The Left blinds itself to the truth about bin Laden

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 12/18/2001 | Robert Harris

[Pokey78]

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW went to Russia in 1931 with his mind made up. Soviet Communism was a wonderful thing and nothing would convince him otherwise.

When a junior British diplomat, Reader Bullard, made "some disparaging remark" about one of Stalin's show trials, he later noted in his diary how "Shaw grew quite indignant and said: 'But they confessed.'

"I replied: 'Yes, one of them confessed that he lunched with Colonel Lawrence at the Savoy in London on a date when we know he was in India,' but Shaw waved the argument away."

At a subsequent banquet in Moscow, "Shaw waved his hand at the excellent food and said 'Russia short of food? Look at this!' "

I thought of Shaw the other day when I read some of the reactions to the latest incriminating videotape of Osama bin Laden, gleefully reliving the collapse of the World Trade Centre.

"It is impossible not to think that something about it is a put-up job," declared an editorial in the Guardian. "It provokes all kinds of sceptical questions It should not be taken wholly at face value."

This disbelief was duly reflected the following day, both on the news pages ("Bin Laden video: as Muslim doubts grow over authenticity, special effects experts say fake would be relatively easy to make") and, inevitably, in the readers' letters ("May I be the first to nominate for an Oscar the actor who played bin Laden?").

Well, let us concede at once, it is possible that the bin Laden tape is a fake; that America, on the very brink of victory in Afghanistan, should somehow feel so unsure of its case against bin Laden that it would take the seemingly insane risk of hiring actors and technicians, and then release a fabrication for world scrutiny.

Yes: it's possible. But is it likely? And the answer, of course, is no, just as no one seriously could have believed that the hapless Communist tried in Moscow in 1931 really had had lunch at the Savoy with an officer of British intelligence (in a top hat, no doubt) who was, in any case, in India on the date mentioned.

But Shaw, a brilliant man, did believe it. Or, at any rate, he brushed away the arguments of those who didn't. He wanted to be convinced. And this syndrome - this stubborn refusal to accept what is plainly obvious - has, it strikes me, been the hallmark of many Left-wing intellectuals over the past three months.

Anyone who ever wondered about the extraordinary blindness of clever people towards the Soviet Union 70 years ago - all those Shaws, and Wellses, and Webbs, and G D H Coleses; all those subscribers to the Left Book Club - anyone, indeed, who thought we would never see such naivety again, has been able to enjoy a little trip down memory lane since September 11.

This syndrome has nothing to do with scepticism, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "a disposition to doubt or incredulity". On the contrary: it is scepticism's antithesis.

The Left made fools of themselves in the 1930s precisely because they weren't sceptical. They reasoned on the basis of their emotions: they wanted to believe in Stalin, therefore they convinced themselves that Stalin was worth believing in.

What we have seen this autumn has been a variant on the same theme: a desire that a villainous America should come a cropper in Afghanistan has led to a series of false predictions that a villainous America would indeed come a cropper. It has been founded on wishful thinking, not scepticism.

We all make mistakes, so let us spare those concerned the embarrassment of reciting here in detail the solemn prophecies that were made at various times - of the imminent collapse of the Pakistan regime, of the impossibility of capturing Kabul, of the uselessness of the Northern Alliance as fighters, of the historic inability of the various factions to agree on an interim government, of the invulnerability of the Tora Bora cave complex with the "fearsome Afghan winter" coming on - and observe only that they all stemmed from the same root: the fatal assumption that, because the writer wanted it to be so, it would be so.

And just as the old Left intellectuals were led by the remorselessness of this syndrome to defend the indefensible - the Stalinist show trials, the purges, the mass deportations - so, in a minor key, we have lately seen a repeat of the same old sophistry: the feminist who proclaims that the burqa is "a liberation" and who equates the lot of a woman under the Taliban with her Western sister who has to put up with page three girls; or the rationalist agnostic who defends the existence of a repressive, medieval theocracy (under which he would never dream of living), contrasting it favourably with the materialistic values of global capitalism.

Nothing changes. Back in 1931, having tried to put Shaw right about the show trials, the admirably persistent Mr Bullard then raised "the propaganda that is pumped into the children" by the Soviet regime. What did Shaw say to that?

"He said that was the same in England, where children at church schools are taught the Apostles' Creed - as likely as not by people who don't believe it themselves. I said there is this difference. That when English children grow up, they can meet people with other beliefs and read books etc of opposing tendencies, whereas in this country there is no alternative to communist propaganda, but he waved that away, too."

Substitute Islamic fundamentalism for Soviet Communism and you will hear exactly the same argument being made today - with this one difference. At least Shaw and the Western sympathisers for Stalin believed in something: for all their folly, they had a kind of intellectual grandeur about them, a coherent philosophy to defend.

Today, the Left doesn't even offer an alternative - just endless nit-picking raised to the level of an ideology.

[Hugh Akston]

although the left certainly loved Stalin, and wanted to live in the perfect Communist state of the future, they obviously don't love Islamic fundamentalists and wouldn't want to live under Islamic law.

Don't be so sure about this. The further to the left you get, the less true this is. Check into what Ramsey Clark is into and what he says about Islam nowadays, for example.

[Robert-J]

Go to the evolutionist threads and read posts by libertarians.

[Billthedrill]

No, you made the claim. Provide a name or retract it.

[Robert-J]

And where did I make such a claim? Albeit, our Constitution has established a single nation with a distribution of federal and state powers. And many libertarians simply do not respect and honor our system of government with their near constant comments about jack booted thugs and the like falsely applied. My comments do not apply to all libertarians. Like liberals, they range from the modestly deluded to the bizarre.

[Robert-J]

I choose not to name names. And I will retract nothing.

[alloysteel]

What a strange alliance, the Left who would hate their neighbors and acquaintances (I hesitate to make any assertion that they might form a friendship with anybody) to the degree they would surrender their own freedom or look away willfully as others were trapped in intolerable situations. And the radical Islamic fundamentalists, who have foresworn any concept of mercy, or compassion, or simple human civility, to pursue their own warped concept of justice and religious transfiguration.

Two bunches of crazies who have found each other. The Left will continue to enable the plunderers of this world, and the plunderers will continue to make the Left into their first victims. Does this speak of some strange imbalance of brain chemistry? And could we ever find an antidote for these poisonous notions?

[Billthedrill]

Then I suggest that you are indulging youself in a little generalized smearing here, and this Christian patriot libertarian finds that sort of sad.

[denydenydeny]

Marxism Makes Way for Islam

The Third World's Love Affair With Islamic Fanatics

[Robert-J]

I have not smeared anyone. As I said, the libertarians on this board are disproportionately atheist. Leaning towards atheism, they tend to believe they are a law unto themselves. Rejecting not only illegitimate authority, but even legitimate authority, the extremists among them tend towards anarchism and rejection of the moral order.

This is the truth based on honest observation.

[copycat]

And where did I make such a claim?

I quoted you.

Although I have rejected libertarianism because of the nightmares regarding its' practical application, I agree with it in spirit, and find it to be closer to the original Constitution than other philosophies.

I find your attempt to bend a thread about "the Left" to a critique of libertarians to be telling and equivalent to Tabitha Soren bending every thread into an abortion screed.

I don't wish to argue libertarian politics with you, as I am not one, but am satisfied that with the posts you have made on this subject, others will surely take up the battle.

I recommend asbestos...

[Robert-J]

I think you confuse American conservatism with European conservatism. American conservatives believe in freedom of speech and liberty. But they also accept the concomitant responsibilities. Libertarians tend to believe they are a law to themselves. Conservatives believe in a higher, divine authority. The conservative scheme can endure. Like liberalism, libertarianism, if ever put into effect, would collapse on itself.

[copycat]

The left invested their entire intellectual currency in the superiority of Socialism and Communism, and the evil of Capitalism and America. To admit that capitalism and America are superior leaves them intellectually bankrupt. The one thing they can not do is admit that they were wrong.

This rings true. Why does the Left battle so hard? Fear is a powerful motivator.

[Robert-J]

Liberals and libertarians have one thing in common. They both reject the moral order. The liberals wish to invest the moral authority of God in the state. The libertarians wish to invest it in self. Neither scheme can work.

[copycat]

Liberals and libertarians have one thing in common. They both reject the moral order. The liberals wish to invest the moral authority of God in the state. The libertarians wish to invest it in self.

Self-governance? The horror...

[yooper]

Here's a blast from the past which appeared in the National Lampoon in the early 80's (and I'm going on memory here):

THE CHURCHILL WIT

Winston Churchill once received a pair of passes to the latest popular play then being performed in London. To the passes was attached a note which read, "Bring a friend, if you have one."

The note was signed George Bernard Shaw.

Churchill responded with his own note:

"Why don't you go F*#& yourself."

[Leisler]

You were not mistaken. They were talibans, homegrown. fingersnapping, pompous, arrogant, know it all's( my car won't start), pimps, whores, gladhanders, suckpumps and various circus performers of the radical tent big top. If only the red spot of foward justice would drop the daisy cutter of reality upon their soft bread brains. One can pray.

[Robert-J]

By the way, you did not quote me. Instead, you simply made some rather bizarre statements, and implied that these nonsensical statements had come from my previous post.

[Robert-J]

Your concept of self-governance is nothing more than moral anarchy. That is not the world I want for myself or my child. Libertarians are as potentially dangerous to society as are liberals.

[FastCoyote]

"American conservatives believe in freedom of speech and liberty."
So, it's your libertarian side that makes you human, thanks for the admission.
But they also accept the concomitant responsibilities.
Hot damn, because I'm libertarian, I don't have to accept responsibilities?! Does that mean I don't have to go to work tomorrow? I guess I can smoke pot all day and drink and whore around, what a relief. Look at all I've been missing" (typical moronic view of what libertarianism means)
Libertarians tend to believe they are a law to themselves.
Sort of like self-righteous conservatives, who after all is said and done like big government just fine.
Conservatives believe in a higher, divine authority.
And libertarians don't? Why your pomposity is showing.
The conservative scheme can endure.
like the Taliban endures.
Like liberalism, libertarianism, if ever put into effect, would collapse on itself.
And without the libertarian influences in the Constitution you guys would just be a bunch of Taliban wannabes.

[copycat]

By the way, you did not quote me. Instead, you simply made some rather bizarre statements, and implied that these nonsensical statements had come from my previous post.

In post 15, I quoted YOU in post 13. This is an easily checked fact. In addition, in your last post to me, by attacking me as a libertarian, you ignore the fact that I have clearly stated that I am not.

I cannot have a political discussion with a man who is ignoring reality. I believe I'll consider your other statements in the same light.

Thank you for the conversation...