Probably everyone in Britain is familiar with Wilfred Owen's poem, 'Dulce et Decorum Est.' Every English teacher in the land insists on their pupils studying the poets of World War One; so much so that it is hard to think of the Great War without them. Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Robert Graves and others wrote of the mindless slaughter and struggled to find a reason for it all.
In the aftermath of the war the whole population of Britain felt nothing but a sense of loss. Spiritualists and mediums did a roaring trade as people tried to get in touch with lost loved ones. Interest in the Occult increased, as did the influence of exotic religions as everyone strived to come to terms with what had happened. Even working-class folk subscribed to spiritualist magazines and organisations. Remembrance Day was instituted, to remember the dead and to make sure that it never happened again.
There was no sense that the Great War had made the world a better place, that the dead had sacrificed themselves for 'freedom.' On the contrary, war was evil and to be avoided as much as possible. Even the Oxford Union passed a motion that they would never again fight for their country.
All of which makes absolutely disgusting the jingoistic language used by the followers of the team at Ibrox. On Bill McMurdo's website someone decided to post Wilfred Owen's famous poem. He then repeated the last line, with a translation, 'It is sweet and right to die for your country.' I'm not sure I would agree with his translation of 'decorum,' but the main thing that stands out is that he is missing the point of the poem. In the last two lines, Owen calls the saying 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,' a lie. It is neither sweet nor fitting to die at any time. The person that posted this is guilty of either gross stupidity or breathtaking cynicism.
The rest of McMurdo's blog is filled with folk boasting about Scottish soldiers fighting, and dying, to build and maintain the British Empire; heroes, all of them, they maintain. So, firing a Maxim gun into natives, armed only with spears is heroic? Invading China with gunboats and heavy artillery to force that country to let British drug dealers in is heroic? Burying Muslims alive, wrapped in pigskins and firing canons with people tied to the font because they had the nerve to mutiny over their religious beliefs being trampled over is heroic?
During WWI itself the high command on both sides were terrified that the working classes might refuse to fight. The scenes at Christmas 1914, when ordinary soldiers met up and played games of football etc, absolutely terrified those at the top and soldiers were threatened and even shot for not fighting. And yet, we are told that they were there to safeguard our freedoms?
And what of WWII? After it was discovered what had been going on in Nazi Germany, it was easy to convince everybody that it was a morally just war against the forces of evil. But is that why Britain went to war? If everyone was so concerned about the treatment of Jews then why were they all so keen to participate in the 1936 Olympic Games? Not one word was raised in our country to suggest a boycott. The truth is that, just as in WWI, the war was about 'Realpolitik'; in fact, most historians see WWII as just a continutation of WWI.
At the end of WWII, in the General Election, Churchill turned on his erstwhile Labour colleagues in the War Cabinet, comparing them with the Nazis. The election of a Labour government was seen by many at the top as a betrayal. Airey Neave wrote how disgusted he was with the changes in Britain; this was not what he fought for, he said. Neave swore to get things back to how they were and got his chance when his protégée, Margaret Thatcher, won the 1979 General Election.
All the rhetoric and propaganda about fighting for freedom also fired the ambitions of the people in the British Colonies, who wanted their own freedom. This is not what Britain meant to happen and the loss of the Empire caused a deep hurt among the ruling classes and their forelock-tugging followers among the middle and working classes.
The vile posturing and jingoistic rhetoric displayed by right-wingers in association with Remembrance Day pollutes the memory of all those that died. The poppy is now more to do with support for war, the armed forces and the myth that all those men died to preserve 'freedom.' Meanwhile, that 'freedom' is being trampled over by the very people that constantly spout the word. Those that do not agree with the new meanings behind the poppy are to be reviled and treated as pariahs; freedom is only for the few, it seems.
In the past few years, football teams have taken to wearing the symbol of the poppy on their tops. Now it is being claimed that this has been a long-standing tradition and those that do not comply are to be made an example of. So much for freedom!
The Ibrox hordes have started sending e-mails to the SFA to complain about teams that did not hold a minute's silence on Saturday or did not wear printed poppies. Probably the players and fans went to church services on Sunday and observed the silence on Monday but it seems that is not enough. It appears that you've not just to remember the fallen but turn the whole thing into a circus by making sure that everyone sees your bleeding heart, while you desperately try to make yourself look good. A wee read of the Parable of The Widow's Mite in the Gospels might let these people see how disgusting their acts are.
Meanwhile, McMurdo takes the opportunity to remind everyone that there was now an 'isidious threat from within.' In a vile move, he equates the referendum on Scottish independence with 'external threats,' whom our 'fallen heroes' died fighting in order to stop. As has often been stated on McMurdo's website, this 'internal threat' is actually comprised of Catholics, descended from Irish immigrants, trying to turn Scotland into a republic! These are exactly the kind of scare tactics used by the Nazis in the 1930s in order to turn Germany into a totalitarian state.
So, on the one hand, we've to celebrate the death of thousands, if not millions, of soldiers, who died to keep us free from Nazi tyranny, as well as to destroy an evil regime that discriminated against minorities to the extent of killing them. And on the other hand, the memories of those dead soldiers are being evoked to discriminate against a minority in Scotland! Plus ça change...
Tuesday 12 November 2013
Saturday 9 November 2013
ORANGE PAGANS
Further to my blog yesterday about some of the ludicrous historical theories bandied about, and believed, by extremist Protestants, I decided to do some research of my own and have made some startling discoveries relating to the Orange Order.
I think everyone knows that the name of this organisation came from William of Orange, but not many people know where his family name came from. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the colour orange, even though the family adopted the colour to represent its name. The name actually comes from an area in Southern France, which is also called Orange. In Medieval times this area was called the Principality of Orange. With all the intermarriages going on in Medieval Europe among the ruling families, quite often titles and places fell into the hands of someone that, hitherto had nothing to do with the place. In 1544, William the Silent, Count of Nassau, inherited the lands and the title Prince of Orange. This led to the family being named the House of Orange-Nassau. This is the family from which William of Orange came, he being Prince of Orange when he invaded Britain and became king.
The place-name Orange and the colour orange have different and completely separate eymologies. The colour orange was named after the fruit and has its roots in India and the Sub-Continent. The place-name, although the same, came from Latin, which, in turn was derived from a Celtic word. The place was called Arausio in Roman times, taken straight from the Celtic. This was later corrupted into Aurenja, which later became Orange. The word Orange being used as the place-name predates the use of the word for the fruit by several centuries.
Arausio was actually named after a Celtic river god, also called Arausio, whom the local people and their druids worshipped. Essentially, then, William of Orange's name comes from a pagan god. Since the Orange Order was named after him, then it is not incorrect to call the Orange Order a pagan organisation, or, in effect, a pagan cult, which worships ancient Celtic gods.
When Celtic druids were officiating at religious ceremonies they always dressed in white, which signified purity. White robes, white hoods and white gloves were worn on these occasions. This tradition has survived in the Orange Order to this day and members can always be seen to be wearing white gloves on ceremonial occasions, such as when they are marching.
Druids were not only priests but were warriors as well. When the skull of an ancient druid warrior was excavated it was discovered to be wearing quite distinctive headgear.
Put a body round the skeleton of this hat and cover it in black felt and it would look extremely familiar. The wearing of bowler-hats has nothing to do with respectability or some such thing; it is a cover that contains the above skeleton within it. The Orange Order, in line with its pagan Celtic roots, insists that its members wear a druid's crown.
The Fifth of November is an important date in the Orange calendar. It is a time when they build bonfires and burn the effigy of a man. Ostensibly this is about celebrating the failure of Guy Fawkes and his accomplices when they tried to kill the king and his cabinet and restore England to Catholicism in the Sixteenth Century. In truth, however, this ceremony has its roots much further back.
Part of druidical worship was human sacrifice. Ancient sources tell us how the sacrificial victim would be imprisoned in a wooden effigy, the Wicker Man of folklore, and then burned alive. The current yearly ceremony of burning a human effigy is a continuation of this pagan ritual.
It is easily seen, then, that far from being the Christian organisation that it purports to be, the Orange Order is, in fact, a pagan cult. It is named after an ancient Celtic god and continues to use the practices and accoutrements associated with pagan, druidical religious ceremonies.
I feel a book coming on. Do you think Bill McMurdo would advertise this one on his website?
I think everyone knows that the name of this organisation came from William of Orange, but not many people know where his family name came from. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the colour orange, even though the family adopted the colour to represent its name. The name actually comes from an area in Southern France, which is also called Orange. In Medieval times this area was called the Principality of Orange. With all the intermarriages going on in Medieval Europe among the ruling families, quite often titles and places fell into the hands of someone that, hitherto had nothing to do with the place. In 1544, William the Silent, Count of Nassau, inherited the lands and the title Prince of Orange. This led to the family being named the House of Orange-Nassau. This is the family from which William of Orange came, he being Prince of Orange when he invaded Britain and became king.
The place-name Orange and the colour orange have different and completely separate eymologies. The colour orange was named after the fruit and has its roots in India and the Sub-Continent. The place-name, although the same, came from Latin, which, in turn was derived from a Celtic word. The place was called Arausio in Roman times, taken straight from the Celtic. This was later corrupted into Aurenja, which later became Orange. The word Orange being used as the place-name predates the use of the word for the fruit by several centuries.
Arausio was actually named after a Celtic river god, also called Arausio, whom the local people and their druids worshipped. Essentially, then, William of Orange's name comes from a pagan god. Since the Orange Order was named after him, then it is not incorrect to call the Orange Order a pagan organisation, or, in effect, a pagan cult, which worships ancient Celtic gods.
When Celtic druids were officiating at religious ceremonies they always dressed in white, which signified purity. White robes, white hoods and white gloves were worn on these occasions. This tradition has survived in the Orange Order to this day and members can always be seen to be wearing white gloves on ceremonial occasions, such as when they are marching.
Druids were not only priests but were warriors as well. When the skull of an ancient druid warrior was excavated it was discovered to be wearing quite distinctive headgear.
Put a body round the skeleton of this hat and cover it in black felt and it would look extremely familiar. The wearing of bowler-hats has nothing to do with respectability or some such thing; it is a cover that contains the above skeleton within it. The Orange Order, in line with its pagan Celtic roots, insists that its members wear a druid's crown.
The Fifth of November is an important date in the Orange calendar. It is a time when they build bonfires and burn the effigy of a man. Ostensibly this is about celebrating the failure of Guy Fawkes and his accomplices when they tried to kill the king and his cabinet and restore England to Catholicism in the Sixteenth Century. In truth, however, this ceremony has its roots much further back.
Part of druidical worship was human sacrifice. Ancient sources tell us how the sacrificial victim would be imprisoned in a wooden effigy, the Wicker Man of folklore, and then burned alive. The current yearly ceremony of burning a human effigy is a continuation of this pagan ritual.
It is easily seen, then, that far from being the Christian organisation that it purports to be, the Orange Order is, in fact, a pagan cult. It is named after an ancient Celtic god and continues to use the practices and accoutrements associated with pagan, druidical religious ceremonies.
I feel a book coming on. Do you think Bill McMurdo would advertise this one on his website?
Friday 8 November 2013
PISHTORY
Bill McMurdo claims on his blog that he encourages 'lively discussion' but that he doesn't want abusive remarks or bad language. A quick perusal of the posts on his blog shows that he doesn't adhere to this policy too strictly. In fact, there are only two kinds of post that Merlin doesn't like. The first is calling 'Rangers' a new team or saying that the club went into liquidation. The second is any criticism of the many pseudo-histories that Orangemen, and other extremist, right-wing Protestants hold so dear. Such a post is usually moderated out of existence.
Of course, they don't hold with any of the daft theories about Freemasons running the world or the Royal Family being alien lizards. Their reading matter of choice is almost exclusively about Roman Catholics running the world behind the scenes and about Roman Catholicism being a pagan religion, usually derived from Babylon somehow.
One of these was written by some headbanger of a Free-Church minister in the mid-Nineteenth Century, by the name of Alexander Hislop. His book is called 'The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.' As you might expect, this book is a load of half-truths, utter shite and downright lies. The Orange bigots, however, lap it up like mother's milk.
If you've never heard of Nimrod, he's some king in the Book of Genesis, who supposedly lived around the time of Abraham. Nobody has figured out who the hell this guy is, although plenty of candidates have been put forward. Auld Hislop, however, has it all figured out. Nimrod was king of Babylon and he insisted that he be worshipped as a god. Nimrod's wife, Semiramis, was also worshipped as a goddess. The fact that Semiramis was apparently born a couple of hundred years after the time that Nimrod was supposedly shagging her in a god-like fashion seems to concern Hislop not a jot.
Anway, Hislop posits all kinds of convoluted theories about ancient religions to reach the point where the Catholic Church, at the time of Constantine, adopted the worship of pagan, Roman gods. Why they should have done this is not explained. He makes the claim that pictures of Mary with the baby Jesus are, in reality, some Roman goddess, while the baby was 'Jupiter-Puer' or the baby Jupiter. The fact is that the Romans had no such cult of Jupiter as a child and Hislop was the first person to come up with the name, 'Jupiter-Puer.'
Hislop outlines the practices of the Ancient Greek Eleusinian Mysteries, even though nobody knows anything about this cult's practices or even who they worshipped. His whole book is made up of ridiculous nonsense like this, which normal scholars find laughable.
Another bam they all orgasm over is Tupper Saussy, a bitter wee man with a chip on his shoulder about the American Government. This guy spouts the same pish as Hislop and tries to prove that the 'pagan' RC Church runs the world. Again, his book is full of all manner of crap. He claims that the Dog Star, Canis Major, is named after Cain, when anybody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of Latin knows that 'canis' is Latin for 'dog.' He also says that the title 'Pontifex Maximus' was a Babynonian one, which was adopted in Rome in 48BC, even though the title went back to the times of the kings in Rome, about 500 years before!
Another guy called Ralph Woodrow wrote a similar book, based on Hislop's 'findings' and was embarrassed to later discover that it was a load of Craig Whyte. He pulled the book from circulation, even though it was a bestseller. Of course, he has since received death threats from extremist Protestants around the world. It seems that The Peeppell are the same everywhere!
If you have a look on Amazon you can find dozens of these pathetic attempts to rewrite history. Or you can find some of them on McMurdo's website, including some that he's written himself! They all have one thing in common: anti-Catholicism. Haven't these people got anything better to do with their lives?
From believing these ridiculous versions of history, which even David Icke would laugh at, it's but a short steop to believe any old crap, like Ireland refueling U-boats and even a dead club not being dead after all!
Of course, they don't hold with any of the daft theories about Freemasons running the world or the Royal Family being alien lizards. Their reading matter of choice is almost exclusively about Roman Catholics running the world behind the scenes and about Roman Catholicism being a pagan religion, usually derived from Babylon somehow.
One of these was written by some headbanger of a Free-Church minister in the mid-Nineteenth Century, by the name of Alexander Hislop. His book is called 'The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.' As you might expect, this book is a load of half-truths, utter shite and downright lies. The Orange bigots, however, lap it up like mother's milk.
If you've never heard of Nimrod, he's some king in the Book of Genesis, who supposedly lived around the time of Abraham. Nobody has figured out who the hell this guy is, although plenty of candidates have been put forward. Auld Hislop, however, has it all figured out. Nimrod was king of Babylon and he insisted that he be worshipped as a god. Nimrod's wife, Semiramis, was also worshipped as a goddess. The fact that Semiramis was apparently born a couple of hundred years after the time that Nimrod was supposedly shagging her in a god-like fashion seems to concern Hislop not a jot.
Anway, Hislop posits all kinds of convoluted theories about ancient religions to reach the point where the Catholic Church, at the time of Constantine, adopted the worship of pagan, Roman gods. Why they should have done this is not explained. He makes the claim that pictures of Mary with the baby Jesus are, in reality, some Roman goddess, while the baby was 'Jupiter-Puer' or the baby Jupiter. The fact is that the Romans had no such cult of Jupiter as a child and Hislop was the first person to come up with the name, 'Jupiter-Puer.'
Hislop outlines the practices of the Ancient Greek Eleusinian Mysteries, even though nobody knows anything about this cult's practices or even who they worshipped. His whole book is made up of ridiculous nonsense like this, which normal scholars find laughable.
Another bam they all orgasm over is Tupper Saussy, a bitter wee man with a chip on his shoulder about the American Government. This guy spouts the same pish as Hislop and tries to prove that the 'pagan' RC Church runs the world. Again, his book is full of all manner of crap. He claims that the Dog Star, Canis Major, is named after Cain, when anybody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of Latin knows that 'canis' is Latin for 'dog.' He also says that the title 'Pontifex Maximus' was a Babynonian one, which was adopted in Rome in 48BC, even though the title went back to the times of the kings in Rome, about 500 years before!
Another guy called Ralph Woodrow wrote a similar book, based on Hislop's 'findings' and was embarrassed to later discover that it was a load of Craig Whyte. He pulled the book from circulation, even though it was a bestseller. Of course, he has since received death threats from extremist Protestants around the world. It seems that The Peeppell are the same everywhere!
If you have a look on Amazon you can find dozens of these pathetic attempts to rewrite history. Or you can find some of them on McMurdo's website, including some that he's written himself! They all have one thing in common: anti-Catholicism. Haven't these people got anything better to do with their lives?
From believing these ridiculous versions of history, which even David Icke would laugh at, it's but a short steop to believe any old crap, like Ireland refueling U-boats and even a dead club not being dead after all!
Thursday 7 November 2013
REMEMBRANCE
It's fast approaching that time of year again. No, I don't mean Christmas; I'm talking about Remembrance Day. Years ago you would buy a poppy, observe the silence and think about those poor souls that were butchered on the fields of France and Belgium. Nowadays, however, it's a different matter entirely. It's turned into some kind of maudlin circus, where it's no longer to do with remembering the dead, but as a test of loyalty and support for the British armed forces. The display at Ibrox last year is a case in point; it had nothing to do with remembering the dead and everything to do with jingoism and nationalism.
The story we are being fed time and again is that all those men died to guarantee our freedoms. Did they? What threat to our freedom did Germany pose in 1914? The answer is none whatsoever. The truth is that the First World War was a war of imperialism, nothing else. No doubt the ordinary people in Austria, France, Italy, Russia, Turkey etc were told that they were fighting for their freedom as well. We know full well that this was certainly the case in Germany. You only have to read Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front', or watch the film, to find out that the Germans were told the same lies.
So what was the war really all about? The jury is still out on that one. Only one person has seen fit to look behind the scenes and find out what was going on. Fritz Fischer's 'Germany's Aims in the First World War' caused outrage in his native land when it first appeared in the early 1960s. He shows that the German elite went to war with the sole purpose of gaining more land, especially in the East. His book is now required reading for any serious student of the First World War. It also encouraged German historians to look more closely at what went on in their own country under the Nazis.
So what about the other countries? Austria was determined to hold onto her splintering empire in the Balkans, Turkey was in the same position, Russia had been after ports in the Mediterranean/Adriatic for at least a century, while France was looking for revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and the return of Alsace-Lorraine. Italy, although allied to Germany and Austria, joined the other side, partially through opportunism, partly through long-standing hatred of Austria. It should be remembered, of course, that when I am talking about a country I am really talking about that country's ruling elite.
But what of Britain; why did she enter the war? I remember a tutor at university telling us that there was a book written about Britain's reasons for going to war. The woman that wrote it, however, was related to many in the upper echelons of British society and her book was a whitewash. It was a salutory lesson in checking the credentials of your sources, said our tutor. The problem is that, even a hundred years later, nobody has performed a critical analysis of why Britain went to war. A search on the internet shows that the story of Britain going to war for noble and altruistic reasons is still the general opinion.
This makes the idea of four-years' worth of 'commemoration' of the First World War, starting next year, a bit suspect. Part of the four-years' programe includes 'education.' Considering what I've already pointed out, this 'education' is going to be nothing more than propaganda; reinforcing the myth that all those men died to protect our freedom.
Everyone has somebody that died in the First World War in their family and I'm no exception. Equally not exceptional, sadly, was the circumstances of my relative's death. My grandfathers were too young to have fought in WWI, while my great-grandfathers were too old. My maternal grandfather's older brother, Michael, however, joined up. Michael was only fifteen when he took the King's Shilling, no questions asked. After nearly a year in the trenches he was quite probably a nervous wreck. One morning they were ordered 'over the top'; Michael just could not do it. He was terrified, a frightened young boy, and cowered, crying, curled up in a ball on the floor of the trench. His captain shot him in the head.
That's not the end of the story. The ordinary soldiers were quite protective of young Michael and the Captain caught a 'stray' bullet in the back during the attack. Friendly Fire, I think they call it nowadays. So, on Remembrance Day, am I to remember the poor great-uncle I never knew, or just the 'heroes' that fell in the heat of battle? And what about that captain; am I to remember his 'sacrifice'?
Hundreds of broken men, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or shell shock, were lined up and shot by firing squad or by their immediate commanding officer if it was during a battle. Are we to remember these 'cowards,' as they were termed, even being accused of cowardice after the war was over?
After the war my grandfather's family's grief was compounded by the death of his grandmother. She was an aged widow, who still lived in a small cottage in Ireland. She was dragged from her cottage for no reason by the Black and Tans. They poured petrol over her and set her alight, making bets as to how long it would take her to die. Am I to remember her and how she died with 'heroes' of the British Army laughing and joking and stopping anyone that tried to help her? If those men were later killed by the IRA am I to rememer, and be grateful for, their 'sacrifice'?
Till the day he died my grandfather always went on about hating the British, after what they did to his family. My granny used to tell him to 'shut up' and said that his family were all 'Communists' anyway! If I was to tell certain people about my grandfather their answer would be that he should have 'fucked off home,' even though he, and his mother before him, was born in this country. It seems that to criticise any past, or current, behaviour of our government, or its representatives, is seen to be disloyal and anti-British and as proof that you don't belong here.
This is what the poppy has come to represent; not remembrance, but support for any and all wars that our armed forces have ever engaged in. I have seen letters in the newspapers suggesting, nay demanding, that everyone should boycott shops where the person behind the counter is not wearing a poppy, that we should refuse our custom to any place that does not have poppies on display and that no business should be done with anyone that does not wear a poppy. 'Poppy Fascism,' people are starting to call it. It reminds me of something in the Book of Revelation: everyone has to wear the 'Mark of The Beast' and nobody can do business or any transaction if they do not carry this mark.
That's why I'm not wearing a poppy this year. The whole thing has changed beyond recognition and is no longer about remembrance. Rather than remembering our war dead, we are now to remember their 'sacrifice' and pretend that all those young men died at the Somme, Ypres and Paschendale to protect our freedom, instead of the reality of dying for the ambitions of our ruling elite, as they continue to do.
The story we are being fed time and again is that all those men died to guarantee our freedoms. Did they? What threat to our freedom did Germany pose in 1914? The answer is none whatsoever. The truth is that the First World War was a war of imperialism, nothing else. No doubt the ordinary people in Austria, France, Italy, Russia, Turkey etc were told that they were fighting for their freedom as well. We know full well that this was certainly the case in Germany. You only have to read Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front', or watch the film, to find out that the Germans were told the same lies.
So what was the war really all about? The jury is still out on that one. Only one person has seen fit to look behind the scenes and find out what was going on. Fritz Fischer's 'Germany's Aims in the First World War' caused outrage in his native land when it first appeared in the early 1960s. He shows that the German elite went to war with the sole purpose of gaining more land, especially in the East. His book is now required reading for any serious student of the First World War. It also encouraged German historians to look more closely at what went on in their own country under the Nazis.
So what about the other countries? Austria was determined to hold onto her splintering empire in the Balkans, Turkey was in the same position, Russia had been after ports in the Mediterranean/Adriatic for at least a century, while France was looking for revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and the return of Alsace-Lorraine. Italy, although allied to Germany and Austria, joined the other side, partially through opportunism, partly through long-standing hatred of Austria. It should be remembered, of course, that when I am talking about a country I am really talking about that country's ruling elite.
But what of Britain; why did she enter the war? I remember a tutor at university telling us that there was a book written about Britain's reasons for going to war. The woman that wrote it, however, was related to many in the upper echelons of British society and her book was a whitewash. It was a salutory lesson in checking the credentials of your sources, said our tutor. The problem is that, even a hundred years later, nobody has performed a critical analysis of why Britain went to war. A search on the internet shows that the story of Britain going to war for noble and altruistic reasons is still the general opinion.
This makes the idea of four-years' worth of 'commemoration' of the First World War, starting next year, a bit suspect. Part of the four-years' programe includes 'education.' Considering what I've already pointed out, this 'education' is going to be nothing more than propaganda; reinforcing the myth that all those men died to protect our freedom.
Everyone has somebody that died in the First World War in their family and I'm no exception. Equally not exceptional, sadly, was the circumstances of my relative's death. My grandfathers were too young to have fought in WWI, while my great-grandfathers were too old. My maternal grandfather's older brother, Michael, however, joined up. Michael was only fifteen when he took the King's Shilling, no questions asked. After nearly a year in the trenches he was quite probably a nervous wreck. One morning they were ordered 'over the top'; Michael just could not do it. He was terrified, a frightened young boy, and cowered, crying, curled up in a ball on the floor of the trench. His captain shot him in the head.
That's not the end of the story. The ordinary soldiers were quite protective of young Michael and the Captain caught a 'stray' bullet in the back during the attack. Friendly Fire, I think they call it nowadays. So, on Remembrance Day, am I to remember the poor great-uncle I never knew, or just the 'heroes' that fell in the heat of battle? And what about that captain; am I to remember his 'sacrifice'?
Hundreds of broken men, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or shell shock, were lined up and shot by firing squad or by their immediate commanding officer if it was during a battle. Are we to remember these 'cowards,' as they were termed, even being accused of cowardice after the war was over?
After the war my grandfather's family's grief was compounded by the death of his grandmother. She was an aged widow, who still lived in a small cottage in Ireland. She was dragged from her cottage for no reason by the Black and Tans. They poured petrol over her and set her alight, making bets as to how long it would take her to die. Am I to remember her and how she died with 'heroes' of the British Army laughing and joking and stopping anyone that tried to help her? If those men were later killed by the IRA am I to rememer, and be grateful for, their 'sacrifice'?
Till the day he died my grandfather always went on about hating the British, after what they did to his family. My granny used to tell him to 'shut up' and said that his family were all 'Communists' anyway! If I was to tell certain people about my grandfather their answer would be that he should have 'fucked off home,' even though he, and his mother before him, was born in this country. It seems that to criticise any past, or current, behaviour of our government, or its representatives, is seen to be disloyal and anti-British and as proof that you don't belong here.
This is what the poppy has come to represent; not remembrance, but support for any and all wars that our armed forces have ever engaged in. I have seen letters in the newspapers suggesting, nay demanding, that everyone should boycott shops where the person behind the counter is not wearing a poppy, that we should refuse our custom to any place that does not have poppies on display and that no business should be done with anyone that does not wear a poppy. 'Poppy Fascism,' people are starting to call it. It reminds me of something in the Book of Revelation: everyone has to wear the 'Mark of The Beast' and nobody can do business or any transaction if they do not carry this mark.
That's why I'm not wearing a poppy this year. The whole thing has changed beyond recognition and is no longer about remembrance. Rather than remembering our war dead, we are now to remember their 'sacrifice' and pretend that all those young men died at the Somme, Ypres and Paschendale to protect our freedom, instead of the reality of dying for the ambitions of our ruling elite, as they continue to do.
Friday 1 November 2013
WILL THE REAL NAZIS PLEASE STAND UP
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
This is what Winston Churchill said regarding the Soviet Union being suddenly thrown on the side of Britain by Hitler's invasion of Russia. It is quite apt and worth bearing in mind when reading or hearing the usual Orangeman's diatribe about the Irish during the Second World War.
The Vanguard Bears website yesterday carried the usual disinformation about Ireland during WWII. The piece was written by somebody calling himself General Schomberg, who decides to regurgitate the same old lies that have been peddled for years. These include the lie that Ireland allowed German U-Boats to refuel in Irish ports and the ridiculous story that the Irish kept their lights on at night to guide German bombers to Liverpool etc. They must have been really strong lights!
The reality is that, although Ireland was ostensibly neutral, the Irish government actually worked closely with Britain against the Nazis. This included the forwarding of intelligence information, the allowing of Britain to enter Irish airspace and waters and the drawing up of plans in the event of a German invasion of Ireland. Plan W, as it was called, detailed the sending of troops from Britain to fight, along with the Irish, against the invaders.
In point of fact, many Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British army against the Nazis and Irish coastal areas suffered destruction from German bombing raids that had overshot their targets. (So much for them being guided in by Irish lights!)
Contrast this with the behaviour of another neutral country, Switzerland. Although the Swiss stayed out of the war they provided banking services for the Nazis, with no questions asked. Bank vaults were filled with stolen treasures, money stolen from Jewish businesses and even gold gleaned from the fillings of Jewish extermination camp victims. But, then, Switzerland is a Protestant country so the Orangemen will gloss over any infractions of that particular nation.
Meanwhile in South Africa, a British Colony, which joined the war on the side of the Allies, members of the Dutch Reformed Church, a Calvinist Presbyterian church like the Church of Scotland, formed the Ossebrandwag to oppose South African participation in the war and to support Nazi Germany. Members of this organisation openly attacked soldiers in the street and even caused a riot in which many soldiers were seriously injured. The Ossebrandwag also had a paramilitary wing, called the Stormjaers, who carried out a campaign of terrorism in South Africa, including bombings, to disrupt the war effort. There was even an attempt to assassinate Jan Smuts, the Prime Minister.
So while the neutral Irish Catholics were helping the British war effort, Presbyterian British citizens in South Africa were waging a campaign of terror on behalf of the Nazis!
The bile on the Vanguard Bears page continues with the story of Sean Russell, an IRA man that died aboard a German U-Boat. What the piece fails to mention, however, is that the IRA was actually outlawed in Ireland during this period and Russell was regarded as a renegade even in IRA circles. Before he visited Germany Russell went to the USA to drum up support for his terrorist campaign, which did not have the full support of the IRA. At any rate, his Nazi credentials are pretty much non-documented and his eagerness to work with the Nazis can be attributed to the same sentiments as those expressed by Churchill, which I quoted above.
General Schomberg, on Vanguard Bears, tells us gleefully that there is a statue of Russell in Dublin. What he fails to mention is that the statue has been repeatedly vandalised by Irish anti-fascists. This fact would not fit in with the myth of the whole of Ireland being in league with the Nazis.
He also details how a visit by the Israeli football team to Ireland resulted in the team being spat upon while Nazi salutes and chants were aimed at them. Such actions are to be deplored and the Irish government spoke out against these idiots, as well as some members of the Garda, who seemingly turned a blind eye. I did not hear such condmnation from any quarters, however, when Rangers supporters behaved in the same way towards the Israeli team and its fans. The old excuse of the 'Red Hand Salute' was trotted out, even though such an explanation was ridiculous in the extreme, especially in the circumstances.
He, rather disingenuously, mentions the Limerick Pogrom (or Boycott) of 1904. The way he presents it, this was an isolated incident in a world of tolerance and enlightenment. On the contrary, however, it has to be seen in the whole context of European anti-semitism. Hitler's ideas were not original; he learned them on the streets of Vienna and the undercurrent of anti-semitism was always there throughout Europe, ready to bubble to the surface at any time. Prime examples are the attacks on Jews in Whitechapel during the Jack the Ripper murders and the formation of the British Brothers League in London at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Of course, such attacks on Jews in England were never called 'pogroms' but an attack by Irish Catholics on Jews had to be made as dramatic as possible to feed the anti-Irish zeitgeist.
The piece then goes on to outline anti-semitic attitudes in Ireland after the war. Again, this is being extremely selective and Jews throughout the Western World would recognise these attitudes still prevailing well into the post-war period. A worthwhile film to see regarding this is 'Gentleman's Agreement' made in 1947 and starring Gregory Peck. A perusal of the speeches made by Senator Joe McCarthy and much of the work of the House Committee on Un-American Activities also shows an underlying strain of anti-semitism.
There is no denying that Ireland no doubt had its share of Nazi sympathisers during the War, but so did every other country, including Scotland. Equally, Ireland is not the only country where neo-Nazism and modern-day anti-semitism is to be encountered. To state, or even imply, that this is the case is merely to serve the same ends as the Nazis that the writer purports to hate.
This is what Winston Churchill said regarding the Soviet Union being suddenly thrown on the side of Britain by Hitler's invasion of Russia. It is quite apt and worth bearing in mind when reading or hearing the usual Orangeman's diatribe about the Irish during the Second World War.
The Vanguard Bears website yesterday carried the usual disinformation about Ireland during WWII. The piece was written by somebody calling himself General Schomberg, who decides to regurgitate the same old lies that have been peddled for years. These include the lie that Ireland allowed German U-Boats to refuel in Irish ports and the ridiculous story that the Irish kept their lights on at night to guide German bombers to Liverpool etc. They must have been really strong lights!
The reality is that, although Ireland was ostensibly neutral, the Irish government actually worked closely with Britain against the Nazis. This included the forwarding of intelligence information, the allowing of Britain to enter Irish airspace and waters and the drawing up of plans in the event of a German invasion of Ireland. Plan W, as it was called, detailed the sending of troops from Britain to fight, along with the Irish, against the invaders.
In point of fact, many Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British army against the Nazis and Irish coastal areas suffered destruction from German bombing raids that had overshot their targets. (So much for them being guided in by Irish lights!)
Contrast this with the behaviour of another neutral country, Switzerland. Although the Swiss stayed out of the war they provided banking services for the Nazis, with no questions asked. Bank vaults were filled with stolen treasures, money stolen from Jewish businesses and even gold gleaned from the fillings of Jewish extermination camp victims. But, then, Switzerland is a Protestant country so the Orangemen will gloss over any infractions of that particular nation.
Meanwhile in South Africa, a British Colony, which joined the war on the side of the Allies, members of the Dutch Reformed Church, a Calvinist Presbyterian church like the Church of Scotland, formed the Ossebrandwag to oppose South African participation in the war and to support Nazi Germany. Members of this organisation openly attacked soldiers in the street and even caused a riot in which many soldiers were seriously injured. The Ossebrandwag also had a paramilitary wing, called the Stormjaers, who carried out a campaign of terrorism in South Africa, including bombings, to disrupt the war effort. There was even an attempt to assassinate Jan Smuts, the Prime Minister.
So while the neutral Irish Catholics were helping the British war effort, Presbyterian British citizens in South Africa were waging a campaign of terror on behalf of the Nazis!
The bile on the Vanguard Bears page continues with the story of Sean Russell, an IRA man that died aboard a German U-Boat. What the piece fails to mention, however, is that the IRA was actually outlawed in Ireland during this period and Russell was regarded as a renegade even in IRA circles. Before he visited Germany Russell went to the USA to drum up support for his terrorist campaign, which did not have the full support of the IRA. At any rate, his Nazi credentials are pretty much non-documented and his eagerness to work with the Nazis can be attributed to the same sentiments as those expressed by Churchill, which I quoted above.
General Schomberg, on Vanguard Bears, tells us gleefully that there is a statue of Russell in Dublin. What he fails to mention is that the statue has been repeatedly vandalised by Irish anti-fascists. This fact would not fit in with the myth of the whole of Ireland being in league with the Nazis.
He also details how a visit by the Israeli football team to Ireland resulted in the team being spat upon while Nazi salutes and chants were aimed at them. Such actions are to be deplored and the Irish government spoke out against these idiots, as well as some members of the Garda, who seemingly turned a blind eye. I did not hear such condmnation from any quarters, however, when Rangers supporters behaved in the same way towards the Israeli team and its fans. The old excuse of the 'Red Hand Salute' was trotted out, even though such an explanation was ridiculous in the extreme, especially in the circumstances.
He, rather disingenuously, mentions the Limerick Pogrom (or Boycott) of 1904. The way he presents it, this was an isolated incident in a world of tolerance and enlightenment. On the contrary, however, it has to be seen in the whole context of European anti-semitism. Hitler's ideas were not original; he learned them on the streets of Vienna and the undercurrent of anti-semitism was always there throughout Europe, ready to bubble to the surface at any time. Prime examples are the attacks on Jews in Whitechapel during the Jack the Ripper murders and the formation of the British Brothers League in London at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Of course, such attacks on Jews in England were never called 'pogroms' but an attack by Irish Catholics on Jews had to be made as dramatic as possible to feed the anti-Irish zeitgeist.
The piece then goes on to outline anti-semitic attitudes in Ireland after the war. Again, this is being extremely selective and Jews throughout the Western World would recognise these attitudes still prevailing well into the post-war period. A worthwhile film to see regarding this is 'Gentleman's Agreement' made in 1947 and starring Gregory Peck. A perusal of the speeches made by Senator Joe McCarthy and much of the work of the House Committee on Un-American Activities also shows an underlying strain of anti-semitism.
There is no denying that Ireland no doubt had its share of Nazi sympathisers during the War, but so did every other country, including Scotland. Equally, Ireland is not the only country where neo-Nazism and modern-day anti-semitism is to be encountered. To state, or even imply, that this is the case is merely to serve the same ends as the Nazis that the writer purports to hate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)