My grandpa was a poo boy in the KGB. His handlers would ask him “how many poos did moscow take” and he would have to say more poos than there actually were, lest the KGB assign him a poo boy poo boy. The poo quota was more important than the reality of poo.
It is not something to joke about. For the rest of his life, if he took a poo he would cry and announce to everyone that he took three poos. Under communism, any of us could be a spy.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I just want to sit every liberal down and make them take a crash course on basic logistics. How the hell is “big brother” actually supposed to watch everyone? If you could have 1 agent watching 10 people, that would mean almost 10% of the population would be employed as a “watcher” everyone would know someone whose job is to watch everyone else, it would be the most common job in the country. And of course the obvious bit of “who watches the watchers” which would require a practically infinite number of people to watch these watchers to make sure they aren’t thinking about freedom and democracy.
But think about it, this is a great way to counter unemployment. How else could the СССР give anyone a job? Just keep people watching around what others are doing!
What does the Watcher do when two of his targets have a phone call at the same time, how can he listen in to me discussing the weather while my neighbor talks to her mother about an upcoming wedding.
There is a chance that every detail of the wedding won’t get passed on to the KGB, it would be a disaster! I propose at least three watchers per person, that will fix it.
Exactly. You were watched to see what you were reading in the toilet while you had diarrhea and shat your guts out. There was a KGB agent at every toilet window watching these scenes and taking notes.
A KGB agent is hiding behind an opaque window, watching a man grunting violently while sitting on his house’s toilet. He nods and pulls out a notebook and a pen. “Stool consistency: 3”, he writes. Andrei could already smell that promotion (and something else).
That agent could smell revisionism in every shitter.
Love story between the person on the toilet and their designated KGB agent ❤️
As always libs project their actual circumstances living under surveillance capitalism.
“commies killed my family” vibes
It’s not even that far off, she literally always finds a way to mention and talk shit about ‘‘MuH Stalin, gulags, surveillance, authoritarian, prison, opression’’ etc even if it has nothing to do with it. She’s literally trying her hardest to appeal to westoids and libs in general.
She’s literally trying her hardest to appeal to westoids and libs in general.
Who then call her subhuman and want her dead with all other citizens of Russia.
I think there was a time where Eli interviewed her grandma and got completely ratioed
They put windows in inside rooms (that gives to another room) to let light in and for aeration that’s it that’s the purpose
Person pointing at random things and doing a creative writing exercise on its backstory “And this is how the communists were bad”
In seriousness though, this is a perfect example of what the Parenti quote is talking about, isn’t it. “Everything the communists do/did was malicious and manipulative and controlling, even if it has some perfectly innocent reason, it must be bad somehow.”
The quote
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
The communists are watching for any skibidi toilets up and about
