Martin Allen is an unhappy man. He has written three books (no mean feat given the pressure for publication in acamedia these days) but alas, all the evidence for his historical arguments have been shown to be fakes.
The claims made by Allen seem believable enough. It is well known that the British upper classes had a soft spot for Adolf, the Daily Mail still regarded him as a force for good right up until 1938 and their attraction for fascism occassionally bursts forth - take Prince Harry's Nazi officer disguise and the Max Mosley spanking scandal below for instance. So Allen was on solid enough ground. He claimed that, "British agents used the royal family to deceive the Nazis into expecting a pro-German putsch. The Duke of Windsor leaked secrets to help Hitler. And, most sensationally of all, SS chief Heinrich Himmler was murdered by secret agents on Winston Churchill's orders." Apparently these were 'sensational' claims. To me, they seem just boringly probable.
As it turns out the evidence was not what it seemed. "Details of an investigation by the National Archives into how forged documents came to be planted in their files have uncovered the full extent of deception. Officials discovered 29 faked documents, planted in 12 separate files at some point between 2000 and 2005, which were used to underpin Allen's allegations."
The strong implication is that it was Allen himself who planted these forged documents in a desperate attempt to boost his publication ratings, especially when it is considered that Allen was the only person to have handled all the files that contained the forged documents and that the forgeries themselves were, er, not very well done.
Case closed then it would seem. But there remains a lingering sense of doubt. For a start, we learn that the forgeries were poorly cobbled together affairs that looked fake with a capital F. Letters were printed on the wrong kind of paper, with laser printers and spelling mistakes. Now it seems to me that if you're a historian (ever the sceptical paranoic types) even a historian in a hurry and anxious to slip in a bit af helpful evidence into the archives, that you would put the effort in and get it right. Because if you're job depends on the quality of your fakes, these fakes had better be pretty accurate. It could well be, of course, that Allen is not just a poor historian but an inept forger as well. At the moment he is a very unwell man and unavailable for comment and perhaps that is the most likely interpretation.
However, we live in a country steeped in lies and deception. 45 minute WMD claims, BAE, Navy not in Iranian waters, the Belgrano, the Stockwell shooting, PFI, Liar loans to reel off just a few things. This is not to justify Allen (if he has carried out fakery) but to withold belief on this story. After all, there is nothing to prevent one thinking that, in fact, Allen's story was true but that the evidence he had used was noted by Special Branch, who lifted it from the National Archives and then replaced it all by crude "amateurish" forgeries. The aim being to discredit Allen and his dangerous reminders of the British ruling class' love affair with fascism. If so, the ruse worked beautifully. The Guardain swallowed the line uncritically and poor Allen is left out to dry.
Maybe all historical archives are opertated along these lines.
mercredi 7 mai 2008
mardi 6 mai 2008
Capitalism at work
The seige and bombardment of Sadr city continues. Neo-liberalism's work is never done. The ground has to be prepared for its glistening temples of plenty. So if hospitals are hit by precision guided missiles - it's regrettable, but a price well worth paying.
This just in, “Sadr City right now is like a city of ghosts,” Abu Haider al-Bahadili, a Mahdi Army leader told the Washington Post by phone. "
The plan is working just fine then. It has to be noted that the decents (see the first part of my critique of Khawja's piece below) go quiet when this sort of destruction unfolds. When their relativism is imposed, they become relatively silent.
This just in, “Sadr City right now is like a city of ghosts,” Abu Haider al-Bahadili, a Mahdi Army leader told the Washington Post by phone. "
The plan is working just fine then. It has to be noted that the decents (see the first part of my critique of Khawja's piece below) go quiet when this sort of destruction unfolds. When their relativism is imposed, they become relatively silent.
lundi 5 mai 2008
Aesthete
The Epicurean gets drunk every now and then - after all even moderation has to be done in, moderation.
Gravedigger
An acquaintance in England inherits a lot of money and buys her husband a 28 grand 4by4. Another borrows a ton of money from banks credit cards and friends to live the 'British Dream'. A business partner of another friend borrows to invest in the company he partly owns. The huge car generates hostility. Her friends argue with her and, finally, shun her. The share deal goes South and the lendee has to flee the country leaving hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of debt. The businessman's scheme collapses and he commits suicide. His company collpases.
Three failed capitalists can do more damage to capitalism than a thousand depressed revolutionaries
Meanwhile. . .
. . .the slaughter continues.
Sadr city is being wiped out by the US air force. A whole way of life is being exterminated. Why is there no response - no widespread outrage?
The media plays its part of course. In its selective reporting and what it leaves unsaid. Yet the information is out there. The American policy is a product of the entire failure of the West's foreign policy. Bombing is a 'quick fix' way to regain the initiative in a doomed campaign. They have lost intellectually, morally and now in the field. This is not to be anti-American, but Post-American.
dimanche 4 mai 2008
Euston Moment
Alan Johnson, the political theorist and editor of the dreadful Democratiya website/tarted up blog is distinct from Alan Johnson, MP, New Labour clone, minister and no qualifications boy who did good - but you'd be pressed to tell the difference in the way they write and the things that they say. The material fed to MP's to regurgitate to the popular media and the stuff oozing out of academia are part of the same corporate-think engine. One might as well call them both the same aspect of a kind of acamedia department at the governance's centre.
Thus for a while I gave the 'Euston Moment' piece in the Guardian the benefit of the doubt. If the guy had no GCSE's give him his due he has remembered his lines and even got a few intellectual quotes to give his banalities a weighty aura. After a brief echeck, though, I was mildly surprised to see that the essay was written by another kind of Alan Johnson, one who is cited as being a political philosopher. The essay is quite risible. It is asupposed attack on the left. Johnson believes that the left's "theoretical collapse" and "loss of sensibility" stems from its reductivist response to the new complexities of the post Cold War world. The left has simply applied the ideas of imperialsim and resistance and collapsed into anti-Americanism, self-hatred and "demented anti-zionism".
His rant is not directed against ant particular figure or element of left wing thought, of course, but is just a 'critique' of the 'left' that exists in Johnson's imagination.
His argument veers from the accusation that John Rees' (supposed) unconditional support for Saddam Hussein (generally, when I hear any 'decent' describe a left winger 'supporting' i) terror, ii) the latest bogeyperson or iii) oppression of unions in soon to be invaded countries, I always wonder how the decent really thinks a left wing writer can actually materially support any of the things he is being accused of supporting and how, in fact, the actual nasties being talked about have in the end Western governments behind them), an argument that Johnson provides no evidence for, to Albert Camus - quoted wildly out of context - to the crass claim that criticisms of Western foreign policies are evidence of 'self-hatred' to Bladerunner (!) and then to the truly awfully expressed idea that criticising America means 'Along this road madness lies'. I really hate that phrase.
The guff ends with a long sales pitch for the democratiya site and the claim that the Euston moment is not a movement but whose ideas should be important in helping to define the shape of the left.
Euston moment sounds a lot like 'senior moment' - one of those moments of forgetting. Thus Johnson claims that the Manifesto (if you can call the back of a beer mat scribbles that make up the wretched thing a 'manifesto') was 'agnostic on economics'. So, nothing left at all then. How can you be remotely 'left' if you efface economic injustices? But to do that would unravel the whole sorry facade Johnson is mixed up in.
If this is the best "left" wing acamedia can dredge up then they'd best stick to writing propaganda for their Nu Labout masters. Thanks to K-Punk for drawing attention to this cry for help though.
Thus for a while I gave the 'Euston Moment' piece in the Guardian the benefit of the doubt. If the guy had no GCSE's give him his due he has remembered his lines and even got a few intellectual quotes to give his banalities a weighty aura. After a brief echeck, though, I was mildly surprised to see that the essay was written by another kind of Alan Johnson, one who is cited as being a political philosopher. The essay is quite risible. It is asupposed attack on the left. Johnson believes that the left's "theoretical collapse" and "loss of sensibility" stems from its reductivist response to the new complexities of the post Cold War world. The left has simply applied the ideas of imperialsim and resistance and collapsed into anti-Americanism, self-hatred and "demented anti-zionism".
His rant is not directed against ant particular figure or element of left wing thought, of course, but is just a 'critique' of the 'left' that exists in Johnson's imagination.
His argument veers from the accusation that John Rees' (supposed) unconditional support for Saddam Hussein (generally, when I hear any 'decent' describe a left winger 'supporting' i) terror, ii) the latest bogeyperson or iii) oppression of unions in soon to be invaded countries, I always wonder how the decent really thinks a left wing writer can actually materially support any of the things he is being accused of supporting and how, in fact, the actual nasties being talked about have in the end Western governments behind them), an argument that Johnson provides no evidence for, to Albert Camus - quoted wildly out of context - to the crass claim that criticisms of Western foreign policies are evidence of 'self-hatred' to Bladerunner (!) and then to the truly awfully expressed idea that criticising America means 'Along this road madness lies'. I really hate that phrase.
The guff ends with a long sales pitch for the democratiya site and the claim that the Euston moment is not a movement but whose ideas should be important in helping to define the shape of the left.
Euston moment sounds a lot like 'senior moment' - one of those moments of forgetting. Thus Johnson claims that the Manifesto (if you can call the back of a beer mat scribbles that make up the wretched thing a 'manifesto') was 'agnostic on economics'. So, nothing left at all then. How can you be remotely 'left' if you efface economic injustices? But to do that would unravel the whole sorry facade Johnson is mixed up in.
If this is the best "left" wing acamedia can dredge up then they'd best stick to writing propaganda for their Nu Labout masters. Thanks to K-Punk for drawing attention to this cry for help though.
Betrayal
'Gordon Brown suffers Long bloody Sunday' - the headline in The Guardian. First thought is, really? I mean as bloody as the hospital in Sadr City that got hit by an American air raid? Or as bloody as this fella in Gaza just trying to get by and getting beaten up by occupying forces? Or as. . .well you get the point.
The electoral 'defeat' is really nothing of the sort. The National Continuation Party (comprised of the two main 'factions' Lab and Con) did very well. Gordon Brown's side of the wall has, of course, committed the most serious betrayal of all - that of not winning. The only reason given for the abandonment of any vestiges of socialism was that it was necessary to serve the greater god 'Electoral Success'. Thousands of NuLab robots signed up. Now it has betrayed this idea and them too. On this latter point - every silver lining has a cliché
There was speculation in the paper that this could mean a conservtive government in 2009, from Martin Kettme of all people. That kind of waffle is so besides the point when there is only one choice on offer - the Business party and, of course, the Business as usual Party.
The real left has an ambiguous relationship with the whole electoral process - and rightly so. Thus, one should interpret the 'catastrophe' for one side of the NCP as nothing but the merest ripple in the political lake. And that Boris' victory as a sign that the whole mayor spectacle has been 'dollared' - as in devalued.
The electoral 'defeat' is really nothing of the sort. The National Continuation Party (comprised of the two main 'factions' Lab and Con) did very well. Gordon Brown's side of the wall has, of course, committed the most serious betrayal of all - that of not winning. The only reason given for the abandonment of any vestiges of socialism was that it was necessary to serve the greater god 'Electoral Success'. Thousands of NuLab robots signed up. Now it has betrayed this idea and them too. On this latter point - every silver lining has a cliché
There was speculation in the paper that this could mean a conservtive government in 2009, from Martin Kettme of all people. That kind of waffle is so besides the point when there is only one choice on offer - the Business party and, of course, the Business as usual Party.
The real left has an ambiguous relationship with the whole electoral process - and rightly so. Thus, one should interpret the 'catastrophe' for one side of the NCP as nothing but the merest ripple in the political lake. And that Boris' victory as a sign that the whole mayor spectacle has been 'dollared' - as in devalued.
Inscription à :
Comment Feed (RSS)
