Next month Britain will mark the centenary of the end of World War One. We will remember the slaughter and the sacrifice, the lost troops and the damage that this war did for the generations that came after. We, in Britain especially, will probably also look again at the sheer foolishness of the Generals whose tactics ended up with tens of thousands of British dead in battles like the Somme or the hundreds of thousands killed in the various battles of Ypres,
A saying coined at the time described the difference between the generals whose tactical disasters brought forth slaughter and those who fought in he infantry on the front line. This phrase was ‘lions led by donkeys’. It was the lions of the infantry who fought hard to bring success to sometimes poorly planned offensives by the donkey-minded Generals.
Although the lions are still with us, in the form of those who bravely serve in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, so also are the donkeys in the form of politically correct senior officers. These ‘desk warriors’ seem to me to be more interested in whether HM Forces are ‘trans inclusionary’ enough than in making sure our service personnel have sufficient training and equipment to protect the United Kingdom. Although this time, for the present, these donkeys and ‘desk warriors’ are not painting their toenails whilst sending young men to die in botched military operations they are enforcing political correctness and liberalism onto British service personnel.
A good example of the politically correct parasitism that is afflicting HM Armed Forces is the recent furore over a video and some images of young servicemen supportively the name of and posing with British human rights activist Tommy Robinson. Although I concede that it is not normally acceptable for any serviceman or woman in uniform to show allegiance or support to any particular political grouping, these troops should be treated in a similar manner to how they would be treated if they had given support for any other political party, including the Big Three, whilst in uniform. Therefore I don’t think that this incident requires any more action other than some form of minor verbal reprimand about ‘conduct whilst in uniform’ from these troops immediate Commanding Officer. However, I fear that the politically correct parasites in Officer grade positions and among Ministry of Defence civilian staff, may go particularly over the top with regards the way that they deal with the troops who took part in the encounter with Mr Robinson.
Some indication of the over the top severity that this chance encounter at Watford Gap services may be treated comes from the coverage of this story from Sky News. The MOD wheeled out one of the Islamic panjandrum’s, Imam Asim Hafiz, Islamic religious adviser to the armed forces, who have been embedded in the Military to say:
“any form of racism, discrimination or extremism is taken extremely seriously and will be dealt with accordingly”.
He added: “The armed forces remain absolutely committed to welcoming individuals from across all faiths and cultures into its ranks.”
In response to Imam Hafiz, I have to ask: Where’s the racism, discrimination or extremism here? Being a supporter of Tommy Robinson or even believing that the man’s views should be heard in a free society does not make such a person a ‘racist’. Neither does it indicate that they would discriminate unjustly against others or follow any extremist political path. This is a smear pure and simple. As for Imam Hafiz’s comment about ‘welcoming individuals’ then shouldn’t you be putting your own Islamic house in order before you try to clean out the houses of others? After all it’s not he British military culture that is enslaving women, raping our kids in our cities or engaging in Jihad is it? As regards extremism shouldn’t Imam Hafiz be more concerned about the worryingly large minority of mosques, including Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘favourite’ mosque, Finsbury Park, that have supporters of genocidal groups on their management committees?
An MOD spokesperson engaged in similar politically correct hand-wringing and stated:
“Anyone who is in breach of the army’s values and standards will face administrative action.
“Far-right ideology is completely at odds with the values and ethos of the armed forces.
“The armed forces have robust measures in place to ensure those exhibiting extremist views are neither tolerated nor permitted to serve.
“Values and standards within the army play a vital role in training and development, with personnel completing annual mandatory training.”
Would that be a breach of the Army’s traditional values and standards or the politically correct ‘values and standards’ that have been imposed on a long suffering military from on high? I also wonder if the MOD would take this matter as seriously as if these troops were seen hugging Corbyn or some other Left wing ‘true believer’? If this is not the case then we do not have agreed ‘values and standards’ and instead have military discipline based on political fashion which is something far more capricious and mutable than the previous long standing values that have long governed and influenced the British military. There is also the issue, at least to my mind, as how ‘extremism’ is defined. It’s far too flexible and can be applied all too readily to those who are not extreme but who just disagree with one of more aspects of the liberal consensus. For example at some far Left synagogues I’m the ‘hawkish extremist’ who ruins the party by being ‘different’ whilst at less ideologically driven ones I’m just an ordinary ‘Jew of the right’. The point I’m trying to make is that the definition of ‘extremist’ can change from situation to situation and for the MOD to use the word in the context of this incident shows that these troops may well be hauled over the coals for political rather than any other reason.
I take issue with the MOD stating that Mr Robinson is ‘far right’ as I don’t think he is all that ‘far right’ but he does disturb the multikulti party somewhat by asking awkward questions about where this nation is headed and sometimes asking questions is the right thing to do. I’ve marched, in the dim and distant past, against the genuine far right, such as those who made up the dregs of Mosleyism and against real racists of the sort who sometimes kicked the shit out of my Black schoolmates. I know what the real ‘far right’ looks like, sounds like and feels like and I do not get this ‘far right’ impression from Mr Robinson or any of the many statements that he has made and which I have encountered.
I have the very nasty feeling that the politically correct types that have been given safe harbour in the administration of our military will try to make an example of these young service personnel by handing out excessive punishments to them for their actions. This I believe would be a mistake on the MOD’s part. If they dishonourably discharge or hand out other draconian punishments to the troops who were caught up in this incident then this action will do little more than create martyrs and raise even further Tommy Robinson’s public profile. As I said earlier this should be dealt with as any other incident of an service person in uniform backing any political cause which should be a minor bollocking about appropriate behaviour whilst in uniform. Unfortunately the Left, the Islamic whiners and those who go along with political correctness for career enhancement reasons, may not let this go and may wish to bully these troops into submission, an act that will without a doubt anger many ordinary Britons.
I feel that I have at this point to criticise Mr Robinson’s conduct over this incident. Whilst I appreciate that he was excited to see British troops, the best of the best, chanting his name, which propelled him to record and share the incident online, maybe he should have been a bit more circumspect about this matter and kept it quieter? Mr Robinson must know about the domination of PC culture in our public services and what happens to those who stand up against it and maybe he should have shown some consideration for the troops he encountered? Not sharing the video or the images or at least redacting the faces and identifying symbols on the uniforms, would have spared these troops from what could well be an abusive and politically motivated ‘monstering’ from PC infected senior officers and the various Islam-fellators in the Ministry of Defence.
These young men and women who volunteer to defend us and our families often come from the very same working class communities where Islam and its more criminal followers have done the most damage by way of rape gangs, anti social behaviour, Class A drug peddling and political corruption and domination. It is quite understandable that some UK troops, especially those whose families had suffered under Islam in areas that have become ‘Islam heavy’, would support those activists, of which Tommy Robinson is one of the more public examples, who are standing up to this rancid ideology. Unfortunately for those who do support those who speak the truth about Islam they will face a management-led backlash. This backlash will continue until the politically correct types can be removed or shunted to positions where they will do less harm to the military than they are doing at the moment.
I hope and pray that no major punishment is meted out to these troops for this incident, it really isn’t a massive issue. But, if the military hierarchy decide to make it a massive issue then the armchair generals who promote a PC culture in the military may find public anger turning towards them and even promote support for those whom they will have unjustly punished. If the MOD decides to for example humiliate these troops publicly by making them apologise or grovel towards Islam then it will light a bonfire of contempt among the general public for the donkeys who are leading our lions into the politically correct abyss.
Going to have to correct you on the ‘lions led by donkeys’ myth. This phrase was simply made up by politician Alan Clark for his 1961 The Donkeys (Corrigan, Gordon. Mud, Blood and Poppycock. London: Cassell, 2003. 213. Also: Snow, Dan. “10 big myths about World War One debunked.” BBC, 25 Feb 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836 )
The ‘donkey-minded Generals’ is the myth pedalled by our socialist schools, and the myth I laboured under myself for some while, until finally reading former landser Erich Maria Remarque’s famous All Quiet on the Western Front. It was quite a surprise to read of how bloody a time the German soldiers were actually having, and it made me research the subject of WW1.
In Basil Fawlty’s immortal words—‘WHO WON THE BLOODY WAR ANYWAY?’ If our generals were so bad, how did we win? It’s not just bravery that wins wars. The Germans were brave as well, and well-trained and equipped—so if their generals were so much better than ours, they should have carved right through us. They didn’t because their generals were no better, and ultimately their learning curve did not match ours.
The socialist schools and socialist media lied about this—or at least presented a grotesquely distorted version of the truth—as they lied about or distorted virtually everything else.
Suggested reading:
Online, in addition to Dan Snow’s myth-busting article above, there is the late acclaimed historian John Terraine here: ‘British Military Leadership in the First World War’, a 1991 lecture published by The Western Front Association (and it begins with refuting the ‘lions led by donkeys’ myth).
Apart from Corrigan’s book cited above, to begin with, there is:
Philpott, William. Bloody Victory. The Sacrifice of the Somme. London: Abacus, 2009.
Pollard, Captain A.O. Fire-Eater. The Memoirs of a VC. 1932. London: Naval and Military Press, 2005.
Reid, Walter. Douglas Haig. Architect of Victory. Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2006.
Sheffield, Gary. Forgotten Victory. The First World War: Myths and Realities. London: Headline, 2001.
Another part I’ll take some issue with is it being ‘not normally acceptable for any serviceman or woman in uniform to show allegiance or support to any particular political grouping’.
The military disassociating itself from politics is a comparatively recent phenomenon (although they are only expected to dissociate themselves from one side of the political aisle, marching on LGBT parades and chummying up to Muslims being encouraged): e.g. this page has a table with the numbers of commissioned officers serving in Parliaments 1690–1713, with 103 (16.6%) in 1690, 104 (18%) in 1707, etc.; and from 1790 to 1820, 398 army officers entered Parliament holding every rank from ensign to general, along with 100 naval officers. E.g. there was Admiral Thomas Cochrane (the inspiration for C.S. Forester’s Hornblower) who led daring expeditions against Buonaparte’s forces in the Med while representing Westminster constituency (1807–18) as a Whig. Even the famous radical William Cobbett was a former sergeant-major of the 54th Foot (8 years service). Historically, our armed forces have been intimately connected with politics.
I wonder if this notion being promoted that the military is above politics (except when flying the rainbow flag, etc.) is to dissuade people from looking to the military for salvation. Our military, when not composing the government, have played a part in changing our nation’s direction: e.g. it was General Monck who saved us from Parliamentary tyranny by effecting the Restoration of Charles II; later, it was their standing aside that allowed William of Orange to land and cause James II to flee.
Sorry that my first posts to your blog (that I’ve read on and off for a few years now) are somewhat critical—you might be particularly irritated that I’m not discussing the main point of your essay, vis-à-vis Tommy and the squaddies; but I’m in agreement with you there and have nothing to add. But I think the points I made important: the brainwashing that we are and have been subject to in schools and media, specifically the depriving us of our nation’s history (Straight Outta Orwell: ‘Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’) is a large part of what has brought us to where we are now.
Thank you for the background information on this. I do concur that there was military involvement in politics in the past in the United Kingdom but it is less politically acceptable today. Your comment on the Lions issue is interesting as I was under the impression from the sources I looked at to check this phrase is that it came either from letters from front line troops to loved ones at home or one of the poets which WW1 produced.
I certainly concur that there is an observable double standard with regards the issue of political bias in the military. It seems to be acceptable for armed forces personnel to take part in political activity that the Left approve of but not anything else. We do seem to have a situation, as Mr Robinson pointed out, where senior officers are behaving more like left wing politicians rather than military personnel and this should be a matter of concern not just to members of the military but to the civilian population as well.
I’m not at all irritated by your approach to this piece, on the contrary I find your comments highly informative and constructive. I agree with you that the Left in our education system have taught a biased and somewhat anti-West and anti-British version of history and experienced some of that from openly Communist teachers back in the late 1970’s.
Out of interest, the earliest instance of the phrase might have been said about the British Army after all—but by a Russian officer in regard to the Crimean War.
(Tyrrell, Henry. The History of the War with Russia., Vol.2. London: 1855. 256.)
A scanned copy of the original edition is online at the Internet Archive here (see top of second column).
The Crimean War might better fit the idea of the bravery of our lads redeeming the incompetence of our generals (epitomised by the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, famously described by French General Bosquet as: ‘C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c’est de la folie.’ (It is magnificent, but it is not war: it is madness); and the stand by the 93rd (Sutherland Highlanders), immortalised as ‘The Thin Red Line’).
The Crimean War debacles were factors leading to the Cardwell Reforms of 1870–81, which abolished commission by purchase amongst other measures.
(Fraser, George MacDonald. Flashman. The Flashman Papers, vol.1, 1839–1842. 1969. London: HarperCollins, 1999. 24–25.)
Fraser (who served in the Far East at the end of WW2 and was commissioned post-war) might have been being cheeky with that paragraph, yet it deserves consideration. There were once many excellent officers drawn from our aristocracy (e.g. Marlborough, Wolfe, Wellington) but all, less able or otherwise, at least were brave—one thing to said for Cardigan at Balaclava, he led his Light Brigade into the guns; and in WW1 ‘General Headquarters [had to] advis[e] senior officers not to become personally involved in the fighting’ (Corrigan, 197; see also Bloody Red Tabs. General Officer Casualties of the Great War 1914–1918 by Frank Davies).
Now our officer class is increasingly drawn from the middle classes, and we have a Royal Marines captain without embarrassment stating at a press conference:
‘Let me be absolutely clear, from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so then many of us would not be standing here today. Of that I have no doubts.’
And, as you have noted, they are increasingly politicised. While our military officer class have traditionally been quite political, it was once more of a partnership with government, and aristocrats frequently moved between military and government positions. Now the officer class have changed from being partners with government to debtors to them.