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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Charlie

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

An EARTH DAY SPECIAL from Churchill's Parrot blog

Granted Karl Marx was a bitter, self-loathing, misanthrope, half-crazed with envy and his own depraved world view, but at least he had integrity.  When advocating the implementation of his beloved communism, for instance, he made no attempt to sugar coat what would be required:

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property…”

While not quite promising the mass imprisonment, terror, and murder this process would necessitate, one can pretty much surmise as much from this and other such statements in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. 

Today’s communists, however, are far more image savvy, realizing that having brought about the slaughter and ruin of millions upon millions of innocent human beings, collectivist ideologies can prove a tough sell.  So a bit of Madison Avenue re-packaging has been done.

The sinister moniker of “communism” and the slightly less ominous “socialism” have been replaced with the sunny, “Progressivism.” Instead of wild-eyed ravings about the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and oppressive class antagonisms, they opt for more lyrical terms such as “social justice” and “multiculturalism.”  Instead of Marx’ chilling but unmistakably clear rhetoric: “The theory of the communist can be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property”, Progressive’s prefer less confrontational terminology like “sustainable global community” and “promote the equitable distribution of wealth within and among nations.”  And instead of presenting their collectivist demands to the world via a bellicose “Manifesto”, the Progressives are soft peddling theirs surreptitiously with the aid of the United Nations by means of a poetic and enchanting “Earth Charter.”

A masterpiece of abstruse, feel-good, New Age, leftist pappery, the seemingly innocuous Earth Charter is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or more accurately a Bear in dove’s feathers. In short, the Earth Charter is nothing less than a call for the establishment of a supranational governing authority to dictate the production and distribution of wealth according to ill-defined and arbitrary “principles of sustainability.”  Indeed, at its crescendo, the charter declares:

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Beyond this obedience, the nations of the world (but mostly the United States) are also to disarm themselves to the satisfaction of these same arbitrary principles:
• Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.
• Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
• Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
• Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.

Anyone possessing the slightest knowledge of human liberty, the brutal state-sponsored assaults upon it throughout the twentieth century, and the threats it faces in the twenty-first ought be chilled to the bone by such  statements. Yet, despite the best efforts of Conservative watchdogs and pundits (see excellent analyses here, here, here, and here) the Earth Charter continues to grow in both influence and endorsement.  Numerous groups and organizations, from The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNESCO;  to the U.S Conference of Mayors; to sweet little nuns across North America have thrown their hats and habits into the ring in support of this insidious fraud. 

This is due largely to the standard pathologies of contemporary society: “Go-Green” bandwagonism, mindless pacifism, lack of serious consideration of what implementation of the Earth Charter would actually require, and – of course – ignorance of history.  But more than all this, the Earth Charter’s advance is due primarily to the shrewd advocacy and network building of its weighty founders.   

The Earth Charter is the brainchild (i.e. Frankenstein) of he-of-the-unfortunate-birthmark: former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. He is not alone.  Joining Gorby in creating and infusing this doctrine is Canadian billionaire socialist Maurice Strong , and American socialist billionaire Steven Rockefeller of the inimitable Rockefeller Brothers Fund, (Mr. Rockefeller also serves on the Board of billionaire socialist, George Soros’, the Soros Economic Development Fund. It is hard to imagine Mr. Soros does not have his slimy hands all over this initiative as well.)

But unfortunate bed fellows and ominous warnings from wingnut neo-con reactionaries such as ourselves are insufficient to counter the somnambulistic effects of the Earth Charter’s Phil Collins-meets -Walt Disney language. Very well then. We encourage one and all to read the essays of the Earth Charter’s founders and supporters themselves, for no more damning evidence can be found that this movement is a very real threat to human dignity, liberty, and well-being. (Well actually it can.  But this is a good place to start.)

For our own part, we provide the following analysis, which brings us back to our friend Karl Marx.

Echoes of Marx

In the Marxist tradition, we have taken it upon ourselves to confiscate the intellectual property of the Earth Charter and reorganize it as we bloody well please; in this case according to Marx’s "Ten Measures" by which the communists will “wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie” and “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.”  We believe, even a brief perusal of the following will make clear the chilling degree to which the Earth Charter “principles” resonate with Marx’s vision and his prescription for implementing it. .  
 
MARX MEASURE #1: ABOLITION OF PROPERTY IN LAND AND APPLICATION OF ALL RENTS OF LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.
 
Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

• Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

• The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable. 

• Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.  We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

• Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

• Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

• Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.

• Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

• Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

• Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

• Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm

• This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility.

• we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals

• Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

• We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

• An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

• Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. 

• Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

• Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

• Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

• Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision.

MARX MEASURE #4: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

• Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

• Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

• To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

• a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

• Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

• Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

• Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

• Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

• Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

• Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

• Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

• Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

• Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

• Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.

• Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

• Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.

• Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

• Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.

• Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.

• This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

• This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play.

• In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

MARX MEASURE #5: CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE BANKS OF THE STATE, BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITAL AND AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

• Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

• Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

• Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards

• Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.

• Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

• To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

• The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

• The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

• The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life.

• Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

• We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

• To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities.

• We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

• we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

• Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

• Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

• Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

• Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

• Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.

• Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

• Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

• Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.

• Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

• We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community.

• Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities.

• Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

• Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

• Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

• Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

• Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

• Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.

• Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.

• Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.

• Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.

• Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

• Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

• Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.

• Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.

• Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.

• Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.

• Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.

• We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

MARX MEASURE #7: EXTENSION OF FACTORIES AND INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION OWNED BY THE STATE; THE BRINGING INTO CULTIVATION OF WASTE LANDS, AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SOIL GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON PLAN.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

(See entire Earth Charter!)

• Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.

• Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

• Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

• We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community.

• To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

• We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment.

• Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

• Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

• Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations

• Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

• Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

• Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.

• Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

• Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

• Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

• Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

• Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

• To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities.

• Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.

• Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.

• Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

• Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

• Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

• Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

• Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.

• As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.

MARX MEASURE #8: EQUAL OBLIGATION OF ALL TO WORK. ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, ESPECIALLY FOR AGRICULTURE.

• Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

• Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

• Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

• Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.

• Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.

• Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

• Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.

• Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

• We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

• The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air.

• The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

• The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

• To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

• We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

• Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

• Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

• Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

• Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

• Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.

• Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.

• Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

• Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

• Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

• Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

• To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

• The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

• Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.

MARX MEASURE #10: FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. ABOLITION OF CHILDREN'S FACTORY LABOR IN ITS PRESENT FORM. COMBINATION OF EDUCATION WITH INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, ETC.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

• Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

• Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

• Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.

• The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

________
In conclusion, we call to your attention one particular Earth Charter “principle” - under Section II. Ecological Integrity – which, for its deliberate lack of specificity, we find especially distressing:

Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

Given the tone and rhetoric of so many of this warmed-over manifesto’s chief advocates, is it preposterous to question whether or not this dictum might be applied to human organisms?  In the eyes of these elitists, were the Europeans, after all, not a “harmful non-native organism” to the native Americans and to the Australian Aborigines? Is human population itself not a “non-native organism” in so many corners of the Earth to which it ventures and seeks to live?

Such questions will, of course, be laughed off as rabid paranoia. That is until such time as no one is laughing at all. 

Cheers,

Charlie
www.churchillsparrot.com

From Churchill’s Parrot blog. 

Hilarious and nauseating at once is mankind’s chronic inability to retain wisdom acquired at the cost of much blood, toil, tears, and sweat. This tragicomedy was played out for us in no uncertain terms upon our recent Stateside pilgrimage to one of the more forgotten shrines to the cause of Liberty: the Alamo.

Internationally acclaimed as our mastery of history is, we must admit our general ignorance heretofore of this brief but profound chapter in the American story. Upon being made aware, however, we were somewhat stunned (as so often we are) at the parrallels between then and now, and the lessons afforded those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

For in the eternal battle between tyranny and liberty; collectivism and individualism; centralism and federalism, our current status is not unlike that of Travis, Bowie, Crockett and the 182 other men who gave their lives at the Alamo fighting the forces of despotism. As the United Nations seeks to centralize global authority and nullify national sovereignty through its “Earth Charter”, as the European Union increasingly overrides the will of the electorate, as the Islamists openly declare their intent to enforce a global Caliphate, those of us who yet hold dear the principles of limited government, national sovereignty, individual liberty, and free enterprise find ourselves surrounded and quite possibly outnumbered.

Naturally today’s popular consensus will regard such sentiments as laughable. Indeed the story of the Alamo itself has been reduced by many to that of an embarrassing display of drunken male bravado in the face of overwhelming and – they would suggest - legitimate authority. Others claim it was a battle over slavery, with Mexican authorities on the side of right, for they had abolished slavery in 1829, well before their Anglo-European cousins to the north. (Nevermnind that the Mexican government allowed slavery once again six years later, just prior to the battle of the Alamo.) No doubt alcohol, bravado, slavery, even ethnic tensions played their roles in the blood bath of the Alamo and subsequent Texas Revolution, but clearly these issues existed on both sides of the firing line. The core drama at play here, as always, was that of tyranny versus Liberty.

Allow us to illustrate by briefly revisiting a few key aspects of this once well known tale.

In 1808 Emperor Napoleon of France put his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne. For most, nothing more really needs to be said. Nonetheless we shall continue. Shockingly, this appointment made a mess of things in Spain, ergo ties between Spain and her American colonies eroded, and a war for Mexican independence erupted in 1810. The rebels eventually emerged victorious with Spain recognizing Mexican independence in 1821.

As is the case with most such revolutions, however, (except – thank The Lord and George Washington - the American revolution) the victorious revolutionaries were quickly perverted by the power they had just won. Inaugurating the 187 year (and counting) fiasco that is the Mexican “government”, General Agustin de Iturbide – one of the leaders of the revolution – was made Emperor of the new “Mexican Empire.” At this time, mind you, this empire was not an insignificant piece of real estate, comprised of more than 5,000,000 kilometers square stretching from the present day Oregon /California border to Panama.

What it boasted in territory, however, the Mexican empire lacked in substance. After just ten months of arrogant disregard for his new nation’s constitution, Iturbide decided to dissolve the government, prompting rebellion. He then reinstated it, prompting further rebellion. He then submitted his abdication, prompting further rebellion. He then fled the country, prompting his being declared a traitor. He then returned to Mexico, prompting his immediate execution at the hands of local officials.

Somehow, however, from the midst of this swirling vortex of ineptitude, a constitution establishing a representative federal republic of the people came into being: the 1824 Constitution of Mexico. It was this constitution and its promise of freedom, deliberately styled after the Constitution of the United States of America, which inspired multitudes of American and European settlers to emigrate to the the “Mexican Republic.”

This experiment in self-government and free-enterprise yielded the usual results: thriving communities of increasing strength and prosperity. Settlers came in droves, bringing with them their customs and beliefs, not all of which were looked upon favorably by the Mexican officials. Ostensibly their objections were over the settlers’ tendency to ignore laws regarding compulsory Roman Catholicism and the abolition of slavery. We suspect, however, a more fundamental impulse was at play – envy. Consider the words of French political writer and statesman, Alexis De Tocqueville, who was composing his classic Democracy in America at this very point in history:

“The territory of the Union (The United States of America) presents a boundless field to human activitiy, and inexhaustible materials for labor. The passion for wealth takes the place of ambition, and the heat of faction is mitigated by a consciousness of prosperity.

But in what portion of the globe shall we find more fertile plains, mightier rivers, or more unexplored and inexhaustible riches than in South America? Yet South America has been unable to maintain democratic institutions. If the welfare of nations depended on their being placed in a remote position, with an unbounded space of habitable territory before them, the Spaniards of South America would have no reason to complain of their fate. And although they might enjoy less prosperity than the inhabitants of the United States, their lot might still be such as to excite the envy of some nations in Europe. There are no nations upon the face of the earth, however, more miserable than those of South America.”

“Other inhabitants of America have the same physical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without their laws and their customs; and these people are miserable. The laws and customs of the Anglo-Americans are therefore that special and predominant cause of their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.”

It was those laws and customs, and the prosperity they wrought, that incurred the wrath of the Mexican authorities, much as the success of the Jewish Palestinians enraged the Arab Palestinians in the 1920s (and does to this day.) Thus, in 1834, President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (the self-styled Napoleon of the West) rescinded the 1824 Constitution, dissolved the Mexican federation of free and sovereign states, and set about centralizing all power under his control in Mexico City.

Lo and behold, the Liberty Lovers – American, European, Mexican et al – who had chosen to live in Mexico because of Her freedom, rebelled when that freedom was taken away.

This is why 185 men held their ground at the Alamo, even when it became obvious that doing so meant certain death. Whether seeking the restoration of the 1824 Constitution, or out and out independence for a “Republic of Texas”, they fought to defy tyranny personified in Santa Anna, to slow if not stop his advance across Mexican Texas, and to appeal to the world on behalf of Liberty. This conviction was articulated clearly and profoundly by then Commander of the Alamo, Lieutenant Colonel Willam Barret Travis, in his letter to “The People of Texas and All Americans in the World”:

‘Fellow citizens & compatriots;

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country.

VICTORY OR DEATH.

William Barret Travis”

Travis and his men held to this pledge. Unable to achieve victory, they fought to the death. Their courage, however, galvanized Texan forces who just 46 days later won independence for Texas under General Sam Houston at the Battle of San Jacinto; their famous battle cry, “Remember the Alamo!”

Santa Anna was captured the next day. At one point during his confinement, he made a statement about his motives which revealed not only his own mindset, but which represents the mindset of “Centralists” immemorial in terms of their esteem for the freedom of man:

“It is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but very soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one.”

Is this rationale for despotism, dripping as it is in arrogance and unconscious contempt for the unalienable rights of man, not echoed in the manifestos and statements of votaries of the State ever since? Do we not hear it, for example, in the United Nation’s so-called “Earth Charter?”

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Did we not see it in Britain’s House of Commons’ betrayal of the people with their refusal to put the European Union Treaty to a referendum?

Does not the European Union itself increasingly see fit to ride roughshod over the rights and freedoms of the people it presumes to govern?

Are the statements of the Islamists not clearly in agreement that “despotism is the proper government,” a despotism of sharia law for all the world?

When Santa Anna’s forces first surrounded the Alamo, they raised the flag of no quarter and demanded immediate surrender. Travis and his men responded with a cannon blast. Today, through the gentle guises of environmentalism, multiculturalism, tolerance, international cooperation, community cohesion, and social justice that same demand is being made increasingly of Liberty Lovers worldwide. What shall our response be?

To the world we say: Herinner Alamo! Erinnern Sie sich an den Alamo! Souvenez-vous de l’Alamo! Remember the Alamo!

Cheers,

Charlie
www.churchillsparrot.com

(This is a re-post of our annual detailed analysis of WHY WE BLOODY WELL INVADED IRAQ for forgetful conservatives and any muddle headed lefties who may be interested in educating themselves.)

The identity crises inflicting the American Right at present is providing quite the circus: McCain contorting himself to appear Conservative; pundits pushing a big red nose and smiley face makeover to “redefine” Conservativism; others advocating martyrdom and votes for the Trojan Nag of Stalinism Herself; and GOP loyalists turning on the very individuals who made “Conservativism” a household word. 

Painful though it may be, however, this is all quite healthy for the Shining City Upon a Hill, so long as the true source of this pain is accurately identified and addressed. It is not John McCain, GOP loyalists, out-moded Conservativism, Rush, or even Bushie. The source of this pain is your bloody two party system!

We have long pondered what it would take for you Americans to evolve beyond the simplistic understanding of yourselves as merely Republican or Democrat. Could it be the one-two punch of the 2006 and now 2008 elections is just the thing? We can only hope, for the fate of the world is resting upon it.   

What is called for is a more scrupulous reconnoitering of your political landscape. Doing so would reveal – we believe – yours is not a two party but a three party electorate falling rather cleanly between the lines of Left, Center, and Right.  

Owing to the tectonic shift to the left over the course of the 20^th century, what was once known as the Democratic Party no longer exists. In fact, as we have indicated previously, it died decades ago. What you have now, particularly in candidates Clinton and Obama advocating their collectivists policies and government control over virtually everything, are Socialists. In order to remove confusion and sentimentality clouding the minds of an already befuddled and easily hoodwinked public, they ought be formally dubbed so. 

This would then allow the beleaguered Republican Party to relax into its actual role as a Centrist party without having to justify itself to its increasingly hostile members of a more Conservative bent. 

And as for those Conservatives, what are you waiting for? You have the movement. You have the think tanks. You have the spokespersons. What you don’t have is a formal party nor candidates to represent it. The time is now. Granted it is too late for the present presidential contest; but 2010, 2012, 2014 will be here before you can say Barry Goldwater. It is high time you stop berating the poor Republicans who clearly just want to be everyone’s buddy and take matters into your own hands!  

Applying this model then to the current race reveals how ill-served the American electorate is by the two-party rut it has too long been in. Socialism or Centrism, these are your choices. For a population that screams bloody murder if it has fewer than 200 varieties of cereal, toothpaste, bicycles, or lingerie from which to choose you seem oddly complacent in this regard. Clarification and rearrangement of the sort we recommend here – Socialist Party, Republican Party, Conservative Party - just might have the effect of enhancing America’s understanding of her political self and reigniting substantive debate about foundational philosophies of government. Or not.  

As one distinctly interested in national defense of the United States and her interests (for we know well that U.S. national security is synonymous with global security) we see no choice but to cast our wildly sought after endorsement to Mr. McCain. We do so under duress, mind you, and with the caveat that going forward, American Conservatives spend a little less time in think tanks and studios, and a little more time on the campaign trail representing themselves and the millions of Americans who believe that limited government, strong national defense, free enterprise, individual liberty, and traditional values are not only the Foundation of, but the future for the Great Republic.   

Cheers,

UK's last 1,000 soldiers rushed out to Balkans

Not that you haven’t been extremely helpful so far.

Cheers,

Charlie

From Churchill's Parrot blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Charlie

www.churchillsparrot.com

"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." -- Sir Winston Churchill

That momentous meeting between Sir Winston and his Maker occurred 43 years ago today as the world relinquished and Heaven reclaimed the mighty soul of Sir Winston Churchill. Never one to allow mere mortality to get in the way of a grand entrance, Sir Winston had of course prepared for the occasion in his inimitable fashion, with a plan he dubbed, “Operation Hopenot.”

“I want lots of soldiers and bands,” he had instructed his funeral administrators, lead among whom was no less than the Queen herself. He had his soldiers and bands, and then some, in an affair of pageantry, pomp, ceremony, and tradition scarcely paralleled before or since. (We strongly recommend your reading this exquisite accounting of the event from the 5 February, 1965 issue of TIME magazine; a once factual and well-written publication.)

Times have changed since Sir Winston’s passing. One is tempted to expound on the devolution of Western culture that began seemingly minutes after his demise. How buried with him, it seems, was also the reverence we once knew for honor, nobility, duty, courage, chivalry, and bold individualism; virtually all of that replaced now with sensationalism, socialism, entitlement mentality, and the cult of perpetual puberty. One could expound on that, (and we regularly do!), but not now.

We shall instead reserve this space for some words from our dear friend General Dwight D. Eisenhower who eulogized Sir Winston at his grand funeral. The General saw, as do so many of us, how unique and significant a gift to the world was the presence of Sir Winston Churchill, a presence which death could diminish only slightly.

“To those men Winston Churchill was Britain,” explained Ike, referring to British and America soldiers during World War II. “He was the embodiment of British defiance to threat, her courage in adversity, her calmness in danger, her moderation in success.”

Later Ike spoke of the friendship, both personal and national, between Sir Winston and he; Britain and America.

“The war ended, our friendship flowered in the later and more subtle tests imposed by international politics. Then, each of us, holding high official posts in his own nation, strove together so to concert the strength of our two peoples that liberty might be preserved among men and the security of the free world wholly sustained.”

Finally, General Eisenhower concluded his remarks with an eloquence few of us knew he possessed and which moves us still into near inconsolable blubbering.

“At this moment, as our hearts stand at attention, we say our affectionate, though sad, goodbye to the leader to whom the entire body of free men owes so much.

In the coming years, many in countless words will strive to interpret the motives, describe the accomplishments, and extol the virtues of Winston Churchill—soldier, statesman, and citizen that two great countries were proud to claim as their own. Among all the things so written or spoken, there will ring out through all the centuries one incontestable refrain: Here was a champion of freedom.

May God grant that we—and the generations who will remember him—heed the lessons he taught us: in his deeds, in his words, in his life.

May we carry on his work until no nation lies in captivity; no man is denied opportunity for fulfillment.

And now, to you Sir Winston—my old friend—farewell!”

Indeed, my dear General. Indeed!

Cheers,

Charlie
www.churchillsparrot.com

From Churchill's Parrot blog

In times of national peril, Sir Winston Churchill often conjured references from Great Britain’s prodigious literary heritage to stir the patriotic passions of the British people and rally them to defend their homeland and all it stood for.

Modern Britons, however, are much too cosmopolitan and enlightened to be moved by the hackneyed melodrama of Shakespeare, Dickens, and Scott. They require literary stimuli of a far more sophisticated and compelling nature.  Therefore, in an effort to rouse and rally Britons to get up off their duffs and confront the national peril at present – Islamic Usurpation of all things British in Britain – allow us to reference a more contemporary jewel of Brit Lit: Harry Potter.

We are unaware of the politics of J.K. Rowling, authoress of the Harry Potter book series. Nonetheless, in the most recent Potter film based upon her book, The Order of the Phoenix, she provides a near perfect allegory for the slow suicide which Britain is currently in the process of committing.  In the story, Harry, our young wizard hero, finds his beloved school of magic taken over by a corrupt government entity, The Ministry of Magic. The Ministry’s first order of business is to gut the school’s Defense against the Dark Arts program wherein it had prepared students to defend themselves against the very real evils they may well encounter in their future magical exploits. Accompanying this effort is the Ministry’s campaign to discredit and silence Harry and all others who have personally fought those very real evils and who seek to warn their contemporaries of the gathering storm. In this way the Ministry is serving to clear the path for the evil overlord of the dark forces so that he might re-enter the wizarding world at the time of his choosing and take full control with nary a peep of resistance.

That is fiction.  Here is reality. British educators are dutifully removing references to Sir Winston Churchill, Adolph Hitler, and the Holocaust from their curricula.  The British government seeks to eradicate terms such as "war on terror" and "Islamic extremism" and “London is a battlefield” from political discourse.  And The Ministry of Justice is busily hounding those few brave souls seeking - at their own risk -  to warn of the gathering storm. One such brave soul on our radar screen (and the radar screen’s of an ever-increasing many) is a young blogger named Paul Ray, otherwise known as Lionheart.

“Britain is burning, Britain is burning, and America is next,” declared Lionheart in a recent interview on Political Vindication Radio. “My government is in fear. My people are in fear of Muslims. That’s no way for us to be living.  That’s not how I’m going to live anyway. I’d rather die who I am as a person standing up for what’s right rather than bow down and be a weak pathetic little coward.”  Such earnest passion is reminiscent of the melodrama mentioned earlier, and thus proves irritating to the modern sensibilities of contemporary British authorities. In fact, for statements such as these, Paul Ray – Lionheart – is to be arrested by the British government. 

And yet he roars on.

“In the north of England, you had twelve year old little girls being targeted by gangs,” Lionheart explains. “You’ve got shopping centers with Muslim security guards and men spotting the little children.  Then the runners who go in and ply the little children with money and cigarettes and whatever.  And then you’ve got taxi drivers that take them away.  And then they ply them with drugs and then they start trafficking them amongst their Muslim friends.  People have known about all this for a while but the actual exposure’s only come out recently because the government wanted to keep it quiet.  The police didn’t want to do anything about it for fear of ‘breaching community cohesion.’  So our young children are being forced to endure this degradation, this depravity.”

Because of cases such as these, and many others, most of which are happening in and around his hometown of Luton, England, Lionheart is – to put it mildly - very angry.  His blog has been a means of venting his rage and making the public aware of the gathering storm. 

“We’re not calling people to go marching in the streets killing people,” explained Lionheart. “All we’re doing is saying to people, look wake up, you know. Wake up!  Telling our neighbors, telling our friends, wake up.  Look at what’s surrounding us.  And the internet is that battle line.  That is our war front at this moment in time. Who knows when all that’s going to change?”

Well if the British Ministry of Justice has its way, it will change very soon. 

“If you look at my blog, I haven’t said come on let’s kill these people. All I’ve done is written the truth.  Now they’re trying to silence me.”  

Now that the word is out however, across the blogosphere and across Blog Talk Radio, silencing Mr. Ray’s lion heart may prove more difficult than the Ministry had originally hoped.

Speaking on behalf of “Keyboard Warriors” the world over, Political Vindication host, Shane Borgess, assured Lionheart, “You’ve got a lot of people that are dedicated to the battle you’re fighting. It doesn’t matter that we’re on different continents my friend.” (Not surprising that our American friends are drawn to Mr. Ray’s righteous defiance.)

“People can be complacent now about what’s happening,” continued Lionheart. “But you’ve only got to look at the facts now to think ‘what’s it going to be like in twenty years or thirty years for my children, my grand children?  What are they going to face if we don’t do something now?’  In America you’ve got thirty or forty years to wait.  In Great Britain, it’s happening on the ground now.  Our communities are being overrun.” 

For now, Mr. Ray is taking refuge in America; perhaps the first of many Britons soon to do so. When a caller during the program posited the question, “Where do you think the final stand is going to be,” host Borgess proudly chimed in, “It’ll be America again, baby!”

At this juncture, it appears that will quite likely be the case. But what of Britain? Has she truly abdicated her sovereignty to the European Union, her soul to Islam, and her defense to the United States?  For what reason?  Fear? Apathy? Cultural self-hatred?  Wither the isle of Blackstone, of Burke, of Churchill who, when staring into the maw of Nazi dominion spat:

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

Is Lionheart all that remains of this?  We hold fast to the belief that this is not the case.  We hold fast to the belief that righteous British patriotic passions merely lay dormant at present, lulled to sleep by the lullaby of popular culture. Would that we could convince that culture to join Lionheart in crying, “Wake up!  Look at what’s surrounding us.” 

Which brings us back to Miss Rowling’s Harry Potter. We realize Miss Rowling has retired the series, but one last book/film combo may just be the ticket.  Our recommended title:“Harry Potter and the Sword of the Caliphate.” With the full force of the Potter juggernaut behind it, this message would reach billions worldwide and might even stoke the passion for freedom yet smoldering in the hearts of Britons and liberty lovers around the globe. (Note to Miss Rowling: For a small portion of the proceeds, I am happy to offer my services in composing the original manuscript.)

Until such time (we advise not holding your breath), it remains for we bloggers to sound the warning bells. 

“The battle takes many fronts now,” Lionheart explained. “We’re living in the 21^st century.  The computer, the Internet is a medium and it’s a forum to educate people to the truth that surrounds them.” 

Let us continue to do so my fellow bloggers.  And let us fight any and all ideologies and institutions that would silence our efforts to honor Sir Winston’s clarion call:  

"We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

 Cheers,

Charlie

www.churchillsparrot.com

P.S. We highly recommend you listen to the entirety of Mr. Ray’s interview on Political Vindication radio from January 17, 2008.

Also on The Gathering Storm radio program from January 18, 2008

Mr. Ray’s blog, of course - Lionheart - also a must visit at  www.lionheartuk.blogspot.com

From Churchill’s Parrot blog

At this junction of the American presidential horserace, we are compelled to reexamine the leading candidate’s positions regarding the gathering storm in Iran; whether you see it as such or not, the most important issue of this era. (Take it from one who’s been through all this before.)

For Ron Paul and the Democrats, the task is simple: it’s all Bush’s fault.

Examination of Republican positions, however, requires slightly more engagement of the intellect.  Fortunately, our friends at The Israel Project have compiled key statements of all candidates for our perusal.  Here I shall re-post those of the Iowa top “three”: Messer’s Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson/McCain. I shall then provide my invaluable commentary for further elucidation.   

Iowa’s Choice #1 - Mr. Huckabee:

From Foreign Affairs magazine (Jan./Feb. 2008 edition)

“Whereas there can be no rational dealings with al Qaeda, Iran is a nation-state seeking regional clout and playing the game of power politics we understand and can skillfully pursue. We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran.” 

What on its face appears reasonable is, upon further analysis, suicidal bolderdash. The Twentieth Century (namely World War 1, World War 2, the Cold War, The Gulf War, and throw in the September 11 attacks for good measure) was nothing less than a 100 year lesson on the disastrous ineffectuality of the concept of “containment.”

To his credit, Mr. Huckabee does not go so far as to recommend withdrawing military action from the table in attempts to persuade Iran to relinquish its nuclear ambitions.  But we have heard language such as the following before, and it has ended – quite often – in disaster:

“When one stops talking to a parent or a friend, differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move forward. The same is true for countries. The reestablishment of diplomatic ties will not occur automatically or without the Iranians' making concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship.”

We hope that either Mr. Huckabee or New Hampshire, come to their senses.

Iowa’s Choice #2 – Mr. Romney:

From his statement provided to The Israel Project (June 2007)

“To aggressively combat Iran's nuclear ambitions and exploit the regime's vulnerabilities, I have outlined a five-pronged strategy:

First, we should tighten economic sanctions. Denying Iran access to the international banking system is crucial. The U.S. and Europe should ensure that Iran finds it very difficult to obtain credit and make purchases in foreign currencies. In addition, I have called for strategic divestment among state pension funds from companies that support the Iranian regime's dangerous actions.

Second, we should isolate Iran diplomatically. Of course, we keep communication channels open. Yet, we should work to unite our allies against Iran’s actions and America should take no actions that legitimize Iran's defiance of the world. As part of this effort, Iran's President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the terms of the Genocide Convention for incitement to genocide. As Governor, when former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami was invited to speak at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. It is wrong to welcome a person with open arms who has preached the destruction of Israel, developed nuclear technology, jailed dissident students in his country and has praised Hezbollah.

Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states should support Iraq's government; turn down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict; stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and tell the Palestinians to drop their terror campaign and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Fourth, we must make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option must remain on the table. The regime should know that if nuclear material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.

Fifth, our strategy must be integrated into a broader approach to the Muslim world. We must work with moderate Muslim communities and leaders to build a lasting Partnership for Prosperity and Progress - a global effort which would support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity and Progress should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. But we can and should support this effort.”

To the above we say verily, Amen.  But the spud boy  hair has got to go!  

Iowa’s Choice #3a -  Mr. Thompson:

From his commentary after speech given at Policy Exchange (June 2007)

“Obviously there are basically three choices that we have: Sanctions, regime change, or military option or fourth I suppose if you consider doing nothing… I think that we made some progress on sanctions but not nearly enough… but Iran is very vulnerable, I think, in many different ways… and some of these problems may work in our favor especially if we ratcheted the sanctions, certainly a blockade could also be an option… We are all in this together, the forces of civilization should be aligned against the forces of annihilation in this world.”

Bit light on detail, but the spirit is dead on. (After eight years of Bushie, you should all be used to this.)  Mr. Thompson was also perhaps the most outspoken about the ridiculous NIE report of late.

From his statement issued Dec. 6, 2006

“The accuracy of the latest NIE on Iran should be received with a good deal of skepticism.  It's awfully convenient for a lot of people: the administration gets to say its policies worked; the Democrats get to claim we should have eased up on Iran a long time ago; and Russia and China can claim sanctions on Iran are not necessary. Who benefits from all this? Iran.”

Score another point for home-spun, backwoods, American hillbilly insight!

Iowa’s #3b - Mr. McCain:

From his address to Christians United for Israel (July 18, 2007)

 “And every option must remain on the table. Military action isn't our preference. It remains, as it always must, the last option. We have some way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures. But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that, my friends, is a nuclear armed Iran. The regime must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.”

We would submit that not EVERY option remain on the table (i.e. Mr. Thompson’s observation about the Left’s proposed policy of doing nothing.) However, Mr. McCain demonstrates some wisdom here, as he does in the following: 

From his FOX news appearance (Dec. 9, 2007)

“The most over-rated aspect of our dialogue about international relations is direct face-to-face talks. BlackBerries work. Emissaries work. There's many thousands of ways to communicate. The question is are you going to have direct talks, and does that enhance the prestige of the president of Iran, who has said all these things about us, and has announced his country's continued distinction to the extinction of the state of Israel, or does it reach a successful conclusion? That's the question you have to ask when you talk about "face-to-face talks. "I'd remind you that when we stopped the bombing in Vietnam, we were going to talk in Paris. It took 2.5 years because of the shape of the table. Bombing started of Hanoi. And guess what? Negotiations started again.”

Here, here! I’ll take a ride on the Straight Talk Express for that. 

There are, of course, numerous issues you all must take into account in selecting your candidate. We hope that our profile here has provided further clarity on what we believe to be the most pressing of all. 

American conservatives - choose wisely.  In terms of global security and defense of Western Civilization, England has abdicated virtually all responsibility. Your liberal counterparts are foolish children at best.  More than perhaps ever before, the fate of the free world rests upon your decision.  Do not make it lightly. 

Cheers,

Charlie  

www.churchillsparrot.com