Another Break in the Silence

Some nations pride themselves on being "neutral" during times of war. Switzerland immediately comes to mind. The Swiss often break their arms patting themselves on the back about their "neutrality" during the two world wars. Of course, they never mention that the nation was making money hand over fist from the wars. Your faithful correspondent once worked with a German who, as a lad, lived near the Swiss border during World War II. He claimed that he used to stand on a hillside and watch Swiss manufactured Panzer tanks being transported into Germany during the war. And, of course, we all know that the Swiss banks had no trouble in confiscating the accounts of Jews who had been caught up by the Nazis and thrown into concentration camps. Why not? The proper owners of the money were ashes. There's no point in looking for survivors if one can get away with taking money that's just lying around.

Portugal and Spain played neutral during the Second World War while allowing German U-Boats to dock and re-supply on the sly while denying the Allies the same courtesy.

Well, a Swedish writer has written a book about Swedish neutrality during the Big War and it's not flattering to the Swedish government and royal family. The details of the book are here: Gates of Vienna: Swedish Service to the Reich .

This may all seem ancient history to some readers, but the point is that neutrality is often not neutrality. It is quiet submission to the bigger boot. Not to make a decision is to make a decision and it's usually a bad decision. The refusal to take a side may result in one's avoiding a fight, but it kills the soul. There is a right and there is a wrong. Or, more properly, there is a mostly right and a mostly wrong. The neutral decision is a selfish decision with the expectation that once the walls stop falling one will be ready will trowel and mortar to repair what one has helped destroy by selling the wrecking ball, both figuratively and literally, to the wrecker.

Much of Europe, and many "opinion makers" in the US strive toward neutrality in the war against the Islamic monster while refusing to admit, or not realizing that their silence regarding the assault on the West is aiding the assault on the West.

Our Lord Jesus Christ said that those who are not with us are against us.

Those who are not for the West and Christianity (either religiously or culturally) are aiding the Muslim juggernaut. It would be much better for the West if these "neutrals" to throw themselves under the wheels of the juggernaut and leave the rest of us to disable it without their interference. In other words. Lead, follow or get out of the way. And don't expect bystanders to be rewarded by either side.

A Break in the Silence

Your faithful correspondent is breaking his silence from this blog and taking time from his other project in order to let you, the wise reader in on this piece from Patterico: Patterico’s Pontifications » Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda...

If you have the misfortune of having the Los Angeles Times as your local newspaper, remember this piece as you read any article from the pile on Spring Street. And to think that at one time war correspondents went to the war instead of having it delivered to them by stringers. It would not surprise yours' to find that the Times' reporters depend on stringers to get their stories that oringinate east of the L.A. River while they (the reporters) sit and sip double lattes at Peet's in Westwood.

May Be Down For a Week or Two

Your faithful correspondent regrets to inform his readers that the Bloody Nib may not be posting for a week or two.

For those who may be concerned, please know that this situation is not due to to any health problems on the part of your faithful correspondent. It is due to the lack of yours' attention to his other blog --Mr. Barnett.

The ever lovely and ever wise Lady Nib has lately been demanding that the story be continued, and so, in the interest of domestic peace and a good cup of tea, the next couple of week's labor on the part of yours, will be expended on honest fiction instead of the foul fiction of the media.

Life Proves the Bloody Nib Wrong

As regular readers of this space may recall, last week there was an opinion piece about the Army Times calling for the resignation Donald Rumsfeld. In light of the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld, your faithful correspondent is still of the opinion that he should have not resigned. But, due to the poor performance by the Republican Party in last week's elections, the President decided he had the need to make a sacrifice to the Democrats. It's Mr. Bush's prerogative to throw overboard who he wants, but he shouldn't be surprised if he finds out that he has inserted the thin end of the wedge separating him from his political policy. But you know how it is; politics always trumps principle.

Melanie Phillips has an interesting view of the elections from her home in Great Britain -- Melanie Phillips’s Diary » America falters

The Church of England is finding itself hoisted on its own petard -- BREITBART.COM - Church posts anger at Britain's Christ-free Christmas stamps After years of Anglican clerics leading Druid ceremonies, participating in deep ecumenical conferences where priests, rabbis, yogis, gurus, roshis and the occasional renegade mullah stand around and compliment each other as being one more road to God and that no one has the Truth, the C of E is surprised that the British postal system has decided to take Canterbury at its word.

And finally, if you're a Christian and you think that the world is looking pretty bleak, read this --- Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Sunday Round Up

The French, who have for many years, held themselves to be the conscience of the world with their mix of French existentialism and such organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, Reporters Without Borders et all, have been shown to be a nation governed by a government more concerned with expediency rather than conscience as regards the genocide in Rwanda: Independent Online Edition > Africa As an aside, have you ever noticed that whenever the French decide to send troops into dangerous places they only send the Foreign Legion, which is made up of non-French soldiers, i.e mercenaries, instead of the French Army or Marines?

During the Vietnam War it was not uncommon to see, on television, a Buddhist monk in Vietnam emolating himself in protest against the war. I somehow think that this will get little coverage on Al-Jazeera: Priest burns himself to death over Islam - World - Times Online

It seems that push may have finally come to shove in Great Britain: Bishop attacks 'victim' Muslims - Sunday Times - Times Online The bishop in question, Michael Nazir-Ali was at one time considered a candidate for the position of Archbishop of Canterbury. Nazir-Ali knows, from personal experience, the evil of Islam. But, unfortunately a Dhimmi was elected to the post. And other Protestants in Great Britain are beginning to wonder if they have been sold out by the government: Telegraph News Christians ask if force is needed to protect their religiou .

And finally a Baptist in the US is speaking up: United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Baptist says Msulims want .

All we have to wait for is for CAIR to start screaming that their feelings have been hurt. The proper answer is, "Who cares?"

The Army Times

Apparently the Army Times is about to publish an editorial calling for the Secretary of War (the modern world calls the position the Secretary of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld (or perhaps it's Rumsfield -- if it isn't an English name your faithful correspondent is lost) to resign his post. ... The Army Times is published by the Gannet chain of newspapers. These are the same people who publish that great organ of intellectual analysis and journalism known as USA Today. The only thing about the Army Times is the word "Army."

The Army Times is not Stars and Stripes. It is not Leatherneck Magazine. The Army Times is edited and written by people not in the Army, less soldiers in Iraq.

Your faithful correspondent is of the opinion that Mr. Rumsfeld's (or is it Rumfield's?) biggest mistake in his strategy in Iraq is that he was not, and had not, been harsh enough with the Iraqis. The only reason that the Germans and the Japanese succumbed to Allied warfare during World War Two is because the populace of those nations had been bombed into submission. They were just too damn tired to fight anymore. The Iraqis have been, in reality, treated with kid gloves because the various media are now capable of instantly showing what a rotten thing war is. But sometimes rotten things advance the growth of things that are good. Just look in your garden and the way that you plants and lawn thrive on composted cow manure or plant compost.

But Mr. Rumsfeld has access to men who are more educated in the ways of warfare than your faithful correspondent and probably the Army Times. .. As an aside, your faithful correspondent was a Zumwalt sailor when the rights and feelings of the individual swabjockey were deemed more important than the needs of the Navy as a whole. And it was probably the worse Navy this great nation has ever seen.

What's the Gag With TR?

Recently your faithful correspondent has heard, more than once and from more than one yakker, the question, "What the hell was so great about Theodore Roosevelt? He was over rated." ... The question just shows the ignorance of history and the idiocy of the average talk show host, whether liberal or conservative: Republican or Democrat.

TR was a man who stood for the people of the nation without being a socialist or communist. He was a man who cared more about the populace than the the business interests. TR was a man who was willing to put his life on the line for a cause he believed in -- the Spanish-American War -- instead of sitting in Washington D.C. and urging on the troops. TR raised a group of volunteers and led said volunteers against the Spanish. He didn't just stand in Washington urging others to spill their blood. ... TR, once he became President, was a Trust Buster (meaning he was against monopolies) and started the Food and Drug Administration to prevent Big Meat from selling the populace the meat from sick and cancerous cattle and pork, and Big Pharma from selling us nostrums made of nothing more than molasses and sulfer as cures for anything from the flu to cancer. TR negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese War and won the Noble Peace Prize for his efforts. TR cared about the nation, even to the point of losing one son during World War One while other pols protected their sons in colleges or government jobs. ... TR saw in the United States something more than an economic entity. He saw a nation or free men and women striving to build something greater than a nation.

The modern politician seems to see his/her service as an elected official as a means to get a pretty good retirement and/or a way to get a road/bridge/freeway named after themselves.

If George Bush, who yours faithful correspondent grudgingly supports, had been half the man of TR in character, Mr. Bush's daughters would have at least joined the Navy as WAVES or the Air Force as WAFS during the "War on Terror." Instead the silly girls moo about teaching underprivileged children in the US.

Here's the deal on the modern radio yakkers' take on TR. Most modern radio talk show hosts see the United States as an economic entity instead of a nation. It's the old gag about what is good for business is good for the US. TR, on the other hand, realized that Big Business was only concerned about Big Business, not what is good for the Grand Republic TR was concerned about, whether rich or poor, the most important thing about the nation were the freedoms that the national government guaranteed, through the Constitution, to the populace.

Finally, consider this. When TR died there were established throughout the Untied States, many Theodore Roosevelt Clubs with many members. The clubs were established by people who knew and appreciated the legacy of TR. And that was the last time that clubs were established under the names of ex-presidents except for the Bill Clinton Blow-Job club. Which should tell the reader something.

Bullets? Women and children first!

In the late 19th century during either the Boer War or the Zulu Wars, a troop ship from Great Britain (back in the days when it was "great" and not wimpy) approached the coast of South Africa. During the approach the ship the HMS Birkenhead either ran aground or hit a reef. As was not unusual for the time, the Birkenhead carried not only soldiers, but also the wives and children of officers and non-commissioned officers. When the Birkenhead began to sink the officers on the ship, both army and navy, ordered the soldiers and sailors to assemble in formation on the tilting decks while the women and children were loaded into what few lifeboats were available. One officer, whose name has been, unfortunately, forgotten, let it be known to the assembled military men that women and children were to be saved first. The first recorded cry of "women and children first" was from the decks of the Birkenhead. And that cry, during times of sinking ships, fires and disasters, has been the norm in the English speaking world. Any man who took the place of a woman or child in a lifeboat or exit was considered a scoundrel whose life was worthless and a rat of the lowest sort. The same cry was shouted during the sinking of the Titanic and those men who escaped the disaster by dressing as women were considered less than human men.

The modern age has, in the West, denigrated the idea of "women and children first" as a left over from the age of chivalry, which, as we all know, according to feminists, was an age when women were held in lower esteem than men. For some reason, feminist think that selfishness on the part of men for their own lives instead of their wives and children is some sort expression of male dominance over women. But feminists were, are, and will be mad (meaning crazy) until they are facing danger, then they will insist that they get to the lifeboat first because their wombs are the "future" of the race despite the fact that not a few of them are stone lesbians with no intention of using their wombs for nothing other than some sort of strange sex acts in gay bars.

But be that as it may, this from the Middle East shows the difference between the West and the Islamic monster: Hamas Urges Women, Children to Shield Gunmen in Mosque -- 11/03/2006.

Ain't Islam and the Arab world great?