NYT Books and Koba

Continuing our “all Koba – all the time” theme here at Addicted to Books:

An interesting little snippet I picked up from Andrew Sullivan. Check out the cover of the New York Times Book Review section:


Now read this post from Counter Revolutionary:

Check out the cover of the NYT Book Review.
Since it’s difficult to read the fine print on the page, allow me to transcribe:

Martin Amis’s War On Stalin.
Nobody likes Stalin, but Martin Amis seems to have a thing about him. In his new book, ‘Koba the Dread,’ he attacks the monster as if he were current. Then he offers some tender reflections about Kingley Amis, his father, who was once a Communist. What’s up here?

This attitude, to me, summarizes the intellectual dishonesty of the Left. Stalin, murderer of tens of millions, has nothing to teach us. His treachery, while great, does not reflect in any way on today’s people or events. He is passe. Ladies and Gentlemen ignore the horrible troll hiding in the Left’s closet.
Is this how the Times treats, say, McCarthy? No, McCarthy, who never killed anyone, is relevant and infinitely useful to remind the People of the sins of the Right. Now, compare Comrade Stalin and Mr. McCarthy. Who should we fear the most? Under whose rule would you choose to live? Yes, the McCarthy era was bad, but at least no-one knocked on your door at night and took you away never to be seen again.
Even Hitler, which I assume the Times would say is relevant today, is only a notch worse than Stalin. Stalin getting bonus points for not discriminating against certain minorities (even to get that point, however, you’d have to look at his entire career — at any given time Stalin was happy to discriminate against specific ethnic groups). How can it be possible that the second worst murderer of the past century is “not current”? Is it that the Times still believes that it was all for a good cause?
Which, of course, makes the author’s point that the Left is unwilling to face up to its own crimes. Until then, it is difficult to have a sober discussion when you have to ignore the big, bloody, menacing elephant in the room.

What I find so intriguing about the stupid cover, is that the whole @#$@# book is about just that: why were intelligent people duped into supporting a raving luantic who killed his people by the millions? What they also fail to point out is that Kinglsy came to his senses and explained publicly why he did so – unlike a great many leftists that the NYT so admires. This is exactly the kind of idiotic jab that continues to make the NYT a joke. Heads up by CounterRevolutionary for catching it – I guess it pays to get the hard copy sometimes.

Kevin Holtsberry
I work in communications and public affairs. I try to squeeze in as much reading as I can while still spending time with my wife and two kids (and cheering on the Pittsburgh Steelers and Michigan Wolverines during football season).