RIP V.S. Naipaul: he said what white men couldn't

So, farewell then, V.S. Naipaul -- racist, misanthropist and Nobel Prize winner. Another Trinidadian writer, C.L.R. James, said that his views on the world -- "The world is what it is" -- and its human inhabitants simply reflected "what the whites want to say but dare not." That explains why I, being Whiteman by name and white man in fact, have underlined so many passages in his books, of which I've read (and recommend) almost all.

Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul was born five days shy of 86 years ago in Trinidad, a descendant of impoverished Indians shipped to the West Indies as coolies -- bonded labourers. "I was born there, yes," he told an interviewer in 1983. "I thought it was a great mistake." In 1950, Mr Naipaul was awarded a scarce government scholarship to study in Britain, and left his family to study English literature at University College, Oxford. He never really returned.

Mr Naipaul saw himself as a lone, stateless observer, free of ideology, politics and illusion. From his base in England, he travelled for extensive periods to pen journalistic essays and travel books. He flew three times to India, the land of his ancestors, to write about its culture and politics, which he disliked intensely. He spent time in Buenos Aires to write about Eva Peron, the former First Lady of Argentina. And he went to Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia to research and write books about Islam, which he condemned.

That Sir Vidia Naipaul (knighted in 1990) was a great writer -- a master stylist and story-teller with a cold, clear eye for the ironies, tragedies and sufferings of mankind -- is beyond doubt. But he is one of those authors who one either loves or hates. To his detractors, he was essentially political, bearing witness against the post-colonial world with great writing but shielded from criticism by virtue of being "one of them". His many critics called him "troubling", even "bigoted". They saw him as a "hater", a purveyor of stereotypes, wallowing in loathing of the world from which he came.

His supporters, however, found in his fiction merciless comic clarity, and in his travel writing a terrifying honesty. He refused to glamorise or idealise the developing world, but delivered original, scorching critiques, devoid of political correctness. He was fearless and unbiased in his criticism, attacking the cruelty of Islam, the corruption of Africa and the self-inflicted misery he witnessed in the poorest parts of the globe. The Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk said that Mr Naipaul represented third-world people "not with sugary magic realism but with their demons, their misdeeds and horrors -- which made them less victims and more human."

"There probably has been no imperialism like that of Islam and the Arabs", he once declared. He was scornful of the Caribbean, predicted that Africa would revert to bush (as indeed it has, IMHO) and often veered towards unapologetic misogyny. Indian women, he once wrote, wear a coloured dot on their foreheads to say "My head is empty."

V.S. Naipaul had little time for idealistic westerners who romanticised India and looked to it for a spiritual awakening. In the land of his ancestors, he saw only ugliness and a smug refusal to recognise the horror of the "narrow, broken lanes with green slime in the gutters, the chocked back-to-back houses, the jumble of filth and food and animals and people, the baby in the dust, swollen-bellied, black with flies, but wearing its good-luck amulet."

He was even more contemptuous of Islamic fundamentalism, which he decried long before 9/11 in The Believers (1981). One New York Times writer observed that it bore an antipathy to Islam so naked "that a book taking a comparable view of Christianity or Judaism would have been hard put to find a publisher" in America. An academic, Edward Said, said he found it hard to believe any rational person would attack entire cultures on such a scale.

Sir Vidia Naipaul will be remembered as a magical craftsman of English prose. He leaves behind a complex, challenging library of work which captures the complexities of the modern world in a unique blend of imagination, travel writing and autobiography. RIP.

UPDATED: Understanding geopolitics with the help of "1984"

I'm having trouble figuring this out. President Trump went to Helsinki and had a meeting with President Putin. After the meeting POTUS said (when you add it all up) that, even though American "intelligence" said otherwise, he was taking Mr Putin's word for it that the Russians didn't meddle in the 2016 presidential election. "Why would it be the Russians?", he asked, then "Why wouldn't it be the Russians?" He didn't know at the time -- it was Obama who received the PDBs, eh -- and doesn't know now.

Now the usual gang of gliberals, Democratic socialists, antifa Nazis and media stars are calling the President a traitor -- literally -- and unpatriotic for suggesting that the CIA and "military intelligence" (an oxymoron, for sure) might have been wrong on this one. If you think American "intelligence" never makes a mistake, perhaps you'd be interested in some of this yellowcake I can get for you, cheap! In spite of the ongoing witchhunt in Washington, nobody can say for sure what the Russians did or didn't do in the runup to the election. The thing sure is that what the Russians did (if anything) didn't have much effect (if any) on the result. The Democrats and other "resisters" are still in denial that the American people chose The Donald over Crooked Hillary.

What, I wonder, do the anti-Trumpers think POTUS should have done at the historic meeting. Should he have pulled a Glock out of his pocket and shot the Russki-in-Chief in the face, like Michael Corleone in The Godfather? Of course not. He'd have been recognized!

Now the blaze in the anti-Trumpers hair has become an inferno because President Trump has invited President Putin to come and have a chat at the White House. With confusion still swirling around what the two men discussed behind closed doors in Helsinki, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said it’s important to "deal with the results" of their first summit before jumping too fast into a new one. But, he said, "Russia is always open to such proposals. We are ready for discussions on this subject."

Which is as it should be. Seems to me we're losing sight of the importance of the meeting itself. When the heads of two of the world's three super-powers sit down to talk, something good may come of it, or not, but, as Churchill supposedly said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war." [In fact it was one of Churchill's successors, Harold Macmillan, who put it exactly that way. According to his official biographer, Churchill's words were, "Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war." Ed.]

Those folks -- especially Republicans -- who criticize President Trump for making nice with President Putin should keep in mind that American foreign policy was badly in need of a reset after eight years of Obamian dithering and wimpishness, and POTUS is leading the much-needed change in direction.

This summer alone, he has stood up for America, to the discomfort of its "allies", at the G7 and NATO summits, sat eyeball-to-eyeball with Kim Jong-un (something no-one thought possible) and now in serious talks with the Russian president about Syria, the Ukraine and other matters of vital importance. All that and all POTUS gets is grief. Obama was only a few weeks into his presidensity, had done nothing (and never did) and what did they give him? The Nobel fucking prize!

The present geopolitical situation reminds me of that described by George Orwell in 1984. Writing at the beginning of the Cold War, Orwell predicted that, come the iconic year, the world would be divided into three super-states:
• Oceania -- including all of the Americas, southern Africa, Australia and the British Isles, the main location for the novel
• Eurasia -- Europe and most of the old Soviet Union, plus a little chunk of the Middle East
• Eastasia -- Japan, Korea, China and northern India.

The three states are in a perpetual state of warfare -- sometimes two against one, sometimes all three against each other. These wars are fought in the disputed territories, running from North Africa over the Middle East and southern India to Southeast Asia. Orwell's gift of prescience is spooky, isn't it?

There's not much "super" to Orwell's super-states except their size. All three are totalitarian dictatorships.

Oceania's ideology is Ingsoc -- English Socialism, of the kind now being espoused by "socialist democrats" like Bernie Sanders and the latest political rock star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Eurasia's state creed is Neo-Bolshevism, not unlike what Russia has today under the Putin régime.
Eastasia's politics and religion are blended into the Obliteration of the Self, something like the Buddhist-inspired fascism you might find (so they say) in today's Myanmar or Thailand.

These ideologies are very similar one to another, but the "proles" -- the common people -- are told the opposite.  "Of course the Russians hate our American values! If you're not against Russia, you must be against America!" Sound familiar?

Orwell suggests that the conflicts between the super-states may not be real at all. It's clear that the media of Oceania are completely one-sided and in the habit of fabricating "facts" -- fake news! A dissident book central to the plot of 1984 suggests the two other powers may actually be a fabrication of the government of Oceania, which would make it the government of the entire world. An alternative theory is that "Airstrip One" (the British Isles) is not an outpost of a greater empire, but the sole territory under the command of Ingsoc, which fabricates eternal global war to keep its people permanently mobilised (check), scrutinized (check) and on rations (and check).

The world as portrayed in 1984 is purely fictional of course. The book was written in 1949. What George Orwell predicted could never happen... could it?

Further reading (by the sheerest coincidence): "The idea of Eurasia is once again the subject of geopolitics", by "Banyan", in The Economist, 19/7/18. "A growing number of strategists argue that the emergence of a cohering Eurasia is the key feature of a new world order that is taking shape.... The emerging order is one that Marco Polo would recognise." George Orwell too.

UPDATE ADDED 22/7/18: Further reading: "Mainstream media deliver most outlandish and hyperbolic reactions to Trump since election night", opinion piece by Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture of the Media Research Center, on Fox News.

Peace on earth ???

It's been a quiet week and Walt has been preoccupied with things he considers important, like the funeral of Jean Béliveau (+RIP) and the price of crude. [I've been saying for a long time that there's an oversupply of crude. Ed.] There wasn't anything else about which I felt moved to write...so I didn't.

I did notice, however, that the committee of ultra-liberals that awards the Nobel Prize for Peace made yet another bunny-brained but ultra-PC decision, giving medallions, half-shares of 8,000,000 kronor (= £690,000 = $1,110,000 in real money) and a year's supply of Rice-a-roni to "child rights activist" Kailash Satyarthi of India and "child education activist" and prominent victim of Islamic extremism Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan.

Miss Yousafzai is a young Muslim woman and Mr. Satyarthi is an older Hindu male. They represent two nations, Pakistan and India, which have hated each other ever since Partition in 1947 and have actually gone to war two or three times within living memory...not counting the sectarian violence which killed millions at the time of Partition itself. Nice balance there. Got a bunch of boxes ticked.

Walt admits to not having heard of Mr. Satyarthi before. Who had? Miss Yousafzai, however, has been an object of adulation down at the pub for years, what with being one of Time's 100 Most Influential People, an honorary citizen of Canada, etc etc and so forth.

Would it be churlish to ask exactly what Miss Yousafzai has done to bring peace on earth? [Yes. Ed.] She has addressed the United Nations and many other august assemblies, received numerous degrees and other honours, shaken the hands of rulers spiritual and temporal. But what has she actually done?

As nearly as I can determine, her sole "accomplishment" so far in life was to be shot in the head -- by a fellow Muslim -- and live to talk about it. And talk and talk and talk.

Never let it be said, though, that the lack of any concrete achievement should disqualify her or anyone from consideration by the Nobel Prize committee. Why, only five years ago, the Peace Prize was awarded to one Barack Hussein Obama, who up to that point had done nothing more than get himself elected President of the Paranoid States of America.

The Prez accepted the prize in Oslo on 10 December 2009. In his acceptance speech, Mr. Obama said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the award. He stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in. Cries of "Amen!" may well have been edited out of the video.

And what has the 2009 laureate done since for the cause of world peace? Unlike Malala, he didn't get shot by a fellow-Muslim. He did declare an end to the American occupation of Iraq, which finally took effect earlier this year. But then he reversed himself and ordered the beginning of yet another invasion and occupation, under way as we speak. Is the committee going to ask him to give his Peace Prize back? Errr, not likely. (Lifetime pct .964.)

World peace remains an elusive goal. But Walt's for it! Peace on earth, I say! And if you don't believe in peace on earth, then peace on you!

Does Mr. Liu know about this?

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other freedoms are guaranteed in the constitution of the People's Republic of China, whose 61st anniversary was celebrated (by some) a week ago. As with many things in China, what you get is the opposite of what you see. Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion, is a joke, and a cruel one at that.

One man who dared to invoke his constitutional right to speak out is Liu Xiaobo.
In December 2008, Mr. Liu and other intellectuals, published Charter 08, a lengthy manifesto that called on China's Communist Party to uphold individual rights and relinquish its monopoly on power.

Modeled on Charter 77, the manifesto drafted by Czechoslovakian rights advocates three decades earlier, Charter 08 eventually garnered some 10,000 signatures before government censors pulled it from the Internet. All mention of it is now fobidden in China and it has disappeared into a 1984-like "memory hole".

But Charter 08 and its creator have not been forgotten in the West. Mr. Liu has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of “his long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.”

One wonders if Mr. Liu knows about the honour which has been bestowed on him. That’s because he also has been consigned to the "memory hole". Now he spends most of the day in a prison cell he shares with five others in the obscure city of Jinzhou, 300 miles from Beijing.

Why is Mr. Liu there? Because the Communist Chinese government, last December 25th, gave him a little Christmas present -- an 11-year sentence for “inciting subversion of state power”. So much for freedom of speech in China.

Here, courtesy of Agent 3, who lived and worked there for three years, are the five rules for survival in China.
1. Don't think.
2. If you think, don't speak.
3. If you think and speak, don't write.
4. If you think, speak and write, don't sign your name.
5. If you think, speak, write and sign your name...don't be surprised!

If only Mr. Liu had known! Walt joins Agents 3, 78 and 88 in congratulating him. A file-bearing cake will be sent as soon as we can figure out which guards to bribe.

Footnote: Click here to read "Nobel Peace Prize Given to Jailed Chinese Dissident", from today's New York Times.

Say what? Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize? Really?!

For some reason, Scandinavians tend to be negrophiles or blackophiles or Africophiles or whatever the p.c. term would be these days. Agent 1 says that in his half-dozen years in Zimbabwe, he saw countless examples of the Swedes, Norwegians and Danes throwing praise and money at the Africans, to aid and encourage the "noble savages". (OK, they didn't use that phrase, but it sums up their attitude.)

The latest recipient of Scandinavian largesse is U.S. president Barack Obama, who quite unaccountably has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It is reported that the Nobel Committee's decision is "designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism".

Maybe I'm getting old, but I can remember when prizes were awarded when you actually did something. Like winning a race, for example. They didn't hand out the medals at the beginning of the competition, but at the end, when the result was known.

So how does Obama qualify for a prize. By its own account, the Nobel Committee recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Obama has done is make some motherhood-and-apple-pie pronouncements. He has not one solid accomplishment to his credit. But what the hell. Let their be prizes for all men (people, surely? ed.) of good will and good intentions. And let's give out the Olympic medals on opening day, to save all the fuss and expense of the games.