Leninthink

Numbers do not tell the whole story. Under the Third Reich, an ethnic German loyal to the regime did not have to fear arrest, but Lenin pioneered and Stalin greatly expanded a policy in which arrests were entirely arbitrary: that is true terror. By the time of the Great Terror of 1936–38, millions of entirely innocent people were arrested, often by quota. Literally no one was safe. The Party itself was an especially dangerous place to be, and the NKVD was constantly arresting its own members—a practice that was also true of its predecessor, the Cheka, which Lenin founded almost immediately after the Bolshevik coup.

This is why I've always said that the Reds were worse than the Nazis - the sheer arbitrariness of their violence.

Fully agreed. Heck, it if anything was an extension of Louis Grignon’s actions during the Vendee, and possibly also Jacobin thought (heck, French Revolutionary thought as a whole). I believe his exact words on the matter were “My comrades, we enter the insurgent country, I give you the express order to deliver to the flames all that will be likely to be burned and to pass over the bayonet all that you meet of inhabitants on your way. I know there may be some patriots in this country; it is the same, we must sacrifice everything.” (at least, that was what was translated from French). That’s also why I am more inclined to think “world government” and/or “globalism”, heck, a “command and control economy” even, is closer to a means for them than an actual end, and that their actual end is just all-out anarchy and chaos.

And since we’re getting into comparisons, like I said in my opening post, even the Tarkin Doctrine (especially the Rule of Fear bit) from Star Wars comes across as extremely banal by comparison, little more than standard parental discipline by comparison. At least by limiting it to having them be fearful of force rather than the actual use of force itself, Tarkin essentially implies that it was preferable that they NOT have to utilize force. If Tarkin suggested that to Lenin, Tarkin would more likely be executed by Lenin for even daring to suggest exercising even the slightest restraint on force.

their actual end is just all-out anarchy and chaos.

I do not think it is that.

It is simply total power over everything.

They would not have control over anarchy and chaos.

What is desired is absolute power. They want to be God.

After what Louis Grignon, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, and even Karl Marx pulled where they advocated for destroying the state and leaving everything in total anarchy, with friends and enemies being indistinguishable regarding deaths, similar in fact to what the Joker from Batman advocates, I’m not entirely sure they simply want absolute power. Even a double-standard set of law and order that only exists as a way to show their absolute power is still technically law and order, while with those guys, they want even the very concept of law and order outright gutted altogether, not even allowing for double standards, let alone TRUE law and order, which is what power is derived from anyway (short of the supernatural, true power in other words).

To put it another way, their actual end is closer to what Jerome Valeska and Joker tried to pull post-mortem in Gotham and in his ending to Injustice 2, respectively:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFwBhZniiQ

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hZby1M8Fd8

I can tell you one thing, Joker and Jerome certainly didn’t give a darn about absolute power, they just wanted pure chaos for its own sake, destruction for its own sake. And Michel Foucault certainly didn’t want absolute power based on the following exchange with Maoists, and if anything wanted something even WORSE than that:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141114060055/http://www4.uwm.edu/c21/conferences/2008since1968/foucault_maoists.pdf

Sartre too, wanting to make Dostoevsky’s warning about no god = everything being permitted into an actual reality.

You are trying to apply man's limited understanding of cause and effect, purpose and logic, to a being who is omnipotent and omniscient. The words themselves have become frivolous in their meanings.

The essential reality is men are limited in their understanding, by their very nature.

Men's definitions and thought process cannot erect barriers to God's will.

Maybe God does that, in some way far beyond man's understanding.

Maybe God plays games with himself, to stave off boredom, to make an almost meaningless argument about the nature of reality.

Men are limited, but within our limits, we can do much.

Yeah, I get that man has a very limited understanding of those concepts. Unfortunately, “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are still defined in those manners. Defined by God Himself even.

And besides, most times, stories depict those who’s motives no one could comprehend as being bad guys. Like Abeloth from Tales of the Jedi, or the Patriots from Metal Gear Solid 2.

And who said anything about erecting barriers? Last I checked, God cannot be restrained anyhow.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.