ST. GEORGE BRIGADE 

                                                                    

           337-St.-George-and-the-Dragon-q75-395x500.jpeg

                                                       

Entries from April 15, 2007 - April 21, 2007

Confederate Memorial Day.

Honoring my great, great uncles today, wild Texans of the 9th Texas Cavalry who charged Yankee cannon on foot at Foster's Fields during the Battle of Elkhorn Tavern ("Pea Ridge") and sent the Yankees running. 

I was wandering among the graves of the Confederate dead, vanquished men according to the wisdom of this world.  A certain spectre arose from a patriot's grave and faced Northeast, saying, "We only lost a battle.  We're not done.  But you most certainly are."

stgeorgshield-sm.gif

 

Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 02:13PM by Registered CommenterCaedmon | CommentsPost a Comment

The differences between Europeans and Lockean Americans on gun control in America.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the European press and its kindred spirits here in North America and Australia have once again commenced to excoriating the United States for its "liberal" gun laws. (One American gun owning blogger wryly observed that the Europeans, having lost their own countries, now curiously seek to fix ours.) American gun owners in turn have told them, "Do shut up, as you obviously know nothing about America. We will never be like you, or Canada, or Australia. This is the United States of America, and things are viewed - and done - differently here." As I watched this exchange I was reminded of a quotation from a Public Interest article, The Great American Gun War , written by historian B. Bruce-Briggs, who described the combatants of what he calls a "low-grade war" being fought over gun ownership here in America.  The combatants are social factions representing:

two alternative views of what America is and ought to be. Advocates of strict gun control are usually those who take bourgeois Europe as a model of a civilized society: a society just, equitable, and democratic; but well ordered, with the lines of responsibility and authority clearly drawn, and with decisions made rationally and correctly by intelligent men for the entire nation. To such people, hunting is atavistic, personal violence is shameful, and uncontrolled gun ownership is a blot upon civilization.

Bruce-Briggs describes the combatants on the other side of the war as:

a group of people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from the state. They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to America 's unique pre-modern tradition--a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty writ large for everyman. To these people, "sociological" is an epithet. Life is tough and competitive. Manhood means responsibility and caring for your own.

This hard-core group is probably very small, not more than a few million people, but it is a dangerous group to cross. From the point of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps the people who should be disarmed first, but in practice they will be the last. As they say, to a man, "I'll bury my guns in the wall first." They ask, because they do not understand the other side, "Why do these people want to disarm us?" They consider themselves no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries. But slowly, as they become politicized, they find an analysis that fits the phenomenon they experience: Someone fears their having guns, someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and liberty. Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they are cornered.

Such is the measure of the resolve of these whom Briggs calls the "hard core" of the gun culture. And my own studies on the matter lead me to believe that they indeed constitute a minority of Americans, but that tens of millions, rather than "a few million", is likely more accurate. These are American gun owners who will not comply with draconian, European-style gun laws, creating an enforcement nightmare. And that is the best case scenario. The other ones are much more troubling.

I'd urge the gun prohibitionists in Europe and their American ilk to think this matter through, long and hard. European-style gun laws some day in America, or let sleeping dog lie? Better count that cost. It's a big old dog, and mean when provoked.

stgeorgshield-sm.gif

Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 11:20PM by Registered CommenterCaedmon in | CommentsPost a Comment

EU nations agree to new racism rules

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_eu/eu_racism

Several countries, including Britain, Italy and Denmark, had been concerned the new measures would undermine freedom of expression.

Oh gee, ya think?

Censorious, statist Eurocrats. Why on earth should it matter to the Europeans whether or not a relative handful of cranks in their midst deny the Holocaust? When will freedom-loving Europeans recover their wits and tell the ruling elite of the EU to shove off?

http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/st-george-brigade/2007/2/18/secession-time.html

stgeorgshield-sm.gif

Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 11:53AM by Registered CommenterCaedmon in | CommentsPost a Comment

Spengler on The Inconvenient Serbs

A new book on the Islamification of Europe appears almost weekly, adding to the efforts of Ben Wattenberg, Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, George Weigel, Mark Steyn, Philip Jenkins and a host of others. Scholars debate whether the decline and fall of Europe will occur by mid-century, or might be postponed until 2100. The inconvenient Serbs may force the issue on Europe a great deal sooner.

If Serbia and Russia draw a line in the sand over the independence of Kosovo, we may observe the second occasion in history when a Muslim advance on Europe halted on Serbian soil. The first occurred in 1456, three years after the fall of Constantinople, when Sultan Mehmed II was thrown back from the walls of Belgrade, "The White City", by Hungarian and Serb defenders. The Siege of Belgrade "decided the fate of Christendom", wrote the then Pope Calixtus III. Not for nothing did J R R Tolkien name his fictional stronghold of Minas Tirith "The White City".

Read the entire article here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID17Ak01.html

stgeorgshield-sm.gif

Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 10:22PM by Registered CommenterCaedmon in | CommentsPost a Comment

Virginia Tech

This is a little proclamation that has been circulating within the American gun culture for over a decade now, and has naturally made its way online. I dedicate it to all American and European hoplophobes of good will (you know who you are), to every liberal/leftist (including, without limitation, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker - http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658 ) who thinks the job of public defense should be left to the state.  I dedicate it especially, however, to the Virginia Tech students who fell yesterday day and those before them who have fallen at the hands of an armed madman, while liberaldom looked on with its typical naiveté, fecklessness, effeminacy and cowardice.

_____________________________________________________________

Memorandum on Arms and Freedom
By Brian Puckett

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unbendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to--and dependence upon--the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose--either piecemeal or in one sweeping act--those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over two hundred years ago.

WE WILL NOT DISARM. The right to self-protection--the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man--is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against all predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all--those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

WE WILL NOT DISARM. Not in the face of robbers, rapists, and murderers who prey upon our families and friends. Nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order--those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

We will not surrender our handguns. We will not surrender our hunting arms. And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An ARMED CITIZENRY--the well-regulated MILITIA of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms--is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpations. An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence. And should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of--may God forbid it--throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings provides an OPEN WINDOW through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.

Now--today--we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding--in the guise of measures for the common good--the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense. These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility--to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights.

Legislators, justices, and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land--the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one's fellow citizens will also disarm one's parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children, and children's children. There are good citizens who--taking heed of Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety--will surrender not one of their rights.

Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on this planet. The right to keep and bear arms is the taproot of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world's dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today.

Now--today--is a critical moment in our history. Will we Americans passively lie down before a government grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare: WE are the government, government functions at OUR behest, government MAY NOT rescind our sacred rights. Will we place our faith in public servants who behave as though they are our masters? Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of the daring, farseeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails?

Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era--which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America--and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the word of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

LEGISLATORS: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic--the right to keep and bear arms. Read and study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you swore to support.

JUSTICES: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry, and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Read and study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you swore to support.

LAWMEN: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect--not to oppress, disarm, and to make helpless your countrymen.

To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they have ever been throughout history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable. For these reasons we must now make known: We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. WE WILL NOT DISARM.

http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/st-george-brigade/2006/10/1/a-nation-of-cowards.html

http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/st-george-brigade/2006/10/6/where-were-their-protectors.html

http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/periodic-musings-blog/2006/2/25/molon-labe.html

stgeorgshield-sm.gif

Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 04:27PM by Registered CommenterCaedmon in | CommentsPost a Comment
Page | 1 | 2 | Next 5 Entries