Monday, January 28, 2019

If You Think I'm Going To Pass Up Pointing Out This Kind Of Corroboration, Think Again

This morning's e-mail includes a link to this New Yorker article by the estimable and heroic Masha Gessen about what sounds like a pretty bizarre commercial museum opened up in NYC that illustrates some of the things I talked about in one of my most recent posts.  The museum is New York’s new K.G.B. Spy Museum, which Gessen is quite qualified to review.  Her description of it, her point that Putin's gangster regime makes the issues she raises timely and a question she poses is exactly to the point of my post.

The new museum in New York resembles a museum one might find in Russia itself—the country that has been ruled by a former K.G.B. colonel for the past nineteen years, a place where the K.G.B. is not only glorified and romanticized but also simply normalized. In fact, this museum reminded me most of a small display I once saw in a Russian prison colony. Billed as a “Gulag museum,” it featured, among other things, items confiscated from inmates during barracks searches. In the absence of any historical or political context, everything becomes an exhibit. And, with enough cheer and an address in Chelsea, anything can be kitsch.

Imagine if the tyrant in question were not Joseph Stalin but Adolf Hitler. Imagine seeing a giant likeness of his head on a Manhattan sidewalk. Imagine a museum that offered people the option of dialling in to hear a speech by Hitler or Himmler, or invited them to be photographed in an S.S. uniform. It’s hard to imagine the Times giving such a museum an amused review, complete with a picture of the co-curators wearing Nazi uniforms.

The comparison between these two totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century is not gratuitous—it is common in historical and political scholarship. And yet, for the American public, an entertaining presentation of what was probably the most murderous secret-police organization in history seems both unproblematic and commercially promising. It’s a peculiar thing to observe, particularly at a moment when Russia—and Russian espionage in particular—looms so large in the American imagination.

Something like that has been a feature of the atheist-secular pseudo-left for pretty much the entire time that the Soviet Union was up and running and, as can be seen in remnants in the secular-lefty media, it is an ongoing thing.  The Nation's scandalous behavior during and concerning the Putin regime's ratfucking of our elections, other so-called lefty magazines I've named and documented even some of the recent proclamations of the likes of Noam Chomsky * exhibit everything from collusion for money (the Communist Party documented as getting money from the Soviets) to willful dismissal of not only murder but suppression of every civil liberty that American communists whined about being denied in order to promote Stalinism here.

The secular-atheist left, to the extent that they have been part of this cover up, should be looked at with the same harshness that is used to look at Nazism and those parts of that history should be denounced and divorced from any future left. Anyone who downplayed the murder and oppression of  Communist regimes, from Lenin to Stalin to Mao, to Pol Pot, to the Kims is the moral and intellectual equivalent of Hitler apologists, they have the same moral and intellectual standing as David Irving.  That some of them have been anti-fascist while endorsing those who practiced a different form of the same thing is best seen as rival gangsters in rival crime families.   Mistaking Stalinists or Maoists as being anything like egalitarian democrats on the basis of their opposition to only one faction of gangsters was always stupid.  There's more than a world of difference between the alliance forced on FDR in WWII and the idiotic acceptance of Stalinism and, later, Maoism by people on the left, the American left has never been forced to accept such an alliance through the hardest of exigencies, it was suckered into it by the sob stories told by communists about how their rival gangsters in the American right got the upper hand on them.

There is a huge part of the romanticized, cinematic left that has to be left behind in shame because it is shameful.  It always has been and it always will be and it is a load of infectious crap that a real, egalitarian-democratic left can't carry into the future.  Anyone who wants to hold out in affection to their red-diaper upbringing or in affection for their beloved commie gramps and granny or their dear old professor or mentor is too friggin' stupid to keep around.  They'll only end up doing things like getting Trump in office.  They really don't mind that because their ideology really is more like his than it is egalitarian democracy, they are romantics for gangsterism of the past, not a future of equality.   I'd rather not lose that so that a bunch of people with "secular" or "free thinking" upbringings can promote their personal nostalgia in schlocky, sentimental movies and magazine pieces and as a framing for their "journalism".

* Amy Goodman is another one I can't listen to anymore.

3 comments:

  1. So "Mattress Mac," the guy who runs a furniture store here in Houston and is a fixture of local TV advertising (he once dressed as a mattress to sell them in a TV ad), gained international fame for opening his stores to those made homeless during and after Harvey. He fed them, he let them sleep on his mattresses on display, he even held a huge free Thanksgiving meal this past year open to whoever came to eat.

    And in a interview on a PBS show recently, he said he did it because he was raised Catholic, and he learned it was better to give than to receive, and that we should always help each other.

    And I thought of prominent atheists like the late Christopher Hitchens, or Madalyn Murray O'Hair, or the still extant Richard Dawkins, and wondered how their examples would inspire the next "Mattress Mac" to hel his neighbors in need.

    Not exactly relevant to what you said, but the mention of "secular atheists" gave me the opening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I could track it down but back when I was new at this I used to check out atheist blogs to see what they were saying, I remember at a CFI blog they were touting the establishment of an atheist charity - I pointed out that they'd discovered something that religions had been doing forever. The comments contained some angry, truculent complaints that an atheist blog would even talk about something like charity since it had nothing to do with atheism. In my review of Marxist lit. I came to the conclusion that Marxist champions of the underclass, those who Engels dismissed as the "lumpenprolitariat" of no use only promoted them as some kind of natural force or raw material out of which to make revolution. While reading up on Randy Credico I came across the weird information that one of those dear old commies' Prof. Irwin Corey's biggest fans was Ayn Rand. Corey endorsed Credico in his stunt candidacies. I'm totally disgusted with them. I don't think I could go back and watch that documentary about The Weavers and enjoy it anymore. And it's because I'm more radical than I was when I saw it.

      Delete
  2. "And it's because I'm more radical than I was when I saw it."

    Yeah, that's what religion did for me, too.

    ReplyDelete