Nikil Saval is an editor at n+1

this reminded me that i had bookmarked an extremely long critique of n+1 that i never got around to reading and now the domain it was on has expired, rip

edit: wayback machine has it

Edited by Constantignoble (July 6, 2017 03:56:13)

cars posted:

roseweird posted:

this article is really pathetic

the comments are rows of headstones for the times 10/10

"We are all in this together and will reason it out together. Or we won't."

littlegreenpills posted:

I read kill all normies by angela nagle and it was so bad i wrote the most words at once that i ever have in the last 5 years https://medium.com/@curple.turnle/i-didnt-like-kill-all-normies-very-much-225c17868d78

front page

Constantignoble posted:

Nikil Saval is an editor at n+1



this reminded me that i had bookmarked an extremely long critique of n+1 that i never got around to reading and now the domain it was on has expired, rip

edit: wayback machine has it

Edited by Constantignoble (yesterday 21:56:13)

been trying to find this again forever, thanks.

in February 2014, Maxwell did the Indian people an inestimable service by releasing the first part of the Brooks-Bhagat report on his website. New Delhi’s immediate reaction was the inexcusable one of blocking his website.

report can be found here

Its conclusion was damning: “Against all evidence of increasing military disadvantage, and all the warnings that the Chinese gave us by actions like those at Galwan and Dhola, the government had convinced itself that when forced to choose between going to war against India and withdrawing, the Chinese would withdraw.” Their indictment of the forward policy approaches the heights of literature: “The Art of War teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy not coming but on our readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking but on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

What should the Indian public and its representatives learn from the disclosures contained in the Brooks-Bhagat report? The most important is that China is not the aggressive, expansionist nation that two generations of Indians have been reared to believe. In Indian eyes, China committed its original act of aggression when it began to build a road connecting Tibet and Xinjiang through Aksai Chin in the mid-1950s... Topography and hindsight show us that this alignment lost its raison d’etre the moment China annexed Tibet, for the British had chosen it with the specific purpose of blocking the valleys between the two ranges that could have given Russia easy access to Tibet, and thence to India and southern China, through Tibet. This alignment was, therefore, a product of The Great Game, and became history when China annexed Tibet.

However, having secured its basic requirement, China went to great lengths to demonstrate its desire for a negotiated settlement. The lengths to which it was prepared to go were demonstrated by Zhou when he virtually forced himself upon Nehru in New Delhi in February 1960, and went from one Indian cabinet minister’s home to the next, trying to obtain a consensus. Nehru’s failure to take advantage of this extraordinary overture must be counted as one of the greater, and by far the most costly, diplomatic mistakes India has made. For the hostility that Zhou encountered, and the humiliation to which he was subjected by ministers such as Morarji Desai, almost certainly triggered the rapid build-up of Chinese forces in the east and the west, which led Nehru and his advisers to adopt the forward policy.

What did Desai do?

When Zhou complained that India had given the Dalai Lama refuge, Desai reminded him that Karl Marx himself was given asylum in the United Kingdom. Then, when Zhou asked why the government had permitted protests outside the Chinese embassy, Desai once more underlined the fundamental distinction between dictatorship and democracy. His own effigies, he noted, were burnt in the streets after every Budget he presented in Parliament.

Smarmy pontification based in political ignorance - typical indian ruling class behaviour.
a misstep in an otherwise good article

The dangers that democracies face from ill-informed public opinion is, therefore, the second lesson to be learned from the debacle of 1962. Nehru knew that he had used up most of his political capital getting Indians to accept China’s annexation of Tibet. When China began to build its Tibet-Xinjiang road without even informing, let alone reaching an agreement with India, and when a spate of revelations of the oppression the Chinese had unleashed upon Tibet gained currency after the Dalai Lama’s arrival, he felt unable to concede any more ground.

imo Nehru wasn't as concerned with domestic public opinion as of imperialist designs, playing them against the commies. further, i don't think public opinion in the 60s about commies was worse than today's, shaped by the hellish domination of corporate broadcasting and social media where every patriot is constantly exorcising the ghost of ancestor's defeat.

Edited by slipdisco (July 11, 2017 15:22:18)

The researchers solved their conundrum by suggesting that most people are disgusted by the homeless. No kidding. About half the homeless suffer from a mental illness and a third abuse either alcohol or drugs. You’d be crazy not to have a reflexive disgust of a population like that. Is that really so hard to get?

None of this means we can’t or shouldn’t have empathy for the homele

Keven posted:

good despite

catchphrase