Armchair Detective: The Tamam Shud case

Like many people, I love a good unsolved mystery. Don’t get me wrong, not enough to actually go and do in-depth research about them (the very thought!), but certainly enough to waste time playing Sherlock Holmes and coming up with half-baked theories about them. Actually, whilst I wouldn’t generally defend half-arsed amateur theorising based on limited knowledge in most areas of human endeavour, I do think there’s a place for it in the investigation of decades-old mysteries.

After all, the well-informed experts on solving crime – the police, forensic scientists, courts and so on – will already have tried and failed long before the amateur turns up on the scene. If they hadn’t, it wouldn’t be a decades-old mystery. More importantly, a lot of well-known mysteries tend to attract such bonkers suggestions as to their solution that, whilst an armchair detective certainly isn’t going to solve the mystery, they might at least have a shot at knocking some of the accumulated crud of bonkers suggestions off it, using no more than common sense. And that’s really what I’m trying to do here.

The mystery in question is the Tamam Shud case . No, that isn’t how Jabba the Hutt told Han Solo he might have been a good smuggler, but now he was just Bantha fodder. It’s actually Persian for “ended” or “finished”, and those were the words found on a scrap of paper torn from a book in the pocket of a man found lying dead on Somerton beach in Glenelg, near Adelaide in South Australia, on 1 December 1948, his head leaning back on the seawall.

In fact, strictly, they were in a pocket within his pocket, and despite a lot of investigation in the years since, the man has never been identified, nor his cause of death established. The doctors who did the autopsy suggested he might have been poisoned, largely because his organs appeared inflamed, but since they couldn’t establish that there was any kind of poison in the body, that seems guesswork at best and later researchers have said that there are illnesses that might create similar symptoms.

He wasn’t a local, though. From the evidence of tickets found on the body, he appeared to have turned up in Glenelg by bus the day before he was found, and in Adelaide by train on the morning of that day (although it has never been clear from exactly where in Australia he came).

Nor has anyone ever been able to work out why he was carrying an oddly-apposite quote torn from the last page The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam with him when he died, although the police were able to track down the actual copy of the book that the scrap came from, which either the man or someone else had dumped in an unlocked car in a nearby road. The book’s back inside cover had faint indentations in of five lines of meaningless all-caps text that most people have concluded was some kind of code, and of the unlisted telephone number of a local, soon to be married, nurse called Jessica Ellen Thomson. Very local, in fact – she lived only 400 metres away from where the body was found.

When contacted, Thomson denied knowing the man. She continued to do so until she died a few years ago, although in a way that apparently failed to convince police officers then or years later, or independent researchers who interviewed her, or even her own daughter, that she was telling the truth.

As for the “code” – well, in spite of various attempts by professional code-breakers, no-one’s ever been able to make sense of it. Really, then, it’s the book and the evidence related to it that has led to the mystery enduring. It isn’t that unusual for unidentifiable dead people to turn up, and even for it to be impossible to work out exactly how they died (especially after they’ve been dead a while). It is unusual for such deaths to be associated with unbreakable codes, people who vehemently deny knowing the dead person and mid-Victorian romantic poetry loosely translated from Persian.

And it’s really this evidence that’s led to the theory about this case that I think even an armchair detective can knock holes in – that it was somehow connected to espionage. Who uses codes? Spies, of course! And a spy would, of course, make sure that their origins were untraceable and, if you’d been working with them, you wouldn’t want to admit you knew them. And, of course, spies always have plenty of professional enemies who’d bump them off at the drop of a hat, and probably leave an apposite poetic quote in their pocket to send a message as well. Huge drama queens, those intelligence people.

It’s at this point that I start theorising, and I start from the point of “what’s more inherently likely? That what happened here is something common, or something exotic and unusual?” It’s the former, of course. And dead spies, especially the murdered kind, are exotic and unusual.

In 1948, espionage basically meant Communist Russia and its satellites v. “the West” (including Australia). Let’s assume that the dead man was some kind of Eastern Bloc agent because (a) that seems to be what the espionage theorists think (much gets made of Jessica Thomson having “Communist leanings” and “being able to speak Russian”, points to which I will return later) and (b) openly murdering a Western intelligence agent in a Western country seems like crazily risky behaviour even for the Stalin-era KGB. So what exactly would there be for an Eastern Bloc agent to spy on in 1948 Adelaide?

Well, Australia was a Western ally, was contributing military forces to various parts of what was becoming the Cold War and was part of an intelligence-sharing agreement with the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand that still exists. On the other hand, none of that seems like something you’d particularly need to go to Adelaide to spy on, still less employ some kind of local agent there, if that it what Jessica Thomson is supposed to have been. It’s also hard to see how a nurse would have access to such secrets (and, since she had a 16-month-old son, it is not clear Thomson was even working as a nurse at the time). By the mid-1950s, the British were carrying out nuclear testing at Maralinga in South Australia. It’s still hundreds of miles from Adelaide, but the whole espionage scenario might make a bit more sense if the dead man had been found in 1956. However, he wasn’t.

You also have to ask yourself – who would kill an Eastern Bloc agent, as such? Logically, either a Western intelligence agency or his own side (if he looked like he might have betrayed them, or be about to). In the first case, you would assume that Western agents would rather have arrested the Eastern Bloc agent and anyone working with him whilst they were all in a friendly jurisdiction, to break up the spy ring and extract as much information as possible about what they’ve all been up to, rather than kill the agent (and only him) and leave his body somewhere very public in a way that was bound to attract a potentially embarrassing police investigation.

Another Eastern Bloc agent, of course, would not have the arrest option. Still, that doesn’t explain why they would leave the body in a public place, leave any evidence at all on it (even if it turned out that it was not evidence that could be used to trace the dead spy) or make sure that he was carrying a poetic message in his pocket. Who’s “tamam shud” supposed to be directed at, in this theory? Other potential traitors connected to this guy? Then why not kill them too, if you’re going down that road? And, of course, we have no cause of death for the man on the beach, and so no clear evidence he was murdered at all, by anyone.

Jessica Thomson, even if she did know the dead man, also comes across as a poor candidate for a foreign intelligence agent’s local asset. She was not in a place or a job that suggests she would have easy access to important secret information. On closer examination, her “Communist leanings” were probably more “kind of bohemian and left-leaning” and the extent to which she could actually speak Russian, or any other foreign language, is heavily disputed.

It also seems unlikely that English-speaking Russian intelligence operatives would waste time teaching their Anglophone agents to speak Russian. It would take ages, not be particularly necessary for the latter to do their jobs and potentially put the whole operation at risk, if a local agent somehow reveals to others that they can speak Russian when there is no particular reason why they should be able to.

It’s probably also worth mentioning again that Thomson’s story didn’t manage to convince various investigators, including the police at the time, which suggests she wasn’t a great liar. Personally, I would say that being a good liar is probably the number one quality you need to be any kind of spy.

Nevertheless, it does seem very likely that the man on the beach was connected to her. He had her phone number, there are the unconvincing denials from her and there is the connection with The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, which was clearly an emotionally significant poem for Jessica Thomson. A few years before she had given a copy of it to a former boyfriend just before he was posted overseas on active service in the Second World War. Indeed, when they heard about this, the police suspected the body might be that of the boyfriend, until he turned up, very much alive and still with his copy of the book.

There were a number of reasons why Thomson might not have been wholly forthcoming about what was going on that have more to do with the moral constraints of the time than her involvement in espionage. It is pretty likely that her eldest son (who’s now also dead) was not the son of the man who she was then living with, Prosper Thomson. Prosper was not her husband, although she called him that, and he would soon become so in reality. His divorce was still going through (and divorce itself was less socially acceptable at the time). She also seems to have been concerned about Prosper finding out about the ex-boyfriend mentioned above (and presumably any others too). None of this would be regarded as very shocking now, but taken all together it certainly was not the way “nice girls” in the late 40s were supposed to act.

I mentioned earlier the melodramatic nature of the words on a scrap of paper in the dead man’s pocket, and whilst a murderer might leave melodramatic messages with their victims, it seems far more likely as a suicide’s gesture. Jessica Thomson clearly had men in her life before she was married, one of whom may even have been the father of her son. There’s nothing particularly improbable in the idea that one of them might have turned up at her home one day, with or without warning, been told that it was definitely over, and reacted badly enough to end his life on the spot. Disappointed lovers committing suicide are, after all, a lot more common than spies being murdered.

It has been suggested that the dead man was chronically ill anyway and simply died of natural causes on the beach, which all seems a bit coincidental to be convenient, but (a) that’s on the assumption that the message the man got was “this is definitely over, go away”, which might not have been the case and (b) given the lack of a cause of death, can’t be called impossible.

The failure to establish an identity might be explained by the dead man being a foreigner of some kind, perhaps an Allied soldier formerly stationed in Australia during the war, a migrant or refugee, or simply an orphan or someone else with few family connections and no-one who would particularly miss them. As for the code…well, no-one’s clearly ever established the writing is a code, at least of the formalised, used-by-spies, kind. If it is, it’s surprising it hasn’t been broken yet. The code used by the Zodiac murderer of late 60s California was broken fairly quickly by comparison.

It may be that the writing is some kind of entirely personal and unbreakable shorthand, rather than a code, is the meaningless product of an unstable mind or even that it got indented on the inside back cover from a previous owner using that to support a bit of paper for scrawling meaningless nonsense on. After all, the edition of The Rubaiyat in question was published in 1941, and might easily have had previous owners before the dead man.

I think what we have here is much more likely to have been a private tragedy than a Cold War thriller. As an armchair detective, I can’t tell you what it was, but I’d be very surprised if any spies were involved.

 

 

Posted in Crime, History | Leave a comment

A summer of violence

I don’t think it’s being melodramatic to say that, between unexpected and terrifying acts of political violence and the unexpected and terrifying burning down of a West London tower block, it’s already been a violent summer in the UK. And, I would imagine, a pretty profitable one for all kinds of media. Nothing provokes people to buy newspapers, watch TV news, or swarm on to Twitter, Facebook and so on like a good, large-scale human tragedy, except perhaps an election, which of course we also had.

There hasn’t been a war yet, of course, so the media haven’t quite hit the jackpot of revenue-maximising opportunities. But who knows, maybe that can be arranged? After all, William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate on whom Citizen Kane was based, is supposed to have told his man in Cuba, who was sceptical about the possibility of a war between the US and Spain, “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” (There isn’t actually a lot of evidence that Hearst said this).

If this sounds cynical, well…it is cynical, really. But still not half as cynical as making your living from mass death and unimaginable grief, especially when that living is quite as good as it is for those who own the institutions of the media. And especially when, as has been the case this summer, a lot of the death in question simply would not have taken place if there had been no-one to report on it.

Whatever happened at Grenfell Tower, the media clearly weren’t responsible for the fire (although a lot of what I say below also applies to the reporting of that). Terrorism, however, is a different matter. As a military strategy, the launching of attacks on wholly civilian targets by small groups seeking radical social change simply makes no sense without a mass media to publicise those attacks.  The proof of this is that, before there was something you could call a mass media, there was nothing you could call terrorism, in that sense anyway. The first people to get seriously into throwing bombs in public places as a way to make their point were anarchists and nationalists (like the Irish Fenians) in the late 19th century, which was also, not coincidentally, the first time in history there was a press with a mass readership.

Murder and violent assault are as old as humanity. Regular warfare, assassinations, arguably even genocide, have been around since civilisation began. But committing mass atrocity for publicity can’t work without something to publicise your atrocities, and it’s modern.  There’s been a tendency, in recent years, to treat Islamist terrorist groups of the Al Quaeda/ISIS variety as somehow different from previous terrorists, scary religious maniacs who’ll sacrifice their own lives to inflict as much death as possible more or less without rational objectives. “Some men just want to watch the world burn,” and so on.

Partly this is because it suits Western governments to portray them as dangerous and beyond-the-pale loonies and partly because it suits these groups themselves to be seen that way. After all, that provokes more fear. However, just like all previous terrorists, they’re pursuing a rational strategy of achieving power by using fear and terror to undermine their opponents and rally their supporters, and no-one can do that without achieving the maximum amount of publicity for what they do.

And that is something that, over the last few months, the British media has seemed perfectly happy to give them. Some of the reporting on the recent incidents, to me, seemed like little more than obsessive slavering over death and misery.

There were relentless attempts to establish exactly how many people had died each time, as if there was somehow a score to keep. Microphones were shoved in front of people who were clearly still in shock and should probably not have been given an international audience in the emotional state they were in. There was a constant quest to see whether blame might be placed, not on the people who actually did the killing, but on the police and government generally for lacking the clairvoyance to know which of tens of thousands of disaffected young men were disaffected enough to actually do something about it.

The coverage went on, in each case, for days, and to the extent where I’m surprised that more of the audience didn’t find it as unbearable as quickly as I did. Actually, this is one of the more depressing aspects of the whole thing; that more people don’t just turn off. After all, it would not be worthwhile reporting these kinds of attacks in this kind of way if it routinely led to the audience plummeting. And it goes further than that. The kind of obsessive coverage that happened was partly made possible because so many participants were willing to whip out their mobile phones at a moment’s notice and film what happened long before any professional camera operator could arrive.

If there genuinely is a huge audience out there for death and violence, that doesn’t say much for us as members of that audience. If we’re prepared to do the media’s work for it, we can’t wholly blame it for the result. Are ISIS the only ones here who “just want to watch the world burn”?

 

 

 

Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

Poetry Review: Greatest Hits of Sir Henry Newbolt

By “greatest hits”, I  really mean “the three poems by Newbolt that anyone remembers nowadays,” and to give him credit he was a bit more than a one-hit wonder. Newbolt lived from 1862 to 1938, and worked at various times as a lawyer, literary journalist and government adviser-cum-war-propagandist. However, his lasting fame is as “the poet of the British Empire at its peak,” or at any rate “its other poet,” since he was a contemporary of Rudyard Kipling. Naturally, that also makes his work undisputably macho (Newbolt would probably have preferred, “manly”)

Wikipedia also claims that he more or less lived in a harem with his wife, Margaret and her cousin Ella, who was both of their lovers, so no doubt the anime version of his life, Moe Moe, Newbolt-Chan!, in which there are wacky hi-jinks and Henry keeps getting beaten up for accidentally stumbling into the bathroom whilst one or other of the women are naked, will be made eventually.

“Vitai Lampada” (1892) is undoubtedly Newbolt’s best-known poem. It’s also annoyingly difficult to spell, because apparently it isn’t “Vitae Lampada” as I always thought (Latin conjugation, eh?), and should have two dots above the “i”. I have no idea how you make a keyboard do that.

Anyway, the theme of the poem is basically how values of selflessness and team-spirit learned through an English public school, specifically its sport, even more specifically its cricket, goes on to inspire one of its pupils through his life. That life is probably a short one, since the next time we see him he’s on the losing side of a battle in a colonial war in Sudan (apparently based on the battle of Abu Klea in 1885), bravely rallying his troops. “Play up, play up and play the game,” is the refrain, which sounds like the sort of “encouragement” you dreaded hearing from that PE teacher you always hated, as you carefully avoided getting too involved in some rugby match he insisted you play in. Or is that just me?

To be honest, I am very late to the snark on “Vitai Lampada.” The poem played its part in inspiring a generation of public schoolboys to volunteer for service in the First World War, and as you can imagine, many those who survived were left with strong and negative feelings about it. I don’t think anyone still accepts the “warfare is just a larky extension of sport” trope that some people pre-1914 do seem to have genuinely believed, and to be fair to Newbolt, the British troops we see are on the point of being wiped out (“the river of death has brimmed his banks”), so it’s not as if he presents war as a jolly jape with few negative consequences.

However, what he does do, like a lot of people at the time, up to and including generals, is suggest that the key factor in war is spiritual, not physical. The crucial thing in the battle he describes is that “the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks”, most likely too late, not that the British are better armed or organised than the Sudanese (even if they are, they’re still losing). That wasn’t particularly true even in the colonial wars of the British Empire, where the British usually won mostly precisely by virtue of having modern weapons that their enemies didn’t. By the end of the First World War, it was very obviously hopelessly outdated.

A more fundamental criticism of the poem, however, is that at crucial points it is, quite simply, far too idealistic to be believable. A cricket team is inspired to win by a desire to “play up and play the game,” not by “the sake of a ribboned coat Or the selfish hope of a season’s fame”, when in practice, most sports teams are precisely driven by the wish to win trophies and have everyone else know they’ve done that.  A posh young officer can rally the working class rank-and-file of a losing army by telling the soldiers to “play up and play the game” according to the values of the good old school, when most of the men he was talking to would (a) have no idea what he meant and (b) not care, since they were more interested in escaping with their lives. And they wouldn’t be wrong, either.

In effect, Newbolt thinks his ideology of selfless duty is universally held and universally true. I can only assume he lived life in something of a bubble if he believed that was the case even in 1892, and it’s worth pointing out that this is a poem about battle written by a man who was never in one. Next to Newbolt, Kipling looks far more of a realist on these matters (and, interestingly, he usually tried to write about them from the ordinary soldier’s perspective).

“Drake’s Drum” (1897) is, as they would have said in Friends, The One Where Drake He’s In His Hammock An’ a Thousand Mile Away (“Capten, art tha sleepin’ there below?”). Basically, this is Newbolt’s contribution to the genre of “there’s an old, long-dead, national hero, who will in the right circumstances, come back from the dead to save us.” In this case, the hero is Sir Francis Drake and the right circumstances are “if the Dons sight Devon” and someone beats on his drum. The drum really exists, in Buckland Abbey (or at any rate, that’s where a replica of it’s on display). Newbolt wrote the poem in pseudo-West Country dialect whose accuracy you can debate, and phonetically, which is always pretty corny. Having said that, it can’t be denied that, like Vitai Lampada, it is memorable, and the corny pirate talk helps achieve that. Once you’ve read these poems, they aren’t easily forgotten, and of course they haven’t been.

The main problems I have with the poem are (a) that if Drake is only going to respond to Spanish invasions, as he says he is, then that isn’t much use because Spain hasn’t posed a serious invasion threat to Britain since the early 17th century and (b) he claims to have “drum(med) them up the Channel”, which he didn’t, at least not if he’s talking about the Spanish Armada in 1588. The whole Spanish objective in that campaign was to sail up the English Channel, to meet with their army in what is now Belgium and mount a joint invasion of England.

The English didn’t drive them up it; they went there voluntarily, losing a few ships along the way. Then they anchored off Calais, and the whole plan fell apart, because they couldn’t communicate reliably with the Spanish army and so didn’t know what exactly to do next. All they could do was sit where they were, and it was while they were doing so that the English successfully attacked them and the surviving ships had to go on the run. At best, Drake is shading the facts in his favour here (although I suppose he’s entitled to – it is fiction).

“He Fell Among Thieves” is a poem that would seem supremely dated, but has been given a bit of a new lease of life through the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. British adventurer (exact details of who he is and what he’s up to are kept vague) is somewhere on the North-West Frontier, when he somehow befriends (again, the details are vague), some guys who reveal themselves to be bandits. They slaughter everyone he’s got with him and whilst, badass that he is, he kills five of them, in the end he just hasn’t got enough bullets for all of them.

Although, unsurprisingly, wanting “blood for our blood” for their fallen comrades the bandits, rather more surprisingly, agree to wait until morning before taking it. James Bond would undoubtedly take advantage of this time to escape or something, but Newbolt, this time, is more of a realist. The protagonist spends the night remembering his childhood and youth back in England, which is exactly what you would expect from Newbolt (apparently one of the high-points of his life was winning a race at school) and then the bandits behead him.

The advantage of this poem over the other two, particularly “Vitai Lampada”, is that this time Newbolt isn’t out to prove a point, just tell a story. The title is clearly a reference to the Bible story of the Good Samaritan, perhaps because in this case, there clearly won’t be one and it wouldn’t help if there were. However, the only point at which religion is really mentioned in the poem itself is when the protagonist says some final words to God, just before his death, and they’re phrased so vaguely that it isn’t entirely clear he’s referring to God in the Christian sense at all.

With the return to the world of people who like to behead kidnapped Westerners, and of Westerners getting involved in dangerous situations in the same part of the world, “He Fell Among Thieves” has become a poem that, by and large, could still be written today. The details would certainly differ. Apparently, the only family member that the protagonist bothers thinking about before death is his father, and he takes patriotic pride in having come across in a ship flying a British flag in a way that it’s hard to believe a man facing his death really would even then, let alone now.

However, in this poem Newbolt is a bit less hopelessly a fly stuck in Victorian amber. Perhaps that’s why it’s my favourite of the three.

 

 

Posted in Art, Books | Leave a comment

How to successfully predict major world events

Gavin Barwell, as Tory MP for Croydon Central, wrote a book called “How To Win A Marginal Seat” based on his experiences, an irony that didn’t get past more or less everyone who reported on him losing that marginal seat in the general election on Thursday. In the spirit of this fine example of guidance given by the unsuccessful, I have decided to give the world my own guide on successfully predicting major world events (whether the world wants it or not).

My qualifications for this are, I would humbly submit, impressive ones. I have failed to predict a range of major events in my lifetime. Leaving aside stuff like the 9/11 attacks, which (literally) came out of a clear blue sky and were expected by nobody:-

  1.  I never expected Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe to end. I just sort of assumed it would go on indefinitely.
  2. Similarly, I thought apartheid in South Africa would just keep on rolling, since there was no obvious military or economic reason compelling it to end, and people who benefit from political systems would never just give up on them without a fight.
  3. Although it was pretty obvious the Labour Party were going to win the 1997 general election, I was convinced Tony Blair and Co. were just pretending to be pro-business and Third Way and all that stuff, and would reveal themselves to be red-blooded lefties once they’d done what was necessary to win.
  4. I couldn’t see what the fuss was about e-commerce in the late 90s, because “those websites don’t do anything you can’t do with a catalogue.” (More or less my actual words).
  5. I strongly remember studying 19th century history in the early 90s, reading about Victorian banks collapsing after “a run on the bank” and thinking what a weird concept that was, and how glad I was that such events were now definitely a thing of the past. Even though I did have a general sense in the early 2000s that we were going through an economic boom that was clearly going to go bust sooner or later, seeing people queueing up outside the local branch of Northern Rock to get out all their savings in August 2007 still felt like watching something from fiction.
  6.  I thought the best result of the 2010 election would be a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. The Labour government had clearly run out of ideas, and a coalition would force them to introduce proportional representation, ensuring a thousand year reign for progressive values. I therefore voted Lib Dem. I lived in a safe Labour seat and in practice my vote made no difference either way, but I’m still annoyed with how completely wrong I turned out to be.
  7. I thought that the 2015 election would probably end up with another hung Parliament and another Lib Dem-someone else coalition.
  8. I never expected the Brexit referendum to go the way it did (see previous post on this).
  9. I was sure Trump would not win the US Presidency (see previous post on this).
  10. Last Thursday, I calmly informed my colleagues that I would definitely not be sitting up to watch the election results. This was mostly because I expected them to be some kind of triumph for the Conservative Party, and I didn’t want to spend another miserable night watching one of those unfold (see previous post on the 2015 general election – detecting a pattern here?).

You could call it a comedy of errors, if only it were more funny (not that Shakespeare let that put him off). In my defence, some of the early misjudgements were made when I was very young and quite a lot of them were shared by lots of other people, many of whom were supposed to be experts on whatever the subject was. But, other than, “James is an idiot and if you must bet on anything, bet on whoever or whatever he thinks will lose,” is there anything to be learned from my lifetime of prophetic failure?

1. Everyone knows much less than they think they do.

It’s easy to persuade yourself otherwise. Humans seem almost hard-wired to want certainty about the future, which we can’t have without an omnipotent level of knowledge. If we can’t have that certainty, we’ll try and get as close as we can to it by jumping to conclusions based on, often, very limited knowledge and responding to facts that don’t fit these by sticking our fingers in our ears and going, “La, la, la, I can’t hear you!” I was making predictions how the leaders of South Africa or Tony Blair and his advisers would act. I had never met them and knew nothing about what truly motivated them. I had never even been to some of the countries involved.

2. Big events often have really complicated causes.

Take the result of an election – that depends on the decisions of millions of people. Why do they decide to vote a particular way? Millions of different reasons, some of which they might not even be aware of at a conscious level or be prepared to admit to.

3. Our predictions are as driven by our emotions as by anything rational

Even a fairly inattentive reader (do I ever get any others?) will have noticed the large amount of wishful thinking in a lot of my predictions, alternating with excessive pessimism where the wishful thinking has become so obvious, even I’ve noticed it. That’s usually after a run of failed predictions. Both have more to do with how I feel about the situation than any kind of rational thinking.

4. Beware of relying on conventional wisdom

A lot of my mistakes derived from believing exactly the sort of things that “experts” in the media were telling me, in spite of being generally fairly cynical about what the mass media tends to say about things. This is the hardest part of it all for me to explain logically. I can only say that, whilst in theory, everyone wants to be the lone contrarian who turned out to be right, that’s a big risk to take and a lonely position to be in. Everyone tends to look around for people who agree with them  (and ignore those who don’t). I guess I’m no different.

5. I should get out more

Well, I write a blog, so QED. More seriously, the wider the range of people you know, the better you are likely to be able to predict events that a wide range of people have some influence over. If my contacts with Americans had involved more coal miners and steelworkers, and fewer internet nerds, die-hard liberals and die-hard liberal nerds, I’d probably have seen him coming a lot better.

And armed with this knowledge, I expect…that I will probably go on misjudging the world around me. If you could easily get rid of your flaws by knowing about them, life would be so much simpler than it actually is. Fortunately for me, it seems failure in this field needn’t be career limiting. Within a couple of days of losing his seat in Parliament, Gavin Barwell was appointed chief of staff to the Prime Minister. Anyone who’s made it this far will not be surprised to hear that I didn’t expect that to happen, either.

Posted in News and politics, Personal | Leave a comment

Book Review: “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” by Friedrich Nietzsche

DA-DA-DA…DA-DA !!! (BOM-BOM-BOM-BOM-BOM!!!)

Okay, before the fun (?) starts rolling (?) on this one, it’s confession time. The original book is four volumes long, so I read a boiled-down version in the “Penguin 60s Classics” series which comes in under 100 pages. I make no apologies about this. Firstly,  I don’t think I missed much of the “plot” by doing this (basically, the prophet Zarathustra comes down from the mountain he’s been living on for ten years, delivers speeches on various topics to various people and groups, wins over some disciples, then buggers off again), and as far as I can tell the editing process didn’t radically distort the author’s views.

Secondly, the Superman doesn’t make apologies.

So does a work by a late 19th century German philosopher count as any kind of MachoLit? Portrait_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

Well, I think the moustache he sports in the portrait above answers that question in itself. And if you don’t think Herr Nietzsche’s facial hair was manly enough, there are his…er…retro views on women.”Man should be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.” “Are you visiting women? Do not forget your whip!” – both from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”  THE PROBLEMATICNESS!

Hell, there’s even a Mike Cernovich connection with the book. His website, Danger and Play, appears to be named after another of its aphorisms  – “The true man wants two things – danger and play.” I promise you, I had absolutely no idea about that before I started reading.

Really though, the rampant misogyny to be found in these pages is more or less by the way. “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” is basically “Friedrich Nietzsche’s Meaning of Life.” And that meaning can be summarised as follows: God is dead. He was only ever a creation of humanity anyway, and the Judeo-Christian God was the creation of a slave mentality, invented by the weak who despised their physical reality and longed for death. Christian virtues, and indeed all the modern secular ideals that are indebted to them, liberalism, socialism, democracy and so on, are thus life-detracting, obsessed with holding back any who would rise above the herd and ultimately creating in those who believe only a willingness to die.

Against this, Nietschze proposes The Superman, a solitary man (as the quotes on women above might suggest, this is pretty much a boy’s club), who is prepared to rise above the herd, keep pursuing the way upward and live by a life-enhancing morality that goes beyond good and evil as we understand them. Don’t love your neighbour, love the person most distant from you, and above all, love yourself.

As a vision of life, it has been an enormously influential one. Every edgy teen who posts a video on YouTube about his atheism and how much he hates everyone around him has Nietzsche among his spiritual ancestors (probably unknowingly on his part and unwillingly on Nietzsche’s – “the youth loves immaturely and immaturely too he hates man and the earth” is also from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”) The book inspired Richard Strauss to write his tone poem with the same title, and so, of course, to provide music for “2001: A Space Odyssey.”  The whole idea of superhuman beings, and so all of the comic book and film superheroes ever, also owes a debt to Nietzsche. It isn’t a coincidence that one of the most famous of them ended up with the same name as his ideal human.

This kind of wide popular influence is rare in a major philosopher. People often (rightly) quote Bertrand Russell’s unfavourable views on Nietzsche, but then no-one was ever inspired to turn Russell’s philosophy into a comic. There just isn’t as much inherent drama in “deriving the whole of arithmetic from pure logic” as there is in “The Superman.” Analytic philosophy, for long the dominant school in the English-speaking world, tends to be very sniffy about Nietzsche (and his European successors), but, face it guys – he sells more books than you.

Partly that’s because Nietzsche addresses topics non-philosophers actually care about – the “meaning of life” stuff as opposed to the “how does logic work?” stuff. Partly it’s in his style. I’ve already quoted from”Thus Spoke Zarathustra” several times, and that’s because it is deliberately written to be highly quotable. Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms – he actually defends doing this at one point – and the result is a book that, as the schoolboy said about “Hamlet”, is full of quotes. You can sneer at him posing as the prophet coming down from the mountain to preach wisdom all you like, but you can’t deny it’s an effective literary technique.

And yet, for all this cultural influence, you won’t find many people nowadays who would stand up and declare themselves a Nietzschean. You’d undoubtedly find more who were happy to say they were Marxists, even today. And a lot of that is due to the impact one group I didn’t mention as spiritual descendants of Nietzsche – the Nazi Party. A lot of my summary of Nietzsche’s views above probably sounded, well, kind of fascist, didn’t it? The weak holding back the strong…Christianity/liberalism/socialism, the religion of slaves…forget compassion and pity, you should go out and be about the biggest badass you can…women being inferior to men…supermen.

Well, the Nazis thought so too, and the perception that Nazi Germany was just Nietzsche made flesh had about the same effect on his credibility as the perception that Soviet Russia was just Karl Marx made flesh did for Marx’s. His modern defenders tend to put a lot of effort in trying to de-Nazify him. They point out, mostly correctly, that he was not anti-Semitic or interested making in racial distinctions generally and rather despised the German nationalism of his day, if not Germans in general. The sort of superman he had in mind was more one who had developed himself into a spiritually or intellectually superior being and could thereby give to mankind than a physically or militarily superior one who could conquer it.

There is truth in this. To me, the fascists who adopted Nietzsche as their hero fall into the same camp as some of the fundamentalists who claim Jesus as theirs. They both just go to show how wrong you can go on a literal interpretation. Nietzsche talks about warriors and supermen, and gets interpreted as calling for Germans to go out and wage war on those deemed racially inferior. Jesus makes some fairly vague comments about the end of the world and you end up with various sects of evangelical Protestants each with their own ludicrously detailed version of the End Times (and who don’t talk to the other guys with a slightly different version).

For all that, whilst he may not have been seeking to inspire fascism, Nietzsche did help do so, and you can’t label all the fandom as misaimed. It isn’t much of a step from “our culture’s belief in human equality leads to stifling mediocrity and its belief in fulfilment in a next world leads to a failure to truly live in the one we have” to “So yay for elitism and the pursuit of life through obtaining worldly power”, and Nietzsche cannot be entirely freed of blame for the actions of those who eventually took that step.

Nor is it really possible to water down his anti-religious views. You can reconcile Nietzsche and Christianity  to some extent by seeing him as a necessary corrective to versions of it (like the middle class 19th century Protestantism he was raised in) that really pile on the “never mind what happens to anyone in this life, just wait for pie in the sky when you die.” However, the whole idea of a next world of some kind is central enough to Christianity that in the end you really do have to either choose it or Nietzsche’s worldview.

Perhaps, as on Harry Hill’s TV show, the only solution is to make the two of them fight. Even ignoring the divine aspect, my money would be on Jesus. As Bertrand Russell also pointed out, for a man who advocated being a Superman, Nietzsche in person was a pretty weedy, sickly nerd (Russell did not use that exact word, but he certainly meant it). He did do lots of long Alpine hikes though, so you never know.

 

 

Posted in Books, Religion | Leave a comment

Anastasia

This post is unashamedly inspired by YouTube reviewer Phelous, whose videos are always worth a watch. He’s recently reviewed The Secret of Anastasia, a particularly awful cartoon knock-off of the 1997 Don Bluth animated film Anastasia. Both are, of course, about the teenage Russian grand duchess of that name who, in real life, died in 1918 with her Romanov parents and siblings in a hail of gunfire from their Bolshevik guards. It was a messy death at the hands of a horribly inefficient group of murderers who seem to have struggled to shoot dead a small group of people in a cellar.

Given that neither of them address this rather important fact, you could call both films “a bit historically inaccurate,” in the same way as you could call the sky “a bit up.” So are all the various previous films, books and articles claiming that somehow this didn’t happen, and usually also suggesting that the crazy old Polish-American lady who spent 60 years claiming to be Anastasia might not be the crazy old Polish-American lady that DNA evidence has now proved she was.

Historically inaccurate movies, of course, are nothing new. Nor are people claiming to be dead royals; in early seventeenth century Russia, there were at least three men who falsely claimed to be the (murdered) Tsarevich Dmitri, and two of them were persuasive enough to mount serious efforts to conquer the country. False Dmitri I actually did conquer it, briefly. England had Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, who each claimed to be one or other of the two (also murdered; it’s a theme here) Princes in the Tower in the fifteenth century. Basically, pick a monarchy, any monarchy ,and at some point you’ll probably find there was someone who claimed to be a dead king, prince or princess, with varying degrees of success. There were several other False Anastasias.

What’s unusual about the Anastasia films is that:-

(a) They’re quite as made-up as they are (I mean, how many historical films start by ignoring the generally accepted death of their central character, and get more inaccurate from there?);

(b) They’re about fairly recent history. Generally, the further back you go, the more slack you’ll get cut on matters of historical accuracy. King Arthur and Robin Hood probably didn’t really exist, but who cares for movie purposes?

(c) They’re aimed at kids. Do you have nostalgic memories about all those cartoons you watched as a kid about the Holocaust, the Vietnam War and the JFK assassination? Well, of course not. They don’t exist, because Hollywood studios wouldn’t touch such controversial subject matter in films for children. But somehow a Russian princess who got shot by firing squad after a Communist revolution is just fine, as long as you flat out lie about the firing squad and the Communist revolution.

I think a lot of this is down to that magic word “princess.” As far as the people who make cartoons are concerned, all princesses live in fairy-tale worlds, with all the tropes of fairy tales, and absolutely no connection with nasty adult realities. Little girls love princesses and aspire to princess-dom (and if they don’t, they jolly well should). Animation studios certainly love princesses. Disney calls all the heroines of its better-known animated films “Disney Princesses” whether or not they actually are royal.  With that mind-set, you can see why having a main character who’s a princess can overcome any queasiness about the story.

The fact that most feature-length cartoons that become internationally successful come from the US probably has something to do with this mind set. Americans love their royalty, especially if British, but they love them because they see them as a sort of group of uber-celebrities with guaranteed classiness. This is partly true, especially nowadays, but even today, and in constitutional monarchies, royal families still have a political function that this leaves out. That gets truer the further back in history you go.

Go back far enough, and real princesses might be serious political players, big-deal patrons of culture and at the very least could bring the wrath of God down on you if you didn’t treat them with due respect. They might also end up dead themselves (or at least stuck in a convent) if they made a mess of things. Their lives were anything but suitable for children’s fiction. They mostly weren’t quite as messed-up as the average George R.R. Martin princess either, but then not many people’s lives are as messed-up as everyone’s in A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones.

Of course, Disney has made an industry out of bowdlerising fairy-tales and the fictional princesses in them, let alone the real life ones, so all this isn’t much of a problem for them. Still, there are plenty of reasons beyond the usual feminist gripes why it might not be an entirely good idea to let your daughter run around wanting to be a princess. Apart from anything else, you’ll guarantee that if she gets married, the effort to be Princess for a Day will make the wedding even more financially painful than they usually are.

EDIT: This was in fact written months ago now and I actually thought I had lost it, because I am bad at internet. However, you aren’t getting away so lightly.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The 2017 general election (and stuff)

It’s taken me quite a while to work out exactly what I want to say in response to this unexpected event. And it really was unexpected. The day the election was called, I was travelling to visit my parents; when I left the house at 10 am or so everything was normal, and by the time my parents picked me up from the station about 2pm, their car radio had gone into “OMG, major news event, we’d better throw a million reporters at this one”-mode .

Truth be told, my instinctive reaction to the election was and is – “Well, I don’t really want to dignify that with a response.” Next to a series of Big Brother, a general election is the least dignified spectacle you will ever have to watch, and you can avoid Big Brother a lot more easily. Basically, thousands of people, many of them otherwise intelligent, spend six weeks or so running around like toddlers on a sugar rush, desperately trying to get public attention of any kind by pulling stunts so embarrassing people collecting money for a telethon would reject them, whilst mouthing insultingly simplistic sales pitches that even they can’t quite believe they’re mouthing. It’s like one of those low-rent shop openings where they hire some poor mug to dance around in a costume outside whilst a cheap PA system blares at you about the many bargains to be found within, except low-rent shop openings aren’t generally thought worthy of round-the-clock media coverage.

However, that’s ultimately an emotional reaction. So I have a distaste for people behaving like prats in public? So what? Is there any sort of intellectual justification for having those kind of feelings about something which is, after all, a central institution of democracy?

George Orwell once wrote that “often there is a seeming truce between the humanist and the religious believer, but in fact their attitudes cannot be reconciled: one must choose between this world and the next.” And the truth is that pretty much all of Britain’s political parties, in the modern age, are run by and for humanists on Orwell’s definition – people for whom the most important thing in life is, in practice, what happens in this world. Whether they actually formally wear that label or not (or even reject it), most politicians and political activists act as if this is true. Incidentally, I have no doubt that in doing that, they are representative of  most of the electorate; most people in general act as if this is true, including some who nominally have a religious faith.

Whilst it isn’t  remotely wrong to regard what happens in this life as important, once you start regarding it as the only important thing, it inevitably tends to lead politics in some unfortunate directions. The material well-being and economic prosperity of the electorate tends to become, not just an important thing in politics, but the only thing, because if all we have is this life, what is more important than our well-being during it? Having a wider vision for the future of society, having ideals, anything to do with the spiritual side of humanity, gets correspondingly downgraded.

And the result is elections where everything centres around “who gets the stuff?” Taxes, economic policy, health care, education, that’s what the debates about all those kinds of issues all really boil down to – “Old people? Kids? Poor people? The rich? Who should get the stuff?”. Even an issue like Brexit, which at root is a question of political principle about what kind of relationship the UK and the rest of Europe should be in, has become all about “who might lose some stuff when we leave?” and/or “was being in the EU really good for us? I mean, in terms of getting stuff? And did it stop us controlling immigrants, who might take our stuff?”

Hopefully, you’ve got the point: the overwhelming tone of general elections, just like that of politics in general, is both materialistic and all about voter self-interest. This has become the conventional wisdom; only the other day, I heard a BBC reporter say something to the effect of “well,what really determines elections is whether voters feel more prosperous as a result of the last X years”.

That’s something I’ve heard mentioned in more or less every election I can remember, and, if true, it’s a far more cynical view than anything I’ve expressed in this post. So is that all that matters in politics now – whether we think we’re getting adequate amounts of stuff? Incidentally, the same journalists who mention this are often the same ones who ponder on falling voter turnout and wonder “why people are increasingly disengaged from politics?” I dunno, maybe because you and the politicians treat us all like dumb cattle that only need to be provided with as much hay, straw and artificial food pellets as possible to stay content and supportive? Heaven forbid it, but maybe some of us are starting to get resentful about this, and, at heart, know what a limited view of humanity this is.

And is it surprising that, around the world, recent elections have led to success for fringe parties – populist right-wingers of various kinds, neo-Nazis and so on? After all, although they might use economic arguments (“Immigrants took our jobs!”), their fundamental appeal isn’t about material well-being, but feelings of national or cultural unity. Fascists have ideals (horrible ones) and understand the human spirit (its dark side). As someone once pointed out “I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, at least its an ethos.”

Conventional politics has become all about whether you, the voter, are better off with lower taxes and more money in your pocket or higher taxes and more schools. It’s stopped being an ethos and become a marketing exercise, and at root this is because, as a society, we’ve increasingly lost any religious beliefs we ever had, and so any belief in any ideals higher than material well-being.

One of the great ironies of this process is that the more militant opponents of organised religion in this country are invariably on the left in politics (conservative atheists tend to find it easier to accept religion as having value as a traditional institution whatever their personal views about it), and are often just the sort of people to bemoan the decline of the Labour Party or of socialism in general. My response to that would be “You cut down the tree you were sitting in: don’t blame anyone else when it falls and takes you down with it.”

Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment