There is, it seems, no scarcity of stupid people.
Wanna see a surfeit? In the last presidential election, 65,915,796 voted for a proven failure.
Although the man doesn't go back that far, his antecedents can be spotted from at least the 19th century.
Recovering Leftist George Orwell put it this way:
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
A glimpse into the mistakes in political understanding can be gleaned from the story of the British magazine, The New Statesman.
Founded by dupes of the Soviet Union, it famously followed the party line....as so many media stalwarts have done and continue to do.
1. "TheNew Statesmanis a British political and culturalmagazinepublished inLondon. Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, connected withSidneyand Beatrice Webb, and other leading members of the socialistFabian Society. The magazine has, according to its present self-description, a left-of-centre political position.
The New Statesman provoked further controversy with its coverage of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. In 1932, Keynes reviewed [editor Kingsley] Martin's book on the Soviet Union, Low's Russian Sketchbook.
Keynes argued that Martin was "a little too full perhaps of good will" towards Stalin, and that any doubts about Stalin's rule had "been swallowed down if possible".[9]....In a 17 September 1932 editorial, the New Statesman accused the British Conservative press of misrepresenting the Soviet Union's agricultural policy, but added "the serious nature of the food situation is no secret and no invention".
The magazine defended the Soviet collectivization policy, but also said the policy had "proceeded far too quickly and lost the cooperation of farmers."[10] New Statesman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
2. For a more...enlightened....more accurate view of said Soviet collectivization policy:
"Collectivization (1929–33) was the opening and defining phase of Stalin’s untrammelled power: it was the first thing he did the moment his hands were free. As a crime against humanity it eclipses the Great Terror, which it also potentiated, in two senses, rendering the purge both more certain and more severe.
Collectivization makes you wonder what the fifty years of the gulag would have been like if telescoped in time (to half a decade) and distended in space (to fill the entire country). Only it was worse, demographically worse. During Collectivization Stalin is reckoned to have killed about 4 million children. For the man himself, though, and for the man’s psychology, the most salient feature of Collectivization was the abysmal depth, and gigantic reach, of its failure. In his introductory administrative push, Stalin ruined the countryside for the rest of the century. It was here, too, that he lit out of all reality, and did so with full Bolshevik aggression.
As the Party economist S. G. Strumilin put it: ‘Our task is not to study economics but to change it. We are bound by no laws.’ This was the first stage in Stalin’s opaque – indeed barely graspable – attempt to confront the truth, to bring it into line, to humble it, to break it." Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread," p.120.
Can you imagine these pencil-necked geeks,these 'intellectuals,' these Liberal dupes, sitting around conjecturing whether or not they were being too harsh on Stalin.
And, a generation or so later, in America, one is supposed to become incensed that Senator Joseph McCarthy exposed these accomplices to genocide.
Wanna see a surfeit? In the last presidential election, 65,915,796 voted for a proven failure.
Although the man doesn't go back that far, his antecedents can be spotted from at least the 19th century.
Recovering Leftist George Orwell put it this way:
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
A glimpse into the mistakes in political understanding can be gleaned from the story of the British magazine, The New Statesman.
Founded by dupes of the Soviet Union, it famously followed the party line....as so many media stalwarts have done and continue to do.
1. "TheNew Statesmanis a British political and culturalmagazinepublished inLondon. Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, connected withSidneyand Beatrice Webb, and other leading members of the socialistFabian Society. The magazine has, according to its present self-description, a left-of-centre political position.
The New Statesman provoked further controversy with its coverage of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. In 1932, Keynes reviewed [editor Kingsley] Martin's book on the Soviet Union, Low's Russian Sketchbook.
Keynes argued that Martin was "a little too full perhaps of good will" towards Stalin, and that any doubts about Stalin's rule had "been swallowed down if possible".[9]....In a 17 September 1932 editorial, the New Statesman accused the British Conservative press of misrepresenting the Soviet Union's agricultural policy, but added "the serious nature of the food situation is no secret and no invention".
The magazine defended the Soviet collectivization policy, but also said the policy had "proceeded far too quickly and lost the cooperation of farmers."[10] New Statesman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
2. For a more...enlightened....more accurate view of said Soviet collectivization policy:
"Collectivization (1929–33) was the opening and defining phase of Stalin’s untrammelled power: it was the first thing he did the moment his hands were free. As a crime against humanity it eclipses the Great Terror, which it also potentiated, in two senses, rendering the purge both more certain and more severe.
Collectivization makes you wonder what the fifty years of the gulag would have been like if telescoped in time (to half a decade) and distended in space (to fill the entire country). Only it was worse, demographically worse. During Collectivization Stalin is reckoned to have killed about 4 million children. For the man himself, though, and for the man’s psychology, the most salient feature of Collectivization was the abysmal depth, and gigantic reach, of its failure. In his introductory administrative push, Stalin ruined the countryside for the rest of the century. It was here, too, that he lit out of all reality, and did so with full Bolshevik aggression.
As the Party economist S. G. Strumilin put it: ‘Our task is not to study economics but to change it. We are bound by no laws.’ This was the first stage in Stalin’s opaque – indeed barely graspable – attempt to confront the truth, to bring it into line, to humble it, to break it." Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread," p.120.
Can you imagine these pencil-necked geeks,these 'intellectuals,' these Liberal dupes, sitting around conjecturing whether or not they were being too harsh on Stalin.
And, a generation or so later, in America, one is supposed to become incensed that Senator Joseph McCarthy exposed these accomplices to genocide.
Last edited: