White Nationalists Versus SJWs

They’re not fighting over ideological differences, they’re fighting because they have so much in common. Much like the Nazis and the Communists.

I’m always amused when the most race-obsessed people in the world accuse normal people of being racists.

[Sunday-morning update]

The thread seems to have drifted into discussion of Joe Arpaio. He was a sadistic scumbag, but the people of Maricopa County re-elected him multiple times. There are many Joe Arpaios and terrible county jails in this country. The only reason Arpaio was prosecuted by the Obama Department of (In)Justice was because he refused to knuckle under to their insistence that Arizona not enforce federal immigration laws.

[Wednesday-afternoon update]

Don’t call these people (or anyone, really) “anti-fascist”:

We may not take today’s anarcho-communists as seriously as we did back when they had the power, the weapons, and the infrastructure to murder tens of millions of people. But their goals are no different. As they put it, they don’t want a “U.S.A. at all.” The country they want to occupy the center of North America has no First Amendment, no freedom of expression, and people with opposing views (of any views, not just Nazis) are beaten, imprisoned or murdered for intellectual dissent. They may run the gamut from anarchism to revolutionary socialism in their views, but they have far more in common with fascists than they do with the people they seek to attract with the sweet-sounding “anti-fascist” label.

Davies notes that the propaganda value of “anti-fascism” in the West reached its apex when Francisco Franco won the Spanish Civil War, with help from the fascist governments of Italy and Germany. It then fell out of favor when Stalin aligned with Hitler in hopes of devouring half of eastern Europe. Before the Germans turned against them, the Soviets seized half of Poland, annexed the Baltic States, and invaded Finland in the 1939-1940 Winter War, casting its democratic government at the time as a fascist enemy (of course).

So always with these little would-be tyrants. When you use the label “antifa” or “anti-fascist,” you are helping and enabling a resurgence of terrorist liars in the exact same tradition, who are indistinguishable from neo-Nazis except in the specific motivations for and targets of their authoritarian impulses and irrational violence.

Yup.

[Bumped]

[Update a couple minutes later]

Yes, “antifa” is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis.

Yes, as noted above, going back to Stalin.

57 thoughts on “White Nationalists Versus SJWs”

    1. Let’s imagine a president pardoning people who are engaging in targeted murder of the president’s political opponents.

      These pardons would be constitutional. Do you think that would make them ok?

      1. Are you projecting Paul D.?

        The concept you seem to be missing is that laws don’t make men honorable. Honor makes men lawful.

        Sheriff Joe did his job. His political enemies took a long time finding a corrupt judge to punish him after decades of trying.

        1. “Did his job”
          Ken if he did his job
          A. I wouldn’t know who the hell Sheriff Joe is
          B. The ‘Vast Left wing conspiracy’ wouldn’t be out to get him.

          Last I check sheriff is a officer of the court. From my understanding several “corrupt” judges told him not to do what he was doing . He openly flaunted them and kept doing it. One of the last judges that ruled against him felt that he still won’t obey the order so deferred to another judge for a contempt of court and he was found guilty of contempt.
          So a “law and order” president pardons a law enforcement officer who was not following the law.

          1. Ken if he did his job…
            B. The ‘Vast Left wing conspiracy’ wouldn’t be out to get him.

            Engineer, I’m not getting the joke?

            We’ve been calling them the evil party and the stupid party for some time now. Which do you suppose only sees law as a tool rather than a principle?

            Sheriff Joe was following the advice of counsel. There was no contempt (in the legal sense.)

          2. if he did his job
            A. I wouldn’t know who the hell Sheriff Joe is
            B. The ‘Vast Left wing conspiracy’ wouldn’t be out to get him.

            “A” is a confession of a lack of civic curiosity.
            “B” is a confession of having lived under a rock for the last couple of decades at least. Lefties only need one reason to be “out to get” a public figure, and that’s that he doesn’t advance their political narrative.

            A many-times-re-elected sheriff “doing his job” is exactly the kind of target that makes their mouths water.

          3. Think pretty clear the courts found he was not doing his job and was told repeatedly. The Council defense works once not three times and even his council denies that they suggested the course of action. That he told the media about his plan to subvert the court.

            McG you going to accuse me of lack of civic curiosity for wishing not to know the former county Sheriff in a state 1000+ miles away. So you can name all 15 sheriffs of Arizona counties? How bout all the Sheriffs in Georgia? How bout every official above county sheriff? So to keep it a manageable list come back to me with every States Governor , States LT Governor, State Attorney General , US Senator, US Representative, State Supreme Court Justice with out looking it up online by my count that only 992 names well below every counties sheriff?

            I suppose helping to fund his own assassination attempt and making sure the mentally unstable would be assassin was arrested in front of rolling cameras was part of his job too . The man was more interested in publicity.

          4. Think pretty clear…

            What’s clear is those that enforce our immigration laws are called racist when they are not. Don’t break the law and there was nothing to fear from Arpaio. It’s all political BS.

            They’ve been after him for decades but he fought back… unlike the fair weather conservatives that allowed lawlessness to get so ridiculous that Obama told illegals they could vote.

          5. My issue with the court’s rulings is that they accused his office of racially profiling Hispanics. That makes no legal sense because Hispanic isn’t a race, it’s defined by language and history (Filipinos are often considered Hispanic even if they don’t speak Spanish anymore). There are about 5 million Asian Hispanics, millions and millions of black Hispanics, plus white Hispanics (even German Hispanics), Native American Hispanics, and Middle Eastern Hispanics. Even among the Native American Hispanics, a group in one part of Mexico can have more genetic distance from another group a hundred or so miles away than exists between a Pole and a Korean. Mexico had staggeringly high genetic diversity before the Spanish added Spaniards, blacks, and Filipinos in the 1500’s.

            However his department was profiling, you can’t use race on one end of the legal argument and have “Hispanic” pop out the other, because those are virtually unrelated.

            So how does a deputy tell what language someone speaks when he sees them driving down the road?

      2. There have been many presidential pardons that I didn’t think were OK, but ultimately, the only way to prevent them is for Congress to remove the president from office. The Founders expected them to do their job.

        1. I think their job was not to give so much power to the President.

          Meanwhile, congress has president which sign into law, whatever the congress decides to do about healthcare. And he will allow tax cuts.
          Basically, anything that Congress could pass that might make America great again- in terms of any kind of reasonable argument- it seems Trump will sign if put on his desk.

          But it seems the congress values it’s swamp and unfortunately it doesn’t seem like impeaching Trump would do anything to preserve their swamp- so probably, wishful thinking.

          1. …as if the power to pardon had no purpose?

            What a novel idea. The easiest way to get rid of any constitutional crisis is to get rid of the constitution.

          2. Sure, but a) it would be much more difficult and b) it isn’t clear that it’s a great idea. In order to advocate that, it would be a good idea to go back and read the Federalist Papers on why the president was granted that power.

      3. You mean the people hiring the assassins of targeted murder- the political assassinations?
        Like the ones funding the lefty terrorists?

      4. Obama did exactly this with the pardon of the FALN leader.
        Clinton pardoned 16 FALN members.
        All were Marxists/socialists that murdered their political opponents.

      5. Your example emphasizes how much of our system relies on the good nature of people running it. It is why Obama was able to get away with so many unconstitutional abuses of power. How can a President be impeached when his party will defend any illegal act?

        One party has spent decades degrading the morals and ethics of the populace and currently seeks to erase the values and history we were founded on. Its corruption.

        But we should be skeptical of the people who seek to cause ruin who then suggest we replace our system with communism.

        1. The Impeachment proof Senate would be harder if there were more parties of significance. A lot of Congressional garbage would be prevented by breaking up the 2 big parties. But that’s not going to happen without a fundamental change in how we conduct elections to something better than first past the post.

  1. So, if the Skinheads and the their Opposites are not fighting over ideological differences, if they indeed have so much in common, if they are the Nazis vs the Communists, if they are equally race obsessed . . . what did President Trump say that was wrong in blaming the violence on the “many sides”?

  2. So, if the Skinheads and the their Opposites are not fighting over ideological differences, if they indeed have so much in common, if they are the Nazis vs the Communists, if they are equally race obsessed . . . what did President Trump say that was wrong in blaming the violence on the “many sides”?

    I dunno, one side was leading torchlight marches through the streets yelling, “Jews will not replace us.” One side perpetrating vehicular terrorism.

        1. If the authorities would enforce anti-mask laws, most of these cowards and bullies would slink away.

          I wondered why people in masks weren’t being arrested on the spot. This is NYT, but it has interesting background. Alabama, appropriately, has a strict law against masks for non-holiday purposes. California had strict laws, but they were relaxed after the ’79 Iranian revolution to allow Iranians in the US to protest the mullahs without fear of retribution. But, they still ban masks worn with the intention to intimidate.

          1. The law doesn’t matter when the police refuse to enforce it.

            It’s bizarre, though. The American left hate the police and like to murder them. The American right used to like the police, but don’t now they’re discovering that the police will refuse to protect them and then arrest them if they protect themselves.

            If they keep it up, pretty soon, the police will be hated by everyone, and will have no-one to blame but themselves.

      1. I guess what I asking, do Jake Tappers Twitter messages confirm that more than “one side” was contributing to the violence?

      2. I saw a video of one of the white nationalists pull out a pistol and shoot it at a Democrat protester. This was after he was maced in the face and almost set on fire by an improvised flame thrower.

        The violence certainly is coming from both sides but throughout all of these events, the violence from non-Democrats has been in reaction to the violence from Democrats. If police keep the Democrats away from everyone and/or if the Democrats stop organizing lynch mobs, then there will be zero violence.

        Have to throw the and/or in there because when the cops do keep Democrats away from potential victims, the Democrats fight the cops and surrounding buildings.

    1. The interesting thing is that the Democrats dehumanize their opponents to the point that any form of physical violence and abuse by government is not only excused but a moral obligation.

      Now the Democrats literally view non-Democrats as “hate”, not even living beings but just an emotion.

      There was a pic of a Democrat lady at the Berkeley protest the other day. Her sign said that her grandma didn’t die in Auschwitz so that NAZI could exist in the USA (or something similar). She was wearing a Che shirt and marching with black shirt communists who want to overthrow our republic and economic system. She was marching with the vanguard of the very people who killed over 100 million and who ran Auschwitz.

      Apparently Democrats have already Year Zeroed themselves.

  3. Allowing allies to suffer in an effort to pretend that all is well is not going to bring the Rule of Law back.

    We need an icon for this thought so it can be tattoo’d on the forehead of squishy conservatives.

    We only get rule of law by defending and enforcing it which includes protecting 85 year old sheriff’s that had two parking tickets his entire life from witch hunts.

    If skinheads break the law, they should face the law, but speech should never be equated with [thought] crime.

    Not prosecuting Antifa thugs (those that are violent) doesn’t make anything better.

    1. It’s absolute madness. This is why they got Trump. At least, he doesn’t grab his ankles and beg for more punishment. We ought to send them all some of those pink knitted hats – you know the ones I’m talking about.

  4. Arpaio’s prosecution was purely political and directed from the White House. If Trump did something like this is would be literally Hitler. It was also in the service of an administration that didn’t want the government, at any level, enforce the rule of law.

    People who support rule of law don’t support the corrupt use of the legal system. No one should be saying that not supporting the corrupt use of law as actually being against the rule of law.

  5. This is the modern day Democrat party, black shirted and trying to lynch Hispanics in the street. Had Republicans did this, the entire party would be called racist but because it is Democrats, the Hispanics are called NAZI and KKK.

    https://twitter.com/ThePatriot143/status/902021266206584833

    This isn’t new. The violence has been going on for decades but ramped up during the last year. And it isn’t geographically confined, it is happening coast to coast in every city. When thousands of black shirts can be mobilized in any given city and half the Democrat party almost put a socialist at the top of the ticket, it isn’t a small minority causing problems.

    1. It’s a minority committing the actual overt crimes, enabled by a much larger body. … Am I talking about democrats or a certain “religion of peace”?

  6. “Americans are lucky to have Trump as President”
    ….
    “People like to compare Trump with Erdoğan, but they probably know little about either beyond what they read in their social media bubbles or the hysterical mainstream media. The irony is that by trying so hard to depose Trump instead of understanding who elected him and why, America’s ruling classes and their useful idiots abroad are making it far more likely that his successor will indeed have much in common with his Turkish counterpart.”
    http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=5334

    Don’t agree. But interesting.
    I think America is lucky they don’t Clinton.

    And I continue to think the republicans aren’t winning- rather the Dems
    are losing.
    In the whole of lefty, your opponent losing is winning. But lefties are idiots and of course, they are wrong.

    I think impeaching Trump could be a net good- whatever the silly reason given.
    It would, if successful, weaken the presidency- so that could be a good thing. But there is no reason to assume that if attempt to impeach Trump would be successful. A failure to impeach Trump could result in the opposite- strengthen the presidency.
    Or Rep aren’t winning. And the Dems certainly are winning. And Congress is mostly Reps and Dems.

    Another good thing, is if impeachment is attempted and it whether results in removing Trump from Office or not, there will blow back, and it seems what will be damaged is the DC swamp. Or it’s a win, win anyway it goes.

    But I don’t see the possibility of getting Erdoğan. Or Clinton is about the closest we will get to something like a Erdoğan.
    Or Tim Newman seems to have it completely backwards.
    Clinton or some creature like it, will not win the next election. Dems if they continue their glide path, will get slaughtered in the next election- but don’t assume they are that stupid. Or I think they will go back to basics and get people who are favored by the public.
    And not sure of legal aspect, but couldn’t trump simply run again for President if he is impeached. If that not legal have someone like Trump, or his son or daughter run for re-election.
    Or the “next trump” might be even more abrasive to the press and the congress- or at least an outsider.
    Or most Americans are not happy with the Press or the Congress- their approval ratings are hideous.
    If populism = Erdoğan, then US has had a long tradition of Erdoğan Presidents.

    1. I am not sure how Democrats will shed identity politics before the next election. That is their core reason to exist right now and is one of the biggest things turning people off to them. At best they will try and hide it with the help of a complicit media while putting up a front person who claims to be more moderate.

      Although, if a Trumpesque outsider wins the Democrat nomination, would the Democrat establishment, the communists, BLM, the black shirts, and other militant activists be cut off from the party?

      1. I though the democrats had determined (wrongly) that with intense enough identity politics they didn’t need they traditional white working class base.

  7. I think impeaching Trump could be a net good

    I’d like to hear an argument for that. Making the presidency stronger or weaker does not follow. The power to impeach already exists. The only modification might be to trivialize what constitutes a high crime.

    The opponents of a sane government haven’t had to do much to undermine any presidency. Trump’s value is he forces then to turn the dial to eleven so that hiding from reality is just no longer possible.

    The rules are simple. Violence must be punished no matter who does it with the exception of justified defense.

    Thinking is not an evil act. Speaking is seldom an evil act (there is no such thing as hate speech.) Thought is never a crime… until the day technology changes that!

    As a society we just have to decide if mobs destroying property and stoning people is acceptable regardless of who does it. …and if unacceptable has any teeth.

    1. –ken anthony
      August 30, 2017 at 1:31 PM

      I think impeaching Trump could be a net good

      I’d like to hear an argument for that.–

      Well, Nixon resigned so as to not weaken nation/presidency.

      Clinton would not resign and he wasn’t impeached out of office:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

      Now, I am assuming Trump wouldn’t resign- a mere threat of impeachment does not seem likely to sway him. Nor is he going to restrain himself from talking about the matter. Or with Trump everything is about him, and in such a reality, it will actually be very much in agreement that “everything is about him”- were congress were to impeach him.

      So Trump will fill stadiums and talk about Congress thinking of impeaching him. And if impeached and remove from office, Trump is still unlikely to shut up.
      The only solution would be to pass laws which restraint him- which will be challenged in the courts.
      But basically the congress “could” invent any reason they like to impeach Trump, but doing this on less than perjury to grand jury will establish a new habit of impeaching Presidents, which obviously weaken the presidency.

      But least I forget to mention, main thing is that I think a weak presidency is a good thing. Or I think a weak President is bad thing, but I believe the power given to the President should be weaken. Same goes for the Congress and Federal Government in general.
      Or what we tend to have is weak leadership which has been given too much power.

      1. gbaikie,

        I still don’t see you making an argument that impeachment would be a net good?

        The problem is the republicans refuse to recognize the will of the people that elected the republican party to run things. A successful impeachment doesn’t change that at all/ They are across the board corrupt liars intent on just one thing… not being held accountable.

        We may simply have to wait for the midterms which may surprise some by reversing the historical precedent of the party in power losing some.

        The media will continue to beat the drum that the president is polling low, ignoring two facts [with a pillow.] Congress and the media both poll lower and Trump is still polling higher than Reagan after his first 200 days.

        People are talking like never before and are wise to most of the medias tricks. That’s why the left is now in a full court press to get popular media cut off. They’re even afraid of Diamond and Silk!

        Meanwhile chopping off Columbus heads is not winning them any friends.

        1. –The problem is the republicans refuse to recognize the will of the people that elected the republican party to run things. —

          –A successful impeachment doesn’t change that at all/ —
          Sure it does, it clearly demonstrates the rep leadership must go-
          Or they are exactly hopeless.
          If all they can do is successful impeach a Rep president- that has got to change their voter support. How can anyone argue that they should remain in office?
          Some could say they were being cautious [and that is somehow, a good thing] but such reckless does not support that narrative. If they impeach AND they do something the voters want, maybe they could survive.
          They also could try to impeach and fail- that might not be as bad [for them]- but it’s still another choice of wasting time and on something which would have been proven to be a waste of time

          –They are across the board corrupt liars intent on just one thing… not being held accountable.–
          Well impeaching the president will make them accountable- accountable for nullifying 62 million voters vote- of an outsider and which 80% of primary voters wanted [the question being who was the outsider to choose ] and the insiders got rid of him.

          But as said what is good, is it weakens the presidency- for decades, if not centuries. I will give them some credit for that, even though it’s quite stupid. Or I will thank for their service, after they lose their election. It probably would be the most significant thing they ever did in their entire career.

          1. –The problem is the republicans refuse to recognize the will of the people that elected the republican party to run things. —

            –A successful impeachment doesn’t change that at all/ —
            Sure it does, it clearly demonstrates the rep leadership must go-

            Your argument is… if I beat you up, it clearly demonstrates you needed a beating. No it doesn’t because it doesn’t address any underlying issue. You might deserve a beating or not, but no argument has been made or demonstrated.

            Suppose Trump is impeached and Spence takes over. Does that recognize the people that voted Trump president? No it does not.

            What would? Supporting the president. The people know this which will become evident in the next midterms.

          2. Sorry about the italics… I slipped and didn’t finish my post.

            impeaching the president will make them accountable

            This part is true, but entirely the wrong solution. It’s “Let’s make things worse so the problem becomes more obvious.”

            It’s already obvious. Those that blame Trump are in denial about the real problem. The GOP (and deep state) have been exposed. The only question is will we focus on this problem and solve IT?

          3. –impeaching the president will make them accountable

            This part is true, but entirely the wrong solution. It’s “Let’s make things worse so the problem becomes more obvious.”

            It’s already obvious. Those that blame Trump are in denial about the real problem. The GOP (and deep state) have been exposed. The only question is will we focus on this problem and solve IT?–

            I think politician and republican are fairly stupid, but impeaching Trump isn’t predictable. Or there is no evidence or reason to think it could/would happen.
            Or asteroid could kill everyone- but there is no evidence of such asteroid going to hit earth. Space alien could invade- but no evidence of space aliens.
            What you have in regard to Trump impeachment is delusional raving. There is lots of evident of that.

            But any impeachment of any president will weaken the Presidency- because it could become a habit with future Presidents. It particularly weaken the presidency if it’s for unclear, unwarranted, or non obvious reason.
            It could have oppose effect, one could get constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress from doing something similar in the future [but this seems very, very unlikely].
            As I said this has nothing to do with a strong or weak president, or it has nothing to do with person who the president, it has to do with the office.
            And I think a weaker office of President is better, than stronger office of President.
            If disagree, make your argument.

    2. Whether or not a possible impeachment is good or bad depends entirely on the reason for impeachment. Impeachment over a seriously illegal act would have a lot of support, just as it should with any other President. Impeachment as a naked coup would lead to civil war.

      The only discussions over reasons to impeach are on the naked coup side of things, so it would be bad for the Presidency, Congress, and our entire system of government. The people pushing for impeachment seem to be oblivious to the consequences but in many cases, they already want to destroy our country and install communism.

      1. “wodun
        August 30, 2017 at 3:46 PM

        Whether or not a possible impeachment is good or bad depends entirely on the reason for impeachment. Impeachment over a seriously illegal act would have a lot of support, just as it should with any other President. Impeachment as a naked coup would lead to civil war.”
        Clinton did commit seriously illegal acts, and if she was elected, it’s doubtful she would have been impeached as president.
        If there was more than 50% chance, it would been a reason to vote for her.
        Meanwhile Trump has lacked the time, to do anything serious, and hasn’t yet even been “given” his 100 days as is normally given to a President.

        “The only discussions over reasons to impeach are on the naked coup side of things, so it would be bad for the Presidency, Congress, and our entire system of government. ”
        The problem with this idea, is dem don’t control Congress- so basically it’s just bad for the dems. Of course if rep leadership commit suicide, it would good for rep party-as these guys would get replaced. Or the “non-existing” TEA Party, would somehow appear out of no where and get rid of them.

  8. The new links show a scary escalation in the violence. Tit for tat during any given even is one thing, and can be controlled by responsible law enforcement. But now you have Democrats targeting people specifically for violent actions at the events but then stalking them outside of events.

    Similar stuff has been happening in Europe. There is a lot of coordination between the international socialists so it isn’t surprising.

    The moral equivalence thing is interesting but scale is more critical. Charlottesville had less than a thousand white nationalists. The Democrat’s have tens of millions that support socialism, elected officials at all levels of government that support socialism, government workers that are devout socialists, and a militant activist base that is almost entirely comprised of socialists.

  9. It then fell out of favor when Stalin aligned with Hitler in hopes of devouring half of eastern Europe. Before the Germans turned against them, the Soviets seized half of Poland, annexed the Baltic States, and invaded Finland in the 1939-1940 Winter War, casting its democratic government at the time as a fascist enemy (of course).
    Sigh. You forget the Soviets had ceded most of those territories, that originally were part of the Russian Empire, as part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (or should I say capitulation) back in late WWI to the German Empire (as puppet states) in the first place. Stalin was a Russian nationalist leader, unlike some other Bolshevik leaders, so of course he sought to reverse all prior losses of Russian Empire territory.

    Way, way before WWII ever started, way before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) was signed, the Soviet Union fought Poland in the Polish-Soviet War (1919-1921), and Finland in the Soviet–Finnish Conflict (1921-1922). Fact is Finland gained its defacto independence from Russia in 1917 in the Finnish Civil War where the Finns split into the White and Red factions which were supported by the German Empire and Soviet Russia respectively. The White faction supported by the German Empire won that war. Originally the German Empire planned to put a German king in Finland as head of state but their loss of WWI in France preempted that. But yes, please pretend that the Russians never had claims to these territories before.

    Ever heard of Balkanization? For a long time the Prussians and Russians fragmented the countries between them as a matter of policy. At first to gain territory at the expense of former existing realms in the area like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Then latter, as Prussia gained power, as a buffer zone against each other. The buffer zones were a guarantee of peace in Europe back then as part of the equilibrium between Great Powers.

    If Stalin actually wanted to conquer Europe as much as you said, why didn’t the Soviets just keep marching past Berlin into France and then onwards into the westernmost tip of Europe? Do you honestly think the US and the UK would have been able to stop the Red Army if they wanted to roll forwards? You are really naive. IIRC at one point someone congratulated Stalin on him reaching Berlin. Supposedly he retorted to them that Tsar Alexander reached Paris.

    When both the Russians and the Nazis signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact (1939) both knew this was just a temporary reprieve and that they would eventually enter into a conflict. You conveniently ignore that the Poles also had signed a German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact (1934) before.

    1. Sigh. You forget the Soviets had ceded most of those territories, that originally were part of the Russian Empire, as part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (or should I say capitulation) back in late WWI to the German Empire (as puppet states) in the first place.

      So Empires are suppose to get back territory they lost?
      Why can’t they just pick another fresh country to invade.
      Why take back land taken by their monarchy which is despised and
      vilified?
      Oh, because there are socialist coming to the rescue of dear friends.

      1. Oh, because there are socialist coming to the rescue of dear friends.
        That mostly happened when people like Lenin and Trotsky were in power. Stalin wasn’t a proponent of the world revolution like those two. At best he paid lip service to it.

      2. You also ignore your own past. The USA actually tried to spread its “revolution” to Canada by actively invading it and failed at one point. So it’s rather amusing to see you critique the Soviet’s support for other revolutionary regimes abroad.

        1. Nothing to do with Russian empire, rather it’s about empires regaining lost lands. I also don’t think Iran has the right regain their empire either.
          I am happy people have got over idea that Russian had empire.
          So I guess it will soon be accepted it was imperialistic empire- now that it is a defunct imperial empire. And if Cuba ever decides to be free, no one will think Russia has any say in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *