Monthly Archives: January 2007

Read, mark, and inwardly digest.

Malcolm has been busy of late (www.pandora.com is music to strip wallpaper by). He has not, however, been neglectful of his studies.

For instance, there was the curious posting from the curiously-taciturn yourcousin. Eighteen months, and not a single public utterance: what a waste of bandwidth.

So, for all the Hillary-phobes out there, here’s a couple of quick tips:

  1. Learn how she spells her forename. There are over a million “hits” on google.com to exhibit your carelessness or ignorance.
  2. Take the trouble to read the Economist‘s Lexington column. It is an exemplary statement of where Malcolm and his ilk stand.

Meanwhile, back to the “project”.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

News! Latest! Malcolm declares!


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized


“To begin at the beginning…”

Well, well, says a reasonably-lubricated Malcolm. Let’s see what Auntie Beeb is saying:

Police have warned senior Labour figures to stop putting “undue pressure” on officers investigating “cash-for-honours” claims.

Several senior Labour MPs have called the arrest on Friday of Number 10 aide Ruth Turner, who denies any wrongdoing, unnecessary and “theatrical”.

But the Metropolitan Police Federation said this was not an “appropriate moment” to make such comments.

The Liberal Democrats said police were acting professionally and normally.

‘Bewildered’

Ms Turner was questioned on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and was later released.

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said she was “slightly bewildered” as to why the arrest had happened early in the morning, with four policemen knocking on the door of Ms Turner – who was then released without charge.

“She has fully co-operated and she is a person of utter decency and conscientiousness and I am surprised,” Ms Jowell said.

Former Downing Street aide Lance Price said: “It does look a bit theatrical.

“Ruth Turner has co-operated with the inquiry all the way through up until this point. There’s been no suggestion that she wasn’t willing to give police any help that they asked for.

“So it does seem pretty extraordinary to do the sort of dawn raid that we associate generally with people who are about to abscond justice and fly on a plane to Bermuda or something.”

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett said he wanted “thoroughness, not theatre”.

Mr Blair gave Ms Turner, who as director of government relations is one of his closest aides, his full backing.

‘No-one above the law’

However, Metropolitan Police Federation chairman Glen Smyth told BBC News 24: “You get government ministers and senior members of the Labour party criticising the inquiry, which has frankly not even given a report to the Crown Prosecution Service yet.

“What sort of undue pressure are they trying to bring? If that’s not what they are intending, it’s certainly the impression that they are leaving for the officers involved and, I suspect, many other people.

“They should wait for the appropriate moment.”

Len Duvall, the Labour politician who chairs the Metropolitan Police Authority, called on others not to try to “manipulate or pressurise” officers.

In a statement, he told critics that “no one in this country is above the law”.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Lord Thomas of Gresford said: “Once the police had formed a reasonable suspicion of her perverting the course of justice, as they must have, it was their duty to act swiftly and professionally to preserve any evidence.

“That is commonplace, as any criminal lawyer knows.

“Pressure put upon the police by people in high places suggests that they want the investigation stopped.”

Oh, yes.

Good show.

Well done.

Etc.

Four police officers demand entry to your home at 6.30 in the morning. Your property is rummaged. You are taken to the local station. You are interrogated. You are, eventually, not charged with anything. You are released on “police bail” (which actually means that, if they subsequently ask for you to turn up at the station, do so tout suite). You are, suddenly, on every front page.

Who won that encounter? Who had the right of reply?

And yet, and yet …

The LibDems (the self-proclaimed defenders of truth, honour, individual rights and FREEDOM) believe this is “reasonable” and done “swiftly and professionally”. Or, as any Dublin Jackeen might spit, “Mar Ya!”

Any reasonable complaint is met with a response from:
… the Metropolitan Police? No!

The Commissioner? No!

The Officer in charge? No!

Answer: the coppers’ trade union, who winge about “pressure”, saying criticism must wait until a report is made (or not: when will we know?) to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Oh, shit, says Malcolm. I must have missed something there.

Now, thinks Malcolm: here’s an interesting conundrum. It seems that, after any arrest, pretty well every policebod leaks to the local (or national) press. There is, apparently, an understood tariff. At the bottom end, it’s worth a drink. If it’s a”celebrity” and the Red Tops, then serious money becomes involved. This is “professional”. Or is it “pressure”?

So, Malcolm retires to bed early … just in case he is the next recipient of the Solzenitsyn pre-dawn knock.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized


Hagiography?

Malcolm believes that no rose should bloom to blush unseen. So, he offers to his massed audience the following anonymous “comment”:

How surprising that RTÉ’s ‘Hidden History’ series should falsely accuse de Valera of being a Nazi sympathiser (see T. Ryle Dwyer’s article in which he rejects this notion here. In a recent episode, they rationalised the actions of an actual fascist, Eoin O’Duffy, who tried to lead a coup against de Valera’s government. Distortion is not a typical RTÉ tactic at all, at all. Malcolm has already drawn attention to the — ahem! — ambiguous attitude of De Valera to fascist and totalitarian régimes (as on last 29th August, in regard to Brian Girvin’s book on The Emergency). Girvin was the only historian the programme could get to promote their “distortions”, as T. Ryle Dwyer puts it. Any other Irish historian will laugh at the idea that de Valera was a closet fascist. Unlike Churchill, he never expressed his admiration for Hitler and Mussolini, and stated his opposition to fascist regimes.

[Warning: neither Malcolm nor his little elves could get this direct link to work. Your mileage may differ. There also seems to be no immediately-obvious access to this article through the main Irish Examiner webpage. Further advice welcome.]

This is, in all truth, one of the more printable responses that Malcolm’s recent posting provoked (most have emailed abuse directly, so no need to search the “comments” for the filth). Quite why the use of the substantives “De Valera” and “Jew” in the same posting should cause such general aggravation and abuse escapes Malcolm totally.

Anyway, Malcolm (who is currently busy re-reading his biographies of De Valera) wants the record put straight, even for those who cannot read the whole posting:

  • He does not, and has not accused De Valera of being a Nazi sympathiser (and, quite honestly, does not believe that RTÉ have done so). Anyway, Malcolm is edgy about any accusation beginning “They …”.
  • He has no intention, at this stage, in getting involved in the notion that Churchill was an admirer of Mussolini or Hitler. However, it bewilders him that any mention of De Valera creates this curious need to make a parallel with Churchill.
  • Or, quite frankly, that ODuffy could be “rationalised”.
  • What Malcolm does fret on is the way De Valera, and those around him, were attracted to the totalitarianism of, par example, Salazar and [“Not the nuclear option, Malcolm!”] Pius VI.
  • His memory is that , above all, De Valera’s Ireland in the late 1950s was a pretty dismal and philistine place.

Anyway, Malcolm is currently occupied. Throw your abuse this way. When he’s finished his current book-pile: he’s up for you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

As available on salon.com, Village Voice and other dissident free-sheets.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A spoonful of sugar:

Malcolm scans today’s on-line Washington Post and splutters over this:

This month alone, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent more than $1 million on full-page newspaper ads touting the success of the existing Medicare drug system.

Drug companies spent more on lobbying than any other industry between 1998 and 2005 — $900 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. They donated a total of $89.9 million in the same period to federal candidates and party committees, nearly three-quarters of it to Republicans.

To recapitulate:

  • The Drugs firms have putsched the Republican Party (and, therefore, the US Congress over recent years).
  • Their suzerainty over the elected government has been such that an act allowed Big Pharma to fix prices, and nixed the US Government from even negotiating prices for prescription drugs dispensed under Medicare.
  • The incoming Democrats have pledged to overturn this.
  • Apparently, the Dems considered (and rejected) direct federal involvement as purchaser and provider. A milder option, to authorise the private insurance corporations to negotiate with the pharmers, is now the preferred option. The question remains: what clout will this have?
  • By no coincidence, pharmer money has smartly followed the shift in political advantage, being used to bring Democrats on board.
  • Bush (who got £600,000 of pharmers‘ contributions to his 2004 campaign) has said he will use the presidential veto on any bill, maintaining it interferes with the “free” market and competition between the pharmers.
  • In any event, the ban on importing cheaper drugs and generics from (mainly) Canada will stay.

Malcolm does not have any formula for sorting out this shambles. His instinct is, if ever there was a point of confrontation, a ne plus ultra, this ought to be it. What have the Dems, in the longer term, to lose by pushing the issue? Why not challenge, nay provoke a Bush veto? Does anyone outside a few pharmer boardrooms and K Street lobbyists believe a stand would cost Democratic support and votes, now and in 2008?

Why, for heaven’s sake, do politicos consistently, almost instinctively, run for cover; and neglect the supreme good of their voters and supporters? Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien [The best is the enemy of the good], wrote Voltaire (and, incidentally, Eisenhower once cited): he had it the wrong way round.

Malcolm can only mutter his habitual mantra: “It was ever thus”; and draw on the opening paragraph of Barbara Tuchman‘ s pacy read The March of Folly:

A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any other human activity. In this sphere, wisdom, which may be defined as the exercise of judgment acting on experience, common sense and available information, is less operative and more frustrated than it should be. Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Twice in a day! Malcolm again rethinks: this time about puffing the RTÉ1 programme on Ireland’s Nazis by relying on pre-publicity in “news” items. This led Malcolm to reflect more widely on Irish anti-semitism.

First, though, Malcolm accepts the main thrust of Cathal O’Shannon’s argument (that post-war Irish Governments chose to turn a blind eye to some dubious immigrants). However, he would also wish to draw attention to the comment now attached to the end of Tuesday’s posting. Dan Leach, a PhD candidate at Melbourne University (not, as Nicola Tallant attributes, a “professor”) feels he and the subject have been substantially misrepresented. Malcolm wants a balance for Leach’s correction, rather than it being tucked away in a footnote.

Tallant quoted “research” on Nazi atrocities perpetrated by Célestin Lainé (who also bretonised his name as Neven Hénaff), leader of a Waffen SS unit, the Bezen Perrot. Notice that the wikipedia article is prefaced by a “neutrality” warning: it does seem to depend more on asseveration than attribution. Here, repeated from that “comment”, is Leach’s telling complaint about Tallant:

This is my actual quote from the script of Ireland’s Nazis (Programme One), courtesy Tile Films:

“The former head of the Breton nationalist party Raymond Delaporte reportedly had an interview with De Valera in which De Valera advised him to continue using the aliases with which he’d entered Ireland so that then if the French asked De Valera is this man in the country De Valera could truthfully answer “NO”.”

That became this in The Sunday Times article:

“Dan Leach of the University of Melbourne reveals that the former head of the Breton Nationalist Party met de Valera to discuss Lainé. ‘De Valera advised him (that Lainé should) continue using his alias so that if the French asked him if Lainé was in the country he could truthfully answer ‘no’,’ Leach said.”

Two different people; two different subjects of discussion. There is no evidence De Valera ever met Bezen Perrot leader and militant Breton collaborator Célestin Lainé (aka Neven Henaff). The discussion was between De Valera and Raymond Delaporte, and ‘Dev’s advice was for Delaporte alone. I certainly did not mention Lainé in this context, as can be plainly observed.

Delaporte was a moderate nationalist, so obviously his meeting with De Valera lacks the kind of sensationalist verve Tallant requires to beat up her story.

‘Nuff said. Malcolm has warned Leach that apologetics and corrections are not common for either the Sunday Times or the Indy. So far that warning stands.

However, that does not undermine O’Shannon’s case. The sad truth is that neither Saorstát nor new-fledged An Phoblacht were squeaky clean. And Catholic orthodoxy, especially in regard to intermarriage, ensured Jewish (and other minority) emigration over the years [see below].

Let Malcolm have a run at it, with some of his “guilt-by-association” notions.

He has previously pointed to the totalitarian, even Nazist, sympathies of some of those around De Valera, in particular Joseph Walshe and Frank Aiken. Now for a couple more gargoyles:

  • Let’s start with Charles Bewley. Yes, it’s coffee time, but this was the black sheep of an honourable family. Bewley converted to republicanism and catholicism, was Irish ambassador to the Holy See, and most significantly (1933-39) representative in Berlin. Under Bewley’s control, Irish visas for fleeing Jews were minimal (one estimate says just 60 were issued between 1933 and 1946). His commentaries back to Dublin are very revealing. He defended the Nuremberg race laws; knew of no “deliberate cruelty” to Jews; and regarded Jews as the “wrong class” for admission to Ireland. De Valera dismissed him only at the outbreak of War. Bewley then functioned as one of Goebbels’ PR-men. In 1945 (this is a good story, and also on wikipedia) he fell into the hands of the British Army in north Italy. He showed his expired Irish diplomatic papers. This made him a major embarrassment to Dublin and London (the “Lord Haw-haw” business being current). The solution was to issue him a new Irish passport, with the description “a person of no importance”. Bewley’s vanity meant he never felt able to cross another frontier. He was effectively marooned in Rome for the rest of his days, where he improved the idle hour by penning a biography of Goering.
  • Bewley was, alas, not alone. As James Lydon (once Malcolm’s tutor) has pointed out:

… prejudice was evident when attempts were made to persuade the Irish government to offer asylum to Jewish refugees. When the Irish Coordinating Committee for Refugees was established in November 1938, at a time when many Jewish refugees were desperately trying to escape from Nazi persecution, it decided that only Christian refugees were to be accepted into Ireland.

  • Another ball of wind was Oliver Flanagan, later a Fine Gael Minister. He got himself elected to the Dáil on a blatantly anti-semitic ticket. He compounded this with his maiden speech [Proceedings of the Dáil, 9 July 1943]:

How is it that we do not see any of these Emergency Orders directed against the Jews who crucified Our Saviour 1,900 years ago and who are crucifying us every day of the week? How is it that we do not see them directed against the Masonic Order? How is it that the IRA is considered an illegal organisation while the Masonic Order is not considered an illegal organisation? There is one thing that Germany did and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair’s breadth what laws you make. Where the bees are there is honey and where the Jews are there is money.

And even De Valera himself? Let’s leave aside unseemly doings of 2 May 1945:

I have noted that my call on the German Minister on the announcement of Hitler’s death was played to the utmost. I expected this. I could have had a diplomatic illness, but, as you know, I would scorn that sort of thing. … During the whole of the war, Dr Hempel’s conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and invariably correct — in marked contrast with [US Ambassador] Gray. I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat.

Malcolm liked the well-written, wry put-down in John Cornwall’s Hitler’s Pope. This passing mention at the “no expense spared” 1939 coronation of Pius VI borrows from Douglas Woodruff, editor of The Tablet, but is otherwise unhelpful:

Two by two, the princes, ambassadors and distinguished representatives of the nations then processed down the south nave in glittering regalia to take up their positions on the left of the high altar. Among them the Prince and Princess of Piedmont; the Count of Flanders; the Duke of Norfolk, representing the United Kingdom; two ex-kings, Ferdinand of Bulgaria and Alfonso of Spain; Joseph Kennedy, American ambassador in London and foremost Boston Catholic, representing the United States; Paul Claudel, the poet and dramatist, representing France; and “rather oddly”, as Woodruff noted, Eamon De Valera, the prime minister of Ireland, walking in step with Count Galeazzo Ciano, Mussolini’s son-in-law and foreign minister, who later caused a rumpus at having been placed below the Duke of Norfolk in the procession.

The general impression is that De Valera himself was free of antisemitic prejudice. Indeed, prejudice sometimes went the other way: John Devoy, whose US Clan na Gael financed the IRB, the Easter Rising and the War of Independence over decades, disliked De Valera:

Devoy wrote of de Valera, “This half-breed Jew has done me more harm in the last two years than the English have been able to do during my whole life.”

De Valera included an acknowledgement of the Jewish community in the famous religious clause of his Constitution. Indeed, let it be remembered, he had reasons for gratitude. Chief Rabbi Herzog took De Valera in at 33 Bloomfield Avenue, Portabello, repeatedly, when he was “on the run”: this was fundamental to a continuing friendship. As an aside, Malcolm recollects one morning, still bleary, he switched on BBC’s Today programme, to hear a well-modulated, mellow, bourgeois Dublin voice (for Malcolm, the essence of good English enunciation). It took a while to untangle the accent from the topic: it was the voice of the President Chaim Herzog of Israel, Belfast-born, Dublin-schooled son of the former Chief Rabbi Isaac.

Which brings Malcolm to Dublin’s most famous Jew, Leopold Bloom, now given sociological status with an academic tome, Jewish Ireland in the Age of Joyce: A Socioeconomic History by Cormac Ó. Gráda (a very recent review on-line here). He also has a walk-on part in Professor Dermot Keogh of UCC’s Jews in Twentieth-Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.

And Bloom brings us to Ireland’s blackest bits of anti-semitism. Bloom (Chapter 2, part 2) is in Barney Kiernan’s pub. The ultra-nationalist Citizen asks him, “What is your nation?” Bloom answers: “Ireland… I was born here. Ireland.” The situation quickly deteriorates:

Gob, the citizen made a plunge back into the shop.
–By Jesus, says he, I’ll brain that bloody jewman for using the holy name.
By Jesus, I’ll crucify him so I will. Give us that biscuitbox here.

The significance of this is the Citizen is carrying copies of The United Irishman. In January 1904 (six months before Bloomsday) Arthur Griffith had approved the Limerick Pogrom. Limerick, low, grey and damp, is one of Malcolm’s least favourite towns, an impression going back way before Frank McCourt (sometime teacher of English at Stuy to Malcolm’s son-in-law) put the boot in. However, “pogrom” is giving the event, a sad, even tragic event, greater significance than it deserves. A young priest, a product of French antisemitism at the time of the Dreyfus affair, preached a sermon (pace Oliver Flanagan above): this provoked a two-year boycott of Jewish traders, who eventually moved to Cork (intending to ship to New York) where they were made welcome. Hence, a story from Robert Tracy:

… a prominent Jew from Cork [Gerald Goldberg, Lord Mayor of Cork], a descendant of the Limerick diaspora, … was interviewed on Irish television in the 1970s as part of a series examining the treatment of minorities in the Republic. Asked if he had personally experienced prejudice, he replied, “Oh yes. Yes indeed,” and then, after a pause, added, “In Dublin, you know, they always have the knife out for the Corkman.”

The Limerick Pogrom could easily be forgotten, except … for one Stephen Coughlan. As Lord Mayor of Limerick, Coughlan (cue voice of Neil Kinnock: “A Labour Mayor! A Labour Mayor!”) twice in a month showed an incredible brutality of mind. Here’s Coughlan (as in The Irish Times of 13 March 1970) reacting to a gun being fired at Limerick’s Little Red Bookshop:

Limerick has always been known for its Christian outlook, its charity, but anyone in Limerick could have seen this trouble coming. The Maoist bookshop has been a deliberate provocation. The people of this city abhor the introduction of these people who are completely opposed to our Christian tradition.

That’s to be taken in connection with a speech a month later (quoted in The Irish Times of 20 April 1970):

I remember when I was a very young boy … the problem of the Jews in Limerick. A Father Creagh, in his courageous way, declared war on the Jews at Killooney Street which is now Wolfe Tone Street. The Jews at that time, who are now gone, were extortionists … I remember an unfortunate woman was having a baby and they came getting their five shillings a week … scourging her … they took the bed from under her.

Well, murmurs Malcolm, it’s all water under the bridge. Ireland, North and Republic, has far greater issues of prejudice and integration today.

The end-note must be the terminal (?) decline in Irish Jewry: like the other religious minorities (Protestants have declined from 10% of the population before Home Rule to just 3% in 1991), their numbers shrunk over the years. Dublin’s fine Greenville Hall, once a synagogue, now houses a technology company (image at the head of this post).

In the first instance the attrition was because the Catholic Church effectively enforced conversion on marriage. Moreover:

The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 prompted an exodus from Ireland. “Irish Jews have always been very Zionistic,” explained [Raphael] Siev, [the Jewish Museum in Dublin’s founder and curator]. “In fact, today there are more Irish-born Jews living in Israel than in Ireland.” The third hemorrhage, ongoing from the 1960s, is emigration for better economic and social opportunities. “The young leave because there’s no Jewish life for them here, and because the good jobs are overseas,” said Siev. Parents practically force their children out of Ireland, to England, Israel or the U.S., so they can meet and marry other Jews.

Siev puts the Jewish population in all Ireland at no more than 1,200.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized