Bolshevism Puns

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

I reject sharia bolshevism!

Leftist-Muslim alliance is very interesting (and hilarious) and I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it.

Leftists are typically physically weak men and women from humanities fields, their purpose in any given “protest” is simple. Turn up, make some noise, wave your dumb little posters around, get some photos for the social media stories, cry and whine. The useful idiots. Propaganda and show.

Now, we enter the second phase of the protests. Since wokes completely and utterly lack the manpower and the testosterone needed to face the cops, they employ the Muslims. Muslims are their street muscle, they throw the petrol bombs, they carry the swords, they take the thrashings, bullets and arrests from the cops. At this point during the protest, almost all non Muslim “liberals” have left since an actual anarchist break down is no place for the dhimmi sheep. They don’t want to be caught with their pants down (literally) by a Muslim mob.. or the cops.

Now, we must not confuse the woke-Muslim marriage as a contract of equals, no. Wokes are the dhimmis who get massacred when the Muslims are done with the “other bad guys”. They’re slaves. The useful, ignorant morons. The plebeians, the stupid masses.

In the upcoming Central Asia update, I noticed that Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan had the subideology of Communism called Bolshevism, while Tajikistan had one called Leninism. What’s the difference between these two ideologies? At first I thought it might have to do with de jure recognizing the old Soviet Union. But it seems like both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan do that, while both being different subideologies. I noticed that Turkmenistan’s TV Tropes entry specifically mentions it trying to maintain Bukharinist ideals. Although Tajikistan’s entry mentions essentially the same thing, trying to preserve the old system as much as possible. But it never mentions Bukharin by name, just Lenin.

So is the difference supposed to be that Bolshevism is fully embracing the NEP like Bukharin did, while Leninism is not embracing it/only half embracing it like Lenin when he was alive? It also feels weird, since Leninism if anything feels like it should be a subtype of Bolshevism. Since the Bolsheviks were a political party that Lenin was a part of. And then they got renamed once actually taking power, so Bukharin wasn’t really a “Bolshevik” while actually in office.

Although in the time before the revolution, the Bolshevik party and Leninism were pretty inseparable. So it feels weird to divide them. Is the subcategory just saying “oh yeah Bolshevism is what the CPSU turned into post Lenin. I know technically they didn’t keep the name but close enough.”? It’s also especially funny because there is a 100% chance Bukharin called himself Leninist while in power (just like Stalin did in OTL). Is it meant to say “Bukharism is different to how Lenin would have ran the country. Leninism is closer to what OTL Leninist countries were like. So we call Bukharinism “Bolshevism”?