own the media so can get all the fake justification they want, and they’ve been throwing that word “impeachment” around a lot anyway.

Remember the line of succession- Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker, is only two impeachments away from becoming the first woman President. I doubt that’s lost upon her. Impeach Trump, something NeverTrump Republicans in the Senate might go along with. Or at least might have before the Kavanaugh incident. That’s the easy part.


Then after that all it takes is one anonymous sexual assault complaint against Mike Pence, which will spark a Kavanaugh-esque frenzy of sexual assault claims (because contrary to Sen. Hirono’s sexist beliefs, women DO sit around making this stuff up, with the INTENT to destroy men they hate) that the Left will say are totally legitimate (and bury evidence opposing). At that point the only thing between Pelosi and the White House will be the backbones of 20 or so Republican Senators.

Yeah, she has a pretty clear path, and I’m certain it must have occurred to her. She’s the one who marched across the House floor and violated their conduct rules to chase a Republican Congressman to tell him he’s “insignificant”. So with an ego like that, with her statement that women are superior to men (“rightful seat… at the head of the table”), with her frequent self-aggrandizing statements about how important her gender is (not women in general, I mean her statements about how important it is that she herself is a woman), that her position can’t be challenged by fellow Democrats because she is a woman, why wouldn’t she have thought of taking advantage of Republican squeamishness to clear a path to the White House? Who are Trump and Pence compared to the mighty Pelosi?

Children Of Battlezone (M1 Abrams Battle Tank, Battle Tank, Super Battletank, T-Mek, 1988-1994. Part 9 of the War Games series)


It’s because they’re obvious Battlezone knockoffs.

.Well, the elections are over so that makes this the last of this particular series, though I’ve got a few more games to review out of all this. A fitting way to end would be to revisit the follow-ups to a game covered in a previous entry, while also discussing a game that covers the last battle of the Cold War

Battle Tank


That enemy tank looks like an American-made M48 or an M60. Which is odd, because the only tanks with anything approaching a 150mm gun like the tank you drive in this game has are the American-made M551 Sheridan and M60A2 Starship, which mount a 152mm gun. The next closest gun on a tank is 128mm. You also fight Apache helicopters. Is this like a second Civil War?

Battle Tank on the NES puts you in the driver’s seat of a tank of some fictional variety. Ostensibly you’re playing as an M1 Abrams affiliated with NATO, but what you drive is not an Abrams and it looks very much like you are fighting NATO, based on the vehicles you encounter.

Battlezone already gave us first-person tank combat, and with its simple interface Battle Tank seems to follow-on in the Battlezone spirit (unlike one of the other games we’ll be getting to). Upgrades from the Battlezone formula include health, multiple weapons, and a better radar screen, as well as more enemies and actual missions to conduct. Rather than flying saucers, tanks, and missiles, in Battle Tank you face tanks, helicopters, random objects to destroy, minefields, and fortifications.


M60A2 “Starship”, the tank I assume you play as because the Abrams just isn’t as well-endowed with its barrel size. Image from the Danville, VA tank museum

It looks alright, and plays good especially compared to a game I will review in a moment. I found the controls awkward because I grew up with the many more buttons on the Super NES controllers, playing Super Battletank 2 (occasionally, but enough to build habits).




M-1 Abrams Battle Tank


A Soviet T-64, with the Soviet’s well-known trapezoidal prism chassis. The bright red feather at the top indicates it is a male. Female T-64s are attracted to the tank with the brightest feather, as they know that a T-64 with such distinct plumage must be a strong warrior to have survived natural predators like the M60.

It might be unfair to say these are all knockoffs of Battlezone just because Battlezone came first and was pretty much the same game. But even if such a statement were fair, Abrams Battle Tank would be an exception. It’s more of a simulator than a game. It was originally released on one of them thar 1980s computers I can’t be bothered to look up the name of. I never played the computer version, but my difficulty with the controls makes a lot of sense if the game originally took advantage of the many more buttons a keyboard offers.


First of all, I hate simulators. They’re dry and unfun because of their focus on realistic controls. One glaring flaw in that notion is when the simulator is of a vehicle that requires more than one person to operate it. 4 people are needed for an Abrams. So you simulate handling 4 positions at once. Could be worse, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy on the PC is a simulator where you simultaneously must manage the jobs of anywhere between 80 and 430 different people.


Is that supposed to be George H.W. Bush in the upper left? It looks like they shrank George W. Bush’s face and pasted it on Richard Nixon’s head.

Second, Abrams Battle Tank does it poorly. They should not have taken the 3D polygon approach. The game did not have a smooth framerate, which only exacerbated frustration caused by odd controls and needing to control so many positions at once. And controlling the tank gets very awkward. While Battle Tank had the turret move with the tank, always facing forward (with limited traverse to target the enemies in front of you), in Abrams Battle Tank the turret (and any point of view you scroll to that is based on it) could be facing whatever direction. So you could be facing front with the commander or driver perspective, but then end up staring in the turret’s direction from the gunner or cupola positions. And re-orienting the turret to the front is a bit difficult.


Third, it might’ve been easier on the computer but is really lousy on the Genesis. The buttons could certainly have been better- instead of scrolling through the different perspectives in the tank with a pop-up menu, you could do it with the number keys. It’s like the pacing was slowed by that, but they either didn’t care to change the rest of the gameplay accordingly or they just assumed the naturally slow nature of polygon graphics on video game systems at the time compensated.

Super Battletank


“…looks so real that you’ll wonder if it’s Super NES or CNN.” If it looks real then there’s no way it’s from CNN.


Back when “VCR-quality video sequences” was a selling point. Also, I think you are fighting T-72 tanks in the game. While Iraq did have T-62 tanks, most of the Iraqi heavy divisions had the T-72. Not like I can tell the difference.

Super Battletank isn’t simulating a fictional war between an M60A2 and the rest of NATO. Instead, it simulates the First Gulf War. It’s basically Battle Tank but with spiffy new graphics… and actual enemies that the U.S. fought. You still meet minefields and fight helicopters, tanks, fortifications, and have to blast various static objects.


From the Game Gear version.

You actually do get to drive an M1 Abrams in this game… I think. I’m pretty sure a real Abrams doesn’t have these big windows immediately under the cannon. Anyway, there are only 10 stages. I managed to get to stage 9, before being defeated by my own ignorance. You do I have a set amount of lives, but I was not counting so I don’t know how many.

You have I guess pretty much the same weapons in Battle Tank on the NES, and the same number of things you can control. You just have more buttons with which to control things.


This is what a Wii-U would’ve looked like in 1995.

This game came out across multiple platforms. No computers, but we did see it on SNES, Sega Genesis, and Game Gear. The Game Gear version looks pretty good, fairly similar to its console counterparts. I tried to get pictures from each, but it didn’t go too well with the Genesis version. First, my original copy simply didn’t work. I tried to find one in a used game store, and went to half a dozen but didn’t find it. Finally I find it and try it on my Sega Nomad (because my Genesis is 200 miles away), and sure enough my Nomad doesn’t work. I probably should have tested that console in the last 5 years, and maybe brought its battery pack too (without it, you can only power it via an outlet.


You’ll notice in the graphics for this game that they went for the best realism the console at the time could offer, achieved by scanning images for sprites rather than 3D polygon work. And it looked great; flowed smoothly, gave a level of realism within technological limits that worked well. Hear that guys behind M-1 Abrams Battle Tank?


that’s totally a T-72

Yes, I understand games like Star Fox on the SNES are meant to push the envelope of what the console can do, and not necessarily go for great artwork, but M-1 Abrams Battle Tank puts too much effort into being a realistic tank simulator for me to let them get away with lousy graphics when superior options were available. In other words- their controls were so bothersome and intricate and distracting to me that I want to complain about everything I can from that game. Hmph!

The Last Major Cold War Conflict

The Cold War still had 10 months left when the Gulf War wrapped in February of 1991. So while the Soviet Union was still around, they were able to see how their equipment faired against the West. While the Soviets had a few valid points in their post-Gulf-War review, sometimes they were just laughable. In comparing the T-62 and the M1 Abrams, a Soviet General said the T-62 was perfectly acceptable because the Abrams kept needing to have sand cleaned out of its filters. Which did nothing to affect how the gun works, and the gun of an Abrams routinely blasted Iraqi tanks before the Iraqi tanks could even get into firing range. However, as the article referenced above states, this was not a battle of Soviet vs American weaponry like the Korean War. Iraq’s military and training were mixtures of Soviet and Western practices, plus whatever they learned from their recent war with Iran. Iraq barely had Soviet advisers to tell them about what weapons they did have, and their technology was far behind what the West and even what the Soviets had (as you’ll see in the NYT article, Soviet leaders did admit to some inferiority).

But the Soviets seemed to have a bout of Multiple Personality Disorder when dealing with the Iraq crisis. Aside from “we have no advisers yes we do” schism, they also started by breaking with Iraq and condemning them both for invading Kuwait and wiping out Iraqi communists over the years. Yet they still kept their advisers and the like in there. Then of course the Soviets were/weren’t sharing their intelligence on Iraq with the U.S. Yeah, it was a mess and this fractured response was symbolic I guess of the Soviet Union’s dissolution.


Moving Right Along

Alrighty… maybe later I’ll cover Super Battletank 2. That had a fun new gameplay mode, but otherwise was fairly identical to Super Battletank.

As for this next section, since there is no way I could possibly write this after knowing how the midterms turned out, I wrote two different sections. One for a Republican victory, one for a Democratic victory. The first covers Republicans, the second Democrats… even though I wrote the second first because that’s what I expected, a Democratic House and another 4 years with Nancy “Hamas Is A Humanitarian Organization, MS-13 Are Divine Beings, and Republicans Are Legislative Arsonists” Pelosi as House Speaker because she is so connected in the Democratic Party that removing her would be like removing the screen from your monitor and expecting it to work. If Democrats sweep the House and Senate, section 2 is still mostly valid, just figure that they’ll have more progress in trying to impeach Trump but will still be wasting everyone’s time. Also, if section 2 is true, where the hell was Russia? Didn’t they hack the election already? Trump will be sending Putin a nasty letter for sure! And I guess the GOP kinda sucks at suppressing voters.

By the way, no better place to note it I guess, but Trump has actually been delivering on his promises. So with all the negative coverage, accusations of hatred that have led to no tangible policy measures (I’ll stop you right here- children in cages was Obama’s fault, and the liberal 9th Circuit Court’s ruling made child separation into law, and the travel ban was something Obama considered. Are liberal black Obama and the liberal 9th Circuit Court racists? Oh yeah, and to you folks at Vox, with your 2017 headline “Trump says Obama banned refugees too. He’s wrong.”, I guess since you liberal reporters gloat over having sex with mass murderer Fidel Castro you would not see Cubans as refugees, so you would not believe that the many Cubans who Obama banned from entering the U.S. were refugees.), it’s all aimed at carrying Democrats into power. Proof positive whose side ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Univision, Telemundo, and Hollywood are on. If any were impartial, this would’ve been reported. If you only had those networks for reality, America would right now be a place where a white male can go out and rape the first woman he comes across and gut the first black or Jew he sees, all while the economy is failing and Trump is sending illegal immigrants to concentration camps. That’s what the Left believes is happening. Depending on how the election went, I guess Americans might believe it too.

1. Communism Fell… Or Did It?


A mighty T-72, symbol of the USSR and communism, late of the Iraqi Army, crushes an unsuspecting car at the Danville tank museum.

The Midterms showed that the American voters were willing to put off communism for one more election cycle. But DNC Chairman Tom Perez noted that there weren’t any moderates left in the party, that socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (who believes you have no right to question her, your only role is to obey her commands; who believes that a male challenging her to a debate is sexual harassment, a belief which the Left immediately claimed was true as indicated by Jessica Valentine at Medium with her headline “Yes, demanding women debate you is like catcalling”.) was the future, with her unfunded policies and hatred of the liberal media because even they can’t make her interviews look good (She’s one of those slogan people Khrushchev was critical of in Khrushchev Remembers– the type of person who can spout Communist slogans, would give their life for Communism, but has no clue what they’re fighting for or what their slogans even mean… I like this, I wrote this line BEFORE I knew of how when asked how to pay for medicare her response was “you just pay for it”). So… some future for the party.

And the more they lose, the louder the liberal media screams. Until eventually the public thinks that so many screaming people can’t be wrong, or until the voices of m

oderation are drowned out by the screams. Or until the folks our liberal schools and colleges have been grooming to be good little Stalinists takeover.

So with another election not going the way they planned, what else can we expect from the Left? They still have two largely unassailed bastions of liberalism- the courts and the Deep State. Like with the many 9th Circuit Court cases, and the many Deep State acts of sabotage, we can expect this to be the crutch the Left leans on to get what they want.


The Left is being stubborn as a… as a… did I make this joke already? I’m not a fan of this symbol of communism. Needs less blue, more red, and change white for yellow.

But don’t be fooled by the crutch. The reason the Left isn’t using its left leg to walk is so that when they kick you with it you’ll be all the more surprised. I’m thinking of the mobs here. Like a faked injury, liberals in power and in the media claim that mobs aren’t a working part of their group. But they encourage the mobs, sic them on targets, and then liberal leaders claim that the threat of the very liberal mobs they encourage is enough to stop conservatives from entering their town. Mob rule, in other words, as we see in Portland. As we saw in Baltimore when the mayor told police to stand down.

My prediction, in other words, is the same five tactics the Left has been using since Hillary lost, except much more intense: officially smearing anyone disagreeing with them as being racist/sexist/Nazis/etc because liberals (much like their face of the future Ocasio-Cortez) can’t be bothered to argue their points and instead think you should just believe them merely because they tell you to, and if you don’t believe them then it’s not  because the liberal is wrong, it’s because you’re wrong, ie racist/bigoted/Nazi/or just stupid. Tactic 2 would be liberal courts passing the liberal agenda into law on their own, 3 would be the Deep State doing that as well, 4 would be mob violence, and 5 would be censoring opposing viewpoints while claiming to be a neutral centrist group- like liberal Google censoring Republicans and then claiming they’re not politically biased, with no Democrat talking points regardless of how extreme they are being censored.

And remember- the culture wars are ongoing. Communism has repeatedly failed, but the Left still wants to bring it to you. The idea keeps coming back. American youth now want it, badly. The media is happy with it too- even in 2009, Newsweek proudly declared that under Obama we were all socialists (which is ironic given how one of my college professors insisted that we didn’t have socialism, and given how many times the media claimed calling Obama a socialist was fearmongering). The Cold War ended, but it was not the end of history. We haven’t run out of history quite yet.

2. So… The Soviets Won This Cold War


Kiss it goodbye. Well, not literally unless you want a smear on your monitor, but you get the idea. Image from National Conference of State Legislatures.

Yup, even though Republicans kept the Senate, Democrats gained a majority in the House. We know what to expect- votes to engage impeachment hearings (on Trump and Kavanaugh) that will be just as futile as Republican votes to overturn Obamacare when Obama was still President. You remember- those safe ones that allowed RINOs to hide, until they had to put their money where their mouth was and we learned that fair-weather rightwingers were at best center-right, maybe center-left.

I don’t at all believe that the Democrats will have invited such people into their ranks. The most we could hope for there are 2016 Clinton liberals masquerading as Ocasio-Cortezes. I’ve been watching this circus closely for four years- it always seems like Republicans are the ones trying to hold themselves together and get the party to vote as one organ, while Democrats seem to do that every time it’s not just before an election (at which point those in red states have to pretend they’re just as red to keep their jobs).

I’ve already shared what liberal rule looks like. We all hope I’m wrong and that things will go alright, but as you’ll recall last time we had a Republican President, Democrats in Congress refused to let him stop the Housing Crisis, and Democrats just let the Housing Market burn, and then used that to win the 2008 elections. What will they do to regain the Senate and White House in 2020?


As you can see, white is not present on this flag. Image from wikimedia commons.

We’ve seen them attack people wholesale based on race and religion, we’ve seen them say people are guilty of crimes solely based on party affiliation that had nothing to do with those crimes (both with Kavanaugh and, let’s be honest, that whole Russian Collusion thing), we’ve seen them protecting Deep State swamp creatures (even going so far as to offer to hire them). So in all honesty we now have 4 years of corruption, gridlock, and destructive policies, while anti-White/anti-Capitalism/anti-American rhetoric will fill the airwaves even more since liberals will believe Democrats regaining the House was more than just a pattern as they dismissed it in 2010. They will tell America, as they have every day since Trump was elected, that we need to end our system of government and that anyone supporting Trump or Republicans is in the minority, and that what was a pattern merely 8 years ago is now a referendum.

They want to destroy white people, want white men GONE. They want to destroy males. They want to destroy our economic system. They want to destroy our economy. They want to destroy our position in the world, leaving power vacuums that countries like Russia can fill, much like ISIS filled the void Democrats were warned about. Which means these lines of thought are what Americans voted for. While it fits the pattern that we’ve seen for decades, as the media has conveniently forgotten with their “referendum on Trump” talk, in today’s political climate a very dangerous thing has been unleashed, like with Obama’s Presidency. Bouncing between Republican and Democrat is normal. But Obama came in and left us with a radicalized Democratic Party out to destroy the country. Now the tide is bringing that party back in. The anti-Trump, anti-America, anti-White, anti-Law screeching the media is prone to on every issue from terrorism to the economy will only increase now that they believe the public is listening. They’re not going to shut up, they’re going to rightly believe what they’re doing is working.

An undated picture shows German Nazi Cha

Pictured here is a gathering of America First and MAGA supporters, according to the Left. They had an odd way of showing it. Image from National Post

Democrats think you are a Nazi for supporting America, but Democrats also believe that joining the Taliban to kill American soldiers is perfectly acceptable. You’ll note in that link that the Democratic candidate for Arizona Senate believes Americans are the terrorists, like Don Lemon as you’ll see in a moment. Nicholle Wallace stated in the Nazi clip that to love this country is to be a Nazi, to put the interests of yourself and your home country above those of others like say China or Syria makes you a Nazi, while another Democrat says that it doesn’t matter if you join the Taliban to kill Americans. These are the people that just gained power in Congress. Elected officials sworn to serve America’s interests who think that doing so makes them Nazis.

What do YOU think they’re going to do? Democrat Don Lemon says whites are the largest source of terror, but Democrats have no problem if an American helps foreign Muslim terrorists kill Americans, in fact Lemon says we should not take action to stop Muslim or any other foreign terrorists from entering the country. This is mainstream thought on the Left, coming from candidates and mainstream media outlets. They dehumanize people they disagree with. They hate America (look here- Farrakhan, who Democrats love, is even chanting their party line that Obama‘s team tried to downplay as meaningless), hate Trump, hate white people, so they dehumanize them by equating them to pretty much the only villain’s they acknowledge in history aside from Confederates: Nazis. It’s ok to punch a Nazi, it’s ok to punch anyone who likes America, it’s ok to chase them out of public spaces (coming from the Washington Post no less), it’s ok to censor them, it’s ok to ban them, it’s ok to form mobs to attack them. How long before it’ll be ok to load them into boxcars (it’s already ok to try to assassinate them)? Seems like the Left is the one leaning towards Nazi ideology.


Maybe they made that statement after playing From Russia With Love, where Bond is a mass murdering terrorist who mass murders white terrorists and innocent Soviet soldiers.

So if you think Don Lemon declaring on CNN that white male Republicans are terrorists, that we don’t have to worry about terror threats from around the world and thus should open our borders to the next band of 9/11 hijackers, if you think Don Lemon, a mainstream thought leader listened to by mainstream allegedly centrist Democrats, if you think that rhetoric from him is outlandish, by the time 2020 rolls around you’ll be looking back and thinking he was very tame and controlled. Just like you’ll be looking back at the mobs in Portland, the mob that chased Milo Yiannopolous out of Berkeley and left injury and fire in their wake, and the mobs that chased Republicans out of restaurants and thinking how restrained they were. The mobs saw you vote the way they wanted you to vote, and realized their thus far non-lethal terrorism is working, and so will continue with it, maybe even intensify it. Afterall, with liberals dismissing mob violence, it’s not so crazy an idea that liberals will dismiss any charges against mobs once they’re in power. Like whites in the south not charging lynch mobs.

Liberals in power will not be so merciful or tolerant as conservatives. (Honestly, if they win enough seats to impeach Trump and make it stick, I would not be surprised if they acted on America’s “it’s legal to forcibly sterilize people” rule, and start sterilizing conservatives, probably in the name of fighting global warming. I did mention that some not-very-far-left figures wanted us to stop having babies to save the Earth, and since liberal scientists already view conservatives as inferior, genetically different with liberals having a liberal gene that makes them more open to differences despite the many displays of rancid intolerance you’ve seen presented to you here and in my past posts, it stands to reason that with the entire party radicalized -as party Chairman Tom Perez stated- anything can happen. The ideas and legal groundwork are all there, you can hardly call it paranoid ranting if they keep telling us this is what they want to do and already have the ideological, legal, and scientific infrastructure in place to make it happen. Remember- all rightwinger white males are terrorists, Lemon isn’t the only one who says so. Mainstream thought. If it’s ok to punch a Nazi, isn’t it ok to experiment on one too? 5 years ago you would be shocked to hear mob violence, and punching people, be considered good behavior and condoned by a mainstream political party, so who’s to say in 5 years we won’t be at this point either? It only took 10 years for Jews to go from discrimination to mass extermination, at the hands of the National Socialists. What will Ocasio-Cortez’s breed of Democratic Socialists do?)

Just an aside to debunk Don Lemon’s remark- he cites how jihadists killed more, but white male terrorists had led more attacks. This stat debunks his argument: those jihadists are a very small percent of the population. Just a couple of them in the country.



They launched fewer attacks. Yet more died. Meanwhile, whites are the MAJORITY race in this country. Statistically, if the terror statistics reflected the population, whites should have killed WAAAAY more than those few jihadists. But they didn’t. Whites killed fewer. Jihadists, even at the small fraction of a percent of the population that they’re at vs whites at’ 60%, are clearly more dangerous. Or to put the argument into language the Left understands: guns (whites) are big and scary and so widespread in the country and so prolific that we have a 1 in 315 chance of dying from them every year, while the chance of a car accident (Jihadists) killing you is  1 in 491. But only 38,000 people died from guns in 2016, versus 40,000 dying from cars. You, liberal, want to ban the gun (whites). So at least you’re logically consistent- you want to liquidate the lesser of two evils because it happens more frequently, and claim that you’re saving the world and ushering in a peaceful utopia by doing so. Also, like Don Lemon, you claim it’s a false comparison, that cars are above criticism, like how Don says he tells people not to criticize any ethnicity that isn’t white, according to his own words.

Also, let’s turn the Left’s word association games against them on the Lemon issue. Blacks are the largest bloc of terrorists in the country, exponentially moreso than whites. How? Only 106 deaths, according to Don, came from white terrorist attacks over many years. Blacks killed 7,405 other blacks in just one year, 2016. 17,250 people were killed that year. Blacks are 13% of the population, but responsible for 42.9% of the murders. We have statements along the lines of “most black killings in Baltimore were gang-related”, and if we are to believe Don Lemon and his ilk’s gun control meme then every shooting of a black person is by a gang member who illegally got a gun, or at least a black person who got a gun from a gang member. So what is a black gang? A local political group. What is a political group? People who come together to exert control over a region or a group of people or both, ie a gang. So when gangs use murders to intimidate people, to increase their political power, to destroy the political power of those nominally in charge of the area as evidenced by how black males at 6% of the population are behind 42% of police officer killings, isn’t that terrorism, since terrorism is the use of violence for political ends? Gangs kill to get power and stay in power. Terrorists kill for the exact same reason. So, Don, it seems your own skin color should, as you say, have travel bans placed on it. (Look, if Trump is literally Hitler as various media outlets and panels declared simply because he said he’s a nationalist, then black gangs get to be terrorists.)


What “winning” looks like to the Left. Images from AP, RWC, Fox News, and Quora

Yeah, at least 2 more years of the media thinking Lemon, mobs, screaming, and Stalinism is a successful strategy, with the DNC Chairman telling us it’ll only get worse. I’m not going to say Kristallnacht will happen tomorrow, even though Republicans have already been firebombed, shot, ran off the road, dragged behind cars, mobbed, chased out of restaurants, and the suggestion has been floated of denying Republicans the right to vote and the right to live, all of which I’ve discussed previously. But I will say I’ve heard glass shattering in the distance… probably the local RNC HQ. Or maybe, just maybe, that wasn’t glass shattering, but Fort Sumter taking a hit. Will the Left (who traded plantations for welfare, equality-for-only-the-whites for communism/equality-for-only-the-strong, and whips for peer pressure) rise again?

Bonus Stage!


I’ll end on a high note. T-Mek. It’s like Battlezone, and was made by Atari. Except Shao Kahn from Mortal Kombat exclaims things at various points, and you’re fighting for the amusement of an alien warlord or something. It’s easier than Battlezone, and you have more weapons to choose from.


Made by Atari, and even has the crosshairs and radar from Battlezone

It’s a fancy offering for your Sega 32X, one of the less-than-40 games made for it. If you’re collecting-to-collect it’s usually a cheap grab, but if you’re collecting-to-play then you’ll find this is superior to some other games, like BC Racers and that motorbike one. That one was AWFUL. BC Racers just had a bad frame rate and slow controls, not too shabby (except it runs worse than Super Mario Kart which it’s a clear imitation of), but T-Mek came off as faster.

What Do You Think?

Not much to say now. Polling places are closed, voting is done. I’ve said it all above. Try to have a good day (as mentioned before, I’m writing this the night before)?


James Bond 007: From Russia With Love (Xbox, 2005. Part 8 of the War Games series)

From_Russia_With_Love_Xbox_CD-I_bookAs 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.


Today, we briefly address matters of espionage and acts of war by taking a look at a video game which contains both: the video game ‘adaptation’ of From Russia With Love. This was released on Xbox, PlayStation 2, and Gamecube. I played maybe one level of it on the Gamecube 13 years ago, but went all-in and beat the Xbox version for this review.

The Game


Sean Connery voiced Bond in this game and was classy as always about it. That’s the highlight.


An airborne jetpack battle, with an attack helicopter too. I don’t seem to recall that scene from the movie.

It only loosely follows the plot of the film, but it is more faithful than GoldenEye on the PS3, with some locations being recreated quite well. You’re thrown into the action as you take part in a pre-credits sequence that seems more fitting to a video game adaptation of something bonkers (Bondkers?)  like “The Spy Who Loved Me” or “Moonraker”. In regards to scenes like this, the makers of the Bond movies once lamented that often they’d try to make something more grounded like “From Russia With Love” but end up with another “Thunderball”. Seems like the makers of this game just went full-tilt at that notion.


The game is nominally set around the time of the movie, 1963, but you get gadgets that no one would’ve thought possible at that time. Like your own remote-controlled helicopter drone the size of your head with a TV camera so you can see where it’s going, something which was only just coming into existence when the game was released. In just the next movie Goldfinger needs a laser the size of a man to cut through metal. In this game, Bond has a laser watch. 20 years before he would ‘really’ get one, in “Never Say Never Again” and 32 years before he’d ‘officially’ get one in “GoldenEye” (quotes around officially and really because “Never Say Never Again” was made by a different studio and competed directly with an “official” Bond film, “Octopussy”, leading to an event the media dubbed “Battle of the Bonds”. “Octopussy” won, but probably because it came first. It certainly wasn’t better than “Never Say Never Again”).

You also fight a combat drone. No indication is given about whether its remote-controlled, which was possible at that time, or automated.

The general plot goes like this: Octopus (a S.P.E.C.T.R.E. stand-in, because at the time the name S.P.E.C.T.R.E. was still in a rights battle, as well as the plot to the book “Thunderball” which introduced them, which is how another studio was able to make a Bond movie in 1983. The court-settled rights-holder was able to get a Bond movie made. And it turned out to be, in the learned opinion of my brother and myself who have been watching Bond films for 20+ years, one of the best two. “Diamonds Are Forever” was the other of the best. The rest go from “ok but has plot holes and looks terrible” to “laughably bad plot and hilarious visuals”) is setting up a situation where Bond can steal a Soviet decoding machine, and then Octopus will steal it from Bond. And Bond blows a lot of stuff up. Cars, tanks, jetpacks, a jet, people, a drone carrying machine guns, helicopters, boats, and buildings. Not much spying in a lot of places, emphasis seems to be on shooting.


Women drivers, amiright?

In addition to characters from the movie, a new female assassin has been introduced to help Red Grant (in the book/film, Grant was SMERSH/S.P.E.C.T.R.E.’s assassin hired to steal the decoding machine from Bond). She says little and does less. Red Grant’s role is on the other hand is expanded. Personally I think he should have died when you first fight him, and they should have left the giant death machine final boss to the lady assassin instead of killing her off earlier with her own utter stupidity (she flies a jet into a closed door, one that was shut for the whole time you were in the stage), but that’s why I don’t make games I guess…


Aside from the James Bond wallpaper, this could be any old third-person shooter. The controls are pretty standard (though I had some difficulty since I’m not terribly used to the Xbox controller’s layout, more specifically I don’t know which of the 6 buttons on the right is which without looking- I didn’t own any kind of Xbox until 2015). With the jetpack, it seems like just an updated “Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire” (maybe I’ll get to that media circus one day), minus the ability to switch to first-person and ability to target anything. There are “James Bond moments” hidden throughout this game, which involve almost mundane things compared to what the mission needs you to do. This concept was first introduced to me in “James Bond 007: Agent Under Fire”.


Targetting. You need to press the left-trigger on the Xbox controller. That will target an enemy somewhere on the screen, usually farthest from you. And if an enemy moves behind an object, there is a chance your lock will be broken. There is also a chance you will lock onto the person at such an angle where your gun will empty its ammo at an obstruction, even though you can clearly see the enemy. It’s not consistent. Like if there’s an enemy behind an object and he pokes his head around the corner you mostly will be able to target him but sometimes won’t. It’s a mess. And there’s no viable way to just aim without the targeting system active. Oh, by the way, when you lock on a target, good luck locking onto another. Sometimes it works, sometimes no.

A second button triggers something else while targetting that can be quite useful, or very painful. You press it while targetted, and get a small yellow dot showing where your bullet will go plus several circles indicating places to shoot. This lets you in some cases aim at a grenade hanging from someone’s belt, causing it to drop and blow up anyone nearby. On enemies sliding down on ropes from the ceiling, this allows you to shoot the ropes so the enemies fall to their death. It can be painful if you shoot the grenade off while the person is right next to you, as I found out when I aimed a shotgun at their chest and some of the shot knocked the grenade off.

From_Russia_With_Love_Xbox_RuinsAnd now we get to the “bonus stage”- the Ruins. Bonuses are supposed to reward you. Not this one. In this stage, all of the flaws in targetting are exposed. I ran out of profanity when trying to play through that stage. I finally beat it! There are lots of obstructions to let the enemies hide and break your targeting lock. The level itself is composed of wave after wave of enemies in a bland, dark, musicless environment that’s mostly boring monochromatic rectangles. You complete a floor, go into a hall, go to another floor, go to another hall, go to a floor, etc. As long as this level is, there is no halfway point. Most of the other levels I’ve played in this game have one, but not this one. Ammo is a luxury here, and of course the game automatically switches to the gun with the LEAST ammo and the lowest rate of fire when you run out of ammo with a different weapon.

Some misc complaints that only warrant a sentence are as follow:

  • The camera is slow too. And on the boat stages when manning the gun? Don’t bother zooming, the camera moves twice as slow. The enemies move too fast for it to be anything more than a hindrance.
  • Enemies out of nowhere, enemies you can’t aim at but who are taking out all your health.
  • Doesn’t really bring it to your attention that your gun is changing, so you’ll suddenly realize that you’re not shooting anymore when you should be.

I guess my evaluation is this: if you liked the book, watch the movie. If you liked the movie, read the book. If you like the book, read Khruschev Remembers to learn more about two of the Soviet leaders mentioned (Ivan Serov and Lavrentiy Beria- Stalin himself was scared of Beria). If you like either the book or the movie, don’t expect anything like it from this game.



In the movie, Bond killed no Russians. He did kill Russian-hired Bulgarians- local hitmen. Not so in the game. Bond kills hundreds of Russian soldiers, destroys armed Russian cars, and destroys a Russian tank. He blasts his way into a Russian embassy, steals plans to it, steals a Russian jetpack, and massacres a bunch of Russians on his way out. It is impossible to believe World War III did not start from all of this.

Acts Of War

You’ll recall that the Left wants a war with Russia and wants a Civil War, in all ways acting like the few Bolsheviks in 1917 who wanted to continue the war with Germany as well as fight the Russian Civil War. Maybe liberals figure that if we have traditionally conservative soldiers deployed overseas, it’ll be easier for them to wage a Civil War at home?

What’s interesting to me is this: in attacking Saudi Arabia over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, liberal outlets noted that Saudi Arabia’s blockade of Qatar was an act of war. Liberals failed to note that President Trump killing 200 Russian soldiers with his missile strikes at Syria also constitutes an act of war. In fact, the Left would have you believe we’ve surrendered to Russia without a war even starting.

What War?


What’s ironic is that billionaire Soros, whose organizations are funding communist protests, actually funded protests against the USSR according to one of my college professors years ago.

But as I mentioned in my last post, the Left had moved on from war with Russia, though it’s still there as a backup narrative in case they lose the midterms. Right now the Left is focused on the crazy Trump supporter who sent pipe bombs to CNN, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, and various other targets of Trump’s rhetoric, as well as focused on trying to tell us that the anti-Semite who hates Trump massacred a synagogue because Israel-loving Donald told him to (“After Fanning the Flames of Anti-Semitism, Trump Is Hiding Behind the Pro-Israel Defense”, as Slate phrased it in a headline. What was Trump’s crime? Being critical of George Soros. You see, according to the Left, if someone who is LGBTQ/Jewish/a minority/a woman does something you don’t like, and you criticize that person, you hate everyone who is LGBTQ/Jewish/a minority/a woman. Because I guess according to the Left either those groups are incapable of doing wrong, or everyone in that group does wrong thus we can’t say it’s wrong. You figure it out, I don’t care anymore. CBS is out there with talking heads saying Trump is evil for being anti-Semitic, yet they’re trying to make us pity Iran which has built up an anti-Semitic record of its own, outside its daily hatred of Israel).

Let’s compare the Left’s reactions to similar events, shall we? Pipe bombs which didn’t explode, with some that couldn’t have exploded, are sent to liberals that Trump criticizes, thus Trump is evil and his words inspire bombers. A liberal shoots Republican congressman and actually injures them, and according to liberals their assassination threats against Trump have nothing to do with the actions of this crazy guy and the real problems are gun control and Republicans spreading hate (liberal outlet Vox noted in a headline “Blaming “heated political rhetoric” is the most useless response to a shooting”, with this being the only political attack they’ve applied that to). That’s right- after months of hearing mainstream news figures, ACLU personnel, and celebrities talk about the need to kill Trump and his supporters, after Hillary basically labels half of Trump’s supporters Lebensunwertes Leben, after mainstream liberal voices say Trump and Republicans will kill people, if a liberal picks up a gun and shoots Republicans then it’s the fault of Republicans. Entirely. They’re to blame for liberals calling them murderers, and they’re to blame when a liberal tries to murder them. Whereas when an anti-Bush Trump supporter who made a bomb threat while Trump was still a Democrat mails pipe bombs to people Trump is rightfully critical of, that automatically means Trump is to blame too.


It’s just a game.

And just ignore various murder attempts on Republican candidates and Republican Congressmen. The murder attempts mean as little as the lives of the potential victims, according to the Left, or so I’d assumed based on the lack of coverage these events have. A month before the pipe bomb issue, a Republican Congressional candidate in California was almost stabbed to death by a liberal. No national news coverage. Quite obvious whose side the media is on, as I like saying we no longer have to give a hypothetical “what about…” scenario, we can just say outright “when x happened to this Republican, you were silent”.

Then we have an interesting encounter Steven Crowder had with Texas Democrats. One of them instructed her twitter followers to firebomb his van. He saw her at a Democrat convention and challenged her on that point. She was silent, and a crowd formed around him. They called him a Nazi and chanted that “healthcare is a human right”, but not one of them condemned calling for him to be firebombed. The chick in question finally said vans are inanimate objects, but had no response aside from chanting a slogan when asked about the people inside the van who would have been killed. One person even accused Crowder of being a snowflake for complaining that someone demanded he be firebombed. Fast-forward to October when a Trump supporter sends pipe bombs to liberals. Not a joke now, is it.

The same liberals who thought it would’ve been great if Crowder were firebombed and called him a Nazi are outraged that someone dared send pipe bombs to their political leaders. But remember- they set the tone for this by encouraging violence first. It was, sadly, only a matter of time before a Trump supporter responded to the Left’s disregard for human life with the same thing. And the Left was waiting for that, because they were in need of an electoral victory. I’m almost wanting to say they were hoping someone would send them bombs in the mail so they could use it as propaganda, and I can fully understand people who believed that the pipe bombs were a false flag. The Left did everything it could to provoke a response, and then ran with it once they got what they wanted.

Anti-Semitic Reaction

The Left has another interesting reaction- New York Magazine declared that Trump is an anti-Semite who just hasn’t said he hates Jews. The same Trump whose son-in-law is Jewish. The same Trump who is pals with Israel, which the Left hates. Simply because Trump is critical of George Soros, a Jew, that makes Trump anti-Semitic. So it was stated in the wake of an anti-Trumper shooting up a synagogue. Even when the guy hates Trump, the Left still blame him for it.


The media says you should pity and support people that tell you this did not happen, and then claim Trump is the only evil anti-Semite, and claim Trump is bullying said people that don’t believe this happened.

What the Left was silent on is how under Obama, and still on college campuses, anti-Semitism, especially among liberals, was quite active too. Don’t let distorted stats and fake new fool you. Liberals hate Jews. So when they smear Trump as anti-Semitic and look for any excuse they can think of to justify it, it’s merely to deflect from their own deep-seated anti-Semitism. Yes, it is possible to be Jewish and anti-Semitic too, for those of you wondering why the Jew-owned media (not anti-Semitism, it’s actually true for CBS, NBC, and ABC. But not CNN. I thought saying “Jew-owned media” was a stereotypical anti-Semitic attack and tried to do research to debunk it, whereupon I found there is truth to it.) would betray its own. Just look at a certain woman named Stella Kübler-Isaacksohn. In particular they support Palestine, and in case you weren’t aware Palestinian attitudes towards Jews are about equal to Nazi attitudes. Anyone else rememebr when liberal Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), leader of Democrats in the House, once said Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization, was in fact a humanitarian group.

Also, liberals interrupted a moment of silence for the victims of the synagogue shooting. And Twitter, self-appointed Leftwing censor, does not censor anti-Semitic tweets even though it readily and happily censors anything from tweets insulting CNN anchors to tweets calling traitor Chelsea Manning a traitor. Users are suspended or banned for the latter two, while comparing Jews to termites is acceptable according to Twitter. Let’s not also forget the many Democratic ties to Louis Farrakhan.


This would of course be RINOs, like a certain GOP representative who sided with the liberals mentioned above who blamed Trump for Rep. Scalise being shot by a liberal after months of liberal assassination threats. Well, that’s how I’ll segue into this section. This title can refer to a lot as I’ll go into later, it’s sort of a catch-all after I wrote myself into a corner when trying to keep up with current events above.


A British spy sneaking around a Soviet tank is infiltration. A British spy sneaking over to a machine gun to destroy a Soviet tank (something not really possible with a T-55 tank) is an act of war.

To tie this section in with the page overall- one thing I did little of as Bond in the game was infiltration, actual spying. The closest I got to it was a few seconds re-enacting the scene from the movie where we learn Russian clocks are always correct. I would not call shooting your way into an embassy to steal plans, or shooting your way into an embassy to steal a decoding machine, “spying”. In the film, Bond simply took advantage of the panic caused by a bomb explosion to steal the machine. In the game, I guess Bond IS the cause of the panic. And soldiers shoot at him, as mentioned above. Not really much “spying” here… unlike the communist spy ring that gave our atomic secrets to the Russians. And yet we’re told McCarthy was a scary crazy man, told that the Stalinist Hollywood 10 who loved his purges were totally not communists and were innocent. Liberals see everything as Russian interference today, but saw nothing as Soviet interference back then. I guess when your ideals of purging political foes and iron-fisted rule over the populace align so well, it’s hard to tell where Soviet interference ended and liberalism began.

Anyway, matching definitions of “infiltration” more accurate than the video game’s, we have Democrats insisting that no one is leaving the party, that Russian bots have infiltrated twitter to make it look that way as mentioned above. How convenient that Russians have infiltrated all these things, including our elections. So what happens if Democrats win? Does that mean the Russians wanted them to win?

What will probably happen is the DNC will conveniently forget about how rigged they say the system was against them. Sure Trump said the system was rigged and forgot about that once he won, but he also cited Bernie Sanders as an example of the system being rigged, and how right was Trump on that? Very.

Speaking of cybersecurity threats, anyone remember how Hillary Clinton’s email server was (and was probably, depending on the link you clicked) hacked during an act of cyber spycraft? Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) certainly does not.

No Infiltration Needed

Here’s an example of other ways intelligence operates. Aside from sending Bond in to kill half the Russian army and blow up a few helicopters and tanks, sometimes information is obtained simply from leakers. Like certain Islamic staffers that belonged to various Democrat officials at different points in their careers, who sold info to foreign intelligence services. I mention “Islamic” because Democrats tried to say the accusations were examples of Islamophobia when defending their staff members. In fact, contrary to the treatment Democrats gave Kavanaugh’s accuser, they said accusations by a Muslim woman against these two staffers of abusing her were an act of Islamophobia. That’s right, if you are a woman accusing a white man then we should believe you, but if you are a woman accusing Keith Ellison or Democratic Muslims then you are a liar. Worse, if you accuse Democratic Muslims you’re a bigoted woman. Welcome to the Left.

What Do You Think?

Looks like such a fun game, vote Democrat and make it happen! Remember- liberals want spies EVERYWHERE. Like with Stalin, they want you to know that saying the wrong thing will make you an unperson. So you can’t even let yourself think it, lest your best friend observes a slight change in your behavior and has you arrested. We already see liberals tearing families and friendships apart over political disagreements (I blame liberals here because they prove to be more intolerant- aside from studies, we have hard evidence: when Obama won the cities were peaceful, when Trump won liberals burned them down), if they had the option to arrest a stranger do you think they’d pass on it? Just ask Kavanaugh for that answer.


Meanwhile, the Left wants a war going on. To kill off conservative soldiers (whom they see as potential terrorists anyway) and distract you from what they’re doing domestically, or even to give them an excuse for decreasing our freedoms domestically. Remember- that’s what they accused Bush of doing with the Patriot Act at the onset of the War on Terror, that’s what FDR did to Japanese-Americans in World War II, so it’s not like this is a new tactic or so ridiculous that it never has reached our shores.


There wasn’t a game over screen that I saw, so instead enjoy this acknowledgment that I published this post on Halloween.

WarGames and War Room (Colecovision, 1983-1984. Part 7 of the War Games Series)

WarGames-War-Room-ColecovisionAs 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 IMDB

Today, we again address the Left’s warmongering. Civil War, war with Russia, and now war with Saudi Arabia. Russia has nukes, and for Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons are a phone call away, or in the case of liberals in the U.S. just a dump truck in downtown Manhattan away. So let’s address the more classical notion of nuclear war by looking at “War Games” and “War Room” on the Colecovision.


We have played out a variety of attack strategies on the new Kutuzov computer. I wanted to say that in the more appropriate context of reviewing “NATO Commander”, but I don’t have the money for such advanced machinery as is needed to play that.


WarGames-Colecovision-Title-ScreenOf course I had to cover this one. It’s the name of the whole series! But originally I didn’t even think of it; I’ve had the game a year or two now so I kind of forgot about it.

Everyone remembers the movie, right? No? Adolescent Matthew Broderick spends half the film shirtless, then a computer runs a tic-tac-toe simulation until realizing it will never beat itself, then applies that to nuclear war and realizes there’s no winning a nuclear war. The end.WarGames-Colecovision-Difficulty-Screen

The video game is a simulation of a nuclear war. You start by picking your difficulty level. Next, you go to a screen showing the continental U.S.A., because contrary to Jim Carrey’s histrionics, I guess no one cares enough to target Hawaii. Or Alaska, but that’s probably because fallout could blow into Russia if they’re not careful.


All 3 delivery methods seen here. The white F-4 Phantom indicates a Russian jet (blue is yours), the white submarine is a Russian sub, and the white dotted lines are incoming missiles. I doubt Soviets would like having their forces portrayed as white, given their little conflict with the White Army.

Soviet nuclear weapons are delivered by three different methods: submarine, ICBM, and bomber. But that’s ok, because you can stop them with your attack subs, anti-Ballistic-Missile missiles (as discussed in the piece about Missile Command), and interceptor squadrons. It’s the 1980s so luckily your interceptors are useful, unlike the F-94C and F-89D.


The controls are… well, you need the overlay to understand what the heck is going on. Just sitting there pressing random buttons did not work for me. I figured out that the first 6 buttons controlled which region of the U.S. you were looking at, and that one of the buttons took you back to the overall map, but that was it. I was not able to determine that the bottom-left button selected submarines, the bottom-middle WarGames-Colecovision-Missile-Commandselected anti-missile missiles, and the bottom-right selected interceptors. Once you’ve selected your method fo defense, you must move your crosshair to where you want it to go, and then press one of the buttons on the side of the controller to activate it. Submarines will move where you send them and stay there, destroying any enemy that comes to it. The interceptors will fly to the location you select, but then return to base once they reach it. You can keep them moving around if you guessed wrong. The missiles


Pressing 1 shows screen A (pictured earlier, with the caption describing enemies), pressing 2 shows screen B, etc.

explode once they reach their target.


The goal of the game isn’t to blow up everything coming in, that’s actually quite impossible. Some sections of the map have ICBMs coming at you, but no missiles to shoot them down with. Other sections might have bombers or subs coming in, but nothing to counter them with. Plus you can’t really be everywhere at once. In the time it takes to clear up a strike in one region, another probably took several hits.


Counterstrike averted? Guess Hillary wasn’t in office. Or the foe sent her a barge full of cash.

So what is the goal of the game? You spend 8 minutes trying to keep the overall DEFCON level from staying at “1” for one minute. If that happens, a massive counterstrike is launched and the world ends. You must limit the damage to America from incoming Soviet nuclear strikes until a ceasefire can be negotiated. Apparently, ceasefires in a nuclear war take only 8 minutes to hammer out.



Though to many Leftists, the electoral disadvantage brought on by that little white dot indicating a fireball where San Francisco used to be might as well mean the end of the world, based on how they react to Republican victories.

I liked this game. The cursor moved nicely. The game is actually easier than it sounds (my first time playing it on easy was a win). I’d go so far to say that it’s easier than Missile Command, though that might be because unlike Missile Command you only have to last 8 minutes in this game. It’s quick, it’s frantic hopping from area to area keeping up with where the big map shows enemies coming in, and you end the game knowing that the world didn’t end with it.


I’m not saying much about the sound here because it’s just your typical beeps and boops from consoles of this era. Not that I could hear much, my TV played a heavy overlay of static over the game’s sounds.

War Room


Despite all my complaints, I did like the title screen. I liked the fact that it even had one (Colecovision games tend to have the generic one you saw above for WarGames, which is what’s displayed when you turn the system on). What won me over was the little nuclear war animation at the top.


The white circle with 4 extensions in the middle is your satellite, move it over the black plus sign in the lower righthand corner and then fire your laser at it to save a city.

This game is much like WarGames, except it came out a year earlier. You have a satellite icon that serves as crosshairs that you move across the screen, and pick off enemy missiles with its laser. This was based on Reagan’s Star Wars idea, but has no relation to Star Wars on the Colecovision (which I’ll get around to writing about eventually, I’ve had the screenshots for 4 months). The missiles are dropping on population centers in the U.S., areas that can resupply your satellite.



Ok genius, YOU tell me which button it is.

You have only a finite amount of resources, including laser blasts. When you run low on a supply, press one of the buttons (I forget which, there’s 14 on that controller and I just hit them at random) and a minigame for supply gathering starts. You maneuver Uncle Sam around the screen picking up supplies, but avoiding Hammer-And-Sickles. If one of these catches you, the city becomes Soviet territory and begins hemorrhaging nuclear missiles at your other cities. Like a volcano of nuclear weapons erupted.


I can see myself liking this one except for one glaring problem: moving the satellite. As you might notice in the picture, you have a nice round joystick. But in the game, you cannot move diagonal, and the joystick has to be pointing left, right, up, or down, ie to traditional d-pad directions. And the joystick is a bit big to be moving with just my thumb, I need it and another finger to work it. Imagine playing Super Mario Bros., but whenever you want to move right you have to place two fingers on a small joystick pad and pull right. The stick is too small to grip with your full hand, like what I was doing with Mario Bros. on the Atari consoles. But even at that, the directional controls just seemed more responsive, it felt like with War Room I had to be more precise. Notice too that WarGames had no such issue, it’s solely the fault of the developers of War Room.

It’s either Uncle Sam or that guy from Monopoly. Pick up the stuff that isn’t a Hammer-and-Sickle, and don’t get struck by said implements of Communism.
Otherwise your city becomes a Hammer-and-Sickle block, and lobs nukes at other parts of the country.









They Want Real War

While Civil War and war with Russia both were fighting for dominance in Democrat thought, and applicability to the midterm elections (after a year of public disinterest in nuking Russia, it seems Dems settled on Civil War), the Saudi Arabian thing is quite recent. Why are we now seeing Saudi Arabian actions as acts of war, why are we saying Saudi Arabia committed an “act of war against humanity” (actual Daily Kos headline)? Because they killed Bin Laden’s best friend (that’s probably hyperbolic), a radical Islamist, and in general the last person you’d expect to find the Washington Post publishing if liberals actually valued the things they claim to value.


“Pffffft, дилетанты”

Granted, Saudi Arabia did it terribly, poorly, and until evidence comes out I’ll say probably for not a very good reason, but that’s like arguing that if Stalin ordered the NKVD to kill Hitler because Hitler said a mean thing about him, then Stalin declared war on humanity. Stalin isn’t a good person, it’s a petty reason, but no one would miss the slime that was cleaned up. At best with Bin Laden’s Buddy, we shouldn’t care that he himself is dead, we should just be concerned about why the Saudis might have done it. No more concerned than the average liberal is when a black kills another black.

The same liberals who got worked up over this cheered Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) when she said that Kavanaugh was guilty of rape because of his political views, and cheered when John Hinkley jr tried to kill Ronald Reagan, and rooted for the many people threatening to assassinate President Trump are saying that it was wrong for Saudi Arabia to kill someone just because they disagreed with their politics. In other words- abandoning the law and destroying someone’s life, whether in Hirono’s “might-as-well-be-lethal-because-he’d-be-called-a-rapist-forever” way or the Left’s preferred “bullet-to-the-brain” way, is perfectly acceptable to liberals if it’s to their advantage.


Maybe liberals think all of the threatening tapes were mistranslations of Bin Laden’s really bad American Idol auditions?

Which begs the question- why do they count Bin Laden’s friend who wanted to Islamize the world as one of their friends? Why did the Washington Post publish his stuff to begin with? The best answer I have is that Saudi Arabia’s current Crown Prince is allegedly a progressive reformer, which the Left hates (liberals love the Muslim Brotherhood, covered for them, and don’t mind at all women and the LGBTQ community being oppressed, just so long as it’s by an America-hating Muslim group), and Trump got real buddy-buddy with the self-proclaimed reformer. You know, the people that Bin Laden’s friend used his platform to criticize because he wants to remove Western values from the Middle East, the people that want historically oppressed groups to be less oppressed. Traditional liberal allies, thrown under the bus like when Stalin betrayed the German Communist Party (my source for Stalin doing that is Khrushchev Remembers, one of the notations).

The oldest opinion piece Washington Post has from Bin Laden’s Buddy is Nov. 17, 2017. A little over a week prior, the ruler of Saudi Arabia arrested a bunch of people who both were corrupt and in the way of him having power. Kind of like what Democrats want to do to our government, starting with either Kavanaugh or Trump or both, except Democrats don’t really care about the corruption part, they’d say “impeach” if Trump jaywalked. Trump encouraged this arresting behavior by Saudi Arabia’s leadership. 6 months prior to that, Trump went to Saudi Arabia and signed an arms deal.

What a coincidence- Saudi Arabia and Trump are pals, and right after Trump supports one of their pseudo-authoritarian (the arrested folks were kept in a 5-star hotel) moves, Washington Post starts publishing a writer who is critical of that Saudi Arabian leadership- Bin Laden’s friend. I’d say politics makes strange bedfellows, but liberals are quite fond of terrorists if their principal targets are America or its allies, and certain folks in a position to know would say liberals and terrorists only differ in their level of violence and what they use to justify their oppressive ways. That also explains the curious case of journalists liking Turkey despite how many journalists languish in Turkish prisons, as mentioned in my last post. As for why Bin Laden’s chum fled, well, he did have a history with the Saudi Royal Family and the Crown Prince was cleaning up corruption/enemies there, while Bin Laden’s Buddy’s Buddy’s Mentor tried to kill the Crown Prince’s uncle (his father’s half-brother).

In Memoriam

  • Jamal Khashoggi was a journalist, not a jihadist (CNN)
  • Trump just literally put a price tag on Jamal Khashoggi’s life (Vox, who routinely put price tags on infant minorities with their pro-choice support and the many dollars their politicians get from Planned Parenthood) 
  • “DON’T MOURN FOR KHASHOGGI”: INSIDE THE FEVERISH CESSPOOL OF THE PRO-SAUDI RIGHT (Vanity Fair again. To the wandering Vanity Fair eye, you’ll note I didn’t particularly consider what Saudi Arabia did good, just that your Saint Jamal is a sinner with the worst of them)
  • In death, Saudi writer’s mild calls for reform grew into a defiant shout (Washington Post)
  • Khashoggi was a free speech warrior and the latest casualty in a global war on journalists (USA Today, you’ll note that Bin Laden’s Buddy opposed free speech contrary to this blatant bit of propaganda, which Bin Laden’s Buddy himself may have been author of with the Left buying it hook, line, and sinker. I also find it odd that his posthumous piece had such climactic things to say about open societies and freedom of the press, like he knew he was about to die? Or like someone at Washington Post decided to write it? If he did write it, it’s as laughable as North Korea claiming to be the “Democratic People’s Republic Of Korea”.)

A Liberal’s ideal vision of Saudi Arabia’s capital. Not pictured: any living members of the government. I’ll be covering the source of this picture in 2 weeks.

Yup, the media just loved their friend and are outraged Trump isn’t bombing Saudi Arabia or whatever. Their friend used one of his Washington Post pieces to praise the Muslim Brotherhood. Their friend has been all about ending democracy in the Middle East. But as I explained last time, the Left has been all about ending democracy here, so like I said- they’re kindred spirits. No wonder they got along so well.

How To Stop The War(s)

Why’d I type that? I have no clue. If given power, the Left will carry out the threats I mentioned last time and restructure society. If left out of power, they’ll riot as Hillary Clinton noted. Luckily just enough time has passed that maybe they’ll have forgotten about their Russian war rhetoric so we can avoid re-enacting “War Room” and “WarGames”, and instead we’ll just be invading Saudi Arabia, killing the ruler, and leaving a hotbed of slavery and chaos much the same way Democrats did with Libya.

Or Saudi Arabia will drop a few million for some Iranian missiles and Pakistani nukes, then send them airmail special to Leftwing cities like Washington DC and New York. Or dispense with the formality of an ICBM and just give ISIS a nuke and tell them to have fun coming up the border that Democrats refuse to secure despite the possibility of terrorists coming in through it (note in that link that the Guatemalan President talks of arresting Middle Easterners, meanwhile liberal outlets deny that any terrorists would try to sneak in this way. Do the math- if you are a Middle Eastern terrorist and you see how easy it is for Middle Easterners to get into your biggest target, what would you do? Notice too that the Washington Post is trying to deny that these Islamic terrorists, with whom they seem to have a rapport as established earlier, would enter the country through the border that Washington Post does not want secured. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but at what point do we stop giving them the benefit-of-the-doubt that they’re just stupid partisans?).

What Do You Think?

Looks like such a fun game, vote Democrat and make it happen! Since these two games -fun/winnable as WarGames is and unplayable as War Room is- are much like Missile Command both in theme and objectives, I didn’t want to just rehash the Russian warmongering and nuclear annihilation promised in that one. Fortunately, liberals gave me a way to cover Bin Laden’s Buddy (Jamal Khashoggi, I will finally name him down here at the end) and still talk of warmongering.

The Democrat media has come out loving this journalist, the leaked emails from the DNC showed the depth of collusion between the media and Democrats (as do their donations), so what more do I need to say before it’s taken as granted that what you see in New York Times and Washington Post is what passes for mainstream thought in the Democratic Party? And if those guys (and Obama) are out there aiding jihadists, weeping that an Islamist can no longer talk about how great the Muslim Brotherhood is using the Washington Post as a platform, with the Post hailing him for being a positive reformer, with other outlets saying that his calls for government to censor reporters are free speech, then what does that tell us about what mainstream Democrats think? (As for censoring speech, bear in mind what mainstream Democrats have said about the government being allowed to edit Facebook posts to remove what Democrats think is fake news)

So… they want an unsecure border, don’t care that terrorists can sneak in, want to destroy our alliance with a moderate force (and reaffirm our alliance with Iran, which regularly shouts “Death To America”, something probably also heard in the halls of Washington Post HQ just as frequently), celebrate Bin Laden’s Buddy as a hero, think censorship is free speech, and want nuclear war with Russia. Does ANY of this sound like a good idea?




Guerrilla War (NES, 1987. Part 6 of the War Games Series)


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.

The Game


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

Khrushchev-Remembers-Front-CoverI 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.

Today’s Guerrillas


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

severed head

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?

The Purge


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?


Not quite…

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?