Bloodbath in Gaza

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Florestan

I'm not sure she's all that ignorant, but profoundly pernicious, certainly. It's the clever, or at least knowledgeable, ones that do the most damage. She is far more dangerous in that regard than some BNP moron.

Just glancing at her wikipedia page - her anti-rationalist, anti-science stance and her accusation that liberal Jews are 'Jews for genocide'... I think you get an Oxbridge degree and it's like gaining a licence to talk crap, with people subconsciously reminding themselves of the person's education.

[Alpha Centauri]

Originally Posted by Herzeleide

Just glancing at her wikipedia page - her anti-rationalist, anti-science stance and her accusation that liberal Jews are 'Jews for genocide'... I think you get an Oxbridge degree and it's like gaining a licence to talk crap, with people subconsciously reminding themselves of the person's education.

That's almost certainly true. Ever since Holocaust-denier and pseudo-"historian" David Irving, and BNP Leader Nick Griffin were allowed to address the Oxford Union (despite extensive protests), the jackals and knuckledraggers who are their support-base have been claiming this as vindication, and making outrageous claims that imply that both of these neo-nazi thugs are Faculty members

What I fear is that as the economic crisis takes a grip in Britain, the conditions under which fascism thrives will improve for Griffin and his brownshirts

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Reiner Torheit

Ever since Holocaust-denier and pseudo-"historian" David Irving, and BNP Leader Nick Griffin were allowed to address the Oxford Union (despite extensive protests), the jackals and knuckledraggers who are their support-base have been claiming this as vindication, and making outrageous claims that imply that both of these neo-nazi thugs are Faculty members

What I fear is that as the economic crisis takes a grip in Britain, the conditions under which fascism thrives will improve for Griffin and his brownshirts

Well, do you believe in free speech or not? If so, you'll realise that it isn't the exclusive prerogative of people you broadly agree with.

If people do have unsavoury opinions it's surely all the more important that they can express them publicly, so that they can be challenged in open debate, rather than pushed underground.

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Herzeleide

Just glancing at her wikipedia page - her anti-rationalist, anti-science stance and her accusation that liberal Jews are 'Jews for genocide'... I think you get an Oxbridge degree and it's like gaining a licence to talk crap, with people subconsciously reminding themselves of the person's education.

She holds some preposterous opinions about Darwinism, and some questionable ones about global warming. She has also made something of a fool of herself in so publicly identifying with the American Neocons (as a result of her Zionism).

That said, I share her concern at the ongoing debauchment of educational standards (as expressed in her All Must Have Prizes), and I have come to share her small "c" conservatism in social matters (especially relating to the family).

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Florestan

I'm not sure she's all that ignorant, but profoundly pernicious, certainly. It's the clever, or at least knowledgeable, ones that do the most damage. She is far more dangerous in that regard than some BNP moron.

I was completely amazed to discover she was married to Joshua Rosenberg.

Melanie Phillips is really being given a good beating up here. It would be more interesting, however, to hear some specific criticisms of opinions that she has expressed, rather than hearing a general anathema pronounced.

[Alpha Centauri]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

Melanie Phillips is really being given a good beating up here. It would be more interesting, however, to hear some specific criticisms of opinions that she has expressed, rather than hearing a general anathema pronounced.

I agree. Let's start with the video footage of a so-called "atrocity at a wedding" she put up on her website. She claimed that the wedding guests had been murdered. But in fact they are all still alive - they were arrested as being Fatah members, but subsequently released. Not one of them is dead, not one of them was physically harmed. Phillips has subsequently removed the video, but declined to make any mention of the fact that it was a complete fake. I wonder when she will do so?

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Reiner Torheit

I wonder when she will do so?

* Hell freezes over *

I see Melanie Phillips as a professional controversialist, like Julie Burchill or Camille Paglia. Her career's built on adopting positions designed to antagonise one side of a sensitive political argument, and if those she antagonises make the mistake of engaging with her, she's won. She can then refine her position, antagonise them some more, get more publicity, and the circle continues (while her career advances).

I had a long chat with a clever Jewish friend last night and it was a huge relief to get away from Melanie Phillips-type condemnation of Hamas and leftist condemnation of Israel – similar to the Greenstock interview above. It's so obvious both sides have done vile things to the other and have made huge political mistakes. The whole point now is to break that cycle of strike and counter-strike, lubricated with propaganda, and people like Philips have a direct interest in inflaming the situation and keeping the conflict going. If a deal was struck in the Middle East, similar to the Irish deal, Philips would have one less thing to hyperventilate about.

She's also politically highly promiscuous, having made the journey from old Labour to the libertarian right. OK, people can change their minds but it makes her views questionable. But she's a highly talented pet artist so I let her off.

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Philidor

* Hell freezes over *

I see Melanie Phillips as a professional controversialist, like Julie Burchill or Camille Paglia. Her career's built on adopting positions designed to antagonise one side of a sensitive political argument, and if those she antagonises make the mistake of engaging with her, she's won. She can then refine her position, antagonise them some more, get more publicity, and the circle continues (while her career advances).

She's also politically highly promiscuous, having made the journey from old Labour to the libertarian right..

That's very interesting company to put her in! I find Julie Burchill immensely readable, despite the fact that she is clearly mentally unhinged and has some revolting opinions (for example, her passionate support for the death penalty and her undisguised admiration for mass-murderer Joseph Stalin). I read Camille Paglia some years ago, and found her exhilarating but ultimately absurd (although there is inevitably some truth in her scattergun polemic).

Melanie Phillips seems a different sort of writer to me. Burchill and Paglia are both exhibitionists, even entertainers. Phillips seems uninterested in presenting herself as an interesting personality per se, and is only interested in articulating her opinions, in an atmosphere of considerable moral earnestness quite different from the jokiness of Burchill or the flamboyance of Paglia.

She is more consistent in her core opinions than your remarks suggest, although it is disappointing to see her blindness to the moral idiocy of George W. Bush and the Neocons. Reiner is certainly correct in pointing out her unfortunate tendency to drop claims or opinions without comment when they become embarrassing, rather than to retract them publicly. For example, she has soft-peddled her formerly wild support for Tony Blair's WMD justification for the Iraq war rather than just admitting that she was wrong all along. (It is strange that, despite her general hostility to Blair, she should have supported him in perhaps his most egregious political error - an error which I regard as an indictable crime.)

I would also hesitate to characterise her as "libertarian". She is, in fact, profoundly hostile to libertarianism, whether of the left or the right. I think that she is a small "c" conservative (as many Old Labour people were) who has utterly failed to grasp what the Neocons really stand for, so dazzled has she been by their very ostentatious support for Israel. Nor is she really politically promiscuous. Rather, she is a lonely, unattached soul who - rather like someone desperately in search of religious faith - is trying to find a political belief-system in whose lee she can shelter. (The trouble is, she is an outsider by nature, rather than a joiner.) About 12 or 15 years ago she was very enthusiastic about Amitai Etzioni's rather insipid Communitarianism. She even took Tony Blair's pretended social conservatism at face value for a while (until he actually came to office), and was naive enough to believe that he might reverse the baleful educational trends she documents in her All Must Have Prizes.

Israel is her Achilles' heel, and distorts all of her political judgements as a journalist and broadcaster. She turns a blind eye to the iniquities of the Neocons because of their support for Israel (and turned a blind eye to the specific iniquity of Blair over Iraq because of his support for the Neocons), and she has adapted her world-view to reflect the genuinely Conservative American audience (and not merely the small "c" variety) whom she now largely addresses. This explains why she is hostile to secularism in general and Darwin in particular. I think that this is a great shame, because her criticisms of society and the education system remain largely valid and unaddressed, and she is also right to see a resurgent Islam as a dangerous force (although here she is wrong on many of the details and some of the generalities).

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Reiner Torheit

I'm afraid I would be instantly dismissive of anything connected with that violently unpleasant bitch Melanie Phillips

This seems very extreme, immoderate language. Couldn't you just have said that you disagree very strongly with her, and given your reasons?

It doesn't seem very rational to me to be "instantly dismissive" of anything; surely you need to think the issues through, and that generally takes time.

Since you find her opinions so repellent wouldn't it actually be a good idea to visit her Spectator blog, and to post your disagreements with her for others to see and discuss?

Another interesting blog is Peter Hitchens's at the Mail on Sunday. Hitchens is broadly supportive of Israel, but he has strongly condemned the recent bombardment of Gaza. As with Melanie Phillips, the debate from members of the public is lively, and far from one-sided, with the added advantage that Hitchens, unlike Phillips, actually enters directly into the debate and addresses named individuals.

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

For example, she has soft-peddled her formerly wild support for Tony Blair's WMD justification for the Iraq war rather than just admitting that she was wrong all along.

Have you ever read anything by that vile specimen Oliver Kamm? He's unrepentant about his support for the Iraq invasion and war, and has seemingly built up a reputation around denouncing Chomsky (the smug, self-satisfied subtitle of his blog page quotes him http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/ which goes to show how proud he is of the fame, latching himself onto someone more famous, has afforded him).