Introduction ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	Well, this one is certainly a classic. The Poor Revolutionist is one of a handful of Chick's tracts that one's mind wanders too when thinking about exemplars that succinctly lay out his beliefs on a particular topic. Think The Gay Blade for homosexuality, or Are Roman Catholics Christian? for Catholicism. Interestingly enough, this tract depicts a very different world in the lead up to the eventual and inevitable End of Days than other pieces like The Last Generation. Rather than trying to show how the entire world slides into a debauched, totalitarian hellscape just before the return of Jesus, the scope on this one is just a tad choked back to focus mostly on the downfall of the United States at the hands of Communist “liberators”. It can be argued this might have been a bit overblown in the early 1970's when this tract was first published. However, given the modern political climate in America, it's possible that the imagery is even more relevant today than it was even back then… though perhaps not in the way the author originally envisioned. In Chick's day, he saw the government as being on the side of Law and Order™, and a few malcontented, unwashed socialists as the existential threat to a prosperous nation. These days, it's the people more of his stripe who see the government as being the agitators and defilers of the American Spirit. You know, what with their dastardly, outrageous agenda full of things like not murdering black people, or not rounding up immigrants into concentration camps, or not persecuting transgender people like Nazi-era Jews… truly the kind of things Stalin salivated over.
Boudreaux	I was in Junior High when this tract was first published in 1971, I remember that time well. It was one of the most violent periods in American history, after the Civil War. Society was fractured along many different lines, but one of the most significant was by age, with the young people and older Americans having very different world views. Demonstrations, riots, shootings, made the news on a regular basis. The Cold War with Russia raged. Jack Chick’s generation was convinced that the end of American democracy, and with it civilization itself, was at hand. This means that we have a tract that is much less focused on the theology than usual.
Toad	Yo, and I’m here too! What’s up, people?! This one’s weird!
Anna	A warm welcome to you, Toad, and I do hope you will find your first dissection to be most enjoyable. As kindly explained by Boudreaux and Jessica, this particular tract is but one aspect of the social climate at the time (that being during the Cold War) and which we see the fall of Western civilisation (in the case of the tract, played by the ever-familiar off-brand doppelganger for the USA) led by a group of revolutionaries serving the interests of a fictional Communist/Socialist nation (and who they are meant to represent is hidden behind the thinnest of veils). While academic discussions and research about revolutions are quite complex and often contain multiple facets, such as whether the downsides (such as uncertain outcomes, social division and economic disruption) are worth the potential upsides that can lead to positive change, my expectations for a twenty-two page booklet with pictures are quite low, let alone that it is a piece of ‘media’ written by Jack Chick. While saddening to have lived in such a time as Boudreaux has said, I will also admit my innate curiosity and hope that this will give some insight and perspective into the social climate at the time, for all the paranoia and fear that was very likely to have existed. As for why I had not experienced such a social climate personally, I was isolated enough to not be caught up in the social climates of the time, but I still did receive news and kept an eye (sometimes several) on various people (including ones that I cared for). To those I cared for, I wished them safety and other beneficial aspects. To others, I wished for more… detrimental things. *gasps* Where are my manners? You have been patiently waiting, so I will not delay us any longer. Hopefully you all brought paper, pens and ink for note-taking, though I have spares available if needed. Let us begin our dissection.

Cover / Page 1 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	This image would actually make a pretty bitchin’ Socialist flag, not gonna lie.
Anna	How very generic of a cover image. I suppose that it would do if you need to convey that your media is about revolution and rising up against oppression. Whether the oppression is actually occurring or not is a different matter entirely, but taking what I have seen of Chick and the things he considered as grave threats, it is probably a case of him tilting at windmills. Even in the midst of the Cold War, the US was arguably less likely to end than the other European countries near Russia. But as they say to ‘never judge a book by its cover’, perhaps the innards is where the true substance will be.

Page 2 ⇑ ⇓

Toad	I’ve read over this tract a few times and, every time I do, I feel like I’ve made a mistake and lost a few pages. The exposition is crazy; we are inside of a “private cell meeting,” which we’re going to get to, to which this guy’s brother starts preaching, so he decides to have him held down and beat up, all next to a poster proclaiming “peace,” all while none of the four characters have been named. I know Chick has a page limit, but SLOW DOWN. Anyways, “cell meeting,” had to look that one up, pretty much exclusively known as a dated term to describe “Bible study groups.”
Boudreaux	The signs on the wall illustrate the two principal movements which could have resulted in violence. The young people were on the whole very much opposed to the war in Vietnam. The Draft was in place, and many of them knew young men who had died there. Civil Rights was the other driver, with African-Americans increasingly demanding their equal rights, which federal law was not effective in procuring. Personally I prefer the hand drawn text in the original. And note that all grawlixes were replaced in the revision.
Jessica	To the point, anyone reading this tract outside of its original context of the 1970's would have absolutely no idea how to understand what is going on here. Chick can be excused for that since the original tract was released in 1971. But by the time of the re-release in 2010? Absolutely nobody in Gen Z knows what a “cell meeting” is supposed to be, or has a “PEACE” poster hanging in their dorm room unless it's tie-dyed and ironically accompanied by a lava lamp and a heaping helping of kush.
Anna	I was always under the impression that ‘peace’ was most often about societal harmony, often aiming for the absence of violence and hostility. But I guess that, as Toad pointed out, they have a poster for “peace”, which I would define as societal disharmony, often using violence and hostility against those who take issue with your message and intentions (especially on an ideological level), to achieve a facade of true peace. If that is the definition you want to use, then I do hope that if you wind up dying due to your choice, you at the very least do not whimper or beg. After all, you chose to advocate for “peace”, so expect to take responsibility for the consequences of your choice.

Page 3 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	Would Paul’s companions, who were asking for peace, really cheer on the supposed killing of his brother? This is the impression the Chick’s of the world had of the young people. And why is that woman continuing to sing, with the violent beating going on nearby? I can’t figure out what point Chick is making here.
Anna	This is Chick we are talking about - you can basically summarise most of his writing and story telling into a simple ‘Yes/No’: “Is the person in my story a believer of my specific Baptist teachings? If yes, write them as good, faultless people. If no, ensure they are heathens that must be converted or face punishment when I kill them off suddenly within the span of five minutes/by the end of the story.” As for the singing, of which I do profess a mild curiosity as to whether it is a legitimate song, since the lyrics could also apply to another song (yes, the lyrics are that generic) involving one individual who has to work for a year to be able to own some land to have a future life with their partner. From what I know of society today, the answer to the question in the song is probably going to be ‘No’, but I digress. I am also inclined to think that Chick is trying to make a point about how such “revolutionists” will often cover up what they consider to be ‘justified violence’ to forward their mission, whether it is by obfuscation (such as drowning out the noises of a beating with a song) or via distortion of the circumstances (such as an edited video recording that shows the person being recorded as violent towards you, while leaving out the fact that you intentionally antagonised them to make them respond violently). Of course, it could also be a case of me seeing things that are not there, which would not surprise me if it were the case.
Toad	Yeah, did some research, and I can’t find a song, but, uh… Holy shit does this panel get a chuckle out of me. “This is outta sight– He’s killing his own brother!” is the kind of thing that, if I was writing a parody, I would go, “Nah, that’s too obvious.”
Jessica	I can't even begin to suss out a melody for that song she's singing. I wonder if that comes as part of the Chick's Greatest Hits discography Volume 1, along with such classics as “Rock With the Rock!” and that unforgettable anthem “Embrace Me, Love of Death”. Operators are standing by…

Page 4 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	Here we see another constant with the revision, in which period slang like ‘flop’ and ‘Jesus man’ is abandoned, to try to make it more current. It fails as the tract is still very much a product of its time.
Anna	*sighs disappointedly* Your line of thinking is woefully misinformed. While I understand that you want to paint the supposed ‘power’ of this revolution group as being able to convert Christians, Harry (to use the weak-willed and spineless individuals’ name) did not necessarily have to abandon his religious belief to participate in your revolution. But I guess it is a measure of his character how willing he seems to deny and change his beliefs (religious or not) to fit in with others that he is interested in. Granted, there may be extenuating circumstances (such as blackmail or a threat of violence against loved ones), but this tract is not written to suggest that possibility. Also, to pull from military history (as part of proving my point since you want to try to paint the “revolutionists” as being very militant), there are records of ordained ministers (and even non-religious support members such as humanists) serving in conflicts, both as non-combatants and as armed participants.
Jessica	Pointing to a single individual's deconversion is hardly a resounding argument against the validity of Christianity, much as I hesitate to point it out. Though it's needless to say that there are countless better arguments that do better undermine it. Of course, the author doesn't well understand the arguments against his belief system, and thus can't really present them coherently. If he could, he probably wouldn't be a believer to begin with.
Toad	Continuing my point from the first exposition… Dude, who’s Harry?!

Page 5 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	Well, isn't that a hell of a thing? Jimmy's gone from a brunette to a blonde in just two short pages. They somehow managed to just straight up beat the melanin right out of his mop.
Toad	Man, they REALLY beat up Jimmy over here. I know that Chick has a bit of a flourish for his random panels of gore, but, dude, did they rip his face off?
Boudreaux	The text change doesn’t make sense here, as there is no outdated slang to excise.
Anna	The text change is to cover a gap in the accusation made in the original print to try and strengthen it by adding in the accusation that Harry never ‘trusted God’. The issue is that irrespective of Christian denomination, the general theme across them all is placing your trust and faith in God, and to actively repent for ones' sins, including past and present. People like Chick (and groups that think like him) love to take it as a ‘one and done’ deal; that you just have to say the words and you are forever saved. Which is incorrect - you are meant to actively do good works, strive to endure temptation, and genuinely repent and atone if you do commit sin.
Jessica	Harry was a “phony Christian”, eh? You got any opinion on just how genuine his status as a Scotsman might be as well?

Page 6 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	Ah! The mysterious and famed Harry finally makes an appearance… and he looks like a high school Chemistry teacher.
Boudreaux	The revised text introduces the shibboleth of the One World Government. We first saw this in the original 1972 tract The Last Generation.
Toad	Bou’s already brought up the grawlixes, so I won’t harp on them too much, but GOLLY GEE WILLIKERS these revolutionists become a lot harder to take seriously when they sound like high school bullies from an after-school special. “You jerk! You loser! Why I, why I outta… rip your face off for your religious beliefs!” My milk money is trembling in my pocket.
Jessica	There was quite an overhaul that took place here during the revision. Someone must have told Chick that Paul taking sole credit for the revolution is not particularly socialistic of him. He also felt the need to throw in that reference to 1 Timothy 1:15, and its the only one not present in the original edition. It's not a particularly hard-hitting verse, and doesn't really add a whole lot to his point here. It makes me wonder why he even bothered.
Anna	There is a saying that comes to mind when I look at this page, that being "the sting of a reproach is the truth of it". Harry and his reaction, for example, proves that the reproach is true - if it was not true, why would you flare up as you did? While I feel like my lesson will be wasted on the likes of you and your “revolutionist” friends, I will point out that a key skill to learn in life is that whenever people say statements about your character, whether true or not, immediate hostility does not serve you well. It simply gives them more ammunition to use against you, which more often than not, is to manipulate you into serving their interests rather than your own. As for Paul, I can see one element where Christianity has not failed. It has not failed in getting under your skin, if your response and past actions are anything to go by. *smirks* Speaking of getting under your skin, I might actually have a fitting malediction to use against you, one that will make it feel like your skin is positively crawling.

Page 7 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	Speaking of Bible references, can Jimmy really be considered to be a “little one”? The dude looks like he's at least in his late twenties, minimum.
Boudreaux	To be consistent, “freak” should have been updated in the revision.
Toad	Yeah, or the “God” part. Most people tend to say “Jesus Freak” nowadays.
Anna	*sighs dejectedly* I understand that the truncated version of the statement made by Paul is often the one that most people are familiar with (and therefore use), but you really need to consider the full statement, as well as the metaphor and context of the statement, particularly at the time it was written (for example, at the time, opium was valuable but also addictive). It is not as simple as presented, and it has also been twisted by certain political figures to push what can be considered nationalist agenda, though it does also let me test if you considered my earlier lesson by levying a reproach against certain types of people who use religion to exploit others by quoting Lenin: “But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven.” I can already think of certain people who would be able to play the part and indeed, I am currently looking at the works of one such potential candidate.
Jessica	The praxis of Socialist thought has no doubt evolved (pardon the term) over the last century or so… but I'd wager a guess that modern Socialist movements are less preoccupied with people's religious beliefs rather than with more tangible and pressing concerns. Things such as the suppression of worker's rights by obscene Mega Corporations, gross and nigh-incomprehensible wealth inequality, and the influence of the ever present chokehold of Capitalism on the inevitable demise of the entire planet. Christianity (and religion in general) certainly isn't helping things at this particular moment, but there's kind of bigger fish to fry right now.

Page 8 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	That's quite an interesting revision. I have to wonder if Chick actually understood that there are distinct differences between “Communism” and “Socialism”. They aren't just synonyms. Also, glad to see he completely dropped the subject of police brutality. That's certainly not of any concern in more modern times.
Boudreaux	Another example of Chick being clueless about current issues. In college I attended a meeting of the Socialist Workers Party (they served inexpensive Chinese food, a good draw for a student). When one of them started talking about barricades in the streets, I thought to myself yeah, right. They were delusional.
Anna	If their planned barricades in the streets involved them sitting on the road attempting to body block traffic, the only thing stopping them being run over is the potential legal repercussions and potential value the driver places on human life that is not their own or people they care about. Not a good thing to try to exploit and take advantage of for too long, since eventually, you might start being accountable for any “accidents” that might happen to your group of people, especially if the civil authorities get involved and force you to move due to you not complying with their request. I would also want to point out the hypocrisy in Gregory’s statement (in both versions). I doubt these positions of ‘honour’ you refer to would be based on the actual definitions of the word; rather it would be something like “honour”, which might be defined as “a quality that combines a lack of respect, knavery and mendacity.”. The same goes for ‘fair’ and ‘tolerant’ in the reprint, and which I can only assume you are using “fair” and “tolerant”, with definitions kind of like the “peace” definition you were using before. The actual definitions of ‘honor’, ‘fair’ and ‘tolerant’ are not words I would use to describe the actions of all of you, especially those of Paul and Harry from the last couple of pages. And no, I have not forgotten that you are to be held accountable to those altered definitions.
Toad	I’m not sure how much to trust this reward of “a position of power and honor” if this is how this dude grooms himself. #justshaveitbro

Page 9 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	So in this day (1971) of landlines and fax machines, we are expected to accept as realistic this level of precise coordination and planning, not to mention a highly efficient and completely secret organization, which the FBI had not managed to infiltrate. Speaking of the FBI, Chick actually wrote a letter to the FBI asking them to collaborate on this tract. It took them all of nine days to respond, no thanks.
Anna	I admit some confusion as to the intention of the page. You have this crisis event happening as a result of them all being activated, but for whatever reason, you then write that they are a ‘so-called’ liberation force (with additional nonsensical quotation marks in the reprint). I guess the ‘so-called’ label is justified, if their actions on the page are anything to go from. Two of you have melee weapons in a country (I am hazarding a guess that this is occurring in the US) where back in that time period, guns were much easier to obtain and almost every family had at least one. All of you also seem to not understand how molotov cocktails work. They are not the functional equivalent of a flare or torch, and while they do not just explode when made correctly, I would not trust you lot to make them correctly. Meaning they would probably explode in your hands and/or set you on fire. *smiles warmly* Actually, that would be quite beautiful to watch and almost poetic in a way. The flames of revolution consuming those who started it…
Jessica	I'm sure a gaggle of unwashed hippies are going to overthrow their local government with a single rifle, a couple of clubs, and a molotov cocktail. I'd imagine there's supposed to be a much larger “liberation” force than what we are just seeing here, but Chick's lack of talent or motivation prevents us from ever glimpsing more than half a dozen of them at any one time. It really diminishes his intended point.

Page 10 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	Maybe this is a petty sort of nit-pick… but can you really use the term “shot-gunned” as a verb? That doesn't sound quite right.
Toad	I’ll nit-pick too. All of these “modern language updates” and they left “phony calls” in here?
Jessica	Don't go making phony calls… please just stick to the seven-digit numbers you're used to.
Boudreaux	To say this is fantasy is an insult to competent writers of fantasy literature. To provide a recent example, in the TV series Watchmen, during the White Night, the Seventh Kavalry managed to do this in one city, Tulsa, Oklahoma. There are hundreds of thousands of police in the United States. This is simply an impossibility, even leaving out the fact that there is no conceivable world in which that many people would be willing to commit brutal assassinations.
Anna	Even if we were to accept that police stations were built in such a manner as to have windows right next to their telephones and desks, easily accessible and visible to the public, or that you are calling the police, luring them to a random residence with the intention to ambush them… I doubt it would be as effective a technique as you depict. You would kill maybe one officer per station (perhaps a few with the latter method of in-house ambushes) before they catch on and fight back or change their approach when dealing with calls involving and requiring them to visit houses. And how did you determine who the family members of each individual officer in every police station are? Firebombing random houses until you hit the right ones is not ‘systematic destruction’.
Jessica	Not to beat a dead horse… but the idea that these barely washed hippies could somehow overcome and decimate the combined personnel of both law enforcement, civil fire control, and seize utility infrastructure throughout the entire country is ridiculously laughable… even if they had nationwide coordination. Even moreso if they lacked such coordination. Just how far does the influence of “Comrade Gregory” actually reach?
Anna	It has been shown that a conspiracy of this size (which appears to be involving hundreds of thousands of people by my guess) would unravel quite quickly (assuming that it unravels only because an involved conspirator either deliberately or accidentally reveals its existence i.e. intrinsic failure). If you were to then factor in extrinsic failure (such as law enforcement finding out), your conspiracy might be basically considered dead before it can start. And one final accusation - dare I say that Jimmy (Paul’s brother) was able to infiltrate the cell meeting and find out about your conspiracy, yet given the social climate at the time (that being the Cold War), the fact that Jimmy did not report Paul and his fellow “revolutionists” to the authorities as soon as possible post-beating could mean that he would be considered an enemy sympathiser (or enemy of the country) and imprisoned at best.

Page 11 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	Apparently they also slaughtered all the firemen. The death toll piles up. And we do see a tank finally. Which is another reason this is a really bad fantasy. Firearms are no match for military hardware. What are the armed forces doing during all this?
Toad	I HAVE to know more about this fireman. He just sees a bunch of hippies with guns pull up on him, notices a metal pipe on the ground, and just decides to make his final stand next to the worst-illustrated fire hydrant known to man? Such an iconic final stand from such a superfluous character has not been seen since the best scene from "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" (2015).
Jessica	That's a very good point. Is someone cleaning up all of these dead bodies? It's not sanitary to just leave them lying around like that. Beating the police is absurd enough… but the entire United States military as well? Do you have any idea what their annual budget is?
Anna	I am hazarding a guess and saying that they are sponsored by the enemy country to try to rebel and undertake their revolution, and that for the purposes of plot, the military is painted as grossly incompetent by Chick in a pathetic attempt to give Paul and the revolution credibility as a threat. But I do agree that civilian-level firearms are not a match for military hardware such as a tank. And if any of the military personnel saw you enter that building, their tank/s could aim and fire at the pair of you in the building. Unless they want to get into melee range.
Jessica	…and what did that poor fireman do, anyway? Was he part of the bourgeois capitalist oligarchy oppressing you? Fire fighting is one of the few socialistic services America actually has. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot there, ya idiots.

Page 12 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	There's more guns than people in America right now. Maybe it was more likely the government could have confiscated most of them back in the 1970's before the NRA went and bought out all of the elected officials… but I sincerely doubt it.
Boudreaux	Their few concealed weapons? Try, as of now, around 400 million. Again the non-revolutionaries (I refuse to use the silly form ‘revolutionist’), seem to have been sitting around doing nothing before now.
Anna	I have been calling them “revolutionists”, if only that I can better reference this particular group of individuals. They are not worth using the proper term for, at least to me. And with how “systematic” the destruction caused by Paul and his band have been, I am perplexed as to why the civilians did in fact, sit around and do nothing up until now. Perhaps the civilians were busy suspending their disbelief at the revolution happening at their doorstep until they could not suspend it any longer.
Toad	The power-scaling and motivations are just all over the place here. First they start killing all the cops, then they start killing all the firemen, and now they’re killing… the guys who work at power plants? It’s implied that it gets so bad that the military gets called in, that’s why there’s a tank, but the thing that changes the tides are… normal people with concealed weapons? Aren’t THE REVOLUTIONISTS the “normal people with concealed weapons?” Why are we not drawing more attention to the tanks?! And where did these hippies get detention camps?!
Jessica	Yeah, the instant detention camps are pretty laughable. Though if you were to ask the kind of people who buy this crap, they'd probably tell you the government has plenty of them on stand-by for just such an occasion.

Page 13 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	Is that Ed from Flight 144 making a guest appearance?
Anna	The way it is illustrated, Paul remembering the words of his brother Jimmy (John 3:16) is him thinking about it in his mind. This presents an issue in that you are lacking sufficient grounds for saying he is delirious (at least via speech), since he is not verbally communicating anything that can be interpreted as Paul experiencing delirium (you will also have to forgive my assumption, but the Ed stand-in does not strike me as a doctor). I do admit that I am a tad surprised at your seeming ability to read his mind - last time I heard someone saying they could read minds, they were accused as a witch and burnt at the stake. *frowns pensively* One other thing to mention. I would recommend that you not try to read and explore my mind without my permission. Other people have tried despite my warning and, to put it mildly, the repercussions were unpleasant for them.
Jessica	To be fair, when people start randomly quoting the Bible to me, my first thought is also that they are delirious. Just because your madness is widely recognized, it doesn't mean that it isn't an illness.
Toad	Man, this dude got shot in the head and they just put a band-aid on him and put his ass back to work. Are we sure these revolutionists aren’t, like, mutants or something? Is Chick writing an X-Men comic?

Page 14 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	Here we see the largest change in the revision, a completely new panel. In the original, we are expected to believe that politicians are encouraging the revolution, and the army is refusing to obey the chain of command. This is replaced by the equally unrealistic scenario whereby there are few firearms in private hands. The trend has been in the opposite direction, with fewer restrictions. I could never quite figure out why Chick was so opposed to any kind of gun legislation. What does that have to do with any flavor of Christianity? And we see Paul slightly more human in the revised version.
Toad	This change also destroys the minor setup that was originally written for why, in the next panel, “foreign troops” are going to be “everywhere.”
Jessica	This all plays into the ageless American fantasy that a few lone nutballs with guns can defend themselves against a “tyrannical government” armed with military grade materiel with a couple AR-15's they shoot off down at the range every couple of weekends. At best you're going to find your asses as part of the next Waco or Ruby Ridge type of situation… and that never ended well for the lone nutballs. Most likely they'd just drone strike your asses and have done with it.
Anna	When talking about tyrannical governments, be aware that more often than not, such governments might also opt to use ‘other’ methods, preferably before it got to a siege stage, such as wetworks, investigation and capture of ‘persons of interests’ by government secret police and other such methods. After all, it is easier to maintain a facade that everything is running smoothly in a tyranny if the population are afraid to step out of line because they might ‘disappear’, even more so if they are never publicised and are left to rumor and speculation. As for simply drone striking the ‘lone nutballs’, considering the number of targeted killings that have occurred by this method (around 2500 in 2015) by the US alone, it is quite possible. And if the government was as tyrannical as you want to believe, your ‘revolution’ would not even see the light of day before you find yourself and your cohort as a report in the archives of said government under a heading such as "Threats to National Security"’ stating you and all the other people implicated in your plan are dead.

Page 15 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	If I can harken back to my previous statement… there's a difference between “private” property and “personal” property. Anti-capitalists don't want the “means of production” to be privately owned and exploited by individuals. Things like factories and farms. So, no Chick you complete and utter pillock, they aren't coming for your house or your car… even way back in the 1970's. You don't even own a house or a car anymore… …you are dead.
Boudreaux	That is one scary looking rat. And they asked for foreign troops to come and are now surprised to see them?
Anna	*sighs* Once again, I am reminded of what might be considered an adage of "if it is too good to be true, it probably is". And yet another example of how idiotic you and your group were. Did you not realise that there was something wrong when you just happen to receive funding and supplies from "mysterious benefactors" who "just happen" to have their interests align with yours about starting a revolution and aiming to destabilise the country you are in? Did you not think to question that perhaps, they might be a foreign government aiming to take over the country and that there might not be much room for you to actually live in their plans?
Jessica	“The executions begin…” in the void apparently. Is this taking place in a completely empty field, or in The Construct, or what?

Page 16 ⇑ ⇓

Toad	Bro, he is not BY the gallows, he is IN the gallows.
Jessica	Eh, same zip code.
Boudreaux	What did Jimmy do to warrant execution?
Anna	Jimmy is on the gallows because the plot says he has to be executed so that he can be a martyr and show the power of his belief. The issue is that Chick is incredibly fond of having the believer characters become visible martyrs so often, that the result is to diminish any effect someone actually dying for their beliefs would have. It cheapens the significance of the action and turns it into the equivalent of a stereotypical trope that makes you want to roll your eyes every time it occurs.
Jessica	The Christian persecution complex does seem to be virtually limitless, doesn't it?

Page 17 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	This is some ambiguity as to who wields the boot. Could it be Paul? And the dialog change in the revision has no rhyme or reason.
Jessica	Here's a pretty straightforward example of how Chick picked up the ridiculous habit of insisting on the KJV spelling of “Saviour” with seven letters instead of six some time during the late 70's / early 80's. The original and re-releases clearly straddled this change.
Anna	I am well aware of what such ‘public spectacle’ methods achieve, having lost several people to such methods in my life. They are not always as effective of a deterrent as people think. Especially when it is tied to religious aspects, whether it be against those who believe, or against those deemed to be heretics or blasphemers. More often than not, it motivates those who are associated with the victim to be more secretive and have increased fervor and zeal. It is why you would 'dispose' of them as part of clandestine operations.
Toad	I really wish that this was one of those tracts where, like, rather than actually deliver the message, it just ended on the antagonist, in this case Paul, being handed a tract. Like, imagine; “You were a fool and now you’ll pay the price with your own neck!” and he just gets handed This Was Your Life.

Page 18 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	The revised Paul has no sideburns. Looking back, this is the case in the previous panels as well. Why?
Jessica	Oh, wow… I didn't even notice that. I guess sideburns are considered too “70's” along with the dated slang. Everybody knows mutton chops went out with bell-bottoms and 8 track cassette tapes.
Anna	Ordinarily, despite you both being fictional, I would actually have a sliver of pity for how gullible you are, believing that you are actually going to be rewarded for your betrayal. Even more so because it is in a Chick Tract, which means because you did not immediately accept God at the moment Jimmy told you just before he was hung, your fate is to die so we can see you on your way to Hell. But in saying that, considering that you two do not seem to have any redeemable qualities... malice conquers my sympathy and pity, and I will simply leave you to your fate.

Page 19 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	Now we see the most inexplicable revision. Why is Gregory now wearing a Roman collar? He never wore one in other panels.
Jessica	Nobody expects the Jesuit Inquisition!!!! It's a Chick tract… ain't no way an antagonist wouldn't be in cahoots with the Vatican after Alberto got his hands on him.
Anna	I am guessing that he said things like “You will get what you deserve.” or “We will look after you once the revolution is over.”. Things that can be used as loopholes for you to be murdered under, since it can be argued that he is using a different definition of certain words. Kind of like you did for the words 'peace’, ‘fair’ and ‘tolerant’ earlier in the tract. *smirks* How humorous…

Page 20 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	The book mentioned in the first revision ends in 1946, so it covers exactly one country, Russia. Purges are a feature of dictatorships regardless of the political affiliation. See for example The Night of the Long Knives. Too bad the revolutionaries won’t have the opportunity to say they Won’t Get Fooled Again.
Anna	To be fair, this example depicted in the tract showing the aftermath of the revolution where they realise they are getting their “reward” for their betrayal has occurred in real life, though sometimes, it has been an actual reward and not merely resulted in their death.
Toad	The reason “useful idiots” is in quotes here is because it’s in reference to a Cold War-era term meaning “to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and psychological manipulation.” Go figure, right?
Jessica	Chick just completely jettisoned that book reference in the revision. Maybe because the author died in 1974? Who can say, really?

Page 21 ⇑ ⇓

Jessica	“Paul (the revolutionist)...” …just in case you have the reading comprehension of a toddler and somehow managed to make it all the way here to the end of the tract and still have no idea who the main character is supposed to be.
Boudreaux	And we see the contradiction of the violent revolutionary wearing a jacket with the peace sign on it. Paul looks very weird in his spirit body form.
Jessica	Paul apparently didn't fall victim to male pattern baldness until after he bought the farm. Either that, or the bullet blew his bangs clean off.
Anna	One element that seems to be present in both versions of this tract, but is sometimes inconsistent with Chick’s own theology is what happens upon death. For example, as shown on this page, he is immediately taken to God to be judged. In other media made by Chick, when people die, they either go to Hell or Purgatory, then sit around until they get called for judgement however many years later, or go straight to Hell with no judgement step and God saying the famous line of Matthew 25:41.

Page 22 ⇑ ⇓

Boudreaux	Jimmy, no doubt in Heaven, is most likely not bothered at all by his brother’s damnation. There are people who became atheists due this contradiction. They could not believe that they could genuinely be happy in heaven, knowing, and perhaps even seeing, their loved ones torment in hell. And why does God have to ask the angel? Isn't he omniscient?
Anna	My guess is that Chick is using it to build suspense, as having the angel read through the book and searching for a name gives the person being judged a sense of hope (or false hope) as they wait for the decision of their fate to be made. But doing such a thing seems more in-line with an action that Satan would do, especially to make a person fall into sin, or simply to delight in their anguish before they are sent to Hell. Yet that seems asinine as well since if they are sent to Hell, they get to suffer for all eternity, unless the entire goal is to get that crushed feeling upfront… Musings for a different time, I think.
Jessica	Standard boilerplate. God almost never varies his script. He's nothing if not predictable.
Toad	Ugh, enough for, like, seven pages of “the world is going to shit” but no time for Jimmy to get dragged down by goofy, cartoon demons dressed in hippie attire screaming “I GOOFED!” Whenever God over here just points off-screen, all I can imagine is the dude just shuffling off to eternal damnation.

Conclusion ⇑ ⇓

Toad	Like a lot of Chick tracts, this one just leaves me wondering… To what end? I mean, #humanityisoverparty… Now what? Chick, like many in his field, doesn’t seem to care about what happens after “the big event,” if this story is even supposed to be portraying such a thing, though I’m not sure what else this could be portraying if it’s not “the days before The Rapture.” Chick, for all his doctrine and scripture and effort comes accross, in this tract, arguably even more than in his other works, as… incredibly shallow. “And then all the good people went to the good place and all the bad people went to the bad place and the world was a bad place and its gone now, THE END.” Really? The End? I can understand being a part of a religion, I can understand converting late in life, life is messy after all, but I’ll never understand how Chick and co. are STILL putting these things out, because there are STILL people that will read THIS and change the course of their life… for the rest of their life. I mean, all of this talk of revolutionaries and war and uprising and invading forces and global politics, it all reads like something out of an early 2010s, teen, dystopian novel… and it all ends with “and then it ends?” We made a lot of jokes here, we poked a lot of holes, but can you imagine, not just believing that you knew everything, but then believing that everything was as hollow as this?
Boudreaux	Chick missed the real tragedy in this story. The youth of that period set out to change the world. But in the end, aren’t we really in the same place now as we were then? Wars, injustice, prejudice, all still remain. Paranoia can be healthy in small doses (“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22). However The Poor Revolutionist marks a decided turn in Chick’s mental state, where he goes deep down the rabbit hole. We don’t know what exactly happened in 1971 to cause this, as the first Conspiracist that we know of didn’t appear until two years later. Regardless of what it was, Chick pretty much didn’t come across a Christian related conspiracy theory that he didn’t swallow hook, line and sinker, after this. The peak would be the Alberto period, where Chick went pretty much full QAnon before that was even a thing. How can one say they are full of hope, when they are at the same time so full of fear? The tract was revised almost 40 years after it was first released. Yet the revisions were trivial. The plot was way out there in 1971, in 2010 it had aged incredibly badly and had no real relevance. To use a turn of phrase from the KJV Bible days, “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear”. This tract really should have been retired long ago, yet it is still available in packs of 25. Considering that if anything, Daniels is if anything more paranoid and conspiracy theory minded than Chick, I doubt it ever will be.
Anna	I weep over what is effectively the inability of humanity to be a force that can make their societies pinnacles of virtue (rather than the nadirs of depravity) and I mourn the loss of life involving non-combatants and civilians as a result of events such as this. Even in a situation where a revolution to overthrow the government is theoretically justifiable (to which the motivation as presented in the tract is not justifiable), the outcome is death and destruction. And while I do apologise for having to make this short, I will nevertheless leave you with a quote from Robert Ardrey to think about regarding humanity: "But we were born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments? Or our treaties whatever they may be worth; our symphonies however seldom they may be played; our peaceful acres, however frequently they may be converted into battlefields; our dreams however rarely they may be accomplished. The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses." To me, that reads that rather than being a ‘divine’ being that has fallen, we are a primal being that rose up to get to where we are today. Despite our tendencies to kill our own, we have also created many things of beauty, such as symphonies and works of art. The question that I see with humanity is whether we would continue to rise, or if we fall enough to where we will be little more than dust and ash. My observations have been so far that the way of the world is to trample the kind and meek underfoot in the pursuit of what, more often than not, is material items and things such as social status that are of no importance when you die, irrespective of whether you are religious or not. And while I understand that concepts like kindness, justice and mercy do not exist in the universe naturally, how else can such values become true if they are not believed in and not practiced? With that said, I must bid you farewell. Take care, dear readers, and may any roads you find yourselves on in life not be fraught with perils, twists, poor terrain and unfavourable weather. *curtseys, before turning and departing*
Jessica	What more is there to say about this? Despite being such an iconic entry in Chick's library, it doesn't quite revel in the weirder aspects of his theology as other tent-poles of his empire do. Sure, Paul gets himself the standard tongue-lashing by Ol’ Faceless right before being (presumably) yeeted face first into the blast furnace of the damned. But while we don't get any really unusual oddities like Satan physically manifesting to directly influence the plot, or an angel showing up to thwart the antagonist's plans from behind the scenes, the real weirdness comes through in just how unbelievable this whole affair is. Over here on the real world, we're almost assuredly living in the death-throes of End Stage Capitalism, and we're just about guaranteed to be "living” in a barely habitable hotbox ravaged by global warming, or in the aftermath of a catastrophic world-wide conflict in the next 250 years at most. Still, the idea that a rag-tag collection of motivated vigilantes are going to overthrow this system and bring about a more egalitarian society is about as unbelievable an idea as the Vatican then swooping in right after they're done to rub out the whole lot of them and take control for themselves. We don't get to see Comrade/Father Gregory lay the groundwork for the One World Government, or install the Anti-Christ into a position of power, or create an army of ridiculous enforcers who torture and eat all enemies of the state. Whether this was the result of Chick being lazy, or simply a constraint imposed by the iron-clad, 22-max page limit, who can really say? Humanity in general (and Americans specifically) could turn all of this around and point society in a much healthier and more sustainable direction… but the Chicks of the world and those who are willing to use techniques similar to his to exploit the gullibility of the general populace are just not going to allow that to happen. Society is going to eat itself without question, rest assured. It just isn't going to look anything like this ridiculous piece of drivel. The world is on fire, and we're just here to tune the fiddles. And so until next time ladies, gentlemen, and all of us who know better… and don't forget: A woman's place is in her Union, there is no ethical consumption under Capitalism, and from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

Further Reading ⇑ ⇓

Other Reviews & Commentaries ⇑