Naught for England’s Comfort

Jess, the very first time she wrote here, wrote this:

“And this is the word of Mary,
The word of the world’s desire
`No more of comfort shall ye get,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.’ 

Now it proves the flint against which the iron of resolve is sharpened, and the Saxons rally and they win, even though all had seemed lost. Alfred was not the most charismatic or dramatic of leaders, but he won, and this is why:

And this was the might of Alfred,
At the ending of the way;
That of such smiters, wise or wild,
He was least distant from the child,
Piling the stones all day.

Alfred has faith and he had patience, and he had resilience; he lacked the capacity to despair. In short, he possessed all the Christian virtues. He listened to Our Lady and he understood her advice, and so, at the height of the battle:

The King looked up, and what he saw
Was a great light like death,
For Our Lady stood on the standards rent,
As lonely and as innocent
As when between white walls she went
And the lilies of Nazareth.


Back to London for a bit, mostly because I want you to read this from the £ Daily Mail. Katie Hopkins wrote:

They stood in the centre of Brussels. Row on row.

Hands held high, making hearts to the heavens. Showing the slaughtered they were not forgotten. Reminding themselves they were here with love. Looking to show humanity wins. That love conquers all.

They lay in the centre of London, face down where they fell. Stabbed by a knife, rammed with a car, flung, broken, into the Thames, life bleeding out on the curb.

And the news came thick and fast.

A car rammed deliberately into pedestrians on the bridge. Ten innocents down.

A police officer stabbed at the House of Commons. Confirmed dead.

Another woman now, dead at the scene.

Shots fired. An Asian man rushed to hospital.

A woman, plucked from the water.

And I grew colder. And more tiny.

No anger for me this time. No rage like I’ve felt before. No desperate urge to get out there and scream at the idiots who refused to see this coming.

Not even a nod for the glib idiots who say this will not defeat us, that we will never be broken, that cowardice and terror will not get the better of Britain.

Because, as loyal as I am, as patriotic as I am, as much as my whole younger life was about joining the British military and fighting for my country — I fear we are broken.

Not because of this ghoulish spectacle outside our own Parliament. Not because of the lives rammed apart on the pavement, even as they thought about what was for tea. Or what train home they might make. (…)

As the last life-blood of a police officer ran out across the cobbles, the attacker was being stretchered away in an attempt to save his life.

London is a city so desperate to be seen as tolerant, no news of the injured was released. No clue about who was safe or not.

Liberals convince themselves multiculturalism works because we all die together, too.

An entire city of monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Blind. Deaf. And dumb. […]

The patriots of the rest of England versus the liberals in this city. The endless tolerance to those who harm us, (while the Home Office tries to shift the focus of public fear to white terror) — versus the millions like me who face the truth, with worried families and hopeless hearts, who feel the country sinking.

We are taken under the cold water by this heavy right foot in the south, a city of lead, so desperately wedded to the multicultural illusion that it can only fight those who love the country the most, blame those who are most proud to be British, and shout racist at the 52%.

via Katie Hopkins on the London terror attack | Daily Mail Online

She’s right, isn’t she? The government is so busy making sure that they offend no one that they offend only the English (and British) patriot. The rock solid basis of the country since before there was an England. I know they are there, I speak with them most every day, both English and Scottish. They are there, they are ready to do what needs to be done, but HMG won’t let them, and so they will eventually die with the rotters, and the moochers, that have taken over the so-called elite mostly in Londonistan.

The only thing frowned on in Great Britain these days is pride and patriotism in Britain. We, the cousins, we know what they have done for the world, for we took that heritage and we built “a Citty on a Hill” with it. That city has become the last chance for British Freedom in this world. We did this, with the tools vouchsafed us from England, and now England has lost the ability to use those same tools.

Earlier this week, we featured Dame Vera Lynn singing, “There will always be an England, and England shall be free”. But I increasingly have my doubts about that. I do believe the legend and legacy of English Freedom will live, as will the rights, but I much fear that they will move to the Great Republic as a refuge. William Pitt once commented that America was populated from England at the height of English freedom. It was, and we have, perhaps, kept the inheritance more sacred.

But, while it is late for Britain, and yes perhaps for the United States as well, in both places there are many good men (and women) and true, and we have been here before, many times. But we would do well to remember Sir Winston’s thoughts on the matter.

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

And, Now Again, in London

Well, Londoners, and the British, in general, have form on this, not very different from how they greeted the Blitz. Doesn’t seem to show as often these days, but there are not all that many threats against Britain, or are there? Best writing I’ve seen so far comes from an Englishman living in Romania. Here’s what he says,

We are at war with an idea that kills people

Yesterday several people were murdered just outside the House of Commons. Killing people outside security barriers makes much better sense for a terrorist than trying to pass them, though the murderer did that too in the end, before being shot dead.

Tim Stanley, the British journalist and historian, spoke for many when he called it “A barbaric attack. Monstrous for shedding blood, but impotent because it will not change us or our way of life.” Lots and lots of other people said the same thing.

They may be right. There’s no way of knowing. I hope, though, that they’re wrong and that it does change us and our ideas about immigration.

For some reason, there is a reluctance to discuss the links between terrorism and immigration. Instead we get appeals not to blame Muslims for a few mentally ill people in their midst.

So much mental illness these days.

Next will come candles, a hashtag, someone will pull off a girl’s headscarf and Islamophobia will become the big story.

My first job after university was in the House of Lords. I was 23 and on my first day I was greeted by the policeman on the gate with ‘Hello, my Lord’ and no request for my pass.

In those days (now they seem like the Edwardian era) the peers were mostly hereditary, almost entirely male, all save two were white (one of those an Indian hereditary peer who lived in obscurity in Delhi) and some were in their twenties, but for actuarial reasons very few. I was flattered to be taken for a peer (I was wearing a good suit), but I always thereafter entertained doubts about security at the Palace of Westminster.

Especially since, or despite the fact that, poor Airey Neave M.P. had been murdered by Irish terrorists in the underground car park of the House of Commons, just before Parliament was dissolved for the 1979 general election.

On Monday, the former head of the IRA Martin McGuinness, who became Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, died on Monday after a painful illness and received much praise.

The IRA kept murdering people and, in the end, they got much of what they wanted. This was, I think, worse than a crime. It was a blunder. The IRA were in the process of being not fully but largely defeated by the British security forces, when the ‘peace process’ began.

From: We are at war with an idea that kills people

I don’t disagree with much of what he writes here. At least the perpetrator won’t be out of jail in 5 years, well done, armed police. I’ll have some thoughts about it, perhaps later, but for now, it is time to grieve the dead, comfort the grieving, and start preparing. God bless them all, the long, and the short and the tall.

Happy 100th Birthday to Dame Vera Lynn

Yesterday we regretted the loss of Chuck Berry, whom so many of us loved and enjoyed. Today is a happier occasion for today is the 100th birthday of Dame Vera Lynn, DBE, OStJ, CH, honorary citizen of Nashville Tennessee, holder of the British War medal, and the Burma Star. She is known worldwide as the British Forces Sweetheart. Quite a career for a girl from East Ham, Essex.

And besides, all here know of my weakness for British redheads, so any excuse to feature one is welcome.

Her first recording was Up the Wooden Hill to Bedfordshire, recorded on Crown Records in 1936.

 

Her greatest fame came during the Second World War when she became the Force’s Sweetheart with songs such as these

And this

This

And tonight her image will b projected on those very same white cliffs, by the country she served so well.

This is interesting

But it wasn’t all about loneliness either, especially before the war got so grim, the humour showed itself.

Eventually, it was over

But she kept right on singing, this was the very first #1 on the American charts by a British artist.

And still she goes on, Decca released a new album,  Vera Lynn 100, just three days ago. Here is the trailer

And yes, amazon.co.uk says they will send it out to us Yanks, as well, if we want.

So, how do we end this glorious retrospective? There is only one possible way, in my mind.

And it will truly always be a:

Happy Birthday, Dame Vera!

 

 

 

UK and US Stuff That Caught My Eye Yesterday: Enjoy

Ramirez:

w10565

One of the really fun things to do here is to feature people who are friends, or at least you get to interact with on a regular basis. One of the people in this video is somewhere on that spectrum. Let’s see if you can figure out which.

Since they’re Brits, the arguments are slightly different than they are here, but I doubt you have many doubts that I admire Laura a good deal. Quite something to watch her take on a couple of leftists (one of whom works for the BBC) and wipe the floor with them. Well done, Laura. And yes, this level of competence in writing and commenting, as well, is much of the reason I enjoy The Conservative Woman as much as I do.

Also from Britain come a very sad story of what happens when the government becomes too big for its britches. From politics. co. uk and that is somewhat unusual, they usually strike me as pretty much statists, at best.

Two elderly ladies in Birmingham have been threatened with fines for sweeping up leaves. They did this because the leaves were a slip hazard – one of them had already fallen over. They left the leaves neatly in bags and tried to arrange for the the council to collect them. But rather than collect them, council officers slapped the bags with ‘illegally dumped garden waste’ stickers and threatened ‘action’.

This is not the first case of this kind. Other people have been fined for putting swept up leaves in their recycling bins. Another man in southern England was told he had to pay for the leaves to be collected, after he and other residents had cleaned their estate for it to look ‘spick and span’ for Christmas (if he put the leaves back on the road, he was told, he would be fined for fly tipping). [essentially littering, I think. Neo]

The maintaining of the street outside your house is one of those traditional, community-spirited things to do, which has rather fallen away. I am always struck with admiration when I see the elderly lady opposite sweeping up her pavement or pulling out stray weeds from the cracks. This is not something that my generation does. Yet community-spirited actions increasingly come into conflict with official rules. The communal space has become something solely occupied by the official actor.

So, it is only for the public authority to sweep up – or fail to sweep up – leaves on the pavement. Any citizen’s action into the public realm appears as a violation and a disruption of bureaucratic order. Spontaneous public action messes up the categories: they put the leaves in the wrong box, in the wrong place, or in the wrong bags. The state cannot appear to manage the interrelations with public action, even though people who have been sweeping up leaves say that they have been doing it for 30 years, and the council never used to have a problem with picking up the bags. It’s not that complicated to pick up a bag.

Right up there with penalizing 8-year-olds for running a lemonade stand, isn’t it? It’ll likely get worse before it gets better, both there and here. It’s why we need to get control back of our government, at all levels.

And finally, we talk some here about echo chambers, and yes, we all have them. The Federalist had an article yesterday about: Here Are The Media Hottakes We’d See If The Chronicles Of Narnia Were Released This Year

The press has certainly taken its lumps lately—and they’re not altogether undeserved. As Federalist contributor Tom Nichols points out in his new book The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge, a great deal of journalism currently exists more to confirm its audience’s preconceived notions than to inform them about reality.

Nichols’ book inspired me to reflect on how politically obsessed and ideologically sequestered our press has become, particularly when it comes to hot-button social issues.  To illustrate this, let’s take the debate into the world of counterfactuals: in the alternate history where C.S. Lewis’ classic children’s fantasy series is released this year and becomes a mega-hit, I think the hot takes would probably look something like these. 

The American Conservative: “Narnia and the Problem of Borders”
By not effectively maintaining border security, King Tirian ensured his nation would be invaded and plundered by the Calormenes. Also, Archenland should’ve been Narnia’s Benedict Option.

The Atlantic: “How World War II Shaped Narnia”
One of those very comprehensive and thoroughly researched articles that’s so long it’s divided up by roman numerals. […]

Including this, and quite a few more.

The Federalist: “17 Reasons Puddleglum Is The Most Hopeful Character In Literature”
We promise, there really is something good to be found in bottom-feeder mass-market material. Also, it has something to do with sex, gender, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Can’t we get that in the title?

Heh! Part of the reason I like The Federalist is that they occasionally laugh at themselves, as we all should. Read the whole thing™, I LOLed, likely you will as well.

A bit lighter today, because hey, why not.

 

 

The Conservative Counterculture

Kind of funny, really. When I was a kid (in the 60s) I was a hopeless square, being conservative, and even believing in God, although I had my problems with Him, as most do. But, hey, look at us now.

Yes, I know, Infowars. But, if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…

And you know, he’s right. I don’t especially like Milo, or some of his beliefs, what I do like is that he’s out there, doing it his way. Bookworm recently said this:

Milo Yiannopoulos — rude and crude, but also smart, brave, funny, and bitchy. He’s a necessary counterweight to Progressives’ lethal Political Correctness.

With a swirling debate about whether Milo Yiannopoulos will be a keynote speaker at this year’s CPAC, I have a confession: I didn’t like Milo Yiannopoulos when he first popped up on my radar. At a first, superficial, glance, he was everything that rubs me the wrong way: His humor seemed to rely on crude insults and too often to trade in racial and religious stereotypes, he relentlessly leveraged those insults and stereotypes into media face time which seemed to drag conservativism down not build it up, and he had that whole drag queen vibe. I have issues, which I’ll explain in a few minutes, with the drag queen vibe. Having reached these conclusions, I dismissed Milo. There. Done.

The thing is, if you’re a conservative, Milo is not a person who can be — or should be — dismissed. I first got an inkling of this from my teenage son. Sick and tired of being on the receiving end of misanthropic third-wave feminist tirades at his school (which cannot be challenged because doing so is an unacceptable manifestation of cisgender male privilege and domination), he headed to the internet looking for rebuttals to these feminists. Even if the school’s uber-liberal environment bans voicing the rebuttals, at least he had the comfort of knowing they were there.

My son’s research led him directly to Steve Crowder and Milo. He appreciated Crowder’s unflinching, and almost invariably funny, take Islam’s issues with the West and he was completely awed at Milo’s ability to (in my son’s words) “destroy those feminazis.” My son therefore insisted I watch Milo’s epic feminazi destruction in action. I agreed, somewhat worried that I’d get one of Milo’s unpleasant, uber-queenie, racist, shock-value moments. Instead, I got this:

I hope you see what I see: A young man in complete command of the facts, debating at a high intellectual level using arguments familiar to most conservatives, and politely, completely, and matter-of-factly destroying the feminist mantra. Without being in any way offensive, he left those two women looking foolish and uninformed.

Here was a young, hip, edgy, gay, Jewish/Greek/Catholic guy attacking the Leftist shibboleths that so irritated my son. Without my putting any pressure on him, my son regularly hunted down both Milo’s and Crowder’s videos. (Incidentally, my focus on Milo here is not meant to denigrate Crowder’s virtues. It’s simply that he’s a less controversial figure, so I don’t feel compelled to go to his defense.) No wonder, then, that my son, unusually for a kid his age in my “true Blue” county was remarkably sanguine when Trump won.

All very true, in my experience. So we had the kerfluffle yesterday when Milo supposedly defended pedophilia. But did he? I doubt it. Book updated that post, here is what she said.

[And timing is everything. The day after I wrote an encomium to Milo, who speaks forcefully about (among other things) gender dysphoria and the danger to children in bathrooms, PJ Media claims he supports gay pedophilia — or, at least, being a provocateur, provocatively says things he implies he does. Milo is certainly firm in his outrage against the accusation. His defense makes sense to me, especially given how familiar I am with gay culture thanks to growing up and working in SF. This new data point doesn’t change the main points below. Here’s the deal: gay culture is different and one of Milo’s strengths is that he says America should not subordinate itself to gay culture.]

UPDATE: Milo seems to have been destroyed. Despite his books status as a best seller, Simon & Schuster has dumped it. Breitbart is silent about him.

As best as I can tell, thanks to Stephen Green’s research, these are the two worst things Milo said that would lead to an accusation that he’s a pedophile:

Milo’s money quote, which was edited out of the video, is this:

The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

And this was edited out as well:

“You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty… That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

In other words, Milo never said that he had sex with little boys or that he intended to do so. What he did say was that older gay men often introduce younger gay men into sex. I certainly saw that enough when I was living and working in San Francisco. It was too common practice for sexually confused 20 or 22 year olds to be taken under the wing of a 30 or 40 year old gay man. It was not pedophilia, it was gay mentoring and it’s obvious that Milo is referring to that practice.

As for Milo’s comment about pedophilia being a perverted passion for children who have not gone through adolescence, he’s correct. He’s also correct that children mature at different speeds. In my neighborhood, one kid at 12 had a nascent mustache and a voice deeper than my husband’s. Another finally got his growth spurt when he went off to college, although he’s still not shaving. Having said that, Milo made it clear that, given this variability, he has no problem with the current age of consent laws.

It’s very disturbing that this take-down of one of the most effective voices for conservativism came from the #NeverTrump crowd having a petty pique fit over Milo’s invitation to CPAC. Having said that, the information was out there, and if the renegade right hadn’t published it, the Lefties would have and in a way that was even worse.

I’ve heard from friends that Lefties are already piling on to this man who did nothing wrong other than making observations about the realities of the gay world and the physical maturation process. More than that, I find it incredibly ironic that this tut-tutting comes from the Left. These are the same people who demand that condoms, birth control advice, and abortion information should be given to kids as young as 11 in their schools, and who insist that a child can get an abortion with an adult okaying it something that is, of course, the best possible way for a true pedophile to destroy any genetic evidence of his crime.

And by the way, if this seems familiar, you’re seeing the same takedown that the Left and #NeverTrumpers did to Trump. He observed accurately enough that, if you’re rich and famous, women will indeed let you do anything to them. He did not say that he took advantage of this reality, yet he was instantly called a molester and subjected to the harshest castigation. And of course, most of the screaming came from the same side that was fine with Clinton raping women and using the pressure of his fame and power to coerce a women young enough to be his daughter to engage in a sordid workplace affair.

This whole thing sickens and disgusts me. We are in a political sewer in our country.

Yep, and so here you see what happens, Book, a nice Jewish lady in her 50s and me, a conservative Christian in my 60s, defending a brash young Brit, because he was essentially set up – again. We’ve both seen it time and time again, and enough is enough. I don’t agree with anyone, all the time, but I’m not the guy, and neither are you, that has, or should have the power to tell them, “sit down and shut up”. It used to be a free country, and with luck, and people like Milo, it will be again.

Do read her post linked above. But here’s the thing, what’s happening to Milo is exactly what the establishment tried to do to Trump. Trump is a well-known quantity, and because of it (and his personality) is known well enough to withstand it, even thrive on it. Milo maybe isn’t yet. He’s the same sort of brazen, in your face guy, but he works in an area that causes discomfort to many of us older guys, me included. But, my discomfort is no reason for him to be silenced, by anyone, neither is yours. What we call “Freedom of Speech” would be better named “Freedom to Offend” because that is what it is. If Milo had done actual pedophilia (and his definition is correct, ages of consent are a modern thing, because not all mature at the same rate, and we have wished to protect those that mature slower) that would be one thing, one that objective law would deal with, saying things, even things we may find distasteful or wrong is not.

The fact that this happened is even more proof that the puritans of the left (including many Republicans) simply can’t handle dissension. That is why Freedom now lives on the right, and Milo is one of its spokespeople. The left has become ‘the Man’ and this is the sound of people speaking truth to power. Deal with it. Because conservativism, no matter what the pearl clutchers think (even the #never Trumpers), has become the counterculture.

Paul J. Watson wrote about this recently in Canada Free Press and you should read that as well.

James Delingpole recently observed that Ted Mallach believes that “the Brexit and Trump shocks of 2016…are the counter-reaction to the global takeover by the liberal-left in 1968.”  This long overdue counter-reaction is, in fact, (as Milo and PJ Watson note) the vanguard of a new counter-culture—conservatism.

Let me be quick to point out that I am not referring to “conservatism” as it has been understood in the past—and the new conservatism should by no means be confused with the so called “neo-conservatives” (neocons), who are, of course, left wing big government globalists posing as right-wing conservative Republicans.  (Many of the Republican #NeverTrumpers come from their ranks).

Although the new counter-cultural brand of conservatism that I am talking about carries with it many key elements of traditional conservatism—such as a passion for freedom, patriotism, capitalism, religious freedom, and tolerance—it tends to be more pragmatic and less ideologically obsessed, more open-minded and less dogmatic than traditional conservatism.  Sort of libertarianism on a leash, with a dash of brash impertinence.

The core word in the new conservative counter-culture is freedom.  As in free-spirited, free-thinking, free enterprise, free market, free speech—free, freer, freest.

By and large our college campuses are currently anti-freedom, and promote and preach fear, intolerance, divisiveness, and scorn—muzzling free speech and indoctrinating students to be passionately and self-righteously fearful and contemptuous of anyone perceived as being outside the officially sanctioned leftist thought box.  Academia has become, in a word, repressiveMuch more repressive than they ever thought of being back in 1968.

American academia has morphed into a purveyor of Draconian thought policing that is diametrically opposed to what the counter-culture of the late 60s purportedly fought for.  Perhaps the strangest of the leftist campus reversals is from a “If it feels good do it” hedonism to a type of hysterical pearl-clutching puritanism.  In any event, it is way past time for a radical shift in direction.  I believe that with a cutting edge conservative counter-culture leading the way, we won’t get fooled again.

The “long march through the institutions” created not [a] collectivist utopia, but privileged elites in media, academe, and government whose stock portfolios, bank accounts, affluent zip-codes, and tony life-styles [are] indistinguishable from those of the robber-baron capitalists they demonized.—Bruce Thornton “Leftism:From Bloody Tragedy to Therapeutic Parody

via Hip Conservative Counter-Culture Vs. Repressive Liberal Establishment

It’s awfully late, but we’ve finally become the cool kids, just in time, I think.

Paying the Danegeld

I suspect most of you have heard that Chancellor  Merkel has a plan to pay the immigrants she invited to Germany to go away again  Joshuapundit wrote about it here.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing new elections and is not doing at all well in the polls. Quite simply, the Muslim refugees she imported en masse to Germany have turned into a nightmare, with violent crime including sexual assaults at unheard of levels. And most of these refugees, rather than working are enjoying the generous German social welfare benefits, which is exactly why most of them came to Germany in the first place.

Merkel’s new scheme to try and get back into her fellow German’s good graces before elections involves paying migrants millions of Euros to leave.

Merkel is setting aside $95 million (€90m or £76m) in taxpayers’ money to create a fund to try to pay these refugees to withdraw their asylum applications and leave Germany voluntarily.

Germany rejected 170,000 asylum claims in 2016 , according to the Daily Mail, but only 26,000 were repatriated to their home countruies while 55,000 more decided to leave voluntarily and try their luck elsewhere. But that leaves 81,000 rejected applicants who are probably still in Germany!

via Merkel’s Trying To Buy Her Way Out of Germany’s Refugee Crisis ~ J O S H U A P U N D I T

Think about that for a while. She told them all to come and got them welfare while they were there, even forcing property owner to move to give them a place to live. And then we all got to watch as many, many German women were sexually assaulted by these vermin people. So what happens now, when it looks like her people have had enough of this dangerous nonsense? She uses even more taxpayer dollars to get them to go away. Which they likely won’t, after all, the living is easy (for them) in Germany, and even if they do, what exactly is to prevent them taking the money and coming right back with another name? Most of them don’t have reliable documents, anyway.

You know Saxon England had this problem with the Scandinavian raiders, back in the day, around 900 AD or so. They learned a lesson from it, although it rather looks as if the elite in Westminster may have forgotten it. I am assured however that the average Englishman remembers, and as Americans share that history, I suspect we do as well. Rudyard Kipling summed it up pretty well, which is probably why the elites have mostly proscribed him.

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
“We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
“Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: —

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

 

%d bloggers like this: