Why South Korea Approach To Covid 19 Can Be Different.

covid2 - Copy

Why South Korea Approach To Covid 19 Can Be Different.

[Posted By Lara Keller 26/3/20 Updated 18/4/20 ] anchorTableSmall - Copy Blog Table Of Contents

Business men like Tim Martin of the UK Pub Chain JD Wetherspoon, have irresponsibly moaned that South Korea has managed to fight Covid-19 without lock-downs. This is an argument based on shameless ignorance.

According to South Korea’s rapid coronavirus testing, far ahead of the U.S., could be saving lives [LA Times, 14/3/2020]. The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention responded to past outbreaks of MERS and Zika viruses by creating the infrastructure and resources of a new system for rapid mass testing.

They started this system as soon as the Covid-19 outbreak was reported in nearby China. Preparation allowed for a rapid response to the growing number of cases, which involved tracing the contacts of infected people. Under a preemptive approach people who might be infected were pursued. While full government transparency raised awareness among the public.

Even with this system the city of Korean city Daegu had to be locked down. There also appears also to be a high cultural predisposition to voluntary cooperation in Korean culture. In a letter in the New York times the strategy was summarized: “From an early stage, the Korean government has set key principles to combat Covid-19: Be quick, transparent and pre-emptive, …..” Someone should tell bar room experts like Tim Martin, that the South Korean system is the result of good government intervention and a culture of public  cooperation.

Basic 101 Statistics On Covid-19.

covid19 - Copy

Basic 101 Statistics On Covid-19.

[Posted By Lara Keller 21/3/20 Updated 18/4/20 ] anchorTableSmall - Copy Blog Table Of Contents
Perspective on Covid-19 statistics and normal flu seasons: Social media has attracted posts claiming that Covid-19 outbreak is comparable to a normal flu season, and government restrictions are therefore unnecessary. This is close to the genocidal stupidity of the climate change denying fraudsters.

1. Looking at US CDC stats (compatible to UK) in the bad year of 2018, 0.13 % who got flu died and 1.8% needed hospitalization. Compares to 2% – 3% death rate for covid-19. https://jglobalbiosecurity.com/articles/10.31646/gbio.56/ Roughly 20 times higher.

2. The first world advantage in critical care is obviously lost when intensive care units are overloaded. In a normal flu season UK NHS critical care for example is reported as nearing capacity.

3. Last bit on this. Disease stats are difficult. Under-reporting of cases reduces death rate figure, while time lag between getting disease and dying with a spreading pandemic increases actual death rate figure. Bio-security report above incorporates SARS coronavirus data in taking account of these factors.

There is no journalistic excuse for the media to pander to the views of climate change deniers or Covid-19 emergency deniers. In contrast both should be exposed as dangers to effective public freedom of information.

Lord Janner’s Contempt For The Law.

alleged-lord-paedophile - Copy

Lord Janner’s Contempt For The Law.

[Posted By Lara Keller 17/5/15 Updated 11/6/19] anchorTableSmall - Copy Blog Table Of Contents

[Part 1, April 2015]

In the UK press a certain Lord Janner is making a stir. Janner is a well connected Socialist Lord (ie UK Labour Party), with extensive connections to Zionism in the UK. Previously president “Board of Deputies of British Jews” , vice-president World Jewish Congress and the Jewish Leadership Council (basically special interest group). He also founded the “Holocaust Educational Trust” , and campaigned for the legal rights of survivors.

jannerBlairs - Copy

A model citizen, except …. He has been repeatedly accused of child abuse at Leicestershire Care Homes during the 1970s and 1980s. (actually the first accusation goes back to the late 1950s!). Three police investigations were pressured to exclude Janner from their inquires. After an increasing number of public accusations, Lord Janner was diagnosed with dementia in 2009. But he still managed to attend and vote in the House Of Lords until late 2013, just before his offices were raided by the police. Since then his health has suddenly deteriorated, and just as the police are about to press criminal charges against him, he is found not to be able to stand trial due to “severe dementia”. Four specialists have examined Lord Janner, two appointed by the defense, and two from the prosecution. According to the UK state prosecution service (CPS) they state he could not be “putting it on”. This suggests there is no physical evidence, a CAT or MRI scan, which in the case of “severe dementia”, should show abnormal loss of tissue in parts of the brain.

What is curious is that the Leicestershire Police are not happy with the decision of the CPS, and want the decision overturned. So there must be some doubt about the medical evidence. There is a long history of well connected people over 60, using “dementia” as a a way to avoid trial, which then mysteriously improves after charges are dropped.

Compare this to the “Dutroux” case in Belgium in the 1990s, that caused public demonstrations, especially at the allegation that “Dutroux” was part of a ring that included government and police officials. Frank Beck who is the UK equivalent psychopath in the Janner accusations, mysteriously died of a heart attack in prison in 1994. It is all a bit circumstantial. Janner was arrested for “kerb crawling” (looking for male or female prostitutes), he is also a magician which he could have used as a way of grooming children (would a magician have better faking skills than others?).

If Lord Janner is seen to get away with it, then UK people should ask “what sort of country is the UK?”. He should be subject to several independent physical CAT or MRI scans to confirm his diagnosis. Otherwise the impression will be given that the Zionist  Lobby or Government Connections are above the law. This will be harmful to the constructive organizations that Lord Janner has been associated with!

[Part 2, April 2015]

According to the British Newspaper “The Guardian” , in 2007 new evidence against Lord Janner was dropped by local prosecutors in Leicester, without consulting headquarters in London. Lord Janner had received mounting accusations of child abuse at this time. He got a diagnosis of dementia in 2009, although he carried on at the House Of Lords until 2013, just before his offices were raided. Given that many other prominent powerful men have obtained “false or exaggerated diagnoses” to escape justice, then it is not some crazy “conspiracy theory driven” paranoia to suspect that Lord Janner may well not be suffering from dementia, at least to the extent that would prevent him standing trial.

pinochet2000 - Copy

General Pinochet, the brutal mass torturing dictator of Chile, escaped from extradition from Britain (UK) to Spain on the grounds of “dementia”. It was promised that a local case would be pursued in Chile to determine his guilt. When he returned to Chile the promised local case was dropped, and he made a surprising recovery. Pinochet refused to have his medical evidence shared with the Spanish authorities before the extradition (he enjoyed the support of the late UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher).

Although obviously Pinochet is a far more serious case, I do not think this child abuse should be treated lightly. Children in Care Homes were often been seen as second rate “unwanted” children. Lord Janner was also among other good causes a campaigner for children’s rights, according to the UK Guardian. If he used his position as a MP, prominent Zionist, campaigner for children’s rights …. to perform serious rapes on already emotionally damaged children, then this needs to be investigated.

Janner’s medical records have been seen by 4 doctors, 2 for the defense, 2 for the prosecution. On paper this may fit with current guidelines, but what of the evidence itself ? Lord Janner unlike ordinary people, is in a position to choose his doctors carefully (to put it diplomatically). It is not a case of lying, but of which tests to apply, and which evidence to discount. If Janner has “severe dementia”, then he should be subject to a number of MRI (or even PET) scans by independent experts, which should show brain changes associated with this terrible condition at this stage of it’s progression. This hard evidence should be made directly available to the defense and the prosecution. Current procedure is that these tests are not applied for ordinary people, if the verbal tests show they are not required. This man is no stranger to the performing arts, as a member of the magic circle and both Houses of Parliament!

[Part 3, April 2015]

In the same UK Newspaper “The Guardian”, Deborah Orr has written an opinion piece on the Janner case [http://www.theguardian.com/…/dont-blame-the-cps-for-lord-ja… 18/4/15]. The key points are: 1. Groups support people in their own group, not because they share the same vice or even believe the accused is not guilty, but to protect the reputation of the group. 2. Abusers are attracted to powerful groups, because they provide cover for their crimes. She concludes “He [Prime Minister Cameron] and everyone in the political classes – with a few honorable exceptions – need to start being a bit more vigilant about their bias. Self-congratulatory wishful thinking in a group that wants respect is a big part of every child-abuse scandal this country [UK] has created.”

jannerQueen - Copy

This group think must be especially difficult for family members who have much respected high profile public reputations, like Lord Janner’s daughter, Laura Janner-Klausner who is Senior Rabbi for the UK “The Movement for Reform Judaism”.

jannerHelpingThePolice - Copy

What shocks ordinary people is the distance between the “high moral standards” politicians should have, and the actual behavior of many of them. The accusations made against Lord Janner (25 people accused him since 1991, with four police investigations aborted after pressure) if true, are unacceptable in any context. What about the many others who may have covered up for him?

People have to give politicians their trust, which they then often go on to treat with little respect. Is too much expected from politicians? Should they have higher than average moral standards? If they do not have high moral standards, then how are they going to resist the pressure and temptations from other powerful groups in society to deceive the public? Although setting too high a standard, can restrict the pool of potential leaders to the bland and blinkered. Most western countries suffer from this affliction already.

The answer has to be, far more rigorous holding of politicians to account. They deserve our cooperation (what other choice is there? anarchy? hardly) but they do not deserve our trust. This has to also extend to the civil service, other institutions, and powerful organizations whether private or public.

jannerZionism - Copy

Going back to Lord Janner, and his work for various Zionist groups. There must be this transparency and accountability in government to counter the influence of lobby groups. In the USA, State Department officials complain that their policy on Israel, is limited to what AIPAC (powerful Zionist lobby) will allow them to have. The same is becoming increasingly true in Europe. Universities which have often been centers of independent thought, are being pushed by financial pressures to follow the corporate line. State broadcasters like the UK’s BBC are also not immune.

This does not “just” extend to issues of foreign policy. Domestic economic policy has to bow down to lobbies, representing the powerful financial sector. This limits the range of acceptable “realistic” policy options that parties can present to the public. Any policies that contradict so called “free market” fundamentalism are immediately treated as suspect. Few know how economies work, or could work, and no one in government thinks the public needs or should know. “Trust us they say” ….. not anymore.

[Part 4, May 2015]

The UK’s Lord Janner (member of the UK Labour (Socialist?) party, Zionist, former MP and Holocaust Campaigner) still appears to be avoiding justice. He has still not been charged by Leicestershire Police, over allegations of the viscous rape of children in the 1970s and 1980s, despite the Police saying they have extensive evidence. Some extreme viewpoints attribute this to some kind of Zionist conspiracy, or even a ring of powerful pedophiles in the government. It is much more likely that Lord Janner has been involved in so many influential institutions, that the embarrassment of these claims being true, is so great that no one wants to believe it. Added to this is the embarrassment and potential damage to the people who have been covering up for him.

It does appear that he is being protected. It is claimed he has severe dementia, but recently he has:

1. Sold his expensive London home, and given the money to his children. This will allow him to avoid paying compensation to victims, or paying expensive legal bills.
2. Written to the House of Lords, coherently and concisely explaining his absence (8th April 2015).
3. Continued acting as a company director.
4. Continued hosting dinner parties.

The only evidence he has severe dementia appears to be from four medical experts, two  appointed by his defense team, and two by the UK Crown Prosecution Service. They conducted a “Mini Mental State (MMSE)” examination on Lord Janner [See: https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/official-cps-statement-the-decision-not-to-prosecute-lord-janner-statement-from-the-dpp/comment-page-1/  Note: UK CPS website has removed it’s Lord Janner related statements!, https://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/challenge-to-cps-decision-on-greville.html ].

There is a standard test to diangose Alzheimer’s disease [See: https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/symptoms-and-diagnosis/diagnosis/mmse-test ]. This is only part of the process of diagnosis. According to the UK Alzheimer’s Society, a CAT, CT or SPECT scan is also part of the diagnosis process. Partly to rule out other medical problems, and allow these to be treated. “A scan showing no unexpected changes in the brain does not rule out conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease. This is because in the early stages of the disease the changes can be difficult to distinguish from those seen in normal ageing.” If Lord Janner has severe dementia, then such a scan should confirm the diagnosis given to the CPS. Where are the brain scans? Why no mention of brain scans in the public statement on the decision not to prosecute by the CPS? Why only the minimal MMSE questionnaire style test? This is a scandal for UK justice.

jannerZionism2 - Copy

Lord Janner is in his 80s and the evidence he has severe dementia seems inconclusive. The history of the four previous failed prosecutions against him, due to pressure on the Police, appears to be repeating itself.

[Part 5, December 2015]

Lord_Janner_stepped_too_ill2 - Copy

Update: In May 2015 a group of Members of Parliament successfully got a review started into the CPS decision not to prosecute Lord Janner, following an expose by the ExaroNews website [See: https://www.exaronews.com/police-reveal-fury-with-cps-for-refusing-to-charge-lord-janner ]. David Perry QC conducted the review, and quickly overturned the original decision of the CPS. A “trial of facts” was scheduled for 2016, at which a conclusion would be reached on the evidence available, but no formal verdict of guilt or innocence recorded. This was cancelled following Lord Janner’s death in December 2015. He was nursed privately at home until his death.

[Part 6, January 2016]

Update: ‬ Currently Allegations against Lord Janner have following his death been referred to the Goddard Inquiry [See https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk ], which is looking at UK institutions failure to protect vulnerable children and the failure to prosecute pedophiles. As some of his alleged victims are only in their 30s or 40s this hardly fits with the classification of this as an “historic abuse” inquiry [See: https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/abuse-lawyer-speaks-to-media-about-lord-janner-trial/ ]. Powerful and influential people using claims of “dementia” to avoid justice for their crimes against vulnerable people needs to be fought for the good of society everywhere.

[Part 7, May 2017]

Update: The solicitors Slater and Gordon (and other firms of solicitors) have helped the alleged victims to launch a civil action against Lord Janner’s estate. By May 2017 all the claimants have dropped out. This has been seized on by the Janner family as proof that their father was innocent, and that the Goddard Inquiry should not investigate their father. His son Daniel Janner QC stated in the UK “The Times”: “These false accusers, having dropped their claim because they risk being cross-examined, can no longer form the basis of this strand. Accordingly, the existence of this strand undermines the integrity of the important work of the inquiry.” [See: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/janner-accusers-drop-all-claims-of-historical-abuse-dnw70b6nm ].

A different perspective is given by Simpson Villar Solicitors (also acting for some of the alleged victims) on their website “Abuse Law”. They made these points:

“….. 3. Daniel Janner QC has made it clear that he is determined to take all cases to trial with the consequent costs involved.
4. The estate of Lord Janner is worth, allegedly, between £1 million, and £2 million. Legal Costs are a first charge on the estate, thus if the estate is diluted by the legal fees planned, then there will be no money left to pay compensation.
…… 7. The chances of the victims obtaining justice, when there is such opposition from the family in response, is less likely.
The victims are clearly hanging their hopes upon the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) [Goddard Inquiry]. Sadly, the Janner family are also trying to demolish that investigation as well. Whilst one has to admire their determination and pertinacity, their attitude does nothing to assuage the anger and frustration which our clients clearly feel. It rekindles their psychological symptoms, and shows a lack of sensitivity towards them.”
[ See: http://abuselaw.co.uk/news/peter-garsden-blog/janner-cases-continue/ ]

His daughter the Senior Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner said people had lied about her father on UK BBC Radio 4 Today program on Monday 29th May 2017. She then made the following accusation:

“ ‘The compensation lawyer business/industry advertises, for instance, in [the prisoners’ magazine] Inside Time. It promises that 98% of child abuse compensation claims are settled outside court……Lets say something has happened to you. You go for ‘compo culture’ and the lawyers say don’t worry, you won’t have to speak in court, meaning that you won’t be expected to attend a court hearing,’ said Janner-Klausner, a rabbi to the Movement for Reform Judaism.” [See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/30/greville-janner-alleged-abuse-victims-hit-back-at-family-over-money-claims ]

His other daughter Marion Janner who is a campaigner for mental health was interviewed in August 2016 on UK BBC Newsnight she said:

“It’s an outrage. It’s an absolute outrage,…..Now Dad is dead, there’s not the possibility of the other side of the story being heard. It’s the people making the accusations’ word against a corpse, which doesn’t work. It cannot be just …. The pendulum has swung so far that people making accusations are automatically believed over this most serious of crimes… We’re in the current situation that people can make any accusations and be automatically believed… It’s just bonkers.” [See: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36945958 ]

Lord Janner spent a great deal of time and effort avoiding investigation, so allegations being made at the end of his life, is a result of his own actions. Clearly accepting that their father may be guilty is extremely difficult, and they seem to be driven to extremes to avoid this situation.

[Part 8, May 2019]

According to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) website the “preliminary hearing into institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse involving the late Lord Janner of Braunstone QC will not now take place on 23 May, but will now be held on 24 September [2019]“. [See: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/news/inquiry-updates-preliminary-hearing-date ] It is an open question whether these hearings will uncover any material that leads to answering the question of Lord Janner’s guilt. The inquiry is focusing on the effectiveness of the response of institutions to allegations, rather than the veracity of the allegations themselves.

Lord Janner’s son Danile Janner QC said in March 2019: “This is another sad chapter in this beleaguered [IICSA] inquiry because what is happening here – let there be no mistake about this – is a trashing of good people, people who were never convicted of offenses, such as my late father [Lord Janner], Lord Brittan and Edward Heath……[It] is based on tittle tattle, it’s based on rumour and this whole thing should be shut down. It’s a disgrace.” [See: https://news.sky.com/story/lord-janner-son-westminster-sex-abuse-inquiry-based-on-tittle-tattle-11654975 ]

The star witness into the VIP pedophile ring, of which Lord Janner is accused of being a part, is being prosecuted for making false accusations in Newcastle in the UK. A major police investigation was launched based on Carl Beech’s [known as ‘Nick‘] allegations. [See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/15/westminster-vip-abuse-accuser-posed-witness-back-up-his-claims ]. This is being seized on to dismiss the existence of a VIP ring. Is Carl Beech a false witness in a double sense. A plot device used by Agatha Christie in “Witness For The Prosecution” and later by John le Carré in “The Spy Who Came In From The Cold” ? Serious allegations of this VIP pedophile ring go back to Simon Regan and the Scallwag Magazine of the early 1990s. [See: https://scallywagmagazine.blogspot.com/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html ].

Oracle Orwell: NOTES ON NATIONALISM (1945)

georgeOrwellNotesOnNationalismv2 - Copy

Oracle Orwell: NOTES ON NATIONALISM (1945)

[Posted by Lara Keller 17/10/2017, Updated 12/6/2019]

Introduction: Orwell’s intentions were to apply honesty, direct experience, clarity and art to political writing. Orwell wrote and personally engaged in an extremely turbulent era when nineteenth century European political philosophies collided disastrously with twentieth century industrial technology, resulting in two World Wars and the start of a potentially apocalyptic Cold War. It is for this reason that Orwell’s writings – in particular the reflective ones of the 1940s – should be read now especially in a time of an emerging Second Cold War.

Orwell political thought underwent some profound shifts. He had been wounded in the Spanish Civil War while fighting for the Republicans. Immediately before the Second World War he joined the radical left wing ILP (Independent Labour Party). Bizarrely at this point he opposed rearmament and the fighting of a war against Nazi Germany, at least by the British State. The ILP position, common to much of the radical left, was that the liberal laissez-faire capitalism of this period was an inevitable predecessor to fascism.  They believed there was a serious threat from British Fascism enabled by the discipline needed to impose a then unpopular war mobilization on the UK. In reality the UK government made concessions and promises to engage the working class in an existential struggle with the Nazis. Orwell shifted his position to supporting the British Government’s War Effort.

Orwell’s essay is much broader than the title indicates. It is decisively not just about “nationalism” as an obsessive love of country. Orwell extends the concept to a kind of chauvinism, that encompasses obsessive loyalties to country, politics, religion and race. This essay is actually a blistering rejection on the destructive absurdity of all of these.

Orwell does not target “social anarchism” specifically, of which he appears to have been an agnostic sympathizer. It would certainly qualify as a radical-left quasi-religious “nationalism” under Orwell’s scheme. His criticism of anarchism in other writings is more piecemeal. “Economic neo-liberalism” in the wake of post Second World War reforms has since Orwell’s time become a reactionary quasi-religious nationalism. The ideas expressed in this essay rather than just the targets is it’s real lasting value.

Have also added a few extra notes after the essay text, marked as [See Extra Note*1]…..etc.

[Start Essay]

Somewhere or other Byron makes use of the French word LONGEUR [See Extra Note*1], and remarks in passing that though in England we happen not to have the WORD, we have the THING in considerable profusion. In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation–that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, AGAINST something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty. [See Extra Note*2]

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. [See Note, in text below] But secondly–and this is much more important–I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

[Note: Nations, and even vaguer entities such as Catholic Church or the proletariat, are commonly thought of as individuals and often referred to as ‘she’. Patently absurd remarks such as ‘Germany is naturally treacherous’ are to be found in any newspaper one opens and reckless generalization about national character (‘The Spaniard is a natural aristocrat’ or ‘Every Englishman is a hypocrite’) are uttered by almost everyone. Intermittently these generalizations are seen to be unfounded, but the habit of making them persists, and people of professedly international outlook, e.g., Tolstoy or Bernard Shaw, are often guilty of them. (Author’s footnote)]

So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to ONE’S OWN country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.

It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit [See Extra Note*3]. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist–that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating–but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it IS the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also–since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself–unshakeably certain of being in the right.

Now that I have given this lengthy definition, I think it will be admitted that the habit of mind I am talking about is widespread among the English intelligentsia, and more widespread there than among the mass of the people. For those who feel deeply about contemporary politics, certain topics have become so infected by considerations of prestige that a genuinely rational approach to them is almost impossible. Out of the hundreds of examples that one might choose, take this question: Which of the three great allies, the U.S.S.R., Britain and the USA, has contributed most to the defeat of Germany? In theory, it should be possible to give a reasoned and perhaps even a conclusive answer to this question. In practice, however, the necessary calculations cannot be made, because anyone likely to bother his head about such a question would inevitably see it in terms of competitive prestige. He would therefore START by deciding in favour of Russia, Britain or America as the case might be, and only AFTER this would begin searching for arguments that seemed to support his case. And there are whole strings of kindred questions to which you can only get an honest answer from someone who is indifferent to the whole subject involved, and whose opinion on it is probably worthless in any case.

Hence, partly, the remarkable failure in our time of political and military prediction. It is curious to reflect that out of all the ‘experts’ of all the schools, there was not a single one who was able to foresee so likely an event as the Russo-German Pact of 1939. [See Note 1, in text below] And when news of the Pact broke, the most wildly divergent explanations were of it were given, and predictions were made which were falsified almost immediately, being based in nearly every case not on a study of probabilities but on a desire to make the U.S.S.R. seem good or bad, strong or weak. Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties. [See Note 2, in text below] And aesthetic judgements, especially literary judgements, are often corrupted in the same way as political ones. It would be difficult for an Indian Nationalist to enjoy reading Kipling or for a Conservative to see merit in Mayakovsky, and there is always a temptation to claim that any book whose tendency one disagrees with must be a bad book from a LITERARY point of view. People of strongly nationalistic outlook often perform this sleight of hand without being conscious of dishonesty.

[Note 1: A few writers of conservative tendency, such as Peter Drucker, foretold an agreement between Germany and Russia, but they expected an actual alliance or amalgamation which would be permanent. No Marxist or other left-wing writer, of whatever colour, came anywhere near foretelling the Pact.(Author’s footnote)]

[Note 2: The military commentators of the popular press can mostly be classified as pro-Russian or anti-Russian pro-blimp or anti-blimp. Such errors as believing the Maginot Line impregnable, or predicting that Russia would conquer Germany in three months, have failed to shake their reputation, because they were always saying what their own particular audience wanted to hear. The two military critics most favoured by the intelligentsia are Captain Liddell Hart and Major-General Fuller, the first of whom teaches that the defence is stronger that the attack, and the second that the attack is stronger that the defence. This contradiction has not prevented both of them from being accepted as authorities by the same public. The secret reason for their vogue in left-wing circles is that both of them are at odds with the War Office. (Author’s footnote)]

In England, if one simply considers the number of people involved, it is probable that the dominant form of nationalism is old-fashioned British jingoism [See Extra Note*4]. It is certain that this is still widespread, and much more so than most observers would have believed a dozen years ago. However, in this essay I am concerned chiefly with the reactions of the intelligentsia, among whom jingoism and even patriotism of the old kind are almost dead, though they now seem to be reviving among a minority. Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism–using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members, but ‘fellow travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty t justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Obviously such people abound in England today, and their direct and indirect influence is very great. But many other forms of nationalism also flourish, and it is by noticing the points of resemblance between different and even seemingly opposed currents of thought that one can best get the matter into perspective.

Ten or twenty years ago, the form of nationalism most closely corresponding to Communism today was political Catholicism. Its most outstanding exponent–though he was perhaps an extreme case rather than a typical one–was G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton was a writer of considerable talent who whose to suppress both his sensibilities and his intellectual honesty in the cause of Roman Catholic propaganda. During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing, under its laboured cleverness as simple and boring as ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians.’ Every book that he wrote, every scrap of dialogue, had to demonstrate beyond the possibility of mistake the superiority of the Catholic over the Protestant or the pagan. But Chesterton was not content to think of this superiority as merely intellectual or spiritual: it had to be translated into terms of national prestige and military power, which entailed an ignorant idealisation of the Latin countries, especially France. Chesterton had not lived long in France, and his picture of it–as a land of Catholic peasants incessantly singing the MARSEILLAISE over glasses of red wine–had about as much relation to reality as CHU CHIN CHOW has to everyday life in Baghdad. And with this went not only an enormous overestimation of French military power (both before and after 1914-18 he maintained that France, by itself, was stronger than Germany), but a silly and vulgar glorification of the actual process of war. Chesterton’s battle poems, such as Lepanto or The Ballad of Saint Barbara, make The Charge of the Light Brigade read like a pacifist tract: they are perhaps the most tawdry bits of bombast to be found in our language. The interesting thing is that had the romantic rubbish which he habitually wrote about France and the French army been written by somebody else about Britain and the British army, he would have been the first to jeer. In home politics he was a Little Englander, a true hater of jingoism and imperialism, and according to his lights a true friend of democracy. Yet when he looked outwards into the international field, he could forsake his principles without even noticing he was doing so. Thus, his almost mystical belief in the virtues of democracy did not prevent him from admiring Mussolini. Mussolini had destroyed the representative government and the freedom of the press for which Chesterton had struggled so hard at home, but Mussolini was an Italian and had made Italy strong, and that settled the matter. Nor did Chesterton ever find a word to say about imperialism and the conquest of coloured races when they were practised by Italians or Frenchmen. His hold on reality, his literary taste, and even to some extent his moral sense, were dislocated as soon as his nationalistic loyalties were involved.

Obviously there are considerable resemblances between political Catholicism, as exemplified by Chesterton, and Communism. So there are between either of these and for instance Scottish nationalism, Zionism, Antisemitism or Trotskyism. It would be an oversimplification to say that all forms of nationalism are the same, even in their mental atmosphere, but there are certain rules that hold good in all cases. The following are the principal characteristics of nationalist thought:

OBSESSION. As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort. If the chosen unit is an actual country, such as Ireland or India, he will generally claim superiority for it not only in military power and political virtue, but in art, literature, sport, structure of the language, the physical beauty of the inhabitants, and perhaps even in climate, scenery and cooking. He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags, relative size of headlines and the order in which different countries are named. [See Note, in text below] Nomenclature plays a very important part in nationalist thought. Countries which have won their independence or gone through a nationalist revolution usually change their names, and any country or other unit round which strong feelings revolve is likely to have several names, each of them carrying a different implication. The two sides of the Spanish Civil War had between them nine or ten names expressing different degrees of love and hatred. Some of these names (e.g. ‘Patriots’ for Franco-supporters, or ‘Loyalists’ for Government-supporters) were frankly question-begging, and there was no single one of the which the two rival factions could have agreed to use. All nationalists consider it a duty to spread their own language to the detriment of rival languages, and among English-speakers this struggle reappears in subtler forms as a struggle between dialects. Anglophobe-Americans will refuse to use a slang phrase if they know it to be of British origin, and the conflict between Latinizers and Germanizers often has nationalists motives behind it. Scottish nationalists insist on the superiority of Lowland Scots, and socialists whose nationalism takes the form of class hatred tirade against the B.B.C. accent and even the often gives the impression of being tinged by belief in sympathetic magic–a belief which probably comes out in the widespread custom of burning political enemies in effigy, or using pictures of them as targets in shooting galleries.

[Note: Certain Americans have expressed dissatisfaction because ‘Anglo-American’ is the form of combination for these two words. It has been proposed to submit ‘Americo-British’.(Author’s footnote)]

INSTABILITY. The intensity with which they are held does not prevent nationalist loyalties from being transferable. To begin with, as I have pointed out already, they can be and often are fastened up on some foreign country. One quite commonly finds that great national leaders, or the founders of nationalist movements, do not even belong to the country they have glorified. Sometimes they are outright foreigners, or more often they come from peripheral areas where nationality is doubtful. Examples are Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, de Valera, Disraeli, Poincare, Beaverbrook. The Pan-German movement was in part the creation of an Englishman, Houston Chamberlain. For the past fifty or a hundred years, transferred nationalism has been a common phenomenon among literary intellectuals. With Lafcadio Hearne the transference was to Japan, with Carlyle and many others of his time to Germany, and in our own age it is usually to Russia. But the peculiarly interesting fact is that re-transference is also possible. A country or other unit which has been worshipped for years may suddenly become detestable, and some other object of affection may take its place with almost no interval. In the first version of H. G. Wells’s OUTLINE OF HISTORY, and others of his writings about that time, one finds the United States praised almost as extravagantly as Russia is praised by Communists today: yet within a few years this uncritical admiration had turned into hostility. The bigoted Communist who changes in a space of weeks, or even days, into an equally bigoted Trotskyist is a common spectacle. In continental Europe Fascist movements were largely recruited from among Communists, and the opposite process may well happen within the next few years. What remains constant in the nationalist is his state of mind: the object of his feelings is changeable, and may be imaginary.

But for an intellectual, transference has an important function which I have already mentioned shortly in connection with Chesterton. It makes it possible for him to be much MORE nationalistic–more vulgar, more silly, more malignant, more dishonest–that he could ever be on behalf of his native country, or any unit of which he had real knowledge. When one sees the slavish or boastful rubbish that is written about Stalin, the Red Army, etc. by fairly intelligent and sensitive people, one realises that this is only possible because some kind of dislocation has taken place. In societies such as ours, it is unusual for anyone describable as an intellectual to feel a very deep attachment to his own country. Public opinion–that is, the section of public opinion of which he as an intellectual is aware–will not allow him to do so. Most of the people surrounding him are sceptical and disaffected, and he may adopt the same attitude from imitativeness or sheer cowardice: in that case he will have abandoned the form of nationalism that lies nearest to hand without getting any closer to a genuinely internationalist outlook. He still feels the need for a Fatherland, and it is natural to look for one somewhere abroad. Having found it, he can wallow unrestrainedly in exactly those emotions from which he believes that he has emancipated himself. God, the King, the Empire, the Union Jack–all the overthrown idols can reappear under different names, and because they are not recognised for what they are they can be worshipped with a good conscience. Transferred nationalism, like the use of scapegoats, is a way of attaining salvation without altering one’s conduct.

INDIFFERENCE TO REALITY. All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage–torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians–which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. The Liberal NEWS CHRONICLE published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians. [See Note, in text below] It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell’s soldiers slashing Irishwomen’s faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the ‘right’ cause. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century, one finds that there was hardly a single year when atrocity stories were not being reported from some part of the world; and yet in not one single case were these atrocities–in Spain, Russia, China, Hungary, Mexico, Amritsar, Smyrna–believed in and disapproved of by the English intelligentsia as a whole. Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.

[Note: The NEWS CHRONICLE advised its readers to visit the news film at which the entire execution could be witnessed, with close-ups. The STAR published with seeming approval photographs of nearly naked female collaborationists being baited by the Paris mob. These photographs had a marked resemblance to the Nazi photographs of Jews being baited by the Berlin mob.(Author’s footnote)]

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.

Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should–in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918–and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied [See Note, in text below]. In 1927 Chiang Kai Shek boiled hundreds of Communists alive, and yet within ten years he had become one of the heroes of the Left. The re-alignment of world politics had brought him into the anti-Fascist camp, and so it was felt that the boiling of the Communists ‘didn’t count’, or perhaps had not happened. The primary aim of propaganda is, of course, to influence contemporary opinion, but those who rewrite history do probably believe with part of their minds that they are actually thrusting facts into the past. When one considers the elaborate forgeries that have been committed in order to show that Trotsky did not play a valuable part in the Russian civil war, it is difficult to feel that the people responsible are merely lying. More probably they feel that their own version was what happened in the sight of God, and that one is justified in rearranging the records accordingly.

[Note: En example is the Russo-German Pact, which is being effaced as quickly as possible from public memory. A Russian correspondent informs me that mention of the Pact is already being omitted from Russian year-books which table recent political events.(Author’s note)]

Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported–battles, massacres, famines, revolutions–tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine? Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to FEEL that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world.

I have examined as best as I can the mental habits which are common to all forms of nationalism. The next thing is to classify those forms, but obviously this cannot be done comprehensively. Nationalism is an enormous subject. The world is tormented by innumerable delusions and hatreds which cut across one another in an extremely complex way, and some of the most sinister of them have not yet impinged on the European consciousness. In this essay I am concerned with nationalism as it occurs among the English intelligentsia. In them, much more than in ordinary English people, it is unmixed with patriotism and therefore can be studied pure. Below are listed the varieties of nationalism now flourishing among English intellectuals, with such comments as seem to be needed. It is convenient to use three headings, Positive, Transferred, and Negative, though some varieties will fit into more than one category:


(i) NEO-TORYISM. Exemplified by such people as Lord Elton, A.P. Herbert, G.M. Young, Professor Pickthorn, by the literature of the Tory Reform Committee, and by such magazines as the NEW ENGLISH REVIEW and THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER. The real motive force of neo-Toryism, giving it its nationalistic character and differentiating it from ordinary Conservatism, is the desire not to recognise that British power and influence have declined. Even those who are realistic enough to see that Britain’s military position is not what it was, tend to claim that ‘English ideas’ (usually left undefined) must dominate the world. All neo-Tories are anti-Russian, but sometimes the main emphasis is anti-American. The significant thing is that this school of thought seems to be gaining ground among youngish intellectuals, sometimes ex-Communists, who have passed through the usual process of disillusionment and become disillusioned with that. The anglophobe who suddenly becomes violently pro-British is a fairly common figure. Writers who illustrate this tendency are F. A. Voigt, Malcolm Muggeridge, Evelyn Waugh, Hugh Kingsmill, and a psychologically similar development can be observed in T. S. Eliot, Wyndham Lewis, and various of their followers.

(ii) CELTIC NATIONALISM. Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation. Members of all three movements have opposed the war while continuing to describe themselves as pro-Russian, and the lunatic fringe has even contrived to be simultaneously pro-Russian and pro-Nazi. But Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia. Its motive force is a belief in the past and future greatness of the Celtic peoples, and it has a strong tinge of racialism. The Celt is supposed to be spiritually superior to the Saxon–simpler, more creative, less vulgar, less snobbish, etc.–but the usual power hunger is there under the surface. One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection. Among writers, good examples of this school of thought are Hugh McDiarmid and Sean O’Casey. No modern Irish writer, even of the stature of Yeats or Joyce, is completely free from traces of nationalism.

(iii) ZIONISM. This the unusual characteristics of a nationalist movement, but the American variant of it seems to be more violent and malignant than the British. I classify it under Direct and not Transferred nationalism because it flourishes almost exclusively among the Jews themselves. In England, for several rather incongruous reasons, the intelligentsia are mostly pro-Jew on the Palestine issue, but they do not feel strongly about it. All English people of goodwill are also pro-Jew in the sense of disapproving of Nazi persecution. But any actual nationalistic loyalty, or belief in the innate superiority of Jews, is hardly to be found among Gentiles.




(iii) COLOUR FEELING. The old-style contemptuous attitude towards ‘natives’ has been much weakened in England, and various pseudo-scientific theories emphasising the superiority of the white race have been abandoned. [See Note, in text below] Among the intelligentsia, colour feeling only occurs in the transposed form, that is, as a belief in the innate superiority of the coloured races. This is now increasingly common among English intellectuals, probably resulting more often from masochism and sexual frustration than from contact with the Oriental and Negro nationalist movements. Even among those who do not feel strongly on the colour question, snobbery and imitation have a powerful influence. Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it. Nationalistic attachment to the coloured races is usually mixed up with the belief that their sex lives are superior, and there is a large underground mythology about the sexual prowess of Negroes.

[Note: A good example is the sunstroke superstition. Until recently it was believed that the white races were much more liable to sunstroke that the coloured, and that a white man could not safely walk about in tropical sunshine without a pith helmet. There was no evidence whatever for this theory, but it served the purpose of accentuating the difference between ‘natives’ and Europeans. During the war the theory was quietly dropped and whole armies manoeuvred in the tropics without pith helmets. So long as the sunstroke superstition survived, English doctors in India appear to have believed in it as firmly as laymen.(Author’s footnote)]

(iv) CLASS FEELING. Among upper-class and middle-class intellectuals, only in the transposed form–i.e. as a belief in the superiority of the proletariat. Here again, inside the intelligentsia, the pressure of public opinion is overwhelming. Nationalistic loyalty towards the proletariat, and most vicious theoretical hatred of the bourgeoisie, can and often do co-exist with ordinary snobbishness in everyday life.

(v) PACIFISM. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransferred.


(i) ANGLOPHOBIA. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

(ii) ANTI-SEMITISM. There is little evidence about this at present, because the Nazi persecutions have made it necessary for any thinking person to side with the Jews against their oppressors. Anyone educated enough to have heard the word ‘antisemitism’ claims as a matter of course to be free of it, and anti-Jewish remarks are carefully eliminated from all classes of literature. Actually antisemitism appears to be widespread, even among intellectuals, and the general conspiracy of silence probably helps exacerbate it. People of Left opinions are not immune to it, and their attitude is sometimes affected by the fact that Trotskyists and Anarchists tend to be Jews. But antisemitism comes more naturally to people of Conservative tendency, who suspect Jews of weakening national morale and diluting the national culture. Neo-Tories and political Catholics are always liable to succumb to antisemitism, at least intermittently.

(iii) TROTSKYISM. This word is used so loosely as to include Anarchists, democratic Socialists and even Liberals. I use it here to mean a doctrinaire Marxist whose main motive is hostility to the Stalin régime. Trotskyism can be better studied in obscure pamphlets or in papers like the SOCIALIST APPEAL than in the works of Trotsky himself, who was by no means a man of one idea. Although in some places, for instance in the United States, Trotskyism is able to attract a fairly large number of adherents and develop into an organised movement with a petty fuerher of its own, its inspiration is essentially negative. The Trotskyist is AGAINST Stalin just as the Communist is FOR him, and, like the majority of Communists, he wants not so much to alter the external world as to feel that the battle for prestige is going in his own favour. In each case there is the same obsessive fixation on a single subject, the same inability to form a genuinely rational opinion based on probabilities. The fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference. The most typical Trotskyists, in any case, are ex-Communists, and no one arrives at Trotskyism except via one of the left-wing movements. No Communist, unless tethered to his party by years of habit, is secure against a sudden lapse into Trotskyism. The opposite process does not seem to happen equally often, though there is no clear reason why it should not.

In the classification I have attempted above, it will seem that I have often exaggerated, oversimplified, made unwarranted assumptions and have left out of account the existence of ordinarily decent motives. This was inevitable, because in this essay I am trying to isolate and identify tendencies which exist in all our minds and pervert our thinking, without necessarily occurring in a pure state or operating continuously. It is important at this point to correct the over-simplified picture which I have been obliged to make. To begin with, one has no right to assume that EVERYONE, or even every intellectual, is infected by nationalism. Secondly, nationalism can be intermittent and limited. An intelligent man may half-succumb to a belief which he knows to be absurd, and he may keep it out of his mind for long periods, only reverting to it in moments of anger or sentimentality, or when he is certain that no important issues are involved. Thirdly, a nationalistic creed may be adopted in good faith from non-nationalistic motives. Fourthly, several kinds of nationalism, even kinds that cancel out, can co-exist in the same person.

All the way through I have said, ‘the nationalist does this’ or ‘the nationalist does that’, using for purposes of illustration the extreme, barely sane type of nationalist who has no neutral areas in his mind and no interest in anything except the struggle for power. Actually such people are fairly common, but they are not worth the powder and shot. In real life Lord Elton, D. N. Pritt, Lady Houston, Ezra Pound, Lord Vanisttart, Father Coughlin and all the rest of their dreary tribe have to be fought against, but their intellectual deficiencies hardly need pointing out. Monomania is not interesting, and the fact that no nationalist of the more bigoted kind can write a book which still seems worth reading after a lapse of years has a certain deodorising effect. But when one has admitted that nationalism has not triumphed everywhere, that there are still peoples whose judgements are not at the mercy of their desires, the fact does remain that the pressing problems–India, Poland, Palestine, the Spanish civil war, the Moscow trials, the American Negroes, the Russo-German Pact or what have you–cannot be, or at least never are, discussed upon a reasonable level. The Eltons and Pritts and Coughlins, each of them simply an enormous mouth bellowing the same lie over and over again, are obviously extreme cases, but we deceive ourselves if we do not realise that we can all resemble them in unguarded moments. Let a certain note be struck, let this or that corn be trodden on–and it may be corn whose very existence has been unsuspected hitherto–and the most fair-minded and sweet-tempered person may suddenly be transformed into a vicious partisan, anxious only to ‘score’ over his adversary and indifferent as to how many lies he tells or how many logical errors he commits in doing so. When Lloyd George, who was an opponent of the Boer War, announced in the House of Commons that the British communiques, if one added them together, claimed the killing of more Boers than the whole Boer nation contained, it is recorded that Arthur Balfour rose to his feet and shouted ‘Cad!’ Very few people are proof against lapses of this type. The Negro snubbed by a white woman, the Englishman who hears England ignorantly criticised by an American, the Catholic apologist reminded of the Spanish Armada, will all react in much the same way. One prod to the nerve of nationalism, and the intellectual decencies can vanish, the past can be altered, and the plainest facts can be denied.

If one harbours anywhere in one’s mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. Here are just a few examples. I list below five types of nationalist, and against each I append a fact which it is impossible for that type of nationalist to accept, even in his secret thoughts:

BRITISH TORY: Britain will come out of this war with reduced power and prestige.

COMMUNIST: If she had not been aided by Britain and America, Russia would have been defeated by Germany.

IRISH NATIONALIST: Eire can only remain independent because of British protection.

TROTSKYIST: The Stalin régime is accepted by the Russian masses.

PACIFIST: Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

All of these facts are grossly obvious if one’s emotions do not happen to be involved: but to the kind of person named in each case they are also INTOLERABLE, and so they have to be denied, and false theories constructed upon their denial. I come back to the astonishing failure of military prediction in the present war. It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool. When Hitler invaded Russia, the officials of the MOI issued ‘as background’ a warning that Russia might be expected to collapse in six weeks. On the other hand the Communists regarded every phase of the war as a Russian victory, even when the Russians were driven back almost to the Caspian Sea and had lost several million prisoners. There is no need to multiply instances. The point is that as soon as fear, hatred, jealousy and power worship are involved, the sense of reality becomes unhinged. And, as I have pointed out already, the sense of right and wrong becomes unhinged also. There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified–still one cannot FEEL that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function.

The reason for the rise and spread of nationalism is far too big a question to be raised here. It is enough to say that, in the forms in which it appears among English intellectuals, it is a distorted reflection of the frightful battles actually happening in the external world, and that its worst follies have been made possible by the breakdown of patriotism and religious belief. If one follows up this train of thought, one is in danger of being led into a species of Conservatism, or into political quietism. It can be plausibly argued, for instance–it is even possibly true–that patriotism is an inoculation against nationalism, that monarchy is a guard against dictatorship, and that organised religion is a guard against superstition. Or again, it can be argued that NO unbiased outlook is possible, that ALL creeds and causes involve the same lies, follies, and barbarities; and this is often advanced as a reason for keeping out of politics altogether. I do not accept this argument, if only because in the modern world no one describable as an intellectual CAN keep out of politics in the sense of not caring about them. I think one must engage in politics–using the word in a wide sense–and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means. As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a MORAL effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one’s own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias. If you hate and fear Russia, if you are jealous of the wealth and power of America, if you despise Jews, if you have a sentiment of inferiority towards the British ruling class, you cannot get rid of those feelings simply by taking thought. But you can at least recognise that you have them, and prevent them from contaminating your mental processes. The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. But this, I repeat, needs a MORAL effort, and contemporary English literature, so far as it is alive at all to the major issues of our time, shows how few of us are prepared to make it.

[End Essay]

Extra Notes

[Extra Note*1]  The reference is to Byron’s use of the French word “longueur” in his satirical poem Don Juan. Its contemporary relevance makes it worth quoting:

“I know that what our neighbours call ‘longueurs’
(We ‘ve not so good a word, but have the thing
In that complete perfection which ensures
An epic from Bob Southey every spring),
Form not the true temptation which allures
The reader; but it would not be hard to bring
Some fine examples of the epopee,
To prove its grand ingredient is ennui.”
[ George Byron, “Don Juan, Third Canto”, 1821 ]

By neighbours he means the French. Robert Southey was then the British “Poet Laureate”, and one of the “Lake Poets” school along with Wordsworth and Coleridge. Byron is complaining of his “long” romantic poetic sagas, which although respected lacked authenticity, and so produce boredom in those who see through them. In the same poem Byron pokes fun at the “Lake Poets” flabby high minded utopianism. Their move from infatuation with the radical politics of the French Revolution, to romantic conservatism, he lampoons brilliantly earlier in this poem as: “Their loyal treason, renegado [rebel] rigour, Are good manure for their more bare biography”. In other words for personal gratification they swing passionately from rebellion to the establishment, and shallowly count the strength of their attachment above the nature of object of this attachment.

It is understandable why Orwell was thinking of Byron when he wrote a denunciation of chauvinistic groups in all their forms. Orwell’s and Byron’s complaint could be leveled at the writers of popular “progressive” political door stops today which provide neither the necessary diagnosis let alone cure.

[Extra Note*2] In Orwell’s essay he uses the word “nationalism” in the sense that “nation” is any overwhelming group feeling. A nation may be a political conviction, a country or a religion.

[Extra Note*3] Trotsky was one of the principal leaders (second only to Lenin) of the Bolshevik Russian Revolution of 1917. He was exiled and eventually assassinated by Stalin. He proposed the theory of permanent revolution in  which he proposed that a country did not need to pass through a stage of advanced capitalism to achieve a sustainable communist revolution. He opposed the state capitalism of Lenin and Stalin, that imposed a privileged bureaucratic class on society, which was justified as a stage towards eventful worker control.  Trotsky also opposed Stalin’s isolationist doctrine of socialism in one country, and instead maintained that any revolution in one country required the solidarity of an international movement. Trotskyists criticized and indeed continue to criticize the corrupt elites of nominally communist states (in particular the Soviet Union) as deformed workers states. These revolutions could or can still apparently be returned to the correct path without external intervention. Trotskyism is associated with Marxist fundamentalism.

[Extra Note*4]  Jingoism means “the extreme belief that your own country is always best”, and comes from a disguised oath. It first appears in a popular British song about the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78 (the war was mostly about ousting the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans).

“We don’t want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too
We’ve fought the Bear before, and while we’re Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.”

The song’s anti-Russian sentiment carries on from the Crimean War of the 1850s, in which Britain and France fought against Russian Expansionism into the decaying Ottoman Empire.

The jingoist theme of the song reappears in a Punch cartoon by EH Shepherd in 1938, where it is contrasted with the pacifism of Neville Chamberlain, with his  appeasement of Hitler and resistance to adequate rearmament. The old fashioned British national John Bull character, is in a record shop, asking the assistance Neville Chamberlain for this song. While Lord Salisbury’s (Neville Chamberlain’s father) portrait looks down from the wall. Lord Salisbury pursued an aggressive policy of security alliances  in Europe that led to the First world War. His son is pursuing the opposite policy under different conditions with ironically the same results.

ehshepherd - Copy.jpg

The text reads:  THE OLD-FASHIONED CUSTOMER “I wonder if you’ve got a song I remember about not wanting to fight, but if we do …. something, something, something …. we’ve got the money too?”

[End Extra Notes]