Dear Doug:
First a disclaimer. Most of what you will now read is to be interpreted
with tongue firmly in cheek. I have been having a wonderful time in this
group and fully intend to keep doing so. I actually have questioned even
the antics of some of my dearest kin of whom you will find mention, along
with the apparently unusual viewed professors, etc.. A long time ago, a
good friend of mine composed a folk song whose chorus started out like this:
"People are funny, life is strange..."
and I don't believe a truer phrase was ever sung before or since. So, I
read and think and toss out ideas, and what I've read for others to think
about, discuss--and to enjoy when it pleases them. I'm not perfect, and
don't claim to be. Sometimes I'm even prickly, and really get ridiculous
when I overplay "devil's advocate" and set myself up for more of a
crucifixion than intended. However, I think I managed to avoid that one
this time. No hammer and nails needed this time. Sorry, but I'm sure
someone else will give you the opportunity to use them later. I just want
to have a bit of fun instead. The problem is, though, you really didn't
give me a lot to use. It's really been challenging to come with this
posting. But I think I succeeded in finding a bunch of stuff here to keep
your funny bone happy for quite awhile. So, read, and enjoy, and above all,
take almost nothing seriously. ;-)
At 04:11 PM 1/26/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>That's only partly the reason. Actually, it was because that when
>>Transylvania was first _really_ settled in "modern" Christian era times, and
>>quite late at that. It was forest, mountains, etc. and frankly the majority
>>of people didn't have adequate tools for clearing and living with that until
>>almost the Rennaissance--which is why the Romans themselves never extended
>>the empire all over Germany and the British isles).
>
> Excuse me, but I thought the Romans did colonize "Brittania" or did
>someone else build Hadrian's wall?
They didn't conquer and colonize all of Brittania. The Scots will be happy
to tell you there's quite a large chunk of Britain above the wall. They
also had debatable control of much of the interior of Wales. I gather from
some books it was rather like "Turkish control" of much of the Transdanubia
region of Hungary--yes and then again no.
While forestation did have something to
>do with the Empire not colonizing all of Germany, (Roman infantry tactics
>were marginal at best in heavy forest and mountains) the presence of
>certain hostile peoples probably had more of an impact.
There's an interesting science fiction series by a Polish American writer
named Leo Frankowski. He's a mechanical engineer, among other things in his
earlier life, and a darned good researcher. He discusses the technology
available for forest clearing, etc. in his _Cross Time Engineer_ series.
This started out from him but I also did some additional checking. Among
other things, earlier this year I also asked the same question of a
modern-day sword maker who makes replicas of real swords, knives, etc. from
many historical periods and countries, and prides himself on his own
historical research, including metallurgy. He's out of Santa Clara,
California and sells his wares at the Scottish festivals in the U.S.. I
have his card, but my card file drawer recently got very seriously
"rearranged" by one of my cats. It would take awhile to find it again, but
I probably could, if you really insist. Anyhow, he agreed with Mr.
Frankowski. Oh, by the way, Mr. Frankowski lives in Michigan, and one of my
cousins once said he is in the phone book. I think he even talked with him.
(He wanted him to include Hungary more in his later books.)
By the way, this Santa Clara swordmaker had a really beautiful Magyar sword
(labeled "9th century East Central Europe barbarians") for $495. I sure
hope he's at the Campbell Games in June so I can get it for my birthday.
You just never know when one of these things might come in handy--especially
if I stay on the internet, right?
I'll check some of my science books after I get back from a meeting and see
if I can spot the other references again, too. I know the information is
there and kind of scattered in those books. Remind me, if I forget and you
still want them. Thank you, for this one. I enjoy delving in my mineralogy
and related subjects books. I'm looking forward to getting back up to
northern California for some rock hunting and such this spring.
>>If the great powers would insist upon autonomy for Transylvania, and back up
>>the insistence with sanctions such as denial of loans and investments and
>>NATO and EC membership until it was done, it might happen. However, there
>>are still some English "leaders" (financial, political,etc.) who still
>>harbor the dream of their parents or grandparents regarding East Central
>>Europe--as a set of English colonies subservient to English elite interests.
>>Their public schools seem not to have changed education patterns since
>>before World War I. This is not just my assessment.
>>
>>Check out the May, 1992? or 1993? (USNWR is not on AOL and my group of old
>>issues of USNWR was recently relocated by my husband to the garage without
>>much care for keeping them in chronological order, when we last tried to
>>make room for more books and computer equipment in the study) issue of "U.S.
>>News and World Report," titled, "Can Europe be Unified?" I never thought I
>>would see a non-Hungarian writer of a major Western magazine put in writing
>>what was normally just quietly, verbally expressed widely in DC, like so
>>much gossip. It's not normally done, but there they were, black and white
>>statements such as: "The major drawback to unification is English
>>attitudes and interests. ... It is the opinion of most fellow-Europeans at
>>the conferences that the English have not changed their ideas about the rest
>>of Europe since World War I."
>>
>>So, _if_ the English elites still want East Central Europe as a whole to be
>>second-class colonies and they still consider more independent minded
>>Hungarians as a threat to that idea, and their own (English) people continue
>>to be oblivious to what in reality is likely to be a minority view among
>>their own leaders, but still a powerful one, then it is not likely that
>>Transylvania will get autonomy, or that conditions for Hungarians in
>>Transylvania will significantly improve.
>
> The article you refer to I believe had to do with England's
>hesitation to enter the EU which had nothing to do with any English
>elitism, but rather with concerns that cheaper Eastern European labor would
>worsen an already bad labor situation in England. What did this have to do
>with Transylvanian dreams of autonomy? Absolutely nothing.
>
The English Labor Party has that concern, but that's not the party of John
Majors. May I please quote what English public relations officers quoted to
me when I asked them about a few things I'd read and heard. The names of
the officers were Price and Whitehead--one in the British embassy in the
U.S. and the other in the Foreign Minister's office in England at the time.
I made a handwritten transcript of the telephone interviews, and kept a copy
of the phone bill--which my husband protested (both the bills and the
keeping, he hates trying to find new places for overstuffed file boxes).
"The English government is concerned that labor rates are too _high_ in
France and Germany, and that unions are too strong in a number of countries.
England wants to see _lower_ labor rates and weaker unions so the EC labor
can compete with the costs in third world countries, and bring in goods from
some parts of its commonwealth to sell in the EC."
Now if the Majors Tory government who so clearly had expressed itself as
"anti-labor and unions" in 1991, 92 and 93, still has a few leaders in it
who hold pre-World War I attitudes toward _all_ of Europe, then a look at
what those attitudes were toward _all_ Europe is valid.
However, I will concede that what Majors and his minions have said between
91-94 may now be a moot point. According to the most recent election
results, he and the Tories do seem to be on the way out--soon. However, if
the Tories somehow pull this rabbit out of their hat, then, please, read
_The Economic History of Europe_ , 1953 by Professors Clough and Colefield,
and Wilfred Fiest (Oxford Scholar's) book, _Peace or Partition_, published
in 1978, and particularly look up all the references to the "Crewe House."
Again, thank you for asking about this issue.
>>Also remember, much more loudly and widely expressed in Washington DC, among
>>Congressional aides, etc. is the following opinion. "The Clinton
>>administration feels very close to and wants to appease the English
>>aristocratic friends Clinton made while a Rhodes scholar, and in subsequent
>>contacts." Thus, "since Clinton also doesn't seem to have many strong
>>convictions and much will of his own," (except to get himself re-elected),
>>"U.S. foreign policy is made in England."
>
>(Loud disbelieving laughter!!!!!)
Oh, I can imagine. It is very hard to believe some of the things that go on
in this city. Did you ever see the film "Distinguished Gentleman" with
Eddie Murphy? Have you ever noticed the definite smirks on some real
people in the film--like Nina Tottenberg. I was told that's because most of
the incidents in the film really happened--just not all at once, or all in
the same few places. Spend some time in DC lobbying for something and start
chatting up some of the aides. Spend only a few minutes on your subject,
then ask them a few friendly questions. Go back a few times so they get to
recognize you and get the feeling it's ok to share a few tidbits of what
they really think and feel. The committee staffers are the best. Go to
some all-day conferences too, where you think they might show up. It gets
"verrrry eenteresting," sometimes. Definitely not boring. It's kind of
fun to see just how much you can get them to say with how few visits.
You know, your reaction was about how I enjoyed about the story of the
"Katzenjammer kids" in the White House running down the general in the hall,
and then looking at him and saying, "oh it's only one of you. Well, we don't
have to listen to you guys any more anyway."--It was a teeny bit bothersome
when I heard it several times, from shocked aides and even Defense
department people... I guess these folks don't have children and aren't
used to having youngsters running amok in their lives. Well, they really
should loosen up, shouldn't they.
No, I'm not going to reveal my sources, on this one, some of them still have
to live in DC and try to work with these guys, anyway, at least for another
year. I suggested they try to move faster in the halls, and to bring a
skateboard with them to help them do that, although it is hard to imagine
one or two of them on one of those things.
You really enjoyed this Washington deviltry? Well great, I'm glad you did.
I really mean that. If you wish to think I made this all up, go right ahead
and enjoy it as such. It's absolutely no big deal to me, and I'm sure it
won't bother any Congressional aides, either. They've enjoyed plenty of
laughs over us. Sure, let's enjoy one on them, for a change. However, now
I've got one even better for you. If you want to really enjoy the "mother
of all laughs," please, please go and get a copy of _Conspiracies, Crimes
and Cover-ups_ by Jonathan Vankin, 1991.
It's a description and analysis of all the major "conspiracy theories" in
the U.S--and to some extent Europe. I'm sure you'll find his comments about
the Trilateralists, and Council on Foreign Relations, P2, and their history
(scattered in bits and pieces, and not very thorough, throughout) very, very
amusing. Actually I did laugh quite a bit and wondered how so many of these
people were still on the streets. Funny (in another sense) thing is, though,
some people in DC and New York, and Lord knows where else didn't find it so
funny. I know for a fact it shook up the Republican Party Heritage Council.
It turned out some of his stuff was valid, but some was not, but everyone
mentioned had a heck of a time getting documents, witnesses etc. to defend
themselves--since some of the claims were for actions more than 50 years
ago. It virtually wrecked that arm of the party for awhile. Ask AMOSZ what
they think of Mr. Vankin and his friends/sources, whatever. They didn't
seem to have much of a sense of humor when I asked them about some of the
stuff that I didn't believe. Maybe I caught them on a bad day.
I had my own doubts about some of the other stuff he presented as supposedly
more rational than the LaRouche junk, but when I called him where he
supposedly worked at the "San Jose Metro" office, a coworker told me, he'd
received one or two previous calls, but then finally got one that apparently
bothered him somehow, because he suddenly left the area, and hasn't been
seen by them since. They didn't know where he'd gone. Maybe his publisher
does.
He's really just probably some paranoic maniac who finally let his own fears
get to him.
After all, all government officials of all great powers always think humane,
egalitarian thoughts and behave accordingly, especially the English. Why
they would never, ever think unkind thoughts, and harbor ridiculous
suspicions, or worse, do all the nasty things that dissidents and serious
(read isolated, know-nothing) historians have claimed all the great powers
have done. Mr. Gandhi, for instance, was so ungrateful to have wanted
England out of India, wasn't he? He just didn't understand how much more
good the English were really doing there. Probably damaged his brain cells
with all those hunger strikes, eh?
And Lord Crewe couldn't possibly have said those awful things in the British
press during World War I about wanting East Europe divided up so the English
could create competing colonies to give them the lowest prices on
commodities and labor, and the lowest tariffs for manufactured goods, while
charging them the highest interest rates to invest in rebuilding the
countries."
No, no, no, the Oxford Scholar, Dr. Fiest must have been in error about some
of those only lately received World War I documents, and must have the
English Lord Crewe confused with some German. He must have examined his
materials in too much haste before he wrote his book. Very sloppy of him,
though, he kept attaching a group called "Crewe House" to all kinds of stuff
that just couldn't be done by the most civilized nation on earth, and by the
most civilized appearing of the civilized at that. And then there was the
unnamed little group that preceded the Crewe House in these erroneously
placed sentiments. Since he only mentioned it, once and never identified
the members, and he only _claimed_ to be having trouble getting the English
government to release more World War I records, without providing any
details, it can't possibly have really ever existed, right?
Sayyy! I have a marvelous idea, Doug, why don't you look up Dr. Fiest and
offer to go to Oxford and England and help him rewrite his book and get it
right this time. Then you could go visit Georgetown University and go
through the late Professor Quigley's materials (obviously he was just as
confused as Dr. Fiest) and redo _Tragedy and Hope_, originally written in
1963, also.
And when I finally find all my grandfather's papers again (we saw some of
them twice but grandmother kept moving them and hiding them again--I guess
her age was causing her to become senile; surely no enemy could be around
after over 50 years) that she told us included some items about how the
English betrayed him and some other Hungarian reformers in 1905, I'm sure
you'll be happy to patiently try and convince me that they were the ravings
of a deranged dreamer or some such thing. I don't suppose I could get you
to volunteer your help in going through the disaster areas in the attic and
basement, and pick your imagination on where else they might have dug out
bricks, made alcoves, etc., etc. in a basement and a couple of outbuildings
that are slowly falling apart? Trust me, it's not a job I've been looking
forward to. They kept over 75 years of nearly everything--deliberately, and
then played "shell games." My guess is it will probably be another 75 years
before whatever stuff they thought was so important is really found again.
However maybe it's just not worth bothering about. Although my grandfather
may have been a diplomat, even that you could question, his brains were
probably addled in either the ambush that nearly cost him his leg, or one of
the fire-bombings of his home. He really didn't know the Marquess of Milford
Haven, and he got his own emigration records wrong and didn't spend a year
in England trying to find out who the devil betrayed the reformers, etc.,
etc., etc.. Everything his two attorneys and his private investigator
thought they found out were all wrong, he really didn't need a
bodyguard--just another bit of unnecessary paranoia, and the firebomb that
nearly killed my grandmother and baby uncle and finally did destroy my
grandparent's most personal home in Hungary never probably happened, either.
Of course since all these people are now dead and can't possibly defend
themselves when anyone says they were all more or less well, nuts, we can
all just happily believe they were, nuts, and forget it all, right?
Let's see, what else could you do that's probably better. Ooh, I have
another professor you could help redo his materials. Oh Goody, I think he's
even still alive: Professor W. Phillips Davison. He did a terribly flawed
article about World War I propaganda, in November, 1971 in the _Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science_, called "Some Trends
in International Propaganda." He makes terrible allusions to the U.S.
Committee on Public Information being friendlier to the English government
than the German, and even states, oh horrors, "British control over major
channels of communication from Europe to the United States proved important
in insuring that the American press carried news that favored the allies."
He must be wrong to include England when he says, "Germany, France, England
and the U.S. all built up large propaganda machines during the First World
War." He does say they dismantled them at the end of the war, but then he
errs again in claiming the English were among "several colonial countries
(who) began to use radio to strengthen the bonds of empire." This was in
response to Goebbels round the world short-wave broadcasts that apparently
were not flattering to the English, at the time. (Let's not get into a
discussion about Goebbels, please, guys. He's one of my least favorite
historical characters and I don't care how great he was as a propagandist
and how amazing his mass manipulation was. He wasn't a nice guy.)
Anyhow, Doug, I guess you'd better contact this professor Davison right
away. His laughably embarrassing errors have already been reprinted in _Mass
Media Issues_, edited and compiled by George Rodman of Brooklyn College,
City University of New York, and published by Science Research Associates in
1984. It would be a shame to let that get used again and again without your
corrections, right?
But come on, Doug. You and Professor Stowe have now both had your fun with
my poor, old dead professors from probably ossified ivory towers, and an
equally deceased formerly deranged grandfather, and the probably dangerously
inbred and drooling xenophobic borderers and such. So when are you going to
put some of _your_ favorite materials out so I can take some pot shots?
Hmmm? It's a little hard to take cheap shots at just laughter or a few
derisive comments. No fair, guys, that's not enough of a target! Don't I
get a better target than that to shoot at? Awwww, nuts! If you don't give
me a good target, I guess I'll just have to go find some more clay pigeons
in talk.politic. china. or something.--Their vocabulary is so limited
though. About every other phrase in one guy's postings is always "bloody
carders." Really boring!
You know, I keep thinking of an old fairy-tale called the "emperor's new
clothes" everybody in town really believed they saw him walking around in
these wonderous garments of rainbow colored silk and gold and silver
threads--except for one really, stupid little girl. Of course this was a
fairy tale, so it had to end happily ever after, so the more she shouted the
more people began to think and finally really looked and agreed, the emperor
had no clothes on. However the real story was different., Actually, she was
told to be quiet, that she didn't know what she was talking about. When she
dared open her mouth again to protest, she was spanked soundly, sent home by
her parents, and the rest all continued to enjoy what they believed.
Well, before I get spanked, I think I'll get my husband to figure out how to
prop up my leg next to the new tester at his office and do something really
mindless--test about 200 itty bitty IC's or so, so his company can _finally_
get them out of the building only 3 weeks late and get paid so we can take a
vacation after I can walk again. After all, I don't want to have my brains
get as ossified as all those senile old professors, who keep making such
errors, right?
Frankly, though, I still like what I.F. Stone said, "all government
officials are liars." However, I have no doubt someone will immediately
correct me, and say, but he said "Englishmen were the exception."
See you later. I'll be back, soon. Don't despair, I'm bound to come up
with a few more laughs for you next week. ;-)
Sincerely, but only semi-seriously, if even that,
Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA
(and no, I didn't wreck the knee with a skateboard, either. Keep guessing.)
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA
|
