I've just stared at my keyboard for a full five minutes, because I can't believe that what I'm about to say. I am completely ill prepared for this. You'll have to excuse me if I stumble a bit, but...without further adieu, here goes:
I have absolutely no rebuttal whatsoever.
none.
Because of the fact that every single sentence you've crafted in the above reply either A, agrees with what I said or B, completely and totally reaffirms everything I've alleged about you, I have nothing to say.
no, wait. I take it all back by saying in reply to your "I don't think we have much blah blah"
of course we don't! people who are of the same mindset as you rarely have anything to discuss whatsoever. a discussion is two people reciprocating equal amounts of listening and talking, while both parties do an honest job of the actual consideration of the other's view points.
go look at all of your replies in this entire ama. in most instances, you flat out fail to even directly answer the questions you're asked! are you even reading what people are typing? or are you just picking out keywords and launching your set phrase-esque rebuttals at them? honestly. really though. be honest with yourself. in fact don't even answer this.
and then we have this beautiful gem right here:
Many of my enemies were and are motivated by ideological concerns above self-interest as well, and I'd certainly not deny such a thing.
Oh good lord, where do I begin. how about with delusions of grandeur? you refer to an undefined group of leaders who were not communists as "my enemies" as if to think yourself so great that you've ever seen so much as had contact with them. how do you even know they're your enemies?! maybe, at best they're your hypothetical political enemies? you know, unless you ever actually did meet them in real life.
now let's get to your usage of temporality. "my enemies were and are..." so you have enemies that aren't your enemies any more? or is it that they've since passed away? this temporal precedent (in written communication) is completely unnecessary, and more than hints at...you guessed it, delusions of grandeur.
now let's take a look at this wonderful bit:
and I'd certainly not deny such a thing.
Why would you word your sentence like this? a large percentage of your sentences are worded like this. It is not intelligent, and it does not make you appear more intelligent, and here is why: the sentence in question can easily be written as: and I won't/wouldn't deny this.
the word usage I've suggested is much more efficient, natural, and 100% conveys the entire meaning of your words AND thoughts, without losing a single droplet of meaning.
so why did you choose to write the flowery, bloated, and pompous words that you did? c'mon, even an over educated individual like yourself can see why. I don't even need to go into it.
O! O! wait...here's another good one!:
Mensa even did an article suggesting a correlation between higher IQs and socialist ideology
hyper educated, to the point that your words have become flowery bloated toxic messes of verbal diarrhea, and you couldn't even be bothered to nix that "even" there?
but more to the point, explain to me what exactly it means when you say mensa "did" an article. As someone who's job entails reading an average of 4 to 5 research journals a week, I'm especially excited for the answer to this one.
also, I'm actually a member of mensa. ok to be truthful, I'm a member who's IQ qualified him to gain membership, with a few double digits worth of extra padding. yet I've never even heard of a communist in mensa. I'm sure there are a handful; it's a very large organization. but if there is a high correlation, then wouldn't you think I'd have met more than in an average stroll across town?
so there you go! have fun with all that. or. ORRRRRRRRR. you could do just quit the conversation right here and now, and don't reply. this would be a good thing for you to do for a number of reasons. 1. a junior che member such as yourself would be putting his time to better use by fighting your (imagined) enemies, and emboldening your cause. 2. you've stated that you don't think we have much to talk about because I've not been civil (and i'm still not - your sister is a harlot, fair sir. take that). not replying would in fact go a long way in proving this correct!