Guardian questions we can answer

Caroline Lucas is the answer to this question:

For 10 years, Osama bin Laden filled a gap left by the Soviet Union. Who will be the baddie now?

Not just the fragrant expert in Elizabethan poetry, of course. But also Andrew Simms, Tim Laing, the assembled group of green and Green idiotarians.

Indeed, there would be a certain joy at driving them out into the badlands so that they can enjoy that peasant lifestyle they so ardently wish upon all of us. Rather than that Bin Laden safety in a luxury mansion from which they currently try to impose that peasant lifestyle on us all.

13 comments on “Guardian questions we can answer

  1. Militant Islam never posed an existential threat to western civilisation. At the most they could kill under 0.001% of the population, so about 5 times as danferous as peanut butter. Eco-fascism, by comparison has robbed us of more than 60% of potential GNP and, by one means alone – banning DDT – killed more than Hitler and Stalin combined.

    The comparison between Lucas and bin Laden is very unfair to the latter.

  2. I’m afraid she is channeling the bible of the modern Urban left: Adam Curtis’ “The Power of Nightmares”.

    Apparently the threat from the Soviets was invented by a cabal of Neo-Cons. Didn’t you get the memo?

    Funny. Neither did the Red Army, GRU or the KGB.

  3. I must have missed that part, Stuck-Record. Presumably you think Brass Eye’s “paedophile special” was arguing that the threat of paedophilia has been “invented”?

  4. Curtis isn’t saying that Soviet Russia (or, for that matter, Islamist radicalism) wasn’t dreadful or a threat. He’s saying it wasn’t the threat it was promoted as (and, thus, McCarthyism, spiralling “defence” initiatives and a host of messed-up nations from Japan to Guatamala, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua and so on).

  5. I’m afraid Curtis has said that. He’s also been very evasive about ‘what he said’ in the intervening years.

    I’ve heard him interviewed about Communism not being an existensial threat, and he has noticeably backtracked on Al Queda, pretending that he never meant to imply they were dangerous, just not ‘organised’. Utter nonsense.

    But you’ll forgive me if I ask again how the Brass Eye paedophile special is relevant?

  6. I’ll expect quotes, then.

    The Brass Eye comparison was that deriding/criticising the presentation of a threat is not the same as saying that it’s not a threat.

  7. The guardianistas will just stick their fingers in their ears and scream “Pinochet Pinochet Pinochet I can’t HEAR you!!!” louder and louder.

  8. The Brass Eye connection is tenuous, at best.

    Morris was mocking media hysteria, not the phenomena of paedos. A more accurate connection would be with Curtis himself and the hideous left hysteria about Neo-Cons he contributes to. If anyone is creating a bogeyman for our times it is people like him.

    As for quotes: Looking quickly. If you want exact quotes I’ll have to watch it again, and I don’t want to do that as the post modern flummery of it makes my brain hurt. It’s ‘Loose Change’ for intellectuals.

    http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs23/int_koehler_curtis.htm
    “CURTIS: Power is very seductive, and it can make you believe your myths. I think that if you believe your own myths, it’s very easy to find the evidence to prove them. It’s human nature. We all construct reality out of fragments of evidence, you and I do it day in and day out. That’s what they did with the USSR in the 70s, and that’s what they did with Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction. They took fragments and knitted them together and they did it with such force because they believed it was important.”

    http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/3394-documentary-the-power-of-nightmares-by-adam-curtis-summary-of-argument.html

    “1972: Nixon/Kissinger begin era of détente. June 1, 1972, Nixon?s speech on ABM treaty, beginning of end of post-1945 era of fear. Neoconservatives, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, set out to destroy Henry Kissinger. CIA dismisses Rumsfeld?s view of the Soviet Union, but in 1976 he persuades Pres. Gerald Ford to set up ?Team B? to examine evidence from another set of assumptions. ?Team B? headed up by Richard Pipes and Paul Wolfowitz. ?Team B? develops suspicious views based on the notion that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence, argues for the existence of undetectable weapons systems. [For more on ?Team B? see Anne Hessing Cahn, ?Team B: The Trillion-Dollar Experiment,? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April 1993).] Their ideas were ?all wrong? (Anne Cahn, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-1980). But their views contribute to the formation of the Committee on the Present Danger, which was founded nine days after Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976. Ronald Reagan joins; propaganda is produced describing an America facing a radical threat from ?a concentration of world evil? (Solzhenitsyn). ?This nightmarish vision was beginning to give the neoconservatives great power and influence? (Curtis).”

  9. Ah! Well, that’s a bit different from saying that they invented the threat of the Soviets. More like saying they overestimated the threat of the Soviets in the 1950s. I don’t know a lot about Team B, admittedly, so I can’t judge its conclusion but it seems they’ve been challenged by such notable far leftists as Fareed Zakaria.

  10. Curtis’ thesis is that the myth of Al Qaeda was ‘created’ in the same way as the menace of World Communism; and by the same people. In Curtis’ world view neither is/was an existential threat to the West and the threat is manipulated to allow us to be controlled by our ‘masters’.

    This is delusional, but regularly repeated*

    * See the Guardian pretty much every day.

  11. Pingback: Osama bin Laden Was Not America's Useful Enemy » Spectator Blogs

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.