The Police, Quakers, and the Satanic Scare

Last Thursday, the Metropolitan police broke into Westminster Friends’ Meeting House to arrest six women members of the pressure group Youth Demand, which ironically probably helps to publicise them and encourages people to join their cause. Although their plans for action are interesting, I want to focus on another aspect of this situation and also compare it to the child abuse allegation farce which took place in the Orkneys at the end of the 1980s CE. Before that though, I want to talk about the place of Friends’ Meeting Houses and the Quakers in my life, mainly the one in Leicester.

The first time I darkened the doors of Leicester Friends’ Meeting House on Queens Road was in autumn 1986. At the time I had recently joined the Green Party and was also involved in hunt sabbing, animal liberation and the university Green group Leicester Environmental Action Force. It was dark and around 7:30 pm on a Thursday evening, and I was walking behind my friend Vicky whom I probably shouldn’t have been behind at that time of night, but you live and learn. At this point, she was for some reason constantly surprised when I turned up to this kind of thing, possibly because her image of me had been dominated by how I’d been over the previous year. Both she and I were on our way to a Supporters Of Greenpeace Leicester meeting, the first of many groups I’d be involved with there over the coming years. Other groups included Friends of the Earth, Leicester CND and, a few years later during the 1991 Gulf War, the Stop The War Coalition. As well as all that, we got married there in a humanist ceremony (well, sort of humanist – long story), went to a complementary medicine taster group, attended Yoga sessions, a parent and toddler group (abortively) and also Leicestershire Education Otherwise. I can’t quite remember, but I don’t think the Green Party or the animal welfare groups I was involved with ever went there, but it was a pretty central part of the alternative scene in Leicester, and particularly Clarendon Park, at the time. It was a venue used by lots of groups, with a tendency towards peace, sustainability, socialism, Green issues and to some extent anarchism. In general, the approaches taken by such groups accords with the Quaker world view. The donkey coöperation cartoon was outside on a board for many years, which seems to me to be pretty much in accordance with these organisations.

There was conflict, even aggressively so, within these groups. In particular the Stop The War Coalition was rife with friction because it involved peace groups and splinter communist groups trying to work together and soon after the end of the first Gulf War it fell apart. That was quite a shouty group, with the overt aggression largely coming from the smaller communist parties. There were members of the main Communist Party of Britain in the group, though, who were generally quiet and in fact didn’t advertise their communism. CND has many of that variety of communists within its ranks, but also people of a more spiritual bent. Supporters of Greenpeace Leicester was merely a fundraising body and in fact we got into trouble for trying to do more, so on the whole the same people worked within Friends of the Earth instead, meeting in the same place. There’s a conversation to be had about this, but not here. FoE also have their issues. Sarada and I concur in the opinion, also expressed by many others, that the more peace and well-being groups could do with being more politically-aware and the more overtly political groups could benefit from being more spiritual. Now I look back on it, the other stuff going on in Leicester at the time didn’t tend to organise from the building, and CND also had its own office, where I was office manager for a while, among other things. Leicester CND was slowly winding down over the whole period I was involved with it, which was from 1991 to about 2011, and was dominated by older people, mainly women. I preferred CND to the other organisations in the ’90s because of their spiritual tendencies. The revolution starts from within. It really helps the world if you become a better person.

That, then, is the kind of group you might expect to meet in a Friends’ Meeting House. Many Quakers don’t have their own premises for various reasons: there aren’t enough of them to afford one or it becomes a case of property ownership in the same way as many churches are saddled with expensive buildings which eat up the money which could be used to benefit the community and the vulnerable in Europe and beyond. That said, it’s a nice thing to have, and although they’re not Quakers themselves there is often quite an overlap in their memberships. In particular, Leicester CND had a lot of Quakers in it, which is not surprising because of the latter’s commitment to pacifism. CND is not a pacifist group although it does contain many such individuals. Quakers also tend to be older, as do members of many religious communities in Britain. Incidentally, I’m talking about Quakers in the “U”K here. What happens elsewhere is probably different. For instance, American Quakers often have what are called “programmed meetings” with singing and they don’t sit in circles.

The reason I’m saying all this is to put the incident in Westminster in context. It’s possible that Youth Demand has Quaker members but not inevitable. However, their witness and mission to pursue peace, justice and sustainability accords closely with the Quakers, and they belong under their umbrella. At a guess, Youth Demand probably don’t overlap with membership just because they’re young. Hence it’s an organisation using the centre, with whose aims the Quakers are likely to agree, but it isn’t a Quaker organisation. The situation is therefore that a place of worship hosting a planning meeting by a non-violent group was invaded by the police and their members were arrested.

I may have some of the details wrong but there is a page on the incident here from the British Quakers themselves which is worthwhile for cutting through the verbiage and spin of the mass media, although it has to be said also that the actual mass media coverage is quite sympathetic to the Quakers themselves. There were twenty police officers and six women were arrested for planning a now-criminalised Non-Violent Direct Action. Several aspects of this come to mind. One is the question of whether the police would’ve done the same thing with other places of worship. I heard someone yesterday claim that they wouldn’t have done this with a synagogue or a mosque. I personally think they would’ve done it with a mosque but the fact that synagogues are often guarded and have turnstiles would have made doing it in such a place difficult regardless of how it would’ve looked. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have done it to an Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, URC, Roman Catholic or Orthodox church. Regarding gurdwaras, they did actually use a SWAT team in Leicester to my knowledge because they thought the lives of the people within it, who were being held hostage, were in danger. I have no idea how heavy-handed they were. Bearing in mind the direct child abuse and murder which occurs in some churches, for instance when exorcisms have been performed on children, I would expect and in fact hope that they would intervene in such cases. So it isn’t completely out of order to do this, although the provocation would’ve probably been stronger. It’s also not proportionate, and it’s at least interesting that it seems to have been a woman-only group. The implication is that this action would’ve been sufficiently serious and reprehensible to warrant such a response, possibly partly as a deterrent to others.

I mentioned incidents of child abuse within churches. Although this usually calls to mind child sexual abuse, which is indeed a serious problem, I actually had exorcisms in mind. I have actually tried to help someone access exorcism, which they wanted for themselves, and it was difficult to do so due to their lack of association with any particular church. It doesn’t seem easy to get this service within the Episcopal Church. Without this milieu, however, things are sometimes different because some other churches are less reserved or cautious. A fifteen year old boy was drowned during an exorcism in Newham in 2012 and a two-year old was hit fatally in Wolverhampton more recently. It isn’t clear whether either was part of a church-sanctioned process, but these things do happen and the potential victims need to be protected. However, the separate issue of child sexual abuse linked with a general suspicion of Quakers was also called to mind by last week’s events.

This seems to have been almost forgotten today, which may be a good thing except that forgetting history risks repeating it, which in a sense is what’s happened here. You may, though, remember the Satanic panic of the ’80s and ’90s, which is how this was able to take place. I can remember the first time I noticed this in about 1979 when my mother showed me a list of what the London Healing Mission regarded as Satanic activities, including of course Yoga, which I was very keen on at the time. I wish I was still that keen. This initially included heavy metal music and roleplaying games, as in Dungeons And Dragons. Much more recently it included Harry Potter although that’s faded considerably nowadays. By the late ’80s, the focus was on the idea that communities were being infiltrated by Satanists who were engaging in widespread ritual abuse including child murder and sexual abuse. No evidence was ever found, but that didn’t stop a training course for the police being devised. The claim was meanwhile made of fifty thousand murders per year with expert disposal of the corpses. To put this in proportion, this is on the scale of the casualties of a major international war. All this was happening in North America. To quote some of the promoters of these claims, “no evidence can be evidence” and “the most dangerous groups are the ones we know nothing about. . .They are the real underground”. It was eventually concluded that the children involved were being interviewed in a manner which would encourage them to make up stories about being abused due to the poor quality of the questioning techniques, such as closed questions, and in therapy false memories were also created. Because children often deny being abused during interviews, the approach was to keep repeating the question, and it’s fairly simple to recognise even as an adult that that repetition is akin to Hitler’s technique of repeating a lie often enough for it to be accepted as true, a technique currently in use in the US. However, it beggars belief that anyone could have accepted that the process was taking place on such a gigantic scale. It’s the reverse of Holocaust denial in some ways: where are all the relatives of the Roma and Jewish people who were murdered in the Holocaust if they weren’t murdered? Conversely, how could there be tens of thousands of victims of systematic serial murder whose bodies are never recovered and whose absence is never noted by anyone? There were allegations of injuries which would’ve required emergency treatment but no evidence for them either.

In February 1990, the McEwen family in South Ronaldsay was almost broken apart by a dawn police raid on their home where four children were removed and taken into care on the Scottish mainland. A worker in the NSPCC had made the claim that in Britain four thousand children were murdered through Satanic ritual abuse annually. What had happened was that there had been conferences on Satanic ritual abuse in Britain, notably in Nottingham in connection with a genuine incest case in Broxtowe. Ten adults were jailed for this having been found guilty, but no suggestion of a Satanic element had been made at that time. This connection was made by a group of psychiatrists, social workers and an anthropologist specialising in occult rituals in Afrika. This was happening at a time of growth of evangelical Protestant churches in Britain, which led to the production of a training video called ‘Christian Response To The Occult’. Workers in children’s foster homes and foster parents recorded claims made by the children, which while beginning with accounts of their abuse in relatively prosaic terms tended to veer off into accounts of ritual abuse. There were attempts to explain this in any other way possible, because of the uncanny similarities between the claims. The social workers concluded that they’d uncovered an organised network of ritual abuse in Broxtowe. A checklist was used which contained a large number of non-specific signs of indicators such as bed-wetting, and the foster parents and others had used this as the basis for the interviews, so they’d ended up guiding the process through leading questions. While there was no factual basis for these claims, the fear of not listening to children when they report genuine abuse leads to swinging too far the other way.

By 1994, an inquiry had established that there was no evidence at all for the claims. It’s worth noting that this sounds very like Pizzagate. Now I have a problem. I’ve ransacked the internet for fair accounts of the situation regarding the Ronaldsay Quakers without any success, so I’m going to have to try to reconstruct this from rather ancient personal memories. What I can remember is that someone of national significance among the Quakers was contacted by a worried member of the meeting who expressed her concern that police action was liable to bring the meeting and the wider Quaker movement into disrepute without any firm basis for that. She was reluctant to say more, but in the end she talked about how the police suspected them of Satanic ritual abuse. In particular, she said that the police were suspicious of the Quaker practice of sitting in circles and waiting for the Holy Spirit (as I put it – many Quakers such as atheists and Buddhists would probably disagree with this characterisation but it’s hard to think of a personally authentic way to describe it more diplomatically) to move them to give ministry. This was apparently something the police and many of their associates were unfamiliar with and attributed evil intent to. Putting my evangelical Protestant hat on, something Quakers would disapprove of, I’m familiar with the claim that allowing silence and emptiness of this kind is liable to give Satan a way into the group, and I wonder if this was their take on this. I honestly don’t know what happened in much detail, and I’m finding this quite frustrating right now.

These two incidents, the Westminster invasion and the Orkney Satanic panic, to me both have elements of othering by the authorities, something with which the Quakers will be very familiar as they’ve endured it for centuries. The very heart of Quaker practice, of sitting in circles and waiting to be moved by the Spirit, was attacked by the establishment back in the early ’90s, and last week the general Quaker ethos was attacked in the same way. I’ve long since shed the illusion that the current Westminster government is worthy of being described as Labour and I note the extreme keenness and conformity with which they applied the Tory law introduced in 2022 to enable this kind of thing to happen. But it’s the Tory party which is supposed to be about God, King and Country, and by extension the Anglican church, which is after all also a broad church, much of which would back the actions of the pressure group in question, but the question arises of why a party founded partly by Methodists would decide to persecute Quakers for supporting peaceful protest against the global suicide (yes, it’s a moral crime in this context, but not usually, so it’s “suicide” for the purposes of this paragraph) pact. Why are we in a situation where a group renowned for its non-violence and tireless work for peace is repeatedly treated in this way? And why haven’t we made progress on this since Thatcher’s time in office?

But there’s more.

Quakers seek to see the spark of God in everyone, and they mean that in a positive way which anti-theists may find hard to perceive. I think it was Viktor Frankl who said that the line between good and evil runs down the centre of the human heart. We all have within us the potential for peace and violence in his view. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but the fact remains that this situation is likely to provoke anger in those who have been persecuted, directly and indirectly. There is a potential antidote to this, because the very police officers and social workers involved in these incidents are human, and as such there’s that of God in them too.

It reminded me of two other incidents, and again I’m having to rely on somewhat shaky memories. One is of an incident regarding the peace movement and the police, possibly on Menwith Hill or Faslane – it’s vague. A group of people were trying to project peaceful and healing energy to the police force involved in this conflict. The metaphysical basis for this may be questionable but bear with me. One of the male police officers involved in protecting the base burst into tears in this incident, and it was found later that he’d been at Hillsborough, where the fatal crush had happened in the football ground and after which South Yorkshire Police spread false stories criticising the fans, as did the Sun newspaper. Whatever his involvement in that, he had been emotionally traumatised by what he witnessed because guess what, police officers are also human beings. The other incident was much more recent and involved another police officer who was guarding a fossil fuel facility of some kind – I’m having to dredge my memory here, sorry about any mistakes. One of the protestors mentioned to her that Just Stop Oil, if it was them, were among other things trying to protect her children’s and other descendants’ future, and once again, she was in tears. I don’t know the details of this incident. It could’ve been to do with a family tragedy, some other experience or maybe the interpretation given is correct. It was in any case a remarkable incident, once again revealing what might be called the humanity of police officers. Because there is that of God in everyone.

But there is also a police officer in everyone. By this I don’t mean a “bobby on the beat”, although maybe there is, but someone more like a member of the Special Patrol Group or the Carabinieri. We all have an inner fascist boot boy too, and we need to be conscious of it.

I was sitting in a sociology lecture once about the 1981 inner city riots, and suddenly had the thought that the police were not just Thatcher’s Army but also ordinary human beings with romantic relationships and families, and the thought had such a profound affect on me that it literally gave me vertigo. It made my head spin. I feel bad about that incident because it clearly means I was seriously objectifying the people concerned, but of course it’s true. When the Met broke into the Friends’ Meeting House in Westminster the other day, what they did was reprehensible and bizarre, but after it they presumably went home to their families, read their children bedtime stories, did the vacuuming, made love to their spouses and watched telly with them. They are also human. It shouldn’t need saying, but we need to have the mental reach to recognise the temptation to other and behave like them in ourselves and condemn and work against that in us as well as in them, and also to do what we can to see their divine nature, and this is very difficult.

I feel like this is a bit of a platitude, sorry.

The Peace Movement And Me Part II – My Work With CND

The Menwith Hill Radomes

By the time I got around to being active in CND 1991, its membership was probably in decline, which had a number of effects on its atmosphere. The people still actively involved were kind of a hard core of members who were particularly committed to the cause, and took a deeper, more philosophical approach to the ideal of peace, something which I hadn’t seen so much in FoE, Greenpeace or the Green Party. I found this quite impressive, and it’s also the case that with CND, people were more prepared to take direct action against things and go to prison for their beliefs, although this is obviously also true in other situations as with animal liberation. Sarada’s experience begins much earlier than mine, and she may be aware of how the organisation had been in its heyday.

Speaking of Sarada, at the time our relationship was still in the future and a misunderstanding occurred which I didn’t clear up definitively until many years later. Many Leicester CND members were leaving the organisation because of our opposition to the Gulf War in 1991 as I got involved, one of whom was Sarada, officially speaking. Much later I found out that this was nothing to do with her, but that he partner had resigned instead as she was not in the country at the time. However, before this was resolved this temporarily placed her in the “outer darkness” for me because it appeared to me that she had supported the war.

1991 was the best and the worst of years for me. It was extremely traumatic to see the whole country so enthusiastically support the war, and it also seemed very much to me that we’d made no progress since 1914, as the rhetoric used I found strongly reminiscent of that time. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawn spoke of the “short twentieth century”, which he saw as stretching between those two years and ending with the breakup of the Soviet Union. I don’t know the details of his analysis, but it struck me that the progress one associates with that period was utterly trashed from the end of the 1970s onwards in this country and that this became starkly demonstrated in the outrage of that war, and even more in its popular support. My reaction was one of utter despair.

But I want to focus on CND itself. Due to the rather depleted membership, I found myself becoming office manager and later chair of Leicester CND, and at the same time I was translating German papers and articles for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) and the Trust for Research and Education into the Arms Trade (TREAT). I also became newsletter editor, regularly staffed the stall and and just generally did a lot for them, although it must also be observed that I didn’t do it particularly well. Clearly I had my strengths but the trouble with being in a declining organisation is that you can’t necessarily stick to the areas you do best in and I found myself having to do a lot of stuff which I wasn’t much good at. I stayed because they seemed to be the one organisation whose perspective went deeper than just the activism, but this, as I’ve said, may be an artifact of being in decline, as there was not much of popular `οι πολλοι one might find in a larger group such as the Labour Party or Greenpeace Supporters at the time. However, I also think there’s a stronger tradition of this in CND and the peace movement generally than there is in other pressure groups. There is a stronger religious component to the membership than elsewhere, and also there are more Marxists, which is a good thing. However, they are to some extent in conflict with anarchists, who tend to consider them too moderate. In particular, Quaker involvement is very strong. All of this means that they are more intellectually-oriented, as can be expected of an organisation whose president was Bertrand Russell. Just briefly, and this deserves more discussion elsewhere, Bertrand Russell is rather a paradoxical figure in his involvement with progressive causes because his motivation was clearly conscience-based, but as a philosopher he was practically an ethical sceptic, i.e. he didn’t really believe right and wrong had any meaning, entailing that had he lived his life authentically he would be a sociopath, but definitely wasn’t. This is extremely odd and is worth going into in greater depth at some stage.

CND has a number of broader involvements than just the issue of unilateral nuclear disarmament. For instance, it supports the Hibakusha (被爆者), i.e. the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. As I once ranted on the megaphone in Leicester City Centre, “people not yet born are still dying”, which was one of those things which comes out of your mouth when you’re trying to keep the flow going, but it is kind of true. Damage to chromosomes from ionising radiation to one generation of organisms can increase in future generations even though they’ve never been exposed to that dose, meaning that some of the children and grandchildren of the Hibakusha will be dying of cancer, for example, even if they were born outside Japan. In 1976, one of my teachers said that “fifty years from now there will be children born who will die of cancer from Hiroshima”. This will be true unless some other cataclysm wipes us all out. As OMD said of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the bomb, “that kiss you give is never ever gonna fade away”.

I’m not writing this primarily to propagandise although I inevitably will, but I do want to say this. We often think of the Japanese nation as the only direct victims of nuclear weapons, but this is not so. Test sites around the world such as Bikini Atoll and the Nevada Test Site mean that the Marshallese and Western Shoshone nations, for example, are also victims. Whereas they may not have been killed by the blasts of nuclear bombs themselves, their lives have been devastated by them and deaths have resulted. The Western Shoshone found themselves in the ironic position of not being able to find paid employment except in organisations which were destroying their nation, and many of them therefore chose to boycott employers globally.

Another aspect of this is arms conversion. As the Cold War ended, there was supposed to be a peace dividend resulting from the end of the colossal sums of money spent on the likes of Trident. This was not forthcoming because the political system needs us to imagine we have enemies, but trade unions and other organisations investigated the opportunities for manufacturing other products than the subs, warheads and the like which they were oriented towards producing up until the end of the 1980s and found that it was eminently feasible to do so. It was also found, by CAAT, that the efficiency of investment into healthcare and education produced several times the number of jobs investment in arms companies yielded. For instance, four times as many jobs are produced by the equivalent sum of money paid into a school than into the defence industry, where the money mainly goes on expensive equipment. It’s also worth observing at this point that the price of components provided by defence companies to the UK military is vastly inflated, often beyond the realms of reason. This is true across NATO. There are cases of single bolts for sale at retail for less than a dollar going for $5000.

CND is also opposed to fission power, as am I. There is a constant effort to chip away at public opposition to nuclear power which has to be continually renewed when accidents occur. In my opinion the solution to our energy problems is orbital solar power. This has the drawback of the beams being sent back to this planet being very dangerous if they miss their targets and also of the technology for these beams being used for nefarious purposes, but there are straightforward engineering solutions for the former and the latter assumes that human behaviour as it is now is something we’re stuck with. I’m not here to persuade you though.

One of the brutal things members of the public have said to us about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that two bombs weren’t enough, and that the whole of Japan should’ve been bombed. This assumes that everyone in the country was complicit in the imperialism, torture and other atrocities, and it’s notable that I’ve never heard the same suggested as action against those nicely “Aryan” Germans. In other words, this is nothing but racism. It penetrates far into the alternative community too, as I’ve heard the same sentiments expressed by ageing hippies. I’ve also been called a “traitor”, which is like water off a duck’s back because to me, I just happen to be born in this country and am like everyone else coerced by a monopoly of force to obey the government, so how could I owe anything to my “nation”? The only people I owe that kind of allegiance to is the human race as a whole.

While I’m on the subject of being shouted at in the street, as we all know the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Before that time, shouting “get back to Russia!” made a minimal bit of sense, but this was still shouted at us well into the twenty-first century, and I think the last time I heard it was probably about twenty years after the end of the Cold War. It isn’t clear to me what someone means when they say this more recently, and to me it advertises that they are not putting any thought into their political position.

The internal machinations of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament are broadly similar to those of any organisation, and it’s remarkable that the same kinds of dynamics and interactions occur across the political spectrum. You might just as well be in the Conservative Party as far as that’s concerned, and it occurs to me that if we are to invent a new way of relating to each other, that might be expected to be reflected in the organisations committed to doing that. It’s no longer an option, and hasn’t been for over six dozen years now, to continue in the same vein as before. To be fair, there are people dedicated to relating differently within such organisations. There’s an elusive political idea in my head which I’ve had for a number of years that the interactions and behaviour we don’t politicise but seem to assume are universal could in some way be extended into the overtly political realm in order to come up with an entirely new form of politics, but as I say I’m very hazy about the nature of this.

Unilateralism is one of those doctrines which appears superficially to be left wing because of tribalism and the adoption of such a policy by the Left. However, if you go back far enough there used to be a Conservative branch of CND and Enoch Powell was a unilateralist. Conversely, if you consider Stalinism to be left wing, the pro-Soviet communist parties in NATO countries would clearly have supported the Soviet Union and its weapon stockpiles. Even the Socialist Workers’ Party in Britain supported retaining nuclear weapons, and their slogan was, famously, “neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism”. It is not fundamentally a left-wing idea.

The reason the “U”K has nuclear missiles is not in fact to do with defence, or even attack, but because it keeps the country on the UN Security Council. I’ve never understood why the Conservative Party aren’t honest about this because although I don’t agree with it, it does seem to be more defensible than the idea that we have them against a nebulous enemy when suitcase and dirty bombs can easily be used against this country whether or not we have them, and also provide the materials to make them. Although I initially corralled myself into agreement with CND from a left wing position, their policy doesn’t actually have a close connection to left wing politics per se, and in a way it’s odd that a right wing government is happy to throw countless billions of pounds at the defence industry, because that’s the kind of thing you might expect a left wing government to do. But I find myself propagandising again.

Editing the newsletter was a very useful enterprise. At the time, desktop publishing wasn’t the kind of thing most CND members felt willing to wrestle with and there were problems with scale, so this involved spraymounting the edited articles onto boards for reproduction at a local printer. As I was committed to using unbleached paper, the printers used to complain about the colour. We did it all on a typewriter for quite some time and only very slowly did we begin to word process it. You might think that editing would’ve cured me of verbosity and for a while it did, but I find it creeping back in recently and most of what you see me write today will have that flaw. I don’t know why this is but I worry it may be linked to cognitive decline, as the word:idea ratio climbs with the risk of dementia. Very soon after I began, I abandoned spraymount as a potentially nasty sticky stuff which did goodness knows what if you inhaled it and replaced it with Prit Stick. There was an issue with people being rather attached to the way things had always been done, and also problems associated with rather simplistic world views. For instance, some people in the group were opposed to almost any kind of scientific or technological change and often saw it as part of a conspiracy to maintain the status quo. Sometimes it is, but not always.

CND is also something Sarada and I have done together, although Sarada’s attitude has been much more relaxed than mine. One of the biggest difficulties she encountered was when she became treasurer and discovered that her predecessor, who seemed notably disengaged with the whole thing at the best of times, had simply bunged all the receipts for the previous year into a plastic bag which she then had to go through to get the books into an auditable condition. The post of treasurer is always an unpopular one, in that nobody ever wants to do it, and given Sarada’s experience it’s easy to see why.

At times, CND seemed to turn more or less into my “day job” except of course that I wasn’t paid. By this I mean that once you are involved in campaigning, or more broadly working, with something much of the time for years on end you can lose sight and enthusiasm for the cause. Although I still support the cause of unilateral nuclear disarmament, I also find the task of advocating for it quite tedious and tend not to bother much nowadays. It isn’t that I don’t believe in it so much as that all the arguments, responses and counter-arguments have become very routine and tiresome to me, which is a great pity because they are of course vitally important life and death matters. This is a strange juxtaposition because it superimposes apathy and passion. I imagine many people feel this way about what they do.

There is also a question of priority. There’s a sense in which the abolition of weapons of mass destruction trumps all other political issues because it would also be ecocide and there isn’t any point in campaigning for more unionisation or a better NHS if it could all be reduced to cinders at any moment, but likewise there isn’t much point in ignoring civil liberties either since their curtailment could prevent one from standing in the way of a nuclear holocaust either. Most of the time, though, there is a broad consistency across these issues. Voluntary Human Extinction, for example, might sound like a movement which would positively welcome nuclear destruction but in fact the reason most people in VHEMT are in favour of the end of the species is to protect the environment from us, which nuclear war obviously wouldn’t do. I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to come up with a sentence which says something like “nuclear weapons kill without a shot being fired”, which in that form makes no sense, but the very existence of nuclear weapons means that the NHS and all other public projects in this country and around the world are less well-funded and the régimes relying on their existence either economically or directly are not friendly places to live. Mordechai Vanunu comes to mind as a particularly obvious human rights issue here.

It’s probably been roughly a decade since I was involved with CND or the peace movement directly, although I do still go to the Hiroshima vigils. I’m not today, but it’s Friday and my life is rather limited anyway. If you want to think of it as parallel to a career, I ended up on the board of East Midlands CND and might have got further if certain other issues hadn’t impinged, notably the “Labour” government’s attack on home education and complementary medicine at the end of the ‘noughties. Consequently I haven’t done much in recent years, but it’s impossible to be involved so heavily in something for two decades without it having an impact on one’s life and being significant.

Naturally the reason I’m blogging about this today is that it’s the seventy-sixth anniversary of Hiroshima, and we must never forget that atrocity. This must never happen again:

The Peace Movement And Me Part I – Prelude

I can’t remember when I first heard of CND, but I can remember when I first became aware of Hiroshima. It was in 1973 and I found it absolutely horrifying. I wasn’t aware at the time of the Cold War or the arms race, although I did know about Vietnam and the rivalry between the Russians and Americans, particularly in the context of the Space Race. The issue of Hiroshima and Nagasaki came up for me due to my interest in nuclear physics. I didn’t then fully understand how nuclear fission worked, but it was clear to me that the Bomb was a stupendously destructive weapon compared to any chemical explosive by many orders of magnitude.

My focus as a child, however, was not on these issues. If anything, my interest in political terms would probably have been centred on environmentalism and endangered species. At some point I will come back and look at my life as a prelude to becoming vegan in 1987, but not today. It could also be said that you don’t get a bigger threat to the environment than a nuclear holocaust, and I was concerned about nuclear power and also the possibility of fusion power, which for some reason I saw as dangerous in the same way as a fission power station was, but not particularly the Bomb.

This was in the days before the Nuclear Winter theory had emerged. That did so in part because of the Viking missions to Mars, when attempts were made to model the influence of particles in an atmosphere on surface temperature, although some evidence was noted from the early ’50s. Consequently, the threat of nuclear war seemed a little less serious in the ’70s than it would in the ’80s, and Détente in the previous decade seemed to take the pressure off. The first dated diary entry I ever wrote is from 17th July 1975, the day of the Apollo-Soyuz test project, and so at the time things seemed very hopeful. They would get a lot less so in the coming decade.

The fundamental issue about any weapon with the potential of causing human extinction which comes within easy reach of any power in the species is that once it’s been invented, it can’t be “un-invented” unless some calamity befalls us which either causes us to lose knowledge or changes the infrastructure in such a way that the technology becomes unfeasible. Since either of those things is pretty close to actually being human extinction, the existence of weapons of mass destruction requires us to re-invent how human beings as a whole relate to each other, such that the knowhow to produce the weapons might exist but it becomes psychologically unfeasible to use them. With the advent of easily available genetic engineering or nanotech and the Grey Goo Scenario (which is actually unfeasible), this gets quite a bit more dangerous because it puts such technology within the reach of the likes of moody teenagers (and I was a moody teenager – this is not ageism) or sociopaths who end up destroying the human race on a whim. Although it is possible to build a nuclear reactor in the garage, as the teenage David Hahn in Michigan did in the 1990s, this was only a local problem. I’m not about to spell out how to produce either a nuclear weapon or a deadly bacterium here, but there is an issue with the information being freely available online and it really isn’t that hard, so the rational response, unless you’re happy with the extinction of Homo sapiens, is to address the possibility of people being willing to do such a thing. You can’t just leave it and hope for the best.

Many would say that the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction is in a way an organically-developed situation which did prevent nuclear holocaust. Again, I don’t know what people know and don’t know, so just in case you don’t, the justification for the Warsaw Pact and NATO stockpiling nuclear arsenals was that in order to maintain peace, there needed to be enormous amounts of nuclear missiles aimed at the enemy on both sides so that using them would be inconceivable. This sounds to me like a rationalisation of a situation which had arisen already although perhaps surprisingly I’m not aware of its history. That is, I don’t know if we went from a situation where we had few nuclear weapons to one where both sides had many as a deliberate policy or not. This kind of organic development, from NATO’s viewpoint, is in accord with conservative politics, where the practices which have grown up without planned intervention are often seen as things which have worked okay and should therefore be kept. However, it also assumes, like many other policies, that the system will work perfectly in spite of being maintained by imperfect human beings, and that imperfection is a central part of conservative political theory, so it’s a bit odd really. It would be interesting to know how the Soviet Union saw it though, because it’s a question of conscious planning versus a situation arising through some kind of “invisible hand”-type process, so maybe the USSR actually did plan it, or maybe they saw it as an inevitable operation of the forces of history. Again, this is a gap in my knowledge.

By about 1980, I was aware of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear holocaust, but had a firm division in my mind between that threat and the use of nuclear power for peace. Not everyone maintains that position, and I didn’t, but there are people who take it much further than I and even see the likes of the LHC as a threat to peace. I think this goes too far, although I do think the LHC is probably a waste of money and resources, and in that sense a threat to peace. I was, however, very much opposed to nuclear power, although by that time I also believed that fusion power was a good solution. At this point I was unaware of the constant deferral involved in the development of fusion power because I simply hadn’t lived long enough to notice, but I definitely saw it as benign. Although it probably isn’t, the issue isn’t a live one because it seems to be unattainable.

My belief in unilateral nuclear disarmament took a lot longer to develop than my agreement with any other left-wing or Green issues. By this I mean that although I felt emotionally committed to the idea of supporting CND, which is how I saw unilateral nuclear disarmament at the time, I was also concerned that this was a merely emotional commitment rather than one I could base on rational argument, and there was also a question of mild peer pressure. The 1979 Afghanistan situation had rekindled the Cold War and brought the issue to the fore again, to the extent that one of my big worries about the Falklands/Malvinas in ’82 was that it could provoke a nuclear confrontation in some way simply because of the very delicate balance in international relations. The Greenham Common peace camp began in 1981 and there were large CND marches into central London in the early ’80s which some of my friends went on, but I didn’t and felt guilty about it. At the time, my approach to demos was that they could directly change government policy. As you will know if you read this, my approach has considerably changed since then, and in fact had done so by the end of the decade. My attitude, though, was somewhat paradoxical because although I felt like supporting the peace movement was the right thing to do, I didn’t feel their arguments were convincing. This I would attribute to the heavy governmental propagandising against it.

If you examine at the popular culture of the time, you’ll see a resurgence in songs, films and TV programmes expressing the widespread fear at the threat of nuclear war. As my adolescence wore on, this kind of merged with my general teenage angst and I can’t distinguish between them. I thought that nuclear war was inevitable at that point, an attitude which reached its peak in about 1984. Even so, and it amazes me to look back on this now, I was still not convinced that M.A.D. was the wrong policy. Although I didn’t think about it much at the time, Alphaville’s ‘Forever Young’ sums up my and many other youths of my generation’s philosophy of life at the time:

The general idea was that we would never see even middle age because by then we’d’ve been killed in a nuclear war, so from our perspective we would indeed be “forever young”. This intimation may be missed by the youth of today when they hear this.

It’s also true that I got it into my head that I was going to die at twenty-seven, in fact live exactly 10 000 days, and therefore die on 19th December 1994. People who are trying to deduce my personal details will of course enjoy that I’ve just shared that date. Although I had various reasons for supposing that to be the case, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of those was subconsciously the expectatio that sooner or later there’d be an apocalyptic exchange of missiles. It was not a good thing to live under the shadow of this prospect. Even now, I would expect people who were young in the early 1980s to have nightmares about this. It must also have consequences for aspiration. We were facing the prospect of unemployment or annihilation, and neither of these were very motivating for bothering to do very much academically or vocationally. On another note, Gen-Xers are known to have poorer employment prospects and underachievement in their careers due to the conditions into which they entered the job market in the ’80s. Maybe nuclear armageddon also had something of a hand in this.

Even though I was communist up until about 1984, I continued to find the arguments for unilateral disarmament unconvincing. I had peers who only voted Conservative because of the Labour Party’s unilateralism and were otherwise left wing, and they continued to do so into the late ’80s when I lost touch with them. It’s astounding how powerfully persuasive the Tory propaganda on this was. In ’84, I abandoned communism because I considered it to be too optimistic and began to gravitate towards the Green Party although I wasn’t particularly aware of doing so because at the time I thought of them as a single-issue party and didn’t realise how left wing they were. It being 1984, there’s a sense of doublethink in all this because on the one hand I feared nuclear war and wasn’t in the “better dead than red” camp, but nevertheless was unconvinced by unilateralism.

Then I left home and went to university, substantially because it was an opportunity for political activism. It wasn’t until the start of my second year that I felt comfortable enough with the policy to join CND itself, but I wasn’t active in it. Once you’ve done something like that, you become emotionally invested in it and tend to rationalise your decision by bending your opinions in that direction, and since I’d joined the Green Party, Greenpeace Supporters, Lynx and Friends of the Earth, three of which were also unilateralist, sometimes to the chagrin of some of their members, that was probably a factor in my persuasion. I also studied Game Theory as part of my degree, which is famously applicable to the M.A.D. situation.

In January 1987, I went on an anti-Sizewell B protest. This was partly organised by the local CND group as well as FoE, so by that time I was beginning to make the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. However, at that time at least a certain kind of rhetoric was used, particularly focussing on the half-lives of radioisotopes, which was not particularly scientific as it made it appear that the half-life was a measurement of the period during which it would be dangerous, which isn’t at all how it works. I am, however, still convinced that one reason nuclear fission is so popular as an energy source is that it provides material for nuclear weapons. This was also a few months after the Chernobyl disaster on 26th April 1986, which had made nuclear power exceedingly unpopular. Like M.A.D., nuclear safety’s weak point is the human factor. Fortunately, in the case of the former, we were all rescued from certain death by Colonel Stanislav Petrov on 26th September 1983 when he decided an apparent US missile launch must be a false alarm and didn’t “retaliate”. There seemed to be many other pressing issues though, so I still didn’t really engage. However, another thing that happened around that time was that I became a committed pacifist. Nowadays I’m not so convinced of that position for several reasons, mainly to do with the idea that it may be very easy for a middle class White person in the developed world to commit to pacifism, but not so much for, say, a Third World peasant. I’ve also never been convinced that the Nazis would have had any problem with a pacifist Britain, and I think it’s entirely feasible that certain despotic orders would just continue slaughtering their pacifist opponents until there were none left without that leading to any kind of effective resistance. However, it should also be said that if future Nazis had committed to pacifism the Third Reich would never have happened either, so the principle of universalisability could operate there.

In October ’87 I went vegan, which again I see as closely allied to pacifism. I also managed to set up a university CND group which unfortunately only really served as a register of those who were sympathetic to the issue. From early ’88 onwards my psyche, some might say my mental health, fell down the Vicky crevasse and it’s hard to say much meaningful about that period, except that on 22nd January 1988 I joined the Labour Party. This was also around the time of the “Labour Listens” campaign, which was of course a way of surreptitiously dumping the radical policies which had lost them the last two elections, including unilateralism. I didn’t become politically active again until the autumn of that year. The next few years involved being rather cynical about CND for a couple of reasons. One was that I was persuaded of the argument that they were pro-imperialist and I was uncomfortable with the Christian involvement in the group. Someone also claimed they were “a front for the Labour Party”, which is obviously absurd at that point in time. I was committed at this stage to rotating my activism between different groups with an aim to finding employment in a pressure group in the long term, although I was also interested in an academic career. I began to move away from the idea of direct action into a means of addressing the problem of a scarcity-based economic system via psychological means: “the revolution starts from within”, as one of my friends put it. This put much of my approach to politics on a more spiritual basis, though not by any means within any religious tradition or group.

Then came a second emotional crisis linked to the imminent first Gulf War, where I was frankly disgusted and traumatised by the apparent fact that so much of the British public were so easily manipulated into supporting a war for the fossil fuel industry. Since the most prominent group involved in opposing the outrage was CND, I became active in the anti-war movement and CND itself. This marked the start of more than two decades of intense involvement in the peace movement, mainly CND but also other things less associated with the central issue of unilateralism. But I’ll tell you about that tomorrow.

Living In The Past One Day At A Time

In this blog, I’ve made occasional references to what I call my “Reënactment Project”, which is a long-term ongoing thing I’ve been doing since about 2017. The idea is that every day I make an at least cursory examination of the same day thirty-nine years previously. The reason for choosing thirty-nine years is that for the initial year I planned to do it all the dates were on the same days of the week, meaning that the years concerned were substantially similar. The very basic arithmetic involved is of some interest and I’ll be returning to that later in the post. A side-effect of the thirty-nine year difference is that I am thirty-nine years younger than my father, so he would’ve been the age I am now back then, which focusses me on ageing, life stages and how to stay as young as possible by doing things like addressing my balance through Yoga so it doesn’t deteriorate as fast as it has for him. I can see the end result and know some of the things to avoid, which means that if I do reach his current age I’ll probably have a completely different set of health problems from which my own hopefully not estranged descendants will in turn know what they should avoid. And so on.

My motivation for doing this stems from the disconcerting awareness that we edit our memories, and are also only able to experience things as we are at the time. Also, various media and popular misconceptions lead us to forget and mutate the memories we do believe ourselves to have, and this was particularly important for 1978 as it included the famous Winter Of Discontent, also the Winter Of Discotheque, and I feel we may have been usefully manipulated into seeing this particular season in a particular way to justify everything that came after it. I also want to know how I was as a child and adolescent and pay attention to things which are the seeds of how I am now, and also that which was in me which I didn’t end up expressing. There is of course a bit of a risk here because I’m living in the past and to some extent dwelling upon it, but I do have a life outside this project and find it quite informative and enriching for today’s experiences. However, in general it’s just interesting.

I’ve now reached 1982, and am in the depths of the Falklands War, which was a significant historical event in securing Margaret Thatcher a second parliamentary term. Well, I say “in the depths”. In fact an end to hostilities was announced on 20th June and the Canberra was almost home by 7th July, which is when I’m writing this. I more or less stand by the position I had by the mid-’80s on this subject, which is that Galtieri and Thatcher were both aware that a war would be likely to boost their popularity, although at the time I thought it was an actual conspiracy between them whereas now I just think they were both aware of its expediency. It came as something of a shock to me, a year later, when I realised we didn’t have fixed-term parliaments and therefore the Tories could take advantage of their victory by calling an election whenever they wanted. ‘Shipbuilding’ is redolent of the time:

Although I know Elvis Costello wrote and performed the song, the Robert Wyatt version is the one I associate most closely with the incident. Robert Wyatt was part of the Canterbury Scene and an early member of Soft Machine, so I’m obviously more likely to associate it with him. Just in case you don’t know, Wyatt got drunk and fell out of a window in 1973, paralysing himself from the waist down. Jean Shrimpton, my second cousin once removed, gave him a car and Pink Floyd raised £10 000 for him in a benefit concert. Tommy Vance once described him as “a man who has had more than his share of bad luck in life”.

Another association I make with the Falklands from the time is a play about an Irish barman who was accepted as a member of his community in London until the breakout of the war. He finds himself sandwiched between Irish Republicans and his customers, with racism growing against him which culminates in his murder. This was originally a radio play but later appeared on TV. Although the Troubles were significant and also a spur to creativity, there was a long period during which practically every new play was about them, and it became tedious and annoying. This wasn’t yet the case in ’82 though. There’s also the 1988 BBC TV drama ‘Tumbledown’.

1982 was probably the last year there was really any hope that the previous pattern of alternating Conservative and Labour administrations we were used to would continue into the decade. In fact, this had been a relatively recent development. The first Labour government after the Second World War had been followed by thirteen years of Tory rule, and it was only after that that an alternation of parties in power had begun, lasting only fifteen years. Nonetheless, up until 1982 that’s what most people seemed to expect, and that alternation had held policies and the general timbre of the country in the political centre because the next government could be expected to come along and undo much of what the previous one had done, and so on. This was satirised on the Radio 4 comedy programme ‘Week Ending’ which depicted the future of privatisation and nationalisation as permanently oscillating ad infinitum every five years, which was probably one reason I thought we had fixed terms.

I was communist in ’82, and when I say “communist” I mean Stalinist. I took it seriously enough that I attempted to learn Russian and listened regularly to Radio Moscow, and I was very upset when Leonid Brezhnev died. I was completely convinced that what the Soviet Union was saying about us and themselves was accurate and that the BBC and the like was nothing more than propaganda. I was also very concerned indeed about unemployment, racism and homophobia. I considered being called racist to be the worst insult imaginable, which of course misses the point. I was, however, still a meat eater and was, as you can probably tell, quite naïve. I was also a lovesick teenager in love with the idea of being in love.

However, this isn’t just about 1982 and the events of that year, for me or the world, but also the value of the exercise. It’s often been suggested that I have autistic tendencies and I imagine that this kind of meticulous rerun of the late ’70s and early ’80s is going to come across as confirmatory evidence for that. Clearly people do do things just because they want to and then come up with reasons for doing so to justify themselves to other people. My novel ‘1934’ covers a community where they have chosen to relive the mid-twentieth century over and over again in an endless loop because the leaders think everything has gone to Hell in a handcart ever since, and this would not be a healthy attitude. I made the mistake, a few years ago, of re-reading my diary in a particular way and found myself falling back into the mindset I had at the time in a way which felt distinctly unhealthy. Nonetheless, I consider this activity to be worthwhile because our memories are re-written, and history is written by the winners, in this case the winners of the Falklands War, so our memories are re-written by the winners.

It’s been said that films set in the past usually say more about the time they were made than the period they’re supposed to have happened in. Hence ‘Dazed And Confused’ is really about the 1990s, for example. We generally have a set of preconceptions about a particular period within living memory which turn into a caricature of the time which we find hard to penetrate to reach the reality, and it isn’t the reality in any case because it’s filtered through the preconceptions of the people at the time, even when those people were us. This much is almost too obvious to state. However, there’s also continuity. Time isn’t really neatly parcelled off into years, decades and centuries. People don’t just throw away all their furniture at the end of the decade, or at least they shouldn’t, and buy a whole new lot. We’re all aware of patterns repeating in families down the generations. It isn’t really possible to recapture the past as if it’s preserved in amber. But it is possible to attempt to adopt something like the mindset prevalent at the time, or the Zeitgeist, to think about today, and the older you get the more tempting it is to do so. Since the menopause exists, there must be some value in becoming an elder and sharing the fruits of one’s experience, even when one is in cognitive decline. And of course the clock seems to have been going backwards since 1979, making this year equivalent to 1937. World War II was so 2019.

How, then, does 2021 look from 1982? On a superficial level, it tends to look very slick and well-presented, although airbrushing had a slickness to it too. The graphic at the top of this post is more ’87 than ’82, but it does succeed in capturing the retro-futurism. Progressive politics was losing the fight with conservatism at the time, but the complete rewrite of how we think of ourselves had not yet happened. Nowadays, people are wont to parcel up their identity and activities into marketable units because they have no choice but to do so. The fragmentation there is as significant as the commodification. The kind of unity of experience which existed in terms of the consumption of popular culture back then is gone, although it was gradually disintegrating even then. We were about to get Channel 4 and video recorders were becoming popular among the rich, although they were still insisting that there was no way to get the price below £400 at the time, which is more like £1 400 today. It’s hard to tell, but it certainly feels like the mass media, government and other less definable forces have got better at manipulating public opinion and attitudes. This feels like an “advance” in the technology of rhetoric. However, we may also be slowly emerging from the shadow of the “greed is good” ethic which was descending at the time because we’ve reached the point where most public assets have been sold off and workers’ rights have been eroded that reality tends to intrude a lot more than it used to, and I wonder if people tend to be more aware of the discrepancy between what they’re told and what their experience is. Perhaps the rise in mental health problems is related to this: people are less able to reconcile their reality with the representation of “reality”, and are therefore constantly caught in a double bind.

It isn’t all bad. It’s widely recognised now that homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism and other forms of prejudice are bad for all of us and people seem to be more aware that these are structural problems as well. Veganism is better understood but also very commercialised, taking it away from its meaning. Social ideas which are prevalent among the general public today may have been circulating in academia at the time and their wider influence was yet to be felt. This is probably part of a general trend. There was also a strongly perceived secularisation trend which has in some respects now reversed. The West was in the process of encouraging Afghan fundamentalists and they may also have begun arming Saddam Hussein by this point, although that might’ve come later. CND was in the ascendancy, and the government hadn’t yet got into gear dissing them.

Another distinctive feature of the time was the ascendancy of home microcomputers, although for me this was somewhat in the future. I’ll focus more on my suspicions and distrust here. To me, silicon chips were primarily a way to put people out of work and therefore I didn’t feel able to get wholeheartedly into the IT revolution with a clear conscience. I had, however, learnt BASIC the previous year. I don’t really know what I expected to happen as clearly computers were really getting going and it seemed inevitable. There was also only a rather tenuous connection between a home computer and automation taking place in factories. However, by now the usual cycle of job destruction and creation has indeed ceased to operate, as the work created by automation is nowhere near as much as the work replaced by it, or rather, done by computers or robots in some way. My interest in computers was basically to do with CGI, so the appearance of a ZX81 in my life proved to be rather disappointing.

1982 was also the only year I read OMNI. Although it was interesting, and in fact contained the first publication of ‘Burning Chrome’ that very year, it also came across as very commercialised and quite lightweight to me compared to, for example, ‘New Scientist’. It was also into a fair bit of what would be called “woo” nowadays, and it’s hard to judge but I get the impression that back then psi was more acceptable as a subject of research for science than it is today. This could reflect a number of things, but there are two ways of looking at this trend. One is that a large number of well-designed experiments were conducted which failed to show any significant psi activity. The other is that there is a psychologically-driven tendency towards metaphysical naturalism in the consensus scientific community which has little basis in reason. I would prefer the latter, although the way the subject was presented tended to be anecdotal and far from rigorous. From a neutral perspective, there does seem to be a trend in the West away from belief in the supernatural, and the fact that this was thirty-nine years ago means that trend is discernible on this scale.

Then there’s music, more specifically New Wave. For me, because of my age and generation, New Wave doesn’t even sound like a genre. It’s just “music”. This may not just be me, because it’s so vaguely defined that it seems practically meaningless. It’s certainly easy to point at particular artists and styles as definitely not New Wave though, such as prog rock, ABBA, disco and heavy metal, but I perceive it as having emerged from punk, and in fact American punk just seems to be New Wave to me. It’s also hard for me to distinguish from synth-pop at times. British punk could even be seen as a short-lived offshoot of the genre. By 1982, the apocalyptic atmosphere of pop music around the turn of the decade was practically dead, although I still think there’s a tinge of that in Japan, The Associates and Classix Nouveaux. The New Romantics had been around for a while by then. I disliked them because I perceived them as upper class and vapid. I was of course also into Art Rock, and to some extent world music.

In the visual arts, for me 1982 saw a resurgence in my interest in Dalí, who had interested me from the mid-’70s onward, but this time I was also interested in other surrealists such as Magritte and Ernst, and also to some extent Dada. As with New Romantics, Dalí was a bit of a guilty pleasure as I was aware of his associations with fascism. This was all, of course, nothing to do with what was going on in the art scene of the early ’80s, although I was very interested and felt passionately positively about graffiti. I felt that the destruction of graffiti was tantamount to vandalising a work of art. To be honest, although I’m concerned that people might feel threatened by it and feel a lot of it is rather low-effort and unoriginal, I’m still a fan of it, although I wouldn’t engage in it myself.

1982 was close to the beginning of the cyberpunk æsthetic. I’ve already mentioned William Gibson’s ‘Burning Chrome’, which first appeared in OMNI this month in 1982, and there was also ‘Blade Runner’, which was already being written about, again in OMNI, although it wasn’t released until September. The influence of the genre can be seen in the graphic at the top of this post. To a limited extent even ‘TRON’, from October, was a form of bowdlerised cyberpunk, with the idea of a universe inside a computer. Cyberpunk is dystopian, near-future, can involve body modification, does involve VR and has alienated characters and anarcho-capitalism, with a world dominated by multinationals. ‘Johnny Mnemonic’ had been published, also in OMNI, the year before. The question arises of how much today’s world resembles that imagined by cyberpunk, and to be honest I’d say it does to a considerable extent, and will probably do so increasingly as time goes by.

On a different note, although the days and dates match up between 2021 and 1982, this will only continue until 28th February 2023, after which a leap day for 1984 will throw them out of kilter again. It can almost be guaranteed that years twenty-eight years apart will have the same calendar. One thing which can’t be guaranteed is the date of Good Friday and the other days which are influenced by it. This means that there is almost always a difference between calendars even when the days of the week match up. I also said “almost be guaranteed”. Because the Gregorian calendar skips leap days when they occur in a ’00 year whose century is not divisible by four, we are currently in a lng run of matching twenty-eight year cycles which began in 1900 and will end in 2100. Hence up until 1928 the years of the twentieth century don’t match up on this pattern, and likewise from 2072 onward there will be another disruption of the pattern down into the future. There are also other periods which match between leap days, such as the thirty-nine year one I’m currently exploring, which began last year and includes two complete years as well. This also divides up the years a little oddly, because since I was in full-time school at the time, academic years were also quite important to me, and in fact continued to be so right into the 1990s. This makes a period between 29th February 1980 and the start of September 1980 and will also make a further period between September 1983 and 29th February 1984. Finally, astronomical phenomena don’t line up at all really. Solar and lunar eclipses, and transits of Venus and Mercury, for example, won’t correspond at all.

So anyway, that’s one of the possibly pointless things I do with my time at the moment. It does bring home to me how slowly time does in fact go, because to be honest doing this seems to have slowed the pace of the passage of time back to how it was when I was fourteen or fifteen. What other effects it has on my mind I’m not sure, although I think there must be both positive and negative influences.

Communisms

After the 1982 war in the South Atlantic, the Falklands Factor buoyed up an unpopular government, and on 9th May 1983, Margaret Thatcher called an election. Up until that time, I thought the UK had fixed parliamentary terms and I was utterly disgusted that this was possible and that the Conservatives would take advantage of it. That afternoon, I was walking up Rose Lane in Canterbury when a couple selling newspapers approached me and asked if I wanted to buy a copy of their paper, ‘The Worker’. Since they were a Communist Party, my reply, which rather startled them, was “definitely”. They were the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). They believed the only truly Communist state was Albania, which is a clue to their perspective. It’s possible they were Maoist, but they didn’t state this and I don’t recall anything to that effect in their publication. I do remember thinking it was odd that the woman was wearing lipstick, because this seemed like quite a concession to bourgeois feminine ideals. At that time, I strongly disapproved of makeup as a form of sexual objectification and an attempt to differentiate gender. I’ve changed a lot since then of course. I didn’t ever follow it up beyond that and came to regard parties like theirs as a complete pain and counter-productive.

The far left is notorious for being splintered, and as such it strongly resembles the Church. I can’t help thinking that similar processes are involved, but in the case of Communist parties this doesn’t work as well. A small denomination can believe they are the elect and that God will save them even if “he” doesn’t save anyone else, but a Communist party can only succeed if it finds a way of pulling the rest of society with it or simply believes that the inevitable processes of history will lead to the establishment of Communism without their intervention. There are of course extra-democratic actions which can be undertaken such as violence against the State or other forms of organised crime, but none of them are likely to succeed, and I presume party activists are aware of this. In a way, it isn’t even politics because on the whole politics involves allegiances and compromises to a common aim, and they tend not to do this very much. At the same time, their positions are often not what you’d expect from a party on the Left, and this is what makes them interesting.

Before I go on, I want to stress that I’m not endorsing or condemning these positions so much as attempting to describe them as the parties concerned see or have seen them.

I’ll start with the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) itself. This is a pro-Brexit anti-immigrant party. Many parties on the left are pro-Brexit. The CPB-ML were aligned with Nigel Farage’s Grassroots Out campaign. After Article 50 was revoked, they issued a statement calling those who opposed Brexit “the enemies of the people”. Here’s their statement in full:

Today the government gave formal notice that Britain will depart from the EU once and for all time. On 23 June 2016 we declared our intention to Leave. Now Article 50 has been invoked and the clock is ticking.

We are throwing off the shackles of the misnamed European Union, which seeks only to dictate and deny sovereignty. By March 2019 we must be out.

This day is truly one to celebrate.

In 1975 the British people did not believe we could run our own affairs. The referendum vote then was by more than 2 to 1 to throw in our lot with the European Economic Community, to ask it to please manage Britain for us (actually, for its own interests). Last June this woeful decision was finally reversed.

The people have shown we want a sovereign Britain. We have declared confidence in ourselves to determine the country’s future without any instruction from Brussels or Berlin.

We know that we can and must control our economy, our laws, our borders, and we expect the government to act accordingly. There can be no backsliding, no fudges. Only full independence will do. Push aside any who still wish to block it.

The blockers are fewer and fewer but they are dangerous enemies of the people and the country. They want to hand us back to foreign control. All who desire a successful Britain must unite to see this through, engage in the discussion and planning for the future, and act to carry it out.

The CPB-ML were unusual in allying themselves with Farage’s group. They also oppose immigration. They see the recent immigration from Eastern Europe to the UK as part of a deliberate plan by the Government to undermine the wages and conditions of British workers, and as placing a strain on the infrastructure. In this respect they’re as far as I know unique, unless one sees the BNP as a left-wing party as some do.

Another group, with as usual an annoyingly similar name, is the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). I’m going to abbreviate this to CPGB-ML. As far as I can tell, the reason they call themselves this is that they are in favour of Irish nationalism but oppose Scottish independence, so they believe in a unitary communist state covering the island of Great Britain but not Ireland. This is because they see the states of Scotland and England as set up by the ruling classes and united by them, but also see independence as a distraction from class struggle. Unlike the CPB-ML, they see immigration controls as an attempt to divide and rule the working class, but they are equally in favour of Brexit and support the Mouvement des gilets jaunes. They also support North Korea and are Stalinist. Their main emphasis is against imperialism, and they oppose the movement for queer liberation, and will expel anyone from their party who is in favour of LGBT+ liberation because they see that as something which will happen automatically after the revolution. I’ll come back to this because it’s particularly interesting, although it means I’ll have to break with my demarcation principle. They also saw the 2011 riots as positive but in need of leadership and direction. Unsurprisingly, they also want the state of Israel to be dissolved, and they oppose Western support for the Uyghur minority in China.

Back to their position on what I’m reluctantly going to have to call LGBTQIA+ issues. This is what attracted my attention to them recently. They state that they oppose racism and “discrimination on the grounds of sexual proclivity” but condemn identity politics and what they call “LGBT ideology” as a “reactionary nightmare” imposed by the bourgeoisie. This is rhetoric shared by the Right and Left, which on the Right has links to religious fundamentalism. They have been accused on being transphobic and justify it on remarkable grounds. Their claim is that the idea of trans identity is based on idealism rather than materialism, i.e. that it’s to do with the idea of the mind being separate from the body and as therefore having religious overtones, and since religion is to be superceded in a communist society, trans identity will also disappear. What I find remarkable about this is it’s similarity to Abrahamic accusations of so-called “transgenderism” as Gnostic, i.e. as seeing matter as evil and the spirit as good. Gnosticism too has stronger idealist tendencies than Judaism and orthodox Christianity. I should just briefly explain that idealism in this sense is a metaphysical position holding that the world is either a construction of the mind or actually is mind, the latter position being closer to my own panpsychism. Marx saw materialism as the mature approach to metaphysics, not encumbered by the psychological need and the political pressure to accept the notion of the supernatural. It should go without saying that gender identity issues have nothing to do with idealism and are frequently experienced by thoroughgoing materialists. The CPGM-ML also sees identity politics as focussing excessively on individual identity, and of course as a divisive distraction from class struggle.

Moving to the somewhat related issues of sexual orientation, Communist parties also have a history of homophobia. There’s an incident which I unfortunately can’t pin down more precisely of the predecessors of the SWP, Socialist International, engaging in beating up homosexuals. Maoist parties are as far as I know still homophobic, and of course allegiance with the Soviet Union would imply support for its homophobic legislation. The SWP were also opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament even though they previously worked with CND. This is because they believed that it would make this country more powerful in its anti-imperialism. There’s also a strong tendency for those factions on the Left which emphasise their anti-imperialism to oppose CND because they see it as imperialist. They basically seem to want to see poorer countries with nuclear weapons.

I’m going to restrain myself from stating my own position on any of this, but I do want to point out the following list of positions which could feasibly be, and for all I know is, held by a genuinely communist party:

  • Opposition to Scottish independence
  • Opposition to immigration
  • Pro-Brexit
  • Opposition to promoting identity politics such as BLM and LGBT campaigning
  • Support for British nuclear weapons
  • Opposition to the existence of the state of Israel

A couple of thoughts about this. One is that I wonder how these positions are arrived at. Is there some kind of broad genuinely working-class based consensus decision-making process involved here? I honestly don’t know. I do feel there’s a tendency for them to see a need for consciousness-raising among the general population, but in a way which will lead to them agreeing with the perspective espoused by the party itself. Another is that they are decidedly not liberal, which is to be expected, but which is usually completely ignored by the Right. Finally there’s the stereotype that moving far enough to the Left leaves you on the Right.

I don’t agree with these positions of course, but it still interests me how much support would be available from the poorest people in this country for this kind of communist party if they knew about these positions. Maybe they do already but don’t trust them anyway, probably rightly. But this is like UKIP without the right wing flavour.

I don’t know what to think about this, except that it’s interesting and I wonder how widely-known it is.