The Third Word War (Sega CD, 1994, Residual From The War Games Series, Cheat Post)

I assume the reason the words are curved at the bottom is that this is on a flatscreen CRT TV but the video input signal is either being output or processed like it’s for the convex-screen models. It happens on other games too, you may have noted it in my Doom post.

As I said 4 years ago…

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.

That “let’s-wait-for-war attitude” remark is more reflective of the time I originally wrote it, at which point Democrats had briefly softened their warmongering from its 2017 levels (where Democrats wanted a nuclear war with Russia because they lost an election and blamed it on Russia… so protesting in the Capitol on January 6 because you thought an election was stolen is worse than trying to trigger a nuclear war because you thought an election was stolen- which Democrats STILL believe (despite scandal-free Obama and members of his team debunking it) while saying Republicans are terrorist Nazis who believe “the big lie” if they think 2020 was stolen).

Anyway, today we’ll look at a game I had wanted to do 4 years ago but didn’t get around to.

The Game

Imagine the game Civilization but you choose who to attack with a drop-down menu and the only time you get to move units on a map is when you start a battle and enter the Real-Time Strategy part of the game. Also you don’t even have to attack if you have enough money to buy out the foe.

I first tried to play as Russia, thinking I could mimic the moves that led to the Ukraine crisis. Instead, it turned out the world was totally bananas so that wasn’t going to work. Then the video output glitched (already here you can see it’s darker than usual) so I had to shutoff the console and try again.

It looks like something you’d play on a computer: you have a cursor and drop-down menus where you select what you want to do, and then the chance for some numerical inputs. You have a set amount of money in each turn, and can only take a couple of actions before you’re not allowed to act anymore (there’s a counter for it). You can invest the money in yourself or other countries. The benefit of foreign investment is you can either make them friendly or conquer their economies.

Now comes the “Third World War” part. You have military units you can send out, plus you can launch different types of attacks on a foreign country without invading. Surprisingly for a game named “Third World War”, your nuclear strikes are limited and don’t escalate to the world blowing itself apart. Maybe Putin played this before making his nuclear threats?

What’s interesting is some of the mechanics at play. You have unrealistic elements like increasing tax audits causing a rise in the morale of your population, or Canada developing chemical and nuclear weapons. But then there are some very realistic mechanics, like the fact that other countries can bomb cities and maim civilians without a care in the world but then America is condemned and loses allies if they do the same thing (same also goes for if you play as Israel where liberals really do want to “drive the Jews into the sea” I guess because they DON’T use human shields like Palestine does, yet strangely if you’re NOT playing as Israel they can invade at will with no condemnation), even if the country they’re doing it to just invaded somebody. Really, that applies to anyone you play as, and I’m sure idiots sucking propaganda worldwide can sympathize with how their special slice of Hell is always persecuted just like when you play as them in this game.

This is a very loooooong game to play, so have a few hours on hand. I went for an hour and the status quo was the same an hour in as it was at the start. Luckily there is a save feature. You can also play different scenarios, whether it’s erupting the Cold War into a nuclear conflict, starting a Third World War in the 1990s, or a free-for-all (though the Third World War scenario seems like that too). It definitely has a lot of replay value if this is your kind of thing.

Now for the combat- at times, you can get caught in a land war where you get to command military units. You’re shown the battlefield, but not all at the same time, and the camera starts over the enemy’s units. You hover the cursor over one of your units, and upon selecting it you can direct them to destinations and tell them who/what to attack. Once per battle you can also call in an air strike either from the air force or navy or both depending on who you have available. Just be careful with that- it takes them 20-30 seconds to get there, so enemy troops could easily have moved out of range of their attack. You can’t target specific units with them, rather you can only call for a strike at a general area and hope the enemy is still there when the attack comes. This is the Real-Time Strategy part I described earlier, for the casual reader not hip on game terms. Given the use of a cursor to point and click on things, this part too seems designed for a PC (I so dislike using controllers instead of a mouse for RTS games that I surrendered my copy of Command And Conquer on the Sega Saturn, which is not compatible with the mouse released for the Saturn… but I traded it for a Hogan’s Heroes boxset so while I was disappointed I had to trade it off it wasn’t a total loss).

Getting a ground battle started is not as easy as just picking a target. You also can control what each of those 16 armies have in them, a super level of micromanaging. Also- if you want to weaken the enemy with an air strike before starting combat (as opposed to during combat), you have to do the air strike in one turn and then combat the next turn because it will always start combat before doing an air strike if you try to do them in the same turn (air strikes outside of combat don’t effect your ability to do air strikes during combat).

Overall I have to say this high-level involved game isn’t really my style unless I plan to dedicate a day to it, but I’d probably get too bored after hour 2 of no progress. It’s a little… dry. You don’t exactly see how your economic moves affect your country and the world, and how they’re countered. There’s a lot of numbers and graphs too. Plus you’re not exactly seeing everything all at once, you have to scroll through pages of data every turn to make an informed decision. Also in between turns you get a news ticker at the bottom of the screen telling you what countries gained what weapons or what economic crisis or disaster affected which country, and you need to pay attention to that and take it into account in your turn. A lot of detail goes into this, it’s a very immersive and time-consuming experience, and it’s not fast-paced in the least bit. Even the ground combat portion takes a while- your units move slowly.

Then you remember it’s the Sega CD in 1994 and realize it’s a pretty good game given the circumstances, and usually can be found pretty cheap… or at least it used to be. In 2018 I got it complete in box for $5, but today that’d be $40 on eBay, or $15 for the game by itself. I’m planning a series on games that are inexplicably expensive and get the feeling I should’ve saved this one for that.

The Real World War III Is About To Begin!

Yes, this is also a cheat post.

Earlier this week I interviewed someone about Putin’s nuclear threats, how with his mentality he might not be bluffing, and how we’re not paying attention to the warning signs and just assume some sort of moral shield will protect us and we don’t have to understand how the enemy thinks, nor should we try to give the bad guy a little of what he wants in order to avoid a situation where precious liberal cities get nuked (the same liberals who say in all cases we should send unarmed, powerless, counselors to stop a crazy man with a gun who’s killing people because the nutcase just needs to be understood (as if social workers were infallible, as if victims had no rights and the killers should just be given a lecture and sent on their way… and rapists too, for you liberals who say there’s an epidemic and then vote to increase it) also say we should continually provoke and eventually fight a crazy man with nuclear weapons and that we shouldn’t even try to understand him, except to understand how we can attack first. They say you’re a traitor if you don’t shut up and obey Democrats’ calls to war without examining the bigger picture- just look at the Left’s McCarthy-era reaction to Tucker Carlson’s nuanced view on staying out of the war, in some cases the same Left that said we should not have tried to stop Russia-backed North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam).

Since the interview was conducted, America seems to have decided to up the ante and sabotage Europe’s principle source of energy. If it turns out America is the culprit, then we pretty much cut off our nose to spite our face by royally screwing over our European allies. Remember how you Lefties said Trump was evil because he wanted other NATO nations to do their fair share of the work (ironic that you communists were AGAINST someone pulling their weight instead of mooching off others like a billionaire)? Well, I’d say making sure their citizens freeze to death in the winter is a bit worse, this coming after (as mentioned in the last post) the Biden Administration begged them not to evacuate their people from Afghanistan and leave them to be used as hostages or killed by the Taliban. Again, Trump saying NATO countries should put in equal effort according to their abilities is way different than the Biden Administration outright trying to kill citizens of NATO countries, but I guess that major difference is lost on the “orange man bad” crowd.

Of course it didn’t have to be this way, this proxy war Democrats are pushing (it could’ve been over in April but the Biden Administration teamed up with England to sabotage a peace deal) in Ukraine that leads to billions of taxpayer dollars going to Ukraine and defense contractors only to end up in the pockets of corrupt politicians over there and over here with defense contractors spending our money to put warmongers in office so the money keeps coming (I thought Democrats opposed the military–industrial complex?). America is pretty much the reason the war hasn’t ended yet (this war is NOT about “protecting Democracy in Ukraine” as liberals chant, since Zelensky has shown himself to be one execution away from being as anti-Democratic as Putin), as you heard in the interview and saw in my last post. So anything that happens, such as Europe’s power being cut, is on the Leftist Biden Administration. Worse, it looks like that might be a permanent cut given the damage to the pipelines (granted, the whole reason Europe got hooked on Russian power is because of Leftists believing Russian propaganda… which is ironic since they tried to blame Russia for Trump getting elected yet they believed everything Russia said about the climate that led to dependence on Russian energy).

And it really looks like the Biden Administration is responsible for the pipeline sabotage. Consider this- as recorded in the last post they had no problem trying to say Russia would launch a false flag to start a war, yet when NATO all but accused Russia of launching a false flag with its pipelines suddenly the Biden Administration came to Russia’s defense while at the same time telling Americans to evacuate Russia (ostensibly because Russia might conscript them, which actually has been grounds for war in the past… a war that left the White House as a pile of ash just as one with Russia would). It’s like they knew they screwed up and are trying to limit the damage.

Anyway, this definite provocation will just make Putin more likely to lash out irrationally, with a nuclear reprisal still on the table. Anyone else remember how Leftists wanted to disarm our nuclear arsenal (and as recently as a month before the invasion wanted to reduce it)? Hey Lefties, quick question: how would we deter Putin from escalating already in this crisis if we didn’t have weapons of mass destruction on the table?

For that matter, remember that Democrats consistently are anti-military (check out that link to a Salon piece in that post I linked to- hey Lefties, if you don’t need the military to protect your freedoms how come you keep sending military weapons designed for our military to a foreign military and say it’s to protect your freedom from Putin?). They’ve been very open about wanting to dissolve the institution, and under their current regime we’ve seen recruitment numbers drop while the military releases perfectly fit soldiers by the thousands who love this country while keeping/promoting soldiers they train to hate this country and love terrorists, and hate the race that constitutes the majority of the American public (not that the ones left are trained to be competent, they might make the Russians look competent by comparison. And let’s not forget that the folks in charge of the military think America shouldn’t exist.). So why would these people who hate America fight Russia to protect it? These people, taught through CRT that America is irredeemably racist and the majority population is the cause of it, would sooner take Russia’s side if we were invaded- why WOULDN’T they? Russia just has to claim to be the woke liberator and that the Leftists in the military are being lied to by evil white fascists about who the real enemy is, and like all good civil rights warriors they want to be on the right side of history don’t they?

On the one hand Democrats want a nuclear war with Russia and are doing everything they can to recklessly plough forward into it, but on the other hand they spent decades trying to disarm us and are STILL working to do so. What conclusion can we draw about them (and any ex-military who join the party) from this?

Yes I know I railed on Democrats a lot while most Republicans are aiding and abetting this (when looking for that article on Rand Paul, I saw that Leftwing Rolling Stone magazine said he was working for Putin because he dared pause funding to Ukraine), but this is the sort of thing the MAGA movement in the Republican Party was against; it’s those the “extremist” “clear and present danger” faction of the Republican Party believes. If you Lefties hadn’t welcomed the ejected warmongers like Liz Cheney with open arms and embraced their violent worldview, hadn’t embraced those you said were liars who tricked us into invading Iraq, then they’d be even less relevant and the RINOs too cowardly to jump ship would be more inclined to work for peace or at least not work against it just to keep their checks coming.

What Do You Think?

You voted Democrat, so I guess you wanted World War III after all. Whether it was 62 million or 81 million who voted for Biden, this is what at least a third of the country seems to want. Vote Democrat again this fall to make sure we all die.

Well… not all of us. Wealthy executives at our defense companies, a few billionaires, and the leaders of the Democratic Party will survive a nuclear war because they’re for the people and for equity, and equity means the royalty and nobility in society survive in luxury while the serfs die in nuclear hellfire or struggle to live in post-apocalyptic hellscapes, but that’s what you vote for and defend so ardently on the internet, in social media, and in the real world with your protests/riots so I guess that’s how you feel. It’s convenient that I live near a prime target so I’ll be vaporized in an instant, but I regert that I won’t get to see radiation poisoning dole out karma to you while you continue to praise your Democrat leaders for their bravery in forcing this situation on you.

The Affirmative Action Court

President Biden announced on January 27 that he did not want the best person for the job of Justice on the Supreme Court. Instead, Biden said he wanted the best person from a specific race/gender combination. Perhaps the most qualified person is indeed a Black Woman, but we’ll never know because Democrats are not looking at anyone else. They consider it “progress” to assign jobs based on race and gender rather than qualifications. (By the way, it’s a bit on the illegal side to hire someone solely for their gender or skin color- it’s called “discrimination”. It would be just as illegal and racist and bigoted if Biden said he wanted a white male (it may even have been illegal when Trump said he would nominate a female Justice and gave us Amy Comey Barrett: while Biden said race and gender were his primary qualification before he even started looking, when Trump announced would nominate a female Justice he not only qualified his remark by saying “most likely” but he might well have already narrowed the list to exclusively female picks for other reasons (by then he had nominated two male Justices so it’s conceivable that he had weeded out many male Justices already), even the most ardent anti-Trump prosecutor would find it to be a legal gray area at that point since we did not know Trump’s whole process and Trump didn’t say it was for sure going to be an act of discrimination whereas Biden announced in advanced that he would discriminate against anyone of any race or gender who wasn’t a Black woman.). Biden put up a sign on SCOTUS that said “whites need not apply”, something the Civil Rights movement was steering us away from. If a Black woman truly is the most qualified, then why are you not allowing her to compete with white or Hispanic or Asian peers? Why are you saying you have to give her special treatment? Why are you saying she can’t succeed without white savior Biden removing other races and genders from consideration? At this point by the way, I’d agree that a certain Black woman would be the most qualified- certainly more qualified than any Biden has in mind- though you liberals probably don’t think that she is Black.)

Of course by “best” Biden means someone that will toe the party line and call everyone else a racist (that is what Democrats mean when they talk like that, just look at their definition of “critical-thinking“: censoring information they disagree with and telling you to only believe sources that repeat the party line. As far as liberals were concerned, Justice Breyer was practicing “critical-thinking” when he stated the COVID-lie mentioned below, and the fact that he repeated it is part of why they considered him qualified for the job.). This won’t do much to change the nature of the court’s rulings- Justice Breyer pretty much just said and wrote what Democrats told him to, he didn’t have a free thought in his head, to the point he outright lied about COVID vaccines because Democrats wanted him to scare people into accepting the hyper-fascist forced vaccinations where you could not be employed unless a useless poisonous chemical cocktail from a pharmaceutical corporation was injected into you. Any judge Biden appointed would do similar, regardless of race or gender.

ALL liberal justices are the same, they all just do what the DNC orders them to, so I guess really as far as Biden is concerned the only choice is what shell the DNC puppet comes in. It’s picking the paint job for the new car- it has no effect on the performance, it’s purely an aesthetic thing. That’s why liberals don’t see a problem with picking this job based solely on gender and race- they know all liberal judges have the same qualifications and all liberal judges would perform the same, that’s why they think any objection must be based on skin color and gender alone. Liberals know that skin color and gender are literally the only two things that make one liberal judge different from another, so if conservatives object to the idea of nominating a judge solely on those two attributes then liberals think it is an objection to those two attributes, instead of the reality that it is an objection to the idea that one race or gender is better than another.

Conservatives need to understand this and frame their arguments properly. You can’t say “I object because this is not an affirmative action position”, you can’t say “I object because Biden just said that he thinks skin color and gender are qualifications rather than judicial work”, because none of that enters into it with liberal judges. Each one is as incompetent as the other. They are interchangeable; they function the same; they only look different.

Thus, the Left gets it’s justification for calling the Right racist- the Right knows that a liberal justice will be nominated, all liberal justices are the same, the only difference is gender and skin color, therefore the only reason you’d object to that being Biden’s primary qualification is if you were a racist and sexist. A black female liberal judge would do the same work as a white male liberal judge.

Another thing you’re fighting is the Left’s propaganda effort. They get to say they put the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, and they are saying it now as if the Right only ever put on white supremacists (just look at the beginning of this CSPAN clip, where the Black female caller says “after 400 years, white people have had their…boot on our neck, now it’s a problem because they pick a woman of color”, this is the Democratic Party’s attitude and education at work- that Critical Race Theory stuff- which tells everyone that no progress whatsoever has been made except what Democrats promise today; it actually attacks the Civil Rights Movement), when in fact the Right put on the first Black justice in 1967 while Democrats fought tooth and nail- Biden’s mentors included- to stop it. Obviously it is a myth that the parties switched positions because years later when Republicans wanted a second Black Supreme Court Justice, the Democrats- Biden included- fought tooth and nail to stop that!

I also want to counter Joy Reid’s racist argument here, that appointing a Black woman would make the Supreme Court reflect the country’s demographics better. It wouldn’t, this is a Black Supremacist assumption. Reid is assuming the country follows her race, unless liberals want to admit that they are not intelligent and are unaware of America’s demographic make-up, in which case we can forgive Reid for assuming Blacks are more numerous than they really are. To reflect our demographics better they should appoint a Hispanic female, not a Black female (granted, liberals believe that Clarence Thomas is not Black because he does not behave the way liberals order Blacks to behave. A further point of data against the party switch- Democrats insist that you aren’t Black unless you act according to their stereotypes.). Blacks in total are 14% of the population, and because the Supreme Court has only 9 Justices we’ll need to round to the nearest fraction of 9, in this case 1/9 which is 11%. So already Black people have the best equal representation that can be achieved in a 9-person group. There are currently 3 women on the bench, so we need to get 1 or 2 more on there since women and men are only a rounding error away from being the majority gender, and since the Hispanic population is closer to 2/9 of the country than it is to 1/9 we need one more Hispanic Justice (and if you count the non-citizens that Democrats are so kind to let in, by the end of Biden’s first term Hispanics will be even closer to 2/9 while Blacks will descend closer to 1/9. You want these non-citizens to vote despite Hispaniphobic lies from the Washington Post that you want the opposite, so surely you want the Supreme Court to represent them too, right? Don’t their lives matter?). The proper composition of the Supreme Court by race- to match Joy Reid’s alleged ideal that the Supreme Court should match the country’s demographics (rather than reflect Reid’s race and political leanings, which appear to be her definition of America’s demographics)– would be 1 Black Justice, 2 Hispanic Justices, and 6 White Justices because the white population is 61.6% of the country which is closer to 6/9 than 5/9, with 4 male and 5 female justices because the American population is 50.8% female and 49.2% male. If you wanted to future-proof this against the declining white population, then you’d still have 5 White judges with the 6th position being given to someone from East Asia as they are the largest minority not already covered (and what a powerful message that would send, the first East Asian-American on the Supreme Court, at a time when liberal cities are increasing hate crimes against their Asian American communities while liberal prosecutors don’t care, at a time when discrimination against Asian Americans is practiced by liberals.). So in summary- adding another Black to the court skews the court in favor of Blacks, something which liberals should be vehemently opposed to, afterall they say the Senate needs to be liquidated because it doesn’t represent the demographics so why would you encourage a Supreme Court that favors one group over another when the population doesn’t reflect that?

So in a nutshell: no matter how you look at it, they are picking someone based on their gender and skin color so that they can go for the low-hanging fruit of diversity achievement. Virtue signaling and progressive points, nothing else.

Yes I know, this assumes that the party of concentration camps for the unvaccinated, the party that cries “racism” at anyone who opposes anything they do, is actually thinking about these matters and open to arguments. You know I know better. I suppose since we are talking about Leftist ruthlessness it’s as good a time as any to mention the pressure that Justice Breyer was facing from the Left- they wanted him to quit (or die) while a Democrat was President, and are mad at Justice Ginsburg for having died under Trump. Also, Breyer is miffed that his plan to retire was leaked months before he was ready to reveal it, and what a great day to leak it as Biden’s polls keep plummeting and his Administration can’t seem to do anything right, a great distraction.