Mark Steyn on the Slaughter in Woolwich

Saturday, May 25, AD 2013

I wish I had something cheerier to start the Memorial Day weekend, but Mark Steyn, as usual, knocks it out of the park with his weekend column.

This passivity set the tone for what followed. In London as in Boston, the politico-media class immediately lapsed into the pneumatic multiculti Tourette’s that seems to be a chronic side effect of excess diversity-celebrating: No Islam to see here, nothing to do with Islam, all these body parts in the street are a deplorable misinterpretation of Islam. The BBC’s Nick Robinson accidentally described the men as being “of Muslim appearance,” but quickly walked it back lest impressionable types get the idea that there’s anything “of Muslim appearance” about a guy waving a machete and saying “Allahu akbar.” A man is on TV dripping blood in front of a dead British soldier and swearing “by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,” yet it’s the BBC reporter who’s apologizing for “causing offence.” To David Cameron, Drummer Rigby’s horrific end was “not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam. . . . There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

 
How does he know? He doesn’t seem the most likely Koranic scholar. Appearing on David Letterman’s show a while back, Cameron was unable to translate into English the words “Magna Carta,” which has quite a bit to do with that “British way of life” he’s so keen on. But apparently it’s because he’s been up to his neck in suras and hadiths every night sweating for Sharia 101. So has Scotland Yard’s deputy assistant commissioner, Brian Paddick, who reassured us after the London Tube bombings that “Islam and terrorism don’t go together,” and the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, telling NPR listeners after 19 Muslims were arrested for plotting to behead the Canadian prime minister: “You know, in Islam, if you kill one person you kill everybody,” he said in a somewhat loose paraphrase of Koran 5:32 that manages to leave out some important loopholes. “It’s a very peaceful religion.”

 
That’s why it fits so harmoniously into famously peaceful societies like, say, Sweden. For the last week Stockholm has been ablaze every night with hundreds of burning cars set alight by “youths.” Any particular kind of “youth”? The Swedish prime minister declined to identify them any more precisely than as “hooligans.” But don’t worry: The “hooligans” and “youths” and men of no Muslim appearance whatsoever can never win because, as David Cameron ringingly declared, “they can never beat the values we hold dear, the belief in freedom, in democracy, in free speech, in our British values, Western values.” Actually, they’ve already gone quite a way toward eroding free speech, as both prime ministers demonstrate. The short version of what happened in Woolwich is that two Muslims butchered a British soldier in the name of Islam and helpfully explained, “The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.” But what do they know? They’re only Muslims, not Diversity Outreach Coordinators. So the BBC, in its so-called “Key Points,” declined to mention the “Allahu akbar” bit or the “I”-word at all: Allah who?

As always, be sure to read the rest.

Douglas Murray also has a must-read column on the subject.

Cheers.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Mark Steyn on the Slaughter in Woolwich

Brave New World

Wednesday, March 20, AD 2013

I may have mentioned this before, but one of my favorite novels is C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength. It was the final part of what is known as Lewis’s Space Trilogy. A brief summary of the book is available at this link. The villain in this book is an entity called the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments – N.I.C.E. – which seeks to build a Utopian society based on science. Of course they are basically nothing more than totalitarian, atheistic thugs.

My admiration for the book is based on the fact that Lewis was a prophet. At least, that’s what struck me when I read this headline and accompanying story:

Britain on course for ‘three parent babies’

Britain is on course to become the first country in the world to legalise the creation of IVF babies with three biological “parents” after the fertility watchdog announced that the public is in favour of the controversial technology.

And then Bob Grant’s voice entered my head: They’re sick and they’re getting sicker.

But hey, evidently a majority of people would be down with completely re-working the laws of nature.

A major consultation found that a majority of people would back the therapy, under which a small part of a mother’s genetic material is swapped with that of a healthy donor to eliminate the risk of passing on a host of hereditary diseases to her child.

By removing faulty DNA from the mitochondria, which is always inherited from the mother, experts believe the child and future generations could be spared from a collection of devastating conditions affecting the heart, muscles and brain.

And this is how we’ll convince people that we aren’t entering Frankenstein-levels of biological tinkering. You see these great minds are merely making sure that no one should endure the burden of an imperfect child. Don’t you feel so much better about this project now?

And then on top of the ethical and moral concerns, there’s this:

The HFEA, which carried out the consultation, advised ministers that if they do legalise the therapy, donors and patients should remain anonymous and have no right to contact one another.

Yeah, that always works out well.

And if you’re concerned that we’re at risk of making Gattaca a reality, don’t you worry your little heads off.

Dismissing fears that allowing the treatment could be the start of a “slippery slope”, she emphasised that the therapy – which could become the first treatment to alter the human germ line – would only be available for people at risk of passing on mitochondrial disease.

For now. Oh, she didn’t actually add those words, but I’m sure that’s what she meant, at least if she had a moment of honest self-reflection.

Fortunately, despite the repeated insistence – based on absolutely no data presented in the article – that this procedure has broad public support, clearly not everyone in jolly old England has lost their ever-loving minds.

But opponents of the technique have questioned the moral justification of engineering embryos, and questioned how the resulting child’s sense of identity might be affected by the knowledge that they have three biological parents.

Dr David King, Director of Human Genetics Alert, said: “Historians of the future will point to this as the moment when technocrats crossed the crucial line, the decision that led inexorably to the disaster of genetically engineered babies and consumer eugenics.”

Now, now, Doctor, our best and brightest have assured us that we have nothing to worry about. That should make us all feel much better.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Brave New World

  • Manipulating the destiny of a man’s soul through genetic engineering is pretty awesome. Even God leaves the destiny of the man’s soul to the free will of the man. Frankenstein did not appreciate being messed with so he (Frankenstein) killed the guy who messed him up. The altered individuals will be searching for the people who altered them without respect for their human souls, their free will and their consent. And If the altered human beings are going to hell, because their consent was eliminated and ignored, you better believe that they will be taking their inventors with them. Hell hath no fury as that of a woman scorned and altered.

  • Pingback: The 12 Steps up the Mountain of Pride - Big Pulpit
  • Paul.
    Thank you for this.
    C.S. Lewis was a visionary…unfortunately.
    Now we witness the fiction turning fact. Nice.
    On Monday a story from a science blog touted the progress of reviving an extinct frog species. When will this all backfire?

  • G. K. Chesterton spoke of this phenomenon in the Shadow and the Wells. The classic idea is that there’s nothing knew. After a brief experiment with freedom, we’ll return to the beehive scenario that assumes a hundred names. We’ve been returning to it since the progressive era, roughly coinciding with the onset of the twentieth century.

  • Jon-
    Is it Shallow and the Wells?
    Excellent find. Thanks.
    “Those who leave the tradition of Truth do not escape into something which we call freedom; they only escape into something elese, which we call fashion.”
    How fitting.

    One more that rings clear; “We have come out of the shallows and the dry places to the one deep well, and Truth is at the bottom of it.”

    Appreciate your insight.

  • So in the U.K., per European Union regulations, it is illegal to grow, import, or sell genetically modified food; but it is perfectly acceptable to produce genetically modified human beings. Tomatoes must be protected against genetic tinkering, but men must not be.

  • Tom-
    GMO tinkering have produced tomatoes that look like gems, however its fails horribly in flavor.
    Makes one wonder how successful the tinkering of humans will go. Possibly a human that looks like a strong specimen, but laking in soul?
    Pray onward throughout the darkness until the dawn dissolves the night.

  • Tom Sharp

    Alas, you are quite right about the UK

    On the other hand, some EU countries, notably France, have very strict laws on assisted reproduction and ban surrogacy entirely

    Consider the following excerpts from the Code Civil:-

    “Art. 16
    Legislation ensures the primacy of the person, prohibits any infringement of the latter’s dignity and safeguards the respect of the human being from the outset of life.
    Art. 16-1
    Everyone has the right to respect for his body.
    The human body is inviolable.
    The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right…

    Art. 16-5
    Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products are void.
    Art. 16-6
    No remuneration may be granted to a person who consents to an experimentation on himself, to the taking of elements from his body or to the collection of products thereof.
    Art. 16-7
    All agreements relating to procreation or gestation on account of a third party are void.

    Besides these specific laws, one has the catch-all provision of Art 1128, ““Only things in trade can be the subject of an agreement” Thus, the ethical principles enshrined in the laws of France do not allow a child to form the subject of a contract.

  • Phillip, thanks for hte correction. Yes, its Shallow and the Wells. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis saw through the political trends of their day, and they knew it represented retrogression, not progress.

  • Christianity brought progress in every arena. We are living off this religious capital in the West and when it is spent, we find that we revert to paganism, to barbarism, to the conditions that plagued the dying ancient Roman world. A generation has now arisen that is clearly post-Christian. Unlike C. S. Lewis’ generation which conciously tossed Christian verities to the wind, this generation has been reared without them.

  • Catacombs in our future?
    Fr. John Hardon warned us of the days to come. The rapid rate of decent is sobering.
    Bless you folks for inspiring me with your treasury of literary genius.
    Peace.

Brits Vote for Washington as Greatest Enemy

Monday, April 16, AD 2012

No, not our government, the general. (Though they’d be forgiven for thinking so based on some things this administration has done.)

He’s one of our Founding Fathers, but according to the Brits, George Washington is public enemy #1.

Our nation’s first president, who led the 13 colonies in the Revolution against England’s tyrannical rule, was picked by a wide margin in a National Army Museum in London poll as the greatest foe ever faced by Britain.

Washington delivered one of “the most jarring defeat(s)” ever inflicted upon the British Empire at the time, said author and historian Stephen Brumwell, according to London’s Telegraph.

“He was a worthy opponent,” he said.

Washington was selected among five other finalists, who were picked during an online poll that received at least 8,000 votes. The four other potential British foils were Ireland’s Michael Collins, France’s Napoleon Bonaparte, Germany’s Erwin Rommel, and Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

At least somebody still respects winners.

H/t: Stacy McCain.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Brits Vote for Washington as Greatest Enemy

  • Great minds and all of that Paul. I have a post on this for Almost Chosen People on this later in the week. King George III of all people paid the ultimate accolade to the Father of Our Nation:

    “The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”

    “If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.””

    The first Catholic Bishop in the United States, John Carroll, from his eulogy on the death of Washington:

    “The last act of his supreme magistracy was to inculcate in most impressive language on his countrymen… his deliberate and solemn advice; to bear incessantly in their minds that nations and individuals are under the moral government of an infinitely wise and just Providence; that the foundations of their happiness are morality and religion; and their union among themselves their rock of safety… May these United States flourish in pure and undefiled religion, in morality, peace, union, liberty, and the enjoyment of their excellent Constitution, as long as respect, honor, and veneration shall gather around the name of Washington; that is, whilst there still shall be any surviving record of human events!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2L052IJbg8&feature=related

  • I knew this one would be up your alley, Don.

    Of course Washington’s model was Cincinnatus. The Society of the Cincinnati is not far from my office.

  • For our part, side ways sort of, do we forgive Benedict Arnold?

  • I tend to agree with a captured American sergeant who Arnold asked in 1781 what would happen to him if we captured him. The sergeant replied that the leg he had wounded at Quebec and Saratoga would be cut off and buried with full military honors. The rest of him would then be hung on a very tall gibbet.

  • Shows how Britain is, sadly, a hollow shell of its past when we see this sort of thing. Fortunately, there is still a minority of people there who still remember the great days of “Rule Brittanica”, and hopefully will pull them out of the mire that is engulfing them.
    Of that list, Washington, Collins and Ataturk were fighting on their own land, in defense of it, or attempting to expel an aggressor – which Brittain was in those cases.
    Bonaparte and Rommell were agressors against England, and I suspect Bonaparte was the worst of the two.
    Had they said Hitler instead of Rommel, then he would have surpassed Bonaparte.

  • “Shows how Britain is, sadly, a hollow shell of its past when we see this sort of thing.”

    I actually took pride in it Don! A great nation like the UK needs a worthy greatest enemy. A homicidal maniac like Hitler or a jumped up Corsican lieutenant of artillery simply do not fill the role!

  • In my mind, Washington’s personal qualities set him head and shoulders above the others.

    His greatness was in his possession (in spades!) of all the human virtues. He was not a military genius nor a conqueror, a la Alexander or Atla.

    The image of Washington praying at Valley Forge. Read the history of the War of Independence and I think one must conclude that the Divine Assistance always was with the Continental Army and Congress.

    Supposedly, King George said, “Washington was the greatest man of his time.” when he was informed that Washington refused a crown.

    Michael Collin did not live long enough. The other nominees’ personal attributes pale in comparison to the Father of our Country. Yes, I am a “little” prejudiced.

  • Kiwi – the difference is in the use of the word “Greatest.” Not in the sense of “largest threat” but as in “Which of Britain’ victorious opponents would be held most admirable?”

    Had the question been “Who was Britain’s worst foe?” then Der Fuhrer would have certainly topped the list, followed somwhere closely by King Phillip II of Spain and Oliver Cromwell, methinks.

  • Just a point of clarification: the rankings are of military commanders only, so Hitler would not be eligible for this listing. And yes, the #1 ranking in this context is definitely a compliment.

  • It is as silly to sanctify Washington as it would be to canonize the Duke of Wellington. But as far as the USA is concerned he was the man for the hour, as Churchill, despite his shortcomings, was for England in 1940. Michael Collins is a more ambiguous figure. His statesmanship in the 1921 treaty negotiations is recognized, but his earlier assumption that Ireland’s freedom could only be achieved by bloody revolution has been questioned, and rightly so. Most of the victims of his terror campaign were Irish Catholics – the Royal Irish Constabulary was referred to disparagingly by Ulster protestants as the ‘Fenian Force’ . And the problem with Irish nationalism, that it is intimately bound up with extreme violence, is part of the Collins legacy which should not be glossed over.

  • The Iron Duke did not have the difficulties that Washington had John in simply keeping his army in existence, a point that I address today at Almost Chosen People.

    http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/valley-forge-rations/

    Also, unlike Washington, Wellington in his personal relations could be a nasty piece of work, as I am sure his wife would attest.

    In regard to Collins, Home Rule was never going to be granted to Ireland as long as Ulster was prepared to revolt against it, this being graphically demonstrated just prior to the onset of World War I. Churchill’s father’s quip in 1891 that “Ulster Will Fight, and Ulster Will Be Right” demonstrated just how long enduring and intransigient this sentiment was. Independence simply was not going to be granted without fighting, and Collins led the guerilla campaign which was the only avenue the Republicans had since a conventional conflict was hopeless for the Irish. Winston Churchill, who negotiated the peace with Collins, paid him this tribute after Collins’ death:

    “Successor to a sinister inheritance, reared among fierce conditions and moving through ferocious times, he supplied those qualities of action and personality with-out which the foundations of Irish nationhood would not have been re-established.”

  • One more feather in George Washington’s cap – he indirectly benefited Canada, Australia and New Zealand. After losing her thirteen American colonies, Britain became more lenient towards her colonial subjects.

  • Don, it’s ironic that Collins was more respected by the British than he was by many of his own countrymen. Having worked in England he had no animosity towards the English and had none of the religious bigotry which sadly still exists in the North. The point I was making was that what Collins settled for in 1921 was effectively what would have happened anyway (by 1914 the HR Bill had passed both houses of Parliament and the Unionists knew that the best they could hope for was an opt-out for Ulster protestants). In British political circles it was expected that partition would not last and that the six counties would merge with the rest of Ireland sooner rather than later.

    This point was not lost on the Ulster Unionists who with an eye on the demographic situation in the six counties, and ever-fearful of a sell-out by Westminster, spent the next fifty years entrenching their position by effectively treating the Catholics as second-class citizens. The hands-off approach of successive British governments (who after all had a duty to ensure that all citizens were treated fairly) unravelled in 1968. Even then, it was nearly four years before direct rule was imposed, by which time NI had descended into a vortex of terrorism and counter-terrorism, the main driving force for which was a newly resurgent IRA. This delayed the inevitable political settlement for over a quarter of a century.

  • I have long thought John that De Valera set Collins up by sending him to negotiate the peace. He knew that any peace that the British would agree to would be unacceptable to many Republicans which is why he did not go. Collins understood this, which is why as he was signing the peace treaty he said that he was signing his own death warrant. De Valera never said truer words than these:

    “I can’t see my way to becoming patron of the Michael Collins Foundation. It’s my considered opinion that in the fullness of time, history will record the greatness of Collins and it will be recorded at my expense”.

  • As, Don, I think it has been. I have on my bookshelf biographies of Collins and Dev by Tim Pat Coogan which I think are well-reseached and balanced. When Collins negotiated the treaty in 1921 he knew better than anyone that he was in no position to resume military operations against the British, although he soon had to undertake operations against the anti-treaty faction in Ireland – and it should be remembered that the ‘civil war’ claimed more lives than the so-called ‘war of independence’.

    Fast-forward seventy years. Gerry Adams, who had imbibed Irish republicanism and irredentism with his mother’s milk (but was as much a politician as a terrorist) realized that the ‘armed struggle’ was not only futile but counter-productive, and worked for a political settlement. He was the only man who could bring the Army Council round, and the stark truth was that PIRA had shot its bolt; riddled with informers, compromised by an increasingly sophisticated intelligence apparatus, its ‘military’ operations more and more difficult to execute, its lack of sophisticated weaponry, its lack of funds; this amounted to a comprehensive defeat.

Now Why Can’t We Have Political Scandals Like This?

Monday, November 14, AD 2011

Larry the Cat, mouser at No. 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the British Prime Minister, is facing calls for his resignation:

British Prime Minister David Cameron is resisting some calls for the resignation of 10 Downing Street’s official mouse catcher Larry, in the wake of the scandalous recent appearance of an uninvited mouse at a recent official government dinner.

Downing Street brought on the 4-year-old Larry last year to help combat a growing rodent problem after TV broadcast cameras caught the image of a “large rat” promenading through the seat of British government.

Like many a professional spinmeister, a spokesman for Cameron’s  government stressed past performance over present-day scandal-mongering. Larry has caught three mice since his services were first employed in February, the spokesman said, and reiterated that he would not be relinquishing his post. The Cameron spokesman also gamely tried to change the subject, noting that “Larry brings a lot of pleasure to a lot of people.”

Continue reading...

The Great Pig War of 1859

Wednesday, September 7, AD 2011

The United States and Great Britain after the War of 1812 frequently came into conflict during the Nineteenth Century, and it is a medium sized miracle that one of these conflicts did not end in a third Anglo-American War.  The most surreal of these conflicts, beyond a doubt, is the Pig War of 1859.

Both Great Britain and America claimed the San Juan Islands lying between Vancouver Island and the then Washington territory, and the islands were settled by British subjects and American citizens.  On June 15, 1859 Lyman Cutlar, an American farmer on San Juan island, came out and found a pig eating tubers in his garden.  This was not the first incident involving the wayward pig, and Cutlar shot the pig, killing the porcine invader.  The pig was owned by a British subject, Charles Griffin, who took umbrage at the slaying of his wandering porker.  The two men had words about the pig.  British authorities threatened to arrest Cutlar, and the American settlers called for American military protection.

By August 10, 1859, 461 American soldiers with 14 cannon confronted five British warships carrying 2,140 men.  Fortunately, both sides exercised restraint and no shots were fired.  James Douglas, the governor of British Vancouver, ordered British Rear Admiral Robert L. Baynes to land Royal Marines on  San Juan island and engage the Americans.  Baynes flatly refused, saying that for two great nations to come to blows over a squabble over a pig was foolish.  London and Washington were equally aghast at the idea of going to war over this case of porcinecide, and General Winfield Scott was sent by President Buchanan to Vancouver to negotiate with Governor Douglas.  Agreement was reached that the British and American forces would be reduced to a 100 men each on San Juan island while negotiations were underway between the countries.  Ultimately third party arbitration, by Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany, led to the islands being awarded to America in 1872.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Great Pig War of 1859

  • “By August 10, 1859, 461 American soldiers with 14 cannon confronted five British warships carrying 2,140 men. Fortunately, both sides exercised restraint and no shots were fired.”

    Imagine what might have happened if the commanders on the scene had been rasher.

  • Imagine what might have happened if the commanders on the scene had been rasher.

    No doubt! It would be almost as silly as going to war just because France asked us to secure Lybian oil for them. Oh wait…

  • Another interesting what if, is if this had occurred in 1860 instead of 1859. There was little love lost, to say the least, between James Buchanan and Stephen A. Douglas, but I think Buchanan would have found it much more difficult to be diplomatic in the midst of a heated election campaign. Twisting the tale of the British Lion was almost always good domestic politics in Nineteenth century America, and I can imagine both Democrats and Republicans engaging in a contest over who could make the most inflammatory remarks against John Bull.

  • San Juan is a beautiful island and you can still visit the American and English camps. True fact: the command of the American camp was none other than George Pickett of Pickett’s Charge.

  • Some commanders will forever remain

  • There is an interesting twist involving the British constable on the island Mark and the Civil War, but that is a post for another day.

  • In the same month that Griffin’s pig was killed the French and Austrian armies accidentally bumped one another on the plains of Lombardy. The ensuing battle of Solferino was a bloodbath with 20,000 Austrian and 18,000 French casualties. Witnessing the carnage, Henri Dunant was moved to found the Red Cross. In the next twelve years Bismarck went to war successively with Denmark, Austria and France, unified Germany and radically altered the balance of power in Europe. Britain could only watch from the sidelines; her commercial and maritime supremacy availed her little. When Bismarck was asked what he would do if the British army landed in Europe he replied “I would send a policeman and have it arrested”. War with the United States was never really on the cards, as naval power could only be effective on the peripheries of the conflict. Granted, the US army in 1859 didn’t amount to much, but the Civil War showed what happens when a nation mobilizes its industrial and manpower resources for a protracted and all-out conflict. Not for nothing did John Terraine refer to it as the first of the three great wars of the Industrial Revolution. Sickened by the cost of his victory at Solferino, Napoleon III quickly made peace; this was not possible in 1861-65, 1914-18, or 1939-45.

  • Would the Civil War not have been fought if in 1860-1861 the nation had been involved in a war with Great Britain? On the other hand, would such a war have given impetus to the secession movement by assuring the South of a built in ally in its war for independence?

    I answer both questions with a “no” because Lincoln isn’t a plausible Republican nominee had a war with a foreign power been ongoing in 1859-60.

  • In that event Micha, the odds on favorite for the Republican nomination would have been Senator Seward of New York, who was anathema to the South because of his abolitionism and coining of the phrase “irrepressible conflict” in regard to the battle over slavery. Interestingly enough, after Lincoln made him Secretary of State, Seward thought that the best way to get the seceding states back into the Union was by threatening war with Great Britain. The whole idea was simple madness, as Lincoln pointed out when he told Seward that one war at a time was quite enough.

  • The military world didn’t pay too much attention to the lessons of the American Civil War. IIRC, the otherwise-astute elder Moltke dismissed the conflict as “armed boys chasing each other across a contintent.” While there was some merit to that, he should have paid more attention to the entrenchments around Richmond and Petersburg. Lord knows the soldiers of 1914-18 paid for it. Over and over again.

  • Dale, you’re right up to a point, although the American Civil War was seriously studied at Sandhurst in the 1870s. One shool of thought held that modern technology would make future wars quicker and more decisive, which seemed to be borne out in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 and the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. Others, including Lord Kitchener, were less sanguine.

Rule Britannia

Saturday, August 21, AD 2010

Something for the weekend.  Rule Britannia.  I grew up with a bit of a love-hate relationship with Great Britain and her now vanished Empire. On my father’s side the family had been in America since before the Revolution, except for the Cherokees who had been here I assume for 30,000 years, and the family could have cared less about Great Britain one way or the other.  On my mother’s side however things were different and more complex.  My mother, an immigrant who became a naturalized citizen, was proud Newfoundlander Irish.  Her Great-Grandfather, who regarded pews and kneelers as perfidious Protestant innovations and would kneel on bare stone floors into his eighties in the back of  the church he attended during Mass, had come to Newfoundland from Ireland and kept alive in my Mom a memory of Ireland.  She played in our home as I was growing up all the old Irish rebel songs, and part of the heritage I imbibed did not stint on remembering the grievances of the Irish against the English.  On the other hand, my Mom loved Queen Elizabeth II and from my Mom I developed a life long interest in British history and politics.  My Great-Uncle Bill on my mother’s side served in the infantry in the Royal Army from 1939-1945 joining up, he said, “Because someone has to teach the Limies how to fight!’

Therefore on this blog I happily play both the Irish rebel songs and an occasional salute to the land of the Queen my sainted mother loved.  In regard to the vanished Empire, I am fully cognizant of the wrongs that were committed by it, but I believe perhaps this section from The Life of Brian might be applied to the British, as well as the Roman, Empire, in some ways.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Rule Britannia

  • Yesterday, it was a lament for Mick Collins.

    Today, its glory-oh for the Sassenach.

    I get it, too.

    But, BARF!

    Rather the pipes: “Highland Laddie” and “Black Bear” and etc.

  • How bitterly ironic that now any European country can now demand and receive, without any evidence, the incarceration and transportation to the complaining country of any British subject for any reason, and the Brits obey and imprison their own people.

    Britain is now pretty much a colony of toxic little Belgium, but without a Michael Collins to organize defiance.