September 02, 2003

HUGO'S BIG LIE

“The leading theorist of the big lie was Adolf Hitler,” declares The Guardian’s Hugo Young:

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed," he wrote in Mein Kampf. This was his propaganda technique. A falsehood of sufficient audacity was "bound to have an effect on public opinion, even if not given total credence by a majority" (William Safire's New Political Dictionary). The most notorious exponent of the big lie in our modern world was ...

Pol Pot? Mao? Any number of commie dictators who collectively murdered millions while declaring themselves to be "for the people"?

Click 'n' see!

(Thanks to reader Simon R.)

Posted by Tim Blair at September 2, 2003 12:46 PM
Comments

My guess is when Clinton said: "I feel your pain."

Posted by: Perfectsense at September 2, 2003 at 01:07 PM

...and just what is your point? that "commie" dictators were more notorious than Hitler? mate don;t give up your day job!

Posted by: Miranda Divide at September 2, 2003 at 01:11 PM

Tony Blair - a classic brownshirt if ever I saw one.

Posted by: gaz at September 2, 2003 at 01:15 PM

What about when Clinton said "I won't come in your mouth"?

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 2, 2003 at 01:18 PM

Um . . . don't the words "our modern world" indicate that he's talking about the western democracies?

Must be a pretty slow day if Timmy's already finished scouring the internet for things to get outraged about, and that's the best he can do.

Posted by: Mork at September 2, 2003 at 01:33 PM

In "our modern world"? Did Arafat kick off, or is he just considered passe?

Posted by: scott h. at September 2, 2003 at 01:40 PM

How about Chamberlain to Hitler- "The Czechs in the mail".

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 2, 2003 at 01:50 PM

Mork

1) "Our modern world" does nothing to indicate that he is talking about western democracies;
2) Both of the examples Tim cites were in power after McCarthy's witch hunts, so are in fact more 'modern' than McCarthy.

I don't defend McCarthy, but to cite him as the "The most notorious exponent of the big lie in our modern world' is just ridiculous.

Posted by: Alex Hidell at September 2, 2003 at 02:03 PM

Secended, Alex.

Where are the mass graves filled with the bones of the people Sen. McCarthy ordered executed for being socialists? Where are the gas chambers that he had members of the American Communist Party marched off to, one by one? Does Nancy Reagan still bear a tatoo on her wrist, or Jane Fonda the scars of the torture devices the McCarthyites used to elict her confessions?

As "one of the century's greatest evils," Joseph McCarthy doesn't even rate.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at September 2, 2003 at 02:15 PM

Mork,
Na no, na no. Go back to Ork.

Posted by: George at September 2, 2003 at 02:16 PM

Mork,
Na no, Na no. Go back to Ork, and quit floggin' your pork, you friggin' dork.

Posted by: Imam Psycho Muhammed at September 2, 2003 at 02:35 PM

Ah, well, must just be me that got the decoder ring, then!

Seriously, though, isn't it a little pathetic that faced with two plausible interpretations of the sentence, you folks would rather take the one that leads to an absurd statement, just so you can get upset about it?

Posted by: Mork at September 2, 2003 at 02:51 PM

I think Chairman Mao has to be up there with the "Great Leap Forward".

As for the British Press, you really have to give the "Big Beat Up" award. They are pathetic.

Posted by: Michael Gill at September 2, 2003 at 03:12 PM

Mork

The sentence is:

"The most notorious exponent of the big lie in our modern world was Senator Joseph McCarthy..."

I'm a little dim. You're going to have to point out the other plausible interpretation.

Posted by: Alex Hidell at September 2, 2003 at 03:17 PM

By the way, I find it helps if you follow the link before you leave comments. Just a friendly tip for the future.

Posted by: Alex Hidell at September 2, 2003 at 03:19 PM

>Um . . . don't the words "our modern world" indicate that he's talking about the western democracies?

Since when, Mork? Have you ever had a conversation where Mao and Stalin were not part of the "world?"

Posted by: John Nowak at September 2, 2003 at 03:25 PM

Of course I read the article. I disagree completely with most of it, if that makes you feel any better.

But it's obvious that he's not talking about the whole world in the sentence that's got your knickers all twisted ... who uses the phrase our world when they're talking about the world? My guess is that he's meaning to refer to the English-speaking democracies, or maybe just the U.S. and U.K.

But whatever. Seriously, you folks are just like the hysterical enforcers of PC that you deride ... feverishly scanning anything you can get your sweaty palms on for evidence of thought-crime and then gathering together a shrill little chorus of outrage to point fingers and screech "blasphemy!"

Is there not a, well, less trivial contribution to the debate you all could be making?

Posted by: Mork at September 2, 2003 at 03:38 PM

When 'us folks' come across ludicrous statements like this one by Hugo Young we say 'that's a very, very silly thing to have said.' That's all Tim’s doing here. From what you have written you seem to agree.

There’s no thought policing going on – Hugo’s perfectly free to talk shit (as are you and I).

Relax

Posted by: Alex Hidell at September 2, 2003 at 04:08 PM

>Is there not a, well, less trivial contribution to the debate you all could be making?

And just what the hell are you doing, Mork?

Posted by: John Nowak at September 2, 2003 at 04:15 PM

There’s no thought policing going on – Hugo’s perfectly free to talk shit (as are you and I).

That's a red herring, Alex ... you're also "free" to make all sorts of statements that are insufficiently sensitive to minority groups or women, too, but if you do it publicly, you'll get exactly the same kind of hysterical, knee-jerk response as Tim tries to generate here.

It's not like he tries to challenge the facts or logic of the piece. Instead, the same way as demented lefties scan everything they read for hidden signs that the writer is sexist or racist (which, of course, means that they are evil and anything they say can be discounted without further consideration), Tim goes hunting for some microscopic indication that the writer is indifferent to genocide!, so that he can write him off completely without having to engage with his argument.

It's not debate, it's an attempt to avoid debate by smearing your opponent.

Posted by: Mork at September 2, 2003 at 04:28 PM

>Tim goes hunting for some microscopic indication that the writer is indifferent to genocide!,

That's a stretch, Mork. Tim's simply pointing out that calling McCarthy the leading exponent of the Big Lie while ignoring the tens of millions killed under the Big Lie of communism is inane.

Posted by: John Nowak at September 2, 2003 at 04:31 PM

Miranda: Um, no, as you would have known if you'd, say, clicked the provided link? Which is there for a reason?

Mork: How in the world do you go from "our modern world" to such a small section of it? There is nothing to support that conclusion in the text, except for the utter stupidity of the statement if it isn't in so narrow a context. And as a professional editor, I will assure you that if he meant less than the whole modern world in which we live, his phrasing is the product of sheer incompetence.

Either Young actually meant to claim that McCarthy was the greatest exponent of the Big Lie since World War II, or Young and his editor were wanking when they should have been trying to communicate clearly. Whichever is true, Mr. Young is a fit object of ridicule.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at September 2, 2003 at 04:37 PM

"Which is there for a reason?"

Yo, you are a magician.

Posted by: Ferg at September 2, 2003 at 04:52 PM

Nobody had to “scan the article for microscopic indications…”. Hugo put the statement right there in the opening paragraph. It was the premise for his article. Now, maybe it was the product of ignorance or carelessness – Tim makes no judgment as to the reasons – he merely suggests that Hugo might be overlooking a couple of other “big lies”.

Posted by: Alex Hidell at September 2, 2003 at 05:10 PM

Which is there for a reason?

Sorry, I thought I was Big Hawk for a minute there.

Posted by: Ferg at September 2, 2003 at 05:32 PM


hmmm, must admit that the cut'n'paste does tend to suggest mr young was playing fast & loose with context on "big lies of modern history".

reading the whole article does see young actually demonstrating a relative context for his claim. not a great article by mr young, by & large an excellent writer. the obessions with damning the leaders of the coalition is tiresome, there's a whole middle raft of conspirators to damn as well who are getting away scott free!

i expect iraq to be free of centuries old hatreds and opening swingin' chad deemo-cratic votin' booths by christmas.

shee-oot.

Posted by: chico o'farrill at September 2, 2003 at 06:01 PM

The problem with the "big lie" statement in Hugos article is that McCarthy was correct. The number "81" is not verifiable, but the opening of the records of the former Soviet Union revealed that there were numerous Russian agents working in the State Department at the time.

Posted by: Gary Utter at September 2, 2003 at 06:39 PM

I apologise, I'm not used to taking orders. I should have dutifully 'clicked to see', like a good little girl. Now I've clicked to see...

Great, Tim Blair disagrees with Hugo Young, and has found yet another outrage perpetrated by The Guardian, that organ of dissent in the fascist ferment.

Hey if the Big G is so fucked how come you spend all day poring over every op-ed pice looking for something to farce at? After all, you know it's just a heap of leftie drivel.

Like Billy Bloggs says, without the left you really are nothing, aintchya?

miranda

Posted by: Miranda Divide at September 2, 2003 at 08:18 PM

Tim truthful jibe at Young is not what stands out about this article. What really stands out is that Young is comparing Blair to Sen. Joe McCarthy by creating and using the Hutton inquiry is a conspiracy to deceive and distract everyone from the more important conspiracy. Sheesh. He then flippantly writes off the BBC's willful deceptions as " two editorial decisions." That's putting a sweet spin on it. Seems the beeb is involved in a conspiracy of its own. What conspiracy Joe McCarthy was trying to hide by uncovering communists in the state dept. is still a mystery. But what is not a mystery is horseshit. I know it when I read it.

p.s. Remember after reading anything in the Guardian to remove your tinfoil hats. Miranda you can leave yours own, you're still delusional.

Posted by: Harry at September 2, 2003 at 11:02 PM

Mmmm, Hugo Young didn't mention any lies from Clinton-Gore. Why reach back to ancient history with ol' Tailgunner Joe McCarthy. Al Gore stood at the White House podium and accused Republicans of wanting to "starve children" and "poison the water" (sounds like the old Jewish libel to me) and throw old people into the gutter and take away their medicine. This was the Vice President in the White House.

The Lefties have never said a word about this lie. The Civil Liberties crowd (Lefties one and all) never said a word about Clinton using the IRS to conduct audits of conservative and libertarian organizations, who disagreed with his policies. They scream about Ashcroft and remain silent about Clinton-Gore. I can't even think of one legitimate Ashcroft criticism.

How Tony Blair climbed the foothills of the big lie

The Hutton inquiry is a brilliant distraction from the real issues of war

Hugo Young
Tuesday September 2, 2003
The Guardian

The leading theorist of the big lie was Adolf Hitler. "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed," he wrote in Mein Kampf. This was his propaganda technique. A falsehood of sufficient audacity was "bound to have an effect on public opinion, even if not given total credence by a majority" (William Safire's New Political Dictionary). The most notorious exponent of the big lie in our modern world was Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose contention in the 1950s that 81 card-carrying communists were at large in the state department was later branded by the Senate as "the most nefarious campaign of half truths and untruth in the history of the Republic".

Posted by: Jabba the Nutt at September 3, 2003 at 12:54 AM

Coorect me if I'm wrong - as surely you will - but wasn't the "leading theorist of the big lie" actually Joseph Goebbels?, with old national-socialist Adolf the greatest practitioner of the art?

Posted by: John Perry at September 3, 2003 at 03:20 AM

Blogger comments on news article! Film at eleven.

Posted by: LabRat at September 3, 2003 at 09:41 AM

One of the reasons why bloggers comment on articles such as this is that to leave them unchallenged implies the article is acceptable. McCarthy may have been over-the-top on his approach, but recent facts are beginning to show that he was correct (I grew up in a McCarthy-hating household).

Leftist spin has to be challenged where ever and when ever -- Lefties are free to challenge rightist spin where ever and when ever. No monopolies on blogging.

Posted by: rabidfox at September 4, 2003 at 01:13 AM