Blog powered by Typepad

« The French are so clever but ... | Main | And the French get it wrong on the 'burkini', as well »

Thursday, 25 August 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Isn't it past time for the French to have their country taken away from them?

There's a book I'm going to get you on Amazon when I get home tonight: Wellington's Waterloo Secret - how the 52nd Oxfordshire won the battle of Waterloo (or similar name).

It's the final piece of the jigsaw. The piece that answers all the questions: Who won Waterloo? The Brits? The Jerries? Dutch / Belgians? Or did Bonaparte lose it?

At last the answer is revealed in a great, possibly the greatest irony of modern history and the birth of Liberty: Wellington, the arch-Conservative, the authoritarian micro-manager, figurehead of the hierarchical past was saved by an act of individual freedom, Liberty, the very stuff of which his enemy stood for (albeit falsely) and he against!

And Napoleon, the Libertarian fraud, was hoisted by his own petard - that very same act of individual freedom and Liberty was his undoing!

So all the Hofschroers, Villepin's, at al with their "such-and-such a collective won it" - replace collective with any one of the states involved - were all wrong.

One man reached into his mind and soul and defied the sleep of reason, the dark age, and stepped out of line and into the light.

And saved us all.

"Vive l'individuel!"

SoD

Lawrence, I must insert a slight quibble. One is not "hoist ON his own petard." The petard is the grenade. If one were to be really unlucky, one might be hoist on the pike WITH his petard, which would explode, right beside him.

I'll be looking for the book, on the second hand dealers' sites, of course. It does sound riveting.

Well Mr. Adams I'll call your quibble and raise another slightly as well. The way SoD's employing the word, petard, I suspect is from The Bard's use which makes the Englishers occasioning it somewhat understandable. (Perhaps especially SoD as, I suspect he's sneaking a Brexit reference in with, Pop's caught unawares.)

The word evolving from the Latin peditum, to fart simply put. Somewhat more elliptically however (bearing in mind son's familiarity with father and his propensities with Brussels Sprouts) past and, more recent figuratively.

Meanwhile from over here David, have you heard about the US Department of Agriculture's outreach to Lesbian Farmers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZMiNqPXYI8

Gaffer,

On it's way: -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00N6WTYEW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It's called "The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo: The Battle's Hidden Last Half Hour" these days. My copy is called "Wellington's Waterloo Secret".

Michael Adams,

It's only £2-82 on the used list on that Amazon link above.

JK,

The vid won't play, but the comments make up for it!

I gather "Just call me Mr Brexit" has just "Faraged" y'all over there! I hope you enjoyed, we can only thank y'all for sharing the Love (aka taking him off our hands for a while).

SoD

Interesting article about a mighty significant event in the history of human slaughter (albeit for the greater good of Western civilization). Nevertheless, no matter how massive the bloodbath, it is, ultimately, to be exceeded.

Waterloo (1815): 42,000 Casualties


Gettysburg (1863): 46,000 Casualties


Stalingrad (1942-3): 1,971,000 Casualties

BigHen,

"You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 men a month" - NB

And here's a mouth watering taster, the opening line from the book; Lady Arbuthnot's dinner party question to Wellington: -

"Duke, is it true that you were much surprised when you found you had won the battle of Waterloo?"

Now that's a gold star for the laydeez. The only person in the 19th century with a pair of cajones big enough to square up to the iron Duke with the truth was a split-arse!

A truth he spent his entire life after 1815 covering up - along with his mates the wooden tops and top brass.

It's a corker, mark my words.

SoD

Thanks, SoD, and I will read it with interest although I remember reading elsewhere that it was the regiment that swung round onto the French flank that did for them. Even so, it needed the Guards to stand firm against the advancing French Imperials, something that very few troops ever managed. Here is a comment from a review of the book:

"Oh Christ, not this again – the "52nd vs The Guards" debate is possibly one of the most tedious wastes of time for even the most diehard Waterloo buff. It was actually done to death in the 1830s – indignant letters to the Times insisting one regiment and not another should get the glory. Even the majority of officers at the time clearly didn't want to get involved in such a fools' errand – and yet, bizarrely, some people seem to still think it's a hot topic."

Also, a big thank you to all you gentlemen who put me right on the 'petard'. Soaked in Shakespeare and his famous phrase, I always assumed a 'petard' was the spring-loaded device that hurled a bomb over the walls and into a city. DUH!

Whitewall, the Frog's gave their country away when they allowed Islamists in. The Motorways into Calais are being barricaded by criminals during the night to allow refugees to get onto British lorries to cross the Chanel. The Frogs have lost the plot.

David,

From the OED:
2. b. hoist with his own petard (Shakespeare): Blown into the air by his own bomb; hence, injured or destroyed by his own device for the ruin of others.

Jimmy, have the French lost the will or the means to cope with the Islamists?

SoD,

Yeah, Boney was a big spender. But so were the other Commanders.

At Gettysburg, after Pickett's Charge against the Union defenders was repulsed with over 50% casualties, Robert E. Lee ordered General Pickett to rally his division for the defense. Pickett allegedly replied, "General, I have no division."

At Stalingrad, Hitler was content to sacrifice his entire 6th Army, refusing to allow a German retreat. Stalin, of course, welcomed the sacrifice, as he also commanded his general staff to hold their ground, which they did.

After WWII ended, Eisenhower befriended Zhukov and they traded war stories. Ike asked Zhukov what was his strategy when confronted by a known minefield. To Ike's amazement, Zhukov replied, "I marched a division through it."

TheBigHenry,

By which name did the first (or last before he [she] switched) Latin speaking Englisher go by before placing on offer the OED?

Excerpting:

"When the members of the Philological Society of Londinium decided, and called for a complete re-examination of the language from Anglo-Saxon times onward, even they didn’t realize the full extent of the work they initiated, or how long it would take to achieve the final result."

"It was estimated that the project would be finished in approximately ten years. Five years down the road, when [the] colleagues had only reached as far as the word ‘ant’, they realized it was time to reconsider their schedule."

To fart or not to fart into the wind I can accept to explain Hamlet's hesitation to avenge his father's murder, his uncle, and stepfather.

But to what purpose Claudius and Polonius preparing to eavesdrop on Hamlet's interaction with Ophelia?

Seems to me that'd be the last thing a pair of Englishers'd do unless perhaps they'd been in possession of "Bonaparte's Semaphore" which, as I understand it, was postscript Shakespeare.

Don't make no sense as the Coen brothers might put it.

"The Bride" [a.k.a SWMBO] and I visited Waterloo some years ago. A quick analysis of the visitors centre gave the impression that Les Frogs had won said battle.

So just to piss the guides off I asked where the Waterloo was that Wellington beat Napoleon could be found.

However when we visited Villers Bretonneux the treatment we received was beyond reproach and when we said that my grand father had fought there in 1918 the hospitality went up a notch.

"I remember reading elsewhere that it was the regiment that swung round onto the French flank that did for them."

That was the 52nd!

The point is, the 1st foot guards were out of ammo, and having seen off 1, maybe 2, battalions of Imperials with their last rounds, didn't fancy the other 6 unharmed battalions of Imperials that were steaming up the hill towards them - plus the 1 or 2 battalions they had seen off which had now rallied.

So they, err, how shall I put this politely, well you know, turned and legged it - back over the crest!

And the Duke of Boot had nothing, repeat nothing, that he knew about to stop the final crushing blow that 6-8 battalions of Imperials would have delivered to the remnants of the British and Allied line. So he sat there like a lemon, not knowing what to do.

And then he put his telescope to his eye and saw, to his amazement, the act the saved his bacon and won the battle of Waterloo. Amazed, because he hadn't issued the order because he hadn't thought of it. A slight spoiler that, but there's more, much more, in the book ...

"Oh Christ, not this again – the "52nd vs The Guards" debate is possibly one of the most tedious wastes of time for even the most diehard Waterloo buff. It was actually done to death in the 1830s – indignant letters to the Times insisting one regiment and not another should get the glory. Even the majority of officers at the time clearly didn't want to get involved in such a fools' errand – and yet, bizarrely, some people seem to still think it's a hot topic."

A wooden top speaks, perhaps?! A quote from the above quote ...

"Even the majority of officers at the time clearly didn't want to get involved"

... Yes, exactly, because it was more than their careers were worth to defy the official version of the battle as designated by Wellington in favour of the truth - especially if you were a wooden top officer who'd been falsely credited with all the glory!

SoD

You read it yet?

Btw, this is why Blighty needs a constitution: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/theresa-may-will-trigger-brexit-negotiations-without-commons-vot/

Unfettered rule by referendum, mob rule if you prefer, has bypassed the house of commons, the house of lords, and the rule of law.

"Tyranny begins where the law ends", in Blighty's case, the tyranny of the majority.

SoD

No, not yet, give me a chance!

And do try and stop all your hysterics over Brexit, you're sounding like George Osborne! Britain has lived under the "tyranny of the majority" since we invented parliamentary democracy. However, you get a chance every five years to change the majority. Now, do tell me, O Wise One, how will you change 'Junck the Drunk & Co', indeed, tell me exactly how much influence you have over choosing them in the first place. Let me give you a clue, somewhere between nil and -1!

Now just piss off to Portsmouth and enjoy the boats!

We choose the people who choose Juncker the drunker. And after his term of 5 years in office the choosing is done again by whoever we have elected since. And we choose the people who adopt or reject his proposed legislation. And there's a written constitution to ensure due process and the rule of law.

In Blighty, only the members of a political party choose the PM, as in communist China. Then only the constituents, 1/650 of the population, elect him / her. And the PM's cabinet, appointed by the PM, all vote on the legislative body, a travesty of democratic constitutional principles. And one half of the legislative body is not elected at all, but rather is appointed by the not really very democratically elected PM. And these appointments are in perpetuity. And the whole thing, including due process and the rule of law, is ignored arbitrarily by the PM in favour of rule by referendum, aka mob rule, because there's no constitution to refer to.

Which is the more democratic?

SoD

No, SoD, you help choose just *one* of the *28* pols who choose the likes of 'Junck the Drunk'.

Ok, so 1/28 is still a bigger number than 1/650.

I think this absolutely illustrates the over-rated quality of this particular one of the characteristics of democracy: “Voting and elections”.

In fact it's so over-rated and the great unwashed so dumbed down that they think that's the only characteristic of democracy. The principles of the three bodies and the separation of powers, the essential ingredient of a constitution based on the concept of Liberty, rule of law, and due process, are beyond them.

In fact voting and elections has only one quality: Changing the executive without violence. But there are other methods of changing the executive without violence: Random selection, as in a jury service, for example. But there are no substitutes for Liberty, separation of powers, rule of law, and due process. So “voting and elections” is actually the weakest link in the chain of qualities of democracy.

How did the Brits get so dumbed down, and the concepts of democracy so hollowed out to a husk of “voting and elections”?

Well the pols couldn’t stomach any restraint by Liberty, rule of law, and due process, let alone a jury system for the executive that could see them wait a life time for their moment of “hands on the controls of the train set”.

So they needed a great big, whopper-doodle of a lie to put “voting and elections” on top of the pyramid of characteristics of democracy.

And that lie was “Take control: Your vote counts”.

No you don’t take control, and no your vote doesn’t count, when you do “voting and elections”. If you voted in the exact opposite direction to the way you voted in every election in your life nothing would have changed for you, for others, or for the collective. You have no control.

The “herd” has control, that collective mob being that is unrestrained “voting and elections” materializes into this world. A tyrant bigger than any individual pol could ever become gets control, not you.

That’s why the hard left admires “voting and elections” so much: If a soviet votes to persecute or eliminate a minority, so be it. The tyrant of unrestrained “voting and elections” goes straight towards theft, abuse, and murder with pure self-righteousness in their view, and they're very ok with that.

And that’s why I criticize British democracy and political culture. Because the checks and balances to “voting and elections” are not present strongly enough in a constitution, and the voter base has been dumbed down sufficiently by the hard left in education and academia so that the danger is ignored by the great unwashed and intelligentsia alike.

And that’s why the EU democracy, all things taken into consideration, including “voting and elections”, is better than Blighty’s.

This has not come about by some great quality of foreigners, or European ideals, but because the national pols know perfectly well what’s a good system to protect rights and Liberties, while they instigate one at home to deny them us! When it comes to participating in a system themselves, they know unfettered “voting and elections” is a greater tyrant than they can ever be; they lose control. So the nation states and their pols being the voter base in the EU system, the checks and balances to unrestrained “voting and elections” have been well defined in the EU constitution: Separation of powers, rule of law, and due process.

Now that Blighty is on its own, the most important action, certainly before article 50 is activated, is a new constitution, with all the checks and balances to “voting and elections”.

But the dumbing down of the great unwashed and the leftist culture of left and right pols at home is so complete now that it is well beyond our reach to reconstitute Blighty with anything other than an institutionalized dictatorship of the majority.

Congratulations Comrades! Aside from a mere mopping up operation, you won! Courtesy of the great unwashed and their absorption of your poison, the country bumpkins voting Brexit to sever the last vestiges of EU checks and balances to unfettered “voting and elections”, and years of your hard graft behind the scenes.

SoD

Well bugger me, the Ukies were the first to have a constitution that defined the separation of powers.

No, not the Brits, the Ukies ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukraine/articles/amazing-fact-you-probably-didnt-know-about-ukraine/

SoD

The British Parliament passed a law to allow a referendum on remaing in the EU and as a consequence the result is binding. The British Parliament passed a law to allow a referendum on whether the British should remain in the Common Market. The British voted to remain and this was accepted.
The anti democratic remainers are furious and contend that the British are stupid as it did not go their way. They use every nasty trick in the book to the extent that call Brexiters rascist.

The comments to this entry are closed.