Natalie Solent

Politics, news, libertarianism, Science Fiction, religion, sewing. You got a problem, bud? I like sewing.

E-mail: nataliesolent-at-aol-dot-com (I assume it's OK to quote senders by name.)

Back to main blog

RSS thingy


Jane's Blogosphere: blogtrack for Natalie Solent.



Links

( 'Nother Solent is this blog's good twin. Same words, searchable archives, RSS feed. Provided by a benefactor, to whom thanks.
I also sometimes write for Samizdata and Biased BBC.)


The Old Comrades:



November 2001 December 2001 January 2002 February 2002 March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 August 2007 October 2007 February 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 March 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 October 2009 January 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 April 2011 June 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 May 2012

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Friday, March 11, 2005
 
James Bartholemew says
"It is revealed in several newspapers today that the London School of Economics has been operating a secret quota system to favour the admission of state-educated students. It has been doing this, no doubt, because of the pressure from the government."
(Telegraph and Guardian accounts confirm what he said.)

Secret quotas? In open, progressive, meritocratic Britain? I thought that sort of thing was what the Old Boy network in Britain used to do to keep out grammar school oiks, or the Ivy League in the US used to do to keep out Jews.

In many ways the most interesting part of this story is that the quotas were secret. ("These notes are for guidance only and should not under any circumstances be discussed with any member of the public, including students, parents and schools.") When those who want to assign university places by class in the manner of Mao's China feel confident enough to be open about it, then we should fear.

And the particular segment of "we" that should fear the most is those who are being educated, or whose children are being educated, in poorly performing state schools. Reform is a painful process at the best of times. Why reform when there is an actual incentive to have bad results?

UPDATE: Since writing the part of the post above that implied the secrecy was reassuring, a counter-argument has belatedly occurred to me. The secret nature of the quotas allows the degree to which bad state schools are bad to be hidden for longer.



 
"Teenagers who killed friend with scythes get life," says the Guardian in a headline about a horrifying recent case. Other outlets have used similar words.

Friend?

Find some other way to convey that this was not a case of murder by strangers.

UPDATE: I'm not the only one to notice. I must have missed this when it came out, just as the case was going to trial.



 
"You are surprised by..." ... the fact, discovered via Ace of Spades, that the Israeli Army discriminates against D & D players. Apparently the army shrinks think that D & D players should be given low security clearance as they are "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Ace responds vigorously to this slur:

And as far as "susceptible to influence" -- well, that's why I wear a Talisman of Free Will. Duh.

All the comments say the "detached from reality" video clip is hilarious. Pity I couldn't make it work.

(Via Silflay hraka.)



Thursday, March 10, 2005
 
Reality TV. The Times reports on the Iraqi TV show that consists of confessions from insurgents.

I figure it must be effective:

Insurgents have begun a propaganda counter-offensive, denouncing the tapes as fakes and threatening to impose “God’s justice” on the station’s employees — a threat apparently made real with the killing of Raeda Wazan, an anchor- woman, last month.
Another journalist working for the station, Abdul Hussein al-Basri, was murdered in February, together with his young son. Some accounts put the child's age at three, others say he was six.

Journalists are indeed being deliberately targeted in Iraq.



 
Oddities of human behaviour. In Spain, one year after the Madrid bombs, there is a memorial to the slain that consists of
metal keyboards on which you can type a message of commemoration or solidarity, linked to a scanned image of your hand. Between the two memory machines hang large white cylinders on which people can write whatever they like. "Never again", features several times. "Aznar, Bush and Blair are the assassins."
Actually it was some other people.


Sunday, March 06, 2005
 
Distributed stupidity.


 
My kids could use the TV remote at two and a half. Did I sit next to them while they watched of a morning, explaining all the disturbing bits in Thomas The Tank Engine? Nah. This is real life. I had romper suits to wash, sheets to change and all the other exciting details of housewifery. I popped in and out, as you do. Let'em choose themselves between Bear in the Big Blue House and Thomas. There's even more choice nowadays. Tweenies, Razzledazzle, or a man sticking a needle into his groin.



Saturday, March 05, 2005
 
"Pass the exam and you are free to go," says the Adam Smith blog to fourteen year olds. Theoretical fourteen year olds of a theoretical future when we have stopped imprisoning people until they are eighteen.

Typical ASI proposal. I object on principle: 14 year olds should be free to go without passing any test. But politically, this might be a winner. Like council house sales or a flat tax it's the sort of thing that can weasel its way through cracks in the the statist walls.

Bizarro mondo: Year Ten classes where the un-academic pupils said to the ones who were headed to university, "Stop mucking about, willya? Can't you see I'm trying to work?" Imagine.



Friday, March 04, 2005
 
On a much more serious note Photon Courier also links to an essay by Lee Harris about the 'peculiar institution' of Palestinian terrorism. Harris is a lot softer on the Stern Gang and the Algerian terrorists than I would be, but it's a valuable essay.

Southern slaverowners and Palestinian terrorists both wowed the foreign girls with their brooding, tragic, sexy, dangerous, gun-totin' ways.



 
Lapine Wisdom Part I. I found A Constrained Vision via Photon Courier (and via the fact the blog title is a Thomas Sowell quote). It's full of erudite posts. But I am going to link to the really important one about making sure the first words you say every month are "rabbit rabbit."

That makes at least three people over two continents who know the secret. We used to say it at school in South London. Used to. I hadn't thought of it for decades. Now I know why I'm not rich.

However, please be warned that "tibbar tibbar" last thing in the month is rank superstition.



Thursday, March 03, 2005
 
Laban Tall has once more collected together several accounts of postal vote fraud. (The drawing together of stories from different newspapers to demonstrate that individual instances are part of a trend is a valuable public service that blogs are well placed to perform. Jim Miller has been doing something on the same lines in the US.)

Ironic, isn't it? Histories of the Labour movement used to proudly refer back to the Chartists and their struggle for the secret ballot. Now the Labour party are returning us to the days of the master of the house decreeing the way his household will vote. A Labour government now thinks it is too late to protect the general election from voting fraud. Too late? How can it be "too late" for a government to protect the integrity of the process to which they owe their legitimacy? If a man is convicted by a jury that is latter found to have been bribed or intimidated do we say, oh, too late now, he's already in prison?



 
The European Commission, anxious to lead the field in every category of human excellence, has defined Chutzpah.


 
Squander Two is having hosting problems. Normally resident here, he is temporarily to be found at http://squandertwo.blogspot.com.

Oh, and he's looking for cheap web hosts whose parents were legally married.



Wednesday, March 02, 2005
 
The law on "charity" collections - and on non charity-collections. Stewart writes:
Many years in Local Authority "Enforcement" have led me to the conclusion that people just make assumptions about what the legislation they enforce actually says.

House to house collections have to be licensed because charity collections have to be licensed because the "law says so".

Assuming that the legislation on this web site is up to date, then as Lunetex are NOT purporting to collect for charitable purposes but for private profit they seem to fall outwith the licensing provisions of the Act. (See the preamble to the Act, Section 1 and the definition of "charitable purposes" in section 6).

South Cambridgeshire actually state: "LUNETEX are collecting in Sawston Village Tomorrow (Thursday) - This company are a commercial organisation, not a charity, and they alone profit from any monies made from the sale of goods they collect" so why do they think the collection is "illegal"?

Good question. In fact, if ever this provision should become widely known, it might become commonplace for organisations that were actually charities to pretend to be profit-making. If they could get over the anti-profit prejudice, that is.

I do not want to give the impression that I am a believer in "charity bad, profit good." I believe it is blessed to give - but that does not make it cursed to make a profit. Nor does it mean that the giver should turn off his or her brain: there are situations where a profit relationship has greater long term stability and equality of status than a charity relationship. (Few people would want to go to work every day just for love of their employers, for instance.) It's beyond my knowlege to say whether getting old clothes to the Third World for re-use is one of those situations, but then again I don't have to know. Let those who wish try both approaches.

The advantages of a charity over a commercial organisation for sheer, concentrated doing-of-good are well known. But sometimes it might go the other way. It could be that for-profit clothes re-sellers might concentrate more on what their customers want rather than what is deemed to be good for them by people far away. They also might disrupt local clothes merchants less.

Stewart makes another good point about how many who enforce the law have a cavalier attitude to what the law actually says. Often they seek to enforce a climate of opinion.



 
Would you dare go back to the place where a suicide bomber killed a hundred-plus people the other day and demonstrate against terrorism? They would.

(Via Instapundit.)



Tuesday, March 01, 2005
 
Technology, the avenger. Here is a thorough rundown on developments in the Ward Churchill affair from David Kopel.

The plagiarism and falsification of sources will get him in the end. The web has made academic crimes much less safe. And it's done so retrospectively. Many a professor who had almost forgotten the part a little manipulation of citations had played in his early career must now wake up with a slight nagging fear every morning.

It's almost as bad for them as it is for the murderers.



 
Profits warning. The other day we had a flyer from an outfit called "Lunetex" through the door asking us to leave out bags of old clothes which they would then pass on to the Third World. Near the bottom of the flyer in not particularly small print it said that -

Oh, it's too awful, too shameful. I can hardly bear to say it. It said that Lunetex was a profit making company rather than a charity.

Thank heavens that there are still decent people around who hold fast to the knowledge that the only permitted relationship between Britain and the Third World is that of donor and mendicant.

People like the South Cambridgeshire District Council who advise us thus:

WARNING - FOR INFORMATION

Dear All,

Please be aware that certain companies appear to be trying to "cash-in" on the recent appeals surrounding the Earthquake and Tsunami disaster with illegal Street and House-to-House Collections.

There are presently no legal collections booked in to cover the South Cambridge District in reference to the above so please be wary when donating clothing or other articles requested - such as the current leaflet from LUNETEX, who are not licensed to collect in this District.

All licensed house-to-house collectors have official identification badges (green in colour) certificates issued by HMSO and a licence issued by the Council. If a collector can not provide you with these they are not licenced.

LUNETEX are collecting in Sawston Village Tomorrow (Thursday) - This company are a commercial organisation, not a charity, and they alone profit from any monies made from the sale of goods they collect.

If you require further information on Charity Collections please contact the licensing Section on 08450 450 063.
Here's another one, from the ever-vigilant guardians of the village of Milton who say:
A company called Lunetex has been putting leaflets through doors around the village collecting clothes etc for "the third world". If you have missed this last time SCDC have put out warnings about this sort of thing. We've seen Olonex come and go, and Merico, and Realmday. Now they seem to be born again (again) as Lunetex.

Please don't give them anything, as their own leaflet makes clear they are not a charity. If you have items you want to give away then the scouts hold regular jumble sales and reputable charities such as the Salvation Army collect in the village fairly regularly. So save it for one of them.
(Please tell your friends and neighbours about this one too.)
Actually, following the links, it seems both warnings come ultimately from the same official, Juli Stallabrass.

Now, in case you are wondering, I am not on the board of Lunetex, Olonex, Merico or Realmday. Never heard of any of 'em before I got the flyer. For all I know they are wicked, wicked people. The repeated changes of name do sound a bit dodgy. There is a hint that they were not always as upfront about their profit-making nature as they are now. However, given that the leaflet I saw was perfectly frank on that issue, I am a little at a loss to see what exactly is supposed to be so bad about what they are doing.

South Cambridgeshire District Council itself runs recycling centres. People are urged to pass their old cardboard and bottles on to the council who will, er, sell them to recycling companies. I thought for a moment that that was the distinction: getting a virtuous glow from giving stuff you don't need away to bodies who will then sell it for profit is OK so long as the body concerned is South Cambridgeshire District Council. I suppose the argument would be that it keeps down the Community Charge - only that can't be it, because the same council also advises businesses on how best to donate stuff directly to recycling companies. Really, all I'm left with as an explanation for why Lunetex should arouse such ire is that they make it slightly less likely that people will give old clothes to charities (so do eBay, car boot sales, and the small ads column of any local paper) or that they dare to make a profit out of semi-charitable recycling without the blessing of a priestly caste - i.e. without a licence from the Licensing Department.



Sunday, February 27, 2005
 
Squishy love.


Friday, February 25, 2005
 
Nigeria's tragedy.
Many observers in Nigeria believe that the roots of the violence across much of the country are not religious or cultural.

They say the conflicts are created and stoked by politicians both at a local and national level who seek to gain advantage from social division.

It is a cynical view, but one that has strong evidence to support it.

One need look no further than means used to distribute the country's vast oil wealth from the federal government in Abuja to the local level.

It all travels down this path in the form of contracts handed out to political favourites.

Contracts for building roads, schools, and hospitals; for supplying electricity, water and medicines.

In fact, almost all economic activity in the country works on this principle - the awarding of contracts. It makes those with access to the source of power rich, and those who do not have power want it all the more.
So writes the BBC's Dan Isaacs in this article. The bold type was added by me.

I wonder whether Mr Isaacs is aware that what he is saying is an argument for free markets and against a large public sector. I really can't tell.

Imagine a different Nigeria in a happier timeline. One where oil wealth never went to the federal government in Abuja in the first place, and hence where capturing power there was not the ticket to riches. Imagine a Nigeria that had been like that since Independence... "Caught off guard by reporters at the 2005 Kano Computer Entertainment Show, where he had addressed the All-Nigeria Software Developers' Association, President Obasanjo admitted that he had considered offering his resignation after the shock revelation that an official in the Finance Ministry had taken a bribe. "Nigeria's reputation for probity is one of our biggest assets," he said.

In a country where the government is in bed with everybody, once the government is infected soon everybody else will be too.



 
An email about Holocaust Memorial Day. Trailing through some of the email I missed earlier in the month I found this:
as-salaamu 'alaykum everyone,

Your UNSPUN Moderators predicted here last week that the pro-Israeli lobby would use their friends in the media to try and pressure British Muslims into attending the annual Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony that was held in London on Thursday 27th January 2005.

The Nazi Holocaust was indeed an enormous crime against humanity. Yet in recent years, their have also been also other genocides and mass killings and systematic 'ethnic cleansing' including in Rwanda, Bosnia and Chechnya – where it still continues. Many of the Jews who survived the Nazi Holocaust later went to the Middle East to dispossess the Palestinians of their land. Should not all this also be remembered? Are the lives of other peoples not to be valued as that of the Jews? Is it not just and correct that the day should rather be called ‘Genocide Memorial Day’ to send a more inclusive message?

The decision of the Muslim Council of Britain to decline the invitation to the Holocaust Memorial Day - as it has consistently done since the inception of HMD in 2001 – was therefore inevitably going to attract immense pressure from the Zionist lobby. It is the last mainstream institution in the country not to have rolled over in the face of the Holocaust industry. This year, even the Monarchy had succumbed and the Queen attended the HMD. If the MCB insisted on renaming the memorial day then maybe next time this might give the same idea to others. So the Zionists were expected to pull out all the stops to break the MCB’s resistance and force it to attend.

And the Zionists would be expected to try and get other British Muslims to attend and thereby undermine the MCB’s position.

Here is a summary of the media’s coverage over the past week:

Sunday Jan 23 2005

The Sunday Times runs a high-profile report on Page 2 by David Leppard headlined ‘Muslims Boycott Holocaust Remembrance’ in which he neglects to mention that this is not the first time the MCB is not going to attend the HMD.

Monday Jan 24 2005

The Daily Express (Proprietor: the Jewish pornographer Richard Desmond) runs a story headlined ‘Muslims in Snub to Auschwitz Ceremony’.

In a lengthy entry in her Online Diary (click here to read it in full) , the Jewish writer Melanie Phillips (also a columnist at the Daily Mail and the Jewish Chronicle) says: “So now we start to see their true colours. The Muslim Council of Britain is getting bolder about expressing the crude anti-Jewish prejudice which it has previously been at such pains to conceal.”

Tuesday Jan 25 2005

The Daily Telegraph’s pugnacious pro-Israeli columnist Mark Steyn criticises the MCB’s stance and warns of the ‘Islamisation of Europe’.

Wednesday Jan 26 2005

Daniel Finkelstein – the Associate Editor of The Times and a columnist at the Jewish Chronicle – writes an opinion piece for The Times called ‘Boycott Is A Disgrace’ in which he blasts the MCB’s decision as ‘extraordinary’ and ‘disgraceful’.

The Guardian – in an editorial piece – describes the MCB’s position on the HMD as ‘unfortunate’.

Reuters – the financial and news information provider – runs a neutral story in which the MCB’s position is portrayed more fairly. Click here to read the story.

Thursday Jan 27 2005 – Holocaust Memorial Day

The Guardian prints a letter from Iqbal Sacranie in which he explains the MCB’s reasoning behind declining the invitation to the HMD. He says: “We must do more than just reflect on the past. We must be able to recognise when similar abuses occur in our own time. Not to acknowledge current and recent genocides would be to undermine the benefits of remembrance, deprecate lessons learnt from the Nazi Holocaust and call into question our commitment to prevent current and future inhumanity.” Click here to read the full letter.

The Totally Jewish website runs an item called ‘MCB Boycott’ in which they quote the Home Office as criticising the MCB’s stance saying: “We regret that MCB remains unwilling to support HMD. It is a shame if any group does not feel that they are able to be involved in HMD.” It also reveals that “Gul Mohammad, the general secretary of the British Muslim Forum, representing some 600 mosques” will be attending the Holocaust Memorial Day.

Your UNSPUN moderators have tried to find out more about Gul Mohammad and the so-called British Muslim Forum. Its website www.britishmuslimforum.org is suspiciously threadbare for a body which claims to represent 600 mosques and we understand that it was set up with the help of Maqsood Ahmed – an official in the Home Office. It appears that as the Govt cannot make the MCB do its bidding, it wants to create other organisations that will.

So, which British Muslims attended the HMD? Your UNSPUN Moderators can reveal the Muslims who attended - their names and contact details are as follows:

Imam Abdul Jalil Sajid (Brighton) – Email: x Mobile: x [Email and mobile phone no. deleted by Natalie Solent - much as I might wish to praise the Imam, I imagine he has been inconvenienced enough by unsolicited calls and emails, as the publishers of this message must have known would happen. The same goes for the personal contact details of those listed below.]

Gul Mohammad (British Muslim Forum - Nottingham) – Email: x Mobile: x

Imam Shahid Raza (Leicester) – Email: x

Maqsood Ahmad of Alif-Aleph (Muslim-Jewish interfaith group)

If you decide to contact them please remember to always be polite. Do also send us a copy of your emails at unspun-list@unspun.org.uk.

At UNSPUN we believe that the attendance of these British Muslims at the HMD is nothing less than shameful. Remember that apart from the MCB not attending, not a single Muslim parliamentarian or Muslim Ambassador attended the HMD event either.

Friday Jan 28 2005

The Times in an editorial piece describes the MCB’s decision as ‘reprehensible’ and a story in the paper by the Times’s religion correspondent, Ruth Gledhill, quotes the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks as saying he was ‘saddened’ by the MCB’s position and it also claims – incorrectly as it happens - that Baroness Pola Uddin led the Muslim delegation to the HMD.

Saturday Jan 29 2005

Stephen Pollard – the Jewish columnist and recent biographer of David Blunkett – says in The Times that the MCB equates genocide with “the defence of Israel against terror.”

Well, we at UNSPUN would be very interested in hearing about your thoughts on the matter of the annual Holocaust Memorial Day is an annual event. Is the MCB right to insist on a more inclusive title of ‘Genocide Memorial Day’? Do you think many of the affiliates of the MCB would have disaffiliated from it if the MCB had decided to attend? We want to hear from you and print your replies in an UNSPUN alert so let us know if you want to remain anonymous. Send your responses to unspun-list@unspun.org.uk .

We are also emailing this alert to the Muslims who attended the HMD in case they also want to respond to us.

salaams,

Moderators,

UNSPUN

"Unspun" is a mailing list connected with the Muslim Council of Britain. NB: So far as I know it is not connected with the all-but-openly pro-terrorist Jihad Unspun. These people are the moderates.


Wednesday, February 23, 2005
 
"Your skullcap is slipping." Here is a fascinating article by Johann Hari on his own experience of anti-semitism. (He isn't a Jew - but some think he is.) There is much to disagree with in the article and the comments, but read it anyway.


 
Not widely known. Did you know that the Spanish Prime Minister says that if the EU constitution is passed all the British embassies worldwide will be closed, along with those of other nations? He also says that Britain and France will lose their Security Council seats.

I didn't know either. I got it from the EU Serf who got it from The Adventuress. Also scroll up to check out EU Serf's post about EU threats to commercial software.



 
Wherever you go, there they are. Blithering Bunny is worried that Iain Duncan Smith's confidence in blogging may be misplaced.
So if we couldn't see how bad heavy-duty socialism was when it was staring us in the face - if it took the ruin of several countries before we acknowledged it - what chance do we have against the more subtle applications of socialism that are going on now?

This brings us back to blogging. Some of you will have thought while reading the above that it wasn't most of us who wanted to go socialist in the '60's and '70's, it was only the priesthood that did - Guardian journalists, academics, trade unionists, Hollywood stars - and they had bigger platforms than the rest of us. But blogging will change things, so the story goes, by reducing the power of the priesthood, particularly that possessed by the media.

I've said this myself. I hope it's true. But let's not forget one thing. Wherever the power moves to, leftists will stampede to get a seat. Wherever the platforms are set up, there you will find the leftists fighting hard to clamber up, knocking off all their opponents on the way. We've seen it time and time again.

For example, whenever the Government sets up a body that has power over people's behaviour, that body will eventually be filled with leftists. This happens even if the body was initially set up to curb the excesses of the left. For example, all the attempts at centralizing control over education in Britain to stop the left-wingers having so much power just meant that the left-wingers eventually took over these bodies as well.

And now that blogging is becoming a big thing, the left-wingers are starting to flock to it. They're perfectly entitled to, of course, but if right-wingers like Ian Duncan Smith think blogging is going to be an unalloyed right-wing triumph, they're in for some disappointment. Blogging can make a difference because it's more of a level-playing field, as IDS says. But the left is going to take to blogging in a big way too, using all the tactics that they've been so successful with beforehand.

Dead right about the way that the National Curriculum was taken over by the very trendy-teacher establishment it was designed to curb. That is the Murphy's Law of centralised official bodies. Or centralised bodies of any sort, really.* One of my big fears about ID cards is that any mechanism intended as a security lock can, once it is taken over, become the skeleton key. This "taking over" is most usually pictured as being technical, and of course it could be. But it could also be institutional. That's how military coups work.

Any time someone starts talking about an official initiative to help and reward bloggers, run for the hills and blog from there.

*Let's all evolve into dispersed vapour-cloud creatures. Really, it's the only safe way.



 
The Home Secretary has backed off a bit. Good. But not good enough.

The prosecution of the War on Terror frequently reminds me of the behaviour of school authorities regarding parents who take their children out of school during term - or of the way the police go for women eating apples in the car rather than burglars.

The authorities make a big parade of cracking down in one way so that they can avoid cracking down in another way that is more painful but also more useful.



Tuesday, February 22, 2005
 
So it seems to be spies' day. Let's draw the threads together. There were some notable injustices carried out at the behest of MI5 during World War II, one of them detailed in today's first post - but heaven knows the threat was real. The Campaign for Nuclear disarmament are angry at the way they were spied upon - staying silent about the fact that there were real enemy spies among them, as alluded to in the last post - and yet CND might justifiably retort that the case officers who cut their teeth bugging them are now gnawing away at everyone's civil liberties. The vast majority of CND members were perfectly law-abiding and patriotic. Me, for instance.

The trouble with talking about spies is that there's always a "but".

Which brings me to an email written by my regular contributor A Regular Contributor, or ARC as he is familiarly known. He writes:

saw your B-BBC post on McCarthy, which gave me a number of thoughts. As you say, there are two messages any discussion should convey.

The collapse of communism has seen a number of things skillfully downplayed. That much communist infiltration, spying and fellow travelling was going on, some of it very vicious, is one of them. The programme you posted on was typical of many who talk of '50's witchunts' as though they pursued an impossible crime, mere suspicion of which was proof of idiocy or corrupt pretence. There are exceptions (I once saw a good programme on late-period communist spies revealed after the fall of communism which I _think_ I recall as being on the BBC), but in general the PC attitude (that only people as vile as McCarthy could ever wish to make a noise about such things) is proof against all revelations. These days, the facts are not denied; they're just not mentioned. A vast opportunity for reporting, for insight programmes and for historical research arose when communism collapsed. The contrast between the interest shown in the nazis and in the communists by those who make their living doing such work is astounding.

It was quite by chance that I came across just one example of the kind of thing that was done and how it impacted the history we know. In the mid-30s, some 'lady bountiful' decided that a youth movement would be good for the U.S. and tried to start one. The U.S. communists recognised an opportunity and quickly got some of their youth activists (affiliation and connections with each other well concealed) to turn up as helpers. Being early off the mark, combined with secret mutual help and ballot-stuffing, ensured that the youth-leaders of the movement were a solid block of (unacknowledged) communists. Once in place, they found it easy to ease the (now very disgruntled) lady bountiful and her friends out of the organisation as old-fashioned (i.e. insufficiently left-wing) fuddy-duddies, leaving them as recognised representatives of U.S. youth.

During the late 30's they found it easy to keep their true alliegance hidden and their membership high; this was the era of the popular front and anti-fascism. Even then, the movement also did 'good work' defending Stalin's show trials, etc., helped by agents sent over from Russia. In August '39 however, Stalin made the pact with Hitler and they had to defend it - which they did. Suddenly, U.S. youth wasn't so anti-fascist, was ever so worried about getting drawn into the war, wanted Roosevelt to stop supplying those wicked war-mongering British capitalists, etc - or so its apparent leaders assured everyone. While the movement lost support and membership internally, it was able to conceal this from the public. Delegations called on the president to tell him his pro-British policies were war-mongering - and were received and covered in the papers. A belief that U.S. youth was hostile to involvement was widely accepted, and can often be found taken for granted in books and pamphlets published at the time by people across the political spectrum. Thus they did their bit against the lend-lease bill that passed by just one vote.

On June 22nd 1941, they had to reverse themselves again, of course, luckily for them as it left them less exposed when the U.S. entered the war at the end of the year.

ARC then apologises for the fact that, being separated from his sourcebooks on all this at the present, he is vague on precise dates and names. Hence also all these "IIRC"s. He continues:


The book '50 years' (IIRC) has a good write-up of how the communists took over the youth movement, written by one of them whose experiences with 'Max' (the Russian agent sent over to instruct them how to handle the show trials) caused him to become disillusioned.

Interestingly, this book was written because of McCarthy. Years later, the author found himself one of those in trouble during that era. Like you, he had two messages to get across. One was that McCarthy's methods of reasoning and investigation were a bad joke. The other was that the dogmatic assumption of the PC left of his day, that everyone accused (whether by McCarthy or someone less absurd) must be innocent, was ridiculous. Having been involved, he knew how likely it was that the more reputable accusations (e.g. against Alger Hiss) were true, and how certain it was that there were spies in place.

As for McCarthy himself, the more one looks, the odder (and nastier) he seems. His first political contest was for a judgeship; IIRC he campaigned on the platform that his opponent was too old, being 73. In fact, the opponent was 66 years old having been born in 1873, so it looks like a calculatedly-deniable lie ("Ah didn' say 73, ah said 1873"). When McCarthy ran for congressman, the local communists were ordered to support him by the party. Several people have pointed out that, with McCarthy-ite reasoning, this would be enough to get him labelled as a communist agent. Those of us who prefer more solidly grounded logic will rather suspect only that some dialectical reasoning led, as usual, to bizarre conclusions. After the war, he devoted himself to getting the SS men who had murdered their US prisoners at Malmedy reprieved on technicalities. You could see this as far-right behaviour - helping the SS - or far-left behaviour - getting murderers acquitted on technicalities. One thing it massively is not is the behaviour of a US patriot. It seems impossible that McCarthy could have had any more doubts of their actual guilt than anyone else has ever had. His sudden launch into the anti-communist issue can be seen as merely a wholly cynical nose for what could gain votes; in view of the evidence, I find it irrational to suppose that he himself ever gave a damn about betraying one's country. I find it hard to rid myself of the suspicion that something even stranger was going on in his murky psychology, but as he died within a few years and left little evidence, we shall probably never know.

Meanwhile his name continues to prove useful to PC people uneager to confront their past.



 
OK, Teach, we get the message.

[ADDED AFTER WRITING THIS POST: Curses! The mighty Ablutionist got in before me. Read his post here.]

This Education Guardian lesson plan about nuclear proliferation by Lyndsey Turner has no less than four separate links to CND as a source of facts and timelines for the students to work from. There is also one link to www.tridentploughshares.org/. You can safely assume that every member of this organisation is also a member of CND. Ditto for the Come Clean WMD Awareness Programme.

There are more links. There's one to Nuclear Berkeley, Nuclear World, one to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and one to a CNN history of the cold war dating from 1999. Lyndsey Turner also points the student to numerous Guardian articles, although it might have avoided giving the impression that the way to get published in the Guardian is to keep mentioning the wonderfulness of the Guardian had she also mentioned the excellent material available in rival newspapers.

Are they all like that? No, not quite. www.nuclearterror.org/ and www.armscontrol.org/ seem moderate, non-partisan organisations with information-heavy websites. The Nuclear Terror website particularly advocates that the priority of the US government should be control of fissile material ahead of the war against terrorism, and this media advisory from the Arms Control Organisation "Applauds Lawmakers' Move to Cut Funding for Costly and Counterproductive Nuclear Weapons Projects". These two are bodies within the establishment, then, but not, shall we say, quite in sympathy with the current US administration.

Finally the US Department of Energy sneaks in somewhere to provide a timeline: this is as close as Turner's lesson plan lets us get to hearing from those who disagree with the CND view, though judging from the column space and indignation the timeline authors give to Watergate they are certainly not Republican patsies.

A child following this lesson plan could certainly learn quite a lot from following the suggested links, including the links to the CND website. (They won't learn about Vic Allen, though. Forgive me, I digress.)

But what is missing?

Any attempt at letting the other side speak in their own words, that's what. The funny thing is that Lyndsey Turner probably sees nothing odd about this at all.



 
Paid by MI5 for each person he entrapped. A letter in today's Telegraph gets to the...
Heart of the matter

Sir - As the debate about the detention without trial of British citizens gathers pace (News, Feb 19), the public should be reminded of my father's experience in 1940, when the Defence of the Realm Act's Emergency Regulation 18B allowed for the imprisonment of suspects denounced as Nazi sympathisers.

Ben Greene was a deeply religious Quaker, with a long history of assisting refugees, yet was named by an MI5 agent provocateur as a fifth columnist and arrested. He was, of course, entirely innocent of the charge, as was established when his solicitor traced the man responsible, an unscrupulous Austrian called Harald Kurtz, who had sought his assistance and admitted eventually that he had been paid by MI5 for each person he entrapped.

We now know, from the recently published Guy Liddell Diaries, that MI5 did everything possible to conceal Kurtz's true role, to the point of persuading the Clerk of the House of Commons to remove any reference to him on the Order Paper on the grounds of national security.

My father was eventually vindicated, but not before he had spent months in Brixton prison. His cousin Graham, in return, named the villain after Kurtz when he was writing the script for The Third Man.

Edward Greene, Oxford

This five year old Guardian article says that Public Record Office files relating to Ben Greene's internment have been closed under Section 3(4) of the Public Order Act 1958. The author, former MI5 agent David Shayler, was himself imprisoned for six months for disclosing secret information to a newspaper. (It was accepted that he did not act for money.) Although Shayler should never have been imprisoned I remember thinking at the time I was not convinced by all his allegations. But I see no reason to doubt his basic sincerity, nor the purely factual statement about Greene.

It is typical that my quick Google follow-up on the story of Ben Greene also led to an account of the abuse of power. That is the end result of rule by discretion of the Home Secretary.



 
"Yes, Miranda, this is the most disturbing carrot I've seen in quite awhile." Rob Hinkley directed me to the museum of food anomalies.


Monday, February 21, 2005
 
Two things we did know last week. (1) postal voting makes fraud easy and (2) an eavesdropper sees the same G W Bush as the rest of us do.

Although the White House condemned Mr Wead for publicising the tapes, they reveal a private Mr Bush almost identical to his public persona: tough, confident, conservative, with a genuine belief in God, a distrust of the United Nations and a loathing of the press.
Happy the man.


 
Habemus internetiam. On second thoughts, my husband thinks that may be "habemus interrete." Or on third thoughts "interreticulum." Habemus somethingam, anyway.


Wednesday, February 16, 2005
 
The old computer is bust. The new computer, the new computer purchased yesterday, the new computer that was the repository of my hopes, vehicle of my dreams... the new computer won't connect to the internet.

But the steamed milk flavoured with coconut-syrup at this internet cafe is nice. I may not be online but at least I am cool.