The Burning Question... posted by lenin

Is Tony Blair a Liar or Merely a Mass Murderer?

Increasingly, commentators of the "I'm-so-logical-it-hurts" variety have tended to reduce the Hutton Report and its attending controversies to a simple fallacy of the Left. Namely, we overshot ourselves in trying to peg Blair as a liar, and allowed the debate to be dominated by that single, narrow issue. This was inevitably a poor move, as deft manoeuvres between shades of meaning is Blair's specialty. He wouldn't outright lie - he is, after all, a lawyer. He can dissimulate without actually falsifying, misrepresent without leaving his ass uncovered. Mick Hume, from Spiked Online, notes:

"That obsession with sleaze was the framework within which the inquiry was set up by the government and run by Lord Hutton. The central question to which all sides demanded the answer was not 'Was the Iraq war right?', but 'Are Blair, Alastair Campbell and Geoff Hoon liars who deliberately misled the nation about the infamous 45 minute claim?', as suggested by Andrew Gilligan's BBC report. Unless he had been handed signed confessions by the accused, it is hard to see how the law lord could have been expected to find the prime minister guilty of such a serious charge of dishonesty."

Mick, whom we all remember for enlightening us about fake concentration camps in Bosnia during his fading stint as an RCPer , may be onto something here. Obviously, such a crucial question as the justice of war cannot be reduced to such low-key wrangling between a BBC reporter and Her Majesty's government. Similarly, when Nick Cohen (still clutching his left credentials like a moth-eaten security blanket) notes that the Hutton Inquiry cannot have been a whitewash in all seriousness because its remit was so narrow, he again has a point in directing us to the big picture.

But such exhortations risk throwing the bitch out with the bath-water. For one thing, I'm not at all sure the question of Blair's dishonesty is irrelevant, nor is it so bad from a strategic point of view to feign innocence and pretend we think Hutton will deliver something more than a whitewash. The immediate effect of Hutton's report has been to elicit a mass, hearty jeer of contempt from most of the public, matched instantly by heated applause and relief from Labour MPs so reflexive in their adulation of Tony's matchless capacity to slither out of any old shit he gets himself into. The Hutton Inquiry unearthed a mountain of evidence, which only needs looking at to realise the extensive probing and tailoring that went into the September dossier.

Honest Tony, the Used Arms Dealer, has no credibility left. Once a savvy political operator with charmed fortunes, he still knows how to rig an Inquiry and engineer victory over pitched parliamentary battles. Yet, one would expect no less from someone with the power and privileges of the British Prime Minister. What he lacks is any remaining affinity with the British voter. American voters, it is true, love him and take him to be as earnest as when he gave his marriage vows, which is exactly how they treated Clinton. But then they've got less to compare him with, and have had no time to get sick of him. His petulant outbursts of sanctimony over everything from public sector workers ("scars on my back") to antiwar demonstrators ("blood on their hands") have only depleted his moral standing in the UK. The completeness of his victory in Hutton is also a complete failure. Consider this: The Prime Minister and his staff have been completely exhonerated, their enemies utterly tossed and gored. Not a spot of blood has touched their Gucci suits, and the naked ladies on Tony's Versace shirt-cuffs remain intact. Yet, noone believes him or Lord Hutton, nor has any love for the Labour Party. The despised BBC, however, has attracted legions of sympathisers (who may yet be put off by its groaning self-abasement before power).

Those who note the narrowness of Hutton's remit only to conclude that he could not have reached different conclusions are peddling apathy as scepticism. (One doubts, somehow, that Nick Cohen would have been happy to see the government found guilty of fantastic fabrications over this.) Lord Hutton was happy to allow his remit to extend as far as excoriating the BBC for a minute slip in editorial standards, yet would not allow a similar and perfectly reasonable extension to consider the likelihood of government manipulation of intelligence information. They also miss that what has been most damaging for Blair and the government, from this report, has been the incongruence of evidence and conclusion. There is rarely a strict adherence between the two in any public inquiry, but one usually expects a sense of correlation, a sense that the judge is tending the same way as the evidence has, and that he will get there in his doddery old brain when the pension cheques start to clear. In this case, everyone who has attended the inquiry and reported from it will say more or less the same thing - it is a tragicomic farce.

Luckily, we needn't accept it. Granting the narrowness of the Hutton Report, we nevertheless have access to its evidentiary base and also the chance to tap a groundswell of public anger. Public contempt is unlikely to dissipate , and there is an excellent chance of generating a serious political challenge to the status quo. It behooves those "left cynics" who continually mewl about the larger picture and bemoan political degeneration to contribute to its regeneration. In specific, if you see a handle, turn it. Opportunities arrive even on establishment band-wagons. And Hutton, the famed nag of the Protestant Ascendancy, has dragged before us a rickety old wagon filled with thinly veiled swag.

Slavoj Zizek on Leninism posted by lenin

The man is back and on form:

What Is To Be Done (With Lenin)?

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin died on January 21 1924, 80 years ago—does the embarrassed silence over his name mean that he died twice, that his legacy is also dead? His insensitivity toward personal freedoms is effectively foreign to our liberal-tolerant sensibility – who, today, would not experience a shudder apropos his dismissive remarks against the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionaries’ critique of the Bolshevik power in 1922?

“Indeed, the sermons which...the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries preach express their true nature: ‘The revolution has gone too far. What you are saying now we have been saying all the time, permit us to say it again.’ But we say in reply: ‘Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying that. Either you refrain from expressing your views, or, if you insist on expressing your political views publicly in the present circumstances, when our position is far more difficult than it was when the white guards were directly attacking us, then you will have only yourselves to blame if we treat you as the worst and most pernicious white guard elements.’”
This dismissive attitude towards the “liberal” notion of freedom accounts for Lenin’s bad reputation among liberals. Their case largely rests upon their rejection of the standard Marxist-Leninist opposition of “formal” and “actual” freedom, but as even ;eftist liberals like Claude Lefort emphasize again and again, freedom is in its very notion “formal,” so that “actual freedom” equals the lack of freedom. Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort “Freedom - yes, but for whom? To do what?” For him, in the above-quoted case of the Mensheviks, their “freedom” to criticize the Bolshevik government effectively amounted to the “freedom” to undermine the workers’ and peasants’ government on behalf of the counterrevolution...

Read the rest here .

Hutton Links. posted by lenin

Here's a few useful bits of material on the Hutton Report for all those arch-cynics out there. Have your worst doubts confirmed before it all disappears down the memory-hole.

Rod Liddle, editor of the Today programme when Gilligan coughed up the dirt, gives his acerbic take on Lord Hutton's atrocity.

David Miller, trenchant critic of the mass media, rehearses the salient truths which Hutton ignores.

Kelly's adversaries attempted to smear him on account of his faith

Most voters think the Hutton Report was a whitewash

Intelligence expert Tom Mangold's e-mail correspondence with Peter Horrocks reveals that the original intelligence suggested that Saddam would be able "to authorise a strike within forty-five minutes ... Anyone who knows anything about biological warfare knows that it is a slow and cumbersome form of warfare, requiring careful mix of precursor chemicals before loading ... It would be well-nigh impossible to deploy such WMD within 45 minutes from a standing start."

Susan Watt's conversations with David Kelly reveal that a) He had serious doubts about the 45-minute claim, b) he expressed these to the government and c) they vigorously pressed for the claim to be inserted, regardless.

The Dyke Busters! posted by lenin

Just because Hutton was so obscenely whitewashing on behalf of the government is no excuse for us to start getting lax on the Beeb. The bulk of Gilligan's report was accurate. The Prime Minister patently lied, despite Hutton's obfuscations. So, why is Auntie suddenly rolling over like a good doggy for the government's amusement? The answer could lie in what Richard Sambrook told Geoff Hoon last year...

I Am Satisfied That...

Greg Dyke resigns , but it seems he is only following the orders of the BBC Board . You can look at this in all sorts of ways. For instance, I thought to myself: "So?" Others might be inclined to say something like "Huh?" and "Who gives a shit?"

Let's get back to the real issues. Did Alistair Campbell want intelligence about Saddam Hussein's WMD capacity to be manipulated in favour of the government's story on Iraq, and did he express this wish to John Scarlett? Yes, he did.

What did he do? He defined the terms of the dossier, how information would be presented, what kind of information was required, and to what ends . And what does it mean, for example, when Campbell tells Scarlett that "I'm sure we can make [your dossier] one that complements rather than conflicts with [Whitehouse claims]"? Does it seem possible, or perhaps even likely that Campbell was alluding to a role for him in helping determine what went into the dossier? And when he asked John Scarlett to change the wording of the dossier from the claim that the Iraqi military "may be able to" deploy chemical and biological weapons in forty-five minutes to "are able to", was this above or beneath consciousness? The final dossier reads: "Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them. "

What did David Kelly say he did? David Kelly told Andrew Gilligan that Campbell had pressed for the claim to be included although it was not in the original draft, that it was included against the wishes of weapons experts, and that it was based on the misinterpretation of a single source. The source had said that it took fourty five minutes to set up a missile assembly and this was misinterpreted. He said that the whole dossier was altered a week before publication in order to make it "sexier" and that the 45-minute claim was a classic example of this. He did not say, in precise terms, "that the government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable before the dossier was published."

What did Gilligan claim? He said, in respect of the 45-minute claim, that "what I have been told is that the government knew that claim was questionable even before the war, even before they wrote it in their dossier."

Indulge me and read that to yourself aloud. If Gilligan's notes are an accurate recording of his meeting with David Kelly, then this claim is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that, even if it extrapolates. It is at the very least a fair inference. Lord Hutton's answer to this is that Gilligan's memory must be fucked, and he probably made half of it up. "I am satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan that the Government probably knew or suspected that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before that claim was inserted in the dossier."

Whether this is the literal truth or not, what David Kelly is believed by Hutton to have told Andrew Gilligan remains the core of the controversy. Campbell pressed for a charge to be included in the dossier to make it "sexier" in spite of the protests of weapons experts who knew that it was probably wrong. Is it possible that the government can have defied the protests of weapons experts who maintained such beliefs and not come across the idea that the claim was incorrect? Only by the slenderest of literalisms may Hutton maintain such a position.

Similarly, with Blair's emphatic claim that he had not authorised the naming of Dr David Kelly to the press, let's recall that Sir Kevin Tebbit told the Hutton enquiry that Blair chaired the meeting which led to Kelly's name being released to the press. It gave those who communicated with the press "an authoritative basis on which to proceed" - namely that they should assent to the name if prompted to do so by the press. We don't know if this had anything to do with Campbell noting that it would "fuck Gilligan" were it revealed that Kelly was the source. Shall we just say that Blair was "subconsciously" influenced by the suggestion? No, Hutton would rather we constrained ourselves to his abstemious literalism, allowing that it is possible that Tony Blair "was instrumental in the decision to issue a statement [but that] he was not involving in "any consideration" of drawing up question and answer material ordering government press officers to confirm Dr Kelly's name if it is put to them." Lord Hutton can find no contradiction between this assumption and Tebbit's suggestion that Blair in fact chaired the meeting which gave the press officers their "authoritative basis on which to proceed" with respect to naming Kelly.

How glib Hutton's dismissals of crucial evidence and apparent contradictions, how dilute his justification for those dismissals! How Alistair Campbell's glorious triumphalism cries out for satire, ( "the Prime Minister told the truth, the Government told the truth, I told the truth." ). Not a particle of criticism has been allowed to soil the government, and not a damned word has been said about the substantive issues. An inquiry which was supposed to investigate the circumstances surrounding Dr David Kelly's death has ended as a public trial of one reporter and one report. We had no right to expect any better.

On this basis, the BBC now accepts that many of its key allegations were wrong, and apologises. There's the stinger, and it leads us happily to our conclusion.

The Big Conclusion

There's no point in fawning over Auntie just because she seems to be in a bit of trouble. We know how abusive, indifferent and callow she has been in the past, while exhibiting a craven love of power. There is no chance that the BBC is about to become a qualitatively different organisation. It was the worst performer during the war for antiwar content. It has never had an adversarial relationship with the government. After this round of spouse-beating, we can all look forward to the government crooning "I didn't mean it, baby, you just got out of line" while the Beeb sobs "I know. I'm sorry love. I know you're a good man. You didn't mean no harm." That it has always been a vehicle for MoD propaganda is one of the many things which Richard Sambrook wheeled out in his defense when Ben Bradshaw and Geoff Hoon were harrying him: "At no time in this dispute have I sought to criticise the MoD Press Office with whom we have always enjoyed excellent relations." The truth at last!

Hutton Double Take posted by lenin

So, the BBC is in "crisis". Really? It looks pretty much like the usual sterile establishment pap to me. Sorry, but while I fully commend the hard work of Andrew Gilligan in producing a worthwhile news report that was, for the most part, absolutely accurate, I can't join the chorus of liberals and right-wingers singing praise to the Beeb. The coverage of the Hutton Inquiry has involved almost at every level the unspoken assumption that somehow things might have been different. Journalists and reporters behaved as if they confidently expected Hutton to give the Prime Minister a sharp slap in the gob.

Twits. Let's see. An establishment man hand-picked by the government to conduct an inquiry directly answerable to the Prime Minister reaches conclusions which, although the fly in the face of all the available evidence and have confounded those who attended the inquiry, exclude the government from any damage. That fucking amazes you? I've got to play poker with you sharpies some time. In fact, the most interesting thing about Lord Hutton's conclusions, aside from the fabulous contortions of intellect and sense in support of the government, is the contempt in which the masses are held. It is perfectly permissible, Hutton said, for the Prime Minister to seek to beef up the wording of an intelligence dossier from the Joint Intelligence Committee if it is for the consumption of the public and not the government. One must never lie to one's colleagues, only to the people.

But I recant somewhat from my earlier thought that Hutton has been pointless. There is, after all, that mountain of evidence submitted, which Hutton has skated over, but which we may now assess. The Willesden Herald, which has had some excellent commentary on this week's events ("Note to Librarians: file Labour manifestos under Fiction", notes that:
The guilty are guilty regardless of what Judges say
Everyone can access the evidence seen by Lord Hutton. We are in the position of a jury. Nothing that a judge, court or jury says can ever change the actual guilt or innocence of anyone accused. It also has some excellent questions for his Lordship from Feargal Mooney.

And Seamus Milne, in today's Guardian, offers us some of what we may digest when we've had the chance to properly sink our teeth into the evidence:

"We know, for example, that Blair's chief of staff Jonathan Powell asked the joint intelligence committee's John Scarlett to redraft that part of the September dossier which suggested Saddam Hussein might use chemical and biological weapons "if he believes his regime is under threat" - and Scarlett did so, by taking out the qualifications. We know that Campbell asked Scarlett to change a claim that the Iraqi military "may be able" to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes to "are able". But Lord Hutton is of the view that this is not at all the "sexing up" that the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan quoted Kelly as complaining about. We also know that Blair chaired the meeting at which the strategy for outing Kelly was adopted, even though the prime minister later denied having anything to do with it. But, in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Lord Hutton, that was entirely consistent and honourable."

Claire Dyer adds in today's Guardian:

"Anthony Scrivener QC, a former chairman of the bar, said: "You get a conventional, conservative with a small "c" judge. You ask whether the prime minister and other members of the government have been lying through their teeth. As a conventional judge he applies the criminal standard of proof.

"You give him no right to get documents so he only sees the documents you give him. The result is entirely predictable."

One senior QC said: "I think the report reflects his establishment background. He is a trusting man as far as officialdom is concerned.""

*Yawn*. The sordid facts about our political class never cease to amaze the gullible.

Conspiracy Theory posted by lenin

Suppose I rip off a little theory imparted to me by someone who shall remain nameless because it wouldn't be a rip-off otherwise, and suggest that there was more to the vote on tuition fees than meets the eye? Not mere spinelessness, although a heavy dose of that, but also a carefully judged ploy by the New Prince and his court jesters to bring the rebellion tumbling down like so many lego bricks.

Imagine Tony Blair spies disaster in the offing with both Labour MPs and opposition parties capable of uniting to wreck his latest Flagship Policy, and invites a respected but dismally boring MP into his office for a chat. They talk about how much this bill is going to hurt the government, whether it succeeds or fails. The MP is loyal, and amiable, and what is more he is highly regarded by liberals who might otherwise be moderately suspicious of the government. Tony talks him round the issues, what is at stake for the government, how it could only be avoided by a resounding success for the bill. And suddenly, as if he'd thought of the idea himself, our loyal MP says:

"Well, what if you let me join the rebels? Let me pretend to be their most dedicated and principled spokesman, the one who won't buckle no matter what concessions the Chancellor delivers from his sack. Being a former cabinet member, with no major tarnishes to speak of, they would be hard pressed to turn away from me. Now, then, say I suddenly 'return to the fold' as it were, at the last second, citing aforementioned concessions and my enduring concern for the wellbeing of the Party. That would be certain to send a great shattering crack through any coalition of dissent."

And Blair says:

"Well, there was no need to be fucking wordy about it, Nick, but I take your point."

And over a glass or two of Kristal, they proceed to call in their political advisers, pore over the details and evolve a strategy...

Nick Brown, the mole? Too much? Would he be clever enough? Before you think about that, think about this: our government is the most fanatical government we've had in years. It has a proven track record of steamrolling legislation through parliament that is both unpopular and unsound, that will cost the public more money, that will reduce efficiency and that will lose votes. This is not the pragmatic, consensus building government of hazy liberal dreams. Tony Blair has a labrador's sense of loyalty to his business allies, and a gut loathing of everything that "has been" about Britain. His coterie of advisers are strict free marketeers, privatisers, heavy political operators. They have sacraficed much to go to war on Iraq, and almost as much to go to war on students and pensioners. And Nick Brown, whatever his reputation, is Tony Blair with the interesting bits removed.

At any rate, governments act in this way all the time. They conspire. It is in the nature of power to dissemble when its interests fail to coincide with those it is answerable to.

If, however, it were true, we're still left with the dismal fact that 85 percent of Labour MPs voted in favour of this bill. May their bodies be torn asunder and their empty skulls used as piss-pots for all eternity.

Hutton: What Was the Fucking Point of That? posted by lenin

I'd like to address his lordship with that particular question. If he's available for a chat, I'll be in the Freemasons Arms in Covent Garden tonight*, because I want some frigging answers.

Let's summarise:

1) The report has nothing to say about the war, the misuse of intelligence, or the possibility that Tony Blair has lied.

2) The report notes that Gilligan's allegations were "grave" and "attacked the integrity of the Government and the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)". Doesn't miss much this guy, does he? He does suggest that Kelly did not tell Gilligan that the government knew the "45 minute claim" was wrong, and that therefore Gilligan has extrapolated too freely from his notes which did not support such a conclusion. He does emphasise that the BBC's editorial system in this case had been "defective". He does not say that the 45 minute claim was accurate, which is the most important point.

3) It does not tell us if the MoD were allowed "to confirm the name if it was put to them" with Tony Blair's specific say so, as many suspect.

4) It's only positive conclusion is that "Dr Kelly took his own life and no third party was involved". I have no idea how to evaluate this claim, and with all due respect to the Kelly family I have no particular interest in it. Public enquiries are not supposed to investigate conspiracy theories - at least in part because if there is a conspiracy anywhere along the line, the last place the truth is likely to emerge is in a public enquiry, particularly one directly set up and accountable to the Prime Minister.

5) It also suggests that the Joint Intelligence Committee's assessment was perhaps "subconsciously" influenced by the Prime Minister's desire to have a powerful document, (a weasel phrase), but it suggests that the assessment was "in line with available intelligence", which is to say that it presented all manner of flimsy suggestions coming from any kind of source, polished them with any lurid depiction available, and presented it in a dossier. "Available intelligence" is a non-descript, indiscriminating term, probably deliberately employed to avoid questions as to what Scarlett or Blair knew of its quality and veracity.

So, failing some subtle clause buried deep within the text which our eagle-eyed journalists have yet to spot, we have finished with a belaboured exercise in futility, and a series of splash points for The Sun. No truth, no revelation, just barrel-scraping and evasion. Thanks, your lordship.

*No I won't. Don't need any 'fans' turning up with baseball bats.

Cowardly Pieces of Shit posted by lenin

No time for temperate and reflective discussion of the issues. Once again, Labour has frittered way its chance to prove that it still has some fight in it , still has the ability to overcome its awful leadership. It has voted in favour of a policy which is not only opposed by a majority of the public, but also by a majority of those who voted for it. Memories of this night will return to mantle their cheeks with a blush of shame. No guts, no brains, no backbone.

It's time to stop wasting our time on these grovelling, pettifogging, supine sacks of bovine effluent and invest our energies elsewhere. The least you can do is vote with self-respect. Don't vote for some smarmy career-men in suits who buckle like paper cups the second the slightest pressure is applied. Don't give any more credibility to this weak, nasty and unpopular government. They deserve not a whit of energy or enthusiasm from you. Vote for an alternative. Vote Respect this June 10th. Don't be taken for suckers again.

Labour is dead. Don't mourn, organise!

Libya and the US: How Terrorism Won posted by lenin

Labels: libya, lockerbie, terrorism, US imperialism

The Great White Lie posted by lenin

The familiar refrain that all politicians dissemble, newspapers lie, and the pope shits in the woods speaks of a commonsensical realism, all too often taken for cynicism. It isn’t uniformly the case, but at least it cuts through any bullshit. Anyway, they don’t fool us, that parcel of fuckwits. In that appendage, we take some comfort. They can spin all they like, but they won’t fool people for long.

But that isn’t the point. The point of the near-constant dispensation of lies, half-truths and irrelevancies is to create an atmosphere in which it becomes almost impossible to distinguish honesty from deception, fact from fantasy. It is sufficient, if all else fails, to muddy the waters and make the picture seem a lot less clear than certain activists and critics would make it seem. This is usually enough to maintain an inert citizenry, since moral certainty is the backbone of sustained political engagement. There is, in fact, a version of public scepticism amenable to the political Right, which roughly goes thus: there’s never enough to go around, not everyone can be happy, someone will always be left out, and anyone seeking elective office would be commiting suicide to inform the public of this reality. This is enough for some to suggest that any time spent uncovering the various lies of politicians is time mis-spent. It is decidedly small picture, and avoids the larger lie, which often underlies and sustains the whole phoney debate. This can be true, but it isn’t necessarily so. Correctly understood, the careless lies of elected representatives speak more of structure than individual psychology.

To take a few relatively familiar, white lies that have at times diminished the reputations of their authors:

Al Gore claimed to have invented the “information superhighway”. He in fact had a part in inventing the term, but not the thing itself, which was the product of the Pentagon and Geneva.

Tony Blair claimed not to have had any dealings with Peter Foster, when in fact Foster had secured two two flats in Bristol for £69,000 for him and his family.

Bill Clinton claimed not to have had “sex with that woman”. In fact, he had a variety of forms of sex with that woman, once involving a childish game with a cigar.

Bill Clinton claimed to have enjoyed the baseball games of Jackie Robinson, and in particular his stand against racism in the game. He is too young to have witnessed Robinson’s games or to have been politically active at the time of Robinson’s renunciation of racism.

This is a small sample from a literal encyclopedia of dissimulation, and that of a quite ridiculous kind. These lies confer no benefit beyond that temporary ego trip a four year old might get from making his playschool mates believe he was a spy for the Babylonian government. Yet these sometimes outlandish, and always easily checked stories are dispensed with an ease and casual disregard that calls to mind Nathanial Zuckerman’s comment in the Philip Roth novel, I Married a Communist, that anyone who can lie so easily has changed his relationship to the truth. More generally, consider Oscar Wilde’s insight in De Profundis that “every little action of the common day makes or unmakes the character”, and it's clear that a career built on carefully drafted misrepresentation and mendacity will subtly poison the character in this way. In the case of the British front-bench, we are talking of a class of human beings who are a) primarily composed of trained lawyers, b) convinced that their policies are, broadly, the absolute best available under given conditions, and c) apprised of public hostility to these policies.

Hence the in-built tendency to view all problems as being, in nature, ones of presentation rather than substance. If the public rejects a policy, it isn’t because the policy is wrong, it is because the public does not understand its true meaning, its eminent good sense, the unavailability of alternatives. In David Hare’s play The Absence of War, a group of senior Labour politicians, circa 1992, have developed a policy to increase, marginally, the tax on mortgages. They haven’t communicated this to the electorate, but they believe profoundly in its justice as a meliorative measure of redistribution. When the details are leaked to a smarmy, pampered upper-class politics discussion show host, t provokes a crisis of credibility, and contributes to the party’s eventual loss to the Tories. Such an attitude to the public, nurtured for reasons of social democracy, is a contradiction in terms. Either one is for improving the lot of the majority, in which case one should say so, or one isn’t. And therefore, one has either to ditch the condescending attitude to the electorate, or the social democracy.

Casual lying, as opposed to programmatic lying, is in this respect more revealing of the basic structure of establishment ideology. This conscious disavowal makes for a disgusting kind of sincerity, exemplified by the Prime Minister. I learned as a teenager that if I wanted to lie convincingly and successfully, I had only to believe the lie fervently enough, to round it out in my mind with all attendant details, to give it a primary reality. Thus prepared, I would orate my spotty little arse off, a precocious Cicero telling florid, self-serving lies for a delighted audience. When the Prime Minister tells us that he firmly/passionately/fervently believes something to be the case, and then issues some perfectly coherent reasons for believing it, I sense a similar mechanism at work. When Bush painfully breathes, in his State of the Union address, that “we will bring the Iraqis food, and water, and hope”, the sanctimony of the approved charlatan suggests itself.

The relationship between arbitrary, casual embellishments, and ideological lies is thus one in which the latter is the cause of the former effect. Having divorced word from meaning in one’s most ordinary speech, that related to work, it is not a simple matter to remarry them. That the Big Lie is not what Nietzche called “the Socratic lie” – that we can erase pain from our lives and make them less tragic – should be self-evident to anyone vaguely familiar with the common terms of this government’s language. As Norman Fairclough notes, New Labour language typically removes agency – things happen, but they are not done. Job losses are the result of mysterious “global forces” rather than decisions taken at board level. There is no alternative, there can be no return to the old ways, we can no longer sustain a situation in which… etc. The Big Lie is not that heaven can be created on earth, but that hell cannot be eradicated from it – the Nietzchean lie, if you like. This lie, predicated on the free market ideology that needs are infinitely expandible and that therefore there will never be a surplus of goods to share so that the market remains eternally the best mechanism for the allocation of goods, (itself mirrored in the Schopenhaueran philosophy of self-perpetuating Desire, the purposeless purposiveness at the heart of human existence), underwrites all the minor fabrications of opportunist politicians and their court intellectuals.

A story is told of a New York couple who break up, because the husband, Stanley, has informed his wife, Jessie, that for the last year he’s been having an affair. Eventually, as the divorced couple meet after court proceedings, the husband admits that the affair was a lie all along. The wife is astonished:
“I’m heart-broken! How could you lie to me like that?”
“Never mind that.” The husband rages. “How could you have believed it?”

I think he is right.

Liberals and Power: A Day in the Life of The Guardian posted by lenin

Imagine boredom. If it proves too difficult, have a look at The Guardian's leader comments , that should induce the desired state. You feel enervated, languidly at ease on your beanbag cushion, yawning while flicking through your copy of Health & Efficiency magazine, rhythmically tapping your knee to the sound of the clock's gentle meting out of time.

That, according to Peter Preston of The Guardian, is the national mood with respect to this government, and Tony Blair in particular. 2 million people hit the streets from sheer numbness of mind, and now they "seem indecently anxious to be rid of [Blair]" out of unalloyed lassitude. Preston complains that "the chattering classes seldom chatter about" this possibility, an odd lapse into self-loathing for someone who is himself a member of "the chattering classes", and who at any rate rectifies this sad situation with his column:

"We're bored ... Eleven years of Frasier, nine years of Friends, five years of the Sopranos, seven years of Blair ... We don't care what a twinkling bloke he is any longer. We've had it up to here with mission visions and rictoid grins. Now please, can we switch channels?"

From self-loathing we have proceed to loathing of the masses. The only reason we could have any animus against such a "star, a best for Britain" is because we want a new drama. Politics is just television, even if we occasionally trample the streets in search of a new plot. Now, we will oust Blair just to obtain a new tragicomedy to soothe our bored souls.

Blair will "get through his difficult week". "Probably deservedly".

We oppose mass murder because we are "bored". Tony Blair deserves to remain in power, despite his recent involvement in mass murder. And, to add to that, The Guardian leader tells us that Blair must be honest and admit that there was an intelligence failure in relation to Iraq, that we had gone to war on the basis of flawed information which Tony Blair allowed himself to believe. No possibility then that Blair is a liar, a mass murderer, and a discreditted charlatan whom we, the public, are anxious to rid ourselves of?

Are You Getting Respect? posted by lenin

You're a Blairite, pissing yourself at the feebleness of the rubber-spines in the Labour back-benches, and how quickly they'll whore themselves to the Cabinet for a few crumby concessions. You're enjoying the facility with which The Guardian despatches these foolhardy radicals for standing in the way of progress. A warm feeling floods your gut as you realise that Tone will once again triumph, that dissent is always the losing side, and that the hammering steam-engine of progress will continue it's merciless trammel through all barriers. Just one thing stands in the way of a nice glass of Drambuie. The British public. The FUCKING BRITISH PUBLIC!! Lazy-minded, slackwitted, workshy, acne-scarred bastards the lot of them! And they actually give the vote to these people? Latest poll shows that 60% of the British people oppose tuition fees , Blair's new flagship policy. (Check that link, by the way, and note The Guardian's phrase "instinctively opposed" as if it couldn't be a rational choice). They damned-near fucked up the Iraq war and here they are yet again, with their 'I think they shoulds' and 'it ain't rights'. Luckily, noone in their right mind bothers to represent these arid twits...

Well, you aren't to know that today, Sunday 25th January 2004, at roughly 4pm, a new coalition was launched to fight New Labour in the polls - and it already has its first MP. Respect: The Unity Coalition is dedicated to opposing war, renationalising the rail, abolishing wasteful PFI schemes, defense of the environment, defense of asylum seekers and immigrants, freedom for Palestine, redistribution of wealth to fund increased benefits and pensions, a minimum wage of £7.40 to match the European Union Decency Threshold and a vote against the Euro which, as presently constituted, insitutionalises draconion crackdowns on public expenditure, neoliberal economic policies, and undemocratic decision-making.

It's National Executive will include:

George Galloway MP

Mark Serwotka, general-secretary of the PCS union

Salma Yaqoob, chair of the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition

Dr Sidiqqu, leader of the Muslim parliament

John Rees, SWP, and co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition

Linda Smith, treasurer of the London FBU

Dr Mohammed Naseem, Birmingham Central Mosque

and others.

There were considerable difficulties to overcome before a unanimous vote was made to endorse the whole programme and executive. Some wanted clearer wording on various issues, others wanted the new coalition to be a repeat of the Socialist Alliance or a revolutionary party in drag. The Socialist Party informed us that they would not be participating in the coalition, that they would await evidence of its performance and internal democracy. A few boos at this, because the spirit of the day was supposed to be unity, but Salma Yaqoob adequately summed up my thought, which was "no matter. We will continue to work with everyone who is prepared to work with us." That's it. There are all kinds of sectarian arguments drawing on a rich past of petty squabbling that one could make, but I'll restrict myself to saying that their electoral achievements (which they loudly proclaimed, "five councillors elected") would make them a valuable addition to the Coalition, supposing they were willing to submit to the unfortunate position of being a minority in it.

There was one truly disgraceful performance of the day which oughtn't pass without comment. The attempts by members of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty to raise the ghost of McCarthy in the conference hall, in the form of a despicable series of attacks on George Galloway, aped in every essential the contemptible MI6-Telegraph campaigns of recent note. I didn't know at first whether to give out a jaw-breaking yawn or a series of back-breaking somersaults of vomit. They attempted to pass a resolution claiming that Galloway's record was "right-wing (close links with Tariq Aziz; activity financed - on Galloway's own story - by the governments of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and by a businessman well connected to the Baghdad dictatorship)". This shameful attempt at a smear could be torn to shreds by anyone with half an education, (his record is not right-wing, that 'activity' was charitable activity, ditto the so-called 'links' with Tariq Aziz), but that would be to miss the point. The truly pressing issue for the AWL, highlighted in a "point of order" speech made by one of their members when the resolution was deemed out of order by the Convention Arrangements Committee, was that Galloway's income exceeds that of your average skilled worker. It is a long-standing principle of revolutionary socialist parties that any of their members standing for elections should not receive a wage higher than the average wage for a skilled worker. Sectarian demand for ideological purity renders purblind even the most perceptive critics of capitalism, and in this case they seem to have missed that a) this is a pitifully minor issue and b) Galloway's income ends up being the wages of half of his staff, whom he pays himself, and has also transported him from meeting to meeting, demonstration to convention, speech to caucus - for none of these services has he demanded expenses. If the handful of spiteful buffoons who decided that the best expenditure of their efforts would be to smear Galloway had matched even a fraction of his energy and vigor on behalf of the antiwar movement, they would have had more credibility.

As John Rees pointed out in his speech, Galloway has taken the road less travelled - and that has made all the difference. He didn't accept a deal to stay in the party, which would have involved him issuing an apology for his remarks in the same week that Blair refused to apologise for the bombing of Iraqi children. And once expelled, he did not go the Ken Livingstone route of urging others to stay in the Labour Party in the canny hope of returning in better climes. He put himself right at the centre of the fight against New Labour.

Aside from such torrid moments, most quibbles were overcome and a united electoral force came into being. Speeches varied, but an electrifying performance from Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist Party presaged the familiar charismatic thunderings of George Galloway, as well as an unusually impassioned performance from John Rees. Salma Yaqoob was once again dignified, calmly passionate, subtly witty and acute in her perceptions. Adept at painting the big picture, she dwarfed sectarian infighting and once again made unity the imperative, the overarching theme. Ken Loach did a creditable turn, while the Muslim Association of Britain sent a speaker to endorse the founding of Respect which, although they did not join parties, they would urge their supporters to vote for.

The goals between now and June 10th, the day of the elections to the European parliament, are:

1 Raise £1m to run a creditable campaign the length and breadth of England and Wales.

2 Build the coalition in every town and city where we have worked with antiwar activists.

3 Convince up to a million people to vote for Respect.

Like a challenge do we? Of course we do.

Call To Unity. posted by lenin

DON'T FORGET!! ... Declaration and call for a National Convention to found an alternative to New Labour
Sunday 25 January, 10am
Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London ... Another Left is Possible ... LABOUR IS DEAD: DON'T MOURN, ORGANISE!!

George Galloway in Haringey. That shirt suits him.

Tonge and Suicide Bombers: The Real Political Correctness posted by lenin

I've endured the sweat-faced, flared-nosed whining of rightists on the issue of "political correctness" long enough. I have never been enamoured of earnest leftists dispensing bromides about multiculturalism and tolerance (usually they turn out to be wholly-owned subsidiaries of Capitalism clinging to some vestiges of liberal credibility). The whole discourse misses the point about race, class and sexuality. Of course we have to fight racism, naturally there is a surfeit of sexist attitudes and institutional discrimination against women to deal with, and yes, homophobic presumptions and attitudes abound.

These aren't peripheral issues, nor are they displacement activities away from the "real" issues of class. But they are treated as such all too often by liberals anxious to avoid blaspheming against the Holy Profit. If we can no longer talk about the substance of social justice, we are left with canards about cultural tolerance and respect, terms rendered meaningless once set in Indie typeface amid a droning few column inches of boredom, while the Business section extols the virtues of the free market.

Nevertheless, there are even more insidious denkverbotens in operation than the obligation to say "vertically challenged" instead of "short".

Jenny Tonge MP has been asked to step down as a Liberal Democrat MP for her remarks that "I might be a suicide bomber" and that she "understood" how some people could come to be suicide bombers given the desperate conditions of Palestinians. I don't want to waste a great deal of time on Jenny, since I don't particularly care for her politics or her party, but let's observe the reaction. Charles Kennedy said:

"I have asked Dr Jenny Tonge to stand down as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for children. Her recent remarks about suicide bombers are completely unacceptable. They are not compatible with Liberal Democrat party policies and principles. There can be no justification, under any circumstances for taking innocent lives through terrorism."

Really, Charles? How about taking innocent lives through dropping bombs? You haven't always been anti-war, and I recall your ham-faced support for the destruction of lives in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.

In fact, there is not a single mainstream politician, journalist, intellectual who doesn't believe that political violence is permissible under some circumstances. Israel's ambassador Zvi Shtauber has the cheek to slap his flippers together and applaud this disgusting attack on someone for perfectly insipid remarks, while himself doing the PR for Israeli mass murder. Louise Ellman MP, who does a similar job as a member of the Labour friends of Israel group, similarly applauded.

The real political correctness comes from the Right, circumscribing the most elementary truths in the name of - well, it so turns out - liberal values.

Understanding Terror. posted by lenin

Harry's Place gives stupidity a bad name by allowing a devastatingly idiotic post by someone calling himself "Gene" (I'd guess he's the rogue one causing the occasional extra chromosome). Exercised by liberal apologetics for terrorism, Gene tells us:

"While not condoning Palestinian suicide murderers, Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge says she understands the conditions that create them and would consider becoming one herself if she was in their place.

I've long been mystified by those who express "understanding" for even the vilest acts of mass murder when they are committed by Palestinians. What if the friends and relatives of Israeli terror victims routinely crossed into the West Bank and carried out revenge attacks on innocent Palestinians? Would they be favored by MP Tonge's understanding too?

If you can "understand" the murderers of Israeli children, why not also understand:

--Baruch Goldstein. Maddened by violence against his fellow Jewish settlers in the West Bank, he murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron in 1994..." and so on, ad nauseum.

The "night in which all cows are black" is upon us. Apparently there is no distinction between the oppressor and the oppressed.

If you understand Algerian violence against the French, why not understand French torture of Algerian suspects? If you understand Mau Mau violence against the British, why not understand British tyranny?

"Understanding" is not a matter of desert, it's a duty and obligation for anyone interested in ceasing the tornado of violence engulfing much of our globe. An Israeli father who lost his son to a suicide bombing wrote an article published in The Guardian last year, in which he expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and noted that if he were a Palestinian, he would want to kill Israelis. Rami Elhanan's 14-year-old daughter, Smadar, was killed by a suicide bomber in 1997. Elhanan is a former soldier whose father survived the Nazi's Auschwitz concentration camp; many of his relatives died in the Holocaust. He says that while he won't "forgive or forget" the actions of the bomber, people need to understand the cause of the violence. It didn't just come "out of the blue". An entire people have been brutalised and denied their rights.

“The suicide bomber was a victim the same way as my girl was, of that I'm sure”, Elhanan said.


If we, who have no murdered sons or daughters, fail to understand such elementary things as cause and effect, we have no right to cover our idiocy in sanctimonious drivel.

Shut it, Gene.

Burying the New Labour Project posted by lenin

Look, I'll make it simple for you. Ricky Tomlinson says "The resistance to Blair is the only ray of sunshine about at the moment. Arthur Scargill is a friend of mine. Come the election there'll be a little cheque for Arthur and a little cheque for the Socialist Alliance to pay for bits of printing and stuff like that. I just wish the two would get together and form a really, really strong opposition to New Labour."

There needs, desperately, to be unity on the Left. There is an enormous vacuum in leftwing politics since Labour vacated the territory, and noone is filling it. No single party can do it alone. And a collection of splinters doesn't make a battering ram. The proposals for a Unity Coalition to finally send those cadaverous freaks on the Labour front bench to their coffins is, in all honesty, the best thing that has happened to the Left for decades. It is a genuine move to overcome the muck of ages of sectarian nonsense. We have come through a turbulent year of protest, with popular anger reaching unprecedented levels. Blair is unpopular, his policies are unpopular, the Tories are unpopular. Conditions are ideal for a leftist revival on the electoral scene to match that on the streets and in the trade union movement.

Yet, the Communist Party of Britain - to be sure, a small sect, but also the effective owners of the Morning Star - have decided that such unity would be beneath them because, they claim, "It is a narrowly-based front for the SWP which has emerged from the remnants of the failed Socialist Alliance" . I don't buy this explanation, of course. The coalition is being proposed by, among others, George Monbiot and George Galloway representing the Green left and the Old Labour left respectively. Such independent voices are not about to submerge themselves into an SWP front, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Far more likely, their position reflects their "assumption that it is possible to reclaim the party formed by the trade unions 100 years ago and for which Lenin urged support."

The reference to my namesake is a desperate piss-take, since I believe Lenin's formulation was that one should support reformist administrations "like a rope supports a hanging man" .

More pertinently, what is there to "reclaim"? The Labour Party is moribund, and it has neither the desire nor the ability to attract the kind of membership capable of pulling it in a different direction. As Patrick Seyd has noted, managerial and middle-class occupations are over-represented in its ranks, while the working class is proportionately under-represented. The only organic connection to the working class Labour retains is through the trade unions, whom it treats with contempt. Holding out the starved, dry carrot of reform one day, bashing with the bluntest cudgel the next. Firefighters were, for this government, "the enemy within". They are to be stripped of their right to strike, so that they may not embarrass Mr Blair anymore. Brendan Barber, the TUC General Secretary, hears a few whispers in his ear about cooperation one minute, the next minute some Cabinet hack is briefing the BBC on the latest renunciation of fundamental social-democratic principles.

There is nothing left to reclaim.

This Sunday, there will be a National Convention to launch the alternative to New Labour. Be there.

Declaration and call for a National Convention to found an alternative to New Labour
Sunday 25 January, 10am
Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London

Remember The ALMO!! posted by lenin

The first rule of democracy is you never ask for permission. If you offer a referendum on something you want to do anyway, you’re only inviting trouble. So it was when residents of Camden defied government bank-rolled propaganda, wave upon wave of leaflets offering the prospect of new money and renovations for homes if only they would allow their homes to be run by private contractors, and voted the proposals down by 77% . A thumping victory like that won’t replicate itself in Westminster, because Westminster Council has already imposed ALMOs on its residents, sans scrutin. The reason for the difference may be partially due to Westminster Council being a Tory council ideologically in favour of such moves, and Camden Council being a corrupt Labour borough with a rubber spine, only in favour of ALMOs because the government says so.

The government plans to privatise all council housing by the year 2010. Confluently, it has set councils the goal of meeting all recommended renovation and repair targets by 2010. And by another happy coincidence, it has told councils involved that they may only have new government money to cover these repairs if it adopts the ALMO scheme. Such are the Mafia-like intrigues of this government, (in all probability, though, concocted by some cunning civil servants), that councils are floating on a surfeit of offers they may not refuse. This device was first deployed to force recalcitrant councils to accept PFI deals for their schools and hospitals. The only show in town was the hasty introduction of private capital to public services, which would be augmented by wads of government cash if implemented. Otherwise, nada, zilch, zero-sum, bugger all and buggered sideways.

George Monbiot describes the results in his famous treatise on late capitalist democratic degeneration, Captive State. In Coventry, it transpires, two hospitals were made one. The central one, also the easiest to get to, was closed and adjoined instead to the hospital situated on the outskirts of the city. Companies were brought in to do the work of building and also to finance the works in the short run. The agreement was that they would be paid back by the council in part sums over a period of thirty years.

However, the cost of that scheme over thirty years would be £135 million. If the council had simply undertaken the repairs itself, it would have cost £30 million. Furthermore, there would have been no need to close down one of the hospitals at a loss of staff and beds. As Monbiot explains:

"Just as the problems surrounding the plans for the new hospital on the Walsgrave site in Coventry result not from a terrible mistake but from the inevitable unfolding of the Private Finance Initiative, so the impending reduction of beds and staff nationwide is an unavoidable consequence of taking private money. Like the Walsgrave scheme, the price of all the new projects has been massively inflated in order to make them what the NHS calls 'PFI-able': attractive in other words, to private investors."

The general rule with such projects is "every £200 million spent on PFI schemes means 1,000 fewer nurses and doctors."

Taxpayers are being ripped off, end users are being ripped off, NHS workers are being ripped off. No one benefits from this apart from capital.

Back to the ALMO. The £283 million which the government promised if ALMO was adopted is now being demanded by residents, unconditionally, without strings, for the repair of their homes. This part of the battle is crucial. For one thing, there are a host of other councils eager to convince local residents to accept ALMOs and not force them into the same maligned ranks as Birmingham and Camden. Newcastle, for instance - if you live in Newcastle, you may have received a leaflet from the council telling you that failure to support the ALMO would lead to:

"Failure to hit the Government‘s Decent Homes Target by 2010. Reduced standards for windows, doors, kitchens and bathrooms. No more spending on non-Decent Homes issues such as security and environmental improvements."

They reassure tenants that the ALMO leaves the home in council hands, and that they will remain council tenants - perhaps with even more rights than before. One must assume that this is a nationally conducted campaign, since I've seen virtually the same information given to Camden residents (complete with glossy pictures of delighted residents receiving their brand new kitchens). The information is, of course, incorrect:


"In April 2002 Westminster was one of the first councils to set up an ALMO, called CityWest Homes. Now the council wants to hand ownership of three tower blocks from the ALMO to a private housing company, Stadium Housing Association.

Stadium's assistant chief executive Tim Holden boasted, "This is the first of its kind. We're testing the water to see how far we can go.""

ALMOs are supposed to be the more politically acceptable face of "stock transfers", an idea which suffered an immense defeat in Birmingham when the vote was finally taken. Stock transfers sell homes to Housing Associations, and were Labour's chief way of accelerating Tory privatisations, which is one good reason why Camden Council took great pains to emphasise that ALMOs were not like stock transfers or privatisation .

The interesting thing about all these various ploys and attempts is that, yet again, we find it costing a fortune and helping absolutely noone except capital. "The government has recently admitted that it plans to spend £800 million in 2003/4 subsidising privatisation by writing off 'overhanging debt'. This is just less than the £840 million available as housing investment for all 2.7 million council homes in England & Wales. They could almost double direct investment in council housing if they stopped privatisation."

Why? Why should this government waste billions of pounds in tax money on unpopular measures sure to have a negative impact on services? Is it a conspiracy? Are they truly the conscious servants of big business? No.

I'm not just being contrary in answering negatively, but it so happens that this is the most misunderstood government in years. Misunderstood by both its supporters and opponents as a "pragmatic", "non-ideological" government which has "taken the politics out of politics". On the contrary, this is the most ideological extremist neo-liberal government we have yet had. It truly believes that if only we increase the role of private enterprise in running public services, we will invigorate those services with "the rigour of the marketplace" as the new Clause Four says.

So, when you come to vote, remember the ALMO. Remember PFI and PPP. Remember all the money wasted and the beds and jobs lost. Remember that these were ideologically driven decisions, not pragmatic concessions to the middle class. Remember that the government are deeply unpopular in this regard, as in most others, but remain convinced of their virtue and wisdom. There has to be an alternative.

We must, in truth, you and I form an alternative to this weak and nasty government:

Declaration and call for a National Convention to found an alternative to New Labour

Annan to Bush: "Yassah, boss!" posted by lenin

The division of labour goes: the US shits, and the UN shovels. But now they've gone the whole hog and decided to help lick the pristine bumhole clean by sending in "UN experts" to sort out the tiresome Iraqi locals who keep fucking around with the programme by demanding elections and stupid shit like that.

Annan was personally selected for his job by Madeleine "the price is worth it" Albright, the sack-faced apologist for mass murder, on account of his help in diverting attention away from the rowdy rabbles in Rwanda and onto the more pressing issue of Yugoslavia's disintegration (how to further it). So, you'd expect him to be a bit of a toadie, but to seriously consider risking the lives of his charges by tossing them into the bombed out, ruined, blood-spattered, angry-as-fuck, Iraqi lion cage? No, no, no! That's a special kind of stupidity. Annan once remarked that the UN's job in Iraq was to "confer legitimacy on the process" of occupation. (Guardian, 22/07/03) Nobody remembers that except me, but then I give a shit and you don't. His underlings paid for that "legitimacy" in blood when the UN compound was attacked by Iraqi insurgents.

Look, here's the deal: anyone dumb enough to go into Iraq right now and advertise their presence as an international organisation affiliated to the occupation should be fucking shot at! Okay?

No, no, I can hear y'all. "No, it's not! Just cos we're antiwar doesn't mean we don't care about innocent people getting killed and the UN are only trying to make things better by..." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Spare me the fucking sanctimony. If you enter Iraq on behalf of the "coalition", you have a choice between homicide and suicide. If they'd gone into South Vietnam with the US, they'd have their intestines blown out through their noses, so I think the Iraqi resistance is going easy on the fuckers. Right, enough ranting for the day. I'm supposed to be at work.

#Trust! Who do ya? Trust! What makes you a real lover? Trust! ... # posted by lenin

Turns out, all this shit about Blair being a lying cocksucker and gobbler of satan's jet-black spunk is all a misperception created by a "three-way breakdown of trust between politicians, the media and the general public".

I shit you not. It seems the lachrymose Queen of our Hearts, PM Blair, really hasn't been getting the right message across, so now the public's all confused, don't know whether to trust him, the media's all confused, don't know whether he's got good enough lies up his sleeve, and the government? They've just given up on the fucking lot of us! Seriously, they're sick, sick, sick to death with these whining, nosy bastards telling opinion pollsters how much they hate the government and their policies, when everyone knows that Tony Blair is the most popular man in history ever ever ever. Think about it! Could you imagine Blair in a porn film? Exactly! He radiates virtue and honesty wherever he goes.

So, The Guardian group has devised a cunning plan. Number Ten's daily press briefings are going to be televis................................ ugh, cough, um, sorry, I fell asleep. Yeah, they want you the voter to judge the politicians on what they the politicians tell the press, so they're going to televise the press briefings! This will, apparently, bring us back into the fold of the government. Never mind Blair saying he never authorised the leak of Kelly's details to the press when he did. He's a fucking top-nosh geezer who looks after his kids and pays his bills on time. And if yer don't like it, yer can fuck of back to yer own countraaaayyy!!

The New Jacobins... posted by lenin

I don't know what it is about the French, but they seem to know how to annoy everyone. They aggravate the Right by not going along with wars, and the Left by circumscribing religious freedom.

Some have suggested that this is an argument to be had with religious nutters, a brave secular attack on the ancien regime. I hate to tell you this, but it ain't. Jaques Chirac and Jean-Pierre Raffarin are not operating in defense of the Republic, they are operating in a climate where the high vote for Jean Marie Le Pen has legitimised and sanctified racism and Islamophobia.

And note that this campaign isn't just coming from the secular liberals, it comes directly from the racist right. Le Pen's FN has demanded that "Muslims drop their veils".

This isn't like school prayers in the States. Prayers are an enforced ritual to inculcate obedience and conformity. I know this, because we had to have prayers in our school in Northern Ireland (good Protestant prayers, not like the mucky Paddy prayers they were having in the Catholic school down the road). But to choose to wear a crucifix, a hijab, a skullcap or a Scientologically Clear smile, is a personal choice. It reinforces identity in the school environment, rather than detracting from it.

I don't want to claim that parents aren't perhaps involved in imposing some kind of burden on their children by forcing (some of them) their kids to wear religious garb or ornament. But it remedies nothing of this to simply ban it in the school context, if anything a zone of much greater authoritarian control, given that it is an arm of the state devoted to churning out industrially sanctioned produce.

Some will say "well, it can't be Islamophobic if they're doing it to all religions", but that reflects a lack of attention to the debate. Chirac, for instance, raised no small amount of hell in December when he decided that there was "something aggressive" about the Muslim headscarf. Presumably, he was thinking of those Algerians and their destruction of the French Empire.

And the French government has the nerve to speak of Muslim opposition to these moves as attempts to "stir up racial tensions" . What is this "tensions" business that we keep hearing about? Surely we aren't talking about individuals on the verge of a heart attack on account of spotting someone else in a headscarf? Otherwise how do they manage to get through their shopping with all those old ladies about? Perhaps what is meant here is "racism". Yes, of course, Muslims must be desperate to stoke up racism against themselves. What greater proof of their irrationalism could there be?

But why stop at religious symbols? Couldn't it therefore be argued that any symbol reflecting one's personal beliefs has no place in a school? Are we to return to scrubbed 1950s school children wearing the same bland uniforms, lining up meekly for their morning caning session? No politics, no music, no culture. As if the 1960s had never happened?

Those who claim to be standing up for the freedom of Muslim women should pay attention to what Muslim women are actually saying.

Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights have written to the French President insisting that it is the right of all Muslim women to "practise their religion freely". They further note:

"We commend the 1989 decision of the Conseil d'Etat, ruling that the Criel school principal who suspended three Muslim school girls wearing headscarves had violated the freedom of religion of the girls, guaranteed to them by the French Constitution. We further commend the Conseil's 1995 decision, affirming that simply wearing a headscarf does not provide grounds for exclusion from school and reversing decisions that had expelled school girls in such situations."

French Muslim women have taken to the streets demanding that the state leave them in peace to practise their religion.

Sarah Whalen notes that the veil is neither compulsory under Islam, nor is what is being described strictly a "veil". Veils cover and obscure the female face, and nothing in Islam requires this, although sometimes veils are worn. What Islam does require, through combined readings of the Holy Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith (narrations about the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his companions), is modesty in dressing for both men and women. And throughout much of the Muslim world, this means loose, comfortable clothing and a headcovering of some kind for both sexes.

In other words, every signal from Muslim women is that they regard this as a devastating infringement on their right to choose, that they would rather the state did not proscribe their habits of dress, and that they would rather secularists did not feel the need to 'liberate' them all the time.

A liberal secular constitution does not mean intolerance for religious beliefs - quite the contrary. It means a secular state beholden to no particular religious orthodoxy and therefore welcoming to all. If it has stopped meaning that, we may all be in some moral peril.

The Real Victims posted by lenin

Let's be honest. Bush and Blair are the real victims of this war. They were lied to by their intelligence services, maligned by the press, scorned by the public. All for trying to overthrow a rancorous dictator who GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE, YES HIS OWN PEOPLE.

Let's be a little bit more honest than that. The liberal defenders-cum-critics of the war on Iraq have a difficult job disguising pro-war assumptions behind tough prose that will look sufficiently like a critique. The latest method of doing it is to suggest that something went wrong for the Bush-Blair axis, that they were deceived by intelligence services and that they got carried away on their own moral righteousness, given the green light by shoddy information. Martin Woollacott tells us:

The most resounding intelligence failure of the whole intervention era has certainly been that of accurately assessing Saddam's holdings of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The US and British governments would not have gone to war if their intelligence chiefs had bluntly said there were no, or very few, such weapons or programmes. You cannot spin a No.

Apart from anything else, it isn't the intelligence services' job to "bluntly" announce "no". It is their job to describe the reality in all of its complexity. Secondly, what we now know appears to suggest that intelligence DID convey to the Prime Minister and President Bush that there were indeed "very few" WMD programmes in Iraq. The New York Times has made similar claims of 'faulty' intelligence, even as it pretends to obliterate Team Bush for its “reckless rush to invade Iraq,” and “obsession with the Iraqi dictator”.

Yet the claims made by the two administrations were the result of distortion of intelligence findings, not their purblind acceptance by idealistic politicians.

Take, for example, the claim that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes . The Hutton Inquiry has revealed that this was false, and that it was known that the actual claims were being distorted:

Geoff Hoon, the secretary of state for defence, admitted to the Hutton inquiry on 22 September that he knew the claim in the dossier referred to battlefield weapons only.

Andrew Caldecott QC, for the BBC, then asked, "A number of newspapers had banner headlines suggesting this claim related to strategic missiles. Why was no corrective statement issued for the benefit of the public?"

Hoon replied, "I don't know."

Even more importantly, there isn't at the moment a credible source for the 45-minute claim, even in the watered-down version admitted by Hoon. Iraqi officer Lieutenant Colonel Al Dabbagh made it publicly known that he was behind the claim, to great fanfare in the pro-war press. Unfortunately, it turns out that he was a spy working for the Iraqi National Accord, not a credible intelligence source.

Donald Rumsfeld claimed that 'there are al-Qaeda in Iraq', accusing Saddam of 'harbouring al-Qaeda operatives who fled the US military dragnet in Afghanistan' . It is not clear what the basis of his claims are, but no intelligence so far provided have pointed in this direction.

The British Government claimed in its official assessment of Iraq's weapons that 'Iraq has been trying to procure items that could be for use in the construction of centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium', and has attempted to 'purchase vacuum pumps which could be used to create and maintain pressures in a gas centrifuge cascade need to enrich uranium' .

This allegation was repeated by the Whitehouse on 12th September, 2002, and was stiffly challenged . The Bush administration was subsequently obliged to admit that this claim was false and was known to be false when it was included in Bush's speech in January 2003.

It was known to be false, because intelligence officials told them it was false.

Far from the story being one of shadowy intelligence elites duping elected politicians into a war which few wanted, this is a tale of deliberate government manipulation of intelligence. The Carnegie Endowment for Peace reports that intelligence officials became increasingly alienated by the encroachments of the Bush administration:

The authors say the intelligence reports of Iraq's capabilities grew more shrill in October 2002 with the publication of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which included an unusual number of dissenting views by intelligence officials.

The intelligence community, the report says, began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views "sometime in 2002". Repeated visits to the CIA by the US vice president, Dick Cheney, and demands by top officials to see unsubstantiated reports, created an atmosphere in which intelligence analysts were pressed to come to "more threatening" judgments of Iraq.

The report concludes that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programmes".

With the CIA doing the monitoring of Iraqi weapons programmes (following the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors as Operation Desert Fox was about to begin), it shouldn't have been too hard for the Bush and Blair administrations to discover if Saddam Hussein really did have weapons programmes which he was sneaking about from place to place. Iraq was the most spied on country on earth from 1998 to 2003. So when in Cincinnati in October 2002, for example, shortly before Congress voted in favor of a blank-check resolution authorizing war, President Bush said, "The Iraqi regime ...possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism.... The danger is already significant, and it grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today —and we do—does it make any sense for the world to wait...for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?" I suppose the world would be forgiven for temporarily wondering if there wasn't something in this.

Yet, not a single word from intelligence findings justifies the extraordinary, loopy claims made by President Bush, and his simpering care attendant, Tony Blair. None of the claims made by Colin Powell on the basis of alleged 'intelligence' have been shown to be true. In fact, the findings of David Kay's Iraq Survey Group suggest they were always fraudulent. Some news reports say that Powell knew some days before presenting his case to the UN that the claims were "bullshit". Indeed, to suggest that they were victims of false or flawed intelligence is both to exculpate them and to insult them. They would be guiltless to some extent in genuinely beleiving there was a mortal threat to the territory and people of the United States and United Kingdom, yet they would also be downright fools. Noone in government takes intelligence services absolutely and directly at its word - it would be a devastating dereliction of duty to do so, worthy of impeachment, because every government official knows that intelligence services are highly ideological and fanatical (take a look at former CIA director James Woolsey for your archetypal intelligence kook). And if, as Martin Woollacott suggests, it takes an unequivocal "No" to persuade our leaders not to go to war, then we are obviously talking of governments desperate to spin, seeking any margin in which they can do so, in order to present a case for war they have already decided to embark on.

Only ideological fanatics could seriously consider the contention that Bush and Blair did not lie, or did not know they were lying, when they presented their fantastic claims through 2002 and early 2003. These ideological fanatics are typically called "realists" for not subscribing to "conspiracy theorists" and for maintaining a centrist outlook. Their status as 'independent' commentators is belied by the consistency with which they cover-up, distort and dissemble on behalf of power. And, guess what, you can find them in the pages of The Guardian and the New York Times - the voices of officially sanctioned dissent.

The Killer Weed!! posted by lenin

A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

I'm laughing like this because a) I'm high as fuck and b) I've just read the BBC's account of how "Cannabis 'led to shooting'" . Yeah, see, it turns out some geezer gunned down his 66 year old neighbour after an argument over a hedge. Apparently, the cannabis he smoked just turned it into a big deal and made him go out, get a gun, and blow the old bastard's brains out.

You see how scientific it gets when the BBC quotes the coroner who makes this claim: "It is a drug which has an effect on the brain"! No shit? Let me ask you a question, Dr fucking Atkinson - IS THERE ANY RECREATIONAL DRUG THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE FUCKING BRAIN!!?

According to the Coroner, the guy with the gun was "addicted" to cannabis at the time, which shows " that cannabis is not a harmless drug and this case demonstrates how devastating its effects can be."

Just one other thing, before you toss your bag of weed away:

THE GUY WAS DRUNK. I don't know about you, but having "a considerable level of alcohol" in my blood tends to make me a little more impulsive, and who knows, maybe hot-tempered? In fact, if I was the sort of guy to get drunk AND own a gun, I'd probably be in that fucking cell right now. Nowhere in this 'news' item, of course, does it mention the possibility that this guy being drunk might have explained why he got so all fired up about the fucking hedge!

Sorry, now I'm giggling because someone shot someone else over a hedge! Ha ha ha ha!! How fucking pissed would you have to be to start caring that much about the height of a hedge? A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Auntie needs to roll up and chill the fuck out.

Anti-Zionism: So what are you making a big fuss? posted by lenin

I wrote to Emmanuele Ottelenghi following his astonishingly ill-judged diatribe for The Guardian and demanded he pull his socks up some months ago now:

Sir,

Your astonishing article for today's Guardian merits a swift response.
I will therefore be as concise as I
possible can be:

"It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism ... But
this is not anti-Zionism... Zionism comprises
a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination
as all other nations are.

It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which
case one should oppose Palestinian
nationalism as well."

The difference is surely transparent. Zionism entailed occupying and hegemonising
another land, whereas
Arab nationalism entails nothing more than repelling all invaders from
their homeland - European or
otherwise.

"But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes
further and denies the Jews the right to
identify, understand and imagine themselves."

By negating Zionism, by claiming that it has always been coextensive with
imperialism and colonialism,
regardless of its official rhetoric, one does not deny "the Jews"
anything. The interesting thing about this,
characteristic of Zionist arguments, is that it portrays "the Jews"
just as monochrome and hermetically
sealed a group as anti-semitic propaganda. What does one say to anti-Zionist
Jews like Norman Finkelstein,
John Rose, or the late Ygael Gluckstein? You can't be Jewish because you
oppose the idea of a Jewish State?
You must be a "self-hating Jew" if you don't align yourself to
Jewish nationalism?

"Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians?
You should be equally outraged at
the insinuation that Jews are not a nation."

Pardon me? Is it or is it not the case that Arabs lived on a land mass
called Palestine before it became
Israel? Now, prior to the fruition of the Zionist project, where did Jews
live? Europe, America and
Palestine, by and large. The vast majority, of course, in Europe and America.
If there is a Jewish nation, it
is by design - Palestinian nationalism, by contrast, is a function of expropriation
and oppression.

The oddness of comparing the nationalism of an oppressed group with that
of a triumphant occupier ought
to be obvious - one would not equate white nationalism with black nationalism,
notwithstanding the idea
that nationalism is a potentially pernicious idea.

"Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic
prejudice only if Jews give up their
distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no
rights, Jews as individuals are
worthy of both."

This is both untrue and slanderous. My opposition to anti-semitism does
not depend on all Jewish people
doing what I consider to be the right thing. This is a transparent fiction
on your part.

"Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has
been adopting tactics which are reminiscent
of the Nazis". This equation between victims and murderers denies
the Holocaust."

There is no such equation implicit here, unless you really mean to claim
that Israel is now the victim - is that
what you are arguing? In an era when everyone from Serb nationalists to
Ba'athists are "adopting tactics
which are reminiscent of the Nazis" is it so absolutely unfair to
make similar claims about Israel?

At any rate, Zionism has not always been entirely incommensurable with
anti-semitism, bearing in mind the
attitude of the Zionist Federation of Germany, appealing to Adolf Hitler
to help them set up a homeland.
Jabotinsky, we remember, was an admirer of Mussolini, and the Zionist movement
has never been free of its
far right.

"Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration."

In case you've missed it, the one thing criticism of Israel doesn't get
you is "full integration" - either into
mainstream US politics, or mainstream Jewish culture.

"Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their
expression of Jewish identity through
identification with Israel that is under attack."

You have my respect as a human being, my sympathy as such, but what sort
of protection would you like?
The sort that shields your political views from criticism? The sort that
will withold an opinion on Jewish
nationalism for fear that some Jews may take it to be an example of anti-semitism?
Israel is what is under
attack, and in my view justly so. South African apartheid was once singled
out for special treatment, you
will recall, as one of the last bastions of European colonialism and racism
in Africa. Israel, I'm afraid, cuts a
similar figure in the Middle East.

Yours faithfully,

Having received no reply, I noted that he had replied to others who had written to him with contempt and a heartily dismissive attitude that gives condescension a bad name. I wrote again:

Dear Sir,

How is it that I don't merit a nasty and dismissive response, and some twerp on the Medialens message board does? I think it's important, if you're going to insinuate that those who disagree with you are antisemitic, to make the charge consistently and with similar force.

I'd appreciate some vitriol ASAP, please.

Yours,

This prompted, after some waiting, the following literary classic:

Then wait in line. I have about 400 messages to answer to before yours gets what it deserves. Sorry, patience is the virtue of the wise.

EO

He then blocked his e-mail to me, and I haven't had the chance to experience his brusque wit or elegant expatiations on why it is anti-semitic to oppose Zionism. Poor me.

The Iraqi Resistance Packs it in - It's Official!! posted by lenin

According to USA Today , that bastion of serious news coverage, attacks on US troops are down 22% since Saddam Hussein's capture. What we are supposed to infer from this is that the Iraqi resistance was a concoction of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists. They don't represent the Iraqi people, (even when polls show they do), and they obviously don't have the usual rights that occupied citizens have to resist their occupiers.

There is an obvious flaw with such statistical measures. The selection of the starting date for such a decline in attacks reflects the result desired much more than it does the reality on the ground. Take, for instance, the following, written as Saddam was captured:

"Attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq have gone down since the No-More-Mr.-Niceguy approach was adopted, from an average of 30-35 a day in October to about 22 daily in November and 20 a day so far in December. But insurgent ambushes have been more effective, including downing helicopters loaded with troops."

That's right. The number and level of attacks had been declining for some time before the capture of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, if the attacks declined from 30-35 a day in October to 20 a day in December, that adds up to a more than 30% decline. Much more significant than the decline recorded since Saddam's capture.

And what is more, the decline is attributed to "the No-More-Mr-Niceguy approach", which basically involves shooting up more Iraqi homes, fencing off towns and bombing towns. This prompted one Iraqi villager to say, "I don't see any difference between us and the Palestinians". This is not surprising at all, since the tactics used owe themselves directly to Israel. These tactics, as it happens, are now officially war crimes .

Furthermore, as Patrick Cockburn notes:

"Overall, the capture of Saddam Hussein seems to have made little difference to the level of resistance. This is not immediately obvious, because the number of attacks on US forces is down to about 17 a day now, compared with twice that two months ago. But this is in large part because, eager to cut their casualties, US commanders cut the number of patrols they carry out by two thirds from 1,500 a day in November to 500 a day in December." Patrick Cockburn: "In Iraq it is still easy to become accidentally dead" - Independent 13th Jan 2004.

So, warniks heartily celebrating the decline in American casualties over the last few months would do well to remind themselves that this is bought at the price of an increase in the casualty rate for Iraqi citizens, whose welfare they claim to be devoted to. Iraqis continue to spill their blood for the preservation of American hegemony. Never mind. All the glorious talk of reducing attacks on coalition forces serves to distract us from the larger picture, which is that violence is spreading beyond the notorious Sunni Triangle , thus overthrowing the odd mythology that only "Saddam loyalists" could have anything bad to say about occupying forces. Rejoice, rejoice.

Kilroy and his Defenders. posted by lenin

Kilroy claims:

"It was originally written as a response to the views of opponents to the war in Iraq that Arab States 'loathe' the West and my piece referred to 'Arab States' rather than 'Arabs'. Out of that context, it has obviously caused great distress and offence and I can only reiterate that I very deeply regret that."

On the basis of that pitiful claim, a number of neophytic defenders of free speech have emerged to claim that Kilroy is being subject to a politically correct pogrom. Here is what Kilroy wrote:

“We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really?… What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11… That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women-repressors?”

Does that say "Arab states" or "Arabs"? Oh, you read it right. Apart from anything else, claiming that "Arab states" "murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11", or were responsible for the bombings in Mombasa and Yemen makes absolutely no sense at all. Unless Kilroy-Silk knows more about the planning behind the 9/11 attacks than we would hitherto have assumed, I suggest he's trying to pull one over on us.

As Inayat Bunglawala notes in this week's Sunday Express (yeah, they let the Arabs have their say):

"Unfortunately Mr Kilroy-Silk didn’t restrict himself to attacking the actions of a particular criminal few. As the Muslim author Ziauddin Sardar commented, "It is like blaming Yorkshire people for the actions of the Yorkshire Ripper”."

Kilroy is also guilty of basic ignorance:

“The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime - part of the axis of evil."

Apart from drawing on this fictitious notion of an "axis", since when was Iran part of the Arab world?

Andrew Dismore, Labour MP, comes out to make his pitch:

"I am not defending anything Mr Kilroy-Silk has said, but I was greatly upset by what Mr Paulin said, and I think the rules should apply to people equally," said Mr Dismore. "Mr Paulin said awful things about Israel and Jewish people. He should have been kept off BBC screens while his own comments were investigated. I was surprised that that did not happen. It smacks of double standards on the part of the BBC."

No, Mr Dismore. Tom Paulin said that occupiers of someone else's land should be resisted with force. He did not denigrate "Jewish people", or even Israelis. He specifically called for violent resistance against Israeli "settlers" (occupiers, in other words). That is not a racist statement, however inflammatory it is for Israel's amen corner.

The Telegraph claims that Tom Paulin described "Jews living in the Israeli-occupied territories" as "Nazis" who should be "shot dead". That's an interesting way to describe it. Imagine someone saying that armed Russians living in the Russian controlled territories of Afghanistan following the Soviet invasion were "Nazis" who should be "shot dead". Would they be decried for this? Well, no. They would be armed and trained by the American government. Such distortion, which privileges the rights of occupiers, bigots and racists over those of Arabs, Muslims and anti-occupation forces, can only be wilful stupidity.

The lengths to which Kilroy's defenders will go to avoid the substance of what he said and to divert the argument down side-tracks is truly a wonder to behold. One hopes that the next time some nutter stands up in Finsbury Park and describe the Jews and Americans as "pigs", we will see such an emotional, passionate defense of "free speech". But one doesn't expect it in such a manifestly racist culture as ours.

Side note: For those interested in raising the stakes over Kilroy, and indeed his defenders, I'd like to point out the following.

1) Under the Public Order Act of 1986, the offence of incitement to racial hatred can carry a maximum sentence of an unlimited fine, or up to seven years imprisonment. The crime can be committed if a person "publishes or distributes threatening, abusive or insulting written material" or "uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour".

2) Matthew Wright on his populist Channel Five show, The Wright Stuff, this morning took the time to smear Tom Paulin, claiming that he had made "derogatory comments about Jews" and that he had called for "Israelis" to be shot at. This was in the way of claiming that perhaps there was a "double standard" at work in the BBC reaction to Kilroy and to Paulin. Paulin has, of course, been subject to a certain amount of censorship, (banned at Harvard on account of pressure from the University's pro-Israel lobby). Indeed, had he made the comments ascribe to him by Matthew Wright, noone would object to him being censured and suspended from the BBC while the comments were looked into - albeit he doesn't have a daily talk show on the channel. But what Tom Paulin is alleged to have said in Al-Ahram Weekly is that colonisers of Palestinian land, coming from the US to build outposts in what is legally recognised as Palestinian territory, are "Nazis, racists." He is also alleged to have said that these elements should be “shot dead.”

This may sound somewhat uncharitable, but no construction can plausibly make this an anti-semitic statement. It does not make derogatory statements about "Jews". It does not advocate the killing of "Israelis".

Further to this, Tom Paulin does not accept the veracity of the comments ascribed to him by Al-Ahram Weekly. He told the Daily Telegraph that: “I do not support attacks on Israeli civilians under any circumstances. I am in favour of the current efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”

In an interview with the BBC, he insisted “My quoted remarks completely misrepresent my real views. For that I apologise.”

If every word ascribed to Mr Paulin were his own, they would not match those made in Robert Kilroy-Silk's column in the Sunday Express on January 4th, 2004. They cannot plausibly be construed as "derogatory to Jews" nor do they call for "Israelis" to be shot.

Now, this one's for Matthew Wright, when he gets way from those porno sites: Libel is a derogatory or defamatory statement that is permanent because it's in writing, on film, or in a picture. This includes all print products, radio and TV programmes and even stage plays. Should it become clear that Mr Paulin suffers a material loss as a result of this smear, The Wright Stuff could be paying out compensation and court fees. It's unlikely, because hardly anyone watches The Wright Stuff, but you don't want to take a risk like that. Watch your flappy little gob.

Kissinger and Chile, or, the Mechanics of a Propaganda Cover-Up. posted by lenin

Commentary has recently published a column by a “scholar” from the American Enterprise Institute rehearsing some well-worn arguments concerning US involvement (or lack, thereof) in the coup which replaced elected President Salvador Allende, a self-professed “Marxist” with dictator General Pinochet. In the main, it involves a spurious defense of Henry Kissinger, based partially on a reading of telephone transcripts not currently in the public domain but which the impish Kissinger has kindly allowed him to peruse in advance. Drawing selectively on declassified documentary evidence, he claims to construct a case against Kissinger’s indictment and against any blame being apportioned to the Whitehouse either for the death of General Rene Schneider or the coup attempt in 1973. He compares his suggestions to Christopher Hitchens’ book The Trial of Henry Kissinger and also a BBC documentary with a similar name. Unlike Falcoff, I’ve read the book and watched the film. So the gaps that emerge in his account prove relatively simple to fill.


The Myth That Will Not Die
By Mark Falcoff


ARTICLES
Commentary
Publication Date: November 1, 2003

“The 30th anniversary of the coup d'etat that deposed Chile's Marxist president Salvador Allende has come and gone, but not without a burst of accusations of American complicity with--if not responsibility for--that event. Even before the commemorations had gotten under way, Secretary of State Colin Powell took it upon himself to apologize for the U.S. role in Chile, though in terms so vague as to leave many wondering exactly what he was referring to.”

Colin Powell’s apology could hardly have referred to anything less than the known US attempts to subvert Chilean democracy, plot a coup, “remove” an army general too constitutionally-minded to allow a coup, provide munitions and money to putschists etc. It might additionally refer to involvement in the 1973 coup or to the support provided by the United States to General Pinochet as he destroyed his opponents – Operation Condor being an egregious example.

“In an editorial titled "The Other September 11," the New York Times, with characteristic condescension, reminded its readers that "our nation's hands have not always been clean" and managed to suggest a smoking gun ("the United States . . . laid the groundwork for [the coup] and supported the plotters") without actually producing one.”

Is Falcoff suggesting that a) the US did not lay the groundwork for a coup, and b) did not support the coup plotters? As it transpires, yes, he is. And we’re about to discover a world of imaginative cover-ups and omissions.

“The name invariably linked to our Chilean involvement is that of Henry Kissinger, today the leading survivor of the Nixon administration and at the time the evident architect of much of its foreign policy, first as National Security Adviser and then as Secretary of State… In addition to his supposed role as the intellectual author of the coup, Kissinger has been accused in both film and book of responsibility for the murder of General Rene Schneider, commander-in-chief of the Chilean army--that is, of homicide.”

In fact, the film was quite straightforward in saying that we would perhaps never know to what extent Kissinger was involved – one of the reasons for which was Kissinger’s concealment of evidence relating to that period until five years after his death. Hitchens himself avers that Kissinger “wanted the removal of General Schneider by any means and by any proxy”. He holds Kissinger responsible for the kidnapping and for arming a selected crew of violent fanatics to carry out the task, with good reason as we shall see. He emphatically does not assert direct authorship of the assassination, although he does point out that if you are responsible for a kidnapping, during which the captive is murdered, it does you no good at all to plead this in court. Anything that happens to a person while being kidnapped only compounds the crime.

"Chilean politics past or present is not a particular specialty of Americans… But neither is Chilean politics a specialty of Christopher Hitchens, the New York Times, or Le Monde. As we shall see, their interests would appear to lie largely elsewhere."

It would be amazing, truly, if the NYT and Christopher Hitchens did not have ulterior motives in claiming US involvement in Chile – but anyone hoping to discover by the end of Falcoff’s article what this sinister or mercenary motive is will be disappointed. He does not follow up on the promise of “As we shall see…”.

“The starting point for the Chilean drama was a presidential election that took place in September 1970 … Such presidential elections, with no candidate receiving an absolute majority, were common in Chile. The constitutional procedures of the day specifically mandated that, instead of a runoff between the two leading candidates, the winner was to be selected by the Chilean congress, scheduled to meet several weeks hence. Although the legislature was not strictly required to opt for the frontrunner, firm custom suggested that it would do so.”

Civics lesson 101. Pay attention, class.

“What raised the stakes in the 1970 race was the presence of Allende himself, a man with strong Soviet-bloc and Cuban connections and even more sinister associations within Chile's far Left. Consequently, between the election on September 4 and the congressional vote on October 24, Chile was awash in rumors and plots, most of them related to efforts to block Allende's accession to power.”

I hope you heard that. Allende’s fault, you understand? Just what these “sinister associations” with the far Left are supposed to be, we discover later – he enjoyed the “critical support” of the MIR, a far left organisation who had previously questioned the capacity of parliament to deliver social change. Apparently, enjoying the support of a small revolutionary party counts as a “sinister association”.

“In Washington, meanwhile, President Richard Nixon was hardly pleased by the prospect of an Allende presidency, and was taking steps to prevent it.”
Quite. Here is what steps he was taking:Kissinger, having completed discussions with Donald Kendall, President of Pepsi-Cola and David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan bank, took to the Oval Office with Richard Helms, where Nixon outlined his ideas:
“Not concerned risks involved. No involvement of embassy. $10,000,000 available, more if necessary. Full-time job, best men we have … Make the economy scream. 48 hours for plan of action”.

Kissinger set up a group in Langley, Virginia, with the aim of pursuing a Two Track strategy. Track One would pursue ordinary diplomatic means, while Track Two would pursue destabilisation, kidnap and murder.

“The findings of the Church committee exonerate the administration of unlawful activity--a noteworthy fact in light of the circumstances that both the chairman and the majority of the members (and, even more, their staffs) were unremittingly hostile to the Nixon White House and anxious, if possible, to find embarrassing linkages between it and events in Chile.”

That is certainly noteworthy, but not for the reasons Falcoff assumes. We’ll come to the legal position in a while, but note the assumption that if US law allows it, it must be okay.

“There is another primary source as well. In 1998, the Clinton administration was moved by the arrest in London of Allende's successor, the dictator Augusto Pinochet, to order the (heavily redacted) declassification of some 17,000 official U.S. documents relating to the period... In fact, however, the Clinton declassifications are less rich in information than the findings of the Church committee, which was able to examine the documentary record in its unexpurgated form and also to interrogate the participants under oath.”

Participants having never been known to lie, under oath…

“Nor do the Clinton declassifications contribute anything particularly useful to the case against Kissinger. Some of them actually corroborate the findings of the Church committee, and, what is even more ironic, support Kissinger's own version of events as laid out in the relevant volumes of his memoirs.”

False, in fact, and absurdly so given Kissinger’s notorious habit of falsifying the past in his weighty tomes. We’ll see exactly why in short order.

“Records of Kissinger's telephone exchanges, covering the entire span of his government service … All of them have been given by him for inclusion in the Nixon Library. Although the records relating specifically to Chile are not yet in the public domain, they will be before long, and he has kindly let me review them in advance.”

Kissinger’s transcripts relating to Chile will be in the public domain “before long” – if Falcoff knows when Kissinger is going to kick the bucket, we would all be in his debt if he told us. That would make any law suits much more urgent. However, does it raise any concerns that Kissinger allows Falcoff, alone, to “review them in advance”? And if they are for inclusion in a future Kissinger book, they are almost definitionally fictitious, knowing Kissinger’s tendency to falsify the record in his own good favour.

“First and foremost, these transcripts establish that Chile was not an important part of the then-National Security Adviser's daily diet.”

A transparent diversionary tactic. Whatever his level of involvement, however much else he had to do – and Falcoff helpfully gives examples of Kissinger’s busy schedule – we know that he was involved in the US activities in Chile.

“This point is crucial, not least because in the BBC film we are continually being told that Kissinger micromanaged every detail of American foreign policy.”

We are not.

“In fact, during September and October 1970--which is to say, between the Chilean election and the congressional vote the telephone record reveals a Kissinger preoccupied with [checklist of all US foreign policy concerns in 1970]. Thereafter, there is nothing at all until June 1973, when he and Nixon discuss a failed military revolt against Allende, and then no further references until after Pinochet's assumption of power with the September 11 coup.”

This tells us two things. One, Kissinger had a wide remit, and many tasks (a number of which Hitchens deals with in his book). Two, Kissinger and Nixon were concerned with the “failed military revolt” – which they wished had succeeded.

“President Nixon was indeed deeply distressed at the prospect of an Allende presidency in Chile, and on September 15, 1970, he summoned Kissinger, Attorney General John Mitchell, and CIA director Richard Helms for a meeting in the Oval Office to discuss the matter… Nixon was determined to "save Chile" from Allende "even if the chances [were] one in ten." At this meeting there was even loose talk about spending $10 million to provoke a coup…”

Hardly loose talk. This was anxious planning, with Nixon determined to “make the economy scream”, using “the best men we have” etc.

“Helms remonstrated with the President that … only a "slight possibility" existed of a move by senior elements of the country's military to block his confirmation. "Moreover," Helms recalls in his posthumous memoir, A Look Over My Shoulder (2003), "I noted that the [CIA] lacked the means of motivating the military to intervene." But the President was unmoved: "Standing mid-track and shouting at an oncoming locomotive," recalls Helms, "might have been more effective."”

Truly, a generous rendering of what transpired. Nixon seeking to “save Chile” from its own democratic decisions has, apparently nothing to do with his administration’s association with US corporations frightened of what may happen if Allende became President. If Nixon was stubborn on the matter, however, so was Kissinger – apprised, by Richard Helms and Thomas Keramessines, then director of covert operations in Chile, of the slim chances of success in kidnapping Schneider (and pinning it on leftists), Kissinger insisted they continue with the plan.

"Convinced that a conventional military uprising was still not possible in Chile, the CIA, acting with the approval of the 40 Committee--the body charged with overseeing covert actions abroad--devised what in effect was a constitutional coup. The most expeditious way to prevent Allende from assuming office was somehow to convince the Chilean congress to confirm Alessandri as the winner of the election. Once elected by the congress, Alessandri--a party to the plot through intermediaries--was prepared to resign his presidency within a matter of days so that new elections could be held."

Such an option [Track I] was pursued with limited conviction of its likely success. But what Falcoff calls a "constitutional coup" actually involves bribery. Odd that he failed to mention this. Moreover, the claim here isn’t even that a “military uprising” would not be desirable, merely that it was “not possible”. This perception did not prevent them from trying, however.

“In the meantime, even as the U.S. embassy in Santiago was pursuing the "Alessandri gambit," an alternative line of activity was being looked into by the CIA station in Chile. This policy, later labeled Track II (to distinguish it from the constitutional coup), involved finding a general or generals who, if President Frei and the Christian Democrats would not play the role assigned to them, would overthrow the outgoing government, dissolve the congress, and send the president into temporary exile. Then the interim junta would call elections (at an unspecified but presumably early date) in which President Frei could return and run against Allende.”

This unlikely scenario is probably fictitious. It is meaningless to overthrow an “outgoing administration”, as Falcoff dishonestly phrases it. It is the “incoming administration” that is the target. And why should Frei participate in subsequent elections, apparently to be granted by the military if their result was meaningless? That is, if the only way he could win was through public coercion? And what of Allende? Were he even to be invited to participate in new elections, who would risk voting for him given that it would eventuate a coup?

“The search for a military man brought the CIA station into contact with General Roberto Viaux, who had been cashiered from the Chilean army in 1969 for leading a revolt against the Christian Democratic government (ostensibly in protest over military salaries and benefits). Since his dismissal, Viaux had continued to conspire, but with larger ideological and political objectives in mind. In early October, by which time Track I had run out of gas, he informed his CIA contacts that he was planning another coup and asked for a sizable drop of arms and ammunition.”

What in fact had happened was that Eduardo Frei had signalled his opposition to US involvement in Chilean elections, which prompted Kissinger to seek the assistance of Viaux, whose “larger ideological and political objectives” derived from his association with the fascist group Patria Y Libertad, unmentioned by Falcoff.“After subsequent discussion, the CIA decided Viaux was not a good bet, though it kept him on a long leash, disbursing some cash and even taking out an insurance policy on his life. Another group of generals was eventually selected for the task at hand.”But they did supply machine guns and tear gas grenades to Viaux’s men, not seeming concerned about what they would be used for. Viaux’s men were to “kidnap” Rene Schneider, this prompting a coup, but what “kidnapping” requires machine guns and tear gas?

“The chief obstacle to Track II was General Rende (sic) Schneider, commander-in-chief of the Chilean army. His view, simply stated, was that since the politicians had gotten the country into the mess in which it found itself, the politicians would have to find a way out.”

What this “mess” is supposed to be, we cannot be sure. But this offhand way of expressing Schneider’s dedication to the Constitution speaks a great deal more about Falcoff than about Schneider.

“When Schneider proved intransigent, the intermediaries tried to persuade Prats, again to no effect. The architects of Track II then focused on circumventing Schneider by kidnapping him and sending him to neighboring Argentina for a season while the political situation was adjusted.”

The “architects of Track II” including Kissinger, for the record.

“As far as Kissinger (and, for that matter, the White House) was concerned, Viaux had been told to stand down, and that was presumably the end of active American coup-plotting.”

In fact, Viaux was told: “We have reviewed your plans, and based on your information and ours, we come to the conclusion that your plans for a coup at this time cannot succeed. Failing, they may reduce your capabilities for the future. Preserve your assets. We will stay in touch. The time will come when you together with all your friends can do something. You will continue to have our support”.

Presumably, then, not “the end of active American coup-plotting”, and certainly not an instruction to “stand down”, as I will elaborate in just a moment.

“As Kissinger told Nixon by telephone on October 15, reporting on a meeting with Thomas Karamassines of the CIA's Western Hemisphere division, "This looks hopeless. I turned it off. Nothing would be worse than an abortive coup." … The message was delivered through an intermediary, leaving the CIA with the pious hope that once its wishes had been made known, Viaux would respect them.”

Perhaps not “pious” – we are talking about state terrorism after all.But the memorandum of the conversation from October 15th includes both the planned message to Viaux, cited above, and the suggestion that the coup was to be de-fused “at least temporarily”.

And furthermore, “the meeting concluded on Dr Kissinger’s note that the Agency should continue keeping pressure on every Allende weak spot in sight – now, after the 24th October, after the 5th November, and into the future until such times as new marching orders are given”.

It is absolutely vital that you read the next paragraph extremely carefully:

“Unfortunately, the cashiered Chilean general was pursuing agendas of his own. The kidnapping itself, which took place early on the morning of October 22, was badly bungled. Schneider resisted by extracting a handgun from his briefcase, provoking his abductors--mostly young and inexperienced--into shooting first, wounding him in four vital areas. Viaux's people panicked and took flight, some discarding their arms near the scene of the crime. The general was rushed to the capital's military hospital, where he died three days later.”

Here is the big cover-up! The kidnapping began on October 19th, and involved not just Viaux, but also Valenzuela’s men. This attempt failed, because Schneider left in a non-official car. But the CIA headquarters in Washington responded, not by repeating their advice that the plot be terminated, but by offering Viaux and Valenzuela $50,000 each to have another go. They did, on October 20th, and failed. The US supplied machine guns were transferred on October 22nd for Valenzuela’s men to try, but later that day Viaux’s men successfully kidnapped and killed General Schneider.

This was not “the cashiered General” “pursuing agendas of his own”. This kidnapping was backed all the way from Washington, but Falcoff’s careful omission of crucial details would not let you know this.

“Much has been made of the fact that between October 15, when Kissinger ordered the Viaux coup "turned off," and the death of General Schneider, the CIA station in Santiago continued to make preparations for a Track II-type coup. Thus, at some point in mid-October three submachine guns and some tear-gas canisters and gas masks were shipped to the Chilean capital through the U.S. diplomatic pouch and passed to Colonel Paul Wimert, an American military attache, who in turn gave them to officers representing General Camilo Valenzuela, head of the Santiago garrison. This was the group that had intended to kidnap General Schneider. The exchange occurred at two in the morning of October 22; but before any use could be made of the weaponry, General Schneider lay dying in the hospital”

No. As noted, Washington supported the later kidnapping attempts and paid for them in cash. Even allowing that they had hoped Viaux would simply obey orders, they were willing to sponsor Viaux’s men provided they could get the job done. The worry never was about the morality of the kidnapping, merely its efficacy.

“A Chilean military court subsequently found that Schneider had been killed by handguns, and the Church committee concluded that these weapons "were, in all probability, not those supplied by the CIA to the conspirators." The committee also noted that an unloaded machine gun had been found at the site of the killing, but professed itself "unable to determine whether [it] was one of the three supplied by the CIA." Schneider was therefore killed by conspirators who, although in contact with the CIA, were acting against its direct instruction, and apparently without its logistical assistance.”

This is a lie. Probably, in fact, a perfectly conscious one. Schneider was killed by men acting with CIA backing and money. The kidnapping involved men from both Viaux’s group and Valenzuela’s group.

“Just why the Chilean kidnapping plot went forward after Kissinger issued orders that General Viaux be "turned off" is not clear … Kissinger, at any rate, seems to have been unaware of the second plot--that is, the one for which the three machine guns were sent down. In 1975, after testifying before the Church committee, Karamassines phoned the National Security Adviser and reported that he had been "asked . . . if I cleared everything in advance with you. I said no, you were too busy." In the same conversation, Kissinger remarks that, although he did not know about the second plot, he might have approved it. Then he adds: "I thought that after we turned off that one thing [the Viaux plot], nothing more had happened and in fact that other thing [the Schneider kidnapping] had happened."”

Kissinger “seems to have been unaware of the second plot” although he “might have approved it”. The morality of such a plea is monstrous. It is also devious:

Brian McMaster, a career CIA agent, had been employed to deliver “hush money” to Viaux’s men after the assassination. Col Paul Wimert has testified that he himself was obliged to retrieve the guns and payments made to Valenzuela and Viaux – guns and payments made by the CIA to suborn the kidnapping and trigger a coup. Moreover, there isn’t the attempt to “turn off” the coup, described by Kissinger and taken at face value by Falcoff. The message to Viaux tells him to preserve his assets, remain prepared, and he would have another stab at it another day. The 15th October memo also discourages Viaux from “acting alone” and speaks of continuing to “encourage him to amplify his plans”. They should “encourage him to join forces with other coup planners so that they may act in concert before or after 24th October”. Which is exactly what Viaux did.

CIA headquarters in Washington cabled Santiago on the morning of the 20th October asking for urgent action because “Headquarters must respond … to queries from high levels”. Keramessines testifies that “high levels” referred to Kissinger. It was following this cable that payments were made to Viaux and Valenzuela. The CIA acknowledges that one of the Viaux associates who evaded capture approached them in November 1970 and requested $35,000, which they duly gave him not only to keep a contact secret (read “quiet”), but also for “humanitarian reasons” – quite a humanitarian sum at 1970 Chilean prices.

“In short, deplore as one might the interventionist intentions of Nixon, Kissinger, and the CIA, the fact remains that General Schneider was murdered as the result of a botched kidnapping attempt, which--as far as the White House was concerned--had been disavowed and ordered shut down a full week before it happened.”

Terrorist intentions. Let’s not use pithy euphemisms here. And, of course, we don’t know if it was a “botched kidnapping attempt”, because we have only the assassins’ words that Schneider resisted, thus provoking their ire. But we do know that the White House had not “disavowed” or “shut down” the kidnapping at all.

“Even more has been made of a CIA cable dated October 16 instructing the Santiago station to tell Viaux that, although he was to stand down, he should "preserve [his] assets" and would "continue to have our support" if he joined forces with others either before or after Allende's inauguration and amplified his political planning for the future, in fact, Viaux played no future role whatsoever in Chilean politics. He was arrested almost immediately after Schneider's murder and sentenced by a military court to a long prison term. In August 1973, he was released and sent to Paraguay; neither he nor any of the officers involved in his plot was involved in the September 11 coup. When he finally returned to Chile, six or seven years later, the Pinochet government offered him no special consideration.”

Mark the careful elision. The assets were preserved, not for the September 11th coup, but for the kidnapping and assassination of Rene Schneider, with the aim of prompting a coup in 1970. If the Nixon Whitehouse had its way, the military would have been running Chile’s affairs long before 1973.

“Neither Hitchens's book nor the film upon which it is based takes note of a crucial fact: namely, that the Schneider debacle had precisely the opposite effect of what was desired by the CIA and the Nixon administration…”

The success of the coup attempt has no bearing at all on who is guilty for it, of course. Stating the historically obvious is an irrelevancy to be indulged by those who prefer to omit the more biting facts.

“Kissinger has been charged with criminal responsibility not just for Schneider's assassination. He has also been charged with criminal responsibility for Allende's overthrow and death three years later”.

As the BBC documentary did not make that charge, one can only assume he is referring to the Hitchens book which does indeed hold him “criminally responsible” for the coup inasmuch as the policy pursued while he was Secretary of State laid the groundwork for the coup and lent support to the post-coup administration.

“In the fall of 1970, Nixon certainly talked tough, at least in private, telling Kissinger by phone on October 15 that if Allende were to take office, "I am not going to do a thing for [Chile]," and that if he dared to nationalize U.S. property, "then we cut him off." Not surprisingly, a National Security Council memorandum (November 9, 1970), drafted several days after Allende's inauguration and released in the Clinton declassifications, called for a "correct but cool" public posture toward Chile … "maximiz[ing] pressures on the Allende government to prevent its consolidation and limit its ability to implement policies contrary to U.S. and hemispheric interests."”

“Make the economy scream” were, I believe, his words when Allende won the vote. And he followed up on his threats, as we will see.

“Specifically, the memorandum advocated eliminating financial guarantees for U.S. private investment in Chile; terminating existing guarantees where possible; bringing "feasible influence" to bear at multilateral lending institutions; and offering no new commitments of bilateral economic aid. (Humanitarian aid was to be considered on a case-by-case basis.)”

"Meanwhile, however, an "options paper" on Chile (November 3, 1970), sketching how these policies were to be implemented, included two provisions not mentioned in the memorandum. The first was "to give articulate support, publicly and privately, to democratic elements in Chile opposed to the Allende regime by all appropriate means." The second was to "maintain effective relations with the Chilean military, letting them know that we want to cooperate but that our ability to do so depends on Chilean government actions."The former provision laid the groundwork for the transfer of at least $ 6 million in covert support to non-Marxist political parties, newspapers, radio stations, and oilier groups during the Allende period. Thanks to these transfers, Allende found it impossible to eliminate his political competition by confiscating the sources of their funding or by intentionally bankrupting independent newspapers or radio stations through politically inspired strikes. Without the American subventions, Chile's pluralistic political system--including an independent press and electronic media--would in all probability have disappeared long before General Pinochet and his associates overthrew the government and installed a dictatorship of their own."

This piece of dishonesty is to be relished, for several reasons. One, “American subventions” were aimed at overthrowing “Chile’s pluralistic political system”, not supporting it. Two, Allende had neither the desire, nor the ability “to eliminate his political opposition”. The most serious charges against Allende are that he acted unconstitutionally in nationalising companies without sufficient compensation (although Allende's argument that the companies had been more than compensated in excessive profits drawn at the expense of Chilean workers can easily pin the constitutional argument), and that he criticised and sought legal action against El Mercurio, which it is claimed he hoped to shut down. Given that El Mercurio was being funded by a hostile power (the CIA) to disseminate fabrications at the expense of the administration, and Allende personally, while supporting coup attempts, we can easily render a judgment on this. Just conduct a simple mental experiment - and pretend that El Mercurio is a radical leftist newspaper in the USA, sponsored by the KGB, which uses it as a vehicle to disseminate lies about the United States Government and politicians, calls for military coup and attempts to destabilise a government. How long would it last? Three, the economic and political destabilisation of the country “through politically inspired strikes” was in large measure the policy of the US government, not of Allende. Note also the decision to maintain close links with the Chilean military, a not insignificant factor in the later coup as we will learn. Project FUBELT involved covert operations against the elected, democratic government of Allende. It is therefore untrue to say:

“The documentary evidence is thus unambiguous: the most serious charge that can be levied against the Nixon administration is that it contemplated economic sanctions against Chile at a time when Allende had yet to lay a hand on American investments in the country and was still making payments on Chile's debts.”

Falcoff expends a great deal of words telling us how lenient the US was on an official level. Aid was never suspended despite the nationalisations of the copper industry. Chile defaulted on its loan, “a de facto relief measure for the Allende regime … greater by many orders of magnitude than that tendered to the Frei administration” (although it is hard to see how the US can be creditted with this). Chile was also able to draw over $100 million from the IMF (although, again, this was “over the protests of US representatives there”).

“The one area where U.S. aid increased threefold during the Allende period was military assistance. If this sounds sinister, two crucial facts should be borne in mind. First, the aid relieved pressures on the Chilean budget, allowing money that would otherwise have been used for weaponry and training to be diverted to improved housing allowances and other amenities for the uniformed services. Second, Allende himself welcomed this assistance, which permitted him to boast, truthfully, that Chile's armed forces were better off under a Socialist-Communist government than under its Christian Democratic predecessor.”

So, it was a humanitarian measure to help the schools, and Allende wanted it anyway. If it truly was a humanitarian gesture, we wonder why the US would want to aid a government they so clearly despised and had plotted to oust. And what message would Allende have sent to a hostile military had he refused the aid? The only remaining question is exactly for what purpose the aid was intended, given the US priority of destabilisation and coup?

Falcoff doesn’t answer, and presumably would rather not speculate. He does feel qualified enough to talk about the real causes of the coup. September 1973, he avers, was the result of “the devastating collapse of the Chilean economy” and “Chile’s increasing polarized political environment”. That both of these factors were in large part the result of US covert activity you would hardly guess if you had to rely on Falcoff’s interpretation of the evidence.

Allende, he notes, assumed the presidency “in an atmosphere of euphoria and even good will almost unimaginable in retrospect”. The times were radical, and even the centrist Christian Democrats had a leftwing ready to work with Allende. But:

“Instead, intoxicated by ideological triumphalism, Allende's people did everything they could to split the Christian Democrats, luring the party's left wing over to the governing coalition while wreaking political vengeance on the rest. As Allende supporters seized factories and farms throughout Chile, Christian Democratic workers were dismissed and their union leaders refused access to the premises. Political discrimination even extended to nonpolitical individuals for family reasons; the son of President Frei, an engineer, found himself in difficulty when his workplace passed into the hands of government "intervenors."”

It is true that Allende supporters took control of the farms and factories where they could, and established cordones, workers’ committees aimed at running things for themselves. It is not true that this was the specific result of an Allende policy. In fact, Allende's policy as of mid-1972 had been to try and soothe business leaders and moderate elements by cracking down on these moves. Labour strikes against rightwing corporations were broken by the Allende government, as it sought to preserve the stability of the system - caught between capitalism and revolution, it opted for capitalism.

“The net effect of these actions was, paradoxically, to discredit the "collaborationist" leadership of the Christian Democrats and bring about its replacement with more conservative figures. By 1973, the party had been pushed into a tactical electoral alliance with the Right, a development that would have been unthinkable three years earlier. In March 1973, in the last parliamentary election held under Allende, the combined Christian Democratic-Conservative list won a thumping 56 percent of the vote.”

Mark the careful misrepresentation – the combined Christian Democratic-Conservative list in fact won a smaller share of the vote than in 1970, while Allende’s vote increased from approximately 36% to 44%. The difference was that the centre had shifted to the right, for reasons we’ll come to. The result is also misconstrued because its importance lies in the fact that the rightist forces failed to get the two thirds bloc they needed to oust Allende – one reason why the Generals opted for a coup in the end.Falcoff goes on to list a variety of ways in which Allende apparently harassed small business, curtailed the freedom of the press and manoeuvred the country toward a totalitarian communist state.

At no stage does he mention Project FUBELT , a campaign of political destabilisation, and economic sabotage originating from 1970, but continuing through to the 1973 coup. Here are some examples of what took place:

Before Allende’s election, the CIA drastically increased its propaganda tempo in Chile (already quite massive since 1964), putting out over 700 articles, broadcasts, editorials and similar items through the Latin American and European media. They told the military that there would be a cessation of US aid in the event of an Allende victory. They told business owners that just about everything near, dear and holy would be conscripted to the service of the communist state. The result was a sharp dip in the economy. (Covert Action in Chile, 1963-73, a Staff Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Agencies (US Senate), 18th December 1975 , p23, p25).

And, for all the alleged generosity of the American government, feebly adumbrated by Falcoff, what we actually discover is a mass economic boycott organised through the Export-Import Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank. New US aid to Chile dwindled to almost zero, while financial assistance and guarantees to American companies investing in Chile were cut back drastically. The effect was not only to deprive the Chilean economy of the investment it had relied on for some time. It also meant that American suppliers would not provide parts to Chilean businesses (taxi firms, bus companies, trucking firms, copper and steel etc), even when cash was offered up-front. (Edward Boorstein, Allende’s Chile, An Inside View, New York, 1977; Adam Schesch and Patricia Garrett, “The Case of Chile” in Howard Frazier ed., Uncloaking The CIA, New York, 1978; Senate Report, pp 32-3).

Food and equipment shortages resulted. Cigarettes, bed sheets, soap, all became difficult to get hold of. And then we have the strikes. Falcoff mentions the "strikes" as if they were pure home-grown labour rebellions, but they rarely involved labour and they certainly weren’t home-grown.

He mentions, for example, that in October 1972, an association of private truck owners launched a strike against the government, refusing to move supplies up and down the country in the hope of bringing the economy and infrastructure to a standstill. They even included in their embargo newspapers which happened to support the government. They were shortly joined by shopkeepers who shut up their shops, bus companies who refused to allow their vehicles onto the road, and walk-outs by white collar workers. The reality is, of course, that much of this could not have been sustained without the assistance and agitation of the CIA. (Time, 30th September 1974; Senate Report, p 31).

The CIA also trained more than 100 members of Chile’s professional associations and employers’ guilds at a school in Virginia run by the American Institute for Free Labour Development (a CIA front organisation). The AIFLD had a long history of experience in fomenting economic disruption and strike-breaking. (AIFLD: Fred Hirsch, An Analysis of AFL-CIO Role in Latin America, California, 1974; NACLA’s Latin America and Empire Report, October 1973, p 11).

Shortages, of course, had been worse before. The Allende government had introduced a free milk programme because of the malnourishment of over 600,000 children. But these were communist shortages, or so the story ran.

“By that time, Allende's problems had become so acute as to merit notice once more by the President of the United States. The immediate occasion was a failed military plot against Allende that had been quashed by loyalist troops. Nixon and Kissinger discussed the matter by telephone on July 4, 1973. Not surprisingly, the President expressed regret that the coup failed ("if only the army could get a few people behind them!"). For his part, Kissinger told the President that "we had nothing to do with it."”

“For the next two months, no further phone conversations took place between Kissinger and the Nixon White House on the subject of Chile. Not until the events surrounding the September 11 coup did they resume.”


Whether the US was involved in the failed coups or not, the evidence strongly suggests involvement in the 1973 coup. Take, for example, the Situation Report of Patrick Ryan , a US military attaché in Chile, in which he describes the coup as “close to perfect” and “our D-Day”. Ironically, Falcoff mentions this Situation Report only to draw the comment that the decision to undertake a coup was taken very reluctantly and with a lot of soul-searching by all involved.

“Contrary, then, to what the film The Trials of Henry Kissinger suggests, there was no straight line between the events of 1970 and the coup of 1973. Rather, conscious choices by Allende and his own people drove the military into action that it would normally have been disinclined to carry out.”

Having avoided the best part of the historical record of US involvement in Chile, Falcoff now claims that it was “conscious choices by Allende” that caused the coup, not those of the CIA or the US government.

“As for President Nixon, he was evidently pleased--how could he not have been?--but exhibited no sense of complicity with the coup-makers themselves. As he said on the phone to Kissinger on September 16, "Well, we didn't--as you know--our hand doesn't show on this one though." To which Kissinger replied, "We didn't do it."”

The record suggests otherwise.

Falcoff goes on to aver that the right-wing dictatorship which followed and which crushed “not merely the Allende regime, but Chilean democracy itself” “was not and could not have been predicted”. That was why it was so important for him to omit earlier in his article the US nurturing of far right political forces in Chile. That is also why it is so vital for him to minimise the US involvement in Chile from the years 1970-73.Take, for example, Patria Y Libertad, mentioned earlier. They were, it seems, a CIA-sponsored organisation from the beginning, whose men were trained in guerrilla warfare and bombing techniques at schools in Bolivia and Los Fresnos, Texas. The CIA were busy funding them when they were marching down Chile’s streets in full riot gear, engaging repeatedly in acts of violence and provocation, and calling for a military coup. Coincidence? (Senate Report, p 31; For further information about the Texas bombing school, see William Blum, Killing Hope, p 202).

Falcoff concludes where he began – blithely asserting something sinister about Allende’s “regime”, it’s likely abolition of democracy, and its deathlike creep toward communist totalitarianism, which may have descended earlier were it not for “American subventions”. Many of these arguments resemble, and perhaps owe themselves to, the discredited output of the CIA agent, Robert Moss, whose book Chile’s Marxist Experiment, written in 1973, has been circulated widely by the Pinochet putschists to justify the coup. Suffice to say, it is crammed with “myths that will not die” which at least have the virtue of being better fiction than Falcoff’s dreary apologetics.

And Kilroy is Down! posted by lenin

Robert Kilroy-Silk's BBC1 daily talk show has been taken off the air by the Corporation after the TV host penned an "anti-Arab rant" in a national newspaper column.The BBC said it "strongly disassociated" itself from the the star's comments.Writing in the Sunday Express at the weekend, the ex-Labour MP described Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb amputators and women repressors".

Under the headline, We Owe Arabs Nothing, he continued: "Apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West - what do they contribute?

"Can you think of anything? Anything really useful?... No, nor can I..."

A statement the Corporation said: "The BBC strongly disassociates itself from the views expressed in an article by Robert Kilroy-Silk in the Sunday Express.

"We stress that these comments do not reflect the views of the BBC."

It added: "The BBC is taking the Kilroy programme off air immediately while we investigate this matter fully."

A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

I now look forward to the new Tony Benn show, in which the Grandmaster of parliamentary socialism sits down with some members of the public, lights up his pipe, and has a nice rowdy discussion over tuition fees and immigration. And why not?

Cold War? I've Got Some Cream for That! posted by lenin

It turns out all that bad shit the US got up to was because of the Cold War . Yeah, see, all that stuff about overturning democracies and sponsoring a network of Third World sub-fascist regimes was actually an exercise in containment, deterring the Soviet Union from marching across Europe, flying to Central America, approaching the Texan border and killing the firstborn of every American family. It's as well we found this out, because it means we can relax and trust the US to intervene wherever its reach will allow it, secure in the knowledge that its purpose will be to protect the innocent and create a front of lively democracies to drive back terrorism and bring down tyrannies wherever they may be.

Naturally, there isn't a hint of sarcasm intended here because, as Joseph Conrad pointed out, "revolutionaries have no taste for irony". I mean it. So when I say that a few things about the Cold War and the subsequent Balmy Peace confuse me, you better take my word for it. For instance, we commonly hear that the Cold War started because of Soviet "aggression", with Stalin carving Germany into two chunks and trying to drive the US out of "their" half. Somewhat confounding this obvious truth, Carolyn Eisenberg makes the bewildering claim that "the United States had abandoned Yalta and Potsdam, that it was pushing the formation of a Western German state against the misgivings of many Europeans" and that "the Soviets had launched the blockade to prevent partition". (Carolyn Eisenberg, Drawing the Line: The American Decision to Divide Germany, 1944-1949, 1996). Dean Acheson , Under Secretary of State at the time, claimed the credit for the "containment" policy, convincing Congressional leaders that the Soviets were about to take Greece as well as Yugoslavia, turn their influence into political bedrocks in Italy and France, advance their zone of influence through the Straits, into Iran, Asia Minor and then Africa. This early articulation of a "domino theory" certainly has to be true, even though the facts say something different. The Soviet Union had already been rebuffed in the Straits and Iran, had urged moderation on the Greek guerillas, and had urged their supporters in the Western communist parties to devote themselves to the reconstruction of capitalist democracies, and the pursuit of a national, reformist road to socialism. According to John Lewis Gaddis, US officials noted that Stalin had long given up any notion of exporting revolution, and was well on its way to abandoning socialism for good . The Comintern had not held a congress since 1935 and, at any rate, was later dissolved by Stalin. General Patrick J Hurley had informed Chiang Kai-shek in November 1943 on behalf of Roosevelt that Stalin had renounced world revolution. Representative John W. McCormack of Massacheusetts told the House of Representatives that the dissolution of the Comintern signalled the "renunciation of world revolution". (John Lewis Gaddis, "The Origins of the Cold War, 1941-47", 1977, p33 & pp48-9).
And somehow it seems that the main concern was not "Russian military power ... it is Russian political power which is threatening us", or so claimed George Kennan , probably one of the many Communists to have infiltrated the US government. The even more fanatically leftist John Foster Dulles claimed to his brother Allen, director of the CIA, that the communists appealed to "the poor people" who "have always wanted to plunder the rich". Obviously, such claims are laughable since they would suggest that the US was primarily interested in preventing "the poor people" from plundering the rich.

Well, we can discount all of the above as so much Commie rhetoric, but yet I confess my continued befuddlement - which, you will pardon me, is certainly licensed when you consider what the history books say. The US only ever exercised its power in the interests of democracy. That is axiomatic. Yet if this is so, I cannot account for What Happened Next. Brazil , for instance, was a splendid example of democracy in action in the 1950s and early 1960s, a Rooseveltian land of reforms to the benefit of civil society. Kubitschek, Quatros and then Goulart all presided over administrations which strengthened labour and peasant organisations, much as a true democracy would – no Soviet-style repression here. Yet, somehow, the United States seems to have blundered into collaboration in an ugly military coup in 1964, precipitating a sinister era of starvation, beatings, expulsions from land, and murder. (Bishop Dom Pedro Casaldaliga, "The Gospel is My Weapon", 12th December, 1975, Latin American Press). Shurely shome mishtake?

And it doesn't stop there! Why, they seem to have mistaken the dictators Somoza, Trujillos, Duvalier, Marcos, Suharto and Diem for Jeffersonian democrats, eagerly implementing the programme of the Founding Fathers. General Suharto, it seems, was sat in a room with Henry Kissinger on the day he decided to launch a massive assault on East Timor, culminating in the slaughter of up to 700,000 people. Kissinger bewilderingly claims that he was not aware that Suharto was about to launch a campaign of genocide against the East Timorese, but transcripts of the meeting have Kissinger and a Mr Newsome from the State Department being specifically informed of those intentions. Moreover, they discussed how they could help cover up those crimes in the US and continue to supply weapons to the regime throughout the assault . The Indonesian military proceeded to march people into fields, only to machine gun them down, herd thousands into schools and set fire to them, shooting anyone who tried to escape the blaze, and rampage through the mountain slopes, killing anyone in their path. Kissinger then secretly and illegally reopened normal relations with Indonesia and continued the flow of arms to the regime, in violation of Congressional legislation. Why would such a patent democrat and friend of freedom engage such a course of action? A mistake? A misperception of what was involved? Did he believe the Indonesian Generals were warding off a Soviet threat? Of course! It was because the manky little Timorese bastards were turning communist, leaning their weight behind the marxist Freitilin instead of the fascist UDT! (Robin Osborne, Australian, 26th February 1975). Obviously, this Soviet aggression in the heart of South East Asia had to be repelled, and if the General was good enough to do it, I'm good enough to say a hearty thank you.

Still, I am still puzzled by the other examples I raised and even more worried by what I am about to tell you. In 1972, the minority administration in Burundi sought "to kill every possible Hutu male of distinction over the age of fourteen". (Michael Bowen, Gary Freedman, Kay Miller & Roger Morris, "Passing By, The United States and Genocide in Burundi", Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1972). You will hardly believe what I am about to tell you, but the United States government apparently refused to raise any protest about the massacre, even though it was the major trading partner with Burundi at the time. They had a busy schedule, of course, I completely understand. But the communists wouldn't! They would try and make something of it, as if the US didn’t really care about atrocities and the exigencies of tyranny. And isn't that the real tragedy here?

Oh, but darlings, sweet freedom-loving bunnies, prepare your ears for this! The American government seems to have stumbled into the terrorism business! Oh, I know it will shock and awe you to hear this from one of your own brethren, but I assure you it's true. I know it must be some accident of history, or some poor, misguided attempt to contain Soviet aggression. But in the 1980s, the CIA began an attempt to systematically undermine the new regime that had overthrown the Somozist dictatorship (which, remarkably, the United States supported!). They formed a terrorist army, collectively known as the Contras, but operating under distinct names and different commands. Many of their fighters were conscripts - kidnapped, removed to Honduras, and trained at a CIA camp. Drugs - drugs! - were used to fund these evil bastards as they tore across Nicaragua, slaughtering teachers and pupils, nurses and patients, raping and torturing, slicing off womens' breasts, leaving hacked bodies by the roadside. 30,000 died in what Oxfam called "The Threat of a Good Example". Friends, I am physically shaking. I have no idea what Oxfam meant by that infelicitous phrase since the United States seeks nothing more than to provide a Good Example to the rest of the world. But this action, surely, was not - well, you know, I do wonder if perhaps the Soviets didn't have a hand in all this. Being the evil bastards that they were, they probably put the Sandinista regime in power and ensured it won 67% in the 1984 election. Yes, probably in a deliberate attempt to provoke our American friends into acting out of turn. And, yes, somewhere I read that the Nicaraguans were taking migs from the Soviets - but that, very tragically, turns out to be a lie. (Miami Herald, 21st December 1986). Can we judge the US for this? Is it fair to slander so benevolent a power with the charge that it is run by a band of vicious mercenaries, dedicated to shoring up their own power no matter how much blood accrues at their feet? Surely not.

And yet, my avid little coalition-of-the-willing, there is more. It has engaged in terrorist activities against Libya, Angola, Morroco, Cuba, El Salvador, assaults on democracy in Suriname, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Iran, Greece, Italy, Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Jamaica, even our darling Great Britain, support for dictatorships like Ecuador, Thailand, the Phillipines, Haiti, South Korea, Noriega in Panama, Mobutu in Zaire, Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran and military assaults on non-aggressive states like Grenada, the Seychelles and virtually everywhere else it has chosen to invade. In only a fraction of these cases was the Soviet Union involved, and then usually as a bit player.

Friends, allies, I wish I knew how to express the parlous state I'm in. My stomach feels like it is being sucked into hell, and my soul is rushing to join it. Who but a lunatic, a heretic, an anti-American traitor, a terrorist sympathiser, a liberal bedwetter, a communist could entertain such facts - by which I mean, thoughts? Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. I have dreamed that the world is ruled by corrupt, violent, power-brokers interested in sustaining their own privileges. I have imagined that the men we know to be holy and wise are little more than high class crooks, Mafia dons, Shakespearean villans with none of the poetry or grandeur.

Still, that was in the bad old days! Even if it's all true - and it bloody well certainly probably isn't! - that's in the past. The world was balanced on a knife-edge, Soviet aggression and, er, my tactics only help the evil-doers. Or something. But there's more. I hasten to say that I cannot credit a word that is coming out of my morose little gob right now, but some evil, Cartesian demon has hold of me, is feeding me illusion, deceit, compelling me to perceive what cannot be. I must communicate my fears.

They didn't stop with the terrorism already, even when the Cold War finished. I can't understand why, but they started to interfere in countries which didn't have any communist threat in them. In Colombia, they've been funding the government and far right paramilitaries in their endless war on trade unionists, workers and peasants. In Turkey, they sponsored the massacre of the Kurds during the mid-Nineties . In Indonesia, Clinton helped train the military in the "Iron Balance" programme, in direct violation of existing US legislation. He then helped block any response to the increasing Indonesian massacre in Timor, following the massive Timorese vote for independence, until they had finished their job and were pulling out. In Haiti, they supported military forces as they overthrew the democratically elected Aristide, until they had obtained from Aristide a promise not to fulfill any of the crazy promises he'd been making to the poor. Of course, of course! I know Aristide was a communist. Yes, of course. And the Timorese were communists too, we remember. And the Kurds have a pretty big communist party. But... dearies, I hate to ask these questions... what possible threat do these commie scum pose to America's Divine Splendour?

I am lost. I am at sea. Send the marines! Help! Help!!

Kilroy Update. posted by lenin

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssss!!!

It fucking happened! The lousy, unctuous toad is going to be "investigated" (I hope that includes a proctological examination using a tractor).

Well thanks, Kilroy, for polluting our airwaves for all these years with your bland, squabble-shop. Now kindly fuck off.

I Hate Robert Kilroy-Silk. posted by lenin

Confessions of a Daytime TV Consumer.

For a preening, smarmy, solipsistic, unenlightened, foghorn-voiced, bigoted creep, Kilroy has certainly made a name for himself. This self-styled man o' t' people can't construct a sensible sentence, but he does know how to ingratiate himself with what is misleadingly called Middle England. Howling down sensible suggestions from an audience member, cat-calling opponents of his waterhead views, simpering with victims of crime, sententiously moralising over the latest Big Issue and countless Non Issues his show producers concoct to fill air time, I haven't yet been able to find within me the sufficient reserves of vomit to express my admiration for his show.

But! Now, we may see the Gobby One silenced for a bit, because his latest retarded effort for the Sunday Express has prompted gales of outrage from readers. Here's a letter on its way to the Press Complaints Commission:

"Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JB


Dear Sir or Madam

I am writing to complain about the following publication: Sunday Express

On the date of: 4th January 2004

The Headline was: We owe Arabs nothing (For Article, PTO).

My complaint details are as follows:

In my opinion, the Sunday Express has breached the code in the following respects.

1) Discrimination:

The article lists a number of acts that have been committed by Arab persons and then proceeds to use indiscriminate generalisations to attribute responsibility to all Arab persons and as such is blatantly discriminatory.

Examples include:
'what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without?'

'What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killing in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them. for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, womenrepressors?'

2) Accuracy:

The statement, 'Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria', is factually inaccurate. Syria has never supported Iraq and in fact the two countries have, for many years, been bitter rivals.

The statement, 'Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons.' is again inaccurate, has no evidence to support it and nor are there any statements from Arab groups threatening to undertake such attacks.



Yours Sincerely"

And furthermore, the Muslim Council of Britain is fuming:

"We at the ISB Open Egroup would urge all of you to email the BBC Director-General (greg.dyke@bbc.co.uk) and the BBC1 Controller (lorraine.heggessey@bbc.co.uk) and demand that they terminate Kilroy-Silk's contract immediately. Last year, we initiated the biggest number of complaints over any programme in 2003 concerning the portrayal of Muslims in the BBC1 drama, Spooks.
Similarly, please bombard the Sunday Express with telephone calls (phone 0207-9288000 and ask for the Sunday Express editor, Martin Townsend) or email martin.townsend@express.co.uk and tell him he should sack Kilroy as a columnist.
We understand that the Muslim Council of Britain has already raised this issue with the Press Complaints Commission.
[MCB letter to BBC1 Controller, Lorraine Heggessey]
Ms Lorraine Heggessey,
Controller
BBC One
Wood Lane
London
W12 7RJ

Tuesday 6th January, 2003

Dear Ms Heggessey,

For some time now, many British Muslims have been deeply troubled about why the BBC continues to employ Robert Kilroy-Silk in any capacity, let alone in such a high profile position as the morning chat show host on BBC1. It is truly galling to see an Islamophobic presenter like Kilroy enriching himself over a number of years courtesy of a publicly funded body such as the BBC.

Kilroy-Silk is – as you must know - a man who positively revels in airing his anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. We wonder whether you would consider it proper to give the same kind of prominence to a presenter who was so openly anti-black or anti-Jewish?

Kilroy-Silk writes a weekly column for the Express on Sunday in which he often gives vent to his bigoted and ill-informed ideas about what is happening in the world. In last Sunday’s paper he surpassed all his previous efforts and produced a hysterically gratuitous anti-Arab rant.

As you can see in the following extract (“We Owe The Arabs Nothing”) from the Express on Sunday (4th January 2004), Kilroy-Silk appears unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between the terrorists who perpetrated the Sept 11 atrocities and the ordinary Arab peoples who constitute a population of over 200 million.

“We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really?… What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11… That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women-repressors?”

Note that Kilroy doesn’t attack the actions of a particular few – but ‘the Arabs’ as a whole. This seems to be a clear case of indiscriminate generalisation and as such, blatantly racist. The Press Council upheld a complaint against The Sun for publishing similar comments about ‘the Arabs’ in 1987.

Kilroy also displays a lamentable grasp of geography and history:

“The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime - part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein-supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam.”

Iran is a largely Farsi-speaking country (not Arab) and heir to an enormously rich civilisation. Kilroy’s dismissive remarks Iran and the Arab world are not untypical of the arrogant way he treats anything to do with Islam or Muslims.

In addition, the Iraqi and Syrian regimes have for decades actually been bitter rivals in the region as each country’s branch of the Ba’th party tried to project itself as the leader of the Arab world. Moreover, the majority of the Arab public has never hidden its disdain for Saddam Hussein and his brutal rule.

There has been a lot of comment in the press recently about journalists and commentators employed by the BBC who bring the corporation into disrepute by writing opinionated pieces in newspapers.

The Muslim Council of Britain considers Kilroy’s remarks quoted above to be ignorant, extremely derogatory and indisputably racist.

In the BBC’s Producer’s Guidelines, your Chairman, Greg Dyke says “Our audiences rightly expect the highest…ethical standards from the BBC…values such as impartiality, accuracy, fairness, editorial independence and our commitment to appropriate standards of taste and decency” We hope you will agree that Mr Robert Kilroy-Silk has fallen far short of these values and standards.

We now urge the BBC to take urgent and appropriate action on this extremely serious matter to reassure the Muslim and Arab communities in Britain and abroad that the BBC will not in any way accept the contemptible demonisation of entire peoples.

Certainly, if the word ‘Jews’ was substituted for ‘Arabs’ in the Kilroy quotes above it seems to us that the BBC would not tolerate any delay before it took substantive action against Kilroy.

For your information, the Muslim Council of Britain is also writing to the Press Complaints Commission about Kilroy’s article.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Iqbal Sacranie,
Secretary-General
The Muslim Council of Britain
Boardman House,
64 Broadway,
Stratford,
London E15 1NT

Cc:
Greg Dyke, Director-General, BBC
Alison Sharman, Controller, BBC Daytime Television"


Could it be? Could this arsehole suddenly find his volumous ego ripped from the air? Watch this space for more!

Jihad Chic posted by lenin

If The Guardian wanted to send some of its reactionary opponents into a furore, it couldn't have done much better than putting Osama Bin Laden's latest speech in their Comment pages . Apparently, Mark Steel was too much of a nutter for them , but this guy's alright. Can we expect The Al Qaeda Reader next year? A hefty book of collected articles and speeches on the lies of the Zionist-Christian Crusaders and their morally degenerate lifestyles? Maybe a couple of fitness videos featuring Osama and his acolytes doing leg stretches while reciting the Prophets?

I suppose I'm asking the wrong question - what I should ask is why has a bumpkin billionaire with a few nuts loose and a monomaniac fixation with the Great Satan and its Zionist imp got the ears of anyone at all? Go and have a read of the column - it's mindless drivel. Not merely crackpot, but actually incoherent and stylistically rather dull. Couldn't the sub-editors have done something about this? Thrown in a few jokes maybe? Like:

Osama: Man walks into a bar... BOOOM!!

Mullah Omar: Praise be!

That sort of thing.

His image is now printed on t-shirts, his face colonising hearts and minds faster than Paul Bremer can say "we got 'im!" like the jumped up little twerp he is. He's a demented, murderous, fanatical Che Guevara with an Old Testament beard. This poetaster of Jihad chic has only done one thing to 'merit' this attention - carrying out the PR for an organisation that was apparently able, once, to deal a massive blow to America's land mass. Now, I'm not going all Hitchens on it, (haven't had enough drink yet). The temporary PR successes of "Islamo-fascism" or whatever you want to call it don't give anyone the right to impugn the antiwar movement's pedigree. There is no chance whatsoever that the almighty upsurge of protest against US imperialism was either informed by anti-Americanism and anti-semitism, or rooted genetically in it, or making any arguments predicated on it.

In fact, my argument is rather the reverse. It was the vacancy of the international Left which allowed these piratical fuckwits to gain a foothold, first in the Middle East, then elsewhere. The dynamic is almost an exact replica of the process which saw the resurgence of the European far right. The mainstream left and right colluding in a sort of depoliticisation through the Nineties, the demonstrably baleful aspects of capitalism becoming even more obsence, the political process even more moribund than ever, centre-left governments concealing their failure behind a facade of identity politics, PC radicalism, and a multicultural discourse that is not only useless, but actually beneficial for the far right. Multiculturalism, promoting the politics of 'difference' rather than universal human rights, can produce strange ideological effects.

On the latter point, consider Nick Griffin's cosmopolitan delights:

"There's a limited number of benefits [of immigration]. The one which everyone always points to is curry. I like curry. I eat in Indian restaurants."

If the BNP leader can appropriate this language, it obviously doesn't assist much in the struggle against fascist resurgence.

In world politics, we have had the Free World led by a lachrymose rapist with an easy smile while he bombs aspirin factories in Sudan , hotels in Iraq and villagers in Afghanistan. Protests were minimal. The mainstream left even approved of some of these gestures, or at least mounted little dissent. Until anticapitalist protests rocked the advanced capitalist world from 1999, the Left was considered mute and moot. The result was a political vacuum in which arseholes with a paranoid world-view and a self-righteous fanaticism could thrive. But enough about Tony Blair.

I'm sick of a situation where Osama bin Laden gets in the Comment Pages of The Guardian, and yet only the Willesden Herald is willing to acknowledge my obvious genius. And that, comrades, is why the left has got to get its shit together, run Bush and Blair out of government, overthrow capitalism, toss the leaders of Al Qaeda into a volcano, and establish socialism and inexpensive love.

Thanks to the Willesden Herald. posted by lenin

The Willesden Herald awards me the Golden Willy for Best Commentary. If it had been the Lewisham Herald, I'd have been given the Golden Erection, but I'm happy with what I've got. And, what's more, I know where I can stick it.

Cheers!

Human rights, and "the Devil". posted by lenin

Col Qadaffi is "statesmanlike" whereas Saddam Hussein is "the new Adolf Hitler", "Stalin" , "the Devil" . The difference is that Col Qadaffi voluntarily gave up the weapons he didn't have, whereas Saddam Hussein didn't give up any of the weapons he didn't have. I hope that's clear.

Some of the arguments for the war were utterly flimsy, risible, deluded, myopic and perverted. The rest were just fucking nuts. But for the purposes of ejecting some boiling black bile on my Slop Idols in the quality liberal press (and by "quality", I mean "expensive"), I'd like to concentrate on the former category. The most obvious ideological manoeuvre of the liberal pro-war zealots is to overstate Saddam's powers as both an international threat and a dictator in his own right. Certainly, he was one of the worst, but Hitler, Stalin and the Devil rolled into one? The Late Christopher Hitchens, may God rest his drinking arm, insisted prior to the war that Saddam would be free to "go nuclear" if the US didn't immediately invade. To be fair to him, he probably didn't believe it then any more than he believed it after the war when he decided that the search for WMDs had always been "iffy" . He was merely telling us what President Bush, Colin Powell, Ari Fleischer and others claimed.

The claims about Hussein's apparently enormous and scary weapons have dissolved to the extent that the government is reduced to searching for a "logical reason" why WMDs were not discovered in Iraq that would not include the possibility that Bush and Blair were merely spouting Texan horseshit. The claims about terrorist connections, too, have fallen by the wayside. In fact, all that remains of the famed "threat" from Saddam Hussein was the very real one he posed to his own citizens, which our governments care deeply about all sudden. Incidentally, David Aaronovitch promised to retract his support for the war if WMDs were not discovered - a promise which I expect will remain unfulfilled, since ten years from now he'll be saying "give it more time, for fuck's sake!" It isn't difficult, therefore, to understand why some liberal defenders of the war have pretended that the war is a crusade for Iraqi human rights. Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and others have taken up the cause of the Iraqis as if they had invented internationalism, as soon as it became clear that a war would happen. Hitchens was initially wary of invasion, preferring a vague "confrontation", but later lapsed into outright Col Blimpish hectoring on the American government's behalf.

But while Johann Hari has adopted an "older brother" style of persuasion, Nick Cohen has nurtured a snide cackling which has since become his speciality. For Cohen, the anti-war movement is "ethnocentric" and "hypocritical" , failing to listen to Iraqi "socialists", a dishonest ploy since he knows perfectly well that if the Iraqi Communist Party had not colluded in the occupation, he would be denouncing them as crypto-Stalinists who had once colluded with Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, the ideological gesture is interesting since it smacks exactly of the "prolier than thou" attitude he once mercifully scorned in New Labour acolytes as a cover for reactionary programmes.

The presupposition of liberal interventionism in this form is that the United States-United Kingdom axis is the kind of agent which could well be entrusted with the disposal of the vital task of liberating oppressed people. Indeed, whatever its countless past crimes, it is now developing a record of humanitarian intervention (according to Johann Hari, citing Sierra Leone and Kosovo). Moreover, the presupposition is rarely examined - understandably so, since it doesn't stand up to the most rudimentary analysis. To bolster his assertions that the US has changed the habit of fifty years or so of supporting vile dictatorships in the Middle East, Christopher Hitchens cites "conversations I have had in Washington" . Hari asseverates that US policy has changed after 9/11, as they have recognised that continued support for such regimes is untenable. The falling towers, apparently, turned the Pentagon into the vanguard of a global democratic revolution. I think, however, that what is more likely is that neoconservative intellectuals and blowhards have gained more influence. Interestingly, those calling loudest in the Bush administration for the democratisation of the Middle East are hardcore neoconservatives such as Michael Ledeen, and former LaRouche backers like Laurent Murawiec . But I hope it's transparently obvious that their notion of democracy is probably at variance with that of the vast majority of the human race. On the other hand, I don't think strategic considerations changed that much after 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld, we now know, took the opportunity afforded by the collapse of the twin towers to demand that his underlings find a way to pin this on Iraq - pursuing a policy that he and his intellectual colleagues (if I may speak loosely) had been dreaming up for years. The Project for the New American Century is absolutely eloquent on this point, and also quite specific in its aims and intentions ("to fight, and decisively win, a series of major theatre wars").

Another version of this argument is to ponder on the "choice" between US power and Saddam Hussein. Christopher Hitchens noted this specious form of argument after the Gulf War pointing out that those who claimed to support the war because they preferred imperialism to fascism now no longer had to choose - the war was just sending its last vapours of human flesh into the Baghdad sunset, and meanwhile the tyrants of both Iraq and Kuwait had been restored to their former positions. There is no "choice" of course, because there has never been a pure antagonism between the exercise of US imperial power and tyranny, as anyone who studies the history of the US intervention in the anti-Saddam uprising in 1991 will note. Once, the US preferred a strongman who would rule Iraq with an iron-fist in an iron-glove, just like Saddam Hussein but with a different name and face, according to Thomas Friedman. Now, Daniel Pipes recommends a "democratic-minded autocrat" should rule Iraq. Leading neocon Newt Gingrich complains that Bush should have installed a dictator immediately the invasion was complete . Brent Scowcroft admitted at the time of the first Iraq war that when George Bush called for 'the Iraqi militaryand the Iraqi people' to rise against Saddam, the US actually meant a coup, because it was presumed that a popular uprising would end with a pro-Iranian government: 'We clearly would have preferred a coup. There's no question about that.' (Interview on ABC news 26 June 1997 quoted in Sarah Graham-Brown, Sanctioning Saddam. The Politics of Intervention in Iraq (London: I.B. Tauris,1999), p. 19.) This would explain why General Schwarzkopf allowed Iraq to fly helicopter gunships in areas with no coalition forces, violating no-fly zones, effectively freeing them up to crush the uprising, while at the same time occupying arms depots so as to prevent Iraqi insurgents from reaching them, (Andrew & Patrick Cockburn, Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession, Verso, 2000) . And General Sir Peter de la Billiere obviously understood this when he said: ‘The Iraqis were responsible for establishing law and order. You could not administer the country without using the helicopters.’ (Graham-Brown, op cit). John Major put the matter even more succinctly: ‘I don’t recall asking the Kurds to mount this particular insurrection ….We hope very much that the military in Iraq will remove Saddam Hussein.’ (John Major on ITN, 4 April 1991).


This is crucial. The words, stated intentions and past actions of the US decisively militate against the presumption of a humanitarian impulse behind their actions. The output of the Project for the New American Century , an institution whose chief luminaries include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Eliot Abrams, makes it perfectly plain that the number one priority of the new policies which they had been pressing for over some years was to assert US global hegemony, to sieze a "window of opportunity" created by the absence of a rival superpower to "deter potential rivals". The National Security Strategy expresses the same priorities in more diplomatic language, (although it evinces a marriage of idealism and realpolitik with a great deal of self-serving rhetoric). It specifically grants the US government the power to "preempt" threats, even to act in the case of mere "defiance", an unprecedented move. According to Harvard Middle East historian Roger Owen, the new policy required a war of "exemplary quality" , and Iraq was that exemplar.

In other words, supporters of the war are prepared to grant the US an extent of blind faith they would not dream of allowing other states. Even to examine their own stated intentions is too much effort for the liberal warniks. Small wonder that they have nothing to say about US atrocities in Iraq, human rights abuses inflicted by the occupiers who are, (they must be), placing their vast wealth, military, technological investment, and human lives at the disposal of the oppressed of the world. Harry's Place , the blogging site of Johann Hari among others, insists that "Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". Wonderfully put. In Iraq, liberty means nothing .

About Lenin's Tomb posted by lenin

Some info about using the Tomb in a few discrete categories.

Contributors: This site is run by 'lenin', and has several other undead contributors including 'bat020', 'Meaders', Mark Elf, China and 'Bionoc'. Most but not all contributors are revolutionary socialists. Some have their own blogs, and their posts appear in the 'Lenosphere' column in the side-bar. We accept contributions from the Left, particularly on protests, strikes and other forms of struggle. We don't accept contributions about psoriasis cures, herbal viagra and cheap insurance, so don't even think about it.

Content: Like most blogs, the content is erratic, syncopated by the intrusions of daily life, random interests, monomania, narcissism and booze. But because there's at least a partial effort to provide information for activists, there's a few 'dossiers' in the sidebar, basically previous posts which distilled information about important matters. Use the search box at the top of the sidebar to locate information on anything you don't see - there are usually plenty of links to check up material and sources.

Comments: The comments boxes are lightly moderated by about four or five people. I forget how many. I'm quite promiscuous with this kind of thing. Aside from one or two regular trolls, comments are generally not edited or deleted. In most cases, racist, sexist or homophobic comments are deleted. If you find your IP address is banned, either you are a troll or you happen to share an IP address with a troll. Or there's been a horrible mistake and you can e-mail me using the 'mailto' link at the top of the sidebar. If you notice your comment is being moderated, it is because moderation has been turned on temporarily to deal with a troll: individual commenters are not targeted for moderation. People might sometimes say mean things to you, but if you e-mail me I will apply a soothing unguent to your hurting regions.

Accolades, resentments and moments I'm absurdly proud of: We've won the Willesden Herald's Golden Willy award twice. We've been nominated for the Guardian's Backbencher award for some reason, and that paper has excerpted the blog twice that I know of. We had a nomination for a Koufax award which didn't seem to come to anything, and something else run by a German television station. We've had a couple of scoops and things. The Tomb exposed Innovative Emergency Management's chicanery over Hurricane Katrina (this was picked up by Private Eye, with credit); revealed Scotland on Sunday's fabrications about the G8 summit, (this was picked up by Private Eye, without credit); co-published documents from former diplomat Craig Murray that the government were trying to suppress using the Official Secrets Act; published information that the government was suppressing in the press with the use of a D-Notice; was first to despatch a smear on Galloway; and a bunch of other stuff.

Stuff about 'lenin': I'm from Northern Ireland, twenty eight years old, and can resist anything except temptation, flattery or money. That said, at least I don't have those stupid adverts on the site or one of this shitty little Paypal symbols as if I'm entitled to pester you for money simply because you occasionally devote yourself to gobbling up my globules of prose. Here's some turn-ons.

Favourite novelists, poets, playwrights etc: Oscar Wilde; Ken Kesey; Christopher Fowler; Will Self; David Hare; Tony Kushner; John Guare; Stephen Adly Guirgis; Edward Bond; Dario Fo; Stephen Poliakoff; Stephen Fry; Gore Vidal; Philip Roth; Joe Orton; Bret Easton Ellis; EM Forster; Joseph Heller; Salman Rushdie; F Scott Fitzgerald; Dorothy Parker; Irvine Welsh; Andre Gide; Jane Austen; Graham Greene.

Favourite comedians: Bill Hicks; Woody Allen; Chris Morris; Chris Rock; Eddie Murphy; Lenny Bruce; Mort Sahl; Barry Humphries; Jack Dee; Rob Newman; David Cross; Mark Steel; Mark Thomas.

Favourite political/social/philosphical/literary/historical theorists: Slavoj Zizek; Ellen Meiksins Wood; Robert Brenner; Benno Teschke; Franco Moretti; Alain Badiou; Ernesto Laclau; Anthony Giddens (circa 1980s); Alex Callinicos; Terry Eagleton; David Harvey; Foucault; Perry Anderson; Samir Amin; Jaqueline Rose; bell hooks; Gramsci; Gregory Elliot; Alistair MacIntyre; Martti Koskenniemi; Edward Said; Partha Chatterjee; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak; Peter Gowan; Noam Chomsky; Aime Cesaire.

Favourite historians: Eric Hobsbawm; Christopher Hill; Robin Blackburn; Fernand Braudel; James Holstun; Hanna Batatu; Neil Davidson; Ian Kershaw; Moshe Lewin; Ilan Pappe; Avi Shlaim; David Hirst; George Rude; Dilip Hiro; Howard Zinn; Nora Carlin; EP Thompson; Norman Finkelstein; Charles Tripp; Manning Marable.

Marvel at my autodidactic propensities. Gasp at my impeccable taste.