- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

So You Want a Cultural Revolution?

Horrified by images of American students shouting down and physically attacking speakers on their campuses, some commentators have reasonably invoked memories of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The problem with that analogy is that it is simply lost on most readers, including most younger than middle age.

So what exactly was this “Cultural Revolution” thing anyway? The U.S. media does a wonderful job of recalling atrocities that they can associate with the Right, while far worse horrors stemming from the Left vanish into oblivion. In reality, not only does the Cultural Revolution demand to be remembered and commemorated, it also offers precious lessons about the nature of violence, and the perils of mob rule.

In 2019, Communist China will celebrate its seventieth anniversary, and in that short time it has been responsible for no fewer than three of the worst acts of mass carnage in human history. These include the mass murders of perceived class enemies in the immediate aftermath of the revolution (several million dead), and the government-caused and -manipulated famine of the late 1950s, which probably killed some 40 million. Only when set aside these epochal precedents does the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76 seem like anything other than a unique cataclysm.

By the early 1960s, China’s Communist elite hoped for an era of stability and growth, modeled on the then-apparently booming Soviet Union (remember, this was the immediate aftermath of Sputnik). The main obstacle to this scenario was the seventy year old leader Mao Zedong, whose apocalyptic visions held out hopes of revolutionary transformations almost overnight, of a near immediate move to perfect Communism. Mao himself loathed the post-Stalin regime in the Soviet Union, seeing it as a revisionist system little different from Western imperialism. In an ideal world, Mao would have been kicked upstairs to some symbolic role as national figurehead, but he proved a stubborn and resourceful foe. He outmaneuvered and defeated his “revisionist” Party rival Liu Shaoqi, who became a symbol of all that was reactionary, moderate, and imperialist. Brutally maltreated, Liu was hounded to death.

So far, the conflict was the bureaucratic backstabbing typical of Communist regimes, but Mao then escalated the affair to a totally different plane. From 1966 onwards, he deliberately incited and provoked mass movements to destroy the authority structures within China, within the Party itself, but also in all areas of government, education, and economic life. Mao held out a simple model, which perfectly prefigures modern campus theories of systematic oppression and “intersectionality.” Even in a Communist Chinese society, said Mao, there were privileged and underprivileged people, and those qualities were deeply rooted in ancestry and the legacies of history. Regardless of individual character or qualities, the child of a poor family was idealized as part of the masses that Communism was destined to liberate; the scion of a rich or middle class home was a class enemy.

The underprivileged – poor peasants, workers, and students – had an absolute right and duty to challenge and overthrow the powerful and the class enemies, not just as individuals, but in every aspect of the society and culture they ruled. In this struggle, there could be no restraint or limitation, no ethics or morality, beyond what served the good of the ultimate historical end, of perfect Communism. In a Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the oppressed need observe neither rules nor legality. Even to suggest such a constraint was bourgeois heresy.

What this all meant in practice is that over the following years, millions of uneducated and furious young thugs sought to destroy every form of authority structure or tradition in China. To understand the targets, it helps to think of the movement as a systematic inversion of Confucian values, which preached reverence to authority figures at all levels. In full blown Maoism, in contrast, all those figures were to be crushed and extirpated. Bureaucrats and Party officials were humiliated, beaten or killed, as was anyone associated (however implausibly) with The Past, or high culture, or foreign influence. Pianists and artists had their hands broken. Professors and teachers were special targets for vilification and violence, as the educational system altogether collapsed.

Anarchistic mobs replaced all authority with popular committees that inevitably became local juntas, each seeking to outdo the other in degrees of sadism. Some class enemies were beaten to death, others buried alive or mutilated. In parts of Guangxi province, the radicals pursued enemies beyond the grave, through a system of mass ritual cannibalism. Compared to such horrors, it seems almost trivial to record the mass destruction of books and manuscripts, artistic objects and cultural artifacts, historic sites and buildings. The radicals were seeking nothing less than the annihilation of Chinese culture. Within a few months of the coming of Revolution, local committees had degenerated into rival gangs and private armies, each claiming true ideological purity, and each at violent odds with the other. Such struggles tore apart cities and neighborhoods, villages and provincial towns.

Outside the military – and that is a crucial exception – the Chinese state ceased to function. The scale of the resulting anarchy is suggested by the controversy over the actual number of fatalities resulting from the crisis. Some say one million deaths over the full decade, some say ten million, with many estimates between those two extremes. Government was so absent that literally nobody in authority was available to count those few million missing bodies. China became a textbook example of the Hobbesian state of Nature – and a reasonable facsimile of Hell on Earth. Only gradually, during the early 1970s, were the Chinese armed forces able to intervene, sending the radicals off en masse into rural exile.

China’s agony ended only after the death of the monster Mao, in 1976, and the trial of his leading associates. From 1979, the country re-entered the civilized world under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, who is today lionized as a great reformer. That portrayal is correct – but we should never forget that as an architect of the earlier Great Famine, Deng had almost as much blood on his hands as did Mao himself.

So extreme was the violence of the Cultural Revolution that we might reasonably ask whether any parallels exist with the contemporary U.S. However ghastly the suppression of free speech at Middlebury College and elsewhere, however unacceptable the rioting in Berkeley, nobody has as yet lost his life in the current wave of protests. But in so many ways, the analogies are there. As in the Cultural Revolution, American radicals are positing the existence of historically oppressed classes, races and social groups, who rebel against the unjust hegemony of others. In both cases, genetics is a critical means of identifying the two competing sides, the Children of Light and Children of Darkness. If you belong to a particular race, class or group, you hold privilege, whether you want to or not. Consistently, the radicals demonize their enemies, invoking every historical insult at their disposal, no matter how inapplicable: Berkeley’s would- be revolutionaries describe themselves as “Antifas,” Anti-Fascists, as if any of their targets vaguely fit any conceivable definition of “fascism.”

For the oppressed and underprivileged, or those who arrogate those titles to themselves, resistance is a moral imperative, and only the oppressed can decide what means are necessary and appropriate in the struggle for liberation. The enemy, the oppressors, the hegemons, have no rights whatever, and certainly no right of speech. There can be no dialogue between truth and error. Violence is necessary and justified, and always framed in terms of self-defense against acts of oppression, current or historic.

Presently, our own neo-Cultural Revolutionaries are limited in what they can achieve, because even the most inept campus police forces enforce some restraints. If you want to see what those radicals could do, were those limitations ever removed, then you need only look at China half a century ago. And if anyone ever tells you what a wonderful system Communism could be were it not for the bureaucracies that smothered the effervescent will of an insurgent people, then just point them to that same awful era of Chinese history.

If, meanwhile, you want to ensure that nothing like the Cultural Revolution could ever occur again, then look to values of universally applicable human rights, which extend to all people, all classes. And above all, support the impartial rule of law and legality. The Cultural Revolution may be the best argument ever formulated for the value of classical theories of liberalism.

Philip Jenkins teaches at Baylor University. He is the author of Crucible of Faith: The Ancient Revolution That Made Our Modern Religious World [1] (forthcoming Fall 2017).

 

39 Comments (Open | Close)

39 Comments To "So You Want a Cultural Revolution?"

#1 Comment By grumpy realist On June 27, 2017 @ 11:32 pm

If you don’t want the peasants to revolt, don’t do things like removing their health care from them and using the cash for a tax cut for the rich instead.

When it comes to revolutions, there’s really no difference between the far left and the far right.

#2 Comment By Lee On June 27, 2017 @ 11:37 pm

Realistically, not much of a concern…the free ride granted idle minds and hands, is about to come to a very abrupt and ugly end.

#3 Comment By Lil Poundcake On June 28, 2017 @ 2:03 am

The oppressed will break their chains and strike down the oppressors. Our fury is righteous and pure. What is dismissed as violence and thuggery by the oppressors, to us is the shining beacon of justice. It is not too late for the oppressors among you to cast of the blinkers of privilege and join us. If not you had better pray that we show you mercy you have never deemed it fit to show us.

#4 Comment By libertarian jerry On June 28, 2017 @ 3:07 am

Thank goodness in America we still have the 2nd Amendment to protect us if the nightmare of a Communist cultural revolution should become a stain on our Republic.

#5 Comment By Charlie On June 28, 2017 @ 6:09 am

Good article. Most left wing humanities students and academics are physically weak and often cowardly: they have not played football, boxed or seen combat. The left wing terrorist groups of late 1960s to 1980s of Europe were not physically tough, just callous murderers Red Army Faction, Action Direct, Red Brigade, etc, etc
As one Special Forces member said after WW2 ” I did things I have spent the rest of my life trying to forget”. Those who have seen combat do not glorify violence. The problem with middle class left wing students is that they often have a lust for violence, perhaps they find it an aphrodisiac and therefore glorify it because of their physical weakness. The Gestapo and concentration camp guards in WW2 were often weak men unfit for combat.

It should be noted that the tough Chinese Army did not succumb to the hysteria of violence.

#6 Comment By Keith Kelly On June 28, 2017 @ 7:21 am

from the subtitle on the front page:

“When leftist radicals had no restraints, they got Mao”

and when rightist radicals had no restraints they got Hitler

#7 Comment By JonF On June 28, 2017 @ 8:09 am

Re: So extreme was the violence of the Cultural Revolution that we might reasonably ask whether any parallels exist with the contemporary U.S.

No. Mao’s “Cultural” Revolution was a brute force attempt to create a totally egalitarian society. It did not deal with the sorts of “culture” issues that have bedeviled our own politics since the 60s (and if race is considered in that mix, then since the 1860s). In America of 2017 almost everyone takes extreme inequality as natural and normal and even Bernie Sanders is only preaching the mildest correctives to it.

#8 Comment By JLF On June 28, 2017 @ 8:54 am

With the power that he had, why didn’t Mao simply confiscate the wealth of his enemies and remove them from positions of power and influence? A general without an army to command, nor a dollar to his name, nor the ability to acquire the same is just a sad, hungry man, begging for a living.

#9 Comment By Dies Irae On June 28, 2017 @ 10:05 am

Excellent essay and exactly correct. Yes, they don’t have the blood on their hands, at least yet, but the same seed of madness that germinated in the Cultural Revolution is sprouting in our own addled progressives. Now we wait for The American “Conservative’s” regiment of leftists to hem, haw, and deride what you wrote.

#10 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 28, 2017 @ 10:25 am

The empirical evidence is all present in this article to highlight a very different reason the analogy falls flat.

The Cultural Revolution in China was called forth by the titular head of the ruling party, and was funded by free transportation, food, lodging, etc. everywhere the roving squads cared to go. If anything similar happened in America, it would be Donald Trump on the verge of impeachment, or having lost a battle for re-election, calling out the younger people among his 20-30 percent solid base of support to reject this ego-wounding result and keep him in power.

Which is also rather unlikely.

Should the infantile disorders at Evergreen State in Washington ever venture outside their bucolic taxpayer-funded enclave, they would learn that they are entirely irrelevant to everyone else across the country, and have no way to get their three meals a day and comfortable room for the night, unless of course they find a job and so some real work.

Even a misguided and utterly insane cultural revolution requires a base of support, and if not enthusiastic endorsement then at least toleration from a substantial mass of the population.

#11 Comment By Fabian On June 28, 2017 @ 10:32 am

It will not happen here because at one point they will have to confront the white male. The white male is the most lethal predator that ever roamed the Earth. The best mix, so far, of physicality, intellect and cold calculating cruelty. They have no idea what’s waiting for them.

#12 Comment By chris mahoney On June 28, 2017 @ 10:40 am

I think that the CR was one of the reasons why Deng cleared the protestors in Tiananmen. He feared chaos.

#13 Comment By grumpy realist On June 28, 2017 @ 11:02 am

Fabian–if what you say is true, shouldn’t white males then be under curfew and monitored? I mean, look at what people want to do to Muslims….

#14 Comment By MM On June 28, 2017 @ 11:36 am

“When it comes to revolutions, there’s really no difference between the far left and the far right.”

Not a true statement, and unsupported by the facts. Cuba and North Korea remain communist dictatorships. China and Vietnam less so, but still one-party monopolies on power.

South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Chile, etc. and numerous other countries which had anti-communist authoritarian revolutions… not really authoritarian anymore since the Cold War ended. They’re all quite a bit more democratic and far less violent than those where socialism took root.

#15 Comment By hooly On June 28, 2017 @ 1:03 pm

Ah, but the United States did go through its own Cultural Revolution even before China’s under Mao, … it’s called the War Between the States under Lincoln. Massive loss of life, massive destruction of property and a destroyed social structure that we’re still feeling the affects of today in America. Sometimes to bring down an ossified social structure like China’s or the American South, or Old Order Europe before WWI, or Czarist Russia, or Ancien Regime France, etc, etc … you need violence on an epic scale perhaps?

#16 Comment By EK On June 28, 2017 @ 1:27 pm

But Siarlys, my man, our domestic Red Guards do have official support and encouragement in all the humanities departments of all the colleges and universities, in the Departments of Education and Justice, in the Democratic Party and in the media.

They are also subsidized by the taxpayers and do get food and lodging and often transportation to their bits of guerrilla theater during the academic year.

You mention Evergreen but you elide over Yale, MizzU, Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, the entire UCal and UMich systems, Trinity and any number of lesser institutions.

I know your an old Red yourself but we’er not as illiterate as you assume.

#17 Comment By sglover On June 28, 2017 @ 1:51 pm

Siarlys Jenkins — There you go, ruining a loopy excursion into fever dreamland by dragging facts and context and perspective into things. It’s much more fun to get worked up imagining the two dozen LGBTQIAR Studies ‘activists’ at State U rolling out into the countryside (or at least the shopping center) to organize struggle sessions.

#18 Comment By Ivo Olavo Castro da Silva On June 28, 2017 @ 2:49 pm

Lil Poudcake is the the perfect expression of communist terrorists with their “pure and righteous” hatred. They deserve a reaction with the same intensity.

#19 Comment By GM On June 28, 2017 @ 2:57 pm

Fabian’s theoretical racially superior white male will be pitching in with the revolutionaries since a white male “without a dollar to his name, nor the ability to acquire the same is just a sad, hungry man, begging for a living.”

Why can’t we all just get along and make this place a beacon of freedom and of civility?

#20 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On June 28, 2017 @ 5:04 pm

For leftists, “the people must be forced to be free” has a kind of radical purity to it. That makes them dangerous, as well as lunatics.

#21 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 28, 2017 @ 5:31 pm

I think that the CR was one of the reasons why Deng cleared the protestors in Tiananmen. He feared chaos.

Although the Chinese government did not publicize it, fairly credible published historical research has presented that Deng virtually said as much in private. How well published authors really know what was said in private conversations within the party’s inner circle is, of course, subject to debate.

But Siarlys, my man, our domestic Red Guards do have official support and encouragement in all the humanities departments of all the colleges and universities, in the Departments of Education and Justice, in the Democratic Party and in the media.

Well, the USA is not a one party state either, its a two party state, which is almost as bad. Last I knew, the Democrats are not hardly the party in power, and their titular head, if any, is in no position to call the nation, or any part of it, to arms. And as others have said in various different ways, how many divisions do the humanities departments have?

Siarlys Jenkins — There you go, ruining a loopy excursion into fever dreamland by dragging facts and context and perspective into things.

I would love to see some of these modern campus activists go hold a struggle session in the countryside, or in a local shopping center… they’d be cured for life. A small portion of the 60’s activists managed to transition into real neighborhoods where real people worked for a living, and serve to advance real grievances that affected real families… but most didn’t have the patience or the tact and willingness to learn. The modern crop doesn’t have the slightest connection to what concerns people in the inner cities OR the blue collar suburbs.

Trying to cast our Civil War as a “cultural revolution” is an excellent example of the Fallacy of Analogy. Most wishful comparisons are a matter of trying to make fragrant navel oranges appear to be horse apples, or vice versa.There was no “war between the states,” as my great-great-grandfather in the 11th Tennessee Cavalry, United States Army, and Ohio’s Clement Vallandigham, could testify.

Trying

#22 Comment By Adam Minsky On June 28, 2017 @ 6:03 pm

I was a teenage Maoist back in the day. i remember a Trotskyite from a rival organization telling me that the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” was neither great nor cultural.

Trotskyites aren’t right often, but that fellow was correct in that particular instance.

#23 Comment By Joe Porreca On June 29, 2017 @ 10:32 am

As Professor Jenkins says, “The U.S. media does a wonderful job of recalling atrocities that they can associate with the Right, while far worse horrors stemming from the Left vanish into oblivion.” One might mention in this regard also the French Revolution, the essence of which, according to Simon Schama, was violence. There is no recollection in the mainstream media of the September massacres, or the Vendee, or other realizations of French revolutionary terror. And in a few weeks, President Trump is going to France to join in the celebration of Bastille Day.

#24 Comment By JWJ On June 29, 2017 @ 11:26 am

Keith Kelly says:
June 28, 2017 at 7:21 am
from the subtitle on the front page:

“and when rightist radicals had no restraints they got Hitler”

C’mon, does anybody really still think the national socialists were “rightists”? I’m sorry to tell you, but that is simply being ignorant in the facts of history.
You come across as mindlessly repeating a false leftist narrative.

#25 Comment By Donald On June 29, 2017 @ 11:45 am

Almost everyone except rightwingers in denial think of the Nazis as rightists.

On the French Revolution, most people haven’t read Schama, who also isn’t very kind about our own revolution. But the popular level understanding of the French Revolution involves mostly screaming mobs and guillotines, so it is a little silly to say it has a good press. And I am old enough o remember when Schama’s book came out– it got a lot of favorable attention from the liberal press, who by and large are not in favor of violent leftist extremism.

#26 Comment By EarlyBird On June 29, 2017 @ 11:55 am

Sure, I was still stunned and a little sickened by the election results by the time I watched coverage of the “womens’ march” the day after the inauguration. But in that horde I saw the terrifying power of the left wing “progressive” mob, its utter self righteousness, it surety that it was just one inch away from utopia, and was ready to get there by hell or high water. No doubt, they’d have been thrilled to have ousted the new, duly elected president that very moment by force of will. I do not trust these people with power.

#27 Comment By Bill Kurtz On June 29, 2017 @ 3:41 pm

If there’s any one thing that would truly satisfy the hard-core Trumpkins, it would be an American version of the Cultural Revolution, with bureaucrats, intellectuals and media elites sent off to Alabama, Oklahoma and West Virginia to be re-educated. Think of the possibilities: Ivy League presidents working on pig farms, coal miners as CNN anchors and New York Times editors. Nothing else would so fully fulfill their anti-elitist fantasies, although they don’t seem to resent the financial elites the same way.

#28 Comment By ZGler On June 29, 2017 @ 3:47 pm

This all seems quite hysterical. University heads are backpedaling frantically against these well-publicized excesses.

#29 Comment By EngineerScotty On June 29, 2017 @ 6:00 pm

As Siarlys points out, Mao was “on the map” long before the Cultural Revolution–he’d been the ruler of China for nearly two decades by that point, and had been struggling against the KMT and/or the Japanese (as well as letting these two fight it out) for the better part of two decades before that.

The CR was a purge by those in power; not a “revolution” in any real sense.

If there’s anything in modern US politics resembling Maoists, it’s the Trumpites, not any clique of snot-nosed college students. Cliques of snot-nosed college students seldom overthrow anything more heavily fortified than the administration building, at least not without a ton of popular support–and in current US politics, they do not have it.

#30 Comment By LFM On June 29, 2017 @ 7:43 pm

@Keith Kelly
‘“When leftist radicals had no restraints, they got Mao” and when rightist radicals had no restraints they got Hitler’

Except that rightist radicals in Germany did not have ‘no restraints’, ever. German political divisions made it impossible for any leader to wholly defy one group in favor of another. You should also understand that however much Hitler is everyone’s favorite ‘right-wing’ villain, he was not perceived as a conservative, not even a radical conservative, by most of his contemporaries, except those who were actually communists. Be that as it may, the total destruction of every German/European institution and tradition was something Hitler never intended, although he came close to achieving it.

#31 Comment By Adriana I Pena On June 29, 2017 @ 8:43 pm

@Donald

Perhaps the most telling comment about the French Revolution was made by R. R. Palmer who said that revolutionaries thought that prowess in debating societies qualified them to run a government.

When you come in, thinking that it will be easy, and all you have to do is follow the manual, well, you are going to take a fall. And since the manual cannot lie, then you have been betrayed, and you start looking for traitors.

(Stages of project development

1) Hope
2) Enthusiasm
3) Disillusionment
4) Migration of those who see what’s coming
5) Panic
6) Search for the guilty
7) Punishment of the innocent
8) Honor and glory for non-participants)

If you follow Olivier Bernier you see to what point the French Revolution was a comedy of incompetence with blood at the end (Perhaps the definitive history of it should have been written by Laurance J. Peter). The King was incompetent, the Queen was incompetent, the Minister was incompetent, Lafayette was incompetent,.. from incompetent to incompetent, it fell in the hands of the bottom of the barrel, the Commitee of Public Safety, run by people who were at best third tier, not even second. Because there was no one else…

#32 Comment By Adriana I Pena On June 29, 2017 @ 8:49 pm

“When Leftist radicals had no restraints, they got Mao”

Sorry, but Mao had been in power when those leftist radicals were babies. They were just like any other youth group manipulated by an older figure who managed to earn their trust. And then the Chinese youths had been indoctrinated to see Mao as a god. They ran rampant when the government decided it was a good thing, and were reined when there was no more need. They were not revolting. They were just doing the Government bidding.

#33 Comment By Johann On June 29, 2017 @ 9:10 pm

Lil Poundcake will be eaten by the monster she has helped to create.

#34 Comment By Ain’t Benedict On June 29, 2017 @ 9:57 pm

The comparison breaks down before it starts because China had a single-ideology government beset by internal power struggles between hardened combat veterans, a rigid and ancient culture stung by generations of humiliation and catastrophe, and a society-wide case of PTSD.

Godwin’s Law ought to be used more broadly.

#35 Comment By FiveString On June 29, 2017 @ 11:25 pm

Equating liberals with Commies? Seriously? Must be Throwback Thursday.

I don’t miss that childish slur, but I do miss the days when the GOP recognized that Russia was an evil empire.

#36 Comment By JosephBlack On June 30, 2017 @ 12:31 pm

[2]

” Berkeley’s would- be revolutionaries describe themselves as “Antifas,” Anti-Fascists, as if any of their targets vaguely fit any conceivable definition of “fascism.” ”
That’s the Schwarze Sonne flag, a bona fide fascist symbol, right there.

#37 Comment By sglover On June 30, 2017 @ 5:53 pm

There’s another goofy aspect to Jenkins’ piece, common to just about every right-wing take on The Kids These Days: The focus is always on some outlandish episode out of, say, the Women’s Studies department, or sociology, or anthropology. But anybody who’s been within a hemisphere of any American university knows that those departments are getting by as they always have, hand to mouth. In funding, faculty size, student count, just about any meaningful measure you can think of, they’re paltry. The business colleges are where the real clout is. Funny how right-wingers manage to overlook that slight detail.

#38 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On July 1, 2017 @ 2:06 pm

i remember a Trotskyite from a rival organization telling me that the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” was neither great nor cultural.

It wasn’t proletarian either… coming from a confirmed socialist who was never Maoist or Trotskyite, and has concluded the Leninist organization is a failure on its own terms, never mind what the right wing says about it.

Think of the possibilities: Ivy League presidents working on pig farms, coal miners as CNN anchors and New York Times editors. Nothing else would so fully fulfill their anti-elitist fantasies, although they don’t seem to resent the financial elites the same way.

I’d go for college presidents working on pig farms, but I want to to see Wall Street executives working in the coal mines. More realistically, I want to see all able bodied unemployed people enrolled in union apprenticeship programs building high speed rail lines across the U.S., while unemployed social workers are hired to lay track.

But in that horde I saw the terrifying power of the left wing “progressive” mob, its utter self righteousness, it surety that it was just one inch away from utopia, and was ready to get there by hell or high water. No doubt, they’d have been thrilled to have ousted the new, duly elected president that very moment by force of will. I do not trust these people with power.

What you saw was not “power” but delusional self-congratulation. This pampered mob wouldn’t know what to do with power if they had it, which they don’t. It would fall from their grasp as readily as it fell from the grasp of Alexander Kerensky and Bela Kun. When a party actually takes power, it becomes their job to make sure all the wheels of production are turning so everyone gets their paychecks on time, food is available in all the grocery stores, etc.

#39 Comment By Thrice A Viking On July 2, 2017 @ 6:30 pm

I have to wonder if Lil Poundcake was being satirical. Anyone else have that thought?

Donald, the comparisons between Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany are too striking to permit easy categorization of one as left and the other as right A true right-wing regime would likely have wanted a restoration of the monarchy and aristocracy