The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Winston Churchill turns 132
Well, he would have. Today is his birthday. My thoughts are here.
POSTED BY: adams AT 2:26 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Well, he would have. Today is his birthday. My thoughts are here.
POSTED BY: adams AT 2:26 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
A "nation" of stranded colonists
I knew it was only a matter of time before I'd get to quote Colby Cosh:
"I don't know anymore what the majority of Canada's intellectuals think they mean by "nation," though they're very clear on what it doesn't mean, and they'll set themselves on fire rather than concede that a French-Canadian might belong to any nation other than, or along with, Canada. I think I understand the true source of their anger. French Canada's claims to nationhood on genetic, historical, and cultural grounds are very strong indeed--arguably stronger than China's, for instance, and much stronger than the Ukraine's. To be an English Canadian, by contrast, is to be a stranded colonist, floating untethered on the plane of human varieties. Our ties of continuity with the past were cut in the hope that the French would cooperate and drift toward us; it is indeed terrible to contemplate the betrayal of that hope and our consequent state--so terrible, in fact, that Coyne can write that "[Quebeckers] have as much or more in common with other Canadians as they do with each other" and not even recognize that he has been driven totally round the bend by horror vacui.
I have to admit, that whole "community of communities" thing is looking better every minute. (And if we promise to be on our best behaviour, can we please have "Dominion of Canada" back?)"
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:59 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I knew it was only a matter of time before I'd get to quote Colby Cosh:
"I don't know anymore what the majority of Canada's intellectuals think they mean by "nation," though they're very clear on what it doesn't mean, and they'll set themselves on fire rather than concede that a French-Canadian might belong to any nation other than, or along with, Canada. I think I understand the true source of their anger. French Canada's claims to nationhood on genetic, historical, and cultural grounds are very strong indeed--arguably stronger than China's, for instance, and much stronger than the Ukraine's. To be an English Canadian, by contrast, is to be a stranded colonist, floating untethered on the plane of human varieties. Our ties of continuity with the past were cut in the hope that the French would cooperate and drift toward us; it is indeed terrible to contemplate the betrayal of that hope and our consequent state--so terrible, in fact, that Coyne can write that "[Quebeckers] have as much or more in common with other Canadians as they do with each other" and not even recognize that he has been driven totally round the bend by horror vacui.I have to admit, that whole "community of communities" thing is looking better every minute. (And if we promise to be on our best behaviour, can we please have "Dominion of Canada" back?)"
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:59 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Remember that 80s song, who shot the sheriff? Well who shot Musharraf? Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato....Nato to Pakistan: Say again, over?
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 1:29 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 1:29 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The height of Parliamentarianism
Although he has come out against monarchy in the past, I'm really glad to see that Mader Blog understands the distinguishing features of the British parliamentary system:
That being said, Michael Chong is probably making too much of the issue, just as I had done earlier before understanding the finer points of the resolution. The government and parliament were not recognizing the province of Quebec as a nation, nor were they recognzing all Quebeckers. They were clearly recognizing only the French speakers of that province, les Quebecois, the ancestors of the first settlers of New France. Yes this is recognizing ethnicity, but it is no different from recognition of the other First Nations of Canada, such as the Cree, the Huron or the N'isga. So Canada lives. In all its tribalistic glory.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Although he has come out against monarchy in the past, I'm really glad to see that Mader Blog understands the distinguishing features of the British parliamentary system:
A Parliamentary party is a collection of MPs who, on balance, support a common platform. A government is a ministry; it is a body of MPs who advise the executive as to the administration of the nation (ahem). It is necessary that all members of a government vote in for that government; it would be inconsistent for a member of the government to vote against the government of which he or she was a member. When a conflict of principles arises - as really ought to arise far more frequently than it appears to - the appropriate action for a minister is to resign from government and withdraw to the back benches. There is no shame in such an action; on the contrary, it is the very height of Parliamentarianism.Rather than vote against the Government of Canada (of which he was a member) on its parliamentary motion recognizing the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada, Michael Chong, the former minister of intergovernmental affairs, did the honourable thing and resigned in order to abstain on the issue. He resigned on the principle that while he was still loyal to his leader and his party, he was loyal first to his country, and in all good conscience could not vote on a matter that gave recognition to an ethnic nation. It's moments like this that we can tell the difference between politician and parliamentarian. A politician is a populist, a man of the people. A parliamentarian is a man of honour.
That being said, Michael Chong is probably making too much of the issue, just as I had done earlier before understanding the finer points of the resolution. The government and parliament were not recognizing the province of Quebec as a nation, nor were they recognzing all Quebeckers. They were clearly recognizing only the French speakers of that province, les Quebecois, the ancestors of the first settlers of New France. Yes this is recognizing ethnicity, but it is no different from recognition of the other First Nations of Canada, such as the Cree, the Huron or the N'isga. So Canada lives. In all its tribalistic glory.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Islamic sharia law is gaining foothold in Britain
According to this article in today's Telegraph, a Somali working in Britain as a youth worker told a BBC radio 4 programme that
Not British culture of course, which is where this is taking place. So much for people coming to Britain out of respect for its culture and traditions, including that of English Common Law that was adopted by so many all over the world, now a barrister warns that "there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade."
At the same time as the UK unravels at the seams, Tony Blair has written to a black community newspaper, New Nation, that Britain's role in the slave trade was "shameful." Next year is the bicentenary of Britain's abolition of the slave trade, when it used its Royal Navy to actively fight the practice, and according to Blair: ‘[T]he bicentenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened.’As Iraq continues to become more and more chaotic, and the management of the NHS back in England become more a fi\ocus of concern, it is reassuring to know that Blair is against a practice that was abolished nearly 200 years ago. By the way, I remember when he had also 'reflected' on the deaths caused by the Irish Potato Famine whatever that meant...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 10:42 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
According to this article in today's Telegraph, a Somali working in Britain as a youth worker told a BBC radio 4 programme that
he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."
Not British culture of course, which is where this is taking place. So much for people coming to Britain out of respect for its culture and traditions, including that of English Common Law that was adopted by so many all over the world, now a barrister warns that "there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade."
At the same time as the UK unravels at the seams, Tony Blair has written to a black community newspaper, New Nation, that Britain's role in the slave trade was "shameful." Next year is the bicentenary of Britain's abolition of the slave trade, when it used its Royal Navy to actively fight the practice, and according to Blair: ‘[T]he bicentenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened.’As Iraq continues to become more and more chaotic, and the management of the NHS back in England become more a fi\ocus of concern, it is reassuring to know that Blair is against a practice that was abolished nearly 200 years ago. By the way, I remember when he had also 'reflected' on the deaths caused by the Irish Potato Famine whatever that meant...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 10:42 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, November 27, 2006
China and India poised to conquer the world
That's the claim made by the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn. He warns that it will come before we know it and will radically alter the shape of our world. The West will have to get used to a world where the Chinese and Indians call the shots. It won't be pretty.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 5:52 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
That's the claim made by the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn. He warns that it will come before we know it and will radically alter the shape of our world. The West will have to get used to a world where the Chinese and Indians call the shots. It won't be pretty.
United we stand...Wealthy countries were failing to understand the impact of the invevitable growth of the two Asian powerhouses, Wolfensohn said in the 2006 Wallace Wurth Memorial Lecture at the University of New South Wales at the weekend.
"It's a world that is going to be in the hands of these countries which we now call developing," said Australian-born Wolfensohn, who held the top job at the global development bank for a decade until last year. Rich nations needed to try to capitalise on the inevitable emergence of what would become the engine of the world's economic activity before it was too late, he said.
"Most people in the rich countries don't really look at what's happening in these large developing countries," said Wolfensohn, who is now chairman of Citigroup International Advisory Board and his own investment and advisory firm.
Within 25 years, the combined gross domestic products of China and India would exceed those of the Group of Seven wealthy nations, he said.
"This is not a trivial advance, this is a monumental advance."
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 5:52 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Strong, United, Independent and Free
My my, maybe we should call this Tipping Point part III, for Walsingham believes Harper has just saved the country, by tipping confederation back to first principles and its original intent:
"I think you should all pay a little heed to Splendor Sine Occasu: he's the only one on target on this whole thread.
Harper has done nothing more than turn the implacable reality of the Quebec situation into a major lever of execution of his strategy (and it is a true and brilliant "blue ocean" strategy folks - go hit the business literature if you don't know what that means...) Contrary to the allusions of some on this thread, that strategy is all about a vision of Canada that is firmly rooted in clear principles. That that vision is so different from the Trudeau-esque one that has been accepted dogma in this country for forty years must be what is keeping people confused.
As Splendor says, Harper sees Canada as a confederation - and in many respects, as a rather loose one. He is deadly earnest about keeping Ottawa out of the provinces' hair on every matter that is not squarely the prerogative of the federal government. He is, equally earnest about his focus on those core areas of federal jurisdiction, and about keeping them under the exclusive federal purview. In all respects, this vision is 180 degrees opposed to the one that Liberals and Conservatives alike have cleaved to since... well, since almost forever. But it just happens to represent the only basis on which the continued existence of Canada is possible. And it is no accident that it took a Westerner as PM to see it.
The fundamental reality is this: to a large degree, the characteristics and interests of various parts of the country are mutually irreconcible, and the opposing forces are moving toward a critical point in a way they never have before. To the permanent and very real "separateness" of Quebec and the Quebecois we can now add the accelerating shift of the economic centre of gravity in Canada from Montreal-Toronto westward to Calgary-Vancouver. Those two realities cannot long coexist within Canada without some significant change in the political-structural foundations of the country. The only workable such change is the "devolutionism" which defines the Harper vision and strategy. Make no mistake folks: far from destroying Canada, Mr. Harper is doing the only thing possible to save it. Of course, the shape of the country that results will be different from the one we have been accustomed to, but get over it. Who was it that said, "facts can be difficult things?"
So call Quebec a "nation". More to the point, let them call themselves a nation. Let them call themselves a ham sandwich if they so desire. Ditto Alberta and everybody else. The confederalist structure will give everybody a lot of leeway. But none of this leeway will compromise the meaningful integrity of the country, because Mr. Harper has drawn a clear line in the sand. The wall around the areas of federal focus: international relations, defence and security, and basic economic policy; is now higher than ever. Whatever anybody thinks "nation" ought to mean in the context of this resolution, they will find out what it does not mean, at least in Mr. Harper's mind, if they attempt to breach that wall.
The important point in Harper's resolution was not the "nation" bit but the "within a united Canada" bit. It is entirely that latter part which is definitive in the whole thing.
The leeway which the move to a confederalist structure will create either will be, or it will not be, sufficient to satisfy Quebeckers. But the only possible further step for them is outright separation. Harper has made that more clear than ever before, which is precisely why Duceppe reacted so awkwardly in the immediate aftermath. Initially he was furious that, in a sense, the bluff had been called. Subsequently, he said, alright, separation it is. Whether Quebeckers as a whole will agree is another story - and he knows it."
POSTED BY WALSINGHAM
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:25 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
My my, maybe we should call this Tipping Point part III, for Walsingham believes Harper has just saved the country, by tipping confederation back to first principles and its original intent:"I think you should all pay a little heed to Splendor Sine Occasu: he's the only one on target on this whole thread.
Harper has done nothing more than turn the implacable reality of the Quebec situation into a major lever of execution of his strategy (and it is a true and brilliant "blue ocean" strategy folks - go hit the business literature if you don't know what that means...) Contrary to the allusions of some on this thread, that strategy is all about a vision of Canada that is firmly rooted in clear principles. That that vision is so different from the Trudeau-esque one that has been accepted dogma in this country for forty years must be what is keeping people confused.
As Splendor says, Harper sees Canada as a confederation - and in many respects, as a rather loose one. He is deadly earnest about keeping Ottawa out of the provinces' hair on every matter that is not squarely the prerogative of the federal government. He is, equally earnest about his focus on those core areas of federal jurisdiction, and about keeping them under the exclusive federal purview. In all respects, this vision is 180 degrees opposed to the one that Liberals and Conservatives alike have cleaved to since... well, since almost forever. But it just happens to represent the only basis on which the continued existence of Canada is possible. And it is no accident that it took a Westerner as PM to see it.
The fundamental reality is this: to a large degree, the characteristics and interests of various parts of the country are mutually irreconcible, and the opposing forces are moving toward a critical point in a way they never have before. To the permanent and very real "separateness" of Quebec and the Quebecois we can now add the accelerating shift of the economic centre of gravity in Canada from Montreal-Toronto westward to Calgary-Vancouver. Those two realities cannot long coexist within Canada without some significant change in the political-structural foundations of the country. The only workable such change is the "devolutionism" which defines the Harper vision and strategy. Make no mistake folks: far from destroying Canada, Mr. Harper is doing the only thing possible to save it. Of course, the shape of the country that results will be different from the one we have been accustomed to, but get over it. Who was it that said, "facts can be difficult things?"
So call Quebec a "nation". More to the point, let them call themselves a nation. Let them call themselves a ham sandwich if they so desire. Ditto Alberta and everybody else. The confederalist structure will give everybody a lot of leeway. But none of this leeway will compromise the meaningful integrity of the country, because Mr. Harper has drawn a clear line in the sand. The wall around the areas of federal focus: international relations, defence and security, and basic economic policy; is now higher than ever. Whatever anybody thinks "nation" ought to mean in the context of this resolution, they will find out what it does not mean, at least in Mr. Harper's mind, if they attempt to breach that wall.
The important point in Harper's resolution was not the "nation" bit but the "within a united Canada" bit. It is entirely that latter part which is definitive in the whole thing.
The leeway which the move to a confederalist structure will create either will be, or it will not be, sufficient to satisfy Quebeckers. But the only possible further step for them is outright separation. Harper has made that more clear than ever before, which is precisely why Duceppe reacted so awkwardly in the immediate aftermath. Initially he was furious that, in a sense, the bluff had been called. Subsequently, he said, alright, separation it is. Whether Quebeckers as a whole will agree is another story - and he knows it."
POSTED BY WALSINGHAM
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:25 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Ooogh! Cootchie, cootchie, cootchie!
In an opinion piece that had me laughing in my seat, Gerald Warner tells David Cameron to remove the soother from his mouth on his first birthday as leader of the Conservatives. Ooogh! Cootchie, cootchie, cootchie! mocks Warner of the Baby King.
Also, be sure to read his Tory view on the unbridled libertarianism of Milton Friedman and his anarcho-capitalist son, David. This is a far cry from the swooning raves we heard earlier in the week.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
In an opinion piece that had me laughing in my seat, Gerald Warner tells David Cameron to remove the soother from his mouth on his first birthday as leader of the Conservatives. Ooogh! Cootchie, cootchie, cootchie! mocks Warner of the Baby King.
Also, be sure to read his Tory view on the unbridled libertarianism of Milton Friedman and his anarcho-capitalist son, David. This is a far cry from the swooning raves we heard earlier in the week.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The incomparable Mark Steyn weighs in at the New Cultural Forum on the cultural defeat of Britain and Europe. I read this blog quite frequently, as it is right up our ally:
"In the last quarter of the 20th century, the Right decisively won the important economic arguments. At the same time, few would demur from the view that in the so-called Culture Wars, the Left were ultimately victorious. More and more are dissatisfied with the effects of political correctness and cultural relativism."
And that ladies, is why The Monarchist exists. Save our heritage. Defend our values. Preserve our way of life.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"In the last quarter of the 20th century, the Right decisively won the important economic arguments. At the same time, few would demur from the view that in the so-called Culture Wars, the Left were ultimately victorious. More and more are dissatisfied with the effects of political correctness and cultural relativism."
And that ladies, is why The Monarchist exists. Save our heritage. Defend our values. Preserve our way of life.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, November 25, 2006
The greatest speech of the 20th century
I'll be waxing Churchill for the next several weeks as I populate this blog with all the man's great speeches and quotes.
There are many speeches of the last century that I would characterize as "great", and all of Churchill's certainly were. But the three greatest in my opinion were all spoken within a month of each other, at the moment Britain was being written off as a chicken about to get its neck wrung. Even many of those closest to Churchill (Lord Halifax anyone), thought the situation hopeless, but Churchill gave them a backbone, first with Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat (our second runner up) in May 1940 that laid out Victory as the only honourable policy; followed by We Shall Fight on the Beaches on June 4th during the retreat at Dunkirk, when Winston was at his defiant best (first runner up); and finally Their Finest Hour on June 18th, as France capitulated leaving Britain alone and isolated against the Nazi menace:
"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." "
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:58 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I'll be waxing Churchill for the next several weeks as I populate this blog with all the man's great speeches and quotes. There are many speeches of the last century that I would characterize as "great", and all of Churchill's certainly were. But the three greatest in my opinion were all spoken within a month of each other, at the moment Britain was being written off as a chicken about to get its neck wrung. Even many of those closest to Churchill (Lord Halifax anyone), thought the situation hopeless, but Churchill gave them a backbone, first with Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat (our second runner up) in May 1940 that laid out Victory as the only honourable policy; followed by We Shall Fight on the Beaches on June 4th during the retreat at Dunkirk, when Winston was at his defiant best (first runner up); and finally Their Finest Hour on June 18th, as France capitulated leaving Britain alone and isolated against the Nazi menace:
"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." "
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:58 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, November 23, 2006
One Kingdom under God
Canada died yesterday. She was 139 years old.
The longstanding confederated fact that Canada is one nation, that the people of Canada constitute a nation in their own right, is no more. The entire political class stuck a dagger through the heart of that belief yesterday with their treacherous lining up behind the prime minister’s motion to move that “Quebeckers are a nation inside a united Canada”. By the government’s own admission, Canada is a state, but no longer a nation.
Oh, sure the prime minister confounded the Quebec sovereigntists in Parliament yesterday, and denied them the opportunity to corner federalists on their own motion to recognize Quebec as a nation without so much as a mention of Canada. And yes he saved the opposition Liberals from imploding over the issue, threw a lifeline to the embattled Quebec premier, united the federalists and bolstered the Conservative’s flagging fortunes in la belle province in a brilliant masterstroke of political strategy that won him a standing ovation in the House of Commons from all parties except le Bloc Quebecois, not to mention wide applause from the country’s ink stained wretches. Oh, goodie. Wankfest galore. Nobody plays triangulation better than Stephen Harper, but what does it profit a man to gain the world andlose his country?
First to the idiot savant who started this mess. Michael Ignatieff is Harper’s dream opponent, not because he shares a special affinity for the Americans and supported the Iraq War, but because Lord Iggy is a political klutz. The man comes waltzing in here fresh from thirty years of living in his ivory tower at Cambridge and Harvard, and opportunistically lunges for the altar of the Liberal Party of Canada (Mark Steyn said it was like watching a classical pianist at the burlesque) by recklessly wooing Quebec nationalists and promising to speak for those who believe that “Quebec is my nation, Canada is my country”. We just barely survived thirty years of constitutional wrangling and gnashing of teeth, only to have this wise fool promise us more. It was a stink bomb that needed to be contained. Harper, sensing danger for his Quebec caucus and the country at large, struck at the right moment to neutralize the separatist menace. (But did it? Just wait for the demands that a nation means special rights…) What rankles more than anything is to see Iggy all smiles with the press now, applauding Harper for following his leadership on the issue! Actually, Ig, Harper was going in for the kill. And the kill is you, come next election, but first he had to save you from losing the Liberal leadership.
But the damage has been done. Andrew Coyne believes we are headed for Belgiumhood now. What’s worse, we may be headed towards what Churchill called a House of Many Mansions, a direct reference to Europe during the Second World War when Hitler and his odious goose-stepping Gustapo were busy stamping out the Mansions all over Europe. But whereas Europe is now trying to make the House stronger than its Mansions, the reverse is happening in Canada.
There may be a way out of this nonsense, but it would take a little imagination, something beyond that six letter hoser of a word: C eh, N eh, D eh (Okay, three letters and three ehs). We might say that “nation” has never done justice to the idea of Canada, that the complexities of this country require a new word to describe who we are. A country that is predominantly British, French and American, one that Andrew Coyne calls “polyethnic, multilingual and transcontinental”, instead of that dreaded and divisive multicultural notion. For what we need is not something that segregates, differentiates, separates and alienates us, but a word that binds us together in loyalty and allegiance to the whole. Dominion was good in its day, Churchill’s “Great Dominion” even better, but I’m thinking of something less imperial and more federal in a way that still honours our former majesty. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you? Thy Kingdom Come to this glorious and free land we call Canada!
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 6:11 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The longstanding confederated fact that Canada is one nation, that the people of Canada constitute a nation in their own right, is no more. The entire political class stuck a dagger through the heart of that belief yesterday with their treacherous lining up behind the prime minister’s motion to move that “Quebeckers are a nation inside a united Canada”. By the government’s own admission, Canada is a state, but no longer a nation.Oh, sure the prime minister confounded the Quebec sovereigntists in Parliament yesterday, and denied them the opportunity to corner federalists on their own motion to recognize Quebec as a nation without so much as a mention of Canada. And yes he saved the opposition Liberals from imploding over the issue, threw a lifeline to the embattled Quebec premier, united the federalists and bolstered the Conservative’s flagging fortunes in la belle province in a brilliant masterstroke of political strategy that won him a standing ovation in the House of Commons from all parties except le Bloc Quebecois, not to mention wide applause from the country’s ink stained wretches. Oh, goodie. Wankfest galore. Nobody plays triangulation better than Stephen Harper, but what does it profit a man to gain the world and
First to the idiot savant who started this mess. Michael Ignatieff is Harper’s dream opponent, not because he shares a special affinity for the Americans and supported the Iraq War, but because Lord Iggy is a political klutz. The man comes waltzing in here fresh from thirty years of living in his ivory tower at Cambridge and Harvard, and opportunistically lunges for the altar of the Liberal Party of Canada (Mark Steyn said it was like watching a classical pianist at the burlesque) by recklessly wooing Quebec nationalists and promising to speak for those who believe that “Quebec is my nation, Canada is my country”. We just barely survived thirty years of constitutional wrangling and gnashing of teeth, only to have this wise fool promise us more. It was a stink bomb that needed to be contained. Harper, sensing danger for his Quebec caucus and the country at large, struck at the right moment to neutralize the separatist menace. (But did it? Just wait for the demands that a nation means special rights…) What rankles more than anything is to see Iggy all smiles with the press now, applauding Harper for following his leadership on the issue! Actually, Ig, Harper was going in for the kill. And the kill is you, come next election, but first he had to save you from losing the Liberal leadership.
There may be a way out of this nonsense, but it would take a little imagination, something beyond that six letter hoser of a word: C eh, N eh, D eh (Okay, three letters and three ehs). We might say that “nation” has never done justice to the idea of Canada, that the complexities of this country require a new word to describe who we are. A country that is predominantly British, French and American, one that Andrew Coyne calls “polyethnic, multilingual and transcontinental”, instead of that dreaded and divisive multicultural notion. For what we need is not something that segregates, differentiates, separates and alienates us, but a word that binds us together in loyalty and allegiance to the whole. Dominion was good in its day, Churchill’s “Great Dominion” even better, but I’m thinking of something less imperial and more federal in a way that still honours our former majesty. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you? Thy Kingdom Come to this glorious and free land we call Canada!
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 6:11 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Gentleman Don resigns
Dr Brash transformed National into a respected, potent and feared Opposition after it took a record drubbing in the 2002 election. He came within a sniff of winning the 2005 election, and would have won if Clark did not illegally spend over $800,000 of taxpayers money.
It's a total shame Dr Brash has resigned. He might not have been the "perfect politician" but his honesty and genuine concern for New Zealand would have made him a remarkable leader for this country. The media and all those small-minded dimwits creating scandals from nothing should be ashamed of themselves. I sincerely hope Helen Mugabe and her Welfare party are ousted next election
If Don Brash feels he has to resign then I think half of the Labour government should as well. If they are caught out they now legislate to make it legal. How come Benson Pope does not resign? What about Taito Philip Field?
Don Brash gets called a bigot, accused of only being interested in taking care of the interests of the wealthy, and of pandering to agenda of extremists. Why? For being an effective Leader of the Opposition and pushing alternative policies than the Government with the intention of making New Zealand better for all New Zealanders.
New Zealanders make a mockery of the entire concept of Democracy. Democracy is supposedly a system whereby citizens of a country make and informed decision on who is best to run the country. Personality should have nothing to do with the issue. Dr Brash is a highly educated man with a comprehensive knowledge of what makes an economy successful, the fact that he has some personal imperfections only makes him human. Apparently it is okay to be a homosexual, transvestite or any other 'special interest group' but heaven forbid you are just a normal bloke who (supposedly) flirts with another woman. As for the Exclusive Brethren - what have they actually done wrong? Would you all kick and scream so much if he had met with Muslims? Or Jews?
It seems that John Key will be the next leader, with a recent Auckland poll showing Key only 1.4 points behind Brash. Dr Brash's decision came with the Nationals ahead in the poll. The decision has left the party in crisis, set for their fifth leader in 9 years.
I have personally always favoured Dr Brash to Keys, Brash was a Gentlemen, a last of his breed and Dr Brash was always unfailingly courteous.
Gentlemen, it sadly looks like Helen Clark and the rest of her cronies have forced a great leader from Prime Ministeralship contention.
There goes a man of honour. Even in his resignation statement he stands up for the rights of the man responsible for the final nail.
John Key will be the next leader of the opposition and good luck to him. He can expect all sorts of shit to be flung at him. But I think we can safely expect a National rise in the polls from here. It may not be sustained but unless New Zealanders have completely lost their sense of fair play they will realise that a very good man has been done down unfairly today.
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 2:36 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Dr Brash transformed National into a respected, potent and feared Opposition after it took a record drubbing in the 2002 election. He came within a sniff of winning the 2005 election, and would have won if Clark did not illegally spend over $800,000 of taxpayers money.
It's a total shame Dr Brash has resigned. He might not have been the "perfect politician" but his honesty and genuine concern for New Zealand would have made him a remarkable leader for this country. The media and all those small-minded dimwits creating scandals from nothing should be ashamed of themselves. I sincerely hope Helen Mugabe and her Welfare party are ousted next election
If Don Brash feels he has to resign then I think half of the Labour government should as well. If they are caught out they now legislate to make it legal. How come Benson Pope does not resign? What about Taito Philip Field?
Don Brash gets called a bigot, accused of only being interested in taking care of the interests of the wealthy, and of pandering to agenda of extremists. Why? For being an effective Leader of the Opposition and pushing alternative policies than the Government with the intention of making New Zealand better for all New Zealanders.
New Zealanders make a mockery of the entire concept of Democracy. Democracy is supposedly a system whereby citizens of a country make and informed decision on who is best to run the country. Personality should have nothing to do with the issue. Dr Brash is a highly educated man with a comprehensive knowledge of what makes an economy successful, the fact that he has some personal imperfections only makes him human. Apparently it is okay to be a homosexual, transvestite or any other 'special interest group' but heaven forbid you are just a normal bloke who (supposedly) flirts with another woman. As for the Exclusive Brethren - what have they actually done wrong? Would you all kick and scream so much if he had met with Muslims? Or Jews?
It seems that John Key will be the next leader, with a recent Auckland poll showing Key only 1.4 points behind Brash. Dr Brash's decision came with the Nationals ahead in the poll. The decision has left the party in crisis, set for their fifth leader in 9 years.
I have personally always favoured Dr Brash to Keys, Brash was a Gentlemen, a last of his breed and Dr Brash was always unfailingly courteous.
Gentlemen, it sadly looks like Helen Clark and the rest of her cronies have forced a great leader from Prime Ministeralship contention.
There goes a man of honour. Even in his resignation statement he stands up for the rights of the man responsible for the final nail.
But, to paraphrase the words of Voltaire, though I utterly reject Mr Hager's view of the National Party and of me, I defend his right to hold those views, and to publicise them.Dr Brash would have made an excellent Prime Minister. Having the intellectual capacity to understand that people are entitled to hold different views. Unlike the current regime.
John Key will be the next leader of the opposition and good luck to him. He can expect all sorts of shit to be flung at him. But I think we can safely expect a National rise in the polls from here. It may not be sustained but unless New Zealanders have completely lost their sense of fair play they will realise that a very good man has been done down unfairly today.
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 2:36 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Tories take on Churchill
The Guardian (sigh) reports today that Cameron is being urged to ditch Churchill for Polly Toynbee. In a paper being published today, Greg Clark, 'a shadow minister and confidant of the Tory leader' writes:
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 9:49 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Guardian (sigh) reports today that Cameron is being urged to ditch Churchill for Polly Toynbee. In a paper being published today, Greg Clark, 'a shadow minister and confidant of the Tory leader' writes:
The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum - that poverty is absolute, not relative.
Churchill's safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness. It is the social commentator Polly Toynbee who supplies imagery that is more appropriate for Conservative social policy in the twenty first century.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 9:49 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Canada's most important relationship?
In decrying Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's brave and principled stand against Chinese fascism, Thomas d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said: "The facts and the realities are these: If we continue down this road, we will seriously damage one of the most important relationships we have; we will render useless our voice and influence in effecting change in China."
Question: Who seriously considers the views of Canada?! The fact that this individual considers Canada's most important relationship to be with not the US or the mother country or the Commonwealth, or Europe but a country that spits on the values Canadians fought and died for is a disgrace.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 8:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
In decrying Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's brave and principled stand against Chinese fascism, Thomas d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said: "The facts and the realities are these: If we continue down this road, we will seriously damage one of the most important relationships we have; we will render useless our voice and influence in effecting change in China."Question: Who seriously considers the views of Canada?! The fact that this individual considers Canada's most important relationship to be with not the US or the mother country or the Commonwealth, or Europe but a country that spits on the values Canadians fought and died for is a disgrace.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 8:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Churchill takes on Rumsfeld
Donald Rumsfeld is a guy the media loves to hate (not without some justification), so when the great pile-on happened two weeks ago, it seemed the best thing to do was just to ignore it. However, in announcing his resignation as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld paraphrased Winston Churchill, and the Churchill Centre -- those scholars charged with the special duty to guard and preserve his legacy for future generations -- is none too happy about it. The Centre's editor offers the correct version of the quotation, as well as advice for other politicians who might choose to quote Churchill:
-------
Dateline Washington, 8 November 2006. Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush's Secretary of Defense who resigned after the November election, has been "controversial" (to put it mildly) since things in Iraq started to go bad. When things were going better, in 2003 with coalition forces sweeping into Baghdad, the media doted on his every quip.
A strong admirer of Churchill, Rumsfeld has quoted him on many occasions lately, getting only into more hot water. In late August Rumsfeld said that his detractors reminded him of Hitler's appeasers: "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last." New York Times critic Frank Rich shot back on September 3rd: "He can quote Churchill all he wants, but if he wants to self-righteously use [sic] that argument to smear others, the record shows that Mr. Rumsfeld cozied up to the crocodile of Baghdad as smarmily as anyone."
In his departure remarks at the White House on October 9th Rumsfeld said, “I call to mind the words of Winston Churchill, who said something like this: ‘I have benefited greatly from criticism and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.’” The Secretary quite properly admitted he was not quoting verbatim. The actual quotation is: "I have derived continued benefit from criticism at all periods of my life and I do not remember any time when I was ever short of it." (House of Commons, 27 November 1914).
Anorak, a British website "keeping tabs on the tabloids," took that up with a Churchill reference of its own: "As another wartime leader of old might have put it, he came, he saw, he almost conquered but lacked a viable and speedy exit strategy." Anorak referred to Churchill's comment on General Charles Monro, who took command of British forces at Gallipoli in October 1915 and supervised their evacuation: "General Monro was an officer of swift decision. He came, he saw, he capitulated." (The World Crisis II, 489).
We could have provided Donald Rumsfeld with much more pointed remarks:
Richard M. Langworth, Editor, Finest Hour
The Churchill Centre
www.winstonchurchill.org
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:02 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Donald Rumsfeld is a guy the media loves to hate (not without some justification), so when the great pile-on happened two weeks ago, it seemed the best thing to do was just to ignore it. However, in announcing his resignation as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld paraphrased Winston Churchill, and the Churchill Centre -- those scholars charged with the special duty to guard and preserve his legacy for future generations -- is none too happy about it. The Centre's editor offers the correct version of the quotation, as well as advice for other politicians who might choose to quote Churchill:-------
Dateline Washington, 8 November 2006. Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush's Secretary of Defense who resigned after the November election, has been "controversial" (to put it mildly) since things in Iraq started to go bad. When things were going better, in 2003 with coalition forces sweeping into Baghdad, the media doted on his every quip.
A strong admirer of Churchill, Rumsfeld has quoted him on many occasions lately, getting only into more hot water. In late August Rumsfeld said that his detractors reminded him of Hitler's appeasers: "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last." New York Times critic Frank Rich shot back on September 3rd: "He can quote Churchill all he wants, but if he wants to self-righteously use [sic] that argument to smear others, the record shows that Mr. Rumsfeld cozied up to the crocodile of Baghdad as smarmily as anyone."
In his departure remarks at the White House on October 9th Rumsfeld said, “I call to mind the words of Winston Churchill, who said something like this: ‘I have benefited greatly from criticism and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.’” The Secretary quite properly admitted he was not quoting verbatim. The actual quotation is: "I have derived continued benefit from criticism at all periods of my life and I do not remember any time when I was ever short of it." (House of Commons, 27 November 1914).
Anorak, a British website "keeping tabs on the tabloids," took that up with a Churchill reference of its own: "As another wartime leader of old might have put it, he came, he saw, he almost conquered but lacked a viable and speedy exit strategy." Anorak referred to Churchill's comment on General Charles Monro, who took command of British forces at Gallipoli in October 1915 and supervised their evacuation: "General Monro was an officer of swift decision. He came, he saw, he capitulated." (The World Crisis II, 489).
We could have provided Donald Rumsfeld with much more pointed remarks:
"We do not resent the well-meant criticism of any man who wishes to win the war. We do not shrink from any fair criticism, and that is the most dangerous of all. On the contrary, we take it earnestly to heart and seek to profit by it. Criticism in the body politic is like pain in the human body. It is not pleasant, but where would the body be without it? No health or sensibility would be possible without continued correctives and warnings of pain." (House of Commons, 27 January 1940.)And in tribute to the department he was leaving:
"I am going to do something that has never been done before, and I hope the House will not be shocked at the breach of precedent. I am going to make public a word of praise for the War Office. In all the forty years I have served in this House I have heard that Department steadily abused before, during, and after our various wars. And if my memory serves me aright I have frequently taken part in the well-merited criticism which was their lot." (House of Commons, 2 August 1944.)We wish that Mr. Rumsfeld had come to us. We offer politicians of all persuasions a Churchillism for every occasion.
Richard M. Langworth, Editor, Finest Hour
The Churchill Centre
www.winstonchurchill.org
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:02 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, November 19, 2006
We need a Marshall Plan to beat the Taleban, Pakistan tells Blair
According to an article in today's Times,
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 10:44 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
According to an article in today's Times,
Mr Musharraf attacked the West's strategy in Afghanistan yesterday, and said that the task could not be achieved by military action alone. He added that only Pakistan was implementing the right strategy. He called on the West to implement a plan of billions of dollars of aid to rebuild Afghanistan, just as the US spent billions of dollars rebuilding Europe after the Second World War.This "right strategy" seems to me to be exporting the terrorists who learn their skills in Pakistan to old Blighty and thus removing the threat of "the Taleban crossing the border to safe havens in Pakistan's largely lawless northwest provinces". For this the Pakistanis appear to be demanding the Anglo-Americans pay up roughly 10% of their combined federal budget as with the Marshall Plan...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 10:44 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Guardian slams Starkey
As a counterweight to this site's tribute to historian David Starkey, I would recommend a perusal of today's Guardian which says that monarchies survive "by that liberal sprinkling of holy oil which tries to turn an accident of history into a national myth," and that historians like Starkey "should be exposers of this cheap glamour rather than its cheerleaders." What I find most offensive in this opinion piece, which goes on to illustrate how the Gurdian seems now to be little more than a conveyor of unremarkable nobody's opinions than actually analysing real issues and news, is the fact it denounces monarchists in Wales and Scotland as 'quislings.'
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 9:01 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
As a counterweight to this site's tribute to historian David Starkey, I would recommend a perusal of today's Guardian which says that monarchies survive "by that liberal sprinkling of holy oil which tries to turn an accident of history into a national myth," and that historians like Starkey "should be exposers of this cheap glamour rather than its cheerleaders." What I find most offensive in this opinion piece, which goes on to illustrate how the Gurdian seems now to be little more than a conveyor of unremarkable nobody's opinions than actually analysing real issues and news, is the fact it denounces monarchists in Wales and Scotland as 'quislings.'
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 9:01 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, November 17, 2006
Andrew Cusack, in his customary gorgeous style, gushes: OLD DOMINION WILL RECEIVE HER MAJESTY
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:55 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:55 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"Linchpin of the English-speaking world"
Churchillian Quote of the Week
"Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world. Canada, with those relations of friendly, affectionate intimacy with the United States on the one hand and with her unswerving fidelity to the British Commonwealth and the Motherland on the other, is the link which joins together these great branches of the human family, a link which, spanning the oceans, brings the continents into their true relation and will prevent in future generations any growth of division between the proud and the happy nations of Europe and the great countries which have come into existence in the New World."
- Speech given at a luncheon in honour of Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, Mansion House, London, September 4, 1941.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:07 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Churchillian Quote of the Week"Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world. Canada, with those relations of friendly, affectionate intimacy with the United States on the one hand and with her unswerving fidelity to the British Commonwealth and the Motherland on the other, is the link which joins together these great branches of the human family, a link which, spanning the oceans, brings the continents into their true relation and will prevent in future generations any growth of division between the proud and the happy nations of Europe and the great countries which have come into existence in the New World."
- Speech given at a luncheon in honour of Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, Mansion House, London, September 4, 1941.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:07 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, November 16, 2006
England does not expect every man to destroy Great Britain
Sir Michael Caine on England (From the Times: England Expects)
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:45 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sir Michael Caine on England (From the Times: England Expects)
“I am very, very patriotic. Don’t get me started,” he warns. He frets that his beloved England is being overlooked as the other home nations enjoy devolution. His friend Sir Sean Connery has become a cheerleader for Scottish nationalism and Sir Michael is beginning to think he’s right. “I’m a very English man. And that doesn’t mean to say I don’t like foreigners and I hate all immigrants. I’m married to an immigrant. But I am not happy at the moment. Everybody seems to be represented but the English.Sir Sean Connery on Scotland (According to Sir Michael)
“There’s a possibility that a Scotsman is going to rule over me. A Scotsman who comes from a constituency where my member of parliament, who I elected, has no say whatsoever...
And there is an answer, given to me by my friend Sean: give Scotland its independence. Gordon Brown can be the prime minister of Scotland.”
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:45 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Fear God and maintain His Church
Oh, dear. Sir Elton John, our hitherto most Christian knight, is apparently suffering from one of his mood swings again. The Englishman who knelt in good faith before Her Majesty not too, too many years ago, and was knighted by the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, now wants to finger God and destroy His Church. And just for good measure, all the other Churches too.
Now, this may be counter to the whole ideal of chivalry thing, the one Charlemagne inspired with "fear God and maintain His Church". It may not be in lockstep with the first two commandments of the Knights Code: "I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions; II. Thou shalt defend the Church..."; but let's not be too hard on the poor chap – he probably mistook his knighthood as just the English version of a modern Emmy, or an Oscar, or an MTV music award, or some other Hollywood stimulated trinket of courtly self-love.
Another good for business, bad-tempered publicity stunt? Bollocks! Sir John and the Hollywood establishment are chivalrous to the bone. Just look at all the causes they support, just look at their countless charities, their unstoppable efforts at protecting the weak and the defenceless. Up with Hollywood, and down with the Church!
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:55 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Oh, dear. Sir Elton John, our hitherto most Christian knight, is apparently suffering from one of his mood swings again. The Englishman who knelt in good faith before Her Majesty not too, too many years ago, and was knighted by the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, now wants to finger God and destroy His Church. And just for good measure, all the other Churches too. Now, this may be counter to the whole ideal of chivalry thing, the one Charlemagne inspired with "fear God and maintain His Church". It may not be in lockstep with the first two commandments of the Knights Code: "I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions; II. Thou shalt defend the Church..."; but let's not be too hard on the poor chap – he probably mistook his knighthood as just the English version of a modern Emmy, or an Oscar, or an MTV music award, or some other Hollywood stimulated trinket of courtly self-love.
Another good for business, bad-tempered publicity stunt? Bollocks! Sir John and the Hollywood establishment are chivalrous to the bone. Just look at all the causes they support, just look at their countless charities, their unstoppable efforts at protecting the weak and the defenceless. Up with Hollywood, and down with the Church!
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:55 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, November 13, 2006
The strange death of Tory England
"Has the most successful species in British political history finally become extinct?" What is the state of English political liberties; where is the trust in slow historical progression, the loyalty and reverence to constitutional forms? Where is the spirit of Dryden, Johnson, Swift and Pope?
Like the Jacobites of an earlier era, Geoffery Wheatcroft illuminates how traditional British conservatives have been perennially displaced and marginalised in the UK of today and into the future:
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:47 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"Has the most successful species in British political history finally become extinct?" What is the state of English political liberties; where is the trust in slow historical progression, the loyalty and reverence to constitutional forms? Where is the spirit of Dryden, Johnson, Swift and Pope? Like the Jacobites of an earlier era, Geoffery Wheatcroft illuminates how traditional British conservatives have been perennially displaced and marginalised in the UK of today and into the future:
The Conservative party dominated British politics for 120 years from Disraeli's victory in 1874, culminating in an unprecedented eighteen-year spell in government after 1979. And yet at the very end of the century the Tories imploded so disastrously as to suggest the party might be doomed to follow the Liberals into oblivion...Get your copy at Westminster Books and shed a tear for England.
The Strange Death of Tory England goes on to show how the gradual eclipse of military virtues and patrician ideals came to discredit Toryism, how the party tore itself apart over Europe and how it suffered from the malign influence of a quasi-intellectual New Right which held sway in the Tory press. Wheatcroft demonstrates brilliantly how two profound truths explain the Conservatives' decline: that the Right had won politically, but the Left had won culturally; and that it was possible to win the battle, but lose the argument.
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:47 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, November 12, 2006
WHOSE PROVIDENCE?
ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS IN THE DOMINION OF CANADA AND THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION MOVEMENT
“THE KEYSTONE OF THE CANADIAN NATION IS THE FRENCH FACT; the slightest knowledge of history makes this platitudinous. English-speaking Canadians who desire the survival of their nation have to co-operate with those who seek the continuance of Franco-American civilisation”.
It has been written that John Diefenbaker’s great failure as Prime Minister after the Second World War – the last period in which ‘Britishness’ was seen as central to Canadian identity – was his failure to find this milieu for co-operation with French-Canadian conservatism. Between 1958 and 1962, Diefenbaker had fifty Quebec seats behind him, and yet found no Quebecois lieutenants. While it is true that he was unfortunate in the premature death in 1960 of J.M.P. Sauvé, who could well have become the first French-Canadian Tory PM, Diefenbaker’s failure was at root systemic, not contingent. Nor is it true that this failure to engage with French Canada was simply the manifestation of indifference. He, like all other Anglo-Canadian nationalists for more than a century, failed to appreciate that their vision of a united Canada was incompatible with that of Quebec.
This is to say, that Anglo-Canadians’ vision for the Dominion was involved “one united Canada in which individuals would have equal rights irrespective of race or religion…As far as the civil rights of individuals are concerned, this is obviously an acceptable doctrine. Nevertheless, the rights of the individual do not encompass the rights of nations…The French Canadians had entered the Confederation not to protect the rights of the individual but the rights of the Nation”. For them, equal rights in the sense usually implied in British political discourse were a recipe for being swallowed up by an amèricanisme saxonisante. The fact that the rhetoric and practice of multiculturalism in modern Canada has had no concomitant tendency to diminish Quebecois nationalism is a clear indication that this is so – showing respect for the residual customs of ethnic minorities such as Ukrainians and Koreans is one things, but the French-Canadians are concerned with being a nation-within-a-nation, an ambition for which treating every citizen equally would spell disaster.
What this also reveals is that the Quebecois have always shrewdly discerned a fact of which Anglo-Saxons the world over have often been only hazily aware, if at all: that whereas the Cape Dutch, the French Canadians, and other European colonial populations whom the British absorbed into their Empire tended to have no place in their hearts but for their own communities, British colonists the world over always felt part of a far-flung global community whose spiritual centre was the British Isles. From Britain’s earliest attempts at colonisation until well into the twentieth century, millions of people in the British colonial empire who had never, and would never, visit Britain itself continued to think of the British Isles as ‘Home’, tendebant manus ripæ ulterioris amorē.
Continue Reading Edward Harris - Whose Providence?
POSTED BY CATO, Edward Harris in London, England
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:47 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS IN THE DOMINION OF CANADA AND THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION MOVEMENT
“THE KEYSTONE OF THE CANADIAN NATION IS THE FRENCH FACT; the slightest knowledge of history makes this platitudinous. English-speaking Canadians who desire the survival of their nation have to co-operate with those who seek the continuance of Franco-American civilisation”.
It has been written that John Diefenbaker’s great failure as Prime Minister after the Second World War – the last period in which ‘Britishness’ was seen as central to Canadian identity – was his failure to find this milieu for co-operation with French-Canadian conservatism. Between 1958 and 1962, Diefenbaker had fifty Quebec seats behind him, and yet found no Quebecois lieutenants. While it is true that he was unfortunate in the premature death in 1960 of J.M.P. Sauvé, who could well have become the first French-Canadian Tory PM, Diefenbaker’s failure was at root systemic, not contingent. Nor is it true that this failure to engage with French Canada was simply the manifestation of indifference. He, like all other Anglo-Canadian nationalists for more than a century, failed to appreciate that their vision of a united Canada was incompatible with that of Quebec.
This is to say, that Anglo-Canadians’ vision for the Dominion was involved “one united Canada in which individuals would have equal rights irrespective of race or religion…As far as the civil rights of individuals are concerned, this is obviously an acceptable doctrine. Nevertheless, the rights of the individual do not encompass the rights of nations…The French Canadians had entered the Confederation not to protect the rights of the individual but the rights of the Nation”. For them, equal rights in the sense usually implied in British political discourse were a recipe for being swallowed up by an amèricanisme saxonisante. The fact that the rhetoric and practice of multiculturalism in modern Canada has had no concomitant tendency to diminish Quebecois nationalism is a clear indication that this is so – showing respect for the residual customs of ethnic minorities such as Ukrainians and Koreans is one things, but the French-Canadians are concerned with being a nation-within-a-nation, an ambition for which treating every citizen equally would spell disaster.
What this also reveals is that the Quebecois have always shrewdly discerned a fact of which Anglo-Saxons the world over have often been only hazily aware, if at all: that whereas the Cape Dutch, the French Canadians, and other European colonial populations whom the British absorbed into their Empire tended to have no place in their hearts but for their own communities, British colonists the world over always felt part of a far-flung global community whose spiritual centre was the British Isles. From Britain’s earliest attempts at colonisation until well into the twentieth century, millions of people in the British colonial empire who had never, and would never, visit Britain itself continued to think of the British Isles as ‘Home’, tendebant manus ripæ ulterioris amorē.
Continue Reading Edward Harris - Whose Providence?
POSTED BY CATO, Edward Harris in London, England
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:47 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Her Majesty today unveiled the New Zealand Memorial in London
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as Queen of New Zealand accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh has officially unveiled a memorial in Hyde Park to commemorate the long relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom as well as to honour New Zealand’s war dead.
The New Zealand Memorial will serve as a focus of remembrance of the shared sacrifice during the two World Wars and other military operations.
Several members of the Royal Family also attended the ceremony including Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince William, the Duke of York, the Princess Royal and the Duke of Kent.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark were also in attendance.
The memorial known as the Southern Stand, consists of 16 cross-shaped vertical bronze pillars - each one representing a different aspect of New Zealand life and inscribed with text, patterns and sculptures.
Thirty-two veterans and over 250 Service personnel from the New Zealand Defence Forces were present at the event - the largest contingent of New Zealand forces to be seen in the UK since Her Majesty’s Coronation in 1953
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 8:26 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as Queen of New Zealand accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh has officially unveiled a memorial in Hyde Park to commemorate the long relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom as well as to honour New Zealand’s war dead.
The New Zealand Memorial will serve as a focus of remembrance of the shared sacrifice during the two World Wars and other military operations.
Several members of the Royal Family also attended the ceremony including Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince William, the Duke of York, the Princess Royal and the Duke of Kent.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark were also in attendance.
The memorial known as the Southern Stand, consists of 16 cross-shaped vertical bronze pillars - each one representing a different aspect of New Zealand life and inscribed with text, patterns and sculptures.
Thirty-two veterans and over 250 Service personnel from the New Zealand Defence Forces were present at the event - the largest contingent of New Zealand forces to be seen in the UK since Her Majesty’s Coronation in 1953
The Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and Prince William attended the event.
The Prince of Wales in his Royal New Zealand Air Force uniform.
Her Majesty the Queen meets her New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.
Maori welcoming ceremony.
Her Majesty the Queen inspecting the Royal Guard of Honour.
"The memorial is a symbol of our common heritage and of New Zealand’s distinct national identity," said Prime Minister Helen Clark in a speech.
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh along with Prime Ministers Blair and Clark honour New Zealand's war dead.
The Queen greeted the 34 New Zealand veterans at the end of the ceremony.
POSTED BY: governor-grey AT 8:26 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
FOR KING AND EMPIRE
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, November 10, 2006
Three cheers for Athabaskan!
My former warship, HMCS Athabaskan, the one I served in (we serve in ships, not on them) during work ups to the first Gulf War in 1990, has made a great splash in the media over the past 24 hours rescuing stranded and shipwrecked Nova Scotians north of Bermuda.
Hip hip hooray, to the officers and crew of Her Majesty's Canadian Ship!
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:57 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
My former warship, HMCS Athabaskan, the one I served in (we serve in ships, not on them) during work ups to the first Gulf War in 1990, has made a great splash in the media over the past 24 hours rescuing stranded and shipwrecked Nova Scotians north of Bermuda.HMCS Athabaskan had been operating in the region as part of an experiment, involving the Canadian naval task group, an air expeditionary unit and a landing force all working together, to explore the possibility of integrating a seaborne and sea-based combat force.For these lucky Maritimers, talk about being in the wrong situation at the right place at the right time.
Hip hip hooray, to the officers and crew of Her Majesty's Canadian Ship!
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 10:57 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Is Britain headed for cultural defeat?
Read Douglas Murray at the New Cultural Forum. Speaking to the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Mr. Murray delivers a warning eerily reminiscent of our times:
Also read Melanie Phillips: The multicultural menace
And Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan
Melanie Phillips: The British Broadcasting Jihad
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 4:04 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Read Douglas Murray at the New Cultural Forum. Speaking to the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Mr. Murray delivers a warning eerily reminiscent of our times:
‘Europeans are going to have to start asking: do we want to keep what we have? Do we want to salvage something? Or is there genuinely nothing which we wish to save?’ he said. ‘I recommend to you – go to Amsterdam and walk around. Look at the woman in the burkha, and the druggy baby-boomer running the cannabis café and ask yourself who is going to be running this place in twenty years time.’Hat tip and thanks to Franck Guillory for sending me this news from London NCF.
Also read Melanie Phillips: The multicultural menace
And Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan
Melanie Phillips: The British Broadcasting Jihad
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 4:04 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Loyalty and Fraternity
Andrew Coyne takes a page from The Monarchist and declares we should do our duty For King and Country.
In a similar heartfelt vein, he also lays out his rationale for why we should dispense with dual citizenship and be forced to choose (renounce or pronounce) our loyalty to Canada. I agree with him with one important caveat: that we should also continue to recognize our fraternal loyalty to our collective Queen who is sovereign of 16 other nations, by reaffirming our status as Commonwealth citizens.
The 1977 Immigration Act already does this, when it renounced our status as British subjects, and that should continue. There is nothing inconsistent with that particular duality, since there is also the constitutional reality of our familial allegiance to the British Crown as recognized in the Statute of Westminster, which is more than a UK statute, but a treaty that we signed in 1931.
But then again, what's the point. If our status as Commonwealth citizens no longer confers any special advantages or obligations to one another in the larger context, then the gig is up. Read David Cameron: Conservatives commit to cut non-EU immigration. The Commonwealth is dead, long live the EU.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Andrew Coyne takes a page from The Monarchist and declares we should do our duty For King and Country. In a similar heartfelt vein, he also lays out his rationale for why we should dispense with dual citizenship and be forced to choose (renounce or pronounce) our loyalty to Canada. I agree with him with one important caveat: that we should also continue to recognize our fraternal loyalty to our collective Queen who is sovereign of 16 other nations, by reaffirming our status as Commonwealth citizens.
The 1977 Immigration Act already does this, when it renounced our status as British subjects, and that should continue. There is nothing inconsistent with that particular duality, since there is also the constitutional reality of our familial allegiance to the British Crown as recognized in the Statute of Westminster, which is more than a UK statute, but a treaty that we signed in 1931.
But then again, what's the point. If our status as Commonwealth citizens no longer confers any special advantages or obligations to one another in the larger context, then the gig is up. Read David Cameron: Conservatives commit to cut non-EU immigration. The Commonwealth is dead, long live the EU.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Sacrifice of a Kingsman
Our latest casualty over here in the United Kingdom was 19 year-old Jamie Hancock, a Kingsman serving in the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (Kings, Lancashire and Border) currently stationed in Basra, Iraq. (Her Majesty, the Duke of Lancaster, is of course the regiment's Colonel-in-Chief).
I stop to mention this because I had never heard of this rank before (essentially the equivalent of a private serving in the infantry), which today is limited in usage -- a unique honour bestowed upon privates serving in the King's Division, all of the regiments domiciled in northern England.
I stop to mention this to pay tribute to Jamie Hancock, a soldier of the War on Terror. T'is the season to honour the sacrifice of such men.
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Our latest casualty over here in the United Kingdom was 19 year-old Jamie Hancock, a Kingsman serving in the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (Kings, Lancashire and Border) currently stationed in Basra, Iraq. (Her Majesty, the Duke of Lancaster, is of course the regiment's Colonel-in-Chief). I stop to mention this because I had never heard of this rank before (essentially the equivalent of a private serving in the infantry), which today is limited in usage -- a unique honour bestowed upon privates serving in the King's Division, all of the regiments domiciled in northern England.
I stop to mention this to pay tribute to Jamie Hancock, a soldier of the War on Terror. T'is the season to honour the sacrifice of such men.
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
At the going down of the sun...
Please sign the petition at The Dominion Institute to beseech the Canadian government to honour the last Great War soldier with a state funeral. Their goal is 50,000 signatures by November 11. I was number 8,866 at noon time today. Australia already had a state funeral for their last Gallipoli veteran, and Britain plans to hold a national memorial at Westminster Abbey for their last Great War hero. I think we would be sadly remiss if Canada didn't do the same.
LAST REMAINING BRITISH IMPERIAL GREAT WAR SOLDIERS:
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:00 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Please sign the petition at The Dominion Institute to beseech the Canadian government to honour the last Great War soldier with a state funeral. Their goal is 50,000 signatures by November 11. I was number 8,866 at noon time today. Australia already had a state funeral for their last Gallipoli veteran, and Britain plans to hold a national memorial at Westminster Abbey for their last Great War hero. I think we would be sadly remiss if Canada didn't do the same.
LAST REMAINING BRITISH IMPERIAL GREAT WAR SOLDIERS:
1. Ross, John Campbell - last Australian digger
2. Clemett, Victor Lloyd - Canadian
3. Powers, Gladys - Canadian
4. Wilson, Dwight (Percy) - Canadian
5. Babcock, John F. - Canadian
6. Choules, Claude Stanley - British
7. Lucas, Sydney (Syd) - British
8. Young, William (Will) - British
9. Allingham, Henry - British
10. Bolaise, Violet - British
11. Cummins, Kenneth - British
12. Mayne, Phillip - British
13. Patch, Harry - British
14. Stone, William (Bill) - British
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 12:00 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, November 06, 2006
William to be regent prince
This is a timely and smart strategy on the part of Buckingham Palace:
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 9:59 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
This is a timely and smart strategy on the part of Buckingham Palace:
Britain's Queen Elizabeth is grooming her grandson Prince William to become the face of the British Royal Family.
The monarch reportedly plans to hand over the majority of her public duties to the 24-year-old prince over a three-year period.
According to Britain's The People newspaper William's name has already started appearing in the Court Circular, the index of the royal family's engagements, indicating that his involvement will increase when he completes his training at Sandhurst Military Academy in December.
The source added: "It is a clear sign, as his days as an Army cadet come to an end, that his role as the future king will grow significantly."
William's father Prince Charles will still succeed the queen as king, but it is thought that his son will be the real "jewel in the royal crown."
The source said: "Charles has a substantial ego. But even when he succeeds he will have to accept William is the public's favourite."
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 9:59 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Keep the monarchy alive
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 9:02 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 9:02 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
France blocks Nato bid to create a global terror force
This is in this Sunday's Independent that opens the article with
It is instructive to understand the basis for French objections to extending NATO's growth and reach- "France has made it clear that it opposes a move it sees as part of a campaign to extend US influence." France sees the organisation, which it helped found through the Treaty of Brussels and then NATO itself the next month in 1949, as being dominated by the US.
To be honest, I don't know how much of this is more smear-tactics of the sort the British in particular used when they took Chirac's words completely out of context in the leadup to the war against Iraq. As America finds itself being pulled further away from Europe towards the Pacific, I can understand the French wishing to maintain "the fundamental nature of Nato which must...remain an euro-atlantic military alliance" and not "risk diluting the natural solidarity between Europeans and North Americans." Still, it seems strange that they value the organisation to that degree while criticising it at the same time as being a tool of the Americans. Besides, the French saw no problem joining SEATO after the Korean War...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 12:58 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
This is in this Sunday's Independent that opens the article withPlans to boost Nato's co- operation with countries such as Australia and Japan in an effort to forge a partnership against terrorism have been blocked by France.This strikes me as the inverse of what happened when it was the British in the early 20s who dashed French hopes of a worldwide army to act as an effective deterrent force.
It is instructive to understand the basis for French objections to extending NATO's growth and reach- "France has made it clear that it opposes a move it sees as part of a campaign to extend US influence." France sees the organisation, which it helped found through the Treaty of Brussels and then NATO itself the next month in 1949, as being dominated by the US.
To be honest, I don't know how much of this is more smear-tactics of the sort the British in particular used when they took Chirac's words completely out of context in the leadup to the war against Iraq. As America finds itself being pulled further away from Europe towards the Pacific, I can understand the French wishing to maintain "the fundamental nature of Nato which must...remain an euro-atlantic military alliance" and not "risk diluting the natural solidarity between Europeans and North Americans." Still, it seems strange that they value the organisation to that degree while criticising it at the same time as being a tool of the Americans. Besides, the French saw no problem joining SEATO after the Korean War...
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 12:58 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Priorities
If you log onto the Downing Street website you'll find listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister. They are:
Nowhere will you find Iraq. Not a word about Afghanistan. That says it all about a Prime Minister sending its men into war on a lie without the tools to do whatever job he comes up with week by week. Brush it all under the carpet as more posts here at The Monarchist describe the increasing strains the military is under. Appalling.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 12:10 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
If you log onto the Downing Street website you'll find listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister. They are:1. Northern Ireland
2. Energy
3. Climate Change
4. Africa
5. Respect
6. Welfare
and then without any other explanation:
7. International
8. Education
9. Health
10. Pensions
Nowhere will you find Iraq. Not a word about Afghanistan. That says it all about a Prime Minister sending its men into war on a lie without the tools to do whatever job he comes up with week by week. Brush it all under the carpet as more posts here at The Monarchist describe the increasing strains the military is under. Appalling.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 12:10 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Don't nuke the Duke
Our Sovereign Lady is no duchess. By hereditary right, Her Majesty is the Duke of Normandy and the Duke of Lancaster and the Lord of Mann, some of her ancient masculine titles being older than England herself. In the wonderful words of William Gairdner, we should think twice before we nuke the Duke.
As a related note, I was surprised to read that The Economist once declared monarchy to be "the antithesis of much of what we stand for: democracy, liberty, reward for achievement rather than inheritance." Surprised, because I've been taking in that magazine for years - such insolence from a well respected British publication simply never occurred to me. And so all the more pleasure I suppose to hear Mr. Gairdner destroy with ease the false connection between democracy and liberty, between reward for achievement and inheritance, in favour of the transcedent ideal that is monarchy.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:01 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Our Sovereign Lady is no duchess. By hereditary right, Her Majesty is the Duke of Normandy and the Duke of Lancaster and the Lord of Mann, some of her ancient masculine titles being older than England herself. In the wonderful words of William Gairdner, we should think twice before we nuke the Duke.As a related note, I was surprised to read that The Economist once declared monarchy to be "the antithesis of much of what we stand for: democracy, liberty, reward for achievement rather than inheritance." Surprised, because I've been taking in that magazine for years - such insolence from a well respected British publication simply never occurred to me. And so all the more pleasure I suppose to hear Mr. Gairdner destroy with ease the false connection between democracy and liberty, between reward for achievement and inheritance, in favour of the transcedent ideal that is monarchy.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 11:01 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, November 03, 2006
Andrew Cusack splendidly illustrates Children of a Common Mother.
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 6:14 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 6:14 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
BRITAIN: THE MOST SPIED ON NATION IN THE WORLD
Have been spending the day showing students the trailers for the next Bond film (looks GREAT!) and came across this rather related topic. Privacy International, an organisation formed in 1990 in order to track surveillance and privacy invasion by governments and corporations, has just released the results of its 2006 international privacy survey. Britain comes in last place among Western countries when it comes to protecting its citizens privacy. This only fuels the charge recently in the Independent that claims that Britain is the most spied country on earth where at this very moment
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 4:12 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Have been spending the day showing students the trailers for the next Bond film (looks GREAT!) and came across this rather related topic. Privacy International, an organisation formed in 1990 in order to track surveillance and privacy invasion by governments and corporations, has just released the results of its 2006 international privacy survey. Britain comes in last place among Western countries when it comes to protecting its citizens privacy. This only fuels the charge recently in the Independent that claims that Britain is the most spied country on earth where at this very moment
* Video cameras monitoring buildings, shopping streets and residential areas. Automatic systems can now recognise vehicle number plates and faces.When Tony Blair warns of the terrorists threatening to destroy British values and way of life, it sounds hollow when he has done more than any other to change the country as we know it, from demanding identification cards for all to ill thought-out national parliaments to replacing the House of Lords with his cronies, etc.
* Software that analyses spending habits and the data sold to businesses. When we call service centres or apply for loans, insurance or mortgages, how quickly we are served and what we are offered can depend on what we spend, where we live and who we are.
* Electronic tags to monitor offenders on probation.
* DNA taken from those arrested by the police and placed on a database.
* Information stored about foreign travel.
* Smart cards in schools to determine where children are, what they eat or the books they borrow.
* Taps on telephones, e-mails and internet use that can screened for key words and phrases by British and US intelligence services.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 4:12 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, November 02, 2006
HMS Australia deploys force to Fiji
"THE Australian Government has despatched a second warship to stand by near Fiji in case a mass evacuation is necessary following fears of a coup. Announcing the deployment of amphibious support ship, HMAS Kanimbla, from Townsville, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson tonight would not rule out military assistance from Australia if the Fijian Government asks for help. Australia sent the frigate, HMAS Newcastle, to waters near Fiji yesterday.
The Government also revised its travel advisory to Fiji tonight, warning Australians to exercise "a high degree of caution" ... because of increased tensions between the Fiji government and military, and the possibility of military action against the Government. Australia is discussing with its Pacific neighbours measures they might take to "discourage" a military coup in Fiji.
Prime Minister John Howard and his New Zealand counterpart, Helen Clark, phoned Fijian Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase today offering their support for his Government. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer warned today that the chances of a violent military takeover in Fiji were high."
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:18 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"THE Australian Government has despatched a second warship to stand by near Fiji in case a mass evacuation is necessary following fears of a coup. Announcing the deployment of amphibious support ship, HMAS Kanimbla, from Townsville, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson tonight would not rule out military assistance from Australia if the Fijian Government asks for help. Australia sent the frigate, HMAS Newcastle, to waters near Fiji yesterday.The Government also revised its travel advisory to Fiji tonight, warning Australians to exercise "a high degree of caution" ... because of increased tensions between the Fiji government and military, and the possibility of military action against the Government. Australia is discussing with its Pacific neighbours measures they might take to "discourage" a military coup in Fiji.
Prime Minister John Howard and his New Zealand counterpart, Helen Clark, phoned Fijian Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase today offering their support for his Government. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer warned today that the chances of a violent military takeover in Fiji were high."
POSTED BY: Palmerston AT 11:18 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Britain sees "largest wave of immigration in its history"
Britain taking in 1,500 immigrants a day:
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Britain taking in 1,500 immigrants a day:
"A net inflow of 185,000 people last year saw Britain's population grow by about 500 people a day. Immigration figures released today by the Office for National Statistics show that a total of 565,000 people, or 1,500 a day, came to live in Britain for at least a year in 2005. That figure was offset by the 380,000 who left the country.
The largest group of immigrants was from 'New Commonwealth' countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, but Poles formed the largest single group of arrivals...The figures also show that in 2005, 68,000 people from the 'Old Commonwealth' - Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa - came to Britain intending to stay for at least a year, while 121,000 came from other Commonwealth countries."
POSTED BY: Beaverbrook AT 1:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The most war prone nation?
There is a site that claims that throughout its history, the British "sanctioned draconic penal code, considered the ‘license to kill’ a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, initiated the most wars, sanctioned piracy on the open seas, participated in the slave trade, and subjugated more people than any other nation". I have no idea from where this site originates, but reading it makes me proud that the British command such power; truly hitting above their weight! What is most curious to the author is its observation that although "themselves a hereditary monarchy, they champion democracy." This just after it claims it has done more than any other modern nation to enslave masses of people!
Look, don't waste time writing comments to this quibbling with the arguments ("yes, but far from sanctioning piracy, the British were the first to abolish slavery and used its navy to fight it"). Just bask in the glow that its role in history has been even more monumental than we had thought.
What most interested me was besides the claim that Britain had fought more 'major' wars than any other was its claim (never backed up with sources) that the British employed a matchless "skill in using others to attain their war goals, honed over centuries" as shown in this chart which points out that in both theatres of WWII, the British Empire lost 544,596 soldiers, about one for every 1,000 of its population while the United States lost 292,100 soldiers, about one in every 450 of its population. The Soviet Union lost about 5,000,000 soldiers, about one in 40 of its population (funny, as I had found myself agreeing with the wife of the owner of my local that 26 million Soviets had died...).
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 4:44 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
There is a site that claims that throughout its history, the British "sanctioned draconic penal code, considered the ‘license to kill’ a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, initiated the most wars, sanctioned piracy on the open seas, participated in the slave trade, and subjugated more people than any other nation". I have no idea from where this site originates, but reading it makes me proud that the British command such power; truly hitting above their weight! What is most curious to the author is its observation that although "themselves a hereditary monarchy, they champion democracy." This just after it claims it has done more than any other modern nation to enslave masses of people!
Look, don't waste time writing comments to this quibbling with the arguments ("yes, but far from sanctioning piracy, the British were the first to abolish slavery and used its navy to fight it"). Just bask in the glow that its role in history has been even more monumental than we had thought.
What most interested me was besides the claim that Britain had fought more 'major' wars than any other was its claim (never backed up with sources) that the British employed a matchless "skill in using others to attain their war goals, honed over centuries" as shown in this chart which points out that in both theatres of WWII, the British Empire lost 544,596 soldiers, about one for every 1,000 of its population while the United States lost 292,100 soldiers, about one in every 450 of its population. The Soviet Union lost about 5,000,000 soldiers, about one in 40 of its population (funny, as I had found myself agreeing with the wife of the owner of my local that 26 million Soviets had died...).
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 4:44 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Grave Threat to Britain’s Sovereignty
First it was criminal law. Then national air space. But now the ultimate loss of sovereignty -- Britain's seas.
The EU is now in the process of creating a “common European maritime space.” As a result of this the EU alone will be in charge of members’ territorial waters.
Such a proposal was first threatened in a white paper earlier this year, and is now anticipating the reaction to it while preparing to put forward a draft of a formal proposal next year. Here's what the future would hold: crossing the English Channel would no longer be considered an international trip as the passengers would not be leaving EU waters.
The EU has already forced Britain to open up her fishing zones to European rivals and even threatening to discard the “Red Ensign,” a flag I worship and hold sacred from the merchant ships of Britain’s great empire since the 17th century to the convoys during WWII as they sailed from Canada. Instead, it would be replaced by the EU flag.
So much for Britannia ruling the waves, and its history cast to the wind. I remember the distaste I felt seeing Napoleon's vision of a tunnel linking Britain to Europe realised, and the chagrin I now feel to continually hear of its financial troubles.
Controlling the English Channel has been the key to England’s defence from invasion since the Armada. Again, it was Napoleon while massing his nearly half-million man Grande Armée along the Channel coast who wrote to an admiral: “If we can be the masters of the narrows for six hours, we shall be masters of the world.” Britain maintained mastery of its waters, turning back not only Napoleon but Hitler.
Britain is being expected to simply turn her back on her history and sacrificing the key to her security. On recent form. especially with the shameful attempt at betrayal of Gibraltar, this is a very real threat.
With the proposed EU Constitution demanding the Queen give up her role as of its constitution, Britain’s foreign policy and ability to make treaties will be decided for her, decide how her schools will be run, and formally make Britain's supreme court in Brussels.
It's up to the people to fight for their identity, laws, culture and heritage. Their politicians can certainly no longer be trusted.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 7:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
First it was criminal law. Then national air space. But now the ultimate loss of sovereignty -- Britain's seas.The EU is now in the process of creating a “common European maritime space.” As a result of this the EU alone will be in charge of members’ territorial waters.
Such a proposal was first threatened in a white paper earlier this year, and is now anticipating the reaction to it while preparing to put forward a draft of a formal proposal next year. Here's what the future would hold: crossing the English Channel would no longer be considered an international trip as the passengers would not be leaving EU waters.
The EU has already forced Britain to open up her fishing zones to European rivals and even threatening to discard the “Red Ensign,” a flag I worship and hold sacred from the merchant ships of Britain’s great empire since the 17th century to the convoys during WWII as they sailed from Canada. Instead, it would be replaced by the EU flag.
So much for Britannia ruling the waves, and its history cast to the wind. I remember the distaste I felt seeing Napoleon's vision of a tunnel linking Britain to Europe realised, and the chagrin I now feel to continually hear of its financial troubles.
Controlling the English Channel has been the key to England’s defence from invasion since the Armada. Again, it was Napoleon while massing his nearly half-million man Grande Armée along the Channel coast who wrote to an admiral: “If we can be the masters of the narrows for six hours, we shall be masters of the world.” Britain maintained mastery of its waters, turning back not only Napoleon but Hitler.
Britain is being expected to simply turn her back on her history and sacrificing the key to her security. On recent form. especially with the shameful attempt at betrayal of Gibraltar, this is a very real threat.
With the proposed EU Constitution demanding the Queen give up her role as of its constitution, Britain’s foreign policy and ability to make treaties will be decided for her, decide how her schools will be run, and formally make Britain's supreme court in Brussels.
It's up to the people to fight for their identity, laws, culture and heritage. Their politicians can certainly no longer be trusted.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 7:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
