Posted on 02/08/2015 1:52:26 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
And that means that somebody, somewhere, must be a racist. .......
The enthusiasm for coercion and the substitution of enemies for ideas — Christians, white men, Israel, “the 1 percent,” the Koch brothers, take your pick — together form the basis for understanding the Left’s current convulsions. The call to imprison people with unapproved ideas about global warming, the Senate Democrats’ vote to repeal the First Amendment, the Ferguson-inspired riots, the picayune political correctness and thought-policing that annoys Jonathan Chait, the IRS’s persecution of conservative political groups, Barack Obama’s White House enemies’ list, the casual violence against conservatives on college campuses and the Left’s instinctive defense of that violence — these are not separate phenomena but part of a single phenomenon.
Soviet Famine: "The government's forced collectivization of agriculture is considered by some a main reason for the famine, as it caused chaos in the countryside. This included the destruction of peasant activists' possessions, the selling and killing of horses for fear they would be seized, and farmers' refraining from field work. Authorities blamed the agitation on the kulaks (rich peasants) and kolkhozs (collectivized farmers), and accused them of sabotage. The authorities wrongly expected that production would increase as a result of agricultural collectivization, because of plans for exporting agricultural products based on attempts to industrialize.
...........Central authorities maintained that the collapse was caused by peasants' hiding their grain crops, despite repeated requests from local authorities that their quota be decreased. As a consequence, local activists led searches for hidden stores of grain; this caused seizure of seed corn that should have been used for sowing the next year's crop and the loss of the stocks needed to feed peasant families.".....
"Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives......
......Support from Joseph Stalin gave Lysenko even more momentum and popularity. In 1935, Lysenko compared his opponents in biology to the peasants who still resisted the Soviet government's collectivization strategy, saying that by opposing his theories the traditional geneticists were setting themselves against Marxism. Stalin was in the audience when this speech was made, and he was the first one to stand and applaud, calling out "Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo." This event emboldened Lysenko and gave him and his ally Prezent free rein to slander the geneticists who still spoke out against him. Many of Lysenkoism's opponents, such as his former mentor Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, were imprisoned or even executed because of Lysenko's and Prezent's denunciations.
On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as "the only correct theory". Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko's research. Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as "bourgeois" or "fascist", and analogous "non-bourgeois" theories also flourished in other fields in the Soviet academy at this time.........
....From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed....or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943. Hermann Joseph Muller (and his teachings about genetics) was criticized as a bourgeois, capitalist, imperialist, and promoting fascism so he left the USSR, to return to the USA via Republican Spain.
In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience"; all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who claimed to be an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). The ban was only waived in the mid-1960s.".......
You see our Russian FReepers do it on a constant basis.
Thank you. Spot on.
Just as Obama did at the National Prayer Breakfast this week.
~~~~Whatabout those Christians and the Crusades? ~~~~
The difference between Elizabeth Warren’s partisans and the Tontons Macoutes is very little more than testosterone and time.
“А у вас негров линчуют” is a bitter Soviet-era punch line meaning, roughly, “But in your country they lynch Negroes.” There were a million Cold War variations on the joke: The Soviet farm minister meets his U.S. counterpart, who inquires about whether the heroic Soviet farmers are meeting their five-year plans. Asked about each crop in turn, the Soviet minister is forced to sheepishly admit that they are woefully behind on every goal, and then demands: “But what about the blacks in the South?” A U.S. car salesman asks a Soviet counterpart how many months the typical Soviet citizen must work to purchase an entry-level car, and the Ruskie answers: “In your country, you lynch Negroes.”
"The first five-year plan also began a period of rapid agricultural collectivization in the Soviet Union. One reason for the collectivization of Soviet agriculture was to increase the number of industrial workers for the new factories. Soviet officials also believed that collectivization would increase crop yields and help fund other programs. This agricultural collectivization was however a failure for the Soviets. At the end of 1929 the Soviets asserted themselves to forming collectivized peasant agriculture, but the “Kulaks” had to be “liquidated as a class,” because of their resistance to fixed agricultural prices. Resulting from this, the party behavior became uncontrolled and manic when the party began to acquisition food from the countryside. In the years following the agricultural collectivization, the reforms would disrupt the Soviet food supply. In turn, this disruption would eventually lead to famines for the many years following the first five-year plan, with four million dying in 1933......."
Of possible interest to your list.
The author implies that the “nakedly coercive” left is a new phenomenon, but it’s not. Leftism has always been about both institutional brute force and vicious personal violence.
Ann Coulter goes through the history very nicely in “Godless.”
I don't believe that the author is suggesting that this is a new phenomenon, but rather there has been an awakening - a fuller understanding by those on the Right (and others) about the depth of deceit employed by the Left.
As David Horowitz put it in June of 2000 in his essay about Hillary Clinton: Hillary Clinton and "The Third Way" How America's First Lady of the Left Has Bamboozled Liberals and Conservatives Alike ..........................."Conservatives who think progressives are misinformed idealists will forever be blind-sided by the malice of the left—by the cynicism of those who pride themselves on principle, by the viciousness of those who champion sensitivity, by the intolerance of those who call themselves liberal, and by the ruthless disregard for the well-being of the downtrodden by those who preen themselves as social saints.
Conservatives are caught by surprise because they see progressives as merely misguided, when in fact they are fundamentally misdirected. They are the messianists of a religious faith. But it is a false faith and a self-serving religion. Since the redeemed future that justifies their existence and rationalizes their hypocrisy can never be realized, what really motivates progressives is a modern idolatry: their limitless passion for the continuance of Them."
Abortion isn't the Left's way to "free" women, it's the Left's way of controlling population (GREEN).
Great article. I find it interesting, too, that some conservatives are embracing statism (think of the Putin fans) as long as the state will force Christian conservatism on people. I get fighting stopping ISIS, al Qaeda, and so on. I don’t get fondness for the president-for-life Putin model as preferable to the American system. When I hear “conservatives” using the failures of Obama to justify their fondness for Putin, I remember the whataboutism of these putinistas and their Soviet ancestors.
Okay, I see how he was making his point.
David Horowitz does a great job explaining, too.
The difference between Elizabeth Warren’s partisans and the Tontons Macoutes is very little more than testosterone and time.
These are two insightful quotes from an excellent analysis. We aren't seeing "progress" in this country. Instead, we are witnessing it's willful destruction in the name of "progress".
When one snatches from them one of their icons and speaks of many of their goals while identifying the source of distinction being principally one of means (theirs being coercive in nature) while in the same time identifying the source of their failures as their dependencies upon well-hidden corporate corruption, it becomes necessary for them to give at least partial heed.
At that point, the denser among them, usually professors, argued as if I had not heard "their side," believing that it would somehow be impossible for any sentient being NOT to have heard their point of view while immersed for fifty years in NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Pacifica Radio... whatever. Point that out, and they're stuck. They know damned well they've never heard what I have to say.
Along the way, they'll grasp at straws, effectively foundational truisms by which they can discount "scientific" grounds, climate change, overpopulation, etc. Don't reply with skeptical data, no, point out that the whole crooked fiasco was financed by Rockefellers (ExxonMobil), Pews (Sunoco), or British royals (BP)... explaining that they just don't get how they're being used. It drives them crazy. Then start talking about who funded communism in the first place, that it always has been the flip side of fascism and its armies of bureaucratic experts and university consultants... That scares the crap out of them.
Good link. Worth the time to read it in full.
Bump!
Plus, my tag line is relevant to Obama’s recent PB ramblings....
bfl
As to the original Soviet joke, why would anyone care what a country without Black Folks had to say about them?
"Then why aren't you complaining about how PETA kills puppies?"
The Russians too have their version of `black people’ at whom they hurl racial insults all based upon the latter’s perceived `blackness’, calling them `chernozhopii’ (”black @zzes”) & worse.
We in the West call these people “Central Asians”, i.e. Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Kazakhs & others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.