From Rasmapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Faced with incompetence of his marshals during the first months of German invasion, Stalin was forced to appoint capable senior officers whom he, during the lunatic period of his purges, sent to torture chambers & exile in Siberia. One of them was, later much decorated marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, who had his finger-nails “removed” during torture interrogations two-three years ago. He was called back from the Gulag. Stalin received him & appointed him to lead some of the most important fronts (Rokossovsky turned out to be one of the 5-8 most capable marshals). Noticing that he didn’t have finger nails, Stalin asked Rokossovsky: ” Interrogation?”. Rokossovsky:”Yes, comrade Stalin”. Stalin sighed & said:” Oh yes, those were difficult times. Many unpleasant things happened. How was it possible?”

One of Stalin’s favorite authors was Chekhov. He had read Chekhov’s short stories frequently. And a few times he mentioned to Molotov, Mal’enkov, Khrushchev & other his closest associates: ” I am surrounded by brutes. Look at these NKVD butchers, these Yagoda, Yezhov (heads of the political police & organizers of purges & Gulag). If only Anton Pavlovich (Chekhov) were alive, I would have appointed him to head the NKVD. What a success story that would be! We would get rid of much more enemies of the people, Anton Pavlovich would have done it in his characteristic, tender manner- and even our enemies would have been happy because they would have known they had been eliminated by such a historical figure, an epitome of humanity and love of mankind!” https://www.unz.com/isteve/stalin-was-a-funny-guy/

David Shor said

Campaigns do want to win. But the people who work in campaigns tend to be highly ideologically motivated and thus, super-prone to convincing themselves to do things that are strategically dumb. Nothing that I tell people — or that my team [at Civis] told people — is actually that smart. You know, we’d do all this math, and some of it’s pretty cool, but at a high level, what we’re saying is: “You should put your money in cheap media markets in close states close to the election, and you should talk about popular issues, and not talk about unpopular issues.” And we’d use machine learning to operationalize that at scale. ... But, if you ask a battery of “racial resentment” questions — stuff like, “Do you think that there are a lot of white people who are having trouble finding a job because nonwhite people are getting them instead?” or, “Do you think that white people don’t have enough influence in how this country is run?” — and then control for the propensity to answer those questions in a racially resentful way, education ceases to be the relevant variable: Non-college-educated white people with low levels of racial resentment trended towards us in 2016, and college-educated white people with high levels of racial resentments turned against us.

What people like Shor mean by racism is opposition to unrestricted immigration and to affirmative action and other forms of special privilege for ethnic groups. It's as if conservatives called someone marxist if they support higher taxes, which no conservative does.

Shor reveals the thinking of intelligent leftwing radicals. He clearly thinks that it's impossible for an educated, reasonable, person to differ from any plank of the leftwing platform, and any such disagreement shows you are stupid or confused:

So there’s a big constellation of issues. The single biggest way that highly educated people who follow politics closely are different from everyone else is that we have much more ideological coherence in our views.

If you decided to create a survey scorecard, where on every single issue — choice, guns, unions, health care, etc. — you gave people one point for choosing the more liberal of two policy options, and then had 1,000 Americans fill it out, you would find that Democratic elected officials are to the left of 90 to 95 percent of people.

And the reason is that while voters may have more left-wing views than Joe Biden on a few issues, they don’t have the same consistency across their views. There are like tons of pro-life people who want higher taxes, etc. There’s a paper by the political scientist David Broockman that made this point really famous — that “moderate” voters don’t have moderate views, just ideologically inconsistent ones. Some people responded to media coverage of that paper by saying, “Oh, people are just answering these surveys randomly, issues don’t matter.” But that’s not actually what the paper showed. In a separate section, they tested the relevance of issues by presenting voters with hypothetical candidate matchups — here’s a politician running on this position, and another politician running on the opposite — and they found that issue congruence was actually very important for predicting who people voted for.

So this suggests there’s a big mass of voters who agree with us on some issues, and disagree with us on others.

Shor is a good example of the unconstrained-vision zealot of Sowell, who can't imagine anybody intelligent differing from him politically except out of malice.

He's marxist-leninist in his view of the people, as an ignorant mass to be manipulated by the party elite:

There’s like 20 percent of the electorate that trusts Democratic elites tremendously. And they will turn their views on a dime if the party tells them to. So this is how you can get Abolish ICE to go from a 10 percent issue to a 30 percent issue. If you’re an ideological activist, that’s a powerful force. If you convince strong partisans to adopt your view, then when the party comes to power, strong partisans will ultimately make up that administration and then you can make policy progress.

It seems that one reason Trump did well is that young black voters don't go to church as much, and so don't follow Democratic Party orders as much. 

if you look at Black voters trending against us, it’s not uniform. It’s specifically young, secular Black voters who are voting more Republican than their demographic used to. And the ostensible reason for this is the weakening of the Black church, which had, for historical reasons, occupied a really central place in Black society and helped anchor African-Americans in the Democratic Party. Among Black voters, one of the biggest predictors for voting Republican is not attending church.

How Gulenists infiltrated Turkey's bureaucracy by MEHMET ZAHID SOBACI 18 JUL 2017 tells about the Gulenists used Human Resources control to almost seize control of Turkey.

Inside the secretive religious movement that is being blamed for Turkey’s attempted coup :

I refer to the Gulenists as bureaucratic Islamists, in the sense they want state power, but not by winning it in elections,” he said. “Their tactic was always to get power by very meticulously raising a cadre in a secretive way to capture key positions in the state.”