< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Online drivel: The Nation

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Online drivel: The Nation

A regular commenter and apparent supporter of various regimes and groups (so long as they are anti-US Republican and anti-capitalist) has unkindly posted large reams of text written by a contributing editor for a relatively unknown American publication named 'The Nation'.

Here's some interesting information on The Nation's political stance in 1930 [source]:
...The Nation’s articles began bleating the Stalinist line, arguing fervently against waging (or really retalitating in) the Cold War. Such erroneous inklings are clearly present in a 1930 edition of The Nation (vol.131, 3397), in which Oswald Garrison Villard questions whether or not, “the United States should make effective its disapproval of both the Russian and Italian dictatorships to aid in bringing them down in a collapse which would enable the masses of both countries to erect more democratic governments.” Rather than topple or contain oppressive monsters like Stalin and Mussolini, Villard suggests perhaps the West should address domestic issues such as reforming the United States’ penal system.
The commenter placed his dopey copy-and-pasted text in our post on liberal/progressive media outlets which use propaganda to enhance the progressive movement. I'm sure the irony will be lost on him.

UPDATE: I should make clear that the report I linked above cites a long history of The Nation taking editorial positions in support and/or defense of various totalitarian regimes, including Stalinist Russia, and more recently North Korea and Ba'athist Iraq.

But I've found something even the above article managed to miss. The story is a The Nation columnist arguing for the United States and Great Britain to give their newly developed (at extraordinary cost) atom bomb technology to the Stalinists running the USSR:
Only if we approach Russia with the secret (not the bomb) in one hand and our proposals in the other will the proposals be taken at their face value. At present they make a funny noise when we drop them on the conference table.
Unbelievably, eff-wittingly, stupid...
A decision to give the bomb to Russia would immediately shift to new ground the other urgent problems facing the powers.
Such as... the West being terrified of being nuked by a bunch of crazed commies, as happened during the Cold War?
It would not solve those problems. The differences between Russia and the West are real differences; they existed long before the first bomb was dropped and they would still exist if Russia had the secret. A decision to give the bomb to Russia would immediately shift to new ground the other urgent problems facing the powers. It would not solve those problems. The differences between Russia and the West are real differences; they existed long before the first bomb was dropped and they would still exist if Russia had the secret. But the bomb has intensified them and stalled efforts to solve them. Mr. Molotov opened the way to a new attempt to overcome those differences in his speech last week. He stated clearly but moderately Russia’s intention to develop the bomb through its own efforts, he offered a detailed explanation of Russian policy, domestic and foreign, and he emphasized the desire of the government for close cooperation among the Big Three. "Expressions of good intentions are not enough," he said.

"The Soviet Union has been and will continue to be a reliable bulwark in the defense of peace and the security of peoples, and is ready to prove this not in words but in deeds."
These are the people who were soon to brutally oppress Eastern Europe for four decades, and who over the previous several decades had been methodically imprisoning and murdering political opponents of the Communist regime.

The level of stupidity exhibited by this imbecile of a writer makes me think she's actually a Commie spy. I don't think I've ever used the word 'commie' before, but after reading The Nation I've felt the urge to say it twice.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 7/01/2005 11:18:00 AM

2 Comments:

Blogger Ackers1 said...

You are always the 1st to accuse people of wandering off message and not engaging with your argument. Why don't you address the substance of what Scheer had to say which is that there is an extraordinary contradiction in the current US policy. He poses the following question " Is our "mission" to provide security for Islamic fundamentalists hoping to turn Hussein's secular Iraq into Khomeini's theocratic Iran? "

I would be more interested in why you think his arguments are wrong than trying to tar him by association with something that was written in the 30's.

7/01/2005 12:05:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Actually Ackers if you'd read TFA you would have seen the evidence for a continued editorial policy at The Nation of tolerating and apologising for communist and fascist regimes going way back when, recently including North Korea and Iraq. Examples from their archives include a piece from 1945 suggesting the USA shares its atom bomb technology with the Stalinists of the USSR after WW2 (!!!!).

You (and collective editorial opinion at The Nation) apparently cannot understand why terrorists and fascists and other totalitarian types must be confronted with military force when necessary. I cannot be bothered wasting any more time on you.

p.s. any more copy-and-pasted paragraphs of text in our comments will be deleted.

7/01/2005 12:34:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home