Vidiot12 hours agWhy?
Why?
Have they been overly kind to you?
Mainly because I'd imagine not a single one of them has done even a post-16 educational course in either history or literature, where they'd get slapped down for confirmation bias, selective quotation and inability to use sources properly. Instead they're in a bizarre echo chamber which reinforces their inability to perform basic reasoning. An unkinder view is to question whether anyone can be stupid enough to read Russell proclaiming that these were the Time of the End and then portray it solely as a Anglo-American upper class idyll shattered by the war.
To quote the 15 July WT, 1894:
"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."
---
@ NewYork44M - well, yeah, they named several dates. But they got lucky with something very major happening in 1914. They airbrush over that they were saying October 1914 Armageddon arrives, and make it sound like they were predicting the World War. But whatever. They got the year right for something happening somewhere which would be seen as pivotal to world history. By luck. And in advance and with a lot of attempts around it they like to forget. But if nothing had happened in 1914, it would have joined the rest of the dates they don't like to mention 100 years afterwards.
Why?
Have they been overly kind to you?
Mainly because I'd imagine not a single one of them has done even a post-16 educational course in either history or literature, where they'd get slapped down for confirmation bias, selective quotation and inability to use sources properly. Instead they're in a bizarre echo chamber which reinforces their inability to perform basic reasoning. An unkinder view is to question whether anyone can be stupid enough to read Russell proclaiming that these were the Time of the End and then portray it solely as a Anglo-American upper class idyll shattered by the war.
To quote the 15 July WT, 1894:
"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."
---
@ NewYork44M - well, yeah, they named several dates. But they got lucky with something very major happening in 1914. They airbrush over that they were saying October 1914 Armageddon arrives, and make it sound like they were predicting the World War. But whatever. They got the year right for something happening somewhere which would be seen as pivotal to world history. By luck. And in advance and with a lot of attempts around it they like to forget. But if nothing had happened in 1914, it would have joined the rest of the dates they don't like to mention 100 years afterwards.