Monthly Archives: September 2011

Euro’s troubles an Anglo-Saxon plot


The French reaction to the DSK affair was my first glimpse at the prevalence of conspiracy theorizing among the French. Polls showed that a majority of the French considered it an American plot to bring down Sarkozy’s rival. Now, writing in The Australian, Dalrymple points to another conspiracy theory popular with French intellectuals:


The “markets” — a typically Anglo-Saxon invention — are taken as being both wildly irrational and at present engaged on a concerted attempt to destroy the Euro as a common currency. For believers in the Anglo-Saxons as the secret movers of the world, it could not be that the whole idea of the common currency was flawed in the first place and was bound to lead either to financial catastrophe or to a completely undemocratic and authoritarian central control of the economic life of the continent, or to both. Not a sparrow, or a French bank share, falls, but the Anglo-Saxons are behind it.

The French banks have lost nearly two thirds of their share value since July 1 this year. Why? Could it be that, exposed to Greek foreign debt, of which they hold about a half, at a time when Hellenic default is l’air du temps and the European finance ministers cannot agree among themselves what to do about it, the banks are in a somewhat fragile condition? Not according to the head of the French employers’ federation, Laurence Parisot, for whom Wall Street and the City of London, aided by their journalistic accomplice The Financial Times, are responsible for an organised drumbeat. For her, euroscepticism, the lack of transcendental belief in the European project (though no one will say exactly what it is), is a kind of mental disorder rather than a rational assessment of the chances of 27 European countries coming together peacefully in a kind of giant latter-day Yugoslavia.

Read the whole piece here.

Flying to Finca La Perla

In this excerpt from Sweet Waist of America (pps. 181-184), Dalrymple takes a rickety aircraft to Finca La Perla, a remote Guatemalan coffee plantation reachable only by air. (Here is an excellent You Tube video of a landing at the airstrip.) Marxist guerillas had singled out the finca for attack, wishing to make it a symbol of oppression, and had shot its owner Don Luis Arenas in front of his workers.
I wanted to go to La Perla to verify or refute those parts of Days of the Jungle that referred to it. If anything would provide me with the golden key to Guatemala, I thought, this investigation would. The light aircraft was waiting at the airport: the other passengers were Mike Shawcross and Don Enrique, the present owner. The pilot was a young man who did not tell me until much later that he crashed the first time he landed at La Perla, broke both his legs and spent several months in hospital. A short time after I departed from the finca, he crashed again, or at least came to the end of the landing strip there without taking off. I remember feeling relief at his air of quiet confidence and technical competence. Another thing he did not tell me until much later was that he had once landed at La Perla to find the guerrillas waiting for him. They burned the aircraft and made off with the workers’ wages he had brought from Guatemala City. For neither of these actions did they earn the gratitude of the people of La Perla, whose wages were already low enough without being made non-existent, and for whom the aircraft was literally a lifeline. This happened in the early eighties.
Our first attempt to reach the finca was abortive. Although a radio link to La Perla had told us the weather was fine when we started out, by the time we reached the highlands there was complete cloud cover, and our little craft could fly only very slightly higher than the mountains themselves. Without navigational aids, we had little alternative but to return to the city.
The next day we tried again, without Don Enrique, in another small aircraft. I had thought the first one rickety enough, but the second was absurdly decrepit, a thing of rags and patches. There were no seats inside, except the pilot’s. We sat on plastic tanks of aviation fuel: it was like flying in a Molotov cocktail. So overladen with cargo was it (no one bothered about weight) that I sat with my face against the cockpit window, my neck craning horribly. The automatic starter did not work, and the pilot, a different one who struck us as somewhat insouciant about life and death, got out to crank the propeller by hand. We took off and wobbled in the crosswind. ‘Oh Lord,’ I prayed, ‘I didn’t mean it when I said You didn’t exist.’ There’s nothing like flying on a gas tank for taking Pascal’s bet.
We climbed slowly. I remembered all those news bulletins about aircraft that crashed five minutes after take-off. Unnoticed by the pilot (the only one of us, of course, with a seat belt) his door opened somewhere over Guatemala City. Mike leaned forward to close it, but the mechanism was faulty, so he held it shut for the rest of the journey.
Again we did not reach our destination. We saw the clouds rolling down the mountainsides like theatrical smoke and returned once more, though not until the pilot had made a couple of kamikaze dives through supposed gaps in the cloud.
The third day we didn’t even set out, but sat at the airport’s aero club awaiting a radio message from La Perla about fine weather. It never came, but it was interesting enough watching the dark windowed station wagons come and go, delivering and collecting finca owners on their way to and from their fincas. Pilots sat in the clubhouse swapping tall stories. It was here that I heard that Don Enrique owned his own aircraft which he used to fly to his finca in the south, where there was no danger of its destruction by guerrillas; he hired aircraft to go to La Perla.
On the fourth day the sky was brilliantly clear and once more we climbed aboard our single-seater Molotov cocktail. Soon we were flying over (or rather through) a magnificent landscape of forested mountains, deep ravines and white water. The mountain peaks were high above us; it was exhilarating to fly in the valleys. How tiny was our aircraft, how small our lives! I thought of the brief but beautiful ball of orange flame we should make against the mountain if the pilot made an error. Would anyone see it? I was surprised that even in the most inaccessible valleys, where there was not so much as a truck, rectangles of forest had been cut down. Was this for the timber (but how could it be transported from so inaccessible a place?), or was it to clear the land for a milpa, a corn field?
If the latter, for whom was the corn destined? Guerillas? Refugees from the war? I could not tell.
We swung left into another valley and ahead of us was La Perla, the Pearl. It was indeed beautiful. The village clung to the dark green hillsides, a small white church dazzling by contrast. The landing strip ran up a small hill and between flights served as a playground for the children of the finca. On our left as we landed was the coffee processing plant of whitewashed wood, built on pillars of cement. In front of it was a large and perfectly flat concrete yard where the coffee beans, having been separated from the red husk of the berry and soaked in tanks beneath the plant, were laid out to dry, raked by workers into patterns resembling those of the pebble gardens of Kyoto. Above the processing plant was the house in which Don Luis used to live, but now it was the headquarters of La Perla’s garrison of 160 men, with a flagpole flying the sky-blue, white and sky-blue flag of Guatemala, and, a little way beyond, a helicopter landing pad on the top of a hillock. On the other side of the valley, atop another hill, was a small graveyard, and it was here that Luis Arenas was buried in a simple tomb among those of his workers, the inscription giving only his name and dates of existence.
Waiting for us at the landing strip was La Perla’s only vehicle, an open and battered jeep that looked and sounded as though it might at any moment disintegrate into a heap of parts. How had it reached La Perla? There were only mule tracks there. The only road went to a distant part of the finca called Santa Delfina, a road which the workers had built by hand in defiance of threats by the guerrillas. The jeep had been flown to La Perla by helicopter, and was therefore a precious vehicle. It drove us the few hundred yards down the muddy track to the processing plant, in the quarters of which we were to live.
The rooms were large and airy and wooden shutters opened on to a view of green hills. Below us we could hear the grinding and slurping of coffee bean extraction. We were served lunch by a motherly servant of the family, Dona Caterina: soup, meat and tortillas, accompanied by a pickle of burnt-tasting chillies, to which I soon grew addicted. While talking to Dona Caterina, she let slip that her husband had been murdered by the guerrillas, for reasons that she did not understand. Not long after we arrived she was called to Guatemala City, where Don Enrique’s mother was ill and needed Dona Caterina as a nurse. The woman who replaced her was short, a ladina who spoke no Indian language yet dressed half in the Indian way. She told me that her husband also had been killed by the guerrillas, and her son. The guerrillas burst into their hut one night and shot them. She had no idea why; we were poor people,
she said.
Were they military commissioners, I asked? No, she replied. After the killings, she had fled to Nebaj, a day or two through the mountains, and there, gracias a Dios, she had heard an evangelist preach and she had ‘accepted Christ’, as she put it.
But why, I asked, had she changed from her ancestral Catholicism?
Por mucha tristeza,’ she replied. Because of much sadness.
When later I recounted this to assorted journalists and solidarity workers, they said it was impossible; the women had mistaken the soldiers for guerrillas, or they were afraid to say it was the army. But when I told them the women were well able to distinguish, and were moreover unafraid to acknowledge the army’s killings in the area, in the course of which whole villages had been destroyed and scores of people murdered, they remained incredulous. No, they insisted, the women were afraid to speak . . . 
Later, the pilot told me the guerrillas would have known of my presence in La Perla. How he knew, I did not inquire; presumably there were guerrilla orejas (ears) in the village.

Copyright 1990 Anthony Daniels. Reprinted with permission.

Life imitates literature

In this week’s British Medical Journal column (subscription required), Dalrymple offers a precis of Georges Simenon’s 1947 novel Letter to My Judge:
Dr Alavoine is married to a woman whom he does not love and who does not love him. After 10 years he meets a young woman called Martine in a bar in Nantes, who has had a chequered and perhaps unsavoury past. He falls instantly and passionately in love with her, and by various subterfuges manages to introduce her into his household as an employee. Inevitably his wife discovers their real relationship, and Alavoine decides to leave with Martine for Paris.
Alavoine is intensely jealous of Martine, not because she is unfaithful but because of her past, because he is not the only man to have slept with her. Several times he punches her when he thinks of this, and, according to him, she accepts the blows with humility. He comes to the conclusion that he must kill her to cancel out her sordid past and to return her to a state of innocence, in which their love will be forever perfect. As he strangles her, she looks at him first with fear, but then with “a look of resignation and deliverance, a look of love.”
What is alarming about this is that so much of the story is autobiographical. Simenon, like Dr Alavoine, was married to a wife whom he did not love and took a woman with whom he had a violent, jealous relationship into his household on the pretext of employing her. Like Martine, she had both a past and a large scar across her abdomen attesting to that past. Simenon didn’t kill her, of course, confining himself later to mere character assassination in his books. But it was always Simenon’s point that the dividing line between the killer and those who do not kill was much finer than usually supposed. Apparently, he knew; he was Dr Alavoine.

Moon Tiger and Mr Smith

Dalrymple’s September 14th BMJ column (subscription required) is a comment on the novel Moon Tiger by Penelope Lively. The two most interesting items therein are his statement that he once almost died…

It is common wisdom that your life passes before your eyes like a video as you die, but I am not sure how this can be verified. My life certainly did not appear before me in this fashion on the only occasion I was ill enough to be thought close to death; but I was still a young man who perhaps did not really believe that he was dying. Alternatively, I wanted to protect myself from seeing the expense of spirit in the waste of shame that so many lives can be made to seem.

…and this commentary on informality:
Because [Moon Tiger] was written a quarter of a century ago, there is one humiliation that the nurses [of the novel] do not inflict upon their patient. Although when her visitors arrive they will say in front of her that, “it’s one of her bad days, you never know, with her,” they still never call her by her first name. They always address her respectfully as Miss Hampton. Nowadays it would be by the first name or, worse, a diminutive of the first name.
We are told, and even taught, that this informality is friendly and patients like it. But an acquaintance of mine became Mr Smith rather than Bill the moment he crossed over from being an NHS patient to being a private patient, which suggests that modes of address still mean something even today. Unsolicited informality is therefore an expression not of friendliness, but of power and a desire to keep people in their place.

Images from Monrovia, Mon Amour

We recently forwarded the New Criterion piece in which Dalrymple describes his rediscovery of the power of photography. After some of our commenters discussed their enjoyment of Dalrymple’s own photos (and just in time for the Spectator piece below), commenter Tuesday Msigwa has created an online album of the 16 photos in Monrovia, Mon Amour.

Prince of war

Prince Y. Johnson recently announced his candidacy for the presidency of Liberia, causing Dalrymple to reply sarcastically in the Spectator, “Strike a blow, then, for human rights: vote psychopath!” The author of Monrovia, Mon Amour tells of his own encounters with Johnson during his 1991 stay in the country:
…Johnson’s greatest military exploit was the capture of the then-president, Samuel Doe, whom he subsequently had tortured to death in front of him, an event so historic that Johnson thought it worthy of capture on video: a video of which he is sufficiently proud that he offered to show it to visiting foreigners.
In the video Johnson sits at a table drinking Budweiser while in front of him, naked and trussed like a chicken, sits the former president. Johnson orders Doe’s ears to be cut off, and they are. It becomes clear that one motives for the torture, apart from to procure Doe’s death, is to make him divulge,  before he expires, the numbers of his bank accounts in London, where it is assumed that he has salted away his ill-gotten gains.
Doe was not an admirable man, and no mean killer himself. It is widely believed that he participated personally in the massacre at St Peter’s Church, Monrovia, where about 600 people who had taken refuge there were mowed down with machine-guns by his men, maddened by their impending defeat at the hands of the rebels. The outlines of the bodies in the dried blood were still visible when I visited the church. I found a New Testament there, in which a young girl, Martha D. Z. Sonyah, recorded her decision to receive Christ as her Saviour seven days before she was shot and then buried in a mass grave.
Dr Ameche, a Nigerian long resident in Liberia, and practically the only doctor left in Monrovia still in practice at the time, told me how Johnson had had him up against the wall ready to shoot him because he had told Johnson that it was his duty as a doctor to treat the wounded of all sides…
Another man, a BBC correspondent, told me that he had personally witnessed Johnson killing a young man…I saw Johnson’s capacity for instantaneous change from affability to murderous rage when, to persuade me that behind the murderer was the philanthropist, he took me to an orphanage that his organisation ran. He patted a little boy on the head there who had a protuberant stomach (malnutrition and worms), and said, in Liberian English, ‘What the matter, you pregnant-o?’
When a psychopathic killer-at-large laughs, you laugh with him. But then a man came out of the orphanage to tell Johnson that there was no ‘soup’ for the children: none of the savoury accompaniment to the starch that was the staple food. Johnson turned on him with fury for having ­humiliated him in front of a foreigner. I wouldn’t have recommended the man as a risk for a life insurance company.
h/t Michael P.

Ordinary People


Dalrymple has a new essay in the Autumn edition of the Salisbury Review (the entire edition is available on their website for a mere $3), and it’s not your normal Dalrymple piece:


Having made my career observing and drawing the attention of the public to some of the less attractive aspects of the modern world, particularly as they are manifested in Britain, I feel the need to redress the balance slightly… For a long time I have felt the paradox weighing on my mind that while my writing has been one long letter of complaint to my contemporaries (and I write every day), my own life is, and has long been, perfectly satisfactory.

There follow some examples of the relative ease of his life and some evidence, from his recent travels throughout Britain, of genuine civility and politeness among ordinary people, even from postal clerks serving their customers cheerfully.


So if we are surrounded often by evidence of degeneration, of egotism, of shallowness, of rudeness and ill-manners, of all that can make life a torment, so it is all the more important that we should seek out examples of depth of character, of kindness, of devotion to duty, and of all that can make life a pleasure for us. They are still abounding.

Britain is a very corrupt country

On the Social Affairs Unit website (h/t Dave L.), Dalrymple argues that Britain suffers from a type of corruption that we also certainly see in the US:
It has long been evident to me that Britain is now a very corrupt country. I do not mean by this that money often and necessarily passes hands in a straightforwardly illicit or illegal way, under the table in brown envelopes, as it does in some countries that I could name. In fact, it is probably true that a very large majority of the British population never in its life makes, or feels that it has to make, an openly corrupt payment: and this is something that, in the light of world history, is very remarkable. Corruption is the norm for human beings, not the deviation from the norm.
Nevertheless, Britain is a corrupt country: much more corrupt, for example, than France. The kind of corruption to which I refer is of a special and insidious kind, intellectual and moral, much more insidious and difficult to root out that [sic] the more obvious kind that is usually meant by the word corruption.

What Chekhov can teach us about the London riots

We missed a Dalrymple piece at the Social Affairs Unit last month, in which one of his favorite writers informs his views on punishment:

Chekhov has an interesting little story on the matter of crime and punishment. It is called A Problem. In it, a young man of ancient and distinguished lineage has forged a promissory note and is about to face trial for it. The family meets in council to decide what to do about it: to let the young man take his punishment or to pay the promissory note? Which is the best way to save the family honour?

The colonel, a most unattractive character, is for taking a hard [l]ine, as they do in such cases (he says) in the army. He argues against saving the family honour by paying the amount due:

How can you say that I don'[t] believe in family honour? I repea[t] [o]nce more: fa-mil-y hon-our fal-sely un-der-stood is a prejudice! Falsely understood! That’s what I say: whatever may be the motives for screening a scoundrel, whoever he may be, and helping him to escape punishment, it is contrary to law and unworthy of a gentleman.

… the maternal uncle, Ivan Markovitch, who is a relative of Sasha’s only by marriage, founds his arguments on those to be found in the Guardian:

He began by saying that youth had its rights and its peculiar temptations. Which of us has not been young, and who has not been led astray? To say nothing of ordinary mortals, even great men have not escaped errors and mistakes in their youth. Take, for instance, the biography of great writers. Did not every one of them gamble, drink, and draw down upon himself the anger of right-thinking people in his young days?

Then there is the story of Sasha in particular: They must remember that Sasha had received practically no education:

he had lost his parents in early childhood, and so had been left at the tenderest age without guidance and good, benevolent influences.

In short, to put it in modern psychobabble, he had no role models. Therefore:

Even if he were guilty, he deserved indulgence and the sympathy of all compassionate souls. He ought, of course, to be punished, but he was punished as it was by his conscience and the agonies he was enduring…

Who has not heard these things said of wrongdoers? Ivan Markovitch rises to a rhetorical crescendo:

Shall we be false to civic duty if instead of punis[h]ing an erring boy we hold out to him a helping hand?

Nor is that all:

Crime is an immoral act founded upon ill-will. But is the will of man free? The latest school [of thought] denies the freedom of the will, and considers every crime as the product of purely anatomical peculiarities of the individual.

Does Dalrymple side with the colonel or Ivan Markovitch? His answer may be more complicated than you would guess. Read the whole thing.

h/t Dave L.

Some uncanny tales

Dalrymple’s BMJ column this week (subscription required) introduces the forgotten author Arthur Machen (1863–1947):
In The Terror it is Dr Lewis, a country practitioner in southwest Wales, who hits upon the explanation of a large series of mysterious and seemingly unconnected deaths. The animals have revolted in concert against the overlordship of mankind: placid dogs turn savagely on their owners, bees sting people to death, sheep drive walkers over cliffs and down quarries, cows trample farmers into marshes, moths form immense clouds that suffocate children to death, and flocks of birds fly into the path of aeroplanes and cause them to crash. The story was written in 1917, when the slaughter of the war deprived humanity of its right to call itself superior to any beings whatsoever.
In so far as Machen is remembered, except by the coterie, it is for originating, by means of a story published in 1914 in the Evening News, the myth of the Angel of Mons, according to which bowmen from the Battle of Agincourt were seen protecting the British army from superior German numbers. What started as fiction became accepted fact for a surprising number; apparently it helped the recruitment drive.
In his stories, Machen is unable to decide on the precise relations between the material and immaterial, the physical and the mental—just like us, really.