As I posted, in a comment a few below. "Why, what next, the imprisonment of those who speak against the Party and its members?"
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Well, Talk About Exquisite Irony
As I posted, in a comment a few below. "Why, what next, the imprisonment of those who speak against the Party and its members?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Five years in Vorkhuta for mocking a Tribune of the People? That's lenient, far too lenient. In the glory days of pinkdom, that woulda been an automatic 10-year sentence under Article 58.
As Solzhenitsyn said, One can find more epithets in praise of this article than Turgenev once assembled to praise the Russian language, or Nekrasov to praise Mother Russia: great, powerful, abundant, highly ramified, multiform, wide sweeping 58, which summed up the world not so much through the exact terms of its sections as in their extended diacritical interpretation. Who among us has not experienced its all-encompassing embrace? In all truth, there is no step, thought, action, or lack of action under the heavens which could not be punished by the heavy hand of Article 58.
Surely Pepe is dying to have 58 here. The stuff pinko wet dreams are made of.
But it would have to be called Article 57, in honor of our Imperator and his varieties of States.
Do you remember Solzhenitsyn's speech at Harvard, Tecumseh?
Rott despised Alexandre, and believed his beloved Harvard had been dissed by the Russkie interloper. But A.S. smelt the stink in this country, its parallel path towards the Radiant Future, very very rapidly-- even as the Rott was still lambasting the thuggish knuckledraggers of College Station and that lackey of the Capitalist Running Dogs, ol' Ronald Reagan.
Maybe it just helps tremendously to have seen Socialism, National or Internationl, up close and personal.
Solzhenitsyn wanted us all to go back to having pogroms.
Nope.
Try rereading his speech.
Der Rotter is hopeless. Yes, he had no appreciation in his flaming youth of men like Solzhenitsyn or Reagan (happens to the best, though not to me). But then was then, and this is now. What's the excuse?
For Rot's benefit, here's an excerpt from Solzhenitsyn's address at Harvard, back in 1978.
A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?
Still fresh and relevant to my ears. But of course, Herr Rot detects a call to pogroms in this. Ah, well.
Solzhenitsyn was as tight with Putin as Garcia - Marquez ever was with Fidel.
Solzhenitsyn was, like his superior Dostoyevsky, a Russian nationalist in the extreme. As Dostoyevsky would famously call the Pope an anti-Christ, so Solzhenitsyn would rage after the evils of Adam Smith while the Russian soul went after dissident after dissident after dissident, after the Soviets.
Solzhenitsyn's problem with Russian Communism was not the Communism part. It was that it diluted Russian status as the chosen people under a Russian Christ.
Dostoyevsky makes the case more interestingly and makes better literature out of those ideas. Solzhenitsyn mixes all that mediaeval obscurantism with the rights of man.
That's wrong.
Mr Rot, Mr Rot (said with a thick Russian accent). As usual, you're mixing things up, in a Pepean logic sort of way. Nobody is talking about Solzhenitsyn in his Mr Alz days, when he'd hob-nob with Putin, and play the role the grand old man of Russia, We're talking about Solzhenitsyn circa 1978, when he still was not far from his peak, and criticizing Jimmah to his face for his abysmally weak policies vis-a-vis the Soviets (and terrorism, incidentally).
As for Solzhenitsyn in his prime -- eg, when he was freezing his ass off in the Gulag, or teaching math in a godforsaken high school somewhere in Siberia, or writing Ivan Dennisovich -- well, mon cher, you wouldn't detract from that with a ton of Pepean smirking.
Was gonna point out to Herr Rott his confusion of categories, but Tecumseh beat me to the punch [by beating Rott with a powerful combination of punches]. What is the sound of "POWWW" in old Wiener-hund? It is a sound of a Tejas Rose turnin' Yellow.
Sounds like you two Kerry-lovers have taken a liking to Putin's baby blues.
Keep diggin', Herr Rott, keep diggin'. But it would be more useful if you were to dig me out of those damn snow drifts sent this way by Gorebal Warming.
Make sure no one has a brain-fryer nearby! Tecs' Nanny State's a-comin'!
Post a Comment