Sir Gerald Kaufman, UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza; AMORAL Jews are not simply war criminals, they are fools

1 Comment

“Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism” Tzipi Livnis Father was a Terrorist” Astonishing claims in the House of Parliament. SIR Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Labour MP, yesterday compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland.

During a Commons debate on the fighting in Gaza, he urged the government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: “My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

“My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants “was the reply of the Nazi” and added: “I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.”

He accused the Israeli government of seeking “conquest” and added: “

They are not simply war criminals, they are fools.”

PRIMITIVE, WHITE, RACIST, GREEDY, SELFISH, IMMORAL, AMORAL JEWS AND FUNGIBLE AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS DOING THEIR UGLY RACIST WORK: Illegal BLOODY JEW Israeli Settlers harassing a Palestinian woman in Occupied Palestine

1 Comment

THESE ARE THE SELF-PROMOTING “MORAL” JEWS OR ACTUALLY RACIST JEWS FROM GERMANY, AMERICA, RUSSIA, POLAND AND UKRAINE SPREADING THEIR MESSAGE OF HATE IN PALESTINE AT THE PALESTINIANS;

THEY DON’T LOOK EVEN REMOTELY SEMITIC, NOT ONE IOTA;

THEY LOOK AS THEY HAVE RECENTLY ARRIVED FROM GERMANY, AMERICA, RUSSIA, POLAND AND UKRAINE;

I HAVE SEEN THESE UGLY FACES IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK BEFORE; ARE THESE YOUR CHILDREN?

WHAT ELSE CAN ONE EXPECT FROM FAKE SEMITES, WHOSE ANCESTORS NEVER STEPPED FOOT IN PALESTINE SINCE MAN LEFT AFRICA 100,000 YEARS AGO?

Palestine Papers – America’s Idiotic Foreign Policy Really Bearing Its Ugly Fruits: The Americans need to read and understand the real story of the Occupier, Jew Israel, illegally and immorally occupying all of Palestine. The Rest of the Story. Al Jazeera’s Palestine Papers have been a PR disaster for the Palestinian Authority. But it’s Israel’s American supporters who really need to read them. If the American people read these documents they might finally be cured of their single-minded support for the official Jew Israeli narrative and their hostility to Muslim and Christian Palestinian aspirations. Americans view the Palestinian Authority as negatively as they do North Korea and Iran. Maybe that’s because they’ve all swallowed the “Israel lobby’s” propaganda. But I think it has more to do with a deep identification with Israel — among Christians every bit as much as among Jews — and the long years of Palestinian “violent resistance.” But these documents show the absurdity of the view held by 99% of Americans . The Palestine Papers leave you with a deep sense of pathos.

1 Comment

At a meeting between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators on June 21, 2008, Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian prime minister, raised a familiar concern: “When will you freeze settlement activity? This will kill us.” Israel’s continuing refusal to stop settlement construction was making the Palestinian Authority look fatally weak in the eyes of Palestinian and Arab public opinion and thus empowering the radicals of Hamas. “You want to help Hamas on our account?” he asked.

Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, noted that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, would soon be speaking to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. “You can raise it,” she said.

“They will freeze it?”

“No, but you can raise it.”

I mined this exchange from the so-called “Palestine Papers,” a trove of 1,600 documents — a kind of Arabic WikiLeaks — given to Al Jazeera and published earlier this month. The documents have been used to discredit Palestinian negotiators, whom Al Jazeera has described in blazing headlines as lackeys begging for scraps from the imperious Israelis. Some on the left in the United States have made the same point.

I don’t read the leaks that way. To me, Qurei and his colleagues come across as thoroughly rational, if world-weary, negotiators playing a weak hand as well as they can. I can see why frustrated Arabs, fed for years on triumphal delusions, might not see it that way; but if the American people read these documents they might finally be cured of their single-minded support for the official Israeli narrative and their hostility to Palestinian aspirations.

The exchange over the settlements was especially telling. U.S. President Barack Obama pressed Israel harder than any of his predecessors to freeze settlement construction as an indispensable good-faith gesture to the Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed only to a temporary and partial freeze, and peace talks collapsed last year when Israel refused to extend the halt. Post-facto conventional wisdom holds that the White House should never have made the freeze a precondition, because the Palestinians themselves did not view it as a sine qua non. And yet, in the Palestine Papers, Qurei and his colleagues constantly harp on the public-relations catastrophe they will suffer should settlement construction continue. Livni, who seems to understand their situation perfectly well, never disagrees.

The 2008 talks were held in the wake of the Annapolis conference of late 2007, at which Olmert and Abbas had accepted a two-state solution. From the evidence of the Palestine Papers, the talks were conducted in a professional manner, with only the occasional temper tantrum or ideological diatribe. The Palestinians made painful concessions, first insisting that Israel could not annex any of the large settlement blocs in and around Jerusalem, and then conceding on several of them (thus today’s charges of betrayal). In extensive one-on-one meetings in mid-2008 — of which the papers released so far provide no hint — diplomats produced a document stipulating areas of agreement and leaving a great many brackets for the unresolved issues. In his new memoir and in a recent interview, Olmert has said that he and Abbas had reached agreement on virtually all major subjects and came agonizingly close to signing a deal in September 2008. Whether or not that’s so, it’s plain that both sides were trying very hard to bridge the gaps between them.

But it’s all a might-have-been. Olmert’s government fell, Israel invaded Gaza, and in early 2009 a much more conservative coalition under Netanyahu took power in Israel. Netanyahu only grudgingly — if at all — accepts the need for a Palestinian state and has shown no willingness to make the painful concessions necessary to bring it into being. The peace process is now dead in all but name: Obama even managed to mention El Salvador in his State of the Union address, but not Israel or Palestine. Indeed, nowhere else across the spectrum of major foreign-policy issues — not Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or China — has the Obama administration invested so much effort for so little. What killed the process was not a change in the Palestinian position, but in the Israeli one. It’s simply impossible to imagine the talks of 2008, with all their limitations, taking place today.

The Obama administration could just wash its hands of the whole mess, save for the fact that Israeli intransigence has become a problem for the United States — as well as for the Palestinians. Obama himself has acknowledged the obvious fact that anger in the Islamic world over the plight of the Palestinians hurts the image and endangers the national security of the United States, rightly seen as Israel’s great defender. That, in fact, is one of the main reasons that a group of senior diplomats and scholars recently called on Obama to vote in favor of a resolution which is to be submitted to the U.N. Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. (Another reason is that the resolution is consistent with long-standing U.S. policy.)

A yes vote would hardly restart the peace process. But it might shock some Israelis out of their complacent assumption that Washington can be counted on to automatically take their side no matter the merits of the case. What’s more, it would demonstrate to Arab publics that the U.S. talk about human rights and international law applies to its closest allies as well as to rogue states. At a time when those publics are finally, and dramatically, standing up for themselves and defying autocrats who are in most cases long-standing American allies, it behooves the United States to send such an unambiguous signal of commitment to its own principles.

But it won’t happen. An administration official confirms that it’s “extremely unlikely” that the United States would even abstain, much less affirm the resolution. Why? Because Israel would view it as a provocation. That’s certainly true — but what harm can a provocation do to a moribund peace process? The administration insists that in fact the process is still alive and that officials are thinking about issuing “terms of reference” for new negotiations. Well, hope springs eternal. But another reason the Obama administration is prepared to cast a U.N. Security Council veto that will provoke international outrage is that taking on Israel, like taking on the gun lobby, is a form of domestic political suicide — especially now, with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives which fiercely defends the Netanyahu government. No president wants to cast a “pro-Palestinian” vote; and this president, in particular, does not indulge in the doomed gesture.

Which brings me back to the Palestine Papers. One recent survey found that Americans view the Palestinian Authority as negatively as they do North Korea and Iran. Maybe that’s because they’ve all swallowed the “Israel lobby’s” propaganda. But I think it has more to do with a deep identification with Israel — among Christians every bit as much as among Jews — and the long years of Palestinian “violent resistance.” But these documents, compiled as informal transcripts, show the absurdity of that view.

The Palestine Papers leave you with a deep sense of pathos. The men sitting in those conference rooms in Jerusalem and Washington and Berlin are canny, patient, sometimes droll figures — politicians, to be sure, and yes, some of them former guerrillas — trying somehow to cajole or wheedle their way to a state of their own. Having recognized the futility of violence, they’ve given up the only instrument they had to compel, rather than convince, the other side. They must depend on something in which they have little faith: the good will of the other side.

“Let me ask first,” Qurei says at another point to Livni. “Do you want an agreement? Is it an Israeli priority?”

“By definition an agreement is an Israeli priority.” Whether or not that was true then, it scarcely feels true today.

Source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/28/the_rest_of_the_story

USAF Bomber Hits Empire State Building; AND NOTHING HAPPENED, THE BUILDING DIDN’T TURN INTO DUST AND NEIGHBOURING BUILDINGS DIDN’T TURN INTO DUST EITHER; HINT: WTC 7, WAS NOT HIT BY ANY PLANE ON SEPT 11, IT WAS THE THIRD BUILDING THAT MIRACULOUSLY IMPLODED ON ITS FOOTPRINT LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THE SAME DAY; NO JEWS WERE CAUGHT, DANCING AND HIGH-FIVING EACH OTHER AND TAKING PICTURES “OUR PURPOSE WAS TO DOCUMENT THE EVENT” IN 1945, BUT FIVE WERE CAUGHT ON 9/11; DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS

Leave a comment

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1945 AND 2001; WHY DID THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING NOT FALL DOWN?

IN 1945 THE JEWS WERE BUSY COMMITTING TERRORISM IN PALESTINE ONLY.

IN 2011 THE JEWS ARE BUSY COMMITTING TERRORISM IN PALESTINE, JORDAN, SYRIA, IRAQ, IRAN, EGYPT, LIBYA, KUWAIT, UAE, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, BRITAIN AND OF COURSE, THE DUMBEST LAMB MEANT FOR SLAUGHTER: AMERICA.

IF THERE ARE OVER CLEVER, PAST MASTER OF PROPAGANDA, JEWS PRESENT, WITH THEIR JEW MOSSAD TERRORIST DEMOLITION TEAMS, THEN HUGE STEEL BUILDINGS TURN INTO DUST IN A FEW HOURS, OTHERWISE THEY KEEP STANDING FOR DECADES AND DECADES.

WHENEVER THESE OVER CLEVER JEW MAFIA AGENTS ARE PRESENT THEN THEY NOT ONLY THE BUILDINGS ARE MAGICALLY DESTROYED BUT ALSO PROVIDE MAGICAL & WILD EXPLANATIONS ON HOW NORTH AND SOUTH TOWERS TURNED INTO ASH AND DUST.

AND THESE PAST MASTER OF PROPAGANDA AGENTS HAVE EVEN WILDER STORIES ON HOW WTC 7 VANISHED THE SAME DAY;

NOTE TO INTELLIGENT PEOPLE:

NO PLANE HIT WTC 7 WHICH WAS A 47 STOREY HUGE STEEL BUILDING, BUT MIRACLES OF MIRACLES, EVEN WTC 7 FELL EXACTLY ON ITS OWN FOOTPRINT AND TURNED INTO ASH, VERY MAGICALLY.

I ASCRIBE ALL THIS TO THE MAGICAL THINKING THAT IS PREVALENT IN THE MIND OF THE JEW, WHERE LAWS OF NATURE AND SCIENCE FAIL AND FALSE “NARRATIVES” AND MAGICAL THINKING SUCCEEDS.

 

Laila Khalid – Palestinian Freedom Fighter

3 Comments

Photobucket

Leila Khaled photo

Leila Khaled in 2009

Leila Khaled (Arabic: ليلى خالد‎, Arabic pronunciation: [læjlæ xɑːlɪd]; born April 9, 1944, at Haifa, Palestine then under British occupation and called British Mandate of Palestine) is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). She is currently a member of the Palestinian National Council. She has been called the “poster girl of Palestinian militancy.” [1]

Khaled came to public attention for her role in a 1969 hijacking and one of four simultaneous hijackings the following year as part of the Black September timeline.

Early life

Khaled was born in Haifa, then part of the British Mandate for Palestine. Khaled’s family fled to Lebanon during the 1948 Palestinian exodus, leaving her father behind. At the age of 15, following in the footsteps of her brother, she joined the radical pan-Arab[2] Arab Nationalist Movement, originally started in the late 1940s by George Habash, then a medical student at the American University of Beirut.[3] The Palestinian branch of this movement became the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine after the 1967 Six-Day War.

Khaled also spent some time teaching in Kuwait, and in her autobiography recounted crying the day she heard that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.[4]

The hijackings

Leila Khaled in Damascus after her release from Britain in 1970

On August 29, 1969, Khaled was part of a team that hijacked TWA Flight 840 on its way from Rome to Athens, diverting the Boeing 707 to Damascus. She claims she ordered the pilot to fly over Haifa, so she could see her birthplace, which she could not visit.[5] No one was injured, but the aircraft was blown up after hostages had disembarked. According to some media sources,[6] the PFLP leadership thought that Yitzhak Rabin, then Israeli ambassador to the United States, would be on board. This was, however, denied by Khaled and others.[4] After this hijacking, and after a now famous picture of her (taken by Eddie Adams) holding an AK-47 rifle and wearing a kaffiyeh was widely published, she underwent six plastic surgeries on her nose and chin to conceal her identity and allow her to take part in a future hijacking, and because she did not want to wear the face of an icon.[5][7]

On September 6, 1970, Khaled and Patrick Argüello, a Nicaraguan, attempted the hijack of El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam to New York City as part of the Dawson’s Field hijackings, a series of almost simultaneous hijackings carried out by the PFLP. The attack was foiled, when Israeli skymarshals killed Arguello before eventually overpowering Khaled. Although she was carrying two hand grenades at the time, Khaled said she had received very strict instructions not to threaten passengers on the civilian flight.[5] (Patrick Argüello, the co-hijacker, shot a member of the flight crew).

The pilot diverted the aircraft to Heathrow airport in London, where Khaled was delivered to Ealing police station. On October 1, the British government released her as part of a prisoner exchange. The next year, the PFLP abandoned the tactic of hijacking, although splinter movements would continue to hijack airplanes.[citation needed]

Later life

Khaled has said in interviews that she developed a fondness for the United Kingdom when her first visitor in jail, an immigration officer, wanted to know why she had arrived in the country without a valid visa. She also developed a relationship with the two policewomen assigned to guard her in Ealing and later corresponded with them. Khaled continued to return to Britain for speaking engagements until as late as 2002, although she was refused a visa by the British embassy in 2005 to address a meeting at the Féile an Phobail in Belfast, where she was invited as a speaker. Eventually she managed to speak to people at the Belfast Féile through a video link[8]

Khaled is wary of the Arab-Israeli peace process. According to her, “It’s not a peace process. It’s a political process where the balance of forces is for the Israelis and not for us. They have all the cards to play with and the Palestinians have nothing to depend on, especially when the PLO is not united.”[9] She has become involved in politics, becoming a member of the Palestinian National Council[10] and appearing regularly at the World Social Forum.[11][12][13]

Witnesses say[who?] that in the late 1970s she studied history at Rostov University (USSR) but never graduated. She simply vanished in the early 1980s. There were rumours that she left for Lebanon to fight against the Israeli army invading Lebanon at that time.[citation needed]

She is married to the physician Fayez Rashid Hilal, and today lives with their two sons Bader and Bashar in Amman, Jordan.[14]

She was the subject of a film entitled Leila Khaled, Hijacker.[15] The documentary film “Hijacker – The Life of Leila Khaled”, directed by Palestinian filmmaker, Lina Makboul, premiered in November, 2005 at the International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam.[16]

In 2011, Khaled went on a speaking tour in Sweden, including speeches at May Day demonstrations of the Communist Party and the Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden, a public Art Gallery, Södertörn University College and a seminar arranged by the Left Party.[17]

In popular culture

  • The song Like Leila Khaled Said from The Teardrop Explodes‘ 1981 album Wilder is a love song to Khaled. Songwriter Julian Cope said it was a love song to her “cos I thought she was so beautiful. But I know that the whole thing was like bad news.”[18]
  • The 10th song named “Leila Khaled” by the Danish Rock band Magtens Korridorer in their 11-track album Friværdi released on 26 September 2005.[19]
  • It is claimed that the character of savage warrior Leela from Doctor Who was named after Leila Khaled.[20]
  • Mentioned by Fun-da-mental in “Mother India” widely distributed in the United States by Starbucks coffee in the”Love India” CD (2010)[21]
  • She was the sbject of an eponymous one-person show in 2011, played by Israeli actress J. Bassilis. [22]

References

  1. ^ The poster girl of Palestinian militancy, Jan 30, 2007 http://www.thetimes.co.za/SpecialReports/LebanonDiary/Article.aspx?id=297355
  2. ^ ‘Palestinian patriot’ (Jordan Times)
  3. ^ Philip Baum interviews Leila Khaled on 5 September 2000
  4. ^ a b Khaled, Leila (1973). My People Shall Live. London: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 0340173807. http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/articles/My_People_Shall_Live.html.
  5. ^ a b c “I made the ring from a bullet and the pin of a hand grenade”, The Guardian, January 26, 2001
  6. ^ MacDonald, Eileen (1991). “Leila Khaled”. Shoot the Women First. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-41596-3.
  7. ^ “I made the ring from a bullet and the pin of a hand grenade”. The Guardian (London). 2001-01-26. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jan/26/israel.
  8. ^ A just solution is the way out of conflict – Leila Khaled
  9. ^ Leila Khaled: in her own words
  10. ^ 2005 IPSC Annual General Meeting
  11. ^ WSF Mumbai, India 2004
  12. ^ WSF Rome, Italy 2005
  13. ^ WSF Nairobi, Kenya 2007
  14. ^ Interview by Sana Abdallah, United Press International, July 21, 2003
  15. ^ Murphy, Maureen Clare (2007-04-09). “Violence or nonviolence? Two documentaries reviewed”. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6781.shtml. Retrieved 2007-09-07.
  16. ^ Leila Khaled – Hijacker
  17. ^ Something rotten in Sweden
  18. ^ Teardrop Explodes Discography | Albums
  19. ^ as found at Apple iTunes
  20. ^ A Brief History Of Time (Travel): The Face Of Evil
  21. ^ Global noise: rap and hip-hop outside the USA By Tony Mitchell p. 60
  22. ^ [http://www.apsva.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID=11907 Theatre Arts Overview

Interviews

Further reading

Robert Fisk: France’s shamefully forgotten allies. It took Indigènes to remind the French that they owed their liberation not only to De Gaulle’s largely white Free French troops but also to 134,000 Algerian soldiers, 73,000 Moroccans, 26,000 Tunisians and 92,000 “others” from Sub-Saharan Africa. Indigènes means “natives” but the English version of the movie was called Days of Glory, which rather took the sting away. Yet the French have still largely ignored their massive empire armies of both world wars. Why, I still have copies of Signal, the German propaganda magazine that remained on open sale in Paris until the 1980s, which show German troops throwing raw meat at Algerian prisoners-of-war in 1940, photographs which depict the indigènes as animals fighting for food. We forget that these poor men were also our Allies. AH, THE EVER SO FORGETFUL, NAY, RACIST FRENCH AND GERMANS, NOT OF YESTERYEAR, BUT OF TODAY.

Leave a comment

 

Unsung: The 2006 film Indigènes highlighted the racism towards French African soldiers

It took Indigènes to remind the French that they owed their liberation not only to De Gaulle’s largely white Free French troops but also to 134,000 Algerian soldiers, 73,000 Moroccans, 26,000 Tunisians and 92,000 “others” from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Indigènes means “natives” but the English version of the movie was called Days of Glory, which rather took the sting away. Yet the French have still largely ignored their massive empire armies of both world wars. And so have we. Where are the great films, the great novels about the Indians who fought for King and Empire at the Somme, and in North Africa and Italy?

Wandering the Great War cemetery at Chemin des Dames – the atrocious 1917 offensive, which won for General Charles Mangin the title “Butcher of the Blacks”, and led to French mutiny – and the British Second World War graves at Sidon in southern Lebanon, I notice how the Muslim dead, mostly Senegalese and Algerians and Tunisians in the first graveyard, Indians in the second, are separated from their non-Muslim comrades-in-death. A few metres of grass keep infidel and believer apart (the definitions are interchangeable, of course) as if sharing the same cemetery is quite enough, without accepting that all were brothers in humanity.

It’s the same today. A recent exhibition in Beirut showed archive footage of Australian troops in the 1941 invasion of Lebanon, fighting and dying and laying railroad tracks and manning gun positions on the Beirut Corniche. The Lebanese flocked to see the films, especially Lebanese Armenians who remembered how Australian troops of the Great War gave their food to the dying victims of the Armenian genocide 23 years earlier. But there were no pictures of the Indian soldiers who fought and died in Lebanon.

So it’s worth a glance at how “we” Westerners regarded “our” soldiers over the past 100 years. All praise to Le Monde Diplomatique for drawing our attention to a sand dune beside a small forest road not far from the old Courneau camp in the Gironde which is bleakly decorated with two memorials. One shows African faces, sculpted in stone. The other says: “To the greatness of Allah.” Yet in a war that for the first time commemorated the individual names of the fallen, all that is written here is a dedication “to the 940 Senegalese and 12 Russians who died for France 1914-1918″. Anonymity was enough for blacks.

The French camp of Courneau was a training ground for newly arrived Senegalese troops en route to the Somme, but it was also a hospital base for the sick and wounded of the Somme and Fort Douaumont at Verdun. And when – after weeks under the snow and the rain of shells – they did not die of their wounds at Courneau, they died of disease. A government health inspector predicted in 1916 that the Senegalese, under the autumn rains and cold, would contract respiratory diseases. In a camp of 20,000 largely black troops, thousands fell ill each week. The first soldier died on 28 April 1916, 13 others in May, including a soldier called Dakpé of the 42nd Battalion, “son of a father and mother whose names are unknown”. In the archives, the soldiers’ names are recorded. Mory Bakilé, born at Lambatura, Moriba Keita from Manikoura. The first black French member of parliament, Blaise Diagne, raised his voice in protest. But the “cemetery of Negroes” continued to be filled with corpses.

At least 421 Senegalese riflemen died in 1916, mostly from pneumonia, then 12 Russians – recruited to fight in France by the pre-Bolshevik Tsarist government – and then 88 American soldiers died of the same infections at Courneau after May 1918. Sixty-six of their bodies were later reburied with military honours in the US, the rest transferred to the American military cemetery at Suresnes. Their names are on their gravestones. Not so the Senegalese. A local French architect’s appeal for a memorial with their names was overruled.

In nearby Bordeaux, says Mar Fall, a sociologist of Senegalese origin, “they like to avoid topics which are unsettling. If we open the Pandora’s box of First World War African soldiers, or those of the Second World War, we will arrive very quickly at the colonial history of the city.” The city fathers promise a real memorial “after further study”. The dead African soldiers, whose graves are clearly identified in the front-line cemeteries, all joined up on the promise of French citizenship. A further little indignity. Originally, the dead African soldiers did have their names inscribed on a wooden board above their individual graves. Then they were reburied in a mass grave and their names disappeared.

But wait. If we are not yet ready to confront the black Africans’ sacrifice for us, do we dare – like the Franco-Ivorian journalist Serge Bilé in his new book Sombres Bourreaux (“Dark Executioners”) – investigate the lives of those black soldiers who chose to fight for Hitler? For yes, incredibly, the Nazis let a few serve in the Légion des Volontaires Français. One was Norbert Désirée, a Guadeloupe docker who wanted to fight Bolshevism in opposition to his communist fellow countrymen who were demanding independence for their island. Then there was Louis-Joachim Eugène, also from Guadeloupe, who found German racism less painful than that of his fellow Frenchmen.

And the Cameroonian Werner Egiomue who loved Hitler but whose black skin created a scandal in the German High Command. Ahmed Fall from Senegal was used as a propagandist by the German army. How could these men – old enough to be our grandfathers – have collaborated with Vichy or the Nazis, asks Malika Groga-Bada, a journalist for Jeune Afrique, originally from the Ivory Coast. “Patriotism? A desire to be recognised?” Unforgivable, of course. But history is cruel and there is plenty of rusting barbed wire beneath the snow.

Why, I still have copies of Signal, the German propaganda magazine that remained on open sale in Paris until the 1980s, which show German troops throwing raw meat at Algerian prisoners-of-war in 1940, photographs which depict the indigènes as animals fighting for food. We forget that these poor men were also our Allies.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-frances-shamefully-forgotten-allies-6283364.html

Robert Fisk: Turkey’s long road to reconciliation. Nicolas Sarkozy’s electoral venality (500,000 French-Armenian voters want to hear him tell the truth) and Turkish nationalism (which feeds on holocaust denial) make a bad cocktail.

Leave a comment

 

Remembrance: Armenians annually commemorate the 1915 genocide
Alamy
 

Just for a moment, put aside the current Franco-Turkish war over the 20th century’s first Holocaust – of the Armenians – and remember that Nicolas Sarkozy’s electoral venality (500,000 French-Armenian voters want to hear him tell the truth) and Turkish nationalism (which feeds on holocaust denial) make a bad cocktail.

So here’s a story of good cheer. I’ve just completed 21 interviews on Turkish radio, television and in newspapers, on the Armenian genocide. Not all of my talks were about the deliberate mass murder of a million and a half Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 – there was much discussion of Syria and Kurdistan and whether Turkey should be a “role model” for the Arab world (another 24-hour wonder produced by the Washington dream team) – but there was some serious discussion about that most unmentionable subject.

The occasion was the launching of the Turkish-language edition of my book The Great War for Civilisation – which includes an entire and detailed chapter on the genocide – and which has just appeared in Turkey without any imposition of the infamous law 301 (the “anti-Turkishness” law) nor any threats to Ithaki, my Turkish publishers. The chapter on the Armenians, which states repeatedly that this first Holocaust of the 20th century was planned and executed by the Turkish authorities in Constantinople (Istanbul), is titled in Turkish “The First Genocide”. And, for the most part, Turkish journalists and television presenters simply didn’t question the veracity of what I wrote.

And I think I know why. For many hundreds of thousands of Turks, the Armenian genocide is now a fact of history. The Turkish government still officially denies these atrocities, claiming that they were the outcome of a “civil war”, that some Armenians were aiding the Tsarist anti-Ottoman army (true – though hardly the excuse for a genocide), that only historians “from both sides” could conclude whether or not this was a genocide. And imagine, as I always say, if “historians” were to decide whether the Nazi genocide of the Jews actually took place. But that’s not the point.

Thousands of Turks are digging into their own family histories. Why, they are asking, did they have Armenian grandmothers and great-grandmothers? What is this secret history that has to be guarded by laws which can imprison you for merely discussing in public Turkey’s responsibility for this genocide? And I asked, repeatedly, on Turkish television and in the press, why a strong and brave country like Turkey – whose victory at Gallipoli remains one of the world’s great military achievements, whose soldiers were the only UN unit in the Korean war who refused to be brainwashed – cannot acknowledge the terrible deeds which took place before almost all of them were born? There are no surviving murderers – though there are a pitifully few surviving Armenian victims – and there can be no trials. Turkey still wants to join the EU and in four years the world will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

Why not acknowledge this history now? The Germans have apologised 1,000 times to the Jews; the US has apologised to native Americans for their 19th-century ethnic cleansing; the Australians to the Aborigines, the British to the Irish, the Ukrainians to the Poles for their mass rape, pillage and massacres under German occupation after 1941. What is it with the Turks? But as I say, many Turks believe their country should own up to its history, however inglorious.

Only a few weeks ago, Recep Tayyip Erdogan acknowledged that the Turkish army had massacred thousands of Kurds in the 1930s. The newspaper Zaman asked whether this might open the way to an acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide – and the newspaper did not use the word “alleged”. It treated the genocide as fact. The only journalistic denial I came across was in a pre-interview discussion, when a producer described 1915 as a “mutual massacre”. Like Bosnia, I asked? Silence.

Within the military police elite, of course, denial remains. After the Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink was murdered by a nationalist youth from Trabzon in 2007, hundreds of thousands of Turks marched in his memory. They believed Turkish law would deal with his murderers. But cops were photographed posing beside the suspected killer after his capture. And Bahattin Hayal, the father of one of the suspected conspirators, now says that his son was mixed up with police informers, and that after the murder the Trabzon police chief, Yahya Ozturk, told the boy that he was “serving his country”. An intelligence official, Hayal claimed, later sent him a message: “I pay my respects to you. You have raised a patriotic son.” The court case has now turned into a scandal. Papers have been lost. Government departments unaccountably decline to help the trial prosecutors.

Not to mention the whole Kurdish catastrophe – and the Kurds, I should add, have acknowledged their own role in the Armenian genocide in a way that the Turks have not – and the threats against freedom of speech, let alone the Hrant Dink trial, Turkey is scarcely a nation which the Arabs should treat as a “role model”. But as I repeatedly pointed out in Turkey, Erdogan was the first Muslim leader to recognise and admire the Arab awakening. Never could I have imagined the Turkish flag flying once more in Gaza and Cairo. Turkey is a changed country.

There are miserable sides to all this. Pakistani journalist Ahmed Aziz has written to tell me that an article of his on the genocide “got heavily edited because in Pakistan we have this fallacy about the Ottoman Empire being the last great Caliphate made up of saints and it might have hurt some [sic] people”. Online, “it did manage to get my point across judging by the number [sic] of hate mail that I got…”. Aziz asked, “Why do human beings, when denying something of which they are at fault, use personal attacks to refute the criticism?”

But as I say, be of good cheer. At one of my Istanbul book autograph sessions, a young man asked me to sign a copy for his father who had seen me on television and liked what he heard. I signed the book. “My Dad,” the man said, “is the chief of police for Istanbul.”

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-turkeys-long-road-to-reconciliation-6281198.html

Mark Steel: Wife-beating? That’s fine – unless you’re a Muslim. The Sun newspaper has come over a bit modest. Following a Channel 4 documentary about media reporting of Muslims, the paper accepts some of its stories were “distorted”. But they’re not doing themselves justice. They weren’t distorted – they were entirely made up. For example, a story about a Muslim bus driver who ordered his passengers off the bus so he could pray was pure fabrication. The Sun’s man defends the line of his paper by saying that, after all, these Muslims “are trying to bomb our country”. So it’s their civic duty to make stuff up – the same as keeping a look-out for spies during the Second World War. PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THE WRETCHED SUN NEWSPAPER IS OWNED BY THE WRETCHED OF THE WRETCHED JEW, LOVER OF ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, AMORAL, APARTHIED ISRAEL, OPPRESSOR OF PALESTINIANS AND MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE, BLOODY RUPERT MURDOCH.

Leave a comment

The Sun newspaper has come over a bit modest. Following a Channel 4 documentary about media reporting of Muslims, the paper accepts some of its stories were “distorted”. But they’re not doing themselves justice. They weren’t distorted – they were entirely made up. For example, a story about a Muslim bus driver who ordered his passengers off the bus so he could pray was pure fabrication.

But if reporters are allowed to make up what they like, that one should be disciplined for displaying a shocking lack of imagination. He could have continued, “The driver has now won a case at the Court of Human Rights that his bus route should be altered so it only goes east. This means the 37A from Sutton Coldfield will no longer stop at Selly Oak library, but go the wrong way up a one-way street and carry on to Mecca. Local depot manager Stan Tubworth said, ‘I suggested he only take it as far as Athens but he threatened a Jihad, and a holy war is just the sort of thing that could put a service like the Selly Oak Clipper out of business’.”

Then there was a story about “Muslim thugs” in Windsor who attacked a house used by soldiers, except it was another invention. But with this tale the reporter still claims it’s true, despite a complete absence of evidence, because, “The police are too politically correct to admit it.” This must be the solution to all unsolved crimes. With Jack the Ripper it’s obvious – he was facing the East End of London, his victims were infidels and he’d have access to a burqua which would give him vital camouflage in the smog. But do the pro-Muslim police even bother to investigate? Of course not, because it’s just “Allah Allah Allah” down at the stations these days.

Maybe Muslim newspapers should retaliate by publishing their own made-up stories. So it will be reported that “Barmy PC teachers in Leicester have banned children from playing Noughts and Crosses, claiming the cross reminds Church of England kiddies of the suffering undertaken by Lord Jesus. A spokesman for the Board of Education said, ‘We have to be sensitive. Which is why we’ve replaced the game with ‘Noughts and Hexagons’. We did look into calling it ‘Noughts and Crowns of Thorns’ but decided Hexagons was more appropriate.”

Or, “Doctors have been told that patients are no longer to be referred to as ‘stable’, as this is offensive to followers of Jesus, who was said to have been born in one. So medical staff have been informed they must use an alternative word, or if they can’t think of one just let the patient die.”

The most common justification for ridiculing Islam is that the religion is “backward”, particularly towards women, as a fundamental part of its beliefs. The Sun’s old political editor suggests this as a defence of his newspaper’s stance, saying that under Islam, “women are treated as chattels”. And it’s true that religious scriptures can command this, such as the insistence that, “a man may sell his daughter as a slave, but she will not be freed at the end of six years as men are.” Except that comes from the Bible – Exodus, Chapter 21, verse 7.

The Bible is packed with justifications for slavery, including killing your slaves. So presumably the Sun, along with others who regard Islam as a threat to our civilisation, will soon be campaigning against “Sunday Schools of Hate” where children as young as seven are taught to read this grisly book. And next Easter they’ll report how, “I saw a small child smile with glee as he opened a Cadbury’s egg filled with chocolate buttons. But behind his grin I couldn’t help but wonder whether he wanted to turn me into a pillar of salt, then maybe sprinkle me on his menacing confectionary treat.”

In his defence of making stuff up, the Sun’s ex-political editor spoke about the amount of domestic violence suffered by Muslim women. But there’s just as much chance of suffering domestic violence if you’re not a Muslim, as one of the 10 million such incidents a year that take place in Britain. Presumably the anti-Islam lobby would say, “Ah yes, but those other ones involve secular wife-beating, which is not founded on archaic religious customs, but rational reasoning such as not letting him watch the snooker.”

And finally the Sun’s man defends the line of his paper by saying that, after all, these Muslims “are trying to bomb our country”. So it’s their civic duty to make stuff up – the same as keeping a look-out for spies during the Second World War.

So we should all do our bit, and every day send in something, until the press is full of stories like “Muslims in Darlington have been raising money for semtex by organising panda fights.” Or “In Bradford all nurseries have been ordered to convert their dolls’ houses into miniature mosques so that Muslim teddies have somewhere to pray.”

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-wifebeating-thats-fine–unless-youre-a-muslim-862898.html

ANOTHER AMERICAN WAR CRIMINAL SOLDIER THAT WILL BE LET OFF BY THE SHAM AMERICAN JUDGES. Frank Wuterich, a US marine, to stand trial over 2005 killings that left 24 Iraqis dead. Military court to assess whether Frank Wuterich acted appropriately after his convoy came under attack in Haditha. In November 2005, a US marine squad killed 24 Iraqis, many of them women and children, in the village of Haditha. This week, marine staff sergeant Frank Wuterich, the squadron leader in charge, will face voluntary manslaughter charges at Camp Pendleton near San Diego. Of the eight marines charged with the killings, six have so far had their charges dismissed, and one has been acquitted. The central question in the trial is whether marines reacted appropriately on 19 November 2005, when insurgents detonated a 500lb roadside bomb under a marine convoy in the village of Haditha. The bombing killed the driver, lance corporal Miguel Terrazas, 20, from El Paso, Texas, and injured two others. What happened next is still the subject of debate. A car pulled up soon after the explosion, and the marines ordered the five Iraqis inside it to get out. They were unarmed. All five were shot and killed by Wuterich and another marine. WHY DO AMERICAN SIMPLETONS THINK THAT THEY CAN INVADE MUSLIM COUNTRIES AND NOBODY WILL RESIST; ARE THEY OUT OF THEIR MINDS?

Leave a comment

Frank Wuterich

The trial will ask whether Frank Wuterich acted appropriately when insurgents detonated a 500lb bomb under a marine covoy. Photograph: AP

In a military courtroom in California on Wednesday one of the most controversial events of the Iraq war will be played out one last time.

In November 2005, a US marine squad killed 24 Iraqis, many of them women and children, in the village of Haditha. This week, marine staff sergeant Frank Wuterich, the squadron leader in charge, will face voluntary manslaughter charges at Camp Pendleton near San Diego.

Of the eight marines charged with the killings, six have so far had their charges dismissed, and one has been acquitted.

The central question in the trial is whether marines reacted appropriately on 19 November 2005, when insurgents detonated a 500lb roadside bomb under a marine convoy in the village of Haditha. The bombing killed the driver, lance corporal Miguel Terrazas, 20, from El Paso, Texas, and injured two others.

What happened next is still the subject of debate. A car pulled up soon after the explosion, and the marines ordered the five Iraqis inside it to get out. They were unarmed. All five were shot and killed by Wuterich and another marine.

In an interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes in 2007, in which he described the incident in detail, Wuterich said the men were running away when he shot them. His account has been disputed by other witnesses.

Asked why running would have justified his actions, Wuterich replied that they “were military-aged males that were inside that car. The only vehicle, the only thing that was out that was Iraqi, was them. They were 100m away from that IED [improvised explosive device]. Those are the things that went through my mind before I pulled the trigger.”

The defence insists that a running military-aged male can be assumed to be hostile.

Wuterich and his squadron maintain they then came under fire. Wuterich said he thought it was coming from a nearby house “because it was the only logical place that the fire could come”.

Wuterich’s superior, lieutenant William Kallop, gave the OK to carry out an attack on the house, according to 60 Minutes.

In his statement to the investigating officer, which he read during a hearing in September 2007, Wuterich recalled: “The four of us aggressively advanced on the house, and on approach I advised the team something like ‘shoot first and ask questions later’, or ‘don’t hesitate to shoot’. I can’t remember my exact words, but I wanted them to understand that hesitation to shoot would only result in the four of us being killed.”

He told 60 Minutes that “there may have been women in there, may have been children in there.”

No weapons were found.

The marines then stormed a neighbouring house, where more Iraqis were killed.

Prosecuters say Wuterich did not respond appropriately to the threat that day, and that he went against rules that rely on a positive identification of a hostile target before shooting.

Gary Solis, a law professor and former marine corp prosecutor, said the case was “very significant.”

“It’s important because 24 people are dead. It’s the greatest number of non-combat victims in a single incident that wasn’t a bomb. All armed forces look to their officers to be the adults in the group,” he said. “We look to them to make sure that things like Haditha don’t happen.”

Asked whether he broke the rules of engagement, Solis said: “He doesn’t have to explain that he is innocent, but he has to explain 24 dead bodies. In order to adequately defend himself he has to explain to the court that the homicides were justified.”

Legal experts agree that that the fact it has taken six years to come to court will work in Wuterich’s favour.

“He has a very good defence lawyer, and the marine court prosecution didn’t push enough for him to go to trial,” said Solis. “In my opinion, the defence council has won in a major way.”

Some observers have suggested that the lingering Iraqi anger over the Haditha killings – including a failure to secure a single conviction – has fostered an enduring mistrust of US troops.

That 24 people are dead, 11 of whom were women and children, remains undisputed. At the end of his statement to his investigations officer, Wuterich took responsibility for he deaths.

He said: “As a sergeant and the squad leader of 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, I am responsible for the decisions made to employ the tactics we used that day. My marines responded to the threats they faced in the manner that we all had been trained. I will bear the memory of the events of that day forever, and will always mourn the unfortunate deaths of the innocent Iraqis who were killed during our response to the attack.”

The trial is expected to last about a month. If convicted, Wuterich could face years behind bars.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/03/us-marine-trial-iraq-killings

AMERICAN EDUCATION OR NEEDLESS AMERICAN SLAVERY. Student debt: ‘College education brings you the American hell’ – video. In America, a good education costs money – but at what price? In the first of our primary election video series Answer the Question, Suzanne Goldenberg goes on the campaign trail in Iowa to ask Republican presidential candidates how they plan on helping graduates who are struggling to pay off cripplingly large student loans when there are no jobs

Leave a comment

Video here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jan/02/iowa-caucus-student-debt-video

THE PERFECT AMERICAN FBI NAZI. The secret life of J Edgar Hoover. For half a century, the FBI director waged war on homosexuals, black people and communists. Now, a controversial film by Clint Eastwood is set to reveal some of the explosive truth about him. Here, his biographer Anthony Summers tells all. J Edgar Hoover was a phenomenon. The first Director of the FBI, he remained in office for 48 years, from his appointment after the First World War to his death in 1972, achieving fame and extraordinary power. For public consumption when he died, President Richard Nixon eulogised him as: “One of the giants… a national symbol of courage, patriotism and granite-like honesty and integrity.” He ordered flags to fly at half-mast and that Hoover’s body lie in state in the Capitol. In private, on hearing that he had died, Nixon had responded merely: “Jesus Christ! That old cocksucker!”

Leave a comment

FBI director J Edgar Hoover aims machine gun

Long arm of the law: J Edgar Hoover in 1936. Photograph: New York Daily News Archive/Getty Images

J Edgar Hoover was a phenomenon. The first Director of the FBI, he remained in office for 48 years, from his appointment after the First World War to his death in 1972, achieving fame and extraordinary power. For public consumption when he died, President Richard Nixon eulogised him as: “One of the giants… a national symbol of courage, patriotism and granite-like honesty and integrity.” He ordered flags to fly at half-mast and that Hoover’s body lie in state in the Capitol.

In private, on hearing that he had died, Nixon had responded merely: “Jesus Christ! That old cocksucker!” Months earlier, closeted with key advisers, he had held forth on the need to persuade the elderly Hoover to resign. “We have on our hands here a man who will pull down the temple with him, including me.”

Nixon, soon to be disgraced and forced to resign, was of course himself no paragon. Most presidents before him, though, had had cause to fear Hoover or been troubled by what his FBI had become. Harry S Truman wrote during his presidency: “We want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail… Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him.”

Hoover himself, meanwhile, had a personal secret that – in his era – could have destroyed him if revealed. Clint Eastwood referred to it this year before the launch of his movie, when he assured the J Edgar Hoover Foundation that J Edgar would not “portray an open homosexual relationship” between Hoover and his long-time male companion, Clyde Tolson.

Eastwood stretched the truth. Though there is just one passionate kiss between Leonardo DiCaprio and Armie Hammer, the two actors portraying them in the movie, the relationship with Tolson is a central theme. In real life, all Washington knew was that the pair dined daily together, vacationed together, did everything but move in together, and the whispers flew. When a magazine article in the 1930s referred to Hoover’s “mincing” gait, and a diplomat commented on his “conspicuous perfume”, Hoover struck back. He gathered derogatory information on the offending journalist, and asserted – falsely – that he did not use perfume. Real information on the Hoover-Tolson relationship surfaced only long after both men were dead, during research for my book.

A surprising find was the account by Luisa Stuart, once a celebrated model, tracked down because she featured in a droll photograph taken with Hoover and Tolson one New Year’s Eve in the late 1930s at the Stork Club – the place to be seen in New York at the time. In the photo, Hoover is shown holding his hands up as Stuart, armed with a toy shotgun, “threatens” him. Later that night, in the dark of a  limousine when they left the club, she remembered: “I noticed they were holding hands all the way, just sitting there talking and holding hands with each other… I was so young and those were different times. But I’d never seen two men holding hands.”

Joseph Shimon, a former Washington police inspector, recalled a taxi driver reporting the pair had been “kissing and ass-grabbing” during a cab journey. Harry Hay, founder of America’s first gay rights group, remembered that on vacation in California, in “a circle in which they didn’t have people who weren’t gay… They were nodded together as lovers.”

The Eastwood movie includes a bizarre scene that depicts Hoover, after his mother’s death, donning one of her dresses. It is a nod towards allegations I first reported, that he on occasion cross-dressed. I had information from three sources, two men who said an “easily recognisable” photograph of Hoover in an evening gown circulated in the gay community in 1948, and an account by a millionaire’s former wife of secret sex parties that she claimed to have witnessed in the late 50s. Hoover, the woman said, had been “dressed like an old flapper, like you see on old tintypes”.

Bill Clinton, who as president in 1993 was mulling over who to appoint as FBI Director, thought the cross-dressing reports were hilarious. “It’s going to be hard,” he grinned during a speech at a press function, “to fill J Edgar Hoover’s… pumps.” That I published such allegations at all, however, to this day draws roars of fury from old Hoover loyalists.

Other accounts of the Director’s alleged sexual activity, if true, would certainly have destroyed him had they become public. A former Bureau inspector and trusted associate named Jimmy Corcoran said years later that Hoover, youthful at the time, had once asked him to deal with a serious “problem”. He had been arrested on sex charges involving a young man during a trip to New Orleans. Corcoran, who had powerful contacts in the state, said he intervened to hush the matter up.

There is, too, a claim that as late as 1969, when Hoover was in his early 70s, he dallied with teenage boys during his habitual summer break in California. An element of corroboration came from Don Smith, an officer on the Los Angeles police vice squad, who told me of interviews he conducted with youngsters during a paedophile investigation. “The kids,” Smith said, “brought up several famous names, including those of Hoover and his sidekick”.

For me, the most significant, credible information on Hoover’s sexuality came with the discovery that Hoover for a while consulted Marshall de G Ruffin, a Washington psychiatrist who became president of the Washington Psychiatric Society. De Ruffin’s widow Monteen recalled learning from her husband that his distinguished patient was “definitely troubled by homosexuality”. After several sessions, however, “Hoover got very paranoid about anyone finding out he was a homosexual, and got scared.” As if to compensate, Hoover lashed out at and sought to expose other homosexuals. For years he had his agents infiltrate and monitor homosexual-rights groups, while he sounded off publicly about “sex deviates in government service”.

My conclusion after five years’ research was that while Hoover may have spent much of his life repressing his private urges while building an image of himself as the acme of sexual purity, he did sometimes lapse – risking catastrophe every time. Having studied the information I assembled, two noted specialists in psychiatry and psychology said they believed Hoover’s sexual torment was very pertinent to his use and abuse of power as America’s top law-enforcement officer.

Dr John Money, professor of medical psychology at Johns Hopkins University, thought Hoover “needed constantly to destroy other people in order to maintain himself. He managed to live with his conflict by making others pay the price.” Dr Harold Lief, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, concluded that Hoover suffered from “a personality disorder, a narcissistic disorder with mixed obsessive features… paranoid elements, undue suspiciousness and some sadism. A combination of narcissism and paranoia produces what is known as an authoritarian personality. Hoover would have made a perfect high-level Nazi.”

The eight decades of Hoover’s life tell their own story. As early as his teen years, his mind was closing on issues that were to dominate his era. In the school debating society, he argued against women getting the vote and against abolition of the death penalty. He could never bear to come second in anything. When his father began to suffer from mental illness, a niece told me, Hoover “couldn’t tolerate the fact. He never could tolerate anything that was imperfect.” Another relative said: “I sometimes have thought that he really had a fear of becoming too personally involved with people.” William Sullivan, a close FBI associate, thought his boss “didn’t have affection for one single solitary human being”.

Hoover joined the Bureau – at that time just the Bureau of Investigation (the word “Federal” was only added in the 1930s) – as America’s first great Communist scare was getting under way, and handpicked as his assistant a man named George Ruch. One of two key associates to name their own sons J Edgar, Ruch expressed astonishment that left-wingers should even “be allowed to speak and write as they like”. Hoover and Ruch favoured deporting people merely for being members of radical organisations, and used the Bureau to spy on lawyers representing those arrested in the infamous Red Raids of 1920. One of them, on whom he was to keep tabs for half a century and deem “the most dangerous man in the United States”, was future Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter.

Hoover never joined a political party and claimed he was “not political”. In fact, he admitted privately, he was a staunch, lifelong supporter of the Republican party. He secretly aspired to be president and considered running against Franklin D Roosevelt, whom he thought suspiciously left-wing. Hoover publicly expressed support for Senator Joe McCarthy shortly before McCarthy claimed Truman’s State Department was harbouring 200 members of the Communist party. His agents slipped file material to the senator for use in his infamous inquisition, while publicly denying doing so.

The favourable publicity Hoover enjoyed was partially deserved. He cleaned up a Bureau that had been notorious for corruption and inefficiency, replacing it with an agent corps that became a byword for integrity. One veteran defined the ideal new recruit as a man who had to represent “the great middle class”, who “will always eat well and dress well, but will never get that sleek Packard or sumptuous house. He belongs to the Bureau body and soul”.

Hoover brought modernity and co-ordination at a time of disorganisation. He built the first federal fingerprint bank, and his Identification Division would eventually offer instant access to the prints of 159 million people. His Crime Laboratory became the most advanced in the world. He created the FBI National Academy, a sort of West Point for the future elite of law enforcement.

While all this was positive, Hoover’s Division 8, euphemistically entitled Crime Records and Communications, had a priority mission. Crime Records pumped out propaganda that fostered not only the image of the FBI as an organisation that spoke for what was right and just, but of the Director himself as a champion of justice fighting “moral deterioration” and “anarchist elements”. Hoover used the department to preach the notion that the political left was responsible for all manner of perceived evils, from changing sexual standards to delinquency.

Crime Records portrayed Hoover as the dauntless scourge of serious crime. In the movie J Edgar, long sequences are devoted to his supposed role in tracking down the murderer of the aviator Charles Lindbergh’s baby son. In real life, while Hoover postured as the Sherlock who led the probe, the case was in fact broken thanks to work done by another federal agency. Similar phoney self-promotion featured in the fight against the bandits of the 30s, Bonnie and Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger and Alvin Karpis. Hoover hogged the limelight when the thugs were killed or captured and was jealous and vindictive when it fell instead on one of his proteges.

Late in the Eastwood movie, his companion, Clyde Tolson, peruses a memoir Hoover has just completed about his life and career. Then, reproachfully, he remarks that the account is a pack of lies. There was no real-life memoir, but the line is perceptive. Issues of fact versus fabrication and distortion, truth versus outright lie or self-delusion, dominate Hoover’s story.

Hoover’s public position on race, Southerner that he was, was that of the paternalistic white nativist. Less openly, he was racially prejudiced. He shrugged off the miseries of black Americans, preferring to claim they were outside his jurisdiction. “I’m not going to send the FBI in,” a Justice Department official recalled him saying testily, “every time some nigger woman says she’s been raped.” FBI agents paid more attention to investigating black militants than pursuing the Ku Klux Klan.

In the 60s, Hoover went to extreme lengths to establish that Martin Luther King and his movement were under Communist control. When surveillance established only that King was having sex with women other than his wife, FBI aides worked to “neutralise” him by slipping prurient information to the press. When the civil rights leader was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover was enraged. When thousands mourned King’s assassination, Hoover went to the races. He later tried to prevent King’s birthday being declared a national holiday.

All this took place against a personal background of which few are today aware – a rumour that Hoover himself had black ancestry. Early photographs do show him looking somewhat negroid, with noticeably wiry hair. Gossip along those lines was rife in Washington and – true or not – Hoover must have been aware of it. Did anxiety on that front shape the way he behaved towards blacks – just as he lashed out at homosexuals while struggling with his own homosexuality?

Research into the sex angle, meanwhile, may explain why – at the very time in US history that organised crime was on the rise and could have been effectively countered – Hoover failed to act. The man who had found fame for hunting down the bank robbers and bandits of the 30s let the Mafia flourish.

It seemed at first, before the Second World War, that Hoover would clamp down on the mob. Then, abruptly, he turned off the pressure. In the 50s, he actively obstructed the Kefauver Committee, which concluded there was indeed “a nationwide crime syndicate known as the Mafia”. Not so, said Hoover. When a 1958 report by his own agents also said the Mafia was real, he dismissed it as “baloney”. The FBI would take vigorous action only very belatedly, in the 1960s, under pressure from Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

Former officials I interviewed, including three former attorney generals and several former assistant directors of the FBI, were at a loss to explain why Hoover refused to tackle the threat of organised crime. “Hoover’s attitude,” said Neil Welch, a senior former agent who eventually distinguished himself fighting the Mafia, “was so contrary to reality as to be a reason for great speculation.”

Hoover himself, it is now clear, had contacts with organised criminals or their associates in circumstances that made it possible – likely even – that they learned of his sexual proclivities. More than one top mobster claimed the outfit had a hold on Hoover. Meyer Lansky, the syndicate’s co-founder, was said to have “pictures of Hoover in some kind of gay situation” and an associate quoted Lansky as claiming, “I fixed that sonofabitch.” Carmine Lombardozzi, who was known as “the Italian Meyer Lansky”, said: “J Edgar Hoover was in our pocket.”

Blackmail was the tactic that worked for Hoover, too, in his dealings with politicians. The title of my biography of him, Official and Confidential, derives from the name of a file group that was held in locked cabinets in Hoover’s office. By an official count after his death, the Director held 883 files on senators and 722 on congressmen. Many documents were shredded after Hoover’s death, but those that survive speak for themselves. An example is this 1959 report:

Dear Mr Hoover,

You may be interested in the following information… (NAME WITHHELD) [said] she had spent the afternoon of 3 June 1959, with Senator (NAME WITHHELD) in his private office. She also said she had sexual intercourse with the senator during the afternoon “on the couch in the senator’s office…”

Sincerely yours,
James H Gale, Special Agent in Charge

Such reports, I learned, were used to bend politicians to Hoover’s will. He might need their co-operation to procure funds, to gain political muscle, or to avert investigation of operations he preferred kept hidden. An aide to Senator Edward Long, the Democrat from Missouri, was to swear an affidavit describing what occurred when Long was planning hearings on the FBI – with a special focus on electronic eavesdropping. A senior Hoover aide came to call, and the conversation went as follows: “Senator, I think you ought to read this file that we have on you. You know we would never use it, because you’re a friend of ours… We just thought you ought to know the type of stuff that might get around and might be harmful to you… They handed him the folder… Long read it for a few minutes. [Then] they went on their way. The next thing I knew we had orders to skip over the FBI inquiries.”

Hoover snooped not just on politicians but on officials high and low, on Supreme Court justices – at least 12 of them – even on presidents. He built files on writers, actors, on citizens across the spectrum who caught his malignant eye. Many feared what the Director might have found – whether he had compromising information on them or not.

In life, Hoover denied time and again that there were such “secret dossiers”. Acting Attorney General Laurence Silberman, the first person to peruse the secret files after Hoover’s death in 1972, learned otherwise. “J  Edgar Hoover,” he told me, “was like a sewer that collected dirt. I now believe he was the worst public servant in our history.”

The Director more than got away with his excesses. He was showered with honours. Even today, in spite of the ugly truths that have surfaced since his death – an official probe found that on top of everything he had also been personally corrupt – the sign on the façade of FBI headquarters in Washington proclaims, in gold lettering, that it is the “J EDGAR HOOVER BUILDING”.

“American society”, mused Dr Lief, the psychiatrist who thinks the facts indicate Hoover would have made a perfect high-level Nazi, “has a strangely polarised attitude towards its heroes. On the one hand people love to find the idol has clay feet, to find the flaw in the famous man. On the other, they are reluctant to take the hero off his pedestal. This is a curious contradiction in our society, and sometimes a dangerous one.”
Anthony Summers is the author of eight non-fiction books; the most recent is The Eleventh Day, on 9/11. A new edition of Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J Edgar Hoover, is published this month (Ebury, £8.99). The movie J Edgar is out on 20 January

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan/01/j-edgar-hoover-secret-fbi

Alzheimer’s: Diet ‘can stop brain shrinking’. Diet affected tests of memory and thinking skills A diet rich in vitamins and fish may protect the brain from ageing while junk food has the opposite effect. Elderly with high blood levels of vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids had less brain shrinkage and better mental performance. Trans fats found in fast foods were linked to lower scores in tests and more shrinkage typical of Alzheimer’s.

Leave a comment

Alzheimer's disease test Diet affected tests of memory and thinking skills

A diet rich in vitamins and fish may protect the brain from ageing while junk food has the opposite effect, research suggests.

Elderly people with high blood levels of vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids had less brain shrinkage and better mental performance, a Neurology study found.

Trans fats found in fast foods were linked to lower scores in tests and more shrinkage typical of Alzheimer’s.

A UK medical charity has called for more work into diet and dementia risk.

The best current advice is to eat a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, not smoke, take regular exercise and keep blood pressure and cholesterol in check, said Alzheimer’s Research UK.

“There is a clear need for conclusive evidence about the effect of diet on our risk of Alzheimer’s, which can only come from large-scale, long-term studies” –  Dr Simon Ridley Alzheimer’s Research UK

The research looked at nutrients in blood, rather than relying on questionnaires to assess a person’s diet.

US experts analysed blood samples from 104 healthy people with an average age of 87 who had few known risk factors for Alzheimer’s.

They found those who had more vitamin B, C, D and E in their blood performed better in tests of memory and thinking skills. People with high levels of omega 3 fatty acids – found mainly in fish – also had high scores. The poorest scores were found in people who had more trans fats in their blood.

Trans fats are common in processed foods, including cakes, biscuits and fried foods.

The researchers, from Oregon Health and Science University, Portland; Portland VA Medical Center; and Oregon State University, Corvallis, then carried out brain scans on 42 of the participants.

They found individuals with high levels of vitamins and omega 3 in their blood were more likely to have a large brain volume; while those with high levels of trans fat had a smaller total brain volume.

Study author Gene Bowman of Oregon Health and Science University said: “These results need to be confirmed, but obviously it is very exciting to think that people could potentially stop their brains from shrinking and keep them sharp by adjusting their diet.”

‘Strong potential’

Co-author Maret Traber of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University said: “The vitamins and nutrients you get from eating a wide range of fruits, vegetables and fish can be measured in blood biomarkers.

Alzheimer’s disease

 

  • Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause of dementia
  • Symptoms include loss of memory, mood changes, and problems with communication and reasoning
  • No one single factor has been identified as a cause for Alzheimer’s disease – a combination of factors, including age, genes, environment, lifestyle and general health are implicated
  • Source: Alzheimer’s Society

 

“I’m a firm believer these nutrients have strong potential to protect your brain and make it work better.”

Commenting on the study, Dr Simon Ridley, head of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said:

“One strength of this research is that it looked at nutrients in people’s blood, rather than relying on answers to a questionnaire.

“It’s important to note that this study looked at a small group of people with few risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease, and did not investigate whether they went on to develop Alzheimer’s at a later stage.

“There is a clear need for conclusive evidence about the effect of diet on our risk of Alzheimer’s, which can only come from large-scale, long-term studies.”

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16344228

IDIOTS GALORE IN AMERICA. Are the Republican candidates all crazy? I’ve lost count of the number of times over the Christmas break that people have asked me some variation of that question. Weird, mad or bonkers, what ever word they used their contemptuous dismissal was the same. Some will call it bias to even point out that this is a common perception, but it is real, and it is important. Michele Bachmann’s claim that the founding fathers worked hard until slavery was eliminated springs to mind. Herman Cain saying Iran couldn’t be attacked because it had mountains stood out. Rick Perry forgetting which government departments he would abolish was not impressive. The debates at times have seemed like a parade of pygmies.

Leave a comment

Texas Governor Rick Perry speaks in Fort Dodge, Iowa, 31 December 2011 Rick Perry has seen his poll ratings suffer after a series of weak performances in national debates

I’ve lost count of the number of times over the Christmas break that people have asked me some variation of that question. Weird, mad or bonkers, what ever word they used their contemptuous dismissal was the same.

Some will call it bias to even point out that this is a common perception, but it is real, and it is important.

Of course there is a long, if not honourable, tradition of regarding those you disagree with as off their rockers. And we Brits have a bit of a record of patronisingly shaking our heads at American quirkiness.

But the perception that there is something wrong with this year’s crop of candidates isn’t only across the Atlantic or confined by political persuasion.

A leading Republican, who was in Congress for more than 10 years, answered my question: “Who can beat Obama?” with a casual, “a mammal”. Then he added sadly: “But they are all reptiles.”

Familiar pattern

Most exempt Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman from their scorn. But all the others are widely seen as a little kooky.

Partly, it is because they have indeed said some pretty bizarre things.

Michele Bachmann’s claim that the founding fathers worked hard until slavery was eliminated springs to mind. Herman Cain saying Iran couldn’t be attacked because it had mountains stood out.

Rick Perry forgetting which government departments he would abolish was not impressive. That the debates at times have seemed like a parade of pygmies says something about the state of the Republican party, and I will return to that.

But part of it is political. Many see the candidates as far out, on the edge. It is easy to see how that happens, particularly for a British audience.

There’s no doubt the centre of gravity of American politics has long been several notches to the right of British politics.

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann speaks at a church in Oskaloosa, Iowa 1 January 2012 Recent polls rank Michele Bachmann in last place in Iowa, the state where she grew up

But the mood of Republican activists, particularly the Tea Party movement, has moved it even further down that path.

After 2008 the Republicans followed a pattern familiar to defeated parties.

Having lost supporters and members from the middle ground, the core who remain were furious with their leaders, and decided the problem was a lack of ideological purity.

That became a more important touchstone than character, skill or electability in a candidate.

Ideological high ground

The admirably democratic primary system, where ordinary party members choose their candidates in an exhausting and exhaustive process, exacerbates this tendency.

It is not just that candidates have to appeal to the base.

They they have to outbid each other by showing they are more hardline. There is no merit in moderation.

The standard way to do down rivals, is by pointing out any deviation that could be seen as liberal or centrist.

This means from the view of a mainstream British Conservative the ideas espoused by the majority of Republican candidates while not crazy, are pretty hardline.

As I write, there’s an attack ad playing accusing Newt Gingrich of believing that climate change is a problem and supporting the bail out of the banks.

The common prescription from the candidates for America’s economic woes is to cut government spending, cut red tape and lower taxes.

Now that is far from strange or barmy as an economic idea.

But the way candidates are forced to fight each other for the ideological high ground destroys any sense of balance or subtlety.

Ron Paul has at least the honesty to hold views that offend potential supporters as well as opponents.

When a candidate stands out against the narrow zeitgeist, as Newt Gingrich did over immigration, it is regarded as a gaffe.

Ducking the fight
The fact that Iowa votes first has an impact too. Here, evangelical Christian conservatism is a potent force and natural candidates have spent months stressing their credentials.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at a campaign event in Sioux City, Iowa 1 January 2012 Rick Santorum hopes to unite the evangelical Christian vote as his campaign sees a late surge in Iowa

There is absolutely no equivalent in Britain and the focus in American politics on religious views of matters sexual seems very alien.

Of course, abortion and gay marriage can be issues in the UK but they never loom over elections.

In the last week Rick Perry has announced he is against abortion, even when a woman has been raped and put out an add claiming Obama was waging war on Christianity.

Ron Paul has been endorsed by a preacher who advocates the death penalty for homosexuality. Michele Bachmann says that under Biblical instruction she would be submissive to her husband, even as president.

Now, of course the Republican candidates don’t give a hoot what British lefties might think of their beliefs. But the aura of weirdness is likely to have an impact on independent voters in America.

One of the Tea Party movement’s huge strengths was its insistence that to have maximum appeal, economic conservatism shouldn’t get tied up in obsessions about sexual behaviour.

Most of the Republican candidates have ignored that sage advice.

But there is something more profound going on here than just the assumption of hardline positions. You can imagine Romney or Gingrich as President. Not so the others. They look like the B-team.

Perhaps that is unfair. Thatcher and Reagan were mocked as lightweights before they assumed office.

But the most serious potential US presidents, from former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, have ducked this fight.

Maybe they have good personal reasons. Perhaps they think President Barack Obama will, despite all his problems, win.

But maybe they think that winning the White House in 2012 is not such a desirable treat anyway.

There is a good chance that the economic recovery will be so slow and patchy that the next president won’t have an easier time than Mr Obama.

But I wonder if there is another factor. Being president of the US sounds like a pretty good job.

But any top political job is less attractive than it used to be.

As Herman Cain learnt, politics is a nasty business. You have to be purer than the pure to run for office and survive.

There are rewards at the top, not least the immense power, but they are fewer and fewer.

Maybe in a party that sees very little merit in government, where the mainstays of the movement have long preached that government is the opposite of the solution, there is precious little appeal for people of talent in spending millions and putting themselves through hell just to become part of the problem.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16386176

Crackdown on small firms, a blind eye for big business. Tax officials accused of double standards as new drive follows let-off for Goldman Sachs. The tax office faced accusations of double standards last night over plans to target thousands of small businesses with spot checks on their paperwork – despite letting big companies such as Goldman Sachs off millions of pounds in tax. Officials from HM Revenue and Customs with powers to fine small businesses intend to inspect up to 20,000 firms to see if they have adequate proof of expenses and income dating back years in a new drive set to begin in April. The move was condemned by Conservative backbenchers and business groups who warned it risked bankrupting some businesses and harming the already depressed economy.

Leave a comment

The tax office faced accusations of double standards last night over plans to target thousands of small businesses with spot checks on their paperwork – despite letting big companies such as Goldman Sachs off millions of pounds in tax. Officials from HM Revenue and Customs with powers to fine small businesses intend to inspect up to 20,000 firms to see if they have adequate proof of expenses and income dating back years in a new drive set to begin in April.

The move was condemned by Conservative backbenchers and business groups who warned it risked bankrupting some businesses and harming the already depressed economy.

They said it went against a pledge by ministers to cut red tape for companies during the recession and added the arbitrary nature of the unannounced checks amounted to “harassment”. “Despite the worsening economy, HMRC is launching this scheme regardless of the consequences,” said John Walker, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses.

“We have spoken to HMRC and expressed our concerns about this a number of times. But as far as they and ministers are concerned it is a policy aim to make this happen.

“There is a huge difference between the rhetoric of the Government about helping small businesses and what it is doing in reality.” Under the plans, up to 20,000 small businesses including restaurants, builders, manufacturers and IT companies will face spot checks on their record keeping.

They will be expected to show receipts for income and expenditure dating back years to back up their tax returns. Those who are unable to do so will face fines of up to £3,000 which business leaders warn could be enough to push some firms into insolvency.

During a pilot exercise last year, 12 per cent of the businesses examined were judged to have record-keeping practices that were significantly sub-standard. If the same percentage was found to be at fault in the full checks total fines could reach £15m. While inspectors have room for leniency, the federation says that revenue officials take a far tougher line with firms unable to employ high-powered accountants to argue their case than with large companies.

The plan is also causing considerable unease among Conservative backbenchers – who believe it undermines David Cameron and George Osborne’s pledges to support small businesses.

Priti Patel, the Conservative MP for Witham, said around 80 per cent of her constituents worked in small and medium-sized enterprises and she had dealt with numerous examples of what she described as “harassment” by HMRC.

“This is the persecution of small businesses at a time when they are already facing a very, very hard time,” she said.

“The attitude of HMRC to small businesses is frankly disgraceful when they are blatantly doing deals with large firms which have allowed them to escape millions of pounds in tax liabilities. It seems as though HMRC sees small businesses as low-lying fruit to meet their targets. That kind of persecution is outrageous.”

Anne-Marie Morris, the Conservative MP for Newton Abbot, a member of the all-party group on micro-businesses, said she was increasingly concerned about HMRC’s attitude to small businesses.

“There used to be a different ethos at the revenue where they would look on minor errors sympathetically, but that appears to no longer be the case, and very small businesses are being treated in the same way as larger ones with better resources.

“It is simply not practical for a company employing just a few people to spend huge sections of their day on administration as well as getting their firm off the ground. This is particularly true when you’re coming out of a recession.”

Last night a spokesman for HMRC said the plans would be subject to a review following problems with the pilot project and played down the threat of fines. “Following consultation with representative bodies, HMRC has started a detailed review of the business records checks project,” they said.

“HMRC recognises that the pilots have caused considerable concern to the tax profession, and that the project would have benefited from more detailed consultation with tax professionals at an earlier stage.

“In the light of these concerns, HMRC will undertake a review of the project, in consultation with the professional and representative bodies.

“The purpose of the review is to consider the overall aims of business records checks, examine whether the current approach is the best way of achieving the policy objectives, and identify what changes are needed to ensure that the objectives are achieved.

“In the meantime, HMRC will continue with a limited number of business records check pilots, and the results will be evaluated as part of the review.”

But the shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna said: “As the Public Accounts Committee has highlighted recently, there are real concerns over the way HMRC has reached settlements with some large firms, as well as the accountability and transparency of its decision-making.

“The committee said that HMRC has left itself open to suspicion that relationships with some companies are ‘too cosy’ and that small firms had not been given the same service as larger firms. These concerns must be addressed immediately to restore trust.

“It is crucial that HMRC act in a fair and proportionate way with both large and small firms, particularly given the pressures which many businesses are facing at present. It needs to work alongside small firms, most of which do not have a dedicated finance officer, in helping ensure they meet their tax obligations in full.”

Small business praise… big business favours

Recently there has been a deluge of political rhetoric about the importance of small business, while the Revenue has been accused of letting the big boys off lightly…

“There are a range of bodies responsible for inspection (of small businesses). And they need to undergo this cultural change too. They need to understand their job is to make your life easier, not harder.” – Nick Clegg, October 2011

“We want to make the UK the best place to start, finance and grow a business.” – George Osborne, September 2011

* The Permanent Secretary of HMRC, David Hartnett, supervised and signed off a deal that saved Goldman Sachs around £10m in tax. The revelation only came to light after a whistle-blower exposed the “sweetheart” deal.

* Vodafone settled a long-running dispute with the revenue by paying £1.25bn, but a Commons committee heard allegations the tax bill should have been £6bn or more. The committee suspect there may be other questionable deals among £25bn of outstanding tax disputes.

* A review of the Pay as You Earn system for collecting tax concluded nearly six million people had been paying the wrong amount, with about 1.4 million facing demands for, on average, almost £1,500 each.

Case study: ‘This is an extra burden I could really do without’

Daniel Price set up his personalised baby gifts company My1styears.com in 2010 from a tiny office that housed his small workforce as well as equipment. Six months later he expanded into a separate distribution centre in Mill Hill, north London

“This move by the tax man is very unfair on small firms because it’s going to send the cost of doing business through the roof.

“We only have four directors and employ six staff and do everything we can to follow the tax office’s rules, but this is just an extra burden that will be a lot more work for us. It will also take up more of our time, which is certainly going to be a hindrance to growth.

“There’s more stress involved too – the ultimate fine might not be huge but it would affect our bottom line. We’re providing jobs and paying tax to the UK economy at a time when everyone is struggling, but the government doesn’t seem to appreciate that.

“Meanwhile big corporates like Goldman Sachs and Vodafone can spend money on avoiding tax. David Cameron spoke today about the UK seeing more start ups to boost growth – but that’s difficult when we’ve got all these burdens imposed on us.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/crackdown-on-small-firms-a-blind-eye-for-big-business-6284205.html

Richard Dawkins: Illness made Hitchens a symbol of the honesty and dignity of atheism. Every day of his declining life Christopher Hitchens demonstrated the falsehood of that most squalid of Christian lies: that there are no atheists in foxholes. Hitch was in a foxhole, and he dealt with it with a courage, an honesty and a dignity that any of us would be, and should be, proud to be able to muster. And in the process, he showed himself to be even more deserving of our admiration, respect, and love. Farewell, great voice. Great voice of reason, of humanity, of humour. Great voice against cant, against hypocrisy, against obscurantism and pretension, against all tyrants including God.

Leave a comment

 

 

On 7 October, I recorded a long conversation with Christopher Hitchens in Houston, Texas, for the Christmas edition of New Statesman which I was guest-editing.

He looked frail, and his voice was no longer the familiar Richard Burton boom; but, though his body had clearly been diminished by the brutality of cancer, his mind and spirit had not. Just two months before his death, he was still shining his relentless light on uncomfortable truths, still speaking the unspeakable (“The way I put it is this: if you’re writing about the history of the 1930s and the rise of totalitarianism, you can take out the word ‘fascist’, if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with ‘extreme-right Catholic party’”), still leading the charge for human freedom and dignity (“The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy – the one that’s absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do”) and still encouraging others to stand up fearlessly for truth and reason (“Stridency is the least you should muster … It’s the shame of your colleagues that they don’t form ranks and say, ‘Listen, we’re going to defend our colleagues from these appalling and obfuscating elements’.”).

The following day, I presented him with an award in my name at the Atheist Alliance International convention, and I can today derive a little comfort from having been able to tell him during the presentation that day how much he meant to those of us who shared his goals.

I told him that he was a man whose name would be joined, in the history of the atheist/secular movement, with those of Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, David Hume. What follows is based on my speech, now sadly turned into the past tense.

Christopher Hitchens was a writer and an orator with a matchless style, commanding a vocabulary and a range of literary and historical allusion far wider than anybody I know. He was a reader whose breadth of reading was simultaneously so deep and comprehensive as to deserve the slightly stuffy word “learned” – except that Christopher was the least stuffy learned person you could ever meet.

He was a debater who would kick the stuffing out of a hapless victim, yet did it with a grace that disarmed his opponent while simultaneously eviscerating him. He was emphatically not of the school that thinks the winner of a debate is he who shouts loudest. His opponents might have shouted and shrieked. Indeed they did. But Hitch didn’t need to shout, for he could rely instead on his words, his polymathic store of facts and allusions, his commanding generalship of the field of discourse, and the forked lightning of his wit.

Christopher Hitchens was known as a man of the left. But he was too complex a thinker to be placed on a single left-right dimension. He was a one-off: unclassifiable. He might be described as a contrarian except that he specifically and correctly disavowed the title. He was uniquely placed in his own multidimensional space. You never knew what he would say about anything until you heard him say it, and when he did, he would say it so well, and back it up so fully, that if you wanted to argue against him you had better be on your guard.

He was recognised throughout the world as a leading public intellectual of our time. He wrote many books and countless articles. He was an intrepid traveller and a war reporter of signal valour. But he had a special place in the affections of atheists and secularists as the leading intellect and scholar of our movement. A formidable adversary to the pretentious,

the woolly-minded or the intellectually dishonest, he was a gently encouraging friend to the young, the diffident, and those tentatively feeling their way into the life of the freethinker and not certain where it would take them.

He inspired, energised and encouraged us. He had us cheering him on almost daily. He even begat a new word – the hitchslap. It wasn’t just his intellect we admired: it was also his pugnacity, his spirit, his refusal to countenance ignoble compromise, his forthrightness, his indomitable spirit, his brutal honesty.

And in the very way he looked his illness in the eye, he embodied one part of the case against religion. Leave it to the religious to mewl and whimper at the feet of an imaginary deity in their fear of death; leave it to them to spend their lives in denial of its reality. Hitch looked it squarely in the eye: not denying it, not giving in to it, but facing up to it squarely and honestly and with a courage that inspires us all.

Before his illness, it was as an erudite author, essayist and sparkling, devastating speaker that this valiant horseman led the charge against the follies and lies of religion. During his illness he added another weapon to his armoury and ours – perhaps the most formidable and powerful weapon of all: his very character became an outstanding and unmistakable symbol of the honesty and dignity of atheism, as well as of the worth and dignity of the human being when not debased by the infantile babblings of religion.

Every day of his declining life he demonstrated the falsehood of that most squalid of Christian lies: that there are no atheists in foxholes. Hitch was in a foxhole, and he dealt with it with a courage, an honesty and a dignity that any of us would be, and should be, proud to be able to muster. And in the process, he showed himself to be even more deserving of our admiration, respect, and love.

Farewell, great voice. Great voice of reason, of humanity, of humour. Great voice against cant, against hypocrisy, against obscurantism and pretension, against all tyrants including God.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/richard-dawkins-illness-made-hitchens-a-symbol-of-the-honesty-and-dignity-of-atheism-6278298.html

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.