James Delingpole

Standing firm is the price of civilisation. Are we still ready to pay it?

Reading some reactions to events in Paris, I’m no longer certain that western values would survive another long war

17 January 2015

9:00 AM

17 January 2015

9:00 AM

Reading Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man, as I have recently, you cannot help but be struck by what a perfectly idyllic place rural England must have been (at least for a young man of independent means) in the run-up to the first world war. Sassoon wrote it, of course, in middle age after he’d served his time in the trenches. But none of his wartime experiences are allowed to colour the innocent tone of his fictionalised memoir. As far as his narrator George Sherston is concerned, the bliss is going to last for ever.

Because the first world war is now very familiar history, the mistake I think we’re inclined to make with the benefit of hindsight is to assume that, for those who took part in it, it was all a fait accompli. That is, we imagine somehow that people were different back then — that they were tougher, less sentimental, more bovine and accepting of their lot. We picture them shrugging their shoulders as the call-up papers landed on the doorstep, casting a wistful glance at the wives and children they might now not see into old age and going: ‘Ah well. There was I with my life all nicely planned out. But now it seems old Kaiser Bill’s had other ideas.’

It wasn’t quite like that, though, I reckon. While people in the Edwardian era had a stiffer attitude to duty, a stronger faith in God and lower expectations about their right to happiness, they were prey to just the same human feelings as we are. Siegfried Sassoon, for example, would I am sure have much preferred it had he been able to title the sequel to his semi-fictionalised fox-hunting autobiography Memoirs of a Portly Country Squire Quite Unencumbered by Hideous Nightmares of the Horror of the Trenches. But he couldn’t, of course, because — as it did for the rest of his generation — duty beckoned.


Sassoon’s war, according to his friend, fellow officer and poet Robert Graves, was characterised by suicidal acts of bravery. He was recommended — unsuccessfully — for the Victoria Cross. But this didn’t mean he gloried in war or hated the enemy: his poetry on the waste of it all is testament to that. He simply recognised as everyone did at the time (apart from the rather over-fêted conscientious objectors) that in times of national emergency you have to pull your weight; and that, furthermore, whatever personal reservations you might have about the rights and wrongs of the conflict in which you are engaged, there are occasions when you simply have to sacrifice your individual desires and needs for the common good.

This becomes even more true when, as Sassoon did, you become a combat infantryman. One of the more troubling aspects of war, for those at the sharp end, is the knowledge that there may be occasions when either you personally — or your unit — are expected to take a hit for the team. That is, whether as ‘point’ in a patrol, or as the rearguard covering a retreat, or as the vital flank which must be held at all costs, you may be required to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to prevent what would otherwise be even greater losses among your comrades.

You generally do this not because you like it, let alone because you subscribe to the old lie dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, but because you know that your comrades would do just the same for you. And also because — as fighting men have appreciated through most of history from the Roman testudo and the Anglo-Saxon shield wall to the squares at Albuera and the foxholes of Bastogne — you’re only as strong as your weakest link. If one of you caves, you all die — so it’s just as well, really, that even (or especially) in free nations with relatively lax military discipline, men fear cowardice more than they fear death. Otherwise western civilisation could never have been successfully created or defended.

Do we still understand it now, though? Having read some of the reactions in some sections of the media to the recent events in Paris, I’m not altogether sure that we do. The excuses offered sound superficially plausible — ‘You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre’, ‘needless provocation’ etc. — but strip away the rhetoric, and the irrelevant invocations of ‘the spectre of the far right’ and ‘Gaza’ — they all boil down to the same thing: ‘Please. Not me. I don’t want to die.’

This troubles me. Not the bit about people not wanting to die — that’s normal — but this apparent failure to accept that freedom isn’t free and that every now and then you’ve got to put your money where your mouth is, as they first did at Salamis, and sacrifice your well-being for the greater cause.

And ‘sacrifice your well-being’, in this particular instance, doesn’t mean anything as drastic as going to freeze or drown in Flanders mud or being sent off in a troopship to fight the Japanese in Burma. It just means sticking up, calmly but firmly, for the basic principles that have made our civilisation great; acknowledging that there are lines in the sand that cannot be crossed; appreciating that though — yes — it really is a bit scary having to defend free speech when there are those about who want to make doing so a capital offence, the alternative is as selfish and craven and unthinkably irresponsible as betraying the man next to you in the trench, the testudo or the shield wall.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • WFB56

    I don’t think that I would want to be ‘in the trenches’ with the lightweights of the ‘je suis Charlie’ brigade. You could safely say that the shield wall would collapse at the first sight of a hostile.

    • Simon Fay

      The changes to Britain haven’t troubled them much AFAIK until they witnessed some of their counterparts over the water meeting a dreadful fate.

    • Call me Dave

      Give me a few Aussies and Canucks any day than the “je suis charlie” wets.

      • ACN

        I dunno so much. Have you been watching political trends in both those countries of late? Ref. Mark Steyn for instance.
        They aren’t what their granddads were.

        • mohdanga

          As a Canadian I second your opinion. My dad (going on 91) is a WWII vet, fought in Belgium, Holland and Germany. Grew up in the Depression, 18 years old in 1942, hard life, worked hard, never complained. We are soft. I often chat to my other knuckle dragging, right wing friends (in our 50s) and we wonder what will be left to fight for?? A multiculti utopia with hundreds of different cultures all pining for the homeland while collecting Canadian social assistance and separating themselves in their enclaves?? Multiculturalism and mass 3rd world immigration have doomed us.

          • Herman_Duca

            How and in what ways have they “doomed us”? What is worse about western society in 2015 than it was in 1945?

          • mohdanga

            Geez, I don’t know, how about the destruction of the existing indigenous population’s culture and country? Ask most Britons if they were happier in a country where London was white and English speaking rather than Britons being a minority in it as now. Or whether they enjoy being driven out of their neighbourhoods by enriching 3rd worlders who, they are told, add so much ‘diversity to their lives. Or being prosecuted for telling jokes, expressing opinons or tweeting things that minority groups find ‘offensive’. Or having police forces, politicians, social agencies ignore crimes committed by Muslims for fear of ‘upsetting community cohesion’. The list is endless.

          • Herman_Duca

            “the destruction of the existing indigenous population’s culture and country?”

            You serious? I can’t speak for Canada, but in Britain we still have Cricket, Last Night of the Proms, Guy Fawkes Night, Fish and Chips, Tea, Jaffa Cakes, Eastenders, Saturday afternoon football at 3pm, the Antiques Roadshow, ballroom dancing in Blackpool, the Grand National. Culture here still whiter than white last time I checked.

            As for being driven out. Again, I don’t by it. Immigrants have lived in the East End for centuries. It was WWII that’s mostly to blame for driving out native Londoners since so many homes were flattened. After 1945 Immigrants from the commonwealth settled in places that were seen as run-down and unfashionable, like Hackney, Brixton and Notting Hill. These days swathes of central and west London are a ghost town for residents thanks to most homes being flogged of to foreign billionaires as investments. That’s done far more damage to driving people out than any EU arrivals working in cafes for the minimum wage.

            I’m not saying everything about immigration is rosy. Like most things it’s a mixed bag, but to say it’s “doomed” your country? Don’t you think you’re exaggerating just a little?

          • mohdanga

            1 million Muslims living in the greater London area….that’s what’s driving native Londoners out, not WWII bombing.
            From Wiki: “In the 2011 census Office for National Statistics, 40% of England’s Muslims live in London,the proportion of Muslims in London had risen to 12.4% of the population. In Newham and Tower Hamlets the percentages of Muslims were over 30%.”

            Prior to 1948 there was virtually no immigration to Britain aside from small pockets of Jews and Hugenots escaping religious persecution in Europe (a point made a number of times on these pages). Mass immigration only started in the 50s and carried on with abandon all the way up to Blair when millions were let in ‘to rub the noses of the right in diversity’. Blaming the exodus of native Brits from Londoners on WWII bombing and a handful of oligarchs buying luxury properties out of the reach of 99% of the existing population is a stretch. But keep on ignoring the impact of 3rd world immigration on Britain’s culture, it’s helped in places like Bradford, Birmingham, etc.

          • Stanley Broadbent

            I’ve just read your interaction with the detached individual above, but these people are still the majority in the west. A lot more visible change and innocent deaths are needed, before this sort of person wakes up, of course it’s too late by then. The problem will have breed itself into a immovable political force, as sure as eggs are eggs, they’re gonna breed.

  • Pootles

    You underestimate Sassoon’s fighting spirit – he wasn’t known as ‘Mad Jack’ for nothing. But, that aside, I think there’s something missing from the comparison of then and now. Essentially, in 1914, give or take a very small, pacifist minority, the whole country was behind the war, and no politician, journo, or anyone else was going to put the Kaiser’s case. So, choosing to fight in 1914 meant that you weren’t going to be let down by anyone else. Today, if James Delingpole,or the Speccie, decided to face up to the Islamists then others would be queuing up to call him and the Speccie ‘racists’, ‘Islamophobes’, ‘Muslim-haters’, ‘bile filled populists’ etc etc. The enemy is, indeed, within.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Also the country was largely mono-ethnic & mono-cultural, not ‘diverse’, & the small minorities that did live here were not from completely alien cultures. What we have now is a fragmented nation, with politicians competing to secure – by pandering – important minority votes. In this atmosphere the unity needed to fight a war is difficult, if not impossible.

      • Rebecca

        But the Army was immensely diverse, with soldiers from all over the Commonwealth + France etc fighting for one cause together

        • There were relatively small Indian and African contingents, and the ‘diversity’ practiced was a pragmatic recognition of customs and limitations rather than the philosophy of pandering to them as it is now.

          • Andy Capp

            Of course, this hasn’t stopped the BBC playing up the contribution of black and brown “Empire” troops as a means to promoting their propaganda of diversity and multiculturalism

          • Damaris Tighe

            The Empire troops deserve recognition, but in their own right, not as a useful tool for propaganda.

          • AJH1968

            Si vis pacem, para bellum, Vegetius.

          • Richard Baranov

            Tell that to the government as it destroys the armed forces.

          • Kennybhoy

            Jesus wept but you are a mean spirited, as well as historically illiterate mentula!

          • Kennybhoy

            “There were relatively small Indian and African contingents…”

            Jesus wept but you are a mean spirited, as well as historically illiterate mentula!

          • Richard

            You certainly never hear about the white South Africans who died (in both wars), because they aren’t “real” Africans according to the Left.

          • Kennybhoy

            Jesus wept! Look up ignoratio elenchi…

            But just for the record.My father, God be good to him, spent the better part of four years out there during World War II with the RAF training South African pilots. He loved it there after the rigours of service in Britain. The climate. No rationing. The South African government topping up their pay. All good. Nice people too. Well some, maybe most of them…?

            Have you ever heard of the Ossewabrandwag and their Sturmjaers? They put my Dad in hospital with serious stab wounds and murdered his best friend. I first noticed the scars on my Dad’s back when I was a wee lad and we were at the swimming pool. He just said he had been in an accident. My older siblings told me the real story later. But then you live or lived in South Africa so you must be familiar with this and much more of the former Dominion’s history. Or didnae they teach this at whatever school you went to?

          • Richard

            Yes, I have similar stories in the family archive (people being attached in uniform by those thugs); in some instances, trains taking troops off to war were stoned. But there were still lots (probably mainly British-extraction) who did go off to fight, like mine.

            Elenchus is what I read about in the Socratic dialogues, which is a form of debate, so presumably ignorant debate?

            My point is not one borne of ignorance, it is to say that there were many people who fought in the world wars, and they should not be honoured or remembered as some sort of ideological battle.

            Remember, too, that people joined up because they fought for causes, not just for countries. And for many, it was more money than they would have earned if they hadn’t joined. Contributions should be acknowledged and honoured, but not as some sort of political demand for future treatment.

          • Kennybhoy

            Please forgive the tone of my last post. The last two sentences in particular were uncalled for. Respect.

            The ignoratio elenchi fallacy does not describe ignorance but irrelevance.Something gets lost in the translation from Greek to Latin to English. The earliest description is found in Aristotle’s Organon.

          • AJH1968

            The Nationalist party of 1940’s and onwards made Anglophobia a religion (read Thomas Pakenham’s the Boer war, and in particular the section on green glass). Yes many white South Africans served with distinction (Sailor Malan), but so did the Sikh regiments who were loyal throughout the mutiny and beyond (The real jewel in the Imperial crown, according to MacDonald Fraser). There is still significant Anglophobia amongst the descendants of the Boer (God knows why they like to immigrate to Anglophone countries). Garnett Woolsey summed it up best when he said ‘The Boer has all the cruelty and cunning of the K**fir, but none of he’s courage or honesty’.
            Sorry about your father, my Grandfather would have been appalled (he served in the 8th army 1940-1945).

          • freddiethegreat

            In fact, these days, you would think that the defining act of the war was the sinking of the SS Mendi and the death of black Noncom troops. Brave as they were, one or two other things happened 1914 – 1918, but our terrorist regime officially doesn’t recognise them.

          • Kennybhoy

            Jesus wept but you are a mean spirited mentula!

        • Robbydot1

          I think you’ve missed the point.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Not the ‘Commonwealth’ but the Empire. They were subordinate colonial units, the Indian contingents predominantly officered by whites, and the diversity that they represented was not replicated in Britain at that time.

          • Kennybhoy

            Jesus wept but you are a mean spirited mentula!!

          • Colonel Mustard

            Nothing ‘mean sprited’ about stating simple facts.

      • Damaris Tighe

        Another thought. One of the ties that binds a nation is trust. When children were evacuated in WW2 their parents had to trust that they would be well looked after. And they had no idea who would look after their children.

        Although it wasn’t always the case, & they certainly weren’t treated with the empathy that we would do today, generally the children were well looked after. Is it imaginable that today parents would have sufficient trust in their fellow-Britons to allow their children to go to unknown homes & unknown carers? You can’t even help out at a school outing without a background check, such is the lack of trust in volunteers.

    • mikewaller

      This is a depressingly simplistic analysis. The same is true of JD’s, although his demonstrably goes now well with most punters. Most Britons gave wholehearted support to the prosecution of both World Wars for one overriding reason: they knew total war was the only means of stopping Germany achieving global hegemony. Had we stood aside in either case and let them gobble up France and Russia, we would have been next on the menu. That is why we rejected offers, specific and implied, to let Germany have a free hand in Europe in return for being left with out empire. Nor were anything but a tiny minority of our combatants fighting for total freedom of expression. Having known veterans of both wars, I am confident that most would have been appalled at what now passes unchallenged in the media in all its forms.

      The present situation is wholly different. Whatever the reasons for their admission – misguided, cynical, idealistic or whatever – millions of our fellow citizens have religious convictions of an intensity indigenous Britons have very largely lost. Unless you are prepared to contemplate draconian solutions that would have echos of Nazi Germany, there is little that can be done about this. Everything now rests on the battle for hearts and minds. With this, we are farting about as usual. Teachers tell us that many Muslim kids simply will not listen to freedom of expression arguments. They must be made to, although the arguments must be far more sophisticated than the childish idea that you can say what you like, when you like, wherever you like. The need is to hammer out precisely what we mean by “British values”, make them a core element of the curriculum and fire any teachers not prepared actively to promote them. They should be subject to examination and securing a satisfactory mark should be a condition of entering higher education. Parents who sought to avoid their kids having this kind of exposure should be subject to the usual sanctions applying to child neglect.

      Any degree of movement down this road is far more constructive that ten million words of waffle about WW1 and, BTW, I recommend that JD (re-)read “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist” which gives a somewhat different take on this country pre-WW1

      • Tom M

        I totally agree with everything you say up till this point:
        “…. Everything now rests on the battle for hearts and minds. With this, we
        are farting about as usual. Teachers tell us that many Muslim kids
        simply will not listen to freedom of expression arguments. They must be
        made to,…”
        It is fanciful to think that anybody who isn’t Muslim can rationally alter the mindset of young Muslims (or indeed any other age group). They would be portrayed as Islamophobic and not just by the Imams either. Just think how you would sit quietly and listen to someone preaching the finer points of Islam to you.
        The only possible solution is for the non radicalised Muslims to get up and be counted. Lets hear groups of the “real Muslims” (I’m told they exist and are the majority) arguing on the television how they are taking practical steps to denounce those who teach radicalisation and who have hijacked their religion. Lets see mass public meetings and marches to restore the credibility of their religion. When someone like abu-Hamza starts preaching his version of Islam outside Finsbury Mosque let the television cameras record a demonstration of “not in my name” from less radical Muslims. But they won’t will they?

    • Terry Field

      There is no ‘enemy’ because there is no ‘within’ any more. The Tee trunk is rotten and hollowed out.
      It is finished.

  • Damaris Tighe

    Re your first parag. James: there’s something ‘golden’ about those fin de siecle times. Victorianism had ended. People were loosening up. A friend pointed out to me that if the European nations had not been so hair-trigger & fallen blindly into WW1, Europe would have continued to prosper, thrive & develop as a great civilisation. Of course, there would have been no WW2, no h*locaust to breed the terrified fear of confected racism. And maybe there would be a lot less self-hate, more confidence & more willingness to fight if necessary.

    ‘Adelstrop’ by Edward Thomas, one of the most loved poems in the English language, was written about one moment in 1914, shortly before war was declared & Europe fell over the cliff:

    Yes. I remember Adelstrop —
    The name, because one afternoon
    Of heat the express train drew up there
    Unwontedly. It was late June.

    The steam hissed. Some one cleared his throat.
    No one left and no one came.
    On the bare platform. What I saw
    Was Adelstrop — only the name

    And willows, willow-herb, and grass,
    And meadowsweet, and haycocks dry,
    No whit less still and lonely fair
    Than the high cloudlets in the sky.

    And for that minute a blackbird sang
    Close by, and around him, mistier,
    Farther and farther all the birds
    Of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire.

    • Fencesitter

      Adlestrop is that very rare thing: a perfect poem. (Incidendally, I think you’ve transposed the ‘e’ and the ‘l’ in spelling it.) I hope this doesn’t take us too far off-topic, but may I share my other favourite poem by Thomas. It is the dark to Adlestrop’s light…

      Old Man

      by Edward Thomas

      Old Man, or Lad’s-love,—in the name there’s nothing

      To one that knows not Lad’s-love, or Old Man,

      The hoar-green feathery herb, almost a tree,

      Growing with rosemary and lavender.

      Even to one that knows it well, the names

      Half decorate, half perplex, the thing it is:

      At least, what that is clings not to the names

      In spite of time. And yet I like the names.

      The herb itself I like not, but for certain

      I love it, as some day the child will love it

      Who plucks a feather from the door-side bush

      Whenever she goes in or out of the house.

      Often she waits there, snipping the tips and shrivelling

      The shreds at last on to the path, perhaps

      Thinking, perhaps of nothing, till she sniffs

      Her fingers and runs off. The bush is still

      But half as tall as she, though it is as old;

      So well she clips it. Not a word she says;

      And I can only wonder how much hereafter

      She will remember, with that bitter scent,

      Of garden rows, and ancient damson-trees

      Topping a hedge, a bent path to a door,

      A low thick bush beside the door, and me

      Forbidding her to pick.

      As for myself,

      Where first I met the bitter scent is lost.

      I, too, often shrivel the grey shreds,

      Sniff them and think and sniff again and try

      Once more to think what it is I am remembering,

      Always in vain. I cannot like the scent,

      Yet I would rather give up others more sweet,

      With no meaning, than this bitter one.

      I have mislaid the key. I sniff the spray

      And think of nothing; I see and I hear nothing;

      Yet seem, too, to be listening, lying in wait

      For what I should, yet never can, remember:

      No garden appears, no path, no hoar-green bush

      Of Lad’s-love, or Old Man, no child beside,

      Neither father nor mother, nor any playmate;

      Only an avenue, dark, nameless, without end.

  • Bruce Lewis

    About this: One of the more troubling aspects of war, for those at the sharp end, is the knowledge that there may be occasions when either you personally — or your unit — are expected to take a hit for the team.

    Sassoon’s beef with the war was simply that it was being prosecuted wastefully and prolonged needlessly, so that the “units” were “taking a hit” for political reputations and military reputations, and not for Britain at all. He never questioned the justice of the cause itself; he charged that his “comrades'” lives were being wasted–and he was right.

    • Brimstone52

      Sadly, as we have seen more recently, the lessons of history are not only not learnt but are rejected.

  • Right-Minded

    Face it James… the west is doomed! The liberal consensus now has an undisputed stranglehold on all facets of life and society, our weak leaders can’t even stand up to bureaucrats in Brussels let alone the murderous representatives of the ROP; and as you’ve said before the leftwing media has already given up on freedom of speech.

    I expect I’m one of the men you speak of who would occupy said trenches in the name of modern Britain! Why the hell would I or any others of my generation want to die for multicultural metropolitan identity-less Britain, it’s not a matter of cowardice, it’s a matter of not having anything to die for in a country that has given up on its core values.

    I love and support our armed forces as much as anyone, but FGS if we can’t decisively beat the pots & pans of the Taliban in a single province of Afghanistan then we’ve already lost. Again it’s not the servicemen I blame its the politicians and the human rights industry that has sent them to fight with both hands tied behind their back. Lest we forget the royal marine currently serving life for the ‘murder’ of an enemy terrorist!

    • Kennybhoy

      “…if we can’t decisively beat the pots & pans of the Taliban in a single province of Afghanistan …”

      We were not allowed to….

    • ArthurSparknottle

      The problem is that we vastly exaggerate our capability and still engage in far away wars without anything like adequate resources. There is little point in dropping off a few little bands of troops in the huge and hostile swathes of Helmand and leaving them like my nephew was left as an infantry captain to take out ten or a dozen men each day from a mud walled fort left over from an earlier British war in Afghanistan, so they could patrol around the area, waving at locals and being shot at by snipers on a daily basis, while ninety five percent of the province is entirely un-patrolled and full of Taliban insurgents. As a country we did it on the cheap, just like Iraq. It wasn’t cheap, but it was done too cheaply. Both campaigns needed ten times the resource we sent.

  • A_Libertarian_Rebel

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We
    didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought
    for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

    The Gipper, derided though he was by the “progressive” internationalist
    Left and their ever-willing amen-corner in the media, was right, wasn’t
    he?

    • Xaider

      The Gipper didn’t exactly serve with distinction in World War 2, did he? A REMF if ever there was one.

      • Kennybhoy

        Which echelon one serves in is determined on the basis of one’s capabilities by the system mother f**ker!

  • MrJones

    The 1968er generation were a reaction against all that and now they’re in charge the fish is rotting from the head.

  • The pre-war idyll was a false nirvana. We were on the wrong path even then. We had a shortage of ammunition known as the ‘shell crisis’ in 1915. The reason we had the shell crisis was because we were reliant on the importation of chemicals from Germany, and by 1915 pre war stocks were running out. Read Corelli Barnett’s brilliant ‘Collapse of British Power’ for a devastating history of our liberal elites failures. He puts it down to the liberal, classical education system adopted by the public schools in the 2nd half of the 19th century

    • MrJones

      The empire created a need to produce generalists I guess.

  • Sean L

    Deluded, I think, to imagine young men volunteer to fight for intellectual notions like “freedom” – a hard enough concept to grasp even for bookish types, who aren’t your ideal front line anyway. The symbolism may be a bit different but I dare say what drives the British born jihadis volunteering today to fight in the Middle East is not all that different from what motivated their predecessors a century ago.

    The famous General Kitchener recruiting poster: Your Country Needs You / God Save The King appeals to the same sense of allegiance, tradition, group identity, hierarchy, romanticism, joining with one’s peers against a common foe. But that assumed a binding collective identity. And of course everyone was *talking* about it, in the home, at work, in the pub, the peer pressure was massive – no TV or electronic media.

    Whereas today, where individual choice is sovereign, with little sense of community or group allegiance, even to one’s family, assuming you belong to one, to say nothing of employer, church, nation, all the collective ties that bound people have been progressively eroded. The most potent source of collective identity operating on young men today is probably football, which in the national team evokes latent allegiances which are otherwise denied expression. But even if you asked those boys who’d join up today what they were fighting for I reckon such notions as “Queen and Country” or even “the Flag” would come to their lips sooner than “freedom”. (Of course the term has a very different resonance for our American cousins, but this is England, this is.)

    The former member for Wolverhampton famously told Mrs Thatcher that he’d fight for his country even if it were communist. But what you deplore as the lack of a fighting spirit on the part of the common man is mirrored in your own unwillingness or inability to give voice to such patriotic sentiment, which of course is inimical to your own extreme liberalism. Just shows how shackled one’s vocabulary is to the liberal left consensus, because I’d imagine you do harbour such feelings. But they can’t be expressed for fear of being condemned as ” racist”, as any expression of group identity on the part of the natives tends to be.

    • gerontius redux

      My father signed up in 1938 (brilliant timing) because there were few other opportunities open to him. i doubt that he would have volunteered to fight for King and Country let alone for an ideal.
      When he did fight he fought for his unit – the ultimate in collective identity. He told me what I thought was an illuminating tale: His tank squadron was lined up to make a frontal assault on an enemy position and the CO went to every tank and said to the crew “If you cannot do this you can leave now” Nobody left, no matter how scared they were.

  • Roy

    “acknowledging that there are lines in the sand that cannot be crossed”.
    By the betrayal of our country coming from the political leadership the line in the sand has never been acknowledged and has been breeched to a severe degree. The enemy (by their own admission) are amongst us. This needs a new understanding by the present incumbent government. They do not know the seriousness of the situation or recognize the enemy. They continue to welcome new immigrants of doubtful backgrounds, and welcome home ones who have been abroad training and fighting with the terrorists.
    First world war solders always new they fought for a homeland with all its inadequacies, knew it was theirs, and their family was paramount. Today it is questionable whether the first world war is covered in history taught at school! Or indeed the question of commitment of some sections of society would be prepared to fight for their county, given the outright antagonism to the armed forces, beheadings and poppy burnings and so on.
    If this is a case of splintered national interest then what in the world are they doing here.

    • The Laughing Cavalier

      The ruling, soi-disant elite, that constitute our political class have little or no religion of their own and are, thus, incapable of understanding the antagonism of substantial portion of the population to our way of life.

      • gerontius redux

        Many of our ruling class don’t see themselves as the ruling class. They think that are brave radicals defying the ruling class.

      • Roy

        Our ruling class, I’m thinking, are only just starting to realize they have a problem on their hands.
        They care little who makes up the prattling masses as long as they are paying their taxes and continue to vote them in. Only when they are consistently and irritatingly reminded do they then offer some sort of smoothing antidote. It is a type of helpful support to their baleful thinking when they know that every country in the EU have similar problems. All of them screwed up by their own zealous, sanctimonious, legislation, that gives the enemy a foot in the door.

  • Simon Fay

    A take-down of the country’s smartphone networks would bring the country’s elite to its knees, ostensibly in response to popular hysteria. Failing that the destruction of bog-roll distribution centres might do the job.

    • Damaris Tighe

      The latter would bring me to my knees very quickly.

      • gerontius redux

        My brother, a very mild mannered chap, was heard to shout violently “What’s the bl**dy point of him having a bl**dy mobile phone if he never turns the bl**dy thing on!?”
        I told him later that my mobile is for my use, nobody elses.

        On bog-roll, did you not get the appropriate Girl Guide badge?

        • Damaris Tighe

          You mean how to make bogroll in extremis out of dock leaves? But it’s not the same …:-0

          • Simon Fay

            Got a stash of Izel ready for when the balloon goes up. Funny chaps, bottoms.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Izal? IZAL? Has to be Andrex, sorry.

          • ArthurSparknottle

            Some of us remember using squares of old newspaper in an outside ‘netty’.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Still an appropriate use for the Guardian.

          • ArthurSparknottle

            What? I wouldn’t soil my backside with that rag

      • rightrightright

        True people don’t buy newspapers any more (especially those of us here), so what is the alternative?

  • Barba Rossa

    Why would anyone want to put their life on the line for this generation, Those joining the army I imagine is either to avoid Unemployment, or see it as a Carreer which will end with a pension, and hopefully some respect from their neighbours.

    Joining to attack Iraq, Lybia Afghanistan, because politicis

    • Rifleman1853

      Your ignorance of what our troops are really like, and why they joined, is excusable.

      Your stupidity in thinking that your bigoted assumptions are correct is not.

  • Golfimbul77

    Yes nice if you were of independent means but flippin hard work for your average working class person, hard toil, high infant mortality and crappy diet, poor housing. Yet they still went to war for king and country.

  • gerontius redux

    “there are occasions when you simply have to sacrifice your individual desires and needs for the common good.”

    That is the crux of the matter – when I look around, I see no common good.

    • Rifleman1853

      You’re misunderstanding the meaning of the word ‘common’, in that phrase.

      It doesn’t mean ‘common’ in the sense that “there’s a lot of it about”; it means ‘common’ in the sense of ‘common to, or shared, by many people’.

      So ‘common good’ means ‘what is for the benefit of all’.

      HTH

    • hopon

      It is also necessary to take responsibility for your actions. The governments of this country, for the last 18 years or so, have tried to ‘buy’ votes with welfare payments. This has caused the creation of a large dependent societal group that takes no self responsibility but looks to the government (the taxpayer) to fund their lives.
      Until this attitude of ‘not my fault’ is tackled and dealt with this country will continue on the road to self destruction.

      • Brimstone52

        Sadly BSE is rampant in our present society. It is of a different form to that found in cattle and is characterised by erosion of the spine and involuntary cries of “Blame someone else”, “it’s not my fault” and similar buck passing invocations.

  • Fencesitter

    Michel Houellebecq touches on this question in his new novel, Soumission, published on the morning of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, in which he sketches the form that a future French capitulation to Islam might take. Is there anything at all that insulates our society from the fate he outlines? I dearly wish I could answer in the affirmative. The time is drawing near when we will need a new Churchill to take his place among our leaders. Cometh the hour, cometh the … ?

    • Rifleman1853

      Fencesitter – are you unaware of what our people have been doing in the Middle East for the last however many years it is? Up against the most barbaric enemies, short of vital equipment, and constantly hampered by idiotic orders from the congenital idiots in Whitehall?

      If that isn’t ‘standing firm’ enough for you, tell me just what the hell you DO want from them?

      As for needing another Churchill, do I need to remind you that, right through the 1930s, Churchill was regarded as the worst of enemies by the left, and as a pariah, trouble-maker and war-monger by many in his own party – and especially the leading members of it?

      Now think of this description; a politician who is reviled and attacked on all sides for having the guts to tell it like he sees it; who is never afraid to speak his mind, regardless of the vile abuse he gets for doing so; and who has stuck to his political principles regardless of whether they were considered fashionable or fascist.

      Nigel Farage. No, he isn’t a Churchill; only Churchill was Churchill – a one off, and a man for HIS times. Farage is also a one off – and a man for OUR times.

      But he’s not perfect? Of course he’s not; he’s a human being, isn’t he? So no more perfect than any of us. Just like Churchill . . .

    • Richard

      Churchill today would be imprisoned and silenced long before he had a chance to act. We have destroyed ourselves, nobody else needs to do it for us

  • Thomas Richards

    I think you’re rather simplifying Sassoon’s relationship with combat. Reading his own work (The Kiss, anyone?) and Graves writing about him, I think it’s pretty clear there was a level on which fighting – even killing – was viscerally thrilling for him while he was doing it, in a similar way to a foxhunt or a rugby match. I don’t by any means intend this as a slur on him: violent, competitive instincts are natural in people and generally especially strong in young men. They’ve been evolutionarily very useful for a long time, for obvious reasons. I imagine I would have felt similarly, though I suspect I would not have shared the nous, elan and athletic ability that enabled him to put them to such good use. Nor do I deny that he also felt a great sense of duty, even love, I think to his men first and his country second. I’m just not sure that was the primary driver of the acts of suicidal bravery. Possibly not even secondary – I think at times he may have been consumed with self-loathing to the point of subconsciously seeking death.

  • Kennybhoy

    Actually this problem with “standing firm” goes back away. Something snapped in the British character either during the Great War itself, or in the succeeding two decades. During World War II Churchill constantly complained in private about the difference between the generations.

    • Damaris Tighe

      But Kenny, wasn’t WW2 a great example of the British people ‘standing firm’?

    • ArthurSparknottle

      And don’t forget how the fighting men of WW2 voted en-mass to end Churchill’s time as PM. It was that generation which brought in the sort of governments which have taken the path we are now on and mostly in this column find deplorable.

      • Richard

        I have said this previously: the WW2 generation are the ones who brought us multiculturalism, mass-immigration, and self-hatred. I cannot understand it. I understand the revulsion at war, but not the desire to self-destruct.

        • ArthurSparknottle

          I think they may have started us in the path, but it was their children and particularly their grand children who did the deed and completed the project. I suppose it was like an ice slope, once we go started on the slide it was hard to stop. To see where we are now, just look at the stuff people are writing in the comment columns in the Guardian.

          • Richard

            I just had a look. I see lots of ethnics in Paris refused to observe a minute’s silence for the killings.

  • Rifleman1853

    JD: “Reading some reactions to events in Paris, I’m no longer certain that western values would survive another long war”

    Then stop reading the cowardly drivel coming from the media, and listen to this – and bear in mind that Farage is only saying on air what millions of us are openly talking about, both in face to face conversations, and on-line.

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/12/farage-europe-has-suffered-from-moral-cowardice/

    Before any knocker pitches in with the feeble rejoinder that “It’s easy to be brave in an anonymous post”, think about this. Amateur hackers have breached the Pentagon’s firewall; that being so, does anyone seriously believe that computer savvy jihadists could not track any of us down, via our posts, and establish who we are and where we live?

    I also suggest, James, that you read up on the social history of the 1930s – when you’ll find EXACTLY the same sentiments being expressed about young people of that day and age! The Oxford Debating Society held a debate in the 1930s on the motion “This house would not lay down its life for King and Country” – and the motion was passed.

    Yet what happened in 1939? Those who had voted in favour of that motion went and enlisted.

    The sort of young people who would do exactly the same today, and who have proved their willingness to “stand firm” in the hell-holes of the Middle East, even when the professional morons in Whitehall have tied one hand behind their backs, are not working in the ‘meeja’. The reason is simple; their guts and honesty scare the knickers off the weaklings and cowards who run the media, so they would NEVER be offered a job.

    Cometh the hour, cometh the men AND women – just as they always have done.

    • ArthurSparknottle

      I would draw a clear distinction between the character of young men who apply and are accepted into our army today and the generality of young men out and about in the country. The kind of men accepted are rather special and are almost never, I would suggest, of the left leaning sort who fill our universities and city streets. The kind of mass army needed in 1914 and 1939 drew from every corner and every street. Could we do that now, and if we did, would they match up?

  • Graham Churcher

    Well spoken James ..”Long Bin Fan” .. title of discarded Zep Track circa 1974…maybe…Used to post as ‘El Troppo NT”, some years ago…but that address went with march of time, unconnected with climate of course…BUT what you miss out in this excellent essay is the extraordinary ANZAC calls to the Colours…As ExPat Antipodes (Top End) I do ANZAC Dawn Service each year if in town…the Service is attended more completely each year… Congrats on yr excellent contributions of very skilled writings on the Ethernet… Rgds GC ex El Troppo

  • English Aborigine

    Yes JD

    Marvel at the monument the lib/lab/con trash have built for us post WW2

    The voting population have been misled, this is your lot now get on with it they say

    The People’s Army say

    No more

  • edithgrove

    But the French did react in the right way, they immediately defended their freedom and democracy, even if that did become quickly branded into something you can print on a t-shirt. It was the British, led by the BBC, that appeared to fail the test.

    • Grace Ironwood

      The test of course, is who printed the images. do they live by by free speech or sharia?

  • Marcus

    ..”invocations of ‘the spectre of the far right’ and ‘Gaza’”

    What a risible attempt at propaganda this is James. Think of your audience.

    Or are you right and I am wrong ?

    Secretly the reason I don’t support the occupation of the West Back is because I’m just a coward hoping I don’t get blown up. Really, deep down in clever places only you know about, I know that it’s right to build a wall and occupy the West bank. Even though every other country in the world condemns this excluding the US.

    Where do you stand on the Karen in Burma?
    Are we cowards for not fighting with them or against them? Or should we keep out of it because it has nothing to do both us. Let alone if we had encouraged mass immigration from the Karen and Burma and so had millions those people amongst us.

    The sad truth is good old Siegfried would never have tried to peddle such drivel. It’s an insult to him that you use his image and simply reminds us how far we’ve fallen as a nation that you would.

    No James, I am right and you are wrong:

    Like the UN, Human rights watch and any normal human: I do not support tanks firing in to Gaza. Niether do you deep down; you coward.

  • colonel wintle

    To stand firm you have to be on solid foundations, ours have been eroded over the decades by various policies inspired from the deep thinkers in the Kremlin and the financiers and maybe a religion or two.

  • ArthurSparknottle

    It is often remarked that it was the returning troops of WW2 who gave Clement Attlee his landslide victory in July of 1945, consigning Churchill to the wilderness. Paradoxically it may have been those votes which set us on the political course which led to the situation we have now; a Britain addicted to welfare, packed with people of alien cultural values, rife with political correctness and spinelessness and probably incapable of ever again fighting as we had done in the years before.

  • misomiso

    You’re right James.

    While DC’s modernisation was essential, ESSENTIAL, for the Tory party, I think that now the moderate, progressive Right are waking up to just how threatened Western Civilisation and the idea of Freedom has become.

    It may be the case that now even the Speccie, the Notting Hill mob and even some business would be ready to back leaving the EU as the alternative for our society is becoming more and more horrifying.

    Unlike you I always had sympathy for just how vulnerable Cameron’s political position is, but its such a shame he could never bring himself to offer more on Europe.

    • misomiso

      One other thing, its now becoming clear that there is one domestic policy, and one domestic policy alone, that would completely transform our society and reverse our decay and that is the transferable Marriage tax allowance.

      Allowing wives or husbands to share their tax allowances would at a stroke be a revolution in the States relationship with the individual, as it would revalue full time Motherhood as something equal to a job, as something that contributed to society in and of itself.

      Worth thinking about after May.

    • Bonkim

      Today’s notions of equality and freedom dis not exist pre-WW2 and only matured post 1960s. The few dominated the rest prior to that. The Magna carta was a pact between the King and his Barons – not the Serfs and peasants. Social organisation as with everything in nature follows the lifecycle theory – rise and decline is natural for all systems.

  • Bonkim

    Depends on what you mean by Western values – people follow/copy power and success If the Western system is seen not to deliver it will flop. All societies follow the lifecycle curve and Western thought and action had prevailed over the past three hundred years and now declining. the earth today is overpopulated and the new struggle will be for survival – and the fit will survive although in much smaller numbers than today.

  • trace9

    He’s an MP
    He’s a PC
    He’s da first Lord, ov da Treasuree..

    & Now he’s – Steven Seagalll! Hooray!!

    So in our Time of Trial, good ol’ UK has a new & transmogrified Hollywood-esque Hero to head-up our self-saving efforts..

    After wondering for awhile just who Dave now reminds me of, that appearance at the WH solved it all – he’s become the very clone of Hero Seagal – that hair, low & lookin’ tight, slightly smeared – a few strands planted-in? Perhaps not – yet – but certainly a grreat combeover by this time. That oval, tapered face, slightly puffy – the very Idea of Seagal. He even moves like SS, taller than most of the ‘cast’, rather contained, physically reserved, pulled-in posture, lips together in that little purse centred in that moon-face, as though contemplating some inner text & purpose – does he do some kind of Eastern preperation cum meditation before these appearances? SS really must use ’em. . One quite expects those arms to crook, forearms squared, twisting about & knocking the knives & bejasus off numberless Baddies, Over my Ohoulder goes One Scare.. Yup, Dave’s a Seagal now, pour moi – as well as being a bit of a Charlie himsel’. Drop it, Dave, or you’ll look really Daft one day. – We are Under Siege tho’, these days..

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-reveals-next-cover-a-cartoon-of-prophet-muhammad-behind-the-sign-je-suis-charlie/?tid=pm_pop

    – Something you ‘forgot’, Delling-hero..

  • WTF

    After watching Question time last Thursday its blatantly obvious that the establishment are far from standing firm against terrorism and its Islamic roots.

    We had three political apologists from Labour, Tories and LibDims who couldn’t brown nose Muslims enough, some Muslim plonker called Ahmed who still tries to pretend that Islam isn’t the problem and ONLY David Starkey says it as it is. As it was we Anna Soubry who easily exceeds Labours fish wives for rants, interruptions and discourtesy when others speak and Ahmed the denier putting his penny worth in as well. Starkey just like Farage, when insulted and interrupted in this fashion was the epitome of sound facts and patience when confronted by a baiting crowd of left wing fascists.

    At least Baroness Brinton had some courtesy not to go into the gutter like Soubry and Ahmed did ! As for Douglas Alexander he was a bit of a joke and also held back from gratuitous insults that came from Sourbry and Ahmed against a sound opponent. Isn’t it always the case when the islamic apologists lose the argument, they insult, talk over and behave like spoiled children who refuse to grow up.

    I just wish someone had smacked Sourbry in the mush to shut her up, nasty piece of work that one !

    • Johnnydub

      Ann Soubry is the Tory Emily Thornberry. A ghastly snobby ignoramus.

      • WTF

        Yep, she’s one of the many Labour fish wives one could pick.

      • Colonel Mustard

        I watched her with increasing disgust for the way she began shouting down Dr Starkey every time he was given an opportunity to speak. A horrid woman, but the fact that she agreed with the equally odious rabble rouser Mehdi Hasan epitomised how far the Tory party has descended in its appeasement and embrace of the left.

        • Johnnydub

          What pols like Soubry and Mensch before her is how they’re so interchangeable. If they turned up next week as Labour pols, they wouldn’t change their ideas one iota.

          It also explains why they’ll happily gang together to target UKIP.

    • red2black

      Surely you’re used to the QT format by now. Ahmed’s name was actually Medhi, as was pointed out to Mr Starkey, who did appear to be being deliberately disrespectful. Anna Soubry certainly held no monopoly on ‘rants, interruptions and discourtesy’, as all the panellists except Baroness Brinton took part in the usual quota of rounds of hen-house squawking and squabbling. Presumably the ‘baiting crowd of left wing fascists’ had been bused-in from Khmer Rouge hot-spots around the country, supplemented by a brigade of BBC party cadres that travel around this green and pleasant land with the show. ‘I just wish someone had smacked Sou(r)bry in the mush to shut her up…’ Really sir; that simply isn’t ‘the done thing’ here-abouts.

      • WTF

        Considering the lack of courtesy that Starkey was getting for being polite I thought he was very restrained when replying to a twat who kept interrupting him. As for the other one, although it isn’t the done thing to do in these PC days, with non stop ranters like Sourbry, the only way you could shut them up is a slap around the kisser or or one other way I couldn’t even go into here and definitely wouldn’t want to carry out myself !

        • red2black

          Mr Hasan did repeatedly interrupt Mr Starkey, but it seemed to be pretty much a case of ‘six of one and half a dozen of the other’ over the course of the whole programme. I’ve always considered QT to be part of the BBC’s light entertainment schedule.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Dr Starkey wasn’t interrupting or shouting over other panelists – Soubry was. Her behaviour was appalling. Hasan was interjecting snide and nasty one liners against Dr Starkey at every opportunity. The fact that the rest of the panel closed ranks with him just demonstrates how dire our politics has become. You just have to look at Hasan’s face to see the anger there.

            Dimbley is supposed to be chair and yet never once told Soubry to let Dr Starkey finish. It was a charade.

          • red2black

            I agree with you, Colonel; it’s always a charade.

    • anyfool

      Hopefully the voters of Broxtowe will smack her where it will really hurt, at the ballot box in May, what joy if it was a UKIP, that removed this ghastly wretched cur.

  • alabenn

    (apart from the rather over-fêted conscientious objectors

  • rtj1211

    I’m afraid what has gone is the belief that the ‘masters of the universe’ will fight in the trenches too.

    Most people ask the question: ‘what’s in it for us AFTER the war??’

    If the answer is: ‘nothing – we’ll be treated like muck just like before’, then why shouldn’t all the Lords, Earls and City traders’ sons and daughters ‘defend our values’?? After all, it’s only them that truly benefit from them.

    The last two wars brought very significant social changes as a result: women in the workplace after WWI and a demand to prioritise housebuilding and the NHS after WWII. Both were vigorously resisted at the time and the powers that be are interested in creating underclasses of serfs all over the globe.

    No-one is going to risk their life without prospects of a better life afterwards, they simply aren’t.

    And if Western Leaders haven’t learned that after two wars where millions upon millions were slaughtered, then they have no leadership qualities, no common sense and no right to rule.

    The people who need to make real, real sacrifices are the ‘young men of independent means’. 99.9% of people don’t have their independent means and let us be clear, I would not lift one finger to preserve the guilded life of the Duke of Westminster……

  • alabenn

    (apart from the rather over-fêted conscientious objectors
    Is that a polite way to describe gutless cowards who want to live off the sacrifice of others.
    There were real brave conscientious objectors, they performed tasks of a medical nature because they knew the price of their beliefs.
    The ones who went to jail rather than face the enemy, while pretending a higher inspiration, these wretches should of been shot instead of the soldiers executed, because fear got the better of them, these men shot for cowardice were not cowards, they tried to do their duty, they just failed, the likes of Jack Straws father did not fail, they were cowards cowering in jail to avoid paying the cost of freedom.

  • global city

    Sky news has been busy turning things completely on it’s head today. Imams are cautioning muslims not to ‘react’ to provocations at attacks this week!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Turns out it is our fault….again!

  • Perseus Slade

    We are all going to have to stand up and be counted, and sooner than we think.
    Duty beckons.

  • Liberty

    Individual bravery for 100s of 1000s in an army is no longer necessary. The modern way of war [post Iraq and at least for Western Europe and US] is to finance and equip local forces and back them up with drones, aircraft, intelligence, training and a few special forces. The Western public will non longer tolerate lots of body bags so let the local do the dying. this is now the way in Afghanistan. The Taliban is vastly outgunned and outnumbered. Yes, the 100s of billions worth of kit and training given to the Iraqi Army was wasted but at least none of us were there dying. Support for Iraq and Iran is being rethought and it is now for them to man up, if they do not fight well they will be gone. They know that.

    • WTF

      Definitely the best approach as it worked against Russia during the cold war through fiscal power backed up with advanced technology and over time can work here as well. That will keep the aggressors at bay in that area and now all we need to do is squash the local home home aggressor, a bit more difficult but doable if we have the b**** !

  • Richard

    Britain has been deconstructed into a legalistic entity. People relate to each other in this way, not as brothers and sisters with a common identity, kinship and purpose. Take away the biological bonds between people and the nation disappears. That is simply a fact of primate life. The greater the remove, the less committed people feel towards each other, and the less trusting they are. Baboons and gorillas, our close primate relations, all band together in kinship troupes. As soon as people began to demand things from each other through the intermediation of the state, the bonds broke. Britain has been destroyed with a sledge-hammer, by people with hatred in their hearts (Labour) and a lust for power at any costs.

    That is why we cannot ever beat the terrorists. They are joined together by more than just law.

  • WTF

    The deniers in the west seem to have a memory lapse of historical fact as Islam had nearly 1,500 years of Muslim subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.

    Not only that we constantly hear that Israel is the aggressor against the Muslims in the Gaza strip however the reality is Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded during the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and submission of others. At that time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire and not Muslims as is so often claimed. The Christian crusades which followed later was purely the Wests response to regain what was taken from them by earlier Muslim “crusades”.

    The liberal progressives in the west are famous for cherry picking a time period to suit their argument rather than looking over the longer period and just as we see this when they make spun arguments over climate change with that famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, with Muslim vs other peoples history, they are very adept at picking out short periods in history to try and substantiate their duplicitous point of view.

    There was even a ‘sour grapes’ policy enacted by the then ruling Muslims of Jerusalem in 800 when Europe funded Christianities foothold in the area and their places of worship outshone mosques and the Islamic rulers got p***** about it. Perhaps that was the start of ‘taxing’ infidels to ensure their mosques could be the tallest places of worship around just because they lacked self confidence in their own religion.

    Nothing really changes over 1400 years and it just gets bloodier !

  • Richard

    What are “western values”, by the way? Protection of the perpetrator at the expense of the victim? Mass immigration? Enforced equality? State benefits? The blame-game? Not pursuing child-groomers if they are Muslims? Self-hatred? Those are the only things I can think of, and I don’t come from the usual Western, First-World background.

    • Comrade Pootie

      The examples you mentioned are what replaced western values. The way ahead is the way back

      • Richard

        We are already going back, thousands of years! The Stone-Age beckons!

    • sullen idealist

      here’s an article that gives you a good serve of “western values”.
      i want to amke it clear i share NONE of the author’s opinions .
      http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/14/i-am-not-charlie/

      • Richard

        Some of that is valid, to my mind, other isn’t. When “new” eras comes into existence (as we glibly refer to them), there isn’t sweeping clean entirely of the old order. Not everything is subject to the same scrutiny at the same time. The Enlightenment did not bring about slavery, that had existed – continues to exist! – in Africa for millennia. Genocide had existed for centuries; indeed, southern Africa only became occupied by Bantu from the north because they systematically cleansed the region of its indigenous inhabitants. And so on.

        The only thing is that the Enlightenment made possible a different scale of enterprise, but then also made possible the abolition of slavery, for instance.

        The piece quotes Fanon, and I really don’t take that much of what he says seriously. I dislike polemic.

  • Rudy Schmidt

    The failure to react to Syria was the abandonment of millions and ultimately ourselves to permit hell on earth.

  • Kasperlos

    The ending of the outstanding 1976 BBC television documentary The Battle of the Somme, brilliantly narrated by the late Leo McKern, says it all: Sixty years after the war a survivor wrote: “There can never be another war like the Great War, nor the comradeship and endurance we knew then. I think perhaps men are not like that now.” Indeed, we have reaped a new man, of X-box, Game Boy, iPad, baby pants and a propensity to throw out the old, including the sacrifices and advancements of the Western Tradition, on the altar of a neutered, ‘globalised’ brave new world. We are in deep trouble.

  • Terry Field

    I think that our western civilisation is at an end. The canary in the mine is the utter disinterest of anyone under 45 years old in rejecting Islam, or even being slightly inclined to believe that it constitutes any sort of danger. Why? They see nothing in the west that is worth preserving; as for free speech, the vast majority would and do trade it for mortgage affordability, credit-worthiness and seeming cool to the next sex-interest, if after the vegetarian diet that are any longer capable of consummating anything at all.
    I am more and more convinced that the socialist globalisers of the EU will sacrifice the culture of Western Europe for a Greater Mediterranean Union, with more Muslims than Christians as consumers.
    The Islamic world will not be fought with any seriousness.
    There really is no West anymore.
    Corporate needs are everywhere and nowhere.
    If you want to apply the Turing Test to see if a machine is superior to humanity, it can be done easily. Just interact with the global value-free marketplace.

  • ohforheavensake

    James- did it ever occur to you that open public disagreement is the expression of our right to free speech- which is one of those basic principles you’re talking about?

    So in other words, you want us to defend our values: but you worry when we do things that demonstrate those values. This isn’t exactly what I’d call organised thinking.

  • Patrick Roy

    What stops us from acting is our ultimate belief in civility and our Christian heritage. It’s just not very nice to take a firm stance. Or to be confrontational. The West won’t start fighting until they are literally attacked in the street. Oh, sorry, that’s already happened.

  • Richard

    It’s easy to destroy Westerners, because everything is up for grabs. There are no “sacred cows” of any sort. As we have seen, even the hallowed “freedom of speech” is up for grabs. The ONLY thing that comes close to being sacred is the notion of Equality. That means that nothing and nobody is better than anybody else. Secularism is not better than Islam, Albert Einstein is no brighter than somebody with an IQ of 10. In fact, IQ is disparaged because it differentiates between people. There are no racial differences, and anything that points to such differences must be suppressed. Criminals are the victims of society, obese people are so only because of the evil fast-food companies. It’s as if a huge mallet has come down from the sky to turn everyone and everything into a single, undifferentiated mass.

    • Kasperlos

      Mass, indeed. Witness the irony in ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’. In actuality it has devolved into a monoculture, as you say ‘undifferentiated’ one
      wherein a world of nothing and nowhere, but everything and everywhere a sameness. Not just in say attire (t-shirts the excalim ‘I’m with Stupid’, skewed baseball caps, gotee beards) but literally, and most frightfully in thought. The only question is whether in today’s conflict Islam ends up as the monoreligion.

  • grimm

    It is a matter of history that Prinz Eugene’s armies in their various battles to keep the Ottomans from taking Western Europe, 17-18c were poorly equipped and grudgingly funded by the greedy aristocracy in Vienna who were only interested in the battle for their civilisation if it didn’t cost them too much.

    Twentieth century total war took the fight from remote battlefields and brought the hell of it to the civilian population. It has been forgotten that after the first few nights of the Blitz the citizens of the heavily bombed area of West Ham were calling for surrender to Germany.

  • It’s the problem with living in a decadent, declining civilisation that thought it had won all the big battles and defeated all the big enemies. There’s no way the selfie generation would put their own lives on the line for the ‘greater good’ – many of them have been brainwashed to see independant nation-states as a relic of the past.

    Life in the West will need to get a lot harder before people are shaken out of their selfish complacency. And I say that as one sufficiently selfishly complacent to say that you would never catch me anywhere near a battlefield.

  • evad666

    We need to identify and destroy the islamist cells within the establishment in Westminster, Whitehall and the Media.
    Currently the BBC delights in pushing the EU islamist propaganda.
    High time we took to the streets.

    • sullen idealist

      it should be available as a podcast, have a listen to the BBC Weekend

      programme from 10 January 2015 (last Saturday) validates my opinion that, excepting very rare cases, sociologists should not be given any form of academic or intellectual recognition.
      also, there has been a bit of reportage this past week concerning the Obama
      administration holding a conference concerned with “political extremism”.
      my bet is that the gabfest will just focus on what to do about islamophobic/right extremism and what to do about commentators like Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, and others who speak out against the vicious tide of islamism.

  • TheCitizenAct

    And ‘sacrifice your well-being’, in this particular instance, doesn’t mean anything as drastic as going to freeze or drown in Flanders mud or being sent off in a troopship to fight the Japanese in Burma. It just means sticking up, calmly but firmly, for the basic principles that have made our civilisation great;

    I like the sentiment of your post, James, but I think you’re grasping at logic in a world where emotions and feelings take precedence, and at all times.

    We can’t compare now to pre-1914. The feminisation of society, state-sponsored empathy and social engineering policies have lead to a society that doesn’t prioritise what you say, but rather who it believes you are. ‘The personal is political.’

    Speaking as a Libertarian of sorts, I feel there are far too many aspects of society which now fall under the remit of an ever more parental nation-state. Of greater concern, however, are the ideologies and narratives which have been imposed in the last 5 decades.

    To construct a modern day narrative, and have it accepted by politicians, or the powers-that-be, you needn’t rely on truth, or facts. You simply need to create a plausible reality. Take ‘the patriarchy’, or ‘the systemic oppression of all women by all men for the purposes of ensuring male privilege.’

    It’s a blatantly dishonest narrative (particularly considering at the bottom runs of society men are 6x more likely to be homeless and 3.5x more likely to kill themselves), one which can never be proved, but it’s generally accepted. Most people accept the existence of ‘the patriarchy’ and most people understand it underpins the entire feminist movement.

    Once the problem has been identified – ‘the patriarchy’ – a subjective objective is fostered, notably ‘equality’, or ‘assimilation’, or ‘diversity’ etc. Owing to the subjectivity of the cause, the objective will never, ever be achieved, but it’s irrelevant; in fact it’s preferable.

    With no end-point in sight, they can continue to reinforce the narrative.

    The narrative is utilised by multiculturalism, our legal system (only men can rape), domestic violence (only men can be abusers), the pay gap (which has been disproved by leading male and female academics and economists time and time again), our prison system (preferential treatment and judicial reform which has stated women face ‘special disadvantages’), positive action (only ever applies to women), our legislature and executive branches (all-women shortlists, the Minister for Women), our education system (girls are outperforming boys at ALL levels of the schooling and higher education systems, no-one blinks an eyelid) etc.

    The narrative is also applied selectively. Forget the sewage, power line installation, sanitation, building and road working industries, all of which are overwhelmingly ‘male industries’, ‘oppression’ isn’t apparent in these industries; only would-be female CEOs are oppressed.

    In such an environment, where listening to radio 4 as I drive home from England to Scotland I hear five mentions of ‘far-right’ in the space of 5 hours, or watching BBC news earlier I, yet again, come across a correspondent questioning whether the cartoonists ‘brought it upon themselves’, we have to accept that ideologues, of which there are far more now than there every have been, identity politics and adherence to narratives take precedence over reason and logic.

    The narrative determines that expressing opposition to mass immigration is ‘racist’, the narrative determines that criticising feminism for fostering discrimination against men is ‘misogynistic’ and the narrative determines that speaking up against Islam, and in reference to the many opinion polls which should draw our concern beyond radicals and into moderate Muslim territory, is xenophobic and indicative of ‘far-right’ sentiment.

  • TheCitizenAct

    And ‘sacrifice your well-being’, in this particular instance, doesn’t mean anything as drastic as going to freeze or drown in Flanders mud or being sent off in a troopship to fight the Japanese in Burma. It just means sticking up, calmly but firmly, for the basic principles that have made our civilisation great;

    I like the sentiment of your post, James, but I think you’re grasping at logic in a world where emotions and feelings take precedence, and at all times.

    We can’t compare now to pre-1914. The feminisation of society, state-sponsored empathy and social engineering policies have lead to a society that doesn’t prioritise what you say, but rather who it believes you are. ‘The personal is political.’

    Speaking as a Libertarian of sorts, I feel there are far too many aspects of society which now fall under the remit of an ever more paternal nation-state. Of greater concern, however, are the ideologies and narratives which have been imposed in the last 5 decades.

    To construct a modern day narrative, and have it accepted by politicians, or the powers-that-be, you needn’t rely on truth, or facts. You simply need to create a plausible reality. Take ‘the patriarchy’, or ‘the systemic oppression of all women by all men for the purposes of ensuring male privilege.’

    It’s a blatantly dishonest narrative (particularly considering at the bottom rungs of society men are 6x more likely to be homeless and 3.5x more likely to kill themselves), one which can never be proved, but it’s generally accepted. Most people accept the existence of ‘the patriarchy’ and most people understand it underpins the entire feminist movement.

    Once the problem has been identified – ‘the patriarchy’ – a subjective objective is fostered, notably ‘equality’, or ‘assimilation’, or ‘diversity’ etc. Owing to the subjectivity of the cause, the objective will never, ever be achieved, but it’s irrelevant; in fact it’s preferable.

    With no end-point in sight, they can continue to reinforce the narrative.

    The narrative is utilised by multiculturalism, our legal system (only men can rape), domestic violence (only men can be abusers), the pay gap (which has been disproved by leading male and female academics and economists time and time again), our prison system (preferential treatment and judicial reform which has stated women face ‘special disadvantages’), positive action (only ever applies to women), our legislature and executive branches (all-women shortlists, the Minister for Women), our education system (girls are outperforming boys at ALL levels of the schooling and higher education systems, no-one blinks an eyelid) etc.

    The narrative is also applied selectively. Forget the sewage, power line installation, sanitation, building and road working industries, all of which are overwhelmingly ‘male industries’, ‘oppression’ isn’t apparent in these industries; only would-be female CEOs are oppressed.

    In such an environment, where listening to radio 4 as I drive home from England to Scotland I hear five mentions of ‘far-right’ in the space of 5 hours, or watching BBC news earlier I, yet again, come across a correspondent questioning whether the cartoonists ‘brought it upon themselves’, we have to accept that ideologues (of which there are far more now than there ever have been), identity politics and adherence to narratives take precedence over reason and logic.

    The narrative determines that expressing opposition to mass immigration is ‘racist’, the narrative determines that criticising feminism for fostering discrimination against men is ‘misogynistic’ and the narrative determines that speaking up against Islam, and in reference to the many opinion polls which should draw our concern beyond radicals and into moderate Muslim territory, is xenophobic and indicative of ‘far-right’ sentiment.

    • mrsjosephinehydehartley

      But even after creating a plausible reality to tell everyone about, if nobody pays attention to it or takes any notice, one’s newly created narrative simply doesn’t matter, especially if it seems to be just scratching the same old surface.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    What’s free speech? Something that is spoken usually between a speaker and those who are in earshot. I’m not too sure whether things that are published in the modern sense ie not “live” or really real.. count as free speech.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    Has civilisation really got a price? I don’t think so. Civilisation just happens over time meanwhile individuals have very short lives in comparison.

    • rightrightright

      Civilisations begin with the successful application of brute force. Civilisations develop and flourish because they are defended by the same means. There are no exceptions. They don’t just ‘happen’.

  • anotherjoeblogs

    I was wondering what image could sum up the mentality of a certain mind-set and a V for Vendetta mask wearing ‘ activist ‘ taking a selfie with a placard saying ‘ gays for Palestine ‘ came to mind.

  • pp22pp

    Then the Spectator must reprint the cartoons!

  • alfredo

    Surprised that Delingpole seems to concur in calling ‘dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’ the ‘old lie’. ‘Patria’ here doesn’t mean your country as organised and run by politicians or generals. It means what the Greeks called τα πατρώα – all the noble and beautiful things we have inherited from our forefathers. I’m surprised that Delingpole doesn’t think it dulce et decorum to die for these.

    • Terry Field

      Very well said, sir.

  • I don’t really associate James Delingpole with “civilisation” myself. He’s a medievalist.

    • Terry Field

      I always understood that the Middle Ages was a high point of a particular kind of civilisation.

  • Blindsideflanker

    Would Cameron, Clegg or Miliband stand firm on anything?

  • pobinr

    Nothing will change unless and until Judges become the targets of terrorists. At the moment they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the safety of “the little people” on the altar of their self-righteous interpretation of human rights law.

  • “Reading some reactions to events in Paris, I’m no longer certain that western values would survive another long war”

    Western values? You mean Marxist values that have been operative in the West since even before World War I (who do you think initiated both world wars to (1) murder the aristocracy on the battle fields; and therefore (2) to weaken the West’s grasp on the world)…

    In the case of the Charlie Hebdo offices, only two unarmed police (on bicycles no less) are sent to a massacre in progress. When the “terrorists” exit the office building ten minutes later, there’s still no armed police, just the unarmed police. Then after a one-sided shootout between the “terrorists” and the unarmed police, which leaves one police officer dead (though there’s no blood on the ground from the multiple AK-47 bullets that hit the police officer!), the terrorists leave the area in a car, zooming off at 5mph! Now, by this time it’s been nearly 15 minutes that’s elapsed, yet (1) still no armed police have shown up; and (2) the area hasn’t been cordoned off by the police.

    False flag operations need the absence of standard operating procedures if they are going to work, which explains the obvious anomalies above.

    Ladies & gentlemen, you really need to pay more attention to the news, so that you can know when you are being played.

    By the way, one of the “terrorists” slips up as he follows his comrade back to the car, instinctively cradling his weapon as he was instructed to in the French military…

    Fast forward to 0:17 seconds in first video provided…

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/watch-no-recoil-no-blood-no-body-movement-slow-motion-footage-of-paris-officer-being-shotdisturbing-images_012015

    now compare to how a French soldier cradles his weapon…

    https://www.google.com/search?q=french+military+handling+weapons+pictures&es_sm=93&biw=1440&bih=809&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BQK7VMK1G8yVNszbgugP&ved=0CB0QsAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=1yDItkVPvNPnCM%253A%3BFweA9WALhBRy7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fabload.de%252Fimg%252Fcar1896dye2.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.militaryphotos.net%252Fforums%252Fshowthread.php%253F233143-Operation-Sangaris-French-intervention-in-Central-Africa%252Fpage10%3B1024%3B679

    In the video below, the two “terrorists” are in no rush to get away because they know their getaway has been arranged, including by the police car that does finally show up, but allows the “terrorists” to leave the scene, actually backing up to give the “terrorists” the right of way(!)…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iQNzJnvfKU

    …and add insult to injury by failing to pursue the “terrorists”! What moron wrote this script?

    Then we have the equally abysmal Woolwich, London false flag operation…

    Here’s the Woolwich, London sidewalk that Lee Rigby was said to have had his head partially severed. Note there’s no pools of blood…

    http://theageofvolcanoes.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/bs-4.jpg

    …and here’s the sidewalk with the pools of blood, after the arrival of the armed police…

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/beheading8.jpg

    Oops, MI5 forgot to add the pools of blood before the cell phone cameras started taking pictures! By the way, why is that lady in the background calmly walking by, unconcerned? Because the incident was a drill that went live, which is called a false flag operation.

    Now you know why the spectators were just standing around taking pictures at the scene, or calmly going about their business, walking by the “murderers”…

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329236-19F1FAC8000005DC-504_634x474.jpg

    and another unconcerned pedestrian that no one is preventing from walking right by one of the “murderers”…

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-0-19F1FAA2000005DC-793_634x400.jpg

    Then we have the pedestrian with the video phone who stands calmly as one of the “murderers” approaches him and records the “murderer’s” rambling speech on his video phone!

    The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848 thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions.

    The so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

    Take a look at what the Russian government ordered the Russian Ministry of Defense to keep on the masthead of its official newspaper…see if you notice something odd…

    http://www.redstar.ru/

    “Krasnaya Zvezda” is Russian for “Red Star”, the official newspaper of Soviet and later Russian Ministry of Defense. The paper’s official designation is, “Central Organ of the Russian Ministry of Defense.” Note the four Soviet emblems next to the still existing Soviet era caption titled “Red Star”(!), one of the Soviet emblems including the image of Lenin!

    Then for Russian Naval vessels, take a look at the following photo from 2013, and note what’s still appended to the bows (enlarge picture)…

    http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/9225/

    See the Soviet era Red Star still attached to the port bow, near the anchor!

    Now, take a look at the Soviet nationality roundel on a Russian military aircraft in 2009:

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia—Air/Sukhoi-Su-25SM/1606418/L/

    Take a look at what’s still on Aeroflot aircraft…

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2013-8/31/316500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/316500/vp-bdn-aeroflot-airbus-a319/&h=853&w=1200&sz=342&tbnid=LpEalOG0f8GrcM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=142&zoom=1&usg=__G489DWC7zsP5bnmGg5-Pi0QB8xs=&docid=xUpoGn9FHxnMDM&sa=X&ei=evRRUtGuJNGs4APLsoDICg&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAA

    Note the Communist emblem of the hammer & sickle stenciled on the Aeroflot aircraft’s fuselage! Imagine the Swastika still on Lufthansa commercial aircraft!

    The Soviet Air Force Base outside the town of Engels (Saratov Oblast District, Russia) named Engels Air Force Base (the only Soviet Air Force Base named in honor of Engels; none were named after Marx nor Lenin), is STILL called Engels Air Force Base, and the adjacent town is still called Engels. Both town and air base were named after Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels…

    Engels Air Force Base:

    Google: ‘engels-2’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels-2

    Engels city:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels,_Saratov_Oblast

    In fact, Engels city still has Lenin Square…

    http://www.acase.ru/online/en-hotel-volga-id1101002.jsp

    …and Saratov city (right across the Volga River from Engels city) still has its massive statue of Lenin…

    https://www.google.com/search?q=lenin+statue+in+saratov&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&imgil=LfJIIl3Tp8qeyM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcR5zkOLDChdSE6h4wmAyBsLGcU1DS5JHiiE63xsK1LU5L4bL2lU%253B600%253B458%253BQ6CnSVdaWPTqRM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Frussiatrek.org%25252Fsaratov-city&source=iu&usg=__hEHeAQYzDCvpPfUTbdJsEWUxBmE%3D&sa=X&ei=R6NkU8vyA-alsASArIGwCQ&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAA#facrc=_&imgrc=LfJIIl3Tp8qeyM%253A%3BQ6CnSVdaWPTqRM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Frussiatrek.org%252Fimages%252Fphoto%252Fsaratov-city-lenin-monument.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Frussiatrek.org%252Fsaratov-city%3B600%3B458

    In fact, approximately 97% of Lenin’s statues that stood in Russia before the fake collapse of the USSR are to this day still standing (that 97% statistic constitutes thousands of statues)….

    “Almost every town in Russia has a prominent statue of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, father of the October Revolution…”

    http://www.saint-petersburg.com/monuments/ploshchad-lenina/

    The only statues taken down were in those locations where foreign tourists would travel the most, and those statues weren’t destroyed either but re-located to museums or parks, waiting there for their planned resurrections–after the defeat of the West…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Monument_Park

    In fact, in other “former” republics of the USSR statues of Lenin weren’t toppled and destroyed either, they were carefully removed from their foundations and relocated to new locations, such as in the backyard of the Estonian History Museum at the Maarjamaë Palace.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lenin_statue,_Maarjama%C3%AB_Palace,_Tallinn._Estonia.jpg

    …and in Lithuania, statues to Lenin and Marx are located at Grūtas Park, which also incredulously has, now get this, a Soviet theme park, replete with “…a mini-zoo and cafes, all containing relics of the Soviet era. On special occasions actors stage re-enactments of various Soviet-sponsored festivals”!…

    http://www.goworldtravel.com/travel-lithuania-grutas-park-reminder-of-dark-past/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C5%ABtas_Park

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    Notice that not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR,* and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members;** and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!***

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    ———————————————
    *A verification process would have entailed hundreds of teams from the West going into the USSR and having unqualified access of all government files, searching for (1) indications that the collapse was a ruse; (2) secret Communist party agents/non-Communist Party agents placed into positions of authority; and (3) Russians to bring back to the West for questioning,* where the questioning can take place without fear of retribution should the collapse be a ruse.

    **A de-Communization of the Soviet Armed Forces would have seen the former USSR republics joining NATO and requesting the assistance of NATO to supervise a de-Communization process, the first stage of which would be the pensioning out of General officers, and full Colonels within the land combat regiments; and all Admirals, and Full Captains assigned to ships, pensioned out. The pensioned out officers would be replaced by NATO officers. NATO would take over schools that educate military officers, until such time that non-Communist Party native instructors were available…

    “After the Second World War the victorious allies correctly applied a denazification programme to eliminate former Nazis and their influence from the institutions and political life of the new Germany. No equivalent decommunisation programme has been applied in the USSR or Eastern Europe. The Soviet Party, the KGB and the armed forces with their political commissars remain intact.

    Yet the West is eager to proclaim and believe in the death of Communism and the evaporation of Communist influence virtually overnight. This over-hasty optimism is destined to end in disillusionment.” — KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, “The Perestroika Deception”, pp. 124-123.

    http://www.spiritoftruth.org/The_Perestroika_Deception.pdf

    The Russian ICBM Triad would have been de-operationalized (until the necessary number of non-Communist Party member nuclear forces officers had graduated and attained ranks necessary to operate such nuclear weapon systems), pursuant to which the United States would have cut its nuclear ICBM Triad forces by at least two-thirds, since the only major threat now would be China. Russian Intermediate/Medium ballistic nuclear systems would fall under NATO operation, again until the necessary number of non-Communist Party member nuclear forces officers had graduated and attained ranks necessary to operate such nuclear weapon systems.

    ***Then we have to deal with the five-six-million vigilantes the Soviet Ministry of Interior used to control the population. The vigilantes would need to be de-mobilized and its leaders interned until the Russian economy came back to life via real free market policies. As the economy improved, those vigilantes interned and not serving sentences for serious crimes such as murder or rape, would be released on a staggered basis, where lower-level leaders are the first to be released into society…

    “On the initiative of the KGB, an army of Soviet vigilantes five million strong, the so-called ‘druzhiny’, was recruited from among the Komsomol activists. They have been patrolling and policing the streets of all the Soviet cities. Their primary task has been to prepare the Soviet people to ‘behave’ during the forthcoming ‘liberalisation’.” — KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, “The Perestroika Deception” , March 1989, pp. 14-15.

    http://www.spiritoftruth.org/The_Perestroika_Deception.pdf

  • Western values? You mean Marxist values that have been operative in the West since even before World War I (who do you think initiated both world wars to (1) murder the aristocracy on the battle fields; and therefore (2) to weaken the West’s grasp on the world)…

    In the case of the Charlie Hebdo offices, only two unarmed police (on bicycles no less) are sent to a massacre in progress. When the “terrorists” exit the office building ten minutes later, there’s still no armed police, just the unarmed police. Then after a one-sided shootout between the “terrorists” and the unarmed police, which leaves one police officer dead (though there’s no blood on the ground from the multiple AK-47 bullets that hit the police officer!), the terrorists leave the area in a car, zooming off at 5mph! Now, by this time it’s been nearly 15 minutes that’s elapsed, yet (1) still no armed police have shown up; and (2) the area hasn’t been cordoned off by the police.

    False flag operations need the absence of standard operating procedures if they are going to work, which explains the obvious anomalies above.

    Ladies & gentlemen, you really need to pay more attention to the news, so that you can know when you are being played.

    The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848 thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions.

    The so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

    Take a look at what the Russian government ordered the Russian Ministry of Defense to keep on the masthead of its official newspaper…see if you notice something odd…

    Google: ‘Krasnaya Zvezda’

    “Krasnaya Zvezda” is Russian for “Red Star”, the official newspaper of Soviet and later Russian Ministry of Defense. The paper’s official designation is, “Central Organ of the Russian Ministry of Defense.” Note the four Soviet emblems next to the still existing Soviet era caption titled “Red Star”(!), one of the Soviet emblems including the image of Lenin!

    Then for Russian Naval vessels, take a look at the following photo from 2013, and note what’s still appended to the bows (enlarge picture)…

    Google (enlarge picture): ‘Putin announces permanent Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean, as it arms Assad regime in Damascus and bolsters alliance with Iran and Lebanon’

    See the Soviet era Red Star still attached to the port bow, near the anchor!

    Now, take a look at the Soviet nationality roundel on a Russian military aircraft in 2009:

    Google: ‘Russia – Air Force More: Sukhoi Su-25SM 2009 Stanislav Bazhenov 9 of’

    Take a look at what’s still on Aeroflot aircraft…

    Google (open the first picture): ‘airplane pictures Aeroflot Airbus A319 VP-BDN’

    Note the Communist emblem of the hammer & sickle stenciled on the Aeroflot aircraft’s fuselage! Imagine the Swastika still on Lufthansa commercial aircraft!

    The Soviet Air Force Base outside the town of Engels (Saratov Oblast District, Russia) named Engels Air Force Base (the only Soviet Air Force Base named in honor of Engels; none were named after Marx nor Lenin), is STILL called Engels Air Force Base, and the adjacent town is still called Engels. Both town and air base were named after Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels…

    Engels Air Force Base:

    Google: ‘engels-2’

    Engels city:

    Google: ‘engels saratov oblast’

    In fact, Engels city still has Lenin Square…

    Google: ‘Hotel: 18 Lenin square, Engels City, Saratov region, 413100, Russia’

    …and Saratov city (right across the Volga River from Engels city) still has its massive statue of Lenin…

    Google: ‘saratov city lenin statue pictures’

    In fact, approximately 97% of Lenin’s statues that stood in Russia before the fake collapse of the USSR are to this day still standing (that 97% statistic constitutes thousands of statues)….

    “Almost every town in Russia has a prominent statue of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, father of the October Revolution…”

    Google: ‘Monument to Lenin on Ploshchad Lenina (Lenin Square)’

    The only statues taken down were in those locations where foreign tourists would travel the most, and those statues weren’t destroyed either but re-located to museums or parks, waiting there for their planned resurrections–after the defeat of the West…

    Google: ‘fallen monument park moscow wiki’

    In fact, in other “former” republics of the USSR statues of Lenin weren’t toppled and destroyed either, they were carefully removed from their foundations and relocated to new locations, such as in the backyard of the Estonian History Museum at the Maarjamaë Palace.

    Google: ‘File:Lenin statue, Maarjamaë Palace, Tallinn. Estonia wikipedia’

    …and in Lithuania, statues to Lenin and Marx are located at Grūtas Park, which also incredulously has, now get this, a Soviet theme park, replete with “…a mini-zoo and cafes, all containing relics of the Soviet era. On special occasions actors stage re-enactments of various Soviet-sponsored festivals”!…

    Google: ‘lithuania grutas park reminder of dark past’

    GOOGLE: ‘GRUTAS PARK WIKIPEDIA’

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    Notice that not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR,* and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members;** and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!***

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    ———————————————
    *A verification process would have entailed hundreds of teams from the West going into the USSR and having unqualified access of all government files, searching for (1) indications that the collapse was a ruse; (2) secret Communist party agents/non-Communist Party agents placed into positions of authority; and (3) Russians to bring back to the West for questioning,* where the questioning can take place without fear of retribution should the collapse be a ruse.

    **A de-Communization of the Soviet Armed Forces would have seen the former USSR republics joining NATO and requesting the assistance of NATO to supervise a de-Communization process, the first stage of which would be the pensioning out of General officers, and full Colonels within the land combat regiments; and all Admirals, and Full Captains assigned to ships, pensioned out. The pensioned out officers would be replaced by NATO officers. NATO would take over schools that educate military officers, until such time that non-Communist Party native instructors were available…

    “After the Second World War the victorious allies correctly applied a denazification programme to eliminate former Nazis and their influence from the institutions and political life of the new Germany. No equivalent decommunisation programme has been applied in the USSR or Eastern Europe. The Soviet Party, the KGB and the armed forces with their political commissars remain intact.

    Yet the West is eager to proclaim and believe in the death of Communism and the evaporation of Communist influence virtually overnight. This over-hasty optimism is destined to end in disillusionment.” — KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, “The Perestroika Deception”, pp. 124-123.

    Google:‘the perestroika deception pdf’

    The Russian ICBM Triad would have been de-operationalized (until the necessary number of non-Communist Party member nuclear forces officers had graduated and attained ranks necessary to operate such nuclear weapon systems), pursuant to which the United States would have cut its nuclear ICBM Triad forces by at least two-thirds, since the only major threat now would be China. Russian Intermediate/Medium ballistic nuclear systems would fall under NATO operation, again until the necessary number of non-Communist Party member nuclear forces officers had graduated and attained ranks necessary to operate such nuclear weapon systems.

    ***Then we have to deal with the five-six-million vigilantes the Soviet Ministry of Interior used to control the population. The vigilantes would need to be de-mobilized and its leaders interned until the Russian economy came back to life via real free market policies. As the economy improved, those vigilantes interned and not serving sentences for serious crimes such as murder or rape, would be released on a staggered basis, where lower-level leaders are the first to be released into society…

    “On the initiative of the KGB, an army of Soviet vigilantes five million strong, the so-called ‘druzhiny’, was recruited from among the Komsomol activists. They have been patrolling and policing the streets of all the Soviet cities. Their primary task has been to prepare the Soviet people to ‘behave’ during the forthcoming ‘liberalisation’.” — KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, “The Perestroika Deception” , March 1989, pp. 14-15.

    Google:‘the perestroika deception pdf’

  • sjajames

    True

  • Frank

    It is a pity the Pope seems to have an imperfect understanding of free speech – have we heard yet from the Archbishop of Canterbury?
    The main problem in the UK is that our leaders and the media have spent the last 50 years pouring mockery on British culture & values and savagely attacking anyone who disagreed with them. I suspect that if we, as a nation, really are all called upon to rise up to defend British culture and values, the response will strong but not particularly sympathetic to these leaders and the media!

    • evad666

      The AB of C will be waiting for an edict from a Sharia Court.

  • Cornelius Bonkers

    Shoudn’t the Je suis Charlie outpourings remind us of the Diana derangements?

  • Colonel Mustard

    ” . . . there are occasions when you simply have to sacrifice your individual desires and needs for the common good.”

    That is the socialist creed. The ‘common good’ of 1914 is infinitely debatable. That of 1939 less so. Many of the young men who flocked to the colours in 1914 did so to escape their grinding lives of boring toil and poverty, working long hours for little pay in rigidly hierarchical occupations within a rigidly hierarchical country.

    The character of the endeavour changed too, from going to the aid of ‘little Belgium’ to one of survival. Peer pressure and public opinion then influenced enlistment and in 1916 conscription was introduced anyway.

  • Sherry

    Is this really freedom of speech or just fanatical left wing atheists denigrating a major religion? Some of the cartoons by Hebo were gratuitously disgusting. Nothing justifies what happened in Paris. However, it is right to say that the West operates double standards. Let’s talk about some liberal taboos and then see what happens.

    • zoid

      look at some of charlie’s previous work…..the catholic church, judaism and the far right were all targets, so any accusation of double standards is way off beam…

      • Sherry

        When have they run cartoons taking the mick out of politically correct hypocrisy ill start taking them seriously.How about cartoons about gay marriage (which many people cannot take seriously), feminists who dont say a peep about abortion on gender grounds, having a dig at our secular saints such as Nelson Mandela and the raving left wing mob on twitter.

        • justsomeone

          There’s no reason why someone who is in favour of gay marriage should draw a cartoon mocking it. No reason why Muslims should draw amusing cartoons of Mohammed. No reason why someone horrified by the thousands of muslim gang rapes should draw cartoons mocking the victims or pretending they weren’t raped and threatened. Indeed, if Pakistani Muslims would do the latter while treating underage white girls as scum I think we’d go crazy.

          The question is whether anyone would gun down the cartoonists and whether society would approve.
          There’s another bigger issue. This is about our way of life.
          We have a culture of treating religion with irreverence. We draw funny cartoons of the Pope and of Jesus. That’s us.
          Do we stand up for our culture or do we fold and allow another people to dictate to us, to force us to treat Mohammed as if he were our prophet? If we can’t defend our values we are doomed. By which I mean, our culture and way of life is doomed.

  • PeterS

    I like James’s neat little phrase, ‘freedom isn’t free’. It sets you thinking.

    We might, for instance, think of the ‘islamic threat’ as something we have invented (or made quite sure could invent itself, for us) because, despite ourselves, we need it. We may not so much be terrorised by the presence of the Islamic obstacle, as by its absence. A terror which increases, incrementally, with the more obstacles we lose to ourselves… losses in pursuit of, and as definer of, the freedom we demand. In the absence – in the widening vacuum left – we are horrified to discover that the version of freedom we please ourselves with risks being true. That is to say, we find we face oblivion – the absolute terror of self-exinction.

    Islamism doesn’t so much save us from this, but provides us with something by which we might save ourselves – it is a reminder of ‘difference’ as saboteur of a freedom which depends upon the loss of it. The Islamist, curiously enough, never tires of telling us that – without him – we are indeed destined for oblivion… it’s worth wondering if we aren’t putting the very words into his mouth we don’t want to tell ourselves. A knowledge we can’t bear to know.

    Rather than claiming ‘freedom isn’t free’, shouldn’t we be asking ourselves if ‘free is freedom’? After all, we might find it to be something else when we get there.

    • VSP

      For goodness sake, put it in its place as part of the ‘Lest we forget’ understanding. Freedom has never evolved of its own accord, it is a status that requires constant vigilance and threats of rebellion or war to maintain it. Hebo may seem a little extreme but that is precisely what is needed to counter other political or cultish extremes that do not comply with our democratic and free status. The tradition has been constant since print came about, and especially from enlightenment days. How many of our political elites have listened to our protests. They sit in their unreal ivory tower and make responding to their self centred insults almost impossible.
      Bring their claims to be so moral and right into an open forum, an open discussion and pillory their nonsenses until they creep back under their undemocratic stone and we secure a better principle for politicians etc.. That is how our freedoms have developed to be worth the fight.
      If you want freedom, then make it your most potent weapon.

      • Jason

        We definitely didn’t fight for this and you insult the memory of my brave Grandfather to say he did, your an idiot!

        • VSP

          Hello again Jason Silly immature child. Re read the post
          “.For goodness sake, put it in its place as part of the ‘Lest we forget’ understanding” does not denigrate any brave soldiers who paid dearly. The article asks us to stand firm and’ lest we forget’ means we shall never forget their bravery. But here you are leaping in again with no thought, for I invite the thought that our present day enemy and the conflict are something different. Some live amongst us.
          You are irrationally quick with your notion of an idiot for I lost loved ones in war, both in battle and through air raids. How can I forget, I grew up during the war but to say we have another 1914 or 1939 is not as it is, we need our own spirit for a new situation. I moved on to say that since that last war I have lived it all, and remain very despondent at what has become of our democracy and the freedoms we fought for. Then as a consequence I wish to drive the contemporary elite camp back under their stone. But you do not seem to agree with words that seek a better future for our young. So just who is the idiot pal.
          Do learn to engage your brain before ranting off with your empty head. I guess this is what happens when you listen to our teenagers such as you. About 14-15 are you?
          You really need a smacked bottom from your Grandpa or need to wash your mouth out. Then take some reading lessons, or are you always going to misinterpret what anyone says. ( Yes he is !!)

  • Jeeti Johal-Bhuller

    Alternatively as Jefferson said when rights of the individual are curtailed then in permitting by inaction an entire society condemns itself to the same tyranny. The media knows all, informants on a daily basis write phone email media representatives about the goings on behind the scenes unreported in the mainstream. What you allow without threat of disclosure and punishment as crime against civil liberties and human rights is what befalls you in the end, ultimately. A nation where sentient people have the command and power can never fall. where one civilisation fails in their due care and duty another will rise as a pheonix to lead the civilised world. As an ethnic minority within my own tribe, a woman and lady, as a Mother above all, it is sad indeed to witness the decline.

  • WalterSEllis

    I do not believe it! I agree with every word written by young Delingpole above. What’s happening to me?

  • Terry Field

    England was a delight, with a civilisation worth saving, but now, what is left????

  • Tox66

    Your hypothesis is without doubt true and this is terrifying. All the more so because the Jihadis surely do understand what is needed.

  • The Shambolic Skeptic

    The lads in the tanks and the trenches don’t fight for freedom or for country, they fight for each other. That spirit was as strong as the Marines retook Khe Sanh and Fallujah as it was in the Somme.

    I’d expect no different the next time around.

  • pearlsandoysters

    The patina of civilization requires effort, consideration and maintainace The common values that hold society together are desperately needed for people not to drift apart, once no man is an island.

  • Herman_Duca

    As horrifying as attacks like the ones in Paris are, they are very rare, and usually carried out only a few perpetrators. They do not happen nearly often enough to start panicking about vague notions of moral character. But let’s conjure up the courageous spirit of a dead poet from a bygone age to save us from…whatever it is James is alluding to.

    This is not 1914 or 1939. It’s not even 1066, shield walls and all that. There is no threat to civilisation, well not our one anyway. The vast majority of victims of Islamic terrorism are not in Europe or North America but in the Middle East and Africa. The armies of Boko Harem and ISIS are not at the White Cliffs just yet. And I know people will call be complacent, but come on, let’s be serious, they never will be.

    • mohdanga

      Millions of Muslims continuing to pour into Western Europe and Britain, no go zones a-plenty, Sharia law being demanded, appeasement made to Muslim demands out of fear of ‘racism’ or ‘Islamophobia’, jihadists leaving Europe for ISIS then returning, terrorist plots being foiled daily…yup, nothing to worry about. An insidious creep of Islam into the West aided by spineless politicians and media is the issue. They make up 3% of the the population now and look at the appeasement and accommodations….what will it be like when they are 10%??

      • Herman_Duca

        Millions of Muslims pouring in? Really?

        Have you ever met a Muslim? They’re not all frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics demanding Sharia law, none that I’ve met anyway. Most of the Muslims I’ve worked with over the last few years barely ever mention their religion at all.

        I’m not sure how we solve this problem of young men being radicalised and wanting to fight and kill. I don’t know if anyone does really. Our politicians certainly don’t. But I don’t know what your solution is either. What does it mean in practice to be less spineless, to be less accommodating? I honestly don’t know.

        We are can not appease British Muslims because we are not at war with them. They are not just one mass of people to be punished just because some kill in the name of the same God.

Close