At The Financal Times: On the Guilt of Cedric Belfrage, a comment by Political Reporter

Tundan Sabah’s wonderfully pungent comment echoes some, but not all of my thoughts, regarding these ‘revelations’. His deliciously contemptuous polemic helped me to clarify my own thoughts, the measure of writing at it’s best.   The raw data collected by MI5 is enough to convict the man in 2015, yet not enough to be arrested and put on trial for treason at the time? We now have the proof? That raw data is just that, no more no less. But what a perfect opportunity to air the perpetual grievances that the Financial Times holds for any political manifestation of the ‘Left’. That ‘Left’ is prima facie guilty of subversion/treason, of the deeply held beliefs of the defenders of the predations of Capital and it’s actors.Rational analysis gives way to the usual politically calculated hysterics.

For those who are interested John Banville in his novel The Untouchable has taken as his starting point Anthony Blunt and the whole circle around him. The Cambridge Five and even that Establishment stalwart Graham Greene appears, in the most unappealing literary guise. Banville’s novel provides the insights that I wrote about earlier in my comment.

The question remains, what about the double life of the closeted homosexual have to do with the double life of the spy? Was that double life just a habit of being, that dovetailed so well with the life of the spy? As a kind of nihilist/romantic delusion? And did the animus for the heterosexual establishment play a part in the emotional makeup of these spies? Cedric Belfrage wasn’t gay, but the essay offers an opportunity to reflect, even in a small way, on the larger picture of Britain in the thirties, and almost to the present moment of The New Cold War.

Political Reporter

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.