Change You WILL Believe In!

Image courtesy of The People's Cube

“Great hopes have been raised in the electoral campaign, and from those hopes has sprung their great political victory. Time will show whether those hopes are well founded, as we deeply trust they may be.

...

We are, I understand, after nationalising the coal-mines, to deal with the railways, electricity and transport. Yet at the same time the Trade Unions feel it necessary to be heavily rearmed against State Socialism. Apparently the new age is not to be so happy for the wage earners as we have been asked to believe. "

- Sir Winston Churchill in his 'Why Should We Fear for our Future?' speech before the House of Commons, 16th August 1945, after having been voted out of office in favor of the socialists.

Cheers,

Charlie

Liberalism's Bountiful Harvest - Part 2

“Last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention.”
-Sir Winston Churchill, March 5, 1946. Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri

We have always been partial to those unique individuals who are able – via their powers of observation and induction, their understanding of human nature and history, their vast experience and common sense – to “prophesy.” This involves no supernatural component. It is, however, profoundly valuable.

Such individuals and their ilk ought be regarded highly and sought out in times of turmoil and uncertainty. We are clearly in such times at present.

Thus we encourage those of you who are not familiar with the man, to acquaint yourselves to one Mr. Fred L. Smith Jr., President and Founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. In today’s common parlance that would make them a “right-wing nuthouse.”

Not surprisingly, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) rejects the current bailout proposal before the United States Congress and favors the alternative proposed by The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of pro-market members of the GOP Congress.

Pure partisanship? Election year hijinks? Placing politics before country? We think not.

For consider the seemingly miraculous “prophesy” (below) of CEI founder and president Fred Smith regarding the current economic fiasco spoken before a U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Thursday, 15 JUNE, in the year of Our Lord, 2000!!!

We recommend you read his entire statement. For your edification and enragement, however, we have selected certain key excerpts below. (Subtitles supplied by yours truly.)

Corporate Welfare

“Clearly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created for “good” purposes – now
the issue is whether the special privileges they’ve been granted, specifically their implicit
government “insurance” policy, act to distort and destabilize the marketplace. …"
---
“There should be no subsidies to private parties without holding these parties accountable to the elected representatives of the people: No subsidies without representation!
On the other hand, if these subsidies are not warranted, then let us eliminate them and privatize these entities as expeditiously as possible. What I would hope this Committee will not do is to perpetuate the mixed status these organizations now enjoy. To paraphrase William Shakespeare: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are neither private “fish” nor political “fowl.” No one knows how to evaluate them – it is time to end this confusion. Privatizing the profit side of the ledger while socializing the loss side is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.”

Moral Hazard for the Amoral?

The moral hazard problem arises when we bail out investors when things go wrong, when we move toward a “profit-side capitalism/ loss-side socialism” strategy. This is what happened in the S&L crisis and the costs were massive. “Moral hazard” is always a risk when an activity is insured – but the private sector is far better at policing such induced risk. When it’s your money at stake, you’re more careful. Political money managers faces weaker market disciplines: if they fail, they only share in the loss. Government risk subsidies anaesthetize our sensitivity to risk. As Treasury Undersecretary Gary Gensler noted: “Promoting market discipline means crafting government policy so that creditors do not rely on governmental intervention to safeguard them against loss .”…

The moral hazard risks associated with government guarantees have not gone away;
indeed, one might argue that they have now been concentrated in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Poverty Pimps

"Other panel members will address the proposition that these agencies are anti-poverty programs – that they are a means of providing “affordable” housing to low-income and minority consumers. Housing subsidies raise the price of housing – this is a well-known phenomena that reduces the desired impact of most subsidies. As noted above, much of the estimated subsidy (about one-third according to a CBO study) benefits the management and the shareholders of these private firms.

Can anyone imagine Congress approving a $2 billion plus appropriation bill to benefit the
management and shareholders of any other private sector firm? The wording of the CBO study was colorful: “As a means of funneling federal subsidies to home buyers, therefore, the GSEs are a spongy conduit – soaking up nearly $1 for every $2 delivered.” For that matter, can one imagine an honest debate about the merits of authorizing $4 billion to reduce home ownership costs for middle- and upper- income Americans?”

Had your chance; muffed it!"

“Too often, Congress does nothing when things seem to be going well – and then finds itself unable to take disciplinary action when the crisis occurs. At that late point in the process, the pain would be too great and the political resistance too strong. When it’s not raining, the roof isn’t leaking – when it’s raining, it’s too difficult to fix it. Surely we can do better…”

Surely, we did not. Will we now?

Cheers,

Charlie

UPDATE: Oh yes, and then there's the Constitution!

UPDATE: From the Competitive Enterprise Institute's OPEN MARKET blog:

"Yeah, maybe irrational greed is a factor in the current crisis, but it is the irrationality of regulators and the greedy demands of community groups that we should be pointing fingers at. If banks had been allowed to act in their own long-term best interest, sure some ill-managed institutions would still crumble, but we would not be witnessing such a wide-spread failure that indicates a system wide error in judgment."

- Michelle Minton, Policy Analysit for CEI

“What did Chamberlain Do Wrong?”

A recent spat on the Chris Matthew’s television program (“Dancing with the Stars” we believe?) has provided a splendid micro-study of the various bankruptcies which characterize the low-state of political debate currently at play in the last best hope of mankind. May God help us all.

First there is intellectual bankruptcy demonstrated in this instance by right-wing radio host Kevin Jacobs of KRLA in Los Angeles. Mr. Jacobs’ attack against Senator Barack Obama – full of boyish zeal and mischief – was, unfortunately, ill-timed and largely without substance. Far worse, the fact that he had no clue as to the particulars of Britain’s policy of Appeasement and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s role in it is virtually unforgivable. For a would-be Conservative to engage on the field of political battle without a firm grasp of historical fact is to deny himself perhaps his greatest weapon, and to provide the adversary an easy target by which to embolden himself and his cause.

Next we have literal bankruptcy represented by Mr. Mark Green, President of Air America. Spouting threadbare anti-Bushisms on cue, this blow-dried, spray-tanned leftbot contributed nothing to the debate save to provide real-time verification of why “progressive talk radio” is bereft of both listeners and funds.

Lastly, there is moral bankruptcy, demonstrated here by Mr. Matthews himself. Though he knows better, Mr. Matthews opted to forsake the truth in favor of savaging his guest right-wing dupe for committing the sin of not knowing his history; understandable and entertaining, yes, but highly unfortunate in this particular debate.

“What did Chamberlain do wrong,” Mr. Matthews repeatedly demanded of Mr. Jacobs. In terms of the particulars, Mr. Jacobs hadn’t a clue.

Finally an exasperated and indignant Matthews condescended to explain. “There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” he instructed. “What Neville Chamberlain did wrong – most people would say – is not talking to Hitler but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong!”

In our view this is rather like saying, “What Mrs. Fleebswottle did wrong was not having an affair with the milkman, but getting pregnant by him.” Alas the moral code of six-year-olds: it’s only wrong if you get caught. Chamberlain got caught.

In Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler were talking quite a bit. In those talks the two of them complimented one another’s mustache, exchanged tips on winterizing their gardens, and gave away half of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi regime. In the now infamous Munich Agreement, Hitler promised - honest-injun, crossed his heart and hoped to die - that he would take only what was agreed to and nothing more. Hitler lied. Chamberlain and the entire civilized world were shocked.

Well not the entire civilized world. Sir Winston Churchill for one was not. He had been passionately warning about Hitler since 1933. He was not alone in this. Many were able to read Hitler like a book. In fact, many had. It was not exactly an act of supernatural prophecy to see that Adolf Hitler was a deranged, anti-Semitic, power-mad, war-monger who must be stopped - not talked to, not negotiated with, not appeased - but stopped by whatever means available.

And yet, Neville Chamberlain insisted on talking . It was via this talking that he got stung and landed Britain, and the world, in the weakest possible position.

But what if Hitler hadn’t lied in Munich? What if he kept his word, consumed only Czech Sudetenland, and left the rest of the world alone. Would Mr. Matthew’s have said Neville Chamberlain did anything wrong then? No. Thus giving away half of Czechoslovakia is not really what Chamberlain did wrong; taking Hitler at his word is what Neville Chamberlain did wrong.

“There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” insists Mr. Matthews. “Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy.” What Mr. Matthews claims not to be able to see here is that talking with the enemy IS giving away things to the enemy. What did Chamberlain give to Hitler? He gave him the Prime Minister of Britain’s time, attention, prestige, and trust. Quite a lot some would say, and at quite a cost. THAT is what Mr. Chamberlain did wrong – knowingly or unknowingly – and it is a sin one can only commit by talking, even if said talk is ostensibly in the name of peace. (Side note - we are told Mrs. Fleebswottle claims she only did what she did to afford milk for her children. Also she really did love the milk man and besides, he promised her he was sterile. The bastard!)

There are some interactions one ought know better than to engage in; this is the lesson of 1938 Mr. Bush spoke of before the Knesset last week: the dire importance of resisting the “false comfort of appeasement.”

As regards talking with this latest breed of fascists – Iran/Hizzballah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Syria et al - presuming these talks extend beyond mustaches and gardening, how exactly does one talk with bodies whose publically declared mission statement is the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate?

Furthermore, there is the not insignificant issue of Taqiyya, the Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Ought President Obama, or McCain, or Clinton, or … yes even Kucinich give the prestige, time, attention, and trust of the President of the United States to self-proclaimed enemies of Western values who are compelled by their “faith” to deceive unbelievers? And what is there really to talk about? A joint venture to airlift all Israeli Jews to Fort Lauderdale? The incorporation of Sharia law into the United States Constitution? Economic incentives for “green oil drilling” in Saudi Arabia?

Some things are non-negotiable and thus talking is to no avail. The existence of Israel, human rights for all, the sovereignty of peaceful and responsible nations – these things are non-negotiable, particularly with enemies who seek to take them away. That is, after all, why we regard them as “enemies.”

Cheers,

Charlie

P.S.

In humorous punctuation to this entire scene - in his final dismissal of Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Matthews asks, “Wasn’t the U.S.S. Cole under Bush? I mean I don’t know what you’re talking about here” He then concludes in radiant self-righteousness, “Kevin, when you’re going to make a direct historical reference, get it straight.” Here, here Mr. Matthews!

"The Dreadful Curses of Mohammedanism"

FITNA

FITNA the film

Will anyone listen? One hundred and nine years ago, Sir Winston Churchill wrote the following. And yet, here we are.

"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.

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 - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - 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 paralyzes 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 science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Cheers,

Charlie

The Case of the United Kingdom (and friends?)

"Our loyal, brave people... should know the truth. They should know that there has been a gross neglect and deficiency in our defences… This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of the bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

- Sir Winston Churchill, 1938

A remarkable document has been produced by our good friends at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the leading forum in the United Kingdom for national and international Defence and Security, founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington. So pointed and soaring are its words and concepts we are surprised we did not author it ourselves. In fact we did, in so many words. But as many seem apt to regard the word of high ranking British officials weightier than that of a 108 year old blogging parrot, we shall defer, for their clout and experience more than warrant it. We advise, in particular, our American cousins to consider this essay’s observations carefully, as you are less than a year away from deciding whether to follow Britain further down the path of surrender under President Obama/Clinton, or continuing the fight under President McCain.

“Security is the primary function of the state,” declares the RUSI essay Risk, Threat, and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom, “for without it, there can be no state, and no rule of law.”

Sixty years ago, such plain logic was so engrained in the minds of Western man that it scarcely required penning. Today, in the era of post-Leftist-enlightenment, it is “controversial” as the state no longer sees its rightful role as security guard, but as doting nanny charged with tending the every whim and desire of spoiled and feckless children. This dereliction of duty has not only rendered Britain disarmed militarily, but has inspired the contempt of the British people and drastically eroded their faith in their system of government. Thus the sad case of the United Kingdom. She is a soldier, thrust onto the battlefield, with neither the weaponry nor the will to fight. And, in Western democracies, while security is indeed the primary function of the state, keeping faith that theirs is a state worth securing is the primary function of the people. Neither function is being duly tended. And this, the RUSI report warns, is potentially lethal.

“The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity.”

This statement encapsulates what makes this RUSI report so remarkable to us. British defence officials have made plain their objection to governmental mismanagement and under-funding of the military before. But never can we recall this level of officialdom publicly decrying the erosion of the national character and the perils inherent therein. We and others throughout the blogosphere have been screaming this point for years. Now that it is echoed by Privy Councillors, Vice Admirals, Generals, and Field Marshals will any one listen?

“The confidence and loyalty of the people are the wellspring from which flows the power with which all threats to defence and security are ultimately met,” they rightly remind us.
And diminishment of that flow is inversely proportional to increase in vulnerability. “Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.”

This is a crisis we can scarcely afford, particularly in our present circumstances.

“The country’s lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its islamist terrorist enemy, within and without. … The jihadists deploy the power of conviction that comes from a sectarian understanding of religion. They also surf the internet and use it to their advantage and our peril. They are not state-bound, but can take over part or all of a state, as has happened in Afghanistan and Somalia, and as could happen in Pakistan.”

The report lists other risks as well, none of which the authors feel, Britain is particularly well suited to address at present. These include the vanishing Royal Navy, the emerging superpowers of China and India, the politics of climate, the re-emergence or Russia, and Britain’s messy love triangle with Washington and Brussels.

A bleak assessment to be sure. But equally certain is that there is hope. We need look no further than our own history.

“History and experience have been neglected in favour of ‘group think’ and enthusiasm for ideological projects. Public expenditure has been directed in correspondingly perverse ways with clear consequences for our defence and security. All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links between the British people, their government, and Britain’s security and defence forces, than for many years.

What is needed is to reverse the vicious circle and turn it into a virtuous one. Fortunately, our history and experience suggest tried and reliable tools for doing this.

We need to remind ourselves of the first principles which govern priorities in liberal democracies. Defence and security must be restored as the first duty of government."

Various strategies are proposed for accomplishing this. One of particular interest is the formation of a Cabinet Committee not dissimilar to The United States’ Department of Homeland Security. This committee would “draw together all the threads of government relating to defence and security whether at home or abroad. It would be ‘somewhere for anyone to go’ in raising concerns.”

This would come as welcome news to those left to fight Britain’s Street Jihad on their own, with no government assistance, only harassment.

Lastly the authors advocate that Britain reclaim her sovereignty from failing multilateral institutions (if you’re thinking the United Nations, The European Union , and NATO you’re tracking nicely) and place her trust in more proven alliances.

“What are the essential features of alliances worthy of that name? Shared essential values; shared culture, and especially military culture; shared interests; and, most basic of all, trust – trust enough to permit the special intelligence relationships enjoyed by the UK for the last sixty years with Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand.”

Ladies and gentlemen – the Anglosphere.

“Foul weather friends are to be preferred to fair weather friends; and the British people know precisely which are which. The English-speaking world – manifestly close friends – and, less openly, those with interests common to ours, emerge as our main diplomatic resource.”

The echoes of Sir Winston are unmistakable. However, the Britain of his day differs from that of today in that his contemporaries – with a bit of prodding - knew who they were and from whence they came. Such self-knowledge is essential, the report points out, if alliances are to be of any real consequence.

“In making our choices, however, we need to know who we are ourselves and what we stand for. How else should we ourselves be reliable allies to others? Once we know these things and admit them, we can restore our divided house to harmony and thence to security.”

As dismal a portrait this report paints of Britain in her current state, it brings great joy to our heart that such has been compiled and put forth by those who have done it. The nexus of the Queen’s Privy Councillor and Lionheart, of the people and their proud history, of Britain and her true allies is the point at which our “supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour,” begins, that we might, “arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

The power is ours to use if we choose. For as the contributors to this essay declare “The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are.” The question for Britain and all free nations is - after nearly forty-five years of demonizing our histories, mocking our principles, and transferring our responsibilities onto government - do we care?

Cheers,

Charlie

UPDATE:

*Lionheart identifies the RUSI essay “the most important report of this generation.”
*Brits at Their Best offers –as always – outstanding insight and commentary on the RUSI essay.

Anglosphere – To Thy Own Self Be True

This essay began as a response to an e-mail we received from a blogger asking to be removed from our Anglosphere Consortium blogroll because he found the inclusion of Lionheart among our ranks to be distasteful. It has since been written and re-written at least five times, for the points made within it are so bleeding obvious as to seem scarcely worth putting to paper. And yet we believe that, unfortunately, they must be.

***********************************
To we non-homo-sapiens, you humans are bipedal flightless primates, male and female (mostly), who for some reason have been granted a superior cerebral capacity which renders you capable of acts of profound beauty and profound depravity. That is all. Variations in the degree of pigmentation in your skin, facial features, and place of birth are of no empirical consequence and thus entirely irrelevant. Therefore the only valid means by which to evaluate yourselves - as groups or as individuals - is by how you choose to employ that superior cerebral capacity of yours and the consequences thereof. This has nothing to do with “race,” but only merit. Or as another more eloquent than even I once put it, judging men not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

And yet, ever since some 19th century pseudo-scientist Euro-twit vomited the poisonous fiction of scientific racism into the human consciousness, you have been obsessed with the notion that something other than skin tone and cultural druthers separates you. This notion of “race” has been used to justify human evils from genocide and slavery, to sloth and self-destructive behavior, to affirmative action and mandatory corporate diversity programs. Why? The truth has been revealed, the Declaration made: all men are created equal. Whenever and wherever applied, this proposition has wrought unprecedented peace and prosperity for people of all creeds and colors; whenever and wherever ignored, hatred and bitterness thrive. Yet still too many of you behave hysterically, as though not entirely convinced those words in the Declaration were actually true, when e’re the specter of “race” is conjured. Alas a different and perverse equality descends upon free men, usurping the God-given with an equality of paralysis: the darker skinned by paranoia, the lighter skinned by guilt; all made useless, all for naught. This is folly of the highest order, the tragic fallout of which we are seeing at present in Britain.

Mother England is dying. The birthplace of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and English Common Law is right now experiencing the humiliating consequences of her faithlessness to the principles which made her truly great. Once safely out from under the threat of the Nazi boot, she sought comfort in the seductive arms of socialism. Over the years their tawdry on-again, off-again affair has robbed her of her dignity and treasure, leaving her morally bankrupt and defenseless against fascism’s latest host: Islamism. Now knighted and thoroughly in control, Sir Socialism is quick to slap down what vestiges of pride and patriotism England manages to utter in her own defense and rebuke them as “racist.” As if wanting to preserve one’s way of life in one’s own home was a crime. As if Sharia had anything to do with equal treatment before the law. As if Islam was a "race." Poisonous fiction indeed.

What is happening is very real and it is very dangerous, not only for England but for all Britain and the remainder of the Anglosphere – the United States, Australia, Canada et al - Mother England’s offspring. For the Islamists know if they can make it here, they can make it anywhere (our apologies to Mr. Sinatra.)

My intent in convening The Anglosphere Consortium was to provide a showcase for those blogs and websites endeavoring in their own way to “proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English speaking world.” It should be of no great surprise to anyone then that a majority of these sites dedicate themselves to denouncing the most acute threat to that joint inheritance at present: Islamic fascism and our respective governments’ too often inept and appeasing reaction to it.

“If you take a look at Lionheart’s site it is rather obsessive about Islam,” writes the blogger whose e-mail inspired this post. “That view has its place but if the aim of your group is to promote the Anglosphere then I don’t believe that inclusion of sites such as these will endear people to the cause.”

We sincerely appreciate this blogger’s concern for the popularity of our blogroll. Nonetheless, we ask of what use is it (or of the very concept of “Anglosphere”) if not a forum for we the beneficiaries of the “joint inheritance” to declare our wish to remain free and denounce those who seek to take it away?

The blogger continues. “Here in the UK the Anglosphere - as a political concept - is viewed with suspicion by the centre and centre left, usually seen as a right-wing diversion to undermine the EU, democratic socialism, multiculturalism, or to promote militarism. There is some truth to this but the Anglosphere as a concept is about seeking commonality rather than accentuating difference and whipping up hatred.”

Whipping up hatred? In our view this is rather like accusing firefighters arriving at a burning house of having started the conflagration. Are the incidents of Islamist aggression against Western values and traditions sighted by Lionheart and other members of our blogroll – not to mention countless others throughout the blogosphere - lies? Are we to ignore such crime, such depravity, such outright evil in the interest of “seeking commonality?” Does anyone actually believe the Islamists’ want commonality? No. They want converts or corpses, this they have declared. How this is not of paramount repugnance to anyone who claims to love liberty is unfathomable.

Ultimately however, we discover the core of the blogger’s reticence, which is shared by a large portion of Western population: the “race” thing.

“He (Lionheart) is basically a BNP/anti-Islam blogger,” explains our blogger. “With regret I shall have to ask you to take me off the list because it's not someone with whom I wish to be associated.

Alas the notorious BNP – British National Party. The party of white supremacist, neo-nazi origins. The party that in its own words “unashamedly addresses itself to the issues and concerns of the indigenous British population, and because it seeks to ensure that British people remain the majority population in this country. Opponents point to the fact that the BNP has an all-white membership, and that we address issues concerning white people.” The BNP goes on to point out that in Britain exist many other organizations openly organized along ethnic lines and standing for the rights of their respective communities – Black Britain, Watford Asian Community Care , The Action Group for Irish Youth, Jewish.Co.UK – and that none of these are derided as “racist.” This is true; however it serves only to further demonstrate the asininity of attempting to organize humanity according to “race.”

Our own view on the matter is that while the rallying cry of ethnic heritage may have a certain galvanizing effect initially, it is a rather simplistic and ultimately counterproductive tactic. It is equally simplistic and counterproductive, however, to dismiss common sense because it is, on occasion, expressed by those with whom we “wish not to be associated.” Lionheart is no white supremacist and no new-nazi. That he has expressed commonality with certain aspects of the BNP platform regarding the advance of Islamism and uncontrolled immigration in Britain is true. So have a great many Britons, only they don’t know it. When they are told as much, many change their opinions. Behold, yet again, the specter of “race” making cowards and fools out of free men.

Were the BNP, or the Conservative Party, or Labour, or even the bloody Socialists simply to rid themselves this “race” baggage and instead focus on passionate advocacy of Britain’s true indigenous heritage – her legacy of liberty – the British people would surely rise in their own defense to achieve their next finest hour.

As James C. Bennett, author of The Anglosphere Challenge explains:

“Recent DNA evidence has shown that a substantial core of the British population has a genetic commonality going back over 13 millennia and a surprising cousinage to the pre-Indo-European Basque population of Europe. Throughout its history, Britain has seen waves of settlers arriving and intermingling with this ancient stock. Its daughter nations, and particularly America, have been enormously successful in maintaining the unique template of its society and culture while integrating waves of immigrants, both voluntary and involuntary, into that template. This strongly suggests that the unique strengths of Anglosphere society lie in the template rather than the materials it organizes.” (emphasis added.)

There has always been and will always be room in this template for people of all creeds and colors. There is no room, however, for those who seek – by their own declaration – to smash it. Those among us who hold our tradition of tolerance above all others are easily manipulated by those who despise this template and regard its traditions as laughable; for they know that mere utterance of the word “racist” by non-white individuals or groups is enough to compel many Anglospherians toward immediate and unconditional surrender. This has to stop.

Britons who take exception to uncontrolled immigration in their homeland and the consequent diminishment of British culture are presently without representation in, nor protection of their government. Many are choosing to flee. Those who remain are left with only one political body offering anything other than avoidance regarding the issue: the British National Party. Those who detest the BNP’s racist origins but who also find common ground in the party’s advocacy for British culture are placed in a horrible position. Side with the BNP and be damned as a racist; go it alone and risk being arrested; leave the homeland forever; or accept the current national policy of ignoring the whole bloody mess and hoping it all just goes away.

That the British people are in this mess is profound commentary on the pathetic state of their government; a mess citizens in other nations of the Anglsophere may soon find themselves in should they fail to accurately identify the causes of it

It is said that you must stand for something, or you will fall for anything. When we take for granted the freedom and rights won for us by our ancestors; when we cower from proclaiming their merits to the world, our countrymen, and our own children; when we enfeeble our minds to such a degree that quack theories like “race” can be used to make us suspicious of everything we have ever known and loved; we have made of ourselves fitting prey for the more passionate and bloodthirsty among us.

Allegiance to a common heritage - not racial, but philosophical - has made the nations comprising the Anglosphere the greatest on Earth. And as Sir Winston Churchill instructed in his clarion call for Anglo-American brotherhood 65 years ago, “the price of greatness is responsibility.”

“We do not war primarily with races as such. Tyranny is our foe, whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilised, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat. In all this, we march together. Not only do we march and strive shoulder to shoulder at this moment under the fire of the enemy on the fields of war or in the air, but also in those realms of thought which are consecrated to the rights and the dignity of man.”

Anglosphere – know thyself, and to thy own self be true!

Cheers,

Charlie

Happy New Year 1938!

"I never worry about action, but only about inaction." - Sir Winston Churchill

Jews flee their homes amid increasing state persecution. A belligerent little dictator arms his nation against the will of the international community, promising genocide. The Western powers, befuddled by their own notions of “keeping the peace” and cultural deference, do nothing.

Seventy years since, is it 1938 all over again?

Following your perusal of the links above regarding Appeasement 2008, we invite you to sample from the following collection of links regarding Appeasement 1938. See if you cannot smell any similarities between the ineptitudes of then and now in the face of gathering storms.

We do. And it is not at all a pleasant smell.

APPEASMENT 1938

What is Appeasement?

The Munich Agreement: The quintessential example of Appeasement.

Further details regarding The Munich Agreement

The Munich Agreement itself - Sept 29 1938

The subsequent debate in British House of Commons, October 3, 1938
(Sir Winston’s chillingly brilliant denouncement of the Agreement begins roughly halfway into the document. A MUST read!)

“This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

– Sir Winston Churchill

A bit of educational background and exercise regarding the matter

Interesting public opinion poll from England, 1938 regarding the matter
(So much for the wisdom of the people, eh?)

Splendid essay on Appeasement 1938

Free Republic collection of Sir Winston quotes regarding the travesty of Appeasement (and then some!) (Prepare to fall in love all over again!)

There's more to come, for we intend to "celebrate" this 70th anniversary of Appeasement the year through!

Cheers,

Charlie

Chamberlain’s Syndrome September 11th Blogathon

On this day commemorating the worst attack on Western Civilization in the history of Western Civilization, we feel it is an appropriate time to promote awareness of one of the greatest threats to the survival of Western Civilization. We are referring, of course, to CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME. Thus the First Annual Churchill’s Parrot’s September 11th CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME Blogathon!

What is CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME?
CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME is a condition which compels its victims to render themselves defenseless in the face of gathering or imminent threats.

Named for Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940, CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME differs from more conventional Fear of Conflict disorders in the degree to which it drives its victims in their efforts to avoid conflict, often to the point of exhibiting behavior essentially suicidal. Oddly, victims often become extremely combative toward lesser or non-existent threats (e.g. Neo-cons, Global Warming) while inexplicably bending over backwards to appease the primary threat(e.g. Islamic Fascism); effectively feeding the monster most certain to kill them, or as Mr. Chamberlain’s successor, Sir Winston Churchill, put it, “one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

What are the symptoms of CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME?
*Inordinate focus on the worst in the best, and the best in the worst
*A belief that the only requirement for “peace” is lack of conflict
*Hyper criticality of irrelevant minutia
*Rationalization of one’s own bald-faced cowardice
*Indecision
*Moral paralysis
*Voting Democratic

If you or someone you know exhibits one or more of these symptoms, you may suffer from CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME.

What does CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME have to do with the September 11th Attacks?
Throughout the 1990s, Islamic terrorists carried out a number of direct attacks upon the United States both at home and abroad. Most notably these included the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 attacks on U.S. Embassies in Africa; the narrowly averted 1999 "Millennium" plot; and the 2000 attack on U.S.S. Cole. The United States response to these attacks was virtually nothing. The excuses are many, the fingers of blame point in all directions, but the fact remains – inaction in the face of gathering threat brought about catastrophe of Biblical proportions. Behold the fruits of CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME.

Are There Other Documented Cases of CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME?

* World War II. Though traceable really throughout history, the very human failings that comprise CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME were most pointedly embodied in the person of Neville Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain’s championing of Britain’s policies of non intervention and appeasement in reaction to the gathering threat that was Nazi Germany resulted not only in Britain’s near extinction at the hands of the Nazis, but also her dishonor, demonstrated best, perhaps, in Mr. Chamberlain’s speech delivered after having sold out Czechoslovakia to the ascending Hitler via 1938’s Munich Agreement:

“How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul.”

Less than a year later, the whole of Czechoslovakia was under brutal Nazi control, England and all of Europe had been revealed as politically and militarily impotent, and Hitler’s monstrous appetite for power was whetted immeasurably. So much for peace.

* Vietnam. Despite the lessons of World War II, this exquisite blend of apathy toward “far away countries with people of whom we know nothing” and callous self-righteousness in the name of “peace” - i.e. CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME – continued its disastrous march through the remainder of 20th Century. In the later 1960s and early 70s, to tune of “What are we fighting for” , “peace” activists demanded America’s pullout from Vietnam. With the aid of a powerful yet naive media, they eventually proved successful. The price for this “peace”, “was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " as Bushie recently recollected.

* The Cold War. After Kennedy and until The Ronald, CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME caused the West to behave with increasing timidity, self-loathing, and defeatism in response to advancing Soviet Communism, ensuring utter humiliation at home, and imprisonment, torture, and death for millions behind the Iron Curtain.

* Gulf War 1. In deference to the United Nations, the First Gulf War was – in retrospect - ended prematurely, leaving Sadaam and his charming sons free to kill thousands more in Iraq and decimating any legitimacy America had built up among pro-democratic forces there. Following this then, of course, was the 12 year circus of multiple U.N. Resolutions calling for Sadaam’s compliance with the terms of ceasefire and his complete disarmament – including “establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons.” This brings us to our current dilemma in Iraq.

* Iraq today. Bushie is accused of imperialism, of beginning a “preemptive war”, of invading a sovereign country, mass murder, abuse of power etc., etc., etc.. In truth he was making good on the conditions set forth by the United Nations (above). Further more, the lesson he – and several others – drew from the September 11th attacks was that ALL threats are to be regarded seriously and dealt with as appropriately and expeditiously as possible within the parameters of the Constitution. Thus, Bushie wisely heeded the words of his predecessor:

"If he (Sadaam) refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."
- President William Jefferson Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Of course, we all know that, true to form, President Clinton did virtually nothing to back his own very prescient words; issue a limp Iraq Liberation Act , lob a few bombs , but take no decisive action in the face of gathering threat for fear of political reprisal– classic CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME.

Bushie took action. Sadaam is no longer a threat. Thus we are able to focus on the root of the problem - Islamic fascism – wherever, whenever, and however it presents itself. And yet, Bushie and the others fighting the fight must contend with daily caterwauling and sniping from the Left. One suspects that had Sir Winston been in a position to neutralize Hitler in the mid-1930s as he advised, he too would later have been derided as a preemptive imperialist warmongering bully. And millions of lives would have been saved.

"One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, "The Unnecessary War."
- Sir Winston Churchill, Second World War (1948)

How Can we Fight CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME?
Throughout modern history, the only effective antidote to CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME has been Churchillianism.

A quintessential example of Churchillian reaction to CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME is provided by author John Keegan in his biography, Winston Churchill. To paraphrase, in late May 1940, French units collapsing wholesale to German forces, and the Belgian army capitulating altogether, recently deposed Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and others proposed to Churchill that the British government consider seeking terms from Hitler. Churchill considered their arguments and rejected them in these words…

“Nations which went down fighting, rose again. But those who surrendered tamely, were finished. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”

This was then followed by his sublime “Never surrender” speech:

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"

Do we note a difference here? Do we recall the result of this attitude in face of almost certain defeat? The word is “victory.” Victory for England. Victory for Western Civilization. Victory for mankind.

In truth Churchillianism is as much good policy for individuals as for civilizations. Consider the following:

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."
-Sir Winston Churchill

The alternative, as we note now each and every September the 11th, is more than bleak. As Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright confessed before the Congressional 9/11 panel, March 24, 2004:

"I do think -- this is my personal opinion -- that it would be very hard, pre-9/11, to have persuaded anybody that an invasion of Afghanistan was appropriate. I think it did take the mega-shock, unfortunately, of 9/11 to make people understand the considerable threat [posed by Al-Qaeda]."

Let us see to it that such “mega-shocks” are never “necessary” again.

How Can I Make a Pledge to the Frst Annual Churchill’s Parrot’s September 11th CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME Blogathon?
Your fiduciary pledges are not sought at this juncture (however anyone feeling the urge to wire a few bob our way will nary be discouraged!). All we ask is that you pledge to do your part in confronting CHAMBERLAIN’S SYNDROME where and whenever you encounter it, reject it, and expose it for the diseased, demoralizing, defeatist poison that it is.

As in the face of past threats, we can afford nothing less.

Cheers,

Charlie

For additional brilliance on the matter at hand we highly recommend Steven Haywards’ A Churchillian Perspective on 911. Also Jonathan Gurwitz’ War on Terror Loses Focus.

Caution: Lefty Logic May Prove Fatal

The fatal flaw in all Lefty “thinking” regarding the War on Terror – Iraq in particular – is the failure to appreciate the true nature and degree of the threat faced. Generally speaking, this flawed logic has characterized the three Lefty schools of thought on the matter:
* The Michael Moore school of thought - “There IS no terrorist threat. Let’s eat!”
* The Harry Reid school of thought - “If Bush said it, it’s wrong.”
* The Cindy Sheehan School of thought – “Manual petunias whittle gym blizzard fish.”

Recently, however, we came across a tactic as yet unemployed by any of the above – the use of something called “history” to make the argument that all is lost in Iraq! Far more compelling for yours truly is that the history employed in this instance consisted of the words of one Sir Winston Churchill.

In his post, “What Would Churchill Do” (near copyright violation but I suspect we’ll let it slide this once) blogger Bryan L. Dumka reminds us that,

“Winston Churchill created Iraq. It was Winnie’s idea to combine the three
separate Turkish provinces [one each for Sunnis, Shi’ia, and Kurds] into one
nation for administrative purposes and to anoint the Sunnis to rule the new
country after World War I.”

Mr. Dumka then directs us to a post by Dr. Juan Cole entitled Churchill on When to Throw in the Towel in Iraq wherein Dr. Cole quotes a clearly vexxed and fed-up Sir Winston regarding the situation in Iraq.

“…unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient
control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I
would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to
urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out.”

And…

“At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on
an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything
worth having."

Dr. Cole leaves these quotes to speak for themselves, evidently, as damning evidence of the folly of the present surge in Iraq.

What Dr. Cole, and subsequently Mr. Dumka, fail to address, however, is that Sir Winston spoke these words in 1922. While dates are included in all their posts, the significance of this appears to be of no consequence to them. It is of great consequence.

As recently as 2001, 10, September the majority of the world (except perhaps Israel) cared not a wit about all the “Death to Israel” , “Death to America” ravings emanating out of the Middle East. We had been hearing them for decades and had turned a deaf ear, presuming there was little to nothing any of these people could actually do to make good on their threats.

The next day, 19 Saudis armed with nothing more than airline tickets and box cutters changed all that. Like the patient who suddenly learns that nagging sore throat is actually esophageal cancer, a radical change of thinking was warranted. Everything from that point on was to be regarded in a new light. For our survival, old threats must be reevaluated, new threats must be anticipated, and the unthinkable must be at least considered.

To equate evacuating Iraq in 1922 with evacuating Iraq today is to ignore entirely the events of the past 17 years (not to mention the preceding 68!) This line of reasoning is quite likely lethal. It does not require Sir Winston’s caliber of vision to foresee that such an evacuation today would leave the Iraqi people virtually defenseless against the will of Ahmedinejad’s Iran and Al-Qaeda. More significantly, the appearance of American “retreat” in the face of “jihad”, “insurgency”, “terrorism” - call it what you will - would embolden forces opposed to America and her allies a thousand fold. Given the will to kill thus far demonstrated by these forces, I submit that this would be a very bad thing to do.

We always applaud the employment of historical context in argumentation, particularly where Sir Winston is the centerpiece of said context. For this (and for Mr. Dumka’s military service) Mr. Dumka and Dr. Cole are to be acknowledged. Unfortunately, the fundamental flaw of Lefty thinking pervades their offerings, rendering their observations irrelevant and their conclusions – were they to be taken to heart and acted upon – quite likely disastrous.

Cheers,

Charlie

Ted Kennedy’s Form Letter on Iraq: a Rebuttal

Our good friend Senator Edward Kennedy sent us a heartfelt auto-response electronic form letter this past July 18 regarding the situation in Iraq, “the most pressing problem facing our nation,” he declares. On this we agree. Senator Kennedy’s auto-response electronic form letter was in reply to my letter to the United States Senate dispatched April 30. Normally, one might expect an auto-response electronic form letter turnaround of slightly less than two and one-half months, particularly regarding, “the most pressing problem facing our nation.” But given this is Senator Kennedy with whom we are dealing, this is pretty much on par.

In his auto-response electronic form letter (below), the good Senator demonstrates that he completely ignored or failed to grasp not only the content of my letter, but the past sixteen years of global history as well. He is not alone in this. Therefore, I invite the good Senator, and all those in concurrence with him on matters regarding Iraq, to peruse my Iraq Invasion Anniversary Online Refresher Course (free of charge) for an in-depth review - first view for many - of the rationale behind Operation Iraqi Freedom. For those allergic to words, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow recently provided a concise and elegantly composed synopsis of the matter which we endorse whole heartedly.

Following is Senator Kennedy’s auto-response electronic form letter in its entirety with my non-auto response non-form commentary interspersed in bold.

Dear Mr.: (sic). No name. Always a nice touch when attempting to establish that interpersonal relationship. Thank you for your letter on the situation in Iraq. (You’re welcome. I had hoped, of course, you might actually read it but …) It’s the most pressing problems facing our nation, (Agreed) and I appreciate this opportunity to share my views. (Yes, but by all means Senator, take your time!)

I, and all Americans, support our troops. (Yes and as they say, with friends like you, who needs enemies?) They’ve fought and continue to fight bravely, and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude. (Here, here!) Unfortunately, the President has failed to give our troops a policy worthy of their sacrifice. (American troops never have and never will sacrifice “for a policy.” They are sacrificing for the safety, security, and interests of the United States of America; small point of differentiation there.) He failed them when he sent them into a misguided war (yes we all prefer those “guided” wars don’t we? Much less chaotic and bloody) without a plan to win the peace. (I believe “victory” is the word Senator, as in victory = peace.) He failed them when he sent them into battle without adequate equipment, (thus necessitating that major military operations for toppling the Hussein regime take all of three weeks rather than the hoped for two) and he continues to fail them by relying on a military solution to violence that requires a political solution.(The effectiveness of said political solutions being proven throughout the entirety of the Clinton Administration, The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and U.N Resolutions 686, 687, 688, 949, 1060, 1051, 1115, 1134, 1154, 1194, 1205, and 1284)

When the President announced the current troop surge, he claimed it would be limited in size and duration. We have now sent nearly 30,000 troops as part of the surge (that would be the “limited size” part of the surge, Senator), and still the President says we must wait longer for results (actual military operations of the surge commenced June 19, Senator. General Petraeus was given at least until September to officially report on the results of the new counter-insurgency strategy. Patience Senator. Patience.) It’s obvious that the surge has failed. (Courage, perseverance, forbearance, vision … you’ll get none of that here. My good Senator I recommend you spend some time with the following: http://www.victorycaucus.com/, http://www.michaelyon-online.com/, http://www.mudvillegazette.com/ among many others.)

Violence continues unabated in Baghdad and has spread across the country. (Even your own media isn’t claiming this anymore, Senator.) The political progress that was supposed to accompany the surge has yet to materialize. (Perhaps your constant calls for abandoning the process play a role in this?) The promised reconciliation between religious and ethnic groups, the restructuring of the oil industry, and other basic reforms and benchmarks have yet to be achieved. (And with your help Senator, and that of your Lefty associates, they never will be.) As long as our troop commitment remains open-ended, and we continue to fight their civil war for them, the Iraqis will have no incentive to make the hard political choices necessary. (My dear Senator, are you insinuating that open-ended government programs breed in people an unhealthy dependence upon government? Better strike that line before Al-MoveOn gets wind of it.)

We have given the President every opportunity to show progress, (and, might I add, you have been most gracious and respectful in doing so) but our soldiers face an increasingly violent and deadly insurgency. (Well actually, that’s not true at this point Senator, owing to the surge which you indicate has “failed.”) Congress and the American people have lost faith in the Administration’s competence and its ability to manage the war. (That’s not entirely true either, Senator. Perhaps you should visit Vets for Freedom, as well as virtually any of the four million plus conservative blogs and websites on the Internet.) It’s time to change course in Iraq. (Why are we headed for a bridge or something? OCC – Obligatory Chappaquiddick Cheap shot ™.)

The President must listen to Congress and the American people, begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq, and develop a serious plan to move forward. (Yes thereby ushering America into an era of demoralization, decline, and defenselessness matched only by the post-Vietnam surrender nightmare.)

Again, thank you for sharing your views on the war. (My pleasure, Senator) I’ll continue to do all I can in Congress to see that our forces are withdrawn (But that wasn’t among the views you just thanked me for sharing with you, Senator) and that our nation adopts a competent and attainable policy for Iraq. (Excellent. You’ll be resigning then?)

Sincerely, (Oh this means a great deal coming from the likes of you, Senator)


Edward M. Kennedy

Senator, I conclude with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill, from which your own brother borrowed liberally (and to great effect) in his inaugural address. I ask that you, and all who agree with you, consider these words and the Spirit behind them before issuing your next bleatings for surrender:

"We have surmounted all the perils and endured all the agonies of the past. We shall provide against and thus prevail over the dangers and problems of the future, withhold no sacrifice, grudge no toil, seek no sordid gain, fear no foe. All will be well. We have, I believe, within us the life-strength and guiding light by which the tormented world around us may find the harbour of safety, after a storm-beaten voyage."

—Sir Winston Churchill, November 9, 1954

Cheers,

Charlie