My favorite is “Time's Arrow,” in which he writes:
“They're always looking forward to going places they're just coming back from, or regretting doing things they haven't yet done. They say hello when they mean goodbye.”
Hello, Martin. Thank you for taking us so many magnificent places.
"rabid"? There's actually precious little evidence that smoking does much harm at all - and is just carrying the can for the harm done by vaccines deliberately killing us - but why even include your opinion? Especially when it's unnecessarily condemnatory.
A friend of mine was good friends with both of them. Once Hitchens stayed with her and she same into the bathroom to give him a towel while he was showering. His hand hung outside the shower curtain, holding a cigarette. THAT is a smoker! (No judgement.)
Now that is hilarious, and knowing many from that generation they would definitely get a kick out your saying that, if they were still alive.
Your comment made me rethink the way I read Judith's comment, and maybe she wasn't necessarily being judgmental of him either and more matter of fact, it just seemed and odd statement to make.
Not so, I'm afraid, and not as obvious as it might at first appear. Either Nixon had prophetic foresight with his "War on Cancer" or he knew that there would be a huge rise in cancers thanks to the Polio Vaccine. Virtually no correlation remains between lung cancer and smoking with cases going upwards and the number of smokers falling - like by more than half. There is a fabulous correlation between cancer and the rise in use of HFCS as a sweetener, so sugars definitely bring it on (and in the USA that's an astonishing half a pound of sugar pp per day! Cancers from so-called secondary smoking continue to rise, inexorably, since the banning of smoking in pubs, offices and in public. If this were being run scientifically then those bans would be reversed for the health of nations. But the most likely candidate for the inception of all these cancers is the vaccine programme, which has now reached absurd levels and has no statistical support for its efficacy. In fact, quite the opposite if you follow Dr Ben Tapper. More than half of Western adults are now carrying some sort of chronic condition; all of which is delightful for the money counters in Big Pharma. Post the Covid death jab we are seeing a rise in "Turbo Cancers" and thousands of stories of previous cancer patients coming out of remission, which does a good job of pinning down the causality.
I'm sorry to say this but your doctor does not have your best interests at heart (unless you run a Mercedes dealership) and he'll quite happily kill you for money - they do it every day and have just had a lovely bloodbath, with its attendant bonanza of government money. Back in the 1930s and 40s lung cancer was so rare that institutions would bid against each other to get a specimen set of lungs for their research and for their students. While people were smoking plenty back then - and often untipped cigarettes and roll-ups, which you would think were worse for you - but cancer doesn't really get into its stride until the '70s. Like autism today, its explosion went unremarked upon aside from warnings against smoking, which carried the can for what was basically genocidal poisoning by the medical profession. Killing you is good government policy, helping as it does with tax revenue and reducing unfunded budgets like pensions and social security, which take up the lion's share of government spending. The reality is that no government is going to turn down a proven means of killing it populace, especially if it can place the blame for the misfortune on the victims.
I'm not suggesting that smoking is good for you - certainly not with the chemical concoctions that pass for tobacco these days - but it's likely that pure tobacco is pretty harmless. It also has a number of well-known benefits such as protecting against respiratory infection; you rarely see a smoker with a cold However superficially obvious the link between smoking and lung cancer, and no matter how often it is repeated by medical "professionals" the fact of the matter is that it has always been a convenient excuse and tobacco just a convenient scapegoat.
Incidentally, the principal cause of death from cancer is the treatment itself. In fact I would put this as Exhibit A in my case that doctors are happy to kill for money. I hope this helps.
depends upon how you view smoking: enjoyment vs addiction. he'd had his teeth fixed when he got to america and was soundly criticized by his countrymen via the media. they felt he'd abandoned his homeland for a good pair of white fake teeth. i have no judgement about his smoking. i just know throat cancer is typically the outcome.
I'm all about freedom of choice and personal responsibility. He made the choice and accepted the responsibility for it. Thus it matters not what anyone else thinks/thought about it.
Judith, after reading Celia's comment it made me look at your statement again in that maybe it was only meant matter-of-factly, but just seemed and odd statement. I still stand by my statement, and I gave up cigarettes at an early age back in 1979.
I see by your response to my first comment, it wasn't matter-of-factly and judgementally on your part, which shows where you stand on personal freedoms.
If our species can escape the cognitive dysfunction imposed via political-religious gridlock, we may invent some form of evolution based model of government. As of now it seems that we are encumbered with having only three choices: capital dominance, autocratic socialist systems, or the communist state. Evolution is the only form of revolution worth pursuing at this stage...Perhaps we may embrace Christ Consciousness and transform all forms of limited progress and break free of the evolutionary grid lock. May our libraries and bookstores remain well stocked and free of censorship. Thanks for bringing Amis to our attention.
"I think the world sort of divides up into those who like revolutions and those who don’t."
That's a great line.
I know there is a general condemnation of optimism, but I don't care about the brain police and here is a little optimistic thought: the world is divided between those who know that Stalin was evil and those who don't.
Notice: the first group is composed of individuals who hate revolutions and individuals who love revolutions.
In the second group we see all sorts of characters: demoralizing trolls, and those who are angry at life, and people who hate God, and people who hate people who love God, people who love to be always right, people who make great efforts to never learn, people believe everything they are told as long as it confirms their worldview, people who say yes to anything and don't have a worldview, people who thought they were more shrewd than communists and they were immune to their lies and manipulations, people who study history with the purpose of using their own interpretation of it as political tactics in the present.
Stalin had a huge target audience everywhere, even after he died.
So well said, Cosmos. I tried to say something slightly similar but it didn't come out as well. Those who love revolutions will always love cruelty, IMHO, and manipulating others, and have an authoritarian streak. I was sucked into that mindset for awhile, so I understand it well.
I don't get my friends who worship Stalin, and revere communism, but also are battling the trans agenda, CRT, and all of the communistic programs... it's baffling to me.
If I remember correctly, Marx and Engels were extremely homophobic and racist by today's standards, and also very authoritarian.
Your friends must be very old school commies, worshipers of an idol of the mind. That's the vortex of helplessness, IMHO.
The truth is that Communism was a reaction to the original liberalism, which was with many errors from the beginning, and liberalism was the only philosophy that advocated for slaves and what today we call transsexuals. Of course, the classical liberals did not advocate sexual abuse or genital mutilation or any other evil acts of today.
An even worse group of troublemakers was the right-Hegelians, who opposed both liberalism and communism, and really everything else.
I'm learning a LOT about all of this listening to James Lindsay's podcasts and watching his videos. Yes, my friends are hopelessly addicted to the idea that socialism utopia is attainable and when it has been tried it was noble, even if millions of people perished.
It amazes me that that there are people that, as you say are hopelessly addicted to the idea of socialist utopia by this time in human history. They either have not read and understand enough history or they are just stupid. I have some compassion for these people because they either have not had the opportunity to find out the error in their thinking or they are simply trying to survive in a situation they don't believe they can exit. either way, they are a danger we must take into account. None of us is immune to the evil in this world.
I might have to go back & re-read London Fields. It is the only one of his I read. I do believe I read a few of his articles. RIP. Sounds like an amazing person, resisted the mainstream hoopla, and wrote what he wanted. It's uncanny that last quote: I was just talking with a friend yesterday about revolution. I said, I no longer want nor need them. All they do is end up killing people, and nothing is gained. But yet this is what the hard left want constantly - one might conclude they love chaos, death, drama, etc. I don't, nor do most people. We want a peaceful life.
The quote is rather myopic, in my opinion. My parents lived through a revolution in Hungary back in 1956; it wasn't because they loved it...rather, it was because it was necessary (although not for the reasons you've been led to believe in the U.S.).
I think the point is that they are a last resort, not something to romanticize and want for no reason 24/7 (which the far left does). I could be wrong.
I don't remember when I first learned of John F. Kennedy's quote, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
My political activism began in the mid-1990's and thought the pen was mightier than the sword. With more than 30 years with the pen I have yet to see its might. Certainly the Main Stream Media-Censorship Industrial Complex have proven its might. So what's left?
I live in Oregon and I can tell you this, Stalin is smiling, clapping his hands at the Democratically controlled legislature. Oh is he clapping.
world health ogres of destruction to mankind --- who is not a law they are lawless murderes who doe not abide by our laws who is wanted to cease and desist who does not control any peoples governments do not control WE THE PEOPLE - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
more probing [sic] insights, by CHUCK PALAHNIUK, ' Ephemera: Martin Amis
RIP So there it is. Martin Amis has died.
Recently Monica Drake quoted Amis as saying that the older he got the longer it took to wipe his asshole after a shit. Monica took offense and spent the evening saying different versions of, “I don’t want to know about Martin Amis’s asshole.” I didn’t say as much, but I thought it was hilarious. The soul of humor is honesty — to say the thing no one dares to say, and create relief — and yes, it does take longer and longer...' chuckpalahniuk.substack.com/p/ephemera-martin-amis
Funny. Today someone shared a TikTok by Philipp Lenssen, “ChatGPT, describe a world where the power structures are reversed.” And that someone said s/he wants this world. This is gen z programming. Check it: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipplenssen/video/7234922998141127963 and be sure to read the comments. (I don’t have TikTok installed but you can view in a browser.) So naive. Too scary.
The best definition of Communism is one I recently read in the wonderful publication "Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity" and came from the executive editor J. Douglas Johnson, "Communism is the belief that man can set the world right". That is it in a nutshell!!
This is a bit of a bolt from the blue. I kinda never expected him to die. That's quite the end of an era; he sort of personified his area of literature. I think his best book was his first, The Rachel Papers, which was at least hilariously funny. Downhill from there, I'm sorry to say, though most of my contemporaries would disagree.
😿💔 I hope he wasn't another vaxxicide.
My favorite is “Time's Arrow,” in which he writes:
“They're always looking forward to going places they're just coming back from, or regretting doing things they haven't yet done. They say hello when they mean goodbye.”
Hello, Martin. Thank you for taking us so many magnificent places.
he was a lifelong rabid smoker
"rabid"? There's actually precious little evidence that smoking does much harm at all - and is just carrying the can for the harm done by vaccines deliberately killing us - but why even include your opinion? Especially when it's unnecessarily condemnatory.
A friend of mine was good friends with both of them. Once Hitchens stayed with her and she same into the bathroom to give him a towel while he was showering. His hand hung outside the shower curtain, holding a cigarette. THAT is a smoker! (No judgement.)
Now that is hilarious, and knowing many from that generation they would definitely get a kick out your saying that, if they were still alive.
Your comment made me rethink the way I read Judith's comment, and maybe she wasn't necessarily being judgmental of him either and more matter of fact, it just seemed and odd statement to make.
well if you know anything about the tobacco company then you know what smoking did to millions of people. killed them. not an opinion.
Not so, I'm afraid, and not as obvious as it might at first appear. Either Nixon had prophetic foresight with his "War on Cancer" or he knew that there would be a huge rise in cancers thanks to the Polio Vaccine. Virtually no correlation remains between lung cancer and smoking with cases going upwards and the number of smokers falling - like by more than half. There is a fabulous correlation between cancer and the rise in use of HFCS as a sweetener, so sugars definitely bring it on (and in the USA that's an astonishing half a pound of sugar pp per day! Cancers from so-called secondary smoking continue to rise, inexorably, since the banning of smoking in pubs, offices and in public. If this were being run scientifically then those bans would be reversed for the health of nations. But the most likely candidate for the inception of all these cancers is the vaccine programme, which has now reached absurd levels and has no statistical support for its efficacy. In fact, quite the opposite if you follow Dr Ben Tapper. More than half of Western adults are now carrying some sort of chronic condition; all of which is delightful for the money counters in Big Pharma. Post the Covid death jab we are seeing a rise in "Turbo Cancers" and thousands of stories of previous cancer patients coming out of remission, which does a good job of pinning down the causality.
I'm sorry to say this but your doctor does not have your best interests at heart (unless you run a Mercedes dealership) and he'll quite happily kill you for money - they do it every day and have just had a lovely bloodbath, with its attendant bonanza of government money. Back in the 1930s and 40s lung cancer was so rare that institutions would bid against each other to get a specimen set of lungs for their research and for their students. While people were smoking plenty back then - and often untipped cigarettes and roll-ups, which you would think were worse for you - but cancer doesn't really get into its stride until the '70s. Like autism today, its explosion went unremarked upon aside from warnings against smoking, which carried the can for what was basically genocidal poisoning by the medical profession. Killing you is good government policy, helping as it does with tax revenue and reducing unfunded budgets like pensions and social security, which take up the lion's share of government spending. The reality is that no government is going to turn down a proven means of killing it populace, especially if it can place the blame for the misfortune on the victims.
I'm not suggesting that smoking is good for you - certainly not with the chemical concoctions that pass for tobacco these days - but it's likely that pure tobacco is pretty harmless. It also has a number of well-known benefits such as protecting against respiratory infection; you rarely see a smoker with a cold However superficially obvious the link between smoking and lung cancer, and no matter how often it is repeated by medical "professionals" the fact of the matter is that it has always been a convenient excuse and tobacco just a convenient scapegoat.
Incidentally, the principal cause of death from cancer is the treatment itself. In fact I would put this as Exhibit A in my case that doctors are happy to kill for money. I hope this helps.
Good for him if he so enjoyed it!
depends upon how you view smoking: enjoyment vs addiction. he'd had his teeth fixed when he got to america and was soundly criticized by his countrymen via the media. they felt he'd abandoned his homeland for a good pair of white fake teeth. i have no judgement about his smoking. i just know throat cancer is typically the outcome.
I'm all about freedom of choice and personal responsibility. He made the choice and accepted the responsibility for it. Thus it matters not what anyone else thinks/thought about it.
never smoked a rabbit in my life oops nevermind
Judith, after reading Celia's comment it made me look at your statement again in that maybe it was only meant matter-of-factly, but just seemed and odd statement. I still stand by my statement, and I gave up cigarettes at an early age back in 1979.
I see by your response to my first comment, it wasn't matter-of-factly and judgementally on your part, which shows where you stand on personal freedoms.
Thanks for acknowledging him and bringing his death to our notice.
If our species can escape the cognitive dysfunction imposed via political-religious gridlock, we may invent some form of evolution based model of government. As of now it seems that we are encumbered with having only three choices: capital dominance, autocratic socialist systems, or the communist state. Evolution is the only form of revolution worth pursuing at this stage...Perhaps we may embrace Christ Consciousness and transform all forms of limited progress and break free of the evolutionary grid lock. May our libraries and bookstores remain well stocked and free of censorship. Thanks for bringing Amis to our attention.
Lovely sentiment.
And yet--not always easy to remain realistically optimistic and still avoid the Hopium! :)
I'm just taking one day at a time, and refusing to live in fear.
YAY!!!
"I think the world sort of divides up into those who like revolutions and those who don’t."
That's a great line.
I know there is a general condemnation of optimism, but I don't care about the brain police and here is a little optimistic thought: the world is divided between those who know that Stalin was evil and those who don't.
Notice: the first group is composed of individuals who hate revolutions and individuals who love revolutions.
In the second group we see all sorts of characters: demoralizing trolls, and those who are angry at life, and people who hate God, and people who hate people who love God, people who love to be always right, people who make great efforts to never learn, people believe everything they are told as long as it confirms their worldview, people who say yes to anything and don't have a worldview, people who thought they were more shrewd than communists and they were immune to their lies and manipulations, people who study history with the purpose of using their own interpretation of it as political tactics in the present.
Stalin had a huge target audience everywhere, even after he died.
So well said, Cosmos. I tried to say something slightly similar but it didn't come out as well. Those who love revolutions will always love cruelty, IMHO, and manipulating others, and have an authoritarian streak. I was sucked into that mindset for awhile, so I understand it well.
I don't get my friends who worship Stalin, and revere communism, but also are battling the trans agenda, CRT, and all of the communistic programs... it's baffling to me.
If I remember correctly, Marx and Engels were extremely homophobic and racist by today's standards, and also very authoritarian.
Your friends must be very old school commies, worshipers of an idol of the mind. That's the vortex of helplessness, IMHO.
The truth is that Communism was a reaction to the original liberalism, which was with many errors from the beginning, and liberalism was the only philosophy that advocated for slaves and what today we call transsexuals. Of course, the classical liberals did not advocate sexual abuse or genital mutilation or any other evil acts of today.
An even worse group of troublemakers was the right-Hegelians, who opposed both liberalism and communism, and really everything else.
I'm learning a LOT about all of this listening to James Lindsay's podcasts and watching his videos. Yes, my friends are hopelessly addicted to the idea that socialism utopia is attainable and when it has been tried it was noble, even if millions of people perished.
It amazes me that that there are people that, as you say are hopelessly addicted to the idea of socialist utopia by this time in human history. They either have not read and understand enough history or they are just stupid. I have some compassion for these people because they either have not had the opportunity to find out the error in their thinking or they are simply trying to survive in a situation they don't believe they can exit. either way, they are a danger we must take into account. None of us is immune to the evil in this world.
I might have to go back & re-read London Fields. It is the only one of his I read. I do believe I read a few of his articles. RIP. Sounds like an amazing person, resisted the mainstream hoopla, and wrote what he wanted. It's uncanny that last quote: I was just talking with a friend yesterday about revolution. I said, I no longer want nor need them. All they do is end up killing people, and nothing is gained. But yet this is what the hard left want constantly - one might conclude they love chaos, death, drama, etc. I don't, nor do most people. We want a peaceful life.
The quote is rather myopic, in my opinion. My parents lived through a revolution in Hungary back in 1956; it wasn't because they loved it...rather, it was because it was necessary (although not for the reasons you've been led to believe in the U.S.).
Will you say more about your parents’ experience? I am a blank slate on the 1956 revolution in Hungary.
I also think his point was about WANTING revolution as opposed to having one foisted on you.
I think the point is that they are a last resort, not something to romanticize and want for no reason 24/7 (which the far left does). I could be wrong.
I don't remember when I first learned of John F. Kennedy's quote, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
My political activism began in the mid-1990's and thought the pen was mightier than the sword. With more than 30 years with the pen I have yet to see its might. Certainly the Main Stream Media-Censorship Industrial Complex have proven its might. So what's left?
I live in Oregon and I can tell you this, Stalin is smiling, clapping his hands at the Democratically controlled legislature. Oh is he clapping.
You can bet he's clapping. His vision come to fruition in the west!
Sounds like an interesting man, and worth a read.
world health ogres of destruction to mankind --- who is not a law they are lawless murderes who doe not abide by our laws who is wanted to cease and desist who does not control any peoples governments do not control WE THE PEOPLE - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
more probing [sic] insights, by CHUCK PALAHNIUK, ' Ephemera: Martin Amis
RIP So there it is. Martin Amis has died.
Recently Monica Drake quoted Amis as saying that the older he got the longer it took to wipe his asshole after a shit. Monica took offense and spent the evening saying different versions of, “I don’t want to know about Martin Amis’s asshole.” I didn’t say as much, but I thought it was hilarious. The soul of humor is honesty — to say the thing no one dares to say, and create relief — and yes, it does take longer and longer...' chuckpalahniuk.substack.com/p/ephemera-martin-amis
Funny. Today someone shared a TikTok by Philipp Lenssen, “ChatGPT, describe a world where the power structures are reversed.” And that someone said s/he wants this world. This is gen z programming. Check it: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipplenssen/video/7234922998141127963 and be sure to read the comments. (I don’t have TikTok installed but you can view in a browser.) So naive. Too scary.
Hi Celia - Thanks for this. Looks like I will be buying another book :)
On a different subject I think this testimony needs to be spread around.
Rodney Palmer Testimony – begins at 2:25 – he comments on the ‘ govt funded ‘ CBC
https://rumble.com/v2ogkb8-national-citizens-inquiry-ottawa-day-2.html
The best definition of Communism is one I recently read in the wonderful publication "Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity" and came from the executive editor J. Douglas Johnson, "Communism is the belief that man can set the world right". That is it in a nutshell!!
Interesting statement about utopias and their fascination for the communists.
how true the bad sleep well .... NOT NOW THEY DONT BECAUSE WE ARE WATCHING AND READY FOR HEADS TO ROLL
His book is on the way and is next on my list. Thank you for your recommendation. So sorry to hear of his passing.
As always, thank you so much for your tireless work!
This is a bit of a bolt from the blue. I kinda never expected him to die. That's quite the end of an era; he sort of personified his area of literature. I think his best book was his first, The Rachel Papers, which was at least hilariously funny. Downhill from there, I'm sorry to say, though most of my contemporaries would disagree.