Conquest of vision

Written by:Stephen Mitchelmore.

Elsewhere I revealed that I seem to enjoy cultivating grudges: political, sporting, personal and literary. I didn’t name anybody. There would have been too many. However, some pass between groups and create a smaller group. Clive James, Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovitch are in the first and last (though I tend to agree with Hitchens on literature). John Carey might now be entering this elite group. Look at this rather insipid review of the latest wet fart from the crusty rear end of the Thatcherite dinosaur. Apparently Robert Conquest recommends “a new western alliance of the states that supported America and the UK in 2003. They should, he believes, use military force if necessary to bring rogue states to heel, and prevent the kind of barbarism seen recently in the Sudan.”

How many times have we heard this? Maybe it ought also to prevent the kind of barbarism we don’t see, such as that in Uzbekistan? Which brings me to a second question: why is a professor of literature reviewing this nonsense? Wouldn’t it have been more interesting and informative to give it to, say, Craig Murray, until recently the British ambassador to Uzbekistan who, in his blog, reveals more about the hypocrisy of Conquest’s stance than Carey seems able? But maybe revealing such contradictions would be placing too much expectation on the intelligence of the masses?

Posted on October 30th, 2005.

• "Has it got Al-Qaeda in it?"
• Vlad impales Hitch
• The Gutenberg Bible 3AM magazine has a new interv…
• Not even wrong
• Amidships