Sunday, July 23, 2017

Stalin is the new Hitler?

Sid, detecting a switch from Hitler to Stalin as the Most Evil Person in History:
In 2015, the worst thing you could call someone was a Nazi, but that's started to change. The blue-check idiots on Twitter tend to associate Trump with the USSR and Russia far more than with Nazism. Sure, he was Literally Hitler in 2015, but Germany taking in so many refugees means that Nazi is no longer such a sharp insult.
That would be one hell of a rhetorical contortion for the zeitgeist to undergo if Stalin becomes the new Hitler. If it comes to pass I'll have to shelve one of my favorite normie-triggering Steve Sailer quotes: "Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality".

Last week my wife had Gilmore Girls on while she was folding clothes (she was nine when it came out so cut her some nostalgic slack) and I caught this bit of dialogue:
LORELAI: Well, I consider what my mother would do in a given situation, then I dial it back, and I have what Mussolini would do, then I dial it back, and I have what Stalin would do, and then I dial that back and then it starts approaching what a sane person would do.

SANDRA: Ouch.

LORELAI: You’re right. Let’s find a topic happier than my relationship with my mother. Basically that would be anything short of famine. [Sandra laughs.] Okay. I will tell you one story about my mother on a family vacation. Jimmy Carter was there. And he had a bigger room.
Stalin's not as bad as Mussolini, let alone Hitler!

More contemporarily, Google Trends search results for the phrases "trump is hitler", "trump is a nazi", "trump is a soviet", and "trump is stalin" are as follows:


Returns for the latter two do not even register over the more than two year period since Trump announced his candidacy.

The four "trump is hitler" spikes are on account of his call for a temporary ban on immigration from Muslim countries, his string of strong Super Tuesday I and II victories that solidified the GOP nomination as his to lose, his victory in the general election, and his inauguration, respectively.

My assumption is that we will see historical pretense dispensed with altogether. The SJWs will opt instead for more timeless attacks like "white supremacist" and "racist".

SJWs, as a rule, know vanishingly little history so it'll be a natural move for them to make. Consider how ignorant it was to get the Trump-as-literally-Hitler ball rolling in response to the proposed Muslim ban. Trump goes after the Nazi's erstwhile allies rather their victims; his ban proposes keeping people out rather than locking them in, etc.

While I'm skeptical of Sid's analysis, it does appear we've passed Peak Hitler. Having blown their name-calling load more than three years before Trump's up for re-election, I suspect the main line of attack will be incompetence (can't control leaks, can't keep people within on the same page, etc) with imprecise insinuations of corruption (the Russia nothingness will still linger) thrown in.

Sid responds here.

24 comments:

Sid said...

I wouldn't say that center-left liberals believe that Stalin is worse than Hitler. What I would say is that Stalin's historical reputation among the center-left has plummeted in recent years.

It's been commonly accepted in America by all but fringe leftist radicals that Stalin was a monster who killed millions of people. That said, the center-left still thought that Stalin, as you and Steve Sailer noted, killed for equality. That's bad, but for the left, that's not as bad as killing people out of racism.

Except Stalin, increasingly in the view of the center-left, did kill millions of people out of racism. Timothy Snyder in the book "Bloodlands" notes that Stalin and his cronies specifically targeted Poles during the Great Terror and their occupation of Poland. Stalin purposefully starved Ukrainians in the 1932-1933 famine. Numerous ethnic minorities, such as the Chechens, were forcibly deported in inhumane conditions and were branded "criminal nationalities." The Doctor's Plot quickly devolved into an antisemitic campaign that was aborted only because Stalin died. As such, while Stalin killed fewer people than Hitler, he was similarly racist. So he might have been, say, 90% as bad as Hitler because he killed people out of racist paranoia, as opposed to 40% when the center-left thought his terror campaigns were done in aim of building communism.

(If people disagree with how I've characterized Stalin's violence as racist, that's fine, but the point I'm making is that the center-left is starting to see Stalin as a racist, which, of course, is the worst thing in the world for them.)

I once spoke with a history professor in his mid 30s who has a history Ph.D. from Yale, and he maintained that Stalin was just as evil as Hitler. Meanwhile, he thought that Mao wasn't as bad because he killed tens of millions of people in order to build up state authority, amass personal power, and institute Communism, but not out of racism.

What's even more important, however, is that comparisons between Trump and evil Germans is unwieldy for the center-left. Because Merkel took in migrants, Germany is now becoming less associated with racism and Nazism. It's really the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and of course Russia, that are being associated with racism, xenophobia, and populist demagoguery. (The Sword of Soros will remain over Germany's head, however, lest they restrict migration!)

The center-left is still furious at Putin for the DNC and Podesta WikiLeaks, and they haven't given up on the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory. Turn on CNN and that's all they ever talk about. The notorious "blue-checks" on Twitter are espousing all sorts of old anti-Red slanders at Trump. I mean, sure, they still call him Hitler, but calling him a KGB stooge is more in.

In summary, the center-left still believes that Hitler and Nazism were the greatest evil of all time, but they're becoming less and less associated with Germany each month, and more and more attached to Central and Eastern Europe. Stalin has gone from being 40% as bad to 90% as bad as Hitler, and now the center-left is appropriating old Red Scare tropes for their own use.

Self-identified socialists, Greens, and antifas are still pinkos who think Communism was a good idea that was implemented poorly or subverted by opportunists. I don't think Hillary's major donors and staff agree with that anymore, and now revile the memory of the USSR.

Last note. Major historical retconning has happened before. The only Democrats who think that the Democratic Party had the right stance on slavery in the 1850s or on civil rights and integration for blacks in the 1920s are old, old Dixiecrats. Most Democrats I know with a solid knowledge of history readily joke that the Republican Party "used to be the good one."

IHTG said...

It's becoming clear even to the left that Trump is no totalitarian re-organizer of society, so I think you're going to see less and less comparisons with 20th century dictators and more with contemporary Duterte types.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Perfect. Thanks for the additional expounding.

IHTG,

Yep. Scott Adams predicted Trump would go from totalitarian (between election and inauguration) to ineffective (first six months in office) to delivering on campaign promises but evil (after six months; beginning roughly now).

Sid said...

On a funnier note, we've all joked about how the left lacks a common cultural currency beyond Harry Potter, Star Wars, comic books, and TV shows popular among SWPLs. One such show on air right now that is very highly regarded is, "The Americans," which is about Russian spies who pose as an American family. This is silly, but it wouldn't surprise me if the show opened up the idea to leftists that Soviet espionage wasn't just a right-wing scare tactic.

In their parlance, Stalin went from being a Walter White figure to a Voldemort!

Black Death said...

Sid - very good.

When it comes to mass murderers, the absolute #1 is Mao Tse-Tung. His murders number in the scores of millions. Stalin is second and Hitler third. All had their twisted ideological beliefs, but many of their killings were done to consolidate their hold on power. Of course, Hitler hated Jews, Gypsies and others, and Stalin hated Poles, Ukrainians, Baltic peoples, Christians, Jews, etc. Mao seemed to kill out of pure ideological fury, but I really don't know that much about him.

Lenin? He may have been the most driven of all. Remember Molotov's famus quote (and he knew them both well) - "Next to Lenin, Stalin was a lamb."

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Is dismissively waving off "neo-McCarthyism" too cucky? The left used to try to rhetorically bludgeon people by calling them McCarthyists. I'm aware that Venona intercepts apparently largely exonerate McCarthy, but that's not rhetorically that important when dealing with people who don't even know when the Soviet Union existed as such.

Black Death,

Every account of Lenin I've come across paints him as a psychopath who enjoyed having people murdered.

Sid said...

Black Death - I appreciate your comment. I haven't done a lot of research on Lenin directly, but from what I've gathered, he was nothing if not a mean, nasty SOB. One of the defining differences between him and Stalin, however, is that Lenin was probably interested in sharing power in a first-among-equals manner with other Bolsheviks. Stalin wanted sole control over everything he could grasp.

Mao killed people out of a combination of ideological fervor, and a sadistic need to hunt, torture, humiliate, and kill people who either had more power than him, could pose a potential threat to him, or just got in his way. He didn't kill people out of racism, but a lot of it is that the Han Chinese made up 90% of China's population, so race and ethnicity ultimately was a less central matter in administering China than it was in the USSR or in acquiring "lebensraum" in Central and Eastern Europe.

There were many significant differences between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao in their personalities and in their policies, but they were all similarly black-hearted and each one put tens of millions to death. I gave up trying to classify who was morally worse long ago.

AE,

Joseph McCarthy, to me, is a mixed bag. He was right that there was Communist infiltration and he wasn't too far off in the mark in its scale. Even so, he probably handled the matter as a self-promotional opportunity, and ultimately angered a lot of other diehard anti-communists.

Trump himself has called Obama's wiretapping and the Russia collusion conspiracy theory as "McCarthyism." Personally, I'm all for letting the left know they're acting that way. If the Democrats back off the Russia charges, out of fear they will become what they have opposed, then Trump will be able to handle foreign policy more effectively and deescalate tensions with Russia. If the left decides to own the charge, then great, we'll have to deal with their Russia charges for a few more years tops, but they'll leave the scandal having taken their own red pill: that foreign countries are interested in disrupting our sovereignty, that Communism was a terrible menace, and that egalitarianism is a flawed ideology.

I think McCarthy is a gray figure, whereas they think he's a black one. Therefore, I can honestly accuse them of the committing the bad parts of McCarthyism without accomplishing any of the positive aspects, and I won't be a hypocrite. It's they who will have inverted their underlying political philosophy, and will have to answer for it to themselves. Let them take that red pill.

legateofjudea said...

AE - there is no comparison. Hilter caused WWII which led to 80 million Europeans being killed or dying of deprivations. Given birth rates at the time, had they lived, there would be well over 100 million more people in Europe today. Much of the immigration into Europe seen after the war period likely would not have been possible due to population pressures, so the security issues seen in Europe today would not be occurring. Nothing Stalin did, while horrible (and I think partially due to clinical paranoia), was of the same magnitude.

Sid said...

Xerxes burned the city of Athens to ground. The whole Athenian polity was little more than a flotilla of refugees on their ships. In fact, they even debated migrating to Sicily and trying their hand out there.

But instead, the Athenians crushed the Persian navy, helped stamp out the Persian army on land, went on to build a new Parthenon, perfected drama, and altogether founded a Golden Age.

I agree completely that Hitler has nothing but an awful legacy, but a truly strong people could've rebounded from the war with determination and fury. It's been our fault in the West for letting Hitler dictate our policies decade after decade. May he rot in hell, but the decisions made after WWII could have been otherwise.

Arthur said...

"I suspect the main line of attack will be incompetence...can't control leaks..."

While simultaneously screeching about 'TEH FASHISMS!!11" any time he tries to prosecute a leaker.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

Hitler caused WWII

That's a gross oversimplification. To attribute all WWII (and WWI!) deaths to Germany is to blood libel the entire country.

Feryl said...

On a funnier note, we've all joked about how the left lacks a common cultural currency beyond Harry Potter, Star Wars, comic books, and TV shows popular among SWPLs. One such show on air right now that is very highly regarded is, "The Americans," which is about Russian spies who pose as an American family. This is silly, but it wouldn't surprise me if the show opened up the idea to leftists that Soviet espionage wasn't just a right-wing scare tactic.

There's no distinction between high and low culture anymore. None. I don't necessarily care, since I'm not a snob. But boy, we are a long ways away from the 1980's when Silent and early Boomer social critics and aesthetes lamented the growing gauche trends of the time and the disinterest in teaching younger generations respect for the classics and the distinction between real art and trash.

What passes for snobbery among X-ers is pretty dire; having an extensive knowledge of 1970's film, when film is the most populist low IQ art form since watching moving images takes no effort, wearing designer jeans, disdain for racist and homophobic white proles, pretending that punk music mattered (not a single punk album charted to any degree in America) and so on.

"We think of the Ramones as a classic, iconic band," observed Gene Simmons. "They have one gold record to their name (ed: it wasn't until 2014 that their debut hit gold status). They never played arenas; couldn't sell them out. It was a failed band. It doesn't mean they weren't great. It means the masses didn't care."[145] Kerry King (Slayer guitarist) said he grew up listening to Boston and Judas Priest; he begrudgingly listened to some punk at the insistence of the other band members, but it never really inspired him.

Feryl said...

Hitler has been stronger in death. He has in fact succeeded in destroying his enemies, doing so via his enemy's stubborn opposition towards everything he believed about race and multi-culturalism (which was regarded as common sense before WW2)

Yeah, it didn't have to be this way. We opted to ret-con history after WW2, painting our decisions as moral rather than geo-political. We didn't just fight Hitler because he was a domineering asshole leading a strong army threatening...wait for it....The national sovereignty (!) of other nations. As has bemused Sailer, it's quite surreal to see the nationalist/isolationist Alt-Right labeled a force for a new Nazi age. Projection?

Feryl said...

In December 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."[33] This was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, one which pollsters began asking in 1964.[34] Only about a third of respondents felt this way a decade ago.[34]

A July 2014 poll of "battleground voters" across the United States found "77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, 'U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'"[35]


We've been humbled, basically. And presumably (well, maybe not, wasn't there a post about generational attitudes towards intervention?) younger people are driving this. Those of us under 45 are grateful that our grandfathers/great-grandfathers beat Hitler, but it's an academic and matter of fact sentiment. We're not emotionally driven to take on whoever is lately being billed as an imminent threat to humanity (note to Boomers: America took several years to take a side in World War 2).

Boomers always expect big things, and they expect them fast. The get more sheer joy out of waging war than any other generation, seemingly oblivious to just how arduous warfare is, it's implications, and the degree to which happenstance, luck, and logistics determine winners and losers. In Boomer fantasy land, we beat Hitler, and we can beat damn near anyone else, because, well, just because. We can wish and will anything to happen. It's this childish fantasy mentality that explains why Boomers have been such atrocious leaders.

What defines the ongoing Boomer attitude towards war? Neverending WW2 crap (how many movies do we need? Enough already), and glorifying The Soldier (tm). It never seems to dawn on them that the best way to help our soldiers is stopping the warmongering in the first place. They're in denial; they've so fucked up our foreign policy and broken so many bodies, but hey, look, we beat Hitler, didn't we?

People tend to check out of pop culture in their late 20's. Who, then, do you suppose were affected by the 'Nam movies of the 80's? X-ers watched movies like Full Metal Jacket a lot in the late 80's and 90's. War seemed like an ugly, brutal, pointless thing. After Clinton got elected, 'Nam movies (which many Boomers find embarrassing) vanished. Before Boomers had more power, Boomers were more comfortable making movies about military fiascoes. Then they got power and since then pop culture has been less about questioning the system, of which the military is an important part. An X-er like Christopher Nolan is I'm sure curious about Vietnam and other wars,but most of the big time producers and money-men are still Boomers who want feel-good (e.g., WW2) war movies.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

"Hitler's revenge" and "My grandfather didn't beat the Nazis so I could be called a Nazi for believing what my grandfather believed", etc.

This post showed how the differences on military spending between conservatives and liberals was much narrower 50 years ago than it is now. I don't recall specifically looking at differences by age (that doesn't mean I didn't!).

Anonymous said...

Legate - don't make over simplifications about Hitler and Germany. Only stereotypes about Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, please.

IHTG said...

Spoke too soon lol https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/889831867427454977

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Stereotypes about groups are functional in better understanding the world. Incorrectly assessing individuals, not so much.

IHTG,

Ha, if he were of the cast of mind to have done something he never had a desire to do, he knows exactly how he'd feel! No wonder academia is the target of relentless ridicule.

legateofjudea said...

AE - "That's a gross oversimplification." A one paragraph explanation of any war is tautologically a simplification. It is a simplification to claim that education decreases fertility because they hold a negative correlation. It is a gross over simplification to claim so when multi-regression analysis shows that after adjusting for race, education has a positive correlation with fertility:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/886.full

"To attribute all WWII (and WWI!) deaths to Germany is to blood libel the entire country." My post did not contain the word Germany. It is widely accepted that Hitler bears a large share of the blame for WWII. Stalin and the Soviets understood when they made their pact with Hitler that his ideology made war inevitable. They were just playing for time. He and his Generals started construction of their Moscow WWII bunker in the 1930s. It has become a nice museum to Stalin's thinking at the time.
http://www.russkaya-storona.ru/moscow/museums/Bunker/

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

That study is contradicted by 40 years of GSS data. The inverse correlation between educational attainment and reproduction is especially pronounced among women (as men are happier "marrying down" than women are).

legateofjudea said...

AE - you haven't shown me a contradiction from the GSS data. Have you looked at the correlation between fertility and education after adjusting for race? Are you familiar with multi-regression analysis? In the study I cited, education and fertility do have a negative correlation when confounding variables aren't considered.

However, there is also a correlation between race and education, race and fertility, obesity and fertility, and race and obesity. The study's multi-regression analysis showed that after adjusting for obesity and race, education had a positive effect on fertility. I know the GSS obesity data is limited, but take a look at fertility after adjusting for race.

Speaking of advanced statistical techniques and world wide data sets, are you familiar with this project?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Instability_Task_Force

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

Yes, I have.

Go here.

Hover over "Analysis", the go to "Correlation Matrix" and click.

Enter "EDUC" and "CHILDS" in "Variables to Correlate", boxes 1 and 2.

Then enter "RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1)" in the "Selection Filter(s)" line.

Hit enter.

This shows you the correlation (-.15) between years of education and number of children for non-Hispanic whites.

Now add ", SEX(2)" to the "Selection Filter(s)" line. This will show you the correlation for women only. It's (-.22).

The GSS has very limited data on obesity, but given that obesity and educational attainment are inversely correlated, it's hard to see how it would change the overall relationship between education and fertility.

legateofjudea said...

Hi AE - so remember we want FERTILITY', not FERTILITY. It addition to your variables and selectors, lets adjust a bit more.

Education delays childbearing. To get total fertility (FERTILITY'), lets looks at women past their childbearing years: AGE(50-100) Lets also look at women who are normal weight according to the interviewer assessment, which is not ideal: INTRWGHT(2)
That reduces the correlation to (-0.12) with composite adjustments or (-0.11) with non-response adjustments.

However, what we really want is a regression analysis since we have two GSS variables that are independent. EDUC and INTRWGH.

So lets go to regression analysis:

Set dependent variable to CHILDS
Set independent variables to EDUC and INTRWGH.
Let limits of: AGE(50-100),SEX(2),HISPANIC(1),RACECEN1(1),INTRWGHT(1-4)
That brings us down to a regression coefficient for education of (-0.084)

However, maybe some of those people getting high levels of education are doing so because they didn't get married, possibly due to obesity and related health problems in their 20s and 30s? Lets add MARITAL to the multiple regression. That reduces the strength of the coefficient for education to (-0.072).

So as women have fewer marital options, or worse marital options, they get more education. I suspect that just as the multiple regression study I cited showed that education had a positive effect on fertility when detailed obesity data was present, we could see the same effect if the GSS had the data. This is really not a new effect. Some of the most educated women used to be the nuns that were also nurses. They had more time for education when they didn't have to take care of their own children. Of course, some of them were very well known for helping with the children of others. However, that is a very long story.

When you said, "Yes, I have." Which of my statements were you referring to? Do you still consider the GSS data stronger than the AJCN Data?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/886.full

legateofjudea said...

AE - also, I realized that the INTRWGHT has a parabolic, and not a linear relationship. The regression package can only do a linear fit. I can't break the data out to compare INTRWGH(1-2) and INTRWGH(2-4) in the same regression using the online interface. As such, I'll just look at the INTRWGH(2-4) data to get a better linear fit. If I do this INTRWGHT(2-4) has a regression coefficient of (-.420) on CHILDS, about six times of strength of the remaining EDUC. This is perceived weight a generation after peak fertile years, and it still has six times more predictive value on CHILDS than EDUC.