0 comment Wednesday, October 8, 2014 | admin
We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held -- In every thing we are sprung
Of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.'' - William Wordsworth
English historian Arnold Toynbee described democracy as a "peculiar institution of the medieval kingdom of England and its political offspring."
Toynbee thus acknowledged the interesting fact that the descendants of the English have a peculiar talent for democracy and freedom. Why this is so is a question worth asking, especially in a world where freedom seems to be receding rather than expanding. At this moment, America and the UK are involved in a costly war to bring 'democracy', that elusive and rare thing, to a benighted Iraq. However Andrew Roberts, in this piece from the London Telegraph, rather than examining what is special about the English-speaking peoples, seems to be writing to rally support for the 'war on terror' and for his hero, Blair.
Roberts rightly points out the long history of the Anglosphere in cooperation against our common enemies: first, against Prussian militarism, fascism (in the form of the Axis powers), Soviet Communism, and now the Islamic threat, which Roberts labels 'totalitarian Islamic terrorism.' (What a plethora of terms have been invented for the Islamic threat. Creative.)
Roberts is also correct when he points out that 'victory is nowhere yet in sight' in our last struggle; in that opinion, he is breaking with the pro-war party line which has insisted, for three-plus years now, that victory is all but ours; that the Islamic 'insurgents' are on the ropes. What was it that was being said back in 2003? The 'insurgents' were just 'dead-enders', yes, that was the term; they were making a last-gasp effort, and the upsurge in deaths was only a 'sign of desperation' because they were in their death-throes. Pay no attention, was the line we heard, to all those suicide bombers and all the bloodshed; it was merely proof that the 'insurgents' were desperate, and they were desperate because we were winning.
Q.E.D.
Funny, I don't hear these claims much these days, although we still hear from the faithful that 'we are winning', and that any talk of civil war in Iraq is rank defeatism.
Be that as it may, Roberts makes some good points about Anglo-American cooperation, citing the works of Winston Churchill in his epic ''A History of the English-Speaking Peoples''.
However, when Roberts tries to convince us that Blair's leadership has been 'Churchillean' he loses me.
Roberts and others like him, mostly those in the neocon camp (although Roberts seems, as usual, to find that term objectionable) are unable or unwilling to see how the 'war on terror' or the 'war on totalitarian Islamic terrorism' or whatever is NOT being fought seriously as long as we allow the enemy to roam freely in our countries, in the UK, in America, in Australia. There is an enormous blind spot on the part of many which denies that there is any disconnect; they cannot or will not see that it makes not an iota of sense to claim to be fighting to win against 'terror' when we allow mass immigration and access to our countries to unknown numbers of terrorists and jihadists. Whether they are jihadists of the 'slow' variety, waging war by political and demographic means, or by violent jihad -- we are allowing their infiltration into our country, in the name of 'tolerance', 'diversity', multiculturalism, globalism.
How do Roberts and his fellow neocons rationalize the following words of Churchill:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
I wonder if Roberts honestly believes that his hero, Churchill, would have opened up the UK to mass Moslem immigration? Would Roosevelt have welcomed in millions of Germans during WWII?
There is still a distressingly large number of people in the West who, despite being 'conservative', have a huge capacity for denial. These people, like Roberts and so many others, despite their martial rhetoric, are 'surrender monkeys' when it comes to immigration and 'multiculturalism.' In their dream world, all the Mohammedan immigrants who have entered our countries and set up shop are nice law-abiding folk who just want 'freedom' and 'democracy' and a better life. The fact that so many of our countrymen still inhabit this dream world, even after 9/11 and 7/7 shows a staggering disconnect from reality.
The fact is, there is no winning the war against terror, or whatever it's called, without closing our borders, without sorting out friend from potential foe before they enter our country. There is no winning if we are too squeamish and too timid to separate ourselves from Islam, and to send enemies home.
Anyone who still clings to these utopian notions of a multicultural love-in in the West is a liberal, regardless of party labels.
And anyone who utters the inane line about how 'we have to fight them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here' had better stop and think. Hello? We are fighting them 'over here' in spite of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are 'fighting them over here' as long as we have onerous security measures at the airport and 'heightened terror alerts' in our countries.
We will be fighting them over here as long as we allow mass immigration from Moslem countries. And there is more than one kind of war; not all war involved guns and bombs. There is the kind of war which uses the weapons of immigration, higher birth rate, and political pressure; does anyone doubt that this current contretemps with the Moslem world over the Pope's comments is part of the war? They certainly understand that, and they are fighting to win. We are not; we are still clinging to silly notions of winning hearts and minds and 'assimilating' the Mohammedans in our midst. They, in turn, are intent on assimilating us to Islam, and our leaders and 'thinkers' are too blind or obstinate to see that.
Roberts and his ilk think that we can fight the 'Islamic totalitarian terrorists' on the other side of the world and welcome them next door at the same time.
Our forefathers weren't PC-addled like today's generation; they saw clearly and acted without hesitation and timidity. They were not saddled with all the self-questioning and all the internal dissent which weakens the West today.
It might be useful for some of the historians to trace the history of the West and to force themselves to inquire why the West is in this predicament now? How did strong, decisive, dominant nations become hesistant, dithering, uncertain, double-minded people? How is it that we have opened the gates to our enemies, and still tell ourselves that we are fighting to win?
If we in the Anglosphere could only recover the spirit of our forefathers and free ourselves from the fetters of Political Correctness, we might still prevail. It remains to be seen whether we will rediscover the will to do that.
We in the English-speaking world have always carried the standard for freedom and liberty, and if we fail now, who will there be to uphold the standard?
Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
William Wordsworth, 'London 1802'
That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held -- In every thing we are sprung
Of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.'' - William Wordsworth
English historian Arnold Toynbee described democracy as a "peculiar institution of the medieval kingdom of England and its political offspring."
Toynbee thus acknowledged the interesting fact that the descendants of the English have a peculiar talent for democracy and freedom. Why this is so is a question worth asking, especially in a world where freedom seems to be receding rather than expanding. At this moment, America and the UK are involved in a costly war to bring 'democracy', that elusive and rare thing, to a benighted Iraq. However Andrew Roberts, in this piece from the London Telegraph, rather than examining what is special about the English-speaking peoples, seems to be writing to rally support for the 'war on terror' and for his hero, Blair.
Roberts rightly points out the long history of the Anglosphere in cooperation against our common enemies: first, against Prussian militarism, fascism (in the form of the Axis powers), Soviet Communism, and now the Islamic threat, which Roberts labels 'totalitarian Islamic terrorism.' (What a plethora of terms have been invented for the Islamic threat. Creative.)
Roberts is also correct when he points out that 'victory is nowhere yet in sight' in our last struggle; in that opinion, he is breaking with the pro-war party line which has insisted, for three-plus years now, that victory is all but ours; that the Islamic 'insurgents' are on the ropes. What was it that was being said back in 2003? The 'insurgents' were just 'dead-enders', yes, that was the term; they were making a last-gasp effort, and the upsurge in deaths was only a 'sign of desperation' because they were in their death-throes. Pay no attention, was the line we heard, to all those suicide bombers and all the bloodshed; it was merely proof that the 'insurgents' were desperate, and they were desperate because we were winning.
Q.E.D.
Funny, I don't hear these claims much these days, although we still hear from the faithful that 'we are winning', and that any talk of civil war in Iraq is rank defeatism.
Be that as it may, Roberts makes some good points about Anglo-American cooperation, citing the works of Winston Churchill in his epic ''A History of the English-Speaking Peoples''.
However, when Roberts tries to convince us that Blair's leadership has been 'Churchillean' he loses me.
Roberts and others like him, mostly those in the neocon camp (although Roberts seems, as usual, to find that term objectionable) are unable or unwilling to see how the 'war on terror' or the 'war on totalitarian Islamic terrorism' or whatever is NOT being fought seriously as long as we allow the enemy to roam freely in our countries, in the UK, in America, in Australia. There is an enormous blind spot on the part of many which denies that there is any disconnect; they cannot or will not see that it makes not an iota of sense to claim to be fighting to win against 'terror' when we allow mass immigration and access to our countries to unknown numbers of terrorists and jihadists. Whether they are jihadists of the 'slow' variety, waging war by political and demographic means, or by violent jihad -- we are allowing their infiltration into our country, in the name of 'tolerance', 'diversity', multiculturalism, globalism.
How do Roberts and his fellow neocons rationalize the following words of Churchill:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
I wonder if Roberts honestly believes that his hero, Churchill, would have opened up the UK to mass Moslem immigration? Would Roosevelt have welcomed in millions of Germans during WWII?
There is still a distressingly large number of people in the West who, despite being 'conservative', have a huge capacity for denial. These people, like Roberts and so many others, despite their martial rhetoric, are 'surrender monkeys' when it comes to immigration and 'multiculturalism.' In their dream world, all the Mohammedan immigrants who have entered our countries and set up shop are nice law-abiding folk who just want 'freedom' and 'democracy' and a better life. The fact that so many of our countrymen still inhabit this dream world, even after 9/11 and 7/7 shows a staggering disconnect from reality.
The fact is, there is no winning the war against terror, or whatever it's called, without closing our borders, without sorting out friend from potential foe before they enter our country. There is no winning if we are too squeamish and too timid to separate ourselves from Islam, and to send enemies home.
Anyone who still clings to these utopian notions of a multicultural love-in in the West is a liberal, regardless of party labels.
And anyone who utters the inane line about how 'we have to fight them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here' had better stop and think. Hello? We are fighting them 'over here' in spite of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are 'fighting them over here' as long as we have onerous security measures at the airport and 'heightened terror alerts' in our countries.
We will be fighting them over here as long as we allow mass immigration from Moslem countries. And there is more than one kind of war; not all war involved guns and bombs. There is the kind of war which uses the weapons of immigration, higher birth rate, and political pressure; does anyone doubt that this current contretemps with the Moslem world over the Pope's comments is part of the war? They certainly understand that, and they are fighting to win. We are not; we are still clinging to silly notions of winning hearts and minds and 'assimilating' the Mohammedans in our midst. They, in turn, are intent on assimilating us to Islam, and our leaders and 'thinkers' are too blind or obstinate to see that.
Roberts and his ilk think that we can fight the 'Islamic totalitarian terrorists' on the other side of the world and welcome them next door at the same time.
Our forefathers weren't PC-addled like today's generation; they saw clearly and acted without hesitation and timidity. They were not saddled with all the self-questioning and all the internal dissent which weakens the West today.
It might be useful for some of the historians to trace the history of the West and to force themselves to inquire why the West is in this predicament now? How did strong, decisive, dominant nations become hesistant, dithering, uncertain, double-minded people? How is it that we have opened the gates to our enemies, and still tell ourselves that we are fighting to win?
If we in the Anglosphere could only recover the spirit of our forefathers and free ourselves from the fetters of Political Correctness, we might still prevail. It remains to be seen whether we will rediscover the will to do that.
We in the English-speaking world have always carried the standard for freedom and liberty, and if we fail now, who will there be to uphold the standard?
Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
William Wordsworth, 'London 1802'
Labels: Free