FROM USSR TO ISIS: How modern progressives are the heirs of Stalin’s “alibi armory.”

Ben Rhodes, the president’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, recently told the New York Times Magazine that newspapers no longer have foreign bureaus, so “they call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo.” The average reporter Rhodes encounters is 27 years old and “their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

One of the things they know nothing about is the major movement of modern times, Marxism-Leninism, also known as Communism, which first appeared nearly 100 years ago in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. From the start, the movement attracted attention around the world.

“I have seen the future and it works,” wrote American Lincoln Steffens, and that set the trend for “progressives,” as Communists and fellow travellers styled themselves. With the USSR firmly identified with the future, and the United States and other democratic capitalist nations cast as representatives of the past, defense of the Soviet regime became job one. When Stalin took the helm, the progressives hit stride.

“I put my money on Stalin,” was a favorite phrase of New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty. When Stalin starved to death several million Ukrainians, a technique he pioneered, Duranty wrote that there was no famine at all, and in fact abundance prevailed. He won a Pulitzer Prize and his articles played a role in U.S. recognition of the USSR. Duranty knew full well what was going on, but as a progressive guardian of the regime, he did his job.

So did Anna Louise Strong, the progressive American journalist who edited the Moscow News and wrote for the Atlantic Monthly, Harpers and The Nation. “One must not make a god of Stalin,” the feminist Strong wrote in her 1935 book, I Change Worlds. “He was too important for that.” That is hard to top but many other progressives had a go, as Paul Hollander chronicled in Political Pilgrims. Together they formed an alibi armory for the Soviet regime during the nadir of its brutality.

After the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, Stalin’s vast repressions of the late 1940s, and Khrushchev’s revelations in 1956, many progressives left the Communist Party, never to return. The Soviet Union lost its status as the representative of the future, and progressives turned their attention to the various Third World Communist regimes. When their murderous reality became evident, the progressives no longer hailed such regimes as models for the west and the wave of the future. On the other hand, the progressives’ antipathy for the West in general, and United States in particular, retained its full force.

Enter militant, supremacist Islam, as retrograde a force as ever existed: theocracy, oppressive Sharia law, and no semblance of human rights for anyone, particularly women. This is hardly the vision of social justice and diversity that progressives claim to espouse. Feminists, one would think, would be on the front lines against arrangements, but for the most part they are missing in action. Islamic regimes were allegedly victims of Western colonialism, and that outweighs any impulse to speak out.

Supremacist Islam justifies terror, mass murder, and slavery. It pursues a global vision of an Islamic world, and in this vision, as with the expansionist Soviet Union, the United States is glavy vrag, the main enemy. Progressives, bound by their ongoing grievances, respond with classic cognitive dissonance.

The threat is from some disembodied “extremism,” detached from its source. Those who perpetrate terrorism have complaints rooted in colonialism, or as the State Department contends, they can’t find a job that pays enough. On this theme, the worst offender is President Obama, a lifelong radical progressive.

When Islamic terrorists kill innocents, he invokes the crusades, in which the United States was not involved, and tells Americans to get off their high horse. Recall self-described “soldier of Allah,” Nidal Hasan, consulting with Anwar al-Awlaki about killing Americans. At Ford Hood in November 2009, Hasan murders 13 unarmed American soldiers while yelling “Allahu akbar!”

The President of the United States wondered what could have motivated Hasan to act, and called the mass murder “workplace violence.” It did not even qualify as “gun violence,” one of the president’s favorite themes. And of course, he refuses to use the word “Islamic” in regard to terrorism. This may be because, as The Audacity of Hope explains, he went to a “predominantly Muslim school” in Indonesia. On the other hand, one sees the same dynamic as the progressives who stood guard for Stalin. For progressives, the fault lies with the West in general and United States in particular.

For all their hatred of the West, and the notion that Communism was replacing capitalism, the Soviets never infiltrated agents to kill innocent civilians at random as on 9/11, in San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris and Nice. In radical Islam, in contrast, those who commit such deadly acts of terror gain the approval of Allah. As C.S. Lewis wrote, nobody will torment us more than those who do so with the approval of their own conscience. That warrants extreme caution that seems missing from progressives, and from the media.

The know-nothing reporters helped Ben Rhodes create an “echo chamber” that “validated what we had given them to say” on the Iran deal. In his speech to the DNC, the president claimed that, through diplomacy, “we shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” On the other hand, many believe the progressive president’s deal with Iran virtually guarantees that the Islamic regime will acquire nuclear weapons.

In the West’s long standoff with the Soviet Union, no nuclear attack occurred, and there was no case of nuclear terrorism. With nuclear weapons in the possession of a radical Islamic regime, a major sponsor of terror whose mantra is “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” the result could be radically different. As inspector Claude Lebel told Madame De Montpelier in The Day of the Jackal, “be in no doubt as to the seriousness of your position.”

Meanwhile, progressives of a certain age might recall the famous poster from the 1960s about what to do in case of nuclear attack:

5) Remove glasses, empty pockets of all sharp objects such as pens, pencils etc.

6) Immediately upon seeing the brilliant flash of nuclear explosion, bend over and place your head firmly between your legs.

[Franklin Graham Moves World Persecution Summit Out of Russia Over New Bans on Evangelism]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-moves-world-persecution-summit-out-of-russia-over-new-bans-on-evangelism-167503/

"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;

...

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "

"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"
--The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786

https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=truth%20is%20great%20and%20will%20prevail%20if%20left%20to%20herself

Had a discussion in Bible Study yesterday with a math teacher from a charter school that’s located right outside the gates of the Air Force Academy.

They had no clue what the words “infidels of every denomination” meant.

http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Infidels+of+every+denomination

Do that state-established math.

Together they formed an alibi armory for the Soviet regime during the nadir of its brutality.

While I agree very much with this article, I can also wish that there were still proof editors. The proper word here is probably the opposite of nadir (low point) which would be acme. Chalk another up to probable poor teaching and too much reliance on spell and grammar checkers.

Nope, the usage is correct. Google the word and you’ll find that nadir means:

“the lowest point in the fortunes of a person or organization.”

An example is given as “they had reached the nadir of their sufferings.”

In the context of the article the author was describing the worst of Stalin’s crimes, in other words, the low point.

The opposite of nadir is zenith.

Sorry, I still disagree. Substitute the definition and you get "Together they formed an alibi armory for the Soviet regime during the lowest point of its brutality."

As for 'acme' and 'zenith', 'zenith' is more astronomical in use, so I will stick with 'acme' or suggest 'peak' or 'summit' if you like.

You are misinterpreting the meaning of “lowest” as used by the author. It does not mean the least amount of activity in this case, it means the lowest point of cruelty, brutality, and oppression.

“The word is also used figuratively to mean the lowest point of a person’s spirits,[2] or the quality of an activity or profession.[3]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir

I definitely agree that we disagree, but I’m sorry to say you are simply misinterpreting the word and the original call for an editor was misplaced. Minimal research turns up multiple examples of how the word is used in the same way.

“Even at the nadir of the recession, a whole lot of people were getting hired.”

-theatlantic.com

On this case, as with the author of the article in question, the low point is NOT measured in activity or severeness. Clearly at the low point of a recession bankruptcies, unemployment, and monetary losses are at their highest. Rather it is the misery that is at its low point. Thus when describing the worst conditions of Stalin’s reign nadir is a perfectly apt word.

Now, from a stylistic standpoint, if you feel the writer leaves it open to an interpretation such as yours, that’s another matter. But it’s not grammatically incorrect.

I was willing to leave it but if you insist ..." ... but I’m sorry to say you are simply misinterpreting the word ..."

“Even at the nadir of the recession, a whole lot of people were getting hired.”

Others using your example can be easily matched by searching for an antonym to nadir, height, thus rendering that defense null [Appeal to Authority fallacy.] "At the height of the recession, GDP fell by 2.6% in a single quarter (Q1 2009) ..." - UK Parliament Report. I did find others, just like you did for your side.

My dispute depends upon that particular phraseology where you have a noun, 'nadir', being used as an adjective to the noun 'brutality', which is a description being modified by a quantity. Thus use of 'nadir' indicates that those writers were defending the Soviet regime's low brutality. I will say that I was too whimsical in my own choice of 'acme' (I loved the Road Runner cartoons), so I would have rather seen 'height' in place of 'nadir' to get; "Together they formed an alibi armory for the Soviet regime during the height of its brutality."

I reiterate, in my personal opinion, it was, a bad vocabulary selection in one sentence of an otherwise excellent article. Should a skilled grammarian choose to weigh in here, I would listen and consider, but here I remain.

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.