The Moronic Inferno
by Snarksmithy, 22 October 2007
Here’s the problem with les enfants terribles: They grow up.
In the eighties, Martin Amis was the caustic golden child of the literary left, a chain-smoking, cliche-loathing prodigy who took time out of satirizing the brute materialism of the Reagan-Thatcher decade to condemn what he called the “mega-death intellectuals.” You remember these guys, don’t you? They were the ones who occupied the Rand Institute, quietly calculating the estimated corpses of a very likely nuclear “exchange” with the Soviet Union. They weighed their options of a “first-strike” against Russia. They rationalized “escalationism” as the only means of ensuring peace. Perhaps most important of all to language worshiper like Amis, they used these terms outside of inverted commas; they spoke of nuclear war unironically because they thought it was a war that could be won by something other than nuclear weapons.
Yes, the left once loved Martin Amis. But no more. Today he rightly calls Islamism a “murderous ideology” (all mega-death, in other words, no intellectuals). Amis deplores Bin Laden almost as much as he does those correct-thinking Londoners who make excuses for him, or elect to do his PR work. This is a surprisingly large segment of the population, mainly because it’s an unsurprisingly large segment of the Guardian editorial board.
I’ve already posted about Nick Cohen’s write-up of the London School of Economics rethink on Putin’s Russia and how it has spawned a new generation of British fellow travelers. Well, now here’s a thorough recounting of Amis holding forth at the Institute of Contemporary Arts against the same mouth-breathing contingent which applies itself toward the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein:
First question: “In view of the fear over Islamism, is it time to bring communism back?” “Er, no”, came the polite answer. “You loon”, the impolite, unexpressed addendum.
It was at this point that TV’s greatest satirist, the shaggy-haired Swift of our age, took his turn to speak.
And what a wonderful turn it was.
“How many members of the Muslim Brotherhood have you actually spoken to in your research?” he pronounced, in the tone of the man who’s sure he’s got a dead cert, TKO, killer question.
“Er, quite a few, actually,” replied Anthony.
Needless to say, Morris was somewhat deflated, as the haymaker he was sure would condemn his opponents to the canvas somehow fell short. But like any true champion, he kept plugging away.
“And you’re saying they’re all murderers,” he jabbed.
“I think Islamists subscribe to a murderous ideology,” parried Amis.
“So you mean they’re all murderers?”
“No, but I believe the ideology they subscribe to is murderous.”
This continued for what seemed like years, until Anthony deftly tagged Amis, and immediately set about the exposed belly of Morris’s argument.
“For example, [insert name of prominent member of MCB, well known to Cif readers] supported Osama bin Laden right up to Sept 11 2001, a period including the Kenyan embassy bombings among others.”
Morris, on the ropes, threw out the last lunge any southpaw can in these situations: “Well we supported Saddam Hussein.”
Tuesday 23 October 2007 at 13:53
“This is a surprisingly large segment of the population, mainly because it’s an unsurprisingly large segment of the Guardian editorial board.” That will be the same Guardian who has a lead commentator Polly “Religion isn’t nice - it Kills” Toynbee http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,787108,00.html
and many others in that vein. Pol who received a fatuous “Most Islamaphobic media personality award”. Ask most people who is the epitome of a Guardianista columnist and it’s a fair bet her name would come out first. Guardian Media Group also employs Nick Cohen as a lead commentator. It may have a few too many defenders of Islamism in its comment pages, but the pages represent a broad spectrum of opinion. It’s called pluralism and debate.
Incidentally note another fine piece of PT’s: “We must be free to criticise without being called racist.” Before you rush to agree, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the same should apply to criticising actions of the Israeli govt. This atheist hopes but doesn’t expect to see the day when those who scream “Islamaphobia” at the drop of the hat and those who shout “anti-semite” at anyone who critices Israeli govt actions realise just quite how much they resemble each other.
Tuesday 23 October 2007 at 14:44
It may have a few too many defenders of Islamism in its comment pages, but the pages represent a broad spectrum of opinion.
If it has “a few too many” then surely it *misrepresents* the range of opinion?
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the same should apply to criticising actions of the Israeli govt
Did you choose that example randomly?
This atheist hopes but doesn’t expect to see the day when those who scream “Islamaphobia” at the drop of the hat and those who shout “anti-semite” at anyone who critices Israeli govt actions realise just quite how much they resemble each other.
This atheist thinks that “shouting” and “anyone” is overstating your case quite considerably and that this attempt at equivalency is bizarre.
Not that I want to feed into your confirmation bias or anything.
Tuesday 23 October 2007 at 15:07
Actually, David at HP Sauce had a good post the other day about the internecine warfare between the Guardianistas and the Observerites. Both under the same house, true. But worlds apart in opinion. Anyway, pardon the flippancy, but Amis himself said the G seems to employ Osama Bin Laden to write its leaders…
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/10/21/guardian_and_observer_warfare.php
Tuesday 23 October 2007 at 16:20
The “internecine war” referred to, ie Nick Davies upcoming book, is not about “opinion”, it is about the Observers printing of ridiculous INC fake stories about Saddam being behind the Anthrax letters in the US, Saddams underground germ labs, Saddams role in Sept 11th etc.
Tuesday 23 October 2007 at 16:31
I suppose the G’s printing of Seamus Milne and John Pilger on the true nature of the Iraqi “resistance” qualifies as stone-cold empirical fact, yes?
Tuesday 23 October 2007 at 18:08
Last time I checked, Milne & Pilger appeared in the comments section of the guardian, so they were probably printed as comments - . However, the silly stories about Iraq which are (a small part) of the subject of Davies book appeared in the news section of the Observer. While Gordon at HP is painting the issue in terms of different political approaches, I think Davies argument is in terms of news reporting. If you want to argue, before the book appears , that Davies is just some islamo-apologo-type, your going to end up appearing to defend some of the worst tripey lies to appear in Newspapers since the Zinoviev letter
Wednesday 24 October 2007 at 14:21
Can’t help laughing at the attempts of Jonathan and Arthur (or is it Martha) to portray the Guardian as even handed. What a sick joke. I read that paper every day for 8 years or so up until the Kosovo crisis, before weaning myself off it.
It is considerably worse now, and no amount of Polly Toynbee appearances can make up for the fact that a creature somewhat less than human was comment editor for a number of years, and the fact that it runs CiF (with response posts mainly by those who I presume are Guardian readers) which reveals a truly jaw-dropping cesspit of totalitarian opinion.
Catch a fucking grip of yourselves.
Wednesday 24 October 2007 at 16:20
I think your assertion that Seamus Milne is not a human being sits oddly beside your invitation to get a grip.
However, the point is based on a misunderstanding from the start. Snarksmithy thinks Nick Davies book is an illustration of the way the Guardian and Observer are
“both under the same house but worlds apart in opinion”
except Davies book is not about opinion, it is about the news pages. Now if you can point to the totalitarian cesspit of jaw droppyness on the news pages of the Guardian, do please go ahead - it is certainly easy to show the Observer printed ridiculous lies and propaganda on its news pages in the run up to war.
The misunderstanding may be due to your inability to differentiate between news and opinion, reflecting a retreat from the “reality based community”
Wednesday 24 October 2007 at 20:57
Every ridiculous piece of propoganda and lie emerging from Teheran is reported as a good faith opportunity for negotiation and a peaceful resolution.
Wednesday 24 October 2007 at 21:27
The Left used to love Martin Amis, eh? I must have missed that!
Thursday 25 October 2007 at 22:30
Norman Mailer summed up Amis best. ‘Pretty boy; poisonous personality’. Not that Mailer occupied any high ground from which to judge but I guess it takes one to know one.