Alas, Poor Moles

Have you heard of the Senkaku islands?  No?  What about the Diaoyu islands, have you heard of those?  Again no?  If you look on a map you might find the one but you are almost certain not to find the other.  It might be better to say that every map tells its own story, Chinese and Japanese maps more so here than others.  In short, it’s the same place, Diaoyu for the Chinese, Senkaku for the Japanese.  Here, for those respective nations, we can safely say an island by any other name would not smell as sweet.

The smell from the East China Sea, where ‘the islands’ are located, is fairly rank at the present.  Both nations claim territorial right to these barren rocks, where only the Diaoyu mole or the Senkaku mole makes a home.  Writing it that way round might even occasion another dispute!  No, I shouldn’t make fun, for the political and diplomatic implications are serious enough, with an Oahu-like potential, a point I’ll make clearer a little later.

Possession, the saying goes, is nine points of the law, and here the Japanese have all nine points.  Or, rather, what the Japanese government has is $30million worth of points, having recently bought the three islands in the chain from their private – Japanese – owners.  There may as well have been an earthquake in the archipelago, for a tsunami of nationalist anger swept across much of China in the aftermath. 

Japan relies on more than purchase; it relies on the diplomatic records to prove sovereignty, saying that this goes back to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5.  I’m no expert on international law but this would seem somewhat dubious grounds upon which to make a stand, in that the Japanese could lay claim to Taiwan by the same aggressive right.  The Chinese can go a several steps deeper; their claim is based on travel records that can be traced right back to the Ming Dynasty. 

Chinese sabres are rattling.  I mentioned Oahu, not just because of Pearl Harbor, not just because that is another island where a war started, but because the United States is an unwilling participant in the whole fuss.  America is obliged by treaty to defend Japanese territorial integrity, and the integrity at this moment includes ‘those islands.’ 

We are not talking World War Two here but we may very well be touching on a regional conflict as intense as that over the Falklands, with a lot less clearer outcome.  Geographically and strategically, given the position of ‘the islands’ close to the mainland, the Chinese are in a strong position. 

So, why the fuss over the kingdom of the mole?  Is it all down to national one-upmanship?  No, follow the money.  Rather, given that they are islands surrounded by sea, the thing you should be following is not greenbacks but black gold – oil, to be exact, something else the conflict shares with the Falklands. 

However, the extent of unresolved national anger in China over past Japanese aggression should not be underestimated.  It is no accident that protests in China took place on 19 September, the anniversary of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.  On the streets reference was made to the later Rape of Nanking, in which thousands of Chinese civilians were systematically massacred by the Japanese Army.  In the Chinese consciousness this infamous episode comes close to occupying the same place as the Holocaust and, as with the Holocaust, there are deniers, here on the Japanese nationalist fringe. 

China was in Japan’s shadow for decades before the Second World War (actually their war was far longer than the usually accepted dates for this conflict); it was in the shadows for many decades after, a weak giant.  Not any longer.  Chinese economic power has waxed just as Japanese power waned.  With economic prosperity comes political ambition, the Chinese now seeing themselves, and rightly so, as a major regional power. 

The whole question is also complicated by domestic politics in both nations, with the Chinese communist oligarchy playing the nationalist card to deflect attention from internal problems, just as the Japanese government, still under the shadow of the Fukushima disaster, holds a similar card.  In the ensuing international poker it raised the Chinese $30million.  Who holds the winning hand is still to be seen.

I think those unfortunate moles should start looking for another home, though, preferably where there is no trace of oil, of history or of hate.  The Wild Wood might be best.  

Unhappy in its own way

I saw Anna Karenina on the Saturday just before going on vacation.  This is my overdue review! 

All the world is a stage.  Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina is all the world.  Director Joe Wright has reduced it to a stage in his new film adaptation!  If you are looking for the broad canvas and the big sweeps, Russian-style, it’s simply not here.  Instead there is a claustrophobic theatricality for the most part, a movie that seems to represent the triumph of directorial artfulness over emotional substance. 

Generally I don’t read reviews before going to see a film; I would far rather form my own judgements first and take in the views of others later.  But I have read the novel and have a clear idea of what I expect from a retelling of one of the greatest fictional epics, a War and Peace of the emotions.  At the heart is a particular tale of unhappiness, the tragedy of Anna and her imperfect love. 

No sooner had the curtain raised and the action start to unravel I began to feel uneasy.  This has all the style of a comedy rather than a tragedy, of a silly pastiche rather than grand epic.  The scenes in Oblonsky’s office were so risibly choreographed that it was difficult not to laugh at the sheer absurdity of it all rather than the heavy-handed attempt at puppet-like humour.  The only thing missing was a song. 

I’m not going to like this, I thought to myself, and first impressions with me are almost never corrected.  But I was wrong; I began to thaw, once the theatre-workshop element receded a little into the background and the actors were allowed to inhabit their roles, as actors and not as marionettes.  Keira Knightley was splendid as Anna, just as I imagine her, passionate and self-destructive.  Anna is a woman capable of great love, and great love, certainly with her, is to madness near allied. 

Her madness comes in the shape of Count Vronsky, prettily played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, the emphasis here being on pretty.  The best thing I can say about him is that he looked splendid in the white dress uniform of a cavalry officer.  Jude Law, whom I didn’t recognise at first, plays Alexi Karenin, Anna’s husband, more sinned against than sinning.  Actually the emotionally constipated and impeccably correct Karenin is incapable of something as lowly human as sin!  He is virtue incarnate, a counterpoint to Anna’s passion incarnate.  A more temperamentally unsuited couple is impossible to imagine; Juliet, if you can picture such a thing, married to Polonius. 

I also warmed, after some initial distaste, to Mathew Macfadyen as Oblonsky, Anna’s insouciant, philandering and bon viveur brother, married to the much imposed upon Dolly (Kelly Macdonald), perhaps a little more physically attractive than Tolstoy really envisaged. 

Aside from Knightley, the other acting highlight for me was Domhnall Gleeson as the idealistic Konstantin Levin, Tolstoy’s own partial self-portrait.  His on-off romance with Princess Kitty Shcherbatskaya (Alicia Vikander), moving from unhappy beginnings to a happy conclusion, contrasts with the evolving tragedy of Anna and Vronsky.  Incidentally, the scene where Kitty finally accepts his proposal of marriage in a private word game was exactly how Tolstoy proposed to his own wife.

Levin is arguably the most authentic character in the whole film, less self-conscious and ensnared, altogether less histrionic.  To begin with, after Kitty’s initial rejection, he escapes from Wright’s theatrical setting into the country, which really is the country! 

There are some visually splendid scenes in Anna Karenina and the cinematography and costume design are luscious.  Tom Stoppard – my, how this man gets around – has done a reasonably proficient job in reducing a big book to a manageable script, losing none of the essentials. 

When the curtain finally fell I found myself admiring the director for his boldness, his idea of the theatre as the world, which is a notion that he apparently grew up with.  Even so I cannot avoid the conclusion that there were points where the medium simply overwhelmed the message. 

The imbalance between Knightley’s first rate performance and Taylor-Johnson’s, well, performance, also weakened the overall effect.  A good effort but it could have been so much better, which is the best thing I can say about Anna Karenina.  Still, if it’s an unhappy film at least it’s unhappy in its own way. 

The Lights of a Perverted Faith

Do you have a definition of abject cowardice?  I do, one that I recently acquired.  A coward is a man who walks on to a school bus, full of children, and shoots a fourteen-year-old girl twice at close range, in the leg and more critically in the head.  The girl in question was guilty of a dire crime: she believes that education is a fundamental right for all.  This was enough to mark her as a target for assassination by the Pakistani Taliban. 

I was a bit out of the loop so far as news was concerned when I was in Tunisia.  But the one item that gripped my attention in early October was a report I saw on the BBC World Service concerning the attempted murder of Malala Yousafazi by a Taliban hitman, principally because she was an active campaigner for schooling for girls which, by their perverted lights, was ‘un-Islamic.’ 

Malala – her name means ‘grief stricken’ – has been active in her cause since the age of eleven.  It was then she began to write a blog for BBC Urdu, detailing what life was like after the Taliban took control of her native Swat Valley in Pakistan.  Her principal fear was over the future of her education – “I was afraid of going to school because the Taliban had issued an edict banning all girls from schools.” 

The Taliban, it has to be said, was allowed to consolidate its position in Swat in an act of retreat and appeasement by the Pakistani government, which hoped thereby to stop the spread of the cancer.  For several months, before they were finally ousted by the army in the summer of 2009, these religious fanatics established their own republic of Islamic virtue, the stuff of nightmares by any reasonable standard.  Men were forced to grow beards and women to wear burqas.  Those who did not comply faced lashing or beheading.  The brutish regime also closed schools, the majority of them for girls. 

After the Taliban’s removal Malala appeared on national television to talk about girls’ education.  Her courage in speaking against the Taliban was enough for the Pakistani government to select her as a fitting recipient of the country’s first National Peace Award for Youth.  But it also singled her out in another way.  At the beginning of this year she was placed on a Taliban hit list. 

That would terrify anyone, particularly a teenager; it would certainly have terrified me.  But Malala would not be silenced by fear. “Sometimes I imagine I’m going along and the Taliban stop me”, she said on television, “I take my sandal and hit them in the face and say, ‘What you are doing is wrong.  Education is our right, don’t take it away from us.’  There is this quality in me – I’m ready for all situations.  So even if (God let this not happen) they kill me, I’ll first say to them, ‘What you are doing is wrong.’”

Her shooting caused widespread outrage, in Pakistan and across much of the world.  How could it not?  How could it not given the callousness of the action, given her youth and given the cause for which she was prepared to risk her life?  Even countries with the most dubious record on human rights recognise the importance of universal education.  I’m almost tempted to say that girls’ schooling is no more of a ‘right’ than breathing; it’s a reflex. 

It’s impossible to breath under the Taliban.  These disciples of Iblis have blown up Sufi shrines, worshipers at mosques, and men and women in markets.  Bombs have been planted to ensure maximum loss of life.  Then there is murder incorporated, the assassination of specific individuals.  Public officials and journalists have been targeted but so, too, have religious scholars belonging to Muslim sects the movement has condemned as heretical. 

Malala was singled out because her campaign for educational rights was an ‘obscenity’, so said Ehsanullah Ehsan, a Taliban spokesman.  Greater poverty of spirit, greater ignorance, I find almost impossible to imagine.  These are people who kill in the name of God knowing nothing of God.  Is there any greater heresy, I have to ask?  There is obscenity alright, the obscenity of the Ehsanullah Ehsan and his debased kind. 

Of all the dark forces in the world the Taliban is among the darkest, deep in evil and ignorance.  To paraphrase some words of Sir Winston Churchill’s, if the movement succeeds all that we have known and cared for will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted faith.

Remember the Fifth

It’s Bonfire Night!  This is an event celebrated every year in England on 5 November. It’s a night of fires and fireworks, of bangers and bangers! Now, least those who are not English misunderstand me here, a banger is just a type of firework and a banger is a sausage, really quite delicious when cooked over a fire in the open air.

So, yes, November 5 is our firework night, just as July 4 is firework night in the States. But whereas the one celebrates rebellion the other celebrates loyalty, loyalty to the crown. It celebrates the frustration of the most significant terrorist conspiracy in English history, perhaps in the history of any nation - the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

The commemoration now is all great fun, the political connotations having been wiped smooth by the hand of time. Still, it’s important not to lose all sight of the fact that if the Plot had succeeded it would have eclipsed even the historical significance of 9/11.

I feel sure that’s bound to raise a few American eyebrows but just imagine a 9/11 that had, at one stroke, killed the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, every member of the government, every member of any alternative government, and just about every member of the Senate and the House, then you might begin to appreciate the full significance of the Gunpowder Plot.

In 2005 a reconstruction by one of the English television companies, using the same amount of gunpowder planted under a replica of the seventeenth century House of Lords, showed that the ensuing explosion would have left no survivors; that it would have been seen and heard many miles away from London. It’s difficult to imagine the political chaos that would have followed.

The conspirators were headed by one Robin Catesby, though the whole enterprise is now more closely associated with Guy Fawkes, a soldier and explosives expert. You will probably know his face, or a caricature of his face, from the grinningly inane V for Vendetta mask, one of those cultural artefacts that I absolutely loath! Fawkes and all of his co-conspirators were Catholics, frustrated by the failure of the Protestant government of James I to raise some of the more irksome restrictions on their religion.

The discovery of the plot was the cause of an immediate anti-Catholic reaction, recalled in a traditional rhyme;

Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent
To blow up the King and the Parliament
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow
By God's providence he was catched
With a dark lantern and burning match
Holloa boys, holloa boys
God save the King!
Hip hip hooray!
Hip hip hooray!

A penny loaf to feed ol' Pope
A farthing cheese to choke him
A pint of beer to rinse it down
A faggot of sticks to burn him
Burn him in a tub of tar
Burn him like a blazing star
Burn his body from his head
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hooray!
Hip hip hooray! 

It was Parliament itself that originally decided that the Plot should be remembered in an annual act of thanksgiving for the safe delivery of the King.  For years after it was known officially as Gunpowder Treason Day, with strong sectarian and anti-Catholic overtones, clearly captured in the rhyme.  This was hardly fair, given that the conspiracy was roundly condemned by the Vatican and most English Catholics remained loyal to the crown, fully demonstrated in the Civil Wars of the mid-seventeenth century.

By the following century anti-Catholic sentiment started to die away.  In popular parlance the 5th was no longer referred to as Gunpowder Treason Day but as Guy Fawkes Day.  Latterly it’s more often referred to as Fireworks Night or simply Bonfire Night, after the traditional fires to which an effigy of ‘the Guy’ – any guy really - was consigned. 

In these days of ‘elf n safety’ there has been an increasingly nannyish approach to the whole spectacle by public authorities, anxious to corral the masses into sanitised official events.  There is also a tut tutting disapproval of residual anti-Catholic overtones, so residual that it they are only brought to mind by politically correct moral arbiters!  As I noted on a previous occasion, the event isn't even celebrated in Northern Ireland, a place where sectarianism has an abiding presence.  

The simple truth is that Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night or whatever you want to call it was transformed from a state-sanctioned holiday into a genuine popular fiesta, the very thing that fills the authorities with fear and trepidation.  If you like it’s anarchy in action, by the people, for the people, of the people.  Long may it remain so; long may the killjoy guys be placed on top of the fires.  

Yes, it’s all about fun, and I had fun, watching the rockets illuminate the night sky, dancing around the fire in the best pagan tradition, seeing the encroaching darkness of winter lift just a little. I will always remember.  In future my children, if I have any, will remember also.  

Jim Fixed It: the Real Savile Scandal

The Jimmy Savile scandal, presently erupting day by day like a volcano, is another story I caught in part when I was abroad.  What, Jimmy Savile, the Jimmy Savile, Sir Jimmy Savile, the great British cultural icon, was a paedophile?  Now then, now then, guys and gals, what next?  Morecambe and Wise were into devil worship, perhaps?

Please forgive the conceit but I was wise before the event.  I never liked the man; I always thought him creepy, not the sort of person I would want in the same room with me.  Paul Merton highlighted this once on Have I Got News For You, the comedy news quiz, when he drew a comparison between Savile and Norman Bates from the movie Psycho.  It was in the context of his unhealthy attitude towards his mother, whom he referred to as ‘the Duchess.’ 

I have a transcript from this show, one which never made it on to the telly screens.  It was recorded some years ago when Angus Deayton was the host.  Savile was the celebrity guest on Paul Merton’s team.  Allow me to give you a small sample from the opening;

During the headline round:

DEAYTON: You used to be a wrestler didn't you?

SAVILLE: I still am.

DEAYTON: Are you?

SAVILLE: I'm feared in every girls' school in the country.

(Audience laugh)

DEAYTON: Yeah, I've heard about that.

SAVILLE: What have you heard?

DEAYTON: I've...

MERTON: Something about a cunt with a rancid, pus-filled cock.

(Huge audience laugh; Awkward pause)

SAVILLE: I advise you to wash your mouth out, my friend...

MERTON: That's what she had to do! (Audience laughs)

Don’t get too excited.  It’s a hoax, dating back to 1999.  But it revealed a truth that dare not speak its name.  It was based on rumours about the man’s sexual conduct, rumours that now appear to have been based on fact.  I say appear because the matter is still sub judice, so to speak, a consideration the popular press has, in the usual style, put to one side. 

I should add, for those not familiar with Savile and all his work, that he began his TV career as a DJ on a chart show called Top of the Pops. Latterly he hosted Jim’ll Fix It, in which he ‘fixed it’ for children to have their dreams come true.  It now seems he made their nightmares come true also.  

There are so many aspects to this evolving story.  It touches on the semi-religious nature of modern celebrity, on the creation of false idols, on the sublimation of suspicions and on the attitude of a major public Corporation.  The Corporation, of course, is the BBC and the creepy Savile was their star.  It comes down, if you like, to a question of priorities.

Savile died last October.  In the usual manner the BBC scheduled a tribute, to be broadcast at Christmas.  Rather inconveniently the right hand did not appear to know what the left hand was doing, the left-hand in this case being Newsnight, a current affairs show.  While the glittering tribute was being assembled, Newsnight gathered the dirt.  As I’m sure you know – who could not know? – senior management allowed the cloying celebration to go ahead while binning the Newsnight exposé. 

It came out.  These things can’t be hidden, and Savile is not around to threaten and silence with super injunctions.  The Great British Public, in true Mark Anthony style, has turned on their hero: they want to bury Savile, not to praise him.  Rather, they want to heap his memory in dead dogs.  But if Savile is a Frankenstein Monster – and of that I have not much personal doubt – he is their creation.  Always beware the passions of the multitude. 

Scapegoats are being sought and the BBC has them aplenty.  Writing recently in the Spectator, John Simpson, the Corporation’s world news editor, says that the organisation made, in his words, a fearful mistake in not broadcasting the Savile exposé at the end of last year. 

No, that’s wrong; the ‘fearful mistake’ was allowing the tribute show to go ahead, knowing full-well that questions were being raised about their star’s past conduct.  This looks to me like the worst kind of opportunism and hypocrisy, qualities that now seem typical of the BBC. 

I return to Savile himself.  The celebrity of this talentless, fumbling and inarticulate poseur is a wonder and a mystery to behold.  I agree with Charles Moore - also writing in the Spectator - that Savile’s popularity was a symptom of a wider cultural sickness, an inability to probe below surfaces.  It’s rather nauseating to see the press in their daily demolition, when it did so much to build up this mediocrity in the first place.  A country that once marvelled to the wit of Oscar Wilde latterly marvelled to the inanities of Jim Fixing It.  Perhaps that’s the real scandal.  

Diabolical!

Bishops' Nightmare!

 A new spectre is haunting Poland…the spectre of spectres!  Alas, no sooner had the country got rid of communism than an even greater danger has appeared - Halloween.  Polish bishops recently urged worshippers to ignore the festival because it “promotes harmful and diabolical behaviour.”

The poor old prelates face a more dreadful challenge.  The battle against communism was easy: there are no laughs in communism; there is no fun.  There is lots of fun and laughs in Halloween, which makes the danger all the more diabolical.  The archbishop of Warsaw, Kazimierz Nycz, said the festival went against the Church's teaching by promoting "the occult and magic". 

The truth is that Halloween, which has become increasingly popular in Poland in recent years, undermines the authority of a church that is becoming as literal-minded and humourless as the old communist oligarchy.

No word from the Vatican itself this year, silence perhaps being the best policy.  A few years ago the Holy See was warning parents not to allow their children to dress up, dismissing the festival as a celebration of ‘terror, fear and death.’ So, they are a bit worried then! The message went out in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s official newspaper, in a piece headed Halloween’s Dangerous Message.

So, what, one asks, is this ‘dangerous message’? Is Halloween not just about having fun and maintaining traditions, ancient traditions? No, it’s not; it’s riddled with a dark current of occultism and is “absolutely anti-Christian.”

Aldo Bonaiuto of the Church’s anti-occult and sect unit said that the event could spurn Satanic sects without scruples. “Halloween”, he continued “pushes new generations towards a mentality of esoteric magic and attacks sacred and spiritual values through a devious initiation to the art and images of the occult. At best it gives a helping hand to consumerism and materialism.”

Let me get this straight: Halloween initiates people into the occult and encourages materialism. So it seems to cover all angles!

No, I don’t take this silliness seriously from an organisation that not so long ago condemned the Harry Potter books and then in its fallibly infallible way changed its mind. Let’s strip away the Satanic nonsense.  Halloween or Samhain is simply an ancient Celtic festival marking the passage of the seasons, one celebrated in Christian and pre-Christian times. It has nothing to do with ‘trick or treat’ or Satanic cults and everything to do with casting light on a dark season.

But the desperation of the Church is understandable because it is largely of its own devising. It’s part of an ancient investment, it might be said, now bearing unexpected dividends. For, you see, I cannot think of a single Christian festival, major or minor, that was not based on the Church’s early usurpation of an older pagan holiday, from Ostara to Yule/Saturnalia. Even St Valentine’s Day was created around the festival of Lupercalia. Christmas Day itself is no more than the old Roman festival of Sol Invictus, the Sun God, whose birthday was celebrated on 25 December.

The simple truth is that as Christian faith falls away these old holidays re-emerge, have been re-emerging for years, partially in their original form, material and celebratory rather than spiritual and introspective.  So remember this when you see yet another jeremiad, as you inevitably will, bemoaning the ‘materialisation’ of Christmas. 

I have no idea how Polish Catholics received this latest piece of nonsense, but I rather suspect most will simply ignore it. People will continue to enjoy themselves, to have fun on Samhain or Saturnalia, without fear of the Archbishop of Warsaw, the Pope…or of Satan.

I had a good one.  I hope you did too.  

 ...Burn to me perfumes! Wear to me jewels! 

Drink to me, for I love you! I love you!
I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset;
I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky...

Eric Hobsbawm: Smelly and Orthodox

The day after I left for Tunisia Eric Hobsbawm died.  A former professor at Birkbeck College, he was ‘Britain’s best known Marxist historian’.  I suppose he must have been; it said so in the Guardian, though just how many outside the common rooms and beyond the chattering classes knew of this ghastly old fraud is open to question.  Now you have a flavour of what is to follow.  Read no further if you think it a sin to speak ill of the dead, for I am about to speak ill; Ana’s silver hammer is about to fall upon Hobsbawm’s head! 

For me his passing really does mark the end of a political Cretaceous period.  He was the last Stalinist, the last of the ideological dinosaurs who corrupted intellectual life in this country for so many decades.  I’m rather glad I was away, missing some of the more nauseating tributes, including one from Ed Miliband at the Labour Party conference, where he was described as “an extraordinary historian, a man passionate about his politics and a great friend of my family.”  Hmm, yes, I take this as a measure of the Milibands.  If you do not already know that measure you will before I have finished. 

He was also lauded by the BBC, no surprise there, in that Hobsbawm might be said to have defined a large part of the Corporation’s political and intellectual outlook in much the same way that the creepy Jimmy Savile defined its subterranean sexual morals. 

I was disappointed, though, to note that praise also came from Niall Ferguson, a right-wing historian for whom I hitherto had considerable respect.  He was rash enough to describe Hobsbawm’s cycle of books beginning with The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848 as “the best introduction to modern world history in the English language.”  What utter rot!  Has he actually read these awful, badly written ideological apologetics, I have to ask?  Either he has completely failed to understand the falsity here or, like so many others, has descended into abject hypocrisy. 

Let me give you this scenario.  Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party - no friend of the Milibands - has taken part in an in-depth television interview.  In the course of this he was asked one key question – if Hitler had achieved the radiant future he promised would this have justified the murder of six million Jews?  He answers in one word: yes.

Now just imagine the perfect storm that would follow, just imagine the ostracism and the denunciations.  Of course it never happened; it’s a fiction.  It is no fiction that Hobsbawm was asked a similar question by Michael Ignatieff in an 1994 interview, namely, if the “radiant tomorrow” had actually been created in the Soviet Union would the death of 15 or 20 million people have been justified?  Yes, came the reply.  Was there a storm, was he ostracised and denounced?  No; instead Tony Blair made him a Companion of Honour in 1998.

Hobsbawm remained loyal to his murderous political passions all of his life.  He became a Communist at an early age while living in Germany at the beginning of the 1930s.  In another interview, perhaps more revealing than he ever intended, he said he joined the Communist Party partly because he was Jewish - “if I hadn’t been, I might well have become a Nazi in those circumstances.”  In a deeper sense he did: that sense in which both Nazism and Communism have a similar view of the value of human life.

Unfortunately for us he came to Britain before Hitler took power, though he always held this country, its people, its politics and its institutions in contempt.  Fortunately for him he did not go to the Soviet Union, his ideological motherland.  If he had, as a foreigner, an intellectual and a Jew he is unlikely to have survived Stalin’s purges.

Hobsbawm was a traitor in spirit.  A member of the Cambridge Apostles in the 1930s, it may very well be proved at some future point that he was also a traitor in deed.  His treason in word began early.  A supporter of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, he co-authored a pamphlet defending the Soviet attack on Finland, saying that Stalin was merely trying to protect Russia “from an invasion by British imperialists.” 

There is another irony here.  Let’s assume that this defender of the Nazi-Soviet pact had gone to the Soviet Union instead of taking advantage of British liberty, including the liberty to write laughable twaddle.  Let’s say that, by some miracle, he had survived the Great Purge, no doubt by lauding Stalin and denouncing others.  Well, then, that same Pact would almost certainly have finished him.  For Stalin, as a gesture of friendship and goodwill, was delighted to hand German Communist exiles over to the Nazis.

Instead Hobsbawm became the prime example of the idiocy and bad faith of the British left.  He became a prime example of the alienated intellectual who, as George Orwell noted, took their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow.  He became a prime example of the polysyllable-spewing Stalinist that Orwell identified in The Road to Wigan Pier and elsewhere.  The crushing of Hungarian freedom came in 1956; others left the Communist Party; Hobsbawm remained.  The crushing of the Prague Spring came in 1968; others left the Communist Party; Hobsbawm remained.  As Soviet Communism grew senile and sclerotic he grew senile and sclerotic with it.  

Hobsbawm, incidentally, was in the habit of referring to Orwell as the “upper-class Englishman Eric Blair.”  Englishman he certainly was; upper-class he certainly was not.  What marks Orwell out was his decency and his honesty, his contempt for the forms of abject power worship embraced by the likes of Hobsbawm, full of contempt for people while full of love for the Masses.

In the end the Hobsbawm disease is reducible to one thing: the cancer of abstraction.  He remained loyal to the ‘ideals’ of the Russian Revolution, even after those same ‘ideals’ descended to a murderous practice time and time and time again.  But the grand illusion actually goes deeper; it goes as deep as Rousseau and the French Revolution. 

The Soviet Experiment, you see, was for Hobsbawm just the latest expression of 'Enlightenment Values', a belief that it was possible to create the world anew following an abstract blueprint.  Those who are not deluded understand the implications of this – the death of millions.  More human beings have been destroyed by Communism and ‘Enlightenment Values’ than by any other force in history.  And there never was, never could be, a happy outcome, only a mountain of skulls that would have made even Tamerlane blanch.  Not Hobsbawm. 

I have the deepest contempt for this man’s legacy, for the malign impact he has had on the intellectual life of this country, for the way in which his minions and fellow travellers have been allowed to corrupt so much of the media establishment, particularly the BBC, an organisation that has become a national disgrace.  It is indeed a matter of concern, as Michael Burleigh noted in the Telegraph, that such dubious figures have been given licence to dominate the soft culture of the BBC and so many universities. 

I return to George Orwell, specifically to his essay on Charles Dickens, which concludes with the following observation;

When one reads any strongly individual piece of writing, one has the impression of seeing a face somewhere behind the page. It is not necessarily the actual face of the writer. I feel this very strongly with Swift, with Defoe, with Fielding, Stendhal, Thackeray, Flaubert, though in several cases I do not know what these people looked like and do not want to know. What one sees is the face that the writer ought to have. Well, in the case of Dickens I see a face that is not quite the face of Dickens's photographs, though it resembles it. It is the face of a man of about forty, with a small beard and a high colour. He is laughing, with a touch of anger in his laughter, but no triumph, no malignity. It is the face of a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry — in other words, of a nineteenth-century liberal, a free intelligence, a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls.

Smelly little orthodoxy never let go of Hobsbawm’s soul.  I, too, see his face in his writing.  There he is, smirking. His eyes show it all.  They show him to be mean-spirited, unimaginative and small-minded. His is the face of a hypocrite and a liar. His is the face of a twentieth century Communist, smelly and orthodox to the end.  He will be forgotten, his dishonest and derivative books unread.  He was bad rubbish.  Good riddance.