Reflecting upon the events of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, we felt compelled to once again examine the alleged source of all the chanting, frothing, eye-bulging, beheading, suicide-bomb vest-donning, IED-planting, plane-crashing, WMD-seeking passion that is Islamania: the existence of Israel.
At a recent Al Quds Day Celebration (October 5 if you missed it), the “It Girl” of contemporary fascism – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – declared, “The creation of the Zionist Regime and the continuation of its existence are an insult to human dignity.” This is a most telling declaration on the part of Mr. Ahmadinejad (although it tends to get far fewer laughs than, “There are no homosexuals in Iran.”)
Therefore, let us now disassemble Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement into two parts and analyze them separately. Then, employing Aristotle’s method of deductive reasoning, we shall reassemble them as the major and minor premises of a syllogism which will lead us to a reasoned conclusion. (Hint – for those of you not wanting to read the whole bloody post, our reasoned conclusion is that all this rubbish about “Zionism” is nothing more than brute racism, Islamo-Fascism is very very bad and not at all in the interest of actual human survival … oh and that Ahmadinejad is a jackass – but you knew that.)
Item 1. “The creation of the Zionist Regime and the continuation of its existence.”
In terms of the creation of the “Zionist Regime,” few individuals were as instrumental as Sir Winston Churchill. An unapologetic Zionist, Sir Winston fought passionately – at times virtually single-handedly – to hold Britain to the promises it made via the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the subsequent Palestine Mandate of 1922 to facilitate the establishment a Jewish national home in Palestine.
Why? Did Sir Winston so hate the people of the nation of Palestine that he wished to force them from their homeland and replace them with Jews? No, for there was no, nor has there ever been such thing as a nation of Palestine. In his superlative essay, “Does Israel Have a Right to Exist,” Michael Medved writes:
“First of all, it’s not true in any sense that the modern Jewish State ever supplanted or destroyed an existing nation of “Palestine.” From the time of definitive destruction of the ancient Jewish commonwealth in 70 A.D., the land that comprises the current State of Israel never enjoyed independent existence but, rather, passed back and forth among competing world empires - Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamaluke, Ottoman and British. Over the course of more than 1,800 years, no nation with the name “Palestine” appeared on any maps, anywhere.”
What there had been, and what enchanted spirits such as Sir Winston’s so thoroughly, however, was a slow but steady resettlement of the Holy Land over the centuries by Jewish immigrants who, by their own industry and ingenuity, were transforming a veritable wasteland into a prosperous community. As Sir Winston detailed in his White Paper of June 1922:
“During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics."
Again, in 1939, before the British House of Commons Sir Winston related:
“Yesterday the Minister responsible descanted eloquently in glowing passages upon the magnificent work which the Jewish colonists have done. They have made the desert bloom. They have started a score of thriving industries, he said. They have founded a great city on the barren shore. They have harnessed the Jordan and spread its electricity throughout the land.”
But surely, all this Zionist prosperity came at the expense of the Arab Palestinians? In fact, quite the opposite is true, as Sir Winston pointed out:
“So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”
This fact is confirmed by many sources, including the Zionism and Israel Encyclopedic Dictionary whose excellent analysis of the Arab Revolt in Palestine states that by 1937:
“Palestine contained more Arabs than ever before in its history, and they enjoyed a higher standard of living than ever before…”
BUT (here’s where things start getting ugly)…
“…but they could only be supported as long as they were dependent on the economic activity of the Jewish minority and the investments of the Zionist movement. At the same time, the Arabs of Palestine insisted that this Jewish minority was dispossessing them and tried to rid themselves of the Jews and the Zionist enterprise. The Arabs would say that they had been impoverished by Zionist "dispossession," but in fact they enjoyed a higher standard of living and faster economic growth than their neighbors in Syria, Jordan or Egypt.”
So what was the cause of increasing Arab Palestinian dependence upon the Zionist economy? As detailed in the 2005 essay Zionism and Its Impact, Ami Isseroff explains that Arab Palestinian infighting, disorganization, and obsession with blaming the Jews resulted in “the almost total lack of constructive effort in building up their own institutions, investing in the Arab sector of the Palestinian economy and creating their own ‘state in the making’ as the Zionists did.” Envy instead of industry possessed the Arab Palestinian population, and – as is usually the case in such instances - violence erupted.
While the most significant violence of this era took place during “The Great Uprising” of 1936-1939, previous riots had set the stage in 1929. Here it is instructive (and somewhat amusing) to read the Arab account of the events of 1929, as compared to the Jewish account. We will leave the decision as to which seems the more credible to you the reader.
It is important to remember, however, that this violence – so nauseatingly similar to that of today – occurred at a time when there was not as yet any nation of Israel, no Israeli military, no 1948 War of Israeli Independence, no war of 1967 and Jewish taking of territory, noYom Kippur War of 1973, no oil, no Shah of Iran, no U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, no sanctions on nor war in Iraq etc. etc. etc. all of the “atrocities” which our Islamaniac brethren point to today as justification for blowing up shopping malls, discothèques, and office buildings the world over. There were merely two communities in a desert – one thriving, one disintegrating – both by their own hands.
Many might here suggest that it was British repression of non-Jewish Palestinians in contrast to their support of the Jews that fueled such violence. While no one will deny that British support was decidedly behind Jewish efforts to extract civilization from desert (in much the same way one is more apt to water the budding plant than the inert rock lying beside it) every issuance of policy from the British government – and Sir Winston - regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home was rife with qualifiers ensuring that full recognition of the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians was of paramount importance.
From the Balfour Declaration of 1917:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
From Sir Winston’s 1922 White Paper:
“Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
And …
“The Secretary of State would point out that already the present administration has transferred to a Supreme Council elected by the Moslem community of Palestine the entire control of Moslem Religious endowments (Waqfs), and of the Moslem religious Courts. To this Council the Administration has also voluntarily restored considerable revenues derived from ancient endowments which have been sequestrated by the Turkish Government. The Education Department is also advised by a committee representative of all sections of the population, and the Department of Commerce and Industry has the benefit of the co operation of the Chambers of Commerce which have been established in the principal centres. It is the intention of the Administration to associate in an increased degree similar representative committees with the various Departments of the Government.
The Secretary of State believes that a policy upon these lines, coupled with the maintenance of the fullest religious liberty in Palestine and with scrupulous regard for the rights of each community with reference to its Holy Places, cannot but commend itself to the various sections of the population, and that upon this basis may be built up that a spirit of cooperation upon which the future progress and prosperity of the Holy Land must largely depend.”
From the Palestinian Mandate of 1939:
Article 2 – “The Mandatory shall be responsible for … safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
Article 6 – “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions…”
Article 9 – “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights. Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.”
Article 13 – “Nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.”
Article 15 – “The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”
Article 22 – “English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.”
From Sir Winston’s speech before the House of Commons in 1939:
“I cannot feel that we have accorded to the Arab race unfair treatment after the support which they gave us in the late War. The Palestinian Arabs, of course, were for the most part fighting against us, but elsewhere over vast regions inhabited by the Arabs independent Arab kingdoms and principalities have come into being such as had never been known in Arab history before.”
And once again….
“So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”
Without doubt there were British (Harold MacMichael) and Zionist (the Irgun Response) excesses in reaction to Arab unrest. In the end however, it cannot be denied that the only real motivation behind Arab objection to Zionism, was – and is – bald face racism.
Item 2. “…an insult to human dignity.”
Thus spake Ahmadinejad: The Zionist venture and support of such a thing is “an insult to human dignity.” In other words, to employ ingenuity, commitment, hard work, dedication, industry, wisdom, loyalty, and good will to create one of the world’s most prosperous societies is “an insult to human dignity.” To share one’s wealth and make peace with one’s enemies - Israel established diplomatic relations with West Germany on May 12, 1965 (causing several Arab nations to break ties with West Germany on May 13) and Egypt in 1979 (causing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to be shot to death by Islamic fundamentalists) – is an “insult to human dignity.” To ask nothing more than the right to tend one’s own people and business on a parcel of land slightly smaller than New Jersey amidst a vast Middle East landscape is “an insult to human dignity.” Fascinating.
One is compelled to ask then, how exactly do you define “human dignity” Mr. Ahmadinejad? Does it consist of the chaos, violence, poverty, and misery that has characterized much of the Islamic world throughout its history? Murder-suicide on an international scale? Repression of women, people of non-Muslim faith, and homosexuals? Being only a parrot, perhaps it’s all beyond me but as best I can tell, there is little of humanity or dignity in any of that.
Our Conclusion
Now let us re-examine Mr. Ahmadinejad’s original statement via Aristotelian syllogism:
Major premise: The creation of the Zionist Regime is an insult to human dignity
Minor Premise: The continuation of the existence of the Zionist Regime is an insult to human dignity
Conclusion: The Zionist Regime is itself antithetical to human dignity
Very well then. Let us for a moment remove the element of “Jew” from the concept of Zionism. The above syllogism then would mean that a society that employs behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, philosophies, and actions which result in the well-being and prosperity of those employing them are an insult to human dignity. Is this what Mr. Ahmadinejad intends to say? Likely not. For even he would have to acknowledge – at least publicly – that societies such as these comprise mankind’s only hope for survival. Adding the element of “Jew” back into the equation, however, renders in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s mind – and the minds of those who agree with him – such societies antithetical to human dignity and justifies their destruction.
Here we see plainly the effects – like rabies – of Racism Gone Wild. This is what we call, “Islamania.” This is what we are fighting. And this, if we fail to succeed in that fight, will quite likely be the end of human civilization.
Cheers,
Charlie
Oct 28, 2007
Oct 22, 2007
Happy Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week!
Our planned Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week festivities have been waylaid by a rather devastating computer virus. (Coincidence?). We are working furiously to rectify the situation. In the meantime, we refer you to the following sites for your education and edification, regarding this – the greatest threat to the survival of Western Civilization.http://www.terrorismawareness.org/
http://foehammer.net/
http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/
http://jihadwatch.org/
Oct 16, 2007
Facebook Facing Left?
Not since I was declared a fraud by the BBC, About.com, the Museum of Hoaxes, Wikipedia, NPR, The Churchill Centre, and others, have I been forced to endure such indignity. Facebook, the upstart would-be MySpace, has deemed me, ME – the brightest feather of the Right Wing, the only Conservative pundit who can fly – unworthy of membership, and disabled my account!
Why?
“Your account was disabled because you violated Facebook’s Terms of Use, to which you agreed when you first registered for an account on the site,” says the friendly Facebook form rejection FAQ. “Accounts can either be disabled for repeat offenses or for one particularly egregious violation”
Zounds! And, pray tell, what was my egregious violation?
“Unfortunately, for technical and security reasons, Facebook cannot provide you with a description or copy of the removed content,” replies Facebook. Most helpful. Facebook does, however, provide a list of egregious offenses from which to choose that may or may not actually be the reason for one’s having been jettisoned from amongst its worthy ranks.
Egregious Offense #1. “We do not allow users to send unsolicited or harassing messages to people they don’t know, and we remove posts that advertise a product, service, website, or opportunity.”
As I knew no one on Facebook, I directed my content to no member in particular. Furthermore, this content contained no harassments, solicitations, nor advertisements. It could be argued that I advertised enlightenment by encouraging members to visit my blog (www.churchillsparrot.com). However, as the Facebook registration process encourages members to list any blogs or websites they might have in their command, and provides a feature by which to stream one’s blog content through one’s Facebook site, it seems not a stretch to assume this is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior.
Egregious Offense #2. “We do not allow any obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit photos, as well as any photos that depict graphic violence.”
Other than the occasional reference to MoveOn.org, my content did not, nor has it ever contained anything obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, nor graphically violent.
Egregious Offense #3. “We also remove content, photo or written, that threatens, intimidates, harasses, or brings unwanted attention or embarrassment to an individual or group of people.”
Hmmm. We may have something here. A quick review of my most recent posts produces titles such as, “Study Finds Democratic Party May have Died Decades Ago”, “Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion,” “Our Second Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (not at all flattering to Mr. Ahmadinejad), “Celebrate Talk Like a Terrorist Day”, and more. It is certainly fair to say there is much “unwanted attention and embarrassment brought to individuals and groups of people” here. But such is political commentary. Does Facebook mean to say members are not to share political commentary via their online forum? Most curious, particularly as it was through a political site – www.BritainandAmerica.com – through which I became involved in this mess in the first place. (Although this site now no longer advertises its Facebook option either. Again, hmmmmm.)
Egregious Offense #4. “Facebook does not allow users to register with fake names, to impersonate any person or entity, or to falsely state or otherwise misrepresent themselves or their affiliations.”
Here we have, at once, the most likely and the most hilarious “reason” for my expulsion. As referenced earlier, this is not the first time the validity of my identity has been called into question. While I can well appreciate the seeming unlikelihood of there actually being a 107 year-old parrot claiming to have once been the pet and confidant of Sir Winston Churchill and issuing scathing indictments of Leftist tyranny via the Internet on a regular basis, that is, nonetheless, who and what I am.
Let us, for the sake of argument, however, suppose that I were not actually Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot. Imagine instead that I were, say, a frustrated Conservative writer from Wisconsin, USA, seeking outlet and audience for his or her thoughts, opinions, and writing. Would not the employment of the “Churchill’s Parrot” identity fall under the definition of “nickname” or “avatar,” devices used by 90% of those participating in online communication? Am I to believe that others encountered during my brief stint on Facebook are actually who or what they say they are? “Odo Barn Owl,” “Peace Love Bird,” “Ford Taurus,” “Linus McKitten,” “Tuna Bird,” the entire membership of a Facebook Group entitled, “Facebook Members Who are Not Human” to name a few … these are all somehow exempt from the “fake names,” “impersonations,” and “misrepresentations” standard?
Having brought this issue to Facebook’s attention they responded as follows,“If you see any individuals on the site who are currently in violation of our Terms of Use, it is only because they have not yet been disabled for misuse.”
Right then. We shall full well expect that, in keeping with its principles, Facebook is thus now in the process of purging well over half its membership for violating the high standard of identity integrity to which it aspires. As we say in the Queen’s Dominion, “Not bloody likely.” To attempt such would prove not only impossible – Facebook currently boasts nearly 34 million active users – it would be idiotic. Creativity (though admittedly much of it at a third grade level) is an amusing and positive outgrowth of such ventures.
What is far more bloody likely is that only certain kinds of members of questionable identity are being purged from the esteemed ranks of Facebook: those expressing overtly Conservative views and opinion. My suspicion is that some Lefty took offense to one of my posts and reported it to the Facebook security ninnies who – rather than defend my content as legitimate contribution to an open forum – saw fit to acquiesce to Lefty whining, disable my account, and throw these lame excuses at me by way of “explanation.”
Understand, what ruffles my feathers is not my exclusion from the Facebook community – I appeared to be the only one bothering to contribute any actual content anyway – but that here we may well have yet another forum wherein Conservative expression is being denied. Thus, I write this post, and thus I have solicited the assistance of the mighty Media Research Center to aid in my further investigation of this potential.
If I am proven wrong and revealed as merely an hysterical Right Wing paranoiac, so be it. I will, at such time, willingly and publicly eat crow - a far more repugnant act for parrots, mind you, than for you non-avians!
In the meantime, I would be very interested to know if there are any other Right-leaning individuals out there who have found themselves expelled from the Facebook roster. Drop us a line at churchillsparrot@gmail.com. Perhaps we shall discover that what we have here is not just another pretty Facebook.
Cheers,
Charlie
Why?
“Your account was disabled because you violated Facebook’s Terms of Use, to which you agreed when you first registered for an account on the site,” says the friendly Facebook form rejection FAQ. “Accounts can either be disabled for repeat offenses or for one particularly egregious violation”
Zounds! And, pray tell, what was my egregious violation?
“Unfortunately, for technical and security reasons, Facebook cannot provide you with a description or copy of the removed content,” replies Facebook. Most helpful. Facebook does, however, provide a list of egregious offenses from which to choose that may or may not actually be the reason for one’s having been jettisoned from amongst its worthy ranks.
Egregious Offense #1. “We do not allow users to send unsolicited or harassing messages to people they don’t know, and we remove posts that advertise a product, service, website, or opportunity.”
As I knew no one on Facebook, I directed my content to no member in particular. Furthermore, this content contained no harassments, solicitations, nor advertisements. It could be argued that I advertised enlightenment by encouraging members to visit my blog (www.churchillsparrot.com). However, as the Facebook registration process encourages members to list any blogs or websites they might have in their command, and provides a feature by which to stream one’s blog content through one’s Facebook site, it seems not a stretch to assume this is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior.
Egregious Offense #2. “We do not allow any obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit photos, as well as any photos that depict graphic violence.”
Other than the occasional reference to MoveOn.org, my content did not, nor has it ever contained anything obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, nor graphically violent.
Egregious Offense #3. “We also remove content, photo or written, that threatens, intimidates, harasses, or brings unwanted attention or embarrassment to an individual or group of people.”
Hmmm. We may have something here. A quick review of my most recent posts produces titles such as, “Study Finds Democratic Party May have Died Decades Ago”, “Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion,” “Our Second Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (not at all flattering to Mr. Ahmadinejad), “Celebrate Talk Like a Terrorist Day”, and more. It is certainly fair to say there is much “unwanted attention and embarrassment brought to individuals and groups of people” here. But such is political commentary. Does Facebook mean to say members are not to share political commentary via their online forum? Most curious, particularly as it was through a political site – www.BritainandAmerica.com – through which I became involved in this mess in the first place. (Although this site now no longer advertises its Facebook option either. Again, hmmmmm.)
Egregious Offense #4. “Facebook does not allow users to register with fake names, to impersonate any person or entity, or to falsely state or otherwise misrepresent themselves or their affiliations.”
Here we have, at once, the most likely and the most hilarious “reason” for my expulsion. As referenced earlier, this is not the first time the validity of my identity has been called into question. While I can well appreciate the seeming unlikelihood of there actually being a 107 year-old parrot claiming to have once been the pet and confidant of Sir Winston Churchill and issuing scathing indictments of Leftist tyranny via the Internet on a regular basis, that is, nonetheless, who and what I am.
Let us, for the sake of argument, however, suppose that I were not actually Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot. Imagine instead that I were, say, a frustrated Conservative writer from Wisconsin, USA, seeking outlet and audience for his or her thoughts, opinions, and writing. Would not the employment of the “Churchill’s Parrot” identity fall under the definition of “nickname” or “avatar,” devices used by 90% of those participating in online communication? Am I to believe that others encountered during my brief stint on Facebook are actually who or what they say they are? “Odo Barn Owl,” “Peace Love Bird,” “Ford Taurus,” “Linus McKitten,” “Tuna Bird,” the entire membership of a Facebook Group entitled, “Facebook Members Who are Not Human” to name a few … these are all somehow exempt from the “fake names,” “impersonations,” and “misrepresentations” standard?
Having brought this issue to Facebook’s attention they responded as follows,“If you see any individuals on the site who are currently in violation of our Terms of Use, it is only because they have not yet been disabled for misuse.”
Right then. We shall full well expect that, in keeping with its principles, Facebook is thus now in the process of purging well over half its membership for violating the high standard of identity integrity to which it aspires. As we say in the Queen’s Dominion, “Not bloody likely.” To attempt such would prove not only impossible – Facebook currently boasts nearly 34 million active users – it would be idiotic. Creativity (though admittedly much of it at a third grade level) is an amusing and positive outgrowth of such ventures.
What is far more bloody likely is that only certain kinds of members of questionable identity are being purged from the esteemed ranks of Facebook: those expressing overtly Conservative views and opinion. My suspicion is that some Lefty took offense to one of my posts and reported it to the Facebook security ninnies who – rather than defend my content as legitimate contribution to an open forum – saw fit to acquiesce to Lefty whining, disable my account, and throw these lame excuses at me by way of “explanation.”
Understand, what ruffles my feathers is not my exclusion from the Facebook community – I appeared to be the only one bothering to contribute any actual content anyway – but that here we may well have yet another forum wherein Conservative expression is being denied. Thus, I write this post, and thus I have solicited the assistance of the mighty Media Research Center to aid in my further investigation of this potential.
If I am proven wrong and revealed as merely an hysterical Right Wing paranoiac, so be it. I will, at such time, willingly and publicly eat crow - a far more repugnant act for parrots, mind you, than for you non-avians!
In the meantime, I would be very interested to know if there are any other Right-leaning individuals out there who have found themselves expelled from the Facebook roster. Drop us a line at churchillsparrot@gmail.com. Perhaps we shall discover that what we have here is not just another pretty Facebook.
Cheers,
Charlie
Oct 10, 2007
Study Finds Democratic Party May Have Died Decades Ago
October 10, 2007- London, England. A ground-breaking study funded by the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation released findings today indicating that America’s Democratic Party actually died sometime between the assassination of JFK and the end of the Johnson Administration.
“What we have now in the DNC is not a political party but a hideous, brainless, zombified caricature of what once was the Democratic Party of the United States,” declares the study’s director, Morton Clathwock, Ph.D., Dean of Political Science at Hipslawn College in Ipswich, Massachusetts.
The study cites, among other things, DNC leadership’s phony complaints about phony controversies over phony soldiers, constant references to unidentified flying economic woes, and, of course, the championing of causes which don’t exist such as man-made global warming.
“These guys make Don Quixote look like an actuary,” adds Clathwock. “At least his delusions had something to do with honor!”
Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot, Executive Director of the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation, says he called for the study in response to increasing reports of monstrously reckless behavior on the part of leaders in the American Democratic Party.
“There is a school of thought which maintains that the Democrats have always existed antithetically to America; from the cowardly Copperheads at Lincoln’s heels to the Socialists behind FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society debacle,” says Churchill’s Parrot. “Through all this, however, the party and its advocates were at least to some degree deferential to the central hypothesis of the American experiment. Our study makes clear these New Lefties just want to blow up the laboratory!”
The study postulates that in a representative government such as that of the United States, a political party needs to actually represent something of substance in order to actually exist.
Dr. Clathwock explains. “Republicans generally represent the principles of what today in America is known as ‘Conservatism’: limited government, national defense, free enterprise, individual liberty, and traditional American i.e. Judeo-Christian values. In truth these are the principles which gave rise to the creation of the United States itself and its Constitution.” Clathwock says that a party’s success or failure in advancing policy in accord with its stated principles provide a means by which you can measure its vitality. “The body’s vital signs if you will,” illustrates Clathwock. “The Republicans are good here, not so good there, and so on. The Democrats? We can’t even find the body!”
In fact, what DNC positions could be identified by the study’s specially designed Issues Matrix™ pinpointed them Left of Maoist China and slightly Right of total anarchy.
“Amnesty for illegal aliens and ‘out of Iraq now’ for the anarchists; universal health care, government bailouts for homeowner mortgages , and the Kyoto Protocol for the socialists. There’s nothing for America in any of this,” says Clathwock.
The study concludes that today’s DNC does not constitute a viable political party presenting any serious option for American voters. “What you have is a loose confederation of malcontents, nihilists, lunatics, and children,” explains Clathwock. “Unfortunately, with the aid of a complicit media, you have nearly 50% of the American population taking this rot seriously. Forty years of demonizing the Right has paid off. After all, who wants to be painted as a greedy racist, homophobe, prude as surely you will be the minute you vote Republican.”
Dr. Clathwock says by all indications the Democartic party actually died the night of February 27, 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson abdicated responsibility for American foreign policy to Walter Cronkite and CBS News.
“That was really the end of it,” says Clathwock. “The party had gone from – ‘we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty’ - to letting a twit like Cronkite paint victory as defeat. After that, everything ‘Democratic Party’ has just been putrefaction and decay. I give you Dennis Kucinich.”
Clathwock and the study’s authors warn, however, that a dead DNC is by no means a harmless DNC. “This thing we have today that calls itself The Democratic Party is a dangerous creature. A corpse enchanted by the funds of millionaire Marxists , inflated with feel-good rhetoric, this brain-eating zombie of a party will do whatever it has to to keep itself alive, regardless of the consequences. Consider yourselves warned!”
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate flagging Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
“What we have now in the DNC is not a political party but a hideous, brainless, zombified caricature of what once was the Democratic Party of the United States,” declares the study’s director, Morton Clathwock, Ph.D., Dean of Political Science at Hipslawn College in Ipswich, Massachusetts.
The study cites, among other things, DNC leadership’s phony complaints about phony controversies over phony soldiers, constant references to unidentified flying economic woes, and, of course, the championing of causes which don’t exist such as man-made global warming.
“These guys make Don Quixote look like an actuary,” adds Clathwock. “At least his delusions had something to do with honor!”
Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot, Executive Director of the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation, says he called for the study in response to increasing reports of monstrously reckless behavior on the part of leaders in the American Democratic Party.
“There is a school of thought which maintains that the Democrats have always existed antithetically to America; from the cowardly Copperheads at Lincoln’s heels to the Socialists behind FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society debacle,” says Churchill’s Parrot. “Through all this, however, the party and its advocates were at least to some degree deferential to the central hypothesis of the American experiment. Our study makes clear these New Lefties just want to blow up the laboratory!”
The study postulates that in a representative government such as that of the United States, a political party needs to actually represent something of substance in order to actually exist.
Dr. Clathwock explains. “Republicans generally represent the principles of what today in America is known as ‘Conservatism’: limited government, national defense, free enterprise, individual liberty, and traditional American i.e. Judeo-Christian values. In truth these are the principles which gave rise to the creation of the United States itself and its Constitution.” Clathwock says that a party’s success or failure in advancing policy in accord with its stated principles provide a means by which you can measure its vitality. “The body’s vital signs if you will,” illustrates Clathwock. “The Republicans are good here, not so good there, and so on. The Democrats? We can’t even find the body!”
In fact, what DNC positions could be identified by the study’s specially designed Issues Matrix™ pinpointed them Left of Maoist China and slightly Right of total anarchy.
“Amnesty for illegal aliens and ‘out of Iraq now’ for the anarchists; universal health care, government bailouts for homeowner mortgages , and the Kyoto Protocol for the socialists. There’s nothing for America in any of this,” says Clathwock.
The study concludes that today’s DNC does not constitute a viable political party presenting any serious option for American voters. “What you have is a loose confederation of malcontents, nihilists, lunatics, and children,” explains Clathwock. “Unfortunately, with the aid of a complicit media, you have nearly 50% of the American population taking this rot seriously. Forty years of demonizing the Right has paid off. After all, who wants to be painted as a greedy racist, homophobe, prude as surely you will be the minute you vote Republican.”
Dr. Clathwock says by all indications the Democartic party actually died the night of February 27, 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson abdicated responsibility for American foreign policy to Walter Cronkite and CBS News.
“That was really the end of it,” says Clathwock. “The party had gone from – ‘we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty’ - to letting a twit like Cronkite paint victory as defeat. After that, everything ‘Democratic Party’ has just been putrefaction and decay. I give you Dennis Kucinich.”
Clathwock and the study’s authors warn, however, that a dead DNC is by no means a harmless DNC. “This thing we have today that calls itself The Democratic Party is a dangerous creature. A corpse enchanted by the funds of millionaire Marxists , inflated with feel-good rhetoric, this brain-eating zombie of a party will do whatever it has to to keep itself alive, regardless of the consequences. Consider yourselves warned!”
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate flagging Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
Oct 2, 2007
Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion
10/2/07 – Washington D.C. Due to a virtually unprecedented influx of exceptional nominees, the Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has announced plans for a massive expansion of its facilities.
A number of exciting new exhibits are in the works, all bringing to life with vivid clarity and realism the jaw-dropping idiocy and bone-chilling treachery of certain of our comrades doing their best to bring about the collapse of Western Civilization.
Expansion activities will focus primarily in the Disgrace and Dishonor wing (the Left wing) of the facility. Features will include:
* The John Murtha Multimedia Circus
* The MoveOn.org House of Horrors
* The New York Times “Truth or Consequences” Game Room (discounts available for MoveOn.org members)
* The John Kerry School of Military History
* “Variations on Objective Reality” - an art exhibit by Dan Rather
* and Étiquette pour l'Élite - a series of live seminars with Columbia University’s Lee Bollinger. (CAUTION: Guests may be subject to unexpected tongue-lashings at the whim of the host.)
Further construction to accommodate the plethora of additions to our standard roster of idiots will proceed simultaneously. Most recent inductees include Harry Reid, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, and of course, Rosie O’Donnell.
We are also pleased to announce we have successfully commissioned world renowned sculptor Fah’rt, to erect towering statues of George Soros and Jimmy Carter to adorn our magnificently re-designed entry way.
And for the Kiddie Winkies … our new “Dennis Kucinich Nut Hut” will provide a cornucopia of wacky and zany games and activities for kids to explore the joys of Marxist/Leninist delusion while being free to behave like the five-year-olds they are.
Originally constructed in 1945, The Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has endeavored to recognize and honor every useful idiot - from Neville Chamberlain to Nancy Pelosi - who has contributed to the defamation and demoralization of both America and England.
###
A number of exciting new exhibits are in the works, all bringing to life with vivid clarity and realism the jaw-dropping idiocy and bone-chilling treachery of certain of our comrades doing their best to bring about the collapse of Western Civilization.
Expansion activities will focus primarily in the Disgrace and Dishonor wing (the Left wing) of the facility. Features will include:
* The John Murtha Multimedia Circus
* The MoveOn.org House of Horrors
* The New York Times “Truth or Consequences” Game Room (discounts available for MoveOn.org members)
* The John Kerry School of Military History
* “Variations on Objective Reality” - an art exhibit by Dan Rather
* and Étiquette pour l'Élite - a series of live seminars with Columbia University’s Lee Bollinger. (CAUTION: Guests may be subject to unexpected tongue-lashings at the whim of the host.)
Further construction to accommodate the plethora of additions to our standard roster of idiots will proceed simultaneously. Most recent inductees include Harry Reid, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, and of course, Rosie O’Donnell.
We are also pleased to announce we have successfully commissioned world renowned sculptor Fah’rt, to erect towering statues of George Soros and Jimmy Carter to adorn our magnificently re-designed entry way.
And for the Kiddie Winkies … our new “Dennis Kucinich Nut Hut” will provide a cornucopia of wacky and zany games and activities for kids to explore the joys of Marxist/Leninist delusion while being free to behave like the five-year-olds they are.
Originally constructed in 1945, The Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has endeavored to recognize and honor every useful idiot - from Neville Chamberlain to Nancy Pelosi - who has contributed to the defamation and demoralization of both America and England.
###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate the flagging will of Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.
Sep 24, 2007
Our Second Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Churchill’s Parrot (CP): President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we meet again.Ahmadinejad (A): We’ve met before?
CP: I interviewed you last February. Don’t you recall? Or are you often doing interviews with birds?
A: I don’t seem to …wait a minute…YOU! I vowed I would never…
CP: Oh put a lid on it Moudy, you’re in our neck of the jungle now. So tell us, what have you got planned for this year’s UN performance? Wait, wait, don’t tell me, another 30 minute screed against the U.S. and Israel?
A: Is that sarcasm I detect in your voice?
CP: No actually it’s out and out contempt, but you’re getting better. Tell me will you at least this time drop the whole passive aggressive, “some nations this” and “some nations that” routine? Just come out and say, “The United States is the root of all evil.” “Israel is an illegal state.”
A: If you wish. For it is as you have said.
CP: Then why speak at all? I mean really why even come here? A blast text message to the General Assembly would suffice would it not?
A: The case for justice needs to be made clearly before all the world.
CP: Agreed. So what brings YOU here?
A: I speak for the oppressed, the downtrodden, the voiceless.
CP: I suppose you must as you’ve cut off their tongues and thrown them into your prisons. But you bring up an excellent point, in your 2005 speech before the UN, you declared, "The Islamic Republic of Iran is the manifestation of true democracy in the region. The discourse of the Iranian nation is focused on respect for the rights of human beings and a quest for tranquility, peace, justice and development for all through monotheism.” And by all accounts you said all this with a straight face. Absolutely Lettermanesque! Who writes your stuff?
A: I don’t know what you are talking about?
CP: Do you think your halo will re-appear this time?
A: My first speech before the General Assembly was a transformative experience for myself and the members of the assembly.
CP: Yes, so it would seem, at least in your own delusional Islamania infested brain. May I quote you regarding that experience? “I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink. I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking. They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic.” You don’t think maybe they were just stunned by the sheer preposterousness of your presentation?
A: “Preposterousness”?
CP: Oh sorry. Um … “absurdity”, “ridiculousness”, “incongruity”, “utter and complete rubbish”, “bullocks”.
A: Bird, you will make a fine meal for my cat.
CP: Moving on to your 2006 performance before the General Assembly, you opened things up with a quite a bang, so to speak. “O God, hasten the reappearance of the Imam of the times and grant to us victory and prosperity. Include us among his followers and martyrs.” Can you appreciate why this might give a whole lot of people the creeps, given the history of this whole Imam thing?
A: Be careful bird, you fly near the flames of blasphemy.
CP: Oh I haven’t even gotten started yet, Moudy. Allow me to read you something from a New Republic article dated April 2006.
“According to Shia tradition, legitimate Islamic rule can only be established following the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. Until that time, the Shia have only to wait, to keep their peace with illegitimate rule, and to remember the Prophet’s grandson, Hussein, in sorrow. (Ayatollah) Khomeini, however, had no intention of waiting. He vested the myth with an entirely new sense: The Twelfth Imam will only emerge when the believers have vanquished evil. To speed up the Mahdi’s return, Muslims had to shake off their torpor and fight.
This activism had more in common with the revolutionary ideas of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood than with Shia traditions. Khomeini had been familiar with the texts of the Muslim Brothers since the 1930s, and he agreed with the Brothers’ conception of what had to be considered “evil”: namely, all the achievements of modernity that replaced divine providence with individual self-determination, blind faith with doubt, and the stern morality of sharia with sensual pleasures.”
You are a devout follower of Ayatollah Khomeini are you not?
A: I am.
CP: So you would concur with the above assessment?
A: I do.
CP: And under that rather generous umbrella of “evil” you place – just grabbing at straws here – Israel, the United States, Europe … feel free to stop me any time …
A: You’re doing fine.
CP: And you are sworn by God to vanquish this evil and have every intention of doing so? As your top advisor Hassan Abbasi boasted not long ago, “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo Saxon civilization. We must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of missiles.”
A: Can you please explain to ME how it is that America and Israel can have weapons of mass destruction but the rest of the world is denied them? You call this justice?
CP: No, I call it security. Unfortunately, thanks to unhinged nut-whistles like yourself, Moudy, devastating weapons in the hands of rational and responsible nations is our only means of preserving what justice remains in the world.
A: The United States armed Sadaam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction which he used against my people. The United States help create Al Qaeda whom you now call enemy number one. This is rational and responsible?
CP: Rational? Yes, given the circumstances. Responsible? In retrospect, probably not. But let us not forget your grand Ayatollah had declared “jihad” against the United States. And given that The Ronald was, at the time, somewhat preoccupied with a little something called the Cold War – the Soviet Empire, global nuclear annihilation et al -there was little choice in the matter. In war, hasty and unfortunate alliances are often made in addressing the threat most significant.
You might have noticed, however, that Sadaam is now dead, no need to thank us. And, according to our friends on the Left anyway, that whole “weapons of mass destruction” thing was just a myth. Why then do you not go about your business, making Iran the oil-rich sanctuary of Islamo-bliss you all so desire, and leave Israel and the rest of the bloody world alone?
A: We must make the way pure for the Mahdi, the Twelth Imam, so that Islamic justice will prevail over all the earth.
CP: And to do that you must purge the world of all modernity, free-thinking, Jews, women in thongs, homosexuals, all that, correct?
A: And insolent, arrogant, blasphemous parrots that do not know their place!
CP: Funny you know I’ve been told that before. In fact it was a little fellow - mustache, bad hair, nasty temper - much like yourself. Hitler was the name. You’re familiar with him? Have you read his Mein Kampf ? A real page-turner. What am I saying? Read it? You’re LIVING it!
A: Send for my driver. I am finished here.
CP: Oh that reminds me, I’d like to read you one last piece for you, an excerpt from a letter from Speaker Newt Gingrich to The Israel Project:
“In the 1930s, Winston Churchill read Hitler’s Mein Kampf and came to understand that Hitler meant exactly what he wrote and said. Churchill and his small group of parliamentary allies found themselves isolated as the British government refused to recognize the depth of Hitler’s evil and the seriousness of his statements.
The League of Nations found itself able to issue press releases and diplomatic condemnation but unable to do anything effective about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and later China, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) and later Albania, and Germany breaking the Versailles Treaty by remilitarizing the Rhineland and then absorbing Austria and occupying Czechoslovakia.
Each weak, paper response of the democracies simply increased the contempt and boldness of the dictators.
There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran.”
A: Mr. Gingrich is an idiot. What would you expect from a man named, “Newt.”
CP: Unfortunately not a presidential bid. Newt, however, unlike Sir Winston in the 1930’s, is not alone in his assessment. The sane half of the world no longer lets lunatics amass weapons and power unchecked. You will be stopped.
A: Oh really? We shall see. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have an appointment at Columbia University to speak to the youth of America about the future of the world.
Sep 20, 2007
Celebrate "Talk Like a Terrorist Day!"
By all accounts, September 19’s much ballyhooed Talk Like a Pirate Day was an overwhelming success! Humans the world over adopted the attire and argot of murderous marauding malcontents for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than that someone somewhere – Hollywood publicists? – thought it a capital idea.
Always one for a party, I submit that we continue the celebration with a moderately updated variation on the theme and establish today – September 20 – “Talk Like a Terrorist Day.”
The transition ought prove quite seamless for funsters. As W. Thomas Smith, Jr., co- author of The Complete Idiots Guide to Pirates points out in his article Could Your Summer Vacation Walk the Plank?, pirates are very much a reality in the 21st century and, while there are differences, the distinction between them and terrorists can prove somewhat challenging to ascertain.
“Pirates in the 21st century are often very well-equipped: They have computers, satellite phones, GPS receivers, long-range telescopes, and the same weapons any international terrorist might have. Third — and this may be difficult to grasp unless one has ever spent any real time at sea — the oceans cover over 70 percent of the earth, and 60 percent of those oceans are international waters where anyone has the freedom to roam. Fortunately, most pirates operate in remote areas, relatively close to shorelines that can be avoided. Also they are not nearly as determined as terrorists. Unfortunately, some pirates and terrorists are one and the same, and terrorists are certainly able to move freely throughout pirate communities.”
But let us not concern ourselves with such hand-wringing, right-wing extremist, fear-mongering. I mean really, how likely is it that any of us are going to end up the victim of piracy? Similarly, as Michael Moore points out, how likely is it any of us are going to end up the victim of terrorism? Let the party continue! Celebrate September 20 – “Talk Like a Terrorist Day!” All that is necessary is exchanging that bandana for a black hood, that plastic sword for an AK-47, and expressions like, “Arrrrgh, you’ll walk the plank, me matey!” for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” And all this on the eve of Iranian President Ahmedinejad’s coming to New York to speak before the United Nations. A finer welcome there has never been!
Be it for treasure, virgins, Allah what have you, there are creatures – past, present, and future - who will kill indiscriminately and en masse with absolutely no compunction whatsoever. At previous stations in history, free people felt the need to identify them and fight them. In today’s enlightened era, however, we know the thing to do is “Party Like a Pirate!”
Cheers,
Charlie
Always one for a party, I submit that we continue the celebration with a moderately updated variation on the theme and establish today – September 20 – “Talk Like a Terrorist Day.”
The transition ought prove quite seamless for funsters. As W. Thomas Smith, Jr., co- author of The Complete Idiots Guide to Pirates points out in his article Could Your Summer Vacation Walk the Plank?, pirates are very much a reality in the 21st century and, while there are differences, the distinction between them and terrorists can prove somewhat challenging to ascertain.
“Pirates in the 21st century are often very well-equipped: They have computers, satellite phones, GPS receivers, long-range telescopes, and the same weapons any international terrorist might have. Third — and this may be difficult to grasp unless one has ever spent any real time at sea — the oceans cover over 70 percent of the earth, and 60 percent of those oceans are international waters where anyone has the freedom to roam. Fortunately, most pirates operate in remote areas, relatively close to shorelines that can be avoided. Also they are not nearly as determined as terrorists. Unfortunately, some pirates and terrorists are one and the same, and terrorists are certainly able to move freely throughout pirate communities.”
But let us not concern ourselves with such hand-wringing, right-wing extremist, fear-mongering. I mean really, how likely is it that any of us are going to end up the victim of piracy? Similarly, as Michael Moore points out, how likely is it any of us are going to end up the victim of terrorism? Let the party continue! Celebrate September 20 – “Talk Like a Terrorist Day!” All that is necessary is exchanging that bandana for a black hood, that plastic sword for an AK-47, and expressions like, “Arrrrgh, you’ll walk the plank, me matey!” for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” And all this on the eve of Iranian President Ahmedinejad’s coming to New York to speak before the United Nations. A finer welcome there has never been!
Be it for treasure, virgins, Allah what have you, there are creatures – past, present, and future - who will kill indiscriminately and en masse with absolutely no compunction whatsoever. At previous stations in history, free people felt the need to identify them and fight them. In today’s enlightened era, however, we know the thing to do is “Party Like a Pirate!”
Cheers,
Charlie
Sep 15, 2007
The Battle of Britain and The Long War
In the history of warfare, the victory of will over might is not at all uncommon. Thrilling tales of battles in which vastly outnumbered and out-gunned troops fought heroically against all odds to emerge victorious enchant history books of every culture; at one time even our own.
An ever-diminishing few of us celebrate one such battle today, 15, September: The Battle of Britain. Taking place over the summer of 1940, 2,936 pilots defended England against a far superior German Luftwaffe. 544 of those pilots gave their lives in the effort which ultimately forced Hitler to abandon his planned invasion of England, the “sole champion of the liberties of all Europe.”
As Sir Winston Churchill so eloquently declared of these brave men,
“The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the world war by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
Sir Winston did not overstate the significance of this turning of the tide. He did, however, understate his own role in bringing it about. For in truth, it was the tone set by Sir Winston’s magnificent oratory and bold decision making preceding and throughout this ordeal that ignited the passions of British soldiers – and the British people – to fight as ferociously as they did for their survival and their way of life.
In his biography, Winston Churchill, author John Keegan writes,
“The answer to the question of what sustained Churchill and the British in the darkest days is that it was his own words. From them the people took hope and Churchill drew inspiration.”
“Churchill’s words did not only touch his people’s hearts and move the emotions of their future American allies, they also set the moral climate of the war.”
“Churchill’s message triumphed.”
It is our belief at Churchill’s Parrot, and – I am happy to say - numerous other sites throughout the blogosphere, that Sir Winston’s message remains as relevant, applicable, triumphant, and essential today as in 1940. Why?
Clearly, in our present struggle – the War on Terror or The Long War as it is perhaps more appropriately monikered – vast military superiority is entirely our own. Our great disadvantage, the Achilles Heel of Western Civilization, exists not in our arsenals of weapons and treasure, but in our arsenal of will. In government of the people, by the people, for the people, this is no small concern.
Thus, we endeavor to facilitate the steady application of Churchillian light upon current events with the hope of reawakening and emboldening the flagging will of Western Civilization; free people raised in unprecedented peace and prosperity and unaccustomed to the degree of sobriety and clarity required to sufficiently appreciate our current station in history. For as Osama bin Laden himself has declared:
“The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”
On this September 15, Battle of Britain Day, allow us then to draw your attention to key excerpts from speeches Sir Winston made over the summer of 1940 which empowered his people to prevail – virtually through will alone – in what may well have become Western Civilization’s last stand. We feel these ought prove instructive to those today who see little hope or point to this Long War, its many complexities and fronts (yes including Iraq), and wish really the whole bloody mess would just go away.
We begin with Sir Winston’s response to Chamberlain and Halifax’s recommendation of “seeking terms” with Hitler upon Germany’s defeat of French and Belgian forces in May of 1940, leaving Britain alone to face the Nazi threat.
“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.”
Shortly thereafter, from his June 18, 1940 at the outset of the Battle of Britain:
“What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”
***
“During the first four years of the last war the Allies experienced nothing but disaster and disappointment. That was our constant fear: one blow after another, terrible losses, frightful dangers. Everything miscarried. And yet at the end of those four years the morale of the Allies was higher than that of the Germans, who had moved from one aggressive triumph to another, and who stood everywhere triumphant invaders of the lands into which they had broken. During that war we repeatedly asked ourselves the question: How are we going to win? and no one was able ever to answer it with much precision, until at the end, quite suddenly, quite unexpectedly, our terrible foe collapsed before us.”
***
“Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. Therefore, I cannot accept the drawing of any distinctions between Members of the present Government.”
From his speech before the House of Commons, August 20, 1940, the “crisis point” in the Battle of Britain:
“One of the ways to bring this war to a speedy end is to convince the enemy, not by words, but by deeds, that we have both the will and the means, not only to go on indefinitely but to strike heavy and unexpected blows. The road to victory may not be so long as we expect. But we have no right to count upon this. Be it long or short, rough or smooth, we mean to reach our journey's end.”
***
“If it is a case of the whole nation fighting and suffering together, that ought to suit us, because we are the most united of all the nations, because we entered the war upon the national will and with our eyes open, and because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity but of tolerance and variety.”
***
“Our people are united and resolved, as they have never been before. Death and ruin have become small things compared with the shame of defeat or failure in duty. We cannot tell what lies ahead. It may be that even greater ordeals lie before us. We shall face whatever is coming to us. We are sure of ourselves and of our cause and that is the supreme fact which has emerged in these months of trial.”
***
By this post we seek to honor those who gave their all in the Battle of Britain, conjuring their memory and the words of their leader, in acknowledgment of their profound sacrifice and example. What they lacked arms, they made up for a hundred fold in will. We today in this Long War stand better armed than any people in history. But have we the will to endure it?
Cheers,
Charlie
An ever-diminishing few of us celebrate one such battle today, 15, September: The Battle of Britain. Taking place over the summer of 1940, 2,936 pilots defended England against a far superior German Luftwaffe. 544 of those pilots gave their lives in the effort which ultimately forced Hitler to abandon his planned invasion of England, the “sole champion of the liberties of all Europe.”
As Sir Winston Churchill so eloquently declared of these brave men,
“The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the world war by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
Sir Winston did not overstate the significance of this turning of the tide. He did, however, understate his own role in bringing it about. For in truth, it was the tone set by Sir Winston’s magnificent oratory and bold decision making preceding and throughout this ordeal that ignited the passions of British soldiers – and the British people – to fight as ferociously as they did for their survival and their way of life.
In his biography, Winston Churchill, author John Keegan writes,
“The answer to the question of what sustained Churchill and the British in the darkest days is that it was his own words. From them the people took hope and Churchill drew inspiration.”
“Churchill’s words did not only touch his people’s hearts and move the emotions of their future American allies, they also set the moral climate of the war.”
“Churchill’s message triumphed.”
It is our belief at Churchill’s Parrot, and – I am happy to say - numerous other sites throughout the blogosphere, that Sir Winston’s message remains as relevant, applicable, triumphant, and essential today as in 1940. Why?
Clearly, in our present struggle – the War on Terror or The Long War as it is perhaps more appropriately monikered – vast military superiority is entirely our own. Our great disadvantage, the Achilles Heel of Western Civilization, exists not in our arsenals of weapons and treasure, but in our arsenal of will. In government of the people, by the people, for the people, this is no small concern.
Thus, we endeavor to facilitate the steady application of Churchillian light upon current events with the hope of reawakening and emboldening the flagging will of Western Civilization; free people raised in unprecedented peace and prosperity and unaccustomed to the degree of sobriety and clarity required to sufficiently appreciate our current station in history. For as Osama bin Laden himself has declared:
“The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”
On this September 15, Battle of Britain Day, allow us then to draw your attention to key excerpts from speeches Sir Winston made over the summer of 1940 which empowered his people to prevail – virtually through will alone – in what may well have become Western Civilization’s last stand. We feel these ought prove instructive to those today who see little hope or point to this Long War, its many complexities and fronts (yes including Iraq), and wish really the whole bloody mess would just go away.
We begin with Sir Winston’s response to Chamberlain and Halifax’s recommendation of “seeking terms” with Hitler upon Germany’s defeat of French and Belgian forces in May of 1940, leaving Britain alone to face the Nazi threat.
“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.”
Shortly thereafter, from his June 18, 1940 at the outset of the Battle of Britain:
“What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”
***
“During the first four years of the last war the Allies experienced nothing but disaster and disappointment. That was our constant fear: one blow after another, terrible losses, frightful dangers. Everything miscarried. And yet at the end of those four years the morale of the Allies was higher than that of the Germans, who had moved from one aggressive triumph to another, and who stood everywhere triumphant invaders of the lands into which they had broken. During that war we repeatedly asked ourselves the question: How are we going to win? and no one was able ever to answer it with much precision, until at the end, quite suddenly, quite unexpectedly, our terrible foe collapsed before us.”
***
“Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. Therefore, I cannot accept the drawing of any distinctions between Members of the present Government.”
From his speech before the House of Commons, August 20, 1940, the “crisis point” in the Battle of Britain:
“One of the ways to bring this war to a speedy end is to convince the enemy, not by words, but by deeds, that we have both the will and the means, not only to go on indefinitely but to strike heavy and unexpected blows. The road to victory may not be so long as we expect. But we have no right to count upon this. Be it long or short, rough or smooth, we mean to reach our journey's end.”
***
“If it is a case of the whole nation fighting and suffering together, that ought to suit us, because we are the most united of all the nations, because we entered the war upon the national will and with our eyes open, and because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity but of tolerance and variety.”
***
“Our people are united and resolved, as they have never been before. Death and ruin have become small things compared with the shame of defeat or failure in duty. We cannot tell what lies ahead. It may be that even greater ordeals lie before us. We shall face whatever is coming to us. We are sure of ourselves and of our cause and that is the supreme fact which has emerged in these months of trial.”
***
By this post we seek to honor those who gave their all in the Battle of Britain, conjuring their memory and the words of their leader, in acknowledgment of their profound sacrifice and example. What they lacked arms, they made up for a hundred fold in will. We today in this Long War stand better armed than any people in history. But have we the will to endure it?
Cheers,
Charlie
Sep 11, 2007
Chamberlain’s Syndrome September 11th Blogathon
.jpg)
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.
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:
* 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.
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.”
- 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:
"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.
-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.
Sep 5, 2007
Lefties Sink to New Heights in Tastelessness to Protest War
General Petraeus’ coming testimony before Congress regarding the status of military operations in Iraq has inspired the Lefties to feats of classless jackassery beyond which anyone believed them capable. (Well on second thought, it’s quite believable.)
The group A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) has planned a “Die-In” for September 15 in Washington D.C. to protest the war in Iraq. Nothing new here. Lefty drama queens are pretending to die all the time, it’s just that no one much cares to notice. This particular “Die-in”, however, goes a bit further.
From the Weekly Standard:
“Meanwhile, a motley crew of antiwar groups, including Iraq Veterans Against The War, CODEPINK, ANSWER, and MoveOn.org, are organizing a week of demonstrations in Washington beginning September 15. The "mobilization" will be kicked off with a "Die-In," sponsored primarily by ANSWER and Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). As they explain, "IVAW is asking that participants in the Die-In/Funeral select the name of one of the almost 4,000 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. You can select a family member, friend or someone from your city, town or state. Please bring a photograph of that person and a sign with his/her name on September 15." Needless to say, the protesters who will be appropriating the names of soldiers and Marines killed in action have no intention of asking the permission of their families. But why should the families think their loved ones' sacrifices are being exploited in an unbelievably offensive way? After all, as one organizer explains, "The die-in will be led by an Honor Guard of Iraq Veterans Against the War who will simulate a 21-Gun Salute before taps is played to initiate the die-in."
In an effort to give voice to families who have lost husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, wives, sisters, mothers, daughters in Iraq and would prefer not to have their names dragged through the politico-sludge, the group Families United For Our Troops and Their Mission is working to counter the “Die-In” message.
“The last thing we wish to do is to cause controversy at the event - because that is what they want and that gets them media attention,” says a spokeswoman for Families United. “However, we do wish to take a stand in a positive way. The Gold Star families who will be in D.C. for the GOE rally, will be meeting and voicing our support of the troops. We will ask for equal media time. In addition, we would like to take with us signed letters from Gold Star families demanding that A.N.S.W.E.R and their affiliates no longer misuse our heroes and clearly stating that they do not have the ‘right’ to use our hero's names and we protect that right as the heir of our hero."
The group has composed a form letter, addressed to the Chairman (chairperson?) of ANSWER demanding that the group not use the names and images of loved ones in this way. The letter features blank spaces where families can fill in the particulars of the loved one they wish not to be dishonored.
To think that anyone, let alone those whose family members have sacrificed their lives for the freedom of others, should have to go through such gyrations to extract the most basic degree of human decency out of their fellow country men is truly mind-boggling, if not nauseating.
But the Lefties must have their theater, no matter how much it costs the rest of us.
To that point, one wonders from time to time (if not constantly) what sort of person could believe acts such as these to be noble, enlightened, caring, necessary as the Lefties most surely do? Greg Gutfeld, of FOX’s Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, has composed a brilliant expose on Left Chic and its de rigueur mindset, uniform, attitude et al for The American Spectator magazine. “Think globally. Screw everybody locally” is an excerpt which neatly summarizes his thesis. Unfortunately Mr. Gutfeld’s column is not presently available online. A splendid dramatic reading and analysis of it, however, was performed yesterday by Mark Belling - one of talk radios brighter stars - whom you may have heard filling in for Mr. Limbaugh now and again.
Following are links to Mr. Belling’s segment on the article and the larger issue of utter classlessness among the Left. The discussion begins about one minute in on part 1 - Mark Belling part 1 – and a few seconds into the beginning of part 2 - Mark Belling part 2 . Enjoy!
Cheers,
Charlie
The group A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) has planned a “Die-In” for September 15 in Washington D.C. to protest the war in Iraq. Nothing new here. Lefty drama queens are pretending to die all the time, it’s just that no one much cares to notice. This particular “Die-in”, however, goes a bit further.
From the Weekly Standard:
“Meanwhile, a motley crew of antiwar groups, including Iraq Veterans Against The War, CODEPINK, ANSWER, and MoveOn.org, are organizing a week of demonstrations in Washington beginning September 15. The "mobilization" will be kicked off with a "Die-In," sponsored primarily by ANSWER and Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). As they explain, "IVAW is asking that participants in the Die-In/Funeral select the name of one of the almost 4,000 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. You can select a family member, friend or someone from your city, town or state. Please bring a photograph of that person and a sign with his/her name on September 15." Needless to say, the protesters who will be appropriating the names of soldiers and Marines killed in action have no intention of asking the permission of their families. But why should the families think their loved ones' sacrifices are being exploited in an unbelievably offensive way? After all, as one organizer explains, "The die-in will be led by an Honor Guard of Iraq Veterans Against the War who will simulate a 21-Gun Salute before taps is played to initiate the die-in."
In an effort to give voice to families who have lost husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, wives, sisters, mothers, daughters in Iraq and would prefer not to have their names dragged through the politico-sludge, the group Families United For Our Troops and Their Mission is working to counter the “Die-In” message.
“The last thing we wish to do is to cause controversy at the event - because that is what they want and that gets them media attention,” says a spokeswoman for Families United. “However, we do wish to take a stand in a positive way. The Gold Star families who will be in D.C. for the GOE rally, will be meeting and voicing our support of the troops. We will ask for equal media time. In addition, we would like to take with us signed letters from Gold Star families demanding that A.N.S.W.E.R and their affiliates no longer misuse our heroes and clearly stating that they do not have the ‘right’ to use our hero's names and we protect that right as the heir of our hero."
The group has composed a form letter, addressed to the Chairman (chairperson?) of ANSWER demanding that the group not use the names and images of loved ones in this way. The letter features blank spaces where families can fill in the particulars of the loved one they wish not to be dishonored.
To think that anyone, let alone those whose family members have sacrificed their lives for the freedom of others, should have to go through such gyrations to extract the most basic degree of human decency out of their fellow country men is truly mind-boggling, if not nauseating.
But the Lefties must have their theater, no matter how much it costs the rest of us.
To that point, one wonders from time to time (if not constantly) what sort of person could believe acts such as these to be noble, enlightened, caring, necessary as the Lefties most surely do? Greg Gutfeld, of FOX’s Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, has composed a brilliant expose on Left Chic and its de rigueur mindset, uniform, attitude et al for The American Spectator magazine. “Think globally. Screw everybody locally” is an excerpt which neatly summarizes his thesis. Unfortunately Mr. Gutfeld’s column is not presently available online. A splendid dramatic reading and analysis of it, however, was performed yesterday by Mark Belling - one of talk radios brighter stars - whom you may have heard filling in for Mr. Limbaugh now and again.
Following are links to Mr. Belling’s segment on the article and the larger issue of utter classlessness among the Left. The discussion begins about one minute in on part 1 - Mark Belling part 1 – and a few seconds into the beginning of part 2 - Mark Belling part 2 . Enjoy!
Cheers,
Charlie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)