Amis-Eagleton controversy

by Liberal secular leftist Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:10

I am pluralist, a liberal, a leftist and unapologetically so.
The rise of extremist Islam among the Muslim population of Europe is a problem that non-Muslim Europeans cannot ignore.
European Enlightenment values that have produced absolutely extraordinary socially progress in the advancement democracy human rights and individual freedom in the West and throughout the globe since the Revolutionary Period of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, are endangered by the emergence of a nightmarish, neo-medievalist intolerent religious fanaticism which is gaining ground relentlessly among a burgening population of young Muslims.
Based on statistics that show the traditionally white Judeo-Christian and Secular European population is declining and is being replaced by the Muslim population, unless there is a change in ideology among young Muslims in Europe, it is likely that Enlightenment values will lose their hold over European culture which will become increasingly Islamic.
A significant proportion of British and French Muslims advocate the replacement of the constitutional systems of democracy in both countries with Sharia law - a genocidal primitivist theologically intolerant nightmare would ensue if this became a reality that would make the reign of the Inquisition pale in comparison.

by Nodin Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:50

A significant proportion of the non-muslim population would no doubt favour bringing back the death penalty, flogging and outlawing homosexuality..........I don't worry about them, and I suggest you do the same with the muslims. This islamophobic bolloxology only seemed to surface after the NYC attacks, and the hysteria has been jumped on by every gobshite short of a policy since. I wonder why some 2-3,000 deaths ignite so much venom against a minority, while the untold hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of dead due to US intervention since WWII don't...

by liberal secular leftist Mon Dec 03, 2007 13:49

Oh there's that too
Hmmm
Is it possible to talk reasonably about Islamic extremism without having someone making excuses by pointing what the US is also doing?
Is it possible to criticise this disgusting ideological barbarism without someone assuming that one is apologising for what the US is doing in the name of Islam?

I don't know about you but I happen to believe that if anybody is not worried about Islamic extremism they have got a screw loose!

I'm worried about global warming, climate change, mass extinctions, the US, China, Russia etc.

I am also worried about this serious global problem that somehow it has become "racist" and "Islamaphobic" to even discuss.

Why are liberal secular leftists (myself being the exception) unable to call a spade a spade in regard to extremist Islam?

Why do liberal secular leftists (myself being the exception) bend over backwards for to accomodate this monkey brained bronze age firebrand extremism which threatens to overthrow civilisation itself?

by Nodin Mon Dec 03, 2007 15:35

Dear o dear.....lets skip to the last bit
"firebrand extremism which threatens to overthrow civilisation itself?"

Thats the kind of wild exaggeration I mean. Precisely how are a few (a very few) extremist muslims going to "overthrow civilisation itself"? What military capability do they have? What funding do they have? Bear in mind that the numbers of US forces in Iraq is considered insufficient to properly occupy a country of 26 million.

Its a fantasy bogeyman akin to the "yellow peril". At least then there was some excuse for being suckered in by it. Now, I think not.

by liberal secular leftist Mon Dec 03, 2007 16:07

A survey, for a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary in 2006, found Muslims under 24 were twice as likely to justify the 7/7 attacks as those aged over 45. It found 24 per cent either agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified, although 48 per cent said they "strongly disagreed".

I am frightened that a significant minority of young Muslims in Britain believe that blowing up more than 50 people and maiming and injuring hundreds more can be justified.

What American and its allies have done in Iraq is shameful but that does not excuse Islamic extremists attacks on innocent civilians many of whom probably did not support the Iraq War. If the majority of British people supported the war in Iraq it would not justify terrorist attacks against defenceless civilians.

Any decent person who is not blinded by extremist would see that.

The only logical conclusion you can draw is that British Muslims in significant number do support Islamist terror.

If this is the case in Britain it is certainly the case in other european countries.

If German Muslims or French Muslims were polled what percentages of them support Islamist terrorism?

by Nodin Mon Dec 03, 2007 18:41

, A survey, for a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary in 2006, found Muslims under 24 were twice as likely to justify the 7/7 attacks as those aged over 45. It found 24 per cent either agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified, although 48 per cent said they "strongly disagreed".

So? I'm Irish. Irish people were planting bombs in London back in the 1860's and on and off up until the 1990's, with varying levels of support. Though we were stereotyped as every kind of savage beast under the sun, at least they never deluded themselves that the Empire would be over-run by Paddies, armed to the teeth with spuds and shillelaghs.....

Your (oft-quoted) survey doesnt answer the question put to you, which was precisely how a very few extremists would "overthrow civilisation itself"..
,
I am frightened that a significant minority of young Muslims in Britain believe that blowing up more than 50 people and maiming and injuring hundreds more can be justified.".

They don't see why the suffering should be all one way, particularily given the killing in Iraq. The self-righteous tone and unaccounaqtbility of those involved probably doesnt help either. You don't have to be a muslim to see where they're coming from.

,
If this is the case in Britain it is certainly the case in other european countries.

If German Muslims or French Muslims were polled what percentages of them support Islamist terrorism?.".

No idea, however as above they'd be a minority within a minority. Again, you'd find a number in those countries who'd be in favour of the death penalty, flogging, blasphemy laws, mass expulsions of non-nationals, making homosexuality illegal and so on. ( Ironically they'd probably expel the very people who agree with them on those issues) Neither have the numbers to be of any threat and most certainly the muslims would have trouble overruning a football pitch, let alone a European country. I'd say they'd take on Liechtenstein and lose.

by tomeile Mon Dec 03, 2007 19:34

“What American and its allies have done in Iraq is shameful but that does not excuse Islamic extremists attacks on innocent civilians many of whom probably did not support the Iraq War.”

That is right , but there is a definite link between such attacks and the Iraq war. A threat assessment from the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre (JTAC) --an integral part of the British Security Service, MI5 --warned a month before the July 7 London attacks that 'events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK .”

But to put Muslim attacks on civilians in context :
Secretary of State, Madeline Albright , was asked the following question on American television in 1996 concerning U.S. sanctions against Iraq:

“ We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright replied :
“I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.”

by Nodin Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:08

It seems Mr Amis is unable to keep his trap shut. I imagine hes enjoying the publicity and packed halls.....particularily if he gets a cut of the door.....

"There should be from every corner of the west a permanent factory siren of disgust for these actions," he told students, staff and members of the public, including Afzal Khan, the first Muslim to be lord mayor of Manchester. He acknowledged Muslim efforts "to put their house in order" were made more difficult by the jihadis' "monopoly on intimidation".

What a load of crap....

by lulu Sun Dec 30, 2007 09:34

Fanatics & extremists are a menace - there's a few Christian, Jewish, & atheist ones too who get less attention.

by Feudal castrato Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:29

I am so sick of the bad press atheists get.

I Never met an atheist fanatic. Most atheists I have met are quite rational. They don't tend to believe in supernatural beings and tend to require evidence before they believe things told to them.
This is in general a good thing. This differentiates them from the religious fanatics you refer to.

Furthermore, Atheism is not a belief in something. It is a LACK of a belief in something. Very different

The real problem with all religions is the way they foster the idea that unquestioning belief in something is a virtue. This opens the door to all manner of bad things.

By atheist fanatics, I presume you are referring to these:

Richard dawkins:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113

or perhaps Dan Denett (dangerous memes):
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/116

If so then Give me atheist fanatics any day!!

Please don't lump rational people like this in with rabid religious nuts who have personal conversations with fictitious supernatural beings. Its not at all reasonable.

IMHO I think it might be a less nutty world if more people were atheists. How many daft conflicts use some religion or other (which cannot be questioned) as an excuse? removing such excuses unmasks the true base nature of humans. This makes it harder for those that would exploit others and get them killed needlessly to further their own ends.

So Down with All religions equally, not just Islam.
Lets all just face reality. This is all there is. And its just not good enough right now. And religion is really not helping a lot.

by Credo in unum... Sun Dec 30, 2007 15:38

One major source of atheism during the twentieth century was dialectical materialism. Pol Pot and Stalin adhered to this tendency. Look at the mass murder their brand of atheism produced. And that guy Hohxa declared Albania to be the first atheist state during his long reign in that country - overlooking a large silent muslim majority and a tiny catholic minority, whose group beliefs outlasted the dialectical materialist experiment.

It runs against your assertion that "IMHO I think it might be a less nutty world if more people were atheists."

Politics aside, some former religious believers and cradle agnostics have allowed themselves to be lured into cults with fantastic beliefs. Remember those dozen well educated Swiss citizens who joined a solar cult some years back and committed group suicide on the side of a mountain in an effort to tap the energy and knowledge of the sun?

It takes all sorts to make a nutty world.

by Feudal castrato Mon Dec 31, 2007 13:31

"One major source of atheism during the twentieth century was dialectical materialism. Pol Pot and Stalin adhered to this tendency. Look at the mass murder their brand of atheism produced. "

stalin is atheist
stalin is evil
atheists are evil

spot the logical flaw.

"And that guy Hohxa declared Albania to be the first atheist state during his long reign in that country - overlooking a large silent muslim majority and a tiny catholic minority, whose group beliefs outlasted the dialectical materialist experiment."

sometimes stupid memes outlast more sensible ones. doesn't make them better, just more resilient. Gee, Might the fact that you can't easily dislodge them possibly be due to the fact that these memes inherently aren't open to question, open debate or robust criticism?

"It runs against your assertion that "IMHO I think it might be a less nutty world if more people were atheists."

Its just my opinion from personal experience. thats what IMHO means. "In My Humble Opinion."

"Politics aside, some former religious believers and cradle agnostics have allowed themselves to be lured into cults with fantastic beliefs. Remember those dozen well educated Swiss citizens who joined a solar cult some years back and committed group suicide on the side of a mountain in an effort to tap the energy and knowledge of the sun?"

here are a few specific people that were gullible
(some of) these people were atheists
atheists are equally capable of being gullible

spot the logical flaw!

There will always be gullible people in the world. Never said all atheists were not gullible. But I've met far more gullible religious believers in my time than gullible atheists.

It takes all sorts to make a nutty world.

Sure but I still think it would be saner without mass religiousity though.

by Sceptic Mon Dec 31, 2007 14:04

It’s not correct to present it as a syllogism. It would be more of a case of overturning all prior convention and restraints in the cause of a revolution in which the ends justify the means, however ruthless. Thus the revolutionary (communist or fascist or radical nationalist) overthrows the old order as well as the prior civilisational restrains on mass killing which was part of the old order just as the community faith of the old order is thrown out too. If you want complete control the revolutionary could not stand peaceable contest with any religious authorities – they have to be expunged or at least curbed.

It is a big question and there are not hard and fast rules. However many people would regard it as no mere coincidence that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks were militant atheists as well as killers on a massive scale. Similarly the Khmer Rouge’s brutality can only be understood fully in the context of the their rejection of the very genteel style of Cambodian Buddhism.

Those who resisted the Nazis were frequently strikingly religious people as were a number of the statesman who founded West Germany which repudiated everything the Nazis had stood for.

by Credo in unum... Mon Dec 31, 2007 14:20

You also said: "The real problem with all religions is the way they foster the idea that unquestioning belief in something is a virtue. "

They don't all do that. Some, like the Judaeo-Christian tradition, have fostered scholarship, philosophical logic, art and various other pursuits. The popes put down scientific ideas by Galileo and others, true. Martin Luther approved mass executions of those involved in the 1519 Peasants revolt, true. In the 20th century antireligious leaders like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were responsible for the executions of more people than were ever put to death by popes, pastors or rabbis.

Religious people have promoted great ideas, their religion not being a hindrance. Albert Einstein, a believing Jew, revolutionised physics. Erich Fromm, a believing Jew, wrote several philosophical-psychological books advocating social justice, such as his anarchist-leaning book, The Sane Society. Edward De Bono, a believing Catholic, wrote the seminal book, Lateral Thinking. Ernest Schumacher, another believing Catholic, wrote the best seller economics book, Small is Beautiful. Albert Schweitzer, a believing Protestant, wrote essays on malaise in European culture and practised medicine for forty years in a remote hospital in Lambarene in Africa. All these twentieth century believers actively opposed a nutty world.

I wasn't positing syllogisms. I was giving examples to disprove your asserion (sorry your IMHO humble opinion) that our nutty world is caused by religious nuts. Our big bad world is warped by all kinds of nuts.

Happy New Year. Are you going to the Olympics?

by Feudal castrato Mon Dec 31, 2007 16:37

Was it the evil communism or the evil atheism that made him kill all those people? or was it just that he was one nasty paranoid psychopathic individual who was given far too great a concentration of power? ditto for mao and pol pot. Seems in general Its a really bad idea to concentrate so much power in the hands of one fallible human. atheist or otherwise. They tend to go nuts and kill lots of folk or sometimes they just make really incompetent decisions which have a similar result (and their advisors are too shit scared to contradict them). Its a power thing.

But I think surely the real problem here is with human nature. If you read my first post I pointed out that religion was a screen which enabled bad men to do bad things without being questioned. If you remove religion then bad men will still try to do bad things but it will be harder for them since they can no longer hide behind an unquestionable faith.

(Actually I have a theory that stalin DID believe in god. Its just that he thought it was himself!!)

BTW, hitler had something to do with many of those russian deaths you refer to (oh...I dunno, 20 million or so.) He was a god fearing man wasn't he? Perhaps he killed all those people because of his christianity?

No. He killed all those people because he was a friggin' psychopathic nutcase with too much concentrated power.

I never said it was the religion that directly caused the evil that men do. It just facilitates them in doing it. And promotes the idea of unquestioning faith as being a virtue.

regarding the enlightenment of the church and its quest for knowledge, don't make me laugh. Daft Proofs of gods existence,. How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?. the burning of astronomers at the stake for making simple scientific observations. The list is endless. Seems to me that religion used up many great minds which could have been put to far better use than discussing and writing endless religious tracts

And just because some inquisitive intelligent men happened to accept (officially anyway. perhaps just to stay alive!) the prevailing dogma made contributions to science, doesn't mean they made those contributions because they believed in god. In spite of, more like! and often at risk to their lives

Trust me, the only reason christians no longer burn witches and toast heretics is because we won't let them away with it any more. But don't worry, you are safe from nasty atheists. In fact the way things are going, another religious dark age is probably just around the corner. Even in this enlightened age It only takes a few cartoons set off a dangerous religious chain reaction worldwide.

And middle america. Quite scary you must admit. And I must ask you how do you feel about the rapture and intelligent design? so much for religions recent contribution to the advancement of learning.

You know of course that the irish taxpayer is currently being sued up the ass on religious grounds because doctors saved the life of a jehovahs witness by giving her a transfusion during childbirth (otherwise she probably would have died and they didn't want her baby girl to grow up without a mother). She will probably win the case and get a decent sum. Nice.

it takes all sorts to make a nutty world indeed. But from where I'm standing, it seems that an awful lot of those nuts are religious nuts who believe that not questioning things is actually a virtue.

I do suggest you watch the ted videos I linked to previously. They're quite good. Mr dawkins is polite, rational and quite funny too. Surprisingly so for a fanatic I think. Compare and contrast with pat robertson and osama bin laden.

By the way, I'm not really one for conspiracy theory but the first bit of the video "zeitgeist" deals with the origins of the judaeo christian faith and is really quite interesting. well worth watching for that bit.

it's currently available here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=554748142299511...hl=en

(BTW, Happy new year to you too :)

by Credo in unum... Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:30

Thanks for all that, and I'm not going to reply to your points on this New Year's eve. I've opened the first bottle of fruity white wine and know it will create fuzziness among my surviving brain cells, which doesn't contribute to reliable rationality when debating things like the Meaning of Life and its Origins, or dancing angels.

On the doctors' intervention to save the Jehovah baby I must say that the parents don't have a chance. A similar case came before the courts in Britain some years ago and the judge ruled that adult JWs have the right to refuse blood transfusions during medical operations because they are thinking adults with free will; but a baby has not reached the use of reason and therefore cannot exercise similar responsible free will. Therefore the state is justified in stepping in to save the baby's life. I'll bet a bottle of fruity white wine and a packet of salted peanuts that the Irish judge will reach a similar conclusion.

To your good health...

by Human Rights Thu Jan 03, 2008 19:56

Maybe someday we will be grown-up enough to realise that one of the universal
human rights is freedom of religious association= that never meant that religion
could be twisted into our political systems to advance twisted morality and oppress
people with the cross and the gun.

I am looking at George Bush and his minions incl. FF republicanism.

people have the right to those freedoms and alone Church/State segreagation
with guarnatee of religious Rights will get that- of course that will never happen
as long as those in power are guided by retaining the power to order and oppress
using a supernatural force as a guidance- cos angels and demons have nothing
to do with personal rights and all to do with oppression and control.
1. of minorities.
2.of kids.
3. of women.

by Feudal castrato Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:18

"The USSR was more than officially atheist – it actively suppressed religion – killing clergy en mass, imprisoning them, demolishing churches, confiscating church property etc."

So what you actually mean is it actively usurped church power and property.

"Also it was the entire Leninist system that was flawed – Stalin was not just an aberration of some kind."

Sweeping statement with nothing to back it up. Try prefacing with IMHO in such cases septic! :) Most people consider stalin to be quite a nasty abberation. Too much concentrated power, like I said.

"However my beef was not with just communism but with radical revolution as my post made clear. Its not that atheist are more likely to be oppressors – its that the revolutionary is more likely to throw out both traditional religion and traditional restraints on the use of power for mass killings, expulsions, gulags and similar. "

Well the revolutionary is often right to try to usurp a powerful church stranglehold. History has shown that these guys are regularly up to no good and often aided in the repression and social control of the masses. Usually revolution happens because people are unhappy with the corrupt cruel status quo. They revolt to make a change in their lot for the better. The forces in power resist loss of power. There is a messy fight. folks get killed. Its usually not pleasant. However revolutionaries generally get nowhere unless they have popular support.

And Revolution does not automatically mean mass killings, expulsions or gulags. It is incorrect and disingenuous to imply this. Stalin, a rather nasty individual, liked them sure, but we've been through that. And You cannot sneakily seperate the orange revolution from all other revolutions either. The fact is, your generalisation is wrong and not all revolutions are bloody cruel power grabs. Many are attempts to improve the lot of the population.

Many different revolutions have occurred through history and most were not about mass killings and gulags, often just attempts to usurp cruel corrupt tyrants. Usually the puppets / corrupt governments being revolted against were more fond of death squads and gulags than anybody.

As an example, how do your sweeping generalisations hold up regarding iran?
secular democracy, puppet installed, brutal puppet regime, people fed up, people revolt, more religion, not less.
this religion itself then serves to opress people. Not quite in keeping with your theory !

"Even the French Revolution was marked by very extensive violence – not just the Guillotine which was small scale stuff – but more so the pogroms in the countryside of regions which resisted the revolution. That provided a warning as Burke made clear. "

Yeah. The impoverished evil french lowlife scum should have just eaten cake instead.

"Why bring in Putin? He is not very relevant to this issue apart from your neocommunist admiration for him."
No, but I just thought you'd like it!! :)

by pat c Fri Jan 04, 2008 15:12

Amis is moronic in his analysis as usual. In his book about Stalin, Koba, he more or less conflates all Stalinists, Leninists, Left Communists and Anarchists as being equally responsible for the gulags. Avoiding the issue that many of those who he blamed ended up in gulags. He reckoned they all really wanted to be Lord Protectors. Hmmm, could be interesting to observe an Anarchist or Left Communist Dictatorship.

As for relgion, people are entitled to their personal beliefs, but imho they are not entitled to make that the law of the land. Can you imagine a Theocratic Ireland where all candidates for election had to be approved by a Council of Roman Catholic Clerics and where all legislation could be vetoed by the RC Archbishop of Armagh? Britain might threaten to invade, supopsedly to free the oppressed people. While there would be a genuine opposition in Ireland which sought to overthrow the Theocracy and establish a Secular Republic, they would also oppose any outside aggression.

But its very likely that the main Anti War movement in Britain would oppose any criticism of the Theocracy. They would say that the time wasnt right to support strikers, women or socialists. By highlighting torture and burnings at the stake , they would claim, Hands Off the People of Ireland were propagandising on behalf of British Imperialism.

But enough of this idle fancy, back to Amis & Trotsky.

In the USSR Trotsky was chairman of the Society of the Godless, whose mission was to eradicate religion. Amis calls Trotsky a Nun Killer; in 1922 (according to Amis), the Bolsheviks killed 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks, and 3,447 nuns of the Russian Orthodox Church (no figures given for mullahs). Given his dual role as Commissar for War and Chairman of the Society of the Godless, Trotsky would have played some role in this, even if the executions were carried out by the Cheka. I'm not sure if these figures stand up but such actions (if true) need to put in the context of the role played by the Church.

In January 1918, the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Tikhon, denounced the Bolsheviks as “monsters of the human race” and excommunicated all who supported the Revolution. During the Civil War most of the Russian clergy supported the Whites. In 1921, to get funds to buy food abroad in to relieve the famine, the Bolshevik Government confiscated gold, silver and jewels belonging to the Church. The Patriarch ordered the clergy to resist and a bitter struggle resulted in the course of which 45 clergy were executed and 250 sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. (Amis doesn't seem to mention this.)

In 1922 a section of the clergy set up the “Living Church” which declared capitalism to be a “deadly sin”. The Orthodox Church split but even the majority of the clergy who were opposed to the “Living Church” paid lip-service to the Soviet State. Priests and other clergy had their civil rights restricted and could not vote or stand for election to the Soviets. (Stalin Restored these rights in 1936.)

Under Stalin religion suffered even more (in the early years)! In 1929 churches were forcibly closed and priests arrested and exiled all over the Soviet Union. The Shrine of the Iberian Virgin in Moscow – esteemed by believers to be the “holiest” in all Russia was demolished. Under Stalins orders The Society of Militant Atheists issued a Five Year Of Plan Atheism in 1932 it proclaimed that by 1 May 1937: not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses!

Some additional information on the above at:
http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union110506-7.htm

Its best if religion is destroyed from below. In his History Of The Russian Revolution, Trotsky relates a story which took place in a small village in rural Russian betwen the February and October Revolutions. A priest was leading a Marian procession where as usual the statue was carried by acolytes. A local woodsman stepped forward and cleaved the statue in two with his axe. No one came to the priests aid (relax, he wasn't cleaved). That was the end of the power of the Church in that village.

by Sceptic Fri Jan 04, 2008 20:10

“HOWEVER REVOLUTIONARIES GENERALLY GET NOWHERE UNLESS THEY HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT.”
Its democrats and parties in democracies that get nowhere unless they have popular support. Revolutionaries simply took power in Russia and ignored their lack of popular support in the one free election which followed after which free elections were banned.
“WELL THE REVOLUTIONARY IS OFTEN RIGHT TO TRY TO USURP A POWERFUL CHURCH STRANGLEHOLD”.
What “stranglehold”. It was the Bolshevik Party that had a stranglehold on power. The Russian Orthodox Church was influential and pervasive and the polity was primitive but the church was not the Government and it power was never more than a small fraction of the Party’s later power. In any case there are ways of reforming things, even radically reforming things, without going to the lengths of totalitarian repression. You can limit the power of the clergy without mass murdering all the clerics. If you believe in inaliable rights you believe that some rights are not any Government’s to take away. You might not so believe - just as you might not regard the tens of millions of causalities of the Soviet and Chinese regimes as regrettable.

STALIN THE NASTY EXCEPTION SCHOOL OF APOLOGIA
All the elements of Stalinism were begun or inherent in Leninism. I was not making a sweeping statement as you allege but reflecting the current historical consensus. The treatment in the Orlando Figg’s book to name one (see below) is comprehensive on this point. Besides it is an indictment of the Soviet system that a Stalin was possible. It was a strength of the American system, for example, that a Stalin could not have come to power there.
Not all revolution are nasty power grabs –I did not say they were - some are democratic counter revolutions. But the concept of the communist revolution as envisaged by the 19th century radical thinkers led directly to the Gulag State and all the human tragedy that went with it – tens of millions killed, others imprisoned and expelled by the millions also. This model still has its admirers among western leftists and academics. It is more common for a Government to make war on its own population and decimate them in the name of a nationalist or socialist revolution than for another form of Government. It is the concept of the enthronement of revolution and the then dictatorship of the revolution that tyrannizes. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Castro, Saddam, Assad – all killed on a vast scale without constraint in the name of their various “revolutions”. All that said, repression is not exclusive to revolutionary Governments. But the worst Governments from the viewpoint of repression in the 20th Century were self-described as revolutionary. The overall message is be wary of the revolutionary – if he gains power you might get a lot more than you bargained for. This is what the historical record shows clearly.

FRENCH REVOLUTION AND EATING CAKE
The countryside peasantry pogroms had nothing to do with food. It was a radical revolutionary regime making war on a population that did not want the revolution. Neither did the Terror of the Committee of Public Safety have anything to do with feeding people whatever – this was simply one political faction doing away with its opponents or suspected opponents (in the name of the Revolution of course).

IRAN
Why you bring Iran in I don’t know. It is a near totalitarian theocracy established by revolution. It is a textbook case of the dangers of getting carried away by a revolutionary fervour since it could only have succeeded with the help of the left, the liberals and the trade unions who had reason to bitterly regret it. Once the revolutionaries have taken power you cannot get it off them and they will start liquidating their enemies post haste. Often those who helped them to power are the first into the tumbrels.

PUTIN
Neither do I know why you think I should be annoyed by Putin being Time’s man of the year. This does not bother me – Time selects this person as the most important for good or ill so it is not an accolade. You seem to admire Putin merely as a counterpoint to the west. He has his achievements but he is weakening Russian institutions and these are much more important for an acceptable quality of life in the long term for the people than one man however strong. My concern about Putin is because of the long term effects on the Russian and neighbouring people – nothing more. Russian is on a roll right now but I suspect it is at a peak. It will be more challenging times ahead.