At The Financial Times: Mr. Janan Ganesh on James Bond and the anti-surveillance campaigners, a comment by Political Skeptic

It is perfectly appropriate that Mr. Ganesh should frame his comments on the ‘failed civil libertarians’ with reference to the latest Bond film.  Ian Fleming’s books were adapted to the screen using all the craft that the motion picture industry is capable : lush settings, alluring yet dangerous women, the crafty implacable agents of a terrifying secret organization, and British Übermensch James Bond in the lead, a proper misogynist in the mold of Mr. Fleming himself. All of it garnished by the latest in gadgets and utterly unattainable automobiles, appealing to the adolescent that is just below the surface of the  Male, in the age of the internet.

Mr. Ganesh elides from his attack on those benighted ‘Civil Libertarians’ the collective historical watershed of the Cold War, The Clash of  Civilizations and the War on Terror: this collection adds up to suspicion raised to the tenth power.  All this is not mentioned in Mr. Ganesh’s exercise in scorn, which has its it’s place in the armamentarium of the polemicist, yet in the political pundit looks, not just out of place, but appears as the absence of historical thought. Since the end of World War II fear of an unseen enemy has  replaced a politics based on rational evaluation of risk. Publications like The Financial Times and others have used and thoroughly abused this fear mongering to rationalize a host of  anti-democratic policies. Mr. Ganesh ignores that benighted history and replaces historical analysis and consideration with the trivializing word otiose, meaning serving no practical purpose or result. Mr. Ganesh defends the British National Security State with a variety of political thought, that takes its cue from the very Bond film he subjects to his wan analysis.

Political Skeptic

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.