đź”· Open Thread

Ha, that's odd!

Which one is it? This?:

postcard.gif


?
 
You have to go to the Internet way-back machine. The "Boston" header has been traded out with a "holiday" banner, currently.
 
http://whiteperil.com/2010/12/19/the-butters-spread-too-thick/



The Butters Spread Too Thick


If you read Instapundit, surely you saw this post, with Glenn Reynolds?s comment, ?Communists are as bad as Nazis, and their defenders and apologists are as bad as Nazis? defenders, but far more common. When you meet them, show them no respect. They?re evil, stupid, and dishonest. They should not enjoy the consequences of their behavior.?
This is not a popular position, and he quickly received a response that went, in part, like this:
As someone who works in academia, I run into my fair share of Marxists. While I disagree with their politics, many of them are decent non-evil people most certainly deserving of respect. There is, to my mind, a big difference between communism and Nazism: it is possible to be a communist with the ?good will,? i.e. to sincerely wish the best most prosperous future for everyone. I think it?s pretty obvious that communism is not the way towards that goal, but intelligent people can disagree. Nazism, on the other hand, is fundamentally impossible to commit one?s self to with a good will. It is inherently racist, hateful, and concerned with elevating particular groups of people on the basis of the subjugation and dehumanization of others.
​
These people?s whole job as scholars is the unflinching pursuit of truth no matter where it may lead, and we?re supposed to credit them for their ?good will? when they trumpet an abstract ideology while discreetly skating over what happens every time it?s implemented? I find myself unwilling to concede that. It?s like crediting the walrus with more compassion than the carpenter because he made a histrionic show of concern for the oysters before yum-yumming them down.
Of course, it might be said that Reynolds?s correspondent?s colleagues are, assuming they?ve been presented accurately, at least willing to argue Marxism on the merits. The people I find most appalling, and who in my experience are equally numerous, are those who counter any discussion of communist regimes with the statement that first-world Westerners have no grounds for criticizing them at all.
Two weeks ago, there was an Asia Society screening of a UN documentary about the trial of Comrade Duch, who ran one of the Khmer Rouge?s most infamous political prisons. Two women became upset during the Q&A session (about 37:00 into the linked video) that all this talk about torture and killing fields and retribution and memories of the dead had not been presented ?in context.? You can guess what they meant, can?t you? That?s right: Big, Bad America had been an enabler for Pol Pot and his fellow-travelers, and apparently that was what we should have been getting worked up about. After all, Indochinese peoples are peaceable, guileless, grudge-free aspiring-Buddha types, so all that unpleasant torturing and executing isn?t the real story, and even if it were, we?d be in no moral position to criticize the Khmer Rouge. Yes, I?m caricaturing the view presented, but not by much. The response from the panel?pointing out that, among other things, the United States and Canada were among only five countries to condemn Cambodia?s human-rights abuses while they were happening?follows.
I wasn?t present at the Asia Society event for this discussion of Barbara Demick?s book Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea, but I looked it up after my beau left his book-club copy lying around. It follows the lives of six people who defected from an industrial city in the northeastern DPRK and ended up in Seoul. They were all teenagers or adults in the late ?90s and thus lived through and vividly remember the famine.
Demick is not a conspicuously talented prose writer, but she has a great ear for an involving story; and yet, after finishing the book, I was most struck by how depressingly familiar it all was. Demick?s informants spoke of tight controls on travel and information. They spoke of indoctrination sessions. They spoke of a shrewd blending of communist ideology with national traditions to tighten the grip of the power elite?Kim Il-sung was presented as the nation?s patriarch, to which it owed absolute filial obedience according to Korean Confucianism. They spoke of the persecution or denigration of out-of-favor ethnic or clan groups, in this case Chinese and South Korean. They spoke of a rigid system of class privilege determined by membership in (or closeness to) the ruling party, from which flowed access to better housing, food, education, jobs, and purchasing power. They spoke of patent lies about industrial and agricultural productivity, with the black and grey markets flourishing as the government ceased to be able to provide for citizens? basic needs.
All of which is to say that, if you hadn?t been paying attention to the names and dates, you could have found yourself forgetting exactly which communist hellhole you were reading about. North Korea?s an extreme example, certainly, but somehow they all seem to end up with shortages for the masses and relative plenty for the shrinking elite.
But of course, we must not characterize such regimes as evil. About 47:00 into the Asia Society video, a questioner complains that everything she?s heard this evening adheres to the ?dominant narrative? about the famine and has not taken into account yucky weather, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the sanctions of baddies such as the United States. All this finger-pointing is a threat to national sovereignty, you see.
Naturally, Demick couldn?t say, ?Listen, sugarpie?that narrative?s dominant because it?s true!? Instead, she gently reminded her interlocutor of the US?s offers of food aid, before falling all over herself to assure everyone that she?d been at pains to make her book ?apolitical.? Would a journalist who?d written about Chileans who suffered under Pinochet have been so fastidiously non-polemical? I couldn?t help wondering.
Glenn Reynolds was talking about avowed Marxists, and it?s important to note here that none of the three questioners at these events defended the Khmer Rouge or the KWP. But then, they didn?t have to. The effect of arguing that communist regimes wouldn?t get into the trouble they do without the machinations of the West (especially America), and that therefore we have no grounds for condemning them, is to place them above reproach.
But they?re not above reproach. No one denies that all human systems are flawed, and that no one has yet devised a political system under which innocents never suffer. The question is which systems do best for the largest proportion of the population in a way that is self-correcting and (to appropriate a term) sustainable. The empirical answer is those with the rule of law and capitalism, and everyone knows it. You don?t hear about anyone?s, including Terry Eagleton?s, desperately floating on an innertube to Cuba or wading through the icy Tumen River to escape to North Korea. As Eric says, academic Marxists often play the ?McCarthyism!? card to make themselves sound like brave dissenters, when they?re actually just peddling a fantasy whose real-world repercussions they?ll never have to live through. What?s respect-worthy about that?
 
Communist= Nazi. The motive force is the same: "I know better than you what is best for you". The chief difference: the identity of the intended victim groups. The means of victimization is the same: brute force. What a tally sheet between the two.

(In my youthful days working abroad, I used to love it when a patronizing European would lecture me about American naivete and lack of political sophistication. That conversation would usually end when I would thank said Eurotool for the sophisticated political contributions of Lenin, Trotsky, "our Feliks", Beria, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Franco, Laval, Petain...)

Academics. Got to love 'em. Defense of communism is a fetish that they ought to have left behind in the 20th century. Or at least they ought to come up with a new "ism" for our times! (No shoe videos, please.)
 
^ Sorry, but there's no way paternalism is sufficient to make you a Nazi, let alone a communist.

Oh wait, I forgot, someone on the Boston Herald comments section told me the French are all Nazis...so maybe you're right after all!
 
I apologize for the preachy mood. A useful Cuban idiot really offended me today with the most utterly intellectually and morally bankrupt view of some horrific things which I know first hand to be false.

The article was an indictment of the prevalence of proponents and apologists of Marxism & Communism in academia; whom have no qualms with murderous ideologies as long as they can disassociate from the REPEATEDLY proven historical outcomes.

This is why the enablers in academia are forever rewriting history in order to obfuscate the truth; that their favored ideology ultimate leads to totalitarian sates where mass murder is tolerated in the pursuit of some always increasingly disingenuous utopia.

It's a religion to these people. Blind faith in a system they know by all logical means doesn't work. That's why most of the time these people are either atheists or apostates, they've traded one belief system for another.
 
Here's hoping Rex is in his 14th minute...

From Hard Knocks to...Hard Socks. I wonder if Perez Hilton will turn up in the broadcast booth for the next Jets game.
 
Commenter from another website:

I hope Rex comes out in front of this and doesn't try to run from it. Just say, "Yes, we're a couple of swinging foot fetishists. We love it. There's nothing to be ashamed of. I bust a nut on her feet every night. What are you squares doing?"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top