Gerard Vanderf Leun: "Drive-By: New York Times Stands By Recent Editorial Board Hire Joseph Stalin Despite Criticism Of Mass Murder"

From the Bablyon Bee

“His nationality as a Russian and his identity as a Communist have made him the target of much online harassment,” The Times wrote. “For a period of time, he responded to criticism by lashing out, fighting fire with fire by executing dissenters and implementing policies that sent countless people to their deaths. He now sees this only fueled the rage against him and was not entirely appropriate.”

Upon the announcement of Stalin’s hire, thousands of readers pointed out that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of up to 25 million people. But on Thursday, The Times released a statement saying that editors were aware of Stalin’s sordid past before hiring him, and that it would not be bowing to “right-wing outrage” over “just a few million deaths.”

“His nationality as a Russian and his identity as a Communist have made him the target of much online harassment,” The Times wrote. “For a period of time, he responded to criticism by lashing out, fighting fire with fire by executing dissenters and implementing policies that sent countless people to their deaths. He now sees this only fueled the rage against him and was not entirely appropriate.”

The Times also wrote that Stalin has promised not to continue to kill people while he is employed by the paper. “He is an important part of the voice of our organization,” they wrote.

Alan Dershowitz: Russia Probe Sounds Like Stalin's Secret Police

Are women without genitalia the result of Republican budget cuts or the Koch brothers?

This is not a hoax.

It appears that Mount Holyoke College - in impeccably Liberal Massachusetts - cancelled a planned performance of “The Vagina Monologues” because the women's college deemed the play “exclusionary” toward the “transgendered community,” possibly offending women without vaginas. 

There are any number of reasons not to stage one of the most over-rated pieces of sexual propaganda foisted on the public in the name of "art." But we are inured to the absurdities of the "art" world since reading Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word," seeing Piss Christ exhibited as art - along with a urinal - and the excretable framed crap collected by Paine Webber's chairman Don Marron.

So it appears that feminism has now progressed to a point that it's now removing it's founders, much as Stalin removed the founding Communists.  Eve Ensler?  Never heard of her.

Nikolai Yezhov, walking with Stalin in the left photo from the 1930s, was killed in 1940.
Following his execution, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet censors/

A mere few weeks ago "The Vagina Monologues" was the high point of feminist art. Today, it's relegated to the dustbin of history, an example of the exclusionary nature of the less enlightened strains of feminism, oppressing women without vaginas.   Next we can expect an investigation to see if the Koch brothers, in league with perfidious Republicans are responsible for this outrage.

"...history’s happy predestination..."

I found this term amusing, and so apt as it applies to the delusions of Obama: the childlike belief that history favors him and his fantasies.

Speaking recently about the Islamic State’s beheading of an American journalist, just before another tee time, President Barack Obama assured the country that “the future is won by those who build and not destroy.”

At a news conference on Thursday Obama admitted in so many words that “We don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State, but he seemed to retain his usual faith in history’s happy predestination nonetheless. He and his Secretary of State have dismissed Russia’s massive land grab as a sign of weakness and an embarrassingly out-dated way of doing things, assurances have been made that all of that even more old-fashioned beheading and crucifying and slaughtering that the Islamic State gang has been up to certainly “has no place in the 21st Century,” and thus far these messes have dominated the news thoroughly enough that no one in the administration has been obliged by the press to explain why another aircraft carrier is needed in the South China Sea. “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice,” as the president is fond of saying, to the point that he had it woven into the Oval Office carpet, and we are expected to share his confidence that the aphorism will prove true no matter what befuddled efforts America might make.

A couple of smarter fellows over at National Review have already written convincingly about Obama’s childish faith that the good guys always win in the end, no matter how wimpy their good guy ways nor how ruthlessly bad the bad guys might be, but we would add that such fantastical notions are characteristic of modern liberal thinking about almost everything. Not just foreign policy, but economics, social issues, and the very nature of man.

I have written prior to these columns about this very subject:What is it with Obama's blind faith in the inevitable march of history? 

Allow me to quote myself:

Barack Obama gave a speech, the thing he does best, with a ridiculous premise embedded therein, something he does almost every time he opens his mouth. Often it’s fields of straw men he’s destroying. This time he’s referring to that inevitable march of history he and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, is fond of invoking.

It goes something like this:

“This is the 21st Century and X is just not done in this century. So X will inevitably fail.”

The fact that this is the 21st Century was supposed to have stopped Putin from swallowing the Ukraine piece by piece.

In Obama’s last statement in Martha's Vineyard, before heading back to finish his round of golf, was that

"One thing we can all agree on is that a group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century."

Who is this "We" Mr. Obama? ISIL disagrees. And, in fact, it’s reported to be attracting thousands of young people who have spent most of their lives in the 21st Century. They think ISIL is the path to the future and are willing to die for ISIL and their Muslim faith.

...

Is that reference to the 21st Century a theme that Obama’s speech writers throw in because it polls well. Or is this what the Obama really believes. It would not surprise us because the “March of History™” is a familiar theme in Marxist thought. And versions of Marxism were part of Obama’s formative years before he became President.

Victor Davis Hanson:

He also believes history follows some predetermined course, as if things always get better on their own. Obama often praises those he pronounces to be on the “right side of history.” He also chastises others for being on the “wrong side of history” — as if evil is vanished and the good thrives on autopilot.

When in 2009 millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the thuggish theocracy, they wanted immediate U.S. support. Instead, Obama belatedly offered them banalities suggesting that in the end, they would end up “on the right side of history.” Iranian reformers may indeed end up there, but it will not be because of some righteous inanimate force of history, or the prognostications of Barack Obama.

Perhaps it's Obama's personal path to the highest office in the land, as totally undeserved as his Nobel Peace Prize, that gives him the feeling that he, like King Canute, controls the tide. There is a sick feeling that the man is not only a deluded narcissist, but a dangerous fool. A belief which seems to conflict with the observation that he is so fundamentally corrupt that he's evil.  But that may be a false choice.  There is no rule that says the deluded cannot be evil.  There are at least three prominent examples in the 20th Century and they ruled Russia, Germany and China.  I am quite sure that the 21st Century will be no different.