A curious new bad habit - among many - has infested the left-wing ranks. That is the habit of going back into history and reworking it into its own image. I don't want to call it revisionism because I'm not sure that it is. It's hard to figure out what's going on i MSNBC's n Krystal Ball's head (yes, this is her name).
According to her, Animal Farm is not about communism (which it is. It's not up for debate since Orwell was using Soviet Communism as his guide) but can be about capitalism.
It's stupid as it is ignorant and a flat out lie designed to deceive.
But I'd rather not quibble with her pointing out all the historical inaccuracies she commits.
Rather, a quick moment should be spent on the mindset leading to such inane conclusions.
In defending her position which you can read, this line caught my attention:
"In fact, if you read Animal Farm today, it seems to warn not of some now non-existent communist threat but of the power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elites and corporations."
Read the above quietly. This is how rats try and confuse you.
It's not a "fact" and the use of the word 'seems' obliterates her 'factual' assertion.
You can pretty much go into history and apply this trompe d'oeil to any novel or academic work and pretty much make it into anything you want it to be. One communist boob at Rolling Stone magazine even went as far to attempt to turn Adam Smith on capitalism.
What they're trying to do, as far as I can tell, is to go back and pull out all the writers and thinkers that support modern libertarianism and conservatism (ie classical liberalism) and try and reinvent their works in a way that "refutes" contemporary supporters of such landmark achievements. They have to misinterpret history - or at least reinvent it - because for the most part, our classical liberal heritgae doesn't support their modern progressive thought process.
For example, Wealth of Nations really advocates "controlled capitalism" (don't laugh, I read someone say this). Or The Idiot is really an allegory to George W. Bush. And so on.
Again, don't laugh because this is what Ball is basically arguing.
She has defended herself, as all empty-headed morons do, by stating the 'right' are going crazy on her because they don't understand her argument.
Yes. They don't see the genius inherent in the idiocy.
In fact, if you read Animal Farm today
I'm guessing the last word is the key one. Some Lit Crit people argue that anything written can have multiple meanings include some which the author never thought of and which, may, be the opposite of what the author intended.
Last, and this ties to what I just wrote, the passage I pulled out has another key word we can focus on: "In fact, if you read Animal Farm today"
I've read people in academia argue that anything written - past or present or even in the future - can have multiple meanings. It leaves them open to all sorts of faulty premises, presumptions and ultimately projections where current views can be superimposed on an author's original intent. They will insert notions the author 'never thought of'. In other words, the opposite of what the author intended. It gives them quite the lee-way to run rampant on history doesn't it?
Ah, but the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' that was blamed for Bill Clinton's immoral affair remains at the heart of all left-wing demons.
According to her, Animal Farm is not about communism (which it is. It's not up for debate since Orwell was using Soviet Communism as his guide) but can be about capitalism.
It's stupid as it is ignorant and a flat out lie designed to deceive.
But I'd rather not quibble with her pointing out all the historical inaccuracies she commits.
Rather, a quick moment should be spent on the mindset leading to such inane conclusions.
In defending her position which you can read, this line caught my attention:
"In fact, if you read Animal Farm today, it seems to warn not of some now non-existent communist threat but of the power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elites and corporations."
Read the above quietly. This is how rats try and confuse you.
It's not a "fact" and the use of the word 'seems' obliterates her 'factual' assertion.
You can pretty much go into history and apply this trompe d'oeil to any novel or academic work and pretty much make it into anything you want it to be. One communist boob at Rolling Stone magazine even went as far to attempt to turn Adam Smith on capitalism.
What they're trying to do, as far as I can tell, is to go back and pull out all the writers and thinkers that support modern libertarianism and conservatism (ie classical liberalism) and try and reinvent their works in a way that "refutes" contemporary supporters of such landmark achievements. They have to misinterpret history - or at least reinvent it - because for the most part, our classical liberal heritgae doesn't support their modern progressive thought process.
For example, Wealth of Nations really advocates "controlled capitalism" (don't laugh, I read someone say this). Or The Idiot is really an allegory to George W. Bush. And so on.
Again, don't laugh because this is what Ball is basically arguing.
She has defended herself, as all empty-headed morons do, by stating the 'right' are going crazy on her because they don't understand her argument.
Yes. They don't see the genius inherent in the idiocy.
In fact, if you read Animal Farm today
I'm guessing the last word is the key one. Some Lit Crit people argue that anything written can have multiple meanings include some which the author never thought of and which, may, be the opposite of what the author intended.
Last, and this ties to what I just wrote, the passage I pulled out has another key word we can focus on: "In fact, if you read Animal Farm today"
I've read people in academia argue that anything written - past or present or even in the future - can have multiple meanings. It leaves them open to all sorts of faulty premises, presumptions and ultimately projections where current views can be superimposed on an author's original intent. They will insert notions the author 'never thought of'. In other words, the opposite of what the author intended. It gives them quite the lee-way to run rampant on history doesn't it?
Ah, but the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' that was blamed for Bill Clinton's immoral affair remains at the heart of all left-wing demons.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.