I Understand Why the Left are So Afraid About the Far Right - I Do Not Agree. But I Understand.

When the people discover how deep the corruption goes, how many have received so many freebies, how many have died due to the corruption, how all of it was systemically unjust, how the perpetrators knew exactly what they were doing, how it was all done in the name of the people, you can understand fully why the left are so terrified of the far right. 

Look to history.

Every revolution, no matter what the outcome of it, no matter who was right and who was wrong, has given permission for the wholesale slaughter of the perpetrators in that time and place. And the slaughter happened each time. 

Of course this did not solve anything because sooner or later came the next so called revolution - to go around in a circle and end up where you started. 

So who are the perpetrators the revolutionaries will slaughter this time?

We all know. Perpetrator psyche gives it all away, early and clearly.

Those with High IQ learn how to remember the future.

Thanks once again to Grok for helping with the research:

Revolutions are high-stakes gambles. Historically, most do not deliver what their most idealistic participants promised, at least not in the first generation. Here is the rough pattern drawn from the last 400 years of major revolutions (English Civil War 1640s, American 1775–1783, French 1789, Haitian 1791–1804, Russian 1917, Chinese 1911 & 1949, Cuban 1959, Iranian 1979, Eastern European 1989, Arab Spring 2011, etc.):1. Success rate in achieving stated goals

• ≈10–20 % end up clearly “better” than the regime they replaced within 20–30 years (measured by freedom, prosperity, and stability).
  • Clear long-term winners: American Revolution, Velvet/Revolutions of 1989 in Central Europe.
  • Partial successes that eventually stabilized: Glorious Revolution (1688), some Latin American independence wars in the 19th century.
• ≈50–60 % replace one form of authoritarianism with another, often worse in the short-to-medium term.
  • Classic examples: French (1789 → Terror → Napoleon → restoration → more revolutions), Russian (1917 → civil war → Stalin), Chinese (1949 → Great Leap Forward → Cultural Revolution), Iranian (1979 → theocratic dictatorship), Egyptian (2011 → military coup).
• ≈20–30 % collapse into chaos, civil war, or foreign intervention and end up partitioned or re-conquered (Haitian exception proves the rule—it succeeded but at horrific human cost and long-term poverty).

2. Common trajectoriesA. The “Thermidor” or “Bonaparte” scenario (most frequent)

• Early radical phase → terror or mass violence → strongman or oligarchy restores order → eventual stabilization, sometimes decades later, under a less oppressive but still authoritarian system.
• Examples: Cromwell → Restoration, Robespierre → Napoleon, Lenin/Trotsky → Stalin, Castro → Castro, Khomeini → IRGC-dominated system.

B. The “failed state” scenario

• Central authority collapses and never fully reconstitutes (Libya 2011, Yemen 2011, Syria 2011).

C. The “genuine liberal-democratic success” scenario (rare)

• Requires pre-existing pluralistic institutions, rule of law culture, or overwhelming external support.
• American Revolution (benefited from colonial legislatures and British legal tradition), 1989 in Poland/Czechoslovakia/Hungary (civil society + European integration as anchor).

3. Almost universal patterns

• Massive death tolls in the first 5–15 years (war, terror, famine, disease). Average death toll of 20th-century revolutions is in the high hundreds of thousands to tens of millions.
• Economic collapse in the first decade (hyperinflation, expropriation, trade collapse).
• Élite replacement: old aristocracy/oligarchy is killed or exiled; new revolutionary élite (often from lower-middle class or minor gentry) takes over and becomes the new privileged class.
• Thermidorian reaction within 3–20 years: the revolution “devours its children” and moderates or authoritarians take over from the original radicals.

4. Why most disappoint

• Revolutions attract romantics and fanatics; moderates and competent administrators usually sit them out or get purged.
• The skills needed to destroy an old regime (conspiracy, mob violence, ideological purity) are almost the opposite of the skills needed to run a country (compromise, technical competence, tolerance of pluralism).
• External powers almost always intervene (blockades, invasions, or covert support for one faction), turning many revolutions into proxy wars.
• The “worst get on top” (Hayek’s phrase): in a revolutionary situation, the most ruthless and organized tend to win internal power struggles.

Bottom lineIf you look strictly at the data, launching or joining a revolution is one of the worst bets in history if your goal is a freer, more prosperous society in your own lifetime. The few clear successes almost always had unique preconditions (geographic isolation, pre-existing institutions, or a very moderate revolutionary leadership that deliberately stopped the radical spiral early).Most revolutions are tragic: they begin with genuine grievances and high hopes, kill huge numbers of people, and end up with a new set of rulers who are often just as bad or worse—until, sometimes generations later, the society slowly liberalizes again under less dramatic circumstances.