Hobsbawm - influential yes, deserving veneration? Hardly

The death of Eric Hobsbawm at 95 has provoked outpourings of paeans to his legacy, glorifying his undoubted significant contribution to the scholarship of history and in being influential, especially to Labour politicians in the UK. He has many fans, it includes Labour leader Ed Miliband, former NZ leftwing Prime Minister Helen Clark and a virtual who's who of leftwing activists in the UK today.

It is right for those who knew him personally to commemorate him on that level, as a friend or family member.  However, he is also presented as being more than that, as a great historian, but also with a moral fibre that was impeccable. 

Almost universally he was described as gentle, Tony Blair said "He wrote history that was intellectually of the highest order but combined with a profound sense of compassion and justice. And he was a tireless agitator for a better world".

Really?

I am not going to dismiss claims he was a nice man in person, nor will I criticise his works, because I am not a scholar of history and I have not read them.  However, Hobsbawm has his own history, that lasted to his final years, of being an apologist for the most blood thirsty regimes of the 20th century.

He wasn't just a Marxist historian, he was a member of the British Communist Party until its dissolution and he turned his back on the mass murders, starvation and atrocities his comrades committed for the cause, even recently effectively claiming that the ends would justify the means.  

Take this review of his works from historian Michael Burleigh. He describes his four "great" books on history as:

A synthetic quartet, from Age of Revolution to Age of Extremes, dazzles readers with the author’s apparent fluency as he zigzags from First to Third World contexts – unless you happen to be an expert on Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.Throughout, there was a dogmatic refusal to accept that the Bolshevik Revolution had been a murderous failure. Asked by the Canadian academic and politician Michael Ignatieff on television whether the deaths of 20 million people in the USSR – not to mention the 55 to 65 million victims of Mao’s Great Leap Forward – might have been justified if this Red utopia had been realised, Hobsbawm muttered in the affirmative.

Why is it that people who would, to a man or woman, claim they believe in compassion, even free speech and human rights, choose to have an enormous blind spot about a man who gave succour to those who created rivers of blood for the communist utopia?  

Imagine, for example, if he had embraced National Socialism, and had grudgingly accepted that the Holocaust would have been justified if a greater Europa run by Germany had been a happy, healthy, strong, fully employed economy of aryan people with order, wealth, equality and peace?  I can barely bring myself to write such nonsense, but he would have been vilified and ignored.  However, he embraced Stalin, he stuck with the Communist Party ever after the USSR crushed the revolutions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.  The various genuine claims about his compassion and character seem awfully cold when there is a calculated lack of passion about those crushed under the machine of "actually existing socialism".

Journalist Bryan Appleyard describes this peculiar blind spot:

I came across this when I asked Ben Pimlott if he regarded the atrocities of Soviets somehow less vile than those of the Nazis. He said he did but could not or would not offer an explanation. The explanation probably would have been something like: the Soviets were well-meaning, attempting to build a better world and the Nazis were simply evil. This is barely worthy of consideration. Both Stalin and Hitler appealed to better world ideologies built on absurd theories of history and both thought they were justified in killing millions and imposing suffering on a scale never before seen. Even if we give some moral credibility to communism, the character of Stalin is enough to detonate any notion that he was pursuing some great cause.

Cobden Centre fellow John Phelan says that he is no more worthy of acclaim than the pseudo-intellectual David Irving, which seems rather unfair, as Irving has spent his life denying reality explicitly, whereas Hobsbawm simply chose to be wilfully blind:

Time and again Eric Hobsbawm was faced with the full scale of the horror visited by the regime he supported and time and again he remained loyal. As he wrote in 2002“The Party . . . had the first, or more precisely the only real claim on our lives. Its demands had absolute priority. We accepted its discipline and hierarchy. We accepted the absolute obligation to follow 'the lines' it proposed to us, even when we disagreed with it . . . We did what it ordered us to do . . . Whatever it had ordered, we would have obeyed . . . If the Party ordered you to abandon your lover or spouse, you did so”Hobsbawm pleaded for “historical understanding”; he isn’t hard to understand. He was a man who failed to see that the choice of one murderous regime over another was no choice at all, who lacked the humility to admit it, and who was possessed of an incredible ability to blind himself to realities, no matter how bloody, which didn’t fit his view of the world.

Observer columnist Nick Cohen says of his work:

If you need convincing, look at Hobsbawm’s Age of Extremes The most brilliant analysis of the 20th century sits alongside the most abject apologias for tyranny. For all his contradictions, I’ll miss the better side of his intellect.

He notes about how Hobsbawm defended Stalin's Pact with Hitler:

I expect we will hear one excuse tomorrow that ought to have been buried with the Soviet Union: “communists excused Stalin because they were consumed by the laudable desire to fight fascism”. It is a half truth at best. The far left of the 1930s did indeed fight fascism. But in 1939 Stalin stood on his head and signed a pact with Hitler. For two years, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, western communists and their sympathisers stood on their heads too and became the Nazis’ de factoallies. I have always been fascinated by ‘the midnight of the century’, when far left and right united against the middle, because it echoes our own time when liberal leftists excuse and indulge the radical Islamist right. 

Quite.  Right now we see again and again, the willingness to gloss over someone who had a blindspot, if not quite a denier for the atrocities his comrades committed.

Hobsbawm seemed like an old man who could never face up to the fact that he backed the wrong horse, it saw men and women murder, starve and torture on a scale unheard of in history.   That lack of contrition, lack of strength of character to admit he was wrong, means his memory will forever be darkened.

He was one of those academics that universities, and the politicians and bureaucrats who they spawned, forgave, glossing over these inconvenient black spots in his beliefs, to embrace his thoughts and writings.

Like the umpteen leftwing writers, especially feminists, today who treat Islam and Islamists with kit gloves, because, to them, it represents an attack on capitalism, sexualisation of women and conservative Christianity, those who today praise him - who did not actually know the man - are guilty of the same moral blind spot.

It isn't being nasty or mean to question the legacy of a man who happily sat on the side of murderers, indeed it is morally vacuous to do anything but that.

Douglas Murray writes as if a Nazi sympathising equivalent had died.

More below

A comment on the Daily Telegraph wrote of Hobsbawm and his utopianism and his abject refusal to see the evidence that the results of his philosophical beliefs were misery and horror. I thought it was worthy of repeating:

That Hobsbawm has learned nothing from living in England and that he has failed to grasp the fact that ideologies dedicated to remaking man and transforming him into some gruesome socialist robot have failed, and were doomed to fail, is demonstrated by his admiration of the Communist Manifesto. There are only two types of person that can admire such a hideous manifesto: those who want to exercise power over all other people; and those who are willing to submit to such power provided that their material needs are met, slaves in other words, people born for the whip (but at least they know they are slaves and they enjoy the kiss of the whip). I assume that Hobsbawm sees himself as some kind of Marxist Grand Inquisitor ruling over the dumb proletariat and wielding his whip for their benefit in between sequestering the assets of the hated middle classes and so reducing them to servitude and penury. It goes without saying that no serious Marxist could or would ever derive any envious pleasure from expropriating and defiling the hated expropriators. It is done out of a sense of duty to History (really). 

Some 36 minutes into an interview with Hobsbawm (Life in History, BBC Radio 4, repeated tonight) and I have still not picked up any mention of Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot or any reference to the genocide carried out by communist regimes in the 20th century. Finally, in the 45th minute, we reach the question for which I had been waiting. Hobsbawm is asked why he stayed in the Communist Party. Ever solicitous and unctuous, Schama and the programme editor avoid posing any awkward questions by the expedient of citing part of an earlier interview with Sue Lawley on 5th March 1995 (I am sure it is pure coincidence but Stalin died on 5th March 1953). When asked about mass murder in the Soviet Union by Lawley, Hobsbawm says that he did not know; he says he did not believe the details, perhaps, he says, he did not want to believe them (so much for evidence then and the reliability of Marxist historians). 

He says: ‘We did not know the extent of it’ [communist mass murder]. Lawley then asks whether such was his dedication to the dream of communism that any kind of sacrifice was worth the price:

Hobsbawm: “Yes, I think so”

Lawley: “Even the sacrifice of millions of lives?”

Hobsbawm: “Well that’s what we felt we had fought WWII for, didn’t we?”

Lawley: “Is there a difference between killing someone in war and killing your own?”

Hobsbawm: “We didn’t know that”

.As Hobsbawm says ‘We didn’t know that’ you can detect the utter fear and panic in his voice. This is the question he has known would come and has dreaded. Hobsbawm clumsily dodges the question and Lawley lacks the killer instinct to press the point of the knife to his throat. No listener can be convinced by Hobsbawm’s repulsive denial. There is, of course, a universe of difference between killing the enemy in war for survival and butchering millions of kulaks, so-called class enemies in the 1930s (circa 11,000,000) in order to build socialism. The fact that Hobsbawm claims not to see any difference between communist class war and a national fight for survival denigrates the struggle that Britain waged against Nazi Germany. According to Hobsbawm’s perverted view there is no difference between British soldiers killing German soldiers and Communist Party activists murdering millions of unarmed and innocent peasants in Ukraine by shooting and mass starvation.When Hobsbawm says ‘We didn’t know that’, one has to ask when he did finally know THAT, that being the real nature of the totalitarian Soviet Union and its imitators. Why did Lenin create the most brutal and long-lasting system of censorship in the twentieth century? What was Hobsbawm’s reaction to the news of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)? What did he make of the publication of Doktor Zhivago? Why did the Red Army invade and rape Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and threaten to invade Poland in 1981? What did he make of Solzhenitsyn, the Truth Teller? Why did the Soviet state kill and imprison writers? Why did the KGB arrest the manuscript of Vasilii Grossman’s Life and Fate? Why did Stalin judicially murder some of his most talented army commanders at the moment when the threat posed by National-Socialist Germany was all too clear? How does Hobsbawm explain and justify Order № 00447? 

 When did he realise that the massacre of 21,857 Polish prisoners at Katyn and other sites in 1940 was a Soviet crime not a Nazi one? When did he finally accept that the full scale of the Ukrainian genocide, the Holodomor, with its 6,000,000 dead from genocide by starvation and another 5,000,000 dead from cold, disease and shooting? Does Hobsbawm even accept that the Holodomor took place? Hobsbawm says that his continuing membership of the Communist Party is a Cold War question and is irrelevant. This is a self-serving, cowardly evasion and Hobsbawm knows it. If a 95 year old former member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was asked about his continuing loyalty to National Socialism would Hobsbawm be satisfied with an answer along the lines that ‘this is a WWII question and is irrelevant’? Thousands of questions that historians ask about the Soviet regime are Cold War questions: are they irrelevant as well? Recall Hobsbawm’s views on chronology: ‘without chronology there can be no history’. That is true of an individual as well and in a BBC programme dedicated to a ‘life in history’, questions about Hobsbawm’s membership of the most genocidal political institution in man’s history are utterly relevant. 

There is another Cold War question that requires an answer: was Hobsbawm ever recruited by any Eastern European intelligence agency, say, the KGB or Stasi, with the aim of spying on academics and students known to be hostile to socialism? Hobsbawm could remove all doubt and speculation by stating unequivocally that he was not recruited by any Soviet bloc intelligence agency and that he never provided any information to any intelligence agency. Hobsbawm should also ask himself whether an academic, let us say the existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, who remained a committed National Socialist until his death in 1976, would have found employment in a British university. Hobsbawm’s continuing belief in Marxism in 2012 reflects a state of mind that, despite all the earlier, reasonable talk about evidence and reason, is one that is demonstrably impervious to evidence and reason: the hallmark of the true revolutionary-believer slave.Hobsbawm’s position on Soviet genocide is nauseating and hypocritical even by the standards of British academics that played down Stalin’s crimes. 

Why does Schama not press the case about genocide committed in the name of communism to the point of destruction? In fact, a more aggressive and less easily deflected interviewer than Lawley could easily have brought about Hobsbawm’s psychological collapse on air. Hobsbawm sounded very close to breaking: he knows that Marxism is repulsive and he knows that for all his adopting the pose of the learned academic that his support of Marxism and his failure to acknowledge the full scope of communism’s hideous crimes against humanity, far worse than anything committed by the Nazis, is disgusting, cowardly and immoral. There is no difference between the person that denies National-Socialist crimes against Jews, the Holocaust, and communist propagandists like Hobsbawm who deny the Holodomor and other crimes committed by communist regimes. Schama’s role here is also disgraceful and shameful since by failing to ask and to press home the forensic questions that should have been pressed home he allows Hobsbawm’s prevarication and mendacity to pass unchallenged.

Farewell Thomas Szasz

Thomas Szasz passed away last weekend.  He was a prolific writer and critic of psychiatry.  He was vociferous in his view that so much of psychiatry was not scientific at all, and was rooted in social and political beliefs that when people behaved in ways that were unacceptable that they were "ill".  

He only saw illness in those who had physiological attributes of brain damage or disease, whether they be congenital, infection, stroke or accidental, not in conditions that were diagnosed with no signs of such damage, such as depression and schizophrenia.

His famous quote was. "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic"

He was highly critical of the use of drugs to "treat" perceived mental illness, looking to ECG and lobotomy as previous coarse and even inhumane exercises in curing behaviour.

He talked of how women who didn't act as were expected were deemed "hysterical", about attempts to cure homosexuality through surgery.   This and other attempts by psychiatry to diagnose and treat people reflected more about the context of social norms of the day as to what was "acceptable" behaviour, than to actual disease. He saw incarceration used more and more as a means of control than to protect people from those who would behave badly, as few people deemed to be mentally ill commit criminal acts upon others.  He rejected the defence of insanity as being an abrogation of personal responsibility, and believed the defence should not exist.  He wanted people accountable for their behaviour which it denied the rights of others, but he was a stalwart defender of the rights of others to live their lives as they saw fit, as long as they did not interfere with others doing the same.

He thought of psychiatry as a profession full of people bent on control, and indeed the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was in part inspired by Szasz's observations of the profession. 

He saw some diagnosis of mental illness as denying people responsibility for their own behaviour meaning they could have control of their lives taken over by professionals, only too keen to medicate, incarcerate, electrocute and operate.

Psychiatry loathed him.  He was a libertarian.  He was no fan of psychotropic substances or narcotics per se, but he loathed the war on drugs and loathed depictions of drug users as all "addicts", and believing that the state's treatment of drug users created far more harm than they ever did to themselves or others.

Reason has a good obituary about him, along with a series of links to articles, some supportive some scathing.

However, for me Szasz has the status of a man who confronted power, who confronted orthodoxy and did so despite being excoriated by them, for whilst he was not always right, he was not meek.

For who can pick up a copy of the "The Myth of Mental Illness" and not be rattled by the title, and not consider that the term itself has been used, so very much, to simply describe people who are having problems living.

Farewell Wim

I'm saddened today at the news I read this morning, having just come back from Rome, that Wim Verhoeven has passed away.

Peter Cresswell and Lindsay Perigo, and various commenters have said most of what I wanted to say, but I wanted to pay my respects in the best way I can from this distance.

I knew Wim as a stalwart of Libertarianz in Wellington for the whole time I was a member living there, and as others have said he was a kind, gentle, softly spoken, well mannered and generous gentleman.  He wrote submissions on bills, wrote letters to the editor of the Dominion Post (and predecessor newspapers).  He gave generously, including sharing his home for meetings and gave me lifts a couple of times.  I remember fondly his intelligent conversation, how keenly he liked to talk about a range of topics, current events, politics and philosophy, and how for all of his gentle mannerisms and kindness, he had a firm grasp on his beliefs, ideas and conviction in the value of individual freedom and opposition to government getting in the way of people living their lives as they see fit.

His profile is on the Libertarianz website, as he was a list candidate in the 2005 and 2008 general elections.

I know Wellington Libz will help give him a good send off (details on Not PC's website) and my deep condolences for Terry, the rest of his family and loved ones.

Steve Jobs - he lived!

So much can and is being said about Steve Jobs. Creator, businessman, salesman, innovator, capitalist. He turned computing, music, telecommunications, publishing and media all on their heads.

The likes of him does not come from the death worshipping stone age cult infested cultures that rule Iran, Afghanistan (still), Iraq (now), Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They don’t come from the conformist, respect authority for the sake of it, what is yours is everyone’s and what is everyone’s is yours, culture that rules China. They don’t come from the “it’s my right to have what you have”, “equality above everything”, “demonise success and wealth” culture of the trade union movements. They don’t come from the technology scaremongering, armageddon chasing, state violence worshipping, new age fascists and forked tongue demagogues of the environmental movement. They don’t come from the envy dripping, reality evasive, faux “pride” and control obsessed culture embodied by the European Union and its acolytes. They don’t come from the lawless, “might is right”, “the ends justify the means”, lying, hedonistic, crass culture of nihilism seen in Russia. They don’t come from the superstition laden, misogynistic, tribal, faux nationalistic culture of willful blindness to atrocity that infests sub-Saharan African politics.

When the news is dominated by politicians who blithely borrow, tax, spend and print money that they never earned, from wealth that has nothing to do with them, with bureaucrats and commentators, keen to tell others how to live, what to do, and to control the judgments, the passions and thoughts of others. When culture is flooded with mediocrities preaching nihilistic hedonism, and generating mass market pablum that resembles other mass market pablum. When business and marketing is so utterly full of those who worship surveys, cliches, short termism, image over substance and platitudes over invention. Steve Jobs was a breath of fresh air. When he would launch something new, people would watch, because it WAS new - it WAS innovative, and it wasn't because he was looking after the "greater good", it was because he wanted Apple to sell something people would want because it was great. It so happened that millions agreed. Firms worldwide would love a Steve Jobs. A manager, who understands the detail of the products, but also design and what people would want. However, such people wont come from production line education systems or cultures of conformity or aversion to risk.

They come from a culture where individuals can be themselves, where diverse pursuits that many may seem odd, most don’t understand, can provide fertile grounds for minds, imagination, creativity and risk taking. Where those who do take risks to produce, create and sell can keep (most) of the fruits of their endeavours, and bear the consequences when they get it wrong. Where success is lauded and admired, because people see in those who climb to the top, a piece of them, of what it is to be great, to live life pursuing your dreams, your ambitions, your ideas and your passions. They aren’t there to grab their share, to chop down the tall poppy, or to demand that people exist and work for a “greater good”, for the greater good is in all individuals pursuing their dreams, and in free people interacting, sharing, relating and standing on the shoulders of the giants who make their lives that much better.

In a world where so many are obsessed with intricacies of trivia of nobodies, where so many are obsessed with what others think of them, where so many are out to force others to give them what they haven’t earned or created, and demand rights to the fruits of the minds and labour of others, Steve Jobs was none of that.

He wasn’t the nihilist who saw humanity as a problem, he wasn’t the second-hander who claimed what others had done for his own, he wasn’t living for the sake of other people, was not seeking to control the lives of others, to tell them what to do, or to tell people how to be. He was himself, he led companies that created what he thought were good products, and let them speak for themselves.

He was a man who lived his life for his own purposes, for his own dreams, and was a stunning success. The pecuniary reward he got was a tiny fraction of what he generated for Apple shareholders, Apple employees, sub-contractors and Apple customers, and indeed its competitors who have aped him, and now generate further wealth and happiness for millions.

The legacy of what he did for Apple, what he created for millions, pales in comparison to the example he created for the most fundamental thing of all – he lived.

Farewell Dennis Dutton

I didn't always agree with Dennis Dutton (such as his strong belief in compulsorily funded state radio), but beyond that he was a strong advocate for reason and science.

He passed away today (28 December) of cancer (thank you Homepaddock for the news).  He debunked many paranormal fraudsters, had an open mind about climate change and supported science and evidence over mysticism and the new age snake oil merchants.  He will be sadly missed.

His websites here, here and here.  No doubt more will be written about him elsewhere in a few more days.

Michael Foot, committed Marxist altruist, is dead

Michael Foot is best known for having led the British Labour Party to the greatest defeat in its history, in the 1983 election. After the 1979 defeat of James Callaghan, Foot was the choice of the far left of the Labour Party and so helped produce the “longest suicide note in history” as the 1983 Labour Manifesto was called. It openly called itself a programme of socialist reconstruction.

It offered, at the height of the Cold War, to scrap Britain’s nuclear arsenal, withdraw Britain from the EEC, nationalise more industries, raise taxes, and return to the economy being run by diktat by meetings between government, unions and business. It promised massive increases in welfare, and new bureaucracies across many aspects of life, including consumer shopping advisory centres!

Foot was unashamedly socialist, he took on Margaret Thatcher and the result was a split in the Labour Party, as moderates fled to a party that eventually merged and formed the Liberal Democrats.

Had Foot won the 1983 general election, it would have been a disaster both economically and strategically for Britain. It may have been a turning point in the Cold War, as the UK stepped to one side, and the West would have been weakened, heightening Reagan’s resolve, but isolating Britain. The withdrawal from the EEC would have further isolated Britain, as investment would have dropped away, and the long slow decline of post war Britain would have accelerated once more. The dream of so many on the left was not wanted by the majority of voters. His election would have emboldened the likes of Constantin Chernenko, and would not have provided sustenance for the Solidarity movement in Poland, but rather the intellectual pygmies that ran their criminal states east of the Iron Curtain. He would have eviscerated friendship between the US and the UK, and frightened those on the front line of the Cold War. A socialist wet dream of accelerated decline, economic deception and surrender to the Soviet threat.

The 1983 election, in the height of recession and high unemployment, saw the Conservatives pick up an additional 58 seats, Labour losing 60 and the SDP/Alliance (which would become the Liberal Democrats) picking up 12 more seats. It also saw Gordon Brown get elected to the seat of Dunfermline East, his second attempt to get elected. You may think Labour in the UK today is far removed from that of Michael Foot, but Brown still espouses much of the philosophy of Foot.

Foot, you see, once said this:

We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.

He didn’t believe people existed for their own purposes, to pursue their dreams, their endeavours, but for others. He was a committed altruist. He believed good only came from helping others, he believed in redistributing wealth, he didn’t care how it was created. Therein lies the practical failings of the man.

Morally he expressed the view that people existed for the sake of others. I would condemn that, but then why pick on him? He was, at least, open and honest about his principles and convictions. The likes of Gordon Brown are not, yet they have the same philosophical approach. Conservatives do as well, as do almost all across the political spectrum. The belief not that your life is your own and your purpose is to pursue your values, but that your life has an unchosen obligation to provide for others.

Fortunately Michael Foot did not get to impose democratic Marxism on the UK. Sadly, whilst a man of principle and honesty, he still, fundamentally, held the belief that is basic to what most politicians believe in – that the individual does not primarily exist for his or her own purposes. That philosophy, as important in all major political parties across liberal democracies, has not died with Michael Foot - all he did was espouse it more openly, consistently and radically than others.

Curious, you see, that the 1983 manifesto did include a national state owned broadband network...

Keith Floyd - he lived

The passing of Keith Floyd at quite a young age is sad in that he showed food, wine and life the way it should be - fun.

One can say he lived, with businesses that succeeded, and some that failed. He saw bankruptcy, and drank a lot of wine, leading to some trouble (a drink driving conviction with a traffic accident). A man who entertained millions.

He went through four marriages, though of his latest partner he said:

Is it possible to be a teenager in love when you are 65? I reckon it is. But why am I so sure that this will work when my other relationships have failed?

For many reasons. We already have a friendship that has lasted for 40 years — we know each other well. We know each other’s irritating foibles — I can be grumpy and Celia talks to herself and is quite clumsy. She cannot cook, but she can sew and she can make the flowers grow . . . and somehow she manages brilliantly.

To sit in the garden, under a Provencal sunset, chatting and laughing and loving each other, is my idea of heaven. I will not mess up this one.

Who can deny that this is the statement of a man who embraced what life is about. Shamelessly being alive. Shamelessly living for a sense of life.

It is sad he died after a great lunch following be informed he was clear of bowel cancer. Petroc Trelawny has links to some great clips of Floyd, but reminds us of the time we are now in when:

"Can you imagine a TV performer now being allowed to admit to a hangover, let alone drink several bottles in the course of a programme ?

On screen Floyd was never anyone but himself."

In an age when lemon faced doom merchants peddle warnings about what to do and what not to do, tell us about the harm of alcohol more than the pleasure of good wine, and warn of the need to moderate, of armageddon, when Islam pushes sacrifice and restraint, and the Vatican sells a similar motto of suffering and denial, and politicians tell of sacrifice.

Floyd reminded us all of what the point is of life.

To live it. To take risks, accept the consequences and responsibility, but to enjoy yourself doing it.

Perchance there ever be a politician who could even begin to understand this?

A true hero for the world passes away

I had heard of Norman Borlaug only a couple of times before, not enough of course, and so his passing should come with the sort of news coverage that now gets given to vapid celebrities and simpleton politicians.

I am guessing if you still don't know who he is, you could boil it down to this:

He used his mind, and his passion for solving problems, to save lives on a grand scale. He did it through science

More than politicians, more than bureaucrats, more than the environmentalists or the so called peace activists, he saved hundreds of millions of lives, mostly in developing countries. More than he did, or he did, or this organisation or that organisation.

As the Daily Telegraph obituary today says:

"Perhaps more than anyone else, he was responsible for the fact that throughout the postwar era, except in sub-Saharan Africa, global food production has expanded faster than the human population, averting the mass starvations that were once widely predicted.

But Borlaug’s “Green Revolution” was not “green” in the modern sense. High yields demanded artificial fertiliser, chemical pesticides and new soil technology. As a result of this he was vilified by many in the environmental movement in the securely affluent West, some of whom argued that higher food production sustains more people and thus poses a threat to the natural environment."

You see he is a hero in India, where he banished mass famine to history, by developing "dwarf wheat" which was hardy and high yield:

"By 1968 Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production; India followed a few years later. Since the 1960s, food production in both countries has outpaced the rate of population growth and, in the mid 1980s, India even became a net exporter. In 1968, the administrator for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) wrote in his annual report that the phenomenal improvement in food production in the subcontinent looked like "a Green Revolution" – which was how it came to be known. "

He did the same in China, but in Africa he faced opposition. Why?

" Notwithstanding the fact that Borlaug's initial efforts in a few African nations yielded the same rapid increases in food production as did his efforts on the Indian subcontinent, environmental lobbyists persuaded Borlaug's backers in the Ford Foundation and the World Bank to back off from most African agriculture projects."

Yes, you see those people, those very groups who claim to give so much of a damn about the air, the water, the environment, don't give damn all about people. The new religion of our times - environmentalism would be put up against the science, the productivity and how Borlaug could save lives - and the earth worshippers would win.

That is why the Greens or Greenpeace, or other supercilious anti-reason worshippers of the planet over humanity wont cheer him on. No. A man of science, not a man of superstition treated appallingly because he didn't fit into the trend. He damned subsidies for agriculture in developed countries whilst obesity was the growing problem.

However, he did get much recognition. The American Medal of Freedom in 1977 and umpteen honorary doctorates, he was known in his field, and well known in some countries, if not the fickle ephemeral image worshipping developed world. Many more people are alive today because of him. Perhaps, that is why the environmental movement are cold towards him?

Not PC has done a superb post about Borlaug whose death I heard of from the BBC World Service - which gave an extended report on his achievements. Something I gather the NZ media, so dismissive of the blogosphere, couldn't. However, I am sure if virtually all NZ reporters and journalists were asked who he was, they wouldn't know.

So it's worth saying now how I share PC's disgust, that TVNZ does not have anything about him on its "news" website, neither does the NZ Herald or Stuff. TV3 did of course, to its credit.

So just think next time the mainstream media (bar TV3) criticise the blogosphere for not being "real journalism", ask yourself how many of these onanistic "copy a government press release" monkeys can hold down a sustainable debate on anything of substance that doesn't involve celebrity gossip, political scuttlebutt or sport?

UPDATE: WSJ has one of the best statements yet on Borlaug

"Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters.

In later life, Borlaug was criticized by self-described "greens" whose hostility to technology put them athwart the revolution he had set in motion. Borlaug fired back, warning in these pages that fear-mongering by environmental extremists against synthetic pesticides, inorganic fertilizers and genetically modified foods would again put millions at risk of starvation while damaging the very biodiversity those extremists claimed to protect. In saving so many, Borlaug showed that a genuine green movement doesn't pit man against the Earth, but rather applies human intelligence to exploit the Earth's resources to improve life for everyone."

Ask yourself whether those that call themselves Green are of the former or latter category in that sentence.

A new low on Kennedy

Mary Jo Kopechne might have thought her death by drowning was "worth it", given the career of Ted Kennedy.

So says Melissa Lafsky in the Huffington Post.

Given she said "Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy." Yes, you all owe him so much, because he wanted to take more of your taxes and regulate the world so people like you had a chance, because without the services of a wealthy morally bankrupt politician, your life wouldn't have been so good.

Is it not so disgustingly evil to think you might speak on behalf of a dead woman to say her death at the hands of a drunken lech was worth it because of what he did with his life?

Should Melissa now offer herself on the altar of some politician so she can be left to die somewhere and someone else speak on her behalf and say "never mind, she'll think it was worth it given what the guy who left her to die did with his life".

Killer and former sponsor of terrorism dies

Yep, as Not PC puts it, there is nothing good to say about Ted Kennedy. Had he died sooner then more people would be alive today. He was the senior member of one of the most overhyped familial personality cults in recent US history. His wealthy family went on about poverty so much, because they didn't have any as children, and constantly sought the growth of government interference and influence in people's lives. Chappaquiddick was a disgrace, that should have send him humbly into a quiet life, but no. He helped raise money for the IRA in the 1970s.

For all of the bile thrown at the last Bush Administration, you can see no further example of hypocrisy from Democrats, and the US left, than the fawning adulation for this misogynistic lying fraud and sponsor of killers.

I said before: "Ted Kennedy exemplifies the worst of politics in the United States - a fraud, a thieving conniving pork barrel peddling image merchant who has supported murder and violence. A nasty piece of work if ever there was one."

May his kind never be seen again.

Oh by the way, you can judge people by the company they keep, and so now watch the roll of dishonour:

Of course the Demogoguecrats will compete for who can do the best KCNA type sycophancy about the man. Kim Il Sung would have been proud of the official statement reported by the BBC.

BBC notes Time Magazine called him one of the Ten Best Senators, which either is appalling misjudgment or a grand indictment on the corrupt unprincipled vileness of Senators from both parties.

Of course the BBC in noting Chappaquiddick ignored that he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die, she drowned in the car than the coward fled.

Gordon Brown said "I am proud to have counted him as a friend".

Politicians stand together as rogues. Ask yourself if Ted Kennedy hadn't been a Kennedy, whether he would have had any hope of a political career after Chappaquiddick?

UPDATE: Oh he cheated at Harvard and was expelled as well, (got someone else to do his Spanish exam), but no doubt the family connections helped him return. The Daily Telegraph's obituary tells more details than most and is least fawning. His ongoing misogyny of course is par for the course for the Kennedys, but the feminists of the Democratic Party forgive him, like they forgave Bill Clinton.

President Obama is "heartbroken", hardly a surprise really, being politically closely aligned.

UPDATE 2: Skeptical Eye has a helpful view on how to treat the death of politicians. "I have had it with all the airports, museums and roads named after politicians, as if there's anything "noble" about what these little Eichmanns do for a living. Politicians are the most worthless group of hacks, weasels, liars, thieves and murderers in existence on the planet. They contribute absolutely nothing whatsoever to society. When they start dropping like flies, it's more tempting to celebrate than mourn." Though some DID fight for freedom, it is hard to find any like that in the US.

UPDATE 3: It appears both CNN and the Times are only posting comments on their websites that are glowing with praise about the man.

UPDATE 4: The Daily Mail isn't so anal about disrespecting the disrespectful.

UPDATE 5: "As the progressive humankind unanimously praises, Ted Kennedy is the unprecedented great man and the everlasting sun of humankind who was possessed of all characters and qualifications needed for a great man on the loftiest level, glorified his life as the great thinker and theoretician, great statesman and revolutionary, and performed epoch-making exploits shining forever in the era and history" Who's going to run with this?

That's the way it is, farewell Walter Cronkite

Walter Cronkite was the first real TV newsreading personality, reading CBS news from 1962 to 1981. His passing brings memories of the sort of newsreader he was, as he was the man who saw Americans get their news from television, for better or for worse.

CBS has much on its website about its greatest newsreader (the successor, Dan Rather was shockingly biased and fell on his sword as a result of it), who is remembered for coverage of the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing (forty years almost to the day) and the Vietnam War.

Curiously, the age of the high profile national news anchor in the US has faded away, as the generation AFTER Cronkite (Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw) resigned, died and retired respectively.

Cronkite had his own views, which came out most clearly AFTER he retired from reading news, but he was always the dignified face of US network news. Perhaps only David Brinkley of his era came close to his status.

It is no longer an age where network news is the dominant source of news for Americans. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all provide national 24 hour news reports, and the internet has eaten away further at audiences. So there wont be another Cronkite, as television news struggles to gain audiences by pandering more and more to being folksy, and covering stories of ephemeral meaninglessness like celebrity happenings. So farewell - he set a standard as perhaps the world's first globally known television newsreader.

Farewell Sir Clement Freud

Perhaps the most exposure anyone in NZ has had to Sir Clement Freud was with the BBC radio gameshow “Just a Minute” which National Radio frequently carried. Freud has appeared on every episode of the gameshow since 1967, which continues to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4.

Freud was born in Berlin in 1924, and of course as with his grandfather (Sigmund Freud), his family fled the Nazi regime in 1934. He was a Liberal MP from 1973 to 1987. However, it is his intelligent wit and warm sense of humour that I remember him for.

It would be a waste for me to duplicate the obituaries published by the BBC (including video), Daily Telegraph (also including video), and the list of Freud quotes published here.

My favourites are:

"I think our police are excellent, probably because I have not done anything that has occasioned being beaten up by these good men."

"If you resolve to give up smoking, drinking and loving, you don't actually live longer; it just seems longer".

However, my favourite is this Guardian tribute. If you haven't heard Clement before, try that selection.

Farewell to a man who loved life and entertained millions over the years.

He could stand tall in an age when so many know and celebrate those who offer nothing but inane bland mediocrity. Sadly I already know the death of a certain young woman will be more remembered and talked about than the passing of this great man. Tributes published here.

An obituary I missed - Helen Suzman

If most are asked who was South Africa's greatest politican, you'll hear Nelson Mandela. After all he spent much of his life in prison and then enabled the peaceful transition of power from the racial autocracy to the one party dominated democracy. However, if not the the greatest, Helen Suzman deserves the most honourable mention. She was head and shoulders above the intellectually and morally handicapped Thabo Mbeki, and the thieving corrupt scum that make up too many ANC MPs. She was for too long, the sole voice of reason in South Africa's whites only Parliament.

New Years Day saw Helen Suzman pass away. The Economist's obituary tells so much about this remarkable woman.

It talks of her legendary bravery:

"Verwoerd, an earlier prime minister, a man she admitted she was “scared stiff” of, fared no better. “I have written you off,” he told her. “The whole world has written you off,” she retorted.

But also her principled opposition to race based laws regardless of source:

"when the African National Congress, once in power, began to impose quotas for blacks in jobs, she naturally and ferociously opposed it. In many ways black rule proved “a huge disappointment” to her: corrupt, spendthrift, anti-white, and doing little to help the millions of poor blacks whose lot she had tried to improve. Thabo Mbeki’s wilful ignorance over AIDS appalled her.

The world has lost a true principled fighter for freedom, a liberal woman in a country once dominated by bigoted conservative men, now dominated by misogynistic socialist corrupt ones.

It is telling that New Zealand's most well known activist against apartheid, John Minto, is so divorced from South Africa that he couldn't himself pen a column about the passing of this hero. South Africa owes far more to Suzman, than this petty socialist activist from NZ.