Log in

No account? Create an account
No offense, but fuck Iain Banks - Tim Lieder [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tim Lieder

[ website | Dybbuk Press ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

No offense, but fuck Iain Banks [Apr. 27th, 2013|10:13 pm]
Tim Lieder
Yes. Iain Banks has cancer. He is not expected to live out the year. By 2014, he will no more write his books and his life will be over. I am not even sure I read his books. I think I had a few copies once but I still don't remember them.

Anyhow, the day after he announced he had cancer, he decided to write "Why I support the boycott of Israel" and this boycott is because of the flotilla in which a group of hippies decided to sneak supplies (that could have been food and could have been weapons) into Gaza and were stopped by Israeli soldiers. Instead of figuring that the gig was up, they put up a fight and some got killed. Because that's what happens when hippies try to fight soldiers. And of course, Libyans were being murdered by their government and Syria was just seeing its chickens coming home to roost. And Turkey was openly giving sanctuary to Tariq al-Hashimi who was accused of running Sunni death squads in Iraq but fled before he could stand trial.

But yeah, Gaza is the real point of contention in the Middle East. After all, if only Israel opened up the Gaza borders and let everyone get everything they wanted without that blockade, they totally would stop launching the rockets made from parts that they are smuggling in.

So that's Iain Banks, a man who has used his cancer to write a clueless and anti-Semitic article about Israel. And of course, he will swear up and down that he isn't anti-Semitic since not ALL JEWS support Israel and some of his best friends are Jewish and they totally agree with him. And while we're at it, what's with this civil rights. Of course, Banks is the kind of anti-Semite that will swear up and down that he's not an anti-Semite because his Goy Privilege will not allow him to examine his own prejudices and assumptions.

He assumes that only Jews are affected by the boycott as opposed to all citizens of Israel - Arab and Jewish. He assumes that his boycott support is going to help Palestinians. He assumes that the plight of the Palestinians is the same as the plight of the Jews in WWII or the plight of the Indians during British Imperialism. In fact, he sees Israel as the last vestige of British Imperialism but putting Zionism squarely in 1948 without the 60 years of settlers coming to Israel - particularly before WWI when the Zionist dream was a state within the Ottoman Empire - akin to the Kurdish state in Northern Iraq - which was still beholden to the power structure but had a particular independence. I suppose you could also compare the original Zionist conception of a Jewish state to New York City - but a little more independent from the U.S.A.

So Iain Banks can attack Israel because really he is assuming that he is attacking the lest vestige of British Imperialism. He buys into that Aldous Huxley belief that Jews aren't political and all that they learned of politics, they learned from gentiles. So instead of Israel being the culmination of both centuries of diaspora and decades of radical politics (seriously how the fuck do kibbutzes still function for decades when American communes have a shelf life of 6 months on average and 3 years max?), it is really just that country that Europeans GAVE TO THE JEWS - out of the goodness of their heart and the lingering guilt over allowing a third of all the world's Jewry get murdered.

And the poor stupid Jews just don't know how to run their own country. They are simply too brainwashed by imperialism (something that British people have happily rid themselves of just as they have rid themselves of religion and sobriety) to fully function. So as a British writer and a clueless lefty (who only stopped driving his sports cars when he got in an accident - so that means that he's also against Saudi Arabia, right?) he can slam on a country that he knows nothing about save that it is the country that his country gave to the Jews, first by destroying the Ottoman Empire and then by a mandate and then by feeling guilty over not killing all of the Jews in WWII.

Forget about the Zionists being in Israel from the 1880s. Forget about two different mandates promising the same patch of land to two different peoples. Forget about the rioting in the 1930s and the pogroms that the British governors enthusiastically supported. And hell, let's just remember Irgun bombing the fuck out of the British who weren't eager to let Israel go and were quite adamant about not letting more Jewish refugees into Israel before, during or after WWII.

And of course, Chamberlain got us all into WWII by assuming that a man whose stated goal was Kill All the Jews was just joking and only wanted a little bit of Czechoslovakia.

No. Let's just forget all that. Let's forget every other country in the world and focus all of our energies on Israel because as they say "isn't ironic that Israel - made up of Jews who have been fucked over by the Europeans and many others - is actually defending itself and not allowing its citizens to get murdered without a fight?" Oh wait - that's what they MEAN. What they say is some bullshit comparing Israel to the Nazis because the goyim only like Jews when they are Anne Frank. Hell, they would more than willingly defend Anne Frank against Justin Bieber but a living Jew who actually wants to defend himself against a terrorist? Get the fuck out of town.

So Iain Banks has cancer. I think that the best outcome is that Israel - which is at the forefront of Cancer research - will come up with a cancer treatment that will arrest his cancer cells indefinitely. Only he would have to go to Israel to get that treatment. Then he's either a hypocrite or dead.

Of course, the fact that the man used his cancer diagnosis as a platform to write another horrible little article about how he is against Israel for being the misbehaving little nation of Jews - and not the good leftwing Jews that agree with him - but independent Jews who defend themselves and take security measures seriously, makes me hope for death.

Oh hell, maybe the IRA can send him a mail bomb first - not to kill him - just so that he spends his last few months in even more pain. And less fingers.

Too harsh? Maybe.

[User Picture]From: uvula_fr_b4
2013-04-28 03:35 am (UTC)
>>He buys into that Aldous Huxley belief that Jews aren't political and all that they learned of politics, they learned from gentiles.

Um. Isn't the Old Testament pretty much nothing but politics gone bad? Especially factoring in Clausewitz's dictum that "war is just politics carried out by other means"?

Pretty dumb of ol' Aldous saying/writing that. Then again, anti-Semitism was pretty much enshrined in his set in Merrie Olde.

Iain M. Banks wrote the Culture sci-fi series, beginning with Consider Phlebas (1987); it's supposed to be a post-modern space opera done right, and sounds interesting to me, but I haven't read any of it yet. Feersum Endjinn is a non-Culture sci-fi book of his that sounds a bit like a mash-up of Russell Hoban's Ridley Walker and a cyberpunk story; it sounds like it might be good, but it also sounds like it could be very, very bad.

Not as familiar with the "literary" books he published without his m.i.

Not sure how viable it is to read the work only of authors whose views you mostly agree with; at minimum, you're looking at never reading, say, Eliot, Wells, Waugh, Woodhouse, and (if Frances Yates is correct, which I don't believe she is) Marlowe, as far as excluding anti-Semitic authors, off the top of my head. (Some would also kibosh Anthony Trollope, but I don't think that he actually was anti-Semitic; anti-Baptist, and, by extrapolation, anti-Southern Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc., well, that's a different story. Oh, and anti-feminist; but see also Henry Miller, Robert Bly, Norman Mailer, etc.)

My biggest experience with not reading someone with whom I disagreed politically was my personal boycott of John le Carré because of the feud that he had with Christopher Hitchens over the fatwah on Salman Rushdie, but, surprise! I really like his stuff. All I did was cheat myself out of several hours of enjoyable reading all those years.

Then too, one needn't necessarily exclude authors from one's reading list because of their politics; usually their lack of actual writing ability is quite sufficient. Tom Clancy, Henry Miller, I'm looking at you. (Reserving judgment on Mailer; I've only read Tough Guys Don't Dance, and I don't remember much about it, except being unimpressed and having absolutely no desire to see the movie based on it that Mailer directed, even if Isabella Rossellini is the female lead.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: marlowe1
2013-04-28 05:58 am (UTC)
I really can't remember if I have ever read his books. I am totally drawing a blank on them.

But I totally agree with you on authors and artists. I have even reversed to Christian trope of "love the sinner, hate the sin" for artists since a lot of it is "love the art, hate the artist."

For me, the major source of consternation is Roman Polanski, because his movies are SO GOOD but he is such a terrible human being. Oh sure, there are some duds along the way, but for the post part I always enjoy the movies that he makes.

Other examples are Cat Stevens (if he only wrote that creepy "Wild World" song I would be ok in just hating everything about him, but he wrote the Harold & Maude soundtrack), Allen Ginsberg (Mr. NAMBLA) and pretty much most writers before 1920.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: uvula_fr_b4
2013-04-28 03:40 pm (UTC)
I've been using Shelley's "Trust in the art, not in the artist" as a guiding principle. But, yeah, same diff.

Mmm, for me, Polanski is about half genius, half hack. Very frustrating, and probably a good example of why Gore Vidal was right to mock the auteur theory that seems to have been the guiding light in film criticism ever since the Cahiers du Cinéma crowd propounded it.

Knife in the Water? liked it when I saw it, but it was so long ago, I should probably see it again to see if I still like it.

Repulsion? vastly overrated and dull, and absolutely no surprises whatsoever.

The Fearless Vampire Killers, or Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are in My Neck? an OK goof, especially the Jewish vampire bit -- try making a Magen David with your fingers, kids! -- but dull, and not worth seeing twice.

Rosemary's Baby? actually pretty good once you're able to see it whole and not all chopped up for broadcast on network TV.

Macbeth? OK, one of the better filmed versions of Shakespeare's plays, and certainly more faithful and coherent than Orson Welles'; but I still prefer Jeannette Nolan's vigorous and unapologetic Lady Macbeth to Francesca Annis' simpering dishrag, "mouse that roared" Lady Macbeth. (Plus there was the fun of Welles' goofy costumes as Macbeth: Mongol chieftain, Statue of Liberty crown, WTF..?)

Chinatown? one of my all-time favorite movies, ever. Robert Towne didn't like Polanski's ending? Robert Towne can suck it.

The Tenant? see Repulsion.

Pirates? why, why, was this train wreck even made?

Frantic? a horrible, and horribly dull, "thriller," even if Peter Gethers (author of the Norton Trilogy, about his Scottish Fold kitty named Norton, who accompanied him everywhere and seems to have been better received than Gethers himself was, with Lauren Bacall and Harrison Ford, star of Frantic, being the notable exceptions) was one of the script doctors.

Bitter Moon? I can't unentangle my memories of this clunker from Paul Schrader's The Comfort of Strangers, but wev: both were duller than ditch-water.

The Pianist? certainly a better filmed dramatization of the Holocaust than Schindler's List, but probably not a movie I'm going to watch again more than once.

Haven't seen the rest of his work, although I should rent The Ghost Writer and maybe Cul-de-Sac. Netflix seems to have dropped The Ninth Gate from rotation, even though it's sometimes shown on "This TV," the crappy digital movie channel available for free in some areas. Can't say I'm losing sleep over not being able to see it in its entirety.

Cat Stevens also wrote and illustrated the kiddie book Teaser and the Firecat, which my wee bairn liked when he was small, though not as much as the trilogy of books about a book-loving kitty named Zoom (Zoom at Sea, Zoom Away and Zoom Upstream), written by Tim Wynne-Jones and illustrated by Eric Beddows. May have to scrounge up copies of those books -- strictly for future grandkids, of course. *Ahem*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)