Free Men Celebrating Free Men

Just as on 4 July, many will think a bit of America, or on 1 July, we think of Canada, and how we all honor Remembrance day, For today is the day that Anzac Day is observed, and it’s important to us all.

See on 24 April, at 0415, a green Australian Corp jumped out of longboats to wade ashore at Gallipoli. Braver men never walked the earth or died on the beach. So today is one of those holidays where we take the time to salute very brave men.

This is from a man who uses the screen name Tony from Oz, and I like it so very much.

Why is ANZAC Day so important in Australia?

At 4.15AM on Sunday the 25th April 1915 an untried Corps of Australian soldiers waded ashore from the longboats that had brought them there from the large troopships further out to sea. As they came ashore in the dawn’s half light they were mowed down in droves by the Turkish soldiers who had the high ground.

An original image of one of the landings at ANZAC Cove, this one at 8AM on April 25 1915. (Image Credit – Australian War Memorial Archives)

The place was an insignificant little Cove on the Gallipoli Peninsula, part of Turkey, near a small place known as Ari Burnu, now forever known as ANZAC Cove, a small piece of Australian Sacred Ground on a foreign shore.

The acronym ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

Forces from New Zealand were also part of this campaign, hence the acronym includes New Zealand, who, while part of this campaign, were under the command of their own fellow New Zealanders. This was a combined effort, and this day is also recognised just as reverently in New Zealand.

So, why is this one day so revered by Australians, when the 8 Month campaign that followed was considered in the main overall scheme of the War as a failure, considering that Australia has been part of so many famous victories on fields of battle in War since that time.

The original Badge of the Australian Army, worn on the hats of every Australian soldier. This is known as The Rising Sun Badge.

This was when Australian troops, commanded by Australians fought for the first time for each other as fellow Australians.

Those coming ashore who survived this original murderous onslaught regrouped and started to fight back. This campaign lasted for eight and a half months. In that time, Australian soldiers announced to the World that they were now no longer an untried group of colonials, but a magnificent fighting force in their own right, and one to be reckoned with.

During those 8 Months, nine Australians were awarded The Victoria Cross for valour, the highest award for bravery that there is. (This is the equivalent of the Medal of Honor in the U.S.) In fact, seven of those medals were awarded in just one  three day period. This was at Lone Pine, in August, where the Australians engaged in what was a diversionary feint to disguise the massed landing by the British further up the Coast at Suvla Bay. This Lone Pine engagement was some of the most savage hand to hand combat in close quarters of the whole 8 Month period at Gallipoli.

During that 8 Month period of this Gallipoli Campaign, 8,709 Australian soldiers paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives.

Each year from then forward, Australia has recognised that day of the first landing as the most solemn of days on our Calendar, when we, as a nation, pay reverent homage, not only to those brave men who fought and died at Gallipoli, but to all our Australian Military forces who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in times of all Wars, and for all our current serving men and women in Australia’s military forces.

Dawn Services are held across the Country timed for 4.15AM local time at memorials in the large Capital cities, and across cities and towns all over Australia, literally at thousands of such places. While still early morning at that time, these services are always attended by masses of people all across Australia.

Later that same morning, marches are held in many of these places as well. Those marches in the Capital cities have literally thousands of men and women marching, with only veterans and current serving members from the three armed forces, and some marches may only have a handful of men marching, as numbers now thin out with the passing of years.

While those people march, many thousands line the length of the march and pay solemn tribute to those old men who fought so that we actually could line those streets to salute them, and to also pay silent tribute to those who did not come home.

Keep reading ANZAC Day – 25th April 2017 | PA Pundits – International

I note in passing that Tony is one of the best in writing on energy matters, which is why I read him. But, here’s a belated

Well done, mate.

I’m going to take a liberty here. When I originally published this on 26 April 2017, Tony from Oz had a couple of very germane comments, so I’m going to append them.

TonyfromOz says:

NEO,

thanks for taking my Post, and thanks for your kind words as well

Of interest to Americans especially is one of the links at the bottom of that Post, the one about General Sir John Monash. Pershing took the Americans to that conflict in France, and at one time our Australian, General Monash had literally thousands of U.S. soldiers under his command, one of only very few (if any other occasions at all) when Americans fought under the command of anyone other than a U.S. Commander. In fact the very first time this happened was at The Battle Of Hamel, when Monash asked for 2000 American soldiers (only two Battalions) to be part of the Battle. Pershing grumbled that Americans only fought under U.S. command and so, 1000 of those were withdrawn.The Battle went forward, and in a time when Battles took sometimes weeks, and even months, this one was over in barely 93 Minutes, with a smashing victory, so well planned was it by Monash. From that point forward, Monash was given virtually whatever he wanted, when it came to troops, because, after that decisive victory, even Pershing wanted some of the glow to rub off on him. The date of that Battle itself was specifically why Monash asked for the Americans, one of the first Battles U.S. soldiers took part in.That Battle of Hamel was held early in the morning of the 4th July 1918.

See this link for more: https://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/remembrance-day-and-the-importance-of-australias-general-sir-john-monash/

And again NEO, thanks for taking my Post.

Tony.

He’s right that is likely one of the very first instances of American troops fighting under foreign leadership, ever. And this follow up:

TonyfromOz says:

Monash was an interesting military senior officer, really. He was a Civil Engineer before the War, and he knew the value of intricate planning. He was sick of the way that the English senior officers just kept throwing men at the line in the hope they would get somewhere, and killed everyone for the sake of virtually nothing at all, and just kept doing it.

They gave him Monash one Battle, Hamel, 4th July 1918, and when he sent word back to high command after 93 minutes that it was all over, they were astounded. Monash was a little displeased really, because he planned to have it done in 90 Minutes, and how they all laughed at him when he said that. Now they had to take notice, and they gave him a bigger operation, The Battle of Amiens, which he again intricately planned. He had 170,000 men under his sole command. It started at 4.10AM, and finished just after Lunch on that same day. They took back more than 5 miles of land, captured literally thousands of men, military pieces etc. Ludendorff, the German General said that this was the single worst day of the War for Germany, and right then, he knew the War was lost. Monash’s losses of men, killed and wounded amounted to less than 1%, the lowest of the War, and this was considered the most decisive victory of the War till that time. Right there Monash was given even more control, and each battle was planned to nth degree, and each battle was a decisive victory. In the end Monash had nearly half a million men under his Command,almost 300,000 of them Australians, and included 50,000 Americans also. He took his battles all the way to the Hindenburg Line, covering more than half of France. The Germans gave up on the 2nd of October, so keep in mind, Monash did all this, from Hamel to the border in 12 weeks. He went from Colonel to LtGen (Three Star) in two years. And all the men, well, they just loved him, reckoned they had a better chance with Monash than with anyone else.

Tony.

And then there’s John

It seems very ‘familiar’ to refer to him by his first name; ‘cheeky’, as our English friends would say. Oddly enough, I don’t think he’d mind the familiarity because … well, because he’s John.

The John to whom I refer is John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. You can read about his credentials in the Wikipedia entry on his political career. I was delighted to read the following in the Wiki entry, “On 13 June 2011, Anderson was named an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the Parliament of Australia, particularly through support of rural and regional communities, transport development, and water management initiatives.” Of course, he was. He’s John.

I became aware of John Anderson quite by accident. I was fully immersed in Jordan Peterson at the time, following Peterson’s videos and then watching various television ‘news’ interviews with him. The infamous BBC interview with Cathy Newman was still reverberating in my head when I noticed a YouTube suggestion showing Jordan Peterson and another man. I clicked the video and watched. I was amazed. Here was Jordan Peterson talking with a gentleman (in the dictionary, under the word ‘gentleman’, it says, “See John Anderson”) in a discussion that could have been old friends over a cup of coffee, and yet they had only just met.

That’s the thing about John – I truly believe he never met a man or a woman he didn’t like. Not because he has no sense of discernment, but because he recognizes the human-ness of us all. No ego, no sense of entitlement; a hard working man who has been ‘around the block’, as we say, and who recognizes that for the most part, we’re all just folks. Including him.

Here’s what John never does in his conversations (which is what he calls his interviews): he never raises his voice (unless he’s tickled by something funny being said); he never talks over his guest; he’s never rude; he’s never condescending. These are some heavy ‘street creds’ when you consider his years in government and that he’s a famous person with a substantial following around the world.

What John does in his conversations is listen. Can you imagine? Someone being quiet, respectful, and LISTENING to his guest. He comes prepared to every conversation – he’s read the book, or the Bill, or the article, etc – and so his questions are always articulate, concise, insightful, and engages the guest to fully express their answers. Why has it become so novel to watch a person being civil and considerate? John is both those things – in spades. Even when he has a guest as ‘chatty’ as Bjorn Lomborg.

There’s a gentleness to John, a kindness that’s bone deep and as warm as home. This is a man’s man and no joke but his heart is there for all to see. He’s a deeply committed Christian, a conservative, and an all round right guy.

Here are just a few of the ‘conversations’ that I’ve enjoyed but please – view them all. You will learn, you will think, and will see that everything I’ve said about John is true.

This one is the first conversation with Jordan Peterson, if I remember correctly.

Folks who know me know history isn’t my strong suit but this conversation changed the way I think and that’s partly because John asks the right questions and makes insightful observations.

The very best thing you can do is find little sections of time and spend them with John Anderson and whomever he is having a conversation with. I believe you’ll find it was time very well spent indeed.

Anglo-American Duopoly

This is in large measure a follow on to yesterday’s post, Anglo Saxon Resurgence, although it can stand on its own, they should be taken together.

Fritz Pettyjohn writing in American Thinker notes that for at least 28 years the American people have allowed ourselves to be played for suckers. Few of us minded the self-sacrifice while the Soviet Union’s baleful gaze overlooked Europe, but why now.

Globalization was the path to world peace, according to deep thinkers like the Bushes, the Clintons, and Obama. The welfare of the American worker was sacrificed for this higher cause.

The election of Donald Trump changed all that. The global project was out, and America First was in. The world took notice, quickly.

Have you noticed what happened? Trade deals with South Korea, USMCA, Japan, and even talks with China making some progress, as China realizes that Russia is pretty much an NPC in this world.

This is what happens when America fights its corner. I’d posit that the only reason we haven’t left the middle east completely is that Israel is an ally under siege, and we will stand with them. Other than that, it is pretty irrelevant. Remember when Columbus started out back in 1492, he was looking for a route to China that didn’t go through the middle east. Now, thanks to the US Navy, with a little help from American innovation and railroads it exists.

But the changes aren’t over.

With the election of Boris Johnson in the U.K., the tight circle of America’s closest allies will soon be complete. The upcoming trade deal with the United States is Britain’s best, and only, hope for better economic times. The transition will be painful for some sectors of the British economy. But the Brits have no better alternative. They have a special relationship with us, and we’ll give them the best terms we can, consistent with our own interests. They bring things to the table that no one else can — like a navy with two powerful supercarriers.

Add in Australia and New Zealand, and all the maritime nations of the world are comfortably under the American umbrella. Central and South America are included as well, as junior partners. India is a friendly affiliate, along with most of southeast Asia. The Dutch and the Danes will partner up in due time.

This is hard for the British, and we should not belabor the point. Brandon J. Weichert in American Greatness notes that…

Once the British Empire was no more, London was faced with the prospect of being a shrimp among whales. Caught in the dicey interplay between their American allies and their Soviet rivals, London could only attach itself—begrudgingly—to American power. And as that exchange between the British and American admirals showed, there was great humiliation involved for the British, as they not only endured the loss of their hard-won global empire, but also the rise of their former American colonies.

In the EU’s Totalitarian Vice-Grip

Recognizing the truth that a Britain without its empire would forever be consigned to a second-tier status, London hitched its political wagon to the European Union. British policymakers hoped that their involvement in the EU would give Britain the sort of expanded geopolitical influence that it had long enjoyed during its imperial heyday (without relying too much on their American cousins).

By 2015, it was clear that the theory was not working in practice. London had not enhanced its own power or status by joining the EU. Instead, it had hastened its relative decline by subordinating British national sovereignty to the supranational government in Brussels (and to the real power behind the EU, located in Berlin). […]

During the Cold War, British leaders feared that they would witness their nation go from being the head of a globe-spanning empire to being merely an American vassal state (a sort of reverse colony). That wound to pride was nothing, however, compared to the alternative they embraced. Because, unlike Brussels or Berlin, Washington did not and does not desire to override the sovereignty of Britain or the British people.

In short, they chose wrong, but I think we can all understand. The Monroe Doctrine, the very first American foreign policy statement, back in 1823 came about as we know it because the American government did want to appear “as a cock boat in the wake of the British Man-of-War.” Throughout the 19th century, it was enforced by the Royal Navy. Pride matters.

The creation of an Anglo-American duopoly not only would preserve the balance of international power in America’s favor, but it would save British power from being permanently marginalized.

Already, the Royal Navy is in the midst of a massive revitalization campaign. They’ve built two new aircraft supercarriers. More importantly, they’ve designed these behemoths to be integrated in the U.S. Navy’s fleet of supercarrier battle groups. In fact, Britain’s first supercarrier is leading the charge and securing the newly contested Arctic battleground from the Russians.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration stands ready to enact a new free trade agreement with London that would secure relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom—while ensuring that London’s break with Brussels would be meaningful and real and not at all damaging to Britain.

The EU senses the inherent threat that such an Anglo-American marriage poses to the longevity of its sclerotic superstate. This is why the Eurocrats have refused to negotiate in good faith with the British government over an orderly exit.

Unless I miss my guess, once again the Anglo Saxons, for the third time in a century (roughly), are going to free Europe from German domination, this time without a shot fired.

Sir Walter Raliegh, back at the dawn of the British Empire, only a few years after the original Brexit by Henry VIII, and the modern world it created said it all really:

“Whoever commands the sea, commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself.”

The nineteenth century was mostly peaceful because of the Pax Britannica.

The last half of the twentieth century was mostly peaceful because of the Pax Americana.

The twenty-first century may well be the Anglo American Century, and even more peaceful, as we reset the Westphalian system.

Britain, America, and now Australia

So, the Australians, like the British, and the Americans, confound the polls and disappoint the pollsters and the left (redundancy alert, mostly). Why does this keep happening, and what lessons can we take from its recurrence? David Catron in The Spectator has some ideas.

[I]magine an election in which one party promises to save the planet and the opposing party pledges to save your job. Which is more likely to get your vote? For most people, those who support families and coach T-Ball on weekends, the answer will not require a lot of soul searching. You may have, for various social reasons, told some pollster that the “Save the Earth” party has your support. But it’s a lot easier to focus on the environment if one can count on a steady income. Consequently, in the end, you’ll vote for the “Paycheck Party.”

This shouldn’t require enormous prescience to predict, yet it consistently surprises the pollsters. The latest election in which they managed to miss the blindingly obvious just took place Down Under between the Labor Party and the conservative Liberal-National coalition. Like Brexit and the 2016 presidential election in the United States, it was a whiff for the pollsters. Labor — which ran on combating climate change, clamping down on fossil fuels, and raising taxes — was the universal favorite. Just before the vote, the Washington Post gleefully reported:

Opinion polls and betting markets predict Australia’s Labor Party, under the leadership of 52-year-old former union head Bill Shorten, will handily defeat the Liberal-National party coalition that has governed the country for five-and-a-half tumultuous years.… The Labor Party wants Australia to generate half its electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources by 2030, a huge shift for a nation with the world’s fourth-largest coal reserves and the eighth-biggest natural gas industry.

Well, schadenfreude is fun but I shouldn’t gloat too much, Right up until the results I really though Mittens Romney was going to win. How lucky for us he didn’t, if Mittens had defeated Obama, we’d still be in the doldrums caused by the globalists, instead we have the resurgent vibrant economy that Trump brought with him.

In a country like ours, where voting is voluntary and turnout fluctuates significantly, it’s all too easy to create a polling model that includes inaccurate assumptions. And, for a survey to be statistically valid, it must be based on a random sample. This presents real challenges in a nation whose turnout in presidential elections tends to be about 60 percent of eligible voters. But this shouldn’t present an issue where voting is compulsory. Yet election analyst Kevin Bonham told SBS News that the consistency of Australia’s recent polls is “suspicious”:

It’s like one poll can be three per cent out and that’s what you would sort of expect now and then by random chance. But all the polls being out by that amount in the same direction and getting all the same results is something that absolutely cannot happen by random chance.… It’s absolutely proof of a systematic issue.… If they are doing true random sampling independent of each other, there is no way that they would all get results so close to each other at the same time.

Hilariously, some of the excuses that have been offered are not merely inconsistent with compulsory voting, but suspiciously reminiscent of those made by left-leaning statisticians in the U.S. Some “experts” suggest that the Australian samples contained too many educated people. Sound familiar? As with Brexit and the Trump election, the idea is that “smart” people are over-represented, so naturally they skewed the poll in the “smart” direction. This is what University of Melbourne statistician Adrian Beaumont suggests in The Conversation.

Beaumont claims, without evidence, that educated people are “probably” more likely to respond to surveys. Likewise, he avers that Morrison had a “much better connection to those with a lower degree of educational attainment” than did the leader of the Labor Party. He also fails to provide any objective data to support this assertion. A far more plausible explanation is provided in the Wall Street Journal by Tom Switzer, the Directorof the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney. It involves a species of voter similar to the “shy Trump” supporter:

Shy voters now shape Australian politics. During the past three years, television and social-media outlets created a climate of opinion in which it was politically incorrect to oppose identity politics, high taxes, wealth redistribution and costly climate-mitigation policies. In the privacy of the voting booth, “quiet Australians,” as Mr. Morrison calls them, decided that their interests lay in a low-tax and resource-rich market economy.

I’m very sure that is true, we have seen it in Britain, in America, and now in Australia. If you make the average citizen feel like an oppressed minority in his own country, who exists only to do what his betters tell him to do – well with the people who led the world into freedom, again the British, the American, the Australians, those whom De Gaulle called “The Anglo Saxons” (he had much right, love of freedom is one inheritance that we all have of that foggy, damp, island off the coast of Europe) well, you’ll get a revolt, peacefully at the ballot box, and historically, if that doesn’t work, more direct means will come to the fore.

We are all rather ‘Deplorable’ like that.

And so, Britain, then America, and now Australia, that’s the first round.

The second round starts Thursday when Britain will elect European MPs. I suspect the European Parliament is going to be interesting, because I think the British are going to send a bunch who will be more likely to give an Agincourt Salute than further the ‘European Project’ and I also suspect that quite a few in Europe will once again follow.

Welcome, Australia, to the Counterrevolution!

Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis ætas;
Magnus ab integro sæclorum nascitur ordo.
iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna,
iam nova progenies cælo demittitur alto.

From the  Eclogue of Virgil:

which translates as follows:

Now comes the final era of the Sibyl’s song;
The great order of the ages is born afresh.
And now justice returns, honored rules return;
now a new lineage is sent down from high heaven.

Video Thursday, Anglosphere Edition

Apropos of nothing much else I will say today, this is former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, holder of the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart from his time as a Second Lieutenant in the 10th Mountain Division in the Second World War. Senator Dole was wounded badly by machine gun fire in Italy in April 1945 and now at 95 years old is unable to get out of his wheelchair, but he did, to salute his comrade, and his friend, President George H.W. Bush, in the Capitol Rotunda the other night. President Bush who was a Naval Lieutenant, and an aviator who flew 58 missions against the Japanese, and is a holder of the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal, and a Presidential Unit Citation.

https://www.mrctv.org/embed/535349

Whatever your politics, these men are great Americans, who need to be honored. Indeed it is men like Lieutenants Dole and Bush (and millions more) who earned their generation the title of ‘The Greatest Generation’.

And it also ends the presidents who served in that now distant war, George H.W. Bush, who was a Lieutenant, who enlisted on his 18th birthday will be the last of a line that started with General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953. All good men and true, whatever their politics. We are already missing them.


We damned well don’t do PC here, which you know, and so we will not be told what songs to listen to. From Neptune’s Daughter the original version of Baby, It’s Cold Out There. Enjoy

Then there is the UN Migrant Compact. The US and Australia, having a decent respect for their citizens have said that they will not sign it. The Canadian and British governments, who do not, say they will. Not much surprise, both are globalists nonentities, who apparently are merely in politics for themselves. In truth, my British patriot friends use much, much stronger language. I agree with them.

Sometimes we forget, the Canadians are some of the best and bravest people on earth. But they do elect the most detestable people sometimes.


Mark Levin, Heather MacDonald, do I really need to say more?

Well, I try to remember that the world has been going to hell in a handcart since the year 00, sometimes it doesn’t help much.

Aussie breasts spoil Deutsche fest

You guys ready for something a bit lighter? Yeah me too. What we talk about is important, but doom and gloom make Neo a dull boy. It seems that our Aussie cousins (the female ones) don’t wear the German national costume to some Germans’ satisfaction. From The Spectator (Australia).

Franz Thalhammer, 70, a former chairman of Munich’s Georgenstoana Baierbrunn folk group, called out Australian and Italian tourists specifically for sexualizing the uniform.

“A dirndl is something nice, it can make almost anyone pretty. But some of the dresses you see these days are crazy,” he said, Daily Mail reports. “You go in a tent and it’s full of paralytic Australians and Italians and they’ve forked out €250 ($290) for a complete Bavarian outfit and think they’re Bavarians. It’s as if I’d walk around half-naked and say I’m Australian.”

Now, now! Herr Thalhammer, that’s some terrible national stereotyping. Plus, no one wants to see a 70-year old Bavarian folk musician half-naked.

The truth of the matter is that no one can quarantine their culture and protect it from being borrowed, blended, kitsched and misused. And no one should, whether that culture is Indian or German, African or Chinese.

But Oktoberfest is more fun than most, and who can blame the Aussies. In fact, seems like a good reason to go. Beer and half-naked beautiful women, what’s not to like, and even better, they speak English. And the beer is better than that stuff that comes in oil cans. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: