“Great” Britain “Pardons” War Hero Alan Turing 61 Years After Driving Him to Suicide

Alan Turing is the late British mathematician who arguably made a greater material contribution to Britain's war effort than any other single individual (Churchill included, whose contributions were rhetorical, which served to steel the public's resolve and boost morale- that is, non-material- and bad ideas for military campaigns). Turing was key in breaking the Germans' Enigma code, a crucial advantage in defeating Nazi Germany. The Allies were able to decode and read the Germans' military communications as a result. Turing also was a path-breaking computer scientist.

In 1952 Turing was exposed as homosexual and criminally prosecuted by the ungrateful British government. Duly convicted of the heinous crime of having sex with men (also a religious offense under Christian ideology, despite the prevalence of homosexual church bosses in Britain), the British legal system magnanimously allowed Turing to choose his own punishment, from a menu provided by them, of course: imprisonment, or chemical castration by enforced administering of estrogen.

Turing went with castration, a violent assault on one's being, and two years later committed suicide by ingesting cyanide. He was 41. [1]

Several years ago, then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown “apologized” for the wrong that was done by the ingrate British establishment to the man who helped them win a war of national survival. I'm sure that made Turing's corpse feel better.

Now, finally, after years of pressure (mainly embarrassing PR), the British power structure has decided to “pardon” Turing. Like he needs their forgiveness. They're the ones who need to be pardoned. Thus their "Queen" [bee] has performed the formality of issuing a pardon.

Of course, since he's dead, this does no good at all, except to salve the bad consciences of the successor British elite. The actual guilty parties are now all dead or retired. (If Britain really wanted to repudiate its awful, bigoted past, maybe they should put them on trial.)

But I'm being a tad too negative here. What good it does is it repudiates official homophobia. That's a positive. It says the Government shouldn't have persecuted a man for being homosexual- at least if that man was a war hero. (No word on pardons for other gays victimized by the British government and criminalized for their private sex lives. Under a recent law, some are allowed to beg for pardons, which of course requires effort and expense on their parts.)

There has also been a push to “pardon” British soldiers executed in World War I for “desertion:” shell-shock victims who left the hellish trenches. (Their moron generals kept feeding them into a meat-grinder year after year, making suicidal charges into machine gun and artillery fire, and other insanities.)

Pardons? Gee, I don't know, it's only been 95 years, are you sure enough time has passed yet to “forgive” those “cowards”?

P.S.: Here in the U.S.A., in the year 2013, The Great State of Utah has just made three attempts to get an “emergency” stay of a Federal District Court ruling invalidating Utah's ban on gay marriage as Unconstitutional. (That would be the U.S. Constitution. Each of the fifty states has its own state Constitution, which are supposed to be superceded by the Federal one where they conflict.) Yeah, that's an “emergency,” alright. Can't let gays get married. More people getting married would simply DESTROY the “institution” of marriage!

Six Utah counties are defying the Federal Court ruling and refusing to abide by it. In the rest of Utah, 700 gay couples have married in the past three days. Quick, Mormons! Get a stay! Stop them from marrying! “Defend” marriage! (Mormons, a weird, power-hungry cult to which Mitt Romney belongs, rules Utah.)

1]  Some suspect that the British secret police may have murdered Turing. I do not have sufficient information to affirm this. However, given the sinister nature of Western secret police forces, which all are dominated by fascists at their cores, who also violently hate homosexuals, and given that this was the 1950s, we cannot rule the possibility out. Memoirs I have read of some British secret policemen of that era make clear how rabid they were. They even put the serving head of MI6 under investigation, believing their own boss to be a Soviet mole based on the fact that he wasn't a violently deranged fascist as they were. Turing's security clearance was pulled, and it may have been felt that leaving him alive was a "security risk," given his knowledge of "sensitive" information.

No Limit to Crass Cynicism of Western "Human Rights" Castigations of Foes

The Western media is administering daily verbal upbraidings to Russian President Vladimir Putin over the new anti-gay laws in Russia. The occasion for this politico-ideological offensive is the Olympics being held at Sochi, Russia.

The U.S. Government decided to stick it to Putin by appointing two prominent gays to represent the U.S. at the games, including former tennis star Billie Jean King.

What's truly cynical about all this is that until less than six months ago Federal law openly discriminated against gays. I'm referring to DOMA, the "Defense[sic] of Marriage Act." The heart of that law (not even the entire law) was only overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in late June. And it was only after that court decision that the U.S. "Defense" Department officially moved to stop discriminating against gay servicepeople.

But you're not supposed to notice this.

I'm not saying Russia's anti-gay environment is not worthy of condemnation. But it takes extraordinary cynicism for countries like the U.S. (or various European allies, some of which are physically dangerous for gays to even live in- and just how do the Poles view gays? What is the position of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexuality?)  to hop on its high moral horse and twit the Russians about how backward they are on treating gays! Not even six months since the U.S. modified its own anti-gay national legislation! And it wasn't the legislature (Congress) that did it, it was the courts! (And it only took 'em 17 years to get around to it.)

I can speak on this because I was against anti-gay bigotry since I was a teenager, back in the 1960s. (It is germane to mention that I am a heterosexual, so I have no bias stemming from self-interest.) So the U.S. government is really a Johnny-Come-Lately on this.

But wait, there's more!!

In the Ukraine, the population is split on whether to tie themselves to the European Union (the fools actually think that would benefit them economically- they apparently haven't heard of Greece, Ireland, Spain, or Portugal! Or Italy either, for that matter) to stay in Russia's embrace. The eastern part of the country, and its industry, is completely tied economically to Russia, and thus the people there back the President, who got cold feet about signing a deal with the EU when Putin applied some pressure.

The pro-EU section of the population, apparently believing in mob rule, responded by occupying City Hall and the town square. For good measure, they poured water on the police in freezing temperatures.

Imagine what American police would do to protesters who dumped water on them. It wouldn't be pretty.

Consider the numerous instances in which protesters standing exactly where the police ordered them to were suddenly pepper-sprayed. Or were sitting down and doused, as happened on the University of California campus not long ago. (You can watch numerous videos of American police brutality on youtube.com)

During the Vietnam War, anti-war protesters were often savagely clubbed and kicked by police, infuriated by the "traitors" moral opposition to a criminal war of mass murder.

Any time there's a protest against one of the ruling parties' political conventions, or a confab of the political bosses of the "advanced" world (G-8, WTO, and other such obnoxious "summits" rubbing our faces in their power) there is police repression.

Yet the Ukrainian protesters who attacked the police were allowed to stay in occupation. Unlike the U.S. Occupy movement, which was brutally attacked and dispersed by police in a campaign coordinated by the FBI.

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, denounced the Ukrainian police action as "disgusting."

This from a guy whose boss oversaw the crushing of the Occupy Movement. This from a guy representing a country that smashes rallies against the WTO, G-8, and so on, whenever those organizations have a confab in the U.S. The U.S. police are far more intolerant of opposition rallies than the Ukrainian police have been.

Hypocrisy, once again thy name is America.

It's Not “Paranoia” When the Government is Persecuting You

Paranoia is a psychological or psychiatric disorder. When the government is persecuting someone, their victim isn't suffering from paranoia. He or she is suffering from persecution.

Paranoia is imaginary persecution. Paranoia means imagining nonexistent threats. Strictly speaking, unrealistic and impossible ones.

Being aware of the methods used by police states, including pseudo-democratic ones like the U.S. (which is only democratic in the most formal, pro forma, notional sense, for appearances' sake) and taking defensive measures against these malign methods, is not paranoia. It's a sign of emotional health, realistic coping, not pathology. The pathology is the malign power of the system brought to bear against the dissident.

Unfortunately even leftists have succumbed to this mystification and misuse of language, which protects the guilty- the police state agents. The terms “paranoia” and “paranoid” have become synonyms for “fear” and “afraid,” or worry or anxiety about possible threats from repressive government agencies.

Congress Moves to Worsen Problem of Sexual Assaults in the Military

The U.S. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has rejected the reform measure championed by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in favor of a version that on its surface would seem to strengthen protections for victims but that in a very important way will probably worsen things. Gillibrand's most important proposal was to take investigation and prosecution of sexual assault allegations against military personnel out of the chain of command and put it in the hands of independent prosecutors. This would prevent what now happens frequently- the quashing of charges by military commanders acting to protect sexual assaulters, and even the overturning of convictions. One of the changes in the current reform measure now set to be enacted into law as part of the Pentagon's gigantic budget bill would mandate the separation from service of those convicted of sexual offenses, presumably dishonorably. It would also take away the power of commanders to overturn convictions. But since commanders would still maintain control of the court-martial process, this gives them an even stronger incentive to quash charges against personnel they favor and would want to retain in military service, especially since they could no longer overturn convictions.

Way to go, assholes.

Of course, Congress has done worse. In a previous military spending bill, they included a provision empowering the president of the United States to brand U.S. citizens “terrorists” on his word alone, and order their indefinite imprisonment in a military dungeon without charges or trial. (This was the handiwork of “liberal” Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat. His party's boss, President Barack Obama, signed it into law. [1]) Previously the U.S. was only “allowed” to do this to that lesser order of beings, non-Americans.

But you don't hear anything about this from the U.S. media. You hear a LOT about how mean the Russians and Chinese are to dissidents, however. Which proves how much the U.S. establishment cares about human rights- so they'd have us believe.

But about Congress' fix for the epidemic of rapes and so on in the military; on the plus side, there are some sops that look good on paper but that in reality will probably do little to combat the plague of sexual assaults in the military. Retaliation against victims who report the crimes would itself be criminalized (good luck enforcing that one- try proving that being given an onerous assignment or a bad performance rating was “retaliation”). And they're going to expand a victims' counseling service. (Maybe put someone in charge of that who isn't a sexual abuser- remember the officer they put in charge of combating sexual assaults they had to replace after he was arrested for assaulting a woman in a parking lot?)

Let's see what Eugene Fidell has to say. He's the guy the media always go to as the expert on military law: “On the one hand, important progress has been made with respect to preliminary investigations. On the other hand, real reform in the structure of military justice [sic] has been put off.” (Fidell is an ex-officer and pro-military guy, by the way.)

In other words, victims will be lured in by the preliminary investigation, and then probably get screwed worse than if they'd never reported the crime in the first place, as usually happens now. Great.

I pity the fools who volunteer to be enforcers for U.S. imperialism. (Aka “defend our way of life.” Against all those third world poor people who threaten it!)

1] The loathsome Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is playing an essential role in the current sexual assault “reform” legislation too, as he controls what bills affecting the military get through his committee, and thus was a key negotiator with the House in agreeing to the sexual assault measure slated to be voted on by Congress.