What could be more absurd than censorship on campus? Per Nick Cohen | Comment is free | The Guardian

Nick Cohen nails it in The Guardian:

'The intellectuals who excused Stalinist communism in the 1940s aren't so different from their grandchildren, who excuse radical Islam. Orwell was something of a "whoreophobe" himself and he warned his contemporaries: "Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don't imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet regime, or any other regime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore."

Unless today's intellectuals want the same said of them they must end the censorship of debates that provoke no violence beyond the violently hurt feelings of the thin-skinned. They must prove the sincerity of their argument that religious reaction must be met with words, not arrests, by overcoming their cowardice and spitting out protests of their own.'

An odd double standard

Imagine walking into a German restaurant in London and finding a portrait of Adolf Hitler on the wall; very, very unlikely.

Imagine walking into a Russian Restaurant in London and finding a portrait of Josef Stalin on the wall; equally unlikely.

However walk into London's Baozi Inn in Newport Street, part of London's Chinatown, and there's a picture of Chairman Mao on the wall.


Hitler's Nazi regime is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of around 12 million people, Stalin's Soviet Russia for the deaths of around 9 million people but Mao's Communist regime in China for the deaths of around 45-50 million people. Why is this mass murderer's image not as repellent as Adolf Hitler's?


Baozi Inn is a great Szechuan restaurant but their choice of interior decor is extremely suspect. Time Out in all it's right-on glory says that at Baozi Inn 'kitsch Communist Revolution decor meets northern Chinese street food tidied up for London'. Well if you consider commemorating probably the biggest mass mrderer in world history is 'kitsch' then I think your moral compass is well out of kilter.

The rehabilitation of a mass murderer

Volograd city council has voted to revert its name back to Stalingrad on 6 commemorative days each year. That's Stalin the man who was responsible for the deaths of between 10 and 20 million people.
Imagine the horror if Hitler's name was being used in such a way. But for Stalin or Mao, no problem.

The useful idiots of the past and who are the useful idiots of today; Tony Benn?

A few weeks ago I heard a very interesting radio programme on BBC Radio 4 about the useful idiots who propagandised on behalf of Communist Russia in order to protect the name of Communism:

'refers to Western journalists, travellers and intellectuals who gave their blessing – often with evangelistic fervour – to tyrannies and tyrants, thereby convincing politicians and public that utopias rather than Belsens thrived.'

It is a story that I know well but one that does deserve repetition because I don't think that many people do know  how so many on the left of western politics covered up the evil of communist Russia, and indeed China as well.

What struck me when listening to the programme was how those who criticised Russia were the ones that were disbelieved and whose careers suffered at the time whilst those that supported the evil regimes were rewarded:

'In 1952 Doris Lessing, a British writer who has since won the Nobel Prize for Literature, was part of a delegation visiting the Soviet Union.
Her memories of the trip are clear and unforgiving:
“I was taken around and shown things as a ‘useful idiot’... that’s what my role was. I can’t understand why I was so gullible.”
She was not the only one. The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw and American journalist Walter Duranty were some of those people who also visited the Soviet Union.
They mingled with political leaders, were escorted into the countryside by Joseph Stalin’s secret police, and returned home to speak and write of ‘a land of hope’ with ‘evils retreating before the spread of communism’.
However as stories mounted of mass murder and starvation in parts of Russia and the Ukraine, reporters such as Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge investigated and reported on ‘the creation of one enormous Belsen’.
Duranty responded with an article in the New York Times headed ‘Story of the famine is bunk’, and got an exclusive interview with Stalin.
Soon after, Jones died and Muggeridge’s career nose-dived. Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer.'

I didn't hear the second part but was struck by the BBC's own summary:

'The journalist and historian Jonathan Mirsky, who has written extensively on China, describes former leader Chairman Mao as:
“He had an enormous impact on China – but he was a monster… and…responsible for the deaths of 40 million people.”
But the veteran British politician Tony Benn argues that Mao played a significant role in building China's global importance and economic power - and that his actions - both good and bad - must be seen in historical context.
From Mao’s China, General Pinochet’s Chile, Apartheid-controlled South Africa, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, to President Ahmadinejad’s Iran, why – and how – have so many supposedly intelligent people been manipulated by dictators into saying good things about bad regimes?'

'Historical context'? 'HISTORICAL CONTEXT'! Mao's regime killed around 50 million people but the BBC's hero Tony Benn thinks Mao's actions must be seen in 'historical context'. Maybe someone could ask Tony Benn what 'historical  context' justified the killing of 50 million people in communist China? Does Tony Benn also think that the millions of deaths ordered by Lenin and Stalin and the suffering in the gulags has to be seen in 'historical context'? What about the seven million Jews killed by Hitler's Nazis in Germany; do they have to be seen in historical context'? At this point Tony Benn would no doubt lean back and suck on a metaphorical pipe and tell you that he fought against Nazism during the second world war. Indeed you did Mr Benn, indeed you did but you still say that the deaths of millions more people needs to be seen in 'historical context'!

I wonder who the useful idiots of today are? Those who believed that the 'Arab Spring' would end other than with Islamist regimes perhaps.

Celebrating a mass-murderer

In the last few days I have seen two rather odd examples of the way that a dictator considered a Communist can still be revered in a way that Hitler could (quite rightly) not. Westminster University is holding an exhibition called 'Poster Power: Images from Mao's China, Then and Now' at its 309 Regents Street building. Here's the blurb:

'Posters from Mao’s China exercise an enduring appeal to audiences across the globe, more than sixty years after the events that produced them. They are revisited in modern and contemporary Chinese art and commercial design, and curated in exhibitions in China, the US and Europe.

So why does imagery produced to support a revolutionary ideology half a century ago continue to resonate with current Chinese and Western audiences? What is the China we see between posters of the Mao years and their contemporary consumerist reinventions? How do we explain the diverse responses such imagery evokes? And what does the appeal of the posters of Mao’s China tell us about the country’s ‘red legacy’?

Poster Power explores some of these questions through setting up a visual dialogue between posters produced between the 1950s and the 1970s and their echoes in recent years. With posters from the University of Westminster’s Chinese Poster Collection, Chinese video art, documentary film, photographs, and contemporary items such as playing cards and nightclub advertising, the exhibition invites viewers to explore the posters’ ambiguities of appeal to their audiences. As visual reminders of both autocratic rule and exuberant youthful idealism, they evoke diverse responses, challenging the idea that Cultural Revolution poster propaganda transmitted a single, transparent meaning. These posters’ capacity to inspire ambiguous responses opens up new narratives of what remains a complex period of China’s recent past, and sheds light on its changing significance in contemporary China.'

Why not a word, nor even an allusion to the around 50 million people killed by the Chinese regime since 1949? why not a mention of the many millions tortured by the Chinese regime and forced to give up their "intellectual" jobs to work on the land as "workers", would that not have resonance for current students? Why not a mention of those killed around Tienanmen Square? Why not a mention of the invasion of Tibet and the destruction of so much Buddhist life? Why not a mention of the human rights abuses that occurred around the Beijing Olympics?

The other example was in an antique shop the other week where there was a small number of photos of Chairman Mao in a case and nobody seemed to think this was odd.

Can you imagine the furore if an antique shop had a collection of Adolph Hitler images on display? Can you imagine the protests if a British University held an exhibition of posters from Nazi Germany and did not put them into context?

Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany killed around seven million people and the regime is rightly abhorred. Mao's communist regime in China killed many many more (as did Stalin's communist regime in the Soviet Union) and yet there is hardly a word of protest in remembrance now. Schools teach the evils of Nazism & the BBC raise the subject regularly, and quite rightly so, but the equally (or more) evils of Mao and Stalin's communist regimes are mentioned far less; why is that the case? Maybe it is something to do with the backgrounds of a large proportion of the BBC, Labour Party leadership and educational elite in this country; once a Marxist, always a Marxist?

The totalitarian instincts of the left in evidence once again

I read in the NY Times that:

'Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally. '

Once again the true face of the totalitarian left comes into clear focus and its not a pretty sight is it? The need to monitor everything and know everything has been a feature of left wing regimes from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Honecker through Gordon Brown & his team of control freaks to the frankly scary Barack Obama.

Tim Worstall explains why Dennis MacShane is wrong about Stalin, Hitler & comparing them

Tim Worstall takes Dennis MacShane to task and quite nicely:

"As I’ve said before, we can note the difference between people being killed on the grounds of race and and those being killed on the grounds of class. But it’s the killing of people which should be bringing the condemnation, not the grounds for the killing. For it’s the killing of people that’s wrong, d’ye see?

And thus there is a moral equivalence between Nazism and Communism.

Indeed, we might even go further….facism existed in various flavours and only in one instance did it become that pit of evil whereas almost everywhere communism has gained power the flavour of the death camps was similar."

There's plenty more about Dennis MacShane here.

Tuesday morning catchup

Too mnay interesting things to blog about and not enough time this morning, so here's a few in summary form.

1. Prodicus asks "Why the reserve at PMQs? Why no flame-throwers in the campaign to date?" and then writes a piece that summarises so much of what I have been thinking for some time now that I wish I had written it. It's all there from the frustration at David Cameron being 'nice', the bad feelings towards Teresa May for

' That ghastly woman has done more substantive damage to the Conservative Party with her mal mot than almost any other single speech including 'unemployment is a price worth paying' and 'back to basics'. The dread connotation has shaped Cameron's personal and party campaigning from the word go. It colours every - EVERY - Conservative Party policy idea even before it's mooted, hamstringing the party philosophically, politically and practically whenever the Tories should be rallying the country with an appeal to sanity and a call to realism and the prospect of responsible capitalist prosperity for all.

...

Teresa May removed the lead put into in the Tory pencil by Margaret Thatcher. She is the living incarnation of anti-Thatcher Conservatism and I loathe her for it. "

and a wish that:

"Once the election trumpet sounds, I trust the Cameron-Coulson-Hilton grid includes a snarling and biting break for the dogs.

Surely they know that Nice is knifed by Nasty on a daily basis in Brown's Britain? FFS, Gordon Brown is living proof that Nasty can gain power and will do anything to keep it. Don''t be too nice too long, Dave, or you may not outlive a kamikaze enemy.

I'll wait. For now.

But the electorate is angry, Mr Cameron. Fucking furious, since you ask.

We want revenge on Labour. We want some blood, even if it makes you wince a bit. OK, not the all out slaughter of which we have been dreaming. The odd gnash will suffice. Then you can go back to playing nice."

2. Donal Blaney reports the latest piece of US Democrat brainwashing and Obamamessiah news; that:

"In an effort to brainwash kids, Random House have published Barack Obama - Out Of Many, One, a book targeted at 5-7 year olds and that I have been sent by a concerned parent. It makes for very disturbing reading. Needless to say George W Bush didn't merit such a book to be written about him.

...

Out Of Many, One is a piece of propaganda that Goebbels would have been proud to have produced.

Out Of Many, One omits reference to One Term Barry's education at a madrassa in Indonesia, his work with the corrupt community group, Acorn, his underhanded campaigning in the City of Sleaze (aka Chicago) or his consorting with domestic terrorists such as Bill Ayers and hate-filled preachers and race-mongers such as Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton. Instead kids are force-fed a diet of one-sided pap that would make Stalin blush. The only surprise in Out Of Many, One is that his white grandmother actually gets a mention. "

I do wonder if the US Democrats really want to encoiurage this 'cult of personality', have they no knowledge of history and how such left wing cults end up - Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc. etc.


3. Tory Bear wonders how low the Gordian will go and concludes that:

"Gordon is deliberatly trying to score party political points by stirring up trouble. Now TB knows that sectarian politics is relished in the inner workings of the Scottish Labour Party, but when you are representing the United Kingdom as its leader, you do not stir up a delicate balance of power with references to an English enemy to score cheap shots at your rival. And frankly the piece is a shoddy copy and paste of a one sourced smear."

I am shocked...

China's 60th anniversary

The BBC report that:

"China is staging mass celebrations to mark 60 years since the Communist Party came to power.

Vast lines of tanks, soldiers and missile launchers are being paraded through the capital Beijing.

President Hu Jintao has appeared on the rostrum at Tiananmen Square in a black Mao-style tunic, seen by analysts as a symbol of his control of the military.

He was joined by his predecessor Jiang Zemin, Premier Wen Jiabao and other senior leaders.

After a 60-gun salute, the Chinese flag was formally raised in the centre of the historic square - where revolutionary leader Mao Zedong proclaimed the founding of the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949.

The military parade, expected to show previously unseen missile technology, followed a drive-by inspection of the armed forces and a speech by President Hu which lauded China's progress.

The president, speaking from the same spot where Mao Zedong had stood 60 years ago, claimed China had a bright future, had made global economic strides and would unite all cultures and ethnicities within it.

Security forces have been deployed in force across Beijing, ahead of a pageant featuring ordinary citizens, which will also take place in Tiananmen Square.

Some 30,000 people have been invited to watch the events, but others are being encouraged to stay at home and watch it on TV to "avoid complications".

Armed police in body armour have taken up positions at major road junctions in the capital, with snipers spotted on buildings along the parade route on Chang'an Avenue.

Roads have been blocked off, the international airport closed and the subway disrupted.

Many shops and businesses have been closed along the route and a new portrait of Mao Zedong has been installed in Tiananmen Square.

Some reports say the extravaganza will use twice as many fireworks as featured in the opening ceremony to last year's Olympic Games.

National Day is an annual highlight for the Chinese government, but extra effort has been made to mark the 60th anniversary of what China sees as the start of its transformation from an impoverished country into a global contender.

On the eve of the festivities, the country's leaders held a dinner for 4,000 people in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

Premier Wen Jiabao praised China's development and said he was looking forward to celebrating "the centenary of New China" in 40 years' time."

Anything missing from this article replete with mentions of Chairman Mao?

How about a mention of the around 50 million people killed by the Chinese regime since 1949? How about a mention of the many millions tortured by the Chinese regime and forced to give up their "intellectual" jobs to work on the land as "workers"? How about a mention of those killed in Tiananmen Square? How about a mention of the human rights abuses that occurred around the Beijing Olympics?

Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany killed around 7 million people and the regime is rightly abhorred. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China killed many many more and shhhh hardly a word of protest is allowed. Why? Maybe something to do with the backgrounds of a large proportion of the BBC and Labour Party leadership; once a Marxist, always a Marxist?