Musings of a Durotrigan: Luton in ‘harmony’, or Luton in discord?

Musings of a Durotrigan: Luton in ‘harmony’, or Luton in discord?: “Read all about it! Five terror plot suspects arrested in Luton!” Yes, yet again dear reader, police have descended upon a number of addresses within a certain “community” to arrest a group of men alleged to have been planning to inflict death, injury and general misery upon the host population, simply because we do not share their warped backward Islamist ideology. So wearisomely familiar and routine have such arrests become, that it is increasingly hard to be moved to comment upon them, which is a worrying sign in itself.

Scarce a week seems to go by without another Islamist plot being uncovered, and for all of the media’s professed concern about a potential network of crypto-Breiviks lurking in the shadows waiting to butcher the innocent, this thankfully remains as firmly in the realms of fantasy as Breivik’s resurrected ‘Knights Templar’. Breivik the butcher, mercifully, remains an army of one; a genuine clerical fascist; a warped individual who carries within himself more the spirit of Mohammed than that of Christ; a man possessed of a lust for blood, rather than a desire for peace. Breivik is, in many respects, a mirror-image jihadi. A man who truly loves his people would never seek them out and methodically murder them, irrespective of any ideological difference. Breivik is no nationalist. He has made of himself a wretch and a perpetual outcast.

And what of the men in Luton who have just been arrested? What will they become? For the English, if these five prove to be found guilty, then true justice must surely demand that they be shunned and returned to their land of ancestral origin. Amongst their “community” however, how will they be regarded? Will they be ostracised or fêted? The likely attitude, sadly, is predictable, for although many of Luton’s Muslims will refrain from lionising these aspirant killers, significant numbers of them will not. As sure as night follows day, in the weeks, months and perhaps years ahead, their advocates will be heard, and they will shriek at us as if we were the criminals. Luton, according to an initiative funded by the town council, is in “harmony”. This arrest, together with this medium-sized town’s Muslim population having provided a home to the Stockholm suicide bomber Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly, one of the fertiliser bomb plotters and a facilitator of the 7/7 bombings, attests to the fact that there is no such thing. It is also home of course, to Sayful Islam. For observers to profess to be perplexed at why Luton should have given birth to the EDL is thus disingenuous to say the least.

In a little under two weeks’ time, the EDL plans to demonstrate in Luton in celebration of its third anniversary. What impact, if any, will these arrests have upon that day, Saturday 5 May? Channel 4 may have dubbed Stephen Lennon and the EDL “proud and prejudiced”, but who can blame him and his supporters for wishing to articulate a deep and well-founded sense of unease arising from certain unwelcome phenomena originating within the Muslim population, that no major political party will acknowledge, let alone address? “Luton in harmony”? Unfortunately not. It could be, but that would demand something that our current authorities are unwilling to do: ditching multiculturalism and rooting out Islamism once and for all. The one reassuring thing to emerge from today’s story is the fact that our security agencies have once again nipped a potential plot in the bud. Overall, they have done a pretty good job in recent years. 

...

The Need to Conform

Written by Richard Newman

Many would not know of the attack by the UAF on the Brighton March for England St George parade.  The shocking images of up to seven hundred people, mostly left wing activists from the government sponsored UAF as they attack one hundred and fifty people, including women and children has now gone viral.

 

There are a number of issues here, not least the total lack of media coverage regarding the attack, let alone the injuries to the police and police horses.  The hypocrisy is clear when you contrast the blanket coverage of Steven, Trayvon and Breivik with the lack of coverage given to the various rapes by Muslims or this attack.  I say hypocrisy because one of the most enduring images is that of a middle aged man shielding his child from bricks and bottles thrown by the left.

 

 

The March for England organisers went to great lengths to point out that they did not belong to any group, and having searched the internet, I must admit that the march was billed as non-political!  Here therefore lies the second issue, in that MFE went to great efforts to invite members of the black and Asian community as well as members of the homosexual community, what a march that would have made, if you will excuse the pun, what a gay day.

 

The disintegrating EDL, and the MFE amongst many others who have declared themselves nationalists, or even laughingly patriots, have all gone down this route in trying to become inclusive, and invite everyone to take part in their party.  They of course do not understand that the gay/black/Asian/anyone left?  Do not wish to belong to a patriotic organisation.  They belong to their own groups.

 

A Nationalist/Patriot has three choices, to remain true to his beliefs, which means the left hate you.  Betray your beliefs, which means that you are hated by the left and the right, or leave politics and do nothing, which means that the left hate you!  As the EDL and the MFE have found to their cost, you can bend over backwards to accommodate the left and they will still attack you, so why accommodate them at all.  The same is true of all civic nationalist/plastic patriot organisations.

 

Finally, and on a much more serious note, the attack on the Brighton march has confirmed beyond any doubt that the media, police, government etc will ignore and even tacitly approve the persecution of one hundred and fifty flag waving people, by seven hundred yobs.  Imagine the furore if several hundred skin heads had attacked a Gay Pride march.

 

All nationalist organisations with maybe one or two exceptions need to raise their game.  I include the EDL and the Infidels in the groups which are now hamstrung by a lack of ideological direction, and disciplined organisation.  So much so that students, homosexuals and other freaks of the left can attack any public event with impunity.  The Muslims are even more divisive in their ridicule, after all, are they going to be afraid of “Muslamic Ray Guns!” 

 

It would be too much to hope that the EDL/MFE ditch their attempts at inclusiveness, the right ditch the booze and indiscipline, they get smart and learn the ideological strength of patriotic political action.  Because only then will they be able to put ten thousand political soldiers into Brighton and wipe the left from the streets.

Apr

2012

 

The Definition of Art (full version)

Written by David Hamilton

There is confusion about what art is. The qualities that make something art are intrinsic, not external. It is the artifice, the organising of elements, perspective, choice of colour etc, that make it art.  The result is obtained by transforming reality and thus nature through human imagination and emotion and is realised by skill and technique.

The word Beauty (or beautiful) is descriptive if used as an adjective to express the response of the beholder to an object, or if used within a clear context; if used as an abstract noun it is universal, and therefore meaningless.

A significant difference between contemporary art and traditional art is the split between form and meaning.  This Cartesian duality is the split between mind and body, subject and form.  The split is in all the various forms and styles and substance and meaning, of the respective art forms.  In architecture contemporary buildings look like objects they are not which is why they are given comic nicknames - The Gerkhin, The Cheese Grater, or Liverpool's Catholic Cathedral, The Mersey Funnel.  The form is not related to function - the interior of a modern cathedral could be anywhere.

Traditional art develops within traditional forms and it develops the forms. In his Christian paintings of the fifties Dali adapted forms to his individual vision but they are recognisably traditional forms.  Dali was a genius - contemporary artists are not.  They need to shock to get recognition.  Real Art grows out of tradition and provides sustenance, spiritual or worldly, for people rather than negative emotions like shock or offence that are harmful.

To Marcel Duchamp it was enough for an artist to deem something "art" and put it in an art venue.  But it does not matter where you stick a urinal it is always a urinal with a specific non-artistic purpose.  To say something becomes art because you put it in a gallery is very muddled thinking.  I had an experience in the Ikon gallery in Birmingham where the only objects with artistic qualities are the water closets and washroom taps which had pleasing curves and smooth surfaces.  But they are not art: they are objects for specific non artistic purposes.

It is not the context of underpasses that makes or unmakes street artist Banksy's work art or otherwise: it does not have artistic subject matter and is just technique.  Artistic subject matter is realised through qualities of artifice and held together by purpose which concentrates the artifice and technique to the goal of producing art.

George Dickie and Arthur Danto held that works of art are objects connected to various social practices.  This depends on beauty as some objects like the taps or a motor car can be beautiful but because they have non-artistic functions are not art whereas a painting is.  To Dickie art is about being self-assigned but you can put a car anywhere, it is always a car and its function is different from a work of art even if it is beautifully designed.  When Artists begin to create they have a purpose and an artistic end in mind and to bring this into being they use appropriate technique.  They do not take into account aerodynamics, say, or how fast water pours out or precisely where its trajectory will take it as these are not part of the artistic purpose.  They are to engineers and designers of those objects.

This is the institutional theory of art which is a theory about the nature of art that holds that an object can only be art in the context of "the artworld".  Whatever an artworld is.  Danto wrote in: The Artworld: "To see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry-an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an art world."  That has nothing to do with the work itself but where it is.  Art is practice not theory.

Nothing can make Duchamps "readymades" art because they were made for a specific non-artistic purpose.  Theory does not change a pile of Brillo cartons in a supermarket into art, yet Danto thought if it was put in a gallery a substantive transformation took place.  Andy Warhol's pretentious Brillo Boxes (a pile of Brillo carton, replicas actually, so they are doubly pretentious) are a pile of Brillo boxes wherever they are put.

Dickie's institutional theory can be assessed from the definition in Aesthetics: An Introduction: "A work of art in the classificatory sense is 1) an artifact 2) upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld) has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation." On the contrary, what makes something art is the intention of producing art through artifice and technique successfully realised.

Tracey Emin and Damian Hirst have declared works to be art because they say so.  They were promoted and financed by Saatchi who first declared their works art but he is not an artist.  It is critics and elite art buyers who decide what is art and usually because of its commercial value but that is external to the work, not intrinsic.  They are right about the commercial value of objects but not about its classification as art because designating something as art because it has commercial value is to apply external or non intrinsic criteria as the standard of judgement.  Some people are supposed to think they are Napoleon or royalty but does that make them so?

This takes us back to Duchamps folly.  This argument is that because he placed it in a gallery it became art.  To say something like Damian Hirst's pickled shark is important is pretentious.  It is supposed to make us think but by taking the shark out of context (the sea) it is rendered meaningless because it is deprived of its being which is its life, and its function to swim and hunt.  It's habitat and how it lives in are essential not extraneous.  A graffito by Banksy is not, it is added to the environment not part of it.

Picasso: "Art is not the application of a canon of beauty but what the instinct and the brain can conceive beyond any canon.  When we love a woman we don't start measuring her limbs."  Well, he has dismissed proportion but that is only one part of the whole.

Splodgeness Abounds

Commercial galleries need to appeal to a buying public and be more popular than avante garde painters yet they follow the fad of impressionistic landscapes that lose their meaning by technique over imaginative vision: the scene is obscured by splodges of paint!  This obtrudes between the scene depicted and the viewer and causes a disjuncture in the meaning.  This is technique over intuition; skill over the knack.  By contrast the camera can elevate the knack over technique as one makes an artistic judgement on what to photograph.  It gives a clear reproduction of the scene not splodgy brush strokes that could be anything from a cloud or wave or a sunbeam to just a slip of the brush.  These smears festoon every commercial art gallery in the country.  This effect is demonstrated by comparing these with photographs of the same scenes.

Public Art

Fills our ordinary lives with meaning and provides different feelings as they have different purposes.

Trying to shock people is petty and there are many more responses.  To shock is a means to the end of making themselves rich because the elites reward these attacks on our Art.  It is as though they have a brief to undermine our artistic traditions.  They have minor imaginations which cause only one response whereas a work by a major artist like Dali prompts several emotional responses.

A Liverpool pub, The Jacaranda, has a mural in the downstairs bar which John Lennon had a hand in painting when he was an art student, and this creates fascination and joy at the thought of someone so famous being part of it.  The painting is well executed but not devoted to a high purpose, but conveys feelings because we know who was involved.

The Peter Kavanagh, also in Liverpool, has a delightful mural based on Dickens characters in the snug-bar.  The story is that an artist who was a regular customer in the 1930s could not afford to pay for drinks on account, so he painted the mural. It produces delight and merriment, adds to the pubs character and raises it above the ordinary. ]

Statues are stylised and used to convey various human qualities.  Military heroes say, were shown in proud and honourable poses that suggested authority, fortitude, steadfastness such as Lord Nelson's famous column in Trafalgar Square.  They were cast in forms that conveyed meaning but contemporary public art fails in that elementary intention as the meaning is disjunctured.

I spent a few days in Shrewsbury recently.  It has honoured its famous local Charles Darwin by "public art".  But does it succeed in its purpose? One known as Quantum Leap is dissociated meaning as the form is not directly linked to the subject so there is no representation.  The title Quantum Leap actually refers to something in physics not evolutionary biology which was Darwin's study.  It is probably the contemporary informal term for making a major leap forward but applied to something celebrating Darwin confuses rather than elucidates.  These contemporary artefacts arouse no curiosity and one does not feel inclined to enquire about them.  They cannot be taken seriously as there is no spirit of genius behind them; rather, a commercial motive which are part of contemporary popular fashion and do not gain gravity from tradition.  Quantum Leap looks like an armadillo crossed with a pack of cards and seems to be influenced by popular film Jurassic Park rather than Darwin.

The Darwin Gate is three separate structures which unite to create an apparently solid structure. What does it mean? How does the form convey the meaning? The sculpture apparently combines the form of a Saxon helmet with a Norman window inspired by features of St Mary's Church which Darwin attended as a boy.  They claim that as darkness descends defused light shines through the columns suggesting stained glass windows with the tops of the posts resemble ecclesiastical arches. When it unites it resembles the shape of a church window. However, there is no connection with Darwin and the transmission of meaning to the public is split.  It is called The Eggbeater.

Even ordinary works can, if in surprising places, prompt a myriad of responses.  The Nags Head in Shrewsbury, has an unusual and painting with an obscure origin.  It has an unusual context in being on the inside door of a cupboard in a room above the pub.  There is a strange atmosphere up there, where the temperature can plummet in seconds. Some think the painting depicts Neptune, others, the Devil.  It is thought to be by a prisoner of war during World War II but staff at the local Rowley's House Museum purvey only a mystic tale but no accurate record.  One told me it is of a woman who committed suicide by jumping from an upstairs window.  In this legend it is said that the female figure will return if painted over.  The painting is not of a woman but there is an ambiguity as the figure has feminine legs which are disproportionately long and thick, and a short body. This painting prompts wonder, amusement, mystification, delight.

Rowley's House museum holds the excellent Morning View of Coalbrookdale by William Williamse. (3) An important function of both painting and photography is to reflection a way of life or, as in this case, a defining historical era.  There is too little representation of ways of life in contemporary art and fiction and people need this affirmation of themselves. These engaging paintings convey a powerful impression of the impact of early industrialisation on a still natural landscape. There are many forms of art which convey something important to people and prompt a variety of responses. Shock is just one: it is negative and it is unimportant.

Saint Alkmunds church in Shrewsbury, has a beautiful and moving stained glass in the east window.  This is The Assumption of the Virgin Mary by Francis Egington.  In this the Virgin Mary at the end of her journey through life and about to ascend to heaven. She is standing on the firm ground of the cross; with the Bible as the word of god for guidance and the sacraments represented by the chalice.  The struggles of life are symbolised by thistles on the path. She is looking up in faith at the symbolic crown with her arms outstretched and open to heavenly influence as if she were asking and waiting to be uplifted back to her home in heaven.  These were developments by Egington the artist who based the work on The Assumption of Saint Mary by Guido Remi of 1638 which is a more conventional Assumption painting and has Mary being lifted by Cherubim.

As you enter the church you are transfixed and walk towards it in awe looking up. It immediately begins to form an emotional response and the feeling of awe grows as you advance.  This is not an intellectual proposition but a deep feeling of transcendent emotions.

This acts like great art, on a deep, unconscious level like an archetype. It opens the imagination transmitting holy or noble feelings in contrast to the degenerate contemporary art which spreads negative and evil thoughts.  Old works have a quiet authority and the viewer pauses to contemplate it with respect, as when looking at old gravestones, to recreate the departed. It is a development of traditional form and links us with our roots.

The contemporary age is one of excess of technique. Jeff Robb, who has a permanent exhibition at the Victoria and Albert, uses a method of lenticular sheets which are only sold by one firm which is in Switzerland.  This is very clever and often fascinating but the subject matter is ordinary - nudes. His art is the cleverness of what he does with the subject but he does not transform the actual subject.  Jeff needs specific equipment and ink cartridges to produce his results. Technique is important but should be guided by the vision not for its own sake or it is empty form.

The qualities that qualify a work as art are intrinsic to art in general but Art with a capital "A" has an elevated, sublime, purpose and is only realised by a high quality of conception and execution.  A visual object or experience created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art covers various media: painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation.  The various visual arts exist within a continuum that ranges from prompting deep feeling or transcendent emotion and great skill to reproducing figures or landscape which have a mood and also prompt thought or feelings.

Kimbolton School has murals by Pellegrini.  They give a sense of grandeur and seriousness and create a suitable frame of mind for study.

The modern understanding of art derived from Abbe Batteux in the 1740s who regarded the essence as an "imitation of nature" and, principally, that it caused pleasure. They cause various mental states in the beholder. He defined these mental states as pleasure and the experience of beauty. Prior to this, individual modes of art were attached to various sciences like Music to Mathmatics but this is the skill not the purpose. Kant promoted a universal criteria to decide if something was Art.  He used a geometric idea of patterns of shapes and lines.  In The Critique of Judgement he developed the notion of beauty as the cause of the the mental state. The problem is beauty is so abstract as to mean something different to everyone, though it is a word that describes the individual appreciation of something very pleasing.

English philosopher Michael Oakeshott described two sorts of knowledge:

"The first sort of knowledge I will call technical knowledge or knowledge of technique.  In every art and science, and in every practical activity, a technique is involved. In many activities this practical knowledge is formulated into rules which are, or may be, deliberately learned, remembered, and, as we say, put into practice; but whether or not it is, or has been, precisely formulated, its chief characteristic is that it is susceptible of precise formulation, although special skill and insight.

The second sort of knowledge I will call practical, because it exists only in use, is not reflective and (unlike technique) can not be formulated in rules... "  In art, this equates to the distinction between natural talent or genius and the skill and technique which realises the vision and meaning. Soccer players show a high degree of skill and to great players it is natural but developed by coaching and practice, but there is no high purpose involved.

Technique or genius; skill or a knack

There is a phenomenon in English art: a seven year-old Kieron Williamson. He has an indefinable knack that is called genius.  This is artistic judgement in the practice of painting when one knows instinctively what to put and where. He has natural qualities: perspective, choice of colours.  He has them automatically but perspective is a technique for realising the vision and choice of colours is part of the expression of the vision.

This knack is the artistic judgement. It is a non rational process - it is intuition or instinct and it is this that technique realises.  In Kieron's case it was triggered by the Devon and Cornwall landscape and "sprung full-born into life" like Athena from Zeus's head. It was instantly realised, not slowly educed. (2)

To clarify the working of the two functions of form and content, technique and vision we have a fine example from music.  Music was suffering the same culture war as painting and was dominated by atonal styles and was saved from an unexpected quarter. It was a paradox:

What we know as the culture wars and political correctness could not have made progress if it had not been adopted by the popular musicians of the 1960s.  The words to The Beatles hit Get Back were developed from a spoof of Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech. Paul McCartney later turned into a more conventional rock song.

McCartney and John Lennon wrote melodies and through harmony revived tonal music. Atonalists were destroying traditional classical music as composers Schoenburg and Stockhausen did with water gurgling down a drain noises.  The Beatles natural musical genius was realised through the technique of producer George Martin: The Beatles were raw talent, Martin supplied the form.

McCartney and Lennon upported the New Left and McCartney had a single banned by the BBC for apparently supporting the IRA; Lennon was figurehead of the New Left-Politically Correct movement and his records like the album "Sometime in New York City" promoted it.  He donated to The Black Panthers and The IRA.

Atonal composers disdained their audiences as Bourgoise but Lennon and McCartney brought them together. Martin's skill at realising their meaning added to the whole and triumphed over the split between form and meaning in contemporary music.

Martin wrote the orchestral arrangements and instrumentation in collaboration with them.  It was Martin's idea to put a string quartet on "Yesterday".  To demonstrate his point he played it in the style of Bach to show what "voicings" could be used. To realise "Penny Lane" McCartney hummed the melody, and Martin wrote it in music notation and David Mason, the classically trained trumpeter played it in a piccolo trumpet solo. Eleanor Rigby was heightened by Martin's strings-only accompaniment inspired by Bernard Hermann's score for Alfred Hitchcock's film Psycho.

For "Strawberry Fields Forever", Martin combined two different takes into one.  For I Am the Walrus he provided an original arrangement for brass, violins, cellos, and vocal ensemble. He worked closely with McCartney to develop the orchestral 'climax' in A Day In the Life.

The Artistic Subject

When he became a Christian, Salvador Dali found an artistic subject and the inherent spirtuality of the subject gave him a fuller, more elevated vision and he painted the masterpieces of the twentieth century.  He was a skilled draftsman who developed his skills of realisation by studying Renaissance masters. Much criticism of Dali was because he supported General Franco rather than the Marxism of the orthodox Surrealists and art critics.  They were ideologues and like all ideologues expected their members to conform to the manifesto or have their thinking corrected.  Breton banned Dali from The Surrealist movement in 1941 and tried to ban his "Sistine Madonna" from the International Surrealism Exhibition in New York in 1960.  It is said that Breton a Trotskyist, called Dalí in for questioning on his politics as his political allegiances had changed.  After World War II, Dalí became close to General Franc's movement and issued statements of support. He congratulated Franco for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" met him personally and painted a portrait of his granddaughter.

His fascination with the hypercube a four-dimensional cube and unfolding of a hypercube is featured in "Corpus Hypercubus" which changes the traditional form but it is still recognisable and we know what it represents.  His "Last Supper" and "The Christ of St. John of the Cross" are the masterpieces of the twentieth century. This brings us to the essence of great Art: genius and inspiration.

Contemporary painters and makers of installations show contempt for the audience and do not work for the public good.  They seek a response but it is a negative response.  They are not geniuses and have to shock to get noticed. In fact they are not really artists - but purveyors of clever tricks without deep meaning. Art is communication but contemporary art fails to communicate because of a disjuncture between subject and beholder, form and purpose.

The indefinable knack is intuitive practice called genius. This is artistic judgement in the practice of painting when one just knows instinctively what to put or where.  This knack is the artistic eye, artistic judgement and it is a non rational process - it is intuition or instinct and it is this that trained and developed technique realises."  John Dryden captures it :"But genius must be born, and never can be taught."  It is the technique that is taught not the genius, which is inborn, as the qualities that make a work art are intrinsic to the work, not external nor contingent on where the work is put.

The difference between nature and art is this. When I point my camera at something that pleases me I first use artistic judgement but I record natural phenomena. If I take a sunset it is reproducing nature and is not art but nature.  However, if I then use the zoom function, it has the effect of condensing the distance and thereby magnifying the gold or red which is moving from nature to art because it is introducing a technique to change the reproduction of the natural phenomena and make an artistic end. I recently took several photos of a sunrise in Penzance Bay in Cornwall and sunset at Brighton. There is little technique involved and as long as you point the camera at the right thing you are away.  The camera is recording natural phenomena but a meaning is conveyed from photographer to viewer as the scene automatically conveys certain emotions to the viewer. In the above examples it is natural beauty. When you look at a photograph of a landscape a chain of thought is triggered which moves from the inherent emotional state conveyed to personal and often unconscious thoughts and feelings.

A similar process occurs in art as the idea or a scene is transformed through human imagination and emotion till it becomes a work of art: transformed reality.

Click here for the reference notes relating to this posting

BBC’s fawning Interview of a Hard Left Extremist Historian

Apr

2012

 

Eric Hobsbawm. The Marxist BBC’s fawning Interview of a Hard Left Extremist Historian

Written by Tim Heydon

One can't imagine the culturally Marxist BBC ever devoting a programme lasting an hour on Radio 4 to some far–right historian.  The chances of David Irving, for example, being given such an opportunity, are nil.
Would the BBC ever celebrate the life of an academic apologist for the Nazis who justified his support for the extermination of millions of leftists, jews, homosexuals, Freemasons, gypsies and others?  Hell would freeze over first.
Yet, like it or not, the paying public were this week treated to an hour of 'Eric Hobsbawm, a Life in History'.  Hobsbawm is a man who has publicly proclaimed his support for the extermination of millions of 'class enemies' in the Soviet Union.
It might be argued that Hobsbawm, who, born in 1917 now has various academic posts of a largely honorific nature including the Presidency of Birkbeck College, University of London, is extremely prominent in his field.  It might also be argued that he should be a good deal less prominent than he is.
Approving of the Death of Millions
Hobsbawm is the Marxist historian who, when in 1994 he was asked on TV by the Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff whether 20 million Soviet Deaths may have been justified had they brought about the promised communist utopia, asserted that they were.  He confirmed that this remark was no slip of the tongue or momentary lapse the next year.  When Sue Lawley asked him on Desert Island Discs if the ''sacrifice of millions of lives" would have been worth a communist utopia, he replied: "That's what we felt when we fought the Second World War".
Soviet Murders are to be equated with fighting the Nazis?
In other words he equated the necessary deaths fighting off the Nazi German invasions with the deliberate deaths of 20 million Class Enemies in the Soviet Concentration Camps.  Not to mention those millions who died elsewhere; in the forced famines in the Ukraine and transportation of ethnicities, for example.  (Solzhenitsyn put the total figure of unnecessary deaths at 60 million, a figure which makes the 'Holocaust' look relatively minor ).  Hobsbawm also argued that, "In a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing".
Well, isn't that exactly what the Nazis thought too?  But can you see the BBC fawning over a Nazi historian who said that?
BBC Praise for an Old Marxist
The interview of Hobsbawm by Simon Schama was extraordinarily hands-off.  True, the Desert Island Discs remark was touched on - lightly.  But otherwise, Hobsbawm was given uncritical free rein.  His work was 'universally acclaimed', it was said.  No it wasn't.  The famed Kremlinologist Robert Conquest, author of 'The Great Terror.  Stalin's Purges of the 1930s' said of Hobsbawm's 'Age of Extremes', that the latter suffers from a "massive reality denial" regarding the USSR.  The philosopher John Gray, though praising of his efforts on the nineteenth century, thought his work on the post-1914 period as "banal in the extreme' and ' highly evasive' about the realities of communism.
Belief in the Improvement of Humanity (By Whom?) makes one both dangerous and wrong
Hobsbawm was praised by Schama as having a grip on human nature and the way people behave that would ensure his lasting greatness.  But a man who continues to believe in the 'improvement, if not the perfectibility of humanity' when he has his own personality and attitudes and the gross failure of the beliefs he continues to hold to as a standing reproach to this idea, does not understand himself, still less human nature in general.
A Case of Arrested Development
Hobsbawm came to Marxism at the age of 15, we were told.  When he read 'The Communist Manifesto', he thought, 'that's it!'  He became a communist activist in Germany.  He came to Britain when he won a scholarship to Cambridge.  Interestingly, while there he was a member of the Apostles, the society to which the Cambridge traitors Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt belonged in their time.
It seems he has made no progress emotionally since because such juvenile moments are emotional, not intellectual.  Like many other leftist intellectuals, his is a case of arrested development.  His adolescent fantasies of utopia have vitiated his undeniable talents and made them if not worthless, then worth much less than they might otherwise have done.
Hobsbawm is a Jew and it took another Jew, Tony Judt, to point out that Hobsbawm's bias in favour of the USSR and communism in general and his tendency to disparage any nationalist movement as passing and irrational, weakened his grasp of parts of the 20th century.
What a pity he has never really matured.

Christian Nationalism is more tolerant than Left-Liberalism

Christian Nationalism is more tolerant than Left-Liberalism

Written by Tim Heydon

April 2012

The emphasis in the current era amongst the political / chattering classes is on ‘Equality’.  Equality of esteem is necessary for an ‘individualistic’ society and the ‘celebration of diversity’.  Equality-linked individualism can be summed up in the words; ‘do your own thing and don’t be judgemental’.  Of course, this ideal is completely impractical in the real world.  A society cannot survive without shared standards of morality and ways of life.  Without these it ceases to be a society in all but name.  Furthermore, people have a natural tendency to wish to associate with others who share these things; who are like themselves in this and in other ways. ‘Individualists’ are Conformists Even those who pride themselves on their individualism tend to be individualistic in the same way.  They wear the same kinds of clothes, listen to the same kinds of music, watch the same TV shows, read the same kinds of magazines and books, have the same kinds of attitudes to  culture, even live in the same kind of areas along with others of the same ilk (Notting Hill, for example, or Hampstead, Islington and Camden); and so on.  All this is so obvious that it should be scarcely worth saying.  But apparently it needs to be said.  For those in power want us to be similar only in our individualism - a piece of sophistry which will escape most people. Equality of Esteem must be enforced In order to bring about this impossible dream of an extreme individualistic ’society’ (a contradiction in terms), our left-liberal masters have tried to enforce strict equality of esteem on all and everything.  For this to succeed, they have to ensure that there is a general realisation of actual equality.  Thus what is stressed in the cultures are not their differences in achievements in human flourishing but their supposed equal ‘value’ to those within them.  The religions are all equal in their falsity; there being no spiritual dimension to life.  And so on.  But most important of all; perceived differences in the races are illusory; they are ‘social constructs’. Indifference, not Tolerance This attitude is called being tolerant.  In fact it is merely the intolerant requirement on the part of an ideology of nothingness to numb the critical sense and to abandon the search for objective truth.  If this scheme works at all it is because it succeeds in bringing about attitudes of indifference, not tolerance. Indifference because it is argued, nothing is thought ultimately to be very important, since there is no truth except what one makes for one’s self.  But if ever there was a recipe for the debasement of civilised living, the pursuit at best of mediocrity and the destruction of community, it is the attitude that nothing, other than perhaps immediate personal relations and consumerism (getting status or power, food, goods and sex) is important.  These are the attitudes of the traditional slum. The Realisation of actual Inequality is Death to Left-Liberalism As well as being an end in itself for leftists, the enforcement of equality of esteem is key to the project of extreme liberal individualism.  That is why left-liberals are so terrified of any suggestion that religions, sexualities and so on, but especially races, might objectively be less than equal when measured against others and standards of what it takes to be successful in the context of advanced societies. That is why they denigrate research into race differences in areas like IQ and vilify and marginalise or expel from their posts those academics who dare to engage in such research.  That is why they adopt fawning attitudes to barbaric cultural and religious attitudes, for example closing their eyes to or denying the real nature of islam.  The idea of ‘Equality’ cannot survive without repression.  This is the great contradiction of extreme individualism.  Unfortunately for the liberal project, everyday observation and experience alone denies the claim that all ‘communities,’ religions and cultures are of equal worth in the sense that they are equally conducive to human flourishing. Left Liberalism cannot tolerate the Heresy of Race Difference But especially, and backed by a mounting corpus of scientific research which leftist / liberals are going to find more and more difficult to ignore and suppress, it denies the claim that the races are identical in every important respect.  The enforced view that the races are equal  has reached the hysterical, McCarthyite pitch that if one were for example to point out the blinding obvious; that blacks excel at sprint racing and are responsible for most violent crime in London, one will find oneself vilified as a ’racist’.  The left liberal cult of equality cannot tolerate the heresy of race difference.  If race differences were to be admitted, its ideology would immediately begin to crumble. Christianity reconciles Difference and Equality Here is where Christianity comes in.  Christianity accepts difference as real.  But while individuals and groups are not equal in their abilities or achievements or in their relationship to a flourishing society, thought of as a Christian society, people are all equally valuable as being equally loved children of God.  Thus Christianity reconciles difference and equality in a way impossible for left liberalism. Christianity as practiced in the past centuries which involved sometimes vicious intolerance, is long gone. It is because it recognises difference and the problems that differences bring that Christianity offers a way forward for a civilised nationalism.  Contrary to what is sometimes thought and preached under the influence of leftist ideology, its universalism does not preclude nation states.  Why should it?  Jesus was himself a Jew who lived and moved amongst his own people. Christianity is necessary for a Civilised Society There are those of course who will say that religion isn’t necessary for civilised behaviour.  The Gulags and the Concentration Camps say otherwise.  When religion is abandoned history shows that there is a drift towards the diminution of human worth and consequently towards tyranny of one sort or another.  We can see this process in our own country where individualism has brought about a ‘woman’s right to choose’ abortion on demand and the old are beginning to come into a position where they may find themselves under pressure to have themselves euthanased as being useless and a burden. So let us set forth on a path of Christian nationalism, not thinking of ourselves as a ‘chosen’ people (that is very dangerous as well as false) but recognising our own undoubted merits as a people and the contribution that Christianity has brought to our historic successes as well as to the spiritual lives of so many of our illustrious forebears and to believers today. Let us at the same time in Christian fashion tolerantly recognise the rights of other nations to live their lives peaceably and without threat, letting them work out their own salvation as best they may. for more articles visit  http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/

London Mayoral Elections May 2012

Mayoral Elections May 2012

By Musings of a Durotrigan

Understandably, when it comes to the forthcoming mayoral elections the gaze of the media has thus far largely been directed towards London, the place where the concept of a directly elected mayor was put to the test for the first time in 2000. It is and will be a contest dominated by the personalities of Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, the only men to have held the office to date. Already it has proven to be an exceptionally bad tempered race, with personal animosity boiling over into the well-publicised “fucking liar” incident in which Johnson lost his rag with Livingstone during a live radio debate. Although Johnson is a rich man, the subsequent publication of his personal earnings and tax details for the past three years, when compared to Livingstone’s, shows that he has paid his way whereas Livingstone, thanks to a little creative accounting, most certainly has not. Johnson’s fury therefore possessed some justification.

Livingstone was a trailblazer of divisive multiculturalist identity politics, helping to create an ethnically and culturally fragmented capital that whilst in our country is largely no longer of it; a city defined by geography rather than by people and community. Having nurtured the emergence of distinctive self-conscious ethnic blocs, it is to them that he now largely appeals, championing ‘minorities’ over the indigenous population. Andrew Gilligan and others have noted Livingstone’s poisonous embrace of Islamists in recent years, as well as a succession of remarks that indicate an apparent antipathy towards Jews. Having witnessed Galloway’s successful mobilisation of the Muslim bloc vote in Bradford West, it is a certainty that Livingstone will tap into this same demographic in London, appealing to the electors of Tower Hamlets and other such areas, using the Islamic Forum of Europe to help deliver the “community” votes that he requires. Galloway’s victory was to a considerable extent founded upon the willingness of Muslims to vote and the apathy of the non-Muslim indigenous population. Given that neither Johnson nor Livingstone enjoys a commanding lead in the opinion polls, Livingstone’s ability to tap into the growing Muslim bloc vote could provide him with the advantage that he requires to edge ahead of Johnson. This is the ugly political reality that characterises our capital today.

For all of the metropolitan media’s obsession with London, life and politics do exist outside of the capital, and mayoral elections also will be taking place elsewhere on 3 May, notably in Liverpool and Salford. Doncaster, which produced something of a surprise in its mayoral election of 2009 by returning the English Democrat Peter Davies (quite why a man would praise the Taliban for their “family values” is puzzling), will be holding a referendum over whether it should retain or abolish the office of elected mayor. With none of the mainstream political parties igniting voter enthusiasm, the time would seem to be ripe for other parties to make a breakthrough, so perhaps either of these elections might produce a surprise result. However, the personality and background of each of the candidates is as likely to be just as influential as any party label.

In Liverpool a mayoral debate will take place on Thursday 19 April, with the opportunity being open for all candidates to contribute. However, given their antipathy towards free speech and democracy, the self-styled “Liverpool Antifascists” have stated that their supporters are planning to hold a demonstration outside of the debate’s venue – Mountford Hall – because they claim that “three fascist candidates” will be present, with one from each of the following parties: “the British National Party, English Democrats and National Front.” The recent demise of the BNP has resulted in groups and campaigns describing themselves as “antifascist” seeking to find new targets for their activities so as to justify their ongoing existence, and it is thus unfortunate for the English Democrats that they are but the latest to be singled out for stigmatisation by Liverpool Antifascists, Hope Not Hate and UAF.

Contemporary politics, in England in particular, has grown stale and offers prospective voters no real choice. This fact is reflected in the dismal approval ratings of the leaders of the main political parties and low voter turnout. Clearly, there is room for a new party that seeks to provide a credible and moderate nationalist programme aimed at improving the lot of our citizenry as a whole, and our people in particular. Although such a party does not yet exist, a decision has been taken to bring it into existence, and work is currently underway with respect to its organisation, structure, constitution and policy. A team is being brought into being and an announcement regarding its launch will be made within the next couple of months. The next set of local and mayoral elections therefore, should be rather more interesting than those scheduled for this May

CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM AND IT,S INFLUENCE

Foreword by Horwich Nationalist, Although I believe this article has some theological errors on the origins of Christ ,as Christ was descended only on his mothers side in the flesh, otherwise being begotten by Gods power, it is quite clear in the Gospel that Christ was descended from Abraham the founder of the Jewish People, as stated quite clearly in the 1st chapters of the Gospels. But the article in all fairness has some quite interesting points , and in the quest to an open and free debate, is the reason I would publish it. CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM

Written by Stone Turner

April 2012 08:50

The debate raging within the patriotic movement over religion - and especially Christianity - has attracted many contributions from various personages. It has been a fascinating, eye-opening experience – if we can say one thing for certain, the debate has ‘shaken the tree’, figuratively speaking. Please don’t think for one moment that this article is “anti-pagan” – it is not. I have the greatest respect and reverence for the ancient beliefs of our ancestors (I find them fascinating), but I also believe these beliefs matured and developed into British Christianity, which then held sway until the present day. I was, until quite recently, a confirmed atheist with no appreciation or faith whatsoever in the ‘supernatural’. This was until I opened my mind and actually looked at the story of Jesus Christ and Christianity, and started to read the Bible, and I discovered that there was a gigantic discrepancy between my old bigotries against Christianity and the real thing. It occurred to me that as I was condemning Christianity I really didn’t know anything about it. Can you ask yourself honestly, right now, do you know what it is all about? Honestly? I didn’t, and as an inquisitive strong-minded young Englishman, I decided to study the whole subject and find out the truth for myself. Some have said that Christianity is “unnatural, egalitarian, universalist and pacifist” (to use an actual quote from the British Resistance website). Christianity is entirely natural: it promotes breeding (“go forth and multiply”, in fact, almost the whole of Man’s Christian existence is based on marriage with the aim of breeding), love for your own kind (“love thy neighbour as thyself”), is nationalistic (read the Bible, it speaks many times about “the nations”) and, especially in the Old Testament, the whole book is an endless catalogue of punishments inflicted by God on the ancient Hebrews for race-mixing and copying/assimilating the ways and traditions of other nations (God was enraged with this multicultural approach). If you don’t believe me, read the Old Testament, it’s all there in black and white. The Bible says that God has made us all different, and that’s the end of it. Speaking of heaven, the Bible says that “The nations shall walk by its light…The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it.” “Christianity and Patriotism are synonymous terms,” said evangelist Billy Sunday, “and hell and traitors are synonymous.” According to Rowland Croucher: “There is now a clearer understanding that when the Bible speaks of ‘nations’ it is primarily referring to people groups defined not so much by artificial political boundaries, as by ethnic origin, language, group loyalty, custom and religion.” In fact, the nationalistic aspects of Christianity is what made our European civilisation so nationalistic and patriotic in previous times. Christianity in its traditional (pre-liberalisation) format was so violently nationalistic that Adolf Hitler actually called the Old Testament “The Book of Hate”. Christianity is definitely not pacifist in any way shape or form (“Don’t think I have come to bring peace” said Jesus). Jesus was no pussy footed liberal, and all you have to do is read the New Testament and this fact is blindingly obvious. Millions of Christians have been man and women enough to defy the greatest powers on earth and die by the millions for their beliefs. Jesus was, to use the words of Adolf Hitler, a “fighter”. For example, Jesus invaded the Jewish Temple and drove out (with violence) all the Jewish corrupt money lenders. Jesus hated Judaism, in fact, the entire story of Jesus was a rebellion against Judaism and the Jewish state of that time. He was so successful in his mission that the Jewish elders ensnared him and had him crucified by threatening the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, with their influence in Rome (“you are not Caesar’s friend”). Scared stiff of their influence in Rome, Pilate consented to their demands to have the Galilean upstart crucified. Was Jesus a Jew? Based on the evidence I have seen, no. Judaism, for the last two thousand years, has violently repudiated the claim that Jesus was “one of them”. The idea that Jesus was a Jew was invented in the Middle Ages to try to insulate the Jews from Christian persecution, for if Jesus was a Jew, and people believed it, then surely the Europeans/Christians wouldn’t treat the Jews so severely, went the rationale. So what was Jesus Christ in ethnic and racial terms? In my opinion, based on the evidence, Jesus Christ was a European Celt. We already know from works such as ‘March of the Titans’ that white European migrations stretched to the furthest corners of the Earth. One of these migrations from the old Black Sea basin homeland was a white European tribe called the Galatians, who settled in modern day Turkey (Anatolia). Part of this white European tribe broke off and migrated further south, settling in northern Palestine. This new break-away tribe was called the Galileans, and yes, Jesus Christ was a Galilean. I want you to stop reading this now and watch this video before returning to the article. Jesus Christ was a European Celtic anti-Jewish activist, who led a spiritual revolt against Judaism and the Jewish state during Roman times, and countered the Judaist message of intolerance, hatred and false religion with a (more European) message of decency, true faith, love and honour (I say “honour”, because Jesus Christ was crucified for his beliefs, how European is that). Jesus Christ, in my opinion, as a European Celtic anti-Jewish activist, was right in the fault line of a battle between European values and Jewish values, right in the midst of the friction point between European civilisation and Middle Eastern civilisation (if you can even call it a “civilisation”). Once the dust had settled, the Middle East (still clouded in Judaism) rejected Jesus Christ, whilst the message of Christ was adopted and implemented in Europe, as it suited our innate sense of values. Some have said that Christianity resembles Marxism or liberalism, but this is, in my opinion, ludicrous in the extreme. Where’s the proof for such assertions? Where’s the documentation or evidence to back up such claims? In my experience, Christianity is the diametric opposite of liberalism/Marxism. You probably think that just because Jesus Christ preached love and compassion, that it resembles liberalism. But no, because nationalism also preaches love and compassion. Nationalism, you could say, is “universalist”, because it is a creed that can be adopted and applied by all races and nations. After all, all nations could be nationalist, couldn’t they? If you read the Bible, you will see that Christianity is so far removed from our modern, Church of England idiots, that it is impossible to actually call them Christians. They are not Christians, do not follow real Christianity and its values or beliefs, they do not reflect the traditions of Christianity, and so on. It’s like people assuming that nationalism itself is corrupt, grasping and morally bankrupt just because Nick Griffin is. That would be unfair wouldn’t it? To tar a whole Cause just because someone corrupts it and misrepresents it. Elizabeth 1st, Walsingham, Cromwell, Duke of Marlborough, Wellington, Nelson, and on and on and on, in fact, every single one of our greatest warlords and leaders for the last three hundred years, have been true and deeply serious Christians and would look with utter contempt at the present day totally corrupted Church of England tree-hugging morons. Try telling Cromwell, or Wellington, etc, that Christianity is an “unnatural, egalitarian, universalist and pacifist” religion/belief system and they would react with utter amazement and confusion. Can anyone provide any evidence that Christianity is liberal? Christianity wants to separate gender roles. If you go to a strong Christian area like Ulster you will see: men are men and women are women, and enjoy traditional life roles. Using an extreme example, look at the Amish in America, who are peaceful, decent, moral and dedicated to large families and rearing the next generation. All these things also constitute the essence, values and principles of political nationalism. Christianity has a strong warrior tradition, stretching from the first great knights of the Middle Ages (who defended the whole of Europe against Islam) and then the great generals and soldiers of the age of Empire and colonialism (all Christians, read about them). Christianity definitely has a racial and ethnic perspective - all you have to do is read the Bible and its diatribes against the liberalism of the ancient Hebrews. In fact, the only true remaining “nationalist” areas of the western world are in fact Christian areas. Northern Ireland’s loyalist community is entirely Christian: if you speak to loyalist (and republican) paramilitaries and also church leaders in Ulster, you will discover that it is the martial, aggressive features of true Christianity that inspired both the loyalist and republican causes to active, military resistance against each other. Many, if not most, of the nationalist youth movements of Russia, France, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria , Hungary etc have a strong Christian ethos. Check them out for yourself. Some say that “Christianity is dead in the West” but this assertion leaves me gobsmasked. You could also argue, using a cursory glance, that patriotism is dead in the west, as is nationhood, racial consciousness, decency, honour, and so on. Yes, a lot of things are dead or on the backfoot, but Christianity is by no means dead, as there are still five million Christians who go to church in Britain and Christianity is a common thread amongst virtually all nationalist European youth movements in Europe and especially in the USA. Just because the media hides it from you (in the same way they censor all politically incorrect stuff) doesn’t mean it is “dead”. As Jim Dowson explained in his articles, Christianity features heavily in virtually all European nationalist movements, everywhere in fact, except Britain (which has the greatest record of failure and impotence). The only organisation to utilise symbols of our 1,300 year Christian heritage is the English Defence League (EDL), which found (temporary) stunning success. Do you want to know where the whole cranky, paganistic style nationalism originates from? It’s simple: Heinrich Himmler. Virtually all the leaders of the Third Reich were ‘Christians’, including Hitler himself. This is from Wikipedia: “In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, and his belief in an Aryan Christ. Before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich: ‘My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.’” In a proclamation to the German people on February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "It [the NSDAP] regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” On March 23, 1933, Hitler addressed the Reichstag, saying: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions [i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism] as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." Albert Speer said of Hitler: “He carried within himself its [Christianity’s] teaching that the Jew was the killer of God.” This is taken from Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [Jesus Christ]." This is also from Wikipedia: “For a time Hitler advocated positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which emphasized Christ as an active preacher, organizer, and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.” Older literature on Hitler states that he had no intention of instituting worship of the ancient Germanic gods in contrast to the beliefs of some other high-ranking National Socialist officials (primarily Himmler). In Hitler's ‘Table Talk’ one can find this quote: "It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. Here we come to the crux of the matter: the only leader of the Third Reich to take paganism seriously was Himmler, and he was mocked and ridiculed by Hitler and the others on this particular issue. But, seizing upon a chance to demonize the Third Reich, post-war leftwing propagandists elevated Himmler and the pagan stuff (primarily within the SS) to prominence, and made them a main focus for anti-nationalist propaganda, and then, like lemmings off a cliff, post-war nationalists fall into the trap of thinking that National Socialism was pagan. It’s all a great misunderstanding engineered by post-war Bolshevik propagandists. The positive influence of Christianity is far reaching especially in the rich history and culture of Western Civilization, despite a long standing ignorance or adamant denial of its contributions. The Bible itself is responsible for much of the language, literature, and fine arts we enjoy today as our artists and composers were heavily influenced by its writings. Paul Maier, in writing the forward to the book ‘How Christianity Changed the World’ by Alvin J. Schmidt, says the following about the profound impact Christianity has had on the development of Western Civilization: “No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done. Its shortcomings, clearly conceded by this author, are nevertheless heavily outweighed by its benefits to all mankind.” Contrary to the biased liberal treatment of the subject, Christian influence on values, beliefs, and practices in Western culture are abundant and well ingrained into the flourishing society of today. Alvin J. Schmidt wrote the following regarding liberty and justice as enjoyed by today’s Western civilisation: “The liberty and justice that are enjoyed by humans in Western societies and in some non-Western countries are increasingly seen as the products of a benevolent, secular government that is the provider of all things. There seems to be no awareness that the liberties and rights that are currently operative in free societies of the West are to a great degree the result of Christianity’s influence. History is replete with examples of individuals who acted as a law unto themselves often curtailing, even obliterating the natural rights and freedoms of the country’s citizens. Christianity’s influence, however, set into motion the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of status. More than one thousand years before the birth of Christ the biblical requirement given by Moses comprised an essential component of the principle that no man is above the law.” Magna Carta served as a courageous precedent some 800 years ago to the American patriots in the creation of the unique government of the United States. The charter, signed in 1215, at Runnymede by King John, granted a number of rights never held before this historic occasion including that “(1) justice could no longer be sold or denied to freeman who were under authority of barons; (2) no taxes could be levied without representation; (3) no one would be imprisoned without a trial; and (4) property could not be taken from the owner without just compensation.” Magna Carta had important Christian ties as demonstrated by its preamble that began, “John, by the grace of God…,” and stated that the charter was formulated out of “reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honour of God and the exaltation of Holy Church and the reform of our realm, on the advice of our reverend [church] fathers.” This document also followed the precedent established in 325 at the Council of Nicaea in which Christian bishops wrote and adopted a formal code of fundamental beliefs to which all Christians were expected to adhere. Magna Carta displayed what its formulators as Christians expected of the king and his subjects regarding civic liberties. Christianity’s influence on language, literature, and the arts is often overlooked and even taken for granted. Without the Bible much of what we enjoy today would be non-existent. The English language incorporates many words and phrases taken from the Bible when first translated. In 1380 John Wycliffe translated the Scriptures in its entirety and from it appears many of the words we still use today including the words adoption, ambitious, cucumber, liberty, and scapegoat among others. William Tyndale was responsible for the first English translation from the original Bible texts. A gifted linguist skilled in eight languages with impeccable insights into Hebrew and Greek, Tyndale was eager to translate the Bible so even “the boy that drives the plow” could know the Bible. The influence of Tyndale on the English language was solidified in the publication of the 1611 King James Bible which retained about 94 percent of Tyndale’s work. A renowned scholar on the literature of the Bible, Alistair McGrath, notes, “Without the King James Bible, there would have been no Paradise Lost, no Pilgrim’s Progress, no Handel’s Messiah, no Negro spirituals, and no Gettysburg Address.” Despite the hostility and persecution towards the Christians in the early centuries under Nero and Domitian and later under the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation, the Scriptures were meticulously copied by the priests and monks which in later years were translated into the languages of the common people even under threat of punishment. Tyndale first worked in secret and when later betrayed and about to be burnt at the stake he called out, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” Within a year King Henry allowed English Bibles to be distributed. Two million English Bibles were distributed throughout a country of just over six million nearly seventy-five years after Tyndale’s death. Writers, artists, and musicians over the centuries have been greatly influenced by the Bible: from Dante to Milton to Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the words and themes found in the Scriptures have made their way into much of the literature we study and enjoy today. Other great Christian writers in the history of Western Civilization include Chaucer, William Shakespeare, John Donne, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, William Blake, T.S. Eliot, and William Faulkner, to name a few. Art depicting biblical scenes was made popular especially during the Renaissance with artists such as Raphael, Michelangelo, and Rembrandt. Johann Sebastian Bach, one of the most famous composers, was greatly influenced by the Scriptures. Most forms of music began as psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and the outgrowth from there progressed as the monks and churches spread throughout the ages. The works of Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, and Mendelssohn among others have greatly been influenced by the words of the Bible. With the publishing of Andrew Dickson White’s ‘A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom’ in 1896, the idea that Christianity was responsible for the arrival of science has largely been pushed out of the minds of the people, especially in academic circles. In the field of astronomy great advances were made under devout Christian men Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo. In physics we encounter Christians such as Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), Blaise Pascal (1623-62), Alessandro Volta (1745-1827), Georg Simon Ohm (1787-1854), Andre Ampere (1775-1836), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), and William Thompson Kelvin (1824-1907). These men held to a strong Christian faith as evidenced by their writings. Before he died, Kepler was asked by an attending Lutheran pastor where he placed his faith. Kepler replied, “Solely and alone in the work of our redeemer Jesus Christ.” Kepler, who only tried “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” died with the Christian faith planted firmly in his mind and heart. History books are filled with the rich details of men and women whose lives were changed by Jesus Christ and impacted the world through ideas found in Scripture in a wide array of disciplines. To deny the influence of Christianity on Western Civilization is to deny history altogether. Although at certain times there loomed dark areas in church history by those who deviated from the faith, the overall positive contributions far outweigh the negative. There is no mistaking the fact that Christianity has changed the world for the better. The truth about what Christians achieved in pursuit of knowledge, theology, philosophy, science, arts, music, education and their contributions to the progress of humanity (in the Middle Ages especially) has been hidden by our politically correct educational system. In fact, the bias and prejudice exhibited by leftwing teachers helped undermine and ridicule the Christian faith which undoubtedly caused the history and development of modern Europe. The term “Dark Ages” in which supposedly related with Christian corruption in the medieval Europe is very misleading. There weren’t any so-called Dark Ages and if there was one it was Christianity that brought light upon it. The idea of a ‘Dark Age’ is pure myth and an oft-repeated fabrication produced by prejudiced anti-Christian leftists - not a single unbiased historian believes this lie. Historical books on how Christianity built Western civilization and why it survived and how it accumulated knowledge (Greek philosophies, mathematics etc) and other disciplines in is suppressed by modern secular politically correctness. The historian, Bruce L. Shelly wrote: “Europe owes more to the Christian faith than most people realize. When the barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire in the West, it was the Christian church that put together a new order called Europe. The church took the lead in rule by law, the pursuit of knowledge, and the expressions of culture. The under lying concept was Christendom, which united empire and church.” There are other highly significant contributions from Christianity that have been ignored by liberal biased historians, especially in the fields of agriculture, architecture, charity, printing, health care, higher learning and education, nursing, law, justice, morality, science, arts, and on and on. Leftwing myth states that during the ‘Age of Faith’ in the Middle Ages, people lived in deep ignorance, superstition and intellectual repression. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to a historian, Thomas E. Woods, Jr, it is to the Middle Ages that we owe one of Western civilization’s greatest – unique – intellectual contributions to the world: the university system. Most of the present universities in Europe, for instance, Oxford, Paris, Cambridge, Heidelberg, and Basel, had Christian origins, not to mention other famous universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, in the United States, have their Christian forbears. The notion that the Christian faith replaced knowledge and reason with faith and superstition in the Middle Ages exists in the mind of bigoted historians and their research doesn’t hold water. The development of modern science should be attributed to Christians in the medieval era who were advocates of scientific knowledge. Great scientists and thinkers of the Middle Ages include Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), Roger Bacon (1214-94 - known as the father of modern science), William Of Occham (1285-1347), Jean Buridan (1300-1358), Nicholas of Oresme (1320-82), Nicholas Copernicus (1474-1543), and so on. Again, the mythology that the Middle Ages was an era of intellectual slumber is a propaganda fiction that has no support among real historians of Western civilization. The myth that the Christian church in general and Christians in particular were intellectual backwards during the “Dark Ages” is nothing but pure leftwing fabrication designed to turn modern generations against Christianity. Christians had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes, and microscopes, magnetism, optics, and electricity. These are no small, insignificant achievements but mighty contributions to civilization and to science. Britain, in contrast to all the other nations of Europe, has a flag that is made up entirely of Christian crosses. England has the St. George cross, Scotland has the Saltire Cross and Northern Ireland has the cross of St. Patrick – all completely Christian in origin and nature. We must always, as British patriots, honour the legacy of sacrifice of the tens of thousands of Christian knights of the Middle Ages who defended Europe, Christendom and Britain from the encroachment of Islam. Without Christianity, the common religion of the whole of Europe, it is doubtful whether the cohesion needed to stop the onslaught of Islam would have been present, and Europe would have been lost. Thankfully, Christianity provided the common pan-European bond needed to present a relatively united front, and European Christian armies turned back the Islamic hordes on the plain of Poitiers, the gates of Vienna and finally driving them out of the Iberian peninsula. This rich anti-Islamic, Christian heritage of the Middle Ages will provide immense moral guidance for European youth of the future as they struggle once again against the followers of Mohammed, as their ancestors did. To finish this article, I implore you to set aside an hour and watch the following program. It will really help with your understanding of the true nature of Britain and our history. Please watch it and you will understand the true mighty engine that drove this small nation to build the modern world: How God Made The English Thank you for taking the time to read through this article.