The Spectator's Notes

Charles Moore’s Notes: I’ve rarely written a word in favour of Edward Heath, but I don’t believe these accusations

Plus in memory of Robert Conquest; what mathematics is; and a remedy for bats in old buildings

8 August 2015

9:00 AM

8 August 2015

9:00 AM

As someone who has rarely written a sentence in praise of the late Sir Edward Heath, I hope I can escape charges of ‘cover-up’: I don’t believe the accusations against him. Even the word ‘accusations’ is an exaggeration, actually, since the story so far seems to be Chinese whispers with nothing amounting to evidence, put out by the frightened police. When this fashion for airing unsupported claims of child abuse has finally run its course, we shall be collectively ashamed of it, and people like Tom Watson MP will be seen for the McCarthys they are. (This is true, by the way, even if some of the things Mr Watson alleges turn out to be the case: the same applied to McCarthy.)

One should explain the culture of the period now under scrutiny. From the 1960s to the 1980s, homosexuality was emerging from criminalisation and concealment. This meant that homosexual men still dissembled and their colleagues usually covered up for them. This was not reprehensible. To do otherwise was to risk your career, particularly in politics, or to betray a friend. Party whips were much more likely to shelter homosexuals from exposure than to persecute them (though they were not above using their knowledge of their activities against them as a means of discipline). It was also true, until the 1990s, that the age of consent for homosexual acts was 21, whereas for heterosexuals it was 16. So people tended to elide homosexuality with what is now called paedophilia, speaking indiscriminately of ‘boys’. I think Heath may be the victim of this unfairness, though even his homosexuality is not proved. Odd though it may sound, if someone said ‘I fear X has a penchant for small boys’, he was probably not saying that the man was a child abuser. He might have meant simply that the man seemed to fancy teenage youths; maybe only that he was, as people then said, ‘queer’. He certainly was not saying (unless specifically stated) that he knew that the person spoken of had committed specific criminal acts against young children. He was often speaking, though again this sounds odd to modern ears, in a semi-jocular way, rather as he might have said of a heterosexual man that he was ‘not safe in taxis’ without implying that such a man was a rapist. Such phrases are now dug up and used as evidence that people knew of evil deeds and hid them, but they prove no such thing. It may well be that the culture leaned too far in believing people innocent until proved guilty, but it is even more unpleasant now that the culture leans the other way.

Last month, in Stanford, California, I had lunch with Robert Conquest, poet, historian, literary editor of this paper in the early 1960s, exposer of Soviet totalitarianism. After Conquest’s book The Great Terror (1968), it became impossible for all but the most crazed fanatic or fool to deny that Stalin had arranged the greatest system of mass murder in history (Hitler being at least his equal in iniquity, but a bit lower on the numbers). Bob turned 98 a week after I saw him. He was born just before the Bolsheviks he exposed came to power. His writing, and his advice to Margaret Thatcher, helped bring about the collapse of their horrible regime. On Monday, Bob died, cared for to the end by his wonderful wife Liddie (his fourth, and the one who lasted). His historical work was dedicated to the theme ‘the main responsibility for the century’s disaster lies not so much in the problems as in the solutions, not in impersonal forces but in human beings, thinking certain thoughts and as a result performing certain actions’.


As I left, Bob gave me, inscribed in a shaky hand, a volume of his more ribald verse called Blokelore and Blokesongs, which centres on Old Fred, a character not completely unrelated to old Bob (‘Fred’s been to marriages before/ (Though mostly to his own)…’). Fred is a sexist, of course, but not a misogynist. In ‘Fred Puts the Clock Back’, Fred laments the era when ‘A woman would “confer / Her favours on” some lucky man/ And he would “pleasure” her./ “Have sex with”, “have it off with” — this/ Jargon gives no sense/ Of all those warm benignities,/ That sweet beneficence’. Bob was a serious poet too, and a man who claimed not to fear death:

Demons don’t
Die. Hence the astonishment
They feel when faced with a quite frequent
Wish, which if they could they’d gladly grant.
Immortality may be what humans want
But knowing what it’s like to live forever
Demons don’t.

When he died, Bob was writing his memoirs. In the preface, he says he doesn’t share Stephen Spender’s excitement at famous people: ‘For example, I have been at parties where Edward Heath has been present, and could have met him … but didn’t see the need, preferring human beings.’

My thanks to all who have tried to elucidate my inquiry about what mathematics is (see Notes, 11 July). Renwick Russell says it is ‘the study not just of this universe but of all possible universes and theoretical constructs, unprejudiced by sensory input and experience’. This is certainly interesting, but does maths really examine all constructs, and are there not other, non-mathematical ways of doing so? Nigel Lawson writes that it is ‘the language of logic’, but surely it is only a language of logic. N.M. Gwynne, the great grammarian, tells me that ‘mathematics is the science of counting and measuring, no more than that.’ Indeed, maths can be ‘anti-logical’. For example, ‘You can prove mathematically that the four sides of a square are each of them minus-two feet in length, which could scarcely be more illogical.’ I feel wiser now, but something about what mathematics is still eludes me.

Just as the Duke of Wellington recommended ‘Sparrowhawks, ma’am’ as the remedy for sparrows in the Crystal Palace, so a modern Catholic prelate has a one-word answer for the problem of bats in old buildings: ‘Incense.’

thatcher

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Michael H Kenyon

    This commentary on Edward Heath sounds a lot like high-Tory humbug and evasion to me. In your role as editor of “The Spectator”, hope you show such magnanimity should there be further grim revelations regarding significant figures from other parties, and have the humility to say you were very wrong if the allegations made regarding Heath, Brittain, and other parties are upheld by the formal investigations.

    • BillRees

      Are allegations “upheld”?

      I thought that allegations become either proven or unproven.

      But in order to be proven there has to be a defence, which in the case of Heath or Brittain is now impossible to mount.

      So the most that can be said for them is that they are hearsay at best, or malicious gossip at worst.

      • Michael H Kenyon

        Burying the indiscretions of the great and the good with abuse of state power (e.g., Special Branch stealing/ destroying evidence, and pressing regular Police to bury the case, as in the case of Cyril Smith) has proved toxic, as given the loss of deference to our betters, many now think the worse of, for example, pre-Wolfenden homosexuals who were more comfortable in the closet (see Jeremy Thorpe, as well as Ted Heath). It doesn’t help that there has been fudging about a number of other cases involving sexual inappropriateness by politicians and their hangers-on. The law has to be seen to be employed equally and impartially for the broader community to respect it. The current feeding frenzy (and the more florid stories therein) is the consequence of the double standards that have been observed. Of course, morality (which I realise is not the same as law) may be a little different inside London SW1.

        • Gilbert White

          The police? Cyril Smith was about to be outed under parliamentary privilege in Parliament. It was Michael Foot, the shadow PM. who took it upon himself to quell the idea of PP. in this case. The procedure was openly debated in parliament and all so British. Their contempt for law and history was perfect. Steele is either a rampant liar or stupid or both. All those present in parliament at that time and still alive are still culpable. Janner and his lack of prosecution, viz a viz the disc jockeys, it is like living in SE. Asia.

  • greggf

    I was intrigued by your admission that something of the nature of mathematics eludes you.
    I thought your idea in your July 11th notes “that mathematics is central to the nature of the universe” seemed to me to be sufficient enough. But if you want more, in particular its magical qualities, you might consult Roger Penrose’s tome (chapter 4) “The Road to Reality”. And solve your puzzle of the square with sides of minus 2 feet!
    It might be said, quote: “N.M. Gwynne, the great grammarian, tells me that ‘mathematics is the science of counting and measuring, no more than that”, shows lack of insight into what is the Grammar of the universe!

  • AJH1968

    I do believe there is a special place in hell for all false accusers.

    • T J Denman

      Really? You believe in hell? Twit.

  • Lady Magdalene

    I suspect the allegations are probably true. They should certainly be investigated.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to elderly entertainers, the law seems to have no problem investigating and prosecuting them.

    When it comes to senior politicians, they all seem to be (very conveniently) dead or are beyond prosecution because of “ill health.”

    • Linguistician

      “I suspect the allegations are probably true” – based on what?

      They should certainly be investigated” – Yes, I’ve often thought that the crimes of the long dead should be investigated by police with nothing better to do. I am campaigning for the police to open a file to investigate the allegation that Jack the Ripper was a misogynist.

    • davidshort10

      Isn’t it about time for the police to tell us that Guy Fawkes was unjustly punished because he was a Catholic? His descendants are surely deserving of millions in compensation. And shouldn’t the people of Rome be held to account for murdering Jesus Christ?

  • I wonder why no journalist picked up on a crucial detail of the alleged “victim’s” accusations: he described that Heath’s apartment had several yachting pictures on the wall when he was supposedly raped there in August 1961. Isn’t that rather odd given the fact that Edward Heath started with sailing rather spontaneously as late as summer 1965 with no previous maritime experience? Should one really take seriously the word of a convicted child abuser himself, who now conveniently can lay blame for his own crimes on the late prime minister?

    • MikeF

      I also found implausible his statement that Heath picked him up while he was hitch-hiking on the A2 aged just 12. That just does not sound plausible.

    • Steve Larson

      Well we now know as well that Heath was present at more than half a dozen Westminster meetings of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.

      We know that it was he who arranged Saville to get his OBE, we know about his fraternization with known Paedo’s in Jersey, his taking of children, along with Saville from a care home that was a notorious centre for abuse.

      • davidshort10

        I don’t think we need bother with comments from people who can’t even spell Jimmy Savile’s name.

        • Steve Larson

          Jimmy wouldn’t mind so you do not have to defend him.

  • jim

    If he is guilty so many others are implicated..his police protection staff would have to be in on it,

  • Sean L

    The best explanation of the mathematical I’ve come across is in Heidegger’s “What is a Thing”. He defines the mathematical as ” the thingness of the thing”. What he means is a kind of theoretical attitude to things, a way of ordering the world by the dictates of pure reason. He contrasts the Ancient Greek approach where everything had its place with the modern conception of a uniform time and space, and uniform bodies. Numbers are an instance of the mathematical, but the essence of the mathematical is not determined by the numerical. Calculation has come to dominate because numbers are its familiar form. But the mathematical is not exhausted by the numerical. The mathematical is our projection on to things of an axiomatic mode of thinking. The cardinal example here is Descartes who posited a realm of pure thought through which things could be understood with axiomatic certainty, as distinct from how we actually apprehend the world in the course of everyday life. Thus the mathematical is what we already know about things in advance of our actual encounter with them. Numbers aren’t things at all in the narrow sense of what we can see or grasp. Neither are numbers to be found in things as already there. Numbers are there only as our projection. The mathematical is a theoretical attitude to things based on the idea of certainty or axiomatic knowledge, passing over the actual contingent aspects of things. Thus mathematics is learnable and tteachable without reference to any other thing at all, understanding “thing” in the broader sense of any conceivable thing whatever, as when we say: “How are things?”

  • Sean Grainger

    I suspect you don’t really want suggestions about maths. You could listen to the erudite sounding boys and girls on In Our Time about inter alia irrational numbers, imaginary numbers and infinite series and decide if you trust them. I came down on the yes side.

  • Sean Grainger

    And I thought implicit in my comment below but just in case: mathematics frames the universe (multiverse) but Genghis Khan is just across the border.

  • John P Hughes

    The police spending time ‘investigating’ something like this while abandoning the pursuit of burglars is going to have a harmful effect on their image and the respect people have for them, when it is already rather low.
    The ‘demand from the press’ for the police to ‘investigate’ is however part of the problem. When the row about journalists hacking mobile phones blew up, it turned out that the police had looked at a few cases in the past and dropped the issue. The hue and cry by some of the media against others (News of the World, Sun, later the Mirror) included demands that the police take it up again and give it priority. The result was police taken off terrorist and serious-crime investigations to pursue journalists (including the notorious 6 am descents on people’s homes). Virtually all the subsequent prosecutions have failed and the few convictions were hardly worth the candle.
    But who was in the vanguard of demanding that the police take action? None other than Sir Max Hastings, former editor of the ‘Telegraph’ and Charles Moore’s predecessor. Hastings looks rather silly now. One can’t expect Charles Moore to criticise a man who did much to make the ‘Telegraph’ the great paper it was under Conrad Black (it has declined since Moore himself left the editorial chair). But Hastings’s attitude was symptomatic of an ‘opinion former’ attitude which has proved to be harmful, and demoralised the police who were taken off important roles to go through thousands of newspaper editors’ and journalists’ e-mails.

  • It’s interesting how accurate and correct your views on the current “moral panic” about sex always are. Why do so few ever look back on a different time? Because it’s a “better story”, sadly the main motivator of today’s media.

    • T J Denman

      Shut up, you vile criminal.

      • ArtieHarris

        Same to you tosser.

        (We could do this all day, couldn’t we?)

        • T J Denman

          Defending a child abuser? No, I couldn’t do that any day. I wonder why you can.

          • ArtieHarris

            Hey, tosser, I tend to defend all people who have to put up with ignorant hate-stirrers.

    • T J Denman

      Shut up, you vile criminal.

    • T J Denman

      Shut up, you vile criminal.

  • T J Denman

    Gwynne the “great grammarian”? You mean Gwynne the grammatical fraud, antiisemite, Holocaust denier and man charged with offences against children in Australia who ran to Ireland to escape the police? Shame on you Charles Moore.

    • pobjoy

      Catholics don’t do shame.

      • ArtieHarris

        “Catholics don’t do shame.”

        LOL!

        On the contrary, they do shame a great deal.

        • pobjoy

          Ever shameful, but never shame.

        • T J Denman

          So should you ……………. TOSSER. Your favourite word.

    • ArtieHarris

      What has that got to do with his views on grammar?

      Correct Answer: Nothing.

      • T J Denman

        He also thinks that the atom doesn’t exist and that the nuclear bomb is a hoax. What has that got to do with the scientific study of language? Correct answer: he is an idiot, and so are you.

        • ArtieHarris

          Well, tosser, he’s got some great reviews on Amazon.

          • T J Denman

            That makes him fine then. The world is full of idiots. And then you arrive to complete the set. Are you intelligent enough for this site? You’ve not mistaken it for the Millwall supporters website? Silly boy.

  • pobjoy

    ‘I don’t believe the accusations against him.’

    Of course you don’t. We can’t have the reputations of right wing leaders impugned, can we? Not while your own leader-in-hiding, Joe Ratzinger, is still around, anyway.

    • Steve Larson

      Edward Heath was an Anglican, as would be most of the Tory party.

      There is a sex fetish and perversion problem within the Tories and wider upper class in British society.

      Is it extreme repression and the carry on in boarding schools that is behind it?

      • pobjoy

        For many decades there have been quite open and shameless signs of homosexuality, and suspected inclination to paederasty, among ‘high’ Anglicans, known as Anglo-Catholics, who have much in common with Roman Catholics. This has not been a characteristic of other Anglicans, though of course, those other Anglicans must have been aware of the behaviour of the Anglo-Catholics. Very many Anglicans have of course left the CoE in the last five decades. There have been many Catholics leaving the RCC, too, but not to the same extent. Perhaps Catholics have more accommodating consciences.

        ‘Is it extreme repression and the carry on in boarding schools that is behind it?’

        Some of the Anglo-Catholics who have showed these propensities were not educated privately, so, while there may be a causative link with single-sex boarding education, it cannot be said to be a exclusive one.

        The central problem, it seems to me, is not sexual, anyway, though that is serious enough when it comes to interfering with minors. Sexual predation of minors by politicians and ‘priests’ is political, and deliberate policy, because it tells parents that the state can do whatever it likes, and there is nothing that they can do about it. The cardinals of Ireland, the USA and many other countries who propagated child abuse and totally ignored protests, for many decades, did not suppose that they would ever be brought to justice, so confident were they in the protection of politicians. That’s the most significant fact of all, and it still needs to be dealt with in the highest of places.

      • “Edward Heath was an Anglican, as would be most of the Tory party.”

        Edward Heath a believer? LOL! He was a Marxist, hence his failure to alert the world that the United States was fighting Chinese soldiers in Vietnam, and that the West was refusing to (1) verify the collapse of the USSR; and (2) assist the liberated Soviets in de-communizing the Soviet Armed Forces officer corps!

        • T J Denman

          You’re barmy. Heath a Marxist. What Groucho?

          • “You’re barmy. Heath a Marxist. What Groucho?”

            Nope–Karl. As I said…

            ‘…hence his failure to alert the world that the United States was fighting Chinese soldiers in Vietnam, and that the West was refusing to (1) verify the collapse of the USSR; and (2) assist the liberated Soviets in de-communizing the Soviet Armed Forces officer corps, Communist Party members who are to this very day still in control of the Russian military…’

            The only way the USSR could fake its collapse is if the political parties of the West were already co-opted. Elementary, my dear Watson!

            The following is a discovery I made in May regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

            When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

            ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

            http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/12/20-years-since-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union/100214/

            For more on this discovery see my blog…

            https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/

            Conclusion:

            The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
            ————————-
            * The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

            https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/now-you-see-me-now-you-don-t

            Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

            The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

            It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

            There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

            Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

            The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

            The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

            Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

  • pobjoy

    ‘Stalin had arranged the greatest system of mass murder in history (Hitler being at least his equal in iniquity, but a bit lower on the numbers)’

    One Russian Orthodox, one Catholic. Both faithfully emulated the principles of Constantine and Theodosius.

  • ArtieHarris

    “To people tended to elide homosexuality with what is now called paedophilia, speaking indiscriminately of ‘boys’.

    Even today, we will often refer to adult women as “girls” – particularly if they are below the age of 30 or so.

  • pobjoy

    ‘One should explain the culture of the period now under scrutiny.’

    One should regard that sentence as actionable in criminal law. Heath has been accused of raping a 12-year-old (which is paederasty, not paedophilia, that Moore culpably chooses to call it). It is as criminal now as it was then. Whether or or not Heath was guilty is undecided. But there can be no doubt about the attitude on full display here.

  • pobjoy

    ‘something about what mathematics is still eludes me’

    It must do, for those who say that one person can be three persons, and three persons can be one person.

    You know what they say about pretence to insanity. In the end, there’s no need for pretence.

  • Chingford Man

    “Odd though it may sound, if someone said ‘I fear X has a penchant for small boys’, he was probably not saying that the man was a child abuser. He might have meant simply that the man seemed to fancy teenage youths; maybe only that he was, as people then said, ‘queer’. He certainly was not saying (unless specifically stated) that he knew that the person spoken of had committed specific criminal acts against young children.”

    Yes, Charles, it does sound odd – and quite unbelievable. I know that the meaning of language does subtly evolve between generations but the meaning 20-30 years ago of “small boys” meant what it does still today: boys below 16, the present age of consent.

    • Kennybhoy

      This.With bells on. Another creepy article from Moore on this topic.

  • ForgottenAustralianFamily

    In the early 90s, my husband and I ran a support group for people who had been in children’s homes. Few journalists believed our reports that many of our members had been taken out for weekend visits by men in suits. What made it even more insidious was that the men in suits were allowed to select which child they wanted to take out. My own abuser was given an OBE for his services to church music. What makes people so sure that paedophiles are down-at-heel, furtive figures in raincoats? In fact the opposite is usually the case; paedophiles often occupy the halls of power, where one of the privileges of their position is their right to abuse children with impunity.

  • “His [Robert Conquest] writing, and his advice to Margaret Thatcher, helped bring about the collapse of their horrible regime.”

    What “collapse” did the Marxist Robert Conquest bring about via his “advice” to the equally Marxist Margaret Thatcher? The following is a discovery I made in May regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

    http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/12/20-years-since-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union/100214/

    For more on this discovery see my blog…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/

    By the way, pedophilia, and sexual indiscretions with adults, are used to blackmail those politicians who aren’t members of the Marxist co-opted political parties’ leaderships.

    Conclusion:

    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.

    ————————-

    * The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/now-you-see-me-now-you-don-t

    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

    • T J Denman

      God, you get some nutters on this site, but you’re the best one yet. You really need to see someone, and get “verification” that you’re as mad as they come.

      • T J Denman

        Margaret Thatcher a Marxist! Take the tablets.

        • “Margaret Thatcher a Marxist!”

          Wasn’t she still in Parliament in early 1992? Then when did she call for the verification of the USSR’s ‘collapse’? The survival of the West depends on verification, you know.

      • “God, you get some nutters on this site…”

        No, this site gets Marxist operatives performing abysmal damage control by pretending they don’t know what’s proven by the following proofs…

        ‘The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.’

        …and…

        ‘When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists, otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.’

        …and…

        ‘…the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!’

  • Toy Pupanbai

    H. was warned by the police re. Cottaging!
    What causes a man to betray his country by espousing the EC?
    Perhaps he really thought that it was the right move for a post imperial Britain?

  • Arthur Paulo Kamuntu

    Thank you, Mr Moore: We do not have to like a person or to know them before we defend their reputation and legacy. Unfortunately, your Article is addressed to three or more audiences of which only one [the minority of the three is likely to thank you for your foresight]. Perhaps, the journalists throwing up this muck belong to the liberally commercial type who will publish anything so long as it generates money for them. The second lot are either repressed and/or crypto-homosexual or gays [essentially promiscuous homosexuals], who are projecting their guilt on their hapless victims. I belong to the third group readers which acknowledges that people are sexually polymorphic and as long as they do nothing illegal, they can express their sexuality in private without fear. But that does not mean that every one of us must be sexually active. Ted Heath’s bachelor status should be accepted as that. Would anybody have called him queer if he were a teetotaller or a vegetarian? Unfortunately, there is plenty of money for the commercial set and mileage for the Gay Set as they are constantly looking for Saints. I stand to be corrected. But at the moment I see all his press Heath-mania as a not story. Unfortunately, in the UK, the dead can be libelled and defamed without recourse to any legal protection.

  • Richard Eldritch

    Oh do us a favour! He was spanker of young boys, wake up.

  • I’m Really Not Very Happy

    For a decade or more the Internet was full of the rumours about Savile. And Janner. And Heath.

    Heath was friends with Savile. Heath used to sail to Jersey. Savile frequented Haut de al Garenne. It’s not difficult to join the dots.

    In 1984 George O’Down claimed in court he had a pornographich photo of Heath with a child. He was jailed: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-MBAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2qUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2500,3320418&dq=edward+heath+with+man+and+woman+pictures&hl=en

  • T J Denman

    Gwynne the ‘great grammarian’. And Holocaust denier. And antisemite. And a man charged with offences against children in Australia. Shame on you Moore.

  • davidshort10

    When will the police investigate themselves about what they were up to in the 70s? I remember as a student that the scariest thing about walking home late at night was the fear of being stopped by police in a squad car looking for some long-haired youngster to beat up.

Close